The aforementioned Arguments of Dr. R. S. are four in number: The First, from the perpetual Visibility of the Church of Rome, viz. • 1. That Church only that is Visible in all Ages, is the true Church; , • But, only the Roman Church is Visible in all Ages, , and • Ergo, only the Roman Church is the True Church. 

The Proof, THe Major is manifest, which I prove by St. Matth. 18.17. Dic Ecclesiae, Tell the Church: But how can we tell the Church if it be invisible, tanquam Idea Platonica, Ergo, The Church is Visible in all Ages.

The Minor is clear by all Church Histories, Councils, Fathers, [Page 4]that the Roman Church only is Visible in all Ages, for no other Church can shew her Visibility in any Kingdom, City, or Village, from the Apostles time to Luther, Ergo, only the Roman Church is the True Church.

The Second Argument from Succession, viz. • 2. That Church only that hath lawful Succession, is the True Church; , • But, only the Roman Church hath lawful Succession, , and • Ergo, only the Roman Church is the True Church. 

The Proof, THe Major is proved by St. August. That Church (saith he) in which is Succession, is the Rock against which Hell-Gates cannot prevail. And Irenaeus saith, Successione con­fundimus: omnes, Succession confound all Hereticks; but only the Roman Church have lawful Succession; Numerate Sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede, & in illo ordine Patrum quis cui successit videte, as, saith St. August. In hoc ordine successionis nullus Donatista Episcopus inveni­tur: And our English Bishops had no succession from Roman Catho­lick, for immediately after their Consecration, Stapleton, Harding, &c. told them to their faces they were no Bishops; Ergo, only the Roman Church have lawful Succession.

The Third Argument from pretended peculiar Privileges belonging to the Roman Church, viz. • 3. That Church only that have confuted, and anathematiz'd all Hereticks, converted Nations, deprived Schismatical Bishops, restored Orthodox Bishops, called Councils, &c. that is the True Church. , • But only the Roman is such, , and • Ergo, only the Roman is the True Church. 

The Proof, THe Major is plain, because these Privileges belong to the Authority of the Mother Church, which is Matrix & Radix omnium Ecclesiarum.

The Minor is proved, for, In Ecclesia Romana semper viguit Apo­stolicae Cathedrae Principatus; therefore in the Oriental Councils, when some Bishops would not agree, divers cryed out Romam am­bulent, Let them go to Rome: Nam a Petro ( inquit August.) ipse E­piscopatus & tota Authoritas nominis hujus emersit, and 'tis manifest no Protestant Church ever confuted Hereticks, converted Nations, deprived Schismaticks, restored Orthodox Bishops, but slept Endi­mion's Sleep for above a thousand years, or like a Didopper dived in the Apostles time, and never rose again until Squire Luther, that second Elias, that fift Evangelist.

The Fourth Argument, from Universality of the Roman Church, viz. • 4. That Church is only Catholick, which is dispersed through all Nations. , • But only the Roman is dispersed through all Nations, , and • Ergo, the Roman Church only is the Catholick Church. 

The Proof, THe Major is proved, for Universality is an evident mark of the Catholick Church: Si vestra Ecclesia (saith St. August.) sit Catholica, ostendite per universam terram ramos suos copia ubertatis extendere; for no Heresie can be Universal, no Heretick can be Catholick, Protestants are so far from Universality, that 'tis as hard a matter to find a Protestant in fifteen hundred, as motum in vacuo.

The Minor is as evident, that the Roman Church was dispersed through all Nations, by St. Paul to the Romans, 3.8. where he faith, that the Roman Faith was Preached in all the World, that is Peter's Faith; and what Faith the Romans had then, the very same they have at this present; for the Roman Church is not to be new bot­tom'd, neither to be reformed of new Calciners: Fidei enim Regula una omnino est, sola, immobilis, irreformabilis (as Tertullian) the Do­ctrine of Faith once delivered to the Apostles by the prime verity, Jesus Christ, and assisted by the Holy Ghost for ever, cannot be alter­ed, and the Church being built upon a Rock, need no repairing of new Masons: Soliditas illius Petrae, quae Apostolorum Principe est lau­data, [Page 6]perpetua est: & sicut Petra permanet quod in Christo Petrus credi­dit ita permanet quod PetrO Christus instituit. Here St. Leo saith, the Church is Perpetual, and cannot fail so long as Christ is the Son of the Living God: And although the Protestant Church be fallible, yet the Roman is infallible; therefore, Vivat Fides Catholica, Vi­vat Ecclesia Romana; quae fuit tempore Apostolorum, & est eritque per secula sempiterna.

THE ANSWER.

I Derive not my Faith from Luther or Calvin, as Beginners of it, yet do confess with St. Paul, (Acts 24.14.) that aften the way which they call Heresie, so worship I the Lord God of my Fathers; I mean, as those Fathers did, whom Justin Martyr calls Patres Pa­trûm, professing the Ancient Catholick Faith; all the Articles of my Faith being grounded on Scripture, and the constant belief of Fathers and Couneils in the Church of Christ the first four hun­dred years. Antiqua Ecclesia primisquingentis Aunis vera Re­clssia fuit. Bell. lib. 4. de not. Eccl. c. 9. The Opinions of any Posterior Fathers, where they vary from the Doctrine of the First, I think it unsafe to follow. For St. Hierom teacheth me well; Nec Parentum nec majorum Error sequendus est; sed Au­thoritas Scripturarum & Dei docentis imperium; nam Judaei post Baalim abierunt quos didicerunt a Patribus (In Jerem. ca. 9.) We are not to take error by Tradition from our Fathers or Ancestors, but the true sence of holy Scriptures is to be followed, and the Power of God in­structing us in them, for the Jews went after Baal by the example of their Fathers: As your Fathers did, so do ye: Acts 7.51. I am of the Apostles belief, and I am sure they were no Papists; rather Pro­testants, protesting the Truth and sincerity of Faith against Error and Schism: So we by receiving the true Sacraments (which are called Visible Signs protesting the Faith) protest against those which are corrupted, and against all Doctrines contrary to Scripture and the Apostolick Faith, &c. and so in that sence you may call me Pro­testant. Now to prove only the Roman Church to be the True Church, you say: That Church only that is Visible in all Ages is the True Church; but only the Roman Church is Visible in all Ages, Ergo, [Page 7] only the Roman Church is the True Church. And to prove the Major, you instance the words of St. Mathew, Dic Ecclesiae To which I answer, that 'tis not said Dic Romanae Ecclesiae, (Tell it to the Roman Church) therefore makes no more for Rome than for Greece, or any other place where the Church is, hath been, or shall be. And to prove the Minor, you only say 'tis cleer by Church Histories, Coun­cils, and Fathers, that the Roman Church only is Visible, but bring not one particular proof from any of them to make it evident, and evince that the Church was no where else Visible; for History also tells us that the East or Greek Church, though often in great misery and persecution, was, and is a Church from the Apostles time: So that Argument which is common to others, you cannot appropriate only to the Roman; seeing it makes as much for the Greek Church (in whose Language the Oracles of the Son of Ged were written) as for it: The Greek Church was first honoured with the Original writ­ten Gospel, and the Latin Church had it only by Franslation from it.

That there was and is a Church constant in all Ages (though not apparently flourishing, and visible at all times to all the world) I not deny; but that there is no Church where 'tis not Splendid and Visi­ble to all eyes, you have not yet made any ways apparent: Certain­ly the Ark of God was not less an Ark, in being in Dagon's Tent and the Hands of the Philistines. Persecution (the fare of the Church Militant) obscured the Churches Rays in many Nations, and some­times so totally Eclipsed her, as she was not visible to Humane Eyes: Besides, your Position, that Visibility is the only mark of the true Church, you have not proved to be granted be Churches differing from the Roman, therefore is a Principle of your own, and a beg­ging of the Question. I deny it to be the only mark, for a mark must be infallible, and

• That mark which may possibly deceive, and is common both to a True and a False Church, and may as probably lead to the one as the other; is no certain infallible mark to find the true Church.
• But Visibility may deceive, being common to both; and may as readily lead to a False as a True Church.
• Therefore Visibility no sure mark and unerring Rule to find the True Church.

The Major is undeniable, bearing its own Proof, Truth, and Rea­son [Page 8]in it self. The Minor is apparent in all Ages, even from the beginning of the World to this day: Go up into Paradise, the Gar­den of Eden, there was Truth and Falshood, even as soon as God had laid his Church, the Devil began to build a Chappel; for (in Gene­sis) not long after, Et Deus dixit (And God said, &c.) the Devil was busie to set up a false Worship and wrong Obedience; and then comes, Et Serpens dixit, And the Serpent said, which visibly and mi­serably deceived our first Parents. The Church was with Moses in Egypt, there were Magicians and mock Miracles; Falshood ever followed the Truth, or Truth found it where it went: There were Calves in Dan and Bethel, there were worshipers of Baal; Er­ror is almost as old in the world as Truth: No sooner went the A­postles out to Preach, but a false Doctrine appeared in Simon Magus, and his Followers, Acts 8.14. In one place or other Erroneous and false Churches have been always Visible to this day, (even when the true Church have been obscured by Persecutions) for so it must be according to the saying of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11.19. Oportet esse Haere­ses; Were the idolatrous People in the time of Elias, Achas, Ma­nasses, and others, the True Church, because they only were Visible to the World? For where was Visibility of the True Church, when the Prophet cried out and complained (1 Kings) He only was left a­lone? (so a true Church may be, though not visible, for there were seven thousand true Worshippers which he knew not of.) Where was Visibility when the Shepherd was smitten, and the Sheep scat­tered, hid, and concealed? Zach. 13.7. Joh. 16.32. Where was Vi­sibility of the True Church in the time of Dioclesian the Emperour, when neither Church, Book, nor Men escaped? Was she not as St. Joh. testifieth, Revel. 12.6. fled into a Desart where she should not be found for a space, &c. And St. Chrysostom (in Math. 24.) saith, In the time of Abomination of Desolation, ( viz. of wicked Heresie,) Nulla probatio potest Christianitatis, &c. No proof of Christianity can be made, or refuge found for Christians to know the true Faith, but only the Divine Scripture: So the Church of Antichrist may be Vi­sible and Flourishing, when the true Church of Christ is in obscuri­ty and hath no Lustre. Therefore Visibility is not in all Ages and all times an infallible mark of the true Church, but is a mark also of a false one; and so a true Church hath been, and may be, though not Visible to Humane Eyes, &c. Your next Position is from Succes­sion, viz.

• 2. That Church that have lawfull Succession is the True Church;
• But only the Roman have lawful Succession,
• Ergo, only the Roman Church is the True Church.

To prove the Major you twice instance St. Augustine, but direct to no place where; therefore I know not whether he speaks as you represent him; or if he doth, whether he denotes a Succession in Place, of Persons, or of Doctrine; and you bring in Irenaeus to say, Successione Confundimus omnes, &c. but there is no such saying in the manner you mention, found in Irenaeus; 'tis only corruptly quoted by Bellarmine, (Bellar. li. 4. de notis Eccles. ca. 8. Sect. 2.) nor have I heard or found Irenaeus, or any other Father make Local, Personal, Visible, and Continued Succession, a necessary Sign or Mark of the True Church in any one place, (as though a True Church could not be in any place without it,) yet the Faith was delivered over by Suc­cession in some places or other to their time, and is to our time, and shall be till there be no time; for a True Church may be, hath been, and is in places, where there hath not been Continued, Visible, Per­sonal Succession. Were not Jerusalem, Antioch, &c. and others in the Primitive times true Churches, yet Succession of Bishops hath not continually succeeded in them to this day, and later Churches are true likewise: Constat omnem Doctrinam quae cum illis Ecclesiis A­postolicis Matricibus Originalibus Fidei conspiret Veritati deputandam: So saith Tertullian, De praescript. advers. Haeret. c. 21. And in the same place, Ecclesiae posteriores non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae: The Succession Irenaeus stood upon, was of the Churches then in Asia, and of Smyrna, where Polycarpus sat Bishop, as that of Rome. Testimonium his perhibent quae sunt in Asia Ecclesiae omnes, & qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo, Iren. l. 3. ad­vers. Haeret. ca. 3. And St. Hierom tells us, Ecclesia non in parietibus consistit, (in Psal. 133.) So Succession in the Fathers Account is not tyed to Place, or Person, but to the verity of Doctrine; as Tertullian (de praescript. c. 32.) Ad hanc formam provocabantur ab illis Ecclesiis, quae licet nullum ex Apostolis, vel Apostolicis Authorem suum proferunt, ut multo posteriores, quae denique quotidie instituuntur, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes; non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro cansanguinitate Doctrinae; shewing that modern Churches, such as are daily instituted and set up agreeing and linking together in the same true Faith, are [Page 10]no less to be esteemed Apostolical for their neerness and consangui­nity of Doctrine; and to that we have as good Succession as any Christian Church this day in the whole Catholick Body, the Religi­on professed in the Church of England being nearest of any Church now in being, to the Primitive Christian Church. Churches that have Doctrine, that is not allied in Blood, to that of Christ and his Apostles, have no lawful or good Succession; for Consanguinitas Do­ctrinae is required: Irenaeus speaks plain, Illis Presbyteris obediendum est, qui cum Episcopatus Successione Charissima acceperunt veritatis. Iren. l. 4. ca. 43. We are to obey those Priests, who with their Succes­sion in the Office of Bishop have received the Pledge or Gift of Truth: whereupon Stapleton (Relic. cont. 1. q. 4. A. 2. Notab. 1.) is forced to confess, successio nec locorum tantum est neo personarum, sed etiam verae & sanae Doctrinae. And why it cannot be of Pastours he again tells us ( Notab. 4. ibid.) name Pastore Lups fleri potest; which is true, many great men have turned Hereticks; Judas chang'd from an Apostle to a Devil, so 'tis the easie for others to change from Shepherds into Wolves. Nor can the Roman Prelates pretend they have only this veràm et sanam Doctrinam, or claim a lawful succession of Pastors continually holding entire the Unity and the Eaith, for they have not kept the Unity of the Church, but have had more Schisms among them than any other Church, above thirty acknowledged by their own Chronologer Onuphrius; Even Popes themselves have many of them (by confession of several Ro­mish Authors who have written of their Lives) been very vile, er­roneous, Heretical, &c. So 'tis clear Rome hath no lawful Succession, by confession; they have only a Succession of gross Superstitions and Errors for a bout a thousand years, for which they can shew no Practice on Warrant from the Apostles. You further say, That our English Bishops had no Succession from Roman Catholick, for immediately after Conscoration, Stapleton, Harding, &c. (your own men) told them to their faces they were no Bishops, Ergo, only the Roman Church have lawful Succession.

I see you are put to hard straits for proof, that, seeing the Fa­thers will not speak for you, you are forced to be your own Testi­mony, which with me is less than nothing (for who will or can take an Adversary's bare objections for a sufficient confutation of a matter in question) for by this your Argument and Rule of proof, [Page 11]should I tell you that any of our Party say Stapleton, Harding, &c. were no Scholars (though indeed they were great Clarks) and should I say they were damnable Hereticks and forsakers of the Truth (as in truth they are) you ought to admit it as a convincing Testimony (else why do you obtrude your sayings for proof?) but let that pass. You confess English Bishops had Consecration from the Roman, and so enabled and qualified for the service of the Church; If then the Roman had any lawful power to conse­crate (which I deny not) I do not question but their Consecration is valid enough and hold good, notwithstanding Stapleton and Har­dings words to the contrary; for such sayings do not unordain, and so we have your Succession and Consecration to boot. But whe­ther ordinary Mission or Ordination be so absolutely necessary to the being of Truth, as though Truth could nor be without it, is with me a question, seeing Christ encouraged the Faithful that did wonders in Christ's name and was not sent, (St. Mark 9.39, 40.) forbid him not he is on our part, &c. nor did I ever conceive a ne­cessity lay on the English Church to receive Orders from Rome, more than on the Roman to receive Orders from it, seeing we were a Church Apostolick assoon, yea were a Church before any settlement of a Church in Rome. The Religion of Christ was received in Brittain, tempore (ut scimus) summo Tiberii Caesaris, in the latter time of Tiberius Caesar, as saith St. Gildas (de excid. Brit.) the same is acknowledged by your own man Baronius; whereas St. Pe­ter kept in Jury long after Tiberius his death: And (as Theodoret and Sophronimus Patriarchs of Jerusalem affirm) the Apostle St. Paul first taught in Britain; Also Aristobulus mentioned Romans 16. came to this Isle and discharged the Office of a Bishop, as Do­rotheus witnesseth, and in his Synopsis also averreth Simon Zelotes Christum praedicavit in Britannia ubi crucifixus occisus et sepultus est; The same also affirmeth Nicephorus lib. 2. cap. 40.) Simon Zelotes Evangelii Doctrinam ad occidentalem Oceanum Insulasque Britannicas perfert. And Joseph of Arimathea An. Dom. 53. taught the Gospel in Britain as Baleus Flemingus and others affirm, likewise Tertullian who lived An. Christi 200, saith, Britanorum loca Romanis inapoessa Christo subdita sunt ( advers. Judaeos cap. 7.8;) After him Origin An. Christi 260. witnesseth Britanniam in Christianam consentire Religi­onem. So it is evident and most clear that Apostles and Apostolick [Page 12]men delivered over the Faith to us, and were the first Planters; we had many Waterers after of this Plantation, and a succession of Doctrine by confession on all sides. St. Jerom also Anno 405. records Gallia, Britanniá, Africa, &c. unum Christum adorant, u­nam observant Regulam veritatis: In which time Bellarmine confes­seth the Church was a true Apostolick Church, Antiqua Ecclesia primis quingentis Annis vera Ecclesia fuit, &c. (Bel. l. 4. de notab. Eccl. cap. 9.) and then, viz. the first four hundred years we and Rome were of one joint Belief and Faith from one Fountain (Christ Jesus and his Apostles) and the same faith we had then, the same we have now, we hold to the old Foundation, the Scripture, Creed, and, ractice of the general Church in those times; so are we a true Church and a right Member of the Catholick, having lawful suc­cession of Doctrine, convey'd to us (as before is proved) from A­postles and Apostolick men; whereby it's evident we are no Nove­lists nor any of our Profession, the Antiquity whereof our very Enemies do acknowledge.

Reinerus a Roman Inquisitor (above three hundred years since) speaking of the Professors at Lyons, calling them Valdensae, Leo­nistae, &c. in contempt, saith, they are more pernitious to the Church of Rome than all other Sects for three causes; First, being of lon­ger continuance than any other, the Sect enduring ever since the Apostles. Secondly, It is general, creeping into all Lands. Third­ly, It hath a great shew of Godliness, they live justly, believe all things well concerning God, and all the Articles contained in the Creed, only they Blaspheme in hating the Church of Rome, &c. He calls us indeed a Sect, as of old, the Priests of the Jews called the Church of Christians, a Sect of Nazarites, Acts, 24.5. but you see, by Confession we had our Doctrine in former Ages, and were a Church from the Beginning, and are not estranged from the Church of Rome where she holds the Truth, but she from us and the true Catholick Church of Christ; nor do we depart from her (as they charge us) or are any further remote from her, than she her self is from her primitive Purity, antient Principles, from Scripture, Reason, Charity, Antiouity, and from what she was in her best of times: our present Church of England (though of­ten have been under clouds and heavy persecutions) still retaining the primitive verity to this day. So your second Argument is in­valid [Page 13]in that you have not proved (nor can prove) that the Church of Rome hath this lawful Succession of uncorrupted Doctrine and Principles, or that succession of Pastors is necessarily tied to one particular place for ever to make the being of the Catholick Church, as though the universal Church of Christ could cease to be, if Rome and her Prelates were extinct and turn'd to Ashes.

Your third Argument from pretended Privileges belonging to the Roman Church, viz. • 3. That Church only that have confuted and anathematized all Hereticks, converted Nations, deprived and restored Bishops, called Councils, &c. that is, the true Church. , • But only the Roman is such; , and • Ergo, only the Roman is the true Church. 

The Major (you say) is plain, because these Privileges belong to the Authority of the Mother-Church, which is, Matrix & Ra­dix omnium Ecclesiarum.

I answer, you should first have proved her to be the Mother-Church & Radix, &c. before you exercise (or can claim) the Authority of a Mother; I would fain know what Church is the Mother of the Roman; or is Rome it self Motherless; for I deny her to be the Mother of the universal Church of God: yet do a­gree that those Privileges (you mention) do belong to the Authority of the Catholick Church; but 'tis an insolent and intolerable usur­pation (of the Rights and Privileges of the Universal Church) for any particular Church to confine all the Catholick Privileges to her particular self, I am sure she hath not this power from Christ to judge and condemn her Sisters; for she is not Matrix & Radix omnium Ecclesiarum (as you say) there were elder than she (there­fore she at best but a Daughter Church, and Sister to others) Je­rusalem (if any particular) was it, as was prophesied of old, Mic. 4.2. and fulfilled, Luke 24.47. and so Theodoret, lib. 5. Hist. Eccl. cap. 9.) tells us, Ecclesia Hierosolymitana quae aliarum omnium Mater: And Men were first called Christians (not at Rome but) at An­tioch, Acts. 11.26. St. Gregory Nazian. saith, The Church of Caesaria was Mater prope omnium Ecclesiarum, meaning of neigh­bouring [Page 14] Churches, not of the whole Catholick Church: Et Con­stantinopolitana Ecclesia dicitur omnium aliarum caput; so in that sense, and no other, Rome may be called Head of those Churches in her Patriarchat. Every particular Church that teacheth the Catholick Doctrine may be called Catholick, (as a Member of the universal) and so was the particular Roman whilst it held all things true concerning the Faith; but never was she Mater & Radix om­nium Ecclesiarum, for the Universal Church hath no particular or locall Root of its being, Jerusalem, as I said before, if any, was it. Or if you will have a particular Root of the Catholick Church, 'tis in the East, not in the West at Rome—se praecisam esse a Ra­dice orientalium Ecclesiurum, &c. St. August. Epist. 170, But the Head, Root, Matrix, Fountaine, &c. of Rome and all other particular Church­es, is the Catholick Church and her Unity, and to break her Uunity by usurping a Power or Priority, which Christ never gave, is at the least abominable, if not certainly damnable; 'tis against a command too, The Text is clear, There was a strife among the Apostles which should be greatest, St. Luke, 22.14. Christ answered them, The Princes and Rulers exercise Dominion, &c. but it shall not be so with you; He that will be greatest, &c. St, Matt. 20.26. There is no Priority much less Superiority given to Churches National; Tertullian tells us, Omnes Primae, & omnes Apostolicae, dum unam omnes probant unita­tem (de praescript. advers. Haeret. cap. 20.) Porro unam esse primam Apostolicam ex qua reliquae hanc nulli loco affigit B. Rhenanus: there­fore not at Rome. And it is to be observed, that Tertullian, long since, numbering the then Apostolical Churches reckons Rome last of them, ( Tertull. ibid. cap. 32.) and Pamelius lately puts Rome after others ( cap. 21. num. 129.) what you speak out of St. Au­gustin, In Ecclesia Romana semper viguit Apostolicae Cathedrae Prin­cipatus, that in Rome there did always flourish the Principality of an Apostolick Chair (in relation to the West and South parts of the Church, all the other four Apostolical Chairs being in the East) doth not give Rome, nor the Pope thereof, power to exercise this Principality (beyond his Limits, out of his own Patriarchate) o­ver the whole Church of Christ: for in the same Epistle of St. August. (Epist. 162.) Melciades then Bishop of Rome had leave granted him to hear a matter of the Donatists adjudged by the A­frican Bishops, and other Bishops by the Emperour were sent Judges [Page 15]to determine with him, for if he had done it without leave the E­pistle tells us it had been an usurpation, seeing (ad cujus curam, &c. ibid.) it belonged to the Emperours care and charge, and that he is to give an account to God for it. Yea a Pope himself saith 'tis Antichristian to be stiled universal Bishop, St. Greg. l. 4. Epist. 78 monstrous and blasphemous, Absit a cordibus Christianorum Nomen illud Blasphemiae, ibid. Epist. 76: and further, (St. Greg. Epist. 83.) In isto scelesto vocabulo consentire nihil aliud est quam fidem perdere. So the Roman was not then universal Bishop, had no power over Patriarchs and National Bishops, no Monarch over the whole mi­litant Church for near six hundred years after Christ: and Britain in those times was never subject to the See of Rome, for it had a Primate of its own ( Et a Patriarcha non datur Appellatio, saith the Civil Law) from whom lies no Appeal. Now then the gene­ral power of anathematizing Hereticks, depriving Schismaticks, restoring Orthodox Bishops, &c, belong to the Catholick Church Militant, and her Authority in general Councils lawfully by her called and constituted; and that the Catholick Church is our Mo­ther no man will deny that accounts God to be his Father. But this Holy Catholick Church (mentioned in the Apostle's Creed) is not the Church of Rome, nor any other particular Church on Earth: The Holy Catholick Church there spoken of contains not only the whole militant Church on Earth but the whole Tri­umphant alive in Heaven; for so St. August. Euch. cap. 56. Ec­clesia hic tota accipienda est, non solum ex parte quae peregrinatur in terris, &c. verùm etiam ex illa quae in Caelis: And who converted Nations originally? Did not Christ send out his Apostles, and se­venty Disciples at another time, and then after sent many more? were not then Apostles Apostolick men, and the general Church they that converted and confuted Nations and planted the Church of Christ in the World? Now this Holy Catholick Church, before ever Rome was a Church, is Matrix & Radix omnium Ecclesiarum, of Rome as well as other. The Catholick Church was ever one and the same Church, ( viz. the Church of God spread over the whole World (and as before described by St. August.) Rome could never be it, for if Rome, a particular Church, can be now the Ca­tholick Church, then by the same Rule (if it be not out of Rule) some other particular Church, before it, was the Catho­lick [Page 16]Church; and how came that to lose it and Rome to get it, that it is now, as you say, translated to Rome; and doth it not follow by the same rule that Rome (also) may transire in non Ecclesiam, pass way in no Church; for what Patent or holy Charter from Heaven hath Rome above the former, and above other particular Churches that it shall there remain to the end of the World? Nay, they that most stand for it, even the greatest Champion Rome hath, can only say, 'Tis a pious and probable Opinion to think, Cathedram Petri non posse seperari a Roma & proinde Roma­nam Ecclesiam non posse errare vel deficere. (Bellar. de Ro. Pont. cap. 4.) so 'tis but pretended probality, and that is no proof able to convince: However, he that thinks the contrary, viz. that the particular Church of Rome can err and fall away from the Faith (which the true Church can never do, I mean the Catholick Church before described can never fall away from the Faith) and St. Peters Chair be severed from Rome, is by Bellarmines own confession no Heretick, for he adds, Contraria sententia nec est Haeretica nec ma­nifesta erronia (Bellarm. ibid.) And if the Apostolick Chair can be removed from Rome, and the Roman Church fall away from the Faith, then it is so far being the only Catholick, that it ceaseth to be a part of the Catholick Church; where it appeareth that Rome never was, is, or can be, The only Catholick Church of Christ.

Your fourth Argument, from Universality of the Roman Church, hath its Answer already in a great measure: But something more I shall particularly answer to the same, which you pro­pound, thus. • Arg. 4. That Church is only Catholick which is dispersed through all Nations. , • But only the Roman is dispersed through all Nations, , and • Ergo the Roman only is the Catholick Church. 

And how comes the denomination of the Church to be changed from Christian to Roman; certainly 'tis no small fellony to rob the Church of the more honourable Appellation and give it your own name. Men were first called Christians at Antioch; and yet the Universal Church was never stiled Antiochian.

If you make a difference between the Christian Faith and the Roman, speak out and confess it; If you mean the Christian Faith, why do you not say so? alter your Minor Proposition and the conclusion will follow for the Church of Christ, and I'le assent to it without more ado, for then your Proposition will be true and you will contend without an Adversary. But have you any other Doctrine can parallel this Sacriledge in taking away the Christian Name from the universal Church of Christ? As though the Spouse of Christ could become Anabaptist, forget her Virgin Name and change her Beloved. Is Christ and Rome convertible? Is the Gospel of Christ become the Gospel of the Pope? or hath the Pope a Gospel of his own that is spread over the World? was there not a true Church (that had Radix Essentiae, and is the Root, Essence and Being to Rome and other particular Churches) before Rome received the Faith? And what was that Church called? not Roman surely: And why did you not say the Church of Jerusa­lem or the Church of Antioch, &c. (where the first Plantation was) is dispersed through all Nations; Ergo, the Church of Je­rusalem, Antioch, &c. only is the Catholick Church? it had been more tollerable though as little to sence. The first Appellation (be­fore ever Rome was a Church) viz. Christian, shall stand with me for ever: I dare not change from Christian to Roman, in as much as Christian Religion is elder and was before ever Rome was converted; therefore Christian, not Roman, is the primitive and right term and name of the universal Church. Besides, How the Roman (or any particular Church) can be the Catholick (for at best she was but a Catholick) Church, is no ways apparent. St. Cyril tells us, Catholica est illa quae diffusa est per universum Orbem; Rome is not the universal (but the Christian Church is) so not Catho­lick in extent. Romana Ecclesia particularis confesseth Bellarmin, (lib. 4. de R. Pont. c. 4.) so not the Catholick Church; Rome it self must be judged by Scripture and the Catholick Church (and is right no further than it agrees with the Catholick) and not the Catholick Church by it. Our fierce Adversary Stapleton, pours out his Reason why Roman is esteemed Catholick, Quia ejus Com­munio erat evidenter & certissimè cum tota Catholica; So you see the Communion of the Roman was with the Catholick, not of the Catholick with it: And St. Cyprian in the rent and open Schism [Page 18]between Cornelius and Novatian employed his Legates, &c. Elabora­rent ut ad Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem scissi sorpor is membra componerent: Now the members of this torn Body were they of Rome, then in o­pen Schism between Cornelius and Novatian, (St. Cypr. li. 2. Ep. 10.) And St. Cyprian endeavoured to bring Rome to the Unity of the Ca­tholick; so Rome then was not The Catholick, nor is the Radix, &c. or can she be her own Original. There is a double Root, (as one learnedly observes) Radix Essentiae, which gives Essence and Being to Rome and all other particular Churches, and there is Radix Existen­tiae, as Rome with all other particular Churches (and no more than other Patriarchal Churches) which was and is the Root of the Churches Existence, agreeable to that known and received Rule in Art, that Universals give Essence to their Particulars, and Particulars supply their Universals with Existence. But to shut up and confine the Universal Church of Christ, (as it is now spread) in the narrow com­pass of Rome only, is ridiculous Nonsence. Ecclesia non in parietibus consistit, saith St. Jerom, in Psal. 133. The Church is every where, ubi fides vera, &c.

You bring in St. Paul to say, ( Rom. 1.8.) that the Roman Faith was preached in all the World: But you abuse St. Paul, for 'tis not said preached; nor is it said Roman Faith. Their Faith was spoken of (as his course was to commend and encourage the faithful in every place) St. Paul intending to impart to them some spiritual gift, for they were not then established: He only commended then the Faith of the Saints then in Rome (which they had newly received) viz. the Christian Faith (never called it the Roman Faith) and so much he spake, and more, of the Faith of other Nations and Persons to whom he wrote, and yet never any Nation or Person usurped a Stile was never given them. St. Paul, Thess. 1.8. witnesseth that, From the Church of Thessalonica sounded out the Word of the Lord, and in every place the Faith of the Thessalonians was spread abroad; and were ensamples to all that believe, &c. ver. 7. ibid. (which was a true Faith) and yet they never nick-named the Universal Christian Church Thessalonian, nor did they ever arrogantly and audaciously adopt the Universal Church of Christ as their own Off-spring and Issue, (or that they only were the Catholick) as Rome doth in your Position. St. Paul did commend the Faith then in Rome, but now 'tis changed and not worthy commendation. You say that is St. Peter's, and [Page 19]why not St. Paul's Faith; was not his as good, and the other Apo­stles the same that St. Peter taught? Was there no true Faith but what came from Rome? (and 'tis yet a question whether St. Peter was ever there, Rome could never yet make it appear) Was all the Doctrine of the other Apostles invalid? Was not their power equal? ( Matth. 28.19, 20. and 18.18. Joh. 20.22, 23.) 'Tis most sure one was not above another (as before is proved) Christs Word was delivered to all to Preach; from which our very greatest Adversary is forced to confess, Summa Potestas Ecclesiastica non solum data est Pe­tro sed etiam aliis Apostolis, (Bellarm. li. de Ro. Pont. ca. 1.) all are Supreme: Then they who pretend to be St. Peter's Successors, have not Supreme Ecclesiastical Power any more than the Successors of the other Apostles; for St. August. (Tract. 50. in St. Jo.) saith, Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est non facit hoc Ecclesia. The Keys were given to St. Peter and all the rest in a Figure of the Church (as one saith) to whose power and to whose use they were given; not to one to Lord it over the rest: It shall not be so with you, &c. (as before.) And St. Augu­stin, (de Agon. Chri. ca. 30.) Petrus Personam Ecclesiae Catholicae susti­net, & huic datae sunt Claves quum Petro datae, so the Power is in the Catholick Church, not any single Person, as is evident by the pra­ctise of the Primitive Church many hundred years after Christ, when was no Universal Bishop (as before is proved) to St. Gregory's time. St. Peter's Faith, not his Person, is the Rock against which, &c. for afterwards to his Person Christ said, Get thee behind me, Satan, &c. And a Temptation did too much prevail on him when he most hor­ribly fell in a personal and shameful denial of his Master (which cost him many bitter Tears.) Epiphanius, (li. 2. Heres. 59.) tells us 'tis his Faith, Super hanc Petram solidae Fidei edificabo Ecclesiam meam: So St. Greg. Nyssen also, Haec sides Ecclesiae fundamentum est (de Trin. adver. Judaeos.) The same Interpretation gives St. Hilar. (li. de Trin.) Super hanc igitur confessionis Petram Ecclesiae edificatio est. And this Faith the whole Catholick Church hath, which is the Rock against which Hell Gates shall not prevail, to cause the Church to fail fun­damentally.

If any were supreme why not the beloved Disciple, to whom it was never said, Get thee behind me Satan, and who never denyed his Master: Or St. Paul, though none of the twelve, yet an Apostle for whom there is more colour, for He had the Right Hand of Fellowship [Page 20]given him, Gal. 2.9. And he himself owned expresly an Authority, 1 Cor. 7.17. And so ordain I in all Churches.—In all Churches, in the Roman as well as other (if Rome was then a Church.) Sollicitu­do omnium Ecclesiarum, The Care of all the Churches, he saith, 2 Cor. 11.28. And where was St. Peter's Supremacy, yea where was his Infallibility, when St. Paul rebuked and opposed him to his face, in that He walked not uprightly according to the Truth of the Gospel? (Gal. 11.3.4.) And where was his Supremacy when he was sent on Er­rands by the Church, viz. by the other Apostles, Acts 11.3, 4. and Acts 15.13. And how can St. Peter's pretended Successors claim a Supremacy, that St. Peter had not himself. If any succeeded our Lord in the Principality of the Church, Epiphanius twice tells you it is St. James the Lords Brother; Ille primus Episcopalem Cathedram cepit, quum ei ante caeteros omnes, suum in terris Thronum Dominus tra­didisset, (Epiphan. l. 3. Haeres. 78. Page 103.)

You go on and say, What Faith the Romans had then, the very same they have at this present, &c.

Not so neither, for Rome was a right Church, and is now a wrong; Their Faith is changed, at least what Faith they have now, they had not then; the true Church then (and many hundred years after) knew not your present Errors and Superstitions, not your prayer (in the Church) in an unknown Tongue, as St. Paul witnesseth, 1 Cor. 14. The Church owned no supreme Prelate, no Pope above his fellows, usurping a power to depose Princes, no worshipping of Ima­ges, no invocation of Saints, no adoration of the Bread in Sacrament, no breaking of Christs Institution in the Eucharist, giving the holy Sacrament but in one kind, no Purgatory, no Decretal Epistles and Canons against Scripture to be believed as Scripture, No Doctrine of Devils, &c. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3.

St. Augustin (whose memory is honoured through the whole Chri­stian world in all Churches) was of the true Catholick Church, no man will deny, and yet he was no Romanist in Opinion; for he was in the separation of the Affrick Church from Rome, with many other Bishops, and died therein. Ergo, 'tis possible to be of the true Ca­tholick Church, and yet out of the Roman.

We are taught by St. August. (de Bap. con. Don. ca. 4.) Evident Scripture before all things must take place, for it is, as your own man, Stapleton, confesseth, ( Relict. con. 4. q. Ar. 3.) the Foundation and [Page 21]Pillar of Faith: (Scripturam Fundamentum esse & Columnam Fidei fa­temur) Then I shall not easily be led away from the Foundation by the subtle tradition of men, seeing St. Paul gives more warning ( Co­loss. 2.8.) Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain De­ceit, after the Tradition of men. Now what my Faith is I have told you in the beginning of my first Paper, which I take to be the Faith of the present Church of England. I embrace the Faith which the Apostles delivered, I believe the holy Scripture and the Creeds, and these in the sence of the ancient Primitive Church: I submit in all humility to the four great General Councils, (so much magnified throughout Christendom) their Determinations and Interpretations; and I do believe all points of Doctrine generally received, as funda­mental in the Church of Christ. This I confess and subscribe to, and seeing I so do, you are bound in charity to believe me, for you have all the proof that can be had, or that ever Man or Church required. Now shew me where I do depart from the Foundation, and yet I am no Papist, or shew me (if you can) where the Church of England doth fail in any one point fundamental in the Faith.

We do not, Hominis consuetudinem sequi sed Dei veritatem, as St. Cypr. (l. 2. Epist. 3.) teacheth, for Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas est Erroris, ibid.

We are bid to go to the Law and the Testimony; The Word is a Light unto our Feet, and Lanthorn to our Paths: we are taught to Search the Scripture, which is able to make the man of God perfect, (saith St. Paul.) It was proclaimed from Heaven by God the Father first at Jordan, then at Mount Tabor, This is my well beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him; and to hear him is Life: And I know, They com­mitted two Evils that forsook the Fountain of Living Waters, to hew out to themselves Cisterns, broken Cisterns that can hold no water, Jer. 2.13.