France Spain or the interjacent Islands but Peter the Apostle or those which he or his Successors have ordain'd Priests so that 't is in vain for our Author to presume that England after so many Ages teaches otherwise and to affirm that this Testimony of Innocent doth not comprehend the British Churches De Marca understood Innocent quite in a different sense supposing that the British Islands were understood by the Islands mention'd by Innocent the Reason is because Innocent did not mention by name those Islands of the Mediterranean Sea which lye between Italy France and Africa but only mentions the interjacent Islands in general under which the British Islands adjacent to France and partly interjacent might and if we will believe antient Writers ought to be comprehended For from them it appears as is before prov'd that the Churches in the British Islands were instituted if not by Peter the Apostle or by Preachers sent by him yet at least by the Priests which his Successor Eleutherius constituted 9. Thus have I answer'd the Objection concerning Matter of Fact and now proceed to the Second which the Author urges against the Reason drawn from the Matter of Fact. Innocent so manifestly concludes from the Institution of the Western Churches that they ought to be subject to the Roman Patriarch that our Author confesses it cannot be denied Yet saith he let that be granted what connexion is there between receiving the Doctrine at first by those who came from thence and an Obligation to be subject to the Bishops of Rome in all their Orders and Traditions He asks the Reason of this Connexion let him hear it from Christ who would not have his Apostles to preach through the World unless they were sent for being about to ascend into Heaven he spake to them in these Words as we find in the last Chapter of Mark Go ye into all the World Mark. Chap. Last and preach the Gospel to every Creature And let him answer the Apostle Paul thus asking in his Epistle to the Romans For how shall they preach unless they are sent Epist to the Romans Doth not the Apostle here affirm that Mission is necessary in order to preaching of the Gospel Ought not all to acknowledg that there ought to be a special Authority when Churches are to be instituted by preaching and Priests and Bishops to be ordain'd So the Apostles having receiv'd Power from Heaven undertook to instruct the World by their preaching and dividing amongst themselves the Regions of the whole Earth instituted Churches of which those only obtain'd Patriarchal Dignity in which Peter either by himself or by Mark his Disciple had placed Sees He himself presided at Antioch where he erected a See which govern'd the Eastern Patriarchate He sent Mark the Evangelist his Disciple to Alexandria whose See there erected constituted a Patriarchate which in St. Athanasius's time extended its Borders as far as India interior Carolus à S. Paulo in Geographia Sacra For as Carolus à S. Paulo in his Geographia Sacra truly observes This Custom prevail'd amongst the Ancients that the Provinces which were converted to Christianity should remain subject to that Patriarch by whose Industry and Vigilance they were first converted and so Aethiopia and India interior appertain'd to the See of Alexandria because Frumentius being sent thither by St. Athanasius preach'd the Gospel instructed the People in the Faith and ordain'd their Bishops as Ruffinus testifies he had learned from Aedesius So that it ought not to seem strange to us that the See of Rome should have obtain'd the Patriarchate of the West since the Prince of the Apostles chose that City for himself and instituted Churches throughout the West and no other Apostle ordained Bishops or Priests there but he reserved this Power to himself and his Successors This therefore is the Connexion between the receiving of their Doctrine from those which were sent from Rome and the Subjection of such who were converted by them which had their Mission from the Apostolic See because those Churches owe their Institution to the special Authority of the Roman Bishop so that Innocent the First rightly said that the Churches which had their Institution from the Apostolic See ought not to attend to the Instruction of Strangers but to consult the Roman Bishop * Ne caput Institutionum videantar omittere least they might seem to omit a chief point of their Institutions 10. The Author obviates this argument p. 68 by asserting from antient Tradition out of Notkerus Notkerus Balbulus 8 Calend. Junii Author p. 59. that Lucius after he was converted leaving his Kingdom converted all Rhetia and part of Bavaria to the Christian Faith by his Preaching and Miracles If so saith our Author the British Church on the account of King Lucius his converting their Country hath as much Right to challenge Superiority over Bavaria and Rhetia as the Church of Rome hath over the British Church on the account of the Conversion of Lucius by Eleutherius The first words of the Author here are to be observed If so saith he so that he seems very much to doubt of the truth of the thing Neither can it be said that the matter of fact is evident for whether we consult Regino Abbas Prumiensis Hermannus Contractus Sigebertus Gemblacensis or other German Historians Or Galfridus Monemuthensis Mattheus Westmonasteriensis and other English Writers these latter write that Lucius died in Britain the former do not tell us that he Preach'd the Gospel in Germany and there suffer'd Martyrdom And if we look into the more ancient Martyrologies we shall not find one word in them of Lucius his dying in Germany Venerable Bede may be consulted who hath nothing either at the Third of November or any other day concerning this matter Also a more ancient Martyrology of the Western Church attributed to St. Jerom lately Printed at Lucca makes no mention of Lucius his being buried in Germany An old Martyrology set forth by Rosweidus since Baronius died no where makes mention of Lucius King of England his being the Apostle of Bavaria and Rhetia Nor is he remembred in the Martyrologies of Rhabanas Maurus Vsuardus and Ado Viennensis And Notkerus is the first of all men who hath made mention of the Apostleship of Lucius in a Martyrology who notwithstanding doubted whether Lucius King of England were the Apostle of Bavaria and Rhetia or some other Holy man named Lucius Whether saith he ad 5. Kal. Jun. it was he that was heretofore King or whatsoever servant of God it was So that the thing was doubted of in Germany it self where Notkerus wrote Notkerius in Martyrologio Sive Rex quondam ille sive quicunque servus Dei fuerit even in Notkerus his time And if it were another Lucius and not the King of England who was Apostle of Bavaria if I mistake not our Authors argument for Englands Authority over Bavaria falls to the ground which
the English Author which are here summ'd up together with the Truths by which they are confronted that the Reader may observe them all at one view THE ERRORS Which are Confuted in this DISSERTATION ARE Here set down together with the TRUTHS Confronting them ERRORS TRUTHS ERRORS 1. THat Peter rather Preached the Gospel in Britain than Gaul depends upon slight Testimonies viz. Those of Simeon Metaphrastes the Legendary Writers or the Monkish Visions Origines Britannicae chap. 1. p. 45. TRUTHS 1. That St. Peter preached the Gospel in Britain depends upon the the Testimonies of Eusebius Innocent the first Gildas the Wise John the V. Kenulphus King of the Mercians and Metaphrastes chap. 1 2. Of this Dissertation ERRORS 2. That St. Paul declared the Faith to the Britains is had from the Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Eusebius Theodoret and St. Jereme who in his Commentary upon the 5 chap. Of the Prophet Amos says that St. Paul having been in Spain went from one Ocean to another and that his diligence in Preaching extended as far as the Earth it self chap. 1. p. 37. TRUTHS 2 The Testimonies of Clement Eusebius and Theodoret either relate not at all to Paul's coming into Britain or else may be equally understood of Peter and Paul's coming thither St. Jerome upon the 5. Chapter of Amos says that Paul was called by the Lord to go from Jerusalem even to Spain and to take his course from the Red-Sea and even from Ocean to Ocean which does not signisie that he preacht the Gospel from the Spanish Ocean to the British Ocean but from the Arabic Ocean which is adjacent to the Red-Sea to that Ocean which washeth upon the Spanish Coasts chap. 1. num 4. ERRORS 3. When Sulpitius Severus asserts that Martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul in the time of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus the Christian Religion being more lately receiv'd beyond the Alpes he relates the former of these things as certain the latter as doubtful chap. 2. p. 55. TRUTHS 3. Sulpitius Severus lib. 2. Historiae saith that the fifth Persecution was carried on under Aurelius the Son of Antoninus and that then Martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul the Christian Religion being more lately received beyond the Alpes He relates both these things as equally certain neither doth he doubt more of the latter than of the former chap. 1. num 6. ERRORS 4. Lucius King of the Britains sent his Embassadors to Rome as to the place whither as Irenaeus argues in the like case resort was made from all places because of its being the Imperial City so saith our Author chap. 2. p. 69. TRUTHS 4. St. Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. asserts not of the Roman Imperiality but of the Roman Apostolical Church that it is necessary that all Churches that is the Faithful from all parts resort to it by reason of its more powerful Principality So that King Lucius sent his Embassadors to Pope Eleutherius at Rome by reason of the Principality of that Church and upon no other account chap. 1. num 9. ERRORS 5. The Council of Arles in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Sylvester have writ who holdest a greater Diocese For so that place is to be read chap. 2. p. 83. chap. 3. p. 130. TRUTHS 5. The Council of Arles in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Sylvester set forth first by Pythaeus afterwards by Sirmondus from the Gallican M. S. S. say who holdest the greater Dioceses and so that place is to be read chap. 4. ERRORS 6. It is doubtful whether the distribution of the Empire into Dioceses were made by Constantine at the time of the Council of Arles and it seems more probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice Dioceses not being mentioned there but only Provinces Chap. 3. p. 130. TRUTHS 6. In the time of the Nicene Council Constantine in his Epistle to all the Churches makes mention of the Pontic and Asian Dioceses so that it is not probable but plainly false that in the time of the Council of Nice there was no mention made of Dioceses For in the time of the Synod of Arles the name of Greater Diocese was known as even our Author himself confesses whilst he affirms that instead of Greater Dioceses we ought to read Greater Diocese Chap. 4. ERRORS 7. The Authority of publishing Easter-day in all parts which the Council of Arles in its first Canon allowed as the right of the Bishop of Rome was taken away from him by the Nicene Council which committed this Affair to the Bishop of Alexandria Chap. 2. p. 84. TRUTHS 7. The Authority of publishing Easter-day in all Parts was not taken away from the Bishop of Rome by the Nicene Council the burdensom charge of computing Easter-day was laid upon the Bishop of Alexandria by the Nicene Fathers the Authority of proposing the certain day to the Churches was left to the Roman Bishop Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria in the Preface to his Paschal Cycle says that the Patriarch of Alexandria ought to intimate Easter-day every year by his Letters to the Roman Church from whence by Apostolic Authority the Universal Church might know without any further dispute the determin'd day of Easter throughout the whole World. Which Rule seeing they had observ'd for many Ages c. Chap. 4. ERRORS 8. The Council of Nice in the fourth and fifth Canons hath established the Authority of Provincial Synods as Supreme the Securing of which the Fathers have provided for in the sixth Canon neither did they acknowledge any Authority to be above that of a Metropolitan Chap. 3. p. 100. c. TRUTHS 8. The Council of Nice in the fourth and fifth Canons never so much as dream't of the Supreme Authority of Provincial Synods and hath acknowledg'd in the sixth Canon that the Patriarchal Power of the Bishops of Rome Alexandria and Antioch was Superior to that of Metropolitans Chap. 5. ERRORS 9. The sixth Nicene Canon decrees that the Bishop of Alexandria hath Power over Aegypt Libia and Pentapolis because the Bishop of Rome had a like custom But the likeness did consist in this that as the Roman Patriarch hath no Metropolitan under him so there was no other Metropolitan in all Aegypt but the Metropolitan of Alexandria Chap. 3. p. 104. TRUTHS 9. Before the time of the Council of Nice there were Metropolitans subject not only to the Patriarch of Antioch but likewise to the Patriarch of Alexandria S. Athanasius and S. Epiphanius declare Meletius to have been an Archbishop before the Nicene Council so that the parallel between the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome mentioned by the Nicene Council did not lye in this that neither of them had Metropolitans under them Chap. 5. ERRORS 10. That the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Pishop was confined to the Suburbicarian or Neighbouring Proviâ—ces and that the Roman Bishops First began to Usurp the Provinces of Illyricum by constituting the Bishop of Thessalonica as his Vicar after the Second
Head but also Autocephalic that is under its own proper Jurisdiction only and subject to no Patriarch from the time that the Faith first began to be planted there till the coming of Augustine the Monk. There are therefore two things which the Author hath undertaken to prove against me one that the Bounds of the Roman Patriarchate ought to be restrain'd so as not to extend to Britain the other that the Hierarchy of the English Church which acknowledges no Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan is Ancient 'T is chiefly for the Proof of these things the Author hath made use of his utmost Endeavours Industry and Ability not treading in the Foot-steps of the Ancients but walking in new Paths which lead from the Truth as I shall endeavour briefly to shew in this Dissertation For whereas this Author hath brought those things for the Proof of his Opinions which have been lately invented partly by him and partly by Launoy I thought it might be profitable to lay them before you and to shew in the following Discourse how far different they are from the true Discipline of the Church from the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers from the Decrees of Councils and from the Sense of all Antiquity I shall therefore divide this Dissertation into six Chapters in the four first of which I shall alledg those things which relate to the Origin of the British Church and the Patriarchal Rights over it in the two last I shall examine those things that the Dean of St. Paul's hath written to prove that the Metropolitical Authority is Supreme and confute them by the Testimonies of those very Authors which he alledges He thought that the Patriarchal and Papal Authority was unknown to the British Church in the six first Ages and that this was manifestly prov'd from the Answer of Dinoth the Abbot and the Sayings of the Monks of Banchor I shall shew that there was no doubt at all made concerning the Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome but that Britain did venerate the Authority of the Apostolic See from the time that King Lucius First embraced the Catholic Religion till the breaking in of the Saxons and the coming of Augustine the Monk. And when I shall have made this appear from several Monuments of the British Church and by the Histories of that Nation I shall conclude with an Exhortation to the Ministers of the English Church in which I shall plainly shew them how far those Err from the Truth who think that the Church fail'd thoughout the whole World and was afterwards found by a few Persons in a narrow Corner of the Earth I shall bring the Testimony of Optatus Milevitanus wherein he reproves the Donatists for the like Error because they heretofore reduc'd the Catholic Church to a small number and confin'd the large Extent of Kingdoms as it were to a narrow Prison I shall bring other Testimonies of the Ancients by which it will appear that the true Church is to be found diffused throughout the whole World because it is Catholic and that it is one because it agrees in the Society of one Communion under One visible Head and that none can obtain Salvation who is either divided from that Head by Schism or separated by Heresie So that St. Jerom did not write by way of Exaggeration as a certain Person of late hath rashly given out but truly to Pope Damasus I saith he following none but Christ in the first place do consociate in Communion with your Beatitude that is the See of Peter I know the Church is built upou that Rock Whoever eats the Lamb out of this House is prophane If any one is not in the Ark of Noah he shall perish when the Deluge reigns CHAP. I. That the British Church was instituted either by St. Peter or his Successors 1. The Opinion of an English Author who contends that the British Church was instituted by Paul rather than Peter The Testimony of Gildas the wise is not alledged by him it may be because he foresaw that it proved the Institution of the British Church by Peter 2. The Testimony of Eusebius brought out of Metaphrastes by which it appears that the British Church owes its Institution to Peter The same thing is proved by Metaphrastes asserted by John V. and affirmed by Kenulphus King of the Mercians 3. The Testimonies of Eusebius Theodoret and S. Jerome are produced out of which the Author is confident he shall clearly prove that the Islands scituated in the Ocean were first instructed in the true Faith by Paul. 4. The foresaid Testimonies of Eusebius are weighed the two former of which make nothing for Paul's coming into Britain rather than Peter's and the third of Jerome intimates not that Paul preach'd the Faith from the Spanish to the British Ocean as our Author believes but from the Arabic to the Spanish Ocean which is nothing at all to the purpose 5. The Testimony of Clemens Romanus is cited in which it is asserted that Paul came to the Borders of the West it is not said that he came to Britain 6. The Opinion of Launoy who questions the Authority of this Epistle of Clemens is disapproved of and the Testimony of Severus Sulpitius is brought wherein it is said that the Religion of God was received more lately beyond the Alpes and the distinction of our Author for avoiding the difficulty mov'd from the Testimony of Severus is rejected 7. Venerable Bede agrees with Severus Sulpitius whilst he puts us in mind that King Lucius was converted to the Faith about the time Sulpitius tell us that the Faith was receiv'd beyond the Alps with whom Tertullian seems to concur in Opinion who liv'd almost at the same time that Luclus King of Britain was converted under Pope Elcutherius 8. Other Testimonies of the Ancionts concerning the Conversion of King Lucius are brought likwise the Opinion of our Author concerning the Embassie that Lucius sent to Pope Eleutherius at Rome viz. That this Embassie was sent to Rome because it was the Imperial City as he asserts out of Irenaeus 9. The Testimony of Irenaeus is cited and it is shewed that our Author miss-interprets him Irenaeus asserts that all the Faithful ought to consent to the Roman Faith not because of the more powerful Principality of the Roman City but of the Roman Church The Emperor Honorius 's Testimony concerning the Principality of the Imperial Seat and the Principle of Priesthood's being establish'd at Rome the Authority of Augustin is added who tells us that the Principality of the Apostolic See ever prevail'd at Rome which when our Author denies he opposes a manifest Truth IN treating concerning the Antiquities of the British Church its Primitive Institution is to be enquired after which Modern Writers have attributed to divers Apostles and divers Disciples of Christ I have not leisure to recite all their Opinions in this Dissertation but shall only weigh that of our Author who to exclude the
concerning that matter from which Canon it is infer'd Canon 1. Concil Arelat that the Fathers of the Council of Arles did refer the Decree concerning the observation of Easter day to Sylvester as likewise it appears from their Synodical Epistle that they refer'd the rest of their Canons to the same Bishop in which Epistle they write in express words Epistola Synodicà Patrum Arclatensium Placuit etiam antequam à te qui majores Dioeceses tenes per te potissimum omnibus insinuari The Learned have often noted that these words which are cited are not intire but that there are some wanting they have therefore bestowed their pains and industry in restoring of them as I have shew'd in the second part of Antiquitas Illustrata Dissert 1. cap. 7. art 4. where I have produced the following emendation of Cardinal Peron and of Francis Archbishop of Rouen Peronius Franc. Rothomagensis Placuit etiam haec juxta consuetudinem antiquam à te qui majores Dioeceses tenes per te potissimum omnibus insinuari It hath seemed good unto us that according to the ancient Custom these things should be intimated to all from you and chiefly by you who hold the Greater Diocess There are two things which these most Learned men correct in the forementioned Citation one of which hath relation to the Adverb antequam before the other to the words per te by thee and they have shew'd us that there was question made only concerning those words which were either depraved or omitted in the foresaid Authority and not about those which seem'd to be truly delivered But we find that our Author hath a different sense of the thing whilst he thinks fit also to correct those words which are truly written for page 83. he asserts that it was true which the Fathers of the Council of Arles said that the Pope had a larger Diocese where he alters these words Qui majores Dioeceses tenes who possess Greater Dioceses and instead of majores Dioeceses Greater Dioceses puts the word Dioecesis Diccese in the Singular number contrary to the Testimony of the Synodical Epistle 2. Indeed the altering of this one Word might seem to be of small moment had it not chang'd the whole sense of the Words and overthrown the Power of the Roman Patriarch over many Diocesses of the Roman Empire which was acknowledged here by the Fathers of the Council of Arles For the Confirmation of this Truth we are to call to mind that that was wont to be call'd a Diocess in old time in the Roman Empire which contain'd several Provinces according to which account the ancient Notitia Imperii was written before the time of Arcadius and Honorius relates that there were five Diocesses under the Praefectus Praetorii of the East viz. those of the East Antiqua Imperii notitia ante Arcadii Honorii tempus conscripta of Aegypt of Asia of Pontus and of Thrace two viz. of Macedonia and Dacia under the Praefectus Praetorii of Illyricum three viz. Italy Illyricum and Africa under the Praefectus Praetorii of Italy lastly three under the Praefectus Praetorii of Gaul viz. Spain the Seven Provinces and Britain From whence it plainly appears that the Roman Empire was divided into thirteen Diocesses under four Praefectus Praetorii five of which Diocesses appertain'd to the East the remainder to the West But whether the Fathers of the Council of Arles had well perused this Notitia Imperii or whether they had an account of the Diocesses elsewhere they wrote from a Western Council to Sylvester Patriarch of the West in these Words Patres Arclatenses Epist Synod ca. Qui majores Dioeceses tenes who holdest the greater Diocesses to signifie that he did not preside over one Diocess but many Diocesses to wit all those which were comprised within the bounds of the West And since the Matter is so who does not see that this might have displeased our Author and given him occasion to change the Text. For since his Opinion concerning the restriction of the Bounds of the Roman Patriarchate is overthrown by this one Testimony of the Council of Arles it is likely he was desirous to read only Dioecesim Diocess instead of Dioeceses Diocesses that so he might infringe the force of this Argument For so he who as presiding over many Diocesses did extend his Patriarchal Authority even to Britain obtaining by this means only a Power over the Diocess of Italy would be restrained within the bounds thereof 3. And that this is that which our Author hath endeavour'd to obtrude upon his Party by changing the Text of the Council Pag. 130. he sufficiently discovers when he again mentions the Synodical Epistle of the Fathers of the Council of Arles But as to the Expression of Majores Dioeceses it is saith he very questionable whether in the time of the Council of Arles the distribution of the Empire by Constantine into Diocesses were then made and it seems probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice Diocesses not being mentioned there but only Provinces and if so this Place must be corrupt in that Expression as it is most certain it is in others and it is hard to lay so great weight on a place that makes no entire sense But allowing the Expression genuine it implies no more than that the Bishop of Rome had then more extensive Diocesses than other Western Bishops which is not denied Our Author here clearly explains his Mind who that he might some way or other prove the Text to be corrupt brings some reasons for his way of reading of it which must be here weighed And first he hints to us that the Empire was distributed into Diocesses under Constantine the Great before the time of Arcadius and Honorius yet that this seems to have been done after the time of the Nicene Council so that the Fathers of the Council of Arles could not make mention of the Greater Diocesses It is very questionable saith he whether in the time of the Council of Arles the distribution of the Empire by Constantine into Diocesses were made and it seems more probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice Diocesses not being mentioned there but only Provinces But our Author is greatly mistaken adding one Error to another and whilst he speaks in this manner plainly shews that he hath not well perused the Acts which were published in the time of the Nicene Council For in the Epistle of Constantine concerning the Observation of Easter on one and the same Day throughout the whole World which he wrote at the very time of the Nicene Council there is mention made not only of divers Provinces under the Name of one Region but likewise the Diocesses of Pontus and Asia are expresly named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constantinus Magnus Epist ad omnes Ecclesias The Asian saith he and Pontic
Church and receded as Schismatics from the center of Ecclesiastical Communion What else can we conclude but that God was willing to shew the falshood of the Schismatical Church of Britain by the Miracle which he wrought upon Augustine's intercession Do not the Acts of the British Synod recorded in Bede testifie that Augustine did by so manifest a Miracle demonstrate the truth of those things which he proposed to the Britains that they were forc'd to confess it was the true way of Justice which Augustine Preach'd If these things cannot be denied as it is most certain they cannot what do the modern English Authors mean when they object against Catholics the answer of the Britains and the Monks of Banchor Will they not at length be convinc'd that they oppose nothing but their own Errors which are the vain Forgeries of Men against that Truth which hath been confirm'd by a Divine Testimony and that the rest of the Church hath just reason to condemn them for having lost both Truth and Modesty at the same time I am weary of vainly spending my time in matters so clear so manifest so perspicuous and of being again forc'd when Religion is the subject to bring a new Evidence of that Truth which all the English Writers of former Ages all men that have been eminent in Britain for Sanctity and Learning and lastly even the Bishops who have been present in the several Councils that have been held in England Scotland and Ireland have acknowledg'd and defended I will therefore conclude my Discourse with the following Exhortation AN EXHORTATION TO THE MINISTERS OF THE English Church WHen Philo the most Eloquent of the Hebrews address'd his Oration to Caius the Emperor Philo in Oratione pro Gente Hebraeorum ad Caium Caligulam and the Roman Senate How long saith he shall we old Men be Children as to the Body gray indeed through Age but as to the Mind through want of Knowledge very Infants whilst we believe Fortune the most inconstant thing in the World to be stable but Nature to be unstable whereas it is most constant Pardon me I beseech you most excellent Ministers of the English Church if I make my Address to you in the Words of Philo tho somewhat alter'd How long will you who are ancient in Body be Children in Minds and meer Infants for want of knowledg of Religion whilst you think the Catholic Church unstable which is yet most constant and your own which is rent from the Body of the Catholic Church will be stable You have chang'd the true Estimate of things attributing that to a part which is only the Property of the whole and imagining with your selves that the Catholic Church is defectible Matthaei 16 cap. 1. ad Timoth 3. which the eternal Truth hath promised shall never fail and which the Doctor of the Gentiles hath called the Pillar and Ground of Truth You thought that the true Faith was lost in the Catholic Church spread over the Face of the whole World but found again by you in England little considering how truly that Objection might be made against you which Henry the Eighth your King in the Age before this made against Luther that like the Donatists you reduce the Catholic Church to a very small number whispering of Christ in a Corner It was the Judgment of the great Augustine and of St. Optatus Milevitanus Optat. Melcvit Lib. 2. contra Parmenianum Quasi in carcerem latitudo Regnorum that the Church was not to be shut up in some Corner but to extend it self to the utmost Bounds of the World the latter of these Holy Fathers Lib. 2. reprehends Parmenianus the Chief of the Donatists for endeavouring to make void that Promise of God the Father of giving to the Son the uttermost parts of the Earth for his Possession whereas he had confined the large Extent of his Dominions as it were to a narrow Prison Then he asserts the Church that it may be Catholic ought to be extended to all parts of the World and that the first Mark to distinguish it by was Vnity which consists in the Communion it holds with St. Peter's See which is but one and this he believ'd so manifest that he thought Permenianus himself could not deny it Negare non potes inquit loco supracitato Stire te in Vrbe Roma Petro Primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse callatam in qua sederit emnium Apostolorum Caput Petrus undè Cephas appellatus est in qua una Cathedra uni as ab â—mâ—â—bus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent ut jam schismaticus peccater esset qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collâ—caret Ergo Cathedra unica que est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus enumerata longa Romanorum Pontificum serie usque ad Siricium sub quo scribebat Siriâ—â—us inquit hodie qui noster est Sociuâ— cum quo nobis totus Orbis commercio formatarum in una Communionis Societate concerdat You cannot deny saith he in the place above cited but that you know that the Episcopal See of the City of Rome was granted to Peter as the Chief in which Peter the Head of all the Apostles sate from whence he was called Cephas in which one See Unity was to be preserved by all least the rest of the Apostles should claim a Superiority to any of their Sees So that now he would be a Schismatic and a Sinner who should set up another See in opposition to this peculiar See. Therefore in this one See only which is its chief Dowry Peter first sate to whom Linus succeeded and so reckoning up a long Series of Roman Bishops till he came to Siricius in whose time he wrote who saith he is our Fellow-Bishop with whom the whole World agrees as we do in one Society of Communion by intercourse of Communicatory Letters There was then a true Church in time past which diffused throughout the whole World made Peter's one See the Center of its Vnity and communicated with the Roman Church as a Sign of one Faith and Religion by Communicatory Letters This was the Sentence of Optatus Milevitanus and the rest of the Fathers which because the Donatists durst not deny they had constituted a Bishop of their own in the City of Rome who as St. Augustine tells us was called Rupensis and Montensis a Rupe vel Monte from the Rock or Hill wherein he conceal'd himself If therefore the Popes Authority was so manifest in former Ages that the Schismatical Affricans themselves could neither be ignorant of it nor deny it how comes it to pass that you in England now do not at all acknowledg it was perhaps the Knowledge of it so obliterated in the latter Ages that it could not be discovered by your Ancestors when they separated from the Communion of the Apostolic See Henricus Octavus libro de 7.