CHAP. I.

SIR, Num. 1. THe multitude and urgency of my employments gave me not leave till this day (May 2.) so much as to read over all your Papers; but I shall be as loath to break off our disputation as you can be, though perhaps necessity may sometime cause some weeks delay. And again, I profess my indignation against the hypo­critical jugling of this age doth provoke me to welcome so Ingenuous and Candid a Disputant as your self, with great content. But I must confess also, that I was the lesse hastie in sending you this Reply, because I desired you might have leasure to peruse a Book, which I published since your last, (a Key for Catholicks) seeing that I have there answered you already, and that more largely, then I am like to doe in this Reply. For the sharp­ness of that I must crave your patience, the persons and cause I thought required it.

Num. 1. Sir, Your Plea is my Defence; I had my imployments, and those of great concern, as much as you; which have hitherto detained me from accomplish­ing this Reply. I have my Adversaries as well as you; [Page 47] and no lesse then three at once in Print against me, yet the esteem I have of your worth, hath exacted from me to desist a while, from what I had begun in Answer to the chief of them, that I might bestow the whole time on you; which notwithstanding was lately interrupted (even when I was drawing towards an end) by an unex­pected and unrefusable occasion; which hath already ta­ken from me many weeks, and is like to deprive me of many more. Some small time (an interstitium) (through the absence of my Adversary) hath afforded me; and that hath drawn the work almost to a period. I have not hitherto had any leisure to peruse your Key; and indeed what you here acknowledge of it, Sharpness, de­terrs me from medling any further with it, then what may be occasioned in this your Answer. I finde even this, (in several passages) of a relish tart enough; but I can bear with that, and I hope, observe a moderacy, where passion speaks against my cause or me. For I tell you truly, I had rather shew my self a patient Christian, then a passionate Controvertist: What reason utters, will have power with rational men: Passion never be­gins to speak, but when reason is struck dumb, and so cannot speak according to reason.

Num. 2. If you will not be precise in arguing, you had little reason to expect, (much lesse so strictly to exact) a precise Answer; which cannot be made, as you prescribed, to an Argument not precise. I therefore expect accord­ingly, that the unlearned be not made the Iudges of a Dispute, which they are not fit to judge of; seeing you desire us to avoid their road.

[Page 48]

Num. 2. When I press you to as much brevity, as my first Adversary prest me, I shall require no more; and shall easily bear with penetrations of Syllogisms, and me­diate consequences, when they are proveable in lawfull form. My chief care was to obstruct all excursions, am­plifications, and irregularities quite out of form, and all Sophisms and Fallacies; which I have avoided. When the learned are sufficiently informed, I hope they will have so watchful a care of conscience, and Christian cha­rity, that they will impart, what they finde to be truth, to the ignorant. And this I expected signally from you, in whom I discovered a fervent desire to publish what you thought truth to every one.

Num. 3. And by a Congregation of Christians you may mean Christians politically related to one Head, whether Christ, or the Pope. But the word Assemblies expresseth their actual Assembling together, and so exclu­deth all Christians that are, or were members of no parti­cular Assemblies, from having relation to Christ (our Head,) or the Pope (your Head) and so from being of the Congregation, as you call, the Church universal.

Num. 3. Assembly implies no more an actual as­sembling, then Congregation an actual congregating: prove it does. They are both taken in the same sense, in Scripture and approved Authors, and comprised in the word caetus; and the one as capable to include a head and members subject to it, as the other.

[Page 49]

Num. 4. I had great reason to avoid the snare of an E­quivocation, or ambiguity, of which you gave me cause of jealousie by your whatsoever, as I told you, as seeming to intimate a false supposition. To your like, I answer, it is unlike, and still more intimates the false supposition. What­soever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England, is a phrase that importeth, that there is a Con­gregation of men, which is not the [...]ommon-wealth of England; which is true, there being more men in the world; so, Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church, doth seem to import that you suppose, there is a Congregation of Christians, univocally so called ▪ that are not the true Church, which you would distinguish from the other; which I only let you know at the entrance, that I deny, that you may not think it granted.

Num. 4. My Simile is alike in what I prest it, Viz. That no man can rightly understand me (as you do) to mean by Congregation a part of the Church, when I say it is the whole Church. The disparity mentioned by you shall hereafter be examined, when I come to confute your Novelty in that point. In the interim, you may please to take notice, that there are as well Congregations of Christians univocally so called, which are not the Church, as there are of men, which are not the Common-wealth of England. Such are the Senate of Venice, the Common-Council of London, the Parliament of Pa­ris, &c.

Num. 5. Yet I must tell you, that nothing is more ordi­nary, then for the body to be said to do that, which a part [Page 50] of it only doth; as that the Church administreth Sacra­ments, Discipline, Teacheth, &c. The Church is as­sembled in such a Council, &c. when yet it is but a small part of the Church that doth these things: And when Bellarmine, Gretser, &c. say, the Church is the infal­lible Judge of controversies, they mean not the whole Church, which containeth every Christian, when they tell you that it is the Pope they mean. And therefore I had reason to inquire into your sense, unless I would willfully be over-reacht.

Num. 5. This is a meer Parergon, for I declare in my Thesis, that I speak only of that Church, out of which no man can be saved, (as appears in your Edition p. 2.) which is not, cannot be the Church representative in a Coun­cil; for then none could be saved, who are out of that Council.

Num. 6. You now satisfie me that you mean it univer­sally, viz. All that Congregation ( or Church) of Christi­ans, which is now the true Church of Christ, doth ac­knowledge, &c. which I told you, I deny.

Num. 6. By this appears how inappositely, you pro­pounded the question, Whether I meant by Congregation in my Proposition the whole Church, or only some part of it, seeing it was manifest I could not mean any part of it by that word.

To my following distinction you say, That all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been [Page 51] ever in the Church by Christs Institution, cannot be meant of any accidentall thing, but of a necessary, un­changeable and essential thing in Christs true Church; To which I reply, either you see the grosse fallacy of this defence, or you do not: If you do not, then never more call for an exact Disputant, nor look to be delivered from your Errors by Argumentation, though never so convincing: If you do, then you are not faithful to the Truth. In your Major Proposition the words being many, (as you say, you penetrated divers Arguments together) ambiguities were the easier hidden in the heap. That which I told you is accidental to the Church, (and that but to a corrupted part) was the acknowledging of the Papacy, Fallacy 1. as of Christs Institution: and therefore if it were granted, that a thing of Christs Institution could not be accidental, yet the acknowledgment, that is, the opini­on or asserting of it, may. If the Church by mistake should think that to be essential to it, which is not, though it will not thence follow, that its essence is but an accident, yet it will follow that both the false opinion, and the thing it self so false conceited to be essential, are but accidents, or not essential. You say it cannot be meant of any accidental thing. But 1. That meaning it self of theirs may be an accident. 2. And the question is not what they mean, that is, imagine, or affirm it to be, but what it is in deed and truth. That may be an accident, which they think to be none.

Num. 7. Sir, The fallacy is not in my Proposition, but in your understanding. You assert, that the Soveraignty of the Pope, is as accidental to the Church, (as will hereaf­ter appear) as pride and cruelty is to the Spanish Na­tion; [Page 52] and therefore the Acknowledgement of it is Ac­cidental: for if the acknowledgement be in a matter Es­sential, it self must also be Essential, either to the consti­tution, or destruction of the Catholick Faith. For the Essence of Faith requires, that all Essentials be believed, And it must be destructive of Faith, to believe any thing to be Essential, and absolutely necessary to Christian Faith, which is a meer Accident, and non-Essential. For such an Errour constitutes a false Christian, and teaches that to be Essentially Christian Religion, which is a Fal­sity in Christian Religion. If therefore the whole Church (as I affirm) hold the Popes Supremacy to be by Christs Institution, that is, to be essential to the Church, (as you admit for the present) and it be not by his Institution, the Church errs in an Essential matter; which errour is not Accidental to the Church, that is, such an errour, that the Church can subsist as truly with it, as without it, but essentially destructive of the Church. If the Popes Su­premacy be by Christs Institution and thereby Essential, (as you now suppose) the Churches acknowledgement that it is so, is not accidental, but necessary and essential to the subsistence of the Church. So that to admit (as you do here) the thing it self, that whatsoever is of Christs Institution is Essential, and yet to make the ac­knowledgement of its Essentiality by the whole Church, to be Accidental to the Church, is strange Divinity, and one of your grand Novelties. I intreat you therefore to tell me in your next, what makes the Arrian Heresie (as you hold) destructive of Christianity, and an essential Errour, save this onely, that it is against a point essential to Christian Faith? And I think, I have as much rea­son to hold the Errour, either contradicting that which is Essential to Christianity, or asserting that, as Essential, which is onely Accidental, to be an Essential [Page 53] Errour against Christian Faith, as was that of the Arri­ans. For it had been doubtless, an essential Errour in Faith, and destructive of Christianity, not onely to de­ny the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, but also to deny, that consubstantially and the belief of it to be essential to the Christian Faith, and necessary to the constitution of Christianity. Your Fallacy therefore consists in this, that you suppose, all that Christ hath in­stituted to be Essential to the Church, and yet in that very supposition, make the acknowledgement of the whole Church, that such a thing is instituted by Christ, to be accidental to the Church: Of which more hereafter.

Num. 8. But that which you say all the world knows, is a thing, that all the world of Christians except your selves, that ever I heard of, do know, or acknowledge to be false. What! doth all the world know, that Christ hath instituted in his Church nothing, but what is Essential to it? Fallacy 2. Corruption 1. I should hope, that few in the Christi­an world be so ignorant, as ever to have such a thought, if they had the means of knowledg that Protestants would have them have. There is no na­tural Body, but hath natural Accidents, as well as Es­sence: Nor is there any other Society under Heaven (Community, or Policy) that hath not its Accidents, as well as Essence. And yet hath Christ instituted a Church, that hath nothing but Essence, without Acci­dents? Do you build upon such Foundations? what! up­on the denial of Common Principles and Sense? But if you did, you should not have feigned all the world to do so too. Were your Assertion true, then every soul were cut off from the Church, and so from Salvation, that wanted any thing of Christs Institution, yea for a moment. And then what [Page 54] would become of you? You give me an Instance in the Eu­charist. But 1. will it follow, that if the Eucharist be not Accidental, or Integral, but Essential, that therefore Every thing instituted by Christ is Essential?

Num. 8. Sir, Your Answer proceeds fallaciously, à particulari ad universale. I say, that is Essential which hath been ever in the Church by Christs Institution, and you accuse me to say, whatsoever is of Christs Institution is Essential, leaving out which hath been ever in the Church by his Institution. Shew me therefore something which hath been ever, that i, in all ages, in the Church by Christs Institution, which is Accidental to the Church. Till that be done, you have answered your own Fallacy, not my Proposition. Whence appears the vanity of your instancing in a P [...]litick Body without Accidents. For those things which Christ instituted to be as Things Tem­porary, or for a time, not for ever, were Accidents, as some Ceremonies in his last Supper, the washing of Feet, and other matters belonging to the order and decency, as different circumstances require, in the Church; which by Christs Institution were left to the direction of the Church, are Accidents to the Church. So that I say not, nor ever said, that Christ hath instituted a Politick Body without Accidents (as you misconceivingly accuse me) but that whatsoever he instituted to be ever in his Church, is none of those Accidents. You should do well to reflect more punctually upon your Adversaries words, and not to leave out such terms as give the whole force and Energie to his Proposition: For if this be not done, an Answer may be prolong'd till Dooms-day, by multiplying mistakes one upon another to no end.

[Page 55]

Numb. 9. The question being not, whether the Being of the Eucharist in the Church be Essential to the universal Church; but whether the Belief, or Acknowledgement of it by all and every one of the members be Essential to the members? I would crave your Answer but to this Questi­on, (though it be nothing to my cause) Was not a Baptized person, Fallacy 3. in the Primitive and Ancient Churches, a true Church-member, presently up­on Baptism? And then tell me also, Did not the Ancient Fathers and Churches unanimously hide from their Cate­chumens ( even purposely hide) the Mystery of the Eu­charist, as proper to the Church to understand? and ne­ver opened it to the Auditors, till they were Baptized? This is most undeniable in the concurrent vote of the An­cients. I think therefore, that it follows, that in the judgement of the Ancient Churches, the Eucharist was but of the Integrity, and not the Essence of a Member of the Church: and the acknowledgement of it by all the members, a thing that never was existent.

Num. 9. Here you commit another Fallacy, proceed­ing à sensu conjuncto ad sensum divisum. I affirm no more, then that the Assembly, or Congregation, which is the Church, See p. 30. Bax. Ed [...]tion. hath this acknowledgement; and you argue against me, as if I said, Eve­ry particular member of the Church is obli­ged to have that actual express acknowledgment. Know you not, that many things are necessary to the whole Po­litick Body conjunctively, which are not necessary to every part of it separate. Whence your instance of the Eucharist is answered. For though that be not necessa­ry [Page 56] to be expresly beleeved by every Christian necessitate nudii, yet it is essentially necessary to the whole Church. You misconceive therefore very much in saying the que­stion is not, whether the belief (if you mean explicite belief) of the Eucharist is essentially necessary to all, and every one of the members of the Church, for I neither propounded that the express belief either of the Eucha­rist, or the Popes Supremacy, is essentially necessary to every Christian, but to such only, to whom they are sufficiently propounded.

Num. 10. Where you say, Your Major should have been granted, or denied without these distinctions: I reply, 1. If you mean fairly, and not to abuse the truth by confu­sion, such distinctions as your self call learned and substan­tial, can do you no wrong; they do but secure our true under­standing of one another. And a few lines in the beginning, by way of distinction, are not vain, that may prevent much vain altercation afterward: When I once understand you I have done; and I beseech you take it not for an in­jury to be understood.

Num. 10. If they have done no wrong to you, 'tis well: for my part I finde my self nothing injur'd by them. But unnecessary and frivolous distinctions (as yours were in this occasion) can be no great advantage to him who gives them.

Num. 11. As to your Conclusion, that you used no fal­lacy ex accidente, and that my instances are not apposite; I reply, thats the very life of the controversie between us; [Page 57] and our main question is not so to be begged. Fallacy 4. Make sense of this. [ On the grounds I have shewed you I still aver, That the holding the Papacy as acci­dental to the universal Church, as a canker in the breast is to a woman.] And though you say it is essential, and of [...]hrists Institution, that maketh it neither essential, nor of Christs Institution, nor doth it make all his institutions to be essentials.

Num. 11. You fall here again upon your former mistake: I say not, that the Papacy is therefore precisely not Ac­cidental, because it is of Christs Institution, but because Christ hath instituted it should be ever in the Church; which ever you still omit. My saying, I confess, makes it not to be of Christs Institution; but I hope to evince, that my Argument hath proved it, by a cleer confutation of your Answer: Nor would I have any one give credit to my sayings, further then I prove them to be true by solid reason.

Num. 12. Now of your second Syllogism▪ 1. I shall ne­ver question the successive visibility of the Church; where­as I told you out of Francisc. à Sanctâ Clarâ, that many or most of your own Schoolmen agree not to that which you say, Corruption 2. All Christians agree to, you make no reply to it.

Num. 12. I had not then seen that Author for want of time, and so omitted the Answer: And when I came to the sight of him, your citation is so vastly large, (for you say only in articulis Anglicanis) that I was forced to turn over the whole Book; and all I have found (where he [Page 58] treats this subject) is, A Sancta Cla­ra in Artic. An­glic. problem. 15. p. 109, 110, &c. that one may be saved through invincible ignorance, though he have no express, but onely an implicite Faith in Christ. But I find no mention of Infidels in that place; much less, that he affirms most of our Doctors teach, they may be saved; nor that he affirms any can be saved who are out of the Church. Your friends will be sorry to see you so de­fective in your citations. You might have cited either his words, or the place where they are found in particu­lar; and thereby have saved my labour and your own credit. This I hope will be done in your next.

Num. 13. As to your Minor, I have given you the Reasons of the necessity and harmlesness of my distinctions: we need say no more to that A Congregation of Christi­ans and a Church are synonyma.

Num. 13. I wonder to hear you say, a Congregation of Christians and a Church are synonyma. Suppose a Montanist, a Luciferian, an Origenist, an Arrian, an Eutychian, a Pelagian, an Iconoclast, a Wickliffian, a Waldensian, a Donatist, an Aerian, a Hussite, and with these one of each Heresie and Schisme since Christ, (which in your opinion are, or have been, univocally Christians) and that without any to reconcile and agree them, were congregated together to oppose the Roman Church, though you hold they are a Congregation of Christians, would you venture to affirm they are a Church? Or should a company of Murtherers, Thieves, Adulterers, Robbers, Bandits, meet in rebellion together, without Priest, or Pastor, though all Christians, they [Page 59] would be a Congregation of Christians, but would you therefore call them a Church? Or when in Christian Armies the Souldiers and Commanders stand in Battalia to fight their Enemies; or Countrey-people congregate in a Fair, or to choose the Knight of the Shire, or at my Lord Mayors Feast in London, or at Bartholomew-Fair to see a Puppet-play, will you term each of the Congregations of Christians, Churches? Will you term the Common-Council of London, or the Sessions of Mayor, Aldermen, and Justices, sitting in the Old-Bai­ly, or the Kings most Honorable Privy Councel, or the High Court of Parliament, a Church? yet all the world knows, they are each of them Congregations of Christi­ans. S. Paul tells you (1 Cor. 12.) that the Church is composed of different Heterogenial members, (as our bodies are) one subject orderly to another, by way of Pastor and People; which is not found in every Congre­gation of Christians, as I have made it manifest.

Num. 14. But the word True was not added to your first term, by you or me: and therefore your instance here is delusory.

Num. 14. I wonder to hear you discourse in this man­ner. I contend the word True could not be added to the first term without manifest absurdity; and therefore I neither added it, nor was to be understood to include it. Baxt. p. 13. Your Syllogisme runs thus, Whatso­ever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, &c. and is not my Major cited thus by you, Baxt. p. 13. Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ. [Page 60] Now you say, the word True was not added to your first term, nor to mine; that's true: but you say withal, that I must intend to signifie in that first term by what­soever Congregation, the universal, that is the true Church of Christ; that's not true: for I speak abstractly in that term; nor could I do otherwise, unless I would have made an absurd or identical Proposition.

Num. 15. But to say Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the True Church of Christ, is all one as to say, Whatsoever Church of Christians is now the true Church; when I know your meaning I have my end.

Num. 15. I have proved this to be manifestly untrue: for the East-India Company in Holland is a Congrega­tion of Christians, and yet is not a Church.

Num. 16. Though my Syllogisme say not, that the Church of Rome acknowledgeth those things alwayes done, and that by Christs Institution, it nevertheless ex­plicates the weakness of yours as to the fallacy Accidentis.

Num. 16. The question is not here, whether this ac­knowledgement of the Roman Church be true or false; that's stated in the Argument: but whether it be in a matter Accidental, or Essential. Now I affirm, that nothing which Christ hath Instituted to be ever in the Church, is Accidental to the Church; for every Acci­dent is separable from the Subject, without destroying the Subject, whose Accident it is. But what Christ ha's [Page 61] Instituted to be ever in his Church, is inseparable from it: Mat. 19.6. for Quae Deus conjunxit, homo non se­paret, Those things which God hath con­joyned, man must not separate. In the mean time, you fairly acknowledge your instances were not home to the present purpose, because not in matters Instituted to be perpetual by one of that Authority, whose Institution no man can change; and consequently not necessary to be ever in those Nations, or Commonwealths, to whom you ascribe them.

Num. 17. For 1. The holding it alwayes done, and that of Christs Institution, may be either an Accident, or but of the Integrity, and ad bene esse; yea possibly an errour.

Num. 17. If of the Integrity, then not Accidental; for no Integral part is an Accident to the whole: So you yield up your cause, and acknowledge your errour [...]; and 'tis laudable in you. The question is not, what you might have done, but what you did: your instances gi­ven fell short, and were plainly fallacious. I have al­ready shew'd, that nothing can be an Accident to the Church, which Christ hath instituted to be ever, that is perpetually in the Church, and consequently the Church­es holding any thing to be so, if true, is Essential to the Subsistance of the Church; if false, is essentially de­structive of the Church; so that whether true, or false, it will never be accidental to the Church.

[Page 62]

Num. 18. And I might as easily have given you in­stances of that kind.

Num. 18. Had you more fully reflected upon your Adversaries words, you might have done many things more pertinently then you have done them; but here a­gain you acknowledge your error, in alledging instances which were not to the purpose. But your Readers and I should have been much more satisfied, had you amend­ed what you acknowledge to be a fault; and brought at least in this your last Reply, those instances, which you say here, you might have given then. Be sure therefore in your next to produce instances of Accidentals in such things as Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church; whereby it may appear that this Roman acknowledgment, whether true or false, is accidental to the true Church: So that the acknowledgment of it, by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded, is necessary to make them parts of the true Church; and the denial of it, when so propounded, hinders them from being parts of it.

Num. 19. To your third Syllogism, I reply, 1. When you say your Church had Pastors, Fallacy 5. as you must speak of what existed (and universals exist not of themselves) so it is necessary that I tell you, how far I grant your Minor, and how far I deny it.

Num. 19. What though universalls exist not of them­selves? may not therefore a Logician expresse things [Page 63] which have existed in an abstract or universal term? Is not this a true Logical Proposition, Ever since Adam there have been parents and children in the world, though the terms abstract from lawful, and unlawful, from male or female children? would you carp at this Proposition (as you do here at mine) because universalls exist not of themselves? or go about to distinguish different sorts of children or parents, (as you do Pastors here) to find out the true meaning of that Proposition? No man sayes, or need to say in such Enunciations, that univer­salls exist, but expresses particulars which have existed, by abstract and universall terms.

Num. 20. My Argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you. For 1. You can never prove, that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the captive maid; Fallacy 6. nor to the Indians by Fru­mentius. 2. Thousands were made Christi­ans and Baptized by the Apostles, Three non-proofs. without any preaching or profession of a Papacie, Acts 2. & pas­ [...]im. 3. The Indians now converted in America by the English and Dutch, hear nothing of the Pope, nor thou­sands in Ethiopia. 3. Your own doe, or may baptize many without their owning the Pope, who yet would be Christians: And a Pastor not known, or beleeved, or ow­ned, is actually no Pastor to them.

Num. 20. To all these Instances I answer, They con­clude nothing against my Assertion; for I never said, that all particular persons, or communities, are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgment, of the Roman-Bishops Supremacy; that being necessary to all [Page 64] neither necessitate medii, nor praecepti. It is sufficient that they beleeve it implicitely, in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their law­full Pastors: and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficient­ly proposed to them to be the supream visible Pastor of of those Pastors upon earth, that then they obstinately reject not his authority.

To your first instance of the Captive maid and Saint Frumentius, I answer, we can prove as much at least that to have been preacht to them, as you can prove, either Justification by Faith only, or any other particular point of your doctrine, to have been preacht to them. And both of us must say, that all important Christian Truths, both for particular persons and Churches, were deliver­ed to those people; and till you have evinced this of Su­premacy to have been none of those, it is to be supposed, it was sufficiently declared to those Nations: At least in explicating the Article of the Catholike Church to them, they must be supposed to have told them, it consisted of Pastors and people united, and that the people were to obey all their lawful Pastors, in which doctrine, the Pope is implicitely included.

To your second from Acts 2. The Scripture relates not there all that S. Peter said, but affirmeth ( vers. 40.) that he gave testimony to them in many other words. And who can tell whether amongst the rest, that of his Supre­macy, might not have been sufficiently intimated to them? However it appears by the Text ( vers. 37.) that the people addrest themselves first, and in particular to S. Peter, before all the rest of the Apostles, as the prime amongst them, and he who first preacht the Gospel to them. Prove the English and Dutch Convertites con­verted by Protestants (if you mean those, as you must do, if your argument have any force) to be instructed in the [Page 65] true Faith, and then your Instance will have some force; prove those of Ethiopia to be Orthodox and Catholick Christians. To what purpose produce you instances, which are assoon denied, as they are proposed? Your last touches only particular persons, which I have shew­ed, are not obliged to know this expresly, to be of the Church; the Pope is their true pastor, and so beleeved to be implicitely by them, when they subject themselves to all their lawful pastors, he being one and the chief of them.

Num. 21. To your Confirmation, I reply; You mis-read my words: I talk not of invisible. I say it is true, that the universal Church is united to Christ, as their univer­sal Head.

Num. 21. Nor say I, you have writ there the word invisible, but that the pastor or Head which you there name, Viz. Christ is an invisible pastor; nor say I (as you mis-conceive) that Christ is an invisible person (that toucht not the controversie) but that he was an invisible Pastor; and that most certainly he is both in heaven and earth; for though his person may be seen there, yet the exercise of his pastorship, consisting only in spiri­tual influxions, and internal graces, cannot be seen by any corporal eye whatsoever; therefore as pastor of the Militant Church he is wholly invisible: whence it is e­vident, that you put a visible body, the universal Mili­tant Church (for we treat no other here save that) with­out a visible Head: for Christ as head, that is, as supream pastor of this Church is invisible; all that is visible in the pastoral Function, being performed by visible pastors; [Page 66] and all that is invisible by our Saviour. Thus whilest you by a strange piece of Novelty, constitute a visible Body without a visible Head, you destroy the visible Church, and frame a Monster.

Num. 22. And is visible, 1. In the members. 2. In the profession. 3. Christ himself is visible in the heavens, and as much seen of most of the Church, as the Pope is, that is, not at all. As the Pope is not invisible, though one of a million see him not; no more is Christ, who is seen by most of the Church, and by the best part, even by the glorified. You know my meaning: whether you will call Christ visible or not, I leave to you; I think he is visi­ble: But that which I affirm is, that the universal Church hath no other visible universal Head or Pastor: But parti­cular Churches have their particular Pastors, all under Christ.

Num. 22. If Christ be no otherwise visible as Head of the Church, then in his members, and their profession of his Faith, you may as well affirm, that God the Fa­ther is visible in his creatures, and make him also visible, which were absonous, and contrary to Christian Faith: It seems you regard not much what follows from your doctrine, so you may at present oppose your Adversary. The question in treatie is (seeing we both confess the members and profession of the Universal Militant Church to be visible) whether Christ in the exercise of his Head­ship, or chief-Pastorship over the Church, renders him­self visible to our corporal eyes, or performs immediat­ly any visible action in relation to his Church. To con­stitute therefore Christ to be a visible Head of the Church [Page 67] when he performs nothing visible as Head of the Church, or to make a visible Body without a visible Head, is ano­ther of your grand Novelties, fit to be represt, and sti­fled in the cradle. And all men will expect that in your Rejoynder to this, you shew that Christ, not in his per­son, but in the exercise of his pastoral Headship, works vi­sibly by himself. One thing is worth observation in this Paragraph, that you affirm, Christ is seen by most of the Church, and by the best part, even by the glorified; where­by you must either affirm, that the glorified are now con­joyned to their bodies, and thereby evacuate the general resurrection of Saints bodies at the day of judgement, or that the souls of Saints in heaven have corporal eyes for we speak only of corporal sight.

Of Ephes. 4. I easily grant, that the whole Church may be said to have Pastors, in that all the particular Churches have Pastors. But I deny, that the whole have any one Universal Pastor, but Christ. Of that which is the point in controversie you bring no proof. If you mean no more then I grant, Fallacy 7. That the whole Church hath Pastors, both in that each particular Church hath Pastors, and in that unfixed Pastors are to preach to all, as they have opportunity, then your Minor hath no denial from me.

Num. 23. All I intend from Ephes. 4. is to prove my Minor, the perpetual Succession of visible Pastors, what­soever those be; you grant here it proves thus much: Why then presse you me to know whether I would prove from it one supream visible Pastor on earth, when I al­ledge it not to prove that. It is strange Logick to ask [Page 68] an Opponent, whether he intend to prove more by his Syllogism, then what he was obliged to prove in Form, when the Respondent grants he has proved that, and by proving the Proposition which was to be proved, has e­vinced the Thesis to be true, which he first undertook to prove by his Argument, Viz. the Popes Supremacy.

CHAP. II.

Num. 24. In stead of prosecuting your Argument, when you had cast the work of an Opponent upon me, you here appeal to any true Logician, or expert Lawyer. Content, I admit your Appeal. But why then did you at all put on the face of an Opponent? Could you not without this lost labour, at first have called me to prove the suc­cessive visibility of our Church? But to your Appeal. Ho all you true Logicians, this Learned man and I re­fer it to your Tribunal, whether it be the part of an Op­ponent to contrive his Argument so, as that the Nega­tive shall be his, and then change places, and become Respondent, and make his Adversary Opponent at his pleasure We leave this Cause at your Bar, and expect your Sentence. But before we come to the Lawyers Bar, I m [...]st have leave more plainly to state our Case.

Num. 24. I am still content to refer my case, as I state it in your Edition, p. 35. But why do you refer what I admit not? I say not, that every Opponent may come to a Negative at his pleasure, (as you make me say) but when that Negative is deduced by force of Syllogistical form, and denied by the Respondent in a matter proveable by instances, as this is, I affirm, and desire it should be sent to both our Learned Univer­sities, that he, who denies the universal Negative, is [Page 70] obliged, in Logical process, to give some instance to the contrary: and that there is no other means to prove that Negative, but by infringing the instances, which the Respondent produces against it. For if the Oppo­nent go to prove his universal negative by Induction, viz. in my present Minor, But no Congregation of Chri­stians hath been alwayes visible, save those which acknow­ledge St. Peter, &c. he must come at last to this, Such a Congregation is neither that of the Arrians, nor of the Eutychians, nor of Nestorians, nor any other Congre­gation that can be named. Then, if the Respondent deny that Proposition, and affirm there is some name­able, he is obliged to tell which it is, otherwise it is impossible to make progress in the Argument: which way of arguing notwithstanding is most Logical, and usually practised amongst Learned Disputants.

Num. 25. We are all agreed, that Christianity is the true Religion, and Christ the Churches universal Head, and the Holy Scriptures the Word of God. Papists tell us of another Head and Rule; the Pope and Tradition, and Iudgement of the Church. Protestants deny these Additionals, and hold to Christianity and Scripture one­ly: our Religion being nothing but Christianity, we have no controversie about: their Papal Religion, superadded, is that which is controverted. They affirm 1. the Right, 2. the Antiquity of it: We deny both. The Right we disprove from Scripture, though it belongs to them to prove it. The Antiquity is it, that is now to be refer­red. Protestancy being the denial of Popery, it is we that really have the Negative, and the Papists, that have the Affirmative. The Essence of our Church [Page 71] ( which is Christian) is confessed to have been successive­ly visible: But we deny that theirs, as Papal, hath been so: and now they tell us, that it is Essential to ours, to deny the Succession of theirs; and therefore require us to prove a Succession of ours, as one that still hath denied theirs. Now we leave our Case to the Lawyers, seeing to them you make your Appeal, 1. Whether the Substance of all our Cause lie not in this question, Whether the Pa­pacy, or universal Government by the Pope, be of Hea­ven or of Men? Fallacy 8. and so, Whether it hath been from the beginning? which we de­ny, and therefore are called Protestants; and they af­firm, and are therefore called Papists. 2. If they can­not first prove a Successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church, then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world, or ever any pleaded for it? 3. And as to the point of Possession, I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The possession of this, or that particular Parish Church, or Tythes, is not the thing in question; but the universal Headship is the thing. But if it were, yet it is I that am yet here in Possession; and Protestants before me for many Ages Successively. And when possessed you the Head-ship of the Ethiopian, Indian, and other Extra-Imperial Churches? never to this day. No, nor of the Eastern Churches, though you had Communion with them. 2. If the question be, who hath possession of the universal Church, we pretend not to it; but onely to a part, and the soundest, safest part 3. The Case of Pos­session therefore is, Whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion, which is bare Christianity, then you of your super-added Popery. Our Possession is not denied of Christianity: yours of Popery we deny: (and our denial makes us called Protestants) Let therefore [Page 72] the reason of Logicians, Lawyers, or any rational sober man determine the case, whether it do not first and prin­cipally belong to you, to prove the visible Succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church.

Num. 25. Fair and softly, Sir, you are run quite out of the field, and have lost your self I know not where. The present question is not, who is to prove the univer­sal and perpetual Supremacy of the Roman-Bishop? See you not, that I have already undertaken the proof of that in this present Argument? The question at pre­sent is nothing but this, when I have brought the Argu­ment to this Head; that no other Congregation of Chri­stians can be named perpetually visible, save that which acknowledges the Roman Supremacy, and you deny that negative Proposition of mine, whether you be not obliged upon that denial, to name some Congregation, which has been perpetually visible beside it. This, and this onely, is that which I referr'd, and still refer to the the judgement of the Learned: as to your Case, when it comes in season; it shall be resolved. This onely ex abundanti for the present: whatsoever may be, or not be, of the Indians and Ethiopians, &c. (which shall hereafter be examined.) You, who confess the Pope to have been constituted, Part 2. at least by the Churches grant, Patriarch of the West, and thereby to have acquired a lawfull Supremacy over the Western Churches, (and consequently over that of Eng­land) and was in full and quiet possession of that Right, when your first Protestants began to reject it; you, I say, cannot deny, those first Protestants at least to have been obliged, by reason of that possession, to bring convin­cing [Page 73] proofs that it was unlawfull: which notwithstand­ing you must hold impossible to be done, because you hold that Patriarchal power over them to have been law­full. Now what obligation falls upon you, as maintain­ing successively so wrongfull a cause, I leave to your consciences to determine. Nay, it is most evident, in time of the first breach with the Roman Bishop, he was in as quiet possession of Supremacy over the English Church, in quality of Supreme visible Pastor over the whole Church, as he was in quality of the Western Pa­triarch; for the English obeyed him as Supreme over all, and not as Patriarch of the West onely, as appears by thousands of testimonies extant in our National Coun­cils, Doctors, Bishops, Historians, Records, De­crees, &c. Therefore those, who dispossest him of that possession, were bound either to have demonstrated it undeniably to be unlawfull, or to have procured a de­finitive Sentence against him by such as had full Au­thority to judge him, that his possession was unjust: neither of which either hath been done, nor can ever be done.

Num. 26 As to your contradictory impositions, I re­ply, 1. Your exception was not exprest, and your impo­sition was peremptory.

Num. 26. But I supposed my Adversaries to be Lo­gicians, and stood not in need to be instructed in usual Logical processes, belonging to Syllogisti­cal Form. p. 37. Baxt. Edit. Do what I can, you will mis­take me. I speak of a Church denying that the Pope hath alwayes had it, that is, of a Church [Page 74] which now, or of late times denies it; and you make me speak of a Church, which hath alwayes denied it, contrary to my express words immediately following. as you presently acknowledge. All I pretend is this; Prove that any Church, which now denies it, hath been alwayes visible, and I am satisfied, whether that Church alwayes denied it, or no.

Num. 27. I told you, I would be a Papist, if you prove, That the whole visible Church in all Ages held the Popes universal Head-ship. You say that you have proved it by this Argument, that either he hath that▪ Su­premacy, or some other Church, denying that he hath alwayes had it, hath been alwayes visible: and that Church you require should be named. I reply, 1. Had not you despaired of making good your Cause, you should have gone on by Argumentation▪ till you had forced me to contradict some common Principle. 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world, and tell them, that you have no better proof of the Succession of your Papacy, then that we prove not, that it hath alwayes been denied by the visible Church, you would sure turn thousands from Po­pery, if there be so many rational considering impartial men, that would peruse them, and believe you. For any man may know, that it could not be expected, that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ, before he was sprung up. Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop, or Patriarch, till Pelagius and Gregory? but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it. How should any Heresie be op­posed, or condemned, before it doth arise?

[Page 75]

Num. 27. I have manifestly forced you to contradict a common Principle; and not one, but Two of them. First, you are forced to contradict that Principle in Lo­gick, That he, who denies an universal Negative Pro­position, framed in a positive Historical matter, as mine is, is not obliged to give an instance, when it is de­manded, to infringe the universality of it: and this I have, and do refer. The second is a Theological, or ra­ther Christian Principle, That no professed Heretick, nor Schismatick properly so called, is a true part of the universal visible Church of Christ. That this is such a Principle, shall appear hereafter; where I shall make it evident, that a professed Heretick, properly so called, had, or could have, true Christian Faith, or the profes­sion of it, without which no man can be a true member of the Catholick Church, that is, united to Christ as his Head, as you explicate your meaning. Your other dif­ficulties, about the Title of Universal Bishop, &c. shall be answered in their place.

Num. 28. But you fairly yield me somewhat here, and say, that you oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church, formally and expresly denying it; but that it was of such a Constitution as was inconsistent with any such Supremacy, or could and did subsist without it. Reply. I confess, your first part is very ingenious and fair. Remember it hereafter, that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly.

[Page 76]

Num. 28. But have you dealt as fairly with me; when after I had so clearly explicated my self, in my former Answer, not to exact a perpetual visible Church, for­mally and expresly denying that Supremacy, you make me frame an Argument, in the precedent Paragraph, exacting the formal and express denial of it in all Ages: is this fair? You corrupt again my Proposition, I say not that I freed you from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly, but (as you acknow­ledge in this Paragraph) that I obliged you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it, that is, such a Church, as denied it so, all the time that it was visible; yet I quitted you not of the obliga­tion, of instancing in a Church which at some time or other denied it formally and expresly, as your infe­rence seems to affirm I do. For seeing it has for many hundred years been publickly acknowledged, as due to the Bishop of Rome, it was deniable by those who lived in the said Ages.

Num. 29. But as to what you yet demand, 1. I have here given it you, because you shall not say I [...]le fail you: I have answered your desire. But, 2. It is not as a thing necessary, but ex abundanti, as an overplus. For you may now see plainly, that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor (which you require) is to prove the Negative, viz. that then there was none such; whereas it's you that must prove, that there was such. I prove our Religion; do you prove yours: though I say [Page 77] to pleasure you, Ile disprove it, and have done it in two Books already.

Num. 29. I had no farther Obligation in the Process of this Argument, then to inforce you to produce an in­stance of some Church perpetually visible, which either denied, or was inconsistent with, and Independent of that Supremacy. And this I say, you were obliged to do ac­cording to Logical Form; say as much as you please, that it was ex abundanti, no good Logician will be­leeve you. I mention not the Churches being without a Supream visible Pastor, which you term universal, nor oblige I you precisely to prove that, but to prove a perpetual visible Church whose government was incon­sistent with one supream visible Pastor over all, which is an Affirmative Proposition. Why mistake you perpetu­ally? prove this, and I am satisfied: Nor yet have you in what you have done performed what you undertake, as shall appear in my following Rejoynder to your Argu­ments.

Num. 29. My reason from the stress of necessity, which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions, was but sub­servient to the foregoing Reasons, not first to prove you bound, but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative. And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is impertinent. He that saith, you shall be damned if you beleeve not this or that, is more obliged to prove it, then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment.

[Page 78]

Num. 30. Sure if you prove me more bound, you prove me bound, à fortiori; For every comparative supposes its positive. The instance I bring is pertinent; and all who read it attentively, will see it is so. Your last sen­tence is a repetition of what I denied, without answer­ing my answering my Argument against it. Then, say I, a Christian is bound to prove his Religion to a Mahume­tan, but a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his to a Chri­stian; or if you will have it so, is more bound of the two; this you answer not, because the same reason holding in both, you saw you could not answer it.

Num. 31. To what I say of an Accident, and a corrupt part, you say you have answered, and do but say so, having said nothing to it that is considerable.

Num. 31. Let the Reader judge that, by what hath been said on both parts.

Num. 32▪ Me thinks you that make Christ to be cor­porally present in every Church in the Eu­charist, should not say, Fallacy 8. That the King of the Church is absent.

Num. 32. Why dally you thus, to amuse your Rea­der? you know we we dispute now of a proper visible presence, Such as is not that in the Eucharist.

[Page 79]

Num. 33. But when you have proved, 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church, that there's need of a Depu­ty to Essentiate his Kingdom; and 2. That the Pope is so deputed, you will have done more, then is yet done for your cause.

Num. 33. I have proved that Christ instituted S. Pe­ter and his Successors to govern visibly his whole Uni­versal Church on earth in all ages, and that nothing so in­stituted is accidental to his Church; and you have not yet given any instance to infringe it; so that my proof stands in full force against you, till it be answered. I presse you therefore once more to give an instance of something which has been ever in the visible Church by Christs Institution, and yet is accidental to his Church.

Num. 34. And yet let me tell you, that in the absence of a King, it is only the King and Subjects, that are Essential to the Kingdome: the Deputy is but an Officer, and not essential.

Num. 34. 'Tis so indeed de facto, but suppose (as I do) that a Vice-King be by full Authority made an Ingredient into the Essence of the Kingdome; See my words Baxter, p. 38. then sure he must be essential; this is evident in our present subject: For though all the Pastors in Christs Church be only his Of­ficers and Deputies, yet you cannot deny, such Officers are now Essential to his visible Church. I wonder you [Page 80] look no deeper then to the Superficies; nor consider what inconveniences follow against your self by your replies, for what true Christian ever yet denied, that either Bi­shops, or Presbyters, or both, though they are all Christs Officers and Deputies are essential to Christs visible Church?

Fallacy 6. The word ever left out the thi [...]d time. Num. 35. Your naked Assertion, That whatsoever Government Christ institu­teth of his Church, must be essential to his Church, is no proof; nor like the task of an Opponent.

Num. 35. My Assertion is of force, till you produce some instance of perpetual Church Government insti­tuted by our Saviour, which is not Essential to his Church: which you neither have done, nor can you do it. And certainly, when any Common-wealth is instituted in such a determinate kind of perpetual Go­vernment, by one of so eminent Authority, that no o­ther hath power to change that Institution (as it passes in our case) the government, which he instituted is not acci­dental to that Common-wealth; so far, that it will be no longer the Common-wealth instituted by him when the Government is changed.

Num. 36. The Government of Inferiour Officers is not Essential to the Vniversal Church, no more then Iudges and Iustices to a Kingdom.

Num. 36. Your Assertion is not true; for Iudges [Page 81] and Iustices may be changed into other Officers, by the Supream authority: whereas none have power to change the Officers which Christ hath instituted to be perpetu­al in his Church. Again even in Common-wealths and Kingdoms, though these determinate Officers are not essential to them, yet it is essential to have some inferi­our Officers; seeing it is impossible, that the Supream Magist [...]ate should govern the whole Common-wealth immediatly by himself.

Num. 37. And yet we must wait long, before you will prove, that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place, as Governours of the Universal Church.

Num. 37. I have proved it; and my proof is good, till it be convinced, that you have answered my Argu­ment: Governours they are, but under Christ, and no farther then to a visible government of the universal Mi­litant Church.

Num. 38. Sir, I desire open dealing, as between men that beleeve these matters are of eternal consequence. I watch not for any advantage against you. Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative, yet I have begun the proof of our Negative, but it was on supposition, that you will equally now prove your Affirmative, better then you have here done. I proved a visible Church successively, that held not the Popes Vniversal Government? Do you now prove, That the Universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes Universal Government, which is your part; or I must say again, I shall think you do but run away, and [Page 82] give up your cause, as unable to defend it: I have not failed you, do not you fail me.

Num. 38. Sir, All that I contend is, that my Argu­ment sent to you, and the Answer to it promised and as­sayed by you, be respectively accomplished by us both: when that is done, I shall refuse no reasonable Proposi­tions, and shall endeavour to give you all possible satis­faction. But give me leave to tell you, till that be done, I shall take it for an Effugium from you, and (and so I think will all rational men) to set upon a new work before the old be finisht: For by this means we shall bring nothing to an Issue, but still flit superficially from one difficulty to another, without bringing any thing to a period; and thereby both lose our time and credit. Let us first follow this close, and when we are come to an end, we shall be ready to begin another. It is not for the present the proof of the perpetual visibility of your Protestant Church in particular, which is aimed at for answer to my Argument: Be it that, or any other In­dependent of the Bishop of Romes authority, 'tis all one for solution of the Argument: The force of my dis­course consists in this, No Congregation of Christians has been perpetually visible, save that which acknowledges the Popes Supremacy; Ergo, No Congregation of Chri­stians is Christs true Church, save that. Now this Argu­ment presses all Congregations of Christians, whether Ancient or Modern, not acknowledging that Supremacy, as much as Protestants; and if any of them can be proved to be perpetually visible, the Argument is solv'd: So that the Argument is not directed particularly against Protestants, but as well against Grecian Schismaticks, Eu­tychians, Nestorians, Montanists, &c. as against them; [Page 83] and had it fallen into their hands, as it did into yours, the proving their visibility (though yours had not been pro­ved) would have given satisfaction: nay if you had shew­ed the perpetual visibility of any others, as you have as­sayed to do of yours, you had given an equal satisfaction to the Argument. But seeing you have pitcht upon the visibility of your Protestant Church you have imposed an obligation upon me of answering the reasons and alle­gations, whereby you labour to prove it to have been per­petually visible.

Num. 39. You complain of a deficiency in quality, though you confess, that I abound in number. But where is the dese [...]t! You say I must assert both, that these were one Congregation, and ever visible since Christs time. Reply. If by one Congregation you meant one Assem­bly met for personal Communion, which is the first sense of the word Congregation, it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such.

Num. 39. You know, I mean not that; why lose you time in putting an if upon it.

Num. 40. If you mean one as united in one visible humane Head, thats it that we deny; and therefore may not be required to prove.

Num. 40. I abstract from that also, be it but truly and properly one, whencesoever that unity is drawn, 'tis all alike to the Solution of my Argument.

[Page 84]

Num. 41. But that these Churches are one, as united in Christ the Head, we easily prove: in that from him the whole Family is named, the Body is Christs Body, 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. and one in him, Ephes. 4.4, 5, 6. &c.

Num. 41. These Churches; which these? mean you all that you seem to point at in your Catalogue? All sure, or you prove nothing; but which are those all? You name only those of the present age, Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Protestants: After these, for eleven hundred years, you name none at all: How shall we then know determinately, what you mean here by these Churches, when you give no light to know your meaning. Let us therefore first know, which are these Churches you here relate to by some particular designation, and denomina­tion of them; or how can you either prove, or we know, whether they were united in Christ, or no? and then, and not till then, can it be discerned whether these Churches be, or be not, parts of Christs family, or body, accord­ing to the places you here cite.

Num. 42. All that are true Christians are one King­dome, or Church of Christ; but these of whom I speak are true Christians; therefore they are one Kingdom, or Church of Christ.

Num. 42. I grant your Major, and deny your Minor, if they were independent of the Roman Bishop.

[Page 85]

Num. 43. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now, all History, even your own affirm: as in Judea, and from the Apostles times in Ethiopia, Egypt, and other parts: Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth.

Num. 43. Let them have been as visible as you please; thats nothing to me, so were the Arrians, Sabellians, Montanists, &c. as much as many of these: prove they were no more then one visible Congregation of Chri­stians amongst themselves, and with Orthodox Christi­ans; thats the present controversie.

Num. 44. And to what purpose talk you of deter­minate Congregations? Do you mean individual Assem­blies? those cease, when the persons die: Or do you mean Assemblies meeting in the same place? So they have not done still at Rome.

Num. 44. Why do you still ask me if I mean, what you know I mean not?

Num. 45. I told you, and tell you still, that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country; but if it cease in one place, it is still in others. It may cease at Ephesus, at Phillippi, Colosse, &c. in Tenduc, Nubia, &c. and yet remain in other parts. I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country.

[Page 86]

Num 45. I assent to you in this: why lose you la­bour in asserting that which no man questions.

Num. 46. And yet it hath been so de facto, as in Asia, Ethiopia, &c. But you say, I nominate none. Are you serious! must I nominate Christians of these Nations, to prove that there were such? You req [...]ire not this of the Church-Historians. It suffic [...]th, that they tell you, that Ethiopia, Egypt, Armenia, Syria, &c. had Christians, without naming them. When all History tells you, that these Countreys were Christians, or had Churches, I must tell you what and who they were! Must you have their Names, Sirnames, and Genealogies? I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation, in the Age I live in: how then should I name you the people of Armenia, Abassia, &c. so long ago? You can name but few of the Roman Church in each Age: and had they wanted Learning and Records, as much as Abassins and Indians, and others, you might have been as much to seek for names, as they.

Num. 46. You trifle away time exceedingly; I re­quire (as you have seen above) the nomination of the determinate Opinions, or Societies, as Hussites, Wal­denses, Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. not of their per­sons. And therefore I say you nominate none, See Baxt. p. 41. much less prosecute you those with whom you begun. Now these were Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Protestants; so that I speak undeniably of the nomination of Sects, and Societies, not of Names, [Page 87] Sirnames, and Genealogies of persons. There were dif­ferent Sects and Professions in different Countreys, as Armenia, Abassia, &c. I require the nomination of which of those Sects, or parties, you mean in those times and Nations, not what were their names and sirnames. Nor is it sufficient, that you say there were Christians, that is, Christians univocally so called, or true Christi­ans, in all Ages in Armenia, Ethiopia, Egypt, &c. who denied the Popes Supremacy; for unless you nominate of what party, sect, opinion, or profession they were, how shall any man judge, whether they held not some Opinion contrary to the Essentials of Christianity, and by that became no Christians, even in your opinion? You must therefore, either have nominated, and design­ed what sort of professions you mean, or acknowledge you have spoken in the air, and produc'd a pure non-proof, in the nomination of those Countreys, since no man can know by that, what sort of profession you mean, amongst all those different professions which have inha­bited the said Nations; for Arrians, Sabellians, Mani­chees, Menandrians, &c. whom you hold to be no Chri­stians, and to erre in Essentials, denied the Popes Su­premacy in those Nations.

CHAP. III.

Num. 47. You ask, were they different Congregati­ons? Answ. As united in Christ, they were one Church; but as assembling at one time, or in one place, or under the same guide, so they were not one, but divers Congregations.

Num. 47. You answer not the question; for they might be in different places and times, and under seve­ral guides, and yet be one and the same Congregation; as appears in the succession and extension of the Catho­lick [Page 89] Church. The question I demanded is this; were they all united in the profession of one and the same Faith, and unity of External Communion? without these two it is im­possible to be united in Christ, as I shall prove hereafter.

Num. 48. That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ, do yo prove, if you are able. My Conclusi­on, that all have been against you for many hundred years, must stand good, till on prove, that some were for you. Yet I have herewith proved, that there were none, at least that could deserve the name of the Church.

Num. 48. I have proved there were some, in citing the Orat on of the Legates from Pope Celestine, in the first Ephesine Council, who, you grant, were for us: and if they were for us, then all were not against us, for so ma­ny hundred years; See Baxt. p. 23. for you speak there of the first 400. years. Now though that Council was celebrated in the year 430. yet both that, in a moral consideration, passes for 400. and those Le­gates witnessing what they said, to have alwayes been known to every one ( notum omnibus, &c.) give an Au­thentical Testimony, that it was alwayes acknowledged as a Christian Truth, in and through the Church; and consequently within the first 400. years. No, nor was the Council of Ephesus, nor any part of it, then against us. For if they had, they would have, at least some of them, contradicted that, which they had (in your sup­position) esteemed so manifest an untruth, and contra­ry to the liberty and jurisdiction of all other Bishops and Churches; as imposing upon them a Superiour, and Judge, who had no lawfull Authority over them.

[Page 90]

Num. 49. Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man, by calling for positive proof from Authors, of such Nega­tives?

Num. 49. I demand no proof of a Negative: prove, I demand it. My demand is to shew any one Congregati­on of Christians always visible, since Christ till now, See Baxt. p. 5. be [...]de that, which acknowledged the Popes Supremacy: which is an Affirmative.

Num. 50. Yet proof you shall not want, such as the na­ture of the point requireth, viz. That the said Churches of Ethiopia, India, the outer Armenia, and other Extra-Imperial Nations, were not under the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.

Num. 50. I suppose you mean by were not under, &c. were never under the Bishop of Rome: otherwise your instance proves nothing; for if they were under him in any age, and for any time since Christ, you can never make them to be an instance, of those who were perpe­tually in all Ages a visible Congregation of Christians, not acknowledging the Popes Supremacy; for in that Age wherein they were subject to him, they did ac­knowledge it.

Num. 51. You find all these Churches, or most of them at this day (that remain) from under your Iurisdiction: and you cannot tell, when or how they turned from you. If you could, it had been done.

[Page 91]

Num. 51. I neither find it, nor can find it, till you tell me, which were these Extra-Imperial Churches you mean, when you say other Extra-Imperial Nations. Mean you all other, or some other? If all, I find the quite contrary. For the Goths, successively inhabitants of Spain, never acknowledged themselves Subjects to the Empire; who notwithstanding are now subject to the Roman Bishop; and consequently were and are, for some time, under him. And the Suedes and Danes, which pretend to proceed from the Goths, Vandals, &c. though now they reject all obedience to him, yet in the year 1500. they all acknowledged themselves to be his Subjects in Spirituals, and that for many hundred of years together. Well then; I find not all Extra-Im­perial Churches from under the Popes Jurisdiction; and some who are, I can and do find, when and how they turned from him. It was about the year 1520. by occa­sion of the Lutheran Heresie, as all the world knows. If you mean onely some of those other Extra-Imperial Churches, when you have told me, which are those some, you shall have an Answer. In the interim give me leave to tell you, that to maintain your Novelty, you must shew all Extra-Imperial to have been exempt: for if any one were not, all might have been subject, nay were to have been so, à paritate rationis.

As to the Indians, they were not alwayes Extra-Im­perial. For in the year 163. they subject­ed themselves to the Roman Emperour Antoninus Pius. Euseb. in Chro­nic. Anno 22. Anton. Eutrop. lib. 8. Evagr. Id. c. 7. The Armenians, that were Christians, were not alwayes Extra-Imperial. For in the year 572. being grievously persecuted for the Christian Faith by the [Page 92] Persians, they rendred themselves Subjects to the Ro­man Emperour. Nor were they always a separate Con­gregation from those, who acknowledged the Spiritual Soveraignty of the Roman Bi­shop. [...]n. Flor. in li­teris unionis, & de Armenorum concordia. Vide Plat. Naucler. Vola­terranum, Chal­cond. Emilium, Onuphrium, Genebrard. de Concilio Flor. See Iovius, Gen. Maseus I [...]rri [...]. in anno 1524. For, in the year 1145. they and the Indian Christians subjected themselves to him: and again Anno 1439. and so re­main for the present. Nor were the Ethi­opians, in all ages, a different Congrega­tion from the Romane. For Anno 1524. the Emperour and High Priest, David, pro­mised obedience to the Sea Apostolick. And Claudius, his Successor, did the like, Anno 1557. Now let us review the force of your instances. You undertook to shew, in Answer to my Minor, some visible Con­gregation, beside that which acknowledges the Popes Supreme power, in all Ages since Christ. To prove this, you nominate onely the Indians, Ethiopians, Armeni­ans. Now no one of these Three have been in all Ages, a visible Congregation beside that of Rome: for each of them, at one time or other, became the same Congre­gation to that, by subjecting and conforming themselves to and with the Bishop of Rome, as I have proved. You assert, that these Three are, and ever were, Extra-Im­perial Nations; and upon that score (in your princi­ples) independent of the Roman Bishop: and yet Two of these made themselves subjects to the Roman Empe­rour, as I have now proved. You undertook to prove, that those three forenamed Nations, and other Extra-Im­perial Churches were never under the Bishop of Rome: and in proof thereof you say in your first reason, that all, or most of them, (that is, not all) at this day are from under his Jurisdiction: so that your Argument runs thus. [Page 93] None of them were ever under him, because all or most of them were never under him. Take you this to be Lo­gick? You tell me, we cannot tell, when or how they turned from us; and I tell you, and have prov'd it, that the Goths in Spain are not from under us at this day: and that the Suedes and Danes, being their off-spring, de­parted not from us, till about the year 1520. by occasion of Luther's Heresie. This is your first proof: and no marvel you put it, as your Achilles, in the front, it is so mighty strong. Now let us hear your second.

Num. 52.2. These Nations profess it to be their Tradi­tion, that the Pope was never their Governour.

Num. 52. You are pleas'd to say so; and I am ready to believe you, when you prove what you say. This is your second proof.

Num. 53.3. No History, or Authority, of the least regard, is brought by your own Writers, to prove these Churches under your Iurisdiction: no not by Baronius himself, that is so copious and so skilfull in making much of nothing.

Num. 53. Those Histories, and Authors, which say All Churches, and the whole Church of Christ, was and ought to be subject to him, prove sufficiently, that these Churches were subject to him: for these were contain­ed in the number of All. But many Anci­ent Authors, S. Prosper, S. Leo, &c. infra citandi. and Fathers say, That All Churches, and the whole Church was, and ought to be subject to him: Ergo, they say, that these Churches were subject to him. The [Page 94] Major is evident: The Minor shall be amply proved, and is sufficiently already in my subsequent Allegations; as I shall make good, when I come to the defence of them against your Answers and Exceptions.

Num. 54. No credible witnesses mention your Acts of Iurisdiction over them, or their Acts of subjection; which Church History must needs have contained, if it had been true, that they were your Subjects.

Num. 54. What none? that were very strange. Is not Genebrard a witness, that Pope Eugenius wrote to the Emperour of Ethiopia, anno 1437. to send Legates to the Council of Ferrara, as the Greek Emperour had decreed to do: to whose Letters and Legates David, their Emperour, returned a respectfull Answer, and ac­cordingly sent some of his Church to that Council, as appears by the Acts of the Council it self, where the E­thiopians are recorded to have been present: and that in the year 1524. the said David, and Helena his Empress, promised Obedience to the Bishop of Rome, Pope Cle­ment the 7 th. And witnesses not, both Platina, Nau­clerus, Volaterranus, Chalcondylas, Emylius, Onuphri­us, Genebrard, and also the Acts of the Florentine Coun­cil, that the Armenians and Indians acknowledged the Spiritual Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop through the whole world? Are these no credible witnesses? And as to more Ancient times, gives not the Arabick Transla­tion of the first Nicene Council a clear witness (as we shall see presently) that the Ethiopians were to be un­der the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and he under that of Rome, as is witnessed and decreed in [Page 95] the Ephesin Council, and others? Are these no credible witnesses neither? Witness not the whole Kingdome of Spain at this day, and all the Historians of Sueden, Den­mark, and other Northern Countreys, issuing from the Extra-Imperial Goths, and never subject to the Roman Empire, that from their first Conversions, till after the year 1500. they were all subject to the Roman Bishop? and are none of these, credible witnesses? That's hard. But more of this hereafter.

Num. 55. Their absence from General Councils, and no in­vitation of them thereunto, (that was ever pro­ved, or is shewed by you) is sufficient evidence. Non-proof.

Num. 55 I intend to make a particular Tract to prove this, and to evidence the falsity of your Allegation, from the undeniable testimonies, of Classie Authors, and from the ancient subscriptions of the Councils themselves.

Num. 56. Their Liturgies, even the most Ancient, bear no footsteps of any subjection to you: though your forgeries have corrupted them, as I shall here (digres­sively) give one instance of. The Ethiopick Liturgie, be­cause of a Hoc est corpus meum, which we also use, is urged to prove, that they are for the Corporal Presence, or Transubstantiation. But, saith Vsher, de Success. Ec­cles. In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone descriptum habebatur Hic panis est corpus meum. In La­tinâ Translatione, contra fidem Ethiopic. Exemplarium (ut in primâ operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes) expunctum est nomen panis.

[Page 96]

Num. 56. No more does the Roman Missal it self, nor those of France or Spain, witness their subjection to the Roman Bishop: Must every Book witness every thing? Must those Books which contain nothing but the service of the Church, determine points of Controver­sie, no way pertaining to that subject? What rule have you for that? Yet I finde in their very Liturgie, both a plain acknowledgment of St. Peters primacy, and of the reverence they bear to the three first general Coun­cils; in making a particular Commemoration of the Fa­thers which were in them, in the Cannon of their Mass: whereby they profess to receive the Decrees of those three Councils, and thereby their subjection to them; and name not the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, (the fourth general) because they follow the Heresie of Eutiches who was condemned in it.

Your digression, I confesse, is something large▪ from the Popes Supremacy to Transubstantiation: Yet had you grounded it upon a more firm Authority, then that of a professed Adversary, it would I suppose have had more weight with your Readers. What if Usher say so? that moves not me a jot: though I marvel not a little also, why you who stand upon such Niceties in citations, should fall into the same defect which you blame in me, of putting me to the labour of reading over that whole Book, by not citing the place where those words are found. But I should have taken no no­tice of such small omissions, had not you given me a President for it. At last I found them, cap. 2. p. 54. Edit. 2. but then I was at a loss again. For having ex­amined three different Editions of the Bibliotheca, (which is all are extant) and the Scholia's in the Margin, [Page 97] I could finde no such matter; nor could I know, what other Scholiastes, or Edition he meant; and should be more satisfied, if in your next you please to cite the Edition more exactly, and the precise words of the Scho­liastes, and where they are to be found. For the matter it self it seems, I must needs tell you, very improbable, both because the Scripture it self hath hoc, and not hic panis, and were it not a great boldness in a whole Church to consent to the changing of Christs words of Instituti­on in this divine Sacrament, and foisting in others in place of them? nor see I any reason why the Ethiopique Church in particular should do it, when in the very same Liturgie, it delivers cleerly the change of bread into Christ Body, effected in the consecration of the divine Mysteries? ¹

Num 57. Constantines letters of request to the King of Persia, for the Churches there, (which Eusebius in vitâ Constantini mentioneth) do intimate, that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there.

Num. 57. Why so? Might not the Roman Bishop [Page 98] rule there, though the Emperour did not? The King of Persia, as not Subject to the Emperour, was not to be commanded, but entreated by him; but might not that stand with the Authority of the Roman Bishop over that Church? May not the King of France intreat the King of Spain to send his Bishops to a general Coun­cil, though both of them acknowledge the Popes Autho­rity over them, and the Churches in their respective Kingdomes? Call you this an Argument?

Num. 58. Even at home, the Scots and Brittains obey­ed not the Pope, nor conformed about Easter-Observation, even in the dayes of Gregory, but resisted his changes, and refused Communion with his Ministers.

Num. 58. No more do you conform to him now: fol­lows it thence, that he never exercised authority over the Church in this Nation? Will you draw a conse­quence from the disobedience of a Subject to the want of power in a Superiour? Was not this very er­ror ascrib'd to them by Venerable Bede, Beda Histor. Ang. lib. 2. cap. 2. and here acknowledged by you, condemned as an Heresie in the Council of Nice? and may you not as well argue thus (even against your own principles) Those Brittains and Scots confor­med not about the Easter-Observation prescribed in the Council of Nice; therefore they acknowledged no sub­jection to the authority of that Council: Ergo, That Council never had authority over them: And as to Com­munion with his Ministers, See V. Bede Hist. Angl. l. 2. cap. 2. Bede tells you, they refused also to communicate with the English, who were then converted, or to [Page 99] help towards their conversion; were they also justifi­able in this? Or had they any right in Christian charity to refuse it?

Num. 59. I have already elsewhere given you the testi­mony of some of your own Writers: as, Reynerius contra Waldenses, Catal. in Bibliothecâ patr. Tom. 4. pag. 773. saying, The Churches of the Armenians, and Ethiopi­ans, and Indians, and the rest which the Apostles con­verted are not under the Church of Rome.

Num. 59. No more are you, what then? our question is not of what is done de facto for the present, but what de jure, ought to be done, or has been done at one time or other. This Author says not, these Nations were never under the Church of Rome, (even as you cite him) but are not now for the present under him. Know you not that many things have been heretofore, which are not now? Thus I have shewed you (and doubt not but you see it) the weakness of the first eight points of your Reasons. I come now to the ninth, which re­quires a deeper and larger discussion, as being a main point in your Novel Divinity.

Num. 60. I have proved from the Council of Chalce­don, that it was the Fathers, that is, the Councils, that gave Rome its preheminence.

Num. 60. Sir, I take the boldness to tell you, that you have proved nothing, nothing at all of that matter: what [Page 100] you say in your second part of the 28 Canon of the Coun­cil of Chalcedon, proves not what you say here, though that Canon were admitted; of which more hereafter. For the Greek word is not [...] (gave to, or con­ferred upon Rome) those priviledges, but [...] (exhibited or deferred to them) to Rome, as ever before due unto it, by right of the Apostolick Sea of S. Peter established there. And though the Canon alledge for the reason of this, the Imperial power of that Citie, [...], (because it was the Im­perial City) yet it neither says, (as you would infer from it) that this was the sole and compleat reason, no nor the chief neither of Romes preheminence, but one a­mongst some others. Nor can it be understood to be the sole reason, without imputing a contradiction to the Council. For those Holy Fathers in their Epistle to St. Leo Pope affirm, Conc. Calced. in relat. ad Le­onem. That Dioscorus had extended his Felony against him to whom our Saviour had committed the charge and care of his vineyard, that is, the whole Catholique Church, when that wicked Heretick presu­med to excommunicate St. Leo. Now the true reason why this Canon mentions rather the Imperial Authority of that City, then the right from St. Peter was, because it suited better with the pretensions of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, and his complices, for the elevation of that Sea, then any other; because Constantinople had no other prevalent plea for its preheminence, save the Im­periality of Constantinople. Now that this reason of the Imperial seat at Rome, is no way exclusive of the right from S. Peter is evident from the conjoyning them together by the Emperors Theodosius and Va­lentinian in their Laws, made six years before the Council of Chalcedon, (whereof the Fathers of that [Page 101] Council cannot be supposed ignorant) where they say thus. V [...]de infra. Three things have established the Primacy of the Sea Apostolick the Merit of S. Pe­ter, who is the Prince of the Episcopal Society, the Dig­nity of the City, and Synodical Authority. Where the original and prime ground is the Merit of S. Peter; the other two are subsequent and subservient. For therefore the Imperial Throne is given as a reason, because St. Peter thought it convenient, that the Highest Spiritual Authority should be placed in that City, which had highest Temporal Power: as also Alexandria was anci­ently declared the second Patriarchate, by the Decree of the Nicene Council, because it was the second Seat in the Empire: and Antioch, which was the third, was likewise appointed to be the third Patriarchate; and other eminent Cities, according to their greatness and precedency in the Empire, had the dignity of Primacy and Metropolitane Seas: for by this means Church-go­vernment was more sweetly and peaceably instituted and maintained, both to the satisfaction of the Cities themselves, of the temporal Governours, and of spiri­tual Pastors.

It was (say you) not the Dignity and Authority of St. Peter, N [...]w S [...]ct. but the Merits of Vertue and Sanctity, which was alledged in h [...]se and [...]h [...] like Texts, as ground of the Supereminency of his Sea a [...] Rome; for still they press meritis Beati Petri (by the merits of St. Peter. I am glad to hear you, against your own Tenets, acknowledge merits of Saints to ha [...]e been delivered by the Authority of so great a stream of Anti­quity in these purer Ages: but it seems withal, you were sore press'd for an Answer, when you could find no other, but what is so disadvantageous to your Cause. And that which is yet worse, it cannot serve your turn neither. [Page 102] For if those Ancients mean't by merita B. Petri, the me­rits of his Sanctity, and grounded the Primacy of his Sea in them, it must have been undoubtedly known to them, that St. Peter was a greater Saint, and of a life more me­ritorious, then either S. Paul, or S. Iohn Evangelist, or S. Andrew, or any of the other Apostles; of which none of these had any certainty at all, much less was it a thing received in the Church, that S. Peter had a higher de­gree of Sanctity, then any of his fellow-Apostles: prove there was any such perswasion. Nay it would probably have been esteemed a temerity, a very great curiosity, to have preferr'd the sanctity of any one amongst them be­fore all the rest. But I wonder much, you observed not the manner of speaking of those holy Fathers and grave Authors, who give it clearly enough to be understood, what Merits they meant. For had they been of your opinion, they should have added by way of explication, Meritis Beati Petri, qui sanctissimus erat inter omnes Apostolos, (by the Merits of S. Peter, who was the holi­est amongst all the Apostles.) But to shew they un­derstood not that, but the Merits of Dignity and Authority, they usually add this clause, Meritis Be­ati Petri, qui Princeps est omnium Apostolorum, (by the Merits of S. Peter, who is the Prince of all the Apostles,) which speaks manifestly a merit, or worth, of Authori­ty. And it were very strange to regulate the Authority of Episcopal Seas by the personal merits of their first In­stitutors; both because that is (without an express re­velation) a thing known to God onely, and would oc­casion a thousand contentions about the precedency of Bishops; every one being desirous to esteem the Apo­stle of his City, or Nation, the greater Saint; and be­cause there never was, in Ancient times, any such rea­son given for the precedency of Episcopal, or Apostoli­cal [Page 103] Seas; (if there were, shew it) nor was any of the other Apostles successors preferred before the rest, upon pretence that his merits and sanctity was esteemed great­er then that of others.

Num. 61. But those Councils gave the Pope no prehe­minence over the Extra-Imperial Nations.

Num. 61. If he had it before, what needed they to give it him? or how could they give him what was due to him by Christs Institution? But supposing, Argu­mentandi gratiâ, not granting, that they had had power to confer these priviledges upon S. Peters Sea, how do you prove they did not de facto give them to him, and there­by gave him power over those Extra-Imperial Nations? You prove it thus.

Num. 62. For 1. Those Nations, being not called to the Council, could not be bound by it.

Num. 62. Were they not called? sure then they came without calling; for there they were. For had they not been there, how came the Bishops of Persia, of both the Armenia's, and Gothia (which were all out of the Empire) to subscribe to the first Council of Nice? Vide Act. Conc. Nicen. et Ephes. How came Phoebamnon, Bishop of the Copti, to subscribe to the first Council of Ephesus? How came that Circular Letter, writ by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesaria in Palestine, in the name of the Council, to be directed to all Bishops, and in parti­cular to the Churches through all Persia, and the great In­dia, [Page 104] if the Bishops of those Churches were not called, or the Council had no Authority over them? Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Mar. Victor. lib. 1. adv. Ari­um. Euseb. l. 3. de vit [...] Con­stannin. c. 7. Socrat. l. 1. c. 5. Lastly, if those Bishops were not called to the Council, why do Theodoret, Marianus, Victor, Eusebius, Socrates, all of them, affirm, that to the Council of Nice were called Bishops from all the Churches of Europe, Africa, and Asia? You will not forget to answer these questions in your next.

CHAP. IV.

Num. 63. The Emperours called, and en­forced the Councils, Non-proof 5. who had no power out of their Empire.

Num. 63. Called they them alone? had they not the Authority of the Roman Bishop joyn'd with them, or rather presuppos'd to theirs. Prove that the Emperours onely called them. What if they had no coercive power out of the Empire? had they not power to signifie to those Extra-Imperials, that a Council was to be celebra­ted; and to invite them at least to it? Or if they did not, could not the Bishop of Rome, or the other Patri­archs, under whose Jurisdiction they were respectively, notifie to them the celebration of those Councils, and require their presence in them? You cannot but see this.

Num. 64. The Dioceses are described, and expresly con­fined within the verge of the Empire; See both the descrip­tion and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesiâ. Gall.

Num. 64. I should much rather have had the De­scription from your self, then have been thus bobb'd off to Blondel, so laxely cited, without Page, Para­graph, [Page 106] Number, Chapter, or Book, as you cite him here; so that I must be enforced, if I will find it, to turn over his whole Treatise, a Book in Folio of 1268 Pages. Whatsoever therefore is of him (with whom I have no­thing to do for the present; for if I would answer every particular Author of yours, whom you cite as wildly as you do this Blondell, I might have work enough,) it is evident, that some Extra-Imperial Provinces were un­der the Ancient Patriarchs. And in the first place, con­cerning the Bishop of Rome, the 39 Canon of the Ni­cene Council, in the Arabick Edition published by Pi­sanus, (which I shall cite more particularly hereafter, and prove the Authenticalness of those Canons) affirms expresly, that the Roman Bishop, as being Christ's Vi­car, has power over all Christian Princes, and their people subject to them; Tom. 1. Conc. p. 416. and that he, as being the Vicar of Christ, is over all people, and all Christian Churches: and Can. 36. de­clares, that the Bishop of Alexandria has Jurisdiction over the Ethiopick Churches. And Can. 35. orders, that the Bishop of Antioch should have Authority over the Church of Persia, which was Extra-Imperial. And the Council of Chalcedon, Ibid. pag. 4 [...]5. Can. 28 th. so much extolled by you, gives to the Bi­shop of Constantinople Authority over the Barbarous Na­tions near those parts, that is, such as were Extra-Im­perial, as that of Russia, and Muscovia.

Num. 65. The Emperors themselves did sometime (gi­ving power to the Councils Acts) make Rome the chief; and sometime (as the Councils did also) give Constan­tinople equal priviledge; and sometime set Constanti­nople highest, as I have shewed in my Key, pag. 174, [Page 107] 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus, with respect to those without the Empire.

Num. 65. I will here give my Reader an assay of the solidity of your proofs, heaped confusedly one upon an­other in your Key: You cite in pag. 174, 175. Now pag. 174. you translate Pontifex, Pope, and summus Pontifex, chief Pope. Sure you never had this Transla­tion from any Grammarian, new or old. Who ever, before you, said that Pontifex signifies Pope? or what similitude is there betwixt Pontifex and Pope, save one­ly, that they both begin with the same Letter. When S. Paul saith, speaking of our Saviour, Ha­bemus Pontificem magnum, H [...]b. 4.14. would you tran­slate it, We have a great Pope? Or when he affirms, that he is Pontifex secundum ordinem Mel­chisedec, would you English it, H [...]b. 6.20. He is a Pope according to the order of Melchisedec. I alwayes thought, that Pontifex, or summus Pontifex, signified the highest sort of Priests, both in the Old Testament and the New, but never heard that it signified Pope be­fore. But you have some drift in this. Baronius, say you, in Martyrolog. Roman. April. 9. affirms, that all Bishops were stiled anciently, not onely Pontifices, but summi Pontifices, that is, say you, Popes, and chief Popes; to infringe thereby what some gather, (as you say) viz the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop, from this Title, of being stiled Summi Pontifices, chief Popes, say you, pag. 173. You should have done well to have told us, who those some were; and would have done so, had you writ like a Scholar. But I'le help you out for once. Bellarmin is one of that some you speak of, Lib. 2. de Pontif. Roman. cap. 31. sect. Quartum. But Bare­nius, say you, affirms that Title to have been attributed [Page 108] anciently to all Bishops; that's true too, if you take the Latin words; but not in that sense, wherein Bellarmin takes Summus Pontifex. For Baronius takes it for a chief Priest, and Bellarmin for the chiefest, or highest Priest, not onely in respect of simple Priests, who are in a rank below Bishops, and in relation to whom Bishops were anciently stiled summi Pontifices, such as were in the highest order of Priests; but absolutely in respect of all other Bishops in the Church. For Bellarmin, in proof of this Title, cites an Epistle of Pope Stephen, where the Bishop of Rome is stiled Summus omnium praesulum Pontifex, the highest Bishop of all Prelates, or Bishops. In the same sense he cites S. Gregory, and S. Bernard. And lastly the sixth Synod, which intitles him, Act. 18. in Sermon. Acclamatorio, Sanctissimum Patrem nostrum, & summum Papam, (their most holy Father, and most high Pope) that is, the highest of all Bishops, even over the Bishops of that Council. And though Baroni­us, cited by you, grant the bare words of summus Pon­tifex, as they signifie onely a chief Priest, were anci­ently given to all Bishops, yet in his Annals, Anno 215, & 216. num. 3. from the Title of Pontifex maximus, (the greatest, or highest Bishop) that is summus Ponti­fex in Bellarmins sense, he proves the eminent Authority of the Roman Bishop. Now this is worth the noting also, that you first take summus Pontifex for the chief Pope, in Bellarmins sense, and then prove that summus Pontifex, as it signifies not the chief Pope, but a chief Priest, as Baronius takes it, is no proof of his universal Authority.

In your second Paragraph you shew, that the Titles Papa, Dominus, Pater Sanctissimus, Beatissimus, Dei aman­tissimus, &c. were commonly given to all Bishops. Who confute you here? who ever said these Titles prove his Supremacy?

[Page 109]The like is of the Church of Rome, being called the mother of all Churches: Paraph. 3. for the term mother may be understood either in relation to the first origin▪ or fountain of Christanity, and in this sense Hierusalem is the mother Church; or in regard of authority and government, which a mother hath over her children. And in this sense the title of mother is attributed to the Roman Church, and proves evidently her a [...]thority over all Christian Churches. But is it not very handsome for you, first to affix the title of mother absolutely to the Roman Church, and then to infringe that title by saying the Church of Cesarea, (out of S. Basil) is the mother of all Churches in a manner. Would you think it a rational answer, if one should prove your mother had au­thority to correct you by vertue of the title of mother; Fallacy 10. you should answer, that the ti­of mother proves nothing, for your elder sister was as a mother to you in a manner, though she had no authority over you: Is not not this a plain Fallacy, from simplici­ter to secundum quid?

In your fourth Paragraph you say, If the words be consulted where the Roman Church is stiled mater Ec­clesiarum, (mother of all Churches) for thats her title, they signifie only priority of dignity, that is, without au­thority and jurisdiction over all Churches joyned to that dignity. And this you never go about to prove, so irre­fragable is your authority, that your bare word must passe for a proof. I wonder you have the heart to spend paper in such groundless Parergons.

In your fifth, you first call those marks of flattery, for giving the title of Vniversal Bishop to Pope Leo, which the whole Council of Chalcedon approved, and read publikely; and therefore must all have concurred with flatterers, and yet in the next line you affirm, that by the [Page 110] title of universal, they meant no more then the Bishop, which in order of dignity is above the rest; and that you confess, belongs as due to the Roman Bishop: how then account you them flatterers, when they give the Pope no more then his due? Either therefore they were no flat­terers; and then you injure them in branding those ho­ly venerable persons with so black a note; or they meant more then you would have them mean by universal Bi­shop; and then you speak untruly, in putting a false gloss upon their words; chuse which you please, you contradict your self.

And you are as consonant to your self in instancing, that many particular Churches are oft called Catholick; What then? Ergo, the Title of Archbishop of the Catholick Church, or the Vniversal Bishop, proves not the Popes Supremacy: Draw these two toge­ther if you can. Yes, there is a difference, say you next, between a Catholick Church, and the Catholick Church. There is so, but what of that? Then will you say, if you say any thing, there must be a difference betwixt an Archbishop of a Catholick Church, and the Archbishop of the Catholick Church: Thats true too. But see you not that this discourse quite overthrows yours; for you say not that the title, whose sequel you infringe is, that the Pope is called an Archbishop of a Catholick Church, for so is every Orthodox Archbishop as well as the Pope, but that he is called the Archbishop of the Catholick Church: These are your precise words. No [...] say you, that we stile him an universal, or Catholick Bishop, for so are all lawfull Bishops, but that we stile him the universal Bishop. It seems you have two hands, and those so contrary one to the other that what the one builds, the other pulls down. Then you say, the Bishop of Constantinople had that title given him in a Council [Page 111] at Constantinople, Anno 518. But was that Council re­ceived as publickly without contradiction in the Church, as this Epistle was received without contradiction in the Council of Chalcedon? Was not that Constantinopolitan Council condemned both by S. Gregory and his Prede­cessor, as S. Gregory witnesses in his Epistle against Iohn of Constantinople? and can you name any who in the Council of Chalcedon condemned the title given to Leo in that Epistle, read in the Council of Chalcedon? The truth is, you care not much what you write, so you make a noise.

This done you alledge Iustin. Codex. de Episcopis l. 1. lege 24. that is, the First Law, the four and twentieth Law: a learned citation, if yours, and not the Printers oversight in printing L. for T. for it should be Tit. 2. (not 1.) lege 24. You cite him thus, Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum caput (the Church of Constan­tinople is the Head of all other Churches) whence you prove, that Iustinian prefers the Church of Constanti­nople before the Church of Rome: Surely you never read this Law of Iustinian: for had you read it, you would have found, by his mentioning there certain Ecclesiasti­cal Officers called Chartularii, belonging to the Cathe­dral Church, that he speaks there only of the great Pa­triarchal Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, and makes it the Head of all other Cathedral Churches in that Patriarchate, and not of the politick body of the Constantinopolitan Church, in regard of all other Chri­stian Churches in the world: And your very Concession here concludes, that he prefers not the Constantinopoli­tan in your sense, before that of Rome; for you acknow­ledge he prefers Rome before it: For all know that Iu­stinians Laws were so prudently couched and ordered, that such palpable contradictions as these were never no­ted [Page 112] by any Classick Authors to be inserted into them. But whilst you thus take Authors upon trust, hand over head, no marvel, if you make more haste then good speed, in posting out one Book after another.

Presently upon this you fall upon a Story concerning Vigilius and Iustinian, and by that you prove nothing. For Iustinian might both hold the Bishop of Rome was Head of all the holy Prelates of God, as he intitles him, C. l. 1. tit. 2. l. 7. and yet persecute him, and abuse him, to draw him to subscribe to what he desired, as ma­ny Emperors since Iustinian have done, who notwith­standing beleeved and professed constantly the universal Supremacy of the Roman Bishop: For when they are injurious to particular Popes, their spleen is not against the Sea or dignity of the Roman Bishop, but against this or that person, who is actually in possession of it. Thus Iustinianus junior endeavoured all he could, even by force and violence, to draw Pope Sergius to sub­scribe to the Trullane Cannons, though he could not effect it: Nay, had you drawn a natural sequel from such proceedings, it should rather have been, That Iustinia­nus senior therefore proceeded so violently against Vi­gilius, to induce him to subscribe to the condemnation of the Tria capitula, decreed in the fifth Council, be­cause he esteemed him to be of so eminent power, that it would never have been universally received as a lawful General Council without his Subscription to it, and con­firmation of it; which was the reason that moved Iusti­nianus junior to press Sergius so forcibly to subscribe to that in Trullo.

Thus I have given a brief Survey of what you cite p. 174, 175. in your Key, whence may be collected what your manner of writing is in that loose Treatise; since in little more then in one sole page, occasionally [Page 113] light upon, I have discovered no lesse then two Equivocations, three Fallacies, four false Translations, three In­consequences, one Mistake, and two Contradictions. Yet were such defects now and then only to be met with in your Book, it were something tolerable; but such as read it attentively finde it swarmes all over with them, and is indeed nothing but a Farrago of Fallacies and Falsities, heap'd one upon another throughout the whole Tract: Pardon me, if I have been more bold with you in answering this passage of your Key, then in what you have writ against me: for I neither find you so mainly defective in that, as in this other; and where you are so, I labour to smother what I can, that I may not seem to be too severe with you in my own concern.

What you say in this Paragraph by way of Parenthe­sis, That the Emperors gave power to the Councils Acts, if you mean, they gave any spiritual Authority, by force of Vote or Suffrage to them, you neither have prov'd it, nor can prove it: if you mean, they gave only a coer­cive power, for the external Observation of those de­crees, which by vertue of the Councils Authority, ob­liged all Christians to assent to them, you say true, but nothing against us.

Num. 66. But what say you now to the contrary? Why 1. You ask, Were those Primitive Christians of another kinde of Church Order and Government, then were those under the Roman Empire? Answ. When the whole body of Church-History satisfieth us, that they were not subject to the Pope, Non-proof. 6. which is the thing in que­stion, is it any weakning of such evidence, in a matter of such publick fact, to put such a question [Page 114] as this, Whether they were under another kinde of Go­vernment?

Num. 66. I have now shewed that Church-Histo­ry is so far from proving what you say, that it proves the quite contrary; and had it been otherwise, why ci­ted you not here some one Ecclesiastical Historian (see­ing I prest you to it in my second Paper in confirmati­on of your Assertion? My question therefore is of force, and stands unsatisfied, till you prove what you say here.

Num. 67. We know they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own, and so far their government was of the same kind.

Num. 67. It could not be of the same kinde; for those under the Empire acknowledged themselves sub­ject to the Roman Sea, as they were parts of the Ca­tholick Church; which whole Catholick Church they profest to be subject to that Sea; and consequently all the true parts of it, as shall appear, when I come to the justification of my proofs; whereby all this whole Pa­ragraph of yours will be enervated.

Num. 68. You say that, how far from truth this is, appeareth from S. Leo, in his Sermons, De Natali Suo, where he sayes, Sedes Roma Petri quicquid non possidet armis, religione tenet. Reply, If you take your religion on trust, as you do your Authorities, that are made your ground for it, and bring others to it, [Page 115] when you are deceived your selves, how will you look Christ in the face, when you must answer for such temerity? Leo hath no Sermons de natali suo, but only one Sermon affixed to his Sermons, lately found in an old Book of Nicol▪ Fabers. And in that Sermon there is no such words as you alledge. Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons; nor there hath any such words, as might occasion your mistake; and therefore doubtless you beleeved some body for this that told you an untruth, and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth.

Num. 68. How this citation came under the name of S. Leo, I really know not: My Authentical Copie writ­ten in my own hand (which I have shewed to some of credit, and am ready to shew it you, or any one, who shall desire to be satisfied) hath no such citation; nor can I learn how it crept into the Paper which was sent you, if it were not by the addition of a confident friend who writ out part of my Reply, in whose hand-writing I find it: and I my self being out of Town when my Reply was sent, out of a desire to comply with your request for a speedy Answer, it was sent away in my ab­sence, so that it could not be perused by me, which is in­sinuated sufficiently in the end of my paper, where I desire you to excuse what errors you finde in the Copie which I sent. Baxter p. 100. But however, there is only a nominal error, in citing St. Leo for St. Prosper, who is something ancienter then St. Leo, and lesse to be excepted against by you, then he; as being wholly dis­interessed in that matter of the Popes Supremacy. Now this Text of St. Prosper is so notoriously known amongst Scholars, and so usually cited Authors, that I [Page 116] wonder you perceived not, that it was a mistake in the name only, and that the Text it self was true and reall, nay much more forcible against your new invention, then as it stands cited in my Paper. For whereas it is imperfectly quoted there, and much more weakly, as you printed it (I suppose by an error of the Printer, though I find it not amongst the Errata) where it hath neither force nor sense (for you print almis for armis) whereas I say it is there cited thus, Sedes Roma Petri, quicquid non possidet armis religione tenet. ( Rome the Sea of Peter, whatsoever it possesses not by force of Arms, it possesses by means of religion) the Text of St. Prosper hath it thus, Sedes Roma Petri, quae Pasto­ralis honoris facta caput mundo, D. Pro [...]er. Carm. de I [...] g [...]atis. qu [...]cquid non possidet armis religione tenet. ( Rome, the Seat of Peter, being made Head of Pa­storal honour to the world, possesses by means of Religi­on, whatsoever it possesses not by force of arms. Thus St. Prosper. And to the same effect in another place, he affirms, D [...] vocat. Gent. lib. 2. c. 6. That the principality of the A­postolick Priesthood hath made Rome great­er through the Tribunal of Religion, then through that of the Empire. New Sect. But that you may see the whole force of this Text of S. Prosper, is emphatically also delivered by S. Leo, though not in Verse, yet (as it seems) alluding to these Verses of St. Prosper, (for he uses the same expressions, which I won­der you marked not, in perusing his Sermons) in these words, making [...]n Apostrophe to the City of Rome, and relating to St. Peter and St. Paul. Isti sunt qui te ad hanc gloriam provexerunt, ut gens sancta, populus electus, S. Le [...], Serm. 1. de Natal. Apo­stol. Petr. & Paul. civitas sacerdotalis & regia, per sa­cram beati Petri sedem caput orbis effecta, latius praesideres religione divina, quam do­minatione [Page 117] terrenâ. Quamvis enim multis aucta victori­is jus imperii tui terrâ mari (que) protuleris, minus tamen est, quod tibi bellicus labor subdidit, quam quod pax Christiana subjecit. (These, viz. S. Peter and S. Paul, are they, who have elevated thee to this heighth of glo­ry, that thou shouldst be a holy Nation, an elect Peo­ple, a Priestly and Kingly City, that being made Head of the World, by the Seat of Blessed Peter, thou shouldst have a larger command by means of Divine Religion, then terrene Domination. For though▪ being a [...]gmented by many victories, thou h [...]st extended thy Empire through Sea and Land, yet it is less, which warlike la­bour brought under thy command, then what Christian peace hath subjected to thee.) And to the same effect the same S. Leo writes to Anastasius Bishop of Thessa­lonica, telling him, That the great order of the Church instituted some one in eve­ry Province, S Leo. epist 82. ad A [...]st [...]sium Epis [...]. [...]hess [...]. to have power over the rest, and that such as were seated in the more ample and noble Cities, should have power over such, as were in particular Provinces; by means whereof the care of the Vniversal Church (n. b.) might flow to the Sea of Peter. Mark well, he says not the care of the Churches within the Empire, as you do; but the care of the Universal Church.

Num. 69. Yet let me tell you, that I will take Pope Leo for no competent Iudge, or Witness though you call him a Saint: as long as we know what passed between him and the Council of Chalcedon, Non-proo [...] [...]. and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome, he shall not be Iudge in his own Cause.

[Page 118]

Num. 69. Sir, I am really mov'd to compassionate you, when I see you write in this manner. Had it not been enough for you to extenuate the Authority of the Holy Council, as you here do, but that you must, as the Chalcedonian Council sayes of Dioscorus, extend your spite against him (that is S. Leo) to whom our Saviour hath committed the care of the Vineyard, to wit, his whole Church? Who ever before you, and those No­vellists of your spirit, since the time of S. Leo, branded him with the black note of a Tumified Pope? Was it not this great S. Leo, of whom the Council of Chalce­don pronounced, that the care of Christ's Vineyard was committed to him by our Saviour? V [...]de Concil [...]um Calced. in lite­ris ad Leonem. Was it not he, who was stiled by the Ecclesiasticks of those times, The Oecumenical Bishop? Did not that holy Council call him, their Head? their Father? their Directour? and you fear not to call him a Tumified Pope. I beseech God to forgive you. And what, I pray, past betwixt him and the Council of Chalcedon, which might occasion this rash censure? Read his Epistles to the Council, and to Anastas [...]us Bishop of Thessalonica, and you will see, it was nothing but the zeal of conserving the Au­thority of the Nicene Council, in the Order and Digni­ty of Patriarch [...], which moved him to withstand that surreptitious Canon for the preferring Constantinople be­fore Alexandria, and Antioch; to which the Nicene Council had decreed the two first Patriarchates, after Rome. The Primacy of his Sea was not questioned at all in that Canon: for it is there expresly ordained, that Constantinople should be the second after Rome. Now for you to call him a Tumified Bishop, for no other rea­son, [Page 119] given here, then for seeking to maintain the Anci­ent Decrees of Nice, against all innovations of subse­quent Councils, will seem very strange, I suppose, to all Christian Readers.

Num. 70. But you add, that the Abassines of Ethio­pia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently, and he under the Authority of the Roman Bishop. Reply. 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us, that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alex­andria, for above three hundred, if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it, and then your words are regardable.

Num. 70. Why say you, I speak without proof, when I direct you ( pag. 42.) by saying as we shall see present­ly, to my proof of it; which is pag. 45. where I prove it from one of your own Historians.

Num. 71.2. At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Canon. Mos antiquus perdurat in Egypto, vel Lybia, vel Pentapoli, ut Alexandrinus E­piscopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, &c.

Num. 71. Your argument is fallacious, and proceeds a parte ad totum. The Canon sayes no more, then that, according to the ancient custome, Egypt, Lybia, Can. Nicen. [...]. 6. and Pentapolis were subject to him: which may be most true, though more Provinces were under his Jurisdiction then these. Should one say, that England and Scotland is now subject to our most [Page 120] gracious Soveraign, Charles the Second, durst you con­clude thence, that Ireland was not part of his King­dome. Nor was it here the intention of the Council, to nominate expresly all the Provinces under Alexandria; nor to make a new Constitution, but a Decree of Con­firming the Ancient Custome about the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs. Now seeing Meletius and his Complices, had schismatically exercised Jurisdiction in those Pro­vinces, the Council, to abrogate that intrusion and usur­pation, had a particular occasion of nominating these three, thereby to restore the Ancient Right to the Sea of Alexandria, leaving the other parts of that Patriarchate (about which there was no controversie) to the anci­ent custome, without nomination of par­ticulars; as it did in relation to Anti­och, Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Theodor. l. 1. c. 9. Conc. Nicen. Can. 6. where none at all are nominated in that Canon, because there was no such occasion given of nominating any, but leaving that Patriarch to that extent of Jurisdiction over those Provinces and Churches, which he was known in those times, to have possessed anciently. Moreover some of the Learned are of opinion, that under the name of Egypt, Ethiopia is included. And it seems probable, that Egypt was a denomination including many other particular Countreys and Provinces in those parts; for the Constantinopolitane Council, c. 2. citing this 6 th. Ca­non of Nice, says that it was decreed in that Canon, that the Patriarch of Alexandria should govern onely the af­fairs of Egypt, neither naming Lybia, nor Pentapolis, which are specified in that Nicene Canon, so that Egypt included all the adjacent Countreys in those parts, and consequently Ethiopia.

[Page 121]

Num. 72. And the common descriptions of the Alex­andrian Patriarchate, in those times, confine it to the Em­pire, and leave out Ethiopia.

Num. 72. You should have done well, to have cited some Authors, one at least, in proof of this, seeing I had cited one, and he of your own, who says the contrary. Ross. p. 99. in­fra cita [...]. When you produce those Descriptions, they shall be answer­ed. In the Interim I stand to my Assertion, as not yet disproved.

Num. 73. Pisanus new inventions we regard not.

Num. 73. The question is not what you regard, or regard not; but what you ought to regard according to right Reason. I doubt not, but Dr. Heylin hath the esteem of a person as much indued with Learning and Reason, as your self; who hath so much regard to Pisa­nus his Edition of the Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council, Canon 36. A­rab. Edit. Dr. Heylin. Cos­mograph. lib. 4. pag. 977. Edit. ultim. that he cites them as Authenti­cal, and thereon grounds the subjection of Ethiopia to the Patriarch of Alexan­dria, to have been confirmed in the Council of Nice, and continued so ever since. Behold Ross and Heylin, (both your own) are against you.

CHAP. V.

[Page 123]

Num. 74. I deny, that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome, any more then the Iury are under the Foreman; or the Iunior Iustices on the Bench under the Senior; or York under London; or the other Earls of England, under the Earl of Arundel.

Num. 74. I perceive you are very free in your deni­als; but it had been well done, to have considered twice, before you deny once, a thing so evidently true as this is. Was the Patriarch of Alexandria no more under the Bishop of Rome, then those, which you here nominate, one under the other? Are you serious? Why then did the Christians of Pentapolis write their ac­cusations to Dionysius Bishop of Rome against Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria? Anno 263. S. Anthanas. de Sentent. Dionys. Idem in Com. de Synod. Why did the same Pope, calling a Coun­cil in Italy for that end, sit in solemn Judgement upon his Cause, and write Monitory Letters to him, to send him the Confession and Declaration of his Faith; which he did accordingly, and justified himself to the Bishop of Rome? How came Peter Bishop of Alexandria, Anno 337. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30. by ver­tue of Pope Damasus his Letters, to be re­stored to his Bishoprick? Why writ The­ophilus Bishop of Alexandria, Anno 404. Apud Pallad [...] Dialog. to prevent the writing of S. Chrysostome, to Pope In­nocentius, in his own defence, that he might escape the sentence and punishment of the Churches censure, which S. Chrysostome required the [Page 124] Pope to inflict upon him, and his complices? Why did Innocentius the First, together with the other Occidental Bishops, Anno 407. D. Chrysost. e­pist. ex Septem. Tom. 5. operum ejus. Extat eti­am Tom. 1. epist. Rom. Pont. post Innoc [...]nt. ep. 16. Anno 451. excommuni­cate Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria? How came Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alex­andria, to be deprived from sitting in the Council of Chalcedon, and to be presented before the Council, as a guilty person, by vertue of a Sentence to that effect, from S. Leo, Bishop of Rome? Concil. Chalced. Act. 1. Evagr. lib. 2. cap. 4. What was the reason, why Timotheus Solopaciolus craved pardon of Pope Simplicius, for reciting the name of Dioscorus at the holy Altar, compelled to it, as he affirms, by the Eutychians? What reason had Pope Simplicius to write objurgatory Letters to Acacius, because in a matter of so great moment, as was the restitution of Petrus Mogus, the Eutychian, to the Sea of Alexandria, and the exclu­sion of Ioannes Talaida a Catholick, Simplic [...]us e­pist. 17. Ca­nonically elected to that Sea? Or why writ those of Alexandria to Pope Simplicius, Anno 483. to intreat him to confirm the election and instalment of Ioannes Talaida? What moved Ioannes Talaida to procure Commendatory Letters to Simplici­us from Calendion Bishop of Antioch, to favour his Ap­peal against Petrus Mogus, and Acacius? and why did Felix, Successor to Simplicius, with a Western Council, wherein he presided, send a Writ, by way of Citation, to Acacius, to answer in the Judicature of Rome, to the Objections made against him by the said Iohn? And why writ Felix to Zeno, the Emperour, to compel Acacius to appear, Liberat. cap 18. Evagr. l. 3. c. 18 & s [...]q. and answer to his Adversaries at Rome? And why was Petrus Fullonis condemn'd for having [Page 125] been intruded, Cod. Cresc [...]ni, and Collect. re­cusa. apud Ba­ronium. Tom. 61 Liberat. c. 1 [...]. with exclusion of the law­full Bishop Calendion, into the Sea of An­tioch? And why writ Acacius himself to Felix, Bishop of Rome, to confirm his condemnation of Petrus Gnapheus, and Ioannes Bishop of Apamea?

Nor will your usual Solution to my subsequent Ob­jections serve your turn. For it appears evidently in the form used in Excommunications and Condemnati­ons from Rome, they were, not onely Declarations that the Bishop of Rome, and his Bishops, substracted them­selves from communicating with them (which, say you, any Christian may do) but a positive ejection of them out of the Church, and from the Communion of all faithfull Christians. Thus runs the Excommunication and Condemnation of Acacius, Bishop of Christantino­ple, and his adherents, the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, given out against them by Pope Felix. Habe ergo cum his quos libenter amplecteris, portionem ex sen­tentiâ praesenti. Sacerdotali honore & Communione Catho­licâ, necnon etiam à fidelium numero segregatus, sublatum tibi munus Ministerii Sacerdotalis agnosce, Sancti Spiritus judicio & Apostolicâ authoritate damnatus, nunquam (que) Anathematis vinculis exuendus. (Receive therefore thy portion, with those, whom thou so willingly embra­cest, by vertue of this sentence. Thou art separated from Priestly Honour, from Catholick Communion, and from the number of the Faithfull. Know that thou art depri­ved of Name and Ministery of a Priest, being condemn­ed by the judgement of the Holy Ghost, and by Aposto­lical Authority, never to be loosed from the bonds of this Anathema.) See here, 1. A positive exclusion from the number and communion of the Faithfull. 2. A deposition from Priesthood, or being Bishop. 3. That this is done, [Page 126] not by way of counsel, but of authority, authoritate A­postolicâ, it was done by the Popes Apostolical Autho­rity. 4. That this judgement of the Apostolick Sea is attributed to the Holy Ghost. And lastly, That the Pope exercises this high authority over the three chiefest and highest Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constan­tinople, at the same time. From which it will hereafter sufficiently appear, how groundlesse your Answers are to my Objections. But to proceed.

Nor yet can you alledge (as you do to some of my proofs) that these were unlawful, and unjust proceedings. For first, The matter of the sentence was not unjust, those being Hereticks, Schismaticks, Intruders and Usurpers, against whom the sentence was decreed: and that it was not unjust, as proceeding from one who had no authori­ty to inflict such a punishment, is clear: For neither did the Catholick, nor Orthodox Christians, no nor those very Schismaticks, who were thus censur'd by Felix, pretend any thing against the power of his Authority o­ver them; and if any such plea were used by them, let it be evidenced out of authentical Authors in or about those times. Now to your discourse, if either the Fore­man of a Jury, or the Senior Justice upon the Bench, or the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, or the first Earl of England should pronounce a penal sentence against those, who respectively are inferiour only in place and precedency to themselves, would it not be judged profoundly ridiculous?

Num. 75. But if both these were proved, that Ethiopia was under Alexandria, and Alexandria under Rome, I deny the consequence, that Ethiopia was under Rome: for Alexandria was under Rome, but secundum quid, [Page 127] and so far as it was within the Empire; and therefore those without the Empire, Non-proof 8. that were under Alexandria, were not therefore under Rome.

Num. 75. Your ground is untrue, for I have proved Alexandria to have been absolutely and totally under Rome, in the example of Dionysius, Anno 263. which was before the conversion of Constantine, and before any Council through the whole Empire could be assem­bled: and that in the Nicene Council, there was no restriction of that Patriarchal Sea to the Precincts of the Empire; Con. Nicen. cap. 6. nor of the Roman Sea to Alexandria, as comprehending only the Imperial Provinces; prove any such limitation was made there. Now if before the Council of Nice, and before the Church was under Christian Emperors, Rome had such power over Alexandria, &c. and that proceeded not from the Institution of Christ, shew (as you are obli­ged) when, how, and by whom that power was given to it in those times.

Num. 76. And if it could (as it never can) be pro­ved of Abassia, what is that to all the other Churches in India, Persia, and the re rest of the World?

Num. 76. Yes, 'tis very much; for it sounds an Ar­gument à paritate rationis, that seeing no considerable reason can be given, why one Extra-Imperial Province should be subject to Rome more then all the rest, if one be proved subject, all others must be supposed to be so, unless some particular reason can be alledged why this [Page 128] was subject more then the rest. For till that be done, there can no reason be given, why any of the Extra-Im­perial Churches were subject to the Roman Bishops, save this, that he was Governour over all the Churches and Bishops in the world, and consequently as much over all Extra-Imperial, as over all Imperial Churches.

Num. 77. Sir, If you have impartially read the An­cient Church-History, and yet can beleeve, that all these Churches were then under the Pope, despair not of bring­ing your self to beleeve any thing imaginable, that you would have to be true.

Num. 77. 'Tis your pleasure to say so. I shall be mo­ved to beleeve you, when you convince 'me by reason: but your bare word without reason, Non-proof 9. has no poise at all with me, nor I think with any one, who is led by reason.

Num. 78. Your next Question is, When the Roman Emperors were yet Heathens, had not the Bishops of Rome Supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church? Answ. No, they had not; nor in the Em­pire neither. Prove it, I beseech you better then by que­stioning. If you askt, Whether men rule not Angels? Your Question proves not the Affirmative.

Num. 78. I do not nakedly ask the Question, but prove what I say by an Instance, as you presently ac­knowledge.

[Page 129]

Num. 79. But you ask again, Did those Heathen Em­perours give it him? Answ. 1. Power, over all the Churches none ever gave him, till titularly his own Pa­rasites of late. 2. Primacy of meer degree in the Empire, for the dignity and many advantages of the Imperial seat, the Bishops of the Empire gave him by consent (Blondel de Primatu, gives you the proof and reason at large) yet so, as that small regard was had to the Church of Rome, before the Nicen Council, as saith your Aeneas Silvius, Pope Pius the second.

Num 79. But I have now proved the power and Au­thority of the Roman Bishop to be over all Nations, that were Christian, in the instances given above. If therefore the power he had were given him by the Em­perors, they must have given him power over all Churches; which no Emperor could do, as having no Authority over Extra-Imperial Churches. Whence follows evidently, the power he had could not have been given him by the Emperours. And as little could that of precedency even over the Empire, have been given him before the Nicene Council by the Bishops within the Empire, for there is no step in antiquity of any such gift, and if there be, shew when, and by whom it was first given him. Nor, were that admitted, would it satisfie the difficulty, for the Bishop of Rome had pre­cedency not only over all the Bishops within the Em­pire, but through the whole Christian world, for so is Blondel forced to acknowledge, page 14. and page 528. I would gladly have some evident proof from Antiquity, that the word Primacy, put absolutely or [Page 130] alone, [...], or Primate, in the Ecclesiastical signi­fication, signified a precedencie, only of meer degree, or place, and not a true Authority and Jurisdiction over those, in relation to whom one is said to have primacy, or [...]o be Primate. Run over all those who had the dig­nity of Primate in ancient times, and name any one, who in vertue of that Primacy had not true Ecclesiasti­cal Authority over others, in relation to whom he had that Primacy. Do not both yours and ours, think they defend and oppose sufficiently the Roman Bishops Au­thority, asserted by Catholicks, when they call it in La­tine Primatus Romani Pontificis, the Primacy of the Roman Bishop? Has not Bellarmine and Stapleton of ours, Whitaker, Chamler, and Blondel of yours, with ma­ny others, disputed that question largely, under the name of Primatus or Primacy? Blondel, p. 527. acknowledges this to be the common and ordinary signification, and produces one only instance, where primacie is taken for precedency of place onely, and there it is not put ab­solutely, but with this Adjunct, Primacy of honour by age, Primance d'honeur par l'age. Should you affirm, that the Bishop of Canterbury in quality of Primate, had only a meer primacy of degree, or locall precedency, and no authority conferred upon him by force of his primacy, had he not reason to be highly offended with you? See­ing therefore in the Council of Chalcedon, reciting the forenamed Canon of Nice, it is affirmed, that the Sea of Rome had ever the Primacy, Ecclesia Roma­na s [...]mper ha­buit primatum. and seeing no adjunct or limitation is gi­ven there, that the word Primacy is not ta­ken in the usual Ecclesiastical signification, to wit, for a primacy in authority and jurisdiction, it must be un­derstood in the usual signification. There was indeed anciently a precedency of place, amongst the other Pa­triarchs, [Page 131] Primates, and Metropolitans, but were any of them, for that reason termed their Primates, or said to have Primacy, in relation to those before whom they sate in the Councils, or before whom they took place in all publick Assemblies? You will not fail, I hope to bring such clear Instances in your next Reply, as are here demanded of you. You cite me here Blondel, and Aeneas Silvius so confusedly, without Book, Chapter, Page or Column, that I think it not worth my pains to spend time in seeking them: if they have any thing worth your citing, or satisfactory to what here I say, either set it clearly down in your next, or give me some clear means to know what you stand upon in those two Authors.

Num 80. Whether the Bishop of Rome had power over the Bishop of Arles, Fallacy 11. by the Heathen Emperors, is a frivolous question. Arles was in the Roman Patriarchate, and not out of the Empire. The Churches in the Empire might by consent dispose themselves into the Patriarchal Orders, Non-proof. 10 with­out the Emperors, and yet not meddle out of the Empire.

Num. 80. You proceed Sophistically, à possibili ad actum. The Question is not, What the Bishops might have done, but what they did. Now you affirm, they did form themselves into Patriarchates by free consent, make it appear to have been so, by Authentical Testimo­nies from Antiquity. I bring you proofs that their subjection to him, was out of that most publick Tradi­tion, that he was successor to S. Peter. Vide infra. Bring me as many that he was made Patriarch of the [Page 132] West, before Constantines time, by force of free con­sent of the Western Bishops under the Empire. Is it not a plain Paradox to affirm, that a thing should be done by publick consent of a thousand Bishops, through the whole Western Church, and yet there should be no one step of proof, no word of any Historian for it in all Antiquity?

Num. 81. Yet indeed Cyprians words intimate no power Rome had over Arles, more then Arles had over Rome: that is to reject Communion with each other upon dissent.

Num. 81. S. Cyprians words shall be examined here­after in their proper place.

CHAP. VI.

Num. 82. Nay, it more confuteth you, that even under Heathen Emperours, when Church-associations were by voluntary consent of Pastors only; and so if they had thought it necessary, Non-proof 11. they might have extend­ed them to other Principalities yet de fa­cto they did not do it, as all History of the Church de­clareth, mentioning their Councils and Associations, with­out these taken in.

Num. 82. Where are your proofs? I deny any such consent to be extant in Antiquity; nor could those Pro­vincial, or Nationall Councils call the Extra-Imperials to sit with them; because they were only of the Pro­vinces, which were within the Empire; and had no Autho­rity without the precincts of their respective Churches. Now you will give me leave to discover the weakness and inconsistency of your Novelty, about the first four [Page 134] General Councils having had no power without the Empire. First, the very ^a Titles of the Councils them­selves confute you; where they are called [...], that is, universal, or General. Nor can you say, that is meant onely through the Empire; for you hotly con­tend, that the word [...], (universal) is extend­ed to all Christians through the whole world. Part. 2. Secondly, ^b they call themselves General. Thirdly, the Canons, Decrees, Definitions are General, without any limitation more to the Empire, then to any other part of the world, as is clear out of all the Canons and De­crees themselves. Fourthly, Historians of all Ages call them Oecumenical, or General, and never intimate any Imperial limitation; if they do, produce the Historian, that calls them National, or Imperial Councils. Fifth­ly, the whole Christian world, ever since their times, have esteemed them General, and to have had an obli­gatory power and authority over all Christians. Sixthly, the holy Fathers, ^c who speak of them, stile them Ge­neral Oecumenical, plenary, yea plenissima, &c. ^d Se­venthly, Protestant Authors (so far as I can see) before [Page 135] you esteemed them General, without any limitation; and if you can cite any, who say the contrary, I pray do it. ^e Eighthly, the very Statute-Books of England, since Protestant times, call them General. ^f Ninthly, your 39 Articles call them General; and the Fa­thers, ^g when they call them General, they distinguish them also from Provincial, or National Councils, Tenthly, ^h Orthodox Writers commonly affirm, that what they define is the Definition of the Catholick Church. ⁱ All who resist their Definitions in matter of Faith, have ever since been universally branded with the note of Hereticks, whether they were within, or without the Empire. ^k Extra-Imperial Provinces and Churches have anciently, and do yet subscribe to them. Lastly, [Page 136] not onely all kind of Authority, but plain reason, over­throws this your Novelty.

For first, the end, why these Councils were gathered, was to procure peace amongst Christians, not in the Em­pire onely, but through the whole Catholick Church, and to put a final period to the controversies defined in them, as appears from the Authorities now cited out of S. Austin. Now if the Extra-Imperial Nations had not been obliged by those Definitions, the controversies had still continued among them, as much as if no such Defi­nition had been made. Secondly, if any desired to em­brace still the Heresies condemned in them, it was but conferring themselves to the Extra-Imperial Churches, and they had freedome in conscience from their former obligation, as not being bound there to subscribe to the Councils Decrees. So that every obstinate Heretick might shake off these Decrees at his pleasure. Third­ly, if any Nation, or Province, should have been by force of Arms won from the Empire, which was under it in time of these Councils, they would ipso facto have been freed from obeying the Decrees, and beleeving the Doctrine of these Councils. Fourthly, if on the con­trary any Extra-Imperial Nation had been reduced un­der the Empire, eo ipso, it would have contracted an ob­ligation to conform to the Decrees of the said Councils; so that Christian belief should have depended on the for­tune of War. Fifthly, if your assertion were true, it would follow, that now de facto neither Spain, France, Italy, England, Denmark, Swethland, Poland, nor any of the Eastern Churches are obliged to subscribe to the Nicene Council, (and the same is of the rest) other­wise then of their free choice, ever since they were from under the command of the Empire. Nay hence will follow, that even those of Germany, by reason that [Page 137] is another Empire, instituted independently of that in those ancient times; and consequently, that no Christian Churches in the world, have any obligation successively descending down to them, of obeying and following the Decrees of the four First General Councils. My last rea­son is, that those Extra-Imperial Christians, who embra­ced the Heresies condemned in any one of those Coun­cils, never alledged this reason of yours, that those Coun­cils had no power to oblige them, because they were not under the Empire: and I pray you, in your next, pro­duce any such reason, authentically testified, to have been alledged by them.

Num. 83. See now, how little your objections are worth; and how groundlesly you bid me, See now how little my Allegations are to the purpose.

Num. 83. Now you will have seen, which proofs (your or mine) have been more to the purpose.

Num 84. As for the rabble of Hereticks, which you reckon up, (as you esteem them) some of them are no Christians univocally so called, and those cannot be of the Christian Church.

Num. 84. You would have given better satisfaction to your Reader, if amongst all the Sectaries particula­ris'd by me ( pag. 43. in your Book) which were to the number of eighteen, you had determined, which of them you had esteemed Christians univocally so called, and which not: but whilest you leave him thus in obscurity, telling him onely, that some of them were not univocal [Page 138] Christians, and not telling him which some you mean, I believe he will have little satisfaction. Yet by justify­ing the latter part, that is, almost one half of them, in your next ensuing words, and excusing some of the rest, Baxt. p. 48. he may gather, that you account Montanists, Donatists, Nestorians, Eutychians, Iconoclasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Albigenses, Wickliffists, and Hussites, Univocal Christians; and consequently true parts of the Catholick Church, in your Principles.

Num. 85. Others of them were better Christians, then the Romanists, and so were of the same Church with us: And it is not many reproachfull names put on them by ma­lice, that makes them no Christians, or of many Church­es, or Religions. If an arrogant Usurper will put Nick­names on all, that will not bow to him as Vice-Christ, and call them Iconoclasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Al­bigenses, Wickliffists, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, (you may as well give a thousand more names) this makes them not of various Religions, nor blots out their Names from the Book of Life.

Num. 85. I have not Baptis'd any of them; they were publickly known by these names many a fair year, before you or I was born: and since I desired to be under­stood, I was to express them in such names, as they com­monly are known by: whether they deserve the names I give them, or no, is not our dispute now. I think they did, when I called them so; and that they deserve it as much as either Arrians, or Donatists, or Pelagians, &c. deserved to be branded with the names of those several [Page 139] Arch-Hereticks that broached them. Nor can I yet find that the Roman B. whom you rudely call a Tyrant, was more the imposer of those names upon the fore-named Sectaries, then upon Arrians, Donatists, or Pelagians, &c.

Num. 86. I have in my most retired thoughts perused the History of those mens Lives, and of the Lives of many of your Popes, together with their several Doctrines; and with Death and Iudgement in my eyes, as before the great God of Heaven, I humbly beg of him, that I may rather have my everlasting portion with those holy men, whom you burned, as Waldenses, Arbigenses, Hussites, &c. then with the Popes that burned them, or those that follow them in that cruelty, unless reconciling Grace hath given them repentance unto life.

Num. 86. I humbly beg of God, that he deliver you from ever coming to that place, where any of those, which I mentioned as condemned Hereticks, are in the other world: I hope, he has prepar'd a much better for you. But tell me seriously, would you indeed be con­tent, rather to be with the Albigenses, who held Two Gods, Bernard. Lut­semburg. de Al­bigens. Vide e­tiam S. Anton. 4 parte summae. Tit. 11 c. 7. the one Good, and the other Evil, with the Manichees; who denied 1. the Old Testament; 2. that Baptism profited Infants to Salvation; 3. that an unworthy Minister could consecrate the holy Sa­crament; 4. that wicked Prelates had any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, or were to be obey­ed; 5. that it is lawfull to swear in any occasion whatso­ever, &c. then with Alexander the Third, whom no Christian in those times ever accused of Heresie, or Er­rour [Page 140] in Faith, who was elected against his will, and af­ter a Schisme made by Octavianus the Anti-Pope and Frederick the Emperour, was received both by the Western and Eastern Churches, excepting onely the party of Frederick; who notwithstanding after acknow­ledged him, and relinquisht Octavianus the Anti-Pope. And whatsoever latter Historians relate by Hear-say, Acta Alex [...]nd. 3. ap. Romuald. Episcop. Salern. in suo Chronico. & ap. Rogeri­um in Epist. A­lexand. & in Histor. suâ. of the insulting of this Pope over that Emperour, yet those, who recorded what past before their eyes in the time of Alexander, record nothing but what became a modest and Christian Prelate of his eminency.

Num. 87 The Religion of all these men was one, and they were all of one Vniversal Church.

Num. 87. This is your grand Novelty, at which I chiefly aim in this Answer. It is not easie to conjecture, what you mean by all these men, whether the Icono­clasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Albigenses, Wick­liffists, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, which you na­med in the end of pag. 105. and again pag. 106. in your Edit. or those whom I named pag. 43. of your Book, that is, all at least amongst them, whom you account Univocal Christians: amongst which are Donatists, Ne­storians, Eutychians, Pelagians. And can you, or did yet ever any Christian before you account these men to have had one Religion? Is the Religion of those, who say there are Two Gods, the same with that, which teaches there is no more but one onely God? if so, then Hea­thens and Christians may be as well of one Religion. If [Page 141] not, then could not at least the Albigenses, be of one Religion with the rest; Vide supra. whom I have proved to have held two gods; Of the rest more hereafter.

Num. 88. Where you again call for one Congre­gation, I tell you again, that we know no unity Essen­tial, from whence the Church can be called one, but either Christ, or the Vice-Christ: the former only is asserted by us, and the latter also by you; which we deny. And therefore we cannot call the Universal Church, one, in any other formal respects, but as it is Christian, and so one in Christ.

Num. 88. We acknowledge the Church to be one in Christ, as much as you, but we acknowledge him as Head, not to be the Formal, but the Causal unity, that is, work­ing the formal unity, to wit, Faith and Charity in his Church. It is not enough to make one living organical body, that there be one head and parts, but those parts must be united to their Head, and amongst themselves, and to that Head: Nor is it enough, that there be several parts in the Church, and one head of it, but those parts must also be united to their Head, and a­mongst themselves; otherwise they are not one. Now that which is the formall cause of this Unity, is true Christian Faith and Charity, which do both unite Christi­ans amongst themselves, and to Christ their Head. I mean that necessary and prime charity, which preserves exter­nal Communion, and society amongst Christians, so much celebrated by the Fathers and Schoolmen, which is ta­ken away by nothing but Schism, or that which includes [Page 142] Schism: Whence appears, that to whomsoever the name of Christian is vulgarly given, unless there be found true Faith and this Christian charity amongst all the other members, they cannot be actual parts of the one true Catholick Church: When therefore you say, the Church universal cannot be called one, in any other formal respect, but as it is Christian, if you mean by Christian, all such as have true Christian faith and cha­rity, (ut supra) you say true; and you say nothing, but what all good Christians say. But then here comes the difficulty, how any Heretick or Schismatick can be a Christian, more then nomine tenus, in denominati­on only, or in a laxe acception of the word, for such as make a bare profession to beleeve in Christ, and are thereby distinguished from Jewes Mahumetans and Hea­thens, and so pass under the notion of Christians.

For if to be a Christian in our present strict sense, be required a true Christian Faith, then all that are true Chri­stians have true faith; but no Heretick hath true faith; Ergo, No Heretick is in this strict acception a Christi­an. The Major is evident: I prove the Minor. Who­soever hath true faith, beleeveth the material object of faith (or the thing beleeved) for the Divine Authority of God revealing it: But no Heretick beleeves the ma­terial object of faith (or the thing beleeved) for the Di­vine Authority of God revealing it; Ergo, no Heretick hath true faith. The Major is granted by all Divines, yours and ours. For Christian faith must rest upon Gods revelation, as its formal object. I prove the Mi­nor. Whosoever beleeves the material object of faith, (or thing beleeved) for the Divine Authority of God re­vealing it, must beleeve all things, which are as suffi [...]i­ently propounded to him to be revealed by God, as are the rest of the Articles which he beleeveth, protesteth to▪ [Page 143] and beleeve nothing as revealed, which is as sufficient­ly declared to him to be erroneous, or not revealed by Divine Authority, as are the Articles of Faith propoun­ded to be revealed by God. But every Heretick either refuses to beleeve something, which is so sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from [...]od, or beleeves something as revealed, which is so sufficiently de­clared to him to be erroneous, or not revealed from God; Ergo, no Heretick hath true faith. The Major I prove thus, as to the first part: Whosoever refuses to beleeve what is so sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God, either beleeves all that is so propounded, or be­leeves some things, and refuses to beleeve others, as sufficiently propounded as those which he beleeves. But if he refuses all, he can have no true faith; for he be­leeves nothing, and consequently is no Christian. If he beleeves some, and refuses others equally propounded, he beleeves them not for the Divine Authority reveal­ing, (for when that is equally propounded to his under­standing, it ought to work equally upon it) but upon his own willful choice, or private judgement refuses one, and assents to the other.

To illustrate this, Let this sentence of Scripture, Ter­tiâ die refurget, (he shall rise again the third day) be so sufficienly propounded to be Gods revelation, that whosoever refuses to beleeve the substance of our Savi­ours Resurrection delivered in it, is justly condemned for not beleeving Gods revelation. Now suppose some new Heretick (as I have heard of one such lately) should beleeve, that Christ did rise again from the dead, yet dis-believes that he rose the third day, and perswades himself, that his Resurrection happened some time after the third day: Let such an Heretick be asked why he beleeves, that Christ rose from death, if [Page 144] he tell you because God hath revealed it in the fore­named sentence, then ask him what moves him to be­leeve that God has revealed it: if he tells you, because he finds it clearly expressed in this sentence of Scripture, which he beleeves to be Gods revealed word, demand further, why he beleeves it to be his word? he will tell you, because it is sufficiently propounded to him as such, so that he is satisfied that it is the Word of God. Then presse him thus: But certainly, you beleeve not that place of Scripture to be the Word of God; for if you did, you would beleeve all that it contained in it, which you do not; for it is as clearly exprest in that sentence, That Christ rose again the third day, as that he rose at all: but you beleeve not that he rose the third day; Ergo, You beleeve not that Sentence to be the Word of God; Ergo, You cannot beleeve that Christ rose again, for the authority of Gods word in that sentence; Ergo, You beleeve it not because God has revealed it; Ergo, You have no divine Faith at all of the mystery of the Resurrection, but a meer humane perswasion, grounded upon your own particular phansie or reason that it is so. Thus you see it is impossible to beleeve any thing, which God has revealed, for the Authority of Divine revela­tion, unless he who beleeves gives the like assent to eve­ry other truth, (be it of what importance, great or small, in it self, makes nothing to our present difficulty) which is as plainly proposed to him to be revealed from God, as that which he beleeves.

To make this yet more facile to the unlearned, I will declare it by a Vulgar instance. Suppose there were some honourable and worthy Person in a Common­wealth, of so great credit, that what he saves is belee­ved by every one as an undoubted truth. Some other of credible Authority tells his friend, this Honourable per­son [Page 145] has told him two things, and affirmed both of them to be true of his own knowledge; his friend tells him he beleeves the one, but will not by any means assent to the other. He asks his friend, Why beleeve you the first? He answers, because such a person affirmes it to be true. He demands further, why beleeve you he said so? the friend answers upon your relation. Then sayes the other you hold my relation to be a sufficient indu­ctive to make you beleeve he said the first. Yes, says his friend, I do; not so, replies the relator; for if you did, you would beleeve he said the second, as well as the first; for I assure you as much that he said the one as the other. Now what can his Friend answer? he must either say, that he beleeves not the Honourable per­son said so, upon the sole authority of the others relati­on, and consequently, that neither of those truths were sufficiently propounded to him by that relator, and so could beleeve neither the first not the second, contrary to his former acknowledgment, and our present supposi­tion; or he must deny that he beleeves the second of those relations, though the Honourable Personage said both the one and the other; and then it is evident, he beleeved not the first upon the sole credit of his saying, but for som other reason of his own. For if he had beleeved the first upon his sole word, he must have beleeved the second also; seeing he had as much reason to beleeve he said the second as the first.

Thus I have endeavoured to prove the first part of my Major. Now I prove the second, Viz. That no man can have true Christian faith, who beleeves any thing as revealed from God, which is as sufficiently pro­pounded to him to be erroneous, or not revealed from God, as are the Articles of Faith, to be Gods revela­tions; [Page 146] the very same Authority which affirms the one, denying the other. Let us suppose some rigid Calvi­nist, beleeving the Pope to be that great Antichrist, foretold in the Revelation; and that the very same au­thority, which (as he acknowledges) sufficiently pro­pounded to him the Articles of Christian Faith, as revealed from God, assured him, that no such matter as the Popes being that great Antichrist, was ever revealed, and that it was a manifest error in Faith. In this case ei­ther that Calvinist must dis-beleeve that propounding Authority, and thereby loose his Faith in the former Articles, and have no true Faith at all in the first, or be­leeve it in the second, because it is still the very same Authority in both. For that very Authority which pro­pounds the Articles of Faith as revealed from God, pro­pounds this as not revealed, and as contrary to Gods revelation.

Num. 89. Yet I have herewith satisfied your demand, but shewed you the unreasonableness, of it beyond all reasonable contradiction. Non-proof. 12.

Num. 89. You are very prone to assert without proof: Where have you shewed the unreasonableness of my demand? Tell me, I pray, in your next; for you have not yet done it.

[Page 147]

Num. 90. You next inquire, Whether we account Rome and us one Congregation of Christians? I an­swer, the Roman Church hath two heads, and ours but one; and that's the difference.

Num. 90. Who ever accounted a King and a Vice­roy, a Bishop and a Vicar, a Captain, and a Lieutenant, a Master and a Steward, two Heads respectively to their Territories and Jurisdictions? Can you call the head and the neck two heads, because both of them with sub­ordination the one to the other, are placed above the rest of the body? The head is the highest part of an Or­ganical body, and whatsoever is subordinate to that, is no head absolutely, though it be next the head, and higher then all the other parts. Christ is only the Head of his whole Church, comprising the Militant and Tri­umphant; and of this whole Church the Pope is a part, but no Head. The Holy Councils and Fathers indeed stile him sometimes Head of the visible Militant Church (as we shall see hereafter) but that is only in regard of the visible government of the Church, not absolut­ly and soveraignly: for the only soveraign head of the Militant Church works in it, and governs it invisibly, by his holy lights and inspirations, and particularly him who is its visible Head according to its visible govern­ment. There is therefore amongst us one only absolute head of the Church; the other hath no absolute Inde­pendent [Page 148] power over it, but is as truly a part of the Church, depending as much on the absolute head, as any other p [...]r [...] doth: There is but one King and Master of the Militant Church, all the rest, even the highest, are no more then his Officers, with a limited and restrained power, that is, in order to the sole sole external and vi­sible government of it, not having other Bishops under him, as his Officers, but as Officers of Christ, and subject to him, as hereafter shall be further declared. Nor yet have you given here any direct answer to my Questi­on I demand, whether you account Rome and Protestants one Congregation? To which you answer, the Roman Church hath two heads, and the Protestant but one, and that's the difference. Now this gives no satisfaction to my demand, for the Question inquires not, Whether there be any difference betwixt us and you? that was out of Question, but whether that difference assigned by you be so great, that it hinders them from being one Congregation, and that you resolve not, and thereby leave the difficulty unanswered.

Num. 91. They are Christians, and so one Church as united in Chrst, with us and all other true Christians. If any so hold their Papacy and other Errors, as effe­ctively and practically to destroy their Christianity, those are not Christians, and so not of the same Church as we. But those that do not so, but are so Papists, as yet to be truly and practically Christians, are and shall be of the same Church with us, whether they will, or not.

[Page 149]

Num. 91. You tell us what would follow, if such things as you fancy were done; but you tell us not whe­ther it is possible to do them or no. Can a Papist, think you, remaining still a Papist, so hold his Papacy and o­ther pretended errors, as to destroy Christianity? If he cannot, why trifle you away time in printing such Chy­merical conditionals? if he can, tell us how and by what means? which you have not done, nor indeed can you do it. For how is it possible for two persons to be both Papists, that is of the same Faith in all things (for otherwise they will not be both Papists) and the one of them only to be a Christian, and the other none, but practically and effectually destroying Christianity?

Num. 92. And your modest stile makes me hope, that you and I are of one Church, though you never so much renounce it.

Num. 92. I never saw a man labor so confidently to per­swade one out of his Religion, upon so weak grounds, as you do: And truly something might be done in time, to make you and me of one Church, if I knew what Church you are of. For you contradict so loudly the Tenets of all those who pretend either to be the Church, or parts of the Church before you, that I cannot finde but you are of a Church by your self (which no man knows [Page 150] but your self) and then I'me sure, you neither are, nor can be of one Church with me, so long as you remain in the state you are in, yet it is the height of my desires, that we may both be joyned in one Catholick Church, which I shall most earnestly and unfainedly beg of God, still hoping that your zeal and ardency in what you pro­fess, may (as it did S. Paul) bring you to see, and im­brace his true Church.

Num. 93. As Papal, we are not of your Church; that's a new Church-form.

Num. 93. Prove it is new; you know well enough, we hold it to be ancient.

Num. 94. But as Christian, we are and will be of it, even when you are condemning, torturing, and burning us, (if such persecution can stand with your Christianity.)

Num. 94. I have shewed you are not as Christian, (speaking univocally) of one Church with us: For true Christianity requires true faith, which I cannot beleeve you have; nor have you proved it, as shall appear here­after. I am unwilling to revive the memory of those [Page 151] severities you mention, and you also might have pleased to have buried them in Oblivion; for in objecting them to us, you refresh the remembrance of yours towards us; nor yet see I why such severities can better stand with your Christianity, then with ours.

CHAP. VII.

Num. 95. But you ask, Why did you then separate your selves, and remain still separate from the Commu­nion of the Roman Church. Answ. 1. We never sepa­rated from you, as you are Christians, we still remain of that Church as Christian, and we know (or will know) no other form, because that Scripture and Primitive Churches knew no other.: Either you have by Popery [Page 153] separated from the Church, as Christian or not. If you have, its you that are the (damnable) Separatists▪ If you have not, then we are not separated from you, in re­spect of the form of the Christian Church.

Num. 95. You separated as much from us as did ei­ther Novatians or Pelagians or Donatists, or Acacians, or Luciferians, or Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. did from the Catholick Church of their respective times: which is enough for us to deny you to be of one Church with us, or to be any true parts of the Catholick Church. If it be not so, shew what you can say for your selves, which any of those Hereticks might not as well have alledged in their own defence; for neither did any of them separate from the Church as it was Christian, nor did either the Pelagians, Donatists, Acacians, Luci­ferians, Novatians, dis-beleeve any essential point of Christian faith, if Protestants dis-beleeve no essential; what you say of not separating from us as we are Chri­stians, is a precision never used by Catholick, or Here­tick in ancient times; nor indeed did ever any Here­tick, who esteemed himself a Christian, affirm he sepa­rated from the Church as it was Christian; for that had been to deny himself to be a Christian, which no He­tick ever did; so that if this excuse save you from Schis­matical separation, every Heretick in the world may be excused as well as you. Actual separation and refusal of external Communion with all the Churches in the world of their time (as your first beginners did) was ever [Page 154] esteemed, and will ever be esteemed by Orthodox Chri­stians, a destruction of true union with the visible Church of Christ, under what notion or precission so­ever it be done, because as Dr. Hamm [...]nd affirms, lib. de schismate, there can be no sufficient cause given for any such separation.

Num. 96. And for your other form, ( the Papacy) 1. Neither I, nor my Grand-father, or great Grand-fa­ther, did separate from it, because they never entertain­ed it.

Num. 96. This is strange doctrine, and would help out an Arrian, or a Donatist, at a dead lift, after a hun­dred or two hundred years continuance of those Heresies, no lesse then your self. Is not the maintaining of a Se­paration, or Schisme, ever termed amongst Christians, a Schism, or separation, even many generations after it begun? Were not the succeeding Donatists, after some ages, as truly esteemed Schismaticks, as the first beginners of their Schisme? S. Austin called them Schismaticks, and said they had left the Church above a hundred years after their first parting from it.

Num. 97. Those that did so, did but repent of their sin, and thats no sin: We still remain separated from you as Papists, even as we are separated from such, as [Page 155] we are commanded to avoid, for impenitency in some cor­rupting Doctrine, or scandalous sin: Whether such mens sins, or their professed Christianity be most predominant at the heart, we know not; but till they shew repentance we must avoid them; yet admonishing them as brethren, and not taking them as men of another Church, but as finding them unfit for our Communion.

Num. 97. This is one of the handsomest passages of your whole Reply, and shews a fecundity of in­vention to maintain a Novelty: But give me leave to tell you, it will not, it cannot acquit you of separa­ting from the true [...]hurch of Christ. Had you indeed deserted the sole Communion of the Papacy, as you term it, it might have born some shew of defence, though no more then a shew; but seeing when you sepa­rated from that, you remained also separate as much from all particular visible Churches in the world, as from that there can be neither shew nor shadow of excuse in it. For you must either say, that all the particular Churches in the world existent immediatly before you, Anno 1500. were guilty of impenitency in some corrupt­ing Doctrine, or scandalous sin, for which you were commanded to avoid them; which were both to con­tradict Tertullian, cited by your self, page 235. E [...] ­quid verisimile est, &c. to prove the contrary, and thereby to condemn your selves of manifest Schisme, which is nothing but a separation of ones self from the whole Visible Church; or you must say, there were some particular Churches then existent, not guilty of that impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine, or scan­dalous sin, to which Churches you adhered, when you [Page 156] first separated from the Roman, and with which you lived in external Communion; and then you are ob­liged to shew, design, and nominate, which that Church, o [...] those Churches were; which neither you, nor any of your professors ever yet did, or could doe.

Nor will it excuse you to alledge, you communicate with all Churches as Christian: for whilest you pro­fess your selves Christians, you cannot affirm, that you left all Churches, as they are Christian; and by this means never yet any Heretick, no neither Arrian, nor Sabellian, could be convinced to have separated from all Churches; for never would any of them ac­knowledge, that they left them as Christian, seeing they all not only protested, but really beleeved them­selves to be Christians. Now if you will acquit your selves of separation from Christs Church, shew in your Rejoynder some visible Churches, pre-existent immedi­atly before you, and co-existent with you in your first beginning, which did not pray for the dead, desire the assistance and Prayers of Saints for themselves, use and reverence Images in their Churches; which had not Altars, Priests, Masses, reall and proper Sacri­fice; which held not Bread and Wine to be really changed, by vertue of consecration into Christs true Body and Blood, before they received them; which held not S. Peter, and him whom they esteemed his lawfull Successor, to be the Supream visible Governour, next under Christ, of the whole Militant Church, as is declared above: Or which held not some other points as points of Faith which you deny, or held not, or denied some points which you hold to be points of Christian faith, by reason wherof you had sufficient reason to leave their external Communion, if you had reason to forsake [Page 157] that of Rome. For till this be shewed, all the world will see, that as you separated from all other particular Churches, as much as from those who adhere to the Church of Rome, so had you the very same, or equi­valent Reasons to separate from them: So that in ac­cusing the Church of Rome of impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine, and scandalous sin, you accuse in like manner all other Christian Churches then existent in the World together with her.

Num. 98. But O Sir, what manner of dealing have we from you! must we be imprisoned, rackt, harg'd, and burned, if we will not beleeve that Bread and Wine are not Bread and Wine, contrary to our own and all mens senses; and if we will not worship them with di­vine Worship, and will not obey the Pope of Rome in all such matters, contrary to our Consciences; and then must we be chidden for separating from you, if we can but a while escape the Strappado and the flames? What! will you blame us for not beleeving, that all mens senses are deceived, and the greater part of Christians and their Traditions (against you) are false, when we read, studie, and suspect our selves, and pray for light, and are willing to hear any of your reasons, but cannot force our own un­derstandings ti beleeve all such things that you beleeve, and meerly because the Pope commands it: and when we cannot thus force our own understandings, must we be burned, or else called Separatists? Would you have the Communion of our Ashes, or else say, We forsake your Communion? In your Churches we cannot have [Page 158] leave to come, without lying against God and our Consci­ences, and saying, We beleeve, what our senses contra­dict; and without committing that, which our Conscien­ces tell us are most hainous sins. We solemnly protest, that we would do as you do, and say as we say, were it not for the love of truth and holiness, and for fear of the wrath of God and the flames of Hell: but we cannot, we dare not rush upon those Errors, and sell our souls to please the Pope. And must we then either be mur­thered, or taken for uncharitable? Will you say to so many poor souls, that are ready to enter into another World; Either sin against your Consciences, and so damn your souls, or else let us burn and murder you, or else you do not love us; you are uncharitable, if you deny us leave to kill you, and you separate from the Communion of the Church. We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men, to the great God of heaven and earth, to judge righteously between you and us concerning this dealing.

As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures, if any particular person had personal injury in the change, being cast out without cause, they must answer for it that did it, not I; though I never heard any thing to make me beleeve it. But must the Prince and the people let alone Delinquent Pastors, for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks? Mi­nisters of the same Religion with us may be cast out for their crimes: Princes have power over Pastors as well as David, Solomon, and other Kings of Israel had. Guil. Barclay, and some few of your own knew this. The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergie, from the Soveraigns judgement, will not warrant those Princes before God, that neglect to punish offending Pa­stors. [Page 159] And I beseech you tell us, when our Consciences (after the use of all means that we can use to be infor­med) cannot renounce all our senses, nor our reason, nor the judgement of the most of the Church, or of Antiquity, or the Word of God, and yet we must do so, or be no members of your Church, what wrong is it to you; if we chuse us Pastors of our own, in the order that God hath appointed? Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors? We and our late Fore-fathers here were never under your over-sight: but we know not why we may not now choose our Pa­stors, as well as formerly, we do it not by Tumults: We kill not men, and tread not in their blood, while we chuse our Pastors as Pope Damasus was chosen: The Tythes, and other Temporal maintenance we take from none; but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the Churches good: And the maintenanc [...] is for the cure or work; and therefore that are justly cast out of the cure, are justly deprived of the maintenance. And surely when they are dead, none of you can with any shew of reason stand up and say, These Bishopricks are yours, or, These Parsonages are yours: It is the Incumbent personally that only can claim the Title; saving the super-eminent title of Christ, to whom they are devoted. But the successive Popes cannot have ti­tle to all the Tythes and Temples in the World, nor any of his Clergy, that never were called to the charges. If this be dis-union, it is you that are the Separatists, and cause of all. If you will needs tell all the Chri­stian World, that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome, and be burned if they beleeve not as he bids them, in spight of their senses, he will call them Sepa­ratists, Schismaticks, and say they dis-unite, and are un­charitable; [Page 160] again we appeal to God, and all wise men that are impartial, whether it be he or we, that is the di­vider.

Num. 98. By what is now answered, this your long Rhetorical Exclamation, from page 108. to page 112. is also solved: For all that the Church of Rome de­mands of you, even to the denying of your senses, and subjecting of your judgement, was in the year 1500. required of you by all Visible Ancient Churches in the World, and you are not able to nominate any one, where it was not. Change therefore the term Pope, or Church of Rome, into that of the Catholick Church of Christ, that is, all Orthodox particular Churches existent at that time, which are comprised in the number of all visible ancient particular Churches then existing, and address your exclamations to it, and then you will see how lit­tle of a Christian complaint there is in that whole digression. To this therefore I presse you once again, to produce some Visible Church in the year 1500. from whose visible Communion you were not separated in your first beginning Anno 1517. as much as were the Pelagians or Donatists from all Visible Churches in their times? And to render a sufficient reason, why your dis-obeying, or substracting your selves from the de­pendance and obedience of all the Visible Pastors in all Churches, Anno 1500. was not as much deserving to be termed and held a criminal Schism, and spiritual Rebellion, as any former separation from all Visible Churches.

[Page 161]

Num. 99. You ask me, Is not Charity, Subor­dination, and obedience to the same State and Go­vernment, required as well to make one Congre­gation of Christians, as it is required to make a Con­gregation of Commonwealth's-men? Answ. yes it is. But as all the world is one kingdome under God, the universal King, but yet hath no universal vice-king, but every Commonwealth only hath it's own Sovereign: even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ, the universal king of the Church; but hath not one vice-Christ, but every Church hath it's own Pastours, as every School hath it's own School-master. But all the Anger is, because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper; therefore we are uncharitable.

Num. 99. You commit the Fallacy of ignoratio Elen­chi, and pass à genere in genus. I speak of a visible Kingdome, or Commonwealth, as it is regulated by a visible Government; and you take it, as it is invisibly govern'd by an invisible Providence. In this sense only are all the kindomes of the earth one kingdome, under the invisible Government of the Invisible God; but can­not be truly called one visible kingdome, but more. Now it is evident through the whole discourse, that our pre­sent Controversie is of the visible Church, as it is vi­sible; and in this sense it is, and must be one; and consequently must be under some visible Government, which must make it one. That cannot be Christ, for he governs not his Church now visibly; Ergo there must [Page 162] be some other: and that must either be some Assembly of chief Governours; as would be a General Council: or some one person, who has Authority to govern the whole body of the Church. A general Council it can­not be: for, that was never held to be the ordinary, but only the extraordinary Church-Government, when e­mergent occasions require it: and even when that is con­vened, there must be some one person, to avoid Schisme, and quiet Controversies, which may possibly arise in the Council, with Authority above all the rest. It is there­fore manifest, the Church cannot be perfectly one, visi­ble, politick Body, unless there be one visible head to go­vern it visibly, as the ordinary Governour of it. I be­seech you, Sir, reflect often upon this distinction; and you will see the chief ground of your discourse answered by it. For to say, (as you do here) that the Church is one visible Kingdome, & yet to make it no more one visibly, then the School of Christ-Church, or Westminster, is one visible School, is in my Logick to speak-contraries.

Num. 100. Your next reason against me is, because They cannot be parts of the Church, unless Arians and Pelagians, and Donatists be parts; and so Hereticks and Schismaticks be parts. Reply. 1. You know sure, that your own Divines are not agreed, whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church.

Num. 100. You cannot but see, I speak of parts of the Church, as you understand parts: and therefore I say ( pag. 48. in yours) Secondly, your position is not true. [Page 163] Now your position is to hold, that some Hereticks pro­perly so called, are parts of the Church of Christ, and united to him as their Head; by reason, that they believe with a true Christian Faith the Essentials of Christia­nity, whereby they are Christians, though they erre in some Accidentals, as appears by that distinction so often used by you. In this sense then, I say, you hold Here­ticks to be true and real parts of the Church. And this I affirm to be contrary to all Christianity, and a novelty, never held before by any Christian.

Though therefore, taking the word parts in another more lax and improper sense, and the Church as it is a visible body and government, one only Catholick Au­thour ( ^* Alphonsus à Castro) thinks, Hereticks may be called parts of the politick Body of the Church, (as She hath power over them to inflict punishment upon them,) by reason of the character of Baptisme, which makes them ever remain subjects of the Church, and ly­able to her censures: yet he holds expresly, that they have no true Christian Faith at all, (quite against you) whereby they can be made parts of Christ's Church, united to Christ as their Head, as you hold, they are. And the like is of Schismaticks. For though some Ca­tholick Author's, doubt, whether they may be termed, by reason of the profession of Christian Faith, parts of the Church, in a large sense, yet none ever held, as you doe, that they were united to Christ as their Head (and thereby compose one Christian Church) [Page 164] with other Catholick Christians, because they want that principal Christian Charity required as necessary to a compleat union to Christ. Your opinion therefore is contrary to all those of the Roman Church; and shall (God assisting me) be ^* proved contrary to all Christi­ans and Christianity, and of most dangerous and damn­able consequence. But you must know, that à Castro's opinion is censured by all other Doctours; and thereby improbable: nor yet makes the ground of his opinion, Hereticks and Scismaticks more of the Catholick Church, then are those Christians, who are damned in hell; for even they have the Character of Baptism, and yet he says, that so long as that Character remains they are Church-members: quo durante, semper erit membrum illius.

Num. 101. And if they were, yet it is not de Fide with you, as not determined by the Pope.

Num. 101. 'Tis determined contrary to your sense, a hundred times over, by all the Anathemas and Ex­communications, thundred out against them, in so many General Councils.

Num. 102. If it be, then all yours are Hereticks, that are for the affirmative; (Bellarmine nameth you some of them.) If they be not, then how can you be sure it's true, and so impose it on me, that they are no parts?

[Page 165]

Num. 102. I have now told you. None of ours ever held them parts, as you doe; that is united to Christ their Head, as the rest of the parts are, by Faith and Charity.

Num. 103. Arians are no Christians, as denying that which is Essential to Christ; and so to Christianity.

Num. 103. 'Tis very true; they are no real univo­cal Christians: and your reason is good, because they deny that, which is Essential to Christ, and so to Christi­anity. But hence will follow, that no proper Heretick whatsoever, is a real, univocal Christian: for all of them deny something Essential to Christ, and so to Christi­anity: which I prove thus;

Whosoever denies Christ's most Infallible veracity, & Divine Authority, denies Something which is Essential unto Christ.

But every Heretick, properly so called, denies Christ's most infallible veracity, and divine Authority:

Ergo, Every Heretick, properly so called, denies some­thing which is Essential to Christ, and so to Christianity.

The Major is evident: I prove the Minor.

Whosoever denies that to be true, which is sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed from Christ, denyes Christ's most infallible veracity and divine authority.

But every Heretick, properly so called, denies that to [Page 166] be true, which is sufficiently propounded to him to be re­vealed from Christ.

Ergo Every Heretick, properly so called, denyes Christs most infallible veracity, and divine Authority.

The Minor is clear. For that is properly to be an Heretick. The Major is also clear. For how is it possi­ble to deny that to be true, which is sufficiently pro­pounded to me to be revealed from Christ, without af­firming, that Christ said something which is not true: which is manifestly to give Christ the lye; and to doe that, is to deny openly his divine veracity. This Argu­ment, I hope, you will please to think of seriously; and either give an Answer in form to it, or relinquish your Noveltie.

Num. 104. Pelagianisme is a thing, that you are not agreed among your selves of the true na [...]ure of Ma­ny of the Dominicans and Jansenists think the Jesuites Pelagianize, or Semi-Pelagianize at least. I hope you will not shut them out. Donatists were Schismaticks, be­cause they divided in the Catholick Church, and not ab­solutely from it: and because they divided from the particular Churches about them, that held the most u­niversal external Communion. I think, they were still members of the universal Church; but I'le not contend with any, that will plead for his uncharitable denyal. It's nothing to our Case.

Num. 104. You fall again into a plain Fallacy, pro­ceeding à parte ad totum. The doubt which is among [Page 167] some of our Divines is only about part of their Heresie, and you would make your Reader believe, it were about the whole. Some points of their Heresie are clearly a­greed upon by all Catholick Authors; as is that of the denyal of original Sin, That Infants which dye with­out Baptisme, are not in the state of Salvation, &c. Now these are enough to make them Hereticks, and out of the Church, whatsoever is of the rest of their Here­sie: which howsoever some dispute now, wherein it con­sisteth, yet when they were first condemned, there was no dispute about it. But here's another grand No­veltie of yours to be considered. Who ever yet, before you, said, that Catholick Church could be divided in it self, when it is a most perfect unity. See, what the Fathers say of this point: why is it called una Ecclesia Catholica (one Catholick Church) in the Nicene Creed, if it can be divided: and then you adde another No­velty, as the former. For who, but you, ever said, the Donatists were not divided absolutely from the Church? does not S. Aug. lib. de Baptismo, contra Donatistas, say, they separated and divided from the Church, a hun­dred times over? But more of this hereafter.

Num. 105. I know that Heresie is a personal Crime, and cannot be charged on Nations, unlesse you have Evi­dence, that the Nations consent to it, which here you have none.

Num. 105. I have your own Author for it, an approved Historian amongst you, there is no Authority alledged [Page 168] by you, which contradicts his Testimony, or clears them from Eutychianisme, why therefore seek you evidence against what you are not able to disprove? But for your farther satisfaction; first, it is certain in the year One thousand, one hundred, seventy and seven, the Abyssines or Ethiopians under Prester Iohn desired Do­ctours to be sent to them from Pope Alexander the third to Instruct them in the Roman Faith, from which they differed at that time. The Pope write to their King and high Bishop, that he desired nothing more then to gratifie them in their Request; intreating them to send their doubts, and requests in particular to Rome: Now that these differences from the Roman Church, in part at least, were the Heresie of Eutyches, is Evident from the Canon of their Mass, wherein they commemorate three or four times the Fathers of the three first general Councils, but never make mention of those in the fourth, that is, the Council of Chalcedon; whereof no other probable reason can be given, save their adhering to the Heresie of Eutyches, which was condemned in that Council; so that there needs no farther Testimony a­gainst them, seeing they condemn themselves of Euty­chianisme.

Num. 106. Some are Hereticks for denying Points essential to Christianity; these are not Christians, and so not in the Church: but many also are called Hereticks by you, and by the Fathers for lesser Errours consistent with Christianity; and these may be in the Church. Abyssines and all the rest have not been yet tryed, and convicted before any competent Iudge, and Slanderers we regard not.

[Page 169]

Num. 106. This is already answered, all Hereticks deny the veracity of Christ, which is Essential to Christ and Christianity, whatsoever their Heresies be, the A­byssines confess themselves to follow (as I have proved) Eutyches and Dioscorus, and therefore need neither tryal, nor conviction.

Num. 107. Many of your own Writers acquit them of Heresie, and say, Non-proof 13. the difference is now found to be but in words, or little more.

Num. 107. Name those Writers, and you shall be answered; think you that any rational man will be con­vinced by your bare affirmation?

Num. 108. What you say of their disclaiming us, unless we take the Patriarch of Constantinople for the vice- Christ; you many wayes mistake, 1. if this were true that they rejected us; it were not proof that we are not of one universal Church.

Num. 108. But sure I mistake not in saying they disclaim you, if it be supposed true (as you suppose now) [Page 170] they doe disclaim you; and I think, impartial men will take it to be a proof, for if both the whole Westerne Church with the Bishop of Rome, and the Easterne with the Bishop of Constantinople, each claiming the Sove­raignty of visible Government over the whole Church of Christ, reject you as Hereticks: and no other Church existent in the world, anno Dom. 1500. (Immediately before your first visible opposition against the Roman Church) own you (as you have not proved, nor can you ever prove, they doe) but upon the same, or for some o­ther reasons Reject you, for which the Easterne and Westerne Churches have disclaimed you; you cannot but confess, you are rejected by the whole Catholick Church of Christ, seeing you were Rejected by all the visible Churches of that time. Now whosoever is rejected as an Heretick by the whole Catholick visible Church, either must be no part of it, or the Catholick Church, must not be able to know, which are, which are not, her true parts, and be fallen into so desperate an Errour, as to reject as out-casts and enemies those who are her true Children. Or what phrenzie would it be in a No­vellist, vainly and presumptuously to give himself out for a Member of the Church, when the whole Catho­lick Church disclaims, and Anathematises him as an A­lien. Now reduce your selves, as Tertullian sayes, to your first origine, in the year 1500, even in your Prin­ciples the visible Catholick Church, was all the Congrega­tions of Christians through the whole world, but all these Congregations disowned you as Aliens, and Separatists from them, when you first begun, an. 1517. ergo the whole Catholick Church disowned you, as Aliens, and Separa­tists; Ergo you were then either such as the Church e­steemed you to be, or the whole Catholick Church was deceived; but all good Christians will rather believe, [Page 171] that you, who were then but a handfull of new-hatched Novellists, were deceived in fancying your selves to be parts of the Church, against the censure and judgement of the whole Christian world: then that the whole Christian world should be deceived, and you only in the Right. Nay, that you may have no shadow to shroud your self under, not only the whole Christian world, when you begun, rejected you, as not belonging to their Body; but you your selves, never so much as pretended then to be parts of any of these Churches, but hated, and abominated them as much as they did you, and con­demned them all of Errour, and Superstition, of Baby­lonish captivity, and utter darknesse, of Antichrianisme, and Idolatry, &c. Read your first Writers and you will find it so; for seeing all the visible Christian Congre­gations held many of those Points, which your first be­ginners held to be Idolatrous, and Superstitious in the Roman Church, in condemning the Roman, and sepa­rating from it, upon those pretended Superstitions and Errours, you separated from, and condemned the whole Catholick Church; nor can you free your self from this, unless you nominate some Church, in those times spread all the Christian world over, which resisted those said Errours, as you did, and joined with you against the Roman Church in this opposition.

Num. 109. They do not claim to be vice Christi, the universal Governours of the Church: Contra­diction. the Title of universal Patriarch they extended, but to the then Roman Empire; and that not to an univer­sal government, but Primacy.

Num. 109. I wonder to hear you say here, the Greeks intended the Title of universal Patriarch only to [Page 172] the Empire, and that not of Government, but of Prima­cie; that is, as you mistake that word, precedencie in place; when you labour mightily to prove, Pag. 154. 155.156. &c. from St. Gregorie's Epistles, that the Ti­tle the Greeks then pretended to, and S. Gregory ex­claimed against, was to be Bishop, and to have spiri­tual Jurisdiction over all Churches, and Christians in the world; either therefore you must grant, that your Argument drawn there from St. Gregorie's words is fal­lacious, and of no force; or if it be of force, and well grounded, That then Iohn of Constantinople, and with and after him the Patriarchs of that City, pretended to be universal Governours of the whole Church, both extra- and intra-Imperial, And as to the later Patri­archs of Constantinople; seeing there is now no Christ­ian Empire amongst them, and they still retain that for­mer Title of Vniversal Patriarchs, you cannot pretend, they inclose their Authorities within the Verge of the Christian Empire. And that you may see what Autho­ritie the Constantinopolitan Patriarch assumes to himself, and how plaguely he stiles himself a vice-Christ (quite contrary to your groundlesse Assertion here) Hieremias in his Epistle to the Lutherans of Germany, prefixed be­fore his censure of their Doctrine, saies thus, ‘Si enim volueritis (inquit Scriptura) & audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis; quibus sane verbis, mediocritas item nostra, quae & ipsa, Christi Domini miseratione, suc­cessione quadam, hic in terris, ejus locum tenet ad amabilem concordiam & consensum cum ea, quae apud nos est Jesu Christi Ecclesia, charitatem vestram co­hortatur.’ If you be willing, and shall hear me, saith the Scripture, you shall eat the good things of the Land; in which words, our mediocrity likewise, which by the mer­cy of Christ our Lord, by a certain succession, here [Page 173] upon earth, holds his (Christ's) place, Exhorts you to an amiable concord and charity with that which is with us, the Church of Iesus Christ; where this Patriarch of Constantinople Hieremias, affirmes expresly of himself, that he holds Christ's place upon earth, which is to be a vice-Christ (as you term it) as much as the Pope esteems himself one; yet sure Hieremias knew what Authoritie he had in Christ's Church; now that you may know undoubtedly, he speaks not of a Church of Christ, which may be affirmed of every particular true Church, but of the Church of Christ, that is, the whole Catholick visible Church, he exhorts those Ger­man Lutherans, to an amiable concord with that Church of Christ which is with him, that is, in the Government whereof he holds the place of Christ, and that this is no other then the whole visible Catholick Church, he de­clared in the last Paragraph of the eight chapter, say­ing, Et, ut con [...]idimus, ubi ei, qu [...] apud nos est, sanctae & Catholicae Iesu Christi Ecclesiae vos subji [...]ietis, &c. And as we confide, when you shall subject your selves to that holy and Catholick Church of Christ which is with us, or belongs to us, which can be meant of no o­ther save the whole visible Church, for he accounts none to be in communion with that Church which is with him, save those, who believe and observe all the Aposto­lical and Synodical traditions, and all, who believe and observe them; to be of his communion, that is, all ortho­dox Christians, which is the whole Catholick Church; nor can these words, quae apud nos est, be so understood, as if they denominated only some part of the Catholick Church to be with him, and some other not with him, or against him; for the Greek hath [...], not [...], as if he had said, the holy Catholick Church existing amongst us, or with us.

[Page 174]

Num. 110. And for Hieremias his Predecessor, whom you mention, though they disputed with him by letters, (Stephanus Gerlochius, and Martinus Crusius) did not a­gree in all things with him, yet he still professed his de­sire of unity and concord with us; and in the beginning of his second Answer, rejoiceth that we agreed with them in so many things.

Num. 110. So do we to, and labour to procure that unity with all our forces, but why cast you a mist upon the point in question, by saying he agreed not with them in all things, what mean you by all things, I had said, the Greeks and others, profess generally all those points of Faith with us against you, wherein you differ from us, and prove this out of Hieremias his Epistle, you an­swer, that the Lutherans did not agree in all things with Hieremias; what all things mean you? those, wherein you and we differ, why then have you not designed some at least of those points in difference be­twixt us, wherein they agree with you against us? if you mean, they agreed not in all things, that is, in some wherein we and you agree, they agreed also with you, & us, that's true, but is no Answer at all to my Assertion; for I meddle not with those: but disagreed they with you in the points controverted betwixt us? that's true too, but it is a confirmation of my Assertion. But you artificially, to dissemble what you could not answer, serve your self only of a general terme, whereby the Reader may remain still unsatisfied, whether they agree with you [Page 175] or us, in the Points under controversie betwixt us. Tell us therefore, (and I beseech you fail not to do it) whe­ther my Assertion be true or no in this point, when you Reply to it, and whether my Allegations prove it not; that is, whether the modern Greeks agree with the Ro­man Church in all points now controverted betwixt us and you, (except that of the Popes supremacie,) and whe­ther Hieremias the Patriarch, assume not to himself, as true a supreme authority over the whole Church, as does the Pope.

Num. III. Iohannes Zygomalas in his letters to Crusius, 1576. May 15. saith, Perspienum tibi & o­mnibus futurum est, quod in continuis & causam fidei praecipue continentibus articulis consentiamus: quae au­tem videntur consensum inter vos & nos Impedire, ta­lia sunt, si velit quis, ut facile ea corrigere possit— Gaudium in coelo & super terram erit, si coibit in uni­tatem utraque Ecclesia, & Idem sentiemus, & simul vi­vemus in omni concordia & pace secundum Deum, & in sincerae Charitatis vinculo.

Num. III. To what purpose are these words cited, cannot any of the Roman Church write the very same now to Lutherans? But does not Zygomalas suppose, that the Protestants and they, are two Churches, that they were not then united into one; saies he not? that he hopes for such a Future Unity, Gaudium in coelo, & supra terram erit, si coibit in unitatem utraque Eccle­sia, &c. Ergo that unity was not then actually made, [Page 176] and that unity depended on the correction of those dif­ferences in Faith which were betwixt them, which whilst they remained, obstructed it; now this is wholly de­structive of your Novelty; nay this Agreement, and becoming one and the same Church as Synonimaes, ( co­ibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia, et Idem sentiemus; both Churches, the Greeks and Lutherans shall join in unitie, and we shall hold, that is believe, the same thing) evinces that their disagreement, was inconsistent with their being one Church: nay besides Faith he requires a future charity and concord, which argues, it was then wanting, Et simul vivemus in omni concordia & pace secundum Deum, & in sincerae charitatis vinculo; ‘and (sayes he) we shall live together in all concord & peace in God, and in the bond of sincere Charity:’ so that this very Text which you quote, to prove the unity be­twixt Greeks and Lutherans, proves the quite contrary, so choice are you in your Citations!

Num. 112. But as it is not the Patriarch, that is the whole Greek Church: so it is not their Errours, in some lesser or tolerable points, that prove us of two Churches or Religions.

Num. 112. Who saies, he is the whole Church? yet sure when the Patriarch writes concernings his own Ju­risdiction, he is supposed to understand the extent of it; and when those of his Church shew no kind of con­tradiction against it, neither when he writ this, nor ever since (and thereby give a tacite consent to it) what [Page 177] he writes is to be esteemed as the tenet of his Church▪ I am much joyed to hear you terme the differences in Faith betwixt you and the Grecians, some lesser or tole­rable points; for they being in substance the very same with those betwixt you and us (as the Authors confesse cited by me, pag. 46. of your Edition) you must conse­quently acknowledge the differences betwixt you and us, to be some lesser or tolerable points: but give me leave then to tell you, that as you judge those points tolerable, so must you also judge your separation from the external communion of the Greek, and Roman Church intolera­ble; for if those parts in difference be tolerable, they were to have been tolerated by you, without proceeding to an open and scandalous Schisme by reason of them; nor will it excuse you to alledge, you were forc't to se­parate, in detestation of those things which you judged Errours; otherwise you would have compell'd us by pu­nishments to have assented to them: for you were ra­ther to have suffered patiently that force, though it had been to death it self, then to have made so notorious a Schisme, for tolerable Errours or fear of persecution. I have already shewed that every Errour in Faith, a­gainst a divine truth sufficiently proposed, separates the erring partie from the true visible Church of Christ.

Num. 113. Whereas you say, it is against all anti­quity and Christianity, to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church: I Reply. 1. I hate their condemnation rather then reverence it, that ( even being non Judices) dare condemn whole Nations, without hearing one man of them speak for himself, or hearing one witnesse that ever heard them defend Heresie, and this merely because [Page 178] some few Bishops have in the dayes of all maintained Heresie, and perhaps some may doe so still, or rather differ from you in words, while you misunderstand each other. I see, you have a sharp tooth against Bishops, why name you them onely as maintainers of Heresies? how many Bishops found you broaching or spreading heresie in the 2. first hundred yeares, was either Simon Magus, or Nicolaus, or Cerinthus, or Menander, or Valenti­nian, or Manes, or Montanus, Bishops? and in the third Age, was there not Arius, and Eutyches, neither of them Bishops, broachers of two most pernicious Heresies, as well, as Nestorius, and Dioscorus, who were Bishops.

Num. 113. You mistake the manner of the Churches condemnation of Hereticks, it is neither personal nor National (save in some notorious Arch-Hereticks, who either by their words, or writings, evidently professe or teach Heresie) but general or abstractive, viz. whosoever holds such, or such Errours let him be accursed, or we excommunicate all such as hold them, &c. where there can be no wrong done to any; for those, who de facto held them not, are not cast out of the Church; now when this sentence comes to Execution, those who either acknowledge themselves to hold those Heresies, or com­municate with them who professe it, are esteemed as He­reticks; because they join with an heretical party, a­gainst the Church; and in case they profess to disbe­lieve their heresie, and yet live in communion with them, and subjection to them, they become open Schisma­ticks, separating themselves from the whole visible Church by communicating with Hereticks.

[Page 179]

Num. 114. Did I find such Errours with them as with you, yet first I durst charge them on no one man that I had not reason to hold guilty of them; I dare not accuse whole Nations of your Errours; but of all these things (and of sundry words which you cite) I have spoken al­ready in two books, and in the latter fully proved that you differ in many points of Faith, and greater things then you call Heresies in others, among your selves, even your Pope's Saints and Councils; and yet neither part is judged by you to be out of the Church: see my Key, pag. 124, 125, 127, 128, 129. and pag. 52. ad 62.

Num. 114. You or any Christian, may safely judge those Hereticks, who publickly communicate, and side with those, who professe, and teach open heresie; for the very siding with them, Argues a consent to their Do­ctrine, and is a sufficient profession of it, unlesse they professe publickly a difference from their heresie; your recrimination, is unseasonable; the question is not for the present, wherein or how We differ; but whether You be guiltie of heresie or no, our innocencie or guiltiness clears not you; clear your Selves first, and then you will have gained credit to accuse us: 'till that be done, you do nothing but divert the Question, [...]y removing it from your selves to us. In your Key, pag. 128. you trifle in using the words, Material point, Equivocally, and pro­ceeding à specie, ad genus fallociously. Mr. Turberville, speaks of material Points, against your 39. Articles, say­ing, for if they differ from them in any material [Page 180] point, &c. and you make him speak of all kinds of ma­terial points in Religion, whether contrary to any Ar­ticle, or Ecclesiastical decree of Faith, or no.

Num. 115. When you say so much to prove the Greeks guiltie of manifest heresy, and pretend that it is but some novel Writers of ours that deny it, as forced by your Ar­guments, I must say, that you prove but your own un­charitablenesse instead of their heresie; and you shew your self a stranger to your own Writers, who frequently excuse the Greeks from heresie, and say the difference at the Council of Florence was found to be more about Words, then Faith; Thomas à Jesu, de Convers [...]omn. Gentium, lib. 6. cap. 8. pag. 281. saith, ‘His tamen non obstantibus alii opinantur Graecos tantum esse Schismaticos: Ita exjunioribus docet Pater Azorius, 1. primae Institut. moral. lib. 8. cap. 20. quaest. 10. Quare merito ab Ecclesia Catholica non haeretici, sed Schismatici censentur & appellantur; it a aperte insi­nuat D. Bernardus (no novel Protestant) in Epist. ad Eugenium, lib. 3. (ego addo, inquit) de pertinacia Graecorum qui nobiscum sunt & non sunt; Iuncti fi­de, pace divisi; quanquam & in fide ipsa claudicave­rint à rectis semitis. Idem aperte tenet D. Thom. Opusc. 2. ubi docet Patres Graecos in Catholico sensu esse ex­ponendos; Ratio hujus opinionis est, quoniam ut praedi­ctus Author docet, in praedictis Fidei Articulis, de qui­bus Graeci accusantur ab aliquibus ut haeretici, potius nomine quamre ab Ecclesia Romana dissident; Imprimis inficiantur illi Spiritum Sanctum à Patre Filioque procedere, ut in Bulla unionis Eugenii 4. dicitur, Existimantes, Latinos sentir [...] à Patre Filioque pro­cedere [Page 181] tanquam à duobus principiis, cum tamen Latina doceat Eclesia procedere à duabus personis tanquā ab u­no principio & spiratore, quare Graeci ut unum principiū significent, dicunt Spiritū sanctū à Patre per Filiū proce­cedere ab omni aeternitate:’ Your Paulus Veridicus (Paul Harris) Dean of your Academy lately in Dublin, in his confutation of Bishop Usher 's Sermon, saith, that the Greeks Doctrine about the procession of the holy Ghost à Patre per Filium, and not à Patre, Filioque, was such that (when they had explicated it, they were found to believe very Orthodoxly and Catholickly in the same matter, and for such were admitted) and that (he find­eth not any substantial Point that they differ from you in; but the Primacy:) so the Armenians were received in the same Council of Florence) many more I have read, of your own Writers, that all vindicate the Greeks, (and others that disown you) from heresie, I think more then I have read of Protestants that do it: And do you think now that it is not a disgrace to your cause, that a man of your Learning, and one that I hear that hath the confidence to draw others to your opinions, should yet be so unacquainted with the opinions of your own Di­vines, and upon this mistake so confidently feign, that it is our novel Writers forced to it by your Arguments, that have been so charitable to these Churches against Anti­quity that knew better.

Num. 115. I should have reason to take it something ill from you, to accuse me at once both of uncharitable­nesse, and ignorance, and that upon a more mistake of your own; but I am resolved, not to take any thing you say against Me in ill part, but rather to pity and com­miserate you, as I really do; you could not but see I speak of that Errour in the holy Ghost's procession, which [Page 182] of late yeares has been pertinaciously defended by the Schismatical Greeks, not of the expressions of the more ancient Fathers and Doctours amongst them, you need not have told me, for I was not so ignorant, that those which S. Bernard and S. Thomas speaks of differ'd ra­ther in Expressions, then in the thing it self; the Que­stion is, whether the modern Greeks, and those who have held with them, and particularly since the Council of Florence, concerning the point of the holy Ghost's pro­ceeding from the Father and not from the Son, differ not in the thing it self; I speak of these onely, for my words clearly design what is now done, pag. 47. in your Edit. I say, they must be thought to maintain mani­fest heresie, and p. 4. Desertours of the Faith, as they continue still to this day; now I marvel to see this di­stinction of times unknown to you, when our Authors, and particularly, S. Bonaventure took notice of it in his time; and as there it is, that S. Bernard distingui­shes betwixt them in his time, for he sayes expresly, in Fide claudicaverint, which signifies, that at least some of them were even then deficient in Faith; & S. Tho­mas writes expresly of the ancient Greek Fathers, Patres Graecos in Catholico sensu esse exponendos; Harris al­so (as you call him) speaks of the same ancienter Gre­cians; if therefore you will convince me either of un­charitablenesse, or ignorance, shew that our Authours affirme, the modern Greeks, and all those who held as they now do, erre not in Faith, or in the thing believed about the procession of the holy Ghost (but differ onely in words, or terms) as you held they do not: & I said, and still maintain, they do: and not the ancient Fathers amongst the Greeks, of whome I speak not one word, because I knew very well our Authours have ever taught and still do affirm, that those Fathers say the same thing [Page 183] in re with us. But you shall see more of this in some other work, which expects the Press, and wherein this point, was throughly examined, long before I writ that reply to you.

Num. 116. If the Greeks and Latines tear the Church of Christ by their condemnations of each other, they may be both Schismatical, as guilty of making di­visions in the Church, though not as dividing from the Church; and if they pretend the denyal of the Christian Faith against each other, as the cause, you shall not draw us into the guilt of the uncharitablenesse, by tel­ling us that they know better then we. If wise men fall out and fight, I will not justifie either side, because they are wise, and therefore likelier then I to know the cause.

Num. 116. I told you before, the Church of Christ cannot be divided, it is so perfectly one; It were well, if you medled not at all with the difference betwixt them, but you do meddle; and contrary to both their judgements, you and yours affirm, they differ not now in matter of Faith concerning this Mysterie, and there­by prefer you Novel Judgements before that of so large, ancient, and Learned Churches, whom you confess here have more reason to know the true difference betwixt them, then your self. Do you not intermeddle deep­ly in it, when in the next ensuing words, you labour mainly to prove they differ onely in worlds.

Num. 117. But what need we more to open your strange mistake, and unjust dealing, then the Autho­rity of your so much approved Council of Florence, that [Page 184] received both Greeks and Armeni [...]ns; and the very words of the Popes Bull of the Union, which declare that the Greeks and Latines were found to mean Ortho­doxly both; the words are these, Convenientes Latini & Graeci in hac sacrosancta oecumenica Synodo, magno studio invicem nisi sunt, ut inter alia, articulus etiam ille de divina Spiritus sancti processione, summa cum diligentia, & affidua inquisitione discuteretur; Prolatis vero testimoniis ex divinis Scripturis, plurimisque au­thoritatibus sanctorum doctorum orientalium & occi­dentalium, aliquibus quidem ex Patre & Filio; qui­busdam vero ex Patre per Filium procedere dicentibus, Spiritum sanctum, & ad eandom Intelligentiam aspicientibus omnibus sub diversis vocabulis; Graeci quidem asseruerunt, quod id, quod dicunt Spiritum sanctum ex Patre procedere, non hac mente proferrent ut excludant Filium, sed quia eis videbatur, ut aiunt, Latinos asserere Spiritum sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedere, tanquam ex duobus principiis, & duabus spirationibus; ideo abstinuerunt à dicendo quod Spiri­tus sanctus ex Patre procedat & Filio; Latini vero af­firmaverunt non se hac mente dicere Spiritum sanctum ex Filioque procedere, ut excludant Patrem quin sit fons ac principium totius Deitatis, Filii scilicet & Spiritus san­cti: aut quo did, quod Spiritus sanctus procedat ex Filio, Filius à Patre non habeat, sive quod duo ponant esse prin­cipiae, seu duas spirationes, sed ut unum tantum asse­runt esse principium unicamque spirationem Spiritus sancti prout ha [...]enus asseruerunt, & tum ex his omni­bus unus & idem eliciatur veritatis sensus, tandem &c.

I pray you now tell it to no more, That it is some No­vel Writers of ours, prest by force of Arguments, that have been the Authours of this Extenuation. My heart even trembleth to think, that there should be a [Page 185] thing called Religion amongst you that can so far ex­tinguish both Charity and Humanity, as to cause you to pass so direfull a doome (without authority or tryal) on so great a part of the Christian world, for such a word as this about so exceeding high a Mysterie, when your Pope & Council have pronounced an union of meanings.

Num. 117. It is a pretty kind of art you have, of Triumphing before the Victory, and collecting a Con­clusion without Premisses: 'Tis true, the Greeks did not intend to exclude the Son from the procession of the holy Ghost; for they admitted him as a medium, through which he proceeds from the Father, as water issues from the fountain through the Conduit-pipe; but yet they wholly denied, he proceeded from the Son, as from a principle of his procession, and their reason was, because then (said they) there would be a double procession of the holy Ghost, as from two principles, the Father and the Son; and this they thought so evident, that it could not be denied, and thereupon supposed the Latines put a double procession, and a double principle; now when it was made manifest to them by the Authorities of the ancient Fathers (as the Council here affirmes) that he proceeded from the Father and the Son as from one principle: so that those Fathers who affirm that he pro­ceeds from the Father by or through the Son, say the very same thing with the others, who say, he proceeds from the Father and the Son; they were content, to re­call their former Errour, and to hold with the Latines, that he proceeded from both as from one Principle, by one indivisible procession, or spiration; whence fol­lowed the union betwixt those two Churches. Now that [Page 186] the Greeks before and after the Council, when they were returned home, thought it impossible they should proceed from both as from one Principle, is evident both from the long craggy disputes betwixt them in the Council, and from Mark Bishop of Ephesus, who ob­stinately defended the common Opinion of the Greeks, and would never yield to the union in this point; and it appears also from the Grecians themselves, who after their Return relapsed into their former Errour; and from Hieremias his Censure, C. 1. who excludes the Son in expresse terms, Spiritum sanctum ex solo Patre procedere, that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Fa­ther alone; and from all the other Greeks who reject at this day the Union made in the Florentine Council, and maintaine their former errour against it. Now your Argument has this force with it: the Grecians who re­canted their Errour in the Council of Florence, convinc't by the Authoritie of the holy Fathers, agreed with the Roman Church, that the holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son, as from one Principle of Procession; Ergo Mar­cus Ephesius, who refused that Agreement, and the mo­dern Greeks ever since that Council who reject it, and the others before the Council, who contradicted it, held the very same Doctrine with the Latines, that he pro­ceeded from the Father and the Son as from one Prin­ciple; whereas they most manifestly denied, that he could so proceed, and all of them deny it to this day: see you not your fallacie, how it proceeds à parte ad totum, and à particulari ad universale? that is, from that partie of the Grecians who consented to the Florentine Council, to the whole bodie of them ever since; and with that, I hope you will see, how illogically you extend the Union in this and other points, to the whole com­munity [Page 187] of the Greek Church at this present time, be­cause some few of them assented to it in the Florentine Council, whose consent with the Latines is now re­jected and condemned by the present Greeks; and how undeservedly you accuse me of extinguishing both Cha­ritie and Humanitie, for which I heartily beseech God to forgive you; and desire only, you will please to note, that seeing I speak of the Grecians as they are at pre­sent, and of those who held as they now do, your testi­monies of what they held many hundred yeares before our times hurt me not, nor so much as approach to con­tradict what I say; and please to consider this also, that the Greeks holding the holy Ghost's proceeding from the Father and the Son, argu'd a double principle, and a double spiration; as it was a real difference be­twixt them and the Latines before the Union, so is it yet a real difference betwixt the Latines & those Greeks who reject that Union, and that of so great concern, that the present Grecians chuse rather to denie he pro­ceeds from the Son, as from a Principle, then grant, that he can proceed from both, as from one principle, or by one spiration from them both.

Num. 118. And what mean you in your Margent to refer me to Nilus, as if he asserted, that the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone; verily (Sir) in the high matters of God this dealing is scarce faire (pardon this plainness;) consider of it your self, The substance of Nilus book, is about the Primacie of the Pope; the very Contents pre­fixed to the first book are these, Oratio demonstrans non aliam, &c. an Oration demonstrating that there is no [Page 188] other cause of dissention between the Latine and the Greek Churches, then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudgement of that which is Contro­verted, to a General Council, but he will sit the sole Master, and Iudge of the Controversie, and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of (or obey) his word, which is a thing aliene from the Lawes and Actions of the Apostles and Fathers; and he begins his Book (af­ter a few words) thus, ‘Causa itaque hujus dissidii, &c. The Cause therefore of this difference, as I judge, is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capaci­tie; for other matters that have divers times troubled the Church, have been of the same kind; this there­fore is not the cause of the dissention, much lesse is the speech of the Scripture it self; which as being concise, doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is Con­troverted; for to accuse the Scripture, is as much as to accuse God himself. But God is without all fault; but who the fault is in, any one may easily tell, that is well in his wits.’ He next shews, that it is not for want of learned men on both sides; nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy, and then concludeth it as before, he maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter onely as a Bishop ordained by him, as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner to suc­ceed him, and that his Primacy is no governing power, nor given him by Peter, but by Princes and Councils for order sake; and this he proves at large, and makes this the main difference. Bellarmine 's answering his so many Arguments, might have told you this, if you had never read Nilus himself; and if you say that this point was the Cause, I deny it; but if it were true, yet was it not the onely or chief Cause afterwards; The manner of bringing in the (Filioque) by Papal Authority without a [Page 189] general Council, was it, that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning.

Num. 118. This is a strange manner of Arguing; what if his chief subject be about the Popes Primacy, may he not ex incidente and occasionaliter, treat other matters? Is not your chief matter in this Treatise to prove the succession of your Church, and oppose ours; and yet treat you not in this very place incidentally the procession of the holy Ghost? I say then that Nilus declaring the cause why the Bishop of Rome hath lost all that Primacy, and Authority which he had ancient­ly, by reason he is fallen from the Faith, in adding Fi­lioque to the Creed, and teaching that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son; the words you cite out of Nilus, proves nothing, he pretends indeed that the cause of the present dissention is the Popes chal­lenging so high a Primacy, which they are unwilling (as all schismaticks ever were) to grant him, but that may well stand with what I affirm him to say, that the first original cause of the breach betwixt the Greeks and Latines, was the adding of Filioque, and holding the holy Ghost's procession from the Father and the Son: But see you not how fair a thread you have spun, by pressing those words, as you do, against me? is there in­deed no other cause of dissention betwixt the Greek and Latine Church; nor ground of their breach, save the Popes supremacy? then sure there is a full agreement in all other things; if so, there is a main disagreeing be­twixt you and the Greeks, in all other points of Faith controverted betwixt you and us; for if they agree with us, they disagree from you in every one of them; nay [Page 190] you press Nilus his words (in that sense you must take them to frame an Argument against me) quite against the very words themselves; for you alledge them to shew, that he touches not the procession of the holy Ghost in that Book, as the first ground of their differ­ence; to prove this you must proceed thus, he treats no­thing there save the Pope's Supremacie, ergo he touches not the holy Ghost's procession; you prove the Ante­cedent by the words of the Title of his first book here cited, because he affirmes in them, there is no other cause of dissention, then that the Pope refuses to stand to the judgement of a general Council; as if that onely were controverted betwixt them, for otherwise you prove no­thing: Now it is most evident that Nilus supposes many other Controversies betwixt them and the La­tines; for he saies (even as you cite him) thus, then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudge­ment of that which is Controverted to a general Coun­cil; Ergo you must acknowledge, that according to Nilus, there was something controverted betwixt the Greeks and the Latines, besides the Pope's Supremacie; and after you bring him in pag. 124. mentioning this very point of the procession, when you alledge him thus, the cause therefore of this difference, as I judge, is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capa­citie, where he speaks of the holy Ghost's procession, as I affirm him to doe; thus you play fast and loose, say and unsay at your pleasure; thus you confound times, and by not distinguishing the past, (as before you did not the future) from the present, make that, which is now onely pretended by Nilus, to be the chief cause of their not coming to Agreement, to have been many hundred yeares agoe, the original cause of their breach, and opposition against the Latines; whereby you con­found [Page 191] the first occasion of the breach, and the present obstacle to the making it up, and reconciling them to­gether, as if they were one, and the same thing; Now it is most manifest that the first occasion of the breach made by the Greeks from the Latine Church, was the Exception they took against the Latines, for adding the word Filioque, and from the Son, to the Nicene Creed; for Michael Patriarch of Constantinople, anno 1054. in time of Leo the 9. Pope, and Constantine the 10. Em­perour, styled Monomachos, aspiring not onely in name and Title, as many of his predecessours had done before him, but in reality and effect to be universal Patriarch, proclaimed Leo, and all the Latines who ad­hered to him to be Excommunicated, because contrary to the decree of the Ephesine Council, they had made an Addition to the Creed; so that the Roman Bishop being pretended by the Greeks to be thereby deposed from his Sea, The Primacie of the Church fell by Course, and right upon him, as being the next Patriarch, after the Bishop of Rome, which gave occasion to Nilus of acknowledging that Controversie about the procession of the holy Ghost, to have been the first occasion of the breach.

Num. 119. But you say that when I have made the best of those Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Protest­ants; I cannot deduce them successively in all Ages till Christ, as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Pope's Supremacie, which was your Proposition. Reply, I have oft told you we owne no universal Informing Head, but Christ, in Respect to him I have proved to you, that it is not my Interest or designe [Page 192] to prove us or them, (a different Congregation from you as you are Christians) nor shall you tempt me to be so uncharitable, as to damn, or unchristen all Papists, as far as you do others, incomparably safer and better then your selves.

Num. 119. This is answered above, no Heretick e­ver professed to separate from the Church, as it is Christian; for in so doing he must professe himself to be no Christian, which no Heretick ever did yet; for by professing himself no Christian, he falls into the sin of Apostacie, and becomes not an Heretick, but an A­postate.

But as you are Papal, and set up a new informing Head. I have proved that you differ from all the an­cient Churches, but yet that my Cause requireth me not to make this proof, but to call you to prove your own u­niversal succession.

I have shewed above there must be alwayes some who Exercise visible Government, as ordinary Go­vernours of the whole Church, and seeing a general Council is not the ordinary way of Governing the Church, there must be some one who is supreme in visi­ble Government over the whole Church, this I affirm to be the Bishop of Rome, and seeing there must be some one, and you confesse the Roman Bishop to be [Page 193] the highest in place, and honour, me thinks, even in your principles, he has a stronger claim to be supream in authority also, then any one singular person through the Church; now if we set up the Pope as a new in­forming head over the whole Church (as you say we do) I should be much obliged, if you would please to nominate the first Pope whom we set up as such a head, who they were that set him up, and who withstood it as a noveltie; you cannot in your principles alleadge Bo­niface the third, for the having his title, as you pre­tend from Phocas, and Phocas having no power out of the Empire, could not give him any authority over the extra-imperial Pormies (no not so much as prece­dency in place over all the extra-imperial Bishops, for what reasons had they to conform themselves to the Emperours orders, who had no authority over them) and consequently not over the whole Church, nor was the Emperour so foolish, to give more then he had power to give; now that Popes before Boniface's time had ju­risdiction over the whole Empire, you are forc't to ac­knowledge divers times in your reply, not being able o­therwise to resolve my arguments: Phocas therefore neither made nor could make Boniface head over the whole Church, nor was he the first who set him up over all the Churches within the Empire. oblidge me there­fore in nominating to me the first head so set up in your rejoynder to this: I have no obligation to prove my succession, my argument presses you to the proof, who though you made a bold essay to produce one Congregation of Christians perpetually visible, either denying and opposing the Popes universal supremacy or at least of such a nature in Church government as ren­dered it inconsistent with it, and in this your present reply p. 92. you undertake the proof of such a visible [Page 194] Congregation distinct in all ages from that which hold the said supremacy, yet being told by your adversa­ry that none of the particular Congregations instanced and nominated by you in your former answer were per­petually visible as distinct from that which held the Popes supremacy, in those two paragraphes you recoile and manifestly give up your cause, as not being able to perform, what you first undertooke.

Num. 120. You adde your reason, because these before named were at first involved in your Congregati­ons, and then fell off as dead branches. Reply, this is but an untruth in a most publique matter of fact.

Num. 120. This is your bare affirmation without proof, you nominate p. 23 your edit. the Armenians Greeks, Ethiopians, Indians, Protestants and no more. Now it is evident, by what I have said above, that the first Protestants, before their change were of that Con­gregation which held the Popes supremacy, the Arme­nians, and Greeks consented to it in the council of Florence, the Ethiopians and Indians I have proved to have reconciled themselves to the Bishop of Rome, since he publickely exercised, and claimed the said supremacy, ergo no one of those nominated by you, no nor all to­gether have been a perpetually visible Congregation, distinct from that which held the Popes supremacy.

[Page 195]

Num. 121. All the truth is this, 1. those Indians Ethiopians Persians &c. without the Empire, never fell from you, as to subjection, as never being your subjects, prove that they were and you have done a greater won­der then Baronius in all his annals.

Num. 121. I have proved it, out of the Arabick edition of the nicene canons, and from that very text of the council of Calcedon cap. 28 &c. which you use against us.

Num. 122. The Greeks and all the rest within the Empire, without the Roman Patriarchate, are fallen from your communion (if renouncing it be a fall) but not from your subjection having given you but a pri­macy, as Nilus shews, and not a governing power over them.

Num. 122. You your self in the insueing replyes, acknowledg a governing power over the Churches through the whole Empire, and consequently over Con­stantinople, nay, you cannot deny the fact of Agape [...] o­ver Anthymus Bishop of Constantinople, nor of Ce­lestin over Nestorius &c. you are therefore as much ob­liged to answer Nilus his argument, as I am: and Bell [Page 196] hath saved us both a labour of answering him. 'tis true according to what you say of being subject, the Greeks hold now a subjection to the Pope; and sure if they professe subjection to him, they must professe themselves to be his subjects, now according to you, subjection may signifie no more then to be inferiour to another in place, and every subject has a superiour to whom he is subject, ergo they professe the Pope to be their superi­our; which gives him even in your principles at least a precedency before them but Nilus, never granted they were in any proper sense subject to the Pope, but only inferiour in place to him, seeing therefore S. Gregory (as we shall see hereafter) declares the Bishops of Con­stantinople and all other Bishops in the Church to be subject to him, and his sea, and the Greeks now ac­knowledge no subjection to him, it is manifest, they are not only fallen from communion with him, but also from their subjection to him, for no man in proper speech can say that the Mayor of York professes sub­jection to the Mayor of London, because he acknow­ledges he is to take place of him in a publique meeting, nay by this meanes your Church of England, and Bishop of Canterbury giv [...]ing primacy to the Pope, as much as the Greeks do, that is in precedency of place only, may & must be said according to you, not to have fallen from the subjection to the Roman Church which I believe will sound harsh in their ears.

Num. 123. The withering therefore was in the Roman branches if the corruptions of either part may be called a withering, you that are a lesser part of the Church may easily call your selves the tree, and the [Page 197] greater part (two to one) the branches, but these beggings do but proclaime your necessities.

Num. 123. If the Roman Church have withered in this point, shew me when it begun to wither, in set­ting up the Pope as supream, and (as I now told you) you will really oblige me; Is it not strange to hear you term my argument a begging the question, when you in the very same sentence, beg the question your self, for without any proof at all, you suppose there, (what is universally deny'd by us) that your selves, and al­most all the rest of Hereticks, and Schismaticks now in the world, are parts of the Catholicke Church; for without inclusion of them, you could not affirm with a­ny appearance of probability, those who oppose the Roman Church, to be twice as great as part of the Ca­tholick Church, as are those that adhere to the Roman.

CHAP. I.

Num. 124. In good time you come to give me here at last some proof of an ancient Popery, as you think, But first you quite forget, (or worse) that it is not a man or two in the whole world in an Age, but the uni­versal Church whose judgement (and form) we are now inquiring after; you are to prove, that all the Churches in every age were for the Papal universal Government, and so that none can be saved that is not.

Num. 124. Sir, please I may tell you, that you would impose upon me, an obligation of proving that which cannot be inferd from the argument I sent you, (as I have shewed above.) so would you now perswade your Reader, by the insueing instances that I under­took to prove what was never undertaken by me. I give indeed some proof of an ancient Popery, and I have proved by force of my argument, which you undertake to answer, that all the Church in every age was for the Papal universal Government. But I never undertooke in [Page 200] my treating with you, to prove this by instances from age to age, for this I still denyed (as I yet do) to be a­ny obligation of mine, contracted by virtue of my ar­guments; which requirs your proof only, and meddles not with mine▪ such a proof as that, from age to age, may in its due time be effected, when you have given a satisfactory answer to my Argument▪ all therefore, that I undertake here, is occasionally fallen upon me, by reason of your bold Assertion, that within four hun­dred years, you never saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world, that is, one that was for the Popes univer­sal monarchy or vice-Christ-ship, thus you p. 23. whereupon I took occasion to give you som essayes in ancienter times, as appears by my words, p. 49. in your edit, where I say thus; ‘ Though therefore you pro­fess never to have some convincing proof of this in the first four hundred years, and labour to infringe it in the next ages, I will make an essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs, of the Bishops of Romes supremacy, not in order only, but of Power, Autho­rity, and Iurisdiction over all other Bishops, in the ensuing instances within the first 400, 500, or 600 years, whence it is evident I intended no demon­stration of our perpetual visibility, but only a confuta­tion of what you pretended within, or about the first five hundred years, by shewing some few instances to the contrary.’ And indeed had I undertaken to prove it in all ages since Christ, I had most grosly faild in my proof, since I produce none after the first six hundred years, whence appears, how palpably you impose upon your Reader, by proceeding upon this false supposition, which you repeat almost in every page, in your Answer to my instances, that I have not brought the consent of the whole Church in them; whereas it was sufficient for [Page 201] my intent in confutation of your Assertion, to produce any one solid instance for it, in those ages.

Num. 125. Your first testimony is from Liberatus, c. 16. John Bishop of Antioch makes an appeal to Pope Simplicius. Reply, 1 I see you are deceived by going upon trust; But its pitty to deceive others there was no such man as John Bishop of Antioch in Simplicius raigne, John of Antioch was he that made the stirs and divisions for Nestorius against Cyril, and called the schismatical council at Ephesus, and dyed anno 436. having raigned thirteene years, as Baronius saith, and eighteene as Nicephorus, he dyed in Sixtus the fift's time. but, its said indeed that John Bishop of Alexandria made some addresse to Simplicius; of which Baronius citeth Liberatus words, not, c. 16, but c, 18, ad Anno Dom. 483. that John being expelled by the Emperour Zenos command, went first to Calendion Bishop of An­tioch, and so to Rome to Simplicius ( if Baronius were to be believed as his iudge) Liberatus saith that he took from Calendion Bishop of Antioch letters to Sim­plicius, to whom he appealed as Athanasius had done, and perswaded him to write for him to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, which Simplicius did, but Acacius upon the receipt of Simplicius letters, writ flatly to him that he knew no John Bishop of Alexandria, but had taken Petrus Mogas as Bishop of Alexandria into his communion, and that without Simplicius, for the Churches unity at the Emperours command.

[Page 202]

Num. 125. It was indeed Ioannes Thalaida, chosen Bishop of Alexandria, but presently disturbed by Zeno the Emperour, through Acacius his meanes, and Petrus Mogas setled in his place by the Emperours au­thority, and by Acacius Bishop of Constantinople: this Ioannes Thalaida being a Catholick Bishop, appealed as Liberatus saith, and you acknowledge, to Simplicius; being dead before Iohn arrived at Rome, Pope Felix, his successor received the appeal, and gathered a council upon it, sent Legates, and redargvitory letters, to Zeno and Acacius: where in his letter to Zeno, he exhorted him to send Acacius to Rome according to the Ecclesi­astical lawes and cited Acacius, a fauourer of Hereticks, to hasten thither, to defend himself against the deposi­tions of Ioannes Thalaida, and to answer juridically to the objections made by his accuser, and then to have his cause tryed in judgement, this is the history. By the way I wonder much to hear you say, that Iohn Bishop of Antioch, dyed in Sixtus the fift's time, when as all the world knowes this Iohn of Antioch flourished in the year 1585. surely that Iohn must have been a no­table old man, of eleven hundred and odd years at least, Mathuselah was nothing to him, and which is yet a greater miracle, he must have lived above a thousand years, after he was dead, I should have taken no notice at all of this (for I know you would have said Sixtus the third) but only to let you reflect, how carefull you ought to have been in your own accounts, Names, and Figures, when you are so punctual to note every smal slip in the writings of your adversary: I might also have noted, your errour in affirming this Iohn of Antioch [Page 203] dyed, an. 436. citing Baronius for it, whereas Baronius as abreviated by spondanus, sayes expresly he dyed Anno 440. But I have no reason to pass in silence your not informing your Reader, what Zeno, Acacius, Petrus Mogas, Petrus Fullonis, Iohn Thalaida, and Calen­dion were; you say, Zeno expelled Iohn Thalaida, that Acacius disowned him, and acknowledged Petrus Mo­gas, as Bishop of Alexandria, and thence inferre how little regard Acacius made of our Pope; by which ob­surdity in writing, your ignorant Reader may well sup­pose, that Zeno was a good Christian Emperour, Aca­cius and Petrus Mogas found Catholick Bishops, Iohn and Calendion turbulent intruders or Schismaticks; whereas you could not but know (seeing you profess to read the A [...]thours you quote) that Zeno, Acacius, Pe­trus Mogas, Petrus Fullonis, and their abbetters were either Hereticks or first favorites secretly, and after pub­lickly, of the Eutychian heresie, and the cheif of them were after by a sentence given of Pope Felix, excommu­nicated and deprived of Episcopal dignitie and juris­diction, as I have proved above; whereas Iohn Thala­ida and Calendion were most Orthodox and Catholick Bishops, quietly and canonically elected, and installed the one in the sea of Alexandria, and the other in that of Antioch: which had it been declared, (as all open and fair dealing required) it had proved rather a credit then a disadvantage to the Roman sea, to have been opposed by such notorious Hereticks and Schisma­ticks as those were; and appealed to, by Thalaida, and Calendion, Catholick and lawful Bishops.

[Page 204]

Num. 126. Here you see how little regard Acacius made of your Pope; and that the appeal was but to pro­cure his letters to Acacius which did him no good.

Num. 126. I am glad to see how Hereticks, and Favourers of hereticks have still contemned the autho­rity of that Sea, but I see not, that the appeal was only to procure the Popes letters to Acacius, for it was also to summon Acacius to answer Iohns accusations against him at Rome, and there to trie his cause in judgement with him; now that nothing was effected by this, was only Acacius his pertinacy, for which he is condemned by all the Catholick writers of his proceedings in those times, and not one of them blame Simplicius or Felix as exceeding the limits of their authority, in sentencing and deposing Acacius and his adherents, as we have seen he did; produce in your next, those authours who speak against it in their times.

Num. 127. But do you in good earnest think, that all such addresses or appeales are, ad superiorem judicem, what more cōmon then to appeal or make such addresses to any that have advantages of interest, for the releif of the oppressed, young men appeal to the aged in contro­versies; and the lesse learned, to the more learned; and the poor to the rich, or to the favorites of such as can relieve them: Johns going first to Antioch was no ac­knowledgement of Superiority.

[Page 205]

Num. 127. Yes I think so in very good earnest, and when you shall have fixt your second thoughts upon what past in this affaire, I doubt not but your own in­genuity will induce you to think so too. 'tis not every appeal made from any tribunal or Judge to another, who hath power to summon the defendant and to pronounce sentence against him, in case of not appearance to de­fend his cause, a strict and juridical appeal to a higher Court or Tribunal? was not this appeal such? I know when you consider the letters and sentence given by Felix against Acacius; you neither will, nor can deny it; whence appeares, how far your instances of im­proper, and nominal appeales are from the present mat­ter. Should a poor Peasant of Northumberland being wronged by some inferiour persons, having the Lord Mayor of London his friend, appeal to him, and require of him, that he cite those Judges to appear before him, and in case they did refuse to appear, pronounce sen­tence against them, and deprive them of their offices, lands, and possessions? would it not be highly ridiculous? seeing therefore such a proceeding as this, was held by virtue of this appeal of Iohn Thalaida, and no Catho­lick of those times, ever condemned Felix for doing it, nor Iohn for requiring it, as is most evident, it was an appeal or complaint (as Baronius affirms) to an higher Judge. Now seeing an appeal made from one Judge to another, as all solemn and proper appeals are made, and understood in law, must be from a lower to a higher Judge, and the word appeal (as all other words) must be taken in a proper sense, where nothing constraines us, to take it improperly: it is most manifest that this [Page 206] appeal must be understood to have been made to a higher Judge, then were those who deposed Thalaida.

Num. 128. But of this I must referre you to a full answer of Blondel against Perron, de Primatu in Ec­clesia, cap. 25. sect. 76. where you may be satisfied of the vanity of your instance.

Num. 128. I could wish you had alleaged Blondels reasons, for by thus giving me Authours at every turne, you will oblige me to peruse and answer whole libra­ries; if Blondel have any thing worth taking notice of, you may please to insert it into your rejoynder to this Reply, and it shall be answered. thus much only I am bold to tel you, aforehand, that Blondel trifles ex­ceedingly, for whether Thalaida were cited by Acacius legally or no, which might make the wrong done him rather violence then juridical condemnation, yet seeing Blondel confesses injuries done him by Acacius, and his adherents, upon pretence of perjury, wherof he was though illegally, judged guilty, and solemnly deposed: it was an appeal properly so called to reverse that unjust judgement, by virtue of a sentence pronounced by an higher judge, otherwise if an innocent person, should be unjustly condemned in his absence, without either ci­tation or hearing, he could not properly appeal from that sentence to an higher Court; that which Blondel alleadges in the second place, is yet more childish, for seeing Zeno, Acacius and their complices, never treat­ed with Thalaida about a joynt consent to chose Felix [Page 207] their Arbiter, nay seeing the appeal was made to Felix whether they would or no, they refuseing to appear in defence of themselves, and make good their accusations against Thalaida; it is most manifest that Felix was not made Arbiter of the cause by joynt consent as all Arbi­ters must be, but had of himself the power of judging both parties. Now though it was admitted, not granted, that the recourse of Thalaida to Simplicius and Felix, was rather a complaint of violence & injury done him by force, then of an unjust juridical sentence pronoun­ced against him, yet my intent will evidently follow from it: or it had been ridiculous in Thalaida, to have sought redress from that injury, and a condemna­tory sentence against Acacius &c. from one who had no power or jurisdiction over them, and it had been a most insufferable injustice, and presumption in Felix to have deposed and deprived Acacius, had he had no jurisdiction over him, and the rest of his complices. Hence your fallacy consists in this, that you proceed from secundum quid to simpliciter, that is, from appeales improperly so called, or vulgar appeales, to juridical or proper appeales, whereas you should have given some in­stance, where an appeal, made from an unjust sentence, to another Judge, who hath power to cite, and condemn those from whom the appeal is made, is not alwayes made to an higher judge: for such was the appeal of Tha­laida to Simplicius, as I have proved.

Num. 129. Whereas therefore you inferre (or you say nothing) that because this John thus appealed to Rome, therefore he appealed thither, as to the universal Ruler of the Church.

[Page 208]

Num. 129. The story proves it most manifestly there were but three cheif Patriarck's then in the Church, besides the Pope, viz. of Constantinople, Alex­andria, and Antioch, now if the Pope had authority to summon, sentence, condemn, excommunicate or deprive them of the communion of the faithful, depose, and dis-Bishop them, as Felix undeniably did in his sen­tence, against Acacius and his adherents, the intruded Patriarkes of Alexandria and Antioch; he must have had power and jurisdiction over all the inferiour Church governours, for qui valet ad majus, valet ad minus; and to limit this papal power to the Empire, I have shewed it groundlesse, for if the Bishop of Con­stantinople censured here by the Pope, had power over the barbarous, that is extra-imperial Provinces, as I have proved above, why should not the Pope, that had power over him, seeing there is not the least appearance in an­tiquity, that he had power over the Patriarkes as they were subjects of the Roman Empire, and if there be, shew it.

Num. 130. The story derideth your consequence, much more, that therefore the universal Church held the Pope then to be the universal head or Governour.

Num. 130. What story? wherein? how derides it my consequence? why, you say it does, and that's e­nough, this second consequence follows also undeniably [Page 209] for seeing these proceedings were notorious to the whole Church, and no Catholick Prelate, or Church, disallowed of them, but all Authours of those times, ap­prove them, that it was either then the unanimous con­sent of the Church, that the Pope had the power, or there is no meanes left to know by Authentical t [...]stimo­nies what the Church held or held not in those Ages.

Num. 131. Here is nothing of Gov [...]ment but, intreaty, and that but within the Empire, and that but upon the seeking of one distressed man that would be apt to go to those of most interest that might relieve him, and all this rejected by Acacius, and the Emperour; a fair proof.

Num. 131. Here is nothing but a most supream vi­sible authority in Government, over the three cheif Patriarchs of the Church in repealing their sentence, ex­communicating, depriving, and deposing them, and consequently, seeing some of them at least had authori­ty over extra-imperial or barbarous provinces (as I have proved) the Pope had government over some who were out of the Empire; yet withall, I minde you, I un­dertook no more, then to prove against you, that some at least in those times, held the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. now whether my proof, or your answer be the fairer, I leave it to the impartial Reader.

[Page 210]

Num. 132. Your second Instance is that Flavianus appeals to the Pope as to his judge; Epist. praeambul. Concil Chalced. Reply, I have perused all the Coun­cil of Chalcedon, as it is in Binius, purposely to finde the words you mencion of Flavianus appeal, and I finde not any such words, in Flavianus own epistle to Leo, there are such words, nor any other that I can finde but the [...] (appeal,) once in one of the Emperours Epistles as I Remember, but without mencioning any judge. I will not turne over volumes thus in vain for your Citations, while I see you take them on trust, and do not tel me in any narrow compasse of cap. sect, or pag. where to finde them.

Num. 132. I am sory you were put to so much paines, but I take it not to have been occasioned by me: I cite, Epist. praeambulat. Con. Chalced. and you con­fess you found it in one of the Epistles, whether the word, (Judge) be there or no imports nothing; for the na­ture of the appeal, and circumstances wherein it was made, shew him to be a Judge, as wee shall now see.

Num. 133. But had you found such words, an ap­peal is oft made from a partial to an impartial Iudge thought of equal power.

[Page 211]

Num. 133. What a juridical appeal, made both viva voce, and per libellum, by a bill of appeal in and from a generall Councill, to another of no greater au­thority then that Councill was, nay, in your principles of inferiour Authority to a generall Councill, would not this have been ridiculous? should a Citizen of Newscastle injured in the Mayors court, publikly appeal to the Mayor of Bristol and his court, as knowing him to be a more impartial Judge, and of equal authority with the other, would not all knowing men, nay the common people laugh at him?

Num. 134. He might appeal to the Bishop of Rome as one of his Iudges in the Council, where he was to be tryed and not as alone.

Num. 134. This is worse then the former, think you that Flavianus, was so great a fool, as to frame a So­lemn appeal in writing in the presence of a general Councill, from the authority of it, which is to be este­med, and then esteemed it self the highest Congregatio­nall tribunall in the Christian world, to a particular Councill of some few Bishops in Italy, as to a higher Judge then was a general Councill? this is just, as if one should appeal from the Parliament, to the common Council of London.

[Page 212]

Num. 135. And it is evident in the history, that it was not the Pope but the Council that was his Iudge.

Num. 135. But made that appeal, the Bishop of Rome or the Council either, an higher Judge then a general Council? that's the question here. if it did, then you must confess the Pope in a provincial Council at least iure Ecclesiastico, above a general Council in Power and Authority. How will your Brethren like that?

Num. 136. The greatness of Rome and Primacy of order, (not of jurisdiction) made that Bishop of spe­cial interest in the Empire.

Num. 136. But withal you must suppose them in their right witts, and of ordinary Learning and Pru­dence, as Flavianus surely was; and then they will find it absurd and foolish to appeal from a general Council to a particular, or to make one who has no more then Patriarchal authority (as you hold the Pope has no more) above a general Council.

[Page 213]

Num. 137. And distressed persecuted men will ap­peal to those that may any whit releive them. But this proves no governing power nor so much as any interest without the Empire, to make the voices of Patriarks necessary in their general Councils, no wonder! if appel­lations be made from those Councils that wanted the Patriarchs consent to other Councils where they consen­ted.

Num. 137. But here in the beginning of the Coun­cil, the patriarchs were present, even he of Rome by his legates, so that it was not conven'd wholly a­gainst the Popes wil, and had things been carried justly and canonically, there might have been a perfect con­sent of all the Patriarchs, at least there was the con­sent of three of them, and why a particular Council gathered by consent of one only patriarck (as was that in Italy) should be an higher tribunal then a general Council where three were present, I cannot see, nor I suppose you neither.

Num. 138. In which as they gave Constantinople the second place, without any pretence of Divine Right, and frequent appeals were made to that Sea: so also they gave Rome the first Sea.

[Page 214]

Num. 138. But was there ever a solemn Canoni­cal appeal, made in and from a general Council, to any Bishop of Constantinople with his provincial Council, as was made here, from this of Ephesus, to the Pope with his? that's the point: and I hope you will give some instance of it from antiquity in your next.

Num. 139. Adding this only that as Flavian ( in his necessity) seeking help from the Bishop of the prime Seat in the Empire, did acknowledg no more but his primacy of order by the lawes of the Empire, and the Councils thereof: so the Empire was not all the world, nor Flavian all the Church nor any more then one man, & therefore if he had held (as you wil never prove he did) the universal Government of the Pope, if you will thence argue, that it was held by all the Church, your consequence must needs be marvelled at, by them that be­lieve that one man is not the Catholick Church, no more then seeking of help, was an acknowledging an universal headship or governing power.

Num. 139. All this is answered in the former in­stance, though Flavian were not all the Church, nor half neither, (for where did I ever say he was, or need­ed to say so) yet he was one man at least, and a good Orthodox Christian, and that's enough, to confute your former assertion, that within the first four hundered [Page 215] years, you never saw any one who was for the Popes uni­versal monarchy or vice-Christs-ship ▪ now this was all I undertook to make good in my instances, as I have de­monstrated above▪ what you add, that this appeal having been addressed to Simplicius by Flavianus, argu'd no more then a primacy of order in Simplicius before all o­ther Bishops, will seem as strange to considering per­sons, as if a malefactour condemned by a younger Judge at the assizes, should appeal to some other more ancient amongst the Judges, because he would take place of the other in Parliament.

CHAP. II.

Num. 140. And it is undeniably evident that the Church of Constantinople, and all the Greek Churches, did believe the universal Primacy, which in the Em­pire was set up, to be of humane right, and now change­able, as I prove not only by the express testimonies of the council of Chalcedon, but by the slacking of the Pri­macy at last in Gregories dayes on Constantinople it self, whose pretence, neither was nor could be any other then a humane late institution.

Num. 140. These authorities shall be answered in your second part, where you urge them at large: to the Council of Chalcedon something is said already.

Num. 141. And if the Greek Churches judged so of it in Gregories dayes, and the Council of Chalcedon, in Leo's dayes, wee have no reason to think that they e­ver judged otherwise; at least not in Flavianus dayes, that were the same as Leo's, and business done about [Page 217] 149. This argument I here set against all your in­stances at once, and it is unanswerable.

Num. 141. It is really unanswerable, for I see no­thing to be answered in it, you only say you prove it by the testimony of the Council of Chalcedon, and stating the primacy at least in St. Gregories dayes in Constan­tinople, but neither produce here any authority of that Council nor of the Pope; then you come with an if it be so &c. when you have not proved it is so; and then say, your Argument is unanswerable: 'tis so indeed, for no man can answer an argument before it be made, considering men will think it had been soon enough to honour your own arguments with the illustrious title of unanswerable, when you have set them out in their full glory, but very unseasonable before you have given them a being: now how unanswerable your argument will prove, when it has a being, time will inform us.

Num. 142. Your next instance is of Pope Leo's re­storing Theodoret, upon an appeal to just judgement. Reply, every Bishop hath a power to discerne who is fie for his own Communion; and so Leo and the Bishops of the West perceiving Theodoret to be Orthodox recei­ved him as a Catholick into their communion, and so might the Bishop of Constantinople have done.

Num. 142. Was there no more in it, think you, men a bare receiving an Orthodox Bishop into commu­nion? [Page 218] what need was there of that? for I read not, that Theodoret was excommunicated by the false Councill of Ephesus, but deposed from his Bishopprick; but ha­ving been accused of Nestorianisme, and as such, con­demned in this Councill, the Pope according to the usu­al custome declared him Orthodox, and received him in­to his communion; it was a restoration to his Episco­pal Sea which he appealed for, and a reversing the un­just sentence (in his absence, and having no warning given him to plead his cause, and defence) which he sought for to Pope Leo, and he was accordingly restored in the first Session of the Councill of Chalcedon, and con­sequently by the Authority of Pope Leo, and took his seat in the Councill with the other Fathers: because the Bishop of Rome had judged him innocent, and restored him: nor is there any mencion made of the Bishops of the West, but only of a restauration ordered by Leo's authority, nor could the Bishop of Constantinople have don any such soveraign act, as this was. (which you say but prove not.) shew me if you can, ever nay appeal like this of Theodorets made from the sentence of a generall Council, to any patriarch in the world? save the Bishop of Rome. or any Bishop thus appealing restored to his sea after deposition by a general Council, save only by the Popes authority.

Num. 143. But when this was done: the Council did not thereupon receive him, and restore him to his Bishop­prick, no, nor would heare him read the passage between Pope Leo and him, no nor make a confession of his Faith, but cryed out against him as a Nestorian till he had ex­presly Anathematiz'd Nestorius and Eutiches before [Page 219] the Councill, and then received and Restored him, so that the finall judgement was not by Leo, but by the Council.

Num. 143. Here are many untruths put up together, 1. First it is most certain the Councill did receive him and he sat amongst them, as Bishop of Cyrus upon his Restitution by Leo; though the Bishops of Palestine, Egypt and Illyria, excepted and exclaimed against him. 2. It was not the Councill but those Bishops which opposed him, Con. Chalced: ac. 1. for whose satisfaction he Anathemis'd Nestorius, 3. The Coun­cill did not restore him otherwise, then by ratifying and approving Pope Leo's act of Restaurations which is not to have the final judgement of the cause, but to consent and approve by a publick act, what was justly, and Canonically adjudged before, which may be, and is ve­ry frequently don by equall, or inferiour judges: if in­deed the judgement of Leo had been reverst in the Councill, without the recourse had to him about it, you might have had some Colour to affirm, the finall judge­ment was by the Councill.

Num. 244. But if in his distress he appealed as you say, to a just judgement, from an unjust: or sought to make Leo his friend no wonder! but this is no grant of an universal Sover [...]ignty in Leo,

Num. 144. It was an act of jurisdiction out of [Page 220] the Western Patriarchs, therefore it could not proceed from Leo as he was Patriarch of the West; so that he must have done it, as having authority, and judicatory power over other Patriarchals; and seeing there is no reason alleadgeable, why he should have power in the Patriarchals where Theodoret was Bishop, more then in any other: à paritate rationis, it proves that he had juridical power over all the Patriarchals, ergo an uni­versal power over the whole Church, at least within the Empire. if you will solve this argument, you must shew a disparity, why Theodoret was more subject to the Sea of Rome then any other Bishop within the Empire, or the rest of the Patriarchs.

Num. 145. And if it had granted it in the Empire, that is nothing to the Churches in other Empires.

Num. 145. It is manifest by this instance, that Leo had power to annull the sentence of a general Council, at least which esteemed it self so; nor can I see why Protestants in their principles, should not account it as true a general Council, as others of those times, there having been present both the Emperour and the Patri­archs, either by themselves or their Legates and as many or more Bishops, then were in [...]her general Councils; now seeing general Councils had power over the extra-imperial Provinces, as is manifest above, from the Cou [...] ­cils of Nice, and Chalcedon, which subjected the barba­rous Provinces, that is, Russia, and Muscovia, &c. to the Bishop of Constantinople and the two Arabia's to [Page 221] the Patriarch of Antioch, of which some were the ex­tra-imperial; seeing, I say, that this instance evidences that the Bishop of Rome had power to judge of the sen­tence of a general Council, and reverse it too, he must have had power also over that which is subject to gene­ral Councils, that is, over the extra-imperial Provinces.

Num. 146. Or, if he had granted it as to all the world; he was but one man of the world and not the Ca­tholick Church.

Num. 146. 'Tis true, Theodoret was but one man, but it was not Theodoret alone who thought this appeal lawful, but it was approved as such by the whole general Council of Chalcedon, which was the Church representa­tive, having exercised power, as well without, as within the Empire; and after this the whole Catholick Church was satisfied with it, never having accepted against it, by any Orthodox writer in or about these times, nor a­ny memory lost, that the Church or any true parts of it, excepted against it. in your next it will be expected, you either produce some exception, witnessed b [...] Catholick antiquity, made against it, or grant, it was accepted by the whole Church, yet had it been Theodoret alone who approved that appeal, I had prov'd, there was at least one Orthodox christian, who held the Popes supremacy in those ages, which was all I undertook to prove, to infringe your assertion. ut Supra

[Page 222]

Num. 147. The Council expresly take on them the determination after Leo, and they slight the legates of the Pope, and pronounce him a Creature of the Fathers and give Constantinople equall priviledges, though his legates refuse to consent: but of the frivolousnesse of this your instance, see D. Field of the Church lib. 5. cap. 35. pag. 537.538. and more fully, Blondel de pri­matu, ubi sup. cap. 25. sect. 63.65.

Num. 147. Here is much said and nothing proved: part of what you say is just now satisfied, when in your rejoynder you alleadge the reasons of those two Doctors of yours, you shall have an answer,.

Num. 148. Your next instance is, that the Council of Sardis determined, that no Bishop deposed by other neighouring Bishops, pretended to be heard againe, was to have any successor appointed till the case were defined by the Pope Conc. Sard. cap. 4. cited by Anthanas. apol. 2. pag. 753. Reply, It seems you ar well acquainted with the Council that know not of what place it was; It was the Council at Sardica, and not at Sardis that you would mean. Sardis was a City of Lydia apud Tmo­lum, olim Regio Coersi inter Thyatiram & Philadelphi­am. But this Sardica was a [...] City of Thrace in the con­fines of the higher Mysia, inter Naissum Mysiae & Phil­lippopolim Thraciae, as to the instance.

[Page 223]

Num. 148. Had you seen my citation in the mar­gin, you might have saved this labour, for I find it cited in two different copies of mine. Concilium Sardicense, not Sardiense, and in a third, Con: Sardic. which haply was contracted in the copie sent to you, as you have printed it. Con. Sard: whereby it is manifest, I know what I cited, and all the defect was in English­ing the latine word Sardicense, wherein such as have lived most part of their lives beyond Sea, are not so well verst, as those who never stept out of England; and indeed you might as well blame the common strain of our English writers, as me in this; who ordinarily translate Nicea Nice, when it should be Nicee. for Ni­ce and Nicea are all as different Cities as Sardis and Sardica: yet the very name Sardis for Sardica was used long before me; for I am not the first who con­founded the names of those two Cities as Baronius witnesses, an. 347.

Num. 149. This Council is by Augustine rejected as Heretical, though I defend not his opinion.

Num. 149. Why then loose you time in mentioning it? Zozom. l, 3. cap. 10. Epist. Synodalis Arianorum Extat inter Hilar. frag. l. 2. but by your leave St. Augustine ne­ver rejected this Council of Sardica, for it is probable it was unknown to him to be different from that of Nice: But that of Philippopolis, not far from Sardica, where the Arian Bishops assembled a conventicle, and gave it out, under the name of the Arian Council.

[Page 224]

Num. 150 2. It was of so little note and authority, that it was not known to the Council of Carthage to have the next antecedent Canons (which you would have omitted if you had read them, its like) in which your writers glory, as their cheifest strength; and which Bellarmine thinkes Pope Zosimus called the Nicene.

Num. 150 I can scarce think you were in earnest, when you writ this, was the Sardican Council of little note, when Socrates, Zozomen, Severus, Theodoret, Vigilius episc. Tadentinus, Hilarius, Epiphanius, and above all St. Athanasius, who was present in it, make most honourable mention of it, as of a famous general Council, wherein, as many of them say, were above 308 Bishops, all Catholicks, wherein the Nicene Faith was confirmed against the Arians & which for its great and unblemisht authority, so fully consonant with the Nicene doctrine, deserved to be accounted the same with it, and to passe under the name and notion of the Council of Nice. now this Council was celebrated by consent of both the Emperours of the East amd West, and therein were Bishops (as St. Athanasius and Theodoret witness) from all the Pro­vinces of Christendome, Athan. ad salit. even from Arabia it self, though extra-imperial.

[Page 225]

Num. 151. Or rather is it not suspicious? that this Canon is forged, when those Carthage Fathers plainly say, in nullo patrum concilio invenimus, mentioning that antecedent Canon proposed by Hosius, to which this mentioned by you proposed by Gaudentius is but an addition or supplement. And it is not like that all these African Fathers could be ignorant of those canons of Sardica, when such abundance of African Bishops were at the Council, and that but about 50 years before. You may see in Binius how hard a strait he is put to, to give any tolerable reason of this, and onely saith that its like, some of the Canons were lost. sure tradition was then grown untrusty.

Num. 151. Had you but perused at leisure what the malice of the Donatists had wrought in Africa con­cerning the acts of the true Sardican Council in sup­pressing the canons of that Council, and obtruding those of the false council of Philippopolis, composed of Arians under the title and name of the Council of Sardica, you had had smal reason to judge that the Affrican Fathers could not be ignorant of those canons of Sardica. Now that the foresaid Arian Council was given out by the Donatists under the name of the Sardican Council; it was most evident from St. Aug. ep. 163. where he affirms that in a book containing the Council of Sar­dica, he found St. Athanasius and Iulius Bishop of Rome condemned, whence he collected, it was a Coun­cil of Arians and contra. l. 3. c. 24. He tells his ad­versary [Page 226] the Council of Sardica, was a conventicle of Arians, as was evident by the copies which in his time they had of it, amongst them, having been assembled principally against St. Athansius, whereas it is mani­fest (as the authors witnesse in the former paragraph) the true Council of Sardica was in favour and defence of St Athanasius and in con­firmation of the Nicene Faith: Epist. con. Sard. apud Athan. Athan: Apol. & ad sol. vit. that this fraud was practised by the Do­natists, St. Aug. witnesseth Ep. 163. where he affirmes that Spurious book was shewed him by Fortunius the Donatist, and gives also there the reason of this perfidious dealing; because they found in that Arian Council a writing addrest to the African Bishops, of their communion with Donatus the first be­ginner and then Bishop of the Donatists. whence ap­pears undeniably that in St. Aug's, and so in time of the African Council, there was no other copy of the Sardican Council, save that false one of the Arians, fraudently given out for the true one of Sardica. Now if St Augustine the light not only of Africa but of the whole Church, was ignorant of the true canons of the Sardican Council, the copies of it having been sup­prest by the Donatists, what need you wonder that the rest of the African Bishops were ignorant of them? and this is the reason why the African Fathers writ, they found not the canons in any Council of the Fathers, because they had not the true copy of the Sardican, wherein they were: yet it is true that these very canons were acknowledged by the African Churches within very few years after this African Council, both by the practise of that Church, S. Leo. Ep. 8. ad Episc▪ African [...]s. where (as St. Leo witnesses) an African Bishop appealed to him who succeeded within eight years of Celestine, and [Page 227] his appeal was received: and by inserting these very ca­nons of the Sardican Council into the canon law of A­frica, for Fulgentius Ferrandus Deacon of Carthag. not long after St. August. and Contemporanean with St. Fulgentius, Fulg. Ferrand. in Breviar: Can: art 59. & 60. hath registred them into his collection of the canons amongst the rest.

Num. 152. It was made in a case of Athanasius and other Orthodox Oriental Bishops meerly in that strait to save them, and the Churches from the Arians.

Num. 152. But if it were only for this strait, why was it many years after put into the canon law of A­frica, (as I have now proved) and practised to this ve­ry day ever since in the Church? Who ever before you said, it was only for that strait? name any one clasick author of antiquity, if you can, who said so? Canons of general Councils though occasioned by sever­al accidents, are to be supposed as perpetual to the whole Church, till they be either repealed by some authority equal to a general Council, or some manifest action given in the institution of them, that they are only pro­visionary for a time: prove if you can by the words of this Council? that it intends them only to be obligatory only for that strait and not to be perpetual. This in­deed were an excellent way to infringe the obligation of all or the most part of the Ecclesiastical canons by saying, they were in aid upon such a strait, (as all were made by some or other,) and therefore binde not, after [Page 228] that occasion is past. But what if in effect, either the same or the like occasion and strait, more or lesse, be still found in the Churches. For after the Arians the Nestorians, Eu­tychians, Monothelites, image breakers & others, perse­cuted Catholick Bishops as wrongfully as did the Arians; why then was this canon not to remaine necessary after that strait of the Arian opposition? I see the strait was yours, being much pinched for an answer, when you fell upon such a strait as this.

Num. 153. The Arians withdrew from the Coun­cil being the Minor part; and excommunicated Julius and Athanasius and other occidentals; and the occiden­tal Bishops excommunicated the oriental. Athanasius himself was a cheif man in the Council, and had before been rescued by the help of Julius, and therefore no won­der if they desired this safety to their Churches.

Num. 153. But yet because it was morally certain, even after this strait was past that as before this Coun­cil was assembled, or the Council of Nice either; ma­ny Bishops were opprest by their neighbour Bishops and stood in need of appeals: so in all future times more or lesse such occasions would happen as continual experience ever since hath taught, as they have hapned▪ for these reasons I say it was necessary that these and the like canons should be of perpetual force or remedy against perpetual dangers, equal, or like to those of the Arians. This ground of yours, would have stood our late Republicans in good stead, who might have cancel­led most of the ancient lawes of our Kingdomes upon [Page 229] the same pretence, with yours, that they were enacted first upon some strait or other, which being past over many years agoe, they are now no more necessary, nor any way obligatory. See you not, what foundations you lay, for the overthrow of the lawes both of Church and Kingdome?

Num. 154. Note that this is a thing newly granted now, by this canon, and not any ancient thing.

Num. 154. Prove it is a new thing: this decree was not before it was made, but the matter of the decree, that is, the power of the Bishops of Rome to judge all other prelats was before this Council, for otherwise St. Athanasius and the other Bishops could ne­ver have appealed to the Bishops of Rome as to their judges, or would their appeales have been accepted by those holy Bishops, or approved in general Councils, or had the effects of restauration &c. In the Church▪ which notwithstanding, you your self confesse here, was done before this Council.

Num. 155. Note that therefore it was of humane Right, and not of Divine.

Num. 155. Therefore, whence deduce you that to prove first your premises before you infer your conclu­sion? may not the Church order that divine Lawes and institutons be observed, and are they therefore not of [Page 230] divine right, because the Church hath commanded the observance of them? did not the fourth Council of La­teran command all Christians to receive at Easter? Is therefore the reception of the Sacrament not of divine right? true it is, the circumstances of Executing divine commands may be determined by the Church, as they were in this Council: but the substance is still divine▪ shew by any word in those canons that they give the power of judging the causes of all Bishops to the Pope, as if he had it not before?

Num. 156. Note that yet this canon was not re­ceived, or practised in the Church, but after this, the contrary maintained by Councils, and practised, as I shall anon prove.

Num. 156. When you prove it, I hope, I shall answer it.

Num. 157. That it is not any antecedent Govern­ing power, that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope, but in honor of the memory of St. Peter, as they say; (yet more for their present security) they give thus much to Rome, it being the vulgar opinion that Peter had been their Bishop.

Num. 157. I am heartily sorry to discover so bad a [Page 231] spirit in you, as these expressions demonstrate. why give you not the title of St. to him, to whom this holy oecu­menicall Council (as you here acknowledg) gave it they call him (say you) St. Peter and you unsaint him, & cal him, as it were in derision of the Council, plain Peter. why call you that a vulgar opinion? which was imbra­ced as an unquestioned certainty, by this reverend, Learned, and general assembly of the catholick Church. why impose you upon this holy Council? that they had preferred their own security before the memory of St. Peter. I am really struck with compassion to see so much of the Lucian in you.

I have denyed any power at all to be given to the Bishops of Rome by these canons; they only determine the use which was to be made of his presupposed power, by whom, and when. If an order be made in Parlia­ments, That such particular persons as have been op­pressed by others in inferiour courts, shall have recourse by appeal to one of the Lords cheif Justices. Does that Parlianent by virtue of that order create or institute the Lord cheif Justice? or rather, is it not evident it supposes him to have the power of cheif Justice, pre­cedently to that order, and only ordaines that others have recourse to him: But yet the power they mention of redresse and appeal to the Roman Bishops is to him only as Judge; for the canon sayes nothing of any Council joyned to him, nor names any other Judge, save the Pope. when a Judge sits in judgement at the assizes, though the bench be filled with other justices who inform and assist, yet the sentence proceeds only from the Judge. Thus though the Bishops of Rome u­sed in matters of great concernment to the whole Church, to call some neighbouring Bishops to sit in Council with him for his better information, and grea­ter [Page 232] solemnity in the judgement: yet he alone had the power of pronouncing a definitive sentence in be­half of Bishops wrongfully deposed &c. It is mani­fest by this, that the restauration is ascribed as done by him, and not by him and his Council, and so having no authority in itself out of the Roman or Western Pa­triarchate, and serving only for an assistance to the Pope in framing his judgement of the case propounded, not in a decisive voyce in pronouncing the sentence, or legal power in granting the restauration.

How expect you to be spoke of after your death, when you slight so much the Fathers of the first general Council of Nice (for a great number of them were in this) and how can you live without fear, Socrat. eccl. histor. l. 2. c. 11. Zozom. l. 3. c. 11. & 12. that you are led with the spi­rit of errour (when you refuse to hear and beleive those who were the lawful pastours in a full representative of Gods holy Church? but to shew how far you fal from trueth in saying those canons acknow­ledge no antecedent governing power in the Pope, please to reflect on what is said in the third of them, where they leave it to the Popes prudence, to accept of what appeales he thinks fit, and intreat him to vouchsafe to write to the neighbouring Bishops, or to send legats of his own to examine the case, as he judges best: now had they conferd this power upon the Pope by virtue of those acts, they should not have proceded by way of in­treaty, but by way of precept, and injunction, nor left matters to his disposition, but ordered him by theirs, what he was to doe.

[Page 233]

Num. 158. That it is not a power of judging alone, that they give, but of Causing the re-examination of causes by the Council, and adding his assistance in the the judgement, and so to have the putting of another in­to the place forborne, till it be done.

Num. 158. But does not the first of these canons, give expresse order, that the Pope appoint the judges, and the second, that the Pope himself pronounce the last juridical sentence, & the third, that it is left to the Popes free election either to refer the farther exami­nation to the neighbour Bishops, or send judges of his own appointment. Can there be more evident markes of an absolute judge, than these are? If the Pope had power only to examine the causes: who had the power to judge them according to these Canons? or to what purpose where those examinations made, if none were impowred to passe judgement, after the causes were examined? Now seeing the canons attribute the power of judging to no other, save the Bishops of Rome: for they make no mention at all of any Council; then the Council sup­posed the power of judgeing to be in him alone, and not joyntly in the provincial Council and him.

Num. 159. And I hope still you will remember, that at this Council were no Bishops without the Empire, and that the Roman world was narrower, then [Page 234] the Christian world: and therefore if these Bishops in a part of the Empire had now given (not a ruling) but a saving power to the Pope so far as is there expressed; this had been far from proving, that he had a ruling power, as the vice-Christ over all the world, and that by divine right: Blame me not to call on you to prove this Consequence?

Num. 159. I hope you will also remember what I have answered to these exceptions: and that I have proved that Bishops from the three Arabia's were pre­sent in this Council, all which were not under the Em­pire: and that the Roman world in order to spiritual Government was as large, as the Christian world uni­vocally so called, as I have prov'd from St. Prosper, and St. Leo.

Num. 160. There is as much for appeales to Con­stantinople, that never claimed as vice-Christ-ship, as jure divino.

Num. 160. 'Tis your pleasure to say so, but your word with me is not arrived to the authority of an [...]. it is your proofes, not the bare sayings I expect here. non proof 17.

CHAP. III.

Num. 161. The sixt instance out of Basil's 74 Epistle, I imagine, you would have suppressed, if ever you had read that Epistle, and had thought that any o­thers would be induced by your words to read it.

Num. 161. This is a strange way of answering. I cite not St. Basil as it comprises those matters which treated in regard of himself, or of the Western Bishops: but only, as it contains his testimony of Eustathius ha­ving been restored to his Bishopprick by force of the letters of Liberius, which he clearly witnesses. Now that this was done not by way of recommendation on­ly, and testification of his profession of the Catholick Nicene faith, in consideration whereof he desired he might be restored to the Bishoppricks, is manifest; see­ing he actually restored him, by an absolute command. For you to alleadge other passages of a different nature, and nothing contrary to what I say, and unfit to shew the thing I cite, to be untrue, is a meer [...]. why trifle you thus? answer the wordes of St. Basil relat­ing to Eustathius and Liberius? It is not proofs from your key, that I expect here, but answers to my Argu­ments. non proof 18.

[Page 237]Your branding Liberius with the note of an Ar­ian, without proof, is as easily rejected by me, as said by you; what had such a parenthesis as that, to do in the argument? But I see it is hard to hide rancor, where it is excessive: For being universal authority drawn from these, and the like instances, is of force by an argument a paritate Rationis. What reason can be alleadged, why Pope Liberius should command the restauration of Eustathius a Bishop of the Eastern Patriarck, save this? that he had power to restore any one wrongfully ejected through the whole Church. You assert, that all the preheminence he had given him over all the Bishops within the Empire, was no more then a Primacy of place and precedency, how then came he to have a Pri­macy of authority and jurisdiction over all the imperi­al Bishops, to judge, condemn, and restore them? shew me who gave him that imperial power? this you ne­ver resolved in your whole book; and I know the reason, you could not resolve it into any other grant, then into that of Christs institution; from the Council of Nice it could not be, both because that Council (according to your principles) ra­ther restraines his power to the Western Churches then extends it into the wole Empire, and the Popes exer­cised power through the wole Empire long before the Council of Nice, so that neither that nor any other sub­sequent Council could give it him, nor could the Christian Emperours give him that power, for he exer­cised it long before the Emperours were Christians, both in the East, and West, nor did the the primitive Bishops through the whole Empire give it him, for there is no proof in antiquity of any such grant: ergo, there is no appearance, that any such authority was given to the Bishops of Rome from any, save Christ himself. Now [Page 238] Christ never restrained the power he gave him to the Empire, but rather intended it to the whole Church. and if he did restrain it, shew where and how?

Num. 162. Your seventh proof is from Chrysostome. who you say, expresly desireth Pope Innocent not to punish his adversaries, if they do repent. Chrys. Epist. 2. ad Innoc. Reply, you much wrong your soul in taking your religion thus on trust, some book hath told you this untruth, and you beleive it; and its like you will per­swade others of it as you would do me. There is no such word in the Epist. of Chrysostome to Innocent, nor any thing like it.

Num. 162. Either you or I must be in a mighty errour; I affirm those very words are in: you accuse me of taking things on trust, and thereby deceive my self and others; and you flatly deny there is any such word in the Epistle of St. Chrys. to Innocent or any thing like it. in which Epist. 1 ad Innocentium I again affirm those words are, and refer my self to the inspection of the Greek and Latine copies where St. Chrysostome intreates Pope Innocent, that in case his opposers would put a remedy to their crimes, and Illegalities they might not be punished.

Num. 163 Your eight proof is this ( the like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus,) which [Page 239] no doubt you mean) is in Binius enough to make a consi­derable volume and divided it into six tomes and each of those into Chapters and not into acts: and if you expect, that I should read six Tomes in Folio, before I can an­swer your several sentences or shredds: you will put me on a twelve moneths to answer a few sheets of paper. If you mean by p. 2. Tom. 2. and by Act. 5. cap. 5. then I must tell you there is not a word of that you say, nor like it, only there is reference to Celestines and Cyrils Epistles; and Celestine in his Epistle recited Tom. 1. cap. 17. threatens Nestorius, that if he re­pent not, he will excommunicate him, and they will have no communion with him: which others did as well as he, but not a word of John Bishop af Antioch there, nor can I finde any such time in the fourth [...]ome where John's cause is handled. Indeed the notes of your histo­rians divide the Council into sessions, but in his fift session there is nothing of John, but of Nestorius: and in the fourth session John and his party excommunicate Cyril, Memnon, and others: and it was the Council that suspended first and after excommunicated John, and it is the Emperour to whom he appeales.

Num. 163. Had I been sufficiently informed, before I writ this answer, you had no other edition of the Council then that of Binius, I should easily have fram­ed my citations according to that, to save you the la­bour of turning volums over, but how should I know that, before you told it me? I had reason to suppose, that you who are and have been for many years so fa­mous a writer of controversies, had the Council ready in all sorts of Editions, so that none could fall amisse [Page 240] to you. If therefore you please to peruse in the Ed: of Paul. quintus, you shall finde the words cited by me conc. Ephes. 1. p. 2. Act. 5. in relatione ad Celesti­num, where writing of Iohn Bishop of Antioch to Pope Celestine, the Fathers reserve or remit him to the judg­ement of Celestine, & in the interim had provisionally declared him excōmunicate & deprived him of sacerdo­tal power, whereby it appears how the Council excomuni­cated him, and not only that, but declared him also de­prived of sacerdotal power. Now seeing they reserve this very sentence to the Popes further censure, It is mani­fest they both prefer his sentence before their own, and that the sentence was not only negatively to avoide him, or not communicate with him, but positively to de­prive him of the commuion of the faithful, which al­wayes argues superiority in power (as we have seen a­bove in Acatius) and tooke the Priestly power from him by his disposition &c. your strange confidence in out-facing two so manifest authorities will neither credit your cause, nor your self.

Num. 164. Indeed your annotator, in sess. 6. men­tions some words of Juvenals, that he should at least have regarded the Roman legates, it being the custome that his Church de directed by that, but I see no proof he brings of those words corruption.

Num. 164. My citation mentions neither Iohns appeales, nor Iuvenals denuntiation but the Ephesine Councils letters to Pope Celestine, wherein they reserve the last judgement concerning Iohn of Antioch to [Page 241] Celestine, yet sure Iohns appealing to the Emperours, prove no more, then that it is the Custome of Here­ticks to appeal from general Councils, to secular Princes: and Iuvenals denunciation against Iohn was not only, that the Church of Antioch was to be directed, but judged also (which you are pleased to omit) by the Church of Rome: and that was not only a Custome, as you barely terme it, but an Apostolical ordination, ut Apostolica ordinatione, See the true meaning of this sentenc in Hierom. Alex▪ disput. 2. de Regione sub urbe c. 4. & antiqua tra­ditione (sayes Juvenal) Antiochena sedes perpetuo a Romana dirigeretur judicare­turque. Whence appears that these words are not the words of any Historian, but are yet extant in the Council, and thereby proved to be true, and by them is clearly witnessed the perpetual power and authority of judging all other Seas, by an argument, a paritate rationis.

Num. 165. And it is known that Cyril of Alexan­dria did preside and subscribed before the Roman Le­gates, even to the several letters of the Synode. As you may see in Tom. 2. cap, 23. & passim.

Num. 165. It is known also he was Pope Celestine, Celest. Ep. 3. Theod. B [...]alsoin Photius Tit. c. 1. Niceph. L. 14. c. 34. legate in ordinary, & there­fore sate as president in the Council, and subscribed first as being constituted by Ce­lestine to supply his place in the examination and sen­tencing of Nestorius, in token of which, he wore the Pall in celebration of Mass (sent him from Celestine) [Page 242] in time of the Councils of Ephesus, which was the habit of the Roman Bishop.

Num. 166. But if your words were there to be found, what are they to the purpose: the Pope can punish the Bishops of Antioch: but how? why by excommuni­cating him, true: If he deserve it, that is, by pronoun­cing him unfit for Christian communion, and requiring his flock, and exhorting all others to avoide him.

Num. 166. I have before answered this in the ex­ample of Acatius punisht by Felix, and this instance it self ( vt supra) convinces, that it was not only a nega­tive declaration of himself and others avoiding him, but of deposing him also from his Priestly office.

Num. 167. And thus may another Bishop do: and thus did John by Cyril of Alexandria though he was himself of the inferiour seat: and thus hath the Bishop of Constantinople done by the Bishops of Rome, & so may others.

Num. 167. What Bishops were those? Iohn of Antioch a ringleader of the Nestorians, and some Bishops of Constantinople, why name you them not? none but ejusdem farinae with Iohn of Antioch, Hereticks, or [Page 243] Schismaticks: name any Bishop of Constantinople, who excommunicated the Bishop of Rome, and I undertake here to prove him to be either an Heretick or a Schis­matick, and accounted such by the Catholicks of his time. That was that great and Capital crime so much ex­claimed against in the Empeachment of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, before the Fathers assembled at Chalcedon, was it not that he had extended his felonious hand against Pope Leo in pronouncing an excommuni­cation against him? but shew me also, that ever any in­feriour or equal prelate gave out a sentence of excommu­nication against another of higher or equal dignity, who in so doing, was not condemned by the Catholicks of those times and then shew who in those dayes con­demned Pope Celestine for punishing, and sentencing Nestorius, or Iohn of Antioch.

You mince all you can, to depresse the Popes autho­rity, the sentence of excommunication: who told you that the Pope only exhorted all others out of his proper Diocess, to avoide a person excommunicated by him? was not Constantinople out of the Popes flock (in your opinion?) and did not the Pope command with threats of Gods wrath that none should give the communion to those, whom he had deprived of it? so my instance above in the excommunication of Acatius. Or whence learnt you that excommunication was no more then to pronounce one unfit for Christian communion, and no command to abstain from them? produce your authori­ties, or reject your Novelties.

Num. 198. non proof 15. non proof 16. Your ninth proof is from the applications that the Arians and Atha­nasius [Page 244] made to Julius. ex Athan: ad solit. Epist. Julius in Litt. ad Arian apud Athan: Apol. 1. p. 753. Theo­doret lib. 2. c. 4. Athan. Apol. Zozom lib. 3. c. 7. Reply, I marvell you urge such rancid instances, to which you have been so fully and so often answered.

Num. 168. But I marvell not to hear you speak so confidently, as you do, without giving reason for your confidence, it is so ordinary a thing with you. If you call an instance rancid, all the world must without scruple, beleive it, because you call it so: if you say that has been often and fully answered, it must be accounted as certain, as if it proceed from an Oracle. Think you wise men will be moved to any thing but laughter, by such non proofs? will any rational person yeild to you both the place of Judge and partie?

Num. 169. I refer you to Blondel de primatu cap. 25. sect. 14.15. Whitaker de Roman. Pontif, p. 150 & passim. Dr. Feild of the Ch. l. 5. c. 35. &c.

Num. 169. 'Tis a shrewd signe you aad no answer of your own worth the mentioning, when you send me to Blondel, Whitaker, and Feild, for an answer.

Truly Sr I have my hands too full to spend time in such needlesse messages, yet had I undertaken them, I perceive I had lost my labour: for Whitaker, in the place you cite de Roman. Pontifice p. 150. hath never a [Page 245] word of these instances, nor of the Bishops of Rome. And your other citation of passim is as much as if you had said, you know not where, and thereby send me you know not whither. Are such citations fit amongst Scho­lars, in controversies of Religion? Blondel first trifles in time, figures, words, translations, to amuse his Rea­der, and then hath no other shift, but to feign Iulius to have been freely chosen as an Arbitrator for that sole time and occasion, by the Arian Legates, as they might have chosen any other Bishop, not considering that Arbitrators must be equally chosen by both parties agreeing in the choice of them; so that no one party without the consent of the other, is sufficient to consti­tute an Arbitrator. Now it is evident, that upon this submission of the Arians, Iulius writ to St. Athan. to appear peremptorily by way of citation, never requi­ring whether he gave his free Election to have him Ar­bitrator in his cause, as appears from Theodoret Hist. Ec­cles. l. 2. c. 4. and St. Athan. Ap. 2. where he cites Iulius, affirming that St. Athanasius came not then to Rome of his own free Election, or of himself, but being called by the Letters of Iulius to Rome; nor hath Blon­del any ground to say in the words he cites, Ep. 73. that the Arian Legates chose Iulius directly for their de­fence, nor onely to have a Synode called, wherein a de­finitive Sentence might be given: nor had those Arrian Legates any reason to pitch upon Iulius for their Ar­bitrator, had the choice of a Judge been left to them: for they both knew he was a profest Adversary to their Heresie, and sufficiently informed against them. And for Field, he sayes nothing that can give any shew of sa­tisfaction to my Instances, if he do, cite his Answer in your next, and I here undertake to shew it to be unsatis­factory.

[Page 246]

Num. 170. Briefly this may shew the vanity of your proof; Zozomon in that place saith, that though he alone wrote for them, yet he wrote in the name, and by the consent of all the Bishops of the West.

Num. 170. Why cite you not his words? there's something in't; for you spare no pains in that, where they serve your turn. Sayes Zozomen upon your honest word (for that's all we have for it) that Iulius writ that Epistle in the name, and by the consent of all the BB. of the West? What, of all? the Gothes had then there BB. then you must acknowledge in your principles he writ an untruth: Had Iulius their consent, and writ he in the name of them? Then Iulius in this his Epi­stle, had as well an Extra-Imperial as an Imperial Au­thority, that is, had the Authority not onely of the BB. within, but of those also who were without the Empire, which you expresly deny in the next leaf, page 149. num. 3. and it is strange that all those of the West consented when there were no more than 50. Bishops, as Baron. affirms, ad. an. 341. n. 13. in Epist. of spon­dani in that Council. Tradition.

Num. 171. The advantages of Rome, by its repu­tation and greatness, and the number and quality of the Western Bishops, made their Iudgement and Communion valuable to others.

[Page 247]

Num. 171. But how far? What, even to cite and summon parties to appear before their Tribunal, and in case they refused, to pronounce Sentence against them, and acquit and restore their Adversaries? The Imperial City of London hath a proportionable preheminence with Rome, before all other Cities through the whole Kingdom; hath therefore my Lord Major, and the Common Council power to summon in this kind any other Magistrates of inferiour Cities to appear before them, and in case of non-appearance to justifie and re­establish their Adversaries?

Num 172. Basil before cited, tells you on what grounds, when Churches disagree, those that are distant are supposed to be impartial, especially when numerous.

Num. 172. Be it so: but sayes St. Basil there, that distance of place is enough to give power of summoning, condemning and acquitting parties legally? that's the question, where sayes St. Basil that? produce his words, or rather give a second reflection upon his words, cited by you p. 139. and you'l find no such matter.

Num. 173. To which is added, which Basil inti­mates that some hope of help from the secular powers by [Page 248] the interposition of the Western Bishops, made them the more sought to.

Num. 173. How sought to? As to friends and as­sistants? that's not our question now; as to Superiours and Judges? that's indeed the question, but sure the prime urgent and necessitating motive, why I have re­course to a Judge and Superiour, is his coercive power over me, the others are secondary and by respects in the matter.

Num. 174. And the Primacy of Rome (though it had no Soveraignity) made it seem irregular, that a Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge and judgement of the Patriarchs of the precedent Seats: This was the custom that Julius spake of, and the Pa­triarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much, if the Patriarch of Jerusalem or Antioch had been deposed without them.

Num. 174. If there had been no more then bare precedency, why should not the Metropolitans, who had the precedency of other Metropolitans, have had the like priviledge? who told you, or where ever read you, that this novelty which you have newly hatched, to have recourse to the Bishop of Rome, and acquaint him with Ecclesiastical matters, by reason of his Primacy in sole precedency of place, was the custom whereof Iulius speaks? See you not that Iulius his words and procee­dings [Page 249] in this affair speak loudly, a supereminent power and jurisdiction over those Bishops, whose cause he then heard, and summoned them to appear before him, and not a naked precedency of place before all others? who told you, or where ever read you, that the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much, if the Patriarchs of Antioch or Ierusalem had been deposed without them? you are excellent at gues­sing what might be done, when you have no proof what was ever done; for shame bring proofs, or cease to play the part of a Disputant. Non-proof 17.

Num. 175. Every Patriarch might absolve the In­nocent and hold Communion with him in his own Pa­triarchate; and if any be against it ( as the Arians here were, and sent false accusations against Athanasius to Julius) he may require them to prove their accusations, if they will have him more by them.

Num. 175. Here are a couple more of non-proofs, I think we shall never come to an end of them. The question is not what one may require in courtesie and condescendency of another, nor whether the Arians were obliged only conditionally, ( viz.) if they would have Iulius to be moved by the accusations they had sent him, as you surmise here; but how the Bishops of Rome came to summon them to appearance, and upon their defaillance to proceed juridically to Sentence a­gainst them, and to acquit and restore the persons they accused to the Dignities, from which they had deposed [Page 250] them, if he had no true and real jurisdiction over them; for had there been no more in the case, then what of their non-appearance, he should have surceased from any further proceeding, and neither helpt nor hurt them. Should you send accusations to the Chancellour of Scot­land, against some of your brethren here in England, that by reason of his eminent authority in that King­dom he might do you some favour; and he upon the receipt of those accusations should summon those Bre­thren of yours to appear before him, and for not ap­pearance condemn them, and acquit and restore you, would not all the World see that he exceeded his Com­mission? No Patriarch by vertue of his Patriarchal dig­nity, though preceeding the other in place, had power to condemn any belonging to another Patriarchate (if the fact were not committed within his jurisdiction) without the consent of that Patriarch, under whose Au­thority he was, according to the Council of Nice.

Num. 176. Our own Communion with men, is to be directed by the judgement of our own well informed consciences.

Num. 176. But our consciences, if well regulated, must avoid all those whose Communion is prohibited by the lawful Governours of Gods Church; nor are private persons to avoid any, whom the lawful Prelates of the Church retain in their Communion.

[Page 251]

Num. 177. Julius desired not any man then to be one with a Council that should decide the Case.

Num. 177. There's another non-proof, make that appear. Non-proof 18.

Num. 178. Councils then had the Rule, and the Pa­triarchs were the most honourable members of those Councils, but no Rulers of them. Non-proof 19.

Num. 178. And that's another; let us see that prov'd.

Num. 179. Yet Zozomen and others tell you that Julius, when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and Paulus, could do no good, nor prevail with the Bi­shops of the East, till the Emperours commands pre­vailed. Non-proof 20.

Num. 179. And that's another; cite the place in Zozomen, who be those others?

[Page 252]

Num. 180. Yea, the Eastern Bishops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceedings, no more then they did with his, when he dealt with the Novati­ans: seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then another. And so they took it ill that he interposed, though but to call the matter to a Synode, when a Patriarch was deposed.

Num. 180. What then? Ergo the Pope had no Authority over them. So did the Pharisees resist our Saviour, the Jews Moses and Aaron, and the late Re­bels our most gratious Soveraign; Ergo, will you de­duce thence they had no Authority over them? But see you not how inconsequent you are to your self? you said just now, p. 148. that it seemed irregular, that any Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge of the Patriarch of the preceeding Sea; Ergo, say you, the Eastern Bishops seem (I suppose you mean truly and with reason, or you urge that reason, p. 148. without reason) to have proceeded irregularly in opposing Iulius: If so, either this your first reason is against reason, or you against your self. Tradition.

Num. 181. Any Bishops might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Julius did, especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him.

[Page 252]

Num. 181. Another non proof, why give you neither instance, nor reason for what you say?

Num. 182. All your consequences here therefore are denyed. It is denyed that because Julius made this attempt, that therefore he was universal Ruler in the Empire. 2. It is denyed that it will thence follow if he were so, that it had been by divine right, any more then Constantinople had equal previledges by divine right. 3 It is denyed that it hence followeth that either by di­vine or humane right, he had any power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire. Had you all you would rack these testimonies to speak, it is but that he was mad by Councils and Emperours the cheif Bishop or Patriarck in a National Church (I mean a Church in one Princes Dominion,) as the arch-Bishop of Canter­bury was in England. But a national or imperial Church is not the universal, and withal oppressed men will seek releif from any that may help them,

Num. 182. All those consequences are proved at large in other parts of this treatise. The first because this proceeding of Iulius having been approved in all ages by the whole Church, there can be no other reason given of his power over the Bishops of Alexandria and o­thers of the East, save this, that he was head in Govern­ment over all the Churches through the whole Empire. [Page 254] The second that it was by divine right, for it was exer­cised by virtue of an ancient rule or canon received in the Church as Iulius affirms, which could not be, that of Nice, for that was instituted a very few years before. Hence followes the third, for Christs institution was for the whole Church, not for the sole Empire.

CHAP. IV.

Num. 183. In your margin you add (that concer­ning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly by Pope Juliu(s Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so, but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust. Corruption. Reply, Take it not ill Sr I beseech you, If I awake your conscience, to tell me how you dare to write so many untruths which you knew or might know, I could quickly manifest. Both parts of your saying of Chamier p. 497. are untrue 1 the matter of fact is it, that he denyeth. He proveth to you from Zozomen's words that Athanasius did make no ap­peal to a judge, but only fled for help to a friend; he shewes you that Julius did not play the Iudge, but the helper of the spoiled, and that it was not an act of judgement. 2 He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judging, but only mentioneth his not hearing the accused, to shew that he did not play the part of a judge, but of [Page 234] a friend, as Chrysostome did by some that fled to him. I pray answer his reasons.

Num. 183. Had I written, as you print my words, I had indeed deserved a sharper reprehension then you gave me. Now whether I writ so or no; I leave it to your judgement; Here you cite my words thus: in your margent (say you) you add, that concerning St. Atha­nasius being judged and rightly, Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so, but against all antiquity pre­tends that judgement to have been unjust. In which words you make me first wrong Chamier by affirming he sayes Athanasius was judged rightly by Iulius, and then you make me wrong my self by delivering a mani­fest contradiction in two lines: for first in your citation I say, that Chamier affirms that judgement to have been rightly done, and then presently that I affirm Chamier to have said, that judgement to have been unjust, that is not rightly done. Now whether I affirm Chamier to have said the matter of fact, to have been so, that is, to have been rightly done, your own printing of my words will put the matter out of question: therefore pag. 52. in the margin you cite my words thus: concerning St. A­thanasius being judged and righted by Pope Iulius, Chamier cit: acknowledges the matter of fact to be so. Now one may be judged and righted, that is set again into his right, by one who hath no power to judge him, and consequently judges not rightly, that is, duly, juridically and Canonically: now by changing righted into rightly you change the whole tenure and meaning of my words, and then grate on me upon the Conscience, with what not I, but you or your printer [Page 256] was guilty of, and truly I should have been most willing to have cast it upon him, had your written copy shewed the contrary, so here you have not righted but rightly, neither do I finde these words, to be so, in my marginal copy, but only thus, Chamier confesses the matter of fact, without to be so, though I will not contend with you in this; as not having seen the copy which was sent you. True it is, Chamier would have this judgement to have passed as from a freind, but to prove this he contends that it could not be from a competent and canonical Judge, because it was under the notion of a judgement unjust, seeing both parties were not present to be heard in judgement, so that he holds this to have been an unjust judgement, if taken in a rigorous sense, which is all that I said. But in the mean time you answer not my argu­ments whereby I prove it just, nor could you answer them without impeaching St. Athanasius of concurring with Iulius to an unjust judgement, for though Iulius had past this judgement as a freind, yet to pro­ceed to execution, before the adverse party was heard, or things made so evident that there was no place for defence, would have been an unjust proceeding: and if matters were so undeniably clear, it was not unjust for want of that formality, so that if it were unjust in a freind, according to equity or justice, can justify a per­son accused without hearing what his accusers are able to make good against him: much lesse can those accusors be condemned as manifest detractors and lyars, when they are not permitted to speak for themselves, and pro­duce their evidences in quality of a judgement, for want of the defendants being heard, it would have been unjust in quality of freind-ship for the same reason, for now to say that St. Athanasius concurred with Iulius either as an unjust Judge, or as an unjust freind, would [Page 257] to wrong that blessed Saint and your self too, but I would gladly be satisfyed in this, how one who had no judi­catory authority above another Court, could reverse the Sentence of that Court, and restore the person injured by it, to his right, as Iulius here did, by the Sentence gi­ven in a Council against St. Athanasius; or what man in his right wits, would address himself to a friend for relief, in that which he knows is above his power? should a Citizen of York, injured in the Mayors Court, frame an appeal to the Lord Mayor of London, because he is his friend, and the prime Mayor in England, being the chief Officer of the Imperial City, to reverse the sentence given at York against him? would he not be­come a laughing-stock both to York and London?

184. And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret; I say again, that he appealeth to the Bi­shop of Rome for help, as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his Adversaries, but not as to an universal Governour or Iudge; no, not as to the universal Iudge of the Church Imperial, much less of all the Catholick Churches.

Num. 184. Here you say nothing at all to Cha­miers granting it to be an appeal as to a Judge, that was so plain belike, that you could not answer it; nor yet would you expresly grant it neither, that had been too flat against you; So you thought it best to huddle it up in silence, and say nothing of it, and thought (it may be) your adversaries would have past it over too, but I hope all wise men will see your failing in this. [Page 258] Baxter p. 51. in Margin. The question in my Mar­gin, there is not what you say to it, but what Chamier said: Now lest it should appear that you and Chamier clash in this, you give me only your opinion, but dis­semble his; and yet sure his was as much the better, as it was the [...]iuer. Nor yet do you deny this appeal to have been, as to a Iudge, which was the only question in the Margin, p. 51. Baxter, but not to have been, as to an universal Governour or Iudge; no, not within the Empire (say you.) But by your good leave, if this were not a forcible Instance, supposing it were as to a Iudge (which Chamier grants, and you deny not) to prove à paritate rationis, that every Bishop, both with­in the Empire and Church, might have as well appealed to the Roman Bishop as to a Iudge, as Theodoret did; had he been injured as he was? If I say this was not of force, shew in your next some particular reason, why the Bishop of Rome had power to judge the case of Theodo­ret, rather then of any other Bishop in the Church? which till you do, See more of this supra. your effugium that this appeal was not made as to an uni­versal Governour or Judge, speaks nothing, for if he (as in our sense) be an universal Judge or Governour, to whom every Bishop of the Church may appeal, as to his Judge, then seeing Theodoret's ap­peal to him as such, proves every Bishop had as much right in the like circumstances, which Theodoret then had; it proves also, that he appealed to him as to an uni­versal Governour or Judge, that is, to such a one to whom every Bishop might appeal in the like case.

Num. 185. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostome's [Page 259] case, where you say some things untrue, and some im­pertinent. 1. That Chrysostome appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople, is untrue, if you mean it of an appeal to a superiour Court or Iudge, much more if as to an universal Iudge: But indeed in his ba­nishment, when all other help failed, he wrote to him to interpose and helps him as far as he could; I need no o­ther proof of the Negative, then 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative, that ever he made any such appeal.

Num. 185. Every appeal from a juridical sentence to have it reversed, and the injured person restored to his former right, and the unjust Judges punished by the authority of him to whom the appeal is made, is to a su­periour Court or Judge: But St. Chrysostome's appeal was such: Ergo it was to a superiour Court or Judge. the Minor is evident from the matter of fact, for St. Chrysostome writes thus to Pope Innocent: Scribite, pre­cor, & authoritate vestra discerni­te, St. Chrys. ep. ad Ino­cent. Papam, apud Pal­ladium in Dialogo. hujusmodi iniqua gesta nobis absentibus & judicium non decli­nantibus nullius esse roboris, sicut per suam naturam sunt profecto & irrita & nulla, porro qui talia gessere eos Ecclesiae censurae subjicite, nos autem insontes, neque convictos, neque deprensos, neque ullius criminis reos comprobate, Ecclesiis nostris jubete restitui, ut charita­te frui & pace confratibus nostris consuetâ possimus. Write I beseech you, and decree by your Authority, that the unjust proceedings against us, who were absent, and not refusing Iudgement, are of no force, as indeed in their own nature they are void and null; moreover, [Page 260] make those to lye under the Churches censure, who have committed such injustices, but command that we who are innocent, unconvicted, and unguilty, be restored to our Churches, that we may re-enjoy our wanted charity and peace with our Brethren. Is not this a full proof of the Minor? The Major is also evident, for none have power when appealed to perform those acts of authority over those of any Court, unless they be a higher Court and Judge then the other from whom the appeal is made, as all Jurists know and confess.

Num. 186. In his first Epistle to Innocent, he tells him over and over, that (he appealed to a Synode, and required Iudgement) and that he was cast into a Ship for banishment (because he appealed to a Synode, and a righteous Iudgement) never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope.

Num. 186. What then? Ergo he appealed not to Innocent as a superiour Iudge; prove that consequence. Was it not the custom then of approved Prelates (as al­so in all well ordered Common-wealths) first to appeal to the next ordinary Court, and if Justice were done there, to acquiesce. and not to come to the highest Tri­bunal, till no Justice could be had in the inferiour? Did not St. Chrysostome all this? must he needs mention his appeal to the Pope before he made it? I think in earnest you were in jest here.

[Page 261]

Num. 187. Yea, he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him by that Argument, that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Iudges; never mentioning the Pope as Iudge.

Num. 187. And was it not his duty to do so, accor­ding to Canonical proceeding? what need had he in that Epistle, whilst he was in hopes of an inferiour try­al, to mention an appeal to the highest Court? must he upon all occasions mention every thing? was it not suf­ficient that he did it when necessity required it?

Num. 188. By all which it appears, it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth, and with­al, perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked, which another Bishop might have done.

Num. 188. But could any Bishop who was not a superiour Judge, which make against you, annul the Sentence of a Council by his Authority, inflict Eccle­siastical censures upon those Judges, and command the injured persons to be restored to their Seas, as we have seen St. Chrysostome beseeched Innocent to do?

If you will undertake the writing of Controversies, answer like a Scholar to the proofs alleadged against [Page 262] you, and be sure in your next you fall no more into this fault; for by dallying thus, you may write to the worlds end to no purpose at all, whilst you neither an­swer, nor so much as mention the words, which make a­ginst you▪ pardon me; if I tell you my mind plainly, it is for your good.

Num. 189. Yea, and it seems it was not to Inno­cent only, but to others with him, that he wrote; for he would scarce else have used the termes [...].

Num. 189. How familiar is it in writing, to per­sons of most eminent Authority, to use the plural num­ber? how usual is this, both in Scripture and other Au­thors?

Num. 190. But what need we more then his own words to know his request: Saith he, (let those that are found to have done so wickedly, be subject to the penal­ty of the Ecclesiastical Laws; but as for us that are not convicted nor found guilty, grant us to enjoy your letters and your charity, and all others whose soc [...]ety we did formerly enjoy.) Corruption.

Num. 190. This is a strange Metamorphosis of St. Chrysostomes words; why leave you out the beginning [Page 263] of the Sentence, scribite precor, &c. I beseech you to write and decree that by your authority, those unjust acts are void and null: I see this was not for your pur­pose, nor could well admit of a handsom mistranslation. 2. Why cite you not the Latin or Greek words, that the equity of your Translation might appear: O that would have spoyled your market. Signifies then, subji­cite, let them be subject; what Grammer hath taught you that? what word is there in the Latin Sentence, that signifies your letters, or your charity, and what English word is there here, which answers to jubete, command, or to restitui Ecclesiis vestris, to be restored to our Churches? See the Latin Text of St. Chrysostom cited above, num. Sir, give me leave once more to be plain with you; it had been much better for you and thousands of your too credulous Readers, that you had never set pen to paper, then to delude your own soul and theirs, with such sophistications as these are; and I pray God you come not one day, with a great Patron of your Religion, to curse the time that you ever writ Controversies, which notwithstanding, were rather to be wished then feared, if the Grace of true Repentance accompany it.

Num. 191. The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to Sentence in his own Diocess, though the person sentenced lived out of their Diocess, yet they might renounce all Communion with him. Churches that have no power over one another, may have Communion with one another; and that Commu­nion they may hold and renounce as there is cause. Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the [Page 265] West, had renounced Communion with Chrysostome's Enemies, and also written their letters on his behalf, and taken him still as in their communion, this he hoped would much further his restauration: which yet he doubted, as he had cause. For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part, though it do no good, or did not availe.

Num. 191. St. Chrysostomes words now cited evince, there was more then bare avoiding of anothers communion. Nay it is evident the a [...]oresaid authorties, that Pope Innocent kept communion with both parties, till a further trial of the cause was heard. vide S. Chry­sostome Ep. 5. ad innoc. papam supra citatam.

Num. 191. And it is to be noted, that your author, Nicephorus, tels you, lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chry­sostomes letters, and his fellow-Bishops also, and the Clergies of Constantinople, were all written both to the Emperour Honorius, and to Innocent: and therefore you may see by that on what account it was, and what help they did expect. The Emperour was not to excom­nicate, but his letters might do much.

Num. 192. But sayes Nicephorus, the same letters, which were writ to Pope Innocent, were writ to the Em­perour? prove that.

[Page 266]

Num. 193. Well; but to alleadge Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. to prove 1 Chrysostomes appeal. But you have better, or worse eyes then I, for I can finde no such thing, but a seeking for help, as aforesaid. 2 You say, Innocentius nuls his condemnation, and declares him in­nocent. Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him: But how far it should be regarded, was not in his power.

Num. 193. Now at last you confess, there was more then a bare avoiding the communion with others. Doe you really think, that any Bishop whatsoever could null the sentence of a Council, both out of his Diocess and his Patriarchate, as Innocent did that of Constantinople, that is to say, validly and lawfully? I cannot perswade my self you doe; now had it been unlawful, St. Chry­sostome would never have intreated Innocent to do it. If you mean, any Bishop can do it invalidly and unlaw­fully, you say nothing to the purpose, it was not indeed in his power how far it was regarded, nor is it the power of a King how far his commands are regarded by power­ful Rebels: but what of that? he had power to com­mand and censure, to annul and restore, and so it was in his power to oblige others, and procured that it ought to have been regarded & that they sinned griev­ously in disobeying his command, which is enough for my purpose. But whilst you thus measure out the power of others by the rejection of their commands, made by unjust oppressors, you shew what spirit you had when you [Page 267] writ this in matter of Monarchial government, it im­ports little what may be said of excommunication in general, it is sufficient that this now treated included ju­risdiction.

Num. 194.3. You say he excommunicated At­ticus and Theophilus, and 4. Arcadius the Emperour also, and Eudoxia. Reply, 1. If he did so and did well, another Bishop might aswel have done it.

Num. 194. Now let you and me try, whether the sentence of Innocent against these persons, were nothing save a bare excomunication in your sense, that is, a de­claration of avoiding them, Niceph: l. 13. c. 34. Glicas. Ann: par. 4. & extant Tom: 1. Epist: Rom: Pontif. Ep. Innoc: 17. Georgius Pa­tri. Alex: citatus a S. Io. Damasc: orat de Imagin. & a Photio in Bib­lioth: in Greg: Alexandr. extatque Graece editus in Angl. unà cum Oper. S. Chrysost. or that they were unworthy of Christian cōmunion or not com­municating with them (utsupra) The words are these, [Itaque ego mini­mus & peccator, cui thronus magni Petri Apostoli creditus est, segrego & rejicio te & illam ( i. e. Arcadium & Eudox­iam) a perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri; Episcopum etiam omnem & clericum ordinis Sanctae Dei Ecclesiae, qui administrare aut exhibere ea vobis ausus fuerit, ab ea hora qua praesentes vinculi mei legeritis literas, dignitate sua excidisse decerno. Quod si ut homines potentes, quenquam ad id vi adegeritis, & Canones nobis a Salvatore per Sanctos Apostolos tradi­tos transgressi fueritis, scitote id vobis non parvum pec­catum fore, in horrenda illa judicii die, cum neminem, hujus vitae honor & dignitas adjuvare poterit, arcana au­tem [Page 268] & abdita cordium sub occulos omnium effundentur atque exhibebuntur. Arsacium quem pro magno Joanne in thronum Episcopalem produxistis, etiam post obitum exauthoramus, unà cum omnibus qui consultò cum eo communicarunt Episcopi, cujus etiam nomen Sacro E­piscoporum albo non inscribatur. Indignus eo honore est quum Episcopatum quasi adulterio polluerit. Omnis siquidem planta quae a Patre nostro in coelis plantata non est, eradicabitur. Ad Theophili anathematismum addimus abrogationem, & absolutam a Christianismo absolutionem. I the least of all, and a Sinner, to whom the throne of the great Apostle Peter is committed, se­gregate and reject thee and her (that is Arcadius the Emperour, and Eudoxia the Empresse) from the recei­ving of the immaculate misteries of Christ our God, and I decree that every Bishop and Clerk of the order of the holy Church, to be fallen from his dignity, who shall dare to give them to you, from that hour wherin you shall have read these obligatory letters of mine. But if you, as being powerful, shall force any of them to ex­hibite them to you; and shall transgress the rules deli­vered to us from Christ by the holy Apostles, it will be no smal sin upon your Conscien [...]s at the terrible day of judgement when the Honor, and Dignity, of this world can help no man, but the secrets of hearts shall be powred out & manifested before the whole world. Arsacius whom you have intruded into the Episcopal throne in place of that worthy and great John (Chrysostome,) we accurse even after his death, together with all the Bishops who wittingly communicated with him, whose name is not to be written in the Catologue of the holy Bishops. He is unworthy of that Honor, who hath polluted his Bishop­prick as it were with adultery. For every plant which is not planted by our Father which is in heaven, shall be [Page 279] pluckt up by the roots. To Theophilus his curse, we add an abrogation, (or deposition,) and an absolute re­jection from Christianity. Whatsoever Blondel presses against the creditableness of this Author, yet in matter of this consequence, hapning so neer his time, citing the precise words of Pope Innocent's Bull then extant, he could not be morally supposed to erre in this, though he fail in other matters: and if it be a good argument, such an Author often failes in history, therefore nothing which he saith can be beleived; even Socrates himself, the only occasional Author of the contrary relation, would not be of credit in what he saith of Pulcheria: for he often, not only through ignorance but malice and spite also against Catholicks, and particularly against St. Chrysostome either reports falsities, or conceals truths. Blundel p. 275. glories much in the authority of Emapi­us, cited by Photius, who affirms he brought his histo­ry no farther then to the banishment of St. Chrysostome, and intrusion of Arsacius into his place: and the death of Pulcheria, who dyed (saith Blondel,) according to Photius his relation from this Eunapius, immediately after she was delivered of a child. But neither saith Photius, nor cites he Eunapius, as relating, that Pul­cheria dyed presently after the banishment of St. Chry­sostome, or intrusion of Arsacius: but only in the time of his banishment, and the others possessing the Sea of Constantinople which taking up three years time, shews the account may be true, notwithstanding all that Pho­tius saith of Eunapius.

Here is much more then your minute excommunicati­on, or bare avoiding to communicate with them, or I am much deceiv'd.

[Page 280]

Num. 195. Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome. non proof. 22.

Num. 195. Your assertion of this had been more vigorous, had you backt it with some authority. who, think you (save those who have sworn to your placet) will be moved by such bare affirmations of your own? But had he done that, did he also depose him: and for­bid any one to give him the Sacrament, as Innocentius did here? and had he don all this, was his authority acknowledged: either by the Roman Bishop, or by the common consent of Catholicks approving his act, as was this of Innocent? see you not how far your instances fall short of the mark? Mennas excommunicated Vi­gilius Bishop of Rome; who saith so? Mr. Baxter. what then?

Num. 196. Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of jurisdiction, but a renouncing of Communion, with a ministerial binding, which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise, even on those that are not of his Diocess: examples in Church-history are common. more non proofs.

Num. 196. These proofless positions might have force in your own parish, they have none with me.

[Page 281]

Num. 197, 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whitaker's reasons by which he proves, that Nicepho­rus is a fabler in his relation, and that, that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth, lib. de Pont. Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454.455.

Num. 196. This is the handsom'st difficulty I finde in your whole reply, and, as it deserves, so I hope it shall have an answer.

Num. 198. Neither, Socrates Theodoret, or Zo­zomen, make any mention of this excommunication, who write much of the case of Chrysostome and Arcadius. And would these men that lived so near that time, have all silenced so great and rare a thing: as the excommu­nication of the Emperour and Empress, which would have made so great a noise and stir? that y [...]t mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius.

Num. 198. One reason why those three Authors made no mention of this excommunicati­on may be, Socrates & Zozomen pro­duce their hist­ories to the year 439. because it was so present in memory: and concerning such imperial dignities, that it was not convenient, and might have been prejudicial to them, to have published [Page 161] it in those times. Another, that Zozomen and So­crates being novatian Hereticks, would not give notice to all posterity of the most eminent authority of the Ro­man Bishop, over the Patriarks of Alexandria and Constantinople, & the Emperour himself. 3 That because Arcadius and Eudoxia presently repented, craved par­don, and were absolved: the matter made not so great a noise in the Church, that these authors had in their times full notice of it, it having been almost as soon re­called by their repentance, as it was inserted: as Baronius testifyes out of Arcadiu's responsory Epistle to Innocen­tius & Innocentius his answer to Arcadius, recited by Glicas, Annal. par. 4.4. Your argument is not only nega­tive, but fallacious. For though those three historians mention it not: yet Leo Augustus, Metraphrastes, Ce­drenus, Zonaras, Gennadius, Nicephorus, Glicas, Georgius Alexandrinus, whereof some are ancient Historians, record it; and the very Epistles which were written betwixt Innocentius and Arcadius (yet extant in an ancient codex in the Vatican, as Baronius wit­nesseth) give full testimony to the truth of it. Now had you produced a full negative argument against this ex­communication, you should have proved, that neither any of the three authors you mention, nor any other creditable ancient author or records testify the truth of it. Nor concludes your parity from the recording of St. Ambrose his excommunication of Theodorus. For, first, I finde not that Socrates hath mentioned it in his history: so that you suppose a falshood in affirming it to be recorded by those three Authors. Secondly, that hapned by a publick notorious act in a great Church of Milan: this was only contained in a letter, and so soon recalled by pennance, that it is not certain, whether it came to publick execution or not. 3 That was a pro­hibition [Page 281] from entring into the Church, this was only from receiving the Sacrament, the first being much more to be taken notice of then the second, because many came to Church, who received not every time they came.

Num. 199. 2 This Bull of Innocents (as Ni­cephorus would have us believe it,) hath such falshoods, contrary to more credible history, as bewray the forgery. For Socrates, lib. 6. c. 19. writeth, that Eudoxia died the same year that Chrysostome was banished, and that Chrysostom dyed the third year of his banishment. And Zozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. That Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia: but if Nichephorus were to be believed, Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent, after Chry­sostome's death. Nor can it be said, that Innocent knew not of her death: for his legates were sent to Con­stantinople in Atticus time, who succeeded Acacius, who outlived Eudoxia. This is the Summe of Dr. Whita­kers confutation of Nicephorus. And withal who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is?

Socrates might have been deceived by the word [...], which amongst the Grecians signifieth as ordinarily death as banishment, whereby he by mistake thought that to be spoken of his banishment, which the Author from whom he took that his story, spoke of his death; for it is evident, both from Zozymus a Heathen Histo­rian, who lived in that very time, for lib. 5. he testifies that after the great fire at Constantinople, which happen­ed [Page 282] after St. Chrysostome's banishment, Arbazachius was sent by the Emperour against the Isaurians, where after he had spent some time, depraving himself, and exercising so many corrupt proceedings and oppressions as he was guilty of, &c. which would require the space of a year or two, and thereby extend to the year 407. or thereabouts, wherein St. Chrysostome died; being ac­cused, and cited to answer the accusations made against him, gave rich presents to the Empress, and thereby escaped punishment. Now these things could not hap­pen but in a long tract of time; & it is not morally pos­sible they should have been done in four dayes, as those say who follow Socrates; and Marcellinus Comes af­firms, that the troubles of Isauria happened anno 405. under the Consulate of Stilico and Anthemius. So that Arbazachius must have had much more time be­fore he was accused; and consequently the Empress must have lived some years after the banishment of St. Chry­sostome. Nor makes Palladius any mention of her pro­digious death so suddenly after the banishment of St. Chrysostome. And George Patriarch of Alexandria, who wrote 1000. years ago, and is cited by St. Io. Da­masc. Orat. de Imagin. affirms that Arcadius and Eu­doxia were excommunicated by Innocentius: and Zona­ras affirmes the same. Nor do the Authors you cite against this Bull, affirm what you say. Socrates, lib. 6. c. 19. hath not a word of Eudoxia's death, or that St. Chrysostome died three years after his banishment; there's your two first errors. Zozomen seems to put the death of Eudoxia before that of St. Chrysostome, but speaks not a word in that place here cited by you, that he was in banishment three years after the death of Eu­doxia; there's your third error. Blondel p. 277. cannot deny this relation of Zozimus, but questions whether [Page 283] the Empress he mentions were Eudoxia. Now if it were not Eudoxia, he should have told us what other Em­press there was living at that time in Constantinople, to whom those presents were given. For Arcadius lived six years after this, and Theodosius his Son, was not ca­pable of marriage presently after his Fathers death, be­ing then a child of no more then seven years of age, ha­ving been born in the year 401. and Arcadius dying the year 408. Nor can it be thought that Arbazachius remained in Isauria till Theodosius junior was married, for the expedition in a short time was finished against the Isaurians. And presently upon that victory, Arba­zachius fell upon oppressions, and complaints were not long after raised against him.

Num. 200. In your, Margin you pretend to con­fute Chamier, p. 498. as saying, [That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed, as well as the Pope,] to which you say, that [never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess, &c. whereas the Bishop of Rome, by his sole & single authority, re­stored Bishops wrongfully deposed, all the Church over.]

Num. 200. I like not your writing my words by halves; they were not so many but you might have quo­ted them intirely as they lay, as you printed them, pag. 52. I adde there, after Diocesses, these words, viz. [But alwayes collected together in a Synode, by common voice, and that in regard only of their neigbouring Bishops,] [Page 284] which you mask under an ( &c.) And then I adde [ whereas the Bishop of Rome, by his sole and single au­thority, restored Bishops wrongfully deposed] as you have it here; whereby the difference appeared more clearly betwixt the authority of the Roman and other Bishops, which you, by your ( &c.) have rendred obscure, there being no express reason by way of opposition in their proceedings, to adde this, all the Church over, which is clearly opposed to this other, in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops, in my words, and by omitting those words, but alwayes collected in a Synode by com­mon voice, you hide from your Reader, that their con­vening was by order of their Arch-bishop, Metropo­litan, Primate, or Patriarch respectively, who common­ly had authority over those who were restored. For all Synodes were to be Canonically convened, by consent and authority of Ecclesiastical Superiours, either gran­ted or presumed. And this happily may be one reason, why you wish those to whom you recommend this book (as I am certainly informed from a person of great worth who heard you) to read your last answer only, and not to trouble themselves with perusing my Text, to which you pretend to answer.

Num. 201. Reply 1. It seems you took Chamier's words on trust; peruse that page, and see his words.

Num. 201. I took only upon trust of my own eyes, and I think they deceived me not.

[Page 285]

Num. 202. 2. Single Bishops have censured, and therefore might as well remit their own censures. Am­brose censured Theodosius, who was no fixed member of his charge, and he remitted the censure. Fallacy.

Num. 202. You answer fallaciously, proceeding à toto ad partem. When I speak of persons out of their Diocesses, I mean clearly, such as are neither in them actually by way of habitation, nor habitually by birth and education; for my words are general. And you give an instance of one, who though not habitually, yet actu­ally was within the Diocess of him who censured him, as then Theodosius was in the Diocess of Milan, where St. Ambrose was Bishop. You cannot sure be igno­rant, that domicilium fixum, a settled habitation, makes one an inhabitant and part of that City where he lives, and that crimen commissum, a crime committed in that place, makes one subject to the Tribunal of that City. Besides, the Emperour could not be said, by reason of his universal dominion, to be fixt to any part of his Em­pire, for his Empire was his dwelling; so that whereso­ever he was actually, and committing any thing deser­ving excommunication, there the Bishop of that City had power to excommunicate him. With such sophismes as these, you inveigle your credulous Readers: I beseech God to forgive you, and enlighten you.

[Page 286]

Num. 203. Epiphanius presumed even at Constantino­ple to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren. So­crat. l. 6. c. 14.

Num. 203. Socrates hath no such matter in that Chapter, nor any thing like it, nor indeed could he, for either you mean Epiphanius Bishop of Salamina, who was dead 42. years before Dioscorus was excommuni­cated, for that Epiphanius died anno 402. and Dios­corus was excommunicated anno 451. or (as I think you do) Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople, and Diosco­rus was dead 70. years before Epiphanius was installed in the See of Constantinople. Nor did Socrates pro­duce his History farther then to the year 439. that is, 90. years before Epiphanius was Bishop of Constantino­ple. Who wrongs his soul now, by taking authorities upon trust?

Num. 204. And many instances may be brought, both of excommunicating and again receiving to Com­munion, by particular Bishops, even as to those that were not of their charge. Non-proof.

Num. 204. I wonder you being a Scholar, should perswade your self any prudent man will be moved by [Page 287] your may bees, upon no other ground then that you say them without proof. If you have such instances, alleadge them; if you alleadge them not say, nothing of them: 'tis not for your credit thus to trifle in serious matters.

Num. 205. And if the fact were not proved, yet the forbearance proves not the want of power.

Num. 205. But sure, if it can be proved, a man of your learning can prove it, and then why have you not done it? is it not a shrewd sign there was no such po­wer, when there can be given no instance in so many hundred years, that it was ever brought into practice? you know, frustra datur potentia quae nunquam redu­citur in actum: and if such a power, whereof you say many instances may be given, had ever been, sure it was either frustraneous, and thereby not from God: or fome steps of the exercice of it would have appeared in anti­quity. We speak not here of what is or is not in it self unknown to us, but of what can be proved to have been: and that must appear by the acts and exercise of such a power, recorded in some ancient Authors or Records.

CHAP. V.

Num. 206. 3. I deny your unproved assertion, that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over; it is a meer fiction. How many restored he out of the Empire? Or in the Empire, out of his Patriarchate? but swasorily or Synodically.

Num. 206. Very many. Such were all those Bishops who about the year 400. in Spain, in France, anno 475. [Page 289] in England, anno 595. in Germany, anno 499. and o­ther Western and Northern Kingdoms, which were ta­ken either from under the command of the Romane Em­perours, or were never under it, who were restored by the Bishop of Rome's authority, when wrongfully depo­sed from their Sees, addressing themselves to him, and requiring justice from him, whereof all Ecclesiastical Histories of those Nations are full of instances. And in more antient times, whilst the Emperours were Hea­thens, the cause of the Pope's authority, out of the We­stern Patriarchate could not be the subjection those Bi­shops had to the Emperour of Rome, but must have been derived from a spiritual authority instituted by Christ himself. For neither had there been any General Coun­cil in those times to invest Rome in that authority, nor can it be ever proved from antiquity, that it was given him by the unanimous consent of all Bishops, other­wise then as supposing it still due to him before their re­spective times, by the power granted by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawfully Successors, as I have already af­firmed, the Bishop of Rome to have received all the Pri­macy you esteem him to have from a Council, as shall be proved hereafter: And I press you to produce any au­thority in those times, which witnesseth it was origi­nally given him by consent. Now that the Bishop of Rome exercised jurisdiction over the Eastern Bishops in St. Victor's time, and over Firmilian and those of Cap­padocia in Pope Stephens time, is so evident that it can­not be denyed. See St. Irenaeus. Nor will it avail to say, those instances of France and Spain, &c. were in latter times, And St. Cyp. in his Epistles to Pope Stephen. where we dispute about the four first ages; for if in all those ages it had been a common known tradition, that the Pope had no ju­risdiction [Page 290] of the Verge of the Roman Empire, that tra­dition would have been publiquely and universally received in the years 500. and 600. even to the first ere­ction of those new Kingdoms in the West and North, And Vincentius Lirinensis. infra citandus. so that every one would have known, they were no longer bound to be under the Ro­man Bishop then whilst they were under the Roman Empire, because all knew (in your novel supposition) that the jurisdiction of the Pope extended no farther then the Roman Empire. Why then did those Kings, and all the Bishops and Churches in their Kingdoms, esteem themselves as much obliged to the obedience of the Bishop of Rome, after they were freed from the com­mand of the Roman Emperour, as they were before; and never alleadged any such reason, as you have in­vented, of the Popes authority limited to the precincts of the Roman Empire, to plead thereupon his not having any longer jurisdiction over them, as being now no sub­ject of that Empire? What I say therefore, is no fiction, but a solide and manifest truth; that he had authority of restoring Bishops wrongfully deposed, all the Church over, even out of the Empire: but yours is a pure fi­ction, to assert that as a publick tenet and practice, which was manifestly unknown to those, either of the four first, or any subsequent ages, coined lately from your own brain, upon which, I pray God heartily, it lie not heavy one day, as novelties in Religion use to do upon the heads of their first Inventors. What you say of swasorily, and Synodically, I have above clearly con­futed, by shewing that the Councils of neighbouring Bishops in Italy, were only assistants to the Pope, but could have no juridical power over the whole Church, or in parts remote, and without the Western Patriar­chate. [Page 291] Now to what you usually presse of Ethiopia, Per­sia, outer Armenia, &c. that no instance can be given, of any Bishop of those Churches restored by the Popes authority. I answer, that I can prove as effectually by instances their restoration by the Pope, as you can prove them to have been restored by their own Primates, Me­tropolitans, Provincial Councils, or Collections of Bi­shops, within their own Charters; nay, as you can shew, that any of them were restored. The reason therefore, that no such instance is given in the primitive times, is not as you imagine, and would impose upon your Rea­der, that none of them were subject to the Pope, but be­cause there is no Records, or mention in Ecclesiastical History, that any were restored, either by this or any other authority; and if there be, produce them. The reason whereof is, because the Roman Emperours then Hea­thens permitted no publique correspondence of those who were out of the Empire, being their enemies, with those who were within it; and after the Christian Emperours being in war with those barbarous Na­tions, refused to admit (unlesse upon very urgent occasions) such correspondences; nor have we extant any authentick Authors of those Provinces, who have recorded the Histories, and transactions of the said Churches, so that 'tis unknown to us what either passed betwixt them and the Bishop of Rome, or amongst themselves,

Num. 207. Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled, and his reconciling himself to the Church, is meerly im­pertinent. We know, that he and other Princes usually [Page 292] wrote to Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria &c. Or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarcks, before they called a Council.

Num. 207. You still seek diversions to avoid the difficulty. The question is not now whether Theodosius and other Emperours, did, or might write to other Pa­triarcks about the celebration of Councils, as well as the Roman: but it is this, whether they wrote in the same manner to them as they did to him; that is, as Pope Leo witnesses, epist. 15. that he (Theodosius) bare this respect to the divine institution, that he would use the authority of the Apostolick Sea for the effecting of his holy disposition. And this was celebrating that Council, the 2d of Ephesus, which as then appeared to the Pope to be good and holy. Finde me such a sentence of his, writ by Theodosius or other Emperours, to any of the Patriarcks beside the Roman, that their authority was necessary, according to divine institution for the cele­brating of a general Council? and you will have done something: without which you trifle.

Num. 208. You cannot but know, that Councils have been called without the Pope.

Num. 208. Truly, if you speak of lawful general [...]ouncils, I am so unknowing that I know it not (sup­posing there were a known undoubted Pope in the [Page 293] Church, as there was in Theodosius's time:) and I fear I shall be so dull, that you will not be able to make me know it: I am sure, yet you have not gone about it, and I presse you to nominate any such lawful general Coun­cils call'd without the B. of Romes consent, and au­thority.

Num. 209. And that neither this, nor an Empe­rours forsaking his errour, is a sign of the Popes uni­versal Government.

Num. 209. Take the context of my proofs along with you (which you conceal here) and you confess, this demanding the Popes authority as necessary to the cele­bration of a general Council, and in that, giving respect to divine restitution, is a sign of his universal govern­ment, seeing general Councils (as I have proved) are representatives, not of the Empire, but of the whole vi­sible Church. And Theodosius his pennance, whereof one effect was that he required the confirmation of Anatoli­us in the Sea of Constantinople, from Pope Leo, and thereby attested his power over that Patriarck, and, a simili, over all the rest; he shewed himself to believe, that the Roman Bishop was supream governour of the universal Church.

[Page 194]

Num. 210. That Emperour gave sufficient testimony, and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus, that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and con­troulable, when they excommunicated him.

Num. 210. No more then the Clergy of Sweden would shew it now, if they ventured so far as to excom­municate the Pope. Is, think you, authority overthrown, or rendred, or argued null, because it is opposed and contemned by Rebels? you shew in this, what your spi­rit is, and how inconsistent with true Government, when you make the contempt of Rebels, an argument that all whom they reject have no lawful power over them: a thing seasonable enough when you wrote this, having then rebellious times, and persons well suiting with it, but yet demonstrative what you thought then, and may still be esteemed one of your principles. But I wonder much you were so venturous as to let it passe the print, and see light since the happy return of our most gracious Soveraign. For think you men are so blind as not to see this consequence, that if Hereticks, outing and contemning the authority of a Catholique Bishop (as Dioscorus an Eutychian, and his party did that of Leo) be a good argument (as you make it) to prove he had no authority over the Church, nor over Dioscorus who excommunicated him: you must also hold, that a pub­lique Rebel's deposing a Soveraign, is a good argu­ment to justifie the fact, and to prove that Soveraign had no authority over him. Or if you your self dare not [Page 295] go so far, you have laid a principle, emboldning all Re­bels to do it.

Num. 211. But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on, I shall take more particular notice of them.

Num. 211. I have cited them out of St. Leo, and ex­pect your answer.

Num. 212. Till then this is enough, with this ad­dition, that the Emperours subjection, if he had been subject (not to an Ambrose, or other Bishop, but) only to Rome, would have been no proof, that any without the Empire were his subjects; no more then the King of Englands subjection to the Arch-bishop of Canter­bury, would have proved that the King of France was subject to him.

Num. 112. You flie again the difficulty. I make not this argument: the Emperour was subject to the Pope in spirituals, Ergo all those Christians who were Extra-Imperial, were also subject to him. This is no argument of mine, but your imposition. My argument is this: The Emperour and all Christians, within this Empire, were subject to the Pope, as to St. Peters Successor and Su­pream [Page 296] Pastor of the whole flock and Vineyard of Christ, by Christs institution: Ergo all Extra-Imperial Churches were also subject to him. Now this to have been the reason of their subjection, is evident, both from St. Leo's Epistle lately cited concerning Theodosius, and from the Council of Chalcedon, treated by me hereafter; and from the command of Martian, and all the other declaratives of the Bishop of Romes supereminent au­thority, delivered and received in antiquity: where not so much as any one of them hath chained it up within the circuit of the Roman Empire, or given that for a measure or reason of his power; and it still remained in full force in such Kingdoms as were taken by Chri­stians from the Roman Emperors, who (as I have said) never affirmed their freedom from the Emperours com­mand, to have franchised them from the Bishop of Romes authority. Whence is clearly answered your pa­rity in the Kings of Englands subjection to the Bishop of Canterbury: for the Kings of England never subje­cted themselves to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Supream visible Governour in spirituals of the whole Catholique Church, no not as to one who had any ju­risdiction out of England at all.

Num. 112. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon, is from a witness alone sufficient to over­throw your cause, as I have proved to you. This Synode expresly determineth, that your Primacy is a novel hu­mane invention; that it was given you by the Fathers, because Rome was the Imperial Seat. If you believe this Synode, the Controversie is at an end: if you do not, why do you cite it? and why pretend you to believe Ge­neral Councils?

[Page 297]

Num. 213. You have a strange way of shifting off the force of an argument, and that quite out of form, and that illogical; and it is, to bring in some pre­face or other, to weaken the authority of those whence this proof is brought, before you give a Categorical an­swer. What have we now to do with your proof al­leadged many leaves after? Part. 2. Is there not time enough to answer it when it comes in treaty? Have you forgot that you are a Respondent, not an Opponent? are you so much inamoured with your own arguments, that you must shew them at every turn, even when there is no just occasion to mention them? one would think it timely enough to boast of them, when you and all men see no satisfactory answer given to them. Have pa­tience a while, and you shall see ere long, you autho­rity from Chalcedon hurts us nothing. It is partly shew­ed already, and when it shall be treated in its place, I hope you'l have no cause to brag of it.

Num. 214. But what have you from this Council against this Council? Why, 1. you say, Martian wrote to Leo, that by the Pope's authority a General Council might be gathered, in what City of the Eastern Church he should please. Reply 1. Whereas for this you write, Act. Concil. Chalced. 1. You tell me not what Author, Crab, Binius, Surius, Nicolinus, or where I must seek it. I have perused the Act. 1. in Binius, which is 74. pages in folio (such tasks your citations set me) and find no such thing: and therefore take it to be your mistake.

[Page 298]

Num. 214. I am sorry you have taken so much pains and lost your labour, but sure I gave you no oc­casion of it; for as I cited in the margin, Con. Chalced. Act. 1. so I quoted in the Text Martian's Epistle to Leo, when I said, Martian wrote to Leo; so that you had no more to do then to turn to the first Action of that Council, and seek Martian's Epistle to Pope Leo; which because it is in the full editions of Councils, I thought it needless to name any. Now this might have been done in a very short time; nor could it be more exactly cited then I cited it, giving both the Action, and the Epistle extant in that Action. Could you not as well have found the Epistle of Martian, as of Valentinian and Martian (if they be different Epistles?) Sure the one was as visible and legible as the other. I tell you, 'tis no mistake of mine, but your mishap, that you found it not. Please to look again, and you will find those ve­ry words which I cite, in that very Epistle which I quote.

Num. 215. But in the Preambul. Epistle, I find, that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers, and contrary to your words, that they say, [hoc ipsum nobis propiis literis tua sanctitas manifestet, quatenus in omnem Orientem & in ipsam Thraciam & Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur, ut ad quendam defini­tum locum qui nobis placuerit, omnes sanctissimi Episco­pi debeant convenire.] It is not, qui vobis placuerit, but, qui nobis.

[Page 299]

Num. 215. Your words from the Epistle of Valen­tinian and Martian, infringe not those mentioned by me: for it may well be, that Pope Leo remitted the de­signation of the place to the Emperour, as judging it more belonging to them then to himself, as a thing wholly temporal, though the precise words, qui nobis placuerit, may be, in rigor, applied both to the Empe­rour and Pope. My first authority therefore from that Council, is not answered at all in this your paper.

Num. 216. But what if you had spoke truth, doth it follow that Pope Leo was Christs Vicar-general Go­vernour of the world, because that the Soveraign of one Common-wealth did give him leave to chuse the place of a Council? Serious things should not be thus jested with.

Num. 216. I argue not so: you proceed fallacious­ly, a secundum quid ad simpliciter. The force of my ar­gument consists not in the chusing of the place by the Pope, that's a pure circumstance: but the strength of my reason consists in this, that the Council was gathered by the Popes authority. And to this you say nothing; which notwithstanding is an evident proof that the Pope had authority over the whole Church, as I shall prove here­after. Serious things should be seriously answered, and not be thus jested at by fraudulent fallacies and disgui­ses. [Page 300] Now in my words here cited, viz. Martian wrote to Leo, that by the Bishops authority a General Coun­cil might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse; the word, he, may as well be related to Martian as to the Pope. So that you cannot inforce from the precise words, that I say, the place was left to the Pope's choice.

Num. 217.2. You say, Anatolius & the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo, the professions of their Faith, by his Order. Reply 1. And what then? Therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Chri­stian world. You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things, I tell you. Can you prove this Con­sequence? Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to communion, or to satisfie the offended, without respect to superiority. Corruption.

Num. 217. I see y'are merrily disposed, y'are so full of jesting and laughing; but truly see no other jest here, [...]hen your misreporting my argument, and then saying, it moves laughter. I spake of confessions of Faith, ex­acted from others by command or order of the Pope: and this I alleadge to be a proof of the Popes universal supremacy. And you answer, that Confessions were or­dinarily sent in order to Communion, or to satisfie the offended, without respect to superiority. As if I made the bare sending a Confession of Faith to another, an argu­ment, that he to whom it is sent, is superiour to him that sends it. Whereas I say in express termes, that it is the [Page 301] ordering such a Confession to be sent to him who or­ders it, and not the bare sending, without order, which argues superiority in him who orders the sending such professions. Might I not here deservedly retort your Sarcasmus, and tell you, you should not provoke men to laughter (by such gross perversions as these) in serious things. But I spare and pitty you.

Num. 218.2. But I see not the proof of your imper­tinent words: Pulcherius Epistle to Leo, expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius, to which Anatolius consented. By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius. Corruption.

Num. 218. I find no Epistle of Pulcherius to Leo, nor so much as any such man in those times. You would say, I suppose, Pulcheria, the Empress: But you should have dealt more fairly, if you had declared in what manner Pulcheria mentions the Confession of Faith sent by Leo. Really Sir, the cunning which you use here, is unsufferable. First, you say, that Confession of Faith from Leo, was sent to Anatolius. Which is mani­festlie untrue; for the Empress Pulcheria saith, it was sent to Flavianus, his Predecessor: This may pass as an error, in Historie onlie. Secondlie, you say, that A­natolius consented to that Faith, which is true, but you express not in what manner he consented to it: for equals may consent in Faith one with another, but the Empresse saith, that Anatolius subscribed to the con­fession of Faith sent to Flavianus from Pope Leo, and [Page 302] that without the least difficulty or demurr, which argue that Leo's confession was sent to this end, that the Pope required the Bishops of Constantinople to subscribe to what he wrote there, to shew that they believed the Catholick Faith. [ Et Epistolae similiter Catholicae fi­dei quam ad sanctae memoriae Flavianum Episcopum tua Beatitudo decrevit, sine ulla dilatione subscripsit Ana­tolius] The Empresse writes thus. [ And he Anato­lius, without any delay, subscribed to the Epistle of Faith, which thy blessedness directed to Flavianus] Thirdly, whereas this Epistle or Confession of Faith, was sent as from a superiour, to be subscribed by those Patriarcks, that he might know whether they held the right Faith or no, and thereby judge whether he were to admit them into his communion (as was then the or­dinary custome,) you would make it to be a confession sent as from an equal, to give them to whom he sent it, an account of his Eaith. Fourthly whereas I speak of a confession, ordered by the Bishop of Rome, to be sent from the Bishop of Constantinople to him, that the Pope might thereby judge of his Faith: you in answer, return a confession of Faith, as freely sent from the Bishop of Rome to the Bishop of Constantinople, as though the Pope had given an account of his Faith to that Bishop, now all know it to be a rule of Faith, sent Vide verba Pulcheriae, by Leo, to which was required the in ep. ad Leonem. Bishop of Constantinople should sub­scribe, to shew that he held the same Faith with the Bishop of Rome, and thereby deserved to be received, as a Catholick into his communion. And lastly, you make that to be a confession of Pope Leo's faith made to Anatolius, when it was only a summe of the Catho­lick Faith. [ Epistola fidei Catholicae] in general, that those Bishops were to subscribe by the Popes order. [Page 303] For this very same Epistle, in a Council held by the Popes legates in Constantinople, Council Chalced in gracis was sent by their order, to all the codicibus, post Act, [...] tam. Metropolitans in those parts, (as Pope Leo had given them order) to be subscribed by them.

CHAP. VI.

Num. 219 You say the Popes Legates sate first in Council. Reply, what then? therefore the Pope was Governour of the Christirn world, though not a man out of the Empire were of the Council. corrup­tion.

Num. 219. Your petty slights are grown so nume­rous that they become intolerable. An unskilful Reader would easily perswade himself, this consequence is mine, which you so confidently impose upon me here, viz: that I deduce, or ought to deduce from the Popes legates sitting first in the Council, that the Pope was Governour of the Christian world though not a man out of the Em­pire were of that Council, as If I had granted and were agreed with you in this, that there was not a man out of the Empire in that Council, and supposing that as a truth with you, yet, that not withstanding, I draw the Popes universal supremacy from the precedency of the Legates in that Council. Now I pray you where have I in my whole paper, supposed, or delivered that there was not a man out of the Empire in that Council, name the place and cite the words where I say so, or acknow­ledge [Page 305] that you have imposed a most fals injurious ca­lumnie upon me. For you are not content to father your own error, (and so much your own, that you are the first and sole inventor of it) upon me, but upon that imposition you aske me in a bitter Sarcasmus, whe­ther I be still in jest? that is, you put a consequence (as you esteem it ridiculous) of your own forging upon me, and then aske me: are you still in jest? is not this hand­some? yet I Sr, give me leave to tell you thus much, that though I had granted, (which I constantly deny) that not a man out of the Empire had been in the Coun­cil of Chalcedon, yet it would have been no jest, but a solid truth, that from the precedency of the Roman Le­gates in the Council, follows, that the Pope was gover­nour of the Christian world, for it is necessary to the making of a Council truly and absolutely general, and powerful over the Christian world, that any Bishop out of the Empire should be actually present in it, it is suffi­cient that they be legitimately and Canonically called to it, as much as morally, all circumstances considered can be done; their actual sitting in it, may be obstructed by a hundred accidents, dangers, impossibilities, which hinders not those who can, and do present them­selves to compose a Council absolutely oecumenical, as a sufficient representative of the Church, no more then a Parliament legally summoned ceases to be a representa­tive of the kingdome, though the Knights of some Counties, or Burgesses of some Cities be accidentally ab­sent: prove therefore in your next, that for this reason, that not a man out of the Empire was in that Council, the Popes universal government over the Christian world followes not from his legates sitting first in it.

[Page 306]

Num. 220. But if it must be so, then I can prove that others were the universal governours, because at Nice and other Councils they sate before the legates of the Pope, and in many his legates had no place. Is this argument good think you? O unfaithfull partiality in the matters of salvation. non proof.

Num. 220. O, you can do wonders; but I would gladly see you doe, what you say you can do. You have not yet done it, and I cannot believe you can do't, till I see you have don't: there is a great difference, betwixt saying and doing. Your groundless exclamation I re­gard not, it is not partiality, what you call so, nor what you say you can prove to be so, prove it in your next to be partiality.

Num. 221. You say they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order. Reply, 1. What then? therefore he was universal governour of the Church. All alike. Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the accused may not sit as Iudge, till he be tried. falla­cy 12.

[Page 307]

Num. 221. Your reply, is fallacious proc [...]ding ex falso supposito, p. 150. See the place cited in my p. 54. Con Chal. act. 3. Leo's order that Diosco­rus should not sit in Council, was not because he was accused, but because he was condemned, nor was it a bare requi­ring, but a strickt command, and injunction that he should not sit there, as a Bishop of that Council.

Num 222.2. But did you not know that Leo's legates were not obeyed; but that the Gloriosissimi ju­dices & amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known: and that it was not done ti [...] Eusebius Episcop. Dorylaei had read his bill of com­plaint? Binius Act. 1. pag. 5. Fallacy, 13.

Num. 222. No really I know it not, nor I thinke you neither. You commit an other fallacy by an igno­ratio elenchi, the Iudices Gloriosissimi &c, and the complaint read against him by Eusebius Epis. Dory­laei, was not put as a remora to Dioscorus not sitting in the Council with the rest of the Fathers, but in order to his, and others publick condemnation, which with great applause of the whole Council, was performed in the end of the first action. So skilful are you in Church history, if you make not your self seem more unskilful then you are: to say something which may make a noise in the ears of the unlearned. It being [Page 308] therefore clear, that Dioscorus was prohibited upon St. Leo's order to sit in Council, It followes that he was uni­versal Governour of the Church, a paritate rationis (ut supra) for if he had power to remove the cheif Patriarch of the Church, next after himself, from having an Episcopal vote in a general Council, (which was an act of absolute jurisdiction over him:) much more had he power upon like grounds, to remove any other in­feriour Patriarck or Prelate, through the whole Church, there having been, no proof alleadged by you, that this his power was limited to the sole Empire, and I having now produced many reasons, that there could be no such limitation.

Num. 223. You say the Popes legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, Reply, 1. What then? therefore he was Governour of all the Christian world? I deny the consequence. You do nothing but beg: not a word of proof, Caput was but membrum principale, the Patriarch primae sedis and that but in the Empire.

Num. 223. This consequence is made strong by the weakenes, of your reply. Is Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, the head of all Churches, no more with you, then the principal member of all Churhes, in the Empire? that is, in your new theologie, one who was to take of all other Churches, without any true and proper au­thority over them? see you not in what straits you are put? should some new Sabellian or C [...]rinthian rise up, and deny that our Saviour were any more then the [Page 309] cheif person in the Church, that is, to take place before all others, but without any jurisdiction or authority o­ver the whole Church; and a Catholick should labour to prove, he hath authority from that place of St. Paul, Coloss. 1.18. Ipse est Caput Corporis Ecclesiae, he is the head of his body the Church. ‘And the Sabellian having read this book of yours Should reply, as you do here to me; what then? therefore Christ is gover­nour of the Christian world? I deny this consequence Caput is but membrum principale, head is no more then the principal part &c.’ Would you not make pretty work with Scripture, and open a gap to every novellist to elude no less yours, then our proofs, for Christs supream government over his Church? but I see you care not whom you hurt, so you can but avoide the present stroak. Nay you have delivered here a precious doctrine, no lesse for your she citizens at London, then your good wives of Kidderminster, for when their hus­bond teach them obedience and subjection to them from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.3. Where he sayes that the hus­band is head of the wife, they will have an answer ready at their fingers ends, from your doctrine here: that, that head, is no more then the principal part of the fami­ly, in place, but not in authority over their wives; nay you have spun a fair thred also, for the independency of the Protestant English Church of its head, in giving ground to take away all Authority from his sacred Ma­jestie, and his royal predecessors over it in quality of heads of the English Church, and making them to have no more then a bare precedency in the Church: as no more then the principal members in the Church in order and dignity, but not in authority. But had you a little attended to those words of the Popes Legates, you might have discovered they were spoke by them to prove not [Page 310] the bare precedency in place, but soveraignty in autho­rity, for they alleadge them, to corroborate the power of the Roman Church, as sufficient to prohibite the sitting of Dioscorus in the Council by vertue of Pope Leo's or­der. And you were prest as hard to finde an answer, for omnium Ecclesiarum, all Churches, that is to say, non omnium, not all, but only those within the Empire: thus you can make all, some, and the whole, a sole part, when you have nothing else to say: see you not how you give advantage to the Manichees, and Menandri­ans &c. who when, one should have prest them Iohn 1.2. That our Saviour is creatour of all things, they should have replyed as you do, thar is not of all, but only of some things, not of bodies, but of spirit only. Are you a person fit to dispute in matters concerning conscience and salvation, when rather then not reply to what cannot in reason be answered, you will quite de­stroy the words opposed to you, by your glosse upon them, are not these desperate Intregues? But tis very strange that the ancient Councils, and Fathers when they call the Roman Church Caput omnium Ecclesia­rum, head of all Churches, as they doe very familiarly, should allwayes according to you, mean no more then the Churches within the Empire, and yet should never signifie they mean no more then those: & if they ever doe signifie it, name the place and words in any one of them, and you shall be answered. As to the word, Caput, head, applied here to an original body. As St. Paul declares the Church to be, 1 Cor. 12.12. &c. it must not only have the propriety of being the highest part in the body, but also of having a power and capacity of governing and directing all the other parts, (as the head hath in natural bodies) whereby it is evident that the legates in stiling the Roman Church the head of all Churches, [Page 311] must be properly understood to mean, that the Roman Church hath not only the cheif place, but the cheif vi­sible government, and direction also over all other par­ticular Churches. Now St. Paul 1 Cor. 12.21. Composing the Church of different organical parts, affirms that one amongst them is the head, and by head he cannot mean our Saviour, for he speaks of such a head, as cannot say to the feet, they are not necessary for it, which cannot be true of Christ; he must there­fore mean a visible created head, which hath need of the inferiour members, as they have of it.

Num. 224. The Popes legates were not the Council, nor judges in their own cause, and not opposing, signifies not alwaies a consent.

Num. 224. What if they were not the whole Coun­cil? at least they spoke those words to the whole Coun­cil, and I pretend no more. Why should they be Iudges in their own cause; seeing it was in a matter which no man then in the whole Council, call'd in question or re­quired that any new judgement should be given about it? what if not opposing signifie, not alwaies consent? do I, or need I pretend that it alwaies doth so? it is suffi­cient for me that it argues consent here, for certainly considering the matter they propose touches deeply upon the priviledges of the Fathers there assembled, had they not spoken a known and unquestionable truth, all the Fathers had been obliged to defend their liberties given them by our Saviour, and represse this injury done them by the legates in that expression: which seeing none [Page 312] of them did, and yet every one had his full freedome to speak his minde, for the Emperour had then no particu­lar affection to the Sea of Rome: it is an evident signe then, all held it for a received truth, so that it was the unanimous opinion and doctrine of the whole Council. All therefore which I affirm is this, that when any thing is publickly pronounced tending (as this did in your opinion) to the manifest and great disadvantage, of all those who hear it, some of them would contradict it; if therefore noe one amongst many hundreds present, offer to contradict it, it is a manifest signe, they conceived it no way injurious, or disadvantageous to them and there­fore assented to it, as a most known, and undeniable truth in those dayes.

Num. 225. This Council doe as I said, expresly de­fine the point, both what your Primacy is, and of how long standing, and of what institution, and that Con­stantinople on the same grounds, had equal priviledges.

Num. 225. This is already toucht and shall be more fully answered in its place.

Num. 226. You say, all the Fathers acknowledged themselves Leo's children, and wrote to him as their Father. Reply, Of this you give me not any proof, but leave me to read a 190 pages in folio, to see whether you say true or not; and what if you do, (as I believe you [Page 313] doe) can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordina­rily other Bishops were stiled Fathers, even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome.

Num. 226. You are deeply plunged in difficulties, that you have no way to make a seeming escape, but by throwing your self out of one fallacy into another; See Blondel, p. 997. acknow­ledging these words. my argument is grounded in this, that the Chalcedon Fathers, call'd Pope Leo their Father, and themselves his children, and you might (as you did by printing it in a different character) easily perceive that the whole force of my argument, was grounded in those termes their Father, his children. Now you wholly dissemble the answer to this, and tell me, that ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers, even by their fellow Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome, which is a pure [...] to my argument for one may stile another Father, be­cause he is Father to those who are his spiritual children in the Church, as all Bishops are in relation to their diocesans, Thouhg their equals who writ to them, neither stile them, their Fathers, nor themselves their children, as the Fathers of this Council did here style Leo, and themselves. Whereas you should have given an in­stance of some number or assembly of Bishops, stiling any one their Father, and themselves his children, to whom they were equal, and had no subjection to them, nor dependance in government of them: this you have not done, because you could not do it: whereby my ar­gument hath received no solution from you, but remaines in its full force against you. As concerning your pains of reading a 190 pages in folio, to finde out my citati­on, [Page 314] I take so much pains to have been needless, for I cite in my text the precise Epistle of that Council to Pope Leo, saying in their Letter to Pope Leo, which is not a­bove two or three pages at most, nor was I obliged to cite it more punctually then I did.

Num. 227. You adde that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place next Rome which notwithstanding the Council had consented to, as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before, yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force till they were confirmed by the Pope. Reply, So farre were the Council from what you fastely say of them, that they put it into their canons, that Constantinople should have the second place, yea and equal priviledges with Rome, and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy, even because it was the Imperial [...]eate, vid. Bin. pag▪ 133.134. col. 2.

Num. 227. I am sorry to see you in passion, and that so deeply, as to accuse my words of falsity, either without duely examining whether they were true or false, or (if you did examine the place I cite) quite against your conscience: for these expresse words stand in the Councils Epistle to Pope Leo, cited by me, where speak­ing of their canon about the privi­ledges of Constantinople they say, See Blondel. p. 997. acknowledging these words. rogamus igitur & tuis decretis no­strum honor a Iudicium. Therefore honor, we beseech [Page 315] you, our judgement also with your decree. Here there­fore you wrong both your self and me, in affirming what I say to be false. To what you say about that other canon, I shall answer in the ensuing paragraph.

Num. 228. You see then (contrary to your fiction) that three general Councils (of the greatest, likened by Gregory to the four Evangelists) not only judged with­out the Pope, but by your own confession against him (for you say he consented not.) Yea so much did they slight the Popes consent, that when his legates dissented, they were not heard: see Bin. p. 134.136. They persisted in the Council to maintain their Canon 38 notwith­standing the contradiction of Lucretius and and Pascha­sinus.

Num. 228. That there was a canon composed in be­half of the Bishops of Constantinople &c. I have ac­knowledged, and you acknowledge, I have acknowledg­ed it here, when you print those words of mine, which notwithstanding the Council had consented to &c, but you dissemble my answer; for I contend, that whatso­ever they concluded amongst themselves, without the knowledge and against the protestations of the Popes legates, they here submit to the Popes judgement and decree, and tell him, they enacted that Canon at Con­stantinople, grounding themselves upon a confidence they had, that (notwithstanding whatsoever his legates presse against it) he himself would yield to it, as being a thing conceived by them to be very reasonable, praesu­mentes [Page 316] dum noverimus quia quicquid rectitudinis a filiis fit, ad Patres recurrit, facientes hoc sibi proprium, presuming (say they) Seeing we know, that what is done justly by children recurrs to their Fathers, who make it to be their own act; seeing therefore this whole canon, was both decreed out of a confidence that Pope Leo would consent to it, and his consent desired by the Council, all you say here, either of those Fathers re­sisting the legates, or persisting in the persuance of that canon, is of no force to prove, that either they desired not that his consent, or the denyall of it break not the legality of that canon. Moreover when you affirm this council decreed without and against the Pope, you fall into ano­ther fallacy, for seeing (as I have now prov'd) those Fathers proceeded to that decree, through confidence they should obtain Leo's consent, they cannot properly be said to have done it without, much lesse against his consent: for they conceived themselves to have a con­sent presumed, which is sufficient when no more can be had to regulate humane actions; and though Leo thought fit to deny his consent, yet that was after the canon was fram'd, for whilst they formed it, they had hope he would consent. I omit you call it the 38 canon when it is the 28, I suppose 'twas an errour in the print.

Num. 229. And unanimously the whole Synod con­sented, never stopping at the Roman dissent. Pergaminus Bishop of Antioch saith, in omnibus sanctissimum Ar­chiepiscopum Regiae civitatis novae Romae in honore & cura sicut Patrem praecipuum habere nos convenit. No man contradicted this: and is not this as much or more, then you alledge as spoke to Leo?

[Page 317]

Num. 229. Will you not expose your self to the deep censure of a considering reader, when you say here the whole Synod consented, viz, to this 28 canon, having said but just now, they persisted in the council in maintaining the the 38 (28.) canon, notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius, and Paschasinus, who were the Popes legates; and were not they the two cheif persons in the whole Council? how then could the whole Council consent to it, when these two contra­dicted it?

Num. 230. They call Leo (you say) Father: And the Bishop of Constantinople is pronounced the cheif Father in all things in honour and cure.

Num. 330. They call Leo, say I, their father and themselves his children, prove they have given such a title to the Bishop of Constantinople. vide supra. nor yet call they him the chief Father, for the words, pater praecipuus, may properly signifie, a cheif Father, that is one of the chief Fathers of the Church, no, nor do they stile him absolutely a chief Father, but that he was to be honoured, sicut pater praecipuus, as a chief Father though he were not the chief above all.

[Page 318]

231. And Eusebius Bishop of Doryl. the chief ad­versary of Dioscorus witnessed that he himself, in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople, did read this Canon to the Pope at Rome, and he received it; upon which your Historian hath no better an observation, then that either Eusebius lyed, or else at that hour he de­ceived Leo.

Num. 231. Why cite you not your Author for this story? sure there's some reason fo'rt best known to your self, no wise man would be thought Author of so fond a Fable. First the thing it self is wholly improba­ble (unless you suppose Leo to have been of an uncon­stant brain) for he expresly rejects it in his answer to the Synodical Epistle; and secondly, to tell it as you do, that in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople, Eusebius read this Canon to the Pope of Rome, will seem ridiculous, seeing that by the Clergy of Constanti­nople is properly to be understood, either all the Clergy, or almost all, for had you meant only a small part of it, you would have said, in presence of some of the Cler­gy, &c. of Constantinople; and not absolutely in presence of the Clergy of Constantinople, think you that almost the whole Clergy of Constantinople left their own Church without divine service or Government to go with Eu­sebius; an ordinary Bishop of Rome? But that which makes this story as you tell it, not only false, but im­possible is this, that what Eusebius said, was either be­fore, or whilst this Canon was decreeing, Eusebius be­ing then present in the Council; so that he must have [Page 319] either read it at Rome to Leo before it was made, or in the time whilst it was decreeing, being then himself not at Rome, but at Chalcedon. All therefore that he could have said to Leo, was about the Canon of the 2. gene­ral Council at Constantinople, something like to this, which was not approved neither by two, nor by any of his Predecessors: So that Cardinal Peron had reason to affirm the relation of this Eusebius to be false, because Leo was so far from confirming either of these Canons, that he expresly rejects them in his answer to the Syno­dical Epistle from Chalcedon.

Num. 232. It's true that the Synod writ to him for his Consent, but not as suspending any of their decrees on it; but telling him over and over, that the things were by them defined and confirmed already. pag. 140.

Num. 232. What mean you, by not suspending any of their decrees? that they raced them not out of the records wherein they were writ, that's true, but not to our purpose, or mean you, they desisted not from pro­ceeding practically in conformity to them, as esteeming them absolutely and compleatly obligatory, whether the Pope yielded consent to them or no; that's not true. For to what purpose used they so many reasons and per­swasions, so earnest entreaties, Rogamus, dignare, we be­seech thee vouchsafe most blessed Father to imbrace them, &c. had they not thought his consent necessary to the confirmation of them? and that this very 28. had not the authority of a legitimate Canon of that Coun­cil [Page 320] (as having been secretly and illegally framed, neither the Judges nor Synode nor Popes Legates being pre­sent at it, and very many Bishops, especially those of Alexandria, being departed, as Blundel acknowledges, pag. 966. and Leo refusing to confirm it) is witnessed by Theodoret who was present in the Council, by Dio­nysius exiguus, and Theodorus Lector, and the rest both Latins and Greeks who writ the Ecclesiastical History in that age, and it is your task to quote some of them who inserted it into the number of the Canons of Chal­cedon; so that it was excluded (and thereby at least suspended) from being numbred with the other Canons of that Council, till many years after, which happily might have given occasion to St. Gregory, of saying, that the Council of Chalcedon in one place was falsified by the Church of Constantinople, nor can it be found to have been cited as a true Canon of Chalcedon before the Trullan Conventicle, mentioned it as one of them, which was assembled a hundred and forty years after the council of Chalcedon.

CHAP. VII.

Num. 233. That which they desired of him was, what Synodes ordinarily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent; haec sicut propria, & amica, & ad decorem convenientissima, dignare complecti, sanctis­sime & beatissime pater. Non-proof 23.

Num. 233. Here's another of your Non-proofs, shew if you can that Oecumenical Councils, such as this at Chalcedon was, did ordinarily beseech, rogamus, and en­treat other Bishops to yeeld to what they had decreed, [Page 322] as did here this Council St. Leo, in this their Epistle to him. General Councils understood the extent of their authority too well to beg of any Patriarch, save him of Rome, to yeeld consent to their decrees, for they esteem­ed them all obliged to assent to them, when they were approved by the Roman Bishop, as appears both in this Council by the Emperours writing to all Churches, to know whether they consented to it, and their punishing Dioscorus the first, In Epistolis ad diversas Ec­clesias. in fine Conc. Chalced. and Iohn of Antioch the second Oriental Patriarch, and the like in that of Ephesus in condemning Ne­storius. &c.

But you use a petty sleight or two here; first, you say they write to Leo, for his consent in the former Para­graph, not specifying the manner of their writing, and thereby leaving your Reader an occasion to think, they might write by way of command or exaction, (for there are very different manners of writing one to another) whereas I have declared their writing to Leo, to have been by humble requests and intreaties: and then in this Paragraph, you say Councils ordinarily writ to Bishops in the same manner as this Council did to Leo, not ex­pressing what Councils you mean. For if you speak of such Councils as were accounted in their respective times, only National or Provincial; 'tis true, they might entreat other Patriarchs and Bishops to give their ap­probation of them, but that's a stranger to our pre­sent matter: if of general Councils which is only in question, you should not have supposed but proved it. Such minute underminings as these will gain you no great credit.

[Page 323]

Num. 233. In your Margin you tell me that Aga­pet in the time of Justinian deposed Arithymus in Con­stantinople against the will of the Emperour and the Empress. Reply. And doth it follow, that because he did it, therefore he did it justly, yea, and as the Gover­nour of that Church? when Menna Bishop of Constanti­nople excommunicated Pope Vigilius, was he not even with him? and did that prove that Rome was subject unto Constantinople? Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. when Dios­corus excommunicated Leo, and an Eastern Synode ex­communicated Julius (Zozom. l. 3. c. 11.) that proves not that they did it justly, or as his Governours. Hono­rius the Emperour deposed Boniface. Otho with a Sy­node deposed Johan. 13. Justinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius: will you confess it therefore justly done, as to the History I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron. cap. 25. sect. 84, 85. usurpation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing. Eusebius of Nicomedia threatned the deposing of Alexan­der of Constantinople, who sure was not his subject. Socrat. lib. 1. c. 37. ( vel 25.) Acacius of Caesarea and his party depose not only Eleusius, Basilius, and many other, but with them also Macedonius Bishop of Con­stantinople, Socrat. lib. 2. c. 33. ( vel 42.) did this prove Acacius the Vice-Christ? what should I instance in Theophilus actions against Chrysostome, or Cyrils against Johan. Antiochen. and many such like.

[Page 324]

Num. 234. What will not obstinacy do, rather then yeeld? hitherto you have laboured to evade all the In­stances I brought against you, as insuf­ficient to prove the Bishops of Rome did any act of true jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs, Blond. p. 438. and 439. Iu­stifies this pro­ceeding of A­gapet. and Bishops of the East Church. Now seeing this act cannot be pretended, not to shew an exercise of power and jurisdiction over the Patriarch of Constantinople, you confess the fact to be an act of power and superiority, but alleadge it was unjust, that is, above the power of the Roman Bishops: and then to make your plea good, you demand this question of me, and doth it follow, that because he did it, therefore he did it justly? and that done, to prove that consequence null, you instance in many, who excommunicated both Popes and other Bishops unjustly. But see you not a wide disparity? those whom you instance, were condemned by such as were contemporary with them, for having proceeded unjustly in those excommunications, &c. And this you, and all who have learning know to be true. But where can you find any classick Author, or credible Record about those times, which condemned this act of Aga­pet against Anthymus as unjust; nay, they are so far from having condemned it, that they highly praise him and extol him for it. Thus Iustinian. Novel. 42. saies, it was done by the most holy Bishop of old Rome, Aga­pet of most holy and glorious memory; and the Coun­cil gathered presently after by Agapets appointment, say, they follow the injunctions of that most holy Pope [Page 325] in depriving Anthymus (not Arithymus as you miscal him) of his Bishoprick of Trebisonde, and of all Offices and Dignities Ecclesiastical; hence all your instances appear so many disparities to our present case, yet would I insist upon them, you have no small number of flaws in them. v. g. where have you read that Mennas excom­municated Vigilius? I wonder to see you cite Nice­phorus for it, whose authority you your self rejected, p. 151. what actions mean you of Cyril against Iohn of Antioch? were they depositions, deprivations, ex­communications, &c. such as those of Agapet, were a­gainst Anthymus? if so, why prove you them not? if not, why make you mention of them? Beside, was not St. Cyril, as I have proved, made Legate in the East by Pope Celestine?

Num. 235. Still you suppose one Empire to be all the Christian world: we must grant you that in all your instances.

Num. 245. Still you are so short sighted, that you cannot reach to the force of an argument grounded in paritate rationis. I suppose no such matter, as that one Empire is the whole Christian world, 'tis your impo­sition, but I argue thus, the Bishop of Rome exercised, and that justly, spiritual jurisdiction over all the Pro­vinces and Patriarchates within the Empire, and that before any general Council was assembled, to confer such a power upon him, alwayes alleading, both by him­self, and other holy Bishops of antient times, that this [Page 326] power issued primarily from his being successor to St. Peter, to whom Christ gave the keyes of his Church ab­solutely, as well without as within the Empire, conse­quently it was in no mans power to restrain it to the sole Empire, ergo he had as much power to excommuni­cate, depose, or deprive any Bishop without the Empire (when occasions were given to exercise that power) as he had through the whole Empire. Now you only trifle, in telling me so often, that I make the Empire the whole Christian world; I do not that, but draw this conse­quence, the Bishop of Rome exercised jurisdiction through the whole Empire as my instances demonstrate, and there is no sufficient reason to restrain that power within the precincts of the Empire; ergo à paritaete ra­tionis, for the same reason, that power extends it self to all Christian Churches out of the Empire. It is there­fore your part, to shew such a reason for restraining his power within the Verge of the Empire, otherwise you suppose without reason it is limited to the Empire, not I, that it exceeds the Empire.

Num. 236. For what you alleadge from Gregory, I shall give you enough of him anon for your satisfa­ction, if you will be indifferent. As to your citation what can I say? A years times were little enough to search after your citations, if you should thus write but many more sheets, (if a man had so much time and so little wit as to attend you). You turn me to Gregory, c. 7. ep. 63. but what book, or what indiction you tell me not: but whatever it be, false it must needs be, there be­ing no one book of his Epistles (according to all the Edi­tions that I have seen) where c. 7. and ep. 63. do agree [Page 327] or meet together; but at last I found the words in lib. 7. c. 63. ep. 63.

Num. 236. The error is in the Copist, for in a draught of mine I have it twice, lib. 7. ep. 63. as you found it, and you might easily have discovered it to be the error of an Amanuensis, for sure that 7. chap. must have been of some book or other.

Num. 237. To which I say, that either your great Gregory, by subject, meant that the Bishop of Constan­tinople was of an Inferiour order, as the Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch were to Constantinople, that yet had no government of them, or else he could say and unsay; but I doubt not but this was all his sense.

Num. 237. I see you were sore prest with this autho­rity, when it puts you upon so desperate glosses. Are you really in earnest? did you ever read that the word ( subjectus) subject, related to that which is above, can properly signifie no more then of an inferiour order? the Lord Mayor of York is of an inferiour order, or ranke to the Lord Mayor of London, is he therefore subject to him? I see you would again preach pleasing things to your good wife of Kiddermunster, for when they read in St. Peter 1 Pet. 3.5. that wives should be subject to their husbands, they will have learnt from [Page 328] this book of yours, that subject signifies only one of an inferiour ranke, not that their husbands should have any government over them. But for all this it signifies here, say you, no more then one of an inferiour order who has no government over the other: and why so? why: you your self doubt not but this was all his sense. nay, if you doubt not of it, I have done; that must needs be enough to make it certain, are you serious when you trifle thus? yet at all adventures, if haply you misse in this congruous construction, you have another turne to save your self, for if St Gregory truly meant, subject, (as all the world meanes it) for being under the power and government of an other, then you say that Gregory sayes, and unsayes? it seems you have some particuler picqu [...] against him, because he converted our Nation from heathenisme to popery; (as you terme the Roman religion:) are not you the first that ever accused the great St. Gregory, to say, and unsay? but as to the word it self subject, subjectus, being derived, from sub, under and jaceo, to ly down, it cannot signifie only not to be so high as is another, or to be of an inferiour ranke, quality, order, or place, but to ly under him, or at his feet, which signifies that the other hath power over him, for subjectus alteri, subject to another, is jactus sub altero cast under another, or under the power or com­mand of another, and I would gladly know, what one latin word signifies more cleerly that any one is under the government of another, then does the word sub­jectus subject; a good subject to his sacred Majestie, should mean no more then you say is here meant by sub­ject, that you are of an inferiour order to his Majesty, and content he shall take place of you, but withal deny he has any power over you, were not he likely to be well serv'd by such subjects? but sure, you might have [Page 329] discovered, had you read his words attentively that, St. Gregory could not mean a subjection only of inferiority in order, and not in government, for he sayes, in ano­ther place if there be any fault committed by Bishops, l. 7. ep. 64. se­cundum Blon­del. ep. 65. I [...] ­dictione. 2. I know no Bishop, which is not subject to the Apostolical Sea, but if the fault require it not, according to the reason of humility wee are all equal. See you not the subjection which he asserts here, is grounded in the de­licts or faults of Bishops, and is not that, in order to correction, reprehension, and punishment for those faults? and must not that proceed from power of govern­ment, and authority over them? is not this evident? nor can he speak in the first part of this sentence of a subjection of order only, for he affirms, that supposing there be no fault, the Bishop of Rome is the first Patri­arch in order through the whole Church, and conse­quently the rest unequal in ranke and place, that is sub­ject to him in your sense, he must therefore mean ano­ther subjection besides that, when he saith they are sub­ject by reason of their faults; would it not be ridiculous if the Mayor of London shoul write thus, because all other Mayors are inferiour to him in order; if any fault be committed by the Mayors of this Kingdome, I know none of them all, who is not subject to the May­or of London, but if no fault require it, in humility we are all equal. I hope by this time you will have cause to doubt whether your sense be the sense of St. Gregory here, or no?

Num. 238. But if it had been otherwise, Constanti­nople and the Empire was not all the Christian world.

[Page 330]

Num. 238. This seemes to be the burthen of your song, but I have shewed you just now that its quite out of the tune.

Num. 239. Your next citation is lib. 7. epist. 37. but its falsly cited: there is no such word; and you are in so much haste for an answer, that I will not read over all Gregories epistles.

Num. 239. There is an errour in the figures, it should be lib. 7. ep. 64. where you'l finde what I cite. And that very reason which you alleadge, for not reading over St. Gregories epistles, viz. hasting for an answer, pleads the excuse of my friends, in sending my answer away to you, before I could return to town, and read it over, to wit your importunity for a speedy an­swer.

Num. 240. You say that Cyril would not breake of communion with Nestorius till Celestine had con­demned him; of this you gixe us no proof.

Num. 240. Doe I not? looke in the Margin p. 56. [Page 331] in your edit. lit. o. you'l finde the proof of it cited there. I see you use not to read the places cited by your adversary, otherwise you could not but have seen the proof of what I say in Cyrils epistle to Celestine.

Num. 241. But what if it be true? did you think to prove the Pope to be the vice-Christ? prudence might well make Cyril cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch. And we still grant you, that the order of the Empire had given the Roman Bishop the Primacy therein: and therefore no wonder if his consent were ex­pected.

Num. 241. Yes indeed I really thought so (if you understand by vice-Christ, no more then what we ascribe to the Pope) otherwise I would never have prest that instance to prove it. And as really tooke I the writing of two and those (as you would have it) the cheif Patriarchs of the Eastern Church, to the Pope of Rome, the one to have his doctrine censured, that is ei­ther allowed or condemned by the Pope, the other to have the Popes authority for himself and the rest of the Eastern Bishops, whether Nestorius his doctrine were formal heresie, and they oblig'd to avoid communion with him; this I tooke to be a forcible argument to prove the Pope to be a vice-Christ, if you mean as we doe, no more, then this by it, that he is the supream visible governour of the whole Christian militant Church in the place of Christ: and truly I am in the same minde still, for all you have brought against it. Is it think you [Page 332] probable, that Nestorius would have written to Ce­lestine, and required his authority for the approbation of his doctine, had he esteemed him to have no more power over him, then the Mayor of London hath over the Mayor of York? nor was the question propounded by St. Cyril about a positive excommunication of Nesto­rius (as you misconceiv'd) but onlie a non-communion with him as you presently acknowledge.

Num. 242. But that Nestorius was comdemned by a Council needs no proof: and what if Celestine be­gan and first condemned him. Is he therefore the univer­sal Bishop?

Num. 242. Yes, he is so, (as universal Bishop may be understood.) For if the condemnation of him in the Ephesine Council in conformity to the Popes precedent censure, argu'd an universal authority in that council o­ver the whole Church, (as all both Catholicks and Protestants, you only excepted acknowledg) much more the primacy, and original condemnation of his doctrine argu'd an universal authority in Celestine.

Num. 243. But it was not Celestine alone, but a Synod of the Western Bishops.

[Page 333]

Num. 243. This is answered above, where you put the same reply. No national or patriarchal Council, can upon their sole authority, oblidge the rest of the Patriarchs, as this did.

Num. 244. And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning.

Num. 244. But that warning was ordered by Ce­lestine as I have proved p. 56. in your edit.

Num. 245. And what was it that he threatned? but to hold no communion with him.

Num. 245. And was that in your account a matter of smal moment? you may please to take notice, that the Bishop of Rome's denial to receive any one into his communion, or the substracting himself from commu­nicating with them, was in those dayes, an undoubted marke of their being cast out of the Church, and that no Catholick Bishop was to excommunicate, or to per­mit any under his charge to communicate with them, as is proved at large in Schisme unmaskt, or the conference [Page 334] with Dr. Gunning. For the rule to know with whom every one was, or was not to communicate, was their C [...]mmunion or non-communion with the Roman Bi­shop.

Num. 246. And though pride made excommuni­cation an Engine to advance one Bishop above others, I can easily prove, that if I had then lived, it had been my duty to avoid Communion with a notorious Heretick, though he had been Pope.

Num. 246. We have had essayes enough, of what you can do: I see you are much wiser and learneder then was St. Cyril, who presided in the Ephesine Council. He would be first informed from Pope Cele­stine, whether Nestorius his opinion were Heresie or no, before he avoided him; you, if you had liv'd in his time, would have taken a wiser course, and have had nothing to do with never a Celestine of them all, but upon your own judgement avoided him. And yet you thought just now, that prudence made St. Cyril so cau­telous, as to proceed as he did, and if it were prudence in him, what was it think you that mov'd you to pro­ceed otherwise? yet you, even in what you say here, mi­stake grosly the state of the question: which is not whe­ther every one was then bound to avoid a notorious He­retick, for none are notorious Heretiques but such as are sufficiently declared to be so by the Church, and the very same authority which declared them, obliged eve­ry one to avoid them, but what was here questioned was [Page 335] this, whether private men upon their particular judge­ment, when a novelty ariseth, not yet expresly con­demned by the Church, are to avoid the maintainers of it as Heretiques, before they be declared to be so by publique authority of those who have power to judge them and their doctrine?

Num. 247. The long story that you next tell, is but to fill up paper, that Cyril received the Popes letters, that Nestorius repented not that he accused Cyril, that Theodosius wrote to Celestine about a Council, and ma­ny such impertinent words. 2. Non-proofs. 3. Cor­ruption of my words.

Num. 247. Here are more of your non-proofs, all belike is impertinent, which you call so; had I indeed said no more then what you make me say here, I had been impertinent; look upon p. 56. your Edit. and you'l find another story; I say there, that Celestines letters to Cyril were to execute Nestorius his condemna­tion, and to send his condemnatory letters unto him; this you dissemble, which only makes the Epistle of Ce­lestine to be a proof of his power over St. Cyril, the first of the three Patriarchs; before I related there the irre­pentance of Nestorius, I say p. 57. in your Edit. that Celestine had given order in his letters to Cyril, to send Celestines condemnatory letters to Nestorius; this also you dissemble, which is not withstanding a strong proof against you, and you make me say no more, then that Nestorius repented not, never mentioning the occa­sion [Page 336] given him to repent. Then you say, I write that Theodosius writ to Celestine about a Council, neither de­claring as I do, p. 57. that it was the general Council of Ephesus, nor mentioning Pope Celestines answer, both consenting to the assembling that general Coun­cil, and prescribing the manner how he would have it celebrated, which was my proof of Celestines Soveraign authority, nor say you any thing of Celestines order given to his Legates, that the Council should not again examine the cause of Nestorius, but without any farther examination, put his precedent condemnation of him, in execution: All this, that is all the force of my proofs you handsomly conceal, and foisting in non-proofs of your own making in place of my proofs; and all this done, you say my words are impertinent; in what School of conscience learn't you these duplicities?

Num. 248. But the proof is, that Cyril was the Popes chief Legate ordinary, forsooth, because in his ab­sence he was the chief Patriarch, therefore he is said, Celestini locum tenere, which he desired. Corruption.

Num. 248. No, that's neither my argument, nor the reason of his being Legate; my argument is this p. 58. your edit. Cyril being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East, Con. Ephes. impres. Heidel­berg. c. 16. ibid. c. 17. ibid. c. 18. ibid. c. 65. Concil. Ephes. c. 15. Marcel. comes in chron. Liberat. in brev. c. 5. Balsam. in nomo. can. Prosp. in chron. Id. contra collatorem &c. and that be­fore the Council of E­phesus was begun, or in­dicted; now his being [Page 337] constituted so by Celestine, you again dissemble, making me say only, that he was the Popes chief Legate ordina­ry (that is, as you would have it) by vertue of his being the first Patriarch of the East, not by Pope Celestines institution; whence appears you have given no answer to my argument, but miserably mangled it, because you could not answer it. For sure Pope Celestine neither made Cyril in that letter Patriarch of Alexandria, for he was so before; nor that Patriarch the chief in the Eastern Church, for he was declared to be so long be­fore the Council of Nice: but by vertue of a particular order, constituted Cyril his Legate ordinary, as he might have done any other Patriarch, had he pleased.

Num. 249. Well, let your Pope sit highest, being he so troubles all the world for it. Christ will shortly bid him come down lower, when he humbleth them that ex­alt themselves.

Num. 249. This is not replying, but prophesying, and would better become an exclamation in a Country Pulpit, then a reply in Controversie. It had been time­ly enough to use such Phanaticismes as these, after you had either prov'd unanswerably the Pope exalted himself too high: or answered fully and cleerly, the arguments which prove he hath not.

Num. 250. That Cyril subscribed before Philip, [Page 338] you may see, Tom. 2. cap. 23. but where I may find that Philip subscribed first, you tell me not.

Num. 250. When I cited the sixt action immediate­ly after those words, you might have gathered that sub­scription, (as it is) to have been in the fift.

Num. 251. But what if the Arch-bishop of Can­terbury sate highest, and subscribed first in England? doth it follow that he was Governour of all the world? no, nor of York it self neither.

Num. 250. No. It follows not, because such a Coun­cil would be only National, not General as that of Ephesus was; but it would follow according to the an­tient Canons, that the Arch-bishop of Canterbury pre­siding as Primate of the English Church, had power in Government over the Bishop of York in some cases, as all true Primates have over all the Bishops and Metro­litans within their Primacies.

Num. 252. And here you tell us of Iuvenal, Act. 6. Reply. 1. The Council is not divided into Acts in Binius, but many Tomes and Chapters: but your words are in the Notes added by your Historian; but how to prove them Juvenals words I know not, nor find in him or you.

[Page 339]

Num. 252, I think you would infuse the spirit of Prophesie into me too, how should I know otherwise, you had the Councils in no other Edition save that of Bi­nius? I cited the sixt action of the Council, which is an usual citation and full enough, look into that action, and you'l find it, in the Edition of Paulus Quintus.

Num. 253. But why were not the antecedent words of the Bishop of Antioch and his Clergy, as valid to the contrary as Juvenals for this?

Num. 253. Because Iuvenal was a known Catho­lique Bishop, Liberat. in brev. c. 4. act. Ephes. Tom. 1. c. 21. act. Ephes. Tom. 3. c. 1. Evag. c. 5. & alii. and consented to the council, and Iohn of An­tioch, with his complices, were fa­vourers of Nestorius, restorers of the Pelagian Heresie, and open Schismatiques, celebra­ting a conventicle against the Ephesine council.

Num. 254. If these words were spoken, they only import a judging in Council as a chief member of it, and not of himself. Non-proof 24.

[Page 340]

Num. 254. Yes sure, it must needs be so, because you say 'tis so, shall we never have an end of your non-proofs? what kinde of Council mean you? a general Council? that was never thought necessary for the Ro­man Bishops censuring of others; a particular? that could have no juridical authority out of the Western Church, ergo the power of judging out of the Western Patriarchate, was only in the Pope.

Num. 255. And his Apostolica ordinatione is expresly contrary to the fore-cited Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and therefore not to be believed. Non-proof.

Num. 255. Still more non-proofs, why is it expres­ly contrary? why? you say 'tis so; I deny it to be con­trary, that's as good as your affirmation. I have expli­cated that Canon of Chalcedon above, and made it con­sonant to these words of Iuvenal. But what if it were contrary? I have also shewed the uncanonicalness, and illegality of that Canon. But at least, you cannot deny that I have brought one instance here, that the Popes authority over a Patriarch, was by Apostolical ordina­tion. Is it not manifest, by this your answer? that you slight the Council of Chalcedon, in granting in one Session, to approve of Iuvenals sayings, and in another to contradict them.

[Page 341]

Num. 256. Yet some called things done ordinatione Apostolica, which were ordained by the seats which were held Apostolick. Non-proof 25.

Num. 256. Some? which some? why say you some, and name none? nor prove any: still more and more non-proofs.

Num. 257. But still you resolve to forget that An­tioch or the Empire, extended not to the Antipodes, nor contained all the Catholick Church.

Num. 257. Your burthen must still bear up the Song, we have had enough of that already. Shew some solid reason, why the Pope had rather power over the Church and Patriarch of Antioch, then over all other Prelates and Churches, and you say something.

Num. 258. You next tell me of Valentinians words, A.D. 445. Reply. It is the most plausible of all your te­stimonies, but worth nothing to your end; for 1. Though Theodosius' s name pro forma, were at it, yet it was only Valentinians act, and done at Rome, where Leo prevail­ed [Page 342] with a raw unexperienced Prince to ¹ word the Epistle as he desired; so that it is rather ² Leo's then the Empe­rours original: 13. Non-proofs more, noted in fi­gures in the Text. ³ And Leo was the first that attempted the excessive advancement of his seat above the rest of the Patriarchs. 2. It is known that the Emperours sometime gave the Primacy to Rome, and sometime to Constantinople, as they were pleased or displeased by each of them. So did Justinian, who A. D. 530. Lam­padio & Oreste Coss. C. de Episcopis lib. 1. lege 24. saith, Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum est Caput: The Church of Constantinople is the head of all other. 3. It is your fiction, and not the words of Va­lentinian ( or Leo) that the succession from Peter was the foundation of Romes Primacy. It was then belie­ved that Antioch and other Churches had a succession from Peter. It is the merit of Peter, and the dignity of the City of Rome, and the authority of the Synode joint­ly that he ascribeth it to. The ⁴ merit of Peter was no­thing but the motive upon which Leo would have men believe the Synode gave the Primacy to Rome: And Hosius in the Council of Sardica, indeed useth that as his motive, Let us for the honour of Peter, &c. They had a conceit, that where Peter last preached, and was martired and buried, and his relicks lay, there he should be most honoured. 4. Heres is not the least intitation, that this Primacy was by Gods appointment, or the A­postles, but the Synodes: nor that it had continued so from Peters dayes, but that jointly for Peters merits (and honour) and the Cities dignity, it was given by the Synode. 5. And it ⁶ was but Leo's fraud to perswade the raw Emperour of the authority of a Synode, which he would not name, because the Synode of Sardica ⁷ was in little or no authority in those dayes. The rest of the [Page 343] reasons were fraudulent also, which though they pre­vailed with this ⁸ Emperour, yet they took not in the East. And Leo himself it seems durst not pretend to a divine right and ⁹ institution, nor to a succession of Pri­macy from the Apostles. 6. But nothing is more false then your assertion, that he extendeth the power over the whole visible Church; The word universitas, is all that you translate in your Comment, the whole visible Church. As if you knew not that there was a Roman universa­lity, and that Roman Councils were called universal, when no Bishops out of that one Common-wealth were present▪ and that the Church in the Empire ¹0 is oft called the whole Church, yea, the Roman world was not an unusual. And I pray you tell me, what power Va­lentinian had out of the Empire? who yet interpo­seth his authority there, Neque praeter autho­ritatem sedis istius illicitum, &c. & ut pax ubique serve­tur. And in the end, it is all the Provinces, that is, the university that he extends his precepts to. 7. And for that annexed, that without the Emperours letters, his authority was to be of force through France, (for what shall not be lawful, &c.) I answ. No wonder, for France was part of his Patriarchate, and the Laws of the Em­pire had confirmed his Patriarchal power, and those Laws might seem with the reverence of Synodes, with­out new letters to do much: But yet it ¹¹ seems, that the rising power needed this extraordinary secular help: Hilary it seems with his Bishops thought, that even to his Patriarch he owed no such obedience as Leo here by force exacteth. So that your highest witness (Leo by the mouth of Valentinian) is for no more then a Primacy, with a swelled power in the Roman universality: but they never 12 medled with the rest of the Christian world: It seems by all their writings and ¹³ attempts, this ne­ver came into their thoughts.

[Page 344]

Num. 258. In this paragraph you have no lesse then a bakers dozen of non proofs, I have noted them by figures in your text, let them be prov'd, and then they shall be answered, till then they deserve no answer. To what has any seeming ground or proof, I answer. First it imports little whether Theodosius had any hand in this Epistle or no, I say nothing of him in my text, p. 59.60.61. Secondly Your proof from Iustini­an is already answered in my observation made upon p. 174. of your key, only I see you have mended your ci­tation, and put lib. in place of lege 3. Must it needs follow that it is my fiction? because it is not the words of Valentinian, that the succession from St. Peter is the foundation of Romes primacy. May not a medium be given betwixt those two extremes, what if it were the true sense of Valentinians words? it was then neither his words, nor my fiction, but a true interpretation of his words; and that it is so, is manifest, for there must be some reason sure, why the merit of St. Peter, conferr'd a primacy rather upon the Bishop of Rome, then upon any other Bishop, but none can be imagined, save this, that the Bishops of Rome succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome, ergo it must be that succession, or nothing. You seem to say, that because St. Peter last preached, and was martired, and buried, and his relicks lay there he should be most honoured, and by, honoured, you must mean, as Hosius cited by you here, and Valentinian doe, in the power acknowledged in the Bishops of Rome. But this cannot subsist, for St. Paul preached last at Rome also, was martyred, and buried, and his relicks lay there, yet no authors say, the primacy of the Roman [Page 345] Bishops was founded in St. Pauls merits, now no reason can be given of this, save that which I gave, viz, that the Roman Bishops succeed not to St. Paul, as they doe to St. Peter, because St. Paul was never Bishop of Rome, as St. Peter was. What you say of the succession from St. Peter in Antioch, availes nothing; for he, having deser­ted the Bishopprick of Antioch in his life time, and transferr'd his seate to Rome, were he dyed Bishop of the Roman see, was to have his proper successour there; for by tranferring his see to Rome, he transferr'd the digni­ty of Primacy of the Episcopal crown, (as Valentinian sayes there) appropriated to him, and took it from An­tioch, and by dying Bishop of Rome left it there to his successours; whence appears that the Bishop of Antioch was a successor to St. Peter, as were other Bishops, but no successor to his supereminent dignity and primacy o­ver the Church, because so long as St. Peter lived, it could not descend upon any other. Fourthly, I deny not, that he ascribes the establishment of Romes prima­cy to those three, St. Peter, the city and the Synod; yet he makes the first foundation of it, the dignity of St. Peter, and therefore prefixes it before the other two, and that it may appear he makes this the first and funda­mental reason, and not the Synod, he addes these words, haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiter custodita, since these things ( i. e. that nothing of great concern should be done without the authority of the Roman see) have been hitherto inviolably observ'd; for if the Synod had conferr'd that dignity to the Bishop of Rome, he could not have said with truth, that those things had been alwayes observ'd, for before the Synod which gave it, which was three hundred years and more after the re-Surrection of our Saviour, they were observed: see­ing therefore they were alwayes observed, that power [Page 346] & authority must have been, in the Bishop of Rome long in being before those Synods were celebrated. Now how the dignity of the Roman city concurr'd to this primacy I have above declared, whence appears, the loud untruth which you pronounce, n. 4. Here is not the least inti­mation that this primacy was but by the appointment of the Synod, nor that it had continued so from St. Peters dayes. Since you use not to read over the texts which are brought against you, I pray you what signifie these words, haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiliter obser­vata, these things have been hitherto inviolably observed, what signifies hitherto, but from St. Peters time to his? Your guess at the Synod of Sardica, as aimed at by Valentinian, though say you it was of little credit in those dayes (which I have numbred amongst your non-proofs,) is a pure mistake; for the Synod he alludes to, is that of Nice, which in the 6 canon, as it is recited in the Council of Chalcedon, sayes thus. Ecclesia Romana sem­per habuit primatum, the Church of Rome hath allwaies had the primacy, where that holy council gives it not as you surmise, but declares it to have been alwaies due to that see since the Apostles time: whence also appears the falshood of what you say next, that Leo durst not pretend divine right and institution, nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostle, for this very Synod to which Leo alludes, warrants both. For if it were alwayes due to it, or that it had alwayes possession of it, semper habuit, it must have come not only from the time of the Apostles but from Christ himself, otherwise it had been semper, for in the time of the Apostles, it had not been due to it. When you say next, I translate the word universitas, the whole visible Church, you wrong me, for I translate it universality, see pag. 59. and when I name the whole visible Church, p. 60. I make [Page 347] no translation of his words, but deliver that which I think to be the sense of them. To what you say, there was a Roman universality. If you mean, that those who were under the sole Roman Empire with exclusion of all extra-imperial Churches communicating with them, were called anciently the universal Church, or the uni­versality of Christians, you are much deceived, where prove you that? if as united with them, and giving the denomination to the whole, 'tis true and confirms what I say. Now to shew that Valentinian meanes by univer­salities, not those of the Roman Empire exclusively to all others, he joynes to universalitie, ubique; for then sayes he, the peace of the Church will be kept every where, when the whole universality acknowledges their gover­nour: but certainly Valentinian was not so ignorant, as not to know, there were then many Churches out of the Roman Empire. For about the year 414. that is a­bove 20 years before Valentinian enacted this law, Spain was possest by the Goths, and divided from the Roman Empire: and was Valentinian think you igno­rant of that? so that I am not ashamed to confesse my ignorance, that I really know not any Roman universa­lity Ecclesiastical in your precisive and exclusive sense, nor know I any Council anciently stiled oecumenical, or universal, where no Bishops out of that one (the Ro­man) common-wealth, were present, and you have not yet instructed me to help my ignorance in this. I have no obligation at all to tell you, what power Valentinian had out of the Empire, for he might first declare (as he did) the power of the Roman Bishop to govern the whole Church in the beginning of this breif, and in the end, take care, that all those Provinces which were un­der his Empire should observe that his law, concerning so much as belonged unto him, that the universal power [Page 348] of the Pope should be observed: As may now the Em­perour of Germany, or the King of France, or Spain first declare the universal power of the Roman Bishop over all Churches, and then command all their Provin­ces to obey him, which is all the Emperour does here. For Valentinian sayes not (as you falsifie his words, omnium provinciarum of all the Provinces, but aliarum provinciarum, of other Provinces, nor ( ut Pax ubique servetur,) as you corrupt him, but tunc ubique servabitur, then peace will be observ'd every where, if the whole universality acknowledge their governour; and that not in the law but in the declaration made of the Popes authority, vide supra. as an introduction to it. You answer to Valentinians af­firming the Popes authority and sentence was of force without any imperial law to back it, is much deficient. For seeing he had before declared that the Popes com­mands had been alwaies observed, they must have been of force, both before any Patriarchate was assign'd to him by any general Council, (as you imagine it was) and before any Christian Emperours had enacted any lawes concerning it, and the very law it self destroyes your glosse, for Valentinian sayes presently, what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches. Whereby he shews his pow­er extends it self not only to his own, but to all other Patriarchates; nay your very restraining his words to the Empire and yet extending them to the whole Empire, shew evidently, that the Popes sentence had not been on­ly of force independently of any imperial law within his own, but also in all other jurisdictions of the Patri­archs within the imperial verge; and hence the conse­quence which you draw from this authority, whereas Valentinian sayes it needed not the imperial help, that [Page 349] it needed this extraordinary secular support, is as con­trary as to draw darkness from light: and as inconse­quent is it to argue from Hilaries repugning against the Pope sentence for a time, that the Pope had no such power over him (which notwithstanding you granted just now,) as to argue that a lawful Prince hath no power over rebellious subjects, because they resist it. So that it could never seem to any considering person, o­therwise then that it came into the thoughts and words too of Valentinian here, that the Popes supremacy ex­ceeded the limits of the Roman Empire. But it is evi­dent enough, through the vein that runs through this Paragraph, that you are soundly netled with this law of Valentinian, and yet because you are resolved, what ere comes on't to persist in your errour, you fall foul upon Hosius, Leo, Valentinian, Bishops, Popes, rather then yield to a manifest truth; Hosius you make so shallow, that he took things away weakly and facilly upon the custome of the times, Leo you make proud and fraudu­lent, and Valentinian a young and raw Prince, subject to be perswaded to any thing. The most part of consider­ing readers will smile to see Hosius the most honoured Bishop of his time through the whole Church, who presided in two general Councils, and legate of the holy Pope Silvester for the Western Church, Leo graced with the title of most blessed Father, Nicene Sardican pronounced the head of the Catho­lick Church, and universal Bishop, stiled the mouth of St. Peter in the Council of Chalcedon, and ever since honoured with the title of a Saint, and Valentinian a most renowned Emperour, both for for­titude and prudence, for he was twenty seven years of age when he composed this edict, so slighted, reviled, and debased by the Minister of Kiddermunster, and that [Page 350] upon your surmises and guesses without any proof at all. And others will pitty and compassionate your misery (as I really do), to see you so deeply plunged in adhesion to your own opinion, that you will break all the bonds of Christian modesty and charity, rathen then acknow­ledge your error, or yield to a manifest truth.

258. And it's no credit to your cause, that this Hi­lary was (by Baroniu's confession) a man of extraordi­ry holiness and knowledge, and is sainted among you, and hath his day in your Kalendar.

Num. 258. But does not Baronius, in the very same place, reprehend him at that time when he fell in­to those defaults, and tell you that after his condemna­tion, he came again to himself, crav'd most humbly par­don of the Pope, and shewed manifest signs of repen­tance, and upon this his humiliation and perseverance in obedience to the See of Rome, became both a famous defender of the Catholick Faith, and a Saint. Was it any disadvantage to the Catholique Church, that Ori­gen, Tertullian, or even St. Cyprian himself, men of e­qual understanding and learning with St. Hilary, op­posed the doctrine of the Church, and raised trou­bles in it?

Num. 259. And yet Valentinian had great provo­cation to interpose (if Leo told him no untruth, for his [Page 351] own advantage): for it was no lesse then laying siege to Ci­ties, to force Bishops on them without their consent. That he is accused of; which shews to what odious pride and usurpation, prosperity even then had raised the Clergy, fitter to be lamented with floods of tears, then to be de­fended by any honest Christian: Leo himself may be the Principal Instance.

Num. 259. He had so indeed, but must he there­fore give more power to the Bishop of Rome then of right belonged to him. Who either defends, or is not ready to bewail these abuses? But I see where you are, you would cast a blot, if you could, upon Episcopal Go­vernment, and cry down the power and possessions wherewith God and good men had even in those times inriched them.

Num. 260. You next return to the Council of Chal­cedon, Act. 1. & seq. where 1. you referre me to that Act. 1. where is no such matter: but you adde, (& seq.) that I may have a hundred and ninety pages in folio to peruse, and then you call for a speedy an­swer: but the Epistle to Leo is in the end of Act. 16. pag. (Bin.) 139. And there you do but falsly thrust in the word (thou governest us), and so you have made your selfe a witness, because you could find none. The words are, Quibus tu quidem, sicut membris caput, praee­ras, in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens: Imperatores vero ad ordinandum decentis­sime praefidebant. Now (to go before) with you must be [Page 352] (to govern); if so, then Aurelius at the Council of Car­thage, and others in Councils that presided, did govern them.

Num. 260. We must have new Grammars and Di­ctionaries, to understand your translations. Who ever said before you, that praeesse, signifies to go before? I was alwayes taught, and I think you too, or you had a Sir Iohn lack-Latin for your Master, that esse signifies to be, and not to go, and so praeesse is to be before, or a­bove another, and not to go before them. A servant may go before his Lady to usher her, can it therefore be said, praeest Dominae? a horse goes before the Cart, can you therefore say praeest currui? We read Gen. 1. v. 16. that God made the Sun, ut praeesset di [...]i, would you translate, that it might go before the day? and v. 26. he gave power to man, ut praeesset piscibus maris, & volucribus caeli, &c. will you translate, that he might go before the beasts of the Earth, and the birds of the Air? and the 1. Tim. 3.5. si quis quis autem Domui suae praeesse nescit, if any know not how to go before his fa­mily, &c. But to be more serious. I challenge you to give me any one instance, where praeesse signifies not to govern others as I translate it, either in Scripture or an­tiquity. Indeed Sir you are a worse Critick then you are a Controvertist: I say not therefore, 'tis you who mistake it; that to go before, must be to govern, but that praeesse aliis, to govern them, which all the world sayes with me. Whence also, that if Aurelius in quality of Primate in Africa, did praeesse conciliis, he also govern­ed them, as did anciently the Primate of England the Councils in England.

[Page 353]

Num. 261. It was but (benevolentiam praetulisse) that they acknowledged: and that the Magistrates not only presided indeed, but did the work of Iudges and Governours, is expresse in the Acts, its after wrote in that Epistle, Haec sunt, quae tecum qui spiritu praesens eras, & complacere tanquam fratribus deliberasti, & qui pene per tuorum vicariorum sapientiam videbaris, à nobis effecimus.

Num. 261. Will you venture to Criticize again, after your late foyle? know you not that the Greek language is ful of courteous and friendly expressions? it was indeed Leo's good will to send his Legates with their instructi­ons to them, but was it therefore no act of power and authority? is it not benevolentia Principis, to confer new honours upon his well deserving subjects? seems it not therefore to be an act of Royal power over them? who denies the Magistrates did the work of Judges? but still in their kind, and within their Sphere, to see good or­der, justice, and peace observed amongst the Bishops. But prove, if you can, they ever as Judges gave their suf­frages and votes together with the Bishops in definiti­ons of faith, or framing Ecclesiastical decrees?

Num. 262. And (haec à tua sanctitate fuerunt in­thoata, and yet, qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obti­nent, iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt) [Page 354] from all which it appeareth, that he only is acknowledged to lead the way, and to please them, as his brethren, and to help them by the wisdom of his substitutes, & yet that the Council would not yeild to their vehement resistance of one particular.

Num. 262. These consequences I understand as lit­tle as I do your translations: I beseech you in your next, draw something against my assertion, from them.

Num. 263. But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge, not in a complemental Epistle, but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged, but 1. as a gift of the Fathers. 2. And therefore as new. 3. For the Cities dignity. 4. And it can be of no farther extent then the Empire, the givers and this Council be­ing but the members of that one Common-wealth: so that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy.

Num. 263. This is already answered in part, and shall be more fully, when we come to it.

Num. 264. And for the words of Vincentius Lyri­nensis, c. 9. what are they to your purpose (quantum loci authoritate) signifieth no more then we confess, viz. [Page 355] that in those times the greatness of Rome, and humane ordination thereupon, had given them that precedency, by which their (loci authoritate) had the advantage of any other Seat: Or else they had never swelled to their impious usurpation.

Num. 264. I see here you are as skilful in Chrono­logie, as you are in Criticismes: know you not that Vincentius speaks of St. Stephen Pope and Martyr, who sate in the year 258. till 260. in whose time, the temporal greatness of Rome served for nothing, but to render its Bishops objects of tyranny, and subjects of torments; nor was there then any humane ordination at all, either from general Councils, or Christian Em­perours, from whom only you derive it, for it was ma­ny years before them both, which notwithstanding, this ancient Catholique author sayes, that even then in those purest times, the Roman Bishop surpassed all other Bishops, loci authoritate not in precedency only, but in authority of his place. Now I hope you will tell us in your next, who, if not our Saviour, gave that Soveraign authority to the Bishop of Rome in those dayes. Should one say, the Lord Mayor of London, surpasses all those of the City, in the authority of his place, signifies no more, then that in publique meetings he is to take place of all the other Aldermen, &c. without any governing power over them, would any rational man think he speaks sense?

Num. 264. I have plainly proved to you in the end [Page 356] of my (safe Religion) that Vincentius was no Pa­pist.

Num. 265. I am subject to believe your proofs there wil be much like those which I lately examined in your Key. The question is not now of what Religion Vincentius was, but whether in this place, he gave an unanswerable testimony of the Popes Supremacy. I am sure the answer you have given to it, is fallacious, not distinguishing the time wherein Vincentius writ, from the time whereof he writes in that Chapter, and it is no less untrue and inconsistent in it self, your constituting humane ordi­nation for the Popes authority, when there was none.

Num. 266. But you draw an argument from the word (sanxit), as if you were ignorant that bigger words then that, are applyed to them that have no go­verning power. (Quantum in se sanxit), he charged them that they should not innovate: And what? is it P. Stephen that is the Law-giver of the Law against unjust innovation? did not Cyprian believe that this was a Law of Christ before Stephen medled in that bu­siness? what Stephen's authority was in those dayes, we need no other witnesses then, Firmilian, Cyprian, and a Council of Carthage, who slighted the Pope as much as I do.

Num. 266. You criticize again: Signifies sanxit, [Page 357] to charge one? I ever yet thought, that sanxit, signi­fied, he made a decree, or a Law, look into the Dictio­naries, and you'l find it so. A father charges his child to rise at six a clock in the morning, will you say? sanxit; shew me in any approved ancient author, that ( sanxit) is ever applied to any, who have not power to command, or to give Laws to others, in regard of whom they do sancire, establish any thing to be observed. The que­stion is not now, what Stephen did, or Cyprian belie­ved, but what Vincentius sayes of Stephen, he sayes, sanxit, he sent or fram'd a Law or decree, that in mat­ter of baptism of those who had been baptized by here­tiques, nothing should be innovated: but what was de­livered by tradition of receiving them into the Church without rebaptizing them, should be observed: this St. Cyrian questioned, and inclin'd too much to the con­trary. Nor is the question here what Stephens authority was in other particulars, or was not, but whether Lyri­nensis say that he had power, and actually did sancire, enact and make a Law to oblige all those in Africa in this particular. Why divert you the question by so ma­ny turnes, I leave your answer to judgement. You still take all occasions to enervate the Popes authority, by al­leadging the opposition of those who (you know, and all the learned with you,) were in error against it, such were those in that Council of Carthage, Firmilian, and St. Cyprian then, whilst they defended the error of rebapti­zation. Whence appears the untruth of what you affirm here, that St. Cyprian knew that the ancient custome maintain'd by Pope Stephen, of non-rebaptization, was to be observed, for he with Firmilian, and Council of Carthage, &c. practised and taught the quite contrary.

[Page 358]

Num. 267. I pray answer Cyprians testimony and arguments against Popery, cited by me in the Disp. 3. of my (safe religion.)

Mum. 267. I see you'l give me work enough, if I had nothing else to do then busie my self with the tasks you set me; what have I to doe now with the third dis­putation of your safe religion (I believe I shall finde it much of the same temper with your key) or whether St. Cyprians arguments are with or against Popery? Our question is about Vincentius Lyrinensis his authority; answer that in the true sense of the Latin word, Sanxit, and then wee'l talk with you about other questions, when occasion requires it.

Num. 268. You say you will conclude with the say­ing of your Priest Philip, and Arcadius at Ephesus: and 1. you take it for granted that all consented to what they contradicted not: but your word is all the proof of the consequence. Nothing more common, then Senates and Synods to say nothing to many passages in speeches not consented to. If no word not consented to in any mans speech must pass without contradiction, Senates and Synods would be no wiser societies then Billinsgate affords, nor more harmonious then a fair or vulgar rout: what confusions would contradictions make amongst them.

[Page 359]

Num. 268. Yet certainly, if any one in your Council held at London an. 1562 should have said as much of St. Peters and the Popes supremacy, as this le­gate said in the Council of Ephesus, he would have had all the new Bishops about his ears, and a greater noise against him then was ever yet hard at Billingsgate, which would have rung all the Kingdome over. You an­swer to my difficulty is fallacious, ex ignoratione elenchi, you suppose me to argue thus in an universal proposition, whatsoever is said by any particular person and not con­tradicted in Councils is consented to by the whole Coun­cil; and upon this false supposition you frame your Re­ply. Now I advance no such universal proposition at all in that place, but argue from their silence or non con­tradiction, to their consent out of the particuler in­stance of the legates delivering a doctrine (in your prin­ciples) absolutely destructive of the authority, and juris­diction, of all the Bishops in the Council, and there­fore were obliged in conscience to contradict it: their silence therefore, evinces they conceived it was no dis­advantage to them, but a great advantage both to them and the whole Church, and so argues they consented to it. All therefore that I affirm is this, whatsoever is said tending directly to the destruction of the authorities, and priviledges of those to whom it is said (as those words of the Legates must have done in your opinion) would have been contradicted by them, because they were all oblig'd to stand for the priviledges which Christ had given them, and to oppose every one who delive­red any doctrine contrary to them. Seeing therefore not so much as any one in the Council speak the least word [Page 360] against the Legates, its evident they esteemed not them­selves to be injur'd or concern'd in them, and conse­quently consented to their doctrine as Catholick, and Orthodox, nor any way abridging any Bishop there of those Episcopal dignities and jurisdictions conferr'd by our Saviours institution upon them.

Num. 269. You turne me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here: but you tell me not att all what author you use, and in Bi­nius which I use, the Tomes are not divided into acts, but chapters, and pag. 327. is long before this Coun­cil; so that I must believe you, or search paper enough for a weeks reading to disprove you: this once I will be­lieve you, to save me that labour, and supposing all rightly cited. I reply.

Num. 269. 'Twas your want of books, not mine of preciseness in citations (for I cite Tome, Act and page) which created you this labour, I had reason to think you were not ignorant that the edition of Paulus quintus (ut supra) was by actions, not chap. And there you may finde it as I have cited it.

Num. 270. Phillip was not the Council, you bare witnese to your selves; therefore your witnesse is not credible.

[Page 361]

Num. 270. Philip was not the council, who sayes he was? what then? ergo his authority not contradicted by the Council (as I have now declared) is no good argument, the Council consented to his doctrine: make that good. But suppose it had been Philip, or Arcadi­us alone even speaking out of the Council, it had con­cluded against you, you have it seems forgot, what you affirmed p. 2. your edit. viz. But at least, of four hun­dred years after Christ, I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world, that is one who was for the Popes universal monarchy or vice-Christship. Now you know the Council of Ephesus was celebrated in the years 430 and 431. That is in a moral consideration of so many years, 400 years after Christ, and who can doubt that this Philip flourisht within the first 400, this testimony therefore proves evidently that there was at least one papist, that is one who was for the Popes univer,+sal monarchy or vice-Christship, in the extent of those ages wherein you profess not to have found so much as one single person in that whole tract of time. For those legates give testimony not only for that precise time of the Council, but also for all precedent ages before it, as I have evidenced by their words.

Num. 271. Yet I have given you instances in my key, which I would transcribe, if I thought you could not as well read print as M. S. of higher expressions then Caput & fundamentum given to Andrew by Isychi­us, and equal expressions to others as well as Rome and Peter.

[Page 362]

Num. 271. You might have pleased to have told me where, thinke you I'me bound to were your key at my girdle, as if I had nothing to doe but busie my self in reading it over to finde your wild citations?

Num. 272. And who is ignorant that knoweth a­ny thing of Church history, that others were called suc­cessors of Peter as, well as the Bishop of Rome.

Num. 272. What successors mean you? such as were received by Christians to succeed in the place of St. Peter as he was, fidei columna, and ecclesiae Catholi­cae fundamentum, the pillar of Faith, and foundation of the Catholick Church, as the legate speakes here of him? truly Sr. I confesse I am so ignorant, that I know no such matter as you talke of.

Num. 273. And that the the Claves regni were given him, is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles.

Num. 273. The question is not at present, whether it prove absolutely they were not given to others, be­cause [Page 363] they were given to St. Peter: but, whether the le­gate in this sentence must not mean, this to have been a priviledge peculiar to St. Peter, as much as all the for­mer were understood by him to be peculiar to St. Peter. Now, he could not without manifest absurdity be understood in any other sense, for seeing he intended to demonstrate to the Council the preheminence of St. Peter and his successors above all others, he had fallen into a grosse inconsequence, had he enumerated those excelencies to shew St. Peter to be greater then were the other Apostles and his successor higher in authority then the successors of any of the Apostles, should he have specified such particulars as were common with him and the rest of the Apostles, seeing those are so far from proving him to be above them, that they prove the quite contrary, for equal priviledges common to all, prove all were equal in those priviledges.

Num. 274. And where you say Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Aposto­lick sea. You tell me not where to finde it. I answer you still, that its long since your sea begun to swell and rage, but if you must have us grant you all these conse­quences, Celestine commanded, therefore he justly com­manded; therefore another might not as well have com­manded him, as one Pastor may do another, though equal in the name of Christ, And therefore he had power to command without the Empire over all the Ca­tholick Church; and therefore the Council was of this minde: yea therefore the universal Church was of this minde, that the Pope was its universal head. You still [Page 364] are guilty of sporting about serious things, and moving pitty, instead of offering the least proof.

Num. 274. By what I have now writ in answer I think you will not have found me in jest, in the proof of these consequences taken with due circumstances. Celestine, sayes the legate, commanded, and Nestorius was condemned by him, for not obeying Celestines com­mand, and no man was either in the council or in the whole Church, who had then the repute of an orthodox Christian, either reprehended Celestine for commanding, or justifyed Nestorius for not obeying and if any did so, produce them in your next by good authority, ergo it was a just command. 2. It being a just command, and must proceed from one who had true authority to com­mand, and against one whome you say by right of the first Council of Constantinople, was the first Patriarch then in the Church, had he true authority over him, he must have had true authority over all those who were inferiour to him, ergo there was no man to be found in the church who had power to command Celestine, there; the second consequence. The third I prove thus, he had power to command justly (as is proved) the highest Patriarch in the Empire, and that Patriarch, and the o­thers also, had power to command the Empire, (as I have proved above) ergo Celestine had consequently power to command all those, whom they commanded. The fourth consequence, I prove the legate said this in full and publick council, and were all highly concern'd in it, (as is also prov'd,) and yet did not in the least contradict it, ergo the council was of this mind, that it was no abridgement to their priviledges, but an e­stablishment [Page 365] of their authority, a prime preservative of the Churches unity and a fundamental institution of Christ, in the perfect orders of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as the legates had delivered it to the council. You sup­pose here without any proof at all, that one pastour though equal may command another in the name of Christ. Who ever taught this doctrine before you? e­verts it not inevitably the order of Church government, commanded by St. Paul? for what is order but a due observance and subjection of inferiours to their re­spective superiours, which is wholly subverted when an equal takes authority upon him to command his equal, whatsoever pretence of the name of Christ he assume to glosse it; for unless that conferre a real authority upon him who commands over him who is commanded, he re­maines his equal still, that notwithstanding, and then he commands without any true authority, which destroyes order: or if it communicate a reall authority over the person commanded, it makes him superiour who com­mands and not equal to the other, which destroyes your supposition, of one equal commanding an other. This made good, the last consequence followes inevitably; for seeing his Council has ever [...]een reverenced, and re­ceived as a true general Council, and what such Coun­cils consent to is the consent of the Catholick Church? for all bodies diffusive are to confirm themselves to their true representatives: it follows, and that very seriously without all jesting, that these consequences are so fast lockt up together, that all the tu [...]n [...]s of your key will not be able to unlock them.

CHAP. VIII.

NUm 275. Why perpetual adherence to the Roman Church, was promised by a Bishop who was reconciled from Schism to the Church. Extra-imperial▪ Bishops, obeyed the Bishops of Rome; Num. 276. Mr. Baxter forgets what his adversary undertook to prove, and thereupon ac­cuses him of not proving, what he was not obliged to prove. Num. 277. Why the Roman supremacy in spirituals is necessary to the being of Christs visible Church. Num 278. He proceeds fallaciously a sensu conjuncto, ad sensu divisum. The diffe­rence between temporal Kings, and Popes go­vernment, not understood by Mr. Baxter. Num. 279. He proceeds a jure, ad factum. from what should be done, to what is done; Num. 280. He mis­takes his adversaries meaning in governing others as Brethren Num. 281. W [...]e her the Pope be ab­solutely the Monarch of the visible Church.

Num. 275. Yet fear you not to say, that in the time of the holy oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catho­lick Church was for you in this point] The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions [Page 367] or interests. 1. Was the Popes legate the whole Church 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire, yea a piece of the Empire? So that they were but such as we now call national Councils, that is, consisting only of the subjects of one republick. 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power with­out the Empire? 4. Do they not determine it so ex­presly to be of humane right, that Bellarmine hath no­thing regardable to say against it. (Can. 28. Con. Chal.) but that they spoke falsly? And yet your opi­nion or interest hath tempted you to appeal. viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light.

Num. 275. Heres, nothing but a good face put up­on a bad cause, and a repetition of what is answered, imboldned with a new confidence, your first qu. about the Popes legate is answered. To your second, I answer, yes, there were no small number of extra-imperials: but had there been none, if all were summoned, it ceased not to be a general Council. To the third, yes, every decree it made was spoken to the whole Church, and (as it ap­peares by the letters of Leo the Emperour, writ pre­sently after the Council of Chalcedon to all Churches, even the most distant in those parts) it was universally received in their respective answers by every one of them To your fourth about can. 28. Con. Chal. I have an­swered already, and shall say more when it is more fully treated.

Num. 276. After the conclusion you have a su­pernumerary [Page 368] in your margin, from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle, nor is it of any such subject. But its the 31 Epistle, its like, that your leader meant. And there is no more but that a Bishop not named (person or place) having fallen into Schism voluntarily, swore never more to depart from the unity of the Catholick Church, or the Sea of Rome. But. 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do (or Patriarchate) without beleiving Rome to be the universal head.

Num. 276. Could they? and yet make the com­munion with the Bishop of Rome to be the certification and evidence, they reconciled themselves to the Catho­lick Church? If any Schismatick in France should re­concile himself to the Catholick Church, could he pro­mise to remain allwayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rhemes? suppose that Bishop should so be ex­communicated or turne Schismatick, as he might, could he promise never to forsake his communion? seeing therefore an absolute promise was made to remain al­wayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rome, it was presupposed that Bishop once lawfully chosen and installed could never be excommunicated, or become a Schismatick, so long as he remained Bishop of Rome; otherwise the promise had been illegal and impious, ob­liging them to communicate with Schismaticks. Now there can be no other sufficient reason given, why the Bishop of Rome can never be excommunicated, or be­come a Schismatick so long as he is Bishop of that Sea, then that he is the visible head of the whole Church, from whose communion whosoever seperates becomes a [Page 369] Schismatick: as he who seperates from the loyal obedi­ence of the visible head of a Kingdome, becomes a Rebel but because he has no power above him against whom he can rebel, but as a King can never be a Rebell, so not the highest visible governour of the Church can be excommu­nicated or commit Schisme by contempt of the lawful authority of the Church, because he who is the highest of all has no authority in the Church over him, for then he were not the highest.

Num. 277. So might any one in any other Pro­vince have done: And yet it followes not that he ought to do so, because he did so. You see now what all your proofs are come too, and how shamefully naked you have left your cause.

Num. 277. I have so illustrated, and strengthened my instances, (to open them to your understanding) that every one of them, by an argument a paritate rati­onis onis (ut supra) evinces the Popes power to have been universal over all Christendome, seeing those Patriarchs and Prelates that were within the verge of the Empire obeyed him, upon no other score, save this, that they still conceived him to be, by vertue of the privi­ledges and powers given by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawful successors, the cheif Governour of them­selves and of all other Prelates whatsoever, and of the whole Church; and I challenge you to produce one sole instance of Authority from antiquity which sayes in expresse termes, that those of the Empire obeyed them because they were members of the Empire, or that his [Page 370] authority reached not without the Empire. Nay even in time of the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon, Spain though seperate from the Empire, obeyed the Roman Bishop: for it was possest by the Gothes an. 414. who have ever since kept it, and the Council of Ephesus began 430. And not long after, an. 475. France was possest by barbarous Kings, and never since returned to the Empire, yet still remained under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. When England was after con­verted, betwixt six and seven hundred years, it was no part of the same Empire, yet yeilded it obedience to the Bishop of Rome: the like is of many other Western and Northern Countries out of the Empire converted, about, or after these times. See more of this in my reasons against your grand noveltie in restraint of general coun­cils, what you mention here of a parity from Canter­bury, hath no parity at all. For the English Church rendred obeisance to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Primate of the English Church only, whereas those in the Empire obeyed the Bishop of Rome, not as cheif Bishop only of the Roman [...]mpire, but as having au­thority over the whole Church in vertue of succession from St. Peter, who received it from Christ, which I will demonstrate hereafter.

Num. 278. You have not named one man that was a Papist ( Pope L [...]o was the nearest of any man) nor one testimony that ever a Pope of Rome had the government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire; but only that he was to the Roman Church as the arch-bishop of Canterbury to the English Church: and as between Canterbury and York, so be­tween [Page 371] Rome and Constantinople, there have been con­tentions for preheminency: but if you can prove Can­terbury to be before York, or Rome before Constanti­nople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler of the antipodes, or of all the Christian world.

Num. 278. But if you can prove Canterbury to be not only in place and precedency, but in authority and jurisdiction above York, and withall above all the Me­tropolitans, Primates and Patriarchs which were an­ciently within the Roman Empire, because they acknow­ledged his authority to be above all the Prelates of God, to have Christs vineyard committed to his care from Christ, to be the Father to all the Bishops met in gene­ral Councils, and they his professed children; acknow­ledged by them to be their head, and they as parts sub­ject to him &c. And never to have been acknowledged as supream in spirituals by these in the Empire, because his authority reached (as I have prov'd the Bishops of Rome to have been acknowledged by them) no farther then the Empire. When I say you shall have prov'd the Bishop of Canterbury to have been over all the Metro­politans Primates, and Patriarchs within the Empire, in this manner, as I have proved the Bishop of Rome to be, you will have proved Canterbury to have had all the preheminences given him by antiquity to be the Supream spiritual governour of the whole Church. But seeing neither you, nor any one in his right wits, would ever undertake so great a peice of nonsence, I should have wondered you dazle the eyes of your readers with such empty shewes as these, had it not been so ordinary with you. This very argument hath proved, that not only one [Page 372] man, but (as you cannot deny) all the Churches in the Empire acknowledge it, and yet you say I have not proved one man to hold it, whether this be to be termed confidence, or impudence I leave to judgement.

Num. 279. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion, that the Pope was by divine Right the Governour of the world, when you can­not prove one man of that opinion. 3. much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles, having said as much as nothing to the first 300 yeares.

Num. 279. You forget (and have proceeded in that act of oblivion through your whole reply) that I undertook in these instances, noe more then to prove a­gainst your bold assertion, that within the first 600. 500. and 400 yeares, there were some at least, who testified the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop over the whole Church by Christs institution: though therefore my proofs had not been taken out of those who flourished, within the first 300 years, seeing they were within the first 400, they had been of force against you. But you may remember also that I cited St. Cyprian, who was within the first 300, and Vincentius Lyri­nensis who witnesses the same of Pope Stephen contem­porary with St. Cyprian, and very many of my cheif instances prove, V. G. in the councils of Nice, Ephe­sus, and Chalcedon, that it descended from our Saviour, and had been in all ages since the Apostles, and was to be in all future ages.

[Page 373]

Num 380. And much less have you proved that the whole Catholique Church was of this opinion.

Num. 380. Whether I have or no, let others judge.

Num. 381. And yet least of all have you proved, that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome to be of necessity to the very being of the Church, & to our salvation, and not only ad melius esse, as a point of or­der.

Num. 381. I have proved it to have been a matter ever necessary in the Church by Christs institution, and therefore necessary ad esse, to the being, and not only ad bene esse, to the perfection of the Church. For see­ing some Governours are essential to the Church, as appears Ephes. 4. v. 11, 12, 13. in the order and Hie­rarchy of those Governours, there must be some who are to be over all the rest in visible government, other­wise neither could schism be avoided, and unity preser­ved, (as Optatus cited hereafter affirms, l. 2. contra Parmen.) nor would a visible body have a visible head, which would be monstrous.

[Page 374]

Num. 382. So that you have left your cause in shameful nakedness, as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing.

N. 382. If you mean to such eyes as yours, which I have demonstrated either discovered not or mis-saw the face of my arguments, I grant it; but all open and right sighted eyes, I hope will have seen my cause so invested with grace and truth by what I have here replyed, that it will have no shame to appear before heaven and earth, before men and angels for its justification.

Num. 383. In the end you return to terms. To what you say about the word (Christians) I only say that its but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the essentials of Christianity, of which Popery is none, any more then pride is.

Num. 383. I leave it to judgement, whether this answer, related to my explication as of Christianity (pag. 64. your edit.) have any sense in it. For what though Popery, as you conceit, were no more essential to Christianity then pride is, yet if a Papist hold all the essentials of Christianity, as you hold he does, he may be univocally a Christian. Will you say, that be­cause [Page 375] pride is none of the essentials of Christianity, therefore no proud man holds all the essentialls of Chri­stianity? to what purpose then have you added this clause of Pride and Popery? when I speak in general and abstractive terms, not medling at all with particu­lars. Now you give no satisfaction to your Reader a­bout the clear notion of an univocal Christian; you tell him here, that an univocal Christian is he who be­lieves all the essentials of Christianity, but through this whole answer you never give him either a distinct cata­logue of essentials, or prescribe any direct rule, or means to know which they are, as we shall see hereafter.

Num. 384. About the word (Monarch) in good sadness, do you deny the Pope to be (an imperious sole Commander?) Which of these is it you do deny? not that he is a (Commander) not that he is (imperious) not that he is (sole) in his Soveraignty. I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny. But perhaps the next words shew the difference (as temporal Kings.) But this saith not a word wherein they differ from (temporal Kings.)

384. You are really a strange man to deal withal. Can any one speak more clearly then I have done? I say we hold no such Monarch in the Church, as is an imperi­ous sole Commander, as temporal Kings are, &c. And when I have said all this in sensu conjuncto, and knit my words and sense together as close as I can, you go and pull all in pieces, and ask me if I understand them [Page 376] in sensu diviso? Is not this very handsome think you? Should I say that Iane Shore was no honest Christian woman, would you have askt me, which of these is it that I deny, not that she was a woman, not that she was a Christian, not that she was honest in her conversa­tion; would it not have been ridiculous in a high de­gree? and if upon this you should adde, after I had said, she was no honest Christian woman (conform to what you do here) I would either you or I could know what you hold about Iane Shore. Would not every one laugh at you? But in sober sadness, did you not understand what I denyed, as plainly as what I deny of Iane Shore. Hold we him to be an Imperious sole Commander, as temporal Kings are, whom we unanimously affirm to have no power to deprive Church Officers at his plea­sure, as Kings have power to put out what Officer soe­ver they please through their whole Kingdom; who is not alone to govern the Church either immediately or mediately as Kings govern their Kingdoms (according to Christs institution.) But every Bishop being Christs Officer, and not the Popes as truly as the Pope is within the precincts of his Diocess, are as true Governours of the different respective parts of the Church, as the Pope is of the whole. Now I hope at last you understand me, how Popes differ from temporal Kings.

Num. 385. Sure your following words shew not the difference. First Kings may receive power from Christ. 2. Kings must rule in meekness, charity and humi­lity.

[Page 375]

When we say, he receives power from Christ, you cannot be ignorant, that we understand it of Christ as author of Christian Religion, and not as author of na­ture and morality, nor can you but know, that tempo­ral Kings, as such, abstract from Christian Religion, and are truly Kings, whether they be Christians or no; they cannot therefore be said in any formal proper sense to receive power from Christ, as he is head of his Church, but from God, as author of nature and mora­lity.

Num. 386. But I think the meekness, charity and humility of Popes hath been far below even wicked Kings (if cruel murthering Christians for Religion, and setting the world on fire, may be witness) as your own. Histories assure us.

You tear my discourse all in pieces. I join that of go­verning in charity, &c. to this as Brethren and Chil­dren, and you fallaciously divide it; it is not contrary to the humility of a King, to account all in his King­dom to be his vassals, Substitutes, Officers, but it would be contrary to the humility of a Pope. A King will not be thought cruel and defective in meekness, if he judge a person, and condemn a malefactor to death, but a Pope would. The rest is a pure [...], I spake of the Office of Popes, and you of the persons, I of what we [Page 364] hold they ought to do, and you of what they do, or may hap to do. If any personal cruelty have been exercised by Popes, let them answer it, not I, who have not in the least medled with it here. But I see such fallacies as these in passing à jure, ad factum, and the like are spread thick over your whole answer, yet even in this objected cruelty, we must take your honest word, for here's no other proof, then that you affirm at a venture, our Hi­storians assure us it is so. You'l tell us I hope, in your next, who those Historians are.

Num. 387. The Government of Kings also is for (mens eternal good,) how ever Papists would make them but their executioners in such things.

Num. 387. Of what Kings? know you not we dis­pute now in sensu formali, that is, of temporal Kings (for that was my term, and would you have temporal Kings, that is, temporal Governours, as such tend to a spiritual and eternal good, for if as such they tend to a spiritual end, then all temporal Princes, even Turks and Heathens must do so.

Num. 388. Brethren as such, are no subjects, and therefore if the Pope rule men but as brethren, he rules them not by governing authority at all.

[Page 365]

Num. 388. What mean you by brethren as such, are no subjects abstractively? to what purpose? is it also true to say, men and women as such are no subjects, that is, they are not subjects precisely, quatenus under the formal notion of men and women, for then all men and women should be subjects exclusively? that is, their being brethren, repugnes to their being subjects. Take heed, that doctrine will be dangerous at Court: what? were not his Majesties brethren his subjects? or because his Majesty ruled them but as brethren, he ruled them not by any governing authority, as you say here of the Pope: the like is if any elder brother should be School­master, or General, or Magistrate over his younger bro­ther, did he not rule him by governing authority? And have you not an express prophesie of two brethren, major serviet minori, the greater shall serve the lesser? Nay, calls not Christ himself his Apostles brethren, will you therefore say he rul'd them not by governing authority? But you (I suppose very innocently) fall into a grosse folly here, when I say he governs them as brethren, you would have my meaning to be, as they are brethren, by a reduplication upon the object, whereas by the term, as brethren, I mean he governs them as brethren use, or ought to be govern'd, reduplicating upon the act of go­verning, not upon the object that is to be govern'd; that is, the chief Governour of Christs Church, is ac­cording to the will and institution of Christ, to govern all Christians as a brother, who is a Superiour and Go­vernour of his brethren, and ought to govern them, to wit, in meekness, charity, and humility: and therefore I make all my reduplications and reflections upon the [Page 378] act, when I say, if only for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness, charity, and humility to go­vern all the rest, for their eternal good, as brethren, or children, I grant it.

Num. 398. Children to him we are not: you must mean it but metaphorically, and what mean you then? Is it that he must do it in love for their good? so also must Kings: so that you have yet exprest no difference at all.

Num. 389. To what purpose trifle you thus? do I say, Christians are the Popes natural children? Say I not, as children, and know you not, that nullum simile est idem? who can think they are otherwise then me­taphorical children, and he a metaphorical Father? but will you scruple at the Pater noster, because we call God our Father, and consequently our selves his children, because we are not the proper and natural, but his me­taphorical children? when you next talk of governing them in love for their good, and affirm that Kings must do the like, why leave you out the word eternal, which is my epithite, and wherein the force of my words con­sists? and then tell me I have exprest no difference at all? is this fair? will not every one who hath but half an eye discover such petty slights as these.

[Page 379]

Num. 390. But our question is not new, nor in u­niversal terms: what Soveraignty you claim, you know or should know. Are you ignorant that Bellarmine, Bo­verius, and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchical, and that the Pope is the Monarch? the supream head and Ruler, which in English is Soveraign? Are you ashamed of the very cause or Title of it, which you will have ne­cessary to our salvation.

390. 'Tis one thing, to say the Government is Monar­chical, and another to affirm the Pope to be the Mo­narch (as you do, and Bell. cited by you, does not) of the whole Church, without ever explicating what kind of Monarch you mean. A government may be termed Monarchical which hath a great part of Monarchy in it, though it be not strict and perfect Monarchy, as a man may be called Angelical, though he be no Angel; thus our Authors (and particularly Bellarmine) put the Church-go­vernment to have something of the mixt in it, Bell. l. 1. de Rom. pont. c. 5. sect. ultimo. though he esteems it to incline more to Monarchy then to Aristocracy. Whence appears that your inference drawn from a go­vernment thus imperfectly Monarchical, to intitle the chief Governour in it, the Monarch of it, without all re­striction as you do, is of no force. And of as little force is your other inference grounded in your former mistake [Page] that I am ashamed of any title which I hold necessary to salvation; first prove we call the Pope Monarch, and then say I am ashamed of it.

CHAP. IX.

Num. 391. Whether the title of the Vice-Christ be accounted either due, or given by sufficient authority, amongst Roman Catholiques to the Pope, or accepted by them. Num. 392. Mr. Baxter confounds Vice-Christi, in place of Christ, and Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ. Num. 393. How far the Pope is understood to be in the place of Christ. Num. 394. He miscites his Adversa­ries words. Num. 395. How the Vice-Christ and the Vicar of Christ differ. Num. 396. Why a De­puty for a King may be called the Vice-King, but a Deputy of Christ cannot be called the Vice-Christ. Num. 397. Mr. Baxter makes Vice God, to be a a higher title then Vice-Christ. Num. 398. Mr. Baxter, in place of alleadging a sufficient that is a publique authority, cites Oratours, Poets, Enco­miasticks, &c. and yet mistake most of those.

Num. 391. Next you say, that you (very much dislike the title of Vice-Christ) as proved and insolent, and ut­terly disclaim from it, neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes, or did they ever ac­cept [Page 365] of it. Reply. Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self, that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard.

Num. 391. Had you first confuted this answer, and then broke out into this exclamation, it had been much more seasonable, but as it stands, it relishes more of pas­sion then of reason; and will appear so, to any who shall consider the weakness of your proofs against it, whereof most consist in a pure digression, by a fallacy usual to you, proceeding à notione secunda, ad primam, from the second notion to the first, or from the title to the thing it self, as we shall now see.

Num. 392. Is not the very life of the cause between you and us, whether the Pope be the universal head of the Church, Vice-Christi, & Vicarius Christi? Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them, and that they take unto themselves?

Num. 392. Here you begin your fallacie, Vicarius Christi, is indeed a title, but Vice-Christi is none, the one signifies the Vicar of Christ, but the other signifies, in the place or stead of Christ; which having no sub­stantive or demonstrative annext to it, cannot possibly be a title, for of it self it signifies no determinate sub­stance. Now if you will joyn to it a substantive, and say, Papa est Vice-Christi, the Pope is in place of Christ, [Page 382] you may make some kind of title to it, but you can never make it that about which we controvert, for that is Vice-Christus, the Vice-Christ; so that all those who are Vice-Christi in the genitive case, that is, the place of Christ, are not Vice-Christi in the nominative, that is, Vice-Christi, which title onlie is in question betwixt us; (you were (as some of your Parishioners esteemed you) to govern those of Kidderminster, Vice-Christi, in the place of Christ, were you therefore the Vice-Christ of Kiddermunster? Nor is the title of universal head of the Church set down in your illimited terms here, either a title acknowledged by us as due to the Pope, or given to him by us. For that Christ being the sole universal head of the Church, which comprehends the Church militant and triumphant, the term universal head signi­fies that which is due to Christ onlie; we therefore ac­knowledge there is none but Christ himself according to your expression universal head of the Church, nor is there any universal Vice-head, nor Vice-Christ corre­sponding to that universal head, to be found in the whole Church. Nay, even speaking of the sole militant Church, we never say, without some restriction, the Pope is universal head of the Church, for universal head, comprises as well the internal and invisible, as the visible Governour of the militant Church; now we all deny that the Pope is head in the invisible government of the visible Church, for that manner of government Christ only is the universal head; nor say we, that there is any Vice-christ or Vice-head constituted in the place of Christ, in this invisible direction of the Church. We therefore restrain the term universal head, by this re­strictive visible, nor intend we to say any more then this, that the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of the universal visible Church, so far as it is capable of a vi­sible [Page 383] government, together with other Bishops, who are as truely Christs officers and vice-gerents in their res­pective governments though subject to the Pope, as he is in his government. And in this sense only can he be termed a vice-Christ, or vice-God, that is holding the place of Christ in the visible government of his Mili­tant Church. But he cannot be stiled the vice-Christ which is the sole title about which we now contend, for that imports an absolute Vice-gerency under Christ in all things. Now in the othet sense above explicated eve­ry lawful Bishop also or Pastor, may be termed a Vice-Christ and every King a Vice-God in reference to those whom they govern as truly as the Pope can be: yet nei­ther we nor you attribute usually any such title to any of them because they seem neither to suite with Christian humility, nor with the incomparable supereminency of Christ. Now to shew that even when they are attribu­ted by some Encomiasticks to our Popes, it is done with restrictions as v. g. in terris, upon earth, visibilis, visi­ble &c. And every one who knowes any thing knows this is all we mean.

Num 393. Nay look back into your own papers here pag. 6. Whether you say not that they are institu­ted governours in Christs place of his whole visible Church.

Num. 393. You are a man of a strange confidence, I have lookt back upon pag. 6. in your edition and finde evidently I say not so much as one word of what [Page 372] you cite here, and had you lookt back with an even eye, you would have seen no such words nor any thing like them in that place, let all the world see and judge; and in those pag where I advance a proposition about the Popes supremacy p. 23. I have not those words, in Christs place, in which only you ground your argu­ment: let the world again see and judge, my propositi­on there is this, that the Pope is cheif governour on earth in matters belonging to the soule next under Christ where I limit the extent of his government, by saying on earth, and the power in governing, by not saying in all matters belonging to the soul, but in matters belonging to the soul, that is no other save those, though not in all those, to wit not in the inter­nal illuminations, graces, and influences, inspired by the holy ghost into the harts of Christians, whereby it is evident, I speak such things, as are visible, and ex­ternal, for that restriction was added, to distinguish his power in government, from that of temporal Princes, who can govern only the external. If you deal so un­fairely in your citations, even where every one with the turne of a leaf can discover you: what credit can your readers afford to those which they cannot examine? Corruption.

Num. 394. 2. Doth not Bellarmine (as I have cited else where) labour to prove, that it is not as an Apostle that the Pope succeeds Peter but as a head of the Church in Christs stead? doth not Boverius cited in my key labour to prove him the Vicar of Christ, and to be Vice-Christi?

[Page 373]

Num. 394. Both Bellarmine and Boverius, make him head no farther in Christs place, then in order to the visible government over the Militant Church; nor make they him the vice-Christus, the vice-Christ, but to be vice-Christi in place of Christ, or Vicarius Chri­sti; which I have shewed to be mainly different from the title of vice-Christus, the vice-Christ, for that put absolutely, seems to impart that he is in the place of Christ in the intire government, of the militant Church, both visible and invisible, and that the Pope as the vice-Christ, can infuse illuminations, and spiritual graces in­to soules, and knew them and regulated them perfectly as Christ did whilst he was upon earth; and in the visible government of the Church, that he hath a power to displace any Bishop, or Prelate at his pleasure through the whole Church, as if they were his own officers, and not the officers of Christ. And here appeares the dis­parity, in that which you being for a parity, of those who rule in the place of a King, to be stiled vice-regis vice-kings, for by reason that Kings have no other go­verning power save what is visible, all the acts of that power may be communicated, by way of vicegerency to him who is vicegerent of the King, who therefore may be absolutely stiled the vice-King, because all those acts are committed to him by the King; but in our case the cheif and primacy only of government, being the internal influxes into the soul, are not committed to the Pope; so that he cannot be absolutely termed vice-Christus, the vice-Christ, but still with a restraint and limitation, or secundum quid; And by th [...]s appeares also your fallacy, that first you proceed a parte, ad totum, [Page 386] from one part of government, to the whole; and then a secundum quid, ad simpliciter, to one who in some consideration only is in the place of Christ, to wit the Pope, or vicar of Christ, to an other who is in all re­spects, and absolutely in place of a King, that is a vice-roy or vice-King. I never therefore contended with you that the Pope may not be stiled Vice-Christ, with re­striction or limitation, but that the title of the vice-Christ absolutely put is not as you put it, due to him.

Num. 395. And what fitter English have we for the Kings deputy in a distant Kingdome, who is vice-Regis, then the vice-King? or a Chancellors deputy, then (the vice Chancelor?) vice-Christi is your own common word, and vicarius Christi, none more common scarce then the latter: and what English is there fitter for this, then the vice-Christ, or vicar of Christ.

Num. 395. Your joining together the vice-Christ and vicar of Christ as Sinonomas is frivilous, for they have a quite different signification, when vice-Christ, is put absolutely. and your making vice-Christi in place of Christ, to be the same with vice-Christus, vice-Christ, is absonus: the rest is answered. The English therefore, to signifie, how the Pope is in place of Christ is the vicar of Christ, not the vice-Christ.

Nume 396. It is evident indeed the very terme that expresseth properly as men can speak, the true point [Page 387] and life of the controversie between us. And how could you suffer your pen to set down that the Popes did never accept of this, when it is their own common phrase: (vice-Christi, & vicarius Christi?)

Num, 396. I never suffered my pen to deny the title of Vicarius Christi, the vicar of Christ, nor that he is vice-Christi, in place of Christ in his visible go­vernment; but that which I deny is, that we either use to stile them or they assume the title, of vice-Christ, and you have not the consideration to distinguish betwixt vice-Christi, and vice-Christus: which every school boy is able to distinguish.

Num. 397. But here againe remember (and let it be a witnesse against you) that you dislike and utterly disclaim the very name that signifieth the Papal power, as proud and insolent. And if you abhor Popery while you tice men to it, let my soul abhor it, and let all that regard their soules abhor it. blessed be that light that hath brought it to be numbred with the works of dark­ness.

Num. 397. All will pitty you, who see you write thus confidently upon meer phantasmes, and upon your own misconceit of your adversaries words; and sure your light must be very dim, which cannot distinguish betwixt vice-Christi and vice-Christus? but you have [Page 376] involved in the ensuing paragraph another incongruity, you say the the title of vice-Christ, is not the highest, which the Popes claim, and to prove it you nominate a higher and that is the title of vice-God whereby one would take you to be an Arian, and consequently (in your principles) to be no Christian, then be like you be­leive God to be higher then Christ, and so beleive him not to be God: and you take these two with a third, I say the title of vice-Christ was never given by suffici­ent authority to our Popes, neither did they ever accept of it, where it is evident I speak of a solemn authorita­tive attribution, and acceptation of such titles usually and publickly exercised by our Popes, not of a rethori­cal expression by some particular persons or a negative silence by some particular Pope in not contradicting, or tacitely accepting such expressions, and therefore, I say not of any Pope, as speaking in particuler, but of our Popes, taking them collectively as assenting to and use­ing such titles. Now you answer by a fallacy proceeding a parte ad totum as if you would argue this man is endu­ed with reason, therefore all sensible creatures are indued with reason, you discourse thus, some particular person may have given, and some particular Pope negatively accepted of such rethorical, or not legal expressions. This will appear by your subsequent proofs.

Num. 398. Were it not more tedious then necessa­ry, I would cite you the words▪ (vice-Christi & vicari­us Christi) out of Popes and multitudes of writers. But alas tha'ts not the highest, the vice-God is a title that they have not thought insolent, or words of the same signification, would you have my proof? pardon it then [Page 377] for proving your pen so false and deceitful (that's not my fault.)

Num. 398. The first part of this is only a transiti­on, and so requires no answer. The second is answered in the fore going paragraph.

Num. 399. Pope Julius the second in his general Council at Laterane, saith [Cont. Pragmat. sanct. mo­nitor. Binius, vol. 4. pag. 560.] Though the institu­tions of sacred Canons, holy Fathers, and Popes of Rome and their decres be judged immutable, as made by divine inspiration; yet the Pope of Rome, who, though of un­equal merits, holdeth the place of the eternal King, and the maker of all things, and all laws on earth, may ab­rogate these decres when they are abused. Here from the Iudge of Faith it self, you hear that the Pope holds the place of the eternal King, the maker of all things, and laws.

Num. 399. In this proof is neither vice-Christ nor vice-God, if it be, shew it in your next. Every Prince spiritual or temporal holds the place of the eternal King, the maker of all things, and lawes, and yet they assume not to themselves the title of vice-God.

[Page 390]

Num. 400. Pope Sixtus Quartus in passagio sive Bulla contra Turcos, sent to Philip Palatine Elector. 1481. in Breheri tom. 2 pag. 162. vol. 2. saith (Vniversos Christianos Principes, ac omnes Christi fi­deles requirere eisque mandare vice Dei, cujus locum, quamvis immeriti tenemus in terris, that is, we are con­strained (to require all Christian Princes, and all be­lievers in Christ, and to command them, in the stead of God, whose place on earth we hold, though undeserving) Here is a vice-God, holding his place on earth, and commanding all Princes and Christians to warr against the Turks in Gods stead. note, vide in margine. Here is neither &c.

Num. 400. Heres is neither vice-Christ, nor vice-God, but only the Pope commanding in the place or stead of God, and you now confound vice-dei, and vice-De­us, as you did before, vice-Christi, and vice-Christus.

Num. 400. I know to a particular people Gods Embassadors are said to speak in his name and stead as if God did beseech men by us, 2 Cor. 5.19. But this is only as to a narrow and limited Embassage, not that they hold Gods place on earth, as Rulers over the uni­versal Church.

[Page 391]

Num. 401. This answer of yours overthrows your argument, and shews evidently, that every lawful go­vernour temporal, or spititual, is Vice-Dei, or Vice-Christi, in the name of God or Christ, to govern o­thers. I give also a limited embassage, or Vice-govern­ment to our Popes, that is, no farther then in visible and external government. And will you adventure to con­demn the ruling of the whole visible Church on earth, to be proud and insolent? was not every one of the A­postles, sent by our Saviour into the whole world? and had not every one a part, received power to govern the whole Church in the name and place of our Saviour? proves not this text of the 2 Cor. 5.19. so much? where he names no particular people or nation, but affirms that they being Embassadors from Christ, God by them exhorted the world, which Christ had reconci­led; and that I conceive extends it self to all Nations in the world. Did not the Council of the Apostles, Act. 15. govern the whole Church in place of Christ, and in Gods stead? did not every Apostle in their cano­nical Epistles give rules, and Commands in Gods stead to all Christians? were they therefore Vice-Gods?

Num. 402. The same Pope Sixtus. 4. saith ibid. pag. 163. Sola superest Romana sedes, sedes utique immaculati agni: sedes viventis in secula seculorum: Haec quippe praedictas Patriarchales genuit Ecclesias, quae quasi filiae in ejus gremio residebant, & in circuitu tan­quam famulae in ipsius adsistebant obsequio, that is only [Page 392] the Roman Church remaineth, the seat of him that li­veth for ever (my flesh trembleth to write these things:) this did before beget the foresaid Patriarchal Churches (notorious falshood) which rested as daughters in her bosome, and as servants stood about in her obedience.

Num. 402. Why should your flesh tremble at these words, I am sorry to see you so subject to quaking upon so small occasion. Read you not a thousand times over in holy writ that Hierusalem is called the city of God, and the city of the living God? is not the arke of the tabernacle, called the seat of God? why then may not the sea of Rome be stiled the seat of God, and of his immaculate lamb? therefore was Hierusalem called the city of God, (amongst other reasons) because the cheif Priest of Gods Church resided there.

Num. 403. Here you see from the Pope himself, that the other Patriarchs are his servants, and so to obey him, and that Rome begate them all ( that were before it except Constantinople) and neither made Christians nor Patriarch by it, and that Rome now is become the seate of the immaculate Lambe, and of him that liveth for ever.

Num. 403. But see you not, the text speakes of Pa­t [...]iarchal Seas, and how can you say there were any Pa­triarchal Seas before Rome was one, seeing you conceit [Page 393] they were all constituted together in the Council of Nice. I have shewed that all obedience, argues not ser­vitude, or being the servants of those wee obey, Child­ren obey their Parents, and Scholars their Masters, and people their pastors, yet are they not his servants. And see you not, that he sayes they are only tanquam famulae in some short attenders, and joynes to it, quasi filiae, that they are as children, nor speaks he of the Patriarchs wherein many Millions, who were quasi filiae, and tan­quam famulae, as daughters, and attendants of the Ro­man sea, and the whole custom and constitution of those Patriarchates, was to serve as mediums, and instru­ments that the whole Church might more facily be go­verned by the sea Apostolick, as we shall see hereafter.

Num. 404. Truely the reading of your own histo­rians, and the Popes Bulls. &c. have more perswaded me, that the Pope is Anti-Christ, then the Apocalips hath done, because I distrusted my understanding of it.

Num. 404. Truely Sir, if I may be plain with you without offence, by what you collect from these Histo­rians, Popes &c, you had reason to mistrust your under­standing these, as well as the Apocalips &c. which I leave to judgement.

Num. 405. Benedictus de Benedictis wrote a book [Page 394] against Dr. Whitaker, to prove its as false that the Pope is Anti-Christ, as that Chirst is Anti-Christ, and dedicated it to Pope Paul 5. with this inscription. Paul 5. the Vice-God printed at Bononia. 1608.

Num. 405. Suppose that were so, is Benedictus de Benedictis a sufficient authority, being but a single Au­thor, or Paul 5. the generality of Popes? you know I speak in such cases and not of particulars.

Num. 406. Caraffas Theses printed at Naples 1609. had the same inscription (Paulo 5. Vice Deo) to Paul 5. Vice-God

Num. 406. The like is of Caraffa.

Num. 407. Alcazar in Apocal. in carmine ad Jo­hannem Apostolum, saith of the same Pope, Paul 5. Quem numinis instar, vera colit pietas: whom as a God true Piety adores.

Num. 407. Nor is Alcazar more then one private, person who when he plaies the Poet, uses Licentia Poe­tica, qui dlibet audendi.