And if they should pretend to withdraw their Subjection, he would not be fatisfy'd with their Telling him, that fince their Churches are Elder than his, he rather breaks off from them, than they from him.

I shall conclude this Matter with a Dilemma, which is decifive against you. The principal Article, which the Greeks objected against the Latins was, their having inferted into the Nicene Creed, that the Holy Ghoft proceeds from the Father and the Son. And this is likewife profefs'd in your sth Article of Religion. The reft were all trifling Things relating to Difcipline.

Now then after the Breach between the two Churches either the Church of Rome adhered to the Ancient Faith, or not. If not, you must renounce the sth Article of Religion, and the Nicene Creed into the Bargain. If she did, then the Church of Rome remain'd where she was before, and by Confequence the Greek Church broke off from her.

I

§. 16.

The Greek Church formerly own'd the Pope's SuPremacy.

Come now to the 2d notorious Falsehood afferted by you, viz, that neither the Greek Church, nor the Churches of Afia, nor Africa, nor Ruffia ever acknowledg'd the Pope's Supremacy. I wonder Amevica was not put in to make up the Number. For when a Man's Hand is in, he ought to go thoroughftitch.

However you have managed the Matter craftily enough in Setting the Churches of Afia, Africa, and Ruffia upon feparate Bottoms as if none of them

A

your

were a Part of the Greek Church whereas by that
Church is properly meant the whole Collection of
Churches under the Furifdiction of the 4 Eastern Pa-
triarchats: the firft whereof, viz. Conftantinople is in
Europe, and the Primate as well as other Bishops of
Ruffia are under it's Jurifdiction. The 2d, namely
that of Alexandria is in Africa; and the two others
of Antioch and Jerufalem are in Afia. So that
Saying that neither the Greek Church, nor the nu-
merous Churches of Afia, nor the famous Churches
of Africa, nor the Great Church of Ruffia ever own'd
the Supremacy of Rome is the fame ridiculous Gafco-
nade, as if any one should say, that neither the
Church of Great Britain, nor the numerous Churches of
England, nor the Church of Scotland, nor the famous
Churches of Wales own the Pope's Supremacy.

But this little Politick Stratagem was needful to fet off the Number of our Enemies, by a Shew of Bringing all Afia, Africa, and Ruffia befides the Greek Church into the Field against us: tho in Reality a great Part of the Churches of Africa, when they were Chriftian Churches were under the Jurifdiction of the Patriarch of the Weft. And thus the true English of this pompous Catalogue of Churches is little more than Saying; that the Greek Church never own'd the Pope's Supremacy. The manifeft Falfehood whereof I shall now demonftrate from several unqueftio, nable Historical Facts.

First, in the famous Caufe of St Athanafius Bishор of Alexandria, the fecond Patriarchal See of the Greek Church; concerning which Theodoret gives this Account. The Eufebians wrote the Calumnies they had forged against Athanafius to Julius Bishop of Rome. But be according to the Canons both commanded the Eufebians to come to Rome, and apointed Athanafius a Day to have bi Canfe tried. Theod. L. z. Hift, C. 3. Tom. 3. p. 586.

6.16. The fame is attefted by the Pope's own Letter related by St Athanafius. For (fays the Pope) Athanafius did not come of his own Accord, but as cited, and having received our Letters. In Apol. Adv. Ari. §. 29. P. 148.

Relating to the fame Matter the Greek Hiftorians Socrates and SoZomen tell us, that both St Athanafius, and other Oriental Bishops being accused by the Eufebians, and violently deprived of their refpective Sees were restored by the Authority of the Bishop

of Rome.

Sozomen speaking of Marcellus, Afclepas, St Lu cius Bishop of Adrianople, and St Paul Bishop of Con ftantinople fays, the Bishop of Rome having taken Cogni fance of their Caufe, received them into his Communion. And becaufe, BY REASON OF THE DIGNITY OF HIS SEE, THE CARE OF ALL BELONG'D TO HIM, be reStored them to their respective Bishopriks. Soz. L. 3. C. 8. P. 507.

And Socrates writes thus. When Athanafius, Paulus, Afclepas, Marcellus and Lucius had open'd their Caufe to Julius, he ACCORDING TO THE PREROGATIVE OF THE ROMAN SEE, fent them back into the Eaft with the Protection of his Letters, and restored to each of them his See. L. 2. C. 15. p. 91.

Here we fee the Supreme Ecclefiaftical Authority exercifed by the Bishop of Rome: acknowledg'd by the Arians themfelves, fubmitted to by the two first Patriarchs, and other Bishops of the Eaft, and finally attefted by three Greek Hiftorians. And can you then fay, the Supremacy was never own'd by the Greek Church?

I prove it fecondly from three of the four first General Councils. In that of Conftantinople none but 0riental Bishops were prefent: Yet the Fathers of that Council in their Synodical Letter to Pope Damafus

thank him for Calling them to a Council as his Mem Abers: And Damafus in his Anfwer ftiles them his moft honourable Children. Apud Theod. L. S. Hift. f. C. 9. 10.

In the General Council of Ephefus Pope Celeftine's for Legate told the Council that his Majter was their Head, and the Succeffor of St Peter, whofe place and Authority the Bishop of Rome held. Againft which not one in the Council made the leaft Objection. Act. 2. ET. 3. Conc. p. 619. Act. 3. p. 626.

5:

Laftly, the General Council of Calcedon in it's Synodical Letter to Pope Leo, after having told him, that they were an Affembly of 520 Bishops over whom he had prefided as HEAD, they complain of the Infolence of Diofcorus Patriarch of Alexandria in these Terms. Moreover he let loose his Madneß even against be him, who was by our Saviour entrusted with the Care of C the Vineyard; that is, against your Apoftolical Highness. And they conclude with defiring the Pope to honour their Judgment with his Decree. Conc. Calced. in Epift. ad Leonem. Tom. 4. If this be not Owning the Pope's Supremacy, no King was ever own'd by his Subjects. And 'tis to be observed, that these are three of the four General Councils approved and received by the Church of England.

E

Add to all this the above-mention'd Teftimony of St Gregory declaring it to be a Thing, which no Body doubted of, viz. that Conftantinople was fubject to the Apoftolick See. L. 9. Epift. 59. p. 976. And both St Cyprian and St Auftin two African Bishops, whom I have already quoted for the Supremacy both of St Peter and his Succeffors, are authentick Witneffes, that the Affrican Churches acknowledg'd both the one and the other.

§. 17.

Whether the Church in Communion with the See of Rome never was one Half of the great Body of Chrif tians in the World?

G.

Ut your Lordship has not yet taken any Notice of my Saying, that the Church of Rome neither is, nor ever was one Half of the great Body of Chriftians in the World.

L. Sr, that's the third Falfehood I have accused you of. And I shall obferve certain Epocha's of Time in Order to make good my Charge, and place it in the clearest Light.

First then, when St Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, which was 15 Years after St Peter had fix'd his Epifcopal Seat at Rome, 'tis undeniable, that the great Body of Chriftians all the World over was in Communion with that See. For otherwise he could not have told them, that he thanked God, for that their Faith was spoken throughout the whole World. Rom. 1. V. 8. And tho there were feveral Herefies broach'd in the three first Centuries, the great Body of Chrif tians was always clofely united to the Bishop of Rome as to it's Head: Witnefs St Irenaus, who wrote in the 2d Century thus. For to this Church by Reason of it's most powerful Principality it is necessary that all Churches have Recourfe, that is, the Faithful on all Sides. L. 3. C. 3. 'Tis therefore false that there never was a Time, wherein the Church in Communion with the See of Rome was one Half of the great Body of Christians in the World.

2. The first great General Council of Nice was certainly in Communion with Pope Sylvefter. And was that Auguft Affembly the Representatives of not