a part is the whole. And to be sure I never meant the church of Rome to be the Catholick church exclusively to all other churches. I am so far from any such meaning, that my constant judgment of the church of Rome hath been, that if she may be allowed still to remain a part or member of the Catholick church (which hath been questioned by some learned men, upon grounds and reasons not very easy to be answered), yet she is certainly a very unsound and corrupted one, and sadly degenerated from her primitive purity. This I must insist upon, and have obliged myself to prove; and I prove it

thus:

Sect. II. The church of Rome hath quite altered the primitive Ecclesiastical Government, changed the primitive Canon or Rule of Faith, and miserably corrupted the primitive Liturgy or Form of Divine Worship.

1st. She hath quite altered the primitive Ecclesiastical Government, by erecting a monarchy in the church, and setting up her bishop as the universal pastor and governour of the whole Catholick church, and making all other bishops to be but his vicars and substitutes, as to their jurisdiction.

For that the bishop of Rome had no such universal jurisdiction in the primitive times, is most evident from the sixth canon of the first Nicene Council, occasioned, as it appears, by the schism of Meletius, an ambitious bishop in Egypt, who took upon him to ordain bishops there, without the consent of the metropolitan Bishop of Alexandria.

The words of the canon are these: Let the ancient customs prevail that are in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria have the pow er over them all, for as much as the Bishop of Rome also hath the like custom. In like manner, in Antioch, and all other provinces, let the privileges be preserved to the churches. From this canon it is plain, that the three metropolitan bishops, or primates (they were not as yet, I think, called patriarchs) of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch, had their distinct jurisdictions, each independent on the other; and that all other chief bishops or primates of provinces, had the same privileges which are here confirmed to them. It is true, this canon doth not particularly describe or determine what the bounds are of the Roman bishop's power, as neither doth it the limits of the Bishop of Antioch's jurisdiction, but only those of the Bishop of Alexandria's province. The reason hereof is manifest, the case of the Bishop of Alexandria only was at this time laid before the synod, whose jurisdiction in Egypt had been lately invaded by the schismatical ordinations of Meletius, as I before observed. But that the Roman bishop's power, as well as that of the other metropolitans, had its bounds, is most manifest from the example that is drawn from thence, for the limits of other churches. For what an absurd thing is it, that the church of Rome should be made the pattern for assigning the limits to other metropolitan churches, if that church also had not her known limits at the same time when this canon was made!

Intolerable is the exposition which Bellarmin, and other Romanists, give of these words of the canon; for as much as the Bishop of Rome also hath the like custom; i. e. (they say), "It was the custom of the Bishop of Rome to permit, or leave to the Bishop of Alexandria, the regimen of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis." Certainly, tro Cuves 'as implies a like custom in the church of Alexandria, and in the church of Rome; and the sense of the canon is most evident, that the Bishop of Alexandria should, according to the ancient custom of the church (not by the permission of the Roman bishop), enjoy the full power in his province, as by the like ancient custom, the Bishop of Rome had the jurisdiction of his. But they that would see this canon fully explained and cleared from all the trifling cavils and exceptions of the Romanists, may consult the large and copious annotations of the learned Dr. Beveridge, Bishop of St. Asaph, upon it, where they will receive ample satisfaction.

Thus was the government of the Catholick church, in the primitive times, distributed among the several chief bishops or primates of the provinces, neither of them being accountable to the other, but all of them to an Ecumenical Council, which was then held to be the only supreme visible judge of controversies arising in the church, and to have the power of finally deciding them. Hence the case of the Bishop of Alexandria, before-mentioned, was not brought before the Bishop of Rome, or any other metropolitan, but referred to the fathers of

the Nicene Council, to be finally determined by them.

The universal pastorship or government of the Catholick church, was never claimed by any bishop till towards the end of the sixth century, and then it was thought to be challenged by John, Patriarch of Constantinople, assuming to himself the title of Ecumenical or Universal Bishop; whom Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, vehemently opposed, pronouncing him the forerunner of Antichrist, who durst usurp so arrogant a title. And it is worthy observing how passionately the same Gregory expresseth his detestation of the pride and arrogance of the Patriarch of Constantinople, in his letter to Mauritius, the Emperour: "I am forced to cry out, "O the times! O the manners! All things in "the parts of Europe are delivered up to the power "of barbarous people. Cities are destroyed, cas"tles demolished, provinces depopulated, &c. and 66 yet the bishops, who ought to have lain prostrate the ground, covered with ashes and weeping, even they covet to themselves names of vanity, " and glory in new and prophane titles." And yet this name of vanity, this new and prophane title of Universal Bishop, was afterwards accepted by Boniface III. Bishop of Rome, when it was offered him by that bloody miscreant Phocas the Emperour; and the same title hath been owned by the succeeding bishops of the Roman church, and that as due to

Greg. lib. 4, epist. 32.

them by divine right. Indeed, it may be questioned whether John of Constantinople, by assuming the title of Ecumenical bishop, meant that he had an universal jurisdiction over all other bishops and churches: but this is certain, that Gregory opposed the title under this notion; this appearing abundantly from his *Epistle to John the Patriarch; and it is as certain that under the same notion the Bishops of Rome afterwards assumed that title, and do claim it to this day. Nay, the universal pastorship and jurisdiction of the Roman bishop over all bishops and churches, is now no longer a mere court opinion, maintained only by the Pope's parasites and flatter-' ers, but is become a part of the faith of the church of Rome; it being one of the articles of the TrentCreed, to which all ecclesiasticks are sworn themselves, and which, by the same oath, they are obliged to teach the laity under their care and charge, as hereafter will appear. So that now there is no room for that distinction, wherewith some have soothed and pleased themselves, between the church and court of Rome; for the court is entered into the church of Rome, or rather the court and church of Rome are all one.

Sect. III. 2. The Church of Rome hath changed the Primitive Canon, or Rule of Faith, by adding new articles to it, as necessary to be believed in order. to salvation look to the Confession of Faith, according to the Council of Trent. It begins indeed,

* Lib. 4, epist. 38.