THE GRAND IMPOSTURE OF THE (now) CHURCH OF ROME: Manifested in this one Article of the new Roman Creed, viz:  
The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all other Churches, without which there is no Salvation.  
Proved to be a New, False, Sacrilegious, Scandalous, Schismatical, Heretical, and Blasphemous Article (respectively) and every way Damnable.  
The Last Chapter containeth a Determination of the whole Question, concerning the Separation of Protestants from the present Church of Rome: whereby may be discerned whether Side is to be accounted Schismatical, or may more justly plead SOULS SALVATION.  
By the B. of Coventrie & Lichfield.  
LONDON, Printed by George Miller, for ROBERT MYLBOURNE.   

TO THE HIGH And Mighty PRINCE, CHARLES' By the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the FAITH, etc.  
YOur Majesty may be pleased (most gracious Sovereign) to call to mind the Dedicatory Preface of Saint Luke, by him prefixed before the Gospel of Christ, and directed to a Lay-Magistrate, in these words; 
* Luke 1.3.  I thought good to write unto thee, most excellent Theophilus. Where, the name THEOPHILUS, signifying a Lover of God, manifesteth the interest that every Devout Christian, as well Laic as Ecclesiastic, hath in the Gospel of Christ, to read, and enjoy the comfort thereof, as the foundation of his Faith, and divine Charter of his Salvation. And the Attribute of 
* [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Act. 23.26. & Act. 24.3.  MOST EXCELLENT, being ascribed to Temporal Governors, pointeth out his Magistracy; to note the Obligation, that bindeth every Christian Governor to profess the same Gospel; and, according to his power, to promote and protect it. As soon therefore as I thought to find a Parallel to this so honourable an Example, noon appeared in this age of Christianity either more Worthy, for religious Devotion, of the name of THEOPILUS; or, for Protecting the Gospel of Christ, more deserving the Attribute of MOST EXCELLENT, than your Sacred Majesty.  
For I could not conceive where to find a more faithful Professor among (I say, not only Princes, but) even Persons Christians, than Him, who, in a time of jealousy and greatest extremity, resolved to resign his dearest Choice, his inheritance of a Regal Sceptre, yea and life itself, rather than to enthral his precious Soul to Romish Superstition. And as for the protection of the same Gospel of Faith, to none can this be more proper than to Him, who (not to question the first beginning thereof) most justly possesseth the Royal Title of DEFENDER OF THE FAITH. Now having said thus much of this Right, I beseech your Majesty graciously to vouchsafe a brief, yet clear Representation thereof.  
The same (
* Gal. 3.23.  THE FAITH) so called by the Apostle, is taken by way of Excellency, to signify only that Profession of Christianity, which containeth all things Necessary to Salvation; even as he calleth it 
* 1 Cor. 9.18. & 23.  The Gospel of Faith. And this Faith, which is called but 
* Ephes. 4.5.  One, Saint jude in his Catholic Epistle will have known to be only that, which was (when he writ) but 
* [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] S. jude ver. 3.  Once delivered unto the Saints. Which one particle (Once) must necessarily condemn every diverse After- Faith for ever. For Saint Paul, against all other Gospels, 
* Gal. 1.8, 9  Besides that, which then had been Preached, is peremptory, pronouncing Every one, (be he Man, or Angel,) that should suggest or teach it, Anathema and Accursed. To which Apostolical Censure Ancient Fathers, against the Heretics of their times, have All subscribed; according to that Comment, made by one of them upon the same words of the Apostle, thus; 
Annuntiare quid, etc. Lirinens.  To deliver any thing among Christians, BESIDES that which was once received, neither was, nor is lawful, nor yet ever will be. This one speculation may be as good as a thousand, to discern which kind of Professors, at this day, may most properly be said to profess THE FAITH. The (now) Church of Rome hath composed a new Roman Creed & Faith, 
Bulla Pij Quarti.  consisting, by exact disquisition, of more than twenty Articles; each one of which is prescribed to be beeleeved upon Necessity of Salvation. Among which are mentioned Transubstantiation, Worship of Images, Indulgences, & the like; notwithstanding they be as newly-old as were the 
* josh. 9  Gibeonites pretences of torne-shooes, and mouldy-bread, by which they feigned themselves to have come from far. For Some of these doctrines were not Delivered until five or six hundred, and some not till more than a Thousand years after that Once-prescribed Time of the holy Apostles, as diverse Doctors of the same Church are ready to confess, from point to point. And although Some few of Them had obtained an opinion of Probability in the days of antiquity; yet can it not be showed that any one of them had stamped on it the opinion of Necessity of Belief, upon loss of Salvation. Which is a Character as proper to the Gospel of Christ, as was to Caesar's coin the Image of Caesar. Wherefore, every new Article of Faith (by S. Paul's Anathema) being no better than a new Heresy, although the Romish Opposites dart against our Professors (as they did in the Council of Trent) their many anathemas and Curses, yet stand we secure, knowing that as the 
* Exod. 7.  Serpent of Aaron devoured the Serpents of the Magicians in Egypt; even so That one Anathema of S. Paul must needs condemn all the anathemas which they denounce in Defence of That, which is not THE FAITH once delivered to the Saints, in the days of the Apostles.  
But because, as the first movable Sphere above turneth by its rapture all the inferior Orbs daily about the world; so one Romish Article, to wit, The Catholic, ROMAN, Mother, and Mistress Church, without which there is no Salvation, carrieth and maketh current, by the violence thereof, all other Romish Articles, albeit otherwise never so New, False, Idolatrous, or Pernicious: and for that this One is found by Experience to be, in that Profession, their strongest Enchantment; This this ARTICLE therefore have I selected to be the Subject of this Treatise. Proving her Addition of the word (ROMAN) to the CATHOLIC or Universal CHURCH, to be (by many confessed Propositions) the Depravation of that our Christian Article in the Apostles Creed, viz. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: Her pretence of an Universal Motherhood, to all Catholic Churches, to be a manifest Derogation to divers ancient Churches (among others, the Church of Britain) which are confessed to have been, before that ever Rome had so much as any face or name of a Church: and her Challenge of Universal Mistress-ship and Dominion throughout all Christendom to be, in effect, a blasphemous Condemnation of most godly General Counsels, Churches, and Bishops of Primitive ages (divers whereof are by name Registered for Saints and Martyrs in the Calendar of the, now, Church of Rome itself:) who, as is Confessed, have consented Some to impose Laws upon the Roman Church, Some to contemn her Excommunications, and All to have denied absolute Subjection unto Her, even in the times of her purest Integrity.  
And because all Temporal Estates at this day are included in the same Romish Article of Universal Dominion, therefore both Regal Supremacy over ecclesiastics is in this Treatise defended, by the confessed Examples of the first and best Christian Emperors; and also the Civil Subjection of the Clergy unto Them is justified, by the Confessed Obedience performed by the first and best Popes of the same Times.  
After this Survey thus taken of the Church's Christian, in the Primitive ages, followeth a Contemplation of the State of Christendom, as it is at this present: wherein appeareth a world of Christian Churches of remote Nations, reduced to these General appellations, to wit, Grecians, Assyrians, Aethiopians, Egyptians, Armenians, Russians, with diverse other particular Churches, for Time as ancient, for Faith as fundamental, for Succession as Continual, and for the Profession thereof (because daily suffering grievous pressures and afflictions for the name of Christ) as much, or rather, in that respect, more constant than the Romanists have been for many ages: All which (notwithstanding the Roman Article of The Catholic Roman Church, without which there is no Salvation) stand as opposite to the Church of Rome; contemning her Excommunications, and abhorring Subjection unto her, as they ever did. A perfect Argument of the Falsity, Nullity, and Impiety of that Romish Article, which we now impugn.  
In the last place is presented the Separation of all Protestant Churches from the Church of Rome, proving from the Testimonies of divers Romish Writers, the Beginning thereof to have been Just, and the Continuance Necessary. Nor can they say, that their Arguments, for defence of that Roman Article (although most specious) are not answered; which herein are justly retorted upon them. As to call for the Names of any Protestants before LUTHER; whose names they themselves could relate in Martyring of them: As to Challenge those to have broken their Vow, in Departing from that Church (namely, a superstitious Vow) which they did, to preserve their Christian Vow ìn Baptism, which requireth sincerity in the Faith· As to object Schism, upon that Article of Necessary Subjection to the Roman Sea; by which she herself (dividing herself from all Christian Churches in the world, and all others from herself) is proved to be, of all other, the most Schismatical: As to impute unto us the guilt of Damning all our forefather's, by reason of that her former Article, whereby are necessarily Damned most of the Christian Fathers, Confessors, and Martyrs of Primitive Times; besides the Innumerable professed Christians of Remote Nations (as hath been said) yea and many Thousands more, who, though otherwise Romish, yet do not believe all her Tridentine faith; (Not to speak of infinite numbers of PROTESTANTS far, more sincerely Professed in the Christian Faith than They:) Finally, as to assume a Privilege to her Roman See of not- Erring; albeit that Church is proved to be, of all Others, most subject to Error: and her Seat, which is ROME, to be the only City prophesied off by the Spirit of God, in Scripture, (accordingly as her own Jesuits, from the testimonies of Antiquity, and the light of God's word acknowledge themselves bound to believe, and profess) is to become the Seat of ANTICHRIST.  
The Manifestation of all which Points (Most Renoumed Sovereign) I do subject to your gracious Patronage, not in any spirit of malignancy, to make the Schism and breach, which is now between Rome and Us, bigger; which I intent to persuade against thorrow-out this Treatise, by revealing and removing the only Bar and Partition-wall, which is her Doctrine of Necessary Belief of the (now) Tridentine Creed, and Article of Necessary Subjection to the Roman See; the only Hindrance of a free General Council. An Impiety and perniciousness, which was the very Cordolium of the most judicious of Kings, your Majesty's late Father, and our Sovereign Lord and King JAMES, of ever blessed and surviving Memory▪ in whose heart God had first imprinted that Blessed Motto of Christ, BEATI PACIFICI, before it was stamped in his Coin; being ever desirous to keep Civil Union, Commerce, and Contracts with Them with whom natheless (the Case so standing) 
* Epist. ad Front. Ducaeum.  He held it Impossible to have any Spiritual Reconciliation.  
Thus not doubting but that the Father's religious heart dwelleth in the Son's breast, I pray GOD so still to protect your Majesty, in the Defence of that THE FAITH, whereby your Throne may be established upon earth, and your Soul everlastingly blessed in heaven.  
Your Majesty's most Humble Subject, and Chaplain, THO. COVEN. & LICH●.   

TO ALL ROMISH PRIESTS, WHETHER Jesuits or Others, of the English Seminaries where-soever; Mercy, Truth, and Peace in CHRIST JESUS.  
AS some of weak and queasy stomaches abhor to receive any Wholesome Potion, because the very name of Physic is loathsome unto them; so might I doubt that this Salutation, wishing you Mercy, Truth, and Peace in Christ (whereby I do invite you to the Reading of this ensewing Treatise) may be rejected by you, because the Title thereof may seem odious unto you: but that I have Considered, that I write not unto your Laics, men commonly of weak Apprehension, and void of the Infusion of so much as necessary knowledge of Christianity; but unto yourselves, called to the Order of Priesthood, and professed Advocates for defence of the Roman Church, [quà ROMAN.] And now having said but thus much, I seem to hear Some of you inveighing against me, and saying; This is a bold Assumption, or rather an impudent and impious Presumption of this Heretic, so to charge our Roman Church with an Imposture, in this Arch-Article of her Roman Faith: which Church all the world knoweth to be (as the Fathers of the Council of Trent not long since defined) for birth and breeding the Mother, and for Direction and Dominion the Mistress of all other Churches Christian. Nevertheless dares this busy Undertaker attempt to persuade us, that the Church of Rome is Schismatical; and her Article, concerning the Universality of the same Church, Imposterous: never considering that ancient and Catholic Theorem, He hath not God for his Father, who hath not the Church for his Mother. How then can this Persuader make good his Assertion?  
I were certainly Witless, if, after I had professed so much, I should not expect such broad language from Some of you, which I have formerly received: And as faithless should I be both to God and you, if endeavouring (as I am Commanded) To have compassion of some, pulling them out of the fire; 
S. jude v. 23.  I should not patiently suffer words of disgust and disaffection from you, which I ought willingly to suffer for you, and your spiritual good. Or else, if because some are fierce (I had almost said furious) in oppugning the Truth, I should therefore be more remiss to defend it: especially seeing that (which was the saying of an Ancient and holy 
* Leo.  Pope) Qui alterum ab errore non revocat, Seipsum errare demonstrat. Neither yet can I conceive how you can justly decline the Reading of this Tractate, by reason of a fowerfold Obligation that lieth upon you. The first is that divine Direction, given especially to judicious Professors, 
1. Thess. 5.21.  To try all things, and retain that which is good, that is to say, True. For if Truth were not good, no Goodness could be True. Next is the Bond of your Profession, who will be thought to be the only Catholics, that is the Professors of the Catholic Faith, and possessors of that Fold of Christ, which in the Apostles Creed is called the CATHOLIC CHURCH; the defence of which (truly called) Catholic Church, without which there no Salvation, is the Subject of this whole Treatise. Wherein you may find that your Roman Church (quà Roman) is excluded from the Prerogative of The Catholic Mother Church, as by the judgement of the Catholic Church itself, so also by the same Catholic Theorem, which you so Commonly object and glory in, viz. HE HATH NOT GOD FOR HIS FATHER, WHO HATH NOT THE CHURCH FOR HIS MOTHER; according to the plain and evident Sense of that Catholic 
* Cyprian. See Chap. 9 Sect. 6. of this Treatise.  Father, who was the first Author thereof. A Third Obligation ariseth from your own Practice, who are so urgent, vehement, and (in a sort) violent in defending a Necessary Union with the Roman Church, and in inveighing against our Separation from it, as against a deadly and damnable Schism. Wherefore it were in you a perfidious Tergiversation to hear (as hath been partly 
* Epist. Dedicatory.  pointed at) your Answers refuted, and your Objections retorted upon you; and not to make Trial whether you have been able to stand unto your Defence and Defiance, or no.  
Lastly, in your ask HOW this Assertion can be made good? your own Interrogatory exacteth of you a Diligence, to understand the Answer to the same HOW? Whereunto (for this Present) I shall Answer but in a Generality, to wit; that I have endeavoured to Insist, 1. Concerning the Antecedents, upon Grounds immoovable, such as are the Common Rules of Faith, and good Conscience; 2. Upon Consequences undeniable, such as are your own Principles and Conclusions; 3. For Testification of both the former, upon Witnesses least partial to us-ward, such as are (for the most part) your own Writers; and 4. Concerning the Credit which you may require, in alleging your Authors, upon such an oculata fides, as whereunto you will take no Exception: and although some of them may happen to be urged judicio errante; yet sure I am, animo reluctante not One. But What needs more Prefacing? These and the like Questions, which may appertain to the Article in hand, may be more particularly satisfied in the Discourse itself: which I shall desire you to accept with the same Right-hand of Christian Affection, wherewith it is offered unto you: and that if Any shall address an Answer thereunto, that then he judge and censure it upon the same Caution and Condition, wherewith it is written and tendered unto him; even as (for his Sayings, or Gainsaying) he will answer God at the day of judgement. Fareyou well.  
Yours, still a Debtor unto you in Christ jesus, THO. COVEN. & LICHF.   

A SUMMARIE OF THE several CHAPTERS.  

CHAP. I.  

THe Profession of the Romish Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, etc. imposed by the Roman Popes, confessed by their Counsels, Catechisms, and Jesuits. Sect. 1.2.3.4. etc.    

CHAP. II.  

OUR FIRST CONSIDERATION is of the General Foundation of our Confutation of that Roman Article, by proving it to be a sacrilegious Depravation of the Common Article of our Christian Creed [THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.] Sect. 1.2.3. 

I. Argument. Because the Word [ROMAN] excludeth that part of the Catholic Church, which is called the Triumphant. Confessed. Sect. 4.  
II. In respect of the Essential Parts of the Church Militant, by comprising in it those that are but Excrements, and no true Members thereof. Confessed. Sect. 5.  
III. In respect as the Church Catholic is Visible; by Excluding the Essential Members thereof, viz. faithful Catechumenists, and unjustly Excommunicated Persons. Confessed. Sect. 6.  
IV. Because the Article of Catholic Roman Church, as [ROMAN] is voide of all Catholic foundation, which is, Divine authority. Confessed. Sect. 7.  
V. In respect of the Time Past; because the Catholic Church was long before there was so much as a Roman Church Confessed. Sect. 8.  
VI In respect of the Time to Come, because the Church Roman, as it is [ROMAN] may possibly be altered from the Catholic Church. Confessed. Sect. 9  
VII. In respect of any Time Present; because always uncertain of her true Roman Head. Confessed. Sect. 10.  
VIII. Because this Roman Article is to all that Believe it Necessarily a matter of Heresy; and of Perjury to All that (which all Romish Priests are compelled unto) swear unto it. Sect. 11.      

CHAP. III.  

A SECOND CONSIDERATION of the Catholic Church is by observing a Second general Head of Confutation; from the judgement of several Counsels, Churches, and Fathers, in a Different Respect of Time. Sect. 1. 

I. In Respect of the Time Before the foundation of the Church of Rome, that Church is falsely called the Mother-Church of all Others. Sect. 2. 

1. Proof, from the rottenness of the foundation of her Mother-hood; which is the false Pretence of Peter his Ordaining all other Apostles to be Pastors. Confessed. Sect. 3.  
2. Proof, by Instancing in the Examples of Churches, which were Mother-Churches before Rome, and some also to Rome. Sect. 4. As Jerusalem. Sect. 5. Caesarea. Sect. 6. Antioch. Sect. 7. etc. The Greek Church in General. Sect. 8. And the Church of Britain. Sect. 9        

CHAP. IU.  

II. IN Respect of the Time (about) When the Church of Rome was first founded: because, 

1. The Roman Article of the Catholic Roman Church is Contrary to the faith of Saint Peter, the pretended Founder of that Church. Sect. 1. to Sect. 8.  
2. Contrary to the Faith of Saint Paul the supposed Cofounder of the same Church with Saint Peter. Sect. 8.9.10. His account of the Roman Church. Sect. 11.12.13.14.  
3. Contrary to the Faith of Saint john, who taught that the City of Rome was to be the Seat of Antichrist, before the second Coming of Christ. Sect. 15.  
And because he could not be accounted Subject to the Pope. §. 16.      

CHAP V.  

III. IN Respect of the Time, When the Church of Rome was first founded, the same Article is found Contrary to the faith of the Church of Christ. Sect. 1.  
An Argument from the Tyrannous Domineering of the Church of Rome, by Two Instances. Sect. 2.3.    

CHAP. VI  

FOUR IN Respect of the Time After the foundation of the Roman Church. Sect. 1.  
First in the Primitive age, Proving that the now Roman Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, etc. is Contrary to the judgement of Antiquity. Sect. 2.  
I. Argument, from the Contrary ancient Sense of the Word [Catholic Church] Sect. 3. By the judgement of Saint Augustine. Sect. 4. of Saint Hierome. Sect. 5. of S. Gregory. Sect. 6    

CHAP. VII.  

II. ARgument is taken from the Comparisons between the other Churches and Bishops with the Church of Rome and her Bishops; by the judgement of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Vinc. Lyrinensis. Sect. 1.  
The same Comparisons proved by ancient Counsels & Churches. Sect. 2.    

CHAP. VIII.  

III. ARgument is taken from the judgement of the Catholic Church itself, in her General Counsels. Sect. 1. Proving that the (now) Roman Article falsely damneth the Fathers of the Council of Nice, Sect. 2. The Fathers of the first Council of Constantinople. Sect. 3. The Fathers of the Council of Ephesus. Sect. 4. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon. Sect. 5. The Fathers of the second Council of Constantinople. Sect. 6. The Fathers of the sixth and Seaventh General Counsels, which condemned Pope Honorius for an Heretic. Sect. 7. The Fathers of the Eighth General Council. Sect. 8.    

CHAP. IX.  

IV. ARgument is taken from the judgement of Particular ancient and godly Churches, which were opposite to the pretended jurisdiction of Rome (and concerning her Excommunication) by divers Instances, §. 1. 

1. Instance, Proving that she, by her (now) Roman Article, falsely damneth the Churches of Asia, and their Catholic Bishops, in the days of Pope Victor. Sect. 2.  
2. Falsely damneth the Catholic Churches of Africa, Numidia, & Mauritania, in the days of Saint Cyprian. Sect. 3. Yea and Saint Cyprian himself. Sect. 4.5.6.7.  
3. Falsely damneth the Churches of Africa, in the days of S. Augustine; yea and Saint Augustine himself. Sect. 8.9.10.11.12.  
4. Falsely damneth the Catholic Church of Britain with the Scottish, Irish, etc. in the days of S. Gregory. Sect. 15.16.      

CHAP. X.  

V. A Argument is, because by this (now) Roman Article are falsely Damned the most Catholic Emperors, who anciently opposed the (now) pretended Papal Dominion. Confessed. Sect. 1. 

Instances in the Confessed Oppositions of Constantine the Great, Theodosius the elder, Theodosius the younger, and justinian. Sect. 2.3. etc.  
The due estimation of these Emperors. Sect. 4.      

CHAP. XI.  

VI ARgument, because the same Roman Article falsely damneth the First and Best, and indeed most Catholic Popes of Rome, who acknowledged Subjection to the Emperors of their Times, as well Ethnikes as Christian. Sect. 1.2.3.4.5.    

CHAP. XII.  

VII. ARgument, because the same Roman Article falsely Damneth the most worthy Servants of God, whose names are Registered for Martyrs and Saints in the (now) Calendar of the Church of Rome, or in the Roman martyrologue, viz. S. Polycarpus. Sect. 1. S. Cyprian. Sect. 2. S. Athanasius. Sect. 3. S. Basil. Sect. 4. S. Hilary of Poictou. Sect. 5. Saint Hierome. Sect. 6. S. Ambrose. Sect. 7. S. August. §. 8. S. Hilary of Arles. §. 9    

CHAP. XIII.  

VIII. ARgument, because of the Vanity of the Roman Defence, in the behalf of their Roman Article of Catholic jurisdiction; Discovered by Parallels. 

1. The Romish Pretence from Titles, anciently attributed to the Roman Chair by Counsels; Confuted by Equivalences. Sect. 1.  
2. From the Titles attributed by ancient Fathers; Confuted first by Equivalences. Sect. 2.3. Next by their own Contradictions. Sect. 4. Thirdly by the Blasphemousnesse of sundry Titles attributed to the Pope. Sect. 5.  
3. The Romish Pretence of Supreme jurisdiction, from the Sentences of ancient Greek Fathers. Sect. 6.  
Among Others are the memorable Examples of Theophilus, and S. Cyril Patriarches of Alexandria, Atticus and Acatius patriarchs of Constantinople, All neglecting the Pope's Excommunieation. Sect. 7.  
The same from the Latin Fathers, Confuted. Sect. 8.9.  
A General Confutation of the former Falsehood. Sect. 10.  
4. The same Romish Pretence of supreme jurisdiction from the Authority of ancient Popes. Confuted Sect. 11.12.13. As also from their Acts. Sect. 14.  
The same Pretence, first taken from the Council of Sardis, for Right of Appeals to Rome. Confuted. Sect. 15.  
The same opposed by Examples of Antiquity: And secondly confuted by an Argument taken from the Council of Chalcedon. Sect. 16. Thirdly from S. Cyprian. Sect. 17. Fourthly from Pope Damasus. Sect. 18. Fiftly from the Council of Milevis Sect. 19 Sixtly, from S. Augustine. Sect. 20.      

CHAP. XIV.  

THE THIRD CONSIDERATION of the Church Catholic is in respect of the latter ages of the world, Confuting the (now) Roman Article of the Catholic Church, by Instances of three kinds.  
First of Remote Nations. 

1. Because it falsely damneth the Greek Church from age to age. Sect. 1. Notwithstanding that it continued still a true Christian Church. Sect. 2.3.4. And be (now) in extent wonderful spacious; and for multitudes innumerable. Sect. 5 The extremity of the Romish Article. Sect. 6. A Particular Instance in Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople, neglecting the Pope's Excommunication. Sect. 7.  
2. Because it falsely damneth the Churches of the Assyrians. Sect. 8.  
3. Because it falsely damneth the Churches of other remote Nations, Egyptians, Aethiopians, Armenians, etc. Sect. 9    
Secondly in Churches more near. Because it as falsely damneth all Protestant Churches, although more Orthodox than Rome itself, and for number infinite. Sect. 10.  
Third Instance in the Church of Rome itself. 

Because it condemneth the Church of Rome itself, in the latter ages thereof; proving either Pope or Church of Rome Schismatical in themselves. Sect. 11.12. Proved by manifold and inevitable Necessities, as having sometimes been a Church Headless. Sect. 13. Sometimes with a false Head. Sect. 14. Sometimes with many Heads. Sect. 15. Sometimes Counter-Headed. Sect. 16. Sometimes doubtfully Headed. Sect. 17, 18, 19, 20.      

CHAP. XV.  

THe Determination of the whole Question, concerning the Separation of Protestants from the Roman Church, to discern whether Side is to be accounted Schismatical, or may more justly plead Souls Salvation; Discussed by certain Theses, & consisting of four Parts. Sect. 1.  
The first Part consisting of VII. Theses. 

I. Thesis. An absolute decay of the whole Catholic Church was never defended by any Protestant. Sect. 2.  
II. Thesis. The Church Symbolical, properly called Catholic, cannot err in Faith. Sect. 3.  
III. Thesis. How the Church Representative (improperly called Catholic) may be said to be subject to error. Sect. 4.  
IV. Protestants hold not any greater Inuisibility, or rather Obscurity of the Church Catholic, than that which the Romanists themselves a●e forced to confess. Sect. 5.  
V. Thesis. All Particular Churches are not to be forsaken for every unsoundness, either in manners, worship, or doctrine. Sect. 6.  
VI Thesis. Some unsound Churches are necessarily to be avoided, and just Causes why. Sect. 7.  
VII. No unjust Excommunication out of a true Church can prejudice the Salvation of the Excommunicate. Sect. 8.    
The second Part is concerning Departure from the Church of Rome, comparing the Church of Rome with other Churches. 

I. Thesis. The Cburch of Rome is as subject to error as any other Church. Sect. 9  
II. Thesis. The Church of Rome is more subject to Error then any other Church Christian. Sect. 10.  
III. Thesis. There is not in all Scripture any Prophecy of the fall of any Christian Church, but only of the Church of Rome; from which it may sometime be necessary to depart. Sect. 11.  
IV. Thesis. The Church of Rome hath long been and still is the most Schismatical Church of all other Christian Churches, that carry in them a Visible face of a Church. §. 12.    
The third Part of this Determination, concerneth the Departure of Protestants from the Church of Rome, occasioned by M. Luther. 

I. Thesis. Luther was unjustly Excommunicated out of the Roman Church. Sect. 15.  
II. Thesis. Luther had necessary Cause to depart from the Church of Rome. Sect. 15.  
III. Thesis. Luther and his Followers are far more safe for their Souls state, in that Separation from the Church of Rome; and less Schismatics than They, whom they forsook. Sect. 16.  
IV. Thesis. The Romish Objections, urged against the Separation of Luther, are notably frivolous. Sect. 17.  
V. Thesis. Their first Oiection, in respect of Luther's former Vow to the Pope or Church of Rome, is vain and idle. Sect. 18.  
VI Thesis. The second and most Popular Objection against Luther (in his Opposition to the Roman Church) urging him to prove his Doctrine by immediate Succession, and by naming his Teachers before him; is as fond as the other. Sect. 19  
VII. Thesis'. The Objection, That all Changes of Doctrines have been notorious in the Persons, and Places of their Beginnings, is false. Sect. 20.  
VIII. Thesis'. The last Objection, Of Continual and personal Succession in all ages, is frustrate. Sect. 21.    
The fourth and last Part of this Determination concerneth the state of the Churches of Protestants, after the days of Luther; and their more just Cause of continuing this Separation from the Church of Rome. Sect. 22. 

I. Thesis. Protestants are Generally Excommunicated by the Church of Rome. Sect. 23.  
II. Thesis. Protestants are unjustly Excommunicated. Sect. 24.  
III. Thesis. In the Continuance of this Separation Papists are rather Schismatics than Protestants; and consequently in the Heresy of the Donatists. Sect. 25.  
IV. Thesis. In the Continuance of this Separation, the Union of the Protestants with the Catholic Church is both more true, and more Universal than is the Union of the Romanists. §. 26  
V. Thesis. The Protestants granting it possible for some to be saved within the Church of Rome; and the Papists denying that any can be saved, in the Churches of the Protestants; is but a Sophistical proof, that there is more safety in the Roman Church. Sect. 27  
VI Your common Objection (what is then become of the souls of our forefather's?) more justifieth the Protestants Separation from Papists, than it can the Separation of Papists from Protestants. Sect. 28.  
VII. The Protestants, at this day, stand more justifiable in their Separation from Rome, than did either the ancient Primitive Churches in her Excommunicating of Them, or yet Luther and his Followers in their Departure from Her. Sect. 29.       

THE GRAND IMPOSTURE Of the (now) Church of Rome, Manifested in this ARTICLE of the (new) Roman Creed, Viz. The Catholic Roman Church, etc. Without which there is no SALVATION.  
THat this is the fundamental ARTICLE of your Roman Church (as it is called Roman) We cannot be better informed than by the Bishops of Rome, Heads of the same Church: than by the Body thereof, which is the Church of Rome itself, in her Council of Trent: together with the Confirmation of the same by Pope Pius the IV: than by your public Catechism, ratified by the like authority: Lastly, than by her principal Doctors and Divines, in their most approved and privileged Books, written upon this Argument of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. All which you may read in their own express words.  

CHAP. I. The express Profession of the (now) Church of Rome, concerning this her Article, uz. The Catholic Roman Church, etc. without Subjection whereunto there is no Salvation, is absolutely and peremptorily proclaimed by the Authority of the Popes.  

SECT. 1.  
IT will be a good Decorum, that in this case we begin to consult with the Heads of your Church, the Popes of Rome themselves. Gregory the VII. in the year 1073 decreed thus: 
a Romana Ecclesia à solo Deo fundata, etc. Lib. 2. Epist. 55. Apud Binium Tom. 3. Conc. pag. 1196.  The Church of Rome (saith he) was founded only by God, and the Pope thereof is rightly styled, The universal Bishop: insomuch, that whosoever consenteth not with the Church of Rome cannot be a Catholic. After him in the year 1192. Pope Innocent the 3. distinguishing of the Word Catholic or Universal, decreed as followeth; 
b Dicitur universalis Ecclesia, quae de universis constat Ecclesijs, quae Graeco vocabulo Catholica nominatur, & secundùm hanc acceptionem vocabuli, Ecclesia Romana non est universalis Ecclesia, sed pars universalis Ecclesiae prima sc. & praecipua, velut caput in corpore, quoniam in ea plenitudo potestatis existit.— Et dicitur universalis Ecclesia illa una, quae sub se contin●t Ecclesias universas, & secundum hanc nominis rationem Romana tantùm Ecclesia universalis nuncupatur, quoniam ipsa sola singularis privilegio dignitatis caeteris est praelata: sicut & Deus v●iuersalis Dominus appellatur,— quoniam universa sub eius domino continentur. Jnnocent. Papa 3. apud Bzo●ium Annal. 1199  If the Church (saith he) be called Catholic, as a company consisting of all Christian Churches, so the Church of Rome is not to be termed The Catholic Church, but a part thereof: but take the word, Catholic, a● God is called universal Lord, because all things are under his dominion so we say that the Church of Rome only hath all other Churches universally subject unto it. So he. More than an hundred years after him, Boniface the 8. would needs be heard, not speak, but roar & thunder, by peremptory decree, in this tenor, viz. 
c Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae dec●aramus, dicimus, definimus, & pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.— Datum Lateran. Anno Pontifica●us nostri octavo. Extrau. Cap. unam Sanctam. de maior. & a-bed. col. 212.  We declare, define, & pronounce, that it is Necessary for every one that is to be saved to be subject to the Pope of Rome. Thus much for the testimonies of the Popes.   

The judgement of the late Roman Church. SECT. 2.  
SInce those times, the Church of Rome herself, in her Council of Trent, and by the Bull of Pope Pius the IV. set forth for the Confirmation of the same Council, in the year 1556. did impose upon her Professors a new CREED, consisting of more than twenty 
* If they were exactly examined, they would amount unto many Scores.  Articles of the now Roman Faith; which she hath prescribed unto you, and all other Ecclesiastical persons, of what denomination or Title soever, to be professed under the tenor and form of an Oath; to wit. 
d 
Ego N. firmâ fide credo & affirmo— Sanctam Catholicam & Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam, omnium Ecclesiarum matrem & magistram;— Romanoque Pontifici B. Petri successori ac jesu Christi Vicario veram obedientiam spondeo ac iuro.— Hanc veram & Catholicam fidem teneo, extra quam nemo saluus esse potest.  
Bulla Pij Quarti pro formae iuramenti professionis fidei. Dat. Romae, Anno. 1564.   ay N. do firmly believe, swear, and profess, that the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches: and I do vow, promise, and swear true obedience to the Pope of Rome the Vicar of Christ, Successor of S. Peter, etc. And this I hold to be the true Catholic Faith, which whosoever believeth not, cannot be saved. So your new Creed.   

The now Roman Catechism. SECT. 3.  
Upon this ground was founded that, which you call the Roman Catechism, and published by the authority of the same Pope Pius, and his Council of Trent, whereby yours, as well as other Catechumenists, are instructed to believe, that 
e Ecclesia Cathoca, etc. Catechis. Rom. in hunc Artic. num. 10.11. & 13.  The Catholic Church is One, both because of one Faith, & also for that it is subject to one invisible Governor, which is Christ, and to one visible Head, the Pope. So your Catechism.   

The judgement of Roman Doctors, of singular Note. SECT. 4.  
IN the last place we are to consult with your public Readers in Schools, where, by the testimonies of Three, you may judge of the faith of the rest; especially these being as fully accomplished with all furniture of learning as any other. The first thus. 
f 
Ecclesia Romana, non ut est particularis dioecesis seu Episcopatus, sed ut comprehendit omnes credentes in Christum, sub obedientia Episcopi Romani, haec est Ecclesia Catholica.  
Suarez. jes. trip. virt. Theol. disp. 5. Sect. 6. num. 2. & lib. 1. con. Ang. sectae errores, c. 12. num. 9   The Church of Rome is the universal Catholic Church, not as it is a particular Bishopric, but as it comprehendeth all Believers under the subjection of the Bishop of Rome. And again; 
g Catholicâ fide tenendum est, hanc certam ac individuam congregationem, quae Romanam fidem profitetur, & cum Rom. Pontifice coniuncta est, esse veram Christi Ecclesiam Catholicam. Probatur, primò ex Symbolo Apostolorum constat teneri nos ad credendum veram Christi Ecclesiam Catholicam; quod autem satis non sit eam confusè & universe crede●e, sed oportet determinatè & in individuo, etc. Idem. ibid. disp. 9 Sect. 9 num. 13.  We must (saith he) hold it as a point of our Catholic Faith, that this individual Congregation, which professeth the Roman Faith, and is united to the Pope of Rome, is the true Catholic Church; which I prove first by the Apostles Creed, etc. The Second thus; 
h Ecclesiam veram asse●imus esse coetum eorum hominùm, qui Rom. Pontifici pro tempore existenti parent. Greg. de Valent. Analys. l. 6. cap. 1. Dico solam Romanam Ecclesiam esse Catholicam & Apostolicam. Ibidem. & deinceps, lib. 6. cap. 10. & 12.  We define (saith he) the Church to be a Company of men obedient to the Bishop of Rome, for the time being: and we affirm the Church of Rome to be alone the Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Third and last, thus, 
i Nullus cum Ecclesia communicate, qui non subest Pontfici, licet alioqui fidem Catholicam profiteatur. Bellar. de Eccles. milit. l. 3. c. 5. Vnio enim cum Capite est nota Ecclesiae. Id. de notis Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 10.  None doth communicate (saith he) with the Catholic Church, except he subject himself unto the Pope; yea, although otherwise he profess the Catholic Faith: For union with the Head is a note of the Church. So standeth the now Article of your Roman Faith.   

Four remarkable Points, more distinctly to be observed in your former Roman Profession, concerning the Article of The Catholic Roman Church. SECT. 5.  
FIrst, observe that the word [ROMAN] is not added only for distinction-sake, to discern it from other Churches, which, in respect of the Catholic doctrine of Faith professed in them, have equally had that Addition, as to be called the Catholic Corinthian, or the Catholic Ephesian, the Catholic Thessalonian, or (as we now) the Catholic English Church; because so it could be no more Catholic, than other particular Churches, as your 
* Quanquam etiam particulares Ecclesiae soleant Catholicae vocari, ut constat ex modo loquendi Augustini, Paciani, Cyrilli, & ex communi usu; sicut & quilibet fidelis vocatur Catholicus, vel ex professione fidei, vel quià est pars Catholicae Ecclesiae. Ergo multò magis quaevis particularis Ecclesia; sic etiam Romana. Paulò supra. At ut accipitur pro vniuersa●i Ecclesiâ, quae Pontifici Romano, tanquam universali Christi Vicario obedit, iure ac merito Catholicae nomen sibi vendicat. Suarez. jesuita Defensi. fidei adversus Anglican. errores. lib. 1. cap. 1●. num. 19  jesuit confesseth; and consequently there could be no matter of controversy. But now the word [ROMAN] is added to the Article of the Catholic Church by way of transcendency, and (as the same jesuit resolveth) supremely comprehending all other Churches professing the Catholic faith, under the obedience of the Pope of Rome, as the universal Vicar of Christ. So that this Article is become not only one point of Controversy, but indeed the chief Head of all the Controversies, which are between the said Roman Church and all other Churches at this day.  
Secondly, you conceive this Appropriation to be Divini juris in a strict sense, ordained by Christ himself, and not only by Ecclesiastical Institution. Thirdly, upon this pretended Ordinance, you exact from all other Churches Christian a Necessity of Union with your Church of Rome and the Bishop thereof, both in Faith & Subjection. Fourthly, this Necessity of Subjection you believe to be Absolute, as to exclude from hope of Salvation not only all them that shall refuse to be subject to the Roman Primacy, but even all them also that 
* See above, Sect. 2. letter. d.  do not believe every soul of man to be utterly Damned, that is not subject thereunto.   

The GENERAL CHALLENGE, against this your former Roman Profession; and the Sum of our contrary Defence. SECT. 6.  
IF therefore we may give credit unto your now Roman Church, to your later Roman Bishops, to your Roman Counsels, and Creed, to yourselves and other sworn Professors of the same Roman faith; then must we believe all the several points, and (as it were) the Particles of this one Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, without subjection whereunto there is no salvation. Which notwithstanding we hold and believe to be (respectively) False, Unconscionable, Scandalous, Schismatical, Heretical, Blasphemous, and every way Damnable. And this we confidently hope (God assisting us) to prove from such your own Grounds, and from so manifest Demonstrations, as that you shall fully perceive us to plead not so much our own Cause, as the Cause of the holy Apostles; of the renowned Martyrs, and Confessors of Christ; of the most Orthodox Christian Professors of the holy Faith, even in the Primitive Times; of other innumerable Churches of Christendo●e, still partakers of the Common Salvation; yea and of the Catholic and Universal Church of Christ itself. Our proofs, for the maintaining of this Challenge, may be reduced unto two heads. The first is the Consideration of the common Article of our Christian faith, to wit, The holy Catholic Church: The second from the state of the Visible Church of Christ itself, as well Primitive as Successive.    

CHAP. II. The first General Foundation of our CHALLENGE is taken from the Article in the Apostles Creed, viz. The Catholic Church.  

SECT. 1.  
WE lay the first ground of our Challenge upon the Apostles Creed and Symbol, so called (you know) as being 
a Apostoli Christianae fidei formulam componendam censuerunt quam Symbolum appellarunt. Catechis. Tried part. 1. ca 1. de Symbolo.  A form of Faith composed by the Apostles: 
b Nam esse hoc Symbolum ab Apostolis compositum affirmant communiter antiqui Ecclesiae Patres, nempe Clemens 1. Epist. 1. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 2. Tert. in prescript. Ambros. epist. 81. ad Syricium. Ruffin. in exp. Symb. Hier. Epist. ad Pammach. de erroribus johannis Hieros. Chrys. hom. 1 & 2. in Symb. Aug. Serm. 125. & 180. de Temp. Leo Serm. 11. de passione Domini. Et Epist. 13. ad Pulcheriam. Greg. de Valent. Comm. theol. in 2. 2. D. Thom. Tom. 3. disp. 1. qu. 1 de obiecto fidei. puncto. 5.  accordingly as the ancient Fathers have commonly taught. Which the Scholars of Christ ought to get by hart, as a watchword in our Christian discipline, whereby the faithful Professors, as by a perfect Shibboleth, may be distinguished from the jewish and Heretical. Which Christian Symbol although it be called the Apostles Creed, yet it is so termed, not because they were Devisers, but only Collectors thereof, by reducing the fundamental Articles into one Brief: even as a posy is called his, that gathered & trimmed it; not that he created the flowers, but because he composed the bundle: and like as the writers of the Gospel were not Inventors and Dictator's, but only Penmen of the holy Ghost, and Scribes of Christ (as the Father's use to speak.) Which the Evangelists themselves do sufficiently teach, by inscribing their work, 
* Mark. 1.1.  The Gospel of jesus Christ. And accordingly all the Apostles, in receiving the doctrine of salvation, are called 
* Matth. 28.16. & 20.  Disciples, not Doctors, or Masters, in respect of Christ. So then, we have in this posy a brief Collection of those flowers of saving truth, which spring in the Paradise of God, the Gospel of jesus Christ.   

That the Church hath no power to ordain any new Article of faith. SECT. 2.  
HE only can make an Article of faith, as necessarily belonging unto the salvation of souls, who can create a soul; and after make a Gospel or Testament, to save this soul; and then give unto that soul the gift of faith, to believe this Gospel; and next institute a Sacrament, for confirmation of that faith; and in the end bestow salvation upon the same faithful believer. This we should prove from Scriptures, and from the constant judgement of the Fathers, if it were not a doctrine acknowledged in your own 
c Thomas Waldensis lib. 2. doctrinae fidei. cap. 22 rectè probat Ecclesiam non posse nowm Articulum proponere. Atque etiam Canus lib. 2. de locis cap. 7. & lib. 4. cap. 4. Et Alfonsus à Castro in summâ suâ l. 1. c. 8. & alij rectè negant expectandam iam esse novam religionem veritatis incognitae Apostolis, etc. Greg. de Valen. quo sup. punct. 6.  Schools, and professed by all Christians. I proceed to that which followeth.   

That the false Additions to the Creed are new Articles. SECT. 3.  
THere are two kinds of additions unto the Apostolical Creed, the one is of Explication, the other is of Depravation. The addition only of Explication is justifiable, as appeareth by the addition of the words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] Consubstantial, [filioque] which have been set down in Declarative Creeds, composed by ancient Counsels, for the clearer understanding of the great mystery of the Trinity. In which case those additions may be truly called (as Lirinensis saith of the like) Non nova, sed nouè dicta. But the Addition of Depravation of the sense of the Creed, in any essential and fundamental part thereof, which is to be believed as necessary to salvation, must needs be a new Article; and every such new Article, in true construction, a new Heresy.  
Now what one Professor is there in the Roman Church, who whensoever he repeateth that one Article of our Christian Creed, The Catholic Church, doth not understand thereby the Roman only? And again, what one is there among you, that hearing mention made of the Roman Catholic Church, doth not take the addition of the word, ROMAN, to be a Declaration and exposition of the said Article, viz. The Catholic Church? As if Roman Church, and Catholic Church were univocal and convertible terms, equally betokening one and the same Universal Church.   

That the Addition of the word, ROMAN, unto the Article of the Catholic Church, is no true Exposition and Declaration, but a notorious Alteration and depravation thereof; proved by diverse Arguments.  
The first Argument, in respect of the Church Triumphant. SECT. 4.  
CHurch Catholic, or Universal, as it is prescribed in the Apostles Creed, is a comprehension of all the members of the mystical body of Christ, which is his Church. Now in your Roman Catechism, authorized both by the Decree of your Council of Trent, and the Bull of Pius then Pope, there are acknowledged 
d Ecclesiae duae potissimùm sunt parts, quarum altera triumphans, altera militans vocatur, etc. Catechis. Rom. part. 1. cap. 10  Two parts of the Catholic Church, the one called Triumphant in heaven, the other Militant here on earth. Accordingly S. Augustine; 
e Ecclesia, quae tota hîc accipienda est, non solum ex parte, quae peregrinatur in terris,— sed etiam ex illa, quae in coelis, etc. Aug. Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 56.  The whole Church of Christ (saith he) is here understood to be not only that part which is in pilgrimage here upon earth; but that part also which is in heaven. Which sense of this Article is grounded upon divine foundation, where it is written, 
* Ephes. 5.27.  Christ loved his Church, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle. Where, by the word, CHURCH, to understand only the Church militant, was the heresy of the Pelagians, who perverting the meaning of this text, concluded that the Church of Christ, here upon earth, doth consist of them that are Perfect in this state of mortality: that is, of such, who in this mortal life are not tainted with sin. To whom S. Augustine (as you know) replied, 
f Quasi non sit Christi Eccl. sia, quae in toto orbe terrarum clamat ad Deum [Dimitte nobis debita nostra.] Verba Augustini in libello de Haeres. teste Stapletono de vera Eccles. Contr. 1. lib. 1. c. ●.  As though (saith he) the Church of Christ throughout the world doth not pray and cry, [Forgive us our sins.]  
Therefore must this Text be understood of the Triumphant part of the Church, whether alone, as Saint Augustine (you know) and Saint Hierom 
g Locus hic Apostoli intelligitur de Ecclesia triumphante (teste Hieronymo & Augustino) Sal. in Epist. ad Rom. Part. 2. disp. 1. Et verè, nam in Eccesia militante nullum membrum est, quod non inficiatur maculâ venialis peccati. Idem in Ephes. 5. locum citatum. p. 257. col. 1.  have expounded it: or jointly with the Militant, according to the interpretation of the profoundest Doctors in your Roman schools, saying, that 
h Ecclesia immaculata, hîc per gratiam, in futuro per gloriam. Aquinas in Ephes. 5.  The Catholic Church is indeed without spot or wrinkle within the Militant part thereof, by grace; and in the part Triumphant by glory. So undoubted a truth it is, that the Article of Catholic Church, as it is prescribed in the Apostles Creed, doth comprise as well the Triumphant, as the Militant part thereof.  

CHALLENGE.  
THat then which comprehendeth not as well the Triumphant as the Militant part of the Church, cannot be a Declaration of the Catholic Church, as it is contained in the Apostles Creed; because no one part can express the whole. But in the Romish Article, (viz. The Catholic Roman Church, without subjection whereunto there is no salvation) the word, ROMAN, utterly excludeth the part Triumphant. Therefore it cannot possibly be a Declaration or exposition of the word, Catholic, as it is understood in the Apostles Creed: except some of you shall be so blasphemous, as to subject Saints, which are the members Triumphant, and Conquerors now in bliss, to the members Militant and mortal here below; Saint Peter to your Pope; and heaven unto earth.  
Wherefore every Christian man, who doth as seriously study the Celestial sphere of the Saints in heaven, as others do the Terrestrial globe of this corruptible earth, must call (in this your Article [The Catholic Roman Church) the word, ROMAN, a false depravation of the Article of our Apostolical Creed. From the Triumphant part of the Catholic Church, we descend to the Militant.    

The second Argument, to prove that the Addition of the word, ROMAN, cannot be any Declaration, but rather a Depravation of the Article in our Creed; in respect of the Church Militant. SECT. 5.  
A Double consideration is to be had of the Catholic Church Militant, one in respect of her essential estate, as she is said to have being: the other in respect of her accidental estate, as she is said to be outwardly Visible, be it in more or less degree of visibility. In the first respect, when Protestants say that the Catholic Church doth essentially consist only of persons regenerate in this life, and predestinate to life everlasting; They do not (as they are by Some slandered to do) make two Churches, but one Church in a different habitude, relation, and consideration. For as Christ when he was on earth, although he commonly appeared evidently visible unto men, yet sometimes he is said, after a sort, to have vanished invisibly out of men's sights; notwithstanding, in that his invisibility was he still the same Christ; because usual visibility and invisibility are but outward accidents: so Christ his mystical body, which is his Church, being considered in her Essential estate, is Invisible, and the object of Faith, and not of Sense.  
According to which Consideration, we affirm this Article in the Apostles Creed, I believe the Catholic Church, to be more peculiarly understood. And this we prove first by the nature of Faith itself, which (as the Apostle hath defined it) 
* H●b. 11.1.  Is the demonstration of things not seen. Next, by the whole tenor of the Apostles Creed, wherein the object of every Article of that Symbol (from belief in God unto belief of life everlasting) is unto us invisible; and, so far as it is believed, is without compass of Sense, as may be observed in the faith of 
* john 20.29.  Thomas the Apostle; to whom albeit Christ said, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed, yet the sense of Thomas saw only the Visible humanity of Christ: but his faith, which was his soul's sight, beheld Christ's Godhead. So that Thomas could no more properly be said to have believed that which he saw, than to have seen that which he believed,  
Lastly, divine Scripture, in positive doctrine, doth manifest thus much; as namely (to omit many others) in that speech of Christ to Saint Peter, Mat. 16.19. Upon this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Where the word, CHURCH (by the judgement of Saint Augustine, and the accordance of your own Doctors) doth signify 
i Congregatio fidelium, qui charitate praediti sunt. Ca●etan. Card. in eum locum. Ecclesia secundum spiritum, quae solos Electos complectitur. Ferus in ●um locum. Ecclesia eorum, qui nulla tentatione separantur, ut B. Paulus ait, Quis nos s●pabit? etc. Stella in Luc. 6. Soli Boni supra Petram. Aug. Teste Salmer. Jes. in 1. Tim. 3. disp. 12. Tom 15.  Only the number of Predestinate. And good reason, because the godless and graceless are so far from being the true members of the Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, that those Infernal gates stand continually wide open, as being desirous, and justly appointed to devour them.  
The same may be said of the Church, as it is called the flock of Christ, john 10. My sheep hear my voice: where, by Sheep, are only meant The sanctified elect of God, as the testimonies of your own 
k Sine dubio propter Praedestinatos, qui infallibiliter saluabuntur, ut ex verbis constat, & ut A●g. & Chrysost. & omnes exponunt. Suarez jes. l. 3. de auxilijs gratiae c. 16. nu. 18. Vera haec sententia Tole● jes. in eum locum, & Bellarm. l. 3. de verbo Dei, c. 10.  Jesuits, the judgement of Saint Augustine, and Saint Chrysostome do confirm. A third Scripture we find, Rom. 8.9. where the Apostle saith, He that hath not the spirit of Christ, the same is not his. Which showeth, that none is truly a Christian, but as he is regenerated by ●he Spirit of Christ. And so your Divines, as well Jesuits as others, both ancient and modern have determined, that 
l Qui spiritum Christi non habet. potest esse flegma, pituita, sanies, saliva, sanguis abundans, & excrementum corporis Christi; ista enim viventis hominis neque membra sunt neque parts, & tamen non sunt extra corpus humanum, sed ad superfluos humores referuntur, qui suo tempore ubi maturi fuerint cum stercoribus egeruntur. Coster. jes. Apol. pro parte 3 Enchirid. c. 12 §. Qui non p. 631. joh Turrecremata dicit, Impios, qui sunt in Eccesia, non esse membra corporis Christi mystici nisi a●quiuocè: idue probat ex Alex Hal. Hugone, B Thom. item Petrus à Soto Melch. Canus & alij. Teste Bellar. de Eccles. milit l. 3. c. 9 p. 935. Haereticum occultum non esse verè Christianum (aut verè membrum Christi) Patres communiter docent, Athanas. serm. 7. con. Arium, Cyprian. l. 4. Epist. 2 Tert. de pudicitia. Aug. de Gratia. Teste Suaer. de trip. virt. theol. disp. 9 Sect. 1. nu. 24.  All that are not sanctified with the holy Spirit of Christ, although outwardly never so seeming members of the Catholic Church, yet are they no true and proper, but only equivocal and titulary members of Christ's Church; like as spittle, phlegm, and other excremental humours are said to be in the body of a man, whereof notwithstanding they are no essential parts.  
All this agreeth with the Doctrine of ancient Fathers, among whom Saint Ambrose. 
m Omnes qui sunt in Ecclesia Dei, etc. Ambr. l. 1, Epist. 4. ad sinem.  All that are in the Church (saith he) fight for Christ; intimating, that the wicked fight against Christ. Likewise Saint Augustine. 
n Mater. Cathol. etc. Aug. de Gen. ad literam cap. 2. Tom 3.  The Catholic Church (saith he) is so called, because it is in every part perfect. And again. 
o Praedestinati dividi ab Ecclesia nullo modo possunt. Idem Tom. 10 Serm. de Temp. 181 Et in lib de Civit. Dei per totum, praecipue lib. 20. c. 8. Nunquàm ab illo Ecclesia seducetur Praedestinatorum & Electa, etc.  Only the Predestinate cannot be divided from this body. Whereunto the above-cited testimonies of Hierome and Chrysostome do consent. And in this Harmony Clemens Alexandrinus will be known to bear a part, calling the 
p Ex his manifestum esse existimo, unam esse veram Ecclesiam eam, quae verè est antiqua, in cuius Catalogum referuntur ij, qui sunt iusti secundum propositum— Ecclesiam solam esse dicimus, quam etiam antiquam & Catholicam in unius fidei— unitatem Dei voluntate, per Dominum congregat eos, qui iam sunt ordinati, quos praedestinavit Deus, cum eos iustos cognovisset ante mundi constitutionem Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. li. 7. fe. 157. in fine. Item. Electorum congregationem appello Ecclesiam melius. &c Ib. fol. 147.  Catholic Church a Catalogue of just men, according to the purpose of God; and a Congregation of the Predestinate. Of which Church of Christ, as his Spouse, S. Bernard arguing from the Apostle inferreth, as a thing 
q Ephes 1. [Qui praedestinavit nos in adoptionem filiorum per Christum jesum.]— Nec dubiom est, quin voce omnium Electorum ista dicantur, & ipsi Ecclesia sint Bern. in Cant. Serm. 78.  without doubt, that the Elect are the Church of Christ. Lastly (lest that we may seem to neglect the judgement of the Fathers of the Roman Church, and the Bishops of Rome) Pope Gregory, for his singular wisdom and devotion called The Great, observing a proportion betwixt Christ the Head, and his Mystical Body, called the Catholic Church: 
r Sicut Christus, qui est caput Ecclesiae, de spiritu sancto conceptus est; sic eius Ecclesia, quae est eius corpus, eodem spiritu repletur ut vivat. Greg. in Psal. 5. Poenit. Again; Intra has mensuras sunt omnes Electi, extra has omnes Reprobi, etiamsi intia fidei limites esse videantur. Idem lib. 28. Moral. cap. 9 Sanctam Ecclesiam de Sanctis in aeternum permansuris st●uxit. Idem in Cant.  As Christ (saith he) was conceived by the holy Ghost, so is his Church, which is his body, replenished with the same spirit: and addeth, that All the Elect are within the compass of this Church, and all Reprobates without it. The very same doctrine, for which john hus was condemned in the 
s Vnica est Sancta Ecclesia universalis, quae est Praedestinato●um universitas. Conc. Constant. Sess. 15. Art. 1. ap. Surium.  Council of Constance. So that Augustine, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Bernard, yea and Pope Gregory himself may seem to have been condemned and burned with him.  
Thus much be said in Thesi, to prove that the Catholic Church (as it is considered in the essence thereof) is an invisible Object of Faith, and not a visible Object of Sense.  

CHALLENGE.  
AN Addition, which hath no other consideration of the Church, than as it is Visible, cannot be a Declaration of a Church, which is in the essence thereof considered as Invisible. But the Addition of the word, ROMAN, is used only in consideration of the Church, as it is Visible, that is, consisting of a number of persons visibly known and discerned to profess the Christian Faith, and subject to a Visible Roman Pope, as the visible and essential Head of the same Church. So as (to use the words of your Cardinal Bellarmine) 
t A multis solet concedi, malos non esse membra vera, nec simpliciter corporis Ecclesiae, sed tantùm secundùm quid & aequivocè.— At si ita est, sequitur Pontificem malum non esse Caput Ecclesiae. Bellarmin. lib. 3. de Ecclesiâ Militante Cap. 9 §. Ad ultimum. & §. Atsi.  If wicked and carnal Professors are not to be esteemed properly, but equivocally, and only in name, the members of the Catholic Church, then must it follow (What? Hear, I beseech you, the Consequence of your Cardinal) that a wicked Pope cannot be the Head of the Church. So he. But that all carnal Professors of the Catholic Faith are no essential members of the Catholic Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed, you have heard it already proved by plain places of Scriptures; by the express judgement of ancient Fathers; by your own Confessions; by the nature of Faith, which believeth that which it seeth not; yea, and by the tenure of the Apostles Creed, which teacheth us to believe, with a divine Faith, only Them to be infallibly the members of this Church, who (as it is in the Creed) can Believe, according to the Article, to obtain Remission of sins in this life, and after death Life everlasting.  
Whilst that therefore you do discern the Catholic Church by the eye, so far only as it is visible, Subject to one visible Head the Pope, who may happen to be (as All of you will confess) as wicked and monstrous in his life, as any in the line of Caiphas; as desperate in his death as judas; and after as damned in hell, as that Glutton in the Gospel, who cried out, 
* Luke 16.24.  I am tormented in this flame: and seeing that the profession of the Church, as it is only Visible, and an object of sense, can be no true Declaration or Exposition of an Article, signifying the Church of Christ, as it is also (and that more principally) Invisible: it plainly appeareth from these Premises, that your word ROMAN, depraveth the Article of the Apostles Creed, by incorporating the limbs of Satan together with the vital members of Christ, in that one mystical body, which is his Catholic Church: and consequently, that you have forfeited your Head of the Roman Church, in every damned Pope, that hath at any time professed that Roman Chair.    

The third Argument, to prove that the Addition of the word, ROMAN, cannot be any Declaration of the Catholic Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed, is in respect of the visible parts of the same. SECT. 6.  
TWo sorts of persons there are within your Roman Church, which you yourselves deny to be any visible members thereof: one is of them you call Catechumenists, who (as it falleth out in the Conversion of Heathen and jews) before they can be baptised, are exercised in learning the principles and rudiments of Faith. The other are Excommunicates, who by the public censure of your Church happen to be unjustly Anathematised, and disjoined from all Communion therewith. Of the Catechumenists, who are instructed in the Catholic Faith, and bring forth the fruits of Repentance, and yet depart this life without Baptism, you pronounce, saying, that 
a Quòd in Ecclesia non sint, docent Catechismus Rom. walden's. & probatur. Bellar. l. 3. de Eccles. milit. cap. 6. initio. Ex Ecclesia excluduntur Catechumeni, quià non participant Sacramenta. Idem ibid. cap. 20. §. Ratione. Tamen cum contritione & voto Baptismi saluantur. Tolet. jes. Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 2. c. 21. ante finem, & Bell. quo supra c. 3.  They are saved, albeit they are not in the Church. In like manner have you resolved concerning such kind of Excommunicates, who may happen to be unjustly Excommunicated, saying, that 
b judex Ecclesiae in Excommunicatione falli potest, quia potest iustus convinci per falsos testes, & sic potest judex falli.— & sic apud Ecclesiam militantem Excommunicatus, non tamen est Excommunicatus apud Triumphantem. Abulens. Epis. Defensor. part. 2. cap. 32. p. 46. In foro exteriori & contentioso multi sunt Excommunicati, quoad Deum, qui non sunt quoad Ecclesiam: & è contra, multi Excommunicati quoad Ecclesiam, qui. non sunt quoad deum, quia Ecclesia non iudicat de occultis. Cosmus Philiarch. de office Sacerd. Tom. 1. lib. 3. c. 4 p, 89.  Because the Church cannot judge of things that are secret, it may happen that some are unjustly Excommunicated, and excluded out of the visible Church, and nevertheless received of God, and certainly saved. So you.  
We cannot but approve of both your Positions, as having Instances in both: for in the number of Catechumenists is reckoned that Christian Emperor Valentinian, a zealous Professor and Patron of the Catholic Faith, who died unexpectedly, before he was baptised: whose Exequys and funerals notwithstanding Saint Ambrose did solemnize, and in his Sermon did honour the memory of that renowned Emperor, as one who had been (as the same Father speaketh) 
c 
Sed audio vos dolere, quòd non accepit Sacramēra baptismatis; dicite mihi, quid aliud in vobis est nisi voluntas, nisi petitio?— non habet igitur gratiam, quam desideravit?— certe accepit, quia poposcit, qui habuit Spiritum tuum [Sancte Pater] quomodò non accepit gratiam tuam?  
Ambros. de obitu Valent. Tom. 3 p. 9 And before; vitâ iam fruitur aeternâ.   Endued with the spirit of God in his life-time, and now after his death advanced unto joys eternal.  
Touching Excommunicates, we read in the Gospel of the 
* joh 19  Blind man healed by Christ, and, by the malice of the Priests against Christ, Cast out of their Synagogue; whom nevertheless Christ did visit, and take into his grace, protection, and Salvation. Tell us now, if your Roman Church be that Catholic Church, without which (as you believe) none can be saved, how then it cometh to pass, that these two sorts of Christians are saved, albeit they be without the said Roman Church? Your Jesuits do answer, that 
d Respoudeo, Talem esse Ecclesia animo & desiderio, quod sufficit illi ad salutem non tamen esse corpore, sive externâ communicatione, quae propriè facit hominem esse de Ecclesia visibili, quae est in terris. Bellar. lib. 3. de Eccles. milit cap. 6. §. Resp. autem. & cap. 3. §. Denique Sic Toletus de Instruct. Sacerd. l. 2. c. 21. ante finem, & Greg Valent. in 3. Tom. Disp. 1. q 1 punct. 5. Tom. 3.  Such Excommunicates, although they are not of the Communion, which maketh a man to be properly of the Visible Church, yet nevertheless they are saved by their desire to be united with the Church. So they, which is full enough for your fuller conviction.  

CHALLENGE.  
IF without the Roman Church some may be actually saved, than the Addition of the word ROMAN caonot be a Declaration of The Catholic Church, without which there is no Salvation. But the Roman Church is such, without which (as you confess) some may be actually saved. Ergo, the Addition of the word, ROMAN, to the Catholic Church cannot be a Declaration thereof. For although All agree in this (as yourselves confess) that 
e cum haec res apud omnes sit in confesso, Ecclesiam Catholicam eam esse, extra quam nulla est salus. Greg Valent. quo iam sup. punct. 7. §. 16. Jtem. Est & illud in Ecclesiae Catholicae prae●ogatiuis vel maximum, quod— extra ipsam nemini patet salus. Quae ratio est cur B. Petrus Ecclesiam cum Arca Noë rectissimè comparârit Analys. fidei lib. ●. cap. 4.  Without the Catholic Church there is no salvation: yet have you confessed two sorts of Christian Professors, namely Excommunicates, and Catechumenists, to be actually saved, albeit no Members of your Roman Church.  
As for being Saved only by Desire, or V●we of being in your Church, it is but a wild and extravagant piece of learning, in the judgement of your own 
f Mihi non placet, si dicatur ad salutem satis esse votum & desiderium existendi in Ecclesia, si alias absolutè quispiam manet extra Ecclesiam. Suarez Tract. de trip. virt. Theol. disp 9 de Eccles. milit. Sect. 1. num. 18.  jesuit. But we will reason the matter with you. Know you not that the Church Catholic is compared by Saint Petor to the 
* 1 Pet. 3.20.  Ark of Noah? that as all which were within that Ark were saved, all without it were drowned (although they Desired never so much to have been admitted into the Ark:) so it is in the Church Catholic; whosoever are essential members thereof cannot possibly perish: and contrarily, whoseuer is not a real and vital member therein 
* Vt qui extra Arcam Noen, sic qui, extra Ecclesiam Christi. Cyprian. de Simplicitate Praelat●rum. Cap. 5.  cannot but perish.    

The fourth Argument, to prove that the Addition of the word ROMAN, cannot be a Declaration of the Catholic Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed; In respect of the Divine Authority of the Article. SECT. 7.  
IT hath always been the Profession of the Catholic Church itself, not to esteem any Doctrine an Article of Faith, which is not constituted, and (to speak with better Emphasis) Created by Divine authority. This being a Truth universally consented unto you (if you will make good the Addition of the word, ROMAN, to the Article of the Catholic Church) are justly challengable, either to prove that the Roman Church (as it is the Roman Church) was constituted by divine Authority to be, rather than any other, transcendently THE Catholic Church; or else to confess your Article of Roman Church, without which there is no Salvation, to be but new, and consequently a Doctrine rather of fancy than of Faith. The necessity of this Consequence was well foreseen of those your Popes, who were the first Authors and Patrons of this Article, and therefore have published in their writings and decrees, that 
* See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 1.  The Roman Church was by Divine Authority ordained to be the Catholic Church.  
This Question dependeth upon the reason of the Pope of Rome his succession to Saint Peter, to wit; whether it were allotted to the Bishop of Rome to succeed Saint Peter, as Head of the Catholic Church, by the institution of Christ; or else by the fact of Saint Peter himself. For if it were by command and appointment of Christ, than it must be allowed as a Divine Ordinance: but if it issued only from the fact of Saint Peter, than (by your own Confessions) it is no doctrine of Faith. This being the state of the Question, as it is propounded by 
g Bellar. l. 2. de Pon. cap. 12. & Azor. jes. Moral. part. 2. l. 4. cap. 11.  yourselves, hereunto we desire to receive your own Resolutions. To this purpose when we consult with your choicest 
h An haec annexio principatus Petri ad sedem Romanam ita sit eius authoritate constituta, an verò Petrus ex Christi praecepto id egerit, de hac nihil fide certum habemus. Suarez de trip. virt. disp. 10. §. 3. num. 9— Opinio prima est— esse eam tantùm ex iure humano. Sic Soto, Paludanus, Armachanus, & alij quidam. Teste Suar. ibid. Soto Cordubens. Bannes, Aug. Triumphus & ante Sotum Waldensis dicunt. non divino jure, sed ex facto & morte Petri contigisse, ut Romanus Pontifex Pe●o succederet. Teste Azor. jes. quo suprà, §. Alterum est. Vt Pontifex Rom. quà Romanus, potius quam aliquis alius succederet, ex facto Petri ortum habuit.— Non est improbabile, Dominum iussisse Petrum Romae sedem figere. Bellar. quo sup. lit. g.  Doctors, as namely Bellarmine, Suarez, Soto, Paludanus, Bannes, Augustinus Triumphus, Cordubensis, Armachanus▪ Waldensis, and Others; they that speak more ingenuously, do freely grant, that the pretended Pontifical Dignity Roman, as it is Roman, is not from divine authority, because only from the fact of Peter. They that are more affectionate to the Roman See, although they attribute it to the Institution of Christ, yet dare they not say, that this is to be believed upon certainty of Faith but only as a matter Probable and Conjectural.  
Nay, if you shall have but a little patience, until we descend to that point, you shall perceive, by the judgement of the Catholic Church itself, in a general Council of primative Antiquity, that The Prerogative, which the Church of Rome then had, was but from 
* See below, §. 9  Humane authority.  

CHALLENGE.  
AN Addition, standing only upon Probability and Conjecture, cannot be infallibly a Declaration of an Article of Faith, founded upon Divine and Infallible authority. But your Addition of the word, ROMAN, standeth (as you confess) upon probability and Conjecture only. Ergo it cannot be an infallible Declaration of the Apostolical Article, The Catholic Church, without which there is no salvation. And consequently, your word, ROMAN, added to the Christian Creed, thereby to make the Roman Church The Catholic Church, without which there is no salvation, must necessarily be judged Antichristian.    

The fifth Argument, to prove, that the Addition of the word, ROMAN, cannot be a Declaration of the Article, [The Catholic Church] as it is Visible, in respect of the Time past, whereunto the word, CATHOLIC, hath relation, even before Rome was founded a Church. SECT. 8.  
WHo knoweth not that your Addition of the word, ROMAN, unto the Apostolical Article of [The Catholic Church] is to infuse an opinion into the minds of Christians, that Catholic and Roman are terms univocal and convertible: which is as much as to say, that whensoever there was a Roman Church, it was The Catholic Church; and whensoever there was a Catholic Church, it was Roman. Scarce shall you find any Romish Professor, especially among the vulgar, who have not this conceit of that Article of Christian Faith. Notwithstanding your more learned Doctors are not ignorant, that this Apostolical Article, The Catholic Church, was published before that in Rome was founded a Church: and that the Apostolical Church itself was Catholic, before the Article of the Catholic Church was proclaimed. Which name, CATHOLIC, or universal was first attributed to the Church Christian, 
i Catholica, i. e. universalis Ecclesia dicitur, in quo primùm differt à Synagoga, quae certis locis, & populi limi●ibus circumscribitur, at nunc non alligata ulli loco. Salmeron jes. Prologue. in Comment. Epist. ad Rom. par. 2. p. 176.  To distinguishit (as you know) from the Synagogue of the jews, which was circumscribed and confined to one only nation; whereas the Church Catholic is not limited to any one place; but is as broad in succession of place, as is the whole world.  
Now concerning the Catholic Church, in the time of the Apostles, Card. Baronius (whose History you honour as an 
* Possivinus apparat. Sest. 3. c. 35.  heavenly Lamp, or torch) telleth you, that 
k Hoc tempore gentibus ostio aperto, Apostoli Catholicae fidei consulturi, Canon's, quibus universam fidem firmarent, constituerunt, quos Ecclesia proprio nomine Symbolum Apostolicum appellare consuevit. Baronius Anno Chri. 44. num. 15.  The Creed of the Apostles (wherein is the Article of The Catholic Church) was composed by them in the year of Christ XLIV; and that the Catholic Church was extant sometime, before this Article was put into the tenor of the Creed. Which he demonstrateth from the act of Saint Peter, who in the year of our Saviour XXXIX is found 
l Jdem Anno. 39· Hoc tempore pertransit provincias, & invisit Ecclesias, etc. The Churches which S. Peter visited Anno 39 he reckoneth to have been— In Ponto, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, silicet minori, & Bythinia, quas S. Petrus erexit. Anno 45. num. 15.  Visiting the Churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, etc. That the same Apostle Saint Peter 
m Dicimus Ecclesiam Antiochenam hoc potissimùm Anno à sancto Petro institutam fuisse, eundem septem Annis eidem praefuisse, quousque sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam erigens una cum persona omne suum Pontificium ius in eam transtulit. Idem Anno 39 num. 23.  Constituted the Church of Antioch in the same year, and after that he had governed the See of Antioch seven years, he in the year XLV translated his See from Antioch to Rome. Your other Chronologer 
n Apostoli post Ascensionem Symbolum constituerunt Genebrard. Chron. Anno D. 32, lib. 3. p. 370. Petrus primùm Romam venit, atque ibi se Pontificem gessit. Idem Anno 44. lib. 2. pag. 219.  Genebrard yieldeth unto us eleven years, between the Composing of the Apostles Creed, and the first foundation of the Church of Rome by the Apostle Saint Peter.  
We add; that S. Paul, whom all the Romanists teach to have been a Cofounder with Saint Peter of the Church of Rome, had been before that time 
* 1 Cor. 15.9. & Philip. 3.6.  A Persecuter of the Church of Christ, as he himself confesseth; when Saint Steven suffered Martyrdom. But the Church of Christ, as it is called Catholic, comprehendeth (say 
o Ecclesia Catholica complectitur omniatempora & loca. Bellar. lib. 4. de notis Eccles cap. 7. §. Quarta.  you) all times.  

CHALLENGE.  
THe addition of a word, which betokeneth only a part of Time, of the Churches being, cannot be a Declaration of the Church, which is called Catholic, on respect of the whole and universal Time of the being of the Church: But the addition of the word, ROMAN, doth betoken but a part of Time of the being of the Church, namely after the first constitution of the Church of Christ Catholic. Ergo, It cannot be any true Explication of the Article properly called the Catholic Church, except you will exclude out of the Church of Christ (without which there is no salvation) S. Stephen the first Christian Martyr, and all other blessed primitive Martyrs and Confessors, who died the faithful members of Christ, before the Church of Rome had received her first life or breath.  
Wherefore the word, ROMAN, cannot be added to our Christian Creed, as a Declaration of that Article, The Catholic Church, without which there is no salvation, without intolerable blasphemy against Apostles, Martyrs, and other Confessors, and blessed Saints of God, under the persecution of Saul, afterwards Paul: who because they were before the Church of Rome (and consequently without it) must be judged by your Article to have been at that time without the state of Grace. Of whom notwithstanding our Saviour Christ gave testimony by this voice from heaven, saying to Saul, in their behalf, 
* Act. 9.4.  Why persecutest thou Me? So false and impious is your Addition of the word, ROMAN, to that Catholic Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed.    

The sixth Argument, to prove, that the Addition of the word, ROMAN, cannot be a Declaration of that Article in the Apostles Creed, The Catholic Church; In respect of the Time to come. SECT. 9  
Again, the word Catholic, or universal, mentioned in the Apostles Creed, as it comprehendeth (as you have said) the Time past, so doth it (you know) imply 
p Dicitur quoque Ecclesia Catholica à temporis universitate, nam ad finem usque mundi perseve rabbit, ut Scriptura docet, Mat 16. Portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam: & Mat. 28. Ero vobiscum usque ad consummationem seculi. & Ephes. 4. Donec occurrimus omnes in unitate fidei in virum perfectum. Greg. de Valent. in 3. Thom. disp. 1. q. 1. punct. 7. §. 16. Tom. 3.  The time to come, until the ends of the world, according to the promise of Christ, Mat. 28.20. Wherefore our next Question must be, whether the Church of Rome, which will needs be the Catholic Church, can infallibly profess a Prerogative of continuing the the same pretended Catholic Church, until the ends of the world; and whether her own principles do not utterly confute this usurpation?  
It is a general principle of your Doctors, aswell Jesuits as others, that 
q Refert non parùm hoc scire.— Nam si solùm ex iure humano Ecclesiastico ratio haec successionis cum Romanae Dioecesis Episcopatu coniuncta sit, possit fieri— ut is, qui universalis Ecclesiae pater est, non idem sit ●omanae Dioecesis Episcopus, sed vel alterius dioecesis, ut cum Petrus Antiochiae sedebat.— Sin autem divino iure constitutum est, ut non alius praeterquàm Romanus Pontifiex sit Petri successor, non erit in Ecclesiae potestate id institutum mutare.— Ex hac quaestione pendet,— quomodò illud Ecclesia Rom. privilegium intelligendum sit, cum dici solet recta & Apostolica fides, non posse à Romana Ecclesia deficere▪ sicut jam defecit (exempli causâ) ab Ecclesia Constantinop. Greg de Valent. quo supra §. 38.  If the succession in the government of the Catholic Church were not allotted to the Bishop of Rome, by divine authority, than the same government may be transported from the same Bishop, and the Church of Rome may depart from the Faith, as well as other Churches, (and by name the Church of Constantinople) have done. This Consequence being so universally received and approved in your own Schools, our next endeavour will be to prove that it cannot appear infallibly that the Church of Rome hath a Privilege of continuing The Catholic Church to the end of the world, by any divine authority. This 
* See above, Sect. 7  hath been briefly touched already, but here is the place to handle it more at large.  
Your Canus with some Others (lest they should be compelled to confess, that the Church of Rome may possibly Apostate in future times) have contended to defend, that 
r Canus, Driedo, Turrecr●mata, & alij communiter sine dubitatione affirmant, ex Christi Domini institutione Romanum Episcopum constitutum fuisse Petri Successorem in cura universalis Ecclesiae:— atque ità Romanam sedem habere privilegium, ut sit peculiariter Apostolica sedes, à qua fides recta nequeat deficere. Valent. quo iam supra. Atque huic parti idem se Valent. adiungit.  It was constituted the Catholic Church by the Institution of Christ. Which if it were true, then would there appear some evidence thereof, either before, or else after the Ascension of Christ. But 
s Quòd ante ascensionem Domini— Christus nihil de hoc ordinauerit patet, tum quia nihil tale vel ex Scriptures, vel ex Traditione habemus,— tùm quòd Petrus fixit suam sedem primò in una Ecclesia, postmodum in altera. Suarez. de Trip virt theol. disp 10 §. 3. nu. 10.  Before the Ascension of Christ, saith your jesuit Suarez) Nothing appeareth of any such Ordinance, either in Scripture, or from Tradition. And that which is commonly alleged, out of Egesippus, of Christ his appearance after his Ascension unto Peter, 
t Quod verò attiner ad illam historiam ex Ege sippo; licet Christus Dominus praeceperit tunc Petrò, ut Romae maneret usque ad mortem, inde tamèn non necessariò sequi, praecepisse etiam eum ut Successor illius in cura Ecclesiae universali esset perpetuò Rom. Pontifex. Valent. quo supra. col. 218.  Commanding him to fix his seat at Rome until his death (in the judgement of your jesuit Valentianus) is of no force to prove that the Roman Church was to continue Catholic. We draw nearer our mark. 
u Non est omninò de fide, à Rom. Ecclesia non posse separari Apostolicam sedem: Patet, quia nec Scriptura, nec Traditio habet, ita sedem Apostolicam fixam Romae esse, ut inde auferri non possit. Bellar. l 4 de Pont. c. 4. §. At secundum. Item Suarez Jes. vide supra, Sect. 7. lit h.  There is no certainty of faith (saith Bellarmine, with whom the jesuit Suarez consenteth) that the Sea Apostolic is so fixed at Rome, as that it cannot be separated and removed from that Church; because there is neither Scripture nor Tradition to prove this. Nor these only, but Sotus with diverse other Schoolmen directly and peremptorily consent, that 
x Sotus, Cordubensis, & quidam juniores Theologi, inter quos Bannes, Aug Triumphus, & Waldens. ante Sotum, non Divino jure, sed ex facto Petri, quòd Romae ei obire contigit, factum esse dicunt, ut Episcopus Rom. Petro succederet. Azor. jes. Just. Mor. part. 2. lib 4. cap. 11. Et eiu●dem sententiae videtur esse Paludanus, Armachanus, & quidam alij. Teste Suar. de Trip. virt. disp. 10 §. 3. num. 9  The Privilege, which Rome doth challenge, is only by the ordinance of Saint Peter, and therefore from humane authority. Yea, and Some yield not so much as the Institution by S. Peter, but by the Church; so far, that 
y— Quare si per possibile Trevirensis Archiepiscopus per Ecclesiam congregatam pro Praeside & Capite eligeretur, ille propriè plus Successor S. Petri in Principatu foret, quam Rom. Episcopus: Licet credendum fit Rom. Pontificem sicut locum Petri, ità & principatum nunquam perditurun.— Nec cessaret ille Principatus in Ecclesia, etiamsi Rom. urbis ●edes Episcopalis deficeret. Card. Cusan. Concord. Ca●h. l. 2. c. 34. ●d finem: where he laboureth to prove that the B of Rom●●●●th his Primacy from the consent of the Church.  If the Church, in a Council, should choose the Archbishop of Treuers, or of any other place, to be Head of the Church, he should be rather the Successor of Peter, than the Bishop of Rome. Furthermore, we reserve unto its due place your Confession, that 
* See hereafter, Chap. 5. Sect. 1.  The City of Rome shall undoubtedly be the Seat of Antichrist.  

CHALLENGE.  
AN Addition, which notifieth a Church that may possibly be translated else-whither, and depart from the Faith, cannot be a Declaration of that Article, in our Christian Creed, which signifieth a Church infallibly continuing in the Faith, to the end of the world. But the word, ROMAN, (as it signifieth the Roman Church) betokeneth a Church, which may possibly be Translated, and depart from the Faith. Ergo, it cannot be a Declaration of the Catholic Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed. So then, to make the word, Catholic, hereditary to that Roman Church, which possibly may be as truly Antichristian, as Rome itself is sure to be (by your own Confessions) The Seat of Antichrist, doth plainly discover an Article New, False, Antichristian, and Blasphemous.    

The seventh Argument, to prove that the Addition of the word, ROMAN, to the Catholic Church, cannot be a Declaration of the Christian Faith, mentioned in the Apostles Creed; in respect of any Present Time. SECT. 10.  
THe Certainty, whatsoever it is, of your Article, The Catholic Roman Church, is built upon this foundation, that the Pope of Rome is the Catholic and Universal Bishop of the Church of Christ, as the Popes themselves 
* See above, Chap. Sect. 1.  have formerly defined. Now, because no structure can be more firm, than is the foundation upon which it is built; we make bold to demand, with what faith any of you can believe any Pope (whatsoever he be that is elected) to be the True Pope, that is, (as you call him) The Catholic Bishop of Rome, without which the Church of Rome cannot be acknowledged The Catholic Church.  
This Consequence Two of your Jesuits did truly discern, which made Them resolve thus: 
a Sicut Ecclesia Christi visibilis est hoc numero, ità habere posse hoc numero visibile caput; atque adeo de fide est, hunc hominem, qui communi Ecclesiae consensione acceptus est, ut caput Ecclesiae, cui ipsa tenetur obedire, esse verum Ecclesiae Pontificem, Petri Successorem.— Alioqui Constare non potest, hoc esse verum Concilium. Suar. Jes. de Trip. virt. disp. 10. Sect. 5. nu. 2.  As the visible Church (saith the one) is this individual Church, so the visible Head thereof must needs be this visible Pope, who by the common consent is so ordained, unto whom we owe obedience, as to the true Successor of Peter; or otherwise we could not know that this is a true Council, and justly confirmed by the Pope, etc. But with what degree of Faith do you believe this? 
b Fides divina est, quâ credimus jesum,— eâdem credimus hunc Paulum 4. Pontificem esse;— non tantùm humanâ fide, cui subesse possit falsum. Salmeron Jes. in epist. Pauli in Gen. part. 3. disp. 2. pag. 183.  With that Divine Faith (saith the Other) wherewith we believe jesus Christ, with the same ought we to believe this Paul the IV. to be the true Pope, and not with any humane Faith, which is subject to be deceived.  
Behold a jesuitical Faith! both grossly false, and also wickedly blasphemous: because, that there cannot be an Infallibility in the Election of any Pope, is manifest by two confessed and uncontrollable Consequences, taken from two possible defects; the one in the Pope's Ordination, the second in his Election. First for his Ordination, your Council of Florence defineth, 
c Omnia Sacramenta ex intentione ministri pendere, etc. Conc. Florent. Decret. Eugenij PP. ad. Binium.  That the truth of every Sacrament dependeth upon the intention of the Minister. But, 
d Nullus certus esse potest certitudine fidei, se percipere verum Sacramentum, cum Sacramentum sine intentione Ministri non conficitur. Bellar. l. 3. de justif. cap. 8. §. Dicent.  None can be sure by certainty of Faith (saith Bellarmine) that any such received the Sacrament of Ordination, because none infallibly knoweth the intention of him that Ordaineth. And Vega more vehemently. 
e Nemini potest ex fide constare, se recepisse Sacramentum, esseque hoc ita certum ex fide, ac clarum est nos vivere. Vega de Justif. l. 9 cap. 17.  It is as certain (saith he) that we are not infallibly certain of the receiving of any Sacrament, as it is certain that we now live. Thus of the Pope's Ordination.  
Alphonsus à Castro is as bold with the Pope, about his Election. 
f Quamuis credere tenemur ex fide, verum Petri Successorem esse supremum totius Ecclesiae Pastorem, non tamen tenemur eâdem fide credere Leonem, aut Clementem esse verum Petri Successorem, quoniam non tenemur ex fide Catholicâ credere eorum quemlibet ritè & Canonicè fuisse electum. Alphonsus á Castro. lib. 1. de Haeres. c. 9  Which, because it may not be Canonical, we are not to believe it (saith he) with a Catholic Faith: Whereof your Cardinal 
g Respondeo, Stephanum 6. & Sergium 3. errâsse in quaestione facti, utrùm Formosus legitimus Papa fuisset. Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. cap. 12.  giveth some Examples. In which two respects many of your School Doctors have concluded, that 
h Aliqui ex Catholicis moralem tantùm certitudinem tenent, quam sufficere dicunt— ad credendum res, quas de fide Papa definiverit. Hisunt Turrecremata, Albertin. Caiet. Bannes, Canus, Vega, Cordub. Castro. Teste Suar. de Trip. virt. disp. 10. § 5. nu. ●.  In the knowledge of this man, to be a true Pope, you have no more but a moral certitude. Whereof we shall speak more hereafter.  

CHALLENGE.  
THat Addition, the belief whereof is only humane, moral, and fallible, cannot be a Declaration of an Article of Divine and Infallible faith, such as is that of the Catholic Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed. But the word, ROMAN, is an Addition, the Belief whereof is only humane, moral, and fallible. Ergo, the Addition of the word ROMAN, to the Catholic Church, cannot be a proper Declaration of that Article in the Creed. So vain and unjust is your appropriation of the word, Catholic, to your Roman Church.    

The eight Argument, to prove that the Addition of the word, ROMAN, can be no Declaration of the Article of The Catholic Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed; because it makes all perjured that do profess it upon Oath; besides the heresy and blasphemy thereof. SECT. 11.  
THat in your profession of the Catholic Roman Church, the word, Roman, is an Article of Faith, challenging thereby a necessary subjection to the Bishop of Rome, we have heard already, both in the 
* See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 1. & 2.  Decrees of Popes, and also in that 
* Bulla Pij quarti. See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 1.2. etc.  Form of an Oath, which every Ecclesiastical person in your Church, of what condition soever he be, is enjoined to take, swearing that The Roman Church is the Catholic Mother and Mistress Church; vowing Obedience to the Bishop thereof: and in the same Oath, that this Roman Article, with others, is The Catholic faith, without which there is none can be saved, which is the proper tenor of an essential Article of faith.  
Now in as much as the word [CREDO] in the Apostles Creed doth import 
i CREDO in hoc loco non significat opinari, aut existima●e, sed ut docent sacrae literae, certissimae assensionis vim habet, quâ mens Deo sua mysteria aperienti firmè constanterue assentitur. Quamobrem is credit,— cui aliquid sine ulla haesitatione certum & persuasum est. Catechis. Rom. in hanc vocem Symboli, Credo, pag. 11.  A constant and infallible persuasion of the Christian Believer, as your own Roman Catechism doth truly instruct you; and because (to speak in the words of your own Bozius:) 
k Quae in Symbolo sunt & credenda proponuntur,— sunt principia eorum omnium, quibus fides est habenda. Principia autem semper & ex omni parte vera, alioqui principia haud forent, quorum veritas est dubia. Bozius Tom. 1. de signis Eccles lib. 3. cap. 10. p. 223.  These things which are propounded in the Creed, are the Principles or foundations of all other things that are to be believed, and aught at all times to be in themselves infallibly true in every part, otherwise they should be no Principles, in as much as their truth is but doubtful: We (by this your appropriating of the Article, The Church, without which none can be saved) are constrained to pronounce you guilty of a new Heresy in your faith; Perjury in your Oath; and Blasphemy in your excluding out of the state of Salvation the most undoubted members of the mystical body of Christ, which is his Church.  

I. CHALLENGE.  
EVery new Article of Faith (that is to say, new Doctrine made necessary to salvation) is an Heresy, as you yourselves will confess: But this Article [The Catholic Roman Church, without which there is no Salvation] is a new Article, as hath been amply proved; because it is repugnant to the Article of The Catholic Church, professed in the Apostolic Creed; as hath been made manifest in the Premises by many Arguments. Therefore your Article of The Catholic Roman Church, without which there is no salvation, must needs be esteemed Heretical.   

II. CHALLENGE.  
EVery one bound to believe, and to avouch upon Oath any Doctrine, as necessary to Salvation, which is not of an infallible truth, is thereby made guilty of Perjury. But every Romish Priest (by the 
* See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 2.  Bull of Pope Pius 4.) is bound to believe upon Oath, that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church, without which there is no salvation. Albeit you yourselves have confessed at large, that this your doctrine standeth not upon any infallible grounds of truth, either in respect of Time past, at the founding of the Church of Rome, which was not instituted by any Divine Ordinance; or in respect of the Time present, wherein you have no full assurance of your Catholic Head, the Pope: or yet in respect of the Time to come, when as you Confess a Possibility that the Catholic Church may cease to be Roman, because it may possibly be translated to another place. Therefore are all Romish Priests necessarily involved in the crime of Perjury, by swearing that to be a necessary Article of Faith, which is in so many respects defective, and cometh short of all the Essential grounds of Faith.   

III. CHALLENGE.  
THat Article, which excludeth from Salvation the undoubtedly essential and lively members of the Mystical body of Christ, which is his Church, that is a doctrine undoubtedly Blasphemous. But your Article, The Roman Church, without which there is no salvation, doth exclude from Salvation both those, which (before the Church of Rome was a Catholic Church) suffered bonds, imprisonment, and Martyrdom itself, for the profession of Christ; next all Catechumenists, and persons unjustly Excommunicated, albeit departing this life in true faith and repentance: and lastly all them, who in the days of Antichrist, when the Church, as it is Roman (as you say, may peradventure; but, as we think, will Apostate from the Faith) shall persist the constant and glorious Martyrs of Christ jesus, etc. Therefore this Article cannot but be manifestly Blasphemous. Thus much concerning our Proofs, taken from the Consideration of the Article of Christian Faith, in the Apostles Creed, viz. [The Catholic Church.] By which we have evicted your Addition of the word, ROMAN (to make an Article of Faith) to be New, False, Scandalous, Pernicious, Heretical, and Blasphemous, respectively.     

CHAP. III. A Second general Head of Confutation of the former Article, is from the Consideration of the judgement of the Church; by Examples of several Churches, Counsels, and Fathers.  

SECT. 1.  
AFter our Proof, that the now Roman Article, The Catholic Roman Church, without Union and Subjection whereunto there is no Salvation, is New, Imposterous, Scandalous, etc. taken from the tenor and sense of the Apostolical Article, The Catholic Church, expressed in our Catholic Creed; We proceed to confirm our former Proof, by like evidence from currant Examples, taken from the Catholic Church itself. And, for our more expedite Method & passage herein, We shall proportion our Treatise according to three Distinctions of Time; the Time before, the Time when, and the Time after that the Church of Rome had her first foundation and being.   

I. Of the Time before the Church of Rome was founded. First setting down the Roman Article, intituling the Church of Rome [The Mother Church.] SECT. 2.  
WE need not tell you, that it is an Article in your Church, to believe that the Church of Rome is The Mother and Mistress Church of all other Churches (where, by Mother, you understand her ancient Prerogative of spiritual Generation: and, by Mistress, her jurisdiction and Supreme Authority of directing all other Churches, as Members of the Church Catholic) seeing that the Fathers of the 
a Synod. Trid. Sess. 7. de Baptis. Can. 3. Ecclesia Romana omnium Ecclesiarum matter & magistra. Et Sess. 14. cap. 3. Et Sess. 22. cap. 8. & 25. Decret. de delectu ciborum. And again, Sess. 18. Decreto de librorum delectu. Matrem communem in terris agnoscentes, quae nos peperit, oblivisci non potest.  Council of Trent, in their Canons and Decrees, have five times published the same Article in express words, calling her The Common Mother on earth, which cannot forget whom she hath begotten; As if all the Faithful on earth were her offspring. Instantly upon this Decree of the Council, the Father of all these Trent-fathers', Pope Pius the 4. for Confirmation of that Council, enjoined every Ecclesiastic to profess, among other points, the same Roman Article upon Oath, thus: ay N. swear, that I acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches; without which faith none can be saved. So then this Article is become as Catholic among you, as is your Church. Which opinion of her Universal Motherhood hath been the greatest fascination and witchery that of long time hath blinded the eyes of most of her Professors; 
b Forma juramenti à Pio 4. edita. Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam Romanam omnium Ecclesiarum matrem & magistram agnosco.— Extra quam fidem nemo salnus esse potest.  and which we shall prove to be no better than a False and Imposterous enchantment, void of all light of truth, and repugnant unto the confessed Examples of illustrious Churches more ancient than herself.   

The first Confutation of that Article of Roman Mother-hood, is taken from the rottenness of the Foundation thereof. SECT. 3.  
IF there be any sound ground of truth in the Article, viz. that The Church of Rome is Mother of all other Churches, sure we are that your two Cardinals, for learning and devotion towards that Church most Eminent, (viz. Baronius and Bellarmine) will be most able and willing to express it, especially where they professedly determine the very point. Baronius teaching that Saint Peter, being constituted by Christ the ordinary Pastor of the whole Church, did fix his seat at Rome, doth thereupon resolve, saying, 
c Romana Ecclesia, cum Petri peculiaris erat— qui totius Ecclesiae Caput à Christo institutus erat,— ita ipsa meritò Mater omnium diceretur Ecclesiarum. Baron. An. 58. num. 50.  Hence it is that the Roman Church is called the Mother-Church of all others. And lest any might deny this Consequence, as being (that which it is indeed) fond and absurd, Bellarmine addeth the reason thereof. 
d Passim docent vete●es, Rom. Ecclesiam esse matrem omnium Ecclesiarum, & ab ea omnes Episcopo● habuisse— consecrationem & dignitatem suam, Quod non videtur esse verum, nisi eo sensu quia Petrus, qui Episcopus f●it Romanus, omnes Apostolos, Omnesque alios Episcopos vel per se, vel per alios ordinavit. Alioqui enim cum omnes Apostoli plurimos Episcopos in varijs locis constituerunt, si Apostoli ipsi non sunt facti Episcopi à Petro; certè maxima pars Episcoporum non deducet originem suam à Petro Bellar. lib. 1. de Rom. Pont cap. 23. Vbi addit,  The Church of Rome (saith he) could not be called the Mother-Church, except that all the Apostles had had their ordination of Pastorship from Saint Peter. And, for proof hereof, the Cardinal referreth us to the Epistles of Pope Anacletus, witnessing that 
e Anacletus Epist. 1. dicit In novo Testamento post Christum à Petro Sacerdotalis coepit ordo. Vbi non loqui potest de ordine Presbyterorum; nam constat Apostolos in ultima coena simul omnes ordinatos Sacerdotes. Loquitur ergo de ordine Episcoporum, qui à Petro non rectè dicitur incepisse, si omnes Apostoli immediatè à Christo ordinati fuerunt Episcopi. Jdem ibid. All this is but Conjectural.  The order of Priesthood had its ' beginning from Peter. So he, whereas notwithstanding Sacerdotal Order doth but coniecturally infer the Episcopal. Howsoever these testimonies from the Epistles of Anacletus, (which your Cardinal 
f Ego has Epistolas Apoch●yphas esse credo. Cusan Card. Concord. Cathol. c. 34. p. 771  Cusanus believeth to be Apocryphal, and unworthy of belief) Two of your most privileged Jesuits, 
g Omnes Apostoli à Christo Domino ordinati sunt Episcopi, & potestatem non solum ordinis, sed etiam iurisdictionis acceperunt— quia omnes Apostoli sunt à Christo electi, ut ex Euangelio constat, ità ipse Paulus apertè tradit, Gal. 1. & 2. Se non esse ab hominibus, neque per hominem, sed per Christum Apostolum institutum. Mathias item, non erat ab Apostolis, sed à Deo creatus. At Apostolica potestas continebat in se non solùm ordinis, sed & jurisdictionis potestatem, & ideò Apostoli ubique terrarum Episcopos & Presbyteros constituebant— & omnibus plenissima iurisdictio data est, Mat. 18. illis verbis, quaecunque alligaveritis, etc. Omnibus etiam dictum est, Euntes in universum mundum praedicate. Et de juda dictum est, Episcopatum eius accipiet alter. Azor. ●es. Inst moral. part. 2. l. 4. c. 11. §. Altera opinio.  Azorius, and 
h Vt verum sit— Petri Cathedram matrem esse & radicem omnium Ecclesiarum, & à Rom. Eeclesia omnem consecrationem & dignitatem Episco palem promanâsse— Turrecremata conatur probare solum Petrum ordinatum à Christo Episcopum, & ipsum reliquos Apostolos consecrâsse.— Alij tenent alios omnes Apostolos ordinatos immediatè à Christo: Sic Glossa & multi Theologi, videturque expressa sententia August. lib quaest. vet. & novi Testamenti 97.— nam si Christus immediatè Apostolos omnes ordinavit Sacerdotes, cur non Episcopos?— nam Presbyteri aequales sunt in ordine. Suarez. jes. Tract. de Trip. virt. Theol. disp. 10. Sect. 1. num. 5. & 7. Jtem Cosmus Philiarch. Tom. 2. pag.. 93.  Suarez deny, That the other Apostles received their Episcopal Ordination from Saint Peter. Which they maintain upon better grounds, than the Counterfeit Epistles of a Pope can be, even upon the Oracles of God's Word, where it appeareth (say they) that Mathias had his Ordination to the Bishopric which judas lost, not by the hands of Peter, but by lot, immediately from God: and Saint Paul his, not by Saint Peter, but by a voice from heaven, even immediately from Christ. They add other Reasons, & in the end adjoin the Consent of S. Augustine, & of many other Divines.  
Yet were it admitted, that Peter, as ordinary Pastor of the Catholic Church, had ordained other Apostles Bishops, and by their Ministry begotten those innumerable Churches, which the same Apostles (as you 
* See in the following Sections.  Confess) constituted seven years before the Church of Rome was erected; yet were it a mad point of Genealogizing, to conclude that Rome must be Mother to those daughters of Saint Peter, which were begotten seven years before she was borne: whereas she could be to them but a Sister at the most, and that but a younger Sister too.  

CHALLENGE.  
Give us leave to dispute from your own Confessions, thus. If all the other Apostles were not ordained Bishops by Saint Peter, there can be no apparent reason, why the Church of Rome should be called the Mother-Church. Thus Bellarmine. But all the other Apostles were not ordained Bishops by Saint Peter. Thus your Jesuits out of direct Scriptures, accompanied with the Consent of Saint Augustine, and many other Divines. Ergo there is not sufficient ground, to call the Church of Rome the Mother of all other Churches. Twice miserable therefore is the state of your Priests, both because they are tied perjuriously to swear That to be an Article of Faith, which is a manifest falsehood; as also for that they, and all that Sect, being entangled in this error of believing the Roman Church to be the Mother of all other Churches, are thereby consequently entangled in all other her errors and Idolatries.    

The second Confutation of the same Article ariseth from the Respect of many illustrious Mother-Churches, more ancient than Rome. SECT. 4.  
WE furthermore endeavour to impugn your former infatuation, in believing the Universal Mother-hood of the Church of Rome, by the faith of Fathers of Primitive times, far more Reverend for antiquity, and more credible for impartiality than were your Fathers, or rather Stepfathers' of Trent. Not but that we as willingly, as worthily, do acknowledge the Ancient Church of Rome to have been in former times an happy Mother of many renowned Christian Churches in the world; and we accordingly bless the womb of that sincere Faith and Piety, which then brought forth so innumerable an offspring of so many holy Professors: which notwithstanding, she might content herself to have deserved the Title of a Mother-Church, as other ancient Churches were, and not of THE MOTHER-CHURCH OF ALL OTHERS. For we are verily persuaded, that no reasonable man can allow any child so to honour his Mother, as that he must necessarily thereby disparage all others his honourable Progenitresses, and (that we may so speak) his own Grandmother and Great-grand-mother, together with others of his kindred more ancient than She. Such was the state of the Church of Rome, in respect of other Churches, as by several Instances will clearly appear.   

The first Instance of Mother-hood, before Rome, is in the most ancient Church of Jerusalem. SECT. 5.  
EVe was not more truly named the Mother of all living, than the Church of Jerusalem may be said to have been the Mother of all Churches believing. In which respect the whole Christian world hath given unto her the due and honourable Title of Mother-hood. For almost a thousand and 300 years ago, an hundred and fifty Orthodox Fathers, assembled in a Council at Constantinople, acknowledged (as you know) that 
i Conc. Constantinopolit. Oecumenicum de Consecratione Cyrilli. Porrò Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae quae est aliarum omnium Mater, Cyrillum Episcopum vobis ostendimus. Teste Baronio Anno 382. num. 15 p. 571.  Jerusalem was the first Church, which (to use the words of Saint 
k Ex Sion lex exibit, & verbum Domini ex Jerusalem.] In Jerusalem primùm fundata Ecclesia totiùs orbis Ecclesias seminavit. Hiero. in ill●m locum. Isa. 2.  Hierome) engendered all the Churches of the world.  
After, in the days of Saint Augustine, when certain Heretics refused to have Communion with Jerusalem, because our Lord Christ was Crucified in that City, that learned Father did both wisely and wittily confute them: 
l Act. 1. Incipiens ab Jerusalem.] Nemo dubitat de Ecclesia— quià ab Hierusalem coepit, & omnes gentes implevit.— Cum iis dicimus,— Communicate cum illis Ecclesijs, unde Euangelium toto orbe disfunditur.— Illi de Hierusalem respondent, Non communicamus illi civitati, ubi occisus est Dominus noster.— Pij homines & misery ordes!— Neque mirum, si praecisi oderunt radicem,— ubi inchoata est Ecclesia, missus de coelo Spiritus Sanctus. Aug. in Epist. joh. Tract. 2.  No marvel (saith he) if you are cut off from the Church, who hate that root Jerusalem, where the Church had her original, and whither the holy Ghost was first sent. Another time the same Father, being opposed by Petilian a Donatist, and asked Whence first he had his Communion? 
m Quaeris (Petiliane) unde communio mea sumat exordium? Dominus Christus ipse dixit,— Coepit praedicari ab Jerusalem. Ind diffundens Ecclesiam quam tenemus. Collatio Carthag. Cathol. cum Donatistis par. 3. num. 230. Which is joined with Optatus.  Answereth, that he had it originally from Jerusalem. Could Saint Augustine in this Question, about the Mother-Church, against an Heretic, have so negligently passed by Rome, without sacrilege, if the Faith of the Church of Christ, in his days, had been to believe that Roman Church to have been then the sole Sovereign Mother-Church over all Churches in the world, as your Council of Trent hath so often decreed?   

The second Instance of Mother-hood is in the Church of Caesarea. SECT. 6.  
THe Church of Jerusalem did bear, as her first daughter, the Church of Caesarea, the Metropolis of Palestina, which afterwards was made the patriarchal Seat within that Province. The Motherhood of which Church S. Basil, and S. Nazianzen did both proclaim and prefer before Rome, as by their own testimonies may appear. We must have ample estimation 
n Cujussibet Ecclesiae, tanquàm corporis Christi, habenda est ratio, maximè verò nostrae (speaking of the Church of Caesarea) quae propè Mater omnium Ecclesiarum, & fuit ab initio & nunc quoque est, & nominatur.— Quam Christiana Resp. veluti centrum suum circulus, undique obseruat Apud Basil. Tom. 2. Epist. 30. Greg. Nazian. De eadem Civitate Basilius Magnus. A nostris locis exortum Euangelium regni, in totum orbem egressum est. Tom. 2. Epist. 70.  (say They) of every Church, as the body of Christ, but especially of this our Church of Caesarea, which the Christian Commonweal doth observe, as the Circumference doth a centre. From which place (meaning, after Jerusalem) the Gospel first arose, and passed through the World. So they. What greater Encomium would you (if you could) pass upon your Church of Rome, than by instiling her the Mother-Church, to account her as the Centre, and call all other Churches as her Circumferences? Which Attributes those Orthodox Fathers would not have ascribed to Caesarea, if in their Faith the Church of Rome had, in their days, had the Prerogative of the Mother-Church over all other Churches in the world.   

The third Instance of Mother-hood, before Rome, is in the Church of Antioch. SECT. 7.  
ANtioch was a Church (by your own Confessions) diverse years, when as yet the Church of Rome was without note or name, a mere nonens in Christianity. Of which Church of Antioch Saint Chrysostome, out of the 
* Act. 11.26.  Acts; 
o Civitatum omnium nostra Christo optatissima est, tùm propter Progenitorum, tùm etiam propter vestram virtutem. Et sicut Pe trus inter Apostolos primus praedicabat, sic inter civitates, sicut dixi, haec prima tanquam coronam quandam admirabilem Christianorum tulit appellationem. Chrysost. de Ecclesia Antiochena Tom. 5. Orat. ad pop. Antioch. hom. 3. plura habet Ibid. Hom. 17.  This our City of Antioch (saith he) is most dear to Christ, for its ' Progenitors: where Saint Peter did first preach, which first received, as an admirable Crown, the name of christians. So he. Whether therefore you shall be pleased to call the Church of Antioch Mother, or (because the name of Christians was first derived from her) Godmother to all other Churches after her, sure it is that she may justly claim the Birthright before Rome. Which Saint Chrysostome defended now, even when the Church of Rome (and that worthily) was famous and renowned in the world.   

The fourth Instance of Mother-hood, before Rome, is in the Greek Church in General. SECT. 8.  
THe Eastern Greek Churches themselves challenged this Prerogative in their Letters to Pope julius, to wit, that 
p Orientales in Responsis fuis ad Iulium Papam Rom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. hist. lib. 3. cap. 7.  They came from the East that first brought Christian Religion to Rome. But none need require a more prompt or large acknowledgement of the antiquity of the Greek Church, in respect of the Latin, than that which was publicly pronounced by your own Bishop of Bitontum, in a solemn assembly of Bishops, even in your Council of Trent, briefly thus; 
q Eia igitur Graecia matter nostra, cui totum id debet quod habet Latina Ecclesia. Bitom. Episc. orat. in Conc. Trid. habita, vid. lib. de Acts eius Conc. pag. 18. Eia Hispania, cujus conseruatae religionis perpetua gratulatio. Ib. Serio loquitur.  O Greece, our Mother (saith he) to whom the Latin Church oweth all that she hath. So he. We read of the Cross of Christ, that it had an Inscription written on it in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. The same order may we observe in the principal propagation of Churches in the Christian world: the Hebrew Church before the Greek, and the Greek Church constituted before the Latin; Jerusalem before Antioch, and Antioch with others before Rome. Wherefore that you should make Rome the Mother-Church over all others, which oweth to the Greek Church no less than All that she hath, is in true apprehension a wonderful Imposture.   

The fifth Instance of Mother-hood, before Rome, is in the Britain Church. SECT. 9  
YOur Church is in the next place to be provoked and convinced by a remote Nation of Britain, which, by your own accounts, received the Gospel (Cardinal 
r Anno Christi 35. & Anno Tiberij Imp. 19 Comitem fuisse eiusdem discriminis josephum ab Arimathea nobilem Decurionem, quem tradunt ex Gallia in Britanniam navigâsse, illicque post praedicatum Euangelium diem clausisse extremum. Baronius An. 35. num. 5. Addit in Marg. Manuscript hist. Angl. quae habetur in Bibliotheca Vaticana. Anno Christi. 39 & primo Anno Ca●j Ecclesiam Antiochenam à Petro institutam, eundem septem Annis eidem praefuisse, quousque se, Rom. Ecclesiam erigens una cum persona omne summi Pontificij jus in eam transtulit. Baron. Anno 39 num. 23.  Baronius, and your jesuit 
s Interea glaciali frigore rigent Insulae, tempore, ut scimus, summo Tiberij Caesaris radios suos primus indulget, id est, fua praecepta Christus; quae licet ab Incolis tepide suscepta sunt, apud quosdam tamen integrè, etc. Gildas in Epist. & Polyd. Virgil. Hist. Angl. lib. 1. Quibus assentitur Suarez jes. lib. 1. cap. 1. con. Ang. Eccles. error. Britanniam ab initio orti Euangelij Christianam recepisse religionem etc. & Covarruvias more largely. Venerat olim in Britanian, quae nunc Anglia est, joseph ille ab Arimathaea civitate oriundus, atque in eo loco tàm ipse, quam eius socij cum de Euangelio praedicarent, dogma Christi sedulò docerent, multi per haec ad veram pietatem traducti salutiferáque fruge imbuti baptizati sunt. Isti deinde cum à rege Arvirago parum terrae ad habitandum proximè Welliam Op. accepissent, ibi novae rel●gionis prima jecerunt fundamenta.— Haec pietatis in Britannia extitere primordia, quam deinde Lucius Rex pro●e extinctam mirabiliter adauxit. Covarrum vias Episc. in Praefat. ad Philipp. Hispan. Regem ante lit. Quaest Practic. Also, Bozius de signis Ecclesiae lib. 4. cap. 1. Ex Papyrio Massonio lib. 2. de vita Caroli Simplicis, Et Polydoro Virg. lib. 2. Hist. Anglorum.  Suarez, acknowledging thus much out of most ancient Records) By the preaching of joseph of Arimathea, in the 35 year of Christ, two years before Peter did found the Church of Antioch, where he was seated seven years before he founded the Church of Rome. That is to say, in Britain was planted a Church nine years before Rome, and is hereby so much her elder Sister.  

CHALLENGE.  
THus much being granted by the most zealous Advocates for your Roman Church, give us leave to reason the matter with you in few words. You still defend that the Church of Rome is the Mother-Church of all other Churches of Christ, and that not as a Case of probability, but as an Article of Faith: nor this in any implicit belief, but such, without which none can be saved: nor yet in the ordinary manner of Profession, but (by your Priests and Eccleisastics) under the Form of an oath. Ought you not therefore to have stood upon infallible principles, for the making good of this Conclusion, than which you have not any one more vulgar, pressing, and binding, among all the Tenants in your Roman Church? And yet behold an opinion of Peter's Ordaining the other Apostles Bishops, impugned by your own most judicious Divines, and this grounded upon a bastard Epistle of Anacletus. Next, that the inference from the same opinion is a Consequence, which must prove the Sister Rome to have begotten her Sisters (or rather indeed her Mothers and Aunts) namely the Churches of Jerusalem, Caesarea, Antioch, whole Greece, together with our Isle of Britain. And all this against the confessed evidence of Scripture, and the express testimony of Reverend Antiquity, which attributed that Mother-hood to the forenamed Churches, before Rome. Wherefore we can do no less than hiss at your illogicall Consequences; blush at the impudence of your Advocates; abhor the perjury of your Priests, Jesuits, and all Eccleisastics; and pity the miserable thraldom of your Professors, who are kept hood-wincked in the belief of so Imposterous, Schismatical, and Damnable an Article: by which all the Churches, begot by the preaching of Saint Peter, and all the other Apostles in the compass of seven years, before the begetting of Rome, must be judged Damned for not believing the Roman Church (as you teach) to have been the Catholic Mother-Church, without which Faith there is no salvation. Thus much in respect of the Time, BEFORE Rome was a Church.     

CHAP. IU. Of the Time about when the Church of Rome had her Foundation: Arguing from the Faith of three Apostles, Saint Peter, S. Paul, and S. john; and of the Apostolical Churches in their days.  

SECT. I.  
THese three Apostles! than whom what witnesses can be more competent in this case? We appeal to yourselves. 
a Pontifices Romani tàm Petrum quam Paulum Praedecessorem & Parentem suum agnoscunt, siquidem uterque Apostolus Rom. Ecclesiam fundavit & gubernavit, ut praeter alios testatur Irenaeus. l. 3. cap. 3. Sic Bellar. l. 1. de Rom. Pont cap. 27. §. Tamen.  The Popes of Rome (say you) acknowledge both Peter and Paul for their Predecessors, because both of them did found and govern the Roman Church. And as for Saint john, his long continuance in the Church Militant will Minister some matter of resolution herein.   

I. That Saint Peter, the conceived founder of the Church of Rome, was not of the now Roman Faith, concerning the Article of the Catholic Roman Church. SECT. 2.  
WE (not to interrupt you, by questioning the truth of Saint Peter's residence in that See, as Bishop thereof) do punctually inquire whether it entered into his Faith to Believe the same Roman Church to be The Catholic Church without which there is no salvation: nothing doubting, but that you will think that He, of all others, would have plainly unfolded thus much, whom your Popes assume to have been the Founder of that Church, together with Saint Paul. And because all the pretended Sovereignty of the Roman Mother-Church is (according to 
* See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 2. & 3. etc.  your faith) derived from the supreme Fatherhood of your Roman Pope, and this is as originally descended from the transcendent ordinary Pastorship of S. Peter over all the other Apostles; we begin to inquire into the faith of S. Peter.  
Whatsoever Prerogative Saint Peter might challenge over all the other Apostles, must appear either by some promise made singularly to him by Christ, or else by some practice of Saint Peter himself, in the exercise and execution of such his jurisdiction. The due examination of both these would easily clear the Cause.   

That the Faith of Saint Peter did not conceive any Monarchical or supreme jurisdiction promised unto himself by Christ, in the most pretended speech of Christ, saying, Matth. 16. Upon this Rock will I build my Church. SECT. 3.  
THis, this Scripture, & in it the word, ROCK, you have still objected, as the rock and fortress of your now Roman Faith, concerning the Article of your Roman Catholic Church: because 
b Ex hoc loco probatur Monarchia Petri, etc. Bellar. l. 1. de Pont. c. 10. initio. Greg. de Valent. Analys. l. 7. c. 2. Maldon. Jes. in eum locum.  From hence (say your Jesuits) is proved that Monarchy of S. Peter. Insomuch as that when Luther, Caluine, and others adventured to expound this of Christ, and Faith in him, as the Son of God; your two grand Cardinals oppose, the One his own passion, calling it an 
c Per Petram Petrum— Hanc sententiam Novatores destruere volentes, eò amentiae provecti sunt, ut dicere non erubescant, eam non intelligendam esse de Petro, sed de Christo. Baron. Anno 33. nu. 21.  Impudent madness in Protestants to expound the Rock to signify Christ: The other obtrudeth the Consent of your own School, saying, 
d Communis Catholicorum sententia est, Petram esse Petrum, id est, illam personam, non ut est particularis, sed ut est Pastor Ecclesiae. Bellar. ibid. §. De prima.  That by Rock, is meant Peter, it is the Common opinion of all Catholics. An Exposition approved by your Bishop, and that not without some insultation, saying, 
e Adsis tu, Luthere, adversus vos stat veritas invicta, quae triumphabit, per Petram Petrum intelligi apertissimè constat. Roffens. Episcopus Art. 25. con. Luth.  In this, Truth triumpheth: as if it were as clear as the Sun, which Sunshine (as some call it) we Protestant's (alas our blindness!) cannot discern, but rather judge that it hath been, and is mistaken by you for Moonshine; through some defect in your faculties or instruments of sight. A large Library (I suppose) would scarce contain the books that have been written upon this Text, whereas the brief of all, that need be said, may far more easily than Homer's Iliads, be comprised within the shell of a walnut.   

The Protestants Exposition upon this Scripture avouched by many excellent Witnesses in the Roman Church; yea even by the Popes themselves. SECT. 4.  
Our Exposition hath ever been to understand that, by ROCK, is meant the Confession of Peter, when he said of the Godhead of Christ, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God; and consequently signified (by a metonymy) Christ himself. Where, we mean not the Confession of Peter in Concreto, as you would have it understood, 
f 
Qui dicit Confessionem fidei à Petro prolatam esse, Petram non absolutè eam intelligunt, sed cum relatione ad Petrum confitentem. Bellar. de Pont. l. 1. cap. 10. Valent. Anal. l. 7. c. 2. §. Vt autem. Stapleton. Cont. 2. l. 6. cap. 2. Maldon. in Matth. 16.  
Hilar. l. 6. de Trinit. Chrysost. hom. 55. in Mat. 16. Cyril. Alex. dial 4. de Trin. Author in Epist. ad Gal. c. 4. qui Ambrosio tribuitur. Aug. in joh. 27. Maldon. Jes. in hunc locum.   With relation unto Peter: but as the said Confession of the Godhead of Christ may be the Confession of every Christian, to which truth many of your own Authors will bear witness.  
To which purpose we allege, among your Preachers, Ferus saying; 
g Super Confessionem,— non super Petrum, aut quemuis alium hominem. Ferus l. 3. Comment. in Mat. 16. p. 24.  Upon this Rock,] That is, the Confession of Peter, and not upon Peter. Among your Glossers, the Roman Gloss itself, saying, 
h Super illo Articulo fidei: ita super se Dominus fundavit Ecclesiam. Glossa decret. part. 1. dist. 19 in Ca Ita Dominus noster.  That is, upon the Article than Confessed, concerning Christ: and so our Lord Christ built it upon himself. Among your Friars, Lyranus; 
i Supra Christum. Lyranus in Matth. 16.  Upon the Rock, Christ. Among your Jesuits, Pererius. 
k Christus est Petra, supra quam fundata est Ecclesia. Pererius jes. Com. in Dan. lib. 2. super illa verba; Abscissus est lapis, etc. Vbi citatur locus, Mat. 16.  Christ is the Rock, upon which the Church is builded. Among your Bishops, Abulensis; 
l Non Petrus, sed, ut melius alij, Christus▪ imò super Confessionem ipsam, etc. Abulensis in Matth. 16. Petrus defecit à fide. Idem quast. 67.  Not upon Peter, but upon his Confession; and he speaketh absolutely of the Confession itself, in Abstracto, without relation to Peter, and giveth this reason, because after this Confession thus made, Peter himself failed in his faith, by denying his Lord. Among your Cardinals, 
m Petra, seu fundamentum Christus. Hugo. Card. i● Matth. 16.  Hugo, and 
n Per Petram intelligimus Christum, quem confessus est Petrus. Cusan. Card. l. 2. Concord. Cath.  Cusanus; By the Rock is signified Christ. Among your Counsels, the last Council of Trent, speaking of the Nicene Christian Creed, and pointing in the margin at this Text, it saith, that 
o Symbolum illud (nempè Nicaenum) fundamentum unicum, contra quod (in marg. designat ipsiss. locum Mat. 16.) Portae inferi non praevalebunt. Declarat. Conc. Trid. Sess. 3. Decret. de Symbolo fidei.  It is the foundation, against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. Therefore faith in Christ, in Abstracto is the foundation, for there is in that Creed no mention of Peter. Lastly and chiefly among your Popes (for now we are climbed up to the pinnacle of your Temple) no fewer than 
p Per Petram intellexerunt confessionem Petri— apud quosdam Pontifices Leo primus, Agatho, Nicolaus primus, Adrianus primus in suis Decret. Stapletonus de doctrine. Princip. Controu. 2. lib. 6. cap. 2.  Four, Leo the first, Agatho the first, Nicolaüs the first, and Adrian the first, all of them Firsts, and therefore more ancient than all others of their names, have (as yourselves witness) expounded the Rock to mean the Confession of Saint Peter, in acknowledging Christ to be the Son of God.  

I. CHALLENGE, from the judgements of the forecited Authors.  
IN these former Allegations although most of the Testimonies themselves do sufficiently show, that (by ROCK) is meant the Confession delivered by Saint Peter, really in itself, and not personally, as it had Relation to him; yet for the better clearing of your judgements, you may take these Confirmations. I None will deny but that there was meant in Peter's Confession, that matter which he confessed: but Peter confessed not himself, but Christ, saying, Thou art the Son of the living God. Ergo, his Confession had Relation to Christ, and not to himself. II. You grant, that Saint Peter confessed no more than that which he knew, 
q Dicendum est, caeteros Apostolos idem credidisse quod Petrus; & si sigillatim eodem voto peteret Christus, idem responderent. Abulens. Explic. cap. 16. Matth. q. 57 p. 286. Pergit idem Author, & probat 1. Quia Christus interrogabat omnes [Quid vos? etc.] 2. Quia dicitur, Mar. 8. & Luc. 9 Quod Christus comminatus Discipulis, ne cui dicerent se esse Christum. Et paulò ante.— Praevenit alios Petrus, & ut os totius collegij respondit. Cyril. Tes●e Abulens. Episc. ibidem.  The other Disciples to have believed, before he spoke; because Christ's question being general, What say ye? He answered, as the mouth of the rest. True, (as may fully appear in our 
* Mr. Isaac Casaubon hath exactly proved this, Exercit. 14. & 15. in Baron. from the Authors following, viz. Cassian. de Incarnate. l. 3. Idem habuit eius responsio, quod habet fides omnium. Ambros. Petrus prae coeteris, imò pro coeteris respondet. Aug. Vnus pro multis, unitas in multis. Chrysost. Petrus sermonem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hier. Petrus erat lingua omnium. Cyril. in joh. lib. 4. Responsionem illi Christus committebat, qui ordine maior. Glossae ordinariae Author, Petrus, tanquàm Principalis inter alios, pro aliis dat responsum. Dionys. Richel, & Carthus. Petrus osomnium. Sic jansenius. Et confirmatur ex ipsius Petri testimonio, qui Joh. 6. ver. 69. ante hanc Confessionem, de communi omnium fide fassus est, dicens, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Credimus & cognoscimus Te esse Christum silium Dei.  Margin.) But the Apostles, before he spoke, believed Christ confessed, and not Peter confessing.  
III. ROCK is that Confession, whereupon Christ saith he will build his Church, and members thereof: but whosoever shall truly believe that which S. Peter confessed, to wit, Christ the Son of the living God, is accordingly built upon the Rock, albeit he should never have heard so much as the name of Peter. Ergo, the Confession rightly understood had Relation to Christ, and not to the person of Saint Peter. IV. The thing, which Christ spoke of, was called the ROCK, (as Fathers, Authors, and Professors on all sides do witness,) to signify that which is Immoveable, Impreinable, and Eternal; such as is Christ, and his Truth. But Peter found his Confession (as it proceeded from himself) to be movable, and shaken, at one time thrice denying this Confession of his Lord, when as also he knew himself to be mortal: Ergo, he did not think this Confession, which Christ calleth the Rock, to have Relation to himself, but only to Christ. So impossible it is, that Saint Peter, in his Confession, should apprehend the ground of your now Roman Faith. Whence you cannot but observe, with what modesty your forecited Advocates, Baronius, Bellarmine, and Roffensis could object unto Protestants Impudency, Singularity, and Blindness, for defending an Exposition of the word, ROCK, so copiously and evidently warranted by all sorts of Witnesses, even within the Romish Church itself.   

II. CHALLENGE: From the judgement of the ancient Fathers.  
IN venerable Antiquity we find some Father's distinguishing between Petra the Rock, and Peter; as plainly as between 
r Petrus à Petra, ut Christianus à Christo. Aug. de verbis Domini secundum Matth. Serm. 13. Ambros. Serm. 47. Hieron. & alij multi; Petrus nominatus à Petra.  Christ and a Christian: Some as directly noting Christ to be the Rock, as Saint john did ever point him out to be The Lamb of God, where they say, 
s Petra est Christus. Ambros. in Luc. c. 9 Hieron ad Eustoch. & in Isaiam. 28. Aug. Tract. 124 in joh. Ans●lmus in Matth. Beda, & Alij. Non super Petrum, sed super Christum. Chrysost. Serm. de Pentecost. Non super te, Petre. Aug. Ser. 13. de verbis Domini, init. Petra, quam confessus est Petrus.  This Rock was Christ: Some, that Peter made his Confession, 
* Cyril. See above. at q.  As the mouth of the other Disciples: And that 
t una haec fidei Petra. Petriore confessa, [Tues filius Dei. Hilar. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan. Haer. 59 & Chrysost. hom. 55. in Matth Greg Nissen in Test. ca ult. Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Ambros. in ca 2. ad Ephes.  The Faith confessed was the Rock: Some by way of Diminution, 
u Quod si super unum Petrum, quid de johanne? an adversus unum Petrum non praevaliturae portae Inferorum? Orig. in Mat. 16. Tract. 1.  Not Peter alone, more than others: Some exclusively, 
x Non me supet te, Petre, sed te super me. Aug. de verbis Domini Serm. 13. Non dixit Christus, super hunc Petrum. Chrysost. Serm. de Pentecost. Petra, à qua Petrus sortitus est nomen. Hier. in Matt. c. 7.  Not Peter. And though Some (for we may not dissemble thus much) do expound, by Rock, Peter; yet do they mean either a Primacy of Order, or Honour in Peter; not of authority, and dominion: or else a priority of Confession, because he uttered the words first. And so all the Apostles and Prophets are called Foundations: by which is not meant their persons or dominions, but their doctrines. Else show us, where ever any Prophet had any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Church of the jews.  
And whereas you are urgent in objecting the Testimony of Saint 
y Brereley August. Relig. Eligat Lector. &c August.  Augustine, as though he would make the Case indifferent, yet are you taught by your own Bishop, that 
z Augustin. Retract. Tom. 1. lib. 1. c. 21. ait, Harum duarum sententiarum, quae sit probabilior, eligat Lector. Hoc tamen dicit Augustinus (saith Abulensis) ut non videatur supra contradicere, quasi utraque sit sustentabilis sententia: & tamen ipse secundam tenet, quod patet ex propositis Verbis eius; Nam primam dicit se tenuisse in quodam loco, secundam autem dicit se saepissime posuisse; & hic istam tenet ipse; & est verior. Abulens. in Mat. 16. qu. 67.  Augustine, in that place, rather held that by Rock was meant Christ. Albeit that, to make this Exposition indifferent, which you lay down as a ground of your Faith, would be the utter destruction of your own Cause: For Faith must stand upon Infallibility, and not upon an Indifferency of Choosing whether. So inconsiderate and precipitant was that your Author, in his Objection.  
Now whatsoever may seem to be wanting in this second Challenge, it is plentifully supplied by One, whose judgement ought to be as acceptable, as his learning was admirable. Cast your eye on the 
* Jsaac Casaub. Exercitat. upon Baron. observeth 3. Expositions of the word Rock in the Fathers. The 1. making Christ the Rock, and distinguishing Petrum, à Petra, as a derivative from the Primative, as Christianus à Christo. Petrum à Petra denominatum crediderunt Aug. Ambros. Euseb. Emissen. & alij. Casaub. Exercit. 13. Again. Ambrose & Augustinus; Vt à Christo Christianus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. in Mat. Petra unusquisque imitator Christi. Exercit. 15. And, by an elegant Simile, he showeth how Christ might have meant himself; Vt si Leo Imperator diceret Leoni militi, Tu es Leo, & in hoc Leone sita est spes omnis praemij. The 2 Exposition, by Rock to signify the Confession of Saint Peter, or Christ confessed, he opposeth against Baronius, who imputeth impudent madness to Protestants for so expounding it. Sic (saith Casaub.) ex Catholicorum albo expungendi sunt Ambros. Chrysost. Aug. Basil. Seleusiens'. Theodorit. Theophyl. Lyranus, & Glossae ordinariae Author Suidas. The 3. Exposition. Per Petram intelligunt Petrum.— Alij per plusquam puerilem errorem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod est caput; ut Optatus & Innocent. 3. Papa. lib. 1. myster. c. 8. Contra ipsum Euangelistam johannem, [Cephas, cuius est interpretatio Petrus, joh. 1.43.] Alij ita tamen, ut per Petram intelligerent aliquam Petrae proprietatem, quatenus symbolum est fortitudinis & soliditatis in fide, Ambros. Cyprian. Sed nullus omnium propter Dominium. Sic Baronius; Latinè dicendum, Tu es Petra, & super hanc Petram. Mirâ licentiâ factum Tridenti authenticum corrigit. Haec Casaubonus loc. supra citas.  Margin, where you shall perceive how many Fathers Interpreted the ROCK to signify either Christ confessed by Peter, or else the Confession of Peter: so that your Cardinal, censuring the interpretation of Protestants not to be the Exposition of Catholics, doth in effect thereby wipe out of the number of Catholics, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Augustine, and diverse other ancient Fathers. Next, that the Expounding, by Rock, Peter doth nothing advantage the Romish Conclusion, which is from Rock, to infer Saint Peter's Monarchy and absolute jurisdiction over all other Apostles: because Rock can be but a Symbol or sign of such properties as are belonging to a Rock, as Solidity and Vnmovablenesse in the faith, but not of Dominion. Finally, he noteth in your Cardinal a bold licentiousness, who being a Romanist (to make Saint Peter the Rock) durst correct the Vulgar Translation, which hath been pronounced Authentical by the Council of Trent.   

III. CHALLENGE.  
BY this time you see, that your faith of Peter's Monarchy, which you bear the world in hand to be infallibly built upon the word ROCK, mentioned by Christ unto Peter, is according to the judgement of the Fathers, Confessions of your own Divines, and irresistible demonstrations of truth itself merely built upon the sands. How then shall any conscience of man believe you in your Expositions of Scripture, seeing you to be so egregiously overtaken in that, which you, in all your disputes concerning this Cause, object as if not the sole, yet the most solid Rock of your belief?  
As for any other place of Scripture, which can be alleged in this Cause, it were altogether superfluous to discuss in this place; both because the evidence, which you have received from this one Text, may sufficiently warn you, not to presume of the learning and judgement, whereof your grand-Leadears make such boasts; as also because all other Objections have been fully satisfied 
* Videat Lecto● Apologiae nostrae partem secundam.  elsewhere. Where the acknowledgement of Cardinal Cusanus, sometimes the Pope's Legate, excellently studied in the Fathers, and primarily exercised in the Council of Basil, is made good; who, in debating the question of the Pope's jurisdiction, with the assent of that Council, did publicly aver that 
a Sed scimus quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis accepit, aliis Apostolis, etc. Nam. etc. Cusan. Card. Concord. Cathol. l. 2. cap. 13.  Peter received from Christ no greater authority than did the other Apostles: nothing was said to him, which was not spoken to them. He proceedeth further, particularly insisting upon the objected Scriptures, and concludeth that the other Apostles were equally called Stones; had equally the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven delivered unto them; equally received the charge of teaching, that is, Feeding of the whole flock of Christ. As yet then you have no foundation for your pretended Monarchy of Peter, by any promise of Christ made unto him. In the next place we are to examine whether any ground appear thereof by any Monarchical or juridical Act of Saint Peter, through out the whole course of his Apostleship, over all, or any one of the other Apostles.    

II. That Saint Peter never exercised any Act of jurisdiction, as properly belonging to himself over the other Apostles, whereby to testify that he had any Dominion over them, as the Monarch and Head of the Catholic Church. SECT. 5.  
TOuching Saint Peter's practice and conversation among the other Apostles; we suppose that the testimony of your Salmeron (one of the first in the foundation of the Society of Jesuits, and throughout all his Volumes, which are sixteen, upon all occasions everywhere a zealous Proctor, for the proving and promoting of Saint Peter's Monarchy) may as well satisfy yourselves, as it doth us. He therefore, in answer to the Question, why the pretended Monarchy of Saint Peter is not demonstrable by any public Act of Peter? telleth us (and his words are worthy of observation) that 
b Petrus in Pastoratu suo, in quo erat Coryphaeus & judex aliorum, ità se gessit, ut videretur quodammodò Pastoratum negligere; & cum caeteris Apostolis tanquam frat●em & aequalem se gerere elegit, non autem ut maiorem, & ipsorum caput & Rectorem.— Nam si Petrus ut Rom. Pontifex, & ipse Vicarius Christi scripsisset, videretur in suis scriptis ius Ecclesiasticum, seu, quod idem est, Pontificium dictâsse potius quam Divinum. Salmeron jes. in. 1 Pet. 1. Disp. 1. Tom. 16.  Peter, although he were Head and judge over the other Apostles, yet he so behaved himself among them, that he might seem, in a manner, to have neglected his Pastorship, by carrying himself as a Brother and Equal with them; and not as either Head, or Rector over them. So he. And he giveth you a Reason hereof, for If Peter (saith he) had written as a Pope, then might he be thought to have published rather Pontifical, than Divine Laws, etc. Which is no more in effect, but that which a French Lawyer hath said before him; namely, that 
c Franciscus Duaren. de Ecclesiae Minist. & Benefic. lib. 3. cap. 2.  In the Apostles time, as often as any was ordained Bishop or Deacon, or any thing was to be decreed, which appertained to the Church, Peter never took that upon himself, but permitted it to the whole Church. So he.  
How then shall any imagine, that you can truly object any one act of Peter, which might but probably prove his Dominion and jurisdiction over the other Apostles, as the Pope challengeth to do over all other Bishops, seeing that you are constrained to grant, that he made himself Equal with them so far, as that he might seem in a sort to have neglected his Pastorship. Although, indeed, this could not Saint Peter do, without exceeding injury to his place and Government (if he had any such) because it belongeth to every one, in his degree, to maintain and magnify the dignity of his Ministry; as Saint Paul teacheth saying, 
* Rom. 9.13.  I will magnify my office, inasmuch as I am Doctor of the Gentiles. Upon which Text Pope Gregory collecteth a general lesson, for the defence of his own jurisdiction. 
d Ità docet Apostolus humilitatem tenere in ment, ut tamen ordinis nostri dignitatem seruemus in honore. Greg. l. 4. Epist. 36. initio.  The Apostle (saith he) teacheth us so to carry humility in our heart, that we do keep and preserve the dignity of that order, whereunto we are called. So he.  

CHALLENGE.  
WHat shall we say then? will you have us believe that Peter held his whole Monarchy (for so you call it) which he had over the Apostles for the space of fifteen years, without any expression of any of those Notes of Catholic jurisdiction, which you account to be proper unto Papal Monarchy over all Bishops and Pastors? As for Example: Not the 
e Durand. Rational. l. 3. cap. 13.  Crown upon his head, to show his Empire: nor the Mitre, to show his Pastoral Dominion over the other Apostles: No Legate à latere, to carry his Mandates: no person admitted (a pride which Saint Peter 
* In his Answer to the Centurion. Acts 10. Commended by Polydore Virg. Jnuent. l. 4. c. 13. impress. Lugdun. 1558. Yet by the Pope exacted as proper to himself. Solius Papae pedes Principes omnes exosculantur. Lorin. jes. in Act. 10. & Suar. de trip. virt. disp. 10. §. 2.  abhorred) to kiss his feet: No one Canon of directing them: No Claim, or yet Admittance of any Appeal from them: No Reservation of any great Case, as by special Prerogative proper to himself, such as you attribute to the Pope; 
f These Appeals and Reservations are recorded as proper to the Pope by Azorius jes. Inst. Moral. part. 2. lib 4. cap 35.  to wit, of Admitting any out of the Diocese of another; of Absolving those that are Excommunicate by another; of Canonising Saints; of Confirming Synods; of Granting plenary Indulgences; of Pardoning Simony, and almost an hundred the like sins? Teach us this, when you can persuade yourselves that there ever was Temporal Monarch, diligent in the Execution of his office, that would never be distinguished from his Nobles either by his Guard, or Coin, or Habit, or Commands, or public Edicts and Constitutions, or at least by some one Note and Character of Imperial eminency and Authority.  
I only add, making bold to ask you a Question. If that the Addition of the word, ROMAN, to the article of the Catholic Church, be so necessary for the directing of the faith of Christians, to the acknowledgement of the Seat of Saint Peter at Rome, as the infallible ground of their faith, and centre of their Salvation, why within the whole seven years, during which time (as 
* See above Chap. 3. Sect. 9  you say) Saint Peter had his Seat at Antioch, before it was translated to Rome, cannot you find in all Antiquity the Addition of the word ANTIOCHIAN, and the like Article of The Antiochian Catholic Church, without union and subjection whereunto there is no salvation? far be it from us to think, that the blessed Apostle Saint Peter (who was caught of our Lord, that The Catholic Church, wheresoever for Place, or whensoever for Time, was built upon the Rock of the Confession of Christ the Son of God) should ever have entertained such a fancy of confining the supreme residence of God's infallible spirit to any one singular Place. Thus much of Saint Peter himself. We proceed to the Pope.    

That Saint Peter never believed the Privileges, which he received from Christ, by the objected Scriptures, to be derived from himself, and conferred upon any Pope. SECT. 6.  
Never had we heard you allege any of these Scriptures, to make Peter such a Rock, as must signify a predominancy over all other Apostles, except you had sought out of that Rock to carve a Pope, who should likewise have a transcendent power over all other Bishops. But seeing that (as hath been proved) the primitive Peter had no such Prerogative, surely your derivative Peter must needs prove a Nullity. But to the point.  

The first Scripture, Luke 22.  
CHRIST said, indeed, directly to S. Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy Faith fail not, wherefore thou being converted, strengthen thy Brethren. Which we confess, doth signify as great a privilege granted to S. Peter, as any mortal man can desire to enjoy, namely an infalllible assurance of saving grace in this world, and of salvation itself after his departure out of this life. Matter (we say) of Salvation, nothing of Dominion; and that also proper to the primitive person of Saint Peter, but making nothing for any person derivative, and Successor of his, be he Pope, or whosoever. If you could prove this, we should need no more for our satisfaction. 
g Duo privilegia, etc. Bellar. lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 3. §. Est igitur.— Primum fortasse non manavit, etc.— Alterun. si●e dubio. Ibi●.  Christ (saith your Cardinal) obtained two Privileges for S. Peter, in promising that his Faith should not fail; and that he should never depart from the true Faith, in himself: the second, that he should not teach others any thing contrary to the true Faith. Thus of Saint Peter. How can you derive any part of this from Saint Peter to the Pope? The first of these (saith he) peradventure doth not; but the second without all doubt redoundeth to his Successors. So he. Which is so undoubtedly an unconscionable Answer, that it is subject to a threefold Confutation: the first is by retorting the Cardinal's own Assertion upon himself: for whereas your Parisian Doctors will have Peter, in his answer to Crist, to have been the figure of the Church of Christ, and not the sole Governor thereof himself, the same your Cardinal will needs confute that Gloss in this manner. 
h Quià Dominus unam tantùm personam de signa, vit.— &c, Bellar ibid. §. Quae Expositio.  Because Christ (saith he) did express one singular person, saying, Simon, Simon, adding the pronoun of the second person, in these words, I have prayed for [THEE] that [THY] Faith fail not; and therefore [THOU] being converted, strengthen [THY] Brethren: Surely if he had spoken of the whole Church, he would have said, I have prayed for YOU, that YOUR Faith fail not. So he. Which is a true and sound Collection indeed, and by the Law of Retorsion confirmeth our defence, that this Scripture doth not intend any other Prerogative, than that which was only proper to that, Thou Simon, and I have prayed for Thee, that is, for Peter himself. But, the now Pope (you know) is not Simon, but Clemens, or Vrbane, or the like: and Christ his prayer was for one person, and not for a whole body of Successors, for than it should have been said for You, or for Thee, and Thine. Nor hath every Pope a Privilege (as you All grant) that falling into Temptation, he must rise again.  
Our second Confutation is taken from the nature of a Privilege: 
i Privilegiú personale singular, quod individuae personae individuò tantùm conceditur, expresso ejus nomine— & hoc in iure absolutè vocatur personale.— tale non transgreditur personam. Salas de leg. qu. 9●. Tract. 14. §. 2. disp. 17. Cum persona extinguitur. Ibidem.  A personal and singular Privilege (saith your jesuit, is that which is granted unto an Individual person, with expression of his name; and this Privilege doth not extend to any other, but dieth with the person to whom it is granted. So he. The Case than is plain. You therefore must first raise up Saint Peter from death, and place him again in the Roman Chair, before you can challenge the Privilege of Peter.  
Our third Confutation ariseth from the Law of true exposition. The Privilege, granted unto Saint Peter, whatsoever it was, delivered it was in one tenure of words, namely, that his Faith fail not, without any note of distinction: and it is the Law of all Laws, Non distinguendum, ubi lex non distinguit. So that whereas you ascribe two Privileges conferred upon Saint Peter, by the words of Christ, one not to err from the Faith, which was In himself, as a private Doctor: the other not to err publicly, to seduce Others, you are necessarily chargeable either to claim both these Privileges, in the behalf of your Popes, or else to confess that he hath no more interest in the second (that is, not to err, as Pope, in his public Conclusions, to the seducing of Others) than he hath in the first, which is, as a private Doctor, not to err in himself: the Cardinal himself confessing, that 
k Conueniunt omnes Catholici— in haec, quòd Pontifex, ut privatus Doctor, possit errare etiam in quaestionibus juris universalibus tam fidei quam morum, idque ex ignorantia, ut aliis Doctoribus interdum accidit. Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. c. 2. §. His notatis.  The Pope, as a private Doctor, may err in Questions concerning as well Faith as manners, as well as other Doctors; and that this hath sometime happened to your Pope. And this you call an opinion, wherein All Catholics do consent. And therefore your jesuit doth reprove those, who write against this 
l Papam quemlibet— ut privatam personam, errare posse, & à fide deficere; etsi novi Scriptores aliud defendere tentaverint, praeter communem sensum Doctorum, etc. Salmeron jes. Com. in Gal. 2. disp. 24. §. Excusabilius. pag. 107.  Common Consent.   

CHALLENGE.  
ONe would marvel that learned men, for the defence of a perjurious Paradox of the Pope's Primacy, as The Catholic Bishop; and the Sovereignty and Infallibility of his See, as the Catholic Church; should entangle themselves in so gross assertions, as are so easily confuted by the Common Laws of the exposition of Scriptures, by the nature of a Privilege, and by their own palpable Contradictions: but that it is the wisdom of God to prove the wisdom of a man, against God, to be no better than errant folly.    

The Second Scripture objected, for the Derivative Primacy and jurisdiction of the Pope, from Saint Peter, is Matth. 16. SECT. 7.  
WE have heard of this Text already, as it concerneth Peter himself, when Christ said unto him [Blessed art thou Simon.— Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.] Wherein, again, we see Peter, but where shall we see the Pope? The Rhemists by their Marginal note upon this Text, as it were by a forefinger, point him out unto us, willing us to observe that this Text 
* Rhemists upon the place.  Is the Gospel upon the Creation and Coronation of the Pope, and on the Anniversary thereof. So they. As though it were as true as the Gospel, that what was here spoken to Peter doth accordingly belong to the Pope, by the right of Succession. Which being the same error, that was committed in your expounding of the former Scripture, is now refelled by the same Confutations: but especially by your own exposition upon this place, wherein (as your Bishop truly commenteth) 
m Petrus Beatus dicitur ex certitudine beatitudinis futurae, per revelationem, de qua dubitare non poterat. Et hoc fuit magnum donum. Abulens. Episc. in Matth. 16.  There was granted to Saint Peter an unfallible certainty of his souls eternal blessedness, which is an excellent Privilege. So he. Which also the other words do more Emphatically import, where Christ saith that The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Where, by gates of hell, are meant (you know) 
n Per Portas Inferorum, intelligitur absque omni restrictione omnis Diaboli potentia, sive per haereses, vel per alia vitia, vel per persecutiones. Maldon. jes. in Matth. 16.  Temptations of Satan, Vices, Heresies, and Persecutions. So you.  

CHALLENGE.  
SO than it should have concerned your Doctors, if they had been men of either Faith or Front, to have made good the jurisdiction of your Popes derivatively from Saint Peter, and not thus to have been void of both conscience and modesty, in violating the sacred Writ. For say (we pray you) are all your Popes, by virtue of their Succession from Saint Peter, so blessed now in their hopes, as to be infallibly persuaded that no Temptation of Satan shall prevail against their persons? But that they shall be blessed everlastingly? Will you have us to be thus persuaded of those, who either have been, or may be desperately wicked in their lives, Heretics, Apostates, Atheists, & the damned limbs of Satan? Them, we say, of whom your Massonius witnesseth thus: 
o In Pontificibus nemo hodiè sanctitatem requisite: Optimi putantur, si vel levitèr boni sunt, vel minùs mali quam caeteri mortales esse soleant. Massonius de vitis Pont. in julio 3.  Now a days none requireth Sanctity in Popes, who are then held to be the best Popes, when either there is a little goodness in them, or else when they are not worse than other sorts of men are usually. Or of whom your Cardinal Baronius; 
p Intrusos fuisse in Cathedram Petri homines monstrosoes, vitâ turpissimos, moribus perditissimos. Baron. Anno Domini 897. nu. 4.  There have been intruded into Saint Peter's Throne monstrous and most beastly men, and of most desperate condition. Or of whom your Genebrard thus: 
q Per annos ferè 150. Pontifices circiter 50. à virtute Maiorum deficientes, Apotacticos, Apostaticosuè potius quam Apostolicos fuisse. Genebrar. Chron. Anno Christi 901. pag. 553.  For an hundred and fifty years' space have 50 Popes been, rather Apostatical than Apostolical. Or of whom Cardinal Bellarmine thus; 
r johannes 23. tamburlaine dissolutae vitae, ut vulgus hominum existimaret eum negare vitam aeternam. Bellar. lib. 4. de Pont. c. 14. §. Itaque iste.  Pope john the 23 was of so dissolute a life, that common people conceived, that he thought there was no life eternal. Or of whom your jesuit Costerus thus: 
s— Quia fieri potest ut Papa idola colat, & Diabolicis artibus operam navet. Coster. jes. Enchirid. de Summo Pont. cap. 3. §. Fatemur.  We confess it possible (saith he) that Popes may become Idolatrous, and give themselves to Diabolical arts. So they. We have not urged you with the proofs of Protestants, but with the plain Confessions of the most zealous Proctors and Advocates of the Roman Church. Thus much of the Faith of Saint Peter, who being joint-founder of the Church with S. Paul, may not be thought disjoined in belief from him: Of whom we are now to treat.    

That Saint Paul, the Cofounder of the Church of Rome with Saint Peter, was not of the now Roman Faith, either concerning the Fatherhood, or Mother-hood, which is now pretended, thereof. SECT. 8.  
Always you are to remember, that you have not attributed to the Church of Rome the title of Catholic and Universal Mother, further than that the Pope (as Catholic Father) is to be acknowledged the Successor unto S. Peter in the ordinary Pastorship and jurisdiction over the Catholic and Universal Church of Christ. Our Assertion is, that Saint Paul had no such Belief, concerning either the pretended Dominion of Peter, (and consequently of your Roman Pope) or of the Universal power of the Roman Church above all others: or yet of the absolute Continuance thereof in the faith of Christ.   

That Saint Paul believed not the supreme Pastorship of Saint Peter, above himself; proved by his comparing of S. Peter with himself. SECT. 9  
AT what time as Saint Paul was vexed with false Apostles, who (as Saint Hierome, 
a Hieron. Praef. in epist. ad Gal.— Pseudapostoli asserebant Petrum & jacobum & totas Iudaeae Ecclesias Euangelium Christi cum lege veteri miscuisse. Deinde Pauli authoritatem prae illis i●m nominatis Apostolis huiusmodi sermonibus elevare studebant; Non Paulus hic ferendus, nam hic Apostolorum discipulus, illi jesu Christi, etc. Ederus partit. Theol. p. 451. in Epist. ad Gal.  you know, commenteth) Affirmed, that Peter, james, and all the Churches of the jews did mingle the Ceremonial Law and Gospel together; and all to this end, that they might lessen and vilify the authority of S. Paul in respect of them, as though they had been the Disciples of Christ, and he the Disciple of the Apostles: Hereupon Saint Paul, who was otherwise the most humble among men, (in so much that he standing upon comparison, would be held the 
b 1. Cor. 15.  Greatest, but yet of sinners, and The least of all the Apostles:) notwithstanding, when it stood him upon to maintain his Calling, which he had from Christ, against all malicious Detractors, he professeth, saying, 
c Rom. 11.13.  In as much as I am an Apostle of the Gentiles [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] I magnify mine office. So that upon a compulsory comparison, provoked by the Calumniation of others, he esteemed it no arrogancy, but direct justice, to avouch his own worthiness, for the advancing of the work of his Ministry.  
A long time after the exercise of his Apostleship, he would not 
d Gal. 1.17.  Go to Jerusalem to Peter, or any of the Apostles, lest he might have seemed to have been authorized by them; yet three years after that he taketh a journey thither, 
e Jb. verse 18.  To see Peter; doubtless for honour sake, as one in order of Apostleship most eminent: but this he did voluntarily, in discretion and brotherly communion; and not in subjection, as the Context showeth. Fourteen years also after this, he maketh a second voyage to jerusalem, where he meeteth with Peter and others. What then? 
f Gal. 2.2.  I conferred, [or, communicated] unto them (saith he) that Gospel which I preached. 
g Aliud est confer, aliud discere. Inter conferentes aequalitas est, discens à docente minor, ait Hieron. Teste Salmeron jes. in hunc locum. Tanquàm cum Amicis & paribus. Aquinas in hunc locum.  It is one thing to confer (saith Saint Hierome) another thing to learn: for among them that confer there is Equality. We hear not, as yet, of any authority which he received either from Peter alone, or jointly together with the College of the other Apostles, or of any thing that might betoken his subjection: No, he utterly disclaimeth this; for, speaking of the Chiefest, he saith, 
h Gal. 2.6.  Those who seemed to be somewhat, in conference added nothing unto me. [NOTHING,] namely, 
i Nihil doctrinae, aut potestatis. Aquinas.  Neither concerning doctrine, nor authority, as very well saith Aquinas. In a word, 
k 2. Cor. 11.5.  I (saith Saint Paul) am not inferior unto the chief of the Apostles. What then obtained Paul of Peter, and of the other chief Apostles? Hear S. Paul himself; 
l Gal. 2.9.  They gave unto me the right hand of fellowship: which was only a testimony of Communion in one Profession and Apostleship; no imposition of subministration or subjection.  
Hitherto we have kept in the Negative, of his not inferiority; but Saint Paul doth further instance in the Affirmative, of his Equality: 
m Gal. 2.7.  They saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter. Where, to seek no further than your Rhemists Notes, 
n Rhemists upon this place.  It is plain by this place and others, that to them (that is, Peter and Paul) as the most renowned Apostles, the charge of all Nations was given, as divided into two parts, that is, jews and Gentiles. So they. Their Diocese therefore was divided, yet not exclusively, for the authority of the Apostles was 
o Go and teach all Nations. Mat. 2●. 19.  unlimited, and often did as well Peter (notwithstanding this division) preach to the Gentiles, as S. Paul to the jews; but yet differently, namely so, that the ordinary course of their Ministration was distinguished, Peter to the jews, and Paul to the Gentiles; which was of infinite extent larger than the other. In which respect Saint Chrysostome doth not stick to say, that 
p Cui omnis praedicatio, cui res orbis, mysteria cuncta, universaue dispensatio à Deo creditur, Chrysost. Hom. 18. in epist. ad Rom.  The Universal dispensation was committed to Saint Paul.  

I. CHALLENGE, from Reason.  
IN all this we see not in Saint Paul any acknowledgement of Subjection, or Substitution to Saint Peter, but a plain Plea of Equality: or else tell us, what Pope, since Gregory the first, would not hold it a Derogation from his Popedom to hear any Bishop in the Church stand in Contestation, and say that The Pope could add nothing to his authority; nor that he was any whit inferior to the chief of all the Bishops in Rome, among whom the Pope himself was one? What boldness, and indeed contumely would this be judged, not only to make many Chiefs with your Monarch; but also to account himself Nothing inferior to the Chief of them? Add hereunto his next Assumption, that he had as good and absolute right in his Diocese, as the Pope had in his. Your jesuit Azorius saith, that 
q Olim duo erant Imperatores, unus in Oriente, alter in Occidente summa potestate potiti: hâc ratione neuter ius habet in alterum, ità ut uterque in solidum 〈◊〉 esset: sic quoque utriusque potestas minuitur ex parte, nec unus alteri praeest. Azor. Jes. Tom. 2. l. 4. c. 12. §. Tribus modis.  When there were two Emperors, one in the East, the other in the West, both of them holding equal authority throughout the whole Empire, it could not be but the authority of the one must needs diminish the authority of the other in some part, and yet neither should be subject to the other. So he. And indeed it could not otherwise be. Never was there heard of Monarch (as you instile the Pope) in Imperio Diviso, that is, in an Empire divided, in an equality with any other. For Division and Equality is of more, whereas Monarchy can be but of one. So impossible it is, that Saint Paul should have been of the now Roman Faith, concerning Subjection to the Pastor of the Roman Church.   

II. CHALLENGE, from the Fathers.  
Much time need not be spent, in collecting the Testimonies of Antiquity, among whom Saint Ambrose saith, that 
r Paulus tempore, non dignitate minor. Ambros. in 2. Cor. cap. 12.  Paul was not less in dignity than Peter. Saint Maximus, that 
s Quis cui praeponatur incertum est admitti. Sanctus Maximus Sermone ult. de sanctis Petro & Paulo.  Whether Paul or Peter were to be preferred, it is uncertain. Chrysostome saith, 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (sc. Petro) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Galat. 1.18.  Paul (that I say no more) was equal to Peter: Saint Hierome; 
u [Tituli Apostolorum aequales,] Principes Ecclesiae. Hiero. in Psal. 44.  The titles of these two Apostles are equal, (saith he) they are Chief of the Church. S. Basil; 
x Columnae Ecclesiae, Basil. in Epist.  They are the Pillars of the Church. 
y Duo Christianorum Principes. Eucherius Lugdun. ut citatur à Casaub. Exercit. 16. in Baron. §. 145.  Eucherius; Peter and Paul, two Princes of the Christians. You will not (we presume) so much prejudice these Fathers, as to think that they could not discern between a Monarch (such as you held Saint Peter to have been over all the other Apostles) and a Subject; or so unjust, as to have thus equalled these Two, if they had believed All the Apostles to have been subject to the Dominion and jurisdiction of Saint Peter: much less could they have attributed to S. Paul Titles of so great eminence, as to instile him One, To whom was committed the administration of the whole Church: 
z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. Hom. 18. in Epist. ad Romanos.  and One 
a Paulus obtinuit totius Ecclesiae principatum. Greg. in 1. Reg. l. 4. c. ●. Et effectus est Caput nationum. Ibidem.  obeying the government of the Church Universal: and One made the Head of Nations.    

Saint Paul's Comparison of Others with S. Peter, against the pretended Primacy of Peter his jurisdiction over the other Apostles. SECT. 10.  
FIrst Saint Paul distinguisheth james, Peter, and john from the other Disciples, and joineth them in one Chiefedome among themselves, saying; 
b Gal. 2.2  I conferred with them of reputation: and again in the title, 
c Jb. ver. 9  They that seemed to be Pillars: and yet again, 
d 2. Cor. 11.5. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]  They that were Chief of the Apostles: Lastly, his last vale with them; They gave to me the right hand of society and fellowship. Ergo, he accounted them Equal in authority (which ancient 
e Chrysost. Ambros. Oecumen.  Fathers have collected from thence) yet so, as in alleging their names, james, Peter, and john, he preferreth james before Peter. Do you ask why? You can answer yourselves. 
f Praemittitur jacobus, quia erat Episc. Hierosolymitanus. Aquinas, Rhemists, Salmeron jes. in hunc locum Lorinus jes. in Act. 1. pag. 38. ubi adiungit Anselmum.  Because (say you) james was Bishop of Jerusalem, where the Apostles were at this time, when S. Paul writ. Be it so, It must then follow that james was, in that respect, superior to Peter.  
Lastly, whiles Paul is earnest in vindicating the dignity of his Pastorship, even then, when he would stop the mouths of false Apostles, who objected that he had no sufficient Commission to preach, as not having been authorized by the other Apostles; he answereth, that he had received his Calling 
g Gal. 1.1.  Not of men, neither by man, but immediately from and by jesus Christ. And for proof hereof he addeth a reason, saying, of the time when he was at jerusalem: 
h Ib. ver. 18, 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  I indeed saw Peter, but other of the Apostles saw I none, save james the Lord's brother. His Consequent is; Ergo he received not any authority of his Ministration from the Apostles. Which had been a silly, and indeed a senseless Reason, if the spirit of Papistry had reigned in those days, because his Adversaries might readily have replied, What is that you say? Saw you none but Peter? as though Peter were not sufficient in himself to authorise you, seeing that Peter, being the Vicar of Christ, and the Ordinary and Universal Pastor of his Church, is All in all, because the Governor of all others, without exception. But Saint Paul, we know, spoke by the Spirit of God, the Author and Fountain of Divine reason, and could not therefore argue absurdly: yet notwithstanding he answered saying, I saw none but Peter, except james. Plainly signifying, that Peter, at that time, could not challenge jurisdiction over the College of all the other Apostles.  

I. CHALLENGE.  
SEt before your eyes any Bishop, (as for example the Bishop of Toledo,) who should defend that he was a Bishop extraordinary, and needed not at all to be authorized from Rome: and when it should thereupon be objected, that he had been at Rome with the Pope, and other Bishops and Cardinals there, and therefore it must needs be thought that he was established in his Calling by them; then the Bishop of Toledo should answer semblably, as did Saint Paul, saying; I confess indeed that I went to Rome, to visit the Pope, and abode with him certain days, but other of the Bishops or Cardinals there I saw none, except the Bishop of Cullen; and therefore you may not object unto me, that I received any authority from the Conclave and College at Rome. Can you conceive that any answer could more derogate from the now Popedom, than to BUT, and except against his authority, in ordaining or establishing that Bishop of Cullen? Yet such like was the Answer and Apology of Saint Paul for himself.   

II. CHALLENGE.  
THe Cause is weighty, and may require a further application, as thus; whiles you give to the Pope an absolute jurisdiction, cum plenitudine potestatis, over all other Bishops, how can you suffer him to be mated or equalled with other Bishops, as Paul did Peter, by joining in society with him 
i Gal. 2.9.  james & john? Much less would you permit, that the name of the Bishop of Cullen should be preferred before the name of the Bishop of Rome, (whose Diocese you extend 
k Bellar. Vide Refutat. in nostra Causa Regia, cap. 4. Sect. 7.  To the ends of the world,) as to marshal them thus, viz. The Bishop of Cullen, the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Milan: as Saint Paul did, in alleging the name of james before Peter. For, for you to say, that this was done 
* See above in this Chap. Sect. 11.  In respect that james was Bishop of jerusalem, and the Cause had relation to his Diocese, is as much as to feign that the Archbishop of Auignon, whilst the Pope resided there, had been put in Catalogue before the Pope himself; or that the name of some King must be placed before the name of the Emperor, even within his own Empire. Next, to talk that the Bishop of Toledo, or any other Bishop came to visit the Pope, and was dismissed by receiving from him, 
l Gal. 2.9.  The right hand of fellowship, as Paul did of Peter, how (if perhaps the phrase had such a literal sense) would you think this good manners in a Bishop, since you do tutor and instruct your Kings and Emperors to do homage to the Pope, 
m Bellar. & alij. Videat Lector Confutat. in nostra Causa Regia, per totum.  In kissing his foot? But especially to hear any Bishop, with a BUT, to intimate the No-authoritie of the Pope in his Creation and Ordination, (as S. Paul did of Peter) might this seem tolerable unto you, who still honour him with the supreme Titles of ⁿ The Universal Father, The Catholic Bishop, and Pastor over the whole Christian world?   

III. CHALLENGE.  
WIllingly shall we pass by other Objections, taken from the comparison of Paul, or other Apostles with Saint Peter: although we know, that if Saint Peter had given sentence in the Apostolical Synod at Jerusalem, as 
n Act. 15.13.  james did in his presence: If Peter had been a Sender of any of the Apostles, as he was himself, one that was 
* Act. 8.14.  Sent by others: If Peter had 
* Io. 13.23.  leaned on Christ his breast, as john did, and had therefore been solicited by john to ask a question of secrecy, as john was by Peter: If Peter had been called by a voice from heaven, as Saint 
o Act. 9.4.  Paul was: If Peter had made as bold with Paul, as Paul did with Peter, by Reproving him publicly [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] 
p Gal. 2.14.  before them all: which far differs from the Papal Prerogative set down in the Canon Law, saying, 
q Non est qui audeat dicere, cur sic facis? Part. 1. Dist. 40. Si Papa.  If the Pope be negligent, etc. So as thereby innumerable are led to Hell, yet is there none that may say, Why do you so? If Peter alone (as did Saint Paul) had written 
r Rom. 1.  To the Romans: If it had been said of Peter's ship, as it was of that, wherein S. Paul was, 
s Act. 27.24.  God hath given unto thee all them that Sail with thee; And, 
t Ib. ver. 31.  Except those remain in the ship you cannot be saved: Finally and principally, if Saint Peter had written of himself, as Saint Paul did, saying, 
u 2. Cor. 11.28.  I have the care of all the Churches: This one (to omit the rest) would have seemed to you a firmer Foundation than the word ROCK; and have caused you to lay down your former iô paean, and insultation, raised from the depraved sense of those Scriptures, [Blessed art thou Simon,] or [I have prayed for thee,] or, Feed thou my Flock] or any other the like, whereby you labour to erect a Monarch of Peter, and (by your Consequence) upon the Pope, over all Churches in the world. Wherein we challenge you of prejudice and rashness.  
Hitherto we have spoken of the Faith of Saint Paul, concerning the authority of Saint Peter, and but consequently of the Roman Bishop. We are in the next place to try S. Paul's Faith, directly, concerning the Roman Church itself.    

That Saint Paul was not of the now Roman Faith, concerning the former Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, etc. as may appear by his own Account of the Roman Church. Our first Proof. SECT. 11.  
GReat was the estimation, doubtless, which Saint Paul had of the Christian Professors of his time in the Church of Rome; yet not so great, by far, as you would make the world believe. For first, we have heard your vaunting of the Preheheminence of Rome, because 
* See above Chap. 4. Sect. 1.  It was founded both by Peter and Paul, the two most renowned among the Apostles: which boast is as easily blown away, by propounding a confessed Parallel out of your Bozius, from Ecclesiastical Records, showing that 
a Dionysius Episcopus Corinthiorum scribens ad Romanos: Petrus & Paulus ambo, cum & nostram Corinthi, & vestram Romae Ecclesiam fundâssent, etc. Apud Euseb. Hist. lib. 2. c. 24. Teste Bozio de signis Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 241.  Peter and Paul both founded the Church of Corinth. Yet was Corinth never known to have pre-eminence above Alexandria, or other Churches of Asia, or elsewhere.  
Oh! but there is a second place, which will stop all mouths of Contradiction, in the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans, Chap. 1. ver. 8. I thank my God, through jesus Christ, for you all, that your Faith is published throughout the World. Upon this Commendation of the Faith of those Romans, the 
b Bozius ib. lib. 3. cap. uls pa. 225. & Rhemists Annot. in hunc locum. & Baron. An. 58. num. 48.  Professors of the (now) Roman Faith use in a manner to triumph, as though that Encomium, with the same Faith, were hereditary to that Church: or as if, at that day, CATHOLIC and ROMAN had been all one. An Obiction nowadays breathed into the mouth of every Vulgar Papist. Whereas first, if you will permit your own Cardinal Tolet, and your jesuit Sà to be our Expositors, both will say, that These words, [throughout the world] are to be taken as 
c Hyperbole. Tolet. & Eman. Sà jes. in eum locum.  Hyperbolically spoken, and by way of excess. Yea One of them resolveth, that by the words [Your Faith] is not, meant, 
d Fides vestra:] Non quam vos creditis annunciatur, sed vos credidisse in toto mundo vulgatur. Tolet in bunc locum. Annot. 16.  What the Romans believed, but only, That they believed; their Faith being now published throughout the World. So that it appeareth not by this that the Faith then was held Catholic, because the Romans believed it; but that it was now a common fame thorough out the whole World, that the Romans had received the Christian Faith. And no marvel, seeing that Rome was then the public stage of the World, by reason of the Imperial Seat there: whither all sorts of people under that vast Empire had recourse, for the discharge of Tributes, and Accounts for their Offices, and the like: So that it was not possible that things done publicly in Rome should not be known to the whole visible World, as your own jesuit Pererius 
e Neque enim fieri poterat, ut quae Romae eveniebant, ea illos, qui in toto erant terrarum orbe, laterent. In illa enim urbe Romanorum Imperatores Regiam suam habebant. etc. Theodoret. Teste Pererio jes. in Rom. 1. Disput. 4.  doth observe. Easily therefore might that news be spread abroad throughout all quarters, that the Romans had received the Faith. This is all.  
Secondly, your former Insultation is easily checked with a Parallel of the like, if not of a larger Commendation of the same Apostle unto the Church of Thessalonica, 1 Thess. 1.2. We give thanks always to God for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, Remembering without ceasing your work of Faith. And again, ver. 8. From you (saith he) sounded out the Word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your Faith to God-ward is spread abroad, etc.  
And lest you may peradventure think, that Rome having had the pre-eminence of Commendation before Thessalonica, therefore the Church of Thessalonica received their Faith from the Romans; this Objection will rebound upon the Authors themselves: for although the Epistle to the Romans have the first place, by the Ordinance of the Church, it is not because of the Dignity of the Church of Rome, but for the excellency and necessity of the matter and Argument of the Epistle itself, which is the Doctrine of justification. For if we consider the order of times, wherein the Apostle Saint Paul Writ his Epistles, your own Authors willingly consent to the judgement of Theodoret, that 
f Epistolarun Paulinarum, ut ab ipso Paulo prius scriptae sunt, Theodoreto teste, primò 1. ad Thessaly. secundò, 2. ad eosdem; tertò 1. ad Corinth. quartò, 2. ad eosdem: quintò 3. ad Timoth. Sextò Epistola ad Titum, Septimò ad Romanos, etc. Ederus partit. Theol. lib. 4. p. 426. & Salmeron Jes. To. 13. Tract. 3. & 4. in Epist. Pauli in gen. Disp. 4. Ex Theodoret. part, 2. in princip. 1. Thess. 3.  According to the order observed by Saint Paul, first were published the I. and II. Epistles to the Thessalonians; after them, the I. and II. Epistles to the Corinthians, etc. and the Epistle to the Romans come not in till your seventh place: or rather (according to your 
* Onuphrius exactly collecteth and accounteth. 1. Erat 1. ad Thess 2.2. ad Thess. 3. ad Gal. 4. Prior ad Cor. 5. Prior ad Tim 6. Posterior ad Cor 7. ad Ephes 8. Posterior ad Tim. 9 ad Philip. 10. ad coloss. 11. ad Philem. 12. ad Hebraeos. 13. ad Titum; 14. ad Romanos. Onuphrius de Primati● Petri part 3. Dissuasio. 5.  Onuphrius his computation,) not until the last.  

CHALLENGE.  
SEeing that the Commendation of the Faith of the Thessalolonians, and the Encomium of the Faith of the Romans are both, almost, in words and in sense fully the same, as your own Cardinal and jesuit 
g Non quod Romani credebant annunciatum dicit in universo mundo, sed ipsos fidem recepisse & credidisse, sicut illud ad Thessalonicenses Cap. 1. A vobis, etc. Tolet. in Rom. 1. pag. 30. quo supra.  Tolet doth tell you; this showeth the vanity of your objections, from point to point. For first to argue, Ergo the Faith of the Romans was first, it is crossed by the Church of Thessalonica, which had priority in Saint Paul's Commendation. Secondly, to argue; Ergo, Roman Faith, and the Catholic or Universal Faith, (in respect of Universality of Place) was then convertible and all one; this is likewise Conttadicted by the like Commendations of the Thessalonians: because by the same Argument you must grant, that before that, the Thessalonike Faith, and Catholic Faith, in the like respect, was also all one. Thirdly, to argue, that therefore the Faith of Rome shall perpetually continue in that City, this in like manner is confuted by the former Instance in Thessalonica, which having long since lost her Faith, doth warn Rome not to presume of any privilege of Time or Place. But we are to Consult further with Saint Paul, to know what account he had of Rome at this time, when he wrote this Epistle?    

Our second Proof of Saint Paul's Account of the than Roman Church. SECT. 12.  
AS oft as we hear of your Article, The Roman Catholic Church, without which there is no salvation, We (if we should believe this to be true) should expect that S. Paul writing to the Romans, especially now when with so divine Oratory he insinuateth himself into their affections, by commending of their Faith so published through the World, should yield some such, albeit but implicit, Note of the eminence of that Church over others, which you yourselves do usually attribute unto it. But if it shall appear, that he doth not call it The Catholic Church above others, nor a Church having any Prerogative before others, no nor yet at all so much as a Church, as he doth others, but rather the Contrary: then may we have more reason to suspect your Cause, and you less to ostentate.  
First then your Rhemists to this Question, why the Epistles of Saint Paul are not enstiled Catholic Epistles, as well as the Epistles of Saint james, Peter, jude, and john are, do answer, 
* Rhemists in their Argument of the Epistles in General.  Because Saint Paul (say they) writeth not any Epistle at all (howbeit every one of them is for all the Church) but to some particular Churches, as to the Galathians, Romans, etc. So they. Which Reason is insufficient, because the first Catholic Epistle of Peter is directed expressly to the Churches in Pontus, Galatia, etc. and two of the Catholic Epistles of Saint john are inscribed to particular persons, The Elect Lady, and Gaius. Howbeit in this Answer of the Rhemists we find Rome to be but a Particular Church; when surely, if the Apostle had been possessed with the spirit of the now Bishop of Rome, he would have instiled it The Catholic Church, and inscribed his Epistle CATHOLIC.  
Secondly, the Inscription of that Epistle standeth thus; To all that are at Rome, the Beloved of GOD, Saints by calling, etc. Wherein we cannot discern so much as one Syllable of the word, Church; as we find in his Prefaces to the Corinthians, To the Church that is at Corinth: To the Galathians, To the Churches of Galatia: to the Thessalonians, To the Church of the Thessalonians: But in this Epistle he saith only, To them at Rome, Saints by calling; to wit, the same tenure which he used in his Epistles to the Ephesia●●, Philippians, and Colossians. Whereunto your Iesuit● Salmeron gives this answer. 
h Posset commodè dici, Paulun Romanos Ecclesiam non vocasse, quòd in ea inter judaeos & Gentiles essent contentiones & factiones. Nam Gentes Iudaeis probro dabant turpem crucis necem Messiae illatam: contra Iudaei Gentibus obijciebant sordes Idololatriae.— Er eo t●mpore Petrus ex urbe expulsus Ecclesiae Rom. Pastor, ità ut Roma eo tempore vix Ecclesiae formam haberet. (Tum allatâ aliâ solutione, ad hanc redit, decens,)— Sed prima solutio solidior est meo iudicio. Salmeron jes. Tom. 13. in Rom. 1. Disp. 7. p. 2●9.  There was at this time (saith he) Factions in Rome between jews and Gentiles (both Christians) when Peter the Pastor thereof was expelled out of Rome, so that it had scarce the form of a Church: and therefore may it fitly be said, that Paul forbore to call the Romans a Church. If this were the meaning of Saint Paul, then are we sure that he who would not vouchsafe to call it a Church, did think Rome to be (as other Churches) subject to the alterations and Changes of Schisms and Factions, so far, as not to deserve the name of a Church, how much less of The Catholic Church?  
Now bethink yourselves what the Apostle would have called your Rome of aftertimes, when not only your Professors among themselves but also Popes and Antipopes were distracted into tedious and pernicious Schisms and Factions one against another, so that the true Pope sometimes could not be known. Which thing your own devout Doctors have greatly deplored, One reckoning the number of these Schisms to have been 
* Schismata viginti Stapleton de doct. Princip. lib. 13. cap. 15.  Twenty; Another accounting the Continuance of one of them to have endured 
* Vnum Schisma erat quinquaginta Sex annorum. Onuphrius in vitâ Benedicti.  Fifty years; when as the Pope, quitting the City of Rome for many years together, kept his residence at Auignon in France.   

Our third Proof of Saint Paul's indifferent estimation of the Church of Rome. SECT. 13.  
THe third point concerneth the Prerogative, which you assume to your Roman Church before others. We shall desire you to consult once again with Saint Paul in the same Epistle, Chap. 1. Ver. 13. saying, I have oftentimes purposed to come unto you (Romans)— that I might have some fruit among you also [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] even as also among other Gentiles, That one wor● [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] even as also among Others] must needs prove a prick in your eye, who can look upon nothing that can more equal the condition of other Churches with the Church of Rome, than that word doth, by the confession of your Cardinal Tolet; and he would have you to Mark it (and we also pray you to Mark what he saith:) 
i Perpende Euamgelij indifferentiam, quamuis enim Romani inter coeteras gentes eminerent, & primatum tenerent, tamen in praedicatione Euangelij & salutis negotio pares eos facit: [In vobis, inquit, sicut in coeteris.] Non enim apud Deum est distinctio judaei, Graeci, Romani, aut vllorum hominum conditionum, omnes peccatores invenit, pro omniūsalute mortuus est. T●let. Jes. in eum locum Pauli ad Rom. 11. Annot. 22.  MARRKE (saith he) the indifferency of the Gospel, because although the Romans were far more eminent than other Nations, and had the Primacy, nevertheless in the preaching of the Word, and soules-businesse belonging to salvation, the Apostle maketh Others equal with the Romans; Among you (saith the Apostle) as also among other Gentiles, of what Nation soever. So he. here your Cardinal (not to dissemble) maketh the Comparison to stand between the Romans and the Grecians, as they were before their calling unto Christianity, namely, in the equality of Sin, not any one deserving to be partaker of Grace; by the Gospel, more than another.  
Nevertheless, if you shall Mark a little better, nothing can be more clear, than that the Apostle compareth these Romans, as they were Christians, with other Christian Gentiles converted to the Faith: because, of the same Romans, to whom he said (Ver. 6.) You are called of jesus Christ; and Ver. 8. You, whose Faith is spoken of throughout the World; and (Ver. 11.) I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift to the end you may be established: of the Same he saith (here in this 13 Verse) That I might have some fruit among you: these, you know, could not be other than Christians, whom he thus commended, as already called to the Faith: therefore in the next words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]- as of other Gentiles he meant the Churches of the Gentiles committed unto Christ: Those (saith 
* Quibus sc. praedicasset. Aquinas in ●um locum.  Aquinas) unto whom he had preached. So that the labour of the Apostle was unpartial unto the Churches of Christ, further than they should bring forth the Fruits of the Gospel of Christ,  

CHALLENGE.  
TWo things there are, by which the estimation, which Writers have of Persons, or Incorporations to whom they Dedicate their Epistles, may be discerned, to wit, Inscriptions and Comparisons. The Apostle, by the Inscription of his Epistle to the Romans, hath given us just presumption to think, that he held not the Church of Rome then The Catholic Church, which as then he had cause to forbear to call so much as a Church: and that the said Church (by Comparison) is subject to alteration as well as Others. And so much the rather, because the Indifferency of the Gospel is such, as is not to be tied to one place or people more than to another, but [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] equal to all Churches, so far forth as they shall walk worthy of the same Gospel of Christ: accordingly as we have been directed by the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans.    

The Confirmation of the same Faith of Saint Paul, by your own Confessions, equalling Saint Paul and Saint Peter in their diverse Relations to the Church of Rome. SECT. 14.  
WHat shall we say to your own free grants? 1. That Saint Peter and Saint Paul were both 
a See above Chap. 4. §. 1.  Co-founders of the Roman Church; 2. That both were called 
b Epiphanius Haeres 17. Vocat Petrum & Paulum Episcopos Romanos. Lorinus jes. in Act. Apost. ult. ver ult. That which he addeth, is confuted in the next Testimony, and in the Challenge following.  Bishops of the same Church, by Epiphanius; 3. That the 
c Bulla Pauli 3. & Pij 4. in Concil. Trident. Petri & Pauli Authoritate, quâ fungimur, Ordinamus, etc.  Authority of Both is cited in the Pope's Breeves, for Confirmation of Papal Ordinances; 4. That both have their 
d Objicitur in antiquis sigillis, quibus diplomata summi Pontificis obsignabantur, inveniri imagines Petri & Pauli, sed huius a Dextris, illius a sinistris, etc.— Potest responderi hoc non fuisse perpetuum, nam in non paucioribus Paulus cernitur ad sinistram. Bellar. lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 27. Adding; Et olim obseruabatur ut senior, & honoratiora● laevam esset. But where, except only among the Persians? as the next Testimony proveth.  Images engraven in your Pope's Bulls; yea and that in such sort that Paul sometime hath the right hand of Peter, as well as other while Peter of Paul. Thus far your Popes and Jesuits.  

CHALLENGE.  
WHich being so, how may it not persuade you, that your Popes anciently judged, that Saint Paul did not believe himself subject to the jurisdiction of Saint Peter, and his Roman See? except you will think it possible to extract a Primacy of Authority out of equality, as well of Titles, as of Ordinances; or else to conceive one to be subject unto him, of whom he hath the upperhand; especially knowing, that to be placed on the 
e Denique, collocari ad dextram est Argumentum maioris honoris, quanquam apud Persas contrarius mos est. Pererius in Gen. cap. 48. disp. 1.  Right hand, was held an Argument of greater honour among all people, the Persians only excepted. If your Popes at this day should see any Bishop's picture stamped jointly on his Seal (that we may appeal to yourselves in this Case) guess (we pray you) whether he could behold any other matched in such an equipage with himself, without high indignation, and extreme Cause of Anathematization. So justly is your new Faith of your now Popes condemned by ancient Attributes, Authorities, and Seals. Thus far of the faith of Saint Paul, your supposed Cofounder of the Church of Rome, about the time when it was first erected.    

That Saint john his Faith did not conceive the same Article of Subjection to the Catholic Roman Church, etc. SECT. 15.  
NOt long after the same Time of the foundation of the Church of Rome, did Saint john write his Book of Revelation, wherein he revealeth that the City of Rome is Babylon, according to the general consent of your own 
k Babylon Apocalyptica est Roma. Bellar. l. 3. de Pont. ca 13. & l. 2. c. 2. Ribera, & Viega jes. in Apoc. 14. Et est consensus omnium.— Probat Ribera ex Victorino Martyr, & Hieron. locis plurimis, Tertulliano, Ambrosio (postquam negâsset) ex Doctoribus Pontificijs, ex septem montibus, quos nominat, ex Apoc. quia dicitur Civitas illa magna, quae habet regnum super Reges terrae, etc. Quo supra in cap. 14.  Jesuits, and other Divines; directed not only by the judgement of Ancient Fathers, but especially and invincibly by Saint john in the clearness of that Scripture. So just Cause had the most judicious of King's Christian, 
l K. james Premovit. pa. 309.310  JAMES our late Sovereign of famous memory, to aver, saying; This place (viz. Revel. chop. 17. & 18. (doth clearly and undeniably declare that Rome is, or shall be the seat of that Antichrist. For no Papist now denieth that by Babylon, here, Rome is directly meant, etc.  
Next, that it signifieth Rome, not only as it was ethnical Rome, in the days of heathenish Emperors (by which missed many of your Doctors a long time gulled and deceived their Disciples, lest your Papal Rome might have come within their ken) but also noteth Rome▪ as it shall be in the later age of the World, the Seat of Antichrist. And not thus only, but that the same City shall be burnt with fire.  
A Truth so evident, that your Rhemists (who otherwise, of all others, are most blear-eyed at the sight of any light, that may any way make against Rome) do thus far grant, as to say, 
m Rhemists Annot. in Apoc. 17.5.  The great Antichrist shall have his seat at Rome, as it may well be thought: but others think jerusalem rather shall be his seat. But your Jesuits 
n Quod aliquandò a fide defectura Roma sedes Antichristi, Probatur ex Apoc. 14. Cecidit Babylon, etc. Roma in sine seculi futura.— Divinare me dicet quispiam, sed hunc ego orabo, ut praeiudicium deponat, rem toram apud se maturo iudicio examinet, ne plus mihi credat, quam Ratio & veritas persuaserint.— Conflagraturam esse, non tantùm propter praeterita scelera, sed & propter illa quae in extremis temp. commissura est, ex huius Apoc. verbis adeo perspicùe cognoscimus, ut ne Stultissimus quidem negare possit.— Nam cap. 18 ubi de eius incendio est sermo, hoc scriptum est, Flebunt qui cum ea fornicati sunt, cum viderint fumum incendij eius.— Vae, vae, civitas magna Babylon, venit unâ hora iudicium tuum.— Vtrum illi lugebunt, qui ante mille & multò plures annos mortivi sunt? an qui nunc vivent & videbunt fumum incendij eius?— unde de persecutione illius temporis loquens, Cap. 18. Exite ex illa, ne Participes sitis delictorum. Quoniam igitur dubium non est, Babylonem omnis Idololatriae, & omnium scelerum officinam esse, si fidem fecimus Babylonem Romam dici, dubitari non potest eam— à fide & ab obedientia Pontificis defecturam.— Post, ex Sibyllarum vaticinijs— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Haec & alia multa in hanc sententiam Ribera jes. quo supra.  Ribera and 
o Sequitur hunc Blasius Viega, & atque eisdem rati●nibus, Comment. in Apoc. 18. & Concludit,— Ex hoc loco (inquit) manifestè colligitur Romam extremis mundi temporibus, postquàm à fide defecerit, etc.— Et ubi dicitur, Exire ex illa populus meus, etc. cum enim fidelibus praecipitur, ut ex illa exeant, ne simul eius calamitate involuantur profectò ostenditur sermonem esse non de illa Roma antiqua, cum nulli in ea fideles erant, sed de illa quae conflagrabit extremo mundi tempore. Haec ille in Apoc. 18.  Viega, both of ●hem Spanish Doctors, and public Professors, do confidently aver that They dare hold him for A MOST NOTABLE FOOL, that shall deny it, as being a matter without all doubt. So say they; nor so only, but also prove it by convincing Arguments. 1 Because that the Text saith expressly of this Babylon, that It shall be burned. 2 They that shall then live, shall see the smoke of her fire, and lament her destruction. 3 Because the spirit warneth all them that are in her to depart; Come out of her, my people, that ye receive not of her plagues. But there were then n● Faithful in the heathenish Rome; or if any were, yet are they commanded to Come out of her, for fear of being consumed with fire. And lastly they add, to the evidence of the text, the Oracles of Sibyl, as it were, a torch unto the Sun, viz. that  
The seaven-hild Rome shall be destroyed with fire. Thus far your own Authors, not once questioned for this doctrine; and although professing it in the fiery Region of the Spanish Inquisition, yet not so much as an heir of their beards scorched therefore: yea, these their books are publicly allowed by the judgement of (besides others) the 
p Commentarium Viegae tanquam in re nulla Orthodoxae fidei repugnantem, Approbarunt Eman. Coecho, Alphontus de Melto Archiepis. Eborens Christoferus Gouea Praepositus societatis Prouin●●alis, Ferdinandus Academiae Eborens. Cancellarius. Riberam jes. Approbarunt Gil. Gonzales, Alphonsus Curiel; etiam Possevinus jes. in Apparat.  Provincial of the Jesuits.  
Marry, yet the foresaid Authors (lest they might hereby seem to yield any matter of insultation to us Heretics (as they call us) or hereby prejudice the Church of Rome, they do again and again admonish their Readers, that this Prophecy, although it point out the destruction of the City of Rome, for her Apostasy from the faith, by her Idolatry; yet aimeth it not at the Church of Rome, or the Bishop thereof, because the Apostasy shall be (say they) from the faith of that Church, and, Obedience to that Bishop: 
q Pontifex, licet eiectus, tamen semper Ecclesia● est habiturus, at que hic ubicunque sit, Episcopus Romae erit, etiamsi illa penitùs excis● sit. Riberaquo supra.  Who though he abandon Rome, and Rome itself be destroyed, yet is he still Bishop of Rome. So they.  

I. CHALLENGE.  
GOD himself, by his own example, in his first day's work, taught us to divide the light from the darkness. Thus then. That the people of the City of Rome, in the later age of the world, must generally depart from the faith, that whatsoever faithful remaining must Depart out of the City, that the City herself, for her wickedness and Idolatry, must be consumed by fire, seemeth now at length, even to our Romish Adversaries themselves, a truth as clear as the day, and that justly, as hath been showed. But that, to free their Church and Pope of Rome from the prejudice of defection and revolt from the faith, we must forsooth believe that The Pope, when all Christian people are departed out of the City, and the City itself utterly extinct, shall still remain the Bishop of Rome: this we take to be as dark as darkness itself. We shall therefore call for a Torch (for so you 
* See above Ch. 2. Sect. 8.  call Baronius his writings) to discover this darkness.  
He showeth that 
r Secundo Claudij Romana Ecclesia à Petro instituiur, & sedes ei erigitur. Baron. An. 45. num. 1. Ipsa prima Pontificia sedes Petri Cathedra lignea erat.— In more Maiorum erat, Episcopis sedes in Ecclesia posuerunt egregiè ornatas,— quibus illi, cum sacras synaxes agerent, insiderent. Jb. num. 11.  The Church of Rome was constituted first by Peter at Rome, where (saith he) his Pontifical seat, or chair, was made of wood. Then he showeth the ancient custom of Erecting Chairs or Seats for Bishops, in their Churches, placing them aloft, and adorning them with ornaments, where they did sit, etc. This was the original of Episcopal Chairs and Seats: so that Patriarches and Bishops had their denominations from the Churches wherein they took possession, and where they had their first Chairs, or seats. Hence came the distinct Appellations of the Patriarcal Church or seat of Antioch, the Seat of Constantinople, and this now specified (as they say) the Pontifical Seat of Rome. Albeit therefore that it cannot be denied that the Bishop of Rome, being excluded from his Church and Seat, is notwithstanding to b● accounted the Bishop of that people and place; yet when he is so departed from them, that they are also departed from him, so as there shall be no people in Rome professing his faith; nor yet that Seat, which is the City of Rome, extant at all, but wholly consumed with fire: then to be called the Bishop of the Church, or Seat of Rome, is but a man in the moon, and Titulus sine re: namely, as it is written of Jerusalem, 
s Jsa. 1.21.  How is that faithful City become a whore? The City is called faithful not as being now faithful, but only because it had been so.  
Saint Paul, in his Inscriptions to diverse Churches, taketh their denominations from the places, where the faithful Professors were, thus: 
t Gal. 1.  To the Churches of Galatia: 
u 1 Cor. 1.  To the Church of God in Corinth, and elsewhere: (to show, that the Church rather doth consist in the Professors, then in the places) and omitting the name of Church, he doth mention only the Persons, 
x Col. 1.  To the Saints at Colosse, and faithful brethren in Christ: 
y Phil. 1.  To all the Saints in Christ at Philippi: and also for Rome, 
z Rom. 1.  To them at Rome, beloved of God, called Saints. And must we notwithstanding conceit of a Bishop of a Church of Rome, wherein there is neither people professing, nor place of profession? As if they should call one the Shepherd of Utopia, where there is neither Sheep in the Country, nor Country for Sheep: except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be the Shepherd, and they speak the language of Babel, where 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  None shall hear Nothing of Nobody at all.  
That which we now contend for, in the Popes of Rome, may be cleared by an example of him that is called Emperor of Rome, who because he hath neither a foot of possession in Rome, nor in the Territories thereof, nor yet any professed Subject inhabiting therein, but the whole Princedom is belonging to the Pope; your own Divines hold it a kind of Solecism to name any at this day The Roman Emperor. Therefore (to allege a few, of many that may be produced) Lyra; 
a jam à multis Annis imperium illud caruit Imperatore. Lyra in 2 Thess. 2.  The Empire of Rome (saith he) hath for a long time been without an Emperor. Faber; 
b Quam, obsecro, Roma suo Regi, suo Monarchae praebet obedientiam? nescio quibus temporibus maior potuit defectio apparere. Faber Stapulens. in 2 Thess. 3.  What obedience, I pray you (saith he) doth Rome yield to her Monarch? meaning the Emperor. So to; 
c Temporale Romanae urbis imperium iam cessavit. Domin. à Soto, Teste Viega Jes. in Apoc. 13. Sect. 17.  Now (saith he) is that temporal Dominion of the City of Rome ceased: and your jesuit Salmeron, 
d Imperium Rome, iamdiu eversum est. Salmeron jes. in 2 Thess. 2.  The Roman Emperor (saith he) was overthrown long ago.   

II. CHALLENGE.  
THe Romish Babylon then, by the Revelation of Saint john, is that City of Rome, whose place and people must be destroyed. No people can be called Roman, without they have relation to Rome; nor any people called The Church of Rome, except they be Professors of the faith in Rome. Therefore Saint john, prophesying of these things, could not but believe, that before the end of the world that Church, which is now called The Church of Rome, shall depart from the faith; even because this Departure must be from the sincere doctrine and worship of God, unto error and Idolatry. Oh! that this were not, at this day, a just Cause to challenge every one to Come out of Babylon. Both which we shall be ready in due time to prove by as true grounds, as any have hitherto been delivered.    

That Saint John's faith did not conceive the now pretended Monarchy of the Pope, above all other Bishops and Pastors in the Catholic Church. SECT. 16.  
WHat that Papal Monarchy is in your faith, and how it is derived, we have 
* See above Chap. 1.  heard, namely that because Saint Peter was the Vicar of Christ upon earth, as his ordinary Pastor over all the other Apostles, therefore the Successors of Saint Peter in the same See are of the same authority and jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ, and every member thereof. Hence issueth the Article of your now Roman faith; that 
* See above Cham 1. Sect. 2. & 3.  Without obedience and subjection to the Pope, as the Catholic Bishop of the Catholic Church, None can be saved. The meditation upon this Article begetteth a Problem, viz. whether Saint john the Evangelist, who lived 20. years after Saint Peter, were indeed subordinate and subject to the jurisdiction of Linus, or Cletus, the immediate Successors of Saint Peter. Either Saint john was subject to the Pope, or he was not. What say you? 
e An Apostoli, qui Petro super-vixerant, fuerint verè subditi Episc. Romano (de qua re nihil apud Authores me legisse memini)— videtur tamen extitisse inferiores jurisdictione, atque adeò jurisdictioni Pontificis Rom. subiectos— quià potestas Rom. Pontificis semper fuit ordinaria & perpetuò in Ecclesia mansura. Suarez jes. lib. de trip. virt. theol. disp. 10. Sect. 1. num. 28.  It seemeth unto me (saith your jesuit) that the Apostles, who survived Peter, were subject to the Pope, because the power of the Pope was always ordinary, and to continue in the Church. Have you any ground for this? I cannot remember (saith he) that I have read in any Author any thing of this point. So he.  

CHALLENGE.  
SAint Paul (as 
* See above Cham 4. Sect. 11.  hath been proved) reckoned these Three, Peter, james, and john equally Columnas, that is, The Pillars, and (as it were) equally the three Chief Worthies among the Disciples: who, concerning the offices of their Apostleship, received from Christ (as your Cardinal Cusanus 
* See above Chap. 4. Sect. 4. lit. A. prope finem.  hath taught you) Every way an equal charge. And without Controversy, the faith of john and Paul was both the same. Is it then possible for a Christian man to think, that john being that Apostle, who was immediately chosen by Christ, and equal to Peter, should think himself subject to Linus 
f Baron. Ann. 80.  the Successor of Peter? that he, who for his sublimity of knowledge in the mysteries of Christ, was called The Divine; who was made the Penman of the holy Ghost, in writing the Gospel; and one, for whose infallibility in the truth Christ offered up prayers to his Father; ought he now to submit his judgement unto Linus, one of the line of those Popes, whereof Some have been by General Counsels, and by Popes themselves judged for 
* See hereafter Chap. 8. Sect. 7.  Heretics?  
And again, that john, who at the time of the Supper of our Lord, leaned upon the breast of our Saviour, when Peter (
g Christus johannem in sinu habuit, cui Petrus erat proximus. Baron Ann. 34. num. 40.  you know) was but next after john, should now prostrate himself before Linus, the Successor of Peter, and (if this Ceremony had been so old) to do him the honour as to 
* See Above, Ch. 4. §. 5 Hereafter, Cham 10. §. 4.  Kiss his feet? And not this only, but to believe this Article of due Subjection to the Pope, Without which none can be saved? which, indeed, is more than to Kiss the feet, or to lick the dust of the feet of Saint Peter's Successor. Sure we are, 
* See hereafter, cap. 9 Sect. 2.  that the Disciples of Saint john, to wit, the Christians of the Eastern Church, were not of your belief, who, to adhere to the orders of Saint john, refused to observe the Easter of the Latin Church: which they would not have done, if they had believed Saint john to have been subject to those Roman Bishops, or yet to Peter himself.  
Before we can conclude, you are to be exhorted to observe the jesuitical front of Suarez, who in a matter of this nature, concerning Salvation, durst make this Conclusion of the Apostles Subjection and subordination under a Pope; namely (as you have heard him confess) without any Author, besides himself. Whereby you may discern, with what vntempered mortar these men daub up the Consciences of their Followers.     

CHAP. V. That the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ itself, at or about the Time of the foundation of the Church of Rome, had no such Article of faith, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, without union wherewith there is no Salvation.  

SECT. 1.  
THe Churches unto which Saint Paul writ (for we name not the Romans, of whom we have entreated before) were the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, and the dispersed Hebrews. As for the other Apostles, james, Peter, john & jude, each one writ to divers those their Epistles, which are entitled Catholic Epistles. And the seven Churches of Asia were they, to whom the book of the Apoealips, or Revelation was directed. Among these the Apostles are instant and urgent, in inveighing 1 against the Heresies of 
a judaism. Gal. 1.8. Coloss. 2.  judaism, 
b Saducisme, denying the Resurrection. 1 Cor. 15.  Saducisme, 
c Worship of Angels. Coloss. 2.  of worshipping Angels. 2 Against 
d Apostasy. 2 Thes. 2. & 2 Tim. 4.3. & jude.  Apostasy, and 
e antichristianity 2 Thes. 2. 1 joh. 2.24. Apoc. 13. etc.  Antichristianitie. 3 Against 
f Dissensions and Schisms, 1 Cor. 11 and Concerning Orders Ecclesiastical, Rom. 12. Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.  Divisions and Schisms in the Church, and abuse of Ecclesiastical Orders therein: And yet in all these there appeareth not any one Syllable or jota to prove your Article of The Catholic Roman Church, without union and subjection whereunto, and to the Head thereof, there is no salvation. No, nor yet so much as to intimate any one of the particles of this Article: as first, not to signify that the Church of Rome was a Catholic, much less THE Catholic Church,, as being in right (which you say) The Mother and Mistress of all others. Not to note, that, in the convincing of Heretics, Christians ought to look (as to their Cynosura) to the Faith of the Roman Church: nor that (for the discovering and avoiding of Antichrist) Christians ought to subject themselves to the Pope of Rome, as the Vicar of Christ. Finally, nor yet that, for the preventing of dissensions and Schisms in the Church, Christians ought to adhere and to be united to the same Monarchical Head of the same Roman Church. All which those holy Apostles, the faithful Ambassadors of our Lord Christ, without Controversy ought, and would have done, if (according to the now Roman Faith) either the name, CATHOLIC, had been then Antonomastically to be appropriated to Rome; or the Infallibility of Faith to be ascribed to the judgement of her Bishop; or that the Necessity of Union and Subjection to the authority of the same Head had been so necessary, as without which no Christian could be saved.  
To begin at the word [CATHOLIC.] We desire to understand, why the Epistles of james, and john, and jude were called Catholic, or Universal, as well as the two Epistles of Peter, if the word [Catholic] were so proper to the Roman Chair? Seeing that the Epistle of Saint james (and so of the rest) was no more sent to, or from Rome, nor had any relation to Peter there, than the Epistles of Peter had to james at Jerusalem. Secondly, why Paul was so sole, as of himself to Anathemize the false Apostles, saying, 
g Gal. 1. ver. 8. & 9  If we, or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, let him be accursed: or in admonishing the Irresolute, saying, 
h Gal. 5.  Behold, I Paul tell you, and I testify again unto you. And that no otherwise than he did, in absolving the penitent Incestuous, saying, 
i 1. Cor. 2.10.  I have pardoned him in the person of Christ: that is to say, As the Vicar of Christ, as your Rhemists observe, in their Annotations upon this place; If so (as you 
k Pontificem Romanum succedere Petto in Ecclesiae Monarchia, ex iure Divino, & ratione successionis probatur. Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. cap. 12. Probatur ex nominibus, quae Rom. Pontifici tribui solent.— Sextum est Vicarius Christi. Ib. Cap. 31.  pretend) The name of Vicar of Christ be wholly belonging to the Pope, as an argument of his Succession from Saint Peter, in the Monarchy over the whole Church.  
But principally doth Saint Paul show himself, in preventing and repressing of Schisms, once among the people, whom he will not have to adhere to any one man, no more to 
l 1. Cor. 1.12.  Cephas, (that is, Peter) than to Paul or Apollos. Whereas your Roman Cephas would have taught Saint Paul a contrary lesson, saying, that They, who adhere unto Cephas, cannot be called Schismatics, as those who hold of Apollo's: because Cephas was that ROCK, whereupon the Church was built, and such a Visible Head is now as necessary on earth to avoid Schism, as to believe on Christ, the invisible Head, now glorious in heaven.  
Again, among the Ecclesiastical Orders twice, first to the Corinthians, where he allegeth them thus: 
m 1. Cor. 12.  First Apostles, than Prophets, after Doctors: and accordingly to the Ephesians, 
n Ephes. 4.11.  He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, etc. Here we should have had good reason to have expected the mention of Saint Peter, as the visible Head among the Apostles, if we had been of your Faith, to believe that the Pope of Rome, as Successor of Saint Peter, is the Head of the visible Church; and that therefore 
o Vnio cum Pontifice Rome ut cum Capite, est nota Ecclesiae. Bellar. l. de Notis Eccles. c. 10.  The union with the Bishop of Rome, as the Head thereof, is a true Note of the Church: Whereby it may be infallibly discerned, whether or no a Christian man be a member of the Catholic Church, without which there is no Salvation. Which what were it, but to call into question the judgement of Saint Paul, the most profoundest Disputant that ever writ? as though he had been ignorant of the main and only Argument, for the confuting of Schismatics, and avoiding of Schism, by keeping, forsooth, the Union with the Pope, and Church of Rome.  
As for the Seven Churches in Asia, unto whom Saint john writ, concerning the days of Antichrist, when the great Departure from the sincere Faith of Christ must be: herein notwithstanding you could never yet find one particle, to prove either the Right of Monarchy in the Pope; or Infallibility of his judgement; or Necessity that the Faithful be United and Subjected unto him. But many Characters may you find, at least of an Antichrist, as well of his person in the Pope, as you have done of his particular Seat, confessing ingenuously, that it must be at Rome.  
Saint Peter in his Catholic Epistle 
p 1. Pet. 5.1.  To the dispersed Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bythinia, exhorting the Presbyters (whom he after calleth [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Superintendents, or Bishops] saith; The Elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder,— Feed the flock of God,— not [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] domineiring over God's heritage,— that when our chief Shepherd shall appear, etc. What may be inferred from hence, you may understand in the third Challenge.  

I. CHALLENGE.  
NOne will make doubt, but that the Churches, to whom the Apostles have written, were of the same faith with their Teachers, the holy Apostles: and that therefore in the point of Heresy it was not more requisite that the Church of Thessalonîca should subscribe to the Faith of the Church of Rome, than that the Romans should be guided by the Faith of the Thessalonians: or that, in the point of Schism, the Church of Corinth should be compelled to keep Union with the Church Roman, more than the Roman with the Colossian: or yet that among the Churches, to whom the Catholic Epistles of Peter, jude, john, and james were directed, some should be thought to owe more Subjection to the Letters of Peter, than to the other of james, or john. Else would some Items have been given out, to signify your pretended respects due to the Roman Church, especially every one of them being required in your Faith, upon Necessity of salvation.  
All men would wonder (for example sake) that the Bishops of Italy, being all within the Roman jurisdiction, should write letters far and near, upon all occasion of Heresy and Schism, to divers Churches within the same Roman Diocese, and yet never make mention, nay nor so much as give intimation of the necessary dependence they have and aught to acknowledge themselves to have of the Pope, and Sea of Rome.   

II. CHALLENGE.  
IF it had been as manifestly revealed by Saint john, that England was Prophesied off, to be the Seat of Antichrist in the latter times, as (according to your Jesuits 
* See above, Chap. 4. Sect. 14.  Expositions and Demonstrations) he did of Rome, in the word, Babylon, from whence all the faithful are commanded to depart, except they will be Partakers of her plagues: sure we are, that your Jesuits and Professors would need no severity of Laws to quit England, and to abhor it; especially now, when the Controversy, whether Antichrist be already come, is so daily and duly debated.   

III. CHALLENGE.  
SAint Peter, albeit an Apostle of jesus Christ, yet in the exercise of his jurisdiction, in the ordaining the Bishops of Pontus, Cappadocia, and other Churches doth entitle himself A 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Fellow-Priest, or Bishop; a style not to be found in your Pope's Breves. For we speak not now of terms of Humiliation, as that of SERWS SERVORUM; but of Office and Function, such as is Priest, or Bishop. And in what term? [I BESEECH] not but that he had authority to command, as an Apostle of Christ, like as Saint Paul, and every Apostle had: yet now taking upon him the person of an Elder to Elders, he doth not use that which (you know) is the proper and ordinary style of the Bishop of Rome, WE WILL, AND COMMAND.  
The matter of his Beseeching is hortative, and dehortative; for he exhorteth them to Feed their flock: thus he, whom Christ charged upon all loves, to 
r Simon, lovest thou me, feed my flock. Joh. 21.  Feed his flock. But not so He, who for the space of many hundred years is not known to have preached at all, even your 
* See hereafter, Chap. 13. Sect. 5.  Bishop of Rome. The dehortative part is in beseeching them Not to domineire over the heritage of God. What meaneth this? 
s Rhemists' Annot. on this place, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]  The Greek word signifieth Tyrannical rule, whereas meekness and moderation is required in Ecclesiastical Officers. So your Rhemists. And they say true, and therefore Saint Peter's words we think, do justly condemn your Romish Tyranny, especially in two points.    

The first Instance of Tyrannous Romish Cruelty. SECT. 2.  
THe first is your Romish Inquisition, wherein there is imprisonment, famishment, torment and ropes to strangle your prisoners, and all in tenebris, works of darkness; against all 
t Bulla Coenae.  Believers, Receivers, Defenders, and Favourers of Heretics. This word, [FAVOURERS also] hath a great latitude; it may be, if they chance to commend their learning, wit, zeal, constancy, or simplicity, which any Christian may do in a Pagan. And how they proceed in the Inquisition, it is known best to yourselves. This we find Confessed, that 
u Haereticorum Inquisitores, quorum jurisdictio cum tota in Theologicis traditionibus, & sacris paginis fundata esse debeat, ipsi tamen han● omnem ex iure Canonico & Pontificum Decretis crudelissimè exercent: Ipsam sacram Scripturam veluti mortuam literam à tergo relinquentes, qui eam ut Haereticis (ut aiunt) scutum & propugnaculum rejiciunt.— sed unam Rom. Ecclesiam, quae (ut dicunt) errate non potest, praefigunt sibi fidei scopum, cui Papa caput est. Non aliud expostulantes, quam si in Rom. Ecclesiam credant.— Quodsi Inquisitus conetur opinionem suam Scripturae testimonijs, alijsque rationibus tueri,— iratis ●uccis dicunt, non esse illi negotium cum Scholaribus, sed cum judicibus ad tribunal:— ideo simpliciter esse respondendum, si velit stare Decreto Rom. Ecclesiae:— sin minùs fasciculos & ignes ostendunt, dicentes, cum Haereticis non Argumentis & Scriptures, sed facsiculis & ignibus decertandum. Agrippa de vanit. scient. cap. 96.  The Inquisitors of Heretics deal most cruelly, whilst they relinquish all means of trial by Tradition or Scripture, which they reject as a dead letter, which, say they, the Heretics use as their bulwark: whereas they themselves object and prefix, as the shield of their faith, only the Church of Rome, which they hold cannot err in the faith, whose Head is the Pope. And if the party examined shall offer to prove his opinion by Scripture, and other Reasons, then with swelling and angry cheeks they tell him, that he is not now to deal with Scholars in their Schools, but with judges before their tribunal: and therefore he must answer directly, whether he will stand to the Decrees of the Roman Church, or not. If he refuse, than they conclude, saying, that they are not to dispute with him by Arguments and Scripture, but (and then they show them) with fire and faggot. So he. And is not this a barbarous cruelty? Notwithstanding Pope 
x Paulus Tertius Pont. Anno 1559. senio effoetus— Cardinals in cubiculum accersi iussit,— deinde ipsos hortatus est, ut in optimo Successore deligendo vota coniungerent. Postremò ut illud sanctissimum (sic illud vocabat) Inquisitionis officium, quo uno S. S. authoritatem niti affirmabat, commendatum haberent. Thuanus Hist. Tom. 2. lib. 16. An. 1559.  Paul the III. (and no marvel) when he was going out of the world, Left this Inquisition as a Legacy to his Successor, Anno 1559. when (as your Thuanus storieth) Calling unto him his Cardinals, he exhorted them in the last place to entertain (as he called it) the most Sacred Office of Inquisition, whereby only, said he, the Authority of his Holiness was supported. So he. And so now you see that vast house standing only upon one pillar, which is founded upon cruelty and blood.   

The second Instance of Barbarous Romish Cruelty. SECT. 3.  
IT happeneth sometime that a man, after he hath Abjured Heresy before a judge, may relapse into the same again; which may be (say you) 
y Relapsus est, qui postquam in iudicium vocatus, & ob haeresin accusatus & convictus, eam abiuravit, & rursus in eandem haeresim incurrit. Azor. Jes. Inst. Moral. part. 1. lib. 8. c. 14. Qui si, post Abiurationem haeresis, deinde Haereticos alloquitur, reverétur, invisir, se illis adiungit, eos muneribus afficit, laudat, praedicat, commendat, ut testa●ur Simanc. Azor. ibid.— Quod si rursùs Haereticis adhaeret, eos comitatur, honore prosequitur, Relapsus censeatur. Sic Archidiac. Andraeas, & alij; Azor. ib. Relapsis, quamuis actâ poenitentiâ, spes omnis veniae denegatur,— & deinde eos judici seculari tradit Ecclesia, ut in eos secundum leges animaduertat.— Qui si pertinaces sunt, v●ui igne comburuntur, si verò pertinaces non sunt, prius strangulari solent, & posteà comburi. Quare ante Relapsum, utitur Ecclesia misericordiâ, cum redeuntibus ab Haeresi, vitam eis concedendo, poenâ mortis in poenam carceris perpetui commutatâ, publicatis tamen bonis.— Post relapsum tamen utitur Ecclesia severo jure, etiam spe veniae denegatâ, etiamsi eos sui peccati poeniteat.— Ob. Sol. Respondet Glossa, Ecclesiam gremium suum redeuntibus non claudere, quià quamuis illis bona & vitam eripiat, non tamen denegat Sacramenta poenitentiae & Eucharistiae.— Ob. Communem naturam sublevandam esse, nec peccatores deserendos unquàm. Sol. Sublevatur natura subsidijs ad animae salutem necessarijs: vel dicendum est. legem suprà citatam tunc temporis editam fuisse, quandò omnes in universum Haereticos ad saniorem mentem reversos recipiebat Ecclesia. [Paulo post quaeritur,] utrùm latâ semel sententiâ, recipi in gremium possint, si ad saniorem mentem redierint? & resoluitur per et●am, & non. Azor. jes. quo supra. Etiam Suarez jes. Relapsi, etiamsi verè poenitentes, poenâ mortis afficiendi, absque ullâ remissione, Ex jure Cononico express probat.— Ratio est quia censentur incorrigibiles, & moralitèr loquendo, etc. Lib. de Trip. virt. theol. disp. 23. Sect. 2. nu. 7.  By talking with an Heretic, or doing him reverence, or visiting him, or giving him a reward, or else by commending him, etc. The question is, how your Church ought to proceed with this man? Your general resolution is, To condemn him of Heresy, and to deliver him to the Secular Magistrate, without all hope of pardon: yet so, that if the party shall continue Obstinate, he shall be immediately burnt: but if he do repent, then shall he be first strangled, and afterwards burnt. And whereas it may be objected, that no Penitent Child ought to be kept out of the Bosom of the Church; your answer is, that The Church doth admit them into her bosom, because though they must be burned, and lose their goods, yet are they allowed the Sacraments of Absolution, and the Eucharist. But is this reasonable? Yes (say you) because They, by their relapse, are held morally as Persons incorrigible.  
What shall we say of this Church? what? Namely, that never Bubalus was so stupid, as to judge them Morally incorrigible, which do repent so, as to make themselves Capable of Absolution. Nor ever was there any Rhadamanthus so extreme, as at once to pardon, and kill. Therefore Cursed be her mercy, for it is cruel. If the Sons of thunder were rebuked by Christ, as not knowing what spirit they were of, for calling for fire from heaven, to consume obstinate sinners; how far worse are these Spirits, that will needs destroy their Penitents with fire? A practice, by your own Confession, not heard of in Antiquity. Thus have we finished the second Part, concerning the Time at, and about which the Church of Rome was first founded.    

CHAP. VI Of the TIME, AFTER the Church of Rome had her first foundation.  

SECT. 1.  
FRom the Consideration of the Article of our Christian Creed, viz. The Catholic Church; and, Of the Catholic and Apostolic Church itself, as well Before, as At the Time, when the Church of Rome was first founded, hath been discovered and refuted that Article of The Roman Catholic Church, without Union and Subjection whereunto there is no Salvation: By proving it False Heretical, Schismatical, etc. Which we are now to confirm from other Evidences, taken from the Profession of the Catholic Church itself, SINCE the foundation of the Roman Church.   

Of the more Primitive Times, AFTER the foundation of the Roman Church. SECT. 2.  
Our easiest Course, in the disquisition and discussion of this great Mystery of Popedom, by the judgement of the Church Catholic, will be to follow the several tracts of Times, beginning at the more ancient, and proceeding to Successive and later Times, until we come to the last Ages of the Church.   

Our first Argument is taken from the ancient Sense of this Article, The Catholic Church, condemning the now Romish Article, viz. The Roman Catholic Church. SECT. 3.  
OFten have we pleaded Logic with you about this Term, [Catholic Roman Church] desiring to know of you (seeing it is Roman, that is, a Particular Church) how it can be called Catholic, that is, Universal, or the whole Church? And if it be the whole Church, how can it be a Particular Church, distinct from the Church of Greece, or Church of France? Will you make us believe that the thumb of the hand can be the whole body? Pope Innocent the third, as though he had foreseen this Objection, doth preocupate (as you 
* See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 3.  have heard) saying; If the Church be called Catholic, as Consisting of all Christian Churches, so the Church of Rome is not the Catholic Church, but a part thereof: but in respect of the authority, which she hath (as an Head over the body) over the whole Church, so is she called Universal, because of her Dominion. Answerable hereunto your jesuit Suarez; 
* See in the same place.  The Church of Rome, (saith he) not as a particular Dioces or Bishopric, is called the Catholic Church, but as it comprehendeth and containeth all Believers in Christ, under the obedience of the Pope of Rome. So they. This counterfeit Gloss upon these terms, The Catholic Church, as under the Obedience of the Pope, as Catholic and Universal Head, we shall bring to the Test of the Ancient Faith, by the witness of more than three Fathers.   

I. The judgement of Saint Augustine. SECT. 8.  
WHat was meant by the [Catholic Church,] in the Sense of Antiquity, Saint Augustine may be unto us herein as the mouth of the whole Church, seeing that he had more occasions to discuss this Article than any Other; especially, because in his time the Donatists did no less falsely than arrogantly appropriate the name of the Whole Church unto their Church in Africa, even as you (although in a different Sense) hold it proper to the Church of Rome, at this day. But Saint Augustine: 
a Quod Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur, Latinè totum vel universum interpretatur: per totum ergò, siuè, secundum totum est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unde Catholicum nuncupatur. Aug. Tom. 7. l. 3. con Gaudent. post princip. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non est unum sed totum, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum Totum, [unde Catholica nomen accepit.] Idem Tom. 7. con. Epist. Petil. c. 2.  The word in Greek (saith he) is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in Latin [Totum] aut Vniversale,] that is, whole or universal: [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is not one, but the whole, whence the word, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] or Catholic is derived. Thus, by distinguishing Whole Church from One Church, he showeth, that it is as unconceivable that the Catholic, Universal, or Whole should be but one One part, as it is impossible for one part to be the Whole. Which is your Paradox, to call the Head the whole Body, whilst as in your Article you make, ROMAN (as the Head) The Catholic and Universal Church itself.  
Thus have we heard Saint Augustine: will you now see him? Then behold Rem gestam. For when, by that busy fellow Petilian the Donatist, a public Conference was held at Carthage, between seven Orthodox Bishops on the one part and seven Donatists on the other, concerning the Catholic Church: Saint Augustine was singled out by the Disputer and posed in these words; Whence art thou? Who is thy Father? Is the Bishop Caecilian he? This was the Objection, challenging Augustine to answer, whence he received his Religion, and upon whom he depended? Hear now his answer. 
b Coepit ista praedicario ab Jerusalem, inde se ab illustrissimo exordio diffudit, diffundens Ecclesiam, quam tenemus, primò per vicinia, deinde per longinqua etiam in Asricam venit. In hanc oculos aperuimus, hanc in divinis eloquijs & testimonijs, sicut ipsum Dominum & Redemptorem comperimns. Ab illo Deo Patre, ab hac Ecclesia matre nullius me hominis crimina, nullius calumniae separabunt, Collat. Carthag. 3. num. 230. It is joined with Optatus.  My communion (saith he) began first at Jerusalem, and from remote places came nearer, until it entered into Africa, and so dispersed itself throughout all the World. From this my Father, God, and my Mother-Church will I never be separated for the calumnies of any man.  

CHALLENGE.  
SAy now, if either Petilian the Heretic could have questioned Saint Augustine, professing himself a Catholic, whether he had his dependence upon CAECILIAN Bishop of Carthage, as his spiritual Father; if it had been a currant profession among the Churches of those times, to have held the Bishop of Rome The Catholic Father; or the Church of Rome The Catholic Mother-Church, without which there is no salvation? Or whether it could have stood with the Conscience of Saint Augustine (if he had been of your now Romish Faith) in a question about the Fatherhood, What Bishop; and Mother-hood, what Church he professed; fo● to (passing by all mention of the B. of Rome) acknowledge no Head but Christ? and neglecting the Roman Church, adhere to the Whole Church, dispersed throughout the whole Christian World, as indeed the properly called Mother-Church? How should not Saint Augustine (although never so admirable a Saint) have been held a Schismatic and Heretic, if he had lived in these days, either for his ignorance, or Contempt of the now Romish resolution of Faith in all such Questions, to wit; that the Spiritual Father of the Church is the Pope of Rome, and the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church is self, because Head of all the rest?  
As for the prime Mother-Church, by spiritual procreation, we see that Saint Augustine acknowledgeth no other than Jerusalem, which verefieth that, which 
* See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. etc.  hath been largely proved, to wit; that although the ancient Roman Church might, in many respects, be called A Mother Church of many other Churches in Christendom, especially in respect of her admirable care, for the preservation of divine truth and peace in the Christian world: Yet now, since, first by usurping an Original Prerogative of the Universal Mother, she is become the Mother of Arrogance and Falsehood. 2. By preiudicing the Birthright of other Churches, more ancient than herself, She may be called the Mother of Schism. 3. By excluding All from hope of Salvation, that believe her not to be the Mother-Church, she may justly be judged the Mother of damnable Heresy. Of Saint Augustine's judgement, more hereafter.    

II. The judgement of Saint Hierome, concerning the Church Catholic. SECT. 5.  
SAint Hierome was a professed and devout Child of the Church of Rome, when Rome was yet a true and natural Mother, and no Stepdame, who notwithstanding, when the Custom of Rome was objected against him (in a Case of difference between Deacon and Priest) calling the Adverse part 
c Quòd sen●it Romae Diaconos Presbyteris anteferri. Quid mihi proffers, ait, urbis consuetudinem? quid paucitate●, de qua ortum est supercilium? Et paulo ante,— si authoritas quaeratur, orbis major est quam urbis. Hier. Tom. 2. ad Euagr, p. 329.  An arrogant paucity, he maketh an answer full of indignity; As though (saith he) there were more authority [in Vrbe quam in Orbe] that is, in one City (the Seat of the Bishop of Rome) than in the whole Catholic Church beside.  
This is the Testimony of Saint Hierome, wherein the Fathers of the Council of Basil did in a manner triumph, in opposition to the Papal Claim, saying; 
d Quid ais, Hieronyme? an magnus est Papa quià Romanae praeest Ecclesiae? major autem universalis, quae non vrbem duntaxat, sed totum complectitur orbem. Aenaeas Silvius de gestis, Conc. Basil. fol. 5.  O Hierome, what mean you! Is there therefore greatness in the Pope, because he governeth the Church? His authority is great; indeed, but not so great as the authority of the Catholic Church, which is not contained in one City, but comprehendeth in itself the whole World.  

CHALLENGE.  
APply you to this former sentence of Saint Hierome, if you can, your former distinction; namely, that the Church of Rome is a Particular Church in itself, but Catholic, as the Head, having Universal Dominion over the whole Church; and see whether it will abide the test of Saint Hierome, who, speaking of the Customs of the Church of Rome, calleth the Custom of that Church, [Vrbem] meaning the custom but of one Particular Church, whose seat is at Rome: and opposeth unto it the Custom of the Catholic Church, which he calleth [Orbem,] the whole world. Showing thereby (with whom also doth accord the judgement of the Fathers of the Council of Basil) that the Authority of the Church Catholic, and of the Church of Rome are not equivalent, much less the same: for in Identity there can be no opposition, or comparison. None can compare a man's head with itself. And what furthermore Saint Hierome did conceive hereof, will afterwards appear in due Place.    

III. The judgement of Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome, Concerning the Head Catholic, In denying the Title of Universal Bishop; as did likewise Pelagius and Leo, both Bishops of the same See. SECT. 6.  
ALthough it can be no sufficient Argument, for concluding a Papal authority, to object unto us the testimonies of Popes (which is your ordinary guise) in their own Cause: yet will it be unto us Armour of Proof, to oppose against you the authority, albeit but of one Pope disclaiming that your pretended Universal Head-ship, in that Article, which you call, The Catholic Roman Church.  
He who, being Head and Bishop of the Church of Rome, shall deny the Title of 
e Vnum ex nominibus, ex quibus colligitur Primatus Rom. Pontificis, est Vniversalis Episcopus quod Rom. Pontifici tribui solet. Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 31. initio.  Universal or Catholic Bishop to be properly belonging to himself, doth Consequently deny that his Church of Rome can properly be called The Catholic, 
f B. Gregorius vitae meritis honorandus, & in moralibus assertionibus cunctis praeferendus, in Sacrarum Scripturarum intelligentia pollens. Canus Jes. ante Catechis. Conc. Trid. de Encom. Patrum.  that is to say, The Universal Church. This is a Consequence, in your own judgement, so undeniable, that your Cardinal Bellarmine, the great Achilles in this Cause, is in nothing more studious, zealous, or instant than in the defence of this Head, and this Title of Universal Bishop; as proper to the Pope, and a special Note of Papal Primacy, over the whole Church of Christ. Which your Faith, or rather infatuation, cometh now to be confuted by the judgement of Saint Gregory, worthily commended by yourselves for a man Excellent in Moral Positions, and in the Understanding of the holy Scriptures. This being so honourable a Witness, we call upon him to testify two points; first, the Novelty; secondly, the Iniquity of this Title of Universal Bishop within the Church. In the first place he expressly calleth this Title of Universal Bishop 
g Vocabulum nowm. Greg. l. 4. Epist. 32. Nullis Praedecessornm, etc. Epist. 36.  A new Title; which (saith he) None of my Predecessors ever used. It is but idle and impertinent to object unto us, that 
h Leo Papa universalis inscribitur in Conc. Chalced. Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 31.  Leo Pope, before him, was inscribed Universal in the Council of Chalcedon; because it was not absolutely there ascribed to Pope Leo, but with a grand Restriction, as thus; 
i Vniversali Archiepiscopo magnae Romae. Conc. Chalced. Act. 3.  Universal (to wit) of Great Rome: which is as much as to deny him to be the Bishop of the Universal Church: even as when you shall instile your now Roman Emperor thus, The Universal Emperor of Rome, you thereby distinguish him from the Emperor of Turkey, the Emperor of Persia, the Emperor of Moscow, and others; and consequently deny him to be Emperor of the whole world.  
As vain, and indeed ridiculous is it now, after a thousand, & two hundred years, to pretend that 
k Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae, etc. Binius Annot. in Conc. Chalced. Act. 3. ex Baronio.  The Title was by that Council set down at large, The Bishop of the Universal Church; because it is so read in the Epistle of Pope Leo, but was altered by the Greek Scribe, in envy to the Church of Rome. This you should allege to them that can be persuaded, that any private man could, or durst alter the style of a public and General Council, against the dignity of the Pope, where the Pope's Legates were present. And not rather, that some Latin Scribe hath added that Inscription to the Epistle of Pope Leo, in honour of the Church of Rome, as is Confessed to have been done unto the 
l This Causanus confesseth of the Epistle of Anacletus; and Baronius of the Epistle of Pope Boniface.  Epistles of other Popes; and by three 
* See hereafter Chap. 9 Sect. 9 & 10.  Popes themselves unto the Council of Nice. As for the point in question, we stand to the joint testimonies of Pelagius and Gregory, both Popes, who have witnessed to all Posterity (as your own jesuit confesseth) that 
m Hi duo contendebant, nullum Ecclesiarum Antistitem, imò nec Romanum, sibi hoc nomen assumpsisse Azor. jes. Inst. Moral. part. 2. lib. 4. cap. 4.  No Bishop of Rome before them had ever used the Title of Universal Bishop: Which notwithstanding scarce any one Pope, since the age of Saint Gregory, hath not assumed as proper to himself. But how justly, we shall understand by the said Pope Gregory: who, after the branding of this Title with the note of Novelty, doth further discover the Impiety thereof.  
This he expresseth first, by bidding this Title of Universal Bishop 
n Absit, etc. lib. 4. Epist. 32.  AVANT! as being 
o Nomen vanitatis. Epist. 32.  Vain, 
p Vocabulum prophanum. Ibid. & Ep. 36.  Profane, q Heinously wicked, and 
r Scelestum & nefandum. Ep. 38. & 39  Blasphemous. Words of high indignation and detestation. When any of you shall answer this Objection, without either manifest falsehood, or else intolerable injury to Pope Gregory, then may you brag, that Saint Gregory was that thing, 
s Nomen blasphemiae. Ep. 32.  which you call a Pope. Some of your Doctors (who are said to be 
t Multi, etc. Azor. jes. quo supra.  Many) would shift off this matter, as though it were but a Verbal skirmish and contention only about words. But this were to make Pope Gregory, Pelagius, and Leo the Ninth, three Popes very childish, 
u Si sic, tunc nec Pelagius secundus, nec Gregorius, nec post eum Leo nonus tàm acriter huic rei restitissent, Azor. Ibid.  who did earnestly gainsay this Title, a● your jesuit confesseth: who might from the mouth of Gregory himself have stopped these other Many mouths, were they never so wide. For when the Emperor Mauritius, in the behalf of the Bishop of Constantinople (who used this Title Universal) was offended with Gregory for being so vehement, 
x Pro appellatione frivoli nominis scandalum, etc. Verba Mauritij à Greg. repetita, l. 6. Ep. 30. ad Mauritium Imper.  In taking a scandal at the Appellation of so frivolous a Name; Gregory himself made answer, that 
y 
Valde frivolun, sed nimis periculosum. Ibid.  
Quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum prae currit, qui à superbiendo se co●teris praeponit. Greg. Ibid.   It was very frivolous, but withal too too pernicious; and that he who desired to be called Universal Priest, did, by so advancing himself above others, show himself to be the forerunner of ANTICHRIST. Yea, and so wicked he judged it to be, that he would have all the world to know, that neither He, nor any of his Predecessors else had ever assumed the same.  
Yea, but this was not (saith your Cardinal) for that Gregory might not have used this Title, but because he would not use it. And why? In humility, forsooth! 
z Illud recusavit, quamuis sibi in aliquo sensu conveniret, ad melius & facilius comprimendam superbiam Episc. Constantinopolitaniss, etc. Bellar. de Pont. lib. 1. cap. ult.  That he might hereby more easily repress the insolency of john, Bishop of Constantinople, who at that time unjustly usurped the same. Thus he. Which is as much as to say, that a King would renounce his Royal Title of Sovereignty; to the end that some notorious Rebel, challenging it, might thereby the more willingly disclaim it. Were not this a profound piece of policy, trow you, if not rather gross foppery? We choose rather to believe Gregory himself, who professeth 
a Ità humilitatem tenemus in ment, ut tamen ordinis nostri dignitatem teneamus in honore. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 36.  To be humble in mind, but still so, as to preserve the honour and dignity of his place. So far was he from disclaiming any right that belonged to his Chair. Again, for Gregory in word to abhor (with an [Absit) that Title as impious and blasphemous, which he thought might notwithstanding be justly used by him, what would you call this otherwise than an egregious Hypocrisy?  
A Third answer you have, which you should as much shame to utter, as we loathe to hear: to wit, that Gregory did abhor the Title of Universal Bishop, but only in the same sense, wherein it was then used by the Bishop of Constantinople. How we beseech you? 
b Vt sic intelligatur Vniversalis, ut solus Episcopus aliorum, ut alij non sint Episcopi, sed Vicarij. Bellar. de Pont. l. 2. cap. 31.  So to be called Universal Bishop over others (say you) as to be sole Bishop, and to make all others under him to be no Bishops, but only Vicars unto him. Where, by Vicars, you mean such as have no Order or jurisdiction proper to Bishops at all. Which is so incredible a figment, that it is confuted by all those Bishops (who are very many) which submitted themselves unto this Bishop of Constantinople, and approved his Title; yet notwithstanding held and exercised their ancient jurisdictions of their several archiepiscopal Sees. Who, doubtless, would never have allowed the Title of Universality to that Patriarch of Constantinople (as you 
c Dices Episcopum Constantinopolitanum, etc.— Esto— etc.— Azor. jes. Jnst. par. 2. l. 4. c. 4.  know they did) if that thereupon they should have been compelled, of Bishops, to become plain Vicars, and cast out of the Parlour into the Kitchen.  
The true and undoubted Sense then of Gregory is that, which your Cardinal Cusan, even one of the Pope's eyes, hath seen and acknowledged, that 
d Dicit Gregorius, nullum Episcopum ita principatum gerere, ut omnia membra fint ei subjecta. Card. Cusanus Conc. Eccles. l. 2. c. 34. And so, indeed, are the words of Greg. in his Epist. ad johannem Constantinop. Omnibus praeesse, nulli subesse vis, etc.  Gregory (by impugning the Title of universal Bishop) would have no Bishop so principal, as to make all other members subject unto him: So he. Than which what can be more apposite, in this Cause, and opposite unto the now Roman Profession, concerning the Title of Universal Roman Bishop, the Foundation of the sense of your own Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church.  
Yet this is not all, but we furthermore aver, that Gregory condemned the Title of Universal Bishop, then used by the Patriarch of Constantinople, in no other sense, than it was after the days of Gregory assumed, and used by your Roman Popes: whereunto such of your own Historians (who are very many) bear full witness. For they record, that Pope 
e Bonifacius tertius à Phoca Imp. obtinuit, ut sedes Petri, sicut est caput omnium Ecclesiarum, ità diceretur & haberetur: Quem quidem locum Ecclesia Constantinop. sibi vendicare conabatur. Platina in vita Bonifacij, & Balbus de coronat. Obtinuit à Phoca, ut Rom. sedes omninò & absolutè prima diceretur, ●este Paulo Diacono, qui circa illa tempora vixit:— cum prius Constantinopolitana se primum omnium Ecclesiarum diceret. Masson. in vita Bonifa●. 3. & Polyd. Virg. l. 4. Iwent. c. 9 Etiam citantur ab aliis Rhegino, Anastas. Herman. Contract. Marianus Scotus, Sabellicus, Otto frisingen's.  Boniface (the next Successor to Gregory, save one) did obtain of the Emperor Phocas, that Rome should have the same Title of Head-ship over all other Churches, which the Bishop of Constantinople had challenged to his See. The only difference will be this, that the Head of the Pope's universal jurisdiction, under that Title, as it were under a poisoned Mitre, hath grown far more loathsome by impostumes, and swollen with tyranny, than it could possibly be, at the first usurpation thereof; being become no less intolerable, than was that Emperor Phocas, of whom Pope Boniface with much importunity received that Title. Which Emperor your Cardinal Baronius noteth to have been 
f Baron. Anno 603. num. 9  A bloody Tyrant. So then we see, that this Title of Universal Bishop was abandoned by Gregory, as extremely Impious. But some peradventure would be willing to know his reason hereof. Saint Gregory will satisfy any one, that shall be desirous to understand the mischief hereof: 
g Vniversa Ecclesia corruit, quandò is, qui universalis appellatur, cadit. Greg. l. 4. Epist. 32.  Because the Universal Church (saith he) must needs go to ruin, whensoever he, that is the Universal Bishop thereof, shall chance to fall. Which Assertion of Saint Gregory doth brand your Church with Two black Notes of 
h In isto scelesto vocabulo consentire, est nihil aliud quam fidem perdere. I●▪ Ep. 39  Apostasy, and 
* See above, lit. y.  Antichristianitie.  

CHALLENGE.  
CAtholike, or Universal Church, and Universal Bishop of the same Church, are, in your doctrine, as truly Relatives as Master and Servant; the one cannot be denied without the other. Go too now then, blazon your Papal Inscription in the highest style that you can invent; more than Universal it cannot be: and animate it with the perfectest spirit, that can be infused into it; more absolute none can expect, than that which you ascribe unto your Pope of Rome, which is, that 
i Pontifex in definiendo infallibiliter iudicat— qui si posset ut persona publica in definendo e●rare contra fidem, & teneretur Ecclesia tota eam sequi, ità fieret ut Ecclesia universa posset errare: quod est Haere sis intolerabilis. Greg. de Valent. Analys. fid. l. 8. c. 3. & alibi sapiùs.  The Pope's judgement is infallible, in defining of any doctrine of faith. But why? Because (say you) if he, as a public person and judge of the Church, should err, by concluding any thing against faith, than the universal Church, which is bound to follow him, should likewise err. So he.  
This is your Roman Profession, which may be unto us a perfect Argument of your Apostasy from the ancient Roman faith, maintained in the days of Saint Gregory: as thus. The now Roman Article is to believe, that the Pope of Rome is the Universal Bishop of the Church Catholic, and therefore cannot err in any doctrine of faith: insomuch that the Church, subject to this Roman Bishop, must be accounted the Only Church on earth, without which there is no salvation. But the faith of Saint Gregory contrarily standeth thus: Whatsoever Bishop he be (Roman, or other) that professeth himself the Universal Bishop, or Head, is subject to Error. Therefore none ought to assent to any such Assumption, lest that, that one erring, the whole Church of Christ should err with him. So than you, forsooth, see an Infallibility in the usurpation of that Title, as proper to the Pope, wherein Saint Gregory did foresee the bane of an Universal Erring and falling from the faith. To conclude, Saint Gregory held the title, which betokeneth an Universal Dominion over the whole Church, to be so direfully pernicious, that he consequently condemned the Universal Subjection unto one Bishop (the now Article of the Roman Church) as Pernicious and Antichristian. To whom also your Jesuits 
* See above in this Chap. Sect. 6.  have taught you to add two other Popes, Pelagius and Leo, who in like manner condemned and disclaimed that Title.     

CHAP. VII. Our second Argument, against the Article of necessity of Subjection to the Roman Church and Pope, is taken from Comparisons made between the Bishop and Church of Rome with other Bishops and Churches, by the ancient Fathers.  

SECT. 1.  
AGainst an Article of an usurped Dominion of one Church over all other, there can be no better Argument than from the Comparison of other Churches with that one, which pretendeth herself to be the Mother and Mistress of all the rest. Upon this consideration you have been urged by One, who for learning and judgement in Antiquity was hardly to be seconded by any. He posed you from the testimonies of the writings of Dionysius Areopagita, and Ignatius, the most ancient of Fathers. Where, supposing That Dionysius to be as truly that great Areopagita, and as worthy an Author as you would have him to be, he spurreth you a necessary question: 
a Quaero igitur, unde Dionys●j huius silentium de ●apite visibili Ecclesiae in terris Romae regnante, etc.— Petrus supremus dicitur [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] quod apud Graecos honoris excellentiam denotat, non dominij. In qua voce Maximus & Pachymeres duo Interpretes Dionysijs eruditiss. ac diligentiss. nullam dominationem inveniunt. Casaub. Exercit. 16. in Baron. ad finem. scil. Anno. 34. num 209.  Why Dionysius was so utterly silent, in not mentioning the Universal visible Head of the Church, reigning at Rome, if at that time there had been any such Monarchical Head there; especially seeing he professedly writ of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and government? or is it credible, and not rather monstrous that he writing of the mystical rites of the Church should omit all mention of this chief mystery of one supreme Head and Monarch of the Church at Rome, being so pertinently invited thereunto by that matter subject, which he had there in hand, to wit, by the Hierarchy of the Church, if this doctrine had been of faith in that age? This (saith he) removeth your frivolous Objection. By the same reason he 
b Idem dicimus de Epistolis Ignatij Martyris & Episcopi Antiocheni— Hic in singulis ferè Epistolis dignitatem Episcopalem miro studio asserit, & totum ordinem Ecclesiasticum in illis epistolis est invenire— De Monarchia autem vel Petri, vel Romani Pontificis vir hic sanctus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— Ob. Sol. Epistolam eius ad Romanos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse, Graecè periti numquam sinent se persuaderi. Casaub. ibid.  objecteth against you the Epistles of Ignatius, the most ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch, that he being frequent in setting forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignity of Bishops, upon diverse occasions, should forbear all mention of the Monarchy of Saint Peter, or any Roman Pope.  
But we return to our own Observations out of Antiquity, by equal Comparisons of other Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, beginning at the same Ignatius.  
1 He writing to the Church of Trallis, and exhorting them unto obedience to Bishops, as to the Apostles, 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Ignat. Epist. ad Trallens.  instanceth equally in Timothy, Saint Paul's Scholar, as in Anacletus Successor to Saint Peter.  
2 Irenaeus lived next to the Apostles times, who 
d Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs, Habetis Romae Linum,— & Polycarpum Smyrnae ab Apostolis edoctum, etc. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. p. 140.142. As for the words [Propter Principalitatem] they are answered hereafter.  referreth his Reader for direction, in the right of Traditions, as well to Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna in the East, as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West.  
3 Tertullian, to secure Christians in the Doctrine of the Apostles, 
e Constat omnem doctrinam, quae cum Matricibus & Originalibus Ecclesijs conspirat, veri●ati deputandam. Tert. Prescript. p. 76. Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum à Iohanne collocatum refert, sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit: proinde utique, etc. p. 80. Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas— proxima est tibi Achaia, habes Corinthum. etc. p. 82. In Italia Romani. etc.  prescribeth unto them that they consult with the Mother-Churches immediately founded by the Apostles, naming aswell Ephesus in Asia, and Corinth in Achaia, as Rome in Italy. And again for the persons, mentioning to the same purpose, aswell 
* See the Testimony next before, Sicut Smyrnaeorum etc.  Polycarpus ordained by Saint john, as Clemens by Peter. We shall not need to make any Notes or Comments upon the words of Tert. your own Beatus Rhenanus hath 
f Tertullianus Ecclesiam unam Apostolicam nulli loco affigit— Romanam Ecclesiam or●at magnificae laudis elogio,— non tamen tantam illam facit, quantam hodiè fieri videmus: nam Apostolicis Ecclesijs illam numerat, non solam facit Apostolicam. Videamus quod Lac à Paulo Corinthij hauserint. Si superesset Tertullianus, non impunè illud diceret. Rhenanus Argum. in Tert. de Praescrip. & alibi. Jmpress. Basil. 1521.  published as much as we can require. Tertullian (saith he) doth not confine the Catholic and Apostolic Church to one place: and although he give an honourable testimony to the Church of Rome, yet did he not esteem her so highly, as we see her accounted of at this day. He reckoneth her with other Churches, yet doth not make her the only Church, but admonisheth his Readers as well to inquire what milk the Church of Corinth gave, as Rome. So Rhenanus, who addeth, that If Tertullian were now alive, and should say so much, he could not escape without punishment. Thus your Rhenanus, whiles that he had the use of his tongue, but since you have Gagged him, by your 
g Index Expurg. Belg. p. 78. Deleantur, etc.  Index Ezpurgatorius (a Book which we may call the martyrologue of many innocent books.) But no marvel, for this testimony of Rhenanus was as a poniard, sticking fast in the very bowels of this Cause. Notwithstanding, Tertullian will be Tertullian still; whom whosoever shall read, he will be able to avouch as much as Rhenanus hath observed, namely that Tertullian, even whilst he was a true child of the Church, never allowed the Apostolic (which we commonly call the Catholic) Church to be appropriated unto any one place; nor had he further respect to Rome, than he had to Corinth and other Apostolical Churches, which he calleth 
* Matrices & Originales. Tert. lib. de Prescript. Cap. 21.  Original Mother-Churches; for directing of Christians in the Apostolic faith.  
4 Athanasius reckoneth up, to the Emperor Constantine, the Churches that consented to the Council of Nice, thus: 
h Huic (nempè Canoni Nicaenae Synods) omnes Ecclesiae assensae sunt Hispaniae, Britanniae, Galliae, Italiae totius, Dalmatiae. Athanas. & reliqui Episcopi Aegypti ad Imperat. test● Theodoret. Hist. l. 4. c. 3.  The Churches of Spain, of Britain, of France, of whole Italy, of Dalmatia; without any precise mention of Rome, otherwise than it was comprised in whole Italy. A great Contempt, doubtless, if your Article had been then hatched, because the Consent of Rome only had been more persuasive to the Emperor than all the rest.  
5 Vincentius Lirinensis likewise, an ancient Father, and greatly approved on all sides, in his book written in defence of the Catholic Truth, against all profane Novelties, 
i In Ephesina Synodo Petrus Alexandrinus— sed nec sola Graecia & oriens tantùm, verùm etiam occidentalis & Latinus o●bis ità sensisse approbetur. Lectae sunt— Epistolae Felicis & julij urbis Romae Episcoporum. etc. Lyrinen. cap 42.  adviseth Christians to try the Truth equally by the joint consent as well of the East as of the Westchurch: and to consult as well with Petrus Alexandrinus and Athanasius in the one Church, as with Felix and julius Bishops of Rome in the other. Concerning whom, more hereafter.  
6 Saint Augustine against julian the Pelagian, in the question of Baptism, speaking of Chrysostome the Bishop of Constantinople, saith; 
k Absit ut Constantinopolitanus johannes de parvulorum liberatione per Christum tot ac tantis Coëpiscopis suis, maximéque Romano Innocentio, Carthaginensi Cypriano, Cappadoci Basilio, Gregorio Nazianzeno, Gallo Hilario, Mediolanensi Ambrosio resistat. Aug. cont. julian. Pelag. l. 1. cap 2.  far be it from him that he should descent from his fellow-Bishops, Innocentius Bishop of Rome, Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, Basil Bishop of Cappadocia, Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum, Hilary a French Bishop, and Ambrose Bishop of Milan. Is it possible that these orthodox Fathers should in this manner, and upon such occasions have given the Bishop of Rome so many Mates, in equalizing others with him, if your Article of Monarchical Dominion had entered into their breasts or brains?   

The same comparisons proved by ancient Churches. SECT. 2.  
THe general Council of Constantinople in the East, to make known their Consent in the Faith with the Church in the West, do indite an Epistle, and inscribe it thus; 
l Dominis honoratissimis, & cumprimis Reverendis fra●ribus & collegis Damaso, Ambrosio, Brittoni, etc. Apud Theodoret. hist. l. 5 cap. 9  To their Reverend brethren and fellows, as well to Damasus of Rome, as to Ambrose of Milan, and others.  
The Church of Egypt gathered in Council, in their letters unto the Emperor Leo, profess 
m Epist. Aegypti Epis. ad Leonem Augustum. Consentimus unanimiter cum universis totius orbis Christi sacerdotibus, & prae omnibus cum summis Sanctis Episcopis, i. e. Romano Leone, Regiae Constantinopolis Anatolio, Antiocheno Basilio, & Iwenale Hierosolymorum. Teste Binio Tom. 2. inter Epist. illustrium personarum, p 147.  Their Consent in the Catholic faith with the chief Priests in the Christian world; naming as well Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, Basil Bishop of Antioch, Iwenall Bishop of Jerusalem, as Leo Bishop of Rome.  
The Decree of the Church of Carthage, in her third Council standeth thus: 
n Conc. Catthag. 3. cap 48. Placuit ut consulamus fratres consacerdotes nostros Sy●ici●um & Simplicianum (de infantibus qui baptizantur.) Apud Surium. Tom. 1. Conc.  It is decreed that we consult hereupon with our brethren, Syricius (viz. Bishop of Rome) and Simplician, viz. Bishop of Milane. Not to omit how you confess, that 
o Post Photium Patriarcham Constantinopol. Romans Pontificibus conniventibus, illud usurpari coeptum est, ut ambo Episcopi, Romanus sc. & Constantinopolitanus à Graecis Oecumenici. i. Vniversales dicerentur, hic quidem in Oriente Oecumenicus, ille Oecumenicus in Occidente. Azor. jes. Moral. Inst part, 2. l. 4. c. 4.  The Bishops of Constantinople did sometime enjoy the title of Universal Bishops equally with the Bishops of Rome: but this they did (say you) by permission of the Bishops of Rome, and upon connivance. Tell you this to them, who know not that (Majesty brooking no Corrival) the Monarchy of Popes would never dispense, or continue at any One, usurping equal Title of Monarchical jurisdiction, which is as much as to snatch their Papal Mitres from of their heads.  

CHALLENGE.  
THe distinction of East and West is not more familiarly known to every vulgar man, than is the distinction of East and Westchurch, by every babe in Historical learning: understanding thereby, that they were anciently held as two general parts of the Catholic Church, and not as one subordinate to another; as will afterwards more plainly appear. Again, unless you shall except against the most ancient and universally approved Instructors and guides of the Catholic Church, we must conclude, that the East part of the world is not more opposite unto the West, than is your now Roman Article, to wit, The Catholic Roman Church, contrary to Catholic Antiquity. Insomuch that as when Protestants are controlled, condemned, tormented, or put to death for renouncing this your Article, Ignatius, Ireneus (to omit the authority of Counsels, and Others) Tertullian, Athanasius, Vinc. Lirinensis, and Augustine may seem to suffer in them: because it may be said of the rest, which your Rhenanus spoke of one, saying; Tertullian, if he were alive, should not escape unpunished, for such his Prescriptions. So False and Imposterous is your Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, as having Dominion over all Others.     

CHAP. VIII. Our third Argument, taken from the judgement of the Catholic Church itself, in the first Six General Counsels after the Apostles: Besides a Seventh and Eight Council, in Your estimation, General.  

SECT. 1.  
EVery true General Council you will esteem to be the Representative Church Catholic; then which, after the evidence of divine Scriptures, the Oracles of God, no better proof can be required by the Professors of the Christian faith. For this cause we hold it our duty, for your better satisfaction, to give you Instances in the first Six General Counsels, beginning at the first General Council of Nice.   

I. That the Belief of the Romish Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, without which &c. damneth all the Catholic Fathers of the Council of Nice, and their Believers. SECT. 2.  
THe first General Council in Christianity, after the Synod of the 
* Acts 15.  Apostles, was that famous first Council of Nice, consisting of CCCXVIII. Bishops, by whom were made two Decrees utterly prejudicial to the now Article of the Dominion of the Roman Church, and Pope, above all other Churches and their Bishops. One is against the Appeals of persons Excommunicate in any Diocese unto remote Churches: which the Bishops of the Church of Africa, in their Council (wherein Saint Augustine was an Actor) did absolutely deny, by virtue of the 
a Vt non ad communionem vestram à nobis excommunicatos ultràvelitis arripere, quià hoc Niceno Concilio definitum facilè advertet venerabilitas tua. Apud Surium Tom. 1. Conc. African. Epist. ad Coelest. c. 105.  Canon of the Council of Nice. The second Instance in the sixth Canon of the same Nicene Synod, decreeing thus; 
b Mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto, vel Lybia, & Pentapoli, ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, quoniam quidem & Episcopo Rom. parilis mos est. Binius Tom. 1. in Conc. Nic. 1. Can. 6.  That the Bishops of Alexandria should have the Government over Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— as it is in the Greek] because also the Bishop of Rome hath [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the same custom: thereby distinguishing and limiting their Provinces; so as the Bishop of Alexandria may still have government within his Provinces, As also the Bishop of Rome hath in his. And that because of prescription of Custom [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, say they, that is] LET THE ANCIENT COURSE HOLD; and add, As also let Antioch and other Provinces hold their ancient Privileges, etc. Which taketh away all Subordination of the authority of Alexandria to Rome.  
This was the current sense of this Canon, in the days of Antiquity, until the boldness of your Authors, thinking to carry the matter by outfacing, devised a strange Answer. 
c Sensus est, quià ità Pontifex Rom. consuevit permittere. Bellar. l. 2. de Pot. c. 13. §. Quarta.  The sense is (saith Bellarmine) that the Bishop of Alexandria should have these Provinces there mentioned, because the Bishop of Rome was accustomed to permit it so to be. So he. As though they were not words of Comparison, that the Bishop of Alexandria should enjoy his Privileges, accordingly as the Bishop of Rome held anciently his: but that the Prerogative, forsooth, of the Bishop of Rome was and had been then to Permit, or dispose of the Provinces of the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and of other Bishops at his own pleasure. A Gloss both senseless and shameless. Senseless, for that it carrieth with it a Confluence of Absurdities. First, because it had been an impiety for the Accusers to have called the Case of the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch into question, to be determined in that Council, if it had been the Catholic faith then to believe, that it was in the power of the Bishop of Rome to order all such matters of jurisdiction, of other Patriarches, as he should think good. Next, the Council had been guilty of unpardonable remissness, when they heard a Case, so prejudicial to the Authority of the Monarch of the Church, the Pope of Rome, and yet would not severely rebuke the Accusers, as scandalous and Schismatical fellows; nor reject the Case itself with indignation and detestation, as that which they could not take upon them to decide, without the danger of their souls, against the Ordinance of Christ, in the Bishop of Rome: But much more for determining contrarily (as they did) saying, LET ANCIENT CUSTOMS HOLD; whereas they should rather have expressly acknowledged, in the Bishop of Rome, the Ordinance of Christ, as the life and soul of every Custom, which comprehendeth any matter of Faith necessary to Salvation.  
And that this Answer is also shameless, is proved by the Sunshine light of story: For that those words, [Because also the Bishop of Rome hath the same Custom] are words of Comparison, betwixt the Churches of Alexandria and Rome, in the point of maintaining their ancient Privileges. Which not only the words 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— quoniam etiam, etc. vid. supra. a● b.  [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Because also,] do plainly prove, (As when one shall say, I will give this man a Crown, because also I gave a Crown to his fellow) but furthermore the three Editions, now set down in the body of your Counsels, by your Binius, wherein the words are; Because the Church of Rome hath the like Custom, without any word of Permission. Yet were all this but a kind of Modesty, if you did not know, that the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, upon the same ground, (namely, that it was but matter of Custom, and no Divine Ordinance) did, against the will of the Bishop of Rome, advance the Prerogative of the Bishop of 
* See hereafter.  Constantinople. If you did not know, that three of your Popes of Rome, for the giving of an high point of Dominion, (even the Prerogative of Appeals to Rome from other Provinces) alleged, though 
* See below, Chap. 9 Sect. 9 & 10.  forgedly and fraudulently, the authority of the Council of Nice. And if you did not further know it Confessed by a Cardinal of far more ancient note, and greater ingenuity than his fellows, that the direct Sense of the Nicene Canon is, that 
d Quoniam parilis mos est.] Id est, sicut Romanus habet omnium suorum Episcoporum potestatem, ità & Alexandrinus ex more habet per Aegyptum, etc. Card. Cusan. Conterd. Cath. l. 2. cap. 12.  As the Bishop of Rome had power and authority over all his Bishops, so the Bishop of Alexandria, according to Custom, should have throughout Lybia, etc. The same Cardinal proceeds, in showing how much Rome hath since encroached beyond her ancient limits: 
e Videmus quantum Rom. Pontifex ultra antiquas obseruationes ex usu & consuetudine subiectionalis obedientiae hodiè acquisivit. Cusan. ib.  We see (saith he) how much the Bishop of Rome, by use and custom of Subiectionall Obedience, hath at this day got, beyond the ancient Constitutions.  
But how shall we expect good conscience from your Bellarmine, in acknowledging the true judgement of the Council of Nice, who, when it is objected (against the latter Roman Counsels, to prove them bastardly and illegitimate) that it is required as a necessary Condition in a Council, in all Divine Constitutions, to stand upon Divine grounds, the holy Scriptures only; 
f Conditio iniqua— Bellar. l. 1. de Conc. c. 21. §. 4. Conditio.  answereth that This is no equal condition. And notwithstanding that the thrice-renoumed Emperor Constantine the GREAT required in this Synod of Nice, that 
g Euangelici & Apostolici libri planè instruunt nos quid de rebus divinis sentiendum sit: proinde omni hostili discordiâ positâ, ex verbis divinitùs inspiratis sumamus quaestionum explicationes. Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 7  Because the books of the Apostles do plainly instruct us in Divine matters, therefore we ought to make our Determinations upon questions, from words which are so divinely inspired; yet answereth the same Bellarmine thus: 
h Magnus Imperator Constantinus, sed non magnus Ecclesiae Doctor, etc. Bellar. l. 4 de verbo Dei. c. 11. §. Respondeo.  Constantine (saith he) was a great Emperor indeed, but yet no great Doctor of the Church, who was yet unbaptized, and therefore understood not the mysteries of Religion. Thus doth this your Cardinal twit and taunt the judgement of that godly Emperor, witnessed by Theodoret; where expressing his testimony, and citing the place, yet (as the Steward in the Gospel) unjustly concealeth from his Reader that which followeth in Theodoret, namely, that 
i Ista, aliaque de eodem genere, dùm doctrinae Apostolicae consensum stabilite moliretur, [Constantinus] tanquàm filius Patris amantiss. Episcopis & Sacerdotibus proposuit: Et maxima pars Concilij verbis eius obtempe●auit. Theod. quo supra.  The greater part of that Council of Nice obeyed the voice of Constantine, and Concluded matters accordingly. So little regard have the now Romanists to the authority of the Council of Nice, which hath been ever since worthily honourable in the memory of all true worshippers of Christ jesus. By which notwithstanding we see two Articles of Popery quite overthrown; One of the pretended Papal Dominion over the whole Church: the o●her, the Equalling of Traditions with Scriptures, for the deciding of matters of Faith.  

CHALLENGE.  
THe Canons of those CCCXVIII. Fathers of that General Council of Nice, who have thus infirmed your Article of Universal Subjection to the Roman Church, found belief with all the sincere Professors throughout the Christian world. Whether therefore you will have your Article to damn so many Catholic Bishops, the admirable lights of God's Church; or rather to esteem your Roman Article Damnable and blasphemous in itself, judge you.    

II. That the belief of the Romish Article, The Catholic Roman Church, etc. Damneth the CL. Catholic Bishops in the second General Council, being the first at Constantinople, Anno 380. SECT. 3.  
WE present before you the CL. Catholic Bishops in the second General Council of Constantinople, whereunto it may seem that both you and we do willingly refer ourselves. First then we shall hear  

Your Objections.  

k Secundun Conc. generale in Epist. ad Damasum, quae extat apud Theod. l. 5. hist. c. 9 dicit se convenisse apud urbem Constantinop. ex mandato literarum Pontificis per Imperatorem ad se missa●ū. Et. ibidem fatetur Rom. Ecclesiam caput esse, se autem membra. Bellar. l. 2. de Pont c. 13. §. Secundum.  The second General Council (saith your Cardinal) in their Epistle to Pope Damasus say, that they were gathered by the Mandate of Pope Damasus: and confess also that the Church of Rome is the Head, and they the members. So he. And this is all that is objected, but upon a mistake; the Cardinal himself confessing, that 
l Sed posteà animaduerti, eam Epistolam non esse secundae Synodi generalis, sed Episcoporum qui in eo Synodo interfuerant, & sequente Annoiterum Constantinopoli convenerant.— Congregatam tamen fuisse ex mandato Damasi, satis probatur ex Conc. 6. Act, 18. Bel. Recog. p. 46. in hoc Conc.  It was not the Epistle of the Council, but of certain Bishops that had been at the Council. And therefore, for the first part of the Pope's Mandate, he referreth himself to another Council; against the Universal Current of Histories, which with general consent set down the Mandates of Emperors, as the supreme and first compulsory Causes for the collecting of Counsels. But that which he looseth, in misciting his true Authors, he studieth to gain by misinterpreting of the testimony of Theodoret. For whereas Theodoret saith, 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●. e. Anno praeterito, vel proximè elapso; ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, frumentum Anni superioris: Et apud Xenoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. jidem nunc sumus, qui ante hoc tempus.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is, letter's the year past, He (against all Lex●cons) readeth, The Mandate of letters. Is not this fine art, trow ye? For take your own Translation of 2. Cor. 8. ver. 10. (whether the vulgar Latin, or the English) This is profitable for you, who have begun not only to do, but also to be willing [Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vulg. Ab anno superiori; Rhemists English,] from the year past. If any should translate [the year passed] into Mandate, might it not be suspected that the man's wits were now in the wain? as being ignorant of the common Proverb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Last year the better; to signify the more and more worthy. Is there here any sound of a Commander?  
As for the Similitude of the Head and Members, it hath no more colour of Superiority, than that which we have always acknowledged, namely of Order, that is of Priority of Place, of Voice, and the like; but never of Dominion. That which the Inscription of the Epistle doth confute, which was not to Damasus alone, but jointly to others, thus: 
n Synodicae Epistolae Inscriptio. Dominis honoratissimis & cum primis Reverendis fratribus & Collegis Damaso, Ambrosio, Britoni, etc. Vt nos vobis propria membra ostenderemus,— nè vos sine nobis ●egnaretis, & nos vobiscum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. loco supra citato.  Most honourable and Reverend Brethren, and Colleagues. This is the Inscription, and the Epistle itself is of the same thread; We declare (say they) ourselves to be your proper members; but how? that your reigning, we may reign with you. Members therefore of Colleagueship, as Cor-regnants. We have heard your Pretence, be you as ready to hear our contrary proof.   

Our Opposition.  
The said General Council of Constantinople in the second Canon, decreeth thus: 
o Binnius Tom. 1. in Conc. Constan. Can. 2. Nova Roma, seu iunior Roma.  The Bishop of the City of Constantinople ought to have the honour of Primacy next after the Bishop of Rome, because it is new Rome. Yielding to Rome her birthright of Primacy; which whatsoever it was, they judge to have been established not by any Divine Ordinance, but by occasion of the Imperial Seat, which was at first the City of Rome, as your Binius acknowledgeth to be collected from that ground. Who therefore cannot digest this Canon, but why? 
p Hunc Canonem ab Ecclesia Rom. minimè receptum fuisse constat, etc. Binius in Notis super idem Conc.  This Canon (saith he, out of Baronius) was not received by the Church of Rome. Truly it were more than marvel that the Church of Rome should admit any Canon, that may any way derogate from her presumption: Albeit your own Cardinal Cusanus 
* See above, Sect. 2. lit. c.  hath confessed her former Encroachments. But to proceed punctually. Which of the Fathers, for the space of 60. years after, opposed against this Canon? what one Bishop before Pope Leo thought it not most equal? Albeit there were present, in that Council, Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem, Timothy Bishop of Alexandria, and Miletus Bishop of Antioch, Bishops of three several patriarchal Seas, who consented unto it, notwithstanding that they themselves received some prejudice by that Decree.  
This Canon, you know, is of great force, to beat down your whole bulwark, which is your Article of Romane-Catholike and Universal Dominion over the whole Church, and therefore we must expect some Objection against it. One we find, and that a foul one too, that namely, 
q Canon hic inter Acta Concilij furtiuè relatus, Baron. Anno 381. nu. 35. etc.  This is a surreptitious Canon, without the general consent of that Synod. Which we shall then confess, as soon as you shall persuade any reasonable man to think th●t to be a Supposititious and forged Canon, purposely against the dignity of the Church of Rome; which the Bishops of Rome themselves, when they oppugned it, as being unequal▪ yet never excepted against, as Surreptitious and false: Not Leo, not Gelasius, not Gregory, although that they took the Sanction of that Canon indignly. Or that the 
r Conc. Chalced. Act. 16.  Legates of the Pope in the Council of Chalcedon (stiffly opposing against the subject matter of this Canon) would not have branded it with the Note of Forgery, when they made express mention of it, if they had so conceived thereof. Or (which is beyond all that can be opposed) that the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, in their letters to Leo Pope of Rome, would be there known unto him, that they with mutual consent 
s Conc. Chalced. Act. 16. Relatio sanctae Synodi ad Papam Leonem. Confirmavimus autem centum & quinquaginta sanctorum Patrum, qui in Constantinopoli congregati sunt, regulam— quae praecepit, post vestram sanctissimam & Apostolicam sedem, honorem habere Constantinopolitanam, quae secunda est ordinata.— Qui locum vestrae Sanctitatis obtinent— Paschasinus & Lucentius— iis ità constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt. Apud Binium Tom. 2. Act. 16.  Confirmed the Rule and Canon of the CL. Bishops in the Council of Constantinople, notwithstanding standing that his Bishops and Legates Paschasinus and Lucentius did descent therefrom; if they had not judged the said Canon to be absolutely true. So false is your objection of Falsehood against that Canon of the Council of Constantinople.   

CHALLENGE.  
A Canon, then, you see of a General Council, albeit never received (as you say) by the Church of Rome, because prejudicial thereunto; which is an evident argument of their No- Subjection to the Bishop of Rome. Execrable therefore is your Article of The Catholic Roman Church, without subjection whereunto there is no Salvation: whereby C L. Bishops, accounted Catholics throughout the Christian world, must be necessarily excluded from Salvation.    

That the belief of the Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, without subjection whereunto there is no Salvation, damneth the C C. Bishops in the third General Council at Ephesus. Anno 434. SECT. 4.  
IN this General Council CC. Bishops at Ephesus, some things there are, which you object; and some things which you must have the patience to have objected unto you.  

Your Objections.  
You would prove out of this Council an acknowledgement of 
t Concilium dicit, se Nestorium deponere ex mandato literarum Pontificis.— Et in Epist. ad Celestinum scribit, se johannis Antiocheni Patriarchae causam non fuisse ausum iudicare, sed reseruâsse judicio ipsius Celestini. Quae omnia perspicuè indicant supremam Rom. Pontificis authoritatem. Bellar● de Pont lib. 2. cap. 13. § Tertium.  The supreme authority of the Popes, above them: but how? first. They confessed that they deposed Nestorius by the command of Pope Celestine. False, there is not the word, Command, used by the Council. If that word had been used, you should have proved it out of the Popes own Letters themselves, which we should not have needed to put you to, if any such word could appear in the Council objected. No, you well know, that to Command was not the style of Popes, in primitive and ancient times. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome, about an C L. years after Celestine, did utterly abhor it. 
u Hoc verbum jussionis a meo auditu removete. Ego non jussi. Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 30.  I COMMAND? (saith he) away with the word, COMMAND, I have not commanded. Yet thus you labour to frame and fashion your old Popes after the models of your new, to the end your new ones may not seem to have degenerated from the old. Yet something there is in the words of the Council, namely, that 
x cum partim ex ipsius Epistolis & libris, à nobis perlectis, partim ex verbis ab eo in hac urbe recitatis, eum impiè sensisse deprehenderimus, tùm Ecclesiae Canonibus, tum Epistolâ sanctsses. Patris nostri & Collegae Celestini Episcopi Rom. Ecclesiae compulsi, ad sententiam contra eum pronunciandam venimus. Verba Concilij de Nestorio apud Euag. lib. 1. cap. 4.  They were moved and compelled by his letters: meaning, by the persuasions of that Orthodox Bishop, and that but only [tùm, tùm] in part; for so they say, Both by the Canons, and also by your letters: and both these had relation to another part of Reasons and inducements premised in that place. And is not this then sly Sophistry, to conclude an whole from a Part? Yea but the same Council say, that 
* See above, lit. ●.  They durst not judge john the Bishop of Antioch, and therefore reserved him to the judgement of Pope Celestine: which plainly showeth the supreme authority of the Pope. So you. What signify these words, that They durst not judge john of Antioch? why, they do plainly relate, in the same Epistle, that they had already deposed him. 
y Epistola Synodalis, post acta Conc. ad Celestinum. Vbi dicit Concilium se johannem Antiochenum Celestino reseruâsse: dicit tamen se illum prius excommunicâsse, & omni potestate Sacerdotali exuisse. Cur ergo Celestino eum amandavit? Concilium se explicat; ut illius temeritatem animi lenitate vinceremus. Id est, ut experiretur Celestinus, si qua ratione ad saniorem mentem eum reddere queat, ut deinde in gratiam reciperetur. Haec apud Binium Tom. 1. pag. 806.  We have (say they) devested him of all his Sacerdotal power. So, after this referring him to the judgement of the Pope, That (for so they say) they might with lenity overcome his rashness. This was not to prefer him to another Censure, for there had been no lenity in that, but to the advice of Celestine, that by his persuasion he might be first reclaimed from error, and afterwards restored to his place.  
For a further discovery of the Eclipse of the Conscience in your Cardinal, let us consider what Supreme authority he would insinuate, to wit, that if the 
z Bellar. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 17.  Council could not depose Nestorius' Patriarch of Constantinople, without the Pope's Mandate; nor durst depose john Patriarch of Antioch, but referred the Cause to the judgement of the Pope, the issue hereof must be directly this, viz. That the Pope is absolutely above a General Council, as the Cardinal defendeth elsewhere. This were a Supreme authority indeed: but in truth it is a falsehood, and long since condemned (as you 
a Pertinacitèr Haereticum. Concil. Basil. Sess. 33. ubi etiam mentio facta est Conc. Constant.  know) by your own Counsels of Constance and Basil, for a flat Heresy: Which your Doctors of Paris have always disclaimed, as contrary to antiquity: and which no Council, since the beginning of the Christian Faith, did as yet expressly decree, as your Doctor Stapleton, a great Champion in this Cause, doth not deny; and therefore betaketh himself to the 
b Quamuis nullo Decreto publico, tamen tacito Doctorum consensu definita, etc. Stapleton. doctrine. princip. l. 13. c. 15.  Late tacit and silent consent of the Doctors of your Church. Was not this then more than boldness in your Cardinal, to infer this Supreme authority out of this Council?   

Our Opposition.  
First, this Council called Celestine Bishop of Rome 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Comminister. Epist. Synod. suprae object. in tit.  Fellow-Minister, and did (as you have heard) Excommunicate and depose the Patriarch of Antioch, before they made any Relation thereof unto Celestine the Bishop of Rome. Ergo, It did not acknowledge the now pretended Supreme authority and privilege of the Pope; which is, to have Cases of that nature solely Reserved to his own 
d Est casus reseruatus (secundum doctrinam Casuistarum) crimen grave, cuius absolutio inferioribus interdicta, dumque reseruatur Papae. Stephanus d' Aluin. de Episc. Abbot, etc. cap. 31.  Determination. Secondly, look into the Council itself, and into the Epistle alleged, wherein (concerning the points which Pope Celestine had constituted) 
e Ea quae Celestinus depositione Pelagij, aliorumque constituit, in Synodo perlecta judicavimus & nos (inquiunt) firma & solida permanere debere: quare & nos idem sentientes, itidem & eos pro depositis habemus. Epist. Synod. Apud Binium quo suprà.  We (say they) have judged them to stand firm: wherefore we agree with you in one sentence, and do hold them (meaning Pelagius, and others) to be deposed. Ergo, Consent to the Confirmation of the Pope's sentence doth gainsay his Supreme authority.  
But principally we oppose the Acts of this Council of Ephesus, in decreeing, that 
f Zenon Episeopus Curij Cypri dixit: A sanctis Apostolis numquàm possunt ostendere, quod affuerit Antiochenus, & ordinaueri●, vel communicaverit unquàm Insulae ordinationis gratiam, neque alius quispiam.— Synodus Sancta dixit,— In Cypro Praesules, secundum Canones Sanctorum Patrum (namely at Nice) & veterem consuetudinem per seipsos ordinationes pientissimorum Episcoporum faciant. Apud Binium Tom. 2. Act. Conc. Ephes. Append. 1. cap. 4. pag. 768.  Neither the Patriarch of Antioch, who made claim, Nor any other should assume authority of ordaining any Bishop within the Isle of Cyprus. The Arguments and Reasons, whereupon the Synod made this Decree, show, that as well the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, as of any other, is thereby excluded. And they add more peremptorily; 
g Istud autem etiam in aliis dioecesibus, & in omnibus provincijs seruetur, ut nullus Episcopus aliam p●ouinciam, quae non antea, & ab initio fuit sua, sub suam manum trahat.— nè sacerdotij pr●●textu, mundanae potestatis fastum subintroducat. Jdem Ibidem.  It is to be observed (say they) in all Provinces and Dioceses, that no Bishop draw under his subjection any Province, which was not his from the beginning, lest that under pretence of Priesthood he bring into the Church Arrogance and Pride. The very selfsame disease, which Saint Basil and Saint Augustine, with the whole Council of Africa, 
* See hereafter Chap. 9 §. 8. & 9 etc.  have both expressly noted, and openly detested in the Roman Popes, even of their times.   

CHALLENGE.  
NOne of you ever doubted, that this Council of Ephesus was General, and the Bishops therein truly Catholics: wherein notwithstanding you see diverse Arguments, although not of disunion, yet of no Subjection. And therefore You (except you will condemn CC. holy Bishops) must needs judge your Roman Article to be damnably false.    

IV. That the Belief of the Roman Article of The Catholic Roman Church, without subjection whereunto there is no salvation, Damneth above CCCC. Catholic Bishops in the fourth General Council of Chalcedon. SECT. 5.  
Four hundred and thirty Bishops were assembled in this Council of Chalcedon, with whom we are to advise concerning your Article of Necessary Subjection to the Bishop of Rome and his Church. But first we are ready to answer, and then to reply.  

Your Objection.  
THis Council (saith your Cardinal) said that 
h Conc Chalcedon. Act. 1.2. & 3. dicit, Pontifici Rom. à Deo ipso vineae. i e. Eeclesiae universae custodiam commissam esse. Bellar. de Pont. l. 2. cap. 13.  The custody of the Vine, that is, of the Catholic Church, is committed to the Pope, by God. It saith so, and so doth that godly primitive Pope Eleutherius say to the Bishops in France (as 
i Eleutherij Papae Decretal. ad Galliae provincias, ad finem Hujus rei gratiâ, universalis vobis à Christo jesu commissa est Ecclesia, ut pro omnibus laboretis, & cunctis open far non negligatis. Apud Binium Tom. 1. Ep. Decret. Eleuther.  you know) that The whole Catholic Church is committed by Christ unto them. Were They therefore, think you, all Popes? What say you? 
k Id est, Dùm Haeretici universam Ecclesiam oppugnarunt, non modò Episcopis, sed unicuique Christiano eius defendendae cura & studium demandata sunt. Binius Annot. Ibid.  The meaning of Eleutherius is (say you) that for as much as Heretics do oppugn the Catholic and Universal Church, it belongeth unto every Bishop to have an universal care to defend & support it. And this is a true Answer indeed, else must you grant that Saint Paul was a Pope over Saint Peter, because he took upon him 
* 2 Cor. 11.28.  The cure, or care of the whole Church: and that Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria was Pope above the then Bishop of Rome, because Gregory Nazianzen saith of him, that 
l Greg. Nazian. de Athanasio. Cui creditur populi Alexandrini praesidentia, quod per indè est (inquit) ac si dicam totius orbis praefectura. Id est, sic praefuit, ut universis praeesset, etc. Salmeron. jes. Tom. 16. in. 1 Pet. 5. disp. 8. pag. 102.  He having the presidence of the Church of Alexandria, may be said thereby to have the Government of the whole Christian World. By these Evidences we are compelled to ask, with what Conscience you could make such Objections, in good earnest, to busy your Adversaries, and seduce your Disciples with all, whereunto you-your-selues could so easily make answer. But thus Catchitive have you been at the shadow; let us try whether we can apprehend the substantial Truth.   

Our Opposition.  
For what is that which you will say belongeth really to the Supreme and Papal Dominion of the Bishop of Rome? 
m Canon's & Decreta Concilij, quae ad jus humanum spectant, Potest Pontifex Rom. ex toto, vel ex parte delcre aut mutare. Haec est Theologorum & Canonistarum communis opinio. Ratio enim est, quoniam supremam gubernandi Ecclesiam potestatem habet Azor. jes. Just. Moral. par. 2. l. 5. c. 14. §. Q●rrtò quaeritur.  Because (say you, with common consent) the Pope hath supreme authority in governing the Church, therefore can he change the Canons and decrees of General Counsels. So you. But what then say you to the equalling of other patriarchal Seats with Rome? 
o Patres hujus Synodi (nempe Chalcedonensis) privilegia aequalia Constantinopolitanae sedi dederunt cum Roma, propter imperium civitatis,— Huic post Leo Papa restitit. Bellar. l. 2. de Pont c. 18.  The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon (say you) did give Privileges to the Patriarkeship of Constantinople, equal to the Church of Rome: but Pope Leo did oppose against the Decree of the Council, and disclaimed it. You say true: but yet let us come to the ground of belief, as well of the Fathers of that Council, in opposing your pretended Papal dignity and authority; as of your Doctors, in contradicting them. Secondly therefore, 
p Rom. Pontificem succedere Petro in Ecclesiastics Monarchia Ecclesiae, probatur jure divino. Bellar. Jb. cap. 12.  The Pope of Rome (say you) hath his Monarchy and sole government of the Church from divine right: And, 
q Sciendum est, tempore Nicolai secundi, Petrum Damiani— à Pontifice Rom. Legatum missum fuisse,— & in Ecclesia Mediolanensi, convocato populo,— Quae (inquit) provincia in terris à Pontificis ditione libera?— Ecclesiam Rom. à deo ipso fundatam esse, etc. Teste Azor jes. Instit. par. 2 l 4. c. 17.  The Roman Church was founded by God; What Province then in the world is free from her jurisdiction? So you, and such is your now Roman Faith. But the Fathers of the General Council of Chalcedon were of a contrary belief, because their reason of withstanding the Pope was (as you know) 
r Supponit hoc Concilium, quòd Rom. sedes tunc non divino, sed humano jure primatum haberet. Binius Annot in Act. 15. Conc. Chalced.  For that they held, that the See of Rome was founded by humane authority: 
s Senserunt Rom. Ecclesiam Primatum habuisse, eò quòd ea civitas impetio orbis terrae potiretur. Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont c. 17. §. Alterum.  Thinking that the Church of Rome got the Primacy (namely of Order) by reason only that it was the chief Imperial Seat. So you.  
We have heard of Oppositions enough. Gladly would we understand, how you can reconcile these odds, so that we may not justly condemn your now Roman Faith of Novelty, by the judgement of a General Council? 
t Decretum illud magni Concilij, sed non legitimè factum, absentibus Romanae sedis legatis, & posteà reclamantibus. Bellar. Ibid. §. Quarè. Nam Leo Papa scribit, se Concilium illud approbasse, solùm quantum ad explicationem fidei. Epist. 59 Sic Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 22. §. Secundo.  This was indeed (say you) the Decree of a great Council, but the Decree was not lawfully proceeded in, because the Legates of the Pope were absent, and afterwards protested against it. And Pope Leo himself would not approve it, saying that he did allow only those Decrees and Canons in that Synod, which concerned matters of Faith. So you. And now upon this Evidence hear our Verdict.   

CHALLENGE.  
IN these Premises we find a Council, in your own opinion, and in the judgement of the Christian World, lawful and General, consisting of more than 400 Fathers, without exception Catholic and Orthodox: These have opposed your Article of the Necessity of Subjection to the Pope, razing the very foundation thereof, by believing that his Primacy is not by divine Authority. Upon this belief they easily cast down the roof of your Papal building, denying the Pope's power of gainsaying the Positive and humane Decrees and Canons of General Counsels; and by erecting a Patriarch, whom They adorn with a Privilege of power (excepting priority of Order, in taking place, giving voice, etc.) Equal to the Bishop of Rome. What is, if this be not, to ruinate your Roman Article?  
Yet much more stand you entangled in your own Answers. For if that so many, and so Reverend Fathers determined against the pretended Prerogative of Rome, notwithstanding the Contrary protestation of the Pope's Legates; they teach us thereby another cross point to your Article, viz. that the voice of the Pope, by his Legates, is of no more virtue in a Synod, than the suffrage of any other Bishop. And what though the Legates of the Pope were absent at the making of this Act in the Council, because they would not be present; and were notwithstanding present the next day, and disclaimed the Act, yet could nothing prevail? And again, what was the nullity of authority, in the Pope's Legates, whensoever they contended against the Mayor part of a Synod?  
But Pope Leo (say you) gainsaid the former Decree of that Council, albeit he did approve of all Canons in the same, so far as concerned marters of Faith. This Answer also proveth you faithless in all your defence, even by the judgement of Pope Leo. For if he therefore opposed the Decree of that Synod, which oppugneth the Papal Primacy and Dominion, because it was no matter of Faith, he thereby plainly confesseth your Article, which maintaineth the Dominion of the Roman Church, without which there is no salvation, not to be at all an Article of Faith. We conclude. Therefore either must those 430 godly & most Reverend Fathers, together with Leo the Pope himself, be damned by your Roman Article, or else must your Article be condemned by their contrary judgement and Decree. Which, (notwithstanding the Pope's Contradiction) was afterwards sufficiently confirmed in other parts of Christendom, by the use thereof, which (as you confess) 
u Sed ita usus obtinuit longo tempore. Cusan. Card. Concord. Cath. lib. 1. c. 16.  Continued a long time. So large and long a falsehood is that, which your Article of Necessary Subjection to Rome doth exact of the whole Church of Christ.    

V. That the belief of the Article of an Universal Subjection to Rome, as the Catholic Church, damneth the 165 Fathers of the first General Council at Constantinople; being the second of that name, Anno 553. SECT. 6.  
LEt your own most privileged, albeit most partial Authors, Baronius & Binius, relate the whole Cause. 1. Concerning the authority of this Council, whether it deserve the Title of Universal Council, or no? They answer that 
x Hoc quintum Concilium universale fuisse, attestatur Nicaenum Conc. 2. Act. 1. Papa Pelagius approbavit.— De quo Greg. primus Epist. 24. ad joh. Constantinop. ait, Quintum quoque Concilium veneror.— Nec Gregorius tantum, cum Praedecessoribus Romanis Pontificibus, sed & successores omnes hanc Quintam Synodun receperunt. Baron. Anno. 553. num. Tom. 2. Notis ad 224, etc. Binius Conc. Constant. 5.  It was a General Council, and so approved by all Popes, Predecessors and Successors to Saint Gregory: and by himself saying, I do reverence the fifth Council of Constantinople. Now come we to the relation of the Cause. First, of Pope Agapetus. 
y Anthimii causa ab Agapeto Papa condemnata. Biniu● Tom. ●. p. 416. Post in Synodo Constantinopol. ventilata. Idem in Not. Conc. Constant: sub Menna.  The cause of Anthimius, which he had condemned, was afterwards ventilated in the Council of Constantinople. This argueth the No-Dominion of the Pope over that Council, which will take upon them to examine that cause, which the Pope had before condemned. After Agapetus succeedeth Vigilius; 
z In quo Concilio Vigilius Synodali sententiae de condemnandis tribus Capitulis plane contradicebat.— Post finem Conc. justinianus Vigilium relegabat.— Post exilium Pontifex Synodum hanc, de condemnatione trium Capp. authoritate suâ confirmabat.— Post absolutum Con●. Oecumenicum ab exilio solutus ab Imp. acerrimo trium Capitulorum host, in Italiam redire permissus est.— Ne quis tamen de hac causa Vigilio sedique Apostolicae errorem vel turpitudinis maculam impingere possit, sciendum est, in his Disputationibus, teste Greg. l. 3 Epist 37 de tribus Capp. non fuisse quaestionem ullam de fide, sed tantummodò de personis. Cum igitur Schismatis evitandi gratiâ Vigilius pro defensione trium Capp. constitutum ederet, cuius virtute Orientales unirentur.— cum verò post finem hujus Conc. Q●inti Ecclesia graviori damno afficeretur, Imperator contradicentes Synodali decreto persequereretur, totusque Oriens à Rom. atque occidentali Ecclesia dividendus atque separandus metueretur, si non Rom. Pontisex Quintam Synodum approbaret, idcirco Vigilius novis emergentibus causis jure meritoque priorem sententiam mutavit. Baron. Anno. 553. num. 223. Binius Tom. 2. Conc. Not in Conc. quint. Oecumen.  At what time In the Council of Constantinople, that which they called [Tria Capitula] was condemned. The sum of their Answer is this. Pope Vigilius, before this General Council of Constantinople, defended the Cause of the [Tria Capitula] which the Council being gathered together condemned: The Pope resisted the Decree of the Council; the Council endeth. Pope Vigilius, for not consenting to this Council, is banished by the Emperor justinian. After that this Council had so concluded, Vigilius confirmed the sentence of the Council of Constantinople, and was thereupon released out of Banishment by the Emperor. In all this (say you) the Pope's change of his mind cannot be prejudicial to him or his See, for that (the cause being no matter of Faith, but only of Persons) he did it upon just reason, lest the East Church and the the West should fall into Schism, and be rend in sunder. Thus far your Authors.  

CHALLENGE.  
BE the Cause matter of Faith, or only of Fact, or Persons, it mattereth not, nor to what end it was done. We are not to inquire into the doctrines, but the dispositions of this Council: nor to respect the point of Union of Churches, but that which you have created for a new Article of Faith, the point of Necessary subjection to the Roman Church, and Bishop thereof. First, by your own Confession, the Pope defendeth that, which afterward the Council gain-sayeth: Next, the Pope contradicteth the Decree of the Council, to wit, of the same Council, determinately concluding and persisting in their Sentence against the same Pope, even to his Banishment for the same Cause. Yet in the end he is glad (for Unions sake) to yield unto the former Decree of the Council. So They, who in their Annotations conceal that, which the Text expressly delivereth; 
a Factâ à nobis condemnatione contra Haereticos, & eorum impietaem, nec non contra eos qui defenderunt, vel defendunt tria Capitula, Sic ipsum Conc. ad finem eius, ante Subscriptiones. Collat. 8. apud Binium. Tria Capitula erant Theodorus, Mopsuestenus, Epistola Ibae, & Scripta Theodoreti adversus Cyrillum. Binius Jbid. Tom. 2. Annot. in in id. Concil. 5. Oecumen.  We condemn (say they) all that have defended Tria Capitula. But Vigilius (say you) had before this Council defended those, Tria Capitula. Therefore was your Pope also condemned by this Council.  
Behold now, forsooth, your Roman Faith! Behold your Monarch! Behold his Dominion! Behold the necessary Subjection of his Subjects! If it be called Dominion to Command, and be glad to yield: or accounted Subjection of that Council, to prescribe Decrees against the sentence of your Pope: or esteemed Faith of your Article of Necessary subjection to the Roman Church, upon loss of Salvation, to persist in dissenting from the Pope, and his Apostolical See in this whole Cause; and not thus only, but in condemning him also. It must therefore follow, that these 165 Bishops of this General Council, and the Catholic Church in them, not only in not believing this Article, but also in withstanding it, were damned; or el●e that your Article, and the defenders thereof are justly damnable.  
Consider, we pray you, in what a snare of Heresy and Blasphemy you are entangled, seeing that you cannot but see, that your own Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, without subjection whereunto there is no salvation, is Contradicted by the truly Catholic Church itself, in her purer and more primitive age of the first 500 years: by those five General Counsels, the first four whereof Saint Gregory himself professed 
b Quatuor Synodos Sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae, veluti quatuor libros Sancti Euamgelij, recipimus. Greg. l. 1. Epist. 24.  To embrace, as the booke● of the Gospel: 
* See above. lit. x.  And the fifth (saith he) I also reverence. Idle therefore, and vain is your Objection, out of that Synod, from one word 
c Haec Synodus per Menam Patriarcham Concilij Praesidem ita loquitur: Nos, inquit, Apostolicam sedem sequimur, & obedimus, etc. Si totum Conc. Apostolicae sedi obedire se profitetur, certè Apostolica sedes toti Ecclesiae cum authoritate praeest. Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 13  Obedience, which they professed to the Catholic See; by not discerning between a Logical and a Moral Obedience. For they promised Obedience to that See, in all her Orthodox and reasonable Persuasions; but not to her peremptory Commands and Conclusions. For you may Obey Saint Augustine, by subscribing to his judgement, without submitting to his jurisdiction. If you know not this, then may 
* Sciunt Graecae linguae periti, verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nullam ut plurimùm Dominatio nis habere signisicationem: nam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saepè dicitur à Graecis, cum vel par, vel etiam inferior superiorem alloquitur. Sic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de eo vsurpa●ur, qui suadentis & monentis consilium probat & sequitur, ut aeger Medici. Jsaac. Casaub. Exercit 16. num. 161.  you learn ìt; namely, that a Superior may be said to obey his Inferior, when he yieldeth to his reasonable persuasion, As a sick man to the Physician.    

VI That the belief of the Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, without subjection whereunto there is no salvation, doth damn all the Fathers of the sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Counsels, in your own estimation, General. SECT. 7.  
THese three Counsels, which you call General, and which do contain above the compass of 300 years more, give us just Cause to judge this your Roman Article to be Imposterous. We instance, first, in the first Two.  

The sixth and Seventh Counsels, in the Cause of Pope Honorìus, condemning him for an Heretic.  

d Sexta Synodus Vniversalis Constantinopoli celebrata Anno 685. Episcoporum 289. in qua damnata est Haeresis eorum, qui unam tantùm in Christo voluntatem esse volebant. Bellar. l. 1. de Conc. c. 5. §. Sexta. Septima ad Nicaeam, An. 781. Episcoporum 350. Bellar. Jbid. §. Septima.  THe sixth universal Synod (saith your Cardinal) was in the year 681 (or according to others, 685) Celebrated at Constantinople by 289 Bishops. The Seventh Universal Council was held at Nice, in the year 781, wherein were 350 Bishops. So he. Well, in both these was Honorius Pope of Rome condemned for an Heretic. How will you free your Pope from being a Monothelite? Namely, 
e Patres Sextae Synodi, qui Honorium damnanarunt, fuerunt decepti.— Decepti septimae Synodi Patres, qui Sextae Synodi sententiam confirmabant. Deceptus Adrianus Papa, qui Honorium Haereticum fuisse putabat. Deceptus Leo secundus, qui Papam Honorium ut Haereticum execratus est. Nam accidere potest, ut Conc. Generale erret in materia facti, non fidei. Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. cap. 11. per totum.  The Fathers of both these General Counsels (say you) were deceived, as they might easily be in a matter of Fact (to judge whether Honorius were a Monothelite) not in a matter of Faith. So your Cardinal. Is it a matter of Fact then? and were these Fathers deceived therein? Who can say so? Why, Cardinal Bellarmine doth affirm it. Good God The rare modesty of this man, who will have us to believe, that one Bellarmine, living now a 1000 years since that matter was in agitation, should judge better by his Conjectures of the Circumstances of a matter of Fact, than could 639 Bishops (for so many there were in all) in their public Synods, [iam flagrante crimine,] when-as yet the Cause was fresh, and green, their Witnesses living, and all Circumstances (which are the perfect Intelligencers) visibly before their eyes.  
This Condemnation of Pope Honorius by two Counsels doth undermine the Fox-hole, wherein your great Clerks commonly lurk, by telling us, that Popes may be Heretics, as 
g Greg. de Valent. jes. Anal. fidei. lib. 8. cap. 2. & Bellar. de Pont.  Private Doctors, but not in their public Persons, as Popes. An Answer most frivolous. 1. Because those Bishops condemning Him in their public Council, did judge him according to his public person. 2. Because they Condemned Honorius Bishop of Rome in the same tenor, wherein (upon the same Heresy) they condemned Sergius Bishop of Constantinople; 
h Cum his simul proijci à Sancta Dei Ecclesia simúlque An athematizari praevidimus Honorium, qui fuerat Papa antiquae Romae, eò quod invenimus per scripta, quae ab eo facta sunt ad Sergium, quod eius mentem per omnia secutus est, & in pia dogmata confirmabat. Surius Tom. 2. Conc in Synod. 6. Constant. Act. 13. p. 992. etc. Idem habe● de Sergio.  Anathematising them both for their Heresy of Monothelitisme.  
It would much better have become your Cardinal, to have Confessed, in the spirit of Ingenuity, as your Canus hath done, that 
i Honorium quomodò ab errore vindicabir? quem Haereticum fuisse tradit Psellus, Tharàsius, Epiphaniu●, Beda, totaque donique Septima Synodus.— Adrianus, Agatho Haereticum esse iudicabant. Canus loc. theol. lib. 6. c. 8. pag. 213.  Howsoever other Popes may be excused from Heresy, yet I see not (saith he) how Honorius can be vindicated and freed from this guilt, whom Psellus, Tharasius, Epiphanius, Beda; whom Adrian, and Agatho, both Popes; whom the seaventh (he might 
* See above lit ●.  have also alleged the VI) General Council hath branded with the Note of Heresy. So he.   

CHALLENGE.  
CALL this (as you do) but a matter of Fact, if you will, which caused those Counsels to condemn Pope Honorius for an Heretic, after his death; yet doth this plainly and inevitably tell us, that they were of this belief, that the Pope of Rome may be an Heretic; and that They, who would excommunicate that Bishop of Rome, being dead, would not have Communicated with him, if (persisting an Heretic) he had been alive; no more than they would with his fellow- Heretic, Sergius Bishop of Constantinople. And if they would deny union with him, certainly they would not have acknowledged spiritual Subjection unto him. Which flatly gain-sayeth your Article of believing The Catholic Roman Church and the Bishop thereof, without subjection unto whom there is no salvation, Therefore all those 639. Bishops, besides two Popes, and all their Believers, must necessarily be damned, or else your Romish Article, as a most execrable Paradox, must utterly be abandoned.    

VII. That the Belief of the Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, without subjection whereunto there is no Salvation, damneth the Eighth Council, which you call 
k Octawm Conc. Generale est Constantinopolitanum quartum Anno 870. Epis. cop. 383. ap. Bin. Tom. 3. p. 143.  General, consisting of 383. Bishops, in the year 870. SECT. 8.  
WHat was done in this fourth Synod of Constantinople, you may understand from your own Men. These Bishops (saith your Binius) condemned a Custom of the Sabboth-fast in Lent, then used in the Church of Rome: and thereupon made they a Canon, inhibiting the Church of Rome from keeping that Custom any longer. Their words are these: 
l Quoniam intelleximus Romanam civitatem in Sanctis Quadragesimae ieinnijs in eius Sabbatis jeiunare, praeter Ecclesiae traditam consuetudinem,— Sanctae Synodo visum est, ut in Romanorum Ecclesia Canon inconfusè vires habeat. Biniu Tom. 3. pag. 149.  We will, that this Canon be constantly observed in the Church of Rome. Would the Church of Rome swallow and digest such an hot morsel at this day? we trow not: for 
m Hic quoque Canon 55. quia Matrem Eceesiarum omnium Rom. Ecclesiam repraehendit, non recipitur. Surius Tom. 2. in Conc. Constant. 6. p. 1048 add Canon. 65. in No●. Bin.  This Canon (saith your Surius) is not received, because it reprehendeth the Church of Rome; the MOTHER-CHURCH of all other Churches. So he.  

CHALLENGE.  
YEa rather it condemneth your presumption, in calling the Church of Rome the CATHOLIC MOTHER-CHURCH above all others: As though a General Council were not rather to be called the Catholic Church, than She. So then those 383. Bishops prescribe a Canon, and impose it upon her, and thereby sufficiently disclaim all Subjection unto her; as Any, albeit but half-witted, may easily discern. Where again we are constrained to judge your foresaid Article Execrable, rather than to give those 383. Bishops over for damned souls.   

Our general CHALLENGES, concerning the formerly cited Eight General Counsels.  
Remember by this your Article, 
* See above, Cham 1. Sect. 2. etc.  The Catholic Roman Church, without subjection whereunto there is no Salvation, and without the belief whereof none can be saved, are damned not only all those, that shall oppose themselves against the Church of Rome, but also all they that do not believe the same, as an Article of faith. Now we have proved by your own Witnesses (as by your own eyes) that above 2280. Bishops, in their VIII. General Counsels (and every General Council you call the Catholic Church) have opposed your Article of pretended Subjection. The first by proportioning aswell the limits of the Roman Diocese, as of other Patriarches. The second, by judging the Roman Primacy not to stand upon any Divine authority, and setting up a Patriarch of Constantinople, contrary to the Popes will. The third, by inhibiting any Bishop whatsoever from Ordaining Bishops within the Isle of Cyprus. The fourth, by advancing the Bishops of Constantinople, and establishing them in equal Privileges with the Bishops of Rome, notwitstanding the Pope's earnest opposition against it. The fifth, in Condemning the Sentence of Pope Vigilius, albeit one extremely vehement in that Cause. The sixth and Seaventh, in condemning Pope Honorius of Heresy. And the Eighth, by imposing a Canon upon the Church of Rome, and challenging Obedience thereunto. Any man therefore, although destitute of good Conscience, if but endued with common ingenuity, will judge and confess that this Article, which thus Condemneth above 2280. Bishops of the first Eighth General Counsels (whereof most were as Catholic as they were ancient and learned) together with all their Believers, for the space of above 540. years' Professors of the Christian faith, is justly to be condemned as Scandalous, Schismatical, Heretical, Blasphemous (Respectively) and every way damnable.     

CHAP. IX. Our fourth Argument, taken from the Examples of particular Church's Catholic, which contemning the Excommunication of the Bishop of Rome, were notwithstanding acknowledged to be in the state of Salvation.  

SECT. 1.  
THree things there are, which your new Roman 
* See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 1.3. etc.  Article requireth as Necessary to Salvation of Christians throughout the World. I. Is to have Union with the Church of Rome, and Head thereof. II. Because there are two kinds of Unions (one in Equality, as is between the Members of the same Body; and another in an Inequality, like as is between the Head and the Body) your Article exacteth Union of subjection also. The III. is the Necessity of faith, concerning both these; as namely that every Christian do believe the truth of the Article in both, to wit, that they are indeed Necessary to Salvation. Therefore have we singled out Examples of ancient Churches, which you yourselves note as Excommunicate by the Popo; which notwithstanding all the Christian world have held to have been in the state of Salvation.   

Our first Instance is in the ancient Churches of Asia, which notwithstanding the Excommunication of Pope Victor, were in the state of Salvation. SECT. 2.  
YOur own Authors boastingly relate, that in the year 197. 
n Victor Papa Ecclesias omnes orientales ob Paschae diem Excommunicabat. Bellar. l. 3. de verbo Dei. c. 6. §. Secundo. Salmeron Jes. Com. in Gal. 4. disp. 29. Binius Tom. 1. Conc. p. 131. Quod Victor sententiam suam mutaverit, nunquam legitur. Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. cap. 19 §. Resp. Qui autem in hoc schismate avulsi sunt ab Ecclesia, permanserunt in eo, & quidem in longum tempus. Baron. Ann. 198. num. 17.  Pope Victor did excommunicate all the Eastern Churches, for not observing the feast of Easter upon the Lord's day: which Excommunication (say they) is not found to have been afterwards revoked, or retracted; wherein notwithstanding those that were averse continued a long time. So they. A story certainly worthy your double consideration, whereof you cannot be ignorant, it being recorded by Eusebius at large; that namely 
o Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. ca 23. & 24.  Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus in Asia pleaded the Cause of the Churches of Asia, against the Excommunication of Victor, in that his Epistle, whereunto the other Bishops in Asia gave their Consent: Proving, that their Custom, contrary to the Roman, was received from Saint john, who leaned upon our Lord's breast: that it was practised by Philip the Apostle, who died in Asia: that it was continued by Saint Polycarpus Martyr and Bishop of Smyrna; by Thraseas Bishop and Martyr; by Sagonius Bishop and Martyr: and that then Polycrates being animated by these so worthy Examples, and the unanimous Consent of their Bishops in Asia, stood in defiance with that Pope Victor, and contemned his Excommunications, saying; I who have now lived sixty five years in the Lord, and have had communion in the faith with all the Brethren dispersed [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] throughout the world, and nothing moved with these terrors (meaning, of Ezcommunication) which are urged against us. Thus far the Ecclesiastical Story, wherein appeareth this Conclusion as manifest, as if it had been delivered in express terms, viz. That a Christian may have Communion generally with the Catholic Church elsewhere throughout the world, notwithstanding the Excommunication of the Pope and See of Rome: and therefore cannot the Roman Church be called the Catholic Church, as the Head, whereunto all others ought to profess Union, and yield Subjection.  
Yea, but your Question will be, whether these Asian Churches, being thus Excommunicate by the Pope of Rome, and so without the Union of your Church, could therefore be said to be without the state of Salvation? This is the main point, for satisfaction whereunto, first (if you will respect the faith of those Churches) it is plain, that they believed that the Excommunication of the Bishop of Rome had no further power, than to separate them from his own Roman Society and Communion; but extended not to the Church Catholic, and Separation from it. And this will appear to be true by better testimonies, from the same known Story itself, where you may read that 
p Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24.25.  This Act of Victor did not well please all other Bishops, who did greatly reprove him for troubling the peace of the Church. And, among others, Father Irenaeus, in the person of his Brethren in France, wrote Letters to Pope Victor, Dehorting him from his purpose. This is enough, to prove that Pope Victor was the Schismatic, that troubled the peace of the Church: and not the Asian Bishops, whom these other holy Bishops did so far justify, as not to deserve Excommunication.  
But (to appeal to your own Consciences) show unto us, in all your reading, if you can, that Polycrates and other Asian Bishops, so Excommunicate by Pope Victor, were held by any other Catholic Bishops of those times, to be thereby without the state of Salvation. For this, you know, is the very soul of your Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, without which there is no Salvation. Nay, but you full well know, that Contrarily Saint Hierome, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, numbered Polycrates among those, who did advance the Catholic faith. And again (relating this his opposition against Victor) 
q Hier. Tom. 1. Catal. in Tit. Polycrates.  This I therefore mention (saith he) to make known what was his (meaning Polycrates) Authority. And yet again, Reporting the behaviour of Irenaeus and other Bishops, in the same Case, 
Idem ibid. Tit. Irenaeus.  These (saith he) albeit they differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops, yet did they not consent to Pope Victor in the act of Excommunication. So he. Where, Not Consenting to the Pope's Excommunication, doth plainly infer their inward Communion with the Bishops of Asia.  

CHALLENGE.  
THis one Case, if there were no other, were enough to strangle your Roman faith, in that Article, viz. The Roman Church, without union wherewith there is no Salvation. Wherein we find the Bishops and Churches of Asia Excommunicated by the Roman Bishop, and so separated from the Communion of his See: and yet notwithstanding were reputed still, in the Church of Christ, Catholic Bishops; and so far in the Communion of the Church Catholic, that many godly Bishops in the Latin Church would not sever themselves from their Communion. Yet Bishop Christopherson, that you might believe the Excommunication of Pope Victor to be of an universal power & extent, translateth the Greek sentence of Eusebius thus: 
s Irenaeus hortabatur Victorem, ne tam multas Ecclesias à corpore universae Ecclesiae Christi penitus ampure●. Joh. Christoph. interp. Euseb. Hist. l. 5. cap. ●4.  Irenaeus exhorted Pope Victor not utterly to cut off so many Churches from the body of the universal Church of Christ. Which Interpretation, if true, might seem to make the Church of Rome the Catholic Church. But, as it became a sworn Scribe for the Pope, he perverts the Text, which is to be rendered thus; 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. ib.  Irenaeus exhorted Pope Victor not to cut off whole Churches of God, without any mention of the Body of the Church: Ergò it cannot import an Excommunication from the Universal body of the Church, but only from the Church of Rome, as from a particular member of that universal, as hath been proved.  
What then may be thought of your new Article; but as of a barbarous and Antichristian Paradox, which separateth from all hope of life all the Christians of the Easterly parts of Asia, who 
u Master Brerewood in his Enquirie of diverse Religions, out of jacob. à Vitriac. de Hist. Orient. pag. 73.  In multitude exceeded the Christians of the Greek, and Latin Churches. But God be thanked that, by the doctrine of those Primitive times, the Excommunication of the Roman Church made no mortal wound: for the Asian Bishops esteemed no better of it than of a Brutum Fulmen.  
And if you will suffer us to be somewhat more equally minded to Victor Bishop of Rome, than you yourselves can be, we may persuade ourselves that he did not by this his Excommunication intent to show or arrogate any jurisdiction over the Greek Churches, as Pastor over his flock, but only to deny participation of brotherly Communion with them, as they might (if they had been so forward) have dealt with him; this being an Act of Division Inter Pares: which likewise doth conclude the no-absolute Necessity of Union with the Roman Church.    

Our Second Instance is in the Churches of Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania, in the days of Saint Cyprian by 87. Bishops in the Council of Carthage, Anno 256. Who (notwithstanding the Excommunication of the Pope of Rome) were ever held, by the Catholic Church, the Essential members thereof, and in state of Salvation. SECT. 3.  
WHen the Case of Basilides and Martial was on foot, concerning Appeals from the Church of Carthage to Rome, and the Quaestion of Rebaptisation of those persons, that had renounced their Heresies, was in agitation between Stephen Bishop of Rome, and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage; The Church of Africa, and others of that Primitive age, gave so infallible testimonies of denying the Pope's Catholic jurisdiction over other Churches, and of despising his (now) pretended Catholic power of Excommunication, as may suffice for the full determination of this whole Cause, in confutation of your new Article, to wit, The Catholic Roman Church, without which there is no salvation. This Case therefore being so pertinent and pregnant, we will proceed therein methodically.   

I. The full Opposition of Saint Cyprian, and other Bishops, against Stephen then Bishop of Rome. SECT. 4.  
Such was the Opposition of Saint Cyprian and others against Stephen Bishop of Rome, that even by your own Confessions, 
a cum igitur vidisset Cyprianus Stephanum obnitentem iis, quae in Concilio Africano de Baptismate Haereticorum statuta fuerant, haud cunctatus est maiore numero Episcoporum Carthagine aliud Concilium celebrare. Conuocatis igitur ex Africâ, Numidiâ, Mauritaniâ Episcopis 87.— Cyprianus [Stephano Papae Romano aliter definienti opposuit.] Baronius anno 238. num. 47.  Cyprian gathered a Council of 87. Bishops, out of Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania, which concluded contrary to the Pope and his Council celebrated in Italy. Secondly, such, that 
b Constat. Corn●lium Papam, cum nationali Synodo omnium Episcoporum Italiae, statuisse non debere Haereticos rebaptizari, & eandem sententiam ●ostea approbasse Stephanum Papam. Bellar. lib. 2. de Concilijs. ca●. 5. Sed Cyprianus in Concilio 80. Episcoporum definit Haereticos esse rebaptizandos; putavit enim Pontificem pernitiosè errâsse, & Stephano Papae seriò praecipienti parere noluit: sed verba contumeliosa protulit, vocans eum superbum, imperitum, & caecae mentis Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pontifice. cap. 7. §. Tertio Ratio, etc. Ex Eusebio lib. 7. cap. 2.  Cyprian judged the same Pope to err proudly, ignorantly, and blindly. Thirdly, such, that he impugned the Pope's pretended power of Appeals to Rome, accounting the Appellants, to wit, Basilides and Martial, 
c Sciunt quo revertuntur. Nam cum statutum sit omnibus nobis ut— causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum,— oporter eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare,— nisi si paucis desperatis & perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas Episcoporum in Africâ constitutorum, etc.— jam causa eo●um cognita est, iam de iis dicta sententia est. Cyprianus Epistola 55. ad Cornel.  Renegadoes, and desperate Delinquents; challenging his right of judicature, for the proceeding against those notoriously wicked Companions, who therefore ought to be sent back again, (saith he) to be censured by their own Bishop. Fourthly, such, that this Council of Carthage did deny to any whomsoever the Title of 
d Concilium Carthaginense sub Cypriano Episcopo. Superest ut hac ipsâ de re, quid singuli sentiamus, proferamus; neminem iudicantes, aut à iure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut Tyrannico terrore, ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suas adigit, quando habeat omnis Episcopus, pro licentiâ libertatis & potestatis suae, arbitrium proprium, tanquam iudicari ab alio non possit, cum n●c ipse possit alium iudicare. Sed expectemus universi iudicium Domini nostri jesu Christi, qui solus habet potestatem— de actu nostro iudicandi. Apud Surium Tom. 1. Concil. in Conc. Carthag. Alludit ad Decretum Stephani Papae— qui aliter sentientibus poenam Excommunicationis acriter comminatus est. Binius Tom. 1. Notis in hoc Concilium, ex Baronio.  Bishop of Bishops. Fiftly, such, that Cyprian would not acknowledge the name of POPE, per Antonomasiam, that is, By way of Excellency, to be proper to the Bishop of Rome, as you teach: 
e Bellarm. lib. 2 de Rom. Pont. cap. 31. in initio. Per Antonomasiam Papa, etc.  Insomuch, that at the instant, when as Cyprian was to lay down his life to Martyrdom, for the profession of the holy Faith, 
f In eius Passione, Proconsuli quaerenti ab eo, An tu is es, quem Christiani suum Papam vocant? respondit Cyprianus, Ego. Pontius de Passione Cypriani, an●e opera eiu●. Non se●ùs Baronius: Proconsul dixit, Is ne tu es, qui hominibus ●e Papam praebuisti? Cyprianus, Ego. Anno 261. num. 30.  Being demanded of the Proconsull (who then had charge to put him to death) saying, Art thou He, who showed thyself POPE among the Christians? He answered I am. Which may be enough to dash that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which you appropriate unto the Bishop of Rome, by the name of Pope. Great therefore was the Opposition of Cyprian against Stephen, namely; Bishop against Bishop, Chair against Chair, Council against Council, as flat Diameter, as possibly might be.   

II. That Saint Cyprian and Others were Excommunicated by Pope Stephen. SECT. 5.  
IT were frivolous to stand upon presumptions, when we have your own Confessions. You 
g Baronius, Anno 258. nu. 14. & 15. Ex Epistolis Firmiliani, apud Cyprianum Epist. 75. & ex Eusebio lib. 7. cap. 4. Orientis Episcopos ex Cappadociâ, Ciciliâ, Galatiâ omnes in eâ sententiâ persistentes communione privabat.  grant that at the same time, when Saint Cyprian did contend with Stephen Bishop of Rome, the same Pope Excommunicated the Eastern Bishops of Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Galatia, for the same cause of Rebaptization. Secondly, that th'aforesaid Pope Stephen 
h cum Stephanus Episcopus Romae urbis Cyprianum, quoth in ipso erat, repelleret, & Episcopos ad ipsum ex Africâ legatos, nec ad sermonem communis colloquij admitteret, & praeciperet universae fraternitati,— ut venientibus non solùm pax & communio, sed & tectum & hospitium negaretur: insuper & Cyprianum ipsum Pseudochristum & dolosum operarium diceret. Haec scribit Firmilianus Episcopus è Cappadociâ ad Cyprianum; cuius Firmiani meminit Eusebius Hist. li. 6. ca 25. & l. 7. ca 13· Ad quem Stephanus scripsit, non esse communicandum iis, qui ad Haereticos transeuntes rebaptizant. Cassander. Consult. Art. 7.  did also, as much as lay in him, cast off Cyprian, insomuch that He would not admit unto his speech them that were sent from Cyprian unto him: Nor this only, but also commanded them that were of his own profession not to have any peace or communion with them, nor yet to allow them so much as houseroom, or lodging. Yea and Pope Stephen signified by writing, that no Communion was to be held with them that did rebaptize. Not to insist upon the Pope's lavish and reproachful speech, in calling Cyprian a Counterfeit Christ, and a deceitful worker. All which are proved out of the Epistle of Firmilianus Bishop of Caesara in Cappadocea; which almost in every point doth manifest the Excommunication of Saint Cyprian.  

CHALLENGE.  
FOR what better proof of the Excommunication of Saint Cyprian and other Bishops of his Fraternity, than denying by writing All communion with them, that were of the same Opinion with Cyprian; and after in Act, Forbidding all communion: First, by speech and conference: Secondly, by conversation and company: Thirdly, by eating, or hospitality? Each one of these being (according to your 
i Excommunicatio maior priuat omnibus contentis sub hoc versiculo [Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negetur] per Os intelligitur participatio colloquij; per communionem, simul conversari: per mensam, participatio comedendo Navarr. Vol. 2 Tom. 3. c. 27. §. Quid operatur.  own positive Conclusions) a proper Character of that which is called The Greater Excommunication; and consequently, in your sense, a Separation from the Body of the Roman Church.    

III. That Saint Cyprian held not the Excommunication of the Pope to be an● valid Separation from the Catholic Church, or hazardous to the state of Salvation. SECT. 6.  
NOne ever was more Christianly affected to the Catholic Church, than was Saint Cyprian, nor more firmly believed that the Union with the Catholic Church is necessary to salvation, whose profession was this: 
k Etsi occisu● propter nomen Christi, postmodum fuerit extra Ecclesiam constitutus, & ab Vnitate & charitate divisus, coronari morte non poterit. Cyprian. lib. 4. Epist. 2.  Although a man (saith he) were slain for the name of Christ, yet if he be without the Union of the Church, he cannot be crowned with Martyrdom after his death. Again, this was that Father of Saint Cyprian, who first uttered that excellent saying, 
l Non habet Deum Patrem, qui non habet Ecclesiam matrem. Cyprian. lib. de Simplicitate Praelatorum.  No man hath God for his Father, who hath not the Church for his Mother; a speech twice used (and that worthily) by the same Father, Saint Cyprian.  
Hardly can a Protestant change three words with any of you, in Conference, concerning the Church of Rome, but you 
m Costerus Jes. part. 3. Praefatione. De Vnitate Ecclesiae, seu simplicitate Praelatorum. Sic etiam Bellarminus & alij.  are ready to usurp, urge, and inculcate this Sentence of Saint Cyprian, as a full Conviction in itself, thereby to prove and conclude all Protestants to be therefore without God, because they acknowledge not the Church of Rome to be (according to your now Roman Article) The Catholic Mother Church. Which Objection hath been already proved, from the general voice of Antiquity, and many Examples from thence, to be as far from Truth, as Antiquity is from Novelty, and plain dealing from mere Sophistication and juggling.  
But now are we to try what is the sense of this Sentence, from Saint Cyprian himself, the first Author thereof. The question than will be, whether by MOTHER Church, without which none can have God for a Father, he meant the Church of Rome, or not; or rather, whether he spoke it not then in Opposition to the Church of Rome. The due examination hereof may be unto us an absolute decision of this whole. Cause, concerning the pretended Motherhood of the Church of Rome. Saint Cyprian then at the second time, when he made use of this speech; He hath not God for his Father, that hath not the Church for his Mother, wrote to Pompeius, in reprehension of Pope Stephen, for endeavouring (as 
n Cyprianus in Epistola ad Pompeium. Stephanus Haereticorum causam contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur.— quomodo potest habere Deum patrem, qui non habet Eccesiam matrem? Et paulò post. Cur tantum Stephani nostri dura obstinatio prorupit?  he saith) to defend the cause of Heretics; wherein the same Stephen threatened Excommunication against Cyprian, which occasioned him to say, What meaneth our Stephen to break out into so vengible an obstinacy?  
As for the Excommunication threatened by Pope Stephen against Cyprian, and Others that were of a contrary opinion, he doth contemn it, yea and condemn it too, when, Alluding (as 
o Alludit etc. Nemo nostrum, etc. See above lit. d.  yourselves confess) unto the same Decree of the Pope, he said, None of all us Bishops (in Africa) doth compel any of his fellows, that are contrary minded, with any tyrannical terror.  
Often was the Opposition of Saint Cyprian against Stephen objected against Sainst Augustine by the Donatists, for patronage of their own opinion, who taught, that the Catholic Church, as it is Visible, consisteth only of perfect and sanctified men: Saint Augustine so argueth with the those Donatists, as if He, Cyprian, and Pope Stephen had been united together: but this he did in such manner, that we may say with your Baronius, (speaking of the same contention between Cyprian and Stephen) 
p Laudabili tergi versatione utens, ea relinquere maluit obuoluta silentio. Baronius anno 258. num. 40.  He used a kind of laudable evasion, or escape, being willing to conceal their jars. For indeed Saint Augustine elsewhere (albeit enclinable enough to suppose that Cyprian did recant his error of Rebaptisation before his death) confesseth in direct terms, that 
q Correxisse autem istam sententiam non invenitur. August. Epist. 48. Et lib. 1. de Baptismo. cap. 18.  It is no where found, that Cyprian did ever change his opinion.  
For our better satisfaction herein, we should advise in this case rather with Firmilianus a Bishop living in the days of Saint Cyprian, than with Saint Augustine, who came some hundred and fifty years after. This ancient Father Firmilianus, being of the same judgement with Saint Cyprian, speaking of the above named Excommunication given out by Pope Stephen, concludeth not Cyprian but Pope Stephen to be the Schismatic in this contention, because The Pope hereby (saith 
r Jnter Epistolas Cypriani 75. Peccatum verò quam magnum tibi exaggerasti, quando te à tot gregibus scidisti? De Stephano Papa loquitur. Hoc est seruâsse spiritum unitatis in uniculo pacis, abscindere se à charitatis Vnione? Ibidem.  he) cutteth himself off from the flock of Christ. As for Saint Cyprian, although he (notwithstanding the Excommunication) held for his part a Christian and brotherly affection to the Church of Rome, yet did he still persist in his contrary opinion; nevertheless so, as holding it 
s See above.  unlawful for either side to Excommunicate the other for this question. I pass over your other Objections, as a vain presumption, and so it is 
t Obijciunt Baronius & Pamelius Epistolam Dionysijs Alexandrini apud Eusebium lib. 7. cap. 4. quâ scribit ad Stephanum Papam, persecutionis fluctibus sedatis, omnes Orientales Ecclesias, nouâ & perversâ Novati Haeresi repudiatâ, pacem inter se conciliasse, ad concordiam esse redactos, & inter alios Ecclesiae Doctores— Firmiliani meminit. Respondet noster Revittus, Annotat in Cyprian. Inter se reconciliati dicuntur, non autem cum Pontifice & Occidentalibus; aut Haeresin Novati eiurantes, propterea alterum Decretum de Rebaptizando antiquasse. Nam illam secundam controversiam de Rebaptizando nondum fuisse sublatam ostendit idem Dionysius, ibidem loci, in Epistolâ ad Xistum Stephani Successorem, qui cum eodem Xisto adhuc vivente in illum adhuc inclinaret, rogaretque ut attenta cogitatione rei magnitudinem contemplaretur, audire enim se Decreta in maximis Episcoporum Concilijs facta fuisse, ut qui ab Haeresis impietate recedunt, debeant primùm fide institui, deinde veteris & impuri fermenti eluuie ac sordibus ablui. His add, quòd Basilius ad Amphilochium scribens, de hac ipsâ controversiâ quid sentiret, de Firmiliano ita loquitur, ac si in illâ sententiâ mortuus sit. Haec noster Revittus in suo Crit. Sacr. cap. 7.  proved to be.  

CHALLENGE.  
HEre again we appeal to your own consciences, to judge whether Saint Cyprian, when he contended against Pope Stephen, and in a Council both renounced his Decree, and contemned his Excommunication, and at the same time held it impossible for any to have God to his Father, for Salvation, who had not the Church to his Mother, for Direction; could possibly by Mother-Church understand the Church of Rome, by which all of his opinion were Excommunicated: except you would make Cyprian so utterly forlorn of grace, as wilfully to damn himself, by an obstinate Separation from the Church of Rome. So infallible it is, that the Church of Rome, in those times, was held to be only a Member of the Catholic Church, and not The Catholic Mother-Church itself.    

IV. That Saint Cyprian hath been ever since his death esteemed a blessed Saint and Martyr, notwithstanding his continual Opposition to the Pope of Rome. SECT. 7.  
ALthough it could be supposed that Cyprian did recant his opinion before his death, yet would not this any way prop or support that your Roman Claim, except it might further appear that he sought the Absolution of the Church of Rome for his error. Neither yet would this suffice, unless you could prove it an Absolution of jurisdiction, and not of Charity; even as contrarily the Excommunication was held by Firmilianus and Cyprian, to be an Excommunication proceeding rather from Pride, than good discretion. Nor were this enough, for if you will make Cyprian a Saint, you are further to prove, that he acknowledged Subjection of his Church of Carthage to the Church or Pope of Rome, in case of Appeals; in which cause Saint Augustine did take part with Saint Cyprian, against your Roman Church. We conclude therefore from your Confessions, that 
u Cyprianus semper est habitus in numero Catholicorum. Bellar. l. 2. de Concilijs. cap. 5. §. 1.  Cyprian was always reckoned in the number of Catholics: as also that he is still instiled 
x Praeclarissimus Doctor (ut ait Augustinus) & Martyr gloriosissimus. Canisius jes. Catechis. in init. Encom. Patrum.  A most glorious Martyr; yea and registered in your Roman Calendar by the Title of 
y Septembris die 26.  Cyprian Saint and Martyr, notwithstanding his continual Opposition against the Roman Church.  

CHALLENGE.  
THis blessed man of God Saint Cyprian, who for his exceeding learning, care, diligence, and power in preserving the Faith of Christ and peace of his Church Did (say 
z Cyprianus non solùm Ecclesiae Africanae, ut ait Nazianzenus, sed etiam toti Occidenti praefuit, immo Orienti fere ipsi, & Meridiei & Septentrioni. Salmeron. jes. Comment. in 1. Pet. 5. disp. 8. §. Et dicendo.  you) as witnesseth Saint Nazianzen, govern not only Africa, but also the East, yea and West Churches of Christendom himself; who was so happy at his death, as that he was crowned with the glorious Diadem of Martyrdom, for his Testimony of our Lord jesus; who was so honourable in his memory, as to be accounted, throughout the Christian world, an excellent Saint of God, may be lawfully, yea laudably produced for an excellent Patron against the titular tyranny of Popedom. Whose example, in his Opposition against the Pope of Rome, may be unto us as a sharp axe, to cut off by the very neck the now usurped Fatherhood, or Headship, and Motherhood of the Pope and Church of Rome: because (if you shall remember the Premises) you may perceive, that 〈…〉 Opposition of Cyprian and other Churches of Christ, the Bishop of Rome, in those days, was not esteemed to be The Catholic or Universal Pope, not The Catholic Bishop of Bishops; his jurisdiction not to have any Catholic or Universal Right; for Appeals; his judgement not to be a Catholic Rule of Faith; his Church not to be The Catholic Mother-Church; his Excommunication not to be a Separation from the properly called Catholic Church, and much less a Catholic and Universal Separation from the state of life.  
So damnable is your Article of The Catholic Roman Mother-Church, without subjection whereunto (as you say) there is no Salvation; whereby with one breath you damn not only Cyprian, that glorious Saint of Christ, but also all other his Associates and Colleagues Bishops in Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania: of whom some were Martyrs, some Confessors, all Professors of the true Faith of Christ, against the persecuting Infidels of those times. It would nothing now avail you to object that Cyprian, in his Contention against Pope Stephen, was in an Error in the Question of Rebaptisation; because every error is not eradicant, to root out or cut off a Member from the Body of the Church Catholic: else what shall we think of Pope Stephen himself, who was in an error, in the other Question, concerning the usurpation of the Right of Appeals to Rome? which not only Cyprian in his Council of Carthage, but Augustine also, in the Council of Africa, resolutely withstood. But what need many words? Cyprian (say 
* See above, at u.  you) was always held a Catholic.  
We add, that if this Objection were of force, it would much more fortify the Cause of Protestants. For if Cyprian being Excommunicated by the Pope, for an error, was notwithstanding still held for a Catholic, (as hath been confessed) and hath ever since been Registered for a Saint: then doubtless Protestant's stand much more secure, who are excommunicate for withstanding not only the gross Idolatry, but also as many Heresies of that Church of Rome, as she hath new Articles of Faith; among which this, to wit, The Catholic Roman Church, without Union whereunto there is no Salvation, 〈◊〉 not be held the least; being (as you see) so Imposterous, Schismatical, and Execrable, as every Instance yet given doth manifestly convince.    

Our third Instance in the Churches of Africa, in the days of Saint Augustine, in two Counsels fully prejudicial to this now Article, viz. The Roman Catholic Church, without which there is no Salvation. SECT. 8.  
THE first Council was that of Milevis, 
* Binius.  Anno 402. concluding against the pretended Prerogative of Appeals to Rome. This Case is handled at large 
* See after, cap. 13 §. 21.  afterwards. The sum of all is: This Council, wherein Saint Augustine was present, consisted of threescore Bishops, which had been esteemed always Orthodox in the Catholic Church; albeit that their conclusion of denying any Right of Appeals from Africa, to the Church of Rome; which jurisdiction of Appeals is held to be a principal part of the Article, viz. The Roman Catholic Church, in the Church of Rome at this day. Which one Article, consisting of four points of Necessity, (first, Necessity of Union with the Church of Rome; secondly, Necessity of Subjection unto it; thirdly, Necessity of Belief of both the former; fourthly, Necessity of Salvation in them All,) is now rend in pieces by that one Prohibition of that Council, which denying any Right of Appeals from Africa to Rome, did thereby deny the pretended Catholic Subjection to the Roman Chair. Secondly, decreeing Excommunication against those African Priests, that should dare to Appeal to Rome, thereby they deny an absolute Necessity of Union with Rome. Thirdly, this Excommunication being to be extended against them that should Think it necessary to Appeal to Rome, they thereby deny Necessity of Belief of the Prerogative of Rome. And lastly, condemning this Belief among themselves, they thereby deny it to be an Universal Right necessary to be believed of all Others. All this is evidently proved in the place alleged.  
The second Instance in the Churches of Africa, in the days of Saint Augustine, was the African Council by name, against the Church of Rome, in the Case of Appeals: concerning which, for methods sake, we are to lay open, first, the Occasion of Opposition between the Churches of Africa and Rome: secondly, the Discussion thereof: thirdly, the Separation of the Church of Africa from Rome: fourthly, the honourable estimation had of the African Bishops, as of the Saints of God, notwithstanding their not acknowledging of Subjection to the Roman Church.   

I. The Occasion of the Opposition by Saint Augustine and the Africans, against the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, in the supreme Case of Appeals. SECT. 9  
COnsult you with your own Chronologers, in the body of the Counsels of old, and you shall find that the Case standeth thus. One Apiarius a lewd Priest, and (as you 
a Concil. ex Episcopis 217. Suriu● Tom. 1. Concil. Scandalum non leave, immania flagitia, turpitudines nefandas. Item Binius Tom. 1. Concil. Carthag. 6. in Not. §. Causa. & §. De modo.  know) of a scandalous, flagitious, and abominable life, being Excommunicated by the Bishops of Africa, fleeth to Rome, and as it were taketh Sanctuary there, by Appealing to Pope Boniface then Bishop of that Sea. The Pope sought by his own Authority to have this infamous Priest restored again, avouching, for the ground of his Authority, the Canon of the Council of Nice, which (as he pretended) declared the power due to the Bishop of Rome, to take hold of all Appeals made unto the Pope, from all other Christian Churches and Provinces, and to order matters according to his own wisdom.   

II. The Discussion of the Cause. SECT. 10.  
THE Bishops of Africa, (and among them Saint Augustine) having read the Pope's Claim of Appeal, by virtue (as was alleged) of a Canon of the Council of Nice, fell first to demur with themselves, suspecting that the Pope had suggested a false pretence, and therefore sought first to satisfy themselves by sight of the Copies of the Council of Nice, before they would return the Pope any full answer; and after diligent search into all the ancient Copies, which they could find, they yielded this Answer to the Bishop of Rome: 
b Quamuis enim plurimos codices legerem us, tamen nunquam in Nicaeno Concilio in latinis codicibus, in nullo Graeco Codice ea potuimus invenire. Surius Tom. 1. Concil. pag. 589.  We have read (say they) many Copies of the Canons of Nice, both Greek and Latin, and yet find we among them no such Canon (for Appeals to Rome) as you allege.  
In this case of doubt it was agreed on both sides, that messengers should be sent unto Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria, and unto Atticus Patriarch of Constantinople, to the end that, upon search of their Records, they might be certified of the Truth of this matter. These two Patriarches send them faithful Transcripts, which they themselves did avouch to be 
c Epistola Cyrilli Alexandrini. Exemplaria Authentica Epist. Attici Patriarchae Constantinop. verissimos Canon's. Surius Tom. 1. Conc. Ibid.  The most true and authentical Copies, wherein that Canon, which Three Popes, to wit, Boniface, Zozimus, and Caelestinus successively had alleged, as their only evidence for their right of Appeals, could not be found, nor any syllable thereof. Upon this Answer of those grave Patriarches, these African Bishops, in number 217, perceiving the falsehood of the Pope's Allegation, and finding that no such Canon appeared in those ancient Copies of the Council of Nice, which could advantage that their pretence of Appeals to Rome from Carthage, but rather that there was a Canon to control it, they descended in the end to a flat and peremptory resolution. Yet before we set down their Conclusion, fain would we know how your Advocates can quit and free your three Popes from forgery of a Canon of Nice. They tell us, first, that the Two Greek Patriarches were deceived, by giving credit unto their Greek Copies, which were 
d Sic Bellar. lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. Cap. 25. §. Respondemus.  Corrupted by Heretics. Next, that the Popes themselves were deceived, in alleging the Council of Nice instead of the Council of Sardis, wherein (saith your 
e Baronius Anno 347, num. 34. & 99 Bellar. quo supra & Binius Annotat. in Conc. Sard.  Cardinal) The Canon was extant. And lastly that the Bishops of Africa were deceived, in not acknowleging any General and Catholic Council of Sardis by name, S. Augustine affirming that 
f Augustinus non agnoscit alium Concilium Sardicense, quam quoddam Haereticum Orientalium.— Catholicum nullum vidit. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap 25. §. Add.  He knew no Sardican Council, which was not Heretical.  

I. CHALLENGE.  
WHich Answer of your Cardinals importeth thus much, to wit, that we are to believe that two hundred and seventeen Bishops, two Reverend Patriarches, and three ancient Popes erred in their ignorance of a General Council of Sardis, in those days, wherein the matter was advisedly and exactly discussed; rather than these Two Cardinals, which are but of yesterday birth, in their conjectural presumptions: which is in effect as much as to tell us, that those Archers cannot discern so well of a true aim, who are an hundred and fifty paces distant from the mark, as they who are of a thousand and two hundred: for such was the difference betw●ene the years of those ancient Fathers, and of these Cardinals, from the time of the Council of Nice. Which Answer we have elsewhere proved to be no solution, but a fiction rather, and mere Illusion. Yet that we may deal liberally with you, so as not only to suppose, but (if you will) to confess also that there was a General Council called Sardican, as such your 
g Vt patet ex Athanasio Apol. 2. Magnum Concilium. Socrates lib. 2. Cap. 16. Concilium generale. Su●pitius Severus Epist. lib. 2. Imperator iubet apud Sardicam, Concilium congregari. justinian in Edicto contra Triae Capi●ula vocat Vniversale Concilium. Et Concilium Chalcedonense mentionem facit Sardicensis. Numerus Episcoporum 344. Primum Concilium Carthaginense tempore julij, de quo Grantianus. Sic decretum est in Sanctissimo Sardicensi Concilio.  Testimonies declare; and therefore to yield so far to 
h Baronius Anno 347. num. 97.  Baronius, and 
i Binnius' Annotat. in Concilium Sardicense. pag. 439.  Binius, as to think, that Augustine and the African Bishops could not be ignorant of the Sardican Council, which Saint Augustine himself calleth [Plenarium universae Ecclesiae Concilium,] An Universal Council: Nevertheless hereupon must we likewise make bold to tell you, that the Canons which you cite for your Appeals must be judged fictions, because else the African Bishops, with Saint Augustine, could not have answered your Pope, that 
k In nullâ patrum Synodo invenimus constitutum. Conc. Afric. c. 105. Apud Sur.  No Synod had ordained that any might come from his Holiness to order these matters. Nor could those Popes have omitted the mention of such a Canon, if any such had been, when now it so much stood them upon, both for keeping themselves free from crime of forging a false Canon of the Council of Nice, and also for advantaging their pretended Claim of Appeals, by virtue of a Canon of Sardis. Howsoever, let us proceed to that which followeth.    

III. The decision and peremptory resolution of the Africans, in Opposition against the Papal Claim of Appeals. SECT. II.  
FIrst 217 Bishops (Saint Augustine being a principal one) do address their letters to the Pope of Rome, showing the falsehood of the Claim of Appeals, made by your Three Popes, Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestinus; that it had no Patronage from the Council of Nice; but rather that there was in that Council another Canon, making much against such Appeals; by determining that Popes, being so far remote from afric, could not be so competent judges in such Causes: ˡ Except (say the Africans) Some will think that God will inspire some One singular man with justice, and deny that grace to innumerable persons assembled together in one Synod. And therefore in plain terms they desire the Pope not to admit hereafter of any such Appeal; and in conclusion they call that Papal presumption a Smoky secular arrogancy, which (say they) we will not endure.  
Furthermore, the same Council of afric made Two Canons, by the one as it were taking the Crown of Popedom from the Head of your Bishop of Rome; by the other piercing and wounding the Papal Primacy to the very heart. For what fairer Crown can you put upon that Head, than the Supreme title of 
m Papa Monarcha Ecclesiae. Sanderus lib. de visibili Monarchiâ. Bellarmin lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. cap. 5. Costerus Jes. Enchirid. de Religione: Tract. de Pontif. §. Quaestio porro.  Monarch over the whole Church? or of 
n Sacerdos magnus, seu Pontifex Maximus est honorificentissimum nomen. Bellar. lib. de Officio Principis Christ. pag. 35. Attamen Baronies: Pontifex Maximus quinto in loco est positus,— is potest habere alios sibi aequales; ideo Pontificis Maximi amplitudini jure junctus est titulus, Episcopus Episcoporum. Baron. Tom. 2. Anno 2.6. num. 11.  Chief Priest, and Bishop of Bishops? wherewith you professedly adorn, and in a manner adore your Roman Pope. But these African Fathers, upon occasion of this contention with your Popes, decreed 
o Vt Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum, aut Summus Sacerdos, aut aliquid hujusmodi, sed tantùm Primae sedis Episcopus. Concilium Africanum, Canon 6. Apud Surium Tom. 1. Conc.  That the Bishop of the Primary Sea should not be called the Head of Bishops, or chief Priest, but only the Bishop of the Primary Sea.  
Secondly, what greater Prerogative or higher token of Monarchy could your Pope's covet, than that which you challenge, as 
p Cuncta (ex Gelasio habetur) per mundum novit Ecclesia, quòd ad Sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam de qualibet parte mundi appellandum. Egidius probat nemini licere a Papa appellare, quià credere omnem creaturem subesse Rom. Pontifici est de necessitate salutis, ut in Extra. C. Vnam Sanctam. Azorius Instit. Moral. lib. 5. part. 2. cap. 13. Valentianus probat primatum ex Appellat. lib. 1. cap. 11. & Bellar. lib. 2. de. Rome Pont. Cap. 21.  A matter known to the Catholic Church, which is, that Appeals are to be made to Rome from all the coasts of the world: against which the same holy Bishops made this peremptory decree, viz. 
q Si quis ex Presbyteris ad transmarina putaverit esse appellandum, a nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipatur. Canon. 92. Apud Surium Tom. 1. Conc. Aphric.  If any Priest shall think that he ought to Appeal beyond the Sea, (meaning to Rome) let him not be received any longer into the Communion of the Church of afric. So they.  
All that your Cardinals can say, to help your Popes at a dead lift, is; that the former pretended Canon of Nice insisted upon 
* See above at e  was to be found in the Council of Sardis; which Antiquity hath denied. And yet if that were granted, your Monarchy standeth still upon humane Authority, For that Synod of Sardis showeth plainly, that their grant of Appeals to julius' Pope of Rome was but upon favour, and not upon duty; being not an old Custom, but a new Constitution. 
r Concil. Sardic. Cap. 3. Si vobis placet ut Sancti Petri Memoriam honoremus, ut Iulius Pontifex, etc.— Si hoc omnibus vobis placet: Synodus respondet, Placet. Apud Surium Tom. 1. Conc.  If it please you (say they) so much to honour the memory of Peter, let us write to julius' Bishop of Rome, etc. And again, If you all be pleased; whence nothing can be gathered, but that the same pretended Grant was no more than Ad placitum, and might by the same Authority be as easily repealed. We add, that albeit you challenge a right that 
s Omnes majores causae ad sedem Apostolicam referuntur,— quae spectant ad Articulos fidei intelligendos.— Secundùm, causae Episcoporum omnium & Antistitum in jure ab eo dirimuutur, [cum aliis privilegijs octoginta novem] Azorius Instit. Moral. part. 2. lib. 4. cap. 35. §. Quintum, & Secundum.  All causes of great moment (among which these of Appeals is a principal one) should be Reserved to the Bishop of Rome, you notwithstanding confess that 
t Tempore Cypriani non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis, proindc quisque poterat quae alij in suâ Dioecesi, & ob eam causam partem sui Episcopatus in solidum tenebat. Salmeron. jes. in 1. Pet. 5. disp. 8. § Et dicendo.  In the days of Saint Cyprian there was no Reservation of any such Cases in use.  

II. CHALLENGE.  
HEre have we a fair and clear glass, wherein any one that doth not wilfully close his eyes may see the full face of the usurped and conunterfeit Monarchy of the Church of Rome. For in your Roman profession, your latter Popes proclaimed the Papal Monarchy to be founded upon 
u Roman profession. See above Cap. 1. §. 1.  Divine Authority: Whereas your ancient Roman Popes, at the time of the African Council, when (if ever) they were to make good, Appeals from all the parts of Christendom to Rome, their principal part of Supreme power; they themselves notwithstanding argued not from any divine Law, but only from the humane decree of the Canon of Nice; which the Fathers of that Council discovered to be notoriously false. For if the then Popes had thought that they could for this Papal pretention draw a sharp two-edged sword ex iure divino, what needed they to have fought with this wooden dagger of humane Constitution, which, because of the false pretence thereof, was shattered in pieces with the very drawing thereof?    

IV. That the Bishops of afric were in the state of Salvation, notwihstanding either their not- Union with the Pope of Rome (by reason of his Excommunication) or of their no- Subjection unto him, by reason of their diverse Oppositions against him. First of their not- Union. SECT. 12.  
IN the Body of your Counsels there is extant the Epistle of Pope Boniface the Second, wherein about the year 606, the same Pope complaineth that 
x Epistola Bonifaecijs 2. quae est ad Alexandrum Episcopum. Aurelius Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus cum collegis suis, instigante Diabolo, superbire, temporibus Praedecessorum nostrorum Bonifacij & Celestini, contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit: sed videns se modò peccatis Aurelij Eulalius à Rom. Ecclesiae communione segregatum, humilians recognovit se & communionem Romanae Ecclesiae petens,— damnavit Scripturas, quae adversus Ecclesiae Romanae privilegia factae fuerant. Apud Surium. Tom. 2. Conc. pag. 384.  Aurelius and his fellow Bishops of afric (with whom Saint Augustine did consent) had by the instigation of Satan (for so the Epistle speaketh) been separated from the Church of Rome, until that now after an hundred years' space Eulalius (Bishop of Carthage) acknowledging his offence, seeketh and desireth to be reconciled to the Church of Rome. Thus far the Epistle of your Pope.  
Do you believe this Epistle, concerning the Excommunication of the Churches of afric? Then had you best stand aside a while, for fear of knocks: for behold there are at hand children of the Tribe of Dan, angry fellows, that lay about them. 1. Bellarmine: 
y Respondeo, valdè mihi eas Epistolas esse suspectas. Bellar. lib 2. de Pont. Rome cap. 25. §. Respondeo primo, & §. Sed si.  I greatly suspect (saith he) that this Epistle is counterfeit. 2. 
z Quis impostura & fraud non dicat Epistolam hanc plenissimam esse, quâ scribitur Africanam Ecclesiam ultra centum Annos Schismaticam fuisse? Binnius Tom. 1. Conc. Annot. in hanc Epistolam sc. Bonifac. 2. add Eulalium.  It is full of fraud, saith Binius. 3. 
a Quid improbè improbus finxit Impostor?— Quae Epistola nisi falsa esse convinci posset, planè ex Ecclesiae Catholicae Albo expungenda fuissent Sanctorum Africanorum agmina Martyrum— qui persecutione Vandalicâ— consequunti sunt Martyrij palmam: deludique pariter forent clarissimi Confessores, qui in illo spatio centum annorum in Africanâ Ecclesiâ, doctrinâ & vitâ claruere conspicui. Baronius Tom. 5. Anno 419. num. 92.93.  Which (saith Baronius) some wicked Impostor hath feigned, because if this Epistle go for currant, then must we blot out of the Table or Book of Monuments whole Troops and Armies of Martyrs within the Church of afric, together suffering persecution within the space of an hundred years, under those bloody Vandals, all which were crowned with Martyrdom; and in like manner must we wipe out the memory of famous and godly professors of the same time. So he.  
But do you not believe that Epistle of Boniface to be true, and that these holy Martyrs stood so long Excommunicate, and separated from the Church of Rome? Then harken first to your Lindanus: 
b Coeterùm hāe Bonifacij 2. Epistolam esse genuinam & minimè supposititiam, satis superque arguit, quod ante Annos 500 talis indubitatò credebatur, quam Antonius Florentinus testatur esse longè verissimam.— at Africanos circiter centum annos sacrilegâ defectione se subduxisse— quare qui in hanc ut fictitiam rident, quid quaeso nobis, imò sibi relinquent saluum, ex omni Eccles. Antiquitatis Historia? etc. Lindamus Panopl. Euang. lib. 4. cap. 89.  That this Epistle is not supposititious, but true (saith he) this may be a sufficient argument, that 500 years since it was held and believed to be true, as Antonius of Florence doth witness: which if it should be counterfeit, then can we not have confidence in the truth of any History of Antiquity. So he.  
Your Costerus and Turrian, both Jesuits, and also Master Harding do greatly magnify your Popes for 
c Rectè & pro officio fecerunt Romani Pontifices, malè autem Africani, qui etiam ut testatur Bonifacius 2. (citatur haec Epistola in mar give) meditati videbantur defectionem a Romanâ sede. Costerus Enchirid. Tract. de Pontifice. §. Rectè. Sol. 10. & Turrianus ut citatur a Sadaele Resp. ad Repet. Turriani p. 430. & Harding contra juellum Art. 4. divisio. 28.  Discharging their office, in excommunicating the Bishops of Africa, and allege this Epistle for their ground. Your jesuit Salmeron, and Sanders do confidently hold that 
d A tempore Cypriani coeperunt Africani separati ab Ecclesia, tempore Au●elij Carthaginensis Episcopi:— exacerbato animo erant erga Ecclesiam Romanam, donce tempore Bonifacij 2. reconciliati sunt Salmeron jes. Tom. 12. Tract. 68 §. Ad Canonem. Etiam Sanderus de visibili Monarch. lib. 7. num. 411. pag. 368.  All the African Bishops were severed from the Church of Rome, from the days of Saint Cyprian, until the time of the said Boniface, the Author of this Epistle.  

III. CHALLENGE.  
WE doubt not but you stand half aghast, to hear the Contradictory spirits of your own Authors, as well Cardinals as Jesuits, in a matter of so great moment: The one side (rather than the aforesaid Bishops of Africa should seem to perish, by their Separation from the Church of Rome) will suffer all the Epistles of ancient Popes, set down in the body of the Counsels, to incur (as Counterfeits) the suspicion of forgery. The other part, rather than that one Epistle of the Pope (which so much advanceth the authrity of the Popedom in Excommunicating other Churches, and illustrateth the necessity of Union with the Church of Rome, upon danger of damnation) should want Authority, care not although (as your Baronius calleth them) whole Troops and armies of holy Martyrs and godly Confessors do damnably perish.  
But pacify yourselves, my good friends; the matte●, upon on due consideration, will not prove worth your jarring. For if (as the one part will have it) these and all other Bishops of Africa, for the space of an hundred years, were excommunicate by the Pope for their Opposition against the Church of Rome; And that (as the other side is constrained to confess) these foresaid Bishops and others made up whole Troops and Armies of Martyrs and holy Professors, than this intestine 
* Bellum Haereticorum pax Ecclesiae Hierom.  War among yourselves hath made this peace among us, to believe that the Pope's Excommunication could infer no mortal danger of Separation. Take unto you this This Syllogism to ruminate upon.  
No true Christian Martyrs die out of the state of Salvation. divers true Christian Martyrs die out of obedience to the Roman Church.  
Ergo. divers dying out of obedience to the Roman Church, die not out of the state of Salvation.  
Thus ought your grand Clerks to have framed their Argument, for the stablishing of a true Conclusion, and not by their conjectural Opination to lay the forgery upon that Papal Epistle, which in truth is to be laid upon the Papal usurpation itself. Thus much concerning the no-necessitie of Union with the Church of Rome.    

Secondly, of their no- Subjection. SECT. 13.  
Whatsoever that Union was, which the Bishops of Africa, and Professors among them had with the Church of Rome, sure we are that by denying Appeals to Rome, they denied that Subjection, without which your Church will acknowledge no Union, and consequently no Salvation: except you shall imagine that the Pope of Rome, whom you entitle Monarch of the Church Catholic, and Bishop of Bishops (to whose absolute jurisdiction you swear 
e Forma juramenti Pij 5. Ego obedientiam Pontifici Romano spondeo, & hanc veram fidem esse, extra quam nemo saluus esse potest.  Obedience; as an Article of Faith, without which none can be saved) would accept it as a matter of Subjection for Protestants, with Saint Augustine and those other African Bishops, to deny that any aught to be called Bishop of Bishops; and not to yield to his demands in point of jurisdiction, upon any pretence of Divine Law, but to exact of him proof by a Canon of an ancient Council; to gainsay his challenge of Right of Appeals to Rome from remote Nations, calling this A smoky secular pride; to inhibit their Clergy from Appealing to the Roman See, and to denounce Excommunication against them, if they should transgress in that Case.  

IV. CHALLENGE.  
WHerefore if any (as some of your Church have been) shall be so impudent as to adjudge these Bishops and Professors in the Churches of Africa (which is a part of the world, 
f Master Brerewood in his Book of Religions. pa. 68  Thrice as great as Europe) to have been without the state of salvation, we can say no less, than that which your Cardinal Baronius hath already put in our mouths, to wit, 
* See above at a.  Then must we blot out of the Table and books of Monuments whole Troops and Armies of Martyrs, within the Church of Africa, for the space of an Hundred years (we might have said many more) suffering persecution for the faith of Christ: and in like manner must we wipe out the memory of famous and godly Professors of the same time. This Collection you must grant to be infallibly true; which doth as justly and irrefragably teach us that your Papall-Article, which severeth all from Salvation, that profess not Subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome, is New, False, Scandalous, and Schismatical; for which Article whosoever shall dye, may be indeed called the Pope's Martyr, but no ways the Martyr of Christ. You may not forget the Council of Milevis, and the Threescore universally reputed Orthodox Bishops therein, denouncing Excommunication against all African Priests, which should so much as hold it lawful for them to Appeal to Rome. They that were thus bold to Excommunicate them that should believe any such Roman jurisdiction, did plainly profess their contempt of the Papal Excommunication against themselves, in such a case; and consequently their no belief of necessary Subjection or Union to the Roman Chair. Except therefore all these, so many, so learned and Orthodox, so godly and constant professors of Christ jesus were damned, this Article, The Roman Catholic Church, without subjection whereunto there is no Salvation, is justly to be condemned as most false and pernicious.    

Our Fourth Instance is in the Ancient Church of Britain. SECT. 14.  
Much ado have you made about this your Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Mother-Church, as though the Church of Rome had this prerogative, above and before all others; which we have proved to be a mere delusion, by many Examples out of the Catholic and Apostolic Churches more ancient than Rome, and among others we gave Instance in this Isle of the Church of 
* See above Cap. 3. §. 8.  Britain: and now we proceed to the liberty of the Britain Churches.   

That the Britain's and Scots, although separated anciently from the Church of Rome, were notwithstanding accounted truly Religious, and holy men. First of their Separation. SECT. 15.  
Cardinal Baronius cometh on roundly, saying, 
g Brittanni a Communione Catholicae Ecclesiae diro Schismate divisi— & planè vides Brittannorum Episcoporum eorundem Schismaticorum animum refractarium ab Vnitate Ecclesiae Catholicae resilientem. Baronius Anno 605. Num. 55. & 60. Eadem plane quâ Britanni pariter & Scoti erant Schismatis  Both Britain's and Scots were schismatically and obstinately separated from the Church of Rome. You say Schismatically, not Haeretically, for you cannot impute unto them any error in Faith; who (as 
h Brerely in his fuligine tincti, ac discessionis a Romanâ Ecclaesiâ rei. Baronius Anno 604. Num. 65. Catholic Apology, the First Chapter.  One of yourselves hath written) Did not differ from the Church of Rome in those days, but only in matters of smaller importance. For how could they be called Haeretikes for following the jewish Rite, in the observation of Easter, without the jewish opinion, more than the Romanists themselves, who together with us observe the Feast of Pentecost, yet not jewishly? for, as your 
i Genebrard. in Psal. pag. 341.  Genebrard answereth, judaei Pentecostam typicè, nos mysticè & verè celebramus. How much more Orthodoxally the Britain Church, which followed the steps of Saint john's Disciples, and kept the Pasche of the Eastern Churches (whence it is, as One saith, that the name of our Easter is probably derived) rather upon custom, than upon any conceit of Mystery, much less in an opinion of jewish servitude. Yet (as your Cardinal Baronius hath truly said) they were separated from the Subjection of the Church of Rome; the necessity of which Subjection you have since made an Article of faith.   

The right Estimation that ought to be had of the aforesaid Britain, Scottish, yea and Irish Churches, notwithstanding their Separation from Rome. SECT. 16.  
BE it that these Scottish and British Churches were Schismatics, as you call them, because not subject to the Roman Church, will you therefore have no better estimation of them, than of souls separated from the Catholic and Universal Church, and consequently deprived of Salvation? So charitable indeed is your 
k Britanni & Scoti erant Discessionis ab Ecclesiâ Rom. rei, ob idque feris Barbaris traditi, Anglis sc. & Saxonibus. Quare dicit Hier. cap. 5. Quia reliquisti me, & seruiisti dijs alienis etc.— Deos plane alienos colere omnes Schismatici con●incuntur. Baronius An. 604. Num. 56.  Baronius in his censure against the Britanes: But 
l Galfridus Monumetens. Hist. Britt. li. 11. ca 12. & 13. cited by the Centurists, Cent. 6. cap. 3. Religio sissimis Praesulibus muniti— omnes labore manuum suarum viventes.— Abbas eorum Dinoth vocabatur, mirè liberalibus artibus eruditus— diversis monstravit Argumentis ipsos Augustino [à Gregorio Pp. Misso] nullam subiectionem debere.— Edelbertus ergò— Edelfridum Regem Nortdan-humbrorum instimulavit,— ut Abbatem Dinoth & caeteros Clericos perditum iret,— qui collecto mirabili exercitu etc. mille ducenti eorum ea ipsâ die Martyrio decorati regni caelestis adepti sunt sedem.— Deuces Britonum Edelfridum vulneratum in fugam propulerunt, & decem millia sexaginta sex perierunt. Haec Galfridus ci●ant. Cent. quo supra. Tit. de Tranquillitate & persecutione sub Mauritio Sacerdote. pag. 37.  Galfridus giveth us better hopes of them, calling the Praelates then in Wales, in the time of Augustine the Monk, Most religious Bishops; telling us of Two thousand Monks, under the Abbot Dinoth, who getting their living with their own hands, stood out, with others, and denied subjection to the Church of Rome: of which number A thousand two hundred died under the bloody hands of Pagans, and were thereby (saith he) crowned with Martyrdom, and made inhabitants of the kingdom of heaven.  
As for the Scots, your Baronius will plead for them, because (saith 
m Scotorum Ecclesia, licet diverso tempore— a communi ritu Catholicae Ecclesiae Pascha celebraret, non tamen ob id a communione sedis Apostolicae separatam fuisse— quia etsi non Romano, neque tamen judaico more Pascha celebrarent. etc. Baronius Tom. 8. Anno 634. Num. 11.  he) Although they did not celebrate the Feast of Easter at the time observed by the Church of Rome, yet did they not keep that Feast at the time used by the jews, and therefore were not separated from the communion of the Church of Rome. With as good reason might he have justified the Britain's, who though they did celebrate Easter after the manner of the jews, in respect of the day; yet did they it not with the same mind and Faith of the jews, as thinking it necessary. But the Cardinal regardeth not what he saith, being herein contradicted by Beda, who witnesseth that the Scots were in Opposition against Rome herein; and also contradicting himself, in that he hath already called the Scots Schismatics. As for Bede, he reckoneth among other Scots, the Bishop Aidanus, and although 
n Nequaquam laudans quod de Paschae obseruatione minus perfectè sapiebat, imò haec multum detestans. Beda Hist. Anglic. lib. 1. cap. 17.  Condemning and detesting his Opposition against the Church of Rome, in the point of Celebration of Easter; yet notwithstanding he testifieth of him, that 
o Erat Episcopus multum misericors. Beda Hist. Angl. lib. 3. c. 14. Vir Dei Spiritu Prophetiae praedicens tempestatem futuram, & virtute eiusdem spiritus sopivit eam. Cap. 15. Miraculis post mortem celebris. Ca 17  He was a merciful Bishop, endued with the spirit of Prophecy, and famous for his miracles done after his death. So he.  
You may read of the like Opposition of the Irish Bishops against the See of Rome, about the same time, in the very same Question of Easter, in a late Treatise set out by a learned 
p Doctor Usher L. Primate of Armagh. Tract. of the Religion of Jreland.  Servant of God, excellently versed and professed in the Mysteries of Antiquity.  

CHALLENGE.  
IVstly therefore may we conclude, that no Doctrine or Article can be more Scandalous, than this, to tax so infinite souls truly professing the Faith of Christ; nor more Schismatical, than to hold them Schismatics, who being united to the Church Catholic, were only not subject to the Church of Rome; nor more Damnable, than to condemn them, whom all Christians are to honour in their memories, as the holy and blessed Saints of God.     

CHAP. X. Our Fifth Argument is, because that the Belief of this Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, without which there is no Salvation, damneth the souls of the most ancient and godly Emperors, whom Christianity hath always honoured.  

SECT. 1.  
LET us in the next place join the First General Counsels together with those ancient Christian Emperors, by whose command the said Counsels were gathered; so shall we fight with Two weapons, Spiritual and Temporal, yet both Christian. These, in respect of the Analogy of times, are set down by yourselves. For, concerning the 
q Bellarmin l. 1. de Concil. c. 5. Generalia approbata Concilia, etc.  Approved General Counsels, you observe that the First General Council of Nice was under the Emperor Constantine: The Second, called the First General Constantinople Council, was under the Emperrur Theodosius the Elder: The Third General Council at Ephesus was under the Emperor Theodosius the Younger: The Fourth General Council of Chalcedon was under the said Emperor Theodosius, and Martianus: The Fifth General Council, called the Second of Constantinople, was under the Emperor justinian. From these few we shall easily understand, what value your Article can be of in all the rest, after that we have discussed these three points. First, what Subjection it is, that you would hold due from Emperors to your Popes and Church: Secondly, whether the same godly Emperors have held themselves bound to perform such duties: Thirdly, whether, notwithstanding their Opposition against your Tenure of Subjection, they have not deserved the estimation of Catholic Emperors in the Church of Christ, as those that stood in the state of Salvation.   

The Subiestion required by you from Emperors to the Bishop of Rome. SECT. 2.  
MAny words of Introduction need not; your Conclusions are as followeth; That 
r Principes seculares non habent Ecclesiae regimen, nec debent Ecclesiastica negotia tractare. Bellar. lib. 1. de Pont. Cap. 7.  Princes, and whatsoever Potentates are not to meddle in Ecclesiastical affairs: They 
s Principum secularium authoritate nec possunt nec debent Generalia Concilia congregari.— Quod munus propriè ad Pontificem pertinet. Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil. c. 12  May not gather Counsels by their own Authority: They 
t Praesidentia & praecedentia ab Imperatoribus Pontifici debetur. Bellar. Lib. de Officio Principis Christiani, per totum.  Ought to yield Priority of Place, especially to the Pope: And 
u Reverentiam etiam debent, quòd certè est superioris. Ibid. p. 40. Haec est causa cur reges Christiani Pontificibus per legatos reverentiam & obseruantiam promittunt. Ib. p. 26.27.  To profess Reverence (this being a sign of Superiority) and also Obedience unto him. But how far must this Reverence extend, if you yourselves may prescribe? namely (saving your Reverence) to the 
x Rex Hispaniae & Franciae (quod vidimus) Pontificis pedes exosculati sunt. Bellar lib. contra Apolog. de Triplici Nodo. cap 2.  Kissing of the Pope's feet: which in your judgement is 
y Peccaret Pontifex si honores ●●tos non admitteret. Bozius de signis Ecclesi●e, lib. 11. cap. 10. Inter praecipua Romani Pontificis privilegia Nono loco recenset Greg. 7. Solius Papae pedes a Principibus exosculari. Epist. 51. dictat. 9 Apud Lorinum jes. in Act. 10. vers. 25.  An honour, which the Pope may not refuse; and which Pope Gregory the Seventh reckoneth in the Ninth place of those Privileges, which he challenged as properly belonging to him as Pope of Rome. Not to insist upon the barbarous boast, which you make of your Popes 
z Henricum quartum non admissum a Pontifice Gregorio septimo, nisi nudis pedibus ad se venientem, nec Fredericum Barbarossam, nisi collum pedibus Alexandri 3. Pontificis submittentem. Primum Testimonium habet Baronius Anno 1077. Alterum Massonius in vita Alexand.  In not admitting of two Emperors to their presence, without an extreme kind of Submission; the one by approaching upon his bare feet, the other by subiecting his neck unto the Pope's feet: Whileas the Pope's Ox may brag of more favour than the first, and his Ass than the second.  
Much more might be added out of the last work of Bellarmin, entitled 
a Bellarmin. lib. de Officio Principis Christiani.  The Duty of a Christian Prince, wherein such is the spirit of that Cardinal, that whatsoever any example of honour he could rake out of the ashes of Princes, Kings, or Emperors, yielded to either Popes, Bishops, or Priests in the superlative excess of their humility, zeal, and devotion, that doth he violently wrest, to make of it a General Rule of Office and Duty; even to the Dedignifying and abasing of Princes, to the yielding of praeeminence to Bishops and inferior Priests in Precedence, and going first; in Presidence and sitting above; yea and they exact also (very soberly, I wisse) a Prebibition and drinking before them. A Doctrine wherein that old Cardinal hath 
b Vid. Librum nostrum qui inscribitur, Causa Regia.  been sufficiently (I hope) convinced of extreme dotage.   

The Opposition of the former Emperors, against the pretended Subjection. SECT. 3.  
THe First point of their Opposition may be discerned in their Interesting themselves in Ecclesiastical affairs. The Emperor Constantine (as Saint Augustine 
c August. Tom. 2. Epist. 16●. Quod posteà quam factum est, praesente Caeciliano, etc.  witnesseth at large) committed the Cause of Caecilian Bishop of Carthage unto Pope Meltiades. Observe, Ergò it was by the Emperor's Commission, and not to him alone, but to him with others, who are called in that Commission, the Pope's Colleagues. Secondly, Observe, Ergo the Pope was not Monarch, or sole Actor herein: nay, after that the Pope had given his judgement, the same Emperor referred the same Cause, to be more diligently examined and ended, to the 
d Augustin. quo supra. Jtem Epist. 66.  Bishops of Arles. Thirdly, Observe; Ergo, the judgement of the Pope will suffer an higher Appeal: for after, in the Case of Athanasius, the same Emperor chargeth all the Bishops of the Province of Tyre, what to do? 
e Vt omnes qui ad Concilium Tyri convenistis è vestigio ad castra nostra maturaretis, reque ipsâ vestrum iudicium aequum syncerum-commonstraretis, me audiente: Quem ingenuum dei famulum esse vos ipsi inficias non iveritis. Socrates Hist. lib. 1. cap. 22.  To appear before me (saith he) without delay, and to show how sincerely and truly you have given your judgements. And not thus only, but when the Cause Ecclesiastical requireth, he proceedeth to denounce 
f Sin autem quisquam eas Ecclesiae pests (loquitur de Theoguide, & Eusebio) vel memori●, vel laudibus celebrare aggrediatur, confestim— paenas suae in●citiae dabit. Theodoret. Hist lib. 1. cap. 20.  punishment (by his own Authority) against whomsoever that shall honour the memory of those Bishops, Theognis and Eusebius. Other the like Demonstrations might be brought of Constantne his Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical.  
Of the Emperor Theodosius we read, that he gave to the Bishop Dioscorus Authority and Superiority of place, to moderate Causes in a Council. Can this consist (think you) with your pretended Subjection? No, 
g 
The odosius dat quod non habet, nisi ex usurpatâ potestate, ex Imperitiâ Ecclesiastici Canonis.  
Binius Tom. 2. Conc. Chalced. Act. 1. in Marg. Ius sibi arrogat & usurpat. Baronius Anno 449. nu. 27.   He giveth (say you) that which he hath not to give, but doth it out of Ignorance of the Canon, usurping that Authority. Oh you are angry! and no marvel though men fancy not that fruit, which setteth their teeth on edge: But we cannot be sparing in this kind; For Theodosius the younger, and Honorius, both Emperors, Say (as you know) that the Patriarch of Constantinople hath the same right over those in subjection under him, 
h Glossa apud Gratianum Decret. Distinct. 22. C. Renovantes. Honorius & Theodosius Imperator dicunt quod Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus habet idem ius in suis subditis, quod Papa habet in fuis.  which the Pope hath over his. Where diverse Subjects must needs argue different Subjections; and equality of Right must as nessarily dissolve Monarchy, which can be but of One.  
And justinian the Emperor will hardly please you, with whom you quarrel at the first hearing. He authorised, under his own hand, The Code, or Books of Constitutions, and Pandects, for the Regulating of the Clergy, as well as of the Laity. Whereat you fret not a little. 
i Quòd frequentissimae sunt leges de rebus sacris, Ecclesiasticisue personis à justiniano's Imperatore sancitae, non immeritò arguitur, quasi rerum divinarum invasor, dum divinis se miscuit, qui humanis tantùm praefectus esset rebus. Baronius Tom. 7. Anno 528 num. 1.  Herein he is (say you) justly reproved of many, as one invading upon, and intruding into the Office of divine causes. The same Emperor taketh upon him the Confirmation of the Election of the Bishop of Rome; and behold again, you brand him with the note of an 
k justinianus sacrilegè hoc in loco Confirmationem & abrogationem Pontificis Romani usurpat. Binius Tom. 2. Concil. Arrogantèr assumpsit. Jd. ibid. p. 635.  Usurper. Finally, in general, you shape us this Answer; 
l Potestatis suae limites egressi sunt. Bellar. adversus Marsilium, de Statu Veneto. Vide librum qui inscribitur Controversiae memorabiles, pag. 261.  These Emperors have passed the bounds of their Authority.  
You furthermore told us of another Character of due Subjection, which is the yielding unto the Pope the Prerogative of gathering General Counsels; albeit nothing is more obvious to Any, conversant in Ecclesiastical reading, than that which your own Cardinal Cusanus hath confessed long since; 
m Octo Concilia generalia erant ab Imperatoribus congregata, non per Papam: Vt unum, per Theodosium Imperatorem, à quo Leo Papa, licèt multa supplicatione, tamen ut Concilium celebraretur intra Italiam non obtinuit. Card. Cusanu● Concord. Cathol. lib. 2. cap. 25.  The first eight general Counsels (saith he) were gathered by Authority of Emperors, and not of Popes; insomuch that Pope Leo was glad to entreat the Emperor Theodosius the younger, for the gathering of a Council in Italy, and could not obtain it.  
But can we forget your next Prerogative of Subjection, viz. the Pope's Precedency, and Priority of place, above even Emperors themselves? Surely if he had any ancient claim hereunto, it should have been in that, wherein he challengeth the greatest praeeminence, to wit, in a General Council: But when we ask the Question, why no one of your Popes were ever personally present in any of the first Generll Counsels, (if he must be thought to be the sole Head of the Church, and he alone to have an infallible judgement in himself,) no not though they were in the same City (as was Vigilius) where the Council was celebrated? You answer, that the reason, why the Popes would not present themselves in these Counsels, was this; 
n Quaestio cur Papa nunquam interfuit in Concilijs Orientalibus, per se, nec Constantinopoli, cum tamen in Civitate Vigilius fuit, quod erat quintum Concilium Generale.— Altera ratio est, quia in Conciliis Orientalibus semper interfuit Imperator, aut eius Legatur; Graeci autem Imperatorem in summo loco collocabant, hoc tolerandum non est, ut Imperator ante summum Pontifi●em sederet, vel ●umultus excitaretur. Ideò non ibat ad Concilia, sed tamen Legatos mittebat. Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 19  Because the Greek Bishops, who were in those Eastern Counsels, wherein also the Emperors were present, would have preferred the Emperors in place above the Popes. So you. And we cannot but believe you, and thereupon make bold to convince your new Doctors of egregious impudence, who dare extend the height of the praeeminency of Popes above Emperors, even in defiance as it were, of all Antiquity, and of the Consent of all those Catholic Bishops in General Counsels.  
As for your last and basest point of Subjection, of Kissing the Pope's feet, it tasteth so rankly of Luciferian pride, in the now Popes, that we think it an exceeding injury to the memory of holy Popes of the Primitive times, to believe that they could affect, or would admit such an homage and honour (a less than which Saint 
* Act. 10.26.  Peter refused, as too much) if it had been offered unto them. Much less can we be persuaded, that the first Catholic Emperor's (albeit otherwise most godly and humble) were known to perform it. If it had been so, then would not your Massonius, when he sought to show the Antiquity of it, send you to seek it 
o Qui mos an ●it antiquissimus nescio, non enim omnia legi. Massonius in vita Benedicti 12.  He knoweth not where: much less would your great Antiquary Polydore abhor this as 
p Si benè multi hodiè se homine● esse perpenderent, qui quia Sacerdotio praediti. imperiosissimos dominos se praebent— ita usuvenit, ut nos Pontificum nostrorum pedes exosculamur, illudue institutum à Romanis Pontificibus dixerim. Polydor. Virgil. lib. 4. c. 13. Lugduni. Anno 1558.  A new and naughty custom of Imperiousness, devised first by the Popes themselves. But, of all others, your Bozius (one so transported with zeal towards the Pope, and this his honour, that he held it an 
* See below in the next Chap. at y. 2.  Injustice in the Pope to refuse this kind of Submission from any Christian whomsoever) will give you the best and worst satisfaction, touching the practice of ancient Emperors; where speaking of this Ceremony of Kissing the Pope's feet, and answering this doubt, why in those Ages all sorts of Bishops gave greater honour unto Kings and Emperors, than they received from them? 
q Neque Reges & Imperatores, nondum bene rebus Christianis constitutis, nimio fastu inflati & adhuc Gentium superbiam spirantes, externa honoris denegatione irritari debebant. Bozius de signis Ecclesiae. lib. 20. cap. 5.  Then (saith he) whilst that the affairs of Christianity were not as yet established, Kings and Emperors swelling with Arrogancy, and as yet breathing the Pride of Gentiles, were not to be provoked by Bishops, by denying them outward honour. Can you have a better Answer, for confirming the Ancient practice of Emperors, in receiving honour? or a worse satisfaction than is this his saucy and malapert boldness, in blurring the estimation of those Emperors (which were first as in time, so in excellency of all virtues) with the false imputation of Pride, for receiving Honour from all others, as an homage due to their state, and so prescribed by God, as Saint Peter and Saint Paul do both witness? 
* Honora Regem. 1. Pet. 2.17.    

The Estimation of those forenamed Christian Emperors. SECT. 4. 
* Honorem, cui honour. Rom. 13.7.   
Much need not be spoken, in the commendation of the former Emperors, whom your own 
r Nunquam Catholici Principes ex animo Deo adhaeserunt, quin facilimè de hostibus triumpharent.— Vt in Testamento novo Constantinus magnus, qui primus publicè ex Imperatoribus Ecclesiam defendit. De Theodosio seniore August. lib. 5. de Civitate Dei cap. 26. eum verè pium & Catholicum fuisse. Honorius etiam planè Catholicus, & Theodosius junior; etiam Iustinianus senior, donec Catholicus fuit, foelicissimè imperavit. Bellar. lib. de. No●i● Ecclesiae. cap. 18.  Cardinal produceth both for Examples of Godliness, and Catholic Belief, and also as Monuments of God's miraculous Protection upon them, for their Catholic profession sake; even Because they did heartily and sincerely cleave unto God. The Emperors, whom he nameth, are Constantine the Great, Theodosius the elder, Honorius, Theodosius the younger, and justinian. But the last with some detraction. Prosperous was the Emperor justinian (saith he) so long as he was a Catholic. Also Bozius; 
s justinianus primis decem annis benè de rebus divinis sensit, secundis maximè rebus est usus: mox impias manus in Papam Syluerium Vigiliumque iniecit: denique in Haeresin Apthartodocitarum incidit; post illatam vim Syluerio & Vigilio nullo non calamitatis genere perculsus. Bozius Tom. 2. lib, 23. cap. 4.  The Emperor justinian (saith he) was of a sound judgement in the Doctrine of Christianity, for his first ten years, and was so long prosperous: but forthwith he handled two Popes (viz. Syluerius and Vigilius) so roughly, that after he was afflicted with all kind of calamities, and in the end fell into the Heresy of the Apthartodocites. How long justinian was both a Catholic in his Faith, and Prosperous in his affairs (notwithstanding his withstanding your now Romish Subjection, required of Popes of later times from their Emperors) we shall willingly commit to the report of your own Cardinal, by whom you may understand that the Emperor justinian began his Reign in the year after Christ his Incarnation 
t Baronius Tom. 7. Anno 528.  528: whom, until ten years after, Bozius himself acknowledgeth to have been a glorious Catholic. Within which compass of years we read, concerning justinian, of nothing but of 
u Baronius Anno 521. Codicem absolutum confirmat Anno 530. Idololatras ad fidem convertit, templa multa construit. Anno 533. Resistit Haereticis, & libros Institutionum edidit. Anno 534. Plures Ecclesias Carthagine erexit. Anno 536. Constitutio adversus Haereticos.  Building of Churches, conversions of Idolaters, Constitutions against Heretics, Edicts for the Faith, and (whereunto you have taken such exceptions) his book of the Code, and Paudects: wherein, because he meddleth with Ecclesiastical business, he hath therefore been censured by you for an Intruder, Inuader, and Usurper of an Authority superior unto his own. Notwithstanding, whatsoever Decrees and Constitutions justinian published concerning the Catholic Faith, and Ecclesiastical discipline (if we may believe your 
x Par est credere quotquot de fide Catholicâ & disciplina Ecclesiasticâ latae sunt justiniani Sanctiones, tot esse ipsorum duorum Constantinopolitanorum Antistitum decreta. Baronius Anno 528. num. 2.  Baronius) they were made by the advice and counsel of Two Bishops and patriarchs of Constantinople.  
Now are we come to the Tenth year of his Empire, being the 538. year of our Lord Christ: wherein 
y Syluerium Papam in exilium mittit. Baronius Anno 538. num. 8.  justinian sent Pope Syluerius into Exile. Between which time, and his exiling of Pope Vigilius, are sixteen years; in all which space is registered justinian his 
z justiniani recta Confessio fidei à Vigilio Papa laudata. Anno 540. num. 15. Vindex & tutor vetustatis. Anno 541. num. 12. Sanctio adversus Haereticos. Jbidem num. 25. Contestatio adversus Haereticos. Anno 546. num. 37.  Confession of Faith, commended by Pope Vigilius, his Patronage of Antiquity, and his Sanctions and Contestations against Heretics. Then cometh in the 
a Mandatur Vigilius in exilium. Anno 551.  Banishment of Vigilius, before the time of justinian his Heresy, containing the space of five years, in which Interim is reported unto us justinian his 
b A justiniano pacem petit Vigilius: justinianus ei cedit. Anno 552. justinianus instaurat Basilicam; rursus redit in gratiam Vigilius. Anno 554. justinianus instaurat Templum Sophiae. An●● 557. Sacram mensam fecit pulcherrimam. Ibid. Insidiae adversus eum deteguntur. Anno 561. num. 2.  Peace with Vigilius, his Reparation of the Temple of Sophia, his Erecting a most goodly communion Table, and his Discovery of treasons that were plotted against him. And now at length justinian falleth into an Heresy, which although it may be some exception to his person, yet can it be none to our Cause, who dispute from the Acts and Constitutions of justinian, whilst he was a Catholic.  
Nevertheless, we may not let pass the Testimonies of Such as give us better hope of him, than to think that he died an Heretic, who (by your own Confessions) after this Emperor's death esteemed otherwise of him; as namely 
c Patres sextae Synodi elogio homine Catholico digno, & titulo Pietatis reperiuntur eius memoriam prosequi. Gregorious Pap● eum piae memoriae justinianum appellat. lib. 2. Epist. 10. Accipe de eodem Imperatore in Synodo Rom. ab Agathone Papa pronunciatum praeconium, extat Epist. in Synod. 6. Act. 4. justiniani ab omnibus gentibus memoria religiosâ veneratione digna censetur, cuius fidei rectitudo, per augustissima eius Edicta in toto orbe diffusa laudatur. Haec Baronius Tom. 7. Anno 565. num. 3.  The Fathers of the sixth General Council, honouring his memory with the title of PIETY: So Pope Gregory, accordingly call him an Emperor of holy memory: And Agatho the Pope, accounting his name to be still Worthy of all religious reverence, famous unto all for the truth so largely dispersed by his Edicts throughout the world. We may conclude with your own Spanish writer, who upon like proofs hath concluded thus; 
d Constat igitur ex his, audiendos non esse eos, qui haereticum iniustè appellant Eum (loquitur de justiniano.) Fernandus de Cordova, Didascal. multiplex. pag. 166.  It is now evident by that which hath been said, that they are not to be harkened unto, who unjustly call justinian the Emperor an Heretic. So he. If any desire to see a just and full Confutation of all the Objections, made against the Faith and piety of justinian, he may throughly satisfy himself by reading of two worthy 
e See Doctor Crackenthorp his Defence of justinian against Baronius: and a late Treatise of Doctor Rives, the King's Advocate, styled, Imperatoris justiniani Defensio, contra Alemannum.  Authors, who have lately written both copiously and learnedly of this Subject.  

CHALLENGE.  
SO many tokens of no- Subjection from so famously-pious and Catholic Emperors, in so high a degree of Usurpation, and Invasion (as you call it) upon the jurisdiction of Bishops and Popes, in Gathering of Counsels, in prescribing them Laws, in Commanding their Presence, in arresting & Exiling their persons, and all this in times so ancient, and in so admirably-glorious state of the Church of Christ, when so many hundreds of most learned and godly Fathers and illustrious Lights of the Church Catholic chiefly flourished, and prevailed in General Counsels, for the determining of the Doctrine of Faith; All these, we say, do sufficiently exclaim against the falsehood, arrogancy, and iniquity of your Romish claim by an Article, by force whereof all the aforesaid pious and Catholic Emperors, Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Elder, Theodosius the Younger, and justinian, with such others, must needs forfeit their salvation.  
Is it credible, if this your Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church and Pope, without Subjection whereunto, and belief of the same Subjection, there is no Salvation, had been then of Faith, that no one of all those Catholic Bishops would have Catechised their godly Disciples, and taught them not to Invade and Intrude upon the Pope his jurisdiction? Or that no Meltiades, no julius, no Liberius, nor any one of those twenty Popes, who lived within the circuit of twhose two hundred and eighteen years, would appear in General Counsels, to make claim for their right of Gathering General Counsels, of Praesidency in the same Counsels, & (if peradventure the Emperor had been prepossessed of the highest place) to have Lordly commanded him, saying, Friend, here is a more honourable person than thyself, whose feet thou oughtest to kiss, therefore sit down lower; and so the Emperor with shame should take the lower room? But where? where, but (according as your later Popes determined) 
f Sedes Imperatoris parabitur iuxtà sedem Papae, sed non tantae longitudinis aut latitudinis.—— Et advertendum, quòd locus ubi sed & Impater non sit altior loco ubi tenet pedes Pontifex. Lib. 1. Ritual. siue Cerimonial. Sect. 14.  Next to the Pope's seat? yet with this Proviso, That the seat where the Emperor sittteth is to be no higher than the place, where the Pope setteth his feet.  
But especially when we consider the personal Summoning, Condemning, and Banishing of your Popes by the Emperor; and no Boniface the eight, nor Gregory the seaventh, aliâs Hildebrand, nor Alexander the sixth, Father of Borgia, nor any one Pope, Papally inspired, to cast firebrands of Curses, to the dethroning and destroying of them: we are then in good hope that you will lessen your Faith and Belief of an Article so false, and pernicious.     

CHAP. XI. Our sixth Argument is, because the former Article, of Necessary Subjection to the Catholic Roman Church and Pope, doth damn the First and best Popes, and most Catholic Bishops of Rome.  
SVbiection is either Ecclesiastical, or Civil; your Article doth require both: therefore must we inquire more diligently into both.  

The Pope's Challenge, of the Civil Subjection of Princes unto them, examined by the Examples of Ancient Popes. SECT. 1.  
Pope's of after ages have challenged an absolute power 
g Papam habere potestatem plenissimam in universum orbem terrarum jure Divino in rebus Ecclesiasticis & Politicis, Communis est Theologorum sententia (enumerat authores viginti duos.) Eadem est Canonistarum sententia, quae sumitur ex C. Solitae. De maior. & obedientiâ Carerius de potestate Pontificis Romani. lib. 2. cap. 9.10. & 12.  Directly, or 
* See after at k.  Indirectly, over all Secular Princedom, not only of Christian, but also of Ethnic and heathen Emperors; as well by Corporall, as by Spiritual punishments, even to the depriving them of their kingdoms and lives. And that they may seem to exact this plenitude of Authority by Divine Law, Pope Innocent the third maketh his Papal Decree, concluding 
h C. Solitae de maior. & obedientiâ. Ibi Innocentius tertius: Deus creavit duo lumina in coelo, solemn & Lunam. Id est, Duas instituit dignitates, quae sunt Pontificalis & Regalis, ut quanta sit inter solemn & Lunam, tanta inter Papam & Imperatorem cognoscatur differentia: ut optimè explicat Pontifex.— Igitur Imperatoris potentia à Papa dependet, Carerius quo iam supra.  The Emperors to be subject to the Popes, because it is written, God made two Great lights, the Sun to rule the Day, and the Moon to govern the Night. Upon which Gloss the Divines and Canonists, the Pope's Parats, and Parasites conclude, that 
* See lit. g & h  Every Emperor borroweth his power from the Pope, as doth the Moon her light from the Sun, be the Emperor Christian or 
i Ethnicos quoad Temporalia, Ecclesiae subijci docent Innocentius, Andreas,— caeterique Doctores Canonistae; eosque puniri posse affirmant— poena temporali directè Bozius lib. 1. de Temporal. Ecles. Monarch. cap. 2.  Ethnic; and therefore is to submit himself to the Pope; and that 
k Habet Papa Temporalem Potestatem principalem, etsi non Directè, tamen Indirectè in ordine ad bonum spirituale. Bellar. lib. 5. de Pont. Rom. Cap. 6. Deinde neque hoc habet propter ordinem charitatis, sed propter subiectionem & subordinationem ad deponendos Reges, & disponendum de Regnis. Jbid. Cap. 7.  Not by order of Charity, but by duty of Subordination and Subjection; which again the Pope's exact of them, (when they mean to dispossess them of their kingdoms, or deprive them of their lives) from Scripture, alleging in their Bulls, for their warrant, that saying of the Prophet, 
l Paulus Episcopus Seruus seruorum Dei, etc. Nos in iustitiae sede constituti iuxta Prophetae Vaticinium dicentis; Ecce te constituti super gentes & regna, ut evellas, destruas, plants, aedifices. Bulla Pauli 3. adversus Henricum Octawm Angliae Regem. Pius Episcopus, &c cui data est omnis potestas in coelis & in terris, quem super omnes gentes, & regna omnia constituit deus, ut evellat, destruat, dissipat, disperdat, etc. Bulla Pij 5. in Elizabetham Angliae Reginam. Propheta in personâ Christi ad Romanum Pontificem loquitur. Carerius de potestate Pontifices Rom. lib 2. cap: 3.  Behold I have constituted thee above Nations and Kingdoms, to plant, and to root out, to build, and to destroy. jer. 1. So they. Whereunto also acordeth the Decree of Pope 
m Extravag de Maior. & Obed. Vnam Sanctam.  Boniface the eight.  
Good God that the world should be so bewitched by them, as to account them Pastors of the Church, who feed their people with thorns, swords, dagger's, and pistols. For what else mean these Glosses, whereby the Word of God is so notoriously profaned, for patronising of Rebellions, and Murders? Whereas the Text hath no other meaning, than the Prophetical Function, by Planting of Virtue, and Rooting out Vice, by Preaching, as 
n Tantùm de denunciando eas esse destruendas Lyranus in eum locum.  Lyranus one of your Friars; and one of your best Popes 
o Hieremias nisi prius perversa destrueret, aedificare utiliter recta non posset, quia nisi ab auditorum suorum cordibus spinas vani amoris avelleret, nimirum frustra in iis sanctae praedicationis verba plantaret. Greg Pastoral. Cur. part. 3. Admonit 35.  Gregory the Great do confess: and herein Saint Bernard durst condemn the Papal Gloss, as it were, to the Popes own face, writing to Pope Eugenius in these words; 
p Vt evellas, etc. Quid horum fastum sonat? Rusticani magis sudoris schemate labor spiritualis expressus o●t,— ut nos etiam sentiamus magis esse nobis impositum ministerium, non dominium datum,— Esto Propheta; sed nunquid plus quam Propheta? Sisapis, eris contentus mensurâ quam tibi mensus est Deus; Nam quod amplus est a malo est. Bernard. lib. 2. Consid. ad Eugenium. Cap. 6.  What is there in this Text, concerning pulling up, rooting out, and destroying, that soundeth of such pride? Wherein, under the figurative speech of rural sweat, is expressed the spiritual labour; wherein there is a signification of Ministration, not of Dominion. Wherefore be you (speaking to the Pope) a Prophet, but will you be more than a Prophet? If you be wise, than you will be content with the measure that God hath measured unto you: whatsoever is more, is from evil. So that Saint; showing thereby, that your Popes might have proved, for their advantage, out of that Text, rather a right to become Gardeners and Carpenters, for rooting out weeds, and destroying of buildings; than Generals of Hosts, for conquest and Subjection of Kingdoms.  
Nevertheless, some Popes have not been idle, but have put their positions in practice, deposing Kings, and Emperors, as was (say 
q Zacharias Childericum deponit; Gregorius sept. Henricum tertium Imperatorem: Clemens sextus Ludovicum 4. Imperatorem. Bellar. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 8.  you) Childricke King of France by Pope Zachary; the Emperor Henry the Third, by Pope Gregory the Seventh; the Emperor Otho the Fourth, by Innocentius the Third; and the Emperor Lodowick the Fourth, by Pope Clemens the Sixt. And thus did Pope's sport themselves with tossing the Crowns from the heads of Kings and Emperors. Now than we see the Subjection that is, by this Article, required by these latter Popes: let us try whether this insolency be not condemned by the Submission of ancient Popes unto the Emperors, of their times.   

The Submission of Ancient Popes unto Emperors as well Ethnics, as Christians, in the Primitive ages of the Catholic Church. First to Ethnic Emperors. SECT. 2.  
IN the time of the Ethnic Emperors, the Church Catholic Militant gave for her Ensign the Red-Crosse, died in the blood of holy Martyrs, that laid down their lives for the profession of the Faith of Christ; among which innumerable number, we shall not envy the praise, which you give unto the ancient Popes of those times, when you say, that 
r Haec una Vrbs potest stare adversus impios omnes à vero Christi cultu alienos, sic in eius Pontificibus amplissimè resplenduit, nulla namque sedes tot Martyres Episcopos produxit, ut Romana, quae viginti septem suorum Pontificum pro cultu Christi interfectorum num●●um recenset. Bozius de Signi● Ecclesiae. Tom. 1. lib. 7. cap. 5. §. 5.  No Episcopal See brought forth so many Martyrs as the See of Rome, wherein Seven and Twenty Popes were slain for the worship of Christ. So you; Which we accordingly confess, and say, Blessed be the memory of those glorious Saints and Martyrs!  
But what of these Martyrs? Did they ever detract from the royalty of Heathen Kings and Emperors? Or so much as touch their heads, to set their Crowns never so little awry? Heaarken you (among your own Doctors) unto one, who 
s Testis est ipse Deus, nihil me voluisse, cogitasse, aut scripsisse, quod vel minimâ ex parte possit Decretis S S. Catholicae Ecclesiae Religionis & fidei directè vel per obliquum retorqueri, vel in odium, vel invidiam alicuius potestatis Spiritualis, aut Temporalis, Greg. Tolossanus I.U. Doctor ante libros suos de Republicâ.  Calleth God to witness, that he will say nothing that shall either directly or indirectly cross the Decrees of the Catholic Church or Faith, nor yet prejudice any power, whether Spiritual or Temporal. So he; Signifying, that he meant not to derogate from any just right of either Estate. Can then either side desire a more indifferent Moderator, than he professeth himself to be? But what? 
t A Christo passo, per interuallum trecentorum annorum, etsi crudelia tormenta Christiani passi fuerint, & clades atrocissimas,— nusquam tamen legitur eos adversus Reges rebellasse— sed hoc fere Argumento ostenderunt se suamque Religionem omnibus anteferri debere,— quod in eâ sententiâ ita pertinaciter & obnixè perdurant, ut unico amore Dei, & divini cultus, se ab eo dicerent Christianos appellari, cuius fuit hoc piissimum dog●a, ut Magistratibus pareant. Jdem lib. 26. de Repub. Cap. ult. num. 10.  From the time of Christ his passion (saith he) for the space of three hundred years, although Christians then endured most grievous torment, and calamities, yet do we not read in any story that an● of them rebelled against their Kings; No no, for by this they then proved the Christian Religion to excel all other professions, even by suffering constantly whatsoever miseries, only for the love of God and his worship; taking their names of Christians from him, who delivered this pious doctrine of Obedience to Magistrates. So he.  

I. CHALLENGE.  
Never shall we deny the truth of Their Martyrdom, namely of those ancient Bishops of Rome, who (we are assured) died for the same Truth, which we profess, as in other points of Religion, and divine worship, so also most apparently for this our particular defence of not exacting Temporal Subjection of Kings and Emperors: wherein we find a vast gulf of difference betwixt This your, and That their Roman Faith. For they (as you have heard) would rather be killed, than trouble States, and violate Temporal Powers and Authorities: but your Popes, in their Bulls, proclaim that their Professors and Believers ought rather to kill, and be killed, than not resist. The determination of this point will be (according to the sense of your Roman Article) a requiring, (upon loss of salvation) a belief of Temporal Subjection from all Kings and Emperors, to your Popes: whereby all these 27. godly Popes, the faithful Martyrs of Christ, are damned, who (as is testified) professed Obedience and Subjection unto them, even to death; Whom therefore we contrarily produce, as so many Martyrs, (that is, Witnesses by their blood) that your now Article of Subjection, in the Popish sense thereof, is justly to be condemned; and those whom you call Martyrs, for dying in defence thereof, may be your Pope's Martyrs, but nothing less than the Martyrs of Christ.    

A Memorial, concerning all Christian Emperors, which have received Baptism, the badge and Character of Christianity. SECT. 3.  
Pass we from gazing upon the flag with the Red-Crosse, died in the blood of Martyrs, to the Ensign with the Cross partly bloody Red, as before, (as in the days of julian the Apostate) partly Black, through the ignominies, which Popes and other holy Professors sustained by Emperors, whether Heretical, or Orthodox; and partly white, through the peace of Emperors every way Catholic. What will your Article, concerning Subjection, determine against all these? You distinguish them either into 
u Pontifici ut Pastori necessaria est Potestas, circa Hereticos, tanquam circa Lupos, arcendi omni ratione quâ possit. Bella. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 7.  Wolves, such you call all Emperors, which of Catholics turn either Apostates, or Heretics; of these you conclude, that your Pope hath power to drive them away by all means possible: Or else into 
x Altera potestas necessaria Pontifici circa furiosos, velut Arietes, cogendo eos per omnes commodas rationes. Jbidem.  Rams, signifying such Kings and Emperors, who notwithstanding they be in profession true Catholics, yet do any way oppress or destroy the Church; of whom you determine that your Pope, As Shepherd by his power ought to compel these as furious Rams, by all means convenient. And what you hold Convenient means, we 
* See above at q  have learned already by your objected practices, in dispossessing of Kings & Emperors, by force of Arms, as namely these, Childericke King of France, the Emperor Henry the Third, the Emperor Otho the Fourth, and the Emperor Lodowick the Fourth; not for any note of Heresy, but only for not Subiecting themselves to the Pope's Dignity and Dominion. For we are now to confute the double presumption of your now Popes; the one is their Violence aghast Emperors, the other their not Reverence unto them, as unto their Superiors; and that by the Examples of godly Pop●● of former Ages.   

I. Examples of no-Violence used by Ancient Pope's against Kings and Emperors. SECT. 4.  
WE are to speak of those times, when their reigned among Christians, not only Tigers, such as were Heathenish Tyrants, but Wolves, as Constantius and Valens, both persecuting Hertikes and julian the Apostate, who raised the Twelfth persecution; besides justinian, who (as you have heard) dealt so hardly with your Two Popes, Syluerius, and Vigilius; to omit others of the like boldness, whom you may reckon among your Rams: In which cases Pope Boniface the Eighth requireth 
y In eius Potestate duos esse gladios, Spiritualem viz. & Temporalem.— Opertet autem gladium esse sub gladio, Temporalem sub Spirituale. Bonifacius Octaws, Extrau. Vnam Sanctam.  Both swords, viz. Temporal and Spiritual Authority to be in his own power, so that the Temporal be subject to the Spiritual. As though the Church could not possibly subsist without such a predominant power Ecclesiastical over whatsoever Temporal Ordinance, that shall any way afflict her, or any of her members. We are now in a Question of Fact, and find that as then in particular Syluerius and Vigilius, both Popes, being sent into 
* See above. Chap. 10. §. 4.  Banishment by the Emperor justinian, did not make resistance, but petitioned for favour and peace; so now generally, that (as is confessed) No Pope, in all the Succession of Peter, did 
z Lego & relego Regum & Impeperatorum res gestas, & Gregorius Septimus primus erat, qui Excommunicavit & deposuit Imperatorem. Otho Frsingensis, lib. 6. Chronic. Cap. 35. Vt refert Tolossanus lib. 26. de Repub. Cap. 5.  Depose any Emperor, before Pope Gregory the Seventh, that is, not until a Thousand and Sixty years after Christ. We fain would know what Answer you can make to this, to quit your latter Popes from an inexcusable Innovation, and intolerable Usurpation, and Invasion upon the jurisdiction of Princes, whether Ethnics, or Christians; and of these, whether Heretics, or Catholics; and of these, whether Peaceable, or Turbulent and obnoxious: and the only satisfaction your Cardinal will afford us is this: 
a Quòd si Ch●istiani olim non deposuerunt Dioclesianum, julianum, Valentem, & alios, id fuit, quia deerant vires Temporales Christianis, Bellar. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 4, & 7.  If Christians (saith he) in ancient times did not depose Dioclesian (an Heathen Emperor) julian (an Apostate) Valens (an Heretic) and others, (meaning, Disturbers of the Church, which were otherwise Catholics) the reason was, because they wanted force and power. So h●●han which Answer (for we must think your Cardinal was greatly learned) none could be more unconscionable; all Antiquity proving it to be agregiously false. Tertullian and Cyprian, two ancient Fathers, being under the persecution of Heathen Emperors, do make their Apologies in the behalf of the Christian and Catholic Church, Tertullian thus: 
b Absit ut virtute humanâ vindicetur Christiana secta, aut doleat pati, in quo probatur. Si enim hostes extraneos, non tantùm occultos vindices agere vellemus, deesset nobis vis numerorum aut copiarum?— cui bello non idonei, non prompti fuissemus?— si non apud istam disciplinam magis occidi liceret, quam occidere. Tertul. Apol. Contra Gentes Cap. 37.  God forbid that our Christian Profession should be revenged by humane power, or should grieve to suffer that, whereby we are tried: albeit if we would become either secret or else open Revengers of our own wrongs, could we want either number or power? What War is there that we are not fit for, yea and ready also to undertake, if that our Religion taught us not rather to be killed, than to kill, for the profession thereof? Accordingly Saint Cyprian; 
c Nemo nostrum, quam vis apprehenditur, se adversus iniustam violentiam, quamuis nimius, & copiosus sit noster populus, ulciscitur. Cyrian ad Demetr. §. 14. cum Annot. Pamelij. pag. 328.  Our Professors (saith he) do not take revenge against unjust violence, albeit our people be more in number. Saint Ambrose was vexed under the hand of an Heretic and slayeth to his weapons; but wot you what? 
d Preces & Lacrymae arma mea sunt, aliter nec debeo, nec possum resistere. Ambros. Tom. 3. lib. 5. post Epist. 32. Orat. ad Auxentium.  My prayers and tears (saith he) are my weapons; I neither may nor can make any other resistance. Not (as you 
e Posset Ambrose arm●s Ecclesiam suam tueri & vim vi repellere, nec ideo armis abstinuit quod armis esset inferior; ab eo namque populus stabat, ab eo maxima pars militum. Barkleius lib. 3. Contra Monarcho. Cap. 5 pag. 138.  confess) that Ambrose had not power to resist, with whom the people and greatest part of the Soldiers took part; but because he would not defend himself by Arms.  
A Case so evident, universal, and indeed honourable, that your own Authors do record it for the credit and glory of the Catholic Church, in those ages, saying that 
f Christiani nihil mol in contra Rempub. etiam quum pares numero & viribus fuerunt. Tolossanu● lib. 26. de Repub. Cap. 7. num. 10.  Christians never plotted against the secular government, no not when they were equal in strength. 
g Martyrs novi Testamenti, propter multitudinem, facilè contra Tyrannides persecutorum suorum conspirare potuissent; pro obedientia tamen, quam iussi sunt sublimiori potestati defer, maluerunt pati quam resistere. Carerius de Officio Principum.  They never conspired against Tyrants, although for multitude they might easily have made resistance; because they were commanded, (namely in Scripture) to perform Obedience. And (which is as much as can be said) 
h Sed id gravissimo Argumento esse debet, quòd nemo Sanctorum Patrum vel Scriptorum alioqui Orthodoxorum per totos mille annos & ampliùs, licet Ecclesia tunc omnibus floreret copijs; & impiorum Principum magnus esset numerus, ●ale quid unquam vel verbo vel scripto docuisse legitur. Barkleus lib. 6. adversus Monarc. Cap. 26.  Not one ancient Father (saith Another) nor any one Writer, albeit otherwise Orthodox and Catholic, for more than a thousand years' space, whilst yet the Church abounded in power of Arms, was ever read to teach the contrary. So they.  

II. CHALLENGE.  
A Thousand years' space from Christ, in the whole Church Catholic, wherein no such Subjection was exacted by Popes from Emperors, is a fair time, we think, and a strong Argument to Challenge your Church of Heresy, in prescribing to Christians a new Article of Faith, as necessary to Salvation; by which you again condemn the Faith of all the Members of the Catholic Church, as well Popes, as other Bishops, and Christian Doctors and People, who with universal consent believed and taught Obedience to Civil Magistracy, whereas you now proclaim Arms, and open resistance.  
And what can you now suggest for the modesty of your Cardinal, who blushed not to say, that Christians anciently wanted force to resist all unbelieving, tyrannous, and turbulent Emperors? Being so evidently confuted, as well concerning the open force which latter Popes have maintained, as also concerning all secret violence, whereof you have given us many Examples. For as we have heard, touching Emperors of middle age, so have we lately seen, in our days, your secret practices of 
* Why boastest thou thyself, o Tyrant, that thou canst do mischief? Psal. 52.1.  Mischief against Kings and Queens, without any open war, by armies or troops of enemies: If ●he practice of Assassins, and Traitors, by Dags, Daggers, Poisons, POWDER-PLOTS, or your Cardinals, [Quacunque ratione] that is, [by what means soever] may make any proof: Who if they can do it, we have little reason to doubt of their wills, so long as the 
i De occisoribus autem Schismaticorum Excommunicatorum extat Rescriptum Vrbani Papae 2. ad Godefridum, apud juonem his verbis. Excommunicatorum interfectoribus, prout morem sanctae Ecclesiae nosti, secundum ipsorum Intentionem, modum congruae satisfactionis injunge. Non enim eos Homicidas arbitramur, qui adversus Excommunicatos zelo Catholicae Matris ardente●, eorum quoslibet trucidasse contigerat, ne tamen ejusdem Ecclesiae disciplina desaeviat, tenore quem diximus paenitentiam iis iniungito congruentem, quae divinae simplicitatis oculos adversum se complacare pervaleant, si forte aliquid duplicitatis pro humana fragilitate ex eodem flagitio contraxerunt, Apud Baron. Anno 1089. num 11.  Rescript of Pope Vrban the Second is in force, concerning them that shall kill Schismatics Excommunicate.  
For although he command Penance to be enjoined them, because of the doubt that may be had of the sincerity of their Intentions, whether they did but double, and only seem to slay them upon zeal for the Catholic Cause, when-as (peradventure) they did it to satisfy their selfe-malice (which Penance it may be shall amount to no more than coming to Rome, in the days of jubilee, or else to visit such a next Shrine, and to say a few Aue-Marie's and Pater-noster's, in honour of such a Saint:) Yet notwithstanding doth he acquit the conscience of every such zealous Killer, saying, If any shall chance to kill Schismatics whomsoever, that are Excommunicate, upon an ardent zeal to their Catholic Mother (meaning, the Church of Rome) we do not judge them to be Murderers.  
Go you now, and complain that you are unjustly persecuted or abandoned by Protestants out of several Kingdoms, seeing that they are all yearly 
k Excommunicamus omnes Lutheranos, Hussitas, Caluinistas, Hugonotos, etc. Bullae Canae.  Excommunicate at Rome for Heretics and Schismatiks, by the Bull of MAUNDY-THURSDAY; and consequently made Obnoxious unto the blind devotion of every Romish bloody Assassin, who may be persuaded that he shall m●rit of God, by the slaying of those supposed Schismatics. Thus much of the No-Resistance of Ancient Popes against Temporal government.    

II. Of the Reverence acknowledged by holy Popes unto Kings and Emperors, as to their Superiors. SECT. 5.  
SVbiection, challenged by Popes from Emperors, as their Inferiors, is the main Subject your later Popes have insisted upon, as a Material Article of Faith, even in the point of Outward Reverence, as necessarily due unto them, by acknowledgement of a personal Subordination and Subjection unto them. But when we look beyond this middle Region of Aftertimes unto the upper sphere of Antiquity, we find as great a difference between your later Popes, and those Ancients, as there is between Up and Down, Then and Now, Deposing of Emperors, and yielding Reverence unto them.  
We seek no other witnesses than your Binius and Baronius, against whom we are sure you will take no exception: In whom we find Pope Liberius the First professing 
l Liberius. 1. Sermo pietàtis tuae.— Me quidem. quem patienter omnia ferre necesse est, plurimum lacerate— Ego enim tecum veram pacem requiro. Apud Binium Tom. 1. Conc. Epist. 2. ad Constantinum.  Patience in suffering indignities from the Emperor, and entreating for mercy: Pope Simplicius the First promising 
m Simplicius. Principes Christianos iugi veneratione s●scipio— Clementiae vestrae Acatius meâ vice supplicabit. Epi. 4. apud Binium Tom. 2  Continual Reverence to Christian Princes, and supplicating the Emperor for favour, by this Legate: Pope Leo the First making by the Empress a supplication to the Emperor, 
n Leo Epist. 26. Vt iubeatis Synodum intra Italiam celebrari Sacerdotes supplicant. Supplicationem nostram pietas vestra apud eum dignetur asserere. Apud Binium. Tom. 1.  To command a Synod to be celebrated in Italy, and yet he could not obtain it: Pope Gelasius the First confessing that 
o Gelasius Legibus tuis ipsi quoque parent Religionis Antistites. Epist. 8. apud Binium. Tom. 2.  Bishops are to obey the Laws of Emperors: Pope Hormisda the First taking notice of the Emperor's 
p Hormisda. Futuram Synodam indicari mandas, cui nos interesse debere iisdem literis, deo (ut credimus) tibi imperanti, commonuisli.— ad literas vestras, respondi. etc. Epist. 5. apud Binium. To. 2.  Command, of gathering a Council, as a motion from God; and further acknowledging that he had received warning, and that he ought to be present thereat: Pope Vigilius the First 
q Vigilius. See above, Cap. 10. §. 4.  banished by the Emperor, and suing for peace and favour: Pope Pelagius the First confessing and saying, 
r Pelagius 1. Regibus nos subditos esse sacrae scripturae praecipiunt. Epist. 10. apud Binium. Tom. 2.  Holy Scripture commandeth us to be subject unto Kings: Pope Gregory the First avowing himself to the Emperor, in these words; 
s Gregorius. Quod ad me attinet, ●erenissimis vestris iussionibus obedientiam praebeo. lib. 4. Epist. 32. Et rursus: Ego iussioni vestrae subiectus. Lib 2. Epist. 62. Apud Binium. Tom. 2.  As for me, I perform obedience unto your Commands, whereunto I am subject: Pope Martin the First praying the Emperor to 
t Martinus. Nos orantes Serenitatem vestram, ut haec diligenter legere dignetur. Epist. 3. apud Binium. Tom. 2.  Vouchsafe to read his letters: Pope Agatho the First talking of 
u Agatho. Secundum piissimam missionem vestram, pro obedientiâ quam debuimus, confamulos nostros— curavimus demandare— pro quibus flexo mentis poplite suppliciter vestram— Clementiam deprecamur. Apud Binium Tom. 3. Actio quarta in Conc. Oecum. 6. sub Agathone.  the bending of the knees of his mind unto the Emperor, by Supplicating his Clemency for Others. Finally, Pope Adrian the First, Devoting himself to the Emperor by Letters, as one in supplication, 
x Adrianus. Tanquam praesentialiter humo stratus & vest●is vestigiis provolutus quaero etc. Epist. 1. apud Binium. To. 3.  Fallen down prostrate at the soles of his feet. So your First Popes.  
When we earnestly sought for some, though but shadow of excuse, of these Popes, for betraying their right of Dominion and Sovereignty over Kings and Emperors (if any had been due unto themselves, as is now challenged by your Popes) at length we light upon your Bozius, who would gladly say something, but alas! yieldeth not so much as we have sought for, a shadow of excuse; and yet whatsoever it is, he after his manner cannot deliver it without much insultation. 
y Quod si quis dicat a Pontificibus summis honores eximios aut Regibus, aut Imperatoribus delatos, insulsè loquetur. Id namque fieri po●uit aut oportuit quoque olim, cum gentes nondum bene agnoscerent, quanti esset Ecclesia dei, & Antistites ipsius, qui & honores & ignominias ex aequo ferre debent, ut ad Christum possint homines producere. etc. Bozius lib. 20. the Sign. Eccl. cap. 5.  If any Object (saith he) that excellent honours have sometimes been yielded of Popes, unto Kings and Emperors, he speaketh absurdly; because these might and ought then to be performed in those days, when Heathens were ignorant of the dignity of the Church, and were then by honour and dishonour to be won by Bishops to the Faith. So he.  

III. CHALLENGE.  
IS it then absurd to object the Reverence performed by ancient Popes, unto Emperors of their times? is not rather the Answer, now made, fraught with many absurdities? First, because we have not insisted only upon Examples of Heathenish times, but of the times of Christian Emperors also. Secondly, because the Times, whereof we have alleged examples, were not such, wherein the dignity of the Church of Rome was so eclipsed & obscured, that it could not appear to Infidels, but contained the Ages from the persecuting Emperors, for the space of 420. years downward: within which time the Church of Rome was in her perfectest lustre; concerning which time the same Bozius propoundeth (such is his modesty) the 
z Signum 86. est Regum summa reverentia erga Ecclesiae nostrae Episcopos. Bozius quo suprae.  Reverence given by Emperors unto the Bishops of the Church of Rome to be a note of the true Church. Thirdly, humility of Popes, and Subiecting themselves to the Emperors, was then a Motive and Argument of drawing souls to the Roman Church: how then shall not their after-Pride be a means to alienate the hearts of Christians from it? Doth the same Tree bring forth Figs and Thistles? But lastly, and principally, because your Bozius hath altogether forgotten his Catechism, and the Article whereunto he and you are both sworn, namely, 
* See above, Cap. 1. §. 2.  The Church of Rome and Bishop thereof, without subjection whereunto (according to your Faith) there is no salvation; nor can any be saved that doth not believe the truth of this Article. If therefore those ancient Pope's belief had been of a Subjection due unto them from Emperors, in such Causes, wherein they by their practice of Humility, Reverence, and Obedience denied all such Right; then should their Fact have betrayed their Faith: a faithlesness which we (you will pardon us) dare not impute unto those holy ancient Popes.  
In all these Instances you may observe, that we have alleged only such Popes, who were the FIRST of their own name, because we would not be found superfluous: yet these First, because they must be so much the more advantageous, to warrant our Conclusion, to wit; that either must your Article of believing such a Necessity of Subjection damn so many, and (in your own judgements) excellently godly and learned Popes of Ancient times; or else must their profession condemn your Article of Novelty, and you consequently of Heresy, in believing a Doctrine so Imposterous, Scandalous, Schismatical, and so manifoldly Blasphemous, against so holy Emperors and Popes.     

CHAP. XII. Our Seaventh Argument is, because this Article, The Catholic Roman Church, without belief whereof there is no Salvation, damneth the most learned Saints and Martyrs, that are placed in the Roman Calendar for Saints or Martyrs of Christ's Church.  

First from Saint Polycarpus. SECT. 1.  
POlycarpus Bishop of Smyrna is Registered a Saint in your Roman 
a Mense januarij die 26. Missal. Rom.  Calendar; and indeed he was an excellent Saint, of whom Ecclesiastical History (you 
b Ribadineira & Grasius de Vitis Sanctorum. Tom. 1. Jan. die 26.  know) giveth so notable a Testimony, as showing that he was the Disciple of john the Evangelist; who being now brought to Martyrdom, by the Proconsul his persecutor, and being moved to swear Heathenishly, By Caesar, answered saying; I AM A CHRISTIAN: being than threatened to be cast into the fire, said; This fire now flameth, and will shortly be extinguished, but there is an eternal fire prepared for the torment of the wicked, which thou artignorant of: being burnt in the fire, he yielded a smell as fragrant as the sweetest spices: whom when the jews and Gentiles heard professing himself a Christian, they cried out in their wrath, saying, 
c Eusebius li. 4. Hist. Eccl. cap. 14. Iste est Asiae [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Iste [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]  This is the Doctor of Asia, this is the Father of Christians, etc. Lastly, this Polycarpus is he, by whose authority Polycrates (in the fury of Pope Victor, then Excommunicating all the Bishops of Asia, that would not celebrate Easter according to the Roman Custom) defended and justified himself, saying, 
d Eusebius lib. 5. Hist. cap. 24.  When Polycarpus came to Rome in the days of Anicetus Bishop of that See, and fell into dispute about the time of Observation of the Feast of Easter, yet could not Anicetus persuade Polycarpus to alter his Custom, which he had kept with Saint john and with other Apostles, with whom he himself had been conversant, and in the end both Anicetus and Polycarpus (notwithstanding their dispute about these Rites) did mutually communicate with each other. Thus far the Ecclesiastical Story.  

CHALLENGE.  
BY this it appeareth that Polycarpus and Polycrates were both of the same spirit, to maintain their old Custom of Easter, notwithstanding whatsoever Opposition of the Bishop of Rome; because they both took their Resolution from the same ground, to wit, an Apostolical Custom of their Church: so that Pope Anicetus could no more prevail with Polycarpus, by persuasion, for Alteration thereof, than Pope Victor could overcome Polycrates by his Excommunication. The difference than is not between the Two Asian Bishops, Polycarpus and Palycrates, for both had the same Resolution; the only difference is between the Two Popes: viz. Anicetus, notwithstanding this Contrariety, will hold Communion with Polycarpus; but Victor will needs break out into Excommunication against Polycrates, and 
* See above C●p. 9 §. 2.  was freely reproved for his presumption by godly Fathers of those times.  
You will say this was but a Question of Rites, and a matter of small importance; be it so, But the meaner the matter is they contended about, the mainer and more forcible is our Consequence, by good Law of Logic; as for example: your whole claim is, that the Pope is the Bishop of Bishops, and Spiritual Monarch in the whole Christian world, and over Kings and Monarches. You know that, in them, Impetrare est Imperare; their Covet and desires are Commands: If therefore Saint Polycarpus would not yield his consent at the much instancing of Pope Anicetus in (as we may so call it) a trifle, in respect; it plainly argueth, that he ought the same Pope no Canonical Obedience, by Law of Discipline, much less by Doctrine of Faith, if any of the (now) new Roman Articles had been imposed upon him; seeing that for all the persuasion, which the Pope could use, he kept his own Conclusion still.  
Nor is it altogether nothing, which you may observe, that when both jews and Heathen cried out upon him, calling him in despite The Father of Christians, as though there were no Bishop in Christianity as Monarch above him, he did not utter one word in behalf of the Pope and his Supreme Dignity above All other Bishops: which doubtless he ought to have acknowledged, if that this kind of Appellation were, as you teach, so proper to the Pope, as to be an 
e Argumentum sumimus ex nominibus Episcopi Romani, viz. Doctor & Pater omnium Christianorum,— & alia ex quibus omnibus & singulis apertè co●ligitur Primatus Pontificis. Belmarmin. lib. 2. de Rom. P●nt. cap. 31.  Argument of his Primacy above all other Christian Bishops.    

II. Saint Cyprian was Exoommunicated by Stephen Bishop of Rome, for not believing the Necessity of Union with him. SECT. 2.  
SAint Cyprian is also one of the Saints, enrolled in your Roman Calendar, 
f Missale Rom. Cal. Septembris die 16. Cyprianus Confessor & Martyr.  under the title of Confessor and Martyr. This witness you do as vehemently Object, for defence of your former Roman Article, as we do to impugn and confute it.  

Your Objection answered.  
It is an horror to any man of judgement to see the violence, which is offered by your Doctors unto Saint Cyprian, by racking his sentences, and enforcing him to say, in defence of Papal Primacy, that which he never meant, nor yet dreamt of. For that which he spoke of his own only Authority against Schismatics, who troubled his jurisdiction, That soundeth in the preoccupation of your judgements, as though it concerned only the Pope of Rome: and where he maketh One Universal Bishopric, consisting of All Bishops equally one with another, without any respect to Rome, more than to any other Church, That also ringeth in your ears the only Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome. All which your futilily is exactly confuted by an 
g Vide, Lector, nostrum Goulartium in Cyprianum, qui passim Obiectiones Pamelij infringit▪ Doctè sanè & faeliciter.  Author, who will surely satisfy any confcionable Reader.  
But Saint Cyprian writing to Pope Cornelius (doubtless a godly Bishop) among other allurements he inserteth this; 
h Navigare audent ad— Petri Cathedram, nec cogitant eos esse Romanos ad quos non potest perfidia habere accessum. Cypr. lib. 3. Epist. 3.  Perfidiousness (saith he) cannot have access to Rome, the chair of Peter. Ergo (saith your 
i Ergo non solùm Pontificem, sed etiam Ecclesiam Romanam non posse errare, asserit inter alios Sanctus Cyprianus. Bellarmin. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4.  Cardinal) Cyprian affirmed that neither the Pope nor the Church of Rome could possibly err. No Father of the Primitive times is more urged by you, for proof of this Conclusion, than Saint Cyprian; no Epistle more insisted upon, than this now cited; no words more inculcated, than these, which we have alleged, and (for we may justly add thus much) no Father, no Epistle, no Sentence more egregiously abused and perverted.  
For first he speaketh not of Perfidiousness in Doctrine, but only in Discipline, by the false and perfidious reports of Schismatical fellows, who being Excommunicated by Cyprian, had notwithstanding their extravagant recourse to Rome, seeking there before Cornelius to defame and traduce all the proceedings which Cyprian had judiciously against them.  
Secondly, we shall earnestly desire you to ponder seriously the Circumstances of the whole frame of that Epistle, and then tell us whether that Sentence were not rather spoken Rhetorically, to persuade and move Cornelius what he should do; than absolutely and asseverantly, to prove what he could not but do. For the whole endeavour of Cyprian in that same place is to admonish, encourage, and fortify the faint & languishing heart of that Pope, and to arm him, lest he should be undermined by the cunning and Perfidiousness of those irregular companions, as his own words do plainly manifest, by exhorting Cornelius' 
k Minis & terroribus eorum commotum— à vigore & potestate Episcopi alienum perditorum hominum insidias pertimescere:— inconcussa virtus contra omnes impetus oblatrantium fluctuum. Ibid. Cypr.  Not to be moved with the threats and terrors that they could suggest: reasoning the point; Because (saith he) it cannot consist with the power and vigour of any Christian Bishop, to be afraid of the crafty dealings of impious men, whereas a Bishop ought to be fore-armed with confidence against the assault and force of all floods of violence whatsoever. So he. No otherwise than if any of you, writing to a Captain of some Fort, and standing in danger of being surprised by some Stratagem of the enemy, and reported to be somewhat amated by apprehension of fear, should reason from the experience of his former good circumspection, and valour of his men, saying; Be you of good courage, your care and resolution is known to all men, that no treachery can have access to your Fort. Who knoweth not, that this is that piece of Oratory, which is called of Rhetoricians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is an Admonition by way of praising insinuated, when we admonish him whom we seem to praise; which is, by praise of his former worthiness, to premonish him to maintain with constancy so good a Resolution.  
But if you will needs have it Prophetically spoken of the Infallabilitie of the Pope of Rome, then must you as necessarily make Saint Cyprian a False Prophet, who in this Epistle commended Pope Cornelius; but in 
l Cyprian Epist. ad Pompeium.  another Epistle doth as much condemn Pope Stephen, a Successor to Cornelius, even for his rashness, in entertaining these forenamed Perfidious outlopers; who by gadding to Rome abused his credulity, and occasioned dissension between him and Pope Stephen, as hath 
* See above, cap. 12. §. 2.  been largely declared. And we wish that Thousands of Examples of like Perfidiousness could not be shown, which for these last Thousand years have possessed the Roman Chair. Yet (not knowing the appetite of every Reader, whether he may have a desire to know if there were any the like Example in Antiquity) we instance in that, which your Cardinal Baronius hath related. Saint Basil (saith 
m Basilius Epist. 59 Caveri cupit a Damaso Romano Pontifice, quod sub Liberio illatum est Ecclesiae Orientali, cum recepisset Eustathium— & Collegas, eosdem omnes Haereticos, sed dolosè professos Nicaenam fidem. Baeronius Anno 471. Num. 21.  he) writing to Damasus Bishop of Rome, doth wish him to take heed, lest he bring that mischief upon the Eastern Church, which Pope Liberius had done, by admitting of Eustathius and his fellows, being Heretics, but craftily pretending themselves to believe the Nicene Faith.  
Thus have you a fourfold satisfaction: Pope Liberius was deceived by the Perfidiousness of Heretics; Pope Damasus was forewarned by that Example, lest he should be likewise deceived; Pope Stephen was circumvented by like craft; and accordingly Pope Cornelius was instantly by many Arguments persuaded, by Cyprian, to beware of the like delusion by perfidious Schismatics. Ergo, the Roman Sea is no more privileged from the access of Impostors, than the Mediterranean Sea is from false Pirates. You have posed us with the strain of the words of Saint Cyprian, and we shall reply upon you, with his visible Acts and Deeds.   

Our Opposition, from the practice and profession of Saint Cyprian.  
If Saint Cyprian his reviling of the person of Pope Stephen, if his Contradicting, in his Council, the Pope's Decrees enacted in his Council, if gainsaying the Popes pretended supreme Title, viz. Bishop of Bishops, if Interdicting the greatest Prerogative of Papal Monarchy, which is Appeals to Rome, be sufficient Arguments of disclaim of Subjection to the Pope, (all which have 
n See above, cap. 9 §. 3. etc.  been proved from point to point) then are we sure that Saint Cyprian did not believe the Article of Necessary Subjection to the Sea of Rome. If the Excommunication of others, who were of Saint Cyprian his opinion; if not admitting the Legates of Cyprian to his speech; if forbidding all Communication with them▪ and hospitality unto them; if despiteful words against Cyprian, as against an intolerable Adversary, may be held proofs of the Excommunication of Cyprian, by the Pope, (all which likewise have 
o Ibidem.  been expressly declared) than are we assured, that Cyprian was (so much as lay in the Pope's power) separated from the Church of Rome.  
If that Cyprian had this Faith, that None hath God for his Father, which hath not the Church for his Mother; if he, notwithstanding the same Faith, was contented to be Excommunicated by the Pope, and persisted in that his Opposition (for aught that ever could appear) even to the giving up of his spirit to God, by Martyrdom (all which have accordingly been confessed) then may we be bold to assume that Saint Cyprian was not of your Faith, to believe that Subjection or visible Union with the Pope of Rome is necessary to salvation.  
If lastly Saint Cyprian (as you have said) were always held to be Catholic in Faith, godly in life, glorious in his death, and even since his death reckoned in the Calendar of Saints, then stand we secure that the Belief of your Article of Necessary Union and Subjection to the Roman Sea, is not necessary to Salvation. So that the more blessed a Saint Cyprian is, the more cursed and damnable this your Roman Article must needs be.    

III. Saint Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, believed not the Necessity of this Roman Article concerning Union and Subjection to the Sea of Rome. SECT. 3.  
SAint Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria must be thought to have been a Saint, as to all Christian Churches, so to the Church of Rome itself, who (as you 
q Lippelous in libro qui inscribitur, Vitae Sanctorum. Tom. 2. Maij. 2. Romam venit— Athanasius, Symbolum Romae composuit, insigne fidei suae monumentum, quod hactenus Athanasij nomine in Ecclesiâ publicè recitatur. pag. 436,  know) in his greatest extremities and persecutions by Arian Heretics, found support and refuge at Rome, by the godly Pope julius, the Bishop of that Sea; whose Symbol or Creed, the monument of his Faith, called the ATHANASIAN CREED, not only Rome but the whole Catholic Church doth profess: unto whose honour 
r Gregorius 13. Pontifex cupidissimus Orientalis Ecclesiae Vnionis & pacis, templum egregium nomine Athanasij construxit. Jbidem pag. 464.  Gregory the thirteenth (say you) built a goodly Church, being desirous to draw the East-Church unto his Union: and whose name is Calendred for a Saint in your 
s Missale Roman. Cal. Meuse Maij, die 2.  Roman Missal at this day. This is the Saint whom we propound unto you, as one who hath taught us, by his example, not to regard the Papal Union, in our just Cause. But whether? and why did the Pope of Rome Excommunicate such a Saint?  

Saint Athanasius was Excommunicated by Pope Liberius, and notwithstanding remained a Saint.  
The very names of Baronius, and Bellarmine (we know) carry such Authority with you, that they will preponderate whatsoever can be said against them; who jointly consent in this that followeth. 
t Liberius taedio & invidiâ quod aegro animo ferebat Felicem intrusum ab Arianis Pontificem agere, communionem inijt cum iis, quos Haereticos esse minimè ignorabat, & consensit in damnationem Athanasijs. Baronius Anno 357. num. 42.46. & Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 9  Pope Liberius (say they) through the faction of Arian Heretics, is by the Authority of Constantius the Emperor sent into banishment: By the same Heretical Arian Bishops is Felix made Bishop, and placed in the Roman Sea. When Liberius perceived Felix to be intruded into his Chair, he after two years' Banishment, envying and grieving hereat, doth join communion with those Heretics, and gave consent to the condemnation of Athanasius. So they. Our Assumption will be this, that Athanasius neither before nor after the death of Felix did regard this Excommunication of Liberius.  
Immediately after this you 
u Baronius Anno 357. num. 57 Nec dissentit Bellarminus.  esteem Felix to be the Legitimate Pope, but pronounce Liberius a Schismatic, and one removed from the society of Catholics, and from his Papal function. Which your Conclusions, do notably fight against your own Principles. First this, that 
x Duo Papae simul esse non possunt Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 9 Vnius Ecclesiae unum tantùm caput esse oportet, cui si alterum ad das, horrendum monstrum profectò erit. Baronius Anno 355. nu. 56.  There cannot be two Popes together in one Sea, because this were as horrible a monster as a body with two heads. One Pope then must be acknowledged. Your next Principle is, that 
y Papa manifestè Haereticus eo ipso est depositus, & desinit esse Papa. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 30.  No Pope can be deposed, except he appear to be a manifest Heretic, whereby he ceaseth, ipso facto, to be a Pope, without any other judgement at all. Yet grant you, concerning Liberius, that 
z Liberius per fuum lapsum Haereticus non fuit. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 9 Et Baronius: Liberius semper constitit in fide Catholicus. Anno 357. num. 55.  He was a Catholic in his inward judgement, notwithstanding his outward communion with Heretics. Your last Principle is, that 
a Pontifex â nemine in terris indicati potest, quia Princcps est Eeclesiae totius, & proinde superiorem in terris non habet Bellar. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 26.  The Pope cannot be judged of any on earth, because he is Prince, and therefore superior unto the whole Church Catholic throughout the earth. All these Premises, being reduced into a Logical form, will make up our Conclusion thus: 
No Catholic Bishop of Rome can be judged, or deposed.  
But Liberius, notwithstanding his consenting to the Condemnation of Athanasius, and Communicating with Heretics, was a Catholic Bishop.  
Ergo, He could not be judged or deposed from his Popedom.   
If therefore Athanasius, being Excommunicated by Liberius, never sought (as you all know) any Union either with him, or yet with Felix, in his stead, it must follow that he, all that time, contemned his Excommunication.  
After the death of Felix, (who was Pope one year, and some few months) Liberius obtaineth again your good reputation, for presenly he was accounted the Legitimate Pope. Why? 
b Constat Liberium (defuncto Felice) Ecclesiam Romanam scissam uniisse eumque factum pastorem Vnum Ouilis unius. Baronius Anno 357. num. 61.  It is evident (saith your Cardinal) that Felix being dead, Liberius united the Church, of Rome, which was then rend and divided into a Schism, and became one Shepherd of one sheepfold. So they. Where it will be as evident, that (during the time of Felix) Athanasius, if he would have sought Union with the Church of Rome, could not know where to find it, because the Catholic Church being but One Body, One Spouse, One Sheepfold, how could now the Roman Church be called the Catholic, which was (as is confessed) rend by a Schism from itself?  
But why stand we wrestling with you for that, which of your own accord you are ready to grant willingly unto us? 
c Operae pretium est res gestas Liberij ostendere, quae post Felicis obitum sunt subsecutae. Baron. Anno 357. num. 70. Post Arimineuse Concilium, quod fuit. anno 357. Nu. 72. Ipsa quae ad Athanasium scripta est Epistola, ita se habet; Est igitur haec nostra confessio (optatissime Athanasi)— cui, si mecum fentis, coram judice Deo & Christo, quaeso, subscribas; ut ego securior efficiar, tuaque mandata inhaesitanter obeam, etc. Hactenùs Liberij professio sequestris, ut apparet, ad disruptam, quae inte● eos iniercedebat▪ commwionem Catholicam conciliandam. Ibidem vum. 73. And Binius Tom. 1. pag. 467. citeth the same as the undoubted Epistle of Liberius, because first he taketh no exceptions against it, as he doth against diverse others falsely entitled the Epistles of Liberius, and secondly he urgeth it as a special ground to prove, as he saith; Manifestè Liberium ipsum post obitum Foelicis Sedi Apostolicae restitutum fuisse, & fidei Orthodoxae Vexillum, Arianorum ictibus labefactatum, integerrimè vicissim erexisse.  It is a matter worthy consideration, (saith your Cardinal, and so indeed it is) to know what Liberius did after the death of Felix, about the time of the Council of Arimine, which happened to be some two years after the departure of Felix. And what this is he will have us understand from the Epistle of Liberius unto Athanasius; principally thus: This is our Confession (most wished Athanasius) wherein if you consent with me, I pray you even before our judge God and Christ to subscribe thereunto, that I may be made the more secure thereby, and readily perform your Command. So the Pope to Athanasius. Which Profession of Liberius (saith your Cardinal) was a solliciter for the repairing of the rent of that Communion, which had been formerly between them. So he.   

CHALLENGE.  
IF therefore you will not regard our Inferences, yet Liberius his own Epistle, and your Cardinal his Comment must give light to any that shall not wilfully stupefy and blindfold himself, namely to discern; That there was a breach of Communion between Pope Liberius and Athanasius; That this continued two years (for so long it was between the death of Felix and that Council of Arimine) whilst that Liberius was, throughout the Church of Rome, universally acknowledged the Legitimate Pope; That the Seeker for this Communion was not Athanasius, who had been Excommunicate, but Liberius, who was the Excommunicator, even now being the true Pope; That the tenor of the same Epistle is written in all submission, both of his understanding to the judgement of Athanasius, (if he should happily consent,) & also in the same behalf to his will, whatsoever he should Command. If the like Epistle had been written by Athanasius to Liberius, we know how diligently, and exactly, and with what boldness you would have pressed every syllable thereof: scarce could you examine any one word, which should not have seemed to weigh the weight of a Pope.  
We conclude; Athanasius being divided from the Communion of the Pope so long time, and not seeking to be reconciled before he was sought unto by the Pope himself, doth evidently show that he believed not at all your Article of Union with the Pope of Rome, as with the Head of the Catholic Church, upon Necessity of Salvation. Must we therefore judge Athanasius therein damned? nay rather damned be this your Article, as Imposterous, Scandalous, Schismatical, and Heretical, whereby such a Saint should be damned, who (as your Author confesseth) was so excellent an Organ of Truth, that 
d Lippelous de Vitis Sanctorum. Tom. 2. Maij 2. Si omnes praestantissimi huius Praesulis laudes quis simul in unum congereret: cum nihilo minus impar sit omnis lingua ad recensenda omnia eius certamina pro fide suscepta; ut nullus alius (fidenter dicam) possit inveniri post Apostolos in Ecclesiâ Dei, qui acerbiora diuturnioraue subiret praelia pro eâ tuendâ: quem Gregorius Nazianzenus oculum orbis, Sacerdotum Antitistitem, ducem, magistrum, fidei columen appellat.  If all the commendations of ancient Fathers should be gathered together, yet were they not sufficient to set forth the conflicts which this one hath had for defence of the Faith, because no one, (I speak confidently, saith your Lippelous) hath after the Apostles undergone more continual and grievous conflicts for the patronage of Truth, than he, whom Gregory Nazianzen therefore calleth the Eye of the world, the chief Captain and Master of Priests, and the stay and pillar of Faith. So he. So admirable was his Faith and Constancy, in impugning their Objections, and enduring their infinite Calumniations and persecutions.    

IV. Saint Basil Bishop of Caesarea believed not the Article of necessary Subjection to Rome. SECT. 4.  
Look again into your Roman Calendar, and you shall read thus: 
e Calend. ante Missal. Roman. Mensis junij die 14. Basilius Episcopus & Confessor.  Saint Basil, Bishop and Confessor. A Saint than he was, without exception, in whom you will seem to have some Interest, as though he would bear witness to the Antiquity of your Article of Universal Romish jurisdiction over all other Churches of Christ.  

Your Objection.  
SAint Basil 
f Basilius Epist. 52. ad Athanasium [visum est (inquit) consentaneum scribere ad Epis. copun Romanum, ut videat res nostras, & iudicij Decretum suum interponat: ut quia difficile est aliquos inde de Concilij sententiâ mitti, ipse authoritatem tribuat delectis viris,— qui prudenti oratione eos qui à recta ratione deflexerunt moneant, quique acta Ariminensis Concilij secum serant, ad rescindenda quae illic violenter acta sunt.] Hic Basilius tribuit Romano Pontifici authoritatem visitandi Ecclesias Orientis, & ex authoritate Decreta faciendi, & rescindendi Concilia generalia, quale erat Ariminense. Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. cap. 15.  writ an Epistle to Saint Athanasius: whence (if we believe your Cardinal) you may conclude, that Saint Basil attributed unto the Bishop of Rome authority of visiting the Churches in the East, by whom he pleased, and of making Decrees by his Authority, and disannulling General Counsels, such as was the Council of Arimine. So he. And why must not this be true, if you will allow your Cardinal Bellarmine to make this Greek Father to speak what Papal Roman Language he shall impose, by his Sophistical translation? But your Cardinal Baronius (one otherwise as partial as any Writer ever was, and catching at every shadow of proof, for the advancement of Papal Monarchy) hath made another interpretation of the words of Saint Basil, which may be a just confutation of your other Cardinal, from point to point. For Bellarmine talketh of the Pope's Seeing the Eastern Bishops by a Visitation of jurisdiction; But Baronius alloweth no more than a Seeing by 
g Baronius Anno 371. num. 10. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] [Vt quae hic geruntur consideret.]  Consideration of their estate: but every Care and Consideration of other men's estate doth not infer a jurisdiction over them. Secondly, Bellarmine will needs have Saint Basil to desire the Pope's Decree; another tenure of Papal Authority: Baronius readeth the word 
h Detue Consilium, etc. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Ibidem.  Council or Advise, which may agree with a Coequal. Thirdly, Bellarmine interpreteth Basil, as though he yielded to the Pope a peremptory power of Cutting off and disannulling the Acts of General Counsels, such as was that of Arimine; Baronius saith that the motion of Basil was, they should 
i Quae Arimini ad necessariam rerum gestarum solutionem facta sunt. Jbidem.  Bring with them such things as had been done (namely by some Orthodox at Arimine) which might make for the necessary solution of that Council; which all Catholics have judged Heretical: But this argueth not an Authoritative power, proper to the Pope, of dissolving of Decrees of any General Council (which, for the space of six hundred years, he never had) but an Arbitrary Authority granted unto him, by consent of the Eastern Bishops, to exercise his fatherly and grave judgement, for the better establishing of the East-Churches, which were now rend into six several Schisms, through the difference of six divers Heresies.  
Howsoever, what Authority this was, we may best know from Saint Basill himself, who deploring the State of the East-Churches, now pestered with diverse pernicious. Heretics, desireth help from the Bishops of the West; how? 
k Epistola 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et Epist. 74. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  To comfort the afflicted and to set right and restore those that are broken. Help then of Confortation it was, not of Dominion. Secondly, showing that he desireth no more help from the Western Bishops, than the Bishops of the East both aught and would requite in the like case, he calleth it 
l Epist. 77. Omisistis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quasi indignos nos iudicaretis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et similia.  A mutual help of loving and brotherly Visitation, or Consideration. Thirdly, his reason, why he is so importunate to have the help of the Western Bishops, he expresseth to be this: 
m Epist. 74. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Et Epist. 1. Obsecramus ut manum. Orientalibus Ecclesijs porrigatis,— ac viros aliquos mittatis, qui illas de praemijs admoneant, quae patientiae, ac passionibus pro Christo toleratis reseruantur. Haud enim tantum habet efficaciae sermo consuetus, quantum vox peregrina, ad consolandum deiectos valet: praesertum si illa afferantur à viris qui cum primis gratiâ Dei instructi esse cognoscuntur, quales vos cunctis mortalibus praedicamini, quòd in fide illibatè permaneatis, etc. Apud Baronium Anno 373 nu. 33.  Because that private grudges among the Bishops of the East hindered the fruit of their doctrine; and therefore the Western Bishops, the farther distant they were, so much the more Authority would they have with the people: and he addeth, that Accustomed speech is not so prevalent, as that which proceedeth from Strangers, chiefly if they were such as were more specially endued with God's grace, as you are every where known to be (saith Saint Basil, speaking of the Western Bishops) because you have preserved the Faith in all sincerity among you.  
So Saint Basil, who would never have used so often, so great, and sometimes indeed so cross and thwarting reasons, to move the Western Bishops to compassionate their case, and helping them for composing of such and so pernicious distractions, by reasons taken only from Brotherly love, Mutual duty, and Facility of effectuating that great good, because of the Remoteness of their dwelling; and therefore to be esteemed persons more indifferent, because of their Constancy in preservation of sincere Faith, and consequently beetter witnesses for the ancient Truth; without any mention at all of the Prerogative of the Bishop of Rome as their Pope, or of their Church of Rome, as their Mother and Mistress (as you have pretended) if he had any belief of this Article. Because this one reason, taken from the Papal & Roman jurisdiction and dominion, if it had been a matter of Faith, had been more persuasive, and would have been more prevalent than whatsoever hath hitherto been mentioned by S. Basil. Besides (which will be worthy your remarking) after four several Legations and Messages from the Greek Church delivered unto the Bishops of the Latin Church for their help, the greeks (as 
n Baronius quo supra.  Baronius is persuaded) never received any Answer.  
Now therefore consult with your best judgements, whether the Church of Rome and her Chief Bishop (whom Saint Basil more than once condemneth of 
o See after at s and t.  Pride; which Pride was also condemned by a Councellin 
p See above, cap. 9 §. 3.  Africa under Saint Cyprian, and 
q See above, cap. 9 §. 8.  another, wherein Saint Augustine was present, for intruding craftily and injustly upon the jurisdiction of other Churches) would in humility refuse the offer of Subjection of the whole Greek Church: or he not have exercised his Visitation over them, if any such authority had been intended by Saint Basil. For so should Rome have been marked with a greater note of infamy, than was her Pride, even her deserting of the flock of Christ committed unto her, and in a manner betraying the Cause of Catholics unto their many and most mischievous Adversaries, the Sects of Heretics. But we shall show that Saint Basil was of a flat contrary Faith.   

Our Opposition; showing that Saint Basil did not believe your Article of Necessity of Subjection to the Roman Pope, or Church.  
Baronius would you should know that Saint Basil having written diverse letters and sent many Messages unto Pope Damasus, and to other Western Bishops, yet receiving no Answer from them, in so vexatious and perilous times, when the Greek Church seemed as a ship almost split asunder, by the continual billows of most pestilent Heresies; 
r Sane quidem nonnihil diffidentiae, ne dicam simultatis & odij— inter Basilium & Occidentales intercessisse cert● est. Baronius, Anno 372. num. 24.  He thereupon fell into distrust, and (if he might so say) hatred with the Church of Rome. So he. We had rather you should hear Saint Basil expressing his own Cordolium, and hearts-grief: 
s Quale nobis auxilium ab Occidentalium [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] supercilio & fastu aderit, qui veritatem neque nôrunt, neque [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] (Baronius, Dicere) discere sustinent?— Ego quidem volebam, ad eor● [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Antesignanum scribere, ut litetis significarem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil Epist. 10. Baronius Anno 372. num. 25.  What help can we expect (saith he) from the supercilious Pride and haughtiness of the Western Bishops, who neither know the truth themselves, nor yet will (Baronius negligently rendereth it, Tell) learn it? Again, I meant to write unto the Chief of them (meanig Pope Damasus) to signify by letters, that Pride ought not to be accounted a Dignity. And again, the same holy Father Saint Basil, speaking of the Church of Rome, (as you 
t Et alibi de romanâ Ecclesiâ, Odi fastum illius Ecclesiae. Apud Baronium lb. num. 32.  know) said, I hate the Pride and arrogancy of that Church. Yea, but we hear him call the Bishop of Rome, CHIEF: True; but with this limitation, their Chief: And yet if it had been Chief of all others: could this infer a Popedom and Dominion above others? Then must you confess that Athanasius was more Pope than Damasus; For Basill, that calleth Damasus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, calleth Athanasius 
u Epist. 52. ad Athanasium. Ad te, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (signifying, The Crown of the Head) The chief of all: We are (saith he) to fly unto thy integrity, as to the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the Top or Crown of All others.   

CHALLENGE.  
SAint Basil Bishop of Caesarea, speaking of the Bishops of the West, saith distinctly, I meant to write unto Their Chief; meaning the Pope of Rome: and addeth, saying, I hate the Pride of That Church, meaning the Church of Rome. Mark, we pray you, Their Chief, and That Church; are these notes of his Subjection to the Pope or Church of Rome? Nay are they not direct demonstrations of his no- Subjection or Subordination to either of both? can you conceive any to be a true and loyal Subject, who writing to others, concerning his own King and Sovereign, and his Sovereignty, should say, I writ to their King, and I hate the pride of that Kingdom? Yet you hear what Saint Basil writ, concerning the Pope and his Church, and notwithstanding was he ●hen a real Member of the Catholic Church.  
Nor is this all, but he hath furthermore imputed (besides the vice of Pride) Ignorance unto them. Notwithstanding all which, Saint Basil was even then a Saint Militant, and hath been ever since held in God's Church a Saint Triumphant; who for his excellent learning, judgement, piety, and industry, in protecting and propagating the Catholic Truth, obtained in the Church of Christ the attribute of THE GREAT; and in the Elegy of Ephrem, to be called 
x Ephraem. de Basilio, O felix Basilî! Tu ut Aaron summus Sacerdos Domini fuisti. Lippelous Lib. de vitis Sanctorum.  Chief Priest of the Lord. Which may serve as an instrument, to lance the Papal Impostume of your Roman Pope, who never heareth of any such Adjunct ascribed unto himself, but he presently swelleth with Pride, and taketh it as Appropriate to his person, as he is Successor to Saint Peter. Although therefore we deny not but that, notwithstanding this Opposition made by Saint Basil against the Roman Church, he held Communion with the Church of Rome, both in Faith and Charity; because at that time Rome was in her integrity: Yet that Necessity of Subjection, and the Belief thereof, which your Article requireth of All that shall be saved, is a doctrine (as you see) abandoned by Saint Basil. We therefore choose rather to abhor your new Article, as Imposterous and Impious, than to suffer that blessed Father to be razed out of the number of Saints.    

V. Saint Hilary of Poictou did not believe the Roman Article, of Necessity of Union with the Pope of Rome. SECT. 5.  
WHat and how great a Saint this Hilary Bishop of Poictou was, your Roman Church doth show in her 
y Missal. Romanum Mens. Janarij die 14. Sanctus Hilarius Pictaviensis Episcopus, & Confessor.  Calendar, as it were, in her Church-book, wherein is Registered his name as a Prime Saint; and that worthily. For, as your Lippelous truly saith, he for his learning and Sanctity was 
z Vita Sancti Hilarij Pictavorum Episcopi, qui claruit maximè à partu virgineo, 356. Temporibus Constantij Imperatoris, & Liberij Romani pontificis,— non Latinis solùm, sed & Graecis vir Sanctus extitit admirandus, Lippelous in vitâ Hilarij.  Admirable both in the Greek and Latin Churches, living in the year 356, in the days of the Emperor Constantius, and of Pope Liberius. So he. Well then, we are to inquire what was his judgement concerning this Pope Liberius, and the necessity of Communion with him; This being a part of that your Article, concerning The Catholic Roman Church, to believe that 
a De infallibili iudicio Summi Pontificis. Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pot. Cap. 3.  In matters of Faith the judgement of the Pope is infallible. Saint Hilary no sooner understood that Pope Liberius (as your Cardinal hath confessed) had subscribed to have communion with the Arian Heretics, but he made bold to Excommunicate the Pope out of his Communion and fellowship, saying, 
b Hilarij Fragmenta lib. 4. ●. 47. Anathema tibi à me dictum, & socijs.  I Anathematise thee, Liberius, and thy fellows. This you will think was too liberally spoken, and will judge it rather not spoken at all. But why? (I pray you) was it not always lawful for any Catholic Bishop to Excommunicate any Heretical Bishop; that is, abandon his fellowship and Communion? or had not Hilarius just cause so to use Liberius at this time? This is that Liberius who two years after Banishment for his Catholic Faith, became an Heretic 
c Bellar. See above §. 3.  Interpretatiuè, saith your Cardinal, that is, in the understanding of men, judging of him by his outward Act of Subscribing to the Condemnation of Saint Athanasius, and communicating with known Heretics; nor so only, but even expressly an Heretic: If to be 
d Sensit Liberius cum Arianis. Platina in vitâ Liberij: & Alphonsus de Castro lib. 1. Cap. 5.  of opinion with Heretics; If to be 
e Factus Haereticus. Turrecremata lib. 2. de Ecclesiâ, Cap. 103.  made an Heretic; If to be 
f Redijt de exilio victus, & consenfit errori, ut scribit Hieronymus in Chronicis. Card. Cusanus Conc. lib. 2. Cap. 5.  overcome, and to consent unto Arian Heresy, may be Testimonies of an express Heretic, as your own Platina, Alphonsus de Castro, Cardinal Turrecremata, and (out of the words of Saint Hierome) Cardinal Cusanus have confessed. Which was the very cause that moved Saint Hilary also to bid the same Pope Avaunt! else could he not have complained of the Heretical Emperor Constantius, for releasing of the same Liberius out of Banishment, (namely upon such conditions as that Emperor enjoined the said Pope) saying, 
g Nescio maiore ne impietate remiseris, quam relegaveris. Hilarius ad Constantium. p. 201.  I know not (O Emperor) whether thou hast showed more impiety in Banishing of Liberius, or in releasing him from his Banishment. What other sense could this have, than that Liberius was now as full an Heretic in his Releasement, as he had been before a Catholic in his Banishment.  

CHALLENGE.  
Scan you this matter a right, and then you must confess that the Faith of Saint Hilary was to believe, that a Pope might become an Heretic in his Public person, as (for example) Pope Liberius did, by his public Subscribing unto Heresy; and that therefore no Christian is bound to have further Union of Faith with any Pope, than a Pope doth stand in the Union of the true and Catholic Faith. Which being the belief of all Protestants, and the Cause of does- Union from the Pope of Rome at this day, is therefore censured by you, as a note of Heresy in itself, and (as you think) a sufficient cause of Separation from all hope of Salvation. As though Saint Hilary, a Father of the same profession, were no more to be esteemed a Saint. But a Saint you acknowledge him to be: know then, that he who abandoned the Pope's Union, would never have submitted to his Dominion.    

VI Saint Hierome believed not the now Roman Article, concerning the Necessity of Subjection to the Roman Church, and Bishop thereof. SECT. 6.  
SAint Hierom, whom the Church of Rome hath dignified and honoured with the place of a Saint in her Calendar, under the Title of 
h Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri, Confesso●is & Doctoris Ecclesiae. Missal. Roman. Cal. men's. Septembris die 30.  Confessor and Doctor of the Church, lived about the year of our Lord, 390, and was above all the Fathers that we can name of those times the most devout child of the Church of Rome. Nevertheless dare we, in the examination of this Fundamental Article of the same, or rather the foundation itself, refer ourselves unto the judgement of this Saint. And we proceed, in this disquisition according to our former Method of your Objections, and our Answer, and Reply from the same Father.  

Your Objection.  
SAint Hierom writing unto the Pope 
i Epist. ad Damasum de nomine Hypostasis. A pastore praesidium Ouis peto— Cum successore piscatoris loquor.— Beatitudini tuae, i.e. Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior,— super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio. Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, profanus est. Si quis in Arcâ Noe non fuerit, peribit regnante dilwio. Non novi Paulinum, etc. Tom. 2. Epist. Quoniam, etc.  Damasus, acknowledgeth himself his Sheep, although he was under the Patriarch of Antioch; nameth the same Pope Successor of Peter; professeth himself to have Communion with the Chair of Peter; mentioneth, as a reason, the Rock whereupon the Church of Christ is built, the House, without which none may eat the Lamb, (that is, Offer Sacrifice) and the Ark of Noah, without which whosoever is must needs perish. So Saint Hierom. Upon this Foundation some of your 
k Obserua, Hieronymus qui Presbyter Antioocherius, etc. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap 16. Et Hardingus Contra jewellum.  Master-Builders would erect an Infallibility of the Pope's judgement, an Universality of his jurisdiction, and a Necessity of Subordination to his Sea; as whereunto All other Churches are subject: But all this by a mere fallacy, in taking the words of Saint Hierom simply and absolutely, which he meant in a respective and restrained sense, whether you consider Damasus Bishop of Rome, or the Church of Rome itself.  
For first You Object, concerning Pope Damasus, that Saint Hierom calleth himself his Sheep, being notwithstanding under the jurisdiction of Paulinus Patriarch of Antioch: As though that he might not be held a Sheep of the Bishop of Rome, in respect of his Baptism, the sign and, as it were, eare-marke of Christianity, being (as 
l Adultâ aetate Romae Baptizatus est. Baron. Anno 372. num. 40,  you know) Baptised at Rome in his full age: Or as though, when the Faith of Paulinus his Bishop was questionable, it were not lawful to submit to the judgement of another Bishop, of known constancy in the Truth.  
Secondly, That Hierom calleth Damasus The Successor of Peter. As though every Successor in Peter's Seat had an hereditary Right to be Successor in Peter's Faith; which contradicteth the judgement of Saint Hierom, who condemned Pope Liberius (who was as lawful a Successor in the Seat of Peter, as was Damasus) 
m Fortunatianus Episcopus Liberium Romanae Vrbis Episcopum ad subscriptionem Haereseos compulit. Hieron. Catolog. Script. Eccles. pag. 297.  for Consenting unto Heresy.  
Thirdly, That Saint Hierom addresseth himself to Pope Damasus alone. As though Damasus were the only man to resolve him in all the Mysteries of Faith; whereas in other Doctrines Saint Hierom ingenuously confesseth, that he traveled to remote Countries, as Greece, to Gregory Nazianzen, whom he calleth his Master, 
n Hieron de Script. Eccles. in Greg. Nazian. Gregorius Nazianzenus, a quo Scripturas explicare didici. p. 301.  Of whom (saith he) I learned to interpret the Scriptures. After that he journeyed to Alexandria in Egypt, 
o Hieronym. In Alexandriam perrexi, ut viderem Didymum, ut ab eo, in Scriptures omnibus quae haberem dubia s●scitarer. Tom. 2 Epist. ad Pammach.  To see Didymus, that I might (saith he) consult with him, touching the doubts that I had in all Scriptures. This needed not Saint Hierom to have done, if the Oracle of all Truth had resided at Rome, and had been personated in Damasus the Bishop of that See.  
Fourthly, Yet that Saint Hierom, in this question concerning the use of the word [Hypostasis] sought satisfaction only from Pope Damasus, and relied only upon his judgement, for the sense of the word. As though Saint Hierom did not, for his Resolution, join unto Damasus Bishop of Rome, 
p Hieron. Tom. 2. Epist. 36. Me, cum Damaso & cum Petro (Alexandrino) condemnent.  Peter the Bishop of Alexandria, as depending upon Both, and professing either to be absolved or else condemned with both. Or as though Pope Damasus, in points of Divinity, had not more need to be instructed by Hierom, than this Saint by Pope Damasus. This were to give Pope Damasus himself the lie, who desired to have conference with Saint Hierom, that so 
q Neque ullam puto digniorem disputationis nostrae confabulationem fore, quam si de Scripturis sermocinaremur inter nos. i.e. ut ego interrogem, Tu respondeas. Damasus Epist. 2. Tom. 3.  I may ask questions (saith Damasus) and Thou mayst answer, that is, (as 
r Vt pleniùs disceret. Baronius Anno 378. num. 63.  Baronius confesseth) that Hierom might teach, and the Pope learn; yea, and as though (if you require the sense of this word, Hypostasis) Saint Hierom did not teach Damasus; yes, he did: So doth your Espensaeus confess; 
s Espensaeus in fine Comment. in 2. ad Tim. Tract. de Vocibus non scriptis. p. 254.  Hieronymus consuluit Damasum? imò consuluit Damaso. That is, He rather instructed Pope Damasus, than was instructed by him. For he told Damasus that the word [Hypostasis] might have a double sense; the one was Catholic, to signify Persons, the other Heretical, to signify Essential nature. The not understanding of which word Hypostasis, was the reason that Basil imputed Ignorance to the Church of Rome, as hath been said. You will ask, what then was the Resolution which Saint Hierom sought from Pope Damasus, concerning the use of that word, seeing that S. Hierom could not be ignorant of the true sense? This you may know by the Answer of Pope Damasus, which was (as your Baronius collecteth) to let Hierom understand that 
t— Respondisse, ut cum Paulino communicaret. Baronius Anno 372. num. 50.  He might lawfully communicate with Paulinus the Bishop of Antioch. So that your last error is, as though you would conclude that he that could determine what person was most like to use the word [Hypostasis] in the Catholic sense, must therefore be accounted the only Competent judge of the Catholic sense.  
Concerning the Second Subject in this Objection, which is the Church of Rome, we complain of your Authors for the like Sophistry. For you object, for the Prerogative of your Church, First these words of S. Hierom; I am united to the Beatitude, that is, to the Chair of Peter: As though by [Chair] he meant the See and Bishopric of Rome, and not the true doctrine of Faith then preached in Rome; even as Christ spoke of the 
* Matth. 23.  Chair of Moses; that is (saith Saint 
u Per Cathedram Mosis, doctrinam legis intelligit. Hieron in eum locum.  Hierom) the Law of Moses.  
Secondly, But Hierom saith of this Chair, that Christ hath built his Church upon this Rock. As though by [Rock] is not meant the same doctrine of Faith, which was confessed by Saint Peter (as 
* See above Cap. 4, §. 3.4, etc.  hath been proved) and which was at that time truly and faithfully professed by Damasus, and the whole Church of Rome: or as though, because that Rome was then faithful, she therefore had a privilege never to turn Apostate; which is a pernicious Paradox, void of all ground of Faith (as 
* See above Cap. 2. §. 9  hath been also largely declared) and which can have no support by this sentence of Hierom, where by [Rock] he meaneth not Rome (saith 
x Supra illam Petram. Non supra Romam, ut arbitor, nam fieri potest ut Roma quoque degeneret, sed supra eam fidem, quam Petrus professus est. Erasmus.  Erasmus) because Rome may degenerate, but he understandeth the Faith which Peter professed. Bring us now this Faith of Saint Peter, and then challenge our Faith to believe you. This is the Rock upon which Christ (saith Hierom) built his Church. He saith not, Built the Church of Rome, but the whole Universal Church. This we confess, with Saint Hierom, to be The House of God, without which whosoever eateth the Paschall Lamb is profane. This is the Ark of Noah, within which whosoever is not perisheth, as well Roman, as Grecian, as well Bishop of Rome, as Bishop of Thessaly.  
Thus many ways have you depraved the Orthodox meaning of Saint Hierome, by expounding that, which was spoken particularly of Damasus, and of the Church of Rome, then sound in the Faith, and applying it unto Rome, and all the Bishops of Rome, from time to time; as though 
* Jsa. 1.21.  Virgin jerusalem might not at length become an Whore. Secondly, by perverting his speech, concerning the Rock, and Building, that is, Faith and Church generally taken; and appropriating it unto the Faith and Church of Rome at all times, and in all Causes. Which in the next place we are to show to be diametrally opposite to the judgement of Saint Hierom.   

Saint Hierom his Opposition to the pretended Sovereignty and Infallibility of the Church and Pope of Rome.  
What Saint Hierom hath taught us to conceive of the Pope, Clergy, and Church of Rome, we shall show from S. Hierom himself, not sophistically, but plainly and truly. For when we ask you of what stature every Pope ought to be, for his dignity and Authority? You answer that he can be no less than a Monarch and sole Head of the Catholic Church. But Saint Hierom in the same Epistle that was objected, speaking to Pope Damasus, saith, 
y A Pastore praesidium ovis flagito: facessat invidia Romani culminis, recedat ambitio. Hieron. Epist. 57  I desire of you, my Pastor, that you would preserve your sheep: and addeth immediately, as followeth; Put away envy, and let the ambition of the Roman height depart from you. Your Cardinal, who urged the former words, leapt over these, it may be, because they were not so much for his purpose, as they are for ours; to prove, that if Saint Hierome had believed the pretended Monarchy of Popedom in your after Popes, he would not thus have twitted and taunted Damasus (otherwise an excellent godly Pope) not so much for his own pride, as for the pride of the Roman Top, or height; namely, the ambition of his Seat. In which reprehension of Papal pride, the Council of Carthage under Cyprian, the Council of Africa in the time of Saint Augustine, Saint Basil, yea and other holy Fathers have 
* See above §. 4.  been most frequent, when as yet the Top thereof was not so high, as hath been the after-ambition of Popedom, by the one half.  
We in the next place desire to know what you believe, concerning the judgement of the Pope of Rome, in matter of Faith, and we have heard you call it Infallible: yet did Saint Hierome note Liberius, once Pope of Rome, that 
* See above, at a.  He was persuaded to subscribe unto Heresy. Your Cardinal answereth that Liberius indeed consented unto Heresy, but 
z Respondeo Liberium non expressè sed Interpretatiuè consensit ad subscriptionem Haereseos. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. cap. 9 §. Respondeo.  He consented thereunto (saith he) not Expressly, but Interpretatively, because in Fact he subscribed to the condemnation of Athanasius, whom he knew to be persecuted for his Catholic Faith. As though this poor rag were sufficient to cover that nakedness. No, for you look still upon the Pope, as upon the Visible Head of the Visible Church. If therefore he Visibly communicated with Haeretikes (as hath been confessed) and so Visibly subscribed unto Heresy, Interpretatively, that is, so that none could Interpret his Fact otherwise, than as to think it a plain approbation of Heresy; then we are persuaded that that holy Father, who was so zealous of God's truth, as not to endure an ambiguous word, which might any way relish of Heresy, and condemned that Pope Liberius of an Interpretative Heresy, would not (if he were alive at this day) suffer such a Deluge of Innovations by your 20. new Articles of the Roman Faith, never so much as fancied of in his days.  
In the next place the same Father expresseth his dislike of the Clergy of Rome, crying out upon them in the words following: 
a Hieron: ad Paulinum in lib. Didymi de Spir. Sancto Praefat To. 9 ad finem. Cum in babylon versarer, & purpuratae Meritricis essem colonus, volui aliquid garr●re de Spiritu Sancto, & coeptum opusculum eiusdem urbis Pontificidedicare. Et Ecce Pharisaeorum conclamavit senatus, & nullus scriba vel doctus, sed omnis quasi sibi indicto praelio Doctrinarum, adversus me imperitiae factio coniuravit— Damasus, qui me ad hoc opus prius impulerat, iam dormit cum Christo— Cauticum quod cantare non potui terrâ alienâ, hic a vobis provocarus in judaea immurmuro.  When I was in Babylon, and lived an inhabitant of that purple Whore, something I desired to chirp, concerning the holy Ghost, and to dedicate the Work unto the Bishop of the same City: And behold, the assembly of Pharisees exclaimed upon me, among whom there was not any learned Scribe, but the whole faction of ignorance conspired against me, as if I had proclaimed some Doctrinal war and strife against them. Damasus, who first moved me to this work, is asleep in the Lord; so that the song that I could not sing in a strange Country, I now must murmur, and noise among you here in judaea. So S. Hierome. What one of you is there (if not acquainted with the Books of Saint Hierome) who will not judge these words to have been the Exclamation and Inuective of some Protestant (in your opinion) Schismatical, and a professed Adversary to the Church of Rome? to call Rome in indignation and despite Babylon, and Land of Captivity; to term it a Purple whore, and strange land, wherein it was not lawful To sing the Lords Song concerning the Holy Ghost: yea to bespot the whole Clergy of that City with the note of Ignorance: and at last (after the death of Damasus) to quit ROME, as a Land of Bondage, that he might enjoy his liberty in judaea, among the Christian jews? Could this be said of a City privileged with a perpetual Residence of the Holy Ghost, and deserving the Title of Motherhood over the whole Catholic Church; of the City of the Pope's Holiness, and of the Oracle of Truth?  
Pass we from the Clergy of that City, and come we to the Roman Church itself: there we find a Custom of preferring Deacons, before Priests. Which Saint Hierome condemneth, and advanceth the dignity of a Presbyter: upon which occasion he falleth into a Comparison of the Church of Rome with the whole CATHOLIC CHURCH, and with other Parts thereof: And comparing it with the whole Church, he saith, 
b Hieronym. Epi. ad Euagrium. Si quaeritur authoritas, Orbis Maior est quam urbis. Tom. 2.  The Authority of the whole world is greater than of one City: Meaning that the Authority of the Church Catholic is more than the Authority of the Church of ROME. Which (as hath been proved from the judgement of the Fathers in the Council of Basil) is a perfect demonstration that the Church of ROME cannot be called The Catholic Church. And lest any, by that Example and Custom of the Church of ROME, should prescribe unto other Churches, as though (ROME being, as you call her, the Mistress of all others) All others should subscribe to her, Saint Hierome immediately addeth; 
c Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuetudinem? quid paucitatem, de quâ ortum est supercilium, in leges Ecclesiae vendicas? In eadem Epistolà de quae vide supra.  Why do you object unto me (saith he) the Custom of one City, and challenge that for a Law, which is done of so few (in respect) whence haughtiness hath sprung? A plain proof, that your now Doctrine of making one Particular Church to be in jurisdiction Universal, is an Argument of a Sacrilegious Pride, and no sound Article of Faith.  
The next Comparison is between the Church of Rome, & other particular Churches, in respect of the jurisdictions of Bishops in their several dioceses, according to Divine Law: 
d Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubij, sive Constantiopoli, sive Rhegij, sive Alexandria, siue Tanais, eiusdem meriti est, & eiusdem Sacerdotij. Hieronym. in eadem Epistolâ, de qua supra.  Wheresoever there shall be a Bishop (saith he) whether it be at Rome, or at Eugubium, whether at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, whether at Alexandria, or at Tanais, he is of the same worthiness and Priesthood. What may be collected from hence, you may know from him, who, being most conversant in the writings of Saint Hierome, is best able to dive into his meaning, namely, that 
u Erasmus Scholar in hanc Epist. Docet Episcopi dignitatem non aestimari magnitudine ditionis, sed merito, vitae officio— & aequare videtur omnes Episcopos inter se, perinde ac si omnes ex aequo Apostolis successerunt.  Saint Hierome hereby seemeth to equal all Bishops among themselves, as being equally the Successors of the Apostles, who are therefore not to be measured by the amplitude of their Diocese, but by the worthiness of their deservings. In which comparison Saint Hierome hath used singular art, to express his meaning more Emphatically. For whereas there are Three most famous Patriarchships, viz. Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria, he parallelleth the little Bishoprics, under the same Patriarchships, with the patriarchal Seats, as Eugubium in Italy with Rome; Rhegium in Brutia with Constantinople in Thrace; and Tanais in Egypt, with Alexandria in the same Province. So that whatsoever jurisdiction any Metropolitan, Primate, or Patriarch hath over other Bishops, it is from Humane Constitution, and not from Divine Law. So far then was Saint Hierome, from making Rome the Catholic Bishopric, that he accounted it as distinct from Eugubium, as is Constantinople from Rhegium, and Alexandria from Tanais.  
After our Comparison of the Church of Rome with others, in the Question of jurisdiction, we proceed, with Saint Hierome, to compare her in matter of Necessary and Catholic Doctrine. But tell you us First, what is that Prerogative, which is included in your Article of The Catholic Roman Church, as properly belonging to the Church of Rome, as it is termed Catholic? Your answer is, that 
e Causae, quae iure Canonico & Divino sunt Romano Pontifici reseruatae,— ut quae spectant ad Articulos fidei intelligendos, & libros Canonicos discernendos. Azorius jes. Moral. li. 4. Tom. 2. cap. 35.  Among the Causes, which by Divine Law are referred unto the Pope, one is, to decree what Scriptures are Canonical. Well then, let this be our First Question, whether the Church of Rome, in the days of Saint Hierome, decreed the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews, to be Canonical? And Saint Hierome saith, that 
f Sic Paulus Apostolus ad Hebraeos, quam Latina consuetudo non suscipit. Hieronym. in Isaiae c. 6. Et rursus Epist. 29. ad Euagrium. Epistolam ad Hebraeos non solum in Ecclesiis Orientalibus, sed etiam ab omnibus retro Ecclesiis, & Graeci sermonis Scriptoribus receptam. Tom. 3.  Although formerly all other Churches in the East did account it Canonical, yet it was not received as Canonical in the Latin, or Roman Church. In the Second place it is inquirable, whether upon this difference Saint Hierome will yield to the judgement of the East and Greek Church, rather than of the West and Latin Church, in a Cause of so great moment? And Saint Hierome resolveth, saying; 
g Quod filativa consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas,— Nos tamen suscipimus. Hieronym. Jbid.  Although the Latin Church doth not admit of this Epistle, as Canonical, we notwithstanding (saith he) do receive it. Say now, was Saint Hierome herein a Catholic, or not? you must needs grant he was a Catholic, seeing that since his days your Church 
a Concil. Trident. Sess. 4.  hath decreed that Epistle to the Hebrews to be held Canonical: whence it will irresistibly follow, that Saint Hierome, who held herein with the rest of the Catholic Church, against the Church of Rome, in discerning of a part of Canonical Scripture, did thereby judge the Church of Rome not to be The Catholic Church.  
We may see the same, concerning the Canon of Scriptures of the Old Testament, whereof your Church of Rome hath decreed in the last Council of Trent, as followeth: 
b Conc. Trid. Sess. ●. Si quis, etc.  If any do not receive as Canonical, the book of Hester, Daniel, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, judith, Tobias, and the Two Books of Maccabees, with all their parts, as they are in the Vulgar edition, let him be Anathema, and accursed. But say now, was Saint Hierome of this Faith? did he believe all those Books, and their parts now mentioned to be Canonical? Nay, did he not abandon them as Apocrypha, and not properly Divine Scriptures? Yes, saith your Cardinal, 
i Sane Hieronymus in Prologo Galeato omnes istos dicit non esse in Canone, nec loquitur tantùm de Canone judaeorum-admitto Hieronymum in eâ sententiâ fuisse, excepto libro judith, quem ille postea recepit. Bellarmin. lib. 1. de Verbo Dei. cap. 10. Quòd Bellarminus excipit librum Judith, errat, tantum dicit; Nicaena Synodus legitur computasse libru● judith in numero Canonicorum: non quòd ita senserit, quia ipse Hieronymus planè reijciebat hunc librum in Prologo Gal. & ità Hieronymum interpretatur Lyndanus Pa●●pl. lib. 3. ca 3. A●●sta jes. lib. 2. de Christo Revelato, cap. 13. Salmeron jes. Com. in Hebr. Disp. 2.  Saint Hierome said of these, that they were not within the Canon of Scriptures: where he speaketh not of the Canon of the jews only. So he, meaning that he spoke of the Canon of Christians. If therefore the Church of Rome at that time were of the opinion of Saint Hierome, then doth. That ancient Church of Rome, in rejecting those Books as Apocrypha, condemn This (now) Roman Church, which hath Canonised them for true Scriptures. And if Saint Hierome, in judging these Apocrypha Books worthy to be excluded out of the Canon of Christians, did herein descent from the Church Rome, in his days, than did he again believe that the Church of Rome was not The Catholic and Universal Christian Church.   

CHALLENGE.  
WHereas your Obiectors have dealt like a sort of Tradesmen, who show not their wares but in dark lights, whereby their Chapmen are often mistaken in their Traffic, we contrarily have set before you the best kind of Illustration, namely the Comparison of things jointly, one with another. As for Example, 1. Comparing Pope with Pope, as Damasus a true Catholic with Liberius in appearance an Heretic; We infer Saint Hierome his no-beliefe of God's perpetual Assistance, by Divine Direction of the Pope. 2. Comparing Pope with Bishop, as Damasus with Petrus Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, upon whom Saint Hierome jointly relied, in his Opposition against Heretics: We infer that Saint Hierome believed not a Necessity of a singular Communion with the Pope. 3. Comparing the Pope with Saint Hierome himself, who although he had been a Scribe to the Pope, and therefore so near to the supposed fountain of Oracles, yet was glad to take long journeys, and spend much time to Learn the Interpretation of Scriptures from Gregory of Nazianzum, and Didymus of Antioch; and not so only, but did also instruct Pope Damasus, in the knowledge of Scriptures: We infer that Saint Hierome did not believe your now Roman Principle, which is to refer the last and safest Resolution, for understanding of the 
k Inter Maiores causas, quae ad sedem Apostolicam referuntur, una est ad sensum sacrarum literarum declarandum. Azorius Moral, l. 4. c. 35  Sense of Scriptures, to the judgement of the Pope. 4 Comparing the City of Rome and his Clergy, with Palestine and hers, and Hierome not doubting to call Rome Babylon, purple Whore, strange Land; and her Clergy Factious Ignorants; and showing his great contentment, which he found elsewhere: We infer that Rome is not always to contain that School of learning, that Theatre of Sanctity, that Temple of perfect Worship, which you usually boast off. 5 Comparing Bishopric with Bishopric, Saint Hierome equalling the greatest, as Rome, with the least, as Eugubium, [In honore Sacerdotij] In honour of Priesthood (And what Saint Hierome meaneth by Sacerdotium, who knoweth not?) We infer that Saint Hierome never believed the Prae-potency of the Bishop of Rome, over other Bishops (which you call Popedom) to be founded upon Divine Ordinance. 6 Comparing Church with Church, as the Western or Latin Church, whereof Rome is a chiefest member, with the East or Greek Church, and all other Churches beside; and Saint Hierome forsaking the Custom and judgement of the West and Latin Church, and yielding to the East and Greek Churches, in a Doctrine which is the Foundation of all Fundamental Articles, to wit, the true Canon of Scriptures, both in the New Testament, and in the Old: We infer that Saint Hierome did not believe either a Necessity of all Union with the Roman Church in Doctrine, or yet an absolute Dominion of the Roman Church above all others. Whatsoever your reply be, you must either expunge your now Roman Article out of the Canon of Faith, or else raze the name of Saint Hierome out of your Calendar of Saints.    

VII. Saint Ambrose believed not the now Roman Article of Necessity of Union and Subjection to the Roman Church. SECT. 7.  
SAint Ambrose Bishop of Milane is honoured by your Memorial of him in your Roman 
l Sanctus Ambrose Confessor & Doctor Ecclesiae. Missale Romanum Decembris die 7.  Calendar, but much more in his own Books, and in the minds of all Orthodox Christians, in all ages since he lived, for Confessor, and Doctor of the Church: of whom Saint Augustine could say, 
m Augustin. Contra julianum Pelagianum l. 1. ca 9 Audi excellentem dei dispensatorem etc. Et mecum non dubitat orbis praedicare Romanus.  I have had experience of his grave constancy, labours, and perils, for the Catholic Cause, which the whole Roman world doth commend and report as well as I. This Saint the more excellent he is, the more forcible his Testimony ought to be, whether it be on your side, or on ours. We are willing first to understand what you can object.  

Your Objection out of Saint Ambrose answered.  
Your Cardinal his Argument is this: 
n cum totus Mundus Dei sit, tamen Dominus eius Ecclesiae dicitur, cuius hodie Rector est Damasus. Et Orat. in Satyrum. Percunctatus est Episcopum, si cum Episcopis Catholicis, hoc est cum Romanâ Ecclesiâ consentiret. Haec Ambrose. Cur quaeso Catholici sunt, nisi quiâ cum Romanâ Ecclesiâ conveniunt? nisi quià Romana Ecclesia caput est Catholicae Ecclesiae? Bellarm. l. 2. de Ram. Pont. c. 16. §. Tertius.  Ambrose calleth Pope Damasus the Rector of the whole Church: and his Brother Satyrus would not admit of a Bishop, to hear him, before he understood that he consented with Catholic Bishops: That is (saith he) with the Church of Rome. Ergo, the Church of Rome is the Head of the Church Catholic. Wherein your Cardinal laboureth of the same Elench, whiles he mistakes the words (respectively) spoken to one person Pope Damasus, and circumstantially for one time; as if they were absolutely so meant for the persons of all Popes, at all times. Again, if the bare Title of Rector of the Catholic Church, ascribed to Damasus, must needs argue your Pope to be Head of the Church, then must you enlarge the Catalogue of your Popes, and inrolle among them as many other. Bishop's as have received Titles equivalent, if not more excellent than that. For (as you yourselves well know) 
o Canisius jes. Catech init. in Encon. Patrum. Athanasiú Nazianzenus appellat Columen Ecclesiae, & Ecclesiae dei fundamentum. Basilium Gregorius Nyssenus, Os Ecclesiae.  Athanasius was entitled the Prop, and Foundation of the Church: Saint Basil, the Mouth of the Church: 
p In vitae Hieronymi Tom. 4. Eusebius Nazianzenum appellat Columnam auream, & totius Ecclesiae Fundamentum.  Saint Nazianzen, the golden Pillar and Foundation of the whole Church; and Saint Ambrose himself was commended by the Emperor Theodosius as 
q De Ambrosio sic Theodosius Ambrosium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Senensis Bibliothec. l. 4. Tit. Ambrose  THE ONLY BISHOP, WHOM HE KNOWN WORTHY THE NAME OF A BISHOP. These few Parallels may serve to allay your appetite, until we 
* See after, ca 12.  shall be occasioned to satisfy you in this sort to the full. In which kind of Ascriptions there is not any acknowledgement of Authority, but a commendation of their care, and diligence, judgement, and directions in behalf of the whole Catholic Church.  
Concerning the Second, Saint Ambrose addeth a reason of his speech (wisely dissembled by your Cardinal) to wit, The Bishopric of that Bishop was in a Region divided into diverse Schisms by Heretical Spirits; whereas the Church of Rome professed constantly the Catholic Faith. No marvel therefore though Satyrus ask of a Bishop, whose Faith he suspected, whether he believed as that Church did, whose Faith was known to be truly Catholic. As it sometimes cometh to pass in the Commonwealth, in cases of violent ruptures into many Factions repugnant each to other, and all to the Loyal and faithful Subjects of the King; among whom some one City, (as for Example YORK) shall be known more general than any others to profess loyalty to their Sovereign: if thereupon an honest man ask of a Soldier, living in one of the factious Countries, whether he were a true Subject, and consented with the Citizens of York; would you judge it a Politic Inference to say, that therefore York is the Head over all other Cities in the Kigdome? And that you may know the due proportion of this Comparison, remember, we pray you, that even in the same age of Pope Damasus, and in the time of the same Schisms, many Greek Bishops were as truly Catholic as was Pope Damasus, and yet were not subject unto his jurisdiction, as hath been manifestly proved out of Saint Basil, and is hereafter to be more copiously; yea and Confessedly declared.   

Our Opposition, from the Example of Saint Ambrose his Opposing against the Church of Rome.  
Six hundred and seventy years, after the death of Saint Ambrose, his Church of Milan was visited by Petrus Damianus Legate unto Pope Leo the ninth, assuming jurisdiction over them; when the Clergy of Milan withstood the Legate, alleging that 
r Post diem alter●, factione Clerieorum, repentè in popule murmur exoritur, non debere Ambrosianam Ecclesiam Romanis legibus subiacere, nullamue iudicandi vel disponendi Vim Romano Pontifici in illâ sede competere. Nimis indignum, inquiunt, ut quae progenitoribus nostris semper extitit libera, ad nostrae confusionis opprobriú nunc alteri, quod absit, Ecclesiae sit subiecta. Apud Baronium, Anno 1059. num. 46.  The Church of Ambrose had been always free in itself, and never was subject to the laws of the Pope of Rome. The veins of those Clergymen must have been void of all tincture of blood, in making a most shameless Answer, if that it had been a known Catholic Article then, that all Churches Christian are necessarily Subordinate unto the Authority of the Papal and Roman jurisdiction. And why did they, in challenging their liberty, call their Bishopric of Milan Ambrose his Church? but only that they knew that Saint Ambrose did preserve the liberty thereof, never acknowledging Subjection unto the Bishop of Rome. Whereof we have more than a presumption in the writings of Ambrose himself, in the Question touching Washing of the feet of Infants baptised; which the Church of Rome judged to be superfluous, but chose Ambrose and the Church of Milan held to be necessary. The same Father, lest the Authority of that Church might prejudice their custom, preoccupateth in this manner; 
f Ambros. lib. 3. de Sacr. Cap. 1. In omnibus cupio sequi Romanam Ecclesiam, sed tamen & nos homines sensum habemus, id quod alibi rec●ius seruatur no● custodimus. Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 16. §. Ibid.  I wish in all things (saith Ambrose) to follow the Church of Rome, but yet be it known, that we being Men have sense also, in continuing this Custom, which is likewise more rightly observed elsewhere.   

CHALLENGE.  
THis one short sentence is as a Canon full charged, to batter down your great Bulwark, that we may to call your Article of Papal Monarchy. For first, Ambrose speaking of his own Church of Milan, in opposition unto the Church of Rome, and saying, Sed tamen & Nos, etc. BUT YET WE, etc. Ergò, he held not his Church of Milan to be a member subordinate to the Roman Church, as to the Head thereof. But wherein is he opposite? Tamen nos homines sensum habemus; But we men have sense: As if he had said; We in Milan hold this Ceremony necessary, They of Rome judge it superfluous and ridiculous, as though we were Asses, or Blocks; but neither so, for we are men; nor so, for we have sense, and hold that which is more rightly observed. Ergò, Ambrose held no Necessity of inthralling his judgement to the Pope of Rome; which is a part of your Article of Faith. And in that he saith [Cupio] I wish to follow the Church of Rome in all things, yet this [TAMEN,] or Non obstante, doth again confirm both our former Collections; because, by calling it The Church of Rome, he maketh it no Universal Church in essence; and in refusing to follow it, where he thinketh he hath just cause so to do, proveth that he believed not her judgement to be Vniversally and Necessarily Catholic, nor her power and jurisdiction absolute.  
The Proverb is, A Lion is known by his claw. As well may we discern Saint Ambrose his Faith, by this Clause; who in this one Resolution teacheth all Christian Churches to follow the Church of Rome in nothing, wherein they are persuaded (as Saint Ambrose was in this Case) that the Church of Rome hath denied to follow the Church of Christ. Now for you to answer, that his meaning was, 
Illud [in omnibus ●upio sequi] intelligit de necessarij●. Bellar. lib. 2. Rom. Pont. ●●. 16. §. Idem.  To follow the Church of Rome in all things necessary, though not in a Rite; This Answer, as it is false (for Saint Ambrose held this Rite Necessary) so it is also frivolous: because if it be just to withstand the Church of Rome in a Rite and Ceremony (as it were, in a Mite) than how much more may it be lawful not to follow or believe her, in her many new Articles of Faith, whereof among other this is a Principal, to wit; The Catholic Roman Church, without Subjection whereunto there is no Salvation? which can never be credible, as long as Saint Ambrose is believed to have been a Saint.    

VIII. Saint Augustine believed not the now Roman Article of Necessary Subjection to the Church of Rome, and Pope thereof. SECT. 8.  
SAint Augustine (as All will confess) deserved to have his memory Registered not only (as it is in your 
u Augustinus Episcopus & Confessor. Cal. Miss. Rom. August. 28.  Roman Calendar) in paper monuments, but in the minds and hearts of all Christians; so excellent a Saint was Herald It is not long since one of your 
x John Breerly.  Priests published a book, entitled Saint Augustine's Religion; wherein he will needs be thought to have himself collected all the materials of that his Treatise, out of the writings of Saint Augustine: whereas (poor man!) he oweth his whole work unto your jesuit Hieronymus Torrensis, who many years since set out a large volume divided into four Books, containing all the particulars, which Master Breerly hath diuulged, in his own name; without so much as giving notice of any such Author. But they differ in their Titles; Hieronymus Torrensis styleth his book 
y Confessio Augustinana, in libros quatuor distributa, per Hieronymum Torrensem Societatis jesu Theologum, & Academiae Dilinganae Professorem. Dilinguae Anno 1567.  Augustine's Confessions; Master Breerly his, Augustine's Religion: Verifying herein that saying of Tully, concerning such kind of Plagiaries, that as thieves change the notes and marks of stolen stuff, so They, that father other men's works upon themselves, use to change the names and Titles, as it were the marks and property thereof. Is it not sufficient that you have dealt thus with Protestant Authors, but that you must play such parts among yourselves? But I shall have more occasion to put Master Breerly in mind of himself elsewhere: For at this present we have but one Article of Saint Augustine in hand, touching the Necessity of Union and Subjection to the Church of Rome, as The Catholic Church; and are to attend whether either He, or your jesuit, or Cardinal can evince so Imposterous a Doctrine out of the Volumes of Saint Augustine.  

Your Objections out of Saint Augustine.  
Saint Augustine onewhere attributeth to the Church of Rome 
z In Romaná Ecclesiâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus. August. Epist. 162. Quia se dominus in sede Apostolicâ collocavit, talemue nostris temporibus praestitit, etc. magnis periculis infirmorum membro●um Christi Pastoralem diligentiam quaesumus adhibere digneris. August. Epist. ad Innocent. 92. Hic non peteret, ut Innocentius Pastoralem curam adhiberet Ecclesiae, coercendo Pelagianos qui Palaestinam & Africaminsiciebant, nisi Innocentium Palaestinae & Africa Pastorem esse crederet. Deinde cur non Hierosolymitano Patriarchae, & aliis potius scribi●? Et Epist. 157. Iniunxit Zozymu● Papa, ut Episcopi Africae apud Caesaream Concilium celebrarent, & Augustinus Zozimo necessariò parendu● esse existimaui●. Et lib. 1. ad Bonifac. cap. 1. Co●munis, inquit, est omnibus nobis, qui fungimur Episcopatus officio, quamuis ipse in eo praeemineas celsiore fastigio specula Pastoralis. Sic Augustinus. Vide ab Augustino omnes Episcopos subijci celsiori fastigio Romani Pontificis Hactenus Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Nec dissentit Torrensis quo supra. lib. 1. cap. 9  A Principality of the Apostolical Sea: Elsewhere he desireth of the Pope of Rome his Pastoral diligence, for the repressing of the Heresy of the Pelagians in Palestine and Africa: In the third place he acknowledgeth A necessary obedience to the Pope's jurisdictions; and lastly he confesseth that The Pope of Rome is set in a more high Pastoral watchtower, than others. Now what of all these? Ergo (say you) the Church of Rome is the chief of all Churches, and the Pope thereof hath jurisdiction over all other Churches, all other Bishops being subject unto him, upon pain of Damnation. But if these words, Principality, or Highest Pastoral watchtower, or Charge, or Apostolical Church, or Power to repress Heretics, or an acknowledgement of Necessary Obedience must enforce a jurisdiction of Popedom over all others, then ought we to admit of many Popedomes. For every Patriarch hath a Principality, and height of a Pastoral watchtower, by reason of the greatness & dignity of his Patriarchship, above all Metropolitans, and Bishops whatsoever: and yet have they not over all Bishop's power of jurisdiction, but only Principality of Order. And look into the Epistle of john the first, Bishop of Rome, written to an Archbishop, and you shall find him grant that that Archbishop had as well 
a johannes 1. ad Zachariam Archiepiscopum. Vsque ad mortem certa pro veritate:— huius ●ei gratiâ vobis & nobis commissa est Ecclesia, ut cunctis opem ferre non negligamus. Itaque tanta urgente necessitate, summopere vestrâ Apostolicâue Authoritate, & reliquos Episcopos oportet reprimere infestos &c, Apud Binium. Tom. 2. pag. 378.  The charge of the Church committed unto him, for the help of all, in repressing of Heresies, as to himself. And that also therein there is a Necessity Rationis, of Cause, and Reason, to perform such Admonitions, namely as a Patient obeyeth the Physician, for the preventing of imminent danger; and not a Necessity Imperij, of Compulsion, by right of Authority; as a soldier obeyeth his Captain. And if that the Title of Apostolical Church, could carry a Monarchical Chiefedome, then was Saint Augustine far wrong, when in the same Epistle, where he called the Church of Rome The Apostolical Seat, he called other Churches and Seats also 
b Collegae Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum. August. Epist. 162. See further of this hereafter.  Apostolical. Lastly, remember but what 
* See above, §. 4.  hath been proved out of Saint Basil, and you shall not need to question why the help of the Pope of Rome was sometime desired in some Provinces, rather than other; showing that the Pope's exercising of his Office, in such Cases, proceeded not from his Coactive Authority, but from the Arbitrary consent of other Bishops. In a word, we have received from you, out of Saint Augustine, nothing but specious colours of words, which we shall recompense with his Acts and Deeds.   

Our Opposition of S. Augustine his no- Subjection, either in Discipline, or in Doctrine, to the Church of Rome.  
Nothing can better illuminate our understandings in this case, than the light of Comparison. You therefore, whose Article of Faith is to believe, that although the Church of Rome be a Particular Church, and so a distinct member from the other Churches Militant; yet in respect of the Universal government, which it hath throughout the Christian world, it is The Catholic and Universal Church, as is the Head over all other parts of man's body; harken to Saint Augustine, comparing the Church of Rome with another Particular Church. 
c Duo sunt eminentissimarum Ecclesiarum, Romae scilicet & Carthaginensis Episcopi, diversa de Baptismo sentientes, Stephanus & Cyprianus. August, de Vnico Baptismo, contra Petilian. cap. 14.  There are two Bishops (saith he) of two most eminent Churches, Stephen of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage, being of divers opinions in the point of Baptism. Therefore did not Saint Augustine hold the Church of Rome to be the Catholic Head; for there cannot be properly Two Most Eminents of the Catholic Church, whereof you say there is but One Head. One may say, that there are Two Bishops of Two most Eminent Bishoprics in England, George of Canterbury, and Tobias of York, because these are so distant, that one is not Subordinate or subject to the other: But to say, there are two Bishops of two most Eminent Bishoprics, George of Canterbury, and Lancelot of Winchester, were absurd; because, making the Bishopric of Winchester to be one of the Two most Eminents, it doth abate and pull down the true Eminency of Canterbury, which is an Arch-Bishopricke, and Metropolitan Seat, and hath jurisdiction over the other. But Saint Augustine (you know) was judicious, and would not reason absurdly. Now you, whose Faith requireth Union and Subjection unto the Sea of Rome in all Causes, as well Ritual, as Criminal, or Doctrinal, lend your attention unto Saint Augustine, in his Comparisons, concerning each one.  
In the point of Rites and Ceremonies, the question was whether the Church should weekly observe a Saturday-fast, or no: The one side which is brought in, as for the Affirmative part, alleging that Saint james at jerusalem, Saint john at Ephesus, and others taught the same, which Saint Peter did at Rome, viz. that The Saturday-fast is to be kept, but other Countries forsook this Tradition. The parties for the Negative are supposed to answer, saying, Yea rather some parts of the West Church, wherein Rome is seated, have not observed the Tradition of the Apostles, Saint Peter and others, who taught that a Fast ought not to be kept upon that day. Here you have the East and West-Churches compared together, and the credit of them both balanced. If we should now ask you whether Church, East or West, deserveth more credit in this Case, you would abhor the question, as men bound by Oath to believe rather the Western Church of Rome, than all other Churches in the world, in point of Tradition. But Saint Augustine, what? 
d Augustin. Epist. 86. Si respondetur, etc. coeteras terras ab hac doctrinâ deviâsse: Occidentis potius aliqua loca, in quibus Roma est, etc. Indeterminabilis est ista quaestio.  This contention (saith he) is endless and indeterminable. And Saint Augustine's words [Aliqua loca, in quibus Roma est] that is, Some places, among which Rome is, have a sting, which wounds the Papacy. For can the Imperial Lady of all Churches be thus slightly brought in among the Many? Surely if S. Augustine had made her the pattern of all other Christian Churches, his style should have arrayed her otherwise, than by inuoluing her among Loca Occidentis.  
Secondly, in Criminal Causes, you believe that the Supreme Right of Appeal to the Sea of Rome is a jurisdiction whereinto the Bishop of Rome is invested, by virtue of his Succession from Saint Peter; so that all other Churches Christian ought to acknowledge this Right of Appeal upon all just occasions; and the Cause being there determined, all parties are utterly precluded, having no power to Appeal from it, to any Superior judicature. This is your pretended Prerogative of the Church of Rome, consisting of two Terms, Appealing to Rome, and not Appealing from Rome. Will you admit of Saint Augustine's determination in both these? Saint Augustine (as 
* Cap. 9 §. 8. etc.  hath been confessed) was one of that Council of Africa, which abandoned the Claim of Right of Appeals from all Churches to Rome, which was then challenged by three Popes successively, to wit, Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestine; and yet concluded against them, that it should not be lawful for any, within the Churches of Africa, to make their Appeal to Rome.  
Accordingly, you that would think it an intolerable and sacrilegious derogation from the Papal jurisdiction, if in a Criminal Cause, after the Pope with his whole Consistory of Cardinals had given judgement, any Bishop within the Roman jurisdiction should be so audacious, as to Appeal from that Sentence to an higher judicature, where you that are my judges shall be judged, whether you have given right judgement, or not; remember that Saint Augustine, concerning the Case of the Bishop Caecilian, which was referred to the Arbitrement of Pope julius and others, doubted not to give such a Resolution: 
e August. Epist. 162. De Collegis i. e. Episcopis agebatur, qui possent aliorum Collegarum, praesertim Apostolicorum iudicio causam suam reseruare.— Et ecce, put●mus illos Episcopos, qui Romae iudicarunt, non bonos iudices fuisse, restabat adhuc plenarium Concilium, ubi etiam cum ipsis judicibus causa possit agitari; ut si malè iudicasse convicti essent, eorum sententiae soluerentur.  I suppose (saith he) the Bishops that were at Rome were not good judges, there then remained a General Council, where the Cause may be discussed; so that if it shall appear that those judges judged wrongfully, their sentence may be reversed, and disannulled.  
Thirdly, from Criminal we proceed to a Doctrinal point. You that have told us that it is a peculiar Prerogative belonging to the Church of Rome, as she is The Catholic Church, to direct all other Churches, which is the true Canon of Divine Scriptures; and that she by her 
f Concilium Trident. Sess. 4.  Council may pronounce every one Anathema and Accursed, that shall not give belief to his Decree, touching the right Canon of Scriptures: observe, that Saint Augustine, perceiving how the Latin or Roman Church did not in those days constantly hold the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews to be Canonical, and of Divine Authority, resolveth thus; 
g Augustin. de Peccat. merit. & Remiss. lib. 1. c. 27. Ad Hebraeos quoque Epistola, quanquam nonnullis incerta sit, tamen me magis movet Authoritas Ecclesiarum Orientalium, quae hanc e●iam intet Canonicas habent. Sic Augustinus. Ego praeoccupo: nec est quòd quis obganniat, Augustinum veteris Testamenti Canonem eundem amplexum, qui à Conc. Tridentino praescribitur, quia Caietanus iampridem ex Patribus docuit distinguendum esse inter Canonem morum, & Canonem fidei.  Notwithstanding I (saith he) am rather moved by the Authority of the East Churches. So Saint Augustine: which is so much, that a conscionable man, we think, should need no more. For now we are in a Doctrinal point, even what, and which is the Scripture and written Word of God; the Principle and Doctrine of all other Principles and Doctrines. Whereof when we inquire, we are directed by Saint Augustine to consult with the Primitive Churches, as well East, as West, and wherein these do differ in their Customs, therein to yield rather to the judgement of the Greek and Eastern Churches, (according as Saint 
* See above, Chap. 12. §. 6.  Hierom also determined) than to the Roman in the West. And lest this Decision of Saint Augustine might seem to proceed from some voluntary inclination to the Greek Church, rather than to the Latin, he addeth that he is so moved by the Authority of the Eastern Churches. Now how all these particulars will agree with your Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, Mistress of all other Churches, without full Union and Subjection whereunto there is no Salvation, do you yourselves deliberate. Sure we are that this Resolution of Saint Augustine will easily interpret the meaning of his other sentence, so often objected by you, to wit; I should not have believed the Gospel, except the Authority of the Church had moved me; that by [Church] he meant not the (then) present Church of Rome, as you pretend; which is (as you see) another vanity.  
After this discussion of the Doctrinal Cause, we add a Consideration of the Schismatical state of that Church, according as our judicious 
h Casaubon. Exercit. adversus Baronium. 16. §. 135. Meminit tot locis Augustinus, in septem libris de Vno Baptismo & aliis contra Donatistas', eius controversiae, quae fuit inter Stephanum Papam & Cyprianum, quo Authore Donatistae errorem suum tuebantur, quaero igitur cum nihil sit praetermissum ab Augustino, quod ad rem faceret, ut Donatistas ad sanam mentem revocaret, cur nunquam in tot libris de Monarchiâ Papae ullum verbum facit? cur tacetur Papae Infallibilitas, quae hodiè veri & falsi norma proditur? Cur Vicariatus— iura silentur? etc.  Casaubon hath observed. You, who account it the only note of Schism, to be divided from the Roman Church, and the Pope thereof, as the only Head of all Churches; Answer us, Why Saint Augustine who in seven Books, besides many other places, confuted the Schismatical Donatists, yet never spoke word of the Monarchy of the Pope, or of the Infallibility of his judgement, whereby to reduce them to the Unity of the Church and Truth?  
Lastly, as for the Title of The Catholic Church, you that appropriate it in your Article to the Church of Rome, advice again with Saint Augustine, who as he 
* See above Cap. 1.  hath already defined that Catholic is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The whole,] as a Comprehension of all Parts; and therefore that no Part can be called The Whole: so doth he further illustrate the same, in his Expositions upon those words of the Psalmist, The King's daughters were among thine honourable women, upon thy right hand did stand the Queen in a Vesture of gold of Ophir: 
i Sumus Christiani, non Petriani, per illum nati, non illi nati. Ecce. Roma, ecce Carthago, ecce aliae & aliae civitates filiae Regum: ex omnibus fit una quaedam Regina. August. in Psal. 44. Loquitur de Catholica Ecclesia, quam vocat Sponsam. Et paulò post; Alloquitur Propheta Reginam istam,— & ad illud corpus pertineamus uniti fide ac spe, etc.  Behold Rome, (saith he) behold Carthage, behold other Cities, as King's daughters, of all which is made one certain Queen (speaking of the Catholic Church) whereunto every one ought to be united in Faith and Hope. So he. You see that in Saint Augustine's time, when Rome was indeed Rome, and truly glorious for Faith and Holiness, yet Behold Rome, what? The Queen, which is the Catholic Church itself? No, but Behold Rome, a daughter of the King. And again, Behold Carthage, and other Cities, How? Namely so, and no otherwise than Rome, and others, all daughters of the King, that is, Particular Churches professing Christ. But the Catholic Church as Queen, what must she be? any one of these, be it the Church of Milan, Carthage, or Rome? No, but One Universal Church consisting of these, and All others.   

CHALLENGE.  
SEe you now with what obliquity of judgement your Authors have objected these colourable sayings of Saint Augustine out of his Epistles unto Pope Zozimus, and Pope Boniface and others? Whereas, when we come to his deeds, he doth freely demonstrate his Faith contrary to your sense: when, Comparing Particular Bishopric with Bishopric, as Rome with Carthage, he maketh them and their Bishops, both Most Eminent; Comparing Churches with Churches, as Rome with the Churches of Africa, he defendeth (even against the forenamed Popes Zozimus and Boniface) both that it is not lawful for Remote Churches to Appeal to Rome, and that it is also lawful for Churches, that are subordinate to the Roman jurisdiction to Appeal from Rome. By which the very pinnacle of the pretended Authority of the Roman jurisdiction is quite overthrown and cast to the ground.  
Again, Saint Augustine comparing the Two Moities of the whole Catholic Church, commonly divided into the East, otherwise called the Greek Church, and the West or Latin, wherein the Church of Rome hath the greatest preeminence, He, in the Case of Apostolical Tradition, concerning Rites and Ceremonies, hath made their credit equal; but in the Doctrinal, as namely a Tradition Apostolical, concerning the true and Canonical Scriptures, he preferreth the Authority of the Greek and East-Churches, and confesseth that it shouldereth out (in this main Case) the Authority of the Roman.  
Lastly, comparing any One part with All Churches, as by name Rome with Carthage and All others, he proveth that Rome can be no more The Universal, or Catholic Church, than Carthage, No, nor both together: but that the Catholic Church, as the Queen, is the Whole Church of Christ, by an Aggregation and Comprehension of All together in One. So direct and absolute a Doctor was Saint Augustine of the no-Necessity of universal Union or Subjection unto the same Church, in points of Controversy, whether Ritual, or Doctrinal; and consequently of the no-Necessity of Belief of either of both, all which your Article doth require and exact: and yet we (notwithstanding your damning Article) must still believe that Saint Augustine is a blessed Saint.    

IX. Saint Hilary Bishop of Arles in France believed not your Article of Necessary Subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome. SECT. 9  
THis Saint, albeit he have no place in the Roman Calendar of your Mass, will notwithstanding challenge a place among our honourable Witnesses, because he is reckoned in your 
k Martyrolog. Roman. Maij. 5.  martyrologue of Saints. He, in the year 445, seemed to usurp upon the jurisdiction of the Province of Vienna, notwithstanding the Inhibition of Pope Leo, who taketh it very heinous that Hilary herein 
l Hilarius Ecclesiarum statum, & concordiam sacerdotum novis praesumptionibus turbaturus ex cessit, ita suae vos cupiens subdere potestati, ut se Beato Apostolo Petro non patiatur esse subiectum. Leo Papa Epist. 89 ad Episcop. Viennens. Provinciae, Apud Binium.  refused to be subject unto him. This Hilarius (as you without any proof would make us believe) yielded at length unto the Pope, making no further Apology for the defence of his Cause. Which were it so, it mattereth not: for that will suffice for his Apology, which is confessed by your Baronius, namely that 
m Laudatus hic propter vitae sanctitatem a Gennadio & Prospero.— Satis ad coronam Hilarij, quòd licèt pro tuendis (ut sibi videbatur) iustè iuribus Ecclesiae Arelatensis, offensam meruit tanti Pontificis, tamen quòd sanctitate non vulgari claruerit, in publicis etiam Romanae Ecclesiae monumentis titulo meruit Sanctitatis ascribi, anniversariaque memoriâ eiusdem ubique locorum dies natalis coli. Baronius Anno 1445. num 17.18.19. Addit eum tandem conqu●euisse, nec contrarijs editis Apologijs suam causam defendisse.  Although Hilarius did incur the displeasure of Pope Leo, in the defence (as he was persuaded) of the Right of his Episcopal Sea, Yet notwithstanding was he worthy, (saith the Cardinal) for his singular sanctity to be registered in the Roman martyrologue of Saints.  

CHALLENGE.  
Lo the then Pope complaineth against this Saint, for refusing to be Subject to his judicial determination, the which this Saint did (saith your Cardinal) in presumption, that his cause was just. Yet Gennadius, Prosper, and others that set down his life, do not note in him any iniquity in this Case. What need many words? He that in a Question of Ecclesiastical Rites, could not but doubt of the universal authority of the Pope, could not be of the (now) Roman Faith. Therefore this Saint Hilary was confidently persuaded that in some case, it was lawful to deny Subjection to the Pope. Wherefore it will belong to you, either to renounce this sacrilegious Article, or to un-hallow, and un-saint this holy man.   

The General CHALLENGE, concerning the forenamed Saints.  
ALl this while that we have laboured to confute your former Roman Article, from the judgements of ancient Fathers and holy Saints, we have insisted only in them, whose names are celebrated in your Roman Church and recorded in the public Calendar thereof, or in your martyrologue of Saints, to wit, Saint Polycarpus, Saint Cyprian, Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil, Saint Hilary of Poictou, Saint Hierom, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, and Saint Hilary of Arles, all of them (in the opinion of all Christians) deserving of the Church of Christ the most Honourable Title of SAINTS; besides the other Attributes, which for further Amplification of their worthiness are ascribed unto them, as adorning Saint Polycarp with the Title of the Doctor of Asia; Cyprian, the most famous Doctor; Saint Hilary of Arles with the Title of Sanctity. And as for the rest, you shall need no more than that which your Cardinal Baronius testifieth, in his Dedicatory Epistle unto Pope Clement the Eight: 
q Afferens Orientales Ecclesiae vertices sanctissimos Episcopos— Magnum Athanasium, Basilium itidem magnum,— cumque iis adducens quatuor Occidentalis Ecclesiae culmina, fidei columnas, luminaria magna, Orbis Miracula, Hilarium (Pictavensem sc.) Hieronymum, Ambrosium, & Augustinun: tantorum patrum coronâ cingens thronum tuum. Baronius Epist. ad Clementem Octawm ante Tom. 4. Annal.  I present before you (saith he) Athanasius the Great, and Basil the Great, two Chiefs, or eminent Topps of the East-Church; and Hilary, Hierom, Ambrose, and Augustine the Four Principals of the Western Church, Pillars of the Faith, and Miracles of the World; with this company of so excellent Fathers your throne is crowned. So he.  
What larger Assumption could your Cardinal have made, in Ostentation of the Papal Monarchy, from the Authority of these Fathers, then to boast unto the Pope of the establishing of his Throne, by the Testimonies of the same Saints? Wherefore, seeing we likewise do jointly Appeal unto these holy Fathers, as unto most impartial witnesses of Truth, you are by your amplifications of their Learning, Wisdom, Constancy in the Faith, and Sanctity, as by so many Obligations, bound to stand to their judgements; by which the sinews of your Roman Article are broken asunder: First, of Necessity of Union with; Secondly, of Subjection unto the Church and Bishop of Rome, as The Catholic Church and Bishop; Thirdly, the Belief of the Necessity of both these; And each of those Three upon loss of Salvation to All them that are not of this Belief.  
Recall to mind the former Passages, concerning the behaviour of these Saints, in whom you have seen professed Opposition, in matter of Doctrine, against the Pope and Church of Rome, by setting Council against Council; by taxing the Roman Church of Pride and Ignorance; by contempt of the Pope's Excommunication; by condemning his Condemnation; by Anathematising his person; by preferring the judgement of the East-Church before hers, in the great Question of the Canon of Scriptures, as well of the Old, as of the New Testament. Can you desire a more clear Demonstration of a Belief of no- Necessity of Union with the Pope or Sea of Rome, than this is?  
But because you hold it not sufficient to Salvation, that a man profess Union in Faith with the Church of Rome, except also he acknowledge an absolute Subjection in Discipline unto her jurisdiction: it may not be held superfluous to repeat unto you the lively Characters of their no- Subjection, by denying of Conformity with Rome, in so little as in a Rite, whether of a Fast, or of Washing of Feet; by inhibiting foreign Provinces to Appeal To Rome; and permitting of Appeals sometimes From Rome to a Council; by equalling other Bishops with the Bishop of Rome; and making Rome so A Church, that it cannot be The Catholic Church any more than Carthage, or any other Particular Church is; and by maintaining of jurisdiction against the Bishop of Rome.  
Lastly, for as much as neither Union in Faith with the Church of Rome, nor Subjection in Discipline unto her doth (by your Roman Article) satisfy, except a Christian have also belief of the Necessity of both the former, in every one that shall seek to be saved, ponder with yourselves whether these Fathers, if they were (as both you, and we proclaim them) Saints, could believe in their hearts and minds that Necessity either of Union with, or Subjection unto that Church, which they gainsaid and renounced in their writings and deeds. But you will say, Is it possible that the Church of Rome should honour, for Saints, those who upon due examination are Adversaries to this her supreme Hierarchy? Yes, why not, as well as it was possible (you know) for the Sects among the jews to murder the Prophets, and yet after their death to build them goodly Sepulchers and Monuments, as Christ saith. But you will pardon us, if we, imabracing their more renowned Monuments, which are their Writings, profess to imitate them in their doctrine, the chiefest honour belonging to these Saints, by whom we are taught to condemn your (now) Roman Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, and belief of Necessity of Union and Subiestion thereunto, without which (say you) there is no Salvation, as both Imposterous and Impious, because derogating from the judgements of so admirably holy Saints. If we were to speak of other Saints, not specified in the Roman martyrologue, or Catalogue of Saints, we might be infinite: but we are contented with these, adding in their due places Those who are proved to have been Excommunicated by the Popes, and notwithstanding acknowledged holy Bishops after their death; as namely Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, Atticus Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril, and Acatius Patriarches of Alexandria, 
* Of all these Pariarches, See after §. 7.  all little regarding the Pope's Excommunication; together with 
* Ignatius, See after Cap. 14. §. 7.  Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople.     

CHAP. XIII. Our Eight and last Argument, to confute this Roman Article of believing The Catholic Roman Church, and Bishop thereof, etc. is, by discovering the Falsehood, Vanity, and Nullity of your Defence, in your Objections from Antiquity.  
NOt, but that we willingly confess that your Doctors and defenders of this Article are, and have been great Scholars, Professors of all Arts, diligent in the study of Divine knowledge, and conversant in the Volumes of Ancient Fathers. Notwithstanding have you not heard of a Creature that was 
* Gen. 3. ●.  the wisest of all Beasts; but (alas) wily withal, even to the circumventing of all Mankind? Do you not read of a 
* Luke 16.8.  Wise Steward, but yet unjust? And is it not written that there are some 
* Jbidem.  More wise, (but respectively) in their generation, who nevertheless are Children of darkness? The Authors of the most absurd Paradoxes ought to have been men of singular wit, were it he that defended that the Snow is black. But whether your Doctors have any affinity with these, we shall in the end permit to your judgements. Sure we are, that when Truth shall be manifest, true Wisdom shall be justified of her children.  

Your first kind of Objections, which are taken from Titles attributed to the Pope, or to his Sea, by Counsels: and the falsehood and vanity of the Consequence thereof discovered by Parallels. SECT. 1.  
LAy you down first your General Conclusion what you mean to prove: 
r Romanum Pontificem succedere Petro in Monarchiâ Ecclesiasticâ probatur, etc. Bellar. lib 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 12. Hic primatus probatur ex Concilijs. Jdem Cap. 13. Tùm pergit.  That (say you) the Pope of Rome doth succeed Saint Peter in the Monarchy (or Supreme Dominion) of the Church. Now then, seeing you know the mark, look that you keep true aim, still directing all your Premises to this Conclusion. One General Council saith (say you) that 
s Concilium Nicaenum in initio ante Canonem 6. (Dost in vulgatis, quod alij repetunt in Graecis) Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum: Vnde Ch●lced. Concilium, Act. 16. Primatum antiquae Romae reseruari, etc.  The Church of Rome hath always had the Primacy: Another, that 
t Concilium 2. quod est Constantinop. Theod lib. 5. Hist. Cap. 9 Dicit Se convenisse ex mandato literarum Damasi Pontificis.— Et Ecclesiam Romanam caput esse, se autem membra. See also after at Lit. (z.) & (h).  They met by the commandment of the Pope of Rome, and that the Church of Rome is the Head, and they the members: A third, that 
v Concilium Ephesinum dicit se deponere Nestorium ex ma●dato literarum Coelestini,— nec iudicare ausum esse, sed Coelestini iudicio reseruasse. Euagrius l. 1 c. 4.  They deposed a Bishop by the command of the Pope: A fourth calleth the Pope 
x Concilium Chalcedon. vocat Leonem Vniversalis Ecclesiae Pontificem,— cui Vinea domini commissa est custodia.  The Universal Bishop of the Church, to whom is committed the Vineyard of the Lord: A fifth professeth to 
y Synodus quinta Constantinop. sub Menna: sedem Apostolicam sequimur & obedimus, condemnatos ab ipsâ condemnamus.  Obey the Bishop of Rome: A sixth, yieldeth 
z Septima Synodus Nicaena 2. Act. 2. Petri sedes— primatum obtinet,— omniumque Ecclesiarum Dei caput existit. Haec omnia citantur à Bellarmino quó supra.  Primacy to the Roman Church, and calleth it the Head of all other Churches. So you. Your Enthymeme from hence is this; These Titles have been given by Counsels unto the Pope and Sea of Rome. Ergo the Pope and Church of Rome have Monarchical power, that is, sole Dominion over all Others. Your Antecedents are to be denied, as we shall find just occasion thereunto: but your Consequences and Arguments we do absolutely renounce, and that most truly and necessarily, as will be evident from point to point; and that by Parallelling and comparing other Churches and Bishops, adorned with the equivalent Terms and Titles, whereby you seem to erect your Papal Monarchy.  
Did then the Council mention that they received Mandates from the Popes (which is indeed an egregious 
a Vid. lit. (t) We have proved this false, by your terming the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Yesterday letters, into Mandates by letters. See above cap. 8. §. 3. And in the other testimony at the letter (v) the Greek is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] à legibus Ecclesiasticis: and They add that they were moved by the Epistles of Calestine, which were not Mandat●ry, but Hortatory.  Falsehood) or did one in the Council say that they did Obey the Apostolic Sea of Rome? And did not also Pope Liberius (as 
b Liberius in Epistolâ ad Athanasium. Vt tua mandata inhaesitanter obeam, etc. Apud Baronium, Anno 357. num 73.  you know) writing to Bishop Athanasius, say I desire to hear from you, that I may speedily execute your Mandates and Commands? Ought you not therefore to have distinguished of terms of Courtesy, familiar in the Latin speech? as Cicero teacheth, in his familiar Epistle to his Brother Quintus, I (saith 
c M. T. Cicero ad Quimum fratrem. Tua mandata persequar diligentèr.  he) shall diligently perform your Mandates. Is there any phrase more frequent in our English Compliment, than to show our respects to our friends by calling our yielding to their good and wholesome admonitions, directions, and advices our Obeying; and their requests unto us their Commands? Will you needs draw an Argument of your Pope's Monarchy, out of a bare phrase of courtesy, ordinarily used among Equals? and not thus only, but (in the rigid and exact sense thereof) contrary to the discretion of one of the best Popes? For whereas the Bishop of Alexandria, writing to Pope Gregory, did signify that he had received his Commands, 
d Verbum jussionis cupio ab auditu meo removeri: ego non iussi. Grego. 1. li. 7. Indict. 1. Epist. 30. ad Eulogium Alexandrin.  I command? (saith Gregory) I commanded not: Let not me hear of the word Command, as proceeding from me. The same Pope acknowledged his Subjection and Obedience to the Emperor Mauritius; and your Cardinal answereth, 
e Quod attinet ad obedientiam & subiectionem— ex humilitate— Neque id abhorret a communi usu loquendi, ut obedire nos dicamus, quum facimus quod alter cupit. Bellarmin. lib. 2. de Rom. P●nt. cap. 28.  These (saith he) were words of humility, according to the common tenor of speech, wherein we use to say, we obey, when we perform another man's desire. So he. Where we are compelled to challenge the conscience of your Cardinal, who hearing of Obedience to the Pope, extendeth it to the highest note of Monarchy; and reading of the Pope's Obedience to the Emperor, abaseth it to the lowest strain of humility: especially seeing that those Counsels could not be said, in exact sense, to have Obeyed the Pope, as Subjects; all which (as hath been proved) concluded some things prejudicial to this pretended Monarchy.  
Again, Pope Gregory acknowledged his Obedience in the proper sense of Subjection, and performed it also as much as any Subject possibly could ever do. As for example; The Emperor commandeth that holy Pope Gregory to divulge his Edict and Proclamation, touching a matter, which, in the judgement of the same Gregory himself, was contrary to the Law of God: the Pope admonisheth the Emperor how repugnant his Law was to the Law of God, but performeth the Emperor's Command, in publishing and diuulging his Edict, and hereupon writeth to the Emperor, as followeth: 
f Ego indignus famulus vester, vestrae iussioni subiectus, eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci. Et quia lex ipsa Omnipotenti deo minimè concordat, ecce per suggestionis meae paginam serenissimis dominis nunciavi. Vtrobique ergo absolui quod debui, qui & Imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro deo quod sensi minimè tacui. Gregor. l. 2. Indict. 11. Epist. 62. aut (ut quidam libri habent) 65. Apud Bin. Tom. 2.  I your unworthy servant, subject to your Command, have published your Law, and caused it to be transferred throughout diverse parts. Wherein I have done that which I ought, both in performing Obedience to the Emperor (namely by publishing the Decree) and also to God, by revealing unto you his will. So he. Hardly shall any find a more express example of direct Subjection and Obedience from any Subject, than this is, of that holy Pope, unto the Emperor Mauritius. Nor are all of your side so blind, as not able to discern this Midday-light, For 
g Gregorius primus, idem & Magnus, l. 2. Epist. 64. ingenuè agnoscebat Imperatori à deo concessum ●acerdotibus dominari. Espensaeus in Tit. digress. 10. Paris. 1568.  Gregory, called the First and the Great (saith your Espencaeus) doth ingenuously acknowledge that Emperors have from God a Dominion over Priests.  
Your Second Title is, calling the Sea of Rome HEAD, yea, The Head of all Churches. Must they therefore mean a Monarchical Head (according to your Conclusion) over all other Churches, by way of Dominion? If so (to omit your Additament of 
h For the Council speaks not particularly of the Church of Rome, but of the whole Westchurch, whereas your Article is praecisely of the Church of Rome.  Falsehood) then was Chrysostome to blame, to call Antioch 
i Chrysostom. Hom. 3. ad Populum Antiochenum. Nobis consideratio est de infinitis animabus, de totius orbis Capite.  The Head of the whole World: then was justinian unjust, to require all to 
k justin. Institut. lib. 4. tit. 11. §. Quam formam. Cum necesse est omnes Provincias caput omnium nostrarum civitatum. i e. hanc reginam urbem sequi. Loquitur de Constantinopoli.  Follow Constantinople the regal City, as the Head of all Cities. And so, by pressing Titles, you see your Monarchy turned into a Triarchie.  
A Third Title is the calling of the Pope 
l See above at (●.) These were not the words of the Council, but of Theodorus a Deacon, and of Ischarion another Deacon, and of Paschasius the Legate of the Pope. Haec singula in Actione 3. Concilij Chalcedon.  The Bishop of the Universal Church. which though they were not the words of the Council, but of Two Deacons writing to the Council, and of Paschasius the Popes Legate in the same Council; which the Council, being content with the Pope's Subscription to their Act, would not question for the form: Yet may you not make of this an Argument of Monarchical power of the Church and Bishop of Rome, except you will set more Heads, and Monarches, than One, upon the shoulders of the Church: because the Bishops of Syria instiled john, the Bishop of Constantinople, 
m Domino nostro beatissimo, Patri Patrum, Archiepiscopo, & Oecumenico Patriarchae jonanni, & Sanctae Synodo, Episcopi secundae Syriae. etc. Epist. ad johan. Patriarch. & Synod. Constantinop. 5. apud. Binium. Tom. 2.  The Universal Patriarch; and the Bishop of Rome also entitled Tharasius 
n Cod. Authent. Constitut. 3. Tharasium Generalem Patriarcham, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  The Universal Patriarch. The whole error lurketh under an Equivocation in the word Bishop of the Universal Church, which what it may signify, your own Authors tell you. 
o Episcopus Vniversalis Ecclesiae habet talem in omnes Christianos curam, ut singulis tamen praesulibus sua remaneat administratio, atque officium. Costerus jes. Euchirid. Tract. de Pontif. Solut. 7. & Lindanus Panop. lib. 4. cap. 93.  The Bishop of the Universal Church (say you) doth signify one possessed with a Care and study for the good of the Universal Church. So they: which is common to every Religious Bishop in the Church of Christ, but in a more eminent degree, and larger extent it belongeth to every Patriarch; and this sense we do approve of. Or else it may signify One having All the Bishops of All other Churches under his Subjection; which sense is here seriously and zealously objected by your Cardinal, to prove the Monarchy of the Pope of Rome; and which hath been by S. Gregory Pope of Rome as earnestly abhorred and detested, and as much as his godly heart could execrated (for so he 
* See above, ca 6. §. 6.  speaketh of it) as a New, naughty, proud, profane, blasphemous, and Antichristian Title, which (saith he) none of my Predecessors ever used.  
The next Title attributed unto the Bishop of Rome, by a General Council, is that The Vineyard of the Lord (which is his Church) is said to be committed unto him: which serveth for another post, to support the ruinous Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome. But all in vain; For Pope Eleutherius himself, writing to the Bishops in France, 
p See above, ca 8. §. 5. And as Pope john the First also by the save Argument moved an Archbishop to repress Haeretikes, See above, p. 196.2.  The Universal Church of Christ (saith he) is committed unto you, that you may labour for the good of all men. It were more than Monstrous, that this your Monarch should create so many monarchs over the Church Catholic, as were all the Bishops of France. No, these kind of Attributes have not other signification, than the Care that every Bishop should have in wishing, and to his power endeavouring the Universal good of the whole Church. In which sense Saint Nazianzen, speaking in the praise of Athanasius; 
* See above, cap. 12. §. 3.  To him is committed the Praesidencie of the people of Alexandria, which is as much as to say (saith he) the government of the whole world. So he. How should not this equal, if not exceed, whatsoever can be ascribed to the Pope of Rome? and yet this is no universal power of jurisdiction, but only of Providence and Care, namely Sic quibusdam praeesse, ut prodesse possit universis.  
The last Title is that, which is set down in the First, and last place; That the Primacy above all Bishops is yielded unto the Bishop of the Church of Rome. True; and this Truth was never denied by any Protestant. But what Primacy? of Monarchy and Dominion? No, but of Order, and Honour. For have you never heard of Two Cities in one Kingdom, Two Sheriffs in one City, Two Bailiffs in one Burrough, one of them being Head, and Chief, and having Superiority, and Priority; that is, Primacy above another, and yet without any right of Authority and Dominion one over one another?  
Our next Answer shall be by Retorsion. Four General Counsels have been produced by your side to prove the Church of Rome and Bishop thereof to have Monarchical power over all other Churches and Bishops, in an ambiguity of phrases. Albeit not only these Four, but also 
* See above, ca 8.  Four more have notably impugned your pretended Monarchy, as well in the Ecclesiastical, as in the Temporal power and Prerogative thereof. For you may remember that the First General Council limited the Diocese as well of Rome, as of Alexandria: The Second erected a new Patriarkship, with the no good liking of the Church of Rome: The Third excluded the Pope from all jurisdiction in Cyprus: The Fourth established the former Patriarkship, erected by the Second Council, with privileges equal to Rome; and held the Roman Primacy not to be founded by any Divine Law: The Fifth condemned Pope Vigilius as Schismatical: The sixth, and Seaventh condemned Pope Honorius, as Haereticall: The Eight prescribed a Law to Rome, enjoining her to Observe it. And again, these Eight General Counsels were disposed, at their Assemblies, to prefer the Emperors (of their Times) in place and throne of dignity, above the Popes of Rome.  

CHALLENGE.  
IS then the Popedom of Rome a Monarchy? why? answer us, First is a Monarch limited of his Subjects? Secondly, doth a Monarch suffer others to create Honours within his kingdom? Thirdly, Will a Monarch endure Corrivals, or Equals? Fourthly, Can a Monarch, the supreme judge, be subject to the judgement and condemnation of his people? Fiftly, Must not a Monarch challenge the possession of his chief Throne, in his Parliament, and be so acknowledged by the whole state? If therefore you shall further observe what hath been opposed against your Titles, you may easily understand that not any one, which hath been objected, doth infer your Conclusion, to prove the Pope of Rome a Monarch: except you shall acknowledge Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, Chrysostome Bishop of Antioch, john Bishop of Constantinople, and All the Bishops of France, together with all other Bishops, to whom the same Titles were ascribed, to have been (which breaketh the neck of Monarchy) Monarches as well as the Bishop of Rome.  
And if in the Second place you consider the Testimonies, which we have alleged out of twice Four General Counsels, directly concluding, not by any speciousness of Words, but by their Acts and Deeds, that Popes anciently were no Monarches at all; Then will you conclude, that we have just reason to challenge your Authors of great unconscionableness in their defence; and by the vanity of their proofs, to persuade yourselves of the Truth of our Cause.    

Your Second kind of Objections are taken from Titles attributed by Ancient Fathers, to the Bishop or Church of Rome: The Vanity of the Consequence hereof discovered, First by Equivalences. SECT. 2.  
YOur Cardinal, 
q Bellarmin. li. 2. d● R●m. P●nt. ●. 12.  to prove his former Conclusion, concerning the Succession of the Pope in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy, flieth again after Titles, as namely such as have been attributed unto Popes long since, by Ancient Fathers. We are to discover the falsehood of this Consequence, knowing that the Foundation is too weak to carry so great a weight as is a Monarchy, and sole Dominion of one Atlas, the Pope, over all the Catholic Church of Christ, and to answer the most of those by like Parallels and Equivalences.  
First, 
r Bellar. Ibid. ca 31. ut & in literis marginal. seq. usque ad (●) Papa, ut Linus per Ignatium, quod quamuis communiter aliis,— tamen ex co colligitur Primatus.  The Pope's Primacy is proved (say you) by the word [Papa] that is, Pope, Three ways: One, because though it had been given commonly to others, yet was it attributed to the Bishop of Rome by way of 
s 1. Romano, per Antonomasiam. Conc. Chalced. Act 16—  Excellency, thus; THE Pope, Ergo Monarch. False, for it was bestowed as well upon Saint Cyprian by the way of Excellency: insomuch that at the point of his Martyrdom, when the Paganish Proconsul asked him, Art thou he, whom Christians call their Pope? Saint Cyprian answered, yea, 
1 In Cypriani passione, Proconsuli quaerenti, An tu is es, quem Christiani suum Papam vocant? Respondet Cyprianus, Ego. Pontius de vitâ Cypriani.  JAMES. Next, because (say you) he is also called 
t 2. Quia vocatur Papa Vniversalis Ecclesiae.  The Pope of the Universal Church. Ergò, he is a Monarch. False, for Athanasius also, who is called 
2 Dilecte Papa Athanasi. Arsinius in Apologia Athanasii.  Pope, had his Church called by Constantine 
3 See above,  The Universal Church. Lastly, because (say you) 
u 3. Quia a generalibus Concilijs vocatur Papa; ipse verò neminem vocat Papam vel Patrem, sed omnes filios, aut frates.  The Bishop of Rome himself calleth no other Bishop Pope, but Son, or Brother: Ergo, he is Monarch. False, for Pope Cornelius likewise (as is 
4 Cornelius Episcopus Romanus Cyprianum Carthaginensem Papam vocat, & Papatem. On●iphrius initio Tract. obscurarum vocum.  confessed) called Cyprian Pope: yea and Cyprian 
5 Cyprianus li. 2. Epistola 8.  called Pope Cornelius Brother, as also Epiphanius (as is further 
6 Binius Tom. 2. Conc. pa. 365. a  confessed) called Pope Hormisda Brother; so little doth the name of Brother, or Title of Pope avoid the Equality among 
* See hereafter at (o)  Bishops.  
The Second name is 
x Pater Patrum, sic Damasus ab Episcopo Cathag.  The Father of Fathers, given to Damasus, Ergo, he was Monarch. False, for if Others were called Popes (as you have heard) all is one; because, as is 
7 Papa, i. e. Pater Patrum. Salmeron jes. Tom. 13. in Epist. Pauli▪ pa. 172. Col. 2.  confessed, Papa, and Pater Patrum, Pope and Father of Fathers is the same. And also Saint Polycarpus was called 
* See after, as 〈◊〉. 16. and above cap. 12. §. 1.  The Father of Christians.  
Thirdly, Fourthly, and Fifthly, the Bishop of Rome (say you) was called 
y Po●tifex Christianorum 〈…〉.  The high Priest of Christians, yea, 
z Summus Pontifex ab Hieronymo, & aliis.  The Chief Priest, yea 
a Princeps Sacerdotum a Valentiniano, & quod Concilium Carthaginense vetat ne quis sic vocetur, Concilium hoc statuit solum de Episcopis Africa.  The Prince of Priests; Ergo, Monarch. False, for Basil, who was no Pope, was called 
8 Nazianzenus vocabat Basilium Magnum, Magnum Pontificem Canis. jes. ex Nazian. Epist. 38. add Simplic.  Great Priest: Athanasius also was called 
* See hereafter at the letter s.  The Master of Priests, and you have many in the Church of Rome, under Monarches, yea or Bishops, that are called Arch Priests: and whatsoever your phrase be, it cannot be higher or chiefer than Summus, or Chief, which (by your own Conf●ssions) hath been communicated to 
* See above ca 12. §. 3.  Non-popes'.  
Sixthly, the Bishop of Rome (say you) was called 
b Vicarius Christi a Bernardo.  The Vicar of Christ. Ergo Monarch. False, for Pope Eusebius, alluding to that of the Apostle, concerning all the Apostles, 
* 2 Cor. 5.20.  We are the Ambassadors [in Christi vice] in Christ his stead, and applying it to Bishops, saith 
9 Eusebius Papa Epist. 3. apud Bin. Tom. 1. Episcopis Tusciae & Campaniae (alluding to that of Saint Paul, Ephes. 1. & 2. Cor. 5.) Legatione fungimur pro Christo, Caput enim Christus est, Christi autem Vicarij sunt eius sacerdotes, qui vice Christi, legatione funguntur.  There is one Head of the Church, Christ, but the Vicars of Christ are they, that in Christ his stead, are Ambassadors for Christ.  
Seaventhly, the Bishop of Rome (say you) was called 
c Caput Ecclesiae, a Concilio Chalced. & à Gregorio Omnium Ecclesiarum Caput sedes Romana.  The Head of the Church; and his Seat, or Church The Head of Churches: Ergo the Pope is Monarch. False, for Athanasius was likewise called 
10 Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See above, Cap. 12. §. 4.  The top of the Head of all and Cyril in a Council 
11 Patres Concilij Ephesini in Epistolâ ad Imperatorem, vocant Cyrillum Caput Episcoporum congregatorum. Bin. Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 8.  The Head of the Assembly; and Antioch is called 
12 Chrysostom. Hom. 3. ad pop. Antioch. Antiochia. caput totius orbis. Ibidem de Constantinop. in Epistolâ ad Jnnocentium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The Head of the whole world.  
The Eight, and Ninth, The Bishop of Rome is called 
d Fundamentum Ecclesiae ab Hieronymo.  The Foundation of the Church, and 
e Pastor ovilis Dominici ab Ambrosio.  Pastor of the Lords flock: Ergo, Monarch. False, for Athanasius also is called 
13 Damascenus appellat Athanasium Ecclesiae dei Fundamentum. Teste Canisio Catechis. initio, Encom. Patrum.  The Foundation of the Church of God. And (if you speak De iure) the word Pastor of the whole flock was proper to the Apostles, who received in their joint Commission a power and Authority of 
* Mark. 16.15.  Preaching throughout the world to every humane creature, without any limitation; insomuch, that (as Saint Augustine saith 
14 Name & Petrus pastor, & Paulus Pastor, caeterique Apostoli pastors. August. Tract 47. in johan.  Peter was a Pastor, and Paul was a Pastor, and the other Apostles were also Pastors. But there could not be so many Monarches over the whole Church. But if you understand thereby Curam, & Studium, Care, & Study, which by the Office of Pastorship, every one is bound unto, according to his possibility, towards the good of the Universal Church, in this, all other Bishops are Pastors as well as the Pope; as hath been confessed.  
The Tenth. The Bishop of Rome (say you) is called 
f Rector Domus ab Ambrosio.  The Rector or Governor of the house of God. Ergo, Monarch. False, for it is not spoken Vniversally, but Indefinitely, In materiâ contingenti, with allusion to the words of Saint Paul to Timothy, thus; 
* 1 Tim. 3.15.  That thou mayst know how to converse in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God: namely, with an universal care over All, but a Particular power over that his Church of Ephesus, which was his Bishopric: and yet Timothy was no Monarch.  
The Eleventh. The Bishop of Rome (say you) is called 
g Custos vineae a Concil. Chalcedonensi: cui vinea Domini commissa est.  He to whom the Lords Vineyard is committed: Ergo, he is Monarch. False, for Pope Eleutherius, as you 
15 See above, cap. 8. §. 4.  know, writ to the Bishops of France, thus; The universal Church (saith he) is committed unto you: yet he meant nothing less than to judge them Spiritual Monarches.  
The Twelfth. The Bishop of Rome is called (say you) 
h Pater & Do●●or omnium Christianorum.  The Father, and Doctor of all Christians: Ergo Monarch. False, for the First of these was Attributed unto Polycarpus a Bishop of Asia, who was called 
16 Euseb. hist. l. 4. ca 14. Iste est Pa●er Christianorum. . The Father of Christians. And because the Second concerneth your Faith, and the judgement of the Bishop of Rome, as an Oracle, for the full determination of Faith (as being therefore worthy to be held Monarchical) we say that your Consequence from this Title, The Doctor of Christians, and the like, is as false as any of the rest, because of the Equivalency of Attributes given to other learned and Orthodox Fathers, as followeth.   

Our second discovery of the falsehood and vanity of your Papal Defence, from Titles borrowed from Ancient Fathers, by our like Equivalences. SECT. 3.  
IF your Consequence from Titles must needs conclude a Monarchical Pope, then mark (we pray you) how many monarchs must be acknowledged in the purest times of Christ his Church, after the Apostles, who notwithstanding never were lifted in the Catalogue of your Popes; wherein we make bold to call your own Authors to witness.  
First then, to answer you (as Logicians speak) in your very Terms, look into the 
(17.) 1. Origenes est secundus post Apostolos Ecclesiarum Magister: sic ● Didymo. Sacrorum omnium expositorum victor, ab Hieronymo. Teste Sixto Senensi Bibl. lib. 4. Tit. Origen. §. Sed.  marginals and you shall find. (1) Origen called by Didymus, The Master of the Churches, and by Saint Hierom, Most excellent expounder of Scriptures. 
2 Chrysostomus, de quo Innocentius Papa Epistolâ ad Arcad. Imperatorem: Eiecisti à Throno suo magnum totius orbis Doctorem. Teste Canisio jes. initio Catechismi.  Chrysostome called by Pope Innocentius, The Great Doctor of the whole world. 
3 Augustinus, de quo venerabilis. Beda in Chron. Omnium Doctor eximius Ecclesiarum.  Augustine called The most singular Doctor of all Churches. And 
4 Hilarius, Doctor maximus, Ecclesiae Ca●holicae columna meritò habitus. Bellarm. de Script. Ecclesiast. Tit. Hilarius.  Hilarius by your Cardinal worthily accounted The greatest Doctor and Pillar of the Catholic Church.  
Next, if you would have Metaphorical phrases, of like efficacy and Emphasis, you may observe; 
5 Athanasius egregium Ecclesiae columen, cuius dogmata pro Orthodoxae fidei lege haberentur. Sic Nazianzenus, in Oratione de laude eius. Et Ecclesiae Dei columen; sic Damascenus in sermone de Defunctis. Teste Canisio Jes. ante Catechismum.  Athanasius anciently called The stay and foundation of the Church. 
6 Basilius Magnus à Nazianzeno Epistolâ ad Basilium, Oculus orbis: & à Gregorio Nysseno in vita Epiph: Os Ecclesiae, Teste Canisio, quò supra. Et it●rum à Gregorio Nazianzeno, Orbis Lumen, Sol inter Sydera, in Oratione ad Basil. Teste Baronio, Anno 371. num. 93.  Basil the mouth of the Church, the eye of the world, the light of the world, and the Sun among the Stars.  
Lastly, if you require a further expression and commendation of the credit and Authority of the forenamed Fathers, in the Truth of their Doctrines, then may you happen upon some which will more Emphatically and significantly give your Papal monarchs the mate; as namely, that the Doctrines of Athanasius were of that credit, that they were held for 
7 See above at the number 5.  A Rule of the Orthodox Faith: 
8 Gregorius Nazianzenus, Is in divino Eloquio potens, Theologi nomen sortitus est: sic Damascen. serm. de Defunctis. Teste Canisi● initio Catechisms, Et de eo Ruffinus; Qui solus sit, de cuius fide ne dissidentes quidem inter se (ut fieri solet) parts disputare potuerint: quia & hoc obtinuit apud Deum, & Ecclesias Dei, meriti, ut quicunque ausus fuerit eius doctrinae in aliquo refragari, ex hoc ipso, quia ipse magis Haereticus arguitur. Manifestum enim iudicium est, non esse rectae fidei, qui in fide Gregorio non concordat. Teste Possevino Apparat. Tit. Greg. Nazian.  Nazianzen to have been of so great estimation, for his Doctrine, that he obtained the surname of Divine, primitively ascribed to the Evangelist Saint john; insomuch that whosoever dissented from him in any point of Doctrine, was thereupon so much rather judged an Heretic, every one being deemed not to be sound in the Faith, that accorded not to him in belief. 
9 Ambrose, de quo Basilius Epist. 55 ad Ambrosium: Commissa sibi magni & praeclari navigij Christi, Ecclesiae videlicet Dei, in fide Christi gubernacula accepit. Teste Canisio jes. quo suprà.  Ambrose to have received and governed the helm of the Faith in the ship of Christ, which is his Church. 
10 Augustinus, ad quem Hieronymus Epist. 80. Ca●holici omnes te ut antiquae rurs●s fidei conditorem venerantur. Teste eodem Canisio.  Augustine to have been honoured of all, as the builder again of the ancient Faith; and 
11 Cyrillus Alexandrinus, de quo Niceph Hist. lib. 14. cap. 34. Ex quo tempore Caelestini Pontificis locum in Synodo obtinuit, fama est, Papae appellationem, & ut orbis universi I●dex appellaretur, accepisse. Teste Canisio Jes. quo supra.  Cyril of Alexandria to have been called The judge of the whole world. Thus much of the twelfth Title.  
The Thirteenth. The Bishop of Rome (say you) was called by Saint Augustine 
k Ecclesiae Apostolicae prasul per Antonomasiam, sine additione Romanae.  The Bishop of the Apostolic Sea, (meaning the Roman) without addition of the word Roman. Ergò, by way of Excellency it argueth him to be Monarch. False, for so the Bishop of Alexandria was in like manner called by Saint Hierome 
18 Quid facient Ecclesiae orientis, quid Aegypti, & sedis Apostolicae. Hieron. adversus Vigilantium. By which are understood the Church's subject to Alexandria the patriarchal and Apostolical Seat in Egypt, where Vigilan●ius lived: even as Saint Augustine called Rome, because it was the only Apostolical Seat in the West, wherein Augustine lived.  The Bishop of the Apostolical Sea, without any addition of the word Alexandrian. Yea, but you say, the Bishop of Rome is further said to 
l Et dicitur Principatum Apostolicae sedis tenere.  hold the Principality or Chiefedome of the Apostolical Sea: Ergò, Monarch. False, for the Bishop of Antioch also was said to possess 
19 johannes Antiochiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Theod. lib. 3. cap. 17.  The Primacy of the Apostolic Sea: yea and 
* Age, percurre Ecclesia● Apostolicas apud quas Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur; Corinthus, Philippis, Ephesus, etc. Tert. Prescript. cap. 36.  Others also. Oh but further (say you) the office of the Bishop of Rome is called an 
m Et per Vicarios Leonis, sedes eius dicitur Apostolatns.  Apostleship, Ergò, Monarch. False, for if this Consequence be extended to the times of the Apostles, then must judas Iscariot have been a Monarch, who had an Apostleship, Act. 1.25. And Mathias after him should have been another Monarch, who was chosen into the same Apostleship, from which judas fell. And if you restrain it to aftertimes, then can no Bishop properly arrogate an Apostleship, which was an Office, (as your 
* See below at f.  selves confess) Proper unto the immediate Apostles of Christ.  
Lastly, the Bishop of Rome (say you) was called 
n Vniversalis, in Concilio Chalced. Hactenùs Bellarmin.  The Universal Bishop: Ergò Monarch. False; for (as is 
20 Azorius Moral. part. 2. lib. 4. pag. 423.  confessed) the Popes of Rome by connivency yielded to the Bishop of Constantinople, that the Bishop of that Sea should use the same Title of Universal Bishop, as well as the Bishop of Rome: and yet was he no more Monarch, than Cyril the now Patriarch of Alexandria, who is instiled 
21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In his letters to George Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.  Pope and Universal judge at this day.   

Our third Discovery of the Falsehood and Vanity of the Papal Defence, from bare Titles, is by your own Contradictions. SECT. 4.  
HItherto have we examined your Titles, given to the Popes of Rome, in the equal scales of Comparison with other Bishops, and find them all too light, neither scale being able to carry the weight of a Monarch. We now proceed to a further Confutation of your Arguments & Consequences, in many of them from your own Confessions and Reasons. You have first objected the Title of Pope of Rome, as 
o Antiquissimum Episcopi Romani nomen. Bellar. lib. 2. d● Rom. P●nt. cap. 31.  The most ancient name of the Bishop of Rome: yet you confess that there was a time so Ancient, when 
p Antiquitùs nec Papae, nec Pontifices, sed tantum Romani Episcopi vocabantur. Baldus de Coronat. §. Haec verò.  Neither the name of Papa, or Pontifex, were attributed to the Bishop of Rome, but only the bare Title of Bishop of Rome. Again, of this name you have affirmed, that it was Anciently given to the Bishop of Rome 
* See above at s page 214. and at k page 218.  Per Antonomasiam, by way of Excellence, as proper unto him; and yet you grant that 
q Papae nomen peculiariter attributum est Romano Pontifici ex Decreto Gregorij 7. in Synodo Romanâ, anno 1073. Lorinus jes. in Act. 16. & Azorius jes. Jnstitu●. Moral. part. 2. lib. 2 cap. ult.  The name of Pope was appropriated only to the Bishop of Rome by the Decree of Pope Gregory the seaventh, in a Council at Rome about the year 1073. Again, you noted the Bishop of Rome to be called 
* See above at 't and u page 214.  Papa Ecclesiae, Father of the Church, as if he were altogether Father, and could not by any Relation be Filius Ecclesiae, the Child of the Church, or Subject to a Council. Which bladder of pride was pricked by the Fathers of the Council of Basil, arguing thus: 
r Si matter omnium fidelium est Ecclesia, Romanum etiam Episcopum filium habet, alias (sicut beatissi●us Augustinus praedicat) numquam habebit deum patrem, qui non habet Ecclesiam matrem.— Papa igitur subesse debet Concilio. Aeneas Silvius Com. de Gestis Conc. Basil. Fol. 5.  If the Church Catholic be the Mother of all the faithful, than the Bishop of Rome ought to be Child unto her, else (according to that saying of blessed Augustine) he cannot have God for his Father, that hath not the Church for his Mother. So they. Have you not now, by your propriety of the name Papa, spun a fair thread, whereby you strangle your Popes and Popedom itself?  
As for the fourth 
* See above at z.  Title of Summus Pontifex, or Chief Priest, you have avouched from thence, that the Pope of Rome is the only Monareh: And yet yield that there may be 
s Dico, in unoquoque genere possunt esse duo Summa, per Negationem, i.e. quorum nihil est superius: sed non per Affirmationem, i.e. ut unumquodque sit omnium supremum. Azorius jes. Institut. Moral. lib. 4. cap. 4. part. 2.  Two Chiefs in every kind, namely Negatively, as that which hath none above it; although not Affirmatively chief, as that which is above all others. So then, it is not necessary, that the word Chief should infer a Supremacy; else Pope Leo was far overshot, when speaking of Bishops in General, he called them 
t Haec Praesbyteris non licent, qui Pontificatus Apicem non habent. Quae omnia solis deberi summis (loquitur de omnibus Episcopis) Pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur. Leo Papa Epist. 88 de privilegio Chorepiscoporum.  Summi Pontifices, Chief Priests: and so making All other Popes, made himself none at all; because still the Monarchy can be but of One. Nor thus only, but further you, who by one Cardinal have made these words Pontifex Maximus, and Sacerdos Summus to be Notes of Monarchy in the Popes, do by another Cardinal contradict it, saying, that 
u Nè Pontifex Maximus alios super se, vel sibi aequalem habere videretur— Pontificis maximi nominis amplitudini iure iunctus est titulus, Episcopus Episcoporum. Baronius Tom. 2. Annal. Anno 216. num. 11.  The name of Pontifex Maximus may admit of Equality with others, except there be joined with this another Title of Bishop of Bishops. Which also, as you know, is insufficient, because Pope Clemens (in the Epistle which you call his) called the Apostle Saint james 
x Clemens in Epistola ad Jacobum. Clemens jacobo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  The Bishop of Bishops, even in the days of Saint Peter.  
The ninth Title you contended for, as proper to the Pope, was the name of Pastor, or Shepherd of the flock of Christ: Notwithstanding of all other Bishops in the Christian Church, the Pope hath least right to be called Pastor, except it be Per Antiphrasim, à non pascendo; because you cannot reckon for some hundreds of years scarce any One Pope that professedly discharged his Function of Preaching; albeit Preaching be acknowledged more than once by your Fathers of the Council of Trent, to be 
y Praedicatio est praecipuum munus Episcopi. Concil. Trid. Sess 24. Decret. Reform. cap 4.  The Chief office of a Bishop. If therefore (as your 
z Non meretur nomen Pastoris, qui non personaliter intendit Gregi suo Bellarm. Admoni●. ad Epis. Theanens. p. 10.— Omnes Episcopi, nisi legitimè impediuntur, tenentur per se praedicare, quia dixit Christus, Pasce oves meas; non dixit, cura ut alij pascant. Ibidem pag. 22.  Cardinal himself preached) He deserveth not the name of a Pastòr, who doth not personally attend his flock: and if (as the same Cardinal proceedeth,) Every Bishop ought to preach, except he have lawful impediments, nor is it sufficient to perform this by others, because (saith he) Christ said not to Peter, have a care that others feed, but feed Thou my sheep. This than your Cardinals one Reason alone, of itself, doth most justly untitle your Bishop of Rome of the most proper Attribute of a Bishop; and if no Bishop, than no Bishop of Bishops, or Chief Bishop; because there cannot be a greater Solecism, than to call one a Chief in any calling, the Chief duty whereof he chiefly and specially neglecteth. You will say the Exception, Except he be lawfully hindered, will excuse him: Nay, but it doth accuse him rather, because we must not imagine that there was not almost any one Pope, for the space of many hundred years, who could not in his whole life time find just leisure to study and preach one Sermon.  
The thirteenth (which only hath been hitherto omitted) is 
* See above at i  Sponsus Ecclesiae, The Bridegroom of the Church. This likewise you contend for, as for a Pearl proper to the Crown of a Papal Monarch. Albeit 
a Concilium Lugdunense, See above.  you know that this was not put into the Pope's Mitre, until the year 1000. And what more? the Pope with you must be (forsooth) The Vicar of Christ, who is the High Pastor of the Church; and he must be also the Spouse of the same Church, which is called by Saint john 
* Joh. 3▪ 29.  The Spouse of Christ. How did Saint Bernard like of this Divinity? He writing to Pope Eugenius admonisheth him not to call himself The Bridegroom of the Church, which is the Spouse of Christ; For 
b Bernard. Epist. 237. ad Papam Eugen. Nemo committit Sponsam suam Vicario. Vt citat à Bell. loc. seq.  No man (saith he) will commit his Spouse to his Vicar. Let your Cardinal Gloss hereupon (as he doth) by distinguishing between 
c Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 31.  Principal and Inferior Bridegroom, and of Intrinsical, and Extrinsecall generation: all will not satisfy Saint Bernard his Reprehension of the Pope's abuse of the word. For we demand, did the Pope use the Title aright? why then needed he this Admonition of Saint Bernard? but did he need this Admonition? then did he (in the judgement of Saint Bernard) falsely arrogate the Title. We believe your jesuit, who saith, 
d Pererius in Gen. 29. disp. ult. Sponsus nisi Vnicus.  There is but one Bridegroom of the Church: but more S. Bernard; yet neither of both in respect of Saint john, who saith: 
* Joh. 3.  He that hath the Bride is the Bridegroom, but the friend of the Bride is he that standeth by and heareth. Which dissolveth your former distinction; for Bride and Bridegroom are Relatives, the Bride therefore, which is the Church, is affianced unto the Bridegroom Christ: how? only in Soul? Is she not betrothed in Body also? Else what meaneth that saying, 
* 1. Cor. 6.20.  Ye are bought with a price, glorify therefore God in your bodies, and in your souls? Ergo the Relation is both Outward and Inward: every other (were he the best of Christians) is but a 
e Aquinas Catenâ aureâ in joh. cap. 3. Theophylact: Nullus alius Sponsus nisi solus Christus, omnes namque Doctores Paranymphi sunt. Et Beda: Sponsum commendavit amico, i.e. Ordini praedicatorum, qui eam non sibi sed Christo zelare debet.  Paranymph, and a friend of the Bride at the most; as Theophylact and Bede do both teach.  
In the foureteenth, of the name Apostleship, you seem to glory and boast: notwithstanding you are not ignorant that it could not be properly ascribed unto him, knowing that there is as much difference between 
f Apostolatus ab Episcopatu differt, quia ille immediatè à Christo vocatur, & certè habet Spiritum sanctum, & omnium E●clesiarum curam sustinet: immediatè vocatus, uni certae sedi praeest. Espensaeus Comment. ad 1. Tim. 1. in princ.  Apostleship, and Bishopric, as there is between one that hath a General Commission to go where he will, and him that hath a Particular Charge, fixed to a certain place.  
As for the last Title of Universal Bishop, which you say was given to the Pope by a Council, as implying a Monarchy; we answer that there is a falsehood in the Antecedent: For it was not the Synod, but the Popes own Legates that vented out that Vanity. And for the Consequence and sense of the word, betokening a Monarchy over All Others, as Subjects, this hath 
* See above cap. 6. §. 6.  been proved, from Pope Gregory, to be a detestable and Antichristian falsehood. And your Gratian hath it in express words, as the direct sense of the Council of Africa, wherein Saint Augustine had his voice, saying; 
g Vniversalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur. Gratian: Decret. part. 1. Distinct. 99 Primae sedis.  Neither may the Pope of Rome be called Universal.   

Our fourth Discovery of the Falsehood and Vanity of the Papal Defence taken from ancient Titles, by the Blasphemousnesse of some Titles, which have been newly conferred upon Popes. SECT. 5.  
IF your Popes had thought these former Titles sufficient, then questionless would they not have affected other Attributes far more transcendent, which of later times are given unto them by their Parasites, and swallowed up of themselves, as their spirit and vital breath, which you may find in the 
h 
1. Bzovius in libro qui inscribitur Romanus Pontifex. Vbi citatur Abrahamus Polanus, ex Tigliatio Archiepiscopo ad Junocentium octawm. Regno & vnctione Christus prae pa●ticipibus suis. Heb. 1.9.  
2. Ex Barnardin● Just. Veneto Orat. Paul. 2. Cum cuius coelesti maiestate nullum Diadema comparetur.  
3. Ex Balbo Galliae Orat: Pio 4. Papae: Cuius vox pro Oraculo.  
4. Ex Ferdinando Val. Lusitano Oratione ad Innocent. 8. Vniversalis Ecclesiae Pastor (iuxta Apostolum) super omnem Potestatem, & Principatum, & omne quod nominatur, sive in hoc, sive in futuro seculo (Ephes. 1.) à Deo constitutus. Bzou. pag. 56.  
5. Bellar-Contr. de Rom. Pont. in Praefat. Sixto Quinto Pontifici Est lapis positus in Zion, probatus, pretiosus, angularis, fundamentum summum. Isa. 28.16. And by Justus Baronius lib. 3. Epist. 1.  
6. Stapleton Ep. Nuncupat. ad Gregorium 13. ante Princip. Doctrine. Sub cuius supremi in tertis numinis tutelâ opus meum in lucem emissum. Et in Glossa edit. approbat. Greg. Extravag. verb. Significanti. Tit. 14. cap. 4. Dominus noster Deus Papa.   Marginals, as I. Pope Innocentius the eight to be called in Royalty and Unction CHRIST above his fellows; an Attribute proper unto jesus Christ himself, Heb. 1.9. II. Pope Paulus the second to be called a Celestial Majesty; which all know to be proper to God. III. Pope Pius the fourth to be called The voice and Oracle of Truth, proper also to Christ, who saith, I am the truth, joh, 14.6. IV. Again, Pope Innocent the eight to be called One above all Principalities and powers, and whatsoever is named in this or in the other world; plainly proper to Christ, Ephes. 1. V. Pope Sixtus Quintus called The cornerstone in Zion, proved, precious, and chief foundation; proper to Christ, Isa. 28.14. and 1. Pet. 2. as is confessed by your own 
i Sixtus Senenfis Bib. in locum Isaiae. Pintus in Isaiam 28. Aquinas in 1. Cor. 13. & 1. Pet. 2. Salmeron. in 1. Pet. 2. Maldonat. in Mat. 21.41. Perer. in Dan. 2.  Expositors. VI Pope Gregory the thirteenth (stop your ears) called Power, Might, or Majesty of God upon earth; and again, Our Lord God the Pope. We pretermit many the like Blasphemies.  
Yea, but (will you say) Others gave unto them those Titles, they required them not. Then let Herod excuse himself that the people cried aloud in magnifying his wisdom, and saying, 
* Act. 12.22.  The voice of God and not of man: yet became he in the end but a lousy god. Moreover Simon Magus is not read to have required that estimation, as to be called 
* Act. 8.10.  The mighty power of God. Nor can you deny that these Titles were used of Authors in their Dedicatory Epistles, and in their personal Orations unto Popes; and this last authorized by Pope Gregory the thirteenth, in the Papal Gloss itself. A fifth answer remaineth, which we shall refer to the Section next following the Challenge.  

CHALLENGE.  
THE Fable of the Chough or Daw is not unknown unto you, which plumed himself with the stolen feathers of other Birds of all sorts: in the end, when all the other Birds had challenged each one her own feather, and pulled it from her, she poor and naked Cornicula became a matter of scorn and laughter unto them all. Semblably this your strange and monstrous creature Papal Monarch have you adorned and bedecked with fifteen Titles, as it were so many Feathers, which upon due Examination, by just Parallels, your own Confessions, and Reasons, are found some of them very new, most of them common to other Bishops as well as to the Pope, and almost all (in your Papal sense) very uniustifiable: besides your later additament of other Epithets Transcendent, and (as you see) notably Blasphemous. Then which what better manifestation can there be of the vanity and impiety of your Papistical Defence? Having spoken of the Attributes, we now come to the Sentences of Ancient Fathers.    

Your Objection from Ancient Fathers is taken from their Sentences both Greek and Latin. First of the Greek Fathers, by discovering the Falsehood and Vanity of your Papal Defence. SECT. 6.  
Pope's of Rome in Primitive Times, by their constancy in the Faith, by their integrity of life, by the Primacy of their place, in their priority of Order, and by the General estimation which was held of them in each of these respects, obtained an Authority of credit to help all Bishops and Patriarches in their extremities; only they had no Universal jurisdiction or Dominion over them. Hence are the Sentences of Fathers Objected in the 
k Bellarmin. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 15. Ex patribus Graecis.  Margin, which do appear so notably abused by your Objections; The absurdities of whose Consequence we choose in this place to discover by Similitudes, as the Prophet Nathan dealt with David. The Case than standeth thus, as if they would have taught those holy Fathers to have argued Absurdly. As from the 
l Jgnatius. Ecclesiae sanctificatae quae praesidet in regione Romanorum. Ergo intelligit Ecclesiam Romanam esse Caput omnium aliarum.  First, namely Ignatius, thus: The Church of York hath a Seat of Primacy, in the Province of York, therefore that Church is the Head of all Churches within this Kingdom. From the 
m Iraeneus Triae. 1. Necesse esse ad Romanam Ecclesiam omnem Ecclesiam convenire. 2. propter potentiorem principalitatem. 3. In hoc conseruata est ea, quae ab Apostolis recepta est Traditio. This might have been spoken of the Imperial power of that City. For although Constantinople was the place of the Emperor's residence, yet the Emperor was at that time really the Emperor of the Romans: but be it Ecclesiastical power, yet was not the necessity of recourse unto it absolute and perpetual, but occasional for that time. For Iraenaeus showeth that he might have proved his Traditions from other Churches (Longum esset omnes enumerare Ecclesias, etc.) but for brevity sake he instanced only in Rome, and the rather for the powerful principality of that Sea, in the preservation of Original Truth. And remember this Irenaeus was he, that consented with the Asian Bishop● that were excommunicated by Pope Victor. See abou●. Cap. 9 §. 2.  Second, to wit Iraeneus, as if thus: It is now necessary for all sorts of Tradesmen to have recourse to London for their wares, for the abundant store which is in that City; therefore this Necessity is absolute, nowhere but at London; and perpetual, never any where else can it be, but at London. From the Third, viz. 
n Epiphanius Haeres. 68 Vrsatius & Valens Episcopi— ad Papam ●ulium prosecti, pro reddendâ ratione de suo delicto. Ergò, Papa Romanus Episcoporum judex. The same parties that had columniated Athanasius, and thereby, as much as lay in them discredited the Pope, who had justified him, asked pardon for their offence, both of Athanasius and of Pope julius  Epiphanius, and the Fourth, viz. 
o Athanasius Apolog. 2. Episcopos eosdem à Papa julio Delicti veniam petijsse Et Epistolâ ad Felicem Papam: Episc●pos Romanos in summitatis arce constitutos omnium Ecclesiarum Curam habere. Of [Cu●am habere] see above Cap. 8. §. 5.  Athanasius, as if thus: A.R. in the County of Suffolk craved pardon of the Sheriff of Middlesex, for a notorious offence done unto him. Ergo he accounted that Sheriff to have Authority of a Sheriff in the County of Suffolk. From the 
p Dionysius Alexdrinus. Is apud Romanum Pontificem accusatus; Ergo, Papa communis omnium in lex. It is no extraordinary thing for one Patriarch to be accused before his fellow-Patriarch, yet not judicially, but by Confederation, that the guilty person be deprived of his Communion with whom the Cause is pleaded.  Fifth, that is, Dionysius Alexandrinus, as if thus: Two Gentlemen (one being justice of Peace) agreed to have their difference to be ordered by another justice of Peace. Ergo, one of these justices of Peace hath Dominion over the other. Of the 
q Basilius Epist. 52. ad Athanasium; tribuit Romano Episcopo authoritatem visitandi Ecclesias orientis. See above Capit. 12. §. 4. & after at §. 7.  sixth, which is Basil, much hath been said already, somewhat more presently after. From the 
r Gregorius Nazianzenus in Carmine dicit Romanam Ecclesiam semper conse●uasse veram de Deo sententi●m, ut decet urbem quae toti orbi praesidet. He saith not Ecclesia praesidet, but V●bs; meaning the Temporal state of Rome. Ob Sol. Although the Emperor resided at Constantinople, yet was he styled of Rome, The Roman Emperor. For Rome was after this time called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Omnium Civitatum facilè Princeps. Socrates lib. 2. Cap 11. Theod. lib. 4. Cap. 8.  Seventh, which is Gregory Nazianzen, and the 
s Zomen. lib 3. Cap. 9 Propter sedis dignitatem cura omnium ad Iulium spectabat, singulis Ecclesiam suam restituit, nempe Athanasium Alexandrino, & Paulo Constantinopolitano He did so pro posse suo, but was resisted by the Eastern Bishops, and reviled. Ibid Where Zozomen is not to be understood to speak these words from his own judgement, but from the opinion that Pope Julius had of himself. For it followeth in Zozomen, that those East-Bishop●, expostulating the Cause with Pope julius, did protest against him, saying that he had no more to do with restoring Athanasius Excommunicated by them, than they had to restore Novatus Excommunicated by himself. And the help that Athanasius had was not in the Pope absolutely, but in the Synod.  Eight namely Zozomene, as if thus: The Parish within the Tower of London liveth in peace, as becometh that place, which commandeth the whole City. As though the word [Command] in this place did note the Ecclesiastical part, that is, the Parish to be Commander, and not the Tower itself, Politickely understood. From the 
t Chrysost. Epist. 1. ad Innocentium Papam. Obsecro ut scribas, ut illi qui iniquè egerunt poenae Ecclesiastic●rum legum subiaceant. Ergò Papa summus Pontifex etiam Graecorum 2. Agnoscit Papae Paternam benevolentiam; Ergò patrem. 3. Orat Papam nè mimicos ejus eijciat. When the General Canons of Election of a Patriarch were broken, well might Chrysostome seek help of a Co-Patriarch Innocentius, to defend the Canon, so far as his Authority would reach, and to punish ●hem by Excommunication, which was but only a Separation from Communion with his own Church. And Innocentius himself confesseth (Epist. ad Chrysost.) that he would not restore Chrysostome without a Synod. See Binius Tom. 1. and when he had done his best, his Authority was rejected with scorn; yet could Chrysostome do no less than thankfully acknowledge his Fatherly care, being now no Bishop, but Deposed.  Ninth, to wit Crysostome, as if a King of Poland unjustly deposed by his people, and flying to the King of Hungary for help, to preserve the Law of Nations, for the Regality of Kings, and thanking him for his Fatherly love and care; did thereby acknowledge the King of Hungary to be a King over the King of Poland. Of the 
u Cyrillus Alexandrinus Epist. 10. ad Nest. & Epist. 11. ad Clerum et populum Constantinop. Nestorium dicit excommunicandum ab omnibus, nisi intra terminos à Papa praescriptos se revocet. Et ad Coelestinum. Num velit cum Nestorio ad tempus aliquod communicari, petit ab eo. Ergò Is administer, Papa iudex. Rursus in libro de Thesauro; Debemus capiti nostro Romano Pontifici adhaerere. See after §. 7.  Tenth, to wit, Cyrill of Alexandria, presently after. From the 
x Theodoretus Episcopus Asianus ad Leonem. Obsecro ut mihi opem feras, iudicium tuum appellanti. Meaning a subsidiary judgement, not absolute. Binius Tom. 2. Annot in Conc. Chalced. Sess. 8. pag. 184. Theodoretus Cypri Episcopus depositus, & tanquam qui Nestorianus esset exulate coactus, ad Romanum Pontificem, aliosque orientis Epi●copos, hac de re diu multumque conquestus, se vere Catholicum esse probans literis significavit,— in hoc consessu ins●iterunt, ut Anathema Nestorio dicerent, sed in pristivam fidem est restitutus; namely, by the Synod of the Bishops in the East.  Eleventh, that is Theodoret, somewhat differing from the former, thus; As if the Bishop of Arles in France, being deposed by a Synod of his fellow Bishops, for Heresy, desiring help for his Restitution from the Bishop of Paris, and also from other Bishops within his own Province, by avouching unto him and them his Orthodox Faith; and being thereupon restored by the same Synod, by which he was repulsed, did therefore judge the Bishop of Paris the Supreme judge of all the other Bishops. From the 
y Acacius in Epist. ad Smplicium. Solicitudinem omnium Ecclesiarum, secundùm Apostolum, circumferentes, nos indesinenter hortamini. Acacius meant not to make the Pope a Monarch by this, because he alludeth to that saying of the Apostle, (not of Peter, but of Paul) that said, I have the care of all Churches: and Chrysostome himself; Curam Vniversae Ecclesiae gerimus. Hom. 18. in 2. Cor. 11.  Twelfth, who was Acacius, as if one should argue thus: The King of Great Britain might have been surnamed Pacificus, because he had a Care of the Peace of all Christendom; therefore he ought to be held Supreme above the Emperor. Or thus, that Saint Paul, who used the same speech now Objected, of having the care of all Churches, must therefore be esteemed to have had a Government above Peter, and all the other Apostles. From the 
z Liberatus de Episopo Patarensi, in Breviario Cap. 22. Pontifex Romanus praeest Ecclesiijs totius mundi. De quo Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 10. §. Posset. Posset dici epistolam illam Vigilij cuius meminit Liberatus, confictam fuisse ab Haereticis, Liberatum autem credidisse falso rumori, quem Haeretici sparserant. And would he not be as well deceived in this? 2. This Greek Author must be taken in the Greek sense, of Primacy or Order. 3. justinian promised to restore Syluerius, upon condition that he would clear himself, otherwise to be confined to one City Patarensis that laboured the Release of Syluerius, did not oppose against this Condition. Baronius, anno 538 num. 13.  Thirteenth, viz. Liberatus, as if thus: Although Liberatus, who was an Author that had been deceived by Heretics, in giving credit to their false and forged writings, doth thus report, yet we must not distrust him, when he reporteth for the Pope. Or else thus: We must believe that of the Bishop of Patara, which he himself could not believe. The 
a justinianus Epistolâ ad johannem 2, quae habetur, in Codice, in primo Titulo. Quae est Caput omnium Ecclesiarum. If we should grant you, that that Rescript is not Counterfeit, yet He meaneth no more, but Primus Episcoporum. As for the word [Caput] you have heard how common ●● hath been, without any sense of Monarchy.  last, who is justinian, hath been already answered by a Parallel of other Bishops and Bishoprickes, which have been called Heads of all Churches, without any colour of a Crown of Monarchy.   

Our Second discovery of the falsehood and Vanity of your former Consequence, taken from the Testimonies of some of the Ancient Fathers above mentioned. SECT. 7.  
THe Fathers that have been alleged were of the Eastern Church, and therefore doubtless were of the Faith of those General Counsels in the East, which have 
* See above Cap. 9  been known to oppose themselves to the pretended Papal jurisdiction, as oft as they had just Cause so to do. Which one Consideration ought to be your full satisfaction in this point. Notwithstanding, for a clearer conviction of that falsehood, which we have been constrained so often to complain of in your Obiectors, We proceed to a Second Answer, which is by Retorsion, in avouching your own witnesses against you.  
Saint Basil is the 
* See after at q.  Sixth Witness which your Cardinal produced: one so adverse to your Cause, as that he (you 
* See above, Cap. 12. §. 4.  know) fell into an extreme distrust of the Church of Rome, which be justly condemned of Pride and Ignorance; and also accounted Athanasius Bishop of Antioch to be in his time (in respect of his sound and sincere judgement) The Chief Head of all others. If now Saint Basil cannot be called a Subject to your Monarch, the Pope of Rome, then ought you to have patience with Protestants, who have tenne-fold more just cause against the Church of Rome, than he at that time possibly could have.  
Saint Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria hath been cited for the 
* See above at t.  Ninth witness; whom (because his Testimony requireth a larger discussion) we have reserved to this place. The Story concerning him (as you may collect out of your 
b Baronius Anno 412. ●um. 43.  Baronius) consisteth of Three parts: 1. In behalf of Theophilus, Predecessor to Cyrill, the 2. Touching Atticus Patriarch of Constantinople, an Admonisher of Cyrill, the 3. Is acted by Cyrill himself.  
Theophilus' Patriarch of Alexandria, and Predecessor to Cyrill, was 
c Ibidem num 44. &. 46.  Excommunicated by Pope Innocentius, for not admitting of the name of Chrysostome (now dead) into the Dyptickes, or Tables of public Commemorations: in which Excommunication the same Theophilus continued until the last hour of his death. And how little support you can have for that, which your Cardinal addeth, touching his altering of his opinion at the very point of death, will appear in handling the Second and Third part.  
Secondly therefore Atticus Patriarch of Constantinople, who had run the same course of Opposition with Theophilus, against the Restoring of the Name of Chrysostome, now after the death of Theophilus inclineth to the other side; and understanding that Cyrill was chosen Patriarch of Alexandria, in succession of Theophilus, he writeth to Cyril an Epistle, wherein he recompteth Theophilus in the number of 
d Jbidem num. 47. Theophilus' i● Sanctis.  Saints, and seeketh to persuade Cyrill to the Restoring of Chrysostom's name into the public Records. But will you know by what Reasons? even by the Conference had with the Emperor Theodosius, and signifying that he was 
e Jbidem num. 47 Populi concordiae gratiâ, (necessitate prement) ne Religionis res ex populi arbitrio penderet. Baronius in the Margin noteth: Cogitur Atticus restituere nomen johannis. And Anno 425, num. 19 Ostendimus Atticum coactum fuisse ab Innocentio Roman● Pontifice restituere nomen johannis. And yet never produceth any place to prove it, but this forenamed in Num 49. which speaketh only of ae Necessity occasioned by the Tumult of the people; as the Precedents and Consequents of that Parenthesis do plainly show.  Urged unto it by the necessity of the present distraction and tumultuousness of the people: but not so much as in one syllable to have any consideration of the Pope's will and Command, or of the danger of his Excommunication; belike the stinch of that his Thunderbolt was not so rank and noisome in his days. Nay contrarily, as (
f Ibidem num. 50. Scil. ad— 412. Quòd in Romanam Ecclesiam, a cuius communione iamdiu rejectus fuerat, esset perinfensus, Paulinum & Euagrium Episcopos defunctos, qui illi commnunicaverant, Schismaticos vocat.  Baronius will have us to observe) Atticus (even at this time of his yielding to the restoring of the name of Chrysostome) being extremely displeased with the Church of Rome, by which he himself had been excommunicated, called other two Eastern Bishop's schismatics, even because they had joined in Communion with her. What? call men schismatics, for joining Communion with the Church of Rome? Then it is plain, that he yieldeth not to the Restoring of Chrysostome's Name by compulsion of the Pope, as hath been feigned. And it is as clear, that Theophilus did not recant his former judgement at the point of death; else would Atticus have used this as an Argument to persuade Cyrill, in behalf of Chrysostome; especially making mention of Theophilus in the same Epistle: and whether rather Atticus, that lived in the same Time with Theophilus, know better the manner thereof, or a Relator that came many hundred years after, judge you. But (which is most evident of all) Atticus, although he did now That which was desired of the Pope of Rome, concerning Chrysostome, notwithstanding calling those Bishop's schismatics, who for their respect to Chrysostome joined Communion with that Excommunicating Church of Rome, and yet naming Theophilus a Saint; doth prove sufficiently that Theophilus, whom the Pope had Excommunicated, never sought to have Union with him before his death. Nevertheless this Atticus, Eighteen years after his death, was acknowledged by Pope Celestinus to have been 
g Baronius anno 432. num. 13. Atticus reverendissimae momoriae vi●, & Catholicae fidei propugnator fortissimus. Ex Epistolâ Coelestini.  A most strong Champion for the Catholic Faith.  
Now entereth Cyrill himself to act his own part. He, after he had professed his defence of the Canon of Nice against Chrysostome, returneth this Answer to Atticus: 
h Idem anno 412. num. 53. Ex quo, etc. Epistola Cyrilli ad Atticum.  Since the time that you Atticus (saith he) have been Bishop in the Sea of Constantinople, no man resisted your meetings or Synods in the Church, or if any wilfully separated themselves, yet by the grace of Christ they were recalled. And who was there among the Magistrates, that was not obedient unto you? Or what one man for this cause is now without the Church? Surely none. But you tell me that, since your relenting, much peace hath ensued in the Churches: be it so, yet there being so many Churches with us, which stand out against the restoring of the name of Chrysostome, we may not descent from them. Thus Saint Cyrill in his Epistle, as your Cardinal hath related. Where he speaketh of the Churches of Constantinople and Antioch: of Constantinople he affirmeth that at all times (therefore in the time when Atticus himself the Bishop of Constantinople was Excommunicated by the Church of Rome, as hath been confessed) both Clergy, Magistrates, and people within those Churches did (notwithstanding the Papal dis-union, and Separation) Communicate with Atticus. And now concerning his own patriarchal Church of Alexandria, Cyril himself professeth that he must not descent from it, and many other Churches in Greece, that yielded not to the Decree of the Church of Rome: which again overthroweth your Article of absolute Necessity of Subjection to the Roman Church.  
Cyrill proceedeth in his Answer to Atticus: 
i Inobedientes. &c Ibid. num. 56.  But we condemn them (saith he) that obey not the power of God, using that saying (of the Prophet,) we have cured Babylon, and she is not healed; let us forsake her. For we may not (because of the speeches of some, if any such speeches be) suffer the Canons of the Church to be abolished. So he. By which words he laboureth to persuade Atticus again to gainsay the Commemoration of Chrysostome, which the Pope, by all his means of threats of Excommunications, and persuasions, sought to effect. But what of all this? will you say. What? hearken to your Cardinal. 
k Ibidem num. 60. Consideres hic velim, etc.  Reader, I would have thee Consider (saith he) that in this bitterness of contention which Cyrill now had, against the Restitution of the name of Chrysostome, & against whom he inveigheth in this Epistle, yet for Reverence sake he durst not say any thing openly and expressly against Pope Innocentius, who was the Author and chief cause of restoring Chrysostom's name into the Dyptickes, and revenged himself upon those that withstood it, as did Theophilus Predecessor to Cyril, whom for that cause the Pope deprived of his Communion. Thus far reacheth your Cardinal's Consideration.  
From whence you may be pleased to consider with us how slily and smoothly your Cardinal slideth over this piece of ice, for fear breaking it, and of falling in. Cyrill (forsooth) for Reverence durst not say any thing openly against Pope Innocentius▪ who authorised the restoring of Chrysostome, etc. As though it might not be said, Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam? words are but shadows, deeds are substantials. And Cyrill did more, and that openly, than your Cardinal saith he durst say. For knowing that Theophilus had been Excommunicate, for Opposing the Decree of the Pope, yet doth Cyrill persist in the same Opposition: which may be a second Argument unto us, that Theophilus had not recanted before his death.  
Secondly, knowing that Atticus, Patriarch of Constantinople had been likewise deprived of the Pope's Communion, notwithstanding doth Cyrill persuade Atticus, by his letters, to stand in the defence of the same Cause.  
Thirdly, knowing that Pope Innocentius did still urge the advancing of the Memory of Chrysostome, nevertheless doth Cyrill actually resist it. Can a man interpret it a point of Reverence toward a Monarch, to say nothing, and yet openly to withstand his Monarchy? So false in those days was your Article of Necessity of Subjection to the Church of Rome, in the judgement of Saint Cyrill, who indeed deserved of the Church of Christ the Title of a Saint, and is so acknowledged by 
l Bellar. lib. de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis. Tit. Sanctus Cyrillus Alexandrinus.  yourselves.  
Gladly would your 
m Baronius Anno 412. num. 69. Vt Nicephorus lib. 14. Cap. 28. Videre (inquit) visus est Cyrillus se ipsum sacris aedibus expulsum a jonanne, comitatu, & divino, quod circa eum erat, satellitio maximè freto.— Proinde Synodum Provincialem coegit, & johannis nomen simul & ipse & reliqui— in sacro Albo proposuerunt.  Baronius (if it might be) support your Cause by the Testimony of Nicephorus, who showeth that Cyrill reform his judgement before his death. But if were it reasonable to believe a Tale of Nicephorus (an Author often reproved by yourselves, for his Fabulousnesse) being made more than Eight hundred year after the party is dead, yet can it not any whit serve your turn; because he telleth that Cyrill corrected his error, concerning his dis-estimation of Chrysostome, moved thereunto by a Vision that he had, wherein He thought he saw Chrysostome expelling him out of the Church; and therefore he assembled a Provincial Synod, for the restoring of the name of Chrysostome into the public Tables of the Church. We should have expected, in a Case concerning your Papal Monarchy, that Cyrill that was thus moved by a Vision of Chrysostome, to repent the not-restoring of his name, should have much more been moved by his certain knowledge of the displeasure of your Supreme Monarch the Pope of Rome, who did nothing but flash and thunder out Excommunications against all Opposites: and that the Restitution of Chrysostom's name should have been done simply by Submission to the same Pope's Decree, and not only according to Cyrill his determination, by the consent of his own Provincial Council: or that the Cause of alteration should have been (if Nicephorus may deserve any credit) only by virtue of a Vision in a dream.  
The 
* See above at x.  Eleventh, and (for we should be two tedious to pursue your Cardinal's unconscionableness in each one) the last, that we shall insist in, is Acacius Bishop of Constantinople. He is brought in to witness, in his Epistle to Pope Simplicius, that the same Pope had The Care of all Churches, as if the word, Universal Care of all Churches, did conclude an Universal power and Monarchy over them all. The Vanity of which Consequence 
* See above in diverse places.  hath been discovered by diverse Instances in Others, to whom the like Universal Care of all Churches was applied; as unto Saint Paul, in the days of Peter, to Athanasius in the days of Pope julius, and to the Bishops of France, in the days of Pope Eleutherius; in whom you will swear (we know) there was nothing less intended than a Monarchical Popedom. But that this sense should be collected out of the words of Acacius, it exceedeth all limits of modesty. For what one Bishop can you name of those times, that ever opposed himself more against the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, than did this Patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius?  
This you may easily try, by the manifold out-cries of Baronius upon him, for his defence of Peter mog, by him established in the Bishopric of Alexandria, against the will of the same Pope Simplicius, calling him a 
n Baronius Anno 478 num. 6 Acacius phrenesi abre●tus, adversus Rome Pontificem violentus insurgit. Et anno 483. num. 78. Recipit, quos Felix Papa damnavit.  Frantic man violently opposite unto the Bishop of Rome; insomuch that the Pope did 
o Idem anno 484. num. 17. Papa sententiam Excommunications in Acacium profert.  Excommunicate him: but he showed his contempt of that Censure sufficiently, by living and dying therein. Was not this Witness worthily selected by your Cardinal, trow you? who, in that he saith, doth nothing advantage Papal claim; and in that which he publicly worketh and acteth, doth quite overthrow it.  
We may not let pass the public Sanction and Decree of the Emperor 
p Leo Imperator lib. 16. ca de sacrosancta Eccl. iis quae contra haec— innovata sunt, tam contra venerabiles Ecclesias, quarum sacerdotium gerit Beatissimus ac religiocissimus Patriarcha nostrae Pietatis pater Acacius etc.— Sacrosanctam quoque religiosissimae huius Civitatis Ecclesiam, & Mat●em nostrae pietatis, & Christianorum O●thodoxae Religionis omnium, & eiusdem regiae urbis sanctissimam sedem privilegia & honores omnes super Episcopo●um creationibus, & iure ante alios residendi & coetera omnia, quae ante Imperium nostrum, vel nobis imperantibus habuisse dignoscitur, habere in perpe●uum firmiter Regiae Vrbis intuitu iudicamus & sancimus. Baronius an. 472. Num. 3.4.  Leo, whereby he authorised and ratified the great dignity of the Patriarchship of Constantinople, and the Patriarch thereof. For therein he calleth Acacius A most blessed and religious Patriarch: the Church of Constantinople he nameth The Mother of all Christians, that profess the Orthodox Religion: the Privileges of that Church he requireth and decreeth to be as ample as ever they at any time had been before, or in the time of his Empire; and to continue in the same latitude and extent perpetually to all future ages. This is the effect of this Emperor's Decree: and can this accord with your Romish Monarchy?  
Your 
q Ad haec Leonis verba sic Baronius, Anno 47●. num. 4. Haec Leo, sed Acacij fastu tumentis proculdubio verbis concepta, & stylo superbiae exarata. Haud enim pij Principis verba illa esse potuerint, quibus dicitur Constantinopolitanam Ecclesiam Christianorum omnium, & Orthodoxae Religionis Matrem esse.  Baronius the chief Herald that we can read of, for the blazoning and magnifying of it, will say No: for he fretteth at the very heart in reading of it, and therefore upon his own sole conjecture will have his Reader think, that the frame of this Sanction was styled by Acacius himself, that called the Church of Constantinople, The Mother of all Christians professing the Orthodox Faith; and that therefore these were not (saith he) the words of that godly Emperor. So he.  
As though the Church of Constantinople, so large in its own Ecclesiastical Diocese, and by reason of the Imperial Seat in that City, so potent in the discharge of patriarchal Function, might not be called the Mother of All Orthodoxal Churches; although not as Rome falsely and ridiculously styleth herself, as if she were the Procreating Mother of all Churches, since Christ, and so (for many 
* See above discussed at large Cap. 3.  Churches Christian were planted before Rome) a Mother, before she was borne a Child: yet a Nursing Mother might Constantinople be then justly named, so far as her care and endeavour sought and laboured the Conservation of all others in piety and Religion. But, not to stand upon the Style, look upon the Matter itself, and then will this Godly Emperor prove, as Theodosius, and other Predecessors before him, a Patron of the Privileges of the Church of Constantinople, Equal with the Prerogatives of ROME, according to the Decree of the General Council of 
* See above Cap. 8. §. 5.  Chalcedon, notwithstanding the much fuming and fretting of your Popes thereat, to this day. And who can blame your later and Monarchical Popes, who know right well that Monarchy brooketh no equality. Caesar, if he will be Monarch, must be either Solus, or Nullus; only One, or None at all.  

CHALLENGE.  
IF the importunity of the Cause had not exacted of us so large a discourse, we might have spared thus much pains, which we have bestowed in this disquisition, for the discovery of the Vanity of your Romish Claim, by the Testimony of the Ancient Fathers in the Greek Church, wherein have been laid open so many falsehoods of your 
r Bellarmine.  Proctor, as that he may be justly suspected to have pleaded your Roman Cause Strenuè sanè, fervently enough, but (according to the Proverb) Graecâ fide.    

Your Objections from the Sentences of Latin Fathers for your Papal Defence, and the Falsehood and Vanity thereof discovered. First from Saint Cyprian. SECT. 8.  
THE First Father, whom your Cardinal produceth, for proof that the Church of ROME and Bishop thereof is sole Monarch over all other Churches and Bishops, is Cyprian: we say, Cyprian that Polestar of true Bishops, and admirable Martyr of Christ, whom, we have proved, to have been, by his writings, as an Ecclesiastical Hannibal at the gates of Rome, crying defiance to the presumed Monarchy thereof. And sooner shall your Cardinal pull the Club of Hercules out of his hands, than wrest away from Cyprians writings the Patronage, which Protestants thence have for defence of this present Cause.  
The Objection of your Cardinal is only a racking of certain phrases of Cyprian, as namely 
s Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 16. ex Cypriano de Vnitate, [Neque Caput quaeritur,— Ecclesiam unam in radice.] Ex lib. 1. Epist. 1. ad Cornelium. [Haereses obortae sunt, quòd non sacerdoti Dei obtemperatur, nec unus— ad tempus sacerdos, & iudex— vice Christi cogitatur] etc. Vbi intelligit Cornelium. Et lib. 2. Epist. 1●. ad eundem Cornelium: [Novatianus contrar●um caput extra Ecclesiam fecit;] nempe Contratium Cornelio tanquam Capiti Or●hodoxorum. Et lib. 1. Epist. 8 ad plebem universam. [Deus unus, una Ecclesia, & Cathedra una super Petrum fundata— unum Sacerdotium.] Certè intelli●it unam Cathedram, & Ecclesiam unam numero, non specie; & Cathedram unam singularem quae totam Ecclesiam docet. Et lib. de Vnitate, ubi dicit. [Episcopatus unus est, &c] ubi Episcopatus unus intelligitur ut Ecclesia una: ut multi rami una arbour, ratione unius radicis seu Capitis. Et cum dicit [Episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur] sed non aequalis, neque eodem modo. Et Epist. ad Quintum, ubi dicit [Neminem se facere Episcopum Episcoporum] loquitur de iis qui erant in Carthaginensi Ecclesiâ. Et ubi addit [Episcopum non iudicari nisi à solo Deo] loquitur de rebus dubijs & occultis. Haec Bellarminus. This last, as well as the rest, he could not but know to be false, for he spoke it in the Question concerning Rebaptisation, which he himself believed (his own word) as Manifest.  One Church, one Root, one Priest in Christ his stead, one Chair, one Bishopric, one Bishop, etc. Every one of these Ones he expoundeth to point out in special the Proper Church of Rome, and not to be either used Generally, for what soever Church or Bishop else, nor yet particularly for Cyprian himself, or for the Church of Carthage, whereof he was Bishop. This is the main issue of this Cause, concerning the Testimonies of Cyprian.  
Two Forms of Answering lie directly before us: First is, that Cyprian may be expounded by his own Words. Secondly, that his Words may be interpreted by his Works. 
t Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae. Vnam Cathedram constituit, & unitatis Originem ab uno incipientem suâ authoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique & ceteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti, & honoris & potestatis, sed exordium ab unitare proficiscitur, ut Eccles●a una monstretur Tract. 3. de Simplicit. Praelatorum. Edit. Basil. apud Frob. Anno 1525.  One Chair (saith he) beginning at Peter; but to signify that he meant not the Chair of jurisdiction in One, but of Union equally in Many, he addeth: The other Apostles were the same with Peter, endued with equal honour and power. Therefore by [Chair] he meant not any particular See of Peter, but the Union of one Universal Church, governed by an Aristocratical Equality of many.  
We leave the true Peter, and come to the counterfeit, whom you call your Pope, and see if you can take any better hold either at the word Episcopatus, Bishopric, or Episcopus, Bishop. 
u Cum sit a Christo Ecclesia una per totum mundum in multa membra divisa, item Episcopatus unus Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus. Cyprian lib. 4. Epist. 2. ad Antonianum.  There is one Bishopric (saith Cyprian) dispersed throughout the world, consisting of the unanimous multitude of many Bishops. If by One Bishopric were meant only the See of Rome, then should there be so many Bishops of Rome, as there are Bishops throughout the world. This one Sentence of Cyprian breaketh the neck of your Cardinal's conceit, that will have us to understand by [Bishopric] in Cyprian the Individual Bishopric of the Pope of Rome, and not a general Complexion and Comprehension of All.  
But that you may further know that Cyprian himself will challenge a part in this Bishopric, as well as the Pope, 
x 
Quam unitatem firmiter tenere debemus, qui in Ecclesiâ praesidemus ut Episcopatum quoque ipsi unum & indivisum probemus. Item.—  
Episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. Cyprian. de Vnitat. Ecclesi●e.   We (saith he) that govern in the Church ought to hold Unity, that so we may prove the Bishopric to be but one: The Bishopric is but one, a portion whereof is wholly and fully held of Every Bishop. To signify that, in the Essential nature of a Bishop, every Bishop is equal, and the Collection of All doth equally make up this One Universal Bishopric. Which can no more agree (as your Cardinal would have it) to the Particular Bishopric of Rome, than if he would conclude, that because there is One Manhood, whereof every man whatsoever in the world hath equally a portion, therefore this Manhood is proper to Clement Pope of Rome.  
If your Plea fail in the word One Bishopric, it will never prevail in the word One Bishop; for Bishopric and Bishop are Relatives, and infer the same Consequence. Cyprian writing to Pope Cornelius, saith that 
y Vnum E●iscopum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere. Cyprian li. 3. Epist. 11.  There aught to be but One Bishop in the Catholic Church: which soundeth in the brains of your 
z Pamelius in eum locum, & Bellarminus.  Teachers, that by Catholic Church is meant the Universal Church of Christ; and by One Bishop particularly Cornelius the then Bishop of Rome: A Gloss which neither Cyprian, nor Cornelius himself will admit. Not Cornelius, who describing the lewd properties of Novatus, who sought to snatch the Bishopric of Rome from him, 
a Novatum omnino praeterijt, scilicet, unum solum Episcopum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— in quâ tamen non ignorabat Presbyteros esse quadraginta sex, Diaconos septem, etc. Apud Eusebium. li. 6, cap. 35.  Novatus (saith he) would have us to think forsooth that he did forget that there ought to be but One Bishop in the Catholic Church, wherein there are six and forty Priests, and seven Deacons: where the word Catholic Church is not taken in the proper sense of Universal Church (as you would have it, to make him an Universal Bishop) but it is taken for a Church professing the Catholic Faith: in which signification the word Catholic Church doth agree as well with any Orthodox Church, as with the Church of Rome. You discern this as well as we, for he speaketh expressly of a Catholic Church which hath but Forty and six Priests, and but seven Deacons. You are (we think) already ashamed to hear of such a paucity of Priests and Deacons within albeit but the Suburbs of the City of Rome: which to pronounce of the whole and Universal Church Catholic, throughout the world, seemeth to be as loud a lie, almost, as can be in the Universal world, and as little truth than can there be in your Objections.  
We return to Cyprian, who sometimes speaketh of One Bishop at large, and sometimes with Relation to himself. 
b Cyprian lib. 4. Epist. 2. ad Antonianum, de Novatiano. Episcopatum autem tenere non posset, etiamsi Episcopus prius factus a Coepiscorporm suorum Corpore.  Novatian (saith he) could not obtain the Bishopric (meaning of Rome) although he had been made Bishop (namely thereof) by his fellow Bishops, that is to say, Novatian Bishops. Who then should have the Bishopric? Who, but Cornelius, who was made Bishop of Rome (for this is implied) by his Orthodox fellow Bishops? If in this place [Bishop] must signify One only Bishop, how cometh the Bishop of Rome to have Fellow-Bishops? Do not [Only] and [Also] make a plain Solecism? And other Bishops there always were; except when you make only the Pope the One Bishop, as the only Vicar of Christ, you make all other Bishops (against your own Conclusions) to be but the Vicars of the Pope.  
At the length Cyprian cometh to plead his own Cause. Once writing to Pope Cornelius, 
c Dico dolens, dicoque compulsus, quando Episcopus in locum defuncti substituitur, quando a pospuli universi sufiragio in pace degitur, quando— collegis omnibus fideliter iunctus, plebi suae in Episcopatu quadrienniò iam probatus etc. Cypr. l. 1. Epi. 3.  I cannot but speak with grief (saith he) and I am constrained to say it, when a Bishop elected in peace, and approved of his people Four years, etc. Where, by [Bishop] he could not understand Cornelius Pope of Rome, who lived Bishop but 
d Bellar. Chronol. pars 2. Anno 254.  Two years; but meant indeed himself. Again, writing to his Adversary Pupianus, who sought to overtop him, 
e Cyprian. l. 4. Ep. 9 ad Pupianum. Vnde Schismata & Haereses obortae sunt, nisi dum Episeopus, qui Vnus est, & Ecclesiae praeest, superbâ quorundam praesumptione contemnitur?— Etiam sex annis (Jronic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum, nec grex Pastorem,— nec Christus Antistitem, nec deus sacerdotem.— Tu iudicem te nostri constitueris.  Hence sprang Schisms and Heresies (saith Cyprian) when that one Bishop, that governeth the Church, is insolently contemned: as who should say, the Fraternity hath not had a Bishop these six years, nor the Flock a Shepherd, nor God a Priest. Which words, the injury he received of his Adversary, compelled him to speak of himself; and his own modesty, to speak in the Third person, as not of himself. Lastly, when he calleth the Church 
f Haec est una (Ecclesia) quae possidet omnem sui domini potestatem: in hac praesidemus. Cyprian. ad jubaianum. Ep. 77. edit. Pamil.  One, which (saith he) possesseth all the grace of Christ; the spouse of the Church, wherein (speaking of himself) we have authority and rule: must the word [Church] here also Individually point out the Particular Church of Rome? So should Cyprian be said to have governed the Particular See of Rome, which whether it were alone, or with Cornelius, it dissolveth his Monarchy?  
What shall we say to the sayings of Cyprian? if he had believed your Article of Papal Monarchy, as a Doctrine of Faith, he that laid down his life, for the Profession of our true Monarch and Head Christ, the Lord of life, was h●e either such a Coward, that he durst not plainly profess this Faith? or else such an Infant as that he could not express it in the proper style of that Article, concerning the Pope of Rome, the Bishop of Bishops, the Father of Fathers, the Highpriest of Christ, and Monarch of the Universal Church, or at least some one Syllable to that effect? of which Attributes your Cardinal hath made a fair Diadem, and fitted it only to your Head, the Pope. And so indeed Cyprian would have instiled Pope Cornelius, if he had been of your Faith: For 
* Mat. 12.34.  Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Yet what Faith did that holy mouth of Saint Cyprian utter, in his inscribing of Pope Cornelius? In all his 
g See his Epistles.  Epistles to that Pope, he saluteth him with only Charissime Frater, Most dear Brother, and taketh his Vale with the same, Most dear Brother, Farewell. And in his Epistles unto others, falling into mention of the same Pope Cornelius, whom he indeed both much loved and honoured, yet he exceedeth not these Epithets: 
h Lib. 4. Epist. 2. ad Antoni. Coëpiscopo nostro Cornelio:— Fratrem Cornelium— Collegam nostrum Cornelium, etc. Frater Antoniane. And so in his Epistles ad jubaianum, ad Pupianú, and others.  Our fellow-Bishop Cornelius, our Colleague, or fellow in office Cornelius, and O Brother Antonianus, our Brother Cornelius, etc. Behold this in a secular glass, and conceive what a despite it were unto a King, to hear his Vassal salute him with a Farewell fellow Henry. Fie, fie; what will you make of the Fathers? will you judge them so witless, or senseless as not to have understood their Morals? Yet so you propound them. For some where they give glorious Titles to the Popes of Rome, and in every such one, you point out the Pope, the Monarch of the Church; notwithstanding the same Fathers gave the like Titles also to 
* See above,  others: Sometime they join more familiarly with Popes, by Terms of Fellowship and Brotherhood, and yet even then also you will have them to believe your Pope to be their Monarch. What Solecisms must these be? The First, as if one should put the Diadem upon the King's foot: the Second, as if he should put the King's shoe upon his head. This is not spoken by us, to note the holy Fathers of such default (far be it from us) but to condemn your Authors and Disputers of want of sobriety, that thus reason beyond all reason. Thus have you heard Cyprian interpret his Words by his own Word.  
Will you now hear Cyprian speak by his Acts and Deeds? we shall but be your remembrancers of that which hath been largely proved already, as namely Cyprian his 
* See above, cap. 12. §. 2.  Reprehending and taunting the person of Stephen the Pope of Rome, and Successor to Cornelius, contradicting his Decrees, opposing his Roman Council, disclaiming his claim of Appeals, contemning his threats of Excommunication. Can you persuade yourselves that Cyprian could have escaped the cruelty of your Romish Inquisition, if he had lived, and so behaved himself a Bishop among you at this day? All this while we have said nothing of the 
i See our Doctor james Observations, In operibus Cypriani supposititia Epistola 3. Cleri Rom. ad Clerum carthaginian. Supposititia Epist. 67. Stephano Fratri.  Corruptions of the writings of Cyprian, which your Papalists feed upon.   

Our like Discovery of the like Vanity of your Proofs, out of other the Latin Fathers. SECT. 9  
THE Second Father is OPTATUS. Concerning whom your Objection maketh f●r us a good Answer. For if Optatus (as he 
k Bellarmin. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 16. Optatus Cypriani sententiam sequitur de Vnica Cathedrâ & singulari non solum Petri, sed successorum eius, usque ad Sy●icium. Optatus contra Parmenianum. Vbi dicit Quinque esse Ecclesiae totius dotes, ac primam esse Vnicam Petri Cathedram, in quâ ab omnibus seruari debet Vnitas.  saith) followed the judgement of Cyprian, than it followeth that the foresaid judgement of Cyprian may resolve us of the Doctrine of Optatus; to wit, that by One Chair or Church, he meant the whole Universal Church professing the same Catholic Faith; and that the Particular Church of Rome, as it then stood, was an excellent Portion thereof, built upon the same Faith of Peter, which all Christians profess: but only a Portion, because the same Father objecteth against the Donatists their want of Union with the Churches of Asia (commended by Saint john in his Revelation) as well as with Rome. You have no fellowship (saith he) with the seven Angels of Asia: whatsoever is without these Seven Churches is an alien; namely, from the Catholic Church and Salvation. Which Doctrine of Optatus is sufficient to prove all Appropriators of an Infallible and Perpetual Church, 
l Optatus lib. 2. Catholica est Ec●lesia, quae est in ●oto terrarum orbe diffusa, eius iam sunt commemoranda ornamenta— inter quas Cathedra est prima— quae Vnica pag. 39 But not s●le Roman: For he addeth Pag. 47. Nullam communionem habere probamini cum septem Angelis, qui sunt apud socios nostros in Asiâ.— Extra septem Ecclesias, quicquid foris est alienum est.  to only Rome, to be little better than Donatists. If you require a further Answer, you may receive it from a far more elegant pen, which will tell you that 
m Optatus in eodem libro Octavo loquitur apertè de Communione unitatis non Dominii; paulò post dicit, poterant Apostoli non communicare cum B. Petro, & recitare verba Christi de Petro negaturo se, & tamen bono unitatis, etc. Et in lib. 5. Est ergo in universis seruientibus non Dominium sed obsequium: & in eodem libro postquam de Cathedrâ Petri, Liberio (inquit) suc●essit Damasus, Damaso Syricius, hodie qui noster est Zozimus, cum quo totus orbis commercio formatarum in unâ Communionis societate concordat. Audet Optatus Romanum Papam Socium simpliciter vocare. Casaubon. Exercit in Baronium 16. §. 140.  Optatus, who required a necessary Union with the Roman Chair, yet never taught any Necessity of Universal Subjection unto it. Nay, so far was he from acknowledgement of Monarchical Dominion in the Pope, that he calleth him absolutely his Fellow. So he. As for Necessity of Union, it is no more than he required to be had (as you have heard) unto the Churches of Asia: so that whensoever Rome (as Asia hath done) shall depart from the sincerity of the Apostolical profession, the departure from that must dissolve the Necessity of Union.  
The third Latin Father is 
n Bellarm. quo supra. Tertius est Ambrose, in 1. ad Timotheum. cap. 3. Ecclesia Dei domus, cuius Rector est Damasus. Et lib. 3. de Sacramentis cap. 1. In omnibus cupio sequi Romanam Ecclesiam, etc.  Ambrose, the fourth 
o Quartus est Hieronymus. Epist. ad Ageruchiam: cum invarem Damasum. Et in Epist. ad Damasum de nomine Hypostase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Hierom, the fifth 
p Quintus est Augustinus Epist. 162. In Romanâ Ecclesiâ semper viguit Principatus.  Augustine. If we thought it not an injury unto you to repeat the former Answers, which have been made to all these Objections, it were an easy matter for us to be superfluous. When you shall review the places, than we doubt not but it will seem, as well to you as unto us, an hateful thing to see what violence your Objections have offered to these witnesses of Antiquity, but much more to their own consciences, in enforcing these witnesses to speak the language of Babel, and conspiring together to build the Tower of Papal Monarchy, which both their words and Acts (as you have 
* Ambrose. See above, cap. 12. §. 7. August. Ibid. §. 8. Hierom cap. 12. §. 6.  already heard) do in a manner confound.  
The sixth is 
q Sextus Prosper. Sedes Roma Petri, quae Pastoralis honoris facta caput mundi, etc. Lib. de Jngratis.  Prosper, whose meaning might have been better known, if he had written in prose, and not assumed unto him the liberty of a Poet. Yet he, and the seaventh, namely 
r Septimus Victor Vticensis, qui appellat Romanam Ecclesiam caput omnium Ecclesiarum. Lib. 2. de Persec. Vandal.  Victor Vticensis call the Church of Rome The Head of all Churches. But how? in power and jurisdiction? you could never prove this out of any ancient Father: No, but even as Antioch and Constantinople, with other Churches, 
* See above in this Chapter.  have been so called in other respects.  
The eight is 
s Octaws Vincentius Lyrinensis in suo Commentario. Lectae sunt Epistolae Felicis & julij urbis Romae Episcopo●um: & ut non solùm caput orbis, verùm etiam latera illi iudicio testimonium perhiberent, adhibitus est à Meridie Beatus Cyprianus, à Septent●ione Sanctus Ambrose, &c Vides Romanum Pontificem vocari caput orbis terrarum. Bell. quo supra.  Vincentius Lyrinensis, in whose Testimony your Cardinal doth first mistake a mountain for a man, and secondly painting, for person. For Lyrinensis called not the Popes of Rome, namely Felix and julius; nor the Church of Rome, but the City of Rome, The Head of all the world. What is more frequent than Rome to be called the Head of the Church, Caput orbis, after an Ethnic style, because of the Civil Dominion thereof over other Nations? He called also Carthage on the North, and Milan on the South, the Sides, by reason of their situations, only figuratively. And although he had in like manner called the Bishop of Rome the Head, and the other two Bishops his Sides, must therefore the Pope of Rome be truly and absolutely judged to be the Monarchical Head of the Church, in the meaning of Lyrinensis? Then must you as absolutely believe that Cyprian of Carthage, and Ambrose of Milan, and their Successors, were always to continue the Sides of the Catholic Church. Is this good learning, thus to snatch at advantages of naked Metaphors, and with 
* 1. Sam. 19  Michol to present unto us an image for a man? But who is there that knoweth not how little the Church of Rome is beholden to Vincentius Lyrinensis? who writing a Book, which you yourselves call 
t Opusculum par●um mole, sed virtute maximum, de profanis vocum novitatibus. Bell. lib. de Scriptoribus Eccles. Tit. Vincent. Lyrin.  Little in bulk, but most great in weight and worth, wherein he giveth Resolution to all Catholics how they should discern the True Church; yet never remembered your Roman Article, of making the Church of Rome the Mother, Mistress, and Monarch of all the Churches in the world, without Subjection whereunto (as you say) there is no Salvation. But how should a man remember that which he never forgot, or forget that which he never learned? For if this had been his Faith, his book of Resolutions which you say was so Little, might have been comprehended in one leaf, and almost in one line, to wit; There is but one Catholic Church, which is the Roman, which hath the Promise of perpetual infallibility, stand ever to this, and then you cannot but be a good Catholic. Nay, he matcheth the Eastern Church with the Western, as you 
* See above, Cap. 7. §. 1.  have heard. And in the same Book, entitled Against all profane Innovations, he doth throughout condemn all your new Articles of the now Roman Church, by one infallible, and inviolable Rule, which is this; that No Article as of Faith should be admitted into the Church, which was not taught and professed in the days of the Apostles.  
Your last Father, for due Antiquity, is 
u Nonus est Cassiodorus lib. 11. Epist. 2. Bellar. quo supra.  Cassidore, who because he saith no more than hath been formerly said, we forbear to answer more, than hath been answered: that from Particular Answers, we may now speedily address ourselves to the more General.   

Our General Discovery of the Falsehood and Vanity of the former Objections, out of the Ancient Fathers. SECT. 10.  
DIstingue tempora, is a necessary Aphorism and Caution, especially in historical Observations. 
* Psal. 87.2.  Right glorious things are spoken of thee, O City of God, saith David of jerusalem: but when? when the Inhabitants professed the true worship of God. But as soon as they revolted from God, than Bethel became Bethaven, and the Virgin Zion an Adulterous whore. So say we; Right admirable commendations have been often Anciently attributed to the Church and Bishops of Rome, for their Integrity of life, Constancy in the Faith, Care and Conscience for the preservation of all Churches in the Christian profession: But not to distinguish in both these the differences of Times, by [Was] from [Is] were to confound Chastity with Adultery, God with Belial, & Christ with Antichrist.  
Apply we this to the point in Question. Take unto you this Position: 
x cum dicunt Patres Romanam Ecclesiam non posse errare, vox [posse] non ascribitur absolutè, & simpliciter, sed quamdiu sedes Apostolica ibi manet. Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pout. c. 4.  When the Fathers say that the Church of Rome cannot err, the word [Cannot] is not to be taken absolutely, and simply. How like you this Thesis? Do you approve of it? Then do all your proofs from Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, concerning the power, dignity, and integrity of the Ancient Church of Rome, vanish with their times; because the Church of Rome is long since far degenerated from her first integrity. But do you not allow it? why, it is the Confession of Bellarmine, the greatest Champion that your Church hath had in these later Ages. He only addeth to the Thesis, this Caution: So long as the Apostolical Sea continueth at Rome; he should have said with us (according to the General Doctrine of the Fathers) So long as the ancient, and sincere Faith, and divine worship is preserved at Rome: for it is not Sedes, but Fides that defineth a Church.  
And for your further knowledge, that the Commendations, given unto Rome and other Churches in the days of Antiquity, were not absolutely and simply understood, call but to mind how 
* See above in diverse places.  often Tertullian, Irenaeus, Augustine, Optatus, and other Fathers (for the proof of Orthodox Doctrines) did instance in the Churches of Corinth, Thessaly, Antioch, Asia, and other Churches, as well as in Rome. To give you one Example for all, in the last of Asia, (because it cometh first to hand) it is that which you received but even now out of Optatus; who speaking of the Churches of Asia, 
* See above at m.  Whosoever (saith he) is without these Churches, (namely concerning the Faith professed) is an Alien, and without Salvation. This was then as justly said of Asia, as now it cannot be said thereof: and what one Encomium of Presidence, (only that of Order excepted) or judgement, or Sanctity hath been ever exhibited to Ancient Popes, by any Excellency of Titles, which (as you 
* See above in this Chapter.  have heard, by just Parallels) have not been communicated unto Athanasius, Basil, Augustine, and some other Fathers?  
Yet are we not contented with this Answer (although otherwise most true) but add, for clearer Demonstration of this Truth, and aver that the glorious Phrases, which were anciently ascribed to the Church of Rome and her Bishops, were not given as absolutely and simply belonging to her, no not in those very times of Antiquity, when they were more proper unto her. For 
* See above, Chap. 12. §. 2.  Cyprian that said in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius, that No perfidiousness could have access to Rome, meant not that this his Commendation should continue in Succession with their Popes; who himself, in his Epistle to Pope Stephen (one who a year after the death of Cornelius succeeded in the same Popedom) did vehemently reprove, yea and reproach him for admitting the very same kind of Perfidiousness before mentioned; even by his allowing of False and perfidious Excommunicates, and Incorrigible persons, Appealing to his See. And 
* See above, cap. 12 §. 6.  Hierom, who accounted every one Profane and execrable, that did not Communicate with Pope Damasus, would not have so far honoured Pope Liberius, whom he himself brandeth with a black mark of Subscribing to Arian Heresy. Lastly, Saint 
* See above, Cap. 12. §. 8.  Augustine, that magnified Rome in this style, saying, The Principality of the Roman Chair did always flourish, extended not this to an Absolute Monarchy, who himself was one of them that, in the Council of Africa, clipped the wings thereof, by decreeing that Transmarine Appeals should not be made, meaning to Rome. The speed we make to new matter will not suffer us to multiply Instances from other former Examples.  

I. CHALLENGE.  
AS often therefore as you have objected unto us the Encomiasticall speeches of Ancient Fathers, we may challenge you to observe the difference between your Objections, and our Retorsions. You urge only the Phrase, and we the Reason of the speech. Again, you have obtruded the sound of Words of the Fathers, we have opposed their evident Acts and Deeds, the best Interpreters of their sayings. From their Acts therefore, we take confidence to argue that (to omit the great and weightier matters) if S. Polycarpus would not yield to the Church and Pope of Rome, no not so much as in a Feast-day; Saint Augustine, not so much as in a Fast; Saint Basil, not so much as in exception against only the word Hypostasis; Saint Ambrose, not so much as in a Ceremony of Washing of feet; which are (you will think) in respect but matters of Mint, anise, and cummin: how shall not our Opposition stand justifiable, who refuse Union and Subjection unto her, for the great matter of the Law, & word of God? If vilification of the Sufficiency of his written Testaments, if Mutilation of a true Sacrament, and (which is worse) the Addition of five false ones, if babbling in unknown prayer, if forging of new Faiths, and (not to speak of the daily tyranny upon men's Consciences, by her strange 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or New Constitutions) if, in some respects, as absurd as Heathenish Idolatry may seem unto you just cause of exception against her: wherein our Profession is justified from point to point by the same Fathers. So damnable is your now Roman Article of Absolute Necessity of Union and Subjection unto the Church and Bishop of Rome, as without which there is no Salvation: by which, together with your Adversaries, you damn those whom every where you assume to have been your own Ancient Fathers on earth, and now acknowledge them Saints in heaven.   

II. CHALLENGE.  
A Second Consideration, which is to be had in this point, is to observe the list of all the Fathers, whom your Cardinal, in the strength of his learning and judgement, hath produced to guard and defend this your Monarchy of the Church of Rome, or Bishop thereof. The number of the Greek Fathers are but Thirteen, and of the Latin but Eleven, within the space of the first six hundred years, which we call the extent of Primitive Antiquity: But he omitteth Origen, Tertullian, justin Martyr, Ruffinus, and above fifty Fathers more, whom he citeth in his 
y Bellerm. lib. de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis.  Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, to have written Books of Apologies, Prescriptions, and Treatises against the Heretics and schismatics of those former ages.  
Now would we but demand of your ingenuity, whether you can think it a matter, we say not credible, but even so much as fanciable to think that of almost an hundred Witnesses of the Truth of Antiquity, so many as have been omitted (and had as great conflicts with Heretics and schismatics) should say just nothing at all, for the dignifying of the Monarchical jurisdiction of Rome, when the very acknowledgement thereof might (if true) have been in their Time the Decision of the whole Cause, and almost of all other Controversies in Religion; yea and a Reparation of all Schisms in the Church of Christ. And that they also, that are alleged, for proof of the same Attributes, should say nothing more in effect for Rome and her Bishop, than upon the like occasions they have said of other Orthodox Churches and Bishops; and not thus only, but that furthermore some of the same Fathers have wrestled and justled with that your pretended Monarch, and oftentimes given him the foil. To whom we might add Tertullian, of whom it hath 
* See above, cap. 7. §. 1.  been confessed, that in the time of his Catholicisme he did not give that respect to Rome, as is done at this day, but marshaled her with the Church of Corinth & Others; insomuch that if he had been now alive, he could not have escaped unpunished. And after his defection unto Montanisme, he called indeed the then Pope High Pope, and Bishop of Bishops; but (as is also 
z Te●tullianus magnus vir profectò quo Beatus Cyprianus usus est magistro.— Non fuisse satis, ●equum Pontifici Rom. ex libro de Pudicitiâ intelligimus, Benedictum Papam appellans, & Pon●●ficem sc. Maximum Episcopum Episcoporum; quae Ironic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab eo dicta videntur, seu in Victorem, seu in alium. Massonius de Episcop. Vrbis Romae. Tit. Victor.  Confessed) by way of Irony and scorn: so observable, even in his days (which were about the year 217. after Christ) was the Presumption of the Roman Pope.   

III. The last CHALLENGE, concerning the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers.  
IT will be Objected, that the Popes of these days do still retain the Places and Titles, which were of their Predecessors. This we deny not, no more than we do, that many Noble men's Heirs enjoy the houses, Escutcheons, and Robes of their Ancestors, who have little inheritance in their Father's virtues. You yourselves can give us Examples in the former, who confess that the Denomination of your Pope, to instile him thus, [Your Holiness] was first given to Pope 
a Licèt haec nomina [Sanctissimus, & Beatissimus] Leoni primo coeperint tribui, tanquam Praesuli cuidam vitae ac morum dignitate sanctissimo, postea verò retenta sunt ratione muneris & officij, quod Pontifex gerit. Azorius jes. Institut. Moral. par. 2. lib. 2. cap. 4.  Leo about the year 440. for his Holiness sake, and sanctity of life: Yet is this (you know) continued (if we may believe even your most 
b Bellarmine and Genebrard. See a-above.  Popish Authors) to Popes who have been Most wicked, yea sometimes Apostatical rather than Apostolical; and retained only in respect of their Functions. Or if this will not serve, yet have you another Engine, whereby to hook in those Titles, whiles you teach that 
c Quaerenti num Papa qui turpissimis actionibus Ecclesiam foedavit, dici potest Pontifex malae memoriae, dic quòd non: quia respiciendum est non ad id quod fecit, sed quod fiere debuit. Glossa apud Extravag. lib. 4. cap. Dudùm.  A Pope who in his life defiled his Sea with most lewd and beastly actions, notwithstanding after his death, may not be entitled Pope of bad, but of BLESSED MEMORY. Why? because hereby (say you) is considered, not what he did, but what he ought to have done. In which sense we shall as easily yield unto your Roman Church (in respect of Faith) the Appellation of Catholic, as could belong to such Pope's the Title of Holiness.    

Your fourth kind of Objections are taken from the Testimonies of Ancient Popes, as well from their Titles, as in their Acts and Deeds. First of their Titles; and a Discovery of the Vanity of this Defence, out of the Testimonies of Popes of the first three hundred years after Christ. SECT. 11.  
OUR Inquisition is concerning the judgement of Antiquity: and Antiquity, properly so called, may be confined within the Circumference of the first six hundred years. In the first three hundred years whereof are produced among the Popes by 
d Bellarm. lib. de Rom. Pont. cap. 14.  your Cardinal, for the proof of Papal Monarchy over the Catholic Church, the names of these Popes, to wit; Clemens, Anacletus, Euaristus, Alexander, Pius, Anicetus, Victor, Zepherinus, Calixtus, Lucius, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Marcus: somewhat more than the full number of an Inquest of men; it were well, if it might be said, Good, and true. Fo● although these Popes were just and holy men in themselves, and blessed Professors of Christ, most of them sealing their Faith with their blood: Yet seeing that the Epistles, which are cited in their names, for witnessing your Roman Article, were falsely fathered upon them, it must needs be confessed that you have not all those Popes, but only the Names of so many Popes to patronise your Cause. For albeit that 
e Primi Pontifices Romani Ecclesiae Rom. Primatum constanter collegerunt, Clemens, Anacletus,— quorum omnium testimonia nec suspecta (cum Haereticis) sed ut Authentica esse non dubites. Lege Franc. Turrian● adversus Mag. haec Stapleton. de doctrinal Princip. lib. 6. cap 15. Et Canus loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 8. Castro lib. 1. cap. 2.  Stapleton, Turrian, and some other of your late Schoolmen propound these Epistles and Testimonies as Most authentical, and no-way to be suspected; Yet your Cardinal, even when he judgeth them to be most Ancient, sheweth how little repose he could have in them, when as he is compelled to grant, saying; 
f Quamuis aliquos— errores in eos irrepsisse non negaue●im, nec indubitatas esse affirmare ausim, certè tamen antiquissimas esse nihil dubito. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 14.  I cannot deny but some errors have crept into these Epistles, which I dare not affirm to have been undoubtedly the Epistles, namely which were written by those Popes.  
In this point a learned man in our Church, one singularly studied in the disquisition of Antiquity, for discerning of the proper works of Fathers, from the forged and counterfeit, hath given you sufficient Reasons in his 
g Rob. Cocus noster in Censura Scriptorum.  Censure of Writers, to prove the objected Epistles, which your Cardinal himself confesseth to be Doubtful, to be undoubtedly Bastard, and adulterate: Partly 
h Anacletus Epist. 3. Clemens Epist. 1. Anicet Epist 1. Teste Bellarm. lib. 2. de Monach. cap. 40.  by the errors that are apparent in them, no less absurd than to turn Cephas into Caput, a Stone in an Head, and the like: Partly by the Confession of your own Learned 
i De Epist. 1. Clementis, Adulterinan esse. Cardinal. Cusanus Concord Cath. lib. 3. Cap. 2. Comestor Epist. Scholast. in Act. Apost. c. 101. Card. Turrecremata Sum. lib. 2. cap. 101 Baronius An. 69. num 43. Binius Annot. in Epist. Anacleti. 3. Cusanus lib. 2. cap. 34. Contius dist. 6. qu. 1. cap. Beatus. Euaristi Omnia istius Decreta videri possunt su●posit●tia. Contius Annot. in cap. 30.45. Aliter. Calixti Epistolas selecti viri, in emendando Gratiano, rejecerunt: Teste Antonio Augustino de Emendatione Gratiani l. 2. Deindè de Epistolâ Clementis, Eusebij, Milti●dis, Bellarminus: Incertum est, utrum illi authores sunt, quorum nomi a prae se ferunt. lib. 2. de Confirmat. cap. 7. Haec omnia habentur in Coco nostro, in Censura Scriptor●m.  Authors, accounting diverse of them Suppositions and bastardly false. Thus have almost all of these, by some of your Doctors, as namely Cardinal Cusanus, Cardinal Turrecremata, Cardinal Baronius, and (by your leave) Cardinal Bellarmine himself, together with Contius, Binius, and other learned men, selected for the correcting of Gratian, been excepted against.  
We might add hereunto, that whereas among infinite multitudes of men, each man is distinguished and discernible from another in face and countenance, in gesture and voice, yet these Epistles now objected have all the same style, and (for Stylus est orationis quasi Nasus) as it were the same Nose, and that, (as you cannot but know) an 
k ●piscopi Obediendi: Peto ut prome orare Debeas: Rigosus torture▪: Lugere indisciplinitatem: Charitatiuè agere: jugiabiliter stare, etc.  horrid barbarous one too: whereas the Writings of these Popes were doubtless polished and elegant, as were the works of other Authors, in those days. And is not this good arguing? Did not the Maid find out Peter to be a Galilean by his Language, when she said Thy speech betrayeth thee? and did not the Gileadites discern their enemies the Ephraimites by their defect of pronouncing Shibboleth, even as the Character of a man is seen by his speech?  

CHALLENGE.  
IN Examination of these Premises you may find just matter for Challenge of your own Proctors, and Pleaders for the Pope's Primacy, from these Popes, by reason of their fourfold Injury. First to their Adversaries the Protestants, whom they traduce as enemies to Antiquity, in not admitting the Testimonies of so holy Popes of the Primitive age, which all Christians ought to believe and reverence. But in this clamour they abuse their Readers, by delivering unto them only the names of Pope's Epistles; as is usual in false Certificates, wherein a man shall read a Catalogue of names of men, whereunto the parties themselves never yielded their consent: or as in a Stage-play, wherein are presented Personates, instead of Persons themselves; and to the chins of boys are fixed the beards of old men. Is not this a theatrical forgery?  
Secondly, to your Popes, by urging writings in their name●, which (if they were theirs) must prove them to have been foolish, false, and barbarous. Our zeal therefore to those blessed Popes doth challenge your Obiectors of extreme injury to their memory.  
Thirdly to the Church of Rome, as well Ancient as Successive; that when you boast so much of the truth of your Traditions, as a Nuncupative Testament of Christ, wherein your Chiefest Article is your Doctrine of Papal Monarchy: yet when we are to consult with the first witnesses, that should testify this Article in that Roman Church itself, namely those Ancient Popes, we can have no better assurance of their Testimonies, than as of such as are confessed to be, both fraught with Errors, and also falsely imposed upon those Popes. Which is in effect to condemn your Roman Church of sacrilegious negligence and unfaithfulness, in not preserving that sacrum Depositum (as you call the Ancient Tradition of Popes from hand to hand) and consequently must infer a just suspicion of Falsehood in the Chiefest ground of your Romish Faith, the pretended Law of Tradition. Is not this also an injury?  
But the greatest Injury that we lament is the wrong which your Obiectors do unto their own Consciences; when some will have all those Epistles to be Authentical, and worthy of absolute Belief without Exception, & yet are condemned by the most learned among you, who confess and prove that they are mixed both with Theological & Chronological falsehoods. Some again (especially your 
l Probatur ex testimonijs summorum Pontificum, etc. Bellar. lib. 2, de Rom. Pont. Cap. 14.  Cardinal) obtruding Epistles in the names of Popes, and yet doubting whether they be truly the Epistles of these Popes or no; and some otherwhere also rejecting some of them as Counterfeits. So foolish is his Objection, in alleging them, for Ancient, who could not be ignorant that there have been Ancient forgeries, of which stamp your own judicious Authors have noted these to be. And that which exceedeth almost the highest note of (to speak mildly) Inconsideration, to prove your Doctrine of Romish Primacy from the word [Primatus] mentioned sometimes by the Bishops of Rome in their Epistles: which (as your own 
m Contius Annot. in Cap. 6. q. 1. Beatus: Teste Coco nostro in Censurâ Scriptorum. pag. 24.  Contius teacheth) is an Argument, to judge them not to be so Ancient, because that that word was not of currant stamp in that age. And what great injury can any man do, than that which he doth to his own Conscience?  
Finally pardon us, if we cannot impute such a degree of Impiety to those holy Popes, that they who lived in the times of those bloody Massacres, wherein most of them, with infinite other godly Professors in the same Church of Rome, bequeathed their bodies to the sword, for the Faith of Christ, and their souls and spirits by Martyrdom to his arms of blessedness; should be wholly busyed in their Epistles, about points of Ordination of Priests, Invention of Ceremonies, and advancing the Prerogatives of the Roman Church; but never to utter any syllable of Exhortation, and Consolation, in behalf of the Flock of Christ, daily in the jaws of the Wolvish Persecutors of these times, as those Epistles by you objected do make appear.    

Your Objections, from the Testimonies of Ancient Popes, of the Second Three hundred years; and the Vanity thereof discovered. SECT. 12.  
FOr the Second Three hundred years are presented before us a Second jury of 
n Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 14. Primus sit julius 1. Epistolâ ad Orientales. An ignari estis, etc. His verbis affirmat ad se pertinere ius omnium Causas iudicandi. 2. Damasus; Sedi Apostolicae Reverentiam debitam, etc. Orientales vocat filios. Et alibi, Ad nos tanquam Caput. 3 Syricius: Romana Ecclesia ut Caput Corporis. 4. Zozimus Quisquis post-habitâ Apostolicae sedis authoritate neglexerit, etc. 5. Innocentius ●. Sedes Apostolica caput Ecclesiarun. Et iterum, Quem solicitudo manet omnium Ecclesiarum. 6. Leo ad Episcopos Thessalon: Constantinop. Antiochen, etc. 7. Gelasius: Sedes Apostolica omnes iudicans, à nullo iudicatur. 8. johannes 2. Romanae sedis Reverentiam:— omnium Ecclesiarum Caput. 9 Anastasius: Sedes Petri tenet Principatum. 10. Felix 4. Ad sedem Apostolicam tanquam ad Caput. 11. Pelagius 2. Romana sedes caput est omnium Ecclesiarum. 12. Gregorius 1. ius exercuit in multos: Constantinopolitanam Ecclesiam Romanae Subiectam:— Caput Ecclesiae, etc.  Twelve Popes, to give their Verdicts for proof of the extent of their own Papal and Monarchical power and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, over the whole Church of Christ throughout the world. Manifold have been the Answers; of Many to these Testimonies, which the brevity that we have propounded to ourselves in this Treatise, will not suffer us to relate: our Answers shall be no less plain, and yet more compendious. 1. Almost all of these Testimonies may be denied in that sense of absolute Monarchy, for the which they are propounded. As for the first man of the Inquest, viz. Pope julius, he plainly speaketh of Document & Instruction received from Peter; and not of Dominion, or jurisdiction: which may be an Answer to many of the rest 2. Some speak not, but their Counterfeits, as the last jurist Pope Gregory, in an Epistle, wherein Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople is said to have been 
o Greg. lib. 7. Epist 63. add Eusebium Constantinopolitanum subiectum.  Subject unto him; when as (as our Doctor 
p In Colloq. cum Harto. Cap. 8. §. 5.  Reynolds hath proved) there was no Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople, in the days of Saint Gregory. This trick of corrupting the writings of Ancient Popes, as you have seen in their Epistles for the first Three hundred years, give us juster cause to suspect the Popish Scribes, in the Second Three hundred years. 3. Some have been already satisfied by Parallels. 4. 
q So Damasus, & john 2.  Reverence (say some Popes) is due to the Apostolic See; So you know Saint Peter doth require of the Husband, 
* 1. Pet. 3.7. Mariti-mulieri impartientes ho●orem,  Honour towards his Wife; and Saint Paul of a Bishop, 
* 1. Tim. 5.3. Viduas honora.  Reverence unto Widows. Reverence therefore, which is nothing else but a due 
r See above in this Chapter. t. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aris Rhet. l. 1. c. 7  estimation of all persons, according to their Order and Degree, may be exacted without any Note of Dominion. 5. Nine of these Popes call the Church of Rome and Bishop thereof either 
s Damasus, Sy●icius, Innocentius, Leo, johannes, Felix, Pelagius, Gregotius.  Head of all Churches, or One that hath the 
t Innocentius.  Care of all Churches, or one having 
u Anastasius.  Principality; Every of which (as 
* See above in diverse places.  you know) were anciently ascribed to other Churches and Bishops, besides the Roman.  
6. Some may be checked by Retorsion, as in the first and last witness. For the first; if from the words objected out of that Epistle of julius, you shall infer that he had Universal Monarchy throughout the Catholic Church; then may we more justly conclude that the same Pope, being challenged by the Bishops of the East (whom he calleth Most dear beloved) both for writing to them Alone, and from his own Authority, and also for transgressing the Canons of the Church, by admitting men unto his Communion, that had been by them deposed; and answering to the one that 
x julius in Epistolâ supra obiectâ. Etsi solus sim qui sc●ipsi, non tamen meam solus sententiam scripsi, ●ed om●ium Italorum & omnium Episcoporum: quapropter (Dilectissimi) etsi solus scribo, tamen communem senten●iam vos scire volo, Coempiscopos nostros Athanasium & Martialem in comunionem recepimus. Apud Binium p. 407. They charge him also with the breach of Canons of the Church in ancient Counsels.  Although he wrote alone unto them, yet that he did it by consent of his fellow Bishops; and to the other standing only upon his justification, in not transgressing the Canons of Ancient Counsels, he was neither accounted of them, not yet esteemed himself the Universal Pope and Monarch of the Church.  
As for the last, to wit Gregory, if in some terms he seem to speak somewhat loud, as though he were very great, yet by confining himself to the 
y Greg. lib. 11. Epist. 54. Citans Novellam justiniani, in qua decernitur Archiepiscopum & Patriarcham Dioecesis finite causas debere, iuxta Canones Novellae. 123. Cap. 22  Constitution of justinian, and disclaiming (as 
* See above Cap. 6. §. 6.  you know) the Title of Universal Bishop of the Church as most odious, even in the now Roman signification of Universal jurisdiction, he was too little to become in that Sense a Roman Pope. Again, 
* See above at n  Damasus (say you) called the Eastern Bishops, Sons: belike it was in love. Yet the same Eastern Bishops called Damasus 
z Apud Theodoretum lib. 5. Cap. 9 Orientales fratribus & Collegis, Damaso, Ambrosio, etc.  Brother, and Fellow. Lastly, Some may be confuted and indeed confounded by as Ancient 
* Of all these we have spoken already See above in their places.  Oppositions; as of the orientals, against the Authority of Pope julius; of the Bishops of Africa, against the pretended Authority of Pope Zozimus; and of Cyrill against Pope Innocentius.   

Our General Discovery of the Vanity of your Proofs of Papal Monarchy, from the mouths of Pope's themseluos, who have been anciently noted of Pride. SECT. 13.  
Our Saviour Christ observing the equity of humane Law, applied it to himself, saying, 
* Joh. 5.31.  If I give testimony of myself, my testimony were not true And why then should not this Consequence, used by Christ, be of force against your Consequences taken from the testimonies of those Popes, who boast themselves to be the only Vicars of Christ? Yes verily, because there is such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Self-love in every man so bewitching him, that he can discern Any sooner than himself. Yea, and if in all Courts of Pleas greatest exception is taken against selfe-Testimony, in a man's own Cause, than ought not this our Answer seem harsh unto you, if we should deny the Assumptions, which the Popes of Rome, even of more Primitive times, have made for the advantage of their Roman jurisdiction: and that so much the less, by how much the more many Popes of that age are noted to have been taxed for their great Arrogancy, 
e Augustinus Qu. Vet. & Nou. Testam. num. 101. Quidam igitur Flaceidij nomine, duce stultitia, & Romanae Civitatis iactantiâ, Levitas Sacerdotibus, & Diaconos Presbyteris coenquare contendit.  by the Ancient Fahers of their own Times. Whereupon it is that we have heard 
a Tertullian de Pudicitiâ in initio. Pontifex sc. Maxmus, & Episcopus Episcoporum.  Tertullian girding at the Pope, as if he would be Bishop of Bishops; 
b Polycrates: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 25.  Polycrates contemning his threats of Excommunication, as Vain Terrors: 
c Cyprian. Stephanus superbus.— Nemo nostrum tyrannico terrore, etc. See above. chap. 12. §. 2.  Cyprian noting the Pope's Pride, and scorning his Tyrannical terror: The Fathers of the Council of 
d Concil. Africanum. Appellationis ius, typhus fumosus. See above Cap. 9 §. 8.  Africa (among whom Saint Augustine was one) branding Three Popes with the note of Smoky Arrogance; and Saint Augustine himself pointing at the vain Boasting of Rome: nay even Saint 
f Hieron Recedat Ambitio. See above.  Hierom also durst say, concerning the Ecclesiastical State of that City, Away with Ambition. And how did Saint 
g Basilius Epist. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.—  Basil beard the same Church, with the terms of Western superciliousness & Pride? Others likewise (albeit more covertly and closely) ' twitted other Popes; 
h Cyrill: Non possumus propter sermones quorundam permittere Canones violari, etc. See above.  Cyrill, We may not, (saith he) for the speeches of Some (meaning the Pope, with others) suffer our Canons to be infringed: and Saint 
i Ambros. Nos quoque ho mine's sensum habemus. See above, Cap. 12 §. 7.  Ambrose, We also have our senses about us; speaking in Opposition to Rome, and intimating that she conceited too highly of her own judgement. Thus these holy Fathers, concerning the Popes, of their days, being otherwise holy Fathers also. For we forbear to Oppose against you the judgement of Authors of after-ages, who speak against the Roman Pride as liberally, as did 
k Vigilius eo insolentiae progressus est, ut Mennan Constantino politanum Episcopum a Communione excluserit. Niceph Hist. lib. 17. Cap. 26.  Nicephorus, who condemned Pope Vigilius of Insolency, in Excommunicating Mennas the Patriarch of Constantinople. Nay, and did not one of your own Prophets, in defence of the Superiority of the Council above the Pope, say that 
l Almain See above  Popes do commonly stretch their fringes too much arrogating that to themselves, which is proper to a Council.  

CHALLENGE.  
WHat? holy Pope's (will you say) and yet proud, arrogant, and challenging Dominion above others without the limits of their own jurisdiction? Yes, why not. They were the holy Disciples of Christ, that ambitiously wished, by the solicitation of their Mother, that 
* Mark 10.  They might sit, the one on the right hand of Christ, and the other on the left in his Kingdom: they were also holy Apostles that sought among themselves, without any Ordinance of their Lord, 
* Luke 22.  Who should be Chief: They were likewise zealously-holy servants of Christ that beyond their Commission would have had 
* Luke 9  fire from heaven, upon the Samaritans. And certainly many of the Popes, especially of the Second Classis and rank, within the compass of the Second Three hundred years, may be said to have been Successors of those Disciples and Apostles, as in many virtues, so in these kind of defects also. And if this may be said of holy and Primitive Popes, what shall we think of those Popes, who a Thousand years after them have degenerated both from the holiness, and sincere Religion of their Predecessors? What? but as of Giants, in respect, whose thumbs of Pride were greater than their Father's Loins. When the particulars of these our Answers, together with these more General, are summed up, and due subtraction made of those Objections, which are satisfied thereby, you shall find that the Remainder for your advantage will be just nothing at all. So vain and frivolous is the pretence for your Roman Article of Universal jurisdiction over the Church of Christ.    

Your Second kind of Objections, from the Testimonies of Popes, is from their Acts, in exercising of their pretended Papal Authority; and our Discovery of the Vanity thereof. SECT. 14.  
THis Universal Exercise of Papal Authority, your 
m Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 18. Ex authoritate, quam Pontifices exercuerunt in alios Episcopos toto orbe Institutos, Depositos & Restitutos: quorum singula per se sufficerent ad Primatum eius ostendendum.  Cardinal will have us discern in three points, 1. Of Confirming; 2. Of Deposing; 3. Of Restoring other Bishops, wheresoever, by his own Authority: Every which act (saith he) may be of itself a sufficient proof of his Primacy over all other Bishops. You may take for your first Answer, that anciently Institutions of Metropolitans and Patriarches were done by Communicatory letters to the Chief Patriarch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ergò for Order-sake: by Communicatory Letters, we say; or (as we may call them) Letters of Correspondence, to show their agreement in the Faith: in which case the Bishop of Rome sent his Pall, in token of his Assent. So likewise the Pope's Deposing of other Bishops, without the Roman Diocese, was but an Expression of his Assent to others, that he thought them justly deposed. The same may be said of his power in Restitution of others, that had been deposed, that it was the like manifestation of his Consent, to have such and such restored; even as other Patriarches often did. So that your Proof faileth in Two main points: 1. You produce no one Example, wherein it can appear, that the Pope could either Institute, Confirm, Depose, or Restore any such Bishop by his own Authority alone, without the help of a Council. 2. That infinite Examples are Recorded of Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarches, which have been Instituted, Deposed, and Restored without the Consent of the Bishop of Rome.  
Your Cardinal himself foreseeing thus much, seeketh to prevent it by a Second Opposition: 
n Etsi ex Confi●matione etc. Bellarm. Ibid. §. Notandum.  Although (saith he) the Pope did not himself Confirm all other Remote Bishops, yet he might allow that power unto other patriarchs and Primates, as it seemeth he did somewhere. Mark [He might] that is to say, peradventure he did; and [As it seemeth] which is, as if he had said, It is but probable. Do you not see with what rotten Timber this your Master-builder frameth the Arch-pillar of your Roman Faith? and with what untempered mortar he daubeth it, when he hath done? Notwithstanding it be without all Peradventure, that (if we must believe Pope 
o Conc. Constant. 2. quod erat. 5. Generale anno. 535. Act. 1. Interpretati● Epistolae Synoda lis; Literae Agapeti Papae ad Petrum Episcopum Hierosolymitanum. A temporibus Apostoli nullum alium unquam (nempe praeter hunc Mennam Episcopum Constantinop) orientalis Ecclesia suscepit Episcopum manibus nostrae sedis Ordinatum. Apud Surium Tom. 2. pag. 431.  Agapet) There was not from the Ascension of Christ, until the year 535. any one Bishop in all the East ordained by the hands of any Bishop of Rome, before Mennas who was now so ordained by Agapetus.  
Secondly, know that your Cardinal, to prove that the Bishop of Rome exercised his Authority of Instituting, Deposing, and Restoring of Bishops, within the Bishoprics of other patriarchs, giveth instance in some Bishops, which the 
q Dist. 11. C. Qui● nesciat. Enumerantur Provinciae quae Romano Patriarcha●ui subiecta sunt. Card. Cusanus Concord. Cath. l. 2. c. 7. Ibi autem numerantur & nominantur Hispania, Gallia, Africa; And afterwards you have Thessaly and other Provinces; within which also Dalm●tia is comprehended, and Salonia.  Popes themselves have challenged to be within their own Roman Diocese, as namely the Bishops of Thessaly, of France, of Spain, of Africa, of Salonia, and some others. If any should take upon him to prove the Bishop of Durham to be Primate of the Province of York, and to have authority over the Bishop of Chester, because he exerciseth his Episcopal jurisdiction of Instituting, Admonishing, Suspending, and Restoring Ministers within his own Bishopric of Durham, were this tolerable arguing trow you?  
Thirdly, there is not a greater degree of futility (saith Tully) than for any man to object that, to which, when it shall be retorted upon himself, he shall not tell what to say: We shall therefore deal with you herein by the Art of Retorsion. Cyprian, as Primate of the Primates within Africa, did (as 
r Per omnem Africam Provinciae Sex— totidem erant Primates, sive Primae sedis Episcopi: ho●um omnium prima erat Episcopus Carthaginensis; apud illum summa erat potestas in creationibus Episcoporum quos vellet per Africam. Pamelius in Cyprian. lib. 4. Epist. 8. Jta Salmeron. ex Epist. Leonis. 9 ad P●tr. & joh. African. Tom. 12. tr. 68 §. Ad Canonem.  Pamelius witnesseth of him) Institute whom he would within the Provinces of the other Primates. The same 
s Quod factum est in Sabini Collegae nostri Ordinatione,— Vt manus ei in locum Basilidis imponeretur. Neque rescindere Ordinationem iure perfectam potest, quòd Basilides post crimina sua detecta— Romam pergens Stephanum Collegam nostrum veritatis ignarum fefellit. Cyprian li. 1. Epi. 4. de Martiali, & Basilide.  Cyprian Constituted Sabinus Bishop, instead of Basilides, whom he had deposed, without the consent of Stephen the Pope of Rome; and after professed to hold the same Sabinus in his Bishopric, notwithstanding the dislike, and as it were in despite of the same Pope. Nor thus only, but Cyprian again will be known to have 
t Retentâ a nobis rei veritate, ad comprobandam Ordinationem tuam, factà authoritate maiore, tum demum scrupulo omni ex singulorum pectoribus excusso, ut per omnes omnino in Provinciâ istâ positos literae fierent, ut te Vniversi collegae nostri, & commnucationem tuam, i.e. Catholicae Ecclesiae Vnitatem pariter & Charirat●m probarent firmiter, & tenerent. Cyp. li. 4. Epist. 8. Cornelio.  Confirmed the Election of Pope Cornelius, whose Communion both he (as himself speaketh) and his Colleagues and Fellow-Bishops gave approbation unto.  
Besides, Pope 
u johannes Diaconus in vitâ Gregorij, lib. 2. ca 3. & 4. Synodicam quoque suam Gregorius secundum priscum praedecessorum suorum morem johanni Constantinopolitano, Eulogio Alexandrino, Gregorio Antiocheno, & johanni Hierosolymitano destinavit:— Quatuor Concilia ●uscipere & venerari me fateor, Nicaenum sc.— Constantinopolitanum— Ephesinum primum— Chalcedonense— Quintum quoque veneror. Haec habentur apud ipsum Gregorium, lib. 1. Epist. 4. & 24.  Gregory the First, upon his Election, sent his Synodical and communicatory Letters unto the Four Patriarches, viz. john of Constantinople, Eulogius of Alexandria, Gregory of Antioch, and john of Jerusalem, with testification of his Orthodox Faith, in believing the Four First General Counsels. And lest that you may think he was the First Pope, that sought this kind of Approbation, by such Synodical and Circular Epistles, you are to observe (with your 
x Baroniu● Anno 591. num. 4.  Baronious) how he in express words confesseth that he did this According to the ancient Custom of his Predecessors: as was also observed by the Bishop of Segovia in the Council of Trent.  
As for Excommunicating of Others, this being but a denying to have Communion with them, other Patriarches and Churches thought it as proper to themselves, to deny their Communion to the Pope, as the Pope could by dis-uniting himself from them. Else could not the Eastern Bishops, among whom there were many Orthodox, 
y Sozomen Hist. lib. 3. cap. 7.  Capitulate with Pope julius to have Communion with him; but upon this Condition, that he should have Communion with those Bishops, whom they had ordained: otherwise they professed Contrarily to have no Communion with him. Not to tell you that Dioscorus 
z Apud Gratianum, dist. 11. In tantum.  did Excommunicate Pope Leo. Yea, will you say, an Heretic an Orthodox? It is true, yet did he this upon the known judgement of the East-Church, upon a Common right and ability in all Churches, to deny their Communion to what other Churches soever, that they were persuaded to deserve their dis-union. Upon which ground 
a Nicephorus lib. 17. cap. 26.  Mennas' Patriarch of Constantinople Excommunicated Vigilius Bishop of Rome: which though it were in an unjust Cause (such as in the Papal Excommunications often happen to be) yet doth it infer this Truth, that upon a just cause it was lawful so to do. We leave other Examples of Retorsion, and come to the last Answer, by Opposition of your own Popes against you, and such as were most zealous Exactors of all Rights belonging to the Papal Sea.  
The matter standeth thus. After the period of just Antiquity, which we prefix about the year Six hundred after Christ, Pope 
b Hadrianus 1. Epist. 1. ad Constantinum Imperatorem, & Irenem. Apud Binium Tom. 3. part. 1 p. 258. Poscimus ut oblata & Christianis & concessa Patrimonium Beati Petri,— nobis restituere dignemini,— imo & Consecratione● Episcoporum, & Archiepiscoporum, sicut olitana constat Traditio, nostrae Dioecesis existentes, penitus canonicè Sanctae Romanae nostrae restituantur Ecclesiae.  Hadrian the First, about the year 777. writing to the Emperor Constantine, and to his Empress Irene, layeth Claim to Two things; First to the Temporal Patrimony of Saint Peter; Secondly, to an Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, within some part of the Patriarkship of Constantinople; which he desireth them to restore to the See of Rome; and he expresseth in his Petition the Consecration of Bishops, & Archbishops. Fourscore years after him succeedeth Pope 
c Etiam Nicolaus primus Epist. 2. ad Michaelem Jmperatorem. Oportet vestrum Imperiale decus— ut Antiquum morem, quem ro●tra Ecclesia habuit, vestris temporibus restaurate dignemini; quatenus vicem quam nostra sedes per Episcopos vestris in partibus constitutos habuit, viz. Thessalonicensem, qui Romanae fedis vicem per Epirum veterem, Epirumque nowm, atque Illyrium, Macedoniam, Thessaliam, Achaiam, Daciam— Mysiam, Dardaniam, & Praevalim, B. Petro— contradicere nullus praesumat; quae Antecessorum nostrorum temporibus sc. Damasi etc. Numerat Papas usque ad Hormisdam. Apud Binium Tom. 3. part. 1. pag 647. Et ibedem pauló ante. Quia Hadrianus sanctissimus Praesul Antecessor noster, etc.  Nicolas the First, who reneweth the same Claim in his Epistle unto Michael the Emperor, propounding unto him the Challenge formerly made by his Predecessor Hadrian; and specially and by name he setteth down the particular Provinces and Dioceses, which were withheld, or (as your 
d jacobus Syrmundus jes. Censura de Suburbicarijs Regionibus: Discas a Leone Sapiente in Diatyposi, awlsos esse a Dioecesi Romanâ, iamque throno Constantinopolitano subiecto● Metropolitanos Thessalonicensen, Corinthium, Nicopolitanum, Atheniensem, Patarensem. Addit Regiones supra-nominatas a Papis, & subiungit: Docet Papa Nilolaus Antecessores suos omnes illas oras sacris dispositionibus institutisque temperasse. Cap. 3.  jesuit out of Leo Sapiens saith) had been pulled away from the Bishopric of Rome, to wit, the Bishopric of Thessalonica, the Bishop whereof had been but the Pope's Vicar therein; together with the Regions of Achaia, Mysia, Dardania, etc. wherein were the metropolitans of Thessaly, Corinth, Athens, Nicopolis, and Patarae.  
But to what end maketh all this his Plea? namely, that he might exercise therein, as from his own Authority, the Consecration of Bishops and Arch-Bishops, and (to use the words of your jesuit) moderate all things throughout all those Regions, according to his own Institutions and Ordinances. And, for further Confirmation of his Right, he pleadeth the Ancient possession which his Ancestors had held from the time of Pope Damasus, unto Pope Hormisda, that is to say, for the term of 154. years: so that now they had been above Three hundred years deprived of these Bishoprics.  
We now hereupon demand; Do your Popes, after so long process of time, require a Restitution of Right and power of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in certain Provinces Christian? then doubtless, all this time, was not their power Universal in All others wheresoever. And furthermore the patriarch of Constantinople, having jurisdiction over the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia, and Thracia, consisting of 
e Theodoret. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 38.  28. Provinces; and your Pope's making claim only unto Eight of those, for the execution of their Ecclesiastical and Papal power, is it not evident that they outted themselves from all such jurisdiction in any of the rest? And what shall be further said of the other Patriarkships of Alexandria, Antioch, and jerusalem? Some of them having Seven, and some Ten metropolitans under them, and were as exempt from the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, as any within the Patriarkship of Constantinople could be.  

CHALLENGE.  
NOW from your former Argument, according to the laws of a Syllogism, It must be thus: What Bishop soever doth exercise any Authority over others, to Institute them by Confirmation of their Election, by Letters communicatory, or otherwise, and to Depose them; he hath Ecclesiastical power over them, and they are under his jurisdiction. But Popes of Rome have accordingly Instituted, Deposed, and Restored Bishops in all Provinces in the Christian world. Therefore are they to be acknowledged the Universal Monarches therein, and are not subject to Any, nor are anyway to be equalled with Others. So you.  
Now apply the Examples, which have been granted, and then see how often you shall un-monarke your Popes, and set up many unexpected Anti-popes'. First, by the power exercised by Cyprian, both in Confirming the Pope's Election, and in withstanding does Restitution: next, by the power assumed by those Patriarches, which Excommunicated your Popes, but principally by the Testimonies of your own Popes; Pope Gregory confessing it to have been an Ancient custom in your Popes, to submit their Elections to the Approbation of other Patriarches, by their Synodical letters, and so to be acknowledged to be in their Communion: and lastly, by the Claim made by Two Popes, Hadrian and Nicolas, for the Restoring unto them a power of exercising their Ecclesiastical Functions in certain Provinces within the Patriarkship of Constantinople.  
If A. B. challenge absolute Royalty in Eight Towneships only, within the Manor of C. D. (that Manor consisting of 28. Towneships) wherein (saith A. B.) my Predecessors have long since had Fishing, Fowling, Waifes, Strays, Deodants, and such like Prerogatives, what can be the issue of this Plea, but that, whatsoever his Right hath been to these Eight, yet his power for Fishing, Fowling, and the like hath not of a long time been exercised accordingly? and again, that pleading but for Eight, it is an acknowledgement that he renounceth all Claim to any of the Twenty besides. So then your Pope's Monarchical Prerogative of Instituting, Deposing, and Restoring of all Bishops and patriarchs throughout the Christian World, is now come to be somewhat abated, being confined within his own Peculiars; as well as A. B. by his Plea for Fishing and Fowling. To conclude, whatsoever example of the Pope's Confirmation of Bishops of other Diocese can be brought, in such Cases, is not an Act essential or proper unto him, but accidental and of common Congruity, rather than of Necessity.    

Your Fifth ground of Objections, taken from a pretended Universal Right of Appeals to the Church and Pope of Rome, as a Principal part of your Roman Article. Our first Discovery of the Falsehood and Vanity of the First Pretences taken from the Council of Sardice. SECT. 15.  
Pour of Appeal in any is indeed (as your 
f Bellarmin li. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 21. Appellatio est certissimum Argumentum Principatus.  Cardinal saith) A most certain Argument of Dominion: to wit, if it be right, and proper; otherwise it is not Power, but Oppression, nor Right, but Usurpation. There were many Causes, why the Catholic Bishops in the East should yield great Authority to the Bishops of Rome in the West, before others, but specially because of the Distractions and Schisms among themselves, by manifold Heretics; and of the Union which in the Roman Church had continued and been maintained by the Bishops thereof, with great wisdom and constancy: besides the advantage that the See of Rome had gotten in the time of the Imperialtie of that City. Notwithstanding, never shall you prove your Article of Necessity of Subjection to the Church of Rome, upon Necessity of Salvation, by any Right of Appeal to the Bishop thereof, which is the main scope of your Cardinal in this place.  
The First Testimony which he propoundeth is out of the Council of 
g Bellarmin. li. 2. de Rom. Pont. ca 21. Primò ex Concilio Sardicen. Can. 4. cum aliquis. Et Can. 7. Placuit, ut si deiectus confugerit ad Episcopum Romanae Ecclesiae etc.  Sardis. This Council he produceth in this place, as a sound Argument, which elsewhere he ranketh among those Counsels, that are to be 
h Sardicense partim confirmatum, partim reprobatum. Bellarmin. l. 1. de Concilijs cap. 7. §. Primum.  partly allowed, and partly rejected: As if Coin partly mixed and Counterfeit aught to be taken for good payment. Again, in this he allegeth such a Canon, which another Cardinal questioneth, saying, 
i Verum est ipsos Patres Aphricani Concilij (in quo & Sanctus interfuit Augustinus) in praefatâ ad Cescribere Epistola lestinum hanc Constitutionem, quam Gratianus ascribit Sardicensi Concilio, nullâ Patrum Synodo invenisse constitutam. Quare satis posset dubitari, an Sardicensis Concilij constitutio existat. Card. Cusanus lib. 2. the Concord. Cathol. Cap. 25.  We may lawfully doubt, whether there be any such Constitution extant. And this again is urged to prove your Article of an Absolute Monarchical power, and Divine Right thereunto in the Pope of Rome, concerning the Prerogative of Appeals from all Christian Churches. A doctrine quite overthrown by the same Witness, whom your Proctor hath produced for this Cause, even the Synod of Sardis itself; and that Two manner of ways (as your Cardinal 
k Fuit autem in Sardicense Concilio, in honorem memoriae Sancti Petri, statutum— Romanum Pontificem praelatum in iudicandis Particularibus Concilijs, non nisi per formam ibi traditam, si quòd ipse potest sententiam approbare, sed non improbare nisi per Novam Synodum. Et probat ille textus Administrationem Papae valdè a ●ure positivo, & consensu Synodico dependere, Cusanus quo supra. cap. 15.  Cusanus will testify) One is, that the same Synod doth limit his power, giving him Authority to approve any thing concluded by a Particular Synod, but not to disallow it without the assistance of a new Synod: the Other, that the Right, which the Pope can claim for Appeals, dependeth Greatly upon humane Constitutions. He might as truly have said [Altogether] as we 
* See above the Conncell of Chalcedon. ca 8. §. 5.  have already proved, and the Tenor of the Council of Sardis itself doth fully purport: 
l Si omnibus placet, statuat: Synodus respondet, Placet. Conc. Sardic. Can. 4.  If it please you (say they, speaking of a new Constitution) let it be Ordained, etc. Would it have become Orthodox Fathers so to have spoken, if in their judgement they had conceived that power of Appeals to Rome to have been the Ordinance of God?  
We confess that the Supreme Right of Appeals is proper to a Monarrh, it being as Essential a part of his Monarchy to have the Right of Appeals, as it is for him to be a Monarch. Wherefore bethink yourselves, if the Nobles in any Kingdom should write unto their Sovereign, concerning the Exercising of his Authority received from his Ancestors (as the Pope pretendeth to have from Saint Peter) and should say, We are pleased and contented that Appeals should be made unto your Majesty: whether this would not imply, in the ears of the Monarch, as much as Laesa Maiestas; as though he were now to receive an Authority from their Grant, and benevolence, wherein he was invested and established by his primary Right unto the Crown▪ By this your Cardinal's beginning, you may guess with what conscience he is like to proceed.  
Examine well the 
m Bellarmin. quo supra. 1. Gelasius Papa ad Episcopos Dardaniae: de qualibet mundi parte ad illum Canones appellari voluerunt. 2. Leo Epist. 89. ad Episcopos Galliae: esse Antiquissimam consuetudinem. 3. Martion excommunicatus Roman venit. Epiph. Haeres 42. 4. Fortunatus & Felix a Cypriano depositi ad Cornelium appellant, & Basilides ad Stephanum. 5. Athanasius ad julium. 6. Chrysostomus ad Innocentium. 7. Havianus Constantinopolitanus ad Leonem. 8. Gregorius li. 2. Epist. 6. de Theobano.  Marginals: First, If you remove from his witnesses Parties themselves, many being the Testimonies of your 
n So at 1. Gelasius: at 2, Leo: at 8. Gregory.  Popes themselves; For if Adoniah say he is King, will Solomon, or any wise and faithful Counsellor of State take his word for it? and yet he was a King's Son, whereas the Pope never was either Son or Successor to such a Monarch, as he feigneth to himself. Secondly, If you except the Examples of those who Appeal to the Bishop of Rome, as being within his 
o So at 7. Dardania: at 8. Gallia: at 14. Thebanus.  Patriarkship, and therefore rather subject unto him than others; this is as though a Proctor would say, My Client had Tithe in his own Parish, therefore do the next Parishes adjoining owe their Tithes unto him. Thirdly, If you pass by Appeals that were notoriously 
p Heretics at 3. Martion at 4. Fortunatus, and Felix called by Cyprian Hosts Dei. lib. 1. Epist. 4. and Basilides Idololatra. Ibid.  Impious, such as were made by Fortunatus, Felix, and Basilides: in this Case you that plead so much for the Roman Bishop, could not have allowed Romulus to say thus; Fugitives and Runagates fly unto me for succour, in Opposition to their natural Kings and Sovereigns; therefore am I the King of those Kings. Fourthly, If you omit such holy men, as 
q So Athanasius at 5. Chrysostom at 6. Flavianus at 7.  addressed their requests to the Bishop of Rome (such as were Theodoret, Athanasius, Chrysostome, Flavianus) not as to a peremptory judge, but as to a Patron and Arbitrary Dais-man, and one upon whose Authority and credit one of them depending acknowledgeth in express words his reason, to wit; 
r Of Theodoret Baronius, Anno 449. num 124. Scribit ad Renatum Presbyterum, ut persuadeat Papae, propter eius fidei integritatem, Causam suam audiat: sed per Concilium addit, quae omnia a vobis dicentur his contenti erimus, quaeconque illa fuerint, vestris iudicijs confisi.  The integrity of the Faith of the Pope, and promising to abide his award, with the assistance of others, and to be content therewith, whatsoever should be determined, relying upon their judgements, so Theodoret: (Now whom one acknowledgeth to be his Patron and A●bitratour, him he denie●h to be his judge.) If, we say, these many Witnesses may be forborn, then is there nothing at all said for the Necessity of your Roman Article of Papal Dominion, in respect of Universal Right of Appeal. Nay, Fifthly, if you will but observe that the Popes, which are most apprehensive of Appeals to the Church of Rome, do not plead any Right from Divine Authority, but only from Ecclesiastical 
s Gelasias Canon's, at 1. Leo Consuetudinem at 8. and Stephen. Bellarm. quo suprae.  Canons and Customs; so then (for the Church can no more create an Article of Faith, for man's soul to believe, than it can create the soul of man) your Article cannot be of Faith, which wanteth Divine Ordinance, the only Foundation of Faith.   

Our second Discovery of the Vanity of your Pretence, for Universal Right of Appeals to Rome, by an Argument taken from the Council of Chalcedon. SECT. 16.  
ONE whole Chapter is spent by your Cardinal, in answering the Objection of Nilus' Archbishop of Thessalonica in Greece, proving Appeals to have been as generally allowed unto the Patriarch of Constantinople, as unto the Patriarch of Rome, because of the Equal Privileges granted by General Counsels to the one with the other. In answer whereunto your Cardinal is so miserably perplexed, that we shall need no other Reply, than to manifest how manifoldly he is repugnant unto a General Council, to evident Truths, and oftentimes unto himself; as may appear by the 
t Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 22. Ad Object. Nili. 1. Sexta Synodus Episcopo Constantinop. paria privilegia concessit cum Romano. Resp. hoc suprae confutatum. 2. Concilium Chalced. cap. 9 sic statuit. Si Clericus adversus Clericum, ab Episcopo iudicetur, si adversus Episcopum ab Archiepiscopo, si adversus Archiepiscopum, à Primate Dioeceseos vel ab Episcopo Constantinop. Itaque ultimum iudicium refer●ur Constantinopolitano. Resp. Nullum per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dioeceseos intelligi posse, nisi Romanum Quae sententia verior esse videtur tum quia vox Graeca 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non propriè Primatem sed Principem significat, Papa autem solus Princeps cuiuslibet Christianae Dioeceseos.— 1. Canon significat tantùm permissionem Constantinopolitano Episcopo, at lex generalis est adeundi Romam. 2. Canon's isti non habent robur apud nos, nisi quatenus sunt renovati à Romanis Pontificibus.— Nec est Canon iste de Appellatione, sed de Primo iudicio.— Nec enim Chalcedonenses Canon's Sardicensibus ullo modo repugnant.  Marginals. The Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451. standeth thus: If any Clerk have a Cause against a Clerk, let him be judged by a Bishop, if against a Bishop by an Archbishop, if against an Archbishop, by the Primate, or by the Bishop of Constantinople. The question is what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translated Primate: He answereth, by allowing the Answer of Pope Nicolas, that by Primate is there meant the Bishop of Rome. False; for the Canon useth a Climax or Gradation from Clerk to Bishop, from Bishop to Archbishop, from Archbishop to Primate, or the Bishop of Constantinople: Therefore doth the word [PRIMATE] signify that which is expressed, namely the Bishop of Constantinople, and not that which is not expressed, viz. the Bishop of Rome.  
Yet be it that it pointeth out the Bishop of Rome, then beware the Pope's Head of Monarchy, because the Bishop of Constantinople in this Gradation, having the last, (that is the most excellent place) he must be confessed to be judged, by that Canon, Superior, or at least Equal to the Bishop of Rome. As it doth appear in the like case thus: A common Soldier is subject to a Lieutenant, a Lieutenant to a Captain, a Captain to a Colonel, or to a General; shall General, in this place, be inferior to a Colonel? But the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] (saith he) signifieth a Prince, and therefore agreeth only with the Pope, who only is a Prince. False; for the Council of 
u Conc. Carthag. 3. sub Cypriano. Anno 397. Ne quis appelletur (Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Princeps Sacerdotum. Surius Tom. 1. Conc. Carthag. cap. 26.  Carthage, applying the same word to Priests, forbiddeth that any be called Prince of Priests. But the Council speaketh (saith he) of Appellants that were near to Constantinople. False, for it speaketh Generally of 
x In quacunque Ecclesiâ, si Clericus, etc. Et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apud Binium. Tom. 2. Conc. Chalced. can. 9  Every Church; as If a Clerk, If a Bishop, If an Archbishop; not if some certain, but whosoever. But the Canon (saith he) speaketh of the First judgement, and not of the Last, which is by Appeal. Most false; for the Canon itself denounceth peremptorily; 
y Si quis autem contra haec fecerit, Canonicis poenis subiacebit.  If any whosoever shall do contrary hereunto, let him be subject to Canonical punishments. Thus far appeareth your Cardinal's repugnancy to the Truth of the Canon.  
This Objection is a Gordian Knot, he could not untie it with his teeth, and now Alexander-wise he will cut that which he cannot lose. 
* See above at t.  These Canon's ●f Chalcedon (saith he) Have no force in our Church, until they shall be confirmed by some Pope. So he. Why, my Masters, was not this Council one of the First and best General Counsels? Did not your Pope Gregory adore this, with Three others, as the Oracle of God? Was there ever any ancient Orthodox Father (the Pope's excepted) that took exception unto any Canon of that Council? Oh! you the Children (forsooth) of Ancient Fathers, who can blow away three hundred and thirty Reverend Fathers and Bishops with one breath.  
But how should he agree with Others, who in the third place will be found at variance both with Pope Nicolas, and with himself? 
z Bellarm. quo supra. Quae sententia Nicolai verior, antiquior, doctior. §. Quae. Et, Rectè exponi à Nicolao. §. His.  Nicolas (saith he) expounded the Canon aright, that by Primate was meant the Pope of Rome: and notwithstanding, for a farewell to this Objection, he saith that 
a Iste Canon Chalced. non est de Appellatione, sed de primo iudicio: quod Nilus non animaduertit. §. Add.  The Canon is to be understood of the First judgement. Which evidently crosseth the Pope's Exposition, who granting that judgement to be there allowed to the Bishop of Constantinople, Per permissionem, and extraordinarily, which 
b Nicolaus Epist. ad Michaelem Imperatorem apud Binium, Tom. 3. part. 1. p. 688. cum dixit Synodus Primatem, praeceptum dedit, regulamue constituit: cum verò disiunctiuâ eoniunctione addidisser, Aut sedem Constantinopolitanam, hoc secundùm permissionem indulsit.  Per Regulam, and ordinarily he challenged to belong to himself, could not but understand the Last, & therefore the chiefest judgement; for Nicolas was one of the first usurping Popes. But your Cardinal that saith, Pope Nicolas did rightly expound it, if he would have him make his Papal judgement (for in gradation of Appeals the Last is always the highest, and most excellent) to be the First, The Popes, we think, would judge him no true Proctor, but a plain Praevaricator in their Cause. So easy a matter it is for any, that will be repugnant to all Others, to be found sometimes contradictory to himself.   

Our third Discovery of the Vanity of your Pretence of Right of Appeals, the Principal part of your Roman Article, out of Saint Cyprian. Anno 256. SECT. 17.  
SAint Cyprian hath been often an Actor with others in our former Scenes, in this he entereth the stage alone. The Argument of his Epistle unto Pope Cornelius is. 1. His Expelling Fortunatus and Felicissimus from his Communion; 2. Their Appeal to the Pope; 3. His Prevention by his Letters to the Pope, and his Reasons to persuade the Pope not to admit of their Complaints. The sum whereof is comprised in one sentence, which if your Cardinal had set down sincerely, without pulling our Wi●nes back at the midst of his tale (by omitting a principal part of his speech) the very Sentence itself would have, on Cyprianus part, decided the whole Cause, concerning the point of Appeals to Rome. 
c Nam cum statutum sit omnibus nobis, & aequum sit pariter ac instum, ut vnius-cuiusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum, & singulis Pastoribus portio gregis sit asc●ipta, quam regat unusquisque & gubernet, rationem sui actus domino redditurus; oportet v●ique eos, quibus praesumus, non circumcursare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohoerentem suâ subdolâ & fallaci temeritate collidere, sed agere illic causam suam, ubi & accusatores habere, & testes sui criminis possunt: nisi si paucis desperatis & perditis minor vide●ur esse authoritas Episcoporum in Africâ eonstitutorum, qui iam de illis iudicaverunt, & eorum conscientiam multis delictorum laque●s vinctam iudicij sui nuper gravitate damnarunt: iam causa eo●um cognita est, iam de iis dicta sen●entia est: nec censurae congruit Sacerdotum mobilis atque inconstantis animi levitate reprehendi. Cyprian. lib. 1 Epist 3.  For seeing that it is decreed (saith Cyprian to Pope Cornelius) of us all, and it is likewise both equal and just that every man's Cause be heard where the crime is committed: [And (which words your Cardinal thought good to pretermit) every Pastor hath committed unto him a portion of the flock (of Christ) which he is to govern, & whereof he is to give an account unto God.] And doubtless they who are under our government ought not to gad and wander, nor rashly and cunningly to make a difference between Bishops that are at Unity and Concord: but they should plead their cause there, where both accusers and witnesses may be had; except some few desperate and naughty fellows think the Authority of the Bishops of Africa to be of less power or might, who have judged, and by the gravity of their judgement have condemned men whose consciences are fettered in the cords of their own offences: their cause is already known and tried, and judgement is given already unto them: nor can it agree with the censure of Bishops to deserve the reprehension of lightness and inconstancy. So he. Than which what could be said more to the strangling of your pretended Right of Appeals to Rome?  
Your Cardinal's Answers are many, and various: it will be the most expedite way for us to follow him step by step. 
d Cyprianum aegrè tulisse Appellationes, non omnino sustulisse. Bellar. lib 2 de Rom. Pont. cap. 23.  1. Cyprian (saith he) albeit he did unwillingly endure, yet did he not altogether abrogate Appeals. True, if you mean simply the Abrogation of All Appeals within Africa; but if you understand, that he abrogated not All Appeals beyond the Seas, and consequently to Rome, then is your Answer most false.  
Secondly, your Cardinal instanceth in an Example of One Appealing from Spain unto Rome, many hundred miles distant: yet Cyprian writing hereof (saith 
e Basilides in Hispaniâ damnatus ad Stephanum appellaverat. nec enim tam culpandus est (Stephanus) cui negligenter obreptum est, quam Basilides execrandus, qui fraudulenter obrepsit. Cyprian. teste Bellar. quo supra.  he) said [Non tàm, quam] the Pope was not so much too blame, who was deceived by the Appellant, as was the Appellant himself that deceived him. As though this were not a full Reprehension of both. If one say, that he is not so felonious that receiveth stolen goods, as the man that did steal them, your Non tàm quam doth distinguish them in the degree of more or less felony, but maketh no difference in their nature and kind; for both are felonies. So then the Pope was less unblamable, Ergo he was unblamable: but the other more, because the Appellant would needs Appeal in the consciousness of his Crime, but the Pope entertained it, in a presumption of the man's integrity; and therefore Both unblamable, because (as Cyprian argueth) against equity and justice.  
Thirdly, but 
f Dico hoc decreto constitui, ut primum iudicium fi●t, ubi carmen admissum: non tamen prohibiberi, quo minus secundo etiam alibi iudicetur. Bellar. Ibidem.  The decree which Cyprian speaketh of (saith your Cardinal) was against the First judgement, which is to be made in the place where the crime is committed, but he forbiddeth not Second judgements elsewhere, by way of Appeal. Than which what can be more false? (I had almost said, faithless) for the Cardinal himself knoweth that Cyprian useth this as a Reason against their flying to Rome for a second judgement, even Because (saith Cyprian) they had been already judged by me and my Bishops, by whom they were condemned.  
Fourthly, but Cyprian (saith 
g Cyprianus argumentatur ex hoc Decreto, adiunctis manifestissimis criminibus. Bellar. quo supra.  he) argueth from this Decree, as it implieth most notorious and manifest crimes. What? did your Cardinal mean, by this his Ipse dixit, to infascinate his Reader, and to deprive him both of reason and sense? For ordinary reason teacheth, in points of Law, first that A man must not distinguish, where the Law doth not distinguish: although then it happened that these Crimes of the Appellant were indeed notorious, yet in the Decree itself there is no such Distinction. Secondly, it is a vain thing, to think that any Crime can appear so Notorious to a judge, who is many hundred miles off, but one report will encounter another, and the Appellant will still make fair pretence of innocency for himself, until the matter be tried. And that we may Appeal to common sense, in reading of the Canon and Decree itself, it is General, thus: It is just, that every man's Cause be heard there, where the crime is committed. It seemeth then that your Cardinal dreamt of a Cause employed in this Decree, which could not be any man's Cause, else he would have considered that where Every man's Cause is expressed, No cause of any man could be excepted.  
Fifthly, but 
h Quod si hoc Decreto ipso prohiberentur Appellatio●es, prohiberetur non solùm ad Romanum Pontificem, sed etiam ad quemuis alium iudicem. Bellar. quo supra.  If Cyprian (saith he) should here deny Appeals, than should he take away all Appeals, not only to Rome, but even to every place else: which Answer how unworthy it is the judgement of any man of learning, you will easily perceive. Cyprian, (as your 
* See above Cap. 12.  Pamelius noteth) was the Chief Primate in Africa, who held a Council of his Bishops to Excommunicate Fortunatus, and to depose him: the Council foreseeing the factiousness of Fortunatus, that he would seek to Rome, to trouble the Church of Christ, by working distraction between the Churches of Rome and Carthage, made the former Decree, expressing the iniquity of any Appeal to Remote places, where the Cause could not be justly tried. Hereby the said Council took not away All Appeals within Africa, for it was then lawful for a Clerk to Appeal from his Bishop to an Archbishop, from a Metropolitan to a Council: and behold here was a Council of Bishops which put the Period to all further Appeals; expressly forbidding Appealing to places so remote as Rome was, which none in Africa could come unto, without Transmigration over Sea. Your Cardinal's Answer would teach a man to argue thus; There lieth an Appeal from th● Bishop of Chester to the Archbishop of York, and from the Court of York to the Delegates: but the State of England denieth Transalpinari, Appeals from England over the Alps to Rome. Ergò, the State of England abrogateth all manner of Appeals, whether from Chester to York, or from York to the Delegates.  
Moreover Cyprian, speaking of those Schismatical Appellants, Except (saith he) some few desperate and wretched fellows think the Authority of the Bishop of Africa lesse; Insinuating (as we may truly, justly, and according to their Intention interpret it) than the Authority of the Bishop of Rome; thereby impairing the power of the Bishop of Rome, in respect of the judgement of a national Council. No, (saith your 
i Quòd Cyprianus addit, non esse minoris Authoritatis Episcopos Africa, illud [Minoris] non refer comparationem ad Romamanos Pontifices, sed ad causam de quâ nunc agebatur: est enim sensus, Episcopos Africae non esse minoris Authoritatis quam sufficiat ad eam iudicandam. Bellar. Ibidem.  Cardinal) but the words [less Authority] have Relation to the Cause, and not to the Bishop of Rome, as signifying that the Bishops of Africa had authority sufficient to judge that Cause. Here again he feigneth Cyprian to have thought those few desperate and wretched Appellants to have been so absurd, as to think they could not be judged by a Provincial Council, whereunto they were subject: An absurdity, which none i● Christianity could truly imagine. Besides the words [Less Authority of them that have judged] have Relation to him, whom those Fellows desired to reiudge their Cause, namely the Pope: therefore it was as much as if Cyprian had said, Lest those few naughty fellows may think the Bishops of Africa have less Authority than is that, which they Appeal unto; and their Appeal was to the Bishop of Rome. So apparent it is, that Cyprian, thus twitting those Few desperate Appellants, did imply that there were in Africa but few that would so much derogate from the Authority of the Bishops within that Province.  

CHALLENGE.  
HItherto have we pursued our Aduersay in his own Tract, who all this while hath been but beating of the air, and (as it were) catching of Butterflies, as you may perceive. For this matter of Right of Appealing, or Not Right of Appealing being of that importance, as that it must either make or mar your Papal Monarch and Roman Article of his Universal Dominion over all Churches; The Author Saint Cyprian being so ancient in time, living in the 250 year after Christ; so singular for his learning and judgement; and for his Sanctity and Constancy in the Faith (even unto death) for the name of Christ, so admirable a Saint: we shall desire you to take an exact Review of the Case, and to judge accordingly.  
You remember that the Epistle is directed unto Pope Cornelius, a godly Pope, but yet very timorous, and somewhat dismayed at the threats of Heretics and schismatics; whom therefore Cyprian laboureth to support and consolidate. The very scope of the letter, in that part thereof, is to dissuade him from giving any ear or Admission unto Fortunatus and Felicissimus, both Excommunicate persons, and already condemned by a Council in Africa, and seeking now, by way of Appeal, to find redress with the same Pope. His Sentence containeth no less than Eight Arguments, sufficient to confute your pretended Right of Appeals to Rome, which we may reduce to these Three Heads. The First concerneth the Decree itself, the Second, the judges, the Third, the Appellants, and Delinquents.  
1. The Decree defineth plainly that It is unequal and unjust to have an Ecclesiastical Cause judged, but where the Crime is committed. But the Crime was not committed in the Roman Diocese, Therefore it is meant, that they ought not to Appeal to Rome. 2. A Reason is given for this: Because it is unjust to judge, where Witnesses and Accusers could not be had: But at Rome out of Africa (whence all parties must have taken a long journey, both by Land and by Sea) Accusers and Witnesses could not be had; Therefore Cyprian meant, they ought not to Appeal to Rome.  
Next, here is the Consideration of the judges that had condemned these Excommunicates, namely Cyprian and the Bishops of Africa. 1. Cyprian telleth the Pope that Every Bishop in his own Diocese hath a por●ion of the flock of Christ committed unto him: Which being used as a Reason, to dissuade the Pope from entertaining any Appeal, doth conclude that therefore the Whole Flock of Christ is not subject to the Pope, and consequently your pretended Right of Appeal to Rome is but a Roman Pigment. 2. As the charge over a portion of the Flock of Christ is upon every Bishop, so in the discharge thereof, Every Bishop (saith Cyprian) is to give account unto God, namely as Supreme. Which again, being urged as a Motive to withdraw the Pope from intermeddling in that business, doth prove that therefore the Pope is not Monarch of the Church, to call All other Bishops to Account; and Consequently hath not the Universal power of Appeals. 3. The cause of these men (saith Cyprian) is already judged, and we may not incur the reproof of levity, in giving our Sentence; hereby intimating unto the Pope, that though he should oppose, they notwithstanding must be found Constant in withstanding him, which doth argue, that although Appeals from those parts were admitted at Rome, yet might they justly be opposed against.  
The last Head is the Observation of Cyprian his Taxation of the Appellants, or parties Delinquent, now flying for succour to Rome. 1. He telleth the Pope, Those (saith he) whom we rule over, [oportet non circumcursitare,] aught not thus to gadd about; calling their contumacious forsaking of the judgement of their Ordinary, and seeking Restitution at Rome, a Gadding and vagrant kind of wandering: which had been a Contumacy against the Pope, by Cyprian, if Appeals to Rome had been inherent in the Roman Mitre and Monarchy. 2. He calleth them and their Accomplices, that thus laboured an Appeal, A few desperate Fellows, that thereby undermined the Authority of the Bishops of Africa over them, being Africans, as Less; meaning (as hath been proved) Less than the Authority of the Bishop of Rome. And would not your now Pope have held this also a Contumely (if he had thought himself such a Monarch) to hear one of his underlings to call men Desperate fellows, and A few; for acknowleging his Sovereignty and Monarchy, by Appealing unto him, and thereby to signify that there were but Few that would think this power of Appeals to belong of Right to the Pope of Rome? Lastly, he chargeth them that by this their Act, of Appealing thus irregularly to the Bishop of Rome, they did but thereby go about [Episcoporum concordiam collidere,] to burst the Union and concord of Bishops. But the suffering of any one to make his just Appeal could be no breach of Unity, between a Substitute Bishop and a predominant Bishop, to whom Appeals do of right appertain: nay it were an injury and sufficient cause of breach of Concord not to suffer such Appeals to pass, and take place. Therefore Cyprian, alleging this unto the Pope as a matter of their just reproof, did not believe that they could justly Appeal unto Rome.  
Who is there now but must conclude, that as long as the Article of your Roman Faith, concerning the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome, and Appeals unto him, as the principal note of his Monarchy, shall be examined by the Decree of Cyprian and the other Bishops of Africa, which thus oppose against Them, who (as they say) Navigârunt Romam] sailed to Rome by way of Appeal; your pretence of so Appealing must needs be split upon the same Decree, as upon a Rock, and suffer shipwreck.    

Our Fourth Discovery of the Vanity of your former Pretonce of Universal Right of Appeals to Rome, from the Testimony of Pope Damasus. SECT. 18.  
ABout the year of our Lord God 367, one offered an Appeal to Damasus Pope of Rome, and receiveth this Answer; 
k Damasus Epist. ad Theophilum, quae est Epist. 79. inter Epistolas Ambrosijs. cum huiusmodi fuerit Concilij Capuensis iudicium, ut finitimi Bonoso, atque eius Accusatoribus iudices tribuerentur,— advertimus quod nobis iudicandi forma competere non potest  In as much (saith the Pope) as the Council of Capua hath so judged this matter already, that those who were next adjoining should be judges, both to Bonosus, and his Accusers, We observe that the form of judging [Nobis competere non potest,] cannot appertain unto us. Whereby we conceive the Pope confesseth his no Right of admitting an Appeal, after the Sentence, and judgement of a Prouniciall Council. And we are answered by your Cardinal, thus: that 
l Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont Cap. 24. Damasus non dicit se non posse iudieare, sed post Prouinciale iudicium, non ei convenire, nempe ut fine causâ iudicaret.  [Non competere] in this place, is no more than [Non convenire,] it is not convenient; because that when a Provincial Synod had judged a Cause, it could not be convenient for Damasus to judge it without cause. And this is all the Answer which Protestants could, by whatsoever importunity, wrest from the professed Advocate of your Popes; which, say we, fighteth against all form and style of Law. For the very word [Competit,] in the style of the judicial Court, signifieth one that is Sufficient, as judex competens, used by Ulpian, A Competent judge, and not only a Convenient judge.  
And for the strict sense of the word, in the point of Appeal, we may justly Appeal to all Courts to Christendom, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, which may challenge any Right of Appeal: Because if (for example) the judge of the Audience or Arches should answer an Appellant; Sir, the matter hath been judged by the Court of York, and I know the Chancellor there to be a learned, and a just man, therefore (to use your Cardinal's phrase) It cannot be convenient for me to judge that, which hath received a former judgement; might not the Appellant rejoin? What Sir? Not convenient for you to receive an Appeal! Why, you are therefore appointed judge in Cases of Appeal, yea, and sworn to discharge your Office of judgement, and not to prejudice any Cause, by saying you see no cause to admit it, before you have heard it. For be you assured, that I shall either show just proof of injustice offered unto me, by my former judge, or else I must submit myself to the Censure of your Court. Such an incongruity and absurdity it is, to modify the word [Competere] with the bare sense of, Conveniency, as though it were not Convenient for one to perform that, which he is bound in Conscience to discharge.  
We therefore contend for the strict sense of [Non Competere] that is to say, Not appertaining, in the Sentence of Pope Damasus; as may furthermore appear clearly by the Sentence itself, wherein Damasus will have the man understand Two things; One is, [Forma iudicandi non competit, The Form of judging doth not belong unto me;] he saith not, [Causa iudicandi non competit, The Cause of judging belongeth not unto me.] But you know that no true Court of Appeal can say, that it hath not a Form of judging: the Second is the Cause, why he said [Non competit,] to wit, because the Cause had been judged by a Provincial Synod, as by those, who were [Finitimi,] Near to the parties, as well Accusers, as Accused: as if he had taken his reason from the very Decree of the Council of Carthage, set down by Saint Cyprian, whereof you 
* See above, Cap. 12. §. 2.  have heard at large, call it Unequal, and Unjust, that a Cause should be judged in Remote Courts, where the parties cannot appear; but especially that any one judge should take upon him to reiudge that, which was prejudged by a Provincial Council.  
Otherwise, how easy a matter had it been for the man, that tendered his Appeal, to have pushed the Pope's Answer away with the horns of a Dilemma, thus; Either have you a Right of judging in this Case of Appeals, after a Provincial Council, or you have not: If you have, then do me right and justice to hear it: If you have not, than it is but a false Delusion in men to Attribute to the See of Rome an Universal power of judging all judges, as being the Supreme Monarch over all Bishops, and their Provincial Counsels. Damasus therefore in this Answering, to wit, The form of judging [Non potest nobis competere,] did mean that he could not, in such a Cause, be held a Competent, sufficient, or lawful judge. Behold now your Universal judge! behold your Monarch! controlled and confuted out of the mouth of your judge himself.   

Our Fifth Discovery of the Falsehood of your Pretence of Universal Right of Appeals to Rome, from the Council of Milevis. SECT. 19  
IN the year of Christ 416, 
m Binius Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 599.  Threescore Bishops in a Council at Milevis, (where Saint Augustine was present) decreed in the words following: 
n Quòd si ab iis (i.e. Episcopis vicinis) provocandum putaverint, non provocent; nisi ad Africana Concilia, & ad Primates Provinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putaue●it appellandum, a nullo intra Africam ad Communionem suscipatur. Conc. Milevit. Can. 22.  If Priests or Deacons, or Inferior Clerks shall have complaint against their Bishops, let their next bordering Bishops hear their Cause and determine it, but if they shall Appeal from those Bishops, yet let them not Appeal any whither, but to an African Council, or to the Primates of the Provinces wherein they are: And whosoever shall think he may Appeal beyond the Seas, let none within Africa admit him into their Communion. Two points are considerable in this Inhibition of Appeals: First concerneth the Place, the Second the Persons, Touching the Place, it is at length granted by your great Advocate in this Cause, to wit, that by those words [If any Appeal beyond the Sea, let none in Africa admit him into his communion] is 
s Respondent Aliqui, etc.— Nam praecipuè propter Romanam Ecclesiam Africani statuerunt, ut non liceret appellare ultra mare ab Africanis. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 24.  forbidden Appeals unto Rome. Where, by the way, is to be taxed ●he impudency of your Gratian, who whereas the Canon was made purposely against Appeals to Rome, yet shamed he not to add to that Canon of himself this exception: 
t Addit Gratianus hanc exceptionem: nisi fortè ad sedem Apostolicam appelletur. Bellar. Ibidem.  Except the Appeal be made to the Apostolic See of Rome. Which is, in Music, Discantus contra punctum; and in your Law, Statuimus, i. e. Abrogamus.  
But thus much being granted, how is not this a prohibition against your pretended Right of Appeals to Rome? Satisfy this point, or else yield the Cause. 
u Non tamen propositum fuit. nec prohiberi potuit summo Pontifici, ne, si vellet, eos admitteret. Bell●r. Ibidem.  Although (saith your Cardinal) the Council prohibited and forbade that Priests and inferior Clerks should Appeal to the Bishop of Rome, yet did they not forbid that the Pope of Rome should admit of Appeals made unto him, nor had they any power or authority so to do. So he. This being the only Answer, which, after his perusal of all other Answers, he thought to have any colour of satisfaction in, we take it to be in effect the loss of the cause. For our Question is, whether the Bishop of Rome have a sole and Sovereign Right, over the whole Church of Christ, to judge all Causes, by his absolute Prerogative of Popedom: And an Appeal, being A removing of a Cause from an inferior judge to a Superior, we reply that where there lieth a Prohibition against Appealing to a judge, that judge is not held a Superior judge. But this Council granted a Prohibition against the Appealing of Priests within Africa, unto the Pope of Rome; therefore was not the Pope of Rome in this Case of Priests held a Superior judge, much less the Supreme of all others, as you pretend.  
And although that Council could not forbid the Pope (who was in a Transmarine Province) to admit of such Appeals, yet, in forbidding the Appeals unto the Pope, they thereby denied that he had lawful power to receive them. As here in England, the prohibiting of every person to Appeal unto any, without the King's Dominions, doth by undeniable Consequence show, that none without the King's Dominions hath just power to admit of any such Appellants. How victorious then is Truth, in this one Cause, which by the evidence thereof ha●h enforced her adversary, by necessary Sequel, thus far to profess it? Which Answer of his notwithstanding he would gladly patch up with an Addition of a mere falsehood, saying; 
x Zozimus iussit hunc Canonem confirmari, & in praxim redigi. Bellar. quo supra.  Pope Zozimus did command this Canon of the non-Appeales of Priests to be confirmed. False, for Pope Zozimus is known, by the whole process of the Council of Africa, to have admitted of the Appeal of Apiarius a Priest, but not without a shameful repulse given him by the same Council, for his bold usurpation: Which your other Cardinal could not dissemble; For 
y Vt planè liquet Zozimum minimè probasse, quod ab Africanis fuerat definitum, ne Presbyte●i i●dicia transmarina Appellarent. Baronivi Anno. 419. num. 70.  It is evident (saith he) that Zozimus did not allow that Decree, concerning Priests not Appealing unto places beyond the Sea. So triumphant is Truth!  
The Second point that your Cardinal insisteth upon is to give us to weet, that the Decree 
z Canon iste Mil●uitanus loquitur de Presbyteris & Minoribus Cle●icis, non de Episcopis: ut patet ex Augustino, qui huic Concilio interfuit, & tamen scribit in Epistpla 162. Licere Episcopis Africanis appellare ultra mare. Bellar. quo supra.  forbade only the Priests and Inferior sort of the Clergy to Appeal to Rome, but not the Bishops: this (he saith) is proved by Saint Augustine who was present in this Council, and yet saith in one of his Epistles, that it is lawful for the Bishops of Africa to Appeal beyond the Sea. So he; yet so still, as though he were scarce able to report a Truth. For Augustine, in the place alleged, doth not justify Appeals beyond the Sea to Rome, but only speaketh of one Case of Cecilian, which was not a Case of Appeal, but of Delegation (by the Authority of the Emperor) to the Pope, and after to other Bishops; as our next Discovery will prove. As for Saint Augustine, who was present in this Synod, he was also present in the African Council at Carthage, assenting to that which was there concluded by the Fathers of that Council, in their Epistle to Pope Celestine; wherein grounding their Caution upon the Council of Nice, 
a Quia hoc etiam Nicaeno Concilio definitum ●acilè advertet venerabilitas vestra. Nam etsi de inferioribus Clericis, vel Laicis, videtur ibi praecaveri, quantò magis hoc de Episcopis voluit obseruari, ne in suâ Provinciâ communione suspensi, à tuâ sanctitate vel festinatò, vel praeposterè, vel indebitè videantur communioni restitui? Apud Binium Tom. 1. Conc. Afric. Cap. 105. Epist. ●● Gael●stinū.  Your Reverence knoweth right well (say they) that if they have so cautelously provided & decreed, concerning Clerks of Inferior Orders, how much more would they have this observed in respect of Bishops?  
By this you may discern the Logic taught them at Carthage, by those Father's arguing thus: The Bishops of Africa provided for the conveniency of their Priests and Inferior Clergy, to hinder them from vexatious courses, and wasteful expenses, in the point of Appeal, by saving them from: unnecessary travels beyond the Sea; therefore they intended much more that they themselves should be freed. Even as an householder that doth compound with a Captain, in behalf of his servant, to free him from being pressed for a Soldier, doth much more intend thereby his own freedom, although he make no express mention thereof.  

CHALLENGE.  
THe same Decree that forbiddeth that No Priest, or Deacon shall Appeal to Rome, out of Africa, awardeth also a penalty of Excommunication upon every Priest or Deacon that shall transgress herein; saying, Let none within afric join in Communion with him. Now then (that we may close with you) those holy Fathers, who Excommunicated them that should Appeal to Rome, would not have regarded the Excommunication of the Pope, if he should have Excommunicated them for denying such Appeals unto Rome. This woundeth your Cause to the very heart. For if those godly Fathers of that Council of Milevis did deny that, which you account to be the Principal Character of your Article of Subjection to the Pope, even his pretended Right of Appeal, (as being Supreme judge;) if also by their Decree of the Excommunication of them, that should but Think of the contrary: they therefore doubtless would have contemned the Excommunication of the Pope, if peradventure he had returned the Dint of his Excommunication against them.  
Then review again your now Roman Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, and the four pillars of Necessity, whereupon it standeth, to wit, 1. Necessity of Union with it. 2. Necessity of Subjection unto it. 3. Necessity of Faith, to believe both these: and 4. All these to be Necessary to Salvation; and try then whether this Council of Milevis have not under-mined and overthrown each one. For 1. They forbid Appeals to Rome; therefore they acknowledged no absolute Subjection unto it. 2. They Excommunicate all African Priests Appealing to Rome; Ergò they held no absolute Necessity of Union with it. 3. They Excommunicate all such [Qui put averint] as should but Think it lawful to Appeal to Rome; Therefore they had no Necessity of Belief either of Subjection or Union with that Church. 4. That which they thought just in themselves to oppose, the same they could not think Necessary for others to believe. Except therefore we shall condemn at once Threescore Ancient, Godly, Orthodox Bishops, and every way without exception (among whom Saint Augustine was one) to be deprived of spiritual life, we must conclude that your Roman Article is most Schismatical and Damnable.    

Our sixth Discovery of the Falsehood of the pretended Universal Right of Appeals to Rome, by opposing Two other Cases, out of Saint Augustine. SECT. 20.  
NE quid nimis, is an Aphorism which ought to take place in every kind of discourse; for enough is enough: and, Noli actum agere, not to do one thing twice, is as necessary as the former. You will therefore excuse us, if, to prevent tediousness, we refer you to that which hath been already as exactly argued from both, as the Cases themselves did require. The first was the Case of the Bishop 
* See above Chap. 12. §. 8.  Cecilian. The Second Case is between the Church of Africa, in a Provincial Council, and Three Popes successively, in the Cause of 
* See above, Cap. 9 §. 8, etc.  Apiarius. The sum of both is this; that because Appealing (as hath been said) is a Removing of a Cause from an Inferior Court to an Higher; the first Case, Transferring a Cause, judged by Pope julius, unto another judge, by way of Delegation, proveth that the Pope was not by his own place the Supreme judge. The Second, Inhibiting Appeals to Rome, proveth that, concerning the Right of Appeals in Africa, the Pope was no judge at all. Wherefore (willingly pretermitting many other your Answers, in these kinds of Disputes, far more frivolous and vain than any of the former) we proceed to that which followeth.  

Our General CHALLENGE, concerning your Romish Answers to the Testimonies objected against your pretended Right of Appeals to Rome.  
Universal Right of Appeals is indeed (as you have said) A most strong Argument, for proof of an Universal jurisdiction, in any one that is truly invested there in. And as truly is the No-vniversall Right as strong an Argument of false Usurpation, to prove the No-vniversall jurisdiction of Any that shall falsely pretend such a Right. For as it is true, that the Sun is the Universal light of the World, because it giveth light unto all other Stars and Planets: so is it as true, that neither Moon, nor Mercury, nor any Planet or Star beside can be called such an Universal light, because it hath not that Universal power of giving light to all others. This Universal Right of Appeal you have appropriated unto your Bishop of Rome and his See, which all Church's Christian now, not subject to the same See, do as absolutely gainsay. Now cometh in your choice 
* Bellarmine.  Champion, furnished with the Panoply of learning and subtility, as well offensive to object, as defensive to answer whatsoever force of Argument made against all pretence of that Right.  
But you cannot but discern in his Objections, that he could object nothing, but either the parties themselves, namely the Popes for Witnesses in their own Cause; or the exorbitant Examples of Factious and Criminal Persons Appellant, in stead of regular and Conformable; or (in the Examples of some Godly Fathers, that sought help at the Pope of Rome) a power arbitrary, for judicatory; or a friendly support, issuing from the Estimation and grace that some Popes than had to persuade, in stead of Authority of jurisdiction: or lastly, a restrained power, and that only by humane and Ecclesiastical Canon and Custom (which is alterable) instead of a pretended, proper, and Divine Right. Such we have proved to be the vanity of his Proofs.  
As easily may you observe that notwithstanding his Answers he furthermore lieth open to manifold Exceptions. For Anno 216. Restraint of Appeals to Rome was made by the Council of Carthage: Anno 337. a Delogation was made by a godly Emperor Constantine to Pope julius, and transferred from him to other Bishops: Anno 367. Pope Damasus disclaimeth all Right of Appeal to Rome, after the judgement of a Provincial Synod: Anno 416. the Council of Milevis denieth Appeals out of Africa to Rome: and Anno 420. the Council of Africa is as peremptory against this pretence of Papal Privilege of Appeal. Among which, Three Counsels, to wit, that of Carthage under Cyprian, the other of Milevis, and the Third of Africa, all African Counsels, are challenged by your Authors to have been within the Patriarkship of the Bishop of Rome, and yet they denied unto him the Prerogative of Right of Appeal from Africa to Rome. Than which what can be a more evident Discovery of the Falsehood of your Article?  
We conclude. Either must 600. Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon, 87. Bishops in the Council of Carthage, 60. in the Council of Milevis, 217. in the Council of Africa, and among them Saint Cyprian & Saint Augustin (who All may seem to have conspired to pull down this great Pinnacle of the Roman● Babel, and principal part of her Article of Catholic jurisdiction) be judged deprived of Salvation; or else must we say, and profess, Cursed is this your Article, of The Catholic Roman Church, without which there is no Salvation.  
And now have we finished the Consideration of the Roman Church, after her first Foundation, in the Ancient ages thereof, within the compass of the First Six hundred years after Christ: and Antiquity in Doctrine (you know) is, of all humane proofs, the best Argument for Christian Resolution. This Treatise would grow into a vast Volume, if we should proceed throughout all former Successive ages; we therefore rather choose, for brevitie-sake, to hasten to the Consideration of the Later ages of the Church.     

CHAP. XIV. Our Fourth General Consideration is of the Churches Catholic, in the Last ages thereof; manifesting thereby the Impiety of your Article, The Roman Catholic Church, without which there is no Salvation.  
BY this Consideration we shall be occasioned to give Instances in diverse Christian Churches, which profess not either that Subjection, or else that Union with the Pope or Church of Rome, as your Article, viz. The Roman Catholic Church, etc. doth exact.  

These Instances are of Three kinds; 

1. In Churches of Nations Remote from the Church of Rome.  
2. In Churches of nearer Countries: wherein are the Churches of Protestants.  
3. In the Roman Church itself.     

Our First Instance, concerning Remote Churches, not Subject nor united to Rome, is in the Greek Church. SECT. 1.  
But First be it known unto you, that there are Four Patriarkships Christian at this day disunited from Rome, to wit, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and jerusalem, the patriarchs whereof have, of later Times, their Ancient patriarchal style, as thus: Hieremias by the mercy of God Archbishop of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch: Michael by the Mercy of God Patriarch of Great Theopolis, or Antiochia: joachim, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria: Sophronius by the Mercy of God Patriarch of jerusalem and all Palaestina. Whatsoever Christians are under these Patriarkships, or in other remote Nations, and have not ruinated any Fundamental Article of saving Truth, set down in our ancient Creeds, and are united unto the true Catholic Head Christ jesus our Lord, by a living Faith: all Protestants esteem Them as true members of the Catholic Church, and (notwithstanding diverse their more tolerable Errors and superstitions) to be in the state of Salvation, albeit no-way subject or Subordinate to the Roman Church. And from this General Consideration, we descend unto our Particular Instances.  
For our more expedite passage, and your expert apprehension of the Validity of this Instance, we shall Methodically lay down before you Five observable points. First, the Continuance of the No-Subiection of the Greek Church to the Roman: Secondly, the Dis-union and Opposition thereof unto this day: Thirdly, the Estimation which is to be had of it, in respect of their Religion, notwithstanding their said Dis-union from Rome: Fourthly, the extent of the said Greek Church; showing the innumerable Multitudes of them: and Lastly, upon these Premises, a Manifestation (by way of Challenge) and discovery of the Iniquity of your now Roman Article, which pronounceth Damnation upon all such, as profess not Subiestion and Union with the Church of Rome.   

I. The Continuance of the No-Subiection of the Greek Church to Rome. SECT. 2.  
BEsides all that which hath 
* See above, Cap. 7.  been copiously already delivered, concerning the Greek Church, we shall in this place rest much upon your Confessions. Wherefore we would First demand of you, how many years you think the Church of Greece hath been divided from the Church of Rome, as a Church distinct, and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Some of you indefinitely set down 
a Per multas annorum centurias— Graeci à Latinis divisi. Alphonsus à Castro de Haeres. Tit. Deus Haeres. 12.  Many Hundreds of years: Whereas your Cardinal more precisely doth (although in his indignation) note how the 
b Graeci ab anno 381. in Conc. Gen. 2. Patriarcham Constantinop. secundum à Romano Pontifice facere voluerunt,— Deinde eo non contenti, Anno 451. Patriarcham eum Romano Episcopo parem efficere conati sunt, & paria ei privilegia tribuere. In Conc. Chalced. Act. 6. Bellarmin. Praefat. ante Controversiam de Rom. Pont. §. Ven●o.  Greek Church opposed itself to the Latin in the year 381. in a General Council; wherein, contrary to the liking of the Pope of Rome, a Hundred and Fifty Bishops constituted a Patriarch of Constantinople, and placed him next to the Bishop of Rome: And being not content with this (saith he) in the year 451. in the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon, by the Consent of Six hundred Bishops, they endeavoured to make the Patriarch of Constantinople equal with the Bishop of Rome, in the Privileges of his Patriarkship. All this argueth no Subjection of the Greek Church unto Rome.  
And albeit some would scrape acquaintance with the Greek Church, in the year 1549, at the Council of 
c In Concilio Florentino scimus Graecos erroris convictos, ad fidem Latinorum redijssè. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. ●.  Florence, as though all than had become Subjects to the Pope; yet upon due examination you yourselves find the Grecians there to have been so far from Subjection to the Pope, that 
d Respondebant Graeci Patriarcham nostrum minime extra Constantinopolim eligi posse. Surius Tom. 4. Conc. pag. 489.  They would not permit him to constitute a Patriarch among them: professing that they could do nothing, without the consent of their own Church. And as far were they from Subiecting themselves in Doctrine, for when some few points were propounded, the greeks answered the Pope, that 
e De summi Pontificis principatu, de Azymo, Fermentato, Transsubstantiatione Panis in Eucharistia, Responderunt Graeci, de his, sanctissime Pater, nullam ad haec respondendi facultatem habemus. Conc. Florent. ibid. quo supr.  They had no licence to treat of such matters. Yea and their Emperor Palaeologus, that was so earnest to piece them together, was himself but hardly welcomed home to the Greek Church, which was now much more exasperated against the Roman Church: insomuch that (as 
f Denique Anno 1454. apertè pronunciarunt Episcopum Constantinop. Episcoporum omnium primum, & summum Pontificem fuisse. Bellarm. in Praefat. ●nte Controuers. de Rom. Pont. §. Venio.  you say) They did now Pronounce their Patriarch of Constantinople the Supreme, and Chief of all Bishops. Thus far therefore have you confessed the no-Subiection of the Greek Church, from the first four hundred years, unto the year 1549; which make up 1149 years.  
Yet are we not content with this short reckoning, but rather hearken unto your jesuit Maldonate, and Prateolus: the first, 
g Graeci maximè hanc potestatem semper Romano Pontifici inviderunt. Maldonat. in Mat 10.2.  The greeks (saith he) always envied and disliked the supreme dignity of the Pope. The other thus: 
h Vsque adeo Romanae Ecclesiae, infesti rebels, ut nec Romanae Ecclesiae, nec Sacrorum eius Conciliorum Decretis obtemperare vnq●am voluerint. Prateolus in Haeres. Tit. Graeci.  And they were (good words, good friend) so rebelliously adverse to the Church of Rome, that they never would obey his Decrees. So they. This is enough to show the Universal freedom they still challenged from the Dominion and jurisdiction of Rome.   

II. The Dis-union and Separation of the Latter Greek Church from Rome. SECT. 3.  
THe No-Subiection doth not always argue necessarily a Dis-union of Separation, for the King of France and King of Spain are united in league, albeit neither of them subject to other; but then only when-as Subjection is due, as it is seen in all Cases of Rebellion. Now this Dis-union in Churches is most commonly either in Faith or in Affection. What kind of Separation hath been a long time between the Greek and Latin Church, we need not tell you, your own Complaints and cries are loud enough against them. 
i Summum Pontificem omnesque Latinos pro Excommunicatis habent. Prateolus Elench. Haer. Tit. Graeci.  The greeks (say you) hold the Pope of Rome and all Latins under him to be Excommunicate: Yea and 
k In tantum Graeci coeperunt abhominari Latino's,— ut si quando Sacerdotes Latini super illorum celebrassent Altaria, non prius ipsi sacrificare volebant in illis, quam ea tanquam per hoc inquinata lavissent. Baptizatos etiam a Latinis Graeci ausu ●emerario rebaptizate praesumebant. Conc. Lat. 4. Sub Innocent. 3. Cap. 4. apud Binium. Quando Latini super eorum alta●ia celebrassent, non prius ipsi sacrificare volebant, quam illa iam ab iis inquinata lavissent. Etiam baptizaros à Latinis rebaptizare praesumebant. Prateolus quo supra, & Sanderus de Visib. Mon. Ecclesiae. Anno 942. l. 7. p. 425.  So far forth do they abhor the Church of Rome (as your Lateran Council at Rome noteth) that if the Priests of the Roman Church shall chance to celebrate upon any of their Altars they themselves would not celebrate upon the same Altars, before they had washed them, as thinking them polluted by the others sacrificing: Nay and furthermore, they Rebaptize them that had been baptised in the Church of Rome.  
Will you know one main reason of this the Greek Opposition? Hearken then to Nilus the Greek Archbishop of Thessalonica: 
l Nostri dissidij causa fuit, quid Latinis quidam Magistrorum partes sibi sumunt, al●o●que instar discipulorum habent: sed non ita se habent Patrum Deecreta, quae in hunc usque diem literis consignata fuerunt. Dicunt Latini, Papae partes esse Concilia convocare, de Ecclesiasticis negocijs statuere: quod si verum est, superfluus est sanctorum Patrum conventus. Nilus' Archiepiscopus Thessaly. De primatu Papae.  The Latins (saith he) give us cause to descent from them, whiles that they take upon them to be Masters of the Church, and use, as if we were but their Scholars: Contrary to the Decrees of ancient Fathers, which are extant in their writings at this day. And the Latins affirm, that it is the office of their Popes to call Synods, and to determine of all matters Ecclesiastical; which if it be true, then to what end were the assemblies of holy Fathers in former Counsels? these were all but superfluous. So he.  
But yet shall we think that there can be so great distance between the Greek Church and Protestants, as to Excommunicate them, or to Rebaptize any of their Profession? Certes no. For, Anno 1584. 
m Patriarcha jeremias Respon. 2. pag. 200. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople, in his Answer to the Protestants of Wittenberg, did thus far congratulate with them, saying: We give thanks to God the giver of grace, and rejoice with many Others, that your Doctrine is in many things so consonant unto the Doctrine of our Church. And it is not long since the most Reverend Father in God, GEORGE by the Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Primate and Metropolitan of all England received Letters from the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria, instiling himself 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Cyrill by the Mercy of God Pope and Patriarch of the great City Alexandria: commending one of his Monks, called Metrophanes Chrysopulus, unto the said Lord Arch Bishop of Canterbury, that under his Patronage he (●hough otherwise learned) might be exercised in our Universities of England, and instituted in the Rudiments of our Profession. Who purposely avoiding the Romish Sect, did daily frequent the public Service of our Church, even as other Grecians in their travels through England willingly use to do. Which may justly confute the fabulous report of 
o Baronius Tom. 6. pag. 906. ad finem. Reporting that an Ambassador was sent from Ma●●us Patriarch of Alexandria unto Pope Clement the 8, by whom he is said to have reconciled himself and all his Provinces of Egypt unto the Bishop of Rome. Which our Author Master Breerewood in his Book of Religions hath observed, saying, that The matter being more diligently examined, it proved to be but a trick of Imposture.  Baronius, concerning a late Reconciliation of the Church of Alexandria, to the See of Rome. And you have, no doubt, heard of the Epistle to the Patriarch of Constantinople, unto the Protestant Church at Prague in Bohemia: 
p Epistola Ecclesiae Constantin●p. ad Ecclesi●m Pragensem. Teste I●ello nostro Apolog. part. 1. pag. 34.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, Wherefore, loving Brethren, and Children, if it be so, as we hear, and hope, make haste that we may join together in Unity. So then the Grecians seem to be as accordant with Protestants in Communion, as they are dissenting from you Romans.   

III. The Estimation which is to be had of the Greek Church, in respect of their Religion. SECT. 4.  
Our next Question will be, whether in your own Estimation the Greek Ghurch be worthy of Christian Communion, or no. The greatest exception that some of you have taken against them is the denial of the Article, touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. But another jesuit and Cardinal will free them from the crime of Heresy, in this point: 
q Graecus intelligens dicit Spiritum Sanctum procedere per filium, quod non aliud significat, quam quod nos dicimus. Tolet. in joban. ca 15. Annot. 25.  The understanding Greeks (saith he) saying that the Holy Ghost proceedeth by the Son, signify thereby nothing but that which we ourselves profess. So he. And indeed Faith consisteth not in the outward Syllables, but in the true meaning of an Article. Another jesuit saith, 
r Graeci propriè Schismatici dicuntur, quamuis reverà in eo ipso sint Haeretici, negantes Vnitatem Capitis. Suarez de Tripl. virt. Theol. Disp. 9 Sect. 1. num. 15.  The Grecians are properly called Schismatics, by being disunited from the Church (meaning of Rome) albeit they also become Haeretikes, by denying Union with the Head. Others do more favourably say, that 
s Alij opinantur Graecos esse Schismaticos, quia se Romani Pontificis iurisdictione subtrahunt: Haereticos autem non esse, quia in praedictis fidei Articulis potius nomine quam re a Romanae Ecclesiae sensu dissentiunt. Teste Az●rio Moral. part. 1. lib. 8. cap. 20. §. Decimò.  The Grecians are to be judged Schismatics, because they withdraw themselves from the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome: but not Haeretikes, because they agree in the aforesaid Articles of Faith.   

IV. The Extent of the Greek Church, Opposite unto Rome, as well in respect of Time, as of Place. SECT. 5.  
IF you inquire into the length of Time, since the Greeks have denied Subjection to the Church of Rome, this (as you have heard confessed) hath been Always: If how long they have denied Union also with the same Church, this is (as hath been likewise confessed) about 200. years ago. If lastly you seek to know the Latitude of the Greek Church, whereby you may the better guess at their number, A 
* Mr. Breerwood in his book of Religions.  faithful Servant of God, and one excellently studied in this Argument of Diversities of Religions, hath delivered unto us the just extent thereof; observing that the Grecians acknowledge Obedience unto the Patriarch of Constantinople, under whose jurisdiction are in Asia the Churches of Greece, Macedonia, Epirus, Thracia, Bulgaria, Podolia, Moscovia, Walachia, Russia, together with the Lands of the Aegean Sea, a good part of Polonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia, Country's subject to the Turk: Grecians dispersed in all these Countries, together with other Greek Churches, deny the Primacy of Rome. Besides the same Author addeth, that the Melchytes are of the same Religion of the Grecians, and the greatest Sect of Christians in the East: and after a just view taken of the number of the Countries, wherein the Greek Religion is professed, he concludeth, that If the Greek Church be compared with the now Roman (excepting the new Addition of the Indians) the Greek Church would far exceed.   

V. Our Discovery of the extreme Impiety of your Article, by way of Challenge. SECT. 6.  
YOur Article requireth a Necessity both of Subjection and of Union unto the Church of Rome, upon infallible danger of Damnation: In the Premises you have before you the same Necessity of Subjection to Rome, denied by the Ancient Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, about the year 450. after Christ; and so continuing in the Greek Church unto this day: and the Necessity of Union denied by the same Greek Church 200. years together, and all this by Professors, in your own judgement (excepting for the denying of this Romish Article) no Heretics, and in number Exceeding the Multitudes of them (the Indians excepted, and yet the Indian Converts, if you examine their Faith, are but poor Catholics, God wot!) who call themselves the Roman Catholics. How then shall we not account it a Luciferian pride, in your Roman Pope, to take upon him to ascend unto the Throne of God, and to pronounce Sentence of Damnation upon so infinite Christian souls? who (while your Bishops, excepting their raising of Persecutions against Protestants, live in peace, and fare deliciously every day) do suffer daily grievous and lamentable Persecutions and Oppressions under the Turkish tyranny, for the Gospel of Christ. What man is there, in whom there are any bowels of Christianity, who will not rather condemn your Article, as a Praesumptuous, Pernicious, Sacrilegious, Schismatical Delusion, and execrable Fascination of men's souls, by the which they are held fast under that Roman thraldom?   

A particular Instance, for the Corroboration of the former Argument, in Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople. SECT. 7.  
BAronius 
t Baronius Anno 869. num 68 & Anno 878. à nu. 6. ad num. 42. Papae mandatum ab Ignatio impetum non invenitur.  doth present before you Ignatius the Patriarch of Constantinople, who lived about the year of our Lord 869. (in your own judgement) An excellent man. Whom notwithstanding john the then Pope pronounced Excommunicate, except within 30. days the said Ignatius should Excommunicate certain Bishops in Bulgaria; for that the Pope then made claim to that Province, as belonging to the Roman Church. But the Pope's Excommunication against Ignatius was contradicted by the Patriarches of Alexandria, and Antioch: and as for Ignatius himself, He is not found (saith your said Cardinal) to have obeyed the Pope's command. Nevertheless, God graced this Ignatius with Miracles after his death. All this you have in Baronius.  

CHALLENGE.  
HEre you have (to omit the Opposition of the Two other patriarchs) Ignatius the Patriarch of Constantinople (for aught that can be proved to the contrary) living and dying a person Excommunicate from the Church of Rome; and notwithstanding acknowledged by you to be one worthy, whose life should be Registered in the Body of your public volume of 
u Binius Tom. ●. part. 2. pag. 862. Vita Sancti Ignatij Patriarchae Constantinop.  Counsels; and after his death having the witness of God, by his Seal of Miracles, that he was his own servant and Saint. As if you would teach us this Syllogism. Every one that dyeth Excommunicate, out of the Church of Rome, dyeth out of the Catholic Church, and is consequently Damned. But Ignatius, a godly man in his life, and blessed after his death, died Excommunicate out of the Church of Rome. Ergo the same man, godly in his life time, and Blessed after his death, is immortally Damned. Either must you thus conclude, or else condemn your Article of Necessity of Subjection and Union to the Roman Church, without which None can be saved, to be justly damnable. For as for the Comment of Baronius, who acknowledging him thus Excommunicate, and so dying, yet notwithstanding saith that he departed this life in the Pope's 
x Baronius quo supra.  Communion; we have nothing to say, but only Riddle me this Riddle, because we are to yield to the truth of the Story, and not unto the figment and fancy of a Papal Commentator.    

Our second Instance is in the Church's Christian in Assyria, disunited from Rome. SECT. 8.  
YOu have a 
y Narratio Cardinalis Amulei ad Conc. Trid. à Papa. Agnoscitur quòd in tam longinquis nationibus, quae nobis vix nota sunt, verae fidei cultus viget, & Christiana Religio non minori fortasse, quam apud nos pietate ex●olitur, & conseruata Doctrina quam S. Thomas docuit.— Huic Patriarchatui subiectos esse ducenta millia,— apud hos, annos mille ducentos Ecclesiae dignitas & salutaris doctrina permansit, etc. Extat haec Professio in libro qui inscribitur Acta Concilij Tridentini, pag. 195. Inscriptio literarum huiusmodi: Literae Illustrissimi Domini Marci Antoniuses Cardinalis Amulei ad Legatos Concilij Trid. super Professionem fidei Patriarchae & Assyriorum Orientalium.  Narration commended by Pope Pius the 4. unto the Council of Trent, concerning Abdisu Patriarch of the Assyrians, and all Churches under him, subiecting themselves to the Church and Pope of Rome. Our intended Brevity will not permit the Repetition of so large a Narration. Take unto you summarily those Advertisements, which are proper to this Cause in hand. It giveth us to know, 1. That the Nation of the Assyrians was so far remote from Rome, that At Rome it was scarce known that there was any Church there. 2. That there was Two hundred thousand Christian Professors within the Patriarchship of Abdisu. 3. That their Faith was sound, and form of worship pure, and so had continued, as they had received it in the beginning from Saint Thomas the Apostle. And 4. that many of them oftentimes had suffered Martyrdom by the malice of Infidels, for the profession of our Lord Christ. This and much more in the Narration made in the Council of Trent, by your Cardinal.  

CHALLENGE.  
THis Story is noted by our 
z Gentillettus in Examine Conc. Trid. lib. 4 Sess. 21. §. 20. Festiva fabula, etc. And if it were not indeed fabulous, why had it no better acceptance, in the Council of Trent itself, than a plain neglect? as a late Story set out, concerning that Council, doth show.  Gentillettus to be merely Fabulous. Not, that there are not Christian Churches in Assyria, professing the Catholic Faith, and to have so continued from the Apostolic times; but that there was no such Submission of the said Churches, made by Abdisu, to the Pope of Rome. Notwithstanding, supposing the Tale of Robin-Hood to be true, and granting unto you that the said Churches of Assyria had subjected themselves to the Pope, according to the Tenure of the Narration itself; then may we lawfully dispute (as Saint Paul often did) though not from the truth of the thing believed, y●t from the Faith and credulity of the Believer.  
You therefore that believe (as the Story teacheth) this Narration of a Nation of Christians, continuing in the sincere Faith and holy Worship, as they had received it from the Apostles, for the space of 1500. years downwards, (yea many of them with Constancy even unto death:) Tell us, do you believe that so many thousand thousands, which had been within the compass of those times, are notwithstanding Damned, because they did not formally profess Subjection to the Church of Rome, or not? If you say they are Damned; This were impiously calumnious against the Apostle Saint Thomas, that taught them not your Article of the (now) Roman Faith: If you say they are not Damned, then are you damned in that your Roman Article, which denounceth Damnation against all them that do not believe, that without Subjection to the Roman Catholic Church there can be no Salvation. Howsoever you, yet far be it from us, who are Ministers of His Gospel, that pronounced Salvation to them of little Faith; that we should open, where he shutteth, by setting broad-wide the Gates of Hell to swallow up in despair such as he hath called to the Profession of the Gospel of Life.    

Our third Instance, concerning Remote Nations, is in other Church's Christian, viz. Egyptians, Aethiopians, Armenians, Russians, and the like, not subject to Rome. SECT. 9  
WHen Protestants, in Confutation of a Sacrilegious abuse in the Church of Rome, by allowing of Public Service in an unknown tongue, thereby depriving God of a principal part of his Worship, even the understanding of the Worshipper, and God's people of their comfort, do object unto you the Examples of the Churches of the Egyptians, and the like; they can receive no better Answer than that which the yellow choler of your Cardinal would vouchsafe them: 
a Bellar. lib. 2. de Verbo Dei cap. ult. §. ult. Vel Haeretici, vel Schismatici fuerunt.  We are no more moved (saith he) with the Examples of these Aethiopians, Egyptians, etc. than we are with the Customs of the Lutherans, because they were either Heretitkes or schismatics. So he; plainly notifying unto you, that were they only schismatics by denying Subjection to the Church of Rome, yet that alone, without any suspicion of Heresy, might be held sufficient (in his opinion) to conclude them in the state of Damnation: and indeed there are scarce Any, among these, challengeable for any Fundamental Heresy. Whom therefore 
b See hereafter, Cap. 15. §. 25.  Protestants embrace as Partakers of that which Saint jude calleth 
* S. Judas.  The common Salvation.  

CHALLENGE.  
AS often as we read how graciously Christ the Son of God entertained the woman diseased with a Bloody issue, by affording the Operation of a Divine virtue to cure her malady, at the very 
* Matth. 9.20.  Touching of but the hem of his garment; so often are we to acknowledge that Super-abundant grace of God in Christ, even to the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] men of 
* Matth. 14.31.  Small Faith: nay once to one bringing with him a believing unbelief, and saying, Lord I believe, help my unbelief. But here behold infinite souls of professed Christians, whom you dare not directly charge with Heresy, and yet (O the cursed maliciousness of the pride of Rome!) must they all be Damned, and, by one Roman Article of Necessity of Subjection to the Church of Rome, are excluded from all possibility of Salvation. The like must be said of multitudes of other Christians in Africa, and Asia, besides japonia; wherein not long since hath been reckoned to be 
b See Mr. Breerwood his book of Religious.  Two hundred thousand Christians. To omit other Country's Christian, too many to be recited.    

Our second kind of Instance, in respect of Churches nearer to the Territories of Rome, yet not Subject to the Roman Church, which are the Churches of Protestants. SECT. 10.  
WHole volumes would not suffice to contain the Exceptions, which we may justly take against the Church of Rome, not only in respect of her Professors, and their differences in Doctrine, but even in your Profession and Religion itself, as well Moral as Theological: but you had rather that we should give Answer to your Calumniations. Know therefore, First that the number of Protestant Professors is not (in comparison of yours, that will be the only Catholics) so very a Pusillus Grex, that you can have any Reason to contemn it. For if so, then would not your Cardinal so greatly envy and malign the Extent and latitude thereof; who, speaking of Protestants, saith that 
c Haeretici (loquitur de Protestantibus) nostri tempo●is, cum satis multas & amplas Provincias obtinent. Angliam, Scotiam, Daniam, Noruegiam, Suetiam, & Germaniae, Poloniae, Bohemiae, Hungariae non exiguam partem. Bellarm. in Praefat. ante Controu. de Pont. Rom. §. unde Et lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 22. §. Et hoc Et §. Postea.  They at this day possess so many and ample Provinces, as England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Swevia, and no small part of Germania, Polonia, Bohemia, and Hungaria. Yet he pretermitteth, France, Helvetia, Ireland, and many other places, where these Professors are visible.  

I. CHALLENGE, in Particular.  
ALL these Churches of Protestants may seem to contain in them one Moiety of the Christian world, in the Western parts thereof, whose greatest Error, which you can impute unto them, is that They, for their Faith, immediately depend upon Christ jesus, as the Head of the Catholic Church; and their greatest vice, that they impugn the Pope's Indulgences, the nurseries of all vices; and their greatest Schism, that they will be divided from that Church of Rome, which proudly and impiously divideth herself from all other Churches of the world. And must all These, that are willing to sacrifice their lives for Christ, and his Ancient Faith contained in the Catholic Creeds, be necessarily Damned, for denying of one new Article of Necessity of Subjection to the Catholic Roman Church? which Article (as hath been plentifully proved) doth manifoldly contradict the sense of the Article in the Apostles Creed, concerning The Catholic Church.   

II. CHALLENGE, in General.  
OUR Question still is concerning the Church Catholic, which is the whole Church of Christ, consisting of all Particular Churches, as the members and parts thereof. You have heard of the multitudes of Remote Churches Christian in Greece, Assyria, Egypt, Aethiopia, etc. The like instance have you heard of the Churches of Protestants, in Denmark, Saxonia, Bohemia, etc. Try now whether that Objection, made by Optatus against the Donatists, may not someway check you. 
d Si apud vos tantummodo esse vultis, in Dacia, Misia, Thracia, Achaia, Macedonia, & in totâ Graeciâ, ubi vos non estis, non erit.— in Ponto, Galatia, Cappadociâ, Pamphyli●, Phrygiá, etc. in duabus Armeniis & in totâ Aegypto— ubi vo● non estis, non erit. Et per tot innumerabiles insulas, & caeteras Provincias— ubi vos estis non erit,— vultis vos solos esse Totum, qui in omni Toto non estis. Optatus lib. 2. paulò post initium,  You (saith he) will have the Church to be only where you are, but in Dacia, Misia, Thracia, Achaia, etc. Where you are not, you will not have it to be, nor will you have it to be in Graecia, Cappadocia, Egypt, etc. And innumerable other Isles and Provinces, where you are not. His Reason; For you will have yourselves only to be the Whole, who are not in every Whole. So he. Tell us now, when ever any Church could more profess itself to be Whole, in respect of other Churches, than that which will have itself only to be called The Catholic or Universal Roman Church? or else to be more Alone than she that excludeth from hope of Salvation all other Churches which are not subject unto her?    

Our third kind of Instance is in the Church of Rome herself: proving that this Article, The Catholic Roman Church, without which there is no Salvation, becometh pernicious to them that will be called the Body, or Members thereof. SECT. 11.  
BY this time we are drawing near to the Gates of Rome, to try what peace there is within her walls, and what security can be had in apocalyptical Babylon; for so is Rome called by Saint john, according to the common Interpretation of your own Doctors. And in as much as we are now to fight within her own Territories, in this conflict we shall endeavour to make good upon you Two most Observable Positions. The first concerneth the (almost) desperate estate of your Church of Rome; the Next is the Safety and security of the Churches of Protestants.  
The danger of the Church of Rome, and some Members thereof, is that it is made twice Damnable; Once, by the Article which it professeth, viz. The Catholic Mother, and Mistress Church of Rome, without Union, and Subjection whereunto there is no Salvation: Next, and more especially, by the Apostolical Article, as it is understood in our Christian Creed, of believing THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.   

The State of the Question, by Comparison of the Head, and Body of the Roman Church together; according to the sense of your now Article, The Catholic Roman Church, without which, etc. SECT. 12.  
THe Church of Rome consisteth of a Pope, and his Subordinates', as of an Head, and a Body; yet so, as the Body your Church taketh the Denomination to be called Catholic from the Head the Pope, as the Successor of Peter; and not the Pope from the Church. Your Article of believing The Catholic Church of Rome, etc. consisteth of many other Articles, and joints, which ought to be observed, because every one containeth in it, according to your Faith, a Necessity of Belief. As 1. The Necessity of Believing that there ought to be 
e Vnum in terris Vicarium, judicem, etc. Costerus Enchirid. Tract. de Pontif.  An Universal judge upon earth, as the distinct Vicar of Christ: 2. The Necessity of Believing that this judge ought to be but 
f Vnum, non duo, alioqui monstrosum corpus. Baronius & Bellar. supra. Salmeron jes. Tom. 12. Tract. 68 Qui solus omnibus praesit. Etiam Bellar. de Pont. & de Concilij●.  One Alone; because Two Heads upon One Body, would make it Monstrous. 3. The Necessity of Believing that this One Head is 
g Supra Concilium, ut aliquandò▪ defi●itum. Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. Cap. 7. §. Quintum. Nempe in Concilio Lateranensi 2. Salmeron. jes. Tom. 12. Tract. 68 §. Quarto Arguest.  Above a Council; and you may have as good Reason for that, (if, as you fond conclude, there be the same Reason of the Ecclesiastical Body, as there is of the Natural) because it is Necessary that the Head be predominant over the Body. 4. The Necessity of Believing that this predominant Head must be 
h Romanum. Be●lar. supra. (Per quem failum est ut) non solù● Romana Ecclesia vera sit Ecclesia, sed etiam quae in urbe Romanâ est omnibus Eccesijs mundi praesit. Gordionus jes. Epitome Controuer. 2. Cap 23.  Roman, so far as to hold that, by virtue of this Head, Not only the Roman Church taken at large, but even the Particular Roman Church, as it is in the City of Rome, over-ruleth throughout the world. 5. The Necessity of Believing that this Roman Head must be 
i Visibilem judicem, qui possit pronunciare sententiam, & dicere parti uni, tu cecidisti causâ. Tannerus Ies Colloq. Ratisbon  Visible, because it is the Head of a Visible Church. 6. The Necessity of Believing this Visible Head to be so Visible, in one Individual person, that 
k Visibilem hunc; non Individuum vagum, sed personam undique definitam, ut Hunc Clementem 8. Salmeron jes. quo supra. Sicut Iudaeis non satis fuit credere Messiam quendam, sed hunc signatum jesum à Iohanne demonstratum, ita non satis erit nobis credere Catholicam quandam inveniri congregationem, nisi in specie hanc ipsam credas esse, quae Romanae Ecclesiae Praefidi sub est— Eâdem ergo fide divinâ, quâ me scio in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ agere, cognosco non tantum Romanum Pontificem, sed in singulari hunc signatum Paulum 4.— ab Electoribus propositum, dummodo nullum vitium aut defectum in eius eanonicâ Electione admissum fuisse constare possit. Salmeron Jes. Tom. 13. in Epist. Pauli in genere. Part. 3 disp. 2. Aliqui tantum Moralem certitudinem tenent, quam sufficere dicunt, ut tene amur illi obedi●e in omnibus etiam credendis rebus, quas de fide este definiverit: high sunt Turrecremata, Albertin. Caietanus, Bannes, Canon, Vega, Corduba, de Castro, & alij— Alij simpliciter pro●●●ciant ad fidem non pertinere, quod mihi non placet; atque dico sicut Christi Ecclesia Visibilis & haec numero ita habere posse hoc numero caput visibile, atque a●eò de fide esse Hunc hominem, qui communi consensione acceptus est, ut caput Ecclesiae, cui ipsa obedire tenetur, esse verum Ecclesiae Pontificem, etc.— Alioqui constare non potest hoc esse verum Concilium:— Nam certitudo Ecclesiae pendet maximè ex coniunctione cum vero Capite: impossible enim erit me tenere certitudinem, ad credendum quae Hic definiverit. Suarez Jes. lib. de Trip virtute Theolog. Disput. 10. Sect. 5 num 2.  It is as necessary for every one to believe THIS man (as if you should say This Clement, or this urban) to be the Head, as it was necessary for the jews to believe THIS JESUS, when he was revealed unto them: because if there be not infallible belief of his person, there can be no certainty in his Decrees. And therefore it is requisite that you believe This man to be the true Head, with an infallible Faith. 7. The Necessity of Believing the judgement of this Visible Head to be 
l Iudex— cuius iudicium in definiendis rebus fidei est infallibilis veritatis. Bellar de Rom. Pont. Valentinian in. Analys. Suarez de Trip. Virt. Theol. & jesuita quis non?  Infallibly true. 8. The Necessity of Believing that the 
m Nota 7. Ecclesiae est unio membrorum cum Capite, & Membrorum inter se: & haec unio facit Ecclesiam veram. Bellar. lib. 4. de Eccles. Milit. Cap. 10.  Union of this Infallibly-true Head and the Body thereof; as also the Union of the Members one with another, are A true and proper note of the true and Catholic Church.  

That so many Necessities of Beeleefe do enforce as many Necessity's o● Damnation, partly upon your pretended Head, partly upon your Body and Members thereof.  
All that can be said to this purpose may be reduced to these Observations, concerning the Head, and Body, and Members of your Church, viz. as it may be [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] a Body without an Head; or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as having a False Head; or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] with Multitudes of Heads; or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] One Head repugnant unto the whole Body; or to the Essential Members thereof; or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Doubtfully Headed.    

I. The Church of Rome sometimes a Body Headless. SECT. 13.  
THis happeneth as often and as long as there is a Vacancy in that See, by reason of the death of the former Pope, which hath been often for 
n Paulo mortuo, vacabat sedes annum unum: Eugenio mortuo annos duos: Nicolao 1. mortuo (ut quidam sc●ibunt) annos Octo, & Menses Septem. Platina in Vitis horum Pontificum.  One, or Two, and sometimes for Eight years' space. Where then is your [Tibi dabo claves?] what becometh of the Keys of your Roman Catholic Church? 
o Non manent formaliter in Ecclesiâ, nisi quatenus sunt commanicatae inferioribus ministris, sed manent in manibus Christi, & Pontifici novo dantur, non ab Ecclesia sed a Christo. Bellar. lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 12. §. Respondeo moriente.  These (saith your Cardinal,) the Pope being dead, continue not formally in the Church (will you see a juggler?) except as they are committed unto the Inferior Ministers, but are in the hands of Christ: and after that a new Pope is Chosen, the Keys are delivered unto him, not by the Church, but by the hands of Christ.  

CHALLENGE.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉! O the Depth of Delusion! Do then, indeed, Saint Peter's Keys fly into heaven, at the death of every Pope? If so, we demand what you understand by those Keys, which were promised by Christ to Peter, Mat. 16. saying, To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven. 
p cum dictum est Petro.. Per claues intelligimus summam Postatem in omnem Ecclesiam, non remissionem Peccatorum, aut ministerium Euangelij, sed principa tum Ecclesiasticum.— Quia dicit, Quod cunque Ligaveris. Ligare autem idem significat, quod praecipere, & punire paenâ Excommunicationis Bellar. lib 1 de Rom. Pont. Cap. 13. § Hic apertò.  Keys in this place (saith he) signify principality of Ecclesiastical power over all the Church, and not remission of sins: because Christ addeth, saying [Whatsoever thou bindest upon earth, etc.] Where by Binding is meant power of Precept and of punishment, by Excommunication. So he. What power then is that, which remaineth formally in the Inferior Ministers of the Church, at the death of the Pope? if it be the Keys of Principality, then is every Inferior Priest a Pope: if it be the Keys only of Order and Absolution, then shall it not be lawful for any Bishop to exercise any power of jurisdiction by Precept, or punishing by Excommunication during all the time of the Vacancy; be this for the space of Two, Three, Four, or (as it is said to have happened) Eight years together.  
You will easily guess what it was that drew your Answerer into this most uncouth and extreme corner, wherein never any ancient Father before him set so much as the least print of his shoe: for your own Binius will tell you a story to some good purpose. 
q Synodo Constantinop. praesidisse legatos Sedis Apostolicae, una cum Menna Constanpolitano Antistite, & sedis Apostolicae Vicario. Hanc Synodum celebratam dicitis tempore Interregni Pontisicij post obitum Agapeti, ut constat ex singularum fere Actionum Exordio, ubi Sanctae Memoriae Agapetus nominatur Binius Tom. 2. Conc. Annot. in Act. 5. Concilij Constantinop. sub Menna, Anno 536.  In the Interregnum, or Vacancy, between the death of Pope Agapetus, and his Successor, was celebrated (saith he) the Council of Constantinople, wherein there were present Two Legates of the Church of Rome, together with Menna the Bishop of Constantinople, and Vicar of (meaning Roman) the Apostolical See. So he. here you see the Pope is dead, notwithstanding you observe a General Council gathered, which is an act that you have called Proper to the Papal Primacy, and Principality: and in Counsels are commonly Acts both of General Decrees and Precepts, as also of punishments by Excommunication, in the name of the Catholic Church. Besides, you may behold here Legates, yet not of the dead Pope, but of the Roman Church living. If then your Article take place in that sense, as to deny any Formal power of Keys unto Inferior Bishops, then is hereby condemned the whole Roman Church, not only ancient, in the Council of Constantinople, but also at all times of Interim, between the death of one Pope, and Election of another, whensoever they execute any Act of jurisdiction. Answer then, we pray you, do you upon this conceit of Bellarmine judge all these condemned? then may, and must we most justly renounce your Article, as execrable. Or do you believe that in the Church there remaineth Formally the power of the Keys, for the execution of all functions belonging to the necessary preservation of the Church, and Members thereof? then must it follow (which your 
r Obiectio. Qui eligitur Pontifex, claves accipit ab Ecclesiâ. Huic Bellarminus aptat suum Responsum, quo supra.  Cardinal foresaw right well) that the Pope receiveth his Authority from the Church, and not immediately from Christ: and that therefore the Church hath no absolute necessity of a Pope. And so may you bury your Article of Necessary Obedience to the Papal Monarchy in the grave of every dead Pope, and instead of that Article you may frame another De Anferibilitate Papae ab Ecclesiâ, out of Gersons Instructions; which may serve you for a Catechism. Because if the Church may consist sufficiently, in that which you call her Widowhood, destitute of her Monarchical Head, for Six or Eight years, why not also for Eighty, yea and Eighty times Eighty, if she would so Decree?    

II. That the Church of Rome hath sometimes a False Head. SECT. 14.  
WHich false Head may be easily seen thorrow many holes; as First to make him (as you do) Universal Head over the Whole Church of Christ, throughout the world, is to erect a False Head, as 
* See above. Cap. 6. §. 6.  Saint Gregory, once Head of the Particular Church of Rome did often teach; by calling the Title and Doctrine of Universal Bishop, Profane, Sacrilegious, Blasphemous, and Antichristian.  
2. God never ordained an Head, no bigger than of a wren, to stand upon the shoulders of a man; and so little (in respect) is One Bishop of One City of Rome, to be set over the Church Universally dispersed throughout the whole world; as you may guess by the exceptions which Saint 
* See above, Cap. 12. & 13. etc.  Cyprian, and after him S. Augustine, and the Churches wherein they lived taken against the Bishops of Rome: accounting them Incompetent judges in Cases of Appeal from Remote Nations, by reason of the distance of places; and yet their Churches in Africa might be said to be near neighbours to Rome, in respect of many far more distant from thence: therefore an Head extremely disproportionate, is a False Head.  
3. None call that a Necessary and living Head, which was not created by God; no more can that Ecclesiastical Head be judged Necessary, for the Church of Christ, which was not instituted by Divine Ordinance. But that the Head of the Church of Rome was not ordained by Diuin● Authority, you have (for proof) not only the Church Catholic, in the Council of 
* See above Cap. 8. §. 5.  Chalcedon, but also the Roman Church itself, in the Council of Constance. Therefore an Humane Head, in pretence of a Divine one, is a False Head.  
4. An Head subject to Heresy cannot be truly adequate, and proper to a Body, which dependeth upon Infallibility in matters of Faith: But he that will be called Universal Head is obnoxious to Heresy (as Pope 
* See above, Cap. 6. §. 6.  Gregory excellently taught) when he denied that either He, or any Bishop in the Church ought to be called Universal Bishop of the whole Church; lest that the same Universal Bishop falling into error, the whole Church (saith he) might err with him. An Example of an Heretical Pope you have had 
* See above Cap. 8. §. 7.  Confessed in Honorius, from the Testimonies of Romish Doctors, of Ancient Fathers, of Counsels, and of Popes themselves. And certainly that cannot be but a False Head, which cannot be a True Member of the Body of the Church Catholic, which no Heretic (as 
* See above, Cap, 2. §. 5.  you have confessed) can be.  
5. You yourselves admit of no Head on earth (of the Visible Body of Christ, that is, his Church) which is not also so Visible, that a man may point at it undoubtedly, and Individually, saying of it This is the Bishop of Rome: But you can have no such Certainty of any Bishop of Rome, both because his Ordination, without which he cannot be truly Pope, dependeth upon the Intention of the Ordeinour, than which what can be more uncertain unto you? as also because you are often constrained to doubt of the truth of his Election. For you cannot be ignorant, how plentiful a matter we have now in hand, if we intended to prosecute the manifold Examples that are extant in your own Books, of Popes who have taken possession of the Roman Chair by Intrusion. One you may receive from the Relation of your Baronius, viz. of john the Twelfth, who 
s johannes duodecimus (dictus ante Octavianus) qui nullo modo dicendus erat legitimus Pontifex, in cuius Electione lex nulla sit suffragata, sed omnia vis & metus impleverint: cumque prae aetate nec Diaconus esse potuit,— tamen hunc Ecclesia Romana Pontificem venerata est, minoris esse mali existimans monstrosum quantumlibet caput far, quam duobus Capitibus infirmari. Baronius Anno 955. num. 1.3. &. 4.  was no manner of way (saith he) to be termed a legitimate and lawful Pope, because no law was observed in his Election, but all things carried with terror and Violence; who although, by reason of his young years, he could not be made so much as Deacon, yet did the Church honour him for her Pope, accounting it a Less evil to tolerate one, although a Monstrous Head, than to be divided into many Heads. So he. This is plain dealing, openly confessing what kind of Heads your Roman Church is sometimes united unto. One, for his life Monstrous, and therefore a brainsick Head; One, for his years, not fit to be so much as a Deacon (that is, as we may so say, a Elbow of the Church) is made Head & Chief Pastor thereof; therefore a brainless Head. One that is an Intruder, and No-way a lawful Pope, and therefore nothing less than a true Head; because an Example differing from your Rule, which your jesuit Salmeron confesseth to be this: 
t Divinâ fide credo hunc Papam in singulari ab Electoribus definitum, dummodo nullum vitium aut defectum in eius Electione admissum fuisse constare possit. Salmeron jes. Tom. 13. in Epistolas Pauli in genere, part. 3. Disput. 2. §. Angeli.  To believe with a Divine (or, Infallible), Faith THIS singular and Individual man to be our Pope, who is defined by the Electors; yet so, that it doth not appear that there was any defect or fault in his Election. But behold, here is one with a Constat, that there was nothing but Defects in his entrance, because no law of just Election was observed therein; and yet notwithstanding acknowledged and honoured as true Pope of your Roman Church.  
6. As the Body cannot boast of Union with a Head, that is Headless, no more can an Head be truly so called, which is Bodiless. But we 
* See above, Cap. 2. §. 9  have proved that that which you call Principally the Church of Rome, as resident at Rome, shall have no being, and therefore be no Body in Rome; namely when-as the City of Rome shall be the Seat of Antichrist.  

CHALLENGE.  
ALas my Masters! what mean you? will you needs condemn yourselves, and your whole Roman Church, by your own Faith? Your Article is, to Believe with an Infallible Faith, One singular man to be the True Pope of Rome, and Universal Pastor having Monarchical power in the Church: wherein, by the word [Universal] you condemn the Roman Church, as it was in the days of Pope Pelagius the Second, and Pope Gregory the First; 
* See above, Cap. 6. §. 6.  both which held the Title of Universal, as execrable, and Anti-christian. By Monarchical, and absolute power, you condemn the Roman Church, in the days of Pope Damasus, who 
* See above, Cap. 13. §. 18.  held himself no Competent judge, in Cases fore-iudged by a Provincial Council. By [True] you condemn the Roman Church, in the days of Pope john the Twelfth, which acknowledged (for her Pope) Him, whom she knew to be every way Unlawfully possessed of the Popedom, and therefore no True Pope. Yet what marvel, if they doubt not to obey false Pastors, who daily Worship false Saints? By [Roman] you condemn that Christian Church, which shall be in the days of Antichrist, when-as the City of Rome, from whence the Denomination of Roman is derived, shall be the Seat of Antichrist. And by believing [Hunc, This] Individual Pope to be verily the Pope, with that Infallible Faith, wherewith you believe any thing necessary to Salvation, you condemn herein the Roman Church, throughout the whole Succession thereof, from Saint Peter to this day; and therein also your own souls, in professing that to be Infallible, which by reason of many defects, both in the Ordination, and Election of any Pope, is known to be full of Fallibilities and uncertainties; as all your own Historians do prove; and as will be further evident De Facto, in that which followeth in the nex Section.    

III. The Church of Rome was often divided into Many Heads. SECT. 15.  
Schism (as the Apostle teacheth) is when the Body is divided, and depending upon many Heads; as if some held of Paul, some of Cephas, and (but) some of Christ. So hath it often happened in your Church, some depending of one, and some of another, and some of the Third Pope, and among all these yet could but one sort hold of the True. You your own selves can reck on for us 
u Schismata Rom. Pontificum Viginti numerantur. Staplet Doctr. Princip. l. 13. c. 15.  Twenty, yea 
* See Onuphrius in Catalogue. Pontif.  Thirty Schisms and Divisions among your Popes; yet is this but a sparing Account. But we stand not upon the number of their Divisions, but upon their Duration. Of which your Onuphrius hath Registered One for 
x Perniciosissimum & teterrinun Schisma eiusdem (sc. Vrbani 6.) occasione alio Pontifice ab eisdem Cardd. qui eum elegerant creato Clement 7. inchoatum, in 50. Annos productum est. Onuphrius ad Platinam, in vitae Vrbani 6. Schisma omnium pessimum & diuturnius. Ibid. in Catalogue. Pontif.  The most pernicious and pestilent (between urban the 6. and Clement the 7.) which continued and lasted for Fifty years in the Church of Rome. During which Schism, what Parts taking and factions there were on foot amongst the Members of that Church, throughout the most Countries in Europe, it is easy to imagine.  
Your Cardinal telleth us of 
z Tempore johannis 23, erant Tres qui Pontifices haberi volebant,— nec poterat facilè iudicari quis eorum verus esset Pontifex. Bellar. li 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 14. §. Respondeo.  Three Popes at one time, every one whereof would be accounted the Pope, so that hardly could any discern which was the true Pope. So you. What Resolution can your Church have in such a Case? your jesuit would have us to note that 
a Licè● tres illi pro Papis habere●tur, Greg. 12. Ben. 13. Io. 23. donec concilium Constantiense omnes de gradu deijceret— ratione naturalì id persuadente, quia cum non esset certus Pontifex, perinde est, ac si Pontifex omnimò nullus esset. Azorius jes. Instit. l. 4. part. 2 c▪ 7.  The Council of Constance put them All down; and this stood with good reason (saith he) because when the true Pope was not certain, it was as much as if there had been none at all. So he. Moreover, Baronius hath found out another matter of wonderment, how that 
b Sergins 3. Papa illegitimus— qui ad sacrilegium nefandum turpissimam impudiciam addidit,— nihilominus eâ reverentiâ— fideles omnes, praesertim longè positi Boreales populi prosequebantur Rom. Ecclesiam, ut quemcunque in eâ sedentem audirent, nomine-tenus Pontificem, eunden— nullâ habitâ eius ingressus discussione, ut Petrum colerent. Baronius Anno 908. num. 4.  When Sergius the Third, an illegitimate Pope, intruded himself into that Seat, by monstrous sacrilege and most beastly filthiness, yet such was the Reverence (saith he) which all faithful Professors, especially the remote Northern People had unto the Church of Rome, that whomsoever they heard to sit in that See, although Pope only in name, without any further inquiry concerning his manner of entrance, they reverenced him as S. Peter himself. So he.  

CHALLENGE.  
Look again to your Article of Belief, concerning This One Roman Pope, without which Faith none can be saved. Now your Church of Rome being divided into Two Factions, one half adhering to One Pope, and another half to a Second, your Article requiring Belief of [Hunc, This only One] doth damn half the Roman Church, for the space of above twice Forty years. And afterwards, so long as it was divided into Three Factions, adhering unto Three several Heads, your Article of [Hunc, This singular Pope] damneth Two of the Three Parts of your Roman Church at that time. At which time the Council of Constance, the Representative Body of the Roman Church (in this distraction) using no other remedy but abscission, and cutting off every Head, by removing All the Three, and choosing a Fourth; your Article challenging the acknowledgement of [Hunc] doth necessarily damn the whole Roman Church, either in admitting any of the Three, or else in preferring a Fourth.  
As for our Northern Professors of those days, whose Faith your Baronius extolleth, for their Belief of any Pope, whomsoever they heard named Pope, were he never so illegitimate, and indeed no Pope at all, (as for Example Sergius the Third) we are in a great strait, which rather to admire: to wit, whether the Foolishness of those Northern people, in believing an Ape to be a Man; or the Faithlesness of your Cardinal; who against the Article of his Faith, requiring [Hunc Verum, that is, the acknowledgement of This true Pope, and none else, notwithstanding commendeth men for entertaining, and honouring a False one. But alas! what will they not believe, that will needs follow such Guides, as lead them by the nose, and make them to believe not that which God prescribeth, but what they please, albeit herein also condemned by your own Article? And moreover, you yourselves, that are sworn to believe Infallibly [Hunc] when as it is possible (for that which hath happened, may happen) that your whole Church cannot discern between Hunc and Hunc, by the same Article stand you continually condemned, in your own Consciences.    

IV. That the Church of Rome is oftentimes troubled with an Head repugnant sometime to the whole Body; and sometimes to the Several Members thereof. SECT. 16.  
THe First work in a building, is laying a right Foundation, which in every Dispute is the true state of the Question; and then, Dimidium facti qui bene cepit, habet. The Form of your own Oath will give us good light for this First point. 
c Bulla Pij 4. pro forma Juramenti etc.  IN. do believe the Catholic Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress over all other Churches, and I swear Obedience to the Pope, as to the Vicar of Christ. You profess then in this to honour the Church of Rome, as Mother and Mistress over All Churches; and the Bishop and Pope of Rome, as Chief Pastor, and Head of it. It only remaineth to know, whether as you have made all other Churches, divided from this Head, to be Schismatics out of the Church, and destitute of spiritual life; so also there may not be a Schism between this Roman Head and Body; so that, the One being divided from the other, in some Cases, either of them may become Schismatical.  
Your public Professor and jesuit Suarez is at hand to resolve you: 
d Schisma (ut distinguitur sine Haeresi) est separatio vel a Capite,— vel a reliquo Corpore Ecclesiae. à Capite, temerè negando Hunc in Particutari esse verum Pontificem;— A Corpore,— ut si Papa nollet tenere unionem & coniunctionem cum toto Ecclesiae corpore, quam▪ debet, ut si tentaret totam Ecclesiam Excommunicare: potest hoc modo esse Schismaticus. Suarez Jes. de Trip. virt. Theol. disp. 12. Sect. 1. num. 2.  Schism, (saith he) as it is distinguished from Heresy, is a separation either from the Head or from the Body; so as the Body, if it deny its Head [This true Pope] it is Schismatical; and the Pope the Head, if he deny due Communion with the Body, as to Excommunicate the whole Church, is also Schismatical. So he. Whose ingenuity we must commend, in that he confesseth it possible for the Pope, in some Case, to be a Schismatic. It will be our part to give some Instance hereof.   

That your Church commonly is Doubtfully-Headed; proved by an Instance made in the state of the great Question of the Supreme judge in your Church, whether it must be the Roman Pope, or Council. And First for the Pope. SECT. 17.  
IT is necessary that that Church, which will needs be judge of all other Churches, should first determine with itself who is the Supreme judge; nor should she ever take upon her to determine of other Controversies in Faith, against Protestants, before she have satisfied Protestants in this, whether Pope or Council be indeed the Supreme judge. In this Question Roman Doctors of all sorts have been distracted in their judgements. To leave all other Disputes, we desire to know how this hath been determined by any Council. Bellarmine, although the sworn Proctor for the Pope, yet against such as laboured to deduce a Confirmation of the Pope's judgement above a Council, from the Counsels either of Florence or Lateran, doth reject both; 
e Quia Florentinum Concilium non ●ta expressè hoc definivit, & de Conc: Lateranensi quod expressissimè rem definivit, nonnulli dubitant, an fuerit verè Generale, ideo usque ad hanc diem quaestio superest. Bellar. l. 2. de Concilijs. c. 13. §. Sed dum.  So that (saith he) the matter is still questionable unto this day.  
Is not this Acknowledgement worthy your thrice rumination, to understand that the Roman Church, which boasteth herself to be the Mistress of all Churches, and judge of all matters of Faith, is not, after a Thousand Six hundred years, fully assured whether (Comparison being made between her Pope and herself.) Hic, or Haec, He, or She, be the Supreme judge? When then, and how will you resolve in this so principal a Case? must the Scales still stand even, that neither of them shall over-poise? Not so, for you teach (if One, as your foreman, may speak for you all) that 
f Quamuis nullo sanè Decreto publico definita sit,— tacito tamen Doctorum consensu— planè definita est, vix uno ampliùs Doctore Theologo aliam de hac re sententiam tenente, quam quae ante hanc controversiam à paucis annis motam apud maiores nostros olim obtinuerat; Papam viz. Concilio, sicuti Caput corpori praeesse & praesidere. Staplet. Doct. Prin. lib. 13. c. 15.  Although this case have not been decided by any absolute Decree, yet it is defined (saith he) by the tacit and secret censent of the Doctors of the Church, scarce any one Divine holding any other opinion herein, than that which, before that of late this Controversy was moved, was anciently in force; namely that the Pope is above a Council, as the Head is above the Body. As if he should say, Sirs, if the Question be whether john an Oak or john a Style be heir to that Land, because the Witnesses conceal their meaning; without question they by a tacit Consent are for the Complainant, that john an Oak must carry the Land. O Quacksalver!  
Consider you not now that the Subject of all this Dispute is The Catholic Visible Church, whose Consent likewise is to be discerned only by Visible Characters, whether it be by word or by writing? And are you now come to this pass, as that in a Cause of so great moment you must depend upon the judgement of the Tacit Consent of your Doctors? We do not therefore marvel why they must needs be blind Guides, who themselves have no better Direction, than dumb judges. All other Christian Churches in the world stand for the Authority of a General Council, against whatsoever Pope; which (the Cause of your Pope having now been heard) we are to prove from the Roman Church itself.   

That the Roman Church is rather judge, than the Roman Pope, in all Causes of that Church; by the public Decree of the same Church in itself. First in the Council of Constance. SECT. 18.  
IN the year of Christ our Lord 1415. was celebrated the Council of Constance in Germany, a place then most fit, consisting (as you know) 
g Constantiense Concilium Patrum fere Mille, ex quibus amplius trecenti Episcopi. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 7.  of almost a Thousand Fathers, whereof more than Three hundred were Bishops. This Synod with an Inprimis beginneth with this Article; 
h Et primó quod ipsa Synodus in Spiritu Sancto congregata legitimè, Generale Concilium faciens, Ecclesiam Catholicam Militantem repraesentans potestatatem a Christo immediatè habet, cui quilibet cuiuscunque status, vel dignitatis, etiam si Papalis existat, obedire tenetur in his quae pertinent ad fidem,— & Reformationem generalem Ecc●esiae dei in Capite, & in Membris. Concilium Const. Sess. 4. Apud S●rium. Tom. 3. Conc.  The Holy Synod, inspired with the Holy Ghost, being lawfully assembled, & making up a General Council, which representeth the whole Catholic Church, hath immediate power from Christ; whereunto every state and condition, be it the Papal, or whatsoever, is bound to obey in all things, which concern either Faith, or General reformation of the Church, whether in the Head or Members thereof. Thus far that Council: which was expressly confirmed by Pope Martin, to be held 
i Dominus noster (Martinus Quintus) dixit— quòd omnia, & singula determinata conclusa & Decreta in materijs fidei per praesens Concilium, Conciliariter tenere, & inviolabiliter obseruare volebat:— Ipsaque sic Conciliariter facta approbat & ratificat, Ibid.  Inviolable in matter of Faith.  

CHALLENGE.  
TEll us now whether ever the Church of Rome had a Council more ample for multitude of Fathers, being almost a Thousand; whether ever any Council could assume more Infallibility to itself, than to be congregated by the Holy Ghost, thereby making her Degrees Authentical; or whether ever any Council could Derogate more from the Papal Power, as it is now believed and Attributed to your Popes, than to subject him to the Determination of a Council, in matters both of Direction in Faith, and Reformation of manners; or can any of you require a more fundamental reason thereof, than that which is intimated in the Decree itself, saying that The Council hath its Authority immediately from Christ? The meaning whereof is (as you are 
* Binius, See above, Cap. 8. §. 5.  taught) that the Pope's Authority is not of Divine, but only of Humane Institution: or Lastly, can you expect a stronger confirmation of all this, than is the Ratification thereof, by the (then) Lawful Pope?  
Now then (for now we are come to our conflict, by Comparison) If (as your Cardinal, and others answer) 
k Binius Tom. 3. Conc. part. 2. Notis in Concilium Constantiense. Quoad ea, quae nimirum ad fidem pertinebant contra Wicklefium, etc. Sic etiam Bellarm. l. 1 de Conc. c. 7. Falso. quia generali●er loquitur, & Causa de Judice Ecclesiae annon est materia fidei? certè Patrum horum iudicio & decreto de fide esse habetur.  The Pope confirmed other matters of Faith decreed in that Council, but would not ratify this Decree, as being so derogative to his Headship, and supreme judicature; then behold (that which we assumed to prove) as great a Difference between that Assembly of Fathers, which was as much the Representative Body of the Roman Church, as any can be named. Whence it must as well follow, that your Pope (if he had hereupon Excommunicated the Fathers of that Council) had been a Schismatic, as it doth follow, that dividing himself from their Decree, he could (by your Roman Principles) be no less than an Haeretike. For the Decree is peremptory, as a matter of Faith: the Reason they gave was concluded against the Pope, namely that the Pope of Rome is not Head of the Church by any Divine Ordinance: even as a Thousand years before this, the Fathers of the Council of 
l Binius. See Confessed above, ca 8. §. 5.  Chalcedon anciently believed.    

Another like Example in the Council of Basil. SECT. 19  
IN the year 1431. there was a Council gathered at Basil by the Authority of Pope 
m A Martino 5. indicta Synodus, ab Eugenio post aliquandiu confirmata. Binius Tom. 4. Not. in Conc. Basil initio.  Martin the fifth, and after confirmed by Eugenius; wherein were 90. Fathers, who having confirmed the Decrees of the Council of 
n Sess. 12. Prius autem ne quisquam Constantienfis Concilij Decreta. etc. Sess. 4. & 5.  Constance, whereby the Pope is made subject unto a Council, and the Censure thereof: now at the length Pope Eugenius, perceiving they held this course, will needs dissolve the Council, and translate it to Florence. The Council itself withstandeth this, and 
o Sess. 11. Sancta Synodus praecipit, ut praesens Basileense Concilium per neminem, etiamsi Papalis fuerit dignitatis, dissoluatur, aut loco ad locum transferri possit.  Commandeth the contrary, showing thereby, that 
p Sess. 12 Nihil aliud praetendere videtur, nisi ut Ecclesiam pessundet, iusque sibi & successoribus acquirat ritum sacrorum Conciliorum abrogandi.  The Pope sought nothing, but, by abrogating of Counsels, the destruction of the Church. Therefore they fairly 
q Sess. 31. Decretum 3. promulgatum de suspensione Eugenij Papae. Ab omni administra●ione Papatus suspendet Eugenium, in spiritualibus, & temporali●us.  suspend the Pope: and in the end, according to the judgement of the Council of Constance, they Decree, as an 
r Sess. 33. Veritas Generalis Concilij super Papam declarata per Constantiense & Basileense Concilium, est veritas Catholicae fidei.— Veritas haec, Papa Ecclesiam hanc congregatam non potest dissoluere sine ●eins consensu:— veritatibus his— pertinaciter repugnans Haereticus est censendus.— Sess. 34. Depositio Eugenij.  Universal Truth, that the Pope hath no Authority above a Council, nor power of himself to dissolve it; which truth whosoever (say they) shall obstinately contradict, is to be judged an Heretic. So They.  
Will you now see the Pope and the Council grapple together? The Council hath suspended the Pope, and judgeth him no better than a Schismatic: The Pope pronounceth the Fathers of the Council Schismatics, 
s Epistola Synodalis contra Inuectivam factam nomine Eugenij Papae,— qui Epistolae illi exordio dicere ausus est Patres in Concilio congregatos iam ferè septem Annis ab ipso Christi Vicario, & supremâ Apostolicâ Romanâ sede Christianorum matre & capite segregatos esse.—  Separated from the Mother Church of Rome (meaning the Conclave of some Cardinals at Rome,) and the Head thereof, for the space of seven years' last passed. The Council answereth, saying: 
t Nunquid in hoc damnabit Vniversos Cardinals, Episcopos, Imperatorem, Reges, & Principes, & denique Ecclesiam per orb●m dispersum, hoc Concilium approbantem? Haec omnia habentur apud Surium Tom. 4. Concil.  What? will the Pope then damn for Schismatics all the Cardinals, Bishops, and the Emperor himself, with Kings and Princes there present, yea, and the whole Church, which doth approve of this Council? In the end (to end the fray) 
u Jbidem. p. 178. Responsio Synodalis. cum esset ab omni Administratione Papali suspensus, tandem huic admonitioni paruit in formâ sibi per hoc Concilium designatâ.  The Pope (saith the Council) did yield to the Admonition made unto him, of not dissolving the Council.  
Here is presented before you the Roman Head, and (in the Opinion of the Fathers of that Council) the Catholic Body of the Roman Church, in a Distraction and Separation either from the other, for Seven years' space. As for the Pope's Pretence of his Roman Church, which were but a few Domestical Cardinals, the Council did not account them worthy the name of the Members of the Church. This being the Case, whether shall we call the Schismatics? for so the one party necessarily must be.   

That, in this Case, the Pope is the Schismatic. SECT. 20.  
SOme would think that the Pope could not be the Schismatic, because (which is your common Argument) the Head, although it be diseased, yet it is not separated, without the destruction of the Body. If there be any piercing sharpness in the point of this Reason, it may (to your own mischief) easily be turned back into your own bowels, as the Fathers of the same Council wisely did: because (say they) 
x Aeneas Silvius, in Gestis Conc. Basil. Convert Argumentum: Si ut in naturali etc. Alioquin mortuo Papa, Ecclesia periet. Lib. 1. §. Constare.  If the Case could be the same in a Natural Body, as it is in a Body Ecclesiastical, that as soon as one Head is removed, another might be had, then in many headaches, would men make often changes of their Heads. And indeed, if there were not this difference between the Ecclesiastical and Natural Head, it should follow, that as oft as the Ecclesiastical Head, the Pope, should die, the Ecclesiastical Body and Church of Christ should perish also. So they.  
Come we to their other Reason: 
y Competit Concilio. Ibidem lib. 1. §. Opinio.  That which Christ promised to his Church, doth more especially agree to a General Council: now Christ said unto Peter, if he should take any offence, [Dic Ecclesiae] Tell the Church; the Complainant is not of equal Authority with the judge. It were ridiculous, to interpret, that by Church was meant Peter himself; and as fond to send him unto any Inferior to himself; and no less absurd had it been to send him to the whole Church diffused everywhere, therefore Christ meant the assembly in a Council. Besides, The Pope is 
z Minister, non Dominus Ecclesiae. Conc. Basil. in Epist. Synodal. sispra citata. Apud Surium.  Minister and but one part, in Comparison to the whole, therefore less, yea in Authority, for the greatness of the Authority dependeth upon the [Maior pars] the greater part of suffrages and voices. So that Synod of Basil.  
We might add hereunto the Argument of Nilus the Greek Archbishop of Thessalonica: 
* See above. §. 3.  If that (saith he) the Pope had Infallibility of judgement, to what end were the cost and labour of troubling all parts of Christendom for gathering General Counsels? Nor he alone, but another more Romish than he could be; 
a Quid opus erit Generalibus Concilijs, aut jurisconsultos accersere?— quorsum attinet tot Academias in fidei quaestionibus distorqueri, cum ex uno Pontifice quod verum est audire liceat? Erasmus Annot. in 1. C●r. 7.  If so, (saith he) why should the learned in Laws be sought for? Why so many Universities vexed by discussing of Questions belonging to Faith? etc. So he.  

CHALLENGE.  
AFter your perusal of these Premises, remember but your Jesuits Assertion: 
* See above in this Chapter §. 16.  If the Pope should divide himself from the whole Church, He should be judged a Schismatic. But whether the guilt of Schism be in Pope, or Council, your own guilt in such a Case can be no less than Perjury, who by your Article are bound to believe, that both Subjection and Union, unto both Roman Church and Pope are Necessary to Salvation. You have now a Wolf by the ears, whether you hold him, or let him lose, you are sure to be bit. Thus much of the Dis-union between the Head and Body of the Roman Church.    

The fourth Instance of the Dis-union between the Roman Church, and some Members thereof, in the Examples of France and England. SECT. 21.  
AN 
b Appellario Vniversitatis Parisiensis contra Leonem Decimum, in robur, ac firmamentum sacratissimi Concilij Basilemensis. Inter alia: Dominus Papa Leo Decimus, qui Romanis plus debito favens, in quodam coetu, in Romanâ Civitate, quae contra nos est, nescimus qualiter, non tamen in Spiritu Sancto congregato— Sacrum Concilium damnavit. Haec habentur in fasciculo rerum. fol. 35. f.  Appeal was made about the same time of the Council of Basil, against Pope Leo the tenth, by the University of Paris, in Defence of the Authority of the same Council: wherein the same University taxeth the Session of the Pope and his Cardinals, as Not gathered together by the Spirit of God; professing herein, that Not the Pope's particular Assembly in the City, but the Congregation in the public Council is to be called The Church of Rome. And this Right of Appeal from the Pope is a liberty which the University of Paris hath always challenged to this day; yea and the whole Church of France, whose King (by his Orator in the Council of Trent) made known the Universal Tenet of that Church, namely, that The Pope is not Superior to a Council. Which they still maintain, notwithstanding Pope Pius the fourth his contention by Arguments, in his letters to the contrary. And how little account they make of the Trent-Canons, which are the Articles of Faith whereunto you are sworn, is more than manifest, seeing they have not yet admitted of that Council, within the Kingdom of France; and therefore are yet at liberty to believe as much thereof as they list.  
Not long after this, in the days of Henry the Eight (then) King of England, Stephen Gardiner, being of the Roman Religion, yet withstood the Roman Dominion in this kingdom, saying as followeth: 
c The Oration of Stephen Gardiner concerning True Obedience. His Testimonies, which are in several pages, are here joined together, for brevity sake.  The Authority, which the Bishop of Rome would be thought to have by God's Law, is no Authority with us, like as no manner of foreign Bishop hath Authority among us. Afterwards he descanteth upon the Title of Head, as it is attributed to the Church and Pope of Rome, and denyeth him to be the Head by Dominion, but by Order: in like respect as Appelles was called the Head of Painters, and Lutetia, or Paris the Head of Universities. As for the other Supremacy, which the Pope challengeth, it is that which Pope Boniface the second begged of the Emperor Phocas. It is an ambitious vanity for them to be called Supremes, who are Postremes in that which is least. All sorts of people (in England) are agreed upon this point, with most steadfast consent, learned and unlearned, both men and women, that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath aught to do with Rome. So he. This was the Faith of the Church of England then, notwithstanding the 
d Bulla Pauli 3. Sub Excommunicationis paenâ mandamus, ne ullus Princeps Christianus dicto Henrico ●ut eius fautoribus se adiungat.— jisque in virtute sanctae obedientiae mandantes, ut adversus ipsum eiue faventes armis insurgant, etc.  Excommunication of the Pope, against the King, and All his Adherents.  

CHALLENGE.  
IN these Examples (to omit others) you have two most potent Kingdoms (excepting the Article now in Question) united in Faith, and the one also professing Subjection to your Church of Rome, as noble Members thereof; who all (in all the time of their Opposition, if your Article of Necessary Subjection and Union to the Church of Rome and Pope thereof be of Faith,) are made liable, with all their people, unto eternal Damnation. Wherefore as we do complain of the maliciousness of your Roman Article, which denounceth Curses upon all Protestants, and Others of a different Religion from Rome; so may we cry out upon the madness thereof, by which she strangleth the children of her own womb, yea and her whole Representative Body, in her late General Counsels, as hath been proved.     

CHAP. XV. The Determination of the whole Controversy between the Church of Rome, and the Church of England, together with other Protestant Churches, concerning the CHURCH CATHOLIC; to discern whether Side is rather to be accounted Schismatical, or may more justly plead soul's Salvation.  

First by General THESES. SECT. 1.  
THE word, CATHOLIC CHURCH, is that which you oppose unto us in every Dispute, as it were a Gorgon's head, able to terrify Protestants at the first mention thereof. Which name, as it is appropriated to the Roman Church, we have proved to be but a bare name, and indeed Medusa's head painted in a shield, a mere delusion, able to fear none but Ignorants. For your fuller Satisfaction herein, We thought good, upon Contemplation of the Premises, to descend unto this DETERMINATION of the Cause; which we shall perform punctually by certain Theses, or Positions, by which are repelled those Popular Objections, which you usually cast as Impediments in our way. This Tractate than we divide into four parts. I. Concerning All Churches in general. II. Particularly comparing the Roman Church with other now Remote Churches. III. Comparing her with the Churches of Protestants, at the time of LUTHER'S departure from her. IV. Comparing her with the Churches of Protestants at this day.   

The first part of Comparison, which is by General Theses. I. THESIS. An Absolute Decay of the Catholic Church was never defended by any Protestants. SECT. 2.  
MAny Papists, in their adversnesse to Protestants, whom they seek to traduce, do impute unto them this faithless Paradox, as to say, that the Catholic Church is sometime extinguished: whereas 
a Multi ex nostris tempus terunt, dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse deficere à fide: nam Caluinus & caeteri concedunt, sed hoc dicunt de Ecclesia invisibili (i.e. Electorum) Bellar. l. 3. de Eccles. milit. cap. 13.  Caluine and other Protestants grant (saith your Cardinal) that the Catholic Church cannot perish. And therefore he telleth those MANY that they do but Lose their time, in proving the perpetual existence of the Catholic Church. He might as well have noted in them a Loss of good Conscience, by their falsely imposing upon Protestants a false Doctrine, which they never taught: as you may more perfectly see afterwards by a Sentence of 
* See after. §. 25.  Calvin himself.   

II. THESIS. The Church Symbolical, and properly called Catholic, cannot err in Faith. SECT. 3.  
THat we call the Symbolical and properly Catholic Church (as it is Militant) which is set down in the Apostles Symbol or Creed, believed of all Christians, viz. The multitude of all Christian Believers whensoever and wheresoever dispersed throughout the world, unto which belong all those Royal Promises, made by Christ unto her, of being Led into all truth, joh. 16. Of having his residence with it Unto the ends of the world, Matth. 28. Of Hell-gates not prevailing against it, Matth. 16. Never shall you find any Protestant gainsaying this Truth.   

III. THESIS. How the Church Representative (improperly called the Catholic Church) may be said to be subject to Error. SECT. 4.  
THe Church, improperly called Catholic, is the Congregation of Christians assembled in a General Synod (as being the Representative body of the Church in the Symbol, properly called Catholic) whereof we say no more than Saint Augustine spoke, to wit, that 
b 
Plenaria priora saepe à posterioribus emendari.  
Aug. l. 2. de Bap. cap. 3.   Sometimes former General Counsels may be corrected by the latter. Unto which sentence of Augustine you could not hitherto give any Answer, but that, which Saint Augustine (if he were alive) would say is directly contradictory to his meaning. For 
c Loquitur de materia facti, non iuris: & de praeceptis morum, non fidei. Bellar. l. 2. de Conc. c. 7. §. Aliud.  Augustine (saith your Cardinal) spoke not of matter of Faith, but of Fact; nor of a point of Doctrine, but of Manners. Whereas the whole dispute of Augustine in that place is about a Doctrine of Faith, Whether there can be true Baptism in a false Church. And what hath Saint Augustine said herein, which Some of your own Romish School have not thoroughly avouched? viz. that 
d Concilia multa ritè congregata errâsse legimus. Cusan. Conc. lib. 2. cap. 3. & Gerson lib. de Appellat. Prop. 4. Conc. Generale congregatum Romani Pontificis authoritate errare in fide potest. Hoc demonstratur aperte exemplo Ephesini Concilij 2.— quod Dioscori Haeresi subscripsit. Canus l. 5. c. 4. Conclus. 2. de Auth. Council.  General Counsels rightly gathered, have erred: and that A General Council so erring doth not prejudice the Catholic Church: Because 
e Conc. Generale, licet sit pars Ecclesiae militantis, tamen non est Vniversalis Ecclesia. Igitur temerarium est dicere, quod Generale Concilium contra ●●dem errare non potest. Occam. par. 1. lib. 5. cap. 25.  A General Council is not the Catholic Church, but only a part thereof: 
f Si Concilium haeresin laberetur,— etiam omnibus in Conc. Generali lapsis, Potens est Deus ex la pidibus, id est, laicis rudibus & abiectis pauperibus, & despectis Catholicis filios suscitare spirituales. Occam ibid. cap. 28. ad 8. in fine. Quod dicimus Ecclesiam in fide & moribus errare non posse, sic accipiendum est, quod Deus ità assistat ei usque ad consummationem seculi, ut semper aliqui sint, etsi non omnes, qui veram fidem per charitatem operantem habeant. Turrecr. Summa de Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 91.  Which erring, yet notwithstanding Some of the Church shall be still assisted to uphold the truth. So they.  
Nor doth this any whit impeach the Promise of Christ, to wit, * Whensoever two or three shall be gathered together in my Name, there I will be in the midst of them. For Christ promising his presence to all Christians, Assembled in his Name, did not thereby promise that all Christian Assemblies should be gathered in his Name duly, that is, with sincere hearts to invocate him, and to subscribe to his revealed Truth. It was an Academical and sceptical Paradox, to say, that because one Sense might be deceived, therefore no Sense was to be believed. Whereunto the Answer was, that every Sense, as it might be deceived, so might it also be not deceived, if requisite Circumstances were duly observed: as namely, if the Organ and Instrument were sound, the Medium rightly disposed, the Object proper, the Distance due and proportionable. Accordingly in Counsels, if the persons assembled, as it were the Organs, be sincerely affected to God's glory, with desire of Truth, as their proper Object; and in the maior part thereof not led with the spirit of Contention and Faction, which is the Cause of unequal difference and Distance; and if their Diaphanum, and Medium be illuminated with the true light, as Saint Peter calleth the holy Scripture: Then is it not possible for such an Assembly to err in any principle of Faith.  
So then the difference between the Roman Church and the Church of the Protestants is no more but this, that the Romanists say, that all General Counsels may err, except they be confirmed and authorized by the Pope: but Protestants say, that all General Counsels may err, except they be directed by the Spirit of God's word, as our 
g General Counsels may err even in things appertaining to God: wherefore things ordained by them, as necessary to Salvation, have no authority, except it may be declared that they be taken out of Scripture. Art. 21  Church of England hath truly defined. In which difference we seek no other moderation than the judgement of the first five General Counsels, which in points of Faith propounded to themselves the holy Scripture, as the only Rule of their Doctrines: & esteemed of the Pope's judgement no otherwise than of a particular suffrage, and in itself but equal (excepting the Dignity of Order) unto the voices of other patriarchs and Bishops, as hath been proved.   

IV. THESIS. Protestants hold not any greater invisibility, or rather Obscurity of the Church Catholic, than that which the Romanists themselves are forced to confess. SECT. 5.  
NOt but that many of you pretend and boast of a Catholic Church, not only Visible, but also Conspicuously and notoriously Visible, always, both in the 
h 
Voluit Christus Ecclesiam suam esse non modò visibilem, sed & valdè conspicuam, ut omnibus innotescat gratia Dei. Coster. jes. de Eccl. §. His. etc.  
In conspicuo posita omnibus volentibus eam videre. Salmeron jes. in Epist. Pauli in genere, part. 3. disp. 7.   Amplitude of compass, and in the 
i Haec amplitudo, & multitudo, & varietas Credentium est Nota Ecclesiae. Bellar. lib. 4. de Notis Eccles. cap. 7.  Multitude of Believers; as the Perpetual note of the Church, which our Saviour Christ compareth to a City set upon a hill. And you are not ignorant of the Epistle, which Mr. Fisher a jesuit presented not long ago unto our late Sovereign King james of blessed memory; wherein he professeth a Catholic Church to be always so conspicuous, that The whole known world may take notice of her, yea even in the days of Antichrist shall she be visibly universal: for she shall be then everywhere persecuted, which she could not be, except she were every where Visible. So He,  
Who never regarded, that the Church of Christ, as it is sometime in lustre glorious as the Sun, so again it is (according to the judgement of Saint 
k Obscuram Lunam Eccles. etc. Aug. in Psal. 10.  Augustine, and Saint 
l Ecclesia ut Luna, defectus & ortus suos habet. Ambros. l. 5 Epist. 31.  Ambrose) sometime as the Moon, which hath her increases and decreases. In which respect we are to observe two Seasons of the Church, the one long since past, in the days of that Deluge of the Arian Heresy; the other prophesied to happen in the days of Antichrist. Of both which as well Fathers as your own Authors say as much, concerning the Eclipse and obscurity of the Church Catholic, as commonly do the Professed Protestants. The words of your own Authors amount to no less than a plain Confession, that 
m Ariana Haeresis Romanum orbem ferè pervagabatur. Costerus Jes. Enchirid. Tract. de Eccles. §. Postquam.  The Arian Heresy traveled almost over the whole Roman Orb. Even, 
n Ab ortu solis & meridie per Graeciam venit in Aquilonem, ubi Gotthi, qui totum ferè occidentem infecerunt,— pene per annos trecentos durabat. Alphons à Castro Haeres. lib. 5. Tit. Deus.  From the rising of the Sun to the noone-point, and after passing by the North, at length it infected almost the whole Western part of Christendom. That the same 
o Omnes ferè toto orbe Ecclesias Arianorum consortio pollutos fuisse. Lindan. Panop. lib. 2. cap. 6. Antiochena primùm, tunc Alexandrina, post Hierosolymitana.— Et tandem in Occidente Felicem Liberio in Rom. sedem substituit. Jbid. Vno quasi impetu per universum orbem pervagata est. Staplet. de Causae grassat. Haeres. pag. 642.  Heresy polluted almost all Christian Churches, and the patriarchal Seats of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; and at length passing into the Western parts (meaning the Roman jurisdiction) substituted Felix into the Roman Chair, instead of Liberius; and so ran his Course throughout the whole world in a trice. When the Church was brought to that low ebb, that the same Pope Liberius, hearing the Arian Emperor to object the Paucity of Orthodox Fathers, doubted not to make his Answer; 
p Constantio Imperatori multitudinem Arianorum obijcienti, & Catholicorum paucintatem Respondit, Non referre numerum esse magnum aut parvum: nam judaeorum Eccelesia in babylon constituta ad tres pueros redacta fuit. Ex Tom. 1. Conc. Salmeron Jes. Tom. 3. Tract. 23. in verba Luc. [Ad dandam salutem plebi] pag. 168.  It mattereth not (saith he) whether the true Professors be more, or fewer, for the Church of the jews was once reduced to the number of Three. So accordingly 
q Malè Ecclesiam Dei in tectis aedificijsque veneramini: montes mihi & lacus, & carceres sunt tutiores. Hilar. lib. con. Auxent.  Saint Hilaery bewailed the state of the Church, saying, that it had forsaken Temples and buildings; and was more safe in Mountains, Lakes, and Prisons. And Greg. Nazianzen speaking of his own Church at that time, 
r Nostri Ouilis hoc maximè proprium [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] esset, quod minime infringi posset; ità ut per saepè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Arca Noen vocati simus, ut qui soli orbis universi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, diluvium effugissimus. Greg. Nazian. Orat. 12.  It was proper to our Fold (saith he) that it could not be broken, insomuch that we were often termed the Ark of Noah; as those who only escaped drowning in the flood. So he. Would it not pose you to tell what was the face and appearance of the Roman Church, when only the Church of Nazianzum was said to escape the Deluge of that Arrian Heresy?  
But how much greater is the Cloud of Obscurity of the Church, prophesied of in the days of Antichrist? Let your Rhemists' shout as loud as they can, that the Catholic Church is always 
s Rhemists Annot. in Act. 11.24.  Notably visible in her visible Pastors, Sacraments, and names of her Professors; yet at length, as it were with shouting, they waxing hoarse, tell you of an 
t The same in their Annot. in 2. Thess. 2.3.  external cessation of all outward Communion from the Catholic Church, excepting the Communion in the hearts of her Professors. And falling into a Meditation of these words of the Apoc. Chap. 12. ver. 6. [The Woman fled into the Wilderness;] whereby is meant the Church Catholic, seeking resuge from the violance of Antichrist, They give you this Note: 
u Annot. in Apoc. 12.6.  At which time for all that (say they) the Church shall not want our Lord's protection, nor Pastors, nor be so secret, but that all faithful men shall know and follow her, much less shall she decay and err from the Faith, as Heretics wickedly feign; but be as the Catholic Church now in England in the time of Persecution, because it hath no public Seat of Regiment, nor open free exercise of holy function. And although it may be said to be fled into the Desert, yet is it neither Unknown unto the Faithful that follow it, nor to the Enemies that persecute it. So They.  
In which one testimony we have an hotchpotch of Truth, Folly, and Falsehood together. Truth, in acknowledging such an Obscurity of the Church, as that whereby she is deprived of public government, and free exercise of Ecclesiastical Function. Falshood, in objecting unto Protestants (whom they as falsely call Heretics) an opinion of Decay and error from Faith in the whole Catholic Church; which unto your own 
* See above in this Chap. Sect. 2. a  Bellarmine seemed, in effect, to be a lewd Slander. And thirdly, what greater Folly and absurdity can there be, than to dream (as Master Fisher likewise hath done) of a Church Flying into the Desert under God's protection, that it should not be known; and yet in his opinion, not unknown to her Persecutors? With like reason might they assure you, that the Hare is still known to the Hunter, when she flieth into a thicket and place (by God's providence) of such safety, that neither man, nor dog can hunt her out.  
We had rather you should hear the more judicious and ingenuous Acknowledgements of your other Jesuits Ribera, Pererius, Acosta, Viega●, from whom you may hear of the Church flying into the Wilderness, to a place prepared for her of God; So that 
x Mulier fugiet in solitudinem— locum sibi paratum à Deo. Scilicet, ubi ab Antichristi Ministris aut non inquiretur, aut non invenietur. Ribera Jes. Com. in Apoc. 12.6.  She can either not be enquired of, where she is, by the Ministers of Antichrist, or at least not be found out. 
y Tollet Antichristus de medio omnia officia publica,— sed cultus tantum privatim & occultè seruabicur. Pererius Ies in Dan. lib. 15. super haec verba. [Veniet tempus.] Omnis Ecclesiastici ordinis splendour & decus exolitum & sepultum iacet. Acosta jes. de temp. noviss. lib. 2. cap. 15. Ecclesia●um aedes sacrae tugurij instar erunt.— Liturgia extinguetur. Acosta ibid. Cap. ult. In Apoc. 13. [Et adoraverunt eam omnes qui inhabitant terram.] Docet innumerabilem eotum multitudinem, qui Antichristo adhaerebunt.— Omnes illi nimirùm, qui praedestinati non sunt, quorum nomina non suut scripta in libro vitae. Ribera jes. in Apoc. 13.7. Haec sunt quae sâcrificium Eucharistiae cessaturum Antichristi tempore confirmant. Viegas Ies in Apoc. Cap. 13. Com. 2. Sect. 12.  When the Church's service and worship shall be in secret, the Sacrifice of the Mass shall cease, the Liturgy and form of prayer shall be abolished; and all shall adore Antichrist, except the Predestinate, whose names are written in the Book of Life. So they. Did you ever hear, from any Protestant, a signification of any greater Obscurity of the Church than this is? Which differeth not from the judgement of ancient Fathers, who, speaking of the Catholic Church, say that 
z Ecclesia est, cui dictum est, Sponsa es sicut luna, electa sicut Sol. Quandò enim Sol obscuratur, luna non dabit lumen suum— Ecclesia non apparebit, impijs tunc ultrà modum saevientibus. Aug. Tom. 2 Epist 80 add Hesych. Luna obscurabitur, etc. Haec dies in exitu mundi, iniquitatum & errorum tenebris obscurata. Chrysost. Tom. 2. in Math. 24. Hom. 49. Tunc Ecclesia, quasi senio debilitata, per praedicationem filios parere non valet. Greg. lib. 19 Cap. 9 in job Cap. 29.  This Sun shall be darkened, and the Moon shall not give her light: Not appearing to her Persecutors. And this Mother shall be unable to bring forth the Children of her womb.   

Of Departure from some particular Churches. THESIS'. V. All particular Churches are not to be forsaken for every Unsoundness in either Manners, Worship, or Doctrine. SECT. 6.  
We have Christ his Warrant, in the Case of Unsoundness in Manners, Mat. 23.3.— Whatsoever they bid you do, that observe and do, but after their works do not. Shall the Iniquity of the Minister make the promises of God of none effect? God forbid! Or because they have foul hands, must I have deaf years? Abel and Cain might offer Sacrifice at one Altar. Peter and judas present themselves together at one sacred Supper. The Publican and Pharisee pray in one Temple. Peruse but the Book of God, the holy Scripture, from the beginning of Genesis unto the end of the Apocalypse, and you shall scarce find one example of any particular Church consisting only of sanctified Professors, without mixture (as in the barn) of both Chaff and Wheat; or without (as the net) good and bad fishes; or without (as the fold) sheep and goats, still diverse in dissimilitude of manners, not in division of Sacraments; no not in the family of Noah, within the Ark. Which we speak to the just Condemnation of all such Separatists, who (as of old the Donatists) for only scandal taken at the wicked lives of the Professors, do break the barn, burst the net, overthrow the fold, and rend the unseamed Coat of Christ, by dividing themselves from the Church of their own Profession.  
Next, every corrupt Custom, in the public Worship of God, is no sufficient Warrant or cause of Separation from the particular Church, wherein we have been baptised, or have made profession of our Faith; except the form thereof be someway Idolatrous. For we read how the High places and Groves were forbidden of God, Deut. 12. yet, in the time of their judges, God suffered their Sacrifice, jud. 6. and (as Saint 
a De hoc instituto sic Augustinus in l●b. judic. Deus consuetudinem populi sui, quâ, praeter eius tabernaculum, tamen non Dijs alienis offerebant. sed Domino Deo suo, sustinebat potius quam vetabat, etiam sic exaudiens offerentes. Sigon. de Repub. Heb. lib. 2. c. ●.  Augustine, you know, saith) God accepted their Offerings.  
As for error in Doctrine, your Cardinal will have you understand, that 
b Ecclesia Corinthiorum & Galatarum, ad quos scribebat Paulus, verae Ecclesiae erant, & tamen ibi non erat aliquandò syncera praedicatio verbi, ut ex Apostolo cognosci potest, qui dicit se scribere Ecclesijs Dei, quae sunt Corinthi, vel in Galatia. 1 Cor. & Gal. 1. Et tamen 1 Cor. 15. Arguuntur Corinthi●, quòd docerent non esse futuram resurrectionem; & Galatae per totam ferè epistolam reprehenduntur, quod docerent seruandam esse legem Mosis cum Euangelio. Dub. Sol: sed dices, quomodò erant istae verae Ecclesiae, cum haeresin docerent? Resp. aliud esse errare, & paratum esse ad discendum,— aliud nolle discere, & auditâ veritate nolle acquiescere.— In Ecclesia particulari potest esse illud primum, at illud secundum solùm in Sy●agogis Satanae, & Ecclesijs malignantium. Bellar. lib. 4. de Notis Eccles c. 2. §. Tertio. The same hath Cosmus Philiarchus almost verbatim, Tom. 2. de Officio Sacerdotis lib. 2. Contra Maereticos. Cap. 8.  Particular Churches may err in some points of Faith, and yet be accounted true Churches: and he giveth instance in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, both which Saint Paul styleth, Churches of the Saints: albeit the one is reprehended by the Apostle, for denying the Resurrection, 1 Cor. 15. the other for teaching a necessary Observation of the Law of Moses with the Gospel of Christ. Gal. 1. So he. Yet lest you may err, in terming that a True Church, which is wilfuliy entangled in any Heresy, he giveth this Condition, that The same that err be ready to be reform, and to obey the truth, as were the Corinthians and Galatians: Otherwise to be unwilling either to learn, or to yield unto a manifest truth, is proper (saith your Author) unto a Satanical Synagogue, and to the Churches of the Malignant. So your Cardinal, and that most truly.   

THESIS'. VI Some Unsound Churches are necessarily to be avoided, and the just Causes why? SECT. 7.  
AS Leprosy, Plague, and whatsoever contagious Diseases are necessary causes of separation from unsound houses; so Obstinacy of error in Teachers, affected Ignorance, and obduration of people, Idolatry in God's Worship, Tyranny, and Persecution against the true and sincere Professors, may be judged necessary Causes of Separation from any particular Churches. Against a general Obstinacy of false-Teachers, opposing to the wholesome doctrine, We have a Caveat, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Depart from such, 1 Tim. 6.5. Against the general Obdurancie of hearts, our Caveat is both Christ's 
* Mat. 10.14.  Shake off the dust of your feet, in departing; and Saint Paul's [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] When certain obstinate persons speak evil of the Word of God, before the people, he departed from them, and separated the Disciples, Act. 19.9: because else they should hear nothing but blasphemies against the truth of God. Against the Corruption of God's Worship, Idolatrously, the Command is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Fly from Idolatry, 1 Cor. 10.4. even as unto the people under the Law, when Bethel, that is, the House of God, was turned into Bethaven, that is, the House of Vanity (the Epithet of Idolatry) than the Watchword to the Faithful was, Separate yourselves from among them, Host 10. Against Tyranny in Persecuting of Preachers, or Professors in any one City, the warning is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] likewise Fly unto another, Mat. 10.23. And lastly, in the time of Antichristian Tyranny and Idolatry in Romish Babylon, the Spirit saith, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] Come out of her, my people. Apoc. 18.4.   

THESIS'. VII. No unjust Excommunication, out of a true Church, can prejudice the Salvation of the Excommunicate, SECT. 8.  
YOur Romance Gloss, authorized by Pope 
c Greg. 13. Ad perpetuam rei memoriam, etc.  Gregory the XIII, will speak as much as need be said, to wit, 
d Matth 26.— Intellige claue non errante; alias enim si ligando & soluendo erraret, non dicitur ligatus apud Deum: frequenter enim fit, ut qui per Ecclesiam militantem foras mittitur, intus habetur in Ecclesia triumphante, & contrà. Glossa in Extra. joh. 22. Tit. 14. cap. 5. Solutum in coelis.  The Keys of the Church erring in her binding and losing, the party so bound is not then bound with God: for it happeneth many times, that he who is excommunicated out of the Church Militant is notwithstandeng in the Church Triumphant. So your own Gloss. According as it hath been observed by you in the Blindman cured by Christ, and professing the power of Christ, whom therefore the Church of the jews [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Cast out of their Synagogues, joh. 9.34. That is (saith your Cardinal) they excommunicated and separated him from the communion of Them, who at that time were accounted faithful; but yet happy was that Blindman, who was Excommunicated for the name of Christ. So he.  

e Excommunicant eum, & à Synogoga & consortio judaeorum, qui tùm fideles habebantur: at felix ille Coecus, qui pro nomine Christi absque Synagogis factus. Tulet in joh. 9  And so may we say of Luther, who was as one borne Blind, whilst he continued in your Church (according to your Assumption) true; until that Christ opened his eyes, and he for acknowledging the divine light was Excommunicate by your High Priest. Yet happy man he! who was taken into the protection of Christ, whom he professed and worshipped. Something more of Excommunication you may read in the XV. Section Following.   

The Second Part is concerning Departure from Rome, more particularly comparing the Church of Rome with other Churches.  
We are approached to the Walls of Rome, and behold we discover in her, just just Causes of Separation from her; which we shall represent unto you in that due place, whereunto we now proceed by certain Theses, as it were by just paces; Comparing her, first, with other Remote Christian Church's.   

THESIS'. I. The Church of Rome is as subject to Errors, as any other Church. SECT. 9  
WHat Prerogative had the Church-of your Romans above the Church of the Ephesians, or Thessalonians, in respect of any possibility of not 
* See above, Chap. 3. Sect. 5. etc.  Erring? or of Contemning other Churches in respect of herself? to which that may be objected which the Apostle writ to the Corinthians, to wit, 
* 1. Cor. 14.36.  Came the Word of God first from you? nay came it not 
* Above, c. 3. §. ●.  First from Jerusalem to Antioch, and many other places, before Rome; and at length from Greece to Rome? And after that Rome is established a Church, was it freed from Erring more than other, through the Primacy, which it challengeth over Others? By what Law? Humane? that could not; Divine? that did not authorise any such Primacy. Which you are compellable to Confess, except you will say that the Catholic Church hath erred in the General Council of Chalcedon, which (as hath 
* See above Chap. 8. Sect. 5. etc.  been confessed) denied that Rome had her Primacy from divine Ordinance: except you will also Grant that the Church of Rome itself hath erred in her 
* Ibidem.  Council of Constance; which maintained the same Axiom, to wit, that the Church of Rome held not her Primacy from divine authority. Lastly, except you will impeach the Apostle Saint Paul of error; who by his [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] taught an indifferency of all spiritual respect to Rome, with other Churches, as 
* See above. Cap. 4, Sect. 13. &. 14.  hath been proved. Take unto you one infallible Argument, that the Church of Rome may err in matter of Faith. It hath erred, Ergo, It may possibly err. That it hath, one confessed instance may sufficiently resolve you, if it be pregnant. Such is the doctrine of the Administration of the 
f Sententia Innocentii primi 600 circiter Annos viguit in Ecclesia, Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus necessariam esse. Ex Eucharistiae necessitate Innocenttius urget Baptismi necessitatem. Maldon. jes. in joh. 6.53. & Tract. de Euchar. p. 200. Espencaeus l. 2. de Adorat. Euch. cap. 12. Idem probat Binius ex verbis Innocentij Tom, 1. Conc. p. 585. Edit. 1606.  Eucharist unto Infants, vp●n Necessity of Salvation. A doctrine, by your own Confession at this day, false: and yet at that day (as is likewise Confessed) taugh and continued in the Church of Rome for the space of 600 years together.   

THESIS'. II. That the Church of Rome is more subject to Erring, than any other Church Christian. SECT. 10.  
WHy is it that Christ said, 
* Luc. 5.31.  The whole need not the Physician, but those that be sick? but only to show, that the state of one in an health falsly-conceited is far more desperate, than the state of the most extreme disease sensibly ●elt; in as much as that man is more incapable of remedy, that feeleth not his own malady, than he that is sensible of his grief. Such is the Case of the Roman Church, which is so much more obnoxious to Error, as she is flalsly persuaded she cannot possibly err, and that upon two notoriously-erroneous Articles, which are fancied and feigned only by herself.  
One is, that she believeth, as an Article of her Faith, that she (the Roman Church) is that The Catholic Church, which cannot err. Which 
* See above in diverse places.  hath been proved by the Testimonies of Catholic and General Counsels, Fathers and Martyrs to be an Error in itself. The other Principle is that, whereon the former dependeth, to wit, that the Bishop or Pope of Rome is the Universal Head of the Catholic Church. which in the judgement of a most ancient and holy 
* See above, Chap. 6. Sect. 6.  Pope, is not only a Profane and Antichristian error in itself, but also the highway of erring universally: Because (saith he) if that One Universal Bishop err, then must the whole and Universal Church err with him. Where the same Saint Gregory, upon a particular occasion taken at john the Patriarch of Constantinople (who ambitiously sought the Title of Universal Bishop) gave this his foresaid general Doctrine, concerning any Bishop whatsoever, whether in the See of Constantinople, or Rome, or wheresoever. Even as the Apostle, upon occasion of confuting of one new error among the Galatians, giveth them a general lesson, against all other the like Novelties of Doctrine; 
* Gal. 1.8.  If we, or an Angel from heaven preach otherwise than hath been preached unto you, let him be Anathema, or Accursed.  
And that divers Popes have been Heretics, your own Histories do sufficiently proclaim, especially in the example of Pope 
* See above, Cap. 8. §. 6.  Honorius, whom two General Counsels, three Roman Popes his Successors, and diverse others your own zealous Popish Writers have reckoned among the Monothelites. But you will say, albeit that Pope were a Monothelite, yet did not the whole Catholic Church fall into that Heresy with him. True, which manifesteth the falsehood of your now Roman Article; in as much as (in those ancient times) neither did the Church, truly called Catholic, hold the Pope to be the Catholic or Universal Head of the Church: neither yet did that, which you abusively, absurdly, and falsely call the Catholic Church (to wit the Church of Rome itself) believe your Article of Infallibility of judgement in your Popes. A memorable example we have in your Pope 
* See above, Chap. 12. Sect 3 & 4.  Liberius, who professing himself an Arian, and seeking by his Arian faction to return to his See, found a bloody resistance by both the Clergy and people of the Church of Rome, as yourselves well know. But now when as the falsly-usurped Title of Universal Head carrieth, in the belief of the new Church of Rome, a confidence of an Universal truth, in whatsoever new Doctrine of faith: in this Case that saying of Christ is verified; 
* Matth. 15.14.  If the blind (such is he, that in the opinion of his Universal Headship, presumeth upon an Infallibility of judgement) lead the blind (such are all they, who by an Implicit and blind belief adhere unto him, as to an Oracle of Divine truth) Both shall fall into the ditch.   

THESIS'. III. There is not in all Scripture any Prophecy of the fall of any Church Christian from the faith, but only of the Church of Rome; from which it may sometime be Necessary to depart. SECT. 11.  
FOr where can you find in all Scripture (tell us) that the Spirit of God brandeth any City Christian with the note of certain Apostasy from the truth, but only the City of Rome? Your own Jesuits have 
* See above, Cham 4. Sect. 15.  confessed Themselves, being compelled thereunto by the light of the Revelation of the holy Ghost (in the book of Revelation, Apoc. 12.) to acknowledge, saying, The City of Rome is Babylon; there prophesied of to become (before the end of the world) The Seat of Antichrist; and after to be suddenly and visibly Destroyed by the vengeance of God. And although they are not more ingenuous in this Confession, concerning the City of Rome, in the days of Antichrist to come; than they are (not to dissemble with you) zealous, and indeed obstinate in denying that it can be meant of the Church of Rome: yet would we fain know, what you would think of the Church of England, if the like Prophecy were extant in God's book, pointing out the City of London to be, in times to come, The Seat of Antichrist? Would you desire a more Popular argument (especially in these times, wherein the ends of the world are come upon us) to persuade your people to abhor and detest the Church of England, even for that City sake?  
But you are further to remember (that which hath 
* See above, Cham 4 Sect. 15 etc.  been already proved) that your Church cannot be called The Church of Rome, but by reason of the Seat thereof, which is in the City of Rome. Which we now moreover Confirm by the Apostle Saint Paul, who writing to the Romans, maketh this the Inscription of his Epistle, Chap. 1.7. To all you that are at Rome. And again, ver. 15. I am ready to preach unto you that are at Rome. Signifying that it cannot hereby be called the Church of Rome, without relation to a company of Professors, in the City of Rome. Whensoever therefore Rome (as is confessed) shall become that Babylon, and Seat of Antichrist, whereof the Spirit saith to the faithful, Come out of Babylon my people, Apoc. 18.4. than the necessity of Departure must needs follow.   

THESIS'. IV. The Church of Rome hath long been, and still is the most Schismatical Church of all other Church's Christian, that carry in them a Visible face of a Church. SECT. 12.  
OH! that this could be justly doubted of: your own supreme Article doth abundantly prove it, to wit, The Catholic Roman Church, without Union and Subjection whereunto there is no Salvation. By which one Article, as you have 
* See above from Chap. 8. to 13.  heard, do stand Excommunicate (as much as lieth in your Roman Church) and deprived of all hope of Salvation, the most renowned godly Emperors, the most ancient and Reverend Popes, the most grave and Orthodox patriarchs and Fathers of the first Eight (in your own estimation) General Counsels, the most famous Christian Churches, the most constant Martyrs, Confessors, and Saints of God, that the primitive times of Christ his Church have known and recorded to posterity: many whereof are at this day registered in the Roman martyrologue, and Calendar of Saints (All which hath been fully proved;) than which what Doctrine of Schismatics can be more Schismatical?  
And what shall we say of the After-ages of the Church, wherein we 
* See above Sect. 10.  have observed the Church of the Grecians, Aethiopians, Egyptians, Assyrians (not to mention, as yet, the Churches of Protestants) Armenians, Russians, and others for extent, more large than Rome; for worship, more pure; for faith, more sound; and for profession thereof, more constant, by sustaining daily injuries and thraldoms under the mahometans, and other Pagan Enemies: all which Churches amount to innumerable numbers of Christian souls; who being, by your Article of The Catholic Roman Church, excluded from your Communion, must accordingly be held to perish everlastingly.  
But pardon us, if we from the Example of these so many Church's Christian, of so large extent and long Continuance, make bold to use a little Logic with you, in this manner. That Church, which only divideth itself from the Communion of all other truly professed Christian Churches in the world, the same is the most Schismatical Church in the Christian world. But your Church of Rome, only, divideth itself peremptorily from the Communion of all other such Christian Churches. Ergo, it is the most Schismatical of all other. Herein plainly like to Ishmael, 
* Gen. 16.12.  whose hand was against every man, and every man's against him. Until you shall be able to answer this Argument, you are bound to forbear the objecting to any Church Christian Schism from the Catholic Church; and consequently Separation from Salvation in Christ.  
When we talk of a Schismatical Church, we may not let pass the recognition of the manifold ruptures and Schisms of the Roman Church, in her own womb: where we have seen not jacob and Esau struggling for birthright each with other only, but as it were a rough Esau, sometimes of Two; or rather a Cerberus and Hydra sometimes of Three heads striving one against another for the prerogative of Popedom, even for the space of forty or fifty years together. Sometimes the pretended Head, the Pope, fight with his whole Body Representative, in a Council, for the right of Supreme judgement, as you have heard. In a word, she hath almost at all times been so presumptuous, by Excommunicating Primitive, Successive, and Modern Churches, which were not subordinate unto her; and so often distracted in herself, as if all the Waters of Marah (for so we may call Schism) had exonerated and emptied themselves into the Roman See. Thus much of the second Part, by Comparing the Church of Rome with Remote Churches.   

The Third Part of this DETERMINATION concerneth the Departure of Protestant Churches from Rome; occasioned by MARTIN LUTHER. SECT. 13.  
HEre we enter into the main question of Luther his departure from Rome, which hath occasioned your impetuous and clamorous out-cries against him, as against an unpardonable and damnable Schismatic: and thereupon, in all your Conferences and Disputes, you exact of Protestants an Answer to your popular Octiections, as of, What? Where was Then Your Church? Who were Your Professors? What were Their Names? and, What is become of Your Ancestors? with the like. We now desire you but to have so much patience, till we collect our divers Theses, and in the end you will find (we hope) that upon a full Reckoning we shall be indebted unto you just nothing at all.   

THESIS'. I. LUTHER was unjustly Excommunicated out of the Roman Church. SECT. 14.  
IF the odiousness of the very name of Luther among you have not engendered so obstinate a prejudice in you; as not willingly to hear, or try the justice of his Cause, then are we without all doubt persuaded, that you yourselves will justify his Departure out of the Church of Rome. Not to spend time. Luther his Excommunication by Pope Leo must have been either for Manners, or Doctrine: but it was not for any exorbitancy in his life, 
g Si Luthero faverem ut viro bono, quod fatentur & hosts. Eras. To. 8. Epist. Albert. Card Mogunt pag. 401.  Who (as is testified of him) was accounted a good man, even of his very Enemies. Which kind of Certificate is the most exact approbation of all others, as Moses showed, when he made this kind of Appeal, saying, 
* Deut. 32.31.  Our Enemies being judges. By which it may appear, what difference of Enemies the Church of Rome hath hatched, whose Professors, in the days of Luther himself, were so ingenuous, as to esteem him a Godly man. Since when have risen up spirits of a lying malignancy, that have blurred and bespotted his life with all the reproachful Notes of monstrous infamy; as if he had had 
h Seraerius Ies in Tract. de Lutheri Magistro.  Familiarity with the Devil, and was a Wine-bibber. But 
* Io. 13.16.  The Servant is not better than his Master, saith our Saviour Christ to his own Disciples. If therefore the Irreligious have called Christ himself familiar with 
* Matth. 12.  Beelzebub, and a 
* Luc. 7.34.  Friend to Publicans, and Sinners (were they Drunkards, or the like) what Christian must plead exemption from the virulency of venomous mouths? But why do we busy ourselves with Impertinency? we proceed to his Doctrine, concerning which we are to inquire into the principal Cause of his Excommunication.  
The First and principal Cause of Luther's Opposition against the Pope of Rome, without which he had not been Excommunicated, was the point of Papal Indulgences; wherein he condemned the iniquity of the Pope's practice, and the falsehood and impiety of his Doctrine herein: as will be testified by a cloud of witnesses.  
First is the Iniquity and injury done in the days of Luther, by the craft of Papal Indulgences; howbeit, at the First hearing of this Accusation, your Cardinal waxing somewhat choleric steppeth forth, desirous as a feed-man to be heard speak in the Pope his Master's behalf, and calleth it 
i Quae rex dicit de cumulandis opibus per artificium— Indulgentiarum, satis ostendit eum plus fidei habuisse calumniis Lutheri & similium Novatorum, quam simplici veritati. Bellarmin. Apolog. Cap. 12. §. De multitudine.  A Calumny of Luther and such like Novellists, to say that the Pope's heap up riches by the art of Indulgences. So he. Oh the forehead of some kind of men! to deny that which the German Nation, at and before the days of Luther, cried out upon, 
k Importabile iam olim increbuit Rom. Indulgentiarum onus, quandò sub persona pietatis— Rom. Pontifices Omnem à simplicibus nimiumque credulis Germanis exuxerunt pecuniarum medullam. Sacri Rom. Imperij Principum, ac Procerum Gravam. 100 apud Fascic. rerum expetend. fol. 177.  As being a burden intolerable, wherewith the Popes, under the colour of piety, extract the very marrow of moneys out of men's purses. Whereof your Fathers of the Council of Trent took notice, to wit, that the Pope's Officers, in collecting money for Indulgences, gave a 
l Quaestorum abusus,— quorum malitia ità quotidiè magno fidelum scandalo & querelâ deprelienditur, ut de eorum emendatione spes nulla relicta videatur. Conc. Trid. S●ss. 22. cap. 9  Scandal to all faithful Christians, which might seem to be without all hope of Remedy. And which your Venetian Doctor will have you to observe, to have been the First Cause of Luther his Opposition. 
m jam omnibus constat, & ubique personant historiae, Separationem, quae in Germania ante centum annos contigit, à potestatibus insultantibus initium habuisse: Notum est eam ab illegitimis exactionib. & ab inusitatis Indulgētiarū concedendi modis ortum duxisse. Paulus Venet. Apol.  It is now evident to all men (saith he) and Histories on all sides write hereof, that the Separation made an hundred years ago, by the Protestants in Germany, arose from the unlawful Exactions, and the immoderate grants of Indulgences. This than was the first point, in the matter of Romish Indulgences, which moved Luther to preach against them, even the Iniquity of the practice thereof.  
The Second point is the Falsehood of the Doctrine of Indulgences, whereof your Cardinal testifieth, saying; 
n Nostro seculo, ab Indulgentiarum reprehensione princi●ium fecit Sect●e suae Lutherus, ut perspicuum est ex assertionibus Articulorum à Leone 10. damnatorum. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Jndul. cap. 1. Lutherum Papa Haereticum denunciat. Jbidem de office Princ. Christ. p. 30.  The first Cause of Luther's dividing himself from Rome was the Pope's pronouncing Him an Heretic, for inveighing against Indulgences. So he. 
o Quòd Doctrinam Indulgentiarum improbaret, primò quoque tempore Procuratores ea de re Lutheri nomen Romam deferunt; is continuò Deorum contemptor accusatur, causa agitur; sed quia ad dictum diem non adfuit Romae praesens, ut responderet, paulò post de●laratur Haereticus. Polyd. Virgil. lib 8. the Jnuent. ca 4.  And for that his gainsaying the Doctrine of Indulgences (saith Polydore) the Pope's Proctors conveied the name of Luther to Rome, where he is accused; and because he appeared not at the day, he was declared an Heretic. So he. Now then, according to the style of all judicial Courts, let us first hear the Accusation, and then allow unto him to Answer for himself.  
His Accusation is laid down in Pope Leo's Bull against him. 
p Certum est (ait) in manu Ecc●esiae aut Papae non esse statuere novos Articulos fidei. Bulla Leonis-Papae in Art. 26. ●on. Luth apud Binium.  This Luther maintaineth, as a thing most certain, that it is not in the power of the Church to appoint new Articles of Faith. This was his Crime, now hear his answer. 
q Clarè est disertè testati sumus, ut si non cogerent nos ad probandum Articulos impios & blasphemos, nos— bona ex parte Episcopalem eorum jurisdictionem defensuros.— Sed nos ad Satanica sua menadacial cogere volebant— & ex alto me despiciebant, quòd Indulgentias eorum (bullae enim erant) Difflâssem. Luther de Missae privata.  I (saith Luther) have plainly protested, that if they would not have constrained me to allow of their impious and blasphemous Articles, I should have defended a great part of their Episcopal jurisdiction: but needs would they compel us to approve of their Satanical lies, and therefore disdainfully despised me, for blowing away (for indeed they were but bubbles) the Pope's Bulls and Indulgences. So Luther.  
What hath Luther said in all this, which is not justifiable in the Conscience of every sound Christian? First he held it a way to Heresy, for any Church to take upon her to create a new Article of Faith, such as he believed the Romish Doctrine of Indulgences to be. Secondly, he taught it to be a Satonicall lie, to constitute that for an Article of Faith, which is in itself a mere falsehood. Thirdly, he proclaimed your Doctrine of Indulgences to be a Blasphemous Article, because it is not only a new and false Doctrine, but also the very Nurse of all Impiety. Each point is worthy to be Discussed.  
Touching the First point, your Philiarchus will have you to 
r Cavenda est impia Lutheranorum haeresis, qui dixerunt nullam esse in Ecclesia potestatem condendi Articulos fidei. Cosmus Phili●r. de office Sacord. To. 1. li. 3. c. 2. intio.  Take heed of the Heresies of Luther, in teaching that the Church hath no power to create new Articles of Faith. So he. If this be true, then mark (I pray you) what fellows, and Companions Luther hath, or Patrons rather of his Heresy, accordingly as your own Doctors will teach you; who do not only openly profess for themselves, that 
s Ecclesia, quae nunc est, nititur fidei antiquae, quae fuit Apostolorum tempp. Driedo Tract. de dogmat. l. 4. c. 1.  The now Church ought to rely upon the Doctrine anciently taught in the Apostles times; but also confess that 
t Asserendum est, Ecclesiam non cudere novam fidem, sed antiquam semper stabilire & explicare; nam prop●ereà rec●rrit semper ad scripturam, & Apostolicas traditiones. Et ità docent antiqui Patres, Irenaeus. l. 3. con. Haeres. c. 2. Hier. in Psal. 86. Vin. Lirinen. con. prophanas novit.— Hoc tamen non obstante, verum est aliquam Propositionem explicitè nunc credi de fide, quae antea explicite credebatur ab Ecclesia, quamuis implicit in Doctrine antique credebatur. Suarez jes. de Trip. vir. Disp. 2. §. 6. ●um. 10.  The ancient Fathers taught that the Church delivereth no new Faith, but always confirmeth and explicateth the ancient Faith. Alleging, for proof hereof, the authority of Irenaeus, Hierome, Vincentius Lirinensis. Nor can any produce one Father, in all Antiquity, that did not account every new Article of Faith (that is to say, every new Doctrine made necessary to salvation) to be no better than a new Heresy. So justifiable is Luther, in this point.  
Next, Luther in his first Assumption saith, that the Doctrine of the Pope's Indulgence is a New Doctrine of Faith; and that it is imposed upon the Church of Rome as an Article of Faith. Whereof, if peradventure you should be ignorant, your own Popes would instruct you. Pope 
u Bulla Pij 4. pro forma iuramenti fidei.  Pius the IV. setteth down this of Indulgences among his other Articles, concluded of in the Council of Trent, as Necessarily to be believed, upon danger of Damnation. And Pope 
* See above, li●. p.  Leo the X. took this as his hint, in condemning Luther, for denying any power to be resident in the Church, to establish a new Article of Faith.  
An Article●hen ●hen it is made; and that it is also New (which Doctrine of Indulgences you believe to be an easing or helping of Souls out of the pains of Purgatorie-fier) we hope you may be satisfied from yourselves: who teach, first, that all Doctrine, which is not New, is derived either from Scripture, or ancient Tradition. But, concerning your Doctrine of Indulgences, some of your own Doctors have made bold to proclaim, saying, 
x Antonius, & Sylvester Pierias dicunt, nihil expressè haberi de Indulgentijs nec ex Scriptures, nec ex dictis antiquorum Doctorum. Teste Chemnisio nostro in Exam. Conc. Trid.  It is not found either in Scripture, or in other writings of ancient Fathers. Whereof also your Roman Champion against Luther, even in this Question concerning Indulgences, doth grant, that 
y In p●incipio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuit Indulgentiarum usus. Roffens. Art. 18.  There was no use of Indulgences in the beginning of the Church Christian. Which must necessarily have then been, if at that time it had been a Doctrine of Faith: except you will confess, that there was then no Purgatory-fier at all; nor any souls of men departing this life in the guilt of venial sins: but that all the scores of debts of temporal punishments were then wiped off at the death of every Christian, in those Apostolical times. And accordingly give us some reason, how afterwards that Fire was kindled, and what was the fuel that set it on a flame, after the space of 1294. years, when Boniface the 8. was Pope; Who (as your 
* Agrippa de vanitate Scient. cap. 61.  selves know,) after that the world was affrighted with Purgatory-torments, was the first that extended and applied Indulgences unto Purgatory. This made your Friar Castro, in his conjecture of greater antiquity in them, to excuse their Novelty, saying; 
z Non ideò contemnendas ess● Indulgentias quòd earum usus serò fuit in Ecclesia receptus: quià multa sunt posterioribus nota, quae vetustiores Scriptores ignorârunt. Alphon. de Castro Haeres. l 8. Tit. Indulgentiae.  Indulgences are not therefore to be contemned, as being admitted but of late, because many things (saith he) are made known to posterity, of which the more ancient times were ignorant.  
Behold now the great reverence (forsooth) you have of the judgement of Antiquity! Besides (to pull up this weed by the roots) the ground of Indulgences (as you teach) is 
a Thesaurus Ecclesiae spiritualis satisfactionum est fundamentum Indulgentiarum. Bellar. de Indulg. l. 1. c. 2. Hoc caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Lovanienses. Ibidem. Et ex Scholasticis Mayro & Durandus. Teste Suar. Tom. 4. in Thom. disp. 5. §. 2.  The spiritual Threasury of the Church, consisting in the satisfactory and meritorious works of Supererrogation, done by the faithful. Which notwithstanding (as you likewise know) your Doctors of Louvain, and some Schoolmen affirm were anciently wanting in the Church. So then your Doctrine of Indulgences is New in Institution, New in Practice, New in the Extent, New in the Root and foundation, and every way a New Article. So justifiable is Luther in his Assumption, calling it New.  
Thirdly, Luther called this Doctrine False, yea and Impious also, and Blasphemous. And false it must needs be, if it be but New. But how naughty also and impious the vent of Indulgences was, your noble Historian can best report, giving you an instance in the same Pope Leo: 
b Peccatum in sacris muneribus dispensandis Leo mox graviore cumulavit, & e.— Thuan. Tom. 1. Hist. Anno Domini 1515.  Who, (saith he) unto his sin of ill dispersing of Indulgences, added a far greater; for although he was of himself prone enough to all licentiousness, yet by the instigation of Cardinal Puccius in whom he had great confidence, he gathered huge sums of money, by sending his Breeves abroad, every where promising expiation of all sins, and life everlasting upon a certain price, which any should give according to the heinousness of his offence. Then rose up Martin Luther a Professor of Divinity in Wittemberge, who first confuting, and then condemning the Sermons which were made for Indulgences▪ at length questioned that power, which the Pope assumed to Himself in the same Breeves. So he. And what other (we pray you) can be the Consequence of this piece of Doctrine, but that which (if you be to seek) you may learn from experienced Authors within your own Church, who say (as appeareth in the Margin) that 
c Tempore cumprimis Bonifacij noni Pont. quandò huiusmodi venia plenâ manu non concedebatur modò, verumetiam (teste Platina) uti quaedam merces vendebatur,— minùs multi à malefactis abstinebant, & clavium potestas multò vilior erat. Polydor. Virg. de Jnuent. lib. 8. c. 1. Edit. Lugd. 1558.  When first Indulgences were set on sale, with full Pardons, men did less abstain from wickedness, and the keys of the Church became vile. That Pope Leo the 10. was 
d Revertor ad Indulgentias, ut illud verissimè dicam, Romanos Pontifices nimiùm indulgentes fuisse. Masson. in vita Leon. 10.  Too too indulgent, in granting Indulgences. That Popes are the most expert Alchemists, (By 
e Aurum pro plumbo mut●mus, negligentias (hem lapso calamo!) indulgentias passim admittimus. Exhort. apud Fascic. rerum expetend. fol. 38.  Turning their lead into gold through their Negligences, otherwise called Indulgences) Noting, that Papal Indulgences to Sinners worketh Negligence in well doing. That They 
f Exercent in populum tyrannidem, quaestu suo omnia metientes.— Non sedent in Cathedra Euangelica, sed Simonis Magi, autipsius Caiphae. Eras. i● Matth. 23.3.  Measuring all things by gain, tyrannize over the people, sitting in the seat of Simon Magus, or else of Caiphas.  
We might easily load you with multitudes of Inuectives of your own Authors, against the Impiety of Papal Indulgences; so justifiable is Luther in his Opposition against them: insomuch that Erasmus held it 
g Impium esset, Lutherum, in iis quae rectè dixit, indefensum relinquere. Eras. Epist. Rectori Scholae Erford.  An Impiety not to defend him. This Luther, who (in the opinion of the Popular Auditors) so far overcame his Adversary Ecchius in a Disputation held at Lipsia, that your Castro doth instance in this Example, and thereupon prefixeth a Rule; 
h Non est publicè disputandum cum Haeretico, praesertim pertinaci.—— Sunt enim saepè Haeretici in disputando disertissimi, & sciunt optimè disputationum retia tendere.— Huius rei exemplum nobis praebuit publica disputatio cum Luthero Lipsiae habita, ubi vir doctiss. Ecchius cum Luthero disputans, etc. Alfonsus' à Castro lib. 1 de Punit. Haeret. cap. 29. pag. 182.183.  To avoid public Disputation with (as he accounteth, and calleth Protestant's) pertinacious Heretics.  
The Sum of All may be comprised in a few words. The Patrons of Romish Indulgences, by making it an Article of Faith, do Canonize and Deify a Novelty, a Falsehood, and a very Bawd of all Impiety: 
i Quilibet pro pretij solutione peccandi impunitatem sibi pollicebatur, hinc stupra, incestus, adulteria, periuria, homicidia, & tota malorum Lerna. Orthunius Gratius de Gravaminibus Germaniae.  Whence (to use your own words) Adulteries, Incests, Perjuries, Homicides, and the spawn of all evils did arise.   

THESIS'. II. LUTHER had necessary Cause to Depart from the Church of Rome. SECT. 15.  
IT is not (as you 
* See above in this Chapter Sect. ●.  have heard) the corruption of a Doctrine, which can always drive a man out of the Church, except other properties of necessary Removing do concur. What these are, you may call to your 
* See above, Sect. 7.  remembrance: Which may be observed in this Case of Luther, and justify him before God and Man. As first the general Obstinacy of contrary Teachers, such as were the Romish, of whom Luther complained, saying, 
* See the last Sect. lit. q.  They [Alto fastu] with high disdain contemned my Preaching against Indulgences. Secondly, Luther's hearing (if he had stayed) the way of Truth often blasphemed. Thirdly, Luther's complaining of violent forcing of men to subscribe unto New Articles; this is Tyranny. And lastly, he further chargeth them with Compelling him to submit to Satanical Doctrines, speaking both of the vileness of Indulgences, and the Idolatry of and in the Romish Mass. Albeit any One of all these had been a sufficient cause for him, to warrant his Departure out of Romish Babylon.   

THESIS'. III. LUTHER and his Followers were far more safe, for their Souls state, in that Separation from the Church of Rome, and less Schismatics than They, whom he forsook. SECT. 16.  
ALL sound knowledge is by understanding of the true Causes of things. It is the Cause that distinguisheth a Martyr from an Heretic; and the same just Cause also truly and essentially uniteth one with the true Catholic Church, discerneth him both from an Excommunicate (properly so called) and from a Schismatic. Attend then to that, which your Cardinal would have you to MARK. 
i Aduerte, sententiam Excommunicationis iniustam nullam nec quoad Deum, nec quoad Ecclesiam ligare. Tolet. jes. Instit. Sac. l. 1. cap. 10.  Mark (saith he) that an unjust sentence of Excommunication is of no force at all. Accordingly Saint Augustine; [Iniusta vincula iustitia disrumpit:] Unjust bond's are more justly broken then kept. Of this somewhat more hath been said in a 
* See above, Sect. ●. Thesis' 7.  former Thesis. This known, it will be no hard matter to find out the true Schismatic. For as it is the unlawful Agent, and not the Innocent Patient that maketh the Fray: so in Excommunication, 
k Si quis illicitè quemquam excommunicate, semetipsum, non illum condemnat. Greg. Epist. ut habetur Indice ad calcem libri.  Whosoever Excommunicateth another unjustly, condemneth not that other, but himself. Accordingly in Separation from any Church, the Active (if unjust,) and not the party Passive, is the Schismatic: upon which Suppositition 
* See above, Chap. 9 Sect 6 & Chap. 4. Sect. 8.  Firmilianus Concluded against Stephen Pope of Rome, that the said Stephen was the Schismatic, by his Excommunicating and separating S. Cyprian, with many Others in the African Chuches, and elsewhere, from his Communion. In like Case, well said once your 
¶ Benno Cardinal. de vita Hild. Eusebius Liberij communionem deserendo— eum ligavit. Apud Fascic. Rerum. fol. 41. cap. 2.  Cardinal Benno, that Eusebius did bind Liberius, by forsaking his Communion: Even as did also the 
b Africani Antistites Vigilium Rom. Episcopum damnatorem trium Capitulorum à Catholica communione, reseruato ei Poenitentiae loco, recludunt, Victor Episcopus Tunnunensis in Chron.  African Bishops in their Synod, by Excluding Pope Vigilius out of their Communion, in the days of justinian.  
Now, that Luther was unjustly Excommunicate by your Pope, the first Thesis hath fully proved. And that Luther was a Passive in this Separation, appeareth not only by his own Complaints, saying, 
* See above, Sect. 15. at q.  I was Compelled, Constrained, etc. but also by the Proceedings of Pope Leo against him. Else, why is it that your own Thuanus, speaking of this Separation, said that 
l Non defuerunt, qui iam tùm culpam in Leonem (Papan) reijcerent. Aug. Thuan. Hist. l. 1. Anno 1515. pag. 25.  Some in those days laid the fault upon Pope Leo? More fully your Cassander, an Author selected in those days by the King of the Romans, as the chiefest Divine of his time, and one most fit to be Consulted with, concerning the same Separation of Protestants: 
m Non negârim tamen multos initio pio studio ad acriorem reprehensionem quorundam manifestorum abusuum impulsos fuisse, & praecipua● causam huius calamitatis & distractionis Ecclesiae illis assignandam, qui inani quodam fastu Ecclesiasticae potestatis instati rectè & modestè admonentes superbe & fastidiosè contempferunt & repulerunt.— Neque unquam, credo, controversia apud nos de externa Ecclesiae unitate extiti●●et, nisi Pontifices Rom. hac authoritate ad dominationis quandam speciem abusi fuissent, eamque extrà fines à Christo praescriptos ambitionis & cupiditatis causâ extulissent. Cassander Consult. Art. 7. de Ecclesia vera.  I cannot (saith he) deny many of them, in the beginning, to have been moved and provoked with a pious zeal to a sharp reprehension of manifest Abuses, and that the principal cause of this calamity and Disunion is to be imputed to them, who superciliously and disdainfully contemned such godly Admonitions. Neither yet ever had there been (as I am persuaded) any Contention about the external Unity of the Church, except the Popes had abused their authority to an ambitious and Domineiring manner of Rule, above the limits which Christ prescribed to his Church. So Herald  
But it will be said, Why did not Luther seek remedy and redress of his wrong somewhere? where (we pray you) should he have sought it, can you tell? By Appealing to a General Council? why, that means was barred by the Pope's Extravagant denouncing him to be 
n Quicunque decreverint,— seu delibera●erin●, &c ut ad futurum universale Conc. à nobis vel Successoribus nostris Rom. Pontificibus contra praedictam Constitutionem appellare liceat, possit, vel debeat; Anathematizamus Apud Navarram. Tom. 2. Com. de Datis, num. 15.  Anathema, whosoever shall so much as consult or deliberate to Appeal from the Pope to a future General Council: Albeit this preferring the Pope's judgement before a Council's is, by the sentence of two Romish Counsels, (as 
* See above, Chap. 13. Sect. 18.19.  namely Constance and Basil) held a Doctrine, of all others, most Schismatical. Oh! but he being but a Sheep, cited to Rome, should have appeared before Leo his Pastor, notwithstanding the Pope's high indignation against him. As though you could be ignorant of the Apologue of the Sheep and the Lion at their meeting, the end whereof could be no other than this, Ora Leonis habes; for the sheep to run headlong into the Lion's mouth. A Fable, which of later times the Venetian Fulgentius, the French Abbot of Boys, and after them the Dalmatian Spalatensis verified (silly Sheep!) with the loss of their lives.   

THESIS'. IV. The Romish Objections, urged against this Separation of LUTHER, are notably frivolous. SECT. 17.  
STill we say, that an ill Cause oftentimes bewrayeth itself as much by the frivolous Objections of an Opponent, as it is discovered by the just Evidences of a Defendant. There are but four kind of Objections, (besides such as have been already answered) which you do usually urge against Luther.   

THESIS'. V. The I. Objection, in respect of LVTHER'S former Vow to the Pope, or Church of Rome, is vain and idle. SECT. 18.  
IT is true, Luther had been a Vowed, and (if you will) a sworn Vassal to the Pope, and to the Roman Church. And so was once your own Stephen Gardiner, sometimes Bishop of Winchester; whose answer in like case may satisfy your Curiosity, and control your scurrility in this point. He, in his book of True Obedience to the King (notwithstanding the Pope's Breeves to the contrary) enlargeth himself in his Answer, after this manner following. 
o Step. Gardener in lib. de vera Obed. fol. 54. according to the English Translation.  Some (saith he) pull me backward, ask why I enterprise so to teach Obedience, as that I do disclose my own Disobedience to the authority and power (meaning of the Pope,) for whose Defence I was bound by my Oath, to defend his authority to my possible Power. Where is his keeping of Oaths become? (say they) where is his fidelity? He was sworn to defend the Rights of the Church of Rome, and now professeth himself an open enemy thereunto. But this their talk no more moveth me, than the bumbling sound of an old barrel, because where unlawful Oaths, there also unlawful Vows are not to be kept; for none are to swear to any wickedness. Thus your own Bishop; and after illustrateth this by an elegant Similitude. A certain married man (saith he) when he thought, by just likelihoods, his first wife was dead, did, as one that had been freed, take another wife by the authority of the Church, and consent of her Parents, by which wife after some years he had children. But lo, his former wife, unlooked for, returneth again, and requireth to have her husband again, that had done ill in marrying another. The man marvelling hereat, and being loath to be divorced from his latter wife, maketh long delays, yet at length brought into Law, and being cast, gave way to the Truth, and taketh his first wife again, by the judgement of the Church. When now the Parents & friends of the latter wife made the like wonderment, as these men do against me, saying unto him, thou hellhound, thou wicked covenant-breaker, etc. And if a man would consider this business, shall he not see, as it were in a glass, the very image of that Husband in me? For indeed I (seeing I believed that no such Truth of obedience had been, etc.) I compelled myself in a second Covenant, and thereto plighted my troth. Wherefore I thought that I had kept lawful Company: but when the TRUTH came, which is every man's first wife married to him in public Baptism, which will require the first Promise at all men's hands, to her I applied, to her I cleaved, and from my second knot, as of none effect, by the judgement of my Church, I departed. And shall any man think it indifferent, that I shall be called a Liar, because I obey the Truth? etc. I am by most grave judgement of the Truth divorced from the Church of Rome, which it was not lawful for me to keep still, and am compelled to take my wife, TRUTH, to me when she cometh again. Thus far B. Gardiner.  
The right and accurate Sense of this Similitude may, as the beams of the Sun, dispel the foggy mist of Romish error, concerning the Question we now have in hand; it being taken from the consideration of our Christian Vow made in Baptism. Wherein we are to observe the Parties betrothed together, which are the Soul of a Christian, and the Truth of God in Christ: and secondly the Parties, and (if I may so say) Parents, by whose consent and Authority this marriage is made, which in the inward is our Father, even GOD in the unity of Three persons, Father, Son, and holy Ghost; and in the outward, is our spiritual Mother mentioned in our Creed, at the rhyme of our Vow in Baptism, The holy Catholic Church.  
It especially therefore concerneth every Votary, that hath vowed himself in Baptism, to learn to acknowledge his true Father, his true Mother, and his own true Wife. For Father, he is baptised in the name of the Blessed Trinity, in the unity of one God everlasting, not in the name of any man whatsoever; as Saint Paul proveth against the Schismatics in the Church of Corinth, that would seem Some to hold of Cephas, that is, Peter; Some of Paul, as though the Gospel or Truth were Paul's or Peter's: he answereth them, No: his Reason is interrogatively, 
* 1. Cor. 1.13.  Were you baptised in the name of Paul? As much as to say, He only is essentially your spiritual Father, in whose Name you are baptised.  
Secondly, the Mother is mentioned, in our Vow at Baptism, to be The holy Catholic, or Universal Church; not any particular Church, though by the particular Church I am brought into the Catholic. We say, not any Particular Church, because every Particular Church (as 
* See above.  hath been Confessed) may possibly err, and Apostate from Truth. But the Catholic is built upon a Rock immoveable as the earth, yea or the highest heavens.  
Lastly, the Wife, whereunto every Soul is betrothed in Baptism, is only that Truth, which was first revealed by Christ unto his Apostles, as the Apostle teacheth; 
* Gal. 1.9.  If any preach any other Gospel, than that which you have received (that is to say, already) hold him Accursed.  
Now give us leave to try what kind of Marriage is made by your Votaries in the Church of Rome. First, by believing the Infallibility of the Pope, in whatsoever Revelations, which he shall propound to be believed of all Christians; it is to assume a new Father, which is thus proved. If I (saith Saint Paul) or an Angel from heaven preach otherwise, let him be Accursed: but who in all the Church of Rome will say, Though the Pope teach us otherwise then was Apostolically and Primitively taught, from the immediate Doctrine of Christ, I shall account him Anathema?  
Next, the Party baptised in your Church is Catechised to believe the Church of Rome to be The Catholic and Mother-Church of all other Churches: which we throughout this Treatise have proved to be an Imposterous, Schismatical, and Blasphemous Article. First Imposterous, because The Catholic Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed, was extant in the days of the Apostles, divers years before Rome was (that we may so say) Baptised, to have the name of a Church. Secondly Schismatical, because it being (as hath been showed) but a Particular Church, and usurping the Title of The Catholic Church, doth thereby peremptorily divide herself from All other Churches of Christ, which both for Truth, and Extent make a far more Catholic Church than she is. Thirdly Blasphemous, in Damning, by this Article of the Catholic Roman Church, all the most glorious Christian Fathers, Martyrs, Professors, and Churches as well Primitive as Successive, (which are infinite) that have denied Subjection to the Roman Church. All which Particulars have been proved at large.  
In the last place, each Christian in Baptism being espoused to his wife Truth, which can be but One, even that whereof Saint Paul spoke, saying, 
* 1. Cor. 15.1.  That which you have received before: and accordingly Saint jude, 
* S. jude ver. 3.  Contend for the Faith, which once was delivered to the Saints: therefore every other New Article of Faith, as it were a later Consort and wife that shall be admitted, is no true loyal wife, but an unlawful Concubine and strumpet. So then, so many Concubines may the Church of Rome be said to betroath her Children unto, as she hath set down New Articles in her Roman Creed, and imposed upon all her Eccleisastics, under the bond of an Oath. Among which is your Article of Indulgences; from which, as from a supposititious wife, Luther necessarily made his divorce, returning unto the Primitive Truth, whereunto in holy Baptism he had formerly plighted his Troth.   

THESIS'. VI Your Second and most Popular Objection against LUTHER, (in his Opposition to your Roman Church) urging in him to prove his Doctrine by immediate Succession, and by Naming his Teachers Before him; is as fond as the other. SECT. 19  
I. FOr the no-Necessitie of Name, we read first that our Saviour Christ, answering a question concerning Divorce, whether it were lawful for the husband to put away his wife at his pleasure, or no (an Abuse which, by the hardness of the jews hearts, had continued among them many hundred years) sendeth them to God's first Institution of Marriage, set down in the beginning of Scripture saying; 
* Matth. 19.9.  From the beginning it was not so. But how? Flat contrary, 
* Gen. 2.24.  Therefore shall a man leave Father and Mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh. Willingly passing over all mention, or meaning of any former Teacher, for the space of thousands of years. Teaching us thereby; first, that there can be no truer Doctors than God's word; secondly, no better Argument, than Proof that It was not so from the beginning.  
II. Saint Cyprian, being busied in a Question concerning Baptism, 
p Non debemus attendere quio alius ante nos fecerit, sed quid qui est ante omnes Christus prior fecerit: neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. Cyprian Epist. 63. And although Saint Augustine confuted Cyprians Assumption, yet he justifieth his Proposition.  We are not to regard (saith he) what any hath done before us, but what he did, who is before all, Christ our Lord; not following the Custom of men, but the Truth of God.  
III. Suarez your most celebrious Spanish jesuit, and public Professor; 
q Aliquandò solùm constat de initio (Traditionis) per negationem, quià potest constare in aliquo temporepropè initia Ecclesiae non fuisse, etc. Suarez. jes. de Trip. vir●. Theol. disp. 5. §. 4. nu. 4. See this Testimony set down at large in the next Sect lit. 2.  Sometimes (saith he) we know the beginning of a Tradition only Negatively, because it may appear that sometime it was not so near the beginning of the Church. So he, in your public Schools, teaching you, that if it may be showed, concerning any Doctrinal Tradition, that there was a time near to the beginning of the Church (namely in the days of the Apostles) when it was not taught; it will be a sufficient Confutation thereof, to prove it to be but an humane Invention, without any further enquiry after the Names of Persons, who in succeeding ages have gone before us.  
IV. An Example we may take from your own former Relation of a Tradition professed by Pope Innocentius the first, who taught that 
r Innocent. 1. ad Conc. Milevet. Epist. 25.— Ex qua constat. Innocentij sententia, Eucharistiam Infantibus necessariam esse, ex loco joh. Nisi manducaverits, etc. Binius Tom. 1. Conc. ex Rescript. Innoc. Pa●. Haec Innocentij sen●entia, quae Eucharistiam infantibus necessariam fuisse— (quae 600 circiter Annos viguit in Ecclesia) iam reiecta est. Maldon. jes. in joh. 6.53. & Espen. de Adorat. Euch. l. 2. c. 12.  The administration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary to Infants, for their Salvation. Which doctrine and practice continued about 600. years in the Church (namely of Rome) but since is rejected thereby. So you. Here had been a Matter for your Obiectors to have argued upon, if they had lived at the end of those 600. years when this Error was first rejected. Would they have said, Show us that any Fathers by name, for 600. years passed, ever taught the contrary? or else we must continue this custom still. Thus should they condemn the Present Church of Rome, which hath rejected that Custom. Or would they have said? We regard not the time of the Continuance thereof for so many hundred years, seeing it may be proved, that before that time there was no such Doctrine: And the Institution of Christ, which requireth Remembrance in them that partake of this Sacrament, doth instruct us otherwise. And so must they (as they ought) condemn the former Roman Church in the days of Innocentius, and from henceforth silence themselves, in exacting the Names of Persons, who immediately before that time had taught the Contrary: because (according to your Jesuits Confession) it is lawful in such a Case to proceed Persaltum, Negatively saying; It was not so, near the beginning of the Church, Ergo, it is not a necessary Tradition. Which was the very Apology that 
* See above Sect. 15.  Luther made against the doctrine of Indulgences, in his first Opposition against your Church of Rome: and the same is the defence of Protestants, in their whole Profession at this day.  
V. But supposing a Necessity of Names, why ask You names? As though the Church of Rome had been then The Catholic Church, without which there was none then, or before the days of Luther, who rejected the doctrine of Romish Indulgences, and of Papal jurisdiction, as well as he: when (as you have heard) there were, even since the Apostles times, the Churches of the Grecians, Aethiopians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Russians, and indeed a world of faithful Christians, that wanted not names, who Communicated not with the Church of Rome.  
And what meaneth this Importunity, or rather perverseness, to seek for that, which is by your own Historians set before your eyes, the Protesters against your Romish Novelties before Luther, whom they call Albigenses, Waldenses, Wiclefians, Hussites? etc. Could these be so called by yourselves (who persecuted them under these names) without Names? Yet know, that this diversity of Names may not argue the Sects and differences of their Religion, no more than many names given unto the same River, passing through diverse countries, can argue a diversity of the streams. But these Professors and their Names you may understand, if you will read 
* Doctor Usher (now) L. Prim●t● of Armagh. H●st. Eccles. Doctor Crakanthorp. in Defence. Eccles. Anglican. and Doctor Feateleys late Conference published.  Them, who have purposely entreated of this Subject; who are furnished with answers, and can show you, out of your own Authors, their Innocent conversation of life, their Multitudes in number, their Consent, and Constancy in their Profession, by enduring of Imprisonments, banishment, deaths, and whatsoever Cruelties your Inquisitors could inflict on them. And were these then Nameless, trow you?  
VI And if this may not content you, what then if we shall name them Romans (for such were Luther, Melancthon, and other Protestants at the beginning of their Opposition) as sound Members of an unfound Particular Church? from whence it was lawful and necessary for them to depart as hath been proved. Thus much in confutation of your Vulgar Objection by Six Answers, which deserveth only this brief Answer, It is frivolous, and superfluous.   

THESIS'. VII. Your Objection, That all Changes of Doctrines have been Notorious in the Persons, and Places of their first Beginnings, is false. SECT. 20.  
A principal Objection, wherewith your Cardinal doth colourably delude his Disciples, is this, 
s In omni insigni mutatione semper ista sex demonstrari possunt: 1. Author eius: 2. Dogma. 3. Tempus quo coepit 4. Locus ubi. 5. Quis eam oppugnwerit. 6. Exiguus coetus unde coeperit. Bellar. l 4. de Notis Eccles. c. 4. §. In omni.  In all Changes of doctrines in any Church, the tokens there are visible in the Author, Time, Place, and Person oppugning the same. So he; that so he may justify many Errors, which must therefore seem Truths, because there is none of these visible Notes of Changes to discover them. We answer, that this your Objection conctradicteth the ordinary growth of Heresy, the experience of former Heretics, the Changes of Doctrine in the Romish Church, and the Confession of your own Schools.  
I. The nature of Heresy, as Saint Paul describeth it, 2. Tim. 2.17. is like a Cancer, or Gangraena: 
t Graeci Latinique morbum intelligunt, horrendum sanè vulnus, vel potius ulcus quod in foeminarum praesertim mamillis enatum, nisi citò subventum fuererit, putrescit, & quoth in corpore sanum est putridum reddit,— & paulatim omnem corporis partem occupat.— Sic Haeretici, etc. Espencaeus in illum locum 2. Tim. 2  By which (as you know) both the Greek and Latins understand that ulcer, which is bred in woman's paps, which if it be not prevented, doth putrify by by little and little, until it possess all the parts of the Body. Therefore an insensible groweth at the beginning.  
II. The experience of an hundred Heresies, whose Authors have not been notorious, might be propounded unto you; but that taste may suffice, which your own 
u Abstinentes quo tempore viguerunt, non memoratur.— Acephali, quorum nullus Author repertus est, à quo originem traxisse dicerentur.— Aquarij,— quis huius Haeresis Author fuerit, & ex quo tempore coeperit, nemo est qui indicat.— Praedestinati,— quis horum du●. fuerit, nescitur Prateolus Elench. Haeret.  Prateolus doth offer unto you, by an Instance in the Abstinents, of which (Heretics) it is not remembered (saith he) what time they lived. In the Acephali, of which kind (saith he) the first Author is not found. In the Aquarij, whose Author (saith he) is not mentioned by any. And in the Predestinatis, whose first leader (saith he) is not known. We might reckon up the Alogiani, Anthropomorphitae, Aphthratodocitae, Collyridianis, Gnostici, Concerning all whom, and many others (as the Angelici, Apostolici, Cainani, Catharistae, Ophitae, Passionistae) because you yourselves cannot tell us from whom they first arose, [or By whom they were impugned, it appeareth that you object you know not what.  
III. And as though (forsooth) no such Gangrene or disease could be found in the body of your Church; how then (to speak only from your own Confessions) hath grown the opinion of the foresaid Necessity of the 
* See above in the last Sect. lit. r.  Administration of the of the Eucharist unto Infants, not only with no Opposition, but even with the great approbation of your Popes? how your Custom of Communicating but in one kind, whereof you yourselves grant a 
x Quae quandò primùm vigere coepit in aliquibus Ecclesijs, minimè constat. Valent. jes. de Euchar. c. 10. p. 499. §. Haec igitur.  Non constat, or Ignoramus, when it first began? Whereas for a Thousand years' cantinuance, the Contrary was held (as you 
y Constat universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem, Occidentalem verò seu Romanam mille amplius à Christo Annis— utramque panis & vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse Cassa●der Consult. Art. 22, initio.  know) in the Catholic Church, yea and in the Roman Church itself? Or how will you answer for the Corruption of your Roman Worship, whereof we have your Fathers in the Council of Trent decreeing, that 
z cum multa. iam temporum vitio, sive hominum incuriâ ac improbitate irrepsisse videantur, quae à tanti Sacrificij dignitate aliena sunt, etc. Conc. Tried Sess. 22. Deret. De obseruand. & evitand. in celebrat. Missae.  Because many Corruptions have crept into the celebration of the Roman Mass either by the error of the time, or negligence, and improbity of men, therefore an order must be taken to purge them. So They. Are not diseases, diseases, because we can but conjecture the first Cause or time of their being? The former Confession of your Professor and jesuit before pointed at, & now set down at large, will give us the upshot. 
a Traditio alia perpetua ab initio Ecclesiae, alia temporalis, cuius initium cognoscitur,— seu positiuè quo annovel tempore inceperit:— aliquandò verò solum constat de initio per negationem, quià potest constare aliquo tempore, propè initia Ecclesiae non fuisse in illa tal●m consuetudinem vel doctrinam, at posteà in illa inveniri: nam tunc rectè colligitur, huiusmodi Traditionem habuisse initium post Apostolos, etiamsi determinatum tempus, in quo inceperit, ignoretur:— quae cum non sit universalis in tempore, non potest per se fidem facere Catholicam, quae debet esse tempore ●niuersalis. Suarez. jes. de Trip. virt. Disp. 5. §. 4. num. 4.  Some Traditions (saith he) are perpetual in time, even from the beginning of the Church: Others are only temporal, the beginning whereof may be known sometimes positively what time they began, and sometimes only negatively, by being able to show what time near the beginning of the Church such a custom or doctrine had no being, though afterwards it was invented. Whereby it may be justly collected that such a Tradition had its beginning after the Apostles, albeit the certain and determinate time, in which it began, be not known. Which Tradition, because it is not universal in time, it cannot beget any Catholic belief. So he, even such an He, whom your Roman Church esteemeth for the most eminent & general both Doctor and Proctor of her Cause, at this day. By which Sentence are avoided both your former Objections of the Necessity of giving of Names of Authors before Luther; and of demonstrating the Time, Persons and Place of the beginning of Errors in the Church. As also there is reached unto Protestants a strong engine to the utter overthrow of your now Roman Creed, consisting of more than 12. new Articles, concerning Worshipping of Images, Purgatory, Indulgences, and the like: which can never be showed to have sprung in the ages of Antiquity bordering on the Apostles time; and therefore, according to this former true and necessary Rule set down by your jesuit, can beget no Catholic Belief.   

THESIS'. VIII. Your last Objection, of Continual and Personal Succession in all Ages, is frustrate. SECT. 21.  
LEst that Succession and not Succession may seem to alter the Case, because the Roman Church is by Personal Succession of Catholic Pastors, the Protestant Church is by Secession and Departure; whereas true Succession doth manifest a true Church, even as no true Succession doth notify a false Church, (as you use to say:) you need do no more but cast your eyes upon your own Historians, who reporting the great deluge of that horrible Heresy of the Arrians, declare that in the most Churches Christian ●he true and Orthodox Bishops were removed out of their Bishoprics, and cast into Banishment. As for example the Chief Patriarches, 
b Ex Alexandrina Athanasium exturbant Ariani, à Constantinopolitana Paulum, Liberium à Romana sede, etc. Lindan. Pa●op. l. 2. c. 6. §. Quanquam. Legere est egregiam Catholicorum ab exilio reversionem. Espen. in Tim. l. 3. Digress. ca 18. Bozius de Signi● Eccles.  Liberius out of Rome, Athanasius out of Alexandria, Paulus out of Constantinople, etc. Again, the Wheel of God's providence turning backwards, the Arian Heretics lost their Bishoprics and Patriarkships, the Orthodox and Catholic Professors succeeding in their places. We demand, will you then indeed say, that Succession in place is absolutely an affirmative Note of a true Church? How then shall those Churches be judged Heretical, wherein Arians immediately succeeded Catholics? Or is not Succession negatively a Note of no true Church? How then were not the Churches false, wherein Catholics immediately succeeded Heretics? So then, if you pronounce any Church true, by the Succession of Persons only, you do but waste your wind: if by the Succession of Doctrine, than Luther's doctrine being truly Apostolical, his Church cannot be but truly Catholic.   

The Fourth and last part of this DETERMINATION concerneth the state of the Churches of Protestants, after the days of Luther; and their more just Cause of Continuing this Separation from Rome. SECT. 22.  
WHy should we not think that after, our justification of the first Departure of Protestants from the Church of Rome, you should expect some Addition, for the Defence of our Continuance of that Separation; lest otherwise some might surmise, that now sure the Council of Trent (pretending a General reformation of all Abuses) the Protestants might have juster Cause to reunite themselves to the Church of Rome.   

THESIS'. I Protestants are Generally Excommunicated by the Church of Rome. SECT. 23.  
YOur Pope of Rome doth by his Bulls yearly bellow out his 
c Bulla Coenae per Sixtum Quintum Papam. vide Tolet. jes. de Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 1. cap. 18.  Excommumications, Anathematisms, or Curses (by name) against all Lutherans, Caluinists, Hugonots, and all Protestants; together with all their Defenders, Favourers, Receivers, Readers of their Books, without speceall Licence, whosoever they be.   

THESIS'. II. Protestants are Unjustly Excommunicated. SECT. 24.  
ALl the Causes, for which Scripture hath authorized a Departure from any visible Church, do accordingly justify our Separation from the Church of Rome. I. Falshood, by Creation of a 
d Forma juramenti per Pium Quartum·  new Creed; consisting of so many Articles. II. To a false Faith is joined false Worship, by Idolatry; not only by the vulgar, in Worshipping of Relics, Images, and Saints Idolatrously (
* Espencaeus, Vines, Polyderus.  as is witnessed by yourselves:) but also generally, by the Adoration of your Romish Moloch in the Mass, Wherein that, which after Consecration you adore, take it at the best, is but a Christ (as you 
* Suarez jes. To. 8 Qu. 76▪ Resp. 53. §. 1. & 13.  teach) void of all sense, natural power of motion, and faculty of understanding. Which Doctrine, touching the glorified body of Christ, We think to be Blasphemous.  
Take it as it may possibly be, and then by your own general Confession (in all probability, Five hundred to one) after Consecration the thing you adore is but Bread still, which is a possible (yea and, as you yourselves term it, a material) Idolatry. And take it as we are ready to prove, to wit, that it is infallibly still (even after Consecration) the substance of Bread; and consequently your Adoration is really, necessarily and formally Idolatrous. All these points are to be fully proved in a Treatise to be entitled CHRIST HIS MASS; which in due time may salute you in like manner as this doth, if God permit.  
III. To Heresy and Idolatry your Church joineth Obstinacy, not that we can deny but that the Fathers of the Council of Trent 
e Sacrosancta Generalis Tridentina Synodus in Sp. Sancto legitime congregatas, praesidentib. in ea eiusdem Sanctae sedis Apostolicae legatis & Nuntijs, Omnibus & singulis sive Ecclesiasticis siuè secularibus personis universae Germaniae cuiuscunque gradus etc.— qui ad Oecumenicum hoc & generale Conc. accedere voluerunt, ut de rebus iis. quae in ipsa Synodo tractari debent, omni libertate confer, proponere, & tractare.— Ac articulos, quot illis videbitur, tam scripto quam verbo offer, proponere, & cum Patribus, five iis qui ab ipsa sancta Synodo delecti fuerint, confer,— necnen. quandò illis placuerit, recedere possint,— plenam Securitatem, quam saluum conductum appellant,— concedit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 8. Saluus conductus datus Protestantibus.  decreed A safe Conduct and full security to all Protestants in Germany to come to that Council; and (according to the tenure of that same Decree) To propound, whether by word or writing, what Articles they would, and with free liberty to dispute thereof. So they. And was not this a Fatherly Consideration, shall We think? but your Thuanus will tell you of divers Protestants that came to the Council, desiring of the Pope's Legates to have liberty to dispute, according to the former Decree: When One of them 
f Aug. Thuanus de quibusdam Protestantibus, qui tempore Conc. Trident. ad Synodum venerunt, habito Saluo Conductu.— Ad ipsum Monfortium veniunt, orant ut cum Collegis det operam, ut ad postulata respondeatur, & disceptatio de controversis Religionis Capp. inchoetur. Postridiè— Patres in Legati Pontificij aedes conveniunt.— Virtem bergicus Confessionem iam Concilio exhibitam publicaverat, quod molestè admodum tulere Patres.— Dixerunt Protestants, suos venisse Theologos, ut doctrinam, eo libro comprehensam, tue●ntur. Cum nihil ad ea responderetur, & Sleidanus ubi domum redeundum esse diceret,— Toletanus licere quidem respondit, neque repugnare quo minùs abirent.— Igitur Theologi, qui remanserant, postquam Causam suam Caesaris Oratoribus probaverant, Tridento discedun. Thuan. Hist. sui temp. Tom. 1. lib. 7. Anno 1552.  Exhibiting their joint Confession to the whole Council assembled, published the same, whereat (saith your Historian) the Fathers of the Council were greatly offended: then after it was made known, that the Protestants were ready to defend their Confession. But they could have no answer to it, and therefore desired leave to be gone, which assuredly obtained, they commended their Cause to the Emperor's Orator, and departed from the Council.  
Where are now our great Disputers of Rome, who can teach Protestant's Logic, and all manner learning, as you use to boast? if ever they ought to appear, then doubtless in their general Synod, when the most selected Scholars were assembled for the discussion of all Questions. john hus in the Council of Constance had safeconduct to come and Dispute for himself, but that was all: for that Conduct was but a trap to catch him in, and so to burn him, as they did. In the Council of Trent the Protestants are promised, with their safeconduct, a liberty of Disputation, but are not allowed it, when they offer themselves: yet no sooner, almost, are they come, but they are saluted by your Tridentines; as Christ was by the Gadarenes, when they wished him to 
* Matth. 8.34.  depart out of their coasts. What greater argument can there be of a perfidious promise, then to grant a Disputation under a solemn Instrument, in the name of the Pope, and the whole Council, in pretence of Satisfaction to all Consciences, and not to perform it? or of Impotency in your Cause, than not to endure to have it discussed? or yet of Obstinacy in your Errors, than to reject the ordinary means of Detecting them, allowed unto all Adversaries, in all ancient Counsels? This directly confirmeth the Censure, which that Phoenix of learning Master Isaac Casaubon, gave of your Church. 
g Indubitatum est, & omni certo certius debet haberi (errant gravissime qui aliter iudicant, & nescio quae media consilia sectantur, quae nulla sunt) ineundae concordiae nullam amplius neque rationem, neque spem in terris omninò superesse. Casaub. in Epist. ad Jacobum Regem, ante Exercit. in Baronij annal.  He is foully deceived (saith he) whosoever he be that will be a Medijst, thinking that there can be any Reconciliation with the Church of Rome, a thing to be utterly despaired of.  
To all the former Crimes, your Church addeth Tyranny: your Positions are Excommunications to all that deny Subjection to the man of Rome: After Excommunications come Eradications against States, Laws, and Kingdoms, by Conspiracies, Rebellions, and all hostile Machinations; yea and against whatsoever inferior Persons, whensoever there is ability, either by general Massacres, or by particular torments. Nor are your hands shorter than your tongues, for As we have heard, so have we seen KINGS wallowing in their gore-blood, shed by your desperate Assassins: Rebellions, Seditions, and Combustions in all Christian Kingdoms have been raised by the fiery spirits of the Disloyal Ignatians: 
h Nullum simile savitiae exemplum in tota Antiquitate reperiri. Natalis Comes. Circiter sexaginta millia hominum circa i●lud tempus trucidata, etc.  a Massacre in France, for Cruelty (as witnesseth your own Historian) not to be parallelled by any example in all the antiquity of former times. But you would not that England should be less noble than France, in the excellency of your mischief; witness your Acheronticall POWDERPLOTT for the destruction of the three Estates of this whole Kingdom; an Example beyond all examples of ages past; and, for the heinousness thereof, hardly credible in the generations to come. Add hereunto your Inquisition now established in the most parts of the Romish jurisdiction, by Pope Paul the Fourth, as 
* See above, Cham 6. Sect. 2. lit. x.  The only fortress of Popedom, and esteemed the chiefest means to preserve the Romish Profession; what is it but that Lion's Den to all them that are caught (except they shall abjure the Doctrine of Protestants)— Vestigia nulla retrorsùm.   

THESIS'. III. In the Continuance of this Separation, Papists are rather Schismatics than Protestants; and consequently in the Heresy of the Donatists. SECT. 25.  
GLadly would your Cardinal make an alliance between the Schismatical Donatists and Protestants; be you so good as hear his Charge. 
i Donatistae Ecclesiam ex solis iustis constare volebant, & inde collegebant, Ecclesiam visibilem periisse ex orbe terrarum. Eadem est Doctrina Calui nistrarum, Eccelesiam visibilem multis seculis perijsse, nunc solum esse in partibus septentrionalibus, ubi ipsi sunt. Bellarm. de Notis Eccles. cap. 9 & Bozius de signis Ecclesiae, Tom. 1. lib. 5. pag. 377.  The Donatists (saith he) held that the Church Catholic consisted only of just persons: whence they concluded that the whole visible Church was perished upon earth, and that it was only in Africa, where they were. Well, but what is this to the Tenent of Protestants? Caluinists likewise (saith he) hold the whole visible Church of Christ to have perished for diverse ages, and that now it is only in the Northern parts among themselves. So he. But how truly and conscionably, Calvin himself will prove, in reproving your Roman Church for 
k Quòd magnificè Ecclesiam vestram commendatis, quasi alia in mundo esse videatur— cum vos Africam, Aegyptum, Asiam Ecclesias non agnoscitis, numquid apud Graecos dicetis perijsse Ecclesiam? Calvin. Instit. l. 4. c 2. §. 2.  Magnifying herself, as being the only Church on earth, and for not acknowledging the Churches of Africa, of Egypt, of Asia, and other Christian Churches. And dare you say (saith Calvin) that the Church is wholly perished, which was among the Grecians? Thus plainly showeth Calvin that his opinion was not to deny the African, Egyptian, Asian, and Grecian Churches to have continued visible parts of the Catholic Church.  
Try we, in the next place, what affinity the Church of Rome may seem to have with the Schismatical Donatists. Saint Augustine (as your Cardinal confesseth) did justly deride the Donatists for that they, 
l Augustinus Epist. 48. ad Vincent. meritò ridet Donatistas', qui ex verbis illis mysticè explicatis [Indica ubi cubas in meridie, Can. 1.] colligebant Ecclesiam Christi in sola Africa remansisse. Bellarm. l. 3 de verbo Dei, c. 3. §. Quocirca.  from the mystical speech in the Canticles, concerning the Church, the Spouse of Christ, saying, [Tell me where my beloved lieth at noon day] gathered that the Catholic Church remained only in Africa. And is not this your Article, viz. The Catholic Roman Church, without union and subjection whereunto there is no Salvation, a manifest appropriation of a Privilege proper to Rome, as remaining always a Catholic Church? The Differences are, They challenged this Prerogative, as due to Africa in the South, you to the Roman Church in the West. They erred by a false Interpretation of a Text of Scripture, which was of mystical Signification [In meridie;] you from another of figurative Sense [
* See above, cap. 4.  Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram] as though it were meant necessarily of Peter: or if so, did Consequently authorise the Pope. Both which have been confuted, as egregiously false. As for the Reason of the Donatists Separation from the other constituted Churches in Africa (that which was the true mark of a Schismatic) it was without just Cause, when they neither did, nor could object either error in Doctrine; or Superstition in worshipping; or tyranny constraining men to oppose the ancient truth; but especially (That which 
* See above in this Chap.  Cannot be a just Cause) the mixture of godly and wicked Professors in one Communion. If you shall require any further justification of this our Separation, and evidence that herein your Romanists are the Schismatics, recall to mind that which hath been said hereof in a former Section.   

THESIS'. IV. In the Continuance of this Separation, the Union of Protestants with the Catholic Church is both more True and more Universal than is the Union of the Romanists. SECT. 26.  
TRue union We call only that, which is only in God's truth, and for Truth's sake, otherwise (as S. Hilary saith) 
m Per speciosum pacis nomen in unitatem perfidiae subrepimus. Hilar. Pictau. Lib. ad Constantium August.  It is not union of faith, but of perfidiousness; nor Christian communion, but Antichristian conspiracy and conjuration. Unjust Unities there are many among men, the first of compulsion and terror, which may be called Vnio Leonina, as when beasts, for awe of the Lion, go in troops, and follow at his beck. The Second is Vulpina, a crafty combination made and maintained by Foxes. The Third is Asinina, the heard of silly Ignorants. Loud and frequent are the boasts of your Catholic Union, never regarding whether it have the Characters of these kinds of Unions, now spoken of: although that none can be more Tyrannous, than that which (as you 
* See above, Chap. 5. §. 2.  have been instructed by Pope Paul the IV.) useth the extent of the Inquisition, as the only Fortress and support thereof. None more crafty than that Church, which is fed at home (as with natural sustenance) with false Legends, and feigned Miracles, and preserved abroad with Equivocations, and Mental Reservations; and specially by Politic Maxims, for alterations of States. Lastly, there can be no greater blockishness, than to be wholly guided by an Implicit faith of believing you know not what, according to your COLLIERS' FAITH, which because it seemeth so commendable unto your Cardinal Hosius, I will deliver it in his own words. 
* Tutist●mum fuerit exemplum sequi Carbonarij cuiusd am ex quo cum vir doctus quaesivisset animi causâ, quid crederet, Symbolum recitavit, interogatus quid praeterea crederet, respondet, quod Ecclesia credit Catholica: Ille vero, quid credit Ecc●esia? quid inquit, ego credo: Cumque subinde alter quaereret, circulo hoc usus Carbonarius nil aliud respondit, quam se credere quod Ecclesia credidit Catholica, Ecclesia quod ipse. Fertur autem evenisse postea, ut vir ille doctus, cum de vitâ periclitaretur, urgente Satana quid crederet, neque se miser satis explicare posset, venit ei in mentem Carbonari●, nec alia fuit eius vox audita, praeter hanc, ut Carbonarius.— Cuius nisi sibi succurrisset exemplum, ingens se dixit periculum & discrime● aditurum. Hosi●s de Authoritate sacrae scripturae lib. 3. §. Quae rit Brentius.  It will be most safe (saith he) to follow the Example of a certain Colier, of whom when a learned man asked him, for his soul's behoof, what he believed, he repeated the Apostles Creed: and being asked what he believed more, said, that which the Catholic Church believeth: But what (quoth the other) doth the Catholic Church believe? that which I believe, quoth the collier: The other being still urgent, the collier used the same Circle, and made no other Answer, than that he believed as the Church believed, and the Church, the same that he believed. Some while after it happened, that the same learned man was by sickness in danger of death; at what time Satan tempted him, urging him what was his belief, insomuch that he poor wretch was not able sufficiently to express himself; but calling to mind the Colliers' Answer, he himself made no other Answer to the Devil than this; AS THE collier; Confessing afterwards that he had been dangerously assaulted, had not this example of the collier holpen him. Thus far your Cardinal of your collier, like an Horse in a Milne going all in a round, as if he would teach you that this Implicit Faith were the only safe Circle (God bless you) to keep out the Devil.  
Wherein you are little inferior to the jewish Rabbins, who taught their Disciples, 
n Memento potius sermonis scribarum, quam Sermonis légis Mosis. Apud Buxdorf. de Synag. jud. c. 1.  To have rather regard to the words of the Scribes, than to the Law of Moses, the word of God. Whom also they instructed, that (in case the judge once passed sentence) he must be absolutely believed, 
o Nec declinabis ad dextram, nec ad sinistram.] Hic dicit Glossa Hebraica, si dixerit Tibi quòd dextra est finistra vel finistra dextra, talis sententia est, tenenda. Lyranus Com. in Deut. 17.  Though he say that the right hand is the left, or the lest the right.  
In all this you cry Pax, Pax, when as indeed it is nothing else but a paction and accordance in Error and Idolatry. The whole College of Priests were against 
* jer. 18.  jeremy: All the Priesthood, with the Scribes and other Sects, conspired against Christ; So little cause have you to glory in the nature of your Union. As for Union with the Church Catholic, there is no other difference than this: Protestant's (as you have heard) stand in Christian Union with Grecians, Egyptians, Asians, Assyrians, Aethiopians, and all Church's Christian, that have not overthrown the fundamental Articles of faith. Whereas the Roman Church, by Excommunicating all other Christian Churches from her, hath Excommunicated herself, and made a Separation from all other Christian Churches. And therefore being alone is nothing less than Catholic. 
* Eccles. 4.10.  Vae Soli!   

THESIS'. V. The Protestants granting it possible for Some to be saved within the Church of Rome; and the Papists denying that any can be saved in the Churches of the Protestants, is but a Sophistical proof that there is more Safety in the Roman Church. SECT. 27.  
MAny Protestants grant (
p Breerly in his Apology.  say you) that some may be possibly saved within the Church of Rome: whereas the Papists absolutely deny that Any, adhering to the Churches of Protestants, can be saved. This Argument to the Ignorant may be an efficacious enchantment to persuade to Popery; which to the judicious and Discreet Reader will appear to be but Childish, and ridiculous, whether we consider your Denial, or our Grant. The first, because your Denial proceedeth not either from Truth, or Conscience. Not from Truth; because first our Separation from you (as hath 
* See above in this Chap. §. 14.15.  been proved out of your own Authors) was for Truth and equitie-sake. And secondly what Conscience can it be in such Obiectors, which the more Ingenuous among you will gainsay? acknowledging it possible that such as are divided from the outward Communion of your Church, (if yet they ruin not the Foundations of Faith,) 
q Horum (Cypriani nempè, & aliorum Patrum) modestiam & mansuetudinem si qui hodie quoque immitarentur, etiamsi ab Ecclesiae societate seclusi viderentur, & in aliquo errore per ignorantiam versarentur, non putarem tamen ab interna illa Ecclesiae Societate, quam animo & voluntate colerent, alienos esse habendos. Cassan. Consult. Art. 7.  May by their inward will otherwise be joined unto her. Such as was (saith he) the case of Cyprian, from the Church of Rome.  
Now what Christian is there, opposite to the Church of Rome, but he hath a desire and will that she were as Orthodox in faith, and as sincere in worship as ever she was, that so he might be united unto her? Nay, we dare herein appeal to many of your own Consciences, nothing doubting but that many of you conceive Salvation towards all Protestants, that in faith and repentance finish this their earthly pilgrimage: accordingly as 
* Serarius, and Muhusinus, both Jesuits, at Mentz.  Some (we speak from knowledge) even of the Society of the Jesuits have done, in desiring the prayers of Some Protestant; yea and (to use their own words) Ex animo desiring the same. And yet did these also as bitterly inveigh against Protestants, as did other of their Sect: which showeth that your Author's tongues and pens are not directed by the same spirit.  
Howsoever, you yourselves will condemn your Obiector of folly, after that you have heard some Instances. First then in the Donatists; They held all men damned that were not of their Church. Whereas Saint 
r Aug. de Vnit. Eccles. cap. 12. See this point below in in the next §. at z. a.  Augustine, their principal Adversary, did think that Some of them were in the state of life. Would you suffer your Obiector hereupon (if he had lived in those days) to have persuaded Saint Augustine, by reason of this odds of opinion, to leave the Catholic Church and turn Donatist?  
Secondly, in the Grecians. 
s Graeci credunt, in Azymo conficientes graviter in Euangelium peccare, & haeresin quandam in praxim deducere, & vocant eos Azymitas.— Ecclesia Latina definivit in utroque posse confici. Salmeron jes. Tom. 9 Tract. 4. pag. 24.  They (you know) at this day condemn the Church of Rome, for consecrating the Sacrament in unleavened bread, for which cause they call them Azymites and Heretics, as impugners of the Gospel. But yet you excuse Them, in their Consecrating with leavened bread, saying They may lawfully do it. Here is then great odds also in these Censures. Would you thereupon advice your Fathers of the Council of Trent necessarily to confess, that the Church of Rome hath for a long time been Heretical in that point, and therefore aught to forbear to Consecrate in Azymes any more?  
A third Instance you may receive from Pagans. The Indian Priests, called 
t Mr. Purchase in the 2. Edition of his Relation of the world, pag. 490. out of other Authors.  Bramenes, believed and taught, that to take bread from the hand of a Christian is Sacrilege: whereas Christian Doctrine saith to the Christian, 
* 1. Cor. 10.27.  If an Infidel bid thee to a feast, whatsoever is set before thee eat, etc. In which difference the paynim may seem to have the advantage. Is there therefore more safety in the Conversation of the Infidel, because there is less truth in his exception against the Christian? A mad man thinketh that all other men are beasts; a sober man confesseth that mad man to be a man. Hence then, by Romish sophistry, the mad man must be judged to be in the better Case.  
But how far, and why do Protestants conceive hope of Salvation in Some, dying in the Church of Rome? both these points are very considerable. They say that Some, for their belief in Christ, although otherwise entangled in Antichristian blindness, yet by reason of Invincible ignorance (being both without Affectation of ignorance, and void of the means of receiving the light of Truth) may nevertheless be in the state of life. But as ●or Them, that may hear the preaching of the word, for their Conversion, and will not; upon all such (in the judgement of Protestants) is the saying of our Saviour Christ spoken of the jews verified, 
* joh. 15.22.  If I had not come and spoken unto them, they should not have had sin; that is, their Damnation is, now, more just. Hence it is, that Protestants teach, that of two Papists, professing the same Romish doctrine, the one in Spain, the other in England, the Spanish may be saved, and the English damned. The reason is plain, the first desired light of judgement in necessary doctrines: the other may possibly see the light, but loveth the darkness of error and superstition more than the light of Truth. The error of the first being purae negationis, or incapacity to come to the knowledge of the Truth, the error of the other being pravae dispositionis, through the perverseness of their will.  
If you demand, why Protestants have so charitable an opinion of some Romanists, you are to understand, that it is in regard of that (without which they cannot be saved) that they died in the belief of this Protestant Article of Faith, which is, To be justified by remission of all their sins, through the satisfactory righteousness of Christ, apprehended by Faith; and not by the legal justice of Perfection of inherent righteousness in themselves; as your Council of 
u Conc. Trident. Sess. 6. cap. 7.  Trent hath decreed. And this opinion we find verified, in the experience of many Papists, who howsoever in their life time they profess and magnify your doctrine of Perfection of works; yet on their deathbed, as soon as the least glimpse of the Majesty of God's Tribunal is revealed to their consciences, and the books of their Consciences begin to be unclasped, and so laid open, that they cannot but read their sins (which in their life time they held as Venial) to be written in capital letters, and to be Deadly; then they take Sanctuary in the wounds of Christ, from whence flieth the Ocean of all Expiatory merit and satisfaction, by which it is impossible but every faithful Penitent should receive life.  
Even as did of late Cardinal Bellarmine, who writing his own last Will and Testament, casteth the anchor of his hope upon the same Rock which we do, saying; 
x Precor ut me in Electorum svorum numerum, non aestimator meriti, sed veniae largitor, admittat. Testam. Card. Bellar.  I pray God to receive me into the number of his Elect, not as weighing my merits, but as pardoning my offences. So just cause have you to thank God, that the doctrine of Protestants, concerning justification, hath brought Some of you, (as it did your Ecchius and others) to their justifying Faith, and by it to Salvation.  
Neither yet do Protestants (a point to be observed) In this their former Grant, yield more safety to the Members of the Church of Rome, in such a Case, than they do to whatsoever Heretics, whose belief doth not undermine the Fundamental Doctrine of Faith. Will you see, in a Similitude, what we conceive of your Church? Of many men that are in a Pest-house, infected with the Plague, some happily may be saved: and yet it were but a damnable Presumption for sound men to run headlong into the Pest-house, thereby, as much, as in them lieth, making themselves guilty of their own deaths. And whether your Roman Articles of a New Faith, whether Idolatry, whether professed Obstinacy in errors, whether Tyranny over both bodies and souls of men, and whether necessary Perjury, in swearing to your foresaid false Articles, be plaguy diseases or no, judge you.   

THESIS'. VI Your common Objection, (What is then become of the souls of our forefather's?) more justifieth the Protestants Separation from Papists, than it can the Separation of Papists from Protestants. SECT. 28.  
HOnour and love, which man naturally oweth to his Parents and Progenitors, is felt in every man's heart, as a forcible motive to draw on a conceit in the Child, both of their godliness, and also of their after-blessednesse; and consequently to enforce an inclination to adhere to their Religion, whatsoever it was. Which we, in our experience, find in your Disciples to be the greatest bar and hindrance unto us, for their Conversion. Which Motive, if it be alone, is only prevalent in them, who consult only with flesh and blood: yea verily, and this your Jesuits will not deny, who tell us, from their experience among the 
y Acosta jes. de Indorum Salute.  Indian Pagans, that the like conceit of the souls of their forefathers was the greatest reason of their obstinacy in Paganism. Whereas, if the matter be rightly discerned, the whole interest that man hath in his natural Parents is bodily only (for man's Soul is not by Traduction:) in which respect the Apostle setteth a plain Antithesis between our natural Fathers, whom he calleth the 
* Heb. 12.9.  Fathers of our flesh, and God, whom he nameth The Father of Spirits, saying; 
* Heb. 12.9.  We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them Reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of Spirits and live?  
Howsoever it be in me, as a man, surely, as I am a Christian man, this is not by generation, natural, but by spiritual Regenaration; and Faith is a gift of this Spirit. Therefore do the Fathers of our flesh, after our natural birth, send us to the Priest to be baptised, and to receive a spiritual birth, wherein we are not baptised in the name of our Parents, nor do we vow to profess the faith of our natural Progenitors, but in the name, and to the profession of Christ, for 
* Hab. 2.4.  The just shall live by his own Faith. Not but that we ought to have a reverend estimation of the state of our Ancestors, to imitate them in faith and godliness, as it is written; 
* Heb. 6.12.  Be you Imitators of them, who in faith and purity obtained the promised inheritance. Yet not simply Imitators neither, but with a [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Quatenus] 
* 1. Cor. 11.1.  Be ye followers of me, as I am of Christ.  
Let us now descend from the Thesis to our Hypothesis. First to answer your Objection against Protestants, which standeth thus: If your Religion be the Truth, what then is become (think you) of all our and your Ancestors, who for many ages lived in that, which you call Papistical Faith? Take unto you an Answer, which may reciprocally satisfy both you and us, accordingly as we are both directed by Saint Augustine, and Saint Cyprian, two ancient and godly Fathers. 
z Qui sententiam suam quamuis falsam, ac perversam, nullâ pertinaci animositate defendunt; praesertim quam non animositate suae praesumptionis pepererunt sed à seductis, & in errorem lapsis Parentibus acceperunt, quaerunt autem cautâ sollicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati, cum invenerint; nequaquam sunt inter Haereticos deputandi. Aug. Epist. 162. ad Donatist. in initio.  They (saith Saint Augustine, concerning the Donatists, who were known to be notorious Schismatics) that do defend their false opinion without pertinacy, especially if it be such as they are no Authors of themselves, but which they have received from their seduced Ancestors, yet cautelously seeking after the Truth, and prepared to embrace the same, so soon as it shall be revealed; Such (saith he) will not I account Heretics. Accordingly Saint Cyprian; 
a Si quis in Antecessoribus nostris vel ignoranter, vel simpliciter haec non obserua●it, nec tenuit quod nos Dominus exemplo & magisterio suo do●uit; potest simplicitati eius Indulgentia Domini concedi; nobis verò non poterit ignosci, qui nunc à Domino admoniti instructi sumus. Cyprianus Epist. 63.13.  If any of our Elders (saith he) have not observed thus much, either through their ignorance, or simplicity, not holding that which Christ hath taught and commanded us, such may through the mercy of God find pardon: whereas we stand without pardon, if, against our knowledge, we shall reject the admonitions of Christ.  
This agreeth with that of holy writ, spoken of them who were ignorantly plunged in rebellion, and therefore as being excusable, are said to have gone in 
* 2. Sam. 15.11.  Simplicity. If hereuponn we shall enter into Comparison with you, by supposing an error in both Churches, yet cannot the ignorancee of the Protestants be called Affected, because they are willing (as the Apostle directeth) 
* 1. Thess. 5.21.  To try all things, and ready to keep that which is good. Nor are they stupidly and wilfully ignorant, led by the nose, hood-winked through an Implicit Faith, as your Profession teacheth. Which one point maketh the state of Protestants far more justifiable than yours can be.  
Come we now (seeing that you will needs) to the Censuring of forefather's, wherein three points will be very considerable for our justification, in comparison of you. I. Is by examining whether side is more peremptory, in damning of any other Christian Churches. II. Whether are guilty in condemning the more sincere, ancient, and Orthodox Fathers. III. Whether do by their Profession judge and deliver over to Satan greater multitudes of forefathers and professed Christians.  
The first point is more than evident: for the Article of your Creed is absolutely to judge as damned (without all possibility of Absolution) all Christians whatsoever, that are not professedly Papists. We far more Christianly display Christ opening his arms of mercy unto all that believe in him, without wilful blindness in erring, and obstinacy in transgressing: and also we believe that All such as seek the knowledge of the Truth with a simple heart, are not secluded from life, which issueth from Christ to all, who shall by Faith 
* Matth. 9.20.  Touch but the hem of his garment.  
Secondly, well it were you would understand what forefather's ye or we condemn, for some may be more condemnable than others, as may be discerned by that Testamentary Exhortation which joshuah gave to God's people immediately before his death. 
* josh. 24.14.  Fear ye the Lord (saith joshuah) and serve him in sincerity and Truth, and put away the gods, which your Fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt, and serve you the LORD. The people, to whom he spoke, had three kind of Forefathers; some immediate, and those were of the same profession with joshuah; Some rather mediate, and (as it were) once removed, namely they that had Apostated from God's worship to Idolatry, in serving strange Gods: And some Primitive, such as were Abraham, and the other Patriarches in the direct line of the Messiah. The first, and last rank of Fathers they were taught to hear and imitate; only from the middle sort, that had declined from God, the people were commanded to depart, as from Fathers of a damnable condition.  
Will you be tried by this Example? Your Proselytes are taught to condemn their Protestant Parents and Progenitors, being of the Reformed Religion; and the Articles of your New Creed have condemned the ancient Fathers of Primitive times, as hath been proved to the full. We honouring the memory of all Fathers of the Primitive ages, yea of the Popes of the Church of Rome for more than 600. years' space, do only condemn them (although not absolutely) who were the forefather's of the middle order, who degenerated from their first integrity, and were drowned in Superstition.  
Thirdly, as for the numbers of forefather's damned by your new Roman Creed, they are innumerable. For what millions of millions of the truly ancient Fathers were not (as 
* See above, per titum.  hath been proved) Subject to your Roman Church, and therefore have incurred your sentence of Damnation? What myriads of myriads of souls of Grecians, Assyrians, Egyptians, and others, professing the same Christian Faith, do not your cursing and cursed Romish 
* Deut. 27.12.  Mount Ebal daily damn to the pit of hell? And yet you blush not to object unto Protestants their Damning of their forefather's. God grant that this make not to your greater Damnation.   

THESIS'. VII. The Protestants, at this day, stand more justifiable in their Separation from Rome, than did either the Ancient Primitive Churches in her Excommunicating of Them, or yet LUTHER and his FOLLOWERS in their Departure from Her. SECT. 29.  
IT is high time We end this Task, which We conclude in this Thesis; for Proof whereof be you pleased to call to mind the Romish Excommunications denounced, first, against the Asian Churches, and that only for a matter of Ceremony: next against Saint Cyprian, and the African and Numidian Bishops and Churches, in a Question of Rebaptisation; which was but One, and that no fundamental Error: then against Theophilus and Cyrill, both Bishops of Alexandria; together with Acacius and Atticus, both Bishops of Constantinople, only about Admitting or not Admitting of the Name of Chrysostome into the Diptikes, or Tables of Commemoration: then against the Opposition of the Churches of Africa in the days of Saint Augustine, only against the pretended jurisdiction of Rome, in the Case of Appeals: All which, with many other Catholic Churches and Fathers as well Greek as Latin, have contemned the Pride of the Church of Rome in Primitive Ages, when-as other wise the Bishops of Rome were Godly and Orthodox.  
But LUTHER contented with Rome, not about Ceremonies, or jurisdictions, but about the soul's life, both in the point of the justification of a Sinner before God; and of the religious and spiritual Worship, properly due to our jealous God: which Contention was begun before the Council of Trent Secondly, after that was a General free Council desired, as a Remedy for all Diseases in the Church: but alas! whiles Rome would needs be that Catholic Church, the Remedy was turned presently into a Poison; so desperate is her Case. 1. By enthralling All to the pleasure of the Pope, which is a depriving of the Church of Christ of her Liberty. 2. By authorising her Idolatry. 3. By giving Safeconduct to Protestants, for the discussion of their Opinions, and yet not suffering Them to Dispute in their Council, (an Argument of their Obstinacy.) 4. By Decreeing and Creating a CREED, consisting of above XX. new Articles of Faith, as Necessary to Salvation. Whence it will follow, by the Apostle's Doctrine (pronouncing him Anathema that shall Preach any thing, as Necessary to Salvation, 
* Gal. 1.8.  BESIDES that which was then preached) so many Articles must necessarily be so many Heresies. 5. By imposing the Belief of these Articles upon all Professors under a Curse spiritual, and a temporal Punishment, which is the Extremity and height of Tyranny And lastly by prescribing them to be professed of all Eccleisastics under the Form of an Oath; which inferreth (almost) in every Article an inevitable Perjury, as well as in this one Article, which hath been discussed throughout this whole Treatise: whereby you Swear that The Church of Rome is THE CATHOLIC MOTHER and MISTRIS-CHURCH, and the Pope of Rome The CATHOLIC PASTOR of the Church, without Union and Subjection unto whom there is no Salvation. Which we have proved, according to our first Assumption, to be FALSE, IMPOSTEROUS, SCANDALOUS, SCHISMATICAL, BLASPHEMOUS, (Respectively) and every-way DAMNABLE.  
LAUS DEO.    
FINIS.   

Faults escaped in some Copies.  
PAge 4. in the marg. at the letter g. line 13. Idem (Add) de Trip. virt. disp. 9 etc. Page 7. marg. letter c l. 16 (league) novam revelationem veritatis. P. 9 marg. l●t. f. l. ●7. Sal. (supple) Salmeron jes. in Epist. etc. P. 14. l. 6. professed for possessed. P. 20. letter g. 18. (league) ut aliquando is. Ib. for Pater (lege) Pastor. P. 23. marg. lit. b. l. 18. (league) apud Bin●um P. 33. marg. lit. p. l. 5. (league) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 34. marg. lin. antepenult. (lege) Couar●uvias. P. 36 l. 2. deal verbum (about) P. 38. marg. lit. fl. 1. (league) Qui dicunt P. 46. l. 21. Luc. ●2. (add) ver 32. P. 47. marg lit. h. l. 7. (league) designavit P. 49. l. ●. Matth 16. (add) ver 17, 18 P. 54. l. 14. Obeying, for Obtaining. P. 79. l 3. in the white line, (supple) CHALLENGE P. 81. l. 6. Sect. 8. for 4. P. 88 marg. lit. e. num. 25. se primum, for primam. P. 94 l 7. continue for connive. P. 97. lit. d. lin. penult. conterd. for concord. P. 97. marg * See hereafter (add) p. 107. (o) P. 109. l 10. first, for fifth general P. 111. marg lit. c. l. 2. (league) Mennam. P. 123 l. 23. Father (deal) of. P. 125. marg s. See above (add) at th● lit. d. P. 132. l 1. declare. P. 136. l. 24. (league) Lindanus P. 146. marg. lit. n. l. 16. Legatur, for Legatus. P. 147. marg. * See (add) above page 143. at y. and below in the next Chap. (add) p. 162. P. 150. marg fl 9 Sed & Impater (league) Sedet Imperator. P. 157. l. 12. (league) against. P. 171. l. 7. read Counsel P. 186. marg. lit. a. l. 29. (league) Canticum P. 188. marg lit g l. 1. (league) Latina. P. 192. l. 23. (league) generally. P. 201. marg. * See above, for Chap. 1. (league) Cap. 5. §. 8. P. 211. marg. lit. o. l. 11. (league) Enchiridion. P. 221. Thirteenth (league) Foureteenth. P. 225 l. 14. (league) Obiectors. P. 232. l. 15, 16. (league) But if it were reasonable, etc. P. 3●4. l. 9 I compelled for coupled. P. 349. l. 11. before, And, prefix the numeral VI & Ibid l. 29. make that number VII. Pag. 347. l. 4. urging (deal the word) in.  
Some other Errors there are committed, especially in the margin, as superfluous letters, wrong Interpunctions, mis-Accents in some Greek words, most-what occasioned by the smallenesse and falseness of the letter: which the judicious and ingenuous Reader may observe, and well amend.