The Romanist's Quaeries.

IT will not be deny'd but that the Church of Rome was once a most pure, excellent, flourishing and mo­ther-Church.

This Church could not cease to be such, but she must fall either by Aposta­cy, Heresy, or Schisme.

First, Apostacy is not only a re­nouncing of the faith of Christ, but the very name and title of Christianity: White de­fence of his way P. 435. no man will say that the Church of Rome had ever such a fall, or fell thus.

Secondly, Heresy is an adhaesion to some private and singular opinion, K. James in his Speech to the Par. or error in faith, contrary to the generall approved Doctrine of the Church.

If the Church of Rome did ever adhaere to any singular or new opinion dis­agreeable to the common received doctrine of the Christ a world; Whitaker in his Answer to Dr. Sanders 2. demon. Reynolds in his 5. Con. I pray you satisfieme these particulars, viz.

• 1. By what Generall Councell was she ever condemned?
• 2. Which of the Fathers ever writ against her? or,
• 3. By what Authority was she other­wise reproved?

For it seems to me to be a thing ve­ry incongruous, that so great and glori­ous a Church should be condemned by every one that hath a mind to con­demne her.

Thirdly, Schisme is a departure of division from the unity of the Church whereby the bond and communion hel [...] with some former Church is broken and dissolved.

If ever the Church of Rome divided her selfe by schisme from any other Body of faithfull christians, or brake com­munion, or went forth the society of any elder Church; I pray you satis­sie me as to these particulars,

• 1. Whose Company did she leave?
• [Page 11]2. From what Body did she go forth?
• 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook?

For it appears a little strange to me that a Church should be accounted schismaticall, when there cannot be as­signed any other church different from her (which from age to age (since Christ his time) hath continued visible) from whom she departed.

The Protestants Answer.

WE deny not the honour, reputa­tion and glory that was due sometime to the Roman-Church; she was as other Churches in their integri­ty and during her continuance in that condition, we deny her no title of com­mendation proper for her. Such was the Church of Jerusalem; of which not­withstāding you may hear the Lord ma­king this cōplaint in the holy Prophet Isaiah, Isa. 1.21, 22. How is the faithfull Citie become an harlot; it was full of judgement, righ­teousnesse lodged in it; but now murther­ers. Thy silven is become drosse, thy wine mixed with water.

We charge not this whole Church to have forfeited the good opinion the world had of her, in any one instance of time: for we believe generally of all Churches, 1 Cor. 3.9. that they were God's Hus­bandry, and God's Building, as St. Paul speaks of the Corinthian-church, and that salvation was to be found in them; but withall we firmly believe that there were wicked factions in the Church, that embraced and taught damnable er­rors; 1 Cor. 15.12. some we know were among the Corinthians that denyed the Resurrecti­on; some among the Galatians that urged Circumcision: Gal. 6.12. and if these facti­ons had been so potent as to have exclu­ded from their communion all that would not have approved their hereti­call errors, why those particular Churchs (in respect of such a prevailing party) might not be charg'd to have fallen by Apostacy, Heresy, and schisme, I see no reason.

When therefore such opinions that were maintained before by particular men, became the Sanctions and Lawes of the Roman-Church; (as the worship­ping of Images, the invocation of [Page 13]Saints and Angells, the Doctrines of justification by workes, Purgatory, halfe-Communion, Co [...]po [...]eall-reall presence, merit of good workes, &c.) then the Church of Rome might be said to have fallen by Apostacy, heresy & Schisme.

1. By Apostacy from the purity of that holy Doctrine, which sometimes by her Bishops and Ministers she taught; for Apostacy doth not imply the re­nouncing of the Name and Title to Christianity only, nor a departing from the whole Christian faith, but a with­drawing from the sincerity and sound­nesse of the profession which men have formerly made: it hath a latitude in it, which admits of degrees, one may apos­tatize from a portion, as well as from the whole Truth.

2. By heresy also hath the Church of Rome fallen, if to depart from the truth of Christian Religion in points (at least grating upon the foundations, if not fundamentall) and to maintain them pertinaciously, be heresy. How far the Church of Rome is involved in the guilt of the Bishop of it, concerns [Page 12] [...] [Page 13] [...] [Page 14]them especially to consider, who con­tend that he is the Head not of that particular Church only, but of the whole Catholique Church: but if that Church may be said to be hereticall whose Bishop is guilty of heresy, it will be hard for the Romish-Church to acquit her selfe frō this charge til she can prove that Liberius subscrib'd not to the Arriā Confession, which St. Hierome in Catalogo saith he did, compelled indeed by Fortunatianus but yet he did it: Fortunatianus in hoc habetur detestabilis, quod Liberium Ro­manae urbis Episcopum, profide ad exili­um pergentemprinius sollicitavit, ac fregit & ad subscriptionem haeresios compuin. Let her vindicate also Anastatius secun­dus from Nestorianisme, which is char­ged upon him by apud Chamier lib: 3. de Ca­none cap. 10. Luitprandus Tieinen­sis Platina (who saith upon the credit of common fame, that he dyed a strange death, either as Arrius, or by a suddain stroak from the Divine hand,) Albo flo­riacensis, & Anastasins Bibliot hecarius. Let her make an Apology for condemna­tus in sexta Synodo. Honorius, who was condemned by a Councell; a better Apology it should be then that of Saunders, who though Honor [...]us taught [Page 15]heresie, yet denies the Roman Church to have erred with him, and adds that though he might confirme heresie as a man, yet he did it not as a Pope.

3. The Church of Rome is guilty of Schisme, in that she doth not only de­part from the communion of such Churches as were Orthodox in the judgement of prime and pure Antiqui­ty, but hath forced a departure of all the reformed Churches from her, except they would communicate with her in her abominations. Schisme is theirs who cause it; when the Orthodox de­parted from the Arrians, the Hereticks caused the Schisme; a forced separati­on, maketh not them that (in such a case) seperate themselves guilty of schisme, such rather as teach doctrines to the Catholique faith repugnant, are Schismaticks; and this imputation ly­eth strong upon the Church of Rome, in forcing the Canons of the Trent-Councell: if then it be demanded (for the conviction of the Roman-church to be Schismaticall) first, Whose company did she leave: secondly, From what Body did she go forth: thirdly, Where [Page 16]was the true Church which she forsook.

1. To the first question we reply, that she left the company of the Orthodox when she obstinately pernsted in her false doctrines.

2. She departed from their Body, not by locall separation, but by refusing to communicate with them that refor­med themselves, which particular Churches are bound to do, when they cannot do it (which were the best course) by a generall Councell. This advice God himselfe giveth unto Judah by the Prophet Hosea, though the tenne Tribes should continue obstinate; Though thou Israell play the Harlot, Hosea 4.15. yet let not Judoh offend: though there were but two Tribes in the one Kingdome, and tenne in the other, yet (notwith­standing the paucity of the one Church, and the multitude of the other compa­ratively,) they were to reforme themselves that were fewer, in case the other should remain in their Idolatry. 3. And if it be thirdly demanded, Where was the true Church which the Roman-church forsock: we reply first what we said before, that the guilt of schisme [Page 17]may be incurred by forcing others (ex­cept they will defile themselves by joyning with those that have espoused dangerous errors in their superstition and Idolatry) to depart from us: and then secondly, it's conspicuous enough that she left her selfe as one may say; I mean that the Lattine-Church obsti­nate and peramtory in the perilous opi­nions of some of her own communion (when she publikely owned those doc­trines, and would no longer endure them that would not comply with her therein) forsook the rest of her Com­munion, who misliked and detested the said errors in heart, before they had (by the concurrent assistance of Princes and Prelates) opportunity to shake off the Tyrany of the Bishop of Rome, (whose ancient priviledge and Primacy of order (were that the only quarrell) we would not deny) and when the good Providence of God gave a fair opportunity, they openly rejected what with grief of heart they groaned under and tolerated before.

As for that enquiry, 1. By what gene­rall Councell: [...] Fathers: 3. [Page 18] By what other Authority hath the Church of Rome been condemned, written against or reproved? We answer, that the pre­sent opinions and practice of the Church of Rome are dondemn'd by Ge­nerall Councells: the Usurpation of unlimited Power challenged by the Pope, is censured by the sixth Canon of the famous Councell of Nice; which giveth like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Patriarchs of Alexandria, and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds, as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts: the wor­shipping of Images, censured about twenty years before the Councell of Nice, by the 36 Canon of the Councell of El [...]beris; Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere, &c. 'Tis resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church, lest that which is adored be painted on walls: and whatsoever may be pleaded by the authority of the second Coun­cell of Nice, in the defence of Images, yet it's evident that the Canons there­of were not universally received; be­cause as soon as the newes of the Acts thereof came to the ears of the Fathers [Page 19]assembled (by Charles the great, two years afterward) at Frankford, they were rejected, and refuted by those three hundred Bishops there convened. If it should be demanded, where is the Councell that hath condemned Rome since the seperation of the Protestants? it is easy to reply, that the obstinacy of the Pope and his Adhaerents, obstruct the application of so good a Plaister to the wounds and breakings of the Church: what fruit is like to come upon such a Convention as the Pope would agree to, may appear by the transactions of the Trent-Assembly; but the want of the sentence of a Generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome, is no security to the Romanists that their Church is a safe Communion to those that are in it; for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Con­stantine's time, and such as were de­structive to them that held them, and yet they were not condemned by Ge­nerall Councells; there having been no convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church.

[Page 20] 2. For the Fathers of the first five hundred years, it is evident enough that they are against the present Church of Rome in all the Controversies dispu­ted between the Romanists and the Protestants, as might be quickly shown out of their writings, were it seasonable to take the pains: and then moreover to give an accompt to the third Enqui­ry, where it is demanded By what other authority hath she been reproved? We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wis­dome and constant consent of the Ca­tholique Church.

The Romanists Reply to the Pro­testants Answer.

YOu sent me some Catholique Quaeries with (as you say) Doctor Samwais's Answer, to which take this brief Reply.

The Paper (which you sent) takes it for granted, and the Dr. denies it not, that the Church of Rome was once a most pure Church, and proves her con­tinuance thus;

[Page 21] This Church could not cease to be such, but she must fall either by Aposta­cy, Heresy, or Schisme: But first, not by apostacy; for Apostacy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ, but the very name and title to christianity, none will say the church of Rome ever fell thus.

But notwithstanding this the Doctor (by a new definition of apostacy) will prove she fell thus; for (saith he) Apos­tacy doth not imply the renouncing of the name and title to Christianity only nor a departure from the whole Christi­an Faith, but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundnesse of the Professi­on which we have formerly made. But the Church of Rome hath thus with­drawn, ergo, he proves the minor, because she embraces particular Doctrines there mention'd which formerly she did not.

Reply. The minor is deny'd; and the probation concerning particular Doctrines, as Worshipping of Images, invocation of Saints, &c. is likewise de­ny'd, because assum'd without proof: and the definition he gives of Apostacy is invalid, because it confounds Apos­tacy [Page 22]with heresy; but the other defini­tion is good, because it clearly distin­guishes them; and if so, then the D [...] hath not prov'd as yet that the Church of Rome hath ever fallen by heresie.

This done, the paper proceeds to prove, that secondly the Church of Rome never fell by heresy: and to effect this, it puts the definition of heresy (see it in the paper) then it goes o [...] thus, If the Church of Rome did eve [...] adhere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common receive [...] Doctrine of the Christian-world, I pray satisfy me in these particulars, viz. 1. By what generall Councell was she ever con­demned? 2. Which of the Fathers ever w [...] against her? 3. By what authority was sh [...] otherwise reproved? Before we put the Drs. answers to these particulars, we will take a view how he proves the Church of Rome to have fallen by heresy thus therefore he argues,

Certain Popes, Bishops of the Church of Rome, as Liberius, Anastasius secun­dus, and Honorius, have fallen by heresie ergo, the Church of Rome hath fallen by Heresie.

[Page 23] Reply, The Antecedent begets a new dispute of ihe Popes infallibility ex Cathedrâ, which is to be wav'd, be­cause the paper doth not meddle with it: and I deny the consequence, which he no wayes goes about to prove. But since he cannot prove that the Church of Rome hath fallen by heresy; let us see (at least) what he sayes to the Quae­ries. To the first then, which demands, By what generall Councell was she ever condemned? he answers, by the sixt Ca­non of the famous Councell of Nice, which condemns the usurpation of un­limited power challenged by the Pope, and gives like Ecclesiasticall jurisdic­tion to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds, as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts.

Reply. This unlimmited power (chal­lenged by the Pope) is his supremacy, alwayes held by the Church of Rome and her adhaerents to be of Divine in­stitution: and therefore onely said not prov'd (in which he is stil like himself) to be an Usurpation.

[Page 24] As for the sixt Canon of the Nicene Councell, it is so farr from condemning or limiting the universall jurisdict on justly challenged by the Bishop of Rome as it clearly asserts it: to evince, this we will cite the words of the Canon, which the Dr. (least they should disco­ver his bold assertion untrue) omitred the words are these, Let the ancient custome be kept in Aegypt, Lybia, & Pen­tapolis; that the Bishop of Alexand [...] have power over all these, because the Ro­man-Bishop also hath such a custome▪ these last words, because the B [...]shop of Rome, &c. evince the thing to be a [...] I have said; for they are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria, is to have that Government, to wit, because (as the Councell sayes) it is the Bishop of Rome his custome to have it so. If you say that the Popes custome is not referr'd to the Government of these Churches by the Patriarch of Alexandria but to the Government of other Churches in the West: I reply, that you speak a­gainst the Text, because this, not ano­ther thing, but this here spoken off, viz. That the Bishop of Alexandria have power [Page 25]over these Provinces, this is accustomed, and to whom? to the Bishop of Rome; it is his custome to have it so, wherefore we like of it well and confirme it: Out of which it is clear they do not condemne or limit his Universall jurisdiction, but confirme it. I know the Dr. would have the sence of the Canon to be this, Let the Bishop of Alexandria governe in the places specified, because the Bishop of Rome hath a custome to governe in other places, to wit, in the West.

Reply, This is against the fence of the Canon; for those words, because the Bishop of Rome, &c. are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria is to have that Government, whereas a Bi­shop's governing Churches in the West, were no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria particularly should go­verne the Churches here mentioned.

As for the Councell of Eliberis, it being but a particular one, and the Quaeries demanding a generall one, we need not reply unto it: Nay if it be look'd into, it absolutely makes for the Church of Rome; the words are Placu't picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere, &c. [Page 26] 'Tis resolved, that Pictures should not be in the Church, least that which is a­dored, be painted on walls. In which Decree, these words that which is ado­red, are manifestly against the Doctor; for they suppose a due reverence con­stantly given to pictures: and lest that things reverenced might be abus'd the Councell forbad pictures (in those times of persecution) to be painted on the Church-walls, for fear the Infidells should deface them.

Now if you bring the Authority of the second generall Councell of Nice, (Act 7.) desining that we must exhibit to Pictures (contrary to what Dr. Sam­waies holds) Honorariam adorationens non veram [...]at [...]iam: An honorary adorati­on, not true latria, that is, an inferiour a­doration, but not the supream due to Almighty God only. Hethinks to e­vade, by saying the Canons thereof were not universally received, because assoon as the news of the Acts came to the ears of the Fathers assembled at Frank­ford, they were rejected and refuted, by those 300. Bishops there convened.

[Page 27] Reply. It is barely said, not prov'd, that the Nicene Canons were not uni­versally received, but I expect proof: as for the Councell of Frankford, it nei­ther rejects nor refutes the Nicene Ca­nons, but only defines, that vera latria is not to be given to Images; which the Councell of Nice likewise affirms. If then these two Councells agree, how could the Dr. truly say, that the Frank­ford councell rejected the Nicene.

Thus you see, that the Dr. hath not at all prov'd the church of Rome con­demned by any generall Councell. But since he cannot prove it by Authority, he will by reason thus.

The want (saith he) of the sentence of a generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no Security to the Romanists, that their Church is ae sure communion to those that are in it, for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time, & such as were destructive to those that held them, and yet they were not condemned by Gene­rall Councells, there having been [...]o convenience for their meeting, untill [Page 28]the Empire came into the Church.

The Protestants Rejoynder to the Romanists Reply.

I Received the Paper, wherein I know not who maketh a Reply to that accompt which I gave to the Pro­posalls, which you shewed me in the defence of the present Roman-church. Facilè est cuiquā videri respondisse qui tacere nolue­tic, aut quid est loquacius va­nitate? quae ideò nō potest quod veritas, quia si voluerit etiam plus po­test clamare quam veritas. De Civitat. Dei. lib. 5. c. 27. St. Augustine said it long since, and we find it true by experience, It is easy for any man to seem to answer a­nother who is resolved not to hold his peace; for what is more talkative then vanity? which cannot do what verity can, because (if it pleaseth) it can make more noyse than verity. The vulgar sort think, that he that hath spoken last, hath the best cause; and so per­haps such of your neighbours that are [Page 37]blinded with the Romish errors, con­ceive all in my Answer abundantly sa­tisfied by the Replyer, because he hath thought fitting not to be silent. Though I have as little hope to satisfie those who are resolved to continue what they are, by my Rejoynder to this Replyer, as I had to convince them of their mis­take in thinking so well of their Romish church, as the first paper would encou­rage them to do; yet lest any of the weaker sort among our selves should think that the Replyer hath sufficiently justified the reasonablenesse of the first quaries, by's accompt to what I wrote; or that I were wanting to my duty in defence of the Truth, I shall give you a short satisfaction to all the pretensi­ons made by the Replyer for the justi­fication of Rome from Apostacy, Here­sie and Schisme.

First, the Replyer thinks himselfe concerned to civill at my exceptions against the definition of Apostacy, mentioned in the Quaeries: he will needs have Apostacy to import as much as is said in the Quaeries, not only a re­nouncing of the faith of Christ, but the [Page 38]very name and title to Christianity. I grant that a totall Apostacy doth; but the word signifying no more then a de­parture, it may be more or lesse dange­rous, according to both the termes of such a motion, from what truth, and to what error the departure is made. Apostasia importat retro cessionē quā dā a Deo, quae quidem diver­simodè fit se­cundū'diversos modos, quibus homo Deo cō ­jungitur: pri­mo nam (que) ho­mo Deo con­jungitur per fi­dem. secundo per debitem, & subjectā volū ­tatē ad obedi­endū praecep­tis ejus. tertio per aliqu a spe­ciala ad super­crogationem pertmentia; si­cut per religio­nē & clerica­turā, vel sacrū ordinē remoto autē posteriori remanet prius: sed non cōver­titur. 22ae. q: 12. a: 1. Aquinas saith, that Apostacy denotes some kind of recesse from God, which may come to passe in sundry sorts, according to the different means whereby aman is joyned unto God: for first'd man is united unto God by faith. 2. By the submission of his will to the Divine Precepts. 3. By speciall pri­viledge of super-eminency, as by holy Orders; and the last being removed, the first abideth; a man may renounce his Orders, and yet not his whole faith: let therefore the Replyer turn to his St. Thomas, and from him learn to un­derstand what Apostacy signifies; or if he please, let him consult a better Saint, I mean Luke the Evangelist, and he shall find him using the word for a par­ticular word of recesse. When Saint Paul came to Jerusalem, St. James the Bishop of it, and the Elders said unto [Page 39]him, Acts 21.21. Thou seest brother how many thou­sands of the Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law; and they are informd of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses: [...]. Do we think the Jews had heard that St. Paul did forsake all the law of Moses, judiciall, morall, and ce­remoniall? no, they instance only in circumcision, and the customes, (which were the ceremoniall Law) and yet they thought that this recession only was sufficient to denominate him a Doctor of Apostacy. Duabus a­postasus exis­entibus adbuc potest rema­nere homo Deo cōjunc­tus per fidem; sed si a side re­cesserit, tune omninò a Deo retrocedere vi­detur. id. ibid. Aquinas in the place afore-cited affirmeth, that one may de­part from God, by forsaking the order of his profession, or degree in the Clergy; and also by perversnesse of mind against the Divine precepts; and yet [notwithstand­ing these two Apostacies] remain conjoyn­ed unto God by faith: but if a man depart from the faith, [and 1. Tim 4.3. St. Paul saith they do that shall teach to abstain frō marriage & forbid the use of meats, which God hath created to be received with thanks giving of them which believe, and know the truth, and will not this Apostacy concerne [Page 40]such as teach thus?) then he seems to be guilty of a full Apostacy. When Bellarmine in his Appendix to his book de summo Pontifice, calls Luther an Apostate; he speakes properly or not? the Replyer (I hope) will not charge the Cardinall to speak incon­gruously, and yet all the world knowes that Luther renounced not the name and title of Christianity, neither did the Cardinall think so.

But grant what indeed no man (not void of common sence) can deny, that there may be a partiall Apostacy; yet the Replyer denies my Minor, (as he calls it) where I instance in the particular doctrines of worshipping. Images, invocation of Saints, halfe-com­monion, corporeall-reall presence, &c. I because assumed without proofe: and needs there proof, that Rome teacheth these doctrines? Let the Replyer de­ny them if he please; we shall congra­tulate his abrenunciation of such dan­gerous errors: but as long as we see them taught and practised by all the Romish-communion, we need not prove what they deny not, being in­deed [Page 41]so farre obliged not to deny it, as they are obliged to professe the Trent-Canons. To assert a partiall apostacy, is not to confound it with heresie; the word implyes a ecesse or departure from what a Church or Person hath sometimes professed, which heresie doth not: he that never acknowledged the truth, cannot apostatize from it; but he that heretically maintains opihions des­tructive to the christian faith, may be call'd an heretique, though he were never Orthodox. Rome is Apostati­call in all the errors which she now holdeth against the truth which she once professed: 'tis not her mistake only in the truth, but her dereliction of it, when she affirms men to be justified not by faith alone, but by workes also: for this she believed not, but the contrary, when St. Paul wrote to her, and taught her the right belief: Rom: 3.28. And when St. Clemens governed her, as ap­pears by his Epistle to the Corinthians, where he thus writeth, [...]. [Page 42] p. 41.

The next thing the Replyer conceiv­eth him selfe concerned in, is to prove that th [...]s Enthymem or argument, The Pope have fallen by heresie, therefore the Church of Rome, is no valid way of reasoning, and withall an extravagant controversie, leading to a new dispute cōcerning the Popes infalibility ex Ca­thedrá: the Replyer here is much mista­ken; so if it be demanded, whether the Church of Rome ever fell by heresy, is it not pertinent to prove that she hath so fallen, if she be concludeed in the faith of her Bishops that have so fallen else sure tis no sin, not to believe as the Pope believes, except he first justifie his faith to the Christian world by some better authority then his own Profession Let not therefore this Advocate of the Trent-faith think that he replies, when he trifles; and that when he saith that he denieth my consequence, he hath an­swer'd my argument: my reason is clear, and I must not permit him to fly [Page 43]into his obscure corners to shun the e­vidence of it.

Thus then I argue: is it lawfull to dissent from the Pope, or not? if it be lawfull, why are they censured that o­bey not his decrees? if unlawfull, why are they excused that erre not with him, nor are involved in his judgement when he teacheth errors opposite to the Christian faith? may not a Protestant as lawfully dissent from the Pope as a Papist? but sure the Replyer upon bet­ter consideration will change his mind, and (as Hart did) in his cōference with Reynolds) rather (in despite of all evi­dence to to the contrary) say the Pope cannot erre, then plead, that though he doth, yet the Church is not bound to obey him: and truly if it be obliged to obey him, how it can stand when he falls, I see not.

'Tis pretended also by the Replyer, that the Church of Rome in ascribing u­niversall jurisdiction to the Bishop of that See, is not obnoxious to the fixt Canon of the Councell of Nice, and so not condem­ [...]ad by a Generall Councell: to prove this [Page 44]he interprets the Canon with a glosse that I think destroyes the Text. I confesse he hath: De Roman Pontifice. lib 2. c. 13. Bellarmine for his Au­thor in this exposition, who having ci­ted four opinions concerning those words in the Canon, because this is cus­tomary to the Bishop of Rome,) [...]. Quia et Episcope Ro­mano parilis [...]. would make the Bishop of Rome the efficient, and not the example of the Authority granted to the rest of the Patriarchs in this Canon: so that if Bellarmine please, the words in the Canon, because this is the custome to the Bishop of Rome, shall import, because it is the Bishop of Romes custome to have it so, id est, (as the Ca­non before speaketh) that Aegypt, Ly­bia and Pentapolis should be under the Patriarch of Alexandria: because the Pope did use to be so liberall in his Con­cessions to that Bishop, as to grant him Authority over those Provinces. But why must the sence of Ruffinus be reject­ed, who Lib. 1. C. 6. of his Ecclesiasti­call History, saith, that it was decreed by the Councell in this Canon, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the Charge of Aegypt, suburbica­riarum Eccle­siarum. as the Bishop of Rome had the charge of the Citties of his Neighbourhood? [Page 45]why must the Authority of Zonaras and Balsamon be despised, who give the same interpretation of the Canon? The Re­plyer therefore is very bold, when he saith, that this sence of the Canon which I give, is against the intention of it, seeing I give no other then what these and many other men of Iudgment, and Learning have given of it before.

Moreover, what a goodly account is given, why this cannot be the Genu­ine sence of the Canon? A Bishop go­verning Churches in the West, (saith the Replyer) is no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria should govern the Churches mentioned in the Canon. No reason (I Confesse) efficient, but yet a Morall reason it might be, moving the Fa­thers assembled in the Councell to pro­vide for the Unity of the Church, by like expedient in the East, as they saw it furnished with in the West. Take the meaning of the Canon in this sense and the discourse hath nothing in it a­gainst the Laws of a legitimate Argu­mentation, which may out of the Ca­non thus be framed: The ancient Cus­tomes [Page 46]are to be retained? but that the Patri­arch of Alexandria should govern Aegypt Lybia, and Pentapolis, is an Ancient Custome, therefore the Major is mani­fest from the example of the Bishop of Rome, who (by the right of custome) kept his Authority over the West: the minor is evident by experience. The Replyer (I know) likes not the major; for he saith, that the Popes Supremacy was alwayes held by the Church of Rome and her adhaerents to be of Divine-right; Alwayes held? [...]; how did this word escape him? I appeal to a competent Judge, the Author of the Apostolick Constitu­tions (whether Clemens Romanus or no, I dispute not, but I suppose of authority enough to give his verdict (in point of Fact) for the age wherein he wrote,) doth not he in that forme of Supplica­tion (extant lib: 8. cap: 10. of the Con­stitutions) sufficiently declare, that the Bishop of of Rome had his limits aswell as other Bishops? [...]. Co. s [...]it. lib. 8. c. 10. Let us pray (saith he) for the Episcopacy of the whole world, and for our Bishop James of Jerusalem, and his Diocesse; and for our Bishap [Page 47]Clement of Rome, and his Diocesse; and for Luod us of Ant [...]och, and his Diocess. Let the Replyer he [...]e obse [...]ve, that Cle­mens is not prayed for as Bishop of all the World, but as a Pastor over his own Limitation.

This might further appear from the usage of the Primitive, Church, the Doctors whereof would not have so far forgotten the [...]r duty in acknowledging this Supremacy, as to do actions that clearly evince, that they conceived no such thing claimeable by any fair pre­tentions whatsoever; much lesse by Divine institution, if it had been al­wayes claimed by the Church of Rome. Would St. Cyprian have called Pope S [...]ephen his Brother, [as he doth in his Epistle to Pompeius, wherein he char­geth him (though I confesse unjustly) for favouring Heretiques] had he es­teemed him the Head of the Church in the sence that the later times under­stand the word in? would Firmil arus the Bishop of Coesarea, have spoken so liberally of the same Stephen, and have charged him with Errors, ignorance, [Page 48]pride, Multa pro locoru & no­minum diver­sitate varian­tur, neque ta men propter hoc ab Eccle­siae Catholicae pace atq, uni­rate discessum est, quod, Ste­phanus ausus est facere rum­pens a dyer sum nos pacé, quā semper ante­cesseres ejus nobiscū amo­re, & honore mutuo custo­dierunt. Cypr. Epist. 74.75. had this perswasion of the Pope's Supremacy been currant at that time? would he have charg'd him with schism in that Epistle to Cyprian, for denying that communion and concord with Cy­prian, which his Predecessors kept in reciprocall love, and mutuall Honour; (which is not properly said of the res­pects between Superiors and Inferiors) had he had any apprehension of such a Head-ship as the Romanists now chal­lenge to the Pope? no certainly, the Pope was not then esteemed such as the latter Parasites have stiled him, à corporall God in the world; such doctrine may be learned from Cardinall Jacoba­sianus, the Canon-law, and other wri­tings which the Fathers age understood not: none durst then be so impious as to bespeak (as an Arch-Bishop in his Sermon is said to have done) the Pope with such words, Dr. Franc. White his Or­thodox way justified. p. 58. All power is given to thee, both in heaven and earth; neither knew the piety of the primi­tive Christianity the language of the Embassador of Panormum in Sicilly, who kneeling before Pope Martin cry­ed unto him three times together, [Page 49] Thou which takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Indeed had they believed him infallible, as some later Writers would perswade the world the Bishop of Rome is, they might then easily have admitted his Supre­macy in the high'st acknowledgment of excellency and honour: but this vain conceit was a phansie that the good Bishops of Rome ne're dreamt off, as may appear by Liberius his Epistato St. Athanafius: for, he requesteth to be farther confirmed in the Christian faith by the authority of his judgement, that if what he pro­fessed, were Catholique, he might be the more secure by the knowledge of his consent thereunto. The words are remarkable, extant in the works of Athanasius printed 1600, ex officina Commeliniana. p. 397. Having described the Tenor of his faith in the blessed Trinity, in opposition to as well Sabellius as [Page] Arrius, he adds in his Epist: [...]. If thou Bro­ther Athanasius consentest with me in this confession (which is the true faith in the holy Catholique and Apostolick Church) as in the presence of Gods judge­ment, and Christs, I pray subscribe to it, both that I may be more certain, whether thou art of the same perswasion with my selfe, and also that I may constantly observe thy commands. Indeed this good Bishop of Rome (as we noted in our first Answer to the Quaeries, and could further prove out of Saint Athanasius his Epistle to those that lived soli­tary lives) by sad experience found himselfe far enough from Infallibi­lity; when, overcome with the terror and importunity of the Ar­rians, he yeilded to a subscription to their Heresy.

The Replyer had better have said nothing to the judgement of the Coun­cell of Concilium Elibertinum i­magines pingi vetuit, nempe ut idolotriam hoc remedio exting [...]erit. sixt. senens. Bib. lib. 5. annot 247. Eliberis, then what he doth; at least he might (with greater advan­tage to his Cause) have said that only, which he begins his Reply with, that the Councell being but a provinciall As­sembly, and not Oecumenicall, the Canons of it did not conclude forraigne Churches: for to pretend that the meaning of the Canon was to preserve reverence to the picture, is as much as to say, that the de­signe in taking the late Usurper and the rest of his Complices out of Westminster- Abbey, and hanging up their heads over the Parliament house, was to advance their dignity. Twas a time of persecution, & pitty those precious advantages of piety should be defaced by the Heathen; so pre­tends the Replyer: This he learned perhaps from Binius, or Tunc pe­riculum erat, ne Gentiles existimarent, nostios adora­re lignum & la­pides. Sand. a­pud Bellar. de Imag. lib. 2. c. 9. Bellarmine, or Nicholas Saunders quoted by the Cardi­nall, who is not peremptory for this Interpretation neither, but first gives [Page 50]another reason, (viz.) least the Hea­thens should be scandalized at the Christians, and suppose that they wor­shipped stocks and stones, and con­cludes with this, Periculum crat in perse­cutionibus i­magines fuis­sent contume­lia affectae a persecutoribus there was danger lest in time of persecution, the Images should have been abused by the Persecutors. But well fare yet a little ingenuity at a dead lift; the Cardinall (overcome with the reason in the Canon) confesseth that it, doth not much concurre with this Ex­position; and therefore he supposeth, that it was rather, left the Walls moul­dering away, or coming to ruine, the Saints honour should be eclipsed by suffer­ing corruption.

But the truth is, neither of these rea­sons are of much moment to reduce such Images into the Church, as they banished out of it; for we are still in [Page 51]perill of giving candall by Pictures, and Image-worship, to the Jew, to the Turke, and to many Christians: and I thinke we are not attained yet to such a perfection of Church-building, but that the walls may fail in the best Tem­ples; and therefore the reason conti­nuing, why is not the Canon obliging? I suppose Bellarmine might lay the lesse weight on this reason, when he cast his eye on the Admonere placuit fideles ut quantum possint prohi­beant ne idola in domibus su­is habeant si vero vini me­tuunt servorū, velscripses pu­ros conservent silnon secetint alieni ab Ec­clesiâ habean­tur, Concil. Elib. Can. 41. 41 Canon of this very Councell, where Images are forbidden to be used in private houses: there the walls are not only better secured from the rudenesse of Persecutors, but also from the neglect of reparation, whereby publique buildings usually suffer no small decay: And the close of this 41 Canon, establisheth the rejection of all Idolls, though the servants in the fami­ly might mutiny for their preservation.

But the authority was but slender, a Provinciall Councell, and that but of 19 Bishops: Hence the Replyer con­ceiveth it not pertinently urged, be­cause the Quaries demand the censure of a Generall Councell. I know the Cardi­nall [Page 52]doth upon this account deminish the Authority of the Fathers there assē ­bled, but yet it plainly hence appears, that (restore the Canon to its genuine sence, and) it declares the present prac­tice of the Roman-Church not to have been universally received, nay to have receiv'd a check by Men, (though fewer in number, then have met in follow­ing Synods, yet) reverenced for their antiquity, being assembled 20 years before the Generall Councell at Nice, and therefore to be had in estimation for their age. And though Baronius in passion had accused this Councell of seeming vicinity to Novatianisme; yet considering that Cùm quae ab illís de eâ resunt statuta ab innocentio Rom: Pontifice excutentur, nemo sit qui accusare prae­sumat. Pope Innocent had acquitted them, that met there, he would have none to presume to accuse them; upon which words Binius con­cludeth, that Baroniues though, Eam syno­dum legitimā esse ab omni ecrote liberam that this Synod was lawfull and free from error?

As for the impertinency of alledging a Provinciall, when an Oecummenicall councell was demanded, let not the Replyer forget what the Quaeries pro­pound, and the answer will be proper [Page 53]enough: for it was not only required: by what General Councell hath Rome been condemned; but also by what Authority was she otherwise reproved? a Provinci­all Synod hath authority, (inferior in­deed to that of a Generall Councell, but yet) ample enough to checke the pretences of any new Doctrine, that is defended as Catholique; for what hath been censured, (though but by a provin­ciall Assembly) so early in the Church, cannot lay claime to that known Cha­racter of Chatholicisme in Vincentius Ly­rinensis; who admits not that to be such In ipsà Ca­tholicâ Eccle­siâ magnovere curandum est, ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper, quod ad emni­bus reditum est advers: hae­res. c. 3. which was not taught in all places, at all times, and by all Christians: and therefore that must needs be destitute of Universality, Antiquity, and Consent, that was disapproved by the Fathers of the Councel of Eliberis; which may be esteemed the more for Hosius's sake, (a constant man against Idolatry,) who sate afterwards in the first Councel of Nice, and was as devout in his conver­sation, as his [...]. Phot. Ep. p. 3. name importeth (as Phosius observeth) keeping his confessi­on undefiled from Idol-worship: more­over what veneration Pope Innocent's [Page 54]approbation gave this Assembly, the Replyer (I suppose) will not think that any censure of his can take away.

The Replyer complaineth that proof is not made, that the secōd Nicene Coun­cell was not universally received; what proof more Authentique, then the Au­thority of the Synods of Eliberis, and Frankford, alledged by me; I have gi­ven an accompt of the first already, and for that of Frankford, this puisne Reply­er presumes (I suppose without the Ly­cense of his Superiors) to say, that it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicent Canons, but concurrs with the Nicent Councel, that gives (though not Latriam yet) honorariam adorationem, an honorary adoration to Pictures.

Two things are to be rejoyn'd t [...] this reply: 1. That the Replyer's mista­ken in saying that the Frankford Fa­thers rejected not the Nicene Canon [...] concerning Image-worship: and second­ly that the Nicene Canons establish­ing an Inferiour adoration to be given to pictures, were not Cathelique Sanctions.

[Page 55] As to the First, it is evident, that the Replyer opposeth the judgment al­well of Bellarmine, as of Baronius, when he saith, That the Fathers at Frankford rejected not the Canons of Nice: Let him turne to his Binius, and there he shall find, that they both were mistaken in thinking that these Councels clashed, but yet that they thought so. What strength the Reasons of Binius carry a­gainst these two Cardinals, I shall not enquire; Sure I am, that if Baronius be mistaken in his Opinion in this case, he deserves little credit in other of his assertions. For he affirmeth himself so farre from doubting of it, Tantum abest, ne negemus Nicaenam secun­dam Synodum, eandemque septi [...] Oecnmenicam dictam damnatam dici in Fran [...] of urdienci Concilio, ut etiam augeamus nu­merum testium id profi­tentium, & quidem haud dubiae fidei, aut autorita­tis. Baron. Tom. 9. p. 539 An. Chr. 794. n. 27. That he solemnly pro­fesseth, (by undeniable test­monies) to put it beyond all question, and so he doth, as hath been lately observ­ed by reverend and learned Dr. Hammond out of Wa­lafridus, Strabo, Amalarius, Finimarus, A [...]astatius, and many others. If these two learned Romanists have not in this case reputation [Page 56]enough to satisfie the Replyer, I could send him to better witnesses; to the Annalls (set forth by Py­thaus, Synodus habitu in Franconofu [...]t, in quâ hae­resis foeliciana coram E­piscopis Germanorum, & Germaniarum, & Gal liarum, Italorumque praesente magno Principe Carolo, & missis, Adriani Apostolini Thcophylacto & Stephano Episcopis tertio danata est — Pseu­do- Synodus Graecorum, pro adorandis imaginibus ha­bita, & falso septima vo­cata ab Episcopis dānatur. Chamler de imag: To: 2. lib. 21. c. 14. p. 855. where it is said, that in the year 594 there was a Synod called at Frāk­ford, where Foelix was con­demned, and the Pseudo- Synod of the Greeks (that established Image-wor­ship, being falsely called the seventh,) is cersured by the Bishops: So the life of Charles the Great, published by the same Py­thaeus: so Ado, and others G. Cassander in his 29 E­pistle to John Molinaeu [...] gives him an ample ac­count of the 4 Books written by the authority and under the name of Charles the French King (the whole Councell of Frankford consenting to the con­tents of them) which were sent to the Pope against the decrees of the Coun­cell of Nice: It were the best course for the Replyer to do as the rest of his [Page 57]Masters doe in this dispute, I mean, not to say, that the Assemby of Frank­forde did not oppose the Fathers of Nice; but to under-value the Authority of that Councell, as confronting (with­out just Authority) the Canons of the second Nicene, which (they say) was a Generall, whereas this of Frankford was but a Nationall Synod.

I come therefore to the second thing that I propounded above, to prove (I mean) that the Canons of the 2d. Nicene Councell were not Catholique Sanctions; that is, the Canons that give religious worship to images, were not rules of sound and wholesome doctrine: In this enquiry I question neither the number, nor the power of such as either called this As­sembly, or came to it, though there lye a great prejudice against Councell oppo­sed by not a few of the Greeks, and by almost all the West: the Councell of Ariminum was subscribed by all the Patriarchs, yea by the Pope himselfe yet was of no Authority, but of perpe­tuall infamy, through all ages after in the Church, because it established Ari­anisme. [Page 58]What therefore St. Augustine said in his dispute with Maximinus the Arrian Bishop, when the first Nicene Councell might be pleaded for the Ca­tholiques, as the Councell of Ariminum was for the Arrians, that may I say in the present controversy, as to the second Nicene and the Councell of Frankford Nec ego Nicenum, nec tu debes Ari­minense tan­quam praedi­caturus pro­ferre Concili­um: nec ego hujus authori­tate, nec tu il­lius detineris; scripturarum authoritatibus non quorūque propriis sed u­tri (que) commu­nibus testibus, resi cum re, causa cum cau­lâ, ratio cum ratione con­certer. Aug. con. Maxim. Arian. Episc. lib. 3. p. 733. neither am I concluded with the Au­thority of this, nor thou with that; let matter with matter, cause with cause, rea­son with reason contest by the Authority of the Scriptures, which are witnesses proper to neither parties, but common to both.

If then we appeale to the Scriptures, what more clear then the voice of God on Mount Sinai, Exo: 28.48. Thou shalt not make unto thy selfe any graven image, or any thing, that is in heaven a­bove, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thy selfe to them, nor serve them. &c. This service God re­serves to himselfe, (as we are taught, Deut: 6.13.) exclusively to all crea­tures, as we are informed by Christs recitation, and weighty interpretation [Page 59]of the place, Math: 4.10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. and Exo: 34.14. [...], thou shalt wor­ship no other God.

The Papists here betake themselves to the distinction of Latria and Dulia: none but God must be worshipped by the first but the second may be imparted to Saints and Angells. The Replyer may learn (if he know not) that the chief words used by the Greek writers in the Scripture (aswell the septuagint in the Old, as the Evangelists and the Apostles in the new Testāent) are [...], and that these words are all us'd promiscuously, as well for religious and divine, as for civill worship: even [...] is used for civill worship to man, De: 28.48. the septuagint read [...], and Acts 20.19. St. Paul is said [...]: and the same St. Paul maketh it the unhappi­nesse of the Galathians, that they did sometimes give Dulia to what were not Gods, [...]: whereby we may see that Dulia (if it [Page 60]be religious worship) ought not to be given to such as partake not of divine nature; but Divines should not contend about words: the Catholiques agree (and I think the Papists cannot deny it) that the worship of God is distinguished from the worship of men in this, that the one is religious, and the other civill: The first an Elicite Act of religion, as the Schools speak: the second an imperate, flowing from it, as the effect from the cause; both of them species of Justice, as Lactantius hath excellently observed: Primum justicize officiū est conjungi cum Deo, se­cundum cum homine: sed illud primum religio dicitur, hoc secundum miscricordia, vel humanitas dicitur. Lact­lib. 6. c. 10. The first Office of Justice is to be joy­ned with God; the second with man: That first is called Religion, this second Mercy, or Humanity, Well then, admit the distinction of worship according to the difference first innocently assigned by St. Augustine into Dulia and Latria; we scruple it not, as long as those words are granted to be names of worship, differing not only in degree, but in kind or nature: for (seeing the Honour that we pay unto any Object, ought to be proportionable to the excellency of that Object) there must of necessity be the same distance between Divine [Page 61]Worship, and Humane or Civil, that there is between God and Man: But in truth there is no Proportion between God and man, and therefore neither ought there to be between Divine and Civill Worship. Colimus Martyres eo cultus dilectionis, & societatis quo & in hâc vita coluntur, sancti Ho­mines Dei, quorum Corad ta­lem pro Evangelicâ veritate passionem paratum esse sentimus sed illos tanto devotius quantò securius postincerta ōnia supera­ta quanto etiam fidentiore laude praedicamus jam in vita faelici­ore victores, quám in ista adhuc pugnantes: at illo cultu quae Gracè latria dicitur, latinè un [...] verbo dici non potest, cum fic quaedam proprie divinitati de­bita servitus, nec colimus, nec colendum docemus nisi unu [...] Deum. August. contr. Faust. Manich. Lib. 20. C. 21. (Et mox) longè minoris est pec­cati ebrium redire à martyri­bus, quàm vel je junum sacrifi­care martiribus dixi, non sacri­ficare Deo in memoriis marty­rum, quod frequentissimè faci­mus, illo duntaxat ritu, quo sibi sacrificari novi Testamenti manifestatione praecepit, quod pertinet ad illum cultum quae Latria dicitur, & uni Deo debetur. St. August: there­fore that gave the first rise to the distinction of Latria from Dulia, did not admit Dulia to be a religious Wor­ship above civill wor­ship, such as is given to living men, though he acknowledgd it an higher degree of Du­lia, that we give to the dead, then what we give to the living, because we honour them after their vic­tory, more securely. But the Papists con­ceive thēselves under the notion of Dulia, priviledg'd to conse­crate Altars, Tem­ples, [Page 62]Chappells to Saints, all which St. August: judged to appertaine to Latria; and speak­ing of the excesse of Christians, that were intemperate in the celebration of the Festivalls of the Mar­tyrs, he blames the Luxurie of such as were guilty, but yet acknowledgeth it a crime far lesse then the Idolatry of such as with fasting sacrificed, though even to the Martyrs themselves. This devout Father would have detested the abuse of his own destinction into La­tria and Dulia, and much more abhor'd the doctrine of Aquin: p. 3. quest. 25 Art. 3.4. Aquinas and other moderne Romanists, (Who teach that the Image and the Grosse of Christ are to be adored with the same worship that Christ is adored with himselfe, id est, with La­tria, in its full extent,) had he lived to to see it; Greg. de Valent. lib. 3. de Idolat. c. 5. apud Reynold. de Idolat. Ec­clesiae. Rom. lib. 1. c. 1. which veneration when Greg. de Valentia observed could not be attri­buted to a Creature without Idolatry, he spake plainly, that some kind of Ido­latry was lawfull: The Replyer grants, [Page 63] that the Church of Rome were suffici­ently condemned, (though not by a Gene­rall Councell) if the diffusive body of the Church did condemne her: and this were easy to demonstrate from the first Ages of the Church, which owned none of those doctrines, that the Papists at this day maintaine against the Catholicks all the world over, out of their own Communion. Is it not evident by St. Cyprian, 63. Epist. that the people re­ceived the Cup, Quorum quidem vel ignorantèr, vel simplici­tèr in calice Domino sanctificando & plaebi ad­ministrando, non hoc fa­ciunt quod Iesus Christu [...] Dominus & Deus noster sacrificii hujus, Author & Doctor fecit, & docuit religiosum paritèr, & ne­cestarium duxi de hoc ad vos literas facere. Cipt. Ep. 63. ad Coecilum. Because some either out of Ignorance or Simplicity doe not that in consecrating the Eucha­risticall Cup, and administring it to the people, (mark, no halfe communion served the people in that holy Bishops dayes) which Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the Author and Teach­er of this sacrifice, did and taught, therefore I accounted it both a matter of religion and necessity to write to them concerning this businesse.

And is it not as clear by St. Aug. that the opinion of Trans-substantiation was not own'd in his dayes, heare him [Page 64]speaking against the corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament, (now so shame­fully defended by the Romanists) in his Exposition of the 98. Psal. for (in treating of Christs words in the 6. Cap. of St. John, and the mistake of such as tooke his Speech, as the Trent-faith now doth) he saith, (expounding Christs words in his own Person that spake them) Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum, non hoc Corpus quod videtis, mandu­caturi estis, & bibituri illum fanguinem quem fusuri sunt, qui me crucifigent: Sacra­mentum aliquod vobis com­mendavi, spiritualter intel­lectū vivificabit vos, etsi ne­cesse est illnd visibiliter cele­brari oportet tamen invisibi­liter intelligi. Aug. in Ps. 98 pag. 1105. edit froben. Understand spiri­tually, that which I have spoken unto you, you are not to eat the Body which you see, nor to drink that Blood, which they will shed, who will crucifie me: I have com­mended a certaine Sacrament unto you, being spiritually understood, it will quicken you; though it be necessary, that it be visibly celebrated; yet it is be­hovefull, that it be invisibly conceived. Doth not St. Ambrose as plainly teach, that what mutation is wrought by con­secration, is mysticall; and not such as the Romanists fancy, grosse and corpo­poreall? when speaking of the operative vertue of Christs words, he saith. [Page 65] Si tanta vis est in ser­mone Domini lesu, ut incipe­rent esse quae nō erant quā ­tò magis ope­ratorius est, ut fint quae crant, & in aliud cō ­mutentur. Ambr. l. 4. de Sacr. c. 4. If therefore there be so great efficacie in the speech of the Lord Jesus, that those things which were not (by vertue thereof) should begin to be; how much more effectu­all is it to cause the things that were to be, and yet to be changed into somewhat else? id est, to continue naturally what they were before the consecration, and yet also after the consecration (Mystically and Sa­cramentally) to become the body and blood of Christ: which place in St. Ambrose was so distastefull to those of the new faith in the Romish-communion, that whereas some of them beat their brains in finding away how to make the Bread, and Wire in the Sacrament like the beast in the Revelation, Revel. 17.8. that was, and is not and yet is: others (as the late reverend Primate of Ireland observ'd in his ans. to the Jesuits challenge, p. 14.) tooke a ready course to untye the Gordian knot by paring cleane away in their Roman Edition (followed also in that of Paris Anno 1603.) those words that so much troubled them, and letting the rest run smoothly after this manner, Quantò ma­gis operatori­us est, ut quae erant, in aliud commutentur. how much more is the speech of the Lord powerfull to make, that those things which were, [Page 66]should be changed into another thing.

To this purpose also speaks St. Cyprian in the fore-cited Epistle, Invenimus calicem mix tū suiffe, quem Dominus ob­tulit, & vinū suisse, quod fanguinem fn­um dixit, Cyp. Epist. 65. we find that the Cup was mixed, [the epistle was wri [...] against the Aquarii, that celebrated the Eucharist with water alone] which the Lord offered and that it was Wine, which he called his Blood. St. Iraeneus lived not farre from the Apostolicke times, and he clearly asserteth the substance of bread to continue in the Eucharist after the consecration; for thus he writeth con­cerning that Mysterie; Quemadmodum qui est â terrâ panis, perci­piens vocationem Dei jam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenâ, & coelesti: sic & corpora nostra spercipi­entia Eucharistiam, jam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis ha­bentia. Iren: Lib. 4. C. 34. As the Earthly bread by the institution or com­mand of God, is not now common bread, but the Eucharist con­sisting of two things, an Earth­ly, and an Heavenly, so our Bo­dies receiving the Eucharist, are not now corruptible, having hope of the Resurrection.

When therefore we meet with expression in the Fathers, that seem to imply a Trans-substantiation, they are nothing, but a Catachresis, an abuse of words, or hyperbolicall elevations, familiar to all [Page 67]sorts of Writers, & not unusuall among the Ancients, when they speak of the o­ther Sacrament of Baptisme, as hath been largely prov'd by the late learned and Reverend Bishop of Duresme. If Justin and Iraeneus say of the Eucharist, that it is no longer (after the consecrati­on) common bread St. Chrissest. and Greg: Nussen say also of Baptisme, Non est aqua communis; it is not common wa­ter: and Cyril of Alexandria expresly useth the word trans-elementated; by the efficacy of the spirit, the sensible water [...], is changed into another element. It appears hence, that the Fathers condemned the present judge­ment of the Roman-Church, as to the above-named controversies between the Catholiques of the Reformed Churches, and the Papists in the Ro­man separation, who divided them­selves from the Communion of the Pri­mitive profession, before the Protestants departed from them, or rather were forced and driven from them.

As to my assertion, schisme is theirs who cause it; he thinkes to say only, let [Page 68]that passe, a valid confutation! and ex­cepts against my instance, when I say when the Orthodox departed from the Ar­rians, the heretiques made the schism [...]. This is contrary (as he pretends) to 1 Jo: 2.19. who speaking of certain he retiques, saith, exierunt a nobis; whic [...] if true, (saith he) then the Orthodox w [...] the Arrtans and Heretiques; and t [...] Arrians and the Heretiques were Ortho­dox. [...]! This acute Replyer is able to peirce the eye [...] of a Jackdaw as infallibly, as any on [...] I ever heard of; as if departure it sel [...] did imply a crime without reference to the Society, which a man leaveth b [...] his departure: Is departure from the blessed Disciples of Christ, St. Joh [...] and the rest of the holy Apostles all o [...] with departure from the impure frate [...] ­nity of prophane and ungodly me [...] that pervert the truth, and bring in [...] the Church damnable heresies? Is one and the same thing to depart fro [...] Moses and Aaron, and to withdraw o [...] selves from Corah, Dathan, and the r [...] of their Complices? Is it not the e [...] ­presse admonition of God to his people [Page 69]to come out of Babylon, Rev: 18.4. St. Paul ex­horts us all to such an aposta­cy, that re­claims us from out iniquity: Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart frō iniquity. [...]. Did Jeremy depart from the wicked Israelites under the guilt of schisme? if he had, God would not have confir­med him in his separation, saying, Let them returne to thee, but returne not thou to them, It was not then the sin of the Orthodox to depart from the Arrians, when if not the whole world (as St. Hierome speaketh) yet the whole face of the visible Church, groaned under that burden, and admired it selfe to have become Arrian.

'Tis true as Theodoret observeth, the Arrians termed the Orthodox the authors fall division; but how justly, such as [...]an judge, may easily discerne. When therefore the Replyer wonders, that the Doctor did not see his contradicti­on, in saying, the Orthodox did depart; the Doctor wonders that the Replyer should not see his own tergiversation, & trifling, in finding a contradiction that none but himselfe can espy. That the Drthodox should depart from the true Church, were a contradiction indeed, because the true Church consists of [Page 68] [...] [Page 69] [...] [Page 70]those that are such; howbeit that the Orthodox should depart from the Syna­gogue of Satan, is as far from being a contradiction, as Rome present is; dif­ferent from Rome professing the purity of the Primitive faith, and that is far e­nough to be sure.

'Tis evident the Replyer had little to say but was forced to cavill, when he pretends that the Text produced out of Hosea 4.15. was impertinent. For what could more directly prove our warrant for reforming our selves, then to shew, that it was Gods expresse command to Judah so to do, when Israel did refuse it. If Judah was forbidden to go to Bethaven, that is Bethel, the place of Jeroboams idolatry, why should not England thinke her selfe engaged to depart from Rome, infected with the same crime? An evasion was but necessary, when the Replyer saw the proceeding of our Church so fairly jus­tified by this Scripture, and therefore the text (he pretends) concerns not th [...] cause. But if to say that a text alledged be impertinent, is a sufficient Reply [Page 71]surely to say that such a Reply signifies nothing, (but the disability of the Re­plyer to make a better answer) is a sufficient Rejoynder.

As to the other text out of Isa: 1.21.22, the Replyer supposeth that also to be of little force: because it proves (he saith) that the Church of Jerusalem fell into sin; but what's that to the Church of Romes falling into heresy? And is not Heresie a sin Sir Replyer? If Jeru­salem might, and did fall into sin, you must shew her exemption from that sin, or else why she might not fall as well into that as other sins, I see no reason. Did not Aaron so far comply with the idolatry of the Israelites, as to make the Golden-calfe? Let Moncaeus purge him as he can in his book called Aaron purgatus: Moses (I am sure) chargeth him, when he thus bespeaketh him, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them? Exo: 32.21. and he supposeth him to have offended, when he saith, that at that time he prayed for him: Indeed as Moses affirmeth, the Lord was [Page 72]very angry with Aaron, to have destroyed him: and he useth to be angry with no man to his destruction, but for sin. Deut: 9.20.

Wherefore the Jewish Church might sin, and that not only against the Se­cond Table of the Law, by morall im­purities, but against the first also, by pro­fane impieties, by worshiping of Images by erroneous miscarriages in the Du­ties of Gods worship, which they here­tically held to be lawfull, as the present Church of Rome now doth, or else they would never have done what was so clearly and frequently forbidden unto them.

And that Jerusalem, thus fell in the time of the Prophet Isaiah, the Reply­er might have learned from the first words of his Prophecy, for the word of the Lord came unto him in the time of Ahaz his reigne, and Ahaz liking an Al­par at Damascus sent the patterne of it t [...] Urian the Priest, who bu [...]lt it accordingly 2. Kings 16.10.11. Which was a di­rect violation of Gods institution▪ Thus it is evident, that the High priest himselfe erred in administring [Page 73]his Office. And why the Church of Rome may not erre, aswell as the Church of Jerusalem, a better reason must bee assigned, then this Replyer hath given, before we believe her peculiar privi­ledge.

This Replyer hath the confidence to say, that the instance of the Corinthi­ans erring in the doctrine of the resurrec­tion, is to litle purpose, because some, not all did erre in that Church. But he conceals the force of my argueing from the sup­position of the establishment of that error by a prevailing party: for in case that should have been done by the Bi­shop of that City, and a prevalent fac­tion in that Church, it is evident that the Church of Corinth (in respect of such a combination) might have been said properly enough to have fallen by heresy.

But grant the worst of other Churches yet Rome is secured: It was said (saith the Replyer) only to Peter and his suc­cessors, and the Church, whereof they were to be Pastors, thou art Peter &c. What was said to Peter, we know; but what [Page 74]was said to his pretended successors at Rome, and the Church whereof they were to bee Pastors, we know not; St. Mathew teacheth us not. Upon this rock I will build my Church, concernes Rome no more then another particular Church, especially if St. Peter did found it, and build it up by his doctrine: for though he suffered Martyrdome at Rome, yet his teaching might have as much influ­ence on other Churches, as his blood had at Rome.

But super hanc Petram, and any other advantage that the Replyer contends for out of the Syriack translation, will stand him in little stead to prove the infallibility of the Church of Rome. For should Christ call Peter a rock and in allusion to his name, adde upon this rock. I will build &c. all this would no more conclude that the Pope could not erre (did he succeed St. Peter by a better title, then he can make good) then it did secure St. Peter from diverting Christ from his passion, whilst this confession that he made of Christ was warme from his mouth, and afterwards from denying of Christ with perjury, when he was un­der [Page 75]the temptation of fear to be appre­hended as a malefactor, should he have confessed him. Which failings of the blessed Apostle, we recount not to staine the glory of his memory, but only to shew, that he was not privi­ledged to become an unshaken Rock, such as on whom the Church might be secured.

Antiquity did not by Christs ex­pression understand the Person of Peter only, to be meant when he said, Upon this Rock I will build my Church: but some first by the name of Roek under­stood every beleever, as Origen. Greg. Nyssen, St. Ambrose, and Aquinas him­selfe, following Origen, as the learned Exercitat. 15 ad. Annal. Baron. P. 39. Casaubon observeth.

Secondly. Others conceive, that by Rock, our Lord understood the faith of St. Peter; so [...]. Chrys. upon this Rock, id est. the faith of this confessi­on, so Super hanc confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est, & mox. haec sides Eccle­siae fundamentum est. Hilary, lib. 6. de Trinit. The building of the Church is upon this Rock of his confession, and after­ward, this faith is the foundation of the Church. and St. August. most clearly in [Page 76]his 10. Tract [...]t. on the first Epistle of St. Quid est super bane Pewam aedificabo ecclesiam meam? super hanc fidem, super id, quod dictum est, Tu es Chris­tus filius Dei vivi, super hanc Pettam, inquit, sundabo Ecclesiam meam. John. What is on this Rock I will build my Church; but upon his faith, upon that which hath been spoaken, Thou art Christ the Sonn of the living God, upon this Rock (saith he) I will build my Church.

Thirdly, Some by Rock understood Peter, but with no Prerogative to his person above the rest of the Apostles, except of his age, (in which respect, St. Hierome Cur non Johannes elec­tus est virgo? aetati delatū est, qua Petrus senior erat Hieron. adv: Iovin lib 1. thinks him to be made the Prolocutor;) and prompenesse of answering Christs demands. We de­ny not that the Fathers ascribe unto Peter this pious heat, especially obser­vable in him upon severall occasions, more then in the rest of the disciples. Peter [...]. Tom. 5. p. 199. edit. savil. (saith St. Chry­sost:) fervid in all things, (or upon all occasions) and full of freedome in speaking, or ra­ther of charit y then free dome of speech, whilest others hold [Page 77]their peace, cometh to the Master, and saith &c. Vpon this accompt the An­cients give unto Peter a dignity peculi­ar amongst the rest of the Apostles, not a princely power over them. [...]. Hence Eusebius, lib. 2. c. 14. calls him for his excellency, the Prolocutor of all the rest. Thus much and no more did the Fathers grant unto Peter, when the La­tins call him principem, and the Greek's [...], the Prince and leader of the Apostles. St. Hie­rom's testimony is evident for this, when he prayseth St. John so highly, making him the beloved disciple, be­cause he was a virgin, and Superior to St. Peter, because whereas Peter was an Apostle, and John an Apostle, the one a married man, the other a virgin; Peter was only an Apostle, John an Apostle, an Evangelist, and a Prophet. 'Tis true he objected before, the preeminence of St. Peter above the rest, but answereth the objection by granting no more to St. Pe­ter, then we acknowledge to be given him by Antiquity: which was not a Soveraign, Monarchicall Authority over them, but a praesidency among them: [Page 78]Hear St. Hierom's words, lib. 1. adv. Jovin. If Si virgo non fuit Iohan­nes, cur caeteris Apostolis plus amatus sit? & dicis super Pe­trum fundatur ecclesia licet id ipfū in alio loco super em­nes Apostolos fiat & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipi­ant, & ex acquo super cos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur, tamen proptere à inter duo­decem unus eligitur, ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio. Hieron: adv. Iovin. lib. 1. St. John were not a virgin, why was he more beloved then the rest? but you say that the Church was foun­ded on Peter: though that be elsewhere laid on all the Apostles, and all of them re­ceive the Keyes of the King­dome of heaven, and though the strength of the Church be equally grounded on them all, yet not withstanding one is chosen among the Twelve, that an Head being appointed, the occasion of schisme might be removed. Where, St. Hierome by the name of Head, meant not to ascribe a Soveraigne power to Peter over all the rest; for all St. Peters power is compri­sed in the Keyes, and in the building of the Church upon him; but you see that all the Apostles (in St. Hieroms judge­ment) receive the Key's and the Church is built upon them all equally: wherefore, (in Hieroms opinion) though Peter had a pre-eminency among the Apostles, he had not a Soveraignty above them.

[Page 79] To conclude, fourthly and lastly, Some of the Fathers by Rock understood Christ himselfe. So Tu es Petrus, & super hane Petram, quam confessus es, super hanc Petram quā cog­novistidicens, Tu es filius Dei vivi, aedificabo Ecclesiā meam 1. super meipsū filiū Dei vi­vi aedificabo Ecclesiam meā. St. Augustine in his thirteenth Sermon on the words of our Lord. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock, which thou hast confessed; upon this Rock which thou understoodest, when thou said­est, Thou art Christ the Son of the liv­ing God, will I build my Church: id est, upon my selfe, the Son of the living God, will I build my Church: upon me will I build thee, not me upon thee. And this Sense 'tis probable that Christ made evident to the Apostles by pointing demonstratively to himselfe, when he pronounc'd the pronoune This, as he may be supposed to have done, when he said, Iohn, 2.19. Dissolve this Temple.

Neither do these four severall Inter­pretations differ in the substance of the sense, but only in the manner of expres­sion; for as if a devout man should say, God cured me, or the Physitian cured me, or Rhubarb cured me; he would by these severall expressions speak after the ac­customed manner of speech, retaining [Page 80]still one meaning, that he was cured by God, as the first efficient, by the Phy­sitian as the second and subordinate, by the Rhubarb as by the instrument; so the Fathers (as the learned Exercitator. on Baronius noteth) when, they say sometimes, that the Church is built upon Christ, sometimes on Peter, sometimes on every believer, and upon the faith, or consession of faith made by Peter, agree very well in the substance of the same sense: though they use severall ways of declaring it. Which is doubtlesse the reason, why one and the same Au­gustine other whiles expoundeth Christ words after one of the forementioned senses, and otherwhiles after another; for in his Retractat lib. 1. c. 21. he saith that he had sometimes by Rock under­stood Peter, but afterwards most fre­quently Christ, whom Peter confessed: for Christ is the first and chief efficient cause of the holy and spirituall building of his Church; Peter by his endeavours whil'st he l [...]ved, and by his doctrine since his death, together with the rest of the Apostles (though chief among them in the sense of the Ancients, but [Page 81]not Moderne church of Rome) a secon­dary or subord note efficient: faith the instrumentall cause of this Glorious Edifice, and the faithfull the materiall, of the Temple of God.

When therefore this Replyer would play the Critick upon Peters name in the Syriack language, which imports a rock, he follows indeed his Masters, Baronius, and Bellarmine, but to little purpose: Peter non est à Petra Petrus, sed ipse est Petra. is not (saith Baronius) derived from Petra, a rock, but he him­selfe is a rock. But what would the Replyer get hereby? first, he would fe­cretly disparage the Greek copies of the Gospel?, as if they did not conve­niently expresse the importance of Christs words: secondly, directly oppose the Authority of St. Augustine, Petrus a Petrâl, quem­admodum a Christo Chris­tianes vocatur. Aug deverb. Dom. Ser. 13. & lib. Retract. 1. c. 21. who saith, Peter was called from a rocke, as a Christian is called from Christ: and thirdly teach us what small skil he hath in the Analogy of Grammar: for grant Christ and Peter too to be called a Rock: the word rock shall be praedicated of them both, univocally, equivocally, or denominativel, as the Logicians speak. [Page 82]The first kind of praedication, cannot be admitted true of Christ, and Peter, without blasphemy: for if Christ and Peter be named a roek un vocally, then the same definition must agree to the rock Christ, the Son of God, and to the rock Simon, son of Jonas. Now Christ is a rock, because he giveth life, com­fort, and protection to his Church against all dangers ghostly, and bodily, which none can do but God: If Simon be such a rock, it follows he must be God also; which is such a blasphemy, that (I hope) this Replyer trembleth to be guilty off. It follows therefore, that Peter be a rock equivocally, or by denomination from the true rock: and let him take which sense he will, the same definition (by the Lawes of Logick) shal not be assign'd to Christ, and Simon; because there will be a vast difference between the Rock Christ, and the rock Simon. By reason of the se­verall Genius's of the Syriack and Greek tongues (as Causaubon hath noted) Si­mon may in the one language be called a Rock equivocally, and in the other a rock by denomination; because in Syriack the name of Peter is written with the [Page 83]same letters, that the word is, that sig­nifies a rock; ( Cepha denoteth both) but in Greek with others, which is required in denominations, as [...]. Simpli­cius in Categ. apud Casaub. Smiplicius hath observed out of Aristotle. Whether therefore in Syriack from Cepha, Peter be also called Cepha, or from the Greek word [...], the difference will consist only in the form of words, but not in the importance of the sense. we are not afraid to call Peter a rock, or a foundation the Scripture giveth this Appellation to all the Apostles, Ephe: 2.20. Rev: 21.14. and why should we deny it unto him, whose name challengeth it by par­ticular praerogative? The question is, in what sense he is so called?

We see evidently by the Testimony of the Fathers, that Antiquity thought him not a Foundation or Rock, in the sense that the Patrons of the Popes omnipotency assert; as if the whole Church were botto­med upon him, and his Successors, and the whole world become his Diocesse, as Hart affirmed in his conference with Reynolds, pag. 459: neither did they think that by these Titles given to Peter; [Page 84]the Pope might lay claime, not only to a Primacy of Order amongst the rest of the Patriarchs, but a Lordly Soveraignty over all Christian people throughout the whole world. Whereas now it is too manifest, that all this contention is raised not so much for Peters honour, as the Popes ambitious designes, whom it would better become to imitate Peters true humility, who would not endure Cornelius a Centurion to lye prostrate be­fore him, Acts 10.26. then assume his false titles (false I say in respect of the sense now imposed on them) whereby he may tread on the necks of Princes.

But what though the Pope succeeded St. Peter at Rome, did not a Bishop suc­ceed him also at Antioch? might not this Successor clayme as much priviledge at the one See, as the Roman Usurper doth at the other? Tis evident enough, that Peter had no Successor in the Apos­tolicall dignity, and Contrvers. 2. q. 3. a. 3. Stapleton teach­eth that the Apostleship ceased, when the Apostles dyed: and yet though this were something currant doctrine at Rome, Annotat in Cyor. excus. Rom. 1563. Bellarmine took courage to [Page 85]affirme, that because some have given the name of Apostleship to the Popes office, therefore the Pope succeedeth after a sort in the Apostleship, viz: in the charge of the whole world: But Eusebius lib. 3. c. 17. mentioneth St. John (after St. Pe­ters decease) to have discharged his A­postolick Office by constituting Churches, and ordaining Bishops, whereas he as­signeth no imployment to the Bishop of Rome, but the administration of his own Diocesse. Certainly if the first Bishops of Rome had succeeded St. Peter in such a Superiority, as the Romanists now contend for, not only all other Bishops, but St. John himself also must have ac­knowledged the Pope to have been his Diocesan, which were to submit the supream dignity of the Apostolick Au­thority instituted imediatly by Christ, to the limited jurisdiction of a particular See; for such was the Bishop of Romes circumscription as we have shewn afore out of Clemens his constitutions.

That the purer ages of the Church had no such opinion of the Popes uni­versall jurisdiction, is manifest by the [Page 86]eight Canon of the famous Councell of Ephesus, framed for the vindicating of the Bishops of Cyprus, their exemption from the incroachment of the Patriarch of Antioch, who claimed Authority over them in the consecration of their Metro­politan. For when Reginus Bishop of Constantia, Zenon Bishop of Curiun, and Euagrius Bishop of Sela, all within the limits of Cyprus made their complaint, that the Patriarch of Antioch would sub­ject their Island to himselfe, attempting to draw to him the power of Ordinati­ons amongst them, contrary to the anci­ent Customes, the Canons of the Apos­tles, & the decrees of the Nicene Coun­cell; upon the hearing of their cause they framed a Canon, the last of the eight recited by Justellus, wherein they exempt the Cypriots from the usur­pation they complained of, and more­over without the least reservation o [...] priviledge to the Bishop of Rome i [...] in this behalfe, adde, [...], &c. Let the same course be observed in other Diocesses & in all Provinces every where, that none of the boly Bishops [Page 87]seize upon another Province, which was not of old, and from the begīnīng under his power: If any have entred anothers Province & have by force sub­jected it unto himself, let him restore it, that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgres­sed, nor the pride of worldly Authority (under pretence of the Hierarchy) enter into the Church, and by little and little, before we are aware, we loose that Liberty, which the Lord Jesus Christ, the deli­verer of all men, by his blood hath procured. Therefore it bath pleased the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod, that the rights belonging to every Province be preserved, invio­lated, and the customes which were from the beginning.

No marvell if some have gone about by sleight of hand to shuffle this Canon out of the Acts of this Councell, and Binius having recited only six Canons of it, pretend that in the Vatican, and [Page 88]some other Copies there be no more. Indeed any man observing the latter practices of the Church of Rome, may easily think, that the Vatican can scarce brook a Canōn so directly crossing the present claimes of that See. But how­ever he thought meet not to give it the place proper for it among the Canons, yet I suppose the truth of the case of the Cyprian Bishops, and the judgement of the Councell thereupon were so evi­dent, that he could not but relàte it, and give it the Authority of a Decree of the said Councell, referring his Reader thereuntoin the close of the six Canons set by him together.

From this Canon the most Rever­end Primate of Ireland doth duely in­ferre, Vindic. p. 96. that sith this councell doth deter­mine, that no Bishop should occupy any Pro­vince, which before that Councell and from the beginning had not been under him, or his Predecessors, and that if any Patri­arch Usurped any jurisdiction over a free Province, he should quit it; and that it may be made to appear, that the Bishops of Rome from not so much as any time before the celebration of that Synod, no nor for [Page 89]yeares after Christ, (much lesse from the beginning) exercis'd over the Brit [...]nick Churches) therefore Rome can pretend no right over Britānie, without their own consents, nor any further, nor for any longer time, then they are pleased to oblige themselves.

This priviledge of our Brittish-Church, upon the proceedings of the fore-named Councell of Ephesus, will appear the lesse disputable, from our Antiquity of receiving the Christian faith: Armachan de primord Eccles Brittan p. 23. for if Joseph of Arimathea presently af­ter the passion of our Lord (as the Le­gats of the English Nation at the Coun­cell of Constance contend, pleading it as a just reason for the super excellency of their Country above France, and Spaine, as having received the faith before them) preached in England the gospel of Christ before Tiberius's death, and Peter came not to lay the founda­tion of the Roman-Church, at that City, [...]ay not into Italy, till the second year of Claudius, the Brittanick-Church in its first originall was free from Rome, and by the authority of the Councell of [Page 90] Ephesus ought to continue so, as having its beginning afore there was at Rome either Bishop, or Court, or ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Moreover the learned Primate doth demonstrate the conti­nuance of the freedome of our Church from Rome, by its adhaesion unto the Eastern-Churches in the controversie that arose about the celebration of Easter, and the administration of Ba­ptisme. for 'tis not credible, that the whole Brittish, & Scottish Church too should even in Augustin's time have dissented from Rome, if they had been Subject unto the Roman Bishop, as their lawfull Patriarch: see the Pri­mates vindication. p. 100. &c:

When I say, that the guilt of Schisme may be incurred by forcing others to leave us; he reply's (as he useth, when he hath nothing to say) that this is no Answer: to which, I thinke, I need say no more, but that this is no reply. Cle­mens (according to the title of the 4 ch: of his 6 booke of Constitut:) might have taught him, [...]. that he that forsaketh the wicked is no Schismatique, but h [...] that forsaketh the godly. He will not [Page 91]yield, that we were forced to forsake Rome; But is it not notoriously evident? They that make Termes of Comunion inconsistant with the integrity of our Catholique faith, are clearly the Schis­matiques? but so have the Romanists done, as is evident by the Trent De­crees Ergo: Moreover, if it be Schisme (as it is) for a particular church to with­draw her selfe from communicating with a sound part of the Catholique­church; Rome, as long as she refuseth communion with the Protestants, main­taining no doctrines contrary to the Ca­tholick faith, nor infringing the fair claimes of any of the ancient Patri­arch's must needs be Schismaticall. He pretends that we are impatient under the spirituall punishments of Rome, whilest she seeks to reduce us to our former faith, and herein we are like Rebells, that storme at their King, that seeks to reduce them. We are not so fond in espousing opini­ons, but that we shall judg it a favour to be undeceived from them, assoon as we shall be taught, that they are not agree­able to the Catholique faith. Psal. 141.5. If the righte [...]us smite us, it shall be a Kindnesse, [Page 92]and if they reprove us, it shal be an excellent oyle, which shall not break our head. But till we can be farther convinced of Rom's Authority over us, we professe our selves not at all engaged to submit to her unrighteous censures; which the Roplyer may indeed justly call spiri­tuall punishments, forasmuch as they reach (when the Pope hath power) our very souls and spirits, so far as to expell them from our Bodies by fire, sword, Gun-powder, and all the instruments of cruelty, that wit and malice can con­trive; they fight against us with ar­guments borrowed out of the Butchers­shops, rather then the sacred Scriptures, though St. Augustine, Nullis bo­nis in Catholi­câ h [...]c placet. si us (que) ad mor­tem in quem­quam licèt hae­reticū saevia­tur. Aug: cont. Cresc. Iram. l. 3. c. 5. was more mild in the punishment of such, as were truely Heretiques, affirming it to be a thing that liked no good men, that Heretiques should be put to death: and (though he saw good reason to change his opinion, and that the Impe­riall Lawes were by their severity ad­vantagious unto Christianity, yet) it was in cases of manifest opposition a­gainst the Catholique Church; which the Papists shall then prove the Pro­testants [Page 93]to be guilty of, when they shall prove their own new doctrine to be Catho­licke, and that will be, when they shall convince us, that the Church alway's held what for severall hundreds of years it never heard of. That resemblance of a King reducing his Subjects by force, will never concerne us, till the Popes Au­thority over us be made evident: and therefore it will be our crime not to be obedient, when it shall be his Preroga­tive, to give us Commands.

When I say the Church of Rome hath left her selfe as one may say; he replyes, that none but one that will speake contra­dictions, or not answer the Quarie can say so. And why not Sir? is it a contra­diction for one, changed from what sometimes he was, to say Ego non sum ego? was Saul, breathing out threatnings against the Church, and Paul preaching the faith, which sometimes he destroyed, one, and the same man? 'tis true, as to the substance of his person he was; but as to the temper, & frame of his mind he was not. Was the Bishop of Rome abhorring the title of Universal Bishop as Gregory did, and the Pope asserting, Ego sidenter dico, quia quis­quis se Vniver­salem sacerdo­tem vocat, vel vocari deside­rat, in elatione suâ Antichri­stum praecur­rit. Gregor. lib. 6. cp. 194. [Page 94]defending and claming it, the same Kinde of Pope? Was the Church of Rome preaching the Catholique faith, and the Church of Rome persecuting and destroying it, one and the same Church? If in respect of many funda­mentall tru' ths still retained inviolably, it might be termed so, yet in respect of additions unto, and detractions from the fundamentalls, certainly it is not? neither is it any incongruity, much lesse any contradiction so to call it. Romam in ipsa Româ desiderare, to seek Rome in Rome it selfe, is no absurd speech. We need not (to make good the ex­pression) say, that the whole hath left the whole: 'tis sufficient (in Grammar, Logick, and Rhetoricke too) to say Rome now, is not Rome, if (in contradiction to the carriage of St. Paul, who upon his conversion preached the faith, which once he destroyed) it be be proved suf­ficiently, that she destroyeth the faith, which once she preached.

And thus in Sr. conscience of my duty to the Truth, and charity to many, (alas far too many of our countrymen, still besotted with the errors of the Romish [Page 95]Church) I have shewen how weak, and invalid the Reply was to my first An­swer. I confesse it is but a small con­quest to overcome so feeble an Adver­sary, who hath by many of the Cham­pions of our Church been disarmed of these weapons (wherein he seemeth to trust) before he marched in them a­gainst me. Indeed they were no Armour of proof, before he wore them, & he hath not managed them with better successe then his Predecessors: he hath neither cleansed them by his industry, nor wiel­ded them by any new skill, nor strength­ned them by any additionall force. Let him swell himselfe into the conceipt of one of Romes Goliah's, and challeng the whole Army of the Protestants profession, (except he appear in better Armes, then yet he hath made us believe he can shew himselfe in) I see no reason, why any small Slinger of ours, that out of the Brook is able to choose a few smooth­stones (so David van [...]uished the boasting Philistine) I mean, out of the fountains of the holy Scriptures, use some of those many conquering weapons, that are there to be found, should be afraid to encoun­ter [Page 96]him. but seeing the Replyer is con­tented to cast himselfe, and Cause, up­on the judgement of the Reader I here joyne issue with him, and am very well pleased to request no other favour from him, that shall seriously consider what I have said, then what St. Hierome did, when he wrote against John Bishop of Jerusalem, for defending Origen's er­rors: these are his words, and they shall be my conclusion in this Dispute (which I intend not any more to amplify by any future endeavours, haveing more necessary imployment to spend my time about) Quaeso Lec­tor, ut memor Tribunalis Do­mini, & de judi­cio tuo intelli­gens re judi­candum, nec mihi necadver­sario faveas, ne­ve personas lo­quentium, sed causam consi­deres. Hieron: ad Pammaeh. I beseech thee Reader, remembring the Tribunall of the Lord, and considering that thou art to be judged for the judgement, that thou shalt passè, favour neither me nor my Adversary, nei­ther respect the Persons, but the cause of the Speakers.