menical, and was as much as any of the others. «e pag. 24. «

L. Generally, do you fay, Sr? You should have faid Univerfally by all Chriftian Churches in the World, except the Eutychians. But as to your Saying, that it was as much a General Council as any other, Really, Sr, this is Expofing yourself too much. For the noble Council, you are pleafed to patronize, was in all Antiquity to infamous for the Violences and Barbarities committed in it, that it never deferv'd any better Character, than that of Latrocinium Ephefi num: that is, the Band of Ephefian Rioters and Affa fines.

G. But what a Thing is it to say that a Council « is partly Right, and partly Wrong? pag. 24. «

L. Or rather what a Thing is it to make a Wonder of it? Unless you mean, that a Council legally fembled, and truly General, should in Deciding Matters of Faith be partly Right, and partly Wrong; which indeed is impoffible, and was never thought of, much less maintain'd by any Catholick Divine. But that an Affembly, which was legal at first, should by a Separation from it's Head, and the greatest Part of it's Members become illegal afterwards, yet continue to ftile itself a General Council, I think is no fuch strange Thing as you make it. Nay 'tis the very Cafe of the Council of Bafil: which therefore may properly be call'd a Concil, that was partly Right, and partly Wrong: like the long Parliament, which was Right at first, but very Wrong in the End.

G. But who is Judge of the Right or wrong of « fuch Councils? Is there any Certainty in this, far « lefs Infallibility? pag. 24. "

L. Sr, the Church of Chrift is the Judge of it; as I have already told you, And St Austin calls is a Point of the most infolent Madneß not to submit to her Judgment.

6.201 » G. But we must have an infallible Method too to preferve the Acts of the Councils, that they be not adulterated, as Bellarmin fays they have been: » And they continue fo to this Day in the Volumes of the Councils. Why then are they not amen»ded, and these Suppofititions and adulterated Parts

thefe are Bellarmin's own Words) ftruk out? "But the feveral Editions of their own Councils are " in the Hands of other Churches, and therefore they » can make no Alteration in them without being » detected. pag. 24. 25.

L. I dare fwear, Śr, this is not Bellarmin's Reafon, why they are not amended. But I can give you a good Reafon for it. viz. Because they, who put forth the Councils, were not of Bellarmin's Opinion. And therefore Judging the Acts, which he calls Suppofititions (tho they regard no Matters of Faith, as I have told you) to be Genuine, thought fit to make no Alteration in them, but left them as they found them.

As to the Method of Preferving Councils from Corruptions; I prefume the fame Method, which fuffices to preferve the Bible, will likewife fuffice to preferve the Councils from being corrupted.

"G. My Lord, the Scheme of Infallibility, which "you place in Councils, ftands thus. The Church of "Rome makes herfelf the Univerfal or Catholick » Church: in fo much that all, who are not of her » Communion (which are by far the greatest Part of "Chriftian Churches in the World) are out of the "Pale of the Catholick Church. And Schifmaticks and

Hereticks are no Part of a Catholick Council. Thus a fmall Part of the Latin Church (exclufive of the » Greek, and all other Churches ) are the whole C4tholick Church. And these little Party-Councils under the Direction of the Pope are Univerfal and Infal 22 lible. pag. 25.

§. 21.

A General Council is the Reprefentative of the
Catholick Church only.

Muft own, Sr, the pleasant Scheme you have drawn for me, is a good Proof of your admirable Skill in Romancing, as the following plain Account of the naked Truth will testify.

Chrift has establish'd a Church on Earth, which in the Creed is call'd the Catholick or Universal Church, tho it never was, and perhaps never will be the Charch of all Nations in fuch a Manner, as to have the Univerfal World all at once in her Communion. He conftituted St Peter Head of this Church, when at the third Apparition after his Refurrection he gave him a Commiffion diftinct from what he had given to the Apoftles in Common at his firft Apparition. And, fince the Form of Church-government establish'd by Chrift was not to End with St Peter, his Succeffors chosen by the Church hold the fame Station as he did, and Rome is their Epifcopal See. Hence it is that the Church in Communion with the See of Rome, that is, with the Succeffors of St Peter, who are call'd Popes, is the Church establish'd by Christ, and, by Confequence, the Catholick Church profefs'd in the Creed.

This Church admits no Hereticks or Schifmaticks into her Communion: And indeed a Catholick Heretick or Schifmatick is a Chimera unheard of in Antiquity. So that let them be as numerous as they pleafe, they are out of the Pale of the Catholick Church, and can have no other Place in a Catholick Council than fuch as Criminals have in a Court of Judicature. And thus it is, that the Church in Commu

nion with the See of Rome (exclufive of all Hereticks and Schifmaticks) is the whole Catholick Church: and fuch Councils, as are true Representatives of this Church, are General, and Infallible in all their Decifions relating to Matters of Faith.

Let me tell you, Sr, this plain Scheme will stand it's Ground against yours in Spite of all the artful Mifreprefentations you have crouded into it, efpecially that, which is the Foundation of your whole Sham-fcheme, viz. that the Church of Rome makes herfelf the Univerfal or Catholick Church. For you either mean the Dioceẞ of Rome, and then what you say is falfe. Because tis manifeft the Dioceß of Rome never pretended to be the whole Catholick Church. Or you mean the whole Church in Communion with the See of Rome, and then you are guilty of Mifreprefentation in Saying that this Church makes herself the Catholick or Univerfal Church. For she do's not make herself, but Chrift, who conftituted St Peter, and his Succeffors the Heads of his Church, has made her the Catholick Church.

» G. My Lord, I have shewn, that the Church of Rome has no Right to the Title of the Latin Church »itfelf, far lefs of the Univerfal. And she has now

but a fmall Part of the Latin Church left her. The » Reform'd with Russia, and the Greek Church will out» number her in Europe. And she has no National » Church in her Communion any where elfe. And, » tho there be fome in her Communion in moft » Countries, there are not fo many as of the Jews,

who by that are more Univerfal than your Church, and fo more Catholick. And none of the shatter'd » Seminaries of Rome in other Chriftian Churches can be faid to reprefent thofe Churches in a General » Council more, than three or four Bishops in England could reprefent the Church of England as ic

now ftands. But on the Contrary their living in a « feparate Communion in other Chriftian Churches « shews thefe Churches not to be of her Commu- « nion; and therefore cannot be reprefented in any a of their Councils and these calling themselves « Oecumenical, as the Roman Empire did shews only, « how little Criticisms upon Words will avail against « plain Matter of Fact: which I have shew'd to be « the Cafe as to those Texts urged for the Supremacy ce of St Peter. And that if Words would do it, there a are more nay and Facts too for the universal Supre- « macy of St Paul, at leaft over all the Chriftian Chur- a ches of the Gentiles, which are all now in the World. « pag. 25. 26. «

L. Sr, you neither have shew'd, nor ever can shew, that the Texts urged for the Supremacy of St Peter are meer Criticisms upon Words; unless you can prove that the Ancient Fathers, I have produced, did only trifle with Words; and deliver'd not in their Writings the publick, Faith of the Church in their Times. For all, that had Occafion to write upon that fubject, urged thofe Texts for the Supremacy of St Peter. And I defy you to name me one Father, who ever urged either one fingle Text or Fact for the Supremacy of St Paul. And how then can you imagine, that any Man will believe you, when you fay, there are more Texts and Facts for St Paul, than St Peter? Let me tell you, Sr, once more, this is an Argument you can never answer.

However I find two Things true in the Harangue you have made; which is a kind of Miracle. 1. That Papifts living in a feparate Communion in Proteftant Coun tries shews thofe Churches not to be of their Communion. Which is just as much to the Purpose, as if had told me, that English Papists are not English Proteftants. And adly, that Proteftant Churches cannot be

you