THE Disarmers Dexterities EXAMINED. In a Second DEFENCE Of the Treatise of schism. By H. Hammond, D. D. {αβγδ}. iron. LONDON, Printed by J. Flesher, for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy lane, 1656. The CONTENTS of the Chapters. CHAP. I. AN Introduction and answer to S. W. his Epistle to the Reader. pag. 1 CHAP. II. A Reply to his Introduction 10 CHAP. III. A view of the first part of schism disarmed. 17 CHAP IV. A Survey of the Second Part of schism disarmed. 81 CHAP. V. A Defence of the sixth Chapter of the Tract of schism. 132 CHAP. VI. A Defence of the seventh Chapter of schism. 217 CHAP. VII. A Survey of the third part of schism Disarmed. 233 The Errata. Pag. Lin. red. 4 1 after opposers add, 6 12 {αβγδ} 14 15 so many   19 that we 33 20 there   29 prejudge 47 3 a caeteris 87 37 {αβγδ} 88 7 {αβγδ} 95 marg. l. 21. r. convellit 102 9 Bishops 123 25 him 124 3 passed 125 25 resort 128 36 Ecce Roma 134 20 preserver 142 9 gium,   31 of a 145 4 and so 148 7 competent   32 often wore 166 2 Alexius 186 18 {αβγδ} 189 27 book   31 formataerum 190 31 and strict 197 ult. to going 207 18 be an   21 under- 209 26 letter 213 6 sure, I 222 37 as, it seems, first principles 242 24 so trusty 245 13 {αβγδ} 252 15 can be   18 by strength 253 19 d. which   20 which mistook   32 in thesi 255 4 {αβγδ}: 256 23 consciousness   35 In answer 281 8 farther 288 1 in it. THE Disarmers Dexterities EXAMINED. CHAP. I. An Introduction and answer to S. W. his Epistle to the Reader. Sect. 1. Of the Disarmers style and contumelies. The Scriptures judgement and sentence on {αβγδ}. Other parts of the Character belonging thereto. SOme months have now past, since I made my joint Reply both to the catholic Gentleman his Answer to the tract of Schism and to Mr H.T. his Appendix to his manual of controversies, and thereon I had grounded some just hope, that either I should receive a fair Christian rejoinder to that Reply, or else being permitted to retire from these agones, be allowed some respite for thoughts and offerings of peace; But before some other importunities had permitted me to enter on the least enjoyment of this calm, this {αβγδ}( to me I am sure) most natural habitude, Nonnus {αβγδ}. p. 137. as Epicurus called his {αβγδ}, I find my self again engaged( by one who hath chosen to be so reserved, as to give me but two Letters, S. W. to know him by, and so little to take notice of these lower transactions, as not to own the having heard of that Reply) and there under the title of Disarmed schism, I meet with as copious a collection of scoffs, and contumelies, as I ever remember to have seen contrived within so narrow a compass. To these the Romish Factor hath, in the name of the Stationer, pleased to give the style of Drolery, and Piquant sauce, but the Author himself, who was fittest to have the naming of his own births, hath in his Epistle to the Reader, allowed them the plainer titles of Rude blows, and twitchings by the beard: now because the one business of that Epistle is not to excuse but to justify this dealing, to avow and defend the Authors just title to the scorners chair, and profestly to pled to it, producing such evidences, as he is confident may secure his possession, and agreeably the Publishers care, and wit hath so particularly conformed, that to the syllabus of the Chapters, he hath solemnly annexed a list of the contumelies, three and thirty picked out by specialty out of the far greater number,( as if Goliah's cursing of David had been the disarming and discomfiting him; as if the language that the King of Moab would have bribed Balaam to use, had been a certain enchantment against Israel, as if every reproach wherewith Rabshakeh adorned his challenge to Hezekiah were indeed a several victory over him) It is therefore reasonable that I should thus far comply with my disarmers method, as to begin with an examination of that spirit which hath suggested, of those reasons, which are thought competent to defend this manner of managing controversies in Religion. And herein the matter under examination being already as notorious, and confessed, as the flagrant fact, and the Authors justifying thereof can render it, the sentence is long ago pronounced by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5.11. and 6.10. I shall need onely to recite it, In the former place, {αβγδ}. If any that is called a brother, by name or profession a Christian, be a railer or reviler, {αβγδ}, with such an one no not to eat, the Christians of Corinth must have no society with him, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}, saith the scholiast. He hath onely the name, not the reality of a Christian, and {αβγδ}, he is for this fault a detestable person, and as such fals under the censures of the Church, v. 12. and he that is thus ipso jure excommunicate, is no very competent Juror or witness in a question of schism, such as that which we have now before us. In the latter the {αβγδ}, railers, revilers, contumelious persons again, are reckoned as a special sort of {αβγδ} unrighteous, which continuing such unreformed, shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, and do but flatter, and deceive themselves, if they hope they may; and such sure are not qualified to condemn others, and exclude them from heaven, being none of those Saints, who clavae non errant shall judge the world. Beside these, which alone might have discouraged any sober Christian from this adventure, many other unhappy characters are ready to fall upon it. 1. That it is by our Saviour noted to be the very Dialect, which the obstinate Jews used toward the true Prophets of God, {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, reproachings and every evil word, Mat. 5.11. and such withall as will to the sufferer be matter of triumph( {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} v. 12. amounts to that) in case it shall finally prove that causelessly or falsely, and for defence of the truth it hath fallen upon him. 2dly That in case it should not in fine prove thus, yet it is that, which an Angel, the most highly dignified and most importunely provoked( so was Michael judas 9.) would not make use of against the devil himself, when engaged in the most malicious dispute against the true Church of God( for such I suppose I have elsewhere shewed was meant, in that place, by the body of Moses) And that it should now adays against all laws of Religion be admitted to an office( such I think should be a dispute) of Religion, what is it but the imitation of herculeses sacrifices at Lyndus, which were celebrated by execrations and maledictions, any {αβγδ} or word of civility, though unwarily let fall, being deemed the violation of the festival. 3dly. That as nothing hath a more direct and particular opposition, and unreconcileablenesse to that spirit of meekness wherein we are commanded by Saint Paul, to 2 Tim. 2.25. instruct, to 1 Cor. 4.21. chastise, to Gal. 6.1. reduce opposers to that supernal wisdom in St. James, which being first pure, is next peaceable, then gentle and {αβγδ}, so it cannot proceed from that divine Spirit, whose fruits among others are reckoned to be love, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, in opposition to hatred, variance, ●mulations, wrath, strife, envyings, and such like, Gal. 5. and the biting one another, v. 16. all characters of the gnostic heresy at that time. Lastly, that as this is a most unskilful diviation from all rules of art, as well as civility, and St. jerome 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, and been useful, as Hierocles saith of oaths, {αβγδ}, to fill up the chasmes or vacuities in the discourse, that same prudent Philosopher having given us this aphorism, that confidence of skill conduces much to the infusing meekness into our debates: Thus Nat. Hist. l. 29. c. 4. Pliny and Tetrab. 4. sec. 1. c. 34. Aetius tell us of the grecian serpents, that have no killing faculty of their own, born with them, they are fain to feed on noxious herbs( {αβγδ}) or else they are able to hurt no body. And thus is S. W. put to it, to heighten his confuting powers; he submits to a sad diet, and then Aelian. l. 6. c. 4. {αβγδ}, having armed himself with these strengthening plants, he becomes, Hom. Iliad. {αβγδ}. v. 93. {αβγδ}, very triumphant at least, if not victorious over his adversary. This therefore is no excellent indication of S. W. his persuasions of his own performances in this combat, that he deemed it necessary Claud. paneg. 1. — geminare venenis vulnera, thus to anoint his shafts, as the Ethiopians do their* little arrows, which having thus imbibed high virtues, {αβγδ}. Heliod. Aethiop. {αβγδ}, make very quick work, are very killing, or in my Disarmers phrase, beyond all possible confute; For( besides this conscience of his own wants) what rational account can be assigned, that such a last reserve should be drawn out so soon, that {αβγδ} which the Orator makes the effect of the disputants being nonplussed, and cannot be more commodiously rendered then in the Authors style, of rude blows, should be the refuge so early, and so constantly, that this ultimus conatus, last plunge of a gasping cause( as when art is at an end, Hippocrates puts off his desperate patient to the {αβγδ}) should so long forestall the {αβγδ}, and dishearten his friends and servants( in which number, if but upon that one score of having received injuries from him, I am by Christs Law obliged to include myself) and shut out all hope of receiving benefit from any future applications, The Divine being allowed to have that skill in symptoms, which Irenaeus, as well as galen hath taught us, that the profusest laughter is the worst indication in the affections of the spleen, {αβγδ}. Sect. 2. An Answer to his two Questions concerning contumelies. The Christian method of answering such. HAving from that Obligation of Charity, which is most particularly required of me by Christ to the despightfullest enemy, Mat. 5.44. said thus much to my unknown Disarmer, It is a second necessary method of the same Charity, to endeavour his conviction, by examining that one account, which he gives of the rudeness of his blows, by exacting an answer from his Reader to this question, How he would take it if one should spit in his face, and justify the affront because his breath is sweet, or what he would say to him that ruins his estate by perjury,& defends himself, that he held up his eyes to heaven, and swore demurely] adding, that whatsoever answer he gives, it will perfectly clear S. W. his behaviour towards the Doctor.] Herein all the Reply that can be expected from me, is to answer his double Question, and to do it according to the certain rules of Christs Divine Precepts, and not the uncertain, mutable practices, or humors of the passionate world. To the first, which mentions spitting in the face, be the breath that accompanies it either sweet, or otherwise, my answer is, That this I should look on as a contumely of the nature of that which Christ mentions, Mat. 5.39. {αβγδ}, Whosoever shal strike thee on the right cheek, which, supposing no wound, or permanent pain to the body, was a fit instance to express reproaches, and contumelies and such like supportable injuries of all sorts, parallel to which are all the scoffings and revilings, which were thought necessary by S.W. for the Disarming of schism; And if the Tract to which he replies had any such in it, either toward the Church of Rome, or any particular member of it( as I know there is not one in the whole Book, and the very confession of the sweet breath, the courteous style, the civil adversary makes it needless to contest it) the duty in respect of the sufferer is evident in Christs Sermon, {αβγδ}, turn to him the other also, rather adventure more of the like injuries than ever think of acting revenge on that. There is but one farther care beyond this, which can be seasonable, {αβγδ}, To pray for them that thus despitefully use you, and that it may not be {αβγδ}, a sluggish unactive, and so uneffectual sacrifice,( that {αβγδ}, in Hierocles) the assistant endeavour, and diligence of fraternal admonition, and reproof is to go along with our Prayer, Mat. 18.15. and this is all the revenge that is allowed to any private Christian in this case. And so that must serve for answer to his first question; Let him now consider what arts will avail to make up the parallel betwixt this duty, and his practise, when he that gave the Law, shall come to exact account of the performance of it. The other Question founded in the more unsupportable injury of ruining the estate by perjury, must have another answer, that in that case, it is very lawful to use all lawful means to discover the perjury, and to defend the estate: What those lawful means are I shall not need to enumerate, but onely assure him, that rude blows which avail nothing to either of these ends, twitchings by the beard, declamation and satire,( before any attempt of proof) are none of these justifiable lawful means, but are on the contrary that most unjust, unskilful, as well as unchristian revenge, the {αβγδ} in the stoic, the doing the most we can to be like him, whom we most dislike. Mean while, to bring this home to the case before us, 'tis certain and visible, that as the defending the Church of England from schism, bears no proportion to the ruining S. W. his estate( if he hath no other tenor in his earthly, or heavenly possessions, but the worlds believing, that we are schismatics, he hath been very negligent of his deeds, and a little charity were his much better way to mend his assurances) so surely, neither is there any oath incumbent on us, which can be pretended to be violated by casting off the Romish yoke, neither hath there been any the least perjurious tampering discoverable in any part of my defence, he might as truly have said, that I offered sacrifice to Idols, that I consulted with Necromancers, to rob him of his Christian patience) and if he mark, his style, which was robust in the mention of perjury, is grown much fainter, when he comes to the {αβγδ}, pretends to no more than perverse meaning and abusive treating matters of religion; But I trust it shall appear that this was but the language of interest, or passion also, and that there is not one single falsity in that whole Tract of schism; If there be, I shall, when it appears, be content to deliver it up to the force of his proofs, but not till then, to the charm of his scoffs. If I must be humbled for my misfortune, as he styleth it, in handling controversies so meanly, 'tis not yet, I suppose, the season for it, till I have lost my own, or ●elt the keennesse of his weapons, in whom it is( in the interim) a transgression of the rules of Art, as well as Justice, no other than the meanest begging 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. I have done with S. W. his Epistle to the Reader, his very self-denial defence of a very great, and evidently the principal part of his Book, that which comprehends all the scoffs and revilings in it, and having said so much in this place, shall not add one word more on that subject, how oft soever it solicit me, in the future debates. Sect. 3. The affinity betwixt schism Disarmed and the catholic Gentlemans letter. The design of this Answer. ANd when I shall have subjoined two considerations more, I shal have rid myself, and the Reader of a great part of the task, which seems incumbent on both of us, and so shorten our work, by enlarging our procinctus or entrance to it. First then it is manifest, that schism Disarmed is in a great part of it nothing else but the enlarging on those briefer animadversions, which had been given by the letter from brussels, or the catholic Gentlemans answer to the most material parts of the Book of schism; For which purpose I refer the Reader to p. 24. of schism Disarmed: where after some praelusory lighter skirmishes, he thus begins. These grounds laid, it were not amiss to insert here what the Author of that Epistle which was written from brussels in Answer to Dr Ha. saith upon this place] adding his judgement of that letter, p. 25. that had it not been strangled in the birth, and miscarried in the Printers hand, it might have saved the labour of this larger confute; and being exactly short might justly be styled Dr Ha. his Iliads in a mercers-chapel, since the force of it was so united, the reason in it so firmly connected, as might have cost the Dr a full ten years siege, ere he could make a breach into it by his brown Paper bullets.] This passage of kindness and reference to that Epistle, with many other characters of affinity betwixt that, and schism disarmed, especially the first of the three parts of it, persuade me that the Author of that Epistle was the Penman of at least the first part of schism Disarmed: And agreeably the answers there drawn in little, have here a larger portraiture, but remain in substance, the same, with the advantage onely of some growth of limbs and such like accidental improvements. Now whereas it is certain, that I have punctually made reply to that whole letter, and every period in it, setting it down and attending it {αβγδ}, and having first, to the utmost of my skill, rescued it from all the Printers miscarriages,( which is all the strangling in the birth he speaks of) and then improved every Answer in it, as far as I could foresee it favourable, never taking the least advantage either of the conciseness of its natural frame, or the misadventures it had casually met with; It were now not onely superfluous for me, but unjust, equally impertinent, and unconscionable to make the Reader pay twice for the same Answers, and therefore no other then duty thus far to comply with his ease, and thrift, as to refer him to that Reply for all that is there competently vindicated, without any further repetition, which I therefore here mind him of, once for all, and accordingly design this view of schism disarmed to be an Appendix onely to that Reply to the catholic Gentleman, to glean after the rak, to consider onely those Answers in it, which had not been insisted on, in the hast of that briefer letter, but are now taken in by these {αβγδ}. Had my Disarmer taken notice of my Reply,( as he had time to have done, and I cannot apprehended his retirement, or employment so strict that he should not hear of it) he might possibly have given me a sight of some infirmities in it; But as it is, I discern no need of giving it any farther assistance, as far as respects those answers, which it undertook to consider: And so I have no more incumbent on me at this time, but to survey, and muster all the fresh forces, which now first appear in the field, and not to increase the roll with the new names and dresses, that the old stagers appear in, the second time. Secondly, there are some parts of the Tract of schism, which my Disarmer excepts against, as superfluous to the debate betwixt us, as that entire branch entred on, Ch. 6. of the Romanists plea from the Bishop of Romes having planted Christianity among us. Which being disclaimed to be any plea of theirs, It is perfectly needless that I should vindicate the arguments, that are framed to refute that plea, any farther, then as he which grants my conclusion, will yet make some specious objections against my way of inferring it. Some other things there are of this kind, to all which I shall not need to give any attention especially when I have done it once in the Reply, And then that which remains, my present necessary charge or province, being thus refined, and separated from these three parts of it, the declamation, the repetition, and what hangs loose, and may by consent be spared from the controversy before us; it will not retain so formidable a bulk, as it first appeared to have, and may by Gods blessing be dispatched without much labour, and presented to the Readers use with some degree of that compendium, which Philo speaks of, {αβγδ}, the largest proportions may be carved in little, and contrived into a signet, and so might, if the hand were fine enough, the portraiture of my Disarmer. CHAP II. A Reply to his Introduction. Sect. 1. The writers that have engaged against the main body, and authority of the Church of Rome. The reasonableness of insisting on that rather then particular controversies, especially at this time. IN his Introduction these few things seem to expect some Reply. 1. His pretended admiration, Why the Protestant party, who heretofore seemed still more willing to skirmish in particular controversies, then bid battle to the main body of the Church, or any thing which concerned her authority, should now print Books by pairs, in defence of this disunion from her and subducing themselves from her Government] annexing afterward his conjecture of the reason, to alloy this admiration. Now of this, as far as concerns one of the pair, I am able to give him the one just account, and need not attend to his conjectures, who was not of my council in the designment. And 1. S. W. must be a very great stranger to his own country, or willingly dissemble his knowledge, if it were any news to him, that the Fathers or sons of the Church of England, writ Books against the main body and authority of the Church of Rome: 'tis pity I should be set to prove this: He cannot but have heard of the tract de vera differentia Regiae& Ecclesiasticae potestatis, set out by the Prelates in Henry VIII. his days( and may if be please now view it, under the title of Opus eximium in Goldastus's Monarchia) as also The Institution of a Christian Man, 1537. and, The necessary Doctrine and Erudition, 1543. under the head of the Sacrament of Orders, I. These certainly were as early, and as punctual, as he could wish, to the main body of th●ir pretensions, and to omit innumerable others, What was Dr Reynolds's conference with Mr Hart in Queen Elizabeths reign: and of later times, Bishop B●lsons discourse of the true difference betwixt Christian subjection, and unchristian Rebellion, Bishop Davenant de judice& normâ Fidei, The Volumes of Antonius de Dominis, when he was a member of our Church, and yet later, Dr White, Mr Chillingworth, and my Lord of Canterbury, and many others, which are fresh in every mans memory; And it is much juster matter of wonder to me, that S. W. would choose to set out so unauspiciously, as to begin with an observation founded in a visible contrariety to a plain matter of fact, that every man that thinks of, must discern to be so. 2dly. If his observation had all truth in it, viz. That formerly we were more willing to skirmish in particular controversies, yet 'twere obvious to every man, what might now suggest the change of that course, and so could be no real matter of admiration to S. W. For when the particular controversies have been competently debated, why should more pains and time be spent on them? And when the more general fundamental questions of Romes infallibility, and universal pastorship( on which the case of schism depends) comprehend all lesser debates, what more compendious way can be invented, to the ending of disputes, which are not such excellent employments, that they should be perpetuated, as this, to set the axe to the root of the three, which when it is stocked up, the branches by necessity of consequence, without any new execution, will soon whither away, but till this be done effectually, the root will still propagate its life and juice, and controversies will within few years sprout out, and flourish afresh, and so the circled be endless betwixt growth and lopping, and new growth again, when the axe and mattock, brought out together, might soon make a gainful conclusion, transform and improve the barren weald and bosk into a fruitful Campania. But beside prudent consideration, there was some kind of necessity which in stead of directing, challenged and exacted this method at this time. It was visible to all what industry was used by the Romish Missaries, by pretence of our being in schism, to defame( and so fright us out of) a persecuted profession. And if we may believe their own boasts, it hath succeeded with them very prosperously; and how could we, without the greatest uncharitableness, permit the temptations of our present pressures to be thus enhanced to any weak seducible Christian, when a little pains would lay it visible before him, that the Bishop of Rome never had from Christ or Saint Peter, or from any other title justly pleadable, any supreme authority, or jurisdiction over this island. And so unless an act of due and seasonable Charity be the great unheard of news, or prodigy; I discern not what could suggest to S. W. the least admiration in this matter. Sect. 2. No reasonableness of schism pleaded. The Censures of the Church not always seasonable against schismatics. THe second thing that exacts Reply, is his advertisement that it were more seasonable for the Church of England to denounce to those many minute sects gone out from their communion the unreasonableness of their schism, then pled the reasonableness of their own, and to threaten them with the spiritual rod of excommunication, unl●ss they return, then cry so loud not guilty-] To this I answer, 1. That S. W. cannot be imagined to have red the first Chapter of the short tract, to which he assumes to give answer, if he can believe himself, when he saith, that we pled the reasonableness of our own schism: 'tis there most evident, that I grant all schism in any that are found guilty of it, to be uncapable of all excuse, or plea of reasonableness, and that I maintain our innocence by denying the fact, and not by defending the justice of it. This then is another {αβγδ} what trust is due to S. W. in his affirmations. 2. It must be a misunderstanding of the nature, and aim of the censures of the Church, if he could in earnest think this a fit season, to inflict or menace them, on those sons of this Church, which have at this time divided from us. 'tis certain that a prevailing evil, a schism armed with might, is not either in prudence or charity to be contended with. They that have cast out the Governors of the Church, and trod down their power, are not, till the paroxysm assuage, or some good crisis appear qualified for this kind of application. Our prayers are the special means, from which we hope success, and those we cease not to poure out for them, and for all that have erred, and are deceived. All other fraternal means both for cure and for prevention we take in also in their seasons: and I had thought the so large and punctual representation of the danger and sin of Schism, ch. 1. the definition and specification of the sorts of it, in the following Chapters of the Tract of Schism, had been in some part the denouncing against all that are guilty of it the more than unreasonableness of their schism: And I need not mind him of many other treatises, very particularly addressed, and largely designed to the same end. As for any more solemn judicial process of {αβγδ}, admonition, exhortation, discipline, they are not at all times, and so not at this, the proper chosen weapons of our warfare, which being designed to none but charitative ends, for edification, not for destruction, to reduce such as are within reach of that hope, not to riot in the ruin, to seal up, or increase the damnation of any, and being, ●s the Apostle saith, {αβγδ}, not carnal, they must consequently be far removed from that one( as from all other kinds of) carnality, the expressing impotent passion or revenge, or heaping any other coals of fire on the Opposers heads, but those that are apt and probable to melt them. And had the Romanists used this method, in stead of their other more sanguinary, with meekness instructing, and not with rage fulminating against those, that oppose themselves, the Christian world had not now probably been engaged in such irreparable ruptures, as with rivers of tears of blood will not be proportionably lamented. Sect. 3. The Romanists urging false fundamentals. Our acknowledging them a true Church, No proof that we think their Errors tolerable. The gravity of the matter makes not errors fitter to be prest then rituals. Tediousness in things acknowledged, unjustly charged. A Third thing there yet remains set down in these words[ that we prest them to believe false Fundamentals. Dr Ham: and his friends will not say, since they acknowledge ours a true Church which is inconsistent with such a lapse, they were therefore in their opinion things tolerable, which were upon them; and if not in the same rank, yet more deserving the Church should command their observance, then copes or surplices, or the Book of Common-prayer, the allowance whereof they prest upon their Quondam brethren.] In these words there are too many variations from the rules of sober discourse, so many indications of S. W. his temper, that it will not be easy to enumerate them, I shall make tender of some few, {αβγδ}. And 1. when he undertakes for me and my friends, we will not say, that the Romanists have prest us to believe false fundamentals, either his words are not intelligible sense, or else they have visibly no degree of truth in them. That any Fundamentals should be false, is a contradiction in adjecto, and is not sense, or intellegible: The meaning therefore, I suppose, is, that some things may be said to be fundamental, which are not truly such, and that they that press others to believe such doctrines, and to believe them fundamental, press them to believe false Fundamentals, and then S. W. his affirmation must be. that I and my friends will not say that the Romanists do thus. But herein certainly he knows the contrary, viz. that we affirm them to press many things on us for fundamentals of belief, which are not Fundamentals( by name that of the infallibility of their Church) and that this is of all others the greatest objection, which we have to their dealing with us, as that which renders our reunion most impossible. That we hold nothing de fide, as fundamental, which they do not also hold, we oft affirm, and it is most manifest, but that they have not made more things necessary to be believed, and so de fide, and fundamental, than we do, or can acknowledge to be such, is affirmed without the least ground, or show of truth, and that was no very fair play in my Disarmer. 2ly. For his proof of this his affirmation, viz. because we aclowledge theirs to be a true Church; either it is assisted by a gross, and discernible equivocation in the word [ true], and then again it hath no truth in it, or else it is far from all probability of concluding, what he infers from it. if by [ true] he means to exclude erroneous, even in this degree, as to press for fundamental, that which is not such, nay nor truth neither, then he knows we yield not the present Church of Rome a true Church, but charge it guilty of many errors in belief and practise, and particularly of this, that they define many things de fide, and press them to be so received by us, which we acknowledge not to be such, and so he hath gained little by this our confession. But if by true he means veritatem entis, which alone we acknowledge of it, that it hath the true nature of a Church, but that overcharged with many errors, 'tis impossible he should ever infer from thence, that we say they press us not to believe any thing for fundamental which is not such. This sure they may do, and be foully culpable for doing it, and yet not unchurch themselves by so doing. They that hold the true foundation laid by Christ, but offend by enlarging it beyond the due limits, who add more than Christ or his Apostles deposited in the Church, do not by this superaddition either renounce, or forfeit all that before they had, the dross doth corrupt the gold, but not annihilate it. 3dly. His affirmation, that they were, in our opinion, things tolerable which were urged upon us, is of the same quality with the former. 'tis certain we have oft expressed our opinion, that they are such as without hypocrisy, or gross sin against conscience, we cannot admit, and no weight is more unsupportable than that. Another visible lapse you see in relating a matter of fact( for such it is to affirm us to opine, what we opine not) but then that which follows in the fourth place is still more transcendent. The things which they press upon us( and we cannot submit to) are, saith he, more deserving the Church should command their observance than copes-. I grant that articles de Fide are, or should be of far greater importance, than ornaments, or rituals: But what if articles are imposed de Fide, which have no truth in them, will the gravity of the matter in that case pled for the imposing them; or can it thence follow that all that the Church of Rome hath defined to be de fide, do better deserve to be commanded, than Copes? Copes are by us, and the Romanist jointly acknowledged to be things indifferent, and so lawful to be prudently prescribed by a competent authority; and the lighter they are in the nature of them, the greater obstinacy it is to resist such commands, and causelessly to depart from the Church, rather than do what is thus indifferent. But the weightier the importance of the other is, the more intolerable is the pressure, and the greater the tyranny of imposing them. So beyond all measure improbable are all S. W. his present offers of probation. 'tis pity thus unnecessarily to insist on it. What he adds of my tediousness in things acknowledged by both parties, is with no show of justice suggested( the whole treatise being very short, and in my opinion every branch of it necessary to vindicate our innocence, or to pre-judge theirs) especially when the less he hath to oppose, the sooner he might, if he pleased, be at an end of his journey, were it not that he finds as faire colours of answers to reply, and as faire a field to expatiate, when the matter is most grossly true, and granted by him, as he doth, when it is most his interest to oppugn it. I shall propose to myself, not to transcribe this copy from him, but permit him peaceably to speak as much truth, as he will, be it direct, or never so much out of the way, and never disturb him in his course, unless I shall discern some part of my arguing concerned, which the former reply to the catholic Gentleman had not opportunity to vindicate. And so much for his Introduction. CHAP. III. A view of the first part of schism disarmed. SECT. 1. No cause can justify schism. The reasons of my setting down the sin of schism so largely. The state of he question, which the schismatics, the Romanists, or we. The case of the Romish Recusant. Of the Pope excommunicating us, against Canons Ephesine, and apostolic, &c. A difference between the Court of Rome with their abettors, and the charitable subjects of the Papacy. The fundamental question, the right of the Popes power. My modifying the Fathers words. IN the first Section of his first part, two things S. W. is much to seek in, and to those it will be act of charity to afford some satisfaction. First, why I took pains to set so ill a character upon schism( as is done in the 6, 7. and 8. Sect. of Chap. 1.) to gather as he saith, such a bundle of severe rods out of the sacred Scriptures and best Fathers, to whip schismatics:) 2. Why I think the cause or occasion of any mans schism not worth the producing or heeding in this controversy. Of the later of these I have already spoken in the Reply, Chap. 1. Sect. 1. and shall now only add another very ancient testimony from Dionysius Alexandrinus, in his Epistle to Novatus, {αβγδ}. Ap: Euseb: {αβγδ}. A Christian ought to endure any thing in that( humble Charitative) cause of not dividing the Church of Christ, rather then really to divide upon what ever cause. And because it is now suggested that this is but a fetch, the prettiest that ever S. W. met with, to wave the whole question, or whatsoever is material in it, I shall in answering of his first wonderment, give a clear account of this second misunderstanding also. The evident reason of my premising so largely, and so early that bloody portraiture of the danger, and sin of schism, as far as it respects the Romanist and us( for it had a more comprehensive influence than so, as hath been already said) was no other but the entire desire to speak the full truth of God, and to lay all guilt, where I was fully persuaded the All-just searcher of hearts, and Judge of actions had laid it, i.e. on those, whosoever they were, that were truly guilty of it, who had either divided from the catholic Church of Christ, truly so called, or in special from any particular National Church, such as the Church of Rome is on one side, and the Church of England on the other. And this was so pertinent in both these respects, to the Romanists present case( as many especially, as have forsaken that Communion of ours, in which they sometimes lived obediently) that if ever I had been really willing to alleviate the Fathers censures of the crime of schism,( as twice, or thrice my Disarmer pretends me inclinable to do, he shall see anon with how little reason) I might most justly say, that it had been from a tenderness to our enemies( and not from any jealousy of our selves) an effect of which it really was, that I choose not to proceed to fasten this crime on any, Tr. of Sch●sm, p. 11. to assume the office either of an accuser, or a Judge, but contain myself within the meekest bounds, that humility and charity could advice, of vindicating our own integrity, without recriminating or retorting the charge on our adversaries. Of this I shall now speak a little more expressly, upon this occasion. That it is in this debate, concerning schism, a matter of question betwixt the Romanists and us, whether the Bishop of Rome had before, and at the time of the Reformation, any supreme legal power, and authority over the Church of England, I willingly acknowledge( and by the way, it is strange that S. W. can think fit to affirm, that That our Church had authority to do it( to cast you out and deny you Communion) if you be found to deserve it, being then her subjects and children, none doubts, p. 4. none doubts it) and till that question be decided on one side, it cannot with any reason be defined, on which side the schism doth truly lie. And therefore I deemed it absolutely necessary to examine all the Romanists pleas imaginable, their weightier, or lightest colours of pretensions to that authority. And I think no man can, or doth say that I have omitted any head of them; but on the other side, that I was over careful to prevent some which they now choose not to pled. From hence it is inevitably consequent, that as on the trial of this question of the papal supremacy, the Crisis of this other of schism so depends, that when the one is determined, the other must follow it, it being evident that actually there is a schism or partition betwixt us, and by both of us granted, that no cause can excuse them who shall be found guilty of it: So whilst the former, that of the papal authority, is under contest; the question is not barely this, Whether the Church of England be schismatical, or no,( for a Romanist may cheaply debate that, an● keep himself safe, whatsoever becomes of the umpirage) but indifferently, and equally, whether we, or the Romanist be thus guilty, or which is the schismatic, that lies under all those severe censures of the Scriptures and Fathers, Those of the English Reformation on the one side, or the English Revolters on the other side, not excluding( but involving also under the same condemnation, in case they have no due authority over us, which now is the question, and must not be begged on either side) the Governours in the Romish See, that have against all Christian methods of charity, and duty of Communion, cast us out of their societies, as without authority( in case they are not our lawful superiors) so without all cause, and continue their severity without all remorse or relenting for the space of many years, and this not only toward us, but toward many other Churches, East and West, North and South, in all parts of the habitable world. For if the Church of England be really {αβγδ}, duly subject to no foreign jurisdiction, which I must yet suppose to be made good in that tract of schism, then the lay Papist, baptized a member, and son of this national Church under the authority of our Ecclesiastical Superiors, as he was born a subject under the civill Governors of this Realm, hath revolted, and separated from his immediate Superiors, and for his sake, among others, it was, that the Discourse was so punctual, and so large c. 3. concerning the unity of subjection of all inferiors to all their lawful superiors, and the schism that arose from the breach of that unity, the casting off that Obedience; It were to be wished the English Revolters, that are so nearly concerned, and the unsettled doubters, that are in most danger to be seduced by the confidence of a supposed safety, which is promised them in their departure from us, and affirmed to be granted on all hands, would timely be admonished to take notice of it. So again if the Bishop of Rome had really no more power and authority over this Church, then the Bishop of Antioch in the time of the Ephesine council was found to have over Cyprus, then his pretending this supereminent authority, and proceeding with us, as with his legal subjects, sending out his Bulls of Excommunication against us, what is it but a schism formally on his part, which makes the rapture between the sister Churches, and a most express violation of the ancient Canons, which so distinctly, and precisely command the contrary. I shall best give you their sense in the very words of the great council of Ephesus, Can: ult. {αβγδ}, that no Bishop( be he ne never so dignified) shall invade another Province, which hath not been from the beginning under his, i.e. his Predecessors hand or power. But in case any have thus invaded and by violence brought it under him, he shall then make restitution that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, and under pretence of sacred office, the pride of secular power secretly steal in, and so we by degrees lose indiscernibly the liberty which our Lord Jesus Christ the Redeemer of all men hath given us by his own blood. This is yet more distinctly set down in the genuine apostolic Canons, where as the due observance of the Primate in every nation is prescribed Can: 34. and his power thus limited in the exercise of it, that he shall do nothing in the Inferior Bishops Dioceses, {αβγδ}, without the good liking of them all( and if he do otherwise, he abuses his dignity, saith the Scholiast, and {αβγδ} Zon. p. 17. D. converts it into {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, which is no better then tyranny) so Can: 35. they proceed to define {αβγδ}— that no Bishop shall dare to ordain any without his own bounds, in cities or regions not subject to him; or if he be convinced to have done so, without the good liking of those that have the rule of those cities or regions, he is to be deposed for that default. And what they thus define about Ordination, the council of Constantinople extend to all other Ecclesiastical affairs, Can: {αβγδ}( as before {αβγδ}, that no Bishops must, unless they be called or entreated, meddle beyond their diocese, or with Churches without their bounds, either for ordination, Zon. p. 70. A. or any other Ecclesiastical economies; and the Scholiast tells us, that the word {αβγδ} signify, it to be {αβγδ}, a robbery, and a tumultuous disorderly invasion in them that are guilty of it. The same doth the 13th Canon of Antioch define of any Bishop, in reference both to {αβγδ}. ordination and to constituting of what ever Ecclesiastical affairs that belong not to him, decreeing a plain nullity of all that he shall thus constitute, and so again Can: {αβγδ}. of that council. And this being the Bishop of Rome his condition in respect of us, in case he have no legal authority over us, and be not entreated by the Governours of our Church to exercise any; or in case he were our Primate, yet still if he act without the council, and against the consent of our Bishops, as he must be supposed to do, when he excommunicates them, and their Flocks together, 'tis all this while, as was shewed, usurpation and invasion, and by force of these Canons {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, irregular, invalid, and null, and in the consequence of it, most evidently destructive of that {αβγδ} that concord and unity, as of brethren, which is to be preserved between several Churches, and so a most culpable act of schism in the Bishop of Rome, and in all them that are guilty of it in so high a way, as to anathematize and disclaim all Communion with others: and this is all this while visibly antecedent to, and abstracted from the cause of his doing it, which alone S. W. will allow to be considered, accusing me for waving the question, when he swallows it down at one haust, pretending that none doubt of their Churches authority to do it, which I profess to be the one fundamental question of all, to which this other, who they are that are guilty of the schism, or whether the charge of schism be sufficiently proved against us of the Church of England, is but appendent, and consequent, the usurping of an undue power over those that are not his Ecclesiastical subjects, being no Judicial act, but a most visible tyranny in him that exercises it so bloodily, on whatsoever pretended misbehaviours, and that which alone, without any other branch of plea, justifies us from the guilt of schism, in vindicating our just liberties, by casting him out of that power, who was so unduly possessed of it, and so divolves( unless he can clear his title to the power) the whole guilt of the crime on the accuser. How highly the Court of Rome, and all that abet her grandeur and contemt of their brethren, are to be judged criminous herein, this is no place to define: I willingly acknowledge a wide difference between them, and the humble charitable members of the Roman Communion, who living quietly under their Superiors, endeavour and pray for the peace of the catholic Church, and contribute not actively or willingly to the ruptures of it: Of which number because our charity bids us hope there are great multitudes, we are still free from any necessity of prejudging the Church of Rome from being a true Church, and so still retain that favourable opinion of salvation being attainable amongst them, which we always allowed, yet cannot absolve from the guilt of the most culpable schism those that have set up, and maintained that more than {αβγδ} or {αβγδ} or {αβγδ}, that impregnable fortress, rather than wall of partition betwixt us, nor yet those that against all rules of subjection and subordination have renounced their lot in the Church of England, wherein they were planted, and given themselves up to a foreign obedience. My Disarmer will, I suppose, by this discern the satisfaction which he is likely to receive to his two scruples, I have that confidence of his capacity, as to leave him to pick it out of the premises, and apply it to his best advantage, as I do also this open acknowledgement, that if by the process of this debate it shall appear, that the Bishop of Rome is, or was by the Institution of Christ, from whom he pretends, our legal superior, possessor bonae fidei of the supreme power over us, we are then unquestionably the schismatics; and if not, then are they such, which have revolted from us. And this, as it will shorten the method, and make it still reasonable to wave the consideration of the occasion and causes of the schism( of which they that are guilty are not excusable by any motive or cause of their action) so it is most distant from declining the very point of the difficulty, as S. W. without all colour of truth, or argument, pretends, the right of the power being the one great requisite to the validity of any exercise of it. Wherein as we have no reason to dread the Romanists, or to misdoubt our plea, so I assure S. W. no fear, or jealous apprehension of any possible danger inclined me to modify any sharp expression of the Fathers against schism, as he twice or thrice without any justice suggests me to do. The clearing whereof is all that I have any obligation to add to this Section. His first whisper of suggestion is, that in rendering S. Augustines words, Non esse quicquam gravius schismate, I say there is scarce any crime so great as schism.[ There saith he, I mince it with scarce, when the place cited is absolute, that there is not any] But certainly S. W. sees amiss, The place in that Father is not absolute, that there is not any so great, but only that there is not any gravius heavier or greater; now there may possibly be many crimes as great, though no one were supposed greater, and so my rendering it [ there is scarce any so great] i. e. scarce any equal to schism, is fully as much, as the original contained: and if it differ at all from it, 'tis that 'tis more comprehensive, than that which 'twas set to interpret. And yet also the other expressions of the Fathers, produced in that place, gave me authority to set it in that amplitude, not idolatry, not sacrilege, not parricide( say they) is so great, and therefore I conclude, scarce any crime can come in competition with it, not knowing any that was qualified for it by being greater than these, and yet not assuming to affirm more than my authorities did induce, that there was none greater. Herein tis visible my Disarmers hast was too great, and that I could not have rendered either the words more fully, or the sense of the testimonies more punctually, than I did render them: 'twere, I doubt, his dearest interest, that some softer expression did truly belong to that sin, than that which I was forced to allot to it. The other rendering which he blames is on occasion of these words of Irenaeus, Nulla ab eis tanta fieri potest correptio quanta est schismatis pernicies, whence, not as translating to a word, but as deducing a conclusion, I infer, that it is in the opinion of the Fathers very hard, if not impossible to receive such an injury or provocation from the Governors of the Church as may make a separation excusable[ here, saith he, the Doctor mitigates the dangerous expression with, very hard if not impossible.] But why did he not say, I did not exactly render schismatis pernicies? For it is evident, I varied that more, than the nulla fieri potest correptio. The short is, I set down the latin punctually, and so left it not possible for me to impose on any that understood that: Thence I inferred what I supposed the testimonies would be sure to bear, and was careful not to go beyond those limits, and knowing that both in Scripture oft, and not seldom in other Authors {αβγδ} which is literally impossible, was in sense to be rendered hard or difficult, I took that cautious expression to be best, that in their opinion 'twas very hard, if not impossible. A third whisper there is still behind in this§. that in stead of the words of S. Augustine, separate from the catholic Church, the Dr. full of jealousies and fears, puts the Church truly catholic, as if, saith he, there were much danger lest any perhaps should imagine Christs Church( of which he conceives S. Austin meant it) to be untruly catholic] But this will be soon dispatched. S. Austines words are, Communionem separent à communione Orbis terrarum, I expressed this [ and by separating from the universal or truly catholic Church of Christ] the reason is visible, because the Church of Rome is by her Advocates styled the catholic Church, being certainly not such in the notion, wherein S. Austin speaks, that of the Communion of the whole world, or as catholic, if truly so, must signify universal. These are the acts of charyness, whereof I am accused as of dexterities, that I found necessary, lest I might too directly prejudice my future work; with what truth suggested, the reader will now judge, yea& S W. also( if 'twere possible he should believe himself in this part of his accusation) whom I have now made my Confessor of my secretest and deepest reservations, I wish he would not oft put me to such necessities, till he be better qualified for that office. Sect. 2. The notation of the word {αβγδ}, from the passive reciprocal. The Hebrew conjugations. {αβγδ}. Self-division. Begging the principal questions. The cause considerable in excommunication, though not in schism. IN the second Section what he premises concerning heresy, and forms into a kind of exception against my proceeding, had been intimated by the catholic Gentleman, and is in the Reply, c. 2.§. 1. evidenced to be his misunderstanding. What follows at large in a triumphant manner, on occasion of the critical notation of the word {αβγδ}, from {αβγδ}, in the notation of the Hebrew Hithpael, is perfectly new, and an excellent taste of S. W. his Grammatical skill, but shall no longer detain me, than whilst I clear the truth, and give reply to his objections. The truth is evidently this, the word schism comes from the passive {αβγδ}, which regularly signifies being cut, or divided, but yet the sin of schism being an action upon himself, not a passion from any other, it was, I conceived, of the nature of those passives, which note reciprocal action, or passion which S. judas fully expresses by {αβγδ}, the title which he gives the grand Gnostike schismatics, that they cut off, or divide themselves from the Church; and Justinian in his Novels, {αβγδ}, if they divide themselves from the gifts of God. This being evident, and yet not regularly the notation of Greek passives, I said it was of the nature of the Hebrew Hithpael, which denoting reciprocal action, is by some reckoned the fourth, by others the seventh conjugation, constantly known among all by that name of conjugation, and I was content to speak as other men constantly speak, and therefore said that for want of conjugations( such as the Hebrew Grammars call thus) the passive was designed to supply the place of the Hebrew Hithpael, and so noted the reciprocal, where the passion is from, and on himself, and is fully expressed by the latin Neutral, a separating, or receding of any member from the unity of the Church. This is as plain sense, and as strictly according to the rules of Grammar, and ordinary use of words, as I could possibly speak, and withall, very useful, in my conceit, to set down the true notion of schism, as it differs from all other things that border on it( and though they are not, may yet be mistaken for the same) particularly from excommunication, which is the cutting off others from the Church, whereas S. Paul speaking of the heretical gnostics which were schismatics too, saith that they were {αβγδ}, such as condemned and excommunicated themselves, which is as perfect an evidence of the reciprocal action or passion, as could be. This renders him answer to his first scruple[ How I know it must necessary be taken in that notion here, since, saith he, coming from a verb active, it must in the first place have a signification perfectly passive.] The account is given already, because the schismatics in S. judas are defined by him not such as are divided, in a passive sense, but {αβγδ}, those that separate or divide themselves, and the same men are by S. Paul said to be {αβγδ}, such as inflict the censure of condemnation or excommunication, {αβγδ} in the African council, God: Afr: can. 22 themselves upon themselves. This evidences the schismatic to be a reciprocal agent and patient, and that the Greek passive denotes not, but as it supplies the place of the Hebrew Hithpael, therefore thus it must be taken in this word. 2dly. This renders him answer, with what propriety I say this is for want of conjugations, viz. for want of such flexions and variations both of the signification, and of the first syllables, as the Hebricians call conjugations, whose language it was fit I should use, when I spake of the Hebrew idiom, communicated to the Greek. That voices and conjugations are, as he saith, jumbled in this language, is neither granted by all Grammarians, nor at all tends to S. w: his advantage, if it were granted to him. Those Grammarians that make but four conjugations, do certainly not mix, or jumble them, for of those four, each of the three former are divided into their Actives and Passives, such as the latins and Greeks call voices, and the fourth is not capable of that division, but is reciprocal. And though others style these eight conjugations, as David Kimchi in his {αβγδ}, Moses Kimchi in his Grammar, and Elias Levita, yet they have taken care to sever them, into the parents, as they call the Actives, and the off-spring the passives that have issued from them, and the reciprocal, which is parent and daughter too; and so still the distinction is preserved clear, and not the least impropriety imaginable in my speech, that the Greek which had neither voice nor conjugation of the reciprocal form, used the passive voice in stead of it, for want of conjugations, i.e. for want of something answerable to that, which the Hebrews, both they which make but four, and they that make eight, do uniformly style conjugation. In this place it is not conceivable how S. W. should come to call them eight votes, and to affirm that the Grammarians so style them. That any one Grammarian hath styled them eight Votes, is more then by any enquiry I can discover: and if any have, I am too dull, I acknowledge, to understand him, unless because Votes signifies voices, when they are used for suffrages, he means to give law to language, and appoint votes to signify Grammatical voices also. And yet if that were his mistake, or if the Printer substituted votes in stead of voices, there must be in it another mistake also, for no Grammarian, I suppose, could ever think there were eight such voices, and therefore still I am to be informed by some Diviner, what S. W. his eight votes signified. So again, when having disliked my multiplied conjugations in Hebrew, he yet adds, that there are more in the Greek then in the Hebrew, 'twill not be easy to discern upon what account Grammatical, or rational, he could do so; For it being certain, that the different conjugations in Greek, are not varied in the flexion, as the latins are, but only in the characteristic,( and so the best Grammarians have resolved, that though such {αβγδ} are called {αβγδ}, Theodor: {αβγδ}, p. 39. conjugations, yet they are improperly so called) it is evident also, that the same strict laws, that are of force against the multiplying the conjugations in Hebrew, are of equal, if not greater force against the bestowing that title of conjugation upon all the variations of the verbs in Greek. The variations in all those, which the Hebrew call conjugations, being discernible both in the signification,& in the first syllable, which may well outweigh the variation of the characteristic in the Greek; And besides, it is most evident, that one and the same verb goes through all the conjugations in Hebrew, but doth not so in Greek, and accordingly there is no such thing in the Greek language, as the variation of frequentative, transitive, and reciprocal, which are in the Hebrew Piel, Hiphil, and Hithpael, the only ground of my affirming, that the Greek wanted conjugations, which were found among the Hebrews. Such misadventures as these, his descending to such niceties hath cost him, and truly some more, witness his neutropassive taken by him for a passive in the reciprocal or neutral sense, when every school-boy knows, that all neutropassives are of the active voice, so again his instancing in sto, as a word partaking of a passive sense, because it may be rendered, I am standing, and others the like, through every stage of this his voyage, if it were not too great levity, and somewhat unreconcilable with common compassion to enumerate them. In stead of so doing, I shal only add an answer to his one principal scruple, when having mentioned the notion of Hithpael, to signify an express action upon itself, he demands, where the Dr among all his critical observations can show him one word in all the latin and Greek language to parallel it, or that is( as the Doctor expresseth it) of the nature of Hithpael. I answer {αβγδ} is such a Greek word of the nature of Hithpael, signifying sometimes saving and delivering himself, and in rendering expressed by the neutral, escaping, Gen. 19.19. and 22. 1 Sam. 19.12. Joel 2.32. and so 'tis used by S. Luke in the same sense, Acts 2.40. {αβγδ}, be ye saved, literally, but in sense, rescue, or as the English renders it, save yourselves, or escape, or get out of this wicked generation. So yet nearer to the word we have in hand, {αβγδ}, literally, to be separated, is sometimes to separate themselves, without any action of, or passion received from any other, as 2 Cor. 6.17. where by way of exhortation the Apostole bespeaks them, {αβγδ}, Come out and be ye separate, i.e. separate yourselves, not, be ye separated, or cast out by others. The foregoing neutral sense of coming out, expresseth this to be the importance of it. And for the very word which hath occasioned this debate, see Num. 16.20. where when the Hebrew hath {αβγδ} in Hithpael, separate yourselves, the Greek reads {αβγδ}, be ye cut off, or divided from them, the very same that is varied, v. 24. into {αβγδ} get you up from them; and v. 26. {αβγδ} depart, again rendered by the Gr: {αβγδ}, be ye separated. These are sufficient to answer his question: And for variety of other the like examples( I never affirmed it of all, as he is pleased to infer, p. 9. but only of this and some others) if he have, either skill, or conversation in the original languages of the Scripture, he will be soon able upon this momento, with a little observation, to furnish himself. As for his ways of disproving it, p. 10. [ that if it signify a reciprocal action or passion, it must signify an act of dividing exercised on himself, who therefore is the thing divided: and since division is a progress or motion from unity to plurality, its proper and formal effect is to make that, which it works on, more of one, but that which it works upon, saith the Dr, is himself the schismatic, therefore it cuts the schismatic in two] this is indeed a deep subtlety, which will soon be avoided by remembering him, what self-division it is, of which he knows we speak, not that of hewing, or mutilating his body, but cutting himself off from the body of the Church, with which he was united( the Church being a body as well as S. W.) and sure such a division is motus ab unitate ad pluralitatem, a progress from unity to plurality, when he cuts himself off from the Church, as well as when he cuts himself in pieces. If these be the rigorous, by which he saith he means solid, pregnant, convincing discourses, to which S. W. so pretends, I have no reason to be ill pleased, that he likes not my way of arguing, I should be sorry to have approved myself to him. But it seems all this debate might have been spared, for after all this solicitude( which hath brought in but slender advantages to S. W.) he willingly grants all that this criticism demanded, viz. that the sin of schism, must be the voluntary recession, as that differs from the passive, excommunication, which therefore he acknowledges not to be schism. Which as plain a truth as it is, I desire to take witness of it, that it is granted me by him, and then I shall be the more perfectly secure from the guilt of schism, till by some other argument than the Popes having excommunicated us( viz. by our voluntary recession from them, or from some members at least of the true Church of God) he shall prove that we are truly schismatics. What he adds farther in this Sect. p. 12. of the no immunity from error in the Governed, fit to counterpoise the liableness to error in the Governors, which I had mentioned; and p. 13 of the voluntary continuance in a just excommunication, which makes the thus excommunicated schismatics] hath in both parts perfect truth in it, but is no ways applicable to the business T●● of Schism. c. 2.§. 3, 4. there in hand, nor can pretend to be so, without a begging of the principal questions, or matters in controversy betwixt the Romanist and us: First, that the Bishop of Rome was the Governor, and we the governed, at the time when he first excommunicated this nation; whereas at the time of those Censures coming, in Qu: Elizabeths days, he neither de facto was then owned as such, nor de jure had title to it: And at the time when this Nation first did that, for which he first excommunicated them, i.e. in King Henries dayes, de jure he had no title to it, and by Papists, continuing such in all other points, the Government, which he held de facto, was first cast off, and that by those, to whom the supreme power, under Christ, did belong, viz. by the King concurring with the Bishops, and by the Bishops with the King. 2dly. That the excommunication sent out against us, was founded in a just cause; which it could not be, if we did nothing toward the Bishop and Church of Rome( viz. in that one act of casting out his usurped power, and reforming ourselves) which was not perfectly lawful for us to do. For though, as I said, in a voluntary recession, which alone is schism, it is not worth heeding what the cause or occasion is, because none, how weighty soever, can be sufficient to justify that, yet in excommunication, which is not schism, it is not so, the justice or injustice of that, whether in respect of the power( the legality thereof) or of the cause, is that which gives it validity, or renders it invalid, and null to all effects: and this being in part granted by S. W. viz. that unjust excommunication hurts no man, and the other part being as evident, that an unjust power is no power, and the acts null, we are perfectly safe from all the suggestions of the 2d Sect. till he make it appear, what here he attempts not to do, that their excommunicating of us had neither of these injustices and nullities in it. Sect. 3. The pretence of weak consciences against lawful authority in just commands, misrepresented. Fallibility of all but God, and Saints and Angels. S. W. his arguments for infallibility answered. The infallibility of the Apostles stated. Of the Church to the end of the world. Of the means to know the books of Scripture. Of matters of fact of our certain knowledge. THe third Section is by my Disarmer strangely misspent, Declamation poured out on the air, like Xerxes his stripes on the Sea, a perfect Romance-combate with a Windmill of his own erecting, toward which I never contributed the least ston or timber, 'tis upon a fancy, or fiction, that I favour the pretence of such a weak conscience, as makes a man think he ought not to communicate with the CHURCH, and this even though the truth be on the Churches side.] How much I favour such a weak conscience, which apprehends that unlawful, which is duty, and so thinks to be excused from performing it, is visible to any that shall but view the place, to which this Section is confronted, Of schism c. 2.§. 8. where first I affirm of him, that he is in several respects criminous, and particularly in this, that he communicates not with those, the condition of whose communion contains nothing really erroneous or sinful. 2. I add, that such an one is in the worst and most unhappy kind of strait, remains in error and schism on the one side( is this in favour of such weak consciences, or an affirming( as S. W. suggests) that he may do it lawfully? or is it interpretable to have any kindness to a bare pretence of it, which comes short even of that?) and if to avoid that, he communicate, in this case he advances to lying and hypocrisy; and in plain terms, that which way soever he turn, till he really convert from his erroneous conscience, and weak mis-perswasion, he is sure to sin. What could be more plain, or free from my Disarmers calumny? from pleading for seditious offenders ears( of which the wit of the Romish factor hath made a special service in his Bill of fare) or what Apology can S.W. ever make to God or his own conscience, for so manifest a perversion, and slan●er of the most innocent expressions. Having given the reader a few such {αβγδ} of this Disputer, I shall get, as soon as I may, out of this close converse with him. In the latter part of this Sect: I am chid for not apprehending any but Saints and Angels in heaven, and God himself to be infallible and impeccable: and as this last word is styled a disgraceful addition of a forged calumny on the Romanists, and noted as a custom of ours, whensoever we speak of their tenets, so for the former part, he pretends to show the great absurdity of it, 1. by mentioning the Apostles as those that were infallibly assisted, and so 2. the succeeding Church, and 3. that there is some means to be infallibly certain that such and such books were Gods word and genuine Scripture: and lastly, that the Dr himself will acknowledge it impossible that all the Protestants in England should be fallible, or mistake in witnessing whether twenty years ago there were Protestant Bishops or no. To these objections I answer briefly, 1. by recounting the occasion of those words of mine, to which his animadversion belongs. It is a saying of Mr Knots, that we may forsake the Churches communion, in case she be fallible, or subject to error, which seemed to me very strange, because then 'tis not only lawful to forsake the Communion of every erroneous Church, but of all that are fallible, though they be not in error, and such I conceived all human societies to be, and consequently that there would be no possibility for any on earth to be guilty of the sin of schism: Now as this is plain in itself, so it is very far from engaging me in the question concerning the Infallibility of the Church( on that subject I had spoken at large elsewhere) any farther, than to take notice how strange an argument this was to conclude it by. 2dly, By assuring him, that I was far from calumniating, or affixing any disgraceful word on the Romanist in that place. I conceived human nature to be in itself equally liable to sin and error, and so no more infallible than impeccable; and again, that no society of men on earth hath now the privilege of immunity from either, and if any had the former of impossibility to be deceived, yet unless it also had the latter, and so could not teach contrary to their belief, it were still the same to all effects: He that knows the truth himself, and yet may be so wicked as to teach contrary to his knowledge( and he that can act contrary to his knowledge, and so sin, may do so) may led others into the most ruinous errors, without erring himself: and therefore I said, that none but Saints and Angels, and God in heaven had the privilege of impeccable and infallible, never conceiving that any man would hence conclude me to think, that the Romanists pretended to both of them, whose actions so openly, and acknowledgly disclaim the one, and I think the other also. The utmost was, that I thought it as possible that the Pope might err, as sin, having no more promise from Christ of his security from one, than the other, and so might any other single man in the world, and in proportion any multitude, or assembly might( the mayor and so prevalent part of them) consent in an error as well as in a 'vice; and as this was far from calumniating any, so is it to my apprehension, as evident a truth, in reference to any society of men now in the world, as could have been mentioned by me, but this is no place to enlarge on it, farther than the remaining objections exact from me. To them therefore I proceed, and to the mention of the Apostles, I reply, 1. That sure they are comprehended in the number of Saints in heaven, for three undoubtedly they are, 2dly. That supposing S. W. to speak of them, when they were here on earth, as his following words interpret him; I answer, that it is most true, that they were assisted by Christ, so as they did not, and could not err in the discharge of their office, in penning the sacred writ, and preaching the Gospel. In this work they were, according to Christs promise, lead by the Spirit into all truth; But that this promise had an unlimited extent, or consequently that they were in all sorts of things made infallible, appeareth not; nay the differences that were between them, in lesser things, prejudgeth that. I shall lay down this a little more distinctly. Of the Apostles 'tis evident, that as they were men here on earth, they were fallible, and oft deceived, even after they were employed by Christ; Of ignorances and slowness, and hardness of heart, and littleness of faith, they are by their Master frequently affirmed to be guilty. And so all the infallibility that ever they had above other men, proceeded from Christs special promise of assistance, made unto them; some degree of this assistance was promised them, in order to some particulars, at their going out to preach, Mat. 10.19. and after more largely, at his departure from them, Mat. 28.20. Now that promise, Mat. 10.19. was evidently confined within such limits, as left them subject to the many great errors, which after they proved guilty of, so far as( to omit many other of an inferior degree) to doubt whether he were the Redeemer, or no, Lu. 24.21. one to apostatise finally and betray him, another not to believe him risen for some time, and all as to be scandalised and forsake him at his apprehension, so to disbelieve the relation of his resurrection, Lu. 24.11. and to take the appearance of him, ver. 37. for a phasme. From such grand fallibilities; and failings as these, I suppose them perfe●ly secured by that second promise,& the descent of the Holy Ghost,& to be from thence-forth infallibly assisted to their whole office, but yet to be liable still to some frailties and ignorances in other things, whereunto the promised assistance extended not in that degree, as should make them thus wholly infallible; which appears, as I said, by the lesser differences, which are recorded between the Apostles themselves, in their Ministry. Now to bring this home to the particular in hand, It is not only a speaking truth, a not being actually in error, which will infer such an infallibility, as there I speak of, and conceive not to be met with on earth( for my words are expressly, to forsake all that are fallible, tho●gh they be not actually in error) but it must be a security founded in some promise of God, that they shall not be liable to any error, and though naturally they are so, that yet they shall undoubtedly be preserved from falling into it, and that not only from this, or that sort of errors, but indefinitely from all( for so Mr Knots words are [ infallible and not subject to error.] And neither of these being proved to be comprehended in the promise made to the Apostles, it is evident, that this first instance or example of the Apostles could not pertinently be opposed to my affirmation. 2ly. For the ensuing, or succeeding Church till the end of the world] 'tis certain that that degree of assistance which was afforded the Apostles, was not either promised, or afforded to that. By the succeeding Church, the Governors must necessary be meant, speaking as he doth of that promise of remaining with them always to the end of the world. For the {αβγδ} you] there, being primarily the Apostles themselves, and secondarily the successors of the Apostles, 'tis evident and acknowledged generally by the Fathers, that the Bishops in every Church, were those, the Apostles successors: And therefore this promise in the secondary sense belonging unto them, 1. It belongs no otherwise to the Church, then as that signifies the Governors of the Church. 2. It belongs to the Governors of the Church of Ephesus, Laodicea, &c. and to all other Bishops, as well as the Bishop of Rome. And belonging to all these indifferently, it is yet evident, and confessed on all hands, that all these Governors have not been infallible. Many of them have notoriously fallen into error, and even in the time of Scripture, witness the Epistle to the Churches, Rev. 2.3. and so sure the same privilege, that the Apostles personally had, was not thus communicated to the succeeding Church, i.e. to their Successors, the Governors of that; Nor indeed was it needful it should; All things which were deemed needful for the ensuing plantations, were agreed on by the Apostles, and deposited in each Church, as their Rule of Faith; and if they would adhere to that, there was no need of any super-added infallibility to other things, because these, already provided, were sufficient; but if they would not adhere to that, this were an evidence of their fallibility: As for the promise here mentioned, that Christ would remain with the succeeding Church, that, and the prediction that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, are assurances, that he will so support the Church by his presential providence, that it shall never totally be destroyed, or demolished: But not that any particular branch of this Church, be it never so favoured by him, shall be thus secured from the utmost either error, or ruin, in case it shall not walk worthy of the mercies bestowed on them( the seven Churches in the Revelation are competent instances of that) nor that even the universal Church over all the world, in what capacity soever, diffused, or collective, shall never fall into the least error, Christs personal presence among his Apostles on earth having not thus secured them. 3dly. For the infallible means of knowing this or that book of Scripture] it is sufficient, that I answer, that if this were yielded, yet would it not prove any society of men on earth to be infallible. He that is in many things fallible, and more than so, actually erroneous, may yet infallibly know or believe some one, or more other things, 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. I know infallibly I now writ, and that the book which I now answer, was written before me, and S. W. cannot question the truth of these affirmations, yet sure 'tis his interest to be so just, as to think me very fallible, and actually to err in many other things, else he would have no excuse for having written a volume against me. 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, and writing some books, the testifications of those which saw the miracles, which the Apostles wrought( and whereby God set his seal to the truth of their preachings and writings) that this or that book was written by them, and so by those which were inspired by God. In this testimony the Church is not considered as a society of believers endowed with any chartable privilege, there being nothing in this question contested from the authority of their judgement, be it errable or chartable, but as a number of witnesses( heathen and Jewish first, and then converted by this doctrine thus miraculously confirmed) jointly testifying of a thing done and seen by them, and wherein it cannot be imagined, that they should agree to deceive and betray, and so destroy their posterity, by confirming a falsehood to them. And so this being the means whereby I am assured that such or such books are genuine Scripture, it follows not from hence, that either I that thus assuredly believe this, on these testifications, or even they that have truly testified this one thing, are in all other things, wherein they do not thus affirm upon their own or others certain knowledge, of an infallible authority. To the last I say, that it is a strange shortness of discourse, that puts together an impossibility of actual mistaking in witnessing a matter of fact of mens certain knowledge, and an impossibility of being fallible; for, as 'tis one thing not to be mistaken, another to be infallible so 'tis not one act of infallible judging, that makes that person infallible, but a foundation of security for all the acts of ones life, and so this is a most impertinent instance to prove general infallibility. For though I no way doubt of the truth of that which all Protestants in England affirm in a matter of fact twenty years ago, wherein many of them lived, and saw what they affirm, yet I have no assurance that both in that, and in every other affirmation of theirs( of which there is no other evidence) 'tis impossible for them to be fallible. That they do, or probably can mistake actually in a thing of that nature visible before their eyes, I believe not; Yet is that no proof that they are any way infallible, either in observing, and coming to the knowledge of all matters of fact, without all possible mixture of error,( human weakness or inadvertence may here interpose sometimes) or in conveying and testifying to others exactly, what they did observe; human frailties and passions also may at other times intermix, and even when neither hath really interposed, either might have interposed, and so still they are not infallible, for that contains more than speaking exactly true, an impossibility to do otherwise, which was the privilege that I still believe to belong to no barely human society. Thus have I, ex abundanti, given him answer to all his offers of reason for Infallibility. And if the rest of those evidences tendered by the excellent apology be of this kind of frame( as me thinks S. W. should not be so unskilful or unkind, as to choose out the weaker) I shall not be in danger of that amazement that S. W. tells me of. Some creatures are pictured on the flag that hangs out, far more terrible, than they appear, when you have been at the cost of the nearer view of them. And that is all I have to say to his third Section. Sect. 4. {αβγδ}, Act. 1. Theophylacts, and Oecumenius's Scholion, &c. The division of Provinces betwixt St Paul and St Peter. Ambroses, and Jeroms testimonies, and Theophylacts. This by their own agreement, not only by Gods designation. Exclusive of no other of the Apostles. Peters singular supremacy at Jerusalem, why denied. Clements testimony. The principal place belonged to James in his own See, and so in the council. {αβγδ}, Acts 15.22. Peters speaking first. St Pauls no dependence on St Peter. A place from St. Cyprian, answered. The testimony out of Anacletus's Epistle. THe fourth Section is but the spreading a little thinner the catholic Gentlemans letter, and hath been fully answered in the Reply, c. 2.§. 3. So also the 5th Section is answered in Reply, c. 3. 1. and the 6th Sect. c. 3. Sect. 2.& 4. So again his 7th Sect.( all but the calumnies, and ridiculous colours, that without the least cause or ground in the Tract, he affixes to my way of proceeding, as will appear to any one that reads the Tract itself) is prevented, Ch. 4. Sect. 1. After this he hath another 7 Sect. p. 42. but that nothing but a detortion of my words about {αβγδ}, Act. 1. making that my evidence, which was never by me thought on, as such( nor had I need of such, the thing being evident by its own light, that the Apostles went not all to one, but disposed themselves over all the world to several provinces) yet borrowed from the short notes of the catholic Gentleman, and answered, Reply c. 4. Sect. 2. Of the 8th Sect. three, or four pages are spent on the phrase {αβγδ}, going to his own place, Acts 1. and is of the same nature exactly with the former, and as largely prevented, Reply c. 4. Sect. 2. n. 20. &c. and yet upon this he pitches anew, with the greatest career of declamation, that he ever let loose to, in the whole book, and spends it all in a passionate paraenesis to his dear countrymen; the effect of which is, that the rendering that phrase of any thing but Judas's going to hell, is to relinquish the sense of the whole catholic world. My reasons for the other interpretation of mathias his going to that Province which should otherwise have been assigned Judas, I have largely rendered in the Reply, and shall now annex a testimony perfectly to my sense from Theophylact, on Acts 1. {αβγδ}, &c. he calls that his own place, which mathias, so as it was just and fit, should obtain; for as Judas was a stranger to it, even before he had fallen from it, ever since he began to be sick of covetousness and treason, so it properly belonged to mathias, even before he obtained it, ever since he shewed himself worthy of so great an office. The like again we have from Edit. Veron. 1532. Oecumenius on the place, who setting down, as his use is, the most approved interpretations hath these words, {αβγδ}, His own place] he calls his suffocation, &c. or else that Judas being gone, he, i.e. mathias, may have the place to himself, receiving his Episcopacy. So Didymus, the word {αβγδ} place signifies many things, among the rest an Order, as when we say the place of a Bishop, or of an Elder. So the Ordinary gloss, ut abiret in locum suum, i.e. the Apostolical lot. Would ever any man have thought that all these should have been thus adventurous to mention such a blasphemous interpretation as this( just the same with the Drs) or that Lorinus and Salmeron should take notice of them, without any expression of detestation, when S. W. had undertaken on his word to his kind readers and dear countrymen, that it was the utmost absurdity, that it inferred the finding of Judas a diocese in hell, and mathias succeeding him? What follows there of the agreement made between S. Peter, and S. Paul, concerning the division of their Provinces, the one to the Jews, the other to the Gentiles, and is matter to S. W. of such challenge, and triumph, is cleared in the same Chap. of the reply, Sect. 3. and 4. to be a mistake in him, and all that I pretend, manifested from Scripture. To which I now add the plain words of St Ambrose on Gal. 2.8. wherein he asserts all that was either my purpose, or my interest to affirm, in these words, Petrum solum nominat,& sibi comparat, quia Primatum ipse acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam, se quoque pari modo electum, ut Primatum habeat in fund●ndis G●ntium Ecclesiis. Paul saith he, nameth Peter alone, and compareth him to himself, because he had received the primacy to build the Church, and he likewise is chosen to have the primacy of building the Churches of the Gentiles( and so Chrysost. that St. Paul demonstrates himself to be {αβγδ}, equal to them, {αβγδ}, and compares himself with Peter the chief of them, and Theophylact, {αβγδ}, he shows himself equal to Peter) ita tamen ut& Petrus praedicaret Gentibus, si causa suisset,& Paulus Judaeis, nam uterque invenitur utrumque fecisse, said tamen plena authoritas Petro in Judaismi praedicatione data agnoscitur,& Pauli perfecta authoritas in praedicatione gentium invenitur, Yet so that Peter preached to the Gentiles also, if there were cause, and Paul to the Jews, and so both of them did both: but yet the full authority is acknowledged to be given to Peter in the preaching to the Jews, and Pauls perfect authority is found in preaching to the Gentiles, from whence also he calls himself the Doctor of the Gentiles, adding that this portion was assigned him, in respect of his abilities, it being harder to attract to the faith, those that were far from God, then those that were near. And so S. Hierom having affirmed, on Gal. 1.22. that the Churches which were of the Jews scorsim habebantur, nec his qui erant è Gentibus miscebantur, were severed, and mixed not with the Gentiles, he adds on this verse of c. 2. That the agreement was made that Paul should preach to the Gentiles, and Peter, and James, and John to the Jews, which sure was a severing of their Provinces. And so Theophylact on Gal. 1.21. {αβγδ}, being come to Judea, he departed thence, both because he was sent a preacher to the Gentiles, and because he would not build on anothers foundation. Yet one little deceit there is in S. W. his discourse which the catholic Gentleman had not attained to, for on occasion of the [ for] Gal. 2.8. his conclusion is, that these two Apostles were more properly particularized to these two parts of the world, by no other designation, than the more especial co-operation of Gods efficacious assistance. Here the mention of Gods special co-operation hath truth in it, and is fully proved from vers. 8. but the [ no other designation]( wherein all the force of his answer lies) is most expressly contrary to plain Scripture, the Text affirming, that besides that, this d●signation of mutual agreement intervened, James, ●ephas and Joh●, saith Paul, gave me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the ci●cumcision. What can be more evident for this farther designation, founded in that former? His 9th Section hath somewhat new in it( but perfectly agreeable to the mistak●● and detortions gleaned from the catholic Gentleman) as 1. that he will conclu●e from my words, that I will have all the Apostles to have several Provinces limiting th●ir jurisdictions, and exclusive of one anothers right, and from thence making the circumcision, or J●wish Christians peculiarly Saint Peters province, and the gentle Christians peculiarly St. Pauls, I have gotten all the rest of the Apostles leave to play] And then there is another prime dish for Mr. Stationer to add to his Bill of fare. 'tis true, I said the Apostles by their own act distributed their universal great Province( the whole world, to which they were to go and preach) into several distributions, or lots, or lesser Provinces, one or more to go one way, and the other another, to proclaim the faith of Christ, and that the circumcision was peculiarly St. Peters province, or division assigned to him( and thence I concluded it unimaginable, how he should be the universal or supreme Pastor or Bishop of the whole world:) But what word said I of concluding all the Jewish Christians under S. Peters assignation, or all the Gentiles under Pauls? from which alone his conclusion of the play-day for the rest of the Apostles is inferred? Nay when he had set it down for my affirmation, that I will have all the Apostles have their several Provinces, is it possible he should, in the same breath, conclude me to deprive eleven of these all of their several Provinces? When I say Peter was the Apostle of the circumcision, exclusively to the uncircumcision( as when Euseb. hist. l. 1. c. 1. saith, that he preached in divers nations, {αβγδ}, to the Jews that were of the dispersion) the meaning is evident, that he was so the Apostle of the one, as he was not of the other, or as Paul was, and is in Scripture said to be of the other. But can it thence follow, that either no other Apostle was assigned to the Jews, but Peter, or no other to the Gentiles, but Paul? Nay is it not expressly shewed§. 6. that the Jews in Judea were by Peter, James, and John put under James the brother of the Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem? And§. 3. that the other Apostles had their several {αβγδ} assigned them, and their travels, labours, and plantations proportionable thereto, and that S. John was assigned the Jews for his Province, as well as S. Peter, and so had the converting and governing of the Lydian Asia, and placing Bishops there. This in both parts he takes notice of, p. 57. but never relents at the foregoing calumny, onely laughs it out, and despises the remainder of the dispersion of the Jews, as a few pitiful parishes, unworthy S. Peter, but never offers to consider the allegations, by which it was evident, and can never be avoided by him or any man, that the Jews in the Lydian Asia were governed by S. John( and from thence it was that they had and retained several customs, different from those which were introduced in the West by S. Peter) And must this be styled the freeing all the rest of that task which their Master had enjoined them? If this be to conclude, or dispute, what contradictories may not this wonder-working faculty reconcile? Secondly, he excepts against my use of the word [ singular] when I say Peter had no singular supremacy at Jerusalem. To take away his wonderment, I answer, that by singular, I mean such an one, as was not common to the other two eminent Apostles james and John, who together with Peter committed the bishopric of jerusalem, the Metropolis then of all judea at least, to the Lords brother; What he saith in this matter, p. 58. that Peters greater authority is not invalidated by his taking the other two with him, any more than is the Arch-bishops, when in consecrating a Bishop, he takes two other Bishops with him] is true, in case it any other way appeared, that Peter was an Arch-bishop in respect of these two other Suffragan Bishops, james and John: But this neither doth, nor ever will be made to appear by him, and though I did not then undertake to prove their equality by this argument, being about another matter, the extent of S. Peters Province, yet the words of Clemens {αβγδ}: l. 5. might to him, who had this conclusion in his eye, have deserved to be considered, when he saith of Peter, and james, and John, {αβγδ}, as being by our Lord preferred or honoured before the rest, yet they did not {αβγδ} contend for dignity, but choose james the first Bishop of jerusalem, where the {αβγδ} or precedence that Peter had from Christ, is common to james and John also, and so no singular supremacy, and as such, they choose and ordained the brother of the Lord, which sure is not after the manner of an Archbishop and his Suffragan Bishops. And so also in that place to the Galatians, c. 2.9. james,& Cephas and John are equally dignified by S. Paul, and have all three the style of {αβγδ}, seeming to be pillars, and as the Fathers even now concluded that Paul was {αβγδ} to them, and particularly to Peter, so they did also, that they were all {αβγδ}, equally dignified. Thirdly, when I had said of james the Lords brother, not that he was simply superior to Peter, but that being fixed Bishop of jerusalem, all the Bishops of judea were subject to him, and that thereupon in this his See, he is name before Peter and John, Gal. 2.9. and hath the principal place in the council( where S. Peter is present) and gives the sentence, Acts 15.19. on which the Rescript is founded, vers. 22. and from all this conclude no more, but that the jurisdiction in that Metropolis belonged to james the just, and not to S. Peter; All this he is willing to misunderstand, as a proof of mine, to infer S. Iames's priority of dignity, or greater authority, and to frame some answer to the several branches of it. But he may know, that as I do not believe S. Peter had any greater authority then the rest of the Apostles, so I do not pretend that any of the other Apostles had greater authority than he, much less this james the Bishop of jerusalem, who, I suppose, was none of the 12. Apostles. Only I was to prove that in this his See james was considered as Bishop, and so even in Peters presence had the principal place( and indeed if he was not there in that capacity, how came he there at all, for upon reasons elsewhere given, I suppose it competently established, that this james was none of the twelve) and against this what he pretends, is not of any weight: For 1. When he saith, that the naming him before Peter, Gal. 2.9. is, if it were allowed any weight, the losing my cause, because in most other places of Scripture, Peter is constantly name first of all the Apostles, This I am sure hath no force in it, because this place belonging peculiarly to the council of jerusalem, the giving james, which was none of the twelve, the first place here, must in all reason signify thus much, that he was Bishop there, and that is all, in effect, that I deduce from it, and not from that alone, but from it in conjuncture with o●her circumstances. 2dly When he saith, I have not the least pr●t●nce of a testimony that james had the p i●cipal place, it is evident that Saint Pauls naming him first before Peter, is a pretence at least of a testimony, as far as belongs to jerusalem. And if there be not the least force in that, this will be somewhat to the prejudice of the Romanists argument, that is wont to be taken from the {αβγδ}, concluding his Primacy from his ●eing first name which if it would convincingly prove, then must james here have it, who yet pretends not to it, any farther than in his own city. But then sure the mention of Iames's giving the sentence, v. 19. was another pretence of a testimony, and this I still believe the phrase[ {αβγδ}, wherefore I judge, or, my sentence is: will be found to signify, and not onely, as he saith, his opinion or judgement in the matter. For 1. tis Tom. 4. p. 795. A. S. Chrysostomes observation, that his speaking last was founded in his being Bishop of Jerusalem, {αβγδ}, he was Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, whereupon he speaks last( according to the customs in Assemblies, he that sits first, speaks last) adding upon 19, 20, 21. of that chapter, {αβγδ}— he rightly decrees, ordains these things, making his sentence {αβγδ}, a decree, and yet more expressly, setting down P. 796. l. 28. the {αβγδ} good order observed in their speaking. After Peter, saith he, Paul speaks, and {αβγδ}, James forbears, and interposes not, for he was entrusted with the principality: and lin. 33. again observing that Peter spake more earnestly, but James more mildly, saith, {αβγδ}, for thus it behoves him that is in great power, or authority, to leave the sharper things to others, and himself to draw his arguments from the gentler, and milder topics, making James here in this council clearly superior to Peter. As for the argument which I had drawn from {αβγδ} I judge] I see not yet any infirmity in it. For thus sure the word signifies in the matter of censures, 1 Cor. 5.12. {αβγδ}, judging or sentemcing to excommunication, ver. 13. and so v. 3. {αβγδ}, I have judged already, i.e. given sentence: and so saith P. 797 lin. 15. S. Chrysostome here of James, {αβγδ}, I judge, in stead of, I say with power or, as other copies red, {αβγδ}, he saith with power, I judge. But this I never meant any otherwise, than as a sentence pronounce● by him, and agreed to by the rest, and founded, as any conciliary sen●ence ought to be, in the {αβγδ}, which supposes the good liking of those others, that sate with him together in council, not as depending only on his vote. And this is enough to confirm to him the principal place in that council. What he adds to prejudge the Rescripts being founded, v. 22. upon S. James's sentence in particular, that tis but only, Then( i.e. after S. Peter, S. Paul, Barnabas, and S. James had spoken) it seemed good to the apostles and Elders—] is 1. founded in a misunderstanding of my assertion, and 2. is itself a farther mistake. For when I said James gave the sentence, I never imagined that the sentence was so his, as not to be the councils also, but that all their opinions uniformly inclining the same way, James pronounced the decree, or {αβγδ}. But then 2. the thing which there follows in those words, Then seemed it good to the Apostles and Elders, and the whole Church] was a subsequent determination of sending chosen men to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, and to writ by them, as follows expressly in that 22. verse. And so on which side the want either of wisdom or honesty hath appeared to lie, S. W. may now be better qualified to consider. What he would now conclude in favour of S. Peters authority, from his speaking first, or breaking the ice in such a solemnly pronounced oration] will soon be answered by remembering, that St. Peter had been accused of preaching to Cornelius a gentle, c. 11. 2. as Paul and Barnabas had of more than so, and for that reason they begin, and give account of their actions, the one justifying himself by the holy Ghosts descent on those Gentiles, before he baptized them, and the other by the miracles which God had enabled them to do among the Gentiles. In this Sect. treating the business of S. Paul set down in Gal. 1.12.17. he distinguishes of dependence on S. Peter, and allowing Paul to have had no dependence on him as to the manner of conferring on him the power of Apostle, he will yet have this power( given him) to depend on S. Peter, or to be subject to him as the chief of the Apostles.] But to this I answer, 1. That he ought in any reason to have offered some proof for th●s, which he knows is most denied by us, and 2. That unless the same Christ that gave him this power immediately, subjected it to S. Peter, and appear to do that, as clearly as he gave him the power( which tis certain appears not) this cannot be said with any sobriety. 3. That the place, Gal. 1.17. belongs expressly to the power, after it was given, and yet then he depended not on him. For this I appeal to S. Chrysostome, affirming of Paul distinctly, Tom. 3. p. 723. l. 23. {αβγδ}, he had no want of Peter, nor of his voice( as I suppose he must have, if in respect of his power he depended on, and were subject to him) but was of equal dignity with him, adding in a parenthesis {αβγδ}, for I will say no more, which what it is an intimation of, I leave S. W. to conjecture. The last thing that expects answer in this Sect. is the place out of Cyprian, Ep. 71. where concerning S. Pauls withstanding S. Peter, Gal. 2.11. he saith of Peter, that though the Lord chos● him first, and built his Church on him, yet he did not insolently challenge any thing to himself, or assume arrogantly so as to say he had the primacy, and so that he should rather be obeied by newer and later Apostles, nor despised he Paul, because he had been a persecuter, but admitted the counsel of truth.] To which as being the only testimony from antiquity, I have yet observed to be produced by S. W. it is needful to give answer, that I never doubted of S. Peters primacy, in this sense, as this holy Father speaks of it( any more than of Christs building his Church on him) I gave him even now a testimony from S. Ambrose, which expressly avouched it, I only deny, that this Primacy gave him any power either over S. Paul, or any other Apostle( or that his being a foundation on which the Church was built, gave him jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles, who were foundations also) And that I have reason to deny this, he will remember both by the {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, so lately produced from Chrysostome and Theophylact, the equality betwixt Paul and him, and so of all other the Apostles, and also by the words of S. Ambrose, that S. Paul had a primacy among the Gentiles, as Peter among the Jews. And then if he will review these very words of Cyprian, he will find them accord very well, which though they affirm him chosen primum first by Christ, yet add, that non vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter, aut arroganter assumsit ut diceret se primatum tenere,& obtemperari sibi à posteris oportere— leaving us to resolve, that if he had claimed any obedience from Paul by this primacy, he could not have justified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him. And to this agree those words set down in the Decret: par: 1. Dist: 21. c. 2. Canon law as from Anacle●●s's 2d Epist: ad Episc: Ital: where as on one side we find post Christum à Petro sacerdotalis coepit ordo, quia ipsi primo Pontificatus in Ecclesiâ Christi datus est,& potestatem ligandi primus accepit, primúsque ad fidem populum adduxit; after Christ the sacerdotal order began from Peter, because the Pontificate in the Church was first given to him, and he first received the power of binding and losing, and he first brought the people to the faith by virtue of his preaching, adding after, that the Apostles ipsum principem eorum esse volverunt, would have him to be their Prince( where he red this I know not) so on the other side the words are as clear, Caeteri vero Apostoli cum eodem pari consortio honorem& potestatem acceperunt; but the rest of the Apostles received honour and power in equal fellowship with him: Which being entred into their body of law, will, I hope, be of some force with S. W. what ever opinion others conceive of it. Sect. 5. S. W. his ill memory. The distinction of the gentle and Jewish coetus, Acts 15.23. The Bishops at Rome a proof of it. THe 10th Section begins with the view of two testimonies out of Ignatius. The very mention whereof accuses the close of his former Section of a fault, which even before all others is predominant in this Author, and railing itself is but his blind, to keep this from being descried. For he had there said, that there was no testimony at all to confirm my own[ we know] and now being gotten into another Section his memory is frail, and he hopes others will be so too, and then he blushes not to set down two testimonies of that, of which he had so lately denied any. But then next he hath objection to these; The testimonies do affirm no more but the founding of the Church of Antioch by Peter and Paul, and that might be by their promiscuous endeavours without distinction, much less exclusion of authority& jurisdiction.] I answer, tis true, this was possible; and if it had been true, had manifestly prejudged Peters singular jurisdiction, and clearly joined Paul socially with him. But there was another testimony behind( and that, if taken notice of, had removed this, might be) from Acts 15.23. where the distinction of the gentle Coetus at Antioch from the jewish, is discernible, by the inscription of the Rescript of the council, {αβγδ}, to the brethren( i.e. the Christian Church) which are at Antioch and Syria and Cilicia( of which Antioch was the Metropolis) those of the Gentiles, and that separately, and in contradistinction to the jews, as appears, v. 28, 29. where the things required of the Church in that decree, are all proper to the Gentiles: And beside more evidence, which there follows to the same matter, the words of In Gal. 1.22. S. jerome even now produced are most clear, Seorsim qui ex judaeis erant Ecclesiae habebantur, nec his qui erant è Gentibus miscebantur; the Churches which were of the Jews were held apart or in several, nor were they mixed with those which were of the Gentiles. The next Paragraph concerning Peters with-drawing from all communion with the Gentiles, and not only the gentle diet, is prevented in the Reply, c. 4.§. 6. and the whole matter of Evodius and Ignatius being Bishops of Antioch at once farther cleared, and his elaborate scribblings forestald, Sect. 7. And so likewise the other part, wherein Rome was concerned, is reviewed, c. 9.( and to omit others, tis not possible all his scoffs can divert the force of the testimony of Epiphanius, who makes both those Apostles Bishops, as well as Apostles of Rome, which they could not be at once withut this distinction of the coetus, the jewish to be under one, and the gentle under tother) and the testimony of Prosper concerning the Ecclesia Gentium, the Church of the nations, as that is cleared to comprehend the Jews and Gentiles both n. 10. And that concludes the calumnies and scoffs of the tenth Section. Sect. 6. The Popes seals for what produced. S. W. his misunderstandings. S. Peters jurisdiction in Rome proved to belong to the Jews only. The Jews solemn departure from Paul, Acts 28. yet some of them possibly of his coetus. The differences in story about the first Bishops of Rome. Christs favour to John. Dignity of his place. Leaning on Christs breast. Abrahams bosom. No birth-right. {αβγδ}. No pretence for S. Peters power in Asia, 1 Tim. 3.14, 15. Timothy and Titus were not under S. Peter. HIS 11th Section contains new matter, but all in the former dress, I need not say of what kind that is. And first the seals of the Popes, which I brought for a testimony of the Church of Romes being founded by S. Paul as well as S. Peter, and is so far an irrefragable testimony, he must cry out on, as a most irrational proof of S. Peters being Apostle of the Iewes only, not of the Gentiles. The short is this; I have proved out of Scripture that Peter was by agreement to betake himself to the Iewes( where S. Paul and he met) and S. Paul to the Gentiles, and it was sufficiently manifested, that these were distinct assemblies, and in agreement with this( not as proofs of it) I found express mention of both of these in the planting the Church of Rome, and I affirmed the Popes seals to be an irrefragable instance of this last. And then all this must be first shuffled together, and some appearance of incoherence gained; and then the victory is gotten, and pursued most triumphantly. I again therefore ask, Is not the Popes seal an evidence that Paul as well as Peter had the planting the Church of Rome? and is not that agreeable to Peters preaching to the Iewes, and Pauls to the Gentiles, when they met in a city, where there were multitudes of both? and was not that the importance of the agreement, Gal. 2.9? And is not that an argument that Peter was not the Universal Pastor, but that the Gentiles were S. Pauls province, as the Iewes S. Peters? If it were, then is all my arguing regular, and concluding, for 'tis clear as the day, that this was it. And tis not the dazzling of his eyes from the distance of the object, but the resolvedness not to see ought to the prejudice of his cause, which made S. W. so short-sighted. Agreeable is his next attempt against the word [ onely] when I said that the story of Scripture, according to the brevity of the relations there made, onely sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the circumcision. Where the [ onely] is set clearly in opposition to the Scriptures making more particular relations of S. Peters preaching to the jewish coetus, at Rome, &c. as is evident by the consequents; that it saith of Paul, that he preached at Rome, &c. And S. W. can by no means see that true importance of the word [ only] but 1. it must note that Peter is onely set down as Apostle of the circumcision exclusively to james and John, which he knows I could not mean, without contradicting one branch of my former discourse, and that most impertinently, to my own disadvantage: And 2. that he was Apostle of the circumcision only, and great wagers are offered against the truth of my words in this sense, which though they belong quiter to another matter, as hath been said, yet because his offers are so liberal, in case I shall show the least syllable either in Scripture or any other testimonies expressly restraining S. Peters jurisdiction( at Rome he had said, and must mean) to the Iewes onely, and exclusively to the Gentiles, he will yield the laurel, and quit the controversy; I shall, not for the laurels sake( that may belong to him upon other scores) but upon so tempting an hope, that I may be at an end of controversy, offer to his review the testimony from S. Paul, and from Epiphanius, the one affirming the agreement made between those Apostles, that one should execute their Apostleship( for after that or the like manner must the Ellipsis be made up, {αβγδ}—) among the Gentiles, the other among the Iewes; and the other expressly affirming that in Rome Peter and Paul were the same persons, both Apostles and Bishops. From hence, and by force of S. Hieroms affirmation, that the Churches which consisted of the Iewes seorsim habebantur, were held by themselves apart, and were not mingled with those which were of the Gentiles, I shall adventure to infer the conclusion, that in Rome S. Peters jurisdiction was restrained to the Iewes onely, and exclusively to the Gentiles. For how could there be two Bishops in one city( a thing quiter contrary to all rule, and practise, as soon as the division betwixt the Iewes and the Gentiles was taken away) unless there were two such distinct coetus? If there were two such coetus, then they that were of one coetus under one Bishop, were not of the other coetus under the other Bishop, 1. Because the coetus were kept apart, and impermixti. And 2. because no Bishop was to meddle in another mans Province, and withal this was part of the foresaid agreement, {αβγδ}. And if it be pretended that is true in coordinate Episcopacies, but holds not betwixt a Bishop and his Primate, and S. Peter be pretended as such, then the former arguments return again, that shewed from Scripture and antiquity, that S. Paul was independent from St. Peter, and that S. Paul had the Primatum, primacy among the Gentiles, as S. Peter among the Iewes. And if against all this it be again urged that Peter preached to Cornelius a gentle, I answer, that that was not at Rome, but long before this agreement between the Apostles: and though it may be he did convert some other such, yet this is not argumentative for S. W. being nothing to the matter of jurisdiction, and withall but a whimpering[ may be] in his language, and till I can foresee some farther reply from S. W. this is all I shall offer to him at this season. So when I said the Iewes solemnly departed from Paul, Act. 28.29. Whence I conceived it fit to apply his two years preaching there, to the Gentiles of that City, he is much offended at the word [ solemnly] as not finding it in the Text, nor any expressions of absolutely relinquishing him; nor pertinacy nor contempt, but rather the contrary, much discourse or debate, a sign of hoveringness, &c. and finding a more solemn departure of his from them, Acts 13.51. Shaking off the dust of his feet against them, after which yet he oft preached to the Iewes, demanding farther what became of the Iewes which v. 28. were now converted by him? But I answer, that as I cited not the word [ solemnly] from that verse, as any part of the sacred Text, so I had authority enough to make use of the word, in that narration; For sure there were words, that signified a solemn departure, when before the dissolution of the meeting, Paul said this one word, Well said the Holy Ghost to our Fathers by the Prophet Isaiah, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand— v. 26. For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed, lest they should hear, and see, and understand, and be converted. Vers. 27. Be it known therefore unto you that the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and that they will hear it, v. 28. Upon which words it is, that the mention of their departure follows, v. 29. This I thought was a competent ground, on which to found the solemnity of their departure, for this signified pertinacity, contempt and obduration of heart, and withall the Apostles resolution to deal with them as such, to betake himself to the Gentiles, so saith S. Chrysostome, {αβγδ}, when they agreed not among themselves they departed, v. 25. that is, they not believing, forsook him, that is his notion of their dispute, and the conclusion thereof, and {αβγδ}, those words of Scripture he applied to them upon their unbelief: and again, that you may not wonder that they remained unbelievers, he cites that prophesy. All clear to mine, and contrary to S. W. his sense. And on Pauls part, {αβγδ}, he calls the chief Jews, then having declared the matter to them, he goes to the Gentiles. What could be more express? And what if he did not shake off the dust of his shoes against them? That was the ceremony of his departing from them, and that when he meant to leave their city, c. 13. 51. but I there speak of the solemnity of their departing from him; and beside, he was brought prisoner to Rome, and could not depart at pleasure, and withall meant to stay there and preach to the Gentiles, and therefore this ceremony was not now seasonable, and the others were sufficient to render it on both sides a solemn departure. Lastly, for the Iewes that believed, v. 28. I answer, that if they continued in that Faith, which now they received, and were not scandalised and averted, if they did not fall off, upon the mention of his resolution to turn to the Gentiles( for many jews which received the faith, would no longer associate with S. Paul, when he did so) yet I say upon any evidence produced for this, I shall make no doubt to acknowledge, that they, thongh Iewes, became a part of S. Pauls coetus, and so also can I as willingly yield to the force of any authentic testimony, that there were some Gentiles in S. Peters coetus, such I suppose was Clemens a Roman: and if we believe De contemptu mundi. Eucherius Lugdun: vetust â prosapiâ senatorum atque etiam ex stirpe Caesarum, and yet S. Peters Disciple,& Deacon, and Successor in the See. But this is no prejudice still to the distinct coetus of jews& Gentiles, in this, as in other cities, the one under one Apostle and Governor, the other under another, any more then the admission of some gentle proselytes among the jews can be an argument against the impaling of the Church of the jews, or their not associating with the Gentiles before Christs time. Next he makes a pompous mention of a testimony from Ignatius ad Tral:( which I used only to prove that Linus was Deacon to S: Paul, and Clemens to Peter) and because it doth say nothing to the proof of S. Peters being onely over the Jews, and Paul over the Gentiles, he hath great rejoicings over it: But I say again, that conclusion was proved by Scripture, which affirms him by agreement to go to the Jews, as the other to the Gentiles, and this from Ignatius is only a branch of accordance with it, that Linus, who( saith Ignatius) was Deacon to one, and Clemens to the other, succeeded them in the Government of their several coetus, that, as Epiphanius had said, Peter and Paul were both Bishops of Rome, so their two Deacons were Bishops after them. Whether this was any unseasonable advertisement, I desire others to pass their judgement, and shall not much consider, what S.W. thinks of it. Only he that likes not the fancy, should have directed his reader to some other solid way to reconcile those repugnancies of story, some making Linus, others Clemens first Bishop of Rome, after the Apostles, and others making Clemens but the third, which must in truth have some way of reconciliation, and for which the course is pointed out in the Tract of schism, and needed not have been so fastidiously rejected. And this being the only crime committed against S. W. at this time, he is so reserved as not to offer any other means, but what himself justly calls evasions, to salue the difficulty. There was little kindness in this to his( even now) dear countrymen. The remainder of the Section concerns S. John, of whom I had said, 1. That in Christs life he had the favour of Christ, and dignity of place before S. Peter himself. 2. That being by agreement assigned the Jews for his Province, as well as Peter had been, he had the converting and governing of all the converted Jews of the Lydian Asia, and the placing Bishops over them; and this proved from Clemens Alex: Eusebius, Prosper, and the author of the martyrdom of timothy. 3. That S. Paul had planted the Faith in the gentle part of this Asia, and placed Timothy Bishop there: Now to all this he hath sundry exceptions. 1. That I bring nothing to prove this] But that is manifestly evinced by the testimonies there annexed,§. 14. Onely because they are not put in the same Section, in which the observation was proposed, he thinks that a very competent advantage, upon which to reply to§. 13. that I say 'tis manifest, and yet bring nothing to prove it. But this is the manner of this artificer, and therefore being now grown into some acquaintance with him, it must not be taken amiss from him. 2dly He dislikes my proof for the dignity of S. Johns place from the style of beloved Disciple, and leaning on his breast, as if, saith he, because Jacob loved Joseph more then all his other brethren,& therefore out of favour he might lean on his breast at supper, it must needs mean plainly, that young Joseph was the highest of his brethren in dignity, had due to him the birth-right& inheritance, &c.] I answer 1. That having mentioned two things of John, 1. Christs favour to him, 2. The dignity of place he had above others, it was only the former of these, which I assumed from his title of the beloved Disciple, and that infallibly inferred it. 2. That for the dignity of place, as the {αβγδ}, or first room imports that, so that was as irrefragably concluded from his lying in his bosom, or leaning on his breast at supper, in the discubitus, for supposing Christ first, he that was in his bosom, must needs have, next Christ, the uppermost place, and accordingly it unavoidably follows, that Lazarus being represented parabolically in Abrahams bosom, is there described to be in the next place to the father of the faithful, and it being certain, that upon supposition of degrees of glory in heaven, some one or more Saints are next to Abraham, I presume we may believe Christ, that such an one as is in that parable deciphered by Lazarus, is capable of that place, and all S. W. his scruples, which he adds further on this score, have not the least validity in them. But as for the birth-right and inheritance, &c. which I suppose must import some real privilege, such as Reubens birth-right was, Gen. 49.3. the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power, that is an addition of S. W. his own fertile fancy, and was never dreamed of, or pretended by me( or I think any man living) to belong to that beloved Disciple. I affirmed, in passing, that John had Christs favour, and the dignity of place before all others, and so visibly he had, and that was all I thought of, till by S. W. his jealousies this was converted into birth-right and inheritance. 3dly He will persuade himself, that the words of Chrysostome( which I had produced) {αβγδ}, a whole entire nation that of Asia was entrusted to him, destroys all that I had said of S. Johns jewish province in the Lydian Asia, and then great rejoicing there is for this {αβγδ}, and no less then unpardonable blindness is become my portion. But what pity it was, that the blindness should be on S. W. his side, after all this? For to omit that he that is there spoken of, is S. Timothy( which a seeing person might have discerned from S. Paul, when in the line before he had red, by him S. timothy constituted Bishop there) the answer is obvious, that {αβγδ}, a whole entire nation in that place of S. Chrysostome, is not set to denote all the several sorts of coetus in Asia, but onely in opposition to the word {αβγδ} precedent, some one particular Church of one city and territory, viz. that of Ephesus. There Paul saith he had left him Bishop, 1 Tim. 1.3. and so the author of the marty doom of timothy, {αβγδ}, he was by S. Paul ordained Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus: And this being the chief Metropolis of all Asia, S. Chrysostome styles him Bishop of the whole nation. In Asia we know there were many Churches of which Ephesus was the prime, and therefore having said, {αβγδ}, 'tis manifest timothy was entrusted with a Church, he adds( by way of {αβγδ}) {αβγδ}, or rather a whole nation, {αβγδ}, that of Asia, which depended( all of it) on this chief Metropolitical See. By this interpretation 'tis evident, that what the other Church writers say of John( and hath in it as clear truth) is soon reconciled with this, viz. that he being returned to Asia, {αβγδ}, administered the Churches there, viz. those of the Jewish converts, the portion to which by agreement with Saul, he was to betake himself, and {αβγδ}, undertook the care of the Metropolis of the Ephesians, which in this other respect had before this, been entrusted to timothy, from whom therefore, as from their first Bishop, the succeeding reckon themselves, as appears in the council of Chalcedon, Act. 2. {αβγδ}, from S. timothy till now there have been 27. Bishops ordained in Ephesus. This being thus clear, was yet to be writhed by S. W. to another sense, that he might by that means have some opportunity to divert and wave the force of the instance, which consisted in this, that those Churches of Asia being wholly planted, and administered by other Apostles, S. Peter could not with any colour be pretended to be supreme Pastor of them. And this is equally true, whether it were S. Paul or Saint John, that had the managing of them. So little care hath S. W. to consider that, wherein the difficulty consists. What follows Sect. 12. as if the mention of the early famed of the seven Churches of Asia, and of Christs letter to them, Rev. 2. were designed by me to contain a double proof of Peters not having the Pastorship over them, 1. Because Christ wrote an Epistle to those Churches, 2. Because they were early famous] is a sign that S. W. hath an excellent faculty in answering reasons of his own imagining, for 'tis certain I never used them as reasons, or proofs of any, much less of that conclusion. All that I designed was to mention these, as considerable parts of the Universal Church, desiring any Romanist to tell me, what can be said in any degree probably for S. Peters pastorship over them, for whom there is not the least pretence, that he should be said {αβγδ}, to feed, or govern, or so much as to have meddled with the administration of these Churches of Asia. That the gentle part was by S. Pauls own single power entrusted to timothy, is there manifested, and here is confessed by S. W. And for the administering it, p. 82. that S. Paul personally gave him full instructions, leaving no other appeal or place of application for other directions, save only to himself, when he shall come unto him, I thought it was conclusible from his words, 1 Tim. 3.14, 15. the words are these: These things I writ unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I make any stay, that thou mayst know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the Church of God. Upon this citation, very tragical tempests are raised, and to this hour I cannot discern what it was that conjured them up. That I inferred this whole conclusion from the word [ come] is one of his arts, to divert and amuse the Reader, I thought my grounds had been visible enough, being thus laid. The[ {αβγδ}, these things] which S. Paul now wrote to him, were a whole Epistle of instructions, that it was no longer, was because he hoped to come to him shortly, when he might give him farther instructions, if there were need. In the mean, these told him, how he should behave himself in the Church, discharge his Episcopal office, and the end of writing it was, that he might know this: Thus much is explicitly contained in those verses. I now demand( and that is all that I then did, as will be seen in the place§. 16.) whether S. Paul left any other appeal, or place for farther directions, save only to himself, when he should come to him? Or whether any other Apostle could, by any power given him by Christ, countermand, or interpose in them? If any could, let him be name, and the power specified, and proved, by virtue whereof he should thus act: But S. W. after all his acts of diversion, dares not, I am sure doth not, affirm this. And if it cannot be said( as no doubt it cannot) then where was St. Peters supreme pastorship over St. Paul or S. John, or( under the former) over S. timothy in the Churches of Asia? As for the mis-understanding of the question, which next he is willing to charge on me, certainly I shall not be found guilty of it, but he visibly of mis-understanding my process. I speak not of any Apostolical commission over the whole world( of which he pretends me to speak, and will yield it to every Apostle) but of the peculiar power that timothy had by S. Pauls commission in Asia, and Titus in Crete, under no other superior jurisdiction, but of Christ and S. Paul; and if that be granted, as S. W. disputes it not, I am sure it will prejudge S. Peters primacy over( and therefore for once S. W. was concerned to be civil, and to set it only amongst) the rest of the Apostles. The two remaining suggestions of this 12th Sect. 1. concerning S. Peters preaching to Jews in England; 2. concerning Ecclesia Gentium in S. Prosper, were gleaned from the catholic Gentleman, and satisfied in the Reply, c. 4.§. 7. n. 9, 10, And so much for that Section. SECT. 7. Evidences against an Affirmation, by solving of testimonies. The reason of omitting to insist on Joh. 21.15, 16, 17. Mr. Harts confession. The Romanists enclosing the keys to S. Peter. S. W. his confession. The contrary charges laid on me. S. W. his inference from John 21.15. groundless. The infallible interpretation of the CHURCH. The particularizing Saint Peter. A Steward in every Church. The badge of no virtue without the power. The keys were no visible badge to Peter. The power as distinctly promised the rest as Peter. Sitting on 12. Thrones. The fire sitting on each, Acts 2. S. Peters having the holy Ghost in a peculiar manner, in an higher degree. The power of Bishops an argument that the keys not peculiar to S. Peter. A specimen of S. W. his reasoning. Foundation stones. {αβγδ}. The measuring of the wall, Apoc. 21. The Jasper ston. THis 13§. reflects on my view of the donation of the keys,& that being touched on by the Cath: Gent: received its due answer in the Reply, c. 4.§. 8, 9, 10 11. yet some few passages may expect here to be taken notice of, which were not there tendered, and so came not under consideration. As when first he spends a page. on the importance of the word evidence, I answer, I take it in the familiar vulgar notion, for a testimony to prove any question of fact, either in the affirmation, or the negative, and such was this, whether S. Peter were by Christ constituted Universal pastor: And the one possible way to testify this( as any other) negative, is to take a view of the places, wherein be is by the affirmers pretended to be thus constituted, and to show that those places have no such force in them. That they have such force, is incumbent on the Defendant to show, at least to point at the particular word, or passage, which hath the supposed energy in it: And till that be done, he that undertakes the Negative, can only pitch upon those places and specialities, which he sees the learnedst affirmers most insist on, supposing it reasonable to conclude, that those are their most important evidences. By this it appears how far I was from prevaricating against my promise of evidences, when I went about to prove my negative, by solving the Romanists testimonies for the affirmative, which I acknowledge with him to have been my method, and I suppose no man can by any laws of discourse oblige, or direct me to any other. 'tis true( what he suggests) that he that undertakes to evidence, susteins the part of the Opponent. But that he may do, while he opposeth the affirmations( as well as negations) of other men, and that he must do by invalidating their testimonies, on which they found or defend their affirmations; and if he can do so, why may not these be styled evidences on his side, i.e. testimonies, to evince the reasonableness of his negation? as when by any examination of a witness produced against me, I demonstrate the invalidity of his testimonies. Secondly when upon my omitting to insist on the words of Joh. 21.15, 16, 17. I am charged with a palpable injuriousness, that in answering their testimonies out of Scripture, I omit the chiefest, the strongest, and most important place of all] This is just as Dr. Stapleton deals with Mr. Calvin, Princip: doctrine: l. 6. c. 8. when among the Romanists arguments from Scripture, he had made no mention of Lu. 22.31. the Dr saith it was because he well knew, nullo cavillationis fuco tam manif●sta verba eludi potuisse, that this was the unavoidable convincing Text, just on the same score, on which this must now go for the most important place, because it was not mentioned. But for this my reason was by me with perfect truth rendered, p. 93. from my full persuasion, that it had so very little appearance of strength in it, and had been so often answered, that it would not be deemed useful to any that I should descend to it. That herein I have done the Romanist no injury, I have already given some account in the Reply,§. 8. n. 10, &c. and cannot farther seasonably attempt it, till I am told, what yet I am perfectly ignorant of, wherein the pretended strength lies of this most important place, and whether there be any farther reserve of force in it, which Mr. Hart in the conference with Dr Reynolds, fortified with all Dr. Stapletons armorie, did not take notice of. If there be not any such, yet invisible reserve, I must then remember the issue that it was brought to in that conference, as we have it under both the Disputers hands, Mr. Harts last Reply on this Text being in these words, p. 102. This which you have said might seem to be somewhat toward the losing of them( the knots of Dr. Stapletons finding out) if the Scripture gave not clear evidence for the proof of his supremacy as well elsewhere as here, namely Lu. 22.31. Out of which hold also being soon beaten, by evidence, that no more was there said to Peter, than Christ performs to every child of God, he concludes, p. 109. I cannot deny but that in some respect it may be truly said to all the children of God, if they fall as Peter did. Yet( I know not how) me thinks I cannot be persuaded but that it maketh somewhat for Peters supremacy. Thirdly, when he accuseth me of manifest calumniating, in saying that the Romanist pretends the donation of the keys as a peculiarity and enclosure of S. Peter] To this I have answered already, Reply, Cap. 4.§. 9. And yet a little farther I shall now desire the Readers judgement of it, whether I have calunniated the Romanist, supposing S. W. to be that Romanist, whose pretensions in that manner are P. 90, 91. set down gradatim, thus, 1. That something was said to Peter in particular, and by name, which was not said to any other Apostle particularly, and by name; That is his first step. 2. That since this saying was a promise, a promise of something was made to S. Peter in particular; That is his second step. 3. And by way of conclusion from hence, with a [ wherefore] that seeing this thing promised was the giving of the keys of heaven, it follows that the promise of giving the keys of heaven was made to S. Peter in particular. In this process it is clear, 1. That the promise of the keys is by S. W. affirmed to be made in particular and by name to S. Peter, and 2. that saying or making a promise in particular and by name, is in his sense so to make it to one particular, viz. to Peter, as not to any other Apostle, and what is that but to affirm it a peculiarity, and enclosure of S. Peters? If here he sly back to his refuge of[ particularly and by name] and say that he affirms no more, but that this promise was not made to the other Apostles in particular and by name, then 1. he gained nothing at all to S. Peter by that process; for as long as that which was given to S. Peter by name, were without naming every of them particularly, given to them all, so that each of them had it, then this will never be able to found S. Peters supremacy over them. But then 2ly. before he can thus escape, he will find himself entangled again; for in the words presently following, he thinks it most consonant to reason, and worthy our Saviour to perform his promise according to the tenor and manner in which he promised, and that by a performance in particular( which therefore he calls his best and surest testimony, Joh. 21.) and I who produce a performance to them all in general, am rebuked for omitting that performance in particular, and in stead of it, producing onely a performance to them all in general. Here I demand, am I rebuked for omitting something, or not? if for omitting something, then that performance in particular to Peter was something, which was not comprehended in that performance to them all in general( for if it were there comprehended, then I that am acknowledged to have produced that, cannot be said to have omitted this) and if it were so, then it was peculiar to him, and so his enclosure: and if the performance were so, then the promise was so too, by the foregoing confession of S. W. which will have the performance made according to the tenor of the promise. And so here is as much affirmed by S. W.( and by and by we shall have it more expressly repeated again) as that amounts to, which I suppose to be asserted by the Romanist, and that I hope will secure me from being like S. W. in calumniating him, with whom I came to dispute. To conclude, was there, or was there not any thing here promised Peter, which was not promised the rest? If there was, then 1. that was St Peters enclosure, and 2. that is contained in the promise of the keys, for that and the consequents thereof, power of binding and losing, is all that is there promised him. And then 'tis vain to say you are calunniated, because you allow the power of binding to all the Apostles, for if you do, as indeed you do, and must, you must either show somewhat else to be promised in those words, which mention nothing else, or else you must be forced to confess that either there was nothing promised the rest of the Apostles, or that you will still affirm something to have been promised him, which was not promised him. In this place it is not amiss to note, that at the beginning of this his 13th Sect. I am said to affirm that no power of the keys was given especially to St. Peter, and yet the Cath: Gent.( S. W. his very good friend, who might have saved him the labour of this, as he calls it, his larger confute) saith, that I confess the keys were especially promised to Peter. The truth is, I never said one or other, and if I had said one, I must needs not have said the other, and yet by these two Romanists, or( as seems to me most probable) two appearances of the same Romanist, I am said to say both. What trust shall be given to such disputers? I say the power was given in common and equally to all the Apostles, and once mentition the making the promise to him peculiarly, but that onely as a colour, that the Romanist makes some use of, and reply to it, that in the repetition it is given to all, without any peculiarity of restriction, and that the applying, or addressing the words particularly to Peter, had a special energy in them, noting that the oeconomie in Christs household belongs to single persons, the Bishop in each city, and not onely to the college or Consistory. But still nothing of all this is to the giving the keys either specially or not specially to S. Petrr. What follows from Joh. 21.15, 16. where, saith he, 'tis expressly recommended and incharged on S. Peter particularly and by name, once, twice, and thrice, with as many repetitions of his name particularizing him over and over, Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my sheep, and asking him, Amas me plus his?] is a strange way of arguing, and yet gives us a view of the utmost that S. W. can attempt in this cause of S. Peters universal Pastorship: For when indeed that is the great foundation, on which the whole dispute of our schism depends, and when as S. W. assures us, the place of Joh. 21.15, 16. is their chiefest,& strongest, and most important place of all, and as it is evident by his arguing, the other place of[ I will give thee the keys, Mat. 16.19.] must receive all its force from the comparing it with this and the consonancy betwixt the promise, and this( as he will fancy it) performance. Yet after all this, all that he can pretend to from hence, is but a recommending and incharging of him, Feed my sheep— together with a question, whether he love him more than the rest of the Apostles? which what is it but an exhortation to perform that duty, to which he was before commissionated, Joh. 20.21. and with him all the rest of the Apostles equally. For as to the other circumstances of expresness, particularizing him by name, frequent repeating of it, asking him whether he love him more then these] one or all of them, they can never work a change in the matter. Christ praying the same prayer thrice, did not make it cease to be a prayer, and commence a precept; No more will an inculcated, express, particularized( be it never so vehement an) exhortation, introduced with a question, to quicken, and impress it, be converted by these accumulations into a commission for supremacy, especially when the causes, which visibly suggested to our Saviour this manner of questioning, and pressing his exhortation, were more justly matter of humiliation, than of exaltation to S. Peter( and so were received, and interpnted by him, Peter was grieved because Christ said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? ver. 17. and no doubt deemed it a reproach of his thrice denying his Master) a remembering him of the foulness of his fall, but not the instating any principality or dignity upon him. But of this I have also spoken distinctly, Reply, c. 4.§. 8. Besides this force of the words, S. W. is willing to call in the interpretation of the catholic Church according to her never erring rule of faith, and that gives him and his friends an infallible certainty that these and( he only saith it) some other testimonies from Scripture express a primary in S. Peter] But here he neither produces any one interpretation of either Fathers, or councils, or any single writer, thereby to signify what he means by the catholic Church, or what is the way of interpretation, that must induce this. It is therefore left to his Reader to conjecture his meaning, viz. that the present Roman Church is the catholic, that the interpretations of this are the never erring rule of Faith, that this hath interpnted this, and some other Texts to signify a Primacy not onely of order but of power, an universality of jurisdiction, to belong to Saint Peter, over all the Apostles, and that this gives him, and all that are of his persuasion in all things ( particularly in the belief of the Infallibility of the Roman Church) an infallible certainty of the truth of it. And this sure would equally have done it, if our Saviour had never asked St. Peter three times, Lovest thou me more then these— And so all that I can conclude from hence is but this, that S. Peters universal pastorship is as perfect a truth, as the Infallibility of the Roman Church, but withall that it is to as little purpose to dispute of that, or any subject, till the other be either resolved, or set aside, as it is to inquire, whether he say true that cannot lie. And therefore I shall thus take my leave of my enchanted adversary. What follows p. 93. by way of new attempt,& deduction from my words, when I mention the applying the words particularly to S. Peter] is a very subtle reasoning. By the applying the promise of the keys particularly to Peter, he will have it follow, 1. That our Saviour told Peter in the singular, and in a singular manner that he should be Steward of his house; and then seeing all particularizing is a kind of exception from an universality, and that universality is the other Apostles, it must follow( saith he) that St. Peter was particularized out of that community for the office of Steward in Christs house. And if he were so, say I, then here the particularity and enclosure of the keys to St. Peter, is affirmed by S. W.( which was a while ago such a slander of my pen against their Church) for sure so 'twas, if Peter by this Donation was particularized out of the Community, for the office of the Steward( of which he after tells us there was none but he) in Christs house. But letting that pass, I shall attend to his reasoning, and though very fine, without much ado, this fabric will soon be demolished. The speech( I yield) is addressed to Peter in the singular, but that is a token onely, that Peter, as a single person, should have power, but not either that no others should have it too( or that when they had it, not single persons, but only Communities should be invested with it) or that the manner, in which Peter should have it, should be singular to him, and so, as it was not to each of them. The particularity gives him particularly the power, but excludes not others from the same power, and the same degree of power, to whom it was at any other time promised, or given, and so it was to all and every of the Apostles, Mat. 18. John 20. And though the office of Steward be a particular office, yet in every particular house there may be one such Steward, and every whether national, or provincial, or Diocesan Church, is such an house, and not onely the one catholic Church that comprehends them. If it were otherwise, that power which Christ had in one person by Commission from his Father, he could never have delegated to the plural Disciples, as 'tis visible he did, John 20. or else that must not be the Stewards office, as it is visible also that it is, by comparing Mat. 18. with Mat. 16. where the binding and losing is an effect of the keys, and those the Stewards ensign of office: And by 1 Cor. 4.1, 2. where the apostolical office is so described, which consequently instates every one in this Stewards office, as well as the Text, Mat. 16. doth S. Peter. What is next said of the keys, the badge of the function, that they are not red of to be given to any but S. Peter] is of the same complexion with the former Combatants. 'tis sure the badge and the power go together, and if they did not, 'tis the power and the Commission for that, which alone is considerable in this matter, and that is apparently and expressly given to all the Apostles, Mat. 18. and John 20. and for any more it matters little. The Commission being cleared, either supposes the implicit donation of the badge, or else stands in no need of it. But then 2. it is yet farther evident that there were no material keys given to S. Peter himself, and those onely can be called a badge( spiritual, invisible keys are not capable of being such) and Christs commission and the power accompanying it, are the spiritual keys, which he that hath, may open and shut the kingdom of heaven, and those every Apostle had as well as S. Peter. His third argument from the Apostles, being part of Christs house, whence he infers S. Peter Steward over them, is answered most briefly by retortion, that if there be any force in it, then it will equally hold thus. St. Peter was a part of Christs house, and therefore Paul that was a Steward in Christs house, and is expressly so called, 1. Cor. 4.1, 2. was Steward over St. Peter. What follows in this matter introduced by Fourthly and lastly, is onely his expression of dislike to an argument of mine concerning presbytery, and so is not pertinent to the question before us, and besides it hath not, I suppose, any show of the least difficulty in it. As for the next passage on the same foundation, pag. 96. wherein I am said to affirm most shamelessly, and most expressly against Scripture alleged by myself, that this power was as distinctly promised, Mat. 18.18. to each single Apostle as to S. Peter.] I leave it to the Reader to judge, whether it be calumny or no, by this syllogism, That which was promised to all the Apostles, as to twelve single persons, each singly to have and exercise it, and not all together in commune, was as distinctly promised to each single Apostle, as it was promised to S. Peter( I speak not now of its being promised particularly by name, nor were any such words found in this part of my former treatise, that is willingly allowed to S. Peter, and the full importance of it before considered) but the power of binding and losing was Mat. 18 promised to all the Apostles, as to twelve single persons, each singly to have, and exercise it, and not altogether in common, Ergo. The mayor is cleared by this, because the distinctness and particularity of the promise to S. Peter divolved no more on him, but this, that he should singly have and exercise that power, and not onely in common, or in consistory with other Apostles. If it be said that it divolved any more, I desire it may be said what it was, and how it appears to be by these words divolved on him, and whatsoever it be feigned to be, if it be less than a supremacy over all the Apostles, it will be nothing to the purpose; and that 'tis sure it was not, because the supremacy is not compatible to two, whether persons, or communities, and yet this power promised S. Peter, is acknowledged by S. W. to be also made to all the Apostles in common and in general, Mat. 18.18. though not distinctly to each of them. The minor is in part confessed by S. W. so far as that this power was promised to all the Apostles, and for the other parts, 'tis evidently proved in that treatise out of St. Cyprian, Theophylact, and others, and is the interest of S. W. as well as of us, to maintain against the Presbyterians, who alone can gain by the questioning of it. That about the meaning of the twelve thrones was considered in the Reply, Cap. 4. Sect. 10. and there the sense which S. W. never heard of, vouchsafe from Saint Augustine, to whom I may also add Hilarius Pictaviensis, and the Author imperfecti Operis. As for the words, that either judging should signify ruling, or presiding, as Governors preside, or that {αβγδ} should signify the episcopal chair, 'twill be no news to any man, that hath observed the use of words, either the most critically, or the most slightly, whatsoever S. W. would make show of believing to the contrary. In the next place the dumb negative( as he calls it) is by him mutilated, or else it would speak articulately enough, to all that I called it out to testify. It is in the descent of the Spirit, Acts 2. the fire's being divided, and sitting on every one of them. This fire represented the holy Ghost, that holy Ghost sealed that Commission to those on whom it fell, which Christ had promised to S. Peter, Mat. 16. and to all the Apostles, Mat. 18. Now this fire was divided, and {αβγδ}, on each, and every one of them, Acts 2.3. And this I suppose an argument of some validity, that the promise being thus sealed distinctly to every one of them, was meant( in the making of it) distinctly to every one of them. And when I add that there was no peculiar mark allowed St. Peter, though that be a negative argument, and therefore I meant not from that alone to conclude any thing, yet I hope by being annexed to the affirmative probation precedent, it will not be a gag to make that dumb and negative also. But in this paragraph here is offered a very doughty proof to evidence on St. Peters behalf( what I know not, for that is not expressed, but left doubtfully betwixt his being head of the Apostles, and his having some peculiar mark allowed him in the descent of the holy Ghost, yet one I suppose designed to infer and conclude the other.) 1. Saith he, the Doctor was not there to see, and there is no history that expresses the contrary. It seems a Negative in S. W. his mouth is perfectly vocal, though it be but dumb in another mans. 2. Saith he, If we may judge by exterior actions, and may believe that out of the abundance of the heart the tongue speaks, then perhaps the Doctor may receive some satisfaction in this point also that St. Peter had in a more peculiar manner the holy Ghost, for it was he that first burst out into that heavenly Sermon which converted three thousand. Here was one honest word the [ perhaps] But even this will fail, for granting the two postulata, that wee may judge( probably at least) by exterior actions, and that our Saviour said perfect truth, when he said, Out of the abundance of the heart— Yet the Doctor may not be satisfied from thence, or from St. Peters first bursting out, making the first, though so powerful Sermon, that he had received the holy Ghost in a more peculiar manner, or was designed head of the Apostles. I shall answer it no farther than by repeating it, hoping that my silence will not again have such efficacy in it( if it have, dumb Negatives may hereafter deserve some consideration) as to render this also a strongest and most important place for the Romanists pretensions. What is next represented( according to S. W. his meaning) as my fourth argument, viz. That they were all filled with the holy Ghost, is sure no distinct argument of mine, but only a part of that Text before cited, where the fire sate on every of them, and this is a consequent of that, they were all filled with the holy Ghost. And that this thus set, was an argument of some validity, hath already appeared. As for the possibility, that they which were all full of the holy Ghost, might yet have it unequally, I am not concerned to doubt, if by [ unequally] be meant the inequality of divine endowments. But though of these there is no certain ground of affirming, which of all the Apostles had the highest degree, Saint John excelling in some graces, Saint Peter in others, and Saint Paul that came after, having as rich a proportion as either, for ought wee can discern, and labouring more abundantly than they all, yet not he, but this grace of Gods spirit in him: Yet our question being onely of power or Commission to authority, and dignity in the Church, and every one having that sealed to him by the Holy Ghosts descent upon every one, there is no remaining difficulty in this matter. The testimonies which I Tr: of Schism. p. 89. brought out of the ancients to prove that there was no more promised to S. Peter, Mat. 16. than was promised, Mat. 18. and actually given, John 20. to all and every of the Apostles, p. 98. are looked on by by S. W. as pretendings, that the Romanists build not the Church upon Bishops in the plural, nor allow any authority to them, but to the Pope onely, and this made a piece either of pitiful ignorance, or malicious calumny. But tis apparent they did not inject the least suspicion of that. What they were designed to infer, was clear by the matter of the testimonies, that though the words, Mat. 16. were spoken particularly to Peter, yet the entire power there spoken of was promised and given to all the Apostles, that from that donation it is, that all episcopal power, which is in the Church, flows, that in S. Peters receiving the keys, all Bishops received them, which is an evidence that either he received more than was comprehended in the keys( which he cannot do by those words) or else he received no more than all other Bishops receive from the rest of the Apostles. And then how can his supremacy be founded in these words? In this paragraph he hath given us a very rare specimen of his reasoning, for not contenting himself to have said, that the testimonies of Bishops in the plural, touch not the Romanists, there being no word in them excluding the Pope, he adds, Nay rather they make for them: How fair they bid to excluding the Pope, supposing that title to signify not a Bishop onely, but a supreme universal Pastor, hath been shewed already. Let us now observe how he proves this [ Nay rather they make for us] for that will bee a matter of some moment, if performed successfully. His way of inferring this his advantage is, For the Churches being founded in Apostles, and Bishops, prejudices not S. Peter to be the chiefest; and if so, then the Church is built most chiefly and especially upon Saint Peter, which is all we catholics say.] Where not to dispute what is meant by S. Peter being the chiefest, whether no more than appears to be meant by the {αβγδ}, which he knows we willingly grant him, without imagining any supremacy of Authority over the rest of the Apostles, instated in him; All that I desire to observe, is the manner of his arguing, thus, If it prejudices not S. Peter to bee the chiefest, then the Church is built most chiefly upon him: from those testimonies not prejudicing, presently assuming that it is true, as if saying nothing to hurt it( by not saying any thing to it) were a clear evidence on its side, and then the first verse of St Matthew infers it also, for I acknowledge that prejudices it not, and then S. W. may set up for immortal disputer, having as many reserves of such arguments still behind, as there are periods in the Scriptures, or Fathers which speak of other matters, for of each of them 'tis acknowledged, that they prejudice not St. Peters being the chiefest. Sure S. W. when he was so displeased with the dumb negative, foresaw not he should need to call in such Auxiliaries as these. My answer to the Text of Tu es Petrus, is after his constant manner deformed by him, yet cannot miss to have this discernible efficacy in it, that there being no more meant by it, then that Peter was a foundation ston, and all the Apostles being such as well as he, this cannot constitute him in any superiority over them, CHRIST onely being the {αβγδ}, chief corner ston, and no other place in the Foundation giving any {αβγδ} of power to one Foundation-stone above another. This might bee soon manifested, if it were needful, by the known position of Foundation-stones, one by, not on the top of another: And if St. Peter were supposed to bee the first,( as page. 103. he saith the Doctor will not deny) and so next the chief corner ston, and by that Superior to all the rest, then it must likewise follow, that that ston which was placed next to the ston that represented Saint Peter, or in the next place of honour, next CHRIST on the other hand, must be also superior to all the rest, and the same rules of subordination hold on, through all the rest, which I suppose will not bee S. W. his interest to affirm, and then I can foresee nothing that will incline him to that way. Somewhat hath been added on this head in the Reply, Sect. 11. It remaines onely that I gather up some special objections of his against what I have said in the Tract of schism of this matter, which were not tendered by the Cath: Gent: And first, saith he, the argument is onely negative, that no distinction is put( betwixt the Foundation-stones in Scripture) therefore there was none. I answer, the argument is this, Simon is by Christ called {αβγδ}, a foundation-stone in the building of the Church, and the same title is, in another word, given every of the Apostles, when they are called {αβγδ} twelve foundations, from whence my conclusion( and not my proof) is negative: Therefore the words Tu es Petrus, neither give, nor affirm more of him, than is given and affirmed of every of the other Apostles. Next, saith he, it is a most pitiful piece of reason to persuade the Reader from onely a plurality, and naming twelve Apostles, that all were equal. But this was not my reasoning, but that the rest of the Apostles were foundation stones as well as Simon, and therefore that that title of Tu es Petrus was no proof of inequality. Thirdly, The Doctor, saith he, hath quiter overthrown his own cause, since granting a foundation-stone and {αβγδ} being the same, and onely St. Peter having the name of {αβγδ}, it follows on the Doctors grounds that he onely, and he more particularly should be a foundation-stone. This would be a strange syllogism, if it were put into form; but I shall not trouble myself with that, onely when it is as certain that {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} is the same, sure they that are every one of them {αβγδ}, shall be, as far as this argument can conclude, as much and as particularly foundation-stones, as he that was called {αβγδ}; so far from being inferred is his [ onely St. Peter] or St. Peter more particularly.] 'tis as if I should say, man and En●sh being the same, and onely the son of Seth having the name of En●sh, it follows on these grounds, that he onely, and in good reason that he more particularly should be a man. I suppose to this proposal of objection against S. W. his being a man, he would find out some answer or other to defend himself, perhaps this, that Isch and Enosh are the same, and S. W. is an Isch, and therefore as well and as particularly a man, as the son of Seth can be deemed to be; and then he hath no further need to be shewed the way to make answer to this argument. But then fourthly, he must have it noted, that the Doctor will have all the Apostles called Peter.] And now I have helped him to another quarrel with the Doctor as just as that, viz. that the Doctor will have every man called Enosh: But I answer, I shall not importune him that all the Apostles may be called Peter( and therefore the eleven●h dish in the bill of fare, was but a brick-bat put in paste, and meant onely to fill up room at the table) {αβγδ}& {αβγδ} are all one, and that will serve my turn as well, and therefore I content myself with the Scripture style, that the Apostles were twelve {αβγδ}, and not twelve Peters. The confirmation of the observations concerning Tu es Petrus, from the measuring of the wall in the Apocalypse, is made matter of much game to S. W. But a little seriousness( in such matters very decent) would have taught him, that the analogy of some obscure things in vision with so●e most plain, may render some parts of visions intelligible, and then what more obvious than this, that the wall being built upon the foundation, and so commensurate with it, and the foundation being distinctly made up of twelve stones, and the names of the twelve Apostles expressly interpreting each of them to be the so many Apostles, and the wall also being divided into twelve equal parts, the several portions whether of Province, of which the Church is made up, or else of power with which the Apostles were invested, should be thought to be meant by them, and so this representative mensuration be exactly significative of that, which other plain Scriptures had given grounds of believing, and Tu es Petrus had offered nothing to the contrary, viz. the equality of the power given by Christ to all the Apostles. As for S. W. his subtle fetch from the quality and lustre of the first of the twelve stones in that vision, the Jasper, I can allow him to make his advantage of it, to that which it is most proper to signify the lustre of zeal and other gifts, and if he can find any means to assure himself, 1. That St. Peter was signified by that Jasper ston, 2. That the lustre of that exceeded the lustre of every of the other stones, I shall very willingly grant him his conclusion, knowing that as the greatest Potentates are not always the most zealous persons in their kingdoms, so Dominion is not founded in such graces, but only in the Constitutions and Commissions of Christ, which mediately or immediately bestows all supremacies on all that are duly possessed of them. And so much for this large 13th Section( which I have attended on precisely, and {αβγδ}, as being most important to our business in hand, the case of our schism fundamentally depending on the supremacy of S. Peter) and consequently of his first part. CHAP. IV. A Survey of the Second Part of Schism disarmed. SECT. I. S. W. his one Evidence, Possession in the belief of Infallibility, Examined, in the general result, and the Special branches of it. BEing now to enter on this second part of my Disarmers dexterities, I meet with one in the front, which if thought on timely, and well husbanded, might have superseded, and saved him the expense of all the rest both foregoing and subsequent, the one Evidence that he pretends to for his whole tenor, their Churches long and quietly enjoyed possession of the belief of Infallibility. Possideo saith he, quia possideo, olim possideo, prior possideo, p. 106. is all the evidence and all the reason she is bound to give to her Rebel Sons or outlawed Subjects.] This indeed might make short work, decide and conclude Controversies, sixty an hour for an age together, if there were but this one thing granted, that the guilty were not only innocent but infallibly and unavoidably such, or that S. W. might be credited, when he affirms it. By this we see to what purpose it had been for me to have reformed upon his admonitions( concerning my omitting his strongest and most important place of Pasce Oves—) when if I had let loose upon his direction, and refuted all D. Stapletons, and other Romanists pretensions from those words, I had been still as far as ever, from moving this rock: for when all other pleas fail, he is still as safe as the clearest Deeds could make him; he hath an enchanted castle to retire to, their Churches Infallibility; and if any man will question that, it matters not; the belief of Infallibility will serve turn; and if still you will be importunate, and demand some reason to found such belief, and that for the satisfaction of the weak( who would really give all the goods in the world, that they might be assured of the truth of it, but cannot arrive to ●uch heights of believing without, and against all grounds of believing) why then in stead of satisfying those demands of frail fallible reason, here is the great {αβγδ}, the engine of battery, that will subdue in a moment all the intellectual fortresses, the long and quietly enjoyed possession of this belief, and so by these degrees S. W. his grand indenture is perfected, and all his evidence and reason summed up in this Breviate, Possideo quia possideo: Our Church is schismatical; why? because the Pope is universal Pastor, and we are divided from him. How doth he appear to be so? Why, the Church( that must be the roman Church) affirms it, which is Infallible: But how is she evidenced to be Infallible? why she believes she is so. I beseech him, upon what grounds doth she believe so? why, she hath possession of this belief. But a thief may possess that which he should not possess, and one may ask( with a desire to learn) how came she by this possession? Why she hath long and quietly enjoyed it: And if you further insist, and be so ill-natured, as to ask one question more, you are to know, You are Rebel Sons and outlawed Subjects, and this is all the reason S. W. in her name, is bound to give you, and( as he goes on) Tis your part to evidence; hers to hold and possess her own( Poor Protestants are bound to dispute, and demonstrate, to grinned in the mill, or dig in the quarry, 'tis enough for them to possess the belief of Infallibility) till you sufficiently i.e. demonstrably evidence her title to be unjust.] One would think the very reciting of this arguing were sufficient reply to it. And yet if after all this, it be remembered, either what title it is, that we are to prove to be unjust, or what kind of possession it is that is maintained by this title, the arguing will yet appear more admirable. 1. Tis evident there is no title( properly so called) so much as pretended; Possession, long quietly enjoyed is all that is tendered; and I hope possession, be it never so long and quiet, is no more then possession; a title is praecedaneous, and somewhat else, in which the Possession is, or ought to be founded; and if it were not, tis not bonae fidei Possessio. For though prescription by human Laws may be allowed to create a right; Yet it hath no such power by the Laws of Christ either in virtue and 'vice, or in matters of true or false. If it had, both Heathenism of old and Turcism now would hold by the same tenor. But of this I have spoken in the Reply, p. 21. So that this indeed proves S. W. to be {αβγδ}, an immortal invincible combatant. He need never dispute, or offer one word of reason for his Church till we have demonstrably evidenced her title to be unjust; and yet he saith, he is not bound to produce any title at all; and then how shall it be possible for us to demonstrate it unjust? And yet this is but one less considerable part of his arguing. The possession which is wont to supply the place of a title, and to be ingredient in a plea, is we know the possession of some outward thing of Land, of Goods, movable or immovable, of Power, and the like: but the possession, which S. W. speaks of, is the Possession of one of our own operations, an internal act; for such is Belief; But of that also, as such, we have spoken already. Reply Chap. 7. Sect. 1. n. 11. and I need add no more now, but this, that possession of belief, and the length of that possession, can signify no more then that they have long believed it; and if that were sufficient ground to be rendered to any( whether subject or Slave) who should demand a reason of the Faith that is in them,[ they believe it, because they do, and have long believed it] I would gladly know, what the Apostle meant by that precept, 1 Pet. 3.15. that we be ready {αβγδ}, to give an account, such sure as hath {αβγδ}, reason in it, i.e. an account of the cause and reason, as of our hope, so of our belief, to every man that demands such a reason from us, or whether the bare having so long believed it, without any offer of reason for it, be yet a reasonable account of that belief. Nay when to the plea of a possesion it is necessary that some competent testimonies to prove the prescription be produced, and so S. W. might be supposed to have some reserve of expedient, to extricate him out of this Labyrinth; the present specification of the object of this belief makes this issue yet more impossible; For tis The belief of their Infallibility, and not only of their veracity which he speaks of,( and of that I hope I have said enough in the view of the Romanists exceptions to my Lord of Falklands discourse of Infallibility.) 2. of their Infallibility, indefinitely( and that is in effect universally) the impossibility that their Church should err in any thing she affirms, or defines; or shall ever affirm, or define; A thing, which as they cannot pretend to prove so much as by that way, that possessions are evidenced to be Possessions, by Testimonies of ancient men, for sure never any Apostle or ancient Dr. of the Church did by way of prophesy foretell this, that the Church of Rome never should err, or render her self capable of erring, so after all this tis as necessary refuted by every particular dispute of ours, wherein we have or shall prove her actually to have erred, and wherein we shall demonstrate her to have varied from her self( as it is certain we can demonstrate) as any title in the world can be evidenced to be unjust. That I descend not here to this way of perfecting this demonstration, I have many reasons to persuade me. I shall mention but one, that this digression of his to the discourse of his one evidence, the belief of Infallibility, pretends to be founded in no more then an intimation of mine, that it belongs to them to evidence. And what had I said to intimate this? For●ooth the Title of my fift Chapter was, The evidences from the Bishop of Rome succeeding S. Peter examined] A foul injury indeed to S. W. to imagine that they use any such evidence, or that they are bound to use any at all. Well if I have made such a dangerous intimation, I have now more then intimated my reasons for it, and when my intimations are more express( my whispers become vocal) I will endeavour my demonstrations shall be so also. In the mean this may serve to secure my intimation, and so the title of my fifth chapped. For sure the last crime that is laid to it, in relation to the subsequent matter of the Chapter, viz. that the Dr. is contrary to himself, inscribing the chapter, an answer to their evidences, yet spending almost the whole chapter in producing evidences of his own,] will soon be pardonned him. When its considered, that those evidences of his own were produced to refute and invalidate their evidences, and so as proper a method as could have been used in the examining of them. SECT. 2. Bishops properly Successors of the Apostles, and styled Apostles. S. W. his disadvantage from pretending the contrary. The frail grounds of the Bishop of Romes supremacy. The place of St. Peters death no means to affix the pretended universal Pastorship to the See of Rome; Peters third coming to Rome. The Bishop of Rome succeeded him living. HIs answer to my first Paragraph, is most of it triumph for the victories of his former part( which I suppose have proved no better then those in Thucydides's story, the victories vanished, before he hath taken full possession of them) yet he cannot take leave of it without giving us one taste of his faculty; I had said that after the first evidence, which concerned S. Peter, was manifested to be incompetent to infer the conclusion, twas unnecessary to proceed to the other; and he recites this into another form that I brag I have supererrogated, and said more then needs, applying it to what I had done in the former chapter, when my words evidently look forward, and relate to that which was next to be handled. What follows next concerning the Succession to S. Peter at Antioch, compared with that at Rome, hath been spoken to and vindicated against the Cath. Gentl. in the Reply. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. and here is little Addition made by S. W. save only 1. His denying, that Peter planted a Church at Antioch of Jewish believers only( whereas 1. the contrary is manifested in the former chapter by the distinctness of the two caetus there; and 2. This is not at all to the matter of our present argument, which is founded onely in Peters planting a Church, and leaving a Successor Bishop at Antioch, which he equally did, were it of Jews or Gentiles) 2. The recounting the two divers qualities of dignity in S. Peter resident at Antioch; the first of particular care of that Church, as private Bishop of that See, wherein, saith he, he left an improperly so called successor, viz. a Bishop: the second of public office of head of the Church, in which consists his Primacy, and in which he only could claim the inheritance, who succeeded him dying.] Herein there be three things to be briefly adverted to. 1. That his whole answer is founded in a visible begging the question, viz. that S. Peter was head of the Church, and so had the Primacy, i.e. the supreme Pastorship of the Church; for as to any other notion of Primacy, that title will not be proper. 2. That in his opinion a Bishop was but improperly a successor of St. Peter whereas tis notorious in all antiquity, that the Bishops were the only( properly so called) successors of the Apostles, and themselves frequently upon that account styled Apostles, and the Successors of St. Paul and other Apostles in other cities equally so styled, Anom. a●. Phat. Num. 254.& Theodor. in 1. Tim. 3.1.& Th●ophan. {αβγδ}, Th●od. in T●t. {αβγδ}, Phil. 2.25. Theod. in Phil. 1.1.& in c. 2. Chrys. ibid. {αβγδ}, Chrys. {αβγδ}. {αβγδ}, the Apostle Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, Ignatius, and many the like, as the successor of S. Peter at Rome, Clem. Alex. storm. l. 4. Apostolus Clemens. And if it be said, that Bishops succeeded not in the whole Apostolical Power, that of preaching to all Nations, and so were but improperly their Successors; I answer, that is true; but little for S. W. his advantage. For then the Bishop of Rome not succeeding S. Peter in the plenitude of his power, can the less be proved to succeed in the Universal Pastorship of S. Peter( which if ever S. Peter had been possessed of, must needs be founded in, and superstructed on his commission apostolic) his succession in the Episcopal chair may be sufficient. 3dly, That all the Bishop of Romes supremacy depends upon these frail grounds, and besides upon another perfect uncertainty;( even according to S. W. his unproved assumptions) viz. that none could succeed him dying, but only the Bishop of Rome; whereas 1. Tis evident, that whatsoever power S. Peter was invested in, he might at death, have delegated to any other Bishop constituted by him, as well as to the Bishop of Rome, to Euodius as to Clemens; If it be said, he could not: I ask what should hinder him? sure no command of Christ, for he had not said a word to this matter; Nor was Peters will subject to any other authority; and therefore certainly he might, if he would, thus have delegated it; and that he would not, is not pretended, or attempted to be proved, and so it remains a mere groundless, uncertain assertion, or conjecture, of which sort many millions might be produced, which yet have really no truth in them. And whereas here is pretend●d a necessity in the matter, that where he dyed and was divested, there was necessary a succession into the dignity, which he left, and was wanting by his death to the whole Church] This is perfectly vain. For 1. that want, if any such there had been to the whole Church, might by any declared act of his will, by his delegation and institution have been as well supplied in any other city, if he had so pleased, as in that wherein he dyed: and without such expression of his will, the place of his death would have been utterly ineffectual; There is not the least necessity consequent to the Archbishop of Canterbury his dying at London, yea though he were also Bishop of London, when he dyed, to affix the Archiepiscopal power to that See; nor doth any kind of inheritance depend on such uncertain emergents as is the place of a mans dying. Suppose the Emperour of the whole world were by particular title of Conquest, or {αβγδ} plantation, King of France first, and afterward of England, and before, or at the time of his death had assigned one successor in France to his crown and kingdom of France, and another in England to that crown, and without any provision appearing to be made for the succession in the Empire, he should die intestate in England, would there be any necessity now from his dying there, that the King of England should succeed to the Empire of the world? His answer to this question, and his solid grounds of reason, on which to found his answer, whatsoever it shall be, will be useful to the clearing of this matter. Meanwhile, as tis obvious to any, that he that hath long lived in one city, may upon some suden occasion remove, and die in another; so it seems most probable that this last coming of S. Peter to Rome was after this manner, not long before his death. For though in Eusebius Chronicon there is mention of his sitting 7. years at Antioch, and then five and twenty years at Rome, immediately before his death,( which is no way reconcilable with evidence of History in many particulars) yet in the third of the Ecclesiastical History {αβγδ}. the words are express. {αβγδ}. Peter having preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia— to the Jews, which were of the dispersion at the end being at Rome, he was put to Death, &c. And accordingly Annot. in Pl●tin. de vit. pontiff. in Pet. Apost. Onuphrius, to reconcile the contrary appearances, is forced to place this his third coming, and last return to Rome, in the last year of the reign of Nero, under whom he was put to death. Add hereunto the affirmation of Her. {αβγδ}. Epiphanius, {αβγδ}— that of those that belonged to Peter and Paul, there were ordained other Bishops, because they went to other Countreys to preach the faith; and Rome might not be without a Bishop: which is farther prejudice to S. W. his argument for the Bishop of Romes succession to the plenitude of S. Peters power, upon that only score of his dying there; For thus his argument lies. The dignity of Primacy annexed to S. Peters person went along with him whithersoever he went, and remained with him living, so that he onely who succeedeth him dying( the Bishop of Rome) could claim the inheritance of this sacred dignity] To this I reply; but if the Bishop of Rome succeeded him not dying but living, i.e. was constituted Bishop there in S. Peters life time, as Epiphanius expressly affirms he was, then all force of this argument is vanished. But of this whole matter I have formerly spoken in the reply, ch. 5. Sect. 2. and therefore I add no more of that. SECT. 3. The Canon of Chalcedon. What the Bishop of Romes Primacy. {αβγδ}. Constantinople equal to Rome in all but place. {αβγδ}, noting an equality. Constantinoples Civil greatness, {αβγδ}, in all Ecclesi●stical affairs. IN the next place my testimony from the Council of Chalcedon is to be examined by S. W. But that also was largely vindicated in the Reply, c. 5. sect. 3. But S. W. will ask some posing questions, which the catholic Gentlemans curiosity did not suggest to him, as 1. How I know that {αβγδ} signifies the Primacy, asking whether there be no other privileges besides the Primacy] The Pertinence of this question, is first observable. The thing which I had in hand, was to show the original of the praecedence of the Bishop of Rome: For this I cited the Canon of Chalcedon, that Constantinople should have {αβγδ} equal privileges with Rome,( and be in place second, or next after Rome) upon this account particularly, {αβγδ}, because it was( at that time) the seat of the Empire, affirming that to be the reason( and not any donation of Christs to S. Peter, or succession of the Bishop of Rome from him) that Rome enjoyed such privileges. And upon view of this, S. W. very demurely asks, how I know that {αβγδ} signifies the Primacy] What propriety or seasonableness to the matter in hand, the original of Romes dignity, is yet discoverable in this question? But then 2. I shall answer this question by this other, Whether the Bishop of Rome his Primacy were any thing else above what the Bishops of other Prime Metropoles enjoyed save only Primacy of order or place? If it were in his opinion no more, then as I willingly yield it to the Bishop of Rome, so it is the disclaiming all his pretended supremacy of Jurisdiction over all others, in which alone the charge of our Schism is founded. If it were more, then the council of Chalcedon, that confirms to Constantinople the {αβγδ} with Rome, excepting none but the praecedency of place or order( {αβγδ} to be advanced like her or to have the like greatness in Ecclesiastical affairs, that Rome had, being {αβγδ}, second, or next after it) must needs give Constantinople that Primacy also. Or in plainer terms, was the Primacy that belonged to old Rome any real privilege above other Primates? If it w●re, then Constantinople, that must have {αβγδ}, equal privileges, with old Rome, and not onely some few equal privileges without others, must have the Primacy also. For when that Canon confirms the {αβγδ}, it doth it 1. Indefinitely, i.e. and 2. that equality is founded in having the same original of those privileges, which therefore equally divolves them all that flow from that original; and Rome had no other claim by which to hold them, in the opinion of that Council, and she is judged to have them, with one exception, and that only of place or order, {αβγδ}, &c.( and we know an exception confirms the rule to all things which are not excepted) And so sure that gives grounds of inferring the conclusion in that full latitude of all but place, and so of Primacy in the widest notion ( place onely excepted) in which Rome had it. To his second question, why[ {αβγδ}] which can exact no other interpretation but[ as she] must be rendered [ as much as she] deducing an equality or identity from {αβγδ}, which onely notes a similitude or likeness] the answer is obvious. 1. Because the parity, or agreement betwixt them in that place, is specified to be in respect of greatness, {αβγδ}, Constantinople shall be great in Ecclesiastical affairs as she; that must conclude it as great as she to any reality of power or greatness. 2. By the only exception mentioned, that of place, as was before said. 3. By the {αβγδ}, which were expressly mentioned before, equal privileges, and those, I hope, signify equality, and not similitude or l keness only. 4. By the ground of these equal privileges, the dignity of the city of which we have the sense of Gregory Nazianzen in his Orat. 27. where he thus addresses himself unto them. {αβγδ}, Constantinople is the great city( S. Chrysostom calls it the metropolis {αβγδ} of the whole world) the first after the first, or not yielding so much as this to it. And then if the Church were to keep the like proportion, we know what to conclude of it. Thus when l 7. c. 29. Sozomen sets down the passages of the first Council of Constantinople where these privileges were conferred, he hath these words. {αβγδ}. The Bishop of Constantinople shall have privileges of dignity next after Rome, as having the throne or chair of New Rome. For already( at that time) the city had not only that appellation, and a senate, and orders of the people and magistracies, the like to those at Rome, but also the ensigns of dignity, according to what was customary to the Romans in Italy, were adjudged to them, and the rights and dignities in all particulars were equal to them both. In the third place his questions are turned into chiding the Dr. for Englishing {αβγδ} in all Ecclesiastical businesses, whereas( saith he) there is no such word as[ All] there;] I answer, that if by Englishing he means translating, I did not intend to English it, and the varying the letter is an evidence of that. But that I so concluded by way of inference from those, and the precedent words of the Canon, I willingly aclowledge; but am not, I conceve, to be chid for it. For if Constantinople be in Ecclesiastical affairs advanced to the same height of power as Rome, if it have indefinitely without any exception, but only of precedence of place, equal privileges with Rome; and if this it have, upon this demonstrative account, because Constantinople now is what Rome was, and agrees with it in that for which Rome had her privileges, {αβγδ}, saith Themistius, reigning together with Rome, then must this belong to all Ecclesiastical businesses( precedence of place being either excepted, or not deemed such a {αβγδ}) for otherwise if there were any matter of the Church, to which Constantinoples power was not exalted, so as to be magnified {αβγδ}, like Rome, in that, whatsoever it were, there would be a real inequality, and so that Canon fail of its design of confirming the {αβγδ}, not this or that privilege in some particular matters, but indefinitely, privileges equal to those which Rome had. And therefore sure my pen was not herein, as he saith, too liberal of its ink; I made no addition to the real necessary importance of that testimony. SECT. 4. {αβγδ} Honorary, Pompous, Ceremonious privileges. Some such belonged to Rome as the first Patriarchate, but no supreme universal Jurisdiction from St. Peter. Constantinople equal to Rome in real privileges. The notion of {αβγδ} in the Glossaries, and in the councils, further proved by Leo's Epistles. Primacy an ambiguous word. FOurthly, From questioning and chiding, he at length comes to some matter, and will give account why the Popes Legates might omit to oppose the reason there given for the collation of the {αβγδ}. And for his groundwork he first lays this supposition, that the word {αβγδ} signifies nothing but certain honorary, pompous or ceremonious privileges: which he will allow might accrue to some Church by the residence of the supreme secular power there. Before I give answer to this, I must first ask, what he means by honorary pompous or ceremonious privileges? If only those that have no reality of jurisdiction joined to them more then belonged to that city before, or abstracted from the collation of those honorary privileges, then his words may bear this sense, that the privileges of a Patriarch, as that differs from a Primate of a diocese in the East or West( there being fourteen such into which the Empire was most anciently divided) were but honorary privileges, precedence in councils, and the like without any accession of power or jurisdiction above that which belonged to them as Primates, and that these may accrue to some Church by the residence of the supreme secular power there And in this sense, his words are most true, and applicable to the notion which I have of the Church of Rome from the Canon of Chalcedon, viz. that the Church of Rome, being {αβγδ} originally a Primacy( proportionable to the Prefecture of the City of Rome in the division of the Empire) by being the seat and first city of the Empire, became a Patriarchate, and the most honourable or first of the Patriarchates, and thereby had the first place in any ecumenical council, and the like. But this was nothing but an honrary privilege without any thing of jurisdiction( any further then the Province which belonged to her as Primate, extended) accrueing to her by these means. And when the Canon of Chalcedon speaking of this, saith, she hath it assigned her by the Fathers, {αβγδ}, because she was the imperial city, the Legates did not, because they could not with any iustice, oppose this reason: But S. W. I suppose, will have more to belong to Rome then this, and means more by Romes Primacy, even a supremacy of jurisdiction above all other Primates and patriarches, and that as coming down to her from St. Peter. And against both these I argued from that Canon of Chalcedon; And by Constantinoples having equal privileges with Rome, i.e. first the power of a Primate, then the dignity or honour of a Patriarch, and the next place to Rome itself, and this upon this account of being the seat of the Empire, as Rome was, I conceived, I had demonstrated 1. That Rome, in the iudgement of that council, had no such supremacy of jurisdiction; for that was not conferred on Constantinople; nor indeed could it be compatible to any second if Rome had been thought to have had it, and so was prejudged by the decree for Constantinoples having equal privileges with Rome. And 2. That what Rome had above other cities, Antioch, &c. it was not deemed to have by any right from Peter, but from being the Imperial See, and this by way of interpretation acknowledged by the Legates of Rome, by their not opposing this, when for other reasons, and not for that, they refused to approve that Canon. And this might serve for answer to his supposition of the bare pompousness of these privileges. But because he may more probably have another meaning in his words, that the privileges here made equal and common to Constantinople with Rome, were but some pompous, honorary privileges, which notwithstanding, Constantinople fell much short of Rome in real power and jurisdiction, and so still Rome might have the universal Pastorship, though Constantinople communicated with it in the ceremonious privileges: I shall therefore now farther examine the truth of this unproved suggestion, which indeed being thus taken out of the ambiguous words, and put into intelligible sense, hath not any the least appearance of truth in it. And having none, we may thence pass judgement, what S. W. will adventure on to maintain his cause, and what supports that cause stands in need of, and cannot subsist without them. What {αβγδ} signify( which Constantinople is adjudged to have {αβγδ} equal to Rome) seeing it is his interest to question, it must be decided by competent testimonies. And such( for an ordinary Greek word) are the Greek Glossaries. Of these Hesychius may be allowed our first consideration. {αβγδ} saith he, {αβγδ}. it denotes Government, chief Priesthoods, Pr ncipalities, and holy offices, or( as I may guess the reading should be, without the last {αβγδ}) sacred Principalities, proportionably to {αβγδ}, which denotes {αβγδ}, Senators, Kings, Princes, those that are dignified above other men. Phavorinus to the same purpose, {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, It signifies that pre-eminence of d gnity that belongs to any in respect of honour, or the honour itself thus given in respect of this praeminence, Honour for eminence, Primacy, the honours that belong to the first order. And Suidas, {αβγδ} dignities, All manifestly showing them to be real dignities, and power, and not only pompous and merely ceremonious, which are comprehended under that word. 2dly being a style of the Canons, the more ancient Canons will best evidence the importance of it. In the sixth Nicene Canon we find the word, where having defined, according to the ancient or original customs, that the Bishop of Alexandria shall {αβγδ} have power of all that are under that Patriarchate, in proportion to what was customary to the Bishop of Rome, it follows, {αβγδ}, that in like manner at Antioch, and in other Provinces the {αβγδ} shall be preserved to the Churches; There it signifies evidently the power that any the greatest Bishops even of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch had in their Churches, and( which may prevail somewhat with S. W.) Antonius Salmatia a Doctor of the Ambrosian College, who set out Zonaras's Comments on that Canon, and is approved by Anton. Olgiat. the President of that College, and by Camillus Olevanus, Commissary for the Inquisitor, and others, hath given it us rendered by no less then privilegia, dignitates,& authoritates, as if he had ( prophetically) meant malice to S. W. his affirmation in this place. Yet more particularly in this matter of Constantinople, the third Canon of the Constantinopolitan council hath the word, and there it is {αβγδ}, the privileges of dignity after Rome: and the Scholiast gives us the notion of the word, {αβγδ}, the Primacy( or principal powers) and privilegia singularia, singular privileges, saith Salmatia. And not to be infinite in so plain a matter, the Canon of Chalcedon itself makes it clear enough, where all the Patriarchal power( containing the Primatus in it) which was certainly conferred before, and there confirmed to the Bishop of Constantinople, and this equal to that which Rome formerly had enjoyed( which I hope was more then bare {αβγδ}— honorary, pompous, ceremonious privileges) and by name the Ordaining of Metropolitans, which was sure a real material privilege, are comprehended under that title. This therefore of lessening or rather annihilating these {αβγδ} subduing them into nothing but honorary, pompous, ceremonious privileges] is clearly an invention of S. W. contrary to the express nature of the word, the caconical use of it, and the evidence of the fact in that Canon; and yet farther it is abundantly refuted by Pope Leo's three long Epistles, the 54th to Ana●olius the then Bishop of Constantinople, the 55th to the Emperor Martian, the 56th to the Empress Pulcheria and a 4th also, the 62d to Maximus Bishop of Antioch, all sadly complaining of the invasion of the Primacies and rights of the Metropolitans fol 110. ( alienum Jus praeripere, tot Metropol●tanorum impugnare Primatus) disturbing the Provinces which had been settled by the Decrees of Nice; Indebita concupiscit, illicito crescire optat augmento, Privlegia Ecclesiarum, sanct●rum Patrum Canonibus instituta convelli— fol. 119. desiring other mens rights, robbing the Churches of their privileges instituted by Canons of councils, and a great deal more: which I hope Pope lo would not so declamatorily have poured out, if all that was confirmed to the Bishop of Constantinople in that council, had been nothing but honorary privileges; for those sure might have been enjoyed by him, without invading the rights of any others: nor indeed can it be imagined, that those were the privileges of the Churches, which the council of Nice had settled, Can. 6. In the next place upon this ground, that {αβγδ} signifies no more but these honorary privileges, he thinks he can give account why the Popes Legates did not oppose the reason there given for the collation of these {αβγδ}, whereas, saith he, had the word {αβγδ} sign●fied Primacy, which was then as strongly and expressly pretended to come from Christs donation to S. Peter ( as is evident in Pope Leo's Epistles, whose Legates presided in this council) as it is now by the present Pope, then we should have heard another story] i. e. then the Legates would have opposed the reason there given for the collation of these {αβγδ}. By Primacy I suppose he here means the Popes supreme power over all,& then the whole virtue of this argument lies in this, that Pope lo, at the time of the council of Chalcedon pretended this primacy of the Bishop of Rome to come from Christs donation to S. Peter. But to this semblance of proof, I answer, that S. W. having not produced any testimony of Leo's whereby we may discern his notion of Primacy, which is an ambiguous word, I must first demand the opinion of S. W. what lo meant by Primacy? whether no more then that which belonged to the B●shop of Alexandria and Antioch, and some other Prime metropolitans in their Provinces? Thus, 'tis certain he useth the Phrase in his Epistle to the Empress, tot Metropolitanorum Primatus— the Primacies of so many Metropolitans: and if this were all that he petended to from S. Peter, such his pretensions were easily reconcilable with the Canon of Chalcedon, which neither robd him of his Primacy, nor prejudged his having it from. S. Peter, but( yet farther) supposed and yielded him the dignity of a Patriarch, and of the Prime or first Patriarch, and affirmed him to have ascended to this ●ight by Romes being the seat of the Empire. But then, not to build on this possible notion of the word ●rimacy( which I must not deem S. W. his notion of it) nor yet on a second thing observable from those Epistles of lo, which concerned this matter, viz. that be seems to interpret all the injury that was done in that council of Chalcedon, to have been only a breach against the Canons of Nice, and the dispositions of ecclesiastical affairs made there( never making the least mention, that I discern of any other) I answer 2. That tis most plain through those Epistles of lo, that in them he neither ever deduces his Primacy from S. Peter, for the bare mentioning the Per authoritatem Beati Petri Apostoli. Ep. 55. Ep. 62. authority of the blessed Apostle Peter by which he himself acted( and so it is certain that by the same Authority the Bishop of Antioch acted also) or S. Peters founding Christian Doctrine speciali magisterio in Antioch and Rome, cannot be deemed the thus deducing it) nor takes notice of any the least injury done to himself by that council, but only to the Bishop of Alexandria, and( especially) of Antioch, and other Metropolitans; which is a further testimony of the truth of what I had said, that the deducing the original of the dignity of the Roman See from the greatness of that Imperial city, was never so much as quarreld at by the Legates in the council, nor, as now I add, by the Pope afterwards, in this whole contest. And then still all that I said hath perfect truth, and it matters little what ar any other time either lo or any other Pope pretended, whether concerning the universality of their jurisdiction, or the tenor by which they assume to hold it from S. Peter. For thus they might pretend, without such reality of solid grounds, which would be sufficient to justify them in a council. SECT. 5. How Constantinople struck not at the Primacy. The Canon of Chalcedon doth more then strike at Romes supremacy. No advantage to Rome that the Canon is equally derogatory to Antioch. {αβγδ} not noting Supremacy, is no advantage to S. W. His unjustice. Constantinoples greatness only confirmed by the Canon of Chalcedon. So the second place. The regularity of this Act, and the great force of it to conclude this debate. The Romanists collection of Canons. HIs fift attempt is contained in these words, The Dr. grants th●t this decree was as derogatory to the authority of Antioch as of Rome; but it is evident that Antioch pretended to no Primacy over the whole Church; therefore evident it is, that {αβγδ} could not signify Primacy of jurisdiction, nor consequently was that struck at by the tumultuous Constantinopolitans. Here now it is plain what he means by Primacy, that of jurisdiction, and over the whole Church. And this, saith he, tis plain the Constantinopolitans struck not at. This is true in some sense. 1. That the Constantinopolitan See at that time pretended not to any such universal jurisdiction for itself. 2. That it struck no blow at it in Rome, nor indeed could it, not apprehending( that is discernible by that whole transaction) any such to be pretended to by Rome, any more than what properly belonged to it as a Primacy( of which there were many other in the East and West) only with the honorary addition of the Patriarchate of the West, and the first or prime Patriarchate, and that upon the score of being the seat of the Empire. But then in another sense, which alone is to the purpose in hand, it is manifest, that this Canon of Chalcedon, that confirmed the {αβγδ} to Constantinople doth more then strike at the universal Pastor-ship of Rome, viz. by necessary consequence of their decree; for if Constantinople have equal privileges, and so all the greatness that Rome hath, except only the dignity of the first place; and if all that Rome hath above other Prime Metropoles, belonged to her only upon the account of being the Imperial City, then sure this not only strikes at, but destroys all her pretensions to the universal Pastorship from S. Peter. What he here adds from me, as my concession, that the decree was as derogatory to the dignity of Antioch as of Rome] will little avail him in this matter. Not only because it is no affirmation of mine, but a conclusion, inferrd ad homines, from a suggestion of the Romanists( as is apparent in the Of Schis. p. 99. place) but also, and especially because it is confessed by me and inferred in this arguing, that it was only a Patriarchal power, and not a Primacy over the whole Church, that was in that ●anon adjudged to Constantinople. The truth is, Antioch only suffered real diminution by the exalting Constantinople, some part of the Province thereof being assigned Constantinople, and both that and Alexandria sunk a little lower in dignity of place; Constantinople being now placed next Rome, and consequently above each of them. But what doth this avail S W. or how can he with the lest colour conclude thence for Romes either having, or retaining the Primacy, as that signifies the Supremacy over the whole Church? Certainly nothing at all. With what truth it is here suggested, that the Constantinopolitans were tumultuous, hath been shewed at large in the Reply, ch. 5. sect. 3. To his 6. I answer, that I grant most willingly. 1. That the {αβγδ} meant not the Primacy in his sense, for Supremacy: and 2. For the other Primacy which really belonged to Rome, to be the chief or first Patriarchate, I grant also that this was not concerned or taken from her by the decree, but remained untouched. But then what hath S.W. gained by both these? and yet these are the utmost that all his endeavour can bring in to him; for these notwithstanding the council that gives Constantinople {αβγδ} equal privileges with Rome, prejudges Romes having any such Supremacy; for that cannot equally be had by any other and besides, that Primacy that Rome is there said to have from being the Imperial City, cannot be the universal Pastorship which it( had not, but) pretends to have from S. Peter. His 7. exception to me is very unjust, in making that my gross mistake, and an evidence of my not fetching this testimony from the fountains( the Canons I had thought, and Acts of the council were the fountains, and from thence I fetched it immediately, see Reply p. 83, &c.) which was only my inference from the Romanists concession. The Romanists rejecting this Canon, add, though most untruly, that the Church of Antioch rejected it also,( when it is visible in the Acts of the council, that Maximus Bishop of Antioch subscribed it.) However this is most true, that lo then pretended it for his chief reason not to subscribe it, because it was to the Bishop of Antiochs prejudice, and so against the disposition of the Council of Nice, which he would not see infringed, never mentioning any injury done to himself by it, or to the See of Rome. Hence( i.e. from this their concession) I assumed it was granted by them that Constantinoples acquisitions by this decree of Chalcedon, were as derogatory to Antioch as to Rome; and from thence again I further inferred, 1. That it must be confessed of Antioch that it had equal privileges with Rome( for else how could it be as derogatory to Anitoch, as to Rome, that Constantinople had those {αβγδ} to Rome) and so 2. That Rome was no more but a Patriarchate, because it was certain, that Antioch was no more then a Patriarchate. 3 That all that Constantinople had wanted of Rome( I mean ever since it became a Primates seat, for of old it is acknowledged that Byzantium was much lower) was only the dignity of a Patriarchate without any ordinary jurisdiction over other Churches. All this being thus evident, S. W. would fain pick some holes, and first suggests that the Dr. tells him {αβγδ} signifies a Patriarchate, and the pomps attending it: I said {αβγδ} equal privileges with Rome signified the dignity of a Patriarchate. And so much evidently it must, and no more; So much sure it must; for Rome was a Patriarchate, and none that was less, or under a Patriarch could have equal privileges with Rome. And no more it could signify: for supposing Rome to have had more than Patriarchal power( that of universal Pastorship) none other could have that equal to it. If Rome were the universal ecclesiastic Monarch, Constantinople could not be adjudged to be so also. Secondly, Saith he, Constantinople was a Patriarchate before, but the fourth, and now pretended to be the second.] Some truth there is in this for the first part of it, but that such as is nothing to the prejudice of my pretensions, or to the advantage of my Disarmer. 'tis true Constantinople was a Patriarchate before this council of Chalcedon, first by a long continued custom, and then by force of the Canon of Constantinople, and accordingly I See Repl. p. 83. took not this at Chalcedon to be the first conferring of these {αβγδ} on Constantinople, but only a confirming of what formerly was deemed to belong to that Church, and so the Fathers of Chalcedon expressly tell lo the Pope, council. Tom. 3. p. 475. D. F. in their Epistle sent to him, and that what they now did, was but {αβγδ}, the confirmation of that dignity by this ecumenical council, which before it enjoyed. And thus far S. W. said truth; let him make his best advantage of it. But what he adds [ but the fourth] as if till the time of this Canon of Chalcedon, Constantinople had been but the fourth Patriarchate, but now became the second, there sure my Disarmer struck at adventure, and that none of the {αβγδ}, lucky blows, which Aristotle says, they that wink or are blind, strike sometimes. For it is evident, that for this second place, the foreging Canon of Constantinople was equally of force, as for the Patriarchal power. So the words of that third Canon are express, {αβγδ}. It shall have the privileges of dignity after the Bishop of Rome because the City is new Rome; and so in the Epistle of the Fathers at Chalcedon to Pope lo, it is vouched {αβγδ}, we have confirmed the Canon of the 150. Fathers, that assembled at Constantinople in Theodosius's reign, which decrees, or declares that after your most holy apostolic See, the Bishop of Constantinople shall have the privileges( of honor or first-place.) So when Lib. 2. in si●e. Evagrius speaks of this Act, he doth it exactly after the same manner. Judgement, saith he, was given that the See of Constantinople, {αβγδ}, was rightly placed, or ordered already after the See of Rome, that surely must be next after,& so not now first advanced from the fourth to this second place. And what hath S. W. gained by such adventures as these, undertaking to discover the gross mistakes of another? What follows of the tumultuousness and irregularity and want of freedom in this Act, had been suggested by the Cath. Gentl.( and proved to have no degree of truth in it. Reply. p. 82, 83.—) save only that tis here added, that it was disavowed and rejected by the Patriarch of Antioch and those under him.] Which is most absolutely false, the Bishop of Antioch subscribing, and defining in that council, in the next place after the Bishop of ●onstantinople.( {αβγδ}) and the Bishop of the Metropoles of Asia, Pontus and Thracia, being called out in the council, and examined before the Emperors Proxies or Judges, whether they consented {αβγδ} by the●r own will, and subscribing with profession {αβγδ}, before God, that they did it willingly, and yet these we know of all others were the most concerned in this matter. So that we may believe there was some truth in the Fathers words, that what they had decreed was, council. tom. 3. p. 475. E. {αβγδ}, for the removing of all confusion, and the settling of Ecclesiastical good order. And so now I hope by what hath here been added, to what is at large set down in the reply, I may assume that I have obeied S. W. his charge, laid so heavily upon me, to vindicate the validity of this Canon of Chalcedon. And truly when that is done, there is little need of adding more testimonies in that matter, it being evident by that Canon, that all the Greatness that Rome had above other Primates, was, in the opinion of those Fathers, by being the seat of the Empire, not by any title of succession from S. Peter, and that beside only the precedence of place, other Churches had equal privileges and dignities with it, and so that Rome had not the Universal Pastorship or jurisdiction over all Churches. What he adds concerning the Power the Pope had to reject this Canon, as being head of the Church, is on his side a begging the Question, that the Pope is such, and withal is answered at large. Repl. cap. 5. sect. 4. and the truth of, De Author. Eccl. 7. almains resolution cleared, both to the issue, and to the Justice of it meritò Concilium Chalcedonense Leoni resistenti praevaluisse: the council of Chalcedon prevailed against Leo's resistance, and that justly. p. 113 In this place he tells us, this Act itself was not numbered among the Acts of the council, till— And truly this was well remembered of him; for this is an indication, that it hath by S. W. his ancestors, been thought to be really prejudicial to the Pope.( Howsoever he would by many attempts now soothe over the matter) 2. It admonisheth us what care we ought to have in relying on the Romanists collections. For it is certain this Canon is in all the Greek copies both Printed and Manuscript, and from thence the copy of that council must originally be fetched: And many of the Romanists confess there was such a Canon made, and the story of the fact is by all the ancients agreed on; and Leos Epistles, and many other evidences put it beyond all dispute; and indeed Leos Legates resisting and not consenting to it, and complaining to the Judges, that it was done without them( when yet it was proved, that they voluntarily absented themselves) is an evidence still of the fact, that there was such a Canon made, and made by the council( though without the consent of the Legates) and yet it is left out in Charanza's summa Conciliorum, in the Codex vetus Ecclesiae Romanae, in Dionysius Exiguus his Codex, and in Peter Crabs large Edition of the councils. I shall pass no further censure on these collectors, knowing in whose interest it was, that they thus did it. SECT. 6. The Ephesine Canon, what 'twas vouched to prove. Cyprus independent for jurisdiction as well as ordination. Cedrenus's mistakes. Justinianopolis. The Canon of Ephesus extended to all other Primates, as well as Cyprus. What influence this hath on Romes pretensions. The Abassins. Britains. Romes Patriarchy limited. The Nicen Canon. THe second Section begins with a view of the Testimony, which I brought from the Ephesine Canon, and thus it sets out; The Doctors next evidince, that the Pope is not head of the Church, is from a Canon in the council of Ephesus. But before I red on, I must take notice of S. W. his constant art of deforming of arguments, before he adventures to Answer th●m, like the persecutors of old, that disguised, Christians in beasts skins, and then brought them out to the Theatre, to be torn in pieces in those shapes. And none more ordinary with him then this, viz. having recited the premisse right, to affix some remote conclusion to it, as if it were produced by me for the inferring of that, and then to show that it is unconcludent. Thus is it in this place. That which I vouchsafe from that Canon, he duly recited, viz. that the Independency of Cyprus not onely from the Patriarch of Antioch, but from all others, was contested then, as from the Apostles times— But for the conclusion, which he pretends me to deduce from thence, he hath wholly changed it; for he that will review the Tr. of schism, Sect. 6. p. 100. will find that the conclusion, for the proving of which the Ephesine Canon is produced, is not the Popes not being head of the Church( that had been shewed, Sect. 5. by Antioch and Constantinoples having {αβγδ}, equal dignity with Rome, which manifested Rome to be no more then a Patriarchal See) but the reconcilableness of this kind of eminence( Patriarchal) in Rome, with the {αβγδ} and independence, the no subordination, or subjection of other Primates. For tis manifest that this was the last thing mentioned in the close of Sect. 5. and then Sect. 6. begins thus: This hath formerly been manifested. What this? Why sure the immediate Antecedent, that that eminence is reconcilable. And this appears beyond all dispute, by the place to which I refer, where I say it had been manifested, the discourse of the Original, and power, and dignity of Primates and patriarches, viz. chap. 3. Sect. 21. where I had manifested this very thing( but did not so early attempt to manifest that which I had not then till chap. 4. so much as proposed, that the Pope was not head of the Church) And this, and this onely, is it, which I there say is put beyond all control by that Canon of Ephesus. And so certainly it is; for 'tis there determined that the Bishops of Cyprus shall {αβγδ}, be ordained by themselves( i.e. by their own metropolitan, the Bishop of Salamis, or which is all one, Constantia( {αβγδ}, saith Stephanus) and his council of Bishops) and so in that respect be independent from Antioch, though Antioch were the Partriarchate of the Orient of which Cyprus was a Province. And whatsoever S. W. suggests of a dependency of subiection to the Jurisdiction of another, though they never received from that other their ordination] 'tis perfectly gratis dictum;& if it had any truth in it, 'twere yet a pitiful refuge; For though all other jurisdiction be not particularly name in the Canon, yet in all reason it must be concluded from the story, that Cyprus was exempt from Antioch in that respect, as well as of ordination. For this, saith Severinus Binius, was the occasion of the Canon, Johannes Antiochenus sibi Cyprias Ecclesias subdere moliebatur, council. Tom. 2. p. 670. A. the Bishop of Antioch endeavoured to bring the Cyprian Churches under him; and, Decretum fuit ne johannes Cyprias Ecclesias neve alii Episcopi alias Ecclesias invaderent, It was decreed that John should not invade the Churches of Cyprus, and farther intended, that other Bishops should not invade other Churches, and this say both the Scholiasts on the Canon, by force of the Can. 3. Canon of Antioch and the Can. 35. apostolic Canon, which forbids Bishops to usurp ordination {αβγδ}, on provinces which are not subject to them, supposing Cyprus not to be thus subject to Antioch, and therefore that this was an invasion to require to ordain the B shops there and accordingly Baltamon ca is the Archbishop of Cyprus {αβγδ} {αβγδ}) one that was head to himself, Resp. de Patriarch. no more under Antioch for jurisdiction then for ordination. And it visibly appears by some contests of this kind, which soon after followed: as when Dioscurus Deacon of Antioch, to gratify Peter then Bishop there, prest vehemently at Constantinople, that the Bishops of Cyprus should be subjected to Antioch( See Surius die 11. Junii; and Baronius c. 6. an. 485. n. 63.) By which it is as evident that all other {αβγδ} and independency from Antioch remained entire to Cyprus as well as that of ordination, viz that that iceland having not been converted from Antioch, but by Barnabas his preaching immediately, should remain {αβγδ} under its own Primate: And then what was thus defined in respect of Antioch, did certainly exclude all imaginable pretensions to the like of any other Patriarch, no cause being conceivable, why that which was free within itself, and so not dependant on Antioch, the Patriarchate of the Orient, should fall under the power of any other Patriarch, which had no more power then Antioch. 'tis true indeed Cedrenus saith, that in Zeno's time being taken from Antioch 'twas put under Constantinople, {αβγδ}, saith he, {αβγδ}, From that time Cyprus became a Metropolis, and was not under Antioch, but Constantinople. But there are more errors then one in those few words; one mistake there is, in making the iceland the Metropolis; he should have said Salamis, or Constantia the chief City of that iceland: a second, that in Zeno's time it commenced a Metropolis; which was so long before at the council of Ephesus: nay even {αβγδ} from the first conversion; a third, that it now ceased to be under Antioch, which as appears both by ancient custom and Canons, mentioned in the council of Ephesus long before Zeno, was never under Antioch; and a fourth beyond the size of all the former, that being taken from Antioch, it now was put under Constantinople( which could not have been done without great injury both to Cyprus and Antioch too) whereas it is clear, that it was at that time vindicated to its {αβγδ}, and so after confirmed by justinian( both which are taken notice of by Nicephorus, Hist. 16. c. 37. though mixed with some other manifest mistakes) and when the Archbishop of Cyprus was driven thence by the Barbarians, and betook himself to Iustinianopolis, he there retained the same liberty, that he held by the Ephesine Canon, as may appear by the sixth council in Trullo, Can. 39. which decrees {αβγδ}, that the priv●ledges confirmed to that See by the Ephesine Fathers, should be preserved to him entire: {αβγδ}, so that new Iustinianoplis to which John Archbishop of Constance was now removed, shall have the right of Constantinople, i.e. be as free and independent in his own Province, as the Bishop of Constantinople is in his; unless, as Phil. Berterius conjectures, it should be rather red {αβγδ}, that the Bishop being thus removed shall retain the privileges that belonged to that former city the Metropolis of Cyprus, Salamis or Constantia. But this by the way, as a digression, not to satisfy any importunites of S. W. but to prevent mistakes. Mean while what was thus defined there in behalf of Cyprus being by that Canon expressly affirmed to extend to all other Churches in like manner( the thing being looked on as {αβγδ}, a common disease, and {αβγδ}, that which concerned the liberty of all, and proportionably care taken for the cure of all, {αβγδ}, the same shall be observed in the other D●oceses( that was the word that then belonged to the fourteen divisions of the Empire, of which Rome was one) and all the Provinces every where) must in all reason be of equal and full force to the vindicating of the liberties of all other Primates, as well as of Cyprus, and an evidence that the pre-eminence of a few patriarches is no prejudice to the freedom and independency of the many Primates and Metropolitans in the world, which being so, it is clear that what I pretended to prove from the Ephesine Canon, was really proved from it. In conclusion of that 6. Sect. upon mention of that order given in that Canon indefinitely against all invasions for time to come, in whatsoever Diocese, that no Bishop shall usurp a power where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it, I add [ which how directly it prejudges the pretensions of Rome, as well as Antioch, is so manifest that it cannot need farther demonstrating.] Here saith S. W. Dr. H. supposes it a first principle evident by the light of Nature, or begs it gratis, that the Pope hath thus encroached, though that be the onely thing in controversy] and there is a Syllogism formed to show the groseness of my arguing, and on this there is great rejoicing. But to this I answer, 1. That there be divers things( beside first principles, evident by the light of nature) which need no farther demonstrating; such are those that are sufficiently testified already, such are matters of fact, obvious to every mans observation. And of this nature is that which I here speak of, that Rome pretends, and so usurps a power, where from the Apostles times she hath not enjoyed it. The power which Rome pretends to is universal over all the world of Christians. And is it not visible that this hath not been enjoyed by her through all time {αβγδ}? The Abyssenes sure are a very considerable part of the world, and yet were not from their first plantation, {αβγδ}, under the hand, or power of the Bishop of Rome, {αβγδ}, or of his predecessors in that See. The Histories of those Aethiopick Christians tell us, that they were very early Primi, vel inter Primos, the first or among the first of the Gentiles converted to the faith, first by Indica, the Eunuch whom Philip baptized, Godign de reb. Abass. l. 1. c. 18. Act. 8. then more fully by Saint Matthew, qui distributo apostles orb Ethiopiam sortito obtinuit, who in the division of the world among the Apostles, had Ethiopia for his Province; that by the arabic Nicen. Can. 36. Canons, their chief Bishop is called Catholicus,& loco Patriarchae, but hath not the power of Patriarch for Ordination, &c. but is under the See of Alexandria; that they Codig. l. 1. c. 22. use not the roman Rites, but are averse from them, Ib. c. 19. fast exactly on Wednesdays and Fridayes; and taste nothing till Sun set, and many the like; Auber Mirae. Not. Episcop. l. 1. c. 21. have kept no kind of Communion with Europe, till by the Portugueses navigation thither, David their King was inclined to desire the friendship of Emmanuel King of Portugal, and wrote to Pope Clement the seventh, that he acknowledged the Bishop of Rome Pastor of the Universal Church: yet when upon this, soon after, Pope Iulius the third sent johannes Nonnius to be their Patriarch, Claudius the successor of that David rejecting him, the design vanished, and came to nought. And so still the power of their Ecclesiastical affairs remains in their own Patriarch, saith Damian a Goes. I shall therefore onely ask S. W. whether from Saint Matthews time to this, the Bishop of Rome hath enjoyed a power over the Ab●ssines? and if not, whether without breach of the Ephesine Canon he can now pretend to have any such power, or whether this need any further demonstrating? Or if he be unwilling to go so far off, for the perfecting this demonstration, I shall need draw him no farther then these British Islands of ours( the matter of our present controversy) and desire him to show me any evidences, which may clear the Bishop of Romes pretensions to the supreme jurisdiction over these Churches at the time of the Ephesine council, and {αβγδ} from the time of planting the Christian faith here, till then: If he can, I desire he will produce them, and show us, what Bishops of Rome they were which exercised it. If he cannot, then the Canon of Ephesus defines {αβγδ}, that he shall not assume any such power, or if he have assumed, that he shall {αβγδ} make restitution, quit, and disclaim that power. And so this, I hope, needs no further demonstration. Secondly, That what I say, needs no farther demonstrating, is not by me supposed, or begged as a Principle, but as a conclusion so far formerly inferred, that on this occasion, loco non suo, it needed not be farther demonstrated. The interposition of the word [ farther] prevented all this triumph of his. For to omit all that had been said in the former chapter, which I must be allowed to think, had so far disproved the Popes pretended Universal jurisdiction in the very fountain of it, the universal Pastorship of Saint Peter, that I should not be bound under the pain of begging the question, to prove it anew in every Paragraph of the ensuing discourse; to omit this, I say, the Section immediately precedent had manifested, that Rome was no more then a Patriarchate; and then looking upon it as such, and no more, the conclusion was irrefragable, that Romes present pretensions are encroachments, and most directly not onely prejudiced, but destroyed by that Canon: For 1. as a Patriarch, tis not imaginable that the Bishop of Rome can have any authority farther then his own Patriarchal Province, and that is not the whole world, because there be other patriarches, and each of them hath his distinct assignation of Province. And 2. A Patriarch hath no jurisdiction over the Primates in his own Province, the Authority of Primates and patriarches being the same, as hath been shewed out of Anacl●tus, Tr. of Schism, p. 58. And 3. Some Metropolitans were exempt from the power of the Patriarch, as is evident by the Ephesine Canon. And so still this is destructive to Romes pretensions to Universal jurisdiction upon this account which had formerly from the Canon of Chalcedon been proved to belong to it, of its being a Patriarchy. And 4. the Ephesine Canon referring to ancient and original Canons and customs, it must be supposed to agree to the sixth Canon of Nice. Now in that Nicene Canon tis plain, that there are bounds and limits supposed to belong to every Patriarchate, and order given that they shall be observed; that order expressly given for Alexandria, that Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis shall belong to that, and the Bishop of Alexandria {αβγδ}, to have the power of all them; and the reason given for the observing those bounds, {αβγδ}, because this also is customary to the Bishop of Rome. Where unless the roman Diocese were limited, it could not possibly be a copy, and reason of the limiting of the Alexandrian( sure twould never be deemed reasonable to say, Alexandria must have limits, because Rome hath, if it were possible to affirm that Rome had none) which yet that it was( besides the evidence of the words themselves) tis the express affirmation of one of their own Popes, Nicholas 1. Epist. 8. Nicena Synodus Romanae Ecclesiae nullum contulit incrementum, said potius ex ejus forma quod Alexandrinae Ecclesiae tribueret, particulariter sumpsit exemplum. The Nicene Synod conferred no increase on Rome, but rather took from Rome an example particularly, what to give to the Church of Alexandria. And then if at the making of the Nicene Canon, Rome had bounds, it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon, that those bounds must be to all time observed and so that will be most destructive to the Universal( for that is boundless, unlimited) Pastorship of that See. So that having now joined the force of the Nicen and Ephesin Canon into one, I shall flatter myself, that it will not be easily broken asunder by S. W. And so though much more might be fitly added to this purpose( and somewhat hath been said in the Reply, Ch. 5. Sect. 5.) this shall suffice at this time, till S. W. shall undertake to reconcile a limited diocese with universal Pastorship; or show that by the Nicen Canon, the Roman was not then such; or that being such then, it could commence so afterward, without violatition of the Ephesine. SECT. VII. Justiniana, {αβγδ}. Receiving the Pall, no sign of sub●ection anciently. Since it hath brought in gain and power to the Papacy. Supremacy in his own Province not reconcilable with subjection to the Pope. A Manuscript chidden for being old, and of no antiquity. All Primates supreme in their Province. The dignity conferred by the Emperour, not the Pope. Locus Apostolicae sedis. {αβγδ}, for dignity. {αβγδ}. All the Popes substitutes are not his sub●ects. Subiection for Ordination must be subjection. Ordination of Primates by their own council. Of inferior Bishops by Primates. Few independent archbishoprics. All Primates such. Independency of Primates is no denying the catholic Church. The Government whereof is not monarchic. The Doctrine of the councils, which the Pope vows to maintain, unreconcilable with universal Pastorship. The Milevitan and Constantinopolitan Canon. The Canon of Nice cited by the Pope, but not found in the Authenticks. WHAT he adds in the latter part of this 2. Sect. concerning Justiniana Prima, hath in part been prevented in the Reply, ch. 5. sect. 6. But some things are said by S.W. which were not there tendered, and therefore a few words may be thought due to them: First, saith he, Justinian's constitution is no decree of a council] Neither said I it was; yet being the constitution of a Christian Emperour, and formally inserted into the body of the Law, and never checked at( that we discern, or is pretended) either by any council, or by the Bishops of the Church then living, or noted as irregular, or entrenchment on the privileges or Jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, or any other, and yet instating on that City all Ecclesiastical censure, supreme Priesthood, supreme dignity, it is a competent evidence, that this might lawfully be done, and consequently that the Church of a City and Province under it might be exempt from all foreign Jurisdiction, {αβγδ}, within itself. And then that is all that it was produced to testify. Secondly, saith he, Justinians fact( in case he had pretended it) is not able to invalidate that sacred dignity of head of the Church, had any such been constituted by our Saviour. But here is a begging the question, that the Pope was by our Saviour constituted head of the Church; and it matters not what Iustinians constitution would have done in that case, when it is so far from granted that this was the case. It is much more reasonable to assume, that he was not in that age deemed head of the Church, or universal Pastor, by Christs constitution, when this act of the Emperour, which supposes the contrary, was yet entred into the Law, and stood in full effect, and never appears to be by any in that time looked on as an injury or innovation. Thirdly, saith he, Justinian never intended to crop the aspiring growth of Rome, as the Dr. imagines, which is manifest by his sending to Pope Vigilius to bestow a Pall upon his new Archbishop.] And truly I never said justinian intended it; he intended only kindness, and to express that, honour and power to the place of his own birth, Achrida a City of Bulgaria, making it an Archiepiscopal See, and subjecting many regions to it, but leaving it subject to none, an image of his own {αβγδ} or independent power. And this was no kind of diminution of that Patriarchal power, which Rome then had, the absoluteness of Primates being, as was shewed, reconcilable with that; and this that Justiniana now had, being no more than such. And at this time, whilst justinian reigned, the Bishop of Rome had not ascended to any greater sublimity then that of the first Patriarch, the title of universal Bishop, which signifies that unlimited power, and Pastorship, which is now pretended to, being the concession of Phocas to Boniface, after the reign of justinian. And therefore it signifies very little, what is here added for an evidence on S. W. his side, viz. Pope Vigilius his sending him a Pall. That was an honorary ornament, which the Emperours first gave the patriarches, and the patriarches sent to Arch-Bishops and metropolitans( but was in the East, common to all Bishops) and was then far from what since it hath been taught to be, a sign of subjection to him that sends it. The ancient custom was for the new Arch-Bishop to make his profession of the Christian faith before his Patriarch, and from him to receive the Pall, as appears by the words of Fidem tuam saint sedi Apostolicae exponere, usumque Pallii expetere& excipere. Corp. jur. Decret. part. 1. Dist. 100. c. 1. Pelagius in the Canon Law; But latter Popes have made this matter of gain first, and then of Power to themselves: Of gain, as appears in Ep. ex Regist. l. 4. ●ndict, 13. Ep. 55 Et Corp. jur. Decret. par. 1. D●st. 100. c. 3. Novit sanctitas tua quia prius pallium nisi dato commodo non dabatur. Gregories Epistle to John Bishop of Corinth, where he notes this in his Predecessors, but saith an Act of council had lately past against it. As for some Epist. 15 and Corp. jur. Decret. par. 1. Dist. 63. Quia. Xenia, gifts or presents, though he tells the Arch-Bishop of this Justiniana, that he would not have received such à praedatis& afflictis fratribus from pillaged and distressed brethren( which seems no rejecting them from others) yet upon remonstrance, that they were sent as an offering to God, he receives them from him. As for power and gain both, Pope Hildebrand laid the grounds, who required that every Archbishop should personally come to Rome( bringing presents was a consequent to that) and receive the Pall, which formerly had used to be sent; and Paschalis II. that soon followed him, made a decree that they that asked the Pall should make an oath of fidelity to him; And so now the receiving the Pall may be an argument for S. W. to witness subjection to the Papal power, but signified no such thing in Vigilius his time, and so is no prejudice to the {αβγδ}, and summum fastigium, the independent power( as of a Primate) which justinian conferrd upon him. Fourthly, he will hope to get some advantage by our answer to this question, Whether all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, supreme Priesthood and supreme honor must mean a supremacy over the whole Church, or only in his own particular dioecese? and supposing wi●h reason that the former will not be said, he fastens on the latter, and then, saith he, he might be supreme there, and yet subject to the Pope too.] But to this I answer that acknowledging it to belong to him only in his own Province, now assigned him by justinian, it must yet necessary exclude the Popes jurisdiction over him. For he that is supreme within himself, and hath power finally to conclude all differences, within his own Province, so that there shall be no resort to any other, is certainly so supreme in his own Province, that he is not subject to the Pope. And this was the express privilege of Iustiniana, in the Constitution set out by Gothofred, Dirimant, finem imponant, nec ad al um quemvis eatur; and if other Primates may have the same privilege, and exemption from all foreign jurisdiction, I have little more to ask of S. W. for the gaining the whole controversy; for then our Primates shall have final, conclusive power within their own Provinces, and the Bishop of Rome have nothing of jurisdiction here, which was all,( if not somewhat more) that by this instance I designed to demonstrate. It was therefore but necessary, that the witness that adventured to speak so contrary to S. W. his interest, should in the next place, be defamed; The testimony, saith he, is from an old mouse-eaten Manuscript of he knows not what authority; and yet after he hath called it old, &c. he adds, it is of no antiquity nor humanity, and yet after all this, he saith most truly, that he hath not seen the Book, and it is hard to be found.] I wish his memory would serve him from the beginning to the end of a period, or that he would teach us the new art of discerning, how that is old, which is of no antiquity; or how he can affirm that to be mouse-eaten, which he confesseth, he hath not seen. But the short is, the weakest answers may by being well worded be much improved, and accordingly the authority of an ancient Manuscript, published by a learned man, and ready for all men to view, that can but red, may be invalidated, and put off with the bare scorn first of old( which seriously spoken were the greatest honor to it; sure new Manuscripts are not like new clothes, but like new wine, and new friends, the old are infinitely better) and then of hard to be found, and Mouse-eaten, which are equally pertinent, and true, and for want of more evasions, the latin must be said to have no humanity nor antiquity in it; and but one thing really wanting all this while, all degree of care that there should be any the least colour or appearance of truth in all this. And when his conscience could not but tell him this, and how discernible it was, he must then still proceed, and add, that this testimony is still nothing to the purpose. And can any man imagine him to think what now he saith, who would call in, and make use of such strange prelusorie arts to divert it? Sure if the force of this instance had been avoidable, and he had hearty thought it so, that would have been earlier said he would not have put himself upon the so much harder and less creditable task of reconciling contradictions. But wherefore is it not to the purpose? Why, saith he, here is nothing said which was not common to the patriarches, and such metropolitans as Cyprus was, to wit that they had no ordinary appeal further, which, saith he, no way hinders but that extraordinary cases, which could not be ended among themselves, should be carried to Rome; and so( he concludes) this leaves this Bishop as subject to the Pope, as any of the patriarches, or any out of the Patriarchate of the West was.] And truly I can grant this conclusion, and yet receive as much benefit by this testimony, find it as much to my purpose, as I ever designed it to be. For I that conceive( and have shewed) every Patriarch to have {αβγδ}, equal power and privileges with the Bishop of Rome( place only excepted, and the honorary consequents of that) and 2. Every Primates power to be equal to a patriarches, and to be absolute and independent from him, shall most willingly grant that neither Justiniana nor Carthage, after their exemption, ascended any higher then these; and yet am thereby competently secured, that Rome had no jurisdiction over it, either ordinary or extraordinar●e; for so certainly the summum signifies, and the finem imponant, and the nec ad alium quemvis eatur, the supreme power, conclusive, and exclusive of all others, unless either there be higher than the supreme, posterior to the last, and some-body who is no body, and the Bishop of Rome be all ●hese. There is no other force in this argument, but that which is willingly yielded to S. W. that what thus appears to have been the state of Justiniana, is really the state of all Primates; and then when it is his own conclusion, I hope he will not chide me for assuming it, that in very dead every Primate, and so the Bishop of Canterbury in this Nation hath the supreme Priesthood, Dignity, Jurisdiction belonging to him, within his own Province, that he hath power of defining all controversies finally, without farther resort or appeal ad alium quemvis, to any other. And that is all S. W. hath as yet acquired by this answer. A next Attempt he makes out of my own testimony from Iusti●i●n, Nov. 131. c. 3. which he resolves will determine it for him after all this.] The words are, he shall have locum Apostolicae sedis, which he will render, he shall be in all that diocese the Popes Legate, and after, he shall have the place or lieu of the Apostolical seat, or be the Popes substitute, asking me where I have red the Greek {αβγδ} explicated for honour or dignity.] To this I answer, 1. That it were to be wished that he would provide him some testimonies of his own, and not so wholly, and so constantly rely on the advantages which his arts and dexterit es can extract out of those which I have produced against him; he must be a greater Master then S.W. yet appears to be, that can come thus weaponless into the field, and yet undertake to be a Disarmer: Mean while tis visible where his confidence( not his strength) lies: it is pure slight of hand, that must work his victories, and supply all his want out of his enemies magazine. How well this trust hath yet succeeded to him, hath formerly appeared, as oft as it hath been depended on, and now it is as visible as ever. To evidence it, I shall but demand, who it was that gave the Arch-Bishop of Justiniana this privilege( and that not personally to the first, but to all that should succeed in that See) was it the Pope or the Emperour? If it had been the Pope, there might have been some colour for S. W. his affirmation, for then he might reasonably be yielded to make his own Legate or Substitute, and perhaps to do it to a whole succession, to affix that honor to a particular See. But it is plain my testimony was fetched out of Justinians novel, not out of Vigilius's Epistle, an extract or copy of the Emperours( {αβγδ}) constitution, not of the Popes deputation. And I hope the Emperour is not so much Master of the Popes Acts and will, as that he can decree, to whom( to all posterity) the Pope shall give his Deputations. If he be, this is as much as I shall demand at this time, and that I am sure the novel will give me, that whatsoever is meant by this locum Apostolicae sedis, the place of the Apostolical See, it was not by the Pope, which ordained the first Bishop of Justiniana( yet none of the succeeding) but by the Emperour, who raised that See to that summum fastigium, supreme height, conferrd upon him. In this matter it is possible S. W. may have a little mistaken my meaning, and therefore to cure it in him, or to prevent that possibility in others, I assure him I mean by the phrase locum Apostolicae sedis, the same that he would have me, the place of the apostolic, as that signifies the Roman seat. And though the particle[ an] instead of [ the] may seem to prejudice that sense, yet I never made that use of it, but contrariwise in the Reply, added the Greek words, which take away all ambiguity, {αβγδ}, that he shall in the Provinces subject to him, hold the place of the Apostolical throne of Rome; But still this is far enough from favouring S. W. his pretention, of his being no more but the Popes substitute. For as that is already prejudged by the Emperors giving him this place, so other circumstances concur to avert that interpretation. 1. The express words of Vid. Phil. Berter. Pitha. l. 2. c. 3 Auber. Miraū Not Episc. l. 1. c. 9. Julianus Antecessor, Nov. 109. Archiepiscopum Iustinianae Primae eadem jura supper Episcopos sibi subjectos habere, quae Papa Romanus habet supper Episcopos sibi suppositos, that the Arch-Bishop of Iustiniana shall have the same rights over the Bishops that are under him, which the Pope of Rome hath over the Bishops that are under him. This gives him as clear an example of my interpretation of {αβγδ}, and as full an answer to his question, as he could have wished; He asks where I met it for honor and d g●ity? And I answer, I rendered it place or dignity, and here it signifies that, yea and more added to it, the power and jurisdiction over those which are under him, equal, because the same with those which Rome had over her subjects. And if he desire more testimonies for this notion of {αβγδ}, I shall not omit to satisfy his curiosity in that also, though it be now very impertinent, and superfluous. Or. 22. ad Alexand. Of Alexandria, Dion. Chrysostom hath these words, {αβγδ}, for your City doth very much excel both in greatness and place( sure that must be dignity, attending that greatness) and is illustriously demonstrated to be the second of all under the Sun, i.e. next unto Rome in dignity. So when Ios●phus saith of Antioch, {αβγδ}, De Bell. Iud. l. 5. c. 3. it hath the third place in the world which is under Rome, he expresses what he means by {αβγδ}; such as belongs to it in respect of the greatness and oth●● f●licity, that sure is the d●gnity of that City. And what thinks he of the words of Ausonius, Ambarum locus unus, they have b●th of them the same place; that sure must be the same dign●ty. ●nd ●f S. W. will but have patience to spend a very little necess●●ie time in Books, I believe he will soon be able to throw in more examples under this head. Lastly, S. W. must learn a difference betwixt {αβγδ}, to have, to hold a place on one side, and {αβγδ}, to keep, supply, and minister a place, on the other side. The latter of these indeed doth constantly belong to a substitute as of the Pope, &c. his {αβγδ}, or place-keeper, Vid. Zon●ram in Praes. ad council. Carthag. p. 384. which the Law deduces {αβγδ} from keeping or supplying the places of them who sand them, as is frequently to be met with in the subscriptions of councils; But to {αβγδ}, to have or hold a place,( as when they are used of having the first or second place) that sense of substitution or vicegerency is not applicable, but this other of having, or possessing such a dignity, as ones own, in his own right, I shall not need to seek instances of this, the thing being fully cleared, as far as concerns the business in hand, by comparing the words of julianus Antecessor, even now vouchsafe, with these in Iustinians Novel, both speaking of the very same thing, and one expressing it by {αβγδ}, locum habere, to have the place, and the other by habere eadem jura or {αβγδ}, to have the same rights or powers, which evidently proves the matter in hand, and satisfies his demand, that {αβγδ} place doth, and doth in this Novel, signify dignity, and that the place of the apostolic seat of Rome, is the same power in his, that the Pope hath in his diocese, which was the thing incumbent on me to be proved. And having thus far attended him, One farther mis-adventure there is yet in this Answer of S. W.( and there could not have been more expected in one paragraph) For having resolved from the words of the Novel, that this Bishop was the Popes Legate in all that diocese; he concludes it thence clear that his diocese remained, notwithstanding all these privileges, subject to the Pope. How clearly this is hence deducible, will soon be discerned; That the Pope may choose one of his subjects to be his Legates, I wi●lingly grant; but it follows not from hence, nor from any other medium here tendered by S.W. that this holds in conversion, that whosoever is his Legate, is his subject. And yet this is absolutely necessary to the clear inferring his conclusion from this medium, it being certain that he which by being the Popes Legate is not made free from his subjection, may yet be upon some other account; such is the Emperors giving him here the summum fastigium, and the final, conclusive, and exclusive power forementioned. Now that the Pope may have a Legate or Substitute, who is not his subject, may 1. appear by the testimony of Balsamon in his preface to the council in Trullo. Pag. 359. Where both from the nature of a Legate de later, that it is one that must {αβγδ}, represent his person, when it is needful, and from the Bishop of Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Crete, Patrae, and Ravenna and others thus representing him, over whom, saith he, the Pope hath no {αβγδ}, right of ordination, he concludes, {αβγδ}— That those are the Popes legates, whom he hath particularly chosen, but yet that they are not all within his bounds under him, but that this of having Legates was invented because of the length of the way, not as of his subjects, but as of those that were nearest at hand, to represent him the more easily. If Balsamons judgement be not here thought fit to be taken, as being no friend to the roman greatness( though I know no obligation lies on me to rely on no body but S. W. his friends, as long as he is so careful not to believe, or be concluded by his enemies, that in this, and generally in his affirmations, he makes use of no other but his own testimony) I shall offer this confirmation of it. A superior( or an equal) may have the proxy of an inferior, and be substituted by him, as is evident in the Guardian substituted by the Pupil, and acting for him. And so a Bishop may in council have the proxy, and so represent the person of another Bishop from whom he hath no dependence, or subjection. Philippi was a Metropolis of a Province of Macedonia. Besides the words, Act. 16.12. {αβγδ}, a first or prime City of that portion of Macedonia, Ep. 247. Photius is clear in it, {αβγδ}, the City of Philippi the Metropolis of a Province of Macedonia, and by being such, it is secured from being under any other( no more then) Metropolis. Yet in the great council of Ephesus, Flavianus of Philippi supplied the place of Rufus of Thessalonica, and so was his Legate, had his {αβγδ} place, in S. W. his sense. And I suppose nothing is more ordinary in Councils than this, that one metropolitan, that is present, shall receive the proxy, and supply the place of any other Metropolitan indifferently, without losing his liberty, or becoming his subject, or inferior, whose place he supplies: and if in those parts, the Bishop of Justiniana were by the Pope thus delegated, and made his perpetual substitute( as by the novel 'tis plain he was not, for whatsoever was meant by it, 'tis evident that from the Emperour he had it, not from the Pope) yet would not that conclude him subject to the Pope, when the Emperour's so liberal donations had explicitly exempted him. His next answer, or endeavour( again, after his old manner) to show me doing against myself, and by a Testimony out of Nicephorus, convincing, as he suggests, all my process of nullity, was made use of before him by the Cath. Gent. and is answered in the Reply, sect. 5. n. 5. &c. But we are not yet at end of this matter. For beside that from the Pope's ordaining the first Bishop, he will needs conclude, that he consented to his erection( which I shall willingly grant( so he mean not authoritative consent) assuring myself the erection was an act of the Emperour onely, wherein the Pope had nothing to do) and so somewhat again, from his giving him the Pall, though he know not well what; It was, saith he, a sign of superiority, and a kind of benediction, and at least an honour, if not a jurisdiction( and if it were thus, then perhaps it was no jurisdiction, and I have accounted for this of the Pall already) beside these, I say, he proceeds in these words, In the next Paragraph the Doctor tells us, that this particularity that his Successors were to be consecrated by their Counsel of metropolitans, is a second instance of the point in hand; and( saith he) I do not deny, but sometimes to be subject for ordination, was a sign of subjection, but not always. The Bp. of Ostia hath the privilege to consecrate the Pope, yet the Pope is not held to be his subject.—] Here be some considerable frailties discernible; first, in his intellective faculty, which had made this particularity, that his Successors were to be consecrated by their Council— to be a second instance of the point in hand, whereas 'tis most evident in the place, that the whole precedent discourse of the erection, and independency of Justiniana Prima, and not onely this branch of it, was the second instance, as the privileges of the Archbishop of Carthage had been the former, p. 101. but this was but a slip. What then was the second, that to be subject for ordination was sometimes a sign of subjection, but not always. In propriety of speaking indeed, being subject cannot be a sign of subjection, either always, or sometimes; but yielding him that impropriety also, what shall we say to this part of the proposition, being subject, for ordination is not always a sign of subjection] This is something like the hard headed respondent, that satisfied himself, that a Goose-py was not a pie; for none but that sort of logic can ever conclude, that he that is subject for ordination is not subject. But sure S. W. had here some good meaning also, that subjection for ordination doth not argue all kind of subjection, or that he may be subject for ordination, that is not subject for jurisdiction: But 1. this is no way proved; 2. it can by no means be assistant to S. W. unless he could prove è converso, that they that are subject for jurisdiction, may yet not be subject for ordination, for that onely can answer my argument of Justiniana's not being subject to Rome's jurisdiction, because 'twas not subject to it for ordination, the Bishop being to all succession allowed by Justinian to be ordained by his own Counsel of Bishops. As for that which he saith in the instance of Ostia, that that Bishop hath the privilege to consecrate the Pope, yet the Pope is not held his subject] it might easily have been seen through by S.W. his optic. For no doubt the Pope may be consecrated by him, without being subject to him for ordination, as the Patriarch of Constantinople was wont to be consecrated by the Bishop of Heraclea, one of his Suffragans, or as the Kings of England have generally been crwoned by the Bishop of Canterbury, without any subjection on either side, either for ordination, or coronation. And so all primates are, I suppose, to be consecrated by the Counsel of their own Bishops, and there is no show of subjection in all this, for it being impossible that a Primate shall become such, without being consecrated, it is necessary consequent to his {αβγδ} or independence from all other Superiors, that his own Bishops should consecrate him, but this without any note of subjection herein; But if the case be put of a Bishop which is subject to the jurisdiction of some superior Bishop( as S. W. must suppose the Bishop of Justiniana to have been) metropolitan, Primate, or Patriarch, I shall then demand, whether subjection for ordination would not be that Bishops portion, as well as any other kind of subjection? To this case he knows his instance of Ostia belongs not, and as little that other which he brings of the decree of the Council of Sardica, that the next Province shall give Bishops to a Province that wants, for this is visibly but an act of charity to those that want that alms; And when that Province is once furnished, I shall suppose for the future, it may lawfully give Bishops to itself. As for his other two instances of Alexandria giving the Indians Bishops, and consecrating the Patriarch of Constantinople, 'tis notorious that that Patriarch was customarily consecrated by his own Suffragan, the Bishop of Heraclea, and for the Indians, all that is pretended is, that the Patriarch of Alexandria gave them Bishops, when they wanted, and so that falls under the other forementioned head of mercy, which is distant from all colour of jurisdiction; or if it did not, I am no way concerned to vindicate the Indians liberties, or non-subjection to that Patriarch; so that still it remaines most firm, that if Justiniana prima had been subject under the obedience of the Bp. of Rome, the Bps. of Rome would have continued to ordain him as a Primate, or Patriarch ordains all that are under their subjection, and this being part of Justiniana's privilege, that the Archb: be ordained by his own Counsel, as all other independent Archbishops( of which the store is not great) and all Primates and patriarches are, this is a strong prejudice to the Pope's having any jurisdiction over him. What here next follows, is by asking Who can tell what the Doctor means, when he saith the Emperour did all this onely by making Justiniana a Primate's or chief Metropolitan's See,& that Carthage's being the prime Metropolis of afric, is expressed by having the same privileges with prima Justiniana, pretending that this is nothing else, but to mock my Auditory, and that as far as he understands, these words signify that the Emperour said onely, be thou a Metropolis, and in so saying, gave all these privileges.] 'tis much his understanding should be rendered so incapable in an instant, which hath served him so faithfully, and sure paced for very pregnant and piercing all this while. It is as if a man should say to himself, {αβγδ}, do not see what is before thine eyes, and then let him look never so intently, he shall be able to descry nothing; Otherwise sure the words are plain, and the sense as discernible, as of any period in the Book, that every Primacy is really thus independent, as a Primacy,( but that is not all one with a Metropolis, as he would set it. Justiniana had six Metropolies under it, saith Not Episc. l. 1. c. 9. Miraeus from Nectarius Bishop thereof:) and so that all Justinians Privileges bestowed on Acridae, the place of his birth, are no more than what every Primate by right enjoyed, and consequently that when Carthage was raised to this Privilege of Independency, or Primacy, being but an Arch-bishops See, and every such not being necessary a Primacy, the compendious method was, to give it the Privileges of Justiniana, which being but an Archbishops See, had yet the Independent exemptions of a Primacy. Here is no subtlety to torture S. W. his understanding, but gross matter of right, and of fact; the former of which he might have seen deictically laid before him, in chap. 3. sec. 21. &c. if he had not fastidiously don't it, endeavouring to persuade his Reader, that there were not five words in that Chapter which could in any way be preparative to the question before us, whereas indeed nothing can be more to the purpose, than the due stating the original and rights of Primacies, which was there handled. But perhaps there was some obstruction in the way, which thus made plain sense so unintelligible with my otherwise quick-sighted Disarmer,& if we may believe him, 'twas this, that all the Doctor's labour and the texts by him cited, wherein every privilege is set down so particularly, had infused this prejudice into him, for, saith he, they make it manifest that there were none, or not eminent examples of any such Cities, or bishoprics, and therefore so many particularities were necessary to be expressed, and it be made an example to others. Yet upon this relieth the Doctors main evidence, and demonstration, though if you will believe him, the conclusion of itself is most certain, and might otherwise be testified by innumerable evidences, which he ought to suppose the Doctor omits for brevity sake. If there be now any sincerity in this Disputer, here will be a trial of it: for this prejudice, and misapprehension of his own, being once removed, the matter will be so clear before him, that he will not be able to escape the apprehending of it. First then he is to know, that every Archbishop's See is not independent, Nay, that of such there are but few examples, viz. Justiniana, and Cyprus, and Carthage, and Ravenna, and the Metropolis of Iberians, now called the Georgians in Asia( as Miraeus concludes from the Council of Antioch) and so he sees the reason, why four Not Ep. l. 1. c. 9. the most famous of these were the chosen instances to be insisted on, viz. of archiepiscopal Sees, that were {αβγδ}, heads to themselves, subject to no other, whether Primate, or Patriarch, nor consequently to the Bishop of Rome. Secondly, That all Primates are of this independent nature, no way differing from patriarches, but in respect of place or order, having, what Justinian gave Achridae, Summum sacerdotium, summum fastigium, summam dignitatem omnem Ecclesiasticam Censuram, the highest Priesthood& Dignity, all Ecclesiasti●all Jurisdiction, power of deciding all Controversies within their Province, and doing this ultimately; so that it is not lawful to retort or appeal to any other, and so also he sees that there be as many evidences against the Pope's Universall Pastorship, as there are evidences in books of the Independent power of Primates: those I was bold by S. W. his good leave, to call innumerable evidences, not knowing any certain way to help me or him to the certain number of them. And so this great posing riddle is explained, I hope, to S. W. his capacity: and that he may not think my ungrounded affirmations have helped it to this perspicuity, I refer him to the council of Ephesus, where what was adjudged to Constantia is extended to all other, {αβγδ} or Provinces, that the Primate thereof, he that had been so {αβγδ} from the beginning, should be independent from all others, or, if he will, to the constitution itself, wherein Justiniana's independent power is set down, {αβγδ}. For there, as it follows immediately, {αβγδ}— that the Archbishop of Carthage shall have this {αβγδ}, this privilege of the chief Priest-hood in the like manner, that Justiniana, so it concludes. {αβγδ}, And other cities, and the Bishops of them who in several places have Metropolitical jurisdiction allowed them, shall for perpetuity enjoy the like prerogative. The {αβγδ} the like] must surely refer to the precedent examples of Justiniana, and Carthage, and then the conclusion is evident, that all Primacies shall enjoy the same( for so I conceive 'tis necessary the place must be interpnted of Prime Metropolies, or Primacies, and not of every lower metropolitical See, for such had not that supreme Priesthood, &c.) which was adjudged to Justiniana, there being six Metropolies, as was said, under that, and many under each Primate. But there is yet one reserve behind, and that he promises, will make any sensible man understand my former discourses, that they were all vain and wicked, viz. that this my reasoning from the independent power vested in each Primate, is the denying of the catholic Church, of which we ought to be members. And this he thus infers from my discourse, You say, saith he, every chief metropolitan was independent from all others, they made therefore so many absolute Churches, therefore made not any one Church, where then is the catholic Church? many houses to be one house, is as fairly contradictory, as many men or horses to be one man, or one horse, and so of many Churches to be one Church: Adding from S. Cyprian, that a Church is a People united to their Bishop: if then, saith he, there be a catholic Church, there must be a catholic Bishop,& taking away the obedience of one Bishop, you cannot save one Church] What solidity there is in this last refuge will be soon discernible, by going along with him step by step: For, 1. The affirming an independent power to be vested in each Primate, is far from denying a catholic Church, All those Primates are eminent Governours of so many {αβγδ} or divisions, of which the world first, and now the catholic Church consists. 2. Nothing here produced by S. W. hinders in the least but that every such {αβγδ} diocese in the ancient notion of that word, for that which contains many Provinces under it, may be an absolute Church, Independent from any Superior on earth, under no others jurisdiction, but that of its own Primate. For Thirdly, when from thence, i.e. from the absoluteness of all the Primacies, he concludes, that therefore they make not one Church, there is no consequence in that, Many particular, or national Churches, each of them independent from any Superior, may yet fraternally be connected one with another,& make up the catholic Church, as many nations of the world, no one subjected to another, but each independent, and {αβγδ} may make up the World, or Universe, and yet these, as now 'tis evident, be under no one governor on earth, Emperour, or whatever monarchical supreme power. And so still his curiosity is satisfied, he sees, where the catholic Church is. 4. Though many houses cannot be one house, any more than many horses, or men, can be one horse, or man, yet many houses may be one city, many Cities one Province, many Provinces one diocese, many dioceses one World, or one catholic Church. And the word Church being both in propriety and vulgar use capable of as many significations, as there can be sorts of Christian coetus, or assemblies imaginable, is thereupon an ambiguous word, and belongs to the larger, as well as narrower Societies, equally fit to signify a Parochial, Diocesan, Provincial, national, or Universall Church, and then many of these in the narrower, less comprehensive notion, may yet be but one in the larger, and more comprehensive. Thus we know many heaps may be put together, and make one heap, many rivers may meet, and make one river; And there can be no need of examples to illustrate this so obvious visible truth, that many Parish Churches among the Romanists, as well as us, make one Dioecesan; many Dioecesan, one Provincial; many Provincial, one National; and many National, one catholic Church. And so still for all his colours of the house, the man, and the horse, we have not lost the catholic Church: such thin sophisms may be seen through by ordinary eyes, and so, many particulars be as competent as one could wish, to make up an Universal. 5. When S. Cyprian saith, a Church is a People united to their Bishop, 'tis certain he speaks of a particular Church, and so of a particular Bishop. The place where S. Cyprian saith it, is not referred to by him, but I who had Of Schism, P. 41. used the testimony, know where to turn to it, Ep. 69. where the Church is defined Plebs Sacerdoti adunata,& pastori suo grex adhaerens, a People united to their Priest, a Flock adhering to their shepherd: and the circumstances of the Epistle make it clear, that the Bishop there mentioned, is such as himself, the Bishop of Carthage, and every of the Coëpiscopi with him, and consequently the Church there spoken of, the Church of Carthage, the exact parallel to the Church of Justiniana, now before us; and if you would know how that being a Church can join with other Churches, and remain a Church still, he will tell you in that Epistle, that individual concord and charity of all the members of the Church, is that vinculum unitatis, band of unity, by which all Churches over the whole world may conjoin and become one together. 6. When from this one testimony of Cyprian hastily cast down, he makes such full speed to conclude, that if there be a catholic Church, there must be a catholic Bishop; what is this but to infer, because Carthage is governed by one Bishop, and every other diocese by another, therefore the whole world is governed by one Bishop. Because spain is governed by one King, and France by another, therefore the whole world is governed by one also; which as it is de facto, visibly false, so the unproved asserting of it is founded on two Hypotheses, neither of which hath the least truth in it. First, that every the vastest body( for such is the Universall Church all the world over) must be under some one particular government; and secondly, that that particular government of the Church must needs be monarchical; whereas 1. the whole managery of the world is certainly transacted without being under any common governor on earth; and no doubt the affairs of the Church may be so too, a fraternal union and communion of all patriarches, or even of all Prima●es, each ruling in their several Provinces by the laws of Christ, may suffice for all ordinary wants of all; Ecce homo, ecce Carthàgo, ecce ali●e& aliae civitates, saith S. Augustine, in Psal. 44. filiae Regum sunt,—& ex omnibus fit una Regina; Behold Rome, saith he, behold Carthage, behold other, and other Cities, they are daughters of Kings, and of all of them one Queen is made. And 2. for extraordinary, an universal Counsel, or assembly of all these, may by way of Aristocracy, provide for,& administer them. And so still the catholic Church is saved, and all our Phaenomena preserved entire, without either talking( as he saith like a Saint) of Christ our head in heaven, or paying all our obedience to any one supreme Bishop upon earth, as to him that is by Christ thus delegated to preside( but will never be able to produce his commission) over the whole world. This fifth Chapter of the Tr: of schism I concluded with some words of our Bishops, in Convocation 1537.( and the same are recited again in the Necessary Doctrine, Anno 1543.) and there was great evidence of reason in them, two things affirmed, the truth of which is to be contested by proofs, and if evinced on our side, the whole cont●oversie now depending betwixt us is concluded, 1. That it was many hundred years before the Bish p of Rome could acquire any power of a Primate over any other Bishops, which were not within his Province of Italy. 2. That the Pope now professing at his consecration, that he will inviolably observe all the decrees of the first eight general Councils, among which this is certainly one, that all causes shall be determined within the Province where they be begun, and that by the Bishops of the same Province; this absolutely excludes all foreign and so papal power out of this realm. Now for the former of these, I thought I had evidenced it by the proofs preceding in that chapter, the Canons of Chalcedon, and Ephesus, and the Novel about Justiniana, as that was extended like the Ephesine Canon, to all Primates, and then it was no hurt, I hope, to recapitulate in the words of our Bishops. As for the second, it was both built on the same foundation, and also a visible matter of fact in each branch of it, 1 that such was the matter of those Decrees, most unreconcilable with Universall primacy; and 2. that the Pope professes, and vows obedience to all those decrees. And to all this he hath no least word of reply, but onely in lieu of that, is willing to mistake my procedure, and so to feign that I appealed to our Bishops as to witnesses, and then to answer me with a proverb or two. But to this I reply, 1. that as for this purpose I aclowledge them incompetent to be produced to S.W. or others of his persuasion, so I never laid any such weight on their testimony, but onely as what they said, had solidity of reason, and somewhat of evidence in it, and so would have deserved some reply from my Disarmer, if it had not been more for his turn and temper, to gibe than to discourse, to divert than to answer arguments. 2. That what I set down as our Bishops conclusion, was by them, if he had pleased to have resorted to the Book, inferred by such reasons, as S. W. will not easily be able to answer, and so could not with justice complain of my brief reference to their conclusion, without setting down their premises, which was his, not mine advantage. To clear this therefore, and because these books are not commonly to be had, I shall recite but three of their many heads of argument. 1. From the Milevitan Council, where S. Augustine was present and subscribed it, which decreed excommunicate any Clerk of afric, that should appeal to any Bishop beyond the Sea. 2. From the general Council of Constantinople, decreeing that every cause, or controversy, should be determined within the Province, where the matter did lie, and that by the Bishops of the same Province, and that no Bishop should exercise power out of his own Dioecese, or Province, this being also the mind of Cyprian, and the other Afric●n Fathers, before the time of any general Council. 3. From the story of the sixth Great Coun●il of Carthage, whither the Bishop of Rome sent his Legates to allege and vindicate his Primacy, and by that title to maintain the receiving of appeals made unto him of controversies commenced in afric And when in the debating of this, the Bishop of Rome alleged a Canon of the first Coun●il of Nice, and the Bishops of afric, denied there was any such Canon; for trial thereof, Messengers were sent to the patriarches Sees of the East( Constan●inople, Alexandria, and Antioch) to make search for the entire volume of the Canons of Nice, and when they were brought from thence, there was no such Canon among them, as the Bishop of Rome had alleged( the truth of all which is now visible to any in the Acts of that Council of Carthage, and particularly in Vide Zonar. p. 521. their Epistle to celestine, Bp. of Rome.) From this one instance they thought they might conclude these two things, 1. that the Bp. of Rome had no challenge of such Primacy, by any words of Scripture; for if he had, he would then certainly have alleged it on so important an occasion; and besides, the African Fathers were so learned in holy Scripture, that they could not have been ignorant of it;& so virtuous, that if they had known it, they would never have made any Act to the contrary, nor after so earnestly have refused it. 2. That the Bishops of Rome have no such power given them by any ancient general Council; or if they had, they would then have alleged it, rather than have vouchsafe a pretensed Canon, which upon search, could never be found in the Authenticks. And these two conclusions thus deduced, might well set a period to this controversy. As it is, I shall, I hope, need add no more reply to his second Section, for the vindicating of my fifth Chapter, and refuting the Romanists second Plea drawn from the Pope's succession to Saint Peter. CHAP. V. A Defence of the sixth Chapter of the Tract of schism. SECT. I. The Romanists Plea from conversion. Phil. Scot. The expressions of our real Gratitude to Rome. The Testimony of the annals of Gisburne. The occasion of producing it. The planting of this Church before Augustine, and surviving Dioclesians persecution. The Pope's power in Ordination. The custom of making profession to the See of Rome. Receiving the Pall without it. Caerusk {αβγδ}. Independency from Canterbury implied it from Rome also. IN his third Sect. of this his second Part, he proceeds to a view of my 6. Chap. and the subject of that, being an examination of another plea of the Romanists, from the Pope's having planted Chr stianity among us, he begins with great displeasure, that I should deem this any plea of theirs, and so pronounces this ground of the whole chapter to be absolutely false, and forged upon them, asking what catholic Author ever affirmed— 2. That S. W. as the catholic Gentleman before, do indeed renounce this plea, I have no need to repined, or regret, for then their other onely plea from Christs donation to S. Peter, and the Pope's succession to that legacy, being, I suppose, comp●tently invalidated, there remaines no more for me to contend in this matter, save onely to render my account how I fell into this gainlesse misprision, even by that charity that makes me still apt to think men believe, and advert to their own discourses, and consequently that this was due to the Romanists disputings against us, for from thence it was undoubtedly, that I was deceived into a persuasion, that they laid some weight on this plea from our conversion. To omit the Catalogue of those Romanists, that have insisted on it, I shall onely mention the real occasion of my taking in this, for one of their pleas; A very little while before I set upon that treatise of schism, a little Book bearing this title, A Treatise of the schism of England by Philip Scot, Permissu Superiorum,] was conveyed to me from what hands I never knew, but had some reasons to think, that it was from a Romanist. Of this therefore( after I had red it with no kind of satisfaction, and found that Mr. hobbs, and another discourse, with which he proposed to combat, were such as I no way inclined to defend, or vindicate) I resolved so far to serve myself, as to take notice, what pleas it chiefly insisted on, to infer what he had undertaken, the schism of this Church of ours. To this purpose I found him concluding p. 163. that the case of the Bulgares, ought to be drawn unto us, to wit, for the title of conversion. And p. 165. speaking of the subjection of England to Rome, it was acknowledged, saith he, ever by our laws even from the conversion of the Country under St. Gregory: and p. 167. much less this iceland ought to separate from the See of Rome, by reason of the title of conversion, not onely under Gregory the first, but long before, under Pope Eleutherius, &c. This I supposed sufficient( if I had wanted other motives) to direct me to this branch of my method, to consider this title of conversion, and so S. W. discerns to whom the crimen falsi is due, and I am onely to ask pardon of Ph: Scot and his superiors, that I gave so much heed to them, as to bring this rebuk upon myself. As it is, I shall most willingly aclowledge my error, and now proclaim from these greater authorities of the catholic Gentleman and S. W. that we are manumitted, and, by consent, set free from all obligation of subjection to the Pope's Primacy, which we causelessly feared might come upon us by this title of Conversion, and are now onely to make good our gratitude for the benefits which we received from that See: And that, let me assure him most seriously, we shall endeavour to do, in any way, that may be most proportionable to very great obligations, and never go about to divert, or make quittance, by putting into the counterpoise either the severity and bloody rigours which the Brit●sh inhabitants, the 1200. devout Monks of Bangor in the front, and then the rest of that numerous Army suffered from Edilfred, King of Northumberland, as the fruit of Augustine's menaces, or some other unkindnesses, since received, which have not been of the complexion of that paternal sweetness, which is said to have moved Gregory's charity to our Saxon Ancestors, but return our {αβγδ}, our purest and most uncompounded offices of all Christian affection, our utmost effusions of that most etheriall charity, our prayers and our tears poured out towards Heaven, that God will out of his richest treasure supply all their wants, and by the power of his grace, work those changes, which he discerns most necessary to be wrought in them, that the successors of St. Peter may timely imitate the repentance, and faith, and zeal of S. Peter, and the eminence of that See joined again at last, as at the first, with the purity of all Christian profession and practise, become the real, effectual prover of ecclesiastical unity and communion, and attain that highest title, which can belong to any Church on earth, to be {αβγδ} a pillar and stabiliment of all saving truth, without any alloy or mixture of error, to abate that glorious felicity, which from my soul I wish to it; If this be not the short image of that gratitude which S.W. is willing to mind us of, together with the most passionate desire to minister to them in the bowels of Christ, by endeavouring not to suffer sin upon our brethren by admonishing them in the spirit of me●knesse( and not vomi●ing out, as he saith, any one venomous spiteful expression, but hearty and humbly retracting all such language, that hath ever proce●ded from us) by heaping none but such coals of fire upon their heads, which may in Gods good ●ime, be most effectual to the melting of them; If, I say, this be not it, and if any Romanist of a more happy temper, than my Disarmer hath yet expressed, will direct me to any other method of discharging this obligation of the most exact refined gratitude, I shall be most thankful for the advertisement, presuming that nothing of injustice, or sin against a duly instructed conscience, can ever be ingredient in it, and then hoping for so much mercy from God, that no true son of this Church of ours, will ever be wanting in any other way of expressing it. The rest of this third Secti●n. concerning holding by two ti●les, and the conversion of this iceland( whether of Britanes or Saxons) was in substance proposed by the catholic Gentleman, and is accordingly superseded in the Reply, p. 100. &c. And so likewise the abbot of Bangors answer to Augustine, was vindicated in the account of H.T. his Appendix. Onely the testimony out of the Annals of Gisburn, which had not formerly been taken notice of, is here a little considered, and the parts of the t●stimony being two; 1. that the Bishop of S. Davids was consecrated by his own Suffragans; and this 2. without any profession or subjection to any other Church; He is willing to invalidate both these: the first, because, saith he, the Pope may be head of the Church without consecrating all the Bishops in the world; the second, because, saith he, the custom of making a profession, or exhibiting subjection to the See of Rome, when the Bishops were consecrated, was not then in use; and besides, the words being alteri Ecclesiae, not specifying Rome in particular, affords nothing to my purpose, but may bear the interpretation of the Bishop of St. Divi●'s being independent of any within that continent, or of any private Patriarch, with which may consist a subjection to the Pope, as the Universall Pastor.] But here first S. W. must be advised to permit testimonies, brought to infer a conclusion, to connect with the co●clusion, to which the producer applied them, and not still out of jealousy of his own Helena to feign every thing that is said on any other subject, to be designed to the impugning the Popes Supremacy. 'tis evident to what that whole fourth Section belongs, viz. to demonstrate the planting the Faith here long before Augustine the Monk, and its surviving the slaughters of Dioclesian, Among other evidences of this( to which I now add the express words of Ubi tu●bo persecutionis qui evit in publicum, fideles Christi, qui se tempore discriminis filvis ac desertis abditisque speluncis occultaverant, renovant ecclesias ad solum usque destructas, Basi i●as sanctorum Martyrum fandant, construunt, pe●ficiunt, ac quoddle victricia figna passim prepalant, dies festos celeb●ant, s●cra mundo cord atque ore consiciunt, mansitque haec in Ecclesiis Christi, quae erant in Britannia pax usque ad tempora Arianae vesaniae. l. 1 c 8. What is th●re added of infusing ●his poison, and every other heresy in this nation, and the great levity and inc●nstancy in the f●ith, the Reader may observe to be an insertion in the latin copy of Bede, which Alfred's Saxon Paraphrase hath no word of, and as it might be evidently refuted, as far as concerns the Arian heresy, so as to the Pelagian, 'tis disclaimed by Bede, l. 1. c. 12, 13. the words are set down in the Reply, pag. 103. Bede) comes in the early mention of three metropolitans, and among them of the Bishop of Caerusk( and his Province Britannia secunda) afterward in King Arthurs time translated to S. David's( and this we know fi●ty years before Augustine's coming) where it continued an archbishopric 500 yeares more, without dependence on any, till in the reign of Hen. I. it was subjected to Canterbury, which how fit it was to concur with other evidences, to prove the p●int then in hand, I leave any man to consider, and then there is no more required of me for the vindicating that testimony Yet secondly, when 'tis remembered, that though the Pope oblige not himself to consecrate all the Bishops in the world, yet as far as his jurisdiction extendeth, he takes upon him to dispose all ordinations, and accordingly( as appears by the express words of his Epistle) Pope Gregory appointed Augustine to ordain the metropolitans, of London and York( though not all the Bishops under them) and for the future, provided for their ordinations by their own Synods, by sending each of them a Pall, as the same Epistle expresseth; it is hence visible, that his first Answer hath no force in it, but leaves a visible difference betwixt the Metropoles of S. Davids, and the two other Metropoles in respect of ordination. And Thirdly, S.W. his fair confession, that the custom of making profession, or exhibiting sub ection to the See of Rome, was not then in fashion] must be looked on as some degree of liberality, which I must suppose he had some motive to extort from him and sure concludes that the introducing this fashion since, is an innovation. Fourthly, that when 'tis remembered, that at this time Gregory sent the Pall to Augustine, and promised the same to the Bishops of London and York, it must be inferred by f●rce of his second answer, that the Pope's sending a Pall had no● always annexed to it an exhibition of subjection to his See, from him that received it, and then how could Justiniana's subjection to Rome, even now, be inferred from the Pope's sending a Pall to the Arckbishop thereof? Fifthly, That S. Davids making no such profession, exhibiting no such subjection for the space of 500. yeares, and so long after Augustine's coming, viz. till the reign of Hen. I. and not so much as receiving a Pall from Rome, and yet holding the dignity and power of an Independent Archbishop, consecrated by his own Suffragans( as the Bishop of Cyprus was) and thereby evidenced to be {αβγδ}, is still, by force of his second answer, a farther proof, that the present Romish practices are usurpations, and innovations, and a prejudice to the pretended universal acknowledgement of his headship. Lastly, When 'tis so well known by the forementioned Tuae fraternitas omnes Britanniae sacerdotes habeat subjectos. Epistle, that this whole nation, and all the Bishops of britain, were by Gregory required to be subject to the See of Canterbury, where Augustine sat, and yet by this testimony of those Annals, and by evidence of the fact, through all History of those times, it appears that the Archbishop of Caerusk, or S. Davids, was independent from all other power( a metropolitan long before Augustines coming hither) and never subjected to Canterbury, nor consequently to Rome, for so many hundred yeares, till Hen. I. It is from thence most manifest, that S.W. his answers, are of no force even to that, which he doth so solicitously ward by them, this of consecration by his own Suffragans, not held by any Pall from Rome, and the making no profession or subjection, alteri Ecclesiae, to any other Church, be it but, as S. W. would have it, to any within that Continent, particularly to Canterbury, being as full an evidence as could be wished, that he acknowledged no subjection to the Pope, who had subjected all the Bishops of this iceland to Canterbury. And this is all that can be due to be replied to his third Section. SECT. II. S. w his Arts. St. Paul's chair at Ephesus, &c. Conversion of Britany before Peters coming to Rome. Exemption from the Pope's Jurisdiction a prejudice to his universal Pastorship. Car●hage's Contestation before Justinian's time. Justinian's Act approved, a President to England. The questioning it. HIs fourth Section begins with one of his dexterities, of which we have had an instance or two formerly. To invalidate the title from conversion, I had regularly proved these two things: 1. That the Britains were not converted by them. 2. That for the Saxons, which were converted from Rome, that title of conversion was of no force; And these two together, were the full proving of my conclusion, which the former single did not pretend to do, yet had enough of prejudice to the pretence for universal Primacy, for one exception was destructive to that; and the Dominions of Wales as much so, as all England would have been. Now S. W. his art was, to divide these two branches, and to make answer to the former of them, taken alone, Sect. 3. and by that means to gain opportunity of rejoicing, that I have left myself and my fellow Englishmen in the suds, and onely proved the Welsh no schismatics( adding onely, that now the Welsh are so subjected to the English Bishops, that they must be involved in the same Schism)& so he triumphantly ends that Section, beginning this fourth with a view of the branch which belonged to the Saxons, as of a second part of my text( as he calls it) by this imposing on his Reader, who if he had foreseen that there was any thing said to that of the Saxons, or could carry it in his memory from one section to another, must needs discern, that what was before said of leaving the English in the suds, had not the least degree of truth in it. For if indeed I equally proved it( though not by the same medium) of the English and the Welsh, how could it ever, with truth, be said, that I proved it of the Welsh onely? Such arts as these, which receive all their force from a hope, that the Readers memory cannot hold out from the end of one Section to the beginning of another, are one of S. W. his Master pieces, which have rendered him so much a shrewder man, than the catholic Gentleman. What follows, 1. of S. Paul's Plantations, and the independency thereof, both from the See, where S. Paul sat at the time of converting them, and more especially from the See of Rome: And 2. of the independency and absoluteness of Timothy, and Titus in their several Provinces, hath been briefly vindicated in the Reply, cap. 61 sect. 3, 4. onely when S W. here asks what I intend by the chair where S. Paul sat, adding, that it was merely a fiction, that S. Paul ever sat in any ch ire, or was first Bishop in any place, but at Rome onely with S. Peter. I answer, 1. That this ought to have had some offer of proof annexed to it, and not onely be so magisterially affirmed by him: 2. By chair I mean a place of his particular residence, and ruling( after he had planted) for some time, before he left a Bishop in one, and went to some other place; And thus 'tis sure he resided in many cities and Provinces as properly as at Rome he can be affirmed to have done. At Rome he so resided not, as not to make excursions very far from thence, to plant and confirm Churches, and in the like manner he resided at Antioch for one season, at Ephesus, and in all Asia, under that Prime Metropolis, for no less than three yeares, and so at Co●inth, at Philippi, and at Thessalonica, and all these before ever he saw Rome, and to no one of these were all other Churches( where at that time he wrought conversions, founded and settled Churches) subjected by him, any farther than this, that the Churches of the Regions were subjected to the City church, the Churches of inferior cities to the Metropoles, and those united again in the Prime Metr poles of each {αβγδ}. And so this was a competent instance of the point in hand, and Timothy and Titus clear evidences of it, both those demonstrated to be clearly independent from Rome, whether upon the score of Peter's, or of Paul's presiding there( not by force of my negative, unsuffi●ient proofs, as he ●alls them, but) upon this irrefragable evidence, that those were placed Bishop● at Ephesus, and Crete, before either of these were yet so much as come to that imperial city. And the like upon the same account might, if we can believe story, be resolved of this iceland of ours, where( saith Gildas Brito, or Badonicus, anciently styled Sapiens, Gildas Albanicus in his Book of the victory of Aurelius Ambrosius, and the Vatican M. S. in Baronius) a Church was planted before the end of Tiberius's reign, and that manifestly before S. Peter was come to Rome, secundo Claudii, as might be shewed by unquestioned records, if this were a place for it. The next particular of the power of Princes to erect or translate patriarches, hath also been vindicated, Repl. c. 6. sec. 4. and there it appears how little reason he hath to affirm, that this is the begging of the question, viz. that the Pope's power is merely Patriarchal, when that on which my proofs proceed, the independency of those prime Churches, which have been erected by Emperours, is as destructive to this Pope's pretended title of universal Pastorship, as to the immoveablenesse of his Patriarchal power; the exempting any from his jurisdiction being as contradictory to the universality of his jurisdiction, as any thing could be supposed to have been. Next, when of one of my instances, Carthage, he concludes from my own words, that all that the Emperour did, was to restore it to its Primacy, after the Vandals were driven out, and so onely an act of preserving the Canons inviolate, which every good Christian Emperour ought to do] this is but a catching of any thing that comes, though it be but like Hierocles's Scholasticus, that in the shipwreck caught hold on, and meant to save himself by the anchor, which served onely to discover his fear, and ascertain his perishing. For 'tis certain, that before the Vandals inroad, Carthage, though within the Patriarchate of Rome, had refused to submit to her jurisdiction; or to allow of any appeal thither. The contest set down from the African Council, in the close of the fourth Chapter of this Reply, is an evidence of that; and he that knows any thing in Church story, cannot be ignorant of it. And if Justinian's restoring of that, after the expulsing of the Vandals, and( which is somewhat more, and yet was there subjoined) his annexing two new Provinces, which had not before been under that Bishops jurisdiction, be that, which every good Emperour, not onely may, but ought to do, then shall I never desire any more to infer my conclusion, 1. that Hen. VIII. in restoring that independency to the Church of England, which it had before Augustin's coming hither, nay, {αβγδ} from the first conversion, of this nation, and so ought to retain it by the Ephesine Canon, was but the preserving the Acts of the Church inviolate, and no more than every good Prince may, and ought to do. 2. That by S W. his acknowledgement, Just●nian in this matter of Carthage, did but as a good Prince ought to do, and then doing no more in the erection of Justiniana, than in the restitution of Carthage he had done; it must likewise follow, that herein also he no way misbehaved himself, and yet upon the presumption that he did, his whole answer depends, which next follows to my instance of Justiniana. For though upon a former mention of this matter, he had never attempted to asperse Justinian, but in this second part, sec. 2. gave very plausible answers, that Justinian never intended to crop the aspiring growth of Rome, but sent to the Pope for a Pall for his new Archbishop, and a great deal more to the same purpose; yet now upon another incidentall glance on the same instance, as if the catholic Gentleman and he had divided the cup of Lethe betwixt them, he now questions the power of Justinian to do what he did, and the legality of the act, and compares it with the Act of the late Parliament in taking away Bishops, having no power to take them away. Thus every the most contrary colour( of answer) becomes S W. as well as ever it did Aristippus, but this slip having befallen him by following the footsteps of the Cath: Gent. I have spoken sufficiently to it there, Repl. c. 6. sec. 4. n. 11. 12. and fully manifested the legality of Justinians action, without any delegation from the Pope to do what he did. n. 13. SECT. III. The Privilege of Ravenna. The Authority of it. Hieron. Rubeus, no partial Writer against Rome. Baronius's Dislikes. S.W. his Objections to the Privilege answered. In nomine Domini, a Style of Donatians. Edicts of one Emperour without the name of the other. Valentinian's peculiar respect to Ravenna. Valentinianus mayor Imperator. Mediolanense Concilium. Regum Placentia, &c. Brixillis, not under Milan. The Pall. Caesareum Paludamentum, not the pastoral. The Pope's Consent, not Authoritative. The Pope's Vision about P. Chrysologus. The duration of Ravenna's {αβγδ}. The Contest betwixt P. Gregory, and John of Ravenna. The no proof of their schism. P. Gregory's dislike of the title of universal Pastor. HIs next attempt is against the Instance of Ravenna, and he sets out with a special piece of wit, that when I say, the Emperor Valentinian did by h●s Rescript constitute Ravenna a Patriarchal seat, I quote no Author but Ann. Dom. 432.] where 1. 'tis strange, that he that hath yet( to my best remembrance) produced but one citation of his own, and withall, hath oft reproached my unnecessary citations should yet now exact of me the producing of Authors for every period; and yet more strange, that when I quote the Emperours Rescript, wherein it was thus constituted, he should yet say I quoted no Author: The Emperour himself was vouchsafe as my Author, and his Rescript the Testimony; and yet upon the catholic Gentleman's doubt of this, I produced the Author, which conveyed this record to us, one very fit for the turn, the writer of the history of that city H●eronymus Rubeus, who sets down the words of this priv●ledge out of as most ancient record, which saith he, in tabulario Ursiano adhuc servatur, is still kept in the Archieves of that city. Of this Author who produces it, it may be considered, 1. That his History was at a second publication of it, 17. yeares after the former, dedicated to the Pope Sixtus V. by the Senate of Ravenna( who testify that it was collected ex tabulariis potissimùm civitatis, out of the Records of the city;) And 2. that it was by himself dedicated to their A●chbishop, a cardinal, appealing to his knowledge, that he had been in antiquitate investigandâ satis accuratus, sufficiently accurate in the search of antiquity: And 3. to remove all suspicion of partiality to his own city against Rome, he hath approved himself to be as great an admirer of the Papacy, as any, calls it in his Preface, sedem de coelo in terras demissam, a See sent down from heaven to earth, for Learning most divine, for Religion most holy, f●r Empire most sublime. And in this very matter of Ravenna's contending with Rome, de Principatu, he is very bitter against his own Countreymens temerity, and perfidiousness, together with insolent pride, affirming the Popes to be Vicars of Christ; in E●clesiae Universalis administratione, in the administration of the Universall Church. If these be indications of the Preposterous love of his country, which Rubeus is blamed for by S.W. it will be very hard to gain his favour; And 4. to conclude, his authority with the Romanists is such, as Baronius, the principal Author, that hath questioned this priv●lege, makes use of his testimony with confidence, when it is for his turn,( though in a matter much more liable to mistake the relation of a vision) himself also confessing, that the Rescript is very ancient, and acknowledged by several writers. And truly that Annalists and his followers disputing against it by those little probable arguments, which S. W. hath here transcribed( as nothing was ever really done, but some light colours might be brought against it) as it signifies no more, but that this act of the Emperour's was repugnant to the interest which that learned Annalist had professedly espoused, the absolute Universall Dominion of the Romish See, so is it an evidence irrefragable, that that privilege which Ravenna is pretended to have had, was not rec●ncileable with the pretensions of Rome, which yet was in effect, no g eater, than those which without doubt were soon after conferred on Justiniana and others, by other Emperours, before either of these, and to which the Council of Chalcedon had laid the foundation, that the {αβγδ} order ecclesiastical should follow, and bear proportion with the {αβγδ} the imperial acts of building, or repairing, or enlarging, and dignifying of cities. As for the objections against the authenticknesse of that decree, I shall need say no more, but that they are very unproportionable to be put in the balance against the original record and testification of the fact in the plain words of the Edict. First, saith he, it begins in a different manner from the constant tenor of all other Rescripts,] but he did not think good to tell us how it began, lest that might discover the vanity of the exception, nor to remember what was the subject matter of this Rescript which might fitly occasion and own this difference. It was the Donation of a Privilege to the Church, to the honour of God, and accordingly it begins in such a form, as most exactly accords therewith, and is the ancient, as well as modern style in such matters. In Nomine Domini Dei Salvatoris Nostri Jesu Christi, In the name of the Lord God our Saviour Jesus Christ. This, as it had been less proper for some other secular matters, so was most agreeable to the matter of an ecclesiastical privilege, or collation. So in the Novels of the Emperours, which confer, or confirm privileges, to the Church, there is nothing more frequent. The first of Heraclius, being of this sort, begins so, Jus Graeco. Rom. l. 2. p. 90. {αβγδ}— In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ our God, Heraclius— to Sergius— And so the P. 77. second, and the P. 83. fourth. So begins Justinian's Edict, de fide Orthodoxâ, Ib. l 8. p. 521. {αβγδ}— In the name of God the Father, and of his onely begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and of the holy Ghost. I shall trouble the Reader with no more examples. And then, what could have been objected more unseasonably, or untruly, than that this manner of beginning differs from the constant tenor of all other Rescripts? Next, saith he, The decree is singular, and consequently to be suspected in this; that all the other Rescripts made in the reign of the two Emperours, though constituted by one of them onely, yet were ever authorized by both their names, whereas the name and authority of the Emperou● Theodosius was wanting to this.] But there is as little truth in this, as in the former suggestion. In the constitutions of Heraclius, the first indeed begins with the names of both the Emperours, {αβγδ}, and to the fourth after the like manner. But then in the second the style is singular, {αβγδ}— and the third in like manner, {αβγδ}, Heraclius alone without naming the other. 'tis strange such matters of ordinary visible practise, should be so confidently denied, to gain a poor, pitiful, probable argument against an Edict, that is irrefragably testified by the Records, and is no way concerned in such topics as these, if they had( as they have not the least) truth in them: But besides, if it were reasonable to conclude a matter of fact by reason, 'tis clear there is reason of this also. Valentinian was born in this city, as before Rub. Hist R●v. l. 2. p 90. Rubeus, Marcellus Comes delivers, and now resided there( as Honorius had long done, ever since Alaricus's coming into Italy) and accordingly makes that a special motive of giving this privilege( Et maximè ubi serenitatis nostrae praefulget praesentia) in the words of the Edict: And of him particularly 'tis Ibid p. 98. noted and cited from Agnellus, a grave Author, that he both re-built, and enlarged the walls of the city, and constituted it, after Rome, the head of Italy. All which being peculiar acts of his kindness to the city, and not common to Theodosius with him, as they make it reasonable, that they should bear none but his name in the front of the Donation, so without question they no way invalidate the authority of it. The third objection is, that the Inscription, Imperator mayor, is new, and unheard of, all the r●st entitling Valentinian Imperator Maximus.] But the Inscription is, Valentinianus fidelis Jesu Christi mayor imperator. Aug. The [ mayor] is not here subjoined to Imperator, but to Valentinian( as Augustus to Imperator) and is, I suppose to distinguish him from others of the same name, as Theodosius, {αβγδ}, the little, that reigned with Valentinian, is so called to distinguish him from Theodosius, {αβγδ} the Great, Hon●rius's Father. So lo {αβγδ}, and lo {αβγδ}, and so Valentinianus mayor to distinguish this from Valentinianus, Gratian's Father, who in respect of him was Maximus. 2. As for the title of Imperator Maximus( Maximus subjoined to Imperator) it might have been worth his pains to set down some of those Edicts( which he calls all the rest) that so entitle him. I am sure Rubeus affords him none. Pontifex Maximus was once an ordinary title for the Emperours, and Imperator Clementissimus, and the like, but sure Imperator Maximus was not so; And yet 3. if it were so, it would prove little; for this Valentinian, which is here styled mayor, is ordinarily known by the title of Junior; mayor, in respect of Maximus, being Junior, as Theodosius {αβγδ} the Little is ordinarily Theodosius Junior in the Comparative, and many such like, so that still I have no reason to admire S. W. his Arguments. 4. He objects from the mention of Regium, Placentia, and Brixillis name in the Rescript, as under the Jurisdiction of Ravenna, which, saith S. W. is a plain forgery, since not long after, Pope lo commanding Eusebius Bishop of Milan, to gather a provincial Council of the Bishops subject to him, those three Bishops met there, and subscribed in that Council, as appears by the Synods Epistle yet extant.] Of this suggestion some parts are true, but that on which alone the whole force of the Objection against the Rescript depends, hath no offer of proof nor yet appearance of truth in it. And therefore it was prudently done, to city the Synodal Epistle for the subscription of these names, but neither to direct us where to find that Synodal Epistle, nor to offer any reason or testimony, that all that subscribed there were subject to Milan. The truth of the whole matter lies thus, In the year 450. Pope lo sent four Legates, two Bishops, and two Presbyters to Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, successor to Flavianus, with an Epistle, anathematizing Eutyches and Nestorius, and all their followers, which was accordingly red, and fully consented to, and subscribed in Council by Anatolius, and the neighbouring Bishops, assembled with him, and sent to all the metropolitans of the East to be subscribed by them. See council. Tom. 3. p. 701, 702. Upon the return of these Legates, lo commands them to go to Eusebius the Bishop of Milan( in the most ancient Notitiae, the Prime Metropolis of Italy) and treat with him for a meeting of other Bishops of Italy, which, we know, consisted of many Provinces, to subscribe and profess the reception of the same doctrine against those H●reticks, to the end that in the meeting of a general Council, the Pope's Legates might go, in the name of the whole western Church, and inform the Council of the judgement of those Bishops, who should not be able to be present there: And accordingly it was done, and upon this meeting( called thence Mediolanense Concilium in the Councils, T. 2. p. 702.) the Bishop of Milan, and nineteen other Bishops of Italy, some of his Province, and some of others, wrote a Letter to lo, and subscribed their consent to that confession of faith, which he had sent into the East. The Epistle is to be seen among Leo's, with this title, Eusebii Mediolanensis Episcopi cum aliis Episcopis consentientibus, and after him the first that are name are the Bishops of Regium, Placentia, and Brixillis. But now, that all the Bishops that are there name, were of this particular Province of Milan, and subject immediately to that Bishop, as it is the onely thing of force in the present objection, so it hath no offer of proof, or that I discern appearance of truth in it. Of the 19. Bishops, which are there name to subscribe after M●lan, Miraeus, out of the Ancient Roman Provincial, sets down but twelve, under the Metropolis of Milan, and two of them with an Asterisk for exempts, Placentinus, and Papiensis( which is all one with Ticinensis in these subscriptions) so that beside Placentia, Regium, and Brixillis, here name in the Edict, the second of which he places expressly under Ravenna, and the third was destroyed Ann. 586. saith P. 181. Rubeus, there remaines Augustana under the Archbishop of Mentz, Comensis under Aquileia, Curiensis in Rhaetia Prima, under the Archbishop of Mentz, Genuensis and Albingaunensis, both in Liguria, none of which can with any reason be pretended to be under the particular Province of Milan, and so this is sufficient to evacuate the seeming force of that argument. 2. It must be farther remembered, that in order to this design of having this Profession of Leo's faith, subscribed by the Bishops of Italy, it was as necessary that other Bishops consents should be had, as those of the particular Province of Milan. The Legates were sent in like manner to the Galliae, and from thence the subscription come of lo Ep. 51. 44. Bishops, which sure were not all of one Province: In a word, there is little reason to believe, but all Italy were as much concerned in this action, as those under Milan, onely the meeting being in that place, as that which had been anciently the prime Metropolis of the Dioecese of Italy, there were more of that present there, than of any other particular Province, yet the three first of the subscribers, the Bishops of these cities under Ravenna, which was a complete number for that Exarchate; so that still this Edict may pass for authentic, though it put Regium, &c. under the Archbishop of Ravenna, for there still they are, for ought this of the Mediolanense concilium proves to the contrary. Or if this be not yet sufficient, then I shall oppose the authority of Blondus and Sabellicus, for the confirming the Edict, and invalidating this pitiful show of objections. Blondus, who had said( from other evidences, and not from this Rescript) that the Emperour subjected twelve Bishops to the See of Ravenna, naming Regium and Placentia for two of them, and Sabellicus in his Enneads, and others with him, affirm there were fourteen, as the Edict doth, and so doth Miraeus, out of the ancient Roman pontifical, though in specifying the names of them, he differ from this Edict. But his last argument is that on which he seems to place his confidence, as a Rub which, saith he puzzeled Rub●us, that the same Rescript which gives them an archbishopric, granted them also the use of the Pall, which saith he, was never used to be given by the Emperors but by the Popes onely, as appears by the Epistle of Gregory the Great to the then Archbishop of Ravenna; and this, saith he, forced Rub●us to explicate that Pall to be Caesar●um pa●udamentum, such an imperial rob as the Caesars used to wear, whereas besides the unlikelinesse of the a●tion, it is contra●y to the Rescript itself; which grants them such a Pall, sicut caeteri sub nostrâ Christianissimâ potestate saepe degentes f●uuntur Metropoli●ae, as the rest of the metropolitans in his Dominions after wore; which, saith he, every one who hath but tasted of the study of ancient History, knows to have been another manner of thing than the Emperours rob.] What solidity of truth there is in all this, will be soon discerned: For 1. that this rub is said to have puzzled Rubens, and that to smooth it, he was forced to explicate it of the Caesareum paludamentum,] hath no kind of truth in it: What he saith is not from any such necessity, to avoid the importunity of any objection, but as an instance of the Emperors gratitude to that Church, and John the Archbishop thereof, maximum beneficium adjecit, he added this greatest favour, a Pall, but that such an one as in the city, and in any pomp, or solemnity, the Caesars alone were wont to use, as an universal and perpetual prerogative of him and his successors in that See. But then 2. if Constantine's Donation to Sylvester, which is entred into their Decret par. 1. Dist. 96. c. 13. Consta●tinus. Corpus Juris, and must not be despised by the Romanists, be by S. W. believed to have any truth in it, or if the fiction of it be not founded in gross absurdity,& impossibility, we cannot but learn this from it, which here S. W. will not allow any man to think that hath but tasted of the study of anti●nt History, viz. that the superhumerale, the Pall, that belongs to Archbishops, was the lorum quod imperial circundare solebat collum, the very imperial ornament, that encompassed his neck( and so the purple rob, and the scarlet gown, and omnia Imperialia indumenta, all the imperial vestments) communicated from the Emperour to the Pope, and by him imparted to Archbishops. The same we are taught by Balsamon from the Greek Church, that several ensigns of the imperial authority were communicated to the patriarches {αβγδ}. P. 445. Jus Graeco. Rom. l. 7. {αβγδ}, this privilege( speaking of the {αβγδ}) was allowed to none but the Kings and patriarches( having before said expressly, that the Archbishop of Bulgarie, and some others, had received them, {αβγδ}, from the Emperours especial munificence, and Pithan. l. 2 c. 1 Philippus Berterius, who, I hope, had tasted of ancient history, cites it from him, and subjoins {αβγδ}, Pallia& caetera hujusmodi quae f●re omnia tandem Metropolitanis sunt concessa, almost all kind of habits, particularly the Pal, all which almost were at length allowed to the Metropolitans, he might have said( as far as belongs to the East) to the Bps. also Thus when Anthimus of Constantinop was deposed, Liberat. Diac. Breviar c. 22. it is said of him, that when he saw himself turned out of his See, he restored the Pall which he had, to the Emperors. And Ep. ex Reg. l. 1. indict. 9. Ep. 27. P. Gr. himself speaking of the return of Anastas. Patriarch of Alexandria, saith that he had made Suggestionem summis precibus plenam. ibid. quantis valui precibus postulavi, ib. Ep. 7. earnest request to the Emperours, ut concesso usu Pallii ad Beati Petri limina— transmittere debuissent, that they would grant him the use of the Pall and sand him to Rome to him, to officiate with him quatenus mecum in honore suo viveret, and to live and enjoy his patriarchal honour with him. Sure these are more than obscure indications, that the Pall having this original from the Emperours donation, was, and consequently may, by the Emperour, particularly be bestowed upon a See, advanced by him to some more than ordinary eminence, after the manner of those, whom a King will honour, by putting some part of his royal ornaments upon them, and it will otherwise be hard to imagine, from whence the Pope himself shall originally have received it, if not from the favour of the Emperour, for as to that of the Sheep taken upon the Pastors shoulders which may be thought to deduce it from S. Peter, it is sure as Apocryphal, as Constantine's donation can by any be imagined to be, and beside other Anomalies in the Emblem, 'tis that which must equally belong to every Bishop, whose office is as perfectly Pastoral, as any metropolitan, Primate, Patriarch, or the Pope himself can be pretended to be, though his Dioecese be not so wide, nor his power so absolute, and so can by no analogy be the ensign discriminative of an Archbishop. But I shall not need to insist farther on this, for if I should grant, that the Pall were originally ecclesiastical, and a thing perfectly distant from the imperial lorum, and so that the Emperour could with no propriety confer it, as from himself; this notwithstanding would be very incompetent to prejudge, or disparaged Valentinian's Rescript, in the form, wherein Hier: Rubeus hath conveyed it to us, for of it this may very fitly be the interpretation, that the Archbishop of Ravenna being thus exalted by the Emperour, the said Emperour ordained and decreed, that as other metropolitans in his Dominions, have the use of the Pall, receiving it from their Patriarch, according to custom, upon their consecrating, so should he receive it from the Bp. of Rome, the Patriarch of the West. And this being the onely objection against the Rescript, which hath any show of validity in it, it now appears, I suppose, that this is but a show, and so the Rescript may yet stand firm upon the vanishing of it. Yet is this Argument of such force with S. W. that he is resolved( and he cannot, he saith, in reason think other) it must( some way or other) invalidate this instance of Ravenna, but which way it shall do it he is not yet resolved, onely he hath pitched on one of these two ways, either that the Rescript is false, forged in the time of the schism, or at least, that it cannot be imagined to have been made without the Popes consent.] These conjectures are distant enough& so prove themselves to be but conjectures, for if the Rescript were false, and forged in time of the schism, then sure the Pope never gave consent to it, and if he gave consent to it, then sure 'twas not false, nor forged in time of the schism. And yet he tenders his proof for each of these, which fighting thus unreconcileably one with another, it were almost pity to interpose, it being certain that the leaving them thus engaged, must be the shortest end of the controversy. But I shall not give him the example of despising tenders of reason. For the first then, that the Rescript is false, and forged in the time of the Schism,( besides what hath already been mentioned of the Pall, and I suppose removed) he hath no farther offer of argument, but this, that no new Bishop of Ravenna could use the Pall without a new concession from the Pope, as( saith he) appears in S. Gregory, l. 5. Ep. 8. and therefore it was forged in time of the schism, that they might have some pretence to retain still the use of the Pall, which they accounted honourable.] Whether the new Bishop were to receive the Pall from the hands of the Pope, I shall not need dispute; This might be a formality due to him as Patriarch of the West, and is perfectly reconcilable with the Emperours conferring this privilege on this See, to all succession( as the Edict declares) without any active concurrence, or joint authority of the Pope. But he that shall look on that Ep. ex Regist. l. 5. Indict. 14. c 108. Epistle, will find no more than this, that Pope Gregory sends the Bishop of Ravenna a Pall( provocatus antiquae consuetudinis ordine, moved thereto by the order of ancient custom) Ep ex Reg. l. 5. indict. 14. c. 108. for him to use at the times, and in the manner, as, he saith, he doubts not his predecessor had used it, adding, Omnia enim privilegia quae tuae pridem concessa esse constat Ecclesiae, nostrâ authoritate firmamus,& illibata decernimus, permanere, for all the privileges which appear to have been heretofore granted to your Church, we confirm by our authority and decree that they shall remain untouched; and( beside some good admonitions to adorn his office and dignity, with the probity of manners and works) this is all that is to be found in that Epistle. And considering that the privileges which he formally confirmed, were acknowledged by him to be pridem concessa, granted to the See of Ravenna long before, without mention of their being granted to him by the Popes, and so must most probably refer to this act of the Emperour Valentinian, which gave it th●se privileges; all this doth very well agree with the Edict, and conclude that it must have been unjust in the Pope to deny the Pall to any new Bishop of that See; And then the least that can be said, is, that S. W. will never be able by any Engine to fetch out from this epistle his designed conclusion, that this Rescript was forged in the time of the Schism; and if it were not then forged, I mean while Ravenna stood upon her Indecendency from Rome( for that, I suppose, he will have deemed a Schism, by a mean begging the question) there can be no time imaginable for the forging it, for while Ravenna yielded to Rome all that she desired, this cannot sensibly be suggested: And so still here is not the least colour of pretence for the forging of it. What follows upon the other branch of his conjecture, to make it probable, that it was not made without the Pope's consent, if it have any appearance of force in it, it again concludes, that it was not forged, nor then looked on by any( not by the Pope himself) as an Innovation, for the Emperour thus to advance a Church to this independency; and against this I have no reason to dispute, but shall most willingly yield it to S. W. his affirmation, without the least tender of proof, and onely resolve from thence, that Valentinian herein did nothing contrary to the duty of a very good Emperour, nothing but by the very Bishop of Rome's very good liking, and consequently, that the Ravennates that insisted on this their privilege, were far from being schismatics, or culpable in so doing, as my Disarmer will have believed to be the acknowledgement of all the world. If any more than such a consent as this, a good liking, or not ch●cking at it, be here meant by S. W. as the mention of the Pope's appointing and constituting( even those at Ravenna at fi●st being unwilling) S. Peter Chrysologus to succeed in that See, after the decease of John] seems willing to conclude, viz. an anthoritative consent, or that which hath any thing of jurisdiction in it; I shall then answer, that supposing the Edict to have been really made( as in thus arguing S. W. supposes, for else how could the Pope thus consent to the making it) it is most evident that the Pope had thus nothing to do in the making of it. The words are plain, Imperiali authoritate sancimus, we decree by our imperial authority, that it shall be thus advanced, to the metropolitical dignity: and constituimus, the Emperour again by his authority, constitutes, or appoints the disposition of the whole Province of Aemylia, under the government of that Church, and the creations of all those 14. Bishops, &c. adding, Conferentes ei ob decorem Apostolicae dignitatis honorem Pallii& omnem Pontificalis decoris usum, conferring on him for the glory of the apostolic dignity, the honour of the Pall, and all the use of pontifical glory or splendour, and this, as was said, not to the person of the present Bishop John, but to the Church, atque Universos postea Praesules, all Bishops which should succeed in that See. Which puts the matter beyond dispute, that the Pope had neither in the making of the decree, nor in the Bishops succeeding to the benefit of it, any authoritative consent. It came wholly from the Imperial munificence, the same by which it was once resolved in Honorius's time( as Rubeus cites it from In hist. Princip. Estens. Johannes Baptista Pigna) that the seat of the Empire should be translated from Rome to Ravenna. What he saith of the Pope's appointing and constituting Chrysologus to succeed in that See, even those of Ravenna, at first being unwilling] lies thus clearly, in the story, That t●e Ravennates sent the Archbishop whom they had created, to Pope Xystus III. for his customary confirmation. ●he Pope had seen a vision that night, wherein S. Peter and S. Apollinaris, the first Bishop of that See, having a young man between them, foretold him, that he should create him Bishop of Ravenna, and should not confirm him whom the Ravennates had chosen; this therefore he did obey, and rejecting their Bishop, ordained Peter Chrysologus to that See, and the Ravennates taking it ill, he told them his vision, and then they acquiesced in reverence to S. Peter. If there be truth in this story, 'tis little to the advantage of the Pope's authority, the vision being evidently that, which gave Peter Chrysologus this dignity, which the Pope could not have done without the vision. If it be not true, sure S. W. can conclude nothing from it, unless it be this, that Rub●us is to be believed by a Romanist in the relation of a Legend, which looks a little kindly to the Romanists side, but must not be believed in the vouching an ancient Record, when that should seem against them. He next tells us, the after-Bishops of Ravenna were sometimes schismatics, none excusing them, or bringing that action of theirs for a testimony or example, till such as D. H. arose, who were involved in the same crime.] But herein is manifest injustice. For wholly to omit the inquiry, whether the B●shops of Ravenna were afterwards schismatical, or no, I know every thing which seems averse to the plenitude of all power in the Romish See, shall be sure to be looked on by them as an act of schism, or else we had never lain under that charge: to omit this, I say( though it be but a begging the main question in him that suggests it) it is manifest that the testimony produced by me was not founded in the actions of those after-Bish ps, but in the first collation of dignity on that church by the Edict of the Emperor, that being the one thing that was pertinent, and fully concludent to the matter, which I had then in hand, from Sect 9. the power of Kings to erect or translate Prim●cies or Patriarchates: For if Val ntinian had that power, and actually made use of it, Imperiali authoritate sancire, constituere, confer, to advance Ravenna to that ho●our and power, to assign him such a Province, and to confer such privil●ges, on that See for ever, and no check made against this at that time, either by the Popes, or other Bishops of the Church, as against an innovation, or usurpation of undue power in the Emperour; then sure another Prince, which hath the same power in his kingdom, which Valentinian had in his Dominions, may as lawfully do the same, {αβγδ}, which was the onely thing which by this example of Ravenna, and testimony of that Edict, I attempted to demonstrate. But now follows an intolerable mistake of the Doctor's, which must needs have some of S. W. his Discipline. And what is the mistake? Why, That from Valentinians's time Ravenna held the Patriarchate without depend●nce on the Bishop of Rome, till the time of Constantinu● Pogonatus.] For this my Disa●mer hath not yet so approved his fid●l ty, that his own bare word should be concluding: From his tribunal I appeal to Anastasius, in vita Doni Hujus temporibus, i.e. Constantini Pogonati, saith he, Ecclesia Ravennatum, quae se ab Ecclesiâ Romanâ segregaverat causâ autocephaliae, denuò se pristinae sedi Apostolicae subjugavit, In the times of Constantinus Pogonatus the Church of Ravenna which had separated itself from the Ch: of Rome, upon the account of being independent, and an head too or within itself, subjected itself again to the former apostolic See. What can be more punctual for the full defence of my intolerable mistake? And yet, saith he, every one meanly versed in History, knows 'tis thus. But I demand whether Anastasius were not so, nay, whether there can be produced any one Historian, that doubts of it, much less that affirm the contrary. But, saith he, 'tis manifest by Pope Gregory's Letters to the Bishops of that place, who was made Pope in the year 590. whereas Pogonatus began his reign in the year 668.] This is a manifestation indeed fit for one who had once spent so may lines to set down the nature of an evid●nce, as the standard for future discourse between us. And what if one should put this into mood, and figure, and exact of it a conformity, with the most vulgar of those necessary rules? It would then run thus, Pogonatus began his reign 78. yeares after Gregory ascended to the Papacy and G●ego●y wrote Letters to the Bishops of Ravenna, therefore Rav●nna held not the patriarchate without dependence from Rome, from the reign of Valentinian to Pogonatus. A conclusion very irrefragably inferred, and yet there is no possibility to assist this medium of his, unless it may some way appear from those Epistles of Gregory, that Ravenna was not independent in his time. But that from S W. his arguing no way appears, no one passage being by him tendered from thence, unless what was before cited from Li. 5. Ep 8. and that hath already been accounted for, and cleared to have no such intimation in it, but onely that he sent him the Pall, and confirmed the privileges of his Church, which by the Emperours Rescript were sufficiently authorised, if he had not confirmed them. Many other Epistles indeed this G●egory wrote to the several Bishops of Ravenna, many to John, l. 1. and 2. some to Marinian, l. 4. and 5. and to the whole Church, l. 5. and in these he oft takes upon him to find fault, especially for the frequent using the Pall in public processions; but this proves not their dependence on him, either de jure, or de facto, either that it was really due, or by them acknowledged, and yielded to him. Nay many indications there are to the contrary, privileges pleaded by them, though by him denied to belong to them. And indeed, had he really consulted either the story, or Gregories Epistles, he must have discerned the truth of mine, and the groundlesnesse of his affirmation. For of John III. to whom Gregory's Epistles are written, l. 1. and 2. it is by the writers for the most part, resolved, that he was the first Archbishop of Ravenna, qui palam tentaverit, who made a public attempt this way, drawing many of the Bishops of Italy to his side. See Hist Raven. l. 4. p 181. and 184. where the whole contest is set down, collected punctually out of G egory's Epistles,( and he that shall compare them, shall find it done exactly) together with a copy of John's Epistle to him, modest, but yet standing to his privileges, with a Nullus ergo contra me Domino meo conetur sucripere, quia si vult, Deo custode non esse potest, quòd à me al●qua novitas fuisset introdu●ta,& ●djuro vos per ipsam sedem Apostolicam, ut in nullo, Ravennati E●clesiae privil●gia quibus huc usqu● usa est, minuatis— looking on Gregory's disputing his privileges, as an invasion, and intolerable innovat●on, and adjuring him by the dignity of his place not to be guilty of it. And so nothing can with the least show be inferred from the Epistles of Gregory, against the truth of what I affirmed from Anastasius, concerning the independence of this Church, held out till Pogonatus's time, i.e. till the necessity of their affairs,( occasioned by the invasion of the Longobards, and want of relief and support from the Greek Emperours Vicarii) drove them to the Bishop of Rome for aid, who would not give it, but upon this price of giving up their former liberties. What he adds again of the Ravennates being schismatics as well as we,( though even now one of his answers was taken from the Pope consenting to the Edict, and I am sure Gregory ost professes to have confirmed their privileges) ought not to be of much force with any that knows his Notion of schismatics, such as yield not obedience to the Universall Pastorship of the Pope, which is evidently the question at this time, and should be gained and won, not assumed and begged by him. But at length he is content that plain reason should judge in this controversy. And what reason doth he offer to prove, that the Ravennates pretended {αβγδ} from the time of Valentinian's Edict was an act of schism? Why, saith he, at the breach of the Ravennates from their subjection, the Popes made head against them, and stood upon their authority, as Universall Pastors, which therefore in all likelihood would have been looked on by the rest of the catholic Bishops, as a proud usurpation, and being against their common interest to let the Pope pretend this, ought in all reason to have engaged them in the Ravennates quarrel, and there being no news of such siding, one may at least conjecture, that they thought the Popes pretence to the P●imacy lawful. Here is the plain reason we were promised, which at the beginning of the Paragraph undertook to judge in the controversy, and yet when it hath had audience, the utmost that S. W. that produced this plain, decisive( that sure must be demonstrative) reason, can dare to say of it, is, that it is able to induce a conjecture, and in a matter of fact contrary to his interest, they would indeed be strangely weak grounds, on which one, i.e. S.W. would not found a favourable conjecture. And yet this is the solid pregnant reasoning, beyond all possible confute, 'tis pity to enter farther into the secrets of it. Yet I cannot but mark, 1 that the Ravennates {αβγδ}, given them by the Emperors edict, was of the same nature exactly with the many other examples frequent in the Church, of Primacies conferred by the imperial Constitutions, which were never resisted, or checked at, at the time of their first donations. 2. That if S. W. his way of arguing hold, then it follows as consequently, that what Valentinian did, was no innovation or assuming of undue power. For then in all likelihood it would have been looked on by the catholic Bishops as such, and this no way appearing, one may as reasonably conjecture, that they never deemed it unlawful, especially if to this we add, what the stories tell us, that John III. of Ravenna, that contested with Gregory about the Pall, had gotten many of the Bishops of Italy to his side. See Hist. Raven. p. 180. Thirdly, That if the collation of this Independency be it, which S. W. calls the breach of the Ravennates from their subjection, it is in no degree true, that at that breach, i.e. at the time of their first assuming this {αβγδ}, the Popes made head against them. This I shall assume from what he even now supposed, when it appeared useful to him, viz. that the Edict was made not without the Pope's consent,( and by Pope Gregory's confirming their privileges) for if so, then sure they did not make head against it, for that were strongly to dissent, and express their dissent, which consequently must have been visible, and then he could never have been so blind, as to deem them consenting. 4ly. That the first dissent that S. W. takes notice of, is that of P. Greg. who, according to his own just computation ascended to the Papacy, An 590. and that is 158. years after the date of the Rescript of Valentinian, and for ought yet appears, the Independency was undisputed for all that time, a pretty competent space for a proscription. Fifthly, It is not yet proved by S. W. that the Popes thus early, no not this Gregory himself, which disputed Ravenna's privileges, stood upon their authority, as Uni●ersall Pastors of the Church( as he assures me the Doctor will grant, and thereby signifies nothing, but that he is not very ready to prove it) I am sure he sadly Ep ex Reg. l. 4. Indict. 13. Ep 32. and l. 7. Ep. 30. complains to Mauritius the Emperour of the proud and pompatick style, the name of vanity, the new and profane words of Universall bishop, which John Bishop o● Constantinople had attempted to assume, adding, that for all the eulogies and promises made to S. Peter, he was not yet called Universal Pastor, and infers this horrible absurdity upon it, that whereas some of his Predecessor Bishops had been heretics, Nestorius, and Macedonius; if this title had belonged to that See, it must follow, that the Universal Church, à statu suo corruit, fell from her state, when he that was thus styled Universall Bishop fell; withall assuring the Emperour, that he did not pled his own cause, or avenge his private injury: which assures my charity, that this Pope could never assume this title of Universal Pastor of the Church, or make head against Ravenna, standing upon this,( i.e. the Papal, as that is above, Patriarchal) claim of authority: And indeed, this was before Boniface's time, who was the first, to whom Phocas gave that title, and therefore I may with all reason assume, that as yet the Popes could not make head against Ravenna; on that score. sixthly, When this title was assumed, and then the Ravennates Independency became such an Ey-sore, most intolerable to the See of Rome, there is no necessity, that all that looked upon it, as an usurpation, should engage in the Ravennates quarrel( though, as hath been said, many of the Bishops of Italy sided with them) weakness and fear, and many other secular considerations might interpose, and leave the just cause to be oppressed by the unjust; and there is no consequence to be drawn from not engaging in the cause, to the not approving of the innocence. The Greek: aided the Ravennates a while, but the Longobards were too hard for them; and the Papacy taking this advantage, would either leave them to be devoured, or would themselves prey upon them; and the Ravennates were not the first examples of those, that bought their lives at this price of subjection to the Romans. So perfectly vain, from one end to the other, is all my Disarmer's discourse in this matter; 'tis a long work to discover most hastily all the flaws and nullities in this procedure, and judgement of his plain reason. Lastly, When he demands how the Ravennates behaved themselves in the business, d●d they stick close to, and constantly claim their non-subjection from Canons or Scripture?] The answer is obvious, they stood to it, as long as they were able, and at length they yielded to necessity, mean while never vouchsafe either Scripture, or Canons. It is the Popes singular privilege to vouch both those, without all right to either: the later, as long ago he did in the African Council, from the Canon of Nice, when no authentic of the Council sought for in the East, could be found to own any semblance of any such Canon; the former, as his Successors have oft done from tu es Petrus, and Pasce oves— where the words being found, cannot be discerned to have any such importance. The Ravennates pretended, what they had, the Edict of the Emperour, and long continued custom, for the enjoying of their privileges, and could not have been refuted in this plea, if their secular affairs had not first made it necessary to wave the insisting on it, and if afterward the Pope had not prevailed with another Emperour Justinianus {αβγδ}, to subdue, and inflict severity on them. And thus I doubt not, the steadiest, and best radicated privileges may be extirpated, and if rescinded by the same power, that first gave them, I shall after that, no longer pled for the continuance of them: and so I was far enough all this while, from falling justly under the censure of resisting the decision of those who were lawful Judges in the matter; all that I did was to vouch the privilege when it was given, and before it was judged fit to be taken away again by the Emperour, and that S. W. cannot but know, is all, that was any way useful for me in this testimony. SECT. IV. The Exemptions from patriarches in Balsamon. His Discourse of Patiarchs no way deregatory to Rome's canonical Rights. S. W. his unjust exactings. The removal of the Patiarchate of Aquileia to Grado. S. W. his Exceptions answered. TO the other examples which I had cited out of Balsamon, of Ex●mptions held by the Emperours Charter, his answers are also remarkable. First, saith he, Balsamon seems in this very place and treatise, to pled for the Greeks against the Bishop of Rome, and then an enemy's saying is no slander.] I answer, The thing which I produced from Balsamon, was the exemption, or independency from Constantinople, that some Archbishops had by the Emperours Charter, and then what colour of pretence is there, that this should be a part of a plea in Balsamon for the Greeks against the bishop of Rome? Certainly, Constantinople is not Rome, nor the interests of Constantinople the interests of Rome. 2. That this discourse of Balsamon's, from whence this testimony was cited, lays its ●oundation in the Synods of Nice, Constantinople, and that in Trullo, and from thence evidently deduces his conclusi n for the numb r and order of Patr●archs, giving Rome the first place, and so is no way injurious to the just Cano●icall rights of the Bishop of Rome; and if being so, it must yet be deemed an opposition to his other pretensions, this is little for their credit, that they are thus improved beyond what those Ca●ons allowed them. But whatsoever S. W. will think of that, 'tis most evident that the test money which I vouched out of that discourse, had nothing to do with that controversy, 'twas onely a casual mention in him( on occasion of the {αβγδ}) of some Metropol●ta●e, that had from the favour of Emperours an {αβγδ} with some ho●o airy ●ri●ileges belonging to it, as of a known matter of fact, which could no more be qu●st●oned, than the {αβγδ} and immunity of Cyprus and Bulgary, which he had name immediately before, the one from the pretensions of Antioch, the other from the Metropolitical power of Thessalonica, under which it formerly was. Next, saith he, If we may trust Balsamon, then two things must lye upon the Dr. to prove, ere he can conclude any thing, to wit, that the Emperours did it not with order from the Church, or in case they did not, that it was done lawfully, and next, that the Emperour privileged them from subjection to the P●pe, as head of the Church. To these I answer, 1. That all I was to prove, was, that the Emperour, and so other Princes, have power to erect and translate Primacies, &c. And such ancient examples of the Emperors practices, never checked at by them, in whose time they were, is a competent proof of that; and if it should prove, that the Canons of the Church gave either general or sp●cial order, that thus it should be, 'tis so much the better, so much the more unquestionable, that thus it belonged to them. 2. That I can in no reason be required to prove that the Emperours exempted them from the subjection to the Pope, as head of the Church, when 1. it is but a begging the question, to assume thus, without proof, that the Pope is head of the Church; and 2. it is manifest that the Emperours did not then look on him as head of the Church, for then they could not have done such ecclesiastical acts, imperiali authoritate, and {αβγδ}, by imperial authority, and Princely writs. And 3. I had my full design in having shewed, that Princes may erect Primacies, without proceeding in every period to demonstrate that anew, which had been the design of the former Chapters, that Primates were free from all subjection to this pretended head. His answer to the mention of the erection of the Patriarchate at Grado, is still suitable to his former. I had cited out of Warnfridus, that this was done under Phocas out of Eginartus and Regino, that it was done by Charles the Great. And he catches presently at the shadow of the word[ under]& then saith, it seems the testimony says not it was done by him, but under him, or while he reigned.] I answer, 1. That [ under Phocas] in the first place is to be taken exactly in the same sense, as in the latter is expressed in the words [ by Charles the great] the onely question among the Writers being, not, whether it were done by the Emperour, or no, but onely, by which of the Emperours, or in whose reign it was done. This was the onely cause why I cited it in that form, because I was not sure, to which I ought to adhere of the two mentioned authorities, where yet 'tis visible that it is as much to my purpose, if Eginartus say true, as if Warnfridus; and from him it was cited, that it was done by Charles the great, and not onely under him, or whilst he reigned. 2. Saith he, Since it was not of new erected, but translated thither from Aquileia, burnt not long before by the Longobards, it was no sign of a presumed jurisdiction, but rather of a pious generosity( in the Emperour) to bestow a new seat on the destitute Patriarch.] And I that grant it was not a new erection, but translation from Aquileia, have yet as much by this instance, as I designed, viz. that the Emperour, and so other Princes; in like manner, may translate, as well as erect Patriarchates; and sure if this might not lawfully be done by the Emperour, it could never be an act of pious generosity in him to do it; charity and piety( or pity) to the distressed, and generosity, must always be founded in justice, and then as pious generosity may fitly move one Prince to it, so any other lawful, much more necessary care of the good of his subjects, may as reasonably move another; and then this was all I contended for by this instance. What he saith he omits, and yet mentions, the reading the Epistle of Pope Pelagius II. in the Council of Grado, granting to Elias the place of the Patriarch of Aquileia.] I may be allowed to omit also, it having certainly nothing of force in it, the Patriarchate having been there placed, before that Council was called, and then the Pope's grant sign●fies no more, but that he had nothing to object against the lawfulness and fitness of the tr●nsla●ion, as it had past, or if it were also a confirmation of it( such acts the Popes have been willing to multiply above what was necessary, to gain considerati n and honour to themselves) this may be willingly granted also, upon h●s title of W●stern Patriarch, which I never doubted to yield him, without diminution or prejudice to any of my pretensions And so at length we are gotten to an end of this his fourth Section. SECT. V. The 12th Canon of Chalcedon rescued from mistakings. Abuse of power. The effects of that. Irregular grants of metropolitical power. {αβγδ}. Honour. The Objections answered. THe 5. Section enters on the view of the testimonies, which I had brought for the erection of Metropoles, by the power of Princes, out of the Canons of Councils, and first begins with that from the twelfth Canon of Chalcedon,& Balsamon's note upon it. And first, saith he, the Council saith onely that those cities were honoured {αβγδ} with the name alone, which the Doctor englishes, name and dignity, the later of which, saith he, they wanted, that which should dignify them in a degree of a Metropolitan, being absolutely interdicted them by this very Chanon, in these words, {αβγδ}, let them enjoy onely the honour: And secondly, wh●t this honour was, Balsamon tells, onely {αβγδ} to be called a Metropolis: And thirdly, answerable to this are the words of the Council, calling the former Metropolis, in contradistinction to this, the true one, signifying the other to be merely titular.] Here is a specious show indeed, and the Reader may be imposed on, if he do not please to take this caut●on with him, that there are two things considerable in that twelfth Canon; one, the premising a mention of the practise, or custom of erecting Metroples {αβγδ}, by regal constitutions( as the latter part of the Canon, the words of the Scholiast, and the mention of {αβγδ} Potentates, interprets it) the second a censure, or sentence of the Council on some persons, who had in an undue manner, acquired this dignity by that means. Those things, we know, that are in themselves most lawful, when regularly used, may be very fit to be forbidden, and censured, when irregular. And thus it was here, a power Princes had to erect Met●opoles: but if it were exercised so, as to thwart known Canons, and customs of the Church, this certainly was an abuse: As for example, One Canon it was, that there should be but one Bishop, of one Church, and one metropolitan of one Province. See Photii nomocanon: Tit. 1 c. 120. Another, which is oft repeated, that dioceses and Provinces should be preserved entire, without one Bishops encroaching on another; If therefore where there is one metropolitan already, to whom the government of the Province by right belongs, another ordinary Bishop in that Province shall by ambition, base solicitation, whispering, or false suggestion, gain a pragmatic from the Prince, to make him a metropolitan also, {αβγδ}, saith the Canon, so that by these means there are two metropolitans in the same Province,( which must needs disturb the administration, and invade the rights of the former metropolitan) here certainly is an abuse, fit for a great Council to take cognizance of, and provide against, and by censures to reduce this irregular Bishop to some order. And this was exactly the case here, and consequently the Canon begins with {αβγδ}, It hath come to our ears how contrary to the ecclesiastical Canons some men running to the secular powers have by Pragmaticks cut one Province into two, and therefore the Synod declares, that no Bishop shall dare, or attempt any such thing; or if he doth, he shall fall from his own degree; but those that have formerly been thus honoured by the Kings writs, they shall enjoy the honour alone, but the rights shall be preserved to the true metropolitan: where there is nothing more clear than this, that the irregularity of the particular erection, in respect of these circumstances and consequences, of unworthy solicitation in the Bishop, and the tearing a Province into two, to the bringing in of violence and confusion, was i● that made that Council censure such ambitious persons: and yet this so, as not wholly to cassate the Princes act, even when 'twas thus irregular; much less to intimate in the least, that such power belonged not to the Prince, or would not stand valid to all effects, if it were duly exercised by him, without wrong to any. The validity of such acts is fully cleared by the seventeenth Canon of that Council, and by the 37th. in Trullo, and the way of reconciling this {αβγδ}, or seeming difference, is clearly set down in that Tr. of Schism, from the law of Alenius Comnenus, and the Canon under him, as is visible in the latter part of that 14. Sect. viz. that in case the King did it {αβγδ}, of his own incitation, it should stand good, but it should not be lawful for any by base solicitation, to seek or obtain it, and consequently, that the Patriarch suspending the confirmation till he had remonstrated to the Emperour, what the Canons were in that case; if it appeared that the Emperour did it {αβγδ} of his own motion, he was presently to admit it. So that now it will soon appear, what justice there is in all S. W. his suggestions in this matter; as 1. when he saith, that the Council saith onely that those cities were honoured with the name alo●e, charging it as a fluency of the Doctors expression, that he e●glishes it[ name and dignity.] I answer, that I well understand what is meant by such fluent, or large expressions, and will never once be willingly guilty of any such, and therefore to clear myself in this particular, I wish it be remembered, 1. that as {αβγδ}, name, is the word here used, so {αβγδ}, dignity, or honor, is also used of the same thing in another part of that Canon and even when it is said by way of censure on them, that the● shall enjoy {αβγδ}, no more but that, yet it is {αβγδ} still, and that is ordinarily rendered honour, or dignity; 2. before this censure falls on them, when {αβγδ}, name, is mentioned alone, yet the verb joined with it is {αβγδ}, they were honoured, i.e. dignified by that name( for honour l. 14. D. de muner.& honor. say the Lawyers, est administratio provinciae cum dignitatis gradu, an administration with a degree of dignity, so in the African Can. 68. {αβγδ}, they shall be received in their own honours, i.e. their Episcopal powers and offices, and so in Augustine, Ep. 50. i● suis honoribus suscipiendos, in the same matter) which they could not be, if that name were not a dignity to them that had it; 3. {αβγδ}, ordinarily signifie● dignity and power, and not onely name, as when the name of Christ, and of Jesus, in the sacred style signifies more than the bare name, or title, the power and dignity of his person. All which, I suppose, will justify me for englishing {αβγδ}, by, name and dignity of Metropolis. But then 2. when he saith, the Council saith onely that they w re honoured with the name alone.] There is no sincerity in this, for 1. the word [ alone] is put in by S W. 'tis {αβγδ}, name, not {αβγδ}, name alone: 2. 'tis in the second part of the Canon( that which sets down the mulct, or punishment of those which had unduly ascended to this dignity) that that interdict is found in these words, Le● them enjo● onely the honour] and not in the first part, where the name and dignity, which they received by the pragmatic, is mentioned, and consequently 'tis so far from being hence inferred, that they had from the pragmatic nothing but the name, that on the contrary, 'tis clear by the Canon, which thus punisheth them for their offence( that they shall enjoy {αβγδ} the honour alone) that if they were not thus punished, or before they were, i.e. before the making of this Canon, they should and did enjoy more than the honour alone, and so more than onely the name. 2. When he saith Balsamon tells me what that honour meant, viz. onely to be called a Metropolis: This is another falsification, for besides that he saith no more than this, that some asked, and heard, or were told thus, i.e. that some thus interpnted it, beside this, I say, it is clear, that this of the being onely called metropolitans, was the punishment inflicted on them by the Council, which, as I said, resists not, but necessary supposes, that they had further honour, than merely that titular, conferred on them by the Prince, for otherwise they could not be thus mulcted or punished by the Council for their irregular ambition, by having it taken from them. 3. The contradistinction between this and the true Metropolis, is of no force to his, or against my pretensions. For that again onely signifies, that the rights did truly and duly belong to the other Metropolis, and that this which was thus unduly advanced, though by the Emperours constitution, did not acquire any just or solid right, which I most willingly grant, in such cases as that which was there mentioned, and can from thence receive no pre udice to my conclusion, viz. that in the East many Emperours had erected metropolitans, which was the main thing to which I designed that testimony, both from the words of the Canon, and from Balsamon, who affirms it distinctly of the Metropolis of Lacedaemonia, of Madyta and Abydus, and never gives the least reason to suspect that those acts of these were invalid. Thus wholly vain are all S. W. his {αβγδ}, and consequently his suggestion, that the consequences of this testimony are totally against myself, though thus indeed they might seem to the hasty reader to be, before his Arts of disguising, by confounding the distant parts of the Canon were thus discovered. Herein I aclowledge he hath shewed himself a dexterous manager, but as it falls out, hath made no real advantage of his artifices. What he yet farther adds in the fourth place from Balsamon, that he shall be ordained and judged by the old metropolitan, is already answered, that this was the Councils penalty inflicted on him; as for others that should after that Canon attempt the like, the Canon decrees that they were to be degrad●d from the pow●r which they already had. As for the fifth thing, of the power given to the Prince {αβγδ}, which he will have rendered olim, by some precedent Council, it was, upon some occasion, spoken to in the Reply, cap 6. sec. 4. n. 19. and evidenced in whatsoever sense it were taken, to be favourable, and not contrary to my pretensions. SECT. VI. Balsamon's words of the Emperour's erecting many Metropoles. Of what times to be understood. {αβγδ}. Helenopontus. Paphlagonia. Phrygia Capatiana. Cappadocia prima, secunda, Basil. Anthimus. IN the next place, on a view of a first observation of mine, that if Balsamon say right, that at the time of that Council of Chalcedon, many Emperours had erected many, there must needs be others before Valentinian, who was but twenty yeares before that Council; he saith, the observer is fallen into a great mistake, Balsamon's words being to be interpnted, saith he, in his own times, in which he lived, i.e. 600. yeares after the Council, that then such Metropoles were made.] To this I answer, that Balsamon's words lie indifferently, without notation of the particular time, of which he speaks, onely {αβγδ}, divers Kings have honoured divers, so that neither can I conclude from the bare force of them, that he spake of any before that Council, nor he on the contrary, that he spake of those of his own times; to which it belongs, must be judged by other circumstances; and though the matter be not great, which way it be determined, nor at all necessary to my pretensions, to be interpnted of the times before the Council, yet I shall mention the reason, which inclines it that way, and let it be of force, as it shall deserve. Upon the mention of divers bishoprics thus dignified by the Emperours into Metropoles, he mentions his opinion, collected from the 17. Canon of Chalcedon, and 38. in Trullo( {αβγδ}— it appears to me from those Canons) that such {αβγδ} were made by Kings, according to the power given them, {αβγδ} from above, or of old; Here first I shall gratify S. W. that {αβγδ} may indeed signify olim, and if it so signify in that place, then it must in all probability refer, not to this Council of Chalcedon, and in Trullo, which he names, and from which he concludes that this power was given them of old, but to times before those Councils. And so this very probability, if there were no more, will make it unreasonable to confine his precedent words[ {αβγδ} divers have been honoured] to the times so long after that Council, as those wherein Balsamon lived, when the words will bear so much a greater latitude,& signify such grants before that Council. Now that it doth thus really refer to some more ancient times, I thus farther infer, 1. from the nature of the word {αβγδ}, which is all one with {αβγδ} from the beginning, and elsewhere frequently notes an original right, from the first, i.e. the Apostles times, or first plantations, And agreeably to this 2. from the general aphorism, which we have in Origen, who was before this of Chalcedon above 200. yeares, {αβγδ}, that the governor of the Church in each city must be corresponding to the Governou● of the inhabitants of the c ty, viz. the civil governor; which, supposing what is undoubted, that a K●ng may dignify an ordin●ry ●ity, and make it a Metropolis, amounts to the same effect, that he may by consequence thus advance a Bishop into a metropolitan; 3. and chiefly from what Balsamon here adds, {αβγδ}— for this cause, i.e. because of this power, which was of old given to Kings, the third chapter of the first title of the third book of the Basilica was out of use, or obsolet●, continued not of force in th● Church. To understand the importance of which words, 'tis necessary to consider what that chap. is, which he saith was by this means cut-dated, and in what times it was so. What that chapter was, he tells us expressly, though it be now( as being long difused) left out in the Basilica. It is, saith he, to be found in the 20. chap. of the f● st title of his present work, i.e. of Photius's Nomo-ca●on. Thither if we turn, we shall find the first part of it to be this, that there must not be two metropolitans in one Province; which how it was out of use, or obsolete, and when or how long it had been so, appears by the {αβγδ}, or text subjoined, {αβγδ}— Helenopontus hath two metropolitans, as appears by the 28. Novel, Pap●lagonia divers, as the 29. Novel witnesseth, and so Phrygia Capatiana, and the second Cappadocia. Now by these examples I may assume to prove, what I have in hand, for in what time these examples shall appear to fall, of those in any reason Balsamon's words must be interpnted. And for the former of them, those that are mentioned from Justinians Novels, the case is pretty clear; they both were evidently thus, long before Justinian's time {αβγδ}, {αβγδ} saith he of one of them, 'twas in some former Governours time, not naming whose, that it was ere●ted; but of the other, that of Paphlagonia, he saith expressly, that it was done, {αβγδ}, in Honori●●'s time, {αβγδ}. and that we know was before this Council of Chalcedon, and before Valentinian, which was all that I attempted to prove from Balsamon's words. As for the instance of sicunda Cappadecia, 'tis manifest that it was the act of Valens, colleague to Valentinian the elder, and so evidently before those times either of the Council of Chalced●n, or the other Valentinian. This instance is considerable to the main business, and not insisted on formerly, and therefore I shall a little enlarge on it Caesarea had at first been the one Metroplis of Cappadocia, and Basil the Great, Bishop of it; but Val●ns dividing Cappadocia into two Provinces, the first and second Cappadocia, made Thyana Metropolis of the second, and Anthimus was Metropolitan of it. Upon this grew a contention between Basil and Anthimus, Basil insisting on the ancient customs of the Church, {αβγδ}, and the original division of the Fathers. Anthimus, on the {αβγδ}, or civil forms, or const●tutions saith Gregory Nazianzen, and Anthimus overc●me, and then Grego●y Nazianzen himself, Basil's dear friend, that had formerly favoured Basil's pretensions, doth after that expressly aclowledge the Bishop Ep. 88. of Thyana for his Metropolitan( Nazianzum being in Cappadocia secunda) and implores his aid to set some other B shop in his place, now he was by sickness disabled to discharge it, in these words, {αβγδ}— If the Province had any other h●ad, I should appeal to it— {αβγδ}, but you being advanced to that place, I must nec●ssarily look and seek to you. And this still continued valid, and firm, and Justinian, that by Edict retrencht those two formerly name, Helenopontus and Paphlagonia, was so far from retrenching this of Cappadocia, that he made a yet farther change, {αβγδ}, saith the Scholiast of Nazianzen in Fun. Or: Patris, he cut it into three, erected a third Cappadocia, and Mucissus the Metropolis of that, and the Ecclesiastical Government followed, as appears by Euphranta, Bishop of Thyana, and Theodosius, Bishop of Mucissos, in quinta Synod. Collat. 5. sub Justinian. Having said thus much for this interpretation of Balsamon's words, and upon this occasion added these evidences of the ancient practise, and power of Kings to erect metropolitical Churches( according to the rule of Demetrius Chomatenus, Archbishop of Bulgaria, {αβγδ}, the King advances from a lesser to a greater honour, viz. from bishoprics to a Metropolis) I should be willing to compare and balance with it any arguments that S. W. could produce for his opinion, that Balsamon speaks of his own times. But he hath been so reserved, as not to offer any such( onely magisterially) to affirm, that the Doctor is fallen into a great mistake, but 'tis not worth arguing or clearing) and therefore I have no more to add in this matter. SECT. VII. Rights of Kings acknowledged and confirmed by Councils. The Testimony out of Balsamon on Conc. earth. Can. 16. The grievous mistake, whose it is. The Kings canonical power, and liberties. Destruction of our Hierarchy no way imputable to the asserting of them. WHat now follows for a leaf together, p. 147. by way of answer to my second observation, and to the same purpose in another leaf, p. 149. in answer to my second testimony, doth somewhat surpass in its kind, all that hitherto hath been afforded us. The breviate of it is this; when I undertake that Kings have power to erect or translate Metropoles, Primacies, and Patriarchates, and to prove it, produce( beside known and allowed practices) the decrees and Canons of the Church in Council, that so it shall be, presently he concludes, that the Doctor disputes against himself, he is, saith he, to prove that it is the Kings proper right, independent of the Church, or her Canons, and he brings for proof a Canon of a Council, and calls that a more express attributing this power to the Prince, which is indeed not attribuere, but tribuere, not an acknowledgement, but a bestowing and conferring it;] And on he runs a very fair loose in this chase, and clearly carries all before him. Of this I have already spoken to the catholic Gentleman, Repl. p. 112. and I shall need add but this, that the rights of Kings have been ever since the Apostles times preserved inviolate by all good Christians, that what without and before Universall Councils, reasonably belonged to them, hath by Universall Councils been yielded to them. And this I deemed a fit way of judging of any particular right, whether it belonged to them or no, by enquiring what the Christian Church hath still yielded to them, meaning thereby not the Decrees of the Pope, S. W. his pretended head of the Church, but the Canons of the ecumenical Councils, truly so called, and the avowed Doctrine of the Universall Church, by which it hath always been yielded lawful for P●inces to dispose of, and administer matters of exterior order in the Church, and so to erect or remove Patr archates, and consequently beyond all dispute, Princes still have this power, and the Pope, that at his creation hath vowed to observe all those ancient Canons in violate, cannot without violaton of his oath attempt to deny any christian Prince this power in his own dominions. To this all that S. W. hath to object, is, that the Church confers this power on Kings, and so doth not attribuere, but tribuere, attribute it, but bestow it.] And I that meant not to dispute of such niceties in Grammar, or mysteries of State, desirous to unite the civil and ecclesiastical power, and not to sow seeds of jealousies or dissensions betwixt them, finding the same thing assumed by Kings, as their right, and yielded them by the Church to be enjoyed by them( for that sure is all that Balsamon's words can import, which he thinks so much for his advantage, {αβγδ}, we say th●t by this present Canon( in Trullo) 'tis yielded to the Prince to erect bishoprics anew, for 'tis certain that in Trullo being after the Canon of Chalcedon, it was not by this present Canon so given him, that it was not his before, and the other testimony, that affirms this privi●ege given to the Kingly power, {αβγδ} indefinitely, by the divine Canons, will stand him in little stead) thought I might hence conclude this to be unquestionably their due, but whether it were from God immediately conferred on them, and independently from the Church, or whether the Church in any notion were the medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them, truly I neither then was, nor now am, inclined either to inquire, or to take upon me to determine, being sure that this is not the ●inge, on which the con●roversie betwixt us can depend, when it shall once be granted, that as now things stand in the world, Kings have this power really vested in them; this being most certain, that they that give the King any thing, do not, if he had it before,( nor indeed can be imagined to) take it away by giving it him. This Dilemma will secure both my pretensions, and my method of arguing for them; if this were the Emperours right, before the Church yielded or gave it to him, then sure the liberality of the Church is not so much worse than an {αβγδ}, as to betray and rob him of it; If it were not formerly his right, but the Churches, then sure it is become so, by that donation. And when both these powers concur in the same instance, the King doing it of a presumed right, and the Canons of the Church expressly according with it, what doubt can there be of the conclusion? Thus the same Balsamon tells us in that very place, of Alexius Comnenus the Emperour, whose Edict S. W. here cites, that he made a {αβγδ}, an imperial decree, {αβγδ}, in the presence of the Synod that then was, and with their consent also, {αβγδ}, that it was lawful to the Pr nces to grant to churches the chair of presidency, and to advance bishoprics& A●chbishopricks into Metropoles; where as the decree is the Kings, and the Synod onely is present, and consents, so 'tis not that decree that gives the right, but it was by the Synod granted to be the Princes right before, or else we are to believe that they would not have consented to it; and again in case it were granted to be first given to the Prince by the canons of the Church, i.e. by the Cano●s of some universal Council, and that resolved to be the sense of that Emperors words in that Edict, {αβγδ}, the privilege given to the regal Power by the divine Canons; yet being so given, 1. it cannot now be taken away by the power of the Bishop of Rome, who is himself obliged to observe all such Canons: and 2. it cannot want any new act of the Church to enable the Pr●nce for the exercise of it; the power which he hath so long enjoyed, is of itself sufficie●t to every particular act comprehended under that power, and wants no authoritat ve new concurrence, or consent of the Church for the consuming of it. And truly when in the close of that Paragraph S. W. hath fairly confessed, that for the Emperour to erect metropolitans, is an indulgence or privilege granted and given him by the Church in her Canons.] I may well conclude the debate, having my whole conclusion granted me, as far as I pretended in that Section, and as far as I need ever pretend in order to our present controversy. I now proceed to behold him in the second part of career in the same field, the {αβγδ}, wherein he promises himself such victories, having at the very entering on this stage, the good fortune, as he thinks, to have left his adversary behind him irremediably, over head and ears again, saith he, in a grievous mistake.] But the word [ again] yields me some comfort still. For, if I have been once in this condition already, and yet escaped that danger, 'tis more than possible I may again meet with the like deliverance, of which I shall not despair, till I have examined what it is, wherein this grievous mistake consists. Why, saith he, the doctor begins thus, And accordingly the same Balsamon( on Con: Carthag: Can. 16.) doth upon that Canon professedly found the authority of Princes, {αβγδ}, to advance an Episcopal See into a Metropolis— whereas, saith he, neither doth Balsamon found the authority of Princes to execute such acts on that Canon, there being not a word in it to that purpose, nor doth he professedly say any thing as of himself— and had he said it, I conceive it no such strong argument, that a professed adversary should speak so professedly against one.] Among these three heads I am set to seek out my grievous mistake. And for the last of them, I hope it will not very heavily oppress me, when S W. in his last paragraph made use of Balsamon against me; and to say no more, I see not why a learned Patriarch of Antioch that had served the Church of God so worthily in his great and excellent pains on the Canons of the ancient Church, should not be worthy to be name in a controversy concerning the Interests of the Church, or why it should not be as great a prejudice to S. W. his pretensions, that this Patriarch should be a professed adversary of them, as it can be to ours, that the Pope of Rome is not favourable to them. The like I may resolve of the second, for 1. granting that the words made use of are by Balsamon cited from other men, yet the opinion of others recited by Balsamon, and not disproved by him, but made use of, for the removing a difficulty before him, was, as I thought, by interpretation, the profession of Balsamon: And 2. those others would by their plurality be rather of greater, than of lesser authority than Balsamon, to prove that this Canon was esteemed in the Church a ground, whereon to found the authority of Princes, which was the onely thing I vouch from it. 3. If the first objection have indeed truth in it that there is not a word in the Canon to that purpose, then it matters little who 'tis that founds this authority of the Prince on that Canon, be it Balsamon, or any other, whom he cites, the mistake is equal. The weight then, or grievousness of the mistake must, I suppose, be laid on the first of these, that the Doctor cites any, that professedly found the authority of Princes on that Canon, which, saith he, hath not a word in it to that purpose.] But now, what if the mistake should be on S. w his side after all this? Thus he must certainly be obliged to aclowledge, when I have minded the Reader of one trope, I know not whether involuntarily, or industriously put upon him by S. W. When in accord with what had been said in the former part of that 14th§. from the Canon of Chalcedon, I city out of Balsamon the professed founding the authority of Princes on that Canon( in a parenthesis expressing the place in Balsamon, where it is to be found, on council: Carthag: Can: 16.) he hath made a shift to interpret my words to this sense, that I affirm that the authority of Princes is professedly founded on the 16th Canon of Carthage, which indeed saith not a word of it. Now what a project for victories is this? and who would ever submit to such meannesses, that could hope for any other way of tolerable subsistence? The short is, the 12th Canon of Chalcedon, as that is reconciled with, and interpnted by the 17th Canon of that Council, and the 38th in Trullo, was the subject matter of that section, and upon that Canon( that sure is the Canon of Chalcedon) Balsamon, or those in Balsamon, found the authority of Princes to advance Episcopal Sees into Metropoles; and though the 16th Canon of Carthage have not a word to this subject, yet Balsamon's Scholia on that Canon do thus, though but occasionally, mention it: If there be any question of this, do but turn to the place in Balsamon, in Synod: Carthag: p. 627. where having recited the very words by me set down that the King hath power to do many things, among these {αβγδ}, to advance an Episcopal See to a Metropolis, and to constitute Bishops and metropolitans anew, he adds, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}, they use the 12 and 17 Canon of Chalcedon, and the 38 Canon of the Council in Trullo, which command the same things. What now can be more evident than this, that 'twas not I, but S. W. that was in this grievous mistake? Or if yet he shall insist, that there being mention in the line before, of council Carthag Can 16. [ that Canon] in the subsequent must refer to that earth: Canon: I answer, that those words( on council. earth: 16.) are in a parenthesis, the known nature of which is, that it may be left out without disturbing the sense, or connexion of the ensuing with the precedent words: And then the sense must be complete thus, leaving out the parenthesis. The same Balsamon doth upon that Canon professedly found the authority of Princes— and then 'tis not possible to feign any antecedent for [ that Canon] to relate to, but the Chalcedon Canon in the former part of that Sect. What here he hath gathered up out of that place of Balsamon, that the King is neither under laws nor canons, and therefore he may securely do this; from whence he collects, that this power of the King to remove Patriarchates, is deduced from no other ground than this, that his will is his law, that he may lawfully do what he lists, adding, that these grounds supposed, he blames not the inference that he should erect, transplant, nay pull down, not onely Bishops and patriarches, but the whole Hierarchy itself,( your present lot, saith he, consequent to these your grounds) this is still of the same unsincere piece, and is visibly so as soon as ever 'tis remembered, that they that say this of the King, {αβγδ}— city three Canons of Councils for their affirmation: For sure if the King have this power, in their opinion, by the decrees of Councils, then he hath it upon some other ground than this, that his will is his law.— The short is, the ancient Canons have made prohibitions, and interdicted Bishops some things, which yet the same Canons allow them to do, when it is by the Kings appointment, they forbid any Bishop to meddle with secular affairs, to encroach on another mans dioecese; so again they forbid any ordinary Bishop to take upon him to be a metropolitan, nay to seek or solicit for such increase of power to his See; and yet they allow a Bishop to meddle with such secular ministries, {αβγδ}, when the Prince shall thus appoint, and in that case {αβγδ}, he shall not be hindered or hurt by the forementioned Canons: so again they allow liberty to the Prince to advance a bishopric into a Metropolis, and the like, adding that the King {αβγδ}, is not subject to laws and Canons, i.e. these laws and Canons that were made for the retrenching other mens enormous irregular actions, were never meant to extend to the restraining of the Prince, as appears by the very words of these Canons, which yield this power to the King, though they take it away from all others. Thus in Demetrius Chomatenus his first answer to Cabasila, Jur: Graeco Rom. l. 5. p. 317. {αβγδ}, this of a Bishop removing from See to See, is not caconical, neither by any wri ten nor unwritten tradition, yet 'tis ordinarily done upon the command of the King for some administration useful to the public, adding by the way of general aphorism, {αβγδ}, such things as these the regal Edict alone hath power( that sure is not a violent tyrannicall presumption) to change and innovate; and by and by after a great deal to this purpose he concludes, {αβγδ}, 'tis easy to learn all this from the volumes of sacred and divine Canons, which it seems allow this. And many the like may be met with in ecclesiastic Writers. And for this there is evident reason, because what would tend to injustice and disorder, being done by Bishops on their own heads, or from their own ambitions, being yet ordered and commanded by Governours, whose office it is to judge of public commodity, and accordingly to give rule in it, tends to the most contrary ends, preservation of peace, and order, and justice, and all that is desirable among men. 'twas not possible S w should be unable to discern this, whether in the practise( so frequent) or in the palpable reasonableness of it, and therefore the fault is the greater, that he should 1 thus shuffle together things that are most distant, the irregular wills of swans, and the Canoni●all liberties of Princes, and then vouch as our grounds, that the Prince may pull down the whole Hierarchy itself, and having ascended to this high degree of that which no Christian should once be guilty of, speaking confidently what he knows hath not the least semblance of truth in it, 'tis admirable that he should yet be able to transcend himself, and advance to this most superlative pitch of affirming our present lot( the pulling down our Hierarchy) to be consequent to these forementioned grounds, as if he which died in the defence of the laws and hierarchy of our Church, had been guilty of the demolishing of it. 'tis hard I confess to reply to such reasonings as this. SECT. VIII. Anselm's interpretation of 2 Thes. 2.7. lawful power of Kings. Kings founders of bishoprics in England. Regali authoritate, in the Charter for battle Abbey. bishoprics bestow d by Kings by Investiture. Non-reception of Legates. Kings power to remove Patriarchates prejudicial to the Papal, not Patriarchal pretensions. HIs next tender of answers to my 15. and 16. Sections, begins with many good words to anselm, in pure gratitude for the kindness he expressed to the Pope, in saving his authority, before he would consent to the erection of the bishopric of Ely. And seeing he is by S. W. afforded the elegy of the gravest Prelate our country hath ever been honoured with, for this one merit of refusing the Kings sole authority to conclude such businesses, without his and the Pope's consent.] I shall ask him what he thinks of Anselm's words on 2 Thes. 2.7. Romanus Pontifex qui tenet nunc Ecclesias, teneat illas donec de medio fiat, i.e. donec ab ipsâ Romanâ Ecclesiâ quae est medium& cor Ecclesiarum, fiat iniquitas, ob quam ab eâ multae discedant Ecclesiae. The Bishop of Rome, who now holds the Churches, let him hold them till he be taken away, i.e. saith he, till iniquity be committed by the Roman Church itself, which is the middle and heart of the Churches, for which many Churches depart from her. What ill luck was it that S. W. his profusest acclamations should be bestowed upon one that hath no better deserved them? I have no more to say, but to desire the Reader to red over the Sections, to which they are accommodated, and onely to remember, that when I speak of the power of Kings, I speak onely of their lawful power, such as was by all disinterested persons accounted really to belong to them, such as is approved and allowed them by the Canons of the Unive●sall Church, and in the exercise whereof, the Bishops or Governours of the Church then being, expressed their sense that it was so, and concurred, as far as they were concerned, to the acts of it( yet this still without the authoritative consent, or concurrence of the Bishop of Rome, as to this Realm of ours) and that for any all-lawful inerrablenesse, as he calls it, I that do not allow it the Pope in any his narrowest sphere of motion, in his own territories, or chair, did never pled it to belong to Kings in theirs; Nor do I any more pretend, that they which are obliged to make no law, bu● by consent of Parliament, should make laws of themselves, without and against that consent, which is all the Reply due to his Answer to the instance of Kenulphus in his next Paragraph. As for his other answer taken from the Kings founding of abbeys— it will rather assist, than prejudice our pretensions, who aclowledge him founder of our bishoprics also, and from thence framed an argument for this power of his, Sect. 18. What he adds of Regali authoritate, in the Charter of William the conqueror to battle Abbey, that it signifies the Jus Regis, 1 Kin the power of the sword, and injustice, and this consequent to his being the Emperour] needs no other answer than this, that he that came in by the sword, professed to rule by law, and is no more to be presumed to have broken his oath, than the Popes that vow to rule according to Canon, though they have come in by S●monie. And the part cular Charter by me cited from him, having the attestation of the Bishops and Barons joined to his regal author●ty, 'tis to be presumed( there appearing no cause of fear to extort it from them) that they thought it agreeable to regal●tie and justice too, what he thus did, or would not have thus attested. The three particulars behind in this 5. Sect. have been briefly touched on already here, or in the Reply, and there is no appearance of weight in what is here suggested, to exact my farther enlarging. For, 1. If the Kings of France and England, and Emper●urs of Germany, have always claimed to bestow bishoprics by investiture, then I must still suppose this some prejudice, or retrenchment to the Pope's Universall Pastorship as S. W. will enlarge the fringes of it; and this his own words confess to me, when at length he mindes me of the Pope, and Clergie's resistance to Kings, that usurped these In●estitures: for if so they did, sure they must be thought to have deemed it some invasion of their pretended rights, that the K ngs thus claimed and enjoyed them, or else they would not have been so peevish to make such unjust at once, and gainlesse resistances. And this was all that I pretended from that instance. So also for the Legates receptions, it cannot miss to be an indication of the Supreme power of Kings in all causes within their own R●almes, and consequently of the no Supremacy of the Pope, that his Legate, which is interpretatively himself, cannot without leave from the Prince, lawfully enter the kingdom, or exercise any jurisdiction in it, this sure being the privilege of every Supreme governor, that his Dominions should lie open to him, and to the {αβγδ}, 1 Pet. 2.14. his {αβγδ}, be they ordinary Judges of circuit, or fixed Procurators, or any that any way represent his person, as certainly Legates do, and are therefore styled {αβγδ} from his person, or a later, from his side, and come, and are either received, or rejected in the virtue of him that sent them. Of this see the Reply, p 124 And then the greater the number is of such nations, which still deny this liberty of admission to the Pope's Legates, the more proof, there are of the no Universal agnition of his Universal supremacy. And lastly, for his suggestion, that all this while I mistake the Papal power for a Patriarchate. See Reply, c. 6. sect. 4. n. 21. or remember that the Supreme power of Kings being once asserted( particularly to this, to erect in their realms, Primates, or Bishop● independent from all foreign power) is a competent prejudice to the Popes highest pretensions, those of the Universall Pastorship, and indeed most proportionable, and particularly adequate to that, and was never designed by me, as the E●gine to oppugn his Patriarchal just rights, nor if it had, could it have hoped to be successful to that end. The unlimited Papal usurpations are they, that are found unreconcilable with the power of Kings in their own realms, as one society cannot have two Supremes. This advertisement may assure him, I was not so blind as to mistake Rome's pretensions to bee for no more than a Patriarchate; If I had, I should either never have disputed at all, or have made use of some other arguments, viz. the Pope's fastidious rejecting and disclaiming that title, relinquishing and renouncing those his just rights, in order to these higher pretensions. SECT. IX. Testimonies of the power of Kings in the Church vindicated, From Demetrius Chomatenus. {αβγδ} Constantine in an assembly of Bishops. His ecclesiastic laws. {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}. The Bishops and the Kings power. Constantine's titles, and oversight of Bishops. lo Isaurus styling himself {αβγδ}. Socrates his testimony of the Churches dependence on Kings. HIs sixth Section, after some of his wonted Discipline, to remind me of what I was competently assured, that I was far gone in his displeasure, is pleased to apply answer to my marginal testimonies concerning the power of Kings in the Church: And first, to that of Demetrius Chomatenus, Archbishop of Bulgarie, in his response to Constantinus Cabasila, Archbishop of Dyrrhachium, where he had no temptation to flatter Kings, yet affirms, {αβγδ}, the King is as it were the common director and ruler of the Churches, both in title and reality: he answers, that this signifies rather he was not so, then was so, unless I can prove, that quasi, as it were, can bear the sense of revera, indeed and in reality; where to make short, and gratify S. W. I shall undertake to prove what he thinks so impossible, both that {αβγδ} can, and in that place must, signify revera, indeed, and in reality. And 1 I premise that the rendering {αβγδ} by quasi in latin, or, as it were, in English, cannot prejudice the notation of the word in Greek, particularly in the use of that Writer. {αβγδ}, saith Hesychius and Phavorinus, denotes {αβγδ}, and is in ordinary use the same with utpote, scilicet, videlicet, as, to wit, and so hath no intimation of a bare show, or similitude, as that is opposed to reality. In the fifth line of that Response, {αβγδ}, it was not lawful for me— as knowing well— where sure he affirms himself really to know, and not in resemblance, as that is opposed to truth. So within few lines after in the first page. {αβγδ}, I have been in danger to preserve neither, as being slow( not onely appearing to be so) in respect of obedience, and thus tis evidently in this place; the occasion of the Speech is contained in the words immediately precedent, which I had occasion to recite even now, that the King hath power by his sole Edict to change some things in order to public advantage, which the Canons of the Church have determined, {αβγδ}, saith that Bishop, his command or Edict hath power, and that {αβγδ} alone by itself. And the words themselves in the full period, of which I cited but the breviate, run thus, {αβγδ}— For the King, as both being, and being called the common director and ruler of the Churches( evidently {αβγδ} in the notion of utpote) hath the presidence over the synodical determinations, and gives them the validity, regulates the Ecclesiastical orders, and gives law to the life and conversation of those that wait on the altar, and more to the same purpose in that place, which sure will abundantly reprove S. W. his {αβγδ} from the quasi as it were, which he thought would stand him in such stead, to avoid and retort the force of that first testimony. The second testimony from the words of Constantine, he thinks hath brought in great pomp to his triumphs, but it will not prove so upon the review: For 1. the words I said were spoken in an assembly of Bishop; but I did not say, in a general council of Bishops, nor meant I, nor foresaw that any, either the simplest reader, or learned as S. W. should ever mistake me so. We use [ assembled together] Act 1.4. of Christ and his Apostles, when the Greek {αβγδ} signifies eating together, and the propriety is equal, and the word in frequent use, for being together in any common meeting, whatsoever the occasion of the assembly be, and therefore S. W. hath sure gained little by this: It was, I aclowledge most willingly, at a festival assembly of B●shops, that Constantine thus spake, yet I suppose that no more prejudice to the truth of his speech, or to the importance of it, than if it had been spoken in the very Council of Nice, or in any other the fullest, and solemnest assembly; and therefore it was no such rare {αβγδ}, to add to S. W. his great successses, that either he found the place in Eusebius, which is vulgarly known,( and therefore could not, as he suggests, be prudently omitted by me) or to find the Emperour and Bishops at di●ner, when he came, or that he was fain to seek to his latin Eusebius to spy this, and make his reports of it. 2. Whereas S. W. resolves, that there never was testimony, nor can be imagined ●n so little room more expressly witnessing that Kings ha●e nothing to do with ecclesiastic affairs, than this of Constantine, which the D●ctor brings to prove the contrary] I desire this may be judged, 1. by the immediate antecedents, then by the words themselves in the original Greek, and not in his misrendring latin Eusebius. The immediate antecedents in that Euseb. de vit Con●● Edit Rob S●●ph ●ol. 150. very page., tell us of many {αβγδ}. laws of his concerning the observation of the Lords day in all the Provinces concerning a set form of prayer to be used by all( {αβγδ}, and again, {αβγδ}) concerning the use of it by the Roman Souldiers in their vulgar, i.e., Roman tongue, concerning h●l● d yes, or the feasts of Martyrs, and some other the like, which sure were exercises of power in Ecclesiastical affairs. Then for the words themselves, it matters little what the title of the chapter in the latin edition is, when Eusebius neither wrote La●ine, nor, that we know of, affixed titles to his chapters. The words in the Greek might easily have been come to, Eusebius {αβγδ}, is not so great a rarity, and S. w was lately willing we should know he could red Greek: And there th●se are the words of Eusebius {αβγδ}, literally, he deal vered this speech, that he was also an overseer, or Bishop, adding the very words in which he delivered himself; in that Writers hearing, {αβγδ}, literally thus( seeing paraphrases of obscure words must not be endured, when they sound to S. W. his disadvantage) ye are Bishops of the things within; the Church, or overseers of the Church, of the things within, but I am constitu●ed under God, Bishop, or overseer of the things without. Here 'twas neither my interest nor design to take the word {αβγδ} Church( as S. w suggests) for a material Church of ston, but for the Congregation, or assembly of Christians, ruled or administered by the Bishops in some things, by the Emperour in others. Matter of sacred office of Funct●on, administration of Sacraments, second nation, excommunication, and the like, which are the {αβγδ} the internal acts were peculiar to the Bishops of the Church; but the {αβγδ} matters of external order, such as were even now mentioned out of Demetrius Chomatenus, be● ng to the Christian Emperour: he is by God appointed to be the {αβγδ}, Bishop, or overseer, or administrator of such: and among these is particularly set down in the ensuing relation, the inspection and care of the lives of Ecclesiastical persons, which by his adjoining exhortation, he expressed to be one part of his {αβγδ}, and certainly this is an evidence of the Empero●s power in Ecclesiastical matters and so in spiritual things in that notion of spiritual, for matters of external order in the Church, such is erecting or translating Metropoles, &c.) so is it the very thing that I was to con●lude from that, and the other testimonies: And so all that S W. hoped to have gained by a corrupt Lat ne copy, which, saith he, renders {αβγδ}, intra& extra ecclesiam Episcopi( which the particle {αβγδ} demonstrates to be a senseless rendering) is visibly come to nothing, they were things of the Church that Constan●ine was governor of, as well as those that the Bishops administered; all the d fference this, that the former were but {αβγδ}, external matters of order, &c of the Church, and Churchmen( whereas the Bishops inspection, or rule, belonged to other matters) to which agrees the sense of the Greek Church expressed in the Calendar of the Church of Constantinople, styling that Emperour {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, an Apostle among Kings, and equal● to an Apostle, not onely in assisting the plantation of the Church in so eminent a manner,( which gave him the title of Rel gionis& fidei author, the author o● religion and saith, in an Gruter. p. 15●. old Marble) but in the governing it when it was planted. What he farther adds out of the latin copy, to render his interpretation more probable, and that all that was meant by his calling himself a Bishop, was, that it was his calling to exhort all his subjects to led a pious life] is again a pitiful stratagem; for whereas his latin hath, animum in omnes qui ejus suberant imperio intentum habuit, hortatus pro virili ut piam vitam excolerent, the Gree●k reads {αβγδ}— he don't or ruled, or took care of all his subjects( and the Clergy and Bishops themselves, if we may believe the Fathers, were of that number) and exhorted them most earnestly to follow a pious life, and as long as the Bishops did continue to do so, there was, I hope, no need of more than exhorting. 3. For the words of lo Isaurus, that told the Pope he was {αβγδ}, as well as {αβγδ}. S. W. was able without an interpreter, to have understood the meaning of them, the very same that the Kings of England have assumed, not to be Priests in the strict notion of that word {αβγδ}, that had been very extravagant indeed, and that puts it out of question, that it was not meant by him, but to have power {αβγδ} in sacred or ecclesiastical matters, and not in civill onely; and 'tis more reasonable and Christian, to say with J. C. in Goldastus, that Gregory II. was not so passionate a pretender to the enclosure and monopoly of all Eeclesiastical power, but that he could allow the Emperour his part of it, then with S. W. to pronounce an Emperour extravagant, Archheretick, infatuate, because he had unhappily incurred his displeasure, by saying what was not for S. W. his interest, to have believed from him. Another [ thirdly] now follows in answer to the testimony of Socrat. that from the time of the Emperors receiving the Faith, the affairs of the Church depended on them]& this is very sharply rebuked, and poor I, for the sake of it. 1. Because the word Supreme is not there to be found, and because the affairs of the head may depend on the arms and shoulders, and because I catch at a word, and think to deduce thence a full sentence.] But to all this the answer is brief; 1. That the Church, whose affairs are there spoken of, is not the head, but the body, and that on, or( {αβγδ}) from which the body depends, is still the head, though the head itself may in some sense depend on other parts of the body. 2. That 'tis plain the dependence here spoken of, is of the inferiors on the supreme, by that which here follows, as a proof of it in the next words, {αβγδ}, and the greatest Synods have been, and are convoked by their appointment, and that sure is an evidence of their supreme power, for neither the arms nor the shoulders were ever called to that office of convoking and indicting of ecumenical Councils, but onely the supreme power, wheresoever that was placed. SECT. X. Optatus his words of the Pope's headship. Petrus Primus, in many respects before Christs promising the keys. Caput omnium Apostolorum. Cephas. Cathedra Apostolica, in other Churches as well as Rome. Romes change from the Primitive zeal and faith. Power of Princes to suppress schism. Ecclesiastical persons not secured from Interests. THe place in Optatus, noting it as a schismatical piece of language in the Donatists, to say, Quid imperatori cum ecclesiâ?] might, I doubt not, have been easily found in him, if S. W. had looked with that design; But sometimes diversion is the best way of answering arguments, as of avoiding of enemies forces, and accordingly this method is here chosen( and I am so obedient to all his directions, as to attend him in it) In that second Book of Optatus, he finds, forsooth, that ancient Father calling the Doctor schismatic, and quiter confuting and contradicting all his books, saying, Negare non potes scire te in urbe Româ Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse collatam, in quâ sederit omnium Apostolorum caput Petrus, then he proceeds to reckon up all the Popes of Rome, till Siricius, cum quo nobis totus orbis in commercio formatorum in unâ Communionis societate concordat, and afterwards— probatum est nos esse in Ecclesia sancta Catholica— per Cathedram Petri quae nostra est,& per ipsam caeteras dotes apud nos esse, etiam sacerdotium, and th●n alas poor Dr. H. who having lost communion with that Church, hath lost also his Priesthood, mission— if this holy Father say true.— I shall have S. W. his pardon, I hope, for the digression, and then being very unwilling to wave the considering any thing brought out of antiquity to this purpose, for the Pope's supremacy; I have no other temptation to decline following him {αβγδ}, through this whole passage, not meaning to cast off this ancient Fath r, as he hath styled Optatus, for no other fault, but that, which neither he nor S W. could mend, of not being born in due time, or having wrote after the 300th year, which he is pleased to fancy the fatal period, lower than which we will allow of none, with how little ground of truth, may anon appear also. The fi●st advantage then, I suppose, designed from Optatus, is, that he calls Petrus P imus, for those two words are written in Capital letters; And I answer by these steps, 1. that thus much was sure to be met with in the first 300 yeares, even in the Evangel●st●, {αβγδ}, which I have oft acknowledged, and is the same in Greek that this is in latin; 2. that Peter might be first in some oath r respects, without bringing any advantage to S. W. his pretensions, which depend onely on his Pri●●cy of power and authority, not amongst, but over all others. First he might be in age, and if he was not so simply of all, yet without question of those three, to whom Christ generally vouchsafed his special favours above the rest: 2. he was in Discipleship first, as the signifies, the following, and in strict attending on him( though Philip were first called by Christ, Joh. 1. in which respect, saith S●r. 47 d● Pet.& Paul. Augustine, Petrus Pr●mus ●p●stolorum, Paulus no●issimus, Peter the first, Paul the last of the Apostles; one so the first, as tother the l●st: And 3. First in confession, and many om nen● virtues( though the most eminent in falling also) and so first in three considerable respects( and perhaps in as many more, which I discern not) without having the dominion assigned, or promised him over the rest of the Apostles. 3. That the Pr●macy which he had, he had before the donation of the keys, or the tu es Petrus, Mat. 16.( on which, and on what was after that, Feed my sheep, the Romanist grounds it) This appears by Mat. 10.2. where that little is given him, and so by the Fathers Scholia on Mat. 16.16. loci non imm●mo● sui Petrus Primatum egit, p●imatum confessionis utique non honoris, saith S. Ambrose, he was mindful of his place, he had the Pr●macy of confession, not of honour; of saith, and not of order, De Incar. ● and this supposes that he had it before Christ s answer to him, wherein the keys were promised, and that his confession, and Christs answer upon that, was rather the effect, than the cause of his Primacy. And so saith To 4. p 1118. c. cyril of Alexandria, {αβγδ}— as the Coryphaeus of the rest, and one placed before the rest he first breaks out and saith, Thou art Christ— having formerly observed of that Apostle in general, {αβγδ}, he was alacrious and nimble always in a high digree, in respect of forwardness both to act and speak. As for the second title, Om●ium Apostolorum Caput Petrus, 1. That signifies no more than Primus did before, and so exa●ts no new answer: 'tis no news that the word ●ead in all languags should denote oft times the Primacy of second r, not Supremacy of Jurisdiction, as when Antioch is called the head of the Christian world, because they were there first called Christians: 2. 'tis no special observation, that O●tatus calls him so, others did so before Opta●us, who yet appear to have designed no eminent favour to S. W. his pretensions; witness Ad J vin. l. 1. c 1●. S. jerome, or rather Jovinian in S. jerome, who calls Peter head, inter duode im unus constituitur, ut cap●te constituto schismatis tollatur occasio, and yet in the very same peri d affirms, that as the Church was sounded on Peter, so 'twas in another place supper omnes Apostolos, upon all the apostles, and cuncti claves coe orum ●ccipiunt, all received the keys of heaven, and ex aequo supper c●s Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur, the strength of the Church is established ●qually o● them all; and if Optatus's words, and the title of Head, may be interpnted by the same style in this place in S. jerome before him, 'tis visible what is become of all the advantage S. W. can reap by that testimony. But then 3. if to the mention of Caput Petrus, in Optatus, he had set down the words immediately following, it would have been little for the dignity of the citation, Omnium Apostolorum, saith he, Caput Petrus, unde& Cephas appellatus est, Peter was the head of all the Apostles, from whence he was also called Cephas. But doth Cephas a ston signify a head with Optatus? was the Greek {αβγδ} a head, drawn in to favour this etymology? This may lawfully diminish one's reverence to these words of Optatus, though I preserve it never so entire to his other excellencies. As for the rest of the words recited, that the whole world agrees in one society of Communion with Rome, and that they that have the Chair of Peter are by that proved to be in the holy catholic Church, and to have the rest of the dowries of a Church, particularly the Priesthood.] I doubt not but it hath perfect truth in it, and so it would also, if it had been spoken of any other of the Apostles plantations, the Chair of S. John in Asia, &c. the meaning of the chair being evident to signify the ruling power of the Church brought down( as it was in every apostolic See) by succession from the Apostles, which, saith he, the Donatist● could not pretend( and l. 3. he expresses it in another style, Unitatem cum toto orb● terrarum,& cum memoriis Apostolorum— habere noluistis, Ye would not have unity with the whole world, and with the memories of the Apostles, in the plural, as well as with S. Peter) and so must be pronounced schismatics. Thus in the same second book, he useth the same language of other Churches as he doth here of Rome, Extra septem Ecclesias, quicquid foris est, alienum est, Whatsoever is without the seven Churches( of Asia, mentioned Rev. 1.) is strange, or schismatical, and so of Tibi unitas displicet; hoc si crimen putas, argue nos Thessalonicensibus, Corinthus, Galatis— communicasse. Thessalonica, Corinth, Galatia. All which enlarges these pri●iledges of the Church, and so the Priesthood and mission among them, to all other Churches that have continued their succession from the Apostles( as I doubt not, we of the Church of England have done) and confines them not to the Roman See, exclusively or peculiarly; and so the poor Doctor may retain his priesthood, and mission, and power to preach, and not be fain to seek out the Donatists Ghosts to hold communion with, and yet this Father be allowed to be of age to speak, and by my free consent his testimony be taken. For beside what hath been already said, this farther consideration will not fail to supersede all force of this argument from Optatus's words. The See of Rome had from the Apostles to Optatus's daies shined in that lustre as to be the most eminent Church of any in the world; and if it had done so still, there might still have been place for Optatus's words, but since the change hath been so great, that I may well take up Pri●cus's words in Excerpt: {αβγδ}, The Faith and Government of the Church of Rome was Apostolical and good, but the later Governours being not affencted as anciently they were, have so●ely wasted it. God give her a return to her primitive zeal and faith. So that S. W. may now return from whence he came, to the view of my testimony, and free himself from the number of those Donatists, which would not allow the Emperour to have any thing to do with the Church: and all that he hath to say to it is, that being the nursing Father of the Church, his power was to be granted sufficiently authoritative to punish and repress the Donatists.] And if the Prince elsewhere may have the like power to repress all those that transcribe the Donatists guilt, or schism, though they are most unwilling of any to own t●e name, then truly this is all that I ever designed to conclude from this testimony, and this being in these granted me, I have no more to contend for, this being no season to descend to the hypothesis, or application. What he fastidiously subjoins to the mentions of the Heathen practices in that margin, I shall not attempt to make reply to, having pla●ed no trust in that medium, though it could not, I thought, be amiss to annex the consent betwixt all Professions, of false, as well as true Religions, in this Do●trine. But if his severi●y be such, that the mentions of Heathens puts him into ill humour, he may please, the next time he views that place, to pass more slightly over it, and not think it necessary to refute every casual marginal note, which might be allowed such an unconsiderable place in a discourse, as this was, without offending any man. In his answer to it, one thing there is which he may please to review and correct at leisure. For though the sacred mysteries and the Churches Government, be incharg'd as he saith, to those persons, whose state of life is purely dependant on God and his service, yet sure there is no show of consequence in what he adds, as the superstruction on this {αβγδ}, that this state of life secures them from being cross byassed by worldly interests, and secular pretences. I hearty wish this had all truth in it, but shall not need endeavour to disprove it, the lives of some such men speaking louder than any arguments. SECT. XI. David's ordering the courses of the Priests. Solomon's Dedication of the Temple. Hezekiah's ecclesiastical Acts, Josiah's. S. Paul's appeal from the Jews Sanhedrim to Caesar, Act. 25.9, 10. Judged before me, v. 9. Capital Judgement taken from the Jews. Justinian's Ecclesiastical laws in the {αβγδ}. S. W. his falsifications and answers. Justinian's charge of Tyranny brought in at a dead lift. Theodosius no Tyrant. THe instances from the Jewish practise now follow: And to the first, of Davids ordering the courses of the Priests; his answer being the same that had lately been given me by Mr. Cawdry( a person of somewhat d fferent principles,) viz. that David was a Prophet as well as a King, I refer him to my answer Account of 3. Diatr. ch. 5. Sect. 4. n. 6. 8. there, that this was no act of Davids prophetike, but merely of his Kingly office, founded on prudential considerations, and the change of times, God having formerly disposed otherwise of it. But it seems his second thoughts have better advised S. W. in this matter, for upon them he presently, in effect, retracts this answer( onely it went against his heart to lose so much precious ink as must have per●shed by blotting it out again) and resolves there was in this no strain of an higher jurisdiction( by higher I suppose he means higher than is ordinary and regular for Kings, and then sure twas done by the King, not the Prophet) and that as his greater zeal might invite him, so his exacter k●owledge might make his assistance requisite to order the courses of the Priests.] And then it seems I was in the right, and my instance was pertinent to infer my conclusion, that for matters of outward order in the Church, Princes were very competent, and no doubt were endued with power and authority from God, or else their zeal and knowledge could not have justified the interposing their assistance in them. To the 2. of Solomon's consecrating the Temple, he answers, it was performed by offering sacrifice, which he himself offered not, but the Priests, so as his consecrating it was nothing else but causing them to consecrate it.] I reply, that besides the Priests part in this work, the offering of sacrifice( which I never imagined to belong to Solomon, nor from thence pretended it lawful for the Christian King thus to invade the Sacerdotal office, in baptizing, consecrating the Host, or assisting any of the {αβγδ}, that even now Constantine spake of) many other acts there were, conducing to that one main of dedicating, or consecrating the Temple, 1. calling the Assembly, and afterward dissolving it again; 2. disposing and appointing the actions of the Priests; 3. making the oration on that occasion; and lastly, the prayer and the blessing of the congregation of Israel, kneeling on his knees before the altar, and spreading forth his hands toward heaven, in the presence of all the congregation; and all these being Ecclesiastical acts, were yet performed by Solomon, 1 Kings 8. and that was all that I designed from that instance, and there neither is, nor can be any question of it. To the t●ird, of Hezekiah, and Josiah, there was more due than his sarcasm will any way defray,( and yet that is all he can afford them) Reforming, within his dominions, the affairs of the Church, exercising the {αβγδ}), or inspection over the clergy, when they neglect their duty, the highest, as well as the lower sort of them, is the least that can proportionably be inferred from what is there done by the commandement of the King Hezekiah, 2 Kings 1.18. and 2 Chro. 28. in removing the high places, breaking the brazen Serpent in pieces, and cleansing of the Temple, and restoring the Sacrifice, and the music of the Temple, and whatsoever was then wanting, or neglected in Gods service, by default of Priests or Levites: And so in like manner, from King Josiah's act in repairing the breaches of Gods house, and destroying idolatry, and restoring, by edict, the solemn observation of the Passeover— 2 King. 22. and 23. To the nothing which he returns to these instances, all that I need say, is, that my conclusion is inferred, and he hath not attempted to invalidate it. The next instance was that of S. Paul, appealing from the judgement of the Chief Priests to the tribunal of Caesar; which if it had any infirmity in it, were not in reason to be imputed to me, but to him from whom I cited it, Gregor. de He mburg, a person formerly well reputed of by Pope pus II. till by defence of the just rights of his Prince, sigismond Duke of Austria, he fell under his displeasure. But it seems though my citation were never so true, yet his name is not able to secure the Doctor from a most grievous mistake, such an one as hath brought a very ill report upon him for the like in almost every place of Scripture he hath y●t pro●uced. What this so unlimited a charge signifies, I thank God I cannot divine, but that S. W. is now a drawing his Chancery-Bill, and thinks it not material, what degree or semblance of truth there is in any thing he casts in. This hath formerly appeared as often as he hath made the like charge, and 't s not improbable it may yet prove so here also, when we have heard what he hath to object. S. Paul, saith he, appealed not from the tribunal of the Jews, but from the tribunal of Portius Festus, a Roman governor, unto Caesar himself, and this he will prove so plainly and convincingly, from Act. 25.9, 10 that he shall need onely to put down the words in our own translation, and so leave the Doctor to be accused either for wilfully abusing, or ignorantly mistaking them. The words he recites, are these, But Festus willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me? Then said Paul, I stand at Caesars judgement seat, where I ought to be judged.] These words then are left by their own native force, without any aid from S. W. to infer his conclusion, that Paul appealed not from the tribunal of the Jews, but from the tribunal of Portius Festus to Caesar himself: Let us see how they will be able to do it: And first, to omit the harder part, the negative, let us examine what they say for the affirmative, that he here appealed from the tribunal of Festus. But for this 'tis most certain, that this text alleged can no way possibly conclude it. It is onely an insisting on his right to be judged by Portius Festus, in opposition in going up to Jerusalem. This the very words by him alleged do evidence, Festus then hath him before him at Caesarea, where he kept the Assizes, v. 6. and he is now sitting on the judgement seat, and it being the Jews request, v. 3. that he might be sent to Jerusalem, Festus to gratify them, v 9 proposes the removing him thither, which Paul di ectly disclaims and refuses, and challenges his right, as a Roman, I stand, saith he, at Caesar's judgement seat; he means certainly this tribunal of Festus, Caesars Procurator, where he stands already, and where, saith he, as a Roman I ought to be judged; he makes no farther appeal as yet in these words from the tribunal, before which he stands, but requires to be judged there. This being cleared, S. W. his affirmative part hath certainly failed him, that of his appealing from Festus's tribunal, in those two verse alleged by him, as the onely medium to conclude it. His appeal to Caesar himself, or to Augustus's hearing, follows in the next words, ver 11. and that expressly, not from Festus's judging him there at caesarea, at the Roman bar, but from his delivering him to the Jews to be judged at Jerusalem, and that I hope is contrary enough to his neg●tive his not appealing from the tribunal of the Jews.] Nothing can be more manifest, If, saith Paul, I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die,( let him be judged there by Festus, and whatsoever the event be, he willingly submits to it without any appeal from that Judicature of Festus, before which now he st●nds) but if there be none of these things, whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them( i.e. to the Jews) I appeal unto Caesar. So that 'tis not from Portius Festus judging him, that he appeals to Caesar himself( if Festus would judge him, he would readily submit to it, and requires it as his privilege to be so judged) but from his delivering him to the Jews to be judged at Jerusalem, i.e. e from that tr●bunal of their Sanhedrim( which represents the Christian Church& where the high priest was the p incipal person, c. 24.1) he makes his appeal to the secular Magistrate, the Roman Em●erour himself, and hopes for much more justice from him, though an heathen prince, than he doth from such a tribunal of Ananias and his consistory. If thi be not yet plain enough, then 1. remember where 'twas that Paul was arraigned,( before Lysias the Roman Commander sent him to Caesarea) at the Counncil or Sanhedrim of the Jews, Act. 23.1. where the High priest sat down to judge him after the law of Moses, v. 3.& from among them, i.e. that Council, the soldiers, by the chief Captains command, take him by force, v 10. thither again they purposed to signify to the chief Captain, that he should be brought on the morrow, v. 15. but upon discovery of the conspiracy to take away his life by the way, he is sent by safe conduct to Caesarea, v. 23. Then upon Festus's coming to the Province, the Jews renew their svit {αβγδ}, that he would sand for him to Jerusalem, c. 25.3. this Festus then denied, v. 4 meaning to judge him by the imperial law at Caesarea, the Iewes being required to go and prosecute him there, v. 5. When nothing could there be proved against him, v 7. Festus having so far changed his resolution, to do the jews a pleasure, proposes his going up to jerusalem, v. 9. the e to be judged before him( what is meant by that phrase, we shall see anon) and this he accounts of, as a delivering to them, and from that it is that he makes his appeal to Caesar, and that I suppose to be from the Iewes tribunal, and so Festus expresses the meaning of it, v 20. I asked him( saith he to Agrippa) whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters; upon that occasion again expressly mentioning his appeal to the hearing of Augustus, in opposition to his going up to Jerusalem to be judged. There is but one possible difficulty which appears to remain in this matter, and that is, what is meant by his being judged before me, i.e. before Festus at Jerusalem, c. 25.9 for that may be thought to infer, that it was Festus's Tribunal, and not the jews, from which he appealed. To this I answer, that the power of the jewish Sanhedrim at this time was but a very limited power, they might not put any man to death, joh. 18.31. and consequently when any was judged by them, if the offence seemed capital, the Roman Procurator was to be called to assist, and thus to sentence, as in the crucifixion of Christ it was manifest. And this is all the reason of this phrase [ before me] because treason against Caesar being put in amongst his accusations, the jews could not judge of such matters, but only take upon them the part of accusers, as we therefore see they do, c. 25.2 whereas for other things concerning their own law, their tribunal was competent to take audience, and give judgement. And this is the importance of those words of Festus, Act. 25.20. wherein he gives the reason to Agrippa, why he ached him, whether he would go to Jerusalem, there to be judged of these matters, i.e. of those questions, or accu●at ons, concerning the Jewish superstition, or religion— because Festus doubted, or was ignorant of them, knew not what judgement to pass in them, and therefore would have had him to Jerusalem, for the Sanhedrim there to take cognizance, and judge of such matters, himself going also, there to sit upon him, in case any capital crime, censurable by the Roman laws, should be proved against him. And from the former of these it is, i.e. the Sanhedrim's judicature, that Paul appeals, as hath hitherto appeared, and onely from that, and so not from Festus's Judicature; For that he was already under at Caesarea( as much as he could be at Jerusalem) and yet appeals not from that, but saith he ought to be judged there, and onely averts the going up to Jerusalem. A visible difference there is betwixt his being judged by Festus at Caesarea, and at Jerusalem before him. In the former he stood onely at Caesar's judgement seat to be judged by none but his Procurator, according to the Roman law; and if he were found guilty of no capital crime, rebellion, and the like, he was sure to be set free; and this he feared not, wheresoever he was judged; but if he went up to Jerusalem to be judged there, then whatsoever his innocence were as to such capital accusations, he might be deemed guilty of some breaches of the Judaical law, and for them be judged to other punishments, such as remained in their power, by the Sanhedrim, and besides the high Priests, and chief of the Jews, that pressed so earnestly that he might be remanded to Jerusalem, had a treacherous purpose in it, having laid an ambush in the way to kill him, Act. 25.3. and so Paul had all reason to appeal from this proposal of delivering him to be judged by the Jews, though none to distrust Festus's sentence at Caes●rea: and so still it is most visible, that from this it was, that his appeal was made, and not from Festus's bench at Caesarea, which was the thing I undertook to conclude from these passages. Thus have I clearly deduced this whole matter, and evidenced the truth of Gregorius de Heimburg his observation, not that that Emperor was head of the Christian Church, but that S. Paul expected relief from this heathen Emperor against the oppressions of the high priest, and his Sanhedrim, which is all that from Heimburg was pretended. And then who will ever take S. W. his word again about a grievous mistake, who yet never had the luck to be himself in the right, when he came in the greatest rage of Discipline to chastise mistakers. If there be not in all his darts some desperate incur●ble poison( by strength of the old aphorism, Cal●mniare fortiter, aliquid haerebit) I shall for o●ce adventure to advice S W. if it be but for his own interests, never to cry [ grievous mistakes] again, till he hath gotten some firmer title to infallibility, then yet he hath attein'd to, lest still it be the looking-glasse, and not the perspective which helps him to all the mistakes. In the last place he is come to that meanness of changing my words, that he may get some advantage of carping at them, which otherwise he must miss of I said that in the {αβγδ}, the wh●le third Book is made up of Justinians, that is of the Emperors, constitutions de Episcopis, Clericis,& sacris, concerning Bishops, clergymen, and sacred Offices. And he will read this, that Justinians third book is mad of Constitutions de Episcopis, Clericis& laicis, Bishops, Priests, lay-men, and then answer, that all the laws found there must not be necessary Justinians.] What will this dealing advance to, by and by? First, laicis must be suborned to turn out sacris, and that we may be sure the Printer had no hand in this. 1. the Englishing it l●y-men, instead of sacr●d Offices, and 2. the no notice of either of these in the Errata, is full evidence. And then what trust is to be given to such fingers? 2. How came we by the mention of Justinians third book? Or what third book doth he mean? I spake of the third book of the {αβγδ}, which if he knew any thing in the affairs, or Canons of the Church, is a Synopsis of LX books universi Juris Romani set out 80. yeares since in Greek and latin with scholia, by Jo: Leunclavius. And if he knew not what belonged to this, why might he not have softly glided over it, rather than have adventured blindfold, and in the first words changed th●s into Justinians third book of He knew not what, and then solemnly applied answer to it, which cannot possibly be accommodated to the matter in hand. Keepers, saith he, of laws, use not onely to put in th●ir law books those constitutions themselves made, but also those they are to see observed, among which are the Canons and laws of the Church made before by councils and other ecclesiastical powers.] But this cannot be applied to the present instance. Tis certain, Justinian personally made many {αβγδ} concerning ecclesiastical matters, which are now visible in his Novels, each of them clothed with those particular individuating circumstances of the authors name, and the persons to whom they were written, which remove all possib●e doubt in this matter, and the third book of the {αβγδ} is a collection or breviate of such as these, which are thus at large to be found in his Novells, and there discerned to be none but his. Such luck hath S. W. constantly, when he combats blindfold. But he satisfies not himself with this fi●st answer; he hath a second, that Justinian may make constitutions of his own concerning Bishops and Clergy-men, in what relates to temporal offices, or as they are parts of the civil Common Wealth.] But it is evident if he will now upon advertisement turn to the Basilica, or to the N●vels themselves, that many of them are of matters purely Ecclesiastical; I must not adventure losing my reader, and myself, in reciting them. But because this answer was so feeble also, a third is called in, to relieve at a dead lift: If neither of these answers will serve, If he shall be found to have made any laws concerning them, and with ut the authority of the Church, then, saith he, let the Dr. prove he had power to make such, minding me of the note of tyranny which is objected against Justinian. But 1. this is strange hewing asunder, instead of untying of knots, and difficulties; If the argument could be answered any other way, then justinian may stand right in the Court; but if S. W. be so driven up to the wall, that he have no way to invent for his escape, then in great sadness justinian must be cont●nt to be a Tyrant, rather then S. W. be foiled in this manner 2. though justinian for some other unkindness to the Pope, have been looked on unkindly by the Romanists, and called by some ill names, so long after his death; yet I believe S. W. will not be able to produce any Romanist, which hath affixed this ill character on him upon this single score, which alone I have now insisted on, making of constitutions for the good gov rnment of the Church, and then I hope he that hath offended once, is not under a necessity of doing all things amiss; if so, truly S. W. will have a hard time of it, can never redeem, as long as he lives, what he hath offended in this one leaf, if as he judges this Emperor, he shall be judged. But to conclude, 3. my argument vouchsafe the Theodosian Code for decrees in Ecclesiastical affairs, and this reserve of the Emperors being a Tyrant is no way appliable to him; and so we have done with his last answer. For the appendage of this argument, and answer concerning the Canons of the Councils receiv●ng their authority and publication from the Emperor, I need not reply, having never pretended, or seemed to pretend what he charges on me, concerning the Emperors Negative voice in the Council; what I pretended, I spake out in plain words, that the Canons have been mostly set out, and received their authority by the Emperors( and this receiving their authority, is I suppose, in order to their powerful reception in their dominions) and this he acknowledges in the fullest latitude, not onely mostly, but always, and so we are for once friends, though he knew not of it, and no man knows how little while it will last. As it is, twill be a good season to sit down in peace, at this end of the 6. Section. SECT. XII. Answer to his seventh Section. Strictures on the lighter part of it. Ethelberts erecting the Primacy at Canterbury. removal of Primacies, and Addition of Provinces, to whom justly assignable. Caerusks remove to S. Davids. Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis. From York to Canterbury. THe first three pages of his 7. Sect: have no appearance of weight, or difficulty: to which any more answer is in reason due, then the Section in the Treatise, to which they belong, will readily, if it be consulted, afford any man. But he, 1. finds fault with parentheses, which are a very visible part of the Scripture style, and so may not reasonably be found fault with in mine, 2. misreports my arguing, which neither denies tradition as he would have it, nor lays any more weight on the negative argument than evidently belongs to it, and requires not of him, as he suggests, to find the name of Primates or patriarches in Scripture, but saith that there is no imaginable obstacle there, against which though but interpretatively the Prince can be said to offend, when he shall make such changes; and 3. from faber fabrilia tractet he concludes it the testimony of common sense, that Kings must not meddle with such matters, as if none could ever judge which were the largest city, and most fitly accomplished to be a Metropolis, but he who had spent his age in the study of Divinity, which yet no way belongs to it, and 4 he resolves that nothing hath been said either to disprove the Popes Universal Pastorsh p, or to evidence this right o● Kings to remove patriarches, to be founded in the Canon of Chalcedon— when I have all reason to think, that he hath not said one word in defence of either of these pretensions, which is not now answered, and when without any id est, the 17th Ca●on of Chaledon is plain, that whensoever any city is erected or restored by the Imperial power, the order of the Ecclesiastical divisions shall follow the Civil forms; Of which, and of the Canon in Trullo, and the acknowledged force thereof to this matter, I have in this Reply enlarged abundantly. But what he next proceeds to, hath transported him into several passions, betwixt which he hath found out another grievous mistake, if it have but the luck to stand good to him; However it makes a dish in the bill of Fare, that allowance of an house to dwell in and meat to eat, is the erection of a Primacy. And was it not truly said of old by the Deipnosophist, that {αβγδ}, Cooks are Poets, and that a little skill in that art is sufficient to convert the Rape root into a delicate fish service, at a time when nature denied, and all the Ocean would not afford the like. Just thus is it here, I said that Canterbury or Dorovernia was the seat of King Ethelberts kingdom, and proved it by the words of Bede, who calls it lib. 1 c. 25. Imperii sui totius Metropolis, and that King at the time of Augustines planting the fa●th did erect a Primacy in that City, not bringing any proof of this, but mentioning it as a certain thing, that needed no probation. And he very diligently seeks out the place in Bede, where those words are, Imperii sui Metropolis, and finding there a mention of his giving them a mansion and food, this forsooth must be dressed out for my proof of his erecting a Primacy there, and that at a time when Ethelbert, he confesses, was not yet converted, and all this managed with great demureness, as if I had been really guilty of this senselessness. The short is, I did really prove from those words, what I designed from them, that Canterbury was King Ethelberts se●t of h● Kingdom, but never dreamed of inferring from that place the erecting of an Ec●lesiastical Primacy there. I know that could not be done, till after the Kings conversion, and then it is distinctly mentioned by the same Bede in the lib. 1. c. 26. next Chapter, in the title whereof we red, Ut in urbe Regis sedem Episcopatus acceperit, how Augustine received the seat of his bishopric in the King's city and so in the chapter itself in these words, Nec distulit( Rex) quin— doctoribus suis locum sedis eorum gradui congruum in Dorovern â Metropoli suâ denaret, simul& necessarias in diversis speciebus possessiones confer●et, Th● King deferred not to give his Teachers the place of a seat, agreeable to their degree, in Canterbury his Metropolis, and together with it conferred on them necessary possessions in several k ndes. And there can be no ground of doubting it. The Pope sent hem to preach Episcopum ordinandum( si ab angles susciperen●ur) dispo●ucrat. Bed. 1. c. 23. appointed Augustine should be ordained Bish p, if the English should rec●ive them. The c. 27. Archbishop of Arles ordai●ed him according to the Popes direction. But where the se●t of his bishopric should be fastened, it is not imaginable, who should give order for that, but onely King Ethelbert; the Pope could not, who did not certainly foresee his reception; the ordainer the Bishop of A●les had nothing to do with it, nay, this he was first to have as his title, before he could by Canon ordain him, and accordingly so it is in story, that, and the Pall from the Pope, his ordination, and consecration were both consequent to the Kings assigning him the seat, the first in 27. the other in 29 chap: And so much for the childish piece of insincerity, as he calls it: the reader will now judge, on which side it lies. Next follows the arreignment of my words about the Removal of the Primacies in England, and addition of Provinces, which I conceived assignable, i.e. justly, or so as might agree with the truth of History, assign●ble to nothing but the acts of Princes in removing, and erecting Metropole●; but he affirms these to be assignable, 1. to the Popes power, 2. to the consent of Bishops.] Here if by the consent of Bishops he mean the concurrence of their consent to the Kings act, I shall make no questi●n of that, th●s differs from an authoritative consent, and so still the King might do it, though the Bishops concurred and consented to it: his doing it was never by me intimated to be his doi●g it against their will, but his doing it regularly and advisedly, as in reason, and for the good of the Church he ought to do it. The former then is the onel● matter of question, whether it were the Popes or the Kings act, and as yet there being nothing produced on S. W. his side, but the bare mention of the possibility that the Pope should do it, without all tender of proof, that he did, there is nothing to be answered, or replied by me, yet I shall by one instance( which will suffice in this matter) evidently prove that in that at least, he neither did, nor could do it. The archbishopric of Caerusk in Monmouth-shire was removed to St. Davids in the reign of King Arthur, and that as hath been shew●d, as before Augustines coming into England, so before the Pope had any hold here, and whilst Cae usk was not subject to any other Bishop whatsoever, as hath formerly been proved, and vindicated; and therefore I conclude this is no way assignable to the Pope, without c●n●ound ng, and denying all that our Histories tell us in this matter. As for the addition of Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis, it was certainly done by the Roman Emperours, and those are not the Pope. And the choice of Canterbury for the Metropolis having even now been cleared to be the act of E helbert( though Augustine the B shop there was sent from Rome, and ordained by the Bishop of Arles, and after had a Pall from Rome) the removal of it from London( where it was formerly, even at the time of the Nicene council) must be assigned to that original, and the rather, because that which the Pope in his Letter to Augustine, saith of London, Greg ex Reg. l. 12. In●ict 7. Ep. 15. that the Bishop thereof should semper in posterum à synodo propriâ consecrari, be for ever afterward consecrated by his own synod, i.e. by an Archbishop, never came to any ●ffect, the archbishopric continuing to be established at Canterbury, and no remembrance remaining to us, of Londo●s being an Ecclesiastical Metropolis after this: So that Neubrigensis resolves it must be unstood of C●nterbury, what Greg. Ep. saith of London; l. 5 c 10. discerning it seems, that as to London it found no accomplishment. Lastly, for York, the principal colony of the romans in Britann, and the seat of the Emperours Palace, and the place of the Lieutenants residence, and adorned with other dignities, mentioned in Tract of Sch. tis certain the Primacy continued there, while the Romans held the Government, and after that, while the Britans held England, and in memory thereof Gregories appointment to Augustine after his coming was that Si civitas cum finitimis locis verbum Dei receperit, ipse quoque 12. Episcopos or linet,& Metropolitani h●no●e p rjruatur l. 12 cp. 15. if that City received the Faith, it should so far enjoy the former pr●vilege, as to be the seat of a metropolitan, with twelve Bishops under him, and without any subjection Londinensis Episcopi ditioni, to the power of the Bishop of London, or( as Neubri●ensis with all reason saith it must be understood) of the Bisho● of Canterbury and Sit vero inter Episcopo h●noris ista d●stinctio, ut ipse prior habeatu● qui prius fue● t o●dinatus. Ib. for the future after Augustines death, and to be the first of those two Archbishops which from time to time was first ordained, which again being not agreeable to Canterburies having the Primacy,( for that differs from all such equality) tis evident that that Pope did not remove the Primacy from York to Canterbury; and that any successor of his did, I know not that it is pretended. And thus he sees the grounds of the Doctors reasoning not so irrational, in respect of the process, or unconcluding in respect of the Medium, as he would have persuaded by his sarcasms( not his Reasons) which make up the far greatest part of his confutations. SECT. XIII. The African Canon contrary to the Roman. Lenity to the Donatists. The History of the Canon. S. W. his Exceptions answered. The feigned Revocation, and Request. Romes umpirage between Caecilianus and Donatus, no act of jurisdiction. THat the power which is duly vested in Kings, in case it be taken away by foreign, i.e. by the Popes laws, is perfectly lawful to be resumed by the original possessors, i.e. by our Kings of England, I endeavoured to show a pari, by the practise of the African Church set down in the council of Carthage, Can 71. Where when the Pope had determined one thing about the non-reception of the Donatists, and by letter signified that to the council of Carthage, they prudently and deliberately decree another, and incur no danger of Schism, by this means. This in the treatise of Schism, p. 128. I shortly touched, but now upon this occasion must more largely deduce, to vindicate the truth, and force of that testimony for the inferring of my conclusion. When that great dissen●ion fell out in afric, between Caecilianus Arc●bishop of Carthage, and Donatus à casis nigris, and S. Augustin tells us, Ep. 162. that though Pope Melchiades, by the judgement of his colleagues, or Bishops in Council assembled with him, condemn d Donatus, yet they so spared the Donatists, as many as should repent, that they were ready to give them free choice to regain the peace of the Church, and even for those that had been ordained Bishops by Majorinus, so that they were two Bishops in one See, they thus compounded it, that he that was first ordain d in each See, should be confirmed, and some other Church and flock be provided for the other. And the same he affirms again in his 50. Ep. The Bishops, saith he, in the Church of Rome, thus ju●ged in the difference betwixt Caecilianus and the Donatist, that all, beside Donatus, the aut●or of the schism, should upon ●eformation be received unto their honors, though they had been ordained out of the Church; not that they might have the holy Spirit out of the unity of the body of Christ, but that they might n●t, by continuing out of the Church, deceive others, and th●t being thus m●ldly handled, they might more probably be cured. This was thus resolved in Constantine's time, about the year 300. But 100. yeares after, Pope Anastasius in a Syned at R●me determines a greater severity necessary toward the Donatists, and sends an Epistle to the Council of Carthage to signify this their judgement. The Epistle of Anast●sius, I suppose, is Justel. in Cod. Can. Eccl. Af●. p. 74 not extant, but the Just. Cod. Can. Ec. Af●. p 184. an● B●ls. in Can. p●g. 692. A●ts of the council of Carthage assure us thereof, and set down the sum of it to be an advice to the Africans, that they should not by any means {αβγδ}, dissemble, or proceed with that lenity, toward the treachery and impudence of the heretical and Schismatical Donatists, which did grievously wast the catholic Church through all the African region. On receipt of this later, the African Fathers in Council give humble thanks to God for his mercy,& to Anastasius and his Coun●il, for their pious care for them, as for fellow-members of Christ, {αβγδ}, who though they be situate in several parts o● the earth, yet consist in one ha●mony and concord of a body. But that being done, they proceed conciliarly to handle, and consider that matter, and all things that seemed to tend to the profit of the Church, and finally they resolve {αβγδ}, to continue to deal mildly and pacifickly with them, de●ming that the likeliest means to convince gainsayers, and to reduce them to the knowledge of the truth; and accordingly several things they Can {αβγδ}. Sec. Just. {αβγδ}. Sec. balls. decree, particularly to writ an Epistle to their other brethren and fellow-Bishops, especially to the Apostolical See of Rome, where Anastasius presided, to signify to them {αβγδ}, the great necessity, lying on them in order to the peace and utility of the Church, to receive the Donatists to their dignities, as many as should return to the unity of the Church, proposing to all other Bishops to do the like after their example, who were first infested with them, and with a non obstante, notwithstanding what had been decreed at Rome, {αβγδ}, that which is determined against their honours in the beyond-sea Synod( {αβγδ}, viz, that in italy, saith the Scholiast) shall not, say they, hinder or prejudice this decree; and again, {αβγδ}— they that have been ordained on the part of the Donatists, if they shall reform and return to the catholic faith, shall not be proceeded with according to the transmarine Synod( which had determined that they should not be received to their own dignities) but shall the rather be received as those that take care for catholic unity. Here thus anciently, i.e. in the year 401. tis clear, that the decree at Rome was not thought fit to prejudice or hinder the African Synod, to adhere to their former resolution, and so to laws contrary to the roman See, and that was all that I undertook to infer from it. Now to this what hath S. W. to say? Why, confessing the former part of the story, about Melchiades, first, he resolves that the Donat●sts obstinacy permitted not his decree to be executed, and therefore it was recalled; then that under Pope Anastasius, the African council commanded a request to be made to the Bishops of Italy by whose predecessors the Revocation was made, that the Donatist Bishops might retain their places, adding that the cunning Balsamon puts the provision itself for a Canon of this council, and the Dr. takes no notice of the request, though he must ne●des have red it in Baronius whom he there cites.] And out of these premises his conclusion is, that as far as can be drawn out of the fact and Council, it argues the direct contrary to what the Dr. concludes, viz. that it was not lawful for their national Council to infringe what was done at Rome.] What truth there is in these premises, but especially how his contrary conclusion is inferred from them, he hath not used any medium to show us. And therefore tis all as easily denied, as suggested. But I shall farther desire it may be observed, that he doth not so much as pretend, that what the African Council here did in this was Schismatical, and then without more ado, it follows, that a national Council may without incurring of Schism make contrary laws to what is decreed at Rome, for this it is evident the Africans did in that Synod, 401. and he no way denies their having done it, and yet neither doth he accuse them, for what they did. This being thus yielded, there is no more that I desire to gain from this testimony. And therefore, 1. I need not be solicitous whether mell hiades decree were revoked. There was indeed no need of revoking, for if the Donatists would not take the benefit of it, it voided itself, and became of no force of its own accord: 2. I demand, when, or by whom it was revoked; not before Anastasius, for then sure that council under him, that sent to afric to press that severity, would have pressed that Revocation; and it is sufficient to say, no such precedent Revocation appearing in any Popes, or Councils time betwixt Melchiades and Anastasius, there is no ground to affirm that before Anastasius it was revoked, and yet that twas not Anastasius that revoked it, is confessed by S. W. when be saith the revocation was made by the predecessors of those Bishops of Italy that were under Anastasius. But then 2. for his suggestion, that under Anastasius the African Council ordained a request to be made to the Bishops of Italy, that the Donatists Bishops might retain their places, there is not the least proof offered, save onely from Baronius, who is far from being a competent witness in this matter. And on the other side we have these strong prejudices against it; First, that the Decree from Rome red at the opening of the Council of afric having been directly contrary to all mercy, or mildness to the Donatists, it no way appears by any subsequent decree, that they after softend it, and for that decree itself, being so contrary to the Donatists retaining their places, it could be no answer of favour to the Africans request, that they might retain them; 2. Of any such request we have not the least footstep in that Council, and 3. that 68. Sec B●u 〈◇〉 Just 71. Sec. balls. Canon from whence council. Tom. 1. pag 749 D. Binius's note deduces it, belongs not to any such request, but is clearly the setting down what the Afr●c●ns h●d Can. 66. already decreed in this matter, contrary to Anastasius's conciliary determinati n, brought to them, and red at the opening of the Council, and is that very Canon, from which I fetch the evidence of their making a decree contrary to what had been determined at Rome, with the {αβγδ}, or non obstante of Romes contrary determination. Th●s being briefly thus cleared, I may add thirdly, that if the African Fathers did so request, and thereupon the Council at R me made any decree to revoke their revocation, and consequently to agree with the Africans in the milder way, yet t●is could not have been to the prejudice of the Africans, for still this was to comply with, not to over-rule the Africans, and we know that even in Melchiades's time, when it is granted that the Council of Italy did judge betwixt Caecilianus and Donatus, the catholics and heretical schismatics in afric, this came not before them by way of ordinary appeal, as to legal judges or superiors, but of extraordinary complaint, because the Bishops of afric being divided one from the other in a horrible Schism, and Caecilianus the Bishop of Carthage and Primate of afric, being a party in the controversy, it could not possibly be determined at home, and so was most properly, and necessary to be done by foreigners, and accordingly not by the Pope alone, but by a Council of Bishops; and Augustine saith, Ep. 162. that there were thousands of those colleagues, where the differences might have been determined, meaning a fraternal determination,( by allowing the one, and granting communion with him, and expressing disallowance of the other) and not an authoritative act of Jurisdiction, a neighbourly interposition, such as the present case, and necessity of the Church of afric required, but not any injunction or command as to legal subjects. And indeed this sufficiently appears by the Africans behaviour here, upon that decree of Anastasius and the Council, which was certainly sent from them, and red at the opening of that African Council, and yet deemed no way constringent to them, but a decree presently made by the Africans quiter contrary to that from Rome. How little that of subjection was owing or acknowledged from afric to Rome, I shall now add no more, having formerly made it clear, when I spake of the exemption of Carthage. 4hly, When he attributes it to the cunning of Balsamon that he puts the provision itself for a Canon of this Council, I know not well what to answer, for I am not sure. I judge right( and I believe the Reader will be as little able to resolve as I am) what he means by the provision itself; Onely I am sure Balsamon doth no otherwise set down those Canons, than now I see Binius himself doth out of the Codex Can: Eccl: Afr:( save onely that the numbers of the Canons are varied) as may appear to any by comparing Balsamon p. 692. &c. with Binius's councils, Tom: 1. p. 942. &c. and so sure the cunning was not on Balsamons, but on S. w his side, who having nothing to say, was to d vert by finding fault, and accusing some body. 5tly. That the Doctor took no notice of the request, he now hath given a sufficient account, because though Baronius mentioned it, he had many weighty prejudices against it, and no motive to believe Baronius. And then lastly for the conclusion, it follows most evidently, as I inferred it, that the African Council decreed the very contrary to what Rome had determined at this time, and that when they had taken so solemn a cognizance of her determination, and yet were under no mark of schism for so doing. SECT. XIV. Laws against the Civil right repealable. S. Peter's privileges interfere not with Regal power. Sayr's resolution. My using it no begging the question. WHat was added by me§. 22. that a Law though made by a general council, and with the consent of all Christian Princes, yet if it have respect to a civil right, may in this or that nation be repealed] was directed by me to infer this, formerly set down, p. 128. conclusion, that the power of Kings to remove Primacies, if taken away b● foreign Laws, viz: those of the Court of Rome, is resumable; This I suppose was proper to induce that, because the Law of a General council, with the consent of all Christian Princes, was so much above Phocas's donation to Boniface, or a Pontifical decree, that my conclusion would follow à majori, and with adva●tage Now to this saith S. W. that ere it will d●e me any goo●, I must first suppose the title of Head of the church to be a thing belonging to a Civil right, 2. that that title is denied our Kings upon pretence of a Canon of a counsel, and not on ●hrists donation of it to S. Peter.] ●o the● I answer, 1. that the power of removing Primates 〈…〉 I spake of, and not the title of Head of the church, a● 〈…〉 ●●pp se in the first place, in order to my conclusion, is, that ●●is is legally annexed to the Regal, or Imperial power, and t●●t suppose I ●ave ●ormerly proved, and so do not rely on an ●●pr●●ed suppositi n. 2. that all that I need add to that, is, that ●h●ist never to●k aw●● from Kings any thing, that was vested in them, to bestow it upon S Peter, and consequently that whatsoever Christ● donati●ns to S. Peter were, this privilege of erecting Metropoles may, an● doth still remain to Kings, and the decrees of the Councils, that the Ecclesiastical fo●ms shall follow the Civil, will farther secure it to them, without recur●ing a●ain to the question long since debated, concerning S. ●eter's privileges. That of§ 23. from Balsamon, as saith he it hath by S W. been already answered, so hath it also been vindicated in t●is Reply, and shall not be here repeated. To the last§. where from the resolution of Sayr, their own Casuist, I inferred the no force of prescription to alienate any such right of Kings, he offers two prejudices, 1. that Sayr was a monk, his book written at Rome, and so not likely to speak much on the Doctors behalf. 2. that in case he say any thing against them, he is but a private Casuist, and so his op n●on with the sam● facility rejected as alleged.] But to this I reply 1. that to matters of this nature, none being so fit to judge, as Casuists, no Casuist could by me be produced with more advantage against the Romanist, than honest Sayr, as he calls him, who if he were honest, did not prevaricate; if he were a late monk, wrote not in favour of us; if he wrote at Rome, had his Book examined, and licenced, every period in it, by the Inquisitor● there; and if after all that, he do really say any thing, on which my conclusion is regularly founded( as his words set down in the Tract of schism, p. 130. do testify, that he doth) it matters not, how unlikely it is, that he should say it, such arguments of improbability against a matter of fact, are of all others the most improbable arguments. But these were but the procinctus to his answer, and that comes more solemnly after them, yet such as you might know it at first sight, it is so like, what such harbingers promised, viz: that by using this testimony I suppose two things which must not be granted me gratis, 1. that the Pope prescribed against the Kings of England in their pretended right in Ecclesiastical matters, 2. that this prescription of the Pope hath not its force from any thing but a Canon or Civil Law,] and great ovation there is in observing this infirmity in my discourse. But I desire to be advised, and directed by Artists from their severest laws of {αβγδ}, whether a treatise be obliged to be made up of no more than one proposition, or when a foundation is laid, and competently established, it be unlawful ever to proceed farther, either by way of enlarging the foundation, or superstructing any fabric upon it. I had in the former chapters endeavoured to show, that neither from Christ to S. Peter, nor from S. Peter to the Pope, nor from the planting the faith among us in this iceland, nor from any presumed right in ancient times, any supreme authority or Universal Pastorship divolved or descended on the Bishops of Rome, and having proposed that, which I thought sufficient to the deducing of these, I was willing to foresee and examine all their other pretences, and among them not to omit their long possession of this power,( which both the catholic Gent: and S. W. have since pleaded, Sch. Disar: pag. 24. [ on the one side, say they, is the authority of Antiquity and possession] and which I cannot but aclowledge as reasonable a plea, as that, which also they both have made use of, taken from the possession of the belief of that and their other doctrines) and in order to the refuting of that, I could not, I hope, be obliged to establish afresh, that which had been formerly confirmed( and was ready to be viewed by him that questioned it) any more than the Geometer is to demonstrate anew every foregoing Proposition, whensoever he adds a subsequent. For the Popes Universal Pastorship being not by the Romanist deduced either from the Law of Nature, or not ons, and their pleas from the D●vine Law or donat●on of Christ being examined, and, as I I had reason to th●nk, found invalid, it was no begging the question sure, to suppose it held either by prescription, and that at the most from force of Canon or Civil Law, or else by some less valid or no title. This renders the account manifest, why I enlarged no farther to the applying this resolution of the Casuist to the precedent discourse; and it now appears, that if I had done it, I had prevailed nothing with my Disarmer, unless I had reverted again to prove the Universal Pastorship, and yet so ill provided is his table, that even this must be put into the bill of fare, as a special piece of wit to add to the entertainment; And I cannot but have some gust of it, because it is a conclusion of his declamation against my 6. Chapter. CHAP. VI. A defence of the seventh Chapter of schism. SECT. I. Henry the eighths vices not schism. The cause of Bishop Fishers death, from his Chaplains history. The fear of the praemunire caused their serious consideration; The recantation in Queen Maryes dayes. Charge of schism on the Romanist. HIs 8th Sect: of this second part, beginning his Reply to my 7th Chap: is spent on the view of Henry VIII. his fact in casting off the obedience to Rome; And his first and principal task, assumed on himself spontaneously, being to declaim against the lust and other vices of that Prince, who, saith he, had a little before set out very excellent doctrine against Luther, I have no obligation to make any return to it, having said already upon the Cath: Gent: his importunity, Repl. ch. 7. sect. 1. as much as our present question requires of me, and the vices of this Prince being no more chargeable to the prejudice of our Reformation, if it be otherwise regular, than the as many, and as eminent vices of some Bishops of Rome, who have advanced the Papal greatness to that height, wherein it now stands( particularly those of Pope Hildebrand) can prejudice the legality of their present praetensions, in case there were nothing else against them. We know that S. W. hath great fluency in the declamatorie style, and that Henry VIII. was no Saint; yet when all is done, tis still manifest, that neither his lust, nor his sacrilege was schism( any more than his burning of Protestants, or his writing against Luther) much less is my confessing him guilty of these, my excusing, as S. W. saith, the imputation of them. In brief, the sins which I aclowledge him guilty of, I mean not to defend, and the schism, which I deny to be caused by him, cannot 1. be supposed to be chargeable on him, and then the original of it be examined, without begging the question of the whole book, which is too unreasonably large to be put into one request, and yet the undertaking to discover the grounds of this schism, and to devoid it of all excuse( which is the design of the greatest part of this section) is visibly that, and therefore this is all I have to say to his first proposition. For as to those grounds of mine, which he saith, absolved the rebel, Outlaw, and Anabaptist, and might absolve King Henry too, by saying it was his present persuasion, I have long since discovered what a calumny that was, when 'twas first suggested against me, and it hath not yet provided itself with any more artificial visard, to persuade or deceive any man. His 2d consideration, beginning with the mention of King Henry's force to make the Ecclesiastical state subscribe, to the ejecting of the Papacy, and the examples of Bishop Fisher, and Sir Thomas More] will lose its weight by remembering what King James ●ffirms knowingly of the cause of the death of Bishop Fisher, In Apol. pro Juram. Fidel. which was the onely Ecclesiastical person, that is pretended to have suffered on that score. Is nec solùm nec praecipuè carceri mandatus est propter causam Primatus, the supremacy was not the onely or principal cause of his imprisonment. And this is more fully expressed in that Bishops life, written soon after his death by his Chaplain, in these words: After the Bishops had been with him, his own man blames him for not assenting, and tells him, he may think as he list. To whom Bishop Fisher replied, Thou art a fool, thou knowst little what this matter means, thou mayst know more he●eafter; but I shall tell thee, 'tis not for the Supremacy onely that I am thus tossed and troubled, but also for another thing,( meaning the Oath of the King's succession) which if I would have sworn, I doubt whether I should ever hav● been questioned for the Supremacy or no: God being my good Lord, I will never agree to any of them both. And this thou mayst say another day, thou heardst me speak, when I am dead and gone. Thus far the words of that History. What he adds from my words, of their fear of the praemunire, which he will resolve to have been of force to make the clergy subscribe against conscience, and to conclude my charity to them uncharitable, a censure of their obduration, instead of weakness] is wholly destitute of all grounds to infer it; For as it is obvious to believe, that their fear put them upon deliberation of all lawful means to avert their danger, and so upon the study of the question of the Pope's supremacy, from the very bottom, and root of it, so tis no less than duty of charity in us, who see by the Books, then set out by them, the solidity of the grounds, whereon they founded their resolution, to believe, that their consciences being duly satisfied, their subscriptions were after that, cordial and unfeigned. As for his onely {αβγδ}, which can pretend to salue his phaenomena, and make his way of arguing consistent to itself, the Recantation of all the Bishops in Queen Maryes dayes, 1. it is far from all appearance of truth, we know that many of the Bishops in Queen Maryes dayes remained constant to death, and so sealed the contradictory to what he suggests of them; and 2. for those that did recant, 'tis as visible, what their motive might be, the bloody examples before their eyes, now, as it can be imagined, that the praemunire over their heads before, could persuade their subscriptions. In Bishop Fishers story 'tis plain the Bishops persuaded him to assent and subscribe, and if some that so persuaded him recanted afterwards, their fears being granted to have force on them on both sides, is sure as argumentative to infer mine, as his conclusion, and the advantage on my side, because the faggot was more formidable than the praemunire. But why strength, and force of conscience should make them recant against the reason of their subscription, rather than to subscribe what they afterward recanted, without answering those former grounds, or offering more powerful reasons to the contrary, there is no other account to be expected from S. W. but that the one was agreeable, the other contrary to his espoused interest. His 3d thing falls into the Cath: Gent: his way of proving us guilty of schism, from the possession of their claim to the authority of the roman See. And that hath been largely considered, and refuted in the Reply, Chap. 7. sect. 1. from n. 10. to the end of that Chapter; And that will secure us from the force of his syllogism, and all the auxiliaries called in to support it, it being no undertaking of ours to confess first, and then excuse our schism, or avert the criminalnesse of it, but denying ourselves to have separated from any our lawful superiors, whilst we renounced the Papal supremacy, or from the body of the catholic Church, to which both by faith and charity we are still close knit, in the unity of that sacred body, to lay all the charge of the separation and schism on them, which will not admit us to their communion. SECT. II. S. W. his discourse of the nature of schism. The continual begging the question in it. Possession of obedience Romes onely claim, invalid. S. W. his wonderful arts. The Kings power of removing patriarches, a prejudice to the Papal power. The neglect of the use of Communicatory Letters. The use of them to catholic Unity. IN his ninth and tenth Sections he hath forsaken the propesed method of answering my arguments, and now he is become the assailant; And it will not be a work of any great length to show him how little he hath gained by this variety, the whole weight of his discourses being laid on such slender elenches, as is the begging the question almost in every period, which is a very ineffectual expedient to infer his designed conclusion with that evidence, to which he hath oft pretended. I shall show this as briefly as I may. And first, when he undertakes to open, and describe the nature of Schism more clearly and exactly, and in order to that, to consider, 1. the formal unity itself, and 2. the reason of that unity; the unity itself, in submitting to one common head, and acknowledging the same Articles of faith with other Churches &c. and this not onely negatively, a not disacknowledging, but positively, when there is an obligation, to do both these; and the reason of that unity instantly resolved to be the infallibility of the Church.] What is this but to lay for the groundwork of all this new Treatise of schism, the obligation to aclowledge 1. the monarchic( as that is opposed to Aristocratick) government of the Church, and that explained to import the chief Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome, which 'tis strange he should affirm acknowledged by us( whether that be by us now, or those which then cast it out) to be universally extended over all patriarches, and the whole Church, when he cannot but know that neither we now, nor they then de facto, or de jure, did, or do think it is, or ever was so extended, and 2. the Infallibility of the same Church, the denying of which, he saith, is not onely the reason of all schism and heresy, but the very heresy of heresies itself. Thus the two things that are most denied by us( and must be evidently proved by him, before ever any charge of schism can be found against us) are S. W. his postulata, his undeniable first principles, which for this onely reason, that I guess at, must not be questioned, because they cannot be proved; And to this issue is his whole argument suddenly brought, by attending him, while he lays the foundation of it. And yet when this is done, there being yet another pair of difficulties still behind, In case the Government of the Church were monarchic, to assure us that Rome is that Monarch, and in case the Church were thus infallible, to prove the Church of Rome to be this onely infallible Church, these two are by turns either to be believed, as principles again, or to induce and prove one the other; One while each of them is to be believed, as a principle; the later, when it is silently assumed, and yet the denying thereof affirmed to be the heresy of heresies, for certainly it is the Infallibility of the Church under the obedience of the Pope, i.e. of the Western and the Roman Church, which he then speaks of, as soon after he makes no scruple to express, p. 197. The former, when he resolves that the unity itself consists in the obligation of submitting to this, without rendering any other reason either for that obligation of submitting, or for Unities consisting in it, but onely his affirmation, that it doth so, and his mention of an undoubted possession, which ought to be founded in, and not itself to be the ground of the obligation. By the way, What now is become of the title from S. Peter,& Christs donation to him? which formerly was, and§. 11. is again vouched, as their onely tenor, and yet here is no one mention of it in this whole discourse, or intimation of any such thing, nor indeed of any other, but that which may equally be had, without any original right, an establishment( as it seems, first, principles may be confirmed à posteriori) in an undoubted possession: And yet this again cannot possibly hold, as to the Universal Church( whatsoever it is feigned to do, in respect of this Church of ours, at the time of the Reformation) for Rome cannot pretend to have had the possession of the supremacy over the Greek Church, when they aclowledge them Schismatick●; nor over the Abassines, when they aclowledge them aliens; nor of any other, but of those, which for the time, upon what motives soever, acknowledged obedience to them: which bare acknowledgement, if it were of force, without farther right, the disacknowledgment upon due proofs of liberty, will be of greater force against it, whensoever tis pleaded, as by us it hath been, ever since we renounced it. And yet another while( in the laying these very grounds) each of these is mutually brought to induce the other. For 1. the subjection to the one head( which sure must suppose the head to be one, and to the Romanist, that the Pope is that head) is A positive obligation to aclowledge that Pl●ad is that which only can make a Chu ch. Scis Dis. p. 194. brought as the medium to prove that they are a Church, which till they are proved to be, they cannot be supposed to be, though it were granted that the Church is infalli●le. And 2. the infallibility of the Church being Pag. ●95. made the onely tie to communicate( among other things, particularly) in Government, that is again( by way of retribution) become the medium to induce the subjection to the one head. And indeed when at the same time that he concludes the necessity of the subjection, he contents not himself with the negative subjection( or indifferent acknowledgement, having no tie) but exacts the express positive obligation to obey this head, without which, saith he, it may be a multitude, but not a Church, as he will never be able to produce any such express positive obligation to all Christians, to obey the Bishop of Rome, save what is founded in the dictate of his infallible Church, so it is most evident, that this his Infallibility must be the principle of this subjection to this head of the Church, as before this subjection was the principle of the very being, and so of the Infallibility of his Church. And he that can do such miracles as these, take two the most movable ctones, and with no more then blowing on them, fix them like two immov●able rocks( and yet St. Peter himself not so much as mentioned to be one of these) and whilst each of the●e stands thus fi●me upon its own basis, without any help of the other, or indeed of any third foundation( a rock firm in the midst of the air or Sea, without any thing to support it) can, in the very twinkling of an eye, so convey one of these to bear and support the other, as that the other shall at the same time, bear the whole weight of that, which supports it, is, I confess, too great a Master at his weapon, too profoundly skilled in the magic, rather than mathematics of arms, for me to fence with him at his own foils. So again, that he may with ease conclude us unexcuseably guilty of formal sin( which I profess to grant) in case we were proved guilty of dividing, and so of the material schism, he will needs assume this as granted, and confessed by us, which sure I expressly deny. Having said this, I shall now therefore leave him to skirmish with the air, or his own shadow, for those two Sections, which, by thinking it high time to return to overlook the work, he acknowledgeth( and I have many more reasons to grant) to be long digressions, and presently fall in with him at his return, in the beginning of his eleventh Section. Onely before I leave it, I shall first mind him of one fallacy,( oft before discernible) in accusing the frivolousnesse of my dig●ession, to prove that Kings may remove patriarches, when, saith he, the papal is greater than patriarchal power.] For 1. this is but the begging the whole question again, viz: Whether there be any greater power in the Church, than that of Primates or patriarches? And 2. that question is decided in the Negative by this one, which he calls frivolous digression: For sure if there be any such power of removing patriarches, vested in any other but the Pope( as there must be, if Kings can remove patriarches) then the Pope is not the supreme Governor, or Pastor of the whole Church, over all the world, and consequently can be no more than the first Patriarch. 2ly. I shall ask his advice in two things, on occasion of S●b. disa●●a. pag. 94. his mention of the ancient use of communicatory letters, which, saith he, was afterwards, by reason of the perfect colligation of the several membe●s with their head neglected, as unnecessary.] 1. How then it can with justice be pretended, that the Popes Universal Pastorsh p or headship was a●tiently and universally acknowledged, for then sure the colligation being so early so perfect, the Communicatory Letters would, as anciently, have been unnecessary, as since that perfect colligation they are by S W. acknowledged to be: And 2. what hinders but that Unity over the whole Christian world might still thus be maintained between all National Churches, each under their own Primate, by the help of these Communicatory Letters, without need of one visible head, in subjection to whom all unity is by S W. said to consist. When these two questions, together with the exceptions here premised to the groundwork of his Argument, are satisfactorily answered, I shall have encouragement farther to enlarge on the view of the remainder of his 9th sect. and to make answers for myself instead of those, which in the 10th he hath put into my mouth( and may without much difficulty answer the questions, which himself hath proposed, and that on a subject, which before he begins, he acknowledges to be confessed by me, viz: that there can be no just cause given of schism.) In the mean, being confident I have here, and in the foregoing parts of this Reply laid sufficient, and evident grounds to satisfy all the objections, which here are made to us, I shall resist the temptations, which are before me, to pursue this new path any farther, and indulge no longer to such divertisements. SECT. III. Concession of Kings renounced by S. W. Strictures on his 11th Sect. The King cannot alienate his regality. Some gifts revocable. The Suns light such. So Gods graces. The Popes Territory. The admission of Legates an acknowledgement of power. S W. his calumnies. The Oath of Supremacy to secure Allegiance. IN the 11th sect: I am rebuked for mentioning the voluntary concession of Kings( as formerly the title of Conversion) for any part of the ground of the Popes pretensions to supreme authority in this Nation, which, saith he, they found onely on the succession to S. Peter.] If this will indeed be stood to by all, I am again discharged of an unnecessary fear, and by analogy with, and consequence from this, of all need of considering the title of possession, which surely hath sometime been mentioned by some body, whilst the very name of S. Peter, or succession by him, was quiter left out in the whole scheme, as was shewed in the last section; And then the whole matter is once more reduced to that one head of S. Peters right to Universal supremacy, and the Popes succeeding to him. And having not onely disproved this, as I then thought, by those 4th and 5th chap: of schism, but also thus largely and doubly vindicated them now from all that hath been objected by the Cath: Gent: and S. W. to those chapters, I discern not, how it is possible, I should have any more to do in this business; Or how I can safely add any word to any other head but that, without danger of relapsing into this impertinent, as well as toilsome error of treating those things, which are not questioned by them. I shall therefore in obedience to his repeated Rebukes, endeavour to make short work of the remainder of this section,( and see whether the 3d part will afford any new reason of farther engaging) there being indeed nothing behind here, beside scurrility, that requires any further answer, than what is already made in the Reply, chap. 7. sect. 11. &c. and what the addition of a few strictures may discharge. As 1. when he saith, the Papacy was never imagined at any private King's disposal, till Dr. H. his time. I answer that till he hath solidly asserted the Popes Universal Pastorship from Christs donation to S. Peter, and all his successors in the See of Rome, there cannot any other colour of t●nure be imagined for the Popes having the supreme jurisdiction over this Church of ours, but the concession and disposal of some of our former Kings, and that was all I was to conclude in that place, and is no way invalidated by S. W. 2dly. When he blames my inference, that if it were in the Kings power to dispose of it to the Pope, then the same power remains in the Kings to dispose it from him to some other, instancing in the Kings yielding an iceland &c. to an over powering enemy. I answer that the parallel holds not, upon this reason, because in that case, that iceland must be supposed to go out from under that Kings power, which notwithstanding, he may remain in the full entire supreme power over those parts of his kingdom, which are left him, and so be a supreme Monarch still over all his remaining subjects, although his Province, or sphere of administration be lessened; but if the supremacy itself in every part of his Dominions be thus partend with, as that iceland is partend with, i.e. not to remain to him, then he becomes less a King, than formerly he was, and, as I said, such acts, which make him so, are acknowledgedly invalid acts, it being above the power of a King himself, to alienate the supremacy or regality. 3dly. When from his sorts of prayers, and seekers which neither seek nor pray, he would have it believed, that I have committed the like absurdity in making one sort of gifts to be such as are not given, and this as a rare service to be rejoiced in, in the bill of fare, this is nothing but the obscuring and perverting of a plain intelligible proposition, the truth whereof is every day exemplified to us by a Kings removing his chancellor from his place, upon any good cause, without any wrongful diminution to his former liberality, which bestowed that office upon him. Is it not sense to say, some things are given revocably, as well as others irrevocably? some quamdiu se benè gesserit, some durant beneplacito, or as far as to the usus fructus, as well as others by parting with the propriety, and finally divesting myself of all power and right either in, or to them? Or must this be {αβγδ}, a giftlesse gift, if I retain any such fundamental Original propriety in it, of ever recalling it again? 4thly. I wonder what infirmity it was, either in Philosophy or theology, to exemplify this, either by the Sun communicating his beams, or God his graces, without emptying, or dispossessing themselves of that, which they bestow on others, and consequently without parting with this power of revocation. This, saith he, is to affirm, that the very beams sent hither by the Sun are notwithstanding retained there still, and so in far more d stant places at the same time, than I will grant the glorified body of Christ in the Sacrament.] I answer by denying his consequence, Tis onely to affirm, that the Sun retains the power over his own bounty, and may as freely withdraw it from this, and bestow it the next minute on some other, as it formerly bestowed it on this. This was evidently signified by the phrase of retaining all which it communicates] not retaining at that minute the particular beam, which was already sent out, and partend with,( that would indeed imply the same contradiction, that we affirm their doctrine of transubstantiation doth) but retaining the power over its own light and beams in general, so as to continue them no longer to any one, than it pleaseth, and so, that when it shall depart and enrich some other, the former usufructuarie cannot pled prescription against this act of revocation of free bounty. And then S. W. might have spared the cost of providing the long strings and pullyes, which he talks of, to fetch back those beams which he resolves incorporated in other bodies, for unless the whole treasure of beams be so poured out, that the Sun retains no power for the future, to withdraw from Rome and fix on Canterbury, so that now for the future, the latter shall have the same benign influences as largely, and as justly communicated to it as formerly the former had had, the parallel still stands exact enough, to conclude the Kings power to remain to him of removing and revoking from Rome, what he had at any time bestowed on it. 5thly. For the instance of God, though S. W. hath chosen an unlucky phrase, saying that God never takes away what he gives, when the Scripture saith so often the contrary, If he take away our breath we die, and from him which useth not his grace which he had, auferetur, it shall be taken away, yet his explanation of himself is the yielding of all I affirm in this whole matter, that God is then said to take away any thing, when he withholds his bountiful hand from a farther bestowing it. And then I that said the very same of Kings, that might thus give, and yet retain power of thus withholding the hand from this farther bestowing, concluded all, by S. W. his own suffrage, which I attempted to conclude. And then ad quid perditio haec, why might not all, S. W. his laborious bounty, and expense of so many lines also have been otherwise bestowed? 6thly. What the territory meant which I said the Pope was willing to enlarge unlimitedly, was obvious enough by the foregoing mention of a Principality, and the contenting himself with that, might well enough be reconciled with his greatest zeal and industry in bringing in the fullness of the Gentiles to the faith of Christ,( which certainly is a very distant thing from obedience to the Papacy, as Xaverius's Gospel of S. Peter was somewhat different from S. Matthewes of our blessed Saviour) and then to what purpose again was all that ensuing harangue of the present prosperity of theirs, and improsperity of our Church? 7thly. What I observed of Queen Maries time did distinctly enough belong, and was applied by me not to her own private affections or judgement, of which I never doubted, but to the public acts of state made in her reign And then to what purpose is his justifying of that Queen, that she was no way favourable to our pretensions? But to that I have spoken in the Reply, p. 123. as also to the business of refusing the Popes Legates, the admitting of whom I now see to be made use of twice in a page. by your Bishop of Chalcedon, in his late survey of the Bishop of Derry, as a testimony of our Princes acknowledging the Popes Supremacy; And then sure if the admitting will infer the acknowledgement, the refusing must imply the disacknowledgment of it. Nor can I perceive what proportion that act of refusing of Legates can be thought to bear with the Peoples denying the Kings subsidies, to which he parallels it, for sure if the Pope have any supremacy in this kingdom, it must be the same offence against that supremacy to exclude his Judges of assizes, or his lieutenant, by him authorised,( and such his Legate is) as to exclude a Prince out of his Dominions( which is no way implyed, or intimated in the other) and if, as S. W. saith, all catholic countries, when they see it convenient, do the like, It will be less strange, that I think that safe, which hath so many precedents, and consequently that our offence was not great, when we excluded him, whom that legate represented. 8thly. I believe not that S. W. was ever Bishop Cranmers Confessor, or consequently hath had real intelligence of his being guilty of that Carnality, which no story that I ever could hear of, charges on him, till this impure pen suggested it against him. And with this may be associated another calumny that follows in the next page., that Robert wisdoms hymns were a part of our Reformation. 9thly. What is objected to the Ordination of Bishops in Queen Elizabeths dayes, was prevented in the Reply; Ch. 7. Sect. 4. 10hly. When he objects to me, that I know not the difference betwixt the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, adding that there could be no need to press the latter to approve mens fidelity and allegiance; I answer, that this is not any error or ignorance, but a truth visible enough by the effects of it: If the Bishop of Rome be supreme in this kingdom, and so our King in the number of his subjects, we know one obvious effect arising from hence, that then tis in the power of his Bulls to absolve all subjects from their obligation to allegiance, and then what means can there be to secure, or approve any mans fidelity, and allegiance to an Excommunicated Prince, beside disclaiming that Papal supremacy, and these so consequent attendants of it, which is the matter of that Oath? As long as the allegiance is duly paid, there is no need indeed of any farther security, as whilst men do universally perform their duty, there is no need of laws or punishments; but when another supreme is acknowledged, beside and above the King, who need not unking him by any new act, having done it already by being his superior in his own dominions, the first contestation that shall happen between these two, must render the inferior criminous, and punishable, and the punishment we know is such, as renders him unfit for government, the King shall be in S. W. his style, the head of schismatics, and then what fidelity is he to expect from those, who aclowledge his enemies Supremacy? This last objection of reforming end-wayes, had been made use of by the catholic Gentleman; and is answered in Reply, p. 130. And so much for what hath been attempted by S. W.( not over prosperously) in his second Part. CHAP. VII. A survey of the third part of Schism disarmed. SECT. I. The second species of Schism. Unity of faith among brethren. The Apostles Institutions reducible to Faith. Disobedience to Superiors, without casting out Government. My method vindicated. The Popes supremacy not sixth by any appointment of Christ. The Bishop of Chalcedon his confession that tis not de fide that it is jure divino; The Doctors of Paris. Jeroms testimony of S. Peter being made head. Christian unity equally conserved by all the Apostles plantations. Vigour of tradition in Rome, not for ever. I come now to his third Part, which begins with some quaint observations on my eighth Chapter. And for the introducing of the first of them, he falls very early into an open falsification of my words, against the plain testimony of his own, and the meanest readers eyes; for having duly set down the second sort of schism,( now to be treated of) an offence against the mutual unity, peace, and charity which Christ left among his Disciples] in the very next line he will abbreviate this, and call it schism against charity, and then one species of this second sort, being a departure from the unity of the faith &c. Here is a special infirmity observed in the Doctors method, that he makes faith and charity all one, putting his schism against faith for the first species of schism against mutual charity] But tis evident this was not my fault, but his dissatisfaction. The g●nus which I divided into those species, was schism against the mutual unity peace and cha●ity,( as mutual notes equality of fellow brethren, opposite to the relations of subordination) and there being an unity of faith between fellow-brethren, as well as of charity, tis visible that the departure from the unity of Faith, is a species of that 2d. kind of schism, though not of the schism against charity, and so there is an end of his first subtlety. And the next is like unto that, whether for want of understanding, or of somewhat else, I cannot define[ the Dr. saith he, ranks the rejecting Christs institution of government, under this second schism against charity, which was the first head hitherto treated of, i.e. offence against subordination] But I answer, 1. as before, that tis departure from mutual Unity, of which I make this a species, and not of schism against charity alone. Secondly, this is not coincident with the former kind, the offence against subordination, but falls under this head of departure from the Unity of the Faith, by way of reduction at least( as I there set it) or so as to be comp●ehended under it. For the objects of Faith being the doctrines of Christ and the Apostles, &c. the Institutions of Christ, and the Apostles are comprehended under that head, as being taught by them to be practised by us,( for that is the meaning of an Instit●tion) and the manner of Government, which the apostles left for the Church, being the matter of one of these, hence arises the propriety of this reduction, and consequently the casting out of the Church of God that form of Government, which Christ or his Apostles placed in it, or instituted, is a branch of offence, by reduction at least, against the unity of the Faith, a not believing, or not acknowledging the whether necessity, or but lawfulness or even expedience of that form, which so great an authority, as is that of Christ or his Apostles, not only countenanced and practised, but fixed for continuance in the Church. As for his way of arguing to the contrary, because, saith he, there can neither be subordination without Government, nor Government without subordination] it is founded in a very thin sophism which will presently be seen through, for meaning by Government, as tis plain I do, that particular form of Government, which Christ or his Apostles instituted, and by subordination, that regular living under the Government of all our lawful superiors, as it evidently signified in the former part of the discourse of schism, tis thence evident, that there may be Government without this subordination, i.e. the same man that acknowledges the Government of the Church by Bishops, may yet divide and separate from his own Bishop, and he that separates from his Bishop, may yet not deny, nor cast out the Episcopal order out of the Church, and so besides that first sort of schism which was an offence against subordination, i.e. a breaking off from the Communion of, and obedience to their lawful superiors, there may be also another species, referring to Government, a disacknowledging or rejecting the due Government: As supposing an Aristocratical Government of the Church, whether by Bishops and Metropolitans, or with the addition of Primates also, to be that which was placed in the Church by the Apostles, then as the reducing this either to Democrasie or anarchy on the one side, is a departure from the Apostolical institution, so the erecting a monarchic Government, a Papal universal Pastorship over all, will be a departure from the same institution, on the other side. And so certainly there was good reason of this Method of mine, and all the confusion that was fancied, was but an invention of S. W. A third now follows, which came out of the very same forge, for he will needs persuade us, that there is no difference between breach of external peace, and want of that charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian] which is in effect, as if he said, there is no difference betwixt external and internal, for to that internal charity it is, that that last species belongs. Thus successful is he in all his nice observations. After this {αβγδ}, wherein none but the air was wounded, or fled before him, he now advances to his more serious stroke, and after some recital of my words,( which when he hath never an objection in the forge, he can perform well enough) he pitches on my answer to their objection, that by casting out the authority of the Bishop of Rome, we have cast off the head of all christian unity: And my answer being in these words, 1. that the Bishop of Rome, was never appointed by Christ to be the head of all Christian unity, or that church to be a conservatory( for ever) of all Christian truth, any more then any other Bishop or Church of the Apostles ordaining or planting, he designs great advantage by the skilful exercise of his faculties, on these words. For 1. saith he, what signifies, the Bishop of Rome was not appointed by Christ? Christ saith he, not being on earth when S. Peters successors sat there, and when he ordained S. Peter ch●ef of the Apostles, S. Peter was not yet Bishop of Rome] I answer, that my words exacted not of him the proof of such a personal or immediate appointment, I shall yet be content, if by any other means more remote, by any certain, though not close connection or consequence, he shall prove that the Pope was ever designed or foreappointed by Christ to be the head of all Christian unity. And truly if this be not done, I must suppose that we are secured from the guilt of that sort of schism, of which in that place I was treating, which consists in a departure from those rules, appointed by Christ for the founding or upholding in his Church the unity of doctrine, upon this one score of our re●ecting the Papal supremacy in the Church. For if Christ hath no way, mediately, or immediately, fixed any supremacy in any single person in the Church, or in a succession in some one singular See, or if that single person, that shall be said to be appointed to succeed Christ in all his power, so as no other succeeds him, shall not also appear to have left the Bishop of Rome to all posterity, as his haeres de ass, inheriter of that universal supremacy, vested in him by Christ, then certainly the casting off any such pretended power of the Bishop of Rome, is not the departure from any rule for the founding, or upholding of unity appointed by Christ, nor consequently a rapture from that faith, which was once delivered unto the saints, which is the sort of schism I there spake of. And because S. W. was not at leisure to speak home to this question, whether or no it were by any divine right, or institution of Christ, that this supremacy in the Church belongs to the Bishop of Rome. It may not be amiss to take notice, what his ordinary the Bishop of Chalcedon in his answer to the Bishop of Derry hath, with less reservation, acknowledged in this matter. p. 69. To us saith he, it sufficeth that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters successor, and this all Fathers testify, and all the catholic church believeth, but whether he be so jure divino or humano, is no point of faith, and many things are de fide which are not de jure divino. Where not to examine the truth of the affirmation, that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters successor, it being yet as certain, that he is S. Pauls successor, as S. Peters, nor of the close, that some things are de fide, which are not jure divino. All that I take notice of is, that when to conclude the point in hand, that the casting off the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, is an act of schism, as that signifies a departure from the faith of Christ, or those rules which Christ appointed to uphold the unity of doctrine, two things must necessary be proved by the Romanist, 1. that this supreme power over all was by Christ given to S. Peter. 2. that the Pope is S. Peters successor in this, these are not so much as pretended to be so proved by the Romanist, as to be able to infer the conclusion. For that they may do so, it is necessary both that S. Peters right to the supremacy, and the Popes from him, should be de jure divino, and that it should be an article de fide that they are so, for if both of them be not jure divino, then neither is the Popes supremacy, which depends upon these two, as a conclusion on premises, jure divino, nor consequently any such appointment, or institution of Christs, as that the casting off that shall be the casting of a doctrine, or institution of Christs. And if it be not de fide that they are both thus jure divino,( as that Bishop saith they are not) then tis no breach of the unity of faith to deny these to be of divine right, nor consequently to deny the Popes supremacy to be of divine right, which depends on these, and cannot be of divine right, if these are not, which was all that I had to demonstrate. And as, if this be granted me, there is very little more, which I need contend for, in this whole matter of our present debate, so if my intelligence do not deceive me, it is the common opinion among the Doctors of Paris, that the Pope hath not universal jurisdiction jure divino,( and then certainly not from tu es Petrus, or Pasce oves) and that his headship of the Church consists only, in being Primae sedis Episcopus, the Bishop of the first See; As for the testimony of S. jerome, which S. W. here opposeth to my affirmation [ that among the twelve one was chosen, that a head being constituted, the occasion of schism might be taken away] 1. those words seem not to be S. Hierom's, but Jovinian's, for so it begins. At dicis supper Petrum sundatur Ecclesia, But you say the Church is founded on Peter. Secondly, whose soever that testimony is, it hath been by me formerly produced, Ch. n. Sect. 10. 1, 5. &c. and answered, and must of necessity be so interpnted, as shall be reconcilable with his words in the same place, that the Church which was founded on Peter, was founded on all the Apostles as well as on him, and that ex aequo equally, the strength of the Church was established on them all. And thirdly, of S. Hieroms opinion in that place it is evident, that what ever privilege it was that he allowed S. Peter, it was but upon the account of his seniority, either of years, or of his reception into the Discipleship, but rather of the former, for so it there follows. Cur non Johannes electus est virgo? Aetati delatum est quia Petrus signior erat. Why was not John who was a virgin chosen, or preferred before the rest?( so electus est, is in the ensuing words interpnted by proeferretur, not in Dominion over, but in place before the other Apostles) his answer is, Because Peter was the Elder, the deference being given to his age: Which being but a personal advantage, not communicable to all that should sit in the roman See after him, is no way appliable to the benefit of the Romanist, who is to prove the Popes supremacy, and not only the Primacy of S. Peter. And fourthly, if the utmost were granted that can be pretended from these words, it could never enforce or acquire to the Pope any more than the dignity of the Prime Patriarch, who in case of extraordinary d fficulty, or contention falling out between two Primates, neither of them subject to any superior Bishop, or the like, might by way of voluntary appeal by mutual consent of parties, be resorted unto( and that would be beneficial to the unity of the Church, in case the Bishop of Rome persisted in the footsteps of S. peter, and no way varied from him) But still this is nothing to the plenitude of power, as of an universal Pastor, which was that which I had at that time under consideration. And so all S. W. his hopeful fabric, which depended on S. Hieromes words, is fallen to the ground, without any farther pains of ours, toward the demolishing of it. As When he adds thirdly, that hence it follows that Christian unity is conserved by the Bishop of Rome, more than any other Bishop, contrary to the Doctors assertion] this is not in these words by him recited, of any force against the Doctors assertition, who made the comparison not simply betwixt the Bishop or Church of Rome, and all other Bishops, but betwixt that Church and any other Church of the Apostles plantation: And sure many such there were, as well as the Church of Rome, and more ancient than the Church of Rome, as the Church of Jerusalem and Antioch, the Churches of Asia, and many others, and consequently if Rome have any privilege above others, it is not from any appointment of Christ, whether mediate, or immediate, that it thus hath it. Fourthly, saith he, the Doctor aequivocates in the word Roman Church, and takes it in a sense which he knows we never meant it, our acception of it being of the universal Church, communicating with the mother Church of Rome, his of the private diocese of Rome itself.] But it is manifest I did not aequivocate, I spake of the authority of the Bishop of Rome, meaning just as he doth, the pretended authority over the whole Church of God, for else how could I speak of our casting out that authority, sure we never cast out, or denied his having authority in his own diocese; But then to deny the truth of their pretention, and to appeal to my former proofs, that the whether Church or Bishop of Rome never had any appo●ntment from Christ to be the head of all ●hristian unity, more than every other Church or Bishop of the Apostles planting and ordaining,( which was all I said in that place) this was as plain on the other side, and no kind of aequivocating in that. Fifthly, When of the private Church of Rome itself he saith, that the Fathers hold that it had a greater vigour of Christian tradition than any other Church,] though this he hath not proved, yet the yielding of it is perfectly reconcilable with all that I there said; For 1. it was of Christs appointment, that I spake, and whatsoever reverence the Fathers pay that See, yet they affirm not of Christ, that he by any peculiarity of promise conveyed any such privilege to that See, of having a greater vigour than all other Churches of Apostolical plantation; Secondly, it was of the perseverance or conserving for ever all Christian truth, that I spake, and against that the Fathers say nothing, but speak of it as of a matter of fact, that in their time Christian tradition was most eminently preserved there, not undertaking to divine, that it should to all perpetuity be so faithful a repository. Nay tis not Ch. 5. Sect. 8. n. 1. long since I told him out of Anselm, his prediction of the iniquity of that See, which should cause many Churches to depart from her. And it is small advantage to have this vigour once, if it have since betrayed that truth, and obtruded Pontifical dictates instead of such Tradition. And lastly, When he is so unsatisfied with my interposing this word [ forever] as if, saith he, Christ might perhaps appoint her to conserve truth for a while, but meant after some time to discharge her of that office, I answer, that speaking, as we now do, of the particular See of Rome, there is no colour of appointment or determination of Christs, that it should for any time be a conservatory of all Christian truth, any otherwise than it is his will and command and appointment, that every Church should conserve all Christian truth, and therefore that was not the motive to my putting in the word [ forever] but because to make good the Romanists pretention, that the casting off the authority of the Bishop of Rome, is the casting off the Faith of Christ, it is necessary not only that that Church be apppinted by Christ to be a conservato●y of all Christian doctrine, but that it be secured to continue so for ever, else as the Churches of Asia, which were once very zealous conservatories of Christian truth, afterward forsook their first zeal, and admitted foul heresies, so it may be true of the Church of Rome also. SECT. II. The Apostles depositum. Grounds of belief, Our State fallible as peccable. Regal power differs from Sacerdotal. Peters Primacy what it signifi●s. Whether given him by Christ. Primacy of jurisdiction never without Dignity of place. WHat I said in the second place concerning the acts of Apostolical providence for the preserving unity in the faith: and 1. their resolving on some few heads( of efficacy to the planting of Christian life) to be deposited in every Church, hath somewhat perplexed S. W. for 1. saith he, Dr. H. is suddenly become a plain Papist( and if he be, I must only wonder how a Romanist can find in his heart to writ in confutation of him any longer) but then 2. he fears very very much that Mr. H. in this his doctrine, neither goes to Church, nor stays at home]( and this very fright of his, the factor or stationer hath put in his bill of fare for a notable piece of wit, a special service) But to give him full satisfaction, I have written an entire tract on this sub ect, and given him the sum of my belief in this matter, what that depositum was that the Apostles thus deposited in all Churches, the several articles of the apostolic faith or Creed, and if the Church of Rome would keep close to that depositum, and not corrupt by increasing of it, coin no more articles, than they had from the Apostles mint, there is not a more promising way of return to that unity, from which christian professors long have swerved; and that the Church of Rome will not yield to this, is absolutely a breach of the Canon of Ephesus, to which I have spoken at large in the reply Ch. 8. Sect. 2. and shall thither refer the Reader for what might be added in this matter. But he proposes in this matter a subtle Quere, whether these Churches, in which these heads of such speci●l efficacy were deposited, were infallible, or no?] I answer briefly, that every of those Churches single, and particularly the Church of Rome was no farther infallible, than they should actually adhere to this depositum entrusted to them. If they swerved from it, by addition or substraction, they so far failed of their trust. And that they might, any one of them so fail, I have no reason of doubting, who see so many visible demonstrations à posteriori of many of those Churches failing thus. But that all of them should uniformly without ever consulting of it, agree to impose upon posterity somewhat else, instead of that Apostolical depositum, I think not any more probable than that so many atoms should casually yet orderly concur to make this Universe. But on the contrary, I think the universal consent, and attestation of all the apostolic plantations, so forcible an argument to induce belief, that the Apostles did really deposit these Doctrines in all Churches, that any prudent man may safely venture his life or his soul on the truth of it, and resolve it as impossible to be otherwise, as that he and a multitude of other men should be deceived in that which they affirm from their own sensations. Much more might be here said, but this is all that is necessary to be answered to that question. For as to his answer to my addition, that if we hold these doctrines deposited in the Church as zealously as the Romanist, we must hold them as of faith, and that the depository is so truly as it cannot deceive us.] I reply, tis sufficient to hold it of faith, and upon prudential grounds of resolving, that all the world of Christian Apostolical Churches would never concur wilfully, and gainlessly to deceive, not that any one or more of them single cannot possibly have been first misled themselves, and then misled others. And therefore when I said those few heads were asserted by us as zealously as by any Romanist, my speech belonged to sincerity of belief induced thus as I now express, and to the degree of that sincerity; and if I that pretend not the same motive to induce my faith, as the Romanist pretends, have yet the same faith that the Romanist hath, and will adventure as high a stake, practise what Christ commands as confidently upon this faith, not built on the belief of their Churches infallibility, as the Romanist doth upon his supposed infallible ground, my faith will still be as much( if not more properly) faith as his, and I doubt not as secure of its acceptation and reward in heaven. And then sure I am as far from the sceptic school of academics, as the firmest, and most undoubted faith can secure me to be. For though I willingly grant, that mans wit cannot invent a better way to preserve unity of faith, than belief of their Churches infallibility would be, yet I, that for all fundamental truths of Christ, thus derived to me by undoubted tradition, am so richly provided for, and must not for all other particulars invent or carve for myself, but sit down satisfied with that portion which God hath thought fit for me, and cannot believe all that I would have;( my fancies, or my wishes) ought in reason for all these, to content myself with such means, as God hath afforded me; and till I discern by some infallible argument, that there is some man or society of men, which hath the never ceasing privilege from God of being infallible, never go about to deceive myself into a groundless confidence, or persuasion of a present utopian infallibility. I know it agrees with Gods good providence to leave me in a peccable, and I cannot resist, must not repined if he hath left me for some things in a fallible state, and only support myself with my diligence and my prayers, that I fall not willingly into fault, or mistake, sin or error. What next follows upon my second way of preserving unity in faith, is lightly varied from the questions and answers in the Cath. Gent. and was punctually answered in the Reply, Chap. 8. Sect. 1. As for his great care of providing a place for the King among the Bishops( which next follows in his playsome mood) it shall be seriously examined, whensoever he finds in any of my Papers, either that the King is by me styled head of the Church, as he will feign me to call him, or that he, whose office it is to be Supreme governor over Bishops even in Ecclesiastical causes, and to order the external affairs of the Church, hath the censures of the Church, or the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, and so of admitting into, and excluding from the Church committed to him. If he knew not the difference of the Regal and Sacerdotal, the coercive and directive power, he may learn it more seasonably of those, which have written ex instituto on that subject, than expect a new treatise of it from me here, loco non suo, who have a task of a competent wholesomeness already before me. Here follows now a special piece of art, on occasion of my allowing a Primacy of order or dignity among Primates or Patriarks, proportionable to the {αβγδ} in Scripture, and agreeable to what is by the ancient Canons allowed the Bishop of Rome,[ If so saith he, then for any thing you know it may be a Primacy of jurisdiction, and it stands only upon the certainty of yours and our interpretation of Scripture, whether it signify such a Primacy or no.] I answer 1. that a [ may be] no way concludes that it is, a thousand things may be, or might have been, if God had pleased, of which no one ever was or shall be, and I willingly grant S. Peters Primacy of jurisdiction over all the Apostles, to be one of that number. 2. my not knowing, or having no certainty of interpreting Scripture, can have nothing to do in this matter, with the grounds which S. W. can produce to infer from Scripture what he affirms, and the solidity and irrefragable force of those grounds, are the only considerable in this business, and he that is, and acknowledges himself fallible, may yet by the right use of those means which God affords him, discern the truth, when they that use not those means, but rely on their feigned privilege of inerrableness, do by regular consequence from this presumption, swerve and fail in judging of truth, and interpreting Scripture. And so these are too weak topics to conclude a matter of such importance to the whole Church, as is this of Peters, and from thence the Popes Supremacy, and universality of jurisdiction. But S. W. hath yet a more efficacious topic, at least ad hominem, which will conclude it impossible to be otherwise,( neither could it be any other, saith he) if any hold may be taken from his words. For, saith he, S. Peter, as you grant, and as the words {αβγδ} Simon the first of the Apostles, plainly evidence, had some kind of Primacy then given him, and if it were then given him, he then had it, i.e. in our Saviours life time. But you told us Ch. 4. Sect. 14. that S. John had the dignity of place, which is the same with Primacy of order, before all others in Christs life time, even before S. Peter himself, the Primacy then, which S. Peter had in Christs life time, must be some other Primacy, and what Primacy could this be, but the Primacy of jurisdiction. I answer 1. to the question in the conclusion, by telling him what Primacy it was that Peter had at this time, when the Scripture saith {αβγδ}, It was Primacy both of years and discipleship, he was the ancientest man, as Hier●me told us even now, at least the ancientest of them which had any spec●al remark of Christs favour on them, of the three, {αβγδ}, as {αβγδ} l. 5. Clemens calls him and the two sons of Zebedec, and the anci●ntest disciple of Ch●●●t: not the first that was called, that appears to be Philip, but the first that so obeied his call, as constantly to adhere to him. And this having nothing of jurisdiction over all his fellow disciples annexed to it, on the one side, only the dignity of spe●king first, or being spoken to, and answering in the person of all, and yet being very reconcilable with all that I said of John, ch. 4. Sect. 14. viz. that he had the ●●vour of Christ, and the dignity of place before S. Peter himself in Christs life, leaning on his breast, having the {αβγδ}( for the younger man and the later disciple might by Christs favour, have that) there remains no force in this argument against my pretensions. But then 2. what is by the disputer assumed, both as granted by me, and plainly evidenced by the words, First Simon, viz. that some Primacy was given Peter] may have some ambiguity in it, and therefore must be cleared, before I can either grant it to be true, or disclaim the granting it. If by [ given] he mean no more then I have already said, that he had it by that savour of Christ, which was specially afforded to three of them, of whom he was the ancientest, both in respect of years and discipleship, then I freely grant it, and am no more incommodated by it, than just now I appeared to be. But if by [ given] he mean any farther particular donation of Christs to him, then this Primacy no way appears to have been thus given him. For whatsoever is by the Romanists supposable to be given him, upon tu es Petrus, cannot be applied to this, the title of {αβγδ} being mentioned by the Evangelist, before that part of the story, which sets down Christ's delivering those words to him. And for any other donation precedaneous to that, 1. the Scripture mentions none, and 2. tis not conceivable there should be any, or indeed such force in that, when all the time of Christs life John had the {αβγδ}, the dignity of place next Christ. For though that dignity of place may be( and was in John) without any superiority of power or jurisdiction, yet the Superiority or Primacy of jurisdiction is never to be found in any without the {αβγδ} or priority of place: and therefore I say, it is not imaginable( when the Scripture is silent) that any such Primacy of jurisdiction should at, or before the time of the [ first Simon] belong to S. Peter by Christs donation, and yet the dignity of place remain to S. John by Christs indulgence. And so much for the argument ad hominem, which doubtless made him promise of doing him special service, but hath much failed his expectation. But this great advantage must not be lost so, if it be good for nothing el●e, yet it may be so disguised and brought out a second time in other dress or garnish, that it may serve very well for a quelque choose in the bill of fare, and so indeed it is improved in the next onset; and from our Saviours making Peter the first, there must needs be some better thing bestowed on him, saith he, than a dry Presidency, or an obliging all the Apostles under pain of damnation to make a leg to S. Peter] I answer, it now appears what the design was in the former urging of the argument, to shufflle in the giving of the Primacy to him. But that art being now discovered, and no donation of Christs being discernible to be included, or intimated in this title of S. Peters, the puff-past may have served to furnish the table, but hath not fed any of the guests: and so we haue done with that Paragraph. SECT. III. The Romanists peace not perfect. The Greek Church, acknowledged not the Popes Supremacy. The politic Problem. The Kings power in externals. His judgement what good for the public. IN his answer to Chap. 8. Sect.( it should be) 6t. he hath made a shift at the enrance quiter to mistake my words, and design. I speak of the unity of the whole body, i.e. of the whole Christian Church, and all the parts of it, Eastern as well as Western &c. to which I thought the sub●ection of this Nation to the Pope, could not effectually contribute, because before the time of our pretended departure, the Eastern Churches had long renounced all subiection to the Papacy. And he refers me to the great tranquillity which they enjoy who are under that government now.] I answer, 1. that I discern not the truth of his affirmation, nor aclowledge the so perfect peace which he bo sts of; I need not go far for instances; Tis not long since we saw the seculars and regulars far enough removed from such huge tranquillity, engaged at a competent distance( as Watsons Quodlibets will testify) in many things, particularly, and more lately in that controversy concerning the necessity of an Ordinary in these Islands, and S. W. may remember it, by the token of the jesuits Creed, and whether their agreement be now so perfect in respect of the questions long agitated betwixt the Iansen●ans and Molinists, even after the Popes decision on the Molinists side, he may please to inform us in his next; And till then I shall omit the debate concerning the state of the souls departed, and the doctrines attending that, which are of some weight of importance. Secondly, Be the tranquillity of the Romish Subjects and votaries never so profound, yet 'tis evident the unity of the Romanists is not the unity of the whole Christian world, and that being it I spake of, tis certain he yet renders no answer to that. Tis true indeed, if it were all Christians duty, and so o●rs, to be subject to the Bishop of Rome, others default would not secure or justify us, but that this is the duty of all Christians, or of any more than of right belong to the Roman Province, is the principal question all this while, and must not be begged( as in the process of this answer it is) while it is under dispute. But at length he comes nearer the point in hand, and considers the Greek Church, and of them affirms these three things. First, that for rejecting the Popes Supremacy they were by all the Christian world held and called schismatics; and yet Secondly, when they were in their right mode, as in the council of Florence, they admitted it as much as any Roman catholic. Thirdly, that when they were disgusted and refused unity, they acknowledged the power of the Bishop of Rome, as, saith he, appears by the testimony of Gerson, cited by Bishop Brambal against himself, Just. vindic. p. 16. which witnesses that the Greeks departed from the then Pope with these words, we aclowledge thy power, we cannot satisfy your covetousness, live by yourselves.] To these I answer, 1. that their being the greatest schismatics for the rejecting the Supremacy, and yet their acknowledging as much as any catholic, and when they refused unity, yet acknowledging the Popes power] are riddles for none but S. W. to expound, and when he hath done that, he may very justly turn soothsayer, and set up ex tripod to deliver auguries or oracles which he please. For certainly if their schism consisted in denying the Popes Supremacy, and that is his power, then when they refused unity, in which refusal their schism consisted, they did not aclowledge his power. Secondly, if sometimes they were in the mode to deny the Popes Supremacy, sometimes to grant it, then, for ought S. W. hath here attempted to prove by any other means, than that of his own approving it, the yielding the Pope's power doth no more appear to have been their good mood, or interval, than their much more const●●t and con●●●ed refusing. Thirdly, for their subscription in the council of Florence, he cannot but know, how invalid it is to infer their submission to the Popes power, else it were great unkindness to account them as great schismatics since, as before that council( of the Greeks doctrine in this council, I have also spoken in the reply, Ch. XI. Sect. I.) Lastly, for Bp. Bramhals citation out of Gerson, Part of the bishops words are, that the Greek Church never acknowledged any obedience to be due from them to the Bishop of Rome, and he that is acquainted with the Chancellor John Gersons writings, or but with as many pieces of his, as are put together by Goldastus, in his Monarchia, will not doubt that the famed was his sense also, and we need no further evidence, than the words thus cited from him, for sure they that bid the Pope live by himself, res suas sibi habere( the solemn form of divorce) cannot at the same time aclowledge any such power, as S. W. pretends to, or any more than that of the Prime Patri●rch, or beginning of unity, which that learned Bishop was there willing to aclowledge. He next replies to my mention of the politic Problem, whether the Bishop of Rome be probably able to administer so vast a Province, the truth of which I thought belonged to prudent persons to judge, and especially to Kings entrusted by God with the care of their own Realms; And first he is willing to interpret my words of such human policy, as was to be had among heathens, and straightway to advance to such a f●stidious despising of my conclusion drawn from the Christian Kings being nursing Fathers to the Church, as to make it equally to infer Nero to have right and title to be head of the Church, whilst he remained an heathen Emperor.] But all this hath no more appearance of w●ight or earnest in it, than will briefly be answered, by my telling him, 1. that I spake of christian policy, or skill of managing and regulating the external matters of the Church, such is this of abiding or bounding of Provinces, appointing of Bishops Sees, or Metropoles, and the like in such a manner as may most tend to public good, and as an Heathen Emperor by accident may do somewhat in this, viz. by dividing the Empire into Provinces, as we know Aug●stus did by Mae●enas's advice, and S. Paul in his ordaining Bishops in Churches, follow the {αβγδ} order, as he found in the civil notitiae, so now that Princes have received the faith of Christ, and undertaken the defence of it, sure none is more fit to judge of all things of this rank than he, whom in every Nation God hath appointed to be Supreme over all, even Ecclesiastical persons, viz. the Christian King, as( both in this particular, and more generally) had before been proved to be the sense and resolution of the Christian Church and councils, and as the very title of Father, which the Scripture gives Kings, in relation to the Church, Isa. 49.23. doth demonstrate; For to the Fathers power, subjection and obedience in external things is relative, as even by the instance, which he thinks most confutes it, is manifest; for though joseph was but a softer Father to Christ, yet the text assures us, Christ lived in obedience to joseph, for else it could not be truly said, that he was subject to them, in the plural, Luk 2.51. What he adds in conclusion of that Sect. as a consequence from my words, that by making the King in each nation Judge of this politic Problem, I make the party in the controversy to be umpire of it] can really have no place here, where I am speaking, not of the point of right, whether the Pope be rightfully the head of our Church( for if that were the thing now under consideration, I should aclowledge the Prudential or politic Problem itself to be very unseasonably interposed) but whether it be most for the good of our, or any particular Church abstracting from the point of right) that the Pope should be head of it, or whether he being himself of but finite faculties, and at such a distance from us, and many other nations, he be fitly qualified to administer that vast Province, one Monarch over the whole Christian world, For of this it was evidently, that I there spake, and in that I thought it reasonable that the Prince, that is the Common ruler both of S. W. and of me, should be deemed the most competent judge betwixt us, what is best for either of us, and for all others in the same condition with us, which is far enough from making either party the umpire, as S. w suggested me to do, and is only angry with me, because I would not let him be guilty of the same fault himself, which he unjustly accuses me of, for if the Pope should be umpire, as he would have it, 'tis visible that a party is umpire. And so much for his first Section. SECT. IIII. The first ages most competent testifiers of tradition. Scripture a witness of apostolic practise, and not only Tradition. Scripture as infallibly interpretable as Tradition, or Papal decrees. The four first councils preferred before all subsequent, Why? The Articles of faith consigned in them, not to be increased. Authority of councils. Docibleness in a Church no fault. Not learning of Rome our only charge. Belief without Infallibility. Purity the flourishing of a Church. HIs second Section though well lengthened with exaggeration and scarcasme, is but a recitation, and enlargement of the same mistake of my sense, which the Cath. Gent. had hit on before him, concerning my mention of the first 300. years, and the four first general councils, as if I rejected all the rest of the Church, which was not comprised within those bounds, as erroneous, and such as I refused to be tried by, for the Doctrines in controversy between them and us; Whereas it is most manifest by the occasion, and whole contexture, that I mentioned the Scripture, and those as the safest Depositaries of all that faith which was delivered by Christ and his Apostles, and so as the most competent testifiers of tradit●on, which certainly they must be, if either he that was an ocular witness, or lived nearest the times of such, be more creditable, and authentic for the relating a matter of fact, than any other, no more honest than he, which hath not so good means to attain to the knowledge of it. Do not we caeteris paribus, give more credit to one eye-witness, than to many that were not such, but make distant rela jons from times which were long before them, offering no testimony, or record of any {αβγδ}, for what they say? Or indeed is it possible for us at this distance by any optic to discern or judge, what the Apostles did or taught, if it were not convered to us by some who lived in, or soon after their times? Is there any satisfactory motives to induce belief of a matter of fact( such it is, that the Apostle did institute, or teach this or that) but the authority of the Reporter? and is there any proper ground, whereon to build this sort of authority of one man, or society of men above another, but the consideration first of the means, he hath to inform himself rightly, then of his fidelity, that being not deceived himself, he was not presumeable to be willing to deceive others? So that what infallible judgement soever the Church of this or any former age can by deemed to have, yet sure matters of fact, such are all traditions, are not the proper matter whereon to exercise it, 'tis not imaginable that the most chartable Pope or council, should be strength of that, unless they have also( which I suppose they pretend not) immediate revelation, and inspiration annexed to it, affirm infallibly, either what S. W. hath written in Schism disarmed, ar what Simon zealots preached in britain, or indeed that ever he was here, or any one Christian Doctor for many hundred years, or consequently what Depositum was entrusted to our Church, any farther than they are advertised by some Records of the times, wherein each thing was done, or of the succeeding times, within such a distance, as it can by some sure means be conveyed to them. What can be more plain and evident than this? What less liable to those ridiculous consequences, of being judged by those that speak nothing of our differences, of making the whole Church first pure, then impure, then pure again, as it suits best with my purpose, of expressing a plain tergiversation, and the like which are affixed to my mention of the 300. years, and the 4 general councils? But of this I have spoken enough, in the Reply, Ch. 8. Sect. 3. But S. W. hath one special y here, wherein he surpasses the Cath. Gent. His first objection is against my but naming Scripture for any way of judging of Apostolical doctrines and traditions.] The concordant testifications of the first ages of the Church, and the four general councils I had particularly name, as means to convey to us the knowledge of Apostolical traditions, only I set Scripture in the front, as verily believing that at least some Apostolical practices and doctrines, were conserved there, suppose it were Christs sermon on the mount, or his institution of the Sacraments, or his very death and resurrection &c. And I must be arraigned and chastised, and very demure arguments formed against me for no more but this; For first he will ask. Are those doctrines clearer expressed in scripture than in the depositories of the Church, or no? If they be, saith he, what needed we those Depositives? If not, how can we judge of them by scripture?] I answer, what need hath the world of the itch of disputing, which suggests arguments against the suns giving light at noon day, and S. W. his invention serves him as well on such a theme, as for the defending any of his most precious concernments. Or if a man is bound either to be a schismatic, or to render punctual satisfaction to all such forked dilemnas as these, which like the brute in the fable mistook his own ears for ho●●es, it then sufficeth me at the present, that which soever is most obscure, should receive light from the more perspicuous, and so that sometimes the scripture should illustra●e the Depositories of the Church, sometimes receive lustre from them, and such very good friends as are the writings of the Apostles, and the records of their preachings, live amicably and profitably together, and administer each to the others necessities, and we receive our instrustion from both, when they are both willing to afford it, and content ourselves with either, when the other is silent, and never question Gods bounty, what need we have, or what benefit we can reap of that which he hath afforded; It being visible both in thesi, that that which is not needful at one time, may be beneficial, nay necessary at another, and in hi●o h●si, that this is the very case of scr●ptu e, and the faith once delivered to the saints( as that is mentioned by, and so is a disp●ra●e thing from the scripture) that one lords at one time, and at another time borrows light from the other. As for his singular instance, to prove how difficult a thing it is to judge when things are clear in scripture, when not; from the Doctors not being satisfied from thence, that S. Paul converted Jews, S. Peter Gentiles, 'tis long since demonstrated to be a c●lumnie, and that all that I said was no more than what was affirmed by the plainest words of Scripture, set down as intelligibly, as ever any tradition unwritten can be delivered, or as the Pope or council can define any thing. viz. that by compact between those two Apostles and some others, where they met in a City of mixed inhabitants, one should betake himself to the Jews, the other to the Gentiles. And therefore, as to that supernumerary exception, let S. W. but tell me what sure rules he gives us to settle our judgement, when things are clear in the definition of a Pope or council, when not, or in case of a doubt, what the meaning is of such supposed infallible decree( which if it want an interpreter, is a barbarian to him that understands it not, though in the spirit, it delivereth never so infallible an oracle) and I will not fail to satisfy his importunity, and direct him to as proper and safe means to interpret scripture also, or else I will not impose on him the believing this or that sense of it. The equality of the authority of all councils he also presseth, against my naming but the four first( which the Cath. Gent. was not acute enough to take notice of) But besides many other grounds of difference between those four first, confestly ecumenical councils, and the fourteen more which he sets under that title( which I shall not now insist on) I have already more than intimated the reason which in that part of my discourse gave the deference to those, because those were so near the first times, that they were competent witnesses or judges of the records, which were then produced for the truths, which were there defined as from Apostolical tradition. To which I farther add, because the Creeds or summaries of the credenda were in these so consigned, as that they might not afterwards be inlarg d by any to any new matters, as appears both by the Nicene Creed, formed by the Fathers of that first famous council( the Athanasian being but an explication of that) and the express words of the Ephesine council Can. 7. {αβγδ} that it should not be lawful for any man to produce, writ or compose any belief, beside that which was thus established by the Fathers of Nice. And that they which should dare {αβγδ}, to compose or tender or offer any such other Faith to any that were willing to convert to the acknowledgement of the truth from judaism, gentilism or any other heresy whatsoever, if they were Bishops, should be degraded, if Laick's anathematized or excommunicated; which as it renders a direct account of my pitching on this way of trial, whether the Church of Rome's conditions of Communion are too severe to us or no, so is it our evidence, that we are not heretics, who believe all this faith of Nice and Ephesus &c. or if we were, and for no less than heresy cast out by the Church of Rome, they must not under pain of degradation and excommunication, I may add the crime and pain of perjury also,( the Pope at his Consecration swearing to observe inviolably all the ordinances made in the eight first General councils) impose any new articles of belief upon us,( I mean such as were not in substance comprehended in those former Creeds) in the way to our readmission or return to their Churches peace. By the way, when there have been in the Romanists account so many General councils above the number of the 8. first, I might ask, whether in the Popes Consecration-Oath he swear the observation of all the whole number indefinitely? Or if he do not, whether I may not as seasonably retort the Question, as S. W. could propose it, whether all the councils are not of equal authority, there being nothing found to authorize the first eight, which was not found in the ninth, tenth &c. And then sure that answer that can be so easily retorted upon the respondent, is no unrefutable answer. What now hath been said, demonstrates sufficiently how little engagement lies upon me by force of the mention of the four first councils, to embark in a new Ocean of controversy, concerning the sacred and obligatory authority of all councils, any farther then their determinations appear to be grounded on apostolic tradition, so far indeed my words obliged me, and to that I have spoken already,( and I suppose, yielded as much, as is demanded by many learned Papists) but to any more my leisure is not so great at this time, as to invite me to expatiate so unnecessarily, though if it were seasonable, I might safely adventure on the question in the very terms, that S. W. hath proposed it unto me, viz. with his interposition of those two exceptions, unless their votes have not been free, or some other known defect have been in the managing of it. In which second rank of exceptions, I should not think fit to name the Primate of England his not consenting to the Canon, as S. W. will be forced to decry the Canon of Calcedon, because the Pope consented not to it, and this after he hath rebuked it in me, as illogical and illegal, to commit the Umpirage to a Party. The last onset is against my extoling the humble docible temper of our Church, i.e. in plain terms against imitating our Saviour, who did more then commend or extol humility, even {αβγδ}, pronounces it a prime ingredient in blessedness, and commands us to learn and transcribe it from him. If it were an hypocritical or false humility that I had thus extolled, and I were now chid for talking like a saint( as just before I was, when I did but profess, that our ignorance, if we should be found to mistake, is an unaffected ignorance, which S. W. such is his Christian temper, resolves to be a conscientiousness to myself, what pitiful shifts I make use of instead of grounds) If I say, the pretending to the humble and docible temper, whilst it were far from us, had been the matter of the charge, this had been but the old S. W. still, and I could not with reason {αβγδ} think strange of it, having been so long so intimately acquainted with his humour, and taught to expect such constructions from him. But it is the very humility which we profess to have, the docibleness which I verily thought had been our strictest duty, which is become S. W. his greatest sco●n. Truly Mr Dr saith he, it is a wonderful commend●ton to your Church, that she is yet to be taught, pray when w●ll she be of age to leave goi●g to school?] I answer to this question, I confess I am forced to speak like a sain●( but that is not indeed like an hypocrite) in the words of S. Paul, when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known. Since I first red those words, I thought I had reason to expect nothing in this world above an imperfect fallible estate, which signifies not any sceptical {αβγδ}, any doubt of the truth of any thing, which we believe ourselves to be taught by the Apostles of Christ, or an imperfectness, or darkness of any truth, which from him either by written or unwritten tradition hath been surely and clearly conveyed to us,( We sure believe all the Articles of the Creed as firmly as any Romanist believes them) but an imperfection in respect of the object or of the light, some things being believed by others, which we do not believe, because we have yet no convincing motive to induce the belief of them, other things also, wherein though as far as appears to us, they are false, and not reasonable to be believed by us, at least by divine faith, as long as we have no divine ground of that faith, either from scripture or tradition; yet because we believe ourselves fallible, and that we may possibly come, even in this world, to see more than yet we see, therefore humility and docibleness, is in this respect, all that we pretend to, and trust it will find a more favourable acceptation at his hands, to whom we desire to approve ourselves, than here with this disputer it hath met with. But it is evident enough, that it is not our humility or docible temper, that hath seriously disobliged S. W. If we will but give him leave to choose a mistress for us, we shall then be allowed to be as humble and docible as we please; For so it follows. Is it docibleness or humility to forsake a mistress which had all the qualities which could give her authority?] To see, whither passion or interest will drive one! Twas even now a fault that we were not out of our Prentice-like Tutorage, that we did not set up for ourselves, to profess truth as a Church should do? and that he thought the Church should have been the pillar and fi●me foundation of the tru●h] and lest we should do so indeed, become his scholars, and having ●uminated upon this his fi●st lecture, reply to him, that upon that very account our Church acknowledges no mistress upon earth, no not the Totius Orbis Domina, the Universal Mistress, the Roman See, being for all necessaries sufficiently furnished by that depositum which the Apostles left with us, and for what remains dark and undiscovered to us, secure, that the knowledge or explicit belief will never be exacted of us, Upon this sudden apprehension, ●pin is fallen out of the Machine, and the scene is perfectly changed, we must now be disciplined afresh, that we will set up for ourselves, that we will ever be of age, that we have at length out grown our Pupillage, that we are not so docible, or rather so tame, as to believe all that can be told us by one, whose Proctor S. W. assures us she is infallible, when in the very truth there is no one thing she doth, or can tell us, that we have less reason or authority to believe, than that the Rom n Church, which is this Mistress all this while, is either infallible, or free from many gross errors, and have no greater prejudice against learning of her, than this, that she hath no other possible means to infer the belief of many of her doctrines, but this fallacious circular one, because she cannot err. What yet farther follows in reproach of this magnanimous piece of our docible humility, that we hold Articles of faith upon that authority, which it is an article of our faith that it may deceive us,] hath been answered many times over, viz. that we may reasonably believe without doubting what yet is made known to us, by an authority, which we know to be fallible, having so little reason to distrust its testimony, though it be fallible, that I adventure my life confidently upon no securer terms. And indeed the magnanimity or temerity is not lessened but increased, by my taking up all my belief in gross from S. W. his infallible guide, for that she is truly so, as she pretends, I am far enough from being infallibly ascertaind, so that the balance or competition hangs but thus, betwixt a fallible authority, believed or affirmed by itself to be infallible on the one side, and another, or the same fallible authority believed to be fallible, on the other side, and which of these two is really the safest guide, the one that leaves no place for caution to S. W. the other that leaves me as safe, but more cautious( for certainly if these guides are really such, as cannot misled me, my believing of them, though I think them, as all human things, fallible, will not render them fallible, if they are not, or me deceivable by them, who really cannot be deceived) I now leave S. W. in his humble pusillanimous fit of believing nothing but what is represented by an infallible authority, to consider, and 'tis possible it may go for reason, and not for folly or fancy, in his severest retirements. What he means by asking, why the Primitive times must needs just end then when the Church began to flourish] expounding that by [ the times when the fathers began to writ against our doctrines] I cannot well divine, who think Christianity may flourish, when the profession of it is outwardly persecuted,( 'tis not the grandeur of professors, but purity of Religion, which is the true verdure and flourishing of it) and who am assured, that in the time of the four general councils, Christianity was in all respects as flourishing as ever:& that the coming in of new doctrines into the Church, which had not been taught by the Apostles, is the decay and withering, not the advancing or greater flourishing of it. I shall rather ask why the Church must then attain to' its plenitude of authority with S. W. when it begins as he saith, to writ against our doctrines, when it is certain we embrace no doctrines, but what the Church delivers us from the Apostles, and are accused by the Romanists, not for introducing more doctrines, than they aclowledge us to have received, but only for questioning the truth of, and tradition for some which they have introduced, and for which they cannot pretend Apostolical tradition, unless they find them testified in those first ages which were next the Apostles,( and so are the only competent testifiers of what is Apostolical) which ages if they have testified the truth of all the Romish doctrines, and the Romanists take up their doctrine, upon their testification, then we cannot be blamed by a Romanist, who are by his very objection here acknowledged to believe all that they have testified. And this is all that is due to his second Section. SECT. V. Retaining Apostolical Government, one indication that we are no schismatics. Vindication of my method. The one sort of Schism with the Romanists. altar contra altar, Sch●sm: yet all Schism consists not in that. The Primate in each Church. The Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes, wherein it consists. Of Liturgies and Ceremonies, and Discipline. Of sacrilege. Of the Mass. Of the Popes Monarchy, and Festivals. IN his third Sect. his first dish, or ●est( for it is with the Stationer under one, with the Author under the other of these notions) is raised out of the view of my method again, which when all is done, is as exact, as he could have taught it to be; That dividing from our Ecclesiastical Superiors was fitly set for a first kind of Schism, that against subordination, and that casting off all government quiter, was a species of another kind, by way at least of reduction, as the institutions of Christ and his Apostles, are reducible to the faith of Christ, hath been vindicated already; And all that is now behind to be justified in this place, is, that external communion being one part of unity, and the offences against that one part of schism, our retaining and living regularly under that form of Government, under which the Apostles founded Ecclesiastical Assemblies, is one evidence of our not being guilty of schism against external Communion. And to this purpose what proofs can be needful, when it is once considered, that external Communion is nothing else but {αβγδ} ●oyning regularly in the Ecclesiastical Assemblies, and that that is styled being {αβγδ} within the altar, in Ignatiu's phrase, in communion external with all those whom God hath set over us, and with all those that keep close to them, all others that live out of this, being, as S. W. told us even now, a multitude, but not a Church. And indeed when the rulers of the Church are the Masters and Ministers of the Assemblies, who have the ordering and transacting of all in them, what possibility is there of considering external communion, without an explicit consideration of this head, the form of Government appointed by Christ, and the regular living under it. To this I shall only add, that if there had been any infirmity in my method, and if that were the very default, which he would have reprehended, the reverting desultorily to the matter of Government, S. W. would have been the unfittest person in the world to complain of it, or upon this one score of the immethodicalness of my process, to feast his neighbours as he doth with the news of my preaching in a wilderness; For certainly none can be more guilty of it in the very kind, than he, for the denying the Popes Supremacy being his schism of schisms, as the denying his Infallibility is his heresy of heresies, 'tis consequent and certain, that whensoever he comes to distribute schism into its parts, Denying the Popes Supremacy must be the root and branch in every one of them. Thus very unsuitable it is to S. W. his condition, to blame other mens methods, who if he were never so subtle an artist or methodist, could n●t serve his rules and his hypothesis at once, but must be fain to divide his theme( Schism) as the keen stomach did his short Commons, or the blunt Friar his text, into one bit, or part. For that is the breviat of the Romanists divinity, that all that live in obedience to the Bishop of Rome are catholic, and all that do not, schismatical. But he tells us next, that Arians and other heretics have after their breaking from the Church of God retein'd the authority of their own Bishops] I answer, that when heresy and sch●sm went together, and the Bishops themselves were not the ring-leaders of it( as among the Arians it was) there generally the heretics renounced the authority of their own Bishops, and set up others against them, and so erected altar against altar, i.e. Bishop against Bishop, the ordinary style of schismatics in the Fathers, and notorious in the instance of the Donatists. But then 2. I grant that retaining the authority of their Bishops, is not, being taken alone, any certain argument, or evidence of not being schismatics, and therefore I took it in consort with others, and made it but one of six indications, on our side, for our not being guilty of this one branch of schism, against external Communion; and that I hope was just as S. W. would have directed me. This being still one branch of schism in them that are guilty of it, though all schism do not consist in this. Which also may be useful advertisement to him, if he please, and mind him, that the adhering to the authority of the Bishop of Rome is no certain defensative against schism, and that there may be other schismatics besides those, which are either by, or without their own default or consent, divided and separated from that See. What he here adds of my not telling him of the main hinge of our Churches Government, which is of the King being it's head and supreme in Ecclesiastical matters] is a special device, For I ask, doth he believe the King to be in any Nation head of the Church? If he doth not, why am I to be rebuked, for not putting him into my scheme, and so for not telling him of it? I aclowledge indeed that I do not tell him of it, and that with very good reason, because in my poor opinion, the King makes no part in our hierarchy, the Primate of each Nation is he, whom, according to the Apostlick Canon, and that of Antioch, we aclowledge. The apostolic Canon is express. {αβγδ}. {αβγδ} the bishops in every Nation ought to know the fi●st or Primate among them, and to account him as their head; and the Canon of Antioch is as full, {αβγδ}. {αβγδ}, the Bishops in every Province must know the Bishop which presides in the Metropolis, and do nothing of common concernment without him. As for the King, we know the title and power which by our doctrine belongs to him, viz. to be Supreme over all persons in all causes whatsoever. That he is Supreme the scripture tells us in many places, and particularly S. Peter, and how far this Supremacy extends in respect of Persons, T. 3. p. 189. p. l. 17. the F●thers of the Church have made no scruple to affirm, without excepting of any; so Saint Chrysostom on Rom. 13.1. {αβγδ}, The precept of subjection to Kings as Supreme, belongs to all, both to Priest and Monks, and not to seculars alone, and, {αβγδ}, though thou be an Apostle, an Evangelist, a Prophet, or whosoever, thou art under this precept of obedience to the higher powers. And indeed the matter is clear, that if as men we are born Subjects, 'tis neither in the power of our baptism, which makes us of men Christians, nor of our Ordination, which makes us of Christians Priests, Bishops, Metropolitans, Primates, to rescind the obligation, and oath, under which we are born, to quit us in the least degree of our allegiance before incumbent on us. And as for persons, so for causes also, the Supremacy of the King is universally extended, the Church having it's foundation in the Kingdom, and not the Kingdom in the Church, and Christ having interposed no exemption in this kind, save what the law of God and nature had always supposed, that we must serve, obey, and fear God, more, and rather then men,( timendo Majestatem contemnere Majestatem, i.e. adhere still to the supreme) when there is a competition and unreconcileableness betwixt their commands. But when there is none, then subject and prostrate all our obedience before him, who bears Gods image and superscription, being indeed his vicarius or proxy, commissionated by him. From whence it is visible what causes they are wherein the Church or Ecolesiastical persons depend not on the Prince, what powers they have, which flow not from him, viz those to which their calling from God, or office to which he hath commissionated them, doth oblige them, and which they cannot omit without the same woe, under which S. Paul was obliged to preach the Gospel; Agreeably we know, these things the Bishops in this Nation have done in the name of G●d and as Ministers of his, and commissionated by him, in their own names, The Censures of the Church were never issued out, as the civil acts of judicature, in the name of the Prince, but after the example of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 5. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the Bishop, as his Officer and Minister and ambassador. In a word the internal acts of the Ecclesiastical Function are those, wherein the Primate is under Christ, the chief in each Christian nation. But the external acts, or causes of the Church itself, such are all those, that in the discourse of schism have been attributed to him, are as regularly subjected to the Prince, as the {αβγδ}, whatsoever is most purely civil or secular. When therefore he saith, we substitute the King instead of the Ecclesiastical head we rejected, i.e. the Pope, The meaning if it have any truth, must evidently be this, The Bishop of Rome having assumed a Primacy in this Kingdom, and usurped a transcendent uncanonical power over our Primate, such as neither apostolic, Nicene, Ephesine, Antiochian, nor any other ancient Canon afforded him, or gave him any ground to pretend to, contented not himself with this, but assumed as confidently the Supreme Regal power, as far as to Ecclesiastical causes and persons, in external things, such as no way belonged to a Primate by the same ancient Canons, but were reserved as the privileges of Majesty, to every Christian Prince. Consequently at the return of each part of this usurped power to its due channel again, that which really belonged to the Ecclesiastical Primate, reverted to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and what as duly, and regularly belonged to the Supreme Monarch, returned to its proper seat of majesty. And thus, I hope, I have if not satisfied S. W. yet secured his seducible reader from being imposed on by him, in this his grand particular, which promised such flowers to his Crown, such advantages to adorn his triumphs over us. His next fling is at my method again, but they that have eyes in their heads, cannot choose but see, that they that aclowledge Episcopal, nay Papal Government, may yet not live regularly in obedience under it, and so that as the want of that obedience is a several branch of schism, so to secure ourselves from being schismatical offenders against external communion, the obedience to, as well as acknowledging of our lawful Superiors, was to be mentioned in my defence. In his answer to my third plea, as he calls it, many passages there are, before we find the least motion toward truth, or earnest, or arguing: For that 1. all schismatics meet at such appointed places as I spake of, viz. Churches, or 2. observe such set times, fasting or festival, the fasts and holy dayes of our calendar: thirdly, that Copes and Surplices are Sacramental: Fourthly, that we preach such doctrine as our first fore-fathers( i.e. the Apostles) sent us not to preach: Fiftly, that we imbue tender minds with tainted doctrine] are all equally fictions; and sixthly, that our prayer and praises is almost all out of their Mass and breviarie, if, being taken out of the ancient liturgies of the more Universal Church, it can yet be truly said to be taken from them, that have varied from the ancient form, yet sure it cannot be argumentative against us; for why must we that are blamed for receding from them, be blamed also for this act of not receding. Seventhly, then, As for ceremonies, of which saith he, we accepted from the Primitive Church only what we thought convenient, the same authority that recommended them, recommending more to us] I answer, that 'tis sufficient that what we took from the Roman Church, was such as they had from the practise of the Primitive Church, no obligation lying on us from thence to adhere to that Roman order in all other ceremonies, which we find not to be Primitive, or to observe every other rite, which the Primitives did: For as to those which we do retain, what need we own any other authority for retaining them, then that of the Primitive practise? and then why should the same, i.e. the Roman authority, from which we had them immediately, oblige us to receive all other that the Romanists use, but the Primitive Church did not use? and for those which the Primitive used, and we retain not, why are we more guilty therein than the Romanists are, who certainly do the same thing, either in the same, or other instances, retain not all ceremonies which the Primitive Church observed, witness the stan●ing, not kneeli●g in the service of God betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide, and on every Sunday in the year, which sure was of ancient Primitive, but is not of Modern Rom●ne, any more than of Engl sh use, and so proclaims the liberty of the Churches in retaining or not retaining, i.e. of choosing and culling out some ceremonies that are most salubrious, without burdening the Church with the greater weight and number of all, that have at any time been used. As for our discipline, which he saith is too weak to hold us together in unity, professed fallibility being, saith he, too weak for that] The answer is obvious, First, that pretention to infallibility is not discipline. Secondly, that the censures of the Church, which we are wont to understand by that phrase, are the same both with them and us, the weapons of our, as well as of their spiritual warfare, and the Apostle tells us, they are mighty through God, for the bringing down of strong holds, but with neither of us have that force, when sons of the Church rebel against, or cast off their Parents. And this is all that our experience tells us, that the censures have lost their force, since the Governors of the Church have been cast off, and I suppose the Church of Rome hath no fence against that; when any members of their Church renounce obedience to them, what force is there in respect of them, that do so, in all their thunderbolts? In this place p. 257. after his answers to three particulars of the plea concerning our not being guilty of this schism against external Communion, here is a very excellent prise played; My fourth particular concerned all that under any of those three former heads, the Romanist requires us to add farther to that which we voluntarily receive. And before he will proceed to that fourth, he must once more look back and take a second survey of these three, like him that after once saying grace could not fall to his meat, till he had exercised his gifts in praising God better. And what was the design of this? Why that in this review he might tell his reader one great mystery, which yet he had once revealed to him before, that D. H. who mentioned some things wherein he was no schismatic, omitted others wherein he was. But why did he not stay, till to the other three particulars these were added? The reason is evident, for then his exception, as far as there was any colour for it, had been prevented, the very next that follows, taking notice of the Principal, and of all that are material of those, which he saith are omitted. And then what doth this special enterprise of his amount to? But this in effect, that D. H. having mentioned six things, he had yet gone through but three of them, which is most true, because S. W. at his welchmans bait, would needs stand still in the midst, when the very next step or line, had else certainly given him a view of the rest of them. And was not this a fair reason why he should thus glean after himself, review and pick over his clusters again, and mind his reader, beside those answers that were already given( and already proved to have no force in them) first that we had cast out the Popes authority, and secondly, had been guilty of sacrilege, and again, denied obedience to their Churches, i.e. the Popes authority, and ruined religious houses, i.e. committed sacrilege; Where, as sacrilege is certainly( as hath been said long since) neither schism nor any branch or part of it( or if it were, the Romanists would find good store of schismatics among their own subjects) and as this is not the fault but the misery, not the guilt but the pest of our Church, so the other is particularly name, and spoken to by me, in the fourth particular, and can no more be said to be omitted by me, than the former three which he hath surveyed, might be said to be omitted, before he entred on the survey of them. One thing indeed he mentions more, that we left out all the most sacred parts of their service books the Canon Missae, and what ever concerned the heaven-propitiating sacrifice, and highest and soule-elevating act of religion; and again, that we took out of their mass book only the slighter things which were enough to serve us to cry Lord, Lord.] From this I aclowledge to learn two things to be affirmed by S. W. first, that we which retain in our services the prayers to the holy blessed and glorious Trinity, but do not take in prayers to Saints and Angels, are by S. W. judged to retain only the slighter things. Secondly, that the sacramental partaking of the real sacrifice of Christs body and blood, commemorative of that sacrifice once offered upon the across, and applying to us the propitiation of that, if it be not yet farther, the same sacrifice offered now by the Priests, which was once offered on the across, and that by means of his stupendious transubstantiating the Elements into that very body( one of which S. Augustine tells us is a savage thing; and S. Chrysostome that what the Priest there doth, is rather {αβγδ} than {αβγδ} a commemorat●on of the sacrifice of Christ, than the sacrifice itself; and of the other, our reason assures us, that it implies many contradictions, and so impossibilities in it) is none of the most sacred parts, none of the soule-elevating acts of our religion. In all this I aclowledge we are not of S. W. his mind, nor have as yet discerned in his temper any great effects of that soule-elevating act of religion, who yet I doubt not hath been at Mass in his dayes, and if our not opining with him in these particulars( to which our not practising is but consequent) must be schism after all, and we irremediably cast out from the Romanists peace and mercy, there is no help for it, that I know of, but by appealing to a more equal judge, then is our professed enemy in this matter. At length he is persuaded to proceed to the fourth head, which was the consideration of the particulars, which the Romanist requires us, but we deny to receive, viz. the Popes monarchic power over us, and the whole world, and the use of more ceremonies and festivals, of both which I affirmed that they were without precedent of the ancient Primitive Church, usurpations or impositions of the present Romanists. To these he hath nothing to say, but that the supremacy of the Pope was brought in 900. years ago,( and they that now live were not alive then) proving it only from our granting of it, and that ceremonies and festivals are ind fferent things, which 'tis lawful for them to recommend to their Subjects. To these I answer, First, that I said not of the Popes supremacy that it was an imposition of the present Romanists, but that that, and the other things mentioned, were usurpation or imposition of the present Romanist, and if it were usurpation( though of some former Popes before this last age) this will suffice to verify my speech, and 'twas truly all that I meant by it, and he may have heard of him, that had a Legacy given him either of the black horse, or cow, and suing the executor first for one, then for the other of them, was twice non-suted, till he laid his plea exactly by the words of the will, either for one or other. The same is S. W. his portion at this time. Secondly, That we in no wise grant, that for 900. years the Pope hath been possessed of the universal supremacy, nor indeed acknowledged to have it in this iceland of ours, witness the treatise of schism C. 6. throughout. And therefore this must be better proved than by our concession, and so needs no refutation from me, but that of denying it. Thirdly, That if the Popes power over us, were usurped only, and so we none of his Legal Subjects, he may then retain and exercise his power of multiplying ceremonies and holidays over his own subjects, without our being at all concerned in the obligation to observe them. And so much for his third Section. SECT. VI. Unsincere professors admitted to Communion, and such as may turn schismatics. No paternal relation of Rome to us. The foundation. Tradition. Denying Romish Infallibility the great Schism. HIs fourth Section sets out with a full cry, wilfully misunderstanding my words, concerning our excluding no Christian from our Communion. By Christian he will understand all nominal Christians, who though by all the world else called heretics, and which though they deny all the points of Christs doctrine, yet profess Christs name.] But first when I spake of Christians, it were hard that my words should indeed be understood of the quiter contrary, of heretics, and assumers of the name, without any of the reali●y of the Christian faith, that the word Christian must signify, and be understood in the notion of unchristian, to enable S.W. to dispute, or confute me. Secondly, when I expounded Christian, by such as hold the foundation &c. must it still be suggested, that all the no Christians are such, that Simon Magus himself( whom he here names in rank with my Christians) do indeed aclowledge the foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles? I wish it were now considered, who is the hospitable friendly person, the most charitable to heretics. Tis true indeed our Communion is such, that hypocrites who are not uprightly what they profess to be, may find reception among us,( but 'tis as true that heretics continuing such are cast out by us) Our judgement truly is not so chartable, that we can search mens hearts, or look into those closerts by any other perspective, than that which their actions and professions allow us. And I have not yet been assured that S. W. his infallible Church hath assumed to be scrutatrix cordium to have any sure test, to descry and purge out of its bowels all unsincre professors, that are not really what they pretend to be. I am sure S. Peter himself, to whom they pretend to owe their infallible chair, did baptize Simon Magus, when he had not {αβγδ} the genuine purpose, Cyr. Hieros. {αβγδ}. p. 2. as S. Cyril saith of him, and so {αβγδ}, had his body baptized, but not his mind illuminated, which he did not long disguise, but demonstrated it to all by very early actions. Act. 8.23. and after proved the {αβγδ} the first born of Satan, and beyond all the world beside, set himself against S. Peter, who had thus baptized, i.e. admitted him into his Church. And unless the modern glasses have helped the Church of Rome to means of profounder inspection than S. Peter had then met with, I doubt not but they will upon consideration aclowledge, that hypocrites may impose on them, as well as us, and that those that are baptized into a Church, may heretically and schismatically oppose it, and that this is but common to men, and cannot hope to be remedied, until Rome Christian, as well as Rome heathen assume to be deisied, and to communicate the same divine nature to their frailer brethren. And now let S. W. say, if this be not the full importance of his first answer. Next he is to please himself with my phrase of excluding none from Communion, that will either filially or fraternally embrace it with us, i.e. in plain terms, that the Governors of our Church do not causelessly excommunicate the sons of this Church, nor any true son of any other true Church, for all such they look on as brethren. And here he hath great Ovations, that we can admit none that will paternally communicate with us, that we have as much courtesy as may be, but not a dram of humility nor subjection to superiors] But the matter is clear, we do not aclowledge the Bishop of Rome our superior. All that are so, we obediently live under, as many of us as are under authority, but do not exact from our English Primate that he should aclowledge another foreign supreme over him and us. And that is all the news S. W. hath told us in that paragraph. Next when I say we aclowledge the foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles, he must first persuade his Reader, that I call him fool, and then ask Mr D. what he means by acknowledging the foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles? And who knows but I may again be accused of calling my Catechist fool, if I answer this question? But I shall do it in as secure a style as I can, and assure him I mean, what I have written an entire treatise on, the Depositum both in the scriptures and by Oral tradition of the Apostles committed to the Churches which they planted, of which the Church of Rome was one, and but one. And this supersedes all the force of this Paragraph. For certainly more than this S. W. will not pretend himself to mean by the foundation( as p. 266. he confesses) only he hath a reserve, I know, that his Church must have the enclosure of the privilege to expound to us infallibly, and tell us what this is, first to interpret Scripture, and then to testify of tradition. And herein I do not oblige myself to comply with him, as upon many other reasons, so upon this, because I have no infallible proof offered, nor any other indeed, besides their own affirming it, that they are infallible in either of these. When the remainder of his d sple sure falls on me for talking of fundamentals, and not naming what they are, I again answer, that I wrote a treatise of that subject, which was too big to come in by way of parenthesis in that place, and therefore staid for the Press, till that of schism was printed off. But saith he, if we thus interpret the foundation, we must admit only catholics, since only they( i.e. in his style, only the Romanists) hold this foundation For this I must not demand any proof or reason, but am to look on it, as one of S. W. his indemonstrable principles, which are to be confirmed only à posteriori, by his saying it, or by some such like irrefutable topic, and howsoever severe an exacter he is of probations from others, I shall not so much as expect from him, that he shall afford that any probation. But it seems his heart misgave him, after the delivery of those words, for fear we should grant him his position, and according to his argument oblige ourselves to admit the Romanists to our Communion( which yet he knows we never refused them, if they would sincerely come to it) and therefore he presently retracts again, we must not, saith he, admit them neither, being it seems resolved, that the ball of contention shall be held up for ever; otherwise I assure him we should not yet break with him upon those terms, which alone here he mentions. Since, saith he, you deny this way of bringing down faith to be sufficient, it follows that you must not admit catholics neither] But what is this way, which he saith we aclowledge not to be sufficient? why he had before set down that, the s lid sense of Christs law written and planted in the tables of mens hearts by the Apostles, and thence by a well linked chain of universal tradition derived to our times] This being all, and tradition, or planting in mens hearts no way excluding written traditions, which we ordinarily call scripture( for 'twere hard that a thing should be the less delivered by the apostles, because it was w●itten by them) I shall yet continue my hospitable humour, and resolving this solid sense of Christ law derived from the Apostles to our times by universal tradition to be perfectly sufficient( say S. W. what he please) to all that thus receive it, and live by it, I shall admit S. W. upon this profession to our Com●union, and then I hope, if he be not one of those ●ominal Christians, which even now he talked of, there might be an end of this controversy. But the fit of railing seizeth him again in the next paragraph, and the mention of our earnest desire to have the freedom of external Communion with others, and the addition of a very few words of Scripture, the one heart and one lip, hath under the notion of preaching, so put him out of all patience, that his pen never dropped ranker gull since the beginning of his work; and truly we that are wont not to invite, but to dehort railers from our Communion, are not, whilst he is in this mood, very fond of being admitted into his company. Only by the way we shall learn from him( because fits of rage bring forth mens own thoughts undisguisedly, and so deliver some truth) what is the only impediment of our readmission to his favour and Communion. First, if we will but reacknowledge a certainty, and secondly, the never erring rule of Faith, and thirdly, the voice of the Church, i.e. three sounds to the same sense, then we shall be received with open arms &c. From whence I conclude, that all our schism consists in not acknowledging the roman infallibility, and so that we dispute in vain all this while, whilst we speak on any other theme but that. And truly I that have written a full tract on that, long before, in defence of the Lord of Falkland against the answer and reply of the Romanist, did not think I was again bound to reprint that, and crowd it into this period. SECT. VII. The Romanists excommunicate. The liturgy their only grievance. Reformation no Schism. Our excommunicating the Romanists, how grounded. NOw follows his attempt of answers to my sixth particular, which said that the impediments which obstruct external communion are only imputable to them, First because the Pope excommunicated all catholics that came to our assemblies.] And his answer is, was it not well done think you?] And that is but the acknowledging all I there affirmed: For if they cast us out from all external fraternal Communion, and justify their having done it, then 'tis not imputable to us, that we separated from them. What motives they had to do this, belongs only to that other dispute, whether or no we were justly excommunicated by them, and that cannot be debated here, without resuming the consideration of the several Acts of our Reformation, which is again to recite the greatest part of this Book; For sure it must not for ever be supposed without proof, as here he doth, that we maintain heretical doctrines; Or if it must, yet secondly, unless some of our heresies be inserted in our liturgy( which now when he had most provocation to assume, he hath not pretended) 'tis still that Papal Bull that hindered their joining with us in our liturgy, and nothing in our liturgy itself; Thirdly, all that here he pretends for the justice of that Bull, is, that holding us heretics they could not reasonably let the people go to be taught false doctrine, to hear the Popes supremacy railed at as Antichristian &c.] And that is in effect to excommunicate nothing but our Sermons, for those only have at any time been guilty of what is here objected, and then also I may demand, why the same Bull did not excommunicate Pope Gregories Epistles( or him for his Epistles, as Honorius was after his death condemned for an heretic) which makes it a character of Antichrist for any one to assume to be Universal Bishop? However by this arguing it is supposed, that they might have been permitted to come to our liturgy when there was no Sermon: And yet we know their practise( and that is our best witness of their opinion of the obligation) is quiter contrary. They can red our Books, where all that our Sermons can say, may be said, as largely, and as bitterly and they can for curiosity be present at our Sermons too; And in brief 'tis only our liturgy, with which they cannot have any peace, and yet certainly this hath none of the pretended heresy in it. Next he hath no patience that we should affirm that the Bull in the tenth of Q. Elizabeth was the cause of the separation, when first, saith he, I have laid out knot by knot how the unity of the Church was unloosed in the time of Henry the eighth &c. in casting out the Papal-authority out of this iceland] And therefore he will press this over again, and when he hath done so with all his rhetoric, I may yet satisfy myself with what hath been already answered, that the Pope had never duly any supreme power over this, nor universal over all Nations, and that renouncing an usurper, casting off a barely pretended power, is no rejection of an authority, for by that I must suppose a real, and not an assumed power to be signified. The same answer is sufficient to the other part of his charge, concerning our forsaking their doctrines and practices; I doubt not but we receded, and that voluntarily from those, which we with the Romanists had formerly been used to; but reforming an error will never be a schism, though S. W. be in never so ill humour about it, we may depart from our own ill habits, and yet not depart from ourselves, forsake the riots, wherein we had gone on with our intemperate brethren, and still keep exterernal Communion with them, and never need the recalling of our youthful sins to make our company the better. So that still it remains, that if external Communion with any other fellow Christian may be preserved without acknowledging the Popes Supremacy( and to suppose it may not, is to beg the question of the whole Book) and without continuing of erroneous doctrines and practices( and such we are ready to prove those to be which we have left) we never schismatically departed from their external Communion, until we were cast out, nor would ever voluntarily have gone from any thing that was Christian in them( such, I presume, is external Communion of Christians) if we had not been violently removed from it. As for our rejecting roman catholics from our Assemblies, upon their avowed contumacy against the orders of our Church, which he next presseth, that sure is no more, than every national Church is accustomend to do, as long as such discipline is like to prove to edification, else the Censures were useless in the Church. And when he desires to know, why the Church of Rome might not do the like, or why she had not as great authority over those wh● were once hers, as our Church over those who were never ours?] The answer is obvious, because this Nation of ours neither is, nor ever duly was part of the Bp. of Romes territory, nor can be pretended to be so, without manifest violation of the Canons of those councils which the Pope himself hath sworn to preserve; whereas every native by baptism entred into the Church of England, is duly and by force of all ancient Canons a member of the Church of England, under this or that Bishop or metropolitan, and so it is not the same punishable crime, to have cast out an undue usurped foreign power, as to persist in contumacy and separation from an undoubted unquestionable just power of our immediate superiors. And so still this shows on which side the schism truly lies chargeable. SECT. VIII. The charge of Pride averted. Confession of fallibility. Questioning the Romish infallibility, our Pride. Disbeliefs caused by pretended pride, make not all Communion unlawful, much less excusable error without Pride. TO my second reason, by which I proved the breach to lye on their side, their imposing such conditions on our Communion, that we cannot subscribe without sin against conscience. His answer is, that this is a sinful pride of our understanding to disbelieve all our teachers, and yet to aclowledge ourselves but fallible in our contrary belief] By the frame of this objection compared with the Romanists great principle of infallibility, one would think, that if not the main, yet some part of this our sinful pride charged on us, consisted in thi●king ourselves fallible, or in pretending conscience for the believing of any thing, whilst we aclowledge ourselves fallible; If this were it, then the only way to amend this fault or error, were to assume infallibility, for then 'tis certain, that this could be no ingredient in our charge, either for the constituting, or aggravating our crime, that we aclowledge ourselves fallible. But what crime so ever this will be deemed in us, 'twill not be pride certainly, and it must, if it be any thing, be our sinful humility. But if this be not it( as I cannot indeed suppose, that he that counts infallibility the prerogative, and peculiarity of his own Church, should really think it our fault that we confess ourselves fallible) what then is it wherein our sinful pride consists? It must be sure set down in these words, that we disbelieue all our teachers, and think ourselves to understand more of Gods mind than all the world before us.] But then this affirmation wanted some proof, for sure we do not disbelieve all our teachers. The word of God written and unwritten( such as appears to be so) and deposited by the Apostles i● the Church, is certainly our lesson or {αβγδ}, and our teachers {αβγδ}, are living guides, our Bishops, using the assistance of the Priests, and if the later corrupted Church of Rome were our teacher also( as indeed it assumed that office) before the Reformation, yet sure it was not all our teachers, or all the world before us; The Primitive purest times, from whence we had confestly our Creeds, and all our necessary doctrine, must not( to gratify S. W.) be quiter turned out of the world. So that again our enormous pride is crumbled away into this one atom of questioning the Romish pretensions of infallibility, of comparing and preferring the ancient humble before the mode●n assuming Church of Rome, which as S. W. calls pride, so others that are as disinteressed as he, call necessary caution and prudence, and making use of the best means that God hath afforded us, of judging truth by, and a necessary care neither to viol●nce our facul●ies, by forcing them to see, what with the utmost of our intention we cannot dis●ern, nor to charm our consciences, by dissembling and professing the contrary to our present conviction. As for the Church of Rome being our Master and Father and Mother( which is again the postulatum, without which his argument is not able to proceed one step) he knows what is the name of that Elench, it having, next contumely( to which all other must be content to yield the deference) deserved more of him for the filling up his pages, than all his other materials together. If it were certainly pride, that produced all our disbeliefs, which brought us under the roman Censures, I should not doubt to yield to him that we are to blame ourselves, so far as to the occasion of our disunion. But when the matter in hand is but their surmise of our pride, and when the question is of the lawfulness of their retaining with us external Communion fraternal( for that is the only thing that in this latter part of the treatise I undertook to consider) I see no convincing reason why a Romanist which may possibly be as proud as I, or however, not free from all other filthiness of the flesh or spirit, and knows more of it by himself than by me, may not lawfully hold external Communion with me, and those others, who may possibly be( though without revelation he cannot be sure they are) guilty of pride? Suppose a Romanist should be drunk, yea and vent some heretical pravity in this distemper, were it unlawful for another Romanist of the same particular diocese with him, before, or without his immediate superiors Excommunicating him, to preserve Christian society, or were it necessary to renounce all external Communion with him? If it shall be said, it were, instead of exacting the reason of the affirmation, I shall again ask, but what if he only surmised the other to be drunk, and the doctrine he vented to be heretical, and this upon no other proof of the truth of his surmise, but only because he expressed himself to think somewhat, which was contrary to the Romanists sense in religion, which of what moment soever it were, it were yet confessed, that if he did believe it without any fault of his own( if it were not caused in him by drink or such other distemper) twere but a blameless, at least excusable mistake in him; would that Romanist think himself in conscience obliged to break Communion with such a man, only by force of the Popes Bull for excommunicating of heretics? If he would not, I should be glad to be shew'd the disparity betwixt that last case, and the case set down here by S. W. in these words[ If it were pride( that [ if] not signifying possibly any more, than that he thinks it was pride in us) which made you think otherwise, then it is not innocency in you, or sufficient excuse for your Non-Communion] In the mean, I suppose it is clear from his very affirmation, that 'tis our antecedent pride that makes us schismatics, and neither our subsequent doctrine nor practise; for schism being the great unexcusable sin now objected against us, that which makes us unexcusable, must be it that makes us schismatics. And then I am sure that being a 'vice of the mind lies open only to Gods, cannot come under S. W. his cognizance, and that is all that I need reply to that answer. On occasion of my offering to contest our Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by, he first asks what these grounds are? Whether any infallible authority? But to that we have oft spoken already. Secondly, whether I think our Saviours command to hear the Church be such a ground? And that question being propounded by the Cath. Gent. is also answered already, Repl. Ch. 9. Sect. 1. and what he hath added to it by way of amplification, hath both in that, and the Reply been distinctly prevented, and so there remains no more of his fourth Sect. SECT. IX. Of judging. S. W. his pretended moderation. Our not hearing any other Church. His impossible affirmations of their infallibility. One faith. S. Cyprians temper Pope Stephanus's temper. Cyprians words to Cornelius. The privilege of the Roman See in Cyprians time. Cyprians behaviour to it. Firmilian of Stephanus. S. W. his sense of Faith without knowledge. Difference betwixt fundamentals and superstructures. HIs fifth Sect is designed for justification of the Romanists charity in judging and d●spising us, and first for judging: And he presumes he hath given us testimonies of their great moderation, as well as no uncharitable●ess, that when we aclowledge no Church to be heard, he makes us only schismatics and heretics, and doth not advance to those harsh terms which our Saviour himself hath laid down, of accounting us heathens and Publicans] But first I may have leave to demand how he which thinks those words of Christ to belong to us, as we stand ( truly) chargeable of not hearing the Church of Rome, can avoid proceeding to that higher pitch, or harsher terms, of accounting us very heathens and Publicans? Or if those words do not at all belong to us, how then from them he can justify his milder Censures of judging us schismatics and heretics? The Dilemma is obvious, either that text of Mat. 18.17. is his direction for his judging of us, or it is not; If it be, how can he escape accounting us heathens and Publicans? If it be not, how can it justify his calling us heretics? or indeed to what purpose was it at all produced in this matter? Secondly, is it indeed true, and doth not S. W. prevaricate when he pretends to thus much moderation, as to bestow on us those milder, and not proceed to the other harsher terms against us? He hath by and by these words. How can we then, seeing evidently they heard not any Church judge otherwise than that our Saviours words are true, i.e. that they are in a sad condition] and then what that sad condition must signify, 'tis easy to resolve, from the presumed truth of those words of Christ, thus applied to us. And I am sure we have these words in their Canon Law, Peccatum paganitatis incurrit, quisquis dum Christianum se asserit, Sedi Apostolicae obedire contemnit, He incurs the crime of heathenism, whosoever affirming himself a Christian contemns the apostolic See, citing the words of Samuel, and the application of Pope Gregory the seventh, that disobedience is the s●n of witchcraft; and non acquiescing as the sin of Idolatry. And it being certain on one side, that we do profess ourselves Christians, and yet think not ourselves obliged to obey the See of Rome, nor consequently have paid that obedience thereunto, I see not how those principles, which have carried S. W. so far as he professes, should set him down, before they had brought him home to that highest and most immoderate pitch. But then thirdly, whatsoever our lot be, we must still insist, that the roman Church hath no due claim to our obedience by any right devolved to them from Christ or his Apostles, or the ancient Canons, and so still we are really safe from the penalty of [ si ecclesiam non audiverit] though we have not paid the desired obedience to that See; And till S. W. hath proved the justice of their claim, and of that consequence, that he that hears not their Church, and yet hears his own, doth yet aclowledge no Church to be heard, he will never be able to justify the charity of their judging us, upon force of that text. And when he father extends his words, that at our Reformation we joined not ourselves with any other Church whom we might be said to hear] the answer is obvious that a national Church. {αβγδ}, independent from any other foreign jurisdiction, needed not to join with any other Church, as to hear, i.e. in Christs sense, to obey that; The fraternal Communion is all that is our duty in respect of others, the filial, or that of subordination or subjection was not incumbent on us; And sure S. W. that doth not pretend that the Greek or any other Church, save only the See of Rome hath authority over us, had much forgot himself, when he made this any part of our charge, that we joined not with, so as to hear any other Church. His second ground, on which he justifies their judging to be no uncharitableness, is the infallibility of their Church, which saith he, their ancestors have beleieved ever since Christs doctrine dawned to the dark world] which is in effect, that the Church of Rome was infallible before it was, had its inerrability before it's being( for without doubt Christs doctrine did thus first down to the dark, i.e. the gentle world, before it illuminated the roman Climate, many other Churches of the Gentiles having received the faith more early than that of Rome) but also that it's infallibility was thus anciently believed; By whom he tells us not, but hath set it in such large pompous terms, that it is not only not true, but not passable, by any other means, save that of divination; And of this we have not heard that any ancient Augur hath predicted, and now I suppose 'tis too late, so many hundred years after, for S. W. to take that office upon him. In a word, to judge us heretics, and defend the charity of it, because their Church is infallible, to prove that infallible because they have believed it so, and for the confirming of that, to vouch no one testimony, and yet to resolve, that so 'twas believed before it was possible either to be, or to be believed, is the pregnant and solid way of probation, by which his charity is defended beyond all possible confute in the second place. His third way of propugning it is that text of scripture, One faith, one hope, one baptism, from whence he resolves that either they or we must err against faith under penalty of maintaining a contradiction, and then by Christs words he that believes not is condemned already, he that is certain he believes, and hath that one faith, cannot make conscience of judging the other, since the other is condemned already; Nay, saith he, if he judge him not to be judged already, he must judge himself to be a selfe-judg'd unbeliever] And then, beyond all expectation, here is suddenly a cry raised, of the Doctors blundring, and destroying all reason, and that serves for a new made-dish in the bill of fare, to fill up the one and thirtieth room at his table: To this plea of his the answer were already given, if we had but as little charity, or so much ill language as he, to call him heretic, or any other such ill name, which he can frankly bestow on us, for then the one faith being as strongly, i.e. by our own words, confirmed to be on our side, as it is now concluded to be on his, by his own presumption; there were no syllable behind to be farther answered. But without making use of such an auxiliary, which I so much dislike in him, I answer secondly. That each of us may very possibly have embraced that one faith, which the Apostle speaks of, nay 'tis most evident each hath; For what was that one faith, but those articles of belief, which were then deposited in all Churches, and into which all Christians were baptized in that one baptism? And 'tis certain both they, and we have uniformly received that in the apostolic Creed, as that from the traditions, which in every Church were to be met with, was explained by the Nicene Fathers, and established by that, and the following Occumenic●l councils to be the one faith of all Christians. Our agreement therefore in all these heads of faith, is no doubt sufficient to give us title jointly to that one Faith, and for other differences which are reconcilable with the believing of these, be they true or false, they are certainly no part of this faith. If they shall appear to be true, they are like Gold built on the foundation, and so superstructure not foundation; if they be false( as we must believe your additions to be, and we that have no additions at all, cannot be accused by you for what we have not) they are then the combustible matter, the hay and stubble, which will take fire, as soon ever that trial comes. Herein therefore evidently lies the difference betwixt you and us. We conceive you guilty of many foul errors, but yet do not pronounce you unbelievers, because the one faith deposited in the Church is received, and not rejected by you, but you that have no cause to pretend, that we have superstructed any such positive errors, and yet as little doubt, but we have received the one faith, as that signifies the Apostles depositum, or the Nicene Fathers explication of it, from the tradition of the Church, do yet accuse, and condemn us as unbelievers, because we receive not all other doctrines, that your Church( contrary to the express command of the Ephesine Fathers) hath thought fit to impose on us. And our telling you this, brings upon us a worse censure yet, the charge of destroying our reason, as well as our faith; He that will say what we now say, must it seems, be sent a grazing with nabuchadnezzar, we were infidels before, but now we are become irrational; Ere we accused you of uncharitableness, we were but heathens, but since, we are metamorphosed into brutes. And this is the sum of S. W. his third defence or apology for his judging us. I see 'tis our wisest way not to complain, lest some ruder fate still remain for us, as the proof that he is not uncharitable. His fourth defence is, that their judging may indeed be error, but malice or uncharitableness it cannot] But this having been the Cath. Gent. his allega●ion, hath received it's answer in the Reply, ch. 10. What he answers to the words of S. Cyprian, neminem damnantes, neminem à communione nostrâ arcentes, tha● he speaks of his own temper towards the rest of Gods Church( and that about a private opinion only) but neither he, nor any other Father admitted to their communion those who had been condemned by all the Churches in communion with the See of Rome] comes now next to be considered, and to it I shall answer these few things. First, that my words having on purpose designed to show the likeness of our, and the unlikeness of the Romanists temper, to that of Cyprian, and consequently the danger of schism to them from judging of us, if this be granted, as necessary it must, that this was Cyprians temper, and that this ought to be other mens temper also on the like occasions, this is all that I need ask in this matter. For that this rule should be no farther applicable than to the matter of the present difference betwixt S. Cyprian and others, concerning the baptism of heretics, or that it is not equally( by parity of reason) to be extended to all other differences which touch not the foundation, there is no other reason here tendered, but that this of rebaptisation was not, but these other matters of difference between the Romanists and us are defined by the Church: To this then I answer, first, that the contrary to S. Cyprians opinion was at that time defined by the then-Bishop of Rome, and earnestly maintained by him, and some others with him, as shall by and by appear. Secondly, that betwixt the Romanist and us, the question being principally this, whether the roman Church have done well to enter so many new articles into their belief, and to exact the profession of them from all that are admitted to their Communion, quiter contrary to the express interdict of the Ephesine Canon so often mentioned, and withall the matter of those articles being so far from infallible or certain truth, that we doubt not to evidence of some of them, that they imply a contradiction, and so an impossibility to be true, and the ground on which all are founded at once, the Roman infallibility, being itself far from being induced by any infallible medium; These things I say, being considered, I desire that Cyprians temper, may be compared with the temper of those that thus defined these articles de fide, and in what degree soever it shall appear, that the making those definitions de fide, and condemning and excluding all that cannot uprightly and cordially embrace them, hath been contrary to S. Cyprians temper and rule for the preserving the unity of the Church, so far those decrees may be rescinded, and cassate, or if not, still I suppose it clear, that this is quiter contrary to S. Cyprians rule, and that all the judging and excommunicating of others, that is consequent to this, is as the principle itself, to which it is consequent, i.e. destructive to the peace of the Church, and that is schismatical. Thus I am sure Inter Cypr. Epist. 75. Pam. Ed. p. 117. Firmilianus, and the Eastern Bishops with him pronounce of Stephanus Bishop of Rome, lights& dissentiones &c. What contentions and divisions have you caused( saith he) through the Churches of the whole world? What a great sin have you heaped on yourself, whilst you have cut of yourself from so many flocks or Churches, for you have cut off yourself. do not deceive yourself, for sure he is truly a schismatic, who hath made himself an Apostate from the Communion of ecclesiastic union, for whilst you think you may excommunicate all from you, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all others. And so on, much more to the same purpose. Thirdly, Because it is here by S. W. suggested, that as Cyprian knew very well what belonged to Church order and discipline, so neither he nor any other Father admitted to Communion those who had been condemned by the roman See, and the Churches in Communion with that] I desire it may be remembered, first, what difference there was betwixt the condition of the roman See in Cyprians, and in these dayes, no one of those ●octrines were then defi●ed, which now are by them defined and imposed on all communicants, no infallibility of that church assumed or pretended, No monarchic authority over all other Churches and Bishops, as appears most evidently by those very words of Cyprian, Ep. 55. to Cornelius, which Baronius and Bellarmine make such use of to the contrary, when on o●casion of Cornelius's receiving some to his Communion, which Cyprian had censured, he tells him that this is the great cause of schisms and heresies in the Church, quod sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, Pamel. Ed. p. 68. nec unus i● Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos& ad tempus judex 'vice Ch●isti cog●tatur, that the Bishop is not obeyed, that he which is ●lone the Bishop and judge in Christs stead, is not considered as such, i.e. that when Cyprian and such as he, had excommunicated offenders, the Bishop of Rome received them to his Communion, as the Pax vera falsae pacis mendacio tollitur, salutaris sinus matris noverca intercedente precluditur &c. p. 69. Honor ergo datur Deo, cum sublatâ paenitentiâ nec ullâ exomologesi factâ despectis Episcopis atque calcatis— communicatio non communicantibus offeratur? Ibid. Cum statutum sit omnibus nobis— ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen admissum,& singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta, quam regat unusquisque& gubernet, rationem sui actus domino redditurus, oportet utique eos quibus presumus non circumcursare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem sua subdola●& fallaci temeritate collidere— Ib. p. 70. Nec utilis aut consultus est pastor qui ita morbidas oves gregi admiscet— Ib. Nulla cum talibus commercia copulentur— simus ab eis tam separati quam sunt illi de ecclesia profugi— p. 71. rest of the Epistle makes it evident; His words also of Pope Stephan in the beginning of Ep. 74. ad Pompeium, abundantly evidence the same, being written with that sharpness, that was not agreeable from an inferior to his superior pastor. All that then belonged to the See of Rome S. Augustine sets down, by Cont. 2. Ep. Pelag l. 1. pre-eminence in celsiori fastigio speculae pastoralis, in the higher roof of the Pastoral watch Tower, which he there makes reconcilable with the communis cura omnibus nobis qui fungimur Episcopatus officio, the common care and solicitude of all Bishops, including evidently the Bishop of Rome in that number. And as long as this equality of power( allowing the Bishop of Rome the dignity of place) was thus preserved, it could be no prejudice to any other, that none that was denied Communion by the Bishop, should be allowed it by other Bishops, the same caconical reason obliging him, that he should not receive any, that were excommunicated by any other Bishop. But then secondly, when the Bishop of Rome did not thus discharge his duty to other Bishops and Churches, the dignity of the roman See itself did not free him from the note of schism and heresy, as is also most evident in the passages betwixt S. Cyprian and Pope Stephanus, when Stephanus had failed in his part, nostrum est, saith he, Ep. 67. consulere& subvenire, qui gubernandae Ecclesiae libram tenen●es— It is my part to consult and aid, who hold the balance of the Church— then admonishes him of his duty, Quapropter facere te oportet— and, Dirigantur in Provinciam à te literae; And Ep. 74. he tells Pompeius of Stephanus, haereticorum causam contra Christianos& contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur, he endeavours to assert the cause of heretics against Christians and against the Church of God, and, magis ac magis errorem ejus denotabis, thou shalt more and more observe his error, accusing him of impertinence and contrariety to himself, unskilful and improvident passages in his decree, which may serve for a competent intimation, what respect S. Cyprian bare to that See of Rome when the Bishop thereof misbehaved himself. 'twill not be amiss here to recite what S. Augustine resolved in this matter. In his Book de Unic. Bapt. Contra Pelag. c. 14. he makes this comparison betwixt these two Bishops of Carthage and Rome, Cyprian and Steven, dvo erant eminentissimarum Ecclesiarum Episcopi, ambo in unitate Catholicâ constituti. Quorum Stephanus baptismum Christi in nullo iter●ndum censebat,& hoc facientibus g●aviter succens●bat, Cyprianus autem in haeresi vel schismate baptizatos, tanquam non habentes baptismum Christi, baptizandos in Ecclesia Catholica existimabat, multi cum illo, quidam etiam cum isto sentiebant, utrique cum eis in unitate consistentes. There were two Bishops of most eminent Churches, both in catholic unity, Steven resolved that the baptism of Christ was not to be iterated in any, and was very angry with them that did it: Cyprian thought that those that had been baptized in schism or he●esie as not having ●he baptism of Christ( some of those heretics denying the Holy Ghost, as he elsewhere presseth) should be baptized in the catholic Church, many were of his mind, and some of S●e●hens &c. Here now is the full meaning of the words, which I briefly cited out of Cyprian, when Cyprian was on one side, and the Pope on another in a contest, that divided the Christian world into different opinions, the Pope pretending Apostolical tradition for his side, and vehemently insisting on it, S. Cyprian adhered to his opinion, opposed and refuted the Popes position and his pretension to tradition( as appears by Cypr. Ep 75. Quantum ad id pertineat quod Stephanus dixit quasi Apostoli prohibuerint,& hoc custodiendum apostles tradiderint, plenissime vos respondistis, neminem tam stultum esse qui hoc credat Apostolos tradidisse— Stephanus infamans Petrum& Paulum quasi hoc ipsi tradiderint. Firmilianus in his confutation of Stephens Epistle) and never yielded to him it it, and yet would not condemn and break Communion either with him, or with those that joined with him. add unto this what Cypr. Ed. Pamel. p. 115. Firmilianus farther affirms, Eos qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus observare queen sunt ab origine tradita,& frustra Apostolorum authoritatem pretendere— that they at Rome do not observe all those things that were from the beginning, and that they do in vain pretend the Apostles authority, that customs Apostolical are varied by diversity of times and places, nec tamen propter hoc ab Ecclesiae Catholicae place atque unitate discessum est, p. 117. and yet men never broke the peace and unity of the catholic Church for this, and that when they seem to oppose custom to truth, no man can be so vain, as to think that a good plea, or any better than the Jews would be for the rejecting Christianity, or upon that account to refuse to leave darkness when he sees the light, telling Cyprian that this was the Africans case against Stephen, and that they to the custom of the Romans opposed a custom also but that of truth, ab initio hoc tenentes quod à Christo& ab Apostolo traditum est, holding from the beginning what was delivered by Christ and the Apostle. This then was another part of S. Cyprians temper to prefer that which he resolved to be true Apostolical tradition, before that which the romans pretended to be such, and yet not to break Communion with them, whereas Stephanus( saith Firmilianus, at that time dissenting from so many Bishops over the world, Cypr. Ed Pam. p. 117 broke the peace with all of them, sometimes with the Eastern, sometimes with the Southern or Africanes, would not admit their legates to any speech with him, forbade receiving them into their houses, denied them not only peace and communion, but house and entertainment. Whereupon Firmilian asketh this question, Is this the keeping the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace? to cut himself off from the unity of charity in all things, to estrange himself from his brethren, and contra sacramentum& fidem contumacis furore discordiae rebellare, to rebel against sacrament and faith by the fury of obstinate dissension? and then concludes, & tamen non pudet Stephanum, and yet Stephen is not ashamed to patronise and defend heretics against the Church, p. 18. and for the vindicating of them to divide the Church, and call Cyprian a false Christ, false Apostle, deceitful workman. Whatsoever S. Cyprians temper and practise was, it seems Pope Stephen's was not so meek. Here is breach of Communion on his part, and yet the far greatest part of the world held communion with Cyprian, when the roman See, and those that were in communion with that, had thus divided themselves from him. All this I hope may suffice to vindicate my vouching of Cyprians temper and rule of peaceableness, against the contrary practise and humour of the Romanist; I shall be glad now to hear, whether S. W. take any joy in the commendation that he bestowed on that Father, that he knew what belonged to Church order and discipline. For if he did, I hope we that have so exactly transcribed his copy, in this particular, have not offended against either. What he here adds of my admitting all to our Church that call themselves Christians] was formerly shew'd to be a calumny. And for the short but keen touch of an opinionative faith, which he mentions on occasion of my supposing that the differences between him and us, are but differences in opinion, saying that he sees no reason we should trouble ourselves to writ Books in defence of an opinionative faith, and adding, It were better in that case to eat and drink, shake hands and be merry, nor trouble ourselves with thinking whether there be a heaven or no, which we can never come( the ground of faith being but an opinion) to any certain knowledge of.] I should hope this signifies that S. W. is advanced very nere to an end of his prizes, for sure he will never be able much to transcend this pitch, which he hath here arrived to. To it I answer, first, that I had thought that faith is by all men distinguished from knowledge, and that how certain, and undoubted soever the grounds of it are, yet being of things not seen, or inevident, knowledge in strict sense it cannot be; And I had thought that this was it, that made Faith and the works of faith so highly rewardable, that it is of things not seen or inevident, nay oft contradictory to the light of natural reason, or experience to flesh and blood &c. whereas the consenting to a demonstration, which alone is science or knowledge hath not been thought so magnanimous and heroical, and consequently rewardable an act, nor( by the same reason) the state of vision and comprehension, which is our reward rather. And therefore it cannot but be very strange to my ears to hear such conclusions as these, so bluntly, and without all provocation calmly delivered, that it were better to eat— i.e. turn Atheists, than only to entertain ourselves with a belief of heaven, without any certain knowledge of it. But passing this by, me thinks it should be possible enough that there might be some difference betwixt the clear doctrines of Scripture( that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and the like, the several articles of the Apostles Creed) on one side, and all the additions and superstructions of the Romanists on the other; There are I presume, but two ways imaginable to make them of equal certainty, either their being all equally delivered by the same authority of apostolic tradition, or by the same Infallible testifier, the Church of Rome. And as there is very little proof for the former of these, the apostolic tradition being no way evidenced for the particulars in debate, so for the later,( beside many other) methinks the example even now brought of Pope Steven, should ad hominem at least, to S. W. be a competent prejudice against it. The doctrine which he taught against S. Cyprian, the Roman See then taught as eagerly as could be, affirmed and testified it to be Apostolical tradition, and custom of the Church, and as many as in this adhered to him, must be supposed to have done the like,( and S. Austin himself in many whole Books together confesseth, that the truth was on Stevens side, though the charity and humility on S. Cyprians) and so if the roman See be infallible either in affirming or desining, or in testifying of Apostolical tradition, this doctrine of Stevens must be as certain and indubitable, as any article of the creed. And yet S. W. himself hath even now confessed, that this was but matter of Opinion, or about a private opinion only, and then I hope by parity of reason, I may be allowed to have learnt from him the same language, and to assume, that the doctrine of transubstantiation, nay of the infallibility of the Church of Rome, is no article of the Apostles creed in our account, ought not to be so in the Romanists, and therefore in any reason they ought not to damn us, to drive us from their Communion, for not assenting to these opinionative articles, or if they do, that this is an ill {αβγδ}, or indication, that the schism is on their side,( wheresoever the truth should be found to be) if we may judge by S. Cyprians rule, or by S. Augustines answer to the Donatists, often objecting Cyprian in defence of their own rebaptisation, viz. that Cyprian erring in that point, with so much, and so constant charity and humility, was to be preferred before Steven maintaining the truth with so much pride, and uncharitableness; And thus we also know in the quartodeciman controversy, though the truth was on Victors side,( as I have no obligation now to yield it on the Romanists) yet was he justly reprehended by Ireneus for his pride in cutting off from Communion the Asian Bishops for the contrary error. What he adds in the last place, about begging the question, is soon answered, that I count it not a begging of the question in the Romanist to call us schismatics when we deny and offer to prove the contrary, but their bare calling us so, without any offer of proof for it, or the supposing it sufficiently proved, and taking it for granted, and from thence building conclusions upon it, as on a principle, when it is not proved with any Solidity, and when at that very time, when 'tis taken for granted, it is known to be the principal, if not only question, as in this present controversy, whether we are schismatics or no, it is most manifest. As for his good words which, before he leaves this first part of judging others, he must needs bestow upon my arguing, that it equally favours the perfectest schismatics that can be imagined] it appears before this what truth there is in them; If S. Cyprian and such as he be the perfectest schismatics imaginable, then he hath aimed something right, but otherwise he hath not, for he hath been the measure, by which alone I have directed my arguing in this matter. SECT. X. Of Despising. Breach of equal Communion, when just, when Schismatical. S. W. his notion of Tradition, useless to him. Tradition hard to be known, falsely pretended, sometimes concealed. Prosperity of the roman Church. Our not casting out the Romanists. Our neither judging nor despising them. Schism against the Universal Church or councils. THe answer to the second branch, that of despising their brethren now follows, and his advantages against my arguing seem to be great, and in effect these, that no Church must excommunicate any, lest they be guilty of despising them.] But I answer, that this is a clear misrepresentation of my process or arguing. For first, it is evident, that in that place I spake only of fraternal or equal Communion, not of the Governors inflicting censures on any of the members of any Church, but of the Governors and members of one Church cutting off from their Communion the Governors and members of another Church; as when Pope Steven and those with him broke Communion with Cyprian and the rest of the East, and South with him, or as the Jewish and gentle Christians, neither of them subject to the other, but remaining in their several caetus, separated the one from the other, Rom. 14. This therefore shows the mistake or perversion of my words. Secondly, speaking of the differences betwixt the Romanists and us, which I must have leave to think are but of that nature, that they ought not to break Communion or Charity among Christians, what I thus affirm of such differences, must not, cannot with any justice be applied to those greater differences betwixt those that believe the Apostles depositum entirely, and those that re●ect any part of it; Those that do thus divide themselves from the unity of that Faith, which was by the Apostles delivered to all their plantations to be believed, that deny any article of it, may without any guilt of despising, or breach of Christian charity, nay upon designs which are perfectly charitative, be rejected from our fraternal Communion, as in the Apostles times, when it was uncharitable walking, and such as ended in the schism, for the Gentiles to despise the Jews weak consciences, who thought it unlawful for them to have those liberties which were really allowed them by Christ; yet I doubt not but it was perfectly lawful, and charitable, and even Christian duty, for the Orthodox Christians to renounce Communion with the gnostic heretics and schismatics. And so there now appears more reason in my arguing, than S. W. was willing there should, without any appearance of reason to the contrary; The plain issue of it being no more than this, that they which judge on one side, and they which on the other side despise their fellow Christians, agreeing with them in all those articles of the Christian profession, which the Apostles deposited in every Church, as the only necessaries of belief, and the Symbol●●m or Teffera of Christian Communion, and which upon either of these accounts( mentioned to my hand by the Apostle Rom. 14.) either of judging or despising, i.e. either of thinking that those whom they judge, do that which is not lawful for them to do, or that those whom they despise make not use of that liberty that Christ hath purchased for them, shall break society with those other, refuse fra crual Communion with them, i.e. will not live with them as with fellow Christians, only upon such an account as this, that they cannot think all those things lawful or necessary, which they think lawf●l or necessary, these are directly the schismatics which the Apostle looks on as such, and beside these there is not any species that I can discern of this third sort of the second branch of Sch sm, that which is an offence against that chari y which is due from every Christian to every Christian; and we being not guilty of either of these, and the Romanist being visibly guilty, it remains evident enough, on which side this last sort of s●h sm lies, and to whom it is regularly to be imputed. On this head of d spising our brethren, whom we concei●e to be in erro●, I had mentioned some grounds, on which i● was rational for us, who believe the Romanists erroneous, yet not to despise them; And as if I offended in this, i.e. either in not despising them, or in thinking I had reason not to despise them, I must be confuted in this also, So prompt is S. W. and so equally qualified to contradict every thing that can be said by me, be it never so much for, or so little against his interests. But the best is, here is little said,( beside expressing the magnanimous humour of chastising every one for an enemy that appears before this Disarmer) to require any return from us, only I am there taught my utter ignorance what tradition is, which indeed I had taken( and sometimes he hath in this tract, given me hopes it was no mistake) for that which pretended at least to be Apostolical tradition, but I am now told, that( in respect of us that now are) it signifies no nore, than what doctrine was held by Christians ten years ago. and in respect of them that lived ten years ago, what was held ten years before that, and so forth.] This rarity I shall not now busy myself particularly to examine, it being indeed the resolving all into the present affirmation of the roman Church of these last ten years, and really making tradition no proof of the truth of their doctrine, and yet putting on the specious name of tradition to disguise that in, or adorn it with; All that is pertinent to my present purpose, is equally granted me by thus setting it, for it is still hard for the multitude to discern by their own ears, what was held all the Church over( and not only within the pale of the roman Communion) ten years ago, or indeed to judge, whether what within these last nine years hath been defined in the very roman Church, were eleven years ago held by the Church or no, and consequently whether that which is now held, be tradition. For certainly some difference there must be betwixt holding and receiving, betwixt affirming as true, and affirming as tradition. He that knows that three years ago the Pope and his conclave made a decrce to confirm some doctrines maintainin'd by the Mol●nists against others, may be yet to seek, whether before that Bull came out, ten or twenty years ago, that Church held those doctrines, and without knowing of that, he cannot be said to know what is tradition, even in the roman Church of this last age, in that particular. And so still by S. W. his good leave, I shall be so far moved by the consideration of the difficulty for the multitude in the roman Church to understand tradition, as to resolve, though I deem them erroneous, yet not to despise them. Only let me assure him, I did not think that the Romanists themselves did thus industriously or affectedly keep traditions reserved from the sight of the people, like the ark of the Testament and Moses tables, as he expresses it, I did rather believe that they were too prodigal of that treasure, that they communicated to them many more traditions, than ever were by their ancestors really received, imposed on them many things for traditions, which were the erroneous doctrines of men. And the only things which I seriously spake of being Apostolical traditions, the distance of the object, and the want of light was that, which in my conceit, rendered this search difficult to the multitude, and not only the reservedness of the Romanist, who yet I must fear hath failed also in this kind, keeping close some parts of Apostolical tradition, else the power of Bishops and Primates in each nation would appear to be greater, and the Authority of the one Bishop of Rome much less than now adays is pretended. What he adds sixthly for the comparing the Romanists and our persecutions, is founded in a willing mistake. The prosperity of the roman Church I spake of, being not that of the English Romanists here at home, but of those every where of their Communion, which sure hath long been such, as to give them occasion, to describe it by the City set on an hill, and among the notes of the Church, to set down Prosperity for one; And that being all that was pretended or thought of by me, I deserved not his so serious rebuk for that. Any more than lastly, for saying they had the literal sound of Hoc est corpus meum for their doctrine of transubstantia●ion, which sure if they have not, they have nothing imaginable to pretend for it, for as for the Fathers and councils, and perpetual doctrine and practise of Gods Church, which he is pleased to vouch for recommending that sense of Christs words to him, it will want much better proofs, than that of his affirming it. After his lastly, he hath one peal against the Doctors nonsense, in saying we are far from casting them out of the Church. To which end he asks, Whither we would have cast them? and how we can cast them out of a thing that never was?] To which I answer, first, that casting out of the Church signifies, I suppose, all kinds of excommunicating, or renouncing communion with any; And that I did no otherwise mention this, than that they by having first cast us out, made it impossible for us to be guilty of it; And I should be glad to be shew'd where the nonsense of that speech consists, or with what show of sense he could mention my speaking of casting them out, when I distinctly said it was an impossible thing, and only rendered those so many reasons for our not despising them, and not for our not casting them out? Secondly, supposing this Church of England to be a particular Church( as I may have leave to suppose it) and that S. W. was baptized a member of this particular Church( as I believe also he was) what difficulty can there be in conceiving the manner, how our Church might cast out S. W. Nay Thirdly, it being manifest, that there is a rejecting from Communion, which the members of one Church may be guilty of toward the members of another, viz. the disacknowledging that other to be a member of the catholic Church, and so, as much as in them lies, giving judgeme●t to the casting her out of all the society of Christians, and it being as evident, that that was the thing, which this latter part of the discourse of schism treated of, contrary to union fraternal, 'twere, I say, no other wise impossible, but from their having done it first, for us thus to cast out the whole Church of Rome, it being no miracle for one particular Church thus to break and refuse Communion with another. He will have one word more ere yet he will leave this point; And there are four syllables of some length in that one word, The breviate of the first of them is, that in the Reformation we judged and despised our Governors; of the second, that many of our brethren since have writ books to show that Governor is Antichrist; of the third, that the whole world before by their contrary belief condemn our new reformed doctrine; of the fourth, that they despise not our persons, but only our reasons, as being on fallible grounds—] fit to be railed at, to the end of the paragraph. To these I answer briefly, To the first, That the Pope, whose power only we cast out, and judged it an usurpation over us, might most justly be discharged from that his usurped power, without the guilt of judging or despising any of our true and legal Governors. To the second, that as I am none of those who have written any Book or line to show that the Pope is Antichrist, so I presume they among us, that have at any time done it, have neither judged our Governor, the Bishop of Rome being not such, nor yet the Church of Rome itself, which he hath hitherto told me, that we aclowledge to be a true Church, which we could not do if we judged it to be Antichristian, but only the Court of Rome, in respect of some enormous practices, chargeable particularly on that, and not common to all those that preserve Communion with them. To the third, that the Church Universal of the first and purest times, which yet is a considerable part of that all, is not, cannot be pretended to have believed contrary to our reformed doctrine, and so we were far from judging or despising that vast authority, when we only desired to reform the errors that had crept into these latter and corrupter ages, acknowledging still the foundation to have remained entire among those, whom we thus desired to reform. To the fourth, that I no otherwise charged on them the despising of us, than as they rejected us from their Communion( which in the Apostles time was the noxious effect of despising) and that sure belongs to our persons and not to our reasons, unless it be, that without any respect to them, they still continue their uncharitableness, and indeed find our reasons such, that despising or seeming to do so, is one of their skilfullest arts of( diverting rather than) replying to them. After his thus large survey of this second sort of schism against mutual unity and charity in the ninth and tenth Chap. of the tract of schism, It is strange he should think fit to close his answer to them with this observation, that I have omitted the two chief branches of schism, first, from the body of the Church, and secondly, from General councils] whereas the schism against mutual or fraternal communion belonged expressly to the former of these, and the General council being a representative of the whole Church, any schism from councils truly General, is by me most willingly acknowledged to be schism from the whole Church. But of this I have spoken at large in the Reply Chap. 3. Sect. 1. and so am no farther importuned by any difficulty in his fifth Sect. SECT. XI. Strictures on his last Section. The style of the late Church of England examined. Christianity where no well-ordered Church. Faith inferior to vision. HIs last Section now remains to be spoken to, to which upon several accounts it is needless for me to make any large Reply, particularly because his being herein but the {αβγδ} to the catholic Gentleman's Monogramme, an addition of colours from his rhetoric, but not of any real answers, I have in the Reply chap.. 11. prevented all but the scorn and ill language, against which there is no Antidote. Yet if there be any incidental glance, which may seem to have any the least difficulty in it, I shall briefly take notice of it, and remove it and so conclude. And first, the objection which I proposed from the express words of one of their late Proselytes, who frequently stiles ours the late Church of England, he is pleased to wave, and change it quiter into another form, and then to cry out, that I am quiter out of the way.] But sure I am not out of the way that was proposed to me to walk in, for if it were lately the Ghurch of England, then twenty years ago I( and perhaps that piece of S. W. that wrote this last part of Schism disarmed) was a member of this Church, and not only of this shadow or Ghost of it, To him therefore that acknowledged it the late Church, I address that last chapter peculiarly, as to this present S. W. who thinks we were never a Church at all, I had offered the whole foregoing treatise of schism, to prove we were not so much as guilty of any sort of schism; And then with what colour of truth can he charge on me the mistaking of their objection, when both this was before my eyes the very words of the objection, and that to my knowledge vulgarly prest by several of their party, and indeed the principal parts of that chapter formerly written for the private satisfaction of some, which were solicited and prest with this very objection,& when the objection as he sets it anew, was the question of the whole tract of schism, and was not now to be proposed in the last chapter, when it had been answered in all the former. Secondly I must it seems be set to teach S. W. his eyes to discern what is before them, he saith I was so eagerly zealous— that I put first and thirdly, but quiter forgot secondly] A heavy crime indeed, if it had been true, and not to be past without his discipline, if the Printer had chanced to put thirdly for secondly. But let the 177. page. be reviewed, and 'twill justify all, but my rebuker; For having undertaken to answer that objection by degrees, and having set down the first, page. 175. &c. In the midst of p. 177. I mention a conclusion irrefragably following from thence, which I say is the second proposition, and then regularly proceed to the issue with a [ thirdly] in the bottom of that page.. What an habit hath S. W. arrived to, from which such acts as these can follow thus glibly and gainlessly? Thirdly, this judgement of the irrationalness of our sufferings, for the maintaining of an uncertain opinion, being founded in our doctrine that councils may err, from whence he concludes that the meeting where our Articles were made may err also] hath oft been prevented by the account that I have given of belief; In a word, that which we have believed and practised, and thereby brought sufferings upon us, we are verily persuaded in our Conscience before God, and have from Apostolical practise, and tradition been by our Church taught, to be the truth of God, And if this be not enough rationally to infer an obligation and engagement on us to adhere to this, thought it cost us some endurance, or if to S. W. his discourse this appear irrational, I shall much suspect that he will never think himself obliged to suffer for the defence of the Romish infallibility, having no possible medium, besides his own fancy which he can so much as pretend, to give him any stronger belief of that. Fourthly, for the number of those that have fallen off from our persecuted Church, I am not obliged to give any other account, than that herein we are but parallel to the purest ages and Churches, when the gnostics heresy of which compliance with the persecutors was one known part, carried away so great and considerable a number from the Orthodox assemblies, and profession, and are sure yet far more prosperous, than the catholic Church in Athanasius's time, when Arrianism had overspread the whole world. Fifthly, when by that series of faith coming by hearing, that from preaching, that from mission, and supposing that mission is an act of jurisdiction, he will first infer that our Bishops and Presbyters have no jurisdiction, and then that we have neither mission, preaching, hearing, nor consequently Church] I shall make no stay to admire his logic, or extraordinary conclud●ng faculty, but ask him in plain terms, whether a Presbyter ordained by an English Bishop, or a child yesterday baptized by an English presbyter, be not as truly a Presbyter, or a Christian, as any other which was ordained or baptized by the same or any other Bishop or Presbyter of this Church twenty years ago? If he be not, from whence the invalidity or nullity of these latter acts proceed? If he be, what concludency then can be imagined in S. W. his argument? As for our resort to the secular power, how little that is to this matter, is shewed in the reply p. 157. and hath formerly been cleared in these papers. Sixthly, 'tis a little strange, that when I say of our present persecution, that the same tempest hath with us thrown out all order and form, Bishops and liturgy together, which visibly belongs to their retaining none of these, who have cast us out of our Churches, not to our retaining none of them, who if we would have forsaken them, had not been cast out, he can make use of this, as my own confession, that now all order &c. is cast out, and therein, and not in our serving God in private families, to found his proof of the invisibleness of our Church. These are rare flights indeed, to make my accusing a fault in others, to be indeed the confession of it in myself. Seventhly, when upon proposing to consideration for the future, whether in case Bishops stand, or it be not our faults that they do not stand, this objection can ever be favourable into a charge against us or our posterity, he reprehends my logic severely, and makes it all one, as if my body being cut into atoms, I should yet conclude, that if this were not my fault, it were still a well ordered body] I answer, first, that my question in this case was not whether this would be then, when order were destroyed, a well ordered Church, but whether it would be chargeable on us, or our posterity that it were so disordered? Secondly, that in his very instance, in that case of the mineing my body, 1st. my soul might yet continue unmangled, and entire. Secondly, that if that misfortune of my body were befallen it, without any default of mine, God would never charge it on me, how loudly so ever such a charity, as hath S. W. might revile or triumph over me; Proportionably, that the soul of Christianity remaining to those, who shall out live those hands who baptized and admitted them into the Church( as he that ever was such, may sure continue a Christian, when those that brought him into the Church are either gone or cast out of it) and what hath perish● of the outward form or body of Government being lost without any fault or guilt of theirs( their infelicity, which they could not prevent, and not their crime volun●arily brought upon themselves) this sure will never be looked on by God, as any dangerous want of order, or as that which shall be any way chargeable upon them. Order is required to the well being, but not necessary absolutely to the being of a Church; an orderless, or a secret society of brethren may be a Church still, as any number of converts in a City, before the Apostle, which was gone to some other City, had yet placed any Governor over them. 'tis certain a baptized person is, and continues a Christian, if he have not by some fault of his own, fallen from that privilege( here I speak not of those who are not baptized, and yet if they were qualified for it, and wanted it by no fault of theirs, it will not be chargeable on them neither) and a number of such baptized persons, wheresoever cast by what tempest soever, will never be condemned by God for not having a Bistop or Presbyter in their company, when they earnestly desire, but cannot have him. And this was the plain sense that S. W. had disguised into such an illogical conclusion, the Reader now discerns what logic it was that assisted him to do it. Eighthly, when he saith I have spent this whcle chapter, except the first paragraph to prove 'tis not our choice or fault that we are persecuted] I answer, that when the whole objection of this Chapter is that which is taken from our being persecuted, there was nothing pertinent to answer, but that 'twas not our fault, nor consequently any matter of charge, or objection against us. Ninthly, what the catholic Gent. simply cited from Mr. Hooker, S. W. hath somewhat improved, fancying that Mr. Hooker did ground his speech in the uncertainty and sandiness of our foundation. Than which nothing could be farther removed from all appearance of truth, as appears by the true occasion, and importance of his words, set down in the Reply p. 154. &c. Tenthly, when speaking of their assurance of their Churches not failing, he calls it a seeing with evidence, perhaps more than scientifical] I shall not now dispute the grounds of his assurance, that the promises made to the Church in general, shall certainly be performed to the Papacy howsoever they behave themselves,( to that I have spoken in the Reply p. 153.) but only ask what possible sight or evidence he is capable of, in this world, which is more then scientifical, whether indeed faith is, or may perhaps be more than science, or vision, which is one branch of science, i.e. in effect whether the state of the viatores here be, at least in this respect of evidence, more perfect, than that of the Comprehensores hereafter? Or if it be, why p. 303. when he comes to magnify Rushworths Dialogues and Mr. Whites apology, as the means of clearing to men this point of Infallibility, he is yet so meek in his expressions, as but to say we may see it as visibly as it is possible any thing can be made to the eye of reason] whereas the eye of reason, being but an human eye, and the evidence that is capable of, being sure no more then scientifical, we had our expectations raised to an higher pitch than that, and so are already defeated in our hopes, and competently discouraged ere we come to take a closer view of them. As it is, I am now once by Gods blessing gotten to an end of one long journey, and shall breath a while, before I obey S. W. his summons to set out a fresh, upon such another. The powerful Prince of peace restore that blessing of peace to his divided Church. The End.