A REPLY TO THE CATHOLIC GENTLEMEN ANSWER TO The most material parts of the Book of SCHISM. Whereto is annexed, An Account of H. T. his Appendix to his Manual of Controversies, concerning the Abbot of Bangors Answer to Augustine. By H. HAMMOND, D. D.  
LONDON, Printed by J. G. for R. ROYSTON, at the Angel in Ivy-lane. 1654.   
A REPLY TO The Catholic Gentlemen Answer to the Book of SCHISM.  

The Introduction.  
Num. 1 THe Letter from the Catholic Gentleman, which undertakes to have answered the most material parts of the Book of Schism, is said to expect some account from me. And I shall give it, if not quite, with the same brevity, yet directly in the same method which he hath chosen, attending him, as he shall please to lead, not by resuming the whole matter again, but by reflecting on those few passages, which he hath thought good to take notice of, and freeing them from all though the lightest exceptions, which he hath made to them.  
Num. 2 Upon this account, I shall say very little to his Prooem in these words,  

SIR,  
You have been pleased to send me Doctor Hammonds Book of Schism, or a Defence of the Church of England, against the exceptions of the Romanists, as also your Letters, wherein you lay commands on me to read it, and thereupon to give you my opinion: truly Sir, both the one and the other could never have come to me in better season, for having heard from some of my friends in England a good while since, of another Book, written by Doctor Ferne to the same purpose, as also one lately come out, of the Bishop of Derries, and of this which you have sent me, I was wondering what those, who call themselves of the Church of England, could say to defend themselves from Schism; but now through your favour of letting me see this of Doctor Hammonds, I am freed from my bondage, and satisfied, in supposition, that the most can add little to what hath been upon that subject of Schism said by him, whom you style Wise and Learned, and well may he be so; but here he hath failed, as all men must that take in hand to defend a bad cause, which I think to make appear to you, or any indifferent judge, and which I will do rather upon some observations of several passages in his book, than consideration of the whole, which I will leave for some other, who hath more leisure. In the mean time I must say with the Poet, speaking of some Lawyers in his time, 
Fures, ait Pedio, Pedius quid? Crimina raris  
Librat in Antithetis:   
The Roman Catholic says to Doctor Hammond, You are an Heretic, you are a Schismatic, and Doctor Hammond replies good English, some Criticisms, much Greek, with many citations out of antiquity, indifferent to both parts of the question.   
Num. 3 I shall not here need solemnly to aveit the good words bestowed on me, because 1. if they had been meant in earnest, they have yet no influence on the matter in hand; As unlearned a Man, as I, and as learned as he, which is by some characters thought to be the Author of this Answer, may agree in this common fate, that as one is not able to defend a bad cause, so the other hath not in any eminent manner betrayed a good: 2. because 'tis evident, that it was design, and artifice to bestow the good words on me, that so he might get himself the easier task: And therefore the only thing that is here necessary for me to tell the Reader, by way of Prooeme, is, that since the publishing this tract of Schism, that most excellent discourse on the same subject, written by the Bishop of Derry hath truly made that former care of mine very unnecessary, and so should in all reason have been undertaken and answered by this Catholic Gentleman, if he had really designed to satisfy conscience in this question. And should it be believed by him; what here he saith in the Title page, that he hath answered the most material parts of Doctor Hammonds Book of Schism, yet I can assure him he is so much mistaken in his supposal, that there can little be added by any to what hath been said by him, that he is in all justice to undeceive the Reader, and make him amends by giving him not a slight, but punctual answer to every part of that Bishop's Book, before he think he may safely charge the Church of England with Schism, as still he adventures to do.  
Num. 4 Having said this, I shall make no kind of Reply, to the rest of his Prooeme, but proceed immediately to his first and only exception, wherein the first Chapter is concerned.   

CHAP. I Of the cause of Schism being left out of this debate.  

Sect. I.  
No cause able to justify Schism. Every voluntary Division a Schism, whatsoever the motive were. Master Knot's Testimony.  
Num. 1 HIs words are these, But to draw near your satisfaction, His first Chapter is, for the body of it, common to both parts, yet I cannot omit one strange piece of Logic at the end of the first Chapter, Sect. 9 where he concludeth, that the occasion or motive of Schism is not to be considered, but only the fact of Schism, Of which position I can see no connexion to any praemises going before, and itself is a pure contradiction, for not a Division, but a causeless division is a Schism, and how a Division can be showed to be unreasonable and causeless, without examining the occasions and motives, I do not understand, nor (with his favour) I think he himself.  
Num. 2 What want of Logic there is in that conclusion of the first Chapter, which extorted this animadversion from the Romanist, and what store of that faculty (somewhat necessary to the managing of a controversy) we are to expect from him, will soon be discernible by the view of that place which is accused by him, where having praemised the criminousnesse and weight of Schism, and unexcusablenesse of all, that, upon what provocation soever, break the unity of the Church, I conclude that he that shall really be guilty of it, and the fact, wherein that guilt consists, proved against him will no way be able to defend himself by pleading the cause or motive to his Schism, there being no such cause imaginable, which can justify this fact of his, as both out of Irenaeus and Saint Augustine had been newly vouched. Upon which, my resolution there, was (as to me seemed) but necessary, to divolve the Whole debate into this one quaere, whether we of the Church of England were de facto, guilty of this crime, were Schismatics or no, concluding that if we were, there were nothing to be said in excuse of us.  
Num. 3 From this view of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the rational importance of that Section, 1. It is evident (what the Romanist professeth not to be able to see) what is the connexion of my position to the praemises foregoing, viz. this, no cause can excuse the Schismatic, therefore the examination of the cause is unnecessary, whatsoever can be pretended on that head, is not worth the producing or heeding in this matter.  
Num. 4 2. 'Tis as evident how far the position itself is removed from being a contradiction, which yet the Romanists Logic hath pronounced to be a pure one. A pure contradiction is in our Logic, est and non est, It is a Schism, and It is not a Schism, It is causeless, and it is not causeless, and the like. But certainly my concluding that no cause can justify a Schism, or if the Schism be proved, 'tis in vain to plead that we had cause for it, contains no such contradictory enuntiations. He that should say that a Seditious person or a Rebel, is worthy of death whatsoever cause it were that incited him to that villainy, doth neither affirm the Rebel to be no Rebel, nor the cause he pretends, to be no cause, only he saith indeed, that whatsoever the cause be, 'tis incompetent to justify so foul a fact.  
Num. 5 3. The proof, which he adds to conclude this position to be a pure contradiction, is very far from proving it. The proof is this, for, saith he, not a division, but a causeless division is a Schism. But this hath been showed to have no truth in it, because Division and Schism being exactly the same, one a Latin, the other a Greek word, every Division is and must necessarily be, in him who is guilty of it, a Schism, and if a voluntary Division, a criminous Schism, whatsoever were the motive or cause of it, by Division or Schism understanding (as I declare myself to do) a spontaneous receding, or dividing from the unity of the Church, not being cut off or driven from it.  
Num. 6 Lastly, what he adds as a consectary of his proof, that [he doth not understand how a Division can be showed unreasonable and causeless, without examining the occasions and motives] he may now, if he please, without much difficulty comprehend, viz. by considering, that no cause or reason, how weighty soever, is sufficient to justify a division. For as long as this is either proved or granted, the conclusion will be indubitable, without examining of the motives, that the Division is unreasonable and causeless. Let it once be granted or proved by the known Laws of a Nation, that every act of Sedition is a transgression of Law, criminous and punishable, whatsoever the motive be that incited it, and then there will need no more than conviction of the fact, to conclude that fact unreasonable. That which is in itself so culpable and inexcusable, that no reason whatsoever can be able to justify it, is ready for the sentence of condemnation, without farther process; when 'tis reasonably resolved, that no reason can excuse such a fact, what reason can there be to lose time in examining reasons? This is the very case in hand, as 'tis apparent to any that will but view the place, and 'tis not much for my encouragement in this task, that the Gentleman, to whom I must reply, was willing to think this so deep a riddle, so much above common understandings.  
Num. 7 I shall here only add, that what was thus said, was not in reason to provoke the Romanist, being a concession that cut me off from many visible advantages, and so deserved his reward, much better than rebuke, and being thus early and unexpectedly fallen under his short displeasure, by my endeavour to oblige him, I have yet a shield, which promiseth me security from the continuance of it, I mean not the evidence of the truth affirmed by me, (for that is not an amulet always to be depended on, when it is against interest to acknowledge it) but the suffrage of his own great Champion Master Knot, who hath directly affirmed what I affirmed (and therefore I may be allowed not to understand, how this should be so unintelligible) citing it out of Saint Augustine, That there is no just necessity to divide unity, And that it is not possible that any man have just cause to separate— Infideli unmasked, cap. 7. num. 5. And so it is as manifest that this part of the first Chapter is common to both, as the former of which he affirms it, the conclusion in all reason being involved in the same condition which belonged to the Praemises, and it was only my ill luck, or his willingness to find fault, that it was not formerly apprehended to be so.    

CHAP. II. Concerning Heresy, Excommunication, Infallibility.  

Sect. I.  
Of passing slightly over the difference betwixt Heresy and Schism.  
Num. 1 THe exceptions to the second Chapter are three; the first concerning Heresy, the second concerning Excommunication, the third concerning Master Knots concession, which ushers in a Discourse of Infallibility.  
Num. 2 The former in these words, He slightly passeth over the distinction of Heresy and Schism, as if he would not have it understood, that all Heresy is Schism, though some Schism be no Heresy.  
Num. 3 What is here called the slight passing over the distinction of Heresy and Schism, is one piece of injustice in him, and the cause to which it is affixed, my unwillingness that it should be understood that all Heresy is Schism, will soon appear to be another.  
Num. 4 For the first, It is evident that in that Sect. 3. of Chap. 2. I do not at all consider the distinction of Heresy, and Schism, nor could, without absolute interruption and disturbance of the discourse in hand, & direct transgression of all rules of method, say any thing to that subject, in that place. The thing that I there manifest is the difference betwixt Excommunication and Schism (and sure that is not Heresy and Schism, unless Excommunication be Heresy, and so the punishment of the Sin be the Sin itself) between the passive and the active, or reciprocal division or separation, and all that I say in that Section, which can relate to Heresy, is, that where the offence, for which a man is excommunicated, is Heresy and not Schism, there it is evident, that his Excommunication, which still is his punishment and not his sin (the cause of it also being not Schism, but somewhat else, Heresy, or the like) cannot be the guilt of Schism in him that is so punished.  
Num. 5 Now it is evident, that I cannot be said to pass over that slightly, which I do not speak to at all, and to which I had no occasion to speak, and consequently that I was no way liable to this exception.  
Num. 6 And that being said, the second part of the same exception, that of the ground on which I do this, must needs be as causeless as the former. For 1. 'tis certain, that my thoughts, or wishes, or designs, are not things which can duly fall under this objecters cognizance (he cannot upon any sure grounds, divine or affirm, what I aimed at in such or such a slight passage) and 2. 'tis yet more certain, that no collection can justly be made from my doing that slightly, which I did not meddle with at all. But then 3. to remove all scruple or possible occasion of jealousy in this matter, 'tis the design of Chapter 8. (the method then leading to it) under a second sort of Schism, to consider the departure from the Unity of the Faith, which being but a periphrasis of Heresy, is consequently the defining all Heresy is Schism, and so the professed avowing of that, which he suspected me unwilling to have understood. And so still there is not the least appearance of justice in this suggestion.   

Sect. II.  
Excommunication how it differs from Schism. Wilful continuance under censures is Schism. The Bishop of Rome is not our Lawful Governor. The severe conditions of their Communion.  
Num. 1 HIs second exception is perfectly of the same making with the former, thus,  
Num. 2 Again, saith he, treating of Excommunication, he easily slideth over this part, that wilful continuance in a just Excommunication maketh Schism.  
Num. 3 Here again 'tis evident, that I treat not of Excommunication, nor have any occasion fitly to treat of it, farther than to show, that Schism, being a voluntary separation, the word in no propriety pertains to that act of the Governor of the Church, whereby he separates or cuts off any by way of Censures. Certainly he that is put to death by Sentence of Law, cannot be judged a Felo de se, one that hath voluntarily put himself out of the number of the living, or be liable to those forfeitures which by the Law belong to such. He that is banished out of the Kingdom cannot be guilty of the breach of that Statute, which forbids all Subjects going out of it, nor be punished justly for that which is his suffering, not his deed; his punishment, not his delinquency.  
Num. 4 As for his wilful continuance under just Censures, the wilfulness of that, certainly makes him culpable, and the continuance in Excommunication, being also continuance in separation from the Church, which is Schism, whensoever it is voluntary, I make no doubt of the consequence, that such wilful continuance in Excommunication, be it just or unjust, is actual Schism, supposing (as the word wilful must suppose) that this continuance is wholly imputable to the will of the Excommunicate, i. e. that if he will submit to that which is lawful for him to submit to, he may be absolved and freed from it.  
Num. 5 If this were it, that he would have had more explicitly affirmed, than I answer, that as there I had no occasion to speak to it, so now upon his slightest demand I make no scruple to give him my full sense of it, that he, which being cast into prison for just cause, may upon his Petition, and promise of Reformation be released, or if the cause were unjust, may yet without doing any thing any way unlawful, regain his Liberty, from thenceforth becomes not the Magistrates, but his own Prisoner, and is guilty of all the damage, be it disease, famishing, death itself, which is consequent to his imprisonment. And the analogy holds directly in Excommunication; He that continues under the Censures of his Ecclesiastical Ruler, when he might fairly obtain absolution from them, is by himself sentenced to the continuance of this punishment, as by the Governor of the Church, to the beginning of it. But then all this while this is not the condition of our Church, in respect of the Church of Rome, they being not our Lawful Superiors, endued with jurisdiction over us, and for other communion, such as alone can be maintained or broken among fellow-brethrens, or Christians, it is carefully maintained by us, as far as it is lawfully maintainable.  
Num. 6 And both these being there evidenced in that, and the ensuing Chapters, I did not warily or purposely abstain from (because I had nothing that suggested to me any opportunity of) saying any thing more to this purpose. The severe conditions which are by the Romanists required of us to render us capable of their communion, subscription of error, or profession against Conscience, make it impertinent to propose or discuss either of these two questions, 1. Whether we lie under a just excommunication, 2. Whether, if we did, we would wilfully continue under it, or consequently, whether we be now guilty of Schism in this notion?   

Sect. III.  
Mr. Knots concession and conclusion. The power of a fallible Church to require belief. Of Antiquity, Possession, Persuasion of Infallibility, Motives for Union. Uncertainty of the Protestants reasons. The grand Heresy and Schism of not believing Rome infallible. Belief sufficient without infallibility. Fictions of Cases.  
Num. 1 THe third exception enlargeth to some length, in these words,  
Num. 2 What he calls Master Knots concession, I take to be the public profession of the Roman or Catholic Church, and that nature itself teacheth all rational men, that any Congregation that can lie, and knoweth not whether it doth lie or no, in any proposition, cannot have power to bind any particular to believe what she saith, neither can any man of understanding have an obligation to believe what she teacheth, farther than agrees with the rules of his own reason: Out of which it followeth, that the Roman Churches binding of men to a profession of Faith (which the Protestants and other haereticall multitudes have likewise usurped) if she be infallible, is evidently gentle, charitable, right, and necessary, as chose in any other Church or Congregation, which pretends not to infallibility, the same is unjust, tyrannical and a selfe-condemnation to the binder's: so that the state of the question will be this, whether the Catholic or Roman Church be infallible or no, for she pretendeth not to bind any man to tenets or beliefs upon any other ground or title▪ By this you may perceive much of his discourse— to be not only superfluous and unnecessary, but also contrary to himself, for he laboureth to persuade that the Protestant may be certain of some truth, against which the Roman Catholic Church bindeth to profession of error, which is as much as to say, as he who pretendeth to have no infallible rule by which to govern his Doctrine, shall be supposed to be infallible, and he that pretendeth to have an infallible rule, shall be supposed to be fallible; at most because fallible objections are brought against him: now then consider what a meek and humble Son of the Church ought to do, when of the one side is the Authority of Antiquity and Possession (such Antiquity and Possession without dispute or contradictions from the adversary, as no King can show for his Crown, and much less any other person or persons for any other thing) the persuasion of infallibility, all the pledges that Christ hath left to his Church for Motives of Union: on the other side, uncertain reasons of a few men pretending to learning, every day contradicted by incomparable numbers of men Wise and Learned, and those few men confessing those reason and themselves uncertain, fallible, and subject to error, certainly without a bias of interest or prejudice, it is impossible for him to leave the Church if he be in it, or not return if he be out of it: for if infallibility be the ground of the Church's power to command belief, as she pretends no other, no time, no separation within memory of History, can justify a continuance out of the Church: You may please to consider then how solid this Doctor's discourse is, who telleth us, for his great evidence, that we, (saith he) who do not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible, may be allowed to make certain suppositions (that follow there) The question is, whether a Protestant be a Schismatic because a Protestant? and he will prove he is not a Schismatic, because he goeth consequently to Protestant, that is Schismatical grounds: I pray you reflect, that not to acknowledge the Church to be infallible is that for which we charge the Doctor with Schism and Heresy in Capite, and more than for all the rest he holds distinct from us, for this principle taketh away all belief, and all ground of belief, and turneth it into uncertainty and weathercock opinion, putteth us into the condition to be circumferri omni vento Doctrinae, submitteth us to Atheism and all sort of miscreancy, let him not then overleap the question, but either prove this is not sufficient to make him a Schismatic and an Heretic too, or let him acknowledge he is both.  
Num. 3 This discourse thus enlarged to the consideration of fallibility and infallibility in a Church, is certainly a digression in this place, and taking the occasion from some words of mine, Sect. 6. of a concession of Master Knots, it is a little necessary to recount, what concession that was, and the use that I there made of it, that so it may appear, whether there were any thing unblamable in my procedure.  
Num. 4 The subject I was upon, Sect. 5. was the undoubted lawfulness of being and continuing excluded from any such Church, the conditions of whose communion contain Sin in them. To this head of discourse I mentioned a concession of Master Knots, that it is perfectly unlawful to dissemble, aequivocate, or lie in matters of Faith, and this as a confirmation of my then present assertion, that when I am not permitted by the Romanists to have external communion with them, unless I do thus dissemble, equivocate and lie, affirm myself to believe what I do not believe, I may lawfully continue thus excluded from their communion. But then I could not justly conceal what Master Knot there added as his conclusion from hence (together with the acknowledged unlawfulness of forsaking the external communion of God's visible Church) that therefore the Church of Rome is infallible, because otherwise men might forsake her communion.  
Num. 5 Here indeed I thought it very strange, that this conclusion should be thus deduced from such praemisses, that it should be deemed lawful to separate from a Church for every error, or for no more but being subject to error, being fallible, though it were actually guilty of no error, which I conceived to be the same in effect, as to affirm it lawful, to forsake the communion of all but Saints, and Angels, and God in Heaven, because all others were peccable and fallible. But yet I thought not fit to go farther out of my way to press the unreasonableness of it, but contented myself with that, which was for my present turn, his confession that it was lawful to separate or continue in separation from the Church of Christ, in case we could not without lying, etc. be permitted to communicate with it.  
Num. 6 This being the whole business, as it lies visible to any in that 5. and 6. Sect. Let us now see what a confusion is made to gain some small advantage from hence, or excuse for a long digression.  
Num. 7 First it is the conclusion, viz. [that any Congregation that can lie, &c. cannot have power to bind any to believe what she saith] which he saith is called by me Master Knots concession. But this is a great mistake, I never looked on this as his concession, never called it by that title, but as a conclusion that he made a strange shift to deduce from another concession.  
Num. 8 A concession, this Gentleman should in reason have understood to be somewhat which the Adversary yields, and which the disputer gains advantage by his yielding it, such was his assertion, that all lying and dissembling was unlawful, and that rather than that should be admitted, it were lawful to forsake the external communion of the Church of Christ. And that, and nothing but that, was by me cited as his concession.  
Num. 9 Secondly, That conclusion itself, that the Congregation that is fallible cannot have power to bind to believe,— is not so much as considered by me in that place or else where; I said not one word against it, which might provoke this objector to take it up, and confirm it, neither was it in the least needful, or pertinent to the matter then in hand, to enter into the consideration of it. All that was by me taken notice of (and that but in passing) was the consequence or coherence betwixt the praemisses and that conclusion, which naturally inferred a third thing, that it was in Mr. Knots opinion, lawful to forsake the Communion of any fallible Church, which I thought by the way, would be sure to excuse us (though we should be granted to have forsaken and continued wilfully in Separation from the Roman Church) if it might but appear, that either that were guilty of any one error, or liable to fall into any one. And this being entirely all that was there said by me, there is no reason I should so far attend this Gentleman in his digression, as to consider what here he proceeds to say, upon his new-sprung subject of discourse, very distant from that of Schism, to which I endeavoured to adhere, having elsewhere pursued at large, the Romanists other hypothesis concerning their Church's Infallibility.  
Num. 10 Were it not thus remote from our matter in hand, and perfectly unnecessary to the defence of our Church from Schism, I might discover farther many infirm parts in this procedure. I shall but briefly touch on some of them.  
Num. 11 1. For the truth of that proposition [that a Congregation that can lie, i. e. a Church that is fallible, and knoweth not (i. e. hath no infallible certainty) whether it lie or no in any proposition, cannot have power to bind any to believe what shesaith] I may certainly affirm, 1. That this is no infallible truth, being no where affirmed by any infallible speaker, or deduced from any infallible principle. For as to the Scripture, it is not pretended to be affirmed by that, and for Natural Reason, that cannot be an infallible Judge in this matter of defining what power may be, or is by God given to a Church, without defining it infallible. A Prince may no doubt be impowered by God to give Laws, and those Laws oblige Subjects to obedience, and yet that Prince never be imagined infallible in making Laws. And natural reason cannot conclude it impossible, that a Church should have a proportionable power given it by God to bind belief, etc.  
Num. 12 As for the Catholic or Roman Church, 1. that is a misprision, the Catholic is not the single Roman Church, nor the Roman the Catholic. 2. There no where appears any such definition, either of the Catholic, i. e. Universal Church of God, or particularly of the Roman Church, no act of Council representative of that Church, no known affirmation of that diffused body under the Bishop of Rome's Pastorage, that all authority to oblige belief is founded in Infallibility. 3. If any such definition did appear, it could no way be foundation of belief to us, who do not believe that Church, or any definition thereof, as such, to be infallible.  
Num. 13 2. If we shall but distinguish and limit the terms, 1. what is meant by [can lie] 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no, 3. By power to bind, 4 By belief (as every of these have a latitude of signification, and may be easily mistaken, till they are duly limited) It will then soon appear that there is no unlimited truth in that which he saith is the whole Church's affirmation, nor prejudice to our pretensions from that limited truth, which shall be found in it.  
Num. 14 1. The phrase [can lie] may denote no more than such a possibility of erring, as yet is joined neither with actual error, nor with any principle, whether of deficiency on one side, nor of malignity on the other, which shall be sure to betray it into error. Thus that particular Church, that is at the present in the right, in all matters of faith, and hath before it the Scripture to guide it in all its decisions, together with the traditions and doctrines of the ancient and Primitive Church, and having skill in all those knowledges, which are useful to fetch out the true meaning of Scripture, and ability to inquire into the ancient path, and to compare herself with all other considerable parts of the Universal Church, and then is diligent and faithful to make use of all these succours, and in uprightness of heart seeks the truth, and applies itself to God in humble, and ardent, and continual prayer for his guidance to lead into all truth, This Church, I say, is yet fallible, may affirm and teach false, i. e. this is naturally possible that it may, but it is not strongly probable that it will, as long as it is thus assisted, and disposed to make use of these assistances, and means of true defining.  
Num. 15 2. That Church's knowledge, whether it define truly or no in any proposition, may signify no more than a full persuasion or belief (cui non subest dubium, wherein they neither doubt nor apprehend reason of doubting) that what they define is the very truth, though for knowledge properly so called, or assurance, cui non potest subesse falsum, which is unerrable or infallible in strictness of speech, it may not have attained, or pretend to have attained to it.  
Num. 16 3. By power to bind may be meant no more than authority derived to them from the Apostles of Christ to make decisions, when difficulties arise, to prescribe rules for ceremonies or government, such as shall oblige inferiors to due observance and obedience, by force of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his precept to obey the rulers set over us in the Church, which we may do without thinking them simply, or by any promise of God, inerrable or infallible, as the obedience which is due to civil Magistrates, which supposes in them a power of binding subjects to obey, doth yet no way suppose or imply them uncapable of erring and sinning, and giving unreasonable commands, and such as wherein it is unlawful to yield obedience to them.  
Num. 17 Beside this, there may farther be meant by it a general obligation that lies on all men, to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed to them, such as the disbelieving or doubting of it shall be in them inseparable from obstinacy; and this obligation is again the greater, when that which is thus convincingly proposed, is proposed by our superiors, from whose mouth it is regular to seek and receive Gods will.  
Num. 18 Lastly, Believing may signify not an implicit, irrational, blind, but a well-grounded, rational, explicit belief of that which, as the truth of God, is duly proposed to us; or again, where there is not that degree of manifestation, yet a consent to that which is proposed as most probable, on the grounds afforded to judge by, or when the person is not competent to search grounds, a bare yielding to the judgement of superiors, and deeming it better to adhere to them, than to attribute any thing to their own judgement, a believing so far as not to disbelieve. And this again may rationally be yielded to a Church, or the Rulers and Governors of it, without deeming them inerrable or infallible.  
Num. 19 Nay, where the proposition defined is such, that every member of that Church cannot without violence to his understanding yield any such degree of belief unto it, yet he that believes it not, may behave himself peaceably and reverently, either duly representing his grounds, why he cannot consent to it, or if his subscription or consent be neither formally nor interpretatively required of him, quietly enjoy his contrary opinion. And this may tend as much to the peace and unity of a Church, as the persuasion of the inerrability thereof can be supposed to do.  
Num. 20 By this view of the latitude of these terms, and the limitations they are capable of, it is now not so difficult to discern, in what sense the proposition under consideration is false, and in what sense it is true, and by us acknowledged to be so.  
Num. 21 A congregation that is fallible, and hath no knowledge or assurance (cui non potest subesse falsum) that it is not deceived in any particular proposition, may yet have authority to make decisions, etc. and to require inferiors so far to acquiesce to their determinations, as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary opinions.  
Num. 22 But for any absolute infallible belief or consent, that no Church, which is not itself absolutely infallible, and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible, hath power to require of any.  
Num. 23 By this it appears in the next place, in what sense it is true, which in the following words is suggested of Protestants, that they bind men to a Profession of Faith, and how injustly it is added, that, supposing them not to be infallibe, it is unjust, tyrannical, and self-condemnation to the binder's. The contrary whereto is most evident, understanding the obligation with that temper, and the infallibility in that notion, wherein it is evident we understand it. For what injustice or tyranny etc. can it be in any lawful superior, having defined what verily he believes to be the truth of God, and no way doubts of his having deduced it rightly from the Scripture, but yet knows that he, as a man, is fallible, and that it is possible he may have some way failed in this, as in any other his most circumspect action, what injustice, I say, can it be, authoritatively to direct this definition to those, who are committed to his charge, and expect their due submission to it? meaning by submission, what I have here expressed to mean by it.  
Num. 24 So again it appears of the Roman Church, how far it is from gentle or charitable in them to bind men to profess, as matter of faith, whatsoever is by that Church defined, upon this one account, that the Church is infallible & can't err; when this very thing, that it is infallible, is not at all made probable, much less infallibly deduced from any reason or testimony that is infallible.  
Num. 25 Next then, when he saith, that the state of the question will be this, whether the Roman Church be infallible or no, I am not sure I know what question he means, whether the main Question on which the Tract of Schism was written, i. e. whether the Church of England be schismatical or no, or whether the particular question, which this Gentleman's haste hath framed to himself in this place, Whether a fallible Church may have power to bind any to believe what she saith? But I suppose by some indications, that the latter is it, and then, as from hence I learn what he means by infallible, a Church that cannot possibly err, all whose definitions are such, quibus nequit subesse falsum, so until this be proved of that Church, I must be allowed to speak like one who think not myself obliged to the belief of it, and being sure of this, that a Protestant is or may be verily persuaded of some truth, against which the Roman Church bindeth to profession of error (meaning by verily persuaded, such a certainty only, cui non subest dubium, he hath no doubt nor reason to induce doubting of it) I cannot imagine how that part of my discourse, wherein I have supposed or asserted this, can be either superfluous, unnecessary, or (whatever other weakness it be guilty of) contrary to myself. For certainly I that think I am fallible, may yet verily believe, without all doubt, the truth of many propositions, which if I should affirm myself not to believe, I must doubtless lie, and then sin, by Mr. Knot's former concession. And 'tis as certain on the other side, that he that pretendeth to have an infallible rule, may yet foully mistake, both in that general, original, and in many other particular, derivative pretensions; His supposed infallibility, if it be not rightly supposed (and till it be proved, it will not be so) will be so far from an amulet to keep him safe from all error, that it is the likeliest way to deliver him up to it, as the premature persuasion of his particular election may be the ingulsing any, through security and presumption, in the most certain ruin.  
Num. 26 In the process of this discourse he is pleased to mention four advantages of the Roman Church above any other, Antiquity, possession, persuasion of Infallibility, the pledges that Christ hath left to his Church for motives of union, and nothing but uncertain reasons on the other side, which saith he, must make it impossible for any without interest or prejudice to leave the Church, if he be in it, or not return, if he be out of it.  
Num. 27 To this imaginary setting of the scales between them and us, and particularly to the fourth advantage pretended to, the pledges that Christ left for motives of union, it is sufficient to reply in general, that for us, which have not voluntarily separated, but are by them violently removed from communion with them, and cannot be admitted to reunion, but upon conditions, which without dissembling and lying we cannot undergo, it is in vain to speak of motives or obligations to return to their communion. We that are bound, as much as in us lies, to have peace with all men, must not admit any known or wilful sin in order to that most desirable end. And this one thing as alone it is pertinent to the matter in hand, that of schism, so it is necessarily the concluding of this controversy, We that are not permitted to return, and so we are, if the conditions of our return be so encumbered, as to include sin, cannot with any justice or equity be charged for not returning.  
Num. 28 Against this here is nothing said, any farther than the bare mention of the three other advantages on their side. And none of these are of any force to persuade our return, upon such conditions as these, much less to exact it as duty from us.  
Num. 29 By Antiquity and Possession, as here they are spoken of, I am apt to suppose he means not antiquity of the Roman Church, or the present doctrines (and therefore I shall not speak of them) but the antiquity of our communion with them (if he mean a Possession in the belief of the Pope's Universal Pastorship, I shall have occasion to speak of that 
* Changed 7. Sect. 1.  hereafter.) And if this be granted, as for fraternal communion, and such as is due from one sister Church to another, it is willingly granted, than this will divolve the blame on those who are guilty of this breach, who have cast us out, and permit us no way of returning with a good conscience, And so this is little for the Romanists advantage.  
Num. 30 But if in stead of fraternal communion, it be subjection to the Roman See, that is by his words claimed, and pretended to by possession, then as we willingly grant to that See all that the ancient Canons allowed to it, and so cannot in that respect offend against Antiquity, so what, contrary to those Canons, they have at any time assumed, and unlawfully possessed themselves of, can no way be pretended to be their right, or they to be bonae fidei possessores, true or fair possessors of it, which qualification and condition is yet absolutely necessary to found their plea from possession, and which alone can bear any proportion with that, which Kings can show for their crowns, or proprietaries for their inheritances.  
Num. 31 Of this head of possession, or prescription, it were easy to add much more, by considering that claim and title, by the known rules whether of the Canon, or Civil Law. The Civil Law, which is generally more favourable to Prescription, doth yet acknowledge many ways of interrupting it, as by calling it into question, and that is sufficiently done in some cases, per solam conventionem, by citing, or summoning the possessor, and when contestatio litis, the entering a suit is actually required, yet still he that appears to have caused the impediment, and kept it from coming to this contestation, is not to gain any advantage by his guilt, but adversus eum lis habetur pro contestato, he shall be looked on, as if the suit had been actually contested against him. See Bartolus in l. si eum §. qui injuriarum in fi: ff. si quis caut:  
Num. 32 But as to the Canon Law, which in all reason the Catholic is to own in this question, it is known that it admitteth not any the longest prescription, without the bonae fidei possessio, (he that came by any thing dishonestly, is for ever obliged to restitution) and for the judging of that, allows of many ways of probation, from the nature of the thing (the course we have taken in this present debate) and from other probable indications, and where the appearances are equal on both sides, the Law, though it be wont to judge most favourably, doth yet incline to question the honesty of coming to the possession, and to presume the dishonesty, upon this account, because mala fides, dishonesty is presumed industriously to contrive its own secrecy, and to lie hid in those recesses, from which at a distance of time it is not easily fetched out. So Felinus in C. ult: de prescript: per leg: ult: C. unde vi. And in a word, it is the affirmation of the Doctors, presumi malam fidem ex antiquiore adversarii possessione, the presumption is strong that the possession was not honestly come by, when it appears to have been anciently in the other hands, and the way of conveyance from one to the other is not discernible. See Panormit: and Felinus in c. si diligenti X de prescript: Menochius arbit: quaest: Casu 225. n. 4. and others referred to by the learned Groti●● in Consil: Jurid: super iis quae Nassavii— p. 36. etc. But I have no need of these nicer disquisitions.  
Num. 33 As for the persuasion of infallibility, meaning, as they must, their own persuasion of it, that can have no influence upon us, who are sure that we are not so persuaded, unless the grounds, on which their persuasion is founded, be so convincingly represented to us, that it must be our prejudice, or other vicious defect, or affection in us, that we are not in the like manner persuaded of it. But on this we are known to insist, and never yet have had any such grounds offered to us: As may in some measure appear by the view of that Controversy as it lies visible in the Book, entitled, The view of Infallibility.  
Num. 34 As for the uncertainty of the reasons on the Protestants side, by uncertainty, meaning fallibility, and the potest subesse falsum, whilst yet we are, without doubting, verily persuaded that our reasons have force in them; that cannot make it possible for us to believe what we do not believe, or lawful upon any the fairest intuition to profess contrary to our belief. I believe that Henry VIII. was King of this Nation, and the reasons on which I believe it, are, the testimonies of mere men, and so fallible; yet the bare fallibility of those testimonies cannot infuse into me any doubt of the truth of them, hath no force to shake that but humane belief, and while I thus believe, I am sure it were wilful sin in me, though for the greatest and most precious acquisitions in my view, to profess I do not believe it. The like must be said of any other persuasion of mine, denied by the Romanists, and the denying whereof is part of the condition required of me to make me capable of communion with them.  
Num. 35 But it is not now time to insist on this, both because here is nothing produced against it, and because here follows a much higher undertaking, which swallows up all these inferior differences between us, viz: that not to acknowledge the Church (that must be the Roman Church) to be infallible, is the great crime of schime and heresy in capite, and more than all that I hold distinct from the Romanists.  
Num. 36 This I acknowledge was not foreseen in the Tract of Schism, and may serve for the una litura, the one answer to remove all that is there said. For if our grand Fundamental schism and heresy be all summed up in this one comprehensive guilt, our not acknowledging the Church of Rome to be infallible, than it was and still is impertinent to discourse on any other subject but that one of Infallibility, for if that be gained by them to belong to their Church, I am sure we are concluded Schismatics, and till it be gained, I am sure there is no reason to suppose it.  
Num. 37 But then as this is a compendious way of answering the Tract of Schism, and I wonder, after he had said this, he could think it seasonable to proceed to make exceptions to any other particulars, this one great mistake of the Question being discovered, made all other more minute considerations unnecessary (as he that hath sprung a mine to blow up the whole Fort, need not set wispes of straw to several corners to burn it) so it falls out a little unluckily, that this doth not supersede, but only remove this Gentleman's labour, it being now as necessary that he should defend his hypothesis of the Church of Rome's Infallibility, against all that is formerly said by me on that subject, as now it was to make this Answer to the Book of Schism, and till that be done, or attempted to be done, there is nothing left for me to reply to in this matter.  
Num. 38 For as to his bare affirmations, that the not acknowledging their Infallibility takes away all belief and ground of belief, turns all into uncertainty, etc. nay, submitteth to Atheism and all sorts of miscreancy.] It is sure but a mistake or misunderstanding as of some other things, so particularly of the nature of belief; For beside that I may have other grounds of belief than the affirmations of the Roman Church, the authority of Scripture for the severals contained in it, and the Testimony of the universal Primitive (that sure is more than of the present Roman) Church, to assure me that what we take for Scripture is Scripture, and to derive Apostolical traditions to me, and so I may believe enough without ever knowing that the Roman Church defines any thing de fide, but much more without acknowledging the truth of all she defines, and yet much more without acknowledging her inerrable and infallible: Beside this, I say, it is evident that belief is no more than consent to the truth of any thing, and the grounds of belief, such arguments as are sufficient to exclude doubting, to induce conviction and persuasion, and where that is actually induced, there is belief, though there be no pretence of infallibility in the argument, nor opinion of it in him that is persuaded by it.  
Num. 39 That all that God hath said is true, I believe by a belief or persuasion, cui non potest subesse falsum, wherein I cannot be deceived, and there I acknowledge infallibility upon this ground, whether of nature or of grace, of common dictate, or of religion, that it is impossible for God to lie, to deceive, or to be deceived; But that the whole Canon of Scripture, as it is delivered to us by the Laodicean Council, is the Word of God, though I fully believe this also, and have not the least doubt to any part of it, yet I account not myself infallible in this belief, nor can any Church that affirms the same, unless they are otherwise privileged by God, be infallible in affirming it, nor any that believes that Church be infallible in their belief; And as that privilege is not yet proved by any donation of Gods to belong to any Church, particularly to the Roman, so till it be proved, and proved infallibly, it can be no competent medium to induce any new act of Infallible belief, the want of which may denominate us either heretics or schismatics.  
Num. 40 In the mean time, this is certain, that I that do not pretend to believe any thing infallibly in this matter, not so much as that the Church is not infallible, must yet be acknowledged to believe her fallible, or else I could not by this Gentleman be adjudged a schismatic for so believing: And then this supposeth that I may believe what in his opinion I believe untruly, that sure is, that I may believe what I do not believe infallibly. The matter is visible, I cannot think fit to enlarge on it.  
Num. 41 One thing only I must farther take notice of, the ground which he here had, on which he found'st his exception against the solidity of my discourse, calling it my great evidence, that we that do not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible, may be allowed to make certain suppositions that follow there.  
Num. 42 The matter in that place Chap. II. Sect. 12. lies thus. In examining the nature of schism, I have occasion to mention one (not real, but) fiction of case; Suppose first that our Ancestors had criminously separated from the Church of Rome, and suppose secondly, that we their posterity repent, and desired to reform their sin, and to be reunited to them; yet supposing thirdly, that they should require to our reunion any condition which were unlawful for us to perform, in this conjuncture, I say, we could not justly be charged for continuing that separation.  
Num. 43 This fiction of case I could not think had any weak part in it, for as it supposed that on one side, which I knew a Romanist would not grant, viz: that they should require any condition unlawful for us to perform, so it supposed on the other side, that which we can no way grant, viz: that our Ancestors criminously separated; But this I knew was ordinary to be done in fictions of cases; Suppositio non ponit, is the acknowledged rule, my supposing either of these was not the taking them for granted, And yet after all this, I foresaw that objection, that the Romanist, who acknowledges not any such hard condition required to our reconciliation, will conceive this an impossible case; And to this I answered, that we, that acknowledge not their Church to be infallible may be allowed to make a supposition (meaning as before a fiction of case) which is founded in the possibility of her inserting some error in her confessions, and making the acknowledgement of it the indispensable condition of her communion. What I have offended herein, I cannot imagine, for 1. I only set a fiction of case, do not take their infallibility for a thing confestly false, nor in that place so much as dispute against it, Only I say that which was sufficiently known before I said it, that their Infallibility is not acknowledged by us, and so that her inserting some error in her Confessions, is to us, i e. in our opinion a thing possible, and so for disputation's sake supposable, in the same manner as I suppose that which I am known not to believe, and if this Gentleman be thus severe, I shall despair to approve my discourses to him.  
Num. 44 Secondly, that I make it my great evidence, is not with any appearance of reason suggested by him, It comes in merely as an incidental, last branch, the least necessary, most unconsiderable of any, and that which might have been spared then, or left out now, without any weakening of, or disturbing the discourse.  
Num. 45 Thirdly, Whereas he adds, that I proceed to make certain suppositions that follow there, this is still of the same strain, I make but one supposition, viz: in case she make any unlawful act the indispensable condition of her Communion, And that one certainly is not in the plural, more, or indefinitely, certain suppositions.  
Num. 46 That I put this one case as possible, and then proceeded to consider, what were by the principles acknowledged by all, particularly by Mr. Knot, to be done in that one case, was agreeable to the strictest laws of discourse which I have met with. And if in compliance with this Gentleman, I must deny myself such liberties, and yet yield him so much greater, on the other side, If I must at the beginning of a defence of the Church of England, be required to grant the Church of Rome infallible, i. e. to yield not only that she speaks all truth, but also that it is impossible she should speak any thing but truth, whom yet, by entering on this theme, I undertake to contradict, and to prove injurious in censuring us for Schismatics, this were, as I have said, an hard task indeed, The very same as if I were required to begin a duel by presenting and delivering up all weapons into the enemy's hand, to plead a cause, and introduce my defence by confessing myself guilty of all that the plaintiff doth, or can have the confidence to charge upon me.  
Num. 47 And if these be the conditions of a dispute, these will questionless be hard, whatsoever the conditions of our reunion be conceived to be, and moreover this Gentleman will be as infallible as his Church, and then 'tis pity he should lavish out medicines, that is so secured by charms, that he should defend his cause by reasons, which hath this one so much cheaper expedient, to answer a whole book in one period.  
Num. 48 And so much for his Animadversions on this second Chapter, which are no excellent presage of that which we are to expect in the ensuing.    

CHAP. III. Exceptions to the third Chapter answered.  

Sect. I.  
The Division of Schism justified. Of Schism against the authority of Counsels. Of Unanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches.  
Num. 1 THe exceptions against the third Chap: are reducible to 4 heads. The first about the insufficiency of the division of Schism, in these words,  
Num. 2 In his third Chapter, what is chiefly to be noted to our purpose, is, that his division is insufficient, for he maketh Schism to be only against Monarchical power, or against fraternal charity, which is very much besides the principles of those Protestants, who pretend so much to the authority of Counsels, me thinks he should have remembered there might be schism against conciliatory authority, whether this be called so when the Council actually sitteth, or in the unanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches, so that the Doctor (supposing he concluded against the Pope) hath not concluded himself no schismatic, being separated form the Catholic world.  
And again in the next page, by way of recollection or second thoughts, thus,  
But I must not forget here what I omitted to insert before, that in his division of Schism he omitteth the Principal, if not indeed, and in the use of the word by the Ancients, the only schism, which is when one breaketh from the whole Church of God: for though a breach made from the immediate superior, or a particular Church, may in some sort, and in our ordinary manner of speaking be called a schism, yet that by which one breaketh away from the communion of the whole Church, is properly, and in a higher sense called Schism, and is that out of which the present question proceedeth, whereas other divisions, as long as both parts remain in communion with the Universal Church, are not properly schisms, but with a diminutive particle, so that in this division he left out that part which appertained to the question.  
Num. 3 My division of schism is that which I could not conceive subject to the exceptions of any rational man, of what persuasions soever; schism being a breach of unity and communion; as many sorts as were conceivable of unity and communion, so many, and no more, I set down of schism, some as breaches of the subordination which Christ settled in his Church, others of mutual charity, which he left among his Disciples.  
Num. 4 For is it not evident, that all men in the world are either our superiors, or inferiors, or our equals? and can I break communion with any, as long as being an inferior, I live regularly under all my superiors, and brotherly with all my equals? There is certainly no place of doubt in this. When therefore in his second period here set down, he mentions it, as the principal, (and in the Ancients use of the word) the only Schism, when one breaketh from the whole Church of God, It is strange he should think that man was not comprised in either member of my division, when certainly he is guilty of both. For how can he separate from the whole Church, unless he separate both from his superiors and his equals too? And if he separate from both, then questionless he separates from one, and from more than one of them.  
Num. 5 Was it possible for any care more solicitously to have prevented this exception, than that which by me was used, when among the branches of equality, with which every one is obliged to preserve unity and communion, I reckoned up, not only the believers of the same Congregation, etc. but the several communities of Christian men from Parishes and Dioceses, to climes of the whole Christian world, Chap. 3. §. 5. And indeed it is a great piece of austerity, that when I have endeavoured to prove that we of the Church of England have not voluntarily separated (and that only is the crime of Schism) from any one particular Church, and no one of those proofs is invalidated, nor as yet so much as excepted against, it should yet be thought seasonable to reply, that we have broken off from the whole Church of God.  
Num. 6 Is not that whole made up of these severals, as a body of limbs, the universal of particulars? And can the hand be broken off from the whole body, when it is not broken off, but remains in perfect union with every part of the body? If the arm be broken from the body, the hand, which remains united to the arm, may yet be separate from the whole body, because by being fastened to the arm 'tis united but to one, and not to all the members of the body. But an union to all the members of the body supposes a separation from no one part that remains in the body, and sure that must be an union with the whole body, which is nothing else, but all the members together.  
Num. 7 And so as his second thoughts were effects, not remedies of his forgetfulness, the very same, which he had mentioned before under the style of separation from the Catholic world, so certainly they were again effects of his inobservance, that his principal sort of schism, separation from the whole Church, was comprehended by me under this style, separation from the several communities of the whole Christian world.  
Num. 8 As to the former branch of his exception, that in my division of schism, into that which is against Monarchical (I said, and when he recites my words, he should do so too, paternal) power, and that which is against fraternal charity, I omit to mention the authority of Counsels, It is evidently a causeless suggestion. For 1. if Counsels, as he saith, have any authority, that will certainly be reducible to paternal power. And if they have none, any farther than by way of counsel and advice, that will directly fall under the head of fraternal charity.  
Num. 9 Secondly, If by Counsels he mean Provincial Counsels, it is evident that the power which severally belongs to the Bishops of each Province, is united in that of a Provincial Council, where all the Diocesan Bishops are assembled, and the despising of that is an offence under the first sort of schism, a breach of the subordination to the Bishop, yea, and the Metropolitan too, who presides in the Provincial Council.  
Num. 10 So again, if he mean national Counsels, the power of the Bishops of all the Provinces there assembled, divolves upon this assembly, compounded of all of them, the despising thereof is the despising of these Ecclesiastical superiors of the whole nation, and culpable, and schismatical upon that account.  
Num. 11 As for Ecumenical or General Counsels, if they be truly such, the power of all the Bishops of all the Provinces in all Christian nations divolves upon that, and so cannot be despised without despising of all ranks of our Ecclesiastical superiors, Bishops, Metropolitans, Primates or Patriarches, and therefore this sort of schism could not be deemed to be omitted, where all those other branches, of which it is made up, were so particularly handled.  
Num. 12 That any more special consideration was not taken of General Counsels in that discourse, the account (beside that which is now given) is more than intimated in that Tract of Schism, pag. 60. first because they were remedies of schism, and extraordinary, not any standing Judicatures, to which our constant subordination and subjection was required. 2. Because these were such, as without which the Church continued for the first 300 years, and so could not belong to a general discourse, which spoke of all the certain and ordinary and constant sorts of schism, and such as all times were capable of, and enlarged not to those other of accidental emergencies. 3. Because they are now morally impossible to be had, the Christian world being under so many Empires, and divided into so many communions, that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should be regularly assembled.  
Num. 13 As for those that are already past, and are on due grounds to be acknowledged truly Ecumenical, the communion, which is possible to be had or broken with them, is that of compliance with, or recession from their definitions, and our innocence in that respect is avowed, p. 160. as the congregating of the like (when possible, and probable toward the end) is recommended, p. 158. as a supply, when there should be need of extraordinary remedies.  
Num. 14 Lastly, If none of this had been done, or if this had not been undertaken so solemnly and formally, as some other supposed branches of schism were, in that Tract, yet the account of that is visible to any, because the principal sort of schism charged by the Romanist on the Church of England is that of casting out the Bishop of Rome, not contemning the authority of Counsels, and therefore I was in reason to apply my discourse most largely and particularly to that head, to which their objections, not my own choice directed me. So evidently contrary to the notoriety of the fact is this complaint of this Gentleman, that my division of schism was insufficient, and that I took no notice of this (as he pleases to call it) conciliatory authority.  
Num. 15 That to make his suggestion seem more probable, he advisedly chose to change the terms of my division from that which was against Paternal, to that which is against Monarchical power, upon this apprehension, that Paternal power would visibly include that of the Fathers in Council assembled, as well as in several; but Monarchical power could not so fitly bear it, I shall not enter into his secrets to divine. This I am sure of, that the unanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches, cannot with any propriety (as by him it is) be defined a branch of Conciliatory authority, for certainly the Churches dispersed are not met together, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dispersion of the Jews differed much from the Council assembled at Jerusalem, and the Christian Church at this day is without question no Ecumenical Council.  
Num. 16 And then what authority scattered members can have, which never legally command, or exercise authority, but when they are in conjunction, I shall not here make stay to demonstrate: whatsoever there is of this nature will most properly be comprised under the head of communion or unity Fraternal, and the schism which is a transgression of that, being at large handled also, Chap. 8. 9, 10. there was no insufficiency, in any justice, to be charged on this division.   

Sect. II.  
Of the extent of the Roman Province. The Bishops of Italy distinct from those that belong to Rome. The Ecclesiastical distributions agreeable with the Civil. Ruffinus vindicated.  
Num. 1 THe second charge on this Chapter is about the extent of the Roman patriarchy, in these words:  
Num. 2 In this Chap: he telleth us many things, some true, some not so, but all either common to us both, or not appertaining to the controversy, until he concludes, that certainly the Roman patriarchy did not extend itself to all Italy, and this he does out of a word in Ruffinus, which he supposeth to be taken in a special propriety of law, whereas indeed that author's knowledge in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such belief, especially learned men saying the contrary.  
Num. 3 The place, to which this exception belongs, is not set down by this Gentleman, but by annexing the testimony out of Ruffinus, I discern it to be that of pag. 52. where speaking of the Picenum suburbicarium and Annonarium, I say the former belonged to the Praefecture of Rome; the latter, with the seven Provinces in the broader part of Italy, belonged to the Diocese (as it was anciently called) of Italy, of which Milan was the Metropolis.  
Num. 4 This being the affirmation which he excepteth against, I did not, nor yet do make any question of vindicating, and defending it against any objection.  
Num. 5 That learned men say the contrary, is here suggested, in the close, but as there is not one learned man named, nor testimony produced (which therefore amounts no higher than the bare opinion or affirmation of this one Gentleman, without any one reason or authority to support it) so when any such learned men's names and testimonies shall be produced, it will be easy to show, that there is very little of their learning expressed in so saying.  
Num. 6 On the other side I had (pag. 50. in the margin) referred to some testimonies whereon my assertion was founded, viz: those which manifestly distinguished the Province of the Bishop of Rome from the Province of Italy, which could not have had truth in them, if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy.  
Num. 7 Such was that of 
* l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Eusebius distinctly mentioning the Bishops of the Cities of Italy, and the Bishops that belong to the City of the Romans. The testimony out of the Edict of the Emperor Aurelian, in the controversy betwixt Paulus Samosatenus and Domnus, where it is decreed, that the house, about which they contended, should be delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to those to whom the Bishops through Italy and the City of the Romans should decree it.  
Num. 8 The like was that of the Council of Sardice set down in 
* Apoll: 2. ad Imp: Const: Edit: Par: Tom: 1. p. 756.  Athanasius in the title of their Epistle to the Alexandrians, Thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The holy Synod by God's grace assembled at Sardice, from Rome, and Spain, France, Italy, etc.  
Num. 9 So in 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Paris: Ed: t. 1. p. 827. C.  Athanasius' declaration of his own affairs, and the (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) agreement of many Bishops with him, he specifies, who and how many they were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. There were more than four hundred both from great Rome, and from all Italy, and from Calabria, etc. Where the Bishops of the Roman Province are distinguished from the Bishops of Italy, as those again from the Bishops of Calabria, etc.  
Num. 10 So among the names prefixed to the 
* Concil: tom: 1. p. 266.  first Council of Arles, we have ex provinciâ Italiae, civitate Mediclanensi, etc. ex urbe Româ, quos Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provinciâ Romanâ, civitate Portuensi, etc. of the Province of Italy, from the city of Milan etc. from the city of Rome those Whom Bishop Sylvester sent, of the Province of Rome, from the City of Porta etc. such and such were assembled at that Council, where again the matter is clear as to the distinction of those Provinces of Rome and Italy, the former under the presidency of the Bishop of Rome, the later of the Bishop of Milan.  
Num. 11 By this it might have appeared to this Gentleman (if as he pleased to mention the much Greek, in his Preface, so he had been at leisure to consider the importance of it) that beside the testimony (which he will call a word) of Ruffinus, I had made use of other ways of proof, that the presidency of the Bishop of Rome (I suppose that he must mean by the Roman patriarchy) did not extend itself to all Italy.  
Num. 12 Again after the testimony of Ruffinus, I mentioned another evidence, from the proportioning Ecclesiastical jurisdictions to the Temporal of the Lieutenants; This may appear in thesi, by the words of 
* Cont: Cells: l. 3.  Origen, of which I shall now, because I did not there, take notice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is fit that the Perfect of the Church of each City, should correspond to the Governor of those which are in the City. And that so it was, appears by the second Canon of the Council of Constantinople, where the jurisdictions of the Bishops are still proportioned to the condition of the Cities where they were, the Bishop of Alexandria to have power over all Egypt, the Metropolis whereof was Alexandria, and so in the rest. And this is in the Tract of Schism largely deduced and cleared also, p. 54, 55, etc. and need not be here again repeated, And so here was more again than the word of Ruffinus, for what I said.  
Num. 13 Lastly, that for which Ruffinus was cited, being but this, that the Bishop of Rome was authorized by the Nicene Canon to take care of the suburbicarian regions, I could not sure be mistaken in thinking, that he took the word suburbicarian in such a propriety (I say not of law, but) of common language, as will conclude the Picenum suburbicarium to belong to the Roman Prefecture, as the Annonarium did to the Diocese of Italy.  
Num. 14 And certainly Ruffinus, that lived so near after the Council of Nice, and that in Italy, a Presbyter of Aquileia, knew how that was distributed in his time, better than this Gentleman at this distance can pretend to do, may also be allowed to know so much of Grammar, as to express his own sense (in a Paraphrase) of that Nicene Canon.  
Num. 15 In a matter so clear I shall add no more, but the words of a most excellent person, Jac: Leschasserius in his Consultatio ad Claris: Venet: Ruffino bellum indicunt scriptores Romani hujus temporis, etc. The Romanists of this time are displeased with Ruffinus, not knowing what Churches they were, which the Nicene Canon understands to be under the first and ordinary power of the Pope. Whereas Ruffinus understood it of the Churches of the suburbicarian Provinces and regions, which are four, the first the Roman, with the bounds of the Prefecture of the City, and three other with which that is encompassed, All Campania, Picenum suburbicarium, and Tuscia suburbicaria, of which there is frequent mention in the Notitiae of the Roman Empire. And of this the same Author hath written a learned Tract, And so here is a distinct testimony of a very learned man, and this is a sufficient answer to his bare indefinite affirmation that learned men say the contrary.   

Sect. III.  
The identity of the office of Primates and Patriarches, the authorities of Gratian, and Anacletus, and Anicetus.  
Num. 1 THe third charge wherein this third Chapter is concerned, remains about the identity of the office of Primates, and Patriarches, in these words:  
Num. 2 Then he telleth you that the office of Primates and Patriarches was the same, 
He urgeth Gratian too.  only authorising that affirmation from an Epistle of Anacletus, the which, as soon as occasion serveth, he will tell you is of no authority, but fictitious.  
Num. 3 What I said of Primates and Patriarches, that though the Patriarches had the precedence, in Counsels, the deference in respect of place, yet the power and jurisdiction of Primates was as great as of Patriarches, and the office the same, I thought had sufficiently been evidenced to the Romanist p. 58. For as one manifest indication of it was there mentioned, viz: that in Authors the very titles are confounded, witness Justinian who commonly gives Primates the name of Patriarches of the Dioceses, so the reference to those two authorities so acknowledged and owned by the Romanists, the Epistle of Anacletus, and the Decree of Gratian, seemed to me to put it out of all question.  
Num. 4 For in the body of their Canon Law corrected and set out by Pope Gregory XIII. as Gratian's decree makes up the first and principal part▪ so in that, par: 1. distinct: 99 we have these words, De Primatibus autem quaeritur quem gradum in Ecclesiâ tenuerint, an in aliquo à Patriarchis differant, The question is made concerning Primates, what degree they have in the Church, and whether in any thing they differ from Patriarches. And the answer is, Primates & Patriarchae diversorum sunt nominum, sed ejusdem officii, Primates and Patriarches are of different names, but of the same office.  
Num. 5 What could have been said more punctually and expressly to the business in hand? What more authentic and dilucid testimony could have been produced to any Romanist, with whom I had to do? And 'tis a little strange, that this Gentleman should say that I only authorise my affirmation from an Epistle of Anacletus, and then either he, or some Supervisor for him, put in as a marginal note, He urgeth Gratian too, When 1. if I urged Gratian, I did not urge Anacletus only; and 2. it is evident I did urge Gratian as punctually as Anacletus, and 3. Gratian's words are so express as nothing can be more, and 4. Gratian's authority with them is as great as any could have been produced; and 5. there is not one word offered to avoid the force of Gratian's testimony, as to that other of Anacletus there is, which argues that this Gentleman was concluded by Gratian, yet would not consent to the proposition unanswerably inferred from him. And this may suffice to be noted concerning that testimony.  
Num. 6 Then for Anacletus 1. his words are these, Provinciarum divisio ab Apostolis est renovata, The division of Provinces was renewed by the Apostles, Et in capite Provinciarum— Patriarchas vel Primates, qui unam formam tenent, licèt diversa sint nomine, leges divinae & Ecclesiasticae poni & esse jusserunt, ad quos Episcopi, si necesse fuerit, confugerent, eosque appellarent, And in the head of the Province— Patriarches, or Primates, who hold the same form (are of the same nature) though they be divers names, are placed by divine and Ecclesiastical laws, so that to them the Bishops, when 'tis needful, may resort and make their appeals. This testimony again as punctual to the purpose as could have been devised.  
Num. 7 And then secondly, this being by the Romanists received as a Decretal Epistle of that Pope and ancient Bishop of Rome, was in reason, whatsoever it were to us, to stand with the Romanist in full authority.  
Num. 8 Thirdly, This being in perfect concord with the decree of Gratian, is in the aforesaid body of their Canon law approved, and set out by Pope Gregory XIII. annexed to that decree of Gratian, Distinct: 99 C. 1.  
Num. 9 And fourthly, whereas this Gentleman saith, that as soon as occasion serves I will tell you this Epistle of Anacletus is of no authority, I must say 1. that I have no where, that I remember, ever said so. 2. That this Gentleman cannot without divining tell me now, what I shall do hereafter. 3. That occasion not yet requiring it of me, but Anacletus affirming what I affirm, I have no temptation to do so, and so as yet he can have no pretence to make use of this subterfuge. 4. That there are things called argumenta ad homines, arguments that may bind him who acknowledges the authority, from which they are drawn, though they conclude not him that allows not those authorities, and such is this of Anacletus his Epistle, to a Romanist.  
Num. 10 And by the same Logic that he can infer that Anacletus' authority was unduly produced by me, who (as he but thinks) will not stand to Anacletus' authority, I may sure conclude that Anacletus' authority was duly produced by me, because against him, who, I have reason to presume, must stand to Anacletus' authority.  
Num. 11 A third testimony of the same nature I shall now add, which must again have force with a Romanist, that of Anicetus ad Episcopos Galliae, which follows there in the 
* Decret: Grat: par: 1. dist: 92. c. 2.  Corpus Juris Canonici. Primarum civitatum Episcopos Apostoli & successores Apostolorum regulariter Patriarchas & Primates esse constituerunt. The Apostles and their successors regularly appointed that the Bishops of the Prime Cities should be Primates and Patriarches, And till somewhat be produced to the contrary, as 'tis sure here is nothing offered by this Gentleman, this may at the present suffice in this place.   

Sect. IU.  
The supreme Ecclesiastical power of Patriarches. The power of convoking Counsels, a prerogative of Supremacy. That the Bishop of Rome is not over Patriarches. Proofs from the Counsels, and Canons Apostolic, and the Corpus Juris, and Pope Gregorys arguing.  
Num. 1 THe last exception concerns the supreme Power of Patriarches, or the no superiority of any Ecclesiastical power over them, Thus.  
Num. 2 Then he saith there was no power over the Patriarches, his proof is because the Emperor used his secular authority in gathering of Counsels, concluding, that because the Pope did not gather general Counsels, therefore he had no authority over the Universal Church, which how unconsequent that is, I leave to your judgement.  
Num. 3 That there was no supreme power in the Bishop of Rome, nor in any other above that of Primates and Patriarches, but only that of the Emperor in the whole Christian world, as of every sovereign Prince in his dominions, I thought sufficiently proved by this, that the power of convoking Counsels did not belong to the Bishop of Rome, but to the Prince in every nation, and the Emperor in the whole world. And I deemed this a sufficient proof, not because there are no other branches of a supreme authority imaginable, or which are claimed by the Bishop of Rome save only this; but I. because this of convoking Counsels is certainly one such prerogative of the supreme power, inseparable from it, and he that hath not that, hath not the supreme power (as in any nation some prerogatives there are, which always are annexed to the Imperial Majesty, and wherever any one of them truly is, there is the supreme power, and 'tis treason for any but the supreme, to assume any one of them, and one of that number is calling of national Assemblies) And secondly, because the Bishop of Rome doth as avowedly challenge this power of convoking General Counsels, as any other I could have named or insisted on. And truly that was the only reason why I specified in this, because this of all others is most eminent in itself, most characteristical of the supreme power, and most challenged by the Bishop of Rome, and most due to him, in case he be the Universal Pastor.  
Num. 4 And then where there be several branches of a power, all resident in the same subject inseparably, from the absence of one to collect the absence of all, I must still think, a solid way of probation, and cannot discern the infirm part, or inconsequence of it. If I could, it would be no difficult matter to repair it, and supply the imperfectness of the proof, by what is put together in the Corpus Juris Canonici (even now cited) Decret: par: 1. dist: 99 c. 3, 4, 5.  
Num. 5 The thing that I had to prove, was, that there was not anciently any summum genus, any supreme either of, or over Patriarches, beside the Prince or Emperor. To this, as far as concerns the negative part, that the Bishop of Rome is not this summum genus, I now cite from that third Chap. Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum, vel summus sacerdos, The Bishop of the first seat ought not to be called Prince of the Priests, or supreme Priest. And this testified out of the African Council, Can: 6. where the very words are recited with this addition of [aut aliquid hujusmodi] he is not to be called by any other title of the same kind, sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus, but only Bishop of the first See, and there were three such at that time, (those named in the Nicene Canon) Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, as is sufficiently known.  
Num. 6 And that he may see the practice of the Church was perfectly concordant with that definition, I refer this Gentleman to the Milevitan Council, cap. 22. where speaking of appeals from their Bishops, the rule is, non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia, vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum, They must appeal to none but the African Counsels, or the Primates of their own Provinces. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellandum, à nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur. But if any shall think fit to appeal to any transmarine (foreign) judicature, they are not to be admitted to communion by any within Africa.  
And indeed the same had been before defined by the first Nicene Council, Num. 7 c. 5. where the sentence pronounced against any by the Bishops in each Province was to stand good according to the Canon (I suppose the 12 Apostolic) which pronounces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they which are excommunicated by some, shall not be received by others. And accordingly in the Synodical Epistle of the African Council to Pope Celestine, which is in the Book of Canons of the Roman Church, and in the Greek collection of the Canons of the African Church, we find these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We entreat you (the style of one Church to another) that for the future you will not easily admit those who have come to you from hence, and that you will not receive to your communion those who are excommunicate by us, seeing the Council of Nice hath thus defined, as you may easily discern.  
Num. 8 By all which put together by the African out of the Nicene, and by the Nicene out of the Apostolic Canon, it is evident that the Bishop of Rome hath not power to absolve any person excommunicate by any Bishop of another Province, and that 'tis unlawful for any such to make appeal to him, which certainly will conclude against every the most inferior branch of his pretended authority over the Universal Church.  
Num. 9 If this be not enough, then add the 34 Apostolic Canon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Bishops of every nation must know him that is the first among them, i. e. their Primate, and account him as their head. Which sure infers that the Bishop of Rome is not the one only head of all Bishops. The same is afterward transcribed by the 9 Canon of Antioch.  
Num. 10 But to return to their Corpus Juris, so again Decret: par: 1. dist: 99 c. 4. Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus. The Pope of Rome is not to be called Universal Bishop, citing the Epistle of Pope Pelagius II. Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur, quia si unus Patriarcha unversalis dicatur, Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur. No Patriarch must ever use the title of Universal, for if one be called universal Patriarch, the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest, And more to the same purpose; the very thing that I was here to prove.  
Num. 11 So again Ch. 5. out of the Epistle of Pope Gregory to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, where refusing the title of Vniversalis Papa, Universal Pope, or Father, or Patriarch, and calling it superbae appellaetionis verbum, a proud title, he adds, si enim Vniversalem me Papam vestra Sanctit as dicit, negat se hoc esse, quod me fatetur Vniversum, If the Patriarch of Alexandria call the Pope universal Father, he doth thereby deny himself to be that which he affirms the Pope to be universally; The meaning is clear, If the Pope be universal Patriarch, then is he Patriarch of Egypt, for sure that is a part of the Universe; and then as there cannot be two supremes, so the Bishop of Alexandria cannot be Patriarch of Egypt, which yet from S. Mark's time was generally resolved to belong to him, and the words of the Nicene Canon are express to it, that according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 original, Primitive customs, the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over all Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. seeing this is also customary with the Bishop of Rome, of Antioch, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the privileges should be preserved to the Churches.  
Num. 12 All which arguing of that Pope, yea, and that great Council were perfectly unconcluding (inconsequent, as mine was said to be) if the Bishop of Rome, or any other, had power over Patriarches, or authority over the universal Church, which here this Gentleman is pleased to affirm, and so sure must think Gregory more than fallible, when he thus protested, and disputed the contrary.  
Num. 13 How much higher than this the same Gregory ascended in expressing his detestation of that title, is sufficiently known from his Epistle to Mauritius the Emperor, In regist: 1. 4. Ep: 30. I shall not here trouble him with the recitation of it.  
Num. 14 What is after these passages set down in their body of the Law, shows indeed that the Popes continued not always of this mind, Neither was I of opinion that they did, the story being known to all how Boniface III with much ado obtained of Phocas the Emperor an Edict for the Primacy and Universal jurisdiction of the Church of Rome (see Paul: Diac: de Gest is Romanorum, l. 18.) which yet is an argument that till than it had no foundation.  
Num. 15 Whether there were anciently any such, higher than Patriarches, and whether now there ought to be, was the question before me, and both those I must think concluded by what I have here set down, as far as relates to any true, i. e. original right, from any appointment of ●hrist, or title of succession to S. Peter.  
Num. 16 Much more might be easily added to this head, if it were not evident that this is much more than was necessary to be replied to a bare suggestion, without any specifying what that power is, which may belong to the Pope over the Universal Church, though convoking of Counsels did not belong to him, and without any offer of proof, that any such did really belong to him.    

CHAP. IU. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the fourth Chapter.  

Sect. I.  
The Romanists pretensions founded in S. Peter's universal Pastership. Of Possession without debating of Right. What Power the Pope was possessed of here.  
Num. 1 IN the fourth Chap: his objections begin to grow to some height, they are reducible to three heads, the first is by way of Preface, a charge of a very considerable default in the whole discourse that I remember not what matters I handle; the other two are refutations of the two evidences I use to disprove the Pope's claim of universal Trimacie from Christ's donation to S. Peter.  
The first of the three is set down in these words:  
Num. 2 In the fourth Chapter he pretendeth to examine whether by Christ his donation S. Peter had a Trimacie ever the Church, where not to reflect upon his curious division, I cannot omit that he remembers not what matters he handles, when he thinketh the Catholic ought too prove that his Church or Pope hath an universal Primacy; for it being granted that in England, the Pope was in quiet possession of such a Primacy, the proof that it was just belongeth not to us, more than to any King, who received his Kingdom from his Ancestors, time out of mind, to prove his pretention to the Crown just: for quiet possession of itself is a proof, until the contrary be convinced, as who should rebel against such a King were a Rebel, until he showed sufficient cause for quitting obedience; with this difference, that obedience to a King may be prescription or bargain be made unnecessary, but if Christ hath commanded obedience to his Church, no length of years, nor change of humane affairs can ever quit us from this duty of obedience, so that the charge of proving the Pope to have no such authority from Christ, lieth upon the Protestants now as freshly, as the first day of the breach, and will do so until the very last.  
Num. 3 My method in the beginning of Chap: 4. is visibly this; The Church of England being by the Romanist charged of schism in departing from the obedience of the Bishop of Rome, and this upon pretence that he, as successor of S. Peter hath a supremacy over all the Churches in the world, I undertake to examine the truth of two branches of this suggestion, one whether Saint Peter had this universal Supremacy given him by Christ; the second, whether this power, if supposed to be instated on Saint Peter, devolved on the Bishops of Rome. The former of these I examined in that Chapter. And I must now discern, if I can, how I have failed in any particle of my undertaking.  
Num. 4 First, saith he, will not reflect on my curious division. And I that know there was no curiosity in any division of mine, but on the other side, such perspicuity as was agreeable to a desire and endeavour to set down the whole matter of debate between us as distinctly and intelligibly as I could, that the Reader might be sure to judge whether I answered their charge, or no, I have no reason in the least to suspect the fitness and usefulness of my division, nor consequently to be impertinently solicitous in reflecting on it.  
Num. 5 That which he saith he cannot omit, I shall make haste to consider with him, viz: my great mistake, in thinking the Catholic ought too prove his Church or Pope hath an universal Primacy.  
Num. 6 To this I answer, 1. that there is no manner of foundation or pretence for this exception here. For I no where say the least word toward this purpose of requiring the Romanist to prove his pretensions, or to prove them by this medium, Only I take it for granted, that he doth actually produce arguments to infer the Pope's universal Primacy, and that Christ's donation to S. Peter is one of those arguments. And that I was not herein mistaken, I shall, instead of a larger deduction of evidences from all sorts of Romish writers, make my appeal to the objecter himself, in several places of this little tract, particularly p. 20. where he hath these words, we rely on the first, as the foundation, and cornerstone of the whole building, And what that first is, appears by the words immediately precedent, that the pretensions for the Pope's supremacy in England must be founded as successor to S. Peter in the universal Pastorship of the Church, so including England as a member thereof. From whence in stead of recriminating and retorting on him the charge of the ill memory, I shall only make this undeniable inference, that I was not mistaken in thinking that the Romanist doth actually found his pretensions in the universal Pastorship of Saint Peter, and consequently, If I prove that to fail, I have removed that which in his own style is the foundation and corner stone of his whole building.  
Num. 7 But then 2. because he here pretends that it belongs not to a Romanist to prove his pretention just, but that it sufficeth that he hath the possession, I desire to propose these three things to his consideration, 1. By demanding whether at this time, or for these 100 years the Pope hath had the possession of the obedience of this nation; I suppose he will say he hath not; And if so, then by the force of his own argument, that possession, and all the arguments deducible from thence, are now lost to him, the prescription being now on our side, as before on theirs, and there is nothing left him to plead, but the original right on his side, against the violence of the succeeding possession: And if he come to the pleading of the right, then that is the very method that I proposed, and so did not offend or forget myself in so doing.  
Num. 8 Secondly, Concerning their possession before Henry VIII. his days, I shall demand how long they had it, and how they acquired it; If he will not at all think fit to answer this question in either part, than I confess he hath made an end of the dispute, and by refusing to give account of the right he had to his possession, he will leave every man to catch and hold what he can, and then to imitate him, and give no account to any how he came by it, which as it is an unchristian method, every man being obliged to clear his actions from manifest charges of injustice and violence, so again 'tis an evil lesson against himself, and unless we will confess ourselves Schismatics in casting off their obedience, 'tis impossible for him ever to prove us such, this kind of schism, which now we speak of, being by all acknowledged to be a separation from our lawful superiors, and no way being imaginable to prove the Pope to be such to this nation, without offering some proof to the point of right, as well as adhering to his possession.  
Num. 9 To which purpose it is farther observable, 1. That even in secular things it is not every possession that gives a right, but 1. either the bonae fidci possessio, a possession honestly come by, or the unjustness of whose original is not contested or made to appear. And 2. whatsoever privilege by humane laws belongs to prescription, yet in divine or Ecclesiastical matters prescription can be of no force against truth of right, and so this Gentleman seems to acknowledge here, extending the force of possession no farther than till sufficient cause be showed to the contrary. 3. That though whilst I am in possession I need not be bound to prove my right, yet when I am out of possession, there is not, beside absolute force, any way possible to recover a possession, but this of contesting and evidencing the right of it, and that, 'tis evident, is the present case.  
Num. 10 But if he shall think fit to answer the question in either part of it, then by the answer to the first part of it, he must be forced to set down the original of it; and by answer to the second, the right of that original (and so he hath been fain to do, as elsewhere, so in this very paragraph, where he speaks of Christ's commanding obedience to his Church, I suppose he must mean the Church of Rome) and that is again the very method in which I proposed to debate, and consider this matter.  
Num. 11 Thirdly, For the power, of which the Pope was possessed in this Kingdom, either it was no more than an Ecclesiastical Primacy, such as by the ancient Canons belongs to a Primate or Patriarch over Metropolitans and Bishops, or else it was a supreme power over the King himself, whether in Spiritual, or also in Temporal affairs.  
Num. 12 If it pretend only to be the former of these, than the power of Kings to erect or translate Primacies or Patriarchates, which is insisted on and evidenced in the Tract of Schism, c 6. §. 9 was sufficient then to justify what here was done, no possession being pleadable against the King, to restrain or exclude this exercise of his power, and so now to free us from schism, (by this Gentleman's rule) this act of the Kings in translating the Primacy being sufficient cause for quitting our obedience, supposing the Bishop of Rome formerly to have been our Primate.  
Num. 13 But if the pretensions be higher, even for the Supremacy itself, either in whole, or in part, then 1. I may surely say they were never bonae fidei possessores of that, And 2. that the King, who by being so, is supreme in his own Kingdom, and cannot admit of another supreme either in or out of it, hath all the advantages of possession, which are here spoken of by this Gentleman, and must not be divested of his right, nay must not, cannot (remaining a King) divest himself of it, nor might any without the guilt of rebellion quit his obedience to him.  
Num. 14 Lastly, to remove all appearance of reason from this whole exception, 1. It is manifest that at the time of casting out the power of the Pope out of this Kingdom, there were (I must have leave to suppose, convincing) reason's given for the doing of it, A breviate of which the Reader may find in that one Treatise (mentioned in the Tract of Schism, p. 135.) De verâ differentiâ Regiae & Ecclesiasticae potestatis, then composed and published by the Bishops, and since reprinted by Melchior Goldastus in Monarchia, tom: 3. p. 22. under the title of opus eximium, a very notable excellent work. 2. That how meanly so ever it hath been performed, yet this was one special design of the Tract of Schism (which this Gentleman saith will always lie upon Protestants) to prove the Pope to have no such authority from Christ, as the Romanist pretendeth him to have. And this I hope may suffice to be said to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his prelusory skirmish against this fourth Chapter.   

Sect. II.  
The condition of S. Peter's Province. The Apostles distribution of their great Province, the World, into several portions. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 1. the interpretation thereof vindicated.  
Num. 1 I Proceed now to his refutations of the first evidence I make use of to disprove the Pope's claim to universal Primacy from Christ's donation to S. Peter.  
Num. 2 My evidence is taken from the condition of S. Peter's Province, as by agreement betwixt him and his fellow Apostle S. Paul, it was assigned him, Gal. 2. 7, 9 that he should be the Apostle of the circumcision or Jew's (which certainly was not the whole world) exclusively to the Gentile part, or the uncircumcision, which was remitted to S. Paul both there and Rom. 11. 13. and this, as is 
* Of Schism, p. 74.  there specified, in every city where they met together. And because the universal extensive commission of Christ to all and every Apostle, giving them authority to go and preach to the whole world, might seem to be contrary to this special assignation, I took care to prevent this objection, by premising that this commission given by Christ indefinitely, and unlimitedly, and extending equally to the whole world, was restrained by some subsequent act or acts of the Apostles themselves, who distributed their universal Province into several portions and assignations, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, portions of Apostolacy, and the several Provinces where they were thus to labour, styled each of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to each an assigned peculiar place, Act. 1. 25.  
Num. 3 Now to this groundwork of my ensuing probation, he makes his first exception in these words:  
As for his Proofs, which he calls Evidences, he telleth us first that S. Peter was the Apostle of the circumcision exclusively to the uncircumcision or Gentiles; 
Sect. 5.  To prove this, he saith the Apostles distributed their universal Province into several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, by his interpretation, lesser Provinces, and citeth Act. 1. v. 25. where S. Peter with the other Apostles prayeth God to show which of the two proposed he was pleased to have promoted to the dignity of being an Apostle, this they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and this rigorous interpreter saith, it signifies the special Province S. Mathias was to have, though the Scripture itself expresseth the contrary, saying the effect was that afterward he was counted amongst the Apostles: Could any man not blinded with error make so wretched an interpretation? but he goes on presently adding that S. Peter in the same place calleth these particular Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and will you know what this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or proper place is, read the Text, and you shall find that S. Peter speaketh of Judass, ‛ going to Hell to receive his eternal damnation: Methinks you should wonder I can go on without astonishment at such blasphemous explications, for sure it can be no less so to abuse the Word of God, and after this what do you expect?  
Num. 4 Here are two great charges, the first introduced by styling me a rigorous interpreter, and prosecuted, by affirming me blinded with error, my interpretation wretched and contrary to what the Scripture expresseth. But the second is of no less than blasphemy, and abusing the Word of God, and his friend is to wonder that he is not astonished, and after I have been guilty of such crimes as these, 'tis in vain forsooth to expect any thing from me, the whole ensuing discourse is utterly defamed and blasted, like 
* A. Gellius, l. 18. c. 3.  Philopemen's good counsel in the Senate of Lacedaemon, by being delivered by so ill a man, so infamous a person, as a blasphemer is justly deemed by him.  
Num. 5 But I am not to be disquieted with this, or to prepare any reply to the Rhetorical passionate part of it, if the interpretations shall be found agreeable to Scripture, the astonishment and the outcry will be soon at an end, And therefore that is the only care that I shall here assume on me.  
Num. 6 And 1. I shall suppose it evident from the story, and from the very end to which this commissionating so great a number of twelve Apostles was designed, that all the Apostles were not to go together, in consort, to preach unto all the world, It would have been long ere the Faith would have been propagated to all the world, if this slower method had been taken.  
Num. 7 To this it is consequent, that our Saviour having left the world in common before them, the distribution of that one wider into several lesser Provinces must be an act of the Apostles themselves, as when God had given the land of Canaan to the 12 tribes of Israel, Eleazar, and Josua, and the heads of the Fathers of the tribes distribute to every tribe their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or portion (which because it was to continue to their posterity, we ordinarily style their inheritance) Jos. 14. 1.  
Num. 8 And as there is no doubt of the truth of this fact, so if this one thing be granted me, there is no more incumbent on me to prove in this matter; and though neither of those phrases, Act. 1. 25. should be for my turn, yet my conclusion remains good to me, as far as it pretendeth to be deducible from those phrases, viz: that the Apostles distributed their great Province, the whole world, into several lesser Provinces, one, or possibly more than one to go one way, the other another.  
Num. 9 It was therefore ex abundanti, more than was necessary, that I annexed the use of those phrases to that purpose, not undertaking to prove this (as this Gentleman saith) by those texts, much less Peter's being Apostle of the circumcision (which was a consectary and had its several probation afterwards) but only accommodating those phrases to the matter in hand, and by the way assigning what I thought the most probable notion of them.  
Num. 10 And although it be still as unnecessary to impose my explications on this Gentleman, the conclusion having as yet no use of them, yet being obliged to give him such an account of my actions, as may free me from blasphemy, and abuse of the Word of God, I shall here adventure to make my apology, by premising 1. not out of Grammarians only, but out of the Scripture itself, the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifying originally a lot or way of division (into severals) of that, which belongs to all in common (one means of settling propriety among men) it comes next by an easy figure to signify that which is thus divided, or which in the division falls to every man as his portion.  
Num. 11 So saith Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the verb signifies distribution both active and passive: and accordingly in the son of Syrach we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 division of, or, by lot, Ecclus. 14 15. and by that we may understand a less obvious expression, c. 37. 8. beware of a counsellor, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lest he cast the lot upon thee, i. e. lest he help another to cheat thee, and then go sharer with him, divide thee betwixt them.  
Num. 12 So in like manner saith Phavorinus of the substantive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it signifies a part, that which falls to one's lot, a portion, As Act. 8. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 portion and lot are all one. And he that hath a possession thus settled on him, and dominion by that means, or he that undertakes to dress or till so much land, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Lord and the husbandman, are both the interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that hath such a lot or portion assigned him.  
Num. 13 Proportionably those that any Governor of the Church is set over, are called his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lot, and 1 Pet. 5. 3. such Governors are commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to behave themselves as the Roman Praetors were wont to do over their several Provinces, oppressing and tyrannising over them.  
Num. 14 To this it is agreeable, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 1. 17. should denote such a portion of ministerial office, as belonged to one that was sent or commissionated by Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a task or work, expressed v. 20. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Episcopal office (for that though it be a rule, yet is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ministry, Mat. 23. 11.) in the Church.  
Num. 15 Hence again that portion of employment in preaching the Faith, testifying the resurrection of Christ, which belonged to one single Apostle, such as Judas was, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which he departed by his sin, and to which another succeed● by way of surrogation, is as fitly styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a portion of Apostolacy, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or division of that grand employment.  
Num. 16 And what either one single error or act of blindness was committed in thus interpreting, much more occoecation or being blinded with error, which I suppose the compound accumulation (whether only sin or punishment also) of many errors, what rigour or wretchedness of interpretation, I am still so blind as not to discern, and this Gentleman is not so charitable, as to give me his least directions to recover to my way, or my eyes again.  
Num. 17 For as to the Scriptures expressing the contrary, in saying he was counted among the Apostles, that sure is no evidence against my interpretation, for Mathias may become one of the twelve, succeed to Judas' office and lot, that which did, or should, if he had lived, have belonged to him, and yet neither he, if he had lived, nor now Mathias in his stead, have more than a particular Province, this or that region, (not the whole world in common) assigned for his apartment.  
Num. 18 So that as yet I cannot discern that I have done the least injury to the text in thinking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lot or division of Apostolacy, to be the several task that belonged to any of the twelve Apostles, or that portion of labour, that by consent at their parting one from another should be assigned to each of them.  
Num. 19 And then the analogy will still hold perfectly, that as this distribution of tasks consisted in going to several quarters for the preaching of the faith of Christ, one, one way; another, another; so he that had received his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 portion of Apostolacy, should be said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a peculiar or proper place, and having so, should (not immediately, but soon after the Holy Ghost's descent) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, go, or, betake himself to it.  
Num. 20 This therefore, and upon these grounds of fitness, both in respect of the words, and the context, I take to be the meaning of that phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to go to his proper place, his peculiar assignation, And I cannot imagine the least inconvenience that can lie against this rendering.  
Num. 21 For 1. in case it should not be the true, yet it can be any thing as soon as blasphemy, thus to interpret it. 'Tis certainly nothing to the dishonour of God, to say that Mathias went and preached the Gospel in such a region peculiarly, and so there is no blasphemy in that, viz: the matter of the interpretation; and for the abusing of the Word of God, it is hard to divine how that can be deemed such, which affixeth nothing to the Word of God, but that which is notoriously true (for so it is that Mathias went one way to preach the Gospel, and S. John and S. Bartholomew each of them another) and would be acknowledged to do so, if this text were not applied to it.  
Num. 22 As for the other interpretation of the words (which this Gentleman is pleased to prefer, and might have enjoyed his own judgement, without censuring them as blasphemers, that differed from him in expounding one difficult phrase) by affixing it to Judas, and not to Mathias, 1. there is no indication in the context that favours that, it was sufficient to say of Judas that which had been said v. 16, 17, 18, 19 to set out the horror of his fact, which soon attended it in his own breast, and the bloody death which it brought upon him, but he needed not proceed to revealing of secrets, the sadder consequents, which remained in arrear after death, and 'tis Chrysostome's observation on v. 16. behold, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the wise Christian carriage of S. Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how he doth not reproach, and insult on him, call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, villain, or detestable villain, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but sets down the fact simply, and on v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he sets down, saith he, his present vengeance, that sure is it which befell him in this world, which, by the way, cannot well consist with the interpreting it of hell.  
Num. 23 2. The use of Parentheses in scripture is very ordinary, and if that be here admitted (which it well may, without any more formal expression of it, than by putting a comma after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is already in the printed copies) than the interpretation is clear and unavoidable, to receive the lot or portion of his Ministry and Apostleship (from which Judas by transgression fell) to go, or, that he may go to his proper place.  
Num. 24 3. Hell being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common place or lot of all wicked men, it cannot fitly be expressed with such a double emphasis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the place, the proper place, i. e. the place peculiar to him, which yet may very fitly be affirmed of Mathias his Province, so his, as it was not any man's else.  
Num. 25 Lastly, It is not near so proper to say that he sinned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to go to hell, as that the other was chosen and surrogated into Judas' place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to go to preach to such a quarter of the world, or that the Apostles desired God to signify his pleasure whom he had chosen, that so he might take his portion of labour and go; His going was visibly the end intended in all this, but damnation or punishment, going to hell, was never intended by Judas in his transgression, though it be supposed the deserved reward and consequent of it.  
Num. 26 All this amassed together, may, I hope, vindicate an innocent, and, I hope, obvious (far from wrested) interpretation from such an accumulation of charge, as is laid upon it, without any tender of reason against it, but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, O wretched (blasphemous etc.) in Lucian. And so much in answer to that Paragraph.   

Sect. III.  
S. Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision; The agreement betwixt the Apostles. Peter's preaching to Cornelius.  
Num. 1 HIs second exception is to the position itself of Peter's being the Apostle of the Jews exclusively to the Gentiles, and it is in these words:  
Num. 2 His position is a directly against Scripture, as if he had done it on purpose, the Scripture telling us how by a special vision S. Peter was commanded to preach to Cornelius a Gentile first of all the Apostles, and himself in the Council of Jerusalem protesting the same; and yet this Doctor can teach he was made Apostle to the Jews, exclusively to the Gentiles, though all story say the contrary.  
Num. 3 The position, which is here said to be so directly against the Scripture, was to my understanding the express affirmation of Scripture itself, I am sure from thence it was that I learned it, and I must fail very much in my expectation, if this Gentleman himself do not acknowledge the testimony produced, Gal. 2. 7. to be sufficient ground to infer it. There Peter is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, entrusted with the Gospel of the circumcision, That the circumcision there signifies the Jews, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we render Gospel, the office of preaching or revealing the faith to them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolacy of the circumcision, ver. 8. if it be not of itself plain enough, 'tis made so by ver. 9 where it is added that Peter etc. were by agreement to go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the circumcision, where circumcision, being the object or term of his motion, must needs be the Jews, not circumcision itself, and so Saint chrysostom at large expounds it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to signify the thing, circumcision, but the persons, the Jews, in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles, in the former words, and then going to them must needs be preaching to them, going to them as to a Province, the care of which was entrusted to him; and the right hands of fellowship, the agreement that was made betwixt them, James the Bishop of Jerusalem, and Peter, and the beloved disciple on one side, and Paul and Barnabas on the other side, is side, is sure the interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the being entrusted or having that, as a Province, committed to them.  
Num. 4 And this is the special importance, saith S. chrysostom, of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but chose (the beginning of ver. 7.) as that is opposed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their adding to him v. 6. James, saith he, and Peter and John, were so far from opposing any thing that he had done, from advising any thing more, from telling him any circumstance more than before he knew, that they not only approved, but commended what he had done, and to set the things the more unquestionably for the future, made this agreement with him and Barnabas, that whensoever they should come to the same city, mixed of Jews and Gentiles, Peter and John should betake themselves to the Jewish, and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile part of it. For, as was said, it was not by any particular assignation of Christ's, but by agreement among themselves that this assignation of Provinces was made.  
Num. 5 And therefore as in point of propriety, when that which is supposed to lie by nature in common to all, is, to avoid contentions and confusions, and the state of perpetual hostility, so distributed by agreement among the fellow-communers, as that one portion shall be assigned as the propriety and apartment of one, the other of another, then and from thenceforth that which is the proportion of one, is so his, that it belongs to no other, and again so his, that he hath no right to any other part (which I should express by saying that that part is his exclusively to any other part, for sure his standing to any such division cuts him out, and so excludes him from any farther right) so here after this agreement between those Apostles jointly made, concerning the two parts of mankind, Jews and Gentiles, to which they were to preach, and among whom to preside, the Jews are become S. Peter's peculiar, or portion, or Province, and that so his, as the Gentiles were not his, they being left to S. Paul (and Barnabas) who is both there affirmed to have them committed to him, and Rom. 11. 13. to be the Apostle of the Gentiles; And that I expressed by that phrase, Peter was the Apostle of the Jews (so it is said of him expressly Gal. 2. 8.) exclusively to the uncircumcision] and truly I knew not (nor yet do) how to express it more significatively, and more to the rendering of the full importance of those plain texts, and this Gentleman hath not pleased to direct me how to do it better.  
Num. 6 And having the Scripture thus clear and irrefragable for my position, if now I should not be able to salve the Antinomies, to answer his objections from scripture to it, this were certainly but my dulness (another that hath a greater 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be able to do it) and therefore ought not to be any prejudice to the truth of the affirmation. But unless the difficulties be greater than as yet appear, I shall not much doubt of undertaking the task, of reconciling all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that can be fancied.  
Num. 7 For what if Peter by special vision was once commanded to preach to Cornelius a Gentile? Sure this is very compatible with my position, For not to mention that this is acknowledged to have been a peculiar commission by special vision determined to that particular person and his family, which, till he had this vision, he thought it utterly unlawful to preach to, Act. 10. 28. (And it is certain that one special case were no prejudice to the general position) and again that Cornelius though a Gentile, was yet a Proselyte of the Jews, such as they called a Proselyte of the gates, though not of justice, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or devout man, though not circumcised; To omit these, I say, the answer is obvious, 1. That this agreement, of which I speak, was at the time of Paul's going up to Jerusalem, Act. 15. i. e. some years after this of Peter's preaching to Cornelius, as may appear Gal. 2. 1. which defines it to be about 14 years after S. Paul's conversion, whereas that of Peter's preaching to Cornelius, Act. 10. placed in the next chapter to that which described the conversion of Paul, must needs be some considerable space before this time of his going up to the Council at Jerusalem. And so that of Peter's preaching to Cornelius, and his protesting the same in the Council of jerusalem, hath nothing of opposition to this agreement (made for the future, sure, not for the time passed) what should be done in their after-preaching, I suppose I need add no more to that which is thus evident.  
Num. 8 Secondly, I have already sufficiently 
* Tract of Schism, c. 4. §. 7.  expressed, how far this agreement extended, and how far exclusive it was, not that it should be unlawful for Peter to preach to a Gentile, or for Paul to preach to a jew, but that when they met in the same city (as at Antioch certainly they did, and at Rome also I make no question) than the one should constantly apply himself to the jews, receive disciples, form them into a Church, leave them to be governed by a Bishop of his assignation, and the other should do in like manner to the Gentiles.  
Num. 9 And that this was so in the consequents of the story, is largely showed in that Tract. 
c. 4. §. 8. etc.  What could have been said more punctually to prevent this exception taken from Peter's preaching to Cornelius, I cannot yet discern. I wish this Gentleman had pleased to take notice of it; As it is, I hope he will now be more sure to do so.   

Sect. IU.  
Paul's first preaching to the jews in every city. To what the agreement between him and Peter belonged.  
Num. 1 ANother argument he adds much to the same purpose, which will make his third Exception.  
Num. 2 Again, if he were made the Apostle of the jews, exclusively to the Gentiles, by the same reason S. Paul was made Apostle of the Gentiles exclusively to the jews, for the words are like; and yet the scripture teacheth us that wherever he came, he preached first to the jews: Is not this to make scripture ridiculous?  
Num. 3 Here is great severity again, a charge of making scripture ridiculous, But I hope I have been far from any guilt of it. That S. Paul, whensoever he came to a city, where the faith had not been preached, and where there was any synagogue of the jews, went into that synagogue in time of their public assembling, I never made any question, were this before, or were it after the story of Act. 15. when I suppose this agreement to be made betwixt him and S. Peter, etc.  
Num. 4 Great reason, and no small obligation there was for that; For I. Christ had commanded that the preaching should begin at jerusalem, the Metropolis of the jews, and as to the jews first (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) God had raised up his Son jesus, Act. 3. 26. so the Gospel of the resurrection was to be revealed (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to the jew first, Rom. 1. 16.  
Num. 5 And although in Paul's commission from Christ it were peculiarly express that he should preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, Act. 9 15. & 22. 21. yet according to this great fundamental economy he counted it necessary, first to make tender of his service, and of the glad tidings of the Gospel, to the jews, and so he tells them Act. 13. 46. It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you, and till the jews refuse it and reject it, he doth not betake himself so peculiarly to the Gentiles.  
Num. 6 Again, this was in some measure necessary to his publishing the Faith, For that was most advantageously to be done in the public Assemblies, that it might be known to all that were in the city: And the synagogues of the jews being such, were in all reason by him, that was a jew, to be preferred before the Idolatrous Temples of the heathens: And according to these obligations, and inducements, so generally he did; But then as this no way prejudiceth his title of Apostle of the Gentiles, to which he was at the first assigned by Christ, so neither is it any way contrary to, or unreconcilable with the agreement which I suppose to be made between him and Peter and john, which concerned only those cities and regions, where they met, and came to plant Churches; There, and there only it is, that I affirm this distribution of Provinces to have been made, and consequently the affirmation is no farther in any justice to be extended, than thus, that when they so met, Paul betook himself to the Gentile part, compacted the Gentile proselytes or believers into a Church, put them into the hands of a Bishop of his own assignation, Ignatius at Antioch, Timothy at Ephesus, whereas Euodius was in the former, Bishop of the jewish part, and in the latter, and in all Asia, john was the Apostle of the circumcision, and constituted Bishops there. And this I suppose, without farther enlarging, may satisfy the importunity of his second Argument.   

Sect. V.  
Of the Gentiles being S. Paul's Province peculiarly.  
Num. 1 HIs fourth exception is to my producing the words of scripture, Gal. 2. 7, 9 to the proof of my position, Thus,  
Num. 2 But he goes on telling us, that the Gentiles exclusively to the circumcision were the lot of S. Paul by S. Peter's own confession, his words are, for the uncircumcision or Gentiles they were not S. Peter 's Province, but peculiarly S. Paul 's etc. but look on the place and you shall find no word of exclusion as [pec'iarly] is, and whereon lieth the whole question, so that the Doctor's evidence is his own word against the main torrent of scripture on the other side.  
Num. 3 How truly it is suggested, that the torrent of the scripture is against me, hath already been made manifest in the foregoing sections, where the contrary appearances, by this Gentleman produced, as they are far enough from a main torrent, or from the common force of such, (or but even of an ordinary stream) carrying the whole business before them, so they are severally examined, and allowed, as far as they have any force in them, and found perfectly reconcileable with our pretensions.  
Num. 4 And so likewise it hath already been cleared in what sense this Apostle of the Gentiles, so styled by himself, and so, by agreement betwixt the Apostles, acknowledged by S. Peter, was so, peculiarly or exclusively to the jews.  
Num. 5 As for his argument drawn only from hence, that in the text to the Galatians there is no word of exclusion, that sure is of little force; If there were any agreement, and division, and several assignation of Provinces, it must follow that what was said to be one man's Province, is his, so as it is not the others, and so peculiarly, and so as far as that agreement holds, exclusively his, As in the estate first held in common, and then after by agreement divided, it hath appeared so evidently, that I need add no more to that matter.   

Sect. VI.  
Of S. Peter's withdrawing from the Gentile-communion. Of the Gentile diet. The prudence of S. Peter's action.  
Num. 1 HIs fifth Exception concerns an incidental passage about S. Peter, and is an actio injuriarum.  
Num. 2 Again (saith he) see how he wrongs S. Peter and his jewish Proselytes, where he says he withdrew from all communion with the Gentile Christians. 
Sect. 8, 9  Whereas the text expresseth no more, than that he withdrew from eating with them, that is keeping the Gentile diet.  
Num. 3 What wrong I have done S. Peter and his Gentile Proselytes, I am yet to learn, nor am I sure that I know wherein this Gentleman placeth the supposed injury, But I think it most probable to consist in this, that I say he withdrew from all communion with the gentile Christians, whereas he conceives that he withdrew only from keeping the gentile diet.  
Num. 4 But 1. let me demand of this Gentleman, what he means by Gentile diet? I suppose using those sorts of meats, which were by the Jewish law forbidden; And if that be acknowledged of S. Peter, that he would not thus eat with the Gentiles, lest he should seem to offend against the Jewish law, then by the same reason he must certainly be supposed to abstain from other communion with them, because it was equally against the jewish law, that a jew should converse with a Gentile, as the woman of Samaria tells Christ, when he spoke to her, but to draw him some water, joh. 4. 9 How, said she, dost thou being a jew ask me to drink (and it was but water, none of the interdicted Gentile diet) being a woman of Samaria? and either she or the Evangelist renders the reason, in as comprehensive terms as mine were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, and accordingly v. 27. the disciples marvelled that he talked with the woman. And therefore certainly Peter did abstain from all those other ways of converse and communion with the Gentiles, which the jews thought as unlawful, as eating of the Gentile diet, or else he failed of the end of his action, which is evident what it was, a fear of scandalising his countrymen, and from thence a show of compliance with them, lest he should be thought by those that came from jerusalem to forsake the judaical law.  
Num. 5 That the very Preaching to a Gentile (which was the losest degree of communion) was, according to the jewish principles as unlawful as eating any unclean meat, using the Gentile diet, is plain by Peter's provision, Act. 10. 12. where the one is represented by the other, and had he not received that vision, which made it lawful to him to eat all kind of meats, he acknowledgeth that he durst not have adventured to come to one of another nation, v. 28. affirming in as plain words as could be, that it was an unlawful thing for a man that was a jew to keep company or come to one of another nation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which certainly includes all communion, and not only that of the Genile diet. Thus unhappy is this Gentleman continually in his objections.  
Num. 6 It were here obvious, and easy to show the opinion of the Ancients of the prudence and to kind of uncharitableness of S. Peter's action, which would farther evidence how far I am from wronging S. Peter or his Proselytes, in affirming what I affirm of them. But the present objection doth not make that necessary, I refer the Reader for it to the (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) interpretation, or Comments of 
* Savil: ed: t. 3. p. 730, 731.  S. chrysostom, who sets it down exactly 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  not as a quarrel, but as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an act of prudent managery, a wise ordering, designed by him and S. Paul, as most likely to reduce the jews from their errors, when he that did thus much to comply with them (not for fear of persecution from them, but for fear of averting them from Christianity) and was herein seemingly opposed by S. Paul (the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 11. being not to be rendered, he was to be blamed, in Paul's opinion, but he was blamed by the Gentile Christians) made no manner of reply in defence of that compliance with the jews, and so yielded that S. Paul was in the right, and not the judaizers. This interpretation of chrysostom is followed by the Greek Commentators, and taken up by Jerome, but disliked by Augustine in his Epistles to Jerome, and therefore I lay not weight upon it, nor have my pretensions any need of it.   

Sect. VII.  
The two plantations of Gentile and jewish Christians at Antioch. Euodius and Ignatius. The differences of the Ancients about them reconciled. The two Bishops at Rome. Iewes in England. Simon Zelotes. Gentium Ecclesia the Church of jews as well as Gentiles.  
Num. 1 HAving gained so little by the several steps of his exceptions, and the position remaining still firm against all, I have less reason to suspect what is built upon this foundation in the ensuing sections: Yet against them altogether he casts one stone, before he will part, in those words,  
Num. 2 Upon this wisely laid ground, he would persuade us, followed the division of the Bishoprics both in Antioch and Rome, but bringing not one word of Antiquity proving this to have been the cause, yet is he so certain of it, that he will find a colony of jews even in England, for fear S. Peter should have touched a Gentile, and yet he citys S. Prosper, that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome.  
Num. 3 What force there is in any part of this suggestion, I shall not here need to set down at large. There be three branches of it, 1. That I bring not a word of antiquity to prove (what I say) that this the cause of the divisions of the Bishoprics both in Antioch and Rome. 2. That I will find a Colony of jews in England. 3. That I cite Prosper, that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome.  
Num. 4 For the first, I desire the Reader to review what is already said in the Tract of Schism c. 4. from §. 8. to §. 20. and I shall much wonder if he return of this Gentleman's mind, that there is not one word there brought out of Antiquity to confirm what I say. The short is, It is there manifested from Antiquity, that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul, that there were two Churches there, one of jewish, the other of Gentile Christians, that in those Churches at the same time sat two distinct Bishops, Euodius and Ignatius; by which means some appearing difficulties in ancient writers are explained.  
Num. 5 To what is there said, I shall, instead of repeating, add thus much more. Of Euodius, Suidas' words will be easily turned to, in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. In the reign of Claudius Caesar, Peter the Apostle ordained Euodius Bishop at Antioch. Of Ignatius the 
* l. 7. c. 47.  Author of the Constitutions is express, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ignatius was ordained Bishop there by S. Paul. Now seeing in those Acts of Ignatius which are put together by Simeon Metaphrastes, Ignatius is said to succeed Euodius, as Euodius succeeded Peter (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and the Anonymus ancient writer of the Acts of Ignatius, which remains unprinted, hath the same, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius succeeded Euodius, and seeing this ordination of Ignatius is also said by 
† in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Theodores, and by 
* Epist: ad Zenon:  Felix III. Bishop of Rome to have been done by the hand of Saint Peter, This seeming difference is removed by 
* in Chron: (MS. Oxon:) l. 10.  joannes Malela Antiochenus, who thus sets down the whole matter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, When Peter went to Rome, passing by Antioch the great, Euodius Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch happened to die, and Ignatius (who was, as was said, first constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there) received the Bishopric (that I suppose must now be, of the jewish Province also; over which Euodius had been in his life time) S. Peter ordaining and enthroning him, And so that is become most clear which 
* En●om: Ignat:  S. chrysostom said of this Ignatius, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. the hands of the blessed Apostles, (in the plural, first of Paul, then of Peter) had been laid on Ignatius.  
Num. 6 The other part which concerned Rome, * was so cleared by the words of Epiphanius, 
Sect. 9  who saith of Peter and Paul both, that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostles and Bishops at Rome, and so many other evidences produced to the same purpose, from the inscription on their tombs, by Gaius contemporary to Pope Zephyrinus, by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, by Prosper, by the seals of the Popes, and so again by the Ecclesiastic story, 
Sect. 12.  that makes Clemens S. Peter's Deacon and successor in the Bishopric, and Linus S. Paul's that sure there can be no need of farther proofs or testimonies from Antiquity in this matter.  
Num. 7 Whilst in the mean, other Churches are * instanced in, particularly the Churches of Asia, 
Sect. 14.  wherein S. Paul and S. john had all the command, and S. Peter had nothing to do, whether in planting or governing them, which alone is sufficient to carry the whole matter against S. Peter's universal Pastorship, and no word is by this Gentleman replied to that so considerable a part of my probation, Only instead of it, a far more compendious way, that of the scornful or fastidious scossing at my wisely laid ground, as he pleaseth to call it, and adding that I bring not one word of Antiquity etc.  
Num. 8 As to the second branch of his suggestion, that I will find a colony of jews in England, that is no where said by me, Only thus, that upon supposition, if the saying of Simeon Metaphrastes (speaking of S. Peter's preaching and ordaining Bishops in England, Neronis 12) should be thought to have truth in it, it must be extended no farther than the jews, which might at that time be dispersed there.  
Num. 9 Where, as my conclusion from that supposition is founded in the analogy, that as, where S. Paul and S. Peter met in any plantation, they divided their Province etc. so in reason it ought to be, where S. Peter and Simon Zelotes, or joseph of Arimathea met in like manner, so all that of the jews in England I there affirm, is only this, that it was possible they that were dispersed in so many regions, might be, some of them, dispersed in Britanny, which how improbable soever it may appear at that time, is sure as probable, as that S. Peter preached and ordained Bishops in Britanny, and in consequence to that only it was, that I made the supposition of the possibility of it, knowing it the affirmation of our Antiquaries, that Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes ('tis possible also that Simeon Metaphrastes might mistake Simon Peter for him and then that matter is at an end) planted the faith in this Island.  
Num. 10 As for his last suggestion, that I cite Saint Prosper, that both S Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome, I desire the truth of it may be considered by the words which I cite from him, In ipsa Jerusalem jacobus & joannes apud Ephesum, Andreas & caeteri per totam Asiam, Petrus & Paulus Apostoli in urbe Roma Gentium Ecclesiam pacatam unamque posteris tradentes ex dominicâ pactione sacrârunt, James at Jerusalem, John at Ephesus, Andrew and the rest through all Asia, Peter and Paul at Rome, consecrated the Church of the Nations. What Nations were these, sure of Jews, as well as Gentiles, else Jerusalem could not be any part of them, no nor John's converts at Ephesus, for they were jews, and therefore this Gentleman did not do well to substitute the word Gentiles for Nations, and yet could not, without doing so, have made this exception to my words.  
Num. 11 And so much for exceptions to my first evidence against the Universal Pastorship of Saint Peter.   

Sect. VIII.  
No promise of Keys to S. Peter, which was not made and performed to all the Apostles, Joh. 20. 21. the completion of the promise, Mat. 16. 19 Pasce oves. Joh. 21. an exhortation, not commission.  
Num. 1 THe second sort of Exceptions follows, those against my evidence drawn from the power of the Keys, which I say, and prove both from Scripture, and express testimonies of the Fathers, that it was given equally to all the Apostles; And his exceptions begin thus:  
Num. 2 A second evidence he bringeth from the donation of the Keys, which he saith were given equally to the Apostles, Mat. 28. yet confesseth the Keys were especially promised to S. Peter, Mat. 16. but performed only in common, Mat. 28. which though they may be both true, yet is absurdly said, for who acknowledgeth a special promise, should have found out a special performance, which is done, Joh. 21.  
Num. 3 This exception being not to the matter of what I say, but to the absurdness of the expression (to which censure I must suppose every thing liable, which is contrary to his pretensions, and yet proved so manifestly that it cannot be denied by him) I shall briefly evidence how commodious, and proper the expression was.  
Num. 4 And 1. whereas he sets it down as my confession, that the Keys were especially promised to S. Peter, this is not with truth suggested; My words are, 
Sect. 20.  This power Mat. 16. 19 is promised to S. Peter] But the [especially] is an interpolation of this Gentleman's, to prepare my words for his exceptions, for which otherwise they were no way qualified.  
Num. 5 All that can be fetched from any words of mine toward this sense, is, that in the next Section, I foresaw, and so mentioned an objection from Christ's making this promise to him peculiarly (and yet even that is not, to him especially, but to him particularly, or singly, I will give unto thee etc.) To this, as to an objection, I presently made reply, that the repetition of that promise Mat. 18. 18. to all the Apostles indefinitely, and without any peculiarity of restriction (I say to you, in the plural, and, Whatsoever ye shall bind &c.) will take away all appearance from this objection.  
Num. 6 And so it will from this Gentleman's exception also, For if what was at one time promised to S. Peter singly, was so soon after promised to all the Apostles indefinitely, what absurdity is there in seeking no other performance of this promise, than that which was at once afforded to all the Apostles together, in the descent of the Holy Ghost, when the fire, that represented that Spirit, divided and sat upon every one of them, and they were all filled with the holy Ghost, and no show of peculiarity, or mark of especial eminence to S Peter in all this.  
Num. 7 As suppose a General should promise a Commission this day to one, and to morrow should make the like promise to eleven more, that one being in their company, and then, upon a set day, some weeks after, should send 12 Commissions sealed to those 12, one for each of them, I wonder who would doubt of the exact performance of this promise to that first, or seek for any more special performance of it.  
Num. 8 But this Gentleman having fancied a special promise (as that is with him somewhat more than a particular promise, for otherwise a common performance might have served the turn, it being certain that an Universal contains every particular under it) must needs have a special performance, and that joh. 21. I suppose in those words of Christ to S. Peter, Feed my sheep, and, Feed my lambs, thrice repeated.  
Num. 9 But for this, 1. I cannot acknowledge that it hath any particular reference to the words of the promise, Mat. 16. 19 The promise was, I will give thee the Keys— and, Whatsoever thou shalt bind— And sure the direct completion of this, as far as could be expected from Christ personally, whilst he was here on earth, is that of joh. 20. 21. where, as the sending or commissionating is answerable to giving the Keys, the insigne of the OEconomus, so remitting and retaining of sins is all one with the binding and losing.  
Num. 10 As for that which is after this Chap. 21. It is I. by that very position of it; but 2. more by the occasion; and yet more 3. by the matter of the words, prejudged from being any more than an exhortation to discharge that duty, for which in the former Chap: he, with the rest of the twelve, had received his commission, and so is still as far from being a special performance, as that of Matth. 16. had been from a special promise.  
Num. 11 The Pasce oves, Feed my sheep and lambs, thrice repeated, was certainly a direction to him how he might approve his love to that Master and Saviour, whom he had thrice renounced, testify it now to be a sincere constant love (such as would cast out all fear of danger, through which formerly he had fallen) by an eminent diligence in discharge of that Pastoral office, which was entrusted to him, but 'twas not so much as an intimation, that his diligence would be actually greater than all others (for sure S. Paul said truth, that he laboured more abundantly than they all, of whom S. Peter was one) but rather that he, that after such professions had fallen so foully, had the more need now of having this proof of his love inculcated and pressed, lest he should fail again (much less is it a sealing any power or authority to him, above that which before had been conferred on him, and with him on those others also.  
Num. 12 And nothing being here offered to prove that there was any more of energy, or special commission in these words, but only the thing crudely affirmed, by naming joh. 21. there is no need of making any farther answer, a bare denial is a proportionable return to an unproved affirmation.  
Num. 13 Only this I shall add, that 'tis certain that S. Peter thus underslood the reiteration of Christ's question, as a reproach of his three denials; The Text saith, Peter was grieved, because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? Which sure he would not have been, if he had looked on it, as an introduction to so great a preferment, as it must be, if the supremacy and Universal Pastorship of the Church were by those words conferred on him.   

Sect. IX.  
Of the peculiarity of the power given to S. Peter.  
Num. 1 TO this head of discourse about the power of the Keys follows a second Exception in these words,  
Num. 2 Again he would persuade the world that the Catholic Church holdeth, none had the Keys but S. Peter, 
Sect. 2.  calling it a peculiarity and enclosure of S. Peter, as if the other Apostles had them not, which is a calumny.  
Num. 3 How far I have been in this matter from calumniating the whole Catholic Church, or any one member of it, will appear by this brief review of what is there said, It is this, The power of the Keys is promised S. Peter, Mat. 16. but to him that from hence, i. e. from the promising it to him singly in that place, pretends this donative and consequent power as a peculiarity and enclosure of Peter's, two considerations are there offered, and thought sufficient to supersede any such conclusion.  
Num. 4 Here certainly a bare supposition will not be the accusing or consequently accusing falsely, i. e. calumniating of any. If no man say this, besides my losing my pains in superseding such a (but possible) conclusion, there is no other harm done. Only I shall demand, Is that promise of the Keys to Saint Peter, Mat. 16. made use of by a Romanist to prove Christ's promise of some special power to S. Peter, which was not promised to the other Apostles? If this Gentleman answer, No; then 1. I must infer, that this Gentleman is no Romanist, because in this very page he mentions the first words of this text, Tues Petrus, as one of the two most considerable texts of Scripture, fit to be alleged for S. Peter's supremacy. 2. I shall conclude from this his present supposed negation, together with his own words in the last Paragraph, that the words of Christ, joh. 21. Feed my sheep etc.] were not the instating of any power on S. Peter, which was not common also to the rest of the Apostles, for those words joh. 21. were, saith he, a special performance, answerable to that promise of the Keys to Peter, Mat. 16. as a special promise, and consequently if there were nothing in that promise peculiar to S. Peter, there was nothing in that performance peculiar to him. And so neither he nor any Romanist must henceforth conclude any thing for S. Peter from either of those particular addresses of Christ to him, Mat. 16. or joh. 21. which they will not equally yield from thence to all the other Apostles; And than that will more compendiously perform what I by a greater circuit of considerations endeavoured to do, i. e. supersede all the Romanists conclusions from one or both these places; for certainly if they pretend not to infer somewhat for S. Peter, which is not by them equally granted to all the rest of the Apostles, all that those texts will be able to do, is to confute the Presbytery, not to establish the Papacy, no more being from hence deducible for the Bishop of Rome the successor of one Apostle, than for the several other Bishops, successors of the other Apostles.  
Num. 5 But if upon the sight of these consequences, he shall now say, that in this of Mat. 16. 19 there is any thing, be it never so little (so as to be capable of the phrase a special promise) insured upon S. Peter, which was not elsewhere promised also to the other Apostles, I shall then conclude, that it seems I have not calumniated him, or the Church which he defends, in saying that they make this power a peculiarity and enclosure of Saint Peter, for so it must be, if it belong to him and not to others.  
Num. 6 And 'tis not sufficient to say that the power of the Keys was common to him with the other Apostles, but yet some other special power was there reserved to S. Peter, For of that specialty, whatsoever it is, my present Dilemma proceeds, and desires to be informed, whether any Romanist conclude it from that text of Mat. 16. and if he do not, than the inconveniences will press him, which I have here mentioned. If he do than I shall now conclude anew (not that the Catholic Church, but) that this Catholic Gentleman holds that which he will not be able to prove, because there is not the least minute portion of power promised to him in that 16 Chap: which is not elsewhere promised to all the Apostles; Peter is called a stone, on which the Church shall be built, and to Peter the Keys are promised; and the twelve Apostles are in like manner, and all equally twelve foundation-stones of the same building, and the Keys are equally promised to all them. And this being there proved at large §. 21. and the probations extended, not only to the power of the Keys, but (after) to the compellation of Tues Petrus (and they will be extensible to all the most diminutive imaginary fractions of either of those powers) I shall farther conclude, that whatsoever he shall now return to this Dilemma, will equally secure me from having calumniated either him, or the Church maintained by him.   

Sect. X.  
Sitting on twelve Thrones, Mat. 19  
Num. 1 HIs third Exception to this Chap: is to another interpretation of mine, which it seems hath not the luck to approve itself to him, Thus,  
Num. 2 I cannot pass without noting another odd interpretation of Scripture, in his 20 Sect. out of Mat. 19 speaking of the twelve Thrones at the day of Judgement, he explicates, to rule or preside in the Church.  
Num. 3 I do acknowledge to understand the twelve Thrones, Mat. 19 of the Apostles ruling and presiding in the Church, and S. Augustine long before so understood it, and if Christ's sitting on the throne of his glory may be the interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether it be rendered in the regeneration, or in the resurrection, meaning thereby Christ's resurrection and ascension to the throne of his glory, there will then be no difficulty so to understand it, that when Christ was gone to heaven, these should succeed him in the government of his Church on earth, and so (as the Phylarchae ruled and judged the several tribes of Israel) exercise judicature, bind and lose, excommunicate and absolve in the Church, no one having the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any more than of order, among them.  
Num. 4 But this Gentleman gives no reason for preferring any other interpretation, only calls mine an odd one, And when I have replied first, that this place comes in ex abundanti, only as it is (being thus interpreted) in concord with that other of Mat. 16. & 18. and therefore secondly, it is not an odd one, and thirdly, the cause in hand will stand as firm, though this interpretation should be found to have no truth in it: fourthly, that my interpretation is reconcileable with his, and therefore his, if granted, will not be exclusive of mine, they that shall judge the world hereafter may for some time have presided in the Church, and so also judged here; fifthly, that this place, and the grounds of this interpretation are 
* Annot: on Mat. 19 d. and Power of Keys, c. 5. §. 13.  elsewhere insisted on at large, I shall need add no more to this single dislike of his, in this place.   

Sect. XI.  
The equivalence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Twelve foundation-stones.  
Num. 1 HE concludes with some show of dislike of what I had said to the vulgar place of Tues Petrus, Thus,  
Num. 2 His quibbling about the word is so light a thing, as it is not worth consideration, the sense being plain, that upon Peter the Church was built specially, though not with exclusion of others.  
Num. 3 What I said of the equivalence and perfect identity of the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. for a stone, seemed to me particularly useful to the understanding of the meaning of Christ's speech, when he said, he would build his Church on this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. this stone. For not to mention what hath by divers of the Ancients been said of that text, applying it not to the person of S. Peter, but to the faith, where of he than had newly made confession, I was here willing to grant the Romanist the utmost that he could pretend to, viz: that the person of Peter was that Petra or stone, on which Christ promised to build his Church: And why this Gentleman should be so unwilling to be gratified, or why the setting down the bare notation of the Greek word, should deserve his reproach, and be called quibbling or levity, I profess I can render no reason but his haste, which permitted him not to consider either the undeniable truth, or his own advantages from what was said.  
Num. 4 The force of my answer lay in another branch of that fourth Section, viz: that this stone, from whence Peter had his name, peculiarly relating to a building, and so being to be considered as a foundation stone, not only he, but all the rest of the Apostles were herein made equal with Peter, being all partakers of this common appellation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twelve foundations, Apoc. 21. 14. and those by circumstances in that text manifested to have an equal proportion of power and Province assigned to each of them. And to this there is nothing here answered by this Gentleman, and his unprovoked quarrel at that, which was said concerning the nature of the word, is an indication that he had nothing more to object to it.  
Num. 5 When therefore he saith, that on Peter the Church was built especially, I demand what he means by specially? If no more than that he was one special person, on whom the Church was built, than I grant it, and reply, that so was John, and so was Andrew, and so was every other of the twelve, a special foundation-stone of the Church. But if by [specially.] he mean in an extraordinary, or more eminent manner, than any of the other Apostles, Then I answer, 1. that Christ's telling him he was a stone on which he would build his Church, implies no such matter, the other Apostles each of them are by Christ, in vision to S. John, affirmed to be foundations of this building, as well as he; 2. That among foundation-stones there is but one, that hath any eminence above others, and that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the chief or head-corner-stone, and that title belongs not to S. Peter (as neither to any other Apostle) but only to Christ himself, Ephes. 2. 20. And so still nothing belongs to Peter in this matter of being a stone or foundation, which doth not equally appear to belong to those others, as well as him. And so much for the vindicating of the Evidences set down in the fourth Chapter.    

CHAP. V. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the fifth Chapter.  

Sect. I.  
Of slight passing over Pasce oves, and Tues Petrus.  
Num. 1 THe first thing he here excepts against, is my too slight passing over two, which he thinks the most considerable texts, to support the supremacy of S. Peter, In these words,  
Num. 2 In the fifth Chapter he lightly passeth over the two most considerable Texts of Scripture fit to be alleged for S. Peter's supremacy, viz: Feed my sheep, and, Thou art Peter: because they have no appearance, and have been often answered: Why no appearance? because he and his fellows say so, and as if being so often repeated was not as likely to show the answer was naught, as the answering to impeach the ob●ecter: but who understands the principles of Catholic Faith, knows, that as well for other points of our Faith, as for this of S. Peter's supremacy we rely not only upon such places of Scripture.  
Num. 3 For this of the light passing over those two places of Scripture, I think I can give a very reasonable account, 1. From his own words p. 10. where he tells me that I am mistaken in thinking that the Catholic ought too prove that the Pope hath an universal Primacy, For if he be not obliged to prove it, if the right pretended depend wholly upon possession, why should not I make haste, through those proofs, which some have ex abundanti (as to him it seems) made use of.  
Num. 4 Secondly, I did in the simplicity of my heart verily believe (what here is recited from me) that those two texts had so very little appearance of strength in them, and this so often manifested by the variety of answers made to them by our writers, that no Romanist would in earnest have laid such weight on them, as to require of me a more punctual answer to them, than I had before given in the former Chapter. There I had evidenced that the whole world was not S. Peter's province, but only one portion of one part of the world, the Jewish believers in Antioch and Rome etc. the Gentile Christians in those very cities being under S. Paul, and the Jewish of other conntreys under other Apostles, those of Asia under John etc.  
Num. 5 This to my understanding made it evident, that in case Christ's Pasce oves etc. Feed my sheep and my lambs, were granted to be a form of commission, instating of power on him, it must yet be restrained to his particular Province, so as to leave other his fellow Apostles their Provinces also, and not extended to an Universal Pastorship.  
Num. 6 But then when this farther consideration was behind, that indeed this of Pasce oves] was not the form of commission to S. Peter, but that in the former Chapter, Joh. 20. 21. as my Father sent me, so send I you etc. and that to S. Peter in common with the rest of the Apostles, and not the least indication of any branch of power appropriated to him (on which I have already insisted in this Reply, though in that Tract of Schism I did not think it necessary) I hope I may have pardon for not returning to a strict survey of it in that fifth Chapter.  
Num. 7 As for that of Tues Petrus, that was the very text wherein the donation of the Keys was promised to S. Peter, Mat. 16. 18. and that had particularly been examined in both parts of it, both as to the Keys, and the compellation, in the fourth Chap: and the Keys promised him, manifested by other texts to belong equally to all the other Apostles, and so the compellation of stone, or (which is all one, as was there showed) foundation, or foundation-stone in the building of the Church, bestowed equally upon the rest of the twelve Apostles also. And so considering what I had already done myself, and what others had done much more largely, there remained little appearance of force in those texts, which might suggest to me a more diligent survey of them. And all these together, if not two of them alone, were a competent reason of passing lightly over them in that fifth Chapter, where I was engaged in a new stage, i. e. of not returning afresh, and loco non suo, to a yet larger consideration of them.  
Num. 8 I should now from this notice of his displeasure endeavour to pacify him by reforming my former omission, and enter upon a yet more solemn survey of these two texts, but that I see him already resolved not to trust his cause to the support which those texts can afford him, telling me in the close, that he relies not only on such places of Scripture, and if I should dwell longer upon them, I should be thought impertinent, and again reprehended, as forgetting what matter I handle, And therefore till he please to tell me how far he relies on them, and show me that I have not yet removed them from being a foundation so far to be relied on, I shall spare mine own and the Readers pains, and flatter myself, that I have said much more to invalidate any conclusion, which he shall infer to his advantage from these two places, than he hath yet said in my hearing, to confirm his pretensions from both or either of them.   

Sect. II.  
The Bishop of Antioch's title from succession to S. Peter equal to the Bishops of Rome. Peter form a Church there. His dying at Rome no argument.  
Num. 1 AFter his velitation he now proceeds to the weightier impression, excepting first to an argument taken from the Primogeniture of Antioch, Thus,  
Num. 2 Next he urgeth that if the succession to S. Peter were the base of the Pope's supremacy, Antioch should be the chief See, because S. Peter sat there, wherein to omit his first and second question, whereof the first is untrue, I answer to the third negatively, that the constituting a Church and Bishop at Antioch, before at Rome, did confer no privilege extraordinary on that Church, and the reason is clearly deduced out of his second Quaere, because it was before Rome, for he could not give any such authority, but by divesting himself, since there cannot be two heads to one body, and therefore this authority and privilege of S. Peter can rest and be no where but where he died.  
Num. 3 In this matter I must first premise what I had warned the Reader of in that 5 Chap. §. 2. that what I there produced against the power of the Bishop of Rome, under the notion of successor to S. Peter, was perfectly ex abundanti, more than needed, the whole matter being sufficiently concluded in the former Chapter, which concerned S. Peter's person, and had showed that S. Peter himself had no Universal Pastorship belonging to him, or supremacy over any other Apostle, from whence it was evidently consequent, that to his successor, as such, no such power pertained.  
Num. 4 This being premised, I did not pretend, that what should then follow, should proceed with that evidence as to demonstrate again what was so sufficiently cleared already, Only to those, whose curiosity was not satisfied, when their reason was, I proposed some considerations, which pretended to no more than this, that beside that Peter had no supremacy, there were also other defects in the Bishop of Rome's tenure, particularly this, that he did no more succeed S. Peter, than the Bishop of Antioch did, nay, that S. Peter having left a successor Bishop at Antioch, before he did at Rome, the Bishop of Antioch had in a manner the Primogeniture, and by that, as good (if not a better) title to praeeminence, as any the Bishop of Rome had, upon that tenure of succession from S. Peter.  
Num. 5 Now to this part of discourse which pretended but to probability, there can lie no exception, unless it appear either to be untrue in any part, or in the whole less probable than what is offered by the Romanist for the other side; And this is now to be examined.  
Num. 6 And 1. saith he, the first question is untrue; But he is so reserved as not to express his reason for so saying. I shall therefore give my reasons to the contrary, 1. because a question cannot be untrue, all truth and falsehood being in affirmations and negations (and ask a question, or proposing a thing to consideration whether it be so or no, is neither of those) in answering not in ask of questions.  
Num. 7 Secondly, Because this question being resolved into an affirmation, viz: that Peter as truly planted a Church at Antioch, and left a successor Bishop there, as he is or can be supposed to have done at Rome, it relies on the uncontradicted Testification of ancient writers.  
Num. 8 By planting a Church I mean not that he was the first that preached the Gospel at Antioch (though Leo the Great seems to affirm it, (in Antiochenà Ecclesiâ primùm praedicante beato Apostolo Petro, Christianum nomen exortum est, Ep: 53.) and from thence pleads the right of precedence to belong to that Church, (in paternae constitutionis ordine perseveret) against Anatholius Bishop of Constantinople) for that seems by S. Luke to be attributed to those that were scattered abroad upon the persecution that rose about S. Stephen, Act. 11. 19 but his forming them into a Church or regular assembly. And that so he did, and left Euodius Bishop there, and after his death Ignatius the Martyr, is elsewhere manifested at large, and I shall not repeat it, but only add one Testimony (which I suppose will be authentic with him) of Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, Ep: 62. to Maximus Bishop of Antioch, bidding him be mindful of that doctrine, quam praecipuus Apostolorum omnium, beatissimus Petrus per totum mundum quidem uniformi praedicatione, sed speciali Magisterio in Antiochenâ & Romanâ urbe fundavit. Where it is the clear affirmation of that Pope, that S. Peter founded the doctrine of Christ first in Antioch, then in Rome by a special authority, or power, or magistery, which he had in those two cities, more than in the rest of the world. And so I cannot guess what untruth there could be in that affirmation, if it had been such, which was but a consideration, or question, as he calls it.  
Num. 9 Next, he saith, that S. Peter's constituting a Church and Bishop at Antioch, before he did the like at Rome, is a proof that he conferred no extraordinary privilege on Antioch, and renders the reason for it, because he could not do it without divesting himself, and consequently this privilege must rest no where but where he died, and consequently at Rome only, because he died there.  
Num. 10 That he left any extraordinary privilege at Antioch I do not believe, any more than he did so at Rome, and therefore I cannot be required to prove any more than this, that it is as reasonable for me to affirm it of Antioch upon the title of succession, as for him to assume it of Rome, upon the same title.  
Num. 11 From Christ there is nothing that will fix it at Rome, rather than at Antioch, and in the Law of Nations concerning inheritances, nothing is or can be applied to this purpose. It must needs be then from the free act of S. Peter's will, whatsoever is pretended to. And in respect of that 'tis sure as reasonable to believe, that he which planted a Church, and placed a Bishop first in one, after in another city, should delegate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double portion, the greater dignity and privileges to the former as to the latter. If the right of Primogeniture be no right in this matter, yet sure the younger sister hath neither law, nor custom, that the inheritance should belong to her.  
Num. 12 And for his own reason here offered, that it cannot belong to the Elder, that is no reason; For S. Peter might do, as Christ did, make an assignation of power in his life time, fix it by promise, yet not divest himself of it till his death, And if S. Peter had done so, if at his planting a Bishop at Antioch, on consideration that in that city they were first called Christians, he had decreed that after his own death that Bishop should succeed to all that authority, which he had received from Christ, with power to communicate it to any, I shall ask this Gentleman whether he might not have done it without either divesting himself whilst he lived, or making two heads to one body, or whether his bare dying at Rome, would have invalidated any such former act of his, in case he had done so. If it would, there must then be more owing to his death than to his life, to his martyrdom than to his preaching or ordaining of Bishops, that this privilege belongs to Rome. And then again Jerusalem, where Christ himself died, will by that title of his blood shed there, have a more unquestionable right, than that city where Peter did but faintly transcribe that copy, which had in a more eminent manner been set him by Christ.  
Num. 13 Lastly, if by this argument of Rome's being the place where Peter died, the supremacy had belonged to that See, precisely or peculiarly, how could it be transferred to Avenion, as we know it was, and there continued for some time? But I shall no longer insist on such fiction of case, as this, if that had been which never was, what then would certainly have followed, whether if S. Peter had been Universal Pastor, it must eo ipso be concluded that his successor of Rome, and not at Antioch was such after him, when it hath been rendered evident in the former Chapter, that S. Peter had no such supremacy.   

Sect. III.  
The Act of the Council of Chalcedon; of the ground of Rome's precedence. The safety of the Church reconcileable with removing the chief See. Of the Bishop of Constantinople being ashamed of that act. No tumult in the Council. The story of it.  
Num. 1 THe next dislike is to my deriving the original of that precedence which belongs to Rome, as the Council of Chalcedon had derived it, Thus,  
Num. 2 Then he tells you that the dignity or precedence of the Bishop of Rome is surely much more fitly deduced by the Council of Chalcedon from this, that Rome was then the Imperial city, or ordinary residence of the Emperor: a very wise judgement, that the quality upon which the unity, that is the safety of the Church Universal relies, should be planted upon a bottom fallible and subject to fail, but the resolution was so shameful, that the very Patriarch was ashamed, and imputed it to his ambitious clergy, who how tumultuary and unruly they were, is to be seen in the Acts of the Council.  
Num. 3 Here two objections are made to the wisdom of that Act or judgement of that Council, and I that foresaw it would be thus rejected by him, 
Sect. 5.  and from thence observed how little Counsels are considered by them, when they define not as they would have them, and therefore laid no more weight on that Canon, than the Romanists very rejecting it allowed me, might now spare the pains of defending the judgement of that Council. Yet it is so easy to return answer in few words to his two objections, that I shall not decline doing it.  
Num. 4 To the first, that the precedence of Rome, which there I speak of, being a Primacy only of dignity and order, and not of Power, is no such quality, on which the unity and safety of the Church relies. For how can that be concerned what Bishop sits uppermost, gives the first or last suffrage in a Council? This Gentleman thinks of a supremacy of power, when he thus speaks, but that he cannot but know is denied by us to be placed in any one Bishop, and therefore must not imagine me to assign the original of that, to which I deny a being. And it matters not though he say I am injurious in denying it, for besides that that is petitio principii on his side, to say so, 'tis also certain that the question now betwixt us in this Paragraph, is not whether I am just in denying that supremacy, but whether it be more than a Primacy of order, which I divolve to this original.  
Num. 5 Nay if I had spoken of the supremacy itself, and fixed it on a bottom so far fallible, as that it might be removed by the change of Empires from one city to another, if it were but resolved that the supreme Ecclesiastical power, and so the fountain of unity should follow the Imperial seat, I see not why the safety of the Church might not by this means be provided for.  
Num. 6 Let it but be judged of in little first, as it is easily supposeable. Suppose the Church of England 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nay for argument's sake, suppose there were no other Church but that of England, and suppose there were a supremacy in one Bishop, in him, whosoever were the Bishop of that city, where the royal throne were placed, and suppose that that were for the present removed to York, and so that the Bishop of York were the supreme Bishop, and by that means the unity and safety of the Church competently provided for, I shall then demand, in case the royal seat should be removed to Winchester, could there be any question, but the supreme Episcopal See would be removed so too? and might not all appeals be made from thenceforth to Winchester, and the safety of the Church be as well provided for by this way, as by its being fixed unmovably at York?  
Num. 7 The Primacy we know hath oft thus been removed, and never more inconvenience come of it, than by S. Peter's See being removed to Avenion. And if any supremacy belonged to any succession of Bishops over the whole world, and that were never mutable, but by the removal of the Imperial seat, a certain, illustriously visible thing, it is not easily discernible, how this should more prejudice the safety of the Church, than the change of that power from one Bishop that dies, to his successor in the same See. But this is still much more than needed to have been said.  
Num. 8 As for the Patriarch's (I suppose he must mean of Constantinople) being ashamed of that resolution of that Council, and imputing it to his ambitious Clergy, ●. he gives us not any testimony for this, only saith, that in the Acts of that Council may be seen how tumultuary and unruly they were. And to that affirmation, and that not very pertinent roof of it, I have two things to say, which indeed the Acts of that Council, and the Epistles both of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, and Leo Bishop of Rome may assure us to have truth in them. 1. That if by being ashamed be meant retracting or renouncing this resolution of the Council, It than hath no truth in it, that the Patriarch was ashamed.  
Num. 9 For ●. it is so evident that of all Leo's reprehensions in this matter of the Primacy adjudged him by that Council, Anatolius chose to take no notice, and to return no answer, that Leo tells the Emperor of it, Ep: 59 maluit praedictus Antistes meam gratulationem tacere, quam suam ambitum publicare, and chargeth it upon Anatolius himself, that he made no reply to what he had said to him; Ad quas cum non rescriberes ipse te à colloquii nostri consortio separâsti, by not making any return to my admonitory letters, thou hast thyself separated thyself from the communion of our discourse. Ep: 71.  
Num. 10 'Tis true indeed when Leo charged it upon him, as an act of ambition and pride, that he had procured that Canon to be made (as he doth at large, 
* Colon: Edit. fol. 118.  Ep: 53. making it an invasion of the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch his right settled by the Council of Nice, and so in his 
* Ep: ●4 fol. 119.  Epistle to Martian the Emperor, and 
† Ep: 55. fol. 120.  another to the Empress Pulcheria) Anatolius writing to him upon occasion, tells him that the Clergy of the Church of Constantinople, and 
* Culpam, quam de augendâ potestate, alienâ (ut asseris) adhortatione contraxeras, etsi non ad sola Clericorum sonfilia transtulisses. Leo. Ep: 71.  not he, brought this matter before the Council, and therefore Leo needed not be so angry with him, and complain so sharply against his ambition.  
Num. 11 And this I suppose is it which this Gentleman must refer to, if there be the least colour of truth in his suggestion; But sure this disclaiming of pride or ambition in what was done, regularly, according to a long continued custom, and the Canon of the Council of Constantinople is much more the justifying his innocence, than the acknowledgement of any fault, an act of confidence and assurance, no indication either of guilt or shame, no disowning the dignity confirmed to him by the Council.  
Num. 12 Many evidences there are in the story of those times that the Bishop of Constantinople did no way reject this power and dignity, which that Council had confirmed to him; 'tis annexed to the Acts of that Council, how he exercised it in an eminent manner on the Patriarch of Alexandria, Leo the Emperor having put wholly into his hands the judging of a great affair, and quieting a disturbance in that Church, see the 
* Edit: Paris: Tom: 3. p. 504. etc.  third part of that Council of Chalcedon. In which matter may be observed that in the Epistle of the Egyptian Bishops, and Clergy of Alexandria, in a recitation of the Bishops of the whole world, the first place being reserved to Leo the Bishop of Rome, the second is given 
* Ibid p. 506. B.  Regiae Constantinopolis Anatolio, to Anatolius of Constantinople the Royal seat, and then follow Basil of Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jerusalem.  
Num. 13 And indeed if it be but remembered, 1. That what was done here at Chalcedon was for the main but the reciting and confirming what was done formerly at the Council of Constantinople (a judgement, saith 
* Lib. 2. in fine.  Euagrius, that this matter was well-ordered already, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and what the Bishop of Constantinople held by Custom before that Council also, 
* Epist: Concil: Chalt add Leon: Pap: Concil: t. 3 p. 475. B.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a custom that had been long in force, and 
* subscript: Eleu●herii Chalced: Ep: Ibid: p. 46. F.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a precedaneous custom etc. Secondly, that this was done by this Council (if their professions may be believed) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not so much to add any thing to the See of Constantinople, as to provide for the quiet of other Metropoles in Asia, Pontus and Thracia. Thirdly, that the Council attested all this, and sent a relation of it to the Bishop of Rome, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being persuaded that he being rightly informed would receive and confirm it, though his Legates had obstinately opposed it. Fourthly, That all the objections, which the Pope or his Legates had to it, were proposed and clearly answered in the 
* Concil: ●. 3. p 460.  Council; that of the contrariety of the Canon to the decree of the Council of Nice, by reading that Decrce, and showing that it was perfectly reconcileable to it; That of invading the rights of the Metropoles of Asia, Pontus and Thracia, by the several Bishops of those regions being examined by the Emperor's proxies, 
p. 461. D.  whether they consented to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by their own will, or by any necessity imposed on them, and their several cheerful answers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I subscribed willingly as in the presence of God, and the like; To which if we add the depression of the Bishop of Antioch, which 
* ad Maxim. Antioch: Ep: 62. fol 124.  Leo objects, it is likewise answered by Maximus the Bishop of Antioch his subscription to this Canon. Lastly, that as this was enacted, by 
* Tom: 6. An: 454 N. 13. etc.  Baronius' own confession by 600 Bishops, i. e. by the whole Council, not only by a party of it, So the Bishop of Constantinople Anatolius 
* p. 453.  subscribed it in the first place, and next after him the Bishop of Antioch, there will be no possibility of finding any truth in this Gentleman's affirmation, that the Patriarch was ashamed of this judgement of the Council.  
Num. 14 It is much more reasonable to affirm on the other side, that the Pope, though not Leo, was ashamed of his opposing it, for within 30 years after, we find Felix Herald of his own accord consenting to his Primacy, and acknowledging Acacius Bishop of Constantinople to have power over the Bishops that were under him, Ep: 1 and Innocent III. confirms it with a solemn constitution ap: Antiqua: de Privileg: that I add not the establishment of it again by the Council of Florence, sess: ult: in lit. Unions.  
Num. 15 As for the reason which is here offered to confirm the truth of his affirmation, it hath itself no truth in it, and so cannot be a reason of the affirmation. It is not true; for there was no tumult nor unruliness in the Council, only the Pope's Legates opposed the Canon, and made their complaint to the Judges, and were heard most regularly in all they could pretend, and at length the Canon was defined by the cheerful consent of all but them. See the story of it in Binius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:  
Num. 16 After the passing of the Canon, the Legates, Paschasinus and Lucentius make their address to the Judges, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that supplied the Emperor's place, who bade them speak what they would have; They say, that yesterday, after the Judges and they were risen, some things were done against the Canons, and desire they may be read. That was appointed to be done; but first Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople makes a relation, how after matters of faith agreed on, they proceeded according to the manner to some constitutions, in these they desired the Legates to join with them, they refused saying, they had received commands from Rome to do so, which being remonstrated to the Judges they had bid the Council proceed, and hereupon the Council had unanimously decreed; Appealing to them all, whether it were not true, nothing being done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, clancularly or by stealth, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of course, regularly and canonically. Then the Canon was read, being a plain recitation of what was before done in the Council of Constantinople, and then all the subscriptions follow. Then the Legates desire it may be inquired, whether none have subscribed by force, suggesting that the Constantinopolitan Canon was contrary to the Nicene; Thereupon the Canons were both read, and upon the Judge's appointment, they that were most concerned, the Bishops of Asia, Pontus, and Thracia, who were now brought under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, being supposed formerly to be free, were called out severally and asked whether they had acted under any force, and they severally profess the contrary. 
p. 463.  Whereupon the Judge's sum up the business and conclude, that they had weighed all, and found that none had injury, the privileges of the Bishop of Rome were preserved entire according to the Canons, and that the Bishop of new Rome, Constantinople, was to have equal privileges with him, &c And this being their sense, they desire the whole Council to deliver theirs, and they all cried out, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This is a just sentence. This we all say, let this be consigned and confirmed, desiring they may now be dismissed every man to his home, and so the Judges pronounce, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Synod hath confirmed all.  
Num. 17 No dissent of any but of the Legates, and that, it seems, went for nothing when the rest so universally consented; so far is this suggestion from all show of truth, that the Clergy of Constantinople were tumultuary and unruly.  
Num. 18 If any the least unruliness there were, it was on the Legate's part, who would thus stand out and complain without the least reason to do so, not on the Counsels, which proceeded according to the precedent custom and Canon, and such grounds to which neither the Pope nor his Legate did then so much as object any thing, viz: the same title by which Rome itself ascended to her greatness, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  by being the Imperial city.   

Sect. IU.  
The Pope's judging in his own cause. His Legates suffrages in Counsels, Of what necessity. Antioch's equality to Rome. Constantinople preferred to no more but a Patriarchy. The dignity of the Bishop of Rome merely from Rome's being the Imperial city.  
Num. 1 IN this matter of that Council of Chalcedon two exceptions more he offers (which are not so weighty but they may be put together) in these words,  
Num. 2 Secondly, he cavilleth at the privilege of Supreme Magistracy, calling it a method of security beyond all amulets: then he tells us of Antioch's being equal to Rome, and that Constantinople desired but the same privileges, against the very nature of the story; for Constantinople being then a Patriarchy, if that made it equal to Rome, as this Doctor feigneth, what did it pretend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for? seeing the Doctor assumes before that all Patriarches were equal, neither Rome itself, and less Antioch had cause to complain.  
Num. 3 For the former of these, which he calls my cavilling at the privilege of supreme Magistracy, that sure is but gratis dictum, and a begging of that, which in the whole controversy he knows to be most denied him.  
Num. 4 That he, that assumes a supreme Magistracy to himself, should by no means be concluded to be an assumer, till he make his own confession of it, and give his suffrage to his condemnation, I mentioned, and cannot but look upon still, as a method of perfect security, beyond all amulets and defensatives; For how can it be imagined, that he, that contests a right, should at the same time acknowledge it not to belong to him, when he knows that nothing but this confession is sufficient to deprive him of it? As for any such privilege belonging to supreme Magistracy in general, or any way applicable to the Bishop of Rome, in relation to a General Council, it may be worth considering a while.  
Num. 5 And first for supreme Magistracy in general, This privilege doth not extend to all matters. In a contest of particular right between a supreme Magistrate and a subject, brought before any legal judicature, 'tis certain the supreme Magistrate may be concluded without his own suffrage or consent, and agreeable to that it was, when the question was brought in this Council before the Judges by the complaint of the Pope's Legates, whether the Canon were the day before, after the Legate's departure, duly passed or no, For if it were not so, what needed this complaint to the judges, the bare absence, and so not consenting of the Legates had been sufficient to cassate and annul the Acts: Whatsoever Magistracy therefore was then pretended to by the Bishop of Rome, this Privilege doth not then seem to have belonged to it, that his, or his Legate's suffrages should be necessary to the passing every Canon.  
Num. 6 That they might have liberty to come to the Council, that nothing were done clancularly or by stealth, at a time when they knew not of it, that no force were used on those that were present, nor the like to hinder the presence of any, this was necessary to the freedom, and so to the very being of a Council, and consequently to the validity of every act thereof, and accordingly on these heads it was that the Legates in their complaint to the judges insisted (and so doth 
* Tom. 6. Ann: 451. Num: 143.  Baronius, styling that lost Action of that Council, spuriam & clandestinam, & ab Anatolio furtim adjectam, a spurious clandestine action stolen in by Anatolius) as also, on the authority of the Nicene Canons, which they pretended to be infringed by that latter of Constantinople, on which this of Chalcedon was founded, and this they thought sufficient to cassate this Act, but for this of the want of the Pope's or his Legate's suffrage, that it should invalidate that decree, it is not so much as pretended by the Legates, in the relations of the passages of that Council.  
Num. 7 And therefore according to that saying of S. Hierome, put into their Canon Law, 
Decret: par: 1. dist: 193. c. Legimus.  si authoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe, if authority be looked for, the whole world is more than the one city of Rome, it is the resolution of 
* de author: Eccl: 7.  Almain, merito Concilium Chalcedonense Leoni resistenti praevaluisse, that the Council of Chalcedon did well in standing out against Pope Leo, and did justly prevail against him.  
Num. 8 This amulet it seems had not virtue to stand him in so much stead, as 
* Ann: 454. Num: 13, etc.  Baronius is pleased to fancy, setting out the power and greatness of Pope Leo by this, that he did alone cassate what this Council had decreed by the suffrages of 600 Bishops. Which how well it consists with his former affirmation, that this Canon was spurious and clandestine, and stolen in by Anatolius, I shall not here examine. 'Tis sure, if the Pope's authority were so sovereign, the act needed not have been made spurious first, to qualify it for the cassation. But this of the power or superiority of a Pope over an Ecumenical Council, is a question not so necessary here to be debated, unless what this Gentleman was pleased to mention of the privilege of supreme Magistracy, had been endeavoured some way to be proved by him.  
Num. 9 Next he quarrels my saying that Antioch was equal to Rome, and that Constantinople desired but the same privileges, and this he saith is against the very nature of the story.  
Num. 10 That Antioch had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome, so far as to the dignity of a Patriarchate &c. (allowing to Rome the Primacy of order and dignity) I thought was competently concluded from the Pope's pretensions against that Canon of Chalcedon, making it an invasion of the rights of Antioch, and as derogatory to that as to Rome; And so still it seems to me, For if Antioch had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome, how could Constantinople's aspiring to equal privileges with Rome, be as derogatory to Antioch as to Rome? But I need not this help from Pope Leo's argument, the thing asserted by me, is not denied, that I know of, by any Romanist, viz: that Antioch had the dignity of a Patriarchate, for that is all that I express myself to mean by Antioch's having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome, and I that maintain (as this Gentleman truly saith I do) that all Patriarches are equal (in respect of Power, differing only in order or precedence) cannot be imagined to mean any thing else by it.  
Num. 11 So again that Constantinople desired no more but the privileges of a Patriarch, and that that is the meaning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges, is by me said in opposition to acquiring any ordinary jurisdiction over other Churches, and this instead of being contrary to the nature of the story, is directly agreeable to the whole course of it, and to the express words of the Canon, which defines, that as the city of Constantinople was honoured with the Empire and Senate, and enjoyed equal privileges with old Imperial Rome, so the Church of Constantinople (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) should be exalted to the same height with that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having the next place after it, adding that the Metropolitans (and none else of Asia, Pontus and Thraeia, etc. should be ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople, the Bishops of each of those Provinces being left to be ordained by their respective Metropolitans; This is so plain that there can be no need of farther proof of it.  
Num. 12 And for this Gentleman's objection, by way of Question, that Constantinople being then a Patriarchy, if that made it equal with Rome, for what did it pretend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I answer 1. that Constantinople being by custom, and by Act of the Council held in that city, a Patriachate already, it sought not to acquire any new advantage or increase by this Canon of Chalcedon, but only to continue what already it had.  
Num. 13 This again appears by the story, where that Canon of Constantinople was produced and read, as the foundation on which this new Canon was built, and so by the express words in the beginning of the Canon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. following constantly the definitions of the Holy Fathers, and knowing the Canon newly read of the 150 Bishops assembled in the reign of the Emperor Theodosius at the Imperial city Constantinople or new Rome. And agreeably Euagrius sets down the story, that in this Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was thought just or determined that the Constantinopolitan See 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was rightly and duly placed next after Rome.  
Num. 14 And when this Gentleman assumes, that if this were so, the neither Rome itself, and less Antioch had cause to complain, I shall most willingly join with him in it, being no way obliged by my pretensions to justify the Pope or his Legates dislike to that Canon. And for Antioch I am sure enough that the Bishop thereof, Maximus, though he had received an Epistle from the Pope to exasperate and persuade him to stand upon his right, did very readily subscribe it, setting his name and consent next after the Bishop of Constantinople, as hath formerly been set down out of the story.  
Num. 15 And if Antioch did so, who was the loser by it, if precedence signify any thing, I confess I can render no cause (unless it be the Pompejúsve parem, impatience of any equal) why the Bishop of Rome, who lost not so much as precedence by this advancement or confirmation of dignity to the Bishop of Constantinople, should be so obstinately and implacably offended at it.  
Num. 16 Thus have I answered every attempt and tittle of exception offered by this Gentleman in this matter, and have now leisure to complain, that the one thing that I desired to be taken notice of from this Canon, is not so much as considered, or at all replied to by him, viz: that the Dignity that old Rome had by ancient Canons in oyed was given it upon this account, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Rome was the Imperial seat; which as it is the proof of my whole pretention, that the Pope was not Universal Pastor, upon title of his succession from S. Peter, (for if whatsoever he had, the Counsels gave it him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith the Canon, and gave it him as Bishop of the Imperial See, then sure 'twas no inheritance from S. Peter) so it was truly observed out of the story of the Council of Chalcedon, and may be seen both in the Legate's complaint to the Judges, and in the Epistles of Leo to the Emperor Martianus, the Empress Pulcheria, Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch, and his instructions to his Legates, that he never made any exception to that branch of the Canon that thus derived the original of his greatness from the Imperial dignity of the city, never thought himself injured by this way of setting down his title.   

Sect. V.  
Of the Canon of Ephesus. The power of Metropolitans, of Primates. The case of the Archbishop of Cyprus no peculiar case. The deduction thence against the Pope's Universal Pastorship. Of the Pope's tenure by the institution of Christ.  
Num. 1 THE next exception concerns the Canon of the Council of Ephesus, thus,  
Num. 2 As for the Canon of Ephesus touching the Archbishop of Cyprus, it plainly showeth that the Metropolitans were subordinate to the Patriarches, seeing this case of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case, the reason given doth show that the superiority of Patriarches was by custom received from their Ancestors, contrary to that which the Doctor before affirmed, however it is still nothing to the purpose, because the authority, which we say belongs to the Pope, is neither Patriarchal, nor derived from any institution or custom of the Church, but from the institution of Christ.  
Num. 3 This Canon of Ephesus, saith he, plainly shows that Metropolitans were subordinate to Patriarches, seeing this of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case. To this I see not how any pretensions of ours oblige me to make any return, yet because it may be subject to some mistake for want of explicating, I shall clear that whole matter by these three Propositions.  
Num. 4 First, that the controversy, which occasioned that Canon, was this, Whether the Bishop of Constance, Metropolitan of the Province of Cyprus, was to be ordained by the Patriarch of Antioch, or (without seeking abroad) by his own Synod, the Bishops of Cyprus. Thus is the state of the question set down in the Counsels, Tom. 2. p. 670. at the beginning of the 7 Action. Discussa est controversia inter Rheginum Episcopum Constantiae Cypri, & Johannem Antiochenum, qui sibi Cyprias Ecclesias subdere moliebatur. The controversy was discussed between Rheginus Bishop of Constance of Cyprus, and John of Antioch, who endeavoured to bring the Cypriotes Churches into subjection to himself.  
Num. 5 Secondly, that the ancient custom had been favourable to Rheginus his pretention, and so the claim of Antioch is defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a thing innovated against the Ecclesiastical Laws, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which, by the example, or precedent, would concern the liberty of all Churches. Cod: Can: Eccl: Un: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Num. 6 Thirdly, that the Council defined on the Cypriots side, that according to the Canous, and ancient custom, the Bishops of Cyprus should retain their previlege inviolable, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordaining their Bishops within, and by themselves, and consequently that it was an act of assuming, and invasion in the Bishop of Antioch, to claim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make any Ordinations within Cyprus. And what was thus adjudged in the case of the Cypriots, was by that Council in the same Canon thought fit to be extended in like manner to all other Provinces (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same shall be observed also through all Dioceses and Provinces every where) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province, which hath not from the beginning been under him, i. e. under his predecessors power. And so there is no truth in what is here suggested, that this of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case; It certainly, by the express words of the Canon, belonged to all other Metropolitans and their Provinces over all the world, that neither Bishop of Antioch nor of Rome was to meddle with any ordinations except in their own particular Provinces, but the Synod of the Bishops of each Province, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make the ordinations of their Bishops by themselves.  
Num. 7 What he adds of the superiority of Patriarches by custom received from their Ancestors, First, that the reason given in that Ephesine Canon doth show it; Secondly, that it is contrary to that which the Doctor before affirmed; Thirdly, that it is still nothing to the purpose in hand, of the authority of the Pope; hath not, that I can discern, any truth in any part of it. For as to the first, whatsoever superiority Patriarches be acknowledged to have, there is no word of mention concerning it in that Canon, neither was there any occasion to define any thing of it; It was the Synod, and Bishops of Cyprus their right, that was invaded, and of that only that Canon speaks, devolving it to original custom, and Canons, and so for all other Metropolitans. But that is not the superiority of Patriarches. Secondly, for my affirmation, certainly it was never such as could be deemed contrary either to that Ephesine Canon about ordination of their Metropolitans, or that due superiority, which by Canons or customs doth belong to Primates or Patriarches; what this is I have often set down, and need not again repeat it.  
Num. 8 Lastly, for the application of this Canon to the present affair of the Universal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome, thus much is evident, First, that all Provinces every where, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were concluded by this Canon, that they should ordain their Bishops within themselves, and then I pray how can the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power of ordaining all belong to the Bishop of Rome, and ordination and jurisdiction going together, how can he have the Universal Jurisdiction, or which is all one the Universal Pastorship?  
Num. 9 Secondly, if the Pope his authority be not Patriarchal, as this Gentleman here saith, then till he hath proved that it is more than Patriarchal, and answered all that is said to the contrary in that Tract of Schism, that which is by the Ephesive Canon judged in order to the Patriarch of Antioch, will also conclude him.  
Num. 10 And thirdly, that which is held by the institution of Christ being certainly derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning, must needs be included in the words of this Canon, which requires that all should remain, as by custom (immemorial) from the beginning it had been, to which therefore we appeal, and inquire, whether Cyprus was not as Independent from Rome at that time, as from Antioch; if not, how any such dependence at that time appears, or how is it imaginable there should be any such, when all Provinces every where were to be ruled and ordered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their own Synod and Bishops.  
Num. 11 As for the tenure, by which the Pope is now, in the close of this Paragraph, clearly said to stand, not from any institution or custom of the Church, but from the institution of Christ. First, this is more than ever this Gentleman would acknowledge before, telling us p. 14. that who understands the Principles of the Catholic faith, knows they rely not only upon such places of Scripture, as, Thou art Peter, and Feed my sheep, From whence I thought myself obliged to conclude they relied not only on Christ his institution, for that I suppose must be set down in some, and if in any, sure in those Scriptures, And in another place, that I forget myself when I think a Catholic aught to prove that the hope hath an Universal Primacy (referring all to his Possession) whereas in case he pretend to hold by the institution of Christ (as here he saith) certainly he is obliged to produce that institution, and that is to prove his pretention.  
Num. 12 But than secondly, that there is indeed any such thing, that the Pope holds by Institution of Christ, is still the thing denied by us, and the contrary, I think, demonstrated in the former chapter, and all the places producible for it, answered, and so it must not be here begged or assumed, without any word added for the proof of it.   

Sect. VI.  
The exemption of Justiniana prima, The several exceptions against this instance answered.  
Num. 1 HIS next Paragraph pretends to be answer to the evidence brought from the example of Justiniana prima, which was by the Emperor made independent from any other Ecclesiastical power. His answer is this,  
Num. 2 Then he goes on with two examples, in which he would persuade us that Justiniana prima, and Carthage were made exempt cities by the Emperor, and seeth not that his own instance giveth the answer, for as in the temporal donation, he doth not exempt them from his own subjection, so neither from the Popes in spiritual, nor as much as giveth them the style of Patriarches; though the Bishop of Constantinople in his own city ordinarily had it.  
Num. 3 That Justiniana prima was by Justinian exempted from all others (and so from the Bishop of Rome his) jurisdiction (and so Carthage also, being invested with the same privileges) I thought sufficiently proved by the plain words of the constitution, that for any differences that should befall in that Province, the Archbishop of that new erection from time to time, should decide them finally, nec ad alium quendam eatur, and they should go to no other for decision, or by way of appeal and so in the Novel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. he shall have under his own jurisdiction the Bishops of Dacia, etc. which what is it, but a perfect exemption and independency?  
Num. 4 The same appears also by the other part of the constitution, that concerning ordination of that Archbishop, It was, as was said, to be done by his own Synod of Metropolitans. To which agrees that of the Novel 131. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He must be ordained by his own Synod.  
Num. 5 To this the answer given here, and given, saith he, by my own instance, is no more than this, that as in the temporal donation he doth not exempt them from his own subjection, so neither from the Popes in spiritual. But sure there is no force in this comparison; For the not exempting him in temporal things from his own power, doth no way conclude a non-exemption from the Pope; When Henry VIII. removed the Papal power out of this nation, no man thinks he divested himself of the regal; the Archbishop of Canterbury was made Independent, and exempt from the Bishop of Rome, but remained still subordinate to the King: So in like manner justinian might do, make Instiniana a Primacy, and yet leave the Bishop and his whole Province in the same subjection to the Emperor, that before it had been; And as this is very possible, so if it were not the plain truth of the fact, that must be made appear by the story, or by the investiture.  
Num. 6 In that there is no sound of any word for the exempting that Bishop from the Imperial subjection, and so we cannot imagine, without any ground, that there was any such thing, but for Ecclesiastical judicature and ordination, they are both distinctly specified, that he and his Metropolitans should have them within themselves, without fetching them abroad from any other; and so by that the Bishop of Rome is explicitly excluded from having any thing to do there.  
Num. 7 This farther appears, not only by the matter of fact, for after the first Archbishop was ordained by Pope Vigilius, his successors were constantly ordained by their own Metropolitans, and not by the Bishop of Rome, but also by farther express words in the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Novel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In the Provinces subject to him he shall hold the place of the Apostolical seat of Rome, i. e. do all within those Provinces that the Bishop of Rome was wont to do, before this Primacy was erected, and this, it seems, by direct consent of Vigilius then Pope, as there it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to what was defined by the Holy Father Vigilius.  
Num. 8 Which words if they be conceived to denote no more than a deputation from the Pope by which this power was held, and so be made use of as an argument to infer his continued dependence on the See of Rome, that will be found to be a mistake, the whole investiture giving the Archbishop there an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a perfect freedom, and absoluteness, to be head within his Province, independent from all others. And should it by any other way appear that Vigilius, who ordained the first Bishop there (as 'tis sure he must be ordained by some body, and none fitter for it than the Bishop of old Rome) did farther give him a deputation, as I see it affirmed (but not by this Gentleman) both of Vigilius, and after him of Gregory, yet certainly this was but a formality, without any farther effect or influence on the investiture, the privileges of that See came to it merely by the Act of the Emperor (and that Act was entered a Part of the Imperial Law) to which the supposed addition of the Pope's deputation can be no prejudice; And secondly, the Bishop of Carthage, which by that Constitution is invested with the very same privileges by the Emperor, is not pretended to have received any such deputation from the Pope, and yet by virtue of the Emperor's act was freed from all former dependence, and enjoyed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the privilege of a Metropolitan, in the same manner, as justiniana did.  
Num. 9 What this Gentleman adds, that the Emperor gave not so much as the style of Patriarch to the Bishop of justiniana, though the Bishop of Constantinople in his own city ordinarily had it, will soon appear to signify nothing; For first, the power, not the title is that we speak of, and that may be had in plenitude, without the name; the Archbishop of Cyprus was by the Council, of Ephesus adjudged to have all power within himself, so as to go neither to Antioch nor to Rome for it, and yet was not raised to any higher title, than that of Archbishop.  
Num. 10 Secondly, I suppose Primate and Patriarch to be perfectly all one, as to matter of power and dignity; that the Archbishop of Constantinople and Jerusalem, so styled in the ancient Canons, were yet ordinarily called Patriarches, was no injury to the Patriarch of Antioch, saith Theod: Balsamon, himself Patriarch of Antioch in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of the identity of the honour. And accordingly in the Counsels the Archbishop of Constantinople, under that title is placed before the Patriarch of Antioch, yea and of Alexandria, who yet by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine and holy writings (i. e. the Canons) by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions of the Fathers, was styled Pope, saith Balsamon. And therefore for Justiniana also this was sufficient; It was made a Primacy, and then it matters not, though it were not styled a Patriarchy; The exemption from Rome and all other foreign power is all I pretend this city had, and of that there can be no question, whatsoever title belonged to it.  
Num. 11 Thirdly, this Gentleman's saying that the Bishop of Constantinople had the title of Patriarch in his own city, would make one believe that he had it not elsewhere, which yet it is notorious that he had, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; he and the Archbishop of Jerusalem were publicly called Patriarches, saith Balsamon, and he renders the reason, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because the five Patriarches (of which number they were two) held the place of the head of the body, to wit, of the holy Churches of God. But whatsoever the title were, it is still sure enough it had the power and dignity of a Patriarchate, first by custom, then by Canons of two General Counsels, Constantinople and Chalcedon (for I suppose the setting it next and equal to Rome, and before Antioch and Alexandria, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  will amount to this) also by that very Novel of Justinian, where the privileges are conferred on Justiniana, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Archbishop of new Rome, Constantinople, hath the next place after the Apostolical See of old Rome, and the precedence of honour before all others. And so much for the Exceptions to the fifth Chapter.    

CHAP. VI An Answer to the Exceptions made to the sixth Chapter.  

Sect. I.  
The plea for the Pope's power from the conversion of England, Of acquiring of right by two titles.  
Num. 1 THE plea from plantation, which was considered in the sixth Chapter, he now proceeds to, in these words,  
Num. 2 In his sixth Chapter he examineth another title peculiar to England, viz: that our Nation was converted by mission from Rome, 
Sect. 1.  and this is totally beside the question, for no man is so stupid as to pretend S. Peter or the Church of Rome to have power over the Universal Church, because his successors converted England: But some pretend a special title of gratitude, the violation of which aggravateth the sin of schismatizing from the Church of Rome in our nation, yet no man, as far as I can understand, thinks this latter obligation of so high a nature, as that for no occasion or never so great cause, it may not be dispensed with; but only press it then when the benefit is slighted, or by colourable arguments to the contrary unworthily avoided: And yet this Doctor quite mistaking the Question frameth an argument, 
Sect. 2.  as full of words as empty of matter, affirming there cannot be two successive titles to possession of the same thing, telling us, that he who claimeth a reward as of his own labour and travel must disclaim a donation, etc. if any passed before, and that if a King have right by descent, he cannot claim any thing by conquest, by which you may see his understanding the Law is not much more than his understanding of our principles.  
Num. 3 What this Gentleman here premiseth, that this plea from the Conversion of this nation by mission from Rome is not used by the Romanist to prove us schismatics, I have no reason to confute but shall from thence suppose that that sixth Chapter might have been spared out of that little Treatise, and our Church competently justified by the precedent Chapters; And then all that I shall need added, is, First, that I hope what was by me added superfluously, above the necessities of our cause, will not destroy what was before said pertinently, and then as I shall only have lost my pains, and there is no farther hurt done, so it must needs be very unnecessary for this Gentleman to adapt any farther answers to that sixth Chapter, when he hath once adjudged all that is there said to be totally beside the Question.  
Num. 4 Secondly, That if others had been as prudent, as this Gentleman, I had certainly spared that Chapter, It being no interest of mine to invent pleas for the Romanist, and although, as this Gentleman hath pleased to set it, it be a competent stupidity, and that which I never thought any Romanist guilty of, to make the conversion of England a plea to power over the Universal Church, yet England, and not the Universal Church, being the subject of our Question, there is not quite so much stupidity in it, to plead the Pope's power over England from the supposed Conversion of England, And certainly I did not dream that some Romanists have thus pleaded, but, as I said before, if this Gentleman will not insist on it, neither shall I farther importune him about it.  
Num. 5 For that of gratitude which he now mentions only as an aggravation of the sin of schismatizing, which that we are guilty of, he acknowledges must be proved by some other means, I yield to the force of it, that it might justly add a weight to the obligation, which formerly lay upon us, supposing any such there were, but cannot lay an obligation to obedience where before it was not due, much less were it due unto another. All the benefits that can be heaped on me by any man that gives me not my being, cannot oblige or engage my subjection to him, without the intervenience of my own consent, if I am perfectly free to choose my Sovereign, and without the consent of my former Sovereign, if I have any.  
Num. 6 So that the whole Question must be, whether by any original right the Bishop of Rome had power over this Kingdom, and so whether by that, our obedience was due to him, for if it were, than this gratitude was not the tenure, but that other; and if it were not, then neither of the titles are in force against us; not the first, which hath no being; nor the second, which whatsoever it be, obligeth not to obedience.  
Num. 7 This I thought was apparent by the instance of the several claims to a Kingdom, by descent, and by conquest, the one of which, if it stood, as the title, supersedeth the other, he that holds by inheritance, cannot be properly said to hold by conquest, even when it is true that he hath conquered also. For in that case, when the right heir being forced to make use of his sword to give him possession, is successful and victorious in it, all that his sword doth, is to give him possession, not to give him right, for that he had before by inheritance.  
Num. 8 That the same right cannot be held by two tenors appears by this; because if it might, it being evidently possible that those two tenors might be separated and placed in several subjects, the inheritance in one, the conquest in another, it must follow from thence, that each of those persons shall have the right; which as it is unimaginable, speaking of the whole right or propriety in integrum to the whole power, for if one have it all, the other can have no part of it, so if it be applied to a partial right (which more than one may have, either severally, or socially, and jointly, to the same thing) then that is the changing of the Question which spoke of the whole right, and not only of some one or more parts or branches of it.  
Num. 9 And therefore as this Gentleman agrees with me in the conclusion, that Rome hath no title to our obedience, from that of converting us, or if it had, it could not plead the same from S. Peter 's universal Pastorship, so I cannot discern, why my way of inferring it was disliked, or my ignorance in the Laws censured, for saying that the title of descent is exclusive to that of conquest, meaning it not of several parts, of which one comes by descent, the other by conquest, but of the same whole thing, of which he that hath the right by descent, may by the sword and conquest vindicate his right, and acquire quiet possession, but cannot be said to acquire his right by those means, being supposed to have had it, before he made use of them.   

Sect. II.  
The British Church not converted from Rome.  
Num. 1 HAving granted me my conclusion, that our obedience to Rome is not due from the Nation's conversion by mission from thence, he is yet resolved to examine my arguments, by which I prove what he grants. And there be three things, that here he takes notice of. The first in these words,  
Num. 2 But to come to some matter, His first arguments is that this Island was converted before S. Augustine's time, surely he means by the name of Island, the Land and Mountains and trees, for if he speak of the men, what hath the conversion of the former Islanders to do with the subjection and duty which the Saxons owe.  
Num. 3 I answer, by this Island, I mean not the mountains, nor trees, on one side, any more than the present individual persons on the other side, but the inhabitants of it indefinitely, who have succeeded one another, whether British or Saxon by extraction. For, first, of the British it is certain that they were not converted by mission from Rome, but were Christians long before S. Augustine's coming hither, And Secondly, of the Saxons it may be remembered, that Augustine did not absolutely introduce Christianity among them here, but Luidhardus, that came out of France with Bertha, Ethelred's Wife, and was a Bishop here, had prepared the way for Augustine. See Bede Hist: Eccl: lib. 1. c. 25, 26. And Thirdly, if Augustine were the first converter of the Saxons, and so that be, without farther question, granted of him, yet that cannot belong to the whole Island, the Dominion of Wales being neither of Saxon extraction, nor converted from Rome to Christianity. And this is the design of that argument of mine, In case there were a duty owing to that See, from whence the converter came, and in case that were acknowledged to pertain to the Saxons, yet still the British part would not be concluded by either of these, it being certain that their Ancestors were not comprehended in this number.  
Num. 4 But because this Gentleman waves this title from conversion, neither shall I farther insist to disprove it; But rather ask, why no answer was made to those testimonies, which in that place were occasionally vouched to show that at the time of Augustine's coming into this Island, the Christian Church here acknowledged no subjection to Rome, or to any other Church, to be due from them, which certainly is some prejudice to the claim drawn from the Universal Pastorship of S. Peter and his successor at Rome.  
Num. 5 To that which is there said for the evidencing this out of the Annals of Gisburne, It will not be amiss here to add what our stories tell us, that when the Pelagian heresy, which first sprang from Morgan a Britain, was by Agricola brought into this Island, the Britain's 
* Neque suscipere dogma perversii vellent, neque versutiam nefariae persuasioni● refutare verbis certando sufficevent: Bed. l. 1. c. 17.  unwilling to receive their infusions, and yet unable to resist them without assistance from some other Church, in this time of need, applied not themselves to Rome, as in their 
* Bed. l. 1. c. 12, 13.  secular distresses they had accustomed, but to their neighbours of France, who calling a Council sent Germanus Altisiodorensis and Lupus to their aid, by which means the Catholic Faith was much revived and increased and propagated among them.   

Sect. III.  
S. Paul's plantations an argument against the Universal Pastorship of S. Peter. S. Paul's being Bishop of Rome, no answer to it.  
Num. 1 THE argument which he next speaks to, is that wherein from Paul's having planted some Churches, which yet are not subjected to the Chair, where S. Paul sat (whether Antioch or Rome) I conclude against this claim of power from the title of conversion: To this he thus speaks,  
Num. 2 His next Argument demandeth, whether all that S. Paul converted, 
Sect. 8.  were obliged to be under him; truly if it were to purpose, I believe there might be proof that S. Paul expected it; but he doth not remember that he told us S. Paul was Bishop of Rome, and so it cometh to the same quesion, but indeed he quite misseth the matter, for no body stateth this for the Pope's title, but aggravation of the schism.  
Num. 3 3. To what purpose it is to say there might be proof, and yet to produce none, I know not; This only I desire to note, that if any such proof were produced, and, without that, by the bare pretending that it might be proved, S. Peter's universal Pastorship must be disclaimed, and consequently all right which derives its original from thence.  
Num. 4 For S. Paul 's labours being more abundant than all the Apostles, 'tis certain great numbers were converted by him, and if all they were to be under S. Paul, how can S. Peter be Pastor and Ruler of all, it being certain, that S. Paul was not subordinate to S. Peter.  
Num. 5 And it is of little force what I am reminded of (though sure I never forgot it) that S. Paul was Bishop of Rome, and so it cometh to the same question: For 1. S. Paul being Bishop of the Gentile part of the Roman Christians, as S. Peter of the Jewish, and those then disparate congregations, S. Paul cannot be thought in his converting the Gentiles of other nations, to bring in subjects to S. Peter; And 2. it is evident that S. Paul was not Bishop of Rome when he placed Timothy over Asia, and Titus over Crete, and consequently the conversion and establishment of those Churches was not in any reason to acquire any Dominion to Rome, which S. Paul had never seen at that time, and which was itself converted after those, and that was it which I was proving.  
Num. 6 But he bethinketh himself at last, and confesseth that this of conversion is not the Pope's title to England, And having done so before, why might he not have permitted me to bring undeniable evidences for the proof of it?   

Sect. IU.  
The concernments of Rome in the Prince's power to remove Patriarchates. The examples of it. Justiniana, the Canon of Chalcedon, and the 6t Council. Valentinian making Ravenna a Patriarchate. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Num. 1 TO put this whole matter out of controversy, viz: that the Church of England is not bound to be subject to that Church, from which it first received the Faith, one head of argument I pitched on, the power of Kings to remove or erect Primacies and Patriarchates, which if it have truth in it, evidently proves, that in case we were once under the See of Rome, as our Patriarchate or Prime See (supposing that of Universal Pastorship disproved before, and not reconcileable with this title to England by having converted) yet it was in the power of our Kings to remove that from Rome to Canterbury. For the proof of this, evidences were brought both from the Council (and that Ecumenical) of Chalcedon, and from the practice of Princes, particularly Justinian in an eminent instance, and Valentinian and others before the Council of Chalcedon, and many the like examples in the Records of this Kingdom, and of others, as is showed at large, and the ground of all insisted on, the supreme power of Kings in Ecclesiastical affairs, and this is done in 16 sections, from the 9th to the end of that Chapter. Against all which (that we may see how true the title of this Gentleman's Book is, An Answer to the most material parts &c.) that which is confronted, is contained in these words,  
Num. 2 Thirdly, He saith it was in the Emperor's power to constitute Patriarches: whether that be so or not, it will not be much to our purpose to dispute here, only this I say, that he seems neither to understand the question, nor proves what he would; he understands not the question, which hath no dependency on the nature of Patriarches, or terms of gratitude, but on the donation of Christ: he proves not what he would, for he produceth only the act of an Emperor accounted Tyrannical towards the Church, without proof and discussion whether it was well or ill done, which was requisite to make good his proof; neither doth he say whether the thing were done or no by the consent of Bishops, especially since the Pope was an Actor in the business, he addeth an Apocryphal decree of Valentinian the third, for giving of privileges purely Ecclesiastical to the Bishop of Ravenna, which out of his liberality he makes a Patriarch, but on the whole matter this is to be observed, that generally the Bishop's consents were praedemanded or praeordered, as in the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 7. it is ordered that the Church should translate their Bishoprick● according to the Emperor's changing of his City, and when the Emperors did it, it is said they did it according to the power given them, to wit, by the Church, so that a few examples to the contrary, produced in the reigns of headstrong and Tyrannical Princes, as the most of those are noted to be, under whom they are urged, prove nothing, and if they did, yet cannot they be taken as testimonies, when these matters of fact are only so attributed to Princes, as no way to exclude the Church, but whatsoever it was, it doth not at all appertain to the question, since the Pope's authority, in the sense he calls him Pope, is not properly Patriarchal, nor hath any dependency upon, or from change of places made by the command of Princes.  
Num. 3 The first thing here answered is, that it is not much to the Romanists purpose to dispute, whether or no the Emperor hath power to constitute Patriarches. (He ought to have added, or to translate them from one City to another, for that is in that Tract also expressly proved, but this I suppose not without reason omitted, because the power to erect or constitute, supposes and implies the power to translate them) And if this be not this Gentleman's interest to dispute, I shall then by his good leave, suppose it yielded me, and observe what the consequences will be.  
Num. 4 And 1. In case the power of the Pope be a Patriarchal power, and no more, and that appear to be all that the ancient Councils ever allowed it to be, than it immediately follows, that it is in the power of the Emperor to translate and remove it from that to any other See, and in that case what befell Constantinople by way of advancement, from the title of an ordinary Suffragan Bishops See, it ascended to equal dignity and privileges with Rome itself, will in the reverse be the condition of Rome; from the first Patriarchal See in the whole world, nothing hinders but that it may become the See of the most ordinary Bishop And sure 'twill be the Romanists concernment to dispute that principle, from which this may possibly be the undeniable conclusion.  
Num. 5 But if, as here it seems to be interposed, the power of Rome be that of Universal Pastorship, no way dependant on the nature of Patriarches, or on any other tenure, but the donation of Christ to Saint Peter, than 1. it must be remembered that after the refuting of any such right from Christ's donation in the former Chapters, the removal also of this was in all reason to prove of some interest to the Romanist, and so it must, all the proofs of those Chapters be perfectly answered, which yet hath not been done in any degree, as this reply to the few answers applied to those Chapters hath showed.  
Num. 6 Secondly, This adhering thus wholly to this donation of Christ, and the Universal Pastorship deduced from thence, is the direct disclaiming of all the Canonical Privileges belonging to Rome, on the score of Patriarchy, and so in case that first tenure shall fail, it is the degrading of Rome from that dignity, which by ancient Canon belonged to it, that of the Prime Patriarchy, and so cuts the Romanist off from all the advantage he can reap either from the affirmation of Fathers or Counsels, any farther than they are founded in, and refer to Christ's donation of Universal Pastorship to Saint Peter, which whether it will prove to be the interest of this Gentleman, I must leave him to judge for himself, and only add in the last place, that against him that asserts the Bishop of Rome's Universal Pastorship upon what title soever, this will necessarily be a shrewd prejudice, if it be not disputed but yielded, that it is in the power of Princes to erect or translate Patriarchies, by Patriarchies understanding (as it is evident I do in that discourse) chief Independent authorities over other Churches, such as was by Justinian conferred on Justiniana Prima and Carthage, by Valentinian on Ravenna, without any subordination to, or dependence on any other, particularly on the See of Rome.  
Num. 7 Can any thing be more prejudicial to the Universal Pastorship of Rome than this? Can Rome be Pastor of those who have no dependence on her? or can that be Universal, from which some particulars are exempt?  
Num. 8 This made it but necessary for this Gentleman to undertake two things in the following words, that I neither understand the question, nor prove what I would; for if I shall yet appear to judge aright of the question, even as it is by this Gentleman brought back to that which had been debated in the former Chapters, whether the Bishop of Rome be Universal Pastor by Christ's donation to Saint Peter, and if I have really proved that it is in the power of Emperors and Princes to constitute and remove Patriarchies, It will certainly follow, that I have done all that I undertook to do, evinced the matter of the question, and showed that it is in the power of Princes to exempt some Churches from the Pope's dominion, and so superseded the Universality of his Pastorship.  
Num. 9 As for the validity of my proofs, that must be judged by the view of the Answers applied to them, 1. that I produce only the act of an Emperor accounted Tyrannical towards the Church. To this I answer, 1. that the word [only] excluding all others, the proposition can have no truth in it, it being evident that I produce many other acts of the same Imperial power, as the Reader may find by casting his eye on the place, the latter part of that 6. Chap: and this Gentleman himself shall be my witness, (who saith of me [he addeth an Apocryphal decree of Valentinian] which though it be not a recitation of all that are by me added, yet is sufficient to tefie the contrary, to what the [only] had affirmed.  
Num. 10 Secondly, The character that is given that Emperor, whose act I first produced, that he is accounted Tyrannical towards the Church, will, I suppose, signify but this, that he that did any thing derogatory to the Universal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome, is by this prejudged from yielding us any competent testimony in this dispute, which is in effect that this Gentleman is in the right, and all that is, or shall, or can be brought against him must signify nothing, which sure is not the way of answering arguments, but adhering to conclusions, without weighing what is or can be brought against them.  
Num. 11 Thirdly, For that particular act, and the Emperor which is thus censured: It is Justinian, that great and famous Emperor, his making the Bishop of Justiniana Prima the head of all Daciae, etc. of which this Gentleman had passed a very different judgement, when it came under his view in the former Chapter.  
Num. 12 There his answer was, the Emperor exempted it not from the Pope's subjection, pag 15. and yet now when the very same passage comes in his way again, he hath forgotten himself, and the Emperor, that just now had as great care of the Pope's spiritual power, as of his own civil, is in a moment become Tyrannical towards the Church. I desire one of these answers, being thus engaged, may make good the contest against the other.  
Num. 13 But then 4. whatsoever can be said of that Emperor in other respects, 'tis certain that this erecting of Justiniana was no act of tyranny against the Church, but the very thing that is authorised by the 17 Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon (which is one of those that the Pope at his consecration solemnly vows to observe, and all the Ordinances made in them) for that resolves that if any City be built or restored by the King's power, the Ecclesiastical order must follow the Political, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith the Scholiast, the Imperial decrees concerning that City 
* Balsam. in Concil: in Trull: Can. 38.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have the dignity of an Episcopal or Metropolitical See. And the same again in the same words was decreed by the 6. Council in Trullo, Can. 38. from whence certainly Balsamon's conclusion is irrefragable, 
* 1 Concil. Chal. c. 17.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is lawful (and so sure not Tyrannical) for a Prince to take away (or remove) the privileges of the Church of any City, and 
* Ib. pag. 342.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to determine, as he shall please, concerning the Privileges of Bishops.  
Num. 14 His second answer is, that I do not say whether the thing were done or no by the consent of Bishops, especially since the Pope was an Actor in the business. To which I answer, that when I have made it appear to be the act of the Emperor, and that by the Canons of Counsels it was acknowledged fully lawful for the Emperor, and so for other Princes, to do so, I need neither inquire whether the consent of Bishops, or of the Pope himself were added to it, such formalities of consent may be had or omitted without any disturbance to, or influence on the matter.  
Num. 15 His third answer is applied to that Act of Valentinian, which made Ravenna a Patriarchate, and first he calls the Decree of that Emperor an Apocryphal decree; 2. He saith that it was giving to the Bishop privileges purely Ecclesiastical, reproving me for making him a Patriarch; For the first, I answer, that as I never thought it any piece of the Canon of Scripture, by which Valentinian did this or any more than a Rescript of an Emperor, which, if such, is certainly sufficient to express it an Imperial Act, so the authorities for this may rescue it from farther question, for though it were not Baronius' interest to believe it, and so it is by him suspected of forgery, An. 432. n. 93. yet even he acknowledgeth it to be very ancient, and owned by several Writers, n. 92. and afterwards, when the same authorities which are produced for this, Hier: Rubeus, and the Records of Ravenna, seem to favour his grand design, i. e. make for Rome, he can then very fairly make use of them, though it be but a narration of a vision, An. 433. n. 24. But I need not lay more weight on this, than the Apocryphal (as he calls it) Decree will be able to support, this is no singular precedent, many examples there are of the like which are there mentioned in the Tract of Schism.  
Num. 16 For the second, Patriarchal power Ravenna had without any dependence on the Bishop of Rome, and I pretend no more for the Bishop of Canterbury, and therein also shall bate him the title of Patriarch, What he adds (by way of observation on the whole matter) 1. that generally the Bishop's consents were praedemanded or praeordered, as in the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 17. Secondly, that what the Emperors did, they did by the power given them by the Church, will soon appear to bring him little advantage, For  
Num. 17 1. The Bishop's (I suppose he means the Bishop of Rome his) consent was not asked; One part of the story is, that when the Bishop of Ravenna, being fain to fly to the Bishop of Rome for support against the Longobards, submitted himself to him, the people of Ravenna thought themselves injured thereby; And 2. it is not truly said, that it was praeordered, and the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon cannot be brought to that purpose, this act of Valentinians dated Anno 432. being 19 years before the Council of Chalcedon, which was assembled Anno 451. and so sure not praeordained by that which was subsequent; And indeed the Canon of that Council mentioning Cities and Churches in the plural, which had been 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Can. 12.  before their Session made Metropoles by several Kings, is a clear evidence that there were other such, beside that of Ravenna, and 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Balsam: in Can: 12.  Balsamon expresseth them by the name of Madyta, and Abydus etc.  
Num. 18 Thirdly, If this be acknowledged an act of Council confirming the lawfulness of what the Emperors had thus done, and decreeing (as clearly the Council of Chalcedon and that other in Trullo did) that generally it should be thus, that as the Prince made an ordinary City a Metropolis, the Church of that City should be a Metropolitical Church, than still this is the fuller evidence, that it was lawful for Princes thus to do, and that as oft as they did, such changes in the Churches followed, for sure a King was not obliged to ask the Churches leave to repair or build a city.  
Num. 19 Lastly, What out of Balsamon was cited by me, that what the Emperors did in this matter they did according to the power that was given them] was, it seems, either an occasion of stumbling to this Gentleman, or an excuse of it; For from hence he concludes that this power was given them by the Church; This, if it be true, is the thing that I would demand, and so far, from answering mine instance: for if the Church have given Princes this power, than they may freely and lawfully make use of it; and Justinian's doing so could be no tyrannical act against the Church. But let us view 
* in Chalced: Can. 12.  Balsamon's words, They are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such definitions are made by Kings according to the power given them from above. That word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from above, sometimes signifies in respect of time, sometimes also in respect of place; In the first respect it signifies from of old, and is oft joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the beginning; and if it be so taken here, as Gentianus Hervetus interprets it olim, it must then signify that this power was yielded to Kings either by the Apostles, or by the Primitive Canons of the Church, and if it were thus given them by the Church, then sure they might justly challenge and exercise it freely. But in the second sense, it is as certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies from above, i. e. from heaven, so Joh. 19 11. Christ tells Pilate, thou couldst have no power over me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unless it were given thee from above, i. e. sure from heaven, from God, by whom King's reign and have their power, and so it very frequently signifies in the 
* Jam. 1. 17. 3. 15, 17. etc.  Scripture; And if that be the the meaning, than this Gentleman sees how well he hath inferred his conclusion from this passage.  
Num. 20 By all this it already appears what truth there is in this suggestion, that the examples produced are but few, and those of tyrannical Princes, and no way excluding the Church] just as much, and no more, as was in the premises, which induced it, and those being discovered already, it is superfluous to make repetitions so soon in this place.  
Num. 21 In the close he thinks sit to retire again to his old fortress, that the Pope's power is not Patriarchal, and so that he is still safe from all that hath been said on that head; But it hath now appeared, that if any other be made a Patriarch or Primate, or (whatever the style be) a Bishop without any dependence on the Pope, this is a prejudice sufficient to his Universal Pastorship, and other disadvantages he is rather in reason to expect by disclaiming the Patriarchal authority, which the Canons have allowed him, than hope to gain any thing by contemning his inheritance.    

CHAP. VII. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the seventh Chapter.  

Sect. I.  
King Henry's desire of Reconciliation to Rome. The sacrilege, etc. no argument against Regal power to remove Patriarchies. Possession in the belief of the Pope's supremacy. Prescribing for error. Napier's testimony. Possession, if granted from Augustine's coming into England, no argument of truth. Confessions of Popes. Augustine required it not. Pope Gregory's testimony. Many evidences that this belief was not received after Augustine's time.  
Num. 1 WHat in the next place is replied to that part of Chapter 7. which concerned Henry VIII. his act of ejecting the Power of the Pope, will be full matter for a first section of this Chapter. He begins thus,  
Num. 2 In his seventh Chapter he intends a justification of the breach whereof as he doth not teach the infamous occasion, and how to his dying day the same King desired to be reconciled, 
Begun in Hen. 8.  as also that it was but the coming two days short of a Post to Rome, which hindered that the reconcilement was not actually made, as may be seen in my Lord of Cherbery's Book fol. 368. and that the moderate Protestants curse the day wherein it was made, so the very naming of Hen. VIII. is enough to confute all his discourse, 
Sir Walter Raleigh in Prefito Histor: of the World.  one of the darlings of his daughter having given him such a character, as hath stamped him for England's Nero to future posterity, and as it was said of Nero in respect of Christian religion, so might it be of him respecting the unity of the Church, viz: it must be a great good that he began to persecute and abolish: and as for the Acts passed in the Universities, Convocation, or Parliament, let the blood shed by that Tyrant bear witness what voluntary and free Acts they were especially those two upon his Seneca and Burrhus, Bishop Fisher, and the Chancellor More, that he might want nothing of being throughly para●eld to Nero.  
But methinks the Doctor differs not much in this, seeming tacitly to grant the Bishops were forced, awed by that noted sword in a slender thread, the praemunire which did hang over their heads, though in the conclusion of that Sect: he says we ought to judge charitably, viz: that they did not judge for fear nor temporal Interests, yet after waves the advantage of that charitable judgement, and saith, That if what was determined were falsely determined by the King and Bishops, than the voluntary and free doing it will not justify, and if it were not, then was there truth in it, antecedent to, and abstracted from the determination, and it was their duty so to determine, and crime that they were unwilling: laying the whole weight of the argument upon this, that the pretensions for the Pope's supremacy in England must be founded either as successor to S. Peter in the universal Pastorship of the Church, so including England as a member thereof; or upon paternal right respecting S. Augustine's conversion, or upon concession from some of our Kings etc. To which I answer, that we rely on the first as the foundation and cornerstone of the whole building, On the second as an action worthy the successor of S. Peter, which requires a grateful consideration from us; And on the third not as a concession, but as a just acknowlengment of what was necessary for the good of Christian Religion, taught our Kings by those who taught them Christian Religion; of which belief, I mean that the Pope as Successor to S. Peter is head and governor of the Universal Church, we have been in possession ever since the conversion of our English Ancestors, than Saxons, to the Christian religion, made by Austin the Monk sent hither by Pope Gregory for that purpose; until that good King Henry the VIII. out of scrupulosity of conscience (no noubt) was pleased to cut the Gordian knot of those bonds, within which all his Ancestors limited themselves; neither shall all that the Doctor and his fellows have said, or can say, justify themselves so, but that such a possession, as I here speak of, will convince them of schism, though all those replies, which by ours have been 40 times made to every one of those arguments the Doctor uses, should bear but equal weight in the scale, which we think hoises it up into the air, for the arguments must be demonstrative and clear to men of common sense, that must overthrow such a possession; and therefore it is that the Puritans, who are much less friends to the Church of Rome than to the Church of England, 
Napier on the Revelation.  wave all disputing out of Antiquity, and confess that the Church of Rome hath born a sway without any debatable contradiction over the Christian world 126 years, a time that no King in the world can pretend to by succession from his Ancestors for possession of his crown, and yet I believe the Doctor would conclude those subjects guilty of rebellion, which should go about to deprive such a King of his Crown, though he could not show writings evidently concluding for him 12, 14, 15, or 1600 years ago, how much more if he could show them demonstrating his right, in the interpretation of as wise and learned men as the world hath, and 20 times the numbers of their adversaries.  
Num. 3 The first thing here objected to my discourse, is, as Orators are wont to do for the raising of passions, a mention of some circumstances, which though extrinsical to the matter, may yet hope to have some influence on an unwary Reader, and infuse no small prejudices into him; such are the infamous occasion of the breach begun by that King, and such is the odious character fastened on him of England's Nero etc.  
Num. 4 But it cannot be necessary for me to offer an Apology on either of these two heads, If that which he did in this particular of ejecting the Papal power, be in itself justifiable, both in respect of the matter of the action, and the competency of the power that did it, it matters not what moved him to do it, or how inclinable he was to have rescinded it. The farther he were from a truly pious man, the more likely it is, he might be brought by secular interests (and the less likely that it was by any religious) to undo all that upon the weightiest grounds of reason, had been established by him. Without examining therefore the truth of that suggestion, that to his dying day he desired to be reconciled, and without demanding what is meant by that phrase, desired to be reconciled, whether any overture to receive the Popes on his own terms, into full possession again, or only a desire to approve himself to the Pope, that he still maintained the Catholic, nay Roman Faith (as we know he put men to death for denying some Doctrines professed at Rome) that what he had done was no whit injurious to him, prejudicial, or derogatory to any right, which could justly be challenged by the Pope in this Kingdom; without either of these inquires, I say, If I shall take for granted the utmost that can be pretended, that for a long time together he desired to have rescinded what he had done, I see not what disadvantage this can be to our pretensions.  
Num. 5 For 1. I shall demand, was he all this while, that he thus desired to be reconciled, a truly changed and Pious Prince, was that principle of wicked life so soon eradicated, which even now denominated him a Nero, and made it fit to esteem that a great good, which he began to abolish, and did he thus continue a new, reform penitent to his dying day? If so, then truly Sir W. R. was very unkind and unchristian in recording his crimes, and omitting his repentance; and it is no excellent port of this Gentleman's character, that he thought fit to imitate and quote him in this; the same injustice in an Historian or Observator, that it had been in Eusebius to take so much of the life of Constantine out of Zosimus or Julian's Caesars, as should render him justly odious, and to omit the whole latter part of his life, which was so eminently virtuous and Christian.  
Num. 6 But if this Prince still continued to be like that image, which here is portrayed of him, then sure I shall with the same evidence of proof be allowed to object those vices, and those no excellent Christian motives that incited it, to his desire of being reconciled or his willingness to re-admit the Papal power into this Kingdom, and conclude, that the ejection of it must be a great good, which he was so inclinable to abolish, and so the faith of the reformed, which he so more than began to persecute, and all this as regularly as his personal vices, and the infamus occasion, be it never so truly so, can be objected to that act of State, which passed in that King's reign, for the disclaimig the Papal powers among us.  
Num. 7 Nay, if that passage in his story had acquired a yet farther degree of Truth, if the Post had come two days sooner to Rome, and so had actually composed the difference between that King and that Pope, so as had been most for the interest of Rome, yet it is evident, that my discourse had no way been concerned in this; This evidently had been no more, than what afterwards came to pass in Queen Mary's days, and it would still be in the power of King Henry's immediate successor, to remove the power from Rome to Canterbury, as it had been in the power of Henry either to do it, or undo it again.  
Num. 8 And therefore the whole matter still divolves (as it did in the tract of Schism) to that one question, whether the Bishop of Rome had at that time any real authority here, which the King might not lawfully remove from him to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and must be decided as there it is, by the view of Evidences, whether that pretended from Peter's Universal Pastorship, or that from Augustine's planting Christianity here, or that from the voluntary con●ession of some Kings, and each of them is so disproved there, that till some competent answer be rendered to those particulars, (which certainly is not yet done by this Gentleman, who only here tells us the manner how he relies on each of these, and the possession they had of the belief that the Pope was head of the Universal Church) 'tis perfectly unnecessary farther to consider what is here added, only to inflame passions, but not to satisfy Conscience, to exasperate, not to argue.  
Num. 9 For what if moderate Protestants should truly curse the day, etc. or, in a more Christian dialect, express their dislike to the great Sacrilege, and some other enormities, which were committed in that Prince's reign, what prejudice will this be to any lawful exercise of that regal power? 'Tis certain that all the Acts of a bad Prince are not invalid or null, and much more evident still, that he that hath not offended in assuming the power which really belongs to him, may by being denied that, be enraged, and laid open, to importune Temptations, and if he be not a through Christian, constant and masterly, fall, and that foully under those temptations. And if Henry VIII. did so, still this is very extrinsecall to the present inquiry, whether he as King had power to remove a Patriarchy, and by that to remove all foreign jurisdiction or authority out of this Church.  
Num. 10 All that remains in this Section, farther to be spoken to, is the possession that is here pleaded, not in the power itself, (if it were, that hath formerly been spoken to) but in the belief, that the Pope as successor to S. Peter, is head and Governor of the Universal Church, This belief, saith he, they have been in possession of, ever since the Conversion of our English Ancestors, till King Henry; and for this, beside his own bare affirmation, he brings no other proof, than one testimony of Na●ier on the Revelation, confessing that the Church of Rome hath borne a sway over the Christian world above 1200. years.  
Num. 11 And 1. for this kind of Possession, possession in the belief of any thing, any farther than that which is believed is true, and that appear some other way, than by our having so long believed it, certainly this is no matter of any deep consideration to us; If it still appear to be true upon grounds of reason, those grounds are the considerable, and not the belief; And if the grounds be discovered to be fallacious, and the contrary to be more reasonable to be believed, then sure this hath but the advantage of an Ancient error, and the older it is, the fitter not to be longer continued in, it must be immediately deposited. And against this, or instead of doing thus, to talk of possession is unnatural, and irrational, the same plea that may serve for any sin that hath had the luck to get the first hold in us, the same that would certainly have held for all the Idolatry of the Heathens, when Christ came into the world; And he that hath long lived in obscurity and misery (he, and his Ancestors) for many years together, and were now offered an advancement out of that sad condition, would he ever be so unkind to himself as to refuse that offer, upon this one account, because it is the turning him out of a possession? This prescribing for Error, and prescribing for Sin, and prescribing for Misery, are in effect the same, equally unnatural and irrational, supposing it to be truly Error and Sin, and Misery which we treat of.  
Num. 13 But than secondly waving this, and applying ourselves to the particular before us, how doth it appear that the Romanist hath been in possession in this belief, so long as he pretends? He here brings but one Testimony to confirm it, that of Napier; But for this testimony the answer is easy, that the affirmations or confessions of such as Napier was (and is by this Gentleman acknowledged to be) in their arguing against the credit of Antiquity, or to make good other hypotheses of theirs, are of as little authority with us, as I suppose they will be with them, when they are contrary to their pretensions or interests; Secondly, that the Pope's bearing a sway over the Christian world is not interpretable to signify his Universal Pastorship; The Bishop of the Prime imperial See, may justly be very considerable, and so bear a sway, but it follows not thence that his ordinary jurisdiction hath been thus extended to the whole Christian world.  
Num. 14 Nay thirdly, the contrary to this hath been sufficiently evidenced Chap: 4. and 5. both as concerns Saint Peter himself, and the Bishop of Rome as successor to Saint Peter, and till those evidences are refuted, the affirmation of Napier being so imperfect and infirm, both in respect of the testifier and the matter of the testimony, will be very unfit to bear sway with any rational man.  
Num. 15 And so the whole weight of this argument pressed with so much confidence is resolved into the bare authority of the Speaker, this Gentleman, who saith it, that ever since the conversion of the English Nation, the Romanists have had possession of this belief, that the Pope, as successor to Saint Peter is Governor of the Universal Church.  
Num. 16 And that I may apply some answer yet more particularly to this, I shall premise one thing, that if indeed this were granted, which is suggested, it would not be of any great force toward the inducing of this conclusion, that the Pope really was and is Universal Pastor. For supposing the Pope to have assumed that authority, at the time of Augustine the Monk his coming into England and making his plantation, and supposing him to have preached this to King Ethelbert, and the rest of his Proselytes, with the same gravity and confidence, that he used in imparting all the Doctrines of Christian Faith (in the same manner as Xaverius the Apostle of the Indics imparted to them two Gospels, the one of Christ, the other of Saint Peter) I shall not doubt but upon these grounds it would be very consequent, that all, that willingly embraced the preaching of Augustine, and had no other Doctrine to compare it with, or examine it by, should probably receive this branch of belief, and so all others from and after them, that insisted firmly and punctually on Augustine's way; and thus 'tis possible the possession of that belief might be continued till the days of Hen. VIII.  
Num. 17 But then this is no proof that what in this particular Augustine affirmed was true, or that the belief of it had possession in the whole Church before, Nay, the contrary will be most evident, that at that very time the British Bishops acknowledged not any such power over them in the Pope or any other, as is cited from the Abbate of Bangor, cap. 16. Sect. 5. and much more to the same purpose.  
Num. 18 And 'tis no news to remind him out of their own Canon Law, that some of their Popes have disclaimed (and that not without great aversation and detestation of the arrogance of it) the title of Universal Bishop or Pastor, and acknowleged it is a very ominous Symptom in any that shall assume it, and considering the prejudices that lie against it, from the first ecumenical Councils, all the Ordinances whereof the Popes at their creations vow to maintain inviolably, and against which to constitute or innovate any thing, ne hujus quidem sedis potest authoritas, it is not in the power of this See, saith Pope Zosimus, 25. qu. 1. c. Contra. I may justly conclude that all are obliged to do the like.  
Num. 19 But than secondly, what truth there is in it in thesi, that from S. Augustine's plantation to this time of Henry VIII. the Romanists have been in possession of this belief of the Pope's universal Pastorship, must be contested by evidences. And 1. For Augustine himself it appears not by the story in Bede, that he did at all preach this doctrine to the nation, nay, as upon Augustine's demand concerning ceremonies, Pope Gregory binds him not to conform all to the Canons or practice of Rome, but bids him 
* Eccl: Hist: l. 1. c. 27.  freely choose that which may most please God, wheresoever he finds it, sive in Gallia●um, sive in qualibet Ecclesi●, whether in France, or in any other Church, & haec quasi in Fasciculum collecta apud Anglorum mentes in consuetudinem deponere, make up a Book of such Canons to be observed in England (which clearly shows that the Romish Canons were not to be in power in England) so when the difference betwixt him and the British Bishops (of whom it hath been showed that they acknowledged not the Pope to have any power over them) came to be composed, he required compliance and obedience from them but in three things, the 
* Ib: l. 2. c. 2.  observation of Easter according to the order of the Church of Rome (and the Nicene Canon) the Ministration of Baptism, and joining with him to preach to the English; Which is some prejudice to the founding of this belief in Augustine's preaching.  
Num. 20 Nay when Bede comes to speak of Gregory then Pope, by way of Encomium at his death, the utmost he faith of him is, that cum primùm in toto orbe gereret Pontifieatum, & conversis jamdudum Ecclesiis praelatus esset etc. being Bishop of the Prime Church in the whole world, and set over those Churches which had been long since converted, and having now taken care to propagate that faith to England, he might justly be called our Apostle, and say as S. Paul did, that if to others he were not an Apostle, yet he was to us.  
Num. 21 As for that of Universal Pastorship certainly we may take Gregory's own word, that no such thing was then thought to belong to him, in his Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, visible among his works, and inserted in the 
* B. Gre: Ep: ex regist: l. 7. Indict: 1. c. 30.  body of their Canon Law. Nam dixi etc. I told you that you were not to write to me or any other in that style, and behold in the Preface of that Epistle directed to me who thus prohibited, you have set this proud appellation, calling me universal Pope or Father, which I desire you will do no more, for it is a derogating from 
* par: 1. dist: 99 Ecce  you, to bestow on another more than reason requires, I count it not my honour, wherein I know my brethren lose their honour, My honour is the honour of the universal Church, My honour is that my brethren should enjoy what fully belongs to them (so I render fratrum meorum solidus vigour) then am I truly honoured when the honour, which is due to all, is denied to none. For if you call me universal Pope, you deny that to yourself which you attribute all to me; And farther tells him, with expressions of aversation, Absit and recedant—, that this honour had by a Council been offered to his Predecessors, the Council of Chalcedon (that gave it equally to him and the Bishop of Constantinople, which is in effect to give to neither the power or sense, but only the title of it) but no one of them would ever use this title. This sure i● evidence enough, that if at that time any such belief of the Universal Pastorship of the Pope entered this Nation, it must needs be the belief of a known acknowledged falsity, and so far from a bonae fidei possessio.  
Num. 22 After this, what possession this belief had among us, may be judged by some of those many 
* l. de diff: Reg: et Eccl: Potest:  instances put together by the Bishops in Henry VIII. his days, as the premises whereon that King built his conclusion of ejecting that Power which was then usurped by the Pope.  
Num. 23 First a statute, that for Ecclesiastical appeals they shall in the last resort lie from the Archbishop to the King, so as not to proceed any farther without the King's assent.  
Num. 24 Secondly, that Tunstan Archbishop elect of York, ask leave of the King to go to a Council designed by Calixtus, had it granted with this reserve, that he should not receive Episcopal benediction from the Pope.  
Num. 25 Thirdly, that the Kings of England from time to time, had and exercised authority of making laws in Ecclesiastical matters; Eight such Laws are there recited of Canutus his making, the like of King Ethelred, Edgar, Edmund, Aethelstane, Ina King of the West Saxons, and King Alfred.  
Num. 26 Fourthly, that William the Conqueror instituting and indowing the Abbey of Battle, gave the Abbot exemption from all jurisdiction of any Bishops, aut quarumlibet personarum dominatione, from all dominion or rule of any persons whatsoever, sicut Ecclesia Christi Cantuariensis, in like manner as the Church of Canterbury; Which imports two things, 1. that the Church of Canterbury had no such Ruler over him (but the King) and 2. that the Abbot of Battle was by regal power invested with the same privileges.  
Num. 27 But I suppose all these, and many the like instances, which might be brought, derogatory enough to the possession in this belief here pretended, will but add one more to the number of such arguments, of which this Gentleman saith, that they have forty times had replies made to them; And truly this is a good easy compendious way, which as it secures him against all that can be produced, so it doth not encourage me to spend time in collecting and producing more, and therefore this shall suffice to have added now concerning this matter, being apt to flatter myself, that these arguments are demonstrative and clear enough to men of common sense, to disprove, and so to overthrow this Possession.   

Sect. II.  
Queen Mary's retaining the Supremacy. Power of refusing Legates, unreconcilable with the Pope's Supremacy.  
Num. 1 THE next Paragraph is an account of a passage cited by me from the story of Queen Mary, Thus,  
Num. 2 Queen Mary's titular retaining of the Supremacy until she could dispose the disordered hearts of her subjects to get it peaceably revoked, is no authority for the Doctor, she never pretending it to be lawfully done, but that she could not do otherwise, no more is her refusing of a Legate, which in all Catholic times and countries hath been practised and thought lawful.  
Num. 3 What civil or secular motives they were, which kept that Queen so long from rejecting the title of supreme in her own Kingdom, I shall not need to inquire; If it were no unpardonable sin in her to continue the title, and exercise of that power, which was incompetible with the Pope's universal Pastorship, then why should it be so heinous in her Father to assume it? Her never pretending that it was lawfully done, signifies very little, as long as she pretends not the contrary, that it was unlawful; The truth may well lie in the middle, that she thought it lawful to retain it, yet lawful also to bestow it on the Bishop of Rome, and upon the strength of the former persuasion, my charity obligeth me to think, that she did the former, and in force of the latter it is possible also, that she did the latter, though possible too, that she did it upon reason of state, the validity of her mother's marriage, and consequently her legitimation depending upon the acknowledgement of the Pope's absolute power in this Nation.  
Num. 4 But the truth is, her opinion or practice is of no more force one way, than the other, and therefore was taken in as a supernumerary observation, and not such as on that alone to found any grand argument.  
Num. 5 As for the power of refusing a Legate from the Pope, I cannot discern how that is reconcileable with the Pope's pretensions to supreme power in this Kingdom; Can it be lawful for any Province to refuse a Procurator, or Praetor, or Proconsul, sent solemnly commissionated by the Lawful Prince? Was it lawful for the tenants or dressers of the vineyard to deny entrance to the King's son or but servant? Is not this a derogation to supreme power and domination? If this be practised and counted lawful in all Catholic times and Countries, this is to me an indication, that in no time or country there hath been possession of this belief that the Pope is the supreme Pastor of all, for sure if he were, his Legate which is his image, might in power of the original require admission, and he that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus sent and commissionated by him, must by S. Peter's precept be allowed obedience from all his subjects, and so from that Queen, if such she were, and such she must be, so far as he had the supremacy.  
Num. 6 So again when Cardinal Petou was sent to be Bishop of Sarisbury, the denying him that Bishopric was a check to the Pope's absolute supremacy, but of that this Gentleman was in prudence to take no notice.   

Sect. III.  
King Edward his Reformation. The Duke of Somerset. The Duke of Northumberland, his Treason no prejudice to the Reformation under that King.  
Num. 1 HIs next exception is to the passages concerning King Edward VI King Henry's immediate successor, Thus,  
Num. 2 King Edward a child of nine years old fell into the hands of wicked and ambitious traitors, who knowing the Kingdom affected for religion sake to Queen Mary, to cut off her succession, and introduce their own, thought sit to strengthen their faction, which beside what they might hope from abroad, consisted of many Lutherans and Calvinists at home: those two sects having by opportunity of that rupture in Henry VIII. his time, spread and nest led themselves in many parts of England.  
Num. 3 What is here said hath little of truth in it, and as little of argument, if it were truth. That the youth of the Prince can be no foundation of argument against the Legality of what was done by the Duke of Somerset his uncle, the Protector, in his nonage, was sufficiently showed before, and might be exemplified through all times and places. That this Protector should at this time, when the young King legally fell into his hands, be styled a wicked ambitious Traitor, hath not any degree of truth in it, the crime, for which he afterward lost his life, being far from any disloyalty to his Sovereign.  
Num. 4 As for the Duke of Northumberland, who obtained the King's consent to settle the inheritance on Jane Grey, and accordingly, after the King's death, proclaimed her Queen, and suffered as a traitor for so doing, all that I shall need to say is this, 1. that this act of his, how traitorous soever, cannot justify what is here said, that the King at nine years old fell into the hands of traitors, for that one Duke cannot truly be called traitors in the plural, and the King at that age did not fall into his hands, but into the hands of Edward Seymour Duke of Somerset, under whom the six Articles and other acts of severity against the Protestants were called in, and the Acts against the Papal authority confirmed, the Romish Mass abrogated, the Bible translated, and published in the English tongue, the Liturgy reform, and the public offices performed in English, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper administered in both kinds etc. And so whatsoever was afterward done (were it never so traitorously) by the Duke of Northumberland, could have no influence on this change, and is therefore very impertinently here inserted, after the manner of the Orator, not the historian, to raise passions, inflame dislkes and aversions in the Reader, and not to give him any exact view of the truth of the story.  
Num. 5 Secondly, that the design of the Duke of Northumberland not succeeding, but costing him so dear, the loss of his own life and hers, whom he set up to be Queen, and the succession regularly descending on Queen Mary, there can be no reasonable account given, why this treason of that Duke should here be proposed as the one considerable, it being evident in the story, that all things were composed to the full satisfaction of Queen Mary, and just as they should have been, in case that traitorous attempt had never been made by that Duke.  
Num. 6 To which I might add, that this treason of his was founded on that very act, which in the next paragraph this Gentleman thinks fit to vouch as authentic, and if it were so, that could be no treason in that Duke, viz: the Act whereby Mary as well as Elizabeth were adjudged illegitimate, and so uncapable of the succession. But these are considerations very extrinsical and remote from the matter, as it lies here in the contest between us.  
Num. 7 I shall only, for conclusion, observe, that if, as he saith, the Kingdom were for Religion's sake affected to Queen Mary, it could not certainly be skilful, or popular, or any way Politic in them that thus desired to strengthen themselves, to introduce this change in Religion. For whatsoever aid they might hope for, either from Lutherans or Calvinists at home or abroad, sure they might have hoped for more by the other way, if it be true what he affirms of the Kingdom indefinitely, that it was affected to Queen Mary's Religion. For that other Kingdoms of Europe generally were so at that time, there is small question.   

Sect. III.  
Queen Elizabeth's illegitimacy answered. The unpolitickness of her Counsels of Reforming.  
Num. 1 NOW follows his exceptions to that part of the story which concern Queen Elizabeth; The first by the by, Thus,  
Num. 2 Queen Elizabeth being by Act of Parliament recorded a Bastard, and so pronounced by two Popes, and therefore mistrusting all her Catholic subjects, who she feared did adhere to the Queen of Scots title, in which she was then likely to be supported by the King of France her husband, was by the advice of men partly infected with Calvinisme or Lutheranisme, partly ambitious of making their fortunes, cast upon that desperate counsel of changing religion; desperate I say, for see amongst what a number of rocks she was, in consequence of that Counsel forced to sail, witness her adhering to the rebels of all her neighbour Kings, so provoking them thereby, as if the French King had not been taken out of this world, and wind and weather fought against the Spanish Armado, in all likelihood she had been ruined, especially her Catholic subjects being so provoked as they were, by most cruel and bloody Laws: but this by the by: though from hence the Reader may judge of reason of changing religion in her time, and what a solid foundation the Church of England hath.  
Num. 3 That Queen Elizabeth was by Act of Parliament recorded a bastard; hath no farther truth in it, than is of force against Queen Mary also, The same Act of Parliament affirming the marriages with Queen Katherine, and Anne of Bolen void, and their children Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate, and so involving them equa'y under the same censure.  
Num. 4 Nay, if there were any force in this (as this Gentleman by mentioning it is obliged to think there is) it must be much more to Queen Mary's disadvantage, for 'tis certain that upon the birth of Queen Elizabeth, 'twas enacted by Parliament, that the marriage with Katherine was null, because incestuous, and so this with Anne lawful (which certainly it was, if the former was incestuous and the resolution of the Universities and most learned men, not only in England, but at Paris, and elsewhere was, that it was of such a nature, as it could not by the Pope's power be dispensed with, being so contrary to the law of God) and by the same act Elizabeth is declared heir of the Kingdom, in case the King should have no heir male, and Oath of Allegiance taken to the King and to his heirs by Anne the mother of Elizabeth. And to conclude, the subsequent act, that decreed the succession, and established it first in Edward, then in Mary, then in Elizabeth, by which it was that Mary did actually ascend to the throne, was equally favourable to both of them.  
Num. 6 And so still if any thing were to be concluded from this Gentleman's prooemial consideration, it still lies more against Queen Mary, than against Queen Elizabeth, if not in respect of the merit of the cause (on which this Gentleman will give me leave to suppose it was, that our stories tell us, that the Pope had given Cardinal Campeius his Legate a Private Bull, much in favour of the King's pretensions, but kept it under some restraint till he saw how the Emperor's affairs in Italy would succeed) yet in respect of the several declarations against the one, and but one only against the other, and that how well founded, is easy to discern, if this were a place for such disputes.  
Num. 7 But it is not so, much less for the other Politic considerations that here follow, whether the counsel of re-excluding the Papacy, and proceeding to a farther Reformation in her Kingdoms, were a desperate Counsel or no, For if to this Gentleman's arguments I shall grant it were so, the conclusion will be only this, that her action was unskilful in secular considerations, from which it is no way consequent, that it was more than, as Prince, she had power to do, or impious in the sight of God, or that that, which being built on so feeble a foundation, proved yet competently successful, is by this means conclusible to have been unlawful and null, for in that alone can be founded the truth of the suggestion here, that we that adhere to her Reformation, must be adjudged schismatics.   

Sect. IU.  
The Ordination of Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time. Mr. Mason's Record. Introducing of Turkism.  
Num. 1 WHat remains on this head of Queen Elizabeth, as the narration after this long Prooeme, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after an acknowledged (yet at large) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will be soon dispatched; It is thus,  
Num. 2 How far Master Mason can justify the ordination of Queen Elizabeth's Bishops, I will not now examine; but certain it is, that the Record (if there be such an one) hath a great prejudice of being forged, since it lay some fifty years unknown amongst the Clamours against the flagrant act, and no permission given to Gatholikes to examine the ingenuity of it, but howsoever it is nothing to our purpose, for whatsoever material mission they had by an external consecration, those Bishops, who are said to have consecrated them, are not so much as pretended to have given them order to preach the doctrine, or exercise the Religion they after did, which is the true meaning and effect of mission. I cannot end without noting in his 24. Parag: the foundation upon what he himself says his whole design relies; which is, that because the recession from the Roman Church was done by those, by whom, and to whom only the power of right belonged legally, viz the King and Bishops of this Nation, therefore it is no Schism, that is, what soever the reason of dividing hath been, even to turn Turks, or for violating never so fundamental points of Religion, yet it had not been Schism.  
Num. 3 What Mr. Masons Records are, and of how good and unquestionable authority, I leave to the view of his Book, which sets down all so particularly, and irrefragably, that nothing can be more contrary to the Gentleman's interests, than the most strict examination of that whole matter, in order to the vindicating and justifying this truth, that the succession of Bishops, and order Ecclesiastical hath been regularly preserved in our Church, at that time, when alone the Romanist accuseth us for the interruption of it, i. e. in Queen Elizabeth's reformation. (To which head of discourse it is not amiss to add the resolution of Cudsemius the Jesuit, de desper: Calvini causà, cap. 11. that the English Nation are not Heretics, because they remain in a perpetual succession of Bishops.)  
Num. 4 Which being the only thing that in that Sect. 16. I purposed to conclude from Mr. Masons work, and the Records by him produced, it lies not on me to prove that they which ordained those Queen Eilzabeth-Bishops, gave them order to preach the Doctrine they after did, or to examine the truth of his suggestion, that this is the true meaning and effect of Mission. It may suffice that they which consecrated them, gave them the same power which themselves derived by succession from the Apostles, and that was sufficient to authorise them to preach all Apostolical doctrine, and if they preached any other, let it appear, and I shall never justify their preaching. But that is not attempted here, and therefore I have herein no farther matter, that exacts reply from me.  
Num. 5 For as to his parting blow, which he cannot omit, in reply to Sect 20. certainly it hath little impression on my discourse in that place, which doth not inquire what is unlawful or criminous Universally, for then sure I should have acknowledged that the bringing in Turkism, or violating fundamental points of Religion had been such, but peculiarly and precisely this, what is Schism, in that one notion of Schism, as that is a voluntary separation from our Ecclesiastical Superiors; of which that we are not, or cannot be guilty, when we act in perfect concord, compliance and subordination to all those to whom the right of superiority legally belonged, is I suppose, so manifest, that it can need no farther proof.  
Num. 6 As for any such act of lawful Superiors in bringing in Turkism, or violating fundamental points, I should not be apt to style that Schism (any more than I would call perjury, lying, or incest, simple fornication) it being in the first part of the instance, Apostasy and total defection from Christ, which I hope is a little more than denying the Pope's Universal Pastorship, or Infallibility of the Church (in which consists his grand species of Schism) and in the second, Heresy, and the grossest sort of Schism together, that of departing from the unity of the Faith, which being by me Chap. 8. distinctly handled, as a second species of schism, all that I need here say to this Gentleman's exception, is, that I endeavoured to speak as distinctly, and not as confusedly as I could, and therefore did not mix things that were distant, and therefore did not speak of that second kind of schism at the same time when I proposed to speak of the first only, and upon this account only said nothing to it in that Chapter. And I hope this was but my duty to do, agreeably to all rules of method, and so that he might very well have spared that animadversion which he saith he could not end without noting.    

CHAP. VIII. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the eighth Chapter.  

Sect. I.  
The Division of Schism. An Answer to many Questions about Schism, A retortion.  
Num. 1 IN proceeding to the view of Chap. 8. this Gentleman without any cause is pleased to change the division of the second sort of schism there handled, into another, which it seems was more suitable to his understanding, and then to make two light skirmishes against the discourse of that Chapter. He begins thus,  
Num. 2 In his 8th Chapter, as far as I understand, he divideth Schism into formal, that is, breach of unity; and material, that is, breach of Doctrine or Customs, in which the Church was united: the former he brancheth into subordination to the Pope, 
Sect. 4.  of which enough hath been said; and breach of the way provided by Christ for maintaining the unity of faith, the which he puts in many subordinations without any effect, 
Sect. 5.  For let us ask, if inferior Clergymen descent from their own Bishops, but not from their Metropolitan, in matter of faith, is it Schism? he will answer, No: If a Metropolitan dissent from his Primate, but agree with the rest of the Patriarches, is it schism? I think he must say, No: If a Patriarch descent from the first, but agree with the rest, is it schism? No: If a Nation or a Bishop descent from the rest of the General Council, is it schism? still I believe he will answer, No: Where then is schism provided against? or where truly is there any subordination in Faith? if none of these are subject, and bound to their Superiors or Vniversals in matters of faith?  
Num. 3 What my division there is, will be obvious enough to any man's understanding. In the third Chap: the foundation had been laid in the opposition betwixt Schism and Ecclesiastical Unity, and as the unity was the conserving all due relations, whether of subordination, or equality, wherein each member of Christ's Church is concerned one toward another, so there were two prime branches of schism, the one against the subordination which Christ settled in his Church, the second against the mutual charity, which he left as his Legacy among Christians. And the former of these being discussed at large in order to the present debate, in the 8. Chapter, the method led me to the latter of them, to consider Schism, as it is an offence against the mutual unity, Peace, and Charity, which Christ left, and prescribed among Christians; And that I might be sure not to straighten the bounds of this sort of Schism, or omit any thing, that can, by any rule of discourse, be placed in the borders or confines of it, by the means either to lay charge on us, or render our Vindication the clearer, I distributed it into as many parts, as in my opinion the matter could by any be thought to bear, i. e. into three species,  
1. A breach in the Doctrines or Traditions (together with the institutions of Christ, his Apostles, and the Primitive Church, whether in government, or observances.)  
2. An offence against external peace or communion Ecclesiastical.  
3. The want of that Charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian.  
The first of these again subdivided and considered, 1. in the gross, as it is a departing from the rules appointed by Christ for the founding and upholding unity of Doctrine, etc. 2. in particular, the asserting of any particular doctrine, contrary to Christ's and the Apostolical pure Church's establishment.  
Num. 4 The Scheme being thus laid as regular, and as comprehensive, as I could devise 1. here is not one word said to express any cause of dislike or exception to it; and yet 2. it is quite laid aside, and another of formal and material Schism, etc. substituted instead of it, upon what temptation or design, save only a willingness to gain somewhat by the shuffle and confusion, more than the distinctness of discourse could yield him, I cannot divine.  
Num. 5 As it is, I yet discern not the particular advantages he had in his intuition, but suppose them latent and reserved; For to his special discovery that he means to make by ask (and supposing answers to) many questions proportionable to the several links in the subordination, the account will be easy enough, that as long as any particular Bishop remains in the due subordination to his Canonical superiors, so long the departure of any clergy man that is under his jurisdiction, from that obedience which Canonically he owes him, is in him that is thus guilty of it, an act of schism.  
Num. 6 But then I, when instead of departure he puts descent (which may belong to light matters, wherein liberty of dissent from Superiors, is yielded to all men, or to greater matters, without departing from obedience or Communion) this is not fairly done, this difference having a visible influence on the matter.  
Num. 7 Secondly, when of the inferiour clergie-man's dissent from his own Bishop, he makes me answer that it is not schism, if it be not from his Metropolitan, I never gave him my letter of Proxy to do so: But on the other side, if the dissent be supposed to be improved into a departure (which alone makes schism) I shall not doubt to pronounce it schism, unless he have first made his appeal from his Bishop to his Metropolitan, and by him and his Council of Bishops be adjudged to be in the right, and then if his Bishop by that judgement be reduced to order, he may not, he cannot again without schism depart from him.  
Num. 8 Thirdly, when from Primates he ascends to Patriarches, as if that latter had a power superior to the former, and again from the l'atriarches to the first Patriarch, i. e. the Bishop of Rome, this he knows hath no place with us, who acknowledge no power of any Patriarch above a Primate, no supremacy over all in the Bishop of Rome, but yet allow them and him (proportionably to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if that will content him) that Primacy of order, which by the ancient Canons, is allowed them.  
Num. 9 Fourthly, whatsoever concerning these several steps from the lowest Clergy man to the first of Patriarches, he fancies to be answered by us; and from thence concludes, that then schism is no way provided against, is visibly much more true of any Romanist; For certainly if he descent not from the Bishop of Rome, it must be no schism, in him though he descent from his own Bishop, his own Archbishop, Primate, and Patriarch, and if he do descent from him, 'tis not his consenting with all his inferior Governors, that will stand him in stead for his vindication.  
Num. 10 And therefore if what he hath form against me by his making answer himself to his own questions, be found really to conclude (as he saith it doth) against all subordination, 'tis now evident, who is most unblamable for it, he doubtless, that hath divolved all into the Monarchike supremacy of the Pope, and permits us not to consider, what any other our immediate superiors require of us.  
Num. 11 Lastly, what he puts into my mouth by way of answer, concerning subordination to a General Council, that if a nation or Bishop descent from the rest of a General Council, still it is not schism, unless, as I said, there be deceit in substituting the word Dissent, for Departure or Recession, I shall no way acknowledge the answer which he believes I will make; For certainly I acknowledge, as much as he, or any man, the authority of a General Council against the dissents of a nation, much more of a particular Bishop. And these were misadventures enough to be noted in one Paragraph.   

Sect. II.  
The sufficiency of the few heads resolved on by the Apostles. The notion of Fundamentals. The Canon of Ephesus concerning it. The definition of the Council of Florence. Many Churches have not betrayed this trust. Christian practice to be superadded. The few things preserved by Tradition.  
Num. 1 NExt he proceeds to another part of the discourse of that Chapter, concerning the heads resolved on by the Apostles, in order to planting Christian life, and to that he thus offers his exceptions.  
Num. 2 But, saith the Doctor, the Apostles resolved upon some few heads of special force and efficacy to the planting of Christian life through the world, and preaching and depositing them in every Church of their plantation. Truly I do not know what a Catholic professeth more, so that by the word few, he meaneth enough to form a Religion, and Christian life, and will show us a Church which hath not betrayed the trust deposited; for if there be none, what availeth this depositing? if there be any, clear it is that it preserved it by Tradition; if there be a question whether it hath or no, again I demand to what purpose was the depositing, so that if the Doctor would speak aloud, I doubt he would be subject to as much jealousy, as he saith Grotius was.  
Num. 3 That what I affirm, as he confesseth conformably, to the Catholics profession, may be as full and explicit as he can desire, I doubt not to express my meaning to be, that the few heads, that the Apostles resolved on, were sufficient both for number and efficacy, or in 
* Epist. ad Epict.  Athanasius his language, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sufficient for the averting all impiety, and establishment of all piety in Christ; And for his satisfaction therein, I refer him to the Treatise of Fundamentals, printed since that of Schism, of which the only design was to insist on this, as the grand notion of Fundamentals, such as were by the Apostles and Christ himself, deemed most proper and effectual to plant Christian life in a world of Jews, and Gentiles, and briefly to set down and enumerate all those that the Apostles thought thus necessary.  
Num. 4 To which I shall now add one observation, that this sufficiency of the foundation by them laid and somewhat explained (on occasion of Heretical opposers) by the Council of Nice, etc. was such, that the Ephesine Council following that of Nice, 106. years, made a decree, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. that it should not be lawful for any man to produce, write, 〈◊〉 compose any belief beside that which was established by the Fathers at Nice, and that they which should dare to compose or offer any such to any that would from Gentilism, Judaisme, or whatever Heresy convert to the ackcowledgment of the truth, if they were Bishops, should be deposed from their Bishoprics, if Laymen, anathematised, etc. Can. 7.  
Num. 5 And this authority being pressed by the Greeks to the Latins, in the Council of 
* Sess. 10.  Florence, and that with this smart expression, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, No man will accuse the Faith (that which those Fathers had professed) or charge it of imperfection, unless he be mad, Concil. l. 7. p. 642. A. The Latins answer is but this, that that Canon did not forbid, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, another explication agreeable to the truth contained in that Crede, acknowledging that it did forbid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, difference as well as contrariety (pag. 644. b) and even for such a bare explication they counted not that lawful for any but the Fathers convened in O Ecumenical Synods, citing it from Aquinas, 2a. 2 ae. qu: 1: ar. 10. and adding that he spoke, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of any Creed whatsoever which was common to the whole Church. 
Ib. p. 641. D.   
Num. 6 And accordingly there follows out of the Epistle of Celestine to Nestorius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The belief delivered by the Apostles requires neither addition nor diminution.  
Num. 7 In all which, how they are concerned, who impose so many new articles of belief upon their own Churches, and upon all that desire Communion with them, I leave to each Romanist to consider, ann shall only add the words of the Catechism taken out of the works of Costerus, Petrus de Soto, and others, and set out by command of the Archbishop of Triers, resp. ad 2. qu. Neque ulla unquam ex titit haresis, quae non hoc symbolo damnari potuerit, There was never any Heresy which might not be condemned by the Apostles Creed. It were well we might be allowed the benefit of this trial.  
Num. 8 And now having given this pledge of my readiness to answer his questions, though I discern not any obligation, arising from my former discourse, to lie upon me, yet I shall not be so nice or sparing of my pains, as to deny him a clear account also of his subsequent demands, but shall speak as loud as he would wish, and tell him first to the first demand, that as to those few heads I spoke of, I can, blessed be God, show him Churches enough, which have not betrayed the trust deposited; The Church of England, even now, under the saddest persecution, hath not been tempted to betray that trust, the Church of Rome, through all the Prosperity and Splendour, and Grandeur, which it hath long enjoyed, and which, the Historian tells us, acrioribus stimulis animum explorant, hath as yet held out thus far: I mean hath retainnd those few head●, and in that respect is not accused by us to have betrayed that trust (I wish it were as blameless in all things else, particularly in that wherein our present debate is most concerned, in imposing new Articles of Faith on all Christians, and her own infallibility for the first of them.)  
Num. 9 The same I can as freely affirm of all other National Churches, that I know of, confining my discourse still to the small (yet in the Apostles opinions sufficient) number of heads of special force to the planting of Christian life through the world.  
Num. 10 And so as this Gentleman is much disappointed in his expectation, that I should not be able to name any Church that hath not betrayed the trust deposited, so I must profess to him, I think it as reasonable, that they that agree in believing and conserving those few precious heads of truth, designed to so glorious an end, as is the peopling a world with a peculiar colony of inhabitants, all uniformly zealous of good works, should all join hands and hearts, to add that superstructure to the foundation, pure, immaculate, Elevated, Heroical, i. e. Christian practice, to the untainted belief of these few things.  
Num. 11 And then how much blame (by force of that Canon of Ephesus) most justly belongs unto them that make it their great interest to quarrel, divide from, and anathematise, all others, who cannot believe all other things which they chance to believe, though they know they agree with them in all that the Apostles thus thought necessary to be agreed in; & indeed how contrary this is, and destructive to this superstructure, of which Charity in one principal ingredient, and so to the design of laying the foundation, though not to the foundation itself, I shall leave this Gentleman and every sober Christian to consider, and if he judge not as I do, yet I shall not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 number it among the prodigies of the age, or indeed think stranger of it, than I have long done of the great distance betwixt Reason and Passion in the same sort of creatures, Man, and (God knows too oft) in the same Individual creature, the same Man and Christian.  
Num. 12 Having gone thus far in ready obedience to this Gentleman's lightest intimation of his pleasure, in satisfaction to his first demand, I shall in the same humour proceed without all reserve to the next, doubting as little as he, but that these few things (all justice must allow our discourse to he coherent, and so to adhere to the same subject with which we began) have been preserved in each Church by Tradition, and then to the third, that there is no place of doubt concerning the fact, and so of question, whether they have or no, and if by thus speaking aloud to every of his demands, I render myself subject to as much jealousy as I say Grotius was, I shall not accuse him as my tempter, but only support and comfort myself, that I have retained as much innocence as I always thought Grotius had done, and by declaring my meaning thus clearly, and professing that I mean no whit more than I say, I see no place for jealousy remaining to any.  
Num. 13 If to believe the Apostles Creed to be conveyed down to us by tradition in every national Church from the Apostles time to this, be any heresy, I am visibly guilty of it, and need not have my words put upon the rack (as Grotius' have been) to extort a more explicit confession from them.   

Sect. III.  
Submission without opinion of infallibility. The appeal to the Fathers of the first 300 years, and the four General Conncels, to what it belongs. The silence of the first times no advantage to the Romanist. Two Questions of Additaments to Faith; The way of debating each of them.  
Num. 1 HIS last exception to this Chapter is to our profession of humility and temper, which it seems those of our religion must not be permitted to assume to themselves (and which I was no farther so insolent to assume, than as it is observable in the peculiarity of the frame of the Church of England's Reformation) Thus,  
Num. 2 I cannot but admire indeed the great temper he professeth men of his religion have, in choosing of Doctrines, to wit, their submission to the three first Ages, and the four first Counsels, but I confess it is a humility I understand not, first to profess, they know not whether their teachers say true or no (that is, that they are fallible) and then to hold under pain of damnation what they say. Another piece of their humility is in submitting to ages, where very few witnesses can be found, in regard of the rarity of the Authors and the little occasion they had to speak of present controversies. A third note of humility is, that whereas the fourth Council was held about the midst of the fifth Age, these lovers of truth will stand to it, but not to the fourth Age precedent, or that very Age in which it was held, so humble they are to submit to any authority, that toucheth not the questions in present controversy, but where do they find Christ's Church shall be judge in three Ages, and fail in the fourth, or that the Counsels in the fifth Age shall be sound, but not the Fathers.  
Num. 3 It is very hard, it seems, to please this Gentleman. Our humility is one while by him censured as really too great, another while the want of it is our crime, and we equally to be scoffed at on both accounts.  
Num. 4 It is a criminous excess of humility forsooth, to submit to those, of whom we first profess not to know that they are infallible. But as long as we do verily believe they do actually affirm truth, why may we not submit to them, though we know not that they are infallible? For certainly I may submit to my natural, or civil parent in this manner, obey him in all his commands (supposing, as now I do, that none of his commands are by me apprehended to be unlawful, as none of these Counsels definitions, as by us believed to be, contrary to the Word and Will of God) though yet I neither account him inerrable nor impeccable. But of this I have spoken already Chap: I. Sect. 3.  
Num. 5 What he adds of holding under pain of damnation what they say, is in this place an insertion of this Gentleman's, no word being said of it in that section, to which his words are confronted, and having elsewhere spoken to that, I abstain from adding more at this time.  
Num. 6 In the next place it seems our humility is too scanty, for when I have submitted to be judged by the scriptures, the consent of the first 300 years, or the four General Counsels, whether we have departed from the Apostolical doctrines or traditions, this, saith he, is submitting to Ages where very few witnesses can be found etc. But I desire it may be remembered, what there I speak of, (for perhaps this Gentleman's haste hath not permitted him to advert to it) the contesting or innocence in this, that we of the Church of England have not departed from the Apostolic doctrine and traditions; And for this whether could the appeal more properly be directed, than to the scriptures, the Conservatorie of the Apostles written doctrine, and the three first Centuries, the conservatorie of their traditions, It being unimaginable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles, as to leap over those three Centuries next to them, without leaving any footstep discernible among them.  
Num. 7 For let the witnesses of those times, the authors that remain to us be never so few, yet unless by some of their hands we be directed what the Apostles delivered to them, how can we know what was delivered? It being all one in this respect not to be, as not to appear, Tradition, even Apostolical, being no more than an empty name, unless we suppose ourselves able to avouch some competent testifiers of the Tradition.  
Num. 8 And if to these two, I have added the four General Counsels, because they were held against the great disturbers of the unity of the Faith, and they maintained the true faith by these two special weapons, the Scriptures and Tradition, testified by the first Writers, and our Church hath taken in their Creeds into our Liturgies, and their definitions into our Articles of religion, and so I have by that appeal so far testified our non departure from the Faith, I hope there is no offence in this, no degree of defect in our humility.  
Num. 9 As for the little occasion these first had to speak of the present controversies, that sure cannot be objected against our procedure (any more than the paucity of the Authors could) for if the Romanist do but grant this one thing, it will be found a real prejudice to his pretensions, if (which was the point in hand) the question be, whether the Church of England have departed from the unity of the Apostolic Faith, denied any Apostolic Doctrine or Tradition.  
Num. 10 For in this Controversy how shall it be proved, that we have departed, unless that Doctrine or Tradition being specified what it is, it be evidenced also, that it was delivered by the Apostles, and how can that be evidenced, but by those which within some competent distance of their time, affirm that from them, and how can they be pretended to affirm that, if it be granted of them that they had no occasion to speak of it, and so are utterly silent in it.  
Num. 11 To his last note of humility i e. the next expression of his scoptical humour, there can be no need of applying any answer, it being no where intimated in that Treatise that we are not ready to stand to the fourth Age, or that wherein the fourth Council was held; All that was said, was, that the three first Ages, and the four General Counsels were competent witnesses of the Apostolical doctrines and traditions, and I desire any man to name any other that were more competent to this purpose, i. e. to testify what the Apostles taught, It being certain that whosoever doth (not by inspiration) tell us any thing of that kind, must assume to tell it from them, and as evident that all those things (that even now were spoken of) which the Apostles resolved on, as heads of special force to form religion and Christian life, were by this means conveyed to us.  
Num. 12 Mean while other matters there are, which we look on as additaments to the doctrines of Faith, and so are the subject of a double question, 1. whether they be parts of that faith which was once, or at once delivered to the saints, 2. whether not appearing to be so, there be any other just reason to believe, though but by an humane Faith, that they have any truth in them.  
Num. 13 Now of these two questions, as the resolution of the former depends upon those Ages, which alone can convey Tradition to the succeeding, and so still for that we refer ourselves to the former umpirage, so of the second, I did not then, because I had not occasion to speak in that place.  
Num. 14 And if my answer be required now, I shall readily give it, that in matters of this nature the Opinions of the Fathers of the Church in the most flourishing Ages of it, wherein their writings are most voluminous, and their Learning in Theologie most venerable, are with us of great weight and consideration; we do (and shall upon all occasions demonstrate ourselves too) allow them as full an authority, pay as great and true a reverence to their judgements, endeavour as uniformly to conform ourselves to the declarations of their sense, as any sober Romanists are by us discerned to do, or as it can be their interest to do, in respect of the controversies that lie between us. And so still I discern not, wherein our humility can be judged to fail by those, with whom I now dispute, being content that it should by others be judged excessive.    

CHAP. IX. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the ninth Chapter.  

Sect. I.  
The hindrances of Communion imputable to the Romanist, not to us. Siquis Ecclesiam non audierit, one of our grounds. What is meant by Ecclesia.  
Num. 1 THE Exceptions to this Chapter are not very great, whether we respect their weight or number, yet upon the same account that the former have been our exercise, these may for a while detain us also.  
Num. 2 In his 9th Chap: saith he, he pretendeth the Roman Catholic Church is cause of this division, because they desire communion, and cannot be admitted, but under the belief and practice of things contrary to their consciences, of which two propositions, if the second be not proved, the first is vain, and is as if a subject should plead he is unjustly outlawed, because he doth not desire it: Now to prove the latter, he assumeth that the Protestant is ready to contest his Negatives, by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by, what he means by that, I know not, for that they will convince their Negatives by any ground, a good Christian ought to be concluded by, I see nothing less.  
What then will they contest it by? all grounds a good orthodox Christian ought to be concluded by? If they answer in the Affirmative, we shall ask them whether siquis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of their grounds, and if they say no, we shall clearly disprove their Major, but then their defence is, if any ground, or rule of itself firm and good, speaketh nothing clearly of a point in question, they will contest that point by those grounds, and is not this a goodly excuse?  
Num. 3 The design of Chap: 9 of the Treatise of Schism, is to vindicate us from all guilt of schism, as that signifies offence against external peace and communion Ecclesiastical, and it being certain that we exclude none from our Communion, that acknowledge the foundation, and that we desire to be admitted to the like freedom of external communion, with all members of all other Christian Churches, the result is visible, that the hindrances, that obstruct this freedom, are wholly imputable to the Romanist, such are their excommunicating us, and imposing conditions on their communion, such as we cannot admit of without sin, or scandal, acting contrary to conscience, or making an unsound confession.  
Num. 4 To this all that is answered is, that unless this second be proved, viz: that such conditions are by them imposed on their communion, the first, that of our desire of Communion, is vain; And to this I make no doubt to yield, for if we may with a good conscience be admitted to their Communion, and yet wilfully withdraw ourselves from it, than I confess there is no place for this plea of ours; But for the contesting of this, there was not then, neither will there now be any place, without descending to the severals in difference between us (which was beyond the design either of those, or these Papers) and therefore for that all that can be said is, that we are ready to maintain our Negatives, by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by; And because it is here asked, whether siquis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of those grounds, I answer without question it is, and so is every other affirmation of Christ, or the Apostles, however made known to us to be such. And I cannot sufficiently admire, why, when it is known to all Romanists, that we are ready to be judged by Scripture, and when it is certain that siquis Ecclesiam non audierit] are the words of scripture, he should suppose (as here he doth) that we will say, No: i. e. that we will refuse to be tried or concluded by that.  
Num. 5 Here I must suppose that by Ecclesiam he understands the Roman (which he calls Catholic) Church; but then this interpretation or understanding of his, is one thing, and those words of Christ are another, for they belonging to the Church indefinitely, under which any man, that hath offended, is regularly placed, do to a member of the particular Roman Church signify that, as to an English man the Church wherein he lives, and that, is not the Roman, or the Universal Church of God, and that is more than the Roman.  
Num. 6 And so by acknowledging that ground of scripture, we are no way obliged to believe all that that particular Church of Rome, to which we owe no obedience (and are as ready to contest that by the same means also) exacts of us.  
Num. 7 As for our contesting any point by that ground or rule which speaketh nothing clearly of it, I gave him no occasion to make any such objection against us, and withal have said what was sufficient to it Chap. 8. Sect. 3. n. 7. and so need not here farther attend to it.    

CHAP. X. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the tenth Chapter.  

Sect. I.  
The Romanists want of charity wherein it consists.  
Num. 1 IN his view of Chap: 10. he takes notice of two charges by us brought in against them, 1. judging, 2. despising their brethren, but contents himself with a very brief reply, and that only to one of them, Thus,  
Num. 2 In his 10th Chap: he saith, we judge them and despise them; as to the first I have often wondered, and do now, that men, pretending to learning and reason, should therein charge us with want of charity, for if our judgement be false, it is error, not malice, and whether true or false, we press it upon them out of love and kindness, to keep them from the harm, that according to our belief may come upon them, but since they deny they are Schismatics, and offer to prove it, we must not say it: yet I think we ought, until we have cause to believe them, since our highest tribunal, the Church's voice, from which we have no appeal, hath passed judgement against them.  
Num. 3 The want of charity, with which we charge the Romanist in this matter, is not their warning us of our danger, which may reasonably be interpreted love, and kindness, and care to keep us from harm, and if they err in admonishing, when there is no need of it, there is nothing still but charity in this; but it is their casting us out of their Communion on this score, that we consent not to all their Dictates, that we withdraw our obedience from those, who without right usurped it over us, their anathematising and damning us, and being no way perswadable to withdraw these sanguinary Censures, unless we will change or dissemble our beliefs, and as there cannot be charity in this, any thing that can tend to the mending of any, for how can it be deemed any act of reformation in any, to forsake his present persuasions, whilst he is not convinced of any error in them, and surely the bare damning of us is not any such matter of conviction; so there is a double uncharitableness, 1. of being angry without cause, and expressing that anger in very ill language, of which that of Heretic and Schismatic is the mildest, and each of those causeless too, if they be affixed to any particular man, much more to a whole Church, before either of them be sufficiently proved against us: For certainly as the Romanist's judgement concerning us, if it be false, may yet be but error not malice (by which this Gentleman here justifies himself from want of charity) so our opinions and persuasions of the erroneousness of their doctrines and sinfulness of their practices, if possibly they be not true also, are still as justly and equitably capable of the same excuse, that they are involuntary errors, and then by their own rule, cannot justly fall under such their rigid censures, which belong to none but voluntary offenders.  
Num. 4 Secondly, the endeavouring to ensnare and pervert fearful or feeble minds, using these terrors, as the Lion doth his roaring, to intimidate the prey, and make it not rationally but astonishtly, fall down before them. And as the offering due grounds of conviction to him that is in error may justly be deemed charity, so this tender of nothing but frights, without offer of such grounds of conviction, is but leading men into temptation to sin against conscience, to dissimulation etc. and so the hating the brother in the heart, Leu. 19 the more than suffering sin upon him.  
Num. 5 To these might be, not unseasonably, added a farther consideration, which hath carried weight with the Fathers of the Church in all times, that seeing the Censures of the Church were left there, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for edification not for destruction, and are only designed to charitative ends, (must never be used to any other purpose) therefore when obedience it utterly cast off, the band, be it of subordination or co-ordination so broken, that the issuing out of Censures cannot expect to compose, but only to widen the breach, not to mollify but exasperated, there Christian prudence is to endeavour by milder ways, what severity is not likely to effect, and so the thunderbolts to be laid up, till there may be some probability of doing good by them.  
Num. 6 But this is not the case, as it really lies betwixt Rome and us, save only as à majori it may be accommodated to us; we have cast off neither obedience to any, to whom it was due, nor charity to those, who have least to us, nor truth, to the utmost of our understandings, and yet we must be cast out and anathematised, and after all that, condemned as wilful schismatics, i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dividers and condemners of ourselves, because we quietly submit to that fate, which will cost us too dear, the wounding and disquiet of our conscience, to qualify ourselves for a capacity of getting out of it.  
Num. 7 What he adds of their highest tribunal, the Church's voice, which hath passed this judgement against us, belongs I suppose to those Bishops of Rome, which have sent out their Bulls against us, and therefore I must in reason add, that those are principally guilty of this schism, and so their successors principally obliged to retract and reform the sin of it, and after them, all others in the order and measure, that they have partaked in this guilt with them.  
Num. 8 And there can be no greater charity than to beseech all in the bowels of Christ to return to the practice of that charity, which hath too long been exiled from among Christian Professors.    

CHAP. XI. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the last Chapter.  

Sect. I.  
Of the present state of the Church of England. The Catholics promise for eternity to his Church. Roma aeterna. Particular Churches perishable. Mr. Hooker's prediction of the Church The power of the secular Magistrate to remove Bishops Sees, not to make Bishops. The Council of Florence concerning the Pope's supremacy etc. Marcus' opinion of it. Joseph: Methonens: his answer briefly examined.  
Num. 1 THE last part of this Gentleman's endeavour is to persuade men that the Church of England is not only persecuted but destroyed, and of that he means to make his advantage to fetch in Proselytes, being out of his great charity very sensible of their estate, unwilling they should sit any longer in the vault or charnel house to communicate with shades, when they are invited to a fairer sunshine, in a vital and very flourishing society. Thus than he begins his reply to the 11th Chapter,  
Num. 2 In the last Chapter he complaineth of the Catholics for reproaching them with the loss of their Church, and arguing with their disciples in this sort; Communion in some Church, even externally, is necessary, but you cannot now communicate with your late Church, for that hath no subsistence, therefore you ought to return to the Church from whence you went out▪ truly in this case I think they ought to pardon the Catholic who hath, or undoubtedly is persuaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church, and experience in the execution of that promise for 16 Ages, 
Hooker 's Eccl: Pol:  in which none other can compare with him, and sees another Church judged by one of the learnedst and most prudent persons confessedly that ever was among them, to be a building likely to last but 80 years, and to be now torn up by the roots, and this done by the same means by which it was settled; I say if this Catholic believe his eyes, he is at least to be excused; and though I know the Doctor will reply his Church is still in being, preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained, yet let him remember how inconsequent this is, to what be hath said before, for ask him how it doth remain in being, if there be no such Bishops or Presbyters among them, for his defence against the Church of Rome is, that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters: from whence it will follow, that as they were set up by a secular authority, so are they pulled down, and unbishoped by another secular authority; if it be said the Parliament that pulled them down had not the three bodies requisite to make a Parliament, no more had that which set them up, for the Lords Spiritual were wanting both in Parliament and Convocation, so that there was as much authority to pull them down as to set them up: but it will be replied that though they are pulled down, yet are they still Bishops, viz: the character remains upon them.  
Alas what is their Character, if their mission of Preaching and Teaching be extinguished, which follows their jurisdiction, which jurisdiction the Doctor makes subject to the secular authority, so that whatsoever characters their Bishops and Presbyters pretend to have, they have according to his principles no power over the laity, and so no character can be made of any Bishop as head and Pastor, and of the People as body and flock, and consequently their Church is gone.  
But we account ourselves Bishops and Priests not from an authority dependent upon Princes, or inherited from Augustus or Nero, but from Peter and Paul, and so shall stand and continue, whatsoever Princes or secular powers decree; when they according to their doctrines and arguments are not to wonder if they be thrown down by the same authority that set them up, and as the Synagogue was a Church to have an end, so is this with this difference, that the Synagogue was a true Church in reference to a better, but this is a counterfeit & tyrannical one to punish a better. As concerning the Doctor's prayer for Peace and Communion, all good people will join with him, if he produce Fructus dignos poenitentiae, especially i he acknowledge the infallibility of the Church, and supremacy of the Pope, the former is explicated sufficiently in divers Books, the latter is expressed in the Council of Florence in these words, viz. we define that the Holy Apostolical See, and the Bishop of Rome have the primacy over all the world, and that the Bishop of Rome is successor to S. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and truly Christ's Vicar, and head of the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all Christians, and that there was given him in Saint Peter from Christ a full power to feed, direct and govern the Catholic Church: So far the Council. Without obeying this, the Doctor is a Schismatic, and without confessing the other, an Heretic, but let him join with us in these, all the rest will follow.  
Num. 3 I shall not here repeat my complaint (if it were indeed such, and not rather a bare proposing of a last foreseen objection against us) knowing how little compassion any sufferings of ours may expect to receive from this Gentleman, I shall only join issue with his tenders of proof, that our Church hath now no subsistence; but yet before I do so, take notice of one part of his arguing, viz. that the Catholic hath, or is undoubtedly persuaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church. Where certainly the fallacy is very visible, and sufficient to supersede (if he shall advert to it) his undoubted persuasion. For what promise of eternity can this Gentleman here reflect on? undoubtedly that of the Church of Christ indefinitely, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, Mat. 16. 18.  
Num. 4 What is the full importance of that phrase is 
* Annot. on the place.  elsewhere largely showed, and need not be here any farther repeated, than that the promise infallibly belongs not to any particular Church, of any one denomination, but to the whole body, Christ will preserve to himself a Church in this world, as long as this world lasteth, in despite of all the malice, cunning, or force of men, and devils.  
Num. 5 Now that this is no security, or promise of eternity to any particular Church, whether of Rome or England, any more than of Thyatira or Laodicea (which contrary to any such promise, is threatened to be Spewed out, Rev. 3. 16.) is in itself most evident, because the destroying any one particular Church is reconcileable with Christ's preserving some other, as the Species of mankind is preserved, though the Gentleman and I should be supposed to perish, and because the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my Church, which is there the subject of the discourse, is not the Romanist (or in that sense the Catholic) his Church, as is here suggested, but the Church of Christ built upon the foundation of the Apostles, of which Simon is there said to be one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e stone or foundation-stone, so as he was of other Churches, beside that of Rome, and so as others were of other Churches, which he never came near, and even of this of Rome, Saint Paul as well as he.  
Num. 6 From hence therefore, by force of this promise (which as truly belongs to every Church, as it doth to Rome, but indeed belongs to no particular, but to the Christian Church, to conclude that the Church of Rome is eternal, is a first ungrounded persuasion in this Gentleman, the very same, as to conclude a particular is an universal, or that the destruction of one part is the utter dissolution of the whole; and the proof from experience of 16. ages, which is here added, is a strange way of argumentation, such as that Methusalem might have used the very day before his death, to prove that he should never die, and the very same that Heathen Rome did use, at the time of their approaching destruction, calling herself 
* Hieron. qu. 11. add Alga●.  Vrbem aeternam, the eternali City, and 
† Atheneus, l. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rome the Heaven-City, and 
* Golizius' in Thesau: Dio in Adriano Prudentius.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rome a Goddess, which accordingly had by Adrian a Temple erected to it, and the Emperors thereof, and the very name of the place worshipped as a deity (More Deae, nomenque loci seu numen adorant) and all this upon this one score, that it had stood and prospered so long.  
Num. 7 The like may be affirmed of the Church of the Jews, built upon a promise, which had more of peculiarity to the seed of Abraham, than this of Mat. 16. can be imagined to have to the Church of Rome, and yet that Church was destroyed, and nothing more contributed to the provocation, and merit of that destruction, than their own confidence of being unperishable. The best admonition in this respect, is that of the Apostle, Be ye not high minded but fear, and if God spared not the Natural branches, take heed also lest he spare not you; and this Gentleman cannot be ignorant what 
* Rom. 11. 2.  Church it was, that was then capable of this exhortation. And the very making this matter of argument, and in this respect (not of purity, but of duration) exalting the Romanist's Church, above all other Churches in these words [none other can compare with him,] as it is one character which determines the speech to the particular Church of Rome, (for else how can he speak of others and affirm that they cannot compare) so it is no very humble, or consequently Christian expression in this Gentleman.  
Num. 8 What he adds out of Master Hooker, and applies as the judgement of that learned man concerning the Church of England, yields us these farther observations, 1. That in all reason this Gentleman must in his former words speak of his Church of Rome, as that is a particular Church, for else how can he after his Church, name another Church, meaning this of England, of which saith he, Mr. Hooker speaks? and that will conclude the evident falsity of his assumption, that by Christ's promise eternity belonged to it, for that it cannot do to any particular Church, because the Universal may be preserved, when that is destroyed, and the promise being made indefinitely to the Church, may be performed in any part of it.  
Num. 9 Secondly, That a very small matter will serve turn with this Gentleman, to support a con lusion, which he hath a mind to infer, otherwise Master hooker's Testimony had never been produced to this matter. The words of that (truly) most learned and prudent person, are to be found in his fifth Book, Num. 79. in the Conclusion. The subject of that whole Paragraph, beginning pag. 424. is of Oblations, Foundations, Endowments, Tithes, all intended for the perpetuity of Religion, which was in his opinion sure to be frustrated, by alienation of Church livings, and this being largely handled by him throughout that Paragraph, at length he observes, 1. what waste Covetousness had made in the Church by such Commutations, as were proportionable to Glaucus' change, giving the Church flanel for Gold: and 2. how Religion itself was made a Solicitor and persuader of Sacrilege, signifying, that to give to God, is error, and to take it away again Reformation of error, concluding in these words, By these or the like suggestions received with all joy, and with like sedulity practised in certain parts of the Christian world, they have brought to pass, that as David doth say of Man, so it is in danger to be verified concerning the whole Religion and service of God, the time thereof may peradventure fall out to be threescore and ten years, or if strength do serve unto fourscore, what followeth, is likely to be small joy for them, whosoever they be that behold it. Thus have the best things been overthrown, not so much by puissance and might of a versaries, as through defect of Council in them that should have upheld and defended the same.  
Num. 10 This is the first importance of that place which the Gentleman hath so disguised in his abbreviation. Mr. Hooker foretells what a destructive influence, Sacrilege may have on the whole Religion and Service of God, observes in certain parts of the Christian world (without naming any) that sacrilegious suggestions are received with all joy, and putting these two together, presageth sad events to the whole Religion, and service of God, within threescore and ten, or fourscore years, and from hence this Gentleman concludes it Master Hooker's judgement, that the Church of England was a building likely to last but fourscore years.  
Num. 11 In what mode and figure this conclusion is thus made from the premises, he leaves us to divine, who have not sagacity enough to discern it; The conclusion to all men's understanding will most regularly follow thus, that the Church of England was so constituted, that all the enemies thereof on either side were never likely to destroy it by arguments, and consequent'y that the most probable way remaining to Satan to accomplish his design was, by sacrilegious violations to impoverish and subdue the maintainers of it, which as he foresaw very likely to come to pass within the age of a man, so it would be no joyful sight when it should come, he was not so unkind to any part of the Church of God, as to be willing to live to see it.  
Num. 12 And if this Gentleman's inclinations have qualified him for the receiving pleasure or joy in such a spectacle, I shall as little envy him the prosperity which hath thus petrified his bowels, as he shall think fit to envy me the honour of being a member of the purest (being withal the most persecuted) Church.  
Num. 13 Thirdly, That these words of Mr. Hooker thus pitifully distorted are the only proof he hath for his assertion, that this Church of ours hath now no subsistence, and that it is now torn up by the roots, A way of arguing very conformable to his characters of a true Church, of which external glory and prosperity must never miss to be one, but very unlike the image of Christ the head, to which his Church the body may be allowed to hold some proportion of conformity, for of him we can give no livelier portraiture, than as we find him crucified between two thiefs, whilst the soldiers divide his garments, though they were not over-sumptuous, and cast lots who shall have his vesture.  
Num. 14 What next follows is an answer to a supposed objection of ours (and that is a farther evidence of what I said, that Mr. Hooker's distorted speech is the only proof of his proposition) The objection is, that our Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained; and to this objection he will make some answer from our own principles, of which he supposeth this to be one, that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters, and saith without any regrets, that this is my defence against the Bishop of Rome.  
Num. 15 Many replies might be made to take off all appearance of force from this answer. As 1. that this, to which the answer is accommodated, is not my objection. The truth is, I took not on me the objectors part in that place, but evidenced it by clear demonstration, that if twenty years ago the Church of England was a Church, it must needs be so now, being the very same that then it was, except these bands, as the Apostle once said, who I hope did not cease to be an Apostle by being imprisoned. And when I mentioned the Church of England's being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained, together with multitudes rightly baptised (which sure are all the necessary ingredients in constituting a visible Church) I added, none of which have fallen off from their profession, and then foreseeing the only possible objection to infer the Church guilty of schism, I answered that by remembering the Primitive persecutions and night-meetings, and the very manner of the Romanists serving God in this Kingdom for these many years.  
Num. 16 And all this is pulled off from the clue, and fumbled together into an objection of mine, supposed to be made against that which the Romanist, without either tender of proof, or reason, had crudely affirmed. But truly I may be believed, that I meant not that affirmation so much respect, as to offer objection against it: And then that is one speedy way of concluding this matter.  
Num. 17 But than secondly, for that saying of mine, on which he will form his answer to this imaginary objection, 'tis certain I never said any such thing, as is here suggested: That the supreme Magistrate hath power to erect and translate Patriarchates, and the like, I had affirmed indeed, i. e. to make that a Patriarchal See, which had not formerly been such, so to ennoble a town or city, that according to the Canons of the Church it should become an Episcopal, or Archiepiscopal, or Chief, or Patriarchal See, and my meaning is evident, and not possible to be mistaken by any that understands the Language, and adverts to what he reads.  
Num. 18 But sure I never said that the secular authority hath power to make Bishops and Presbyters, and there is no question but this Gentleman knows, if he hath read what he answers, that in the Tract of Schism I never said it.  
Num. 19 So again it is of daily practice in this Church, as in all others, for the supreme power to change, as that signifies to remove Bishops from one See to another, and so for every lay-Patron in the same sense to change Presbyters: But what is that to the making of Bishops or Presbyters, did ever King or lay-Patron pretend to that? This is too visible to need insisting on.  
Num. 20 Thirdly, when he saith there was as much authority to pull down Bishops and Presbyters in this nation as to set them up, I might demand, 1. Whether he hath any reason to pretend that Presbyters are now pulled down in this nation, for this is by him supposed, who inquires by what authority they are pulled down: 2. Whether he can, either upon mine or his own principles, assume with any colour of truth, that none had any hand in setting up the Bishops in this Kingdom, but those whom here he affirms to have consented to the pulling them down, and consequently affirm, that there was as much authority to pull them down, as to set them up? 3. Whether it have any truth in it, (whether he speak of what was done in Parliament in King Henry's, or King Edward's, or Queen Elizabeth's days) that the Lords Spiritual were wanting both in Parliament and Convocation? 4. What he hath said to make it in the least degree probable, that the Bishops and Presbyters mission of preaching and teaching is extinguished among us, any more than it was in the Primitive Church, when the Emperor was not favourable to the profession, and when the Jews called it heresy: And lastly, whether, if no one of these can with any degree of verity be answered in the affirmative, this be not very immoderate liberty, which this Gentleman hath given himself in affirming or supposing all these, and then adding, that our portion is to be looked for with the Jewish Synagogue, as one, so the other, to have an end; not considering that he hath as little skill in revealing secrets, as even now in interpreting Mr. Hooker's prophecy, that he cannot yet tell, what God hath within his veil decreed concerning our Church, and which may yet make the greatest speed to follow the Synagogue's fate, they which are cast down, but not destroyed, or they which (to say no worse) stand by, and rejoice at it.  
Num. 21 The Treatise of Schism concludes with a Prayer for Peace and Communion, and for the matter of it, we have his seeming confession that all good people will join in it. But even in such a Prayer, wherein all good people will join, this Gentleman will not join with me, but upon such terms, which I shall not undertake, to qualify me for his favour, I mean not the fructus dignos poenitentiae, such as John Baptist would prescribe, but the penances of this severer confessor, to acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church in his notion of the Church, Supremacy of the Pope, etc.  
Num. 22 And all that I shall need to reply is, to beseech him that he will then, without joining with me, pray in secret, what I began to him, and endeavour so to qualify himself with charity and other graces, which may wing his prayers unto that holy place, where all humble Christians supplications daily meet, and then I shall again pray God, that I may be found in the number of those, that so I may be secured to meet and join with him, at that common throne of grace.  
Num. 23 He is pleased to shut up all with an expression of the Council of Florence, to the business of the Pope's supremacy. To this I might reply that this definition is there visibly subscribed, as the act of the Bishop of Rome, Eugenio Pp. IV. (who was a liberal carver and definer for himself) as may be seen in that very 
* Conc p. 858 Paris:  page, where the words cited will be found, both by the Seal of his Pontificate there impressed, Saint Peter on the left hand, Saint Paul on the right, and Eugenius Pp. IV. under it: and by the last part of the date in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the ninth year of our Pontificate; which though I shall suppose to be the mode, the Pope to pronounce the definition of the Council, yet this was much varied from the old form, and the Council being dated at Florence, in the year of our Lord 1439. so near Rome, and so far from the first times, where more simplicity and just distribution of rights might be expected, this might be a competent answer to this testimony, and a vindicating myself from all schism or heresy, that my want of the obedience or confession, which he requires, might fix on me.  
Num. 24 But I shall for this once, choose somewhat the longer way, and transcribe part of Marcus the Metropolitan of Ephesus his answer, wherein he expresseth his opinion, and others, of that definition of the Council, as it lies in the 
* Jose, thou: p cil: F● p. 102  Apology of Joseph Methonensis for that Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We also account the Pope as one of the Patriarches, But these do with great gravity pronounce him Vicar of Christ, and Father and Teacher of all Christians: and this both to them and us is matter of some wonder, how (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) with so much gravity, they could thus pronounce, what had so little of truth in it.  
Num. 25 And it is worth recounting here, what for the justifying of that definition Joseph Methonensis was able to reply there to that Bishop (and that reply thought worthy to be inserted into the Acts of the Council) 1. That he doth not say that the Pope is two or three, but only one of the Patriarches, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having praeeminence among those of the same Order with him.  
Num. 26 For this he hath, 1. Chrysostome's authority in his 17 Homily on the Acts, where, he saith, that among the seven there was one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one above the rest (and the seven there, were the seven Deacons, and the same praeeminence that Stephen then had over them, and all the rest of the world, we shall not deny the Bishop of Rome, especially if, as it follows there, he have the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more grace than all the other Bishops, and will acknowledge, as it is there also, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same ordination of him and all other Bishops.)  
Num. 27 Secondly, the saying of Christ, that, He that heareth you, heareth me, and the common maxim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that every Bishop is the successor of Christ (But then how came the Bishop of Rome to impropriate that title, to be the only one that all are obliged to hear, when, as he confesses there, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This was said in common to them all.)  
Num. 28 Thirdly, the words of Theodorus Studita (one, by the way, that had been imprisoned for opposing the Bishop of Constantinople, and who did not communicate with that Church, see Zonaras tom: 3. p. 9 & 102.) to the Emperor Michael, that if he doubted of, or disbelieved any thing that had been there resolved, he should command a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declaration or explication to be sent him from old Rome, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how from of old, and from the beginning it had been delivered by tradition of Fathers, adding that that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the uppermost of the Churches of God, of which Peter was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first that sat Bishop there, unto whom Christ said, Thou art Peter, etc. (But all this still amounts to no more, but that Rome was the prime Apostolic See, that might very probably explicate a difficulty to the Emperor, by telling what had been from time to time delivered, and believed in that Church.)  
Num. 29 Fourthly, the words of the same Theodorus Studita again, in his Epistle to Naucraticus, which speaks of some that had broken off themselves from the body of Christ, from the chief See, in which Christ placed the Keys of that faith, against which the gates of hell, the mouths of heretics had not, should not prevail, (But then still, supposing his testimony were authentic, this is no more, but that, they which divided from the true doctrine, which he supposed to be at Rome, did in his opinion break off themselves from the body of Christ, that Rome again was the prime See, that it had the Keys of knowledge and faith entrusted to it by Christ, at the Apostles founding a Church there, but this not exclusively to other Churches, which doubtless had those Keys, as well as she, & that the faith of Christ should never be utterly destroyed by heretics.)  
Num. 30 Fifthly, the words of Arcadius a Bishop in the third Council, that of Ephesus, proposing that the words of Celestine the Pope, who was to be named with all reverence, Bishop of the Apostolical See, should be read, that they might see what care he had of all Churches (and why might not the like be said of any other truly Christian Bishop?) And so the like speech again of cyril of Alexandria, that the letter of Celestine, the most holy Bishop of the holy Apostolic Church (a title which belonged, and was ordinarily given to other Sees, beside that of Rome) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be read with due honour or respect (but sure that doth not prove his supreme power over all the Churches of God.)  
Num. 31 Lastly, the words of the Emperor's letter (called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a divine letter) in the Council of Chalcedon, that the most blessed Bishop of the city of Rome, to whom antiquity hath given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, priesthood over all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may have a place and power to judge of faith and of Priests, from whence he roundly concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Seeing then he hath power to judge of Faith and Priests, he is justly defined by the Council of Florence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the teacher of all Christians.  
Num. 32 This being the last and most probable, and indeed only Testimony, to justify with any colour of reason the definition of that Council, it is not amiss to consider it a little, and with that to conclude also the debate with this Gentleman, as Joseph Methonensis there did with the Bishop of Ephesus. And if we turn to the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, we shall soon discern the full weight of it.  
Num. 33 There in the 
* Concil: tom: 3. p. 25.  first part, num: 25. we shall find this Letter, styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sent by Valentinian the Emperor to Theodosius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he would command a Synod to be called in the parts of Italy. This than was the subject of the Letter, and this the occasion; A second Synod had lately been held at Ephesus, in which the heresy of Eutyches had received some assistance, Upon this Pope Leo, and his Synod of Bishops met at Rome, 
* Ibid: n. 19 p. 19  writes earnestly to the Emperor Valentinian, that he will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a General Council to be called in the parts of Italy, that may remove and mollify all offences. The same he 
* Ibid: n. 20. p. 20.  again proposes to the Emperor Theodosius there, desiring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a special Council to be convened in the parts of Italy. Hereupon soon follows a letter of Valentinian to Theodosius to the same purpose, in condescension to Leo's request, and in it those very words (recited by Joseph Methonensis in defence of the Council of Florence) to no other sense but this, that such a Council might be convened in Italy, to review and reform what had been done amiss in that second Council of Ephesus.  
Num. 34 This therefore is the meaning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he may have a place and power] that some place may be assigned him and the Bishops, to meet in Council, that he may have power, or faculty, or Commission to sit (not he by himself, but he and the Bishops in Council) and when they sit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to judge of faith and Priests, as in all Counsels it is done, to define what is the true faith, opposed by heretics, and what persons, Bishops or others are fit to be censured for any thing done or taught by them.  
Num. 35 This is the plain and only importance of the place, to which all the rest of the Epistle accords, that an Universal Council should be called in Italy, wherein the Pope was doubtless to preside, and he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all other Bishops also being convened from the whole world, should consider and define, what the true faith required. And so this is a fair testimony to prove that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the Father and teacher of all Christians.    

The Conclusion.  
Num. 1 I Am now come to the close of this Gentleman's Answer in these words,  

Thus, Sir, you have my sense of Doctor Hammond's Book in all the particulars, which, I think, to the purpose; my time, nor the brevity fit for a Letter, not permitting I should be more methodical, and do rest  
Your friend and humble servant, B. P. Brussels, the 30 March, 1654.   
Num. 2 Here he is pleased largely enough to assume the office of an Aristarchus, and to involve under no light censure, of impertinency at the least, the far greatest part of that Treatise of Schism, for certainly that which he hath not offered any Answer to, is such, and yet he here undertakes to have given his sense in all the particulars, which he thinks to the purpose, which must conclude it his opinion, that all other particulars are not to the purpose. This indeed is a performance somewhat above the promise of the title page, which obliged him to an Answer of the most material parts of that Treatise; And it were very easy to show that there is no degree of truth in either of these, that on the contrary, he hath not offered any word of Reply to the most material, which I hope are not the least pertinent parts of that Treatise. But instead of this larger Reflection it may suffice, that whatsoever he hath though fit to take notice of, and thereby hath expressed his judgement of it, that it is most material in comparison of the rest hath here been very particularly considered, and his Answers manifested to have no force in them. And so I very friendly take my leave of him.  
The God of all grace and peace bind up the wounds of his bleeding Church.   

An Account of H. T. his APPENDIX TO HIS MANUAL of CONTROVERSIES, CONCERNING The Abbot of Bangor's Answer to Augustine.  
Having concluded the foregoing Reply to the Catholic Gentleman, I received news of a Manual of Controversies in the press, wherein I was said to be particularly concerned, and having soon gotten a sight of it, I found that the matter was of no greater bulk or weight, than might receive an account in few words, & those most proper to be here annexed, by way of Appendix:  
At the folding up of that Manual, the Author of it is pleased to take notice of (no more than) one testimony, which I had cited out of Sir Henry Spelman's Anglicane Counsels, containing an Answer of the Abbot of Bangor to Augustine the Monk, when he demanded of the Britain's an acknowledgement of submission to the Bishop of Rome.  
The passage is to be seen at large, in Welsh, English, and Latin, in that tome of the Counsels, p. 108. and is recited in the Treatise of Schism, p. 111. and the sum of it is, that he and the rest of the British Church were under the government of the Archbishop of Caerleon upon uske, and owed no obedience (or respect, save that of fraternal charity) to the Pope of Rome.  
This Answer of that Abbot, the Author hath thought good to censure (by way of Appendix to the Article concerning the Pope's Supremacy) 1. As unapt to conclude against the Romanist's pretensions concerning the Papal power over the whole Church. 2. As unworthily alleged by persons of any ordinary judgement or erudition. 3. As that which may easily be convicted to be a simple imposture, and the ways of demonstrating it clearly, promised in that ensuing discourse.  
What those ways are, and how far short of the force or evidence of demonstration, I shall, with the Reader's good leave, examine anon, after I have premised this one consideration, That the only thing, which is by us contested, and concluded against the Romanist from this testimony, is a matter of fact of known truth, and such as the Romanists themselves (yea and this Author H. T. who hath thought sit to arraign this testimony) acknowledge to be such, and therefore, as in case this one testimony should be demonstrated to be a simple imposture, we can very unconcernedly and easily part with it, standing in no manner of need of this auxiliary, so it is a little strange that this Author should think it worth his solemn pains, to wrest it out of our hands, and dedicate this whole Appendix to that one work, when if he were successful to his wish; his acquisitions hereby, and proportionably our losses, must be so unconsiderable.  
That which we conclude from hence against the Romanist is no more but this, that the Britain's, particularly those of Bangor, denied to yield obedience to the Pope upon Augustine's demand of it. And for this we have the notoriousness of the fact, as it is set down by the Authors which are of credit, and are vouched in this matter by the Romanist, particularly by Bede, in the second Book of his Ecclesiastic History, c. 2. where the whole story may be read at large, and out of which I shall collect, and, in passing, clear these few things.  
First, that Augustine and the British Bishops met in Council at Augustine's Oak in Worcestershire; This passage lies very corruptly in the Latin Bede, in loco ubi usque hodie linguâ Anglorum Augistinuzat, id est, robur Augustini in confinio Vectiorum & Occidentalium Saxonum appellatur. Three corruptions I suppose there will soon appear to be in these words, which I shall briefly remove for the clearing of our entrance, and disabusing the Author of this Manual in one of them.  
The first, and chief of them is, that Augustinuzat is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mistaken for Augustines-ac, i. e. Augustine's oak, whether that were the name of a Tree, or a Village, most probably the former, after the manner of that Council, which was held against S. chrysostom, called ordinarily the Synod ad quercum, at, or under the Oak.  
Secondly, that [ubi] should be read [qui] which is an easy mistake, and so the construction will be facile, which now is rough, in loco qui usque hodie-Augustines-ac appellatur, in the place which even to this day is called Augustine's-ac, and accordingly the Saxon reads on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ac, in the place still named Augustine's Oak.  
Thirdly, that Vectiorum (which the Author of this Appendix renders Vectians, and interprets to be the Isle of Wight, quite against all probable conjecture, for how can it be believed that the Britain's should give him a meeting so far from the place of their own present habitation?) should be Wicciorum (so 
* l. 3. p. 325.  Huntingdon reads it, and the Saxon Bede Hpicna) meaning Worcestershire by that style, and accordingly this Synod is by Authors oft called Wigorniensis Synodus, the Worcestershire Synod; and among the British Bishops, who are recorded to be present at the second Session, Wiccensis, the Bishop of Worcester is one. In what part of that County it was that that Synod convened, I see it is uncertain among our later Writers, and so there may be place for conjecture, Sir Henry Spelman from the Map proposeth Austric, as a probable contraction from Austinsric, Augustini ditio, as that which may give some light in a doubtful matter, but upon inquiry I hear that that village is called Aufric or Alfric, not Austric, and therefore I shall take confidence to mention, what seems to me far more probable, that it was in the parish of Merton, which hath the agnomen of Vssentree, or Ossentree, in old rolls, Merton juxta Ossentree, Merton close by Ossentree, an easy variation from, and contraction of Austin tree, and is three miles from Worcester, near the road to Droitwich, where the hill-Church is Augustine's Church.  
Secondly, that the business of this convention, designed to draw the British to obedience to Augustine & the See of Rome, began with a proposition only of conformity in the observation of Easter, in the Ceremonies of Baptism etc. But this in vain; for, saith Bede, after a long disputation they would give no assent to the entreaties, and exhortations and chide of Augustine, but preferred their own tradition before all the Churches through the world, which accorded with Rome in the particular of Easter, etc.  
Thirdly, that for the convincing of them, Augustine challenged them to do miracles, and by prayer to God cured a blind man, and was much cried up for so doing, the British still adhering to their way, and answering him, that absque consensu & licentiâ suorum, without consent and licence of their whether Rulers of Church, or whatsoever other superiors also (their Metropolitan, I suppose, which cannot be thought to have been with them at this, being certainly none of the seven Bishops, which are affirmed to have been present at the later convention) they could not forsake their ancient customs.  
Fourthly, that upon proposal, it was agreed that they should have a second meeting, at which were present seven British Bishops (which other Writers express to have been the Bishop of Hereford, Landaff, Bangor, S. Assaph, Worcester, Paternensis, Morganensis) and many other learned men, especially the nobilissimo eorum Monasterio, quod vocatur lingua Anglorum Bancornaburg, cui tempore illo Dinooth Abbas praefuisse narratur, of the famous Monastery of Bangor, of which Dinooth was Abbot at that time.  
Fifthly, that before they went to this Meeting, they were advised by a religious person, whose directions they asked, to observe diligently the behaviour of Augustine, when they came, whether he were meek and lowly in heart, a mark by which they might know whether he had taken Christ's yoke upon him, and consequently whether it were the yoke of Christ, which he now desired to impose upon them, and upon Augustine's fitting still upon his stool or seat, and never rising up with any civility or humility, at their approach, they were so displeased, saith Bede, that they contradicted all the proposals that he made to them.  
Sixthly, that upon his making three Propositions to them, concerning Easter, Baptism, and preaching to the English, and promising to bear with them in all other differences, (of which sort, said he, there were many wherein their practice was contrary consuetudini nostrae, imò Vniversalis Ecclesiae, to the custom of the Roman, yea the Universal Church) they answered, nihil horum se facturos, nec illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros, that they would not comply with him in any of them, nor acknowledge him for their Archbishop; Upon which follows that rough sanguinary answer of Augustine's, quod si pacem cum fratribus accipere nollent, bellum ab hostibus forent accepturi, that if they would not accept of peace with brethren, they should have war from enemies, and, as it follows in very plain language, per Anglorum manu● ultienem mortis essent passuri, the hands of the English should act a bloody revenge upon them.  
Which, it seems, soon after followed, and fell in an eminent manner on the Monks of Bangor, of which order there were at that time above two thousand, who lived all by the labour of their own hands. For, saith he, King Edilfred of Northumberland, coming with a great Army to C●erleon, made his first onset on their Priests, who were assembled by themselves to fast and pray for their brethren, (as Moses holding up his hands in prayer, whilst Josua held up his in sighting) and upon no other provocation (taken notice of by the Historian) but this, that they fought against him with their prayers (contra nos pugnant qui adversus no● in preca●i●s ibus prosequuntur) he first set upon them, killed 1000 of them, and then destroyed the whole Army. Sicque compie●um est praesagium sancti Pontificis Augustini, and so the presage of the holy Bishop St. Augustine was fulfilled upon them.  
These particulars of the story I have thus puctually set down in obedience to the rebuke of this Author, who p. 412. chargeth it upon Sir Hen: Spelman, and those others that borrow out of him, as a want of wilingness to see the truth, & of fidelity to com●nicate it to others, that they have chosen to reflect on that testimony (which he is pleased to call upstart, and) which appeared not till within these 15 years, and not upon that true antiquity, which having endured the shock of almost a 1000 years. Sir Henry had a little before transcribed out of Bede, wherein, saith he, every one may read, first that miracle in giving sight to the blind man, than that divine vengeance prophetically foretold by Augustine, 
p. 413.  which (in his opinion) more than sufficiently prove, that S. Augustine, sent by the Pope, came in the name of God, from a lawful authority, and that his demands of conformity to the Church of Rome in the points specified were good, and to be yielded to by the Britain's.  
In this matter I might now fitly enlarge, and examine the force of this twofold argument, that of the miraculous cure, and that of the predicted vengeance, and offer many things to consideration concerning each head.  
For the former, 1. the no great credit that hath been given to the relations of Bede on this head of miracles (of which his Story is so richly furnished) together with the great deceit that such pretensions have been experimented to subject men to: Secondly, the confession of Bede, that the Britaines were 
* Quod cum adversarii, inviti licèt, concederent.  unwilling to yield to this trial of their cause, and accordingly when he saith that the 
† Cum oblatus Britonis̄ sacerdotibus nil curationis horum ministerio cepit.  blind man being offered to the Priests of the Britain's, he received no cure or benefit by them, he doth not so much as pretend that the Britaines attempted to do the miracle, and failed in it, but leaves us to resolve that they wholly waved this trial: Thirdly, that if the miracle were granted to be a true miracle, and a testimony of Gods asserting the doctrines than contested between them, yet this would not be any concludent testimony for the Pope's Supremacy, but only for those things which were then the matter of the question, the time of the observation of Easter, the rites of Baptism, accustomed in the Roman Church, and at the most some such like traditions, wherein the British custom varied from that of Rome, for this was the form of the proposed trial, quae sequenda traditio quibus sit viis ad ingressum regni illius properandum, what tradition was to be followed (in the celebration of Easter, that which the Britain's had received and retained from their first conversion, imputed to an Apostle or Apostolical person, Simon Zelotes or Joseph of Arimathea, or that which the Romans deduced from S. Peter) by what ways they were to hasten to entrance into that Kingdom (referring, I suppose, to the rites of baptism, the second head of debate between them) And in both these, (as also in refusing to join with Augustine in the common work of preaching to the Gentiles) it may easily be granted by us, that the truth was on the Romanists side, and not on the Britain's, without yielding a supremacy of the Church of Rome over the British Churches. Fourthly, that the Britain's by Bede's confession, acknowledged themselves convinced by that miracle, that the way of righteousness which Augustine preached, was the true way, yet added, that they could not renounce their ancient customs without the consent and licence of their own (superiors) which evidently confines and determines the miracle and all the supposed virtue thereof to the confirming the Traditions which Augustine delivered, without farther extending it to the asserting the Papal power (to which the Abbot of Bangor's answer was particularly confronted) for had they once acknowledged themselves convinced of that, there had been no place left for the licentia suorum, no need of the consent or licence of any other superiors, which yet they resolutely adhere to. Lastly, that at their second meeting the Britain's deemed Augustine's pride a more valid convincing argument, that the yoke which he designed to impose on them was not the yoke of Christ, than the supposed miracle, that it was.  
And for the latter, that of the slaughter, first 
* Fertur minitans praedixisse. Bede, Terruit eos vaticinio futurae super eos calamitatis. Sigebert.  threatened and then fulfilled upon them, 1. If that were indeed a miracle, it was not of the complexion, which is generally observed in Christ's miracles, used for the working of faith, but proportionable to the Spirit of the Boanerges, which would have the fire from heaven called down upon the Samaritans, and were answered by Christ that this was not agreeable to the Spirit of the Gospel; And if the example of S. Peter on Ananias and Sapphyra, or of S. Paul on Elymas be made use of as a precedent for this severity, yet sure the answer of Pope Gregory to Augustine at that time, supposing different Churches to enjoy different customs, and not imposing the Roman upon all, might have directed him to greater moderation. See Bed: l. 1. c. 27. in his answer to the third Interrogation. Secondly, it is no very great miracle, that a grand Army falling first upon unarmed Monks, should obtain the victory against them, and afterward against all other their opposers; nor consequently is it any whit strange that Augustine, that was so provoked, and meant to use this bloody revengeful course, should thus threaten what he then designed to see performed, for that is the full meaning of his foretelling it.  
It is true indeed that either Bede, or some Interpolator, that copied out the original Latin of that History, hath thought good to insert some words in the end of that story, l. 2. c. 2. in fine, (quamvis ipso jam multo ante tempore ad coelestia regna sublato) which might delude men into a persuasion, that this bloody act was a long time after Augustine's death; But for this, First, it is observable that King Alfred's Saxon translation or paraphrase of Bede, wholly omits that parenthesis, and reads it only thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B. A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and so was fulfilled the prediction of S. Augustine, that they should feel the revenge of temporal destruction. Secondly, that the series of the story in Bede gives just prejudice to that parenthesis, for this of the slaughter of the Britan's being set down in the end of that second Chap: the third begins with Augustine's ordaining two Bishops, Mellitus and Justus, which sure was not after his death, and as the Saxon paraphrase of King Alfred begins that Chapter with this form of reference to the former passage, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— It was after this— which plainly defines Augustine to have survived that bloody fact, so the Latin Bede, which sets down the time of Augustine's ordaining those two Bishops, Anno Dominicae incarnationis sexcentefimo quarto, In the year 604, doth yet more incline us to suspect that Parenthesis, for though Bede, who sets down the month and day of Augustine's death, sets not down the year of it, but leaves it in a latitude to be between the year 596 in which he came to England, and the year 613. (or, as the Saxon reads 616.) in which King Ethelbert died, yet others commonly affirm that he continued Bishop 15 or 16 years, and so died about 612 or 13. whereas Chronologers affirm the slaughter of the Monks of Bangor etc. to have been in the year 603, and so the year immediately precedent to Augustine's ordaining those two Bishops. Thirdly, when in the relation of this slaughter, the Latin Bede begins Siquidem, posthaec ipse, de quo diximus, Rex Anglorum— For after this, i. e. after Augustine's threatening destruction to the British, the forenamed King of the Angles gathered an Army— the Saxon paraphrase reads, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and soon rath, i. e. very soon after this, which again persuades that it was before Augustine's death, at least that the jam multo ante in the Parenthesis (that Augustine died long before) could have no truth in it. Lastly, as some Writers of these dark times have made a shift to affirm with the Latin Bede that Augustine was first dead, so it is known also that others charge it on him, that he was not only the inciter to it, but that he met the Kings when they were ready for the fight, and was present with them; And Trivet in his French Chronicle, that saith it was done after Augustine's death, yet adds that Ethelbert King of Kent; who stirred up Ethelfred King of Northumberland and his Saxons against the Britan's, and by name against Dinoth Abbot of Bangor forementioned, was highly displeased and inflamed, that he had despised Augustine. All which being considered, it is certain, that this was no very Christian action, whether in Augustine or in Ethelbert, and the threats of the one, and performances of the other, as they bear an exact proportion, so are they equally argumentative, not for, but against that cause, which was willing thus unchristianly to support itself.  
Thirdly, if the slaughter of these poor Monks shall yet be thought a solid probation, as an act of divine vengeance upon them (just such as the falling of the tower of Siloe was, from which none but a Jew, or Turk, or the Barbarians, Act. 28. or those that make prosperity the special mark of the true Church, will think fit to conclude any thing) there is one part of the story yet behind, which will refute and retort that argument, for when Edilfrid had used them so bloodily, and in the heat of his rage and victory proceeded to destroy the remainder of those Monks, and their Monastery together, the avengers of blood met him, three British Commanders, with their forces, routed his Army, killed ten thousand and sixty of them, wounded the king, and put him and the remainder of his Army to flight, which certainly is an argument of as much validity to infer that God maintained the cause of those innocent Monks against the Saxons and Augustine, as the former was argumentative on their side against the British.  
But it is not needful, that I insist on either of these, the one thing that from this view of the story in Bede was to be concluded, is only this, that upon the relations, as in him they lie, and are by this Author H. T. vouched against us, there can be no doubt of our Conclusion, that the Abbot and Monks of Bangor opposed Augustine, yielded him no obedience, referred themselves only to their own Governors, without any acknowledgement of obedience to the Pope; And this is generally the result of other Author's narrations of this matter.  
So 
* ●in Dinoth.  Balaeus, speaking of that convention, Dinotus omnium primu● graviter & docte de non approbandà apud eos Romanorum authoritate disputabat, Dinoth in the first place gravely and learnedly disputed against the Authority of the Bishops of Rome among them, adding, Fortiter praeterea tuebatur Menevensis Archiepiscopi in Ecclesiarum suarum rebus ratam jurisdictionem, that he moreover strongly and courageously defended the validity of the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of S. david's (the same that in the Abbot's answer is called the Bishop of Caerleon) in the affairs of his own churches.  
So Geffrey of Monmouth, Edelbertus Rex Kantiorum, ut vidit Britones dedignantes subjectionem Augustino facere, Northumbrorum & cateroes Saxonum regulos instimulavit, ut collecto grandi exercitu in civitatem Bangor Abbatem Dinoth & caeteros clericos, qui eos spreverunt, perditum irent. King Ethelbert seeing the Britain's disdain to yield their subjection to Augustine, stirred up the King of Northumberland and other Saxon Kings to gather a great army against the city Bangor, to destroy Dinoth the Abbot and the other Clerks of that Monastery, who had scorned Augustine and the Saxons.  
So Sigebert in Anno 602. Augustinus— habita Synodo cum Britonum & Scotorum Episcopis, quâ sacerdotes & Monachos invenit adversarios aequitatis— Augustine had a meeting with the British and Scotish Bishops, and there found an opposition from the Priests and Monks, and terrified them by prediction of a calamity that should fall on them. Other evidences to the same purpose are set down in the Collection of the Anglicane Counsels, and Mr. Whelock's Notes on his edition of the Saxon Bede, p. 115. if there could now remain any question of it.  
And that this was discerned by the Author of this Appendix, if it had been for his Interest to have taken notice of it, is evident by his mention of the miracle and divine vengeance, as of proofs that Augustine was in the right against these refusers, who yet continued, saith he still refractory to his proposals. And this was all I concluded from the Abbot's answer, and this stands firm in this Romanist's own confession, though the words of the Abbot's answer had not been preserved to us.  
And therefore being now wholly unconcerned in the validity of this testimony, and so secured from all danger of being bribed by interests to judge more favourably of it than the matter requires, I shall now proceed calmly to consider, whether there be that clearness and evidence in this Author's arguments for the invalidating this testimony, which he assures us we shall find in them.  
His first argument is negative from the [not least scrap of Antiquity so much as pretended to prove that the Cambrian (i. e. Welch) lines cited, were the Abbot of Bangor's answer to Augustine upon the occasion specified, 
p. 405.  nor that the renowned Dinoth was that Abbot, nor that the old Manuser: whence Sir Henry Spell: extracts the testimony, was copied out of any more ancient.  
What other proof from antiquity should be expected from Sir Henry Spelman to give authority to these lines, than what readily offers itself in this matter, I do not understand; That the British, particularly those of Bangor, and yet more peculiarly Dinoth the famous Abbot of that Monastery, disputed against Augustine's pretensions for the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and asserted their own subjection to their Metropolitan, hath already appeared to be the affirmation of those, who are most competent witnesses of it, and the Manuscript passage in Welch and English, which Sir H. Spell: had transcribed from Mr. Moston's Copy (and directs the Reader to Sir Robert Cotton's Library to satisfy himself in that matter) is directly agreeable to this for the matter of it, and so gave that very judicious Knight just reason both to set some value on it himself, and to communicate it to others, as that which might gratify their curiosity, and approve itself by its own light to any judicious Reader, to be, if not the very words of that Abbot's answer, yet the sense and substance of it, and whether of these it should be judged to be, it matters not.  
Had the contents of this Testimony been any way contrary to other undoubted records of those times, or indeed any disparate new relation, that had not formerly been taken notice of, and was now to owe the whole credit and support to this Testimony, some reason there might have been for an Aristarchus to proceed with more caution than here was used, and to yield nothing to bare groundless conjectures (and the Romanist hath as much reason as any man to lay this to heart, to act with this caution in other Testimonies) but when the matter is agreed on among the Ancients, and an old record offers itself to our view, in perfect concord with that which we had formerly all reason to believe, and only affirms that more legibly and distinctly, which was in substance before, but not so punctually delivered to us, I cannot think the severest Critic, supposing him unconcerned and impartial, without any hypothesis of his own to be defended or tended by him, would have any aversion or dislike to a testimony thus produced, though for some circumstances of it, such as are here mentioned, the producer have nothing of authority to back his own conjectures.  
This one thing I am sure is most unjust, not to give credit to a Manuscript, that it is what it pretends to be, unless I have some express affirmation of Antiquity concerning that particular Manuscript; should such rules of severity be now imposed on the press, the Vatican must never bring forth more rarities, the wealth of all the Archives in the world must lie dead, like a Miser's treasure, no one volume being able to testify for the veracity of its neighbour, or if it were, itself must also bring its voucher along with it, and so on in infinitum, or else it would not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a competent testification in this matter, and when it is remembered, that all, which is now made public by the help of Printing, lay once in single Manuscripts, and those multipliable only by transcribing, and neither the originals nor Copies any other way testified to be what they pretended to be, than as these Cambrian lines are delivered to us by Sir Henry, I hope this will be deemed a competent proof, that this first argument is not so clearly demonstrative as was promised.  
Another branch there is of this first argument, in these words, 
p. 405.  And certainly if his Manuscript be no elder than the interlined English, he hath grossly wronged himself and his Reader, by honouring it with the style of Ancient: For, as every one sees, the English is purely modern, and cannot be so old by many years as Henry the Eighth●s cashiering the Pope's authority, and arrogating the supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters to himself, for maintenance whereof it is alleged, and was certainly forged.  
To this I answer briefly, that it is not pretended by Sir Henry, that the English is as ancient as the times of Dinoth, no nor the Welsh neither, but that those two Languages were made use of by some, whose ages he pretends not to know, to convey to us intelligibly the answer of that Abbot, in what language soever it were delivered by him; And if it shall now be granted to this Author, that the English idiom evidenceth it to be written within these last 100 years, this can be no prejudice or ground of suspicion, much less a proof of forgery against this Manuscript, as long as the Welsh is allowed to be more ancient, to which the English may upon a latter transcribing have been annexed, as fitly as old Greek MSS. are daily printed with the Latin translations of a later date, in the same or several pages.  
His second argument is deduced from the Cambrian lines, in which he pretends to discover many un-Cambrian mixtures of English words, 
p. 406, 7, 8.  helpio and gleimio, for help and claim, want of Orthography, and the like; To which being utterly unskilful in the Welsh language, I acknowledge myself incompetent to give any very particular reply, yet shall give my reason, why I cannot think that this second argument of his is any more demonstrative against the validity of the testimony, than the former; For 1. supposing this Copy of Mr. Moston●s to be a transcript, not the original (as it is evident S. H. Spelman supposeth) what difficulty is there to imagine, that that Copy was transcribed by one unskilful in the Orthography of that language, especially when it is known, how ordinary this is to be found, not only among the vulgar, but among learned Churchmen of that nation, who are fain by study to acquire skill of reading before they can officiate in that language. Secondly, I shall readily grant, or, if he please, yield to the force of his arguments, that the Welsh lines are not the words, or language wherein Dinoth delivered his answer, but (as this Gentleman after contends) that Dinoth, a writer of Latin Books, being to speak to Augustine, that understood not the British language, gave his answer in Latin; What hinders now, but that this Latin answer being conserved among the Britan's, might in later times (before Henry the eight) in any age to which the idiom of the Welsh lines shall direct a Critic in that language to affix them, be translated into imperfect (I mean more modern) yet intelligible Welsh, either by a native of that Country, or by any other, who had acquired so much of that language, as was sufficient for no weightier an enterprise? I discern not what disadvantage I can receive by this concession, and then sure there will be small difficulty in vindicating Sir Henry's integrity, if this shall be supposed; For he no where pretends, that the Cambrian lines, in the form here presented, were the language, or words of the answer of Dinoth, but that the matter of his answer, in what language soever delivered by him, is communicated to us by that MS. And that it was not, here is no word of so much as probable argument, much less of clear demonstration tendered by the Author of this Appendix.  
Lastly, for the two words which occasioned his charge of the English mixtures, I am, by those which have skill in the language, enabled to return him some answer, that the word help, from whence is the infinitive helpio or helpu, is found used by Tudor Aled, who wrote an: 1490. and by Lluellyn, who is thought to be more ancient, and that gleimio, or cleimio is by the Latin and Welsh Dictionary set down in the word vendico, in the first place, (and after that holi) as the most proper Welsh word for it, not borrowed from the English; From whence as I shall not conclude, that these Welsh lines, were the original of Dinoth's answer (that were to retract my former concession) so I may safely assume, that these two words (his only instances of English mixtures) do no way demonstrate this Welsh translation to be later than Henry the Eight's cashiering the Pope's authority (as of the English it was granted) nor consequently leave it under suspicion of being forged by any Protestant.  
His third argument is of more seeming force, taken from the mention of this Abbot's subjection to the Bishop of Caerleon upon uske, 
p. 409.  in which he finds two absurdities, 1. saith he, of●han ●han Elwy, now commonly called S. Assaph, 2. all Histories testify that the Archiepiscopal Seat was removed from Caerleon to S. David 's in King Arthur 's time, who died about the year 544. i e. 50 years before Augustine 's first entrance into Britain.  
To these two branches of probation, certainly the answer is very obvious to the first, that acknowledging and supposing that the Monastery of Banchor, situate in Flintshire, though within the confines of Chestshire, was under the diocesan Bishop either of S. Asaph, or of Chester the Episcopal See of Bangor lying in the County of Caernarven) yet this can be of no manner of force against this testimony, for he that was under the Bishop of S. Asaph, as his immediate superior, or diocesan, may yet be under the Bishop of Caerleon, as his Metropolitan, as he that is under the Bishop of Rochester in one respect, is under the Bishop of Canterbury in another. And so that is a full answer to his first difficulty.  
For the second, it is acknowledged that before this time of Dinoth's answer to Augustine, the Archiepiscopal See had been by authority of Synod removed first from Caerleon to Landaffe by Dubritius, Anno 512. and so it is affirmed by Sir Hen: Spelman in his Apparat: p. 25. (where by the way lin: 5. the Printer hath mistaken ad Meneviam for ad Landaviam) and in like manner by his successor S. David, Anno 516. by licence from King Arthur, from Landaff to Menevia, which from that eminent Bishop, under whom that change was made, was after called S. david's. But this removal of the Metropolitical See from one city to another was not of such weight or consideration, but that the Metropolitical dignity, having been so long fixed at Caerleon, might still retain that title after the translation.  
Besides, the Abbot of Bangor making answer to Augustine's claim, which was founded in some old right, which he pretended the Pope to have over all Churches, it was most proper to contest this by former practice, not only how it stood at that present, but especially how it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of old, or from the beginning, by custom immemorial, and herein not to consider such immaterial changes, as were the removing of the Primate's See from one city to another, but to look on it, as it had always lain, in opposition to all foreign jurisdiction: And it being certain that Caerleon was anciently this Prime See, nothing was more agreeable to this contest, as it is supposed to be managed by that Abbot, than thus to refer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Counsels of Nice, and Antioch, and Chalcedon, and Ephesus had done, in the like controversies) to tell Augustine that the British Christians had always, from their first plantation, been under a British Primate, and to call the British Primate by that title, which had most anciently belonged to him, i. e. Bishop of Caerleon, and not by the later of Landaffe, or the yet later of S. David's.  
What this Author here objects against the former of these answers, saying, 1. That this is not proved. And 1. that it implies a contradiction to say the See was translated, and the former title still retained, Translation importing the taking a new, and desertion of the old title,] is no way applicable to this second answer (which consequently remains in full force) and therefore I need not farther attend to it; And in relation to the former answer, It is far from the promised clearness of demonstration.  
For as to the first part of it, the thing may be true, though it be not proved▪ the contrary must be proved by him that promiseth clear or demonstrative confutations: And for the second, it must be founded in some new notion of Contradiction, which my Logic hath not acquainted me with, for sure he that saith the See was translated, and the former title retained, doth neither say that the See was translated and not translated (which is the only form of a Logical contradiction) nor that the former title was retained and not retained; Nor consequently can I discern the least inconvenience, much less contradiction, either direct, or by way of implication, that the Metropolitical See being translated from Caerleon to another city, the Metropolitan should still retain his original title, that of Bishop of Caerleon.  
Other exceptions he proceeds to add, but those so far again from being, 
p. 410.  according to promise, demonstrative evidences against this testimony, that they are no way worthy to be attended to.  
First, that Dinoth would probably have answered in Latin, and to that I have already replied, that I may well grant he did so, and consequently that both the Welsh and English in Mr. Moston's MS. were translations of that Latin.  
Secondly, that the words in Welch rendered [whom you name to be Pope—] are not rightly translated; In this again I cannot contend, having no knowledge in that language, but as before I followed Sir Henry's translation, and finding it not very clear, did endeavour to express his meaning by a just Paraphrase, and thereby happily rendered the true sense of the place, so if I should now believe my teacher again, this Author, that undertakes to correct Sir Henry's translation, it would not be impossible so to render the words, as should bear a very commdious sense, and perfectly agreeable to the notion I formerly had of them.  
But being not secure that my leader H. T. (whom now I discern to be no Welshman) hath really the skill in that language, which his animadversions pretend to, I thought it more reasonable to consult some other more knowing guide, and am now from a judicious hand assured, that there is an error in the distinction between Daad: and yw gleimio, which being taken away, the true rendering of the whole is this, Et aliam obedientiam, quam istam, non agnosco ego cujusquam esse, quem vos nominat is Papam, vel patrem patrum, vendicare & postulare, And any other obedience than that, I acknowledge not to be any man's (or to belong to any man) whom ye name Pope, or Father of Fathers, to challenge and require. This is plain sense, and still perfectly agreeable to the understanding, I formerly had of the words, and I doubt not but upon the most Critical examination it will be found to be the most literal rendering of them.  
The third, of the no good sense of the English is already answered also, by adhering to that better translation, which is as perfectly fit for our turns, as the other was imagined to be, and much more intelligible and clear, as appeared in the last number.  
The fourth is, that the words used of the Bishop of Caerleon▪ [who is to oversee under God over us] makes against the ●ym of the Prelatic reformers, and particularly against me, who labour to support the King's Supremacy against the Pope, whereas these words exclude the King as well as the Pope] But certainly there is no force in this, for Augustine's demand, or question being only of that obedience and subordination which belonged to the supreme Bishop, whether that were the Bishop of Rome, or the Bishop, of Caerleon, and not at all enquiring into the nature or extent of the regal or imperial power (there being no occasion to suggest any such inquiry) the Abbot's answer can in no probability be extended any farther than the question extended, i. e. to the asserting the Prime Episcopal power to belong to the Metropolitan of Caerleon or S. David's, without any subordination to the Pope of Rome.  
As for that which in the fifth place he adds of the miracle and divine vengeance, in Bede, and so concludes his Appendix, to that I have spoken 
* n. 19, 20.  already, in that which I thought meet to premise to this debate, and so I have no more to add by way of answer to his exceptions, but that I cannot sufficiently wonder, that this Author (so recommended to the the Reader by his learned Friend in the front of his Book) should make it his solemn business to invalidate this one supernumerary testimony, being withal no better provided with arguments to promise him success in it.  
The End.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 4. line 28. after him add,  
p. 15. l. 24. after side re: or  
p. 33. marg: l. 3. re: Apolog: l. 29. after must add,  
p. 36. l. 32. re: nomina  
p. 40. l. 12. re: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 13. re: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
p. 83. l. 34. re: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
p. 15. l. 24. after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deal,  
p. 19 l. 33. after else add)  
p. 90. l. 17. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 re: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 20. for the re: then  
p. 96. l. ult: re: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
p. 108. l. 30. re: testify  
p. 111. marg: l. 11. re: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
p. 120. l. 26. re: it as  
p. 121. l. 11. re: Campegius  
p. 129. l. 8. re: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 6. re: yet larger  
p 133. l. 17. re: by this  
p. 135. l. 6. re: schism in him,  
p. 136. l. 35. re: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
p. 137. l. 29. re: and shall l. 32. re: extitit  
p. 138. l. ult: re: is one  
p. 141. l. 7. re: con-l. 24. re: our innocence  
p. 148. l. 36. re: is utterly  
p. 150. l. 7. re: this  
p. 155. l. 11. re: the fall  
p. 160. l. 36. re: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
p. 161. l. 11. re: Naucratius