IT will not be denied but that the Church of Rome was once a most pure, excellent, flourishing and MotherRom. 1. 8. Church.

This Church could not cease to be such,Rom. 16. but she must fall either by Apostasie,Rom. 6. Heresie or Schism.

I. Apostasie is not onely a renouncing of the Faith of Christ,White, de­fence of his Way. p. 435. but the very Name and Title to Christianity: No Man will say, that the Church of Rome had ever such a fall, or fell thus.

II. Heresie is an adhesion to some private and singular Opi­nion,King Jam. in his Speech to the Parlia­ment. or Errour in Faith, contrary to the general approved Doctrine of the Church.

If the Church of Rome did ever adhere to any singular or new Opinion,Whitaker in his An­swer to D. Sand. disagreeable to the common received Doctrine of the Christian World, I pray satisfie me as to these particu­lars, viz.

1. By what General Council was she ever condemned?2 Demonst.

2. Which of the Fathers ever writ against her?Fulk in c. 22 Thes. Sect. 7. Or,

3. By what Authority was she otherwise reproved? For, It seems to me a thing very incongruous,Reynolds in his 5th. Conclusi­on. that so great a Church should be condemned by every one that hath a mind to condemn her.

III. Schism is a departure or division from the Unity of the Church, whereby the Band and Communion held with some former Church, is broken and dissolved.

If ever the Church of Rome divided her self by Schism from any other Body of faithful Christians, or brake Communion, or went forth from the Society of any Elder Church: I pray satisfie me as to these particulars.

1. Whose Company did she leave?

2. From what Body did she go forth?

3. Where was the true Church which she forsook?

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

I Had no sooner perused the Paper which I received from you, but I perceived that it was penn'd for the sake of such, as either are not well ac­quainted with the matters of Controversie be­twixt Us and the Church of Rome, or with the Way and Method of arguing. To such as these they are wont to pretend high: To those that are ignorant of the former, they talk of Antiquity and Universality; and to such as are unskilful in the latter, of Demonstrations, and self-evident Principles, of Axioms and Definitions. But all this is a mere flourish of Words; for if these things come strictly to be examined, instead of Antiquity, we shall too frequently find Forgery and Imposture; instead of the Catholick Church, the Church of Rome; instead of Demonstrations and Definitions, Sophistry and Falla­cious Arguments. And after this strain is this Paper wrote, in which things are so artificially mingled, that they look very speciously to those that do not under­stand them; and are so well fitted to work upon the easie, the ignorant, and inconsiderate, that after it had been printed, as I perceive, long since in Fiat Lux, it is again singled out, to be put into the Hands of such as they have a design upon. But I shall endeavour to un­ravel it, and hope, by that time that I have done, that what is therein said will appear to be wholly insufficient to justifie their Church, and acquit it of those Crimes it is charged with: And this I shall doe by shewing,

[Page 2] First, That the whole is false.

Secondly, That the particulars are very fallacious.

The former I shall make good by these following Considerations:

I. That a Church may fall from what it once was.

II. That the Church of Rome is not now what it was in Apostolical and Primitive times; when it might most of all pretend to be (as he calls it) a most pure, excellent, and flourishing Church.

III. That the alteration from what it was then, to what it is now, is to the worse; and that it is thereby intolerably corrupted.

If these Propositions be proved, then the way taken by our Authour will signifie nothing; since it will not be worth the while to enquire how it is, whether it be fallen by Apostasie, Heresie, or Schism, when it is de­monstrable that so it is, that it is fallen.

I. That a Church may fall from what it once was; that is, from its primitive Purity and Simplicity in Faith and Manners, is evident to any that will read the Scrip­tures, and mind what is therein said of the Churches of the Jews, Sardis and Laodicea; or that are acquainted with Ecclesiastical History. And this they of the Church of Rome are bound to grant; who must acknowledge, according to their own Principles, that we once were a Church, when in their Communion; and that call us Apostatical, Heretical, and what not, since we have for­saken it.

II. That the Church of Rome is not now what it was in Apostolical and Primitive times, but is changed in Principles and Practice.

First, In Principles, as,

1. That the Pope is Christ's Vicar; that is, that he is the Universal Pastor over Christ's Flock, and hath a Ju­risdiction over all Churches whatsoever, is a new Princi­ple. [Page 3] This the Scripture (which the Church of Rome of old used to appeal to) is so far from giving any Counte­nance to, that our Saviour expresly cautions the Apostles against any such Usurpation. Luke 22. 25. When there was a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest; he said unto them, The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them, &c. but it shall not be so: but he that is the greatest [or will be great, Mark 10. 43.] among you, let him be as the youn­ger, &c and in the 30. v. saith, ye shall sit upon twelve Thrones, &c. not preferring one before the other. And lest what he had occasionally spoke to Peter, Mat. 16. 19. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, &c. should be misconstrued, he doth give the same power to the rest of the Apostles, both before his Death, Mat. 18. 18. and also after his Resurrection, Joh. 20. 23. And if we would understand the sense of Anti­quity, as to this matter, I know no surer nor shorter way, than to see what is said by the Councils; for then the Fathers may be supposed to speak most impartially and with greatest authority; and of this I shall give you a brief Account. The first general Council was that of Nice, called by Constantine the Great, and held An. 325. which in the sixth Canon doth thus decree, That the Bi­shop of Alexandria, and accordingly of Antioch, and of other Provinces, should have power over their own Pro­vinces, according to ancient Custome, and the Custome in that case of the Church of Rome; and that none should invade the Privileges of each other. The same is said and con­firmed in the second Canon of the second general Coun­cil held at Constantinople by the command of Theodosius the Emperour, An. 380. And farther ratified by the third general Council at Ephesus, in the Year 431. Can. 8.

If we go forward, we shall find that it was farther de­creed in the abovesaid Council of Constantinople, Can. 3. That the Bishop of Constantinople should have the order [Page 4] of Primacy next to the Bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome. And what is thereby to be understood, is suffi­ciently declared in the 28th. Canon of the Fourth Gene­ral Council assembled at Chalcedon▪ An. 451. in which it is decreed, That the Church of Constantinople should have equal Privileges with that of Rome, there being the same Reason for that as the other, as it was the Imperial Seat: and accordingly is there a particular Instance gi­ven in case of Appeals, Can. 9. From this Jurisdiction which every Church had over its own Members, pro­ceeded other Canons: as, That those who were excluded the Communion of one Church, should not be received by ano­ther; so Can. 5. of the aforesaid Council of Nice. That no Appeals should be made to foreign or transmarine Churches; so the Council held at Milevis in Africa, (where S. Augustine was present,) An. 416. Can. 22. which Ca­non L. 2. de Rom. Pon. cap. 24. Bellarmine confesseth was made with a particular respect to Rome. To the same purpose the sixth Coun­cil held at Carthage, An. 420. (in which also S. Augustine was) passed a DecreeCan. 31.. From all which you may observe, 1. That the Bishop of Rome had anciently a limited Ju­risdiction, it was over his own Province onely. 2. That the Jurisdiction which he had over his own Province was such as all other Supreme Bishops had over theirs. 3. That none had a power to transgress the ancient and settled bounds of Jurisdiction, or to invade those of ano­thers. 4. That the Honour given to the Bishop of Rome (whatever priority it was that he had) was not by any Divine Authority, but as Rome was the Imperial Seat. 5. That the Honour and Privilege which it had by that means, was what another was capable of; for the same was given to Constantinople. 6. That none of these De­crees in those General Councils were ever opposed by the Church of Rome, 'till the Council of Chalcedon. 7. That at that time the pretences of the Pope's Legates were universally opposed and rejected. And I may add, [Page 5] 8. That what was at any time in those days claimed by the Church of Rome, was claimed not upon any Divine Authority, but onely upon the Authority of the Council of Nice, (as it appears from the transactions in the afore­cited Council of Carthage.) 9. What was then claimed under that pretext, was upon a pretended, if not a forged, Canon of the Council of Nice, which was detected so to be by that Council of Carthage, and their Usurpation re­jected, as is evident from the Acts of that Council, and the Epistle written by the Fathers there assembled, to Pope Celestine upon it.

From all which it appears (and more I could shew) that there was no such thing originally, as this Univer­sal Pastorship, which the Bishop of Rome doth now challenge, and that Rome is therein changed from what it was.

And now let our Authour ask (if he please) by what Councils was the Church of Rome ever condemned? And you may answer, by the four first general Councils. Let him ask again, Which of the Fathers ever wrote against her? And you may answer, no less than 1068. for so many were then convened in all these four Councils. And if this suffice not, we may turn him to the Coun­cils of Milevis and Carthage before-mentioned, and to others also of good Authority, besides particular Fathers. I have been the longer upon this, not onely because it could not be well comprised in less, but also because if this Claim of theirs fall, their Cause must fall with it.

2. Another new Principle of theirs is, That the Pope hath at least, in ordine ad Spiritualia, a Power over all Kingdoms within the Church, and of deposing Kings in case of Heresie, or Obstinacy, &c. and of absolving Sub­jects from their Allegiance to them when thus deposed. That this is the Principle of their Church is plain from Can. 3. of the Fourth Council of Lateran, and from the Council of Trent, in Sess. 25. de reform. c. 19. where it [Page 6] is somewhat covertly expressed, for a Reason which the state of Affairs at that time made necessary. That this is the Doctrine of their Church, is proved beyond all con­tradiction, by the present Lord Bishop of Lincoln, in his late Learned Treatise Of Popery, &c.

But that this Doctrine of theirs is new, is commonly confessed among themselves, and maintained so to be by several of their own Communion, and which any one may so far receive satisfaction in, from what is written by Roger Widdrington (aliàs Preston) in his Apologia pro Jure Principum, and his Humillima Supplicatio ad Pau­lum Quintum.

3. Transubstantiation was not originally an Article of their Creed, as it is now. So it is said by Jo. Tribarn, Comment. in 4. Sent. Scoti. l. 4. Dist. 11. Q. 3. disp. 42. Sect. 1. an approved Authour of theirs, In primitiva Ecclesia de substantia fidei erat, &c. It was of the substance of Faith in the primitive Church, to believe that the Body of Christ was contained under the species of Bread and Wine; but it was not of Faith, that the substance of the Bread should be turned into the Body of Christ, and upon Consecration should not be Bread. For, saith he, this was not found out by the Church till the time of Innocent the Third, in the Council of Lateran, where many Truths that before lay hid are explained in the Chap. of Firmiter Credimus, amongst which this of Transubstantiation is the chief. So also saith Peter TataretCom. in 4. Sent. p. 101. col. 1. Ven. 1607. and p. 142. col. 1.. And this was the Opinion of Scotus In 4 Sent. dist 11. q. 3. SS. ad ar­gument. pro prima & dist. 10. q. 1. SS. quan­tum ergo., the great Schoolman.

Now it is supposed that Scotus, who lived within 150 Years after, must better understand what was the Do­ctrine of their Church before it, and what was the sense of that Council concerning it, than he that comes about 450 Years after, and chides him for so doing, with a minime probandum Bellar­min l. 3. de Euchar. c. 2 [...]..

4. The Doctrine of Infallibility, respecting their Church as the Seat of it, was not anciently known, nei­ther claimed by themselves, nor granted by others. [Page 7] Amongst all the directions given in Scripture for finding out the truth, there is not one word to this purpose; and amongst all the Disputes in the Primitive Church, we find no such course taken for the final determination of them, as the having recourse to the Apostolical Chair of Rome. Heresies were not then so scarce, nor the confutation of them so easie, as that this relief should be forgotten. And it seems they themselves did then as little understand their own Privileges, as they did the Principles of Faith; for this was never so much as thought of, in all those Councils which were called on purpose for the suppression of Heresies, and where the Legats of the Pope were present: Nay to this very day they are at a loss where to go for it, whether to the Pope, or a Council, or both, or Tradition, or the Col­lective Body of Christians; that is, they know not whe­ther to give up the Cause or to maintain it. I must con­fess, if I should hear a person solemnly declare, that he hath Treasure enough in his possession to enrich the whole World, and should gravely invite all persons to address themselves to him, but in the mean time perceive (though he hath been of the same Mind for several Years,) that he can neither tell where it is, nor is he and his Family for all this the richer, or in a better condition than other Folk, I should vehemently suspect him either to be a notorious Impost or, or perfect Lunatick. And when we hear the Church of Rome confidently asserting its own Infallibility, but find withall that she knows not where to fix it, and that its ruptures and differences are in the mean time as great as in other Churches, and what are never ended by the way it pretends to, but by plain downright force, I cannot for my heart but think there is for the most part more of Interest than Reason in the Case, and what they themselves do rather live by than believe.

[Page 8] But in my mind there is no better Evidence that this is new, than that it's false; and no better evidence that it is false, than that it hath mistaken. Of which, be­sides what hath been, or shall be farther said of alterati­ons in that Church, I shall give you two plain Instances, The Council of Trent Sess. 4. d [...]cr. 1. saith, that Traditions are to be received with equal reverence as the Scriptures; and Mal­donat C [...]m in Joh. 6. p 317. tells us, that The giving the Eucharist to Children, was a Tradition in the Church for 600 Years after Christ; which is now condemned (as he shews) by the Council of Trent. Again, S. Hierom In I [...]a c 6. &c. 8. saith, that the Latine Church then did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst the Canonical Scriptures: But that is now taken into the number by them, and required so to be under an Anathe­ma, Sess. 4. Decr. 1. Conc. Trid. Now Infallibility and Fal­libility are contradictory, and if that Church hath erred, (as erred she hath) then she cannot be infallible, and so consequently the Infallibility of the Church of Rome was not the Principle of the Primitive Church of Rome.

I could shew as much of Novelty in the Doctrines of Indulgences, Purgatory, the Mass's being a Propitia­tory Sacrifice, and of no Salvation out of the Romish Church, &c. but what I have said I think is sufficient.

Secondly, The Alterations are as great in point of Practice; the Church of Rome differs therein as much from what she originally was: As,

1. The keeping the Scriptures and publick Service in an unknown Tongue, is new. The first is evident from the Translations of the Scripture into several Languages, and especially into the Latine, (at that time a vulgar Tongue) of which no sufficient Reason can be given, were it not for the use of those that understood not the Originals. The latter is not onely clear from 1 Cor. 14. but what Bellarmine De Verbo Dei, lib. 2. cap. 16. doth acknowledge; who saith, That the custome of the Peoples saying Amen, [that is to what they understood,] as they did in the Apostles time, [Page 9] continued long in the Western as well as Eastern Church.

2. Worshipping of Images, which was first established in the second Council at Nice, but is so different from and contrary to the practice of the Primitive Church, that Cassander Consult. Artic 21. sect. 4. (an Authour of theirs) saith, that the Chri­stians had not then so much as Images in their Churches; and doth farther declare from Origen, that the Ancients ab omni veneratione (the very word used by the Council of Trent, Sess. 25. decret, de Invocat.) imaginum abhorru­erunt, that all Veneration of them was abhorred. To this I refer the worshipping of Saints, which was so little thought of, that many of the Fathers did not think that the Souls of any should enjoy the beatifick Vision, and be in a state of happiness till the Resurre­ction, as Stapleton Defens. Eccl. cont. Whitaker, l. 1. c. 2. Tom. 1. p. 868. doth shew. And it seems not to have been an Article of Faith in the time either of Lom­bard or Scotus, the former of which saithSent. l. 4. dist. 45. It's not incre­dible the Saints do hear what we say; and the latterIn 4. dist. 45. Q 4. that it's probable God doth reveal our prayers that are offered unto them. It was then the Doctrine of probability one­ly, but now all are required to believe it under an Ana­thema, by the Council of Trent Sess. 25. de Invocat..

As much is to be said concerning the Innovation of Worship to the Virgin Mary, of which we read nothing in Scripture or Antiquity, unless in what was practised by the Hereticks, called Collyridiani in Epiphanius Haeres. 79., that used to carry about her Image, and offer Cakes and Worship to it; with whom that good Father thus encounters: What Scripture hath delivered any such thing, &c. Let Mary be in honour, but let the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost be worshipped; let no man worship Mary.

3. Communion in one Kind expresly contrary to the Scripture, and the former practice of the Romish Church. The former is acknowledged by the Council of Con­stance Sess. 13. when they decreed with a notwithstanding for it. [Page 10] The latter is acknowledged by Cassander Artic. 22., who saith, That the Roman Church it self retained the practice of re­ceiving in both Kinds, for above one thousand years after Christ, as is evident from innumerable testimonies of anci­ent Writers.

To these I might add the practice of saying private and solitary Masses, of the Adoration of the Host, and carrying it about in Procession, Confession, (as used in their Church,) &c. But I shall forbear.

III. These alterations are to the worse; and gross Cor­ruptions. For if the Pope is not Christ's Vicar original­ly, and by his Deputation, then he is so far a great Usur­per. If he hath not a Power over Kings, to depose them, and absolve their Subjects from Allegiance to them, then those of them that have used that power have been noto­rious disturbers of the World. If their Church be not infal­lible, and can no more penetrate into, or resolve and deter­mine points of Faith than another, they do deceive and are deceived. If Transubstantiation be a Doctrine of their own, and not of Christ's, they usurp upon his Preroga­tive. If the Scriptures are free to all, then their Church is guilty of the damnation of all amongst themselves, that perish through the want of knowing and under­standing them; and of all the ignorance in the Christian World, which proceeds from that cause. If worship­ping Images, Saints and Angels, the Host, and Reliques, be not Christian Doctrine, and that these are no lawful Objects of such Worship, then they are Idolaters. If Christians are obliged to partake of the Wine as well as the Bread in the Lord's Supper, then what are they that deny and forbid it? In fine, they that doe such things are no Friends to the Kingdom of Christ and the Chri­stian World.

If all this be true, that a Church may fall from what it once was, and be altered to the worse, and that theirs is so, then we need not spend time in disputing what [Page 11] Apostasie, Heresie and Schism is, upon which we may talk prettily and subtilly; or by which of them that Church is faln, as long as faln she is. But yet to clear the matter of all wrangling Disputes, I shall consider these things also; and shew,

Secondly, That the particulars are very fallacious; which will appear from the consideration of the seve­ral Terms.

1. Most pure, excellent, flourishing Mother-Church; of all which little or nothing is said in the places of Scrip­ture quoted by him in the Margin. If we consult the Epistle to the Romans, there referred to, we shall find, That it was so far from being at that time a flourishing Church, that it is there not once so much as called a Church. The Apostle directs two Epistles to the Church in Corinth, and two to the Church of the Thessalonians, and one to the Churches of Galatia; but to the Romans he writes thus, Ch. 1. v. 7. To all that be in Rome, be­loved of God, called to be Saints; as if they were yet Con­verts at large, without any other setled Constitution, than what was in the House of Aquila, which he there­fore calls a Church, Ch. 16. v. 5. And therefore Sal­meron, aware of it, thinks St. Paul would not call them a Church purposely, because of the Factions that were there at that time betwixt the Jews and Gentiles. Tom. 13. in Rom. 1. disp. 7. p. 299. col. 2.

But if we should grant it a Church; yet how doth that, Rom. 1. 8. prove that it was flourishing, when it's onely said there, Your Faith is spoken of throughout the whole World; and in Ch. 16. v. 19. (for I suppose that is the other place he would refer to) Your obedience is come abroad unto all Men; by which doubtless no more is to be understood, but that the Conversion of many to Christianity in that City was spread throughout the Ro­man World; and did tend much to the propagation of it, as that City was then the Imperial Seat.

[Page 12] This is the explication given of this place by some of their own Writers, viz. Rigaltius, in his Notes upon St. Cyprian, Epist. p. 78. and Tolet, who in c. 1. ad Rom. Annot. 16. call it a true Exposition, and saith it's to be understood as 1 Thes. 1. 8.

As for the Term Mother, I hope he means not that the Gospel first came from thence; for in that sense she was a Daughter, and not a Mother. And if any Church could pretend to any Authority from that consideration, it must be Jerusalem, which in this sense was the Mother of us all. But if he means thereby that she was an Ori­ginal and Apostolical Church, planted by the Apostles, or in Apostolical times (for so Tertullian useth these Words alike, lib. de praescript. cap. 21. when he calls them Matrices & Originales Ecclesiae, and again Eccle­siae Apostolicae) then such also was Ephesus in Asia, and Corinth in Achaia, &c. as Tertullian there shews, c. 32, and 36. of which Churches it will be hard for him to find any thing remaining, and which, while they did remain, he must acknowledge to have faln, and been grosly corrupted. And therefore Rome's being a Mother Church, in this sense, is no security against Apostasie, Heresie and Schism.

2. Apostasie, he saith, is a renouncing not onely the Faith of Christ, but the very Name and Title to Christia­nity. This indeed is Apostasie with a Witness; but as it is no more than a Branch or particular kind of it, so it can be no complete or true definition of it. It being just as if he should say, that Theft is the violent and forcible taking away of another Man's Goods; which indeed is the highest degree of it, and what we usually call Robbery; but there are other sorts of Theft besides; and though it be never so surreptitiously and clandestine­ly done, it is as well Theft, and a breach of the Eighth Commandment as the other. So it is in the present case; the highest degree of Apostasie is a renouncing the [Page 13] very name of Christian, the turning a Renegado, a Turk, or Jew: But that is Apostasie also, when there is a de­parture from the Faith of Christ, or from any great Ar­ticle or Articles of it. And so far a person may be tru­ly an Apostate, and yet retain the Name and Title to Christianity. I must confess, I always took those to be Apostates, whom the Apostle speaks of, 1 Tim. 4. 1. that depart from the Faith of Christ, who yet seem to have continued in the profession of it. And I am apt to believe Antichrist will be thought an Apostate; and yet it's the opinion of many among themselves, that he shall retain the name of Christian. But if this will not doe, I must refer him to the Bulla Coenae of Pope Paul the Fifth, where it's said in the first Article of it, Ex­communicamus, &c. We excommunicate and anathema­tise, &c. all Hussites, Wicklevists, Lutherans, Zuingli­ans, Calvinists, Hugonots, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, & à Christiana fide Apostatas, ac omnes & singulos alios Haereticos, &c. and all Apostates from the Christian Faith, and all other Hereticks, &c. which is doubtless spoken of such as have not, nor are supposed to have renounced the Name and Title to Christianity. So that either the Pope in one of his most solemn Bulls is mi­staken, or this Gentleman: And if we take to the for­mer, as I hope he either in modesty, or for a more im­portant reason which he is privy to, will allow, then the Church of Rome may be faln by Apostasie, though she doth retain the Name and Title, and will needs be the onely Church of Christ.

3. Heresie, he saith, is an adhesion to some private or singular Opinion or Errour in Faith, contrary to the gene­ral approved Doctrine of the Church. Before we admit this Definition, there are a great many things to be considered; as first, that the relation which he makes Heresie to have to the Doctrine of the Church, is not [Page 14] current amongst themselves. For many of them do say, that Heresie is Nihil aliud quàm Error in rebus fidei cum pertinacia, Heresie is nothing else than an Errour in the matters of Faith with obstinacy, as Sayrus acknowledgeth in his Clavis Sacerdotum, l. 2. c. 9. n. 34. and Durand is of the same mind (notwithstanding what Sayrus saith of him to the contrary) as appears l. 4. dist. 13. Q. 5. where he makes the respect which Heresie hath to the Church, to be because the Church is constituted, per uni­tatem fidei, by the unity of the Faith: So that accor­ding to these, the respect which Heresie hath to the Church, is onely from the respect which the Church hath to the Faith: And to find out what Heresie is, we must enquire not what the Church is, but what is the Faith. And if so, a Church, even that of Rome, may fall by Heresie, though she may hold the general appro­ved Doctrine of the Church. But I doubt, if we should admit the whole, and yet take it in any sense but one, viz. for the general approved Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the last Ages of it, that we shall find her guilty in this point also. Shall the Church be taken for the primitive Church three or four hundred years after our Saviour, then they are guilty of Heresie who will have the Pope to be Christ's Vicar, and to have Juris­diction over all Churches; that do maintain worshipping of Images, Angels and Saints, to be lawful and necessa­ry, &c. contrary to the general approved Doctrine of those Ages. Should we take the Church for the Church Catholick in any Age (as Cassander doth, Con­sult. Artic. 22.) that is, the Congregation of Christ's faithful people all over the World, then still Rome would fall into the same condemnation, since that she is but a little part in comparison of the whole. Should we take Church again for the Romish Church in the first Ages of Christianity, it would then also condemn it self, as I [Page 15] have before shewed. And I see no way for them, even according to this definition, (which is perfectly one of their own making) to avoid this imputation, but by stifly maintaining, that they thereby understand the Church of Rome for some Ages last past; if that will doe; and then we know where to find them, and what to understand when they talk of the Church.

4. Schism, he saith, is a departure from the Vnity of the Church whereby the Band and Communion held with some former Church is broken. This is as lame and falla­cious a definition as any of the rest. For by foisting in that word Former, which he after runs upon, he re­strains it to one particular Branch of Schism; and it's just as if he should say, A Church is an Assembly of Christians that join in Communion with each other in the City of Rome; which none will allow to be a sufficient defini­tion of a Church: For that term added, In the City of Rome, doth no more than prove that the Assembly of Christians there met is a Church; but is no definition of a Church; for then no Church could be out of the City of Rome, and every Church, if it be a Church, must be in that City, and no where else, if that be a true definition of it. So it is here, the word Former added to the definition of Schism here given, doth prove no more than that a departure from the Unity of a For­mer Church is a species and sort of Schism, but is no ade­quate definition of it. For if it is, then no Church can be guilty of Schism, that doth, how unwarrantably so­ever, refuse to hold Communion with, or doth break off from the Communion of a Church that was not a Church before it. And consequently, though the Church of Jerusalem had denied to hold Communion with any Church whatsoever, (though it were even with the Church of Rome it self,) she could not be guilty of Schism, because she was the first Church, and [Page 16] none was prior to her. And we also should be quit of that blame (if we had nothing else to say for our selves) forasmuch as a Church was founded here in Britain two years before that of Antioch; and St. Peter was se­ven years at Antioch before he presided at Rome, as Ba­ronius saith, An. 35. Num. 5. and An. 39. Numb. 23. from whom, and from which time they pretend alone to derive their Supremacy.

And now this will hold, although the Church thus separated from had given no reason or colour at all for it. For according to the definition of our Authour, it must be a Former Church which the departure must be from to make it Schism. We may indeed say, that Schism is when the Band or Communion held with any Church, is (without just reason) broken and dissolved; because all Christian Churches ought to maintain Communion with each other, where it may be had: But if so, then the Church of Rome is the most Schismatical in the World, that denies Communion with all Churches that are not in all Tridentine points one with her.

If you now, Sir, reflect upon his Scheme and frame of Arguments, you will see that they hold in nothing which he produceth them for.

For what will it signifie, if it be granted that the Church of Rome was once a most pure, flourishing Church, if she be now abominably corrupted? What if she was a Mother-Church planted by the Apostles, and watered with their Doctrine, and their Bloud, when she now preacheth another Doctrine than she was taught by them, and hath grosly corrupted that Faith which they did there establish? What if she was a Mother-Church to some other Churches, yet, that as it gives her no Authority over those whom she was not in any sense a Mother to, so even not over such as she might pretend that Relation to, when she is now not [Page 17] to be approached to, or held Communion with, with­out apparent hazard of Salvation; and is faln from those Principles and that Faith which she at their first conversion instructed them in? When she is faln by Apostasie, Heresie and Schism.

By Apostasie, as she hath forsaken the Primitive Church, and is not now what she originally was, either in Faith or Manners.

By Heresie, as she hath received new Articles of Faith, that were not such before; and so obstinately persisted therein, that she hath turned the Anathema upon all Dis­senters in those points from her. Such Articles she hath embraced, and doth now hold, as have been condemned by Councils, wrote against by Fathers, and reproved by Authority.

Some of these she was particularly charged with, and reproved for; and in others she is as much concerned, as if particularly charged, because she hath embraced those things which were by them condemned. For if the things and principles were condemned, whoever holds them is as much so condemned by that Authority, as if particularly named. As they will acknowledge, that if a Church now in Communion with them should fall off from them, she is thereby as much under the Anathe­ma of the Council of Trent, as if she had at the meeting of that Council been so far faulty, and thereby been particularly condemned.

By Schism she is faln, as she denies Communion with all other Churches in the World, whether they were so before she was a Church, or were Churches converted and established at the same time with her, or that have embraced the Christian Faith since she did. The company of such she hath left: From these Bodies she is gone forth: And these were the true Churches which she forsook. So that she will be found as often guilty of [Page 18] Apostasie, as there are particulars of Faith, Doctrine, Worship and Manners, which she is fallen from the Pri­mitive Church in. As often of Heresie, as she hath new Principles of Faith, and which the Church was not then acquainted with. As often of Schism, as there are Churches in the World, that she will not hold Commu­nion with, onely because they will not embrace those Principles, or join with her in those practices which she holds contrary to them, and with them to the Primitive Church.

And thus, Sir, I have made good, I hope, what I first undertook, and if thereby any service can be done to you or our Religion, it will be a great satisfaction to,