The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 2 · Chapter 1

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 2 · Chapter 1

p. 289CHAP. I. Of the Universal Church.

The Question of Schism explained. The nature of it enquired into. Several general Principles laid down for clearing the present Controversie. Three grounds of the charge of Schism on Protestant Churches by our Authour. The first, of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church, entered upon. How far the Roman Church may be said to be a true Church. The distinction of a Church morally and metaphysically true justified. The grounds of the Vnity of the Catholick Church, as to Doctrine and Government. Cardinal Perron's distinction of the formal, causal, and participative Catholick Church examined. The true sense of the Catholick Church in Antiquity manifested from St. Cyprian, and several cases happening in his time: as, the Schism of Novatianus at Rome; the case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus. Several other Instances out of Antiquity to the same purpose, by all which it is manifest that the unity of the Catholick Church had no dependance on the Church of Rome. The several testimonies to the contrary of St. Ambrose, St. Hierome, John Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Augustine, Optatus, &c. particularly examined; and all found short of proving that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church. The several Answers of his Lordship to the testimonies of St. Cyprian, St. Hierom, St. Greg. Nazianzene, St. Cyril, and Ruffinus, about the infallibility of the Church of Rome, justified. From all which it appears that the making the Roman-Church to be the Catholick, is a great Novelty and perfect Jesuitism.

SInce so great and considerable parts of the Christian Church, §. 1.have in these last ages been divided in communion from each other, the great contest and enquiry hath been, which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation. For, both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity, as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth; and yet notwithstanding this, we finde these breaches so farr from closing, that, p. 290supposing the same grounds to continue, a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible. An evidence of which, is, that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed, or out of some private interest or design, have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties, have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of. For whether any of the Roman Communion have ingenuously confessed the great corruptions crept into that Church, and desired a reformation of them, or any of the Protestant Communion have endeavoured to excuse, palliate, or plead for the corruptions of the Roman Church: we find how little incouragement they have had for such undertakings from that Church whose Communion they have professed to retain. The distance then being so great as it is, it is a very necessary enquiry what the cause of it is, and where the main fault lies; and it being acknowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church, and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its Communion may be tainted with, it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lye there, where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of Communion. For, can any one imagine it should be a fault in any to keep off from Communion, where they are so far from being obliged to it, that they have an obligation to the contrary, from the prinples of their common Christianity? and where men are bound not to communicate, it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism. For there can be no Schism, but where there is an obligation to communion; Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds of Christian Communion; and therefore when ever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism, you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things, which they are Protestants for disowning of. Or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the Society of your Church, that no conditions can be so hard, but we are bound rather to submit to them, than not joyn in Communion with you. But we who look on the nature of a Christian Society in general, the Foundations of its constitution, the ends and designs of it, cannot think our selves obliged to Communion in those things which undermine those Foundations, and contradict those ends.

§. 2.This being a matter of so vast consequence, in order to the settling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world, before I come to particulars, I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are, from all imputation of Schism. Schism then importing a violation of that Communion which we are obliged to, the most natural way for understanding what Schism is, is to enquire what the Foundations are of Christian Communion, and how far the bonds of it do extend. Now the Foundations of Christian Communion in general depend upon the acknowledgement of the truth of Christian Religion. For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true, is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it; which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to believe the truth of it, thence ariseth the ground of Society in this profession, which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them. The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons, they find in this Religion some p. 291actions which are to be performed by several persons in Society with each other. From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian Society, in all those who profess themselves Christians; and the whole number of these who own the truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in Society with each other, is that which we call the Catholick Church. But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common Society; yet for the performance of particular acts of communion, there must be lesser Societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them. But still the obligation to communion in these lesser, is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians, which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal Happiness. And therefore those lesser Societies cannot in justice make the necessary conditions of communion narrower, than those which belong to the Catholick Church; i. e. those things which declare men Christians, ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians. But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true, so the conveyance of that Religion being to us now in those Books we call the Scriptures, there must be an acknowledgement of them as the indispensable rule of Faith and manners, which is, That these Books are the great Charter of the Christian Society, according to which it must be governed.

These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian Society, §. 3.we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend. For which it must be considered, that the grounds of continuance in Communion, must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entering into it. No man being obliged by vertue of his being in a Society, to agree in any thing which tends to the apparent ruine of that Society; but he is obliged to the contrary, from the general grounds of his first admission into it. His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it, and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it. Now the main end of the Christian Society being the promotion of Gods honour and the salvation of mens souls, the primary obligation of men entering into it, is the advancement of these ends, to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends; but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to these ends, those men of whom such things are required, are bound not to communicate in those lesser Societies where such things are imposed, but to preserve their communion with the Catholick Society of Christians. But these general discourses seeming more obscure, it will be necessary for the better subserviency of them to our design, to deduce them into particulars. Setting then aside the Catholick Society of Christians, we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any lesser Society, how extensive so ever it may pretend its communion to be.

1. There is no Society of Christians of any one Communion, but may impose some things to be believed or practised which may be repugnant to the general Foundations of Christian Society. But if any Society shall pretend a necessity of communion with her, because it is impossible this should be done by her: this priviledge must in reason be as evident as the common grounds of Christianity are; nay much more evident, because the belief of Christianity it self, doth (upon this pretence) depend on the knowledge of such Infallibility, and the indispensable obligation to communion depends upon it.

p. 2922. There being a possibility acknowledged, that particular Churches may require unreasonable conditions of communion; the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable; but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society. Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they believe, and to do the most unjust and unreasonable things. But the great difficulty lyes in knowing when such things are required, and who must be the judge in that case: to which I answer,

3. Nothing can be more unreasonable, then that the Society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge, whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question only were in matters of peace, and conveniency, and order, the judgement of the Society ought to over-rule the judgements of particular persons; but in such cases where great Bodies of Christians, judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion, what justice or reason is there, that the party accused should sit Judge in her own cause?

4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture, reason, and tradition, that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian communion, the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incurr the guilt of Schism. Which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds, because none can be obliged to communion in such cases, and therefore the not communicating is no culpable separation.

5. By how much the Societies are greater which are agreed in not communicating with a Church imposing such conditions, by how much the power of those who rule those Societies so agreeing is larger, by so much the more justifiable is the Reformation of any Church from these abuses, and the setling the bonds of Christian communion without them. And on those grounds, viz. the Church of Romes imposing unlawful conditions of communion, it was necessary not to communicate with her; and on the Church of Englands power to reform it self by the assistance of the Supream power, it was lawful and justifiable not only to redress those abuses, but to settle the Church upon its proper and true foundations. So that the Church of Romes imposing unlawful conditions of communion, is the reason why we do not communicate with her, and the Church of Englands power to govern and take care of her self, is the reason of our joyning together in the service of God upon the principles of our Reformation. On these grounds I doubt not but to make it appear, how free the Church of England is from all imputation of Schism.

§. 4.These things being thus in general premised, we come to consider what those principles are on which you can found so high a charge as that of Schism on the Protestant Churches. And having throughly considered your way of management of it, I find all that you have to say may be resolved into one of these three grounds. 1. That the Roman Church is the true and only Catholick Church. 2. That our Churches could have no power or cause to divide in their Communion from her. 3. That the Authority of the Roman Church is so great, that upon no pretence soever could it be lawful to withdraw from Communion with her. I confess, if you can make good any one of these three, you do something to the purpose; but how little ground you have to charge us with Schism from any of these Principles will be the design of this Part at large to manifest. I begin then with the first, which is the pretence of your Churches being the Catholick Church: and p. 293here we again enter the lists to see how fairly you deal with your Adversary. Mr. Fisher saith, That from the Controversie of the resolution of Faith the Lady call…d them; and desiring to hear, whether the Bishop would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church? the Bishop (saith he) granted that it was. To which his Lordship answers (after a just complaint of the abuse of disputations, by mens resolution to hold their own, P. 127. sect 20. n. 1.though it be by unworthy means and disparagement of truth) that the question was neither asked in that form, nor so answered. And that there is a great deal of difference (especially as Romanists handle the question of the Church) between The Church and A Church, and there is some between a True Church and a Right Church. For The Church may import the only true Church, and perhaps the root and ground of the Catholick. N. 2.And this (saith he) I never did grant of the Roman Church, nor ever mean to do. But A Church, can imply no more, then that it is a member of the whole. And this I never did (saith he) nor ever will deny, if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also; but not a Right. For Truth only imports the being; right, perfection in conditions; thus a Thief is a true man, though not an upright man. So a corrupt Church may be true, as a Church is a company of men which profess the Faith of Christ and are baptized into his Name; but it is not therefore a right Church, either in doctrine or manners. And this (he saith) is acknowledged by very learned Protestants before him. This is the substance of his Lordships answer, to which we must consider what you reply;P. 127. c. 2. n. 1. That about the terms of the Ladie's question you grant to be a verbal Controversie; and that whatever her words were, she was to be understood to demand this alone, viz. Whether the Roman were not the True, Visible, Infallible Church out of which none can be saved; for, herein (you say) she had from the beginning of the Controversie desired satisfaction: And in this subject the Roman Church could not be any Church at all, unless it were The Church and a Right Church. The reason is, because St. Peters successour, being the Bishop of Rome,P. 128. n. 2. and Head of the whole Church (as you tell us you will prove anon) that must needs be the Church foreign if it be any Church at all. And because the Church can be but one, if it be a true Church it must be the right Church. But all this amounts only to a confident assertion of that which wants evident proof, which is, that the notion of a Church relates to one as appointed the Head of the whole Church, without which it would be no Church at all. Which being a thing so hard to be understood, and therefore much harder to be proved, we must be content to wait your leasure till you shall think fit to prove it. When you therefore tell us afterwards, That the Vniversal Church supposes the acknowledgement of the same Vicar of Christ, and that those Dioceses which agree in this acknowledgement as well as in the same Faith, and communion of the same Sacraments make up one and the same Vniversal Church; When you further add, That the Roman Church is therefore stiled the Church, because it is the seat of the Vicar of Christ and chief Pastor of the Church Vniversal: I can only say to all these confident affirmations, that if you had sat in the chair your self, you could not have said more or proved less. It is not therefore in what sense words may be taken by you (for who questions but you may abuse words?) but in what sense they ought to be taken. You may call the Bishop of Rome the Vicar of Christ, but before you can expect our submission to him, you must prove that he is so; you may call the Roman Church, The Church if you please, among your selves: but if by that you would perswade us there can be no Church but that, you would do an office of kindness to offer a little at some small p. 294proof of it, i. e. as much as the cause, and your abilities will afford. And what if the Ancients by a true Church did mean an Orthodox Church? I know but one of these things will follow from it, either that they took a true Church for one morally and not metaphysically true; or that if your Church be not an Orthodox Church, it can be none at all. From hence you proceed to quarrel with his Lordship for saying, That may be a true Church which is not a right Church (which is all the thanks he hath for his kindness to you);N. 3. for (say you) how can you call that a true Church in which men are not taught the way to Heaven, but to eternal perdition? Which is as much as to ask, How you can call that man a true man that hath a Leprosie upon him. But if you had considered, what his Lordship had said, you would never have made such an objection. For his Lordship doth not speak of the soundness of a Church, but of the metaphysical entity of it. For he saith,Sect. 20. n. 2. It is true in that sense as ens and verum, Being and True, are convertible one with another; and every thing that hath a Being is truly that Being which it is in truth of substance. But (say you), how can that be a true Church which teacheth the way to eternal perdition by some false Doctrine in matter of Faith? because it either teacheth something to be the Word of God which is not; or denies that to be his Word which is: to err in this sort is certainly to commit high and mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God, and consequently the direct way to eternal perdition. An excellent discourse to prove that no man can be saved that is not Infallible! for if he be not Infallible he may either teach something to be Gods Word which is not, or deny that to be his Word that is; either of which being a mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God, it is impossible any man that is not Infallible should be saved: either then we must put off that humanity which exposes us to errour, or pronounce it impossible for any men to be saved, or else assert that there may be errour where Gods veracity is not denyed. And if so, then not only men severally but a Society of men may propound that for truth which is not, and yet not mortally offend against Gods veracity; supposing that Society of men doth believe (though falsly) that this is therefore true because revealed by God. In which case that Church may be a true Church in one sense, though an erroneous Church in another: true, as there is a possibility of salvation in it; erroneous, as delivering that for truth which is not so. But here is a great deal of difference between a Church acknowledging her self fallible, and that which doth not. For suppose a Church propose something erroneous to be believed, if she doth not arrogate Infallibility to her self in that proposal, but requires men to search and examine her doctrine by the Word of God, the danger is nothing so great to the persons in her communion; but when a Church pretends to be Infallible and teacheth errours, that Church requiring those errours to be believed upon her Authority, without particular examination of the Doctrines proposed, is chargeable with a higher offence against the honour and veracity of God, and doth as much as in her lies (in your expression) teach men the way to eternal perdition. And of all sorts of blind guides it is most dangerous following such who pretend to be Infallible in their blindness; and it is a great miracle if such do not fall past recovery. The more therefore you aggravate the danger of errour, the worse still you make the condition of your Church, where men are bound to believe the Church Infallible, when she proposeth the most dangerous errours. When you say, The whole Church is not lyable to these inconveniencies of seducing or being seduced, P. 129.if you mean (as you speak) of that p. 295which is truly the whole Church of Christ, you are to seek for an Adversary in it; if you mean the Roman Church you are either seduced or endeavour to seduce in saying so, when neither that is or can be the whole Church, neither is it free from believing or proposing errours as will appear afterwards. You quarrel with his Lordship again, for his Similitude of a man that may be termed a man and not be honest, and say it comes not home to the case.

But we must see, how well you have fitted it. Instead of a man, §. 5.you would have a Saint put, and then (you say) the Parallel would have held much better. But certainly then you mean only such Saints as Rome takes upon her to Canonize; for the Question was of one that might be a man, and not be honest, Will you say the same of your Saint too? If instead of Saint, you had put his Holiness in, there are some in the world would not have quarrelled with you for it. But you are an excellent man at paralleling cases: His Lordship was speaking of the Metaphysical Truth of a Church being consistent with moral corruptions, for which he instanced in a thiefs being truly a man, though not an honest man; now you, to mend the matter, make choice of moral Integrity, being consistent with Metaphysical Truth, which is of a Saint, and a man. And, Doth not this now come home to our case? That which follows, to shew the incongruity of his Lordships Similitude would much more shew your wit, if it were capable of tolerable sense: For, you say, the word Church in our present debate, implies not a simple or uncompounded term, as that of man, P. 129. n. 3.but is a compound of substance and accidents together. We had thought, Man had been a compound of substance and accidents, as well as a Church: Or, Did you mean some transubstantiated man, that had accidents without substance? But as his Lordship spake of a true real man, who yet might want moral Integrity; so he supposed there might be a true real Church, as to the essential parts of it, which yet might be in other respects a corrupted and defiled Church. But when you add, That the notion of a Church implies Integrity and Perfection of Conditions, still you betray your weak or wilful mistakes of a Church morally for Metaphysically true. If you will prove it impossible for a Church to retain its Being, that hath any errours in Doctrine, or corruptions in Practice, you will do something to the purpose: but when you have done it, see what you get by it; for then we shall not so much as acknowledge your Church to be Metaphysically a true Church. If his Lordship therefore be so charitable, as to say, That because your Church receives the Scripture as a Rule of Faith: (though but as a partial and imperfect Rule) and both the Sacraments as Instrumental causes and seals of Grace (though they add more, and misuse these) it cannot but be a true Church in essence: And you, on the other side, say, If it doth misuse the Sacraments, and make the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Faith, it would be unchurched; Let the Reader judge, whether his Lordships charity for, or your own Testimony against your Church, be built on better grounds. What follows concerning the Holy Catholick Church in the Apostles Creed, the entire Catholick Faith in the Athanasian Creed, the Churches being the Spouse of Christ, and a pure Virgin, are all things as true in themselves, as your Church is little concerned in them. The truly Catholick Church being quite another thing from that which goes under the name of the Roman Catholick Church; and this latter may prostitute her self to errour, while the other remains a pure Virgin; and it is only your saying, That yours only is the Catholick Church, which is in effect to say, That Christ hath a Harlot to his Spouse, as you speak.

p. 296§. 6.To omit that which you call, A further skirmishing about the form of words, P. 129 n. 4.and whether it savoured more of prudence, and charity, or cunning in the Jesuite, to instruct the Lady what Questions she should ask; we come to that which is the main subject of this chapter, viz. Whether the Church be stiled Catholick by its agreeing with Rome, which (you say) was a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church, but is so far from being in the least true,P. 130 n 4. that his Lordship deservedly calls it, A perfect Jesuitism. For (saith he) in all the Primitive times of the Church, a Man, or a Family, or a National Church were accounted right and orthodox, as they agreed with the Catholick Church, but the Catholick was never then measured or judged by Man, Family, or Nation. But now in the Jesuits new School, the One, Holy, Catholick Church, must be measured by that which is in the Diocese or City of Rome, or of them which agreed with it; and not Rome by the Catholick. So upon the matter, belike the Christian Faith was committed to the custody of the Roman, not of the Catholick Church; and a man cannot agree with the Catholick Church of Christ (in this new doctrine of A. C.) unless he agree with the Church of Rome; but if he agree with that, all is safe, and he is as orthodox, as he need be. To which you seem to answer at first by some slight tergiversations,P. 131. as, though this did not follow from A. C's words, and that the Lady did not trouble her self with such punctilio's as those of the agreement of the Catholick Church with Rome, or Romes agreeing with the Catholick Church, but at last you take heart, and affirm stoutly, That the Church is stiled Catholick from its agreement with Rome, and that this is no Jesuitism, but a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church. In these terms then I fix my self, and this present dispute; as containing the proper state of the Controversie concerning the Catholick Church. And if you can make it appear that the Church is stiled Catholick by agreeing with Rome, and that this was a received Truth in the Ancient Church, then you may very plausibly charge us with Schism in our separation from Rome; but if the contrary be made evident, by your own pretence we are freed from that charge.

Now in the handling this Controversie, you first explain your terms, and then produce your Testimonies.P. 130. n. 5. In the explication of your terms, you tell us, The word Catholick may be used in three different Acceptions, viz. either formally, causally, or by way of participation. Formally, the Vniversal Church, i. e. the society of all true particular Churches, united together in one body, in one Communion, under one Head, is called Catholick. Causally the Church of Rome is stiled Catholick, because it hath an influence and force to cause Vniversality in the whole body of the Church Catholick; to which two things are necessary, Multitude and Vnity. The Roman Church therefore, which as a Center of Ecclesiastical Communion, infuses this Vnity, which is the form of Vniversality, into the Catholick Church, and thereby causes in her Vniversality, may be called Catholick causally, though she be but a particular Church. As he that commands a whole Army is stiled General, though he be but a particular person. Thirdly, every particular orthodox Church is termed Catholick participative, by way of participation, because they agree in, and participate of the Doctrine and Communion of the Catholick Church. For which (you bring) the instance of the Church of Smyrna writing to the Catholick Church of Philomilion, &c. Thus we see (say you) both how properly the Roman Church is called Catholick, and how the Catholick Church it self takes causally the denomination of Vniversal or Catholick from the Roman, considered as the chief particular Church, infusing p. 297Vnity to all the rest, as having dependence of her, and relation to her. Thus I have recited your words, that we may fully understand your meaning; the substance of which is couched in your last words, That the reason why any Church was accounted Catholick, was from its Vnion with the Church of Rome. But if it appear that this sense of the Catholick Church is wholly a stranger to Antiquity, That the Catholick Church was so call'd upon farr different accounts than those mentioned by you, If the Church of Rome had no other relation to the Catholick Church but as a member of it as other Churches were, then all this discourse of yours comes to nothing, and that is it which I now undertake to prove. Now the Vnity of the Catholick Church lying in two things, the Doctrine and the Government of it, if in neither of these, it had any dependence of the Church of Rome, then certainly it could not be call'd Catholick, causally from the Church of Rome.

First, the Church was called Catholick from the Vniversal spread of its Doctrine, and the agreement of all particular Churches in it.§. 7. So Irenaeus derives the Vnity of the Church spread abroad over the world from the Vnity of that Faith which was Universally received, and from thence saith, That the Church is but as one house, and having one soul and heart, and speaks as with one mouth. Nothing can be more plain then that Irenaeus makes the consent in Doctrine to be the ground of Vnity in the Catholick Church. Hanc praedicationem cum acceperit, & hanc fidem quem idmodum praediximus Ecclesia, & quidem in universum mundum disseminata, diligentèr custodit, quasi unam domum inhabitans, & similiter credit iis, videlicet quasi unam animam habens, & unum cor, & consonantèr haec praedicat & docet & tradit quasi unum possidens os. Irenaeus advers. haeres. l. 1. c. 3. Ecclesia enim per universum orhem us que ad fines terrae disseminata, & ab Apostolis & à discipulis eorum accepit eam fidem, &c. l. 1. c. 2.And that he did not suppose this consent to arise from the Church of Rome appears from what he saith before, That this Faith was received in the Church so universally spread from the Apostles and their Disciples. Which must be understood of that universal diffusion of it by the first Preachers of it in the world, the continuance of which Doctrine was the ground of the Vnity in the Catholick Church. To the same purpose Tertullian gives an account of the Churches Vnity, by the adhering to that Doctrine which was first preached by the Apostles, who having first delivered it in Judea and planted Churches there, went abroad and declared the same to other Nations and setled Churches in Cities, Statim igitur Apostoli—1. per Judaeam contesta…â fide in Jesum Christum & Ecclesiis institutis; dehinc in orbem profecti, eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei Nationibus promulgavâ…unt, & proinde Ecclesias apud unamquamq, civitatem condidêrunt, à quibus traducem fidei & semia… doctrine, ceterae exinde Ecclesiae mutuatae sunt, & quotidie mutuantur ut Ecclesiae fiant: ac per hoc & ipsae Apostolicae deput…ntur, ut soboles Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum. Omne genus ad origin…m suam recenseatur, nec…sse est. Ita que tot ac tantae ecclesiae, una est illa ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes primae & Apostolicae, dum unà omnes probant unitatem▪ dum est illis communica…io pacis, & appellatio fraternitatis, & contesseratio hospita…itatis. Tertul. de prescript. haeretic. cap. 20.from whence other Churches have the same Doctrine propagated to them, which are therefore call'd Apostolical Churches, as the off-spring of those which were founded by them. Therefore so many and so great Churches, are all that one prime Apostolical Church from whence all others come. And thus they are all prime and Apostolical in regard of their Vnity, as long as there is that communication of that title of Brotherhood and common mark of peace and hospitality. Wherein we see that which made Churches in Tertullians sense Apostolical, is the embracing and continuing in that Doctrine which was first delivered by the Apostles; and thus Churches though remote from the Apostolical times may have the denomination of Apostolical from their consent in Doctrine with those which were founded by them. But here is not the least intimation of any centre of Ecclesiastical communion infusing unity into the Catholick Church, for this unity ariseth from that Doctrine which was declared in and propagated by all the Apostolical Churches. So likewise Theodoret speaks, That there is one Church throughout the world, p. 298and therefore we pray, for the Holy, One, Catholick, and Apostolick Church, extended from one end of the earth to the other. Which (saith he) is divided by Cities, foreign. Theodoret. in Psal. 47.4. Tom. 1. p. 580. foreign. Theodoret. Ecclesi. hist. l. 1. c. 9.Ps 47:4and Towns, and Villages, so that there are infinite and innumerable Churches in the Islands and Continent, but all these are reduced to one being united in the agreement of the same true doctrine. So Constantine in his Epistle to the Bishops who were absent from the Council of Nice, saith, That our Saviour would have one Catholick Church, whose members though dispersed in many several places, yet are nourished by the same Spirit which is the Will of God. In all which and many other places which might be produced to the same purpose, we see a quite different account given of the unity of the Catholick Church, from that which you mention as the cause of it; we find the Church call'd Catholick in regard of its large extent in the world (as is apparent besides these testimonies, from the Controversies between St. Austin and the Donatists) and the unity of that Catholick Church not placed in the least respect to the Church of Rome, but in the consent in the Apostolical Doctrine in all those Churches which concurred as members to make up this Catholick Church. So that the formal reason of any particular Churches having the denomination of Catholick, must come not from any communion with the Church of Rome; but from the owning the Catholick and Apostolick Faith, and joyning in communion with those Churches which did own and acknowledge it. And therefore we find that the symbol of communion in the ancient communicatory letters never lay in the acknowledgement of Christs Vicar on earth, or communion with the Church of Rome, but in such things which were common to all Apostolical Churches. And therefore the Church of Rome could not be then accounted the center of Ecclesiastical communion as you speak, after Cardinal Perron, from whom you have Verbatim transcribed all your former discourse.Perrons Reply to King James l. 4. c 9. This being therefore the utmost which that great witt of your Church was able to plead in behalf of its being the Catholick Church, it deserves to be further considered.

§. 8.We come therefore to that kind of unity in the Catholick Church which depends on the Government of it; and this is that, which is pretended as the ground of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church; because though (as Cardinal Perron says) she be in her own Being particular, yet she may be call'd Catholick causally, as the center and beginning of Ecclesiastical communion, infusing unity which is the form of universality into the Catholick Church. This therefore must be more narrowly searched into, to see if this were a known and received truth in the ancient Church. Which is so far from it, that we find no such causal influence from the Church of Rome then owned or asserted, but that the Catholick Church was a whole consisting of homogeneal parts, without any such subordination or dependence, as the contrary supposition implies. This is, by none more fully asserted, than by such who have with the greatest zeal and industry stood up for the unity of the Catholick Church. The first of whom is St. Cyprian; in whose time and writings there are very remarkable cases occurring to clear, upon what terms the unity of the Catholick Church did then stand. The first I begin with, is the case which arose in the Church about the Schism of Novatianus, which will give us the fuller discovery of the grounds of unity in the Catholick Church, because the first rise of this p. 299Schism was in Rome it self. For Novatus coming to Rome in a discontent from Africa, v. Rigalt. ad Cypr. ep. 49. Petav. ad Epiphan. haeres. 59. p. 226. Vales. ad …useb. l. 6. c. 43, 44. Albaspin. & Balduin. in Optat.falls in with Novatianus (which two names the Greek writers of the Church commonly confound) who being likewise under discontent at the election of Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome, was ready to joyn with the other in fomenting a Schism. For which, they made this their pretext, That Cornelius had admitted such to communion who had lapsed in the persecution of Decius which tended to the overthrow of the Churches purity? upon this, Novatianus gets himself ordained, by three Bishops, Bishop of Rome in opposition to Cornelius: the fame of which Schism being spread abroad, there was great making of parties on both sides. Cyprian and the Churches of Africa after full inquiry into it declare for Cornelius, so did Dionysius of Alexandria and the Churches there; but Fabius of Antioch with the Churches of Pontus and Cilicia suspend, and rather encline to Novatianus, for some time; till they were after, more fully satisfied by Dionysius of Alexandria. Now here is a case wherein the grounds of unity in the Catholick Church may be easily discerned, which it is plain from the proceedings in it, were (as in all such emergent cases) what should be determined and agreed on, by the consent of the Catholick Church: i. e. of those Churches which all consented in the same Catholick Faith, and therefore made up one Catholick Church. Now if the Church of Rome had been the center of Ecclesiastical communion, and had infused Catholick unity into the Church at this time, what way or possibility had there been for restoring the Churches unity? Neither was the appeal made to forraign Churches meerly because Rome it self was divided, and so the Controversie could not be ended there, but it appears from the whole story of the proceedings, that this was looked on as the proper means for preserving the unity of the Catholick Church, at that time; when the Faith and communion of the Apostolical Churches were so fully known and distinguished from all others. These things will more fully appear from St. Cyprians Epistle to Antonianus upon the occasion of this Schism. Cyprian. ep. 52. ed. Rigalt.Who it seems at first adhered to Cornelius and with him to the Catholick Church, (not as though his joyning with Cornelius was the cause of his being with the Catholick Church, but because in joyning with him, he joyned with the Catholick Church which declared for him); but it seems afterwards by some Letters of Novatianus he began to stagger, and desires Cyprian to give him an account what Heresie Novatianus broached, and what the reason was why Cornelius communicated with the lapsed persons. As to which particulars he endeavours to satisfie him, and withall to give an account why they joyned with Cornelius in opposition to Novatianus, and what the practise of the Church was, as to lapsed persons, and on what reasons it was built: wherein he tells him, That though some of their own Bishops had formerly denyed communion to lapsed persons, yet they did not recede from the Vnity of the Catholick Church, or communion of their Fellowships, because by them they were admitted. For, saith he, the bond of concord remaining, and the communion of the Catholick Church continuing, Manente concordiae vinculo, & perseverante Catholicae ecclesiae individuo sacramento, actū suum disponit ac dirigit unusquis que episcopus, rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus. Cyprian.ep. 52.every Bishop orders and disposeth his own actions as one that must give an account of his design to God. Doth St. Cyprian here speak like one that believed the Church of Rome to be the center of Ecclesiastical communion? or, that the unity of the Church lay in acknowledging the Pope to be Christs Vicar, or in dependence on the Church of Rome? when every Bishop is left to himself and God, in all such things which he may p. 300do, and yet hold communion with the Catholick Church? And therefore afterwards he tells us, That there is one Church divided into many members throughout the world, c…m sit à Christo una Ecclesia per totum mundum in multa membra divisa: item Episcopatus unus, Episcoporum multorum concordi … diffusus. Id ib p. 81.and one Episcopal office spread abroad, by the consenting multitude of many Bishops. If this Church be one in this sense, and the whole Government of the Church but as one Bishoprick, as all the Bishops unanimously consent in the management of it; then here is not the least foundation for the Catholick Churches taking its denomination causally from the Roman Church, and much less for the Bishops having dependence on her, or relation to her. Since the care and government of the Church by these words of Cyprian appears to be equally committed to all the Bishops of the Catholick Church. And from thence it was, that in this Epistle we read that St. Cyprian writ to the Church of Rome after the death of Fabianus, to advise them what to do in the case of lapsed persons, which letters of his were sent through the world; which, Rigaltius well observes, did arise from that unity of Ecclesiastical discipline, Ita que ex unitatis Ecclesiasticae disciplinā, Cyprianus solicitudinem omnium Ecclesiarum ad se pertinere non ambigens, etiam Romam se dedisse literas ait ad clerum. Eas veròlite as per totum mundum missas, h. e. per Ecclesiam Catholicam, cujus Ecclesiae unus est Episcopatus: at que hujusmodi Episcopatûs à singulis Ep…scopis in solidum pa…s tenebatur. Rigalt. observ. ad Cypr. p 64.whereby Cyprian, not doubting but the care of all Churches was upon him, dispatched these letters to the Clergy at Rome; from whence they were sent through the Catholick Church, as an evidence that there was but one Episcopal office in the whole Church, part of which was committed in full power to every Bishop. Thus we see a quite different account given of the unity of the Catholick Church than what you from Cardinal Perron would perswade us of. It being an easie matter for men of wit and parts (especially such as that great Cardinal was master of) to coyn distinctions to make the most absurd things seem plausible; but yet when they come to be examined, they are found to have no other bottom but the invention of that person who coined them.

And that it is so as to this distinction of the formal, causal, and participative Catholick Church, §. 9.will be further evident from another case which happened in St. Cyprians time, which was this. Felicissimus and Fortunatus being cast out of communion by a Synod of African Bishops, when they saw they could do little good in Africa, run over to Rome, and bring letters to Cornelius the Bishop there, misrepresenting the whole business of their being ejected out of the Church, on purpose to perswade Cornelius to admit them into communion. Who at first being unwilling to hearken to them, was at last by their threats and menaces brought to receive their letters. Upon which St. Cyprian writes an Epistle to Cornelius, wherein he tells him, That if the threats of such profligate persons should relax the Churches discipline, all the power and strength of it would be soon taken away; that the ground of all Schism and Heresie arises from disobedience to the Bishop. Certainly he doth not mean the Bishop of Rome, but every Bishop in the Catholick Church (for it was not Cornelius but Cyprian and the African Bishops who were disobeyed) upon which he falls upon the matter of their appeal to a forraign Church, and after some fair commendations of the Church of Rome (the meaning of which will be afterwards examined) he very sharply condemns these appeals to forraign Churches as unreasonable, unjust, and dishonourable to those Bishops, whose sentence they appealed from. For, What cause (saith he) could these persons have of coming and declaring against their Bishops? For either they are pleased in what they have done, and continue p. 301in their wickedness; or if they are displeased at it and recede from it, they know whither to return. For since it is decreed by us all, and it is a thing just and reasonable in it self, Quae autem causa veniendi & pseudo episcoporum contra Episcopos factum nunciandi? Aut enim placet illis quod fecerunt, & in suo scelere perseverant: Aut, si disp…icet & reced…at, sciunt quò revertantur. Nam cùm statutum sic omnibus nobis, & aequum sit paritèr ac justum, ut uniuscujus que causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum, & singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat unusquis que & gubernet, rationem sui actûs Domino redditurus: oportet uti que eos quibus praesumus non circumcu…sare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem suâ subdolâ & fallaci temeritate collidere, sed agere illis causam suam, ubi & accusatores habere & testes sui criminis possint: nis… si paucis desperatis & perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas Episcoporum in Africâ constitutorum, qui jam de illis judicavérunt, & eorum conscientiam multis delictorum laqueis vinctam judicii sui nuper gravitate damn… runt. Cyprian ep. 55. p. 95.that every ones cause be heard where the fault was committed, and every Pastour hath a part of the flock committed to him, which he is to rule and govern as being to give an account of it to God; it is requisite that those whom we rule over, ought not to run about, and break the concord of Bishops by their headdiness and subtilty; but there to defend their cause, where they may have accusers and witnesses of their faults. Vnless it be, that to a few desperate and profligate persons the authority of the Bishops of Africa seems less to them, who have already sate in judgement upon them, and solemnly condemned them lately for their crimes. Can any thing be more express and punctual then this testimony of Cyprian is, to overthrow that sense of the Catholick Church which you contend for? How farr were Cyprian and the African Bishops from making Rome the center of Ecclesiastical communion, when they looked on appeals thither as very unjust and unreasonable? What acknowledgement and dependence was there on the Church of Rome in those who looked on themselves as having a portion of Christs flock committed to them, of which they were to give an account to God alone? And I pray what excellent persons were those who undervalued the Authority of the African Bishops, and ran to Rome? St. Cyprian tells us, they were pauci, desperati, perditi, and translate these with as much advantage to your cause as you can. So fatal hath it been to Rome even from its first foundation to be a receptacle for such persons. And is not this a great credit to your cause that such persons who were ejected out of communion for their crimes at home, did make their resort to Rome? and the more pious and stout any Bishops were, the more they defended their own priviledges in opposition to the encroachments of the Roman Sec. Which was apt to take advantage from such Renegado's as these were, by degrees to get more power into her hands, and lift up her head above her fellow-Churches. But, lest you should think that St. Cyprian only spake these things in an heat, out of his opposition to these persons and his desire to crush them, you shall see what his judgement was concerning the same things when he purposely discourseth of them. For in his Book of the Vnity of the Church, he useth that expression which destroyes all your subordinate union in the Church; which is, Episcopatus unus est, De Unitate Eccles. p. 208▪cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. They who consider and understand the importance of that speech, will find nothing more destructive to your doctrine of the Catholick Church then that is. For when he makes the Vniversal Government of the Church to be but one Episcopal office, and that committed in the several parts of it with full power to particular Bishops, can any be so senseless to imagine that he should ever think the Government of the Church in General to depend on any one particular Church as chief over the rest? And that the former words do really import such a full power in particular Bishops, over that part of the flock which is committed to them, appears from the true importance of the phrase insolidum; a phrase taken out of the Civil Law where great difference is made between an obligation in partem and in solidum, and so proportionable between a p. 302tenure in partem and in solidum: those things were held in solidum which were held in full right and power without payments and acknowledgements. But where the usus-fructus belonged to another, it was not held in solidum. So that when St. Cyprian saith, that every part belonging to each Bishop was held in solidum, he therein imports that full right and power which every Bishop hath over his charge; and in this speech he compares the Government of the Church to an estate held by several Freeholders, in which every one hath a full right to that share which belongs to him. Whereas according to your principles the Government of the Church is like a Mannor or Lordship, in which the several inhabitants hold at the best but by Copy from the Lord; and you would fain have it at the will of your Lord too. But thus farr we see St. Cyprian was from your modern notion of the Catholick Church, that he looks on the Vnity of it as depending on the consent of the Catholick Bishops and Churches under their full power, and not deriving that Vnity from any particular Church as the head and fountain of it. And therefore in the former Schism at Rome about Cornelius and Novatianus, St. Cyprian imployed two of his colleagues thither, Caldonius and Fortunatus, that not only by the Letters they carried, but by their presence and Counsel they should do their utmost endeavour to bring the members of that divided body to the unity of the Catholick Church. Ut ad Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem scissi corporis membra componere…t. Cypr. ep. 42.Which is certainly a very different thing from the Catholick Churche's deriving its Vnity from the particular Church of Rome. Many other instances of a like nature might be produced out of the Reports of St. Cyprians times, but these are sufficient to evidence how far the Vnity of the Catholick Church was then, from depending on the Church of Rome.

§. 10.But, lest we should seem to insist only on St. Cyprians testimony, it were easie to multiply examples in this kind; which I shall but touch at some of, and proceed. If the Church of Rome then had been looked on as the center of Ecclesiastical communion, is it possible to conceive, that the excommunications of the Church of Rome should be slighted as they were by Polycrates, Eusebius histor. Ecclesiastic. lib. 5. cap. 24. Hieronym. de scriptor. ecclesiast. To. 1.for which St. Hierome commends him, as a man of courage? that, Stephen should be opposed as he was by Cyprian and Firmilian in a way so reflecting on the Authority of the Roman Church? that appeals to Rome should be so severely prohibited by the African Bishops? that causes should be determined by so many Canons to be heard in their proper Dioceses? that, when the right of appeals was challenged by the Bishops of Rome, it was wholly upon the account of the imaginary Nicene Canons? that, when Julius undertook by his sole power to absolve Athanasius, Socrat. l. 2 c. 5. Sozom. l. 3. c. 5. Socrat. l. 2 c. 11the Oriental Bishops opposed it as irregular on that account, at the Council at Antioch? that, when afterwards, Paulus, Marcellus, and Lucius repaired to Rome to Julius, and he seeks to restore them, the Eastern Bishops wonder at his offering to restore them who were excommunicated by themselves? and that as when Novatus was excommunicated at Rome they opposed it not, so neither ought he to oppose their proceedings against these persons. What account can be given of these passages, if the Vnity of the Catholick Church had depended on the particular Church of Rome? Besides, while the Church of Rome continued regular, we find she looked on her self as much obliged to observe the excommunications made by other Churches, as others were to observe hers. As in the case of Marcion, who being excommunicated by his Father the Bishop of Sinope in p. 303Pontus, and by no means prevailing with his Father for his admission into the Church again; resorts to Rome and with great earnestness begs admission there, where he received this answer; That they could not do it without the command of his Father; foreign. Epiphanius. haeres. 42. sect. 1.for there is one Faith and one consent, and we cannot contradict our worthy brother, your Father. This shews the Vnity of the Catholick Church to proceed upon other grounds than the causal influence of the Church of Rome, when the consent of the Church did oblige the Church of Rome, not to repeal the excommunication of a particular Bishop. Upon which ground it was, that Synesius proceeded so high in the letters of excommunication against Andronicus; that he forbids all the Churches upon earth to receive him into their communion. And withall adds,foreign. Synes. epist. 58. p. 203. ed. Petav. That if any should contemn his Church because it was of a little City, and should receive those who were condemned by it, as though it were not necessary to obey so poor a Church; he lets them know that they make a Schism in that Church which Christ would have to be one. We see here, on what equal terms the communion of the Catholick Church then stood: when so small a Church as that of Ptolemais could so farr oblige by her act the Catholick Church that they should be guilty of Schism who admitted them to communion whom she had cast out of it. If Synesius had believed the Church of Rome to have been the center of Ecclesiastical communion, had it not been good manners, nay duty in him to have asked first the pleasure of the Church of Rome in this case, before he had passed so full and definitive a sentence as this was? But the wise and great men of those ages were utterly strangers to these rare distinctions of a causal, formal, and participative Catholick Church. It is true indeed they did then speak honourably of the Church of Rome in their age as a principal member of the Catholick Church, and having advantages above other Churches by its being fixed in the seat of the Empire, on which account her communion was much desired by other persons. But still we find the persons most apt to extoll her Authority were such as were most obnoxious, who not being able to hold any reputation in their own Churches, where their crimes and scandals were sufficiently known, ran presently to Rome, which was ready still to take their part, thereby to inhance her power: as is most evident in the many disputes which arise upon such accounts between the Roman and African Bishops. But these things we shall have occasion to discuss more particularly afterwards. At the present it may be sufficient by these few (of very many examples which might be produced) to have made it appear, that it was farr from being a known and received truth in the ancient Church, that the Church of Rome was the center of Ecclesiastical communion, or that the Church was call'd Catholick from the union with her and dependence upon her.

But we must now consider what strenuous proofs you produce for so confident an affirmation:§. 11. your instances therefore being the most pregnant to your purpose which you could find in Antiquity must be particularly examined: your first is of St. Ambrose, P. 131.relating that his brother Satyrus going on shore in a certain City of Sardinia (where he desired to be Baptized) demanded of the Bishop of that City whether he consented with the Catholick Bishops, that is (saith he) with the Roman Church. Advocavit a… se Episcopum loci, perconta…us que est, utrûranam cum Episcopis Catholicis, hoc est, cum Roman… Ecclesiâ conveniret. D. Ambros. orat. in obit. fra…r.These words p. 304I grant to be in St. Ambrose, but whosoever throughly considers them will find how little they make for your purpose. For which it will be sufficient to look on the following words, which tell us, that at that time there was a Schism in the Church, and Sardinia was the chief seat of it. For Lucifer Caralitanus had newly separated himself from the Church, Et forte & ad id locorum in Schismate regionis illius ecclesia erat. Lucifer enim se à nostrā tunc temporis communione diviserat, & quanquam pro fide exulâ;sset, & fidei suae reliquisset haeredes, non putavit tamen fidem esse in Schismate. Id. ib. Nec ob Sardorum tantum mastrucam Dei Filium descendisse. Hieronym. c. Lucifer. init. Mastruca vestis Barbaricae genus, quam Sardisu… linguâ Nastrucam appellant: significans multos adhuc superesse bonos Christianos, etiamsi nulli essent in Sardinia, in quâ solâ ille Christi ecclesiam esse volebat. Erasmus in Scholiis.and had left Societies there which joyned in his Schism. For Caralis was the Metropolis of Sardinia, and it appears by St. Hierome, that the Luciferians confined the Church only to Sardinia, which is the cause of that expression of his; That Christ did not come meerly for the sake of the Sardinians. So that those Luciferians were much like the Donatists, confining the Church only to their own number. Now there being such a Schism at that time in Sardinia, what did Satyrus any more then enquire whether the Bishop of the place he resorted to was guilty of this Schism or no? But (say you) he made that the tryal whether he was a Catholick or no, by asking whether he agreed with the Church of Rome. To which I answer, that there was very great reason for his particular instancing in the Church of Rome. 1. Because Satyrus was originally of the Church of Rome himself; for Paulinus in the life of S. Ambrose (Satyrus his brother) speaking of him after his consecration to be Bishop, say's, Ad urbem Romam hoc est ad natale solum perrexit, He went to Rome, i. e. to the place of his birth; now Satyrus being originally a Roman, what wonder is it that he should particularly enquire of the Roman Church? As suppose one of the Gallican Church of Arles or Vienna should have been cast upon shore in another Island belonging to France at the same time, and understanding there was a Schism in the place, should particularly enquire whether they agreed with the Catholick Bishops, i. e. with the Church of Arles or Vienna, Could you hence inferr that either of these were the center of Ecclesiastical communion, and if not from hence, how can you from the other? Or suppose, in the time of the Donatists Schism in Africk, a stranger coming accidentally thither and desiring communion with the Christians of that City he was in, should enquire of the Bishop of the City, whether he communicated with the Catholick Bishops, i. e. with the Church of Hippo or Carthage. Could you hence inferr that Hippo was causally the Catholick Church, and if not, with what reason can you do it from so parallel a case? 2. Because Sardinia did belong to the Metropolitan Province of the Church of Rome; it being one of the Suburbicarian Provinces under the jurisdiction of the Roman Lieutenant, and consequently one of the Suburbicarian Churches appertaining to the Metropolitan power of the Bishop of Rome: and therefore it was but reason to ask whether the Churches in Sardinia did agree with their Mother Church or no. But all this is very farr from implying that the Vnity of the Catholick Church comes from the particular Church of Rome: on this account, because at that time when the Vnity of the Catholick Church was preserved by that continual correspondence between the parts of it by the formed letters and otherwise, who ever was known to have communion with any one particular Church (which communicated with the rest) had thereby communion with the Catholick Church. So that on that account the question might as well have been asked of the Churches of Milan, Agobio, or any other in Italy as of the Church of Rome. For whosoever communicated p. 305with any of them did communicate with the Catholick Church, as well as those who did communicate with the Church of Rome. So that your first instance will prove no more the Church of Rome to be the fountain and center of Ecclesiastical communion, then any other particular Church. Your second is, from St. Hieromes saying, That the Church of Alexandria made it her glory to participate of the Roman Faith. Sed tu scito, &c. Romanam fidem Apostolico ore laudatam, cujus se esse▪ participem Alexandrina Ecclesia gloriatur. Hieronym. ep. 68. ad Theophil.But doth it hence follow that the Church of Alexandria was therefore Catholick, because she participated of the Faith of the Roman Church considered as a particular Church? For, any one who reads that Epistle will easily see, that St. Hierome there speaks of the Roman Faith, not as it proceeds from the Roman Church, but as it was received by it; and that he doth not understand it of the then present Roman Faith, any further then it agreed with that Faith which the Apostle commended in them. So that the utmost which can be extracted out of this testimony, is, that it was the glory of the Church of Alexandria to hold the same Faith which the Primitive Roman Church did, for which the Apostle commended it. Which is apparent by the design of the whole Epistle, which is to encourage Theophilus the Patriarch of Alexandria to suppress the Nefarions Heresie (as he calls it) of the Origenists; for, it seems, Theophilus then dealt more mildly with them, which Hierome was displeased at. And therefore tells him, that although he took some care by the discipline of the Church to reduce them, yet that was not enough, and thence brings in these words; But withall know, that nothing is more our design then to preserve the rights of Christ, Sed tamen scito, nobis nihil esse antiquiu… quàm Christi jura servare, nec patrum transire terminos, semper que meminisse Romanam fidem Apostolico ore laudatam, cujus se esse participem Alexandrina Ecclesia gloriatur. Hieronym. Theoph. Tom 2. p. 110. ed▪ Chevall, 1533.and not to transgress the bounds of our Fathers, and alwayes to remember the Roman Faith, commended by the mouth of the Apostle, which it is the glory of the Church of Alexandria that she is a partaker of. If you had dealt so fairly as to have cited St. Hieromes words at large, any one might easily see how remote they were from your purpose; it being manifest by them, that St. Hieromes only design was; To perswade Theophilus to assert the ancient Faith against the incroachments of modern Heresies; and, to incourage him to it, mentions that commendation which was given to the ancient Faith by the Apostle writing to the Romans upon their receiving it; and therefore since the same Faith was in the Church of Alexandria which the Romans were commended for receiving of, Theophilus ought to be a vigorous assertor of it, against the oppositions of Hereticks. But how from hence we should inferr that the Church of Rome was the fountain of Faith as well as center of communion, is a thing we are yet to seek for, till you further direct us. Yet, it may be, the strength of it lyes in this, That the Roman Faith was commended by the Apostle. And was not the Faith of other Churches where it was pure, commended as well as that? And although the Fathers in their complemental addresses to the Church of Rome were pleased often to mention this, That the Roman Faith was praised by the apostle; yet, as Rigaltius well observes,Sic omnes fer… Latini Patres, Pauli ad Romanos verba accep…runt, quasi rectior & sincerior fuisset apud Romanos fides: cum hoc tantum dicat Apostolus; agere se gratias Deo, quod ubi que passim fama fit, etiam Romanos rerum Dominos, fidem Christianam suscepisse. Quod certe ob dignitatem Urbis, quae totius orbis erat▪ … & gentium … valdè ad fidei Christianae propagationem conducebat. Rigaltius Observat ad Cyprian, epist. p. …. That the Latin Fathers took those words of the Apostle, as though their Faith were more pure and sincere then in other places; whereas the Apostle only saith, that he gave thanks to God that there was such a fame abroad, that the Romans who swayed the world, had embraced p. 306the Christian Faith. Which by reason of the dignity of the City which was head of the world, and Empress of Nations, did conduce much to the propagation of the Christian Faith. For that there was no peculiar excellency in the Roman Faith above the Faith of other Churches, appears from the scope of this Epistle which was to instruct and settle them in the right Faith and from the testimonies of the Author of the Commentaries under St. Ambrose's name, and St. Hierome himself. The former tells us, The reason why St. Paul commended their Faith, was, Because though they saw no miracles yet they believed, Quia nulla virtutum videntes insignia, suscep…runt fidem Christi, quamvis corrupto sensu. Ambros. praefat. in ep. ad Roman. Quamvis non secundum regulam ab autoribus traditae veritatis, tamen quia quod ab uno Deo erat, interposito nomine Christi, caeperant venerari, gratulatur; sciens illos posse proficere. Id. ad v. …. c. 1.though not so purely as they ought to have done. And afterwards saith, That St. Paul commends their Faith although it were not exact according to rule, yet since by that they came to worship God in Christ he rejoyceth in it, knowing they might increase more in it. And St. Hierome elsewhere speaking without design or interest, saith, Not that the Romans have any other kind of Faith then what all other Churches have; Non quod aliam habeant Romani fidem, nisi hanc quam omnes Christi Ecclesiae; sed quod devotio in eis major fit & simplicitas ad credendum. Hieronym. praefat in l. 2. comment. in epist. ad Galat. Tom. 9.but that there was greater devotion and simplicity in believing. And withall adds, that the very same faults which the Apostle condemned them for then, did continue still among them, the greatest of which was Pride. And if this present Controversie do not make good St. Hieromes observation till this time, we are strangely mistaken: for what greater Pride can there be, than for any particular Church to arrogate the title of Catholick to her self, and to make all others no farther Catholick then they participate of her Faith and Communion?

§. 12.Your next Testimony is that of John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who did in his Epistle to Hormisda, judge those to be severed from the communion of the Catholick Church, Concil. Tom. …. p. 767.who did not consent in all things with the See Apostolick: but the main force of your testimonies lyes in a presumption that men will never take the pains to examine them. We must therefore consider the occasion and manner of the writing this Epistle; for those words you cite, are not the words of the Patriarch himself, but of the form of subscription required by Hormisda in order to an Vnion of the Eastern and Western Churches; which had been then a long time in a Schism. For after that Acacius stood up so resolutely in defence of the rights of his See at Constantinople, the Roman Bishops (who made it then their design to infringe the liberties of other Churches the better to inhance their own) would by no means admit of any reconciliation unless the names of Acacius, and those who defended him in that See being his Successours, as Phravita, Euphemius, Macedonius, &c. were expunged out of the Diptychs of the Church; which being so unjust and unreasonable a demand, for a long time the Patriarchs of Constantinople would by no means assent to it. But after the death of the Emperour Anastasius, Justin succeeds in the throne, one who made it his business to have this breach made up; in order to which he writes to Hormisda, and earnestly perswades him to a reconciliation; and so likewise doth the Patriarch John. But it hath been the common practise of the Bishops of that Church, to be therein unlike the unjust Judge, that they will not be wrought on by importunities; but have been the more implacable, the more they have been sought to: as it appeared in this present case. For this soure and inflexible Pope would not yield to any terms of Vnion, but upon conditions of his own prescribing, which were, the expunging of Acacius, and subscribing p. 307that form which he sent to them. Which when the Emperour and Patriarch saw, though they were sufficiently displeased at it, yet out of their greedy desire of peace, they were contented rather to swallow these hard conditions than suffer the Schism to remain still. Now it is in this form of subscription that these words are contained, wherein they promise, not to recite the names of those in the sacred mysteries, who are severed from the communion of the Catholick Church, i. e. who consent not in all things with the See Apostolick. But lest these words being thus inserted by the Pope himself, should be interpreted to the disadvantage of other Churches, and particularly that of Constantinople; The Patriarch makes a Preface to that Subscription by way of Protestation; wherein after declaring the reception of the Popes letters, and congratulating the hopes of Vnion, he manifests his own desire of peace, and his willingness to refuse the communion of all Hereticks. For, saith he, I look on those most holy Churches of your elder and our new Rome,Sanctissimas enim Dei Ecclesias, i. e. superiores vestrae, & novellae istius Romae unam esse accipio, illam sedem Apostoli Petri, & istius Augustae civitatis unam esse definio. Joh. Patriarch. ep. inter ep. Hormisd. 35. as both making but one Church. And after, declaring his assent to the decrees of the four General Councils, he adds, That those who opposed them he judged fallen off, à Sanct â Dei generali & Apostolicâ Ecclesiâ, from the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church. Now when the Patriarch was thus careful to explain himself, so as to assert that the Church of Rome, and that of Constantinople, made but one Church, when he adds what he means by the Catholick Church, viz. the truely General and Apostolical Church; inferr as much from Hormisda's words as you will, I am sure you can do little to your purpose from the Patriarchs, taking them in the sense he explains himself in, by this Protestation. So that the meaning of them is only this, that as he judged the Church of Rome a member of the Catholick Church (whose Vnity required, that those who were out of communion in one Church should be so with the rest) so he consented to acknowledge them justly excommunicated whom the Church of Rome would have to be so. So that hence nothing ariseth to your purpose, more then will equally advance the authority of any other particular Church; whose excommunications did oblige the whole Church, as we have seen already in the case of Sinope and Ptolemais.

You proceed to another Testimony of St. Austin addressing himself to the Donatists, telling them,§. 13. That the succession of the Roman Bishops is the rock which the proud gates of Hell overcome not, thereby insinuating, Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsâ sede Petri & in ordine illo Patrum quis cui successit videte. Ipsa est P…tra quam non vincunt superbae Inferorum Portae. D. Aug. in Psalm. C. part. Donat. Tom. 7. col. 9.Ps 100that the very succession of those Bishops is in some true sense the Catholick Church. But from whence doth it appear that the succession of the Roman Bishops is the Rock here spoken of? For St. Austin was there arguing against the Donatists and shewing them the danger of being separated from the unity of the Catholick Church; that if they were cut off from the vine, they would wither and be in danger to be cast into the fire; and therefore exhorts them, to come and be planted into the vine, it being a grief to them to see them cut off. Now in order to this,Venite fratres, si vultis ut inseramini in vite: Dolor est cum vos videmus praecisos it… jacere. he brings in the former words to acquaint them with the way, whereby they might better understand the Catholick Church, which could not in reason be confined to their own age, but must be derived from the Apostles. Tertul. de praescript. c. 36. Iren. l. 3. c. 3.So that his counsel is of the same nature with that of Tertullian and Irenaeus, who put men upon a diligent search into the successions of p. 308the Apostolical Churches. But now when by this search they have found out the Catholick Church, he tells them, That is the Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overcome. For so elsewhere St. Austin calls the Catholick Church a Rock, as he calls it likewise a House, and a City, in several places of these disputations against the Donatists. As here before he calls it the Vine, August. de baptism. c. Donatist. l 3. c. 18. l. 4. c. 12. l. 7. c. 51. Advers. Petilian. l. 2. c 70. De Unitat. Eccles. cap. 20.Sir 20from whence all who are cut off wither and dye: But what is all this to the particular Church of Rome; which none of the Disputes with the Donatists at all concerned? As is fully manifest from the whole management of that Controversie; in which though he was so much put upon shewing what and where the Catholick Church was, yet he never once expressed any such thing, as that the Church was called Catholick from any relation to the Church of Rome, but still mentions it as a particular Church, which with other Churches made up one Catholick Church. So in his Commentaries on the 44. Psalm: Ecce Roma, ecce Carthago, ecce aliae & aliae civitates: …iliae Regum sunt, & delectaverunt Regem suum in honore ipsius; & ex omnibus fit una quaedam Regin…. Aug. in Ps. 44. p. 282. ed. Froben.Ps 44Behold Rome, saith he, behold Carthage, behold several other Cities; these are Kings daughters and have delighted the King in his honour, but they all make up but one Queen. How incongruous had this expression been, had St. Austin believed the Roman Church to be so much above all others, that the ground why any others were called Catholick, was from their union with her; and therefore he must according to your principles have saluted the Church of Rome as the Queen of all the rest, and made other particular Churches but as her daughters and hand-maids. But St. Austin knew of no such difference, but looked on all particular Churches, whether at Rome, Carthage, or elsewhere, as making up but one Catholick Church. And to the same purpose he frequently speaks, when he sayes, That the Church is call'd One in regard of her Vnity, Propter unitatem Ecclesiae, una Ecclesia; propter congregationes fraternas per lo…a, multae sunt Ecclesiae. Id. in Psal. 141. An placet vo…is, ut contra Ecclesias quae membra sunt unius Ecclesi… tot o…be d…ffusae, &c. Id. de Unitat. Eccles. c. 11.Ps 141Eccl 11and Many in regard from the several Societies of Christians abroad in the world; When he calls the several Churches, members of that one Church which is spread all over the world, without setting any note of discrimination upon one above all the rest;Verum etiam illas Ecclesias suas in Scripturis Apostolicis & Canonicis pariter legimus non solum Romanorum, verum etiam Corinthiorum, Galatarum, Ephesiorum, &c. Vt raceam de aliis tam latis at que universis terrarum partibus, in quas ex his Apostolicis laboribus & plantationibus p…rrecta crevit & crescit Ecclesia. Id. c. Crescon. Grammat. lib. 2. c. 37. When he reckons the Roman, Corinthian, Galatian, Ephesian Churches together, and that all these and the Churches propagated from them, do conspire in one Vniversal Church. But the places are so many to this purpose in him, that it would look too much like ostentation to offer to prove a matter so evident to all that read any thing in him. And is it possible then for you to think That St. Austin made the succession of Bishops at Rome in any sense the Catholick Church? You might as well say, that he made the Church spread all over the world a particular Church, as that he made any particular Church whether at Rome or elsewhere (for he makes no difference) to be in any sense the Vniversal Church.

But that which you seem to lay the greatest force on, is the testimony of Optatus Milevitanus, §. 14.Who, say you, after he had said that St. Peter was head of all the Apostles; Ibid.and that he would have been a Schismatick, who should have erected another chair against that singular one of St. Peter, as also that in that chair of St. Peter being but one, Vnity was to be kept by all; he adds that with Syricius then Pope he himself was united in communion, with p. 309whom the whole world (saith he, meaning the whole Catholick Church) agrees by communicatory letters in one Society of communion; See here (say you) how clearly he makes the union with the Bishop of Rome the measure of the Catholick Church; which the Bishop calls a Jesuitism, and further proves himself to be in the Catholick Church, because he was in communion with the See of St. Peter. For our better understanding the meaning of these words of Optatus, we must consider the state of the Controversie between Optatus and Parmenianus, by which it will appear, how very little these words of his make to your purpose. The main question between the Catholicks and the Donatists was, about the Catholick Church, To whom it was that title did belong. The difficulty seemed the greater, because there was no difference between them in any matter of Faith, or in the substance of the Sacraments, and therefore they were fain to find out other means to decide this Controversie, than by either of those two. For which the Catholicks made choice of these two arguments Vniversality and Succession, the former as agreeing with that large spread of the Church which was Prophesied to be in the times of the Gospel, whereas the Donatists confined the Church to a Corner in Africa: the latter in regard of the necessity of deriving themselves from the Apostolical Churches. Now the Donatists denying any but themselves to be the Catholick Church, the proof lay on their Adversaries part, who upon all occasions offer to make it good, That the Church from which the Donatists separated themselves, was the only true and Catholick Church. Accordingly Optatus having in the first book discussed the matters of fact about the rise of the Schism, the ordinations of Cecilian and Majorinus, and the proceedings used for the ending the Schism, in this second Book he enters on the Controversie of the Church which Parmenianus would have to be only among themselves; against which he urgeth first, that then certainly the Church could not be called Catholick, because it was so called from its large comprehension and universal spread. Ubi ergo erit proprietas Catholici nominis, cuminde dicta sit Catholica, quod sit rationabilis & ubi que diffusa. Optat. l. 2.Had Optatus believed, the ground of the Churches being Catholick had been its union with the Church of Rome, he would never have given that account of its being called so, which here he doth. After which he produceth many places of Scripture to prove the large extent of the Church, and concludes, That to be the Catholick Church which was diffused over all the world, than which nothing can be more contrary to your pretensions, who limit and confine the Catholick Church to your own party as the Donatists did. And if those arguments then used against the Donatists had any force against them, they have still as much against you, who exclude so great and considerable Churches from being members of the Catholick Church because not of your communion. From hence Optatus proceeds to examine, Which had the better title to be the Catholick Church on the account of Succession; and Parmenianus reckoning the Cathedra in the first of the dotes Ecclesiae, Optatus begins with that by which is understood the lawful derivation of power for governing the Church, so Albaspinaeus, (as well as others) understands it. Now the Controversie was, where this Cathedra was. Optatus proves,Cathedram Episcopalem, primam missionem, omnem potestatem, à quâ caeterae deducerentur. Albaspinaeus in Optat. lib. 2. there can be no lawful power but what is derived from the Apostles, and therefore where the succession is plain and uninterrupted, there and no where else can that Cathedra be. Which Episcopal chair being first placed at Rome by St. Peter, in which he as chief of the Apostles sate, from whence he had his p. 310name Cephas; in which one chair Vnity should be kept by all; lest the other Apostles should set up others against it; so that he must be a schismatick and offender, Igitur negare non potes scire te in urbe Rom… Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse collatam in quâ sederit o…nium Apostolorum caput Petrus; inde & Cephas appellatus est; in quâ unâ Cathedrâ, unitas ab omn…bus servaretur, nè caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent: ut jam Schismaticus & peccator esset, qui contra singularem Cathedram, alteram co…locaret. Ergo Cathedra unica quae est prima de dotibus, sedit prior Petrus: cui successit Linus, Lino Clemens, &c. Damaso Siricius hodie, qui noster est Socius: Cum quo totus orbis commercio formatarum, in unâ communionis societate concordat. Vestrae Cathedrae vos originem reddite, qui vobis vul…is sanctam Ecclesiam vindicare. Optatus l. 2. Sed suspicor haec verba (unde Cephas apellatus est) esse ineptae alicujus glossae ad marginem temerè ascriptae & deinde abs librariis contextui insertae. Balduin in Optat l. 2.who should place another chair against that. Therefore in this one chair St. Peter sate first, to whom succeeded Linus, to him Clemens and so on to Syricius who joyns with us, with whom the whole world communicates by the entercourse of formed letters. Do you now give an account of your chair, who challenge to your selves the name of the Holy Church. To pass by that ridiculous account of the name Cephas, which Baldwin supposes to be inserted into the text from some ignorant gloss made in the margin, the main thing to be considered, is the scope and design of these words; in which he doth two things, 1. He shews the evident succession of the Catholick Bishops from St. Peter in the Church of Rome, which he doth by a distinct and particular enumeration of them. 2. From thence shews the unlawfulness of setting up another chair in opposition to that, i. e. pretending to another right of Government then what was conveyed down from the Apostles; or setting up another chair in opposition to that of St. Peter at Rome, i. e. that succession of Bishops which was derived from him. Now, saith he, God providing for the unity of the Church, intended there should be but one chair in a place, i. e. that the several Apostles should not in the same place set up a distinct Cathedra or succession of Church-Governours, and therefore though St. Paul as well as St. Peter were instrumental in the settling the Church of Rome, yet, that the Churches Vnity might be preserved, there were not two distinct series of Bishops, the one deriving from St. Peter and the other from St. Paul. So that Optatus his saying is much of the same nature with that of Cyprian in the case of the Schism about Cornelius and Novatianus, who urgeth that most, That there ought to be but one Bishop in one Church, now the Bishop and his Cathedra are correlates to each other. Optatus therefore saying that there was but one Cathedra at Rome, puts the Donatist's upon this issue, that if they could not deduce their succession from St. Peter at Rome, they could have no pretence to the Cathedra there. And therefore challengeth them to deduce the succession of their Bishops there, as at large appears in his following discourse. Which could be no higher then of Macrobius from Encolpius, Encolpius from Bonifacius Ballitanus, as he from Victor Garbiensis, who was sent over on purpose from the Donatists in Africk to make a faction and a party at Rome, Vbi sedit victor Garbiensis, à vestris jam dudum de Africâ ad paucos erraticos missus, &c. Optatus ibid.among the African Inhabitants there. Now this being the utmost succession, they could pretend to, and that being in opposition to that succession which was derived from St. Peter, nothing could be more plain then that at Rome (about which the Contest was) the Cathedra could not belong to the Donatists but their Adversaries; and therefore that being by Parmenianus acknowledged one of the dowries of the Catholick Church, the title of that could not belong to the Donatists but their opposers. This therefore doth not at all concern Romes being causally the Catholick Church, but is only produced as a particular Church for a known instance whereby to decide this particular Controversie of succession. For otherwise the argument would have held as well for any other Apostolical Church where p. 311the succession was clear: And therefore afterwards he makes the communion with the seven Churches as plain an argument of communion with the Catholick, Extra septem Ecclesias quicquid soris est alienum est. Id. ib.as he doth here of the Church of Rome. You may therefore every jot as well make the seven Churches of Asia, to be causally the Catholick Church, as the Church of Rome. And to the same purpose he instanceth in the Corinthian, Thessalonian, Galatian Churches, as he doth in that of Rome, or the seven Churches. Tibi unitas displicet; hoc si crimen putas, argue nos Thessalonicensibus, Corinthiis, Galatis, septem Ecclesiis quae sunt in Asia, communicâsse. Ibid.We see then, Optatus his design was to shew that their Church from which the Donatists separated, was the true Catholick Church, which he proves from their communion with all the Apostolical Churches, which had a clear and distinct succession from the Apostles their planters. And because of the Vicinity and Fame of Rome, and the easier knowing the succession there, he instanceth in that in the first place, and then proceeds to the rest of them. But withall, to shew the Vnity of all these Apostolical Churches, when he had mentioned Siricius as the present Bishop of Rome, he adds, That all the world agreed with him in the entercourse of the formed Letters; not thereby intimating any supremacy of that Church above others, but to shew that that succession he instanceth in at Rome, was of the Catholick Church, because the whole Christian world, did agree in Communion with him that was the Bishop there. And when he speaks of one chair, it is plain, he means it of the particular Church of Rome, because every Apostolical Church had an Apostolical Chair belonging to it. So Tertullian expresly, That in all the Apostolical Churches there were their Chairs still remaining. Percurre Ec…lesias Apostolicas apud qua… ipsae nunc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur. Tertul. praescript. ad haeret. cap. 36. Euseb. hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 32.Sir 50:7And Eusebius particularly mentions the Apostolical Throne or Chair at Hierusalem, as others do that of Mark at Alexandria, and of the rest elsewhere. Nothing then can possibly be inferred from these words of Optatus concerning the Church of Rome, but what would equally hold for any other Apostolical Church, and how much that is, let the Reader judge: And how much soever it be, it will be very little for your advantage, who pretend to something peculiar to the Church of Rome above all other Churches.

From Optatus you proceed, or rather return to S. Hierom, who, (say you) professes the Church is built upon S. Peter's See, §. 15.Ibid.and that whoever eats the Lamb, that is, pretends to believe in Christ, and partakes of the Sacraments out of that house, that is, Ego nullum primum (praemium for…asse rectius) nisi Christum sequens, beatitudini tuae, id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior. Super illam Petram aedific…tam Ecclesiam scio. Quicun que extra hanc domum Agnum comederit, profanus est—Quicun que tecum non colligit, spargit; hoc est, qui Christi non est, Antichristi est. Hieron. ep. 57. ad Damas.out of the communion of that Church, is prophane, and an Alien; yea, that he belongs to Antichrist, and not to Christ, whoever consents not with the successor of S. Peter. This Testimony sounds big and high at first, and I shall not impute these expressions either to S. Hierome's heat, or his flattery, although it looks the more suspicious, because at that time he had so great a pique against the Eastern Bishops, and that these words are contained in a complemental address to Damasus. But, setting aside what advantages might be gained on that account, to weaken the force of this Testimony, if we consider the occasion or nature of these expressions, we shall find that they reach not the purpose you design them for. We must therefore consider, that at the time of the writing this Epistle, S. Hierom seems to be in a great perplexity what to do in that division which was then in the Church of Antioch, concerning Paulinus, Vitalis, p. 312and Miletius; but besides this Schism, it seems S. Hierom suspected some remainders of Arrianism to be still among them; from their demanding of him, Whether he acknowledged three distinct hypostases in the Trinity. Theodoret. l. 2. c. 8.Now S. Hierom by hypostasis understands the essence, as many of the Greek Fathers did; and thence the Sardian Council defined, That there was but one hypostasis of the Father, Son, and Spirit; and therefore he suspects, that when they require of him the acknowledgement of three hypostases, they might design to entrap him, and unawares betray him into Arrianism. And therefore argues stifly in the remainder of that Epistle, that hypostasis properly signifies essence, and nothing else; and from thence urgeth the inconvenience of admitting the terms of three hypostases. Tota secularium literarum Schola nihil aliud hypostasin nisi foreign novit. Id. ib.Now S. Hierom being thus set upon by these Eastern Bishops, he keeps off from communion with them, and adviseth with the Aegyptian Confessors, and follows them at present; but having received his Baptism in the Church of Rome, and being looked on as a Roman where he was, he thought it necessary to address himself to Pope Damasus, Inde nunc mea animae postulans cibum, unde olim Christi vestimenta suscepi. Ib. Ab Arrianorum praesule & Camp…nsibus, novellum à me homine Romano nomen exigitur. Ib.to know what he should do in this case. And the rather, because if S. Hierom had consented with them, they would have looked on it as an evidence of the agreement of the Roman Church with them. Therefore he so earnestly and importunately writes to Damasus concerning it, as being originally part of his charge, having been baptized in that Church.

But (say you) whatever the occasion of the words were, Is it not plain, that he makes the Church to be built on S. Peter's See, and that whosoever is out of the communion of that Church, is an Alien, and belongs to Antichrist? To that therefore I answer, 1. That he doth not say, that the Catholick Church is built on the particular Church of Rome: for it is not, super hanc Petram, as referring to the Cathedra immediately preceding; but, super illam, and therefore it is not improbably supposed by some, that the Rock here referrs to Christ. And, although Erasmus doth imagine, that some particular priviledge and dignity did belong to Rome above other Churches from this place (which is not the thing we contend about) yet withall he sayes, that by the Rock we must not understand Rome; for that may degenerate, but we must understand that Faith which Peter professed. Non super Roman arbitror, nam fieri potest ut Roma degen…ret, sed super illam fidem quam Petrus professus est. Erasmus in Schol. Et si non minus aliis cam laborâsse, Erasmus hic mentiatur. Mar. Victor. Schol. in ep. 57.And it is a much easier matter for Marianus Victorius, to tell him, he lyes, as he doth here in plain terms, than to be able to confute what he saith. And that the rather, because he begins his discourse in that manner, Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, whereby he attributes the supreme power, and infallible judgement in the Church only to Christ. For, as for your learned correction of praemium for primum, though you follow Cardinal Perron in it, yet it is without any probability at all, it being contrary to all the MSS. used by Erasmus, Victorius, Gravius, Possevin, and others; and hath no authority to vouch it, but only Gratian, who is condemned by your own Writers, for a falsifier and corrupter of Authours.

2. I answer, when S. Hierom pronounces those Aliens and prophane, who are out of the communion of the Church; either it belongs not to the particular Church of Rome, or, if it doth, it makes not much for your purpose. 1. There is no certainty that he there speaks of the particular Church of Rome, but that he rather speaks of the true Vniversal Church; p. 313for it is plain, he speaks of that Church which is built upon the Rock, now by your own confession, that cannot be the Church of Rome, for that you suppose to be the Rock, it self, viz. the See of Peter, and therefore the Church built upon it, must be the Vniversal Church. And that this must be his meaning, appears from his plain words, for, he saith, VponUpon that Rock the Church is built, and whosoever eats the Lamb without this house, is prophane;—he cannot certainly mean, Whosoever eats without the Rock, but without the house built upon it; so that the house in the latter clause must needs be the same with that which was built on the Rock in the former. Either therefore you must deny the See of Peter to be the Rock, or you must of necessity assert the house built upon it to be the Vniversal Church, and not the particular one of Rome; and consequently the danger lyes not upon mens not being in communion with the Roman, but with the truly Catholick Church. And how from hence you will inferr, That they are prophane who are out of the Roman Church; it would be worth our while to understand. 2. Suppose I should grant, that S. Hierom did mean the particular Church of Rome, yet I am not satisfied, that this comes home to your purpose, unless you could prove, that S. Hierom spake of what was necessarily and unalterably to be in the Church of Rome, and not meerly of what was in that time, when he spake these words. But that is your perpetual Paralogism in the citations of the Fathers, in praise of the Church of Rome, what they spake, and it may be deservedly of the Church of their own time (although sometimes their Rhetorick swell'd too high in their Encomiasticks) that you will needs have to be understood of the same Church at all times, and in our present age. As though it were not possible for a Church to be eminent for purity of Doctrine in one age, and to decline as much from it in another. But I need give no other instance in this case, than S. Hierom himself, for if we believe S. Hierom in his Catalogue, the two immediate predecessors of Damasus, in the See of Rome, Liberius, and Felix were tainted with Heresie; and that very Heresie, Vid. Fortunat. & Acacius.viz. Arrianism, which S. Hierom writes to Damasus about now. I pray, tell us then, Whether if S. Hierom had lived in Liberius his time, would he have writ to him after the same rate he now writes to Damasus; if he had been of the same mind then, he would have been so farr from scrupling the three hypostases, that he must have subscribed the Arrian confession, as S. Hierom tells us, Liberius did, through the instigation of Fortunatianus. And therefore to let us see, on what account he was now so liberal in his commendations of the Church of Rome, he begins this Epistle with the praise of her present orthodoxness in the Catholick Faith, And that amongst all the divisions and breaches of the Eastern Churches they preserved the Faith of their Fore-fathers entire. Profligato à sobole malâ pa…rimonio, apud vos s…los incorrupta Patrum servatur haer…di…as.—Nunc in Occide…te Sol Justitiae oritur: in Oriente a…tem Lucifer ille, qui ceciderat, super sydera posuit thronam s… um, &c. Ibid.That now the Sun of Righteousness rises in the West; but that Lucifer, who fell, now reigns in the East; with many expressions to the same purpose. Which supposition being granted true at that time, that which follows inferrs very little to your purpose, unless you can prove, that what was so then, must necessarily continue so in all ages. If the East was then corrupted, and the West only sound, what praises belonged to the Catholick Church in general, did of right devolve to that part which remained sound in the opinion of those persons who judged so. You would needs therefore from hence have your Church accounted Catholick now, by the same argument that Tully said (of the Roman Lady, who still affirmed, she was p. 314but thirty years of age) that he believed it, for he had heard her say so twenty years before; so must we believe your Church sound and Catholick ▪ because it was said so of her so many hundred years since; as though no infirmities or wrinkles could have come upon her ever since. Prove your Church to be as sound and orthodox, as pure and holy now, as she was in the primitive Fathers time, and we will not grudge her the highest of those commendations which were given her by them. But, without doing this, your Testimonies come to nothing. The same Answer will serve the remaining Testimonies of Eulalius, and the Emperour Gratian, who only spake of the communion of the Church of Rome, as it was then: That of Fulgentius stiling the Roman Church, The top of the world, only imports the eminency of it, in regard of the power of that City it was in, and so is wide enough from your purpose. Thus we have considered all that you have produced out of Antiquity, to prove that the Church is called Catholick, with a particular relation to, and dependence of the Church of Rome; and can find nothing at all belonging to her, as the center of Catholicism, but that those things which are said of her, and communion with her, in relation to being called Catholick, might as well have agreed with any other Apostolical Church remaining sound in the Catholick Faith.

P. 132. n. 6.Hence it appears, that what his Lordship is pleased to term, a perfect Jesuitism, viz. the measuring the Catholick Church, by that of Rome, is really nothing else, and that the perfect mistake belongs to you, who assert, that it was a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church. Your vindication of the propriety of your Churches being called the Roman Catholick Church, from the Roman Empire, and the Jewish Church would then signifie something, when you have proved that the Pope hath as much the Government of the Church, as the Roman-Emperour had of all the Provinces within the confines of the Empire, or that we are all bound as much to resort to Rome, as the Jews were to Jerusalem for the solemn worship of God. In the mean time the absurdity is never the less for being vulgar, in calling yours, The Roman Catholick Church. And yet, as though you had been only demonstrating these things, you tell us very magisterially, The truth is, in all doubts concerning matter of Doctrine, recourse is to be had to S. Peter's successor, who (at least with a General Council) can infallibly resolve all difficulties. An excellent way of proving, to say, The truth is! Might not I as well say, The truth is, the Pope neither in Council, nor out of it hath any Infallibility at all? And would not this be full as good an Answer as yours is an Argument? but the very truth is, you had rather have these things believed, than go about to prove them; least the weakness of the arguments should lay too much open your fond pretence of Infallibility. Before you prove, That the Pope can carry his Infallibility out of Rome with him, shew us that he hath it there. I grant S. Peter had been infallible, though he had never been at Rome; and it is far from being clear, that the Pope is at all the more infallible for his being there. How far you have been from proving, That the Faith of every particular Church is to be examined and proved to be Catholick by its conformity to the Faith of the Roman Church, may abundantly appear from the preceding discourse. Those Questions, which you say, make nothing to your purpose concerning the Popes transferring his chair at Rome, and the Roman Clergies deserting him and the true Faith: I shall so far believe you in, as to ease my self of the trouble of considering them any further than hath been done already in the very entrance into this Conference.

p. 315And here, you tell us, You now come to perform your Promise, §. 16.viz. to examine more fully his Lordships pretended solutions (as you call them) of Bellarmine's authorities in behalf of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome. But for all your boasting at first, what great things you would do, you seem a little fearful of engaging too far, and therefore are resolved only to maintain them in general, as they make for the Infallible Authority of the Church, or of the Pope defining Articles of Faith in a General Council. But, as far as you dare go, I shall attend your motions, and doubt not to make it evident, that none of these authorities have any reference to that sense, which you only offer to maintain them in, and that though they had, yet no such thing as Infallibility can be proved out of them.

The first authority is out of S. Cyprian's Letter to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, whose words I am contented should be recited as fully as may be;P. 133. In which he chargeth Felicissimus and Fortunatus with their complices, Post ista adhuc insuper pseudoepiscop… sibi ab haereticis constituto, navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram, at que ad Ecclesiam Principalem; unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, à Schismaticis & prophanis literas ferre, nec cogitare eos esse Romanos (quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est) ad quos perfidia habere non possit access…m. Cyprian. ep. 55. ad Cornel. n. 16.that having set up a Bishop against him at Carthage, they sail to the chair of Peter, and the principal Church from whence the sacerdotal Vnity had its rise, and carry Letters from prophane and Schismatical persons, not considering that the Romans (whose Faith was commended by the Apostle) were such to whom perfidiousness could not have access. Now the meaning of this place you would have to be this, and no other, viz. that the See of S. Peter, which is the principal of all Churches, was so infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost, that no errour in Faith could have access to it, or be admitted by it▪ if not as a particular Church, P. 134.yet at least as the Head of the Vniversal Church of Christ, and as the Fountain of Priestly Vnity; which S. Cyprian here expresly affirms that Church and See to be. This you summe up at last, as the most which can be made of this Testimony; and which is indeed far more in all particulars than it can amount to. Which will appear by particular examinations of what you return in answer to his Lordship. Three things his Lordship answers to this place.Sect. 3. n. 3, &c. 1. That perfidia can hardly stand here for errour in Faith; and if so then this can make nothing for Infallibility. 2. That supposing it granted to signifie errour in Faith and Doctrine, yet it belongs not to the Romans absolutely, but with a respect to those first Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle. 3. That it seems to be rather a Rhetorical insinuation, than a dogmatical assertion. And that S. Cyprian could not be supposed to assert herein the Popes Infallibility, appears by the contracts between him and the Bishops of Rome. This is the short of his Lordships answers to this place, to which we must consider what you reply. 1. His Lordship sayes, That perfidia can hardly stand for errour in Faith or misbelief, but it properly signifies malicious falshood in matter of trust and action, not error in Faith, but in fact against the discipline and Government of the Church. And to make this interpretation appear the more probable, his Lordship gives an account of the story which was the occasion of writing that Epistle, which is this, as his Lordship reports it from Binius and Baronius; In the year 255. there was a Council in Carthage in the cause of two Schismaticks, Felicissimus and Novatian, about restoring of them to the communion of the Church, which had lapsed in time of danger from Christianity to Idolatry. Felicissimus would admit all even without penance, and Novatian would admit none, no not after penance. The Fathers 42 in number went, as Truth led them, between both extreams. To this Council came Privatus a known Heretick, but was not admitted because he was formerly p. 316excommunicated, and often condemned. Hereupon he gathers his Complices together, and chooses one Fortunatus (who was formerly condemned as well as himself) Bishop of Carthage, and set him up against St. Cyprian. This done Felicissimus and his Fellows haste to Rome with letters testimonial from their own party, and pretend that 25 Bishops concurred with them: and their desire was to be received into the communion of the Roman Church, and to have their new Bishop acknowledged. Cornelius then Pope, though their haste had now prevented St. Cyprians letters, having formerly heard from him, both of them, and their Schism in Africk would neither hear them, nor receive their letters. They grew insolent and furious (the ordinary way that Schismaticks take). VponUpon this Cornelius writes to St. Cyprian▪ and St. Cyprian in this Epistle gives Cornelius thanks, for refusing these African fugitives, declares their Schism and wickedness at large, and encourages him and all Bishops to maintain the Ecclesiastical Discipline, and censures against any the boldest threatnings of wicked Schismaticks. This being the story, his Lordship sayes, He would fain know why perfidia (all circumstances considered) may not stand here in its proper sense for cunning and perfidious dealing, which these men having practised at Carthage, thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also, but that he was wary enough not to be over-reached by busie Schismaticks? This demand of his Lordship seeming very just and reasonable we are bound to consider what reasons you give, why perfidia must be understood for errour in Faith and not in the sense here mentioned. Why calls he (say you) St. Peters chair, Ecclesiam principalem (the chief Church) but because it is the head to which all other Churches must be subordinate in matter of doctrine? P. 133.the words following signifie as much, Unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, from which chair of St. Peter as it were from its fountain, unity in Priesthood and consequently unity in Faith is derived. Why brings he the Apostle as Panegyrist of the Roman Faith? Is it forsooth, because no malicious falshood in matter of trust or errour in fact against the Discipline and Government of the Church can have access unto them, as the Bishop will needs misinterpret the place? or rather because no errour in Faith can approach the See Apostolick? Certain it is perfidia in this sense, is diametrically opposed to the Faith of the Romans immediately before commended by the Apostle (which was true Christian Faith) and consequently it must of necessity be taken for the quite contrary, viz. misbelief or errour in Faith. Three Arguments in these words you produce, why perfidia must be understood of errour in Faith. 1. Because the Church of Rome is called the chief Church; but is it not possible it should be called so in any other sense, but as the head of all other Churches in matter of doctrine? Is it not sufficiently clear from Antiquity, that there were other accounts of calling the Church of Rome the chief or principal Church, as the eminency of it joyned with the power of the City (the potentior principalitas in Irenaeus) which advanced its reputation to the height it was then at? What matters of doctrine do you find brought to the Church of Rome to be Infallibly decided there in St. Cyprians time? how little did St. Cyprian believe this, when he so vehemently opposed the judgement of Stephen Bishop of Rome in the case of rebaptization? Doth he write, speak, or carry himself in that Controversie like one that owned that Church of Rome to be head of all other Churches, to which they must be subordinate in matter of doctrine? Nay in the very next words St. Cyprian argues against appeals to Rome, and is it possible then to think, that in these words he should give such an absolute power and authority to it? And therefore any one who would reconcile p. 317St. Cyprian to himself must by those words of Ecclesia principalis only understand the dignity and eminency, and not the power, much less the Infallibility of the Church of Rome. And no more is implyed in the Second, That it is said to be the fountain of Sacerdotal Vnity, which some think may probably referr to the Priesthood of the Church of Africk, which had its rise from the Church of Rome, as appears by Tertullian and others,Tertul. de prescript. c. 36. Greg. l. 7. Ind. 1. ep. 32. in which sense he might very well say, that the Vnity of the Priesthood did spring from thence; or if it be taken in a more large and comprehensive sense it can import no more then that the Church of Rome was owned as the Principium Vnitatis, which certainly is a very different thing from an infallible judgement in matters of Faith. For what connexion is there between Vnity in Government, and Infallibility in Faith? Suppose the Church of Rome should be owned as the principal Member of the Catholick Church, and therefore that the Vnity of the Church should begin there in regard of the dignity of it, doth it thence follow that there must be an absolute subordination of all other Churches to it? Nothing then can be inferr'd from either of those particulars, that by perfidia, errour in Faith must be understood, taking those two expressions in the most favourable sense that can be put upon them. But considering the present state of the Church of Rome at the time when Felicissimus and Fortunatus came thither, I am apt to think another interpretation more probable than either of the foregoing. For which we must remember that there was a Schism at Rome between Novatianus and Cornelius, the former challenging to be Bishop there, as well as the latter, upon which a great breach was made among them. Now these persons going out of Africa to Rome, that they might manage their business with the more advantage, address themselves to Cornelius and his party; upon which St. Cyprian saith, Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem, unde Vnitas sacerdotalis exorta est, thereby expressing their confidence that they not only went to Rome, but when they were there, they did not presently side with the Schismatical party of the Novatians there, but as though they had been true Catholicks, they go to Cornelius, who, being the legal successour of St. Peter in opposition to Novatianus, calls his See the chair of St. Peter, and the principal Church, and the spring of the Vnity of the Priesthood; because the contrary party of Novatianus had been the cause of all the Schism and disunion which had been among them. And in this sense which seems very agreeable to St. Cyprians words and design, we may easily understand what this perfidia was, viz. that falseness and perfidious dealing of these persons, that although they were Schismaticks themselves, yet they were so farr from seeming so at their coming to Rome, that as though they had been very good Catholicks, they seek to joyn in communion with Cornelius and the Catholick party with him. By which we see what little probability there is from those expressions that perfidia must be taken, for an errour in Faith. But, 3. You say, To what purpose else doth he mention St. Pauls commendation of their Faith, if this perfidia were not immediately opposite to it? But then inform us what part of that Apostolical Faith was it, which Felicissimus and Fortunatus sought to violate at Rome? It is apparent their whole design was to be admitted into communion with the Church of Rome (which in all probability is that access here spoken of): if therefore this perfidia imported some errour in Faith, it must be some errour broached by those particular persons as contrary to the old Roman Faith which was extold by the Apostle. And although these persons might be guilty of p. 318errours, yet the ground of their going to Rome, was not upon any matter of Doctrine, whereby they sought to corrupt the Church of Rome, but in order to the justifying of their Schism, by being admitted into the communion of that Church. Notwithstanding then any thing you have produced to the contrary, there is no necessity of understanding perfidia, for an errour in matter of Faith. And St. Cyprians mentioning the praise given to the Romans for their Faith by the Apostle, was not to shew the opposition between that and the perfidia as an errour in Faith, but that being the greatest Elogium of the Church of Rome extant in Scripture, he thought it now most convenient to use it, the better to engage Cornelius to oppose the proceedings of the Schismaticks there. Although withall, I suppose St. Cyprian might give him some taste of his old office, of a Rhetorician in the allusion between fides and perfidia, without ever intending that perfidia should be taken in any other sense then what was proper to the cause in hand.

You having effected so little in the solution of his Lordships first answer, you have little cause to boast in your following words, That hence his other explication also vanishes into smoak, Ibid.viz. when he asserts that Perfidia non potest may be taken hyperbolically for non facile potest; because this interpretation suits not with those high Elogiums given by St. Cyprian to the Roman Church, as being the principal Church, the Church whence Vnity of Faith and Discipline is derived to all other Christian Churches. If you indeed may have the liberty to interpret St. Cyprians words as you please, by adding such things to them, of which there is no intimation in what he saith, you may make what you please unsuitable to them. For although he calls it the principal Church, from whence the Vnity of the Priesthood is sprung; yet what is this to the Vnity of Faith and Discipline as derived from thence to all other Churches, as you would perswade the unwary reader that these were St. Cyprians words, which are only your groundless interpretation of them. And therefore there is no such improbability in what his Lordship sayes, That this may be only a Rhetorical excess of speech, in which St. Cyprian may laudando praecipere, by commending them to be such, instruct them that such indeed they ought to be, to whom perfidiousness should not get access. And for this he instanceth in such another Rhetorical expression of Synesius to Theophilus of Alexandria, wherein he tells him that he ought to esteem what his Throne should determine as an Oracle or Divine Law. Synes. ep. 67.And certainly this comes nearer Infallibility than that of St. Cyprian doth. But what inconveniency there should be, that St. Cyprian by this interpretation should give no more prerogative to the Church of Rome, than to that of Alexandria or Antioch, I cannot easily imagine, till you prove some greater Infallibility attributed then to the Church of Rome, than was to other Apostolical Churches: which as yet we are to seek for.

But at length (you tell us) after much ado he grants perfidia may be taken for errour in Faith, Ibid.or for perfidious misbelievers and Schismaticks, who had betrayed their Faith; but then (say you) he cavils with the word Romanos. This must be limited only to those Christians, who then lived in Rome, to whom quà tales, as long as they continued such, errour in Faith could not have access. What you say, his Lordship, doth at length and after much ado, he did freely and willingly; but that you might have occasion for those words, you altered the course of his answers, and put the second in the last place. But still you have the unhappiness to misunderstand him. For although he p. 317grants that perfidia may relate to errour in Faith, yet as it is here used, it is not understood of it abstractly but concretely, for perfidious misbelievers, i. e. such perfidious persons, excommunicated out of other Churches, were not likely to get access at Rome, or to find admittance into their communion. And in this sense, it is plain that St. Cyprian did not intend by these words, to exempt the Romans from possibility of errour, but to brand his adversaries with a title due to their merit, calling them perfidious, i. e. such as had betrayed or perverted the Faith. When you therefore ask, is not this great praise? I suppose none but your self would make a question of it, viz. that the Church of Rome had then so great purity as not to admit such perfidious misbelievers into her communion. And it were well if the present Church of Rome were capable of the same praise. But when you add, It is as if St. Cyprian should say St. Peters See could not erre so long as it continued constant in the truth; you wilfully misunderstand his Lordships meaning, who speaks of the persons and not meerly of their errours; but however, is it not a commendation to say that the Church of Rome consisted of such persons then who adhered to the Apostolical Faith, and therefore errour could not have access to them? And I look on it as so great a commendation, that I heartily wish it could be verified of your Church now. Neither is this any such Identical proposition as that you produce, but only a declaration of their present constancy, and inferring thence, how unlikely it was that errours should be admitted by them. His Lordship to make it plain that St. Cyprian had no meaning to assert the unerring Infallibility of either Pope or Church of Rome, insists on the contest which after happened between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen; upon which he saith expresly, That Pope Stephen did not only maintain an errour but the very cause of Hereticks, Stepha…us frater noster Haereticorum causam contra Christianos & contra Dei Ecclesiam asserere conatur. Cypr. ad Pompeium per Erasm. Basil. p. 327.and that against Christians and the very Church of God. And after this he chargeth him, with obstinacy and presumption; And I hope this is plain enough (saith his Lordship) to shew that St. Cyprian had no great opinion of the Roman Infallibility. To this you answer,P. 134. With a famous distinction of the Popes erring as a private Doctor and as the Vniversal Pastor, and that St. Cyprian might very well be supposed to think the Pope erred only in the first sense. Not to spend time in rifling this distinction of the Popes erring personally, but not judicially, or as a private Doctor, but not as Vniversal Pastor, which it were an easie matter to do, by manifesting the incongruity of it, and the absurdities consequent upon it, in case that doctrine which the Pope erres in, comes to be judicially decided by him; It is sufficient for us at present to shew that this distinction cannot relieve you in our present case. For your Doctors tell us, the Pope then erres personally and as a private Doctor, when he erres only in his own judgement without obliging others to believe, what he judges to be true; but then he erres judicially and as Vniversal Pastor, when he declares his judgement so as to oblige others to receive it as true. Now can any thing be more evident then that St. Cyprian judged Pope Stephen to erre in this latter and not in the former sense? For doth he not absolutely and severely declare himself against St. Cyprians opinion: condemning it as an errour and an innovation? But say you, He did not properly define any doctrine in that contestation; but said nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum. But was not that the question what was traditum and what not, for Cyprian and his party denyed it to be a tradition, which Stephen asserted was so; and doth he not therefore undertake to define p. 320something in this cause? But say you, If this argument hold good against the Infallibility of Popes, viz. that St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen erred, therefore the Pope may erre in matters of Faith, it will be a good consequence also to say St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen erred, even whilst he maintained an universal immemorial tradition—therefore the Pope may erre whilst he follows such a tradition. I answer, 1. Who besides you, would not have seen, that the question was not, Whether the Pope was Infallible or no, but whether St. Cyprian judged him to be Infallible or no? for if it appear that St. Cyprian did not judge him Infallible, then those former words cannot be interpreted to such a sense as doth imply Infallibility. 2. No doubt if the Pope may err in other things, he may err when he thinks he follows an universal immemorial tradition; not that he doth err, when he doth really follow such a one, but he may err in judging that to be an universal immemorial tradition which is not: and this was the case between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen; the Pope pretended to follow an universal tradition, St. Cyprian judgeth him to err in it, and that it was not so. And is it not plain still, notwithstanding these frivolous pretences, that St. Cyprian had no opinion at all of the Popes Infallibility in any sense: and therefore out of honour to him, you are bound to interpret his former words to some other sense then that of any Infallibility in the Church of Rome. Thus all his Lordships answers standing good, you have gained no great matter by this first testimony of St. Cyprian.

The second Authority is out of St. Hierome whose words are, The Roman Faith commended by the Apostle, admits not such praestigiae,Attamen scito Romanam fidem Apostolic… voce laudatam ejusmodi praestigias non recipere, etiamsi Angelus aliter annun…iet, quam semel praedicatum est, Pauli authoritate munitam non posse mutari. Hierony. l. 3. Apol. c. Ruff. cap. 4. deceits and delusions into it, though an Angel should Preach it otherwise, than it was Preached at first, being armed and fenced by St. Pauls Authority it cannot be changed. Here you tell us, You willingly agree with his Lordship that by Romanam fidem, St. Hierom understands the Catholick Faith of Christ, and so you concur with him against Bellarmine, that it cannot be understood of the particular Church of Rome. But by the way you charge your Adversaries, with great inconsequence that in this place they make Roman and Catholick to be the same, and yet usually condemn you for joyning as Synonyma's Roman and Catholick together. A wonderful want of judgement! as though the Roman Faith might not be the Catholick Faith then, and yet the Catholick Faith not be the Roman Faith now. The former speech only affirms that the Faith at Rome was truly Catholick; the latter implyes that no Faith can be Catholick but what agrees with Rome: and think you there is no difference between these two? But you say further, That this Catholick Faith must not here be taken abstractly that so it cannot be changed, for Ruffinus was not ignorant of that, P. 135.but that it must be understood of the immutable Faith of the See Apostolick, so highly commended by the Apostle and St. Hierom; which is founded upon such a rock, that even an Angel himself is not able to shake it. But St. Hierom speaking this with a reference to that Faith he supposeth the Apostle commended in them (although the Apostle doth not so much commend the Catholickness or soundness of their Faith as the act of believing in them, and therefore whatever is drawn from thence, whether by St. Hierome or any else can have no force in it; for if he should infe… the immutability of the Faith of the Church of Rome from so apparently weak a foundation, there can be no greater strength in his testimony than there is in the ground on which it is built; and if there be any force in p. 321this Argument, the Church of Thessalonica will be as Infallible as Rome, for her Faith is commended rather in a more ample manner by the Apostle then that of Rome is) St. Hierome, I say,1 Thes. 1.8.1 Thess 1:8 referring to that Faith he supposes the Apostle commended in them, must only be understood of the unchangeableness of that first Faith, which appears by the mention of an Angel from Heaven Preaching otherwise. Which certainly cannot with any tolerable sense be meant thus, that St. Hierome supposed it beyond the power of an Angel from Heaven to alter the Faith of the Roman Church. For in the very same Apology he expresseth his great fears, lest the Faith of the Romans should be corrupted by the Books of Ruffinus. But, say you, What is this then to Ruffinus, who knew, as well as St. Hierom, that Faith could not change its essence? However, though St. Hierome should here speak of the Primitive and Apostolical Faith which was then received at Rome, that this could receive no alteration; yet this was very pertinent to be told Ruffinus, because St. Hierome charges him with an endeavour to subvert the Faith not meerly at Rome, but in all other places, by publishing the Books of Origen with an Encomiastick Preface to them; and therefore the telling him, The Catholick Faith would admit of no alteration, which was received at Rome as elsewhere, might be an Argument to discourage him from any attempts of that nature. And the main charge against Ruffinus, is not an endeavour to subvert meerly the people of Rome, Non tibi sufficit scandalum Graeciae, nisi illud & Latinorum auribus ingeras. Id. ib.but the Latin Church by his translation; and therefore these words ought to be taken in their greatest latitude; and so imply not at all any Infallibility in the Roman See.

The remaining Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzene, Cyril, and Ruffinus, P. 136, 137.(as appears to any one who reads them) only import that the Roman Church had to their time preserved the Catholick Faith; but they do not assert it impossible it should ever do otherwise; or that she is an Infallible preserver of it, and none of their Testimonies are so proper to the Church of Rome, but they would equally hold for any other Apostolical Churches at that time. Gregory Nazianzene indeed sayes, That it would become the Church of Rome to hold the entire Faith alwayes: and would it not become any other Church to do so to? doth this import that she shall Infallibly do it, or rather that it is her duty to do it? And if these then be such pregnant Authorities with you, it is a sign there is little or nothing to be found in Antiquity for your purpose.

But before we end this Chapter,§. 18. we are called to a new task on occasion of a Testimony of St. Cyril produced by his Lordship in stead of that in Bellarmin which appeared not in that Chapter, where his Name is mentioned. In which he asserts, That the foundation and firmness which the Church of Christ hath, is placed not in or upon the person, much less the Successour of St. Peter; but upon the Faith which by Gods Spirit in him he so firmly professed: Petram opinor per agnominationem nihil aliud, quàm inconcussam & firmissimam discipuli fidem vocavit; in quâ Ecclesia Christi ita fundata & firmata esset, ut non laberetur, & esset inexpugnabilis inserorum portis, in perpetuum manens. S. Cyril. Alex. Dial. de Trinit. l. 4. p. 278. Paris. A. 1604.which (saith his Lordship) is the common received opinion both of the ancient Fathers and of the Protestants. VponUpon this Rock, that is, upon this Faith will I build my Church. On which occasion you run presently out into that large common place concerning Tu es Petrus, and super hanc Petram; and although I should grant all that you so earnestly contend for, viz. That these words are not spoken of St. Peters Confession, P. 138, 139.but of his Person, I know no advantage which will accrue to your cause p. 322by it. For although very many of the Fathers understand this place of St. Peters Confession, as containing in it the ground and Foundation of Christian Religion, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God, which therefore may well be said to be the Rock on which Christ would build his Church, and although it were no matter of difficulty to defend this interpretation from all exceptions; yet because I think it not improbable (the words running by way of address to St. Peter) that something peculiar to him, is contained in them, I shall not contend with you about that. But then, if you say that the meaning of St. Peters being the Rock, is, The constant Infallibility in Faith which was derived from St. Peter to the Church of Rome, as you seem to suggest, you must remember you have a new task to make good, and it is not saying, That St. Peter was meant by the Rock, will come within some leagues of doing it. I pass therefore by that discourse as a thing we are not much concerned in, for it is brought in by his Lordship as the last thing out of that testimony of Cyril: but you were contented to let go the other more material Observations, that you might more freely expatiate super hanc …etram. Touching Ruffinus, I grant his Lordship is of opinion, That he neither did nor could account the Roman Church Infallible, for which he gives this reason, For if he had so esteemed of it, P. 16.he would not have dissented from it in so main a point as is the Canon of Scripture as he plainly doth: For reckoning up the Canonical Books, he most manifestly dissents from the Roman Church. Therefore either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was Infallible, or else the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more Books within the Canon, than heretofore she did. If she do, then she is changed in a main point of Faith, the Canon of Scripture, and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible; for if she were right in her reckoning then, she is wrong now; and if she be right now, she was wrong then; and if she do not reckon now more then she did, when Ruffinus lived, then he reckons fewer than she, and so dissents from her, which doubtless he durst not have done, had he thought her judgement Infallible. Yea and he sets this mark upon his dissent besides, that he reckons up the Books of the Canon just so, and no otherwise, then as he received them out of the Monuments of the fore-Fathers, and out of which the assertions of our Faith are to be taken. Now what have you to say to this strong and nervous Discourse of his Lordship?Ruffin▪ in Symbol. p. 188, 189. P. 139. Why (forsooth) this argument of the Bishop is far from being convincing. And why so? For (say you) though it should be granted that the Catholick Church (the Roman you mean) at present declares more books to be contained in the Canon, than she did in Ruffinus his time, yet this could be no errour in her. That is strange, that the Church should declare the Canon to be compleat then, without these books, and now not to be, and yet neither time be in an errour! No (say you) unless it be shewed (which I am sure cannot be) that she condemned those books then as not Divine Scripture, or not Canonical, which now she declares to be Divine or Canonical. Excellent good still! that which you are sure cannot be shewed, is obvious to any one that hath eyes in his head. For I only ask you, Whether the Church of Rome did declare any Canon or no, in that age? If not, according to your principles those who lived in that age could have no Divine Faith as to the Scripture: if she did declare the Canon of Scripture, without these Books, did she not thereby condemn these Books to be not Canonical? For you say, that all are bound to take her judgement what is in the Canon and what not; if therefore she did not put them into the Canon, did she not leave them out of the Canon? or, Can you find any medium between being put in and being p. 323left out? Yes (say you) these Books were left then under dispute: with whom were they under dispute? with the Church of Rome or not? If with her, was she not Infallible the mean while, when so great a matter as the Canon of Scripture was under dispute with her? But this whole business concerning the Canon of Scripture is largely discussed already; only here it is sufficient to shew, how you are pent in on every side; so that there is no possibility of getting out.

As to the strait (his Lordship takes notice of) that the Church of Rome is driven to, in borrowing a testimony for her Infallibility from one whom she branded with Heresie in that very Book from whence this testimony is taken; You answer, That it evidently argues the truth and uncorruptedness of that Church, which is so clear that even her Adversaries cannot but confess it. But if they confess it no better then Ruffinus doth, she will have little cause to applaud her self for her Integrity in that respect. And although a Testimony may be taken from persons suspected in some things, yet it argues those have but very few friends, who are fain to make use of their enemies to bear witness for them. What follows concerning a particular Church being Infallible, P. 140.because you disown it (although not consonantly to the principles of your party as was shewed in the occasion of the Conference) I pass by.

The errours of the Church of Rome (which his Lordship mentions, but you say proves not) you shall find abundantly proved before our task is over.

Your vindication of Bellarmin from inconsistency in saying A proposition is most true, and yet but peradventure as true as another, is so fine and subtil that it were an injury to the Reader to deprive him of the pleasure of perusing it. And yet when all is done, a Proposition very false might be as true as this which Bellarmin speaks of, viz. That the Pope when he teacheth the whole Church in matters of Faith cannot erre.

And thus I have cleared that there can be no ground of an imputation of Schism on our Church from hence, that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church, which acception of the Catholick Church I have manifested to be as great a stranger to Antiquity as it is an enemy to Reason: And that the calling the Roman Church the Catholick Church, is (as his Lordship truly saith) a meer Novelty and perfect Jesuitism.