Imprimatur.  
Geo: Parish, S. T. P. Reverend'. in Christo Patri Archiepisc'. Ebor '. a sac'. Domest'. April, 14. 1663.   

THE Church of ROME Not sufficiently defended from her Apostasy, Heresy, and Schism: As appears By an Answer to certain Queries, Printed in a Book entitled Fiat Lux, and sent transcribed (as 'tis supposed) from thence by a Romanist to a Priest of the Church of England.  
Whereunto are annexed The Romanist's Reply to the Protestant's Answer, and the Protestant's rejoinder to that Reply.  
By P.S. D.D.  
York, Printed by A. Broade, and are to be sold by R. Lambert at the Minster-Gates, 1663.   

To the Right Honourable, and Right Reverend Father in God, JOHN, Ld. Bishop & Count Palatine of Duresme.  
Right Reverend, and my much Honoured Lord,  
WHen I waited on your Lordship, the last Summer, at the time of your publique-Ordination, I communicated to your Lordship the Papers, that now are printed in this small Book.  
Your Lordship was pleased to give me encouragement to publish them, and withal to advise me to forbear any future reciprocation of this Saw, which some count their delight to draw, and retort. I should not have presumed to communicate these endeavours of mine in a contest so long managed by our learned Prelates, and other worthy Men of our English Church, but that I perceive, that our ordinary sort of people have not the opportunity to procure, nor leisure to peruse Books of larger Volume; and Reverend Bishop Jewel's Apology (that might instruct them in the several Questions in debate between the true, and pretended Catholics, that is, betwixt the Protestants and the Romanists,) is rarely perused by the people of this Age, though it may possibly be found in some Churches.  
What the Person is that sent me the Queries (extant I perceive in the book called Fiat Lux) and who made the Reply to my Answer, I know not; but I perceived, that the people might easily be amazed by them, and disposed to judge the Church of Rome not at all changed from her primitive integrity, and thereupon the better inclined to desert our Communion.  
In the Parish where I live, I perceive the Papists (and there are several Families there of the Romish-perswasion) generally believe, that we have set up a new Religion, that we have no Priests amongst us, and consequently no Sacrament except (perhaps what their women in some cases by allowance do administer) Baptism.  
What effect such opinions do produce, is visible enough, in the spreading of this error in this place, within a few years bypast.  
That we should do our best endeavours to acquaint the people that Rome is not such as sometimes she was; that England is not a Church bearing date since Henry the eight's Reign; that our Divines are Priests duly ordained, that we have no defects in our Discipline, destructive to the being of a sound Church; and that salvation, may be obtained better amongst us, than in any Church in the world, is the common duty of all entrusted with the charge of souls.  
What I am able to contribute to so good a work, I adventure to show by this ensuing Discourse; and how Zealous both myself, and all others, ought to be to have it done, the danger of such, as are misled from our Assemblies, doth abundantly demonstrate.  
That by God's blessing this Skirmish, may confirm some that stand, establish some that stagger, and raise up some, that are fallen amongst us; I hope the rather, for that I have been encouraged thereunto by your Lordship; who, being so well skilled in the excellent structure of our settlement, [which, were our Discipline advanced to the purity that our Church in the commination professeth, is to be wished for, would fall but little short of the Primitive-constitution] hath always been ready to maintain, that the pretensions of Rome (so far as she condemns, and dissents from us in the substantial parts of Religion,) are destitute of a solid foundation.  
Your Lordship's ability to defend and resolution to suffer for the Cause of our Church (both at home, and abroad) are so well known, that to speak anything of either of them is superfluous.  
I crave your Lordship's candid acceptance of this small work; and withal I humbly return my thanks, for your Lordship's patience in perusing these Papers, and readiness to impart your Lordship's direction and advice in several particulars, and with my prayers that your Lordship may enjoy that measure of health and length of life in your Diocese that may enable you to settle it according to the pious, and grave design of your Articles of Visitation, and complete your Reparations of those Ruins, that sacrilegious hands have made upon the Fabriques' belonging to your Bishopric (in accomplishing which good Enterprise I have been an eyewitness, that your Lordship forgetting your private concerns, spareth neither for cost nor pains) I rest  
My Lord, Your Lordship's humble and much obliged servant Peter Samwaies.   

To my worthy friend Walter Lyster Esquire.  
Sir,  
THough you live among some of the Roman Religion, yet you are better satisfied with the Constitution of that Church wherein you received your Baptism, than by the Queries that you gave me, to be shaken from the truth of that Catholic Christianity, which we profess, since the Reformation in England.  
When I returned to you the short Answer which you see now made public, it was received (you know) with as much scorn and disparagement, as those of the new Religion (for such I call the present Profession of Rome) use to entertain the Reasons, that either they understand not, or know not how to answer.  
But yet that somewhat might be retorted, I know not what Champion amongst them (let him answer it to his Superiors, if he did it without their leave) sent (as you can witness) a Reply closing it with an Appeal to an indifferent Judge.  
I have joined issue with him upon his own Terms; and hope that (whatsoever they may judge, that are engaged never to approve any thing, that shall convince them to be mistaken, yet) an indifferent Reader will acknowledge (upon his perusal of our several pleas) that whatsoever Rome was in her primitive purity and splendour yet when we were forced to withdraw ourselves from her Communion, she had forfeited all just claim to her first excellency, and cannot be excused from Apostasy, Heresy, and Schism.  
If any thing that hath been written (upon the occasion of that Challenge which you brought me) may contribute something to your further confirmation in the truth espoused already by you, I shall not think my labour lost: but if it shall conduce also to the better establishment of others, I have reason, as in the first place to glorify God for making me serviceable in the defence of his truth; so in the next, to give you thanks for engaging me in this Contest, who being (perhaps too much) inclined to peace, had not marched into this field, had I not (as you can witness,) first been challenged. Wishing you all that felicity, that none of the Sons of the Church of England shall fail to attain, that Constantly frame their lives according to her sound and Orthodox doctrine (and that is no less than the certain salvation of your soul) I rest,  
Sir, Your most humble servant P. Samwaies.   

ERRATA.  
Read, etc. but insert what is thus () marked.  
In the Epist: amused page 3. line 6.  

(in) p. 10. l. 5.  
(from) ibid. l. 25.  
(obstinate) p. 16. l. 24.  
Latin- p. 17. l. 8.  
condemned p. 18. l. 5.  
unlimited p. 23. l. 21.  
(of Rome) p. 29. l. 10.  
Reply p. 37. l. 7.  
debeitam in marg. p. 38.  
spec alia ibid.  
recess p. 41. l. 5  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. l. 28.  
(〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) ibid.  
reasoning p. 42. l. 9  
Bishop's p. 45. l. 12.  
(the) ib. l. 20.  
Antecessores in mar. p. 48.  
Jacobasius ib. l. 16.  
vim in marg. p. 51.  
diminish p. 52. l. 1.  
thought ib. l. 21.  
(&) in marg. ib.  
magnopere in mar. p. 53.  
cred tum ib.  
Photius ib. l. 26.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid.  
Franofurdiensi in m. p. 55  
Hinemarus ib. l. 25.  
Pithaeus p. 56.  
habita in marg. ib.  
deal ib. [Germancrun &]  
Apostolici ibid.  
(a) p. 57 l. 20.  
Ex. 20.4, 5. p. 58. l. 17  
martyrib. in marg. p. 62.  
Quoniam in m. p. 63.  
Dominico ib. plebi ib.  
Chrysost. p. 67. l. 8.  
Nyssen ibid.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib.  
quia in marg. p. 76.  
duodececim in mar. p. 78.  
(〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) p. 79. l. 17.  
ancient p. 80. l. 28.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg. p. 83.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid.  
sometimes p. 84. l. 26  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg. p. 87.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid.  
(any jurisdiction) p. 89.  
lin. 23.   
What other Errors of the Press, besides these here noted, the Reader shall observe he is desired candidly to correct.   

The Invalidity of the Church of Rome's Plea against her Apostasy, Heresy, & Schism, as appears by a Protestants answer to certain QUERIES, etc.  

The Romanist's Queries.  
IT will not be denied but that the Church of Rome was once a most pure, excellent, flourishing and mother-Church.  
This Church could not cease to be such, but she must fall either by Apostasy, Heresy, or Schism.  
First, Apostasy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ, but the very name and title of Christianity: 
White defence of his way P. 435.  no man will say that the Church of Rome had ever such a fall, or fell thus.  
Secondly, Heresy is an adhaesion to some private and singular opinion, 
K. James in his Speech to the Par.  or error in faith, contrary to the general approved Doctrine of the Church.  
If the Church of Rome did ever adhaere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common received doctrine of the Christ a world; 
Whitaker in his Answer to Dr. Sanders 2. daemon. Reynolds in his 5. Con.  I pray you satisfieme these particulars, viz.  

1. By what General Council was she ever condemned?  
2. Which of the Fathers ever writ against her? or,  
3. By what Authority was she otherwise reproved?   
For it seems to me to be a thing very incongruous, that so great and glorious a Church should be condemned by every one that hath a mind to condemn her.  
Thirdly, Schism is a departure of division from the unity of the Church whereby the bond and communion hel● with some former Church is broken and dissolved.  
If ever the Church of Rome divided herself by schism from any other Body of faithful christians, or broke communion, or went forth the society of any elder Church; I pray you satisfy me as to these particulars, 

1. Whose Company did she leave?  
2. From what Body did she go forth?  
3. Where was the true Church which she forsook?    
For it appears a little strange to me that a Church should be accounted schismatical, when there cannot be assigned any other church different from her (which from age to age (since Christ his time) hath continued visible) from whom she departed.   

The Protestants Answer.  
WE deny not the honour, reputation and glory that was due sometime to the Roman-Church; she was as other Churches in their integrity and during her continuance in that condition, we deny her no title of commendation proper for her. Such was the Church of Jerusalem; of which notwithstanding you may hear the Lord making this complaint in the holy Prophet Isaiah, 
Isa. 1.21, 22.  How is the faithful City become an harlot; it was full of judgement, righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. Thy silven is become dross, thy wine mixed with water.  
We charge not this whole Church to have forfeited the good opinion the world had of her, in any one instance of time: for we believe generally of all Churches, 
1 Cor. 3.9.  that they were God's Husbandry, and God's Building, as St. Paul speaks of the Corinthian-church, and that salvation was to be found in them; but withal we firmly believe that there were wicked factions in the Church, that embraced and taught damnable errors; 
1 Cor. 15.12.  some we know were among the Corinthians that denied the Resurrection; some among the Galatians that urged Circumcision: 
Gal. 6.12.  and if these factions had been so potent as to have excluded from their communion all that would not have approved their heretical errors, why those particular Churches (in respect of such a prevailing party) might not be charged to have fallen by Apostasy, Heresy, and schism, I see no reason.  
When therefore such opinions that were maintained before by particular men, became the Sanctions and Laws of the Roman-Church; (as the worshipping of Images, the invocation of Saints and Angels, the Doctrines of justification by works, Purgatory, halfe-Communion, Co●po●eall-reall presence, merit of good works, etc.) then the Church of Rome might be said to have fallen by Apostasy, heresy & Schism.  
1. By Apostasy from the purity of that holy Doctrine, which sometimes by her Bishops and Ministers she taught; for Apostasy doth not imply the renouncing of the Name and Title to Christianity only, nor a departing from the whole Christian faith, but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundness of the profession which men have formerly made: it hath a latitude in it, which admits of degrees, one may apostatise from a portion, as well as from the whole Truth.  
2. By heresy also hath the Church of Rome fallen, if to departed from the truth of Christian Religion in points (at least grating upon the foundations, if not fundamental) and to maintain them pertinaciously, be heresy. How far the Church of Rome is involved in the guilt of the Bishop of it, concerns them especially to consider, who contend that he is the Head not of that particular Church only, but of the whole Catholic Church: but if that Church may be said to be heretical whose Bishop is guilty of heresy, it will be hard for the Romish-Church to acquit herself from this charge till she can prove that Liberius subscribed not to the Arrian Confession, which St. Hierome 
* in Catalogo  saith he did, compelled indeed by Fortunatianus but yet he did it: Fortunatianus in hoc habetur detestabilis, quod Liberium Romanae urbis Episcopum, profide ad exilium pergentemprinius sollicitavit, ac fregit & ad subscriptionem haeresios compuin. Let her vindicate also Anastatius secundus from Nestorianisme, which is charged upon him by 
* apud Chamier lib: 3. de Canone cap. 10.  Luitprandus Tieinensis Platina (who saith upon the credit of common fame, that he died a strange death, either as Arrius, or by a sudden stroke from the Divine hand,) Albo floriacensis, & Anastasins Bibliot hecarius. Let her make an Apology for 
* condemnatus in sexta Synodo.  Honorius, who was condemned by a Council; a better Apology it should be then that of Saunders, who though Honorous taught heresy, yet denies the Roman Church to have erred with him, and adds that though he might confirm heresy as a man, yet he did it not as a Pope.  
3. The Church of Rome is guilty of Schism, in that she doth not only departed from the communion of such Churches as were Orthodox in the judgement of prime and pure Antiquity, but hath forced a departure of all the reformed Churches from her, except they would communicate with her in her abominations. Schism is theirs who cause it; when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians, the Heretics caused the Schism; a forced separation, maketh not them that (in such a case) separate themselves guilty of schism, such rather as teach doctrines to the Catholic faith repugnant, are Schismatics; and this imputation lieth strong upon the Church of Rome, in forcing the Canons of the Trent-Councell: if then it be demanded (for the conviction of the Roman-church to be Schismatical) first, Whose company did she leave: secondly, From what Body did she go forth: thirdly, Where was the true Church which she forsook.  
1. To the first question we reply, that she left the company of the Orthodox when she obstinately pernsted in her false doctrines.  
2. She departed from their Body, not by local separation, but by refusing to communicate with them that reform themselves, which particular Churches are bound to do, when they cannot do it (which were the best course) by a general Council. This advice God himself giveth unto Judah by the Prophet Hosea, though the ten Tribes should continue obstinate; Though thou Israel play the Harlot, 
Hosea 4.15.  yet let not Judoh offend: though there were but two Tribes in the one Kingdom, and ten in the other, yet (notwithstanding the paucity of the one Church, and the multitude of the other comparatively,) they were to reform themselves that were fewer, in case the other should remain in their Idolatry. 3. And if it be thirdly demanded, Where was the true Church which the Roman-church forsock: we reply first what we said before, that the guilt of schism may be incurred by forcing others (except they will defile themselves by joining with those that have espoused dangerous errors in their superstition and Idolatry) to departed from us: and then secondly, it's conspicuous enough that she left herself as one may say; I mean that the Lattine-Church obstinate and peramtory in the perilous opinions of some of her own communion (when she publicly owned those doctrines, and would no longer endure them that would not comply with her therein) forsook the rest of her Communion, who misliked and detested the said errors in heart, before they had (by the concurrent assistance of Princes and Prelates) opportunity to shake off the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, (whose ancient privilege and Primacy of order (were that the only quarrel) we would not deny) and when the good Providence of God gave a fair opportunity, they openly rejected what with grief of heart they groaned under and tolerated before.  
As for that enquiry, 1. By what general Council: 〈…〉 Father's: 3. By what other Authority hath the Church of Rome been condemned, written against or reproved? We answer, that the present opinions and practice of the Church of Rome are dondemned by General Counsels: the Usurpation of unlimited Power challenged by the Pope, is censured by the sixth Canon of the famous Council of Nice; which giveth like Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Patriarches of Alexandria, and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds, as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts: the worshipping of Images, censured about twenty years before the Council of Nice, by the 36 Canon of the Council of El●beris; Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere, etc. 'Tis resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church, lest that which is adored be painted on walls: and whatsoever may be pleaded by the authority of the second Council of Nice, in the defence of Images, yet it's evident that the Canons thereof were not universally received; because as soon as the news of the Acts thereof came to the ears of the Fathers assembled (by Charles the great, two years afterward) at Frankford, they were rejected, and refuted by those three hundred Bishops there convened. If it should be demanded, where is the Council that hath condemned Rome since the separation of the Protestants? it is easy to reply, that the obstinacy of the Pope and his Adherents, obstruct the application of so good a Plaster to the wounds and break of the Church: what fruit is like to come upon such a Convention as the Pope would agree to, may appear by the transactions of the Trent-Assembly; but the want of the sentence of a General Council condemning the Church of Rome, is no security to the Romanists that their Church is a safe Communion to those that are in it; for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time, and such as were destructive to them that held them, and yet they were not condemned by General Counsels; there having been no convenience for their meeting until the Empire came into the Church.  
2. For the Fathers of the first five hundred years, it is evident enough that they are against the present Church of Rome in all the Controversies disputed between the Romanists and the Protestants, as might be quickly shown out of their writings, were it seasonable to take the pains: and then moreover to give an account to the third Enquiry, where it is demanded By what other authority hath she been reproved? We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdom and constant consent of the Catholic Church.   

The Romanists Reply to the Protestants Answer.  
Sir,  
YOu sent me some Catholic Queries with (as you say) Doctor Samwais' Answer, to which take this brief Reply.  
The Paper (which you sent) takes it for granted, and the Dr. denies it not, that the Church of Rome was once a most pure Church, and proves her continuance thus;  
This Church could not cease to be such, but she must fall either by Apostasy, Heresy, or Schism: But first, not by apostasy; for Apostasy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ, but the very name and title to christianity, none will say the church of Rome ever fell thus.  
But notwithstanding this the Doctor (by a new definition of apostasy) will prove she fell thus; for (saith he) Apostasy doth not imply the renouncing of the name and title to Christianity only nor a departure from the whole Christian Faith, but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundness of the Profession which we have formerly made. But the Church of Rome hath thus withdrawn, ergo, he proves the minor, because she embraces particular Doctrines there mentioned which formerly she did not.  
Reply. The minor is denied; and the probation concerning particular Doctrines, as Worshipping of Images, invocation of Saints, etc. is likewise denied, because assumed without proof: and the definition he gives of Apostasy is invalid, because it confounds Apostasy with heresy; but the other definition is good, because it clearly distinguishes them; and if so, than the D● hath not proved as yet that the Church of Rome hath ever fallen by heresy.  
This done, the paper proceeds to prove, that secondly the Church of Rome never fell by heresy: and to effect this, it puts the definition of heresy (see it in the paper) than it goes o● thus, If the Church of Rome did eve● adhere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common receive● Doctrine of the Christian-world, I pray satisfy me in these particulars, viz. 1. By what general Council was she ever condemned? 2. Which of the Fathers ever w 〈…〉 against her? 3. By what authority was sh● otherwise reproved? Before we put the Drs. answers to these particulars, we will take a view how he proves the Church of Rome to have fallen by heresy thus therefore he argues,  
Certain Popes, Bishops of the Church of Rome, as Liberius, Anastasius secundus, and Honorius, have fallen by heresy ergo, the Church of Rome hath fallen by Heresy.  
Reply, The Antecedent begets a new dispute of ihe Pope's infallibility ex Cathedrâ, which is to be waved, because the paper doth not meddle with it: and I deny the consequence, which he no ways goes about to prove. But since he cannot prove that the Church of Rome hath fallen by heresy; let us see (at least) what he says to the Queries. To the first then, which demands, By what general Council was she ever condemned? he answers, by the sixth Canon of the famous Council of Nice, which condemns the usurpation of unlimited power challenged by the Pope, and gives like Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the patriarches of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds, as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts.  
Reply. This unlimmited power (challenged by the Pope) is his supremacy, always held by the Church of Rome and her adherents to be of Divine institution: and therefore only said not proved (in which he is still like himself) to be an Usurpation.  
As for the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council, it is so far from condemning or limiting the universal jurisdict on justly challenged by the Bishop of Rome as it clearly asserts it: to evince, this we will cite the words of the Canon, which the Dr. (lest they should discover his bold assertion untrue) omitred the words are these, Let the ancient custom be kept in Egypt, Lybia, & Pentapolis; that the Bishop of Alexand 〈…〉 have power over all these, because the Roman-Bishop also hath such a custom▪ these last words, because the B●shop of Rome, etc. evince the thing to be a● I have said; for they are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria, is to have that Government, to wit, because (as the Council says) it is the Bishop of Rome his custom to have it so. If you say that the Pope's custom is not referred to the Government of these Churches by the Patriarch of Alexandria but to the Government of other Churches in the West: I reply, that you speak against the Text, because this, not another thing, but this here spoken off, viz. That the Bishop of Alexandria have power over these Provinces, this is accustomed, and to whom? to the Bishop of Rome; it is his custom to have it so, wherefore we like of it well and confirm it: Out of which it is clear they do not condemn or limit his Universal jurisdiction, but confirm it. I know the Dr. would have the sense of the Canon to be this, Let the Bishop of Alexandria govern in the places specified, because the Bishop of Rome hath a custom to govern in other places, to wit, in the West.  
Reply, This is against the fence of the Canon; for those words, because the Bishop of Rome, etc. are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria is to have that Government, whereas a Bishop's governing Churches in the West, were no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria particularly should govern the Churches here mentioned.  
As for the Council of Eliberis, it being but a particular one, and the Queries demanding a general one, we need not reply unto it: Nay if it be looked into, it absolutely makes for the Church of Rome; the words are Placued picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere, etc. 'Tis resolved, that Pictures should not be in the Church, lest that which is adored, be painted on walls. In which Decree, these words that which is adored, are manifestly against the Doctor; for they suppose a due reverence constantly given to pictures: and lest that things reverenced might be abused the Council forbade pictures (in those times of persecution) to be painted on the Church-walls, for fear the Infidels should deface them.  
Now if you bring the Authority of the second general Council of Nice, (Act 7.) desining that we must exhibit to Pictures (contrary to what Dr. Samwaies holds) Honorariam adorationens non veram ●at●iam: An honorary adoration, not true latria, that is, an inferior adoration, but not the supreme due to Almighty God only. Hethinks to evade, by saying the Canons thereof were not universally received, because assoon as the news of the Acts came to the ears of the Fathers assembled at Frankford, they were rejected and refuted, by those 300. Bishop's there convened.  
Reply. It is barely said, not proved, that the Nicene Canons were not universally received, but I expect proof: as for the Council of Frankford, it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicene Canons, but only defines, that vera latria is not to be given to Images; which the Council of Nice likewise affirms. If then these two Counsels agree, how could the Dr. truly say, that the Frankford council rejected the Nicene.  
Thus you see, that the Dr. hath not at all proved the church of Rome condemned by any general Council. But since he cannot prove it by Authority, he will by reason thus.  
The want (saith he) of the sentence of a general Council condemning the Church of Rome is no Security to the Romanists, that their Church is ae sure communion to those that are in it, for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time, & such as were destructive to those that held them, and yet they were not condemned by General Counsels, there having been ●o convenience for their meeting, until the Empire came into the Church.  

Reply.  
We grant that the Church both can and has condemned arising heresies before there was any conveniency for a general Council; for the Church either diffusedly or representatively, that is, either as she is dispersed throughout the world, and out of council; or as assembled in a general Council, hath power to condemn arising heresies; and her condemnation of them (either way) is security enough to her adherents. I grant likewise, that the want of the sentence of a general Council to condemn us were no security to us, in case you could show us otherwise condemned by the Catholique-church dispersed throughout the world: but since you can neither do the one, nor the other, the Church of Rome and her adherents (that have both for them) are secure enough; and you (who have both against you) are most insecure: and I say further, that seeing it hath been the custom of the Catholique-church to condemn arising heresies by general Counsels ever since she hath had the conveniency of having them, it is certain, that the Quaerie (by what general Council was she ever condemned?) is rationally put, and you (being not able to produce one) leave it unsatisfied.  
As to the Quaerie, Which of the Fathers ever writ against her? the Dr. answers, that it is evident enough, that the Fathers of the first five hundred years are against the present Church in all controversies disputed between the Romanists and Protestants.   

Reply.  
Sir, We expect to see your evidence, but never hope to see it produced.  
As to the third, By what Authority was she otherwise reproved? the Dr. answers, We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdom and constant consent of the Catholic Church.   

Reply.  
Show that the Scriptures thus (interpreted) do reprove the Church of Rome; for till you do so, I must needs aver that the Ouaerie is unsatisfied.  
Now let us see how the Paper sent to Dr. Samwaies) proves the church of Rome not to have fallen at any time into Schism; and to do this, it puts the desinition of Schism: (which see in the Paper:) than it proceeds, If ever the church of Rome etc. read what is said, till you come to the Queries, and afterwards the Queries.  
This done, let us see how on the contrary the Dr. hath proved the church of Rome guilty of schism: The Church of Rome (saith he) etc. hath departed from the communion of the Orthodox Churches.   

Reply.  
Assign them good Dr. otherwise you only give us words.  
He goes on. And hath forced a departure, etc.  
No good Doctor, you voluntarily left her communion, and so made yourselves Schismatics.  
He proceeds. The schism is theirs who cause it. Let that pass.  
He holds on. When the Orthodox departed from the Arrians, etc.   

Reply.  
Strange! the Orthodox departed from the Arrians: this is quite contrary to St. John, (1 Jo: 2.19.) who speaking of certain heretics, says, Exierunt ex nobis, they went out of us, or departed from us: which if true, (and certainly what St. John saith is true) and withal that the Orthodox departed from the Arrians, (as the Dr. says) than it evidently follows, that the Orthodox were Arrians, that is heretics; and the Arrians (that is heretics) Orthodox: for according to St. john they are heretics that depart, but according to Dr. Samwaies, the Orthodox departed from the Arrians, therefore the Orthodox were heretics: and if so, than the Dr. at unawares hath made himself an Arrian, for I suppose he will say, he is one of the Orthodox.  
I wonder again, the Dr. did not see the manifest contradiction he run into, when he said the Orthodox departed; for the Orthodox are they that do not departed from the Doctrine anciently received: so that to say, that the Orthodox departed, is to say, those that did not departed did departed; which is plain contradiction in terminis.  
Now he gins to answer the Queries. If then (saith he) it be demanded, 1. Whose company did she leave. 2. Fron what body did she go forth. 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook? To the first (he saith) we reply, that she left the company of the Orthodox, when she persisted in her false Doctrines.   

Reply.  
He does not satisfy the Quaerie at all, for he tells us not what Orthodox company she left; he only says, she left the company of the Orthodox, because she persisted in her false doctrines: but this is still to leave the Quaerie unsatisfied, and (according to his accustomed manner) to assert things without proof. I confess, if we would grant what he saith without proof, he would need no more, and might lawfully proclaim his victory.  
To the second he replies, That she departed from their body (that is, from the body of the Orthodox) not by local separation, but by refusing to communicate with them that reform themselves.   

Reply.  
You are still like yourself, that is, constant in affirming without proof: as for what you say of local separation 'tis frivolous to mention it, since none was urged in the paper: and as for the reformation, we call it deformation, till you evidence the contrary.  
The text brought out of the Prophet Hosea is impertinent, and so deserves no reply: and as impertinent is the text (which at the beginning of his answer) he brings out of the Prophet Isaiah concerning the Church of Jerusalem, which only proves, that there were many in her who were fallen into sin: but what is this to the church of Rome's falling into heresy; for it is one thing to fall into sin, another to fall into heresy, and we deny not but many of the church of Rome fall into sin. That instance likewise of the church of Corinth is to as little purpose objected against us, for it only proves that some (not all) did err concerning the resurrection. He may if he please (but it is to as little purpose) argue thus, Other particular Churches (as the Eastern) have fallen into heresy, therefore the Church of Rome at least may fall, therefore (for aught we know) hath fallen. I deny the consequence; for it was only said to St. Peter, and his Successors, and the Church of which they were to be Pastors; Thou art Peter, or as the Syriack hath it, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gatoes of hell shall not prevail against it.  
To the third, Which was the true Church which she forsook? he says, We reply what we said before, that the guilt of schism may be incurred by forcing others.   

Reply.  
This is no answer, for you do not tell us, what true church she forsook: and whereas you mention again her forcing you, I reply as before, that you voluntarily and wilfully left her; and if you storm at her: because by spiritual punishments she seeks to reduce you to your former faith, you do like Rebels, who voluntarily forsake their allegiance, and afterwards storm at the King who seeks to reduce them to their former alleglance by severe punishments: and if you will needs have the Church of Rome guilty of schism for forcing you only in this manner; then how will you acquit the King (that he be not guilty of rebellion) who forceth his Subjects in the same manner? and so we shall have the King a Rebel, and not his Subjects.  
He saith likewise, that the Church of Rome hath left herself, as one may say.   

Reply.  
One that will speak contradiction, or not answer the Quaerie, may say so: for when you say that the Church of Rome hath left herself as one may say: either you must mean, that the whole hath left the whole, and this is a flat contradiction; or else you mean, that she hath left herself, because certain of her Members have left her; but this only shows that they have left her, not She herself; and so the Quarie is left unsatisfied. Thus have you a brief Reply to the Drs. Answer; and how solid it is, let others judge.    

The Protestants rejoinder to the Romanists Reply.  
Sir,  
I Received the Paper, wherein I know not who maketh a Reply to that account which I gave to the Proposals, which you shown me in the defence of the present Roman-church. 
(a) Facilè est cuiquam videri respondisse qui tacere noluetic, aut quid est loquacius vanitate? quae ideò non potest quod veritas, quia si voluerit etiam plus potest clamare quam veritas. De Civitat. Dei. lib. 5. c. 27.  St. Augustine said it long since, and we find it true by experience, It is easy for any man to seem to answer another who is resolved not to hold his peace; for what is more talkative than vanity? which cannot do what verity can, because (if it pleaseth) it can make more noise than verity. The vulgar sort think, that he that hath spoken last, hath the best cause; and so perhaps such of your neighbours that are blinded with the Romish errors, conceive all in my Answer abundantly satisfied by the Replyer, because he hath thought fitting not to be silent. Though I have as little hope to satisfy those who are resolved to continue what they are, by my rejoinder to this Replyer, as I had to convince them of their mistake in thinking so well of their Romish church, as the first paper would encourage them to do; yet lest any of the weaker sort among ourselves should think that the Replyer hath sufficiently justified the reasonableness of the first quaries, by's account to what I wrote; or that I were wanting to my duty in defence of the Truth, I shall give you a short satisfaction to all the pretensions made by the Replyer for the justification of Rome from Apostasy, Heresy and Schism.  
First, the Replyer thinks himself concerned to civil at my exceptions against the definition of Apostasy, mentioned in the Queries: he will needs have Apostasy to import as much as is said in the Queries, not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ, but the very name and title to Christianity. I grant that a total Apostasy doth; but the word signifying no more than a departure, it may be more or less dangerous, according to both the terms of such a motion, from what truth, and to what error the departure is made. 
(b) Apostasia importat retro cessionem quam dā a Deo, quae quidem diversimodè fit secundun'diversoes modos, quibus homo Deo conjungitur: primo namque homo Deo conjungitur per fidem. secundo per debitem, & subjectan voluntatem ad obediendum praeceptis ejus. tertio per aliqu a speciala ad supercrogationem pertmentia; sicut per religionem & clericaturan, vel sacrum ordinem remoto autē posteriori remanet prius: sed non convertitur. 22ae. q: 12. a: 1.  Aquinas saith, that Apostasy denotes some kind of recess from God, which may come to pass in sundry sorts, according to the different means whereby aman is joined unto God: for first'd man is united unto God by faith. 2. By the submission of his will to the Divine Precepts. 3. By special privilege of super-eminency, as by holy Orders; and the last being removed, the first abideth; a man may renounce his Orders, and yet not his whole faith: let therefore the Replyer turn to his St. Thomas, and from him learn to understand what Apostasy signifies; or if he please, let him consult a better Saint, I mean Luke the Evangelist, and he shall find him using the word for a particular word of recess. When Saint Paul came to Jerusalem, St. James the Bishop of it, and the Elders said unto him, 
* Acts 21.21.  Thou seest brother how many thousands of the Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law; and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Do we think the Jews had heard that St. Paul did forsake all the law of Moses, judicial, moral, and ceremonial? no, they instance only in circumcision, and the customs, (which were the ceremonial Law) and yet they thought that this recession only was sufficient to denominate him a Doctor of Apostasy. 
(c) Duabus apostasus exisentibus adhuc potest remanere homo Deo conjunctus per fidem; sed si a side recesserit, tune omninò a Deo retrocedere videtur. id. ibid.  Aquinas in the place  affirmeth, that one may departed from God, by forsaking the order of his profession, or degree in the Clergy; and also by perverseness of mind against the Divine precepts; and yet [notwithstanding these two Apostasies] remain conjoined unto God by faith: but if a man departed from the faith, [and 
* 1. Tim 4.3.  St. Paul saith they do that shall teach to abstain from marriage & forbidden the use of meats, which God hath created to be received with thanks giving of them which believe, and know the truth, and will not this Apostasy concern such as teach thus?) than he seems to be guilty of a full Apostasy. When Bellarmine in his Appendix to his book de summo Pontifice, calls Luther an Apostate; he speaks properly or not? the Replyer (I hope) will not charge the Cardinal to speak incongruously, and yet all the world knows that Luther renounced not the name and title of Christianity, neither did the Cardinal think so.  
But grant what indeed no man (not void of common sense) can deny, that there may be a partial Apostasy; yet the Replyer denies my Minor, (as he calls it) where I instance in the particular doctrines of worshipping. Images, invocation of Saints, halfe-commonion, corporeall-reall presence, etc. I because assumed without proof: and needs there proof, that Rome teacheth these doctrines? Let the Replyer deny them if he please; we shall congratulate his abrenunciation of such dangerous errors: but as long as we see them taught and practised by all the Romish-communion, we need not prove what they deny not, being indeed so fare obliged not to deny it, as they are obliged to profess the Trent-Canons. To assert a partial apostasy, is not to confound it with heresy; the word implies a ecesse or departure from what a Church or Person hath sometimes professed, which heresy doth not: he that never acknowledged the truth, cannot apostatise from it; but he that heretically maintains opihions destructive to the christian faith, may be called an heretic, though he were never Orthodox. Rome is Apostatical in all the errors which she now holdeth against the truth which she once professed: 'tis not her mistake only in the truth, but her dereliction of it, when she affirms men to be justified not by faith alone, but by works also: for this she believed not, but the contrary, when St. Paul wrote to her, and taught her the right belief: Rom: 3.28. And when St. Clemens governed her, as appears by his Epistle to the Corinthians, where he thus writeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 41.  
The next thing the Replyer conceiveth himself concerned in, is to prove that th●s Enthymem or argument, The Pope have fallen by heresy, therefore the Church of Rome, is no valid way of reasoning, and withal an extravagant controversy, leading to a new dispute concerning the Pope's infallibility ex Cathedrá: the Replyer here is much mistaken; so if it be demanded, whether the Church of Rome ever fell by heresy, is it not pertinent to prove that she hath so fallen, if she be concludeed in the faith of her Bishops that have so fallen else sure 'tis no sin, not to believe as the Pope believes, except he first justify his faith to the Christian world by some better authority than his own Profession Let not therefore this Advocate of the Trent-faith think that he replies, when he trifles; and that when he saith that he denieth my consequence, he hath answered my argument: my reason is clear, and I must not permit him to fly into his obscure corners to shun the evidence of it.  
Thus than I argue: is it lawful to descent from the Pope, or not? if it be lawful, why are they censured that obey not his decrees? if unlawful, why are they excused that err not with him, nor are involved in his judgement when he teacheth errors opposite to the Christian faith? may not a Protestant as lawfully descent from the Pope as a Papist? but sure the Replyer upon better consideration will change his mind, and (as Hart did) in his conference with Reynolds) rather (in despite of all evidence to to the contrary) say the Pope cannot err, then plead, that though he doth, yet the Church is not bound to obey him: and truly if it be obliged to obey him, how it can stand when he falls, I see not.  
'Tis pretended also by the Replyer, that the Church of Rome in ascribing universal jurisdiction to the Bishop of that See, is not obnoxious to the fixed Canon of the Council of Nice, and so not condem●ad by a General Council: to prove this he interprets the Canon with a gloss that I think destroys the Text. I confess he hath: 
(c) De Roman Pontifice. lib 2. c. 13.  Bellarmine for his Author in this exposition, who having cited four opinions concerning those words in the Canon, because this is customary to the Bishop of Rome,) 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quia et Episcope Romano parilis 〈◊〉.  would make the Bishop of Rome the efficient, and not the example of the Authority granted to the rest of the Patriarches in this Canon: so that if Bellarmine please, the words in the Canon, because this is the custom to the Bishop of Rome, shall import, because it is the Bishop of Rome's custom to have it so, id est, (as the Canon before speaketh) that Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis should be under the Patriarch of Alexandria: because the Pope did use to be so liberal in his Concessions to that Bishop, as to grant him Authority over those Provinces. But why must the sense of Ruffinus be rejected, who Lib. 1. C. 6. of his Ecclesiastical History, saith, that it was decreed by the Council in this Canon, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the Charge of Egypt, 
(g) suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum.  as the Bishop of Rome had the charge of the Cities of his Neighbourhood? why must the Authority of Zonaras and Balsamon be despised, who give the same interpretation of the Canon? The Replyer therefore is very bold, when he saith, that this sense of the Canon which I give, is against the intention of it, seeing I give no other than what these and many other men of judgement, and Learning have given of it before.  
Moreover, what a goodly account is given, why this cannot be the Genuine sense of the Canon? A Bishop governing Churches in the West, (saith the Replyer) is no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria should govern the Churches mentioned in the Canon. No reason (I Confess) efficient, but yet a Moral reason it might be, moving the Fathers assembled in the Council to provide for the Unity of the Church, by like expedient in the East, as they saw it furnished with in the West. Take the meaning of the Canon in this sense and the discourse hath nothing in it against the Laws of a legitimate Argumentation, which may out of the Canon thus be framed: The ancient Customs are to be retained? but that the Patriarch of Alexandria should govern Egypt Lybia, and Pentapolis, is an Ancient Custom, therefore the Major is manifest from the example of the Bishop of Rome, who (by the right of custom) kept his Authority over the West: the minor is evident by experience. The Replyer (I know) likes not the major; for he saith, that the Pope's Supremacy was always held by the Church of Rome and her adherents to be of Divine-right; Always held? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; how did this word escape him? I appeal to a competent Judge, the Author of the Apostolic Constitutions (whether Clemens Romanus or no, I dispute not, but I suppose of authority enough to give his verdict (in point of Fact) for the age wherein he wrote,) doth not he in that form of Supplication (extant lib: 8. cap: 10. of the Constitutions) sufficiently declare, that the Bishop of of Rome had his limits aswell as other Bishops? 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Co. s●it. lib. 8. c. 10.  Let us pray (saith he) for the Episcopacy of the whole world, and for our Bishop James of Jerusalem, and his Diocese; and for our Bishap Clement of Rome, and his Diocese; and for Luod us of Ant●och, and his Diocese. Let the Replyer he●e observe, that Clemens is not prayed for as Bishop of all the World, but as a Pastor over his own Limitation.  
This might further appear from the usage of the Primitive, Church, the Doctors whereof would not have so far forgotten the●r duty in acknowledging this Supremacy, as to do actions that clearly evince, that they conceived no such thing claimeable by any fair pretensions whatsoever; much less by Divine institution, if it had been always claimed by the Church of Rome. Would St. Cyprian have called Pope S●ephen his Brother, [as he doth in his Epistle to Pompeius, wherein he chargeth him (though I confess unjustly) for favouring Heretics] had he esteemed him the Head of the Church in the sense that the later times understand the word in? would Firmil arus the Bishop of Coesarea, have spoken so liberally of the same Stephen, and have charged him with Errors, ignorance, pride, 
(j) Multa pro locoru & nominum diversitate variantur, neque ta men propter hoc ab Ecclesiae Catholicae pace atq, unirate discessum est, quod, Stephanus ausus est facere rumpens a dyer sum nos pacé, quam semper antecesseres ejus nobiscum amore, & honore mutuo custodierunt. Cypr. Epist. 74.75.  had this persuasion of the Pope's Supremacy been currant at that time? would he have charged him with schism in that Epistle to Cyprian, for denying that communion and concord with Cyprian, which his Predecessors kept in reciprocal love, and mutual Honour; (which is not properly said of the respects between Superiors and Inferiors) had he had any apprehension of such a Head-ship as the Romanists now challenge to the Pope? no certainly, the Pope was not then esteemed such as the latter Parasites have styled him, à corporal God in the world; such doctrine may be learned from Cardinal Jacobasianus, the Canon-law, and other writings which the Father's age understood not: none durst then be so impious as to bespeak (as an Archbishop in his Sermon is said to have done) the Pope with such words, 
(k) Dr. Franc. White his Orthodox way justified. p. 58.  All power is given to thee, both in heaven and earth; neither knew the piety of the primitive Christianity the language of the Ambassador of Panormum in Sicily, who kneeling before Pope Martin cried unto him three times together, Thou which takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Indeed had they believed him infallible, as some later Writers would persuade the world the Bishop of Rome is, they might then easily have admitted his Supremacy in the highest acknowledgement of excellency and honour: but this vain conceit was a fancy that the good Bishops of Rome ne'er dreamt off, as may appear by Liberius his Epistato St. Athanafius: for, he requesteth to be farther confirmed in the Christian faith by the authority of his judgement, that if what he professed, were Catholic, he might be the more secure by the knowledge of his consent thereunto. The words are remarkable, extant in the works of Athanasius printed 1600, ex officina Commeliniana. p. 397. Having described the Tenor of his faith in the blessed Trinity, in opposition to as well Sabellius as Arrius, he adds in his Epist: 
(*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  If thou Brother Athanasius consentest with me in this confession (which is the true faith in the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) as in the presence of God's judgement, and Christ's, I pray subscribe to it, both that I may be more certain, whether thou art of the same persuasion with myself, and also that I may constantly observe thy commands. Indeed this good Bishop of Rome (as we noted in our first Answer to the Queries, and could further prove out of Saint Athanasius his Epistle to those that lived solitary lives) by sad experience found himself far enough from Infallibility; when, overcome with the terror and importunity of the Arrians, he yielded to a subscription to their Heresy.  
The Replyer had better have said nothing to the judgement of the Council of 
(l) Concilium Elibertinum imagines pingi vetuit, nempe ut idolotriam hoc remedio exting●erit. sixth. senens. Bib. lib. 5. annot 247.  Eliberis, than what he doth; at least he might (with greater advantage to his Cause) have said that only, which he gins his Reply with, that the Council being but a provincial Assembly, and not Ecumenical, the Canons of it did not conclude foreign Churches: for to pretend that the meaning of the Canon was to preserve reverence to the picture, is as much as to say, that the design in taking the late Usurper and the rest of his Complices out of Westminster- Abbey, and hanging up their heads over the Parliament house, was to advance their dignity. 'twas a time of persecution, & pity those precious advantages of piety should be defaced by the Heathen; so pretends the Replyer: This he learned perhaps from Binius, or 
(m) Tunc periculum erat, ne Gentiles existimarent, nostios adorare lignum & lapides. Sand. apud Bellar. de Imag. lib. 2. c. 9  Bellarmine, or Nicholas Saunders quoted by the Cardinal, who is not peremptory for this Interpretation neither, but first gives another reason, (viz.) lest the Heathens should be scandalised at the Christians, and suppose that they worshipped stocks and stones, and concludes with this, 
(n) Periculum crat in persecutionibus imagines fuissent contumelia affectae a persecutoribus  there was danger lest in time of persecution, the Images should have been abused by the Persecutors. But well far yet a little ingenuity at a dead lift; the Cardinal (overcome with the reason in the Canon) confesseth that it, doth not much concur with this Exposition; and therefore he supposeth, that it was rather, left the Walls mouldering away, or coming to ruin, the Saints honour should be eclipsed by suffering corruption.  
But the truth is, neither of these reasons are of much moment to reduce such Images into the Church, as they banished out of it; for we are still in peril of giving candal by Pictures, and Image-worship, to the Jew, to the Turk, and to many Christians: and I think we are not attained yet to such a perfection of Church-building, but that the walls may fail in the best Temples; and therefore the reason continuing, why is not the Canon obliging? I suppose Bellarmine might lay the less weight on this reason, when he cast his eye on the 
* Admonere placuit fideles ut quantum possint prohibeant ne idola in domibus suis habeant si vero vini metuunt servorum, velscripses puros conservent silnon secetint alieni ab Ecclesiâ habeantur, Concil. Elib. Can. 41.  41 Canon of this very Council, where Images are forbidden to be used in private houses: there the walls are not only better secured from the rudeness of Persecutors, but also from the neglect of reparation, whereby public buildings usually suffer no small decay: And the close of this 41 Canon, establisheth the rejection of all Idols, though the servants in the family might mutiny for their preservation.  
But the authority was but slender, a Provincial Council, and that but of 19 Bishops: Hence the Replyer conceiveth it not pertinently urged, because the Quaries demand the censure of a General Council. I know the Cardinal doth upon this account diminish the Authority of the Fathers there assembled, but yet it plainly hence appears, that (restore the Canon to its genuine sense, and) it declares the present practice of the Roman-Church not to have been universally received, nay to have received a check by Men, (though fewer in number, then have met in following Synods, yet) reverenced for their antiquity, being assembled 20 years before the General Council at Nice, and therefore to be had in estimation for their age. And though Baronius in passion had accused this Council of seeming vicinity to Novatianisme; yet considering that 
(o) Cùm quae ab illís de eâ resunt statuta ab innocentio Rom: Pontifice excutentur, nemo sit qui accusare praesumat.  Pope Innocent had acquitted them, that met there, he would have none to presume to accuse them; upon which words Binius concludeth, that Baronives though, 
* Eam synodum legitimam esse ab omni ecrote liberam  that this Synod was lawful and free from error?  
As for the impertinency of alleging a Provincial, when an Oecummenicall council was demanded, let not the Replyer forget what the Queries propound, and the answer will be proper enough: for it was not only required: by what General Council hath Rome been condemned; but also by what Authority was she otherwise reproved? a Provincial Synod hath authority, (inferior indeed to that of a General Council, but yet) ample enough to check the pretences of any new Doctrine, that is defended as Catholic; for what hath been censured, (though but by a provincial Assembly) so early in the Church, cannot lay claim to that known Character of Chatholicisme in Vincentius Lyrinensis; who admits not that to be such 
(p) In ipsà Catholicâ Ecclesiâ magnovere curandum est, ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper, quod ad emnibus reditum est advers: haeres. c. 3.  which was not taught in all places, at all times, and by all Christians: and therefore that must needs be destitute of Universality, Antiquity, and Consent, that was disapproved by the Fathers of the Council of Eliberis; which may be esteemed the more for Hosius' sake, (a constant man against Idolatry,) who sat afterwards in the first Council of Nice, and was as devout in his conversation, as his 
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Phot. Ep. p. 3.  name importeth (as Phosius observeth) keeping his confession undefiled from Idol-worship: moreover what veneration Pope Innocent's approbation gave this Assembly, the Replyer (I suppose) will not think that any censure of his can take away.  
The Replyer complaineth that proof is not made, that the second Nicene Council was not universally received; what proof more Authentic, than the Authority of the Synods of Eliberis, and Frankford, alleged by me; I have given an account of the first already, and for that of Frankford, this puisne Replyer presumes (I suppose without the Licence of his Superiors) to say, that it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicent Canons, but concurs with the Nicent Council, that gives (though not Latriam yet) honorariam adorationem, an honorary adoration to Pictures.  
Two things are to be rejoined t● this reply: 1. That the Replyer's mistaken in saying that the Frankford Fathers rejected not the Nicene Canon● concerning Image-worship: and secondly that the Nicene Canons establishing an Inferior adoration to be given to pictures, were not Cathelique Sanctions.  
As to the First, it is evident, that the Replyer opposeth the judgement alwell of Bellarmine, as of Baronius, when he saith, That the Fathers at Frankford rejected not the Canons of Nice: Let him turn to his Binius, and there he shall find, that they both were mistaken in thinking that these Counsels clashed, but yet that they thought so. What strength the Reasons of Binius carry against these two Cardinals, I shall not inquire; Sure I am, that if Baronius be mistaken in his Opinion in this case, he deserves little credit in other of his assertions. For he affirmeth himself so fare from doubting of it, 
(r) Tantum abest, ne negemus Nicaenam secundam Synodum, eandemque septi 〈…〉 Oecnmenicam dictam damnatam dici in Fran● of urdienci Concilio, ut etiam augeamus numerum testium id profitentium, & quidem haud dubiae fidei, aut autoritatis. Baron. Tom. 9 p. 539 An. Chr. 794. n. 27.  That he solemnly professeth, (by undeniable testmonies) to put it beyond all question, and so he doth, as hath been lately observed by reverend and learned Dr. Hammond out of Walafridus, Strabo, Amalarius, Finimarus, A●astatius, and many others. If these two learned Romanists have not in this case reputation enough to satisfy the Replyer, I could send him to better witnesses; to the Annals (set forth by Pythaus, 
(s) Synodus habitu in Franconofu●t, in quâ haeresis foeliciana coram Episcopis Germanorum, & Germaniarum, & Gal liarum, Italorumque praesente magno Principe Carolo, & missis, Adriani Apostolini Thcophylacto & Stephano Episcopis tertio danata est— Pseudo- Synodus Graecorum, pro adorandis imaginibus habita, & falso septima vocata ab Episcopis damnatur. Chamler de imag: To: 2. lib. 21. c. 14. p. 855.  where it is said, that in the year 594 there was a Synod called at Frankford, where Foelix was condemned, and the Pseudo- Synod of the Greeks (that established Image-worship, being falsely called the seventh,) is cersured by the Bishops: So the life of Charles the Great, published by the same Pythaeus: so Ado, and others G. Cassander in his 29 Epistle to John Molinaeu● gives him an ample account of the 4 Books written by the authority and under the name of Charles the French King (the whole Council of Frankford consenting to the contents of them) which were sent to the Pope against the decrees of the Council of Nice: It were the best course for the Replyer to do as the rest of his Masters do in this dispute, I mean, not to say, that the Assemby of Frankforde did not oppose the Fathers of Nice; but to undervalue the Authority of that Council, as confronting (without just Authority) the Canons of the second Nicene, which (they say) was a General, whereas this of Frankford was but a Nationall Synod.  
I come therefore to the second thing that I propounded above, to prove (I mean) that the Canons of the 2d. Nicene Council were not Catholic Sanctions; that is, the Canons that give religious worship to images, were not rules of sound and wholesome doctrine: In this enquiry I question neither the number, nor the power of such as either called this Assembly, or came to it, though there lie a great prejudice against Council opposed by not a few of the Greeks, and by almost all the West: the Council of Ariminum was subscribed by all the Patriarches, yea by the Pope himself yet was of no Authority, but of perpetual infamy, through all ages after in the Church, because it established Arianism. What therefore St. Augustine said in his dispute with Maximinus the Arrian Bishop, when the first Nicene Council might be pleaded for the Catholics, as the Council of Ariminum was for the Arrians, that may I say in the present controversy, as to the second Nicene and the Council of Frankford 
(t) Nec ego Nicenum, nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praedicaturus proferre Concilium: nec ego hujus authoritate, nec tu illius detineris; scripturarum authoritatibus non quorunque propriis sed utrique communibus testibus, resi cum re, causa cum caulâ, ratio cum ratione concerter. Aug. con. Maxim. Arian. Episc. lib. 3. p. 733.  neither am I concluded with the Authority of this, nor thou with that; let matter with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason contest by the Authority of the Scriptures, which are witnesses proper to neither parties, but common to both.  
If then we appeal to the Scriptures, what more clear than the voice of God on Mount Sinai, Exo: 28.48. Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image, or any thing, that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. etc. This service God reserves to himself, (as we are taught, Deut: 6.13.) exclusively to all creatures, as we are informed by Christ's recitation, and weighty interpretation of the place, Math: 4.10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. and Exo: 34.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou shalt worship no other God.  
The Papists here betake themselves to the distinction of Latria and Dulia: none but God must be worshipped by the first but the second may be imparted to Saints and Angels. The Replyer may learn (if he know not) that the chief words used by the Greek writers in the Scripture (aswell the septuagint in the Old, as the Evangelists and the Apostles in the new Testanent) are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that these words are all used promiscuously, as well for religious and divine, as for civil worship: even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for civil worship to man, De: 28.48. the septuagint read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Acts 20.19. St. Paul is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and the same St. Paul maketh it the unhappiness of the Galathians, that they did sometimes give Dulia to what were not Gods, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: whereby we may see that Dulia (if it be religious worship) ought not to be given to such as partake not of divine nature; but Divines should not contend about words: the Catholics agree (and I think the Papists cannot deny it) that the worship of God is distinguished from the worship of men in this, that the one is religious, and the other civil: The first an Elicite Act of religion, as the Schools speak: the second an imperate, flowing from it, as the effect from the cause; both of them species of Justice, as Lactantius hath excellently observed: 
(u) Primum justicize officium est conjungi cum Deo, secundum cum homine: sed illud primum religio dicitur, hoc secundum miscricordia, vel humanitas dicitur. Lactlib. 6. c. 10.  The first Office of Justice is to be joined with God; the second with man: That first is called Religion, this second Mercy, or Humanity, Well then, admit the distinction of worship according to the difference first innocently assigned by St. Augustine into Dulia and Latria; we scruple it not, as long as those words are granted to be names of worship, differing not only in degree, but in kind or nature: for (seeing the Honour that we pay unto any Object, aught to be proportionable to the excellency of that Object) there must of necessity be the same distance between Divine Worship, and Humane or Civil, that there is between God and Man: But in truth there is no Proportion between God and man, and therefore neither aught there to be between Divine and Civil Worship. 
(w) Colimus Martyres eo cultus dilectionis, & societatis quo & in hâc vita coluntur, sancti Homines Dei, quorum Corad talem pro Evangelicâ veritate passionem paratum esse sentimus sed illos tanto devotius quantò securius postincerta onnia superata quanto etiam fidentiore laude praedicamus jam in vita faeliciore victores, quám in ista adhuc pugnantes: at illo cultu quae Gracè latria dicitur, latinè un● verbo dici non potest, cum sic quaedam proprie divinitati debita servitus, nec colimus, nec colendum docemus nisi unu● Deum. August. contr. Faust. Manich. Lib. 20. C. 21. (Et mox) longè minoris est peccati ebrium redire à martyribus, quàm vel je junum sacrificare martiribus dixi, non sacrificare Deo in memoriis martyrum, quod frequentissimè facimus, illo duntaxat ritu, quo sibi sacrificari novi Testamenti manifestatione praecepit, quod pertinet ad illum cultum quae Latria dicitur, & uni Deo debetur.  St. August: therefore that gave the first rise to the distinction of Latria from Dulia, did not admit Dulia to be a religious Worship above civil worship, such as is given to living men, though he acknowledged it an higher degree of Dulia, that we give to the dead, than what we give to the living, because we honour them after their victory, more securely. But the Papists conceive themselves under the notion of Dulia, privileged to consecrate Altars, Temples, Chappells to Saints, all which St. August: judged to appertain to Latria; and speaking of the excess of Christians, that were intemperate in the celebration of the Festivals of the Martyrs, he blames the Luxury of such as were guilty, but yet acknowledgeth it a crime far less than the Idolatry of such as with fasting sacrificed, though even to the Martyrs themselves. This devout Father would have detested the abuse of his own distinction into Latria and Dulia, and much more abhorred the doctrine of 
(x) Aquin: p. 3. quest. 25 Art. 3.4.  Aquinas and other modern Romanists, (Who teach that the Image and the Gross of Christ are to be adored with the same worship that Christ is adored with himself, id est, with Latria, in its full extent,) had he lived to to see it; 
(y) Greg. de Valent. lib. 3. de Idolat. c. 5. apud Reynold. de Idolat. Ecclesiae. Rom. lib. 1. c. 1.  which veneration when Gregory de Valentia observed could not be attributed to a Creature without Idolatry, he spoke plainly, that some kind of Idolatry was lawful: The Replyer grants, that the Church of Rome were sufficiently condemned, (though not by a General Council) if the diffusive body of the Church did condemn her: and this were easy to demonstrate from the first Ages of the Church, which owned none of those doctrines, that the Papists at this day maintain against the Catholics all the world over, out of their own Communion. Is it not evident by St. Cyprian, 63. Epist. that the people received the Cup, 
(z) Quorum quidem vel ignorantèr, vel simplicitèr in chalice Domino sanctificando & plaebi administrando, non hoc faciunt quod jesus Christu● Dominus & Deus noster sacrificii hujus, Author & Doctor fecit, & docuit religiosum paritèr, & necestarium duxi de hoc ad vos literas facere. Cipt. Ep. 63. ad Coecilum.  Because some either out of Ignorance or Simplicity do not that in consecrating the Eucharistical Cup, and administering it to the people, (mark, no half communion served the people in that holy Bishop's days) which Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the Author and Teacher of this sacrifice, did and taught, therefore I accounted it both a matter of religion and necessity to write to them concerning this business.  
And is it not as clear by St. Aug. that the opinion of Transubstantiation was not owned in his days, hear him speaking against the corporal eating of Christ in the Sacrament, (now so shamefully defended by the Romanists) in his Exposition of the 98. Psal. for (in treating of Christ's words in the 6. Cap. of St. John, and the mistake of such as took his Speech, as the Trent-faith now doth) he saith, (expounding Christ's words in his own Person that spoke them) 
(a) Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum, non hoc Corpus quod videtis, manducaturi estis, & bibituri illum fanguinem quem fusuri sunt, qui me crucifigent: Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualter intellectum vivificabit vos, etsi necesse est illnd visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi. Aug. in Ps. 98 pag. 1105. edit froben.  Understand spiritually, that which I have spoken unto you, you are not to eat the Body which you see, nor to drink that Blood, which they will shed, who will crucify me: I have commended a certain Sacrament unto you, being spiritually understood, it will quicken you; though it be necessary, that it be visibly celebrated; yet it is behooveful, that it be invisibly conceived. Doth not St. Ambrose as plainly teach, that what mutation is wrought by consecration, is mystical; and not such as the Romanists fancy, gross and corpoporeall? when speaking of the operative virtue of Christ's words, he saith. 
(b) Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini jesus, ut inciperent esse quae non erant quamtò magis operatorius est, ut fint quae crant, & in aliud commutentur. Ambr. l. 4. de Sacr. c. 4.  If therefore there be so great efficacy in the speech of the Lord Jesus, that those things which were not (by virtue thereof) should begin to be; how much more effectual is it to cause the things that were to be, and yet to be changed into somewhat else? id est, to continue naturally what they were before the consecration, and yet also after the consecration (Mystically and Sacramentally) to become the body and blood of Christ: which place in St. Ambrose was so distasteful to those of the new faith in the Romish-communion, that whereas some of them beat their brains in finding away how to make the Bread, and Wire in the Sacrament like the beast in the Revelation, 
* Revel. 17.8.  that was, and is not and yet is: others (as the late reverend Primate of Ireland observed in his ans. to the Jesuits challenge, p. 14.) took a ready course to untie the Gordian knot by paring clean away in their Roman Edition (followed also in that of Paris Anno 1603.) those words that so much troubled them, and letting the rest run smoothly after this manner, 
* Quantò magis operatorius est, ut quae erant, in aliud commutentur.  how much more is the speech of the Lord powerful to make, that those things which were, should be changed into another thing.  
To this purpose also speaks St. Cyprian in the forecited Epistle, 
(c) Invenimus calicem mix tum suiffe, quem Dominus obtulit, & vinum suisse, quod fanguinem fnum dixit, Cyp. Epist. 65.  we find that the Cup was mixed, [the epistle was wri● against the Aquarii, that celebrated the Eucharist with water alone] which the Lord offered and that it was Wine, which he called his Blood. St. Iraeneus lived not fare from the Apostolic times, and he clearly asserteth the substance of bread to continue in the Eucharist after the consecration; for thus he writeth concerning that Mystery; 
(d) Quemadmodum qui est â terrâ panis, percipiens vocationem Dei jam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenâ, & coelesti: sic & corpora nostra spercipientia Eucharistiam, jam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. Iren: Lib. 4. C. 34.  As the Earthly bread by the institution or command of God, is not now common bread, but the Eucharist consisting of two things, an Earthly, and an Heavenly, so our Bodies receiving the Eucharist, are not now corruptible, having hope of the Resurrection.  
When therefore we meet with expression in the Fathers, that seem to imply a Transubstantiation, they are nothing, but a Catachresis, an abuse of words, or hyperbolical elevations, familiar to all sorts of Writers, & not unusual among the Ancients, when they speak of the other Sacrament of Baptism, as hath been largely proved by the late learned and Reverend Bishop of Duresme. If Justin and Iraeneus say of the Eucharist, that it is no longer (after the consecration) common bread St. Chrissest. and Greg: Nussen say also of Baptism, Non est aqua communis; it is not common water: and Cyril of Alexandria expressly useth the word trans-elementated; by the efficacy of the spirit, the sensible water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is changed into another element. It appears hence, that the Fathers condemned the present judgement of the Roman-Church, as to the  controversies between the Catholics of the Reformed Churches, and the Papists in the Roman separation, who divided themselves from the Communion of the Primitive profession, before the Protestants departed from them, or rather were forced and driven from them.  
As to my assertion, schism is theirs who cause it; he thinks to say only, let that pass, a valid confutation! and excepts against my instance, when I say when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians, the heretics made the schism●. This is contrary (as he pretends) to 1 Jo: 2.19. who speaking of certain he retiques, saith, exierunt a nobis; whic● if true, (saith he) than the Orthodox w 〈…〉 the Arrtans and Heretics; and t● Arrians and the Heretics were Orthodox. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉! This acute Replyer is able to pierce the eye● of a Jackdaw as infallibly, as any on● I ever heard of; as if departure it sel● did imply a crime without reference to the Society, which a man leaveth b● his departure: Is departure from the blessed Disciples of Christ, St. Joh● and the rest of the holy Apostles all o● with departure from the impure fraternity of profane and ungodly me● that pervert the truth, and bring in 〈…〉 the Church damnable heresies? Is one and the same thing to departed fro● Moses and Aaron, and to withdraw o● selves from Corah, Dathan, and the r● of their Complices? Is it not the empress' admonition of God to his people to come out of Babylon, Rev: 18.4. 
* St. Paul exhorts us all to such an apostasy, that reclaims us from out iniquity: Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Did Jeremy departed from the wicked Israelites under the guilt of schism? if he had, God would not have confirmed him in his separation, saying, Let them return to thee, but return not thou to them, It was not then the sin of the Orthodox to departed from the Arrians, when if not the whole world (as St. Hierome speaketh) yet the whole face of the visible Church, groaned under that burden, and admired itself to have become Arrian.  
'Tis true as Theodoret observeth, the Arrians termed the Orthodox the authors fall division; but how justly, such as ●an judge, may easily discern. When therefore the Replyer wonders, that the Doctor did not see his contradiction, in saying, the Orthodox did departed; the Doctor wonders that the Replyer should not see his own tergiversation, & trifling, in finding a contradiction that none but himself can espy. That the Drthodox should departed from the true Church, were a contradiction indeed, because the true Church consists of those that are such; howbeit that the Orthodox should departed from the Synagogue of Satan, is as far from being a contradiction, as Rome present is; different from Rome professing the purity of the Primitive faith, and that is far enough to be sure.  
'Tis evident the Replyer had little to say but was forced to cavil, when he pretends that the Text produced out of Hosea 4.15. was impertinent. For what could more directly prove our warrant for reforming ourselves, then to show, that it was Gods express command to Judah so to do, when Israel did refuse it. If Judah was forbidden to go to Bethaven, that is Bethel, the place of Jeroboams idolatry, why should not England think herself engaged to departed from Rome, infected with the same crime? An evasion was but necessary, when the Replyer saw the proceeding of our Church so fairly justified by this Scripture, and therefore the text (he pretends) concerns not th● cause. But if to say that a text alleged be impertinent, is a sufficient Reply surely to say that such a Reply signifies nothing, (but the disability of the Replyer to make a better answer) is a sufficient rejoinder.  
As to the other text out of Isa: 1.21.22, the Replyer supposeth that also to be of little force: because it proves (he saith) that the Church of Jerusalem fell into sin; but what's that to the Church of Rome's falling into heresy? And is not Heresy a sin Sir Replyer? If Jerusalem might, and did fall into sin, you must show her exemption from that sin, or else why she might not fall as well into that as other sins, I see no reason. Did not Aaron so far comply with the idolatry of the Israelites, as to make the Golden-calfe? Let Moncaeus purge him as he can in his book called Aaron purgatus: Moses (I am sure) chargeth him, when he thus bespeaketh him, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them? Exo: 32.21. and he supposeth him to have offended, when he saith, that at that time he prayed for him: Indeed as Moses affirmeth, the Lord was very angry with Aaron, to have destroyed him: and he useth to be angry with no man to his destruction, but for sin. Deut: 9.20.  
Wherefore the Jewish Church might sin, and that not only against the Second Table of the Law, by moral impurities, but against the first also, by profane impieties, by worshipping of Images by erroneous miscarriages in the Duties of God's worship, which they heretically held to be lawful, as the present Church of Rome now doth, or else they would never have done what was so clearly and frequently forbidden unto them.  
And that Jerusalem, thus fell in the time of the Prophet Isaiah, the Replyer might have learned from the first words of his Prophecy, for the word of the Lord came unto him in the time of Ahaz his reign, and Ahaz liking an Alpar at Damascus sent the pattern of it t● Urian the Priest, who bu●lt it accordingly 2. Kings 16.10.11. Which was a direct violation of God's institution▪ Thus it is evident, that the High priest himself erred in administering his Office. And why the Church of Rome may not err, aswell as the Church of Jerusalem, a better reason must be assigned, than this Replyer hath given, before we believe her peculiar privilege.  
This Replyer hath the confidence to say, that the instance of the Corinthians erring in the doctrine of the resurrection, is to little purpose, because some, not all did err in that Church. But he conceals the force of my argueing from the supposition of the establishment of that error by a prevailing party: for in case that should have been done by the Bishop of that City, and a prevalent faction in that Church, it is evident that the Church of Corinth (in respect of such a combination) might have been said properly enough to have fallen by heresy.  
But grant the worst of other Churches yet Rome is secured: It was said (saith the Replyer) only to Peter and his successors, and the Church, whereof they were to be Pastors, thou art Peter etc. What was said to Peter, we know; but what was said to his pretended successors at Rome, and the Church whereof they were to be Pastors, we know not; St. Matthew teacheth us not. Upon this rock I will build my Church, concerns Rome no more than another particular Church, especially if St. Peter did found it, and build it up by his doctrine: for though he suffered Martyrdom at Rome, yet his teaching might have as much influence on other Churches, as his blood had at Rome.  
But super hanc Petram, and any other advantage that the Replyer contends for out of the Syriack translation, will stand him in little stead to prove the infallibility of the Church of Rome. For should Christ call Peter a rock and in allusion to his name, add upon this rock. I will build etc. all this would no more conclude that the Pope could not err (did he succeed St. Peter by a better title, than he can make good) than it did secure St. Peter from diverting Christ from his passion, whilst this confession that he made of Christ was warm from his mouth, and afterwards from denying of Christ with perjury, when he was under the temptation of fear to be apprehended as a malefactor, should he have confessed him. Which failings of the blessed Apostle, we recount not to stain the glory of his memory, but only to show, that he was not privileged to become an unshaken Rock, such as on whom the Church might be secured.  
Antiquity did not by Christ's expression understand the Person of Peter only, to be meant when he said, Upon this Rock I will build my Church: but some first by the name of Roek understood every believer, as Origen. Greg. Nyssen, St. Ambrose, and Aquinas himself, following Origen, as the learned 
(e) Exercitat. 15 ad. Annal. Baron. P. 39  Casaubon observeth.  
Secondly. Others conceive, that by Rock, our Lord understood the faith of St. Peter; so 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Chrys. upon this Rock, id est. the faith of this confession, so 
(g) Super hanc confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est, & mox. haec sides Ecclesiae fundamentum est.  Hilary, lib. 6. de Trinit. The building of the Church is upon this Rock of his confession, and afterward, this faith is the foundation of the Church. and St. August. most clearly in his 10. Tract●t. on the first Epistle of St. 
* Quid est super bane Pewam aedificabo ecclesiam meam? super hanc fidem, super id, quod dictum est, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, super hanc Pettam, inquit, sundabo Ecclesiam meam.  John. What is on this Rock I will build my Church; but upon his faith, upon that which hath been spoken, Thou art Christ the son of the living God, upon this Rock (saith he) I will build my Church.  
Thirdly, Some by Rock understood Peter, but with no Prerogative to his person above the rest of the Apostles, except of his age, (in which respect, St. Hierome 
* Cur non Johannes electus est virgo? aetati delatum est, qua Petrus senior erat Hieron. adv: jovin lib 1.  thinks him to be made the Prolocutor;) and prompenesse of answering Christ's demands. We deny not that the Fathers ascribe unto Peter this pious heat, especially observable in him upon several occasions, more than in the rest of the disciples. Peter 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 5. p. 199. edit. savil.  (saith St. Chrysost:) fervid in all things, (or upon all occasions) and full of freedom in speaking, or rather of charit y then free doom of speech, whilst others hold their peace, cometh to the Master, and saith etc. Upon this account the Ancients give unto Peter a dignity peculiar amongst the rest of the Apostles, not a princely power over them. 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Hence Eusebius, lib. 2. c. 14. calls him for his excellency, the Prolocutor of all the rest. Thus much and no more did the Father's grant unto Peter, when the Latins call him principem, and the Greek's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Prince and leader of the Apostles. St. Hierom's testimony is evident for this, when he praiseth St. John so highly, making him the beloved disciple, because he was a virgin, and Superior to St. Peter, because whereas Peter was an Apostle, and John an Apostle, the one a married man, the other a virgin; Peter was only an Apostle, John an Apostle, an Evangelist, and a Prophet. 'Tis true he objected before, the preeminence of St. Peter above the rest, but answereth the objection by granting no more to St. Peter, than we acknowledge to be given him by Antiquity: which was not a Sovereign, Monarchical Authority over them, but a praesidency among them: Hear St. Hierom's words, lib. 1. adv. Jovin. If 
(k) Si virgo non fuit johannes, cur caeteris Apostolis plus amatus sit? & dicis super Petrum fundatur ecclesia licet id ipfun in alio loco super emnes Apostolos fiat & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant, & ex acquo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur, tamen proptere à inter duodecem unus eligitur, ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio. Hieron: adv. jovin. lib. 1.  St. John were not a virgin, why was he more beloved than the rest? but you say that the Church was founded on Peter: though that be elsewhere laid on all the Apostles, and all of them receive the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and though the strength of the Church be equally grounded on them all, yet not withstanding one is chosen among the Twelve, that an Head being appointed, the occasion of schism might be removed. Where, St. Hierome by the name of Head, meant not to ascribe a Sovereign power to Peter over all the rest; for all St. Peter's power is comprised in the Keys, and in the building of the Church upon him; but you see that all the Apostles (in St. Hieroms judgement) receive the Key's and the Church is built upon them all equally: wherefore, (in Hieroms opinion) though Peter had a pre-eminency among the Apostles, he had not a Sovereignty above them.  
To conclude, fourthly and lastly, Some of the Fathers by Rock understood Christ himself. So 
(l) Tu es Petrus, & super hane Petram, quam confessus es, super hanc Petram quam cognovistidicens, Tu es filius Dei vivi, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam 1. super meipsum filium Dei vivi aedificabo Ecclesiam meam.  St. Augustine in his thirteenth Sermon on the words of our lord Thou art Peter and upon this Rock, which thou hast confessed; upon this Rock which thou understoodest, when thou saidst, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, will I build my Church: id est, upon myself, the Son of the living God, will I build my Church: upon me will I build thee, not me upon thee. And this Sense 'tis probable that Christ made evident to the Apostles by pointing demonstratively to himself, when he pronounced the pronoun This, as he may be supposed to have done, when he said, 
* john, 2.19.  Dissolve this Temple.  
Neither do these four several Interpretations differ in the substance of the sense, but only in the manner of expression; for as if a devout man should say, God cured me, or the Physician cured me, or Rhubarb cured me; he would by these several expressions speak after the accustomed manner of speech, retaining still one meaning, that he was cured by God, as the first efficient, by the Physician as the second and subordinate, by the Rhubarb as by the instrument; so the Fathers (as the learned Exercitator. on Baronius noteth) when, they say sometimes, that the Church is built upon Christ, sometimes on Peter, sometimes on every believer, and upon the faith, or confession of faith made by Peter, agree very well in the substance of the same sense: though they use several ways of declaring it. Which is doubtless the reason, why one and the same Augustine other whiles expoundeth Christ words after one of the forementioned senses, and otherwhiles after another; for in his Retractat lib. 1. c. 21. he saith that he had sometimes by Rock understood Peter, but afterwards most frequently Christ, whom Peter confessed: for Christ is the first and chief efficient cause of the holy and spiritual building of his Church; Peter by his endeavours whilst he l●ved, and by his doctrine since his death, together with the rest of the Apostles (though chief among them in the sense of the Ancients, but not Modern church of Rome) a secondary or subord note efficient: faith the instrumental cause of this Glorious Edifice, and the faithful the material, of the Temple of God.  
When therefore this Replyer would play the Critic upon Peter's name in the Syriack language, which imports a rock, he follows indeed his Masters, Baronius, and Bellarmine, but to little purpose: Peter 
(m) non est à Petra Petrus, sed ipse est Petra.  is not (saith Baronius) derived from Petra, a rock, but he himself is a rock. But what would the Replyer get hereby? first, he would fecretly disparage the Greek copies of the Gospel?, as if they did not conveniently express the importance of Christ's words: secondly, directly oppose the Authority of St. Augustine, 
(n) Petrus a Petrâl, quemadmodum a Christo Christianes vocatur. Aug deverb. Dom. Ser. 13. & lib. Retract. 1. c. 21.  who saith, Peter was called from a rock, as a Christian is called from Christ: and thirdly teach us what small skill he hath in the Analogy of Grammar: for grant Christ and Peter too to be called a Rock: the word rock shall be praedicate of them both, univocally, equivocally, or denominativel, as the Logicians speak. The first kind of praedication, cannot be admitted true of Christ, and Peter, without blasphemy: for if Christ and Peter be named a roek un vocally, than the same definition must agree to the rock Christ, the Son of God, and to the rock Simon, son of Ionas. Now Christ is a rock, because he giveth life, comfort, and protection to his Church against all dangers ghostly, and bodily, which none can do but God: If Simon be such a rock, it follows he must be God also; which is such a blasphemy, that (I hope) this Replyer trembleth to be guilty off. It follows therefore, that Peter be a rock equivocally, or by denomination from the true rock: and let him take which sense he will, the same definition (by the Laws of Logic) shall not be assigned to Christ, and Simon; because there will be a vast difference between the Rock Christ, and the rock Simon. By reason of the several Genius's of the Syriack and Greek tongues (as Causaubon hath noted) Simon may in the one language be called a Rock equivocally, and in the other a rock by denomination; because in Syriack the name of Peter is written with the same letters, that the word is, that signifies a rock; (Cepha denoteth both) but in Greek with others, which is required in denominations, as 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Simplicius in Categ. apud Casaub.  Smiplicius hath observed out of Aristotle. Whether therefore in Syriack from Cepha, Peter be also called Cepha, or from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the difference will consist only in the form of words, but not in the importance of the sense. we are not afraid to call Peter a rock, or a foundation the Scripture giveth this Appellation to all the Apostles, Ephe: 2.20. Rev: 21.14. and why should we deny it unto him, whose name challengeth it by particular prerogative? The question is, in what sense he is so called?  
We see evidently by the Testimony of the Fathers, that Antiquity thought him not a Foundation or Rock, in the sense that the Patrons of the Pope's omnipotency assert; as if the whole Church were bottomed upon him, and his Successors, and the whole world become his Diocese, as Hart affirmed in his conference with Reynolds, pag. 459: neither did they think that by these Titles given to Peter; the Pope might lay claim, not only to a Primacy of Order amongst the rest of the Patriarches, but a Lordly Sovereignty over all Christian people throughout the whole world. Whereas now it is too manifest, that all this contention is raised not so much for Peter's honour, as the Pope's ambitious designs, whom it would better become to imitate Peter's true humility, who would not endure Cornelius a Centurion to lie prostrate before him, Acts 10.26. then assume his false titles (false I say in respect of the sense now imposed on them) whereby he may tread on the necks of Princes.  
But what though the Pope succeeded St. Peter at Rome, did not a Bishop succeed him also at Antioch? might not this Successor claim as much privilege at the one See, as the Roman Usurper doth at the other? 'tis evident enough, that Peter had no Successor in the Apostolical dignity, and 
(p) Contrvers. 2. q. 3. a. 3.  Stapleton teacheth that the Apostleship ceased, when the Apostles died: and yet though this were something current doctrine at Rome, 
(q) Annotat in Cyor. excus. Rom. 1563.  Bellarmine took courage to affirm, that because some have given the name of Apostleship to the Pope's office, therefore the Pope succeedeth after a sort in the Apostleship, viz: in the charge of the whole world: But Eusebius lib. 3. c. 17. mentioneth St. John (after St. Peter's decease) to have discharged his Apostolic Office by constituting Churches, and ordaining Bishops, whereas he assigneth no employment to the Bishop of Rome, but the administration of his own Diocese. Certainly if the first Bishops of Rome had succeeded St. Peter in such a Superiority, as the Romanists now contend for, not only all other Bishops, but St. John himself also must have acknowledged the Pope to have been his Diocesan, which were to submit the supreme dignity of the Apostolic Authority instituted immediately by Christ, to the limited jurisdiction of a particular See; for such was the Bishop of Rome's circumscription as we have shown afore out of Clemens his constitutions.  
That the purer ages of the Church had no such opinion of the Pope's universal jurisdiction, is manifest by the eight Canon of the famous Council of Ephesus, framed for the vindicating of the Bishops of Cyprus, their exemption from the encroachment of the Patriarch of Antioch, who claimed Authority over them in the consecration of their Metropolitan. For when Reginus Bishop of Constantia, Zenon Bishop of Curiun, and Euagrius Bishop of Sela, all within the limits of Cyprus made their complaint, that the Patriarch of Antioch would subject their Island to himself, attempting to draw to him the power of Ordinations amongst them, contrary to the ancient Customs, the Canons of the Apostles, & the decrees of the Nicene Council; upon the hearing of their cause they framed a Canon, the last of the eight recited by Justellus, wherein they exempt the Cypriots from the usurpation they complained of, and moreover without the least reservation o● privilege to the Bishop of Rome i● in this behalf, add, 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Let the same course be observed in other Dioceses & in all Provinces every where, that none of the boly Bishops seize upon another Province, which was not of old, and from the beginninng under his power: If any have entered another's Province & have by force subjected it unto himself, let him restore it, that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, nor the pride of worldly Authority (under pretence of the Hierarchy) enter into the Church, and by little and little, before we are ware, we lose that Liberty, which the Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, by his blood hath procured. Therefore it bathe pleased the Holy and Ecumenical Synod, that the rights belonging to every Province be preserved, inviolated, and the customs which were from the beginning.  
No marvel if some have gone about by sleight of hand to shuffle this Canon out of the Acts of this Council, and Binius having recited only six Canons of it, pretend that in the Vatican, and some other Copies there be no more. Indeed any man observing the latter practices of the Church of Rome, may easily think, that the Vatican can scarce brook a Canonn so directly crossing the present claims of that See. But however he thought meet not to give it the place proper for it among the Canons, yet I suppose the truth of the case of the Cyprian Bishops, and the judgement of the Council thereupon were so evident, that he could not but relàte it, and give it the Authority of a Decree of the said Council, referring his Reader thereuntoin the close of the six Canons set by him together.  
From this Canon the most Reverend Primate of Ireland doth duly infer, 
Vindic. p. 96.  that sigh this council doth determine, that no Bishop should occupy any Province, which before that Council and from the beginning had not been under him, or his Predecessors, and that if any Patriarch Usurped any jurisdiction over a free Province, he should quit it; and that it may be made to appear, that the Bishops of Rome from not so much as any time before the celebration of that Synod, no nor for years after Christ, (much less from the beginning) exercised over the Britannic Churches) therefore Rome can pretend no right over Britamnie, without their own consents, nor any further, nor for any longer time, than they are pleased to oblige themselves.  
This privilege of our Brittish-Church, upon the proceed of the forenamed Council of Ephesus, will appear the less disputable, from our Antiquity of receiving the Christian faith: 
Armachan de primord Eccles Briton p. 23.  for if Joseph of Arimathea presently after the passion of our Lord (as the Legates of the English Nation at the Council of Constance contend, pleading it as a just reason for the super excellency of their Country above France, and Spain, as having received the faith before them) preached in England the gospel of Christ before Tiberius' death, and Peter came not to lay the foundation of the Roman-Church, at that City, ●ay not into Italy, till the second year of Claudius, the Brittanick-Church in its first original was free from Rome, and by the authority of the Council of Ephesus ought to continue so, as having its beginning afore there was at Rome either Bishop, or Court, or ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Moreover the learned Primate doth demonstrate the continuance of the freedom of our Church from Rome, by its adhaesion unto the Eastern-Churches in the controversy that arose about the celebration of Easter, and the administration of Baptism. for 'tis not credible, that the whole British, & Scottish Church too should even in Augustin's time have dissented from Rome, if they had been Subject unto the Roman Bishop, as their lawful Patriarch: see the Primates vindication. p. 100 &c:  
When I say, that the guilt of Schism may be incurred by forcing others to leave us; he replies (as he useth, when he hath nothing to say) that this is no Answer: to which, I think, I need say no more, but that this is no reply. Clemens (according to the title of the 4 ch: of his 6 book of Constitut:) might have taught him, 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that he that forsaketh the wicked is no schismatic, but h● that forsaketh the godly. He will not yield, that we were forced to forsake Rome; But is it not notoriously evident? They that make Terms of Comunion inconsistent with the integrity of our Catholic faith, are clearly the Schismatics? but so have the Romanists done, as is evident by the Trent Decrees Ergo: Moreover, if it be Schism (as it is) for a particular church to withdraw herself from communicating with a sound part of the Catholique-church; Rome, as long as she refuseth communion with the Protestants, maintaining no doctrines contrary to the Catholic faith, nor infringing the fair claims of any of the ancient Patriarch's must needs be Schismatical. He pretends that we are impatient under the spiritual punishments of Rome, whilst she seeks to reduce us to our former faith, and herein we are like Rebels, that storm at their King, that seeks to reduce them. We are not so fond in espousing opinions, but that we shall judge it a favour to be undeceived from them, assoon as we shall be taught, that they are not agreeable to the Catholic faith. 
* Psal. 141.5.  If the righteous smite us, it shall be a Kindness, and if they reprove us, it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break our head. But till we can be farther convinced of Rom's Authority over us, we profess ourselves not at all engaged to submit to her unrighteous censures; which the Roplyer may indeed justly call spiritual punishments, forasmuch as they reach (when the Pope hath power) our very souls and spirits, so far as to expel them from our Bodies by fire, sword, Gunpowder, and all the instruments of cruelty, that wit and malice can contrive; they fight against us with arguments borrowed out of the Butchers-shops, rather than the sacred Scriptures, though St. Augustine, 
(t) Nullis bonis in Catholicâ h●c placet. si usque ad mortem in quemquam licèt haereticum saeviatur. Aug: count. Cresc. Iram. l. 3. c. 5.  was more mild in the punishment of such, as were truly Heretics, affirming it to be a thing that liked no good men, that Heretics should be put to death: and (though he saw good reason to change his opinion, and that the Imperial Laws were by their severity advantageous unto Christianity, yet) it was in cases of manifest opposition against the Catholic Church; which the Papists shall then prove the Protestants to be guilty of, when they shall prove their own new doctrine to be Catholic, and that will be, when they shall convince us, that the Church always held what for several hundreds of years it never heard of. That resemblance of a King reducing his Subjects by force, will never concern us, till the Pope's Authority over us be made evident: and therefore it will be our crime not to be obedient, when it shall be his Prerogative, to give us Commands.  
When I say the Church of Rome hath left herself as one may say; he replies, that none but one that will speak contradictions, or not answer the Quarie can say so. And why not Sir? is it a contradiction for one, changed from what sometimes he was, to say Ego non sum ego? was Saul, breathing out threaten against the Church, and Paul preaching the faith, which sometimes he destroyed, one, and the same man? 'tis true, as to the substance of his person he was; but as to the temper, & frame of his mind he was not. Was the Bishop of Rome abhorring the title of Universal Bishop as Gregory did, and the Pope asserting, 
* Ego sidenter dico, quia quisquis se Vniversalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione suâ Antichristum praecurrit. Gregor. lib. 6. cp. 194.  defending and claming it, the same Kind of Pope? Was the Church of Rome preaching the Catholic faith, and the Church of Rome persecuting and destroying it, one and the same Church? If in respect of many fundamental true ' this still retained inviolably, it might be termed so, yet in respect of additions unto, and detractions from the fundamentals, certainly it is not? neither is it any incongruity, much less any contradiction so to call it. Romam in ipsa Româ desiderare, to seek Rome in Rome itself, is no absurd speech. We need not (to make good the expression) say, that the whole hath left the whole: 'tis sufficient (in Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric too) to say Rome now, is not Rome, if (in contradiction to the carriage of St. Paul, who upon his conversion preached the faith, which once he destroyed) it be be proved sufficiently, that she destroyeth the faith, which once she preached.  
And thus in Sr. conscience of my duty to the Truth, and charity to many, (alas far too many of our countrymen, still besotted with the errors of the Romish Church) I have shown how weak, and invalid the Reply was to my first Answer. I confess it is but a small conquest to overcome so feeble an Adversary, who hath by many of the Champions of our Church been disarmed of these weapons (wherein he seemeth to trust) before he marched in them against me. Indeed they were no Armour of proof, before he wore them, & he hath not managed them with better success than his Predecessors: he hath neither cleansed them by his industry, nor wielded them by any new skill, nor strengthened them by any additional force. Let him swell himself into the conceit of one of Rome's Goliahs, and challenge the whole Army of the Protestants profession, (except he appear in better Arms, than yet he hath made us believe he can show himself in) I see no reason, why any small Slinger of ours, that out of the Brook is able to choose a few smoothstones (so David vanquished the boasting Philistine) I mean, out of the fountains of the holy Scriptures, use some of those many conquering weapons, that are there to be found, should be afraid to encounter him. but seeing the Replyer is contented to cast himself, and Cause, upon the judgement of the Reader I here join issue with him, and am very well pleased to request no other favour from him, that shall seriously consider what I have said, then what St. Hierome did, when he wrote against John Bishop of Jerusalem, for defending Origen's errors: these are his words, and they shall be my conclusion in this Dispute (which I intent not any more to amplify by any future endeavours, having more necessary employment to spend my time about) 
(u) Quaeso Lector, ut memor Tribunalis Domini, & de judicio tuo intelligens re judicandum, nec mihi necadversario faveas, neve personas loquentium, sed causam consideres. Hieron: ad Pammaeh.  I beseech thee Reader, remembering the Tribunal of the Lord, and considering that thou art to be judged for the judgement, that thou shalt passè, favour neither me nor my Adversary, neither respect the Persons, but the cause of the Speakers.   
FINIS.