ΑΙΕΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΥΕΙΝ,  
OR, A brief Account of one Suggestion of the Romanist against THE DISPATCHER DISPATCHED.  
BY Henry Hammond, D. D.  
{αβγδ}.  
LONDON, Printed for RICHARD ROYSTON, at the Angel in Ivy-lane. MDCLX.   

A brief Account of one Suggestion OF THE ROMANIST.  
§. 1. IT is the Stateman's maxim concerning a false Suggestion, that if it be believed but four and twenty hours, the value of it is inestimable; which though it must be allowed to receive a grand abatement, when it is applied to inferior and less considerable transactions, yet the interests of Religion, in the maintenance of truth, are not so despiseable, as that he that hath appeared or embarked in them, can safely neglect the advantages which evil arts may yield, or furnish an adversary against him.  
§. 2. Such in reason, and in Experience, beyond all others is the charge of falsifying, which if it be but suggested, and believed of any, and much more if a pregnant and visible proof of it be tendered, there needs no other blast, or smut, or vermin to lay wast the whole field, and deprive him of all harvest of his seed and labours.  
§. 3. How this is my concernment at this time, the Reader will not suddenly divine, till I have entertained him with a short relation of that, which I had rather myself proclaim on the house top, then leave others to whisper it in corners.  
§. 4. I was lately advertised by a judicious and Reverend friend, that it was particularly urged against me, by a Romanist, that I had mistaken, or perverted M. Whites words, which I refer to in the Dispatcher dispatched, Chap. III. Sect. 4. p. 279. where I suppose him to answer( in his Apology for Trad. p. 56.) that the beatifical vision of the Saints before the day of Judgement was not yet held a matter of Faith, but onely a Theological conclusion; when( said he) the Apologist in that very place had expressly said, that this point is a matter of faith, grounded on Tradition, and not a Theological conclusion.  
§. 5. That I should be guilty if but of such an oscitancy or mistake, much more of such a vile perversion as this, I may be allowed to have been as unwilling myself to believe, as I am obliged to take care that others should not causelessly apprehended it of me. Therefore without delay I turned first to mine own words( which as I then could not doubt, so now I aclowledge to be faithfully related) then to Master Whites words, in the page. of his Apology, whence I had cited them, and those I found exactly, and to a letter concordant to my transcript of them in Disp. Disp.  
§. 6. For thus I still red( if I will not at noon-day suspect mine own eyes) in that Apologist, p. 56. l. 12. [ For, nothing is more clear, then that the validity of Baptism by heretics was a Tradition, and decided by it: so the Beatifical vision of the Saints before the day of Judgement, the Spirituality of Angels, are not yet held matters of Faith, but only Theological conclusions; as likewise the fouls being concreated to the perfecting of the body.] What can be more manifest, then that in this period the beatifical Vision of Saints before the day of judgement is by that Apologist set down, as one of the two things( to which after a third is subjoined) of which it is affirmed in the plural, that they are not yet held matters of Faith, but onely Theological conclusions? which was all to a syllable, that I cited from him in that place, with this onely change, that speaking onely of one of these, the Beatifical vision &c. I set it( as it was necessary) in the singular [ is not yet held a matter of Faith, but onely a Theological conclusion.]  
§. 7. That I might be sure not to have mistaken my Author, I carefully consulted the Errata; but there was none noted, relating to that page.: and indeed the whole composure of the period was such, that there must be a concurrence ot very many changes in the compass of very few lines( more I believe then the most negligent Compositor and Corrector have at any time conspired to be guilty of) to wrest this testimony from me, or change it into what this Romanist had affirmed it to be.  
§. 8. Having dispatched this account to my friend, from whom I received the former advertisement, I had no cause of doubt, but that this affair had received its full period, the Romanist being obliged to yield to such full uncontrollable evidence, and every mans eyes, to whom the contrary suggestion could be offered, being as well qualified as mine, to secure him from being misled by it. And on these grounds of safety I had no least thought of troubling the Reader with any account, or complaint, which I now see is become some part of my interest, and my duty.  
§. 9. For I was soon assured by my friend, that the words which I had punctually transcribed from my copy of the Apology, were not to be found in that, which he had before him, but quiter transformed into the contrary sense, even that for which the Romanist had vouched them; for thus he found them [ For, nothing is more clear, then that the validity of Baptism by heretics was a Tradition, and decided by it: so the Beatifical vision of the Saints before the day of judgement. The Spirituality of Angels is not yet held a matter of Faith, but onely a Theological conclusion.]  
§. 10. By this representation I was soon forced to confess, that the whole scene was changed, the first part of the words remaining the same, but the second( of the Beatifical vision of the Saints) which were my onely concernment, wholly transformed, that which before was joined with the spirituality of Angels, as not yet held matters of faith, but onely Theological conclusions, being now annexed to the validity of Baptism by heretics, and so affirmed to be a Tradition( and that is with him a matter of Faith) and decided by it. And then I had reason to aclowledge the candour of that Romanist, who proceeding on these appearances, had laid no heavier a censure on me, then that of either mistaking, or perverting M. Whites words.  
§. 11. In this new posture of affairs, first it was presently discernible, that the very many changes, which I had foreseen, had been really made, to bring this about. And as all this was obvious, and credible to be done by a new Edition of the book, so it remained uncertain to me whether mine, or that other so contrary to it, were the true and authentic Edition: this therefore was my next care to examine.  
§. 12. And herein again I met with an intricacy; for if the title-pages, and a concurrence of all obvious indications, might be believed, there was all this while but one edition, both copies carrying in their front, A Paris, chez Jean Billain Rue S. jaques à l'ensign S. Augustin 1654. the same volume, print, number of pages, beginning and end of every page., &c. This soon suggested that which was the onely clue to extricate me then( and the reader now) out of this labyrinth. For sending to the Stationers for another copy of the Apology, as from one I received a copy perfectly agreeing with mine, so by the help of another I was furnished with one exactly accordant to what my Monitor from the Romanist had represented to me, yet not discernibly differing from my own in any other, save in this one passage; and looking more narrowly, first the paper and ink wherein that leaf was printed( discernibly differing from all the rest of the book) was apt to inject some suspicion: but I soon saw that I had no need of this, or other obscurer intimation, it being grossly visible, that in this place a leaf had been cut out,& a new one pasted in. And what Gordian knot might not have been untied by the like instrument?  
§. 13. When this change was thought fit to be made, I did, and still want augury to divine; onely this is apparent, that it was a work which second thoughts suggested, after the Book was published, else my copy which came regularly to me from the Worcester-stationer,( in the year, if my memory fail me not, 1655.) and another now sent me from another Stationer( which assures me there be many more) must have had their parts in the change.  
§. 14. Having given the Reader a brief and single view of this matter, I abstain from any farther observation, or reflection on it, then what a Quo teneam vul us mutantem—? will amount to. But that is also unnecessary, my whole design being completed in this, that it is now manifest to the most impersuasible of their disciples, that dare red what is written against their Masters( which I perceive few are permitted to do) that I neither mistook, nor perverted the Apologists sense or words, those, I mean, which I red in his book, from which alone I could be imagined to receive cognizance of them, not being able to forecast, that what I had thus really transcribed from him, would be so soon snatched from me again, or that what was to me so visible, should vanish, and become invisible to other men.  
§. 15. This indeed is an unexpected proof of what S. W. had  told me, concerning the Wits( enormous) power to transform Testimonies; which yet shal not discourage me from dealing in that ware,( being firmly resolved never to make use of my duller faculties, to work such Metamorphoses) nor yet from diverting sometimes into such pleasant fields, adorned with so great varieties, as that Apologist frequently affords the world, hoping, that I shall not again meet with such misadventures as these, or any greater interruptions in reading him, then what a competent attention, and a table of Errata shall enable me to overcome.  
§. 16. This account I conceived would more pardonably, because more moderately, divert the Reader at this time, then if I should stay till it were solemnly and articulately called for, and moreover deliver S. W. from some temptation, himself to think, or to persuade others, that he had sprung some real game to invite his chaces, some guilt to support his contumelies, and perhaps prevail with some of their most credulous followers, to think it equitable to subject the suggestions they meet with to some other ways of examination and trial, then the bare authority or confidence of the suggesters.  
THE END.   

THE Dispatcher dispatched.  

CHAP. I. Of Contumelies; in Reply to S. W's four first Sections of his first part.  

SECT. I.  
The manner of his writing. The advantages and disadvantages of it. Launoy's judgement of this method; the like of Plutarch and Chrysostome, and Phavorinus. S. W's defences examined. His notion of Preaching, and Saint. The Bill of fare. His confession of rude blows: the injustice equal to the rudeness. An Essay of S. W. his logic. Twitchings by the beard, defended with what truth. Of Scripture Testimonies against contumelies, and the appliablenesse of them. His passages from Tertullian and Augustine repaid him. Six pleas for contumelies evacuated. His admirable inferences. His disclaiming all contumelies. His definition of Such. Personal and moral faults. His artifice in pretending my confession, and in concluding me a railer.  
1. THE first attempt of our Dispatcher, is to give an account of his writing at all, and his second to defend his manner of treaty from the charge or blame of contumeliousnesse: These two were to march together in the front, and Syllabus of his first Section, being so engaged, and intricated the one in the other, that if he may not have liberty to writ in that style of scoff, and declamation, he must not writ at all, his ovation being the prime of his strength, his noise and report of his victories the only means to persuade the Reader that he hath obtained them.  
2. This stratagem promises itself many advantages; for, 1. It hath the reputation of having gotten some conquests, routed the unexpert adversaries, by crying they fly( a strange privilege of confident fiction, by majoration, to lose its nature, and become truth.) And being thus encouraged, it( 2) likes the augury, and hopes still to be in like manner successful; the slow ravener, whose speed serves him not to overtake and seize his prey, on design to charm, doth roar after it; and if it thrives not, yet( 3) 'tis the putting a good countenance upon an ill matter, and that is the only relief in an irremediable misadventure. Mean-while the admission of this among other of Polyaenus's stratagems is so far from being any ingredient in the Christian warfare, that it is an unquestionable indication of the want of those weapons, with which that arraies its champions; and the artifice is still so mean, that they must be very importunate interests, that shall be able to recommend it to any trafficker, but ordinarily ingenious, and that can but live without it; There is none but the professed Quack or mountebank, that avowedly brings the Zany upon the stage with him; such undoubtedly is this scoptical humour, when 'tis allowed to bear any considerable part in the Christian palaestra, let it call itself what it please, zeal or drollery, 'tis at best the buffoon, designed to assist and combine with Sophistry,( as the Ballad-singer with the Cut-purse) to ensnare and lurch the simplo; so one of your Sorbon Doctors lately advertiseth the Benedictine monk 
Launoy de Prim. Cenoman. Praes. Epoc. p. 167. , Convitia apud imperitos et st●lidè credul●s rationum instar haberi solent, this kind of treaty uses the Reader, as ill as the adversary, calls them fools, that are moved by it; The managing a controversy, saith he, with ostentation of words, secularis potius quam Monasticae militiae professorem decet, becomes a Fenser better then a monk, but for rudeness or incivility to him that had given him never an ill word, he must more seririously instruct the brother, what character belongs to it. 
Ibid. p. 180.  Modestia virtus est tum omnium, tum maximè Christianorum,& inter Christianos vel maximè Clericorum,& Monachorum, qui caeteris virtutum omnium exemplo praelucere debent: veritas quoque non indiget patrocinio convitiorum, ipsa sibi sufficit,& quò nudior est, ac simplicior, eo comptior, eo amabilior, eo fortior& ad vincendum mendacium aptior. Modesty is the duty of all Christians, especially of ecclesiastical persons, and truth needs not contumely for its Advocate, is much more lovely, and apt to convince without this Auxiliary. This I choose to say in his, rather than in my own words, that it may not come to him under the prejudice of preaching or saint-like; and if Greek, though heathen, may not be as nauseous as either of those, I shall give it a perfect parallel out of 
{αβγδ}.  Plutarch, {αβγδ}, Valour needs not anger, having imbibed reason. Which made 
Tom. IV. p. 709. l. 33.  St. Chrysostome conclude, {αβγδ}. Of all men living they that strive,( controvertists) are obliged not to be angry. And if S. W. will turn to a saying of Phavorinus in 
l. 19. c. 111.  A. Gellius( which assures me the degree of praise which he hath afforded me, p. 18, 19. was more skilfully designed to my 
Turpius est exiguè& frigidè laudari, quam insectanter& graviter vituperari. Qui infoecundè& jejunè laudat, destitui à causae videtur.  disadvantage, than all his Index of Contumelies; giving this reason for the aphorism, Quoniam qui maledicit& vituperat, quantò id acerbiùs facit, tam maximè illi pro iniquo& inimico ducitur,& plerumque propterea fidem non capit: The bitterer his reproaches are, the less they are credited) he will h●ve reason to think, that what I have hitherto said in these wordish testimonies( as he will call them) is more for his, than mine own advantage, if his cause will but allow him to make use of it.  
3. For myself, as I must profess to believe that there is no one simplo error in Popery more pernicious, nor consequently more fit to be resisted, and contested with, than are the contrarieties to charity, the fermentations, and paroxysms of bitter zeal, which are here avowed and justified by S. W. so I have not a greater obligation to any part of this Reply, than to proceed yet farther on this proemiall Theme, how extrinsical soever it may seem to the main controversy; and examine( with what brevity I may, being herein tied to anothers motions) all that he hath here said in defence of it, separating as well as I can his pleas from his scoffs, his logic from his rhetoric, and making my rejoinder only to the united force of the former, not to the diffused of the latter.  
4. And first to the plain texts of Scripture, which I produced against railers, revilers, contumelious persons, he replies, A sad case, that no punishment less than hell must be poor S. W's doom, because he laid open the weakness of D. H's defence of a pernicious cause, after the manner that such a defence deserved; and he wonders I had no more charity, than not to be afraid, lest I should drive S. W. into despair of his salvation, by denouncing and preaching to him such horrid judgements for writing against the Saints.] To this I reply, 1. That it is indeed a sad case, that Gods denunciations against a sin, so charitably, and affectionately mentioned by an Apostle as a special part of his apostolical office, to call all to self-examination, but the guilty to repentance, should be entertained with so little of earnest, or of that temper of mind, which is due to any Apostolical denunciation. 2. I demand as sadly, whether if S. W. did but suspect that any Christian( though most unknown to him) which he had to deal with, were guilty of drunkenness, or adultery, and should thereupon mind him of the Apostles denunciations against such, that neither the Drunkard nor Adulterer should enter the kingdom of God, and the other should return, whether seriously or but scoptically, that he wondered S. W. had no more charity, than not to be afraid of driving him into despair of his salvation, he would think it a Christian reply, and either an argument of his innocency, or a symptom of his relenting? 3. I hence learn somewhat of his dialect, 1. His notion of preaching, which he so oft useth as a style of scorn. 2. That other of Saints, which with him is wont to sound the same way. Preaching is here joined with denouncing such horrid judgements, as were cited out of St. Paul, and can signify no other than what St. Paul was guilty of, and I no otherwise, than as I transcribed St. Pauls words. And let him then judge, if 'twere truly his art, as elsewhere he pretends, which suggested this irony, this part of his dialect to him. Next [ the Saints] can signify no more or other than Dr. H. for against him only it was that S. W. was charged to have written that, which he here affirms written against the Saints: and then he that most seriously thinks himself ten thousand times less than the least of all Saints( and never assumed more, if so much as this) that knows it hath been the general practise of heretics and schismatics, to call themselves by titles of this kind, the pure, the perfect, the spiritual, the holy, the Saints, the godly,( and the very worst of men, the gnostics, meant the same, when they assumed that title) must yet be as solemnly scoff't at under that style, as if he had indeed assumed it. 'tis true I had mentioned saints in that Paragraph, to which he thus replies, and so also the true prophets of God, but the former in the express Scripture notion, for those that reign in heaven, and shall judge the world; and the second for those very Prophets whom the Jews defamed and persecured; far from imagining, and as far from appearing, to include myself in either number; and if he meant to persuade any incautious Reader, that I did, then this was very injurious to us both, and an early instance of the undue and undeserved manner of his replies to my defence, which yet he averts in this period, and pretends no farther to vindicate his practices from the Apostles sentence, than he can justly avert it. I demand therefore, did I in the Paragraph he now replies to,( or any where else) assume to myself or party, the title of Saints? If he saith I did, I leave him to his own eyes and conscience to refute him; If I did not, then this part of my defence deserved not this manner of Reply which he hath given it; and having nothing to pretend for it but my desert, he hath already lost his only plea, as soon as he hath produced it.  
5. Secondly, he proceeds to view the charge of contumely, how he may appear to be concerned in it, and begins with my acknowledgement( as if that would yield him some advantage) that it was not he which wrote the Bill of fare, to which he saith he may with truth add, that he did not so much as know of it.] I reply, 1. That my confession of the Romish factor, concerned only the style of drollery and piquant sauce, by him made use of, and is no farther to be extended, then that the publisher gave a controller title to his contumelies, than the Author himself. 2. That the list which the publisher set in the front of the book, was exactly conformable to what the Author had dispe●sed in the body of it, and can no more lessen by dividing and taking part of his blame, than the divulger or proclaimer of a libel extenuates the crime of him that penned it, and delivered it to be published. Nay 3. the bill of fare is so imperfect an Index of the contumelies of the book, that I have reason to think it set as a blind rather to conceal the greater variety of them, which was sure to be found in the Book, than a map only to point at them. 4. That as I, whose only business it was to consider the contumelies, can be no more presumed to know, or consequently to reflect on the person of S. W. than of the Romish factor, the Master of the Feast, than the collector of the bill of fare: so nothing that I have said in this matter is concerned in that inquiry. I have indeed oft heard the names, by which both of them are known, but as I am no whit satisfied for the injustice of their contumelies, by my having those imperfect images of them, or by their having shared it betwixt them,( the heap, or load of soil smells never the more temperately, that there were more hands joined to the collecting of it) so the Apostles sentences against that sin were produced by me for the use of all that had any part of that guilt on them, and meant not to raise a suspicion of guilt on any, that had it not. And yet 5. if S. and W. be characters that any one person means, or is willing to be known by, whoever it is that hath the comfort of being, or vanity of assuming to be the Author of these Answers, he is certainly responsible for all that appears from the press under his Signatures, as a Merchant is for the transactions of his Factor. Lastly, I have now no motive to incline me to affix the collecting of the Index of schism dispatched to any other hand, than what compiled the book, and that is much more contumelious, and injurious, than the former bill of fare, and so here be grounds enough to supersede and deprive him of all benefit of that confession of mine, with which he begins his defence.  
6. But, saith he, Dr. H. thinks he hath got a notable advantage against me from my own confession, that my blows were rude and my adversary civil, whereas I used both those phrases as an objection of the Readers, as is most palpable.] I reply, 1. How he used them, must be judged by his own words, to which I referred in the Epistle to the Reader. Before, saith he, you can have past three Chapters, I know you will be objecting, that the blows I give are too rude for so civil an adversary.] From hence all that I assumed was, that the Author who was fittest to name his own births, hath allowed them the plainer title of rude blows. And what can be more palpable, than that he hath done so? 2. 'tis as palpable that when this was written to the Reader, to meet him, as he saith, in the very entry, the Reader, of whom he speaks, could not as yet have made this objection, or be with truth by him pretended to make it, any otherwise then as S. W's conscience assured him, there was place for this objection; These words [ I know you will be objecting] being spoken by the Disarmer, can import no less to my understanding, than that this was a reflex't act of his own conscience, that there were in the three first Chapters competent motives to suggest to the Reader this objection, and I am not subtle enough to distinguish betwixt this signification of this reflex't act of conscience, and his own confession, which yet he here vehemently averts, with what palpablenesse or evidence of truth, let him now judge. 3. If the Reader indefinitely taken, i.e.( in materia necessariâ, which alone is the matter of knowledge, here mentioned) every Reader be by S. W. yielded to object this, then is this as fair and large a testimony as may be, of the truth of the thing questioned, viz. That S. W's blows were not only rude, but too rude, which was all that I designed to conclude from this medium. Other collections I might have made from his mentioning the three first Chapters, and no more, and his mentioning them in an undue style, when that book of his is not divided into Chapters, but into three parts: and 13 Sections in the first part: But I desired not then, nor am yet fond of making impertinent discoveries.  
7. But he hath more to say to this head. Had I, saith he, used them, the rudeness of blows argues not that they were not just, since none doubts but malefactors are very rudely, yet most justly whipped, and the courteous Epithet of civl denied not, but the oil in his tongue was accompanied with venom in his heart, and so made it more necessary to discover that, whose only advantage it was to lurk undiscoverable. I reply, 1. That I assumed no more from his confession, than that the blows were rude, and the adversary civil, and if that be granted, I have no more to demand, nor he to quarrel in this matter. For 2. if rudeness should not conclude injustice, much less will it conclude the contrary; there will need other mediums to prove the blows just, than [ that they are rude, or that malefactors are punished justly] And till those mediums are produced and proved effectual to the end, the affirming them just, is the begging the question, and so of no force to his present defence, and will be proved but a new contumely, as oft as I shall in the process of this answer show, that there is as much injustice, as rudeness in his blows. 3. I shall appeal to custom of speech, the best Dictionary, whether when a malefactor is whipped by the Lictor, or beheaded by the Executioner, without any addition of his own spleen to the Judges sentence, he shall be said to have dealt rudely, or contumeliously with the malefactor? or whether strength of argument in a disputant would by the Reader indefinitely be certain( and so, as to be the object of S. W's knowledge) to be styled rudeness? If so, he hath not lost by this instance, though withall he hath not gained by it; but if not, let him then judge what cause it is, that is capable of no better defences. But then 4. I must set a remark on that piece of logic that follows, [ The courteous Epithet of Civil denied not, but the oil in the tongue was accompanied with venom in his heart, and so made it more necessary to discover that—] The force of this consequence and propriety to its being a part of S. W's defence, depends on these two things, 1. That under the outside of Civility, poison was discovered to lurk. 2. That the rude blows were some way necessary to the making this discovery; now 1. I demand, is that presently eo ipso inferred and proved, that every thing else doth not deny: The word [ civill] is not pretended by me to have any force of probation, either as to the truth, or the wholesomenesse of what is propounded, but neither is it any symptom of falsehood or poison, any more than the contrary rudeness is of the contrary. By what means then is the discovery made, which is here supposed? The only medium here mentioned, is, That [ The courteous Epithet of Civil denied it not.] But 1. it doth as much deny it, as words signify things, or lips are interpreters of the heart,( for he that treats a man civilly, doth at least tell him, that he means him no hurt) and all human affirmations and negations are thus transacted; though it is true, there is frequently deceit in them, when false hearts have the managing of them. 2. Therefore, if it doth not deny it, what is gained toward the discovery? There be ten thousand propositions( which are more than single words) in the Bible, none of which deny Lucifer to be the messiah; will this yield him any assistance toward the acquiring of that dignity? To suppose then this lurking poison without any other ground of inferring it, than that the Epithet of Civil denied it not, is one essay of his discursive faculty that I was here to consider. And another is, the influence that this hath on the rude blows, or propriety to be an ingredient in the plea for them. For I must again demand, In case there were any latent poison in the civil Tract of schism, was not civil reason able to search and discover it? do Physitians use to inveigh, or scoff at poisons? tell them they are absurd and ridiculous, and Saint-like; or do they not think it sufficient to furnish their patients with Antidotes against them? If there were never a Smith in Israel, could not the true Religion be preserved, without going down to the philistines Grindstones to whet their piety, as well as their Shares? If all the Romanists were throughout good Christians, and so really the meekest men upon the earth, and such as would not rail, any more than ly for God, were the Infallibility and visibility of their Church ascertained( or but more likely) to be lost by this means? If so, then S. W. need no more be rude, Dr. H's civility hath insured and prepared his own ruin, and then still, be the supposition of the poison never so certain, and the discovery never so necessary, yet ad quid perditio haec, why were these loads of contumelies brought in, which might have been sold to the Jews for some price( it matters not how great) or laid out in charity on some strong-hearted heretic, which were like to die a lingering death, without them. If a wordish testimony or two may here have place against such rigorous evidences as these, I shall propose to him the words of Cicero and Seneca, which may deserve to be believed in their own faculties 
Cic. Tusc. Qu. l. IV. . Non desiderat fortitudo advocatam itacundiam, satis est instructa, armata, parata per seize; An non vir fortis nisi stomachari coeperit, non potest esse fortis? Gladiatorum id quidem est. And 
Senec. de Ira. l. 1. c. XVI.  nile aliu instruments opus est, satis nos instruxit ratione natura: Haec dedit telum firmum, perpetuum, obsequens, nec anceps, nec quod in dominum remitti posset: The common notions that prevailed uniformly with these, might, if consulted, have assured S. W. that reason, without the rude blows, was his best armature, such as would not fail to do, what he would have it, could not be taken out of his hands, and used against him, as all other weapons may, but especially that of contumely, if the adversary be no better man than S. W. is a Disputant.  
8. I shall not now further disquiet him, by examining how he could, as he saith, discover that venom, whose advantage, he also saith it was, to lurk undiscoverable, because I doubt not, but this new tube hath the faculty of discovering things, which are otherwise undiscoverable, this magnifying glass hath always been able not only to enlarge, but create, first to improve Mites into Swine, and then each single mere nothing into the largest Colossus, and all this by the rules of severe reason, and rigorous demonstration.  
9. 'tis time we now advance from the rude blows( for which I am to account not with S. W. it seems, but with the Reader only, it being so palpable, that the Reader was the man, that put those words into S. W.'s mouth, without any the least consent of his) to the twitchings by the beard] which he cannot, doth not deny to have been his own style; Nay,( that I may not conclude, as he doth, from not denying) he expressly confesses, he spoken it. But to this he hath some few things to say also. 1. That I reiterate it to make my Reader smile. 2. That the twitching by the heard is indeed somewhat too rude a carriage, if understood in the down right sense, as, saith he, I seem to take it, but he spake it only in an allegory, and in order to my wearing a Vizard, which he plucked off. 3. That since he did only so, let me but aclowledge that he found me attired in such a Mask, and he is contented to be thought so unreasonably uncivil, as to pluck it off so rudely.]  
10. This, it seems, is all the satisfaction that may be expected to attend on S. W's confession, when himself is both the penitent and the confessor. But to these I reply, to the first, 1. That it were not unreasonable in him to allow me the comfort once to solicit the Readers smile, when he hath the profuser joys of entertaining him with a loud laughter, whole dayes together. Hath he the Leviathans privilege of sporting alone in the waters, the enclosure of game, the patent of having all mirth wrapped up in his papers? Was it an undecency in me thus to refresh the Reader, once in a long wearisome journey, or was it not? If not, why is it mentioned by him, whose every word is presumed to be immediate, and so to have demonstrative force in it? If it was, why doth S. W. so over-imitate what he thus condemns? But 2. for the truth of what he charges on me, either that I reiterate it at all, or to that end of making the Reader smile, I have been at so much leisure, as to red over all I have said in that matter, and find his suggestion very distant from all appearance of truth, in both particulars. I name the phrase but twice, and that at no less distance than is between the first part of the 2d, and the last of the 6th page., once in reciting his words, the other time in refuting them, and if this had been called iterating, I had not resisted, but I am sure it is not reiterating. And when the Reader turns to the places, he will find, that as the iteration had no propriety to make any man smile, so each passage was delivered with as much of earnest, and as little of irony, as any other line of the Book, and then again he will judge, what credit is to be given to S. W's relations.  
11. To the second, 1. What appearance or semblance is there, that I took the phrase in the downright sense? or how was it possible I should so take it? Could I think his printed sheets had fingers, or pincers, or other instruments of violence or rud●nesse, properly so called? or did I express an attempt to fancy what was thus impossible? Nay, are not these my words? Rude blows and twitchings by the beard, declamation and satire, are none of these justifiable and lawful means? What could more witness my understanding his allegory, than my interpreting it? 2. If in the down-right sense his twitching be acknowledged somewhat too rude, can it avoid being so in the allegory? Are his tropes so inartificial, his expressions so feeble, and imperfect, as to signify less than they sound? Is not that which was allegorically meant by that style, as really rude in another kind, as the down-right twitching would be? If it be, then what a defence is this?[ if understood in the down-right sense it was somewhat too rude, but being spoken in a sense that signified as much as the downright, it did not yet signify so much rudeness.] If it be not, we have then lost our Rhetoricks too, as well as our logic formerly. 3. Then, hath he mended the matter by adding, he spake it in order to my wearing a Vizard? Is a contumely allayed by being doubled, shall falsities imitate negations, and two Pasquils become a panegyric? I must not blame S. W. but his art, for this also.  
12. Yet all these are but preparatives to his third, and last medicament, wherewith he hath thoroughly purged himself. Let me confess that he found me in a vizard, and he is content to be thought so uncivil— It seems, I must justify his calumnies, and then he will bear the blame of them. My avowed guilts must evince me injured, and the truth of his accusations demonstrate them unreasonable: Mean while, till I deserve rudeness, he that heaps it on me, is innocent. Thus dear must a man pay for S. W's repentance, for which yet there is no place, till it be confessed, that he hath not offended. I may court the Readers compassion, though not his smile, when a hundred such Monsters of discourse as this, are all commenced branches of rigorous evidence.  
13. His next Paragraph, p. 4. and 5. is spent in enquiring with what logic I huddle together those testimonies out of Scripture for S. W's passport to hell, unless I could evidence that they were particularly appliable to him.] I reply, 1. That I should think it strange logic indeed, to infer from my producing the sentences of Scripture against railing, that I gave any man that is most guilty of it, a passport to hell. I had thought denunciations of Scripture had been designed to bring sinners to repentance, to rescue from hell, not to convey any man thither. I had thought, that this was one of our Saviours means to demonstrate himself a Saviour, by warning of the danger of sin, to redeem men from it, and so to bless by turning, and by terrors the means of turning. And I am sure no man can evacuate this logic, but he that resolves he will not amend what is under those denunciations, and till S. W. profess finally to be of that number, he will make good my Charity, as well as my logic, and when I know he is of that number, I will no more importune him with that kind of exercise of either. But then 2. what defect could there be in my evidence, that those testimonies were particularly appliable to him? When the crime to which those testimonies belonged, was so visible almost in every page.( of the first part especially) of his Book, that himself professed to know that the Reader would think him guilty of it, and as plainly acknowledges it, as twitchings by the beard shall allegorically be able to signify contumelies, and when I had first laid that for the ground of my procedure, before I advanced to produce those testimonies.  
14. But it seems another kind of particular application he requires of me, that of showing that contumelious words are so perfectly damnable, that no circumstance can render them inculpable, or at least venial, if not necessary or convenient.] But I reply, that if this strict manner of application be with any reason required of me, to be super-added to the producing of so plain, and general, comprehensive testimonies, that very reason is alone sufficient to evacuate the main of his Apology, that either in his Epistle to the indifferent Reader, or in this place, he hath offered for himself. For it falls out this one time, that he that is so professed an enemy to testimonies, hath yet in this matter specially applied himself to this advocate; 1. In his Epistle to the Reader, in defence of his smiling, he sends them that are wedded to a severer humour, to Tertullian, concerning some passages of his book that move to laughter, and St. Augustine of the unreasonableness that catholics should be bound to writ in a dull and drowsy style, reciting words from each of them,( the very same which the late Author of less Provinciales in his 11th Letter had done against the jesuits) but utterly failing of what he here exacts of me, i.e. neither comparing, nor considering the appliablen sse of circumstances, nor so much as quoting the places in either of the Fathers,( that Author having in like manner failed herein) by help whereof his Reader might have considered them, much less deducing the parallel either betwixt me and those against whom those Fathers wrote, or betwixt me and the jesuits, against whom only this Author of less Provintiales produced them; from whom as I differ in nothing more, than in their moral Divinity,( which Montalt there principally paradigmatizes) so I need give no other instance of my differing, than that they 
Let. XV.  profess it lawful for the preserving a mans own honour, to calumniate where there is no crime, but I think it unlawful to reproach where there is. Who now it is which is most guilty of the crime which he 
P. 5. l. 5.  here objects, of laying about blindly against friends and foes, the Reader will best judge, when what is produced( I must suppose pertinently) by his own friends against others of his own friends, he cites against me, whom he owns for his adversary, and that( I say not blindly, but) upon trust, without examining, or leaving any possibility to others to examine his testimonies, or so much as directing to the cost where they are to be found. This being said in general to his two pretended testimonies, I shall not add any thing more particular( though by what is recited of them, 'tis manifest, they come not home to contumelies) till I am certainly informed by him, that they are to be found in those Fathers and then shall not doubt to show him, that they belong not to his circumstances. Meanwhile I shall pay him in part with two visible passages of the same Fathers, of 
Edit. Pamel. p. 145. C.D.E.  Tertullian, De Patient. c. xv. Satis idoneus patientiae s●quester Deus, si injuriam deposueris penes eum, ultor est, si domnum, restitutor est. Quantum patientiae licet, ut Deum habeat debitorem, fidem munit, pacem gubernat, dilectionem adjuvat, carnem regit, Spiritum servat, linguam froenat, manum continet, tentationes inculcat, nec inflatur, nec inquietatur, sedet in thron● Spiritus mitissimi& mansuet●ssimi, qui non turbine glomeratur, non nubile livet— Ubi Deus, ibidem& alumna ejus patientia scilicet. God is the proxy and advocate of patience, lay up your injury with him, and he is the avenger, your loss, and he is the restorer. What an advantage hath patient, which hath God for its debtor? It defends the Faith, governs peace, helps love, rules the flesh, keeps the Spirit, bridles the tongue, restrains the hand, repels temptations, is not puffed up, is not disquieted, sits in the throne of the most mildred and calm spirit, which is not carried about in the whirl wind, nor discol●ured with the cloud— Where God is, there also is this his Client, patience. And of St. Augustine in his 
L. III c. 1 Op. Aug. Tom. VII. Ed. Basil. p. 163. D. 16●. A.  Answer to the Letters of Petilian the Donatist( I suppose as professed a defender of acknowledged schismatics, as I am pretended to be) Si et ego tibi vellem pro maledictis maledicta rependere, quid al●ud quam dvo maledici essimus, ut ij qui nos legerent, alii detestat●s abjicerent, sanâ gravitate, alii suavitèr haurirent malevolâ voluntate. Ego quando cuiquam vel dicendo vel scribendo respondeo, etiam contumeliosis criminationibus lacessitu●, quantum mihi dominus donat, froenatis atque coercitis vanae indignationis aculeis, auditori lectorive consulens, non ago ut efficiar homine convitiando superior, said errorem convincendo salubrior. If I would repay you contumelies wi●h contumelies, what would the result be, but that we should be two contumelious men, that of them that red us, some would detest and reject us with a sober gravity, others would take down our writings with pleasure but maliciously. When I make answer to any by word or writing, though I am provoked by contumelious charges, yet as far as God gives me strength, I bridle and restrain the stings of vain indignation, thereby taking care of the auditor or reader, and endeavour not to overcome the adversary in contumelies, but to cure him by convincing his error. And much to the same Theme to the end of the Chapter, which if it be not exactly applicable to our present circumstances, it is because S W's adversary hath offered him no exercise of his patience, neither hegan to him, nor attended him in reproachful language; I hope he will forgive me that injury, and wink at that unevenness in the parallel. And let this serve for his two testimonies in his Epistle.  
14. In this place also p. 4. he appeals to testimonies( such as when I produced, brought the irony of preaching on me) 1. Of good John Baptist, who called the Jews a generation of Vipers. 2. Of St. Paul, that called Elymas son of the Devil, &c. 3. Of our Saviour, who called Herod fox, the prophaners of the Temple thieves, the Scribes and pharisees hypocrites. 4. And to come nearer the present circumstances, of St. Policarpe, who meeting an heretic, who began complementally to insinuate himself into his acquaintance, rejected his courtesy with this rude language, I know thee to be the first-born of the Devil. 5. Of St. judas, who calls heretics clouds without water, autumnal trees,— And 6. to come yet nearer home, of Gods Church, whose custom it is to anathematize and curse heretics, and of St. Paul, who bids anathema even to an Angel from heaven, if he should preach false doctrine.] But in all these six there is no evidence tendered of the particular appliablenesse of them to the case in hand, for that must consist of two branches. 1. A parallel betwixt me, and those Jews, that Elymas, that Herod, those profaners, those Scribes and pharisees, that heretic, and others of the same denomination, and 2. a parallel betwixt S. W. and the Baptist, St. Paul, our Saviour, St. Polycarpe, St. judas, Gods Church, and St. Paul again. Either of these was 1. as necessary his task, as it can have been mine, to evidence the words of St. Paul particularly appliable to him; and 2. so much more his, as he that censures a defect in another, is obliged to repair it in himself, yea and 3. much more difficult and impossible for him to repair, than mine is.  
15. To show him this, and at once to give him an example of perfecting incomplete discourses( which I aclowledge need not be so perfect at first, that nothing can be added to them, if they must, the Dispatchers pains were very unseasonable) I shall now for distinctnesse sake add, that St. Pauls denunciations against {αβγδ}, are( at least) in force, 1. against all those that are confessed to have used contumelious speeches to them who have not at all offended, 2. against all that have laid them out above proportion of the offence, 3. against all that lavish them out indifferently on their aequals, who are in no wise subject to any authority of theirs. The two former are immediately deduced from the foundation of St. Pauls doctrine, the express words of Christ, Mat v. 22. where the old Commandement, Thou shalt not kill, v. 21. is by him extended to the interdict of being angry with the brother, and calling him Racha and thou fool, {αβγδ} either without any cause, or above the proportion of it; and the third also from the analogy which is there observed betwixt killing( the original precept there) and such expressions of anger or contempt, for as in the one the justice of the cause, the reality( much less pretence) of a crime is not sufficient to justify him, who hath not a competent authority for it, so neither is it in the other.  
16. I shall purposely omit to reflect any farther on the two former, 1. Because although S. W's insinuations, that all his displeasures are just, and proportionable, are not sufficient to prove any one to be such, yet my denying it must be as weak, or else be founded in some better evidence, and there is no giving that, but by the view of each passage, and that is too long for this preliminary, and must wait the leisure of the subsequent discourse; and 2. because still there will remain place for passion, and prejudice in this matter, and he that is already known to call one heretic, whatsoever the matter of the pretended heresy be, will think he hath this cause of just and ordinate anger on his side. I shall rather choose to pitch on the third, wherein the application will be most visible and particular, and all his instances as yet proposed, expressly excluded from being argumentative for him, or against me. I shall demand then, In case a private man, without any signature of authority upon him, shall take upon him to kill another, will it in the least avail to his defence or excuse, to pretend the examples of Kings and Magistrates, nay of Prophets and Apostles, and of God himself, that have done so before him? If it will not, then what can be said for an uncommissionated S. W. who certainly is invested with no sort of authority over D. H. if he shall call him Racha and the like, upon no other pretence of claim to such liberty, but what is deduced from this argument, Because Christ, Prophets, Bishops and Governors of the Church have all used it toward their inferiors? A Bishop, 'tis certain, may excommunicate an heretic of his diocese, but may a Presbyter by that argument do the same to another Presbyter, or but to a Lay-m●●? A Bishop though he must not be {αβγδ} a striker, 1 Tim. 3.( which the Fathers interpret of the allegorical stroke, {αβγδ}, saith Theophylact, not striking unseasonably the brethrens conscience) yet he is required {αβγδ}, to rebuk sharply, or by way of excision; But doth this office ly in common to all men, or to any others that are not so called? or can it by the Judaical pretended right of zealots, belong to any private man, that can but pretend a zeal for it, which is all that S. w, doth at this time? If not, as certainly it doth not, then is the application of general denunciations, as particular as can be, and S. W's cloud of witnesses to the contrary perfectly ineffectual.  
17. If this were not in both parts sufficiently cleared, and thereby the whole debate concluded, I would mind him further, not of the size, and notoriety of every of those guilts, by him specified to have been rebuked by Christ, the Baptist, the Apostles, &c.( though I hope I am not arrived to those heights, am no professed opposer of Christianity, no Sorcerer, no gnostic, or Cerinthian, or Marcionite, whatever more minute name of heresy he is pleased to think due, and so to bestow upon me) but of the spirit of discerning, which most of these confess'dly had, by which they infallibly pronounced, not only that the crimes were crimes, and that of a first magnitude, but also that those, whom they rebuked, were ominently guilty of them; such constantly is the word of God, the rebukes of Scripture, {αβγδ}, discerners of thoughts, and could not miss in the propriety of the applications to the guilts and persons, a privilege to which I hope S. W. doth not pretend, how infallible soever he supposes the doctrine, which he asserts; which also being only supposed, not infallibly proved by him, can bear no kind of proportion with the discerning of thoughts, that was in Christ, and the Apostles. And this is all I shall reply to his second offer of testimonies, by which he will now further discern his main conclusion superseded, and see that there was no such necessity 
The Texts alleged by Mr. H. are very general, and he allows them here no exception at all, or if he does, the reason must be, because the words spoken to such persons as heretics, the common good concerned made the private persons repute not considerable, p. 5. l. 4. &c. , as he pretends, of fetching the reason of difference betwixt these censures of Christ and Apostles, &c. and S. W's contumelies, from the quality of the persons, against whom they were delivered; the difference of the persons that did deliver them, would be sufficient, if there were no other.  
18. I demand then, was his 
The Reason must be, &c. ib.  [ must be] a sign of a rigorous evidence and demonstration, or was it not? If it was, then I learn hence the interpretation of that style, rigorous demonstration, that it is compatible to those things which are not only not demonstrably, or but probably true, but even evidently and demonstrably false,( and then next to S. W's contumelies, I must except against his demonstrations, which till they are mended, will spoil him for a controvertist, as he is willing to style himself) for 'tis manifest I have assigned another reason of difference, beside that which he confidently affirms must be the reason. But if that be not the interpretation of [ must be] our language is not yet understood, and so one way or other we have our choice, to get us new logics, or new Dictionaries, new measures of discourse, or else new means of expressing our notions.  
19. The same strain further shows itself in the next Paragraph: [ Whence( saith he) follows first, that I am not excommunicate, or in the state of damnation, for having used contumelious words, since the use of them, if taken simply in itself, is not impious, but for having used them against D. H. Unhappy I, who was not ware how sacred a person my adversary was!] I desire to be shew'd the ground or bottom of this consequence, I suppose it is this, that seeing contumelious words used by Christ, &c. against Herod, &c. are not impious, there can no other reason be pretended, why S. W's contumelies should be thought impious or dangerous, save only this, because they are against D. H. But I have already shewed him another double reason, viz. that there is not a greater difference betwixt Herod and D. H. than there is betwixt Christ and S. W. both in respect of the authority of the one, and none of the other, and the discerning of thoughts in the one, which is not, I hope, pretended to in the other; On both which accounts, I aclowledge myself enforced to yield, that if S. W. after he hath done with me, should be divided into two catholics, and those fall out among themselves, one departing into the jesuits quarters, and t'other remaining among the Jansenists, and as in Epiphanius the great Snake in the bladder after it had devoured all the lesser Snakes, one end of it seized and preyed on the other, so S. should heap loads of contumelies on W. or W. on S. the texts in St. Paul would be then as fitly appliable to either of them, as now they are to both of them together, when D. H. is concerned in it. It is then the shortness of S. W's discourse, that he could discern nothing beside his adversaries being a sacred person,( as he will speak) which brought the unhappiness upon him. The incompetentnesse of his own person was sufficient without any other.  
20. As little doth it follow, which he next superstructs,[ Next it follows, that if D. H. evidence n●t his cause to be no heresy, and himself in maintainer of it, all those former harsh expressions against heretics are his due, and without scruple of sin might be given him by S. W.—] For 1 D. H's cause may be no heresy, though. he should die before he wrote one word more to evidence it to be none. 2. He cannot be bound both to evidence his cause to be no heresy, and himself no maintainer of it, which are two distinct things: of which certainly one were abundantly sufficient; for if he be no maintainer of it, how is he concerned, though it were evidenced to be heresy?( which yet is much more than being not evidenced not to be) or if it be evidenced by him not to be heresy( which again is much more than not to be, because all things that are, are not by him evidenced) why may not he blamelessely be the maintainer of it? 3. Every supposed heresy is not so criminous, as that abomination of the gnostics and Gerinthus, nor consequently will it follow that all that was certainly due to that, shall without scruple of sin be heaped on this, though it were not really free from all heresy. But then 4. the incompetency of S. W's person, in the two respects forementioned, is a further addition of a double bar against the demonstrativenesse of his deduction. And these are infirmities enough in one inference.  
21. And yet on the back of that, he hath made hast to fasten another, [ Wherefore unless D. H. makes his evidence good, S. W. may also justly retort on him the charge of contumeliousnesse—] But 1. this wherefore hath no more possible force in it, than the ground on which it was built gave it, and that having no less than four faileurs in it, cannot communicate that strength, which it hath not. 2. In case I should never make my evidence good, yet so long as that were imputable to any thing else, save to the weakness of my cause, yet still I were freed from this charge, though all else were granted, which he supposes. 3. If as I did not make my evidence good, so he did not evince it bad,( which yet certainly he hath not) there could yet be no place for his contumelies, according to his own grounds of the dueness of them, nor consequently for retortion of the charge of contumeliousnesse on me, who may lawfully warn him of the danger, that but seems to incur the guilt, much more him that hath really incurred it, and cannot on his own( and those insufficient) grounds, excuse, or free himself from it. But then 4. I am now actually entred upon the task of making my evidence good against all, he hath suggested to the prejudice thereof, and if herein I do not finally fail, I shall then have abundantly disproved this inference also, though as yet I had not replied a word to it.  
22. He hath yet a third inference behind, that [ it were easy, and he saith, as easy for S. W. using the Drs. method, to gather out of Scripture all the vigorous words and severe execrations against the wicked, and then by his own voluntary explication and application, clap them all upon the Doctor; as for example, that of Curse ye Meroz, &c. and then say, that by Meroz is meant such as Ma. H. who writes against Gods Church.] This Consequence depends upon a supposed exactness of proportion betwixt these two things, on one side the express denunciation of S. Paul, against the contumelious, applied to a Writer of Controversies, so far proved to be contumelious, as his own confession of twitching by the Beard, allegorically understood, amounts to, and on the other side, all the Curses of Scripture, not only against Meroz, but against the Wicked indefinitely, i: e. all the wicked that are execrated in Scripture, clapped on the back of one that S. W. hath nothing to object to, but that he is pleased to affirm he writes against Gods Church. To make good which proposition, 'tis necessary that whosoever is by S. W. affirmed to writ against Gods Church, be, eo ipso, proved to be as guilty of all the wickednesses execrated in Scripture, be they never so incompatible one with the other( i.e. to be an Atheist, a Polytheist, an Idolater, a Church-robber, a Necromancer, and so on, to the end of the beadrol of the blackest, and withall most contrary sins) as contumelies cast by S. W. upon D. H. are proved to be contumelies. The proportionableness of which two Schemes I must leave to those brains of the now grown wiser World( as he phrases it) that are most sublimed with the mathematics, to endeavour to demonstrate, and till that be done, behold with some kind of astonishment the admirable discursive, and illative faculties of my unparallelled Adversary.  
23. This is the sum of S. W's first plea for Contumelies, which was therefore necessary to be attended and backed with a second, 
Pag. 6.  and that I aclowledge prudently chosen[ his disclaiming in behalf of his book, any such language toward Dr. H.]  
This indeed made good, will soon end these debates; only it will declare the Authors great leisure, and accuse the foregoing Pages of great impertinency, and improvidence, that they had not foreseen this guard, but preferred the sensuality of an harangus, before the more solid comforts of innocence. As it is, let us now see, upon what grounds his temerarious confession of twitching by the Beard, and the Readers falsely foreseen charge of the rude blows, are retracted, and called in, and so his repentance, such as it was, soon repented of. Why, only upon a more advised description of a Contumely, which, saith S.W.[ notes some personal and moral fault in another] and then he asks [ Did I note any 〈◇〉 him?]  
24. Let us stay here a while, 1. A Contumely is defined or described by noting some personal and moral fault in another: To this I reply, That either this is a sufficient description of Contumely, or it is not: If it be not, then how can it be of use to prove that S. W. is not guilty of contumely, by not falling under the parts,( one or both) of this description, as long as there be others, omitted in this unsufficient enumeration, under some, or any of which, he may still be chargeable to have fallen? But if it be a vowed to be a perfect, and sufficient description, then I appeal to him or his Reader, in either part of it, 1. Whether all Contumelies note some personal fault? whether the calling one Bastard be not contumelious? and whether that be a personal fault in him, that is, or is thought chargeable of it? So in like manner for the reproaching a Christian, of any denomination, be it a jesuit, or Jansenist, with the Crimes of any of his party, whereof he is no otherwise guilty, than that he herds with many, that are guilty of it, whether this be the noting of somewhat personal in him, in whom it is not, and whether it be not contumely? That this is my case with S. W. I am not bound to show, whilst my present business only is to consider the insufficiency of his description of Contumely. So again, 2. Whether the faults being personal, be obliged to be moral also? or else the noting of them be no contumely? May not intellectual faults be the matter of contumely? and sure those are not moral. Doth not Christ describe Contumely, Mat. V. by saying to thy Brother, Racha, and thou Fool? And is not emptiness, and folly, an intellectual, no( necessary) moral fault? Thus infallibly convincing is each of the two words of S. W.'s description of Contumely.  
25. But then 2 When he asks, Did I note any( either personal or moral fault) in him? I take my turn also of asking, whether being insincere, blasphemous, weak, ridiculous( all which S. W. avows in the ensuing words, and saith, 
P. 7. l. 7.  It were madness to expect that he should not show them, where his Adversary writ insincerely, &c. i.e. writ what he will thus accuse of these Crimes) be neither personal, nor moral faults? Is not weakness personal, and blasphemy moral in the highest degree? but I shall not exagitate this any further, in relation to my own concernments, but from his [ did I note any in him?] conclude( by the help of that Art, which hath as well taught me, that an affirmative Question doth strongly deny, as him, that ridiculous things ought to be expressed i●●nically) that he utterly disclaims having noted any such: And if indeed he hath not noted any personal or moral fault in me, the Consequence is natural, that either all his Charges affixed on me, that have formerly made up the Bill of fare, and now fil'd the Index of schism dispatched( to the number of 356. beside many more sans nombre, and among them blasphemies and calumnies, and false dealings; and omissions of necessary duty) are neither personal nor moral, or at least that those that are moral, are not personally mine, or those that are personally mine, are not moral, which when the Reader hath laid up in his memory, I hope S. W.'s Index would not much inflame him, though I should add never another word to demonstrate, that there is not the least appearance of truth in any one of those numberless Charges, or other imaginable design of framing them, than that of the persecuting heathen Emperor, Galerius, who made a Law that Christians should be infamous, and then by another Law, any man might despoyl them that would, there being no other real Crime in his Adversary to deserve the rudeness of his blows, save only that through that rudeness his Adversary hath been defamed by him.  
26. But 'tis possible he may mean somewhat else by fault personal and moral, than vulgar language( my only instructor) understands by them, for as clear as he is from noting either of these in me, he confesseth, that as a Writer, I was his and the Churches Adversary, and as such it was irrational he should spare me.] But I demand, Are not faults objected to a Writer, as a Writer, supposed to be personal, and may they not also be moral faults? if they be blasphemies, insincerities, and the like: If not( as his distinction implies) then I begin to discern the one way in the world to free S. W. from the guilt of Contumelies; His being a Writer may salue them from being personal or moral in him, as well as the imputing blasphemy to me may, by my being considered as a Writer, be freed from noting in me any personal and moral fault. This is still more of the refined faculty, of distinguishing betwixt the Writer and himself, not sparing the one, and yet using no severity to the other, telling the Writer of his falsifications and blasphemies, without noting any thing personal or moral in him.  
27. There is more added on this subtle Theme, to all which I make no other return but this, that if S. W. could really have shewed one blasphemy or falsification in all the Tract of schism, he needed not so industriously have defamed it, His logic would have served his turn, without that which he calleth his rhetoric; one solid proof of such a Charge having much more force in it, than all his ostentation of words hath. As for the proportionableness of my deserts to the excess of his expressions, the trial must be in the due place, where particulars come to be examined; mean while, he must not beg the principle, and have the privileges of my Judge, while he is but my Adversary.  

Pag. 7.  28. But beyond expectation, I am in the next Paragraph appealed to, and S. W. undertakes the Dostor shall inform the Reader, that all his pretended revilings are no other, then the proper treaty, which Reason grants, Religion avoucheth, and the circumstances make necessary.] This is another Magistery, let's see what will be made of it. The words of mine, from whence this unexpected conclusion is drawn, are affirmed to be these: The Doctor complains pag. 2. that the Publisher of the Book hath solemnly annexed a list of the Contumelies, three and thirty picked out by specialty, &c. Upon which he straight-way infers, Since then these, as he says, are the special or chief Contumelies, not to trouble the Reader with the whole Roll, we will only take notice of the first of them, which is this; How the Doctor of Divinity hath forgotten his Accidence.] Thus far S. W. at his alembic, to draw water out of a Flint, and to yield the Reader a large Confession of mine, overthrowing all my defences past and future at one dash, out of plain words that signify not a syllable toward it.  
29. This could not be attempted without a conspiration of many Artifices; let us view them orderly: 1. My words are mutilated, with an &c. which was probably meant to do some small service, for if he had red out, my period had thus evidenced its own sense, He hath solemnly annexed a list of the contumelies, 33 picked out by specialty out of the far greater number. Here then I supposed and affirmed, that there were a far greater number than 33, and nothing hinders, but several of those omitted, might be far greater then any that were set down in the publishers list, and I never informed him or the Reader, that there were not. For 2. that I say these were the special or chief, is absolutely imposed upon the Reader, who at the first cast of his eye on my words, will discern 'tis S. W. not I, that says it. 3. That by picking out these by specialty, I should mean, though not say, that these were the special, as that word signifies the chief of them, is a great violence to the words, and as great to my sense, of which those were the Interpreters. To pick out by specialty, I conceived to signify, choosing out so many particulars, and setting them down distinctly and severally, as in common speech it hath been familiar to my ears; And what if special oft signifies chief, that use of the adjective hath no influence on the( as common) use of specialty. Had I meant as he would have me, I had certainly said, picked out as the prime, or special, or principal, but because I meant not so, these were not my words, but others which to any that understands plain English, sufficiently expressed this my other meaning. 4. Of these 33. he will instance only in one, and his only pretended reason of doing so, is, that he may not trouble the Reader. But he hath not been so tender of the Readers trouble, when he hoped for advantage thereby, and I can tell him another more useful, and so not improbable reason of his reservednesse; When that one is produced, he knows it is but one, and that there be 32. behind in that list, and many more not entred into that catalogue, every of which is as contumelious as this one, and all together, by accumulation, much above 32 times as great, as this one by itself is: And yet this one must be the only measure, by which the whole matter must be judged, as if he that had stolen many more than 33 prizes, or committed as many acts of drunkenness or fornication, should make a slight confession of one of them, and then were presently free from the guilt of that, and of all the rest also. 5. This one, that is name, hath not a word said in defence, or extenuation, or excuse of it, either to show that it is no contumely, or that there was the least pretence of justice in it( as in my Answer to the Disarmer, I had shewed there was not, Chap. 3. Sect. 2.) which alone could have had any semblance of force to support his pretended conclusion, that this was no other than the proper treaty that reason grants, religion avoucheth, and the circumstances make necessary. Hence again we see what kind of inferences must be expected of these demonstrators, even no other, nor more immediate, than this, when examined and driven to the issue,[ The Doctor, saith the Publisher, hath set down 33 several contumelies of a far greater number, one of which S. W. be it never so unjust, hath had the confidence again to name, though not to say any thing in defence of it, ergo, the Doctor hath informed the Reader that S. W. hath used no other contumeliousnesse, but what reason grants, Religion avoucheth, and the circumstances of the matter do more than justify, even make necessary in him.] If this be not an essay of high chemistry, I know not where to direct any young Student to seek for it.  
30. And in the strength of this he goes on in full triumph to the end of the Section, 1. Saying what he had said, over again, to the wits of the University, then 2. framing a dilemma to demonstrate it charity in him to show me my greatest faults. And 3. by long beating about the bush, discovering at last, that my producing St. Pauls words against him concludes me the greater railer of the two, and to this the Puritanical Dame cudgeling her maid in Scripture phrase,] is resolved to be appliable. Lastly, objecting to me, that I flatly accuse him of falsifycations, calumnies certainly, if not avouched. To all, and first to the first of these, I reply, that I have replied already, when the same thing was said, though not addressed to the wits, and though he seek advantage by repeating in another mode, I need it not, and therefore do not seek it. To the second, that his Dilemma takes for granted my pernicious errors, and confound● discovering of errors, with contumelies, whereas 1. I have already shewed him, that contumelies are not the proper glasses to discover errors, be they never so pernicious; nor ordinarily made use of by such artists as S. W. but when the errors are so far removed from vulgar sight, that they may well pass for invisible. 2. That he is not a competent Judge in this matter; Let his Reader by the direction and conviction of his logic discern the error, and not be born down with his noises. And 3. that whether there be any one such error duly noted by him, is the main question still, as confidently denied by me, as pretended by him, and as it must not be granted him for supposing it, so much less by it can any thing else be justified, that he shall unduly build upon it. To the third, 1. That producing St. Pauls plain words against a sin, is far from railing at all, farther yet from exceeding him in that language. 2. That for the parallel of his dame, which is his( only rhetorical) argument to prove it, it is of no force, because though I should allow the parallel to hold in one part, between St. Pauls words produced on one side, and Scripture phrase on the other( which yet till I know what that phrase was which the Dame used, but S. W. hath not recited from her Lecture, I am not obliged to do) yet still the question remains, what parallel will be found for the cudgel, wherein surely all the weight of the simile, and the Dames severity consisted, and not in the Scripture phrase; To the last, that when it appears that I have accused him of falsifying, if I do not render a reasonable account of it, I will, as he requires, confess, and make satisfaction for the calumny; but as yet he hath not directed me to the place, and my memory suggests it not, and therefore I discern not myself to be under any further present obligation. Only I shall demand, who it is, whom he can think it possible I should have accused of falsifying? Is S. W. the name of any man, or be there any laws of Brachygraphie, by which those letters are authorised to signify any more than N. N. are wont to do? Is any person living vulgarly known, or called by that name? If not, 'tis not only not true, but not possible, that in answering N. N. or S. W. I have calunniated any man.  
31. And thus at length we are at an end of the first Section, which coming to recapitulate in the beginning of the second, he avoucheth to have contained ordinary considerations, and obvious to common sense( with what truth, hath now been examined) letting the Reader see, that this manner of writing is very rational, but that not absolutely, but on a double condition, if the cause deserve any zeal, and the truth of the thing makes good what is said. But we have seen the bottom of these two conditions, and found 1. That though the cause were granted to deserve zeal, it must yet disclaim contumely, for so every true Christian cause doth. 2. That the truth between disputants is to be contested, not supposed. 3. That the truth of a proposition is no competent commission, or authority for( and so cannot make good) a contumely.   

SECT. II.  
The pretended necessity of this course, in writing Controversies, founded on the certainty of his Faith. Begging the question. Examples of judas, the Fathers, Elias, answered. pretence of Charity. meekness accused of inconfidence. The uncertainty of Protestants faith said to be confessed. Their virtues, their special charge. His praises and rebukes, using of Greek and Testimonies.  
1. HIS second Section is yet of severer concernment, recommended to the attentive consideration of the Reader, and undertakes to prove upon a fundamental ground( as if every ground were not fundamental) that this kind of writing, which I have hitherto accused in him, and he laboured to vindicate, is( not blameless, but) necessary in controversies about Faith, against the deemed adversaries thereof, and this ground of that necessity no other, than the certainty of faith itself, which certainly is founded in his way of universal Tradition.] And then ere we proceed any further, what will become of all catholic Writers, dead and living, which having not S. W's faculties, or temper, or being not ware of this necessity, have not so much as endeavoured to attain to this height of bitter zeal, which now appears to have been their duty? In this matter I must not admonish him of the other as severe denunciations of Scripture, against those, who add to the word of God, or teach for doctrines the commandements of men( which certainly he will be guilty of, who teaches and undertakes to demonstrate that to be necessary, which God hath never made so, especially if it be that, which God hath forbidden, as he hath all bitterness and evil-speaking, Eph. IV. 31. commanding kindness, tender-heartednesse, &c. v. 32.) for I see he is fortified against such impressions, and the improsperous attempt will but exasperate, and conclude me again the greatest railer. Wherefore I shall only demand, whether since all Christian duties, righteousness and temperance, &c. are eminent branches of the Christian faith, as well as believing the judgement to come, &c. the acknowledging this his method to be necessary, and so duty, be any part of that certain faith, that hath this universal testification; whether all the catholic world, if but for these last ten years, have said, they received from their forefathers as received from theirs, that contumelies are necessary to a catholic Writer of controversies; for otherwise I hope, be the Faith never so certain, the means to propagate or propugne it, may be those prescribed by St. Paul to Bishop Timothy, gentleness, readiness to teach, patience, 
2 Tim. 2.24, 25.  in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, and so not contumely, which is contrary to these. And let him not in his Answer deal with me, as Mr. White doth with Monsieur Dallee, p. 221. rebuking him for asking from St. Jerom, Whether it be a part of faith to visit the Holy Land, as if( saith he) et adorasse ubi steterunt pedes Domini pars fidei est,] signified truly that to exercise adoration were an Article of faith, than which what can be spoken more sencelessely, whereas, saith he, the true meaning is, that 'tis a duty of Faith.] Where truly I should have conceived, that a duty of faith was a part of faith, though not such as we vulgarly call Articles, and so I suppose now, and ask of a duty, not an Article, whether it have this universal testification, which all are supposed to have, which are truly duties, as well as those which are articles of Faith. This therefore I may be allowed to have asked in passing, because this Section is such, as will not afford any store of matter for debate, how demurely soever he hath offered and recommended it to our attentive considerations.  
2. I shall shortly reduce it to these heads, concerning 1. the deemed or believed certainty of S. W's faith. 2. The one ground of that, universal Tradition, together with the notion in which he understands that phrase. 3. The duty consequent to this, of using the means and ways, which wit and art can invent to confute, and discredit his adversaries harmful sophistry, and disparaged his authority, as far as truth can justify his words. 4, The deemed uncertainty of their faith, who rely on any other but this one deemed certain Rule, together with the obligation incumbent on them, and arising from the deemed uncertainty of their faith, to writ without any great zeal, heat, or earnestness, which in them, saith he, can arise from nothing but passion and interest. 5. What he hath thought fit to add concerning my person, abstracted from the cause.  
3. For the first of these he is careful himself to propose it under that cautious style of deemed certainty, foreseing as he saith, that else the Doctor would mistake him( as his custom is) to beg the question, by supposing their faith certain.] But to this I make my demands, 1. Whether it be indeed, or possibly could be a mistake in the Doctor, contending with S. W. concerning the truth of his faith, to affirm that his supposing his faith certain, is the begging of the question? Might he not as well have said that the Doctor was apt( as his custom is) to mistake in affirming twice two to be four? For is not the supposing that certain, of which the question is whether it be true, as evidently the begging the question, as it is evident, that what is certain, is true, and more than true, true with the advantage of certainty? And is any common notion, or any axiom, or conclusion in the mathematics more evident than that? What semblance of truth then is there in suggesting, or intimating this to be a mistake in the Doctor? or how can his art, as he saith, bear him out in thus suggesting. 2. Doth S. W. mean to keep himself precisely from the guilt of this fallacy for the future? Is he so sensible of the unskilfulness of it, as seriously to disclaim having any more to do with it? Nay, hath he indeed by this early caution shut it out of this Section? or is it sufficient to fore-see crimes and then presently to rush into them? 'tis the begging of the question for him to suppose his faith certain, and is it not so also to suppose contumelies a lawful means to defend a deemed truth, at the very time when we are in the debate, whether such means are not utterly unlawful? This certainly he supposes at this time, for else 'tis not imaginable how the deemed certainty of his faith should found a necessity of his contumelies. That which is in itself lawful, may by circumstances become necessary to some man, and so to S. W. but if it be in itself unlawful, neither the deemed nor real certainty of their faith can make it lawful, much less necessary. This then of its lawfulness, which cannot be founded in his deemed certainty, nor is endeavoured here to be inferred either by that, or by any other medium, and yet is necessary to be supposed in that discourse, where the necessity is inferred from some circumstances, is no other than the begging of the question, for no doubt that is said to be begged, which is supposed, without all attempt of proof. And so visibly here is the lawfulness, though not the necessity, which yet also is uncapable of any solid proof, till the lawfulness be first proved. This is therefore that which I now charge as guilty of this fallacy( and not the deeming his faith certain) at the time when he so solicitously averts it. And this is all I need say to the first point, his deemed certainty, being in charity as well as civility ready to allow him to deem or believe( whatsoever his grounds are) whatsoever he affirms himself to deem or believe. And I hope he will anon do as much for me, who believe my faith as certain, as he can his, and have one ground more to believe it,( as anon will appear) than I see he means to have.  
3. To the second head also, the one ground, on which he is pleased to build his deemed certainty, that of universal Tradition, together with the notion in which he understands that phrase, the same which the Author of, and Apologist for Rushworths Dialogues hath of it, I have nothing to object in this place, knowing de facto that this is his ground, and allowing it as fit to support his deemed certainty, whilst 'tis no more than deemed, as any other medium could be, for as long as he is granted to deem it, it matters not to our present debate, on what grounds he deems it. And indeed having first professed that he speaks now only of a deemed certainty, 'twas not needful to add at the same time upon what grounds he built it, the deeming being the onely thing, on which the reason( insisted on in this Section) was founded, and not the real, or grounded certainty. What therefore he hath for several pages enlarged, on this Theme of the grounds of his deemed certainty, I should think inserted by another hand, and not by him that was so careful to profess that he spake only of a deemed certainty, but that it is possible it might have another design, the amusing of the Reader, and the supplying some other vacuity in this reasoning, or the drawing of his adversary from the point in hand, to this other, wherein S. W. deemed himself more conversant; which motives have not prevailed on me so far to gratify him in this place,( having allowed another fitter season for it, in my next Chapter) as to forget my present Theme, and follow him through his whole field of Tradition, so wide and distant from it, and wherein so few others beside himself will be concerned, himself having here  told me, that few there are who have refined their understanding to this degree of discerningnesse, and that only the best( which in his opinion are not the greatest) sort of wits do as yet begin to own their reason so far.  
4. For the third then( which alone is pertinent to the argument in hand) the necessity, and so duty consequent to this deemed certainty, of using the means and ways which wit and art can invent to confute and discredit his adversaries harmful Sophistry, and disparaged his authority, as far as truth can justify his words.] I shall bring it to a speedy issue by asking, Of what latitude is that phrase [ the means and ways that wit or art can invent?] Is it designed to take in, or not exclude all manner of means and ways, that the most riotous wit, or forbidden arts can invent, or that the tropes of rhetoric, or good managery of words( be they never so contumelious) can yield toward the mentioned end, that of discrediting the adversary, &c. only with that one restraint as far as truth can justify his words? or is it no further to be enlarged, then all other Christian rules, as well as that one of truth, permit one private man to treat another? If he take it in the second sense, I grant it, and he hath gained nothing by it, for I willingly yield him the freest exercise of the nimblest wit, and all lawful arts, to discover, and so discredit any weakness in my defences, but think not a multitude of contumelies to be any of those lawful, no nor so much as proper means toward that end, being only a cloud cast before the eyes of the Reader, to hinder his discerning any difference betwixt true, and pretended discoveries, betwixt boasts and victories. But if his indefinite words [ the means and ways] must be more largely extended in the first sense, I then deny that the greatest justice of a cause, be it a deemed, or a real certainty, can convert any the least or greatest sin into duty, christianize or consecrate contumely, though it should not have calumny joined with it; and I hope I shall have no need of proving what is thus obvious, when the more excellent the cause is, the more it abhors and deems itself defamed and polluted by whatever unlawful arts, and can no more justify any one of them, than either want, or be gratified with them; Si malo religionem defendere velis, jam non defendetur illo, said polluetur, atque violabitur, saith Lactantius. If you will defend religion by any thing that is evil, you shall not defend, but pollute and violate it. Should I endeavour to assist this evident truth, it would by others, as well as S. W. be called preaching.  
5. This ambiguity then of his words being removed, there remains no kind of difficully in the whole Section, as far as concerns the argumentative part, the conclusion which the deemed certainty of his faith was obliged and undertook to infer; the whole question being, not whether any, or all lawful arts are to be used, but whether the cause, whatsoever, or how certain soever it be deemed to be, can render any one unlawful means, by name contumely, lawful; which unless it can, 'tis certain it cannot on this account become necessary. Here then the one condition of restraint which he takes care to add[ as far as truth can justify his words, and If his Adversary be found to deserve it, and the like] will avail him nothing, 1. Because he is not the judge of the truth of that which he endeavours to disprove, nor of the deserts of him whom he thinks himself obliged to disparaged. The Disputant must prove, and the Replyant defend, but neither assume the office of judging, but leave that to the Reader only, and till that judgement be past, 'tis not yet his time to deal with his Adversary as his captive, to led him in triumph, to represent him, as he saith, ridicul●us, nonsensical, weak, blasphemous, &c. every of which, as far as they want in truth, abound in calumny, and must not be supposed to have truth, whilst they are contested to have none, and no judgement is yet passed between the litigants, but what one of them, who must be supposed partial, gives in his own favour. Nor will the deemed certainty of his own faith( the one medium of this Section) herein assist him, 1. Because a deemed certainty infers not a real truth, and to suppose that without proof in time of arguing, is the begging of the question. 2. Because the, whether deemed, or real, certainty of his faith concludes not the truth of every discourse which he can make use of, to demonstrate that certainty; Truth hath oft-times been ill defended, and so still, notwithstanding the certainty in the main, the weakness in the retail may be as probably on his side, who chargeth his adversary of weakness, and in some respects more probably, on this prejudice, that he already appears so weak, as to mistake his business, to fly to indirect means, to endeavour to forestall the Readers judgement, to vaunt of his feats, all which are the effects and known symptoms of weakness.  
5. Secondly, as I said, this restraint pretends only to guard him from calumny, and there be other sins of the tongue and pen beside that. He knows, I must instance in contumely, for though every calumny be a contumely also, and most contumelies have somewhat of falsity, and so calumny in them, and I doubt not to prove, that every one which I have received from S. W. is of this sort, yet I have that respect to ordinary style, and that reverence to our Saviour, Mat. V. 21, 22. who refers contumelies[ Racha, and thou fool] to the sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, as to discriminate them from calumnies, which undoubtedly are forbidden in the ninth. And indeed he that shall bestow either of those titles on his fellow Christian, and then add, that he hath said no more than is truth, or then he deserves, is so far from lessening, that he cannot use any surer means to inhanse and multiply the contumely. Thus far is S. W's one restraint from justifying the practices, which his wit or art have suggested to him.  
6. As for his examples of judas to the gnostics, of the Fathers to porphyry the enemy and deride of Christianity, and Elias's scoffing the Priests of Baal] 1. The deemed certainty of his faith, the one medium in his present argument, is not sufficient to complete the parallel between them and me, the utmost that principle can assist or authorize him to deem of me, is, that I deny some few things to be true, which he deems certain, but neither that I deify Simon Magus, nor deny Christ to have come in the flesh, nor offer sacrifice to Idols, nor join with the Jews to persecute the Christians, nor forbid marriage, and set up unnatural lust instead of it, nor profess'dly maintain heathenism, nor the worship of Baalim or dead Heroes, nor any thing which he can deem equivalent to all or any of these, which consequently are necessary to make good his parallels. Neither 2. will that or any other imaginable medium make that lawful to him, which was lawful to judas, or the Fathers, or Elias, the first being an Apostle, the third a Prophet, and such as whose Spirit was interdicted the Disciples of Christ, the second Governors of the Church, in none of which capacities I discern S. W. to be placed over me, nor consequently to be commissionated or privileged to do whatsoever they did; if he were, the fire from heaven, and the fate of the Priests of Baal, might soon become mine, and be by the same art of concluding ab exemplo, justified also.  
7. On this head comes in one auxiliary more, the pretence of charity to undeceive my adherents, and preserve others from a certain believed danger, and that the greatest of dangers, eternal damnation.] Thus hath Gregory Nazianzen long since  told us, That Christian Religion was the {αβγδ}, apple of contention, and the pretence to enhance it, {αβγδ}, that some men were vehement lovers of Christ, of God. But neither will charity justify the doing of any ill, on the most charitative intuitions, or make that necessary, which is not lawful; On the other side, what shall otherwise be approved to be lawful, is already freely allowed him to exercise his gifts in, upon the bare pretence of his deemed certainty; and so sure the consideration of charity might here have been spared, and being used, doth gain him nothing. Especially when 'tis considered that my adherents( as he will call them, to whom he aims the first fruits of his charity) profess to have never the worse opinion of a cause, that 'tis persecuted with the Sword, and therefore are not in much danger to be disheartened with the meeker dangers of the tongue, or pen, by seeing some scoffs and contumelies fall upon it; having learnt from our Saviour Mat. 5.11. whilst he was in preaching( but I hope not to be scofft at for it) that they are happy which are reviled, as well as persecuted falsely for his sake. We see then what this grand argument pompously introduced, by being recommended to the attentive consideration of the Reader, and fetched from the deemed certainty of his faith, amounts to, even the gaining him that which was willingly yielded him before, the use of all lawful means to support that deemed certainty, but not the authorizing unlawful, or making that necessary, which was, sub light, depending, whether it were lawful, or no, and could not be proved to be so by that argument, whose whole force was founded in supposing it.  
8. And then what heed is due to his conclusion from hence, that 
Pag. 12.  though S. W. may perhaps be blamed for holding his faith certain, yet he is inculpable for proceeding consequently to the former tenet.] and again, He who holds ill principles is blamable indeed in that regard, but yet he is worthy of praise for proceeding consequently upon them, since to deduce consequences aright is very laudable.] As if he had said, He that is fallen into one absurdity, is not only to be excused but commended for heaping the thousand more upon the back of it, he that is once out of the way, doth very well to go on in the road before him, though it led him into hell; he that is once drunk, is to be reproved for that, but that Lecture being over, he is to be praised and so rewarded for all the oaths, or rage, or murder, or incontinence, which that, by a chain of consequences, one after another, very regularly leads him to. I had thought that the one thing, which such a man could do laudably, was to unlearn his ill principle, to get to be rightly informed, and the next to that, or the most tolerably ill, to sit still, and act nothing upon it: Nor indeed did I ever learn that deducing of consequences, though it were not of one 'vice or error from another, would presently be of the number of things very laudable, for such is nothing but what is morally good, and very good. And no doubt such the nature of the consequential discourse may be, as the picking of thrums ends( to which he compares the producing of testimonies) may be an employment as highly dignified, and praise worthy, as that, and yet the deducing of a consequential ill practise from an ill principle be still less laudable, because more blame-worthy than that.  
9. One thing more he after reverts to cast in on this head, 
Pag. 15.  that it beiongs to the catholic who holds his faith certain to manifest the contrary to be perfectly absurd, and nonsense, and since the knowledge of this must in his grounds be held so necessary for the salvation of mankind, he ought in plain terms let men know it is such, otherwise he breeds a just apprehension in his Readers that the contrary( else why should he proceed so reservedly) may have some degree of probability—] In this place I might ask, whether the archangel wanted confidence in the infallible certainty of his cause, when he refused to bring any railing accusation against the Devil, as St. judas assures us he did. But my reply to this his reasoning will be sufficient, if instead of asking more, I only answer his one question in the parenthesis [ else why should he proceed so reservedly?] by telling him that there are other very pregnant reasons of that kind of reservednesse, we now speak of( which consists, as the Archangels did, onely in abstaining from all contumely, as well as calumny) beside the want of certainty in his faith, or the apprehension that the contrary is in any degree probable. As 1. a conscientious regard to the precepts of Christ, and his Apostles, which expressly forbid contumely, and of which we have oft minded him. 2. A well-grounded opinion that truth is able to propugne and evidence itself by its own light, and wants not( as he imagines) plain terms, as those signify revilings of his adversary, to let men know it is such. 3. The daily experience, that reason is most expedite in its motion to any sober dispassionate mind, when it comes like David with the staff in the hand, and the five smooth stones, and is not encumbered with Sauls armor; And 4. an apprehension of that which is most obvious, that ruffling will not be interpnted solid confidence, but rather consciousness of weakness, as we know he that dares fight, will seldom give any ill words, the tongue being not oft called in to the assistance, but to divert, and supply the place of the hands; and lastly, a dependence on God in his own way, that the means which he hath directed us to, will in fine be most successful; which till S. W. hath chosen to make use of, he can have no experience of the force of them, and consequently must judge as worldlings do, that charity and liberality, added to observation of strictest rules of justice, will never tend to the enriching, but impoverishing, and upon that account continue to apply himself to those only means, to support his faith, which are most proper to betray it. And this is all the advantage I mean to take( and not that other which he was willing to foresee) in that Paragraph. And thus we have the upshot of what he hath cast in on the third head for the assisting his grand argument.  
10. Fourthly for the deemed uncertainty of our faith, and the obligation to writ without any great zeal, heat, or earnestness,—] which he here insists on, I reply, 1. That his words of Protestants[ that they confess their faith fallible, 
P. 14.  i.e. such as may possibly be otherwise for any thing they know] are either very equivocal in the phrase [ for any thing they know] or in the word Protestants, and so belong to other men, whose words I assume not to defend, or being singly understood of me, and those whom I undertake to vindicate, and of a confessed uncertainty, and fallibility of our faith, are far removed from all degree, or appearance of truth. For this I appeal to express words in my Answer to schism disarmed, p. 36. l. 2. He that is in many things fallible— may yet infallibly know or believe some one or more other things,( In this number I profess to contain all matters of our Christian faith) either by his own senses, or by the testimony of others, founded in their several sensations, which being faithfully conveyed to us by undeniable Tradition supply the place of an {αβγδ}, are as unquestionably certain, as what we have seen ourselves. And again lin. 8. I know infallibly that I now writ,— and the same I affirm of all other matters of fact, testified by my own senses, or by universal unquestionable Tradition, for that is founded in the repeated sensations of so many other men, which being communicated and sufficiently testified to me, I have no more reason to doubt of, then of my own sensations. And of this sort is the Tradition of the Universal Primitive Church, concerning the Apostles delivering some Doctrines( here again I profess to mean our whole Christian faith) and some Books( viz. all the caconical Books of the New Testament) &c. With what semblance of truth then can I be  told, in a reply to this very Book, where I have thus professed the infallible certainty of our faith, that Protestants confess their faith fallible, i.e. such as may possibly be otherwise for any thing they know.] Can this be suggested of those things, which I say are as unquestionable as what I have seen myself, and that I know them infallibly? Is this dealing tolerable in a plain matter of fact( for so it is, that we, of whom I am one, and that book, acknowledged to be mine, confess our faith fallible) and can the deemed certainty of his faith support this part of his earnestness of affirming what is quiter contrary to his own eyes, as well as mine? If so, then I profess to allow him the enclosure of such kind of zeal, as this, for I hope I shall never, whilst I am in my right wits, make use of it: If I would, I should have cut this whole Section of his short, by denying the ground of it, not only the certainty of his faith, but even his deeming it certain, for this is his dealing with me, contrary to what was visible to him.  
11. I cannot pertinently insist longer on this Theme of the certainty of our faith in this place, to which it is so unsuteable, and then there is no more needful to be added on this fourth head, but that if deemed certainty of our faith would support, or authorize contumely, I were also commissionated to make use of such gifts, and might be as bitter as he, but 1. I am as confident it cannot, as Scripture( which is the ground of my faith, as well as Tradition, and I hope written and unwritten Tradition both will amount to as much as one of them, without the other) or any other ground of credibility which the matter is capable of, can afford me. And 2.( besides many other motives) I profess to think I have no need of such auxiliaries, and that is with me as prevailing an argument against, as his pretended necessity is to him for the use of them.  
12. One thing only I shall further note on this head of discourse; Otherwhiles as the Romanist can project advantages to his cause from the Protestants charitable persuasion of them, whilst they cannot afford any like return to us, and by this their Proselytes are obliged to be averted from us, as from those who can yield them no degree of safety, and to adhere confidently to them, who are not by Protestants denied it; On another occasion the Roman is presumed to be the Only infallible Church, because no other doth( i. e. is so assuming, or self-opinionate, as to) pretend to that vast title. And now it seems Protestants are obliged to be meek, and the Romanists as much obliged to be zealous and earnest, which are S. W's style for the rude blows, and so signify contumely. From these three all the conclusion I can make, is this, that we Protestants are willingly allowed the exercise of the greatest moral and Christian virtues, such are ingenuity, and meekness, and charity, and the Romanist must have the enclosure of the contrary, and pretend necessity and obligation of zeal for all three, and if this be it, 'tis not hard to foresee who will be the greatest loser by such advantages.  
13. Lastly, for his page. and half of my practices, he will allow me the modesty not to make any more particular recitations of, or reply to them, than this, that Tertullian hath long since  told me of the Votaries of Saturn, who though in their zeal( and that also founded in the deemed certainty of their faith) they were so cruel, as to expose and slaughter their most blameless Infants, yet at the same time they 
Infantibus blandiebantur, ne immolarentur lachrymantes, Apol. c. IX.  stroked and flattered them, that they might not be sacrificed weeping; and the like must I look on in S. W. not as an effect of his tenderness( which he thinks himself obliged to disclaim) but of his care of averting ill omens, or some other such like consideration, on account of which, and in compliance with his design, I am cheerfully to support, and take in good part, whatsoever afterward falls upon me, from the necessity of his zeal and d●votion, as that is but consequent to the deemed certainty of his faith. And I am resolved to do it, having one motive more to it, beside his commendations, viz. this very advertisement of his, that 'tis the deemed certainty of his cause( a thing which I can no way help or be answerable for, either in itself or its consequences) which, as he 
P. 20.  saith, concludes me certainly pernicious, and upon 
P. 17.  which he doubts not to affirm that it is most perfect nonsense, to think all the testimonies in my book can bear so much as a show of probability, if compared with that clear evidence he deems to shine in the other. For by this I am assured that all the reproaches that fall upon me, are deserved( and so ought not to be complained of) yet not by me personally, or by any avoidable misadventure of mine, in the retail, but only in the general, and the gross, because I am not of S. W's faith in all things, from which grand comprehensive original guilt, as from my destiny, and not from mine own superadded miscarriages, I am to derive all my calamities, the sharpest effects of his displeasure. And with this comfort his second Section, and the pursuit of the grand argument of it hath furnished me, and so resolving to continue my good humour, in despite of his other discouragements, I shall hasten to take my leave of it.  
13. Yet before I do so, I am a little concerned to take notice of his more than obliqne intimation( least I should be too insolent on his praises) 1. Of my too much vanity in using of Greek on all, or rather no occasion. And 2. my chief and almost only talent lying in the way of testimonies. Of both these I shall give the Reader and him this short account. 1. That of citing Greek Authors in the language wherein they wrote, or using a Greek word or phrase, which appeared most expressive, I never heard any man, till now, admonished, as of a fault, but by those Readers, which professed their want of skill in that language, and for the sake of such, I have been careful so far to translate, or otherwise to supply that want, as to leave them no just occasion of complaint, or cause of interruption. And then for the vanity, possibly adherent to this, as to other lawful, and prudentially chosen actions, if I ever were guilty of any degree of it, I shall now sure be effectually cured by S. W. who assures me, how far I should be mistaken, if I projected any mans praises by this means, and that on the contrary, I hereby give my Readers a fair title to suspect me either of too much vanity in that, or emptiness in other knowledges. And truly I shall not so far heed, as studiously to avert the Readers suspicion of either of these( though if S. W's authority were of force, I might have thus much to pled, that 'tis no more liable to the suspicion of vanity in me to use Greek, than in him to say he much loves it, and thinks it a great ornament to a Scholar, for he that were jealously disposed, would have temptation to suspect, that he that thus said, either had or desired to seem to have a liberal portion of it, and I hope S. W. will thank me, that I make not this conclusion) but expect from him that justice for the future, that when I do use Greek, it shall be thought I am not a platonic lover of being esteemed vain and empty, and therefore that I have some( with me prevailing) reason, that moves me thus far to deny myself, and contemn my reputation, rather then omit to do that which is most for the Readers profit, in my opinion. I know no possible way of superseding this conclusion, but by surmising, that S. W. was not the reporter of any other mens sense, but his own, and that his judgement bears not much weight with any. But I suppose he hath a better opinion of himself, than to suspect himself liable to such surmises.  
14. Secondly, then for the way of Testimonies, I must not avert or disclaim it, or be troubled that my adversary acknowledges my chief talent to lye that way. For as long as matter of Faith is founded not in natural reason, but divine Revelation, and consequently is not determinable from common notions, like problems in the mathematics( neither hath any such close connexion with them, as that it can duly be said, what yet 
Apol. for Trad. p. 11.  Mr. White hath adventured to say, that God must of necessity pitch upon this or this way, resolving that if God hath not already taken this course, certainly he should have done it) but depends wholly on the evidence of its delivery from Christ, and his Apostles, and so is established either by Scripture, or by Oral Tradition of the Apostles, or by both( and the latter of these is most surely conveyed to us at this distance, by the writings of those which dwelled nearest to them) so long, I say, I must think it reasonable to make my appeals to testimonies both of Scripture and ancient witnesses of Tradition, and if there be possibility of misinterpreting either or both of these, yet however to use them diligently, and use the best means I can to conduct myself and others to the right understanding of them▪ hoping confidently that St. Chrysostome said true, {αβγδ}, and that I understand his meaning, that as what is necessary is plain, so what is intelligible is not necessary. And there being two obvious means to this end of attaining the sure meaning of a period, by searching the notion of the original words and phrases, and 2. by adverting to the rational importance, in conjunction with antecedents and consequents, if both these will not competently assist me to conclude inerrably from plain, and not enigmatical testimonies( written by pious and prudent men, to instruct, and not to torment, to benefit and not amaze and pussle their Reader) I must then give over the trade whether of writing controversies, or reading books, yea, and conversing with men, whose words may by this account be as great riddles, as sacred or Ecclesiastical writings, and so be obliged to take my leave of my Dispatcher abruptly, whom certainly I may not seasonably attempt to answer, till I do understand, and can no more hope that I do not err in thinking I do understand him, than in thinking I understand St. Augustine, or St. Matthew, or in expecting their words will bear the same sense with all other men, as they do with me, when I fairly make my representation of them.  
15. How unkind and fastidious soever he shows himself to testimonies, even to all in my book( whether from Fathers or from Scripture itself) upon the account of a thousand Grammatical, Philological, Sophistical, Historical, and Logical difficulties, 
P. 17.  'tis certain he must in the change of the Scene, when he hath no interest concerned, or hypothesis served by it, discern his mistake, or else he would not so impertinently wast his time in reading, and answering, and writing of books, each of which are his silent confession, that books are intelligible, that words and periods, written, as well as unwritten, red, as spoken, found in ancient records, as delivered from the ancients by Father to son, by word of mouth, which he styles written in mens hearts, are surely and equally intelligible, and then again I may have his leave for all this rebuk, to make use of my talent, of producing testimonies, and not to complain of my portion, if whilst the matter chiefly, if not only depends on testimonies, my chief, if not only talent lie that way.  
16. And so much for his {αβγδ}( I am still very subject to this vanity of using Greek, when I might have lived without it) his sweet and bitter cup, his praises, and his rebukes, mixed prudently, that I might not be immoderately afflicted with the one, or transported with the other.   

SECT. III.  
Patterns of bitterness from St. Jerome.( An essay of Dispatch) St. Jeromes dislike of it. Vigilantius's despising of relics, Our accord with St. Jerome in that doctrine, Our dissent from Vigilentius. Jerom's handling of Helvidius. His noting him, that he took rattling for Eloquence. S. W. his begging the questions. My counterfeited mistake of the Author of Rushworths Dialogues, vindicated. Mr. Whites treating of Mr. Daillee, and others. The Bishop of Chalcedon's judgement of it. The honour of being opposed by Mr. Wh. His singular way of managing Controversies. His Apology for Tradition. Some observations on it. His interpretations of some passages in the Greek Testament, and in Johannes Thessalonicensis.  
1. HIS third Section is taken up, all but the last leaf, in fetching patterns of bitterness from St. jerome, to which he willingly appeals, and pretending I have chosen him for my Patron( afterwards, for my Umpire) in this point, Let us stand, saith he, to his award and example, and see how he treated Vigilantius, Dr. H's and the Protestants forefather in denying veneration to h ly relics.] But let us first see, how I have chosen St jerome for my Patron or Umpire, which is all the appearance of reason produced by him, why I should stand to his award or example in this point. After the Apostles denunciations against contumely, I mentioned many other unhappy characters, all ready to fall upon this manner of treaty, one from the words of our Saviour, Mat. 5. a second from the example of Michael, judas 9. a third from its unreconcileablenesse to the Spirit of meekness, commanded by St. Paul, 2 Tim. 2.23. 1 Cor. 4.21. Gal. 6.1. in opposition to biting one another, &c. characters of the gnostic heresy at that time, and a last in these words, that as this is a most unskilful deviation from all rules of art, as well as civility, and St. Hierom, notes it as a great error in Helvidius, that he took railing for eloquence, so it is not imaginable how so much learning and abilities, as this Disarmer is believed to have, should admit so great a mixture of rudeness and scurrility, had it not appeared necessary to assist in the counterpoise to supply some other defects— Now what hath this Disputant to return to all this? Why, of the three former particulars he takes not so much notice, as to offer any the least answer, in the compass of no less than 26 pages, which are all spent on this matter, nor of the fourth, save only in catching hold of the name of St. jerome( incidentally mentioned) who therefore is presently noised for my chosen Patron, and the whole umpirage referred not to the passage in him, to which alone I referred, but to his practise, and that especially in his Epistles against Vigilantius, which I did not so much as refer to, or mention.  
2. First then we have here an Essay of Dispatch, to pass over all that had the weight laid on it, and strike in with some one incidental passage, and by that inch of ground get over presently into another Region, and there triumph over his adversary, in a new Scene of Pageantry. This mindes me of Trypho and the Jews dealing with Justine Martyr, 
P. 287, D.  {αβγδ}, saith he, {αβγδ}, they endeavour not to understand what is said to them, only they whet themselves to say something. And had not St. Hierome's name( which I might well enough have spared) casually fallen into that fourth branch of the character of contumely, 'tis hard to divine where S. W. would have found a Grindstone to have whet his style, or given any more edge to this part of the fourth, than he had to the rest, and to all the three former branches.  
3. S●condly, here is a rule, by which I shall not fear to lose much, if it may be allowed of, that whosoever names an Author, and reflects on some one passage in him, is obliged to stand to his award; and then S. W. having name St. Paul, and cited as much from him, as I did from St. jerome, must sit down with St. Pauls award; and then contumelies must be exterminated from Christian disputes, and be no longer owned any part of his duty. 2. If S. W's refutation of St. Hieroms words by his contrary practise, be of force, then though he that cites any Authors words to his purpose, must not expect to gain any thing by them( he hath  told us 
P. 17.  before, that all the testimonies of my book are subject to a thousand difficulties) yet if that Author have done any thing contrary to his words, he that cited him must then stand to his award and example; and thus not only Christs speech of the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, must be inverted, though they sit in Moses chair, and say but do not, yet we must do after their works, not rule ourselves by their commands, but even good mens frailties or crimes must become our patterns, and have more force with us, than their calmest advices, or severest resolutions, and so St. Peters vow of never-forsaking Christ must not deserve heeding by us, but be much preponderated by the Umpirage of his actions, the example of his denying him. 3. The short is, St. jerome in the cool of the day, knew what was amiss in another, and justly noted it, and if he were sometimes provoked to exceed the bounds, that his calmer and dispassionate reason prescribed, and exacted from others, it were more reverence to the relics of that holy man( of which S.W. pretends such care in this Section) to bury those practices, than to transcribe them, or reproach him by appealing to them; 'tis evident, from his words to 
l. 1. c. 7.  Ruffinus[ Cornutam bestiam petis, et nisi caverem illud Apostoli, maledici regnum Dei non possidebunt, &c.( the very Text of which I minded S. W. and is the matter of our present debate whether I did it seasonably or no) jam nunc sentires, &c.] that he observed this asperity of his own temper, and thought himself bound by that Apostles denunciation, to restrain it, and accordingly he gives him that reason of saying no more, then he did,[ Sentisne quid taceam? quod aestuanti pectori verba non commodem,& cum Psalmista loquar, Psal. 141.3.] that he considered that vengeance belonged to God, which concluded him conscientiously obliged not to take it into his own hands. On which ground he tells him, l. III. c. XI. of railing accusations, that non chartae Ecclesiasticae, said libelli judicum debent continere, they become not the writings of Church-controversies.  
4. Lastly, here is a compendious way( and that is dispatch still) of making D. H. and all Protestants, heretics, and fit to be reviled, because forsooth Vigilantius for denying veneration to holy relics, was thus treated.] But to this I answer, more explicitly, 1. That we Protestants are as far from Vigilantius's heresy, if St. jerome understood it aright, in his Epistle to Riparius, as St. jerome himself was 
Tom. 11. Ep. 53. . St. jerome sets it down as part of Vigilantius's charge, that those who did suspicere reliquias martyrum, he called Cinerarios& idololatras qui mortuorum hominum ossa venerentur. Against which charge that Father professes, Nos non dico martyrum reliquias, said ne solem quidem& lunam, non angelos, non archangelos, non cherubim, non seraphim,& omne nomen quod nominatur in seculo presenti& futuro colimus& adoramus, ne serviamus creaturae potius quam creatori. And we English this with a perfect accord to it, We are far from worshipping and adoring whether the relics of Martyrs, or the very highest Angels, or any creature in the world. 2. 
Ibid.  St. jerome professes, Honoramus reliquias Martyrum, ut eum cujus sunt Martyres adoremus, and we do the same, honour the relics of Martyrs, that we may adore God whose Martyrs they are. 3. He concludes against him, that by his Doctrine, he affirmed the relics of Peter and Paul to be unclean, and that as oft as men entred the Basilicae of the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, so oft they payed veneration to the Temples of Idols, that the candles lighted before them were Ensigns of Idolatry, nay further, that the body of Christ laid in the Grave was uncl●an. And these consequences we dislike as much as St. jerome, and the principle whatever it was that owned them. 4. The honour which he avouched due to the relics of the Martyrs, he made good by the words of the Psalmist, precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his Saints,( and we believe it as precious, as any) that the bones of dead men do not pollute those that touch them, by Elisha's touching, when he raised the dead, and the like, and we doubt not of the conclusion, and so need not that medium to prove it. All that we differ in from St. jerome in that Epistle, is, 1. That we use no reproaches against them that charge us with Doctrines, that we never taught. 2. That we do not impose our own consequences upon the Doctrine of Vigilantius, or any man else, without having seen his writings, as 
Plura dictare volueram, si librorum ipsius ad nos voluisses mit●ere cantilenas, ut scire possemus ad quae rescribere deberemus. Nunc cutem aerem verberavimus—  it seems St. jerome did. 3. That he could think Phinees's javeline, Elias's austerity, the zeal of Simon Cananaeus( not Simon of Canance, as S. W. translates it,( I desire to know by the next, whether Cananee be the name of a place, or a man) but in plain words Simon the Zelote, Luk. VI. 15. called {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}, not from the name of a place, but from {αβγδ} zeal) Peters severity on Ananias and Saphira, &c. and the command of shedding the blood of the Seducers, Deut. XIII. any way applicable to the present circumstances, as the case then stood between him and Vigilantius. And S. W. which hath avouched these words from St. jerome, in defence of contumely, might have done well to assure us, he would not extend them to any further liberty, than he hath already taken,( to the metaphorical only, not real lance) or transcribe this more dangerous severity, this bloodyer copy from him.  

P. 24.  5. Secondly, 'tis not duly suggested that these harsh expressions of St. jerome, which had there been premised, fell on Vigilantius for denying veneration to holy relics; In his Book against Vigilantius( which S. W. calls his second Epistle, and produces the greatest store of the harsh expressions from thence) he might have seen other manner of Doctrines laid by St. jerome to his charge, and that upon sight of his writings, which by this time he saith he had received from Riparius and Desiderius, viz. that Vigils were to be condemned, that hallelujah was never to be sung but at Easter, that ꝯtinence was heresy, that pudicitiousnesse or single life was a seminary of lust. And till D. H. and the Protestants concur with him in all these, who as yet have not transcribed one of them, how can it be truly said, that these harsh expressions, which were poured out on all these conjoined, are due to us, upon that only score, upon which, as hath been shewed, no least severity can be due to us?  
6. Lastly, when with this matter of St. Hieromes dealing with Vigilantius. S. W. compares his own temper, and expects my thanks for his moderation, that he did not call me monster, prodigious monster, possessed with the devil, &c. adding that all these were my due, as I am in the same fault with Vigilantius, besides what accrues to me of later titles] I shall ask him these two questions, somewhat distant the one from the other, 1. How he can think to excuse this his great moderation, that he hath not called me so many monsters and demoniacs as St. jerome did Vigilantius? how he hath made good the engagements, under which he hath concluded himself, both by standing to St. Hieromes award and example, and by acknowledging it necessary duty, if he hath any zeal and care of his conscience, to use the means, which wit and art can invent to discredit, disparaged— as far as truth can justify his words? Hath he not here resolved, that truth gives as much my due, as was paid to Vigilantius? with what care of his conscience then, if he were before in earnest, he could for the bribe of a few thanks( the utmost he demands) use this temper, and abstain from those obvious arts, and ways, which St. jerome had traced before him?] is my first question, not founded in what he hath really performed by way of temper, but what he saith he hath performed.  
7. The second is, how he hath deserved my thanks for his moderation, when at the same time he tells me, there is as much due to me, on one score, as all St. Hieromes expressions amount to, and yet more accrueing to me out of other titles? Doth he that tells a man publicly, that the title of frantic monster, prodigious monster, possessed with the Devil, with an unclean Spirit, Snake, famous for wickedness, block-head, &c.( as S. W. hath contracted them) are due to him for one fault beside what accrues to him out of later titles, deserve his thanks, for not whipping him with Scorpions? What nice distinction hath he discovered betwixt giving me these titles, and publicly telling me and all other men, they are due to me? 'tis true indeed, that money is not paid, when 'tis only acknowledged due, but is it so in railing? Is it not one of the figures of that art, to tell his antagonist, this and this worst of titles is his due, yea much more also, than that, but he is kind, and will not deal thus with him, as he deserves. And this piece of art, as all others, S. W. was obliged in conscience to make use of, and accordingly hath discharged his obligation to conscience, to the utmost farthing; and I that am not the Noon-shadow of Vigilantius's portraiture, that assert not a syllable of all his heretical dictates, must thank, and be obliged, that I am thus meekly treated, and my only question is, how these thanks came to be so due from me?  
8. What he adds of his manner of handling Helvidius, and calling him Snake, and silliest of men, made famous by wickedness, dancing Camel,] is I hope by this time answered also, by analogy with his treating of Vigilantius, viz. That I mentioned his dislike of Helvidius's railing( which if it were the 
P. 25. l. 1.  appealing to his authority, was not to his example, which S. W. unduly joins together, as if I had appealed to loth) and if he practised otherwise himself, his words are certainly to be headed before his actions, and the rather, because though through passion or weakness he were guilty of it himself, yet it was too foul for him to tolerate in another. I shall not therefore any farther reply to the parallel S. W. makes at large betwixt St. jerome and himself, in this matter, I had rather be like that Father in his other excellencies, than come within any distance of him in that, which hath always been looked on as his blemish, and is so far from excusing S. W. that itself is unexcusable.  
9. It remains only, that I add a few words in mine own defence, to clear me from the more and more weakness, that S. W. discovers in me, for construing, as he saith, loquacitas, to be railing, St. Hierom's words of Helvidius being these, loquacitatem facundiam existimat.] But I answer, that I cited neither these, nor any other words of St. Hieromes, I only said, in my own words, that he noted▪ it as a great error in Helvidius, that he took railing for eloquence. If it be then now demanded, where he noted it, I answer, in the first Chapter of that Epistle against Helvidius, in several passages, especially in this( of which S. W. recites a part) loquacitatem facundiam existimat& maledicere omnibus bonae conscientiae signum arbitratu●, accepta materia disputandi amplius incipit blasphemare,& quasi de sublimi loco in totum orbem far sententiam, meque quia veritate non posset, lacerare convitiis. Here I not only found mention of loquacity, but saw the sort of his loquacity, expressed by evil speaking, blaspheming, censuring, raving, rending innocent persons with reproaches, and this is my ground for discriminating his loquacity from all other species of it, and interpreting it( but that is not construing it) railing. And if here I have shew'd more and more weakness than in all the Section, I shall thence take confidence, as far as S. W's judgement will support it, to believe, I have not been very culpable, and so am not as yet much humbled by his Discipline.  
10. There be two things still behind in this Section, which being heterogeneous to that of St. jerome, the main subject, come now to be attended to. 1. 
P. 23. P. 27.  His dilemma concluding the justice of his rigorous expressions. 2. My counterfeiting a mistake that I may by that means fix a sly calumny on a worthy Gentleman. His Dilemma is in these words, Either Doctor H's cause is false, and then 'tis laudable to use zeal against him— or it is true, and then he deserves as great a reprehension, who abuses his cause by going about to defend it by such wilful falsifications, frauds and weaknesses, as he hath been discovered.] And this as a cure for his begging the question, in supposing me an adversary of the true faith.] This Dilemma I might retort with as much force, as he hath begun it,( i.e. I confess with little enough, but yet with as much.) Thus, either my cause is true, and then it is not laudable in him to use zeal against it, or to labour to oppress it with noise and clamour, or it is false, and then I cannot be so much reprehended for using no better means to defend it, then a bad cause is capable of. But I like not the last part of my dilemma much better than I did his, and therefore having only shewed him the no force of it by this image, I answer, 1. That I take this cure for his begging the question to be palliate, and that it is still a begging the question to affirm, that either my cause is false, or that I have defended it with falsifications, and that I have therein been so much as once discovered. There is a middle betwixt these, my having defended a true cause without any falsifications &c. and till he hath not only said, but proved the contrary, which cannot yet be done in the beginning of this reply to my Discovery of his former Dexterities, his saying it, is the begging the question. 2. In case my cause were false, and his zeal laudable, yet whether contumelies are that laudable zeal, or his twitchings by the beard, pure zeal, and not contumely, is another question, at this present under debate, and therefore now in this Section most unskilfully begged by him. 3. Supposing the cause good, and some faults, and weaknesses discovered, in defending it, yet neither would it follow that those supposable faults were either frauds, or falsifications, or any way wilful( which includes their being known to the author, as to me, I am sure, they are not) any more than the weaknesses are, which are generally most opposite to wilful, nor that they deserved as great a reprehension, be they what they can, as the like in maintaining a bad cause would deserve, the badness of the cause being allowable to add some degree to the guilt, when the falsifications or whatsoever other crimes are supposed equal, and equally wilful on both sides. 4. Faults may be reprehended without contumely, and so still bare reprehensions come not home to the point in hand, and that S. W's twitchings are bare reprehensions, is another begging of the question, and these be frailties enough in his one Dilemma.  
11. Then for the Counterfeited mistake and calumny, thus he lays it, I had, saith he, upon occasion of the evidence of our Churches Infallibility, in my Schism disarmed p. 20.  told him he might to his amazement see it in that incomparable Treatise of Rushworths Dialogues vindicated from all possible confute by that excellent Apology for it, writ by the learned pen of Mr. Thomas White. Now what does Mr. H.? he tells us that S. W. says his arrows are beyond all possible confute, meaning that S. W. the Author of Schism disarmed, was the same with the Author of the Apology for Tradition( though I am certainly informed that he knows S. W. to be another person) and reports again afterwards the same phrase to the same purpose, and so on, phansying two advantages that I meant to make by this one project.] But before we proceed to more, let us a while reflect on this.  
12. His own words, of which there was no doubt, he cites from Schism disarmed, naming the very page., where they were, But my words, on which all depended, he gives his Reader no direction to find, either as he first cites them, or, as he saith, I report afterward the same phrase to the same purpose, Nor can I, who am presumeable to be better acquainted with my own writings than any other Reader, tell whither to repair for this second report of this phrase, and must therefore satisfy myself by resorting to the first, on which the weight seems to be laid, and that is in the Disarmers Dexter. Exam. p. 4. l. 35. where having compared his treating me to the Aethiopians poisoning their little arrows, I added, having thus imbibed high virtues, they make very quick work, are very killing, or in the Disarmers phrase, beyond all possible confute. And this it seems hath brought on me this unexpected displeasure, and censure of counterfeiting a mistake, and fixing a sly calumny upon a worthy person. But I demand, 1. How is it possible I should have mistaken in these words? Did not S. W. p. 20. use this phrase [ beyond all possible confute]? and is not S. W. my Disarmer? and might not I spell these together, and then writ, [ in my Disarmers phrase, beyond all possible confute]. I confess, I that took [ confute] for a Verb, should not on my own head have used it for a Substantive, and therefore using it so, cited it from my Disarmer,( as if I should now render Simon Cananaeus, Simon of Cananee, I would add, according to my Disarmers interpretation) but who would think there were any least mistake committed in this, when 'tis palpable there was none?  
13. This indeed, to yield some support to his charge, he hath disguised into another form, affirming that I tell him that S. W. says, his arrows are beyond all possible confute, and adding that I mean that S. W. was the same with the Author of the Apology for Tradition. But 1. it is v sible that I do not tell him or any man, that S. W. says so of his own arrows, but on the contrary, that 'twas no excellent indication of his persuasions of his own performances, that he deemed it necessary, geminare venenis vulnera,( which he could not think necessary, if they were of themselves in his opinion beyond all possibility of being confuted.) What I farther add there, is evidently no more than this, that the killingnesse of his arrows, the impossibility of his being confuted, comes from the high virtues they have imbibed, i.e. from the contumelies( the only parts of his book, which I know myself unqualified to answer in kind, or make any proportionable return to) and what is this toward telling that S. W. says this of his own arrows?  
14. Secondly, having affixed on me words which I never wrote, 'tis no wonder, but consequent( and in his opinion laudable) that he should proceed, and give them a meaning, which I never meant; And at this rate who can be free from mistakes, from counterfeiting, from calumny, from any thing, that S. W. will say I meant, by words, first of his own framing, and then interpreting also?  
15. But neither will all this( which, if allowed, hath ill luck if it cannot do any thing) prove what he hath charged on me,( i.e. my purposely counterfeiting a mistake, &c.) without one farther aid, and that he hath furnished it with also, affirming, that he is certainly informed that I know S. W. to be another person.] Certainly I have no least obligation to make any return to this; yet I shall, by these steps, to perfect the Readers observations of S. W. 1. I am the most competent testifier of mine own secrets, and I am sure, I do not know, who is the Author of that Book, nor 2. what one name S. W. are the first letters of, nor 3. do I, or ever did I so much as believe( 'tis not imaginable I should know) that Mr. S. who was once a Servant to my Lord of D. and hath, as I have heard, assumed to be the Author of Schism disarmed, was the Author of that whole Book, but only of a part of it. How then could he be certainly informed, that I knew this, which I know I never so much as believed? If he was informed so, he neither was, nor could be certainly informed( which to my ears signifies the certain truth of his information) and if he was any way informed that I believed it, yet that could not signify that I knew it, when in truth I neither knew nor believed it. I was  told( Sect. 2.) that he was much mine for the sakes of some friends common to him and me; I now demand, did any of them ever so much as tell him, that I believed otherwise, than now I affirm; If any did, let him be name, if they did not, what may not he say that thus speaks? 4. Though I have now no least inducement or obligation to tell him my present thoughts, or suspicions( for above those I cannot be imagined to have penetrated the disguise) of schism dispatched, yet as far as my present information or conjectures led me, I shall not be nice to discover it, and it is this, that Mr. S. must not enclose all the honour( or rather just reproach) either of the scoffs, or, which is the second principal ingredient, the cavils of it; And if Mr. Wh. be suspected by many to have brought in liberal contributions to him, I have not much greater arguments to incline my assent to it, than these, 1. That without any occasion given by me, this remote opportunity was laid hold on, solicitously to avert that suspicion. 2. That in his answer to Mr. Daillee, or Daillees arts discovered, he hath without any disguise treated him in as much ill language, and sometimes upon as little occasion, as I am treated in either of these Replies, and that he may with as much honour have written either, or both of these whole Tracts, as one passage against Mr. Daillee, which I shall for an essay desire S. W. to turn to p. 249. ushered in, p. 248. with these words, [ Here I particularly invite the eye of the serious Reader, to observe how maliciously he( Mr. Daillee) corrupts the council of Trent in two very considerable passages.] On the second of these he sets the remark, that the abuse is more gross and palpable( concerning our Ladies immaculate conception) p. 248. and in the next page., 249. he that p. 4. had professed, beside his reason, to be beholding to his nature for its extreme averseness to incivilities, and captious proceedings, is yet induced( by what principle I guess not, but it seems neither of reason, nor nature) to fasten on it all these express charges of foul play, cheat, falseness, perverseness, want both of face and conscience, more than ordinary malice, desperate notorious absurdity, shameless forehead outfacing the whole catholic world, the title of a bold juggler, all this and more in the compass of 30 lines) and then concludes at the top of the next page. 250. in the greatest {αβγδ} of Contumely, that he could reach, [ Can any thing be answered in his defence, or any excuse made, why he should not be accounted an impudent lying knave?] This sure is the noting of some fault, personal and moral with a witness, and so by S. W's description of contumely, must needs fall under it. And what was it that made all this severity so necessary? Why, saith he, He undertook to prove, that 'tis impossible so to expound the words of the council of Trent, that they shall not in plain terms give the lye to all the Fathers, and to render this foul play the more plausible to such as look not well to his fingers, he translates[ in hoc decreto] falsely and perversely[ in this number] as if the council had positively decreed the blessed Virgin not to be in the number of those, who are born in Original sin.] This then being the crime, and the former part of it [ that it is impossible to explicate their words, En sort qu' elles ex donnent un desmenti a tous less peers] being in that place assumed to be proved by an argument, there following by way of Dilemma( to which Mr. Wh. hath not offered a word of answer, and till he had done so, could not reasonably proceed to any sharp Discipline on the conclusion) I must suppose the second part to be it, which alone could be thought to support the crimen falsi, and so be charged in such variety of language, cheat, juggler, &c. viz. that he falsified the words of the council, and translated in hoc decreto, in this number] But that could not be, for Mr. Daillee wrote not English but French, and if the English Translator misrendred him, without his privity, 1. That should have been wholly charged on that Translator, and 2. it would not then have amounted to those enormous crimes, of cheat, juggler &c. that now are fastened on it, by being misplaced upon Mr. Daillee, who was herein most perfectly innocent. And this is the very truth of the matter, The English Interpreter impertinently( yet probably without any design of seducing any) added those words [ in that number] but Mr. Daillee set down the words of the Original latin of the council most punctually, as they lie in the Acts of the council, and gave them no other rendering but this, ills declarent a la sin queen leur intention n' est pas d' y comprendre le bien heureuse et immaculee verge mary more de Dieu. They declare in the end( of their Decree before-mentioned, En leur Decret) that it was not their intention to comprehend the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary the mother of of God] adding no syllable that sounded to that sense of [ in that number] Now 'tis not questioned but Mr. Wh. was abundantly qualified to red, at least to consult the author, whose arts he undertook to discover, in his own language, which if he did, he must needs discern him free from this charge of falsifying, if he did not, he knows whose fault that was, to condemn a person without due cognizance of his fact, and so from whom the reparations are due. And 'tis not his proemial advertisement, that[ the Animadversions on Daille are applied to the English Translation by T. S. not to the French Original] that will justify him, for still the title of his Book is, Dailles Arts discovered] to whom the errors of the Translator( by the way, with his good leave, that was not T. S.) are not with the least justice imputable, much less are the casual slips of the one any way interpretable to be the inexcusable lies, and knavery, and impudencies of the other. By the way, it may be remembered, that even that which the Translator conceived to be the meaning of the council, is expressly the definition, in the Romanists catechism, compiled for universal use by Cardinal Bellarmine, Christ. Doctr. p. 142. Our Lady had never any spot of sin, neither Original nor Actual. This one instance I have chosen to give, by way of digression from my own to another person, having truly the same dislikes to this sort of treating, when others, as when myself am concerned in it. And lest it should be thought, that poor heretics are the only men, that meet with this course usage from him, I refer the Reader to his Ordinary the Bishop of Chalcedon his Letter to him, part of which is inserted in G. L. s Manifest to his Brethren residing in England, in these words. Only for your souls sake I request you to leave those naughty reproaches which you give to one equal to yourself in all things, I pray you forget not the words of the Apostle, Maledici regnum Dei non consequentur, or of our Saviour, Qui dixerit fratri suo, ●atue, reus crit Gehennae ignis, such reproachful words as you use in your Letter, become neither Christian, nor Priest, but discover too too great passion, and again— To omit the taunts of Paramount Bishop, and domineering ways, and such others, which you bestow upon myself, it seems you have forgotten your solemn promise which you made at your Ordination, to give reverence and obedience to your Ordinary, &c.  
16. Ere I leave this Theme, I am yet farther to take notice of the two advantages which I am suggested to have aimed at in this wilful mistake, 1. That I honour myself in making the world believe I had so worthy an adversary as that miracle of wit and learning. 2. That I dishonour my pretended adversary as the vainest person in the world, by intimating[ that himself gave himself such an high character. To these I answer jointly. 1. That I could have no aims in saying that, which, as hath already appeared, I never said. 2. That I could never foresee that the world would collect that from my words, which I neither said nor thought, and which my accuser at the same time saith was contrary to my knowledge.  
17. As for the severals, they now can need no reply, yet ex abundanti I shall give them some. 1. That I might as reasonably be allowed thus to honour myself( if it were but to reward the patience of being in S. W's company so long) as 'tis certain Mr. Wh. assumes to have answered two persons of such a quality, 
P. 5.  as the Protestant party never produced before, and seems to have chosen them to live by, or die with, whose el●quence none were found to exceed, whose wits none will be found to equal— adding much more in their praises, and thus much in Mr. Dailles, 
P. 260.  that those noble Lords had great reason highly to esteem him, and yet sure he doth more than desire to make the world believe, he had such worthy adversaries, 'twere but a poor satisfaction this, if they were not his Captives too. And why might not another man have S W's pardon, 
P. 28.  if having such an example from a person of the profoundest humility( as S. W. that best knows, assures us also) he had permitted this spark of ambition a while to have warmed his breast? It might perhaps have inspirited him, and raised his faculties above that meanness, that S. W. at every turn discovers in him, and so contributed to the glorys of his triumphs also, which now are likely to be obscured by the despicablenesse of his Captive. But whatever just title I might have to his pardon for this insolence, I may with truth profess, I have no inclination to be guilty of it, and assure him, 1. That I am not fond of so much as seeming to enter the lists with giants, of having to do with miracles of any sort, especially those of wit, having been advertised long since, that quanto ingeniosores sunt, tanto iracundius docent, the more miraculously quick their own perceptions are, the less patience they have for those that do not as nimbly apprehended, and submissively embrace them; were it not for this dread of this ill attendant of his wit, I should not disown the ambition of beholding his learning, that I might benefit by it, which I never did in the least from all my conversation with S. W. and therefore if he be but in the number of those whom he calls the meanest and youngest of his Scholars, 
Florid. l. ●.  he must put me in mind of what Apuleius saith of the Indians, ad nascentem solem siti sunt, et in toto corpore nox est, for I yet discern not, that he hath considerably edified or improved by his nearness to him. 2. I shall ask what honour it was to Mr. Daille that the world knew( which is more than believing) that this worthy man had written against him? Can any man be meaner, and more uncapable of true honour, than he is there( as even now appeared) represented to be? and yet he hath attained that honour, who then need despair, that were ambitious of the like? 3. What advantage were it for him, that had sought honour from the worthiness of his adversary, presently( as S. W. supposes) to dishonour him? were it still an honour to combat with the vainest person in the world, or to have him appear thus vain, with whom I was to combat? Yet these, and thus unreconacileble are the advantages that S. W's mint would help me to. 'tis certain Mr. White could not need his own praises( and so must have been impertinently vain in this contrivance) His friends have freely bestowed them on him, and I hearty wish, that having so many titles to them, he may never do any thing to blemish them.  
18. My greatest quarrel to him as a man I have already expressed, and should not have done so, had it not been as legible to all under his own and anothers hand, as it is now under mine. But as to a writer of Controversies, I have this other, that the answering of his Apology for the Dialogues, is not the way to satisfy the Romanists, there being few of those which go on his grounds, either in the notion of Tradition, or some other particular points of controversy. In relation to the former it was that Mr. White hath not only  told us expressly in his Epistle Dedicatory before that Apology, that the Doctrine of Rushworths Dialogues takes a path not much beaten by our modern Controvertists, but farther gives us( in the beginning of the Apology itself) the first rise of his way, from a slight familiar conference between him and his Kinsman, as it were only for exercise to train themselves, and practise their postures, which now by the oppositions of those two Lords seems( to him) to spread itself into a public and solemn war.] Which though poetically spoken, and above the proportion of vide as concurrere bellum, Atque virum— yet he can make good the phrase, he saith, without much straining, since the eminent names on the one side( a private Letter of the Lord Digby, and a short Reply of the Lord Folkland) and the great advantages of ground on the other( one single person on that advantageous ground) may justly be admitted to supply the number of an Army in both; I may add that that Army being of two sides, must, if any, be two armies( and that would be news indeed, two Armies made up of three men.) That it is not otherwise than in this poetic Dialect, and in the Authors fancy, grown much more numerous since, I may safely collect from S. W. who, I suppose, hath narrowly observed the progress of this doctrine, and without respect to his interest truly  told me, that few there are that have refined their understanding to this degree of discerningness, though he perceived to his comfort that the best sort of wits( himself, I suppose, and some, but still few others) which sure are not the most, begin( and do yet but begin) thus to own their reason. And for the latter 'tis no secret, that other of his tenets were not liked, if they had, they had not been, as himself in a second Epistle Dedicatory before that Apology, saith, so deeply censured even by catholics( whom he there censures back again, as unworthy the Function they profess, and highly obstructive of the progress of the catholic Faith, noting them of Destructive errors, of striving to possess the Church of God, and break the eternal rule of Faith) and in fine condemned at Rome. And then what honour it may be, I know not, but truly I see not the advantage would accrue from such a duell, wherein so few beside the Combatants, would think themselves concerned; And that is one sufficient reason( beside the no obligation to be for ever in the Palestra) why the challenge so oft intimated in Sch. disarmed and dispatched, to enter the lists with that Apologist, is not yet accepted. It were not hard to make that return to him, which would satisfy all disinterested persons of either party, but those having no need of, nor demanding that satisfaction, there is no hope of satisfying those few others, that are resolved it is beyond all possible refute, the deemed certainty of which persuasion lays on them a necessity of concluding every thing ridiculous, and nonsensicall, that is aimed against it. 'tis fitter then that these few should be permitted to enjoy their own humors, then that they should be studiously, but impertinently disquieted. Another reason there is, which hath weight with me; The title of that Apology promises an answer to the exceptions of the Lords Falkland and Digby, the former of which I know hath very largely and fully refuted one answer of his( which therefore himself styles 
Apol. p. 3.  an unlicked mola) to that Lords little discourse of Infallibility; setting down the full of his argument, and well nigh of his words, and giving them so fair a Reply, that the sweetness of it 
Apol. p. 6.  surprised him, he acknowledges, with admiration. But to this the Apologist hath not made those regular, and equal returns, that the Reader might expect, and were due( if but by way of reparation for the defects of his former, above 
See Answ. to L. Falkl. p. 27. and L. Falkl.'s Reply, p. 176.  half of which was spent, before he pretends to give any answer to, or take the least notice of his adversary) but 
Apol. p. 4.  as he professes, to select such objections as he( the only judge in this matter) thinks really to interest the controversy, and to handle them without relation to books or distinction of Authors, or citations of places, as one that seeks truth, not the glory of confuting, or vanity of answering( when yet in the title page., the most conspicuous place in the City, it was distinctly proclaimed, that those Lords exceptions were answered) so he hath accordingly performed, producing what objections he thought fit, not noting from whence they were produced. And if this have rendered that Lords discourse less defensible, and his adversaries beyond all possible refute, this was a piece of skill in the manager, and let not S. W. feign to himself any other reason of it. I have now on his summons given my attendance and surveyed it a second time, and find some things very true, and seasonably observed, as that neither the Chiliasts nor the Arrians had any title to universal Tradition( which if he learnt not from the Preaching Protestants, was yet surely no news to them, nor the least prejudice to our pretensions, nor refutation of his Lordship, as to that of the Chiliasts, hath 
View of Infallib. p. 87, &c.  elsewhere largely been manifested) that 
P. 111.  if impertinent curiosities be hindered from importuning the Church, her truths will undoubtedly be seen in her belief and practise without making new definitions; that 
P. 117.  probable arguments have no truth in them, nor is 
P. 146.  a conclusion nearer being true for an hundred unconvincing arguments, then for one, that 
P. 195.  the place urged by Mr. Daille out of Hegesippus of heresy deflowering the Church after the Apostles death, belonged only to the rising up of heretics against the Church not to the Churches corruption,( if he had added that the heretics were there specified to be the {αβγδ}, the gnostics, he had fully confirmed his interpretation.) But in divers other particulars he hath not shew'd himself that miracle, that S. W. tells us of, especially in interpreting the Greek of the New Testament, as {αβγδ}, Lu. 1.1. 
P. 165.  in great abundance acted, {αβγδ}, v. 3. present at all things almost from the beginning, {αβγδ}, Joh. V. 39. 
P. 152.  you deceive yourselves if you think you have life in them, {αβγδ}, Act. XXVI. 22. 
P. 159.  testifying or protesting to great and little that I spoken nothing. So likewise in his account of other Greek passages, as of that of 
P. 233.  Joannes Thessalonicensis, that he saith no such thing as Daille makes him say, [ viz. that the Church held Angels had subtle and airy bodies] only this, that the Church knows Angels to be intelligent Creatures] when yet the express words are, {αβγδ}, the catholic Church acknowledges, or is of opinion( as {αβγδ} sententia is from {αβγδ}, and as {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, are exactly the same both in the nature of the words and in use, though he guess otherwise 
P. 81.  elsewhere) that they are intelligent, not indeed altogether incorporeal and invisible, but thin-bodyed, and airy or fiery. These I mention, as things manifest to every eye, and shall not here, so much out of the place,( anon there will be a fitter season) descend to any matters of the main dispute or controversy, wherein I must not expect S. W. will be of my mind: But if in these which I have name he will not, the Reader will know what sentence to pass on Tutor and Disciple both. And thus much for this learned Author, upon S. W's importunity, and withall to give him the reason of that silence, which is, it seems, misinterpreted amazement, the least degree of which I know no person that ever was under, upon the account which S. W. mentions.  
19. This Section concludes with a reflection on Irenaeus his words of much laughter, and he hath replied to them by fiction of other words, that Irenaeus might have said, but hath not; And then passing them on Mr. H. and appealing to the Readers eyes, if they were not very suitable, he hath shew'd him nothing, but that he was obliged to writ another defence, of Calumny, after this of Contumely, and then examine which were the most necessary accomplishment of a catholic Controver●… ist.   

SECT. IV.  
My grievous mistakes vindicated, and the charge retorted. Contumelies the weapon only of the conquered and desperate. Launoy's judgement of them. The comparison betwixt perjury, and perverse treating of matters of Religion. The Answerers obligation to prove some things. What dealing is expectable from S. W. The affinity betwixt the Epistle of the Cath. Gentleman, and the first part of Sch. Dis. Three other charges answered.  
1. HIs fourth Section, the last on this subject, wherein his defence, in relation to contumelies, is completed, is the charging on me a grievous mistake committed in even ground, in a plain Epistle to the Reader. 'twill cost us some circuit and windlace, to discern wherein this mistake consists. First he tells us the design of that his Epistle, to render the Reader an account, why the civility of his adversary should not hinder him from giving him his own, if the care of an eternal good interested his zeal to lay him open, and then adds the two parallel questions, which he proposed in these words, How would you take it if one should spit in your face, and justify the affront because his breath is sweet, &c. And then again repeating his design in the questions, he reproaches me for not understanding it in my answer,( which yet was punctual● to his question, telling him how a Christian were bound to take it, if any man should spit in his face, were the breath swee● or otherwise) To this rebuk I answer, 1. That if to a questi n asked, I had given a punctual answer, abstracting from the main design of it, this might yet be far from a grievous mistake. For unless the particularity of the design have such an influence on the question, that the answer to the question will be unsufficient, unless the design be explicitly taken notice of, there is sure no mistake at all in this method.  
2. But then 2. the answer which I gave, was perfectly home to the design, as well as to the question, which I shall thus manifest to him. The question I must suppose pertinent to the business in hand, and that was certainly for the justifying of S. W's dealing in Sch. Dis. and that precisely in the point of rude blows, or contumelies only, and not as 'tis now pretended, of giving the adversary his own( which is bare justice) or laying open, discovering the infirmities of his reasoning( which if it be no more then so, is justice again) This is most visible in the first words of the Epistle[ I know you will be objecting that the blows I give are too rude]( not that I give him his own, &c.) Hence it follows that this, which he now pretends to have been his design, could then have no influence on the question, which was to justify not his justice, but his rudeness, and therefore my answer, which reflected only on rudeness, not on justice, was home to the design. So again for another ingredient in his design, the civility of his adversary, and the influence of that upon his blows, that certainly I took notice of, and by proving to him from Christs command, that an uncivil adversary was not to be answered with rudeness, I inferred with advantage, that a civil adversary was not thus to be answered. Lastly, for the care of an eternal good, interessing zeal, which is the last circumstance in his design, that only in my answer I took not notice of, and the reason is clear, because no such care can thus interest zeal, as to justify contumely. No mans eternal good depends upon S. W's Contumelies, nor if it did, must he on that account neglect his own, as he certainly doth, that sins in order to the best end, and that the contumelious doth so, had a little before been proved, and was not there again to be insisted on. Let the Reader now, or, if he please, his own conscience judge, on whose side the grievous mistake lies, on mine, who answered sully to the one true design, that rude blows were not for any, much less for a civil adversary, or on his, that is now fain to substitute a feigned design, and convert rudeness enhanced by the civility of the adversary, into exact distributive justice, which is known by this very form of words, suum cvique tribuere, giving every man, and so an adversary, his own, which he could not know, as he said he did, his Reader would object to him.  

P. 30.  3. This is still more manifest against S. W. when he saith, that D H's courteous style could not oblige S. W. to treat him tenderly, and favourably.] Let him now reflect on the first words of his Epistle; Was the Reader supposed to object that he did not treat the Doctor tenderly or favourably? Or had the style of the tract of schism courted favour or tenderness from S. W.( who could not then by any divination be foreseen) or from any man else? Or, is there no middle between favour and too much rudeness? Whose now is the guilt of totally mistaking the common sense not of a strangers, but of his own plain Epistle? And what can be imagined more plain, than that he hath studiously endeavoured to impose this mistake on others, if he have not really imposed it on himself, which will be believed with most charity to the designer.  
4. But that he may indeed prove, that the Doctors wits were not well awake, he lays to my charge, that I neither go about to grant or deny the invalidity of those pretended excuses, which only was to be done] To which I have already answered, that contumelies being proved exterminating sins, 'twas evident none of those pretended motives of them, could be imagined to have any force to justify them, why then should I grant, or deny the invalidity of these, when upon the grounds promised, all were indifferently invalidated? When then in great vehemence he appeals to my conscience and reason, whether my answer taken from Christs rule of bearing of injuries, be any thing to this question, whether the sweetness of the breath justify the affront of spitting in ones face, or, civil language sufficiently excuse pernicious Doctrine.] I answer him again, that neither of these were questions between him and me, or his Reader, but this only instead of them, whether rude blows were a suitable return to a civil adversary, nay even to an uncivil, according to the law of Christ? And I am sure my answer( and he cannot doubt it) was pertinent, and more than home to that question. This manner of dealing I desire may be entred into S. W's character.  
5. The answer to his second question, he saith, is yet more pleasant, for instead of telling whether swearing demurely be any excuse for perjury, so as to secure it from the punishment or treaty which otherwise might justly be given it, he tells us, saith he, in good sober sadness, that a man may use all lawful means to defend his estate, and discover perjury, and blames me for accusing him of pe●ju●ious tampering— as super-adding to the former ●rror, that I mistake the comparison for the thing that it is brought to resemb●e To the substantial part of this charge, the same account belongs, which was given to the former. That the question betwixt us, was not whether civility could excuse from justice, but whether it ought not to secure from rudeness; and so proportionably, not whether the demureness of the swearing or forswearing, could secure the perju●ious from any just returns, but whether so great a supposed crime, as perjury, would justify the rude blows, or twitchings by the beard, declamation, or satire; Of these only he knows the question was, and the Readers supposed objection, to which he undertook to give satisfaction by this other double question, what return soever should be made to it; To which therefore I was so to accommodate answer, that it might appear, whether he in his supposed rude blows were innocent, or no, and that he was not, did irrefragably appear by these two steps, 1. That as all lawful means might be used to discover perjury, and defend the estate, so unlawful might not, and the rude blows were of that number( the latter part of which being that, whereon the weight of the answer lay, he hath wholly omitted in his recitation, with what fairness, let him now judge.) 2. That this of demure perjury was far from the case of S. W's adversary( whose civility was all that was supposed in the objection) and who was as free from that, or any thing proportionable to that, as from Necromancy or sacrificing to Idols. And then what answer could be more pertinent, and home to the purpose, then this, that his plea for rude blows, depending on the concession or supposition of two things, 1. That the adversary was guilty of perjury, or the like. 2. That rude blows were a justifiable return to that, neither of these had any degree of truth in them. How this, that was thus plain, made a shift to be disguised, I leave the Reader to consider, and account with S. W. for it.  
6. And when for the inflaming of the bill, he adds, that I mistook the similitude for the thing it is brought to resemble. I wonder how he came to be so far of my counsel; If I repeated the words, which he spake, and made answer in the same Dialect, and there was an allegory in his words, it is strange I may not be allowed to have had the same in mine; Is my keeping close to his words, an evidence that I forsook his sense? If it be not, I am sure he hath no other from which to infer it. Nay, is it not yet more evident, that I began that period( now accused of this error) thus, 'tis certain and visible that as the defending the Church of England from schism, bears no proportion to the ruining S. W's estate, so neither is there any oath incumbent on us— and pursue it in like manner, that his style, which was robust in the mention of perjury, becomes much fainter when he comes to the {αβγδ}— Now if I had mistaken the similitude, for the thing it was brought to resemble, how could I mention proportion, and {αβγδ}? Doth not proportion] expressly signify the comparison, and though {αβγδ} be a Greek word, to which S. W. hath a picque, yet sure it is, in plain English, the second part of a comparison, or the thing resembled by it, and having noted it twice in so few lines, why must I be obliged to note it a third time, to praeclude, what I had not the sagacity to foresee, S. W's discovering of my error? Let the Reader now advice, whether it were any great debasement to S. W. to be set to pick thrumsends out of over-worn garments( as he is pleased to style his examining of testimonies produced out of Scripture and Fathers) who when he is not so employed, 
P. 18.  sets himself to the picking of holes, where his fingers meet not with the least temptations.  
7. Of the same thread exactly is the next, that follows, and is, saith he, greater than all the rest, that when he made it his only plea to the Reader for some blows— that our controversy was about things concerning mans eternal salvation, and therefore the Reader knowing that he( as all catholics) hold their Faith certain, he had no reason to expect that S. W. should favour an opponent in an all of such a nature, as is publicly harmful to mens souls, yet the Doctor takes no notice of this his plea.] But I answer, 1. That I did take notice of it, and assured him that I took it for a plain begging the question, to suppose that guilt which he was to prove, to assume so early, what he must, but hath not yet so much as attempted to demonstrate. 2. That if I had not taken notice of it, I had not in the least offended, as long as I had proved that Contumelies in a Controvertist were simply unlawful, for then no supposed truth, or weight of the cause could justify them. The more Christian and important the cause were, the more it should confine itself to the use of means exactly Christian, and Contumelies were not such, and of these only the controversy was, though he now softens the matter, and asks whether he should favour an opponent in an act of such a nature, and that he would have little contention with me, were the difference in things of less concernment than eternity. But sure, 'twas not his favour was courted, nor his not contending, nor any thing expected of him, in return to civility, but what was ever under obligation of strict Christian duty to those who are uncivil, and if without all temptation he will break through those rational, as well as religious ties, and pretend piety for doing so, and care of souls, and challenge me of wilful mistakes, for not attending to his pleas, when he thus forsaketh his question, and substitutes another, which was never controverted, I foresee not, when I shall attain to any ordinary degree of his favour.  
8. So when he saith, I transfer the matter from the public injury to mens Souls, to the case of private injury, and then asks, Whether if a man be certainly held to have ruined some Souls eternally, Christ bids him let him ruin more?] He is doubly mistaken; for 1. I only shewed from Christs word, that even Injuries are not to be repaid with Injuries, much less Civility with Contumelies, and this must hold in the most public Concernment, as well as in the most private, unless Contumely be proved to be in the number of those things, that are allowed in Gods Cause, or in the cause of Souls, though not in mans cause, or the matters of his Body and Estate; which as it is most untrue, so 'tis not here pretended to be proved to have truth in it. 2. I do not endeavour to persuade him, that he that can hinder that which he deems the ruining of any Soul, shall be blameless in permitting it, or that Christs precept, of turning the other Cheek belongs to him; but 1. That unlawful means are not to be used for the most glorious end, and Contumely is such: And 2. That it hath no propriety to the pretended end, being but the Weapons of those that are desperately worsted, and not rationably supposable to be made use of by any other. One of their own 
D. Lauroy de Bull Sab. Johan. XXII. p. 127.  Sorbon Doctors, formerly mentioned, in his dispute with the Carmelites, about a supposititious Bull, gives for the seventeenth, or last reason to prove it such, the Contumeliosus scribendi modus, that the Advocates of the Bull used against their Adversaries, when they wanted Arguments substituting reproaches; concluding in those words, which may be competent to conclude this matter. Quis autem nescit cordatos& cruditos viros in ea versari sententia, ut omnino putent calumnias argumentum esse desperatae causa, ac perditae quam certissimum? Calumniae siquidem arma sunt eorum qui vincuntur. The Argument appeared to him of so much force, that he makes use of it again on a like occasion, and in the same words, de Bull. Alexandri, V. c. XII. Undecima suppositionis ratio ex contumelioso scribendi modo. And again, de Bull. Clem. VII. c. 3. Id est primo manifestum ex contumeliis, quae bonarum rationum vices obeunt. His very first reason, and that sufficient to manifest the matter in hand, he takes from the Disputers Contumelies, which supply the place of good reasons. And once more de Bull. Alex. V. c. XIII. Ad convincendam fraudem accedunt probra& maledicta, quibus Cheronius& Aquinas enervia responsa,& aridas emaciatasque rationes contegunt, ac quoddle saginant; sperant fore, ut sic been curata responsionum& rationum suarum prima cutis tentura sit lectorum oculos,& impeditura, ne in ipsam saniem earum& vitium penetrare possent. I leave S. W. to english it, and observe that it is not an heterodoxe-protestant-doctrine, this, to think that Contumely is not necessary to a Controvertist. What then shall be said of( that Shepherd) that care of Souls, which by its own ill managery tends so regularly to the betraying of them, and interpretatively joins with the deemed Wolf against the Sheep.  
9. Nec dum finitus- My weaknesses are not yet at an end, I said, that if he mark it, his Style that was robust in the mention of perjury, is grown much fainter, when he comes to the {αβγδ}, pre●… nds to no more than perverse meaning and abusive treating matters of Religion. And this is heavily charged upon me that I make account that abusesive treating matters of Religion, which is able to plunge millions of Souls into eternal damnation, is of less moment then perjury against ones temporal estate.] But I answer, that the phrase against ones temporal estate is here put in by S. W. above what my words yielded him. 'tis evident the Comparison I observed, was betwixt Perjury, on one side, and perverse meaning and abusive treating on the other side, yet neither simply considered, but supposing the matter, viz. Matters of Religion, referred to, both in the comparison and the thing signified, to be the same. This I was to suppose in all Justice to his words, who used that mention of Perjury, as a resemblance,( and even now rebuked me, when he conceived I had not so understood it) and then could not confine it to his temporal Estate,( as now to found his rebuk he hath chosen to do) because on that he could not think my Tract of schism had any influence, but imdefinitely mentioned ruining their Estate by Perjury; where I supposed there was a spiritual as well as temporal estate, and accordingly( 'tis visible p. 7.) accommodated my answer, in relation whether to his earthly or heavenly possessions Thus hard is it to forestall S. W's severities, when one while I am accused for not taking notice of his similitude, and after when I do take notice of it, and ground my answer upon it, I am then fetched back to the letter, as if it had not been a similitude, and rebuked for my weakness in that also. But this artifice( by the interposition of [ temporal] both to mine, and his own words) being now discovered, I appeal to him, whether it be not a growing fainter, when his style that began big, with ruining by perjury, and, if it observed decorum, ought to be answered by somewhat as high and criminous as perjury, and as noxious to the souls, as that which ruins the temporal estate, is to that, is yet dwindled into perverse meaning, which is not so much as perverse speaking( no man being able to affirm of anothers meaning, which is not expressed) when yet perverse speaking is not near so much as ruining by perjury, and into abusive treating, which again supposing the matter the same( as it is manifest I supposed) is much less than perjurious ruining.  
10. Having triumphed over this piece of conquered air of his own creating, he asks very demurely if this Doctor be fit to have the charge of souls, who professes to set more by his temporal, than their eternal felicity?] And I as seriously demand, whether any the least heed be due to the observations of one, that can thus put words in his adversaries mouth, and then accuse him for the ill consequences of them, which if he hath so little charity to heretics, as to believe him guilty of, he will hardly have so mean an opinion of his skill, as to expect he should profess it, if he were guilty. 'tis not long since I was rebuked, 
P. 28.  for professing an earnest desire to speak the full truth of God, and then that was an indication of Pharisaical hypocrisy, and now I am brought on the Stage, without any disguise( and so my hypocrisy is dropped off) supposed to make open profession of profaneness, and no crimes fit enough for me, but those which are unreconcilable with one another, so that I shall have the honour to be a miracle of something; How much more then will be owing to S. W. who hath the creative power to make me so?  
11. The Reader will be glad of the news, that we are now coming to the last part in his charge in this matter. And what is that? That I complain he begs the question to suppose that guilt which he was to prove, to assume so early in the Epistle to the Reader what he must( but hath not yet so much as attempted to) demonstrate. Where first he will note, that Doctor H. would have men believe that he made account that the Epistle to the Reader is to be writ by the Author before he writes the Book, next that he pretends that S. W. who was to answer his book, ought to prove and demonstrate, i.e. oppose and object, which are, saith he, two very good counterfeited and affencted mistakes] And granting that they are so, my only question is, who 'tis to whom the reward of them is due, to me, who only supposed that an Epistle was prefixed before the book, and would first be red, though written last, and could not desire to appear to think it written before the book, when in my whole discourse I supposed it to be an apology for the errors of the book, or, to him that feigns me thus to mistake, when he could not but see I did not, and had no temptation to affix it on me, but that I said he begged the question in it, and assumed what he had not yet in that Epistle attempted to demonstrate, which whensoever 'tis done, be it before, or after the writing of the book, is the guilt of that Elench, and must needs be so, unless being not attempted to be demonstrated in the Epistle, it were more than attempted in the book, which I shall still avouch, and in due time make apparent, that it was not.  
12. His other note, or branch of charge is more notable, making it an error in me, to pretend that he who was to answer, ought to prove, &c. But I hope the Reader may be allowed to remember, what it was that I thought him bound to prove, even nothing else, but his charge of falsifying, which I deemed the lowest, which could bear any proportion with that of ruining his estate by perjury. Of this 'tis evident I spake, when I said, I trust it shall appear, that there is not one single falsity in that whole tract of schism, and his supposing the contrary was the only petitio principii, which there I charged on him. And if now it be the privilege of an answerer, that he may charge of falsifying, without proof of his charge, and may not have his charge denied, or the proofs of it required,( which is all that is meant by telling him, he begs the question) and this upon the prerogative of an answerer, and because to prove or demonstrate is to oppose and object, then I see there be other g●ounds to authorize Calumnies, and Contumelies, beside that of the deemed certainty of his faith, and he might but have said he was the answerer, and superseded all this large trouble of any farther justification.  
13. From these thus specified weaknesses, the Reader is advised to consider what a pitiful spectacle the Doctor would prove, if S. W. were but at leisure to pursue him.] And I believe so too, for it cannot but extort some degree of compassion, to see any man set to so sad a task, of wiping off all those phasmes of guilt, which S. W's representations can fix on him. By this I suppose the Reader sees, what he is to look for, and that the watery colours which are said to be in the Rainbow, are only in S. W's eye, and produced by it. And so we are at an end of his defence of the blows, which the Reader, he knew, would judge too rude, till he had timely met, and disabused him; with what rigorous evidences, he will now discern, better than through S. W's optic.  
14. What he adds, in conclusion of his fourth Section, concerning my opinion of the affinity betwixt the Epistle of the catholic Gentleman and the first part of schism disarmed, I shall no farther reply to, than that I was cautious to set this down, as my opinion only, wherein as I may be mistaken, so I may still be in the right, notwithstanding the argument drawn from the style, which is not the same in a letter, and in a Discourse, in hast, and on greater deliberation, when the Author desires to disguise, and when to discover himself. In either of these cases, more probable judgements are made by lesser characters, which are not so sure to be guarded by the disguiser, as are those, which he knows are most visible. But I know such judgements to be deceivable, and the sagacity that Caesar had in discerning any period of Ciceroes, to have been far greater, and more unerring, than I ever aspire to have of S. W's lines, and that upon many reasons of difference. If I shall now upon his bare word change my mind, and persuade myself that the Author of that Epistle was one of my old acquaintance, I am sure I shall be pressed with the same difficulty, not discerning it by the style to be penned by any such, and having other arguments of so much more force to the contrary, that unless Mr. Cressy, which really is one of mine old acquaintance, tell me he was the Author of that letter, or some other, whom my memory hath quiter lost, remind me that he was of my old acquaintance, it will still be my wisest course to advice of it, and remember how extrinsical to the arguments, and how impertinent it is, who is the penner, or who the suggester of them.  
14. But ere this Section concludes, I must once more be rebuked, for styling my answer to Sch. disarmed an Appendix to the Reply to the catholic Gentleman, and a gleaning after the rak, when the former consisted of 303. pages, and the latter but of 165. as if husbandmen, saith he, used to rak armfulls, and leave cartload to be gleaned.] But 1. I was n●t obliged to be a good husband-man by that or any equal necessity, which is affirmed to ly on S. W. to render all that his adversary saith, nonsensical. 2. My ill husbandry was not yet of that degree, as to qualify it for his rebuk, who at the same time made the proportion of 165. to 303. to be parallel to the proportion of armfulls to cartload, which concludes less than two armfulls to make a cart-load. 3. I now see it was not really so great, nor so pleasant an error( which p. 31. was in me accused as such) to mistake the comparison or similitude for the thing it is brought to resemble, or else 2. that S. W. is a mortal, and subject to error, like other men, or 3. that some kind of creatures are refreshed with those plunges in the water, which would drown others; for 'tis certain, had not S. W. here thus mistaken, he might well have understood, that I only meant by the similitude of gleaning, to express my care( in the second Answer, that to Sch. Disarmed) to gather up, and make returns, to all, were it much, or little, which I had not taken notice of in the Reply to the catholic Gentleman. And yet 4. if he review that third Section of mine, to which he makes this answer, he shall find that it was but the first part of schism disarmed, which I thought penned by the same hand, that wrote that catholic Gentlemans letter, and consequently that my farther answer to that part, was it, which would have but the nature of an appendage, and so it had, being evidently much shorter, than the former reply, amounting to no more but 74. pages, which notwithstanding, there remained still the two other parts, and those might be allowed to have many fresh passages, the answers to which might, with S. W's good leave, be bound up with that Appendix.  
15. And yet there are two things more to be charged on me, 1. That I said he had time to have taken notice of my Reply to the catholic Gentleman, 2. that I apprehended not all truth, because not that of his occasions.] I answer, 1. That if at the Printing of schism disarmed, he had not seen, or heard of my Reply to that letter, it must be through some circumstances, which I could not then, nor can now after his admonition app●ehend. For wherever he were, the Reply might reach him as well as the Original Tract of schism. 2. I might also say with perfect truth, that he had time to take notice of it, it being competently certain, that the space of many moneths, which intervened between the one and the other is called time, and that that was afforded him, as well as any other; so that these two rebukes are of the strain of the many foregoing: Yet if in this Dispatch of his he shall be found to have made full returns to that whole Reply, the matter is not great; if he shall not,( as certainly I may have his leave to assume he hath not, having not offered any syllable to the latter half of it) then I have, under his hand here, his leave to conclude, that he deems it not likely to endamage those dear souls of his brethren; And so all may be safely believed, which he hath not attempted to refute, and that will prove a far greatest part of that book; Which is all I have need to say to these concluding charges. It is now somewhat more then time that I should set a period to this Theme and Chapter, whose length may yet usefully serve the Reader, and help him to some variety of experiments concerning S. W's manner of managing Controversies, over and above the satisfying of the main engagement,( the first perhaps that was ever solemnly written on the subject) examining his plea for Contumelies.    

CHAP. II. A view of S. W. his eight first Grounds.  

SECT. I.  
S. W's diversion. His grounds generally reflected on, and therein the state of our controversy. Demonstration promised. His pretention. Ours. The necessary credenda, or whole Faith stated from Athanasius, from the grand design of the Gospel, consent of all the Apostles. The Ephesine Canon, Testimony of cyril, Gregory, the council of Florence, Jeremias, Socolovius, the council of Trent. The second Nicene council, of the six foregoing. Bellarmine and the Bishop of Triers catechism. The pretended self-evidence of S. W's Grounds.  
1. THE Scene is now altered, and S. W. from an Advocate of Contumely, having a while retired, comes out in a more venerable shape or dress, as an Invincible Propugner of his Infallible Church, and speedy Dispatcher of schism, and of all Protestants under that title. But before he thinks fit to enter the lists, to set close to the one proper task, of frustrating all my attempts of Reply to his former Answers in schism disarmed, he is resolved( as 

In the first VI. Chap. of Answer to the L. Falkland of Infallib.  
In the first encounter of the Apol. for Trad. in Schism disarmed. Par. II. Sect. 10. and 11.   elsewhere the manner is, and, it seems, it is the most useful course in their esteem, else it would not be so constantly resorted to) to begin with a Diversion of some length, erecting a fabrcik of his own, therein to entrench, and fortify himself, but more distinctly designed to praepossesse his Readers with some Grounds( summed up in possession, and Tradition of the present Roman Church) which when they have taken up, on trust, from him, and so imbibed no less that the very quintessence and Elixir of all Rushworths Dialogues, he doubts not but they will be fit to give up their names with him, in perfect resignation to the dictates of the Apologist, and then I confess I am not likely to find any eminent favour from them.  
2. Should I now refuse or omit to take notice of this counter-work, he would easily be tempted to believe himself, and perhaps to persuade some others, that 'twere another invincible piece, and withall, out of this Trojane horse once admitted, find no difficulty at every turn to draw out Instruments for his advantage both of defence and battery, which they that had entertained his grounds, would not know how to resist: On the other side, if I should be thus lead out of the way, or but stop, to make this halt at the entrance, and treat with him abou●… these his grounds, it must, I see, be a business of some length( such is the ploughing up of foundations) which yet with the Readers leave, I shall not avert or decline, hoping, that that same advantages which he projected to himself from some mens embracing of his grounds, receiving his tinctures, may be really acquired to others, by discerning the faintness and fadingnesse of his best colours, the feebleness and unconcludency of the mediums, whereby he hath recommended them.  
3. In order whereunto, if in imitation of him, I should set out with another as large a digression, draw out also my parallel lines, and pitch my camp over against his, and to his strong hold of Possession and Tradition( meaning by the latter, that which is retrograde, from this present age, by way of ascent, to the foregoing, and so back to the Apostles, which for distinction sake, I shall know, by the style of Tradition reversed) oppose ours of Scripture, and Tradition in the vulgar notion, progressive, and descending from the Apostles to their successors, and from them to us; though I doubt not, the parties thus entrenched would be so opposite, and withall so near, as to denounce wrath, and war, articulately and audibly, the one to the other, yet it will be impossible( by the nature, and the known demonstration of parallel lines) that they should ever meet, to try out the controversy, by entering the lists, and combating the one with the other; I shall therefore no farther transcribe S. W's method of laying foundations, than to point out the clear and brief state of both our pretensions, which lies thus.  
4. On the one side, S. W. puts in his claim, fetched from a pretended possessi●n, and the Tradition of the present Roman Church 〈…〉 rom father to son, upon which he undertakes to conclude, 1. The right of the Papacy to supreme universal Monarchy, 2. The Infallibility and Apostolicaln●sse of every Article of the modern Roman Faith, and both these with that irrefragable evidence of conviction, that belongs to grounds: So that if in this his whole Scheme there shall appear to be any one line, which neither carries this evidence with it in its own terms( as he most commonly pretends) nor receives it immediately from S. W's assistance, the whole fabric must necessary fail, a demonstration( less than which he pretends not) being made up of nothing, that is either untrue, or only probable, but all uniform, and like itself, evident, convincing, and demonstrative, Mr. White having with great truth assured us of probable arguments, that there is 
Apol. p. 117.  nothing more certain than that they have no truth, i.e. no truth of an argument, no force of concluding in them; and grounds, in the vulgar notion of grounds, being equivalent with principles, of which there can be no dispute, or doubt of the truth of them.  
5. This then being the state of S. W's pretensions on one side, his Protestant Adversary on the other side, not only pretends, but( for his security) is by consent of parties acknowledged to have all the same grounds of assurance for all the parts, and for the entire body of his Faith( i.e. for all that he believes to be necessary to be believed for his souls health) which S. W. pretends to for his, viz Possession and Tradition, yea and both in S. W's notion of them, 1. Present acknowledged( which is more than pretended, but not acknowledged) Possession, and 2. Tradition Oral, and that of the present Church, and of all the Churches of the Roman Communion, and that as received from our immediate ancestors, as received from theirs, and so up to the Apostles, and not only thus much( which is all that S. W's pretensions really amount to) but much more than this.  
6. First the like acknowledged( and not only pretended, or by questionable deduction inferred) Possession through all ages of the church: This is apparent, and cannot be denied of the creed, and that evidently is the entire body of our Faith.  
7. Secondly, Tradition Oral, truly and unquestionably universal, both for time and place, of the East, as well as West, of the Greek, as well as the latin Church, and that of all ages, including the Apostles, not any one, or more, but all the Apostles, and their immediate successors in the Churches of their plantations. That I add [ all, and not only one or more, Apostles] is in compliance with S. W's good friend Mr. White, who having defined Tradition by delivery of Christs Doctrine, and expressed his notion of that phrase, for 
Apol. p. 7.  that which was generally preached by the Apostles, doth after pronounce of a Tradition affirmed by St. Augustine( yea and Pope Innocentius) to be Apostolical( communicating of Infants) that it was so indeed, we, saith he, are of his mind, but with this qualification, it was a Tradition begun by some Apostles, not all, in some Countreys not all, in some circumstances not all, and on this one account concludes, that as it was no superstition to use it, so it was no sacrilege to leave it off, which reasoning if it have any force in it( as with S. W. I shall presume it must) it will then conclude, first that no Tradition is sufficiently testified to be( not only free from superstition, but withall) obligingly Apostolical, and so as it may not without sacrilege be left off, but what is testified to come from more than some, even from all the Apostles, and therefore 2. that nothing but the creed is thus obliging, even by S. W's own rule, that of the Oral Tradition from Father to son, as delivered generally, and not only from one, or some, but from all the Apostles.  
8. Thirdly, the written word of God, which Vincentius the great acknowledged assertor of catholic Tradition against heresy, affirms to be the 
Duplici modo munire fidem, primò scilicet divinae legis authoritate— contr. Haeres. c. 1.  prime, if not 
Quascunque antiquiores vel Schismatum vel haereseon profanitates nullo modo nos oportet convinoere, nisi aut solâ, si opus est, Scripturarum authoritate— Ibid c 39.  only way of propugning the Faith, as that which was by the Apostles( for the confirming at least of their faith, to whom they wrote, and for the instructing of others) delivered to the Churches, and which is by 
De Verbo Dei, l. 1. c. 2.  Bellarmine himself acknowledged to be the most certain and most safe rule of believing, and by Roffensis, 
Cont. Luther. Art. 37. de purge. ( even when it was least his interest, in his dispute of Purgatory) Conclave quoddam omnium veritatum quae Christianis scitu necessariae sunt a certain repository of all verities which are necessary to be known by Christians.  
9. Fourthly, the writings( which are somewhat more steady and 
{αβγδ}, Pallad. Laus. Hist. p. 966. B.  creditable, than the bare Oral Traditions) of Apostolical men, Fathers and general councils, which not only assure us by way of 
Litera sunt una custodia fidelis memoriae rerum gestarum, Liv. l. 1.  unquestionable testification, that all these Articles of Faith, which we receive, were by Christ, and not one but all his Apostles, orally delivered, but also teach us, 1. That they were delivered as their depositum, carefully to be kept, and believed, i e. as the Faith of the Christian Church, and foundation of special efficacy for the planting of Christian life in the world: and( not only so, but) 2. as the whole Faith, or doctrine thus designed, entire, and wanting nothing, vera& unica Christiana fides, the true and only Christian Faith, say the Greeks in their censure of the Germans, Ch. 2. and to which( consequently) no new Article might lawfully, or reasonably be added, Regula fidei una, sola, immobilis,& irreformabilis, the one sole, unmovable, unreformable rule of Faith, saith 
De Veland. Virg. c. 1.  Tertullian of the creed, the repository of these; which two last particulars being the things principally considerable, on which as I expect, so I desire the Reader would lay the greatest weight, and of which when( formerly, in the 
Ch. VIII.§. 5.  Tract of schism) I made my profession, the catholic Gentleman  told me, that truly he knew not what a catholic professed more, intimating his wish, that I would speak it aloud, and S. W. Schis. disarmed, p. 233. resolved, that I was become a plain Papist, I shall therefore be as pliable as they can wish, and with some advantage repeat the grounds here, on which I have 
Reply, p. 136.  elsewhere established them, and so speak out as distinctly, and aloud, as is possible.  
10. First, that in St. Athanasius his judgement, those heads,( wherein we profess the Faith to be compleared) are {αβγδ} sufficient in themselves( without any additions) {αβγδ}, for the averting of all impiety( and so of all heresy, if heresy be any sort of impiety) and for the establishing of piety( that again by the force of indefinites, and by the laws of opposition, must be of all piety) in the Church.  
11. And if Athanasius in this said true, or if we have a far greater testimony of it, than the affirmation of any one or more Fathers of the Church, even the one grand ruling design of the whole Gospel, the one end and aim of all divine revelations, and institutions, as of the very death of Christ, to purchase to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works, to advance our obedience to his precepts, and in order to this one end, the unerring because divinely directed judgement of the Apostles themselves, who being by Christ sent out as his great Commissioners, particularly entrusted, and instructed for this purpose, to call home sinners to repentance, and convert a world of Jewish and Heathen unbelievers to the Christian faith and obedience, did questionless know what was generally useful or necessary to this design, and cannot be supposed to have been deficient in necessaries, and yet by joint consent, all and every of them contented themselves with those few heads, which are summed up in their symbol; If, I say, this be thus far unquestionable, the consequence must needs be so also, that either the Christian Doctors have now somewhat else in their design, than that one great end of their preaching proposed by Christ, the Reformation of Lives, that they have indeed( as Spectators are tempted to believe) converted their power and office, designed for ends purely divine, into an engine of state( the greatest pollution, violation, and sacrilege imaginable) or else have received revelation of some new expedients toward that end, above what the Apostles thought such, in order to that same design,( the latter of which can as little be pretended, as the former will be owned by any sober man) or else it may be irrefragably concluded against them, that they ought to avoid all new definitions, and still allow the Apostles creed to contain a complete Catalogue of Fundamentals; all other Doctrines, how true or probable soever, being praejudged from being Articles of the Christian Faith, or tesserae of Communion; the Peace and charity and unity of all Christians, which eminently depends on this, being much more prizeable, than the uniform profession of any, or all those other doctrines, which have either none, or but an accidental, or questionable influence on good life( the one end of Christs coming into the world) and the imposing of which unnecessarily, is experimented to be the occasion, if not the cause of the many breaches in christendom, of the lessening of that reputation, and inward esteem which was wont to attend the institutions, and Ministers of Christ, of the scandalous neglect of the one great necessary, and so the most direct contribution of strengths and aids to the subtlest and most vigilant and implacable enemy of our souls; For if by this, or any other arts of diversion( such certainly are passionate, and eternal disputes about things not necessary) he can either wholly wear out, or but abate the edge of our zeal to that, which is indispensably our duty, and is of such weight and fruit, and obligation to all, as to exact and deserve our utmost diligence, the united vigour of all our whole heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and then convert those weapons to the disquieting at least, if not wounding and destroying one another, which are all little enough for the guarding ourselves from his enterprises, 'tis easy to divine, if we did not already daily discern, the enlarging of Satans, and the too scandalous decay of Christs kingdom( that not in word, but in power) in the hearts and lives of the far greatest number of Christians.  
12. Secondly, that when this Faith {αβγδ} delivered once, or at once, was by the council of Nice, and Constantinople, not enlarged in any new article, but only somewhat explained, on occasion of heretical disturbers of this depositum, the great and general Council of 
Can. 7. {αβγδ}—  Ephesus, which came after that of Nice 106. years, solemnly decreed, and enacted, what was in itself thus highly reasonable, and what( if we may believe the 
Stanisl. Socol. Ann. in Cens. Or. c. 1.  Romanists citation out of an Epistle of Liberius the Pope to St. Athanasius) the Nicene council itself had before determined in the same words, though we find it not in the Acts of that council, that it should not be lawful for any man to produce, or writ, or compose any other Faith, beside that which was defined by those Nicene Fathers, and that they that should dare to compose or offer any such to any, that would from gentilism, judaism, or whatsoever heresy, convert to the acknowledgement of the t●uoh, if they were Bishops( such sure is the Pope) should be deposed, if Lay-men( such for ought I know is S W.) anathematized.  
13. This is abundantly confirmed to us by cyril of Jerusalem 
Edit. morel. p. 115. 117. ( who flourished between the sitting of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan council, and accordingly the creed which in the Barocian Manuscript is set down {αβγδ}. E. concludes at {αβγδ}, in the Holy Ghost, as at Nice it did) who commands his Catechumenus to receive and keep the Faith, and not only so, but {αβγδ} the Barocian Copy leaves out {αβγδ}) {αβγδ}, that only Faith which hath been delivered thee by the Church, that which is fenced or fortified from all the Scripture, adding that by way of provision for unlearned and slothful persons, that could not, or were not at leisure to red the Scriptures, {αβγδ}, the whole Doctrine of the Faith was comprehended in a few lines, which they were therefore {αβγδ}, to engrave in their heart, their memory( so the Barocian Copy reads it intelligibly, {αβγδ}) this they were, saith he, to have for their {αβγδ}, viaticum all the time of their lives, {αβγδ}, and never to take any other beside this, no not if he himself should change his mind, and contradict what he now said, applying that of St. Paul that if an Angel from heaven shall {αβγδ}, preach to them any Gospel beside what they have now received, let him be anathema, and again, that the Articles of Faith were not composed, as it pleased men, {αβγδ}, but the chiefest being collected out of all the Scripture completed the Doctrine of Faith, and this Faith in few words, {αβγδ}, involved as in its bosom all the knowledge of piety in the old and new Testament. And then requiring them to look, and hold fast the Traditions, which they then received and writ them as on 
{αβγδ}.  the plate of their hearts, the Barocian Copy immediately adds( to assure us what Traditions these were) {αβγδ}— We believe in one God, and so on to the end of the Nicene creed, and this as the depositum and Tradition, which must be kept {αβγδ}, unspotted unto the day of Jesus Christ.  
14. To which in respect to the Romanist, I add the express ground, whereupon Pope Gregory the first, exalted the four first General councils so high, as to 
Sicut sancti Evangelii quatuor l bios, sic quatuor Concilia suscipere& venerari me fateor, Nicenum scilicet— l. 1. Regest. Ep. 24.  profess of them, that he received and reverenced them as the ●he four Books of the Holy Gospel, 
Quia in his velut in quadrato lapide sancta fidei structura consurgit,& cujuslibet vitae& actionis norma consistit. Ibid.  because saith he, on these, as on a square ston, the structure of the Holy Faith riseth, and the rule of every life and action consists.  
15. Thirdly, that when the authority of that Ephesine Canon was by the Greeks pressed to the latins, in the council of Florence, with this weight set on it, that 
{αβγδ}. Conc. Tom. VII. p. 642.  no man will charge the Faith( there spoken of) with imperfection, unless he be mad, all the answer the latins there give, is no more but this, that the Canon forbade not 
{αβγδ}, p. 644. B.  another exposition agreeable to the truth in that creed, confessing it did forbid {αβγδ}, a difference and contrariety, and so difference, as well as contrariety, and even for the bare explication, they esteemed not that lawful for any to attempt, but the Fathers convened in ecumenical councils. And this they there cited from 
2a 2ae qu. 1. art. 10.  Aquinas, adding their sense of his words, that they belonged to, and held of 
{αβγδ}, p. 641. D.  any creed whatsoever, which was common to the whole Church. And again, they there avouch it from the Epistle of Pope celestine to Nestorius, that 
{αβγδ}, p. 644. D.  the faith delivered by the Apostles requires neither addition nor diminution  
16. So when the Eastern Church in their Censure written to the Germans, set down the 
Cens. Or. c. 1.  Constantinopolitan creed, as that treasure of the true uncorrupted Faith, sacredly sealed by the Holy Gh●st, that nothing should be taken from it, nothing alien, or adulterine added to it, as that divine, most holy, perfect, and universal Tessera of the Christian people diffused over all t●e world, the common Confession of all the Holy Fathers, the most certain boundary of the whole Christian Faith— the 
Stan. Socol. ad Greg. XIII. pontiff.  Romanist publisher, though, considering the Western interest in the point of Filioque, he think himself obliged to show that this Ephesine Canon excluded not such interpretations as that( 
P. 17.  adding that it was made by the Roman Synod assembled by Damasus at the very time of the Constantinopolitane councils sitting, and of that Popes confirming that council) yet he doubts not but it hath force against all that shall 
P. 22.  aliam fidem conscribere, writ any other faith, instancing in our latter unhappy age, and not only in some followers of the ancient heretics, but in the lutherans and Calvinists, who, saith he, do not blushy to compose another Faith: when yet he knows they teach nothing repugnant to the Nicene; which therefore infers his confession, that all additions( not only contrarieties) to the Nicene rule of Faith, are contrary to the Ephesine Canon. Nay the council of Trent itself hath not denied to give us its suffrage; for 
Sess. 3.  being willing so far to transcribe the ancient copies, as to begin with the creed, they give it the title of Scutum fidei in quo possunt omnia tela nequissimi ignea extinguere; the shield of faith by which they may extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. 
Ibid.  And again, that the more sacred councils were wont to set this up in the beginning of their Actions, Scutum contra omnes Haereses, a shield against all Heresies, quo solo aliquando& infidels ad fidem traxerunt, Haereticos expugnarunt,& fideles confirmarunt, by which alone heretofore as they drew the Infidels to the Faith, and confirmed the faithful, so they overcame the heretics( which sure they could not, if those doctrines might pass for Heretical which were no way contrary to this Faith) and in brief, 
Ibid.  that it is fundamentum firmum ac unicum, the only, as well as firm foundation, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail, an argument that either Heresies are no parts of the interpretation of the Gates of hell, in Christs promise, or that there are none such, but which are contrary to the doctrine of the creed, against which( and which only) the promise is that they shall not prevail.  
17. Fourthly, that in the seventh council, the second of Nice, which hath full authority with a Romanist, speaking of the six councils foregoing, we have these words, 
Act. VI. Conc. Tom. V. p. 732 A. {αβγδ}.  They have confirmed and established all that from the first times have been delivered in the catholic Church, written and unwritten,( and yet I suppose it will easily appear to any that will look, that no one of those additionals, which are taken in by the Romanist, and denied by us; was so much as name, or any way confirmed in those six Counsels.)  
18. To all which may be annexed the plain words of Cardinal Bellarmines catechism, that 
Ample declare. of Chr. Doct. ch. 2.  in believing and professing these two mysteries( 1. the Trinity and Unity. 2. the Incarnation) 
P. 12.  we manifest ourselves distinct from all the false Sects of Gentiles, Turkes, Jews and heretics( and so from all the false Sects of heretics, as well as the other three) under these four names( as soon 
P. 14.  after he declares) comprising all the enemies of the holy Church. Which renders it less necessary to have added in the last place, that the Catechism collected out of the Works of C●sterus, Petrus a Soto, &c. and published by the command of the Bishop of Triers, hath these words, 
Neque ulla unquam extitit Haeresis, quae non hoc Symbolo damnari potuerit. Resp. ad 2. qu.  There was never any heresy which might not be condemned by the Apostles creed. Which resolutions so express of so considerable Romanists, would give us some ground of hopes, if we saw them not too largely and daily confuted, that we should not be heretics for this, which is the first, and signal part of our pretention, not admitting into our Creed any more then the Apostles, Fathers, and first councils have taught de fide, and recommended to the Church as such; which therefore by these precedents we desire may be judged of, in the first place.  
19. Secondly then, the Protestant which thus pretends, doth also solemnly oblige himself to stand to, and aclowledge the infallible truth of all, whatsoever shall be regularly deduced, and avouched from any, or all of these grounds of necessary belief.  
20. Thirdly, having gone thus far, he demandeth it, a●… part of Christs depositum to him( as to all) and every Christians debt of peace and charity to every Christian, that he may not be anathematized and exterminated, adjudged to the faggot, and to hell, for his not farther believing, what is not thu●… avouched to him, and which consequently he hath no solid unerrable ground, on which to believe it, and for whic●… the Romanist doth not pretend to offer him any but those, which in the very first proposal of the question he knows are no●… acknowledged( with what reason, he now sees) but renounce●… by him.  
21. Fourthly, he professeth his incapacity of apprehending, how, or that he should be obliged to affirm any thing as de fide, which on either of these grounds, common to him with all Christians( Scripture and Apostolical Tradition) he can find no cause to believe.  
22. And lastly, having been instructed and assured by Christ and his Apostles, that the condition of Evangelical obedience is not only an easy yoke, but a reasonable service, and that no man shall be required to do, what he cannot do, or believe what he hath no sufficient motive to believe, he hopes his mistake, if there should lurk any, will be pardonable, if having repentance for all his sins known and unknown, of wilfulness and weakness, he only refuse to profess, what he doth not believe, and cannot force, or incline his belief to the accepting of all the Roman Additionals, without some other and better grounds and motives, than that of their pretended possession, and infallibility of their Church, the former of which he believes to be a pretention without force and reality, and the latter he more disbelieves, and upon greater strength of evidence, than any of their particular doctrines, which yet he hath no least colour of motive to assent to, but what is fetched from those least credible( which is far from infallible) grounds.  
23. This then is the sum of that which comes to be debated betwixt S. W. and me at this time, Whether it be tole●ably reasonable on his part, what is by him, and whether sufficient to affix on us the guilt and condemnation of Schism, what is by us thus pretended. And herein I desire not to forestall or incline the Readers sentence, or to lay ambush for his favour by any circuit of words, or aid of Rhetorical exaggerations, but to leave him disengaged to pass it for himself, according as the demonstrative grounds, which S. W. promises him, and which alone by consent of parties deserve to be attended to, shall in the issue appear to be such, both in themselves, and in counterpoise with that, which we thus barely offer to him, as the true state of our pretention, without boasting either of the severity, or rigorousness of our demonstrations.  
24. Having thus prepared the field, set down the terms on which this debate is to be managed betwixt us, let us set forth to a view of those weighty grounds and deductions emergent thence, 
P. 36.  which S. W. thought fit( as he saith) to set down in most manifest and evident terms, from the bare position and explication of which( it seems they need nothing else, but as principles, will be granted, as soon as by explication they are rendered intelligible) he doubts not to gain so far upon the rational Reader( he then that will not thus be gained on, must, by his award, be content to lye down with the herd of irrationals) that he shall confess he sees the question truly stated( that I hope he doth, by what hath been already said) and not only so, but( he adds) according to plain reason( this the Author of Rushworths Dialogues calls the judgement of common sense) resolved also: which again assures us of S. W's opinion, and undertaking, that his Grounds are to every the plainest, if rational, man, evident, as principles, in themselves, and the undoubted parents of the deductions he hath brought from them. So 
P. 96.  elsewhere he saith of Grounds, that the nature of them is to entrench near on the first principles, and that their terms for the most part are unquestionably true; And that you may not conclude less from those fainter words [ near, and for the most part] hear the layer of grounds himself,† Mr. White, speaking of a Romanist, 
Dailles Arts Discov. p. 191.  He( but with a [ perhaps] which sure was not meant to signify, and so destroy the whole period) would have offered you choice either of faith or knowledge; produced in order to this as perfect demonstration●, as Aristotle is adored for, and towards that engaged you in the most evident director● of human life, and clearly evidenced by the principles of common sense, that if you refuse the authority of the Roman Church, you renounce all the certainties on which you build every serious action of your life, and in a word constrained you to deny or affirm somewhat that yourself in another case will confess a mere madness to deny or affirm.  
25. This then I desire may be taken notice of, concerning his Grounds in general, the irrefragable evidence which they undertake to bring with them: The Reader shall judge of their performance, by the more particular view of them.   

SECT. II.  
The first ground, examined. What meant by the Popes Authority. What acknowledgement it had before the E●tinguishing Act. The Judgement of the Universities( patriarchs and Primates all one in respect of power) of Erasmus. Three arguments proposed, to prove the non-acknowledgment. The first taken from the opinion of no power given by Christ to Peter over the rest of the Apostles, by Tu es Petrus, and Pasce oves. Lyra, Durandus à Sancto Porciano, Abulensis, Cusanus, Victoria. Adolphus and the Bishops of the Province of Colen. John of Antioch. Cusanus from Augustine. Bellarmines {αβγδ} derided at Trent, as new. The Bishop of Granada, and of Paris. Cusanus again, The second argument from the authority of councils above the Pope, unreconcilable with his Universal Pastorship from Christ. The number of great Authors for it. Of the then Church of England, of France, of germany, Pope martin the fifth. The Fathers of Basil. lo the tenth in the Lateran council. The quarrel wide, between jesuits and Sorbonists, as wide as between either of them and us. The Sorbonists concord. Gersons Tract. Bellarmines rejecting of his stating. Some Newtrals. Picus Mirandula. The third argument from the Supreme power of Princes, in opposition to the Pope. Proofs of it in England. Arguments from reason. The proof of his Ground reduced to Syllogism. The mayor examined. What force in the word Reformers, to prove S. W's demonstration. Assuming, no proof of acknowledgement. A Dilemna on supposition of Romes Reforming. The Mi●●r examined, the Greeks equal with us in denying the Supremacy. Gregory the ninth of the Greek Church of the fourth Century. Henry VIII. no Reformer. The propriety of that word for Doctrine, and Manners. Enormous encroachments invite opposition. lo the tenth the schismatic. The strange miscarriages of S. W's first ground, 1. in point of truth, as to the Conclusion, 2. of demonstrativeness, in both the Propositions.  
1. THe first then of these self-evident Grounds is this, That the first pretenders to reform in the point of the Popes authority in England, found England actually subject to that authority in Ecclesiastical matters.] And this, saith he, carries its evidence in its own terms, since they could not be truly said the first Reformers from it, unless before, that authority had been there acknowledged, for the word Reformation, which they pretend, argues that tenet was held there before.  
2. If the Reader shall here observe what is introduced with [ since] and [ for] the ordinary dialect of probations, he will indeed soon discern the self-evidence of this ground, as far as concerns S. W's persuasions of it, all the strength which he hath lent it, being but that which is proper to priciples, the proving the question by itself, or a demonstration, which is made up of thrice repeating the same thing in words lightly varied, using this his first ground, as Balak did Balaam, when he did not his business in one, removing him to another place of advantage, from the high places of Baal to Pisgah, and again from Pisgah to Peor, and then tis an ill-natured unimprovable ground, a very {αβγδ}, a reprobate soil, in the husbandmans style, if in none of the th●ice varied appearances, it will afford or yield what he would have it, become self evident, and demonstrative, to the bringing down curses upon Israel, anathemas on the poor Protestant.  
3. But to show that this great lustre is not in the object or medium, but only in S. W's optic nerve, or fancy. I shall briefly demand, what he means by[ the Popes, and that Authority] If only the Primacy and dignity of the Patriarch of the west, introduced by the Canons, or customs of the Church, or any other acquired, or assumed precarious and mutable authority, or power in some Ecclesiastical matters, depencing wholly on the concessions of Princes, and revocable at the pleasure of them, or their successors, I may safely grant the acknowledgednesse of that in England, at what time soever he shall dare the first pretending to reform in the point of the Popes authority, that yielding no advantage to S. W's pretensions, who( in his second ground) defines this authority to be that of the head of the universal Church, and( in his third) derived to the Pope as successor to St. Peter, and censures it in me for frivolous and impertinent to talk of the Kings power to charge Patriarchates, when, saith he, they are questioning an authority above patriarches, and pretended to be constituted by Christ himself; and again, as held then of Christs institution.  
4. If then( as must hence he assumed, and his second and third ensuing grounds express) he here means, 1. this supereminent transcendental, far more than Patriarchal power, as it is pretended to be constituted by Christ himself, and 2. the self evidence, that this was acknowledged in England, when the first pretenders to reform appeared, I shall then first consider the truth of what he here concludes,[ that the first pretenders to reform found England actually subject to it in Ecclesiastical matters] and again,[ that that authority was acknowledged, that tenet held there before( that must be immediately before) the first Reformers] And 2. I shall examine( what he so confidently pretends) the self-evidence of it.  
5. In examining the truth of his conclusion, I may first take notice of his interposing that restrictive phrase [ in Ecclesiastical matters] not that I have any dislike to his moderation therein, because I suppose he meant by interposing it to make a difference between the acknowledgement of the Popes supreme power over this Nation in Ecclesiastical, and in temporal matters, and that he was so possessed of the former, as he was not of the latter, which indeed very well agrees with what he adds of this power being constituted by Christ himself, by the line of St. Peter; for that must needs be confined to that sort of power which alone was given to St. Peter by Christ, viz. a regiment Ecclesiastical.  
22. This then being supposed to be the express sense of S. W's first ground, that the Popes supereminent authority or plenitude of power over all Churches, and so over the Church of England, as conferred on him by Christ, was here acknowledged before( and if his inference have any force, immediately before) the first pretenders to reform in the point of the Popes authority, I suppose it will be brought to a speedy issue, if we shall inquire, and observe, what was the declared opinion in this point in the years immediately preceding the rejection of the Papal power in this Nation.  
6. Who it was that signally rejected it, is sufficiently agreed, Henry VIII. by Act of Parliament, Anno Dom. 1536. in the 28 year of his reign, called An Act of extinguishing the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and prescribing an Oath to all Officers Ecclesiastical and Lay, of renouncing the said Bishop and his authority. Here then is the point of time to be fastened, as the date of the first Reformers, to which S. W's first ground refers, and then 'twill cost us little pains to discover what immediately before that, was the acknowledgement of this kingdom.  
7. Herein I refer him to one competent {αβγδ},( though formerly mentioned) the decision of the Universities, and chief Monasteries, in the XXVI year of his reign, i.e. two years before the forementioned date, a Record fitted to the point in hand, and a proof that at that time it was not thus acknowledged. For when Henry VIII. May 18. 1534. willing to be duly advised how he might fitly behave himself toward the Pope, applied himself, after the example of his Predecessors, to the faithful Counsel of the English Church, and dispatched his Letters to the Universities, as to men of virtue and profound literature( and so likewise to the chief Monasteries, and the rest of the Clergy) requiring their opinion of a certain question, in writing, under their Seal, according to the mere and sincere truth of the same, and proposing the question in no higher a style then this, Whether the Bishop of Rome have in this kingdom any greater jurisdiction in holy Scripture conferred on him then any other foreign Bishop? they after mature deliberation, and consideration of the whole matter, returned answer, Jun. 27. expressly in the Negative, Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam jurisdictionem non habere sibi a Deo collatam in S. Ser. in hoc regno Angliae, quam alium quemvis externum Episcopum. That the Bishop of Rome hath not any greater jurisdiction conferred on him by God in the holy Scripture, in this kingdom of England than any other foreign Bishop. These were the words of the Answer of the University of Oxford, as appears in their Register.  
8. If it be here suggested by any man else( for S W. is not capable of receiving advantage by it) that this decision of the University set down in those large terms of non majorem quam alium quemvis] was in prejudice also to the Patriarchal dignity, as well as to the Papal monarchic power of Rome, the bare Patriarchal dignity being superior to that of other foreign Bishops, the answer is obvious, that the decision is peculiarly of majorem aliquam jurisdictionem, any greater jurisdiction, and not of superior dignity, and so that the Patriarch, which in respect of power was no more then a Primate, and had nothing of jurisdiction annexed to him, farther than in relation to the {αβγδ}( Dioecese in the ancient notion of it for a joint administration of more Provinces, of which the Patriarch was Primate) but only a priority of dignity, was not touched or violated by this decision.  
9. To which purpose I refer the Reader to the Corpus Juris Canonici( formerly cited) Decret. Par. 1. dist. 99. c. 3. Primae sedi● Episcopus non appelletur Princeps facerdotum, vel summus sacerdos. The Bishop of the first See, i.e. the Patriarch, is not to be called Prince of the Priests, or supreme Priest, nor( as the 
Afric. Conc. Can. VI.  African Canon adds) aliquid hujusmodi, any other thing of the same kind under another title. And the practise was agreeable, as hath appeared( Reply to Cath. Gentl. p. 39) from the Milevitane council where St. Augustine was present, Can. XXII. forbidding under pain of excommunication any appeal from the African councils or Primates of those Provinces, to any foreign Councells or Judicatures, and this again( as there appears) consonant to the V. ●●non of Nice, and( before that) to the XXXIV. apostolic, where the Prima●● in every Nation is to be accounted their head. But this by the way.  
10. Testimonies of other writers of that time we cannot fail of. Erasmus alone will furnish us with sufficient, who thereby hath▪ brought that character upon himself, Nem●nem probè Catholicum dicimus, qui Erasmo nimium delectatur, He that is exceedingly delighted in his writings, may not be deemed a good catholic, though he himself lived and dyed a member of the Romish Communion. How far he was from owning the Divine right of the Universal Pastorship, appears sufficiently by that one ingenuous confession of his, of the first ages. Certè nomen hoc nondum illis temporibus erat auditum, quantum ex veterum omnium scriptis licet colligere; Tituli isti, nempe Universalis Pontifex, Caput Universalis Ecclesiae, Christi in terris vicarius, Princeps Sacerdotum, non vulgò recipiebantur ante Bonifacium tertium, Surely that name, as far as we can collect from the writings of all the ancients, was not heard of in those times. Those titles, Universal Bishop, Head of the Universal Church, Vicar of Christ on earth, Prince of Priests, were not vulgarly received before Boniface the third. But instead of such particular, personal,( or such as may by S. W. be deemed partial) affirmations( which yet are competently qualified to supersede the pretended universal acknowledgement of those times, immediately foregoing the extinguishing Act) and for the farther clearing of this matter I shall assume to prove this proposition( by as undeniable evidences as a matter of this nature is well capable of) that the universal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome, as it is explained, and interpnted by S. W. to be derived to him by St. Peter from Christ, was not held as catholic Doctrine generally in the Christian Church of the West, more particularly in the Church of England, at the time, when Henry VIII. abrogated the authority of that Bishop in this Nation.  
11. My first argument shall be drawn from the opinion, that was had of the equality of the power given to the Apostles, in Tu es Petrus, Thou art Peter, and Feed my sheep, &c. For the first( to omit the current of the ancient Fathers in this point) I shall insist r●●her on those that are nearer hand, such is Lyra on Mat. XVI. Durand. à St. Porciano in 4. Sent. dist. 18. qu. 2. both which wrote in the fourteenth Century. Thus Abulensis in the fifteenth Century argues vehemently more than once, that none of the Apostles did understand that any supremacy was given to Peter by those words of Christ, for saith he, afterward they contended for superiority, Mat. XVIII. Again, the two sons of Zebedee have their desire of pference promoted by their Mother, Mat. XX. At the last Supper, the contention is up again, which of them should be the greater, Luk. XXII. and ista contentio fuit omnium duodecem, 
Abulens. in Mat. XVIII. qu. 7.  saith he, that contention was of all the twelve, and 
Id. in Mat. XX. qu. 83.  again, Quilibet Apostolorum dubitabat, quis eorum esset mayor,& istud dubium mansit usque ad diem mortis Christi, nam in caena ultima Christi inceperunt inter se conquirere quis eorum mayor videretur, Luk. XXII. Et tamen non facerent publicè istam disputationem, si putarent Petrum per collatas claves eis praepositum. Ideo adhue putabant se aequalos, cum nescirent quis eorum esset mayor. Every of the Apostles doubted which of them should be the greater, and that doubt remained until the day of Christs death, for in his last Supper they began to inquire among themselves which of them should seem the greater, Lu. XXII and yet they would not publicly have made that dispute, if they thought Peter by the collating of the keys preferred before them, therefore they yet thought they were equal, when they knew not which of them was greater. 
Qu 84.  Again, dicendum verisimilius quod valdè ambiebant omnes discipuli mutuum Primatum, it is to be said with more probability that all the Disciples vehemently desired Primacy one over another, which they could not do, if Christ had declared for St. Peter. 
De Concordant. Cathol. l. 2. c. 13. et c. 34.  Cusanus, his contemporary, argues thus, if prelates derived their jurisdiction from the Pope, verum foret Petrum aliquid singularitatis recepisse, et Paparu in hoc successorem esse, It would be true that Peter had received somewhat of singularity, and that the Pope were in this his successor, but we know, saith he, quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis a Christo recepit aliis apostles, that Peter received no more power from Christ than the other Apostles, Nihil enim dictum est ad Petrum, quod etiam aliis dictum non sit, nonne sicut Petro dictum, Quodcunque ligaveris supper terram, ita aliis, Quaecunque ligaveritis? For there was nothing said to Peter, which was not also said to the rest. As it was said to Peter, whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, so was it not said to the rest, whatsoever ye shall bind? So 
Relect. 2. de Pet. Eccl. Conclus. 2.  Franciscus a Victoria, about the year 1500. Quilibet Apostolus habebat potestatem Ecclesiasticum in ●●to orb, et ad omnes actus ad quos Petrus habuit, Every Apostle had power Ecclesiastical in the whole world, and to all acts to which Peter had, And he proves it by this, as well as other Texts, Whatsoever ye shall loose—  
12. This is the common interpretation also of the Doctors of Paris. So it was of Adolphus Archbishop of Colen, and of the Bishops of his Province. 
been. council. Ann. 1549.  They recite the promise made to St. Peter, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Mat. XVI. and say, Quam promissionem non ad unum Petrum pertinere, said in omnes Apostolos transmissam alio loco insinuat ubi dicit, Amen, dico vobis quaecunque alligaveritis— Which promise that it belongs not to Peter only, but was transmitted to all the Apostles, he insinuates in another place, where he saith, Verily I say to you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, Mat. XVIII. This Synod, and all the Decrees thereof, were ratified by Charles V. and enjoined to be observed in omnibus sui● punctis, clausulis, articulis, sententiis,& verborum expressionibus, in all the points, clauses, articles, sentences, and expressions of words; And this Adolphus saith 
Chron. Ann. 1547.  Surius, was so addicted to the Roman Church, that when the Pope had removed Hermannus out of that bishopric, he was placed in his stead.  
13, For the second, Feed my sheep,( to omit again the ancients, Ambros. de Dignit. Sacerd. c. 2. August. de ago Christiano, c. 30. Theophyl. in Johan. c. XXI.) it appears by the Opusculum of John Patriarch of Antioch, publicly pronounced in the Covent of the Friers Minors, to be subscribed by as many as were willing. In his answer to the several arguments for the Superiority of the Pope above General councils( taken from some ancients) he saith, 
council. Basil. Append. Fundantur supper verbis dictis Petro a Christo, quae saene intellecta juxta jam dicta supra, non fundant Papam Praesidentiam habere supra corpus universalis Ecclesiae; nec obstant ●lla verba, Pasce ●ves meas,—  They are founded on the words spoken to Peter by Christ, which being understood aright, according to what was above said, are not a foundation for the Popes having any presidency ab●ve the body of the Universal Church; neither, saith he, do those words,[ Feed my sheep,] withstand; which if they be understood de pascuo spirituali, of spiritual feeding, that, saith he, is comprehended under the power of binding and losing, quae data est Ecclesiae principaliter, which was given principally to the Church. And 
De Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. 23.  Cardinal Cusanus, who lived at the same time, makes them words of Precept, not of institution of authority, and equally spoken to all the Apostles, Et si Petro dictum est, Pasce oves tamen manifestum est quod illa pascentia est verbo et exemplo, though it were said to Peter, Feed my sheep, yet it is manifest, that that Feeding is by word and example. And so, saith he, according to St. Augustine in his gloss upon that word, omnibus idem est praeceptum, ibi, cuntes— the same is commanded all in that place, go into all the world, and preach— in the last of Matthew and Mark. Nihil reperitur Petro aliud dictum, quod potestatem impertit aliquam, ideo rectè dicimus omnes Apostolos in potestate cum Petro aequales, There is not found any thing else said to Peter, which imparts any p●wer, therefore we truly say that all the Apostles were equal in power with Peter. Nay Bellarmine himself did 
De Rom. pontiff. l. 2. c. 12. Edit. Ing●lstad. 1586.  sometimes understand the words of Christ, Feed my sheep, confirm thy brethren, whatsoever thou shalt bind] to be said to all Pastors. And to this day the 
Baron. Anu. 34 n. 201. Rhemists Annot. in Mat. XVI. 19. See also the Dispatcher, Par 3. Sect. 2.  greatest Advocates for the Papacy, say that no more was given in Feed my sheep, than was promised in, I will give thee the keys, so that all those that said that the words Mat. XVI. belong to all the Apostles equally, must be interpnted( on this account) to apply [ Feed my sheep] to them likewise.  
14. One thing only more I shall offer on this head. Bellarmine is under some considerable difficulty in supporting his Hypothesis in this matter, for in 
De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c 9.  one place he saith, Summa potestas Ecclesiastica non solum data est Petro, said etiam aliis apostles, the Supreme ecclesiastic power was not only given to Peter, but also to the other Apostles, and 
Ibid. c. 11.  again, Omnes fuerunt capita,& Pastores Universae Ecclesiae, They were all heads, and Pastors of the Universal Church; and 
c. 12.  again, Omnibus fuit collata summa potestas, the supreme power was conferred on all. But in each place he brings in an adversative, which if it be observed, contradicts rather than excepts, 
Ib. c. 11.  said ita tamen ut Petrus esset caput eorum,& ab illo pendoretur, 
c. 12.  cum quadam subjectione ad Petrum, but yet so as peter should be the head of them, and that they should depend on him, with a kind of subjection to Peter. Where if any shall say, that the supreme power, and headship given to all, and yet Peters being the head of all, and their depending on, and some kind of subjection to Peter, is a kind of contradictious subjected Supremacy, inferior headship, and unequal equality, I must not wrong the Cardinal so much as to conceal his {αβγδ}, his way of answering and reconciling this difficulty( and that indeed is the only thing I designed for the Readers observation at this time) the way of escape is, said Petro ut ordinario Pastori cvi perpetuò succederetur, aliis vero tanquam Delegatis quibus non succederetur, This was given to Peter as to an ordinary Pastor, who should be perpetually sueceeded to, but to others as to Delegates to whom none should succeed.  
15. Here I shall not be so impertinent as to confront to him the suffrages of ancient Fathers, which, in perfect opposition, affirm the Bishops in the Churches, to be the Successors of these Delegates, the other Apostles, which, he saith, were to have no successors; My present business leads me another way, to advertise the Reader, that Bellarmine was not the author of this artifice, Cajetane and Victoria had made use of this exquisite remedy before, and being derived from them, it had the honour to come into the council of Trent; Only the unluckinesse of it was, that the Bishop of Granada in that council, made bold to deride them that said the supreme power was personal in the Apostles, and descended not to their successors, and then demands confidently, 
Hist. council. tried. 13. Oct. 1562.  Quo fundamento, qua authoritate, qua ratione in assertionem adeo audacem prorupissent, On what ground, what authority, what reason, they had broken out into an assertion so audacious, and says it was invented but fifty years before,( I desire S. W. will observe that.)  
16. And this was not only the opinion of that Bishop, but soon after the 
Ibid. paulo post.  Bishop of Paris doth there expressly affirm, that Cajetane fifty years before did first device it, to obtain a Cardinals Hat, that it was unknown to former ages, and at the first broaching i●nominiously censured by the Divines of Sorbon. Yet further, the Bishop of Granada refuted it from Scripture appositely, Christ, saith he, promised to all the Apostles, that he would be with them to the end of the world, which could not be understood of their own persons, but must be of their succession, and so it had been understood by all the Fathers and Schoolmen. The same 
Concord. Cathol. l. 1. c. 11.  Cusanus concludes from the words of St. Augustine ad Esitium de die Novissimo. The words, saith he, which Christ spake to the Apostles, must be understood of their successors, as that speech, Ye shall be hated by all, and ye shall be for witnesses to me, and behold I am with you always to the end of the world, which who understands not that he promised to the Universal Church, which should continue, some dying, and others being born, to the end of the world, as also that is said to them( which belongs not to them, and yet is so said, as if it belonged to them alone) when ye see the abomination of desolation— and when ye see these things, know— From these words Cusanus infers this consideration, quod verba Christi ad Apostolos, trahi debent ad Ecclesiam, that the words of Christ to the Apostles ought to be drawn to the Church, i.e. Not confined to their p●rsons, but applied to their Successors, And then what becomes of Bellarmines expedient, to reconcile his contradiction, or of S. W's Oral Tradition, and possession of this interpretation of Christs words to Peter. And let this serve for the confirming my first argument.  
17. My second is, in consequence to that, drawn from the contestation about the superiority of authority and power of General councils above Popes. For I shall suppose it undeniable, that the supreme Pastorship vested in the Pope by Christs donation to St. Peter( as S.W. maintains it) is not reconcilable with his being inferior, or subjected to any other person or persons in the Church, nor to the whole Church itself either diffused, or collected in the Representative, any more than a Prince by God immediately set over a people( I say, as the case here lies, not by man, but by God) shall be inferior to those, over whom he is set. And therefore 
De council. l. 2. c. 14.  Bellarmine doth with great reason say, that to hold that a General council is superior to the Pope, is to make the Pope as the Duke of Venice, or the General of an Army. And 
Analys. Fyd. l. 8. c. 7.  Gregory de Valentiâ argues, that to give the supreme and infallible judgement to an Universal council, is 
Pugnat cum Primatu—  repugnant to the Primacy of St. Peter and the Bishop of Rome, for, saith he, if councils should judge infallibly, the Pope himself were bound to accept their decrees, or there should be two supreme powers in the Church, which is impossible.  
18. And yet 'tis certain that Universal councils have exercised authority over Popes, one while deposing Popes, and disposing of their Sees, as the council of Constance did lately three together, another while making Canons in opposition to their pretensions, witness that of Chalcedon, for the( {αβγδ}) equal privileges of New to Old Rome, witness the XIII of the sixth council in Trullo made expressly and 
{αβγδ}—  by name, in opposition to a Roman Canon, but in compliance with an Apostolical; And though 'tis true the Romanists, as it is their interest, 
Canc. Tom. V. p. 8. and p. 311.  reject those Canons, yet the seventh council, strongly propugned by the Romanist, hath no higher authority to pretend to, than that of this sixth council, see 
Conc. Tom. V. p. 732. B.  Act. VI. and accordingly asserts the Canons thereof, and cites the LXXXII. for their turn, which therefore founds an argument( ad hominem, at least) from this Canon of that Council. And if some flatterers of the Popes have undertaken, and asserted their cause against councils, yet( which is sufficient to our present argument) we know a very great number, if not much the greater, who were reputed true catholic members even of the Roman Church, did constantly assert the power and authority of General councils to be superior to that of the Bishop of Rome, to exercise authority over him, to give laws to him, and to censure him.  
19. Of this number was the Pope himself, 
Quest. de Confi●m.  Adrian VI. who was Bishop of Rome but seven years before Henry VIII. was acknowledged here Supreme. Of this were 
Ir. de authorit. Eccles.  Petrus de Alliaco Cardinalis Cameracensis, 
De Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. ult.  Nicol. Cusanus Cardinalis, 
Ca. Significasti. extr. de electione.  Panormitanus Cardinalis, 
Ibid.  Florentinus Cardinalis, 
In Mat. 18. qu. 108. et in Defensor. par. 2 c. 69.  Alphonsus Tostatus Episcopus Abulensis; And, in the same time of Henry VIII. 
Tract. de Potest. Eccl.  Joannes mayor, and Jacobus Almainus. And 
Relect. de Potest Papae et council. Propos. 3.  Franciscus a Victoria, who stood at the same time doubtful, gives us a large and fair account of the question, that there were two opinions of it, one of Thomas Aquinas, and many of his followers, and other Doctors learned both in Theology and Canon Law, that the Pope is above the council; the other the common opinion of the Parisians, and also of many other Doctors both in Theology and Canon Law, as Panormitane and others, that the council is above the Pope and his resolution is, Puto utramque esse probabilem, I think that both are probable, and if so, then sure this on the Popes side was not by him taken to belong to him by any divine right, devolved to him by St. Peter. To the same purpose 
In C. Novit. de Judiciis Notab. 3 num. 84.  Navarre, There is, saith he, a great dissension between the Romans and the Parisians, to whom the Ecclesiastical power was more principally conferred by Christ, whether to the whole Church, or to St. Peter, the Roman pretention was favoured by St. Thomas, and Thomas a ʋio, the Parisian by Panormitan, whom frequentius nostri sequuntur, our men more frequently follow, as Decius saith. This James Almain a Divine of the Sorbone, constantly defends, and answers Thomas a ʋio in a full Tract, and so doth John mayor, saying, that as Rome no man is permitted to maintain the Parisian Doctrine, and at Paris none suffered to assert the contrary. To this number must belong Sir Thomas More, whom the Romanist and particularly 
Sch. Disarm. p. 187.  S. W. hath most confidence in, next the Bishop of Rochester, of any man in those times. His words are exp●ess in his 
See L. Cherb. Hen. VIII. p. 394. and Sir Thom. Mores works in the end.  Letter to cronwell( the Original of which is in Sir Robert Cottons Library) that upon perusing the Kings book against Luther he dissuaded him so much to exalt the Papal authority, lest it diminished his own, and though he denied not the Pope a Primacy, yet he could not hold it such as that the authority derived to him thereby was to be preferred before a General council.( Of Bishop Fisher I have 
Answ. to Sch. Disarm. p. 218.  formerly spoken as to the point of the Primacy.) And that it stood as the received opinion of the Church of England, thus appears. The superiority of the council above the Pope, being decreed by the 
Sess. 4.& 5. Concilium oecumenicum immediate a Christo potestatem habet, eique subest Pontife● Romanus.  Council of Constance ending Ann. 1418. Archbishop Chichley 
Registr. Hen. Chichl.  summoned a Convocation of the Province of Canterbury to be holden Octav. Apost. Pet. et Pauli 1422. and recites, that whereas it was decreed in the holy Council of Constance, lately congregated with the Holy Ghost, that another General Council should be holden in May, 1423. Nos decretis— We resolving as far as belongs to our person, to obey the decrees of that said Council, and desiring that all our Suffragans and Prelates and Clergy of our Province of Canterbury would obey them— Then they met according to his summons, choose Procurators for the Church of England, raised a tax for the support of their charge, and that Council met at Pavia according to the 
council. Const. Sess. 44.  decree of the Council of Constance. In that Council of Constance the English appeated, and as 
In vit. Johan. XXIV.  Platina tells us, affairs were carried by the Suffrages of five Nations, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, and England, and the 
App. council. Basil.  Orator from the Council of Basil to the King of England, saith, that in the Council of Constance this renowned and most learned Nation was present with honour to it. And in the Council of Basil,( by the interposition especially of those two famous Lawyers, abbess Panormitanus, and Ludovicus Romanus, Legates from Alfonsus the great, King of Arragon) the same being decreed, and often urged, as was before at Constance, and 
council. Bas. Sess. 16.& 17. in Append.  sworn to be observed by the Legates of the Pope Eugenius, after he had three years opposed it, as to this point, the English Church received it, as it had formerly in Constance. And the particular inclination of the King of England toward the Council of Basil appears by his 
Ep. Synod. council. Basil.  Letter sent to Pope Eugenius, telling him that he intends to comform to them as he ought, and exhorting the Pope to promote the proceedings of the Council.  
20. If we look out into France, we shall find it most vigorously 
Binii Not. in Conc. Bitur. ex G●g●●no.  asserted in the Council of Bourges, Ann. 1438. Let the authority of the Council of Basil( say the Fathers) and the constancy of the decrees thereof be perpetual, which none, not even the Pope of Rome shall presume to take away or weaken. And the narration of the acting for the pragmatic Sanction by 
De Benefic. l. 5. c. 11.  Duarenus saith as much. Charles VII. King of France, saith he, yielded to the Orators of the Council of Basil, that the decrees of the Council, should be received and defended in his kingdom, having first assembled at Bourges a Synod of Nobles, prelates, and other most learned and grave men, by whose auth●rity and counsel he was led to receive and confirm the Decrees of that Synod, and set forth that noble Constitution, called ordinarily the pragmatic Sanction, than which, saith he, nothing was more popular, nothing more rec●ived with the applause of all good men, being usually styled the Palladium of France.  
21. This pus II. laboured hard with Lewis XI. to get repealed, Cardinal Balva acting earnestly for him, and obtaining the Kings command to the Parliament of Paris. But this was strenuously resisted, and the attempt very gravely and prudently repressed by the Court, and a book by them exhibited to the King, to convince him that nothing could be more destructive to France, than that he should grant the Popes desire in this matter, and to this he consented, though greatly devoted to reverence the Popes authority. Afterward the Council of Tours assembled by Lewis XII. and consisting of 
Genebr. l. 4. Chronol. Omnium Episcoporum Galliae—  all the Bishops of France, and many learned men, decreed that the pragmatic Sanction w●s to be 
Chronic. Massaei, An. 1510.  kept throughout France. And when Francis I. in his distress yieldeed to the abrogation of it, and ratified the Concordate in the Lateran Council, he 
Concordat. Quando ita forebat ratio difficultasque temporis, rerumque nos circumstantium necessitas.  professeth he did it being constrained by his necessity, and so Rebuffus, one sufficiently addicted to the Roman greatness, in his interpretation of the Concordat, makes the 
Temporis difficultas aliquando permittit non concedenda. Ca. Licet de seriis. Necessitas rerum circumstantium, quae non habet legem. l. 1. ff. de office. Cons.  necessity of that King an excuse for the abrogation of the pragmatic. Notwithstanding, this abrogation was protested against by the University of Paris, An. 1517. Mar. 27. in these words, 
Orthwinus gracious fascic. rer. expetend. Bochell. l. 8. decret. Eccl. gull. c. 4.  lo the tenth in a certain assembly in the City of Rome congregated we know not how, but not in the Spirit of the Lord, thought fit that these so wholesome Statutes should be abrogated, and going against the catholic Faith, and the authority of the sacred General councils, hath condemned the sacred Council of Basil, Therefore they appeal from their Lord the Pope not well advised, and from his infringing the sacred Council of Basil, and the pragmatic Sanction, to the next Council that shall be lawfully and freely called.  
22. The Germans stood after the same manner affencted; whatsoever was done in the Councils of Constance and Basil, was done chiefly under the protection of the Emperor sigismond. Afterward 
Sabellic. and Onuphr. in vit. Jul. II.  Maximilian I. joined with L●wis XII of France, to call a General Council at Pisa, for reforming the enormities of Julius II. and 
R sc●ipt. Ca●●● V. ad Cri●… ●lement 7.  Ann. 1525 Charles V. appealed from Clement VII to a general Council.  
23. In brief, 
Generat. 48. circa An. 1438.  Nauclerus shows how universal this opinion was of the authority of the Councils, the Germans, saith he, the King of France, and of England, favoured the Council of Basil with all their power, and the Council of Basil pronounces, 
In fine Sess. 45. Conclus. 5.  Nec unquam aliquis peritorum, Never any skilful man doubted but the Pope was subject to the judgement of General Councils in matters which concern the Faith. What he saith of the periti, skilful, hath an eminent and signal truth in the Jurisperiti, the Lawyers and Canonists. Panormitan, as was said, in his Tract de council. Bas. where he demonstrates that the Councils power is above the Popes, that the Pope hath no power over a Council, but may be questioned, coerced, removed by it, so likewise lord. Romanus, a most eminent person of his age, of whom Aeneas silvius( that was in that Council of Basil with him, and was after Pope) 
L. 1. de Act. council. Bas.  saith, Vir non Româ tantum, said coelo dignus, a person worthy not only of Rome but of Heaven, who affirms in his answers, that it is 
Cons. 521.  lawful to appeal from the Pope to the Council, 
Cons. 522.  that to the Pope dismissing the Council no obligation was due, that 
Cons. 523.  he might be deposed by the Council; see carded. Zabarell Cons. 150. Ancharanus Cons. 181. Felinus ad c. supper literis, n. 21. de Rescript. Joh. Roias de haeret. n. 518. Fr. Marc. decis. 944. and others( noted in the 
P. 101.  margin of Archbishop Chichleyes life) as long as they were permitted to deliver their mindes with freedom.  
24. Thus then stood the opinion of the Princes of Europe, which continued communion with the Bishops of Rome, concerning the subjecting them to the authority of such Councils, as then in the title and style of the Western European Churches, were reputed General, and above an hundred years before Henry VIII. in their several Dominions, by the advice, suggestions, and assistance of National Synods, Peers and people, they proceeded in vigorous attempts to bring under Order and Reformation the usurpations of the Bishops of Rome, as appears by the 
Orthuin gracious in fascic. ●er. expetend.  Schedule of enormities in the Pope and Court of Rome, &c. drawn up by Petrus de Alliaco Bishop of Cambray and Cardinal, by the appointment of sigismond the Emperor, in the council of Constance, though the new Pope martin V. delayed and evaded it. The like might be manifested in many other instances; see Theodoric a Niem in Nemore Unionis, Tract. 5. and Quintinus Heduus Repetit. lection. de Aristocr. Christ. Civitat.  
25. How the dissenting parties may be reconciled, so as to be one Church, and communion, is not easily set down, 
council. Bas. Epist. Synod.  martin V. with the consent of the whole council of Constance, by his Letters gave Order to all Bishops and Inquisitors, quod est de necessitate salutis credere general Concilium habere supremam authoritatem in Ecclesia, That it is of necessity to salvation to believe that a General council hath supreme authority in the Church. The Fathers of that council of Basil do oft repeat, that it is de necessitate salutis, of necessity to salvation, and they 
council. Bas. Sess. 33.  call it Veritas Fidei Catholicae, Truth of catholic Faith, and whosoever pertinaciously opposes it, censendus est haereticus, is to be deemed an heretic. 
council. Later. Sess. 11.  lo X. with his lateran council first saith, that the Pope hath authority over all councils, and afterwards adds, cum de necessitate salutis existat, seeing it is of necessity to salvation that all that believe in Christ should be subject to the Bishop of Rome. The difference indeed extremely wide, and the Fathers of the society, and the Doctors of the Sorbon continue the contest betwixt these two councils to this day.  
26. The jesuits earnest propugners of the superiority of the Pope, speak contemptibly of the authority of councils without him, and give that virtue to the Popes sole direction, that by it every Plebeian may be rendered Infallible. But all this, both in the founta●n and streams is as earnestly oppugned by the Sorbonists, who will have a General council superior to the Pope; Neither hath the jesuit reason to accuse the Church of England as Schismatical in this, any more than to accuse the Sorbonist. And on the other side, the Sorbonist hath more reason to forbear censure on the Church of England as Schismatical, than on the jesuit, because a General Council( which is of so little weight with the jesuit without the Pope) is ackowledged by us to be the supreme external, living determiner of Controversies, and we together with the C●uncel of Basil do hold a Pope Schismatical, that pertinaciously opposeth, and divideth himself from a lawful General council.  
27. And if after all this, the Doctors of the Sorbon will have the Pope Universal Pastor, yet is not our argument hereby weakened, as far as I now intend to press it, viz. against the universal acknowledgement of the supreme Pastorship, as from Christ to St. Peter, because neither do they so maintain his supreme pastorship, as de fide to be jure divino nor is their doctrine of the superiority of councils any way reconcilable with that stating, being utterly repugnant to the Papal Primacy, as Valentia  told us.  
28. The accord which the Sorbonist makes, is set down by Gerson in his Tractate called Concordia, 
Concord. Concl 3.  quod plenitudo potestatis Ecclesiasticae sit in Pontifice, et in Ecclesia, in this manner, Est utrobique,& principaliùs in Ecelesia suo modo, The plenitude of power is on both sides, and more principally in the Church after her manner. And what is that manner? Why, saith he, Quadruplici respectu, scil. indeviabilitatis,& indefectibilitatis, extensionis, regulationis et generalis obligationis, cvi subjicitur etiam ipse Papa, tanquam Imperatrici Sponsae Regis summi, quae potest condere Canones,& definire etiansi fuerit Papa praesens, In a fou●fold respect, to wit, of indeviability, and indefectibility of extension, of regulation, and of general obligation, to which even the Pope himself is subject, as to the Imperial Spouse of the supreme King, which can make Canons and define, although the Pope be present. But this as it is perfectly contradictory to the Supremacy of the Pope, as given to St. Peter by Christ, both over all the Apostles, and over the whole flock, so 
De council. l. 2. c. 16.  Bellarmine utterly rejecteth it, and will not allow the Church to have the Supremacy either formally, or suppletivè, or principally, but places it absolutely and immediately in the Pope, and so is every one obliged to do, that derives it from Christs donation to St. Peter, which therefore the Sorbonist, for all his concord, and his titular acknowledgement, must still be presumed to deny, as placing the plenitude of Power principaliùs, more principally in the Church.  
29. But beside these eager litigants on both sides, of whom we have hitherto spoken, and therein founded our argument, there is yet a third sort, and many no doubt there were, and are of it, viz. of the judgement of Navarre and Victoria forecited, that each opinion is probable, and no faith to be grounded in either( and that is as much to my purpose, as others contesting it on the councils side) So we find in the Synodical Epistle of the Synod of Basil, that when the contention was so fierce betwixt that council and Eugenius, some remained neuters, and advised the observing a neutrality of obedience. And Picus Mirandula 
Theorem. 4. de Fide et Ord. Credendi.  goes farther, liquet varias— It appears that the Doctors have delivered divers sentences of the firmness of the judgement of councils, and the Pope, nor, saith he, is there any thing that he knows promulgated, by virtue of which we may be bound to believe either. To conclude, the 
Sess. 34 et 41.  council of Basil calls Eugenius schismatic for not acknowledging their authority above bim, and denounces the censures of the Church against all that adhere to him, as favourers of schism and heresy. And 
council. Lateran. Sess. 11.  lo X. doth as much against all the prelates of France, that maintain the Sanction made and enjoined at Basil.  
30 Thus much may serve for a {αβγδ} of the contesting of this point, before, and about Henry VIII. his times( wherein only, and not in the resolution of either side, my second argument is founded)  
31. My third argument ariseth from the acknowledged supremacy of Princes within their own Dominions. In this Kingdom of ours the case is clear, when Henry VIII began his Reign, the laws were fixed, and unrepealed, which asserted the Kings supreme authority in causes and over persons Ecclesiastical. The Papal usurpations growing exorbitant in the Reigns of King John and Henry III. produced a law for restraint thereof, in the XXV. year of Edward I. which was ratified in his XXXV. year. The encroachments of Rome continuing, the law was strengthened in the XXV. of Edward III. and again in the XXVII. and again in the XXXVIII. and the XII of Richard II. and afterwards more 
Cap. 5.  expressly in the XVI. of his Reign, where complaining of processes and censures upon Bishops of England made by the Pope, because the Bishops made executions of the Kings commandements in his Courts, &c. they express the mischiefs hereupon growing, the open disinherison of the Crown, the destruction of the King, his Law and his Realm, that these things are against the Crown and Regality— And the Commons assert, that the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in subjection to no Realm, but immediately subject to God, and to none other— And as they oblige themselves to assist the King and his Crown in the cases aforesaid, to live and to die, so every of the Lords temporal answered by himself, that the cases aforesaid are clearly in derogation of the Kings Crown, as was well known, and had been long time known, and that they will stand with the Crown— And the Bishops and prelates did every one severally( after Protestation that it was not their mind to deny, or affirm, that the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops, nor that he may make translation of Prelates, after the law of the Church) say, that if any Censures made against any for the execution of the Commandments of the Kings Courts— that is against the Kings Crown, they will and ought to stand with the King in those cases, and in all other touching his Crown, as bound by their Leigeance. The Bishop of Rome, 'tis true, did much contend against these Statutes, 
Walsingham Hist. An. 1374.  gregory XI. wrote earnestly to Edward III. and said, to make such a law, as that of the Provisoes was nothing else but to divide Christs Church, to destroy Christian Religion( the schism and noxious effects which S. W. is now pressing on us, in the behalf of his successors) but the King rescinded them not. And though martin V. wrote more sharply to Henry VI. yet the King kept up the force and execution of the laws, 
An. 1. Hen 7. fol. 10.  humphrey Duke of gloucester, Protector and Uncle to the King burnt the letters, and when that Pope made Archbishop Chichley Legate, 
Antiq. Brit. p. 284.  he protested it was not his intention to exercise without the Kings permission, the Legatine power, which he had received, not to derogate from the rights manners, l●ws, privileges, liberties, and customs of the King and kingdom, in any thing, but to conserve, defend, and strengthen them. The instances are continued by 
Cawdryes case.  Sir Edward cook through succeeding times. And in the VII. of Henry VIII. it was resolved by all the 
Ibid. fol. 32.  Judges, that Canons Ecclesiastical may be allowed, or refused by the consent or rejection of the King and his people. And in fine, the absolute Supremacy of the King was in the Articles against Cardinal Wolsey, asserted by all the Lords of the counsel, 
Ld. Charbury Hen. VIII. p. 266, 274.  Sir Thomas More Lord Chancellor first subscribing, and this in express opposition to the 
Ibid. p. 266.  Popes holinesse, and as used and enjoyed without interruption for the space of above two hundred years by the Kings of these Realms.  
32. And it is yet further observable, that although attempts and encroachments were oft made by the Popes against these Laws, yet it was the resolution of our Laws, that no right could thereby accrue to them, and that no prescription of time can be a bar to the Supreme Power, but that for the public good it may revoke any Concessions, Permissions, or privileges, Thus 'twas declared in 
Ch. 25.  Parliament in Edward III. his reign, when reciting the Statute of Edward I. they say, The Statute holdeth alway his force, and that the King is bound by his Oath to cause the same to be kept as the Law of his Realm.  
33. And as thus it was in the Laws and practise of this kingdom( which is sufficient to have been confronted to S. W's contrary suggestion) so it will be found in the more Universal Reason of all Nations. For if Supremacy be examined according to the inseparable properties of it, the pretention or acknowledgement of it will appear incompatible to the Bishop of Rome in this or other Princes Dominions, by the Rules and practise of the Christian Church; For  
34. First the Supreme Power gives force and power to all Laws, made in Convocations, and without assent thereof, though all in the Convention besides concur, yet it hath not the virtue of a Law. 
De. Eccl. l. 3. c. 28.  Johan. de Turrecremata distinguisheth betwixt honorary Presidency( such as would be allowed the Bishop of Rome) and authoritative, It is, saith he, the part of authoritative Presidency jus habere non modo dirigendi, said regendi— to have right not only of directing, but ruling their actions, and of pronouncing sentence of affairs, out of his own judgement, though it be not approved by the greater part of the council, yea though it be approved by none.  
35. That this hath not been thought to belong to the Bishop of Rome, the fourth and fifth General councils are instances: The fourth, that of Chalcedon, ordered Ecclesiastical Government without, and against the consent of Pope lo and his Legates; And the fifth, at 
Baron. An. 553. n. 209.  Constantinople, decreed a matter of Faith contradictory to the determination of Vigilius in his Apostolical constitution, subscribed by himself and sixteen other Bishops adhering to him; whereas a true Supreme power can not only invalidate a Law made by an Assembly, but also by a sole edict make a Law, unless it pleaseth to limit itself by taking in an admixtion of Assistants in council( which the Romanist acknowledgeth not of his Pope) But neither then can it ( salvo contenemento) so debar itself, that it should be over-ruled by plurality of voices, and thereby forced to consent to the mayor part. 'tis the Civilians doctrine of Summuns Imperium, that it is of that nature, 
Grotii Apolog c. 2.  ut parte amissâ substantiam suam amittat, that by losing a part, it loseth its substance, or essence.  
36. Secondly, Though Supreme authority may limit itself in some particulars, yet can it not be restrained, and limited by subjects; And yet 'tis evident the Bishops of Rome have been limited both by councils and Princes, which assures us those are not his proper Subjects.  
37. Thirdly, Supreme authority is the fountain of all Jurisdiction, which must consequently be derived thence by emanation. Yet it is evident the Power of ecclesiastics is not thus derived from the Pope. 
Gerson de Origine Juris.  The Power of Excommunication is the only coercive Ecclesiastical power, that is by divine Right, and this is not derived from the Bishop of Rome, but was conferred on all the Apostles together, Joh. XX. 23. and belongs to all Prelates as their Successors; and accordingly it is a received opinion among the Romanists, that Bishops have the power of binding and losing Jure divino; 
De Justa Haer. pun. c. 24.  Alphonsus a Castro saith, that the opposite opinion is contrary to all the Doctors: 
L. 2. Disp. 152. c. 3.  Gabriel Vasquez concurs with him, And this power, saith Alphonsus, given the Bishop by virtue of his consecration, is not only of Order, but Jurisdiction also, and it is no less then Schismatical; not to aclowledge the power residing in every Bishop The Nicene 
Can. V.  Canon being therein grounded, {αβγδ}, that those that are cast out by any, are not be admitted by others. To which 
Epist. 58.  Syn●sius's suffrage is express, that if any neglects his authority {αβγδ} as the Bishop of a small City, and receives into communion Andronicus and the other, as if there were no necessity to obey a mean poor Cities Bishop, {αβγδ}, Let that man know he causes a schism in the Church, which Christ would have to be one; And this unity proceeds from co-ordination in this power of excommunicating; whereupon St. Cyprian oft speaks of Episcopatus unus, the same office in so many several Bishops. In the exercise of this power there is indeed subordination according to Canons or custom, but, 
Tom. V. dis. 2. Sect. 1.  as Suarez saith, the censure of Excommunication, i.e. the actual exercise of that power, in any infliction of penalty, is not jure divino but humano, being ordered or tempered according to the prudence of the Church, and so that makes no difference.  
38. And so likewise the regulating or ligislative power Ecclesiastical, in making Canons or Decrees, is coordinate also, all Bishops having their votes in it. Accordingly the Bishops of Rome and their Legates, were wont to sign Decrees as well as other Bishops, whereas in every polity, as the same 
De leg. l. 4. c. 4.  Suarez affirms, the legislative power is constantly Supreme. 
Ib. n. 17.  it extends to Universality of subjects, to universality of Actions, and in all these must have an immutability, quia nec augeri, nec minui potest, because it is capable neither of augmentation nor diminution.  
39. Thus much I hope at this time( he shall have much more 
Answ. to the IV. Ground.  anon) will satisfy S. W. of the truth of his first ground, or if not him, yet his less interested Reader, which hath not so unreconcilable a quarrel to written Testimonies, though these have not wanted the suffrage of Reason also, which is one sort of unwritten, for the evidencing matters of fact of elder times.  
40. Secondly, then for the pretended self-evidence of his ground wherein doth that consist? why, saith he, it carries it in its own terms; what are its own terms, which are thus illustrious? The first pretenders to reform-found England actually subject— But this is only his affirmation, by others denied, and no show of self-evidence in it. Yes, in that they pretended to reform, They could not be said to reform in this point of the Popes authority, if they had not found England actually subject to it; This he insists on over and over again, They could not be truly called the first Reformers from it, unless before, that authority had been there acknowledged, and again, for the very word Reformation, which they pretend, argues that tenet was held before.]  
41. But to this I answer, 1. that it is very strange a writer of Controversies, as S. W. desires to be esteemed, as also a great pretender to demonstration, and immediate connexion of terms, and a professed enemy to wordish testimonies even of Scripture itself, because they are subject to so many sorts of scribblings, should yet lay the foundation of all his impregnable fabric, the whole weight of his first pretended demonstration, on the most uncertain unconsiderable use of the word Reformers,[ they could not, saith he, be truly said the first Reformers, unless—] and [ for the word Reformation, which they pretend, argues—] When 1. it appears not that they were at all called Reformers, and then what is become of his foundation? 2. in case they were called Reformers, it might be by others a nick-name imposed, and not by themselves, or 3. if by themselves, it might be assumed hypocritically, when they established and settled by a law, what before was more modestly and sparing practised,( Such Reformations we have heard of from Trent, and from other coasts) or else 4. they might be casually adopted to that title, when they neither looked for it, nor did any thing to deserve it. If any of these be affirmed by his adversary, or if not, because it is possible some one of these might be the truth, what then is become of his demonstration? And truly if S. W. be as he intimates, a disciple of that great Master, 
P. 27.  of whom he saith [ it is worthy of him to writ grounds] and consider that now they are some previous grounds, which he is proposing, he will have reason to think with others, that it must reflect on some body beyond himself, that his first-ground should so very ill deserve that title, being but a Topical argument at most, drawn from a title or appellation, which seldom agrees to them on whom 'tis bestowed, and certainly doth not signify by nature, or by any such necessity from whence any can pretend to conclude demonstratively.  
42. Secondly, If we should pass over this, and aclowledge his demonstration valid, as far as it pretends, yet 'twill be far from inferring what it ought to infer, the acknowledgednesse of the Papal power, in the modern notion of it,( for the Universal Pastorship and Vicarship of Christ, by him constituted in St. Peter) for they might reform from many other things in the point of the Popes authority without reforming from that.  
42. But I shall not need exact thus much from it, above what in terminis it proposeth to perform: It is indeed far from doing what it pretends to do, far from demonstrating any the barest, meagerst conclusion: It will be visible; if taking it in the loser terms, wherein he hath( as to his own interests) most advantageously chosen to set it, we shall reduce it to Syllogistical form, thus, 
They that use, or pretend to the word Reformation, in point of the Popes authority, aclowledge that tenet was held before in England, or that England was actually subject to it.  
But they that disclaimed the Popes Supreme authority in England, called themselves Reformers, or pretended to the word Reformation, Ergo,   
44. In which process, as it pretends to be demonstrative, if upon due examination, either of the propositions shall be found to fail of self evidence, 'tis certain his whole fabric is demolished. But if beyond expectation both should prove to do so. S. W. must even go for a Saint or Preacher in his own dialect, i.e. for a most sad unfortunate demonstrator, let the issue testify of the justice of this intimation.  
49. And at first view 'tis discernible, that there is no evidence in, or necessary connexion between the terms of the mayor proposition, i.e. between pretending Reformation in that point] and acknowledging that tenet was held before in England] or even that England was then acknowledged to be actually subject to the Popes authority. 'tis on both sides granted, that the Pope assumed, or claimed this authority at that time, and I need not deny but some of the people, nay prelates of England once acknowledged and willingly submitted to this claim, and in respect to one, or at least to both of these, the use of the word Reformation in that point might be very proper, without Englands being found actually subject to it, which is far distant from either of these, yet is the one thing which the words of this ground exact.  
46. In the former respect, the Popes assuming] that I hope doth not infer that the Nation acknowledged his claim; The man that stood upon the Strand, first fancied, and then assumed that all the Ships in the Haven, and then in the Ocean were his, but sure this had no such influence on the mindes of the true owners, Pilots and Mariners, as irresistibly to work or infallibly conclude in all them an acknowledgement of his claim; Nor was it needful they should set out any solemn manifests to vindicate their title against this hypochondriac, their taking no notice of his dreams, was a sufficient refutation of them, whilst they went no farther than his own fancy. But should the same man in one of his paroxysms, in the full tide of high fancy, have attempted to board one of the Ships, not as a Passenger, nor yet as a conqueror, but as one that had the Original and unquestioned right of dominion over it, the true owners denying him admission, or( in case of entrance undiscerned) the telling him his mistake, that he was gone astray into another mans quarters, and showing him the way home again, had been a very fair and charitative attempt of reforming and rectifying him, no man else in this case needing any reformation.  
47. But when to this we add, that some of the good people of England were seduced, and abused by this his claim, and withdrew part of their obedience from their lawful superiors, to subject it to him, though this cannot be termed the subjection or acknowledgement of England,( for some are as distant from all, as a particular from an universal) yet here is a proper place for Reformation, to disabuse the seduced, and reduce them to the conscientious discharge of their unquestionable duty, as when Jehosophat, at a time when Judah was far from any universal defection, ( Asa his immediate predecessor having 
2 Chron. XV. 12, 13.  entred them into a Covenant under pain of death to seek the Lord God of their Fathers) is yet reported to have 
ch. XIX. 4.  gone through the people from Beersheba to Mount Ephraim, to bring them back to the Lord God of their Fathers.  
48. In this point 'tis of no force for S. W. to descend to the examination and balancing of the number of the seduced, what proportion it bare to the rest which were not seduced, 1. Because what is thus to be examined, is not evident before, and perhaps will be as little clear after examination, and 2. it can be no ingredient in the self-evidence of this his first ground, which from the bare pretending to reform, concludes that England was acknowledged subject, and not from the number of those that yielded this subjection, and 3. 'tis not the great number of particular men, that makes a nation, but either the whole collective body, or their legal Representatives, or the kingdom speaking by its known established laws. And I need not now inquire into each or any of these, whether they acknowledged what S. W. would have them, because 1. if it were not notorious that they did not, yet sure it is not evident that they did,( the least that will serve S. W's turn) or if it were, yet still it could not be inferred from the use of the word Reformation, and that is prejudice enough to the self-evidence of his mayor proposition, which is all we have now under consideration. So that unless S. W. will aclowledge his arguing guilty of that strange amphibology, that by [ held in England] he meant either held only at Rome, or only by some particular persons in England, and then from thence assume to infer the possession, viz. that England was actually subject to it, as afterwards from the bare possession he infers a right( three rare steps of severe discourse) he must aclowledge the feebleness of the connexion betwixt the terms of his mayor proposition, and that certainly is sufficient to supersede his conclusion, and praejudge the self-evidence of his ground.  
49. Before I leave this, I shall ask S. W's opinion of one question, What if the Pope should attempt to reform, retrench the abuses of the Court or See of Rome, whether in Doctrine or Government, would that infer the Church of Rome to have been formerly subject to that from which the change should be made? If it would, then either it was in error before, or must become erroneous by the change, and so neither way be infallible. There is but one thing possible for him to answer upon his principles, viz. that it is an impossible supposition. And if without considering whether the Reformation be to the better or to the worse, it be resolved impossible for the Pope to do it, then 'tis not the promise of Christ to his Vicar, by which he is become infallible, but the syllogism of S. W., not the privilege of the Paraclete( to which Tertullian imputed it, 
De Veland. Virgin. c. 1.  quod disciplina dirigitur, quod intellectus reformatur, supposing, that the Apostles Creed remaining firm, caetera, admittunt novitatem correctionis, other things are capable of Reformation) but the inmost nature of the thing, an impossibility of its being otherwise, whereby the certainty becomes as irrefragable, that the Church of Rome cannot amend, as that it cannot fall, nay, the former the greater certainty, being a part of S. W's self-evident ground, whereas St. Paul supposes it possible that the whole Church of the Gentiles may be cut off, which is somewhat more then the Church of Rome only, and Mr. White being pressed with the possibility of the latter, thinks fit to wave that question, Apol. p. 114. contenting himself to have  told my L. of F. that their Writers intend to prove her indefectibility, which differs much from having rigorously demonstrated it. Mean while, as that Miracle of wit had never a word to say to another parallel part of that Lords question concerning the possibility of schism among the Churches now adhaering to Rome, but passed it over insensibly, so I will not importune S. W. in that matter, but content myself with having said thus much on the first part of his demonstration.  
50. But what if the M nor prove as little self-evident, and so as feeble a supporter, as the mayor hath shewed itself to be? What stability then shall be hoped for to the Conclusion? The Minor was this, They that disclaimed the Popes supreme authority in England called themselves Reformers] But where is the {αβγδ} or self-evidence of this? Is this a principle, or a fact so notorious, as to be assented to as soon as proposed? certainly it hath no universal truth in it( and that is necessary to render it an ingredient in demonstration) for the Greek Church, which deny the Popes universal Pastorship, pretend not to have wrought any Reformation in this point, but to follow all their Ancestors in it, and then by this argument we are no more schismatics, than they.  
51. I speak not now of the Greek Church of the last three hundred years, who I know are by the Pontificians concluded under the same guilt with us, but of the fourth age of the Christian Church, when the grecians were most flourishing in piety and learning. For Gregory IX sticks not to charge those Churches even in that age with schism, because they acknowledged not the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. 
Mat. Paris, Ann. 1237.  It is in an Epistle of his to Germanus Archbishop of Constantinople, where he compares those Churches with the Schismatical and Rebellious ten Tribes of Israel, that divided themselves from the house of David, Praesumpta divisio Tribuum patenter signat Schisma Graecorum,& multitudo abominationum Samariae diversas haereses multitudinis a veneratione veri Templi, Romanae scilicet Ecclesiae, et reverentiâ separatae. The division of the Tribes openly signifies the schism of the Greeks, and the multitude of the abominations of Samaria, the divers heresies of the multitude which is severed from the veneration and reverence of the true Temple, the Church of Rome. Adding, to make the parallel complete, that whereas Chrysostome, and nazianzen, and Cyril, and basil the Great, were eminent in the assembly of the Revolters, this was the same height of the heavenly counsel, by which he would have Elias, and Elizaeus, and the sons of the Prophets, to live among the Idolaters. This was the liberal concession of a Pope, 
Platina in vit. Greg. IX.  that Pope, who by the help of Raimundus his penitentiary compiled the Decretal Epistles. But this by the way.  
52. But neither hath his Minor any more particular limited truth, in relation to this our Nation. King Henry VIII. and the Houses of Parliament disclaimed the Popes supreme authority in England, and are the first that S. W. can probably accuse for doing so, but where did these style themselves Reformers? was Stephen gardener, in delivering and publishing his latin Oration De verâ Obedientiâ, and Dr. Bonner that praefixt the preface to it, fit to be styled Reformers by themselves or others? Or they that put men afterwards to death upon the score of the Six Articles, did they call themselves Reformers, or would a Protestant of this age style them so, for burning those then, which believed, as he doth now? When Cardinal pool had written his Book De unione Ecclesiasticâ, inveighing against the Kings supremacy, and soon after advised the King to redintegrate himself with the Pope, and accept the council then offered, he used this as an argument to enforce his advice, that 
L. Cherbury, Hist. Hen. VIII. p. 350.  thereby he might have the honour of being the cause of a Reformation of the Church in doctrine and manners. That title then of Reformation in those dayes had no propriety to the point of denying the Popes supremacy, nor was that expressed in other dialect, than of declaring the supremacy to be invested in the King— which sure in no wise concluded, that it had not been so invested) yielding him the title of Supremum caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae, which Bishop Fisher subscribing with this temperament, [ quantum per Christi legem licet] was not sure beholding to that, for his rescue from the title of Reformer. The clear truth is, the word Reformation began with respect to doctrine and manners( as Cardinal pool used it) and was frequently in the mouth of all Christian Princes, and Prelates too, in this notion, who desired and pressed long for a General council, peculiarly to this end of reforming and rectifying what was amiss in either of those respects, and no farther concerned the point of the Popes supremacy, than as that was conceived to be either unjustly assumed by him, or Tyrannically exercised;  
53. The truth is, lo the tenth with his lateran council made at that time an exorbitant encroachment upon the authorities both of councils and Princes, 
Conc. Later. Sess. 2.  epressly defining the Papal supremacy, solum Romanum Pontifi●em authoritatem supper omnia Concilia habere, that the Pope alone had authority over all councils, and that it was de necessitate salutis, of necessity to salvation that all believers should be subject to the Pope, and reprobated the council of Basil as a Conventicle. And as when injuries grow to the highest pitch, they then invite a strenuous opposition( thus as was said, the unreasonable oppression of Innocentius the third, and Innocentius the fourth, and some other Popes, that pursued the Dictates of Gregory the seventh, caused Edward the first, Edward the third, and Richard the second to awaken, and maintain their and their peoples rights, and in like manner the schisms of Rome and Avinion, that pestered the Church for fifty years, caused the Christian Princes and Churches to vindicate, and execute their authority in the council of Constance upon the Popes) so 'tis not strange, if so enormous an attempt of lo the tenth met with a semblable opposition from a Prince of a known courage. Herein I shall appeal to S. W's acknowledged Master, Thomas de Albiis, if that Pope were not the schismatic, when he wrote and defined against the sacred authority of councils, and whether all they are not so too, who pursue the same attempt?  
53. And then( to return to the point in hand) a complete Reformation being long desired both in capite& membris, in the Head and the members, the design of Reforming in this point of the Supremacy had respect to the former of these, and was to be acted by the Pope on himself, or by the council on the Pope, or by sovereign Princes with the advice of their Clergy in their several Dominions, and so still only implies what he formerly assumed, not what had been formerly acknowledged his due by those who sought Reformation.  
54. Here then we have a clear and candid view of S. W's self evidencing and demonstrative faculty, his first ground( chief ston in the corner of his impregnable fabric, which all our {αβγδ}, or engines of battery must never have the confidence to approach) 1. being considered as an affirmation, or assertion of a matter of fact, hath appeared to have no truth in it, in the sense wherein alone he is concerned to have it true; then 2. as a conclusion, assumed to be demonstratively inferred from two self-evident premises▪ both of these( could a man with any charity suspect it) have proved discernibly false; And then why should not every proposition in the Alcoran set up for self-evident? when some one( which but half so much as two) false prolepsis would certainly be able to infer it: The Reader therefore must needs be obliged to S. W.'s superabundant mercy, that having possessed himself of this enormous gyantly faculty of concluding or achieving any thing, whatsoever he had pleased, that twice two were but three, or the like( for I shall beg but one false prolepsis, to infer many millions of such) he hath used these powers so temperately, as to conclude no more from two such vast advantages, but that the Popes authority had once possession in England, distinguishing meanwhile between possession and right, and rebuking me that I 
The Dr. mistaking, and not distinguishing between Possession and right, p. 37.  did not distinguish between them, a fault which if I had been guilty of, I should readily reform, and then leave him to make his advantage of it, which will sure be small, as long as he is so far from having proved the right, that he hath thus strangely and above once miscarried, in attempting to prove the possession.  
55. Yet in the strength of this thus deplorably improsperous onset, he makes no delay to set up his trophies, and prepare for the solemnest triumph, Hence, saith he, all the evasions of D. H.( no less than all) are concluded vain, who when we( the Romanist) pled that the Pope was found in possession of this authority in England, flies off presently and denies it( who else would have called downright denying of the adversaries proposition, a flying off? but it now also appears, I had some small reason to deny it) saying he had no title to such an authority there; and mistaking and not distinguishing betwixt possession and right, saith, we beg the question, when we only take what is evident, that he was in possession, and thence infer a right, till the contrary be proved.] How far I now am, or formerly have been from mistaking in denying the right, and charging him of begging the question, when he hath no other way of inferring the right, but from the possession, and that by us was also denied, and not formerly attempted to be proved by him, and now forsooth is proposed as a self-evident ground, a principle taken for granted, which also being now pretended to be inferred from demonstrative premises, both those premises are demonstrably false, is, I shall now suppose, as manifest, as that the begging the question is the English of petitio principii, or that the latin of taking that for self-evident, which is so much less than so, as to have neither evidence nor truth in it. He hath now but one Reserve left, viz. to accuse me for ridiculous and senseless, that I can charge that Elench upon an answerer, whose part it is not, to object or dispute. But it falls out unfortunately, that there is no place for that forlorn {αβγδ} at this time when he is a laying of self-evident grounds, for those being equivalent to principles, if they fail of the native evidence, and borrow none from his armoury that produced them, that sophism must be dashed out of Aristotles elenches, or S. W's process will inevitably fall under it.   

SECT. III.  
His second Ground, evacuated from the Answers given to the first. Patriarchal power affording the Pope no authority over England.  
1. HAving spent so much time in a large but necessary survey of his first ground, we shall reap some small fruit of it, in the brevity of the next. For the second ground being by him proposed in these terms, that This authority actually over England, and acknowledged there, was acknowledged likewise to be that of the Head of the Universal Church, and not of a Patriarchate only] and his Epiphonema affixed to it, this, that this Ground is no less evident, than the former, by our adversaries confession, since that, i.e. the authority of the head of the Universal Church, above patriarches, and( as he adds in the close of the Paragraph) pretended to be instituted by Christ himself, is the authority they impugn as unlawful, and from which they reformed, which last word implies the actual acknowledgement that Authority had before] the Answer is briefly this, that we have already superseded every the minutest part of this pretention, in what hath been so largely returned to the former ground, having there shew'd him, 1. That the Popes pretended authority, as of an head of the Universal Church, and as constituted by Christ himself, was not actually over England, and acknowledged there( though it is true that the Pope did then pretend it, and some ill subjects owned, or at least seemed to own and submit to those his pretensions) 2. by the way, that the dignity of a Patriarch includes not any authority over more than the Province or {αβγδ} that belongs to him as a Primate or metropolitan, and therefore infers no kind of authority over all those that belong to the circuit of his Patriarchate; which shows the impropriety of his speech, that speaking of an Authority over England( which is no part of the {αβγδ} of the Primate of Rome) he saith it was not of a Patriarchate only] as if that of a Patriarchate only, were some authority over all whose Patriarch he were, though not so great as that of the head of the Church, whereas indeed the word Patriarch, as it differs from Primate, or in relation to any that are not his peculiar {αβγδ}, hath no connotation of authority or jurisdiction, but only of primacy of order and dignity. 3. That S. W's adversaries confession hath afforded him no advantage, their impugning the Papal pretensions as unlawful, no way implying the actual acknowledgement which that authority had before, and 4. that they that disclaimed the Popes pretended authority in England, did not call themselves Reformers, so that S. W. is far from a severe, as that is more moderate than a rigorous demonstrator, in all that he pretends from that word [ Reforming.]  
2. All that can with any colour of right be yielded him in this process, is, that this second Ground is no less evident then the first, and that he hath indeed by his adversaries confession, who withall assigns his reasons of believing, that neither hath the least evidence in it.  
3. So happy is S. W. in building of bulwarks, so hugely prosperous in the art of praepossessing his Readers, he might sure have vindicated his old answers as successfully, and demolished all the Doctors Replies to his second and third part, from which he was diverted by this more inviting employment of laying of grounds, if he had maturely considered and timely foreseen the advantages he hath reaped by it.   

SECT. IV.  
His third Ground. What is meant by the[ then Roman Church] The Romanists confession that 'tis no point of Faith. The contestations of the Gallican Church. Of Germany. Some testimonies fetched from the histories and pretensions of the ancient Popes themselves, Julius, Melchiades, lo. Gregory, exclaiming at the title of Universal, setting down the steps of Ecclesiastical judicature, acknowledging his own subjection to the Emperor. Of Agatho. The subjection of Canterbury to Rome, as of York to Canterbury, only on the title of receiving the Faith thence.  
1. HIS third Ground, like the continued attempts of rebuilding Jerusalem, falls presently under the unhappy presages of the two former. It is but this, that the Papal authority actually over the Ecclesiastical affairs in England was held then as of Christs institution, and to have been derived to the Pope as he was successor to St. Peter.] This I took to be his meaning in his first Ground( it now appears I did not mistake or misrepresent him) and accordingly evidenced his self-evident ground to be not only infirm, but false, and that contrariwise the whole kingdom professed that the Bishop of Rome had no greater jurisdiction conferred on him by God in Scripture, in this kingdom of England, than any other Bishop. If this had not real truth in it on our part, or if on his part any more force could be now given his pretention by a hand so able, and so liberal, as is that of S. W. this were now the season of it, and it were in reason to be expected from him at his more explicit proposal of his ground in these terms [ held then as of Christs institution, and as derived to the Pope as he was successor to St. Peter] but it is a little remarkable, how he hath served this third ground of his, or rather how he hath disserved the two former, by the very few words he hath here added concerning the evidence of this third. The truth, saith he, of this appears by the known confession of the then Roman Church, and the self same controversy perpetually continued till this day.]  
2. This is all he hath produced to clear up the self-evidence of this ground. And the ambiguity of the phrase [ the then Roman Church being removed, there will be no more colour of truth in this ground, than I acknowledged in the two former, when I refuted them. For either the phrase [ the then Roman Church] must signify what we vulgarly call by that name, the particular Church of Rome, as then it was, together with all those that acknowledged the authority, and submitted to the Bishop of Rome in all things, particularly in his assuming to be Christs sole Vicar by him authorised over the Christian Church of the whole world, or it must signify in the more catholic notion all the several Churches of christendom, that then lived in communion with the Church of Rome, and neither voluntarily partend, nor were excommunicate, or separated from that, yet without any connotation of any such acknowledgement, or giving up their names to his Universal Pastorship.  
3. If it be taken in the former sense, then I now aclowledge again what in answer to his first ground I willingly yielded, that this Papal authority in England, held then as of Christs institution— was confessed by the then Roman Church; But what hath S. W. gained by this? nay what hath he advanced either by his first or second ground, if they were both granted him, viz. that the Popes authority, and that not as of a Patriarch only, but as of the head of the Universal Church was acknowledged, and acknowledged in England before the Reformation, meaning still by the word acknowledged, no more, than acknowledged by the Roman Church, the Bishop of Rome, and those that were marked by his signature, submitted to this his assumed power, for that is no more than that this pretended power of his was acknowledged by himself, and all others( every where, and so consequently in England) that did aclowledge it. This therefore as I must in charity to S. W. believe was not his meaning, so I have reason to complain in behalf of his two former grounds, that having before with some confidence pretended the acknowledgednesse of the Papal power in England, indefinitely, his third ground should pretend to no more than the confession of the then Roman Church, which is interpretable to a sense thus far removed from that of England indefinitely, or all England. This therefore I think was either the disserving his own grounds, or the Reader, that had but a shadow of grounds given him instead of grounds, for, such are all such as are proposed in such ambiguous terms, that he that hath taken them on trust, in the more obvious sense, shall lose them again, when he comes to build on them.  
4. But if he take the phrase [ the then Roman Church] in the second sense, 'tis then most manifest, that as his first and second, so now his third ground hath no show of truth in it, for it is visible, in the matter of fact, that the then Church and kingdom of England, whilst it lived in communion with the Church of Rome, and neither voluntarily departed, nor was excommunicated by that Church, did yet protest their joint and most constant persuasion, that this Papal authority over Ecclesiastical affairs in England was not held as of Christs institution, or derived to the Pope as successor to St. Peter( which is the direct contradictory to what is assumed in S. W's third ground) but contrariwise that he had no greater power conferred on him by Christ in the Scripture( and there is no more pretended to by the Pope from God, then what is deduced by him out of Christs words set down in Scripture) than any other foreign Bishop had, and therefore that he that was born in England had nothing to do with Rome.  
5. So in the year 1534. the same with the date of the Universities answer, and two years before the extinguishing Act, the book De vera differentia Regiae et Ecclesiasticae potestatis, was written by the Bishops of London, Duresme, Winchester, &c. The first part of which clearly evidenceth their sense of these three things, 1. That the texts of the Gospels have no appearance of conferring this supreme authority upon the Pope. 2. That the decrees and practices of the ancient Church, yea and of pious and modest Popes were expressly against it. 3. That this power is evidenced from Scripture to be entrusted to Princes in their own kingdoms, and that in all sorts of causes. This then being the acknowledgement of those very times, to which his third ground belongs, he hath, it seems, acquired no great advantages by appealing to their confessions, as his first proof. But of this I have spoken more largely in Answer to his first Ground.  
6. The other slender proof of his assertion is conformable; The truth, saith he, appears as by the known confession of the Roman Church, so by the self same controversy perpetually continued till this day.] I must ask, Betwixt whom continued? The Reformed, I suppose on one side, but whom on the other side? All those that live and are allowed, as good catholics, to live in communion with the Church of Rom●?  
7. That he must mean, if he do not again avowedly betray the deceitfulness of all his three grounds. But in this sense his proof will itself want confirming: For it is not a principle indisputable, that all that defend the Popes power in the Church, hold it as of Christs institution, and derived to him, as he was successor to St. Peter. I have 
Answ. to Shism. Disarm. p. 237.  elsewhere shewed from his Ordinary, the 
Answ to Bp. of Derry, p. 69.  Bishop of Chalcedon, at a time when he was defending the Popes power, that he yet acknowledged, that whether the Bishop of Rome be St. Peters successor, jure divino, or humano, is no point of faith] and Bellarmines two concessions conclude no less, de pontiff. l. 4. c. 4. Non esse de fide, divino& immutabili praecepto Romae sedem Petri esse constitutam,& fort non est de jure divino Romanum pontificem Petro succedere. That it is no point of Faith that Peters See was by divine immutable law settled at Rome, and perhaps it is not of divine right that the Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter. And he cannot but know 'tis the common opinion of the Doctors of Paris,( who sure defend the Popes power against those of the Religion, who deny it) that the Pope hath not universal jurisdiction jure divino; I suppose he may have heard of the no small collection of catholic Writers made by Melchier Goldastus, in his three Volumes De Monarchia, which will show him, that all that live in the communion of the Bishop of Rome, and aclowledge his power in the Church, do not yet aclowledge the divine right to supreme Pastorship, and this will not be refuted, or lose any part of its truth by suggesting that Goldastus himself was not of that number. And he may also remember the Tracts, and proofs of the liberties of the Gallican Church not long since published, and not be wholly ignorant also, by whom they were published.  
8. But instead of these loser references, I shall add to what hath here lately been said of the judgement and practise of the Gallican Church,( witnessed by the pragmatic Sanction) these two or three instances. The former out of Bochellus, Ann. 1484. That whereas by ancient custom of France, a● Legate of the Pope, nor Rescript or Mandate of his might be received, but by consent of the most Christian King, and unless he did exhibit his Letters of Delegation by the Kings Procurate to be viewed and allowed by the Court of Parliament, limited so as no diminution arise to Regal right, immunity of the Church, or authority of laws; Contrary to this Law, Cardinal Balva, entering France as Legate, without advertising the King, the Kings Procurator entred action against him, the Court of Parliament decreed that he should be accused by two Advocates, and interdicted him the exercise of his Legatine power. Is this reconcilable with their belief or acknowledgement, that the supreme universal pastor ship( including France as well as England) was by Christs institution derived to the Pope as successor to St. Peter? The second is that of the 
Massaei Chron. Ann. 1510.  council of Tours, which concluded and decreed that Lewis XII. might not only with safety of conscience contemn Bullas abusivas injustasque, the abusive and unjust Bulls of Julius II. but he might withdraw himself from his obedience. So when the Pope laboured with Lewis XI. to have the pragmatic Sanction abrogated, the Court of Paris exhibited to the King a 
Pro lib. Eccl. gull. adversus Roman. Aulam Defensio Paris. Cur. in Duareni Append.  defence of the Gallican liberties branched into many Articles, the third to this sense, that the King their supreme Lord the chief Founder and Defender and Keeper and Vindicater of the Churches when their rights are violated, hath power to convocate the prelates and other the like Ecclesiastical persons of his dominions, to obviate their attempts and beginnings who shall have dared to endeavour any thing against this liberty. The fourth, that in these Assemblies anciently indicted by the Kings authority many things are recorded to have been excellently constituted, and not without great deliberation of the Princes of the blood, and the Ecclesiastical Order, &c. obviating the vexations, molestations and injuries which were offered by the Court of Rome to the great damage of the people, and these Constitutions were of great authority. The sixth, that these Constitutions being long observed, when the Court of Rome in process of time attempted many things against the liberty of the Gallican Church, Charles VI. by the advice of his Nobles, prelates, colleges, Universities, Ann. 1408. set out a Constitution which vindicated the Church to the ancient liberty, and was published solemnly, and recorded in the Acts of the Court of Parliament. The ninth, that decree was made by the Court of Paris against Papal exactions. The tenth, that soon after, that decree was confirmed by the Kings Edict, and published in Court, Ann. 1408. May 15. Whereupon the Pope sending out his Bulls of Excommunication against the King and kingdom, 
Theodoric a Niem in Nemore Union. Tract. 6.  the University of Paris caused it to be torn in pieces, and declared the Pope Benedict himself to be an heretic, schismatic, and disturber of the peace,( in which particular 
De Monarch. Franc. n. 140, 141, 142.  Carolus Molinaeus adds from the acts of the Court of Paris that two officers of the Popes, which brought with them his Bulls of Excommunication, 
See the life of Archb. Chichley, p. 15.  were dressed in paper Milres, and carted through the City ignominiously) which will hardly be compatible with the acknowledgement of the divine right of his supreme universal pastorship. The like instances are not hard to be found in other kingdoms. When pus II. sent his Legate Cardinal Cusanus into Austria, 
Paralipom. abbot. Ursperg.  Cum venisset— When he came to his own Church of Brixia on the Alpes, and would have disposed of that, according to the ancient right of the Popes, sigismond Duke of Austria permitted not that any such custom should be brought into Germany.  
9. In like manner, when the 
Paralip. Alb. Ursp.  Princes of Germany represented to Maximilian the Emperor ten grievances in matters Ecclesiastical, the Emperor for redress of these called a council at Triers and Coloine, Ann. 1512. There it was decreed necessary that the Emperors and Princes should consider of means for redress of those grievances. Whereupon 
Orthuin gracious Fascic. Rer. Expet.  Maximilian set forth a decree, That though of his clemency he had tolerated the Pope and Clergy herein, as did his Father Frederick, yet because by that favour the service of God had fallen to decay, it appertained to his duty that Religion decay not, that the worship and service of God be not diminished. And immediately Maximilian with 
Galli successu rerum elati Casare& Cardinalibus authoribus Pontificem ad Concilium— citant. Onuph. in vit. Julii II.  Lewis XII. of France with some Cardinals called a council at Pisa.  
10. But I shall now carry him a little higher( that he may have the fairer prospect of this matter) to the practise of some of the ancient Popes themselves. 1. Pope Julius who was willing enough not only to defend, but to take advantage to exalt his power, and accordingly took upon him in case of division among Bishops, to absolve Athanasius, and was therein opposed by the Oriental, not only Eusebian, or Semiarian, but catholic Bishops,( who in the council of Antioch 
See Socrates, l. 2. c. 11. Sozomen l 3. c. 3.& Julius's Epist. in Athanas. c. 1.  resolved that Julius's absolution was not to be admitted) doth yet in his Epistle written on that occasion defend the right of his act by 
{αβγδ}— Ep. Jul. p. 741. A. {αβγδ}. Ib. B. {αβγδ}— Ib. p. 753. C.  ancient custom especially, and by the Canon of Nice( which yet 'tis plain would not justify it) and not by pretence of any divine authority, or in any such dialect, that could signify or intimate his praetension, that from St. Peter this belonged to him, which sure he would have done, and thereby have silenced all catholic opposers, if thus it had then been believed by them, or even by himself, to have belonged to him. For the injustice of their dealing with Athanasius, and with him he saith in the close of the Epistle, 
P. 753. D:  {αβγδ}— Pauls ordinances are not thus, the Fathers have not thus delivered, 'tis a new course, this that they have taken, and again, {αβγδ}— What things we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter those we signify to you. But in the debate of the question of right of the Popes drawing a business to himself from the Oriental Bishops, he pretends not to justify his act from any divine right or supreme jurisdiction devolved to him from St. Peter, but only from the authority of the Nicene Canon, and ancient custom, and that not for any Papal right in him, but upon the score of appealing from one council to another, and yet neither of these truly appliable in that cause, which made it more necessary to have appealed to his supreme Pastorship, flowing from Christs donation to St. Peter, if he could with any opinion or appearance of justice have pretended to it.  
11. So in that African council where St. Augustine was present, and the Popes praetensions were disputed, and his power in their Churches denied, he made no such challenge from Christs donation to St. Peter, but from the Canons of Nice, which yet were so far from justifying his praetensions,( no such Canon being found upon examination) that if he could have thought that other pleadable, he would certainly have discerned cause to make use of it.  
12. In that business of the Africans, heretofore largely insisted on, these farther passages are considerable( beside those many which I then offered him, Answ. to Schis. Disarm. ch. VI. Sect. 13. and to which I have yet received never a word of Reply from him) 1. That at the first Pope Melchiades had never had cognisance of the Africans affairs, had they been able to accord them themselves, and had it not been by the Africans own permission and allowance brought to him for a brotherly not authoritative decision, pergant ad fratres& collegas nostros transmarinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopos, Aug. Ep. 162. and so no act of authority or jurisdiction in him, for that depends not on allowance of the Subjects. 2. That the same Augustine much doubts whether Melchiades with his colleagues ought to usurp to themselves this judgement, which had before been determined by seventy Africans, 
Ibid.  An fort non debuit— by this his doubt assuring us, that if he had done it without their allowance, it had been u●questionably an usurpation. 3. That the Pope did not exercise that power 
Nec ipse usurpavit.  himself, but had Bishops joined to sit Judges with him. 4. That the 
Rogatus enim Imperator judices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo sederent, &c. Aug. Ib.  Emperor sent or commissionated those Bishops to sit with him. 5. That this was no usurpation in the Emperor( as it must be, if the Pope were by Christs law above the Emperor Universal Pastor) but, if we will believe 
Ep. 162. Ad cujus curam, de qua rationem Deo redditurus est, res illa maxim● pertinebas.  St. Augustine, that which belonged to his office, of the discharge of which he was to give account unto God.  
13. add to this 3. that other instance of Pope lo in the great cause of the {αβγδ} in the council of Chalcedon, of which we have 
Answ. to Schis. Disarm p. 96.  formerly enlarged, and shewed, 1. That that General, and one of the four general councils acknowledged the Pope no such primacy or supremacy of jurisdiction at all, but defined the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal privileges with him, 2. That the Pope interprets the injury done in that council to have been a breach against the Nicene Canons and dispositions of Ecclesiastical affairs, without mention of any other. 3. That through the Epistles written on that occasion he deduces not his primacy from St. Peter. 4. That he takes no notice of any injury done to himself in that council, but only to the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch, and other metropolitans. 5. That the deducing the dignity of the Roman See from the greatness of that Imperial City, which was more than pretended by that council, was never so much as quarrelled at by the Popes Legates in that controversy, which sure is a competent prejudice to the deducing it from St. Peter.  
14. add 4. that of Gregory so vulgarly known in his Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, telling him that he had prohibited him to call him 
Ep. ex Reg. l. VII. Indict. 1. c. 30.  Universal Father, that he was not to do it, that reason required the contrary, that it was derogatory to his brethren, that this honour had by a 
See again l. IV. Indict. 13. c. 72. et 76.  council, that of Chalcedon, been offered to his praedecessors, but refused, and never used by any. A manifold testimony that this did not in his opinion belong to him by the law of Christ, for then 1. according to Christs own pronouncing, Joh. XIII. 13. Ye call me Master and Lord, ye do well, for so I am, they should do well who gave that title to him, and he also that took it to himself, 2. it could have been derogatory to none, 3. reason could not have forbid it, 4. he could not have averted it with an absit, recedant( any more than Peter could the sufferings of Christ) without even fighting against God.  
15. Much less could he have  told 
L. VII. Ep. 30. Fidenter dico quia quisquis se Universum Sacerdotem vocat, vel vecari desiderat—  Mauritius, that whosoever( not only if the Bishop of Constantinople, but whosoever) calls himself Universal Priest, or desires to be so called( either, or both) in elatione suâ Antichristum praecurrit, is a fore-runner of Antichrist by his pride. And again to the Empresse, l. IV. Ep. 34. In hac ejus superbia quid aliud nisi propinqua jam Antichristi esse tempora designatur, his pride was an indication of Antich●ists approaching. And to John himself he sets it higher, that 'tis 
Quis, rogo, in hoc tam perverso( before s●ulto ac superbo) vocabulo nisi ill● ad imitandum proponitur, qui despectis Angelorum legionibus s●cum socialiter constitutis, ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere, ut et nulli subesse, et solus praeesse videretur. Greg. Ep. ex Reg. l. 4. Ep 38.  imitating none but the Devil, Who I pray in this perverse foolish proud title is proposed for imitation, but he that despising the Legions of Angels which were socially created with him, endeavoured to break out to the top of singularity, that he might seem to be under none, and above all. And so on at large, making it to be the transcribing of Lucifers act of arrogance to assume to be Universal Pastor. And again, 
Ibid.  that the King of pride is at hand, and the destruction of Priests prepared, because they cervici militant elationis, qui ad hoc positi fuerant, ut ducatum praeberent humilitatis, God, saith he, having decreed to resist the proud, and humble him whosoever exalts himself, 
Ibid. Ep. 32.  elsewhere he calls it blasphemiae nomen, the name of blasphemy, and 
Ibid. Ep. 40.  again, that to consent to that wicked title is fidem perdere, to destroy the faith. And that S. W. may not have so ill an opinion of Gregory, as to imagaine that he should declaim against this as Antichristian and diabolical in another, that he might have the monopoly of it himself, besides that what was cited from his Epistle to Eulogius, looked on it only in respect of h●mself, he may also hear him in the application speaking in the first person plural, and so including himself, 
Ibid.  Quid ergo nos Episcopi dicimus, What then say we Bishops, who have received our place of honour from the humility of our Redeemer, and yet imitate the pride of his enemy, and again, that the council of Chalcedon had offered it to the See of Rome, but 
Nullus unquam tali vocabulo appellari volvit, nullus sibi hoc temerarium nomen arripuit. Ibid.  none of his Ancestors would receive it, and 
Ib. Ep. 32.  elsewhere, that he pleads not his own cause, but the cause of God, of the whole Church, of the laws, the venerable Countels, the commands of Christ, which are all disturbed with the invention of this proud pompatick style of Universal Bishop, that 
Vece dominicâ sancto et omnium Apostolorum Petro principi Aposto●o totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est, et tamen Universalis Apostolus non vocatur. Ibid.  the care of the whole was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles, St Peter, and yet he is not called Universal Apostle, which shows evidently that whatever title belonged to Peter, yet not that of Universal Pastor, and that Princeps Apostolorum was not so to be understood.  
16. From the same Gregories confession we have it, that the whole matter of Ecclesiastical judicature is to be concluded in this manner according to the words of the Novelle, 
Greg. Ep. ex Reg. l. XI. Ep. 54.  that if any complaint be made against a Bishop by any, the cause shall be judged before his Metrorolitane, secundum sanctas regulas et nostras leges, according to the Canons and ours, i. e.( for they are the words of the Emperors Novelle) the Imperial laws, If the party stand not to his judgement, the cause is to be brought to the Archbishop or Patriarch of that Dio●cese, et ille secundum Canones et Leges ei praebeat finem, he shall give it a conclusion( a finally conclusive determination) according to the Canons and laws aforesaid. Here then is the last appeal to the Archbishop or Patriarch of the {αβγδ}, and as yet no notice taken of the Bishop of Rome, unless in his own Patriarchate, which is absolutely exclusive of of his universal jurisdiction, only now he adds, which I must not conceal, Si dictum fuerit quia nec Metropolitanum hahuerit nec Patriarcham, dicendum est, quia a seed Apostolica, quae omnium Ecclesiarum caput est, causa haec audienda ac dirimenda fuerat. Here then is the place for the Popes cognisance and decision to interpose, according to his opinion, viz. in this one single forlorn case, that the plaintiff hath neither metropolitan nor Patriarch, and then Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis, this one exception of those incognite corners of the world( which where they lye, I leave S. W. to discover) that have a Bishop but no metropolitan or Patriarch, confirms his rule as far as Britain, which certainly hath been always esteemed one of the six dioceses of the West, and hath had a metropolitan, more than one, and a Primate or Patriarch, the Archbishop of Canterbury( acknowledged by the Pope himself to be such, alterius Orbis Apostolicus et Patriarcha, saith Urbane II. of 
Guil. Malmesbur. de Gest. pontiff. Angl. p. 223.  anselm) and so by this Novelle of the Emperors cited and approved by Gregory, it is most evident that in his time, and his opinion, the Pope had neither by divine law, nor human, nor by his own praetending, any such universal jurisdiction.  
17. The same Gregory, sure more then in compliment, addresses himself to Mauritius, in the style of Ego indignus pietatis vestrae famulus, and in the greatest expression of subjection, Ego haec dominis m●is loquens, quis sum nisi pulvis et vermi●, his unworthy servant, nothing but dust and ashes, in Comparison, and relation to him, and having declaimed against a law of the Emperors, that Souldiers should not become Monastikes, saith, 
L. 2. Indict. 11. Ep. 61.  Ego jussioni subjectus eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci— I being subject to the Imperial command, have caused publication of the law, though he took it to be impious, only adding, because the law is not agreeable to the law of God, Ecce per subjectionis meae paginam serenissimis Dominis nuntiavi, Behold, I have written to my Lords of it. Thus 'tis sure the Edict of Wenceslaus the Emperor, understood his language, affirming, Nostrum jus patronatus, ne vitium ingratitudinis incurrerent, plures antiquitus summi Pontifices agnoverunt, Augustos Dominos appellantes, et eis in re et nomine reverentiam tanquam suis Patronis exhibentes, ut diffuse in Registro Magni Gregorii habetur— Many of the Popes anciently have acknowledged our right of Patronage, that they might not incur the crime of ingratitude, calling us their Imperial Lords, and both in dead and words performing reverence to the Emperors as to their Patrons, citing those Epistles of Gregory in many places throughout, and referring to other testimonies.  
18. add 5. that of Pope Agatho in his 
In Sextâ Syn. Act. 4●.  Letters sent to the Emperor concerning a General council to be holden at Constantinople, who there plainly declareth and confesseth his Primacy to extend 
{αβγδ}, council. t. 5. p. 60. B. {αβγδ}— Ib. F. vid. et p. 64. E.& 65. B.  onely to the Bishops of the West, and not to the East, and so as it is evident that at that time the Bishops of Rome, neither by the words of Scripture, nor by the consent of the whole catholic Church, had any such Universal Primacy as he now requireth.  
19. I shall conclude with that ancient resolution at the ordaining of Paulinus Archbishop of York by Justus, the third Archbishop of Canterbury after Augustine, cited by our Britannicae Antiquitates out of Radulphus de Diceto, and briefly set down in the Abbreviationes Chron. of the said Radulphus; Sicut Cantia subjicitur Romae, quod ex eâ fidem accepit, ita Eboracum subjicitur Cantuariae quae eo praedicatores misit, as Kent is subjected to Rome, because it received the Faith from it, so is York to Canterbury, which sent Preachers thither, making the 
Sicut— prima fuit in fide, prima sit in honore, Radul. de Dis. Ibid.  reception of the faith from Rome, and not any title from Christ to St. Peter, the onely ground of any kind of subjection to it, and then( to omit many other observations, which that passage would suggest) that is distant enough from S. W's only tenor, the divine right of Universal Pastorship, on the account whereof he utterly rejects that other of receiving the Faith from Rome, as we have formerly seen. From all these, let the Reader now judge, if there were ever such a layer of self-evident grounds, as S. W. hath thus far acquitted himself to be.   

SECT. V.  
The fourth Ground invalidated. Regal power of force against all but what is of divine right. Sacra Individua. The Adversaries grant how unjustly pretended by S. W. The verdict of our English laws, and ancient practise from Henry the VIII. backward to the Conquest. Stapletons confession. Bracton. Quintinus Haeduus. Sir Roger Twisden. The Bishops Book de Vera Differentia, &c. Stephen Gardiners Oration. practise of other Nations. S. W's argument from Augustin the Monks carriage to the Abbot of Bangor, considered at large, with reflection on what had been formerly objected by Mr. H. Turbervile.  
1. HIS fourth ground, that this actual power the Pope then had in England had been of long continuance, and settled in an ancient possession] is necessary liable to all the feebleness of the three former, amassed together, and so is incomparably inefficacious to support S. W s praetensions. For, remembering from the former discoveries, what was the utmost that the power the Pope then had in England, amounted to, a power by himself assumed to be divine and over the whole Church of Christ, but not so acknowledged by the Nation, nor by S. W. attempted to be proved with the least probability, that it was thus acknowledged, it follows that if it were true, or in liberality granted, that the actual power which the Pope then really had in England,( and no greater) had been of long continuance and settled in an ancient possession, it would never stand S W. in the least stead. For still it might be but a Patriarchal power, and that is not the power of the Universal Pastor, or it might be but a power extorted from some one, or more Kings, or by them voluntarily granted, or but permitted and winked at, without any formal concession, and all such personal acts or indulgences of Kings are temporary, and revocable by themselves, and no way binding to their successors, and none of these hath so much as a praetense to divine institution. Nay on the contrary, the 
Molina de Just. Tract. 2. disp. 69. et 74.  Romanists themselves confess, that those things which are intrinsically due and proper to the Prince, as to punish offenders, to make them subject to his laws, for subjects to appeal to him from inferior Judges, paying Tributes, and the like, cannot by any other, by possession of never so long time, be prescribed. These, saith 
In Authent. Hoc amplius c. de fid. Commiss. et Felinus Rubric. de prescript.  Baluus, are incommunicable, sacra individua, they cannot be 
Alex. in l. Filiae quam de lib. Imola in Rubr. de verbo oblige.  usurped, or prescribed, or aliened, or absolutely exercised by any other than by them who bear the supreme Majesty. And if so indefinitely, then chiefly in the most considerable matters, those of religion, which most pertain to the end of Government, public good and happiness. And accordingly they aclowledge also, that it is the duty of the Prince, to command, and exact the observation of divine law, and of the Canons of the Church, that he only can make them obliging under exterior penalties, mulcts, imprisonment, exile, as when Justinian decreed the Canons of the Code, 
novel. 131.  {αβγδ}, to be observed as laws, i.e. so as might constrain the unwilling. And as the 
Twelfth Ground. p. 52.  suggesting these to be derived from the Church, or Pope, as acts of obedience in Princes, and execution of the Churches commands, is but a begging the question, so it shall, when we come to the 12th Ground, be further examined. Meanwhile the very possibility of any or all of these, is enough to keep his contrary affirmation from being a ground, which cannot be such, unless either it be by some prosyllogisme demonstrated to be true, or else the contrary be impossible.  
2. For the truth of it, that, he saith, is evinced, but by what medium? Why, saith he, both from our Adversaries grant, the evidence of the fact itself, and even by the carriage of St. Austin the Monk. What [ even the carriage of St. Austin the monk] will evince, shall anon be considered. At the present let us examine the eviction from the adversaries grant, the evidence of the fact.  
3. But doth the adversary grant indeed, that the Popes Universal Pastorship, as held by divine right from Christs grant to St. Peter, had been of long continuance and settled in ancient possession in England? Nay, doth not S. W. know, that the adversary doth not grant it? and that the evidence of the fact is so far from being on his side, that 'tis on the c●●trary? Hath he never heard of the Statutes of the kingdom before the Reign( that sure is before the pretended Reformation) of Henry VIII. which are competently to the prejudice of this Papal praetension, and can he dream that his adversaries will grant so much to their own prejudice, what is so much contrary to their own senses also? From a small piece printed lately at Bruges, De Antiqua Ecclesia Britanicae libertate, besides the evidence that his adversary denies, what he here pretends him to grant, he shall find in the margin in one place a collection of many Statutes of the former times, which may in part help to illuminate him in the point of his adversaries eoncession, and evidence of the fact, I shall give him them, with addition of some more.  
4. In the first year of Henry VII. Fol. 18. we red, The King is a mixed person, having Ecclesiastical as well as temporal jurisdiction, In the same year Fol. 20. The Pope cannot erect any privilege of Sanctuary in England.  
In the same year, fol. 23.25. the Act of King Kenulphus in exempting the Abbate of Abingdon from Episcopal jurisdiction, was judged regular and lawful.  
In the 6th of Hen. 7.13. Union to a Priory cannot be without the Kings consent.  
In the second of Richard III. fol. 22. Excommunications and Sentences of the Bishop of Rome are of no force in England.  
In the twelfth of Edward IV. fol. 16. A Legate landing in England was obliged to take Oath that he would attempt nothing to the derogation of the rights of the King or Crown.  
Under Henry VI. his nonage, when his Unkle was made a Cardinal and sent Legate by martin the fifth, the Kings attorney Ri. Cawdray made protestation against him, that none was to come as Legate from the Pope, or enter the Kingdom without the Kings appointment, and this by singular privilege of our Kings, who had enjoyed this right from all memory. On which that Cardinal publicly promised conformity. Yet that this privilege was not so singular to our Kings, but that in like manner it belonged to others, particularly to the King of France, see Ludovicus Servinus his 
Aux. Ploid. vol. 4.  Plea before the Parliament of Paris, An. 1590. when Cardinal Cajetane was sent Legate to Henry IV.  
In the same Kings Reign not only the 
Vit. Henr. C●ichley p. 86.  Clergy refused obedience to the Popes Mandate for money and disposal of the archbishopric of York, to Ri: Fleming, but the Popes Messenger Jo. Opizanus, for acting against the Kings Laws, in getting money for the Pope, was cast into prison.  
So in the Reign of Henry V. when Pope martin, whilst the King was busied in the affairs of France, had assumed some powers which were interdicted by the Laws of Edward III. and Richard II. the 
Vid. vit. Hen. Chichle Arch. Cant. p. 56.  Bishop of Lichfield and Dean of York, the Kings Legates in the council of Constance, were sent to him for redress, which they had promise of in some things; And at the same time other Ambassadors were dispatched to demand that he meddle not with disposing of those benefice in England, which both by pacts, and jure Regio belong to the Kings disposal, and for divers other things, with instructions, upon the Popes refusal to profess, Regem in iis singulis jure suo usurum, that the King will use his own right in each of them, and to make public protestation thereof before the Congregation of cardinals.  

Vit. Arch. Chic. p. 78. 80.  In his Reign also, the design of sending a Legate from Rome, though it were the Kings own Brother, was opposed, as appears by Archbishop Chichle's Letter to the King, and the consequent of it, the desisting from that enterprise whilst that King lived.  
In the second of Henry IV. 'twas enacted, That the Popes Collectors had by virtue of their Bulls no authority or jurisdiction in England, but that the Archbishops and Bishops of England are the Kings spiritual Judges.  
In the eleventh of the same King, fol. 37. The Pope cannot alter the Laws of England.  
In the same year fol. 69.76. the Judges pronounce with one voice, that the foregoing Statutes were only declarative of the common custom of England, and not introductory of any new Law.  
In the Reign of Richard II. Ch. 5. 'twas enacted, That because the King of England, holds the Crown immediately from God, therefore if any man shall follow in the Court of Rome any translation of svit, or excommunication, he shall incur the loss of his Goods, and forfeit the Kings protection.  
In the sixth of the same King( M. 6. R. 2. Rot. 8. en lescheg.) The Pope on complaint of the Bishop of Coventry, of one Moses a prior there, ordained, that there should be no more prior there, Mes queen serra, but that he or it should be ad mensam( perhaps it should be ad mentem) Episcopi. Upon which the prior and Covent assaulted the Bishop, and beat him, and broke his head with a across: And afterward an assize was brought, and it was held that the dissolution of the Pope was not good.  
In the sixteenth of Edward the third, the excommunication of the Archbishop of Canterbury is judged valid, notwithstanding the Popes sentence to the contrary.  
In the seventeenth of the same King, fol. 23. The King by his sovereign power exempted the Archdeacon of Richmund from episcopal Jurisdiction, as also all colleges or Monasteries founded by the King are exempt by the same Law.  
In the twenty fifth of the same King, it was enacted. The Pope had no right in England to confer any archbishopric, or bishoprics,  
In the twenty seventh of the same King, fol. 84. The King, as supreme Ordinary, praesents by lapse.  
In the same year, whosoever shall by citation, or impleading draw any of the Subjects of the King of England out of the kingdom, shall incur the loss of all his goods, which our Law calls incurring a Praemunire.  
In the thirty third of the same King, fol. 103. Kings being annoynted with oil are capable of spiritual jurisdiction.  
In the same Kings Reign, the dissolution of the Order of Templars by the Pope was not good, until confirmed by the King. Walsingham 59. and 46. Ed. 3.28.  
In this Kings Reign, I refer the Reader to Peter Cassiodor's complaint 
Goldasl. monarch fo. 1.  De tyrannide pontificum Romanorum in jura regni& Eeclesiae Anglicanae. Of the Tyranny of the Popes on the Rites of the Realm and Church of England.  
In the fourth of Edward 1. One that had brought a Bull derogatory to the right of the Crown, was therefore condemned to banishment, and the Fact adjudged to have the nature of Treason.  
In the Reign of Henry the third, the Lords and Commons complain of the great sums carried hence into Italy, above four hundred thousand pounds yearly. Epist. Angl. ad Innocent. which sure was mentioned by them as a gravamen, and usurpation, and is not by me designed to be further argumentative; yet may, by the way, mind us, what may possibly incite and accend so much zeal in dispatching their Missaries at this time, to reduce this stray iceland to the fold of their universal Pastor, and interpret in part, the affectionatness of S. W.'s harangues, so frequently interlaced to his dear Countrymen, there being other motives imaginable to found zeal, beside the deemed certainty of his faith.  
5. Henry II. saith Mat. Paris, An. 1164. gave out Orders to be observed by the Archbishop, Thomas Becket, and Bishops, ta●quam avita, i.e. received under his Grandfather Henry I. and his Praedecessors, These Surius interprets, ab avo Regis institutas, enacted by his Grandfather, but that is a deceit, for Mat. Paris saith, they were the Institutes of his Praedecessors. And  
6. William Rufus telling anselm, that he had promised to keeep all the customs of England, commands him thereupon, that he should not make any appeal to the Pope,( Guil. Malmsb. de Gest. pontiff. Angl. l. 1.) and Eadmer an Acquaintance of Anselmes, affirms, that the King required of him to promise the same under Oath. de vit. Ansel. l. 2. On which occasions, that especially of Henry II. Stapleton( de tribus Thomis, in Thom. Cantuar.) cries out, Quid aliud hic Henricus secundus tectè postulavit, quam quod Henricus VIII completâ jam malitiâ apart sibi usurpavit, ut supremum Ecclesiae caput in Anglia esset? what difference was there betwixt that demand of Henry II. and the more open usurpation of Henry VIII. when he assumed to be head of the Church in England? And again, Quid hoc aliud rursum est, nisi ut Rex Angliae sit apud suos Papa? What is this other then to make the King of England Pope among his own Subjects? A competent testimony of the practise from the mouth of an Enemy, and irrefragable to him, that concludes the right from the possession.  

Novel 132.  7. Thus 'tis not only resolved in the Novells, that the King hath supreme power over 
Nihil nin perviuns ad inquisitionem Ma●estati extitit Imperatoriae, quae communem in omnes homines moderationem& principatum p●rcipit.  all persons in all, and so ecclesiastical affairs, and by our own Law, that the King hath no equal, as 
L. 1.  Bracton saith, speaking of the Pope, and Archbishops, and other prelates, and giving this reason, for else the King might lose his precept and authority of commanding, because an equal hath no rule over an equal. But the matter is yet more clear by another Argument which 
L.V. de exception. c. 15. Sect. 3.  Bracton gives, taken from the practise of the Courts in England; That when an ecclesiastical Judge hath received a Prohibition from the King, supersedere debet, in omni çasu, He is in all causes bound to supersede, at least till in the Kings Court it be resolved to whom the Jurisdiction belongs, because if the ecclesiastical Judge might resolve of this question, whether it were his Jurisdiction or no, he would in all cases indifferently proceed, notwithstanding the Kings prohibition.  
8, In sum, 'tis among the Laws of Edward the Confessor, Chap. 10. that the King is appointed Gods Vicegerent to rule the kingdom and people of the Lord, and above all, the holy Church.  
This concurrence of our ancient Laws in this matter minds me of 
Joan. Quint. Heduus Jurisconsult.& Lutetiae Professor publicus in Repet. lectione de Christianae Civitatis Aristocratia, defendit Aristocratiam Christianae Civitatis, qua descriptio Pontificii& Regii Imperii continetur. Possevin.  Joannes Quintinus Heduus, who flourished at the same time when Henry VIII. abrogated the Papal praetensions in England, and was also of the Roman Communion, and attributed much to that See. He lays for his ground. In solo principe omnis est potestas. All power is in the Prince alone, and from a learned Lawyer Lotharius asserts, Principem esse fontem omnis jurisdictionis, that the Prince is the fountain of all Jurisdiction: citing the C. Quando vult Deus, cause. 23. qu. 4. Thence he saith, the Reason is, why it is lawful for the Prince sometimes to determine those things which concern the Church, least the honour of the Mother( the Church) should in any thing be violated. If any thing, saith he, be an ecclesiastical matter, that of convocating councils is certainly one, and yet 'tis the opinion of many learned men, that the Emperor may call a General council, so oft as he sees the Pope and Cardinals be noted of any suspicion, and neglect to do their duty, either for want of skill, or out of sinister intention, or peradventure of both, or when there is any schism. He puts a particular case, The Pope calls the Bishops to Rome, or to some other place, the King forbids them to go, or commands them to come to his Court or council. The Bishops must, saith he, obey the Kings precept, and not only in this, but in any other matter whatsoever, beside sin; for he that doth not observe his bound fidelity to the King, whether Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, he ought to be ejected from his degree. This he proves by many Canons, and concludes his opinion to be, when the King calls together the prelates to a council, and to reform the State of the Church, they are bound to obey, yea though the Pope forbid it. But this by the way.  
10. 'twere not difficult further to pursue this through the series of times, and evidence it out of our Histories of almost each former Age from the beginning of Christianity in this iceland, to those daies of the extinguishing Act: But for a fair view of that, I refer the Reader to our learned Countryman, Sir Roger Twisden, in his historical vindication of the Church of England, in point of schism, who hath of late fully and satisfactorily performed that part.  
11. All that I shall here further insert concerning our own Affairs, I shall choose to transcribe out of two of our first pieces, which the Bishops set out on this subject, in King Henries dayes( the former, two years before, the latter in the year of the exterminating Act) that it may at once appear, that not the luxuriant enormous will of the Prince, but the dispassionate judgement of the prelates, and the conviction of solid reason, usherd in this( change in the outward face of things, or rather) vindication of the intrinsic Rites, and Liberties of the Anglicane Church, that extinguishing Act being, as hath been said, from a competent Authority, not introductory of a new Law, but only declaratory of ancient custom, which had prevailed through all times, and was refreshed and revived, as often as occasion demanded.  
12. In the same year then, as hath been said, with the decision of the Universities forementioned, An. 1534. was written the Book, De vera differentia— where besides what was even now mentioned thence, 'tis punctually demonstrated, that those powers which by S.W. are supposed to have been of long continuance and settled in an ancient possession in the Papacy, were acknowle●gedly vested in the Kings of England. Their proofs I have elsewhere pointed at, I shall now more largely set them down.  
13. First from the Statute of Appeals, and the method of them from Bishop to Archbishop,& postremo ad Regem, in the last resort to the King, ut praecepto ipsius in Curiâ Archiepiscopi controversia terminetur, ita quod non debit ulterius procedere sine consensu Regis, That by his Commission the controversy may be ended in the Archbishops Court, so that there may be no further proceeding without the consent of the King. 2. By the Statute against any Bishop or Archbishop, his going out of the kingdom without the Kings licence, and giving security, that neither in going nor staying perquirant malum vel damnum Regi vel Regno, they will cause any damage to King or kingdom.( Either of which, what a destructive influence it must have on all foreign, and so Papal authority, is most visible.) 3. By the Example of Thurstan Archbishop of York, who when he obtained the Kings licence to go to the council called by Calixtus, he was required first to take Oath, give faith( and so did) that the would not receive episcopal benediction from the Pope.( Another clear evidence that the Kings power over ecclesiastics, 1. In imposing oaths on them, 2. In prohibiting them all acknowledgement of Papal jurisdiction, was then in full force against the Popes praetensions.) 4. By our Kings, Canutus, Ethelred, Edgar, edmond, Aethelstane, Ina, Alfred, making of Laws in Ecclesiastical matters, the severals whereof are there recited. 5. By their authority of investing of Bishops. 6. By the exemptions from all episcopal authority given by them, as they pleased, for example, by William the Conqueror to the Abbate of battle, by him instituted. 7. By the Letter and Protestation of that King to the Pope, that if he did not reform the abuses, which he minded him of, he would himself take a course to do it, with a Torpescere non valemus, quin( ut tenemur) tanta discrimina pro viribus evitemus. We cannot be so sluggish as not to do our utmost( as we are obliged) to avert so great dangers. 8. By the Oration of King Edgar to his clergy, requiring them to cause a Reformation by the conjunction of his and their power. Episcopali censura et Regia authoritate, committing the matter to so many Bishops, as are there name. 9. by the Letters of the Parliament to the Pope, when he took upon him to dispose of the kingdom of Scotland, which our King claimed. This certainly( being the work of the Bishops at that time) was another large testimony of the acknowledgement of the kingdom at that time( which is somewhat more than of his present adversaries) And the force of it was so great, and the truth so generally acknowledged then, that Stephen gardener one of the composers of it, in an Oration of his, soon after delivered on this matter, 
De Ver. ob. p. 731. 18.  makes no scruple to say, Omnes planè constantission consensu in hoc convenerunt docti pariter atque indocti, viri atque foeminae nihil ei cum Româ esse negotii quem Anglia genuit, All are most constantly agreed, learned and unlearned, men and women, that he that is born in England hath nothing to do with Rome, nothing which can be claimed from him by any tenor of right human or divine by Christ in Scripture or out of Scripture.  
14. That Oration of his De vera Obedientiâ, written Ann. 1536. the year of that Extinguishing Act, is the other piece which even now I mentioned, the Penman whereof being far from a Reformer, living and dying an eminent persecuter of such, his name possibly may add some weight to his observations; From one 
P. 726.  Paragraph of that Oration, the Book being not in every mans hands, I shall give the Reader a {αβγδ} of the whole discourse, and a representation of the entire truth in this matter.  
15. To this very objection then, that we have now before us, that the Bishop of Rome had been by our Princes acknowledged the head of the Universal Church, honours given, submissions performed to him, his authority acknowledged, so that if right be judged by fact, the advantage will be on the Popes side, he accommodates this answer, that in those times and passages which seem most to derogate from the right and authority of our Princes, some light of the truth was yet always discernible, by which he that will look close, and carefully, shall easily find that the acknowledgements that were made them, were not solid, and entire, and built on any foundation of right, but specious rather than true, acts of civility, not of duty, and 
Honoris faenerati potius quam soluti argumenta.  arguments that the honour was lent for advantages, not paid them for any obligation. For if our Princes had been resolved that the Bishop of Rome was Christs Vicar on earth whom all were bound to obey, and without whose intervention nothing could be firm or valid, or if the Popes themselves had been really thus persuaded, 'tis not to be imagined, that they would have used human arts and policies, yea and plain terrors, and associations of secular force to gain this power in this kingdom( but have made their appeals to the solid t●stimony of divine truth, if they had any such to produce) or that the Princes, such especially who after their death were honoured as Saints, would by facts openly have diminished that their authority, which by words and titles they so acknowledged; Had they believed that the administration and care of the whole world was committed to the Pope by God, with what confidence could they have made so many 
Quamvis corona Angliae et jura ejusdem coronae ipsumqua regnum fuerunt ab omni tempore retro acto adeo lib●ra, ut nec Dominus summus Pontifex nec aliquis extra regnum se intromittere debeat, de eisdem— Act. Dep. Rich. II. M. S. citat. ab Ad. Reutero p. 4.  Decrees, contrary and derogatory to this principle, expressing their dislike of his fatherly care; disclaiming the exercise of his piety, and forbidding him to meddle with their affairs, or have inspection of them, whom they deemed to be set in the Watch Tower by God for this purpose? Besides, the doing this had been strangely irregular, it being not in the power of Inferiors to make laws for, or against their Superiors, or to restrain them in their administrations, and yet this our Princes( not passionately in their Courts, but) on mature advice in their Parliaments frequently did, making laws against the Popes interposition in such or such things, to which also the Popes were so far from expressing any dislikes, or returning their rebukes, that they took no least notice of them, but liberally commended the actors for their faith and obedience, imitating the subtlest Merchants, when they have made any very circumventing advantageous bargain, they sit down contentedly with half, and press not rigorously for all, esteeming it perfect gain, whatsoever they can get by such arts, when they know nothing is due to them. 'twas from the benefit they received by it, not from any opinion of his being the Vicar of Christ, that our Princes allowed him any authority in their Realms, and that 
Salvis nobis& haered●bus nost●is justitiis, libertatibus,& regalibus nostris. Instrum. Concession. et obligation. à Joanne a Rege fact. ap. Guil. Paris.  cum moderamine, so as they could relieve themselves from suffering any considerable damage by it, and could cast it out when they pleased, their authority being but precarious, 
Forasmuch as the King hath ordained these things to the honour of God and holy Church, and for the Common-wealth, and for the remedy of such as be grieved, he would not that any other time it should turn in prejudice of himself or of his Crown, but that such rights as appertain to him, should be saved in all points. Stat. Edwardi I. in his 3d year, Westm. 1. cap. 48. Tit. Concess. fact. Eccles. semper sine praejud. Coron.  as long as the Princes judged it best for their own interests, and as soon as they thought fit to stand on their certain right, the Popes authority was presently retrenched; till then, they prudentially dissembled, and took no notice of his usurpations, and satisfied themselves, that they, as well as he, were the gainers by it. Thus it was for the main, and if there were any singular instances, which seemed contrary to this, yet the concessions of weak, and mastered, or deluded, or temerarious, or negligent Princes can have no force to praejudge the powers which are given to Kings by God. They called them Fathers, and heads, and dignified them with many titles, but this was no prejudice to their monarchic prerogatives; Again, the ancient Church of Rome was for the lustre of their sanctity, and amplitude of power, not only of great name in the Western Church, and particularly in ours, but of eminent authority, in the sense, that Cicero useth authority, when in giving of testimonies, he attributes authority to men of parts and wealth, not that they are always in the right, but because the multitude are willing to be led by such, and do not easily distrust them; But for any Divinely established authority, the Pope neither hath, nor hath had among us any more, than any other Bishop. What Princes have done for their interests, or from the necessities of their affairs, or through ignorance, or circumvention, or on any such other respect, can be no prejudice to the truth, or to the native rights of the Diadem vested in them by God, and therefore if it were the custom at any or all times to advice with the Bishop of Rome in governing the Church, and to do nothing without consulting him, and if Princes permitted their Subjects to repair to him, this was far from freeing their Subjects from their own jurisdiction, which being committed to them by God, could not without violation of the Paternal care due to their Subjects, be abdicated by them. As on the other side, when they had no need of the Pope, when his interpositions grew inconvenient, the Prince might as safely, and without violation of religion dismiss him, as a Lord may do his Chaplain,( they are his own words) whom he had formerly received, and hired to officiate in his Family, especially if he discerned him to assume beyond his bounds, to exact subjection from him and his Family.  
16. Thus far that Great Bishop, who professing that he had formerly sworn to defend the Papal power and authority, and since to have been convinced with the evidence of the contrary, may be an example to others to do the like, on the conviction of his reasons, nor can it much prejudice his testimony( if we stood on that, as we do not, but on the truth of his observations, and the evidence that S. W's adversaries do not grant what he would have them) that in Queen Maries dayes he returned to the Papacy again; Whatsoever he thought of the Original right pretended from St. Peter, he might think it lawful for the Queen by Act of State to set up the Popes power in some degree, and then when it was so, account it his duty to submit to it.  
17. Meanwhile it may be added, ex abundanti, that what in that Oration he maintained, is in very full accord with the declared judgement and practise of other Nations through all times; Alciat, whom 
An. 534.  Baronius justly styles doctissimum, most learned, resolves it in general, 
Cod. Rubric. de sacros: Eccl.§. 3.  Nemini dubium esse quin in primitiva Ecclesia de rebus et personis Ecclesiasticis jus dicerent Imperatores, that no man doubts but in the Primitive Church the Emperors had jurisdiction over Ecclesiastical matters and persons.  
18. mathias Corvinus King of Hungary punished Bishops and Priests, when they offended, &c. Laurence Roborella the Popes Legate not disallowing it. Ant. Bonfin. Rer. hunger. decade. IV. l. 1.& 3.  
19. Charles the great, Capitular. l. 1. Praef. desires that no man will think he took too much upon him, that in Ecclesiastical matters and persons he took care to correct what was amiss, defending himself by the example of Josias. The ninth council of Toledo, c. 1. c. filiis. 16. q. 7. admonishes the Curators of the goods of the Church, that if a Minister fraudulently imbecille any of them, he complain to the Bishop, but if the Bishop be the offender, to the metropolitan, if the metropolitan, to the King. And many the like, which I shall not now ( extra orbitam) insist on.  
20. And thus much to his first mediums of eviction, his adversaries grant, and the evidence of the fact itself, of the ancient possession and long continuance of Papal power through the Reigns of our former Kings, that the Reader may discern the distance betwixt S. W's self-evident grounds, and plain matters of fact.  
21. It remains, that I take notice of his other medium of eviction, the carriage of St. Austin the Monk, and the abbot of Bangor, expressed, saith S. W. in that counterfeited testimony alleged by Dr H. whence we see it was the Doctrine St. Austin taught the Saxons.] But it would even move ones compassion to think, how many frustrations he will here meet with also, in this attempt of eviction.  
22. For 1. how can he evince that Monks carriage from a testimony, which the same time that he appeals to it, he charges of being counterfeit? Can he think fit to found Principles on the quick-sand, and praetend to evince demonstratively, when he confesses his medium not only to be fallible, but fallacious, and actually counterfeited? 'tis not enough to say that D H. alleges it, and so that ad hominem it is convincing, for an argument ad hominem is at most but a probable argument, and so cannot be sufficient for the evincing of a ground or self-evident principle( which mankind, and not only hic homo is concerned in) especially when 'tis used by him that doth not himself believe it, but on the contrary charges it for counterfeit, when he thus produces it for evincing. This is still the same rate of demonstrating, that we have oft minded him of, {αβγδ}, scientifical falsely so called, a testimony acknowledgedly counterfeit, yet sit to be a medium of a severe, if not rigorous demonstration.  
23. But then 2. I may be allowed to think that there is no truth in his Epithet, and that that testimony was not counterfeited, having had the leisure particularly to examine and invalidate all the suggestions of so learned a man as Mr. H. T. is commended to be by no meaner a person than Thomas de Abbiis, very elaborately and pompously offered, in a peculiar discourse, against that one testimony. And as if there had never passed any such thing, or at least as if some kind of reply had been made to it, this can yet obtain no more then a fastidious mention of [ that counterfeited testimony] I desire S. W. will for once so far take notice of the rules of common justice among men, that the brand of counterfeit be not affixed ad libitum to whatever comes in his way, unless he be at leisure to prove his charge, or be resolved to take a fit opportunity to prove it, and if in order thereto he will in some earnest reflect on that business betwixt H.T. the Romanist and me, he shall soon find who was the gainer by it, it being visible in the entrance, how safe I stood, and how firm the conclusion which I inferred from that testimony, it being no other but a matter of fact, of known truth, and no more but what, from all sorts of writers that ever dealt in that subject, I except not Baronius himself, is notorious, and confessed by the Romanists, viz. that the Britans, those of Bangor particularly, denied to yield obedience to the Pope, upon Austins demand of it.  
24. Whether S. W's conclusion be of this kind, that it can receive benefit by this testimony, if it be valid, and no prejudice, in case it be counterfeit, let us next consider, and in order to this, I will be good natured, and afford him this odds, that what passed for utterly invalid( because counterfeit) when urged against him, shall be of full force and validity, as far as it can be argumentative against me, which I mean for an essay how happy S. W. would be, if he might have all the gains, and none of the inconveniences of his own wishes.  
25. What then was this carriage of Austin the Monk, and the Abbate of Bangor, as it is 
Tr. of Schis. p. 111.  there set down? Why, that when Augustine required subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome, the Abbot answered, Notum sit vobis— Be it known unto you that we are all subject and obedient to the Church of God and the Pope of Rome, but so as we are also to every pious and good Christian, viz. to love every one in his degree and place, in perfect charity, and to help every one by word and dead, to attain to be the sons of God, and for other obedience I know none due to him, whom you call the Pope, and as little do I know by what right he can challenge to be Father of Fathers, or( as it is 
See App. to H. T. p. 184.  better rendered from a due punctation of the Welsh) and any other obedience than that, I aclowledge not to be any mans, or to belong to any man, whom ye name Pope or Father of Fathers, to challenge and require. As for us we are under the rule of the Bishop of Gaerlegion upon Uske, who is to overlook and govern us under God.  
26. Now with this testimony let us, in the name of truth and sobriety, compare S. W's conclusion, which he saith is evinced by the carriage of St. Austin and that Abbot, expressed in this testimony: The Conclusion is, that this actual power the Pope then had in England, had been of long continuance and settled in an ancient possession.] But from what part of this testimony can that be drawn? sure not from the Abbots telling him they are all subject to the Church of God and Pope of Rome, for that subjection is expressed to be no other than what he paid to every pious and good Christian, and then every good Christian by this argument is equally instated in this power. No more sure will it be inferred from his denying him all other power, but this. It remains then necessary, that it be inferred from Augustines requiring the abbots subjection to the Pope, or it cannot be evinced from this testimony. But 1. doth Augustine the Monk his requiring it, when it was as roundly denied him, and never afterwards granted him, evince the possession thereof? Doth he possess what he never had, and is finally rejected from his claim of it?  
27. But saith S. W. Hence we see it was the Doctrine Austin taught the Saxons. In good time, Austin taught it the Saxons, therefore the Pope was settled in an ancient possession of it. The argument is of force the quiter contrary way, the Abbate of Bangor refused it, and in the name of the whole British Church renounced all such right as he pretended, therefore infallibly he had it not. Doth not the Universal Pastorship include the British as well as the Saxons, and can then the teaching it the Saxons conclude him possessed of it among the Britans, when 'tis evident he is not possessed of it? Doth not a particular negative destroy an universal affirmative? if then he were not possessed of this power over the Britans, he was not at that time, nor had ●ver been( as far as can from that, I shall add, or from any other unsuspected testimony appear) possessed of an Universal Pastorship, or acknowledged to be possessed of it in this kingdom. Such evictions are S. W's, which unavoidably evince the direct contrary to the conclusion he projected from them.  
28. But let us for once endeavour to forget the difference betwixt Universals and Particulars, and take the Saxons, those few that were then converted by Austin, to be this whole Nation, what hath S. W. gained toward his unimproveable conclusion by this great liberality? All that he praetends to is but Austins teaching it. But 1. the testimony is for no more then p●tens subjectionem Ecclesiae Romanae, demanding or requiring subjection to that Church, which differs from teaching, and can never be any seeming proof of possession.  
29. Secondly, subjection to the Roman Church doth not necessary import that supereminent power of headship of the Universal Church, and that as derived to him from Christ as to St. Peters successor. This is the least that can serve S. W's praetensions, and teaching or requiring subjection indefinitely can never come home to that, any more than the abbots answer did, that they were all obedient and subject to him, which we know signified the quiter contrary. S.W. must pardon me this strictness, that I allow him no more, than the testimony( his only proof) exacts, for besides that this strictness, were it never so great, is no more then is necessary to a demonstrator( and such the layer of grounds assumes to be) the Records from Bede, and such other Historians, as the Romanist most depends on in this matter, amount to no more than this, that Austin finding the Britans to retain some practices different from the Roman usages, as in the celebrating of Easter, &c, laboured to comform them to the Roman way, under the title of catholic peace, and so to bring all to an uniformity, but the Britans constant to their own Traditions, were not moved with the mention of the authority of the Roman Church or Pope; so Bede sets down his speech to them, In multis quidem nostrae consuetudini imò universalis Ecclesiae contraria geritis, In many things you do contrary to our custom, yea to the custom of the Universal Church( where by the way, some difference there is betwixt our i. e. the Roman, and the Universal Church. And so in the Popes answer to his third Interrogatory, he tells Austin, that if he found any thing that might be more acceptable to God, 
sieve in Romana, sieve in Galliarum, seu in qualibet Ecclesia aliquid invenisti quod plus omnipotenti Deo posset placere, sollicitè eligas& in Anglorum Ecclesia— infundas. Bed. l. 1. c. 27.  whether in the Church of Rome or of France, or any other Church, he should infuse it into the Church of England) and then all that is thence conclusible is, that the practise of the Church of Rome being consonant to the rest of the whole Church, was used by Austine as an argument to draw the Britans to the like practise, but sure that differs much from his teaching his Supremacy of power by divine right.  
30. And this is yet more manifest, for the difference still continuing among them( what difference? Why, that the Britans would not 
Bed. l. 2. c. 2.  priscis abdicare moribus, leave their old customs) Austine in fine demands their accord with him but in these three particulars, 
Ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis, ut ministerium baptizandi juxta morem Romanae sanctae Ecclesiae& Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis, ut Genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis. Bed. Ibid.  the time of celebrating Easter, the ministering baptism according to the manner of the Roman Church and the apostolic Church( which again one would not take for the same, being so severed) and the preaching the word of God together with them, adding expressly, Caetera quae agitis quamvis moribus nostris contraria aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus, Other things which ye do, though contrary to our manners, we will bear them all patiently. Where it is most manifest, that Austin presses not, nor demands a subjection to the Papal authority, as that signifies jurisdiction, but subjection to, or rather compliance with a few customs of the Roman, being also the practices of the rest of the Church, to which the British thought they had no reason to yield, knowing that they were not under the Popes jurisdiction.  
25. One thing more is here to be observed, that Austin being now Archbishop of Canterbury expected to have the Britans aclowledge him as their Archbishop, but as Baleus tells us, 
Dionou●s— fortiter tuebatur Menevensis Arbhiepiscopi in Ecclesiarum suarum rebus ratam jurisdictionem, concludens non esse in Britannorum commodum futurum in communionem admittere vel Romanorum fastum vel cognitam Anglo-Saxonum tyrannidem. Balaus.  the Britans thought it not for their profit to admit either the pride of Rome, or the known tyranny of the Anglo-Saxons, and strongly defended the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of St. Davids in the affairs of their Churches, so Bede expressly adds, Neque illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant, they answered, that they would not have him for their Archbishop. All which is very remote from inferring the Popes possession of England at that time; yea, if he were yielded to be possessed of all that Austin did but petere, demand, or desire, yet it would yield S. W. no more advantage toward inferring the long continuance, and settlednesse in possession, than the Pope hath here had ever since he was disclaimed, for the British Bishops have all that time been subjected to the Bishop of Canterbury, the Successor of that Austin. This I suppose is not enough to satisfy S. W's appetite, and yet from the most favourable representment of this history, there is not a crumb more to be had for him; not the least news of Universal Pastorship by divine right here so much as pretended to,( and for the title of conversion from Rome, besides that this is peculiar to the Saxons, and the Britans are not concerned in it, S. W. disclaims building any thing on that title) and this cannot appear strange to any, that remembers this was in the time of that Gregory, who disclaimed that wicked, fastuous, monstrous, blasphemous, Antichristian, Luciferian title of Universal Pastorship, which therefore 'tis not soberly imaginable that Austine should challenge for him, much less that he was thus anciently settled in this possession. Thus much for his fourth Ground, exact in nothing, but its conformity with the other three, All equally capable of, and furnished with his demonstrative evictions.   

SECT. VI.  
His fifth Ground how far from having any least force in it against us. No possession, and no validity of it, if there were. S. W's proofs spent on that only which wanted them not. Some force of Possession acknowledged. No breach on our part, and so no need to consider causes of division. S. W's despiteful acts.  
1. HIS fifth Ground, that No possession ought to be disturbed without sufficient motives and reasons, and consequently it is itself a title, till those reasons invalidate it, and show it null,] is long since, as far as it is appliable to our question, disappointed and invalidated, not only by the evidences formerly produced, for an Original right to an {αβγδ}, or independency from all foreign jurisdiction, parallel to that of the Africans, and consequent to that, the unlawfullnesse of all intrusions, and the obligation of reducing unjust p●ssessions to what it was {αβγδ}, from the beginning, by the force of the Ephesine Canon, in case of the Cypriots, but now farther by considering, what power it is, which is by S. W. pretended to have been in possession so long, viz. that of Universal Pastorship by divine right, which till he hath proved demonstratively to have been in possession among us, he must no longer assume; and I shall flatter myself that I have abundantly evinced in the four former Sections, that he hath yet been very far from all appearance of thus p●oving it.  
2. Had the four former grounds been solidly evinced, had this of Universal Pastorship approved itself to have been really in possession, the one acknowledged Doctrine for many hundred years, and the sceptres of this and all other kingdoms willingly subjected to it, as to the undoubted sceptre of Christ, there might then be a season for the fifth ground, though still there would be just place also for Writs of error, and right once evidenced( as soon it would be) must have the deference from unjust, though aged possession, especially when the mindes of men were the possession, and pride on one side, and error on the other, the evil Spirits( little better than Devils) that possess it, for sure humility and truth can never be forbidden by the most inveterate contrary custom to return jure postliminii to their due habitations.  
3. But when the possession itself, as it is by S. W. stated, is the {αβγδ}, the first thing that is supposed, but not duly evidenced by him, and all the slight offers of proof for that already shown to be uneffectual( for which I refer the Reader to the four ●ormer Sections) 'tis visible that there is no farther consideration due from me to this his fifth ground; which having a general truth in it, till it be applied to our hypothesis, and so being in thesi by me most willingly, and securely granted to his first demand, is yet by S. W. beyond all the former, whose wants were more visible and importunate, allowed a liberal proportion of proofs from Nature: Morality, Policy, Common Law; but all these pains, as now appears, misplaced by him, like the charity which the Pharisee was warned of, the calling in only of his rich neighbours to his Feast; It had been well if in compliance with that Text, any of the four former, the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind, had been thought capable of it.  
4. Briefly therefore, I cannot affix any probable sense to this proposition in thesi, wherein I have any concernment to deny, or question it; All the question is of the hypothesis; I shall never praetend the disturbing of any sort of possessions without sufficient motives or reasons. I, as readily as he could wish, aclowledge possession itself a title, till reasons are produced to invalidate it, and farther, I have no dislike to his proofs, but discern reason to conclude, that that part of S.W. which wrote this Paragraph, is very well enabled to demonstrate a truth, and consequently that his former faileurs have not with any justice been imputable to him, who had sagacity enough to invent, but to the matter, which was too barren to yield arguments, other than Topical or Sophistical. Only I cannot say of him, as Zeno of himself, that he sometimes wanted opinions, but never arguments, for if I may judge by these five proposals of so many grounds, I must resolve he hath more opinions than arguments, conclusions, then praemisses, five grounds, but no tolerable mediums of eviction, save for one of them.  
5. All that I have to resist in his descant on this fifth ground, is his Corollary, that I was very little advised in stating the question rightly and clearly, Sch. p. 10. Where I tell him that the motives are not worth heeding in this controversy, but only the truth of the matter of fact.] For the rebuk in this Corollary of his, the reason he assigns, is, [ for the matter of fact, to wit, that there was then an actual government, and that we broken from it, being evident to all the world, and confessed by the Protestants themselves, if there be no reasons to be examined, I am convinced to be a schismatic so flatly and plainly, that it is left impossible even to pled a defence.  
6. But he was certainly  told long since, and need not be now reminded, that we do not confess any breach on our part, that we still are where we ever were, under our lawful Pastors, of whom the Primate of England residing at Canterbury, is the chief, whom the Pope hath himself looked on, 
Quasi comparem velut alterius Orbis Apostolicum et Patriarcham. Capgrav. in vit. Anselmi.  as it were his compear, and Patriarch of this other little world, from whom having never separated, nor from our immediate superiors under him, we have no need to consider causes of divisions or breaches of that kind, which as upon mature advice we know they cannot be just, so we are without all scruple persuaded that we have not been guilty of them, nor can, save by one of these three ways, either by casting off our Bishops, or calling in and submitting to some foreign power, or separating from other sister Churches, who are not before hand with us herein to cut us off from their Communion.  
7. In managing this part of his cause, where truth wholly destitutes him, 'tis strange to see, what arts he resorts to, one while pressing me to change my method, and insist on the causes of our separation, when I assure him of the deliberate choice of this part of my method, and( which he of all men hath no praetense to complain of) my perfect concurrence with him in an unextorted profession, that no cause can justify a separation( and that therefore we have much rather chosen to preserve ourselves from this guilt, than to incur first, and then palliate it, to enjoy innocence, than to forecast and study Apologies) Another while telling us, that the breach is visible to all the world, and by us confessed, when he knows that all the magnifying glasses in the world cannot help any the sharpest sight to see what is not, and that there is nothing we more deny, than what he saith we confess, viz. that we have ever broken off from any; Our lot having constantly been that which Christ foretold the earlyest Christians, to be cast out of the Synagogue, in which we had else remained, and now to have the {αβγδ} from those that have cast us out, and so made it impossible for us to be guilty of what they charge us; Let him but take notice, what I insist on this third time, that we confess no breach on our part, but are ready, if yet they please to redintegrate secundum Canones, and that if herein we are proved liable, we shall contentedly fall under the guilt, and entertain no advocate to pled our causes, and he will be forced to confess his Corollary had as much injustice, as I willingly aclowledge his fifth ground( considered, as here it is, only in thesi) to have truth in it.   

SECT. VII.  
His sixth Ground, safely, denied, or granted. What demonstration required to our denying their Possession, S. W's demonstration producible by us, Oral Tradition of a present age, that of Gregories. Tradition reversed. The Popes whatsoever possession far from Divine right, S. W's reasons examined. The Papal authority being held of Faith, Universal Tradition, Necessity of acknowledging it in order to Unity. The no force of reasons barely probable,( On whose side the schism is) Of Testimony-proofs; The argument from the title of Reformers. The true foundation of their possession. Multitude of learned on which side. No praetense for continuing in schism.  
1. IT now from the praemisses sufficiently appears, what weight or solidity there is in his sixth ground, or what benefit he is likely to receive by it, whether it be denied or granted. The Ground is, That such a possession as that of the Popes authority in England was held, ought not to be changed or rejected upon any lesser motives or reasons, than rigorous and most manifest evidence that it was usurped.] Now, I say, S.W. hath so imperfectly managed the former part of his undertaking, so far from deeply or substantially, laid and settled his former grounds, that this, which is but the improvement and advancement of them, may be indifferently, either denied, or granted by me, yet upon distant accounts.  
2. If I grant it, it is upon this security, that we have evidences as manifest, as matter of this nature will bear, and as rigorous as S.W. hath reason to exact of us, that the authority which the Pope pretended to, but was never possessed of, in this kingdom, viz. that of the Universal jurisdiction held to be conferred on him by Christ, was by him unduly pretended to, i.e. usurped; Mathematical, or Physical demonstrations, we suppose, the matter is not capable of, for there is no natural repugnancy in the terms, no common notions resisted, by affirming that the Pope should have such an authority, nay if it could appear that Christ ever promised him such authority, 'tis not only just that he should have it, but as necessary concluded, that he hath had it, as it is conclusible that Christ cannot but perform his promise.  
3. And yet even of this sort, if S. W's rigorous demonstrations might really pass for such( as ad hominem to S. W. they ought to pass) I doubt not to affirm that we can thus demonstrate also, being readily able to produce more than one age, wherein this authority was not only not acknowledged, but disclaimed, I instance in that of Gregory I. where the Popes own repeated confession, that the title of Universal Pastor was wicked, monstrous, blasphemous, Antichristian, Diabolical, and by his Praedecessors of duty rejected] being testified to us by his own Epistles ex register to the Emperour, the Empresse, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and of Alexandria, are a competent and undeniable evidence of the possessions not being held in that age, from whence it will follow by S. W's laying of grounds, and way of demonstrating possession, that if in Bonifaces time, or before that, in any year, between Gregory I. and Boniface, i.e. in Sabinianus his time, it were assumed by the Pope, that Pope found the Church of God actually possessed of a freedom from, and the Papacy not possessed of that Authority.  
4. I may add also his other way of demonstrating by Tradition reversed, for if the Church of Rome believe nothing but what they receive from their immediate Ancestors, as received from all former, ascending in a continued line to Christ, then neither the Church in Sabinianus's nor in Bonifaces age could believe the Doctrine of the Universal Pastorship, which it is visible was not derived to them from their immediate Ancestor, Gregory I. much less from their more remote Ancestors, the Apostles, or Christ himself. But I believe not S. W's rigorous, to be just demonstrations, and therefore praetend not to prove matters of fact by any other mediums, than those of testimonies divine and human, and am thereby sufficiently insured, that neither S. W. hath pretended, nor any other performed, what is necessary to the establishing his affirmative, that the Universal Pastorship as from Christ is by the Pope duly pretended to, and on the contrary that we can evidence by undeniable testimony, that the Pope hath not through all ages been possessed of this Authority in England, as from Christ, in the notion of possession, which we have expressed, and which S. W. must accept it in, or else his praetensions will signify nothing toward his, or against our advantage. What our evidences are, I must not here recite, That were to transcribe what I have so lately set down, in answer to the former grounds, in the foregoing Sections.  
5. On the other side, if I shall deny what is affirmed by him in this his sixth ground, it will be sub hâc formâ; That the possession which the Pope had of Authority and jurisdiction in this kingdom, was so weak and precarious, acquired by means so distant from, and unlike that of Christs donation, from time to time maintained by the like, yielded with such a moderamen, and kept always so dependant from the wills of our Princes, that we need no stronger motives or reasons for rejecting or extinguishing it, than that they that either granted it, whether willingly or unwillingly, on fear, or other prudential considerations, or even on designs of piety, or that only permitted and winked at it, did still retain their liberty, they or at least their Successors, to recall their concessions or permissions, and could no more be prescribed against by their own, or their praedecessors acts, of this kind, than they were formerly bound up from making such concessions, whensoever they first made them, or than grants made by the Crown, with reservation of power to recall them, or grants unduly made to the prejudice of the Crown, are to all succession immutable and irrevocable.  
6. I have therefore no obligation solicitously to examine, because no least concernment to deny the force of those his reasons, which are here produced also, the same I commended on the last Section, only reprinted in a smaller letter, from Nature, from Morals, &c. Only in the application of the thesis to our hypothesis, recurre all the sand-stones that were laid in his four first grounds, and those as I have already shewed to be very infirm, so I need not again take them up, and evince their soft parts.  
7. Such were, 1. that the authority was held of faith, as constituted by Christs own mouth, and acknowledgedly accounted for such by multitudes( it should be, if he kept to his grounds, and would infer any thing, the Universality, and not only multitudes) of pious and learned men, in all Countreys of the Communion of the Roman Church( it should be again, in all Countreys absolutely, for else some particular Churches alone, will found but a very Topical argument) whereof England, saith he, was one. But the contrary, I shall suppose as yet, hath sufficiently been manifested.  
8. Such again 2. the claim of Universal Tradition, and the heinous schism in rejecting it, which though not yet insisted on in these grounds, and so is here an abortive, broken out before its time, yet hath already incidentally by the testimonies of the contrary belief, been forestalled and superseded also.  
9. Such 3. the charge of unknitting the frame of the whole Churches government, which yet by Pope Gregories own verdict( lately produced) is so perfected in the upper stories by the hierarchy and subordination of Bishops, metropolitans, and Archbishops, i.e. Primates or patriarches, that where such are, there is neither need nor place for any other, nor consequently for that of monarchic Universal Pastorship, which is itself, if we may believe that Pope, a name of schism, and division in the Church; and a prejudice to other Bishops, If one, saith he, be Universal, it remains that you be not Bishops; and therefore though he admitted the Responsalis of the Patriarch of Constantinople to his Communion, yet he permitted not his own Responsalis to communicate with Cyriacus, because he assumed the title of Universalis, l. 6. Ep. 30.& 31. and again he saith istud nomen facere in discissionem Ecclesiae, l. 7. Ep. 69. that that name tended to the cutting the Church asunder, which sure is not to the uniting of it.  
10. Such again 4. the comparing the force of reasons barely probable, and rejecting an Authority of so long continuance, held sacred and of Christs institution, of such importance to the peace of the Church, in rejecting of which if one happen to mistake, he is liable to the horrid sin of schism, and its condign punishment. All this is an heap of misapplied exaggerations, when he knows our reasons for what we have done, praetend to more than probable, to arrive as high, as, considering the matter, can be expected, that the authority according to its pretended sacrednesse, and descending from Christ, is not of that long continuance, that the peace of the Church was long secured without it, and may be so again, if they would please to come out of the fire of contention, to prefer the life of an Angel or Saint, before that of a fiend or Salamander, to do justice, and love mercy, and walk humbly with God, rather then enlarge their borders, sow definitions, like teeth of Serpents, and sense them in with a wall as high as heaven; that the schism is not on their part, that are blamelessely cast out by those that have no authority over them, but on theirs, that Diotrephes-like cast out their brethren, and then accuse them for not joining with them, transform their unjust sufferings into their heinous crime, break unity, and then bitterly complain of the breach of it.  
11. Such again 5. that they must not be common slight testimony-proofs which will serve our turn, which compared with the tenor of their Government, Universal Tradition, vanish into air, or nothing] When the question being of a matter of fact, there is no possible deciding it, but by testimonies, which the commoner, and more known and visible they are, the more force and eviction they have with them( and ours are careful not to deserve the Epithet of common, any other way,) and the more they are slighted, if not satisfactorily invalidated by the adversary, the more they are presumable to be constringent to him, and when on the other side, the Universal Tradition rightly deduced from the Apostles through the purer ages downward, is not their, but our tenor, instead of which their retrograde Tradition being invented( and resorted to, as the Mountebank newly arrived) is a shrewd symptom, that the other regular, descendent Tradition was not proper for their disease, or discerned sufficient for their safety.  
12. Such again 6. the doughty argument drawn from the notation of the title of first Reformers( and which is equivalent of new begun disbelief and disobedience) which we shewed both to be unappliable to our matter, and to be no fountain of eviction or evidence, a most slender Topical argument at best, if it were appliable.  
13. In a word, it hath been the attempt( I hope not improsperous) of the foregoing Sections, to show, that that Government which he hath espoused, was not in the ages he speaks of generally held of faith, or acknowledged to be received upon the same sole rule of faith which assured men that Christ was God,( which are, he knows, his meanest beggings of the question, and nothing else) but only as a voluntary, mutable, whether deemedly pious, or but simply prudential politic concession, or only permission of Princes, and so never found in possession, as sacred, or as held from Christ, nor Universal Oral Tradition,( meaning such from the Apostles) with any appearance of truth, ever found pleadable for it; And when we have actually produced plain testimonies of Tradition the other way, to tell us, we cannot be imagined to produce such, because then we must disclaim the title of Reformers in this point, is a symptom of a most forlorn destituted cause, that which Mr. White would severely chastise in any but a friend or a Disciple, and tell him that a probable argument against an evident fact is nothing, because no argument, and such certainly is that thin topic from the notation of a pretended name, which we neither own, nor would affix any real guilt on us, if we did, there being another innocent notation of it, which we shall be so wise to choose, now we know there is one, which is deemed so transcendently criminous, as to bring the heinous brand of schism on us, from which otherwise we have full confidence to guard ourselves.  
14. To conclude, the some kind of change in the outward appearance of things, made in Henry VIII. his dayes, was so far from being such a Reformation, which, as S. W. thinks, concluded millions of Doctors, which had been in that Church, to be ignorant in comparison of themselves, that if we may judge by both the Universities, Great Monasteries, and Clergy of England, the multitude of learned men was on the side which I now defend, as appeared in my Answer to his first ground; And let me add, the Bishops and prelates, by whose assistance he began and finished this work, were men of so great wisdom and learning, as this kingdom had never seen, neither at that time had Europe the like, if we may credit Erasmus, a most competent judge, who tells us so in several Epistles. And so 'twere to be wished, that what S. W. assumes and proposes for evident and demonstrative, might, at some one time at least, be secured from the most opposite of being demonstrably false.  
15. But I shall take it for a good Omen, that he hath concluded his harangue on this sixth ground, with some appearance of truth, but that still, which our hypothesis is not concerned in, being granted also by us most willingly, that if those, whom he calls the first Reformers, could have no just lawful evident ground to begin their disobedience to that Government, neither can their Proselytes and Successors have any praetense for continuing in it. This, I say, we willingly submit to, as far as they then could be said to begin their disobedience to that Government, or if instead of that phrase we may be allowed to insert this other, in declaring, as they did, against the Popes pretended Universal Pastorship, descended to him from Christ. And on these terms of some kind of agreement, I shall part with his enlargements on his sixth ground.   

SECT. VIII.  
His Seventh Ground very confounding to Protestants. Impossibility pretended against evidence. Reasons must be allowed to have some force, against all but Rigorous demonstrations. Such pretended but not performed by S. W. Five problems left in one Demonstration. Many faileurs found in a second. Force of Testimonies to oblige belief that the Popes authority was usurped. Canons in force at Rome. Perspicuity of their decisions. lawfulness of the matter. liableness to misinterpretation causelessly objected. Words heard as liable to misinterpretation, as red. Who are S. W's indifferent part of the World. S. W's retractation. The domonstration fall●n into a bare probability. The different significations of words. Wordish Testimonies. Authorities, whence to produce Testimonies. apostolic, Nicene, Ephesine, Chalcedon Canons.  
1. COme we now to his seventh ground, in these words [ No evidence can possibly be given by the Protestants obliging the understanding to believe that this authority was usurped.] The whole weight of this ground is laid on these words [ can possibly] This indeed, if made good lays us flat before him, and I humbly conceive, if not made good, it concludes S. W.'s attempted usurpations upon his Readers mindes intolerable usurpations.  
2. Till this Magisterial principle appeared we Protestants might with some cheerful prospect, red the Scriptures, study the Ancient Records of the Church, lay up in our mindes what we find in the diffused body of the Fathers writings delivered us by themselves( which if we may believe our eyes, do really support our praetensions, and from whence we fetch our Doctrines, and at once disclaim all that we do not thus fetch, and not only labour to fetch c●lours of proofs for them) and compare these with what Baronius or Bellarmine have collected from them, and given us with Romish descants or tinctures on them, Till then we had liberty to use the natural talents and faculties of intellect, &c. which God had given us, and from Gregories affirming, that Peter himself was not called Universal Pastor, that the title was Antichristian and Diabolical, and many the like, to conclude irrefragably, that he neither pretended to the title, nor derived any right to it from St. Peter. Till then it was to some purpose to cull out the most unanswerable records of the purest antiquity, and to expect from a Romanist fair words, and vouchsafements of so much patience, as to consider, whether they indeed proved, what we undertook them to prove, and as long as reason weighed down the balance on our side, to think our understandings, if not his also, regularly obliged to assent, and believe, what without violence to our understandings we were not able to disbelieve. Till then, matters of Doctrine, and of faith( which are no more born with us than revealed to us by daily voices from heaven, or oracular responses out of the cave, no more by( the {αβγδ}) natural reason, or common notions, than( the {αβγδ}) the private spirit, or enthusiasm) were left to be concluded regularly, by that one medium divine Revelation from Christ and his Apostles, by any sufficient means( uncorrupted Conduits, i.e. impartial testifications) conveyed to us. And this left us some faint gleams of hopes, that however the Romanist deemed his Church infallible, yet having also admitted this test of Universal Tradition, the real and placid vigour of that might so far praevail, against the but gives, and tyranny, and simulated force of the other, that a temper by mutual condescensions, a suspension, if not composure of impertinent disputes and controversies might at least be prayed for with faith( which is not compatible to impossibilities) and attempted with charity, and expected with patience, when God should see the Christian world tolerably qualified for such a blessing. But as soon as this fatal thread of S. W's spinning came out, to ensnare, and entangle our steps, as soon as it commenced Ground, and self-evident Principle, not that no evidence is( that had left us some hopes of rallying our forces, or coming off with life) but[ that no evidence can] and yet that not killing enough, but[ that no evidence can possibly be given by the Protestants, obliging the understanding to believe—] we are lest either to attempt removing of mountains, or to fall into fits of despair, to force nature, or to yield up our throats to our immortal combatant.  
3. But in sober earnest, I think not all the Contumelies in both his books so enormously inhuman, as this one ground of his, that( when a matter of fact being sufficiently testified, reason requires our belief of it, when upon the strength of this ground in reason, our understandings are actually swayed with such praevailing arguments, and so obliged to assent, drawn with the cords of a man, convincing reasons) will yet bear down and outface us, that this is impossible; undertaking to demonstrate against our senses, to evince that what we see in matter of fact, or have testified to us as infallibly by others repeated sensations, cannot possibly be, which is not to remove us into the field, but the quarry, not to sentence us to Nebuchadnezars, but to Niobe's transformation; whilst she had her animal faculties unpetrified, she was able by walking to confute the Mountebanks demonstrations against motion, and believe the snow white in despite of the other as demure artificers evictions that it was black, but when no evidence can possibly be given to oblige her understanding, then certainly her soul both sensitive and rational, hath undergone its {αβγδ}, And Arrian hath but abused, in telling us, that none but the Practical faculty is capable of that metamorphosis. But I hope we may pled our cause before we be thus more than condemned to the mines, even to be parts of them ourselves, and treatably propose our cafe to any other Romanist, and desire him to be Umpire between us.  
4. What if the Protestants( I may make suppositions for arguments sake) should undeniably prove, that the Popes themselves for four Centuries did not so much as praetend Universal Pastorship, that all the Texts of Scripture which are now brought for it, did in their opinion conclude no such matter, that the four first General councils, the authentic conservatoryes of Apostolical Tradition, did instead of attesting or favouring, give manifold praejudices against it; were it now utterly impossible that these, and innumerable such like( joined with this advantage, that no argument of any solidity were after sixteen hundred years leisure of search, produced to the contrary) should oblige the understanding to believe that this authority were usurped? I ask not whether these are actually produced by us, nor if they were, whether S. W. would believe them, nor whether( supposing his pretended demonstration to the contrary, to be before hand by himself assented to) it were possible, for whatsoever evidence to oblige his understanding; I know not what withes can hold, or bind Samson, before his locks are cut, whilst his new kind of Nazarites vow is on him; But, I say, whether there may not some tolerable understanding be found, which shall not be able to resist, and so shall be bound and obliged to believe such evidences.  
5. If this be possible, there is then no truth in his seventh ground; If it be demonstratively impossible, he is obliged in charity to his ground, to perfect his demonstration, if it be but by way of additional supply to the defects of Rushworths Dialogues, which I think hath not had leisure to demonstrate fully this vulgar problem. This I am forced to import●ne, 1. because 'tis certainly of concernment to me, who would not always be a combating with giants, battering impregnable sorts, attempting impossibilities, and should hope my fondness to the Gallies were so moderate, that I might be content to be manumitted, and not defy or disclaim that rest, and acquiescence of understanding, which a rigorous demonstration should commend to me, 2. because in the two pages, which are here annexed for the proof of this seventh ground; my understanding doth not discern its obligation to believe that it is yet evidenced. I must be fain to give an account of my dullness in this particular, lest it be thought affencted.  
6. His first proof is taken from the case of the Reformers, whose words, saith he, could not in any reason be imagined evident against such an universal verdict of the whole Church they left, and particularly of all the learned men in it, incomparably and confess'dly more numerous, and as knowing, as any have been since. But I take it, this is far from a demonstration in many respects. That, if it be truly so called, must consist of nothing that is not true, immediate, and so necessary; whereas here be no fewer then five questions, which may very problematically at least be disputed.  
7. As 1 if those whom he calls first Reformers, were actually and properly so styled, yet 'tis questionable, whether they left the whole Church, or indeed any part of it, until( and 'tis impossible they should, after) they were inexorably sentenced, and cast out of it. 2. Whether for the Universal Pastorship, as constituted in St. Peter and his Successors by Christ, an Universal verdict of the whole Church were then produced to them; it being not demonstrated, 1. that all that was producible, was produced to them, nor 2. that the verdict of the whole was with any truth producible this way, for that must imply, that either the Greek Church was of this mind, or that it was no part of the whole Church; nor yet 3. that the Negative decision of the Universities, Monasteries, whole Clergy of England, and the united profession of all men and women in this kingdom, that by the laws of God and the Nation, the Bishop of Rome had no such right in this Nation] was reconcilable with the whole Churches verdict for the Affirmative. 4. that the French Church was then included in that universal verdict,( not to mention others also.)  
8. Thirdly, whether S. W's meaning, when he saith, [ whose words could not in any reason be imagined evident] be this that their bare words, without any authority of reason to back them, i.e. their bare unconfirmed affirmations, could not be imagined evident, or whether 2. by their words] may be understood the Testimonies against the Popes pretended authority, produced by the Bishops about the time of the extinguishing Act, and that he resolve that those could not in any reason be imagined evident; or whether 3. his meaning be somewhat else, which I cannot divine at? If it be the first, then though I doubt not but their words, if but bare words, might be evident, as that signifies intelligible, yet supposing that not to be his meaning of the predicate, I shall only mind him of the subject of his proposition, that I imagine not the evidence to belong to their bare affirmations; but the Testimonies by them produced to confirm their sense; Secondly then if by their words] he mean plainly these their testimonies, then what impossibility is there in imagining those testimonies might be evident( I say not were but might be) which being not taken into consideration at all,( not so much as produced) by S. W. may possibly have more force in them of evidence, then he can yet, before he consider them, be qualified to imagine. But if his meaning be somewhat, which I cannot divine, then how can that be demonstrative to me, which is not to me, perhaps no more to others, intelligible.  
9. Fourthly whether both the Universities, the Greater Monasteries, and all the Clergy of England that then were, before the Extinguishing Act came out, were no greater bar to the extensive style of [ All the learned men in the Church] than they were before to the supposed verdict of the whole Church, for though they were no considerable part of the one, they might be of the other.  
10. Fifthly, whether in the comparison here proposed between the number and knowledge of learned men in that age, and since, wherein, for the number, that age is said incomparably and confess'dly to carry it from all succeeding ages, and for the knowledge to equal them, his meaning be of those of that age in this Nation that asserted the Universal Pastorship, compared with all others of the same, since that time, that have professed learning among us? some ground there may be for this slight question, because the learned men of one age, are not probably so numerous, caeteris paribus, as of many, at least the learned men, which were neither members of the Universities, chief Monasteries, and whole Clergy in Convocation( who were unanimous against the Popes p●aetensions) are not readily excusable to be quiter so numerous, as the whole diffused society of all the learned men of an age together.  
11. If he will consider these questions, he will find that something may possibly be said by a good manager on each of them, though I, whom S. W. hath sent to preach, and not to dispute, be resolved incompetent for it, and therefore shall not take that task upon me. But still because another may, and the matter appears not uncapable, here are competent praejudices against the demonstrative efficacy of this first proof of his.  
12. But he rests not in this, he hath another eviction for it. They praetend not, saith he, to any evidence from natural principles, concluding demonstratively that the former Government was usurped, nor yet from Oral Tradition, since their immediate Forefathers delivered them other Doctrine, else the Reformation could never have begun, against our common supposition, their grounds then must be Testimonial proofs, from Scriptures, Fathers, or councils which being manifestly liable to be interpnted divers ways, no sufficient assurance can be pretended hence, without evidencing either more skill to fetch out their certain sense, or more sincerity to aclowledge what they knew, than was in the Church they left—] Here again we must apply the tube, and work very narrowly, ere we shall discern the demonstration.  
13. For 1. I suppose 'tis not a fault that we pretend not to natural principles for a matter of divine Revelation, that we must leave to Rushworths Dialogues, which hath the Monopoly of demonstrating all the Romanists Religion, from common notions, for which we short-sighted Preachers must content ourselves with the directions of one Text of Scripture, that Faith cometh by hearing, and that by the word of God, and nothing else, i.e. divine Revelation.  
14. Secondly for Oral Tradition, as that is distinguished from what we fetch from testimonial proofs, 'tis no otherwise impossible, that they which extinguished the Papal power here, should be able to avouch that, than because that were not reconcilable with their beginning the Reformation, but this hath already appeared to be a very waterish colour, far from real and demonstrative, when neither they that extinguished the Papacy, were called Reformers, but the Act, declaratory of former right and common custom of England, not introductory of new law, nor 2. if they had been called Reformers, would it follow that their forefathers taught them other Doctrine, they might retrench the Popes praetensions, and undeceive some seduceible followers, without teaching contrary to the doctrine of their forefathers.  
15. Thirdly then, for Testimonial proofs of Scriptures, Fathers and councils, if those were the only evidences our Forefathers made use of, there is yet no impossibility, but they might be so tendered, as to convince and so oblige the understanding.  
16. For example, If the apostolic Canon shall tell us, that the {αβγδ}, 
Apost. Can. 34.  the first or Primate among the Bishops of every Nation shall be accounted {αβγδ}, as their head, and that every one of those Primates shall {αβγδ}, do only those things {αβγδ}, which belong to his Province and the Regions under it, and that God shall thus be glorified through the Lord Jesus Christ in the holy Ghost; and again, 
Ap. Can 12.  that he that is excommunicated in one City shall not be received in another without commendatory Letters from the former; and again, 
Can. 14.  that it shall not be lawful for a Bishop leaving his own Province, {αβγδ}, to invade anothers, unless there be a sufficient cause forcing him to it, and this too, {αβγδ}, not of himself, but by the {αβγδ}, the judgement and vehement exhortation of many Bishops, where if ●… las judgement do signify, as the Scholiast reasonably resolves, {αβγδ} a Synodical sentence, then the many Bishops must be no less than a council of Bishops; And if in pursuance of these grounds Apostolical, and {αβγδ}, according to the Canon thus pronouncing, the first Nicene council, shall decree, {αβγδ}, 
Nic. Can. 5.  that they that are cast out by some, shall not be received by other Bishops, and that this must be observed {αβγδ}, by the Bishops through every Province, And when in a farther harmony of accord the Milevitane council shall expressly prohibit all appeal from their B shops, but to the African councils, 
Can. 22. Non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum, ad transmarina autem qui putaverint—  and Primates of their own Provinces, and that they which shall appeal to any foreign whether Bishop or council, shall not be received to Communion by any in afric, and when the practise of all this is visible in the Synodical Epistle of the African council to Pope celestine( as is to be seen both in the book of Canons of the Roman Church, and the Greek collection of the Canons of the African Church) where they beseech him {αβγδ}, for the future, that he will not receive to his Communion those that come to him from them▪ being excommunicate, {αβγδ}, because he may easily find it defined in the council of Nice, If, I say, upon one such collection of Testimonial proofs, from the most unquestioned and obliging Canons, and the like concurrence of innumerable Pr●mitive writers, our Ancestors did actually conclude, that there lay no place for appeal from the Bishop of any Dioecese in England, but to the Primate of Canterbury, that the Pope was not to meddle among us, but upon the sentence and importunate entreaty of a council of Bishops, and that 'twere a crime censurable with excommunication to aclowledge any foreign( such was the Papal) Jurisdiction, my question now is, whether this evidence cannot possibly oblige the understanding to believe that authority was usurped, which was assumed by the Pope, in direct opposition to all these Canons?  
17. If it cannot possibly oblige, that impossibility must proceed either 1. from some abrogation of the Canons, or 2. unintelligiblenesse of the obligation, or 3. unlawfullnesse of the matter( arising from a contrariety to some other valid law, or from some repugnance in nature) or 4. from some other hindrance of equal( or greater) weight with any of these, but there is no place for any one or more of these pleas, therefore I may conclude no foundation for this pretended impossibility.  
18. For the first, the Canons recited are all received and continue in force, in the very Roman Codex, and so cannot by them be pretended to be invalid, and to some of them the Pope himself makes Oath, that he will inviolably observe them, see the Diurnal Book of the Professions of the Bishops of Rome, in Corp. Jur. Can. Decret. par. 1. dist. 16. c. 8. And from that very Oath of the Pope, our Bishops then made this very conclusion, that the Popes, that exercised a primacy over any other Bishops but those of their own Province in italy, transgressed their own profession made in their creation, as hath been 
Tr. of Schis. p. 105.  elsewhere shewed from the Institution of a Christian man, in the year 1537.  
19. For the second, the intelligiblenesse of the obligation, that hath already appeared from the Nicene Fathers citing it from the apostolic Canon, and the African Fathers from the Nicene, which they could not have done, and withall advertised the Pope, that he might {αβγδ} very readily, and with a wet finger find it there, if like the Sybills or other enigmatical Oracles, the words had no obvious sense belonging to them, or such as an ordinary understanding could not possibly receive and assent to.  
20. Thirdly for the unlawfulness of the matter in any respect, that can no otherwise be pleaded, than by charging the Writers of the apostolic Canons, whether Apostles, or Apostolical persons, and so again the council, for enacting sacrilegious Decrees, yea and the Pope also for swearing the inviolable observation of them. As for any fourth kind of hindrance beyond these, all that I can say is, that I cannot foresee nor consequently forewarn my Reader of any such. And here it may be worth adverting which of these hindrances, or obstructions to the obliging the understanding it is, which S. W. hath chosen to pitch on, even that which of all others would by some men have been least expected of him, as being most extremely voided of the least probability( the reason I suppose, not because this was seemingly praetensible, but because his seats of arguments are most of them this way, as some men have vehement praejudices, and arguments against any science they have not much dealt in) viz. that these testimonies are most manifestly liable to be interpnted divers ways, as, saith he, appears de facto.]  
21. But 1. where doth any such fact appear, both for these, and for all the like Testimonies, that have here formerly, or elsewhere been produced by us? Or to omit that, because I know 'tis in any ill mans power to attempt to deceive, and so to misinterpret, I demand, Is that unjust irrational fact( a precedent for the confounding of all that is most sacred, whether divine or human) able to prove demonstratively, that the testimonies are really liable to it? Nay are they not as secure from it, as plain words that have no ambiguity in them can make a plain matter of ordinary practise? May not I as well say, that the plainest proposition in Euclid. when 'tis red there, is liable to be misinterpreted, nay that the most common n●tion, when 'tis once put into words, is so too, as[ that twice two make four] &c. For if a man shall come out of Bedlem▪ and say that four in his Dictionary denotes but three unites, or that two signifies two decades, but four is four unites, it is certain that this proposition is then de facto misinterpreted, and by the same proportion may these, and many the like Testimonies, of which without hyperbole I may assume, that by the same arts, that S. W. shall be able to reconcile them to the Popes Universal Pastorship, as in his four first grounds he hath stated it, any man shall be able to interpret S. W's words wherein he doth this, to such a sense, as shall render him extremely opposite to the Papacy.  
22. Meanwhile I shall lay it up among my Observations, though it, be no more than this, that the universal liableness to be misinterpreted, not of these only which I have been so weak to produce, or of any particulars, but of Testimonies at all adventures, of whatsoever Testimonial proofs, wordish Testimonies, as he 
P. 44.  straightway calls them, is the one medium of S. W's demonstration, that no evidence can possibly be given by the Protestants obliging the understanding— 'tis, it seems, only the Oral Tradition, the Childes hearing his Father say it, that his Father hath said it, and not reading it out of an hundred books of all his first and most creditable ancestors, that is of any considerable authority in this matter. But why a man may not understand, what he reads, as well as what he hears, or misinterpret what he hears, as well as what he reads, and why frequent fact makes not this apparent, as well as the other, I foresee another opportunity ere long to examine with him.  
23. At the present I demand, in behalf of him that subjects his understanding to the force of easy words, and by that means believes many ancient t●stimonies, brought against the pipes sacred authority,( which is no more arrogance, then to believe what he thinks evident, and knows not how to disbelieve, without questioning the truth of the testyfier, which also he hath not the least reason to question) what necessity should be incumbent on this man to evidence either his own greater skill, or that his sincerity is greater than was found in the Church( that leaves him, or he is forced to leave) or in any one engaged advocate of that Church? That he must be thus insolent, that he is by his very undertaking obliged to assume one of these, and having assumed, to evidence it, is the last part of this demonstration, which S. W. hath not yet perfected, though it want his hand, as much as any of the former, whereon his pains were laid out; at his best leisure I presume to expect his severe evidences for it, not discerning, as yet, the force it hath to oblige my understanding.  
24. An Appendix to this demonstration he thinks fit to cast in, to add some weight to it, that their late Doctors and Controvertists have not feared to answer all these testimonies, and produced a far greater number, and not so behaved themselves therein, that the indifferent part of the world have held them nonsensical, which surely they would, had they deemed the other a perfect and rigorous evidence.] But sure neither is this demonstrating; It neither appears to S. W. what the indifferent part of the world think, nor to me, whom he will allow to be the indifferent part of the world; sure not the whole Eastern Church, whose Delegates in the council of Florence charged the introducing of new articles of down-right madness; none that they have cast out of their Communion; none that living within it dislike( as the French have been long suspected to do) the Jus divinum of the Papacy; Who then are left to be the indifferent umpires? Of necessity either those which have received it as an Article of their Faith, all the faithful adherents to that apostolic See, their {αβγδ}, who are of their opinion in this, else could not be orthodox in all things, and these are very fitly picked out, as indifferent men to judge it on their side, or else it must remain that we fetch them from the Turks, or Heathens, or Jews, and bating only that first sort, those that are, and must be of his mind, I might, I think, safely,( as once the like was done in a great council) adventure my part of the controversy to any indifferently chosen Umpire of any of the three other denominations, that doth but speak the same language that we do, and understands our several praetensions, to judge, whether the Universal Pastorship is more clearly inferred from Tu es Petrus, and Feed my Sheep, or the contrary from the Testimonies I have here and elsewhere tendered to him against it.  
25. By the way he must be admonished, that all indifferent men do not presently call that nonsensical which they do not assent to, any more than they fall into other parts of S. W's style, when they are not persuaded by his praetensions. They that say he is a Cunning Merchant, and so far from nonsensical, have as ill an opinion of his practices, and would be more unwilling to be he, than any of the bespattered Preachers that have had to deal with him.  
26. But this is not all he hath to say in defence of his important ground; For though he have some remorse, and so be forced to confess, that if they would demonstrate by evident and unavoidable connexion of terms from some undeniable authority, that this Government was unjust, their understandings would in that case be obliged to assent to that inference.] Yet lest upon such a vast liberality as this, I should make shift to conclude, that what may be done in some case, is not utterly impossible, and so that his Ground had confess'dly failed under him, that [ no evidence can possibly be given by the Protestants—] his method obliges him to draw back his alms, before I had sup'd it up, and so I behold my fairest hopes soon blasted again, for, saith he, this is not to be hoped as long as divers words have divers significations] This is somewhat hard indeed, to be thus irremediably disappointed, when I was so near my prise, to lose all sent so soon, when 'twas at the hottest.  
27. But me thinks, 'twere yet possible to recover it again, for I may thus argue, that what is possible upon an hopeless condition, is at most but hopeless, not impossible, and therefore S. W. is really grown meek, hath for once retracted the [ No evidence can possibly] upon which one term depended the whole demonstrativenesse of his ground, which if it be such, consists ex necessariis, and such is not that, which may possibly be otherwise, the phrase [ not to be hoped] is a milder style, and suits well with a Topical argument, and a thousand such, as Mr. White hath taught us, will no more amount to a demonstration, then a thousand mild writers will make one severe or rigorous.  
28. If this will not stand me in stead, to avert this discomfiture, I have no other reserve, for 'tis impossible to except against his proviso, that divers words have divers significa●ions] I cannot but be convinced of that, for[ a man] is capable of signifying either one of the guests, or part of the furniture, him that sits, and eats at the Table, or that hangs by, and is portrayed in the Arras, and so in like manner [ a rigorous demonstration] may signify either according to Aristotles, or S. W's measures, and import no more in the latter notion, than either a probability, or a sophism, a well assured, yet demonstrably infirm argumentation.  
29. But neither is there any such {αβγδ}, or ambiguous word in the Testimonies which I humbly have offered him; If there be, I beseech his directions, where the ambush is to be looked for, where the ambiguous enigmatical part of the Oracle lies; I confess I cannot divine, but S W's gifts lie this way, in making a plain testimony as perplexed as he can, and therefore if single words will be obstinate, and resolve not to be unintelligible, yet it seems by his suggestions, that sentences are great jugglers and Stage-players, never come abroad but with V●sards, or Periwigs, or false sets of teeth about them, they, saith S. W. put on different faces, or if they are not thus fully provided, yet, saith he, by relation to several circumstances in history they give us occasion to raise several conjectures, and so still though the whole matter in the issue amount to no more but this, [ occasion] not just cause[ to raise] though with never such violence to plain words and senses [ several conjectures] several, all equally praetending, i.e. equally groundless, and when all is done, but conjectures still, yet this is enough with S. W. to praeclude the poor Protestant all hope of ever obliging any others, or his own understanding by any wordish testimony, to believe any thing that S. W. will not make it lawful for him to believe. Had this Demonstrator but a calling to his gifts, what miracles would he, nay what would he not be able to do?  
30. Lastly if all this will not establish one ground, He hath still a reserve behind, If evidence were easily producible from such kind of wordish Testimonies, yet they would still be as far to seek for an authority whence to allege those testimonies comparable to that of the Church they left.] But 1. what is his dislike to wordish Testimonies, i.e.( as he opposes them to Oral Traditions) Testimonies written in words? Is not his Oral Tradition, wordish Tradition, and is not that equally wordish, that is spoken, as that which is written in words? and may not that be written in my heart( as he will have it phrased also) which is transcribed thither out of the Records of a council, as what is stored up there from my Father, or Mother, or Romish Catechists?  
31. Secondly, What difficulty is there to have as good an authority as the Church of Rome is, from whence to allege Testimonies against her? I shall make short of this difficulty; The Universal council of Nice is as good an authority as the Church of Rome can be, or( that I know of) praetends to be, and 'tis no hard thing, as de facto hath appeared, to allege testimonies from thence, as much as an enemy could wish to Romes prejudice. Nay the Church of Rome diffused in its amplitudie, or collected in a council, or contracted into a Pope, is sure of as good authority, as the Church we left, or rather cast us from them; And I doubt not to bring Testimonies that will fit my turn, from those, that are avowed, and allowed an authority, by the consent of this Church in all these capacities; As when from the genuine apostolic Canons, from General councils, approved by the Pope, the Nicene and the Ephesine, yea and that of Chalcedon too( for as far as 'tis from the Popes praetensions, he is by Oath bound to observe it inviolably) and in like manner from the Popes themselves( by the token, that Gregory wrote so many Epistles against the title that Boniface soon after him assumed) 'tis manifest we are provided with ample testimon●es, which will by necessary connexion of terms infer all that we would have inferred from them. And then what is thus visible to have been actually done, we will not be so tame, as to imagine impossible to be done, nor consequently attend to him any longer, whilst by a collection of little colours he again attempts to persuade us, against our senses, that 'tis impossible. And so much for his seventh ground.   

SECT. IX.  
His eighth Ground yet more severe. His notion of Testimonies. Wits to play on them. Some place sometimes for other then rigorous demonstrations. The Romanists pretended veneration of Fathers and councils, and skill in them. S. W's unkindness to Testimonies, obliging him to think their Doctors studied them not. The truth examined, first for veneration of Fathers. Mr. Whites notion of Fathers, Cardinal Peroons censure of them. Secondly, for skill in them. The way of the Schools no friend to all the Fathers and councils. The feuds in Oxford between grecians and Trojans. The Franciscans Library. Nothing concluded against us from the number and learning of his Doctors, or their pretended conversation in all the Fathers and councils. As little from their sincerity, Some examples of that kind, one in the sixth African council, about a Canon of Nice, another about the place of Theodoret for Purgatory, A third transcribed from Mr. White, about the Molinists. Corruption of our nature no argument against us. S. W's change of medium from that of Possession to Tradition.  
1. THE Eighth ground is yet more severe and confounding, under this form, that The proofs alleged by Protestants against them, bear not even the weight of a probability to any prudent man, who penetrates and considers the contrary motives.] This as amazing as it is, will at large be demonstrated also, and then what retreat possible for S. W's adversary? Our case being thus desperate, we will again try, whether our {αβγδ} may not stand us instead, and an auspicious Spring or plunge, the ultimus conatus, repel, and quit the danger; If it do, it may be a seed of long life, for I have looked over the leaf, and see, to my Readers joy, that this is the concluding ground of this Section.  
2. It begins thus, For the proofs they allege are Testimonies.] I answer, they are indeed, and we have been taught to call Testimonies, witnesses of a debated truth, and such witnesses( if they be {αβγδ}, competent witnesses) proofs. But S. W. it seems, hath another description of them, [ testimonies, saith he; i.e. words capable of divers senses] If that be all, we hope well of the {αβγδ}. For this is but the very trick played over before, and already discovered, and hath not so much as put on a new face, as even now Testimonies were allowed to do.  
3. 'tis therefore added in terrorem, that words are capable of different senses, as they shall be played upon by wits, Scholars and critics, and if S. W. be all these, how harmoniously and variously indeed will his Adversary, and his Testimonies be sure to be played upon? 'tis no good time to stand at the gaze here, and examine whether as all wits be not Scholars, so all his Scholars be not critics, for if the terms be coincident, why might not critics have stood for all three? If they be not, I should not be willing the life of my Client( Testimony) should depend upon a Jury of wits, such as S. W. which I cannot discover to be any deep either Scholar or critic. But in great earnest, doth the trade of a Controvertist consist in this, to call for Testimonies, to magnify Tradition, to make solemn appeals to Scriptures and Fathers, and when they are from undeniable authorities produced, then to sand to the next Tavern for a wit to play upon them?  
4. We have now the discovery( dropped from him, 'tis possible, before he thought of it) how it comes to pass, what he next presseth, that [ It is found by experience, that generally speaking, their party and ours give several meanings to all the Testimonies controverted between us.] for if when we bring plain words, and take no pains to affix any other interpretations on them, than what either ordinary style, the law of spe●king, or the three parts of Grammar, {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, without any violence direct us to, the wits when we sleep, enter with his false finger, and take out a small syllable[ not] or turn a comma, or colon into an interrogative, or tell us, the words signify quiter contrary to what all ordinary Readers understand of them▪ as, 
Mr. Whites Apol. for Tradit. p. 153.  search the Scriptures, for in them ye think to have eternal life, i.e. ye deceive yourselves if you think you have eternal life in them( and then we shall be deceived indeed, if we think, or hope to be gainers by any Testimony) or instead of these nicer subtleties, cry out upon all wordish Testimonies, at a venture tell us they are capable of divers, though they have but one sense, they may be played upon by wits, though the wits have not yet been at leisure to play actually upon them; If, I say, this be but part of the character of such a Controvertist, as S. W. professes to be, I shall not account myself fitted with weapons to enter combat with him, yet think it may with any other man have the weight at least of a probability( and 'tis that is denied in this eighth ground) that what is regularly concluded from the obvious both literal and rational importance of the plain words of a written testimony, of undeniable authority, may be sufficient to compose a debate betwixt two sober Disputers. For how oft soever I have been warned by S. W. and am in his Postscript( upon peril of his treating with me no longer) solemnly required to deal in no other, but a rigorously demonstrative way, I am still obstinately bent upon my course, to lye down in my bed, at the season of rest, though I know 'tis possible the roof may fall upon me there, to eat the meat, that is set before me, and expect to be nourished by it, though I cannot demonstrate, that 'tis not my poison, to writ on, till I am a little more tired, though I have no assurance, that one man shall red what I writ, and so to produce testimonies to S. W.( and sometimes in Greek too) though it be possible he may find occasion, as he saith, to raise several conjectures, to amuse the Reader, and instead of being wrought on, to exercise himself and Reader, and play upon them.  
5. But if this be allowed him that by experience 'tis found that their party and ours give several meanings to all the testimonies controverted between them, he hath then a medium, which will prove all irrefragably on his side, for 'tis manifest, saith he, that computing the vastness of times and places in which our profession hath born sway; we have had near a thousand Doctors for one of the Protestants, who though they highly venerated and were well versed in all the ancient Fathers and councils, yet expressed no difficulty in those proofs, but made certain account, that all antiquity was for them.  
6. But again how far is this which begins with [ It is manifest] from demonstrating or truly manifesting his conclusion? Let us first try it by parts, every improvement of it single, 1. It is not demonstrated, that the multitude of their Doctors hath been so great, as he pretends. Gerson complains of it, as of an abomination,( declare. defect. vir. Eccl. that one held two hundred, another three hundred Ecclesiastical benefice, and as that might be one, so we may guess at many other, not improbable means to lessen the number of learned Doctors. 2. If the number were granted, yet it will not be concluded with any evidence, that if they that have had much longer time, and much larger circuit, and withall a fairer Sunshine, by much, of Halcyon dayes, to beget Doctors, than the Protestants, have proportionably had many( be it a thousand) more such Commencers in their Schools,] then all the proofs alleged by Protestants bear not the weight of a probability? Are these materials able to furnish out a syllogism of immediate connexion of terms? 3. Will it follow, that because [ S. W. saith of his Doctors, though perhaps he hath not conversed so much as with the writings of half a thousand of them, that they ever highly venerated, and were well versed in all the ancient Fathers and councils] therefore they did indeed so venerate, and were well versed in all of them? In this place, first I must mind the Reader, who 'tis that saith it, even S. W. that 
P. 19.  not long since having commended his adversary for unwearied industry, and looking into such variety of authors, not only tells him, wh●t rare productions half that industry might be mother of, if employed by some strong brain in a rational way, but withall gives him no obscure intimation, that this way of testimonies is not in itself much aestimable. And then if those Doctors brains were indeed weak, what advantage would it have been to them, to have laid out the most unwearied industry in Fathers and councils, the height they should have ar ived to, would have been, but some declamatory proofs, some slight qu●tation arguments, as he there saith; But if their brains were strong, they must have been, in all obligation of conscience, employed in the rational way, as that is visibly opposed to reading or producing of testimonies,( i.e. all the Fathers and councils, which are the fountains of those Testimonies) And if it were so scandalous an error in course of study, thus to have misspent their time in this conversation, me thinks S. W. should not have so ill an opinion of his friends, as to conceit they highly venerated, or were well versed in all them.  
8. If this have no more force with him, I must then apply myself more immediately to his proposition, that they ever highly venerated and were well versed, &c.] The former part of which, that respects the high veneration, at first sight is discovered to signify nothing, by the good token of Memnons Statues, which had all their veneration by not 
Ideo Splendebant quia non visebantu●. Tac.  being conversed with, or the mysteries of the Heathens, which were most venerated by those which knew least of them, and so there might be the fewer Epoptae, 
Contenti sint ad venerationem figuris defendentibus a vilitate secretum, Macrob. in some. Scip. l. 1. c. 2. Macrob. Ibid.  veri arcani conscii, the more venerators there were. But even for those of them that have known most, 'tis not uneasi to discern what solid veneration they have afforded the Fathers, For first if Mr. White be to be headed, there lies such an equivocation in the word Fathers, as being discovered will bring this matter to a speedy issue( as far as belongs to all the Fathers, in our present notion of them) for when he learned latin, Pater, 
Dailles Arts Discov. p. 182.  saith he, signified the immediate Progenitor of the son, and St. Paul is cited for it, telling his Converts they had no Father but himself, because he had in person begotten them in the Gospel, and though by ampliation, this word hath included also the parents of our Fathers, and upwards even to Adam, yet how it comes so to signify the most remote, as to exclude the nearest, is, saith he, beyond his skill in grammar] and more to this purpose to bring down the notion of Fathers from that of the Primitive Fathers of the Church or ancient Doctors only( as when the Romanists themselves call St. Bernard ultimum Patrum, the last of the Fathers) to his immediate Romish Ancestors, his Mothers, rather than Fathers, as elsewhere his Grammar of exact speaking directs him to style them, and if these do not join with those remoter Fathers, we know how little shall be attributed to those. And then it matters not much to our present discourse, what veneration their Doctors be deemed to afford to all the( in this notion of) Fathers,( and indeed S. W's way of Oral Tradition will hardly admit of any other.) He knows well enough that there are Fathers of the country as well as the Family, and again Grand and first, as well as the last and immediate Fathers, so there are by analogy the Fathers of the whole Church, Christ, his Apostles, and their Successors, those, which by advantage of living nearest their times, and receiving their Doctrine from them, without mixture, are more competently qualified to testify of it, then those that live at the utmost possible distance from them, And when to this propriety the use also of the style is added, and the title of the Fathers] in common speaking of Papists as well as Protestants, appropriated to those ancient, and not to these modern Fathers, I shall still hope we may be allowed to use the word in this notion, yet not confining it to the ages simply first, but to all those that maintain the line of Doctrine from them without additions of their own, which whether the Romanist parents be guilty of in these later ages, is now the question, and till it be decided, excludes them, if the Grammatical notion of the word do not, from the number of the Fathers. If there be yet any doubt of this, I shall to his quotation from St. Paul return that other from our Saviour Mat. XXIII. 9. Call no man Father upon earth, and ask whether by the force of that Text all that cannot approve( not only pretend) their Doctrine to come from heaven, be not excluded from that title, and consequently their present Romish Fathers if they have no better evidence for themselves than that they had it from their immediate Ancestors, which we know is Mr. Whites Tradition Oral.  
10. But then for those Romanists that have taken the Fathers in the stricter notion, only for the ancient writers of the Church of Christ, and declamed at others for Innovators, what substantial Reverence have they afforded them, when they seem not to favour their interests? witness their Great Cardinal Peroon, who certainly was as conversant in them, as most of the Romanists, and professed several times that he had done the Church of Rome eminent service in this kind, invented answers to the testimonies of the Fathers( brought by the Protestants) which were perfectly new, and had 
Author ante me nullus, Ep. ad Bellarm. see Bellarmines life, l. 2. c. 7. R. 3.  never any Author before him; How agreeable to veneration this inventing of new answers to their testimonies was, I take not on me to judge; The passages in him that I meant to refer to, are such as these, that the Fathers in their writings against the Gentiles said oft those things, not which they did believe, but dissembling or disguising them, said those things which served their cause to refute the Gentiles objections, and much more to the same purpose, 
P. 1044, 1045.  upon the head of invocation of Saints, that he might give some kind of account, why the first Christian writers never spake as the Romanist would have men believe, on that subject, intimating hereby not obscurely, the too great( saith he, but seeming) accordance between the modern Roman practise, and that of their gentle Ancestors, which when another Romanist, Ludov. Vives ingenuously confessed to be real, or the 
Divos Divatque non aliter venerantur quam Deum. Nec video in multis quod sit discrimen inter illorum opinionem de sanctis,& id quod Gentiles putabant de Diis suis. Not. in August. de Civ. Dei, l. 8. c. 27. Edit. Basil. Col. 494. B.  difference to him invisible, the Inquisition was to pass on such plain dealing, and the words were appointed to be left out by the Lovane Divines, wherein the Paris Edition of St. Augustine 1613. hath readily obeied them. But this by the way.  
11. I shall no longer insist on this Theme, 'tis sure such veneration as this is no argument of what even now was p●esumed, that they made certain account that all antiquity was for them; If they did, there would have been less need of such extraordinary new answers of that Cardinal.  
12. For the latter then, their being well versed, &c. before the truth of it will be acknowledged demonstrative, the quantity of the indefinite proposition must be resolved, for else he knows it will not be argumentative, and if upon inquiry it be found to be but particular, 'twill then fail still of being demonstrative, Is it then universally true, that all the Romish Doctors, supposing them to have had near a thousand to one of ours, were very well versed in all the ancient Fathers and councils, in the ages before Printing came into the world, or in the Century next preceding the Extinguishing Act?  
13. Perhaps in the mention of all the Fathers and councils, the Scriptures were purposely left out, least we should have heard of some one, or more such, as Andreas Carolostadius, that had been a Doctor of theirs, of good( above seven years) standing, before he red the Bible; and considering how little the people are allowed to know of it, we need not wonder, if there were more Doctors of no higher form in that kind of knowledge.  
14. But even for learning less profound, than that, or of all the Fathers and councils, we may be allowed to make some question, if we consider their own complaints how little that was taken notice of for some time, in the bestowing of spiritual promotions, Alfonsus de Castro laments the state of the Church under 
Mulios Papas adeò illiteratos, ut Grammaticam penitus ignorent. l. 1. de Haer.  Popes plainly illiterate, and not a few, but many such; And when some have ascended that highest throne, at the age of ten, and eighteen years old, and having so little themselves cannot be presumed to have been any passionate advancers of learning, when we cannot but have heard of beardless youths and schoolboys, sitting in great gravity in councils; when 'tis pressed( as none of the least grievances of our Church under the Papacy) by Peter Cassiodor about the year 1250. that the 
Aliosque nonnullos literas ignorants, et velut mittos et surdos ovium earundem non intelligentes balatum. Pet. Cass. de tyrant. Pont. Rom. injura Reg. et Eccl. Angl.  good Pastors were removed, and the Popes nephews and Kindred and others advanced, some not knowing letters, mute and deaf, as he phraseth it, not understanding the bleating of the Sheep: and this no peculiar infelicity of that time, but 180. after, one of the complaints sent from this Nation to the council of Basil, was, 
Vid. vit. Archiep. Chichle. p. 86.  that puberes vix facti, they which were but boyes are admitted to the highest dignities of the Church, and yet nearer our times, 120 years after that,( in the year 1550.) Franc. Duarenus, a Romanist, and learned Lawyer of France, 
Maximè hoc saeculo— quo Episcopatus et Sacerdotia indoctissimus hominibus& à religone alienis deferri solent. de Benef. l. 1. c. 11.  makes the observation principally of the age wherein he lived, that bishoprics and Priestly Offices used to be conferred on the most unlearned, and those that were far from Religion; and( which is of a more comprehensive importance) the Court or Parliament of Paris, among their reasons given to King Lewis the eleventh, against the abrogation of the pragmatic Sanction, 
Libert. Eccl. gull. defence. in App. ad Duaren. de Benef.  mentions this for one, that by the countinual applications to Rome for the praeferments of the Church, 
Cap. LXIV.  Scholastici conventus, et Universitates studiosorum desolatae ac desertae jacebant, the scholastic meetings, and Universities of Students lay desolate and deserted; When ignorance was proclaimed the Mother of devotion, and Mr. White himself, at this day, a prime Luminary, in an age of noon-day light, can descend from his great learning to give many good words to the Colliers Faith, believing as the Church believes, and hath not yet demonstrated, that either the learned'st Doctor is bound to believe any otherwise, or consequently to impose this so ill method of study, as a poenance on himself, to be well versed in all the Fathers and councils, or any other soft of wordish writings of dead men; In a word, when common famed is so ready to give in its suffrages, telling us of whole ages so scandalously ignorant, that Pasquil the marble Pillar in Rome, can tell Pope Eugenius, from the voice of the people, 
C●mplures quoque Episcopos—  
Ipso me mage saxeos videmus,  that a multitude of Bishops were ordinarily to be seen, more stony than himself, we may then take leave to advice farther before we yield, what S. W. cheaply assumes, that near a thousand of theirs to one of our Doctors were all well versed in all the Fathers and councils, especially when it is known to have fallen out so unluckily, that the Bishops, and others in Henry the Eighth's dayes, which concurred in the Exterminating Act, were learned beyond any example of former times, and did testify their conversation in Fathers and councils by what they wrote against the Papacy in that point, more then all their Ancestors had done before in defence of it.  
15. In brief, for other parts of the world, I appeal to Erasmus( that lived in the wane of those dark times, and was a competent judge of abilities) whether the way of the Schools, even that which S. W. professes, St. Thomas's way, was really experimented to engage men in the study of any( that is much less than all) the Fathers and councils.  
16. And for our Nation, a little search into our Antiquities, if it be but in the University of Oxford, as famous as any other, 
Mat. Paris. Ann. 1252.  Aemula Parisiensis, and, 
Mat. Paris. Ann. 1252.  the fountain and mother of our Christian Faith, 
Rot. Parl. 1. Hen. VI. n. 43.  will give us some light; for there we have the memoirs of the bitter feuds betwixt the grecians and the Trojans, implacably pursued for some time, till it was composed at length by Sir Thomas Mores Letter, and the interposition of his authority; This assures us, that even thus late( what think we then of the Century foregoing?) a competent part of the Doctors had not much Greek, and were not all of them rarely qualified for conversation with all the Ancient Fathers and councils, when S. W's Reader may have heard, that very many, if not the most aestimable, and venerable of them were written in that language, which was a Barbarian to so many of those Doctors. This I take to be somewhat near demonstrating, that they that were avowedly but Trojans, that understood no Greek, as they had not the gift of Tongues, so they could not work such miracles, as to be very well versed in Greek Writers.  
17. And even for the latin Fathers and councils, a man might make some guess from the account that 
De Scriptor. Angl. To. IV. p. 217.  Jo. Leland gives of the Franciscans Library at Oxford, in●iched by the bountiful Legacy of Bishop Grosthead, but sadly despoiled by the Friers, who, saith he, had filched and dissipated all the books, but, if we may judge by symptoms, very little of the learning. The Records of those dark times have not yet left us unfurnished of many other the like passages, which will render it probable that all the Doctors of that age were not well versed in all the Fathers and councils. And for their venerable council of Trent itself, we cannot but observe, what the Historian tells us, 
● Hist. of count. Trent. p. 155.  in the debate about the latin translation of the Bible●; There was, saith he, much difference between some few who had good knowledge of the latin, and some taste of the Greek,( but few, it seems, of such in that Assembly) and others who were ignorant in the Tongues: 
Ibid.  and speaking of Cardinal Cajetane as of the prime Divine of that and many more ages, unto whom there was no Praelate or person in the council who would not yield in learning, or thought himself too good to learn of him, and of his study of the Scripture, expounding not the latin translation, but the Hebrew roots of the Old, and Greek of the New Testament, he adds; In which Tongues being ignorant himself, he employed men of good understanding, who made construction of the Text unto him word by word— It were not difficult to enforce this observation, and show the accordance exact in other their learnedst Doctors of those times. But I shall not endeavour to help this to its probabilities, but only remind, what I have oft  told him, that when this point, which we have now before us, was once studied, and the Fathers and councils consulted in it, the whole Army of Doctors and learned men uniformly consented to what we contend for.  
18. But then 3. how is it approved to be evident, that all the Doctors expressed no difficulty in those proofs, or how doth this advance S. W's interests? 1. They that considered not those proofs, could find no difficulty in them, 2. They that considered them, and found difficulties, might yet have motives to dissuade expressing themselves. 3. They that did express themselves, might if they were not sentenced by them, be many of them concealed from posterity, if they were cast out by censures, and the noise of them so loud, that we hear of it( as sure Bishop Grosthead was, when he appealed from the 
Hen. Knighton, de eveniub. Angl. l. 2. c. 15.  Popes Court to the Tribunal of Christ) they might pass for schismatics upon the same account that we are put in that form.  
19. Lastly, how is it demonstrated, that all their Doctors made certain account that all antiquity was for the Doctrine that S. W. now defends? May not the affirming this( if it be not absolutely false) be the fallacy plurium interrogationum? They 1. knew, or might know that the Pope was Bishop of Rome by succession from St. Peter, and St. Paul, and so by divine right, and by the same power instated in a Primacy over his own Province, 2. that by Canon and custom of the Church, as Bishop of the Imperial City, he was the first and chief of the West, styled Patriarch, 3. That by his own ambition, and the advantage of Phocas's collation on Boniface III. he came to be called Universal Bishop, and to assume, and exercise many acts of jurisdiction accordingly, and so in other parts by the concession or connivance of Princes, and 4. that at length he began to believe himself, at least persuade others, that this was it( and not the bare forementioned Primacy) which was conferred on St. Peter first, and so on him by Christ. And they that saw, and were well advised of all this, might make account, that the first antiquity was for the first of these, a second sort of antiquity, after Constantines time, for the second of these, and though they knew nothing in antiquity for the two let, might yet live quietly under those assumers. And this is all he hath advanced by his insisting again on the number and learning of his Doctors.  
20. For their sincerity, he saith, it ought not to run in a less proportion, then their number, and I say so too in his very style, that it ought not; Yet because he adds, he hears not it is pretended, that the contrary can be evidently manifested, and so he need not take pains to prove it, It is not amiss shortly to intimate, how far this is from demonstrative, if it be but by minding him of two passages which he cannot but have heard of, the one in former, the other in later times, of some public cognisance both.  
21. First I may be allowed to suppose, that he may have heard of the managery of the cause concerning the Popes receiving appeals from afric, in the sixth great council of Carthage, in debating of which the Popes Legates, in the name of their Master, alleged a Canon of the first council of Nice, and the Africans denied there was any such Canon, and upon sending to the patriarches of the East for a perfect Volume of Canons, there was no such Canon to be found, as the Popes Legates alleged; I need not ask what sincerity there was in this▪ I know what is answered to this by the great Abetters of the Roman cause, carded. Bellarmine and Baronius, confessing that this was a mistake, and to be rectified by substituting, in stead of the Nicene, the Sardican Canon, but first this was no great essay of their conversation, and skill in the councils, which just now was pleaded, to mistake a Grand General council of Nice, for the petty ●ardican. Secondly, 'tis evident enough that the council of Chalcedon, 105 years after that of Sardice, in the reckoning of the Canons of the Universal Church, mentions not the Sardican at all. And Pope Nicholas the first writing to Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, testifies that the Greeks receive not that council( see his sixth Epistle in the sixth tome of the councils, p. 494.) reciting their words, which also are put into Gratians Codex, Can. quod dicitis, 16. dist. which sufficiently evacuates the force of that answer, without farther reflecting on the quality of that council, all the Eastern Bishops being departed, and but twenty Western subscribing it, as Sulpitius tells us Vol. 1. council. and all in a maner transacted by Osius Cordubensis( as by the Canons appears) of whom we are  told, that he had been twice excommunicated, first for favouring the Donatists, and then the Arians. But this by the way.  
22. The second is more fresh, in another difference of the Papal concernment, that of Purgatory, between them and the Greeks, when there was but one testimony, that could have any force in it to the Romanists conclusion, that out of Theodoret, upon examination of all his writings 
{αβγδ}. Grac. Apol. l. 1. p. 145. 147.  he was not found to have said any such thing, as was by the latins cited from him, And this was no secret, being by the Greeks declared to the council of Basil.  
23. Being thus far entred on an ungrateful subject, I shall not allow myself any farther line, than by reflecting on one passage of Mr. Whites, which may not be either offensive or unheard of to S. W. being in his irrefragable Apology for Tradition, cited from the very Manuscript Acts of some Congregations at Rome, not long before the death of the last Pope. The business of no small concernment, and acted, 
Apol. p. 62.  he saith, on one part by the choicest wits, and ancientest Scholars could be picked out of that so famed society( the great maintainers of the Papal Supremacy, against the praetensions of Bishops) and the manner and upshot of the managery he gives you in these words [ But let us hear the Pope speak, Upon the 8. of July was held the second Congregation, His holiness began with these words, Nos personaliter vidimus congeriem locorum quam vos qui Molinam defenditis induxistis ex Augustino et nullus inventus est qui faveat, imo contrarium tenuit Augustinus, Unde 
It is wonderful you should use so many artifices.  mirum quod tot artibus utamini, And hence it seems they were forced to corrupt St. Austin to the Popes face, the 30. of September following, which being discovered, the Author dyed of melancholy and disgrace, Again in the tenth Congregation, the same Pope taxed them, quod Scholasticis maximè suis, non Scripturâ Conciliis, Patribus uterentur, a sign how sound their way of Doctrine is, how sincere their proceedings to defend it.] Thus far Mr. White, and me thinks somewhat home to the present purpose, both for the way of learning( not that of the Fathers and councils) and also for the sincerity, and both exemplified in those men which are not deemed the least eminent of the Romanists, and are now sure advanced to a much higher pitch of the one( whatsoever proportion will be allowed them of the other) than was observable in the times before the Extinguishing Act; And 'tis farther observable, that those which were thus paradigmatized for unsincerity, and that, as he saith, by the Pope himself, did soon obtain a definition on their side from the same Pope, the Constitution of Pope Innocent the 10th, An. 1653.  
24. I shall make no farther additions to this out of mine own Supellex, nor examine the solidity of what Hildebrand the advancer of the Papacy to its present greatness, hath defined concerning the 
Romanus Pontifex si Canonicè fuerit ordinatus meritis Beati Petri indubitantèr efficitur sanctus. Sent. 22.  sanctified, as well as infallible state of those that Canonically ascend that throne, that by the merits of St. Peter they are undoubtedly made holy,( and then I know not what privilege he may have of conveying this to all that shall espouse so sanctified a cause.) Yet not for this, but other reasons, especially because I abhor the passing sentence on any man else, but myself, I shall no farther reply to that head of sincerity, than to mind him of the no perfect invinciblenesse of his demonstration, which in this particular depends wholly on his not hearing that it is pretended that the contrary is made manifest, and therefore that if his adversary should now tell him, and so he now hear it, or because many things are said, which he hears not, or because many things are manifest, which are not said to be so, and lastly many things might be made manifest, which are not, his conclusion that holds its being so precariously, and by the courtesy of so many casualties, is still a demonstrative conclusion of the new mode, as homogeneous to the former, as if the seventh and eight Ground had been both framed, and proved by the same numerical S. W.  
25. Meanwhile I cannot omit to take notice of one auxiliary consideration, taken in to approve the sincerity of his Doctors, considering, saith he, the corruptness of our nature, the prejudice ought rather to stand on the part of the disobeyers than obeyers of any Government. And truly I should think so too, though I did not consider the corruptness of our nature, supposing 'twere, as S. W. praetends, a Government of Gods erecting, a reality, and not only a phasme of Government; But in our question I discern not, why the corruption of our nature may not incline some to assume, what is not their due, as well as others to deny it them. I suppose S. W. had a reach that I cannot aim at, and I will not unnecessarily disturb him in his considerations.  
26. At such a rate of demonstrating as this, he hath certainly gained his designed purchase, and so goes off the Stage with no less than a thousand to one in a moral aestimation in the means of understanding aright these Testimonial proofs] 'twas but a mere charity that he did not drop a Cyphre or two more, and say ten, or an hundred thousand to one, by which reckoning I cannot but yield to him, and think he hath reason not to take that to have any real probability, which hath such vast odds, be it but a thousand to one against it. Only the unluckinesse of it is, that some things come to pass which S. W. by giving heed to his own arguings, thinks most improbable, and so it will often be, till he hath got cure for that( some call it diabetick) passion, by which demonstrations such as they are, run from him so insensibly.  
27. But I must look forward, and then I find by his next words that I have insisted too long on the survey of this proof, when, though he have made use of it twice, for the confirming his seventh and eighth ground, yet he better bethinks himself, and( as he now saith) stands not much upon it. And if the Printer had spared his pains, and not stood upon it also, I might have been some minutes sooner at my journeys end. 'tis now too late to complain of it. But why is this medium, of so severe, and immediate connexion of terms, despised, and cast off, as soon as it hath done its best for him? He tells it plainly, He hath a far better game to play] It seems if he had not this despicable creature, as mean an account as he now makes of it, should have been kept up in a reputation, and traffick'd for him still. And I cannot but say, I am half sorry for the change, having gotten some little acquaintance with this medium, which took off the ruggednesse and amazingnesse of it. But in what svit lies his better game? Why he soon tells us, he means the force of Tradition.  
28. And then unexpectedly in the close of a very long and tough Section, which hath cost me at least eight times as much paper, to give it the due consideration, I must begin again, and as if the vast efficacy of Possession were blasted, or thunderstruck and vanished, and so he could not think fit to stand much upon that, at least on that alone, without this fresh supply from another cost, in comes his new trick upon the Cards, the very idea of Rushworths Dialogues, that we might not doubt from what architect his Grounds were derived to him, the force of Tradition.  
29. But for this I must take a little breath, before I set to it, and though he is so familiar with it, as to introduce it here at the fag end of a Section, yet I must use it with more respect, and solemnly dedicate, and set apart a whole Chapter for it; and that I shall not refuse to do, that I may not disappoint all his former challenges, and attempts to engage me in this point.    

CHAP. III. Of Tradition.  

SECT. I.  
The Doctrine of Tradition, in the way of Rushworths Dialogues. The method of considering it. Four previous considerations. The Encomiums of this way, how unreconcileably large. Some faith to Testimonies so great, that more Testimonies cannot strengthen it. Five questions by which to judge of the truth of the Encomiums. Canus's way of investigating Tradition, a prejudice to S. W's.  
1. TO advance then to the due beholding of the beauties of this Helena, the Common mistress of the Author of Rushworths Dialogues, Mr. White the Apologist for those Dialogues, and S. W. the Dispatcher( whether all these make up but one, or more persons, is not much material) the first thing I conceive necessary, is, that we put our thoughts in some order, not gazing on all at once, and so dazzling, and confounding our sights, but distributing the object into its parts, and accordingly martialing our views of them. And considering that the full portraiture, which in a large map makes up no less than all Rushworths Dialogues, is yet several times abbreviated, and given us in little, from those who are acknowledged to have fully penetrated and comprehended it, particularly in this place to the end of this Section, and in Mr. Whites Apology, in the first encounter, p. 7. and 8. I shall labour to direct my course by the steerage of these two together, and for methods sake bound myself to these limits.  
2. First, and by way of Apparatus, I shall take notice of the character, as that is expressed by the large Encomiums, which are given of this way, and secondly,( that I may fit it for defining) clear it from all ambiguity, and separate it from the other notion of which the word Tradition is capable, and to which 'tis ordinarily applied, then thirdly gather the briefest definition or description of it, and fourthly and lastly consider the proofs, on which it is established. And each of these being first set down from their own writings, and then allowed their due aestimate, will afford the Reader as distinct a view of the whole, as any thing but Oral Tradition( which I confess I have not in this matter) can furnish him, and I shall then leave him, or the Roman Conclave to pass judgement on it.  
3. And first the Encomiums of it you have here in these words,— A far better game to play, I mean the force of Tradition, which is fortified with such, and so many invincible reasons, that to lay them out at large, and as they deserve, were to transcribe the Dialogues of Rushworth, the rich store-house of them, To them I refer the Reader for as ample a satisfaction as even turcism can desire. Another Encomium I shall transcribe from Sch. Disar. p. 19. in these words, I doubt not but the Doctor will grant it impossible, that all the Protestants in England should be fallible or mistake in witnessing whether 20. years ago there were Protestant Bishops in England or no, and that such was the t●net and Government of the Church at that time. Yet 1000. times greater evidence have we of the indefectibility of the Churches faith, and her infallibility, As you may to your amazement see( if you will but open your eyes) in that incomparable Treatise of Rushworths D alogues.  
4. With these two I will satisfy myself( though there be as many more, as but casual mentions of this matter) the truth of which it is not my purpose( nor would it be reconciled with any civility) to examine, but only to conclude from thence the very least that is conclusible( according to S. W's own rule) by immediate connexion of terms, that if S. W. writ as he thinks, then in his opinion, this Scheme of proving the infallibility of the Church of Rome by Mr. Whites way is more than clearly demonstrative, for that which is no more than so, doth not satisfy a sceptic, for he, we know, doth maintain his {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, i. e. his suspense, and dissatisfaction against demonstration itself, if they that writ of the sceptics praetensions deceive us not, or if S. W. cannot give us better intelligence of them, than Sexius Empiricus in Pyrrhos life hath done. 2. That in his opinion this way is a thousand times more evident than what was really done 20 years ago, and what I saw myself, and had the concurrent sensations, of all both Papists and Protestants too, that then lived, and are ready to testify that I was not mistaken in thus judging of my own sensations, i.e. than what many millions of men not so much as agreeing in any interests hereon depending, did unquestionably see and hear.  
5. And having, I suppose, regularly inferred thus much, what hinders, but that I proceed to conclude, that this discovery of Mr, Whites, as it is the greatest blessing, the richest Jewel, so 'tis the greatest riddle and mystery in the world, Thuanus's, or Dr. Harvey's Misaido is nothing to it. But in stead of owning this as my own Corollary, I shall only propose it to consideration, First whether there be at this day on earth to human finite understandings, any way of more convincing proof, than that of clear demonstration. 2. Whether there be really any evidence of which a Romanist is capable, in judging of his Faith, a thousand times greater, than that of a plain matter of fact, which many millions of men have undoubtedly seen and heard; He must remember that evidence is the subject of this quaere, and that to make good his affirmation, he must at the least prove those three things, 1. That the number and authority( one or both) of Romanists is 1000 times greater than of Protestants. 2. That the Romanists Faith is Orally testified to them by all these, as the matter of fact done in England twenty years ago is testified by all Protestants there. 3. That when a thing is so testified already by a number, and authority much more than sufficient to make it unquestionable, yet the addition of a greater number of testifiers will still proportionably increase this evidence, so as one myriad being much more then enough to evidence a plain matter of fact, a thousand myriad shall produce a thousand times greater evidence, i.e. a thousand times more than sufficient.  
6. That the proving of these three things are necessary required of him, to conclude his affirmative of the question, though I have no cause to doubt of his assent, yet I shall here add my reason, why I conceive it incumbent on him: My reason is, because all the evidence of the conclusion inferred by Mr. Whites way is derived from the testification, and not from the matter of the Testimony, or any other such consideration, the matter of the Testimony being the thing concluded, and therefore no part of the medium to conclude it; For example, Oral Tradition evidences to a Romanist by many links of successive testifications, that the Apostles sent by Christ universally preached, and confirmed with miracles the Doctrine of the creed, as necessary to all men to believe to their souls health; The conclusion here testified and believed upon this medium of Oral testification, is this matter of fact[ that the Apostles preached and confirmed with miracles this Doctrine—] which conclusion being believed upon this testification only, as all matters of fact are, and not from any intrinsic arguments from the thing itself,( which are branches of the conclusion, and not mediums to infer, or evidence it) it necessary follows that the evidence of this conclusion is greater or less, as the testification is more or less weighty and vigorous, and receives not its increase of weight at all from any thing else. And if so, then 'tis evident, that to make the evidence, as he saith, a thousand times greater, he must make good that there are those ci●cumstances of number and authority one or both in the testification, thus multiplied above those in the other Scale, so far as to make it a thousand times more evident. Now that the evidence of any one thing depending upon Oral Testimony, is not thus increasable, as to be a thousand times greater, than the evidence of another thing, which is sufficiently and unquaestionably evidenced, and wherein, as he supposeth, it is impossible that the testifiers should mistake, I offer him this argument, which to me seems to have force in it: Some things which are testified to us by all the Christian world in all ages, are not onely not testified, but actually denied and rejected as Fables by a far greater part of the men of the world in all the same ages. In this case I demand what other reason can be given, why, when I believe an article upon tradition of the Christian world, so far a greater number of men to the contrary, should not beget some least dubitancy in my belief, thus founded, unless it be this, that the number and authority I have to depend on, is sufficient to induce a faith so firm, that nothing of this kind to the contrary can weaken it in the least degree; and if nothing of this kind can weaken it, then by the same reason nothing of this kind can strengthen it; the reason holding equally on both sides. And that the Romanist will consent to this reasoning of mine, I have this ground to persuade myself, Because many of his Articles of faith are, he knows, disbelieved, upon the same ground of tradition, by a far greater part of the Christian world( for I suppose I may style them part of the Christian world, whom yet he styles schismatics, the greek Church, Abassines, Georgians, and Protestants;) and yet this no way staggers or but gradually weakens his deemed infallibility; Why so? Because he supposes he hath from the testification of the Church of Rome so complete an evidence, that no oppositions of others can weaken, and then by the same reason also no excusable human addition will have any force to strengthen it.  
7. A third question proposeable will be, whether the least that can be affirmed of Mr. Whites way will not be this, that the demonstrativenesse it praetends to, doth at the lowest amount to that of a Mathematical demonstration exactly such in every link of it, so that the denying of any such link, shall imply no less then a flat contradiction. This I wish may be remembered, because hereafter perhaps there will be use of it.  
8. A fourth, whether it be credible, that so great a jewel as this praetends to be, should be withheld from the Christian world for above 1600. years, and at last brought forth, not only by one man that praetends not to inspiration, but also in a slight familiar conference between two Kinsmen, Apol. p. 1. It hath been a work of great subtlety and labour among the Romanists, to investigate the Traditions of Christ and his Apostles, 
Loc. Comm. l. III. c. 4.  Melchior Canus in a singular manner hath travailed in it, and among other ways hath set down for the third, Si quicquam est nunc in Ecclesiâ communi fidelium consensione probatum, quod tamen humana potestas efficer non potuit, id ab Apostolorum traditione necessariò derivatum est, If any thing be now in the Church approved by the common consent of the faithful, which yet no human power could do, that must necessary have been from the Apostles, As, saith he, to dissolve vows, remit oaths, was not of human power, because by the Law of Nature we are bound to perform to God our vows, and keep oaths, and human power cannot pardon and take away those things which are due by the Law of Nature, Nec enim credi potest, for it cannot be believed that the Church of God hath generally assumed any power in those things which belong to the Law of Nature, but what they had received from Christ and his Apostles, for then this were a great error in manners, which the Church must not be thought guilty of. Here indeed was an extraordinary reach, to conclude a power from Christ, because it was against the Law of Nature( which yet Christ came not to destroy, but {αβγδ}, to fill up and improve) which I cannot imagine any sober man would ever have adventured on( Ocham, I am sure, resolves the quiter contrary, that the power of Christs Vicar is but limited to those things, 
De Jurisdict. Imp. de cause. Matrim.  quae nec legi divinae nec legi naturae reperiuntur adversa, which are not found contrary either to the Law of God or Nature) if this other of the Oral of the present Church, without any Auxiliary, would have salved the difficulty; and that is matter of some conjecture at least, that it is, as was said, a novel inv●ntion; and being of such efficacy, 'tis strange it should be envied the world so long.  
9. The fifth, whether, if this do not make good what it undertakes, especially if in the issue it prove so far from a solid demonstration, that it arrives not so much as to a faire probability, the consequence be not clear, that it is a temerity seldom exemplified in other persons, or times, all circumstances being considered, as that he that praetends it, is a rational man, and though he saith it not in Greek, {αβγδ} {αβγδ},( Philocal. c. XXIV.) yet avows it in plain English, as oft as any, that he despiseth, and discerns the inconcludency of a thousand barely probable arguments, and admits of nothing in a Controvertist under rigorous, i.e. the most severe demonstration.  
10. Other pertinent quaestions, consectaries of the praemisses, I might propose, and likewise offer grounds of debating and deciding these, But that will better be done, when we have had particular inspection of the way, and then perhaps there will be no use of it; At the present this may suffice for the first previous consideration.   

SECT. II.  
The second previous consideration. Oral Tradition in opposition to Scripture or Fathers. Mr. Whites passages concerning Scripture, in his Apology consonant to Rushworths Dialogues. The Scales set betwixt S. W's way of Oral Tradition( Mr. Whites invention) and ours of Apostolical Tradition, Scripture and Fathers. Our way established. Writing no prejudice to Tradition. This proved by the Suffrages of the ancients of the five first ages, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Basil, Augustine, Vincentius, Salvian, The Greek Church of the last Century, the Romanist publisher. The practise at Nice, and Ephesus. Capreolus. Justinian. Mr. White. Gregory XIII. Julius Rogerius, Suarez, Abulensis, Mr. White again, Bellarmine, Suarez again. The true notion of Tradition from Peresius. Records overrule custom. Driedo's account. S. W's three objections answered. Perspicuity of Scripture. Helps for interpreting it. No advantage of Oral. The Romish mothers teaching written words not accusable of mutenesse. The Scriptures want of artificial rules of demonstration objected by S W. So their not being written of latter Controversies. Charity to dissenters taught by Scripture and councils. Their Universal Pastorship and Infallibility deduced from Scripture by themselves.  
1. Secondly then to clear the subject of our debate from all ambiguity, and distinguish it from any other praetenders, I have my directions here from the 
Schis. Dispat. p. 47.  close of this Section in these words, To stop the way against the voluntary mistakes of mine adversary, I declare myself to speak here not of written tradition to be sought for in the Scriptures and Fathers, which lies open to so many cavils and exceptions, but of Oral Tradition] so frequently elsewhere. To which also I refer that of the Apologist p. 8. that this Maxime*● [ The Churches Doctrine is received from Christ, and still handed along to the present generation] is the only undoubted and self-evident principle, and again that of the same hand, p. 11. that A considerer, were it his design to set up a Religion, which he would have constantly and universally propagated, he must of necessity pitch upon this way, pronouncing, that if God hath not already taken this course, certainly he should have done it. Which speeches how untuneable soever to softer ears, must yet be taken in good part from so great an Authority, and are to be understood, with analogy to the former, of Oral Tradition, and not of written either in Scriptures or Fathers.  
2. To this head again I refer the passages in this author, which to my weaker sences, savour much of diminution and unkindness( at least comparative) to the Scriptures. As when he saith Justin Martyr proved his Millenary Doctrine merely out of the Prophets, 
Apol. p. 79.  and never mentions Tradition for it( where yet by the way, he that avouched it as the Doctrine of all that were in all things of right opinions at that time will hardly be denyable to have proposed Oral Tradition for it, which is S. W's way, though neither Apostolical nor Universal, which is our way of urging Tradition) the [ merely out of the Prophets] lays blemish on such testimonies out of the Prophets, i.e. the Scriptures in comparison of the other of Tradition. 
P. 137.  So when he saith 'tis a shameless proposition to say the Scriptures were written of Controversies, long after their date sprung up in the Christian world] As if it were a great impudence in a Christian to think that the Apostles could foresee by Gods spirit, and obviate the heresies, which should after rise in the Church. And yet as 
Contr. Haer. l. 3. c. 11.  St. Irenaeus observes of St. Johns Gospel, in relation to the Valentinians and Marcionites, so I doubt not but the Arrians heresy which after sprung( to omit others of yet later date) might, without shane, be defensible from some Texts of Scripture, there be three that bear witness in heaven— and these three are one, I and my Father are one, and the like, which made me the more take notice of his suggestion, 
Ap. p. 39.  that he hath ground to believe that some learned men in Court were prevented by Arrius and solicited into a secret favour of his error, from whom 'tis likely proceeded that motion of Constantine to the council for determining the point out of Scripture, and when the Bishops contradicted not the proposition of the Emperor in words, and ( he saith) had reason for it, yet he adds, that was not to that end to which the Emperor proposed it, viz. the solution of the question, but to the conviction of the Arrians, and satisfaction of the world, where I might ask why the Arrians should first contrive underhand the determining the point by that means, and then be so far from wits, as to be convinced by it? and again how the world should be satisfied with it, if that were not deemed by the world at that time the proper way of determining Controversies? which if it might be yielded of any one age of the world, there were then also a determination and end of this controversy.  
3. So when he makes the comparison betwixt the 
Apol. p. 135.  authority of the Church, as the living word written in their breasts( that is the periphrasis peculiar to his Oral Tradition) and the dead letter of the Scriptures, and yet plainer, a 
P. 149.  mute ambiguous dead writing, not quickened with reason and discourse, and this, because, as he again explains himself more fully, the style of the Bible is accommodated to vulgar capacities( and yet alas it must not be permitted to the use of the vulgar) and the delivery by way of plain and direct affirmation( who would then ever have thought, it had been so excessively ambiguous) without attending to the artificial rules of demonstration( which the author so much affecting and attending to, must be excused, if he say some things, that vulgar capacities cannot comprehend to have the least even probable truth in them.) And as this is the ground, so it is the interpretation of his grand distribution of Professors of Christianity into believers of the word taught or delivered Orally, and believers of the word taught or delivered in Paper, in the beginning of his preface to the Dialogues. As for the Dialogues themselves, it were a long, and joylesse labour to recount, what, beyond the industry, and sagacity of all former writers in the world, I say not Romanist Christians, or 
Sess. 4 decr. 1.  Tridentine Fathers( who profess to make use of Scripture testimonies in confirmandis dogmatibus, acknowledging God for the author of them) but even the most professed enemies of Christianity, Jews, and scoffing Heathens,( Mahumetan's have not attempted any thing of the kind) he hath compiled and heaped together, to diminish the consideration of the books both of the Old and New Testament, on this one account of their being written, both in the Originals and Translations: One single 
Dial. 2. Sect. 5.  operation of his( for he hath many more that bear proportion with it) is so successful to him, that having made one easy supposition, that there have been as many Copies taken in some age of an 100 years as there are columns in the Bible, he demands, May we not well reckon as many faults escaped in every Copy( one with another) as there are words in a Column( which he supposes to be 336) which admitted( 'tis then beyond a may be, it commences certain) you will find, saith he, the number of errors in all the Copies made since the Apostles times, amount to fifteen or sixteen times as many as there are words in the Bible, and so by this account, it would be fifteen or sixteen to one, of any particular place, that it were not the true Text. And although this be but the nephews account in the Dialogue; who is feigned to think it too dangerous to be possible, yet the demure Unkle tells him plainly, I do not conceive you have taken your proportions too high, and hath but one exception to this reckoning, viz. that the errors of many Copies may have been the same in divers of them. Which being his only obstacle to concluding that we might look for Scripture in Scripture, and doubt whether we meet with one true syllable of it, and this most unluckily chosen, and the least for the Christians interest of any,( for the more Copies agree in an error, the more likelihood there is, that this error should praevail, and supplant the truth, such accordances being not easily excusable to be casual, or imputable to the Scribes) the Result is obvious, and of near concernment to more than 
P. 79.  the City-wives( whom he jeers for turning their Bibles) or the 
P, 101.  people at St. Antholins( who he thinks would ston him with their Brazen-corner'd Bibles( by the figure, you must suppose, of a Leaden overturn) but could not answer his argument) even to all Christians, that shall ever think it their serious interest, to keep paganism from returning to overrun the world, or judaism to defy Christianity; which how would they miss to do, should they use but ordinary industry, the Christian being thus deprived of the writings of Moses, his chief weapons of defence and security from the one, and of the writings of the Prophets also from whence Christ and the Apostles fetched their principal evidences and offensive arms against the other; both which, with the rest of the written word, are by the judgement of common sense, if we will heed the Dialogists reasonings, voted to be so uncertain, that they ca never be relied on with any confidence( any more than 
Dial. 2. Sect. 14 p. 130.  a beetle to cut with) against any adversary, and accordingly the 
Ibid. p. 129.  rule is given expressly, that catholics never undertake to convince their Adversaries out of Scripture, and so not Jews or Mahumetanes, when they are such. This mindes me of Mr. Whites arguings against Purgatory pains being inflicted by Gods vindicative justice, the very same, that will equally hold against adjudging men to the torments of hell, viz. 1. 
De Med. an. Stat. p. 39.  Because there accrues no profit either to the Souls themselves, or to any other, single person, or Universe, 2. Because 
P. 41.  neither the cause of restitution nor caution persuade it, which alone can have place, saith he, with a wise God. 3. Because the sins to which the pains are apportioned, seem not to him to be any 
P. 43.  injury to God, for how can they, saith he, volens vel nolens? si nolenti fit, non erat oimpotens, cum velvet impedire neque potuit, volenti si factum est, injuria non est] The very logic and Dilemma that the Ranters have lately used, to conclude all the foulest acts of men or devils, the will of God, and thence to resolve, that there is nothing culpable in them. All that I shall think fit to reply, at this time, to all this is, in these few lines to take notice of the full image and character of immoderate opposition( {αβγδ}) which, so it may impugn enough the present Christian adversary, foresees not what aids it brings in to the Jew, or Pagan, or even to the Devil himself; But this by the by, I would it might have been spared.  
4. He that will have a complete Collection of such passages for extoling the oral, and depressing all written Tradition, must transcribe those Dialogues and the whole Apology for them, and therefore may more cheaply content himself with S. W's Epitome of it in these two expressions, 1. Positive 
Sch. Disp. p. 17.  [ the incomparable force of Universal Tradition, our only tenor] 2. compared to the [ what small merit of assent can be pretended to by words of men dead long ago, left to be tossed by our various expositions and criticisms, and liable to a thousand evasions—  
5. All that I note them for in this place, is to give the undoubted notion of the Tradition he speaks of, not so as that word properly signifies any kind of conveyance to us from the Apostles, whether by the Scriptures or the writings of the Fathers, &c. but precisely Oral Tradition, that, which, saith Mr. 
Apol. p. 10.  White, the Mothers flatter into their children, and is 
P. 11.  the most sweet and connatural way that can be imagined to beget a firm and undoubted assent— and this still if not exclusively, yet comparatively, so as to carry it clearly from Scriptures and Fathers, which are all but dead letters and mute writings, in comparison of this which alone he looks on as Gods living word.  
6. The subject then being thus explained, and removed from all ambiguity, and the competition cleared to lie betwixt Oral Tradition, or the Mothers teaching their Children the Faith, on one side, and Apostolical Tradition conveyed to us by Scripture and Fathers, on the other, the former S. W's sole praetension, the latter conjoined( and taking in also Oral) ours, It is not amiss in this place, before we come to the definition and fuller discussion of it, to poise the Scales a while, and consider what rational demonstrative grounds he can be discerned to have, to depress our way, of Scripture and ancient Records of the Apostles depositum, both which remain to us in writing, and are our test, to discern what belief is due to what is orally delivered us; for by this we shall be prepared to discern afterward, what incomparable force there is in his motives, to advance, and give the deference so much to this Invention, which with him hath supplanted that other.  
7. Invention I call it from Mr. Whites own Profession, that it is a 
Ep. Ded. to the Apol.  path not much beaten by their own modern Controvertists, and by his telling us the beginning of it in a 
Apol p. 1.  slight familiar conference, and by S. W's 
Schis. Disp. p. 18.  great comfort, that he professes to take, that the best sort of wits begin to own their Reason in this particular, though yet he cannot but discern there be few of them. And that, me thinks, to one that acknowledges any kind of Tradition for his only ground, should be a competent prejudice against it. But of this we shall hereafter consider more seasonably.  
8. Let us then a while 1. establish, and 2. secure our own way, And therein first consider the rational grounds upon which it proceeds, acknowledged to be such by the Romanists themselves, and such as in other matters bear sway with the Romanists.  
9. And first for the establishing, It is by all confessed that the whole Christian Faith hath its entire beginning from the preaching of Christ, and the teaching of the Holy Ghost who should led the Apostles into all necessary truths, 2. That the Apostles orally communicated all such to all Churches of their Plantations, 3. That their writings, as far as they are perspicuous, and as they set down these Christian Doctrines, so far they ought to have force with all Christians, the same that their words would have, if they were orally conveyed to us, there being no such difference imaginable betwixt words written, and spoken, and the reading of one, and hearing the other, as that one should found certainty of belief, and the other be uncapable of founding it. 4. That if( on supposition) there be any thing in their preachings which they delivered as necessary, but committed not to writing, yet in case we have this their delivering it competently testified by those that heard their preachings, and in case this testification of those hearers, be plainly and intelligibly conveyed to us by their own writings, or by the consentient writings of those which received it, thus delivered down to them successively from their preachings in the several Churches, we have then no more reason to doubt, of the truth of these written testifications, than if they who first wrote, had orally delivered to us the same things, which they wrote.  
10. This then, thus briefly deduced, is the ground why Tradition being yielded to be the only Rule of Faith, and that nothing is to be imposed as de Fide, and necessary, but what is thus delivered by the Apostles of Christ, we think not this Tradition praejudiced or any way weakened ( I need add no more to S.W.) by being committed to writing.  
11. For this it is not amiss to add the testimonies of antiquity, and I refer him in the first place to St. Irenaeus in the second Century, who having in his preface to his third book promised the Christian Reader, a 
Plenissimam adversus omnes haereticos contradictionem.  most full resistance against all heretics, and establishment in the 
Sola vera ac vivifica fide quam ab apostles Ecclesia percepit,& distribuit filiis suis.  sole true and vivifick faith, which the Church received from the Apostles, and distributed to her children, tells him in the beginning of the first Chapter, that we know not that the disposition of our salvation is by any others, but those 
Per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos, quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in scriptures nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnan fidei nostrae futurum.  by whom the Gospel came to us, which they then preached, but after by the will of God delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Thus, saith he, Matthew among the Hebrewes 
Scripturam edidit evangelii, in Greek, {αβγδ}, Euseb. l. 5. c. 8.  set out the Scripture or writing of the Gospel in their tongue, Thus Mark the Disciple and Interpreter of St. Peter 
{αβγδ}  delivered to us in writing what was preached by Peter, thus Luke a follower of Paul, 
{αβγδ}.  set down in a book the gospel which was preached by him, and afterward John— Then in his second Chapter branding the heretics he sets this for the first part of their charge, that when they are found fault with from Scriptures, they fall to accusing the Scriptures, that they are not right, that they are not authoritative, because they are variè dictae, and because truth cannot out of them be found by those that know not Tradition, for that was not delivered by writing, but by live voice. And as this was one of the heretics foul guilts, to reject, and appeal from Scripture to Oral Tradition, so in the next words we are taught the true notion of Tradition, which next to Scripture was set up by the Church, as the rule of judging the truth, viz. that 
Ad Traditionem qua est ab apostles, quae per successionem Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur, pro vocamus eos.  which is from the Apostles, which by the succession of the Elders is kept in the Churches,( the descending and not reversed Tradition) and to this the Orthodox Christians made their appeal. And then the brief of the heretics charge is, that they neither consent to the Scriptures 
Evenit itaque neque scriptures, neque Traditioni consentire eos.  nor to tradition, in which respect the slipperynesse of the Serpent is there said to be their Copy. For the confounding of whom 
Ch. 3.  the first opposes the tradition of the Apostles, 
In toto mundo manifestatam in omni Ecclesia.  manifested through all the world in every Church, and for 
Quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximae et antiquissimae& omnibus cognitae, a gloriosissimis duobus apostles Petro& Paulo Romae fundatae& constitutae Ecclesiae.  brevity sake, not to enumerate all, in the greatest, and most ancient and known to all, the Church of Rome, founded by two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, showing there the tradition which that had from the Apostles, and the faith declared to men, coming down by successions of Bishops to his time; and so on, in those expressions of 
Potentiorem principalitatem—  honour to that Church, for conserving Apostolical Tradition in it, which we willingly aclowledge was by him most justly bestowed on it; wherein he nameth the immediate successors of those Apostles, Linus, Anacletus, and Clemens, who saw and conferred with them, and had their preaching sounding in their ears, and Tradition 
{αβγδ}.  before their eyes( which they could not well be supposed to have had, unless it we●e written) under the last of which, Clemens, the Church of Rome, saith he, wrote to them at Corinth 
{αβγδ}.  a writing( the first Epistle of Clemens) most sufficient and powerful, reducing them to peace, and 
{αβγδ}.  repairing their faith, and declaring the Tradition which it had newly received from the Apostles. Then setting down the heads of Faith, 
Ex ipsa Scriptura qui volunt discere possunt& Apostolicam Eccl●siae traditionem intelligere, cum sit vetustior Epistola hic qui nunc falsa docent.  They, saith he, that will, may learn out of the writing itself, and understand the Apostolical Tradition, seeing that Epistle is ancienter than the false teachers, And from Clemens deducing the succession of Bishops to Eleutherius in the twelfth place, by this succession, saith he, the tradition which is in the Church from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth is come down even to us. And this, he concludes, is a most full demonstration, that it is one and the same forerunning faith, which in the Church from the Apostles until his time is conserved and delivered in truth. The like he instances again in Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna in Asia, who received his Doctrine from the Apostles, and delivered it to the Church, and concludes of him that he hath 
{αβγδ}.  written a most sufficient or powerful Epistle to the Philippians( the phrase, which when 'twas used before, of the Church of Rome, gave occasion of Fevardentius's note, that from the beginning that Church had authority in moderating the Greek Churches, and then so had Polycarpe too) from which they that are willing, and have a care of their own salvations, may learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of truth. And though ch. 4. he ask, in case 
Quid si neque Apostoli Scripturas reliquissent, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi Traditionis?  the Apostles had not lest writings, must we not have followed the order of Tradition, and affirm the faith to have been 
cvi ordinationi assentiunt multae gentes barbarorum, quorum qui in Christum credunt sine charta& atramenio scriptam habentes per spiritum in cordibus suis salutem—  preserved in some barbarous Nations without Paper and Ink in their hearts by the Spirit( an authority better perhaps, than S. W. knew of, for the affirming of Oral Tradition, that 'tis written in mens hearts) yet ch. 5. he 
Revertamur ad eam quae est ex scriptures ostensionem.  reverts to the demonstrating of the faith against the heretics out of Scriptures, and ch. XI. resolves that St. John having preached the faith wrote his gospel 
Omnia talia circumscribere volens,& regulam veritatis constituere in Ecclesia—  on purpose to constitute a rule of truth in the Church, that heretics not only such as were in his own, but such as in that Fathers time,( the Marcionites by name, &c.) were refuted by what he wrote, and by his gospel 
Abstulit a no●●t dissensiones omnes Joan●es dicens, In munde erat—  dissensions taken out of the Church.  
12. The observations which this large transcript out of that one so Primitive a Father( a Controvertist, as well as S.W.) will yield, I shall leave the Reader to make to himself( for to S. W. I know 'tis but a wordish testimony) The least that he can, is the most that I shall conclude from it, that at that time Scripture and Tradition Apostolical( that is not Oral) where they were both to be had, were the means of establishing truth, and that it was no prejudice to Tradition, that it was written, in order to this of demonstrating against heretics.  
13. Tertullian in the beginning of the next age, the third Century, the greatest assertor of unwritten Traditions, where no more is to be had, doth evidently set the written first, and then, by way of supply, the unwritten. He that will better exercise his curiosity in the business of his salvation, Let him, saith he, survey the Apostolical Churches with whom the very chairs of the Apostles praeside in their places, 
Apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur sonantes vocem— uniuscujusque, De Praescr. Adv. Haer. c. 26.  with whom the very authentic Letters of them are recited, sounding the voice and representing the face of every one of them, and instancing in the Church of Rome, an happy Church, in which the Apostles powred out their whole Doctrine with their blood, he saith of it, that it 
Legem& Prophetas cum Evangelicis& Apostolicis literis miscet,& ind potat fidem eam, aqu●● signat— Ibid.  mixes Law and Prophets with Evangelical and Apostolical writings, and from thence drinks the faith, and signs it with baptism, &c.  
14. The same it is manifest was the rule in St. Cyprians time, in the middle of that third Century, Ep. 74. to Pompeius, where, upon Pope Stephens pressing Tradition to him, he replies, 
Unde est ista Traditio? utrumne de dominica& evangelica authoritate descendens, an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens?  Whence is the Tradition? doth it descend from the authority of the Lord and the Gospel, doth it come from the commands and Epistles of the Apostles? for God, saith he, testifies and proposes to Josuah son of Nun, 
Ea facienda esse quae scripta sunt.  that those things are to be done which are written, saying, the Book of this Law shall not depart from thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, and observe to do those things that are written in it( God it seems then thought that written words might be intelligible, and the rule of their lives) 
Si aut in evangelio praecipitur aut in Apostolorum Epistolit aut Actibus continetur— observetur divina haec& sancta traditio.  If then it be commanded in the Gospel or contained in the Epistles, or acts of the Apostles, Let this divine and holy Tradition be observed; But 
Si retrò nusquam omnino praecepium est, neque conscriptum, quae est ista obstinatio humanam traditionem divinae dispositioni anteponere?  if in all former times it be no where commanded nor written, what obstinacy, what presumption is it to praeferre an human Tradition before Gods disposing? Adding that 
Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est.  custom without truth is but antiquity of error, and concluding that it is the duty of Priests that kept Gods laws, that 
Si in aliquo nutaverit aut vacillaverit veritas, ad originem dominicam et Evangelicam et Apostolicam traditionem revertamur. ind surgat actus nostri ratio, unde et ordo et origo surrexit.  if in any particular the truth totter, or be ready to fall, they revert to the beginning in Christ and the Gospel, and Apostolical Tradition( not what the present age teaches) and from thence let the reason, saith he, of our action arise, whence our ordination and beginning( of our Christianity) arose.  
15. Here certainly Tradition, if truly so called, was conceived to refer to the Authors in the first place, and to the remains of them that were in writing( and so to the wordish testimonies so fastidiously rejected by S. W.) and but secondarily, and as it accordeth with those, to after-custome.  
16. So St. Basil in the fourth Century, as one while his appeal is from the disputers subtleties, to Christ, Apostles, Fathers, Martyrs,( sufficiently opposed to the reversed Tradition) 
To. 1. Hom. 27. cont. Sabel. p. 608. A.  {αβγδ}, Let Tradition put thee to the blushy, the Lord hath thus taught, the Apostles preached, the Fathers observed, the Martyrs confirmed, be thou content to speak as thou hast been taught, and bring not me these captious sophisms; So 
{αβγδ} to. 2. p. 307.  another while more expressly, by way of definition, in his morals, {αβγδ}, Every word or thing ought to be confirmed or ratified by the testimony of inspired Scripture.  
17. And St. Augustine, in the beginning of the fifth Century, though he differed in opinion from Cyprian about the baptizing of those that had baptism from heretics, yet he avowedly adhaeres to his grounds( only adding that of 
Universalis Ecclesiae admonitus firmitate vidit aliquid quod ille non vidit, quia plenarium de hacre concilium nondum habebat Ecclesia. de bapt. Contr. Donat. l. 4 c. 6.  conciliar determinations, by which he came to see what Cyprian had not seen) 
Quod autem nos admonet ut ad fontem recurramus, i.e. e a● Apostolicam traditionem,& ind canalem in nostra tempora dirigamus, optimum est,& sine dubitatione faciendum, l. V. c. 26.  When, saith he, he adviseth us to recurre to the fountain, Apostolical Tradition, and from thence to bring down the Conduit to our own times, it is best, and without doubt to be practised, and accordingly fetches his testimonies out of Scripture. So again de Unit. Eccles. c. XIX. Utrum ipsi teneant Ecclesiam non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum Canonicis libris ostendant, requiring the Donatists to show from the caconical Books of holy Scriptures, whether they be in the right or no in their praetensions, as, saith he, when Christ rose from the dead, and shewed himself to his Disciples, lest they might think there were any deceit in it, magis eos testimoniis Legis& Prophetarum& Psalmorum confirmandos esse judicavit, he thought fit to confirm them by testimonies of the Law and Prophets and psalms, showing that those things were fulfilled in him, which had been so long before foretold. An eminent testimony from Christs own judgement, what was the fittest way of concluding controversies of Faith. So 
L. 4. c. 85.  against the Letters of Petilian, Whether I, or you be schismatics, non ego nec tu, said Christus interrogetur ut indicet Ecclesiam suam, Let Christ be asked, and neither I nor you, that he may show or point out his Church. And so more expressly in his 166th Epistle, In scriptures discimus Ecclesiam, the Scriptures which teach us Christ are the means to teach us the Church also, and 
In Psal. 69.  again, Lest any should tell thee that is Christ, which is not Christ, aut Ecclesia est, quae non est Ecclesia, or that is the Church which is not the Church, audi vocem Pastoris, hear the voice of the shepherd, i.e. of Christ, in Scripture: Elsewhere we have him as punctual for our way of descendent, against this new of ascendent, reversed Tradition; Puritas doctrinae expendenda est non secundum Traditionem praesentis aut hujus, vel illius particularis Ecclesiae, hujus vel illius interpretis, said secundum Traditionem ab initio a temporibus Apostolorum concordi Patrum sententiâ ad nos usque deductam, The purity of Doctrine is to be weighed, not according to the Tradition of the present Church, or of this or that particular Church, of this or that Interpreter, but according to Tradition deduced from the beginning from the times of the Apostles even to us by a concordant opinion of the Fathers. Many the like are to be had in that Father.  
18. About 20. years after him, Vincentius Lirinensis in his Commonitory against heresies, resolves the way of refuting them to be by 
Prolatis atque collatis veterum magistrorum concordantibus sibimet sententiis. c. 39.  producing and comparing the concordant opinions of the old Masters, and in case the heresies be of some standing, so as to have falsified and corrupted those rules of ancient Faith,( this it seems by him is no impossibility) then the only way is 
Aut sola Scripturarum authoritate aut jam antiquitus Universalibus Catholicorum Conciliis. Ibid.  either by the sole authority of Scriptures, or by the ancient Universal councils.  
19. And About 20. years after him, Salvian speaking of the Goths and other barbarous Nations, that received the Faith, but as it was corrupted by the Arrians, gives this account of them, that Though they have the Scriptures, yet for want of literature 
Nihil omnino sciunt nisi quod a doctoribus suis audiunt, quod audiunt, hoc sequuntur, de Gub. l. V. p. 153. Ed. Oxon.  they know nothing, but what they hear from their Teachers, and what they hear they follow. And again, they that 
Necesse est ces qui totiùs literaturae ac scientiae ignari, sacramentum divinae legis doctrina magis quam lectione cognoscunt, doctrinam potius retinere quam legem. Itaque eis traditio Magistrorum svorum& doctrina inveterata quasi lex est, qui hoc sciunt quod docentur, haeretici ergo sunt, said non scientes; Denique apud nos sunt haeretici, apud se non sunt. Nam in tantum se Catholicos esse judicant, ut nos ipsos titulo haereticae appellationis infament. Ibid.  being ignorant of all literature do know the sacred mystery of Gods Law by teaching rather than reading( a direct image of S. W's sole principle, Oral Tradition) do rather retain what they are taught than the Law of God, and therefore the Tradition of their Masters and inveterate teaching is as it were law to them, who know that which they are taught; they are therefore heretics, but know it not, heretics in our, but not in their own account, for they are so confident that they are catholics, that they defame us for heretics( whose practise this is both in the root and fruit, S. W. will soon recollect, if he be so minded.)  
20. I might multiply authorities in each Century, and thereby demonstrate that S. W's one principle hath not been received in all ages of the Church, and so according to his own demonstration, is infallibly to be degraded from that dignity which he hath bestowed on it, and Scripture and Tradition together set up in its stead, the one to interpret and supply whatsoever imaginable omissions in the other, and that the latter of these is not to be praejudged( any more than the former) on this only account that it hath been written, and so me thinks the testimonies which his preaching adversary fetcheth from thence for deciding controversies, should not for ever fall under the reproach of wordish testimonies.  
21. I shall only add the Profession of the Greek Church, which the 
Socolov. Praefat. A. 4 5.  Romanists that published it, recommends to all, as the means to recall them to the catholic Church, by showing they can have no sort of company out of it, the Eastern, as well as the Western Church refusing to countenance them; And yet in this so considerable a point, the resolving on the ground of all our faith, it is evident we are agreed; For thus in their name Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople, 
proem. Censur, p. 3.  sets it, the very truth and wisdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, which his divine Disciples and Apostles in their caconical and wholesome writings profess, which all the universal and particular Synods of the holy Fathers have followed, which the Preachers and Doctors of the one holy Church full of Divine knowledge deliver to us, and all with one common concord and will clearly consent in it. 
P. 6.  And again they profess in their dealings with the Germans, to take care of this especially, not to say ought from their own private sense, but to fetch all they say from the seven Holy and Universal Synods( and so do 
See Tract of heresy, Sect. 9, 10.  we as far as they were universally received) from the sense of the Holy Fathers and Interpreters of the Scripture delivered to us from God, whom the Holy and Universal Church of Jesus Christ commends and approves with unanimous consent, for these by the spirit of God speaking in their mouths, and breathing by them, as most lightsome stars illustrated the world with their teaching, signs, and wonders; their teaching and institution can never be put out or moved by any age or length of time, as being founded on the omnipotent word of God, according to that of St. Paul, that the Church of Christ is the pillar and ground of truth, against which the very gates of hell, according to Christs promise, shall not be able to praevail. To all which it is not amiss to annex the Romanist publishers resolution( by way of 
Socolev. Annot. p. 8.  annotation on the mention of their acknowledging the seven councils) that if the Greeks and Germans to whom they writ, 
Si vel has solace septem Synodos sequerentur, n●que illis Schismate, neque illis haeresi quicquam opus esset, cum in illis septem abound explicatum sit, quid de quaque re sentiendum, quid quoquo loco habendum sit.  followed even those seven councils alone, the one would have no need of schism, the other of heresy, it being abundantly explicated in those seven, what is to be thought and held in every thing and place. And then sure if the Oral Tradition of the present Roman Church have more Doctrines of Faith, than those seven councils abundantly explicated, or if that of the Scripture and ancientest Fathers and councils may not be permitted to be our sufficient Rule, but be required to be partend with, in exchange for the Oral, of the present Mothers, and Catechists, we shall have some company, even of Romanists, to countenance us, how deeply soever we fall under S. W's displeasure.  
22. And as this was the Doctrinal judgement, so 
H●st. l. 1. c. 8.  Theodoret from Athanasius tells us the practise was in the great council of Nice, they defined 
{αβγδ}.  from Scripture-words piously understood, and so as they 
{αβγδ}.  had testimony from the Fathers. Agreeably Capreolus Bishop of Carthage, which was, as he saith, a Legate sent to the Great council of Ephesus, gives an account of the proceeding of that council against the Nestorian heresy, that it was 
Ep. ad Vital. p 42.  radio Apostolicae lucis extincta, extinguished by a beam of Apostolical light, and he being solemnly resorted to by the Bishops of Spain( under the title of the 
Capreolum Episcopum Ecclesiae Catholicae Carthaginis. p. 35  Bishop of the catholic Church of Carthage, 
Domine saint venerabilis& beat●ssime Papa, p. 40.  holy venerable and most blessed Pope, and his 
Sancto Apostolatu vestro, p. 36.  holy Apostleship) 
Provoluti genibus exoramus humiles servi tui sanctum Apostolatum vest●um ut inso metis parvitatem nostram in his quod rectum habet fides Catholica.  for instruction in the true faith( in such a manner as when 'tis used to the Pope of Rome; passes for a proof of his supreme Pastorship) though, saith he, p. 42. the authority of the catholic Church( that in the council forementioned) be sufficient, yet he will add his own professions that this is the 
Unam veramque doctrinam hanc esse confitemur quam Evangelica tenet ac tradit ant●quitas. p. 43.  only and true Doctrine which the Evangelical antiquity holds and delivers; which may serve for farther evidences of the course we assert of refuting and convincing heresy by the tradition and doctrine of the Evangelical and Apostolical antiquity.  
23. add to all these the Novelle constitution of Justinian, where confirming the four first General councils, he resolves, 
{αβγδ}. Justin. novel. {αβγδ}. 131.  their Doctrines we receive as the Divine Scriptures, and their Canons we observe as laws, where the joint authority of the Divine Scriptures and Canons of those councils entred into a Codex, are exactly our praetension, and so I suppose St. Gregories too, when he professed to receive those four councils as the four Gospels.  
24. To all this, if mens words are intelligible, I must conclude the learned Romanists to give their suffrage also. In the first place S. W's good friend Mr. White, when 'twas useful to confute 
Dailles arts Discov p. 225.  Mr. Daille, saith the seventh council confirmed all that was either in Scripture or Tradition, by binding us to those two pillars of truth( Scripture and Tradition, the two pillars, and the Tradition, that which was so ancient, as to be confirmed in the seventh council; who would ever desire more of him?) and in his Tab. Suffrag. being to prove the truth of his praetensions against new Revelations, he makes use of the very method that we Preachers are wont to do, by the Suffrages of the Law and Prophets, and Gospels, and Epistles of the Apostles, Tab. 1. and then by the Testimonies of the Fathers, Tab. 2. Next after him I shall mention Pope Gregory XIII. in his Epistle to the King of Spain before his Bible, His libris( Scripturarum) omnia nostra Religionis& Divinitatis mysteria explicantur, in the Books of Scripture all the mysteries of Religion and Divinity are explicated, which how they can be, if they are so wonderfully ambiguous and unintelligible, I confess not to understand. Next I add Julius Rogerius Protonotarius Apostolic( Possevin, saith he, was Legate in Poland from the Pope, and Secretary to the Pope) who resolves, Traditionem nullam ullius esse ponderis, nisi nullis temporum intercapedinibus interruptam, ab Apostolorum usque temporibus, ind enim necesse esse traditionem manare, That Tradition is of no weight, unless it be uninterrupted from the very Apostles times, for that it is necessary all Tradition should flow from thence. According to which( saith Possevine) writing of the caconical Books, Horum Traditio ad Apostolica usque tempora revocata— his method was to recall their tradition, and carry it back even to the Apostolical times. This then is the true nature of Tradition, to refer primarily to the Author or Authors, from whence it flows, and but secondarily to any after practise, or custom, or Doctrine, for the confirming it, and so the only method this of ours, to look up to the authors, and so bring it down to the present Church; To which purpose 
De leg. l. VII. c. 4. Sect. 10.  Suarez distinguisheth betwixt Tradition and custom. To this also I refer the resolution of 
Defensorii par. 2. c. 32. Ecclesia quae non potest errare non est aliqua nisi Universalis, et ista vocatur proprie Ecclesia sine aliqua limitatione, quia est multitudo non connotato aliquo loco aut tempore.  Abulensis, who placeth the firmness of truth in this, that the Church cannot err, meaning, as he saith, none but the Universal Church, and that without any limitation, or connotation of time or place, and so taking in all time since there was a Christian Church, as well as place also. And, this a man would think again, should be Mr. Whites meaning in his Tab. Suffrag. 
Tab. 3.  when calling the Church to account by what title it holds the name of catholic, he answers for it, that it is only from the Catholikenesse of the Faith, and that the Faith is said to be catholic, because it hath had the possession of all Christianity per aetates et loca, through ages,( that must be through all ages) as well as places, concluding that the Faith, if it will be catholic, must be of all times and places, which I should think were very impertinently insisted on by him, if what were now taught in the Church of Rome, as of Faith, by his Oral Tradition of the present age, were by that one medium secured to have been the Doctrine of all times, for then what farther need were there of evidence for the contignation and conjuncture to the Apostles, which after he with great reason requires of the new and latter Revelations, which the favourers of Papal Infallibility praetend to. After these I appeal even to Bellarmine himself in his defence of unwritten Traditions, 
De verbo Dei non scripto. l. 4 c. 2.§ Vocatur autem— Vocatur doctrina non scripta, non ea quae nusquam scripta est, said quae non est scripta a primo authore.  We call that, saith he, unwritten Doctrine, not which hath never been written, but that which hath not been written by the first Author. From whence all that I conclude is, that as by him Tradition is set in express opposition to Scripture, and belongs not to those things which are written there( which will anon be useful to us on another occasion) so the writings of the Fathers those words of dead men, in S. W's scornful dialect, are as properly tradition, as any thing else in his opinion.  
25. To which sense I add the express words of 
De Leg. l. 7. c. 2. Illa Scriptura non est lex, said potest deservire in memoriam et probationem, sicut nos probamus traditions non scriptas ex Patribus.  Suarez, writing is not Law, but may serve for a record and probation, as we prove Traditions unwritten out of the Fathers. The same is evidently of force to holy Scripture also, which was not written by Christ the first author of the Christian Law, but being delivered by him, by word of mouth, was afterward set down in writing by his hearers and their Disciples, and so is at once most signally the oral Doctrine of Christ, and Law of his Church, and Tradition Apostolical, not written by the first author, and so tradition, though by others it were written.  
26. For that this is the proper use of the word, to signify, not that which is not written, but not written by the first author, may be judged by Martinus Peresius, 
De Tradit. par. 1. Tit. Quid sit proprie Traditio.  defining it in the most exact propriety of the Romanists understanding of it, Tradition, saith he, more properly and more pertinently to our purpose, is taken for the Doctrine of the first and most ancient in the Common-wealth of the faithful, received by word of mouth, and derived by continual succession from the Fathers to sons, and confirmed by ancient custom, and not contained in the authentic Books of that Common-wealth and 
Licet in aliis instruments vel libris fide dignis scripta fuerit, non ob id traditionis nomen amittit.  though it be written in other Instruments or Books worthy of belief, it doth not for that lose the name of Tradition.  
27. And then certainly these written memoirs intervening, must be allowed, according to their esteem, and undoubtednesse of their sense( of which words written are as fully capable, as spoken) to have force to prove, or repudiate any Traditions or customs which are vouchsafe by the present age, and not on the other side those writings be controlled by the present Doctrines; As in the Municipial laws of our Land( to which S. W. 
P. 38.  resorts in the matter of possession) If a custom be sworn by all the homage of a Manor,( can the Oral Tradition of his present Church, ascend above this proportion?) that for all their memory such hath been an usage, and esteemed a right, and that their Fathers  told them, that such it had been in all their memory also, yet if any Court-roll or other Record be extant, which declares that the custom was otherwise in ancient times,( like the finding of an ancient Coin, by which Baronius reforms all Historians ancient as well as modern in the point of Maxentius's birth, An. 306. n. 23.) that Record is a sufficient confutation of the testimony of the Homagers, and makes the custom not to be immemorial.  
28. And this is a received truth among the Civilians, who give this account of it, Scriptura est conservativa memoriae, writing is conservative of memory, and Scriptura semper l●quitur, writing always speaks( and then by S. W's good leave, 'tis not so mute and dead a letter) as in other things 
Grot. de jur. Bell. l. 2. c. 16.§ 30.  Scriptura monumentum contractus, the writing is a monument of the contract, and 
2. Par princ. tr. prescript.  Baldus resolves that the affirmative, viz. that there is a memory of it, may well be proved by an instrument or writing; So 
4. par. de Antiqu. temporib.  Cravetta propounds the very quaestions, how a prescription may be proved, or immemorial custom, and how the affirmative( against a prescription) that there is memory to the contrary, and answers to the latter; 
Affirmativa memoriam in contrarium extare, probatur per instrumenta, ex quibus apparet de contraria observantia.  The affirmative, that there is memory to the contrary, is proved by instruments from which evidence is brought of the contrary observance. And then what becomes of S. W's and the Apologists whole Scheme, if Testimony of present witnesses may be controlled by written memorials of credit,( and that Scripture or Fathers are not such, they have not yet affirmed to be their opinion, the deadness, and mutenesse, and ambiguity, and want of demonstrativenesse, are the principal of their charges, and not that of the want of credit.)  
29. The plainer resolution therefore of 
De dogm. variis& lib. Apocr. l. 4. c. 4.  Driedo I desire the Reader will compare with S. W's more refined Scheme, who recounting the speech of St. Augustine, of the great authority the Church had with him for the believing the Gospel, saith it was the 
Ecclesia Catholica quae fuit ab initio Christianae fidei,  Universal Church( not of his present age, but) which was from the beginning of the Christian Faith, growing down according to the series of succession of Bishops, 
Quae sanè Ecclesia collegium plectitur Apostolorum.  which Church, saith he, comprehends the College of the Apostles, But understanding it praescinded and abstracted, or naked, and without coherence in the faith and manners with the Churches which were in the former ages, Augustine would say, saith he, I should not aclowledge the men of this Church to be the Church of Christ, 
Nisi doceret me quatuor Evangeliorum authoritas.  unless the authority of the four Gospels taught me, I should not believe the Church, if it should preach to us any other Gospel, and not teach us the Doctrines of the Apostles. I conclude this with the words of Tertullian adver. Marc. l. 1. Omnino res Christiana sancta antiquitate stat, nec ruinosa rectius reparabitur, quam si ad Originem censeatur, Christianity depends on sacred antiquity, and the best redress for any corruption, is by resorting to the beginning.  
30. It was therefore but necessary, that he that would place all authority in the Oral Tradition of the present age, should demonstrate the impossibility of its non-cohaerence to the Apostles times, which how happily he hath attempted to do, we shall see hereafter.  
31. Thus much mean while for the establishing of our tenor, that by Scripture and Apostolical Tradition, as it comes down to us in the writings of the Fathers; which there could be no need to have defended so solicitously in relation to any other sort of Controvertists( unless perhaps the Schismatical opposers of our Church) but was fit to be thus confronted to S. W's praetension, his oral and unwritten tradition not of any, but the present age of the Church, nor as that stands in conjunction with all the former ages, but as by it the conjunction with those former is, as he conceives, demonstratively inferred, for else we have nothing to object to it.  
32. I must now proceed to secure it from his exceptions; They are in effect but three, 1. That general fate of writings, their being ambiguous, uncertain, mute, dead, and that as being the words of men dead long ago, saith S. W. 2. 
P. 17.  The Scriptures being delivered by way of direct affirmation, without attending to artificial rules of demonstrating, 3. Their not being imaginable to be written of the Controversies, which since have sprung up.  
33. To the first I answer by these steps and degrees, 1. That the style of the sacred writers hath been generally observed to have great plainness and simplicity, especially in setting down matters of fact in the Old Testament, the history and preachings of Christ and his Apostles in the New, and in that grand part of solid substantial piety, the engaging us in good life; and though in some parts there be no small obscurity, as in the Prophesies, and in the metrical Books, and also in the contexture of some of St. Pauls Epistles, yet all force of objection which can be drawn from hence, will be superseded, 1. By that one rule of St. Chrysostoms {αβγδ}, those things are perspicuous that are necessary, from whence we may conclude, that as next the articles of the creed nothing is so perspicuous in the Scripture, as the directions to all sorts of Christian practise, so when those necessary articles are received into believing hearts, the rest of our talent of time and industry should be laid out on a careful conscientious practise of all duty, and then the Fathers will assure us that the {αβγδ}, this chariot with two horses in it, belief of the creed, and practise of the Sermon on the Mount, will bring the humble constant persevering Christian most safe to his journeys end, though he never think of calling in at Purgatory by the way, and the like, never furnish himself with the Roman new Articles, which S. W. may be believed, he will hardly meet clear in Scripture. 2. By the supply, which is to be had from ancient Tradition, which hath in all points of faith been experimented to be ready and able to remove all such ambiguities, and those in the first councils, the Conservatories of all catholic faith, are consigned to us in words, so distinct, and so solicitously removed from all ambiguity, that the heresies which had crept in for want of this light, were generally extinguished. 3. By the express commands of those councils, that nothing else should be taught as of faith( or the belief exacted of any proselyte) but what was thus clearly established in those councils. For then as the {αβγδ} of the Gospel requiring no more of any man, than what God by his grace doth, or is ready to assist him and enable him to perform, foundeth a demonstrative proof, that his commandements are not far from us, {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, over heavy, or unsupportable, but a gracious at once and light burden, so the same temper of the Covenant of grace pertaining also to doctrines, and thus confirmed by the charity and tenderness of those councils, and, in them, of the Universal Church of God, hath given us full assurance, that whatever obscurities or ambiguities be excusable in Scripture, there is still light sufficient in them( to all that will not set up their own judgement in opposition to ancient catholic Tradition, visible in Fathers and councils) securely to conduct any pious charitable humble Christian to everlasting happiness. And of this a man would think Mr. White himself should not make any doubt, when he hath made it his observation of Scripture style, that 'tis 
Apol. p. 139.  accommodated to vulgar capacities.  
34. Secondly, that in case there should be any considerable ambiguity in our written Traditions, whether of Sacred Scriptures, or ancient Fathers, yet unless the writings where they are set down, were on purpose framed in the most material parts, to be thus ambiguous, as the old Oracles, or to be thus obscure, as what was said to be so written as that it was not written, or unless they were written by halfe-witted men, that either comprehended not their own notions, or were unable to express them( none of which I hope S. W. will think fit to charge on them) there are still known rules by which ambiguous passages are interpretable; The Heathen Rhetoricians have furnished us with some, in their handling the place {αβγδ}, of ambiguity, and {αβγδ}, of the letter and the sense, and the Lawyers have directed us to others on their head of Antinomies, from the matter, from the effect, from the adjuncts, &c. and the sacred critics have given us many more, by the help of which, those that understand the languages, wherein the Scriptures are written, and bring not prejudices with them, to impose their own, instead of receiving the Writers judgement of their propositions, will not in the hypothesis find it so impossible to understand Scripture, as S.W. fancies it in his demonstration. Many things are dreaded at a distance, and deemed impossible, which by Gods blessing on honest endeavours, with moderate skill, and industry, and humility, are soon discerned to be most easy and familiar; What therefore is concluded from such general suggestions of the ambiguities of all writings, of the several possible sorts of such, Critical, Philological, Historical, Sophistical, of their being left to be tossed with our various Expositions and criticisms, and liable to a thousand evasions, and the like, have perhaps somewhat of art in them, to amuse, and affright those vulgar capacities( to which yet at another time they are confessed to be accommodated) but are of no solid force, when they are brought down to any particulars, there being obvious helps, either by surveighing of the context, or comparing of Scripture style and dialect, or conferring plainer places with the more difficult, which if thankfully made use of, will decide such difficulties, as are of any real importance to be decided; And I cannot but observe, that when Mr. White was willing to discover Mr. Daillees arts this was then noted for a principal one, that he would, if we could believe him, persuade us, Nothing is to be learned or understood out of Books, but every three words will never fail to have some reason or other to make them so obscure, that no light or satisfaction can be derived out of them, page. 216.  
35. But then 3. if words committed to writing are so ambiguous, so subject to be tossed and misinterpreted, yet having on the other side, the advantage of being written by none, but either inspired, or renowned persons, and that with great care and forecast, and deliberation, what shall then be said of S. W's favourite, Oral Tradition, the illiterate, and perhaps( and not rarely) simplo mother, teaching her oft times dull and awkward children, who generally mark not what is taught them, or but con them by rote,( which he calls being written in their hearts) but praetend not to understand ought of them?  
36. For I demand 1. Are the Mothers and Catechists so much better managers of their depositum, or more skilful conveighers of it, than Scriptures, and Fathers? Are they conceivable to convey the Doctrines of the Church to their children in such a manner, as, according to Mr. Whites rules, shall exact belief of them? I shall instance in one particular, formerly touched on. 
Apol. p. 16.  A Tradition, saith he, begun by some Apostles, not all, 'tis no sacrilege to leave off, and by 
Ibid. p. 7.  Christs Doctrine he means no other but what was generally preached by the Apostles, I demand then, how can all his Mothers or Catechists be imagined to assure their children, that what they teach them, beyond the Apostles creed,( be it any of their additionals) was preached by more than some, even by all the Apostles? Is it certain that every Mother now delivers it in this Universal style? or that her Mother gave her commission thus to deliver it? What if in reference to St. Peters Chair in Rome, she shall be found to have delivered the Popes supremacy only as a preaching of St Peters? In this the Catechumenus, that hath all his Faith from this connatural way, the Mothers Oral Tradition, can be no farther obliged than the Mother delivered it, and so may either disbelieve this article, and leave off this obedience without sacrilege, or else( which S. W. must in no wise imagine) two passages in that Apologist are not beyond all possible confute. Many such like imperfect manageries the Mothers may be subject to, according to these new Controvertists rules, to which in our method the Scriptures and Fathers will not be liable, for they will assure us of all our Articles, that they were preached by all the Apostles, and resolved on jointly by all, before they set out to preaching. 2. Is the childs memory, though then most receptive, yet being taken alone without staydnesse of temper, and maturity of other faculties( a volatile brain, and a giddy heart) a surer Conservatory, than the same memory in him, when he is come to more maturity, and staidness, and advisednesse, and mastery of passions, and hath the addition of judgement to memory, and the supply of a form of words in a written creed, and written Gospels, &c. and so also the Expositions of Fathers and councils, all ready to aid and instruct him farther? Or 3. are words spoken such charms, that they shall certainly cast out the oracular dark Spirit, and cannot be misinterpreted.  
37. To this last quaere 
Apol. p. 81.  Mr. White hath offered some satisfaction, by telling us, that a Tradition, as he hath explained it, is a sense delivered not in set words, but settled in the auditors hearts by hundreds of different expressions explicating the same meaning] But I am very far from being satisfied with this, 1. Because the propositions of faith in Scripture and Fathers have certainly had this advantage of hundreds of different expressions explicating the same meaning, and so are not exceeded herein by Oral Tradition, whatever can in this kind be imagined of it. 2. That it no way appears de facto, as in Scriptures and Fathers it doth, that Mothers do thus settle sences by hundreds of different expressions, or indeed any more than teach the words of Bellarmines catechism( and then where are the hundred different expressions?) or if they do, the Mothers are now become Expounders, and their expositions will be liable to all the infirmities, that our Lay-mens( which are one degree above Lay-womens) Expositions and Sermons; Nay 3. if all this were granted him, yet upon his grounds, this will but increase the difficulty on his side, for why may not every of those hundred different expressions be capable of as great variety of interpretations, as the very same expressions, or any other written in a book? and then still the more the expressions are, the more and not the less the uncertainty will be. 'tis certain the Mothers must communicate their sences by words,( for they are Mothers, not Angels) and then those words must have the common fate of all words, and so be subject to all the ambiguities that S. W. objects to written Testimonies.  
38. He tells us in another place, that his way is for Mothers to flatter into their children the first elements of the acquisition of Beatitude, and continual●y go on, nursing them up in the maxims of piety. But first this can belong to none but pious and carefully conscientious Mothers, and all the world of Romanist Mothers, I fear, are not such. 2. Of those that be, why is it not possible( and then the contrary is not demonstrable, or to be as a principle supposed, without attempt of proof) that they may spend that time of leisure, which they have for such offices of charity to each of their children, in impressing the knowledge of God and Christ and the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic Church, the judgement to come, &c. in infusing forms of prayer, knowledge of the Sacraments, and the general branches of duty toward God and man, and themselves, and the more obvious particular duties of daily occurrence, without ever telling them of the Popes Universal Pastorship, as that is much. more than a Patriarchate, and as it is extended to all other Nations, to England, and India, when the child perhaps is brought up in Italy, and is as certainly part of his Diocese, if he be but a Primate, or Patriarch, as he would be, if he were Governor of the Universe, and therefore need not be  told any more, than that he is to pay obedience to him, as his lawful Ecclesiastical Governor, without bringing him out the two Gospels, as Xaverius to the Indies, the one of Christ, the other of St. Peter, and again without telling them of Purgatory, transubstantiation, &c. or being able to give them a distinct discriminative notion of these articles, as the one signifies temporary pains commencing at the time of death, and lasting many thousand years, and is capable of being abbreviated by indulgences, and prayers, and alms of the living, and as the other is miraculously more, than the real communication of the body and blood of Christ. Lastly, those that shall be supposed to do more nearly what S. W. would have them, infuse into their children a whole Romish catechism, and that they may be sure to leave out no article, pitch upon Bellarmines ample Declaration of the Christian Doctrine, Is it not certain that they shall teach them to believe the immaculate conception of our Lady( an article which Mr. White will not receive into his Faith) as firmly as the Popes Universal Pastorship? And if thus it be in these, or other instances, then what becomes of the sweet connatural way, so much praeferreable to all others, as not only to be the principle, but the sole principle of our Faith? Or because thus it may be, though it were not, or may have been in any considerable part of any one age( if but through inroads of barbarous invaders, intestine warres, urgency of worldly diversions, &c.) what demonstration is that like to be, which is subject to so many uncertainties, every day experimented to have more than possible truth in them?  
39. The mutenesse, and deadness of written words, what it means, so as to found any appearance of objection, will not easily be resolved on; Words written, when they are red with the voice, are as lively and vocal, as if they were never written,( and therefore 
Anal. ch. 1. Less. 3.  Dr. Holden, that resolves that believing generally comes by hearing, and is so by all acknowledged, doth yet put together what is  told us, and what is written to us, adding his reason, for reading is a kind of hearing) and so when without voice they speak, or are delivered to the eyes, they have as ready an avenue, and admission to the mind, as when they enter by the ear, and to a blind man that cannot make use of his eyes, 'tis all one, whether his Mother or Catechist have red him his Lecture out of a book( the transcript of the writers mind) or pronounced it out of their memory, or immediately powred it out of their habit of understanding. The only possible difference is, that what is written in a book, the Author being dead, it cannot be farther, than it is already, explained by that Author. This then I suppose is the ground of the objection, because S. W. specifies in men dead long ago. But I conceive not the demonstrative force of the argument, as it is thus improved, For 1. the author, dead 1600. years since, hath so ordered it, that though he be dead, he yet speaketh, 2. That Author having then approved his authority, and that being now abundantly testified to us, he is as authentic a witness, as far as he hath declared himself, as if he were now living, and known to be inspired by God, much more so, than the Mother, or the Catechist. 3. If he have written intelligibly then, in each particular place, or if what is in one place obscure, he have elsewhere interpnted, or if other Fathers of the Church discerning this want, have supplied it for him, still he speaks audibly to the intellect, though he be dead, and so mute. 4. If all this envy falls upon him, because he is not able to hear our present debates, and, upon our resort and appeal to him, interpose his judgement, and so speak to them, then that will be coincident with the third objection, of the Scriptures not speaking to later Controversies, and thither I refer it, and so there remains no least show of difficulty in this first objection.  
40. pass we then to the second, the Scriptures being delivered by way of direct affirmation, without attending to artificial rules of demonstrating] This I confess hath in it some of that amazingnesse, which S. W. promised me, whensoever I should approach this Apology for the Dialogues, whether I respect the coherence it hath with the other argument, or the particular matter of it; If the former, 'twould even amaze one to think, how that which is confessed to be delivered by way of direct affirmation, and, as he there adds, accommodated to vulgar capacities should yet be 1. so prodigiously ambiguous, left to be tossed by our various Expositions and criticisms( All that I need reply, is, that sure it would have been much more so, if it had not been delivered in this Categorical way of direct affirmation) and 2. so dead and so mute, nothing being more contrary to our ordinary notions of those words, than direct affirmations. But the more truly amazing part of our present prospect is, that when all Christian Religion is at once demonstrated, by being convincingly proved to be taught us by Christ, and when all that is delivered in the Scripture, is, by immediate connexion of terms from that one prosyllogisme, demonstrated to have divine and so ●●fallible truth in it, the very same that there is, in nature, of this proposition, that God cannot lie, he should yet complain of the want of artificial rules of demonstration. If this demonstration be not cogent or artificial enough with him, that the Scripture being the word of God, every period thereof must have exact truth in it, I am then amazed to think what a Patron of the catholic Religion this is; but if what is thus once for all demonstrated in the gross, or bulk, must again in the retail be farther demonstrated of each truth in Divinity, if every thing that Christ or his Apostles say, be by him required to be confirmed from other arguments of natural reason, and the like, then he is a Didymus indeed. He would not believe Christs resurrection without its being demonstrated to, and enforced upon his senses, and this other requires demonstration for that which is only to be received by his faith, and this is not far removed from the former, and is an equally amazing consideration.  
41. But then 2. how doth it appear that the Mothers in their Oral deliveries have either been more skilful, or more diligent in observing these artificial rules of demonstrating? their softer method of flattering into their children, as he styles it, I should think were distant enough from this other which he is wont to call severe and rigorous, I hope I shall not be required to insist longer on this objection.  
42. Lastly then for the 3d. the Scriptures not being imaginable to be written on the Controversies which since have sprung up, 1. It hath evidently no truth in it, For the heresy of the gnostics being risen in the Apostles times, and a great part of most of the Epistles written on purpose for the refuting of that heresy, and many other heresies, Valentinians, and Marcionites, &c. after that springing from that root of bitterness, as 'tis certain they did, those books must be very proper to those Controversies; And so for others after them; That one place of St. Paul, Rom. IX. 5. doth, 
{αβγδ}, Procl. de Fide.  saith Proclus, Archbishop of Constantinople, shut and wall up all passage for calumny from them that love contumely or speaking ill of Christ, so saith Theophylact, 
{αβγδ}.  From hence is Arius confuted, St. Paul proclaiming Christ to be God over all. And not to insist on the ancient heresies, nor on modern, as well as ancient, which have their positive irrefragable decisions in Scripture, I shall confine my sel● wholly to the Controversies betwixt the Romanist and us; And if it were not, as I suppose it is, evident from Scripture, that some of our Articles opposed to theirs are the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, as the use of the cup for all in the Sacrament, the not confining public prayers to an unknown tongue, the honourablenesse of marriage for all that are not within the prohibited degrees, &c. yet the difference on our part from them, being only this, that we admit not many of their new articles; not that they reject any of our old, though some of these particulars should not be decideable from Scripture, yet the duty of Communion, and charity toward all those, which are lively members of Christ, being irrefragably concluded from plain Texts of Scripture, and the Universal councils decreeing that there shall be no more exacted of any to believe but the few necessaries, which as they are all contained in Scripture, so they are not doubted to be maintained by us, the result is, that Scripture and the first councils together, do bind the Romanist not to set up their wall of separation against us, but to embrace charitably all, who believe what they doubt not us to believe, and so will decide all our Controversies at once, and having done so, need not descend more minutely to the decision of each several.  
43. Secondly, a prime controversy between us and the Romanists being that about the Universal Pastorship of the Pope, and that being by them deduced from Christs donation to St. Peter, and S. W. himself deducing it from thence, I shall demand, Doth the proof of that depend upon any words of Christ, which are not delivered in the Gospel? If it doth, what are they, and by what Tradition are they avouched? But 'tis certain no such unwritten words in this point are pretended, but expressly the written, Thou art Peter, and I will give thee the Key●s, and Feed my Sheep, and all these are verbatim in the Gospels. And then I demand, 2. do these truly own the Romanists praetensions, and decide the controversy on their side, or do they not? If they do, then are the Gospels written of our present Controversies; If they do not, why are they then so eagerly pressed on men, and all we denied the peace of their Church, for denying this importance of them. If, as he saith of the Scripture in general, so he believe of these Texts of Scripture, that they are ambiguous, uncertain, mute and dead, and they have no other possible head, to which to divolve this Doctrine, and cannot maintain the jus divinum of it, but by thus divolving it, and if for the clearing of this ambiguity, the writings of the ancient Church be by them deemed sufficient, then why may not we use the very same method, and at once avow in all things to stand to the award of it, and be no more blamable than they, who how unjustly soever they manage it, and how imperfectly soever they conclude from it, are yet obliged not to blame in others, what themselves practise.  
44. The like may again be inferred from their founding in, and proving from the words of Scripture[ the Gates of Hell shall not praevaile against it, and the pillar and ground of truth] their other great Article, the Infallibility of their Church, on which reverts again all which hath been said on the former head, and then how can he in earnest think, that the Scripture was not written of our Controversies.  
45. But then our praetension taking in the ancient Fathers to Scriptures, unless it be also appliable to them, that they speak not to our Controversies, this, if it had what it aimed at, in respect of Scripture, must presently loose all its efficacy, or concludency against us. For 'tis certain the learned Romanist lays or praetends to lay great weight on the authority of the Fathers, for deciding all the Controversies depending between us, 
Ration. 5.  so that* Campian could vaunt concerning this head, Admiseris? captus es; Excluseris? nullus es, that we should be ensnared and caught, if we were content to be judged by that rule of their authority, but if we would not stand to it, we were utterly lost. And then we that do not exclude them, but set them up avowedly against Oral Tradition, and from the variable, imperfect judicatures of the one, appeal to the more authentic, stable Tribunal of the other, what can we, on their grounds, be deemed to want, for the deciding of our Controversies? Thus perfectly voided of all probability are his demonstrative arguments. And this may be sufficient to be added on the second head, the clearing the subject of the question from ambiguity, and fitting it for defining.   

SECT. III.  
Oral Tradition defined, and the force of it proposed by Mr. White and S. W. Some things granted in this Schame. One weak part pointed at, which betrays the whole demonstration. Other parts of ●o concernment to it. The great Conclusion denied, and unproved. Traditions of the present age frequently false. The Jews, the Arians, the Heathens, the Mohomedans, the Christian Mothers among them.  
1. IT is now time to advance to the third part of our designed method to gather the briefest definition or description of this way, ●●●ing from the force of Oral Tradition. This in the Apology is set down, by establishing these definitions, 
P. 7.  that by Tradition he means the delivery of Christs Doctrine from hand to hand, in that part of the world which with propriety is called Christian. By Christs Doctrine he means that which was generally preached by the Apostles, and contains all such points at are necessary to the salvation of the world, not only in particular to single persons, but for Government of the Church and bringing multitudes with convenience to perfection in this life, and felicity in the next. Then, by proceeding to this General position, that A●● Christ taught, or the holy Ghost suggested to the Apostles of this nature, i●, by a direct uninterrupted line, entirely and fully descended to the present Church, which communicates with, and acknowledges subjection to the Roman. Adding also the converse of that proposition, viz. Nothing is so descended but such truths, nor any thing held by this tenor, but what is so descended, which being cast up amounts to this great conclusion, No error was ever or can be embraced by the Church in quality of a matter of Faith. This again S. W. farther abbreviates into this one definition, Oral Tradition( supposing the motives with which it was founded, and the charge with which it was recommended by the Apostles) carries in its own force, as applied to the nature of mankind, an infallible certainty of its lineal and never to be interrupted perpetuity.  
2. In this Scheme, several things there are to which I shall in the obvious sense so far yield, as not to make any impertinent debate about them, As 1. that Tradition is the delivery of Christs Doctrine from hand to hand in that part of the world, which with propriety is called Christian, meaning by that phrase, all that have been baptized into the Christian Faith, and have not by some destructive, wasting superaddition, forfeited their title to that dignity; for that the Greek Church, that do not own to have ever received the Faith of the Popes Universal Pastorship from the Apostles, Saint Paul, and St. John, which planted some of them,( and have this real prejudice against it, that St. John, which long outlived St Peter, and by his Apostolical power was exempted from being inferior to any other, whether Clerus or Clemens, his Successors at Rome, cannot reasonably be thought to have subjected his Successors to them, but should rather himself, being the surviving Apostle, be his Successor in that supereminent power, if any such had been given to Peter by Christ) should for the not believing or yielding that, be acknowledged no Christians, or not Christians with propriety, but aequivocally and improperly called Christians, can never appear probable, but by a convincing confirmation of the real delivery of that Doctrine to all, from all the Apostles, which if it were here meant to be pretended, is certainly as yet but pretended to be delivered from thence. The like must be said of Christians of other denominations, which are neither Greek nor Roman, yet have by uninterrupted Tradition received the necessary Faith in every branch of it, and retain it without the Roman additions, and though not the Papal, yet the Apostolical Gover●ment also.  
3. So secondly, for the notion of Christs Doctrine, we scruple not to understand it of that, which was generally preached by the Apostles, and contains all such points as are necessary to the salvation of the world, and Government of the Church, and bringing multitudes with convenience to perfection in this life, and felicity in the next] meaning by [ necessary to salvation] generally necessary, as an effective means to bring home sinners to repentance, to persuade them to a sincere reception of the precepts of Christ, as of the one certain way to eternal salvation, without examining whether any particular man without the explicit knowledge of every single branch of that Faith, be capable of performing the condition of the Gospel, and so of salvation on the Gospel terms, Gods accepting according to what a man hath, and not exacting what he hath not, and again by [ perfection in this life] understanding sincerity of Evangelical obedience, styled often perfection in the Scripture, though in many respects it must be acknowledged imperfect.  
4. So thirdly, that all that Christ taught, or the holy Ghost suggested, of this nature is by a direct uninterrupted line entirely and fully descended to the present Church, which communicates with, and acknowledges subjection to the Roman] Adding, that it doth so also and equally to the Church of England in every particular, and so it is acknowledged by the Romanists to be entirely maintained by us, save only that we aclowledge not one link of their pretended Government, that of the Roman supreme Universal Pastorship, which yet in these definitions hath not in the least wise been proved to be any( much less necessary) truth of Christs teaching.  
5. Thus far then there is no more asked, than granted by us, save only that of the Popes Universal Pastorship, and that no way inferrible from these praemisses, and consequently nothing gained from us by these so many steps of his fair method.  
6. But then when he adds the converse of the last proposition, that nothing is so descended but such truths, nor any thing held by this tenor but what is so descended, there may be ambiguity in these propositions; For the first may be designed to signify that no article is to this age of the Roman Church delivered down from the ages immediately precedent, upon the account of Apostolical Tradition, but what is both true and necessary to be believed; If this be the meaning of it, then he knows 'tis denied by us, and must either be convincingly proved by him, or else there is a very weak, soft, unfortified part, which will be sure to betray all his demonstration, and being not here attempted to be proved in the proposal of the case, if it be not provided for in the last part of the method, the proving of his definition( which when we advance to that, we shall then examine, whether it be, or no) then that abundantly invalidates his whole Scheme.  
7. But the proposition is capable of another sense, that nothing is descended to the Church by such uninterrupted Tradition from the Apostles, but such truths as they, from the holy Ghost, thought necessary; which though it have no truth in it, because many things may have been constantly received, and never doubted of by any Church, which yet have no such necessity, as that Christ lived to the age of thirty three years, and the like, yet because this seems not to me to have any influence on our present controversy, I shall not need to put in any exception to the proposition, upon this ground of security, because the articles, which the Romanist holds necessary, and we do not, we hold not to have this continual succession.  
8. So the latter part of the converse, that nothing is held by this tenor but what is so descended] if the meaning be, that nothing is by the Romanist maintained to have descended from the Apostles, as necessary to be preached, and believed, but what hath thus really descended( as the obvious meaning is) then 'tis the main thing, which, he knows, is, in this question denied by us, and that with great instance, specifying many particulars, which no way appear to us to have descended from them, nor to have been by the Church looked upon as necessary to be believed, but visibly excluded out of the number of those articles, which alone are affirmed by the universal Church in the first great councils to be thus necessary.  
9. Lastly to his great Conclusion, if that should mean no more than that No error or false Doctrine was ever or can be received by the Universal Church truly so called, in quality of a matter of Faith, then though I have no assurance that it cannot, because the receiving an error by way of superaddition, and defining it de fide, is not sure to destroy, or infer the defectibility of a Church, as long as they retain all the true fundamental Doctrine, yet again I am no way concerned to debate that, in relation to our present question, because the receiving such errors into the faith of the Roman, is not receiving them into the faith of the Universal Church. But if the meaning be, that no error was ever, nor can be embraced by the Roman Church, in quality of a matter of faith, then he knows, 'tis far from being acknowledged by us. And this being probably the importance of his great conclusion, the falseness of it depends, and is consequent to the falseness of that foregoing proposition, interpnted, as I thought, and think it necessary that the sense carry it, viz. that no article is to this age of the Roman Church delivered upon the score of Apostolical Tradition, but what is both true and necessary to be believed, and so also to the falseness of that other, that nothing is by the Romanist maintained to have descended from the Apostles, as necessary, but what hath thus really descended. And so the utmost that this rarely fair method of the Apologist hath yet produced, is no more than a few true propositions equally granted by us, and of no least concernment to him against us, and one grand falsity, twice crept in to his definition( discernible enough to be such, as soon as ambiguous expressions are interpnted) and the conclusion naturally following the weakest part, most false in our opinion, and most evident to be by S. W. asserted without any ground as yet discovered by him; From all which the conclusion is irrefragably inferred, that unless hereafter he demonstratively prove that proposition, which he calls the great conclusion, he is the greatest beggar of the principle, and so trifler in the world. The trial of that must be reserved to the fourth, and last part of our method.  
10 So in S. W's abbreviature, the matter of the definition [ that Oral Tradition, supposing the motives and the charge with which it was founded and recommended by the Apostles, carries in its own force, as applied to the nature of mankind, an infallible certainty of its lineal and never to be interrupted perpetuity.] is either most extremely fallacious, and captious, or else what is worse than so, most manifestly false.  
11. If he will have all men suppose with him, that all the Romanists present Doctrine, i.e. Oral Tradition, was taught and so founded and recommended by the Apostles, and that with weighty motives to be believed, and strict precept to be kept as a depositum, and commended as a treasure to all posterity, this is then the coursest draft, or image of( his constant familiar) that most vulgar fallacy, the begging the question, his supposing us to grant, what he knows we most deny, and so is most intolerably sophistical.  
12. But if abstracted from any such supposition or postulatum, he intend to assert, that whatsoever is orally affirmed in that manner; or to that degree, as the Popes Supreme Pastorship is now affirmed, and delivered from Father to son in the Roman Church, is not only true, but also by this means undeniably ascertained to be derived from the Apostles, then as this proposition is most infirm, without any appearance of solidity in it, so must the conclusion necessary be, that is inferred from it, unless again he can produce some evidence, by which what is in itself, and in these, thus improbable, and in other instances frequently experimented to be false, shall in this one instance be ascertained to have truth in it; It being no more ridiculous, what the friar in Canus professed, to believe all that is in any printed Book, than to believe all which is by a multitude( how great soever) of one age orally delivered as from their Fathers and Progenitors.  
13. This may be judged 1. by the example of the Jews in Christs time, while their Oral Traditions had the greatest force among them These we know were by them styled {αβγδ} 
Maimon. Praef. in Seder Zeraim. p. 7.  their Law by the mouth, in opposition to the {αβγδ} Law in writing. Of the commendation of this, their soberest Writers are as profuse, as Mr. White can be of his, styling it {αβγδ}, 
Ib. p. 2.  &c. The foundations on which ye are founded, the roots, the customs, decrees, and constitutions which your great ones have constituted, from the day which the Lord commanded, and so on through all Generations, like the tower of David erected on your hill, in which are hanged a thousand Helmets with all warlike instruments of the choice ones, all the shields of the mighty. Then for the pretended divine original and unquestionable conveyance of them from God and Moses, the account is given by the same Maimonides, 
Ibid. p. 5.  1. That all the precepts of the Law that were sent down by God to Moses, were sent down to h●m together with their interpretation, God delivering by word of mouth first the Text, then the explication and interpretation of it, and what the authentic Text comprehended. 2. That Moses having received both, coming to his Tent sent for Aaron and declared to him the Text, and taught him the Interpretation, then Aaron standing at his right hand, he called unto him Eleazar and Ithamar Aarons sons, and did the like to them, then the seventy in like manner, Aarons sons standing by, and then the promiscuous assembly of Israel, in the presence and audience of all the former. 3. That Moses departing, Aaron who had now heard this four times, repeated it out of his memory to all, and after him his sons in like manner, and so the seventy also, and by this means every one heard both Text and Interpretation recited four times, and so were enabled to instruct one another, the Text being written in rolls or volumes, and the Interpretation or Tradition fixed in their memories. 4. That Moses before he dyed, made Proclamation, that if any had forgotten any Tradition which he had received from him, he should come and ask, and he would declare it to him, and then writing thirteen Copies of the Law, one for every Tribe, and one for the Levites, he dyed. 
Ib. p. 10.  5. That Joshuah being furnished with these Oral traditionary explications, judged the people according to them. 
Ib. p. 34.  6. That Joshua before his death, left all these Traditions to the Elders of the people, and the Elders to the Prophets, and so they continued without any dissension to the time of the men of the great Synagogue, Haggae, zachary, malachi, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Zorobabel, &c. and so from hand to hand from Ezra to Simeon, from Simeon to Antigonus, from Antigonus to Joses, from Joses to Joshua son of Phaerak, from Josua to Judas, from Judas to Shemaiah from Shemaiah to Hillel, from Hillel to Simeon, from Simeon to Gamaleel, from Gamaleel to Simeon, from Simeon to Gamaleel, from Gamaleel to Simeon the Just, called Rabbenu Hakkedosh, the Phoenix of his age, and he collected all the Oral Traditions of Moses thus delivered down to him. In this account, if the Jews own testimony may be taken, what can be more exact and punctual for the sure conveying of these Oral Traditions from Moses and God himself? Could S. W. praetend this for all the articles of his present Roman Mothers, what Trophies would he set up? And yet after all this, we cannot disbelieve our Saviour, who assures us in his time,( which was certainly within the space of this pretended undisturbed succession of Oral deliverers) that the Doctrine of God was foully depraved, evacuated, and destroyed by their Traditions, pretended to be thus lineally deduced from Moses and God himself. This I have thus largely set down, because I see the Apologist( reflecting on this argument when it was proposed by my L. of F.) hath made a shift to misapprehend it, 
P. 123, &c.  understanding by the Jewish Cabala,( in the vulgar modern notion of Cabalistical) the mystical trash of the later Jews, whatsoever, saith he, any of them have collected from Scripture by a threefold abuse of the Letter, 1. By taking every letter of a word, for a word beginning with that letter, 2. By changing letters according to rules framed by themselves, 3. Finding numbers of years, &c. by the numbers which the Letters of the word compound; 
P. 126.  And this, saith he, a Doctrine pretended as delivered to few, with strict charge to keep it from publicity, and so communicate it again to a select Committee of a few, wherein there is a fair opportunity of juggling and cozenage] But it is very strange he should not take notice of that which is so evident, viz. 1. That the traditions, wherein this argument is founded, are not the result of their literal collections, but pretended to be delivered from Father to son orally from Moses, as the unwritten interpretation of the written Text of the Law, and 2. that they were no jugglings of a secret Cabal, but universally received by the learnedst Jews in our Saviours time; I instance in that of their {αβγδ}, washing up to the wrist before meat, Mar. VII. 2. of which saith the Evangelist, the Pharisees, and all the J●wes, if they do not so wash, do not eat, holding the Tradition of the Elders, and, as he adds, {αβγδ}, there be many other things which they have( Traditionally) received to hold. The like again follows v. 9 &c. of saying Corban to Father and Mother, where our Saviour sets down expressly the Text first, the commandement of the Law, Honour thy Father— and then the Jew●sh Doctrine, derived( as they pretended) by Tradition from their Elders, that if any should say Corban to his Father or Mother, it was no more lawful for him to do any thing of relief to them, than to convert to private use that which was consecrated to God, according to that of Maimonides, delivered as a rule derived from Tradition, that vows have force, {αβγδ} upon matters of precept, 
Yad. Nedar. c. 3.§. 1.  as much as upon {αβγδ} matters of will or choice. In these examples, 'tis clear, that those Doctrines were generally taken up, publicly avowed, and constantly adhaered to by the Jews, as derived to them from God by Moses, by an uninterrupted Tradition, which yet were so far from descending thence, that one of them was pe●fectly destructive to the Law which undoubtedly was derived from heaven, and the other was a mere impertinent addition, and so come home exactly to the utmost that we can be deemed to charge upon the Romanist. And there is no argument that S. W. doth or can urge for the authenticknesse of the tradition for the Roman additionals, which will not be equally of force to a Jew in Christs time for either of these Traditions, especially if the Oral Tradition of the present age be of force to conclude for all the former, back to the Apostles, for that these were the traditions of that present age, our Saviour hath set beyond possibility of doubting.  
14. A second Instance may be that of the Arrian heretics, who in Constantius's dayes had a very great, and almost an universal praevalency over the Church, and whilst they had so, not only delivered( the Mothers and Catechists, to their children) false heretical Doctrine, but withall delivered it, as that which had been delivered to them, and which came down from the Apostles; In which process there were little to be objected now by us to the truth of their Doctrine, if all were necessary to be believed for catholic and Orthodox, which the multitude and stream of any one age universally professed, and delivered to their children, as received from their ancestors and so from the Apostles.  
15. A third instance may be taken from the Universality of Heathens in any age, suppose that wherein St. Paul preached first the faith of Christ to them; Of these it is sure, that their first, though not immediate Ancestors had been the worshippers of the true God, Japhet and Noah, and his Ancestors before the Flood, and consequently that their Idol worships were certainly of a later date( though some difference there may be among curious inquirers, when they began to praevail among them, and whether debauched by some one great Leader, or whether in a long process of time, by a gradual degeneration from piety, and an insensible unobservable growth of impiety) And though this be as manifest and undeniably true, as the story of the Bible, which assures us of it, yet is it as evident, that the whole Heathen world of any such age( which was of far larger extent than the present Roman Communion) deduced their false sacrilegious Worships from their immediate Ancestors, and that {αβγδ}, as delivered from Father to son from the beginning of all time, as ancient as the Moon, and Mountains, making use of this very argument, as their great Palladium, by which all their several branches of Idol-worship, their whole religion was at once defended, and rendered uncapable of Reformation, {αβγδ}, that unmovable things( the Religion of their country from all antiquity) were not to be innovated.  
16. A last instance shall be from the Mahometanes themselves, I mean not in deducing their Doctrines from Mahomet( for that I suppose they truly do, though we know they are divided among themselves, and the different way of Hali praetends as constant Tradition from their Prophet, as the other) but in believing and teaching that their Mahomet was promised by Christ, and consequently that the Doctrines which Mahomet first taught out of his own corrupt heart, are the Doctrines of the Paraclet, i.e. the holy Ghost, for as such, they are delivered now from Father to son, and have in many parts of christendom wholly extirpated the Apostolical doctrine or Faith of Christ, where it is evident, that through the powerful inroads and conquests of the Turks, the christian mothers have not only been kept from delivering to their children the Faith which they received, but have themselves been induced to renounce that Faith, and then by the help of Oral Tradition become instruments to transfuse the contrary into their children, and this, be it never so destructive to their childrens and their own eternal welfare, only to secure their lives, and a small p●rt of their portion in this world. Which being done by that means in this so much greater instance( renouncing and forgetting all christianity at once) may as possibly be done by the like tyranny, and conjuncture of earthly motives in a lesser instance( receiving in this, or that false Doctrine) unless the provisions be more competent against the one, than the other.  
17. What security there will be offered us by S. W. to the contrary, we must yet expect, when we come to the view of his proofs, and to that we shall now hasten, having as yet only attended him so far, as the establishing of his definition, and assigning him the conclusion, which we shall expect from him to prove, and settle demonstratively, that( whatever be said of Jews, Arrians, Heathens, Mahometanes,) it is impossible to be imagined of the Romanists Oral Traditions, so circumstantiated as they are, to have any fallibility in them.   

SECT. IV.  
A view of the great Demonstration for the infallibleness of Oral Tradition, first in Mr. Whites, then in S. W's words. What the chief medium. Reduction of the diffused demonstration to a syllogism. The weaker proposition of it unproved, taken for a principle by Mr. White, and so by S. W. The falseness of it discovered in a first view, as the Church signifies the Church of Rome of the present age. The fallacy of notum per ignotius. His principle denied by the Romanist. Certainty not of such truth as may enter a demonstration. No such maxim declared. Not always held. Mr. Whites confession at another time. Other Romanists. Pope Clements method of deciding Controversies. Mr. Whites answer considered. The method of the last Pope, and so of this present age. An argument borrowed from Mr. White, Appeal to the Mothers and Catechists, and to Mr. Whites words elsewhere. A second view of the proposition. What 'tis to go on this Maxim. Bare professions. A third view. Difference between delivering as an Opinion, and as a Doctrine of Faith. Mr. Whites defence of Bishop Fishers Doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences. The Greeks opinion of Purgatory in and after the council of Florence. Mr. Whites Maxim refuted by that Bishops words. The opinion of the secret Receptacles, among the Ancients, and Pope John 22. unreconcilable with Purgatories being of Universal Tradition.( Mr. Whites repugnant answers) So Transsubstantiations not being of faith before the council of Constance. Theodoret, Scotus, Tunstall, Vasquez. The Cup denied the Laity. Circumgestation. The unhappiness of S. W's Demonstration.  
1. LEt us therefore now solemnly view those circumstances, which promise, and insure truth to every proposition, which the Romanist Mothers teach their children, and of which is made up that Grand Demonstration, the very Quintessence of Rushworths Dialogues, in which the whole weight of the one self-evident principle, Oral Tradition, the one innerrable rule of faith( the Pope himself being by Mr. White solemnly discarded from his Infallibility, to make room for it) is summed up. And that we lose no least joint of this controlling, irresistible machine, I shall first set it down in the words of the great artificer himself, 
First Encounter, p. 8.  the Apologist.  
2. The proof, saith he, consists in this, since 'tis confessed the catholic Church goes upon this Maxim, that her Doctrine is received from Christ, and still handed along to the present generation, they who cavil at this assertion( viz. th●t no error was ever, or can be embraced by the Church in quality of a matter of Faith) should assign some age, when they conceive an error crept in, and the maintainers should prove it entred not in that age, because that age held nothing was to be admitted as of faith, except what was delivered to it by the former, but the objectors themselves say, this supposed error was not delivered by the former, since they put it to be now first believed, therefore the age in which they imagine this error crept in, could not be the first that believed it. And lest some might reply, though the present Roman Church stands now upon the proposed Maxim, yet anciently it did not, the same argument may be thus reiterated. If this principle which now governs the Church, had not always done so, it must have been introduced in some age since the Apostles. Name therefore the age and immediately 'tis urged, either the Church had assurance in that age, all she held was descended lineally from the Apostles, or not. If so, then questionless she held her Doctrine upon that Maxim, for it is the only undoubted and self-evident principle, If not, then she wilfully belied her self, and conspired to damn all her posterity, voluntarily taking up this new rule of Faith, and commanding it to be accepted by all the world, as the necessary Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, descended upon the present age by Universal Tradition from their Ancestors, and for such to be delivered to their children, and all this against the express evidence of her own conscience. Thus far reaches the argument.  
3. Now if upon reading, and reading again this confounding argument, and upon an undoubted understanding of every word, and portion of period in it, the Reader do not yet readily discern the immediatenesse of connexion, and so convincingnesse of it, but be ready to ask some innocent question, whether the conclusion be inferred by one, or more syllogisms, or if by one, in what mode and figure it concludes, or if in more, which is the principal, and commanding medium, and the like, all the relief I can help him to, is to repeat it again in another( i.e. S. W's) mode, and then to hope that( as elsewhere he saith of the Oral repetitions of the same sense in variety of words) this will be so sure a means to plant the inward force of it in his mind, that he cannot choose but discern the demonstrativenesse of it. Hear then the Oracle more vocal and articulate, as he is echoed by his {αβγδ}. Thus he delivers himself.  
4. If it be impossible that all the now fathers of Families in the catholic Church, dispersed in so many Nations, should conspire to tell this palpable lye to their children, that twenty years ago such a thing( visible and practical, as all points of faith are) was held in that Church, if no such thing had been, and that consequently the same impossibility holds in each twenty years upwards till the Apostles, by the same reason, by which it holds in the last twenty, then it follows evidently that what was  told us to have been held twenty years ago, was held ever, in case the Church held nothing but upon this ground, that so she received or had been taught by the immediately foregoing faithful. For as long as she praetends only to this ground, the difficulty is equal in each twenty years, i.e. there is an equal impossibility they should conspire to this palpable lye. Now that they ever held to this ground( i.e. to the having received it from their Ancestors) is manifested by as great an evidence, For since they now hold this ground, if at any time they had taken it up, they must either have counterfeited that they had received it from their Ancestors, or no, The former relapses into the abovesaid impossibility, or rather greater, that they should conspire to tell a lye in the only ground of their faith, and yet hold( as they did) their faith built on that ground to be truth: the latter position must discredit itself in the very terms, which imply a perfect contradiction, for it is as much as to say, nothing is to be held as certainty of faith, but what hath descended to us from our Fore-fathers, and yet the only rule which tells us certainly there is any thing of faith, is newly invented. And thus far the argument also in S. W's elucidation of it.  
5. And here I seriously desire the Reader, as he doth value his own interests( which he is by S. W. so oft assured, do depend upon the opening his heart to the force of this demonstration) and upon pain, that if he comprehend it not in one of these draughts, he must, to compass it, be fain to survey all Rushworths Dialogues, to sit down, and ponderingly revolve either, or both of these Schemes so long, till he be able to assign and determine, which is the Master-medium in this discourse, which hath the chief efficacy in it, to infer the conclusion, which is agreed between us to be this [ that no error was ever or can be embraced by the Church( I must interpose, of Rome:) in quality of a matter of Faith] And if then he find difficulty in the resolution, he must either profess that he is more dull, than a sceptic is irresolute, or never heed this Epitomist of those Dialogues more, which refers him thither for as ample satisfaction as turcism can desire, and yet transcribes not so much from so rich a treasury, as may give him the least satisfaction.  
6. When the Reader hath a little tired himself in a labyrinth of some perplexednesse, perhaps he will be content to be directed to a clue, and it will be this one advice, not to penetrate too deep, when all that is to be had, floats on the surface, obvious, and discernible at first sight, in these two propositions. 1. That the Church of Rome hath one Maxim on which it goes, not to teach any thing de fide, which hath not been delivered or taught by the age immediately preceding, 2. That they which go by that Maxim, cannot possibly err in matter of Faith. From conjunction of which, this syllogism is regularly constituted,  
That Church which goes on this Maxim of not teaching any thing, de fide, which hath not been delivered or taught by the age immediately preceding, cannot possibly err in matters of Faith;  
But the Church of Rome goes on this Maxim, not to teach any thing, de fide, which hath not been delivered or taught by the age immediately preceding.  
Therefore that Church cannot possibly err in matters of faith.  
Into this one syllogism all the force of this commanding engine is contracted, and there being two parts of it, a stronger and a weaker, I shall not yet say, a true, and a false, but one which certainly wants more confirming than the other, it is observable that all the aids which are tendered, or brought in, are strangely partial, come only in favour of the stronger part, the weaker Phalanx having no creature to back it, no reserve to enforce the first impression, but lying at the mercy of the enemy, who if he shall have but courage enough to stand the first onset, and deny the Minor proposition, the unwary syllogism is utterly routed, on the fortune of which depends this so( admired, were a poor word, unable to express the least part of S. W's kindness to it) adored, stupendious demonstration.  
7. This is so strange an infirmity, and so little to have been expected from a severe discourser, that I shall not expect to have it believed on my word, till the Readers own eyes accompany me through the Camp, either as Mr. White or as S. W. hath pitched it, and by their own discoveries ascertain them of the truth of it. The weaker part I take to be the Minor, in these words, The Church of Rome goes on this Maxim not to teach any thing de fide, which hath not been delivered or taught by the age immediately preceding. And in the first words of Mr. Whites description of this argument, this is taken for a thing granted. Since, saith he, 'tis confessed the catholic Church( or, as after, his style is, the roman Church) goes on this Maxim, that her Doctrine is received from Christ, and still handed along to the present generation] Here sure 'tis evident, that the truth of the minor is taken as confessed, and then I am not to have so mean an opinion of the demonstrators skill, that he will impertinently attempt to prove, what he takes for confessed. And indeed herein he hath observed the rules of his art, he hath not added a word toward the proof of it, but on the contrary, makes use of that, as of a principle for the proving of every thing else, that can be doubted of. So it follows in the next words, They who cavil at this assertion[ viz. that no error was ever or can be embraced by the Church in quality of a matter of faith] should assign some age when they conceive an error crept in, and the maintainer, i.e. the Apologist himself, should prove it entred not in that age, because that age held nothing was to be admitted as of faith, except what was delivered to it by the former.] Here 'tis evident their holding this Maxim, is the only proof of his grand conclusion, or assertion, and no farther proof is tendered of that; So again in these words, [ Lest some might reply, though the present Roman Church stands now upon the proposed Maxim, yet anciently it did not,]— Here the objecter, replier, adversary, that is foreseen to question the ancient Churches holding this Maxim, is yet still praesumed to aclowledge it without all question, that the present Roman Church stands now upon this Maxim. Once more, in these words [ The argument may be thus reiterated, If this principle which now governs the Church, had not always done so—] Here it is again praesumed, that this principle now gov●rns the Church, and from thence to the end of the argument not a syllable toward the proving of it, but all along a taking it for granted, that the Church goes on this Maxim, as on the only undoubted, and self evident principle.  
8. So in S. W's Scheme, though it be not so crudely affirmed to be confessed, that they go on this Maxim, yet it is visibly supposed, or taken for granted that they do, in these words, [ For as long as she pretends only to this ground, viz. that so she received or had been taught by the immediately foregoing faithful—] and For since they now hold this ground—] and again, It is as much as to say nothing is to be held for certainty of Faith, but what hath descended to us from our fore-fathers—] still supposing them to hold to that Maxim, to say( as that which they adhaere to) that nothing is to be held, but what thus de●cendeth.  
9. Here then will be the speedy end of this controversy, if without any solicitous search, or nicer examination of the mayor proposition, we betake ourselves wholly to the beholding of his Minor, and examine what could induce him to assume that as a confessed or yielded principle, which when it is explained, will be found to have very little appearance of truth, certainly nothing of self-evidence in it.  
10. All then that is now farther incumbent on us, is by a view, or two, thus to explain, and to secure the Reader of the right understanding of the proposition, there being some phrases a little ambiguous in it, which must be cleared, before it will have any determinate sense in it, whether true or false. As 1. what is meant by the Church of Rome, or, as he styles it, the catholic Church, Is it the Church of this age, or no? To this he yields me express answer, that he means the Church of this age.  
11. Here then, ere we advance any farther, it is observable, that he thinks it incumbent on him to prove that other ages of the Church have held this Maxim, and accordingly attempts to infer it by this medium, the present Churches holding it, and yet never thinks fit to tender us any the slightest security, that the present Church itself doth hold it, when yet he cannot but guess, that we are more inclinable to believe it of many former, than of these latter, or this one present age of the Roman Church; and it being not a principle either of natural or Christian Theology, that this age holds it, more than all or any other ages( when yet that all others held it, was not deemed such a principle, and therefore he attempted to prove it) this sure is no method of severe demonstration, but a down right begging the principle, and a proving ignotum per ignotius, that which less needs, by that which most needs his arguments to secure the truth of it, and so as mean a piece of Sophistry, as could well have appeared in so venerable a dress.  
12. For 1. that which he praetends to be confessed, is of all things most constantly, and confess'dly denied by us; yea and by the soberest of their own Writers; for when 
Consult. Art. 7.  Cassander makes no scruple to affirm that the present Church non parum in doctrinae sinceritate ab antiquâ, unde orta illa est et derivata, dissidet, doth not a little differ from the ancient, whence it is derived, in sincerity of Doctrine, and again that a veteri Ecclesia deflexit, it hath deflected from the ancient Church, and particularly of the Popes, that they have advanced their authority ultra fines beyond the bounds prescribed by Christ and the Church, no doubt can be made of his denying that the Church of that his age went by this Maxim; And then if this age goes by it, it must,( contrary to S. W's reasoning) take it up anew. 2. If it were indeed confessed by his adversary, nay more than so, if it were de facto really true, yet if it be but contingently true, i.e. such as might have been otherwise,( as it needs must, if it depend on others wills, as their confessing doth) 'tis not then necessary, and consequently can be no ingredient in a demonstration, which must consist of none but necessaries; what is but contingently true, is but probable, and Mr. White hath taught him what to think of a thousand( and that is somewhat above one) but probable mediums.  
13. But then thirdly, if I shall not take the advantage of either of these frailties( which yet are questionless the ruin of his whole fabric) but leave him to repair the present defect by future diligence, and prove hereafter, what yet he hath not attempted to prove, I discern not that he is capable of receiving any the least benefit by this compliance; for although I need not undertake to maintain the negative, in matter of fact( so undiscernible, as it must needs be, what maxims their present Church holds at this time, when 'tis not agreed among themselves, to whom the infallible pronouncing belongs, some being as earnest for the person of the Pope, as Mr. White in his Tab. Suffrag. is against him) yet neither can he with any reason pretend to maintain the affirmative, unless either he set up for auguries, undertake to interpret mens mindes without their words, or be able to produce some declaration made by his Church in this matter, which whether it be possible or no to be made, I need not define, when 'tis certain they have not lately so much as met in a council to make it.  
14. Nay fourthly, to give him over measure, if I may heed the reasonings of S. W. I shall not want motives to resolve the plain negative, that this is not the maxim of their Church at this day. One of his reasonings is from their supposed holding it now, to infer their holding it ever; which if it be demonstrative, it must then follow in the converse, that if they held it not ever, they do not hold it now; But that they held it not ever, seems apparent to me, by that age, when not only Liberius the Pope, but in a manner their whole Church, and the totus Orbis whole world were become of the Emperors Religion, i.e. heretical or Arrian, and yet as the age foregoing that, so again the age following under an Orthodox Emperor and Pope was Orthodox, which it could not be, if it proceeded by this maxim, of holding nothing as of faith, but what was delivered to them by the immediate foregoing.  
15. The same I shall again prove by my wordish way of Testimonies, from the Apologists own pen( when 'tis his, I hope 'twill be as important as his words) in Dailles arts Discov. p. 224. Every one knows, saith he, that subsequent councils have always been so far from thinking it unlawful to add unto the former, that such additions are the very business and end of their assembling. These are his express words, and by him applied to the modern points of controversy, and rendering an account of how little importance Mr. Dailles objection was, that they are not resolved in former Creeds and councils, for every one knows, saith he, &c. which if it have truth in it, then subsequent have added to former ages, and that they cannot be imagined to do, while they stand to this Maxim of believing nothing, but what they received from the former.  
16. The same is as evident again by the frequent professions, of Romanist Writers, not only those, that tell us distinctly, when such or such a point became a doctrine of faith, as Scotus, Ante Lateranense Concilium Transsubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei, Before the Lateran Concel that manner of the real presence in the Sacrament which is called transubstantiation, was not a doctrine of Faith, but also those many others, who when the sayings of any of their ancients are brought against them, reply, that this was before the contrary truth was defined, the result of which is, that those things which were not formerly held, were after, somewhat more than barely held, viz. defined.  
17. And it may be remembered what answer Mr. White once gave to one argument in this point. The argument was this, A great controversy being risen between the Dominicans and the jesuits, it was heard before Pope Clement; that Pope in a time, wherein he was more opposed than usually, had reason consequently to be more cautious, than to choose a new way, by which truth was not wont to be found out by the Romanists, on like occasions, and therefore the course he took may pass in reason( for more than an instance, or single example) for a proof of his opinion and judgement at least, what that Churches course was in such decisions. And yet his course was not that of this present maxim, to inquire what the age immediately foregoing said of the point in controversy, and determining according to that, but he appointed both sides to prove which of them followed St. Austine, intending according to that to give sentence, if he had not been praevailed with to the contrary. Now when Mr. White comes to consider this argument, his dealing is a little remarkable, his words are these, 
Apol. p. 59.  In Clement the eighths action the main point is to consider on what grounds he sought to establish the definition he went about to make. And, upon the immediate step, we both jointly stand, to wit, that it was to find out, whether parties opinion was conformable to St. Austin. But if I mistake not, my adversaries make not the same apprehension of it that I do, They seem to take St. Austin for one Doctor, peradventure a great one, peradventure the chief, but yet only one, I apprehended him as the leading Champion of the Church in the question of grace, whence it follows that the Doctrine of St. Austin was the Doctrine of all those catholic Writers, by whose demonstrations and authority the Pelagians were condemned, i.e. it was the faith of the Church in that age, and consequently which the Church continued ever after.]  
18. Here 1. it is evident, that the only thing, whereon the weight of the argument lay,[ viz. that the Pope determined to define according not to his immediate ancestors, but St. Austines Doctrine] is wholly laid aside by the Apologist, and not a word of answer given to it, but a diversion made to another thing which was no part of the argument, 2. That for the ages between St. Austin and that Pope, there is no word said, much less of the age immediately foregoing the age of that Pope, save in the last words [ it was the faith of the Church in St. Austins age, and consequently which the Church continued ever after.] Where by a strange logic, the Churches holding it ever after, is proved by that ages holding it, in which St. Austine lived, as if I should say, the Arrians Doctrine was the faith of the Church in Constantius's age, therefore it hath been so ever since, or to keep close to the instance of St. Augustine, that holy Father defined the cruciating of Infants in hell fire, who died without baptism, and his Doctrine, if we believe Mr White, was the Doctrine of that age, therefore it hath been the Doctrine of all succeeding ages; which beside the evident falseness of the Conclusion, is moreover a Regressus, and circled both, in that learned Gentlemans logic, one while proving it the faith of former ages, because it is the faith of the present age, and now that it is the faith of the Church ever after, and so at present, because it was the faith in St. Austines, 1200. years ago. 3. It may be observed also that he saith the Pelagians in St. Austines time were condemned by the demonstrations and authority of the catholic Writers, whom he there mentions, and explains by [ that is the Church in that age] which if it were true, then the definition in St. Austines time was made by the authourities of that age, and that is not of the precedent age, of which the now pretended Maxim proceeds; Nay 4. he resolves expressly that Pope Clement had great reas●n to endeavour the decision of that question by the authority of St. Austin, which was all that the argument desired, and so the conclusion stands good, that unless St. Austines age were the immediate foregoing age to Clement the eighth, the Maxim was not in force with that Clement, to judge by the immediate foregoing.  
19. Lastly, this argument, it seems, had more force in it, than the single instance of Clement, one Pope, could give it; for, 
Apol. p. 62.  Mr. White himself tells us( is on another occasion I formerly shewed) that in the last Popes time when that question was again debated, almost in every Congregation the sentence of St. Austin was judged to be against the Molinists,] by which one may guess Mr. Whites own sense to be, that the definition ought to have bee● by that standard( how that will he interpnted by them that think the Pope soon after judged on the other side, I shall not foresee) and yet farther, that the Pope in the tenth Congregation taxed them, Quod Scholasticis maximè suis, non Scripturâ, Co●ciliis, Patribus uterentur, that they used the Schoolmen, especially their own, and not the Scripture, councils, and Fathers) And if the School-men be they that lived in the age immediately foregoing, and if Fathers and councils and Scriptures are somewhat ancienter, and if these did not agree in the same doctrine( for if they did they might easily have reformed their process at the Popes check, and lost nothing by it) then sure it is not yet the Maxim of this age, or but last seven years( wherein this was done) to decide Controversies, or judge of Doctrines by what was delivered by the ages immediately foregoing( which is S. W's principle) but by Scriptures, Fathers, and councils, which is the poor preaching Protestants method of probation.  
20. One thing more I shall offer to consideration, from Mr. Whites Tabulae suffragiales, where as an asserter of the 
Tab. 4.& 22.  Churches Infallibility, founded in their proceeding according to this Maxim, he vehemently opposeth the 
Tab. 1.  expecting of any new Articles of Faith, and as a branch of that, the 
Tab. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15.  Infallibility of the Pope, the belief of which he resolves to be 
Tab. 17.8.  improbable, 
Tab. 19.  heretical, 
Tab. 20.  Archihaeretical, and the 
Tab. 21.  propagating the opinion, a most grievous sin. From hence I suppose I may conclude, that this so improbable, heretical, Archihaeretical, and most grievously sinful opinion, was by him considered as opposite to, and unreconcilable with his own Doctrine of the Churches infallibility, founded in their proceeding by his Maxim; And so most evidently it is opposite, for if the Pope can infallibly define, and so make any new article, then somewhat may be defined, and so taught in any one age of the Church, which had not been taught in the age immediately foregoing, which is the direct contradictory to this Maxim; Which being yielded to Mr. Whites arguments, 'tis yet most certain, that a very great and considerable part of the present Church of Rome, do as earnestly maintain this power and Infallibility of the Pope, as Mr. White opposes it; How then can they be with truth affirmed,( or consequently their present Church, of whom these are so great and considerable and flourishing a part) to proceed on this maxim( so contrary to their own resolute opinion) of teaching nothing de fide but what the former age had taught them?  
21. To conclude this point, I cannot, I suppose, put it to an issue more to the hearts desire of the demonstrators, than by appealing to his Oral Traditors themselves, whether the flattering catholic Mothers, or the Catechists; And of them I demand what assurance S. W. hath, that this is one solemn part of their instruction, and familiar colloquy with their tender Catechumeni, that they teach them nothing but what before their Fathers, or rather Mothers had taught them; that among the first elements of the acquisition of beatitude and maxims of piety, this really is one at least, if not the first and principal, that they teach them not a proposition, but what their Mothers taught them. If my adversaries will not stand to this appeal, the practise of the present Mothers and Catechists in this matter, what can they say in their defence, that by Oral Tradition profess to mean that of the Mothers flattering into their children the elements of happiness, and would have it believed, and praesume it confessed, that their Church doth now in their Oral Tradition go upon this maxim; If they will stand to it, let them direct us to any competent means to discern 1. that any, 2. that not only some, but all Mothers did ever entertain this maxim( not contenting themselves with that other ground of faith, the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles in Scripture) 2. that they have all thought it their duty thus( and not any other way) to teach and instil the faith into their children, 3. that they that neglect many other parts of their duty, are certain never to neglect that; I shall leave this profound pair of Tutor and Scholar to chew upon this a while, and discern how easy it will be for them to prove, and till that be some way attempted, how reasonable it is to suppose, and expect it will be granted, that all catholic mothers thus teach their children, and, what ever else they omit, are sure not to omit this, viz not only to infuse into them every branch of the Roman catholic faith, and infuse it intelligibly, and so as they cannot probably mistake it in any branch, but withall to every branch particularly to add, and inculcate, that this they learned from their Mothers, and they from theirs( which sure is more than they can know) up to the Apostles. It may here deserve to be remembered, what Mr. White once thought true in his answer to my Lord Falkland, that not only the Clowns, 
P. 33.  but good women( those sure are the Mothers) in Spain and italy trouble not themselves to seek the ground of their faith] and if so, 'tis shrewdly to be suspected that they do not trouble their children with any account of it; And if indeed it be considered how very little is taught the people at all, and of that little, how much less than a little is any more than barely taught them, there will be little room for debate or doubt in this matter. And this may serve for a first view of the Proposition.  
22. If we look on it a second time, it will not be amiss to demand, what is meant by going on this maxim] Is the meaning of it, that the Church professes to go by that maxim, or more than so, that it really goes on it, and never swerves from it? These two are very distant in themselves, and that difference must needs have a main influence on the conclusion, which is to be induced by this principle.  
23. If he should mean that the Church of Rome doth and hath always acted according to this principle, then he cannot imagine that this will be allowed to pass as a principle without any attempt of proof. 'tis certain they that charge the Church of Rome with additionals, do not believe or aclowledge that they have made no additions to the faith, but contend and specify many particulars wherein they have innovated; And to answer them, that they do, and have always acted according to that maxim, is to prove they have not innovated, because they have not innovated, and that is, I hope, the begging of the question in the deepest tincture. And in this sense to say( as Mr. White doth) 'tis confessed that their Church goes upon this maxim] would be the suggestion the farthest removed from all appearance of truth; It being visible we do not confess it. It remains then, that the meaning be no more than this, that their Church professes to proceed on that maxim, which though it be not suggested with truth, as appeared in our first view, yet if it were the most demonstrative truth, it could have no more force in it, than a deceivers profession that he speaks nothing but truth, which being only his testimony of himself, and bringing no miracles to confirm it, is no advantage, but rather prejudice to him, and admonishes us, that they that profess so demurely to innovate nothing, do fear detecting, and endeavour to supply with professions what is wanting in performances. And this, it seems, is the utmost importance of the proposition, for so Mr. White delivers it, the maintainer shall prove the error entred not in that age, because that age held nothing was to be admitted as of faith, except what was delivered to it by the former. It held] denotes it their Tenet; Their Tenet, if it be not that, by which they really act, is no more than an unsincere profession, and every seducer in the world hath store of them, which pass for arguments with those which have no better. As in our English story he that could not confirm his new Revelations by miracles, endeavoured to do it by strong asseverations, and from thence proceeded to Oaths and execrations against himself, if it were not true which he delivered; And if either he or S. W. can hope this shall go for demonstrating,[ The Church of Rome professes to teach nothing but received truth, therefore it is infallible] he must have a very mean opinion of his Reader, who if he would believe all that is professed on that one evidence, because it is professed, had never needed his Rushworths Dialogues, to convince him to receive the Roman faith, for before the writing of those, he knew there were such Romanists, that did profess it.  
24. Here then a second ambiguity being explicated, he hath leave to take which part of the explication he please, If he take the former, he must be at a new charge to prove that their Church never misses to act according to that maxim, for else I can assure him it shall never be granted upon his importunity; If he take the latter, he hath gained nothing by it, but that their professions and practise are at some distance, which is little for the reputation of them, for whom he thus pleadeth. A man would not think it possible, that so hopeful and promising a demonstration should so soon fall to this destitute state, by a little closer inspection; As it is, it yields us a lively instance, if we needed such, that every thing performs not, what it professes.  
25. Let us proceed to a third and last view, and demand, what is meant by not teaching de fide what hath not been delivered or taught—] Is it to be understood of teaching nothing as an article of faith, which was not delivered or taught as an article of faith by the foregoing age? There is a very considerable difference between these two, delivering or teaching a thing as an opinion, and delivering or teaching the same as a doctrine of faith. And if by taught by the age immediately foregoing he mean only, taught as an opinion, then his maxim in plain terms is this, that no age of their Church defines any thing de fide, which was not before held as an opinion; And if that be it, then first he must own it as his confession, that his Church teaches what it hath not been taught by the foregoing age, for it teaches a thing de fide, or necessary to be believed, which the foregoing age taught not as such, 2. It concludes nothing to his advantage, but rather against him, viz. that probable opinions of their former Doctors are converted into matters of Faith by their latter. Thus 'tis evident, that all the Mothers, that instruct their children out of Bellarmins catechism, assure them 
Christ. Doctr. p. 142.  that the Blessed Virgin never had any spot of sin neither original nor actual, which S. W. if he continue to be Mr. Whites Scholar, will not yield to have been any part of the Faith of the foregoing age. And then 'tis not a much larger step for a mere falsity to be helped to a fair varnish, and converted into a probable opinion; And he knows this is the progress by which we affirm the Romish Additionals to have advanced from groundless into probable opinions, and from thence into definitions.  
26. But if by taught] he mean taught as an article of faith; then to take this for confessed, and needing no proof, which is of all things most denied by us, what an intolerale begging of the question is it?  
27. This again were sufficient to evacuate his proposition, which praetends to no truth but from his adversaries largess, and that will not always be afforded him. But I shall add a little more on this head, to justify the reasonableness of our non-concession or down right denial, and it shall be by a few instances; The first in the Doctrine of Purgatory, which is competently known to be not barely an opinion, but a Doctrine of Faith in the present Roman Church, meaning thereby, as it is visible they mean, not that of the conflagration at the day of Judgement, but the purgative pains of Souls, attending their departure out of the body, wherein those souls which shall one day come to heaven, are now detained. Yet of this we have evidence enough, that it hath not been thus delivered down to the present Church by the foregoing in this quality of a Doctrine or point of Faith; Instead of many, take the Testimony of 
●h●on. l. 8. c. 26.  Otho Frisingensis, who wrote above five hundred years since, Esse apud Inferos locum Purgatorium in quo salvandi vel tenebris tantum afficiantur vel expiationis igne decoquantur quidam asserunt, That there is in the other world a Purgatory, in which they which shall be saved are either punished with darkness only, or schorch'd with the fire of expiation is asserted by some. Which concludes it at that time but an opinion of some, and not any public Doctrine, or article of Faith. What Mr. White himself hath thought in this question, can be no secret, after the publishing his thoughts de medio animarum statu, where utterly denying any 
Non-itaque locum uspiam tartareis oppletum ferculis cogitamus, quibus ab extrinseco tortore lanienam patiantur, Dim. 1. p 3.  such Purgatory, as from the Schools is now vulgarly taught, and contenting himself with that of the 
Quisquis admittit animas purgari in die judicii per flammas conflagrationis defendit Purgatorium in sensu sanctorum. Dim. VII. p. 26.  conflagration at the day of judgement, he yet vindicates himself to be far from departing from the faith of the ancient Church, adding also( how truly let others inquire) that the contrary is at this day but an opinion and not Doctrine of their Church. Which if it were true, it were a great partiality first, and yet withall a great severity, that when they have liberty to think as they please, we Protestants should be condemned for heretics( if not for schismatics too) for not subscribing to this or the like articles, which in the same manner as this, are taught in the R●man Church. One advantage of weight this point hath above some other, th●t it hath an eminent practise dependant on it, that of Indulgences, as they have been of latter times used in their Church, and if one be not a Doctrine of Faith, 'twere strange that the other, being wholly founded in it, should be allowed so general and solemn a practise in their Church,( as for some time it had) that this author, being by his hypothesis kept from being 
Si dicas esse praxim— et tamen non permittis ●sse singulorum praxim, sad Ecclesia& Universalem, tardus accedo, Dim. 27. p. 120.  willing to yield it the practise of the Church and Universal, yet freely confesses, 
Si dicas passi● exerceri, si a multis, a plerisque, omnia fateor— Ibid.  passim exerceri, that 'tis every where exercised. Accordingly the doctrine itself, which he rejects, he yet owns as the vulgar opinion though not of the Church, yet of the Homines Ecclesiae, persons of which the Church hath consisted since the time of the Schools. The importance of this distinction of his may be worth observing, It is this, as far I can deduce from what himself declares, 
Dim. 28.  that what they believe or aclowledge as 
Tot homines et persona.  so many persons, not as so many believers, or parts of the Church, belongs not to the Faith, any more than an opinion in Philosophy or History, but what they believe as a Church or company of Believers, that belongs to them as to those that have accepted the Doctrine of Christ, and conserved it to this very day, which, saith he, can have no place in this opinion, which 
Cum Ecclesia sit congregatio fidelium, hoc est credentium, hoc est eorum qui Christi doctrinam acceptaverunt, et usque in hodiernum diem conservaverunt. p. 126.  'tis clear that it began from the times of Gregory the Great, 
Hanc autem sententiam clarum sit incepisse— Ibid.  was not th●ught of in Austins time, and not very famous before the age of the School, and either not proposed, or rejected by the Eastern Church, and therefore whatsoever sort of persuasion may be pretended for it, in respect of the men of the Church, yet it hath no praetension to them, 
In eos ut Ecclesia sunt, hoc est ut credentes, hoc est ut supper perpetua traditione fundati, nullum praetextum habet. Ibid.  as they are a Church, i.e. as believers, i.e. as founded upon perpetual Tradition. Thus he, and from thence I should hope it conclusible to others, aas well as to this particular, that whatsoever is in the present Roman Church most generally believed, if it be not founded in perpetual tradition, but appear to have a later beginning, or no Universal reception in other parts of the Church, shall not pass for a point of faith, And this will be a competent prejudice to the Oral way which saith S. W. from its being held now, concludes it was ever held.  
28. But I shall led the Reader to another view of this authors sense of this matter, when a year after the publishing the Tract de med. An. Statu, he comes, on another engagement, to consider this point of Purgatory. In my Lord of Falklands 
P. 109.  Reply to an Answer of his to his Lordships discourse of Infallibility. the words of Bishop Fisher were produced, that there are many things of which there was no inquiry in the Primitive Church, which yet upon doubts arising are now become perspicuous by the diligence of after times. And his instance being of Purgatory and Indulgences is expressed in such words, as evidently show( what that Lord observed) that he speaks not of matters of bare opinion, but of points of faith, No Orthodox man, 
P. 496.  saith that Bishop, doubts whether there be a Purgatory, of which yet among the ancients there is 
Apud priscos nulla, vel quam ●arissima fiebat mentio said Gracis adhunc usque diem non creditur Purgatorium esse. R●ff. cont. artic. 19. Luth.  no mention, or exceeding rarely, it is not believed by the Greeks to this day, neither did the latins conceive this truth but by little and little, and again, Purgatory was a good while unknown, after, partly by Revelations, pa●tly by Scripture it came by little and little to be believed by some, and so at last the belief of it was generally received by the catholic Churches. And for Indulgences, who, saith he, can wonder, that in the Primitive Church there was no use of them, which began after men had trembled a while at the torments of Purgatory. To this Mr. Whites answer is, that he 
Apol. p. 59.  conceives there is a great equivocation through want of care and wariness in distinguishing( here then we are like to have an essay, how ambiguous the plainest testimony may be rendered, when wits, as S. W.  told us, have to deal with it) For, saith he, let us take the council of Florence or Trent, in which we have the Churches sense concerning both Purgatory and Indulgences, and see whether the holy Bishop says any of the points those councils defined, are ●ither denied by the Greeks, or brought in by private Revelations, or new Interpretations of Scripture. For how could he be ignorant that the Greek had agreed to the latin Church about the definition of Purgatory in the council of Fl●rence, or forget himself so far as not to r●member a public practise, Indulgences in all the ancient Church for remission of penal injunctions laid upon sinners? Besides he saith that the latins did not receive Purgatory at once, but by little and little. Whence 'tis evident by the name Purgatory he means not only so much as is established in the council, but that the manner also and circumstances were introduced by revelations of private persons, and argumentations of Divines. The like he expresses of Indulgences, saying they began after men had trembled a while at the pains of Purgatory. Whence it is plain he contented not himself with the precise su●ject of the C●unc●ls definition, or the sense of the Church, but included also such interpretations as Divines give of them. So that by speaking in general terms, and not distinguishing the substance of Purgatory from the accidents and dressing of it, as likewise in Indulgences not separating what the Church hath always practised from the interpretative extension which Divines attribute to them, he is mistaken to suppose new articles of Faith may be brought into the Church, Neither imports it that he useth these words, No Orthod●x man now d●ubts, for that is true of such conclusions as are termed Theological, and generally received in the Schools, yet are not arrived to the pitch of making a point of catholic belief: besides he expresses himself that this generally extends no farther than that there is a Purgatory. Thus far are the words of his answer, which I have set down at large, that I might not maim by abbreviating them, and that the Reader may with ease accompany me in a distinct view of them.  
29. With his first proposal then I shall comply so far, as to take the council of Florence or Trent, and discern what advantage these will help him to, toward the avoiding the force of the Bishops Testimony. For though that Bishop dyed almost thirty years before the drawing up the Decree de Purgatorio in the council of Trent, and so can have no relation to that, yet this shall not cause any difference between us. The decree of Florence and of Trent are very consonant in the matter of Purgatory; That of Trent, 
council. tried. Sess. XXV.  Esse Purgatorium— that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the Altar. That of Florence, 
{αβγδ}. t. 8. p. 853.  that if those that are truly penitent, die in the love of God, before they have by meet fruits of Repentance satisfied for their commissions and omissions, their souls after death are purged by Purgatory pains, but so as that for their relief from those pains the helps of faithful men living are profitable to them, viz. the holy Sacrifices and Prayers and Alms and other works of piety, which are wont to be performed by the other faithful, according to the precepts of the Church.  
30 Now that the Bishop spake not of this thus defined by the councils, he supposes himself to have proved demonstratively by this only argument, because the Greeks had agreed to the latin Church about this definition in the council of Florence. But herein the Sessions of that council will sufficiently inform us. In the fifteenth Session we red that four metropolitans consented to this determination, {αβγδ}, 
Ibid. p. 858.  that the middle souls are in a placa of torment, and whether it be fire, or mist and tempest or any thing else they contend not. When therefore the article in the same Session was drawn up into this form, 
P. 840.  that they which had sinned and confessed, and were in the number of penitents, and had not performed works of satisfaction, should go into Purgatory fire, and being there purged should be placed in the number of those who behold Gods essence immediately, the Greeks answer then is, that they had no power from their Emperor to answer any thing, but as friends privately they answered that they receive that which they said of Purgatory, and they truly admitted that the Souls see the essence of God, and being pressed to receive their writing, having no mandate of the Emperors, 
P. 842.  they received it not. So again when the Patriarch of Constantinople was dead, an Epistle of his is produced wherein of Purgatory he saith, {αβγδ}, that the division or separation was not on that account, neither was it necessary. Then the Emperor called all the prelates of the whole Church, and in sum the whole Oriental Synod, and the determination was concerning Purgatory and one other particular, {αβγδ}, that they should not at all speak of them, 
Ib.  {αβγδ}, not knowing, as I think, the true determination of the matter. Then the latins resisted the Emperor, and  told him, that 'tis impossible for the Church to be united, unless these two controversies be added; But the Emperor {αβγδ}, would not be persuaded, Then the latins pressed {αβγδ}, that there should be no more put in the decree but only the mention of Purgatory. Then after a while, the occasions of departing pressing the Emperor, he tells them, 
{αβγδ}. p. 844.  he hath no more to say, but that he can stay no longer. Then Cardinal Julian doth what he can {αβγδ} to mollify the Emperor, and again, all going to his house {αβγδ}, We earnestly constrained him, telling him the only question was that the souls of penitent sinners are purged by prayers, and therefore they 
{αβγδ}. Ibid.  piously entertaining the Emperor, constrained him to finish the work, but he would not. After that the Emperor called to him the proxies of the three patriarches, Gregory the proxy of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Marcus Metropolitan of E●hesus, pr●xy both of the Patriarch of Antioch and Jerusalem. But this produced nothing in favour of the decree, but on the contrary Marcus and Scholarius disputed largely against it, as in the Synod is set down, and to conclude, the Greek Bishops returned home, and  told their fellows what had passed and they disliked and would not stand to the agreement, 
l. VI. p. 407.  so saith Laonicus Chalcochondylas, Graeci domum reversi non amplius his quae convenerant in Italia stare volverunt, verum apprehendentes sententiam diversam, noluerunt amplius in Religionis neg●tio adhaerere romans. The Greeks returning home would not stand to the Italian concord, but taking up a contrary opinion, would not adhaere to the Romans in the business of Religion. On this the Pope sent learned men to Constantinople to dispute it, but, saith he, the Greeks received not the Concord, and ubi ad colloquium& disputationem ventum est, Romani nihil efficer potuerunt, verum re infecta domum reversi sunt, when they came to discourse and debate, the Romans could prevail nothing, but returned home without doing ought.  
31. For the farther clearing of the Greeks sense, I refer the Reader to their apologetic Tract written( as now we have it annexed to Nilus and Barlaam) but a year before the council of Florence, and designed particularly and accordingly presented to the latins in the council of Basil, to give them assurance of their Doctrine in this point▪ 
Edit. Hanov. p. 119.  For Purgatory, say they, and temporary punishment by fire, {αβγδ}, We have not received it from our Doctors, nor do we know that the Eastern Church is of that mind, and 
P. 123.  again, {αβγδ}— We have not received it from any of the Doctors, and we are afraid, lest if we should define this temporary punitive Purgatory, {αβγδ}, We should do mischief to the whole body of the Church, rendering their reason, because God having pronounced that the wicked shall go into everlasting fire, and all believers ears being acquainted with this from their youth, and dreading it above all things, and guiding their words and actions accordingly, {αβγδ}, if they shall now of new come with this style of temporary fire, 'tis to be feared, that Christians will believe all fire to be such as this, and so that all shall have an end, as Origen thought, and by this means bring in great store of fuel for the eternal fire, From which and other ill consequences their resolution is express, {αβγδ}, that they never till that day had said any such thing, nor ever would. 
P. 124.  Again they affirm, that never any of the Doctors of their Church made any mention of this, insisting on St. Chrysostoms testimony to the contrary on that Text of 1 Cor. 3. and asserting his skill, and the assurance of Gods Spirit in interpreting those Epistles, against whatever could be pretended by the latins from any of their Doctors. And so on, vindicating their assertion, that never any of their Doctors had mentioned any such matter, and 
P. 147. 1.  charging on the latins a citation of theirs out of Theodoret, which was 
{αβγδ}—  no where to be found in his writings.  
32. I shall conclude this with the express and full suffrage of the Greeks inhabiting at Venice, in their answer to the quaestions of the Cardinal of Guise, translated and published at Basil by Leunclavius, where to the question of their sense of Purgatory, their 
Ad Qu. 9. Nequaquam post mortem restare Purgatorium quemnam ignem credimus.  return is, we by no means believe that there remains any Purgatory fire after death, and to the same sense more at large, in the answer to the tenth question.  
33 Here then 1. appears the unseasonableness of Mr. Whites question, how the Holy Bishop could be ignorant, that the Greeks agreed to the latins about the definition of Purgatory in the council of Florence? The Bishop, I doubt not, knew the very truth which hath here been shewed, and judged not the Greeks to have ever admitted that Doctrine, which only some few Bishops of theirs in the council yielded to, for the gaining advantage by an union, but others from the beginning resisted, and all their whole Church uniformly upon their return to their country, disclaimed and finally rejected. And then what show or colour of truth is there in this whole answer, whose one fundamental proof hath thus failed him, and instead whereof, the argument is of full force against him, the Purgatory defined in the council of Florence, is that which the Greek Church believed not, but uniformly rejected after the council, and that Purgagatory which the Greeks thus rejected is it which Bishop Fisher speaks of, therefore in his assertion, the Purgatory defined by the council of Florence was never mentioned by the Ancients, or very rarely, and so was no matter of faith among them, neither did the latins receive it at once( and so 'twas no part of the {αβγδ}, the faith at once delivered, Jud. 3.) but by little and iittle, it was a good while unknown— which was the thing induced from that Testimony.  
34. M●ny other infirmities there are in the remaining parts of that answer, as 1. that he interprets those words [ No Orthodox man now doubts] of conclusions Theological and generally received in the Schools, but not arrived to the pitch of making a point of catholic belief] whereas 'tis evident, and from his following words necessary inferred, that the Bishop by that phrase means matter of faith. For 1. these are his words, No orthodox man now doubts whether there be a Purgatory, not speaking of the circumstances, but the very being of a Purgatory, and that sure is a matter of Faith with the Romanist. 2. He farther expresseth his sense in these plain words, at last the belief of it was generally received by the catholic Churches] What can more punctually express a point of catholic belief? 2. That he interprets the Indulgences here mentioned of those in the ancient Church for remission of penal injunctions laid on sinners, when by the dependence of Indulgences on Purgatory, 'tis necessary the Bishop must mean the Indulgences by which men are freed from Purgatory flames, and not from the censures here in this life, of which only the Ancients spake. 3. That from the Bishops mention of the latins receiving Purgatory by little and little, he concludes it evident that he means not only so much as is established by the council whether of Trent or Florence] when no such thing can be evidenced from that mention, but on the contrary, that the very substance of Purgatory being never or very rarely mentioned by the Ancients, some Texts of Scripture were yet thought applicable first to the conflagration at the end of the world, then, in process of time, to temporary punishments, commencing at the end of this life, to those who dyed without performance of works of satisfaction; and this certainly was the thing which came into belief from Revelations of private persons, and interpretations of Scriptures, and consequently the Purgatory defined in the council in the words quibus detentae, &c. and not only the circumstances which are not defined there. So 4. when from the Bishops saying, that Indulgences began when men had trembled a while at the pains of Purgatory] he concludes again, that it is plain he contented not himself with the precise subject of the councils definition] whereas 'tis most evident he might and must mean the Doctrine of his Church in his time to be, that by Indulgences men were freed from the pains of Purgatory, and that was the councils definition of it. And so still it is most evident, that that Bishop is not mistaken by us, but rightly believed to suppose that new articles of the Faith may be brought into the Church.  
35. And I discern not how this could be so incredible to Mr. White, who, as 'twas cited from him, afirms, in general, that such 
Apol. p. 224.  additions are the very business and end of such assembling of councils, and, in application to this particular, will never be able to make good( I may from his Tract de med. ainae sta. conclude, he will never attempt to show) that that very Purgatory, in which saith the council, ainae fidelium detentae the souls of believe●s are detai●ed( and cannot be interpnted of the conflagration, which begins not till the day of Judgement) that {αβγδ}, state of temporary tormenting punishments, relievable by the prayers, and sacrifice, and alms, i.e. the merits of the living, against which he expressly, and strongly argues, p. 68.( omitting all other circumstances and dressings, and taking it barely, as it was taught by the council) was ever to be found as an article of Faith in the Primitive Church. Thus much for that one testimony of Bishop Fishers, which is not peculiar to him, Alfonsus de Castro adv. haer. l. 8. under the title of Indulgences, makes the same observation, and polydore Virgil repeats Bishop Fishers words verbatim, de invent. rer. l. 8. c 1. and this, if we wanted other store, alone evinces, that their Church in one age hath taught some things as of faith, which have not been taught as such in former ages, and so that it cannot be yielded to have gone on his pretended maxim, of never doing so.  
36. In accordance with this, I shall proceed to another instance; It is competently known, that many of the ancientest Fathers both of the Greek and latin Church did maintain, that the Souls of just men departed, enjoying not the vision of God, were kept in certain hidden receptacles( whether in, or) without the body of the Heavens, enjoying ease and rest from their labours, the sight of Christs human nature, the frequent visits of Angels, and with joy expecting the resurrection of their bodies, and with that, the consummation of their bliss. Of this opinion Pope J●hn XXII. is acknowledged to have been, and the prayer of the 
In Can. Missa.  Roman Church for the dead, under the style of [ Qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei,& dormiunt in somno paci●, Who have gone before us with the sign of the Faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace] and again, Omnibus in Christo quiescentibus, all that rest in Christ] is an argument for it so convincing, that 
Dial. par. 2. Tract. 2. c. 3.  Occam, that produceth it as an objection of the Joannites( as he calls them) and presseth it so, that it cannot be understood of the Souls in Purgatory under pain and affliction, whereas these are said to sleep in the sleep of peace, and to be at rest, gives it one answer, which wants but little of granting all that is demanded, viz. that that prayer of the Church is for the holy souls in heaven, that they which sleep the sleep of peace may resume their bodies and come to the place and state of their ultimate felicity.  
37. Now of this opinion thus professed in the Church several uses might be made to our purpose, concerning the uninterrupted handing down of all Traditions pretended by S. W. The only use of it, which I design at this time, is in relation to the former Doctrine of Purgatory flames, with which that sl ep of peace is sufficiently unreconcilable, and that belonging to the very same subject( not the Souls of Martyrs, and some such special eminent persons, but) just or holy men indefinitely, quiter contrary to the Doctrine of Purgatory, which placeth those very souls in the condition of horrible torments.  
38. Of the truth of this Doctrine my argument requires me not to speak; The whole force of it, as far as I now design it, shall be given S. W. from the pen of one of his own friends, 
Pamel. Edit. tertul. p. 31. G.  Pamelius, in his antidote to the ninth paradox of Tertullian, where speaking of this, as of an error, he saith, it was yet no prejudice to the learning and piety of those so illustrious writers, whilst the Church had not determined any thing to be certainly believed in that article, but, saith he, since the Universal council of Florence which hath made a definition in this matter, aliter sentire non licet, it is not lawful to think otherwise than the council hath defined. From whence sure it will be no insolence to conclude, that that which since the council of Florence hath commenced such, was no article of Faith before that council.  
39. This opinion of the hidden and quiet receptacles was by my Lord of Falkland 
P. 59. 83. 114.  several times mentioned to Mr. White, in his Reply about Infallibility, twice as a proof that some things were now received as Doctrines, without any such continued line of Tradition, by name that of the Saints enjoying the beatifical vision before the day of judgement, and once as a visible prejudice to Invocation of Saints departed, which the Romanist founds upon the supposition of their being already admitted to the Beatifical vision; And 'tis not unworthy a slight reflection, to observe what returns that Apologist hath made to these inferences.  
40. To the former he 
Mr. Whites Apol. for Tradit. p. 56.  answers expressly, the Beatifical vision of the Saints before the day of judgement is not yet held a matter of faith, but only a Theological conclusion. Not yet held( he must mean by the Roman●sts) a matter of Faith; To which I might reply, that then it seems definitions of General councils amount nor among them to the constituting matters of Faith, for 'tis certain the council of Florence defined this against the Armenians; But I shall rather expect his own verdict, in another place, where he speaks 
P. 103.  again of this matter, and then, that he may, as he saith, utterly destroy the objection fetched from hence against Invocation, his words are as express, that those who say we learn by Tradition that Saints are to be prayed to, say likewise we have learned by Tradition that Saints go to heaven, i.e. are admitted to the sight of God before the day of Judgement. Here the Reader must remember, even now, it was not held a matter of Faith, and yet now they have learned it by Tradition.  
41. Here then I demand first, who they are that say they learn by Tradition these two Articles? The Romanists, I must suppose. And then my second question must be, whether Mr. White be such, 
P. 56.  and whether he be not the very same Apologist that said before, that one of these is not yet held a matter of Faith? The least that the Reader can infer from hence, is the most that our cause demands, that all the Articles which the Romanists have learned by Tradition( yea and defined in their reputed General councils) are not yet held matters of Faith; for I must not imagine that this miracle of wit should thus fail in point of memory, when he thus wrote.  
42. The wonder is less, that in that other 
De med. Anim. statu.  Book published a year afore he should let fall some passages which agree not with either of these. For whereas in the former of these, he saith, the beatifical vision of Saints before the day of Judgement is not yet held a matter of Faith, he there saith, 
Neque articulus est quem materiei ratione vel ab utilitate ad pietatem vel a necessitate fidei liberare liceat, Dim. 4. p. 13.  it is not lawful in respect of the matter to free it either from utility to piety, or from necessity of faith; And whereas in the latter of these he explains the Saints going to heaven, by their admission to the sight of God, before the day of judgement, and makes both of them Tradition, he there acknowledges that 
Verum est complures hoc serio negavisse sanctos in coelis esse, Ib.  very many of the ancients 
P. 15. ( Irenaeus, Justine, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, Origen, Victorinus, Prudentius, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Aretas, Oecumenius, by name) did seriously deny that the Saints were in heaven, yet that none( but St. Bernard and John XXII) ever spake 
Vel dubitanter.  so much as doubtingly of the article of their seeing God— But this by the way.  
43. Other miscarriages, I think, there are very discernible in this Apologists answer to this argument against Invocation; as when supposing the Souls of Saints are not received into heaven, he asks, may they not nevertheless pray for us? when he knows that is not the question, but whether we are to pray to them, which certainly depends on their coming to some knowledge of our prayers, and that again on their enjoying the beatifical vision, as the Romanist himself confesses, and as was expressed in the objection, but not at all taken notice of by that irrefutable Apologist; But this and the other parts of the answer, just of the same batch, I omit, because the former is only pertinent to our present matter.  
44. add to these the Doctrine of transubstantiation, as now it is taught, in the Roman Church, to be the conversion of the substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ, and yet is confessed by the Romanists themselves not to have been any Doctrine of Faith before the definition of Innocent III. in the council of Lateran.  
45. Whether the ancient Church had that apprehension of the meaning of the words of Christ, is not the question( though if it were, we should have no difficulty to evidence it against the Romanists by arguments of that nature, which most of those, if not S. W. aclowledge to have force with them in other things) but only whether it were till this late date, any article of Faith.  
46. That it was not, is known to be the affirmation of 
In 4. dist. 11. q. 3.  Scotus, as even now was touched, who is rebuked for it by 
De Euchar. l. 3. c. 23.  Bellarmine, though acknowledged to say true by Peru● as renowned and learned a Cardinal. But he is not alone in that confession. All they that excuse Theodoret, 
{αβγδ}. Theod. Dial. 2.  for saying that the Sacramental Symbols do not depart from their own nature after the consecration, but remain in their former essence, and shape and form] because at that time the Church had not defined in that matter, are evidently of Scotus's mind. Thus doth the author of the preface before that Fathers Dialogues in the Roman Impression 1547. Theodoret, saith he, may perhaps be worthy some pardon, that at that time de ea re ab Ecclesiâ nondum fuisset aliquid promulgatum, nothing was promulgate of that matter by the Church. Many the like testimonies of the Romanists, in relation to him, and 
Esse non definite substantia vel natura panis et vini. Contr. Eurych.& Nestor de Du●b. Nat. in Christ.  Gelasius, the Reader shall find together in the most learned Bishop of Edinburge his consideration de Eucharistia, p. 401. from Ruardus Tapperus, Harding, Fisher, all to this sense, that before the definition made by the Church( i.e. at lateran) 'twas not repugnant to the sincerity of the Faith, either to be ignorant or to doubt of the truth of that Doctrine.  
47. The like passages there are among those who give the more moderate censures of Bertram( and are not so praecipitously bent, with Bellarmine, to give him up for an haereticke) confessing that he was ignorant how the accidents could subsist without any subject, &c. 
Censor. Belg. in Indic. Expurg. de Bertr. in fine.  quae subtilissimè& verissimè posterior aetas per sacras Scripturas addiderit, which the later age hath by holy Scriptures most subtly and most truly added. The like say many others, in their defence of Scotus's words. Let our Bishop Tunstall, and Vasquez serve for the many more that might be( and by the Bishop of Edinburge are) 
P. 405. &c.  enumerated on this Theme.  
48. The 
Tunstal. de ver. Corp. Chr. in Euchar. p. 46.  former in these words, Ante Innocentium tertium— Before Innocent the third, Bishop of Rome, who praesided in the council of lateran, they that examined the business more exactly thought it might be done after three manners, but Innocent rejected the two former, and pitched upon the third, though he cannot but express his opinion, that the miracles are multiplied in Innocents way, and ask, if it had not been better to have imposed silence on those who would be searching the manner, or to have left it( undetermined) to each mans conjecture, sicut liberum fuit ante illud Concilium, as it was free before that council, yet concluding it his opinion that now 'tis defined, the judgement of the Church was to remain firm, by which as he expresses his submission to the Decree, and so approves himself a Romanist and so a competent witness in this matter, so he professes 'twas free to all to believe as they pleased for the manner( wherein alone transubstantiation is concerned) before that council.  
49. As for Vasquez, his expressions are very well fitted for S. W's turn, who will not believe any change to have been introduced into the faith, whose effects have not been visible in practise. For so saith this learned Schoolman it was on this point, 
In 3 par. D. Th. Distr. 18. c. 1.  Audito nomine Transsubstantiationis tanta inter recentiores aliquos Scholasticos exorta fuit controversia, ut quo magis ab ea extricare conati fuerint, eo majoribus difficultatibus seipsos implicaverint, As soon as the name of Transsubstantion was heard of, there rose so great a controversy among some later Schoolmen that the more they endeavoured to extricate, the more they involved themselves in difficulties, concluding that there is nothing to be invented, which in that way can explain the difficulty.  
50. Here then, without examining the truth of this decree, or enquiring what trust is to be given to the Romanists relations of the Acts and Canons of that council, the matter is again clear, as before in the point of Purgatory, that what is now a matter of Faith with the Romanist, was not as such delivered down from the Apostles times, or from the age immediately precedent to the council of Lateran.  
51. And what shall we say of those two other points of Romish Doctrine, and practise in this Sacrament, the denying the Cup to the Laity, and the carrying the Host about the streets in pomp, to be shew'd to the people? For the former of these, was it ever thought necessary, and enacted under pain of 
Nullus Preshyter sub poenâ excommunicationis communicet populum sub utraque specie. council. Tom. VII. p. 1042. E.  excommunication, till the thirteenth Session of the council of Constance, An. Dom. 1415. and hath not that very council that decreed it, done it with an express non obstante to 
Licet Christus post coenam stituerit,& suis Discipulis administraverit sub utraque specie, tamen hoc non obstante— Ib. B.  Christs institution, and the 
Licet in Primativâ Ecclesiâ reciperetur a fidelibus sub ut●aque specie, Ibid. c.  practise of the Primitive Church? And doth not Cassander, as learned a man, and as much valued, as any of his age, confess that 
Satis compertum est universalem Christi Ecclesiam in huncusque diem, Occidentalem vero seu Romanam mill amplius a Christo annis, in solemni praesertim& ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione utramque panis& vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi membris exhibuisse— Consult. Art. 22.  all the ancient Church, both the East to that very day, and the West for above a thousand years after Christ, especially in the solemn and ordinary administration of the Sacrament gave it in both kindes to all the faithful? offering, if need were, innumerable witnesses of this truth. And shall we still believe it a certain Maxim, that the Romanists of this or that age proceeded by, never to deliver any thing to others, which was not delivered to them continually by succession from the Apostles?  
52. So likewise for the circumgestation that learned 
Ibid. Sect. de Circumgest.  Romanists judgement is express, that it seems praeter veterum morem& mentem, haud ita longo tempore inducta, of no long standing in the Church, introduced beside the manner and mind of the Ancients, and although he saith but [ videtur, seems] and [ praeter, beside] it is evident by the proof he adds, that he means it really is contrary to it.] For, saith he, they, i.e. the Ancients have had this Sacrament in so much religion and veneration, that they admitted not any but the faithful, such as they thought worthy to partake of it, either to receive or look upon it, and therefore before the consecration, the Catechumeni, Energumeni, poenitents( unabsolved) and non-communicants were commanded by voice of the Deacon to depart, and the Door keepers looked to the performance: adding from Albertus Crantzius, that Christ instituted the Sacrament for use and not for ostentation or showing, which if he did, then surely the modern Roman practise, and Doctrine, wherein that is founded, was not, according to direction of this Maxim, received from them, that by any series of succession conveyed it from Christ; And if in a matter of practise, that may have gotten reception, which is so contrary to the mind of Christ, why may not the same be imagined in point of Faith? when, as Tertullian asks on one side, ( de Cor.) anon putas omnì fideli— Do you not think 'tis lawful to any faithful person to conceive and appoint what agrees to God, conduces to discipline, and the eighth ecumenical council professeth to obsorve and keep the laws delivered not only from the Apostles and Orthodox Synods ecumenical and Topical, but even 
Act X. Can. 1. council. To. VII. par. 1. p. 977 B.  {αβγδ}, by any divine-speaking Father, a Doctor of the Church, so 'tis as evident on the other side, that the Doctrine of the Chiliasts, from the infusions but of one Doctor, and he none of the profoundest, Papias, took root, and spread very far, and prevailed to the leading away Justine and Irenaeus, and other great, and ancient lights of the Church.  
53. To these Instances I shall add the Canon of Scripture as it is defined in the 
Sess. IV. decr. 1.  Trent Decree, following as it is pretended, the writings of the Orthodox Fathers, but far removed from being delivered down from the Apostles by a continued uninterrupted Tradition through all ages. For the truth of which I need not enter the contestation, being able with so much more ease, to refer him to the late exact scholastic history of Dr. Cousins, through every age of the Church, deducing the doctrine of the Church of England in this point, in opposition to the Tridentine definition.  
54. Thus much for the third view of his Proposition, and in every shape of it, it hath had the commendation of some constancy( though not altogether such as was taken notice of in Alcibiades, to have the utmost beauty of each age, yet) such as is well nigh as admirable, that in whatsoever sense of it, it might be useful to our demonstrator, in that sense it is either certainly false, or utterly unproved, and improbable, and in whatsoever sense it hath any kind of but probable truth in it, it is wholly unserviceable to the undertaker. And with these views of a rarity having abundantly satiated my curiosity, I am very well content to give over the farther pursuit, though to him that were delighted with chaces, there is behind in each Scheme variety of quarry to spend many waste hours upon; Let it suffice that I have thus far attended him, and driven his admired Demonstration to its non u●●ra, and sufficiently shewed, how far that medium is from demonstrating, which having no attempt of proof to secure the truth of it, is as much denied( which sure doth not signify confessed) as the conclusion.    

CHAP. IV. A view of his six last Grounds.  

SECT. I.  
His ninth Ground. His plea of Possession unavailable. We pled not our possession at present. No praescribing against Truth. S. W's confession. His censure of Intruders. His great displeasure on dating the Universal Pastorship from Phocas's time. Gregories testimony. Baronius's Authors. S. W's hard imposition. His weightlesse cavils. His contumely by ill hap falling on Christ.  
1. HAving thus largely examined his first set of grounds, and therein expressly his utmost praetensions for that which he professes his best tenor, Possession attested by Tradition of his present Church, I might spare the pains of surveighing his sixth Section, which is entitled The continuation of the same Grounds; For if they are but the same with those, which have been so largely refuted, there will be no need of pursuing them so soon with any fresh refutation. Yet shall I not refuse to attend him through this Stage also, though I do it more briefly, by way of reference sometimes to what hath already been more largely insisted on.  
2. His ninth Ground then [ that the catholic Church and her Champions ought in reason to stand upon Possession] hath already been weighed in the balance, and found nothing contributive to the maintenance of the Universal Pastorship in England, there being no time assignable, wherein this in their notion of it( wherein alone we are concerned) can be proved to have been in possession in this iceland, as hath appeared in the answers to his four first grounds. And then sure they that never had possession cannot well be allowed to stand upon it, or if they are peremptorily resolved to do so, will thereby proclaim to the world their want of all solid tenors, who are forced to make so much of this imaginary. Which seeing they are inexorably bent on, I might, one would think, be allowed as reasonably to insist on the title of right, and having at this time certain possession on our side, and little doubt( if we may judge by the first times and records) of a right also, set them united in balance with his single and that imaginary assumed possession, which being brought to prove the right, cannot well be confirmed by it, and is itself so far from approving itself, that it cannot with any reason be thought competent to infer any thing else.  
3. But because I must not praesume, and am not now, out of its place, to attempt the proving the right on our sides, and profess to have no kind of opinion of such a sort of bare possessions as these, possessions of mens mindes( which are not subject to occupancy and prescription, as material secular possessions are) considered without, and abstracted from the reasonableness and justice of them, I shall not think fit to found any plea of mine in such tenors; I have learned of the eternal law of reason, what 
De Veland. Virg. c. 1. Pamel. Edit. p. 229.  Tertullian hath put into a definition, that truth is a majesty cvi nemo praescribere potest, non spatium temporum, non patrocinia personarum, non privilegium regionum, against which none can prescribe, no space of times, no Patronage of persons, no privilege of regions, adding that custom receiving its beginning from some ignorance or simplicity in usum per successionem corroboratur, is by succession coroborated into use, and so comes to be defended against the truth, whereas, saith he, Christ calls himself the truth, not custom, and old custom is sometime heresy, and much more to the same purpose.  
4. And therefore though S. W. in his tenth ground be willing to tempt me to retort this argument from possession, by putting me in mind, 
P. 49.  that now we are in actual possession of independency from the Pope, and so that by his strengthening the title of possession he praesumes I will apprehended that he hath pleaded for me, and ploughed my ground by his own heifer( and having put this weapon into my hand is sorely put to it, to wrest it out again, and in doing it hath made as full a confession, as I could wish, that 
P. 50.  though in human affairs where prescription hath force, we use to call it possession, when one hath enjoyed any thing for some certain time, yet in things of divine Institution, against which no prescription pleads, he only can praetend possession of any thing, who can stand upon it that he hath had it nearer Christs time, which is the absolute renouncing of the title of possession, and divolving all to that other of right) yet I shall not be wrought on by his temptation, nor pled that for ourselves, which I dislike in him, how great soever the advantage be on our side; but setting aside so feeble a tenor, as that of our bare possession is, which every prosperous thief hath liberty to insist on, and in usurpations of Supreme rights, which are by divine natural law, cannot be made valid by any tract of time, reduce all our plea for ourselves( though, as I said, I must not here go out of my way to demonstrate it) to the one claim of right, as that by the best and most authentic records shall be found truly pleadable, and then leave S. W. to reconcile his own antinomies, that 
P. 47.  possessi●n( in things of this nature) is of itself a title, and yet that 
P. 50.  he who shall be found to have begun it later, unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter possession, is not for the present having such a thing or power, to be styled a Possessor, but an Usurper, an intruder, an invader, disobedient, rebellious and Schismatical. Censures so severe, that his enemy would not have been forward to heap them on his Church; Let him quit it of them, who hath impertinently drawn them down upon it; For though without submission of the Church to the Popes intrusions it cannot truly be said, that he hath so much as a present possession, and therefore I have hitherto denied him that( poorest) Title, yet it cannot be questioned but he hath assumed the monarchic Authority of Supreme Universal Bishop, and so is fallen under the severest of S. W's censures, in case he shall be found not to have had it from Christs time, for then he hath begun it later, and is not imaginable to have been driven ●ut from an ancienter possession, unless he praetend it by inheritance from Caiaphas the Jewish High Priest at that time.  
5. In this matter then if it shall appear that the Pope had it not from Christs time, there is no more needful to be attempted, to bring, by this his Champions own Suffrage, this Catalogue of heavyest guilts upon him, beginning in Usurper, and ending in Schismatical; And for the evidencing of this, what can be deemed sufficient, if the comparing of Gregories, and Bonifaces words and practices be not? Passages in story so manifest, that I should not think fit to reflect on them any more, were I not severely rebuked for affirming this rawly. 
P. 50.  [ I am not ignorant, saith he, that D. H. rawly affirms, that the Popes authority began in Phocas's time, but I hope no reader that cares much for his salvation, will take his word for honest, till he show undeniable and evident matters of fact, concerning the beginning, progress, authors, abetters, opposers of that newly introduced Government of Head of the Church, the writers that time for it or against it, the changes it made in the face of the Ecclesiastical State, and the temporal also, with whose interest the other must needs be enlink'd, and what consequence followed upon those changes, together with all the circumstances which affect visible and extern actions, Otherwise against the sense of so many Nations in the Church they left, the force of Tradition, and so many unlikelyhoods praejudicing it, to tell us only a crude story that it was so, or putting us off with three or four quotations in Greek to no purpose, or imagining some chimerical possibilities, how it might have been done, hardly consisting with the nature of mankind, is an answer unworthy a man, much more a Doctor, and to say it crept in invisibly and unobserved, as Dreams do into mens heads, when they are asleep, is the part of some dreaming dull head, who never looked into the actions and nature of man, or compared them with the motives which should work upon them.  
6. Hitherto S. W. hath gone on triumphantly in a very rare and extraordinary piece of Pageantry, which 'twill be hard to parallel in all the most Romance acts of Chivalry, and no title is vile enough for his adversary, that hath brought all this wrath upon himself by saying somewhere( he says not, and I remember not, where) that the Popes authority began in Phocas's time, i.e. in effect by referring to two plain matters of fact, which are not for S W's interests to hear of, 1. That Pope Gregory in his own, and all his ancestors name, up to St. Peter, renounced and disclaimed the title of Universal Pastor, as impious, sacrilegious, blasphemous, Antichristian and Dabolical, and yet Boniface his next Successor but one, affencted it, and obtained it to be bestowed on him by Phocas the Emperor.  
7. Herein it is not imaginable any more should be incumbent on me, than to vouch my proofs for each part of that relation, and that is done irrefragably as to the first part of it, by the plain words of Gregory in many places of his own Epistles, which remain on the Roman Register, and proclaim it his opinion that it is most impious and Antichristian, &c. for any Bishop to be styled ecumenical or Universal( the testimonies have of late been severally set down) and for the second Bonifaces affecting and obtaining it from the murderer Phocas, it is the express narration of their own Historian 
Ann. Ch. 606. 1. et 2.  Cardinal Baronius out of Anastasius and Paulus Diaconus( he might have added 
In vit. Bonif. III.  Platina also) 1. that Boniface dwelling at Constantinople till his Predecessor Gregories death, Phocam sibi demeruit in ejus amicitiam insinuant, insinuated himself into Phocas's friendship and got his favour. 2. That hujus rei causa factum est— for this cause it came to pass, that Phocas writing to him, through hatred of Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople, professed that only the Bishop of Rome was to be called ecumenical or Universal Bishop, adding that the Bishop of Constantinople could not, but Boniface himself obtained it of him. Here is undeniable testimony for the truth of the affi●mation in both parts, and indeed if there be truth in the former part of Gregories renouncing and disclaiming that title( of which his own words are so far from ambiguous, that the wits must turn Monopolists, and deprive all other men of their wits, ere they can wrest that evidence from them) it matters not whether Phocas's giving it to Boniface were true or no, because the Title of Universal Pastor being now assumed, which was disclaimed by Gregory, 'tis necessary there should be some beginning of that Title between Gregory and us, and then it matters not, whether it were in Boniface it began, or any other.  
8. This then being sufficiently attested, and so demonstrated by that only medium, which matters of fact can be demonstrated by, I know not what will be deemed a mature, concocted, if this be still a crude or raw affirmation; Is there any thing can secure us of a matter of fact but competency of testimonies, and what can be competent, if these are not? Here then is an essay of the real severity of this demonstrator, that, when a matter of fact is thus testified, and nothing offered to be produced from any dissentient, or contrary testimony, doth yet conjure all, that care much for their salvation, not to take this word for honest, i.e. to disbelieve and reject all testimony, until many things more be done,[ undeniable and evident matters of fact shown concerning the beginning, progress, authors, abetters, opposers, writers of that time for it or against it, changes in the face of the State Ecclesiastical and temporal, together with no less than all the circumstances, &c.] which what is it but to propose a most impertinent, useless, long, if not endless task( when the matter is so clear already, that more diligence would but help to obscure it, or else it were more than possible to give express answers to most, if not all the particulars of his demand) and this, in stead of answering our argument, as the poenance of that great crime of producing any thing contrary to S. W's interests, or but proving a plain matter of fact by undeniable testimonies?  
9. On the back of this 'tis strange to see, how many amusing chimaeras or seeming objections are thought necessary to be heaped up, 1. The opposite sense of so many Nations in the Church we left] whereas 1. we have not been proved to have left any Church, but only to have been cast out by them, 2. no one Nation of their Communion hath, or ever pretended any sensation contrary to this of Gregories disclaiming, and Bonifaces affecting and assuming the title of Universal Bishop, and therefore 3. not many, which yet is somewhat less than so many.  
10. Secondly the opposite force of Tradition when 1. no kind of Tradition either of the former, or even present age, written, or Oral hath ever suggested any thing contrary to this passage of story, but even their own records and authentic Historiographers attested it, 2. when Tradition Oral of this present age, which is S. W's Oracle, cannot with any reason be opposed to ancient history, or deserve to be headed without it, in a matter of their, not our cognizance, Their own 
Tom. 1. Ann. Chr. 1. n. 12.  Baronius having very reasonably resolved, Quod a recentiore de rebus antiquis sine alicujus vetustioris authoritate profertur, contemnitur, What is said by a modern concerning ancient affairs, without the authority of any more ancient, is contemned.  
11. Thirdly, so many unlikelyhoods praejudicing it] when 1. as a thousand probable arguments( in Mr. Whites balance) have not the least weight in them, so improbabilities be they never so many must weigh as little, 2. when there is not so much as one improbability mentioned or suggested to be in this relation, nor 3. is the nature of the relation such, as that it should be capable of more unlikelyho●ds, than there are in this one proposition, that some mens practices are directly contrary to others, that some men are just, pious, and content with that portion of power that God hath given them, and others invasive, ambitious, and inclinable to enlarge their Borders.  
12. Fourthly, the contemptuous mention of three or four quotations in Greek to no purpose] when 1. the quotations that are vulgarly produced in this matter are most exact to the purpose, to which they are directed, the concluding this matter of fact irrefragably, 2. none of those quotations are in Greek, but in latin from Gregories own Epistles, and Baronius and his latin Authors, Anastasius, Paulus Diaconus and Platina. 3. The Testimonies in this matter are many more than three or four, and 4. three or four authentic Testimonies without any one competent authority offered or pretended to the contrary, are, according to all laws of God and man, sufficient to establish the truth of a narration.  
13 Fifthly, our imagining some Chimaerical possibilities how it might have been done] when 1. the subject of our present debate is inferred by positive testimonies, and 2. those testimonies, narrations of things actually done, and 3. all those very consonant, and agreeable one to the other, and so no way chimaerical, and withall very intelligible to him, that is most unwilling to understand them, i.e. to S. W. who certainly would not take all this pains to guard his Reader from believing a chimaera, which he knew he could not understand.  
14. Sixthly, the being hardly consistent with the nature of mankind] when 1. for one man to assume what his Predecessors had not assumed, nay what himself had formerly renounced,( which is much more than is here pretended to have been done) is a matter of frequent practise, every day experimented among men, and 2 the contrary principles of good and evil, justice and injustice( to which these practices are consequent) are not prodigies in human depraved reason, or corrupt nature, and 3. the supposing Boniface only to have affencted, and the Greek Emperor to have afforded him this title, without the Churches universal acknowledgement of it, is alone able to salue all the contrary appearances, which S. W. is willing to suggest, such as the no discernible changes in the Ecclesiastical and temporal state, and the consequents of them.  
15. Lastly, he objects our saying it crept in invisibly and unobserved, as dreams do into mens heads when they are asleep, and pronounces with great asperity, that to say this is the part of some dreaming dull head] as before the pretended crude affirmation was unworthy of a man much more of a Doctor, when 1. there is no such thing affirmed by us, in this matter of the title of Universal Pastor, we are so far from thinking it crept in invisibly, that we specify the very age wherein, and the person by whom it entred, and who was the first that assumed it, and 2. 'tis very regular and rational for errors to creep into the Church, as dreams into mens heads, even waking dreams, not when they themselves, but when their Pastors sleep, or are negligent, and therefore 3. 'tis no part of either dullness or dreaming, to think or affirm, that thus they many times do, Christ himself having suggested to us this very observation, that in the field, the Church, where the wheat was sown, the enemy came in by night while the Husband man flept, and sowed his tares( and from the authority of that very Parable it is that at any time we affirm that errors may have crept into the Church unobserved) on which to affix so sour a censure, will hardly be excused from the grossest blasphemy, but by saying that he meant the ston against his adversary, which without his foreseing or designing fell on Christ. And I pray God this misadventure may teach him more warynesse or more meekness, either to take his solemn leave of all contumelies, or to be sure they be not let fly at truths, for those will either directly or interpretatively reflect on him who is truth itself.  
16. And so much for his ninth ground, the cosidering of which hath taken in the most part of what he hath said on the tenth ground also, which therefore will now be dispatched more speedily.   

SECT. II.  
His tenth Ground, how infirmly proved. In the question whether we are guilty of schism, we evidently Defendants. In the like of them, they. The Defendant must evidence his own innocency. The method of that by answering objections. Expounding by wit. Oral Tradition an authentic Interpreter of Scripture.  
1. HIS tenth ground then, that [ in our Controversies about Religion, reason requires that the Romanist should sustain the part of the Defendant, the Protestants of the Opponent] is, it seems, no otherwise proved, than as we have already competently refuted it, from their Obligation to stand upon the title of possession, as a ground beyond all arguments, until it be convinced to be malae fidei] But for this proof, as far as the Supreme Pastorship is concerned in it, 1. We have largely shown, that in the notion, wherein S. W. maintains it from Christs donation to St. Peter, it hath not so much as the feeblest plea of possession in this Nation, nor ever appears to have had. 2. If it had, we doubt not to prove it a possession malae fidei, by the equality of power given by Christ to the Apostles, and the no supremacy of any member in that College, and by the unreasonableness that those other Apostles, which survived St. Peter, should be subjected to his successors, Bishops of Rome, which they yet must have been, if the Universal Pastorship were derived to them by tenor of that succession, and by the many ages, before the power or title of Universal Pastor was assumed, and wherein it was disclaimed as Antichristian, which must necessary supersede the uninterrupted succession of it from the Apostles. 3. For his proof of their possession( which again he professes to own as his only ground of all their belief) delivery from Father to son, explicating the places of the written word] It hath been largely manifested from the vanity of that one medium, their holding to their pretended Maxim, that it hath no force to prove any thing.  
2. And then the ground of possession being shaken, on which alone the conclusion is built, that we must sustain the part of Opponents, and they of Defendants,] We are freed from that pretended obligation, and the result is, that the state and nature of the questions disputable between us is it that must assign us our several offices; and the quaestions being of divers sorts, our parts cannot be constantly the same. If the question be about our schism[ Whether to live obediently under the Primate and Bishops of England, our lawful Superiors, conferving also fraternal charity with the whole Church of God that particularly which lives in communion with the Bishop of Rome( from which we are inexorably cast out by them, or else should have retained external communion with them) be the great and domning sin of schism] herein 'tis impossible we should be any other than Defendants, or they than Opponents, if for thus doing they accuse us of schism( for then sure they are bound to prove, or make it good) and we undertake to answer all that they can bring against us. But if the question be[ Whether Mr. S. born and baptized, and brought up under the same obedience with his brethren of the Church of England twenty years since, be guilty of schism in casting off that obedience, and betaking himself wholly to the Bishop of Rome, as to the Universal Pastor appointed by God] I then humbly conceive the office of a defendant belongs to him, and of an Opponent to us.  
3. Meanwhile, though we shall not refuse to debate this second question, and therein to afford them, if there be any, the advantages of defendants, yet 'tis manifest the Tract of schism, which I wrote, and hath proved the {αβγδ}, apple of debate, was designed on the former account, as the Title proclaims in defence of the Church of England from that accusation, and then 'tis necessary, till the State and quality of the debate be changed, that the securing of that Tract against all exceptions or suggestions of the Romanist, be acknowledged the part of the defendant still, and he that will prove us schismatics, must be the plaintiff, accuser, and opponent; And so still my skill in the art of disputing, which on this score is solemnly arraigned, would not be blemished, should I insist( which I remember not that at any time I yet have done) on my right to be the defendant, in this matter of the schism charged on us; And if he have no other praetense but this for his no manner of Testimonies from Antiquity for his praetensions, the Reader will soon discern, that he hath it under S. W's own hand, that he doth not( as he adds) prove things in his schism disarmed( and as little in his schism dispatched) and consequently that there is no heed to be given to that, which is without any tender of proof so magisterially affirmed by him.  
4. But for all this I see 'tis decreed, that no less than three absurdities I must stand guilty of in this matter, The first, that I put myself upon the side of the Defendant, whereas I praetend to evidence, i.e. to prove] But to that I answer, that to evidence ones innocence by answering all the charges produced against him, is to defend, and that was my part at that time. The second, that I imagine that the solving an argument is an evidence to the contrary.] To that I answer, that I do not imagine it, but believe, that when one argument is solved, I am bound to proceed to the next that is produced, and not to think myself safe, as long as any argument produced stands in force against me; But when I have solved all such, I may be allowed to think, I have defended my Client, which is not to be condemned without cause, and that was all I pretended to attempt in the Tract of schism, to defend the Church of England in point of schism from the Romanists exceptions, and so far only to evidence our innocence, as to show that none of the charges brought against us, could endure the test, or appear to have any solidity in them. The third, that I suppose they build their faith upon places of written words as explicable by wit not by Tradition and the practise of their Church, whereas they only own the delivery from Father to son as the ground of all their belief, and make this the only rule by which to explicate Scripture.] To which I answer, that indeed I thought it reasonable for all Christians to interpret Scripture by practise and Tradition Apostolical, conveyed and made known to us by those who lived in, or next their times, and so might most probably discern the truth themselves, and had no temptation to be willing to deceive us; As for Explications of Scripture by wit, if that signify any other, than by sober, Rational rules of expounding obscurer by plainer places, or understanding plain words according to the obvious meaning of them, and consent with other places of Scripture, and ancient practise, I disclaim having any thing to do with it as much as he, having been  told by S. W. what miracles wit can do not in making hard places plain, but in disguising plain unto unintelligible. But for the present practise, or Tradition Oral, or delivery from Father( or rather Mother) to son, that this should be the only Interpreter of Scripture, or that the Parents do at all take upon them to interpret Scripture to their children, or if they did, that their interpretations should in any reason be deemed authentical, any farther than they can approve themselves by the Tradition and practise of the Primitive Church, and the other forementioned rules of sober interpretation, I profess to admire the confidence of S. W. that he should crudely own asserting it, and give no manner of proof of it here, having demonstrated it so infirmly, when ex professo he handled that matter of Tradition Oral.  
5. What else is added on occasion of this ground, was taken in, whilst we examined the ninth, and so must here be omitted, and then this is all that needs to be returned to his tenth ground.   

SECT. III.  
His eleventh Ground. Fact all one with possession, yet granted not to conclude a right. Regal power concludes against S. W's possession, Papal excommunication of us, only non-communion. That lawful in another Diocese. The Romanists partiality. No possession anciently pretended to. His three proofs of his eleventh Ground defeated, and retorted. Kings cannot exempt from their own authority. Suarez his resolution of a jesuit m●de Pope. Popes capable of ambition as well as Kings.  
1. HIs eleventh Ground] that Historical proofs which manifest only fact, do not necessary conclude a right] must be some news to be delivered, as here it is, in continuation of his former Grounds, by S. W. who hath appeared such an advocate of the tenor and title of possession, abstracted from that of right, and who set it for his fifth Ground, that no possession ought to be disturbed without sufficient motives and reasons, and consequently is itself a title, till those reasons invalidate it and show it null] and assumed to prove this 
P. 38.  then by nature, by morals, by politics. And yet now, when he apprehends it possible that we may reap fruit by this title, the case is quiter altered, and Fact, which in this matter is directly equivalent with that possession, be it never so manifestly proved, cannot conclude a right.  
2. That Fact only] and possession only] are equivalent in our present disputes, will easily be discerned, if we but consider the matter wherein he praetends their title of possession, and wherein I have urged Historical proofs declarative of ancient Fact, or practise. The main thing wherein he praetends the title of possession, is that of the Popes Universal Pastorship, and the Fact which he specifies to be manifested by my Historical proofs, 
P. 52.  is that of the Princes erecting and translating of Patriarchates, a thing so directly unreconcilable with the Popes Universal Pastorship, that as the right of one must needs evacuate and destroy the right of the other, so the practise of the one, as far as it extends, must needs praejudge the possession of the other.  
3. For example, If it be quaestioned, whether in the Roman Empire at any fixed time, be it the reign of Valentinian or Justinian, the Pope were possessed of the Supreme Pastorship, as conferred by Christ on St. Peter. The meaning of that question, if it be any thing beyond the Popes own dream or fancy, must be[ whether the Empire were at that time subjected to that authority, as by right vested in the Pope by Christ, i, e. whether the Emperors and their Subjects at those times acknowledged the divine right of his Universal Pa●●orship, and so owned or submitted to it] And that being the question, it follows necessary, that if those things which are essential branches of that supposed power were not owned or acknowledged in that Empire, but the contrary powers profess'dly practised by the Emperor,( such is the erecting or translating of Patriarchates, and the like) then the Pope was not at that time possessed of that power; which is the Negative of the Question.  
4. The same may be exemplified in this kingdom, where the principal title that S. W. praetends for our obedience to the Roman See, is the possession, which the Universal Pastorship had, in his opinion, among us, before King Henries dayes, and the Extinguishing Act, and from this supposed possession he concludes a Right. If then by Historical proofs which manifest only Fact, or practise in this kingdom, it appear from time to time, in those ages wherein that possession is pretended, that there was no such possession, but that our Kings made laws in Ecclesiastical matters, forbade Appeals to the Roman Tribunal, and entrance to Legates, erected or translated Episcopal Sees, gave immunities and exemptions to whom they pleased, called assemblies, gave 
Cooks Rep. Cawdryes case, fol. 23. a. b.  frequent inhibitions and restraints of Papal Excommunications, so that an 
See Cook ibid. fol. 26. a. and 27. a. b. and Hoveden, fol. 284. b. 23. and Mat. Paris p. 103. 43. and oth●rs cited by Si● Roger Twisd●●, p. 65, 66, 67.  excommunication made and certified by the Pope was of no force to disable any man in England, and this before any Statute made against foreign Jurisdiction( which concludes the Popes excommunication of the meanest Subject of England to be no exclusion of him from the communion of the catholic Church, but only a declaration that he will not join in communion with him, and so no act of Supremacy, or any more than a non-communion, such as Paul V. his interdict of Venice, was by the P●aelates and ecclesiastics esteemed to be, and such as 
{αβγδ}. Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. c. 76. et Ibid. c. 80 {αβγδ}. Vid. Synesii Epist. 58. Edit. Turneb. p. 35.  ancient Canons allow of, a communion within ones own Diocese, and not elsewhere) if, I say, these and many the like pregnant Facts and frequent usages be produced from authentic Histories, this certainly is a competent prejudice to possession; And whatsoever can be pretended against such Facts inferring a Right, will be of equal force against p●ssessions concluding a right also; And for S. W. to make it one of his grounds, that possession alone infers a title, and another that Facts manifested by Historical proofs will not infer it, what is it but to make use of the Ladder to advance himself, and then draw it up, or break it in pieces, that no other may ascend after him? or to transcribe that more honourable, but yet parallel example of Constantine, doing the like in his flight or defection from his persecuted Mother in brittany to Rome, which the other did when he fled from Rome to his Father in brittany, 
Baron. Ann. 306. n. 9.  first using, and then killing all the Post-horses by the way, that so he might not be over-taken?  
5. This is a partiality, that nothing but immoderate pursuit of interests could tempt him to, and yet this is not all, for supposing( though not granting) the utmost that he would have supposed, the possession to have been in force immediately before the Reformation, we are yet ready to show, that more anciently there was neither possession, nor opinion of Right pleadable for this Universal Pastorship, when yet for the sovereign power of Princes in their own Dominions in all, and so in Ecclesiastical affairs, we are as ready to evidence( and hope that we have in the former Treatises, and some Chapters of this, already performed it) not only by Historical proofs, which are but evidences of the Fact, but by the laws both of God and man, which are assurances of right also, that thus they ought to be, and thus they were settled in this kingdom.  
6. And then for his three proofs of this his eleventh ground, 1. that the testimonies expressing only the fact conclude only the fact, 2. because matters of fact which concern execution of any business may be performed by him that hath no proper right, but borrows it from the delegation of others, as in histories, 3. because in the process of 1500. or 1600. years it cannot be imagined, but there should be some matters of fact either out of ambition, interest, ignorance, or tyranny, against the most inviolable right in the world, nay sometime out of too much zeal.] First they are all, and each of very small importance and force against us, for 1. our testimonies from Canons of Universal councils, and from our laws, conclude right, as well as our Historical proofs evidence fact, 2. our Kings acted by inhaerent right, and not as delegates from the Pope, as by our laws also appears, and then 3. there is no place for unseasonable suspicions of ambition, tyranny, &c. on the Princes, nor praetense of any kind of inviolable right, on the Popes side; And secondly it were most easy to retort every of these arguments against S. W's grand tenor, Possession;  
1. For 1. Beside that their possession is far from being proved, the offers of proof, if there were any, and those valid, would yet, in the words of his first argument, conclude no more than they express, and expressing only possession, would conclude only possession, and no way infer the right of the Papacy.  
8. Secondly, the acts of power at any time exercised in this kingdom by the Pope, and not opposed by our Princes, might be, and actually were by their concession only, and that is thus far equivalent to delegation from them, that it supposes the Original right to be in the Princes, not in the Popes, and then the powers which the Princes gave, they might most certainly recall, and if they did not, yet still their Successors might, which were not obliged by their concessions; It being a rule in Government, that sovereigns who may grant exemptions to some from the power of inferior Magistrates, cannot exempt any from their own authority, which is supreme, they cannot abdicate that right, for no privileges granted or permitted to Subjects can make them cease to be Subjects within the dominions of that Prince; The Pontificians tell us, that the Pope( who say they, can dispense with laws of God, and so hath a good proportion of omnipotence) though he may exempt any one in spirituals from the jurisdiction of A●chbishops and Bishops, cannot exempt any from his own authority, but he must thereby cease to be Pope, as to that person; In consequence to which 'tis 
De relic. tr. 10. de Rel. Societ. Jesu in particulari, l. 6. c. 9.  Zuarez resolution, that a jesuit professed, who vows to obey the General of his Order, and to continue that obedience, though he be made a Bishop, is not by that vow obliged, when he is advanced to the Papacy, though if he be but a Cardinal, he is.  
9. Thirdly, in the space of so many years it cannot be strange, if some Popes were ambitious to enlarge their power, and pretended divine right for universal Pastorship, and by secular policies founded in manifest interest( and so either through force, or circumvention and artifice) advanced themselves to some degree of possession of that greatness, which they so passionately affencted, and so diligently pursued.  
10. And to this also the ignorance of some, and as S. W. saith, the too much( i.e. the blind or mistaken) zeal and piety of others, may have brought in their liberal contributions.  
11. And then that all the Popes actions have been biased by none of these, but governed by pure reason, as it is certainly denied by us, so will it be very hard to prove by S. W's rules, who acknowledges it cannot be done, unless it be manifested that he had right, which as it is the principal thing in question, and therefore is far from being granted, without proof, so if it could be otherwise proved, S. W. is much in the right, that it were very needless to stand alleging those testimonies, which express only fact, and more needless sure to insist on an unproved possession.  
12. When therefore he conludes that it is frivolous to bring historical proofs of fact upon the stage, in a dispute about right, since taken alone they make a dumb show, and can act no part in that controversy, for the very alleging that s me of these faults might intervene, disables such premises from inferring a right] I wish instead of the word [ fact] he would insert [ possession] and then judge from his own reasonings here, what feeble foundations those were which he formerly laid in a bare supposed( but unproved) possession. And that is all that is needful to return to his eleventh Ground.   

SECT. IV.  
His twelfth Ground. Two immoderate supposals, or beggings of the question. A third built on them. Acceptation sometimes an Act of Supreme power. The Church-Lawes] an ambignous phrase. laws of General councils not obligatory, till accepted. Acceptation no act of obedience. Imperial Edicts. Supremacy differs from infallibility. Ancient Canons restored. carded. Cusanus, and Pope Innocentius III. for preferring those Canons. Our practise according. A confession of Caetholike Governours now, much to S. W's prejudice. What makes an Universal Pastor? Dr. Holdens answer. Gerson's, Cusanus's. True Supremacy not transferred to any. The Negative performed by us. The Affirmative not yet performed by the Romanist. No schism in asserting the Kings Supremacy. Harts Confession. Henry the II. and Lewis XII. of France, to the Pope.  
1. HIs twelfth Ground[ that the Acceptation of the secular powers, and their command to the people, are necessary to the due and fitting execution of the Churches laws, whence follows not that the Princes made those laws by their own authority, but that they obeied and executed what the Church had ordered] is made up of four propositions, the two first taken for granted, and so not endeavoured to be proved, the third founded in the supposal of the two former, the fourth an expedient designed for the superseding the force of one sort of our proofs, those from the examples of our Princes making laws in Religion, but this of no appearance of force, save what is founded in the two unproved supposals.  
2. The supposals are somewhat immoderate, 1. that all the commands of the secular power in Ecclesiastical matters, are but effects of their acceptation of the Churches laws, and 2. that they are only in order to the execution of them; The third which is founded in supposal of these two, and hath not so much as a poss ble ideal being, abstracted from that supposal, is, that supposing the Church to be the only Law-giver, and that 'tis the Princes part only to accept their laws, and by civil sanction to command the execution of them, this acceptation and command of the secular powers are very convenient and necessary to the been esse, the due and fitting execution of the Churches laws. All which if yielded by us, the Corollary would indeed be natural enough, that the Princes laws in Ecclesiastical matters cannot be concluded by us to be of their own authority, but on the contrary, of obedience and subordination to the Church.  
3. But 'tis very strange 1. that that should be taken for a ground, which is by necessary interpretation the matter of the whole question, 2. that this which is so much quaestioned, and so constantly denied by us, and the contrary proved by all those arguments, by which either we disprove the Popes right to Supremacy in our kingdom, or establish the Kings Supreme authority, and the inseparablenesse of that from the Crown, and that chiefly in the chiefest and most important things( such certainly are matters of Religion) and more specially by the laws which our Kings always made in Church matters, by their own supreme power, not receiving them from the Pope, but oft making them in opposition to him, should be thought fit to be imposed on the Reader, without the least offer of proof for it, which what is it, but the old sovereign never failing sophism, {αβγδ}, praesuming the truth of that which is most denied, and tendering arguments for that only, which is of no importance for him, or against us?  
4. For the first 'tis evident, that the question or matter of present debate between us is, whether or no in our kingdom the Supreme ecclesiastic power belong to the Pope] the Romanist affirming, and we denying, and placing it in the King; now instead of proving their affirmative, all that is here done, is, to suppose that the secular power accepts( and that in the conclusion is interpnted obeying the Church) and executes their orders, which when 'tis no more then so, is certainly to obey them. This therefore is begging the question.  
5. And for the second, 'tis as manifest that all that his explication or confirmation of his twelfth ground is applied to, is the usefullnesse, or moral necessity of those secular executive commands to the backing the Churches laws, which is the third proposition, and would be denied by none, were it first proved that the secular laws are thus executive and no more; but that being denied by us, and not offered to be proved by them, it matters little what use there would be of that which is not, in case something else were, which hath no being, but in S. W's teeming pha●sie.  
6. Another fallacy there is in the ambiguity of the word [ acceptation] which is expressly used by S. W. for an act of obedience in the accepter, for so from the acceptation of the secular powers he makes his conclusion, that they obeied what the Church had ordered, And so for execution also; Whereas Acceptation is sometimes an act of supreme power, as in Parliament, when Statutes are by his Subjects offered to the King to be enacted by him, and the liberty by our laws vested in him, of either rejecting, or accepting them, Acceptation is in this case enacting, or making laws, and an exercise of the Supreme power. So in Convocations of the Clergy, or National councils, the Bishops and Clergy prepare Canons, and present them to the King, and he either dislikes and rejects them, or approves and accepts, and so sets his Signature upon them, and enacting, commands the execution of them, and in both these cases the acceptation, and execution are not tokens of obedience, but acts and exercises of supreme authority. And thus unquaestionably it is, as oft as the accepter hath power not to accept, for in that case it is evidents, he is no Subject, or under obligation of obedience, as all Subjects are.  
7. Here then is the utmost of the demonstrativenesse and self-evident virtue of his twelfth ground. It is founded in the supposal of two things, which( being set down in ambiguous dialect) as they appear to be understood by him, are the principal quaestions between us, and never attempted to be proved by him, and as they fairly and properly signify, so they are the confirming the very thing for which we contend the vesting the supreme power in our Kings, without whose acceptation no laws of the Church ( be it Pope or council, as appears by 
See Tr. of Haer●sie, Sect. 10. n, 9. &c.  comparing the second council of Nice with the council of Frankefort) have any force to oblige the Subjects of Christian Kings, and whose accepting is an act of Legislative power, i.e. of Supremacy in the accepters.  
8. It is here farther observable, that that which this twelfth ground proceeds upon, is the Churches laws, and what the Church hath ordered] And that again is an ambiguous phrase, for it may signify 1. the laws of the universal Church in ecumenical councils truly so called, or 2. the laws of the Bishop and Church or Consistory of Rome, or 3. the laws of some larger council, assuming to be, when it is not, ecumenical, or 4. the laws of our own National councils. To all these notions the words lie common and undistinguished, and it will be uncertain, what the importance of his Ground is, till they be better distinguished.  
9. If the laws spoken of be the laws of the Universal Church, enacted in any council truly ecumenical( which receives the validity and force of such by being universally accepted) then the Acceptation of those laws in any Nation by the supreme power there, is necessary to the validity of those laws in that Nation, and not only to the due execution of them. But this hinders not the Princes of those Nations to be Supreme in all causes in their own Dominions, any more than it doth the Pope to have the Supreme power in his own Territories, that his accepting the laws of the General council is necessary to the validity of those laws in his Dominions; It rather proves the contrary, that they are Supreme, because their acceptation is necessary, and till they have accepted, they are not obliged.  
10. So likewise in councils not truly ecumenical none can be obliged, but those that accept them, and they which do that, do it freely, and as having power over their own wills, and so might do the contrary, and that is no act of obedience in them.  
11. And then much more, when the yet lesser outhority, the council of the Pope and his Cardinals have given any laws to our kingdom, and our Kings have accepted them, and commanded execution of them, this they have done freely, and without any opinion of obligation thus to do, and sometimes when they liked not, rejected them, and from their acceptation it was, that all their force as of laws was derived, which consequently they wanted, when they were not accepted.( And, by the way, it is observable, that the ancient Emperors did sometime use to put into Edicts some Canons of councils, but not the decrees of Popes,( S. W. may exercise himself, if he please, in finding any) and in the spurious Epistles of the ancient Popes( I suppose it now granted there are such) many things are imposed, as their decrees, which were indeed the Edicts of the first Christian Emperours.)  
12. And in the very same manner it holds of our National councils, who praetend not to make Canons, but to praepare them, and offer them to the King, and by his acceptance and confirmation, or by his rejection, they either receive, or lose all their force and validity, and are not so much as in Conscience obligatory, till he hath thus established them.  
13. Herein 'tis possible the King may make an ill choice, confirm and enact those Canons which were fitter to be rejected, But 1. that is no prejudice to his Supremacy, to which we praetend, but only to his Infallibility, to which we praetend not, and to which for the Pope himself to praetend 
Tab. suff.  Mr. White assures us is Archihaeretical. 2. To secure ourselves from such errors, our Ancestors in Henry VIII his dayes proceeded by those rules, that the soberest Romanists themselves judged fit to prescribe, viz. by restoring the Canons of the Ancient Church, to the praeserving of which the Popes are bound by Oath, and by not permitting the Pontifician and later decrees and dictates of the Western councils to extrude them. Of which decrees saith Cardinal 
De Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. 20.  Cusanus, Quando obviant Canonibus, potius Canonibus obediendum est, when they go against the Canons( of the ancient Church) the Canons must rather be obeied, proceeding largely to make proof of it. And 
Distinct. 50. c. 28.  Innocentius III. that whensoever in the Acts of councils a discordant opinion is f●und, illius Concilii magis teneatur sententia, cujus aut antiquior aut potior extat authoritas, that councils opinion is to be held, whose authority is more ancient or more praeferrable. According to which that they then proceeded, appears in the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition, in the Chapter of Orders.  
14. In the close of his explication of this his twelfth Ground, he tells us, that Testimonies of such Execution and laws cannot prejudice the Popes right, since catholic Governors do the self same at present( as far as concerns this point) which was done then.] These words I think worthy reflecting on a while, as being so far from helping to demonstrate what he desires, that they are a sore prejudice, and argument of the contrary. For if it shall appear that those things which S. W. imputes to the Princes accepting and executing the Churches laws, are at this present done by catholic Governours, and no delegation appear, or be producible, whereby they derive this power from the Pope or the Church, this, I say, is such a prejudice to the Popes universal Pastorship being acknowledged at this day, as S. W. will not readily rid himself of, or reconcile with his Phoenomena.  
15. For the evidencing of which, I shall take leave to ask the Romanist this question, wherein the priority, pre-eminence and dignity of the Bishop of Rome doth consist, and that which makes him an universal Pastor? and I desire such an answer, as the Romanist, that gives it, hath confidence shall have the universal approbation of other Romanists, particularly those that think him inferior to General councils, and that are not noted to be enemies to Monarchy.  
16. This I think hath not yet been done, though a clear explication of it would be most necessary to the manifesting truth in this point of schism, which is founded in the question of Supremacy.  
17. 
De Resol. Fid. l. 2. c. 3. p. 297. Quinam sint eadem( i.e. divina) lege constituti speciales& peculiares hujus superioritatis actus non adeo facile est decernere.  Dr. Holden with much moderation and judgement acknowledgeth, that it is not so easy to determine what are the special and pecul●ar acts of this superiority constituted by divine Law, having 
Ibid. p. 293, 294.  before said, that those acts, which Divines do ordinarily reckon as the special and proper acts of the Bishop of Rome are not immediately and expressly annexed jure divino to that See, which he acknowledges to be performed by others, yea to be omitted, and to be oppugned, and instances in the calling of General councils, appeal in greater causes, &c. All these, saith he, we have seen examined, limited, and rejected sometimes by particular Churches, and civil Commonwealths; and yet this derogates nothing from the right of the Apostolical See] From this free concession we are surely allowed to conclude that these particulars, which have been thus rejected, are indeed no rights of the Papacy, imprimis the calling of General councils, let S. W. remember that. Meanwhile what the Right of that apostolic See is, or how many Sacra Individua there be, the denying or rejecting, or limiting of which would derogate from the Right thereof he tells us not.  
18. Gerson puts the question, whether there be any power in the Pope, 
De Potest. Eccl. ●onsia. II. quae posset in aliquid quod nulla altera potestas Ecclesiastica potest.  that is of force to any thing, to which no other ecclesiastic power hath force, and resolves that the Church may transfer all such power to one whom they shall design.  
19. 
De Concord. Cath. l. 2. c. ult.  Cusanus yet more particularly, doubts not to say, that if( by possible supposition) The Archbishop of Triers should by the Church convened be chosen for their president and Head, 
Ille proprie plus successor sancti Petri in principatu foret, quam Romanus Praesul.  he should be properly the successor of Peter in that pre-eminence, more than the Bishop of Rome, whereas we know that the special acts of true Supremacy are not uneasy to be numbered, and of the supreme power itself, 'tis universally resolved, that it cannot be transferred by Subjects to any other.  
20. The sons of the Church of England have oft shewed, and specified what the power of the Bishop of Rome did not extend to, in the judgement and practise of the English Nation through all memory( see the worthy Sir Rog. Twisden, Ch. V. p. 104. &c. particularly§ 17. p. 108, 109, 110. and the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Derry, c. IV. and VII. where he makes it appear that Germany and France have done all the same acts that Henry VIII. did in limiting and inhibiting Papal attempts) And there being but two ways possible, the Negative and the Affirmative, the former, what the power of the Pope is not, we have shewed already. It is therefore incumbent on the Romanist to undertake the Affirmative, and show wherein it consists, or else 'tis vain to praetend, as here S. W. doth, in general, tha● catholic Governours may do what we see, and he saith they do, without praejudicing the Popes rights.  
21. Where there is true Supreme power it is much more hard to say negatively these are not acts and praerogatives of it, than to set down positively the most essential and necessary. We have shewed that which is hard st, but instead of doing that, which if there were any truth in it, were the most easy, the Romanist contents himself with confident General claims, that it is well known that the Supremacy of the Pope was acknowledged in England before Henry VIII. And under these generalities all deceit lies in ambush, which would soon discover itself, if they would but set down, what the rights are, which are peculiar to the Supreme Pastorship, for then it would be discernible; whether catholic Governours assume them or no, and so whether Henry VIII. were a catholic, or ceased to be such by assuming them.  
20. Meanwhile 'tis certain, that the asserting the Supremacy of the Prince, was in all times in all Nations allowed of, as a defence of their just right, and no schism deemed chargeable on Princes on that account; When the Convocation Ann. 1530. expressly declared and recognised the Supreme authority of the King, still communion was held with the Church of Rome, and Archbishop Cranmer An. 1533. received Bulls and his Pall from Rome. But when in Feb. 1533. a Law was made that the Archbishop of Canterbury( not as Legate, but as Primate) might grant Dispensations, and exercise the highest Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within his Province( which yet certainly he might do, by Commission from him that had supreme authority) without resort to the Bishop of Rome, then soon after issued out Excommunication against the King, and interdict against the kingdom, so Sanders tells us, The forbidding of suits and appeals to Rome, and placing that power in the Archbishop which had been attributed to the Pope, this was the beginning of schism. And yet this is no more, than what is necessary consequent to the Kings Supremacy, which therefore being rightly understood makes an end of this controversy. And so it really did with Mr. Hart, who 
Confer. bet. Reynold and Hart. p. 859.  having red Alexander Nowels answer to Dorman about this matter, he returned answer, that he had mistaken our Doctrine in this point, and that if we gave the Prince no greater authority than Mr. nowell doth, he did agree with us, it being no more than what 
Contr. Crescon. l. 3. c. 15.  St. Augustine did, that Kings serve God in this as Kings, if in their own Realms they command good things and forbid evil, not only concerning the civil state of men, but the Religion of God also; This they cannot do, if the Supremacy be not vested in them, if what they do of this kind, they do by accepting, and executing and obeying the Orders of another, for that is not to act as Kings, but as Subjects rather. What therefore the catholic Governours do as Kings in their own Dominions, that sure they derive not from the Pope, but God, and their own Kingly Office. And till it be resolved on the Romanists side, what the things are, which they may not do, by this right, as our laws and Histories show what they may, there will he no end of dispute, and as little benefit expectable from it in this matter. With this at present we content ourselves, that Henry VIII. did in effect but the same things, that other catholic Princes are confessed to have done; Let S. W. show their Commission from the universal Pastor to do them, as his Ministers; But that sure will not be pretended in those acts, which have been against, and in defiance, and for the retrenching the power of the Popes, as those are, wherein we have formerly instanced, and more particularly that of Henry II. threatening Pope Alexander III. and his Successors, that if he will not do him justice in the business of Thomas of Becket, 
mat. Paris An. 1168. neque ego neque Barones mei neque Clerus meus aliquam eis ulterius servabimus obedientiam. And again An. 1169.  neither he nor his Barons nor Clergy will any longer perform obedience to him. And so that of Lewis XII. of France, who had the advice of the 
council. Turon. in Massaei Chronic. An. 1510.  council of Tours, that in the case proposed it was lawful to withdraw obedience from the Pope. And so much for his fancy of the secular powers acceptation, and his twelfth Ground.   

SECT. V.  
His thirteenth Ground. Concessions of the Church] ambiguous. The Popes acknowledged subjection. No testimony of the Popes conferring on Princes the powers which they execute.  
1. THe thirteenth Ground[ that it is granted by catholics, that Kings may exercise some Ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the concession of the Church, and yet not prejudice thereby the Popes Universal Pastorship] is of the same piece with the former, from a bare possibility that the power, and acts of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in Princes should have been granted to them by the Church, to whisper the unconcludency of those manifest testimonies, which relate the Princes exercise of Ecclesiastical power.  
2. But here is a double ambiguity in the phrase [ Concession of the Church] for as by the Church may be meant either the Universal Church, or the Pope their supposed head of the Church, so by [ concession] may be meant either granting and conferring a power originally vested in him that grants it, and only from him derived to the other; or else the acknowledging it to be his proper due, that claims it, and willingly allowing it, and praetending nothing against it.  
3. If now in the first place we should understand it of the Universal Church acknowledging Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to be due to Princes, this is certainly a competent evidence, that thus 'tis due, and so must be a prejudice to the Popes Universal Pastorship.  
4. Secondly, if the Pope himself shall thus aclowledge, as I suppose* Pope Gregory doth, when he tells Mauritius, Ego jussioni tuae subjectus eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci, that he is subject to his command, and as such, causes his Law to be promulgated, and in the other forecited passages referred to by Wenceslaus's Edict,( see ch. 2. sect. 4. n. 17.) then certainly that is an acknowledgement as praejudicial to the Papal Supremacy, as subjection is unreconcilable with sovereignty.  
5. Thirdly, if in the notion of concession for conferring or deriving by grant a power to another, it should appear( as it doth not) that the Universal Church hath granted exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to Princes, yet even that would be praejudicial to the Popes Universal Pastorship, for in that case if the Church or council did no more than they had power to do, the Church( and that is not the Pope) must have that power, or else it could not confer it on the Princes, and if it have it, it is above the Pope, and that is unreconcilable with the Popes Supremacy or Pastorship over all. When therefore in the confirmation of this ground, he adds that the Testimonies by me alleged from the Church in her councils granting jurisdiction to the secular power is a strong prejudice against their self and proper right] he is very far from demonstrating or even probable-speaking, for if by granting he meant acknowledging the Jurisdiction in the secular power, then( as hath been said) 'tis as convincing a proof of it, as the testimony of the Church is of any right, or truth, and sure that cannot be converted to a prejudice against it, but if it should be( which it no where appears to be) a conferring of it, then still it appears that 'tis not conferred on them by the Pope, and consequently that 'tis not originally vested in him, and then he is not the Universal Pastor.  
6. Lastly, if( which is the only thing for S. W's turn) it shall be suggested, that what power Kings have, they have by concession from the Pope, and so it should be thought incumbent on me to show that the powers they have, are not thus conferred on, or derived to them, then, as I shall not want a competent store of arguments to testify it to be no borrowed but original right, so it must much more be incumbent on the demonstrator or layer of grounds, to show any record of the Popes conferring this power, otherwise as no derivative power is a power, unless it be held by some commission or way of conveyance from him, whose it was originally, so a bare suggestion of a naked possibility is very much inferior to a Probability, when yet a thousand probabilities will not amount to the thousandth part of one demonstration.  
7. But I cannot believe that S. W. who professes to be Mr. Whites Disciple, will own this of the Popes conferring this Jurisdiction on Princes] to be his meaning, when he saith the concession of the Church] and then as I have no reason farther to disprove that, so he hath secured himself from gaining much by his thirteenth Ground.   

SECT. VI.  
His fourteenth Ground. The no probability of it. The schism at Corinth, described by Clemens, very unlike that which S. W. censures in us to be the only way of schism possible. Clements interposition not as Universal Pastor. The Romanists way of schism. Petitio Principii. schism and Charity may enter at the same door. Our confession no guilt. The fear of a Praemunire, no cause of the Bishops subscription. Cardinal Wolsey's Legatine power contrary to Statute. The Clergies Petition, and the Title of it. The Universities debate, and definition. The first mover in Henry VIII his action, the Popes unlawful dispensation. The Pope foremost in the Sacrilege. King Henries repentance falsely pretended. The truth of the History.  
1. WE are now come to S. W's exit, or last Ground, that in case a schism should invade a whole country, it could not be expected to have happened otherwise then D. H.( of schism c.) hath described] still at the same rate of demonstrating, as he hath afforded us all this while, First, the thing that he saith, hath no degree of but probability in it, 2. if it were not only probable, but true, it would no way prejudice our, or aid his praetensions.  
2. That it is voided of all probability of truth, appears by this easy intelligible relation, which hath more than once had Historical truth in it.  
3. In the Church of Corinth( as under that title are comprehended the Saints of all Achaia, and so) that whole National Church, it is somewhat more than possible, that a schism should arise, and that this should be the method( beginning and progress) of it, 1. That some of the Church should differ in some Doctrines and more rites, and praetend severally to be taught by their severally admired teachers, or by the word of God diversely interpnted by them; Hereupon each, confident in his own way, should separate, and abstain from communion the one of the other; At length the wind or vapour in the bowels of the earth, being violently compressed, should violently resist and shake the whole body, the schism improve into a sedition, {αβγδ}, an accursed detestable sedition, 
Clem. Rom. Ep ad Cor. 1. p. 2.  {αβγδ}, which a few giddy and bold persons accended, 
P. 4.  {αβγδ}, ignoble, mean young men, whose very persons were so infamous, that they might reasonably have deterred and averted all followers( 
P. 61.  {αβγδ}) In this sedition of ambitious, malicious, reasonless, restless men, all that were 
P. 4.& 61. {αβγδ}.  in honour and dignity in the Church, especially the Bishops, cast out of their seats, 
{αβγδ}( i.e. {αβγδ}) {αβγδ}. Ib. p. 59. and {αβγδ}. Ib. and {αβγδ}. Ib.  although they had been consecrated to their Office either by the Apostles, or( mediately from them) by eminent persons, and had without any blame officiated and attended on the flock of Christ; Then that this tempest that began in the Church, should extend itself to the State, and so the {αβγδ}, zeal, strife, sedition, be improved and enlarged into 
P. 4.  {αβγδ}, tumultuous confusion and persecution, war and captivity, and this in opposition to all obedience due from them {αβγδ}, to their rulers or civil Magistrates, such as were not only Christians, but zealous upholders of the faith, and all good order in the Church.  
3. That all this was more then a bare unexpectable possibility, even a real and notable History, I refer him to the most pious and charitable Epistle of the Roman Church and Bishop Clemens, St. Peters Deacon, and Successor, who as he sent not out his Emissaries to blow up these coals, which he saw kindled among them, but used the most powerful suasories to extinguish them, so neither he, nor that Church interposed their authority, as any Universal Pastor, or ruling Mother, ( though a Roman Advocate Fevardentius would-fain collect somewhat toward it from Irenaeus saying that he wrote {αβγδ}, a most sufficient or powerful writing, no more, than( as hath formerly been shewed) the same 
Hinc observa Romanam Ecclesiam etiam ab initio authoritatem suam interposuisse in moderandis quoque Graecorum Ecclesiis, in iron. p. 240.  Irenaeus saith of the Epistle of Policarpe the Bishop of Smyrna to the Philippians, who were no way under his authority) but as a Sister Church Christianly and charitatively debated it with them.  

P. 234. B.  4. Here then is an image of a schism, wherein a whole Church, or Christian country was engaged, and yet quiter contrary to S. W's expectation, neither the secular Magistrate( the Christian {αβγδ}) were for it, nor the Bishops, nor Clergy, nor Universities, but all in vain oppose, and are overborne by the paroxysm, unable to give any stop to its proceeding, or to hinder its universal invasion.  
5. And Copies( too much to the life) 'twere possible to produce in other Countreyes, where this very Tragoedie hath been acted over again in the very same manner, and yet neither the Roman Church nor Bishop have shewed altogether so much zeal to the quenching them, as that Virgin charity of theirs yielded those which were very far removed from them.  
6. This may serve an indifferent Reader to judge of the truth of this last profound ground of his. For if a schism may and have entred and over-run a kingdom, by inferiors rising up against their Superiors both in Church and State, and casting their most pious Bishops out of their Church, and have been by the Bishop and Church of Rome itself judged to be a most detestable schism, though they never sent out any declarations against Rome, then with what truth could S. W. set it for a ground, that in case schism should invade a whole country, it could not be expected to happen otherwise, than by the King and Bishops and Universities being foremost in it.  
7. I could mention other ways, particularly that, by which the Church of Rome hath divided from the Greek Church, and from the Church of England, damnando& a communions arcendo, by denying them communion, and salvation, which they know, we are not, cannot be guilty of toward them.  
8. Meanwhile that any schism in a country( of that sort, of which we are accused by the Romanists, a division of inferiors from superiors) can ever possibly happen after this manner by the King and Bishops being foremost in it, if it be believed, it is and must be founded in a supposition that there is some other superior both to King and Bishops, and that he knows is again the begging the question, a fallacy that he is perpetually ashamed of, and desirous to avert, but will never, it seems, cease to be guilty of, even whilst he is about that work which is most extremely unreconcilable with it, the laying of Grounds.  
9. But then 2. on supposition there were some appearance, possibility, nay probability of truth in his sage observation, that this were the only expectable way for schism to enter into a whole Church, what could he gain by it? May not truth and peace enter at the very same door? and by the very same manner of progress, as heresy and schism doth? Certainly it may. If true Apostles, sober and pious Governours in Church and State, bring in verity and unity, may not false Apostles, deceitful workers, heretical Princes and Bishops( witness Constantius and Valens, and their Arian Bishops of old, to omit modern examples) introduce falsehood and division? Was not the Jewish Church, that was lead into Idolatry by their Apostate Princes, reformed by good Josiah, and the like? And then what prejudice can it be to us, or gain to S. W. that he is forced to confess that what was done in this Nation, was done by the united suffrage of lawful power and learning, the joint consent of King and Bishops and Universities? What Bulrush may not become a Spear, what wooden Knife may not be whet at the philistines Grindstone into Goliahs Sword, if by S. W's omnipotent faculty this so much less then nothing can be heightened into a Demonstration?  
10. From this Ground then thus fortunately produced, and managed, S. W. must be allowed to raise his advantages, and so to annex his consequences, which are no other but these, that my narrative discourse hath nothing in it to bewonder them( and if I can seriously profess, that I made it not, on any design to be thought a dancer on the ropes, or wonder-worker, I hope that Corollary hath wrought no miraculous advantages for him) 2. That my narration is as plain and particular a confession of the fact, as any penitent malefactor can make, when he is to suffer] And truly I that meant not to lie, though 'twere in intuition of the greatest advantages, and wanted not such aids to support my cause, resolved to speak as true in setting the case, as if it had been on the Scaffold, or on my daeth-bed, but in doing so, made no● confession, as I thought, of any evil dead; And to call us malefactors, and poenitents, and suggest that a vowing what we have done with a good conscience, is the confession of a guilt, and not so much as attempt to show, where the guilt lies, is again S. W's severe method, which would be a rarity in another ill Disputant, but is as familiar to S. W. as laying of Grounds or demonstrating.  
11. But saith he, the Doctor disgraces his narration by confessing p. 136. that the Clergy were inclined to subscribe by the fear of a praemunire] I answer, S. W. seems to want some advantages, else he would not probably have sought them by misinterpreting my words. I mentioned the Clergies having incurred a praemunire, but I said not in the page. cited, nor any where else, that they were inclined to subscribe for fear of it. A change of sense ordinarily follows a change of an adversaries words, so it doth here. The words in that page. of schism are, [ though the first act of the Clergy in this were so induced, that 'tis easy to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers that hung over them( by a praemunire incurred by them) could probably have inclined them to it, and therefore I shall not praetend that it was an act of their first will and choice, but that which the necessity of affairs recommended to them, yet the matter of right being on that occasion taken into their more serious debate in a Synodical way, and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitched on by joint consent of both Houses of Convocation, there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did profess, the fear being the occasion of their debates, but the reasons and arguments offe●ed in debate, the causes( as in charity we are to judge) of their decision.  
12. Here 'tis visible, that all that I say toward S. W's purpose, is that the fear of the praemunire inclined them to the first act, i.e. to taking this matter into serious debate, which is again expressed by the fear being occasion of their debates, which is very distant from inclining them to consent( as S. W. suggests that I say) for to that I there suppose them induced by the reasons and arguments offered in debate. If therefore he shall still think that he hath duly cited my words or sense, and that I myself disgraced my narration, I must in both these equally dissent from him: The grounds of my dissent in the former have already appeared in recitation and comparing of the words by me used, and by him imposed on me. And for the later, it stands thus,  
13. The Statute of the sixteenth of Richard II.( set down at large by my 
P. 262.  Lord of Cherbury in the attorneys charge against Cardinal Wolsey) appoints, that if any purchase or pursue in the Court of Rome any Translations, Processes, &c, and they which bring or receive them, or make notification or execution of them, shall be put out of the Kings protection, and their lands, &c. forfeit to the King, and they attached in their bodies, or process made against them by Writ of Praemunire facies. Of which Statute the ground is set down that the Crown of England hath been free at all times, and in no earthly subjection, but immediately subject to God in all things touching the Legalty of the same Crown and to none other, particularly not to the Pope.  
14. Now it appearing that the 
Ibid. p. 263.  Cardinal acting as Legatus a later, had obtained and exercised Bulls quiter contrary to this Statute, and exercised Jurisdiction Legatine to the deprivation of the Kings power— and so that he was fallen into the praemunire, and the Law proceeded upon him accordingly, It was also 
Ibid. p. 320.  found by debate of the Kings council, and resolved against the Clergy, that they were concluded under the same crime, and poenalty, by supporting the power Legatine of the Cardinal: And this danger of theirs suggested the praesenting of a petition for the Kings pardon, and the title of the King in the Petition coming under consideration, they at last resolved, all consenting( Bishop Fisher being one of them) to give him the title of Ecclesiae& Cleri Anglicani protector& summum Caput( quantum per Christi legem licet) and thus they presented their Petition. All which amounts to no more than this, that they which had done quiter contrary to the laws, and incurred a visible considerable imminent danger by it, were awaked by the near approach of their danger, to consider their crime, and on sight and acknowledgement thereof, to return to their obedience; for which they found a concurrence of all the most just reasons, when they considered them, but were first inclined to consisider them by the danger their crime had brought upon them.  
15. And this I take to be the very frequent method not of averting sinners from God, but of bringing them back to repentance, when the axe being laid to the root of the three, dangers approaching, a Baptist advices them to fly from the wrath to come, or an Apostle, to awake and arise from the dead, and they being thus roused by outward judgements, bethink themselves and return to a right mind, and have all the reasons in the world to do so, though till the danger had thus awaked and qualified them, they were not so happy as to admit those considerations. This I think may serve to rescue my narration of the fear of a Praemunire from bringing any disgrace upon itself.  
16. What he next adds is of the same stamp, that the question about the Popes right in England being debated in the universities, I say only p. 135. that it was generally defined in the Negative, i.e. saith he, when the Kings party praevailed] And I wonder what I could need to say more, but that it was generally defined in the Negative, and so returned testified under their hands and seals, An evidence of their universal, deliberate, voluntary consent to it. And for him to add that it was when the Kings party praevailed, is as if he  told us, the Kings party praevailed, when the Kings party praevailed, or that it not appearing so plainly before that debate, which way the universities inclined, upon debate it was found that the praevailing suffrage, such as concluded the General consent of the universities, was for the King against the Pope, which indeed was all that I intended to infer thence.  
17. But saith he, I omit that the Kings lust first moved him to think of Schismatizing, and his final repentance of that Act, which show that the first Spring which moved the whole Engine was not purity of conscience, but the impurest and basest of passions] I answer I omitted them, because I could not with justice or charity set them down, and I had much rather comply with both these exactly, then offend against both or either of these, on what other interests soever.  
18. It cannot, with either of them, be said, that his lust first moved him to think of Schismatizing, when first he never Schismatized, but acted as his Praedecessors had done by strength of those laws, which declare the Crown of England to be free from all subjection to the Pope, immediately subject to God; on which the Pope excommunicated him, and broke that peace and union which a Spiritual Pastor ought most zealously and solicitously to have conserved.  
19. Secondly, the first visible mover of the Engine was the Popes dispensing with the Law of God, in allowing him to mary his Brothers wife, which one thing, most unjustifiable in the Spiritual Pastor, was the Origine of all the subsequent train of inconveniences, that involved his affairs in England, which yet might in some degree have been redeemed, if he would have discerned his error, and have rescinded his unlawful dispensation, which the chief Universities of that part of christendom which was then in communion with the Pope, declared it his duty to have done. Or if any thing on the Kings part intervened, and contributed, why should not charity judge( at that time, when the King was in as great and universal honour among all, as any Prince in christendom) that what S. W. will call lust, was truly a desire of an Heir male to inherit his kingdoms? And if this desire did cooperate with the conscience of the unlawfullnesse of the marriage, to solicit the divorce, why should not the Spiritual man have considered the necessity of the one, reflecting also on the reasonableness of the other motive?  
20. A man would have thought, that in a charge of no great partiality to Henry VIII. the Sacrilege, which was visible, and the covetousness, which might tempt invisibly, as well as the lust, might have been as fit to have been added to S. W's inditement brought in against that King. But as he saith without cause, that I omit the one, I may justly observe that he omits the other, and give some guess at the reason of it; Because in this Scene also the Pope was the first Actor, and he that gave the example and encouragement, and so more than the temptation to all that followed, by consenting to the Cardinals request for suppressing and ruining 
Ld Cherb. Hist. Hen. VIII. p. 157, 158.  of divers Religious Houses, which the piety of former Princes had erected.  
21. As for the Kings final Repentance of that Act( if he mean any thing, he must mean the Extinguishing Act, for to mean schism, is again to beg the Principle) I wonder on what ground of History he can think to affirm it, or what he can hope to gain by it, if there were any truth in it.  
22. His ground of story I may guess at, because the catholic Gentleman having the like passage, that to his dying day he desired to be reconciled, and that it was but the coming two dayes short of a Post to Rome which hindered that the reconcilement was not actually made] he cites it from my Lord of Cherbury, fol. 368. To this I 
Reply to Cath. Gent. p. 116.  formerly gave answer, such as sufficed, but had not then my Lord of Cherburies Book by me to consult, which having now reviewed, I find in that page., that in the year 1533.( which is 14. years before his death) the Popes sentence against the King being openly set up at Dunkirk, the King to praevent inconveniences, resolved 1. to inform his Subjects of his Appeal to the council general, 2. of the unlawfullnesse of the Dowagers Appeal to Rome, 3. to command it to be taught that the General council is above the Pope— and then desired the Bishop of Paris to certify Francis, that if the Pope would supersede from the executing his sentence, until he had indifferent Judges who might hear the business, he would also supersede of what he was deliberated to do, in withdrawing his obedience from the Roman See, giving also the Bishop power to negotiate at Rome, assuring him that he had entire confidence in his discretion and sufficiency, and would confirm as much as should by him be accorded on his part; Hereupon the Bishop posted to Rome, came to terms of accord, and a day was fixed, and a Currier sent for receiving from our King a Confirmation hereof within a set time, but the Currier not returning till two dayes after that time was expired, the sentence was precipitated, and the censures fulminated, and then the Currier arrived with ample Commission and authority from the King to conclude and confirm all that the Bishop had agreed in his name. But what was that agreement? Why that the King was content to accept the judgement of that Court, upon condition that the suspected and imperial Cardinals should not intervene, and that indifferent persons should be sent to Cambray to be informed of the merits of the cause, giving authority for his Proctors to appear in that Court. And if this be repentance of that Act, and being 14. years before his death, final repentance, S. W. shall be credited still in relating matters of fact; but withall the Pope that would first precipitate, and then upon an approved or approvable repentance, not rescind it, must lye under the censure not only of Mr. White for a very fallible Judge, even when he hath proceeded by the votes of his Consistory, but of all other men, for a very, unkind Father, that came not to call or receive sinners to repentance, or poenitents to peace. And that is all I shall need to add to what hath before been largely replied to the catholic Gentleman( on this head of King Henries final repentance) where hath appeared, what moderate gains he was to be content to reap from that suggestion, if supposed to have perfect truth in it, which now it hath failed of also.    

CHAP. V. A rejoinder to S. W's Exceptions to my former Replies, and enforcements of his own, in his first part.  

SECT. I.  
S. W's reflection on his fourteen Grounds. The whole matter devolved to this test, the truth or falsehood of these grounds; A Recapitulation of the returns made to them, and a brief view of the state of our controversy. The method of the remaining Strictures, and the motives to it.  
1. HAving laid down these his( no less than) fourteen Grounds, and thereby, as he thinks, given his Reader a competent number of praejudices to our cause, and instilled seeds of pregnant kindness to his, he yet contents not himself, without assuring him again at parting, that these Grounds will themselves lay open the whole case clearly to the ordinary Readers, and inform the more prudent ones, that nothing is or can be said by D. H. of a force and clearness comparable to that of their possession, and that of Oral Tradition, which they ever claimed for their tenor, from which also we disclaimed, when we reformed in this point of the Popes Supremacy, so that little more remains to be performed by S. W. but to manifest the Doctors shallow weaknesses and trivial impertinencies—]  
2. With this resolution of his I shall not refuse so far to comply, as to aclowledge, that if his Grounds had approved themselves as they promised, demonstrative, the consequence would have been as he praetends, and all farther Replies or Discoveries have proved superfluous; For if Possession, and Oral Tradition be such irrefragable tenors, and both of them be proved or granted to be on the Romanists side, our denying the Popes Supremacy, and so the Extinguishing Act, must needs be acknowledged, in Clements style, not only {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, more than schism, even sedition and rebellion itself, the casting our sovereign, the Pope, out of his Dominions.  
3. To this therefore, as to the grand issue, I aclowledge the matter to be duly brought by S. W. and consequently am obliged to stand to the trial on these terms of the question thus stated; And if they can so manage their argument fetched from Oral Tradition, as thereby to demonstrate the Popes continual possession in the supreme universal Pastorship by succession from St. Peter, and so derivation from Christ, I am humble enough to confess, and impartial enough no pronounce, that our cause is finally lost; But if in this pretended Demonstration S. W. hath miscarried, and failed to perform in the least degree, what in the highest he promised, and if in this my Reply to his fourteen Grounds( wherein the very quintessence of his cause is by his own confession comprised, and by his own Limbek extracted) it hath competently appeared that he hath thus miscarried, the united force of both his admired mediums, Possession, and Tradition Reversed, amounting to little more, than their present Churches assuming, without proof it is so, and S. W's assuming( on no other proof, but their so teaching) that it must be so, and cannot possibly be otherwise; If over and above, it have in passing, been cleared in the first times, that the pretended universal Pastorship was not so much as pretended to by any Pope, nor by any the first General councils allowed, nay denied, and so, under characters of the greatest detestation, disowned personally, by Popes, both for themselves and all others; If yet farther it hath been competently testified that their possession in England was never admitted under that title, which alone S. W's Doctrine, and interest exacts, but at the utmost on such claims, as the Kings of England might as well exclude as admit; And if after all this, it were still the Pope that first cast off the King by his severe censures, and precipitated, inexorable Bull, and so made it impossible, that the King should be guilty of this sin of breaking communion, or separation;( to all which I shall be allowed to hope, that the Testimonies are pregnant, and though, from necessity of the matter, wordish in S. W's style, yet withall neither dead nor mute) There will then be little colour of praetense for the charge of schism against us, and not much more for the appendent, but slighter suggestion, that either King Henries lust( as S. W. hath it) or his sacrilege and covetousness,( as others more colourably) began our Reformation, since the Pope, that dispensed with him to mary his Brothers wife( against the express command of God) 
Lev. XVIII. 16.  repeated to the Jews, but first given to all the sons of Adam and Noah) and with Cardinal Wolsey, to pull down the lesser Monasteries, was first, if not principally( and so more) chargeable with it. And if our God of purest eyes, who hateth and punisheth all these sins, hath also by his over-ruling hand made use of them to chastise the provocations of the Church, and to introduce that more pure unmixed profession of truth, which had long been encumbered, and defaced under some rubbish, we may adore his justice, and wisdom, and goodness also, and not allow ourselves to divert from so necessary a duty, and take up eternal complaints, and disputes, instead of it.  
4. It is certain the practise of all known duties, and the ministering to the Church of God in those things, wherein the inward beauty of Religion consists, particularly the {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, as the Apostle styles it emulation and ambition, and eager constant pursuing of an universal peace and charity among Christians is a much more decent employment for the greatest wits, or most dignified prelates, than an insatiate contention for power, or grandeur, and our Saviours example and Doctrine have established it beyond objection, that he that will the first of all, must not only in an affencted title, but in reality be the servant of all.  
5. Meanwhile on these praemisses, more largely deduced in these forego●ng debates, and now thus briefly recapitulated, I shall not ask his leave to conclude and assume, that the defence of our Church in point of schism( which was the Original engagement) remains wholly unmoved, and undisturbed by his renewed attempts, and having so far acquitted ourselves, as to all, that our persecuted Mother is concerned in, I shall profess to have so little solicitude for myself, or respect to S. W's slanders and contumelies, and captious returns, which he here calls manifestations of my shallow weaknesses, and trivial impertinencies, but in his Index hath set out in the louder styles of Absurdities, Abuses, Blasphemies, Cavils, Contradictions, False dealings, Ignorances, Omissions of necessary duty, Bringing Testimonies for, that are against, &c.( All which summed up by him are but so many hundreds of essays of his chemical faculty in extracting streams, if not Oceans out of Pumice stones) as not to account it my interest to lavish and misspend my own, and the Readers hours and patience, in surveighing all his subtleties of this kind.  
6. It is to be expected that they that are not able to support their cause, will adorn it, as well as they can, if it be but with the names, or pictures of their pretended Captives, and having avowed their obligation to defame their adversary, proceed to do it as dexterously and undiscernibly, and to that end as confidently, and triumphantly, as they are able; and herein I aclowledge S. W. hath acquitted himself to be a great Master of his Art, having on the one first part of my Replies to the Cath. Gent. and the Disarmer( beyond which he hath not proceeded) represented such an Army of conquered, a catalogue of scattered forces, that to vindicate them from his aspersions, and misrepresentations, and show him or others, that it was but his dream, wherein they were routed, and from whence their supposed names and misfortunes were transcribed and engrossed in his Inventory, would require many more sheets, than he hath spent in his Dispatcher( which being added to the large but necessary examination of his grounds, would advance to an enormous bulk) the discovering of frauds and injustices being a work of much more time, than the contriving them, unless the injured person satisfy himself with that part of the Gospel method, of {αβγδ}, leaving his innocence to be approved to God and man by its own lustre, and referring it to every mans eyes whether S. W. be as terrible, or the Doctor as deformed, as he is painted.  
7 In this I shall have the less reason to be solicitous, having in the first Chapter given( on purpose to gain liberty to spare the like afterward) a competent number of {αβγδ}, what trust or heed is due to this Accuser, nor indeed can I imagine that 'tis expected by any, that I should still give the Reader and myself the same exercise, or vary it so impertinently, as to pursue or trace his steps through all his several following Sections, either in things which are now by degrees so far removed, as to be wholly extrinsical to the main question, or which belonging to it, own their certain dependence on the Grounds, which we have thus largely and particularly refuted, or which are sufficiently cleared, already in the former answers, for that were actum agere, to recite what hath already been said, and 'tis more for the Readers ease as well as mine, that he review or remember what he hath formerly red, than that he be sated with repetitions.  
8. I shall now more cursorily survey some part at least of the remainder of his Reply, not giving it that measure of consideration, which his Grounds have been allowed; And should I attend him but to the end of his first part, I should therein imitate him, who hath satisfied himself with the first of the three parts of mine, leaving the far greater untouched. But if leisure from more important business permit, I may probably enough, whilst these sheets seek their passage into the light, proceed to that which follows also, so far as to tyre both myself, and the Reader, if it be but to give him a fuller view of S. W's dealings( scarce to be paralleled by any other) some more of the lineaments of a new-fashioned Controvertist, which being done I shall willingly, if there be ought behind, leave it to do its utmost being secure that they which are willing not to be deceived, will compare, before they judge, and not think the worse of David, that goliath revileth him, nor of this cause, that there is a Chancery bill, a bedroll of boasts or cavils brought in against it, never an one of which to him that hath leisure and candour to compare and examine, will be found to have the least solidity, in it.   

SECT. II.  
answer to his seventh Section. Admiration and Prodigy relative. S. W's guesses not creditable against our knowledge. Our denying a Fact is not our pleading the reasonableness of it: Not inflicting Censures differs much from joining with schismatics. S. W's interpretation of not pressing false Fundamentals. His averting our charity to their Church. What danger if our charity erred? An account of our belief that the Church of Rome is a true Church. The Nagges-head Bishops. With what truth that Fable is now revived. Mission from Rome in what sense.  
1. IN his seventh Section the mistakes affixed on me in reply to his Introduction, will not move any man that shall compare Dexter. ch. 11. Sect. 1. with these suggestions.  
2. For example, it being the part of a wise man, nile admirari, to admire nothing, and new and strange and prodigious effects being the only things for which admiration, which hath gone for an excess of mind, is allowable or excusable, and yet S. W. owning some admiration to have been bread in him, I know not that I could misinterpret him, when I conceived some great unheard of news and prodigy to be the one proper object of such acknowledged admiration.  
3. As for the account of our writing books by pairs( he may now remember Sir Roger Twisden, and Dr. fern and say by Messes) on the subject of schism, I must be allowed to give the reasons with more certain judgement than any else, but the Bishop of Derry, and those others, and the searcher of hearts; And therefore if he will still satisfy himself with his own auguries, and set up his fancy for an infallible testifier, against other mens chartable sensations of a fact within their own cognisance, I shall leave him and his Reader to try it out, and not endeavour to make this impertinent breach betwixt us wider by debating.  
3. So when I take notice of his mention of our pleading the reasonableness of our own schism, as a {αβγδ}, what trust is due to him in his affirmations, he will persuade me that I interpret his words, as if he meant, that I confessed it schism] But it is evident to any Reader, that reflects on my words( Answ. to Sch. Dis. Ch. 2. Sect. 2. n. 1.) that I do not so interpret his words, but only assume, that he saith( which are his express words) that we pled the reasonableness of our schism, and answer, that I grant all schism uncapable of all plea of reasonableness, and maintain our innocence by denying the fact, and not by defending the justice of it. And therefore although herein he either is, or desires others should be deceived( for my exception is still the same that it was, that we deny the fact, have not divided, or broke from any Government, that we were under, and then how can I be supposed to pled the reasonableness of that fact, which he calls our schism, if I think we never committed that fact? and if we had, I confess we could not produce any justifiable reason for it) yet the farther discussing this, were but the repeating what hath been so oft said, that we pled not( as he oft, and fain would have us) the causes of our division( but deny that we ever divided) and that all the breach or partition that is made, proceeds from their sentences of Excommunication, as inexorable, as unjust.  
4. So in his Reply concerning the aim and end of the Churches censures, 'tis so visible I spake not of our not keeping ourselves separate from schismatics, on one side, nor of the punishments subsequent to Excommunication, on the other side, but of that peculiarly, whereof he spake before, viz. the whether inflicting or threatening them with the Spiritual rod of Excommunication( which were little less than fury toward a schism armed with might, and so, far from Christian, or charitative, or prudent) that it is not imaginable he can expect farther answer to his suggestions, than is already largely afforded him.  
5. His next piece[ of their not pr●ssing us to believe false fundamentals] as it is now interpnted by him, must signify a special rarity, viz. his telling me, that they do not press us to believe false fundamentals, meaning by fundamentals, as he saith, such points as we account fundamentals] which being easily spelled, and put together, amounts to this, that they do not press us to believe such false points, as we accounted fundamentals,] On which I aclowledge my discourse too short to make any rational reflections, I am no Oedipus for such riddles, but aclowledge, that because I was so charitable as to think he spake words that would hear some sense, I affixed not this interpretation on them, and so it is but a faint sparkling of S. W's more radiant esprite, to demand now, whether it were wrong to us to affirm that we would not speak a contradiction] No, but it was, it seems, superabundant charity in me to praesume he would not.  
6. Meanwhile 'tis possible one passage in this discourse of the truth of their Church p. 63. may breed some scruple, how I can aclowledge the Church of Rome a true Church, when I deny their Infallibility, which he here, as elsewhere, affirms to be the Fundamental of Fundamentals, upon which as her sole certain ground she builds all her Faith. Upon which his argument thus proceeds, If the sole Authority on which she builds all her faith, to wit, her infallible authority, be a ruinous falsehood, she can have no true faith of any Article, and consequently can have no faith at all, nor be a true Church, since a Church cannot survive the destruction of faith, whence he concludes, that our ambition to honour our Nagges-head Bishops with the shadow of a mission from their Church makes us kindly speak nonsense to do Rome a seeming courtesy for our own interest.]  
7. To all this therefore I must pay some attendance, and first, to reflect a while on his plain affirmation, that their Infallibility is their fundamental of Fundamentals, their sole certain ground on which she builds all her faith.] I may here have leave with some astonishment to demand, if Gods veracity, his word and certain truth of his affirmations, be not at least some part of their Faith, if not the foundation of it? and if they believe that only upon their own infallibility, and not their infallibility on that? 2. Whether she may not equally build on this foundation all things in the world, which she can or shall ever believe, as she builds those articles which she now professeth? But this theme is too large for a {αβγδ}, and hath in an entire tract, been long since considered.  
8. Secondly then for our destroying their Faith and Church by denying their Infallibility, I shall return answer, such as I hope will justify the reason of our charity toward them, though they should all be such passionate, avowed, impersuasible, and even platonic lovers of hatred and strife, as S. W. affects to be esteemed, most vehemently renouncing their thinking of our Church under that notion, when they pray for the peace of the catholic Church, p. 78. and giving his reason why we should not have charity, or con thanks to the humble members of the Papacy for such prayers, and so here solicitously providing, and proposing arguments to avert our charitable acknowledgement that their Church is a true Church.  
9. And 1. I might demand, what injury it would be to their Church, or criminous error in us, if a few poor persecuted Christians, being railed at for heretics, and cast out of their Church, did so far deceive themselves by their earnest desire to live peaceably with all men, and to repay good for evil, as without grounds demonstrable, or duly approvable, to hope or believe better of them than they deserve, or than they are willing we should persuade ourselves, or others, that they deserve? Or how were it reconcilable with humility in them, to reject these no poisonous effluxions of this, easy, well-meant,( though 'twere irrational) charity?  
10. But then 2. we doubt not of the solidity of our grounds, whereby we conclude the Church of Rome a true Church, as having received and retained the Articles of the Apostles creed, the one only true faith, once, or at once delivered. And if they do also believe the Infallibility of the present Roman Church, which we account an error, yet will not that( or their many other additional errors) be sufficient of itself to destroy the foundation supposed to be believed by them, any more than telling many falsities is unreconcilable with telling any truth.  
11. As for his argument, founded in the supposal that she builds all her faith on her own Infallible authority, my charity still bids me hope that she doth not, but upon the Doctrine of Christ, and therefore that the Church, in this argument, is an ambiguous word, distinguishable into the ancient, Primitive, Apostolical Church truly Universal, and the present modern Roman Church falsely styling itself Universal; and then as I doubt not but the former of these was infallible in testifying their own sensations, and so in delivering down both the Canon of the Scripture, and articles of the creed, so I charitably persuade myself, that the present Roman Church believes both these upon that Testimony of theirs, and then that as including the Apostles, and Christ, and so God himself, is their Fundamental of Fundamentals, their sole certain Ground.  
12. As for their present Church, as far as it teaches no more, than it received from them, so far it proceeds infallibly also, but hath not itself that amulet or charm of Infallibility, that although it should believe, and teach, as received from them, what really they never delivered, it should yet be unerrable in thus believing, or affirming.  
13. And this( if there be any kind of truth in such as do not praetend to be infallible in all things) is the true ground of our believing them still a true( yet not an infallible) Church, though how soon they will make use of their pretended infallibility to destroy some articles of the Faith, as they have done to introduce those that are no articles, I undertake not to divine, yet conceive that the divolving the whole ground of saith to the Oral Tradition of each present age, and defining for Articles, whatsoever the present Mothers shall teach their children, is as ready a way toward it, as the Devil could civilly suggest, or instil into them; But the no great reverence I owe to S. W's affirmations leaves still place for my charity, to believe that there be but few Romanists as yet, that have entred into this temptation. And until it be formed into an article, and these possible noxious consequences be actually and practically derived from it, I shall still hope that the taking up all true fundamental articles, on what grounds soever, though from a book casually found among Heathens, much more from Romish Mothers( though they neither are, nor are deemed infallible) may, with the superstructing of good life, bring safe to heaven him who hath no other means to direct him thither.  
14. For I shall demand, in case a Christian Priest or but a Lay person, should go to the Indies, and there promulgate the true Doctrine, or( to satisfy S. W.) the whole Roman Doctrine of the Tridentine Articles, telling them withall, that God came to him in a Vision, and revealed this Doctrine, and with it gave him this command, to preach it to those Auditors, and in case those Indians believe all that he saith, his Vision, and his Doctrine too, his Vision, which I with S. W. suppose to be a falsity, and his Doctrine, which S. W. grants with my supposition to be a truth, shall not, I say, those Indians, that thus believe all catholic truth, be acknowledged to have a true Faith, and if by that Priest they were baptized into this catholic Faith, be thus far accounted Christians, in a state of salvation, if without ever discovering the falseness of the pretended Vision, they die in that Faith? I shall not think S. W. so severe to these new Proselytes, as to doubt of their Faith or Salvability. And I shall have the same charity to him and his Church, if as sincerely, as the supposed Indians, they believe all catholic truth, and as blamelessely, as those Indians, continue to believe some untruths. So much may suffice for this objection.  
15. To his mention of the Nagges-head Bishops I have nothing to return, but that it seems these are times, wherein the most refuse trash, the most scandalously reprobate ware may hope to be put off to some Customers, else this which was long since driven to its den, and discovered to be palpable forgery by testimony of undeniable records, would not adventure the shane of coming upon the Stage again, as both here by S. W. and by another libeler I hear it hath; If Mr. Mason hath not already done it for him; or if he do in earnest attribute ought to the one auxiliary, newly brought in, the pretended Confession of the Bishop of Durham in the late Parliament, he will soon see( if not before this can tell him so) from evidences undeniable, what sort of wears those are▪ which now a dayes the Romanist serves out to his Customers.  
16. Meanwhile S. W. hath not very reconcileably joined the mention of the Nagges-head Bishops, and so much as a shadow of mission from Rome, for I always understood the Fable of the Nagges-head to have pretended, that those which had never been any kind of( and so not Romish) Bishops, made o●e another Bishops at that merry meeting. And then they had as fair a praetension( and so shadow) of mission from Constantinople, as from Rome, the same that the Sebaptistae, i.e. none at all from any, but themselves.  
17. Lastly I have not been acquainted with those men, whose ambition it hath been to honour our Bishops with mission from Rome, any farther, than by affirming this known truth, that those who consecrated our Bishops, as in King Henries, so in Queen Elizabeths time, had, till they were Excommunicate, held communion with Rome, receiving Ordination from the Bishops their Praedecessors under the Primate of this Nation, who by a Chain of Succ●ssion received it also either from the British Bishops, who owned no dependence on Rome, or from Augustine the monk, who was ordained by the Bishop of Arles in France, but being sent hither by the Pope, paid a special respect unto him, but( as was formerly insisted on) appears not ever to have exacted acknowledgement, or performed obedience to his Universal Pastorship. And whether our( whom he libellously styles Nagges-head) Bishops had their mission uninterrupted from the British, or French, or Romish Bishops, it matters little to us, who doubt not but each of these had it by continued succession from the Apostles, who planted the Faith, and imposed hands on their first fruits in every of these Regions. And so as we have no interests to serve( whatever he is resolved to fancy) by praetending mission from Rome, so we need not nonsense, and it now appears we have not let fall any, in our courtesy( more than seeming) to their Church. And another S. W. could hardly have contrived so many misadventures into so little compass;  
18. His farther enlargements concerning Copes, Surplices, and Organs, had their satisfactory answers formerly, and have now no new addition of armature, or propriety to our present debates, and so I shall leave them to him that pleases to consider them, as I do also his addition of their Churches possession of their belief of the Infallibility, which hath largely been spoken to already.   

SECT. III.  
answer to his VIII Section. His notion of good and bad. rendering causes of schism differs from proving we have not separated. The pretence of an external confessed Government. The Romanists schism. S. W's argument to prove it impossible, considered. Aristocracy a Government, as well as Monarchy. The Government of the Church by Primates. schism from Fraternal Union also. Injustice of their censures. All[ Ifs] are not ridiculous. Two sins may be equal. His insertion of[ not] Irenaeus's {αβγδ}. Cautious expressions. The title of catholics no argument. St. Augustines testimony no proof of it. A Tract of heresy several from that of schism. His ninth Grammatical Section passed over lightly.  
1. IN his eight Section, though I cannot admire the Rule of his great Masters of morality, that nothing is in itself good or bad, but as it conduces to, or averts from the attaining ones last end( 'tis sufficient to me, that some things being in their own nature good, and agreeable to those Souls which God hath appointed to have the Government of our actions, and the contrary to these in their own nature evil, as breaches of his eternal Law, God hath most graciously decreed to reward, with eternal bliss those actions of ours, which are so consonant to our natures, and aeternally to punish our violations of those his most equal laws, our casting off from us his {αβγδ}, his gra●●ous as well as easy Yoke) yet have I no reason to go out of my way to examine it, or any other part of his procedure, whereby he infers no more than what he knows I first affirmed to him, that there is no just cause praetensible for Schismatizing, or separating from any our lawful Governours.  
2. As for his examination of my inference, that because schism can have no just causes, therefore in treating a controversy of schism, I ought not to heed or produce causes] he hath on that head nothing to purpose, but a piteous thin sophism, that if I do an external act, which hath the show of schism, and yet will defend myself to be no schismatic, I must give account why I do that action, and show that that action is not truly schism] To which I answer, as formerly, that it is one thing to render causes of schism or separating from a Government, another to show and prove that we have not separated. This latter therefore is the only thing incumbent on us, and that we undertake, and to that end, he knows, the Tract of schism was avowed to be written; but the former was none of our interests, who have no act in this matter to give account of, being merely passive,( we leave it to Mr. S. and his Complices, which have forsaken their persecuted Mother, cast off their Governours, under whom they were actually( I must suppose duly) placed) and therefore let S. W. never so long persuade, and think he demonstrates the necessity, he must excuse us, that we do not aclowledge that necessity, or consequently attempt to propose any such reasons; For how can we be required to render our reasons of dividing, when he knows we contest that we never divided? Would not this more than imply a contradiction? And then that the contrary should be charged on us( so p. 72. it is) as a pure contradiction, is certainly the greatest and most unreconcilable contradiction in the world, and so fit for none but S. W's omnipotent faculty to assume to maintain against me.  
3. As for his 
P. 73.  state of the question of an external confessed Government at that time( of Henry VIII.) he hath already heard sufficiently, viz. that the Universal Pastorship, as derived from Christ, was not then confessed in our kingdom; and so that he will gain as little by his pretended external possession( unless the Pope possesses all, that he and his Factors shall affirm he possesses) as that which he calls my cunningly forged false state of the question, which spake of Supreme Legal power here, i.e. such as our laws acknowledged to be in force, or if he please; in possession among us.  
4. Of the same batch it is, which follows, that he will still affirm, that 
P. 73.  actually we were under the Church of Rome at that time, demanding, 
P. 74.  whether I can doubt, whether there was an extern apparent and aclowledge authority— and 
P. 74.  supposing that I will aclowledge it, and that 
P. 75.  if they usurped, it was not lately, but a thousand years ago] With what reason of his confidence, he or the Reader may now judge from what hath formerly been said of their falsely supposed possession, on which as his 
Ib.  only proof he professes to build all their right, and which failing, 'tis necessary their right must fail also, without farther disputing whether bare possession, not founded in right, could found, or conclude a right in the Possessors.  
5. For the Schismaticalnesse of their Church, he would persuade himself, that we accuse them weakly and faintly, and that the light of nature and common language of mankind checks us in it, by telling us that the whole is not said to be broken from a part, but a part from the whole] But this, I may say, is a most weak supposition, and as faint a proof, on his part; For as of the English Revolters, we make no question, but they have schismatized from that part of the Universal Church, of which they were baptized and initiated to be members( and that is not the breaking of the whole from a part, for sure Mr. S. or any other English Revolter is not the whole Church) so for the Bishops of Rome we as little doubt of their breach of charity, and Christian communion( and that is schism also) in casting out their so many fellow members, whole Churches of all quarters; And that again is a breaking not of the whole, but of one part from other parts, and those much more diffused, and of greater circuit, than is the Church of the Dividers.  
6. To save them from this guilt, his acumen is extraordinary, for thus he argues, that in this supposed case, they can never be shown Schismatical against Government or unity in the Church, if no such unity can be found, as it cannot, saith he, in that mould the Doctor hath cast Christianity, by making each Church {αβγδ} independent or self-governed, since there can be no division made, where the things are already many.] To this, as the prime considerable of this Section I shall accommodate some answer, 1. that by the purport of the argument we have reason to conclude, that if it were possible they should be schismatics, it could not be questioned but they are such, and then they that have done as much as is possible for them to be guilty of that dangerous sin, it is but time that they should look about them, examine and thoroughly consider their state. 2. That 'tis too strange an assumption to be proposed without tender of all proof, that there can be no unity in the Church, if each Church be {αβγδ}. He cannot but know that an Aristocracy is a Government, and a Common-wealth an one body( though the persons, wherein the Government is, are many) as well as a Monarchy, where it is placed in one single person. And so certainly the whole Church represented in a General council by the Bishops of each particular Church, or governed by so many Primates out of a council, is one body, as fitly and properly so called, and as exactly and firmly compacted, as if all their power were contracted in five patriarches, or those again melted into one successor of St. Peter. When the great dispute was betwixt Rome and Constantinople, Balsamon recites the opinion of some, that the Headship over the Church was in all the five patriarches, 
Medit.& Resp. l. 7. in Jure Graeco Rom. t. 1. p. 449.  {αβγδ}, because the five patriarches supply the place of the one head of the body, to wit of the holy Churches of God. And had they, that spake thus of the five patriarches, enlarged it to all the Primates, they had spoken agreeably to the Canons of all the General councils, who subject all the Bishops in every Province to their Primate, and divide the whole Church into so many {αβγδ} or administrations, as there are Primates; And this would be a solving of the grand objection of Bellarmine and others, in behalf of the Pope, and against the placing the Supremacy in General councils[ that in the Intervals of such councils, the Supremacy should rest no where, if it did not in the Bishop of Rome] for then it is clear, it might rest in the Primates, and, if need required, be exercised by them, without any more numerous convention, and by each of these severally the so many {αβγδ} be governed, of which the whole body is made up. What judgement S. W. will pass on this, I am not much concerned to be solicitous, but refer it to more indifferent judges, if this be not an expedient of some value toward the ending this controversy; I am sure it is of full force to evacuate all force of his argument, and then there being this way, wherein unity is found, it may sure be shown that the Romanist is Schismatical from this Unity.  
7. Nay thirdly, 'tis so evident, that those things that are in one respect many, may be united in some common respect( as they that have not union of external Government, may yet have fraternal communion and mutual concord one with the other) that 'tis still manifest, that Churches wholly independent, and not subordinate one to the other, may yet communicate one with the other, and ought to have praeparednesse of charity to do so; and if so, they may, by breach of that communion, divide also, and then if Mr. S. have no better security than this, to keep him from being concluded a schismatic, 'tis time for him to consider whether it be not more eligible to return, and be persecuted, than to continue where he is, in the state of defiance and bitterness to his old Mother.  
8. He is very confident of having defended the Romish Church in their remorseless Censures, because this he thinks hath been the constant practise of Gods Church, to excommunicate all those who renounced either the Government, or any other part of faith received from their forefathers] But 1. he considers not, that we renounced no Government, that we were not really under( only the Pope was very willing to challenge, and industrious to get Dominion over us) and 2. that the errors of our forefathers may be renounced without offending against any Church, or provoking their censures, and 3. that what he calls the Faith, he must prove to be such, or else it may be allowed to pass with us, who undertake to show it was not part of that Faith which was ●●e delivered to the Saints, under the title not of the Faith of our first, but Errors or Additionals of our immediate forefathers.  
9. As for the [ Ifs] that he is so fastidiously displeased with, he hath, I doubt not, judgement enough, to discern that all the severals so introduced, are things that we assume to have actually proved, and that the arguments for them are evidently deduced from the Canons that are there mentioned p. 20. and other proofs that were not ag●in to be repeated, having elsewhere been so largely deduced. And if every hypothetical syllogism, the minor whereof is proved to be actually true, or if not so, yet offered to be proved by Testimonies of weight, to which no least reply is made, can be paralleled with nothing but( the proverbial expression of impossibilities) the falling of the sky, and if S. W. can no otherwise attempt Answer to such evidences, than by recourse to a meager proverb, as far removed from the purpose, as the sky from the Larks, I may be allowed to admire his faculties, but not solicitously attend him in the exercise of them.  
10. In this place he will needs persuade himself or others, that I was willing to 
P. 78.  palliate schism by praetense of some greater sin] when yet 1. he knows that I profess no cause can justify or palliate the sin of schism, and therefore 2. that I undertake but one thing, viz. to show that we are not guilty of any fact which can with any reason be called schism. 3. He might know that no praetense of greater sin can evade or palliate a sin: I must not commit any one sin, to avoid another. And 4. another man would think it a competent evidence, that I did not seek to palliate schism, when I set it out in a phrase more comprehensive than that which I was to interpret. But he that is to subsist by his skill in cavilling, must be excused, if he never give over the exercise of it, and praesume he hath carried all before him, by saying, 'tis false, and moral science assures him that no t●o kindes of vices are equal, when yet he neither tenders us any grounds of his affirmation or that assurance, nor considers that when God saith, Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft, the result is, that those two sins are equal in Gods sight, who is the more competent Judge of it, than S. W. or his Moral( {αβγδ}) Science falsely so called. How it stands with the obvious interpretation of[ scarce any( in the singular, i.e. any one) is so great] to affirm that not only some one, but also some few be greater, I am not subtle enough to discern, nor yet concerned enough to debate with this great Master.  
11. His mistake of my words, from which he concludes me to tell him, that my authorities did not induce that there was none greater] is very strange, when my words are expressly the contrary, that my authorities did induce there was none greater. My words are these, I assumed not to affirm more than my authorities did induce, that there was none greater] i. e. my authorities did induce that there was none greater, and I assumed to affirm no more than that. What can be more perspicuous on one side, or misrepresented on the other, what more intolerable in an Author than to insert a [ not] in a quotation? 'twere well if his hast, which my charity before mentioned, as the excuse of his misadventures, could here be pleaded for him.  
12. His one pertinent Reply to what was said of the Testimony from Irenaeus, is, that unless I had the testimony out of Irenaeus in Greek, my evasion( of {αβγδ} being oft no more than hard and difficult) is nothing. To which I answer, that Irenaeus having written in Greek, and {αβγδ} in Greek oft signifying no more than very difficult, I could not infallibly conclude any more to be meant by the latin of his Greek, nulla fieri potest, than that it was hard or difficult, and this is as evident from his latin Interpreter, as it could be from his Greek Text, if we were Masters of it, and found in it the express words {αβγδ}. And whereas the style [ It is very hard, if not impossible] he would conclude consistent with this sense[ it is doubtful] I answer that this is but a gloss of his; I may abstain from affirming a thing to be absolutely impossible, though I think there be no place of doubting, whether it be true or no. And how could I be thought to design to leave room for the reasonableness of any schism, who had expressly affirmed that no cause or motive, i, e. reason of schism was pleadable?  
13. He cites from my words p. 24. l. 11. that my expressions were cautious] where my meaning was evident, as my words, that the cautious interpreting of nulla fieri potest, by 'twas in their opinion very hard, if not impossible] seemed to me the best. But that concludes not my expressions chary in condemning all schism, but my care exact, not to misinterpret my Author.  
14. Next his discourse of the Roman Church being called catholic, is somewhat extraordinary; custom, saith he, which makes words prop●r, forces their very enemies to call them catholics; thence he concludes they are universally called such, and then, saith he, according to St. Austin no Church can be universally called such, which is not truly such.] To this I answer, 1. that his argument will equally hold for the gnostics that they were the most truly and profoundly knowing men, they calling themselves so, and their enemies the Fathers of the Church, confuting them under that title; whereas this universal custom could not praevail against St. Pauls words, that their {αβγδ} was {αβγδ}, Science falsely so entitled. So likewise would it hold for the Cathari, who were so styled by themselves, and by their enemies, and yet shewed to be impure, i.e. Schismatical by those that called them, as they called themselves, by that title of purity. Thus the Author of schism dispatched is both by himself, and by me, and all others called S. W. and yet neither he, nor I, nor any man are yet persuaded, that the Author is any otherwise than {αβγδ} so called. It seems, a small argument will serve his turn, when his interest combines with it, that he can conclude from the pursuivants asking for a catholic house, and every one showing him a Romanists, that therefore the Romanist is properly called catholic]▪ That custom is norma loquendi, so far as that I shall not offend, if I speak cum vulgo, and that I shall know the meaning of words abusively applied, and so understand, that he that is called a catholic is a Romanist, i.e. one who thinks himself truly a catholic, I had been taught; and so that he that was called Gnosticke, was an haeretick, that assumed the title of profound knowledge; but that that rule was so far to be extended, that the Romanist that was so styled, should be also the real interpretation of that name, i.e. an universal, any more than that Pope lo should be a lion indeed, or Pope Clement a merciful man, when he sent out his Bull of great severity, neither S. W. nor yet St. Austin have yet taught me.  
15. For in the second place, that Father certainly never defined, that no Church can be universally called such, which is not truly such. If none were universally so called in his time, but the true, that is all that he can be imagined to affirm, and that con●ludes not, but in other times heretics might assume the most honourable name, and by others be known, and so called by it, without ever deeming that it truly belonged to them. And if our calling them by a title which demonstrates their assuming to themselves more than belongs to them, shall be an argument of force that it doth really belong to them, what they assume, my logic I confess hath failed me; The plain truth is, in St. Augustines dayes the good and Orthodox Christians were called Catholici, and heretics and schismatics known by the names of their Leaders, Novatians, Donatists, &c. but that hinders not the altering of the Scene, as the Devil we know is not always obliged to appear in his own colours, he can transform himself, as far as a title goes, into an angel of light, and than reatus impii est pium nomen, the pious name is the guilt of the impious]( which is a known Maxim) would not very properly be interpnted, to this sense, that the title of catholics is a certain proof, that the Romanists are the only Orthodox Christians.  
16. That I treated of schism abstracted from heresy, he will needs censure, as a laying wrong grounds.] But I answer, that I loved not to speak of two things at once, and therefore reserved heresy to be spoken of by itself, and have accordingly since the publishing that of schism, given him, if he have vouchsafed to look on it, a Tract of heresy also, and vindicated the Church of England from the one, as well as the other guilt.  
17. His ninth Section of his Grammatical niceties and my ten several mistakes( his so many calumnies) shall sing to themselves, and entertain with their melody their own Muses, I will trust the most partial Reader to determine, whether I am guilty of but one of that catalogue of mistakes. All that I need say to the whole Section, is, 1. that whereas my Disarmer, a professed admirer of the Author and Apologist for Rushworths Dialogues, thought fit to accuse the Doctor for saying that the passive {αβγδ} was of the nature of the Hebrew Hithpael, and that this is observable in orher passives for want of conjugations in Greek, which the Hebrewes have, and p●ofesses to see no reason, 
Sch. Dis. p. 8.  why the Doctor should complain for want of Conjugations in the Greek Language, there being more there than in Hebrew, and now again resumes this, and raises great storms upon it, the Author of those Dialogues, his other self, makes the self-same general( which comprehends and includes the particular) observation, 
Second Dial. Sect. 10.  that the Greek wants those sence-varying Conjugations by which the Oriental Languages express themselves. From him therefore I hope he will receive so obvious an observation, though when it came from me, it was ridiculous, the difference being only this, that that Author made use of it as an argument to conclude the New-Testament language uncertain, and unintelligible, which with him is good catholic Doctrine, but I used it to infer that dangerous conclusion, that schism is a voluntary separating or dividing ones self from the Church of God.  
18. Secondly, that I hope I was not to blame to expect that the Printers errors should be noted in the Publishers Errata; and thirdly, that I have looked on schism disarmed p. 279. and find no such thing proved there, which here p. 90. he saith is the●e manifested plainly, Fourthly, that the King and Bishops of England renouncing the Popes Universal Pastorship differ widely from a boy calling his mother whore, and denying himself to be the son of his Father; and fifthly, that they that declared the Kings Supremacy in all causes, and so cast out the Papacy, as that signifies the Universal Pastorship descended to the Bishop of Rome from Christ, were not esteemed schismatics by the Pope himself, as hath formerly appeared, and so remained catholics in the Romanists own judgement, and must not now at this distance be condemned, upon no other account, but that they have rejected Oral Tradition, which yet, as hath also appeared, they are not proved to have rejected; And this is all I shall return to his ninth Section.   

SECT. IV.  
His tenth Section answered. His contradictory answers about speaking contradictions. Authority reconcilable with fallibility. Peters Primacy no proof of his Universal Pastorship. This includes falling at once into one kind of sin. The mayor part of a Roman council peccable, or fallible. The infallibility of Apostles no way argumentative for the like of the present Church. The many charges of weakness shew'd to be so many slanders.  
1. HIs tenth Section begins with a continued confident decree, which cannot be resisted, that I must be a pleader for such a weak Conscience as makes a man think he ought not to communicate with the Church, though the truth be on the Churches side. And when to his former suggesting of this, I had confronted my express words to the contrary, that such an one is in many respects criminous, and particularly in this, that he communicates not— His reply is, that he did not forbid me to speak contradictions. 
P. 62.  A little while since, when it served his turn, he could ask whether it were any wrong to them to affirm that Doctor H. and his friends will not speak contradictions] and here the only Reply to plain words is, that he will not forbid me to speak contradictions, which is in effect to give me leave to give him the lie in his former affirmation.  
2. But I shall not make use of his liberality, which his resolvednesse to say somewhat hath extorted from him, but view the Grounds of his conclusion, that I have contradicted myself, my four( as he fancies) contributions to his Windmill; Of which all that I need say is, that the three first are pure negatives, 1. That I allege nothing that will not serve others, give no distinctive sign of the goodness of mine above others, 2. that I praetend no rigorous evidences for our disobedience, 3. that I leave no grounds rationally to convince a man in error( to all which I answer, that I was not obliged to do any thing toward any of these at that time, i.e. to handle impertinently what no way belonged to me to consider, and the same account serves for my omission of answering his two pages, charged on me p. 95.) and the fourth cited from Chap. 4. Par. 9.( when there is no such place in my book) is, my position of the error in some cases on the Churches side] which how it shall found my pleading for those that refuse to communicate with the Church, when the Church is in the right, is a secret as yet unveiled, it being visible enough, that they may bring full testimony of some truths, and to deserve therein to be believed, who are found to fail in others, and so deserve it not.  
3. Accordingly the authority we allow our present Church in affirming any thing of faith, is that which it borrows from the grounds of her affirming, and may, one would think, be compatible with fallibility, when the Pope himself hath the Authority of Supreme Pastor still allowed him by S. W. after that Mr. White hath wholly divested him of his Infallibility.  
4. What follows of the infallibility of the Apostles and of the Church in testifying what the apostles from Christ had delivered to them, I refer to be compared with what was said in my Answer to schism Disarm. n. 7. and 12. of that Sect. 3. and shall only note that among the Apostolical Doctrines 
P. 98.  he mentions Peters being chief of the Apostles, and the Pope his Successor, which being contradicted by other Romanists, as hath been shewed, is yet, if it were granted, so far short of the pretended Universal Pastorship derived from Christ,( on which his whole cause depends, as appeared in his grounds) that it might, in a limited sense of Primacy, so as to found at Rome the chief Patriarchate, be acknowledged by us, and so all the rest that he hath there taken the pains to deduce about universal delivery or Oral Tradition( understanding it of that of the Primitive Church) without his reaping the least advantage to his cause by it.  
5. For as to the 
P. 98.  first pretended weakness, I answer, that the Church, which in some things( sufficiently attested to come from Christ) is certain of their truth and her faith, may on that ground justly oblige others to belief, though she be not, nor praetend to be infallible in all other things. And therefore there is a wide difference betwixt infallibility in teaching attested truths, and absolute or Universal Infallibility, for that extends to those things that are not thus attested.  
6. In his second charge of weakness, he requires me to manifest that all men may fall at once into any one self same kind of sin, And till I can do so, I must still be chid for not apprehending any but Saints and Angels and God to be impeccable] But 1. I discern not that necessity to be incumbent on me; Those are peccable, or subject, liable to sin( which is all I said) that do not fall at once into one self-same kind of sin. 2. My advantage depending not on the proving this kind of peccability to belong to all men at once, but only to the Church in the Romanists notion of it, i.e. to the present Church of Rome, however assembled or represented for the teaching or delivering any Doctrine, as a Doctrine of Faith, 'tis most evident, that as great a number of men, as they amount to, have fallen at once into one self-same kind of sin, I instance in the Idol-worship of the Heathens, into which there is no question, more nations and numbers of men, than those which constitute the Roman Communion, have in many the same ages been engulfed. But then 3. neither was it my concernment to evidence that all that make up the Roman Communion of any age, should thus be peccable, 'twas to my praetensions sufficient, that so great a part of an assembly of such, as might define an error conciliarly, i.e. the mayor part of a Roman council, be it that of Trent, or any other, might consent in commanding a 'vice, be it the worshipping Images, or the like. And none of his offers of demonstration can have any appearance of force against this kind of universal peccability. For to this there wants not such an universal conspiration as he talks of, in all men to cut their own throats to morrow. 'tis sufficient if a few being themselves in an error practical, use means, which praevail, to seduce, within the space of the sitting of a council, a mayor part of those that are present, to consent to the enacting of a Law for it. Or 'tis sufficient, if a false Doctrine in any thing practical, do by degrees get such an head, that it defy, and discredit all Opposers. And so in like manner for fallibility, it is not needful to our praetensions, that all and every member of the Church of God should conspire so to mistake or delude, as to tell any damnable and palpable lie,( though as great a number of men and far greater than those which make up the Roman Communion, may certainly thus mistake, witness the Mahomedanes in believing that their Mahomes was the Paraclete promised by Christ) 'tis sufficient, if either that which is true, but no part of the Faith once delivered, or that which hath not so much as truth in it, should by several steps and stages of progress get ground, and at length praevail with a prevailing part of them which met at the council of Trent, &c. for then that which was never delivered by the Apostles as de fide, shall be advanced to that presumption, and by that means propagate itself to all that aclowledge that council. And in this case that they which thus define a new article de fide, or they that teach it their children as 'tis defined, shall profess that it is true, and that it was taught them by their ancestors, perhaps that 'twas delivered down from the Apostles themselves, is no miracle of miracles, no stupendious prodigy, parallel, as S. W. suggests, to natures failing in the propagation of an entire species▪ but that which is ordinarily and regularly consequent to those few mens having received, and its being their interest to propagate that Doctrine, which by their diligence proves so successful in gaining Proselytes, and suffrages to its commencing an article. This answers all that he charges under the style of Third and Fourth weakness also.  
7. To his fifth charged weakness, the answer is unquestionable, that I that speak of separating from an erroneous or but fallible Church, adding that only Saints and Angels and God have the privilege of impeccable and infallible, could have no respect to the Church of the Apostles times, who were so far distant from mine, that I could not with any show of reason speak of them. And though if he asked of men doing their offices on earth, I could not pertinently answer of Saints in heaven, yet when the question was of mens now separating from any Church on earth, and he instanced in the Church of the Apostles, I might fitly say, as I did, that they are, and, at the time whereof I spoken, were in heaven, and therefore I could not be thought to speak of them. To this I add, that when two answers were given, his objection to the first took no notice of the second, which satisfied( as it was designed to do) what is now objected to the first.  
8. And when in his sixth he objects to that second answer, that it grants his instance to be true, my reply is, that it is contrary to no words of mine, nor interest of ours, that it should be so far true as I granted, viz. that they the Apostles should be infallible by virtue of Christs promise, and Spirit, in the founding of a Church, and delivering all his truth to it, For how can that come home, or be appliable to the pretended Infallibility of their present Church, any farther than that really accords with the Doctrine of the Apostles; and so far we aclowledge it infallible. And therefore if this be all, that the Romanist, as he saith, demands or professes that some men on earth, i.e. that once were there( meaning the Apostles of Christ, of whom only we there speak) may be infallible in some things, to wit, in things necessary for the salvation of mankind, we shall certainly agree, and I should hope never fall out again, if he would be consistent to himself, which he cannot be, when he will assert the same Infallibility to belong to his present Church, for sure that is not the proper interpretatation of the word [ Apostles]  
9. This gives answer to his three next accusations of weakness, 7. 8. and 9th, yea and to his 10th also, if it be remembered that some of those things which he praetends his Church infallibly to teach, as the Popes Universal Pastorship, &c. are no more branches of the Faith truly so called, delivered from the Apostles, than is the squaring of a circled, or whatsoever else he shall please playsomely to instance in, and in such it is( and not in the matter of competition betwixt the Goose pie and Shoulder of Mutton) that I question their Churches Infallibility.  
10. And then if it were granted, as in his 11th he demands, that their Depository or Church cannot mistake in delivering needful points( as I affirm not that they do, and though I cannot define of their powers, yet I cannot but think it a strange though never so just a degree of Desertion, and withdrawing of abused and long provoked Grace, if ever they should come to err in those few, which they have under all their corruptions thus long continued to believe) yet it would still remain that they might err in delivering those for needful, which are not, and that is all that we ever affirm of their Fallibility.  
11. This therefore is answer to his twelfth charge also, which will not permit me to hold what profess'dly I do, because he is of the same mind with me. My weakness, if we will believe him, is, that I unawares recurre to their Rule of Faith.] But 1. Can there be any truth in that? do I recurre to their Fundamental of Fundamentals, their professed sole Rule, Oral Tradition, and Infallibility of their present Church? Is there no difference between the Church of Rome of this age, and the Universal Primitive, which had the advantage of seeing and knowing, and infallibly testifying what was done by the Apostles in their presence, being {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, which St. Luke c. 1.2. mentions as a considerable circumstance in testifiers, to give infallible authority to their testimonies. 2. With what colour of reason doth he suggest that what I do, I do unawares? when he dislikes what I do, and thinks, or is pleased to style it falsifying, then, to be sure, it is my wilful, and deliberate action; But if I say that, from which he doth not( because he cannot with safety to his own dear Phaenomena) dissent, then forsooth I must have said it unawares and never mean to stand to it] I shall stand to it, as far as my reason engages me, but not so far as S. W's groundless application would extend it. I shall stand to it as far as the whole Church shall jointly testify their own sensations, that they heard or saw this, or that, so the Primitive Church heard what the Apostles taught, and saw the Epistles subscribed by their hands, and received by messengers of indubitable faith from them; And thus their Testimonies safely conveyed to us are now our Grounds of faith; But I shall not stand to it so, as to believe all those things to have come down from the Apostles( particularly the Doctrine of the Universal Pastorship) which S W. tells us did come down, and hath no reason of his affirmation, but the knack, or {αβγδ} demonstration of Rushworths Dialogues, which few of his own party, by his own confession, beside himself, apprehended to have any the least weight in it, and which hath already been considered, and allowed its utmost force, and been found to build on that as confessed, which is most denied by us, and in every view of it found to be nothing worth. Which I refer him to review in its proper place, And to his present question. Why if the Tradition of the Primitive Church be infallible, the succeeding Church should not enjoy the same privilege] the Answer at present is sufficient, that the succeeding Church is Infallible also in testifying their own sensations( which was all that was affirmed of the Primitive) that so the second age infallibly testified the Canon of Scripture to have been delivered them by the former, as delivered them by the Apostles, and so also the Fundamentals of Faith contained in the creed. But to bring in all the Roman Additionals under this parity of Reason, requires, as Vincentius tells us( not only the present testimony of some part of the Church, fortified by some pretended maxim, which hath also been proved to have no force with them, but) the consentient testifications of the whole Church in all and every age, which when S. W. shall proetend to, he shall have more regard from us, than as yet his abortive demonstration which concludes of all ages from one, i.e. of an universal from a particular, can expect from us.  
12. The 13th imputed weakness is no other but my affirming what he himself affirms, For when I said the Church is not considered as a society of Believers endowed with an chartable privilege, but as a number of witnesses— it was none of my concernments to have it imagined, that they did not first believe themselves ere they conspired to deliver it to their Children for true, All that I had to interpose was but only this, that the truth of the points is not founded on their( infallible) judgements, but depends solely on the Doctrine of Christ, testified by those that could not but know, that it came from him. Which when he acknowledges to be most certainly true, 'tis strange it should be a weakness in me to say it, believing it also on his very grounds here mentioned( though not on his elsewhere adored Fundamental and only Ground of faith, the Oral Tradition of the present Church) that points of faith are truths revealed by God, not productions of mens heads] which sure he learned from some of our wordish Testimonies, Faith cometh by hearing, and the like.  
13. What he adds to my neither saying I nor no to the question of the Protestants being infallible in witn●ssing that twenty years ago there were Bishops in England] and his tragical exclamations and ovations consequent, is most perfectly the Image of the old S.W. For my express words in that 14. Par. by him cited, are, [ that they do or probably can mistake in a thing of that nature visible before their eyes, I believe not.] Which what is it but my affirmation, that I believe them infallible in such matters, all that is meant by Infallibility in testifying, being this, that there can be no probable reason to doubt of the truth of his testification, and not that there is any natural impossibility that he should mistake, for thus we know deceptions even of sight are possible; And he that cannot be supposed fallible in a thing of his own sight, and therefore is a competent witness in that, may yet be more than fallible in other things; which as it was the only reason of the answer given him in that 14 Par. so it shew'd sufficiently the no advantage he gained to his cause, by this kind of Infallibility. And so much for the multiplied slanders, in which are founded the concluding boasts and triumphs of his 10th Section.   

SECT. V.  
Answer to his eleventh Section. Power without Infallibility. Captious exceptions. Distinguishing without torturing. A Church sufficiently assisted, nay actually in the truth, nay infallibly ascertained of that truth, yet in additionals fallible. Naturally fallible. S W's inferences how causeless. The Church is not supernaturally infallible. Yet the failing not in the supernatural principle. A fallible Christian Church more certain of her Faith, then Jews, &c. Difference between Faith cvi non subest dubium,& cvi non potest subesse falsum. Assent, and that not passionate, without belief of infallibility. Believing so far as not to disbelieve. S. W's mistaken triumphs. The Churches infallibility in some things. Her fallibility in others compatible with making decisions. Of inferiors acquiescing only.  
1. HIs 11th Section proceeds to a large review of the discourse concerning Mr. Knots concession, which being a mere digression both of the Cath. Gentl. and the Disarmer at the first( as appeared Reply Ch. 11. Sect. 3 n. 4. 5.) it must now be much more such, it being visible, that how pertinent soever it is to the controversy of schism, to consider the pretended Infallibility of their Church, yet 1. I had before that of schism written a large Treatise of dispute with Mr. Holland upon that subject of Infallibility, which I was not therefore to repeat again, 2. with that part of my discourse which only considered Mr. Knots concession, that it was lawful to separate or continue in separation from the Church of Christ, in case we could not without lying be permitted to communicate with it] 'tis as evident this hath no immediate connexion, and so must be looked on as a digression.  
2. This might pass for full answer to the whole Section, being a competent reason, why I should no longer insist on that which was at first a mere digression. However 'tis answer to what he saith in return to my( as he calls them) 2. first Trifles.  
3. To the third I answer, that a Church which is fallible, may upon praevailing reasons verily believe that to be true, which yet she knows not by any of her own sensations, and giving her children those reasons, which induce her belief, may reasonably also oblige them to believe in like manner; at least not so to disbelieve, as to teach the contrary to what she so reasonably believes. But still this believing somewhat on reasonable motives, is neither knowing this, nor believing her self infallible in all other things; Much more was said on this head, in that Section of the Reply, n. 13. to 20. to which I refer the Reader.  
4. As for the 4th I slipped not the point, nor leaped from believing to obeying, but thought fit to illustrate a pari, that a Church might teach, and require belief, as well as a Lawgiver command, and expect obedience, without being either of them infallible. The case I still think to be the same, for as on the one side the fallible teacher may propose errors, so the fallible Lawgiver may command sins, and the danger is as great to the Subjects in practising one, as believing the other, and God hath not placed us out of the reach of either of these temptations, nor is it necessary he should, as long as he leaves us rules, Scripture and Tradition, and reason, to try the one by, as his own commands and prohibitions, to examine the other. And then where is the affencted insincerity, that S. W. so loudly objects in this place? Besides, the Church having an authority to make laws, as well as teach Doctrines, to set forth Canons, as Articles, what crime was it, in stating the Churches power, to advert to each of these? this I there did, to the one n. 16. to the other n. 17, 18, 19. Certainly S. W's cause is a severe mistress, if it require him to make up whole Volumes of such cap●ious exceptions, as these.  
5. Next, the distinguishing of ambiguous words, and bringing his proposition into open light, is to him the same cruelty, as cutting off his eyelids, and setting him just against the Sun; he expresses his impatience of it( and what is that but an hatred of the light, and he knows the Original of that) by his complaint of being 
P. 109.  drawn and quartered with unheard of tortures.] But the more he complains, the more reason there is to use him to this kind of exercise, that by general ambiguous affirmations he may neither deceive others, nor himself.  
6. After this, he proceeds to the arraigning of these words of mine, Reply p. 15. that a particular Church that is in the right in all matters of Faith, and hath before it Scripture and Tradition, and skill in all those knowledges which are useful to fetch out the true meaning of the Scriptures, and ability to inquire into the ancient path, and compare her self with all other considerable parts of the Universal Church, and then is diligent and faithful to make use of all these succours, and in uprightness of hear● seeks the truth and applies itself to God in humble ardent continual prayer for his guidance to led into all truth, This Church is yet fallible, may affirm and teach false, i.e. this is naturally possible that it may, but it is not strongly probable that it will, as long as it is thus assisted and disposed to make use of these assistances and means of true defining.] These are my words at length, which he means to paradigmatize, and therefore 
P. 110.  calls for all my friends special attention. And I do so too, and his friends also shall be allowed room at the audience.  
7. And that neither may be misguided by him, I must require them to remember 1. that the Church, whereof I there speak, is expressly a particular Church, 2. that that particular Church is supposed to be in the right in all matters of Faith, I shall now add, that it may have had those infallibly testified by those that had them from the Apostles, and so is thus far infallibly in the right, as long as she adhaeres to that which she hath thus received. 3. that though 'tis possible she may, as other particular Churches have, fall from the true infallible faith, yet I spake not of that, but of her fallibility in other decisions, which were not de fide. 4. that by naturally fallible] I meant that effect of human frailty incident to our corrupt and infirm nature, which, when it is afforded sufficient, but not irresistible grace, is for all that grace, and the most diligent use of means, subject still, and liable to surprises, and other effects of infirmity. But then 5. these surprises are not strongly probable, as long as it is thus assi●ted, and disposed to make use of assistances. And therefore lastly, when at any time such a particular Church thus provided and assisted, falls into any error of Doctrine though not of faith( I exemplify in the Church of Rome defining things which the Apostles never defined, temporary pains of souls now in Purgatory, benefit of Indulgences to those that are now in those temporary pains, &c.) it is by not adhaering to these Rules, which she hath before her, Scripture and Apostolical Tradition; and if she doth not make right use of them, this certainly is either a crime; or a failing, a crime, if she wilfully, or through praevailing passion betray those succours which God or reason offers, a failng, if through surprise only she be ensnared, and drawn into that error, verily thinking it a truth; The former is a mortal sin, the latter pardonable by the {αβγδ} of the Gospel, But still both of them certain evidences of more than fallibility in her that thus falls.  
8. This clear explication of the case proposed will be sure to supersede all S. W's crafts, and silence his out-cries in this matter, and rebound the absurd affirmations on the accuser. For 1. how can it follow hence( what he is resolved to conclude) that it is still equally probable that it does err? Could any thing be more cautiously praevented, than my words praevented this, when I only said, it is naturally possible that it may, but not strongly probable that it will err.  
9. Secondly, can it follow from thence, what he again infers, that the faith of that Church and all that adhaere to it, hang in equal scales whether it be true or no] when for all matters of faith my supposition then was, that it was in the truth, and my addition now is( very reconcilable with that) that it may have had these so infallibly testified, that in teaching these it shall be infallible, though not in every thing else, which is no part of the faith. Is the faith of that Church which is in the truth in all matters of faith( without adding that it is also infallibly ascertained of that truth) in equal scales whether it be true or no?  
10. Thirdly, can I be blamed for saying no more than that it is naturally fallible? Certainly the fallibility that is in this case, flows from the principle of natural weakness or corruption. And if he will now ask, as he doth, Whether it be or be not supernaturally impossible she should err? I answer it is not supernaturally impossible, i.e. the gracious supernatural assistance which is afforded, doth not irresistibly raise that particular Church above possibility of sailing in any point. The grace may be neglected, and not made use of at all, and then it will fail criminously, or it may not be made use of with such perfect persevering diligence, as to exclude all effects of surprise and frailty, and then again it fails, though not so criminously, but according to our human measures of Ast opere in longo fas est obrepere somnum. and so still he sees a just reason, why after, reckoning up supernatural means of confirming her against erring, I yet concluded, that she is naturally fallible, because still it is from the failing in nature, and not from any defect in the supernatural principle, that she at any time fails. Such important solid grounds as these, and no other S. W. constantly hath for all his most contumelious ovations.  
11. Apply what hath here been said, to his next Paragraph about the Churches knowledge whether it err or not, and you have prevented all that can crave answer on that subject. For how can the defining a particular Church fallible in superstructures, though therein it so define, as not to doubt of the truth of her definings,( when withall at the same time it is supposed true, yea infallibly ascertained and rooted in all the branches of the Faith) be the making the Church no certainer of her faith, than Jews, Turks and Heathens are of theirs? Is all that the Jews, &c. believe, superstructures, or are they infallibly ascertained of their Fundamentals? The like holds of all the passionate Opinionators, heretics, &c.  
12. Lastly for his profound question, why if there may subesse falsum, may there not subesse dubium, or why should they not be bound to doubt of it?] I answer that wherever there may subesse falsum, there may subesse dubium, but it doth not follow that what may be, is, or ought to be; I supposed the Church, of which I speak; not to doubt of the truth of a point, which she defined, and therefore that she rationally defined it; And then of that Church that was supposed not to doubt, at the same time to suggest that she may doubt, is to no more purpose, then to suggest that she may do that which she doth not; And to think her obliged to doubt, when by a concurrence of motives and reasons she is morally obliged not to doubt, is to suggest contradicti●ns. And this is still all that S. W's prime, hopefullest arts arrive to.  
13. By the way, how doth it appear that falsehood in things wherein the faith is concerned( of which only I speak in that place) is falsehood in things concerning eternity? Can no man, that differs from the Church of Rome( and so must by the Romanist be thought to believe Falshoods) concerning Purgatory, &c.( wherein sure the Romanists faith is concerned) be saved? Let Mr. Whites book of the state of souls be advised with in this point. Meanwhile that it is passion that makes a Church, that hath not infallibility in all things, give assent in any thing, is one of the grand maxims of S. W's Rushworthian Divinity, which the Reader that hath full leisure, may combat with, if he please, but I have many greater engagements before me, though for ought I yet see, all Homogeneous.  

P. 113.  14. Such is his next discourse, which will needs have me total●y destroy belief, because in some sorts of things I think it reasonable, that a consent be by private men given to the Church in that which is proposed as most probable] This is the passage he cites, and upon it asks, Are they bound to believe the Church, when they have probability to the contrary? I answer, I spake of probability on the Churches side, not on the contrary, and so have no obligation to go farther out of my way, to consider his unseasonable quaestions; Yet I  told him of a thing called a bare yielding to the judgement of superiors; and that may take place in his proposed case; and exemplify yielding without a persuasion of infallibility.  

P. 114.  15. Next, his faculties improve upon his hands by using, for* he hath sprung a piece of atheism in the Shell, and from my speaking of a weak sort of belief in some weak persons, unable to search the Churches probable grounds( and that for some additional Doctrines only, as the whole discourse manifested) and from my defining that( not all their faith simply) to be a believing so far as not to disbelieve, he musters up a bedroll of absurdities. The first will give you a perfect judgement of all the rest, being exactly homogeneous, If, saith he, the measure of that belief to which the Church can oblige the ruder sort, be only to believe so far as not to disbelieve, then in reality she can oblige them to believe nothing at all] But who ever imagined this the measure of that belief indefinitely( for that is in effect of all that belief, to which the Church can oblige them) to believe only so far? How came the [ only] into that period? or how [ the measure of that belief to which the Church can oblige] 'tis visible, out of S. W's creative optic, and then let him answer for the ill consequences. I have oft assured him of my acknowledgement, that the Church hath infallible grounds for all matters of Faith, in those therefore she may reasonably oblige to more than not disbelieving, But of those I was not bound to( nor did I) speak in that place. Who could have thought that S. W's whole Army of hopeful triumphs, ready to be counted by the poll, would ever have vanished out of his hands so suddenly?  
16. His descant on the two 
P. 115.  propositions bears proportion with the former misunderstandings, and by the premised explication is competently seen through. An obligation to an infallible assent is or ought to be relative to some kind of infallible authority; Such there hath been, and is in the Church, of two sorts, one founded in Christs promised special presence and assistance to the Apostles, who thereby became infallible in preaching the faith, the other founded in a sufficient testification of the Apostles Doctrine in all necessary things, whether by their writings which Universal Tradition hath conveyed to us infallibly, or by word of mouth as universally attested by the Churches of their Plantations to be received from them; And in these also both the universal, and every particular Church, that adhaeres to, and forsakes no part of their depositum, is infallibly assured, and may infallibly teach, and require an infallible belief or consent, i.e. in all the matters of Apostolical Faith, the Articles of the creed, preached to all( and exacting belief from all) by the Apostles, into which consequently all are baptized. But for many other lesser things, the same particular Church which is infallible in these, may not only be fallible, but sometimes actually err, and yet retain an authority to make definitions, form Articles for her subjects( the fewer she makes, I suppose, the better) and require an acquiescence at least from all to such her determinations.  
17. In this sort of lesser things wherein the Church is fallible, and yet according to her best and soberest judgement makes decisions, how vain and ungrounded is S. W's supposition? 1. That the subject is certain that that is false, which his fallible Church proposes to him, 2. that it is a point of faith which concerns salvation not to err in( what two suppositions could have been more contrary to the case set, and which alone was spoken of in that place?) And how far from truth his suggestion, that a speculative p●int cannot be decided authoritatively, if the inferior be bound to acquiesce only? Is there no obedience in submitting, and not disquieting the peace of the Church, when I cannot assent? What if the next council of Romanists should define the Pope Infallible in his definitions, might not Mr. White call back his Tabulae suffragiales, and never divulge again that that were an Archibaeretical Doctrine, and live quietly in the Roman Communion? Or may he not now live in obedience to that Church, without believing a Purgatory of present Temporary flames? And if what I add of an absolute infallible belief to none but an absolutely infallible Church] be the granting, as he saith, the very point, affirming as much, as my adversary can reasonably demand, I wonder what reason he hath to complain; The fewer truths I find come from him, the less forward I shall be to deny him my concurrence in any thing where I may safely afford it him, desiring to have as much peace as is possible with every man, and not as many contentions.  
19. His rarity of the whole and half apple shows his faculty in making of Contumelious parallels, and that it seems, must serve his turn, instead of speaking or attending to plain truth. And thus much for his 11th Section.   

SECT. VI.  
Strictures on his twelfth Section. Faith imputed to impurity of passion. No faith, but knowledge with S. W. His dign●fying their present Church. Of the supposed imposs●bility for Parents to conspire to led their children in error. Some Fathers proceed by the Colliers faith. Mr. Whites Confession. Communion in error without conspiracy. Belief of a Churches infallibility a principle of general error. Many ways of introducing errors into a Church No demonstrativenesse of Mr. Whites new way. The present Church assured of some things, very fallible in others. The no ground of his thirteenth Section. Infallible belief of matters of fact concurrently testified. Concurrence of testimonies of fallible men, an infallible reason of belief. S. W's misrepresentations.  
1. HIs twelfth Section with the rare Sermon at the end of it( a special essay of S. W's faculty that way) is all either repetition of grounds of their Churches inerrability( already refuted when formerly laid) or of consequences( which cannot rise above the height of their fountain, the pitch of the grounds) or mere declamation and contumely,( which must not be encouraged so much, as to have the least regard, or return made to it.)  
2. Some things only I shall briefly note in his process, and leave the Reader to consider of them, As 1. that all assent which hath not its original from evidence( this, I take it, must include Faith, which is of things inevident) 
P. 118.  Springs from impurity of passion, i.e. of 'vice.  
3. So again that God either hath left no power to oblige to assent, or if he have, it must be sounded in evidence] The necessary importance of which I suppose to be, that I cannot by God himself be obliged to assent to any thing, but what is proved to me by demonstration, nor to believe but what I know, which immediately concludes that there is no Law of Faith, but only necessity of knowledge.  
4. Thirdly, that the present Roman Church( of that he must speak) hath no other motive to oblige any heathen to assent to her Doctrine, as far as concerns its having been taught by Christ and his Apostles, but the proposal of her own authority, millions and millions of Fathers in the( present Roman) catholic Church conspiring to witness those points of Doctrine were received from their Ancestors as from their, and so ascending upward, as from Christ.] Which as it gives the same authority to their present Churches praesumptions, as to the universal Testification of the first and purest times of those that were {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} of the Apostles, so it aequals the evidence of every article, that either this, or any one former age hath taken for Tradition, with the eternal divinity of Christ, the divine authority of the Scripture, or any thing which is attested to us most infallibly.  
5. Fourthly, that 'tis impossible that these Fathers( of families, Mr. Whites connatural way was wont to red Mothers) would conspire in any age to attest a notorious untruth, pernicious to their own and childrens eternal bliss.] When 1. understanding it, as we do, of additionals only, every such untruth is not pernicious to their seduced childrens eternal bliss. 2. 'tis more than possible for the far greatest number of Parents to go themselves, and led their children in the broad way whether of pleasure, or profit, that leadeth unto ruin, and S. W. hath not so numbered his Fathers by the poll, as to be able to affirm any more of any quaestioned Doctrine of any age, than that it hath been thus taught by the far greatest number of Parents. 3. 'tis more than possible also, that untruths may by some cunning seducers be so disguised, or by authority plausibly and definitively proposed, as not to be notorious to many. 4. What is but possible, and so is every thing that implies not a contradiction, as it is evident this doth not, is not impossible.  
6. Fifthly that 'tis impossible those so many Fathers could either err or mistake in things so visible, or contrive a conspiracy to embrace any one error, considering the several Countreyes in which they lived dispersed, and consequently their several natures, obligations, interests, and other manifoldly varying circumstances.] Whereas 1. every point of Doctrine is not a thing visible to the multitude of Fathers of Families, who perhaps never hear or know what belongs to some Doctrines, which the Church holds, but are 
Apol. p. 234. 71. 114.  oft allowed by Mr. White to proceed by the Colliers principle, believe as the Church believes, though they know not what it is, or as his style is, believe a knowing person in that wherein ourselves are ignorant( a maxim, saith he, that governs all our life public and private) 2. there is no impossibility for such great multitudes to err or mistake, when( whatever their Church is) not one of these Fathers mentioned is by them believed to be infallible, and then 3. there is no need of their contriving a conspiracy to embrace an error, their few Doctors may be either seduced, or overawed, or bribed by persons in greatest power to embrace an error,( as was visible when the Emperor was Arian, and in many other instances) and then they will uniformly deliver it to all that believe them, and understand it, and they that understand it not, will believe with the Collier, and they that believe not will be either silent, or unconsiderable, and soon put to silence, and an anathema, or a faggot will be sufficient to make any doctrine general, 4. The variety of Countreys, natures, interests, &c. can never produce an impossibility, or render it more than improbable, and a thousand probabilities are nothing, saith Mr. White, and as little the same number of improbabilities, and never were they less in any case than in this where the one motive being common to all that live within the Roman Communion, viz. a belief of their Churches Infallibility, whatsoever is proposed by the Governors of that Church, may universally be received, by all their subjects, how distantly soever dispersed, or natured, or interested, nay must, by necessity of immediate connexion, when once they have imbibed the principle, resolved that their Church is infallible, for then sure she which can err in nothing, cannot err in this.  
7. Sixthly, that 'tis impossible that if they would and could attest and introduce an error, it should not be most visible and palpable to the whole world, whereas 1. the far greatest part of the whole world, as that signifies the Fathers or Mothers of Families, do not in a whole age consider some Doctrines of their Church, or consequently are capable of comparing the old stock with a Roman Additional. 2. If they discern it, they may either out of love of novelties, like the change, and upon tendered advantages, like it better, or upon fear accept, and not express dislikes, or, upon persuasion of her Infallibility, never question what is entred into a Canon at Florence, or at Trent, and then what matters it for visibility and palpablenesse to the whole world.  
8. These last three propositions of his entitled his triple twisted Impossibility, are the result of his admired Dialogues, and the Apology for Tradition, and as many faileurs as there are in them( there are many more than I have now mentioned) so many evidences there stand upon record, that the New-Albian way of Oral Tradition, on which all the Dispatchers fortunes depend, fails of its demonstrative evidence; and then according to the rule in the front of this Section, all assent that is given to it must spring from impurity of passion, i.e. from 'vice, and consequently he will conclude, that God himself cannot command assent to it. What then must Mr. White take himself for, that so severely and inexorably exacts it of all his Disciples, that the Pope himself must be an Arch haeretick, if he come in competition with this more refined way, of his Fathers or Mothers, for the Infallibility.  

P. 120.  9. Seventhly, that their Churches sticking close to this Rule, of delivering only what she received as thus attested( which was the great begging the question, on which in his Grounds, all his demonstration for Tradition depended, the Minor in his grand syllogism, not offered to be proved) is again tendered in the like manner, without any offer of proof; But of this I must not again so soon enlarge, having so lately elsewhere spoken abundantly of it.  
10. As these fundamental propositions of his shall be found to have demonstrative truth, so his consequences shall be allowed the privilege of their connexion, to them, and by the same necessity fail of all degree of probability, if his grounds appear to have been mislaid, and to that issue I leave the whole dozen of them, and the Sermon cast in, to make up the weight.  

P. 123.  11. Only one special prodigy more may deserve to be called out from his tenth consequence, that my denying any company of men on earth( my words apparently must be understood of none on earth) to be infallible, is no less than the destroying at once all belief, and making it a sin to believe any article of the Christian faith, since if the Authority that conveys Scripture and Primitive Doctrine to us cannot be evidenced to be infallible, no man is bound to believe either, nay he must needs sin in praecipitating his assent without evidence to ground it.] Whereas I had thought, that the universal consent of the whole Church of the first ages( that were certainly competent testifiers) might so be conveyed to us, as infallibly to assure us of the Scriptures, and all Apostolical Doctrine, and that that Church of this age that were thus infallibly assured in many things, might yet be fallible in others, such as on their own discourses and reasonings, or but praetense of Tradition, they define without the like testification of their coming from the Apostles. And if my saying of this be as much as he says or desires( as 
P. 123.  himself confesses it is) one would think this might be the setting an end to this controversy. But then alas our new Preacher that hath not been oft in the Pulpit, would lose his Text, on which his harangue is prepared, and therefore it must be decreed, that I have contradicted myself, and so that my condition is but so much the worse, for having gone as far as he himself could desire of me. When will disputes be at an end, whilst these are the contrary arts and ways of aeternizing them?  
12. A like art it is which hath produced his whole 13th Section, where from my saying that 'tis in vain to speak of motives to return—( i.e. in plain terms, that we were excommunicated by( and did not separate from) them, and cannot now be readmitted to their communion without dissembling and lying, by which means our reunion is become impossible, and so 'tis a mere vanity to talk of motives to it) he makes no difficulty to conclude, that I profess myself uncapable to hear motives or reasons, and that it is in vain to speak of them to me, and what greater obstinacy than this? But suppose I had said 'tis vain to speak reason to S. W. who is so resolved to misunderstand, and put odious colours on all that is most innocently said and meant, would he conclude from thence, that I professed never to speak reason more, and so were resolved to subscribe all his infallible Dictates? The justice were equal on both sides; the case being clear, that what is made simply impossible by their tyranny and intolerable conditions, is thereby become vain to think or speak of to those that will not sin against conscience, and then what need we attend to more motives for what we desire already, when if we desired it more ardently, 'twere still as impossible as ever?  
13. What to my Replies concerning Antiquity and Possession( Repl. p. 20, 21.) he hath returned p. 129, 130. I desire the Reader to consult in the places, and so also concerning the fallibility of the testimonies of men in a known matter of fact, as that there was such a King as Henry VIII. which testimonies though in one respect I count fallible, because every man that hath testified it, is, as a mere man, but fallible, yet the concurr●nce of all men, that then lived, and since, in those testimonies assures me infallibly of the truth of it, so that no imaginable motive can beget any doubt of it in me, and so upon the strength of that reason I believe it infallibly.  
14. When therefore he saith that I account the reasons of believing that Henry VIII. was King— fallible, he must know, 'tis a misrepresentation, 
Repl. p. 22.  My words are, The reasons on which I believe it, are the testimonies of mere men, and so fallible] The word fallible he might, if he had pleased, have applied to what was next before it, [ mere men] and then it must have been evidently true, for sure mere men are fallible: But he might with more reason have applied it to [ testimonies of mere men] for of them 'tis visible that I spake it, by what follows [ the bare fallibility of those testimonies] but( against this evidence) he must mistake, and affix it to the first word, that the reasons of believing I account fallible] Whereas 'tis plain enough, that the testimonies, as they are of fallible men, being fallible, yet the concurrence of all men in those testimonies is an infallible reason, of which therefore no man can reasonably doubt.  
15. This kind of certainty, he saith 
P. 137.  I put as a parallel of the Protestants uncertainty, and challenges me to show the thousandth part of it for any point wherein we differ from them.] But this is another misrepresentation, 
Reply p. 21. Sect. 3. n. 34.  My words were, that the fallibility of the Protestants, whilst yet they are without doubting verily persuaded that their reasons have force in them, cannot make it possible for them to believe what they do not believe, or lawful to profess contrary to their belief, and this illustrated by believing the testimonies of Henry VIII. the fallibility of which testimonies( though 'twere supposed) would not make it reasonable for me to doubt of it, nor lawful to profess I do not believe it. What need then had he to take such solemn pains to prove that it is demonstrable, there was such a man as Henry VIII. which I believe as much as he, and believe as infallibly as he would have me? What then follows to the end of the Section is unsignificant, and so I give it leave to pass.   

SECT. VII.  
His fourteenth Section. schism against the whole Church. S. W's logic of sacrilege found in every theft. His suggestion of my denying authority of councils. Power of a council of Bishops over one Bishop. Omitting to enlarge of councils is not leaving out that branch of schism. S. W's strange misrepresentation, by inserting of words in my period.  
1. HIS 14. Section well provided with ovation and reports of his victories, I most willingly adventure to the Readers judgement, who shall compare it with Repl. Ch. III. Sect. 1. and doubt not but he will believe, that if I vindicate the Protestant from having separated from any one Father or Brother in the whole Christian world, I have freed him from dividing from the whole Church, and from the authority of councils, it being impossible to separate from the whole without separating from any one part of the whole, or from councils, which are made up either of all the Bishops, or of a greater or smaller number of them, in ease he be vindicated from having separated from any one of those Bishops.  
2. What a gainlesse exerxcise then must it be to the Reader, should I survey his several arts to make this plausible, which is as far from being possible, as an universal affirmative[ communicating with all] is unreconcilable with an universal negative, such is communicating with none( and[ separating from the whole Church] is the interpretation of that) or even with a particular negative, there being not any one man in the world, with whom I refuse to communicate; For if there be any such, he must be my Superior, or equal, or inferior, and that we have not separated from any of these, is the undertaking, confess'dly, of that Tract of schism.  
3. His first encounter against that which is so palpable may deserve to be taken notice of, as an essay of what is to be expected from the rest. schism, saith he, against the whole Church is not comprised in any one head, because it is in an higher nature sinful, and so exceeds it. As if he had said, the Virgin Mary is not comprised under the head of women, because she is more excellent than other women, and so exceeds it. His own instance will clear the matter as well as any could have been picked out. Sacrilege, saith he, and Parricide according to the common notions are found indeed in every simplo theft and murder, but according to their specifical differences they exceed them, and so are not comprised in them. As great a miracle in logic, as Mr. White is said to be of wit. For 1. is it possible that any man should imagine that sacrilege is found in every simplo theft? What sacrilege( in any the most common notion that includes sacrilege, and if it do not so, 'tis bare theft, not sacrilege) is found in stealing a horse out of a Lay-mans Stable, when neither the man, nor the horse, nor the Stable, had any sacred relation upon them? Or what Parricide in each bloody Duel, that is fought betwixt Strangers, that met and quarrelled yesterday at the Ordinary? There is one of S. W's rarities of refined logic, instead of which, he that were guided by ordinary rules would have said that sacrilege and Parricide according to their common notions are found under the general heads of theft and murder.  
4. But had S. W. descended to this puling mean spirited vulgar idiom, he could not have maintained life to the end of his period, for that concludes with a second rarity; that according to their specifical differences they are not comprised in them] Is not a man according to his specifical difference comprised in a living creature which contains in it both rational and irrational living creatures? And so is not sacrilege comprised in theft, which contains purloining of any thing whether common or sacred? and is not Parricide contained under murder, when murder contains all killing whether of superiors or aequals? And what if killing superiors be a greater sin, than killing of aequals, is not the greater comprised in the general word, as well as the lesser? Are not these fine nets, and laws, and generical words, that catch hold only of the lesser, and let go the greater? Such extracts of sublimed sense S. W. hath communicated to us, in his attempt to prove that a man may be guilty of the highest, when he is perfectly free from any even the lowest degree of sin? Might not another mans Disciple, as well as Mr. Whites, have retained, without boasting of it, as much logic, as this Magistery hath appeared to arrive to?  
5. Such stuff as this the whole Section is made up of, and must not with ordinary charity be minutely insisted on, only I cannot omit to reflect on one most scandalous suggestion most causelessly whispered against me, that I seem to doubt whether councils have any authority, and durum telum necessitas] applied to it; When he cannot be ignorant of the authority we allow councils, and when all that I was in that place guilty of, was the framing a Dilemma, which part soever of which he took, it was manifest his cause was overthrown, thus, Either the councils, that are supposed to be left out of my Scheme, have some authority over him that is accused to divide from them, or they have none; If they have any, that( said I, and must still affirm) must be reducible to paternal power( as made up of those under whose authority he is placed, be it a Diaecesane, Provincial, National, or General council) If they have none,( as a council of Spaniards have none over an English man) any farther than by way of counsel and advice, that will directly fall under the head of fraternal charity.  
6. Meanwhile it is evident, that as I aclowledge the just authority of councils of all sorts from Diaecesane to General, and that as paternal to all that are subject to each, so I 
Repl. p. 29.  then affirmed expressly that the power which belongs to the Bishops in each Province( and the proportion holds in a Nation, and the whole world) is united in that of a Provincial council, where all the Diaecesane Bishops are assembled( which again he strangely disguises; and misrepresents, making me to say no more, but that the offence against the whole was consequently an offence against any one there residing,( he should have said against every one, and consequently against all that have authority over him) and the despising of that is an offence under the first sort of schism, that of dividing from, or disobeying our superiors.  
8. In defence of his great subtlety he proceeds to ask an abstruse question, What paternal power hath a company of Bishops over a single Bishop? I answer, the same that any Aristocratick Government hath over every single member of it, and this, I take it, is as Paternal, as in a Monarchy, monarchic power could be.  
9. But because having mentioned this of councils of all sorts, I did not, for some reasons particularly mentioned, proceed to handle the authority of Councells, or any other question on that so large head of various discourse, farther than to say, that the Emperor when those last remedies were seasonable, had power of convoking Universal councils( as every Prince in his own Dominions National) hence he is qualified by his gifts, to conclude that I confess I treated not specially against schism against general councils, and presently interprets that my confessing my division of schism insufficient, which was only objected. But I pray how can my omitting to handle one part more largely, or contenting myself( for reasons to me convincing) to have name it, infer my not naming it at all, or excluding it quiter out of my Scheme? Which if I visibly and confess'dly did not, 'tis then as visible and confessed, that my division was not insufficient, or maimed in that respect.  
10. What he adds p. 241. of my divination that towards the end of the world I think it probable there may be a General council, and his reason which his best auguries can give of it, that Antichrist who is to be then the Universal secular governor, and by consequence according to D. H's grounds the head of Gods Church, or Supreme in Ecclesiastical affairs, will do Christianity that favour as to gather a General council, adding that this if any must be my meaning, is, all of it put together, as unparalleled an unsincerity, as Antichrist himself, of whom he speaks, with his {αβγδ}, was likely to be guilty of.  
11. I( that believe Diogenes spake very reasonably, when beholding the soothsayers he cried out {αβγδ} man was the most ridiculous of creatures) could not but behold with some amazement such words cited from me, that toward the end of the world I think it probable there may be a General council] Could I writ in so deep a sleep, as to transcribe what I never remember to have been the matter of my dream? Yet these are S. W's plain words [ towards the end of the world he thinks it probable there may be one] But looking nearer, it was observable that [ towards the end] and [ probable] being put, as citations, in italic letters, the[ of the world] and[ he thinks there may be one] were not so noted, and then 'twas obvious to smell one of S. W's arts, and therefore looking on my words, 
P 30.  Repl. Ch. III. Sect. 1. n. 13. I found to my astonishment( what I could not be so uncharitable to have suspected) none other than these words of mine [ the congregating of the like( when possible, and probable toward the end) is recommended p. 158. as a supply, when there should be need of extraordinary remedies.]  
12. Can there be any question of the sense of these words, that when the congregating of councils is 1. possible to be had, 2. probable to conduce toward the end, to which councils have been or should be alway designed, then I recommended the assembling of them, as supplies, &c. And behold a metamorphosis by one slight of hand, inserting [ of the world] and then I that have written an entire dissertation, to prove that Antichrist was already come in St. Johns times,( not, as 
Christ. Doctr. c. 3. p 65.  Bellarmine teaches his Catechumeni, that toward the end of the world he will endeavour to deceive us, but I say, that he was long since come) in the Infancy of Christianity, must now turn an extemporary Augur, and Southsay of Antichrist, an Universal secular Monarch, towards the end of the world, and what not, when S. W. hath decreed to have it so.  
13. To all the forty and four false dealings in his Index amassed together, I shall oppose this one Peccadillo of S. W. and if it do not outweigh them all( in pressing toward the abyss) as much as the grossest falsehood can truth, I shall be content to lie under as great a load, as his arts can provide for me. And so I take my leave of this Section( and of his captious suggestions, which constantly partake of some degree of this craft, though it do not always arrive to this perfection of visible unhappiness) having to his grand question [ why I treated not of schism against the King] given competent satisfaction in the Answ. to Sch. Disar. Ch. VII. Sect. 5. n. 4. if he had been at leisure to red so far, instead of 
P. 144.  saying, that, as it appears, we decline to own the Supremacy of Kings in sacred matters. How truly, he may judge by what is there largely said in defence of it.   

SECT. IV.  
His fifteenth Section. Of retrenching the Roman Patriarchy. His mistaking the question. Difference between Metropolitical power and Patriarchate. Ruffinus's words only of the former, and so mine. The double use of the word Patriarch. The City of Rome and Italy distinct Provinces. His causeless censure of the unintelligible testimony. The strange contumelies heaped on Ruffinus, without all provocation. Christs precepts how much for our ease, if obeied. St. Jeroms displeasure to Ruffinus. Palladius's testimony of him. Erasmus's censure common to him and Hilary( his mistake of Orbis Deucaleon) His calling James Bishop of the Apostles. His grounds for it. The agreement of others, Hesychius, the author de aetat. Eccl. His rendering {αβγδ} Macarius. The mistake of Pamphilus for Eusebius. S. W's rendering of the Nicene Canon. His proofs uneffectual, and his rendering disproved. St. Basils testimony little for the Popes credit. St. Jerom and he, only for his Patriarchate of the West. So Nilus and Zonaras their words.  
1. HIs fifteenth Section is all spent on my retrenching the Roman Patriarchy, as the catholic Gentleman was pleased to call it, and vindicating Ruffinus. And many artifices he hath made use of, to advance from hence a seeming exception against the Tract of schism.  
2. To clear this whole business, it must be remembered how this dispute began. What I first said on that subject, came in 
See Tr. of schism, p, 50, 51. l. 3. p. 52. l. ult.  incidentally, and only as an example of Metropolitical power, in Scripture and the first antiquity, as in Timothy, and Titus, and James of Jerusalem, and the Angels of the seven Churches, so in the Bishop of Rome over the Province, or Region to him belonging, called the Urbicarian or Suburbicarian, as distinguished from the Province of Italy, under the Archbishop of Milane. This was then set down at large from several passages of ancient story, and from the observations of Leschasser, and Mr. Brerewood, and from Ruffinus's Paraphrase of the Nicene Canon. Then in the Reply to Cath. Gentl. it was resumed, and in every part vindicated. And now the Dispatcher comes with his renewed assault, and his first undertaking is to evidence that the question was of the extent of the Roman Patriarchy.] I might be allowed to know best, what was the subject of the question, but I shall not assume so much to myself, but leave it to the Readers eyes, which will find it most evident and certain( as hath been shewed from the first proposing of it) that it was of the Metropolitical power of the Bishop of Rome, never mentioned by me in any opposition to any greater dignity, than of the chief Primate, or Patriarch of the West, which he( long after Ignatius's time of which I speak) obtained, but only as a pattern of Metropolitical power in the infancy of the Church. This being adverted to, takes away the whole dispute between us in this matter, for I that confined the Bishop of Rome his Metropolitical power to the Suburbicarian Region, never doubted but his Patriarchate extended farther, to the whole West, as hath oft been granted by me.  
3. But, saith he,( in despite of my gainsaying, or appeal to the Readers own eyes, or testimony concerning my own words) it is evident the question is of the Roman Patriarchy. And how is it evident? Why, both by bringing Ruffinus's testimony upon the stage, who acknowledg'dly spake of Patriarchal Jurisdiction, as also by the Doctors words Repl. p. 33. l. 2. and p. 34. l. 4, 5. But as to the citations from my Reply, the Reader will easily satisfy his own eyes, that I had respect only to the catholic Gentlemans word( and used it only as his dialect, who had called it the Roman Patriarchy) and so demonstrated p. 33. that that Province of the Patriarch of Rome i. e. that which I had called the Province of the Bishop of Rome, but he the Roman Patriarchy, extended not to all Italy, and p. 34. I speak expressly of the Praesidency of the Bishop of Rome, as that which I suppose he must mean by the Roman Patriarchy, but therein never dreamed of that greater dignity among Primates, whereby 'tis vulgarly known there were first three, and after five patriarches in the whole world, and the Bishop of Rome the first of these, and Patriarch of the whole West, and so of a greater extent than the Picenum Suburbicarium, yea than all italy, which yet never belonged to his Metropolitical power.  
4. As for Ruffinus's speaking acknowledgedly of Patriarchal Jurisdiction, 'tis suggested without any colour of truth, for 'tis evident, I bring Ruffinus's words Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerere, to declare only the extent of his Metropolitical power. And besides I have oft shewed that patriarches, as they differ from metropolitans and Primates, have no Jurisdiction, but only an addition of honour or dignity, and if by the phrase he should mean no more, but the {αβγδ} or honourable privileges of a Patriarch, in distinction from a metropolitan or a Primate, then 'tis certain Ruffinus is not acknowledged to have spoken of those, nor consequently I by citing the testimony of Ruffinus. And so there is the upshot of his evidences.  
5. And then with what face can he 
P. 154.  say that I conclude against the extent of the Patriarchal power by impugning the farther extent of the Metropolitical, when 'tis certain I only speak, in that place, of his Metropolitical power, and never so much as glance at his Patriarchate at all. 'tis true I 
Tr. of Schis. p. 54.§. 21.  after said, in another Paragraph, that that of Primates or patriarches was an higher degree, than that of Archbishops and Metropolitans, but this is in that notion of Primates, wherein 'tis 
See Tr. of Schis. p. 57.  known there were fourteen of them in the whole Empire, each of which might sometime be called Patriarch, but not in that use of the word Patriarch( more received) wherein there were but three, the Bishop of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch,( till Jerusalem and Constantinople were added to the number) and by this latter saying of mine of that other matter, no more can be concluded but this, that as the Bishop of the City of Rome, was also Metropolitan of the Suburbicarium, so he was, in another capacity, one of the fourteen Primates, and one, and the chief of the whether three or five patriarches, But still this is not to confine the extent of his Patriarchy to that of his Primacy, or the extent of his Primacy to that of his Metropolitical power, any more than I confine the extent of his Metropolitical power to that of his Episcopal, making the bare City the subject of the one, and the Suburbicarium of the other.  
6. All this is so manifest in my first handling this matter, and since in my defence of it, that for him still to affirm with all confidence that I 
P. 145.  blunder and 
P. 146.  mix and jumble authorities together for my own ends, is a most palpable slander, upon which alone is founded all that he hath put together against me and Ruffinus in this whole Section, neither of which have said a syllable against any Romanists interests in this matter, if the catholic Gentleman at first, and since S. W. had had the patience to understand plain words, instead of feigning adversaries, and then confuting them.  
7. Next he arraigns my testimonies which I produced, as manifestations that the Province of the Bishop of Rome was distinguished from the Province of Italy, which I said could not have truth in them, if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy( by the way, and to supersede his farther mistaking, by Patriarch of Rome must be understood in this place, the Metropolitan of the Roman Province, which the catholic Gentleman, not I, but as from him, called the Roman Patriarchy.) Against my testimonies his objection is, that there is not one word found in any of them making mention of the Patriarchy, nor yet of the Province of the Bishop of Rome at all, nay the three first only mention the City of Rome.] I answer for the mention of the Patriarchy, it matters not, that was not my word, but the catholic Gentlemans, not understanding or not adverting to the common use of words, nor is it my interest to maintain it, but the contrary rather.  
8. But for the mention of the Province of the Bishop of Rome it is enough that it is in every of the testimonies so expressed, as to oppose the City of Rome to Italy, for that shows that these were not the same, but distinct Provinces, and to all that understand any thing of the style of the old Lawyers, or the Notitia Provinciarum, is known to signify the famous division into the Province or Region Suburbicarian, and the Province of italy, and in the fourth or last of the testimonies there is express mention of Provincia Romana, as in Ignatius's Epistle 'tis called {αβγδ}, the place of the Region of the Romans.  
9. Of that fourth testimony he hath pleased to take so much notice, as to resolve that it is not intelligible in the latin, and, as I cannot( saith he) but know, very corrupt. The words are these, 
council. To. 1. p. 266.  Ex urbe Roma, quos Silvester Episcopus misit, Claudius et Vitus Presbyters Eugenius& Quiriacus Diaconi. Ex Provincia Italia civitate Mediolanensi Orosius Episcopus, Nazaraeus Lector, and afterwards Ex Provincia Romana, civitate Portuensi Gregorius Episcopus. From the City of Rome, Claudius and Vitus Presbyters, Eugenius and Quiriacus Deacons, sent by Bishop Sylvester, or whom Bishop Sylvester sent. From the Province of Italy, from the City of Milane Orosius the Bishop, Nazaraeus the Reader. From the Roman Province from the City of Portua Bishop Gregory. Is not this plain and intelligible latin? Where did the Club of wits confer, or what shift have they made to persuade any man else, or themselves, that 'tis unintelligible, and not simply corrupt, but very corrupt? If S. W's 
Who hath set it Ex urbe Roma quod Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provincia Romana, only mending in the table of Errata, quod into quos, but not inferring the Comma after misit.  Printer have not those wits in his belly, I know no man on earth, that doth or can think either corrupt or unintelligible, but as distinct, and express, as any thing could be imagined, to make difference betwixt the City of Rome,( strictly taken for no more than the City) the Roman Province, and the Province of Italy, and if it mean( as now he saith) the Popes Metropolitical Jurisdiction, never so much as naming his Patriarchal, that he knows, is the very thing I would have, and for the proving it produced that, and the other testimonies.  
10. What he concludes from my treating of the four Praefecti Praetorio in Constantines time, that the Patriarchy of Rome must needs extend to all Italy] hath already been answered, viz. that as a Primacy is of a larger extent, and power, than the Metropolitical authority, so 'tis granted, that all Italy was under the Primate of Rome; but he now knows I spake only of the Metropolitical power of that Bishop, and that extended not to all Italy.  
11. And now what can be more confident, and more groundless than that all my testimonies are finally reduced to that authority from Ruffinus? When every testimony that I brought( being understood, as alone the ancient style permits them to be understood) and the Subscriptions in the council of Arles, expressly and irrefragably define the very same thing; which also is farther confirmed, and I hope must not in any reason be blasted by the addition of the clear words of Ruffinus, of which being not confident enough to say again, as so lately with no greater reason he did, that they are unintelligible and very corrupt, he must fly to new arts, but yet those with which he hath been long acquainted, of calling him a 
P. 149.  great Knave, and accusing him of 
P. 151.  syllinesse and ignorance of propriety of speech, 
P. 153.  and doltish ignorance, the monster of that and all future ages for eminence in that talent, and at once concluding him 
P. 151.  a knave and fool both, and as if that were not enough, with the addition of Old Knave and old Fool, for no other reason but because he was an ancient Writer, And all this his but just reward, that he durst say, what, merely for want of understanding, S. W. would not have had him say, though when it were duly weighed, it is as much for his turn, as mine, i.e. wholly impertinent to the main cause betwixt us, of schism, and as much to the retrenching the extent of the Roman Patriarchate, the passage belonging wholly to the Bishop of Rome his Metropolitical power, and not his dignity Patriarchal.  
12. What an infelicity then is it to fall into the hands of a displeased S. W. whose passion will not permit him to discern whether Ruffinus have done him any wrong or no, and whose principles of bitter zeal praesently break out into Great Knave and fool, and dolt and monster, where ever he but apprehends himself or his cause to have received the least opposition. How much better were it to look, before he leaps into such impertinent unprovoked rages, or to resolve on the Apostles method towards real, much more fancied enemies, of overcoming evil with good. What is eminently observable in Christs Supplemental precepts, that they are not additions of burden to human life, but make the former laws of nature more easy and practicable, will be very appliable to S. W. in this matter, for had he made conscience of calling his Brother Racha, or thou fool, he had never been guilty of those other excesses against nature and common humanity, of accumulating those highest contumelies and slanders of Knave and old Knave on one who had not deserved the least ill of him.  
13. As it is, I shall not, I hope, now need farther to vindicate( him with whom I have had nothing to do, but as he is a Paraphrast of that one Canon) from all the accusations that St. jerome( and 
See De vero usu Patr. p. 278.& 279.  Mr. Daille, only out of St. Hieroms opinion, and as an instance how that Father dealt with his adversaries) hath heaped upon him, as an Origenist, or a Pelagian, with either of which heresies this Canon certainly is not defiled by him.  
14. 'tis certain St. jerome was a passionate Writer, and 
Hoc unum denuntio& repetens iterum iterumque monebo, cornutam bestiam petis. Hieron. contr. ruffian, To. 2. p. 311. B.  again and again tells Ruffinus, that he must know that he deals with an horned beast. And such indeed his severe and goring language approved him to be. And then no wonder at any thing that is cited from him. 'tis certain others, which knew as well, have given another manner of character of Ruffinus, witness Palladius Lausiac. Hist. C. 118. who speaking of him, affirms, {αβγδ}, there was not found among men any thing more knowing and more mild, or temperate, or moderate than he; and if the latter of these were, or because it might be the reason, that he was not so diligent in defending himself, and paying St. jerome in his own Coin, it will not be just to impute it to the want of the former.  
15. 'tis here suggested against him from Erasmus, that he took to himself not the liberty of an Interpreter, but the licence of a Contaminator of other mens writings. This is cited from his 
β. 3.  preface to Hilary, but looking it there, the words ly thus, hilary never translated any thing out of Greek but with that liberty of rendering the sense at his own pleasure, leaving out also and adding as he thought good. Poggius took the same liberty in translating Diodorus Siculus, and Ruffinus in all almost that he rendered, specially in the Books of origen, and Eusebius's History, But this, saith he, is not the liberty of an Interpreter, but the licence rather of one that contaminates other mens writings. Where 'tis evident he charges no more on Ruffinus, than on St. Hilary himself, 
β. 2.  of whom yet in the same preface he tells us, that St. jerome that almost contemned St. Augustine, and attributed not much to St. Ambrose, doth yet with so much veneration city hilary, that he calls him sometimes the Deucalion of the world,( where, by the way, I think that learned man was miastaken, applying to Hilarius Pictav. what Jerom had spoken of Hilarius Diaconus, that joined to Lucifer Calaritanus in his schism, and went farther, to rebaptize as many as had lapsed in time of persecution, and for that cause was called Deucalion by St. Jerom, as is manifest in his book adversus Luciferian.) the Trumpet of the latin speech, the evan, or great River of latin Eloquence, and much more in the profusest commendation of him.  
16. Among the special ignorances imputed to Ruffinus, it is one, that he in Hist. Eccl. Euseb. l. 2. c. 1. makes of James Bishop of Jerusalem, James Bishop of the Apostles; Whether he did rightly translate Eusebius herein, I need not inquire, for if the Greek Copy before him had then, as now it is in our books,[ {αβγδ}] it is sure he could not truly render that, [ of the Apostles] But then there is as little reason to impure that mifrendring to his doltish ignorance; for it cannot be imagined that he that translated a Greek Author, should not know the true rendering of {αβγδ} Jerusalem. It is therefore unquaestionable, that either the Copies he used, had {αβγδ} of the Apostles, where we now have {αβγδ} of Jerusalem, and then he is not so much as blamable in the least degree, or else that reading as we do, he used the liberty of a Paraphrast, as 'tis sure he oft did, and whatever other crime this Paraphrase shall affix upon him, be it that which St. jerome chargeth on him, of being a Contaminator of other mens writings, yet still this is far enough from S. W's present charge, that of monstrosity for doltish ignorance. But even for all other guilts in this Paraphrase, it may not be amiss a while to examine, before we credit S. W. that he was the monster of that and all future ages. And first in that very 
l. 2. c. 1.  place of Eusebius, where from Clemens we red, that James the Just was chosen Bishop of Jerusalem, this other passage is subjoined from the same Clemens, that the Lord {αβγδ}, delivered the knowledge or faith, after his resurrection to James the Just, and John and Peter, {αβγδ}, they delivering it to the rest of the Apostles, and the rest of the Apostles to the seventy. And if this were so, what great iniquity, or contamination was it, to call this James, which was one of those three, a Bishop of the Apostles, the delivering the faith to them being not incompetent to have given him the yet higher title of an Apostle( I say not, the, by way of eminence over all, because John and Peter are joined with him in it, but an Apostle) of the Apostles. Nay farther yet, were not the Apostles at this time all of them members of the Church of Jerusalem? If they were, then those very Apostles, nay the principal of them, making him, whilst they abode there, Bishop of Jerusalem, i.e. of the Church there, what monstrous absurdity was it to call him Bishop of the Apostles? as when so many Bishops of a Province choose, and ordain their Metropolitan. That this had truth in the utmost propriety, I need not interpose my sentence, lest it solemnly commence a new head of controversy between S. W. and me, every word that is said, like the teeth sown, being so apt to spring up into a contention. 'tis sufficient to the refuting of him, if I give him some instances of the like sayings in that or future ages, for then he is not the monster of all; And first let him consult these passages in 
Ap. Phot. {αβγδ}. p. 125.  Hesychius a Presbyter in this Church of Jerusalem, who styles him, in Photius's Epitome( from whom alone we have this book, as many others) {αβγδ}, the chief Captain of the new Jerusalem, the Leader of the Priests, the Prince or chief Ruler of the Apostles, adding more, which I shall reserve for another occasion, this being sufficient for the present, to keep any man from deeming it a Prodigy, that he that is styled the {αβγδ}, should be called the Bishop of the Apostles. I shall add but one more, 
Cap. IV.  the Anonymous Author de Aetatib. Eccles. near three hundred years since, who from this very testimony of Clements in Eusebius, thinks reasonable to conclude, quod Jacobus supper Apostolos accepit principatum, that James received a principality over the Apostles, and sedem Domini Jesu accepit possidendam, received the See of our Saviour to possess; Let this serve to remove the first great prejudice against Ruffinus.  
17. The second, of making the Greek word {αβγδ} happy, a Saint by name Macarius, I cannot account for, not guessing, as I am not directed, what passage it refers to, but sure the error, if it be any, is not monstrous, nor much above the proportion of those that render {αβγδ} Lu. 1. and Act. 1. Theophilus, and {αβγδ}, Dorcas, especially when a Saint if dead, is so solemnly called {αβγδ}, whatsoever his name be.  
18. His third instance of doltishnesse is that he makes of Eusebius of Pamphilus haeretick and Arian, Pamphilus catholic, and Martyr, where I shall not inquire why he choose so obscure a phrase, as to English ears [ Eusebius of Pamphilus] must be,( The Reader might understand it, as well, as before he did Simon of Cananee) but suppose there was design in it, to make Ruffinus's mistake more gross, and yet more credible, by the affinity betwixt the names, Eusebius of Pamphilus, and Pamphilus, and yet the distance betwixt the men, the one an haeretick and Arian, the other a catholic and Martyr. But there is somewhat more in that agnomen of Eusebius {αβγδ}, than the Reader was to be  told of. He was so called because of the great friendship between him and Pamphilus( and S. W. that resolves the one to have been an haeretick and Arian, may learn from thence, that a catholic and Martyr may have the closest friendship with some that are called heretics) so we have it in the life of Eusebius, {αβγδ}, because of his friendship to Pamphilus, he had that agnomen given him, And as he was his special friend, 
Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 8. c. 17.  the dearest and most loved of all his acquaintance, so he was his fellow Student too, {αβγδ}, saith the Writer of his Life, he together with Pamphilus was the most diligent Searcher of the Divine Library( i.e. of Origens and other Ecclesiastical Writers Books, as Eusebius interprets the phrase, {αβγδ}.) This near acquaintance, I say, and communication of studies was the Original of this title, or agnomen of his, {αβγδ}, Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus, or Pamphilus's Eusebius, And then, as they red, why might they not writ Books together? And so that apology for origen may have been laboured between them, and so Ruffinus not confounded these two persons,) or take one for the other, an haeretick for a catholic, an Arian for a Martyr( as S. W. will needs have it) but say that book was written by Pamphilus, which yet is acknowledged to be written by Eusebius. That this is not a bare possibility, or whimpering may be, as he is elsewhere pleased to speak, but indeed the single truth of the matter, I appeal to his own Baronius, Tom. 11. Ann. 256. n. 40. or to a more authentic witness, Eusebius, that best knew, in his 
{αβγδ}.  ecclesiastic History, where speaking of origen, he saith, {αβγδ}. What was necessary to declare concerning him, may be red in an Apology laboured by us and Pamphilus the holy Martyr of our time, which we labouring together composed with diligence for their sakes who love to find fault. Which concludes irrefragably that the Apology for origen was framed by the joint labours of Eusebius and Pamphilus, and so that Ruffinus was not mistaken in citing that as written by Pamphilus, which Eusebius, that could not be ignorant, saith was written or laboured by him and Pamphilus. 'tis true 
Ep. 65. ad Pamm.& advers. Ruff. l. 2.  St. jerome expresseth his opinion, that Eusebius wrote that apology, not Pamphilus, but what heed is to be given to his conjectures, against Eusebius's express affirmation of a thing which he was so nearly concerned to know, the Reader will soon judge; But S. W's conclusion from hence, crudely put down, as his assertion of a plain matter of fact; that Ruffinus makes of Eusebius of Pamphilus haeretick and Arian, Pamphilus catholic and Martyr,] and this as an instance of his doltish ignorance, and proof that he was the monster of that and all future ages for eminency in that talent, will not be thus excused, that St. jerome led him into that error, for as bitter as that Father was against Ruffinus, he makes this no instance of his doltishnesse; if he had, we now see how unjust a temerity he had been guilty of.  
19. By these instances the Reader will be satisfied what justice is to be expected in the rest of the suggestions of S. W. against Ruff●nus, and spare me the pains of proceeding to a view of the severals; Only when for an upshot, he resolves to add the words( as he saith) of their most famed Daille( against whom he is sure I will not take up the Cudgels, being a person so highly commended by the Lords Falkland and Digby) who l. 2. c. 4 characters Ruffinus to be an arrant wooden Statue, a pitiful thing, one that had scarce any reason in what he said, and yet much less dexterity in defending himself, which also are the very words of Mr. White in his 
P. 243.  Answer to Daille, and are there remarked with a reference to those that account of so fundamental a passage of his in the interpretation of the Canons of the council of Nice—( I hope I shall not hence be accused, as Ruffinus was, to make S. W. Mr. White) I shall beseech the Reader to turn to Mr. Daille's Book, and examine this citation, or, to save him the pains, I shall do it for him. It is in his book de vero usu Patrum, p. 278. 279. where speaking of St. Hieroms manner of treating his adversaries, how he draws their sayings beyond their sense, and affixes most remote meanings to them, which are not in their words, and then sets upon them most hostilely with contumelies, stinging speeches— gives an instance first in his dealing with St. Augustine, and then with Ruffinus, the former, saith he, he gibes as sarcastically and wittily as he can, 
Cum homine futili pugnabat, palo vulnerae infligebat, cujus et causa ipsa fortasse deterior, industria quidem certè ad sui defensionem nulla erat.  but deals otherwise with Ruffinus, for then he fought with an inconsiderable man, and wounded a stake, who perhaps had a worse cause, and indeed had no industry to defend himself, and so after he had scoured the poor man from head to foot, and wounded him as sharply as he could, he tells him at last, that through fear of God he abstained from revenge, and lent not words to his raging breast, but with the Psalmist set a guard upon his mouth. I now leave the Reader to consider, which of these two Ancients had most of Mr. Daille's favour at this time, Ruffinus, that was thus scourged by St. jerome, or St. jerome that thus dealt with him, and others that he met with, and whether [ an arrant wooden Statue, a pitiful thing, one that had scarce any reason in what he said, and yet much less dexterity in defending himself] which are all noted by the change of the letter, to be the words of the citation, be all to be found in Mr. Daillee; If they are, I am sure he must be beholden to the false English Translator for them, and 'twill hardly be worth my pains to pursue it thither.  
20. But how severe soever the sentence be, that is gone out against Ruffinus's person, and learning, and what liberty soever he took in paraphrasing that Canon, 'tis not imaginable how the Romanist should be provoked, or the Papal greatness suffer by it( though it is true that Baronius, and other jealous advocates have suspected there lay some poison under it) when whatsoever can be deemed of his Patriarchate, 'tis certain, he was Bishop of Rome, and metropolitan of the Roman Province, and Primate of a {αβγδ}, and each of these of narrower circuit than the Patriarchate of the West; and for Ruffinus to set down in one place, what was the peculiar circuit that belonged to him in any of the three former relations, particularly as to a Metropopolitane, 'tis impossible it should be any prejudice to the fourth.  
21. And therefore for S. W. in this panic fright to fly to his arts of new interpretation, and give the Canon so strange a rendering, is much more unseasonable, than any thing committed by Ruffinus in his Pamphrastical translation of it.  
22. His rendering of the Canon is not so literal, as that he should allow himself to be angry at a Paraphrast; The words are these, {αβγδ}. To which S W. cannot imagine a more proper sense then this, that the Bishops of egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria, because the Pope had used to hold them for so. And his proofs are two, 1. Because {αβγδ} quandoquidem manifests that the words following are the reason of the decree, 2. because hoc and {αβγδ} cannot possibly refer to any thing but the thing decreed.] But 1. 'tis certain his proofs gain him nothing, for in Ruffinus's, and the vulgar way of rendering the Canon, 'tis apparent that both the latter part, beginning at {αβγδ}, is the reason of the former,( It is to be so at Alexandria, because it is proportionably at Rome, and Antioch) and the {αβγδ} that, is the thing decreed, viz. that those lesser Cities and Regions of egypt, &c. should be under the Bishop of the Metropolis, because this course is customary in other places, at Rome, and Antioch, &c. But either or both of these proofs not so much as offering at that, where the only difficulty is, are far from concluding S. W's to be the truest rendering, for to omit that there is not in the Greek Canon any mention either of the word Patriarch, or Pope;( which yet were 
Not one word is found in any of the testimonies making mention of the Patriarchy— p. 46.  even now weighty objections against my conclusion from three of the four testimonies) both which are here inserted by S. W. instead of Bishop and Bishop, I demand, what is there in the Canon, of which these words [ the Pope had used to hold them so] are either the version, or Paraphrase? {αβγδ},] they that have any the lightest knowledge of Greek( and S. W. much 
P. 18.  loves the language, though he seem not to discover any great skill in it) will be able to construe for him, this is customary for the Bishop which is at Rome,( what in the Greek is there answerable to [ holds them for so]?) and so the practise at Rome is set as a Copy of what is to be at Alexandria, and is not that honour enough to Rome, unless withall the Nicene Canon be founded in the Popes handling and judging matters belonging to Alexandria? Whereas 'tis clear that the foundation of the Canon is laid in the {αβγδ}, the Primordial customs in egypt, &c. which sure depended not on the Popes judgement or holding them for so.  
23. So strange, and uncouth, and groundless an interpretation could not well have been looked for, but from S. w( yet if Bellarmine had it before him, de Rom. pontiff. l. 2. c. 13.§. Quarta igitur, and if Pope Nicholas the first suggested it to him, Epist. ad Michael Imper. 
P. 541.  he must not then enclose the honour of it.) And by this means( one would think, sufficiently improbable) though the Metropolitical rights be most expressly referred to, by the latter part of the Canon,[ {αβγδ}, if any man shall be made a Bishop without the consent of the metropolitan] and those equally specified in Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch, the three most eminent Metropoles in the whole world, yet the Canon is, without all colour of excuse, detorted to Patriarchy, and Papacy, and the latter praesumed to have jurisdiction over the former, 
P. 154.  when yet in his production of proofs for his side, he ascends no higher than to his Patriarchy over all the West, which certainly is not sufficient to give him any jurisdiction over his fellow patriarches in other climbs.  
24. It is therefore observable in the last place, that in case Ruffinus's Paraphrase of the Metropolitical power over the Suburbicarian Province, should not hold, but the Canon were indeed to be understood of patriarches( as his testimonies out of Basil, jerome, Nilus, and Zonaras import, and being the first that ever S. W. produced, to my best remembrance, 'twere even pity not to be convinced by them) yet his interpretation, which consists in asserting the Popes Jurisdiction over other patriarches, must needs destroy itself, and then I cannot imagine, why either in point of manners, or knowledge in Greek, or propriety of rendering, Ruffinus may not be fit to compare with S. W. unless it be that the one is not as Old as the other. And thus much for this main important affair of Ruffinus.  
25. Meanwhile I may be allowed to make my best of that sprinkling of testimonies which S. W. hath afforded me in this place, not knowing when I shall have another such largess from him. And then if 
Epist. 10.  St. Basil call the Bishop of Rome the Coryphaeus or head of the Western Churches( he there mentions indeed {αβγδ} the Western Brow, or Pride, in one place, and {αβγδ} their Coryphaeus in another, and betwixt them saith that they 
{αβγδ}— Basil. To. 2. p. 795. D.  neither know nor endure to learn the truth, but are praepossess'd with false praesumptions, contending with those that annuntiate truth to them, but by themselves establishing heresy, and then what hath he to do with that Brow of the West? as the African Fathers in their Synodical Epistle to Boniface mention istum typhum, and in their Epistle to celestine, the introducing fumosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi, speaking of the transmarine Appeals, and Carolus Calvus in his Rescript to Pope Adrian II. c. 10. hath the like, umbrosum seculi typhum— why then may not I conclude, that that of Coryphaeus or Antesignanus of the West, was his highest title, which it must be in that Fathers persuasion, who asks what hath he( and so sure disclaims having any thing) to do with him, quiter contrary to the Universality of his Pastorship, and then allowing him to have been possessed of that by the courtesy of the Church, as the other testimonies express, what praetense can there be of his being Universal Pastor from Christ?  
26. So again if St. jerome account it the self same thing to be condemned by Damasus and by the West( he hath indeed these words, 
Ep. 77. p. 252.  haereticum me cum occident, haereticum cum Aegypto, hoc est cum Damaso, Petroque condemnent) let Damasus be confined to the west, and allowed the chief there, as Peter in egypt, in St. Hieroms time, and then what becomes of the jus divinum of the Universal Pastorship.  
27. So if Nilus be to be heard in distributing the climbs, and accordingly the west be to be allowed the Bishop of Rome, by force of the Nicene Canon( as I shall willingly grant to be his words, 
De Prim. Pap. p. 67.  and sense, {αβγδ}, it is given to the Bishop of Rome to praeside or have power over the west) then 1. that is a prejudice to S. W's rendering of the Canon, for that gives him jurisdiction over the East, instead of power and praesidency over the west, which are prettily distant, and 2. the authority of the same Nilus may be extended farther, 
P. 49.  as that the Pope having two things, 1. to be the Bishop of Rome, as the Synods witness, and 2. to be the first of all Bishops, the former he hath from St. Peter, the latter from the holy Fathers and pious Kings a long while after, for orders sake, 
P. 53.  and again, that the privileges are given the Pope by the Fathers, because it was the Imperial City, and not because he is St. Peters successor, 
P. 94.  2. that lo Bishop of Rome writing to Theodosius the Emperour, begs it as a mighty boon( the words of the Letter are, they do all 
Omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus& lachrymis supplicant sacerdotes— lo Epist. 24.  {αβγδ} with tears beseech his clemency) that he will command a special Synod( so {αβγδ}, or rather {αβγδ}, is to be rendered, as appears by the title of Leo's 24th Ep. by that meaning a General Synod on a special occasion) to be held in Italy, which, saith he, he would not so humbly have begged, if before he had had any right to it. And many the like passages, which will yield small advantage to S. W's interests, yet must in reason be taken in, to give the due and full sense to the words cited from Nilus, that it may appear what he meant by the Patriarch of the West, one that was so dignified by the Church, upon that accidental consideration of Rome, being the Seat of the Empire, and one that had not power enough by it to assemble all the Bishops of Italy in a Synod, if the Emperor did not issue out his writs for the congregating them.  
28. So if that be the meaning of the Nicene Canon, which Zonaras gives, that the ancient custom had given to the Bishop of Rome {αβγδ} to praeside over the West, then first this may be allowed to be the full sense of it, contrary to S. W's rare conjecture of jurisdiction over the East, 2. the marginal note of the Romanist, affixed to that Exposition of Zonaras[ that he and Balsamon had added this, whereas the Pope was known to have had authority over the East and all the whole world] must go for a fiction, and very unnatural gloss upon that Canon.  
29. Lastly, if the same Zonaras's note on the VI. Sardican Canon be of any force, to prove more than the former; viz. that over and above the Provinces of the Western Empire, almost all those Provinces of the Eastern also, which lay westwardly, were granted the Bishop of Rome( Zonaras's words are [ At that time {αβγδ}, almost all the Western Churches, 
P. 368. A.  the Macedonian, Thessalonian, Illyrian, grecian, Peloponnesian, and the Church of Epirus, which afterward came to be under Constantinople) then sure the whole world, even in those dayes, was not under his government, and yet even of that which belonged to him much was cut off, and assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople, and no schism committed by that means.  
30. The Exposition on the same Canon adds, 
P. 367.  that the Popes had endeavoured by that Sardican Canon to draw appeals from Bishops to them in whatsoever cause; and affirmed it to have been framed in the first Nicene council, but being proposed in the council of Carthage it was found not to accord with truth, it being not made by the Nicene Fathers, nor at all pertaining to all Churches, but those which were subject to him. Which, I must suppose, concludes, that all were not so subjected.  
31. And now in the name of truth let S. W. reap the fruit of his testimonies. And so at length I shall dismiss his 15th Section.   

SECT. IX.  
His sixteenth Section. Indicting of councils belongs to secular Magistrates; The Popes entreaty humble not authoritative. Instances in Pope lo and Agatho. The being an act of extraordinary power, no prejudice to the being an act of sovereignty. Of this power divolving to a private man in S. W's judgement. Calling the Pope Summum Genus. His answer to the Milevetan Canon of appeals proved null. The Africans free from Papal jurisdiction. His answer to the Nicene and apostolic, frustrated. A principle of Papal tyranny. The Popes presence and consent not necessary to give the Nicene Canon force. The Primates being called head a prejudice to the Universal Pastorship. The title of Head peculiar to the highest. Peter and Paul Heads in Agatho. Names not belonging signify Negation of power. Christs example that Masters may be called so: His second, and third answer superseded. The Popes refusing the Title, no modesty. His fourth answer. S. W's answer contrary to the Popes words. His fifth. St. Gregories humility, in denying himself to be a Priest, examined. Four answers more. Gregories assuming what he disclaimed. The Bizacene Primate. The Popes power from, or in subordination to the Emperour, in cases referred to him by him. Other testimonies from Gregory answered. The Patriarch of Constantinople his pretended confession of his subjection. The case of John of Constantinople. Six strange misadventures in one answer. Pontifex maximus. Episcopus Episcoporum. Tertullians testimony, in jeer to the Pope. Cyprian. Balsamon. The Canon of Chalcedon as schismatical as Protestants. Phocas's donation of the title of Universal.  
1. HIs 16. Section, the last of his first part, comes to the power of calling councils, which I had mentioned to belong, National, to each Prince, and, General, to the Emperor, and to be a proof, that none is above Primates in the Church, but only the sovereign Prince.  
2. To this he saith he gave in Schis. Disar. three answers the two former of which 1. that my proofs were nothing unless they proved that the Emperors called councils without the Popes signifying their desires to them, next, that if they did it without this I must prove they did it lawfully] he complains, had not their due consideration from me. But having given him a complete answer to the third, and thereby shewed that this of convoking councils is a prerogative inseparable from the supreme power, and now most challenged by the Bishop of Rome, as such, and is indeed the most eminent in itself, and most characteristical of the supreme power, there was no great need to cast away time on the two former.  
3. For suppose there were any such causa sine qua non, or that there were customarily any such civility paid the Pope, that Emperors would not exercise this their undoubted power, till he thought the time seasonable, and the extremities of the church so pressing, as to request the Emperor to repair to that remedy, and so when it were done, without that respect to the Pope, it were not done lawfully, as to that circumstance, yet what prejudice were that to the residing of the supreme power in the Emperor? Would it thence follow that the Pope could lawfully do it without the Emperor? Which yet, by this arguing, he certainly might, if he were the supreme power.  
4. But to satisfy the importunity of his first answer( and that being done there is no place of doubt or scruple for the second) I shall demand what he means by [ the Popes signifying such his desires] is it his authoritative declaration of his pleasure, or is it his humble request and petition? The latter would not much agree with a supreme Potentate, humbly to beseech his Vassal, yet in the very last Section I casually gave him an example of Pope lo begging it {αβγδ} with tears of the Emperor Theodosius's clemency, {αβγδ}, that he will command a Synod to be held in Italy, which is pretty distant from the Popes commanding it, or the Emperors being unable to do it, without authoritative signification of the Popes desires.  
5. I 
Ch. 2. Sect. 3. n. 18.  formerly gave him another instance( on another occasion) of Pope Agatho in his Epistle to the Emperors, concerning the calling a General council; where he mentions with great veneration and thanksgiving, the Emperors purpose to call a council, 
council. Tom. V. p. 60. E. F.  {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, with praise we admire your purpose well-pleasing to God( the style was not, [ well pleasing to the Pope) and for these commands of yours by your divine writ we are rejoiced, and with groans out of the depth of our heart we have begun to give God thanks. And store of the like might be afforded him; and then what joy will he have from the Popes signifying their so humble desires, which are far from any marks of the least, much less of the highest power in him.  
6. Next he endeavours to reconcile this of the Emperors calling councils, to his Phaenomena, by telling us this is no ordinary act of standing Jurisdiction, but an extraordinary affair] so I conceive the Kings power of calling a Parliament is no ordinary act of every dayes exercise, yet sure it belongs to the supreme power, and is an evidence that the Kings in our Nation have been always acknowledged such, and the more extraordinary the affair is, the more worthy it is of the supreme power to take care of it, and the more unreasonable, that any body else should assume it.  
7. What he then tells me, that if I think it inseparable from the Pope, I am in a great mistake] might sure have been spared, for I think it so far from being inseparable from him, that I believe it not to belong to him at all( and not only, as he is pleased to yield, when the see is vacant, or the Pope unsound in the Faith, or distracted, or imprisoned, or in case there be an Antipope—) and as little to the Cardinals, in defect of him, much less to any private man, as at last he saith, for that to such it is lawful in any case, much less duty, so that he not only may but ought to congregate Assemblies, or assume that, which belongs to the supreme power( if by saying [ he ought to apply his power and skill, as much as in him lies, to praevent the harm of the public] he mean any thing less than assembling of councils, then sure he speaks not to his purpose) is a maxim in S. W's politics sit to be bound up with Mr. Whites rare Book of Government, but sure is not as yet received into the number of aphorisms, whereby all Christian Monarchies and Churches, yea the most Democratical States are content to be regulated.  
8. For my great unhappiness in calling the Pope a Summum Genus, I am sharply chastised, but am not so fully, as I might desire, convinced of my error, For if above all Priests, Bishops, metropolitans, Primates, patriarches, there be still one that is every of these, and yet somewhat more than( and transcendentally superior to) all of them, I know not what either nibbling at wit was betrayed, or what unfortunacy in using this ordinary style; sure I am, his objection against it, viz. that the summum Genus in logic is perfectly included in every individual under it, but the Popes power is not in every Priest] is of no force; for as in one respect Genus is pars actualis, so in another it is totum potentiale, and so contains as much, and somewhat more, than any species or Individuum; and then the species is but part of that, and the whole on that fashion will not be entirely contained in every part, and in this most comprehensive notion of Genus I might be allowed to use the phrase, when I speak of the Popes supreme assumed power over Emperors and Kings, as well as patriarches and Primates, and so much for his hypercritical logic observation.  
9. Then he comes to Marshal, and survey my arguments against this Supremacy of the Pope. And beginning with the head of Appeals, the first is that from the 
Can. 22.  Milevitan Canon, where speaking of Appeals from their Bishops, the rule is, non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum, they must not appeal save to the African councils, or the Primates of their own Provinces. To this his answer is, 
P. 160.  it only forbids the Appeals of Priests from their Bishops, but leaves it indifferent whether the Bishops, Archbishops, nay even Primates themselves may appeal to the Pope.]  
10. The vanity of this answer I shall thus evidence. This Canon, as to the substance, we have twice reputed in the African Codex, Can. XXVIII. and Can. CXXV. In the latter the words are, as we have already set them down, with this addition, that he that will appeal to the transmarines, {αβγδ}, he shall not be received to Communion in afric, and in the former somewhat more largely, thus, {αβγδ}, Priests and Deacons &c. must not appeal to the transmarine Judicatures( i.e. without question to the 
See August. Ep. 162.  Roman) but to the Primates of their own Provinces( the latin Manuscripts in Thuanus and Bochards Libraries add, aut ad Universale Concilium, or to an Universal council, and the 
Ad Concilia suae Provincia vel etiam Universale provocare.  Synodical Epistle to Pope celestine confirms the reading, meaning no doubt the Universal councils of the whole {αβγδ} of afric, called the councils of afric. i. e. of all afric in the latter Canon, in opposition to their Provincial councils, there being Six Provinces in that {αβγδ}) as it hath often been defined concerning Bishops. But they that appeal to the transmarine Judicatures shall not be received to communion by any in afric.  
11. Here it is evident that the same Law of Appeals that holds for Presbyters, &c. holds for Bishops also, that they shall not appeal to the Roman Judicatures, and this as a thing oftentimes formerly resolved among the Africans, an instance whereof we have Can. XXIII. where 'tis interdicted Bishops to go beyond sea, i.e. to Rome, in the notion of those Canons, {αβγδ}, unless it be by the consent of his own Primate of every Region. Nothing could more particularly have praevented S. W's {αβγδ}, obstructed his subtle evasion; he saith it belongs to Priests only, the Canon saith expressly it belongs to Bishops, as well as Priests, I hope this will satisfy him. And what thinks he of the case of Athanasius, who was not a bare Presbyter but a Bishop, yet when Julius received him to communion contrary to the Eastern Bishops, I formerly  told him out of their Epistle, and 
l. III. c. VII.  Sozomen assures him of the truth of it, that {αβγδ} {αβγδ}. They complained of it as of an injury done to their Synod, and accused the fact as unjust and disagreeable to the Ecclesiastical Canons.  
12. Let him also, if he please, consult St. Augustines 162 Epistle, and there he will find it his resolution, that Melchiades Bishop of Rome with his transmarine Colleague Bishops, i.e. the Pope and a council of his Bishops, non debuit sibi il●ud usurpare judicium— ought not to usurp to himself that judgement which had been determined by a council of seventy Africans under their Primate. And if the Pope had nothing to do with a determination of an African council of Bishops, and it was an usurpation in him to meddle in it, let him show me, how the Bishops, Metropolitans, and Primates of Africa were still under his Jurisdiction.  
13. The second testimony was that of the Nicene 
Can. V.  Canon out of the twelfth apostolic, that they which are excommunicated by some, shall not be received by others.] But saith he, those words are not universally true; for then there can be no appeal from a Bishop to an Archbishop, Primate or council. But I answer, that though it hold not so universally, as to exclude all appeal from inferior to superior Bishops in the scale of due subordination, yet it holds against appeals to foreign transmarine, and so from England to roman judicatures. This was before evidenced to him to be the meaning of the Canon by the Synodical Epistle of the Africane fathers to Pope celestine, which is in the roman as well as the Africane Code, where beseeching him that he will not for the time to come easily receive those that come to him from afric, nor admit to his communion those whom they had excommunicated, the reason is rendered {αβγδ}— because he might easily find this decreed at Nice also. This if he had marked it, I had 
Repl. p. 40.  formerly set down as the means to secure him of the sense of that Nicene and Apostolical Canon, that it did expressly belong to appeals to Rome, and if as I put them together in a paragraph, the one to interpet the other, so he had taken them into his consideration, this answer of his had been anticipated, as also his return to those words of the Africane Fathers, which he proceeds to as my third testimony, and saith of it, that 'tis so far from gainsaying the Popes power, that being onely a request that he would not admit their appeals easily, 'tis an acknowledgement of it, This 'tis to pull things asunder, and then break them single, which in conjunction were not easily to be broken. I hope it is not strange for Christians to be civil to their aequals, especially to those that are more highly dignified, and to entreat such( not command, or sullenly to admonish them) not to do them injury unprovoked, upon any light or no occasion. This the Africans there do to the Pope, yet from thence I conclude not that the Pope had not that Power over them, but from the concluding reason, {αβγδ}— because this is also determined in the council of Nice. The determinations of that Counsel the Pope was surely bound to observe, and swears now at his inauguration that he will observe them, and this being first a Canon Apostolical, which might lay a competent obligation on him, and also a Canon of the Nicene Faethers, they civilliy tell him his duty, and 'tis not in the power of their soft entreating language to prejudice the force of those Canons. And so both his answers to the second and third( as he stiles them) testimonies are perfectly superseded by putting them together, the former by the Africans application of it, as an interdict to Romes taking Appeals from Carthage, the latter by their fortifying their request with the double Canon, Apostolical and Nicene, which is an evidence, that he might not lawfully, not onely an entreaty that he would not( as the phrase is) easily admit such foreign appellants to his Communion.  

P. 162.  14. What he adds here of the Popes violating laws of General councils( which yet we know he hath sworn to keep inviolate) when evidence of public good licences him to use extraordinary authorty, and to proceed now not upon Laws, but upon the dictates of nature, the ground and rule of all laws] I shall not now take into stricter considerations, but lay it up among his politic aphorisms, which will make good room for tyranny, wheresoever 'tis admitted( laying the proportion betwixt the Pope receiving an Appeal from foreigners, and breaking laws on pretence of public good) but withall will make the Popes some amends for the infallibility, that Mr. White hath deprived them of, by allowing them to be the sole Judges of extremities and public good, and so giving them not a Superiority onely to councils, which I had thought a disciple of Mr. White would not have allowed them, but also a power to break the laws of the most venerable of them, and that very frequently, and in that sense, ordinarily, as oft as any foreign, i.e. forbidden appeal shall be made to them.  
15. An intimation he 
P. 160.  gives, that the Popes presence in the Nicene council, and consequently his consent to the framing that Can n keeps it from being any detriment to his authority, and so I think indeed, that what the Nicene Canon enacted, was no prejudice or detriment to any authority which the Pope before that enjoyed, but this not upon his reason, the Popes presence and consent( though ever on that head, if he were granted to have excluded himself, 'twere not reasonable for him to exercise the power, of which he had by consent in a General council devested himself) but because if he mark it, the Nicene Canon was but the reciting and confirming of the apostolic, which as it was not past by the Popes consent, or received any validity thereby, so it was of full force to the obliging him, before he consented to the Nicene.  
16. The fourth and last testimony that the Bishops of every nation must account their Primate their head, I designed against the proofs of the Romanist taken from the title of head given either to Saint Peter, or to his successors Bishops of Rome, and so in like manner the title {αβγδ} to the same sense, whereas the Bishops being by the 
Can. 34.  apostolic Canon instructed in their duty, whom they are {αβγδ}, to esteem their head, they are lead no further then their own Primate, and that is a shrewd prejudice to the Popes being an head to be acknowledged by any, but those of his own {αβγδ}, or Primacy, and abundantly shows, that as I said, he is not the one onely head, meaning by that phrase, such an head, as none is beside himself, which if he be not, he is not then the universal Pastor, as he pretends, for sure such an one would be the one onely head, there being not in one body more heads than one, more Supreme Princes in a Monarchy.  
17. And therefore although S W. for his own ends is pleased to call a Priest an head, meaning of a Parish, and so a Bishop an head, meaning of a Diocese, yet I had as little thought that either of these should indeed have been called an head, as a first or Primate, which we know is not the title allowed the fourth, in relation to the fifth and sixth, or the second, in relation to the third, but onely to him which is simply first, in relation to all after him, as the shoulders are not wont to be called the head, in relation to the sides, which are below them, or the neck, in relation to the chine, but simply, and by way of enclosure, the one onely uppermost part, is in all propriety of language afforded that title, upon the notion of the but one head in a natural, and not monstrous body.  
19. Yet after all this, if he shal show me any Canon( of equal authority with that which I cited for the headship of the Primate in every Nation) for the whole worlds acknowledging the Pope as their head, or, which I aclowledge equivalent, for St. Peters Universal Pastorship, I shall depart from this testimony, and yield it hath no force in it.  
20. But I may be allowed the insolence of persuading myself confidently, that this will not be done by S. W. in the Apostolical times, when so long after as Agatho's age we find the style somewhat distant, that Pope himself in his letter to the Emperors, 
council. To. V. p. 61. B.  formerly cited, calling Peter and Paul {αβγδ}, the heads or Antesignani, first or chief of the Apostles, which as it aequals St. Paul to St. Peter in the Primacy, so it evidently concludes, that the sole absolute Primacy belonged to neither of them.  
21. The second sort of testimonies produced by me he calls arguing from names and titles denied him, as Princeps Sacerdotum, Summus Sacerdos, aut aliquid hujusmodi, Prince of Priests, chief Priest, or any thing of the like sort, Universalis, and Universalis Episcopus, Universal, and Universal Bishop.] And truly I that thought such names as these, titles that belonged or belonged not to Sees, might be a convincing argument, from which to conclude, what power did pertain, or not pertain to them, did adventure by S. W's good leave, thus to make use of them.  
22. But, saith he, first these testimonies come short of what they are intended for, in this, that none speaks of the right of Jurisdiction, but only of names, and titles, appelletur— which denote no exception against the authority, but against the titular expression of it only, which sounded proudly, and seemed inconvenient and new at that time.] An essay again what feats the wits, when they are set on it, can practise upon a wordish testimony. He  told me these testimonies were arguments from names and titles, and so I intended they should be, and now he acknowledges they speak of names and titles, and yet they come short of what they were intended for. But how can that be, when from those names not belonging to them, the whole conclusion was regularly drawn, that if the names, did really not belong to them, and thereupon were forbidden, then the powers signified by those names were certainly forbidden also: are not titles expressive of powers? Is it imaginable the Church should aclowledge that Christ hath constituted the Pope Universal Pastor, and so supreme governor of all Priests and Bishops in the world, and yet forbid that title of Supreme Bishop, Universal Bishop, Prince of Bishops to be bestowed on him? Can any man by instinct, or intuition come to know that he is such, which he must do, before he can obey him as such, when the Church from whom in S. W's Scheme, he hath his Faith, tells him that title doth not belong to him? Nay can that Church forbid him to be called by it, if it be his due? Doth not Christ tell them, they do well in calling him Master, when indeed he is so? Did he, in his profoundest meekness and humility of heart, which he proposes to be transcribed by his Disciples, Mat. XI. 29. ever refuse the title of Master and Lord, from those Disciples?  
23. And why should that or the like seem inconvenient or new at that time, or sound proudly for the Pope, if indeed from Christ to St. Peter, from St. Peter to him it were infallibly devolved upon him? Might not the argument hold much better on the other side, that, if these titles had indeed by the civility of the Church been given him, without any farther proof of the power conferred by them, then these were but titular expressions? But though titles do not sometimes convincingly prove real power, it cannot thence follow, that denial of titles, which is the contesting that such titles are not his due, is not denial of power, when there is no reason why the title should be denied, but that the power doth not belong to him.  
24. If this answer of his satisfy not, you may be sure he hath another as good, viz. that it is a great weakness in understanding the nature of words( and then there is a weakness of the Doctors to be scored up, and numbered in the Index) not to advert, that the vogue of the World altering from plainness to complementalnesse, as it doth still daily, the same word may be used without fear of pride at one time, which could n●t at another.] But 1. he must remember I spake of Conons forbidding it to be bestowed upon him, and of his own confession, that it belonged not to him, and not only of its being counted pride, if he assumed it, 2. complementalnesse, as opposed to plainness, must signify giving titles of civility, that really do not belong to those, to whom they are thus given. And if that be the observable of later ages, in relation to this matter, then the title of Universal Pastor, in later times bestowed on the P●pe, is hence concluded but a compliment of his Flatterers, or civil admirers, but no title, that in plain truth belongs unto him, and so S. W. ere he was ware, hath stated the whole difficulty.  
25. A third answer he hath for failing( and there was need of it) that Universalis Papa in St. Gregories time, if taken in a due sense seemed tolerable both by the example given in the council of Chalcedon in order to Pope lo, and by Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria's letter giving it to Pope Gregory, but 'twas refused by that prudent and humble Pope because the proud Patriarch of Constantinople usurped it in an illegitimate and intolerable sense. I answer, In what sense the Fathers of Chalcedon gave or offered it him, may be guessed by what they Synodically decreed, that the Patriarch of Constantinople should have {αβγδ} equal privileges and titles with him, and then sure it was not in such a sense, as should belong to none, but him, i.e. not the modern notion of universal Pastor, and what Eulogius meant by it, S. W. hath already minded us, by telling us, that one age is more complimental than the former. But then 3. that Pope Gregory refused it, was not to be imputed to any peculiar humility of his, or any peculiar motive arising from the consideration of the present circumstances, the pride of the Patriarch of Constantinople, because 'tis manifest his Praedecessors uniformly had done the like, and that on the score of justice, not modesty, Pope lo in the time of the council of Chal●edon, and all after him, by name Pelag us, that saith that none must ever use it, and to that Gregories reasons, as well as prudence, give evidence, when he resolves the contrary Diabolical and Antichristian, for I suppose it no eminent modesty to abstain from that, that none but the Devil hath pride enough to admit of. Lastly, I desire to be  told, in what sense did the Bishop of Constantinople usurp it? I may answer myself; that it was not p●ssible it should be in any larger sense than that wherein the Pope now assumes it, viz. thereby to signify his supreme power over the whole world( meaning by that word this inferior world, and not taking in Angels, which some Court flatterers have added to his {αβγδ}) I do not believe the Patriarch of Constantinople meant so much, but if he had this is no more than the Pope now means by it, and if that were the intolerable illegitimate sense, wherein that( therefore proud) Patriarch was to be blamed for assuming it, and Gregory was prudent, as well as humble, and therefore refused it, because that other proud Patriarch usurped it in this sense, then sure he would not himself assume it in that highest, and proudest, and most intolerable sense, which is all that I inferred( and I must by this his answer suppose now granted) from these testim●nies.  
26. But a fourth answer will( 'tis to be expected of such a Demonstrator as S. W.) supply all the defects and vacuities of the three former, and it is this, that the sense of that title in the Testimonies being this, that none could be patriarches but himself, and the Romanists tenet being not such as shall debar other subordinate degrees, and, in particular, Bishops and patriarches to be truly what they are called, it is ●vident likewise, that the Romanists meaning is different from what the objectors take it in.] But we have no more reason to believe that the Bishop of New Rome designed his title of universal to the destroying of all other patriarches power, then that the Bishop of Old Rome designs the same by assuming that title. Yet Gregory himself tells us the natural consequences of it both to patriarches and other Bishops, restat ut vos Episcopi non sitis, And how true this was, and now is, they that know the practices of the Papacy, and opinions of the jesuits in point of Episcopacy may pass some judgement. As for patriarches alone, 'tis manifest that the universal Pastorship of one is a prejudice to that, because a Primate, or Patriarch( by the notation of each word) being one that hath none over him in respect of authority or power, and so is absolutely first in his own {αβγδ}, the supposing a supreme universal power in one, must needs praejudge that, as much as a monarchic power in one is incompatible with an Aristocracy. And this was the very reason, why Pelagius and Gregory refused it, because they must do wrong to the rest of the patriarches in assuming it. And if that very reason, for which they were bound to refuse it, can now be a satisfactory account, why they might, and now may assume it, then either those Popes, or this S. W. must be extremely ill Disputants, for otherwise so contrary conclusions could never follow from the same praemisses. And the competition being thus laid by this answer, which were the more rational Disputers, two Popes of the learned'st and best sort, or one wit a playing upon wordish testimonies, I shall not need offend Mr. White in pressing the infallible authority of the former, to cast the scale, at this one time, on the Popes side. At another time perhaps he may out-wit or out-dispute many Popes, but at this medium, that one universal supreme excludes five or fourteen equal Supremes, the old Popes, which I hope are not old, as Ruffinus was, may be able to manage the dispute against him.  
27. But, saith he, we grant him only such an higher degree of power over patriarches, as an Archbishop hath over Bishops. And then sure Pelagius and Gregory were to blame, to be so obstinate, as to say it was praejudicial to the rest of the patriarches, But the Popes Ghosts will answer, that the Bishop is not a Primate, as the Patriarch is, with an advantage, and therefore he is not wronged in being under a metropolitan, because the Apostle that set Titus in Crete, and Timothy at Ephesus gave them power to ordain or rule Bishops under them in every Church, who therefore suffer no detriment by being obliged to that subordination, but for Primates and patriarches they are simply independent, and supreme every one of them in his Dominions, and for that very reason they are called {αβγδ}, and then unless there may be some body before the first without praejudicing his fi●stship or Primacy, the Popes carry it in the dispute most clearly against S. W. as cunning an artificer as any, if he had but a better cause, or keener tools to manage, or deal in.  
28. Fifthly then he must provide him better tools, and they are soon ready at hand, for, saith he, No wonder St. Gregory ( such was his humility) should deny to accept what was due to him, who denies himself even to be a Priest, 4. Ep. 31.] But doth he so indeed? Let the Reader judge. The Epistle is to the Emperor Mauritius, who had, it seems, severely reprehended him, and, as he saith, laid to his charge ( urbane, more civilly than S. W. did to Ruffinus, who yet was, I hope, not so much under him, as St. Gregory acknowledges himself under the Emperor) folly and lying. To these two charges he replies, said et si Sacerdos non sum, scio gravem ess● hanc injuriam Sacerdoti, ut veritati serviens fallax credatur. But if also I am no Priest, I know it is a great injury to a Priest, that he should be believed a liar, who serveth the truth. What more can be concluded from these words, but that he that was reprehended for lying, when he thought himself most guiltless, and most obliged, as a Priest, to be so( not insisting on the charge of simplicity and folly, having been indeed 
Ab A●nulph●i astutiâ deceptus.  deceived by the craft of Arnulphus, as the Reader might have been, if he had believed S. W's citation) thought he might by the same hand be accused of any thing, and debased to the lowest and vilest degree, and not acknowledged a Priest any longer; [ If also I am not a Priest] saith he, i.e. if this will not be believed of me, or if it be believed, that by so gross a crime, as is lying, I have made myself irregular, &c. where yet by what follows,[ that Priests must not be injured and charged of lying, when they are not guilty of it, and their office is to serve the truth] it is manifest he took himself to be a Priest, and so is far from denying it: so, 
P. 790. A.  soon after in the same Epistle, sacerdotibus autem non ex terrena potestate dominus noster citius indignetur, but let not our Lord be too soon angry with P●iests, meaning himself quaestionlesse under that title, and so on, giving him reasons, why he should so far honour the Priests, as to imitate Constantine in burning accusations against them.  
30. But he hath also these words, to which I divine not whether S. W. might not refer, Haec non pro me, said pro cunctis sacerdotibus suggero, ego enim Homo peccator sum. These things I suggest not for me, but for all Priests, for I am a sinful man. But neither is that the denying himself to be a Priest, but affirming that he pleads not his own cause to an offended Emperor, who, he thinks, would not heed him in that, but the cause of all the Priests in the world, which yet were very impertinent to his business in hand, if he were not comprehended in that number.  
31. And now let S. W. himself say, if St. gregory denied himself to be a Priest, as he refused to be called universal; Did he say 'twas impious, Antichristian, Luciferian to assume to be a Priest, as he said it was to assume to be universal Bishop? If he did no such thing, if he pleaded the cause of Priests, and his own evidently in that notion, then away with these artificers, that can make testimonies unintel●igible when they please, and when it is for their turn, can understand in them what they neither said, nor meant, For so 'tis evident S. W. hath done in his fifth answer.  
32. But he hath four more still behind, and if one of them do not hit, he is indeed very unfortunate in his diligence, but cannot be accused for it, for 'tis evident he hath done what might be done for a Client, and the truth is, I set so much stress upon these Testimonies, being so unreconcilable to the universal Pastorship, as that is the foundation of the whole cause in debate between us that I must in justice attend him to the utmost he hath attempted on this head, and therefore I shall yet proceed further to the other four.  
33. His Sixth answer then is, that whosoever reads Gregories Epistles sent throughout ●he whole Church, it is impossible but he should see, that however he denied the word of universal Bishop which sounded then proudly, yet he both challenged and practised the thing itself.] If this were true, it is evident what the consequence would be, even that Gregory, offended against his own conscience, and solemnest professions, really assumed that, which he acknowledged to be most impious to assume, and if that were the interpretation of profound humility, to inveigh bitterly at a 'vice in another, and give arguments, why he might not by any means admit it himself, and yet more than by surprise, or weakness admit it, even without all modesty challenge and practise it, as if he declaimed against it, to bring others out of love with it, that he might himself have the enclosure of it, I doubt not but that humble Bishop might have many followers at this time. But S. W. must pardon my charity, if I do not easily believe so ill of his profoundly modest Pope, lest I should come under temptation to question also the profoundest humility, of equal depth with his knowledge, which S. W. hath elsewhere mentioned of another, with whom he hath more familiarly conversed than with St. Gregory, and may be allowed to be more partial to him.  
34. But he hath instanced in some passages that shall prove this. A perfect instance, saith he, is found 7. Ep. 65. Ind. 2. Where he saith, siqua culpa, &c. If there be any fault found in Bishops, every Bishop is subject to the Apostolical See, but when their fault doth not exact it( i.e. make it necessary for him to use his authority) that then upon the account of humility all were his aequals.] If the Reader shall turn to the place in Gregory l. 7. Ep. 65. Ind. 2. he will not there meet with these words, but I desire not to take any advantage of that. In the Epist. 64. the words are found, si qua culpa— The contexture of the whole Epistle lies thus, The Bishop of Syracuse had from one, that came from afric, communicated to Pope Gregory a secret, something it seems, that concerned him: Gregory returns him thanks, but tells him, he did not exactly understand the business in hand, and therefore he declares it to him, that the Primas Byzancenus, Primate( it should sure be) of Byzacium,( a Province in afric, as 
Ann. 599 n. 4.  Baronius affirms, and as the subsequent mention of Theodorus enforces, a man of great authority in afric, to whom 
Corp. Jur. Civil. Dion. Gothofredi Constit. ex Juliano Antecess.  Rescripts are directed there by Justinus II. and also by Tiberius and Mauritius) and not of Byzantium or Constantinople( as the 
De Episcopo Constantinopolitano, de crimine accusato.  title of the Epistle suggests) that, I say the Primate of the 
In quodam crimine Byzancenus Primas fuerat accusatus,& piissimus Imperator eum juxta Statuta Canonica per nos volvit judicari.  Byzacene Province in afric, was accused of a fault, and the Emperor would have him judged by Gregory according to the caconical Statutes, But, saith he, Theodorus a great Officer was bribed, that it might not be. Yet the Emperor admonished us to do what was caconical— But now the Primate saith somewhat of his own purpose, and it is very doubtful whether he say it entirely, or indeed because he is opposed by his Fellow Bishops. For that he saith that he is subject to the apostolic See, If there be any fault in Bishops, I know not what Bishop is not subject, but when fault exacts it not, all are equal according to the account of humility.  
35. Here you have the total of this testimony, where( if we shall suppose that this Pope at that time did avowedly assume, what in a private letter to a Bishop, that had given him an information, he praetends to, but in this moderate style, Nescio quis non, I know not who is not subject in this case? Yet it must be kept in remembrance, what the case was, The Byzacene Primate, only, which( as all Primates) was under no other Bishop, was accused of a fault. To whom was he accused? to the Pope? no certainly, to the Emperor, of whom it is said, Pijssimus Imperator eum per nos volvit judicari, the Emperor would have him judged by us, and so 'tis an instance, to whom appeals ly from a Primate, viz. to none but the Supreme Magistrate, who in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiastical as well as civil, is under Christ Supreme governor. To which purpose it may be remembered, that in the cause of Maximus Bishop of Salona, who had been irregularly ordained, and thereupon decreed excommunicate by gregory, l. 3. Ep. 20. l. 4. Ep. 34. l. 7. Ep. 1. Yet still his sentence is with this Reserve and Submission, nisi prius a serenissimis Dominis cognoscerem si hoc ipsi fieri jussissent, Unlesse I should first understand by my most serene Lords( the Emperors) that they commanded it to be done. And if he will abide by that, then before we go any farther, the whole cause between S. W. and me is at an end, being finally decided by this testimony, if it be allowed to have any force in it, and if it be not, why was it produced?  
36. Well, the Emperor to whom that Primate was subject, would not himself take cognisance of the cause, but appoints Pope Gregory to take it, and 
Juxta Statuta Canonica judicari, and quicquid esset Canonicum judicaremus. Ibid.  judge according to the Canons, and according as the Canons should direct, and herein no doubt he did that which was very reasonable; the 
A Coepiscopis suis impetitur.  Bishops of his own Diaecese accused him, and therefore 'twas not reasonable to refer him to a council of his accusers, and the Bishop of Rome was the prime Patriarch of the world, in order of place superior to the Bishop of Constantinople, and the other three patriarches were after him even in place.  
37. When the Emperor hath thus remitted the cause to be judged by him, 'tis then certain, that Apostolicae sedi subjicitur, he is subjected to the Apostolical See, and the Pope may truly say, that he knows not quis ei subjectus non sit, what Bishop, be he never so great, may not be thus subjected, si qua culpa invenitur, if any fault be found in him, i.e.( according to the tenor of the present case) if he be accused to the Emperor of any misdemeanour, and the cause by the Emperor remitted to the Pope to be heard by him, and judged according as the Canons, which were in force in the Empire, directed.  
38. And in this case, suppose the Bishop of Rome had stood, as the Byzacene Primate did, accused to the Emperor by his own Bishops( this case cannot be strange to be supposed, when so lately we saw from l. 4. Ep. 31. that this very Gregory was charged by the Emperor of folly and lying) might not the Emperor have referred his cause to be heard and Canonically determined by the Bishop of Constantinople? If he might, then what hath S. W. gained by this testimony? If he say he might not, let any tolerable account be given, why he, whose subject the Pope acknowledged himself to be, as hath formerly been shewed, and appears every where in his Epistles to the Emperor, might not either judge him himself, or appoint that other Bishop, next dignified to him, to determine the cause Canonically; Especially when the same Gregory confesses, that cum culpa non exigit, omnes secundum rationem humilitatis aequales sunt, When fault exacts it not, all are equal according to the account of humility; Which concludes not, that it was his supererrogatory humility to say so, or that he said it not upon obligation of justice, but as S. W. renders it, upon account of humility( and accordingly he hath his id est, like other frail mortals, when their fault doth not exact it, i.e. saith he, make it necessary for him to use his authority) but that indeed they were equal as to any jurisdiction belonging to one over the other, and that to assume jurisdiction over any Primate( or even Bishop, that was not Canonically subject to him, as Primate or Patriarch) was directly contrary to that humility, which was his necessary duty, expected from him by Christs ordinance, and the contrary to which he himself had so oft censured to be Luciferian pride, and so was in any other case, but this, when fault exacted, when a Primate was accused to the Emperor for misdemeanour, and the cause by him referred to be heard and Canonically determined by the Pope. He that were really a Subject, must be so, when he is innocent, as well as when he is criminous, and so this also is a prejudice to the Supreme Pastorship, which if it were truly his, would belong to him always, and not only when faults had been committed.  
39. And so much for his first and perfect instance, Those that follow, do not praetend to that perfection, yet for them we are referred to l. VII. Ep. 64. where, saith he, he puts it as undoubted, that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the apostolic See, and this to be acknowledged by the Emperor and Bishop of Constantinople himself, and again to another express testimony to the same purpose, l. V. Ep. 24.  
40. Here by his citation from l. VII. Ep. 64. I shall suppose he meant Ep. 63. for there in an Epistle to the same Bishop of Syracuse, he hath the passage here referred to, De Constantinopolitanâ Ecclesiâ quod dicunt, quis eam dubitet sedi Apostolicae esse subjectam? Quod et Dominus piissimus Imperator,& frater noster Eusebius ejusdem civitatis Episcopus assidue profitentur. As to that which they say of the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt but it is subjected to the apostolic See? Which the Emperor and our Brother Eusebius Bishop of the same City daily profess. To this testimony the substance of the former answer will be equally appliable, as shall soon appear.  
41. In the beginning of this Epistle we find quod aliqui murmurant dicentes quomodo Ecclesiam Constantinopolitanam disposuit comprimere— Here it seems the Popes dealing with Constantinople is disliked, and murmured at by some, and his whole account for it is given in these words, that the Emperor and Eusebius a Bishop of the same City, daily professed it, and therefore none can doubt but 'twas subjected to him. Which in any other sense, than what we have delivered in answer to the former testimony( unless perhaps in point of place and degree of dignity, wherein the Pope by the council of Chalcedon was allowed the first, and Constantinople the second place) cannot be imagined to have any truth in it.  
42. For 1. I demand, Who was this Eusebius Bishop of the same City? If we can believe S. W. it was the Bishop of Constantinople. But, by his leave, there was never any Patriarch of Constantinople of that name contemporary to St. gregory; John and Cyriacus are all that sate in that See within his time, witness Zonaras, witness their own Baronius, John, saith he, 

Zonar. Tom. 3. p. 62. l. 56.  
Baron. Ann. 596. n. 2, 3.   was Patriarch there seven years before Gregory came to the Papacy, and Cyriacus immediately succeeded John, and he out-lived Gregory, and still contested, and at last was cast by Phocas in Bonifaces time. All this is most evident, and assures us there was no Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople to make daily acknowledgements of subjection to Gregory, and so though observation of historical directions would not, yet the want of it may make a shift to make wordish testimonies unintelligible.  
43. Secondly, 'tis as evident by all Gregories Epistles, that the Bishops of Constantinople resisted him all his time, and were resisted by him; John being the man that assumed the title of Universal. And besides, what possibility is there, that this Church should at this time profess subjection to Gregory, which was so lately raised to {αβγδ}, equal privileges with Rome itself, and at this very time maintained its own right so vigorously, yea and had the favour of the Emperor Mauritius in it, of whom therefore it cannot be said with any more credibility, that he, viz. Mauritius, professed it daily in this sense.  
44. It remains therefore, that the subjection spoken of, as professed both by Eusebius the Bishop, and the Emperor, must be 1. no acknowledgement of the Patriarch, 2. no more then of subjecting him in a particular cause, to St. Gregories cognisance, no subjecting him to his ordinary or real Jurisdiction, much less 3. any supreme jurisdiction of divine right from Christ, which alone serves S. W's turn, and is sufficiently praejudiced( instead of being confirmed) in that it is never so much as name in either of these Epistles.  
45. In this place I shal not ask S. W. why he would take upon him to create a Bishop of Constantinople, being himself but a Priest, but rather leave the Reader to consider more seasonably, whether [ frater noster Eusebius ejusdem civitatis Episcopus] may not, though improperly, signify some Bishop belonging to that Patriarchate of Constantinople, by name the Archbishop of Thessalonica, to whom about this time we find an Epistle of Gregories, Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi, lib. VII. Ep. II. Indict. 1. and again Ep. 7. Ind. 2.  
46. I should not propose this, if it were imaginable, there should be any such man so called, Patriarch, and, in that notion, Bishop of Constantinople at that time, And therefore if any shall dislike this proposal, I wish he would show the contrary reconcilable with story. But if he cannot, then what other truth can there be in Gregories words, but this, that the Emperor, and that Bishop, most probably the metropolitan of a City( and Primate of a Region under the Patriarch of Constantinople) viz. of Thessalonica in Macedonia, did daily profess that the Church of Constantinople was subjected to the apostolic See; Which as it is not the acknowledgement of the Bishop of Constantinople himself, on which alone S. W's argument was built, so it is clearly agreeable to our former interpretation, that another Primate or Bishop having complained to the Emperor against the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Emperor had subjected the cause( and so far the Church or Patriarch) to the Pope, as to the chief Bishop, prime Patriarch of the world, to pass his judgement of it; and the Bishop that had complained, willingly submitted his cause to be heard and judged by him, and daily professed the Caurch of Constantinople itself, viz. in this particular case, to be thus duly subjected.  
47. But how the Patriarch himself liked it, is no farther here expressed, than that some murmured at Gregory, saying, quomodo Ecclesiam Constantinopolitanam disposuit comprimere? Which though it be no convincing argument against, is sure no proof of S. W's conclusion, that the Patriarch professed subjection to him.  
48. From what hath been said the Reader will guess at the reason, that Baronius, who had diligently surveyed Gregories Epistles, and collected arguments out of them for his assuming the power of Universal Pastor, Ann. 595. n. 34, 35. makes no use there of this confession of Eusebius, nor any where else, that I have observed.  
49. The third testimony to which he refers, from L. V. Ep. 24. belongs indeed to the Bishop of Constantinople, that John that contended for the title of Universal, it refers to somewhat that had passed before, in the case of John a Presbyter, and must be understood by reflecting on that story. But first the words are these, Nunquid non ipse nosti quia in causâ quae a Johanne Presbytero contra Johannem Constantinopolitanum fratrem& coepiscopum nostrum orta est, secundum Canones ad sedem Apostolicam recurrit, et nostrâ est sententiâ definita? Do you not not know that in the cause which by John the Presbyter was raised against John our fellow Bishop of Constantinople, according to the Canons it resorted to the Apostolical See, and there was defined by our sentence.  
50. Of this cause betwixt John the Presbyter and John the Patriarch of Constantinople somewhat we have Indict. XI. l. 2. Ep. 52. where it appears that that John the Presbyter having been beaten in the Church, made his complaint to Pope Gregory, who presently, as he saith, wrote twice about that and one other matter of the Monks of Isauria to the Patriarch, who it seems answered him not himself, but 
Alier mihi secularis quidam sub ejus nomine lequebatur.  another, a secular person, his Secretary, I suppose, in his name, telling him that he knew not de qua causa scriberet, what the matter was about which he wrote; This answer, it seems, 
Obstupui. Ibid.  displeased the good Bishop, and thereupon he makes him this dilemma, that if it were true that he said, that indeed he knew not the matter, nothing could be worse than that such things should be done against the Servants of God, and he that ought to take care of them and defend them, should know nothing of them, But, if he knew it, and yet wrote those words, Ego nescio, I know not, this must be a falsity. Hereupon he is willing to suppose, that it was not John, but this other secular person, whom he calls familiaris vester juvenculus, which wrote the letter, and therefore exhorts him that he will first correct him, and not be ruled by him, or 
Si illum audit, scio quia pacem cum suis fratribus habere non poterit.  if he be, he knows that he can have no peace with his brethren, adding that as he earnestly desires to have peace with all men, and especially with him, whom he vehemently loves, 
Si ipsi quos novi vos estis,  if he be the man he took him for, so if he observe not the Canons, but will break the laws established by their Ancestors, he 
Non cognosie qui estis.  knows not who he is, disclaims that fraternal communion, or having any thing to do with him. Then he tells him, that he may evidently show that he seeks nothing per elationem by way of lifting himself up above him, that if it were not for the power that young man holds with him, 
Quae mihi de Canonibus supperunt tacere potuissem.  he would conceal what the Canons allow him to do, and would at the first have transmitted the plaintiffs to him, being confident that he would charitably receive them. As it is, he now exhorts him either to receive them to their places, and afford them peace, or, if he would not, then without alteration he should observe the Statutes of their Ancestors, and the bounds of Canons, But if he would do neither, he would not infer rixam, begin the quarrel, yet neither would he avoid or refuse it, if it came from( or were begun by) John. And then tells him what the Canons say against Bishops that are strikers( in relation to the beating of the Presbyter) and that he hath sent Sabinian his Deacon to give him his Ecclesiastical answer, and to speak with him more exactly. Another short 
L. 2. Ep. 63. Indict. XI.  Epistle there is on the same subject written to Narses, where he professes himself much concerned, and resolved with all vigour and weight to require right to be done to the injured, and if he see the Canons of the apostolic See not to be kept, God will direct him what to do against the Contemners. This is all that appears in this story, unless it be, that( as is repeated from Narses's letter) before the time of this latter Epistle to Narses, the Patriarch of Constantinople had 
Ipsum puto adversarium patimur, quem asseris velle Canones custodire.  declared himself resolved to observe the Canons, yet, it seems, took it not well, that the Pope had thus interposed.  
51. 
Ann. 595. n. 34.  Baronius indeed adds, according to his manner, much more to this story, that the Patriarch acknowledged himself his subject when he was severely reprehended by him, and sent the acts of the cause to Rome to be discussed, than that he obeied, fearing the threats brought by Sabinian, and sent the acts of his judgement to Rome, whither the appeal had before been made. And so fain he would have it a formal appeal as from a lower to an higher judicature, and this acknowledged, and pleaded to by the Patriarch, and finally obedience paid to the Popes judicature. But for all this, beside his own fancy, which was always fruitful on this theme, he offers not the least proof, save only from those 
De qua extat Epistola Gregorii ad ipsum data Greg. l. 2. Ep. 52.& Ep. 64. ad Narsetem.  two Epistles, which therefore having now been set down, as far as concerns that matter, the Reader may judge, how far they infer his conclusion.  
52. It is true that in case of injury done to any by a Primate or Patriarch( there being no lawful superior, who had power over him) the injured person sometimes made his complaint to the Bishop of Rome, as being the most eminent person in the Church, and in such case he quaestionlesse might, and ought in all fraternal charity to admonish the Primate or Patriarch what his duty was, and disclaim communion with him, unless he reform, which is the interpretation of having no peace with his brethren( but differs much from jurisdiction of a superior over inferiors) and for this Gregory pleads ancient Canons, and the Bishop of Constantinople, though he acknowledged not any of his power, and so expresses his dislike of his interposing, yet, it seems, he doth justice to the injured person, and signifies his intention not to break but to observe all Canons, and so this is the utmost that this third testimony amounts to, and that which Gregory must be supposed to mean by saying the cause according to the Canons came to the apostolic See, and was defined by his sentence, i.e. the Patriarch of Constantinople was as careful to do justice to the injured party, as he to have him.  
53. If by this, and the like passages gregory were willing to draw some authority and accession of power to his See by praetense of Canons, this was not any essay of his profound humility, yet far from any claim of universal Pastorship held by divine right, or donation of Christ to St. Peter, for I appeal to S. W. whether that were the interpretation of secundum Canones? and yet he knows that no other tenor but that will stand him in stead. But if he only desired to praeserve the due reverence to the apostolic See, by which he might be able to succour all that were injured, and had none to appeal to, in the direct line of superior jurisdiction, as some eminent persons in all times have had that veneration and so authority among their neighbours, and some Princes, through all Europe, that they have been the constant umpires of all differences,( so our Histories tell us of our Henry VIII. for some years) I cannot think he did amiss, or that he thwarted, in the least, his professed disclaiming of universal Rule, especially if either the Emperor or the Canons of the Church referred the case to him( always praeserving that great moderation, which he requires of his Officer the Defensor, that he 
Lib. 7. Ep. 65.  go reverently to the Bishop, and intercede for the person, that praetends to be injured, that so he may both relieve him that desires his help,& jura praepositi non turbentur, and not disturb the right of the Bishops.) The only unhappiness is, that such acts of( at first) but necessary fraternal charity, were by ambitious men drawn into example, and means of assuming power, which yet as they praetend from Christ to St. Peter, on the score of universal Pastorship, cannot be more vehemently praejudiced by any thing than by these examples, which being rightly considered, praetend no higher than Ecclesiastical Canons, and the Vnive●sal laws of Charity, and relieving the oppressed, by admonishing the opposers( fraternal charity still, not paternal authoritative Jurisdiction) but never made claim to any supremacy of power over all Bishops by divine Institution. So that still it appears not, after all S. W's endeavours, that gregory was an hypocrite, as he would have him, in practising or challenging that office of Universal Pastorship which in word he so vehemently denied. And so much for these three testimonies, which make up his sixth Answer.  
54. His 7th Answer is short, but yet somewhat extraordinary, Those words, Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus, are not, saith he, found either in the council of Carthage itself, or in the ancient Copies, but are Gratians addition only, wherefore they are to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took them, whose Epistle he cites to make good those words.] I dare say never any wit did practise an higher piece of self-denial for the avoiding the force of a wordish testimony, than is here discoverable.  
55. For 1. what should he project in this subtle observation, that those words, Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex— are not found in the council of Carthage itself?] Did any man city them from that council. 'tis certain I did not. My words are visible, Repl. p. 40. n. 10.[ But to return to their Corpus Juris, so again Decret. par. 1. Dist. 99. c. 4. Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus, the Pope of Rome is not to be called universal Bishop, citing the Epistle of Pope Pelagius the II.—] 'tis then Corpus Juris, i.e. Gratians collection that I city, and that is not the council of Carthage. And it is as visible, that that Corpus, or Gratian city not the council of Carthage in that place, but the Pope Pelagius. Who then is it that thus cited it, and was therefore thus to be refuted, by reminding him that the words are not found in the council of Carthage? Sure none but S. W's own fancy, that can connect any things most distant, confounded Pelagius the Pope, and the council of Carthage, rather than not add a 7th answer to an argument that lay upon his hands.  
56. Secondly, what should he mean by the ancient Copies? the ancient Copies of the council of Carthage? So it must be, if it signify any thing. And then 1. what need was there of that addition? What other image can we have of that council, held so long before our time, than by the ancient Copies of the Acts of it? when therefore he had said[ it was not found in the council itself] the Reader would well enough have understood his meaning, that so it was not found in the ancient Copies of it, I divine not what tolerable account can be given of this addition, unless he would persuade us, that having found it in some later Copies of that council, yet searching the ancient, he found it missing there; And that were very fine, when, as hath been said, it is not so much as cited, or pretended to be fetched from any either old or new Copies of that council, but from Gratians collection out of a Popes Epistle.  
57. Thirdly, with what truth can it be said, that it is Gratians addition only? If he knows what belongs to the Corpus Juris, he must discern, that those words [ Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus] are the title of the 4th Chapter, that title written by Gratian, the Chapter itself being the proof of it, from a testimony in Pelagius's Epistle, to which yet it can be no addition, because the words of the Epistle unavoidably infer it, Nullus Patriarcharum universalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur— Let none of the patriarches ever use the name of universal— applying this in the conclusion to himself, being then Pope, as one of that number. And so, if he were Romanus Pontifex, and he might not be called universalis, or if he were a Patriarch, and no Patriarch might be called universalis, then sure here was nothing added by him, that said [ Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex, not even the Bishop of Rome must be called universal Bishop.  
58. Fourthly, if they were Gratians addition only, as he saith they were, how can he say, they are to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took them? Did then Pope Pelagius use them? so he must, or he could not take them in any sense. If he used them, and, as also he saith, Gratian cited them from his Epistle, how can it be true that they were Gratians addition only?  
59. Fifthly, Is not S. W. a Romanist? If he be, then he cannot but know that the Corpus juris, and that part of it which he thus despises, with the title of Gratians addition only is in full force with his Church, and the authority as constringent, as if it had( which is impossible) been cited out of any council of Carthage.  
60. Sixthly and lastly( for here are misadventures enough in a short but pithy answer) the words shall submit to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took them; But what then is that sense? On the resolving of this, the whole weight of the answer necessary depended, and yet he hath not given the least intimation of that, nor vouchsafed so much as to praetend, that Pelagius took them in any sense, but what I and all men understand them in. This indeed is numbering answers by the poll, and not so much as ever considering, whether the Reader be able to advance any higher with all his stock of rational faculties, then just to tell seven, or ten. If he can but do that, and no more, he is a Reader after S. W's own heart, and by the judgement of common sense he must resolve that the Romanists is the true Religion, else how could S. W. give so many answers to one argument?  
61. pass we then to his eighth Answer, it is this, equivalent terms to what they mean by those words were far more anciently given to the Bishop of Rome Zephyrinus by Tertullian l. 1. de pudicitia, where he calls him Pontifex Maximus and Episcopus Episcoporum.] But what are the [ those words]? That must be supplied from the words of the Testimony recited in the seventh answer[ universalis est appellandus] the only antecedent to this relative. What then the Romanist means by universal Bishop, is if we will believe S. W. equivalent to Pontifex Maximus and Episcopus Episcoporum. What the meaning of those words is, we cannot be ignorant, Pontifex Maximus was the title of the chief Ruler of all sacred things in heathen Rome, and was frequently assumed by the Emperor, and proportionable to him, in Christian Rome, the Supreme governor, at least in matters of Ecclesiastical cognisance, through the whole world. And so Episcopus Episcoporum, the Bishop of Bishops, is he to whom all other Bishops were subject. This then I confess to be equivalent to the title of universalis, and then 'tis strange indeed that both Pelagius and Gregory should disclaim being called universal, and censure them for Antichristian that received it, when yet their Ancestors assumed to be Bishops of all the Bishops in the world. It remains then that we examine the testimony on which this is fathered.  
62. And by the first sound of Tertullian de pudicitia, we know 'twas a book written in heresy, by a Montanist, in opposition to the Church, and then, though that would carry little authority with it, to prove that a truth, for which it were produced, yet it is hereby rendered the less probable, that he that divided from the Roman Church at that time, should give the Bishop of Rome the title of universal Pastor, or any thing equivalent to it, for that were to profess himself a schismatic. Secondly what is the interpretation of L. 1. de Pudicitia? Did Tertullian writ more books with that title? other folks have heard but of one; but who can tell, what rarities S. W's greater diligence hath met with in his travels in Antiquity?  
63. But passing by these infirmities, 'tis yet sure, that Tertullian in his one book de Pudicit. hath these words, and the Reader, if he please, may view them, soon after the beginning of the Book, where in mere jeer and irony he saith, Audio etiam edictum esse propositum,& quidem peremptorium, Pontifex scilicet Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum dicit. I hear that an Edict is set out, and that a peremptory one, The High-priest forsooth, and the Bishop of Bishops saith, And some heretics perhaps might smile to see, how glad Pamelius is of this catch, been habet,& adnotatu dignum, quod etiam jam in haeresi constitutus,& contra Ecclesiam scribens Pontificem Romanum Episcopum Episcoporum nuncupet,& infra c. 13. bonum Pastorem& bened●ctum Papam, &c. 21. Apostolicum. And 'tis very true he doth all this, but no man left to his own eyes could have missed to see, in what sense; 'tis all delivered by an enemy, in perfect scoff, as of a decree that he saith is in prostibulis appendendum, to be hanged up in the stews, as opening the way to sins by proposing impunity to them, exactly in the same dialect, as S. W. would have cried Saint, and Preaching, when he meant heretical and talking nonsense. And yet this is a demonstrative argument on his side, fit to be opposed to two Popes, Pelagius, and Gregories disclaiming this title, for certainly an heretics jeer hath more convincing force in it with S. w than two fallible Popes( 'tis archhaeresie, saith Mr. White, to hold them any other) most seriously and solemnly protesting the contrary.  
64. But least he may yet mistake this jeer for great earnest, when the words he gives him are capable of a good sense, I shall refer him to St. Cyprian, that came not long after Tertullian, and professes to be a great Reader of him, and in much more earnest than he, even in a council of Carthage, Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terror, ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adegit, for no one of us hath made himself to be a Bishop of Bishops, or by tyrannical terror hath driven his fellow Bishops to a necessity of obedience. Which that it was spoken by him particularly in relation to Stephen, Bishop of Rome at that time, is resolved by 
Ann. 258. n. 24.  Baronius himself, and so needs not be more largely proved to a Romanist.  
65. But after all this, there is a ninth and last answer behind, which, saith he, puts this whole business out of doubt, Balsamon confesses, that that title was forbidden, to take away the arrogancy of names, and that for that reason many patriarches did style themselves {αβγδ}, vile and base. See balls. Conc. earth. 3. Can. 42. Where though he mingles something of his own schism, yet thus far he is clear for S. W. that the name or title was only treated there, not the thing or Jurisdiction.] This is a killing answer indeed, and I shall confess with Balsamon, that these names were forbid, to take away arrogance, but can never imagine, that leaving off a proud name, and keeping up all the height, that is signified by the name, could ever be by wise or pious men looked on as a supersedeas for, or an antidote against arrogance. For indeed why should the name be arrogant, if the power that were expressed by it, were not so? and why the shadow conscientiously disclaimed and laid down as long as the solider part, the power, or Jurisdiction were retained? If this be the answer of answers, and that which puts all out of doubt, which is no other in effect but the yielding as much as I or any other of my dear friends( as he saith) demand, the Reader will know hereafter, what is the meaning of nine answers to a difficulty, all which, I willingly consent, shall be judged of by this last irrefragable one.  
66. Only 'tis by the way to be observed, what it is, that in that place Balsamon mingles of his own Schism, even nothing in the world but his citing of the 9th Canon of the council of Chalcedon, and the 6th& 7th of Sardice, but especially directing the Reader to observe that of Chalcedon, {αβγδ}, which was the later, not as the latin Interpreter reads, quae est antiquior, which is the more ancient. This is all he saith in that place, beside what S. W. hath cited for his own interest, and this it seems was naughtily done of Balsamon, who might else, at this turn, have stood entirely upright in S. W's favour, had he not cited three Canons of councils, especially a more late one of Chalcedon; and what is that later Schismatical Canon? Why, that a Clerk must not leave his own Bishop, and fly to secular Judicatures( which, if he remember, St Paul had said, before that Canon) that if he have any contention with his own Bishop, he shall be judged by the Synod of a Province, that if a Bishop or clerk have a controversy with the metropolitan of the Province, he shall go to the Exarch of the Diaecese, i.e. in the ancient style, to the Primate, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople.  
67. This then was the crime, and schism of no less than an Universal council, which the Pope himself is sworn not to violate, and with that company poor Balsamon, and the Protestants must be content to fall, in case S. W. have by this answer put this whole business out of doubt. Meanwhile if one of the four general councils be not Schismatical, 'tis as good as confessed that neither are we, and to that issue this whole business is come, and there we are content to leave it, whilst S W. declaims and calculates with his kind Reader, the manifold weaknesses of this Section. Which yet he will not conclude, till he hath considered the other part of my testimonies of Phocas's giving Boniface the title of Universal Bishop.  
68. On this he frames a Dilemma, that if I mean the name and title before forbidden, but then first allowed by him, then nothing followeth against them who maintain a real power. But if I mean the supreme Jurisdiction over the whole Church, then besides that this Jurisdiction they dispute of was over Kings and Emperors, and so not likely to be given by Phocas the Emperor, they must be put to imagine that an Universal Government in Ecclesiastical matters over the whole Christian world could be introduced without any visible effects of siding, opposing, &c. and then he is gotten again into his safe fortress of Rushworthian no less than demonstrative theology: To that, being, before this time, become a threadbare repetition, I shall not, I hope, need to attend him, for as I do not take all Rushworths demonstrations to be such indeed, many of them falling short of probability, so 'tis not in the power of a thousand improbabilities to prejudice one matter of fact, sufficiently testified, it being ordinary to see those things actually done, which were most improbable, and even contrary to the greatest, and most important interests of the doers.  
69. Only to his Dilemma I shall return my short answer that all that Phocas can be imagined to have afforded Boniface, was the title of universal, which being then gained from him, but no more than a skeleton, being unaccompanied with power, hath ever since endeavoured its utmost, to gather flesh and juice, strength and verdure to it, and now takes upon it, as S. W. saith, to be a jurisdiction over all Kings and Emperors, but hath not had the desired success in attaining it.  
70. For the Testimonies of this donation of Phocas's, morer, then that of Paulus Diaconus, I have in this answer formerly spoken, and therefore this shall suffice to his 16th Section, and so we are at length arrived to an end of his first part.