Skip to main content

Full text of "The successive visibility of the church of which the Protestants are soundest members"

See other formats 


^ 

J 

Si 

6 

£ 

^*»                       ■ 

3 

cd 

SB          ft 

_l 

ta 

r- 

«            g 

ti 

-»-' 

w            O 

k. 

3 

^           g 

to 

W                 M 

o 

^       « 

■P 

5«              *»•              ?> 

+■*       & 

_0> 

.a 
3      3      % 

**£ 

~o 

o 

CJ 

&i 

>* 

** 

Vf 

4£ 

'<#) 

Sc 

£ 

11  ISO 


y       ~~^  \the  atui'k' 

Succeffivc  VI 


Jricc? — e-F    THE     3^ 

CHURCH 

OF 

Which  the  Protestants 

v    are  the  founder!  Members. 

I.  Defended  againft  the  Oppofidon  of 

Mr.  William  febxfcr,. 
I L  Proved  by  many  Arguments, 


By  Richard  (Baxter. 


Whereto  is  added*    I.  An  account  of  my  judgment  to 

Mi .  J.  boTvf.u  Heretic  fa  aie  or  are  not  in  the  Church. 
2.  &tr.  ]'.  Explication  of  the  moft  uftd  terms  ^    with  my 

Qh'ic'j  thereupon,  and  his  An  fivers  and  my  'Qeply* 
2.  /in  Appcndi- about  fuccejfive  Ordination. 
~  Lett  1 1  i  between  me,  and  T.  S.  a  lJapift>  with  a  Narrd- 

tive  of  the  fuccefs. 


LONDON, 

Printed  by  J?.  W.  for  Nevil  Simw oris  Book- 
fejler  in  Kederminfter,  and  are  to  be  fold 
by    Francis  Tjton  at  the  thred 
Daggers  in  fleet- ftreet.  1660. 


V 


i 


CD 


The  Preface. 


Reader, 

F  thou  meet  me  at  the 
threfholdwich  a  '  W7;;zt 
need  any  more  agair,jl  P 
perj  then  is  written  ?  I 
mull  anfwer  thee,  \  No 
need,  if  all  that  is  alrea- 
dy written  ,  were  im- 
proved. Nor  were  there  need  of  any 
writings,  if  men  would  not  renounce  they: 
common  fenfes.  We  cannot  hope  or  pre- 
tend, by  any  writings,  to  bring  any  contro- 
verfieto  a  plainer,  becter  if  tie,  then  to  re- 
folve  it  by  the  judgement  of  the  common 
fenfes  of  all  the  world;  and  yet  this  doth 
not  end  the  controversies  between  us  and 
the  Papills  ^  whether  Bread  be  Bread,  and 
Winebz  trine  7whzn  they  are  fcen,felt,taft- 

A  3  cd, 


(O 

ecL  &c.  But  foine  writings  are  ufcfuU  to 

awake  men  to  the  ule  of  JReafcn^rA  to  help 

them  to  improve  their  other  helps.     And, 

as  Seveca  laith,  JMuttum  cgcrmt  qui  ant* 

nos  fnerunt  •,   fed non  $ereger##t  :  fvfeifi- 

endi  tarxen  funt~]  Though  I  thought!  had 

jfaid  enough  before  in  three  or  four  former 

writings,  yet  the  weight  of  the  Q^ueftion 

here  debated ,  and  the  common  ule  thats 

made  of  it  by  the  Papifts,  have  perfwaded 

me,   that  this  alfo  will  be  ufefull  to  the 

Church. 

And  I  rnuft  confefs  the  moderation  and 
ingenuity  of  the  Gentleman  that  I  contend 
with,  did  not  only  tempt  me  into  the  un- 
dertaking at  the  firft  ,  but  alfo  did  incline 
my  thoughts  to  a  publication  ^  there  being 
here  'noftinking breath  to  annoy  anddriyg 
away  the  Reader.     I  have  learned  by  expe- 
rience, that  its  only  prudent,  charitable, 
ftlf-denying,  humble  men,  that  are  fit  to  be 
engaged  in  controversies.     We  bring  fire 
to  Gun-powder,  when  we  deal  with  proud 
malignant wrerches,  (fuch  as  I  havelately 
had  to  do  with,)  that  have  fouls  fofbr- 
faken,and  confidences  fo  feared,    as  that 
they  feemto  make  malicious  lies,  their  glo- 
v  and  delight.    Seme  think  that  the  eon- 
'tending  with  fuch,  i$a  needfully  though  an 

unfavoury 


(3) 

mfavoury  work  :  I  confcfs.a  Lyar  Is  not  to 
be  encouraged,  nor  our  juft  reputation  to 
be  prodigally  caft  away,  or  con  tempt uoufly 
neglefted.  Duo  funt  necejfaria^  faith  Ah- 
guftine,  ConfclentU  &  fama  :  Confcientia 
propter  Deum  •  fama  propter  proximum* 
But  for  our  /elves  ,  Gods  approbation  is 
enough  j  and  for  others  ,  if  Duty  fatisfte 
them  not,  contending  will  not. 

JSacchdt  bacchanti  Ji  veils  adverfarier , 
Ex  injana  infanioremfacies^  ferietftpus, 
faith  Plaut. 

If  Truth  make  blinded  men  our  enemies, 
and  the  performance  of  our  duty  be  our 
greateft  crime, and  no  purgation  be  lefc  us 
but  by  becoming  erroneous  or  'ungodly  ,  its 
not  worth  our  labour  to  word  it  with  fuch 
men.  Pride  and  Malice  hearken  not  to 
Reafon  ;  Apologies  will  not  cure  the  envy 
of  a  Cain  y  or  the  pride  of  a  Diotrephes , 
or  thehypbcrifie  and  perfecuting  fury  of  a 
Pharifee.  But  (  as  Auguft. )  Confcientiam 
walam  laudantvs  prtccnium  non  fanat^ncG 
bonam  vulnerat  convitiurn.  3  Praife  healeth 
not  an  ill  Conscience  ^  and  reproach  cannot 
wound  d  goodone.  Confcience  refpefts  a 
higher  tribunal.  Could  a  Calumniator  be 
believed,  it  were  a  imall  thing  to  be  judge- 
cd  by  man  :  and 

A  4  CwfcU 


(4)  ' 

ConfcU  mens  rcfti  famt  n  fikteia  ridet. 

But  when  they  make  themselves  theob- 
Jefts"  of  the' common  companion  or  deri- 
iion,  they  fpare  me  the  labour  of  a  con- 
futation; Its  enough  to  fay  with  thePhilo- 
fopher,  £  Ego  fie  vivam^ut  nemo  Mi  credat~] 
\l  will  fo  .live  \  that  no  man  (hall  believe 
him  •,  3  when  they  themfelves  will  fo  He 
that  no  man  (  or  next  to  none  )  fhall  be- 
lieve them.  Its  a  far  more  neceffary  and 
profitable  employment,  to  oppofe  our Jins 
then  om  accufers^  and  to  fee  that  we  are 
blamelefs,  then  that  we  are  fo  refuted :  and 
to  efcape  the  testations  of  Satan  y  rather 
then  the  calumnies  of  his  instruments.  Its 
better  this  wind  offend  our  cars,  then  guilt. 
fhould  wound  our  hearts.  'Penalty  is  hea- 
vier then  injurious  perfecution,  tccaufeof 
its  relation  to  guilt ;  but  culpability  it  fe!f 
is  worfe  then  both. 

Jt&tia  potefi  demi;  culpa  perennis  crlt. 
Afcrs  fackt  certe,  uefim  ,    cum  veneriv^ 
exul. 
fSlenon  peccdrew,  mors  qmq^  nonfaciet, 


*- 


.  nd  even  when  God  hath  fully  pardoned 

us. 


(3) 

u$i  LittiYii  fatten  extat.  A  foul  that  knows 
the  evil  of  fin  ,  and  feeth  by  fcith  the 
dreadful!  Majefty  -,"  and  the  judgement  to 
which  he  muft  'ftartd  or  fall,  is  taken  up 
with  greater  cafe*,  then  the  defence  of  his 
reputation  with  men  -  except  as  Gods  ho- 
nour, or  the  good  of  fouls  may  be  concern, 
ed  in  it. 

Another  thing  that  encouraged  me  to 
this  engagement  was,  that  my  Antagonift 
feemed  exceeding  defirous  of  a  dofe  fyl-lo- 
giftical  way  of  arguing,  which  put  me  in 
hope  of  a  fpeedier  and  better  ifTue,  then 
with  wordy  wandring  Sophifters  I  could 
expert.  I  never  liked  ,  either  the  feafts 
that  confilt  of  fawce  and  ceremony  with 
little  meat-,  or  the  bawling  rooks,  th^t 
will  not  receive  a  bit  without  a  troubisfcme 
noiie 

SedtticitHS  pafci  ft  pojfet  ccrviis^  hrferet 
Phis  3ia6U%  &  ?ix*  multo  minus:  inyHi&b\ 

Nor  the  prodigal  covetoufnefs  thatturns 
the  Cock  when  none  requireth  it  {  and 
plucks  up  the  flood-gates,  and  fets  the  mill 
%  going  when  there  is  no  grift^  omnia  vnlt 
diccre,  &  nihil  at'.dirc. 

V/hen  words  are  too  cheap.it  either  proves- 

them 


(O 

them  worthlefs,  or  makes  them  fo  efteem- 
cd.  Ihzfentencc  of an  Orator,  and  the  ve- 
ry Syllables  of  a  Difputant  fhould  be  (hort. 
There  (hould  be  no  more  dijhes  then  are  ne- 
.ceflary  for  the  meat:  nor  no  more  ftraw 
then  isneceffary  tofuftain  the  grain.  Fru- 
gality of  fpeecb?  and  ferinonem  habere  rebus 
paremjdojhtw  and  wake  our  fpeeches  valu- 
able. Truth  would  be  adorned ,  but  not 
covered  :  attended,  but  not  crowded ;  pro- 
claimed, but  not  buried  in  an  heap  of  words. 
Arguments  are  like  money,  that  is  valuable 
according  to  the  mettal  and  the  weight, 
and  not  according  to  the  number  of  pieces, 
or  curiolicy  of  the  ftamp. 

And  a  third  thing  that  made  me  the 
willinger  to  this  task  ,  was  ^  that  the 
aflaults  of  Juglers,  that  thought  to  catch 
me  under  the  names  and  mask  of  Seekers, 
Behmenifts,  and  fuch  other  fe&s,  had  pof 
fefled  me  with  fo  much  indignation  and 
diftafte ,  that  I  was  glad  to  meet  with  a 
bare-fac't  Papift,  that  was  not  afhamed  of 
his  Religion,  but  would  profefs  himfelf  to 
be  what  he  is.  I  could  never  hear  that  the 
Papifts  won  fo  many,  and  fo  confiderable 
perfons  this  threefcore  years,  by  open  deal- 
ings I  have  caufe  to  think  they  have  won 
by  fraud  under  the  vizor  of  Seekers,  and 

Sectaries, 


(7) 

Sectaries,  within  a  few  years  paft.     I  fear 
no  papifts,  but  Proteftant  Papifts,  chat  come 
to  Church,  and  take  the  paths  of  Suprema- 
cy and  Allegiance,   as  many    did   the  en- 
gagement but  a  while  ago-,  or  that  wear 
feme  other  vizor  of  diffimuiation.   Hypo- 
crifie  is  nowhere  fo  odious   as  in  Religion, 
where  men  have  to  do  with  a  heart  fetch- 
ing God,  and  deal  in  matters  of  everlafting 
confequence.     He  hath  no  Religion  ■,   that 
thinks  it  his  duty  to    lie  for  his  Religion, 
For  he  hath  no  Religion  that  believeth  nc 
in  God.     And  he  that  believeth  him  to  be 
a  Lover  of  Lies,   believeth  not  that  he  is 
God.     Verba  (inq.  Auguft.y  propterea  In- 
ftituta  fi*nt ,  non  pit  per  ea  fe  invicem  homi- 
nes fallant^  fed ut  eit  qnifque  in  rtteriu*  no- 
ticiam  cogitationes  f  Has  prof erat ,~\  Verbis  ergo 
uti  adfa/laciam,  non  adqnod  fant  inftituta^ 

feccatum  eft.  — -*- Lvnge  tamen  tclera- 

bilius  eft)  in  his  qua,  h  religione  fidei  fejun- 

lUzfunt  mentiri,  quant  in  his,  &c. 3_Truth 

is  great,  (and  the  greateft  advantage  to  a 
Difputant:)  and  willatlaft  prevail.  Ly- 
ing is  a  remedy  that  needeth  a  remedy  •  eaf- 
ing  for  the  time  by  palliation,  but  much 
increafmg  the  difeafe.  "  Magna  eft  viis 
Veritatis  quA  contra  omnium  ingenla,  calli- 
ditatem  >  fohrtiam,    contra  fiftas  hominum 

injidias. 


(S) 

infidias,  facile  fe  per  iff  am  defendit  y  faith 
Seneca. 

Three  Queftiojis  about  Pppe&y  bayeput 
thewqrldto.much  difpute,,  Qu.  i".  whe- 
ther it  b$  the  tight  jwd  .fafe  j  Religion  ? 
2.  V/hethwit  may  he  folerapcAi  .  -.5.  TV/??- 
fAffi  it  be  our  dutytb  enter , intp.recmciUation 
and  communion  with  the  Papift,  (though  not 
iubjeCtionJ  andon  what  terms? 

The  firft  I  have  debated  m  this  and  divers 
oeh^r  writings ,  (  viz.  three  Disputations, 
called  the  fafe  Religkn,  a  Key  for  Catholikes, 
&:c.  awhrtding'JJjeet  for  Popery,  and  the  true 
Cathohke,  and  Cathe like  Church  dijeribed.) 
It  is  one  of  the  reproaches  of  humane  na- 
ture, that  ever  it  could,  be.  corrupted  into  f  j 
fenflefs,  unreafonable.,  impious,  uncharita- 
ble a  thing  as  Popery  :  And  one  of  the  pro- 
digies of  mifery,  in  the  world,,  that  any  fave 
one  that  Inguinis  &  capitis  qua  fmt  difcri- 
minanefcit,  ihould  be*iully,  and  feriouflya 
Papift. 

But  four  things  I  find  are  the  pillars  of 
their  Church,  and  propagates  their  corru- 
ptions.- 1.  One  is  the  love  of  themfelves 
and  of  the  world  in  unfan&ified  hearts : 
which  makes  them  be  of  the  Religion  of 
their  Rulers  ;  and  refolve  to  be  of  no  Re- 
ligion that  fliall  undo  them  in  the  world : 

And 


(9) 

And  therefore  to  efcape  reproach,  and  tor- 
ment, and  death, they  will  do  any  thing,  and 
as  they  fpeak^wilffrtf/?  God  with  their  fouls, 
rather  then  men  with'  ~  their  bodies  :  The 
meaning  is,  they  will  rather  venture  on  the 
wrath  of  God,  thenoffadh^  and  fave  their 
bodies,  then  their  fouls ;  ahd  fecure  this  life 
(as  long  as  they  can)  then  life  everlafting. 

2.  Another   is"  Cuftom    and  Education , 
poflefling  men  with'  blinding  ftupifying  pre- 
judice ,  together  with.  a' contempt  of  truth 
and  happineft ,  that  keepeth  fluggifh  fouls 
from  that  diligent  fearch  and  tryal  that  is 
neceflary  to  a  conqueft  of  that  temptation, 
and  to  a  faving  entertainment  of  the  truth. 
And  the  name  and  reverence  of  their  fore- 
fathers, emboldeneth  them  againft  the  name 
and  reverence  of  God.    Adeb  ct  teneris  tffu- 
efcere   multum   efi.      Saith   Seneca ,    inter 
caufas  malar um  eft  quodvivimus  ad  exempla, 
nee  ratione  componimur,  fed  confuetudine  ab- 
ducimurJ    Qfod  ft  paucifacerent,  nclumus 
imitari  ;  quum plures'facere  caperunt,  qua  ft 
honeftiiu  fit,  quia  frequentius  fequimur,  & 
retti  apud  nes  locum  ten'ef  error,  ubi  publicus 
fattm  eft.    Not  what  God  faith,    but  what 
wan  doth,  is  made  the  rule  of  this  humane 
apifh  kind  of  Religion.     And  fo  the  Tyrant 
Cultom  ruleth  them  ;   £t  graviffmum  eft 

imperiam 


do) 

imperium confuetudinis^  Senec.  Education 
difciplina  meres  facit :  &  id  fapit  mpifquif- 
que  quod  didicit  :  Id. 

3.  Another  caufe  is  fuperftitious  fears 
which  the  falfe  doftrins  of  Purgatory,  and 
no  falvation  out  of  their  Church,  &c.  have 
cart  into  mens  minds.  The  Priefts  rule  their 
fubjefts,  as  one  of  their  Captains  ruled  the 
Thracians,  by  making  ladders,  and  making 
tnem  believe  he  would  climb  up  to  Juno  to 
complain  of  them. 

4.  And  it  is  not  the  leaft  fupport  of  Po- 
pery, that  it  maketh  light  of  heynous  fins, 
is  fornication,  drunkennefs,  fwearing,  for- 
fwcaring,  lying,  equivocation,  &c.  and  pro- 
videth  for  them  the  eafie  remedies  of  con- 
feflion,  and  fuch  gentle  pennance  as  the  fa - 
gacious  tradable  Prieft  fhall  impofe.     But 
holy  water  will  not  wafh  out  their  fpots. 
God  judgeth  not  as  the  pope  or  Mafs  Prieft. 
Let  no  man  deceive  you  ^ith  vain  words  :  for 
fuch  things  t  (as  fornication,  uncleannefs^  fil- 
ihinefs,foolijh  talking,  &cj  cometh  the  wrath 
cf  Cjod  on  the  children  of  dif obedience,  Eph.  5. 
3,5,6.  For  all  the  flatteries  of  indulgences, 
and  pardons,  and  the  name  of  Venial  fin,  yet 
tonfeience  hath  not  pardoned  all  that  is  par- 
doned by  the  Pope,  And, 


Prima 


prima  eft  h*c  Piltio,  quodfe 
ftidice  nemo  weens  abjolvitur 


And  its  no  great  eafc  to  have  an  external 
pardon,  and  neither  an  Eternal ,  nor  Inter* 
%*l  ^  but  Nctte  diequefuum  geftart  inpeBore 
teftew.  How  many  nuift  be  damned  by 
Chrift ,  that  were  pardoned  by  the  Vice- 
chrift. 

£lt4.  2.  And  for  the  fecond  Queftion, 
about  the  Toleration  of  Popery,  let  him  that 
defireth  it,  but  procure  a  Toleration  of  the 
Proteftant  Profeffion  in  Spain,  Italy,  Bava- 
ria, j4t<firia,&cc-  and  tnenl  undertake  to 
give  him  a  fatisfa&ory  anfwer  of  this  que- 
stion. In  the  mean  time,  I  fhall  only  fay  as 
Seneca,  Nemo  ex  imprudent  thus  eft  qui  relin- 
<qui  ftbi  dekeat  :  cfpccially  men  that  re- 
nounce all  their  fenfes  and  reafen  fo  far,  as 
not  to  believe  that  bread  is  bread,  and  wine 
is  wine,  fhould  not  be  left  without  a  guar- 
dian. But  in  general,  we  muft  on  one  hand 
avoid  inhumane  cruelty  (  and  leave  them 
tbo/e  means  that  are  fuited  to  their  caufe.-,) 
and  on  the  other  hand  we  muft  take  heed 
that  we  betray  not  the  Gofpel  and  the  fouls 
of  men,  to  the  fubtilty  and  pernitious  fraud 
of  trained  deceivers.  We  muft  vigilantly 
and  firenuoufly  defend?   though  we  muifc 

tenderly 


(I*) 

tenderly  dnd  fparingly  offend,   any  further 
-then  is  neceffary  to  fuch  defence. 

^^.  3.  And  for  the  third  queftion,  a- 
bout  Reconciliation,  I  have  fpoken  to  it,  and 
offered  the  terms  in  other  writings  (elpeci- 
ally  my  Kcjfor  Catholikes)  I  only  add  now, 
that  the  Peacemakers  no  doubt  ere  buffed-, 
and  if  it  be  y.trlfiklejM  much  as  in  its  Ijetb^  we 
muft  live  peaceably  withallmen.  But  for  the 
terms,  we  cannot  poflibly  meet  every  cor- 
rupted party  half  way  in  their  fins  and  "er- 
rors, that  we  may  be  friends.  Let  us  hold 
to  the  immutable  fttfficiettt  Rale ,  indited  by 
the  HdyGhofi,.  and  judge  of  all  that  fiygrye 
from  it,  according  to  the  degree  of  elixir 
deviation,  and  unite  in  the  ancient  fimpUcity 
of  Do&rine,  Worfhip  ,  and  Government, 
and  lay  our  unity  only  on  things  neceffary  • 
lor  whofoever  devifeth  any  other  Rule  and 
terms  of  unity  then  thefe,  {hall  never  attain 
it,  but  raife  up  a  new  Se&,  and  encreafe  our 
wounds.  I  am  as  much,  for  unity  as  ever 
wasCajfander,  Erafmus^Grotim^  or  any  of 
the  Reconcilers ;  Buc  I  am  certain  that  to 
fubferibe  to  the  Trent  Decrees  and  Greedy 
and  to  turn  Papift ,  or  Semi-Papift,  or  par- 
ticipate of ;  any  fin  for  peace,  is  not  the  way, 
Ler  fpme  plead  for  all  the  Greek  corrupti- 
on^ arnd  fome  for  the  Popes  fupremacy.  re-, 

gulated 


(13) 

gulatcdby  Canons  •  and  fomefor  his  meer 
Primacy  as  frincifinm  ttnitatis ,  and  his 
Government  of  all  the  Weft  as  Parriark^ 
let  them  digladiate  about  a  Pope  and  Coun- 
cil, as  wifely  as  Greece  and  Troy  did  fight  ten 
years  for  a  beautiiul  whore  ^  1  am  fure  that 
none  of  thefe  are  the  way  to  the  Churches 
Unity  and  peace  (as  1  have  opened  in  my 
defcription  of  the  true  achohke  Church) 
Nor  will  their  deiign  be  more  futceffefuL 
that  would  fo  difcordantiy  agree  us  all  wuh 
the  firit  three  hundred  years,  as  to  d.ny  the 
firft  hundred,  or  two  hundred  to  be  our  pat- 
tern, and  to  make  all  the forms  and  ceremo- 
nies to  beneceflary  toour  concord,  which 
the  third  or  fourth  Century  ufed  but  as 
things  indifferent,  with  diveriity  and  muta- 
tion, and  mutual  forbearance. 

But  of  the  terms  of  Catholtkj  Vnitj,  I 
havefpoken,asinthe  forecited  papers,  fo  in 
a  Pacificatory  Letter  of  the  XVurcefterfhire 
Mirny  ers  to  Mr.  J.  Dury  :  and  if  God  will, 
ftiall  do  it  yet  more  fully. 

And  of  the  evils  in  Popery,  that  move 
me  to  diftaft  it,  having  given  a  BrevUte  in 
an  Epiftle  before  another  mans  Book, 
which  I  perceive  isfeen  of  very  few,  I  (hall 
here  annex  fo  much  of  that  Epiitle,  as  is  per- 
tinent to  the  prefent  bufinefs. 

(  a  )  Ruder  s7 


(14) 


Readers, 

"\  j\  ;  Ere  not  the  Judgements  of  God  fo 
V  *  dreaaf till,  and  infatuation  fo  lamen- 
table In  matters  of  ever  I  a  fling  confequence  , 
and  fin  fo  odious ,  and  the  calamities  of  the 
Churchy  the  di (honour  of  God,  and  the  Dam- 
nation of  Souls  fuch  deplorable  things ,  as  to- 
lerate not  a  laughter  in  the  flanders  by ,  it 
would  feem  one  of  themofl  ridiculous  things 
in  the  World,  that  a  man  of  feeming  Vrifdom 
fljould  be  a  Papift-,  and  that  fo  many  Princes , 
and  learned  then  ,with  the  vulgar  multitude \ 
Jbould  be  able  fo  far  to  renounce  or  intoxi- 
cate their  Reafon  while  they  are  awa^e  ;  , 
And  a  Papift  would  be  defcribedjo  be  one  that 
fets  up  his  under  ft  andingto  be  the  laughing- 
fi0CK  °f  the  fober  rational  World.  There 
are  abundance  of  Controverfies  among  Phy- 
fitians  that  concern  mens  lives  ;  and  yet  I 
have  heard  of  none  fo  vain^as  to  fief  forth  and 
challenge  the  Authority  of  being  the  univer- 
fal Decider  of  them,  or  to  charge  God  Vvitb 
felly  or  everflght,  if  he  have  not  appointed 
fome  fuch  univerfal  Judge  in  the  World,  to 
end  all  (fentrcverftes  in  matters  of  fuch 
weight.     But  if  in  Phylick's,  Law,  cr  any 

of 


of  the  Sciences, the  C  ontr  over  fie  sjhould  be  ne- 
ver fo  many  or  fo  great ,  if  jet  you  could 
refolve  them  into  fenfe  it  felf,  and  bring  atf. 
to  the  judgement  of  mens  eyes,  and»ears,  and 
tafte,  andfeeling,who  would  not  laugh  or  bits 
at  him  that  would  fiill  make  them  the  matters 
offcrious  doubts} 

The  papift?  finding  that  man  is  yetimper- 
fett,  and  knoweth  but  in  part,  and  that  in  the 
Sc  ripture  there  are  lome  things  are  hard  10 
be  understood,  and  that  Earth  hath  not  fo 
much  Light  as  Heaven ,  imagine  that  hereby 
the j  have  a  fair  advantage  to  plead  for  an 
univerfal  terrcfirial  Judge,  and  to  reproach 
God,  if  he  have  appointed  none  fuch  ,  and 
next  to  plead  that  their  Pope  or  his  approved 
Councils  wufi  needs  have   this  Authority. 
And  when  they  come  to  the  Decifion^  they  are 
not  afvamed  to  fee  after  fo   many  hunared  * 
years  pretentions, that  the  World  is  but  baffled 
with  the  empty  name  of  a  Judge  ofConcro- 
verfies,  and  that  Difficulties  art  no  lefs  Dif- 
ficulties fiill,  and  Controversies  are  nowhere 
fo  voluminous  06  with  them.      But  this  is  A 
fmall  matter  with  them.     Thtir  Judge  feems 
much  wifer  when  he  is  filenty  then  when  he 
fpe*kj-     When  he  comes  to' a  Deeifun,  a>,>J 
formethuptheribj  the  Hodge-podge  of  Po- 
pery, they  feem  mt  to  fmile  at,  nor  be  afiamed 

(ai)  cf 


m* 


do 

of  the  Pitture  which  they  have  drawn^which 
isy  of  an  Harlot  fhewing  her  nakednefs,  and 
committing  her  lewdnefs  in  the  of  en  AJfem- 
blies,  in  the  ficrht  of  the  Sun.  They  openly 
proclaim  their  {hame  againfi  the  light  of  all 
the  acknowledged  Principles  in  the  World, 
their  owner  others,  and  in  oppojiti&n  to  ally 
or  almoft  all  that  is  commendable  among  men. 
The  charge  feems  high,  but  ( in  afeV9  words) 
take  the  proof. 

J.  They  confefs  the  Scripture  to  be  the 
Word  of  God :  find  yet  Vvhen  we  would  appeal 
to  that  as  the  Rule  of  Faith  and  Life,  or  as  a 
divine  Revelation,  in  our  Difputes,  they  fly 
off,  and  tell  us  of  its  obfeurity,  and  the  necef- 
ftty  of  a  fudge.  If  they  meet  with  a  Hoc  eft 
corpus  meum,  they  feem  for  a  while  to  be 
zealous  for  the  Scripture  :  But  tell  them 
that  Paul  in  i  Cor.  1 1 .  26, 27, 28.  doth  call 
it  Bread  after  the  Confecration,  nolefs  than 
three  times  in  the  three  next  Verfes,  and  then 
Scripture  isnon-fenfe  to  them  till  the  Pope 
wake  fenfe  of  it.  It  is  one  of  their  principal 
labours  againfi  us,  to  argue  againfi  the  Scrip- 
tures fufftciency  to  thisufe.  By  no  means  can 
we  prevail  with  them  to  ft  and  to  the  Decijion 
of  the  Scripture. 

2.  They  exceffively  cry  up  the  Church3  and 
appeal  to  its  Decijion  ;  and  therefore  we  might 

hope, 


07) 

hope,  that  here  if  anywhere  ,  we  might  have 
fome  hold  of  them.  But  -when  it  comes  to 
the  Point  ^they  not  only  difownthe  judgement 
of  the  Churchy  but  impudently  call  Chrift's 
Spoufe  a  Strumpet,  and  cut  off  (  in  their  n>%  - 
charitable  imagination)  two  or  three  parts 
of  the  univerfal  Church  as  Hereticks  or  Schif- 
maticks.  The  judgement  of  the  Churches 
in  Armenia,  Ethiopia ,  Egypt,  Syria,  the 
Greeks,  and  many  more  be  fides  the  Reformed 
Churches  in  the  Weft,  is  againfi  their  Popes 
univerfal  Vicarfhip  or  Soveraignty  ,  and 
many  of  their  Errours  that  depend  thereon  : 
And  yet  their  judgement  is  not  regarded  by 
this  FatHon.  And  if  a  third  or  fourth  part 
(  fuchas  it  is)  of  the  Univerfal  Church, 
way  cry  up  themfelvei  as  the  £hurch  to  be 
appealed  to, and  condemn  the  far  greater part \ 
Vvhy  may  not  a  tenth  or  a  twentieth  part  do 
the  like  ?  Why  may  not  the  Donariits ,  the 
Novatians,  or  the  Greeks  {much  more)  do  fo 
at  ??f//^Papifts? 

3.  They  cry  np  Tradition.  And  when  we 
ask^them,  Howwe  Jh,ill  know  it ,  and  Where 
it  is  to  be  found,  they  tell  ns,  principally  in  the 
profeffion  andprallice  of  the  frefent  Church. 
.  And  yet  when  two  or  three  farts  of  the  uni- 
verfal Church  profefs  that  Tradition  is 
againfi  the  Papal  Monarchy,  and  ether  Pants 

(  a  3  )  depend- 


(I*) 

depending  on  it  9  they  cafi  Tradition  behind 
their  backs. 

4.  They  cry  up  the  fathers  :  and  when  we 
bring  their  judgements  sgainfl  the  fub /lance 
of  Popery ,  they  Sometime  vilifie  or  accufe 
them  as  erroneous,  and  fometime  tell  us,  that 
Fathers  ojs  well  as  Scripture  mufi  be  no  other- 
-wife  under fiood,  than  their  Church  expound- 
cth  them. 

%. They  plead  for  an  appeal  to  Councils^W 
(though  we  eafily  prove  that  none  of  them 
were  univcrfal,yetfuch  as  they  were)  they 
call  them  all  Reprobate,  which  were  not  ap- 
proved by  their  Tope,  let  the  number  of  Bi~ 
fljops  there  be  never  fe  great.  And  thofe  that 
were  approved,  if  they  fpeaf^againfi  them, they 
rejeEl  a/fo,  either  wtfh  lying  fbijts  denying 
the  approbation,  or  faying ,  the  dels  are  nut 
defide,  tfr^fconciliariterfafta,  orthefenfe 
w&fi  be  given  by  their  prefent  Church,  or 
cxe  fuch  contemptible  Jhft  or  other. 

6.  At  leajl  one  would  thinks  they  Jhould 
fiand  to  the  judgement  of  the  Pope, which  yet 
they  will  not '  for /Same  forbids  them  to  own 
the  Dottrine  of  thofe  Popes  that  were  Here- 
ticks  or  Infidels  (  and  by  Councils  fo  judged:) 
And  others  they  are  forced  to  dif own,  becaufe 
they  contraditl  their  Predecejfors.  And  At 
Rome  the  Cardinals  are  the  Pope,  while  he 

that 


dp) 

that  hath  the  n;tme  is  oft  made  light  cf.  And 
hew  infallible  he  is  judged  by  the  French  and 
ji*  Venetians  ^  hoVpSixtm  the  fifth  tyAsva- 
luedby  /•£?  Spaniards,  ,W  by  Bellarmine,  is 
commonly  known. 

7.  But  all  this  it  nothing  to  their  renunci- 
ation ^humanity,  even  of  the  common  fenfes 
and  rcafon  of  the  world,  when  the  matter 
is  brought  to  the  Decifion  of  their  eyes,  and 
tafie,  and  feelings  whether  Bread  be  Bread, 
and  Wine  be  Wine  -  and  jet  all  Italy,  Spa  n , 
Auftria,Bravaria,  &c.   cannot  refolve  it  ; 
ytay  generally  (unlefs  fome latent  Protefianr) 
do  pafs  their  judgement  againfl  their  fenfes , 
&  the  fenfes  of  all  found  men  in  the  JYcrld^& 
that  not  in  a  matter  beyond  the  reach  offenfe 
(as  Whether  Chrilt  be  there  fpiritually)but  in 
a  matter  belonging  to  fenfe,  if  any  thing  be- 
long to  it .  as  whether  Bread  be  bread,  &c. 
Kings  and  Nobles y  Prelates  and  Priefls^do  all 
give  their  judgement  y  that  all  their  fenfes 
arc  deceived*    And  is  it  poffible  for  thefe  men 
then  to  know  any  thing  ?  or  any  controver, 
between  m  and  them  to  be  decided  ?   If  we  fry 
that  the  Sun  is  lighter  that  the  Pope  is  4  m.m, 
and  Scripture  legible,  or  that  there  are  the 
Writings  of  Councils  and  Fathers  extant  in 
the  World  >t hey  m*y  as  well  concur  in  a  deny /.I 
of  all  this,  or  any  thing  elfe  that  fenfe  fbould 

(a  4)  judge 


do) 

judge  of.  If  they  tell  us  that  Scripture  re- 
quireththem  to  contradict  all  th?ir  fenfes  in 
this  pint ;  I  anfwcr, 

J. Not  that  Scripture  before  mentionedjhat 
calleth  it  [[Bread]  after  the  Confecration , 
thrice  in  the  three  ntxt  Vrrfes. 

l.Andhowknowthty  that  there  isfuch  a 
Scrip -pre,  if  M  their  fenfes  be  fo  fallible  ? 
Jf  the  certainty  of  fenfe   be  not  fuppofed,  a 
little  learning  or   Vrit  might  fatisfie   them, 
that  Faith  can  have  no  certainty.    But  is  it 
not  amoft  dreadful  judgement  of  God^  that 
Princes  «nd  Nations,  Learned  men^and  fome 
that  in  their  Voay  are  confcientious^  Jhould  be 
given  ever  to  fo  much  inhumanity  ,  and  to 
make  a  Religion  cf  this  brutifhnefs ,    (  and 
wor/e)  and  toferfecute  thefe  with  Fire  and 
Sword,  that  ate  not  fo  far  forfaken  by  God^ 
and  by  their  reafeni  and  that  they  fhould  fe 
folic  it  a- fly    labour  the  perverjion  of  States 
and  Kingdoms  for  the  promoting  of  ftupidity 
crftark^madnefs  ? 

8.  And  (if we  go  from  their  Principles  to 
their  Ends,  or  Wayes^  we  Jhall  foon  fee  that ) 
they  are  alfo  again  ft  the  Unity  of  the  Church, 
while  they  pretend  this  M  their  chief  eft  Argu- 
gument,  to  draw  men  to  their  way.  They  fet 
tip  a  corrupted  Fattion,  and  condemn  the  far 
greater  part  of  the  Church  ^  and  will  have 

no 


n$  unity  With  any  but  thcfe  of  their  own  Ft- 

flion  and  Subjettion  :  and  fix  this  as  an  effen* 
tial  fart  of  their  Religion,  creating  thereby 
an  impoffibility  of  univerfal  concord. 

9-Thty  alfo  contraditt  the  Experience  of 
many  thoufand  Saints  •>  averting  that  they 
are  all  void  of  the  Love  of  God  and  fating 
Grace,  till  they  become  fubjeSi  to  the  Pope  of 
Rome  ^  when  as  the  Souls  of  thefe  Believers 
have  Experience  of  the  Love  of  God  within 
them,  and  feel  that  Grace  that  proveth  their 
Jufiifcation.  I  wonder  what  kind  of  thing  it 
is  that  is<alled  Love  or  Holinefj  in  a  Papifi, 
Tchich  Protefiants  another  Chriftians  have 
not,  and  What  is  the  difference. 

10.  The)  are  mofi  notorious  Enemies  to 
Charity ,  condemning  mofi  of  the  Chriftian 
world  to  He  11, for  being  out  of  their  J objection. 

1 1.  They  are  notorious  Enemies  t&  Know- 
ledge under  pretence  of  Obedience  and  Uni- 
ty, and  avoiding  Herefie.  They  celebrate 
their  Worfiip  in  a  Language  not  under  flood 
by  the  vulgar  Worflnppers.  They  hinder  the 
People  from  Reading  the  holy  Scriptures, 
(which  the  ancient  Father s  exhorted  men  and 
women  to,  as  an  ordinary  thing.  )  The  quality 
of  their  Pri  fts  and  People,  teftifies  this. 

12.  They  oppofethe  Purity  of  divine  Wor- 
(hip,  fitting  pip  a  multitude  of  humane  In- 
ventions 


(« ) 

ventionsinftead  thereof,  and  idolatroufly{for 
mlefs  can  be  f aid  of  it  )  adoring  a  piece  of 
confecraced  Bread  as  their  God. 

1 3 .  They  are  Oppofers  e/Holinefs,  both  by 
the  forefaid  enmity  to  Knowledge^  Charity, 
and  purity  of  JY or Jhip,  and  by  many  unholy 
Dottrines  ,  and  by  deluding  Souls  with  an 
outfide  hifirionicallway  of  Religion,  never  re- 
quired by  the  Lord,  confifting  in  a  multitude 
of  Ceremonies,  and  worflnpping  of  Angels, 
and  the  Souls  of  Saints,  and  Images,  and 
Crojfes,  &c.  Let  experience  fpeak^  how  much 
the  Life  of  Ho  line fs  is  promoted  by  them. 

9  1<\>-They  are  Enemies  to  common  Honefty, 
'  teaching  the  Do&rines  of  Equivocations  and 
JHental  Refervations ,  and  making  many  hai- 
nous  fins  venial ,  and  many  of  the  mo  ft  odi- 
ous fins  to  be  Duties,  as  killing  Kings  that 
are  excommunicated  by  the  Pope, taking  Oaths 
with  the  forefaid  Refervations,  and  breaking 
them,&cc.  For  the  Jefuits  Dottrine,Montal- 
tus  the  Janfenift,  and  many  of  the  French 
Clergy  have  pretty  well  opened  it  :  And  the 
Tefe  himfelf  hath  lately  been  fain  to  publifh 
a  condemnation  of  their  Apology.  And  yet 
the  power  and  inter  eft  of  the  Jefuites  and  their 
followers  amnng  them,  it  not  altogether  un- 
known to  the  'World. 

i.     15.  They  are  Enemies  to  Civil  Peace  and 
i  Government, 


<»3) 

Government,  {if  there  be  any  fuch  in  tkt 
World)  as  their  DotTrine  and  Practice  of 
killing  and  depofing  excommunicate  Princes, 
breaking  Oaths,  &c.  /hews.  Bellarmine  that 
will  go  a  middle  w.:y,  gives  the  Pope  power 
in  ordine  ad  fpiritualia  ,  and  indiretlly,  t3 
difpofe  of  Kingdoms,  and  tells  usjhat  it  U  un- 
law full  to  tolerate  Heretical  Kings  that  pro- 
pagate their  Herefie,  _(  that  is,  the  ancient 
Faith.)  HeWwell  Dotlor  Heylin  hath  vin- 
dicated their  Council  of  Laterane  in  this, 
(  whofe  Decrees  ftand  as  a  Monument  of  the 
horrid  treafonable  Dottrine  of  the  Papifis  )  I 
Jhall,  if  Godwill,  hereafter  manifefi  :  Jn  the 
mean  time  Jet  any  man  read  the  Words  of  the 
Council,  and  fudge. 

And  now  whether  a  Religion  that  is  at  fuch 
open  enmity  with  i  .Scripture,  2, The  Church, 
3.  Tradition ,  4.  Fathers,  5. Councils ,6. Some 
Popes,  7.  The  common  fenfes  and  Reafon  of  aE 
the  World, eventheir  own,  8.  V  nity  tf/Chri- 
ftians,   9.   Knowledge,     ic.  Experience  of 
Believers,  I  1 .  Charity, M. Purity  ofWorflAp, 
1 3 .  Holinefs,    i  ^.Common  Hunefiy,  1  $.And 
to  Civil  Government  and  Peace  {which  might 
all  eafily  be  fully  proved,  though   here  but 
touched  )    /  (ay  ,    whether  fuch  a  Religion 
fhould  be  embraced  and  advanced  With  fuch 
diligence  and  violence,  and  mens  fouls  laid 

upon 


(*4) 

Mpon  it,  is  the  controverfie  before  us.  And 
whether  it  fhould  be  tolerated  {even  the  pro" 
fagation  of  it,  to  the  damnation  of  the  peoples 
fouls)  is  mw  the  Jjtueftion  which  the  juggling 
Papifts  havefet  afoot  among  thofe  that  have 
made  themf elves  our  Rulers  :  and.  there  are 
found  men  among  us ,  that  call  themf  elves 
Proteftants<W£0d/7,  that  plead  for  thefaid 
Toleration  ;  (  andconfequently  for  the  deli- 
vering  up  of  thefe  Nations  to  ropery \  if  not 
r<?Spanifh,6r  other  f err  zign  Powers)  which 
if  they  effeQ  >  and  after  their  contrary  Pro- 
feffionS)  prove  fuch  Traitors  to  Chrift,  his 
Gofpel  and  their  pofterity,  as  they  leave  the 
Land  of  their  Nativity  in  mifery,  they  fhall 
leave  their fiinking  names  for  a  reproach  and 
curfe  to  future  Generations  -,  and  on  fuch 
Pillars  fhall  be  written,  Q  This  pride,  felf- 
feeking,  uncharitablenefs,  and  fchifm  hath 
done.  ] 

(  This  was  written  and  printed  under  the 
late  Ufurpers, ) 


Poftfcrift. 


(*5) 


Poftjcrift. 

Redder^ 

T Hough  the  Papifts  have  feemed  to  be 
the  moft  difcountenanced  party  under 
:he  late  Ufurpers^and  to  have  no  intereft  or 
x>wer,yet  I  have  ftill  found,  that  thofe  fped 
vorft  from  men  ,  that  were  moft  againft 
;hem  ^  and  that  I  never  wrote  any  book 
igainft  them,  but  it  brought  a  (harper  ftorm 
upon  me,then  any  thing  that  I  wrote  againft 
my  other  Sed  that  was  more  vifibly  in  po- 
wer. And  yet  it  was  not  openly  profefled. 
to  be  for  my  oppofition  to  Popery,  but  on 
fome  other  account :  and  though  the  foun- 
tain by  the  tafte  of  the  waters,  might  be 
known,  yet  it  felf  and  fecrct  condu&s  were 
all  underground  and  undifcernable.  The 
Jefuits  that  are  the  fpring  of  thefe,  and 
greater  things  then  thefe,  are  latent,  and 
their  motion  is  not  feen,  while  we  fee  the 
motions  which  are  caufcd  by  their  fecret 
force.  So  that  by  this  means  its  only  thofe 
few  inquifitive  difcerning  perfons,  that  can 
feeacaulein  its  effed",  that  find  them  out: 
and  thofe  few  are  unable  to  make  full  proof, 
even  of  the  things  they  know  ,  and  thereby 

are 


•  are  prohibited  from  appearing  openly  in  the 
caufe,  left  coming  (hort  in  legal  proof,  they 
leave  the  guilty  triumphing  over  the  inno- 
cent as  calumniators.     lor   the  laft  book 
that  I  wrote  againft  them  {My  Kejfcr  Ca- 
t  hoi  ikes)  theParliamenr-houfe  it  felf,  and  all 
the  land  did  ring  of  my  accufations  •  and  the 
menaces  were  fo  high,   that  my  intended 
ruine  was  the  common  talk.     And  I  know 
their  Indignation  is  not  abated.     My  crime 
is,  that  their  zeal  to  profely  te  me,  harh  ac- 
quainted me  with  fome  of  their  fecrecs,  and 
let  me  know  what  the  Jefuits  are  doing,  and 
how  great  a  party   that  are  masked  under 
the  name  of  Seekers ,  Famillfis,  &c.    they 
have  in  the  land.     I  have  therefore  Reader, 
this  double  requeft  to  thee  :  Firft,  arm  thy 
felf  diligently    againft    Popery ,    if  thou 
would'ft  preferve  thy  Religion  and  thy  foul 
Whatever  Sedsaflault  thee  openly,  fufped: 
and  avoid  the  difeafe  that  is  endeavouring 
with  greateft  advantages  to  be  Epidemical. 
To  thread,  be  well  ftudied  in  the  writings 
that  have  opened  their  vanity  and  fhamc  : 
I  hope,  what  I  have  written  on  that  fubjeft, 
will  not  be  ufelefs  to  them  that  are  not  at 
leifure  to  read  the  larger  volumes.     Read 
Dr.  Challoners  Credo  JanBam  Ecclefium  Ca. 
tholkam.    Peter  Monlins  Anfwer  to  Cotton* 

Queftions 


(*7> 

Queftionsi  And  for  larger  Volumes,  Vfb'er, 
Chillingrvorth^  Field,  Whittakers,  efpecially 
de  Pomif.  Roman,  may  be  numbered  with 
the  moft  folid,  judicious  and  ufeful;  And  Dr. 
Afouline  of  the  Novelty  of  Popery  now  in 
the  prefs ,  with  Rivet ,  and  Chamier  ,  to 
add  no  more. 

And  if  ever  thou  fall  in  company  with 
Seekers,  or  Famlifts,  that  are  queftioning 
all  things,  and  endeavouring  to  difparage 
the  holy  Scriptures,  and  the  Miniilry,  and 
Church,  and  Ordinances^  though  but  in  a 
queftioning  way,  look  then  to  thy  Religion, 
and  fufpeft  a  Papift  :  Secondly ,  becaufe 
experience  hath  taught  me  to  exped:  that 
my  renewed  affault  of  Popery  {hould  raife 
fomeftorm,and  renew  my  dangers,  (though 
I  know  not  which  way  it  will  come,  and  ex- 
ped  it  (hould  be  upon  pretence  of  fome- 
thing  that  is  no  kin  to  the  real  caufej  let 
him  that  hath  been  fo  exceedingly  beholden 
to  the  fervants  of  Chrift  for  prayers,  have 
thy  prayers  in  particular  for  this,  that  he 
may  befatished  in  Gods  approbation,  and 
count  it  a  fmai!n;atter  to  be  cenfured  by 
man,  or  to  fuffer  thofe  fotc  and  harmlefs 
ftroaks,  that  tlu  impotent  armofflefh  can 
inflid  •  and  may  live  and  dye  in  the  Army 
of  believers,  delcribed   Hel.  u,and  iz. 

and 


U8) 

and  be  fo  far  prefcrved  from  the  contri- 
vances of  malice ,  as  is  needful  to  his  ap- 
pointed work  ;  in  which  it  is  the  top  of  his 
ambition  to  be  found 

A  faithful,  though  unworthy  fer- 
vant  of  Chrififor  his  Churchy 

Rich.  Baxter. 


The 


w 


V 


*wS^Sw^wJ.w?.w5!^J 


The  Contents. 

The  firft  Part. 

Mr.  Johnfons  Argument  profecnud^  t$ 
pag.  6 
Mj  Anfwer.  7  to  26 

Mr.  Jobnfons  fecond  Paper.  27 

Ws  attempt  U  prove  thefucceffion  of  the  Ko~ 
mznSoveraigntj.  49  to  the  end. 

My  letter  to  the  fender  of  his.  68 

M]  Reply  to  the  fecond  Paper.  77 

On  which  tfut  the  Proof  is  incumbent.         87 
Of  the  Eaftern    and   Southern    Churches-. 

94,  95,  &c. 

Whether  Vre  are  one  Church   with  them  cf 

Rome.  107,  &c. 

Cf  our Reparation.  1 07 

Whether  the  Armenians,  Ethiopians,  Syrians, 

&c.  are  excluded  as  Heretic\s  ?  113 

The  inftance  of  an  Appeal  of  John  0/ Ant*<  ch 

refuted.  1  z  7 

(b)  The 

i 


The  Contents. 

The  infiance  of  Flavianus  Appeal  refuted- 

129 
Of  Leo's  pretended  reftoring  Theodoret  upon 

Appeal.  132 

Of  Cyprians  defire  that  Stephen  -would  depofe 

Martian  Bifhop  of  Aries.  133 

A  pretended  Decree  of  the  Council  of  Sardis 

examined.  135 

Bafils  -words  Epifi.  74.  examined .  138 

Chryfoftoms  words  to  Innocent.  140 

A  pretended  Proof  from  the  Council  of  Ephe- 

lus  confuted.  •'-  141 

Of  the  address  to?  ope  Julius/^  Athanafius 

and  the  Arrians.  143 

Chamiers  words  hereabout.  146 

Of  Chryfoftoms  cafe.  147 

Of  Theodofks    and    the    ConclL     Ephef. 

152 
Of  the  Council  of  Calccdon.  1 54 

Of  Pope  Agapet  depofing  Anthymius  of  Con- 

ftantinople.  n  159 

Of  Gregories  words.  1 60 

Of  Cyril  and  Celeftine   againfi  Neftorius. 

161 
Of  Juvenals  words.  163 

Of  Valentinians  and   Theodofius   words. 

164. 
Of  Vincentius  Lirinenfis  words.  169 

of 


inc  v^on tenia. 

Of  Philip  and  Arcadius  at  ConciL  Ephcfus. 

170 
The  nullity  of  all  thefe  fretended    Proofs. 

Whether    Papifis    give ,  and    Popes    accept 
the  Title  of  Vice-Chrifi  ,  Monarchy  &c. 

175  to  188 
Of  the    Contefi  of  Councils  for    the  Rule. 

188 

yfcfr.  Johnfons   work^  to  which  his  caufe  en- 

gagethhim.  191 


The  Concents  of  the  fccond  Part. 

Qtt;\V7  Hether  the  Church    of  which  the 
Proteflants  are  members  have  been 
vifible   ever   fince   the  daies  of  Chrifl  on 
earth}  Aff. 
The  Church  what.  1 9j 

Proteftants  what .  198 

Of  Membcrfhip,^  Vifibility.  201 

The  firfi  Argument,  to  prove  the  fucceffive 
Vifibilitj.  204 

The  fccond  Argument.  209 

PapifisTefiimonies  for  the  fufficiencji  of  Scri- 
pture as  the  RuU.  219 

(b  2)  Some 


The  Contents.' 

Some  cf  the  Fathers  cf  the  fame.  22  f 

Where  was  our  Church,  225 

The  true  Catholike  Church ^how  defcribedbj 
Auguftine.  227 

Optacus.  231 

Tertullian.  232 

The  third  Argument.  238 

The  fourth  Argument.  241, 242 

Arguments  proving*  the  Vijibility  of  * 
Church  without  the  Papacy ,  fince  Chrift. 
Argument  firfiy  from  the  Council  of  Cal- 
cedon.  242 

Argument  2.  From  the  filence  of  the  An- 
cients  in  cafes  where  the  allegation  of  the 
Papal  poster  would  have  been  mo  ft  perti- 
nent and  necejfarj.  244 
Argument  3 .  From  the  Tradition  and  Te- 
ftimeny  of  the  greatefl  part  of  the  Church. 

248 

Argument  4.    From  the  Churches   without 

the  verge  of  the  Empire,  not  fubjett  to  the 

Pope.  249 

Argument  5.    From  the  Eaftern  Churches 

within  the  Empire ,  not  fubjeEls  of  the  Pope. 

251 
Argument  6.    From  the  full  Tefiimony  of 
Gregory  the  firft,  p.  252,  &c.  defended 
againjl  Bellarminc* 

Argument 


The  Content*. 

Argument  7.  From  the  Confeffton  of  chief 
Papifts.  -firms  Sylviys,  Mtlchior  Ca* 
nus,  Reyncrius.  267 

Argument  8.  From  Hiftorical  Teftimonj 
about  the  Original of  Vniverfal  Headfhrp. 

269 

Argument  9.  The  generality  of  Chriftians 
in  the fir ft  ages^  ana  mo  ft  in  the  Utter ',  free 
from  owning  the  Tupac y.  271 

Argument  10.  Moft  Chriftians  in  all  ages 
ignorant  of  Popery.  275 

Objed.  The  Armenians,  Greeks,  &c.  difftr 
from  P  rot  eft  ants  :  Anfaered.  280 

MifcelUny  confiderable  TeftlmcttiJ.         288 

Mr. Johnfons  exception.  292 

My  Anfwer  to  hi*  exception,  Jhewing  in  what 

fenfe  Here  ticks  are ,    or  are  noc    in  the 

Churchy  apply ed  to  the  Eaftern  and  Sou- 

them  Churches.  293  ,&c. 

Mr.  Johnfons  Explication  of  the  moft  ufed 
terms,  withmj  j^uere's  there upon ,  and  his 
Anfwer ,  and  m j  Reply.    1.  Of  the  Church. 

2.  Of  Here  fie.  3  24,  &c. 

3.  Of  the  Pope.  3  30,&c. 
4;  Of  Bifhops.  337 
5-  Of  Tradition.  v  342 
Of  General  Councils.  345 

t.ef 


The  Contents.- 

Letters  between  me  WT.S.  aFafift-.witk 
"Narrative  of  the  f*ccej *  writt*  hg 
friend. 


/         I 


ERRATA. 


DAgc  17*.  L 14*  for  it  r.  ffetf.  p.179*  llA  t.  Praferi. 
*■  p.  117. 1  **•  *•  ^cej^tate.  p.  271. 1,  f  •  r.  JEtt&jfci 


Mr.  fohnfons  firft 

Paper, 


jMp  Hf  Church  of  Chrift^  wherein 
only  Solvation  is  to  be  had, 
never  was  nor  u  any  other  then 
thofe  Affembnes  of  Christi- 
ans who  were  united  in  com- 
munion and  obedience  to  S> 
Peter  in  the  beginning  fmcc  the  Afcen(ion  of 
Chrift,  And  ever  fince  to  his  lawful  fuc- 
cejfors,  the*BiJhopsof  Rome, as  to  their  chief 
Faftor. 

Proof. 

Whatfoever  Congregation  of  Chriftians 
is  now  the  true  Church  of  Chrift ,  acknow- 
ledges S.  Teter  and  his  lawful  fucceffors 
the  Bifhops  of  Rome ,  ever  fince  the  Afcen- 
fion  of  Chrift  te  have  been  •  and  now  co 
be  by  the  Inftitution  of  Chrift,  their  chief 

B  Head 


Mr.  Johnfons  firfi  Paper. 

Head  and  Governour  on  earth  in  matters 
belonging  to  the  foul  next  under  Chrift. 

But  there  is  no  falvation  to  be  had  out 
of  that  Congregation  of  Chriftians,  which 
is  now  the  true  Church  of  Chrift; 

Erge^  there  is  no  falvation  to  be  had  out 
of  that  Congregation  of  Chriftians  which 
acknowledges  S.  Peter  and  his  lawful  fuc- 
cefTors  the  Biftiops  of  Rome  ever  to  have 
been  fince  the  Afcenfion  of  Chrift  ;  and 
now  to  be  by  the  Inftitution  of  Chrift  their 
chief  Head  and  Governour  on  earth  in 
matters  belonging  to  the  foul  next  under 
Chrift. 

The  Minor  is  clear  •,  For  all  Chriftians 
agre:e  in  this,  that  to  be  faved,  it  is  necefTary 
to  be  in  the  true  Church  of  Chrift •  that 
only  being  his  myftical  Body,  Spoufe  and 
Mother  of  the  faithful,  to  which  muft  be- 
long all  thofe  who  ever  have  been,  are,  or 
fhall  be  faved. 

The  Major  I  prove  thus. 

Whatfoever  Congregation  of  Chriftians 
is  mw  the  true  Church  of  Chrift,  hath  been 
alwaics  vifible  fince  the  time  of  Chrift , 
either  under  perfecution,  or  in  peace  and 
flourifhing. 

But  no  Congregation  of  Chriftians  hath 
been  alwaies  viiible  fince  the  time  of  Chrift, 

cither 


Mr.  Johnfons  fir  ft  Paperl 

either  under  perfecution  or  in  peace  and 
flouriftiing,  fave  that  only  which  acknow- 
ledges S.  Peter  znd  his  lawful  Aicceflbrs 
the  Bifhops  of  Rome ,  ever  to  have  been 
fince  the  Afcenfion  of  Chrift ;  and  now 
to  be  by  Chrifts  Inltitution  ,  their  chief 
Head  and  Governour  on  earth,  in  matters 
belonging  to  the  foul  next  under  Chrift. 

Ergo,  whatfoever  Congregation  of  Chri- 
ftiansis  now  the  true  Church  of  Chrift,  ac- 
knowledges St.  Peter,  and  his  lawful  fuc- 
ceflbrs  the  Biftiops  of  Rome ,  ever  to  have 
been  fince  the  Afcenfion  of  Chrift'}  and 
now  to  be  by  Chrifts  Inftitution  their  chief 
Head  and  Governour  on  earth,  in  matters 
belonging  to  the  foul,  next  under  Chrift. 

The  Major  is  proved  thus. 

•Whatfoever  Congregation  of  Chriftians 
hath  alwaies  had  vifible  Paftors  and  People 
uniteji,  hath  alwaies  been  vifible ,  either 
under  perfecution ,  or  in  peace  and 
flo.uriftiing. 

But  whatfoever  Congregation  of  Chri- 
ftians is  now  the  true  Chu  rch  of  Chrift,  hath 
alwaies  had  vilible  Paftors  and  People 
united. 

Ergo,  whatfoever  Congregation  of  Chri- 
ftians is  now  the  true  Church  of  Chrift, 
hath  alwaies  been  vifible,  either  under  per- 

B  2         fccution, 


-Z--TT 


Mr.  Johnfons  fir  ft  Paper. 

fecution,    or   in   peace  and    flourifliing. 

The  Major  of  thislaft  Sylogifm  is  evident, 
for  feeing  a  vifible  Church  is  nothing  but  a 
vifible  Paftor  and  people  united  :  where 
there  havealwaies  been  vifible  Paftors  and 
people  ttnitedy  there  hath  alwaies  been  a 
vifible  Church. 

The  Minor  I  prove  from  Ephefians,  cap. 
4.  ver.  10,  11,  12,13,  i^&c. 

Where  S.  7aul  faies ,  that  Chrift  had 
Inftitured,  that  there  (hould  be  Paftors  and 
Teachers  in  the  Church  for  the  work  of  the 
Miniftry  ,  and  prefer ving  the  people  under 
their  refpeftive  charges  from  being  carried 
away  with  every  wind  of  dodrine,  &c 
which  evidently  (hews,  thofe  Paftors  muft 
be  vifible,  feeing  the  work  of  the  Miniftry, 
which  Preaching,  and  Adminiftracion  of 
Sacraments,  and  Governing  their  flocks, 
are  all  external  and  vifible  a&ions.  And 
this  (hews  likewife,  that  thofe  Paftors  and 
People  muft  be  alwaies  vifible,  becaufe  they 
are  to  continue  from  Chrifts  Afcenfion, 
untill  we  all  meet  together  in  the  unity  of 
faith,  &c  which  cannot  be  before  the  day 
of  judgement. 

Neither  can  it  befaid  (asfomefay)  that 
this  promife  of  Chrift  is  only  conditional, 
fince  to  put   it  to  be  fo  without  evident 

Reafon, 


cJWr.  John  Con  s  firft  Paper. 

Reafon,  giveth  fcope  to  every  one  at  his 
pleafure,   to  make  every  other  promife  of 
Chnft  to  be  condicional.    And  fo  we  (hall 
be  certain  of  nothing  that  Chrift  hath  pro- 
mifed,  neither  that  (hall  aiwaics  beavifible 
or  invifible  Church,  nor  any  Church  at  all  ^ 
no  nor  of  Judgement,   nor  of  Eternal  life, 
or  of  the  Refurre&ion  of  the  dead,  &c 
for  one  may  fay  with  as  much  ground,  as 
this  is  faid,  that  fome  conditions  were  in- 
cluded in  all  thofe  promifes,  which  being 
not  fulfilled, hinders  the  execution  of  them. 
There  remains  only,  to  prove  the  Minor 
ofthefecondSylogifm,^/*,.  That  no  Con. 
gregation  of  Chriftians  hath  been  alwaies 
vifiblc,  &c.  fave  that  which  acknowledges 
S.  Peter  ,    and  his  lawful  fuccefTors ,  &c. 
to  be  their  chief  Head  and  Governour,  &c. 
next  under  Chrift. 

This  Minor  I  prove,   by  obliging  the  an- 
fwerers  to  nominate  any  Congregation  of 
Chriftians,   which  alwaies  till  this  prefent 
time,  fince  Chrift,hath  been  vifible^  either 
under  perfecution,  or  in  peace  and  flourifti- 
ing,  fave  chat  only  which  acknowledges  S. 
Peter,  &c.  utfupra. 
Sir, 
To  comply    Vvith  your  Ae fires  of  brevity, 
and  of  confining  my  felf   to  half  a  fheet  of 

B  3  f*ptr; 


6        'Mr.  Johnfons  firfi  Pa$cr. 

paper  -,  I  fend  you  at  prefent  only  one  Argu- 
ment, which  being  fully  dlf cuffed^  Jhall  be 
followed  by  others  God  willing.  To  this  as  to 
all  the  refi  of  my  Arguments ,  which  may 
hereafter  be  urged  :  /  require  a  Categorical 
andflriSl  Sylogifiical  Anfwerin  Form,  by 
Concedo,Nego,  Diftinguo,  Omitto,  Tran- 

.  feat.  And  the  particular  Provofitionsfpeci- 
fied,  to  which  the  Rejpondents  apply  any  of 
them ;  and  no  more  then  precifely  thus, 
neither  adding  Amplifications ,  Reafons , 
Proofs,  &c.  of  their  own  out  $f  form,  and 
that  this  may    be  done  with  all  convenient 

\    jpeed.     To  the  place  of  Scripture >  Ephef.4. 

&c.  is  alfo  required  a  Categorical  anfwer, 

to  what  is  precifely  prejfed  in  it,    without 

direBing  the  difcourfeto  other  things:   And 

what  is  anfwered  otherwife,  I  {ball  not  efteem 

an  anfwery  but  an  Effagium,  or  declining  of 

the  difficulty.     By  this  method  exaffly  obfer- 

ved,  Truth  will  eafily  and  fpeedily  be  made 

manifefi  ^  and  your  ds  fires  of  Brevity  ^oill  be 

punctually  complied  with.  •  I  alfo  de  fire,  that 

the  Respondent  or  Refpondents  will  {as  I  do  to 

this)  fubfcribe  his,  or  their  name  or  names  to 

their  anfwers,  fo  often  as  any  are  by  him  or 

them  returnedjvith  the  day  of  the  month  when 

rtt  timed.  William  Johnfon. 

Decern.  9.  1658 

The 


The  Jnfiver  to  the  firft 

Paper. 


I  received  yours,  and  writ  this  Anfwer 3 
fan.  4.  1658. 


W 


Sir, 

Hoever  you  are,aferi*us  debate  with  fo 
fober  a  Difputant,  is  to  me  an  exceeding 
acceptable  employment : 1 /hall  not ,  I  hope, give 
joh  any  caufetofay,  that  I  decline  any  diffi- 
culties, or  balk^  yourftrength,  or  tranfgrefs 
the  fart  of  a  Re f pendent.  But  becaufe,  1 .  You 
have  not  (as  ]ou  ought  to  have  done)explaincd 
the  terms  of  your  The  (is.  2.  And  have  made 
your  Proportions  fo  long.  3 .  And  have  fo 
cunningly  lapped  up  your  fallacies  5  your 
Refpondent  is  ntceffitated  to  be  the  larger  in 
diftinftion  and  explication.  And  feeing  you 
are  foinfiant  with  me  for  ftrittnefs,you  there- 
by oblige  jour  felf>  if  you  rviltbe  ingenuous, 
to  make  only  the  learned,  and  not  any  ignorant 

B  4  men 


8  The  J  # fiver  te  the  fir  ft  Ptfer. 

men  the  Judges  of  our  dilute  :  becaufe  you 
kpow  that  tc  the  unlearned  a  bare  Nego  Jig- 
nifieth  noi  Hng  ^  but  when  fuch  have  read 
jour  Arguments  at  lengthy  thej  will  expeB 
as  plain  and  large  a  confutation^  or  judge  you 
to  be  in  the  right  for  peaking  mofi. 


TO  your  Argument,  i .  Your  conclufion 
contained  not  your  Thefis,  or  Quefti- 
on.  And  fo  you  give  up  your  caufe  the  firft 
itep,  and  make  a  new  one.  It  fhouldhave 
contained  your  Queftion  in  terms,  and  ic 
doth  not  fo  much  as  contain  it  in  the  plain 
fenfe .-  fo  much  difference  is  there  between 
£ Affemblies  of  Chriftians  united,  &c7\  and 
{^Congregation  of  Chriftians]  and  between 
[[Salvation  or  the  Church,  never  was  in 
any  other  then  thofe  AfTemblies]  and  [no 
Salvation  out  of  that  Congregation]  ^  as  I 
fhall  (hew  you :  befides  other  differences 
which  you  may  fee. 

Ad  Major  em.  Ref p.  i.  By[Congrega- 
tionj  you  mean,  either  the  whole  Catholike 
Church  united  in  Chrift,  or  fome  particular 
Congregation,  which  is  but  part  of  that 
whole.  In  the  latter  fenfe,  your  Sub jed 
hathafalfe  fuppofition,  viz.  that  a  part  is 
the  whole  ^  and  your  Minor  will  be  falfe. 

And 


The  Anfacr+o  tbefirji  Paper. 

And  your  {[whatsoever  Congregation  of 
Chriftians  ]  fecms  to  diftinguifti  that  from 
fome  other  excluded  Congregation  of  Chri- 
ftians that  is  not  part  of  the  Catholike 
Church,  which  is  a  fuppofing  the  chief  pare 
of  the  Queftion  granted  you,  which  we 
deny.  We  know  no  univerfal  Congrega- 
tion of  Chriftians  but  one,  which  contain- 
cth  ail  particular  Congregations  and  Chri- 
ftians, chat  univpcaHy  deferve  that  name. 

2.  Either  you  mean  that  "  this  whole 
Congregacion  or  true  Church  acknowledg- 
ed] the  Popes  Sovereignty,  or  elfe  [[that 

:^partot  it  doth  acknowledge  it.]  The 
former  I  deny,  and  challenge  any  man  living 
to  prove;  If  it  be  [part  only]  that  you 
mean,  then  either  [the  greater  partj  or 
[the  leffer]] :  that  it  is  the  greater,  I  as  con- 
fidently alrnoft  deny  ;  for  it  is  againft  the 
common  knowledge  of  men  acquainted 
with  the  world,  &c.  If  you  mean  ]  the 
lefferpart]  you  fhall  fee  anon  that  it  de- 
stroys your  caufe. 

3 .  Either  you  fpeak  de  Ecclefa  qtt&  talx, 
or  de  Ecclefia  qua  talis :  and  mean  that  this 
[acknowledgement]  is  effential  to  it,  or  at 
leatt  an  infeparable  property,  or  elfe  that 
it  is  afeparabie  acudenr.  The  latter  will 
do  you  no  good  %  the  former  1  deny.    In 

fumm  : 


lo         The  i^Anfacr  te  thejirfi  Pdper. 

fumm  :  I  grant  that  a  fmall  corrupt  part  of 
the  Catholike  Church  doth  now  acknow- 
ledge the  Pope  to  be  Chrifts  Vicar,  for  the 
Vice-chrift  )  •,  but  I  deny,  i.  That  the 
whole  doth  fo  ("which  is  your  great  caufej 
2.  Or  the  major  part.  3.  Or  any  Con. 
gregation  through  all  ages  (though  if  they 
had,it  would  do  you  no  good.)  4.  Or  that 
it  is  done  by  any  upon  juft  ground,  but  is 
their  corruption. 

Ad  minor  em  Refp.  I.  If  you  mean  any 
[part]  of  the  Univerfal  Church  by  [that 
Congregation  which  is  now  the  true 
Church  3  I  deny  your  Minor  :  If  [the 
whole]  I  grant  it.  2.  You  fay  [[all  Chri- 
ftians  agree]]  in  it,  &c.  Refp.  I  think  all 
proteftants,or  near  all,  do :  but  Francifcus 
bfantta  Clara  hath  copioufly  told  us  (in 
Artie.  Anglic.)  that  moft  of  your  own 
Doftors  are  for  the  falvation  of  Infidels  • 
and  then  either  you  take  Infidels  for  your 
Church  members,  or  yourDodors  for  no 
Chriftians,  or  you  play  not  fair  play  to  tell 
us  fo  grofs  an  untruth,  that  all  Chriftians 
are  agreed  in  it. 

To  your  conclufion.  Refp.i.  Either  you 
mean  that  [\here  is  no  Salvation  to  be  had 
out  of  that  Univerfal  Church,  whofe  part 
(a  minor  corrupt  part)  acknowledged  the 

Popes 


The  i^»fwer  to  the  frfi  Paper.         1 1 

Popes  Sovereignty  ]]  orelfe  [[that  there  is 
no  Salvation  to  be  had  out  of  that  Univer- 
fal  Church  which  wholly  acknowledged  it] 
or  elfe  £that  there  is  no  Salvation  to  be  had 
out  of  that  part  of  the  Univerfal  Church 
which  acknowledgeth  it.]  In  the  firft  fenfe 
I  grant  your  conclufion  fif  really  you  are 
part  of  the  Church.)  There  is  no  Salvation 
to  be  had*  out  of  Chrifts  Univerfal  Church, 
of  which  you  are  a  fmall  corrupted  part. 
In  the  fecond  fenfe  I  told  you  we  deny  the 
fuppofition  in  the  fubjeft.  In  the  third 
fenfe  I  deny  the  fequel  ^  nonfequitur,  be- 
caufe  your  Major  propofition  being  falfe 
deEcclefia  univerf alight  conclufion  mult  be 
faife  de  parte  ifta,  as  excluding  the  reft. 

But  to  the  unskilful  or  unwary  reader 
your  conclufion  feemeth  to  import ,  that 
fthe  being  in  fuch  a  Church  which  acknow- 
ledgeth the  Popes  Soveraignty,  as  it  is  fuch 
a  Church,  is  neceffary  to  Salvation]  andfo 

that  theperfons  acknowledgement  is  ne- 
cefTary.3  But  it  is  a  fallacia  accident  is  cun- 
ningly lapt  up,  that  is  the  life  of  your  im- 
ported caufe.  That  part  of  the  Univerfal 
Church  doth  hold  to  the  Popes  Soveraign- 
ty,is  per  accident-,  and  could  you  prove  that 
the  whole  Church  doch  fo  ( which  you  are 

mlike  to  do)  I  would  fay  the  like.    And 

that 


14  The  Anfwtr  to  the  firfi  Paper. 

that  your  fallacy  may  the  better  appear ^  I 
give  you  fomc  examples  of  fuch  like 
iophifms. 

[Whatsoever  Nation  is  the  true  Kingdom 
of  Spain  is  proud  and  cruel  againft  Proce- 
ftants :  But  there  is  no  protection  there  due 
to  any   that  are  not   of  that    Kingdom : 
therefore  there  is  no  prote&ion  due  to  any 
that  are  not  proud  and  cruel.]   Or  [[what-    * 
foerer  Nation   is   the   true  Kingdom  of 
France  acknowledged]  the  Pope :  but  no 
protedion  is  due  from  the  Governours  to 
any  that  are  not  of  that  Kingdom.-  there- 
fore no  protedion  is  due  to  any   that  ac- 
knowledge not   the   Pope. J     Or  [what 
ever  Nation  is  the  Kingdom  of  Ireland  in 
the  daies  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  was  for  the 
Earl  of  Tyrone  i  but  there  was  no  right  of 
Inheritance   for  any  that  were  not  of  that 
Nation  :  therefore  there  was  no  right  of 
Inheritance  for  any  that  was  not  for  the 
Earl  of  Tyrone.'}    Or  fuppofc  that  yon 
could  have  proved  it  of  all  rhe  Church,     if 
you  had  lived  four  hundred  years   after 
Chrift,  you  might  as  well  have  argued  thus. 
[[Whatfoever  Congregation  of  Chriftians  is 
now  the  true  Church  of  Chrift,   is  againft 
kneeling  in  Adoration  on  the  Lords  daies. 
But  there  is  no  Salvation  to  be  had  out  of 

that 


The  Anfaer  to  the  fir  (I  Paper.  1 5 

that  Congregation  of  Chriftians,  which  is 
now  the  true  Church  of  Chrill :  therefore 
there  is  no  Salvation  to  be  had  out  of  that 
Congregation  which  is  againft  kneeling  on 
the  Lords  day,  &c.~\  Buc  yet,  I.  There 
was  Salvation  to  be  had  in  that  Congrega- 
tion without  being  of  that  opinion.  2.  And 
there  is  now  Salvation  to  be  had  in  a  Con- 
gregation that  is  not  of  that  opinion,asyou 
will  confefe. 

Or  [whatfoever  Congregation  of  Chri- 
ftians  is  now  the  true  Church  of  Chrift ,  doth 
hold  the  Canticles  and  the  Epiftle  to  Phile- 
mon to  be  Canonical  Scripture ,  (and  fo 
have  done,  &c.)  But  there  is  no  Salvation 
to  be  had  out  of  the  true  Church  :  there- 
Fore  there  is  no  Salvation  to  be  had  out  of 
that  Congregation  which  holdeth  the 
Canticles  ana  Epiftle  to  Philemon  to  be 
Canonical  Scripture.^]  But  yet ,  1.  Sal- 
vation is  to  be  had  in  that  Church  without 
holding  it.  2.  And  its  poffible  hereafter  a 
Church  may  deny  thofe  two-books,  and  yet 
you  will  think  Salvation  not  thereby  over- 
thrown. This  is  but  to  (hew  your  fallacy 
from  a  corrupt  accident,  and  indeed  but  of 
1  part  of  the  Church,  and  a  fmall  part. 

Now  to  your  proof  of  the  Major.  Refp. 
«d  Major.     The   prefent   matter  of    the 

Church 


14         The  A'afrcrtotke  fir  ft  Paper, 

Church  was  not  vifible  in  the  laft  Genera- 
tion5  for  we  w^re  not  then  born :  but  the 
fame  form  of  the  Church  was  then  exiftent 
in  a  vifible  Matter,  and  their  Profeffion 
was  vifible  or  audible,  though  their  faith  it 
felf  was  invifible.  I  will  do  more  then  you 
ihall  do,  in  maintaining  the  conftant  viabi- 
lity of  the  Church. 

Ad  minor  em.  I.  If  you  mean  that  no 
Congregation  hath  been  alwaies  vifible 
[but  that  Univerfa4  Church  whofe  lejflfer 
corrupt  part  acknowledges  3  the  Popes 
Soveraignty,  I  grant  it.  For  befides  £  the 
whole  containing  all  Chriftians  as  the 
parts]  there  can  be  no  other.  If  you  mean 
[Tave  that  part  which  acknowledgeth]  you 
contradid  your  felf,  becaufe  a  part  imply- 
eth  other  parts.  If  you  mean  [Tave  that 
Univerfal  Church,  all  whofe  members  for 
the  moft)  acknowledge  it  J,  there  is  no  fuch 
fubjeft  exiftent.  2.  I  diftinguifh  of  Vifi- 
bility  :  Its  one  thing  to  be  a  vifible  Church, 
that  is,  vifible  in  its  eflentials^  and  another 
thing  to  be  vifible  quoad  hoc,  as  tofome  fe- 
parable  accident.  QThe  Univerfal  Church] 
was  ever  vifible  •,  becaufe  their  Profeffion 
of  Chriflianity  was  fo,  and  the  perfons  pro- 
feffing :  But  [[the  acknowledgement  of  the 
Vice-chrift]  was  not  alwaies  vifible,  no  not 

in 


The  Afifoer  to  the  fir  ft  Paper.  I J 

n  any  part,  much  lefs  in  the  whole.  And 
fit  had,  it  was  but  a  feparable  accident 
if  your  difeafe  be  not  incurable,)  that  was 
dfible:  and  therefore,  i.  It  was  not  ne- 
:effary  to  Salvation,  nor  a  proper  mark  of 
he  Church.  2.  Nor  can  it  befo  for  the 
ime  to  come. 

I  need  to  fay  no  more  to  your  conclusion, 
four  Argument  is  no  better  then  this, 
\vhatfoever  Congregation  of  Chriftiansis 
tow  the  true  Church  ofChrift,  hath  been 
ilwaies  vifible  fince  the  time  of  Chrift  ; 
3ut  no  Congregation  of  Chriftians  hath 
)een  fo  vifible,  faveonly  that  which  con- 
iemneth  the  Greeks,  which  hath  a  Colledge 
:>f  Cardinals  to  choofe  the  Popes,  which 
ienieth  the  cup  to  the  laity,  which  forbid- 
zxh  the  reading  of  Scripture  in  a  known 
tongue  without  licenfe,  &c.  Therefore 
whatsoever  Congregation  of  ChriAians  is 
now  the  true  Church  of  Chrift,  hath  all 
thefe]  •,  1 .  In  a  corrupt  part  it  hath.  2.  But 
it  had  not  alwaies.  3 .  And  may  be  cured 
hereafter. 

To  your  proof  of  the  Major  ;  1 .  I  grant 
your  Major. 

2.  Aa  minorem.  I,  Either  you  mean 
Qlniverfal  Paftors^  each  one,  orfomeone 
having  charge  and  Government  of  the 

[whole 


1 6  ?ht  Anfotr  to  the  firjl  Paper. 

[whole  Church,  ]  or  you  mean,  [[unfixed 
Paftors  having  an  indefinite  charge  of 
Preaching  and  Guiding  when  they  come 
and  have  particular  calls  and  opportunities'] 
or  you  mean  [[the  fixed  Paftors  of  particu- 
lar Churches  "-In  the  firft  fenfe  your  Minor  is 
falfe,  the  Cacholike  Church  was  never  fo 
united  to  any  Univerfal  Head  but  Chrift:no 
one  of  the  Apoftles  governed  the  reft  &  the 
whole  Church ,  much  lefs  any  fince  their 
time.  In  the  fecond  fenfe,  I  grant  that  the 
Church  bach  ever  had  Paftors  fince  the 
Afcenfion.  In  the  third  fenfe,  I  grant  that 
fome  parts  or  other  of  the  Catholike 
Church,  have  ever  had  fixed  Paftors  of 
Congregations  fince  the  firft  fettling  of 
fuch  Paftors.  But  any  one  particular  Con- 
gregation may  ceafe  to  have  fuch  Paftors, 
and  may  ceafe  it  felf:  and  Rome  hath  been 
long  without  any  true  Paftors  -,  andthere^ 
fore  was  then  no  fuch  vifible  Church. 

2.  If  by  [Congregation]  you  mean  not 
the  Univerfal  Church,  but  [a  part\  or  if 
you  mean  it  of  [[all  the  parts  of  the  Univer- 
fal Church]  I  deny  your  Minor :  Commu- 
nities of  Chriftians,  and  particular  perfons 
have  been  and  may  be  without  any  Paftors, 
to  whom  they  are  united  or  fubjed.  The 
Indians  that  died  in  the  faith  while  Frame*- 

tins 


The  Anftver  to  the  pft  Paper.  17 

tins  and  Edefius  were  there  preaching,: 
before  they  had  any  Paftor,  were  yet  Chri- 
stians and  fayed  ;  If  a  Lay-man  Convert 
one,  or  a  thoufand,  (and  you  will  fay  that 
he  may  baptize  them  )  and  they  die  before 
they  can  have  a  Paftor ,  or  ever  hear  of  any 
to  whom  rhey  owe  fubje&ion  ,  they  are 
neverthelefs  faved,  as  members  of  the 
Church  •  And  if  allthePaftorsina  Nation 
were  murdered  or  baaifhed,  the  people 
would  not  ceafe  to  beChriftians  and  menu 
bers  of  the  Church.  Much  lefs  if  the  pope 
were  dead  or  depofed,  or  a  vacancy  befell 
his  feat,  wouIdalhheCatholike  Church  be 
annihilated,  or  ceafe. 

To  your  Confirmation  of  the  MajV 
"that  a  vifible  Church  is  nothing  but  a 
Vifible  Paftor,  and  people  united]  I  an- 
fwer:  1.  Its  true  of  the  univerfal  Church, 
as  united  in  Chrift,  the  great  Paftor,  but 
not  as  united  in  a  Vice-Chrift  or  humane 
head.  2.  It  is  true  of  a  particular  Political 
or  organized  Church,  as  united  to  their 
proper .  paftors  3.  But  it  is  not  true  of 
every  Community  of  Chriftians  who  are 
a  part  of  the  Univerfal  Church.  A  compa- 
ny converted  to  Chrift,  are  members  of  the 
Univerfal  Church,,  (  though  they  ne- 
ver heard  of  a  Pope  at   Rome)   before 

C  they 


l  $  The  Jnftver  to  t  be  fir  ft  Paper. 

they    arc  United    to  Paftors    of    their 
own. 

The  Proof  of  the  Minor  from  Eph.  4. 
I  grant  as  aforefaid  :  The  text  provech 
that  Paftors  the  Church  fhall  have;  I  de- 
claim the  vain  objeftion  £.of  Conditiona- 
lly in  the  promife  3  which  you  mention. 
But  it  proves  nor,  1 .  That  the  Church  (hall 
have  an  Univerfal  Monarch  or  Vice-  Chrift, 
under  Chrift.  2.  Nor  that  every  member 
of  the  Univerfal  Church,  (hali  certainly  be 
a  mcir.ber  of  a  particular  Church,  or  ever 
fee  the  face  of  a  Paftor,  or  be  fubjeft  to 
him. 

You  fay  next  There  remains  only 
to  prove  the  Minor  of  the  fecond  Syllogifm, 
*//*,.  that  no  Congregation  of  Chnftians 
hath  been  alwaies  vifible  but  that  which  ac- 
knowledges, &c  3  This  is  the  great  point 
which  all  lyeth  on  :  The  reft  hath  been  all 
nothing,  but  a  cunning  (booing  horn  to 
this.  Prove  this,  and  prove  all ;  Prove 
not  this,  and  you  have  loft  your  time. 

You  fay  [_  The  Minor  1  prove,  by  obli- 
ging the  an  fwerers  to  nominate  any  Con- 
gregation of  Chriftians  which  alwaies  till 
this  prefent  time  fince  Chrift  hath  been  vi- 
fible   fave  that  only  which  acknow- 
ledges &c.~\  And  have   I  waited  all  this 

while 


The  Anfwer  to  the  fir  ft  Paper.  \p 

while  for  this?  You  prove  ic  by  obliging 
me  to  prove  the  contrary.     Ridiculous  / 
fed  qn$  jure  ?    i.  Your  undertaken  form 
of  arguing  obligeth  you  to  prove  ^our  Mi- 
nor :   You  cannot  caft  your  Refpondenc 
upon  proving  and  fo  arguing,  and  doing 
the  Opponents  part.     2.    And    in  your 
Pcftfcript  you  prefently  forbid  it  me  ^  You 
require  me  to  hold  to  a  Ccncedo^  Negv,  Di* 
fiingH9>Omitto9  Tranfeat  5  threatning  that 
elie  you  will  take  it  tor  an  Effuginm.     And 
I  pray  you  re  1  me  in  your  next,  to  which  of 
thefe  doth  the  nomination  or  proof  of  fuch 
a  Church  as  you  defcnbe  belong?  Plainly , 
you  firit  flip  away  when  you  fhould  prove 
your  Minor,  and  then  oblige  me  to  prove 
the  Contrary,  and  then  te'l  me,  if  I  attempt 
it,  you'i  take  it  for  an  Effttgittm.     A  good 
caufe  needs  not  fuch  deaimgas  this :  which 
me  thinks  you  (hould  be  loth  a  learned 
manlhould  hear  of.   3  .Your  intereftalfoin 
the  Mttttt  fas  well  as  your  office  as  Oppo- 
nent^ doth  oblige  you  to  the  proof.  For 
though  you  make  a  Negative  of  it,  you  may 
put  it  in  other  terms  at  your  pl.afure.  It 
is  your  main  work  to  prove  ^khat  All  the 
members  of  the  Univerfal  Church  havem 
all  ages  held  the  Popes  Sovereignty  or  Uni- 
verfal Head.fhip.]  Or  [  the  whole  Vifible 

C  2  Church 


20  The  Anfotr  to  the  fir  ft  Ptfer. 

Church  hath  held  it]  Prove  this,  and  I 
will  be  aPapift  ;  you  have  ray  promife. 
You  affirm,  and  you  mud  prove.  Prove 
a  Catholike  Church,  at  leaft  that  in  the  Ma- 
jor part  was  of  that  mind ;  (  though  that 
would  be  nothing  to  prove  the  condemna- 
tion of  the  reft.)  If  you  are  an  impartial 
enquirer  after  truth ,  fly  not  when  you 
come  to  the  fetting  too.  I  give  you  this 
further  evident  reafon  why  you  cannot 
oblige  me  to  what  you  here  impofe  ; 
i.  Bfcaufe  you  require  me  to  prove  the 
Vifibility  of  a  Church  which  held  not  your 
point  of  Papacy  •  andfo  putanunreafon- 
able  task  upon  me,  about  a  Negative :  or 
.  elfe,  I  muft  prove  that  they  held  the  con- 
trary, before  your  opinion  was  ftarted  ; 
And  it  is  the  Catholike  Church  that  we  are 
difputing  about  •,'  fothat  I  muft  prove  this 
Negative  of  the  Catholike  Church.  2.  ft 
is  you  that  laythe  great  ftrefs  of  Neceflity 
on  your  Affirmative,  more  then  we  do  on 
the  Negative  •  you  fay  that  no  man  can  be 
faved without  your  Affirmative^  that  the 
Pope  is  the  univerfal  Head  and  Governor  1 
Butwefay#ot  that  no  man  can  be  faved 
that  holdeth  no:  our  Negative,  ~  that  he  is 
not  the  Vice-Chrift  J  For  one  that  hath 
the  plague  or  leprofie  may  live.    Therefore 

it 


The  i^dnfrvcr  te  thefrft  Paper.         2 1 

it  is  you  that  muft  prove  that  all  the  Catho- 
iike  Church  was  ftill  of  your  mind.  3  .And  it 
is  an  Accident,  and  but  an  Accident  of  a 
fmaller  corrupted  part  of  the  Catholike 
Church  that  you  would  oblige  me  to  prove 
the  Negation  of  ^  and  therefore  it  is  utterly 
needlels  to  my  proof  of  a  Vifible  Catho- 
like Church.  For  I  will  without  it  prove 
to  you  a  fucceflive  Visibility  of  the  Catho- 
like Church, from  the  VifibiJity  of  its  EfTen- 
tial  or  Conftitutive parrs  (of  which  your 
Pope  is  none. )  I  will  prove  a  fucceflive 
vifible  Church  that  harh  ftill  profeffed  faith 
in  God  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft, 
and  been  united  to  the  Univerfal  Head,  and 
had  particular  Paftors,  fome  fixed,  fome 
unfixed,  and  he'd  all  effential  to  a  Chriftian. 
And  proving  this,  I  have  proved  the 
Church  of  which  1  am  a  member.  To 
prove  that  England  hath  been  fo  long  a 
Kingdom,  requireth  no  more  but  to  prove 
the  two  Effential  parts,  King  and  Subjects, 
to  have  fo  long  continued  united.  It  re- 
quireth not  that  I  prove  that  it  ever  either 
d,  or  oppofed  a  Vice-King.  This  is  our 
plain  cafe.  If  a  man  have  a  botch  on  one 
of  his  hands  ^  it  is  not  needful  in  order  to 
my  proving  him  a  man  heretofore,  that  I 
prove  he  was  born  and  bred  without  it :  fo 

C3  be 


3  z  The  Anjwer  to  the  pfl  Pafcr^ 

be  it  I  prove  that  he  was  born  a  mair,  it  fuf- 
fkech.  Nor  is  it  ntedfull  that  I  prove  the 
ochf  r  hand  alwaies  to  have  been  free,  in 
order  to  prove  it  a  member  of  the  body  : 
It  fufficcth  that  1  prove  it  to  have  been  ftill 
m  hand. 

I  do  therefore   defire   you  to  perform 
your  work,  and  prove  that    [no  Congre- 
gation hath  been  ftill  vifible,  but  fuch  as 
yours  3    or  that    [  the  whole   Catholike 
Chwrchhath  ever  fince  the  afcention  held 
a    Humane    Univerfal    Governour     un- 
der  thrift,]   or  elfe  I  (hall  take  it  as  a 
giving  up  your  caufe  asindefenfible.     And 
pbferve,  if  you  (hall  prove  only  that  apart 
of  the    Catholike  Church  ftill  held  this 
(which  you  can  never  do  )  then,  t.  You 
will  make  the  Contrary  opinion  as  Confi- 
dent with  falvation  as  yours.     Fcr  the  reft 
of  the  Catholike  Church  is  favable   .2.  And 
then  you  will  allow  me  to  turn  your  Argu- 
ment againft  your  lelf  as  much  as  it  is  agamft 
us  (and  fo   caft  it  away.)    e.g.     what 
ever  Congregation  of  Chriftians  is  now  the 
rrue  Church   of  Chrift ,      hath  been  al- 
ways Vifible   ;    But  no  Congregation  of 
Chntlians  hath  been  alwaies  Vifible,  but 
that  which  quoai  partem  denyeth  the  Pope$ 
univerfal  Headlhip  -,    thereiore  whatever 

Congregation 


The  Anfwer  t$  tbt  fir  ft  Paper.  2  3 

Congregation  of  Chriftians  is  the  true 
Church,  denyech  the  Popes  univerfal  Head- 
fhip. 

Well  !  but  for  all  this  (fuppofing  you 
will  do  your  part )  I  wili  rail  you  in  no- 
thing that's  reafonable,  which  I  can  per- 
form.  A  Catholike Church  in  all  ages  that 
was  againft  the  Pope,in  every  member  of  it, 
I  hope  I  cannot  (hew  you  •,  becaufe  I  hope 
that  you  are  members,  though  corrupt. 
But  you  (hall  have  more  then  a  particular 
Congregation,  or  a  hundred. 

1.  At  this  prefent,  two  or  three  parts  of 

the    Catholike   Church   is   known  to  be 

againft  your  Univerfal  Monarchy.      The 

Greeks,    Armenians ,     Ethiopians ,     e£r. 

befides   the  Proteftants.      2.   In  the  laft 

age  there  were  as  many  or  more.     3.  In 

the  former  ages  till  An.  D.  1000.    there 

were     neer    as  many,    or   rather  many 

more.     For  more  be  fain  off  in  TenJuf% 

iV*£#*,and  other  parts  then  the  Proteftants 

that  came  in.     4.    About  the  year  600. 

there  were  many  more  ,   incomparably  ^ 

and  I  think  then,    but  ac  leaft  of  400. 

years  after  Chrift  I  never  yet  favr  valid 

proof  of  one  Papift  in  all  the  world,  that 

is,  one  that  was  for  the  Popes  Univerfal 

Monarchy  or  Vice-Chnft-ihip.      So  that 

C4  moft 


i  4        Tbt  ^Anfwer  to  the  fir  ft  Paper. 

moft  of  the  Catholike  Church  (  about 
rhree  parts  to  onej  hath  been  againft  yoa 
to  this  day  ^  and  ail  againft  you  for  many 
hundred  years.  Gould  I  name  but  a  Nati- 
on againft  you,  I  fhould  think  I  had  done 
nothing  y  much  lefs  if  I  cited  a  few  men 
in  an  age,  5.  And  all  thofe  of  Ethiopia, 
India,  &c.  'that  arc^  without  the  verge  and 
awe  of  the  Ancient  Roman  Empire,  never 
fo  much  as  gave  the  Pope  that  Primacy  of 
dignity,  which  thofe  within  the  Empire 
gave  him,  when  he  was.  chief,  as  the  Earl 
of  Arundel  is  of  the  Earls  of  England 
that  governeth  none  of  them,  and  as  the 
Lord  Chancellor  may  be  the  chief  judge, 
that  hath  no  power  in  alieno  foro  :  or  as 
t-hc  Eldeft  Juftice  is  chief  in  the  County  and 
on  the  bench,  that  ruleth  not  the  reft. 
Miftake  not  this  Primacy  for  Monarchy, 
nor  the  Romane  Empire  for  the  world,  and 
you  can  fay  nothing. 

At  prefent,  adhomintm^  give  you  fuffici- 
ent  proof  of  this  fuccellion.  As  you  ufe 
'to  fay  that  the  prefent  Church  beft  knew 
the  Judgement  of  the  former  age,  and  fo 
on  to  the  h^ad*,  and  fo  Tradition  beareth 
you  out  ;  I  turn^this  unrefiftibly  againft 
you.  The  far  greatelt  part  of  Christians 
the  world  that  now  arc  in  poffeffion  of 


• 


the 


The  Anfatr  to  the  ft  [I  Pdfer.  25 

the  dodrine  contrary  to  your  Monarchy, 
tell  us  that  they  had  it  from  their  Fathers, 
indfo  on.     And  as  in  Councils,  fo  with 
the  Church  Real,  the  Major  part  (  three  to 
one  )  is  more    to   be    credited  then  the 
Minor  part  ;  efpecially  when  it  is  a  vifible 
felf-advancement  that  the  Minor  part  in-* 
fifteth  on.     6.  And  were  not  this  enough, 
I  might  add,  that  your  weftern  Church  it 
felf  in  its  Reprefentative  Body  at  Conftancc 
and  Bafil,  hath  determined    that  not  the 
P(  pe  but  a  General  Council   is  the  chief 
Governor  under   Chrift  •,    and  that  this 
1  ath  been  ftill  the  judgement  of  the  Church, 
and  that  its  Herefie  in  whoever  that  hold 
the  Contrary.     7.  And  no  man  can  prove 
that  one  half  or  tenth  part  of  your  people 
called  Papifts  are  of  yojur  opinion  ;  for  they 
are  not  called  to  profefsit  by  words:  and 
their  obedience  is  partly  forced/ and  partly 
upon  other  principles  •,  fomc  obeying  the 
Pope  as  their  weftern  Patriarch  of  chief  dig- 
nity -andfomeand  moft  doing  all  for  their  % 
own  peace  and  fafety  :  Their  outward  afts 
Mr  ill  prove  no  more. 

And  now  Sir,  I  have  told  you  what 
Church  of  which  we  are  members, hath  been 
vifible  •  yea  and  what  part  of  it  hath  oppo- 
fedtheVicc-Chriftof^^we.  This  I  delayed 

not 


i6  "the  Anjtver  Utht  fir Jl  Paper. 

not  an  hour  after  1  received  yours,  becaufe 
you  defired  fpeed.     accordingly  1  crave 
your  fpeedy  return  ^  and  intreat  you  to 
advife  with  the  moft  learned  men   (  whe- 
ther Jefuites  or  others  )  of  your  party  in 
London  that  think  it  worth  tneir  thoughts, 
and  time ;  not  that  I  have  any  thoughts  of 
being  their  Equal  in  learning,  but  partly 
becaufe  the  caiefeemeth  to  me  fo  exceed- 
ing palpable,  that  I  think  it  will  fuffice  me 
tofupply  ail  my  dtfefts  againft  the  ableft 
men  on  earth,  or  all  of  them  together,  of v 
your  way  ^  and  principally  becaufe  I  would 
feeyourftrength,  and  know  the  moft  that 
can  be  faid,  that  I  may  be  re&ified  if  I  err 
(  which  I  fufpeft  not )  or  confirmed  the 
more  if  you  cannot  evince  it,  and  fo  may  be 
true  to  Gods  Truth  and  my  own  foul. 


Kick.  Baxter. 


*7 


Mr.  fohnfom  fecond 
Paper* 


Sir, 

IT  was  my  happinefs  to  have  this  Argument 
tr.nf fitted  into  your  learned  and  quia 
hands-^which  gratefully  returns  as  fair  a  mea- 
gre as  it  received  from  yen  :  that  Animo  /tries 
m  both  fides  fepoJedy  Truth  m*y  appear  in  its 
cullfplendcur,  and  feat  it  [elfin  the  Center  of 
both  our  hearts. 

To  your  firft  Exception. 
My  Thefts  was  fufficiently  made  cleer  to 
my  friend,  who  was  concerned  in  it  ■  and 
needed  no  explication  in  usaddrefs  to  the 
earned. 

To  your  fecond  Exception. 
My  Propofitions  were  long,  that  tny 
Argument?  as  was  required,)  migh:  be  very 
(hort,  and  not  exceed  the  quantity  of  half 
iftieet  :  which  enforced  me  to  penetrate 
many  Syllogifms  into  one  ^  and  by  that 
means  in  the  firft  not  to  be  fo  preofe  in 
form,  as  otherwife  I  (hould  have  been. 

To 


1 8  Mr.  Jotinfons  fee  end  Payer. 

To  your  third  Exception. 

Seeing  I  required  nothing  but  Logicall 
form  in  Anfwering,  I  conceive  that  regard 
was  more  to  be  had  amongft  the  learned  to 
that,  then  to  the  errours  of  the  vulgar  : 
that  whileft  ignorance  attends  to  moft 
words,  learning  might  attend  to  moft  rea- 
fon. 

To  your  fourth  Exception. 

■My  Argument  contains  not  precifcly  the 
terms  of  my  Thefts',  becaufe,  when  I  was 
called  upon  to  haften  my  Argument,  1  had 
not  then  at  hand  my  Thefts.  Had  Iput 
more  in  my. The  (is,  then  I  prove  in  my  Ar- 
gument, I  had  been  faulty  •  but  proving 
more  then  my  Thefts  contained  (  as  I 
cleeriy  do  )  no  body  hath  reafon  to  find 
fault  with  me,  fave  my  felt".  The  real'l  diffe- 
rence betwixt  Affemblies  of  Chriftians,  and 
fongregation  of  Chriftitns,  and  betwixt 
Salvation  is  cnlj  to  be  had  in  thofe  Affem- 
blics ,  and  Salvation  is  not  to  be  had 
out  of  that  Congregation^  I  underftand 
not :  feeing  all  particular  affemblies  of  true 
Chrifuans ,  muft  make  one  Congregati- 
on. 

To  your  Anfwer  to  my  firft  Syllogifm. 

He  who  diitinguiftjes  Logically  the 
terms  of  any  propofition,  muft  not  apply 

his 


Mr.  Johnfons  fccond  Paper,  29 

is  diftin&ion  to  fome  one  part  of  the 
>rm  only^but  to  the  whole  re r#z,as  it  ftands 
1  the  propofition  diftinguifhed.  Now  in 
\y  propofition  I  affirm,  that  the  Congrega- 
iqnof  Chriftians  I  fpeak  of  there,  isfuch 
Congregation,  that  it  is  the  true  Church 
f  Chrifi,  that  is,  (as  all  know)  the  whole 
^atholike  Church  ;  and  you  diftinguifh 
hus,  That  I  either  mean  by  Congregation 
he  whole  Catholike  Church,  or  only  fome 
>artof  it  as,  if  onefhould  fay,  Whatsoever 
Congregation  of  men  is  thcCommon-wealth  of 
England^  and  another  in  anfwer  10  it  fhould 
liitmguifh,  either  by  Congregation  of  men 
7ou  mean  the  whole  Common-wealth,  or 
bme  part  of  it,  when  all  men  know,  that  by 
he  Common-wealth  of  England  muit  be 
neant  the  whole  Common-wealth  :  for 
10  part  of  it  is  the  Common- wealth  of  Eng- 
land. 

Again  .you  diftinguifh  ,  that  fome 
hings  are  EfTentials,  or  Ncccffanes,  and 
>thers  Accidents,  which  are  acknowledged 
)rpradifed  in  the  Church.  Now  to  apply 
i his  diftinftion  to  my  Propofition ,  you  muft 
liltinguifh  that  which  I  fay  is  acknowledged 
o  have  been  ever  in  the  Church  by  the  In- 
itmion  of  Chrift,  either  to  be  meant  of  an 
ifTential ,  or  an  Accident  ;    when  all  the 

world 


jo         <LMr.  Johnfons  fecond  Paper. 

world  knows  chat  whatfoevcr  is  acknow- 
ledged ro  have  Joave  been  tver  in  the  Church 
by  Chrifis  JnftitHtion,  cannot  be  meant  of 
Any    Accidental  thing,  but   of  a  nectffary, 
unchangeable  and  Efttntial  thing,  in  Chrifts 
true  Church.    If  one  (hould  advance  this 
propofition,  Whatfoever  Congregation  is 
the  true  Church  of  <:  hrift,  acknowledges 
the Eucharift  ever  to  have  been  by  Chrifis 
JnfiiiutiunTi  proper  Sacrament  of  the  new 
Law:  and  another  (hould  d:ftingui(h  (as 
you  do  my  propofition  )  This  may  be  meant 
either  of  an  Ejf'.ntial  or  Accidental  thing  t$ 
Chrifis  true  Church  :  Seeing  whatsoever  is 
acknowledged   to   have  been   alwaies  in 
Chrifts  Church  and  inftituted  by  Chrift, 
cannot  be  acknowledged  but  as  necejfary 
and  iffentid  to  his  Church.     If  there iOre 
my  Ma'yr,  as  the  terms  lie  expreffed  in  it, 
be  true, it  (hould  have  been  granted:  it 
faife ,  it  (hould  have  been  denyed.    But  no 
Logick  allows  that  it  (hould  be  diftinguifti- 
ed  into  iuch  different  members ,   whereof 
one  is  exprefly  excluded  in  the  very  terms 
of  the    propofition.      Thefe  diftinftions 
therefore,  though  learned  and  fubftantial 
inthemfelves,yec  were  they  here  un(eafoJ 
nable,and  too  illogical  to  ground  an  anfwer 
id  forme  (as  you  ground  yours )  ftill  in- 
filling 


UHr.  Johnfons  fecond  Paper.  $i 

iftingupon  them  in  your  addrcfs  alraoft  to 
:very  propofition. Hence  appears  firft,thatl 
ifed  no  fa.lacy  at  all  ex  Accidente :  feeing 
ny  propofition  could  not  be  verified  of  an 
Acsident.  Secondly  that  all  your  inftances 
)f  Spain,  France ,  &c.  which  include  Acci- 
ients,  are  not  appofite ;  becaufe  your  pro- 
pofitions,  as  they  lie,  have  no.  term  which 
excludes  Accidental  Adjnntts,  as  mine  hath. 

To  thw  Proof  of  my  Major.  Syll.  i 

You  feem  to  grant  the  Major  of  my  fe- 
condSyllogifm  ^  not  excepting  any  thing 
material  againft  it. 

To  my  Minsr. 

You  fall  again  into  the  former  diftin&t- 
ons,  now  difproved  and  excluded,  ot  the 
meaning  of  Congregation,  &c.  in  my  propo- 
fition, and  would  have  me  to  unaerttand 
determinately  either  the  whole  Cathohke 
Church,  or  fome  part  of  it,  (  and  fo  make 
four  terms  in  my  Syllogifm  ; )  whereas  in 
my  Minor,  Congregation  if  Cbrifti.  ns  is 
taken  generically,  and  abiirafts,  as  an  uni- 
verfal,  from  all  particulars.  I  fa}  no  Con- 
gregation, which  is  an  univerfal  negative  ± 
land  when  I  fay,  none,  Save  that  Congregati- 
on which  acknowledges  Saint  Peter,  &c.  the 
term  Congregation  fuppofes  for  the  lame 
[whole  Cathoiike  Church  mentioned  in  my 

former 


3  *  Mr.  Job  n  fons  (econd  Paftf. 

former  Syllogifm,  bur^expreffes  it  Binder  a 
general  cermoi  Congregation  in  confufo^ 
as  I  exprefs  Homo,  when  I  fay  he  is  Animal \ 
a  mm,  when  I  fay  he  is  a  living  creature, 
but  only  generically,  or  in  confu/o.  Now 
fliould  I  have  intended  determinately  either 
the  whole  Catholike  Church,  or  any  part  of 
it,  Ifhouldhave  made  an  inept  Syllogifm, 
which  would  have  run  thus.  Whatfoever 
true  Church  of  Chrift  is  now  the  true 
Church  of  Chrift,  hath  been  always  vifible, 
&c.  But  no  true  Church  of  Chrift  hath 
been  alwaies  vifible,  fave  the  true  Church 
of  Chrift,  which  acknowledges  Saint  Peter, 
&c.  Erg*  whatfoever  true  Churh  of  Chrift 
is  now  the  true  Church,acknowledges  Saint 
Peter,  dec.  which  would  have  been  idem  per 
idem  •  for  every  one  knows,  that  the  true 
Church  of  Chri'ft5is  now  the  true  Church  of 
Chrift.  But  fpeaking,  as  Ido,inabftra&ive 
and  generical  terms,  I  avoid  this  abfurdi- 
ty,and  frame  a  true  Syllogifm. 

Now  my  meaning  in  this  Minor  could 
be  no  other  then  this,  which  my  words  ex- 
prefs •,  That  the  Congregation  ,  that  is, I 
the  whole  Congregation  acknowledges  Saint 
Peter,  Sic.  and  is  vifible,  &c.  and  not  any 
part,  greatorfmallofit.  For  when  I  fay,' 
the  Parliament  of  thefe  Nations  doth,  or 

hath' 


Mr.  JohnConsfecend  Paper]  £3 

rath  cnafted  a  Stature,  who  would  demand 
>f me,  whether  I  meant  ,the;  whole  Parlia- 
nent,  or  fome  determinate  part  of  it  I 
foufhould  therefore  have  denyed,  not 
iiuffdiftinguilhedmy  Minor  quite  againft 
he  exprefc  words  of  it.  What  you  fay 
igain  of  Eflfentials  and  Accident?,  is  already 
"cfuted  ^  and  by  that  alfo  your  Syllogifm5 
wrought  by  way  of  inftance.  For  your 
^ropofition  doth  not  fay,  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  acknowledges  thofe  things  were 
rjwaies  done,  and  cbac  by  Chrifis  Inftituti- 
)»,as  my  prcpofirion  fays  (he  acknowledges 
Saint  Peter andhls  fuccefTors.  i 

<    To  oiy  third  Syllogifm. 
•  Granting  my  Major,  you  diftinguifh  tba 
term  Pafiors  in  my  Minor y  into  particular 
and    univerfal,  fixed   and  unfixed,  &c.  1 
anfwer,  that  the  teem  Paftonrs  (  as  before 
Congregation)    fignifies  determinately.no 
one  of  thefe,but  generically  and  in  confufo 
all  -  and  fo  abftrads  from  each  of  them  in 
particular,   as  the  word  Animal*  3.b{\ta&$ 
from   homo   and  brutum.    Neither    can  I 
mean  fome  parts  of  the  Church  only,  had 
Paftors  *  for  I  fay,  tvhatfocver  CongrtgktitH 
of  £hriftians    is,  now .  the  true    Church  of, 
Cfcrifiyhath  altvaies  had. vifible  Paftors  and 
People  united.     Now  fbc  Church  is  not.  a 

D  part, 


3  4         Mr.  John  [onsjecond  Paper.  j 

part  but  the  whole  Church ,  that  is,  both  thq 

whole  body  of  the  Church,  and  all  particuJ 

lar  Churches  the  parts  of  it.     And  hence  is] 

folved  your  argument  of  the  Indians,   of] 

people  converted  by  lay-men,  when  parti-J 

cular  Pallors  are  dead,  &c.  For  thofe  were 

fubjefts  of  the  chief  Bifhop  alone,  till  fome 

infenour  Paftors  were  lent  to  them.     For 

when  they  were  taught  the  Chriftian  Do-] 

drine5  in  the  explication  of  that  Article,  /] 

believe    the  Holy  Catholik?  Church,    they] 

were  alfo  taught,  that  they  being  people  ofl 

Chrifts  Church,  muft  fub jeft  themfelves  to] 

their  lawful  Paftors,  this  being  a  part  of  the  j 

Chriftian  doftrine.  Heb.  13.  who  though  J 

abfentinbody,  may  yet  be  prefent  in  fpiJ 

rit  with  them,  as  Saint  P^/z/faith  of  himfclfj 

I  Cor.  5.  3. 

Your  Anfwer  to  the  confirmation  of  my  j 
Major  feems  ftrange.  For  I  fpeak  of  vi-\ 
fible  Paftors,  and  you  fay  lis  true  of  an] 
xlnvi$ble  Paftor,  that  is,  Chrift  our  Saviour,! 
who  is  now  mht&ven^  invifible  to  men  on] 
earth.  The  reft  is  a  repetition  of  what  is! 
immediately  before  anfwered. 

£phef.4.  proves  not  only  that  fome] 
particular  Churches,  or  parts  of  the  whole^ 
Church,  muft  alwaies  have  Paftors,  but] 
that  the  whole  Church  it  felf  muft  have! 

Paftors, 


Mr.  Johnfons  fecond  Paper.  3  j 

Paftors,  and  every  particular  Church  in  it  ^ 
for  it  fpeaks  of  that  Church  which  is  the 
Body  of  Cbrifi  •  which  can  be  no  lels  then 
the  whole  Church.  For  no  particular 
Church  alone  is  his  myftical  Body,  but  only 
a  part  of  it. 

Ephef.  4.  is  not  dire&ly  alledged  to 
prove  an  univerfal  Monarch,  (  as  you  fay  J 
but  to  prove  an  uninterrupted  continuance 
of  vifiblc  Paftors  •  that  being  only  affirm- 
ed in  the  propofition,  which  I  prove  by  it. 
2.  This  is  already  Anfwered. 

I  ftand  to  the  judgement  of  any  true 
Logitian ,  nay  or  expert  Lawyer,  or  rational 
perfon,  whether  a  Negative  propofition  be 
to  be  proved  otherwife  then  by  obliging 
him  who  denies  it,  to  give  an  initance  to 
infringe  it.     Should  you-  fay,  no  man  hath 
right  to  my  Benefice  andFunBionin  myyarifh^ 
fave  my  J elf,  and  another  fhould  deny  what 
you  faid  •  would  not  you,  or  any  rational 
man  in  your  cafe,  anfwer  him,  that  by  de- 
nying  your   propofition  he  affirmed  that 
fome  other  had  right  to  them,  and  to  make 
good  that  affirmation  was  obliged  to  pro- 
duce who  that  was :  which  till  he  did,  you 
.ftill  remained  thefole  juft  pofTeffour  of  your 
Benefice  as  before-,  and  every  one  will 
judge,  that  he  had  no  reafonto  deny  your 

D  2  aflfertionp 


r 


$6  Mr.  Johnfons  fccond  Papetl 

affertion,whcn  he  brought  no  proof  againft 
it.     This  is  our  cafe. 

The  Contradiction,  which  you  would 
draw  from  this,  againft  my-  Nego,  Concedo^ 
&c.  exaded  from  the  Refpondent,  and  no- 
thing clfe,  follows  nor.  For  that  prescri- 
ption is  to  be  underftood,  that  the  Refpon- 
dent  of  himfelf,  without  fcope  given  him  by 
the  opponent,  was  not  to  ufe  any  other 
forms  in  Anfwering-,  But  if  the  opponent 
fliould  require  that  the  refpondent  give  rea- 
fons.orinltances,  or  proofs,  of  what  he  de- 
nies,that  then  the  Refpondent  is  to  proceed 
to  them.  And  this  is  moft  ordinary  in  all  Lo- 
gicall  Difputations,  where  ftrid  form  is  ob- 
ierved,  and  known  to  every  yong  Logitian. 
Inftances  therefore  demanded  by  the  oppo- 
nent, were  not  excluded,  but  only  fuch  ex- 
curfions  out  of  forra,as  fhould  proceed  from 
the  refpondent,  with  out  being  exadedby 
the  opponent. 

You  fay,  though  1  make  a  Negative  of 
it,  I  may  put  it  in  other  terms  at  myplea- 
fure.  But  the  queftion  is  not  what  I  may 
do,  but  what  I  did  :  I  required  not  an  An- 
fwer  to  an  Argument,  which  I  nfiay  frame, 
but  to  that  which  I  had  then  framed,  which 
was  exprefled  in  a  negative  propofition. 

You  tell  mc  if  I  prove  the  Popes  univer- 

fai 


Mr.  Johnfons  ftcond  Paper.  3  j 

fal  Supremacy,  you  will  be  a  Papift  :  And  I 
tell  you,  I  ha  ye  proved  it  by  this  rery  Ar- 
gument,That  either  He  hath  that  fuprema- 
cy,  or  fome  other  Church  •  denying  that  he 
hath  alwaieshail  itJhach  beenalwaiesviftble-, 
and  that  Church  I  require  fhould  be  named, 
if  any  fuch  be,and  whileft  you  refufe  to  name 
that  Church  ('as  here  you  do  )  you  neither 
anfwer  the  Argument,  nor  become  a  Papift. 

You  fay  I^ffirm^nd  Intvft  prove.  I  fay  in 
the  propofition,about  which  we  now  fpeak, 
I  affirm  not,and  fo  muft  not  prove  -y  and  you 
by  denying  it  ,muft  affirm,ani  fo  muft  prove. 

You  prove  it  is  not  your  part  here  to 
prove,  becaufe  the  Popes  fupremacy  could 
not  be  denyed  5  before  it  was  affirmed  •  and 
you  muft  be  obliged  to  prove  that  denyal. 
I  oblige  you  not  to  prove  acontinued  vifible 
Church  formally  and  exprefly  denying  it, 
but  that  it  was  of  fuch  a  Conftitution  as 
was  inconfiftent  with  any  fuch  fupremacy, 
or  could  and  did  fubfift  without  it  ^  which 
is  an  Affirmative. 

You  affirm,  that  becaufe  I  fay  you  can- 
not be  fayed  if  you  deny  that  Supremacy, 
and  you  fay  that  I  may  be  faved  though 
I  hold  it,  Therefore  you  are  not  bound  to 
prove  whar  I  reprove,  but  1  to  prove  my 
negative  proportion.  But  this  would  prove 

D  3  as 


38  Mr.  Johnfonsfecwd  Paper. 

as  well,  that  a  Mahumetan  is  not  bound 
to  prove  his  religion  to  you,  but  you  to 
prove  yours  to  him,  becaufe  you  fay  he 
cannot  be  faved  being  a  Mahumetan  •,  and 
he  fays,  that  you  may  be  faved  being 
a  Chriftian.  See  you  not,  that  the  obliga- 
tion of  proof  in  Logicall  form  depends  not 
ofthefirftpoficion.or  Thefts,  but  mult  be 
drawn  from  the  immediate  proportion, 
affirmative  or  negative,  which  is  or  ought 
to  be  propofed  ? 

To  what  you  fay  of  an  Accident  and  a 
corrupt  part, I  have  already  anfwered. 

To  what  you  fay  of  a  vice-king,  not  be- 
ing neceffary  to  the  Conftitution  of  a  king- 
dom, but  a  king  andfubje&s  only,  is  true, 
if  a  vice-king  be  not  inftituted  by  the  Full 
power  of  an  Abfolute  Authority  over  $hat 
kingdom,  to  be  an  ingredient  into  the 
effenceof  the  Kingdom,  in  the  Kings  ab- 
fence;  But  if  fo  conftituted,  it  will  be 
effential  -5  now  my  propofitionfaith,and  my 
Argument  proves,  that  by  the  Abfolute 
Authority  of  Chrlft, Saint  Peter  and  his  Sue- 
cejfors  were  inftituted  Governors  in  Chrifis 
'place  of  his  Whole  vifible  Church  •,  and 
.whatfoever  Government  Chrift  inftitutes 
of  his  Church,  muft  be  effential  to  his 
hurchr     You  fee  now  the  Difparity. 

You< 


CMr,  Jonnions  Jecond  Paper.  39 

You  infitt  to  have  me  prove  a  Negative  ^ 
md  I  infift  to  have  you  prove  that  Af- 
irmative,  which  you  h\\  into  by  deny- 
ng  my  Negative,  and  leave  it  to  judge- 
nent,  whole  exaction  is  the  more  conform 
0  reafon,  and  logical  form. 

Eut  if  I  prove  not  here  ,  fay  you  ,  the 
whole  Caiholike  Churches  holding  ever  the 
Popes  Supremacy,  yotifbtlltake  it  as  a  give- 
\ng  up  my  caufe.  I  tell  you  again,  that  I 
tave  proved  it  by  this  very  Argument, 
by  force  of  Syllogiftical  form  :  and  it  is 
not   reafonable    to    judge   that    I   have 

en  up  my  caufe,  it  I  prove  not  a- 
gain,  what  I  have  already  proved. 

Your  caking  upon  you  the  part  of  an 
opponent  now  is,  you  know,  out  -of  Sea- 
fon  •  when  that  is  yours,  minefhal!  be  the 
Respondent. 


AT  length  you  give  a  fair  attempt  to 
fatisfie  your  obligation  ,  and 
to  return  fuch  an  inftancc  as  I  demanded 
of  you.  But  you  are  too  free  by  much  in 
your  offer.  I  demand  one  Congregation, 
and  you  promife  to  produce  more  then  an 
hundred.  But  as  they  abound  in  the  num- 
ber, fo  are  they  deficient  in  the  quality 

1)  4  which 


4P  Ur.  Jphnfons  \econd  Ptfer. 

which  I  require.  I  demand,  that  the  An- 
swerer nominate  any  Congregation  of  Chrifii- 
*hs%  which  alwayes  till  this  prefent  time  finve 
Chrifi  hath  been  vifible,  &c.  and  you  tell  mc 
of  more  then,  an  hundred  Congregations, 
befides  that  which  acknowledges  Saint  Per 
ter,  &c.  whereof  not  any  one  Jhath  been  all 
that  clefigned  time  vifible:  which  is  as  if  I 
had  demanded  an  Anfwerer  to  nominate 
any  Family  of  Gentry,  which  hath  fuccef- 
fively  continued  ever  fince  William  the 
jConquerour  tijl  this  prefent  time  \  and  h$ 
who  undertakes  to  fatisfie  my  demand, 
fhoujd  nominate  more  then  a  hundred  Fa?- 
inilies,  whereof  not  fo  much  as  one  conti- 
nued half  that  time0  You  nominate  fir  ft 
all  thefe  prefent,  the  Greekj\  Armeni^m^ 
-Ethiopians,  befides  the  Protectants.  Thefe 
you  begin  with.  Now  to  fatisfie  my  de- 
nr.and^  you  muft  affert,  that  thefe,  whom 
ytTu  firft  name,  are  Both  one  Congregation^ 
^nd  h^ve  been  vifible  ever  fince  thrifts 
fime.  This  you  do  not  in  the  purfuee  of 
your  Allegations.  For  Nurr>b.  2.  you  no- 
Siiinate  none  at  all,  but  tell  me,  that  in  the 
}afi  age  there  yeere  as  many  or  more.  What 
,i<v?re  thefe  as  many-  or  more  ?  were  they 
tji.e  fame  which  you  nominated  firft,  or 
otter j  ?.  I  required  fome 'determinate  Con^- 

gregation 


Mr.  Johnfons  fecdnd  paptrl  4 1 

wcation  to  be  nominated  all  the  while 
md  you  tell  tne  of  as  manj  or  more,  but  fay 
lot  of  what  determinate  congregation  they 
tfere.  In  your  Num.  3.  you  tell  me  , 
n  the  for  merages,  till  one  thoufand,  there 
were  neer  as  many,  or  rather  many  more, 
K  fair  account !  But  in  the  mean  time  you 
nominate  none,  much  lefs  profecute  you 
:hofe  with  whom  you  begun.'  Num.  4.  You 
fay,  in  the  year  fix  hundred  there  were  many 
mere  incomparably.  Whar  many  ?  whac 
more}  were  they  the  fame  which  you  no- 
minated in  the  beginning,  and  made  one 
Congregation  with  them  ?  or  were  they 
quite  different  Congregations  ?  what  am 
I  the  wifer  by  your  faying  many  more  incom- 
parably, when  yo"u  tell  me  not  what,  or  who 
rheywere?  Then  you  fay,  But  at  lea  ft  for 
f</ur  hundred  years  after  Chrift,  I  never  lei 
faw  valid  proof  of  tne  P  apt  ft  in  all  the  yvorldy 
it  is,  one  that  Was  for  the  Popes  nniverfal 
Monarchy  ,or  vlce-Chr iff /hip.  What  then  ? 
are  there  no  proofs  in  the  world,  but  what 
you  have  feen  ?  or  may  not  many  of  thofe 
proofs  be  valid  which  you  have  feen  , 
though  you  efteemthem  not  fo  /and  can 
you  think  it  reafonabie;  upon  your  fingle 
nvffeeing,or:  not]ndgir.  to  C  mtfude 

abfolutely,asyou  bcreao, >£***£/       been 

againft 


42  Mr.  J  ohnfons  fecond  P4per* 

againftusfor  many  hundred  years?  In  yout' 
Num.   5 .    You  name  Ethiopia  and  India 
as  having  been  without  the  limits  of  the1 
Roman  Empire,  whom  you  deny  to  have 
acknowledged  any  fupremacy  of  power  and! 
authority  above  all  other  Bifhops.     You 
might  have  done  well  to  have  cited  atleaft 
one  antient  Author  for  this  AfTertion.Were 
thofe  primitive  Chriftians  of  another  kind 
*B    how0^  Church-order   and  Government,  then] 
far  from    were  thofe  ^nder  the   Roman  Empire  *  ?.' 
truth  this  When  the  Roman  Emperors  were  yet  H:a- 
is,  appears  thens,  had  not  the  Biftiop  of  Rome  the  Su- 
from  St.  premacy  over  all  other  Bifhops  through  the. 
Sermons 1S  w^e  Church  ?    and  did  thofe  Heathen] 
denatali    Emperors  give   it   him  ?    How  came  St. 
fuo,  where  Cyprian,  in  time  of  the  Heathen  Empire  to 
he  faies,    requeft  Stephen  the  Pope  to  punifh  and  de- 

maPtin  ?°Ie  the  Bi{hoP  of  ArUs>  as  we  llia11  fee 
quicqJd    hereafter?  Had  he  that  authority   ( think 

nmpoffidet  you)  from  an  Heathen  Emperour  ?  See 
*lmu,  7{p-  now  how  little  your  Allegations  are  to  the 
ligion:  te-  pUrp0fe .  vvhere  you  nominate  any  de- 
by  this,  terminate  Congregations  to  fatisfie  my  de- 
that  the     mand.  -  j 

Abyfrdcs 

ef  Ethiopia  were  under  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  anticmiyy 
•which  Patriarch  was  m&tr  the  Authority  of  the  7tymaneBi(bop,  as 
we  [hall pre fently  fee. 


J        Mr,  Johnfons  feccnd  Paper.  4  * 

II  had    no  reafon   to    demand  of  you 
ferent  congregations,   of  all    forts  and 
!e  &s  oppofing  the  Supremacy,  to  have  been 
.  tewn  vifible  in  all  ages.    I  was  not  fo  ig- 
)rant,  as  not  to  know,  that  the  Nicolai- 
ts ,  Valentinians  ,  Gnofiickj,  Afanichs es, 
Afontanifts,  Arians ,  Dwatifts,  Neftoriansy 
lfHtychians,  Pelagians,  IconocUlis,  Beren- 
ians.Waldenftans,  Albigenfes,  Wicleffifis, 
fujjits,  Lutherans,  Calvinifis>  &c.    each 
lowing  others  had  fome  kind  of  vifibili- 
,  divided  and  dillrafted  each  to  his  own 
fpeftive  age,  fromoiir  time  totheApo- 
plts,  in  joymng  their  heads  and  hands  to- 
her  againft  the  Popes  Supremacy.     But 
)ecaufc  thefe  could  not  be  called  one  fttc- 
effive  Congregation  of  Chriftians,  being  all 
;ether  by  the  ears  amongft  themfelves  • 
fhould  not  have  thought  it  a  demand  be- 
seeming a  Scholar,  to  have  required  fuch  a 
ibility  as  this.     Seeing  therefore  all  you 
determinatcly    nominate  ,    are  as   much 
different  as  thefe-  pardon  me,  if  I  take  it 
:    for  any  fatisfadion  at  all  to  my  de- 
mand, or  acquittance  of  your  obligation, 
-ng  me  a  vifible   fucceflion  of  any  one 
Congregation  of  Chriftians,   of  the  fame 
belief,  profeffion,  and  communion,  for  the 
defigned  time,  oppofing  that  Supremacy, 

and 


44  #>"••  John  Cons  fee  end  Paper. 

and  you  will  have  fatisfied  ;  but  till  that  b 
done,  I  leave  it  to  any  equal  judgement, 
whether   my  demand   be  fatisfied  or  no. 
You  anfwer  *o  this,  That  all  thofe.,  who  are 
nominated  by  you^are  farts  of  the  Catholikt 
Church,  andfo  one  Congregation.     But  Sir, 
give  me  leave  to  tell  you,  that  in  your  prin- 
ciples,   you  put  both  the  Church  of  RomeM 
3nd  your  felves,  to  be  parts  of  theCatho-i  | 
like  Church  ;   and  yet   fure  you  account 
them  not  one  Congregation  of  Chriftians, 
feeing  by  feparation  one  from  another  they 
are  made  two :  or  if  you  account  them  one\ 
why  did  you  feparate  your  fel ves,   and  ftill 
remain  feparate  from  communion  with  the 
Ruman  Church  ?  why  poffeffed  you  your 
m  felvesof  the  Bifhopricks  and  Cures  of  your 
own  Prelates  and  Paftors,  they  yet  living 
in  Queen  Elizabeths  time  ?  and  drew  both 
your  felvesand  their  other  fubjefts  from  all 
fubje&ion  to  them ,  and  communion  with 
them  ?    Is  this  difunion,  think  you,  fit  to 
make  one  and  the  fame  Congregation  of 
you  and  them?  is  not  charity,  fubordina- 
tion,  and  obedience  to  the  fame  flate  and* 
government  required  as  well  to  make  one 
Congregation  of  Chriftians,  as  it  is  required 
to  make  one  Congregation  of  Common- 
wealths men  ?  Though  therefore  you  do  ac- 
count 


\M  r i  Joh  n  fons  fecotid  Paper*  4$ 

xnint  them  all  parts  of  the  Catholike' 
church,  yet  you  cannot  make  them  in  your 
principles  one  Congregation    ot  Chriftians. 
Secondly,  your  poficion  is  not  true  •  the 
particulars  named  by  you  neither  are,  nor 
:anbe  parts  of  the  Catholike  Church,  un- 
.efs  you  make  Avians,  and  Pelagians,   and 
Donatifts,  pa*:ts  of  the  Catholike  Church  : 
which  were  either  to  deny  them  to  be  He- 
reticks   and  Schifmaticks  ^    or  to  affirm, 
that  HereticKs  and  Schifmaticks,  feparating 
rhemf elves   from  the  communion   of  the 
Catholike   Church,    notwithftanding  tbat|?ec.^^ 
feparation,  do  continue  parts  of  the  Catho-  ^Rcliei- 
like  Church.     For  who  knows  not  that  the  0ns3^  99I 
Ethiopians  to  this  day  ar.^  *  Eutychian  He-  ^9',  491* 
recicks.     And  a  great  part  of  tbofe  Greeks  &"c- 
and  Armenians,  who  deny  the  Popes  Supre-  5  .  clt^acC 
macy,   are   infe&ed   with  the  Herefie  <)£  they'd*? 
Nt florins ,  and  all  of  them  profefs  generally  cumclfe 
all  thofe  points  of  taith  with  us  agamlt  you,  *e«  cha? 
wherein  you  differ  from  us  •  and  deny  to    en  *he 

'  >  J        eighth 

day, they 
ufe  Mofaical  ceremonies.  They  mention  not  the  council  of 
Cd/cft/0*5becaufe  (faies  he)  they  are  Eutychians  and  Jacobites, 
and  confefles  that  their  Patriarch  is  in  fubjection  to  the  Patri- 
arch of  Alextuidria,  &c.  See  more  of  the  Chofti,  Jacobites, 
Maronitcs,  &c.  p.  493,4^4.  where  he  confefles  that  many  of 
them  are  now  fubject  to  the  Pope*  and  have  renounced  their  old 
errors. 

com- 


4$  Mr.  Johnfons  fecond  Paper. 

communicate  with  you,  or  to  efteem  yon 
other  then  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks,  un- 
lefs  you  both  agree  with  them  in  thofe 
differences  of  faith,  andfubjeft  your  felve* 
to  the  obedience  of  the  Patriarch  of  Con 
ftantinofle,  as  to  the  chief  Head  and  Go 
vernour  of  all  Chriftian  Churches  next 
under  Chrift  •  and  confequently  as  muct  « 
avice-Chrift,  in  your  account,  as  the  Pope 
can  be  conceived  to  be.  Sec,  if  you  pleafe. 
'Hieremias  Patriarch  of  Conftantinofle,  hi< 
Anfvver  to  the  Lutherans,  especially  in  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  book  •  Atta  Theo- 
logorum  Wittebergenfium^  &c.  and  Sir  Ed- 
ypyn  Sands,  of  this  iubjed,  in  his  Survey 
f.  232,233,242,  &c. 

Either  therefore  you  muft  make  the 
Eutychians  and  Neftorians  no  Hereticks. 
andfo  contradidthe  Oecumenical  Coun- 
cils  of  Efhefpts ,  and  Chalcedon ,  whici 
condemned  them  as  fuch  •  and  the  conieni 
of  all  Orthodox  Chriftians,  whoever  fina 
efteemed  them  no  others  •  or  you  mud 
make  condemned  Hereticks  parts  of  the 
Cathoiick  Church,  againft  all  antiquity 
and  Chriftianity.  And  for  thofe  Greek 
neer  Conflantinople,  who  are  not  infe&ec 
with  Neftorianiim  and  Eutychianifm,  yet 
in  the  Procefiion  of  the  Holy  Ghoft3  againfl 

bott 


Mr.  Johnfons  fe cond  Paper.  47 

both  us  and  you,  they  muft  be  thought  to 
maintain  raanifeft  Herefie  1  it  being  a  point 
in  a  fundamental  matter  of  faith,  the  Trini- 
ty ;  and  the  difference  betwixt  thofe  Greeks 
and  the  Weftern  Church,  now  for  many 
hundred  of  years,  and  in  many  General 
Councils  efteemed  and  defined  to  be  real 
and  great  •,  yea  fo  great,  that  the  Greeks 
left  the  Communion  of  the  Roman  Church 
upon  that  difference  alone,  and  ever 
efteemed  theBifhopof  Rome  and  his  party  Sec  Nilus 
to  have  fallen  from  the  true  faith,  and  loft  °n. *£ 
his  ancient  authority  by  that  fole  pretend-  * 
ed  error  ^  and  the  Latins  alwaies  efteemed 
the  Greeks  to  be  in  a  damnable  error ,  in 
maintaining  the  contrary  to  the  do&rine 
of  the  Weftern  or  Roman  Church  in  that 
particular.  And  yet  fure  they  understood 
what  they  held,  and  how  far  they  differed 
one  from  another,  much  better  then  feme 
Novel  writers  of  yours,  who  preft  by  force 
of  Argument,  have  no  other  way  left  them 
to  maintain  a  perpetual  vilibility,  then  by 
extenuating  that  difference  of  Procejficn 
betwixt  the  Greek  and  Latin  Church,which 
fo  many  ages  before  Proteftancy  fprung  up, 
was  efteemed  a  main  fundamental  error  by 
both  parts,  caufed  the  Greeks  to  abandon 
all  fubje&ion  and  Communion  to  the  Bi- 

fhops 


&fi       tMr.  Johnfcns  fccotod  Paper 

fhops  of  Home  ^  made  them  fo  divided  the 
one  from  the  other,  that  they  held  each 
other  Hereticks  v  Schifmaticks,  and  de- 
fercors  of  the  true  faith,  as  they,  continue 
ftill  to  do  to  this  day,  and /yet  you  will  hav.e 
them  both  to  be  parts  of  the .  Catholike 
Church. ,  [ . 

But  when  you  have  made  the  beft  you  can 
of  thefe  Greeks,  Armenians ,  Ethiopians, 
Proteftants,  whom  you  firft  name ,  yoa 
neither  have  deduced,  nor  can  deduce  them 
fucceffively  in  all  ages  till  Chrift,  as  a  diffe- 
rent Congregation  of  Christians ,  from  that 
which  holds  the  Popes  Supremacy  y  which 
was  my  propofition.  Por  in  the  year  1 500. 
thofe  who  became  the  firft  Proteitants,were 
not  a  Congregation,  different  from  thofe 
who  held  that  fupremacy;  nor  in  the  year 
500.  were  the  Greeks  a  vjfible  Congregati- 
on different  from  it  ^  nor  in  the  year  300. 
were  the  Neltorians  5  nor  in  the  year,  20<i 
the  Eutychians  a  -different m  Congregation 
from  thofe  who  held,  the  faid.  Supremacy  l 
But  in  thofe  refpeftive  years,  thofe  who 
firft  begun  thofe  Herefies,  were  involved 
*  within  that  Congregation,  which  held  it,  as 
apart  of  it,  and  aflenting  therein  with  it : 
who  after  in,  their  feveral  ages  and;  begin- 
flings  fell  offfrom  it,  as  dead  branches  fronj, 

the 


Mr.  Johnfons  feeond  Paper.  49 

the  tree  ^  that,  ftill  remaining  what  it 
*verwas,and  only  continuing  in  a  perpe- 
tuall  vifibility  of  iucceflion. 

Though  therefore  you  profefs  never  to 
have  feen  convincing  proof  of  this  in  the  fir  ft 
400  years,  &  labour  to  infringe  it  inthenext 
ages,  yet  1  will  make  aneflay  to  give  you  a 
tafte  of  thofe  innumerable  proofs  of  this  vir, 
fible  Confent  in  the  Bifhop  of  Rome's  Supre- 
macy, not  of  Order  only,  but  of  Power ^Au- 
thority,&  J urif diction  over  ail  otherBifhops, 
in  the  enfuing  inftances,  which  happened  (*)Ub£~ 
within  the  firft  400,  or  500,  or  600,  years.  ratHS  llt 

(aj   John  Bifhop  of  Antioch  makes  an  ^ h  x* 
Appeal  to  Pope  Simplicius.     And  FUvi-  pr/aL 
anus  (  b  )  Bifhop  of  Constantinople,  being  biilaXmciU 
depofed  in  the  falfe  Councill  of  Ephefm,  clulcedon. 
immediately  appeals  to  the  Pope,  as  to  Lis  ty  cowl. 
judge,  (c)  Theodoret  was  by  Pope  Leo  re-  ^a.  1. 
ftored,  and   that  by   an     (  d  )     appeal- (6)  com!, 
unto  a  juft  judgement,    (e)  Saint  Cy-  chatcedon.' 
friun  defires  Pope  Stephen  to  depofe  Mar-  ^  &• 
cian  Bifhop  of  Aries,  that  another  might  ^i^ff". 
be  fubftituted  in  his  place.     And  to  evince  67.  #       ' 
thefupream  Authority  of  the  Bifhops  oi(f)conclim 
Rowejt  is  determined  in  the  (f)  Council  Sard.cap.'^ 
of  W*,  That  no  Bifhop  depofed  by  other  ^  Jy  Sc* 
neighbouring  Bifhops,   pretending  to  be  ApL\.fs* 
heard  again,  was  to  have  any  fucceflbur  7^, 

E  appointed, 


jo  Mr.  John  [cms  fee  endpaftrl 

appointed,  until  the  cafe  were  defined  by 
(g)  ft.Ba-  the  Vope.Euftathius  (  g  )Bi(hop  of  Sebafi  in 
fii.  Epifl.  Armenia  was  reftored  by  Pope  Liberia  his 
(h )  st  Letters  read  and  received  in  the  Council  of  I 
Chryfoft*  Tyana  ;  and  (  h )  Saint  Chryfvftome  ex-  | 
Bplfi.  z.  ad  prefly  defires  Pope  Innocent  not  to  punifh 
unocent.  h[s  Adverfaries,  if  they  do  repent.  Which 
(i)Concii.  ev[nces   that  Saint    Chryfofiome   thought 

!*#!  .  2*  ^at  c^e  p0Pe  ^  Power  to  punifh  them, 
(k;  §t.  A-  And  the  like  is  written  to  the  Pope  by  the 
thanaf.  ad  ( i)  Council  of  Ephefus  in  the  cafe  of  John 
Sollt.  Epift.  Bifhop  oiAntioch. 

Ih^An-       (  k  )  The  Bl(hoPs  of  the  Greek> 0r  Eaft- 

ari  ap.A-    ern  Church,  who  fided  with  Arius,  before 

than.  Apo*  they  declared  themfelves  to  be  Arians,  fent 

leg  i.  fag.  their  Legates  to  Julius  Bifhop  of  Rome  to 

Vh'rA       have  their  caufe  heard  before  him  againft 

lib  I  cap*1'.  ^a*nt  ^thanafius  :  the  fame  did  Saint  Atha- 

AthanafJ  '  nafiv*  to   defend  himfelf  againft   them  : 

Apot.  i.      which  Arian  Bilhops  having  underftood 

Zo^em.  lib.  from  Julius,  that  their  Accufations  againft 

3.cap.j.      £ajnt   AthantfiHSi  upon   due  examination 

of  both  parties,  were  found  groundlefs  and 

falfe,  required  (  rather  fraudulently,  then 

fenoufly)  to  have  a  fuller  Tryal  before  a 

General  Council  at  Rome  ;    which    (  to 

take  away  all  fhew  of  excufe  from  them  ) 

Pope  Julius  affcmbled.Saint  Athanafius  was 

fummoned  by  the  Pope  to  appear  before 

him 


cflf  r.  Johnfons  fectnd  Paper.  5 1 

him  and  the  Councill  in  Judgement :  which  Tne  AP- 
he  prefcntly  did ;  (  and  many  other  Eaitern  £:aI  *f 
Bifhops  unjultly  acculed    by  the   Anans  from  lyut 
aforefaid,  had  recourfeto  Rome  with  him  J  Council  as 
andexpe&ed  there  a  year  and  a  half  :  All  to  his 
which  time  his  Accufers  (though  alfo  fum-iu^SV*[0 
moned  )  appeared  not,  fearing  they  ffcouid  "^atc^. C 
be  condemned  by  the  Pope  and  his  Conn-  mer  is  for- 
till.     Yet  they  pretended  not  (asProte- ced«oac- 
ftantshave  done  in  thefe  lift  ages  of  the  knowledge 
tings  of  England)  That  Conftxntim,  thej^J^J 
Arian  Emperour  of  the  Eaft,  was  Head,  or  ^  *  93%' 
chief  Governour  over  their  Church  in  all  and  the 
c  aufes  Ecclefiaftical  -o     and  confequently  whole 
that  the  Pope  had  nothing  to  do  with  them,  ^"Jr  ^ 
but  only  pretended  certain  frivolous   ex-  ackn0W-3 
cufes  to  delay  their  appearance  from  one  kdged  the 
time  to  another.     Where  it  is  worth  the  right  of 
noting,  that  Julius^  reprehending  the  faidtQ^Ap- 
Arid*   Bifhops    (  before  they   publiihed  ^°  Tbeo- 
doret to  his 
Biflioprkk,  by  force  of  an  order  given  upon  that  Appeal  by  Leo 
Poft  to  reftorchim. 

Concerning  Saint  Ath.mnfius  being  judged  and  righted  bv 
Julius  Pope,  Cbamitr*  cic.p.  497.  acknowledges  the  matter  of 
fad  to  be  fo,  but  againft  al1  antiquty,  pretends  that  judgment 
to  have  been  unjuft.  Which,  had  it  bcenfo,  yet  it  (hews  a  true 
power  of  judging  in  the  Pope,  though  then  unduly  executed  , 
other  wife  Saint  Aihj<iafiu^  would  never  have  made  ufc  of  it., 
neither  can  it  be  condemed  of  injuftice;  unlcfs  Sain;  Atfjinapui 
be  alfo  condemed  as  unjuft,  in  contenting  to  it, 

E  2  their 


»J      J  "J  *'l| 


5  2  ii/r.  Johnfons/i*W  r*/>.'r. 

their  Herefie,  and  fo  taking  them  to  be 
Catholikes)  forcondemriiigSaim  Athna- 
fiiu  in  an  Eaftern  Councill ,  gathered  by 
them  before  they  had  acquainted  the  Bi- 
fhop of  Rome  with  fo  important  a  caufe, 
ufeth  thefe  words,  An  ign&ri  eft  is  hanc  ccn- 
fnetudinem  ejfe,  ut  prirnum  nobts  fcribatur  •, 
ut  bine  quod  jpiftnm  eft,  dtfiniri  fejfit,  &c. 
Are  joh  ignorant ,  faith  he, that  this  is  the 
cufkome,toTvriteto  us  firft,  Thtt  htnee  that, 
which  is  jnft  may  be  defined,  &c.  where  moft 
cleerly  it  appears,  that  it  belonged  particu- 
larly to  the  Biftiop  of  Rome  to  pafs  a  defini- 
tive fentence  even  againft  the  Bifhops  of  the 
Eaftern,  or  Greek  Church  ^  which  yet  is 
more  confirmed  by  the  proceedings  of  Pope 
Innocent  the  firft,  about  12.  hundred  years 

Wceph*  lib.  ^nce,  in  the  Cafe   of  Saint  Chrj/foftome  : 

13.cap.34.  Where  firft  Saint  Chrjfcftome  appeals  to 
Jnnocentiw  from    he  Cou  ;cill  aflembled  at 

cbmhr.    Constantinople ,wberein  he  was  condemned. 

cit.p.  498.  Secondly  Inmcentim  annulls  his  condem- 

faycs,other 

Bifhops  reftored  thofe  who  were  wrongfully  depofed,  as  \  etl  as 
the  Pope  Which  though  it  w.re  fo,  yet  never  was  there  any 
fingle  Bifhop  fave  the  Pope,  who  reflored  any,  who  were  out  of 
their  refpeftiveDiocefs,or  Patriarchatcs5but  always  col  I  e&ed  to- 
gether in  a  Synod,by  common  voice,  and  that  in  regard  only  of 
their  neighbouring  Bifhops-  whereas  the  Bifhop  of  T^eme 
by  his  folc  and  ftngle  authority  ,  rcftored  Bifhops  wrongfully 
depofcdall  the  Church  over. 

,  *  nation, 


Mr  JohnCohs fecovd  Paper.  jj 

nation,  and  declares  h<"m  innocent.  Thrid- 
Jy,  he  ^Excommunicato  Atticus  Bifhop  of* 
Cunftantimple^  and  Theophilm  Bifhop  of 
Alexandria  for  persecuting  Saint  Chrj- 
fofiome.  Pourthly, after  Saint  Ckrj[<fior,;e 
was  dead  in  Banifhment,  Pope  Innocent  ins 
Excommunicares  Arcadim  the  Emperour 
of  the  Eaft,  and  Ettdcxia  his  wife.  Fifthly, 
the  Emperour  and  Emprefs  humble  them* 
felves,  crave  pardonor  him,  and  were  ob- 
folved  by  him.  The  fame  is  evident  in 
thofe  matters  which  pafTed  about  the  year 
450.  where  Theodofius  the  Emperour  of 
the  Ealt  having  too  much  favoured  theEu- 

tych-anHereticksby  theinftigationofCAry- 
J^phius  the  Eunuch,  and  Pulcheriahis  Em- 
prefs and  fo  intcrmedled  too  far  in  Ecclefi- 
afticall  caufes,  yet  he  ever  bore  that  re- 
fped  to  the  See  of  Rome,  (which  doubtlefs  in 
thofc  ci:cumftances  he  would  not  have 
done,  had  he  not  believed  it  an  Obligation) 
that  he  would  not  permit  the  Eutychian 
Council  at  Ephefus  to  be  aflcmbled,  without 
the  knowledge  and  Authority  of  the  Ro- 
man Bifhop  L? 0  the  firft  •  and  fo  wrote  to 
him  to  have  his  prefence  in  it  %  who  fent  his 
Legacs  unto  them.  And  though  both 
LcSs  lecters  were  diffcmbled,  and  his  Legats 
affronted,  and  himfelf  excommunicated  by 

E  3  wicked 


54         Mr*  Johnfons/ttW  Paper. 

wicked  Diofcorus,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
andprefidentof  that  Coven  tide,  whoalfo 
was  the  chief  upholder  of  the  Eutychians, 
yet  Theodofius  repented  befofe  his  death, 
baniihed  his  wxfePuIchcria  and  Chryfafhiui 
the  Eunuch,  the  chief  favourers  of  the  Eu- 
tychians, and  reconciled  himfelf  to  the 
Church  with  great  evidences  of  Sorrow  and 
Pennance. 
(m)$oncil.  (m)  Prcfently  after,  ^##0.451.  fol- 
cbalced.  lows  the  Fourth  General  Council  of  Chair 
Afaoyu  i.  ce^m  :  concerning  which  thefe  particulars 
occur  to  our  prefent  purpofe.  Firft  Mar- 
tianus  the  Eaftern  Emperour  wrote  to  Pope 
£50,  That  by  the  Popes  Authority  a  Gene- 
\  raj  Council  might  be  gathered  in  what  City 
of  the  Eaftern  Church  he  (hould  pleafe  to 
chule.  Secondly,  both  Anatolia*  Patriarch 
'jMft&qinoflc,  and  the  reft  of  the  Eaftern 
ops-  fent>  to  the  legats  of  Pope  Leo, 
order,  the  profeflionof  their  Eaitb. 
lsrffly,  the  Popes  Legats  fate  in  the  firft 
place  of  theCouncil  before  all  thepatriarchs. 

SSSl ''*-")  TF°»rthlyi  rheY  prohibited  /  by  his 
itttml-*.  order  given  them)  That  Bio f cor  us  Patri- 
arch of  Alexandria,  and  chief  upholder  of 
the  Eutychians,  fhould  fit  in  the  Council! ; 
but  be  prefented  as  a  guilty  perfon  to  be 
judged  ;  becaufe  he  had  celebrated  a  Coun- 
cil! 


.  T^r 


Mr.  Johnfons  fccond  Paper.  5  5 

cill  in  the  Eaftcrn  Church  without  the  co  n- 
fent  of  the  Bifhop   of  Rome  -,  which  (  faid ,  which 
the  Legats  )  never  was  done  before,  nor  could  could  not 
be  done  lawfully.    This  order  of  Pope  Ze^bebyrea- 
was  prefently  put  in  execution  by  confent  f°n  °f  ** 
of  the  whole  Councill,  and  Diof corns  was^tJuth 
judged  and  condemned  -5  his  condemnation  ^cb.  wa$ 
and  depofition   being  pronounced  by  the  then  in  it  $ 
Popes  Legats,  and  after  fubfehbred  by  the&r  the 
Council!.     Fifthly  the  Popes  Legats  pro-^J]£hjJ 
nounced  the  Church  of  Rome  to  be  *  Ca-  many 
put  omnium  Ecclefiaru?n,the    Head  of  rf//oth:rs  in 
Churches,  before  the  whole  Council,  and  F,^e  x_x 
none  contradicted  them.     Sixthly,  all  the'f'^3^ 
Fathers  affembled  in  that  Holy  Councill,  in  Jf0^nrC 
their  Letter  to  Pope   Leo,  acknowledged  pUre'and 
themfelves  to  be  his  children,  and  wrote  to  ho!y,and 


none 


In  the  time  of  fuftinian  the  Emperq&r,  Agapct  Pop 
in  CoKflvriinopk)  againft.  the  will  bom  of  the  Emper< 


him  as  to  their  Father.  Seventhly,theyl)iWTr  ycc 

bly  begged  of  him,  that  he  would  grant;^^ 

that  the  Patriarch  of  Confiantinojd^  might  theChurch 

of  Rente* 
>e,  even 

>erour  and 
Emprefs,  depofed  A/i'hymiM,  and  ordained  Mtnnis  in  his 
place.  Libera?,  id Brtv'uti to.  cap .ii.  MaiutLhiM.  Comes  inCbro- 
mco.  Concil.  Conftcl'ltl)l'  fab  Menna.  acl.  4.  And  the  fame 
S  t.  Greg.  C.  7.  SP.6J.  declares  that  botli  the  Eaiperour  and  Bi- 
fhopof  Coxftvuintple  acknowledged  that  the  Church  of  Conflan* 
tinoplcwzs  fubje&tothe  Sec  of  l(am\  And  /.  7.  Ep.  57.  Et 
al:bi  pronounces,  that  in  cafe  of  falling  into  offences  he  knew  »o*4 
Bifhop  which  was  not  fubjeft  to  the  bifliop  of  Rome.  *\  f 

E  4  Hajie  \ 


5  6  Mr.  J  ohnfons/ittW  Paper. 

have  the  firit  place  among  the  Patriarch*, 
after  that  of  Rome  :  which  notwithftand- 
ing  that  the  Council!  had  confented  to 
(as  had  alfo  the  Third  General  Councill 
of  Ephefu*  done  before  )  yet  they  efteem- 
ed  their  grants  to  be  of  no  fufficient  force, 
untill  they  were  confirmed  by  the  Pope* 
;  AhdLeo  thought  not  fit  to  yield  to  their 

petition,  againft  the  exprefs  ordination  of 
<  theFirft  Councill  of  Nice  ;  where  Alexan- 
dria had  the  preheminence,  as  alfo  Antioch 
and  Hierttfalem,  before  that  ofConftantino- 
fie. 

Saint  Cyril  of  Alexandria^  though  he 
wholly  dilallowediVV/?0r;*tf  his  doftrine,yet 
he  would  not  break  off  Communion  with 
him,   till  Cele^inm   the  Pope  had  con- 
demned him  :   whofe  Cenfure  he  requi- 
red and  expe&ed.     Neftoritis  alfo  wrote  to 
Celeftine,  acknowledging    his  Authority , 
and  expecting  from  him  the  Cenfure  of  his 
doftrine.  Celeftinus  condemned  Neftorins% 
and  gave  him  the  fpaceof  ten  daies  to  re- 
(o)St.^-  pent,  after  he  had  received  his  condemna- 
guflin.        tion.     All  which  had  effeft  in  the  Eaftern 
Tom.  i        Church,  where  Neftorim  was  Patriarch  of 

PoSiSS  Confi*»tiHgPle'    (°)  After  this  Saint  QnV/ 

epift.%.  ad  having  received  Pope  Leo's  Letters  ,wherein 

hlefl'miim.  he  gave  power  to  Saint  Cyrill  to  execute 

1/  his 


Mr.  Johnfons  fec$nd  P*$cr.  57 

his  condemnation  againft  Neftorius,  and  to 
fend  his  condemnatory   letters   to  him  > 
gathered  a  Council  of  his  next  Biftiops,  and 
fent  Letters  and  Articles  to  be  fubferibed, 
with  the  Letters  or  Celefiine  to  Nefiorius  : 
which  when  Nefiorius  had  received,  he  was 
fo  far  from  repentance,  that  he  accufed  St. 
Cyril  inthofe  Articles,  to  be  guilty  of  the 
Herefic  of   ApoRinaris  :  fo  that  St.  Cyril 
being  alfo  accuied  of  Herefie,  was  barred 
from  pronouncing  fentence  againft  Nefio- 
rius^  fo  long  as  he  ftood  charged  with  that 
Accufation.    Theodofius  the  Emperour,  fee- 
ing the  Eaftern  Church  embroyled  inthefc 
difficulties,   writes  to  Pope  Celefiine  about 
the  affembling  of  a  general  Council  at  Ephe- 
fus,   by  Petroriius   afterwards  Biftiop  of 
Bononia  (as  is  manifeft  in  his  life  written  by 
Sigonius)  Pope  Celefiine  in  his  Letters  to 
Theodofius^  not  only  profelfeth  his  confent 
to  the  calling  of  that  Council,  but  alfo  pre- 
fcribeth  in  what  form  it  was  to  be  celebrat* 
cd  •   as  Firmtis  Bifhop  of  Csfarea  in  Op- 
padocia  teftified  in  the  Council  of  Ephefus* 
Hereupon   Theodofius  fent  his    Letters  to 
affemble  theBifhops   both  of  the  Eaft  and 
Weft  to  that  Council.     And  Celefiine  fent 
his  I  egats  thither,  with  order  not  to  exa- 
mine again  in  the  Council   the  caufe  of 

Ne  (tori  us, 


< 


5  8  Mr>  Johnfons  [econd  Paper. 

Neftorius,  but  rather  to  put  Celeftines  conr 
demotion  of  him,  given  the  year  before, 
into  execution.  St.  Cyril  Bifliop  ot 
Alexandria  being  conftituted  by  Celefline\ 
his  chief  Legate  ordinary  in  the  Eaft,  byji 
reafon  of  that  preheminency,  and  primacy}] 
of  his  See  after  that  of  Rome ,  prefided  in 
the  Council:  yet  fo,  that  Philip,  who  was| 
only  a  Priell  and  no  Bifhop,  by  reafon  that 
he  was  fent  Legates  a  Latere  from  Celcftine, 
•  and  fo  fupplied  his  place  as  he  was  chief 
Bifhopofthe  Church,  fubferibed  thefirft, 
even  before  St.  Cyril,  and  all  the  other 
Legats  and  Patriarchs.  In  the  fixth  Aftion 
of  this  holy  Council,  Juvenilis  Patriarch  of 
Hiernfalem ,  having  underftood  the  con- 
tempt, which  John  Patriarch  of  Antijcb, 
who  was  cited  before  the  Council,  {hewed 
of  theBifhops  and  the  Popes  Legats  there 
affembled,  expre(Ted  himfelf  againft  him  in 
thefe  words,  ^uod  Apoftolica  ordinatione 
&  AntiqHA  Traditione  fwhich  were  no  way 
oppofed  by  the  Fathers  there  prefent) 
Antiochena  fedes  ferpetm  a  Romans  dirigere- 
tur  judkarernrque ,  That  by  Apoftolical 
ordination  and  ancient  Tradition  the  See  of 
Antioch  was  perpetually  dire&ed  and 
judged  by  the  See  of  Rome  :  which  words 
not  only  evidence  the  precedency  of  place, 

as 


Mr.  Johnfoas  fe cond  Paper*  %$ 

is  Dr.  Hammond  would  have  it ,  but  of 
)0wcr  and  judicature  in  the  Bifhop  of 
Rome  over  a  Patriarch  of  the  Eaftern 
"hurch  •,  and  that  derived  from  the  time 
md  ordination  of  the  Apoftles.  The 
"ouncil  therefore  fent  their  decrees,  with 
heir  condemnation  of  Neflorius,  to  Pope 
Zeleftine,  who  prcfently  ratified  and  con- 
irmed  them. 

Not  long  after  this,   in  the  year  445. 
Palestinian  the  Emperour  makes  this  mani- 
"cfto  of  the  moft  high  Ecclefiaftical  authori- 
y  of  the  See  of  Rome^    in  thefe  words : 
c  Seeing  that  the  merit  of  St.  Peter ,  who  is 
c  the  Prince  of  the  Epifcopal  Crown,  and 
c  the  Dignity  of  the  City  of  Rome ,  and  no 
c  lefs  the  authority  of  the  holy  Synod,  hath 
1  eftablifhed  the  primacy  of  the  Apoftoli- 
:  cal  See,  left  preemption  (hould  attempt 
:  any  unlawful  thing  againft  tbe  authority 
'of  that  See,    (for  then  finally  will  the^cc*5?at 
c  peace  of  the  Churches  be  preferved  every  Be"f^ 
:  where,  if  the  whole  univerfality  acknow-  in  the  year 
1  ledge  their    Governour  )    when   thefe  44$. 
1  things  had  been  hitherto  inviolably  ob- 
1  ferved,  &c .     Where  he  makes  the  fuc- 
reflion  from  St.  Peter  to  be  the  firft  foun- 
dation of  the  Roman  Churches  primacy  ^ 
md  his  authority  to:  be,  not  only  in  place, 

but 


60  Mr.  Johnfons  fccend  Paper. 

but  in  power  and  Government  over  the] 
whole  vifible Church:  And  adds  pitfent- 
ly,  that  the  definitive  fentencc  of  the! 
Bifhopof  Rome,  given  againft  atiy  French] 
Bifhop,  was  to  be  offeree  through  France , 
eveti  without  the  Empcrours  Letrers  Pat- 
tents.  '  For  what  /ball  not  be  lawful  for  the 
Authority  of  fo  great  a  Bijh.^p  to  exercife 
upon  the  Churches  ?  And  then  adds  his  Im- 
perial precept,  in thefe words.  "But  this 
cc  occafion  hath  provoked  alfo  our  com- 
mand, that  hereafter  it  (hall  not  be  law- 
ful, neither  for  Hilarius  (whom  to  be 
ftill  entituled  a  Biftiop,  the  iole  humanity 
of  the  meek  Prelate  (id  eft,  the  Biftiop  of 
Rome)  permits  )  neiiher  tor  any  other  to 
mingle  arms  with  Ecclefiaftical  matters, 
or  to  refill  the  commands  oftheBifliop 
of  Rome,  &c.  We  define  by  this  our  per- 
petual decree,  that  it  (hall  neither  be 
lawful  for  die  French  Bifhops,  nor  for 
c-  thofe  of  other  provinces,  againft  the  an- 
lc  cient  cullom,  to  attempt  any  thing  with- 
cc  out  the  authority  of  the  venerable  Pope 
Ce  of  the  eternal  City :  But  let  it  be  for  a 
"law  to  them  and  to  all,  whatfoever  the 
^'authority  of  the  Apoitolick  See  hath  de- 
"  termined,  or  (hall  determine.  So  that 
"what  Bilhop  foever,  being  called  to  the 

iC  Tribunal 


CI 

cc 
cc 

CC 

cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 

Cc 


ji/^  Johnfons  fecwd  Taper.  6i 

"Tribunal  of  :he  Rowan  Biihop  ,  fha!l 
"  reeled  to  co  e,  is  to  be  compelled  by 
cl  the  Governour  of  che  lame  Province,  to 

"prefent  himklf  before  km.    Which  evi-  1 

dently  proves,    hai  chehgheii,  Um've-fal, 

Eccl.fiaftical  Judpe   and  Governour  was3 

and  ever   is  to  be   the  Bifhop  ot  Rome  : 

which    the    Council  of  Chalredcn  before 

mentioned,  plainly  owned,  when  writing  co 

Pope  Leo  they  fay,    Thou  Governefi   u*3  as 

the  head  doth  the  members  ^  contributing  thy  €p:ft.  Con- 

Zood  "bill  bj  thofe  -which  hold  thy  place.     Be-  ciLadLcon. 

hold  a  Primacy,  not  only  of  Precedency,    a$\  f 

but  of  Government  and  Authority  .  which 

Lerixenfis  confirms,  ccntr.   Haref.  cap.  9. 

where  fpeaking  of  Stephen  Pope,  he  faies, 

Dignttm,  ut  opinor,  exiftimans,  fi  reliquos 

:rrnts  tantum  fidci  dcvoticnc,  quantum  loci 

tuthoritate,  [up  rabat  :  ei;c  ruing  it  (as  I 

liinkj  a  thing  worthy  of  h.mfelf,   if  he 
bvercame  all  others   asmichtnthe  devo- 

ionot  faith,  as  lie  did  in  the  Authority  of 

lis  place.     And  co  confirm  what  ih:s  uni- 

rerfal  Authoricy  was-,  he  affirms,  that  he 

ent  a  Law,   Decree,   or  C  ommand  into 

Africa,  (S^nxitJ  That  in  matter  of  re- 

>aptization  of  Hereticks  nothing  (hould  be 

nnovatedj  which  was  a  manii  um^nc 

Ibis  Spiritual  Authority  over  thofe  of 
A 
1 


€i  Mr.  Johnfons  [ccond  Paper* 

Africa }  and  a  paritate  rationis ,  over  all 
others.  I  will  (hut  up  all  with  that  which 
was  publickly  pronounced  ,  and  no  way 
contradicted,  and  confequently  affented  to 
in  the  Council  of  Epbefus,  (one  of  the  four 
firft  general  Councils )  in  this  matter, 
Tern.  2.  Ccncil.  pag.  327.  Aft.  I.  where 
Philip,  Prieft  and  Legate  of  Pope  Celeftine^ 
lkycs  thws,  cC  Gratia*  tgimus  fanfta  vene- 
"  randaque  fynodo,  quod  Uteris  fanfti  beati- 
lc  que  Papa  mflri  vobis  recitatis^  fanftas 
<cchanas,  fan&isveftris  vocibus,  fanfto  ca- 
piti  vefiro,  fanftis  veftris  exclamationi- 
bus,  exhibueritis.  Non  enim  ignorac 
"veftra  beatitudo,  totius  fidei;  vel  ctiam 
Apoftoloriim,  caput  effe  beatum  Apofto- 
lumPetrum.  And  the  fame  Philip,  Aft. 
3.  p.  330.  proceeds  in  this  manner,  Nuili 


Cc 

CC 


cc 

Cc 
CC 

<c  dubium,  imo  feculis  omnibus  notum  eft, 
1  quod  fanftusbeatiflimufquePetrus,  Ap< 


cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

«c 

Ci 


ftolorum  Princeps  &  caput ,  Fideiqi 
columna ,  JEcclcJi*  Catholic  a  Fundamen- 
turn,  a  Domino  noftro  Jcfu  Chrifto  ,  Sal- 
vatore  generis  humani  ?C  redemptorc 

c  noftro  claves  regni  sccepit,  folvendique 
ac ligandi  p^ccata  poteftas  ipfi  daca  eft^ 
qui  ad  hoc  ufque  tempus  ac  femper  in  fuis 
fucceflbribus    vivit    &    judicium    exer- 

cet : -Hujus  itaque  fecundum  ordinem 

fucceffor 


Mr.  Johnfons  fccond  V&yti.  6$ 

fucceffor  &  locnm-tenens  ^  fan&us  beatiffi- 
mufque  Papa  noftcr  Ccleftinus,  nos  ipfius 
praefentiam   fupplentes    hue   mifit.     And 
Arcadius  another  of  the  Popes  Legats  en- 
veighing  againft  the  Heretick  Ntforins, 
accufes  him,  ( though  he  was  Patriarch  of 
C 'on ft amino pie ,  which  this  Council  requires 
to  be  next  in  dignity  after  Rome)  as  of  a 
great  crime,  that  he  contemnedthe  command^01  ^* 
of  the  Afoftolick  See  ,    char  is ,   of  Pope  Jg  £°- 
C:  left  we.    Now  had  Pope  Ccleftine  had  no  Qfwry 
ipower  to  command  him  (and  by  the  like  Popc^.io. 
jreafonto  command  all  other  Bilhops^  he*j>-  30. 
jhad  committed  no  fault  in  tranfgrefling  and  wnei£  Hc" 
contemning  his  command.    By  thefe  tefti-"^^1 
monies  it  will  appear,   that  what  you  aretkksre* 
pleafed  to  fay,   That  the  weft  part  of  the  penting, 
Catholike  Church  hath  been  againft  us  to  this  werc  re~ 
dayy  and  all  for  many  hundred  of  years,  is  far  J^  into 
rom  truth  :    feeing  in  the  time  of  the  holy  tae 
Oecumenical    Councils    of   Efhcfus    and  Church, 
Chalcedon^    the   univerfal    confent   of  the  up00  f°- 
vholc  Catholike  Church  was  for  us  in  this  lenin  Pro; 

mile,  and 
>inr-  publike 

protcftati- 
that  they  would  never  any  more  feparate/VflW*  but  alwaies 
main  in  the  unity  of  the  Catholike  Church,  and  communion 
all  things  with  the  Bifiiop  of  Rome. 

As 


^4  Mr.  Johnfons  [econdPapcrl 

As  to  what  you  fay  of  Congregation  of 
Chriftians  in  the  beginning,  I  anlwer,  I  took 
the  word  Chriftians  in  a  large  fenfe,  com- 
prehending in  it  all  thofe  (as  it  is  vulgarly 
taken^  who  are  Baptized  and  profefs  to 
believe  in  Chrift5and  are  diftinguifhed  from 
Jews,  Mahumetansand  Heathens,under  the 
denomination  of  Chriftians. 

What  you  often  fay  of  an  univerfal 
Monarch,^,  if  you  take  Monarch  for  an 
Imperious  fcle  Commander ,  as  temporal 
Kings  are,  we  acknowledge  no  fuch  Mo- 
narch in  the  Church  :  if  only  for  one  who 
hath  received  power  from  Chrift,  in  meek- 
nefc,  charity,  and  humility  to  govern  all 
the  reft,  for  their  own  eternal  good,  as  bre- 
thren or  children,  we  grant  it. 

What  alfo  you  often  repeat  of  a  Vice* 
Chrift ,  we  much  diflike  that  title,,  as  proud 
and  infolent,  and  utterly  difclaim  from  it  ^ 
neither  was  it  ever  given  by  any  iufficienc 
Authority  to  our  Popes,  or  did  they  ever 
accept  of  it. 

As  to  the  Council  of  Conftance,  they  ne 
ver  queftioned  the  Supremacy  of  the  Pope, 
as  ordinary  chief  Governour  of  all  Biftiops 
and  people  in  the  whole  Church  :  nay  they 
exprefly  give  it  to   Martinm  guintus 
when  he  was  chofen. 

B 


iM  r.  John  /on  s  [econd  Paper.  6$ 

But  in  extraordinary  cafes ,  efpecially 
when  it  is  doubtful  who  is  true  Pope,  as  it 
was  in  the  beginning  of  this  Council,  till 
Afartintts  Quintus  was  chofen  :  Whether. 
any  extraordinary  power  be  in  a  general 
Council,  above  that  ordinary  power  of  the 
Pope :  which  is  a  queftion  difputed  by  fome 
amongft  our  felves,  but  touches  not  the 
matter  in  hand  j  which  proceeds  only  of . 
the  ordinary  and  conftant  Supream  Paftor 
ofaltChriftians,  abftra&ing  from  extraor- 
dinary tribunals  and  powers,  which  are 
feldom  found  in  the  Church,  and  colle&ed 
only  occafionally,  and  upon  extraordinary 
accidents. 

Thus  honoured  Sir,  T  haveas  much  as  my 
occafions  would  permit  me,  hafteneda  re- 
ply to  your  anfwer^  and  if  more  berequi- 
iite,  it  (hall  not  bedenyed.  Only  pleafe  to 
give  me  leave  to  tell- you  ,  that  I  cannot 
conceive  my  Argument  yet  anfwered  by  all 
you  have  faid  to  it. 

Feb.  i.    1658. 

William  Johnfon. 

Sir, 
It  was  the  21.  of  January,  before  j^ur 
Anfypqr  came  to  mj  bands  •  and  though  my 


f     66  Mr.  John  Tons  feccnd  Tdper. 

Reply  was  made  ready  by  me  the  third  inftarit% 
yet  1  hsve  found  ft  great  difficulties  to  get  it 
transcribed^  that  it  "tods  not  pojfikle  to  tranf- 
iv.it  it  to  you  before  nowj     But  I  hope  here- 
after   I  fhafl  find  Scribes  more  at  leafure. 
I mxft  defire  j:H  to  exenfe  what  errors  yon 
find  in  the  Copy  which  I  fend  ^  As  alfo,  that 
being  unwilling  to  mtk^  a  farther  delay ,  lam 
i  enforced  to  fend  a  Copy  which  hath  in  it  more 
interlineations  then  would  otherwife  become 
me  to  fend  to  aperfon  of  jour  worth.     Tet  I 
cannot  do  ubt^  but  your  Candor  will  pdfs  by 
a  11  things  of  this  nature.     I  am  Sir7 

Your  very  humble  fervant, 
feb.  15.1658.  William  Johnf on* 


Worthy  Sir, 
J  haze  now  expeEled  neer  three  moneths  for 
yesr  reyynder  to  the  Reply  which  I  made  to 
that  A^wer  which  you  wtre  pleafed  to  fend y 
and  return  to  nj  Argument  a  naming  the 
Lhvrch  vfChrift ,  tut  as  yet  nothing  h.th  ap- 
peared. I  mtft  cenfefs,  I  have  wondered  at 
it,  cenfidtring  the  earn^ftnefs  which  appeared 
inyrH*t  the  firfty  to  proceed  with  freed  in  4 
bufinefs  ofthn  nature  ;  what  the  impediment 

hath 


Mr.  Jobnfons  fee  end  Paper.  Cj 

hath  been,  I  am  only  left  to  guefs  :  but  cer- 
tainly truth  is  Firong,  and  it  will  not  be  found 
an  eafie  thing  to  off  of e  her  while  we  keep  clofe 
to  form.  lam  now  necefptated  ^o  go  out  of 
London-,  fo  that  if  jour  Payers  come  inn* j 
tbfence,  I  (hall  hope  j>u  will  have  the  patience 
to  exptft  unt ill  they  can  befentfrom  London 
tome^andmy  Anfwers  returned  by  the  way 
of  London  :  but  I  do  engage  not  to  mak^  a 
delay  longer  then  the  circun.ftances  of  the 
pUce  and  times  PjaII  enforce. 

Sir,  /  do  highly  honour  and  efteem  y«ur 
parts  and  per/on  •  and  fhall  be  very  gl..d  to 
bring  that  bufinefs  to  an  handfome  iffne  which 
bath  been  fo  calmly  and  foberly  profecuted, 
Jam  an  enemy  to  paffion^  and  as  I  have  hi- 
therto found  you  fweet  and  gentle  in  yrur  pro- 
ceedings towards  me,  fo  fhallyou  alwaies  find 


me. 


Worthy  Sir, 


Tour  friend  tofervevou, 
May  i.  1659,  William  Jonnfon* 

Sir, 

Be  pleafed  to  return  your  Anfwer%  Papers 

or  Letters    which  you  intend  for.  me,  to  the 

farne  place  to  which  you  direlied  your  former-^ 

by  whhh  means ,  I  foallbe  fecureto  receive, 

V  1  them 


68    To  Mr.  T.L,  {wh§  called  we  to  this  work.) 

thtnfat  mj  houfe,  which  is  four/core  wiles 
from  London. 


To  Mr.  T.  L.  (who  called  me  to  this  yvorkj) 

Sir, 

T Hough  I  am  a  ftranger  to  you,  I 
thought  meet  to  take  notice  of  the 
Letters  which  you  fent  your  friend  here 
(T«  H.)  It  feems  you  urge  hard  for  a  Re- 
ply, and  intimate  fomewhat  of  triumph  in 
'my  delay;  you  fpeak  as  an  incompetent 
Judge.  God  is  the  Matter  of  my  time  and 
work  \  and  him  I  muft  ferve  :  and  not 
negleft  his  greater  work,  for  fuch  trivial 
objeftions  as  your  friend  hath  fent  me, 
which  are  anfwered  over  and  over  by  many 
fo  long  ago.  Had  you  read  Blondel,  Mo- 
linem  de  novitate  Papifmi,  whital^er  ,  Si- 
brandus ,Lubbertus ^Chamicr ',  Abbots,  Cra^ 
kenthorf,  Spdatenfts,  or  one  of  many  that 
have  confuted  them,  you  would  fure  call 
for  no  more  ;  Or  if  in  Englifo  you  had 
read  Dr.  Field,  Dr.  White  ^  yea,  or  but  Sir 
ZJumpherj  Lind  (to  pafs  by  multitudes^ 
you  might  have  k^n  their  vanity.  Yea 
plainly  read  impartially   my  two  books 

againft 


To  Mr.T.L.  (who  called  me  to  this  work.)    6p 

againft  Popery,  and  be  aPapift  if  you  can. 
But  it  feems  -you  take  it  for  a  poor  anfwer 
to  be  referred  to  books.  Do  not  fear  it. 
But  yet  let  me  tell  you,  that  my  hand  is 
not  more  legible  then  my  printed  books : 
and  if  I  had  fent  you  this  in  print,  would 
ttatt  have  made  it  a  poor  anfwer  ?  Or  ra- 
ther, is  not  this  a  poor  exception,  and 
(hews  that  it  is  not  truth  that  is  lookt  after  : 
for  truth  may  be  printed  as  well  as  written. 
If  you  be  deceived  by  the  men  of  the  Papal 
way,  let  me  yet  intreat  you,  but  to  read 
over  thofe  two  books  ("The  fafe  Religion, 
and  the  Key  for  Catholikes)  :  If  your  foul 
be  not  worth  fo  much  labour,  take  your 
courfe  :  I  did  my  duty. 

But  I  muft  fay,  that  it  is  a  doleful  cafe 
that  profeffors    are  fo  ungrounded,    that 
fuch  vanities  (hould  carry  them  away  from 
Catholike   verity  and  unity,  to  a  faftion 
that  ufurps  the  name  of  Catholikes.     To  be 
free  with  you,   I  think  it  is  that  pride  and 
levity  that  brings  them  firffc  to  feparation 
from  our  Churches  into  Sefts ,    and  the 
guilt  which  they  there    incur ,    that  pre- 
pareth  profeffors  to  be  fo  far  forfaken  of 
God,  as  to  be  given  up  to  believe  a  lie,  and 
toturnPapifts. 

O  dreadful  cafe  I  that  one  Biftiop  can- 

F    3  not 


jo     TeMr.l \L.(whccaDeJwetoibiswbrk.) 

not  fwell  in  pride,  but  men  muft  make  a 
Religion  of  his  pride  /  yea  and  make  a 
Catholixe  Church  of  it !  yea  and  plead  for 
It,  and  make  the  fin  their  own  •  yea  con. 
tlemn'ail  Chriftians  that  lift  not  themfelves 
under  this  Prince  of  pride.  He  is  culpably, 
if  not  wilfully  blind,  that  hath  read  S#f- 
pture  and  Church  hiftory  ,  ■  and  knoweth 
not,  that  the  Pope  for  three  hundred  years 
after  Chrift,  was  not  the  crca:ure  that  now 
be  is  i  nor  had  for  molt  of  that  time  any 
more  Government  over  other  Bifhops, 
then  I  have  over  neighbour  Paftors :  and 
after  chat  time,  he  was  no  more  an  univerfal 
Head,  or  Governour,  or  Vicar  of  Chrift, 
then  the  Archbifhopof  Canterbury  was  «, 
having  indeed  a  far  larger  Diocefs  then  he, 
but  never  was  more  then  t he iwe! led  Pri- 
mate of  one  National  (Imperial,)  Church, 
Whert  Synods  began  to  be  gathered  out  of 
a  Principality  (che  Emperours  defiring  that 
means  of  unity  within  their  Empire),  the 
prideof  the  Prelates  fee  them  prefemlya 
Striving  for  fuperiority  ,  who  {hould  fie 
iigheft,  and  write  his  name  firft,  and  have 
the  largelt  Diocefs,  &g  !  And  now  men 
make  a  Relgion  of  the  fruits  of  this 
abon-.in'abie-  pride.  '  What  are  all  their 
^iiputings  ior^  and  all  this  ftir  that  they 

make 


t$  Mr.T.L.  {who  csBed  me  to  thts  mrk.)    71 

makein  the  world,  but  to  fee  up  one  man 
orcr  all  the  earth  ?  and  that  to  do  a  fpiritu- 
allwork,  which  confiiteth  not  with  force, 
but  is  managed  on  conscience  ;  One  wretch- 
ed  man  mull  govern  the  Antipodes  on 
the  other  fide  of  the  earth,  that  is  indeed 
uncapable  of  truly  and  juitly  Governing 
the  City  of  R$me  ic  felf.  Popes,  that  their 
own  Councils  have  condemned  forravifh- 
ing  maids  and  wives  at  their  doors,  ior 
Murders,  Simony,  Drunkennefs,  Herefie, 
denying  the  Refurredion  and  the  life  to 
come  (thae  is,being  noChriftians)thefefor- 
footh  muft  be  che  univerfal  Governours,  or 
we  are  all  undone  ;  and  we  are  damned  if 
we  believe  it  not :  O  how  dreadful!  are  che 
effects  of  fin  •,  and  how  great  a  judgement 
is  a  blinded  mind  !  This  comes  ot  falling 
into  Seds  and  parties,  which  leads  men  imo 
the  gulf  of  che  moft  odious  Schifm  (even 
Popery)  in  the  world. 

Eut  if  you  are  engaged  in  this  party,  its 
two  co  one  but  you  are  presently  made 
partial,  and  will  not  fo  much  as  read  what 
isagaii.ft  them  •,  or  will  believe  chem  it  they 
do  buc  tell  you  chat  we  write  lies  ^  when 
they  are  things  done  in  the  open  fun,  and 
which  they  cinnoc  confu.c,  nor  dare 
attempt,  kft  they  manneit   their  (haim\ 

Y  4  laKC 


HP  7*     To Mr.H. L. (who  called mtto thu  work.) 

Take  from  them  their  Clergies  vaft  Do- 
minions, Principalities,  Lands  and  Lord- 
ftiips,  Riches  and  worldly  Honours,  with 
which  they  fo  much  abound,  and  then  try 
how  many  will  plead  for  the  Pope:  then 
they'l  fay,  If  Bad  be  a  God,  let  him  plead 
for  himfelf.  But  I  confefs,  I  have  little 
hopes  of  turning  any  of  them,  though  I 
could  {hew  it  them  written  by  an  Angel 
from  heaven  that  Popery  is  a  deceit :  for 
the  Scripture  that's  above  Angelical  autho- 
rity declareth  it  •  and  by  making  it  a  nofe 
of  wax,  they  take  it  as  if  it  were  not  fenfe, 
nor  intelligible  without  the  Popes  interpre- 
tation (which  in  difficult  cafes  he  dare  not 
give,).  They  cry  up  the  Churchy  and  when 
we  would  have  them  ftand  to  the  Church, 
they  fhamefully  turn  their  backs^  and  when 
two  or  three  parts  of  the  Churches  through 
the  world  areagainft  the  Papal  Soveraign- 
ty,  they  refufe  them  as  Hereticks  or  Schif- 
rnaticks.  They  cry  up  Tradition^  and  when 
we  offer  them  in  the  main  point  to  be  tried 
By  it,  they  difclaim  thj  Tradition  of  rwo  or 
three  parts  of  the  univerfal  Church  as  being 
all  Hereticks.  And  may  not  any  Se&  do 
fo  too  as  honeftly  as  they  ?  yea  among  the 
ignorant  that  know  not  Chaffe  from  Corn, 
ttiey  havefomeof  them 'the  faces   to  per- 

fwade 


To  Air-T.  L.  (rvh  called  mt  to  this  work.)       7 3 

fwade  them  that  their  Church  is  the  greater 
W/of  the  Chriftian  world!  when  they  know 
:hey  fpeak  notorioufly  falfly,  or  elfe  they 
ire  unworthy  to  fpeak  of  fuch  things  that 
:hey  underftand  not. 

But  to  what  purpofe  fhould  any  words 
:>e  ufed  with  men,  that  have  taught  fo  great 
i  part  of  the  world,    not  to  believe  their 
?yes  and  other  fenfes  !     Can  any  writing 
nake  any  matter  plainer  to  you,  then  that 
Bread  is  Bread,  and  Wine  is  Wine,    when 
/ou  fee  them,  and  tail:,  and  eat,  and  drink 
:hem  ?  And  yet  their  general  Councils  ap- 
proved by  the  Pope,  have  made  it  an  Arti- 
:le    of  their  faith  ,    that  the  whole  fub- 
-tanceof  the  Bread  and  Wine  is  turned  into 
he  Body  and  Blood  of  Chrift,  fo  that  there 
s  lefc  no  Bread  or  Wine,   but  only  that 
colour,   quantity  and  taft  that  before  be- 
nged  to  it.     And  if  you  know  not  Bread 
when  you  eat  it,  or  Wise  when  you  drink 
it,  and  when  the  fenfes  of  all  the  found  men 
in  the  world  concur  with  yours,   is  it  not 
vain  for  me,  or  any  man  to  difpute  with 
you  ?  Can  you  have  any  thing  brought  to 
a  furer  judgement  then  to  all  your  fenfes? 
And  yet  no  doubt   but  your  leducers  can 
fay  fomething  to   prove  that  Bread  is  not 
Bread  when  you  fee  and  eat  it :  No  wonder 

then 


74     'T*  Mr*  T*  L  Avtho  caffeJme  to  this  vom . ) 

then if they  canconfocc  me.    But  do  they 
indeed  be!  eve  themfelves  <*  hows  it  pofli- 
ble?  there  is  no  exercife  or  realon,  and 
belief  that  fuppofeth  not  the  certainty  of 
fenfe.   If  I  cannot  know  Bread  and  Wine 
when  I  fee,  touch,  caft  chem  ^  then  cannot 
1  know  the  Pope,  the  Councils,   the  Scri- 
pt ore,  the  Prieit,  or  any  thing  clfe.   If  you 
think  to  let  go  this  point  of  Popery   and 
hold  the  reft,  you  know  not  what  Popery 
is:  for  a  Pope  and  Council  having  deter- 
mined K,  you  are  damned  by  them  for  de- 
nying the  faith:  and  if  you  depart  from 
the  infallibility  of  their  Rule  and  judge  in 
pomes  of  faith,  oratlejift  from  the  obliga- 
tion of  ir,in  one  thirig,  they  will  confefs  to 
you  that  }ou    may  as  well  do  it  in  more  ^ 
Fdtfe  in  this, and  certain    in  nothing,  is  their  I 
own  condition.     Sir,  I  have  not  been  un- 
willirg  ro  know  the  tnuh,having  a  foul  to 
feve  oriole  as  well  as  you,    and  having  as 
much  reafon  to  be  loth  to  perifh.     If  you 
have  fo  far  forfeiced  the  Grace  of  God,  as 
roeerly  to  follow  the  pride  of  a  pretended 
YkcCkrift  (that  hath  turned  do&rine  into 
error,  worfhtp  into  fuperftition  and  dead 
formality,  light  into  darknefs ,   difcipline 
into   confufion  mixt   with   tyranny)  ^  if 
inecrly  to  let  up  one  Tyrant  over  the  con- 

fciences 


to  Mr.T  !>X*>bo  caUcJl  me  to  this  mrk.)     y < 

fciences  (and  bodies  tooJ  of  all  believers  in 
the  worid,  you  can  fall  into  a  Sed:,  deny 
Scripture,  Reafon,  the  Judgement  and 
Tradition  ofmoft  of  the  Church,  and  your 
own  and  all  mens  eye-fight,  taft  and  other 
fenfes,  the  Lord  have  mercy  on  you,  if  you 
be  not  paftit :  I  have  done  with  you,  yet 
remaining 

An  unfeigned  defirer  of  jour 
Welfare  ,  and  lament er  of 
the  Apoft^cies  *nd  giddi* 
tiefs  oftbefe  times , 

j     Mr.]i$.  1659.  Richard  Baxter. 

Did  jo  u  know  what  it  is^  bj  looft  andf  l~e 
aUegt.tiuns ,  to  be  put  to  read  fa  manj  }  ,s 

(in  grext  p>irt)  in  foli  ,  1  try  wh  thtr  the 
alltcger  J>J  true  cr  ]  l/e  ,  you  Would  net 
e.xptth  that  Ifljould  return  an  s.njwcr,  and 
reaafo  much effo  v *.<  nj  Irs  in  enj  Ifs  then 
ten  or  eleven  dates ,    m    1         thinl^  b^tbtecm 

1  all  tlat  I  have    had  to  write   and  read  fo 

1  much: 


The 


7* 


The  Reader  mufitake  notice  that  I wroh\ 
the  former  Letter  to  the  perfou  that  fent\ 
Mr.  Johnfons  Letters ,  with  a  charitable] 
iesknfie>  that  if  he  were  himfelf  in  doubt,  he\ 
mi*ht  be  revived  :  But  in  his  return  h$\ 
futj  dij 'claimed  popery ,  and  affured  me,  that\ 
it  is  for  the  fake  of  fome  friends  that  he  deftredl 
9*r  labour,  and  not  for  his  own. 

R.B. 


The 


17 


The  %e]jly  to  Mr.  Johnfons 
fecond  Paper, 


Sir, 

TH  E   multitude  and  urgency  of  my 
employments  gave  me  not  leave  till 
this  day    (AUyz.)  fo  much  as  to  read 
over  all  your  Papers  ■  But  I  {hall  be  as  loth 
to  break  off  our  Difputation,  as  you  can 
be,  though  perhaps  neceflity  may  fome- 
time  caufe  fome  weeks  delay.     And  again, 
I  profefs,  my  indignation  againft  the  Hypo- 
crital  Jugling  of   this  age,  doth  provoke 
,  me  to  welcome  fo  ingenuous  and  candid  a 
difputantas  yourfelf,  with  great  content. 
But  I  muft  confefsalfo,  that  I  wasthelefs 
haftyin  fending  you  this  Reply,  becaufe  I 
defired  you  might  have  leifure  to  perufe 
a  Book  which  I  publifhed  fince  your  laft, 
(A  Key  for  Catholikes  •,)  feeing  that  I  have 
there  anfwered  you  already,  and  that  more 
largely  then  I  am  like  to  do  in  this  Reply. 

lor 


p 


78    The  Reply  to  Mr  .Jcfonfons  fccond  Paper. 

Tor  the  (harpnefs  of  that  I  muft  craveyour  $ 
patience  ^  the  perfons  and  caufe  I  thought 
required  it. 

Ad  im.  What  explications  were  madeh'i 
to  your  Friend  of  your  Thefis,  I  could  j* 
not  take  notice  of,  who  had  nothing  but  1 
your  writing  to  Anfwer.  » 

2.  If  you  will  not  be  precife  in  Arguing^  i 
you  had  little  reafon  to  cxped:  (  much  lefs  p 
10  ftriftly  to  exaft  )  a  precife  Anfwer  ^  a 
which  cannot  be  made  as  you  prefcribed, 
to  an  Argument  not  precife. 

3.I  therefore  exped  accordingly  that! 
the  unlearned  be  not  made  the  Judges  ofl  \ 
a  difpute  which/they  are  not  fit  to  judge 
of  •    feeing  you  defire  us  to  avoid  their  ' 
road. 

4.  Again  I  fay,  if  you  will  not  be  precife 
in  arguing,  I  can  hardly  be  fo  in  anfwering.. 
And  by  Q  a  Congregation  ofChriftians  ]  you 
may  mean  \_Chriftians  foliticallj  related, 
to  we  Head,']  whecherChnit,or  the  Pope; 
But  the  word.  .£  Ajfemblies  J  exprefTecfe 
their  a&uall  Afiembllng  together,  and  fo 
excludeth  all  Chriftians  that  are  or  were 
Members  of  no  particular  ajfllmblies,  from 
having  Relation  as  Members  to  Chriil(our: 
Head  J  or  the  Pope  (  your  Head,)  and 
fo    from     being     of     the   Congregation^ 

as 


c  K  fflj  to  Mr.  Johnfons  feetnd  fjpar.       yp 

you     Call  3     The     Church   xnitwr* 

a. 

5,  I  had  great  rcafon  to  avo:d  the  frare 
fan  equiv<  cation,  or  ambiguity, of  wh  th 
ou  gave  me  caufe  of  jea  ouiie  by  your 

whAtforver~]  as  I  told  }ou  :  as  ieeming 

d  intmjace  a  falfe  fuppoution :  To  your 

i^Ianfw.r,!*  is  unli\e>  and  ltil!  more 

timates  tie  talfe  fupp*>iicion«  [WbAtfi- 

}er  Congrtgati  n  cf  nun  is  the  Conm.**- 

Xedth  sf  EngUnd~\    is  a  phrafe  that  <m- 

rich    hat     '  Tktre    is*   Congregation 

wen  yphhh  is  not  the  Commen-pre/lth  of 

ngUnd.  }    Whxh  is  true,    here  being 

ore  men  in  the  wo-ld.     bo  ^rvkatfoevtr 

cngregatitn  of  Chrtftltns  is  now  the  trut 

hurcb  J  dothfeem  to  in  port,  tjtet  y<>u 

upp>ie  J"  there  U  dCongrtgutionof  Chriftir 

s  fumvocaliy  <o  called  ;  that  are  not  tht 

ueChnrch  \  wh  ih  you  would  diflm£Ui(h 

rom  ihc other :  Wh  ch ,  only  lee  ^ou  know 

t  the  entrance,  bat  I  deny,  .hat  jou  may 

noc  think  it  grafted. 

Yet  I  muft  tell  you  tlm  nothing  is  more 
ordinary  then  for  the  Borj  to  be  faid  to  do 
that  wh  iha  part  of  ic  ouiy  doh^  Asthac 

£  the  Church  ddrr  inijtreth  S  cranents,  J)if- 
cipline,  Te.thtth,^.  the  Chnnh  is  tffem- 
hiedin [neb  a^'onnM  Oct.  J  when  ycc  It  is 

but 


ai 

i 

Ifc 
% 

u 


80      The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  ftcond  Paper} 

but  a  /m*#  part  of  the  Church  that  dot^ 
thefe  things.  And  when  Be/larmine,  Grett 
fer,  Sec.  fay  [  the  Church  is  the  infallible 
judge  of  Controver fixes  of  faith,  ]  they  mean 
not  |_  the  whole  Churm\  which  containeth 
every  Chriftian,  when  they  tell  you  that 
It  is  the  Pop  they  mean,  and  therefore 
I  had  reafon  to  enquire  into  your  fenfe 
unlefs  I  would  willfully  be  over-reacht. 

You  now  facisfie  me  that  you  mean  it  uni 
verfally,  viz.  "  ^11  that  Congregation  (o 
Church )  of  Chrifiians  Vphich  ts  now  th 
trueChurch  ofChrifi^doth  acknowledge  ^cc. 
which  I  told  you  I  deny. 

6.  To  my  following  diftin&ion  you  fa 
■£  that  all  the  world  knows  that  whatfoever 
acknowledged  to  have  been  ever  in  the  Churc 
by  Chrifis  infitlution,  cannot  be  meant  of  an 
accidental  thing,  but  of  a  nccejfarj  unchanged 
able  and  ejfentiall  thing,  in  Chrifis  true 
Church,']  To  which  I  Reply,  Either  youllj 
fee  the  grofs  fallacy  of  this  defence,  or  you 
do  not ;  If  you  do  nor,  then  never  more 
call  for  anexaft  Difputant,  nor  look  to  be 
delivered  from  your  errors  by  argumenta- 
tion, though  never  fo  convincing,  if  you 
do,  then  you  are  not  faithful]  to  the  truth. 
In  your  Major  propofition  the  words  being 
many    (  as  you  fay,  you  penetrated  divers 


i 


arguments 


iht  Xeplj  to  Mr  Johnfons/iw/;^  Paprr*     8 1 

arguments  together,)  ambiguities  were  the 
fier  hidden  in  the  heap.  That  which  I 
jtold  you  is  Accidental  to  the  C  hutch  (  and 
that  but  to  a  corrupted  part)  was  "the 
Acknowledging  o{  the  V^p^icy  as  of  Chrifts 
[rftitution ,  and  therefore  if  it  were 
granted  that  a  thing  [of  Chrifts  Jnftituti- 
m  ~]  could  not  be  Accidental,  yet  Q  the 
Acknowledgment']  that  is,  the  Opinion  or 
averting  of  it  may.  If  the  Church  by  mifiake 
fhould  think  that  to  be  Effential  to  it  which 
is  not,  though  it  will  not  thence  follow 
:hat  its  £  fence  is  but  an  Accident,  yet  it 
wilf  follow  that  both  ihefalfe  opinion,  and 
he  thing  it  felf  fo  falfly  conceited  to  be 
^ffential,  are  butaccidcnts,or  not  eiTntial. 
¥ou fay  [  It  cannot  be  meant  of  any  Acciden- 
tal thing  |  But  i.  That  Meaning  it  felf  of 
peirsmay  be  an  Accidenr.  2.  And  the 
ueftion  is  not  what  they  \_Mean^  that  is, 
magine  or  affirm  ]  it  to  be  •  But  what 
t  is  in  deed  and  truth,  That  may  be  an 
Accident ,  which  they  think  to  be  none. 

2.  But  that  which  you  fay  [_  all  the  world 

bows]  is  a   thing  that  [all  the  world  of 

Chriftians   except  your  (elves,\    that  ever 

heard  of,  do  know,  or  acknowledge  to  be 

:alfe.     What  j  doth  all  the  world  know 

:hat  Chrift  hath  inftituted  in  his  Church 

G  nothing 


ta 


8a     The  Reply  to  Mr . Johnfons  ftcond  Paper 

nothing  but  what  is  cflential  to  it  ?  I  (hould 
hope  that  few  in  the  Chriftian  world 
would  be  fo  ignorant  as  ever  to  have  fuch 
a  thought,  if  they  had  the  means  of  know- 
ledge that  Proteftants  would  have  thei 
have.  There  is  no  natural  body  but  hat 
natural  Accidents  as  well  as  EfTence  :  No 
is  there  any  other  fociety  under  heave 
{Community  or  Policy  )  that  hath  not  its 
Accidents  as  well  as  Effence  ;  And  yet 
hath  Chrift  inftituced,  a  Church  that  hath 
nothing  but  Ejjence  without  Accidents  ? 
Do  you  build  upon  fuch  foundations  I 
What  !  upon  the  denyal  of  common  prin 
ciples  and  fence  ?  But  if  you  did,  yo 
fhould  not  have  feigned  all  the  world  to  d 
fo  too  .Were  your  afferiton  true,  then  every 
foul  were  cut  off  from  the  Church,  and  fo 
from  falvation,  that  wanted  any  thing  o 
Chrifts  Inftitution ,  yea  for  a  moment 
And  then  what  would  become  of  you 
You  give  me  an  inftance  in  [the  Eucha> 
rift]  But  i.  Will  it  follow  that  if  th 
Eucharifi  be  not  Accidental  or  integral 
but  EfTential,  that  therefore  every  thing  In 
fiituted  by  Chrift  is  Effentiall  ?  furely  no 
2.  The  Queftion  being  not  whether  th 
Being  of  the  Eucharift  in  the  Ghurch  be 
EfTential  to   the  UnLverfal  Church  ;  Bu 

whcch 


i 

n 


The  Re  fly  to  Mr  Johnfofls/ir*W  Taper  >    $3 

whether  the  Belief  or  Acknowledgment 
of  it  by  All  and  every  one  of  the  mem- 
bers, be  Effentiai  to  the  Members  ?  I 
would  crave  your  anfwer  but  to  this  Que- 
ftion  (  though  it  be  nothing  to  my  caufe.  ) 
Was  not  a  Baptized  perfoa  in  the  primitive 
and  ancient  Churches  a  true  Church-mem- 
ber, prefently  upon  Baptifm  ?  And  then  tell 
me  alfo,  Did  not  the  ancient  Fathers  and 
Churches  unanimously  hide  from  their 
Catechumens,  even  fnrfofelj  hide,  the  my- 
fterie  of  the  Eucharift,  as  proper  to  the 
Church  to  underftand  ?  and  never  opened 
it  to  the  auditors,  till  they  were  Baptized  ? 
Thisismoft  undenyable  in  the  concurrent 
vote  of  the  ancients.I  think  therefore  that  it 
follows  that  in  the  Judgement  of  the  an- 
cient Churches  the  Eucharift  was  but  of  the 
Integrity,  and  not  the  EfTence  of  a 
member  of  the  Church  ^  and  the  acknow- 
ledgement of  it  by  all  the  members,  a  thing 
that  never  was  exiftent. 

Where  you  fay,  your  Major  fbonld  have 
keen  granted  or  denyed  -without  thefe  diflin- 
ttions  :  I  Reply,  i .  If  you  mean  fairly, 
andnottoabufe  the  truth  by  Confufion, 
filch  diftin&ions  as  you  your  felf  callt  Learn- 
ed and  fubftantUl~\  can  do  you  no  wrong. 
They  do  but  fecure  our  true  underftariding 

Gz  of 


84    the  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  [econd  Paper. 

£f  one  another :  And  a  few  lines  in  the  be- 
ginning by  way  of  diftin&ion  are  not  vain, 
that  may  prevent  much  vain  altercation 
afterwards.  .  When  I  once  underftand 
you,  1  have  done  :  And  I  befeech  you,  take  \ 
it  not  for  an  injury  to  be  underftood. 

As  to  your  conclufion,  that  you  ufed  no 
fallacy  ex  A  ceidente  ^zn&that  my  infiances\ 
are  notafpoftte  ^  I  Reply,  thats  the  very  life 
of  the  Controverfie  between  us ;  And  our 
main  ^uefiien  k  not  fo  to  be  begged.  On 
the  grounds  I  have  (hewed  you,  I  {till  a- 
verr,  that  [  the  holding  of  the  ^Papacy  is  as 
e/^ ccidental  to  the  univerfal  Church,  as  a 
Cancer  in  the  breaft  is  to  a  woman  •,  _  And 
though  you  fay%  It  is  Effential,  and  of 
Chrifis  Inftitution,  that  maketh  it  neither 
EfTential,  nor  of  Chrifts  Inftitution  5  nor 
doth  it  make  all  his  inftitutions  to  be  effen- 
tialls. 

NowofyourfecondSyllogifm.  1. 1  (hall 
never  queftion  the  fucceffive  Vilibility  of 
the  Church. 

Whereas  I  told  you  out  of  your  Franfc. 
a  S.  Clara,  that  many  or  moft  of  your  own 
Schoolmen  agree  not  to  that  which  you  fay 
[All Chrifiians agree  fa,] you  make  no  re- 
plj  to  it. 

As  to  yourMinor^Ihave  given  you  theRea- 

fons 


The  Reply  to  Mr.  }o\\r\fotft[ccond Paper.    85 

fons  of  the  neceffity  and  harmlefncfs  of  my 
diftindionsiwe  need  fay  no  more  to  that  (\e 
Congregation  of  Ckrifiians~\  and^aCkfirch^ 
rire  Synonima  :  But  the  v?ord[true\  was  not 
added  to  your  firft  term  by  you  or  me;  and 
therefore  your  inltance  here  is  delufory.But 
0  fay  \jwhatfoever  Congregation  of  Chrifti- 
wsjs  now  the  true  Church^  is  all  one  as  to 
fay  wbatfoever  Church  of  (/hriftiansisnoy9 
the  true  Chnrch.~\  When  1  know  your  mean- 
ing I  have  my  end. 

Though  my  fvllogifm  fay  not  that    "  the 

[ church  of  Rome  achnoypledgeth  thofe  things 
ilwaies  done,  and  that  by  Chrifis  infiitHtivn] 
t  neverthelefs  explicateth  the  weaknefs  of 
yours,as  to  the  fallacy  accident  is :  For  i.The 
molding  it  alwaies  done,  and  that  t/fChrifts 
|/*/?/r/*m#,rr,ay  be  either  an  Accident,  or 

I duc  of  the  Integrity,  and  ad  bene  ejfe,  yea 
_poflib!y  an  en  our.  2.  And  I  might  as  eafily 
lhave  given  you  Ir.fiancesofthatkind. 

To  your  3.  Syllogifm  1  Reply.  i.When 
;ou  fay  the  C  hurch    [  had  Pcftors~]  as  you 
uftfpeakof  what  cxifted,  (and  Univcr- 
alls  cxift  not  of  themfelvcs)  fo  it  is  ne- 
reffary  that  I  tell  you,  How  far  I  grant 
four  Minor,  and  hew  far  I  deny  it. 
My    argument  from   the   Indians   and 
thers,  is  not  folved  by  you.     ft>r  j.  You 

G  3  can 


' 


$6    The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fecond  Paper. 

\  can  never  prove  that  the  Pope  was  preach- 
ed to  the  Iberians  by  the  Captive  maid,  . 
nor  to  the  Indians  by  Frumentius.  2.  Thou- 
fands  were  made  Chriftians  and  baptized 
by  the  Apoftles,  without  any  preaching  or 
profeflion  of  a  papacy,   Alt.  2.  &pajfim.' 

3 .  The  Indians  now  Converted  in  America 
by  the  Englifh  and  Dutch,  hear  nothing  of 
the  Pope,    nor   thoufands    in   Ethiopia. 

4.  Your  own  do   or  may  baptize  many 
without  their  owning  the  Pope  ,  who  yet 
would  be  Chriftians.     And  a  Paftor  not- 
known,  or  believed,  or  owned,  is  a&ually 
no  Paftor  to  them. 

To  your  confirmation,  I  Reply  :  You 
mifread  my  words  :  I  talk  not-  of  "  Invi- 
fible.~]  I  fay  it  is  true  that  the  Univerfal 
Church  is  united  toChriftas  their  univer- 
fallHead:  and  is  Vifible  1.  In  the  mem- 
bers. 2.  In  the  Profeflion.  3.  Chrift  himfelf 
is  vifible  in  the  Heavens,  and  as  much  fe e a 
of  moft  of  the  Church  as  the  Pope  is,  that 
is 9  not.  at  all.  As  the  Pope  is  notlnvifible, 
though  one  of  a  million  fee  him  not/  no 
more  is  Chrift,  who  isfeen  by  moft  of  the 
Church,  and  by  the  beft  part,  even  by  the 
glorified.  You  know  my  meaning  :  Whe- 
ther you  will  Call  Chrift  vifible  or  not, 
t  leave  tdtyou ;  I  think  he  is  vifible  :  But 

that 


The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons/irW  Paper.   87 

that  which  I  affirm,  is,  that  theunivcr- 
fal  Church  hath  no  other  vifible  univcr- 
fal  Head  or  Paftor  ;  But  particular  Chur- 
ches have  their  particular  Pallors  all  under 
Chrift. 

Of  Epk  4.  I  eafily  grant  that  the  whole 
Church  may  be  faid  to  have  Paftors,  in  that 
all  the  particular  Churches  have  Paftors, 
But  I  deny  that  the  whole  have  any  one  u- 
niverfal  Paftor  but  Chrift.  Of  that  which  is 
rhe  point  in  controverfie,  you  bring  no 
proof.  If  you  mean  no  more  then  I  grant, 
that  the  whole  Church  haih  Paftors  both 
in  that  each  particular  Church  hath  Pa- 
ftors, and  in  that  unfixed  Paftors  are  to 
preach  to  all  as  they  have  opportunity, 
then  your  Minor  hath  no  denyall  from 


me.  N 


Inftead  of  profecuting  your  Argument, 
when  you  had  caft  the  work  of  an  Oppo- 
nent upon  me,  you  here  appeal  [  to  anj 
true  Logician  or  expert  Lawyer  "  Content  -, 
I  admit  of  your  Appeal.  But  why  then  did 
you  at  all  put  on  the  lace  of  an  Oppo- 
nent ?  could  you  noc  without  this  loft  labour 
at  firft  have  called  me  to  prove  the  fuccef- 
five  vifiblity  of  our  Church  ?  Put  to  your 
Appeal,  Ho  all  yon  true  L^ici*ns,  this 
Learned  ma*  and  J  refer  it  to  jonr  tribunal, 

G4  whether 


88    The  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  [econd  Paper. 

whether  it  be  the  fart  of  an  Off  event,  to  con- 
trive his  Argument  fo  as  that  the  Negative 
Jballbe^is^and  then  change  f  laces y  and  be- 
come Refpondcnt ,  and  make  his  adverfarj 
Opponent  at  his  Pleafure.  ]  We  leave  this 
caufe  at  your  bar,  and  expeft  your  fen- 
tence. 

But  before  we  come  to  the  Lawyers  bar,  I 
mufthavi  leave  more  plainly  to  Hate  our 
cafe.  I 

We  arc  all  agreed  chat  Chriftianity  is  the 
true  Religion,  and  Chhft  the  Churches 
Univerfal  Headland  the  holy  Scriptures  the 
Word  of  God.  •  Papifts  tell  us  of  another 
Head  and  Rule  ^  the  Pope  and  Tradition, 
and  judgement   of  tj[ie  Church.     Prote- 
ctants deny  thefe  Additionals^nd  hold  to  ■; 
Chrifiianitj  and  Scripture  only  •,  Our  Religi-  • 
*#,  being  nothing  but  Chriftitmity,  we  have  i 
no  Controverfie  about :    Their  Rapdl  Re-\ 
ligion,  fuperadded,  is  that  which  is  Contro- 
verted :  They  affirm   i.  the  Right.    2.  the 
Antiquity  of  it  .-    We  deny  both   i    The 
Right  we  difprove  from  Scripture,  though  it 
belorgs  to  them  to  prove  it.     The  Ami- 
ihtfti  is  it  that  is  now  to  be  referred.     Pro- 
t.ftancy  being  the  Denyall  of  Popery,  it  is 
*&e  that  Realty  have  the  Negative,  and   the 
Pzpifts  that  have  the  t^ffirmative.      The 

jEjfcncc 


The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fecond  Paper.       89 

Ejfence  of  our  Church  (which  is  Chriftian) 
is  confeffed  to  have  been  fucceflively  vi- 
fible  :  But  we  deny  that  theirs  as  Papal  bath 
been  fo  5  and  now  they  tell  us,    that  it  is 
Ejfential  10  ours  to  deny  the  fucceflion  of 
theirs,  and  therefore  require  us  to  prove  a  . 
fucceflion  of  ours  ,   as  one.  that  ftill  hath 
deny  ed  theirs:  Now  we  leave  our  cafe  to 
the  Lawyers,  feeing  to  them  you  make  your 
appeal,     1.  Whether  the  fubitance  of  all 
our  caufe  lie  not  in  this  Queftion,  Whether 
the  Papacy  or  universal  Government  by  the 
Pope,  be  of  heaven  ,or  of  men  ?  and  fo  whether 
it  bath  been  from  the  beginning?  which  we 
deny,   and  therefore  are  called  Protefiants  ^ 

d  they  affirm,  and  are  therefore  called 
Papifts.  2.  If  they  cannot  fir  ft  prove  a 
fncceffive  vifibility  of  their  Papacy  and 
Papal  Church,  then  what  Law  can  bind  us  to 
prove  that  it  was  denied,  before  it  did  arife 
in  the  world,  or  ever  any  pleaded  for  it? 
3.  And  as  to  the  point  of  PolTeffion  ,  I 
know  not  what  can  be  pretended  on  your 
lide.  1.  The  Poffeflion  of  this  or  that 
particular  parifh  Church  or  Tythes,  is  not 
the  thing  in  queftion  ^  but  the  timverfal 
Headfhhp  is  the  thing :  But  if  it  were,  yet  it 

I  that  am    yet  here  in  PofTefficn  -9  and 
Protcftants  before  me  for  many  ages  fuc- 

cellivcly  : 


£0   The  Re  fly  to  Mr .  Johnfons  fee  end  Pafer. 

ceffivcly :  And  when  pofTeflfed  you  the 
Headfhip  of  the  Ethiopian ,  Indian,  and 
other  extra-imperial  Churches?  never  to 
this  day.  No  nor  of  the  Eaftern  Churches, 
though  you  had  communion  with  them. 
2.  If  the  Queftion  be5whohathPoflefiion 
of  the  univerfal  Church  •,  we  pretend  not  to 
it  >  but  only  to  be  a  part,  and  the  founded 
jfafeft  part.  3.  The  cafe  of  Poffefiion 
therefore  is ,  whether  we  have  not  been 
longer  inPofleffion  of  our  Religion,  which 
is  bare  Chriftianity,  then  you  of  your  fu- 
peradded  Popery.  Our  Poffefiion  is  not 
denied,  of  Chriftianity.  Yours  of  Popery 
we  deny  :  ( and  our  denyal  makes  us  called 
ProteftantsJ ;  Let  therefore  thereafon  of 
Logicians,  Lawyers,  or  any  rational  fpber 
man  determine  the  cafe,  whether  it  do  not 
firft  and  principally  belong  to  you,  to  prove 
thevifible  fucceffion  of  a  Vice-Chrift  over 
the  univerfal  Church. 

As  to  your  contradictory  impofitions 
Reply,  1.  Your  exception  was  not  ex- 
preft,  and  your  impofition  was  peremptory. 
2.  I  told  you  I  would  be  a  Papift  if  you 
prove  [that  the  Vohole  vifible  Church  in  all 
ages  hath  held  the  Popes  univerfal  headfbip~] 
you  fay  that  you  [have  proved  it  by  this  ar- 
gument %  that  either  he  hath  that  fupremacyy 


or 


"The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fecond  Paper.    9 1 

crfome  other  Church ;  denying  that  he  hath 
a/waies  had  it,  hath  been  alwaies  vijible,'] 
and  chat  Church  you  require  (houid  be 
named.  I  Reply,  1.  Had  nor  you  de- 
fpaired  of  making  good  your  caule,  you 
fhould  have  gone  on  by  Argumentation, 
till  you  had  forced  me  to  contradid:  fome 
common  principle.  2.  If  you  fhould  (hew 
thefe  Papers  to  the  world,  and  tell  them 
that  you  have  no  better  proof  of  the  fuc- 
ceflion  of  your  Papacy,  then  that  we  prove 
not  that  it  hath  alwaies  been  denied  by  the 
vifible  Church,  you  would  fure  turn  thou- 
sands from  Popery,  if  there  be  fo  many  ra- 
tional considering  impartial  men  at 
would  perufe  them,  and  believe  you.  For 
any  man  may  know  chat  it  could  not  be 
cxpeded  that  the  Churches  fhould  deny  a 
Vice-Chrift  before  he  was  fprung  up.  Why 
did  not  all  the  precedent  Raman  Bifhops 
difclaim  the  title  of  univerj.l  Bi/hop  or  Pa- 
triarch, till  Ptlagius  and  Gregory  ?  but 
bccaule  there  was  none  in  the  world  that 
gave  occafion  for  it.  How  fhould  any 
Hcrefie  be  oppofed  or  condemned  befoi 
it  dotharife? 

But  you  fairly  yield  me  fomewhat  here, 
and  fay  thac  you  [_oblige  me  not  to  prove  * 
continued  vifible  Church  formally  and  ex- 

frt  (ly 


f  t    the  Reply  toMr.Johnfonsfecond  Paper . 

pre  fly  denying  it  \  but  that  it  was  of  fuch  a  I 
conftitutionas  was  inconfiffent  with  any  fuch 
fupremacy,  cr  could  and  did  fubfifl  without 
if.  J  Reply >  1  confefsyour  firftpart  is  very 
ingenuous  and  fair.  Remember  it  here- 
after, that  you  have  difcharged  me  from 
proving  [_a  Church  that  denied  the  Papacy 
formally  &  exprefly.'}  But  as  to  what  you 
yen  demand,  i.  I  have  here  given  it  you, 
becaufe  you  (hall  not  fay  1'ie  fail  you  .-  I 
have  aniwered  vour  deiire.  But  2.  It  is 
not  as  a  thing  neceffary,  but  ex  abundant* , 
as  an  overplus..  For  you  may  now  fee 
plainly,  that  to  prove  that  the  Church  was 
without  an  univerfal  Paftor,  (which  you 
require)  is  to  prove  the  Negative,  ndi.  that 
then  there  was  none  fucb  $  whereas  its  you 
that  mult  prove  that  there  was  fucb.  I 
prove  our  Religion  :  do  you  prove  yours  i 
though  I  fay  to  pleafure  you,l'ie  di  fprove  it, 
and  have  done  it  in  two  books  already. 

My  reafon  from  the  ftrefs  of  neceflity, 
Tvhich  you  lay  on  your  Affirmative  and 
Addition?,  was  but  fubfervient  to  the  fore- 
going Reafons,  not  firfl  to  prove  you  bound^ 
but  to  prove  you  che  more  bound  to  the 
proof  of  your  Affirmative.  And  therefore 
your  inftance  of  Mahumetans  is  imperti- 
nent.   He  that  faith,  you  (hall  be  damned 

if 


The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  [econd  Paper.     $  j 

if  you  believe  not  this  or  that,  is  more 
obliged  to  prove  it,  then  he  thataffirmetha 
point  as  of  no  fuch  moment. 

To  what  I  lay  of  an  accident  and  a 
corrupt  part)  you  faj  you  hs.ve  anfwered,  and 
do  bmfaj  /a,  having  laid  nothing  to  it  that 
is  confiderable. 

Me  thinks  you  that  make  Chrift  to  be 
corporally  prefent  in  every  Church  in  the 
Eucharift,fhouldnocfay,  that  the  King  of 
the  Church  is  abfent.  But  when  you  have 
proved,  i.  That  Chrift  is  fo  abfent  from 
Ihis  Church,  that  there's  need  of  a  Deputy  to 
effentiate  his  Kingdom,  and  2.  That  the 
Pope  is  fo  Deputed-^  you  will  have  done 
more  then  is  yet  done  for  your  caufe. 
And  yet  let  me  tell  you,  that  in  the  abfence 
of  a  King,  it  is  only  the  King  and  Subjects 
jthat  are  effential  to  the  Kingdom.  The 
(Deputy  is  but  an  officer,  and  not  effen- 
:ial. 

Your   naked  ajfertiutt ,    that    whatfocver 

Government  Chrift  mftituteth,  of  his  Church, 

.  ynnjt  be  cfttntial  to  hps  Church,  is  no  proof, 

ior   like  the  task  of  an  Opponent.     The 

.  government  of  inferiour   officers  is  not 

,  >(Tentialto  the  univerial  Church,  no  more 

.  ^hen  Judges   and  Juftices  to  a  Kingdom. 

\nd  yet  we  muft  wait  long  before  you  will 

proyc 


94  The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  feeond  Paper] 

prove  that  Peter  and  the  Pope  of  Rome  art 
inChfifts  place,  as  Governoursofthe  uni- 
verial  Church. 

Sir,  I  defire  open  dealing,  as  between 
men  chat  believe  thefe  matters  are  of  eternal 
confequence.  I  watch  not  for  any  advan- 
tage againft  you.  Though  it  be  your  part 
to  prove  the  Affirmative  which  our  Ne- 
gative fuppofeth  5  yet  I  have  begun  the 
proof  of  our  Negative  ^  but  it  was  on  fup- 
pofition  that  you  will  equally  now  prove 
your  Affirmative,  better  then  you  have 
here  done.  I  have  proved  a  vifible  Church 
fucceffively  that  held  not  the  Popes  univer- 
sal Government :  do  you  now  prove  {that 
the  universal  Church  in  all  ages  did  hold  the 
Popes  univerfd  Government)  which  is  your 
part-,  orlmuft  fay  again,  I  (hall  chink  you 
do  but  run  away,  and  give  up  your  caufe  as 
unable  to  defend  it :  I  have  not  failed  you  • 
•     do  not  you  fail  me. 


You  complain  of  a  deficiency  in  quality, 
though  vou  confefs  that  I  abound  in  num- 
ber.  But  where  is  che  defect!  you  lay,  I 
mull  [sffert  both  that  thefe  were  one  Congre- 
gation,  and  ever  vifible  ftnee  Chrifis  timej 
Reply,  If  by  [one  Congregation']  you  meant! 
[one  affembly  met  for  perfonal  Communion^ 

wnict 


The  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  feccnd  Paper.     $  j 

which  is  the  firft  fenfe  of  the  word  [Con- 
gregation]  it  were  ridiculous  to  feign  the 
univerfal  Church  to  be  fuch.  If  you  mean, 
One  as  united  In  one  vifible  humane  Head, 
thats  it  that  we  deny,  and  therefore  may 
not  be  required  to  prove.  Bat  that  thefc 
Churches  are  One  as  united  in  Chrift  the 
Head  ,  we  eafily  prove  ^  In  that  from  him 
the  whole  family  it  named  ^  the  body  is 
Chrifts  body,  I  Cor.  12.  12, 13.  and  one  in 
him,  Eph.4. 4,  5,6,  &c.  All  that  are  true 
Chriftians  are  one  Kingdom  or  Church  of 
Chrift  •  but  theie  of  whom  I  fpeak  are  true 
Chnftians^  therefore  they  are  one  Kingdom 
orChurch  oiChnft.And  that  they  have  been 
vifible  fmce  Chrifts  time  till  now,all  hiftory, 
even  your  own  affirms; As  in  fud<ea,&L  from 
the  Apofties  times,  in  Ethiopia,  Egypt  and 
other  parts,  (Rome  was  no  Church  in  the 
time  of  Chrifts  being  on  earth.)  And  to 
what  purpofe  talk  you  of  determinate  Con- 
gregations ?  Do  you  mean  individual  aflem- 
bl.es?  thofe  ceafewhen  the  perfons  die  ^ 
or  do  you  mean  aflkmblies  meeting  in  the 
fame  place?  fo  they  have  not  done  ftillat 
{Rome.  I  told  you,  and  tell  you  ftill,  that 
we  hold  not  that  God  hath  fecured  the 
perpetual  vifibility  of  his  Church  in  any 
one  City  or  Country  ;  but  if  ic  ceafe  in  one 

place, 


95     The  Reply  te  Mr.JohnConsfecond  Paper. 

place,  it  is  ftill  in  others.     It  may  ceafe  at 
Ephefus,  at  Philippi,  Colojfe,&CC  in  Tenduc, 
Nubia,  &c.  and  yet  remain  in  other  parts. 
I  never  faid  that  the  Church  mufi  needs  be 
vifible  ftill  in  one  Town  or  Country.     And 
y et  it  hath  been  fo  de  fafto,  as  in  Afia,  Ethi- 
opia, &c.     But  you  fay,  /  nominate  none. 
Are  you  ferious  /  mud  I  nominate  Chriftians 
of  thefe  Nations,  to  prove  that  there  were 
fuch?  you  require  not  this  of  the  Church 
Hiftorians.     It  fufficeth  that  they  tell  you, 
that  Ethiopia,  Egypt,  Armenia,  Syria,  &c. 
had   Chriftians  ,    without    naming   them; 
When  all  hiftory  tells  you  that  thefe  Coun- 
tries  were  Chriftians,  or  had  Churches,  I 
muft  tell  you  [yvhat  and  who  they  were^  I 
muft  you  have  their  names,  firnames,  and 
Genealogies?  I  cannot  name  you  one  of  a 
thoufand  in  this  fmall  Nation,   in  the  age 
I  live  in  :  How  then  fhouldl  name  you  the 
people  of  Armenia,  Abajfia,8cc.  fo  long 
ago  ?     You  can  name  but  tew  of  the  Roman 
Church  in  each  age  :  And  had  they  wanted 
learning   and    records     as   much  as  the 
Abaflins  and  Indians,  and  others,  you  might 
have  been   as  much  to  feekfor  names  as 
they.     You  ask  \yere  they   different  Con- 
gregations} ]     Anfo.  As  united  in  Chrift 
they  were  one  Church :  but  as  affembling 


7  he  Refl^j  to  A/r  Johnfon$/5rW  Pdptr.     $y 

at  one  time,  or  in  one  place,  or  under  the 
fame  guide,  fo  they  were  not  one,  but  divers 
Congregations. 

That  there  were  any  Papifts  of  400.years 
after  Chrift,  do  you  prove  if  you  are  able. 

My  conclusion,  that  fill  have  been  againft 
jot*  for  many  httndredjears,  muft  ftand  good, 
till  you  prove  that  fome  were  for  you  ?  yet 
I  have  herewith  proved  that  there  were 
none,  at  leaft  that  could  deferve  the  name 
pf  the  Church. 

Do  you  think  to  fatisfie  any  reafonable 

Iman    by  calling  for  pofuive    proof  from 

Authors,    of  fuch  Negatives  f   yet  proof 

ou  (hall  not  want,   fuch  as  the  nature  of 

he  point    requireth  ,  viz,.  That  the  faid 

Churches  of   Ethiopia,  India,    the  outer 

Armenia,  and  other  extra-imperial  Nations, 

vere   not  under    the    jurifdi&ion  of  the 

3ifhop  of  Rome.     I.  You   find    all  thefe 

Churches,  or  moft  of  them  at  this  day  (chat 

emain )  from  under   your    jurifdi&ion  : 

nd  you  cannot  tell  us  when  or  how  they 

urned  from  you.    If  you  could,  it  had 

een  done.     2.  Thefe  Nations  profefs  it  to 

their  Tradition,  that  the  Pope  was  never 
heir  Governour,  3;  No  hiftory  or.  au- 
hority  of  the  leaft  regard,  is  brought  by 
'our  own  writers  to  prove  thefe  Churches 

H  under 


98      The  Reply  to  Mr. Johnfons/fflWdf  Paper. 

under  your  jurifdi&ion :  no  not  by  fiaro- 
nitu  himfelf,  that  is  fo  copious,  and  fo  skil- 
I  ful  in  making  much  of  nothing.     No  credi- 

ble witneffes  mention  your  Ads  of  jurif- 
di&ion  over  them,  or  their  Ads  of  fubje- 
ftion,  which  Church  hillory  rauft  needs 
have  containcd,ifit  had  been  true,  that  they 
were  your  fubjefts.  4.  Their  abfence  from 
general  Councils,  and  no  inviraiion  of  them 
thereunto,  (that  was  ever  proved,  or  is 
ftiewed  by   you  J   is  fufficient    evidence. 

5.  Their  Liturgies,  even  the  moft  ancient, 
bear  no  footfteps  of  any  fubjeftion  to  you. 
Though  your  forgeries  have  corrupted 
them ;  as  I  (hall  here  (digreffively)  give 
one  inftance  of:  The  Ethiopick  Liturgy, 
becaufe  of  a  [Hoc  eft  corpus  meurn\  which 
wealfoufe,  is  urged  to  prove  that  they  are 
for  the  corporal  prefence,  or  Tranfubftan- 
tiation  ;  But  faith  Vjher,  defuccef.  Ecclef. 
In  Ethiopicarum-  Eccleftarum  nniverfali 
Canone,  defcriptum  habebatur  \_Hic  pants  eft 
corpus  meum\ :  In  Latin*  t  ran  flat  ione  contra 
fidem  Ethiopic.  Exemplaritim  (ut  in  prima 
vperis  edition*  confirmat  Pontificius  ipfe 
Scholiaftes)  expunttutn  eft  nomen  ^mP*ni*.~] 

6.  Conftantines  Letters  of  requeft  to  the 
King  of  Perjia  for  the  Churches  there 
(which  Enfeb.  in  vit.  Conftant.  mentioneth) 

do 


The  Reply  to  Mr.  John  fon s  {tcond  Paper.    $9 

do  intimate  that  then  the  Roman  Bifhop 
ruled  not  there.  7.  Even  at  home,  the  Scots 
and  Brittains  obeyed  not  the  Pope,  nor 
conformed  about  the  Eafter  obfervation, 
even  in  the  daies  of  Gregory  •,  but  refilled 
his  changes,  and  refufed  communion  with 
hisMinifters.  8.  I  have  already  elfewhere 
given  you  the  teftimony  of  fome  of  your 
own  writers :  as  Reynerius  contra  Waldenf, 
fatal,  in  TZiblioth.  Patr.  Tom.  4.  />.  773, 
faying  [The  Churches  of  the  Armenians  ^and 
Ethiopians  y  and  Indians,  and  the  reft  which 
the  Apoftles  converted ,  are  not  under  the 
Church  0/ Rome.]  9.  I  have  proved  from 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon^  that  it  was  the 
Fathers,  that  is^the  Councils  that  gave  Rome 
its  preheminence  :  But  thofe  Councils  gave 
the  Pope  no  preheminence  over  the  extra- 
imperial  Nations :  For  1.  Thofe  Nations 
being  not  called  to  the  Council,  could  not 
be  bound  by  it.  2.  The  Emperours  called 
and  enforced  the  Councils,  who  had  no 
power  out  of  their  Empire.  3.  The  Dio- 
cefs  are  defcribed  and  expreily  confined 
within  the  verge  of  the  Empire  -,  fee  both 
the  defcription,  and  full  proof  in  Blondel  de 
Primatuin  Ecclefia.Gall.  And  10.  The 
Emperours  themfelvesdidfometime  (give- 
ing  power  to  the  Councils  Ads  )    make 

H  2  fyme 


ioo     The  Re  fly  to  Mr.Johntons  [econtt Paper. 

Rome  the  jchief  •,  and  fometime  (  as  the 
Councils  did  alfo)  give  Conftantinople  equal 
priviledge  •  and  fometime  fet  Conftantino- 
ple  higheft,  as  I  have  (hewed  in  rny  Key, 
■  p.  174,175.    But  the  Emperours  had  no 

power  to  do  thus  with  refpeft  to  thofe 
without  the  Empire. 

*But  what  fay  you  now  to  the  contrary  ? 
Why  1.  You  ask,  \jVere  thofe  Primitive 
Chriftians  of  another  kjfjd  of  Church  order 
and  Government  then  were  thofe  under  the 
Roman  Empire^]  Anfw.  When  the  whole 
body  of  Church  hiftory  fatisfieth  us  that 
they  were  not  fubjed  to  the  Pope,  which  is 
the  thing  in  queftion,  is  it  any  weakening 
of  fuch  evidence  in  a  matter  of  fqcb  publick 
faft,  to  put  fuch  a  queftion  as  this ,  Whether 
they  were  under  another  kjnd  of  Government? 
i.  We  know  that  they  were  under  Bifhops 
or  Paftors  of  their  own  :  and  fo  far  their  ' 
Government  was  of  the  fame  kind.  2.  If 
aijy  of  them,  or  all,  did  fuit  their  Church 
aflbciations  to  thefeveral  Commonwealths 
in  which  they  lived,  and  fo  held  National 
Councils,  and  for  order  fake  made  one  a- 
mong  rhem  the  Biftiop  prima  fedtis^  then  was 
that  Government  of  the  fame  kind  with 
that  of  the  Imperial  Churches,  and  not  of 
another  kind.     The  Roman  Government 

was 


The  Reply  to  Mr.  JohnConsfecoffd  Paper.  401 

was  no  other,  but  One,  thus  Ordered^  in 
one  Em  fire  :  And  if  there  were  aifo  One,  fo 
ordered, in  England,  one  in  Scotland,  one  in 
Ethiopia,  &c.  this  was  of  the  fame  kjnd 
with  the  Roman.  Every  Church  fuked  ;o 
the  form  of  the  Common-wealth,  is  even 
(as  to  that  humane  mode  J  of  the  fame  kind 
(if  a  humane  mode  muft  be  called  a  Kind.) 
It  may  be  of  that  fame  kind  ,  and  mode, 
withouc  being  part  of  the  fame  Indivi- 
dual. 

But  2.  You  fay  that  [How  far  from 
truth  this  is,appeareth  from  St.  j  in  hi$ 
Serrr.cns  de  Natali  fuo,  where  he  fayes ,[Sedes 
Roma  Petri  •  quicquid  non  poiiicet  armis, 
lleligione  tenet.]  Reply,  If  you  take  your 
Religion  on  trull,  as  you  do  your  authori- 
ties that  are  made  your  ground  of  ir,  and 
bring  others  to  it  when  you  are  deceived 
your  felves,  how  will  you  look  Chrift  in  the 
the  face  when  you  muft  anfwer  for  fuch 
temerity  ?  Leo  hath  no  Sermons  de  Nattli 
fuo,  but  only  one  Sermon  affixed  to  his 
Sermons,  lately  found  in  an  old  book  of 
Nicol.  Fabers.  And  in  that  Sermon  there 
is  no  fuch  words  as  you  here  alledge.  Nei- 
ther doth  he  Poetize  in  his  Sermons  ,  nor 
there  hath  any  fuch  words  which  might 
occafion   your     miftake  :    and   therefore 

H  3  doubt- 


jo 2  The  Reflj  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fecond  Pdper, 

doubtlefs  you  believed  fomebody  fonthis 
that  cold  yon  an  untruth-,  and  yet  ven- 
tured to  make  it  the  ground  of  charging  my 
words  with  untruth.  Ye:  let  me  tell  you, 
that  I  will  take  Pope  Le o  for  no  competent 
judge  or  witnefs,  though  you  call  him  a 
Saint ;  as  long  as  we  know  what  paft  be- 
tween him  and  the  Council  of  Chalcedony 
and  that  he  was  one  of  thefirft  tumified 
Bifhops  of  Rome  ^  he  (hall  not,  be  judge  in  his 
own  caufe. 

3.  But  you  add  that  [The  Abaffines  of 
Ethiopia  -were  under  the  Patriarch  of  Alex- 
andria anciently  i  and  be  tinder  the  authority 
cf  the  Roman  £ijhcp.~]  Reply,  i.  Your  bare 
word  without  proof  (hall  not  perfwade 
us  that  the  Abaflines  were  under  the  Patri- 
arch of  Alexandria  for  above  three  hun- 
dred,if  not  four  hundred  years  after  Chrift. 
Prove  it3  and  then  your  words  are  regard- 
able.  2.  At  the  Council  of  Nice  the  con- 
trary is  manifeft  by  the  fixth  Can.  [ Mos 
antiquum  perdurat  in  ^£gypto^  vel  LybU  & 
PentapUiyHt  Ahxandrimu  Epifcopus  horum 
omnium  habeat  potefiatem^bcc.\  And  the 
common  defcripcions  of  the  Alexandrian 
Patriarchate  in  thofe  times  confine  it  to  the 
Empire,  and  leave  out  (Ethiopia  (  Pifantu 
new  inventions  we  regard  not.)  3.  I  de- 
ny 


the  Re  fly  U  Mr.  John  fonzfccond  Paper.    103 

ny  that  the  Patriarch  of  %yilexandrU  was 
under  the  Government  of  the  Bifhop  of 
Rome^   any  more  then  the  Jury  are  under 
the  Foremen,  or  the  junior  Juftices  on  the 
bench  are  under  the  fenior,  or  Tork^  is  un- 
der London-  or  the  other  Earls  ©f  England 
are  under  the  Earl  of  Arundel.     4.  But  if 
both  thefe  were  proved,  that  Ethiopia  was 
under  Alexandria,    and  Alexandria  under 
Rome ,1  deny  the  confequence,  that  Ethic 
pi  a  was  under  Rome  :   for  Alexandria  was 
under  Rome  but  fecundum  quid,    and  lo  far 
as  it  was  within  the  Empire,   and  therefore 
thofe  withoHt  the  Empire  that  were  under 
Alexandria ,   were    not    therefore  under 
Rome.     5.  And  if  it  could  ("as  it  neyer  can) 
be  proved  of  Abajfia,  what  is  that  to  all  the 
other  Churches  in  India  ^  Perfta,   and  the 
reft  of  the  world  ?   Sir,  If  you  have  impar- 
tially read  the  ancient  Church  hiftory,and 
yet  can  believe  that  all  thefe  Churches  were 
then  under  the  Pope,  defpair  not  of  bring- 
ing your  felf  to  believe  any  thing  imagina- 
ble that  you  would  have  to  be  true. 

3.  Your  next  queftion  is  \Whcntht  Ro- 
man Emper  ours  were  jet  Hetyhens^  had  not 
the  Bijhops  of  Rome  the  fxpremacy  over  all 
other  Bijhops  through  the  -whole  Church  ?  3 
Anfw.   No  ;  they   had   not  -,  nor -in  the 

H  4  Empire 


VI 04  The  Reply  to  Mr.  John  Tons  fecotid  Pdper. 

Empire  neither.  Prove  it,  ibefeechyou, 
better  then  by  queftioning.  If  you  askt, 
Whether  men  rule  not  Angels}  yourQiiefti- 
on  proves  not  the  Affirmative. 

4.  But  ycu  ask  again  [Did  thofe  Heathen 
Emperours  give  it  him}  ]  Anfw.  I .  Power 
Over  all  Churches  none  ever  gave  him,  till 
titularly  hisownParafites  of  late.  2.  Pri- 
macy ofmeer  degree  in  the  Empire,  for  the 
dignity  and  many  advantages  of  the  Em- 
#  perial  feat  ,  the  Bifhops  of  the  Empire  gave 
him  by  confent  (Blonde I  de  primatu,  gives 
you  the  prcof  and  reafon  at  large  :  )  yet  fo 
as  that  [/wall  regard  was  had  to  the  Church 
of  Rome  before  the  Nictne  Council]  as  faith 
your  apneas  Sylvius ,  Pope  Pins  the 
fecond. 

5.  [  whether  the  Fijhop  0/ Rome  hadpower 
ever  the  Bifhop  of  Aries  ky  Heathen  Emper- 
ours,'}  is  a  frivolous  queftion.  Aries  was 
in  the  Rom^n  Patriarchate  ,  and  not  out  of 
the  Empire.  The  Churches  in  the  Empire, 
might  by  confent  difpofe  themfelves  into 
the  Patriarchal  orders,  without  the  Em- 
perours, and  yet  not  meddle  out  of  the 
Empire.  Yet  indeed  Cyprians  words  inti- 
mate no  power  Rome  had  over  Aries  ^  friore 
then  Aries  had  over  Rome  :  that  is,  to 
rejeft  communion  with  each  other  upon 

difTenr, 


[  he  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fecond  Paper,     xoj 

iiffent.  Nay  it  more  confuteth  you,  that 
yen  under  Heathen  Emperours,  when 
.'hutch  afTcciations  were  by  voluntary 
onfent  of  Paftors  only  ^  and  fo  if  they  had 
hot'ght  it  recefTary,  they  rri^ht  have  ex- 
endcd  them  to  other  Principalities :  yet  de 
rit}c  they  did  rot  do  ir,  as  all  hiitory  of  the 
Lhurch  declareth,  mentioning  their  Coun- 
ts and  afTcciations  s  without  thtfe  ta- 
^enin. 

See  now  how  little  your  obje&ions  are 
,vorth  •,  and  hew  gioundiefly  you  bid  me 

See  new  hew  little  try  rllfgatuns  are  to  the 
urfofe~] 

As  for  the  rabble  of  Herericks  which  you 
cckonup,  (  as  you  eiteem  them,)  fomeof 
hem  are  no  Christians  univocally  fo  called, 
ind  thofe  cannot  be  of  the  Chriftian 
Church.  Others  of  them  were  better 
Chrifliars  then  ihe  Romanifis,  and  fo  were 
:>f  the  fame  Church  with  us ;  And  it  is  noc 
many  reproachfull  names  put  on  them  by 
x.alice  that  makes  them  no  Chriftians,  or  of 

any  Churches  or  Religions,   If  an  arro- 
gant ufurper  will   put   nick-names  on  all 

at  will  not  bow  to  him  as  the  Vice-Chrift, 
f  ind  call  them    Iconoclafts,  Berengarians, 
Waldenfians,  Albigenfes,  Wicklefifts,  Huf- 
fites,Luthcrans,  Calvinifls  (you  may  as  well 

give 


\q6l  The  Re  fly  to  Mr.  Johnfons  [ecwd  Paper. 

give  them   a  thoufand  more  names )  this 
makes  them  not  of  various  Religions,  nor 
blots  out  their  names  from  the  book  of  life. 
I  have  in  my  moft  retired  thoughts  perufed 
the  Hiftory  of  thofe  mens  lives,  and  of  the 
lives  of  many  of  your  Popes,  together  with 
their  feverali  do&rines  •,  and  with  death  and 
judgement  in  my  eyes,  as  before  the  great 
God  of  Heaven,  I  humbly  beg  of  him, 
that  I  may  rather  have  my  everiafting  por- 
tion with  thofe  holy  men  whom  you  bur- 
ned^as  Waldenfes,  Albigenfes,Huffites,^v. 
then  with  the  Popes  that  burned  them,  or 
thofe  that  follow  them  in  that  cruelty,  un- 
,  Icfs  reconciling  grace  have  given  them  re- 
pentante  unto  life.      The  Religion  of  all 
thefe  men  was  one,  and  they  were  all  of  one 
univerfall  Church. 

Where  you  again  call  for  One  Congrega- 
tion ,1  tell  you  again  that  we  know  no  Vnity 
effentiall,  from  whence  the  Church  can  be 
called  one,  but  either  Chrift  or  the  Vice- 
Chrift :  the  former  only  is  afferted  by  us, 
and  the  latter  alfo  by  you,  which  we  deny  .• 
And  therefore  we  cannot  call  the  univerfall 
Church  One,  in  any  other  formal  refpe&s, 
but  as  it  is  C£r*/?*V?#,  and  fo  One  in  Chrift. 
Yet  have  I  herewith  fatisfied  your  demand, 
but  (hewed  you  the  unreafonablenefs  of 

it. 


Xht  Re  fly  to  Mr.  Johnfons  [ecdnd  ?*pr.  1 07 

t,  beyond    all    reafonable   contradi&i, 
)n. 

You  next  enquire  whethtr  [we  account 
lome  and  us  One  Congregation  of  Chrifli- 
ins  ?~\\  anfwer.the  Roman  Church  hath 
wo  Heads ,  and  ours  but  one^  and  thats  the 
lifference.  They  are  Chriftians,  and  fo 
One  Church  as  united  in  Chrift,  with  us  and 
ill  other  true  Chriftians.  If  any  fo  hold 
:heir  Papacy  and  other  errours  as  effective- 
ly and  practically  to  deftroy  their  Chrifti- 
anity,thofe  are  not  Chriftians,  and  fonoc 
of  the  fame  Church  as  we.  But  thofe  that 
donotfo,  but  are  fo  Papifts,  as  yet  to  be 
truly  and  practically  Chriftians,  are  and 
(hall  be  of  the  fame  Church  with  us,  whe- 
ther they  will  or  not  :  And  your  modeft 
ftile  makes  me  hope  that  you  and  I  are  of 
one  Church,  though  you  never  fo  much  re- 
nounce it.  As  Papally  we  are  not  of  your 
Church  •,  thats  a  new  Church  form  •  But 
as  Chriftian,  we  are  and  will  be  of  it,  even 
when  you  are  condemning,  torturing  and 
burning  us  (  if  fuch  perfecution  can  ftand 
With  your  Chriftianity. ) 

But  you  aske  [  Why  did  you  then  feparate 
jour  J elves  yand  remain  fiill  feparate  from  the 
Communion      of  the    Roman      Church* 
Anfw.  1.  We  never  feparatcd  from  you  a> 

you 


o8  The  Reply  toMr.Johtitonsftcdnd  Paper 

you  arc  Chriftians  •,  We  ftill  remain  of  tha 
Church  as  Chriftian,  and  we  know   (  o 
will  know  )  no  other  form  -,  becaufe  tha 
Scripture  and  primitive  Churches  knew  n< 
other.     Either  you  have  by  Popery  fepa 
rated  from  the  Church  as   Chriftian,  o 
not  ^  If  you  have,  its  you   that    are  th 
fdamnable)Separatifts.If  you  have  not,thet 
we  are  not  feparated  from  you,in  refpeft  i 
the  form  of  theChnftian  Church.  And  f< 
your  other  form  (the  Papacy)  i.  Neither  I 
nor  my  Grand-father,or  great  grand-fathe 
did  feparate  from  it :  becaufe  they  neve 
entertained  it.     2.  Thofe  that  did  fo,  di 
but  Repent  of  their  fin,and  thats  no  fin.  W« 
ftill  remain  feparated  from  you  as  Papiils  I 
even  as  we  are  feparate  from  fuch  as  we  an  i 
commanded  to  avoid,  for  impenitency  h  J 
fome  corrupting  doftrine    or    fcandalou 
fin  ♦,  Whether  fuch  mens  fins  or  their  pro  * 
.    fdfed  Chriftianity  be  moft  predominant  a 
the  heart,  we   know   not  ;  but  till   thei ! 
fhew  Repentance  we  muft  avoid  them  •  ye 
admoniihing  them  as  brethren,  and  no 
taking  them  as  men  of  another  Church 
but  as  finding  them  unfit  for   our  Commu 
nion. 

But  Ofir,  what  manner  of  dealing  havt 
we  from  you  !  muft  we  be  imprifoned 

rackf 


* 


he  Rtplj  to  Mr  Johnfons  fecond  Paper,  i  o  ? 

(icktjhang'd  or  burn'd,ifwe  will  not  believe 
lat  bread  &  wine,  are  not  bread  and  wine, 
ontrary  to  our  own  and  all  mens  fenfes- 
id  if  we  will  not  worlhip  them  with  Di- 
ne worfhip,  and  will  not  obey  the  Pope 
T  Rome  in  all  fuch  matters  contrary  to  our 
nfciences :  and  then  muft  we  be  chidden 
r  feparating  from  you,  if  we  can  but  a 
ile  efcape  theftrappado  and  the  flames? 
hat  /  will  you  blame  us  for  not  believing 
tali  mens  fenfes  are  deceived,  and  the 
eater  part  of  Chriltians  and  their  Tradi- 
:)ns  (  againft  you  )  are  falfe ,  when  we 
ad,andftudy,and  fufpeft  our  (elves,  and 
ay  tor  light,and  are  willing  to  hear  any  of 
r  reafons,  bur  cannot  force  our  own  un- 
rftandings  to  believe  all  fuch  things  that 
u  believe,  and  meerly  becaufe  the  Pope 
mands  it  :  and  wnen  we  cannot  thus 
ce  our  own  underftandings,  mult  we  be 
rned,  or  elfe  called  Separates  ?  would 
have  the  Communion  of  our  Afies,  or 
fay,  We  forfake  jour  Communion}  In 
r  Churches  we  cannot  have  leave  to 
without  lying  againft  God  and  our 
nces,and  faying,JfV  believe  what  our 
ontraditt  j  and  without  committing  ' 
t  which  our  consciences  tell  us  are  molt 
nous  fins.     We  folemnly  proteft  that 


we 


1 1  o  Tht  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fectnd  Pa 

we  would  do  as  you  do,  and  fay  as  you  & 
were  it  not  for  the  love  of  truth  and  h 
nefs,  and  for  fear  of  the  wrath  of  God, 
the  flames  of  hell :  but  we  cannot,  we  J 
not  rufh  upon  thefe  errours,  and  fell  o 
fouls  to  pleafe  the   Pope.    And  rnuft  ] 
then  either  be  murdered,  or  taken  fort 
charitable  i  -will  you  fay  to  fo  many  po 
fouls,  that  are  ready  to  enter  into  anorf 
world  [_Either  (in  againfi  jour  confcienc 
tndfo  cUmn  your  fouls,  or  elje  let  us  burn  a 
murder  you,  or  elfe  you  do  mt  love  us  ;  j\ 
art  uncharitable  if  you  deny  us  leave  to  l 
you,  and  you  feparate  from  the  Communior 
the  Church r\     We  appeal  from  the  P< 
and  all  unreafonable  men,   to  the  gr 
God  of  heaven  and  earth,  to  judge  rij 
teoufly  between  you  and  us  concerning  t 
dealing. 

As  for  poffeffing  our  felves  of  y< 
Eifhopricks  and  Cures  ,  if  any  partial 
perfon  had  perfonal  injury7  in  the  chan 
being  calt  out  without  caufe,  they  tn 
anfwer  for  it  that  did  it,  and  not  I ;  thoc 
I  never  heard  any  thing  to  make  me  beli* 
it.  But  m'uft  the  Prince  and  people 
alone  delinquent  Paftors  for  fear  dftbe 
blamed  for  taking  their  Bifhopricks  ?  Mi 
fters  of  the  fame  Religion  with  us  may 


\he  Reply  u Mr. Johnfons fectnd Pafcr.    ti\ 

*ft  out   for  their  crimes  :    Princes  have 
pwer  over  Paftors  as  well  as  David,  Sclo- 
on9  and  other  Kings  of  Ifrad  had.  Gnil. 
\arklaj  and  fome  few  of  your  own  knew 
is.     The  Popes  treafonablc  exemption  of 
c  Clergy  from  their  Soveraigns   judge- 
ent,  will  not  warrant  thofe  Princes  before 
d ,   that   negleft  to  punifh  offending 
ors.     And  I  befeech  you  tell  us,  when 
r  confciences  ( afcer  the  ufe  of  all  means 
at  we  can  ufe  to  be  informed)  cannot  re- 
unce  all  our  fences,  nor  our  reafon,  not 
judgement  of  the  mod  of  the  Church, 
of  antiquity ,  or  the  Word  of  God,  and 
t  we  muft  do  fo,   or  be  no  members  of 
ur  Church,  what  wrong  is  it  to  you  if 
choofe  us  Paftors  of  our  own,   in  the 
derthat  God  hath  appointed?  Had  not 
e  people  in  all  former  ages  the  choice  of 
eir  Paftors  ?  we  and  our  late  forefathers 
re    were  never  under  your  overfight : 
t  we  know  not  why   we  may  not  now 
ofe  our  Paftors  as  well  as  formerly.   We 
it  not  by  tumults  i  we  kill  not  men,  and 
ad  not  in  their  blood,  while  we  choofe 
r  Paftors,  as  Pope  Damtfus  was  chofen. 
e  tythes  and  other   temporal  mainte- 
nee  we  take  from  none,   but  the  Magi- 
ate  difpofeth  of  ic  as  he  feech  rnaet  for  the 

Chnrches 


114 


b 


The  Rtfly  to  Mr  Johnfons  fecotid  Paper, 

Churches  good.     And  the  maintenance  h 
for  the  cure  or  work:  and  therefore  they 
that  are  juftly  call  out  of  the  cure,  are  jufriy 
deprived  of  the  maintenance.     Andfurely 
.when  they  are  dead,  none  of  you  can  with 
any  (hew  of  reafon,  itand  upandfay,77>f/i 
Bifbofrickj  are  yours :  or  thefe  Parfonagei 
yours.   Ic  is  the  Incumbent  perfonally  that 
only  can  claim  title-,  faving  the  fuperemi- 
nent  tide  of  (Thrift,  to  whom  they  are  de- 
voted.    But  the  fucceffivc   Popes  cannot 
have  title  to  all  the  tithes  and  Temples  in 
the  world-,  nor  any.  of  his  Clergy  that  nd- 
ver  were  called  to  the  charges.     If  this  be 
difunion,   it  i>  you  that  are  the  Scfaratifti 
and  caufe  of  all.     If  you  will  needs  tell  all 
the  Chriftiaa world,  that  except  they  wiH 
be  ruled  by  the  Pope  of  Rome,  and  be  burn- 
ed if  they  believe  not  as  he  bids  them  in  de. 
fpight  of  all  their  fenfes,  he  will  call  them 
Separatists,   Schifmaticks ,   and    fay    they 
difunite  and  are  uncharicable :  again,  we 
appeal  to  God  and  all  wife  men  that  arc 
impartial,  whether  it  be  he  or  we  that  is  thfi 
divider  ? 

You  ask  me  [_Js  not  charity  Subordination^ 
find  obedience  to  the  [ame  ft  ate  and  Govern'' 
went,  required  as  we/l  to  wake  one  Congre- 
gation of  Christians, as  it  is  required  to  make  4 

Con- 


ft 


M7  be  Reply  to  Mr .Johafons  fccend  Paper.  113 

^Congregation   of  Commonwealths  men  ?  3 
?  Anfw.  Yes,  it  is  :  But  as  all  the  world  is 
?ne  Kingdom  under  God   the  univerfal 
iing,  but  yet  hath  no  univerfal  Vice-King, 
)ut  every   Commonwealth  only  hath  its 
\  )wn  Soveraign  •,  even  fo  all  the  Chriflian 
vorld  is  one  Church  underthrift  the  uni- 
1;  r erfal  King  of  the  Church,   but  hath  not 
i  |3ne  Vice-Chrift,  but  every  Church  hath  its 
pwn  Paftors,  as  every  School  hath  its  own 
|>choolmafter.    But  all  the  anger  is  becaufe 
ve  are  loth  to  be  ruled  by  a  cruel  ufurper 
herefore  we  are  uncharitable. 
Your  next  reafon  againft  me,  is,  becaufe 
They  cannot    be  parts    of  the    Catholike 
'hutch,  nnlefs  Arrians,  and  Pelagians ,  and, 
hnatifis  be  parts~\    and  fo  Heretiekj  and 
chifmatickj  be  parts. ~\  Reply  I.  You  know 
ure,  that  your  own  Divines  are  not  agreed 
hether   Hereticks   and  Schifmaticks   are 
res  of  the  Church.     And  if  they  were, 
yet  it  is  not  defide  with  you,  as  not  deter- 
nined  by  the  Pope.     If  it  be,  then  all  yours 
:ire  Hereticks  that  are  for  the  affirmative 
'  Be/larmine  nameth  youfomeof  them^  If 
t  be  not,  then  how  can  you  be  fure  its  true , 
md  fo  impofe  it  on  me,    that  they  are  no 
^arts.  . 

I    2.  Arrians  are  no  ChriftianSj  as  denying. 

I  t/u  t 


114  **'  Reth  t0  Mr  Johnfons  faond  Paper* 

that  which  is  effential  to  Chrift,  and  fo  tcl 
Chriftianity.  Pelagianifm  is  a  thing  thai 
you  are  not  agreed  among  your  felves  o; 
the  true  nature  of.  Many  of  the  Domini- 
cans and  Janfenills  think  the  Jefuits  PelagiJ 
anize,  or  Semipelagianize  at  leaft.  I  hope 
you  will  not  ftiut  them  our.  Donatifts! 
were  Schifmaticks,  becaufe  they  divided  ** 
theCatholike  Church,  and  not  abfolutely| 
from  it .-  and  becaufe  they  divided  from  the 
particular  Churches  about  them  that  held 
the  raoft  univerfal  external  Communion, 
I  think  they  were  ftill  members  of  the  uni-j 
verfal  Church  :  but  Tie  not  contend  with 
any  that  will  plead  for  his  uncharitable 
denyal.    Its  nothing  to  our  cafe. 

That  the  ./Ethiopians  are  Eutychian  Here- 
ticks,  I  will  fee  better  proved  before  I  will 
believe  it.  Rojfes  words  I  fo  little  regard, 
that  I  will  not  lo  much  as  open  his  book  to 
fee  whether  he  fay  fo  or  nor.  I  know  that 
Herefie  is  a  perfonal  crime,  and  cannot  be 
charged  on  Nations,  unlefs  you  have  evi- 
dence that  the  Nations  confent  to  it ;  which 
here  you  have  none  ;  Some  are  called 
Hereticks  for  denying  points  efTential  to 
Chriftianity;  thefe  are  no  Chriftians,  and 
fo  not  in  the  Church;  but  many  alfo  are 
called  Hereticks  by  you,and  by  the  Fathers, 

for 


we  Reply  to  Mr. Johnf ons  fecond  Paper,  i  i  5 

]>r  lefTer  errors   confiftent   with  Chrifti- 

ry  :  and  thefe  may  be  in  the  Church. 

'he  Abaffines,  and  all  the  reft  have  not 

pen  yettryed,   andconvi&ed  before  any 

mpetent  Judge  :  and  flanderers  we  re- 

rd  not. 

2.   Many  of  your    own  writers   acquit 
em  of  Herefie,  and  fay,  the  difference  is 
found  to  be  but  in  words,   or  little 
are. 

To  what  you  fay  of  their  difclaiming  us, 
jj.lefs  we  take  the  Patriarch  of  Ccnftamino- 
for  the  Vice-Chrift  •    you  many  waies 
aJ>e.    r.  If  this  were  true,   that  they 
e&cd  us,  it  were  no  proof  chat  we  are 
t  of  one    univerfal   Church.     2.  They 
not  claim  to  be  Vice  Chrifti,  the  univer- 
Governours  of  the  Church:  the  title  of 
verfal  Patriarch    they  excended  but  to 
then  Roman  Empire  j  and  that  not  to 
univerfal  Government  Jmx.  Primacy.  And 
|    "  oi:  them  have  been  of  brotherly  cha- 
f  to  our  Churches  of  late.     Cyr^  I nce<^ 
name  to  you,  whom  your  party  pro- 
ed  Murdered  for  being  a  Protectant. 
eletius  {  firft  Patriarch  of  A/ex.r/jdriaand 
*n  of  Conft,wtino])le)  was  highly  offended 
-h  the  ri&ion   of  a  fubmiilion  of  the 
xAndrian  Church   to  Rome ,   (under  a 

I  z         counterfeit 


& 


; 


<r* 


-I 


I  \6    The  Replyto  Mr  .JohnGons  [ccmJ  Papi ! 

counterfeit  Patriarch-G^r*V/j  name)  •  a 
wrote  thus  of  the  Pope  in  his  Letters 
Sigifmund  King  of  Poland  An.  1600.  [\p> 
Jpiceret  Afajeflas  tua,  nos  cum  majorib 
nojlris,  mn  ignorare  (quern  precaris  ut  4 
nofcamus  )  Pontificem  fcilicet  Romanu 
veluti  &  Conftantinopolitanum  Pontificet 
Pontificem  Ccnfiant.  Caterefque  Apo 
Hear  urn  fedium  Pontifiees.     £zui  non  m 

omnium,  fed  inter  omnes  &  ipfe  unus. 

ZJnum  univerfale  Caput 5  quod  fit  J).  1 
fefus  Chrifius  •,  alius  ejfe  non  pojfit ,  nt 
biceps  aliquodjit  corpus,  autpotius  monftruA 
corporis.  Perjplceres,  Rex  ferenijfime,  ($l 
interim  de  Concilio  illo  Florentino,  veluti  A 
refilentio  digna  taceam)  non  Nos,  e  Patrl 
turn  Orient  all  urn,  turn  Occidentalium  dogm} 
V  tibus  traditionibufque  qua  per  feptem  unive)  ' 

falia  concilia  nobis  confignarunt  at  que  obfi^  I 
narunty  egrejfos  :  Illos  egrejfos,  qui  novitt 
tibus  in  dies  deleSlantur^]  In  the  fame  Let ! 
Bj  ters  he  commendeth  Cyril.    And  what  ca  I 

a  Proteftant  fay  more  againft  the   Vice 
Ghriftihip,  and  your  novelties? 

And  for  Jeremiad  his  predeeeffor3whor 
you  mention,   though  they  that  dnpure 
with  him  by  Letters  (Stephana's  Gerlochiu 
&  Martinus  Crufius)  did  not  agree  in  a! 
things  with  him,  yet  he  ftill  profeffed  hi 

defir 


fie  Reply  to  Mr.  JohnConsfecwd  Paper.  117 

ire  of  unity  and  concord  with  us,   and 

the  beginning  of  his  fecond  anfwer  re- 

cxech,    that  we  agreed  with  them  in  fo 

ny  things.  And  Johan.  Zygomata*  in  his 

iters  toCrttfius  1576.    May  15.  faith, 

'erfpicuum  tibi  &  omnibus  jutttmm  efiy 

pd  in  continms^  &  caafam  fidei  pr&cipuc 

tinentibm  articulis,  confentiamns  :  e^n* 

Pem  videntur  confenfum  inter  vos  &  not 

pedire,  talia  funtyJi  velit  quis,  ut  facile  ea, 

rigerc  poffit.    ■■  'Gaudium  in  c<zlo& 

er  ter'ram  erit  ,    fi   coibit   in    unitatem 

acjHc  Ecclejia,   &  idem  [entiemmy  &  fi- 

dvivemm  in  omni  concordia  &  pace  fee an. 

Denm  &  injincera  chs.ritatis  vinculo  ~_ 

But  as  it  is  not  the  Patriarch  that  is  the 

Lole  Greek  Church,    fo  ic  is   not  their 

tors   in  fome  lefTer  or  tolerable  points 

\  at  prove  us  of  two  Churches  or  Religions. 

j|Whereas  you  fay,    It  is  againft  all  Anti- 

bity  and  Chriltianity  to  admit  condemned 

fcreticks    into    the    Church.     I  Reply , 

\  I  hace  their  condemnation,  rather  chen 

verence  it,  that  (even  being  nonjudices) 

\ve  condemn    whole   Nations    without 

laring  one  man  of  them  fpeak  for  himfelf, 

I  hearing  one  witnefs    that    ever  heard 

kern  defend  Herefie  •,  and  this  meerlybe- 

tufc  fome  few  Bilhops  have  in  the  daies 

r     ■■  " 


1 1 8  The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  ftcond  Papn 

of  old  maintained  Herefie  ,   and  perhaj, 
fomemaydofo  ftill,  or  rather  differ  fk 
you  in  words,   while  you   mifunderftai 
each  other,     Did  I  find  fuch   errors  wit 
them  as  with  you,  yet  I  durft  charge  the 
on  no  one  man    that  I  had  not  reafon  t 
hold  guilcy  of  them  ;   I  dare  not  acc^ 
whoie  Nations  of  your  errors.     But  of  a 
thefechings  ("and  of  Sandys  words  whic 
you  cite  J  I  have  fpoken  already  in  tw 
Books,  and  in  the  latter  fully  proved  th; 
you  differ  in  many  points  of  faith,   an 
greater  things    then  you  call  Herefies  i 
others    among  your  felves ,   even   yoi 
Popes,  Saints,  and  Councils,  and  yet  neitht  i 
part  is  judged  by  you    to   be  out   of  dH 
Church.  Scemy  JSTfjr,p.i24,i25,i273i2Ji 
129.  p.  52.  ad  62. 

When  you  lay  fo   much  to  prove  tl 
Grcekjgttiltj  of  manifeft   Herefie,  and  pr( 
tend  that  it  16  but  fome  novel  writers  of  01. 
that  deny  it,  as  f  creed  by  jour  arguments^ 
imuftfay,  that  you  prove    but  ycurow 
uncharitablenefs  inftead  of  their  Herefie 
and  you  (hew  your  felf  a  firanger  to  you 
own  'writers,  who  frequently   excufe  th 
Greeks  from  Herefie,. and  fay  the  differenc  i 
at  the  Council  of  Florence  was  found  tob 
more  about  words  then  faith.   Thomas 


ITht  Reply  to  Mr.  John fons (econd  Pdper.  1 19 

yefude  Converf.  omn. gentium,  lib.  6.  cap.  8. 
28 r.  faith,  [_Hps  tamen  non  obfi'antibtts 
Hi  cpinanturGracos  tantum  ej]efchifm«ti-        > 
$s  :  It  a,  ex  junior  ibtu  docet  Pater  AzmHva 
.  prima  Infiitut.  /Aornl.  lib.  8.  cap.  20, 
Jio.     ^uare  merit  o  ab  EcclefiaCatholica 
on  htretici,  fed  fchifmatici  cenfentur  & 
ppelluntur  :   Ita  apert"  ipjinuat  D.  Bernar- 
ds* (no  Novel  Procefiant)  in  Epift.  ad  Eu- 
Kenium,  lib.  3 .   \_Ego  addo  (inquit)  de  perti- 
pacia  Gr&corum  qui  nobifcum  funt^  &  non 
runt :  jmEti  fide,  pace  divifi  ^    quanquam  & 
nfide  iff  a  claudicavcrint  aretltsfemitisT 
m apert'c  tenet  D.  Thomas  Opufcul.  2.  ubi 
docet  patres  Gr&cos  in  Cathclico  fenfu  ejfe 
'xponendos.     Ratio  hujtts  Opinion**  efi  quo- 
mam  ut  pr  &  dill  w  author  docet,  inpr&ditlis 
fidci  articulw,  de  quibus  Graci  accufantur 
ab    diquibpu  ut   hxrctici,    potius  Nomine^ 
quarn  Re  ab  Ecclefia  Romana  diffident.  Inpri- 
tn:s  Inficiantur  Mi  Spirit  urn  Santtum  a  Patre 
Fi lib  que  procedere  ut  in  Bulla  ZJnionis  Euge- 
nii  4 .  die aur,  exiftimantes  Latinos  /entire  cL 
'Patre  Filioque  procedere  tanquam  a  duobus 
principals -,  cum  tamen  Latino,  doceat  Eccle- 
fia procedere  a  duabus  per  fonts  tanquam  ab 
uno  principio  &  fpiratore  -,   quare  Graci  ut 
unum  principium  ftgnificent  ,dicunt  Spiritum 
nUum  a  Patre  per  Folium  procedere  ab 
cmni  4ternitaie.~]  I  4  Yo\tf 


no  The  Reply  to  3/rJohnfons  fecond  PdperM 

Your  Paulas  Veridicus  (Paul  Harris  Dean  | 

of  your  Academy  lately  in  Dublin)   in  his  n 
Confutation  of  Bifhop  Z^tj  Sermon, faith  |< 
that  the  Greeks  Doftrine  about  the  Pro-  ( 
ceffion  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  h  Patre  per  Fill-  I 
##?,  and  not  a  Patre  Filioque,  was  fuch  that 
\jVhenthey  hadexplicatedit,  they  were  found 
to  believe  very  Orthodoxly  and  Catholikely  \ 
in  the  fame  matter  ,  and  for  fuch  were  ad- 
mitted} and  that  \jje  fndeth  not  any  fair 
ftantial  point  that  they  differ  from  yon  in^  but  \ 
the  Primacy'}  (So  the  Armenians  were  re- 
ceived in  the  fame  Council  of  Florence.) 
Many  more  I  have  read  of  your  own  writers 
that  all  vindicate  the  Greeks  (and  others 
that  difown  yoii)  trom  Herefie,  I  think 
more  then  I  have  read  of  Proteftants  that 
do  it.    And  do  you  think  now  that  it  is  not 
a  difgrace  toyour  caufe,that  a  man  of  your 
learning,  and  one  that  I  hear  hath  the  con- 
fidence to  draw  others  to  your  opinions, 
ftiould  yet  be  fo  unacquainted  with  the 
Opinions  of  your  own  Divines,  and  upon 
this  miftake  fo  confidently  feign  that  it  i 
cur  Novel  writers  forced  to  it  by  jonr  argu 
irient$\\\2X  have  been  fo  charitable  to  thefc 
Churches   againft   antiquity    that    knew 
better  ?  If  the   Greeks  and   Latins  tear 
the  Church  of  Chrift  by  their  Condemna- 

•  tions 


t  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fccond  Paper.    1 2  r 

ns  of  each  other,  they  may  bothbc  fchif- 
t;V*/,  as  guilty  of  making  diviftonsin  the 
arch,  though  not  as   dividing  from  the 
urch.     And  if  they  pretend  the  denyal 
the  Chriftian  faith  againft  each  other  as 
|  caufe,  you  (hall  not  draw  us  into  the 
It  of  the  uncharitablenefs,  by  telling  us 
lit  they  know  better  then  we.    If  wife  men 
;[  out  and  fight,  I  will  not  juftilie  either 
ie,  becaufe  they  are  wife  and  therefore 
telier  then  I  to  know  the  caufe.    But  what 
led  we  more  to  open  your  iirange  miftake 
d  unjuft  dealing,    then  the  authority  of 
<ur  fo  much  approved  Council  of  Ffarence, 
at  received  both  Greeks  and  Armenians  ^ 
id  the  very  words  of  the  Popes  Bull  of 
e  union,  which  declare  that  the  Greeks 
id  Latins  were  found  to  mean  Orthodoxly 
tth  ?  the  words  are  thefe    [Convenientes 
Utini  &  Grdtci  in  hac  facrofantta  Oecume- 
vafjnodo  magnofiudio  invicem  uji  funty  Ht 
ker  all*  articttlus  etiam  ille  de  Divina  Spi- 
nas Santti  procejfione  fumma  cum  diligentia 
5'  AJftdua   inqnifitione  dvfcuteretnr.     Pro- 
dis vera  teftimoniu  ex  Divinis  Script  uru, 
\Hrimifque  author  itatibus  fanttor  am  dolio- 
itm  orient altum  &  accident  *lium>  aliquibus 
uidem  ex  Patre  &  Filio,  quibufdam  vero  ex 
Atrc  perFiUnm  procedere  dicentibus  Spirit* 

Stnttum, 


I»2  The  Reply  to  Afr.Johnfons  fectnd  Paft 

SfinctHrfi,  &  dd  eandem  intelligentiam  afpit 
entibus  omnibus  fub  diver  (is  vocabulis:  Grt 
quidem  after  Her  unt  quodidquod  dicunt  Spitl 
turn  SanBum  ex  Patre  procedere  ,  non 
mente  prof  err  ent  ut  excludant  Filii,  fed  q\ 
eisvidebatur^  Htaiunt,  Latinos  after  ere  ft 
ritum  SanBum  ex  patre  Filioque  procet 
tdnqztaw  ex  duobus  principiis  cr  ambus  S\ 
rationibus,  ideo  abftinuerunt  a  dicendo  qin 
Spirit  us  SttnBus  ex  patre  procedat  &  Fil%\ 
Latini  vero  affrmaverunt  nonje  hue  wen!\ 
Metre  Spiritum  SanBurn  ex  Filioque  proc\\ 
iere  ut  excludant  Patrem,  quin  fit  fons  J 
principium  totius  Ddtatis ,  Filii  fcilicet^  t 
Sptritus  SanBl  ,aut  quod  id  quod  Spirit* 
S^^B us  procedat  ex  Filio%  Fdius  A  Patre  m 
hibeat,  five  quod  duo  pontine  efte  principu 
feu  duos  fplrationes,  fed  ut  unum  tantm 
aftcrunt  eftc  principium,  unicamque  fpiratl 
nrm  Spirit  us  SanBi ,  prout  haBenus  aft.  r'm 
runt  -5  &  cum  ex  his  omnibus  unus  &  ide\ 
eliciatur  veritatis fenfus ytandemy  &c. —  jj 
I  pray  you  now  tell  it  to  no  more3that  it? 
we  Novel  writers  of  ours ^pr  eft  by  force  o 
'lument,  that  have  been  the  authors  of  th 
extenuation.  My  heart  even  trembleth  t 
think  that  there  (hould  he  a  thing  calle 
Religion  among  you,  that  can  fo  far  extin 
guifh  both  Chanty  and  Humanity,   as  t 

cauf 


the  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fecond  Paper.    123 

:aufe  you  to  pafs  fo  direful  a  doom  (with- 
out authority  or  tryalj  on  fo  great,a  part 
of  the  Chriftian  world,  forfuch  a  word  as 
:his5  about  fo  exceeding  high  a  myft.erie, 
when  your  Pope  and  Council  have  pro- 
nounced a  union  of  meanings  / 

And  what  mean  you  in  your  Margin  to 
refer  me  to  NUhs^  as  if  he  aflerted  [That 
the  Greeks  left  the  Communion  of  the  Roman 
Church  upon  that  difference  alone.'}  Verily 
,in  the  high  matters  of  God,  this  dealing 
is  lcarce  fair  I  (pardon  this  plainnefs :  con- 
fider  of  it  your  ielf.)  Thefubitance  of  Nilus 
fcook  is  about  the  Primacy  of  the  Pope : 
The  wry  contents  prefixed  to  the  firft  book 
fire  thete  [Oratio  dcmonftrans  non  aliam^ 
&c.  An  Oration  demunftrating;  that  there 
\u  no  other  caufeof  the  dijjenfion  between  the 
Latin  and  Greik^  Churches,  then  that' the 
Pope  refufcth  to  dtfcr  the  cognifance  and 
judgement  of  that^hich  is  controverted  to  a 
general    Council  :    but  he    will  fit  the  fole 

fler  and  Judge  of  the  Controver  fie  \  and 
Vpillhave  the  reft  as  Difciples  to  be  hearers  of 
(or  obey)  his  word,  tyhich  is  a  thing  alicne 
from  the  Laws   and  anions  of  the  ^pc files 

Fathers.] 
And  he  begins  his  Book    (after  a  few 
words)  thus,  [Caufa  itaque  hujus  diffidii^     % 

&c.  The 


I J4  The  Reply  toMr .Johnfons fecond  Paper. 

&c.    The  caufe  therefore  of  this  difference, 
as  I  judge,  is  not  the  fublimity  of  the  pint 
exceeding  mans  capacity  :   For  other  mutters  I 
that  have  diners  times  troubled  the  Churchfi 
have  been  of the  fame  kind  :  This  therefore  is 
not  the  caufe  of  the  diffention  •,  much  lefs  is  I 
it  thefpeech  of  the  Scripture  it  felf,  which  as  I 
being  concife,    doth  pronounce  nothing  openly  \ 
of  that  which  is  controverted.     For  to  accufe 
the  Scripture,  is  as  much  as  to  accufe  God 
himfelf*     But  Cjod  is  without  all  fault.  But 
-who  the  fault  is  in,   anyontmayeaftly  tell, 
that  is  well  in  his  wits.'}  He  next  (hews,  that 
it  is  not  for  want  of  learned  men  on  both  [idesy 
nor  is  it  becaufe  the  Greeks  do  claim  the  Pri-\ 
macy,  and  then  concludeth  it  as  before^! 
He  maintaineth    that  your  Pope  fucceedtth 
Peter  only  as  a  Bifliop  ordained  by  him^   as 
many  other  Bijhops  that  originally  were  ort\ 
dained  by  him  in  like  manner  do  fucceed  him  jij. 
and  that  his  Primacy  is  no  Governing  power ,. 
nor  given  him  by  Peter,  but  by  Princes  and 
Councils  for  order  (ake :  and  this  he  proves 
at  large,  and  makes  this  the  main  difference.} 
BeUarmines  anfwering  his  fo  many  Argu-* 
ments  might  have  told  you  this,  if  you  had 
never  read  Uilus  himfelf.     If  you  lay  thae,^ 
This  point  was  the  fir  ft  caufe,  I  deny  it  -,  but- 
if  it  were  fme,   yet  was  it  not  the  only  or. 

chief 


The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fecond  Paper.  1 2  j 

:hief  caufe  afterward.  The  Manner  of 
wringing  in  the  \JMoque~]  by  Papal  authori- 
ty wichout  a  general  Council,  was  it  that 
greatly  offended  the  Greeks  from  the  be- 
ginning. 

But  you  fay  that  when  I  have  made  the 
>eft  of  thefe  Greeks,   Armenians,  Ethio- 
pians, Proteftants,   I  cannot  deduce  them 
uccefliveiy  in  all  ages  till  (Thrift  zsadijfer- 
nt    Congregation  of  Chriftians  from  that 
vkich  holds  the  T ope sfxpre wary,  which  was 
tourjpropoluion.     Reply    I  have  oft  told 
ouweown  no  universal  informing  Head 
)utChrilt.  In  refpeft  to  him  I  have  proved 
oyou,  that  it  is  not  my  intereft  ordefign 
llo  prove  us  or  ihem  [a  different  Congregati- 
n  from  joh  as  you  are  Chriftians^]     Nor 
hall  you  tempt  me  tobeio  uncharitable, 
$  to  damn,    or  anchriften  all  Papiits  as  fa  r 
ttsyou  do  others,    incomparab'y  fafer  and 
better  then  your  felves.But  as  you  are  Papal, 
Und  fet  up  a  new  informing  head,    I  have 
roved  that  you  differ  from  all  theantient 
"hurches,  but  yet  that  my  caufe  requireth 
ne  not  to  make  this  proof,but  to  call  you  to 
rove  your  own  univcrfal  fucceflion. 

You  add  your  Reafon,'  becaufe  thefe  be- 
^renamed  were  atfrft  involved  inytur  Cc/t- 
egation,  and  then  feUoff  as  dead  branches. 

Reply, 


ii6  "The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  [eeondPdpcrl 

Replj.  This  is  but  an  untruth  in  a  moft  pub- 
lick  matter  of  fad.     All  the  truth  is  this. 
i.  Thofe  Indians,  Ethiopians,  per{ians5e^c. 
without  the  Empire,  never  fell  from  you,  as 
to  fubjeftion,  as  never  being  your  fubjefts.  I 
Prove  that  they  were,    and  -you  have  done 
a  greater  wonder   then  Raronins  in  all  his  : 
Annals.     2.  The  Greeks,  and  all  the  reft  ! 
within  the  Empire ,   without  the   Roman  \ 
Patriarchate,  are  fallen  from  your  Comrnu-  i 
nion  (if  renouncing  it  be  a  fall)   but  not  \ 
from  your  fubje&ion ,  having  given  you  \ 
but  a  Primacy,  as  iW//// (hews,   and  not  a 
Governing  pewer  over  them.     The  wither- 
ing therefore  was  in  the  Rowan  branches, 
if  the  corruptions  of  either  part  may  be 
called  a  withering.    You  that  are  the  lefler 
part  of  the  Church  may  eafily   call  your 
felvcs  the  Tree,    and   the   greater  part 
(two  to  one)    the  Branches  •,   but  thefe 
beggings  do   but   proclaim  your   necef- 
fities. 


In  good  time  you  come  to  give  me  here 
at  laft  fome  proof  of  an  ancient  Papacj,  as 
you  think.  But  firft,  you  quite  forget  (or 
worfe)  that  it  is  not  a  man  or  two  in  the 
whoie  world  in  an  age,  but  the  miverfat 


Tbt  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fecond  Paper.  1 27 

:b*rch,  whofe  judgement  (and  form)  wc 
re  now  enquiring  after.  You  are  to  prove 
That  all  the  Church  in  every  age  was  for 
he  Papal  univerfal  Government^  and  fo 
hat  none  can  be  faved  chat  is  nor.  ■ 

2.  Butinftead  of  this  which  you  (hould 
•rove,  you  piove  not  that  thofe  very  fingle 
►erfons  named  by  you,  had  any  opinion  of 
he  Papal  Soveraignty. 

1 .  Your  firft  Teftimony  is  from  Libera- 
hs,ci6.  [John Bifiop of  Antioch mck^san 
ppeal  to  Pope  Simplicius.  |  Reply.  1.  I  fee 
ou  are  deceived  by  going  upon  cruft :  But 
|:s  pircy  fo  to  deceive  others.  There  was 
lio  fuchmanas  John  Bi(hop  of  Antioch  in 
Yimplicius  raign.  John  of  Antioch  was  he 
hat  made  the  ftirsand  divifions  for  Nefto- 
i us ,againft  Cyril   and  called  the  Schifma- 

il  Council  at  Ephefus,  and  dyed,  Anno 
-36  having  raigned  thirceen  years,  as  Ba- 
onins  faith,  and  eighteen  as  Nicephorust 
le  dyed  in  Sixtus  the  fifths  time.     But  its 

i  indeed  that  John  Bifhop  of  Alexandria 
nade  fome  addrels  to  Simplicius :  of  which 
?*r0*z#.rciteth  Liberates  words  (note.  16. 
>uc  c.  1 8 . )  ad  An J).  48  3 .  that  John  being 
xpelled  by  the  Emperour  Zeno's  command, 
\vent  firft  to  Calendion  Bifhop  of  Antioch, 
mi  fo  to  Rome  to  Simplicius,   (if  Btronixs 

were 


i8    The  Reply  to  Mr.  John  fans  [econd  Paper 

were  to  be  believed,  as  his  judge)  Liber  at  u 
faith,  that  he  tool^  from  Calendion  Bi/hopo. 
Antioch  Letters  to  Simplicius,    to  whom  h 
appealed  as  Athanafius  had  done,  and  per- 
j waded  him  to  write  for  him  to  Acacius  BiJho\ 
ef  Conitantinople  ^  which  Simplicius  did 
But  Acacius  upon  the  receipt  of  Simpliciu: 
Letters,  writ  flatly  to  him,  that  he  knew  n> 
John  Bifhop  of  Alexandria ,   but  had  take* 
Petrus  Mogus  as  Bifhop  of  Alexandria  inu 
his  Communion,  and  that  without  Simplicius. 
for  the  Churches  unity,   at  the  Emperour. 
command  3    Here  you  fee  how  little  regarc 
Acacius  made  of  your  Pope :  and  that  thf 
appeal  was  but  to  procure  his  Letters  t< 
Acacius,  which  did  him  no  good.    2.  Bu 
do  you  in  good  earneft  think  that  all  fuel 
addreffes,  or  appeals  are  ad  fuperiorem  ju 
dicem?  What  more  common  then  to  ap. 
peal  or  make  fuch   addreffes  to  any  thai 
have  advantage  of  intereft,  for  the  relief  o; 
the  oppreffed  ?  Young  men  appeal  to  the 
aged  in  Controversies ;  and  the  lefs  learned 
to  the  more  learned  :  and  the  poor  to  the 
rich,  or  to  the  favorites  of  fuch  as  can  re- 
lieve them.     Johns  going  firft  to  Antioci 
was  no  acknowledgement  of  fuperiority 
3 .  But  of  this  I  muft  refer  you  to  a  fall  an- 
fwztoiBlondel  againft  Perron,  de  Primat* 

h 


X 


Tfo  £*/>/y  to  Mr. John fons /err ond  Paper;  1 1 9 

in  Ecclef.  cap.  2$.fett.  76.  where  you  may 
be  fati9fiedof  the  vanity  of  your  inftance. 
Whereas  therefore  you  infer  (or  you  fay 
'nothing  )  that    becaufe  this  fohn  thus  ap- 
pealed to  R ome,  therefore  he  appealed  thi- 
ther  as    to    the    ZJniverfal    Ruler  of  the 
[Church.  '    The  ftory  derideth  your  confe- 
rence. Much  more   that   £  therefore  the 
Vniverfall  Church  held  the  Pope  then  to  be 
he  Vniverfall  Head  or  Govemour.  3  Heres 
othing  of  Government  but  intreaty,  and 
t  but  -within  the  Empire  ,  and  that  but 
pon   the  feeking  of  one  diftrefled  man 
at  would  be  apt  to  go  to  thofe  of  moft 
tereft  that  might  relieve  him,  and  all  this 
jefted  by  Acacias  and  the  Emperour.  A 
ir  proof  / 

2.  Your  2. inftance  is, that  Flavianus  ap- 
alsto  the  Pope  as  to  hu  fudge.  Epifi.  pr<t- 
bul.  Concil.  Chalced.  Reply.  I  have 
rufed  all  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  y  as  it 
in  Binnim,  purpofely  to  find  the  words 
u  mention  of  Flavians  appeal,  and  I  find 
t  any  fuch  words.  In  plavianm  own 
iftle  to  Leo  there  are  no  fuch  words,  nor 
y  other  that  I  can  find,  but  the  word 
)  appeal]  once  in  one  of  the  Emperours 
&  piftles  (  as  I  remember )  but  without  men- 

fningany  Judge.  I  will  not  ufc  to  turn 
K  over 


1 30   The  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons/<?M»*f  Paper. 

over  Volumes  thus  in  vain  for  your  citati- 
ons, while  I  fee  you  take  them  on  truft,  and 
do  not  tell  me  in  any  narrow  corflpafTe  of 
cap.  fed:,  or  pag.  where  to  find  them.  BuiL 
had  you  found  fuch  words,  1 .  An  appeal  is 
oft  made  from  a  fartiall  to  an  impartiall 
Judge,  though  of  equal   power.    2.  He 
might  appeal  to  the  Biihop  of  Rome  as  one 
of  his  Judges  in  the  Council  where  be  was 
to  be  tried,  and  not  as  alone.  And  it  is  evi- 
dent in  the  Hiftory,  that  it  was  not  the 
Pope,  but  the  Council  that  -00s  his  fudge. 
3 .  The  greatneffe  of  Rome ,  and  Primacy  of 
Order  (  not  of  Jurifdiftion  )  made  that 
Bifhop  of  fpeciall  intereft  in  the  Empire : 
and  diftrefled  perfecuted  men  will  appeal  to 
thofe  that  may  any  whit  relieve  them.  But 
this  proves  no  Governing  power,  nor  fo 
much  as  any  Intereft  without  the  Em- 
pire. 

It  being  the  cuflome  of  the  Churches  ic 
the  Empire,  to  make  the  Votes  of  the  Pa- 
triarchs neceffary  in  their  general  Councils. 
no  wonder  if  appellations  be  made  froir 
thofe  Councils  that  wanted  the  Patriarch 
confent  to  other  Councils  where  the] 
confented-,  in  which  as  they  gwcCcnftaH' 
tinople  the  fecond  place,  without  any  pre 
tence  of  a  Divine  Right,  and  frequent  ap 

peal 


The  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  fecond Paper.     131 

peals  were  made  to  that  Seat  •  fo  alfothey 
gave  Rome  the  firft  Seat.  Of  this  whole 
matter  Perron  is  fully  anfwered  already  by 
Blonde II de  primatu,cap.  25.fett.63.to  which 
I  refer  you,  it  being  as  eafie  to  read  it  in 
Print  as  Writing.  Adding  this  only,  that 
as  Flavian  (  in  his  neceflity  )  feekinghelp 
from  the  Bifhop  of  the  prime  Seat  in  the 
Empire,  did  acknowledge  no  more  but  his 
Primacy  of  Order  by  the  Laws  of  the  Em- 
pire and  the  Councils  thereof,  fo  the  Em- 
pire was  not  all  the  world,  nor  Flavian  all 
f  the  Church,  nor  any  more  then  one  man, 
and  therefore  if  he  had  held  (  as  you  will 
I  never  prove  he  did  )  the  Uaiverfall  Govern- 
ment of  the  Pope,  if  you  would  thence 
argue  that  it  was  held  by  all  the  Church, 
your  confequence  muft  needs  be  marvelled 
at,  by  them  that  believe  that  One  man  is 
not  the  Catholick  Church  ,  no  more  then 
feeking  cf  help  was  an  acknowledging  an 
Univerfal  Headftiip  or  Governing  power. 
And  it  is  undeniably  evident,  that  the 
hurch  of  Constantinople  and  all  the  Greek 
hurches  did  believe  that  Univerfal  Prima- 
y  which  in  the  Empire  was  fet  up,  to  be  of 
umane  right,  and  new,  and  changeable,  as 
prove  not  only  by  the  expreffe  teftimo- 
ny  of  the  Council  of  Chaloedon,  but  by  the 

K  Z  fitting 


132  The  Reply  toMr.johnfonsfecMtlPdper. 

ftating  of  the  Primacy  at  lafi  in  Gregories 
daje s  on  Conftantinople  it  felf,  whofe  pre- 
tence neither  was  nor  could  be  any  other  then  a 
humane  late  inftitution.  And  ff  the  Greek 
Churches  judged  fo  of  it  in  Gregories  daies, 
and  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  Leo's 
daies,  we  have  no  reafon  to  think  that  they 
ever  judged  otherwife  j  at  leaft  not  in  Fla- 
vians dayes,that  were  the  fame  as  Leo*$y  and 
the  bufineffe  done  about  449.  This  Argu- 
ment I  here  fet  againft  all  your  inftances  at 
once  j  and  it  is  unanfwerable. 

3.  Your  next  inftance  is  of  Pope  Leo's 
reftoring77tf0^m,upon  an  appeal  to  juft 
judgement']  Reply.  I.  Every  Biftiop  hath  a 
power  to  difcern  who  is  fit  for  his  own 
Communion  •  and  fo  Leo  and  the  Bifhops 
of  the  Weft  perceiving  Theodoret  to  be  Or- 
thodox, received  him  as  a  Catholick  inco 
their  Communion  ;  and  fo  might  the  Bi- 
fhop  of  Conftantinople  have  done.  But 
when  this  was  done,  the  Council  did  not 
hereupon  receive  him,  and  reftore  him  to 
bis  Bifhoprick,  no  nor  would  hear  him  read 
thepafTages  between  Pope  Leo  and  him,  no 
nor  make  a  Confeflion  of  his  faith  ,  but 
cried  out  againft  him  as  a  Neftorian,  till  he 
had  exprefly  Anathematized  Neftorius  and 
JEutiches  before  the  Council,  and  then  they 

received 


The  Reply  to  MrJohnfonsftcMa'  Paper.  135 

received  and  reftored  him:  f©  that  the  fi* 
nail  judgement  was  not  by  Leoy  but  by  the 
Council :  But  if  in  his  diftrefTe  he  appealed 
as  you  fay,  to  a  jufi  judgement ',  from  an  un- 
juft,  or  fought  to  make  Leo  his  friend,  no 
wonder  ^  but  this  is  no  grant  of  an  Univer- 
fa!l  Soveraignty  in  Leo  :  and  ■  if  it  had 
granted  it  in  the  Empire,  thats  nothing  to 
the  Churches  in  other  Empires :  Or  it  he 
had  granted  it  as  to  all  the  world,  he  was 
but  one  man  of  the  world,  and  not  the  Ca- 
tholick  Church.  The  Council  exprefly 
take  on  them  the  determination  after  Leo, 
and  they  flight  the  Legates  of  the  Pope, 
and  pronounce  him  a  creature^of  the  Fa- 
thers, and  give  Confiantimple  equall  pri- 
iviledges,  though  his  Legates  refufe  to  con- 
sent. But  of  thefrivoloufnefTeof  this  your 
inftance,  fee  Dr.  Field  of  the  Church,/*£. 
\ycap.  35.  p*g.  537,  538.  and  more  fully 
YBlcndell  de  primatu,  ubi  (up.  cap.  25.  fett. 
P3,65. 

4.  Your  next  inftance  is  of  Cyprians  de* 
Irethat  Stephen  would  depofe  Martian  Bi- 
hop  of  Aries.  ]  Reply  1 .  That  Epiftle  can- 
not be  proved  to  be  Cyprians  :  for  the  Rea- 
sons I  refer  you  to  M.  de  Lanny  on  that 
ubjeft,  and  Rivets  Critic*  Sacra  :  only 
idding  that  there  are  eight  copies  of  Cyprh 

K  3  **, 


134  The  Reply  to  Mr Johnfons  feconi Ptper, 

any ancient M.S.S.  in  the  Englifti  Univer- 
fities,  that  have  none  of  them  this  Epiftle 
to  Stephen  (of  which  fee  ferem.  Stephens 
Edition  of  Cyprian  de  unitate  Ecclefit) 
2.  Could  you  prove  this  Epiftle  to  be  C/- 
prians^  it  makes  againft  you  more  then  for 
you.  Not  for  jou:  for  the  diftanceof  Cj~ 
prian,  the  nearneflfe  of  Stephen  might 
make  it  a  matter  more  concerning  him,  and 
fitter  for  him  to  tranfaft;  And  it  was  within 
his  Patriarchate,  and  therefore  no  wonder  if 
he  were  minded  of  it.  And  yet  Cyprian 
only  writes  to  him  to  write  to  theBifhops 
of  Trance  to  reftrain  Martian:  £  §..2.£ua- 
propter  facere  te  oportet  plemfsimat  liter  as  ad 
coepifcopos  noftros  in  Gallia  confiitutos,  ne  ul- 
tra JMartUnnmpervicacem  &  fuperhum^  & 
divina  pietatis  acfraterna  faint  is  inimicum^ 
collegio  nofiro  infultare  patiantur.  ~\  Cypri* 
an  did  as  much  to  Stephen^  as  hedefired 
Stephen  to  do  to  the  Bifhopsof  Trance  : 
This  therefore  is  againft  you,  if  any  thing  to 
the  purpofe;  Had  you  found  but  fuch  words 
of  a  Pope  to  another  Bifhop  as  Cyprian, 
ufeth  to  your  Pope,  you  would  have  taken 
it  as  an  evidence  of  his  fuperiority.  $.  3 
Dirigantttr  in  provinciam  &  plebem  in  Are-* 
late  coexfiftentem  a  te  liters,  &c.  "  Let  thy 
Letters  be  directed  to  the  Province  and  people 

at 


• 


\Tbt  Re  fly  to  Mr .  John tonsfecond  Paper.    135 

it  Aries,  &c.  ]  And  its  plainly  an  aft  of 
ion-Communion  common  to  all  Bifhops 
:owards  thofe  unfit  for  their  Communion, 
:hat  Cyprian  fpeaks  of  $.  3 .  ideirco  enim^ 
?rater  charifsimey  copiofum  eorpw  eft  facer- 
dotum  concordidt  matUA  glutino  atqne  ttnita- 
+i$  vinculo  copulatnm^  tit  fiquis  ex  colUgio 
noftro  h&repm  facere,  &  gregem  Chrifti  la- 
cerare  &  vaftare  tentaverit,  fubveniant  ca- 
teri,&quafi  paftores  utiles  &  mifericordes 
eves  deminicas  in  gregem  coUigant.  You 
fee  it  is  a  common  duty  of  brotherhood., 
land  not  an  act  of  jurifdiftion  that  Cyprian 
fpeaks  of. 

5.  Your  next  inftance  is,that  [^the  Coun- 
cil of  Sardis  determined  that  no  Bifhop  depo- 
ftd  by  other  neighbouring  Bifhops,  pretending 
to  be  heard  again,  wot  to  have  any  fncceffor 
appointed   till  the  cafe    -were  defined    bj  the 
Tope  :   Cone.  Sard.  cap.  4.  cited  by  Athanaf. 
jipcl.i.pag.  753.  ]    Reply.    It  fcemsyou 
are  well  acquainted  with  ihe  Council,  that 
know  not  of  what  place  ii  was  /  I:  was  the 
Council  at  Sardica,  and  \ot  at  Sardts,  that 
you  would  mean.    Sardis  was   z  City  of 
Lydia,  apnd  Tmolnm  montem  ,  dim  Regio 
Cr<efi,  inter    Thiutiram  &  V         iilphu     . 
But  this  Sardica  was  a  City  <  I  1 
the  confines  of  the  higher  Myfiajntcr  AT*- 

K   4  iff»r* 


1 


1 36  The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons [econd  Paper. 

i§um  Mjfsi<e  &  Philippopolim  Thracia.  A& 
to  the  inilancc,     1 .  This  Council  was  by 
Augufiine  rejeded  as  hereticall,  though  1 
defend  not  his  opinion.  2.  It  was  of  fo  little 
note  and  authority,  fchat  it  was  not  known 
to  the  Council  of  Carthage  to  have  the 
next  antecedent  Canons  (  which  you  would 
not  have  omitted  if  you  had  read  them,  its 
like)  in  which  your  writers  glory  as  their 
chiefeft  ftrength  h    and  which  BelUrmint\ 
thinks  Pope  Z'ofimm  called,  the  Nicene  Ca* 
non  :  or  rather  is  it  not  fufpicious  that  this 
Canon  is  but  forged,  when  thofe  Carthage 
Fathers  plainly  fay,  Jn  ntillo  Patrum  conctlU 
decretum  xnvenimm  \  mentioning  that  an- 
tecedent  Canon  propofed  by  Hufins  ,  tc 
which  this  mentioned  by  you  propofed  by 
Gdudentitts  is  but  an    addition   or  fupple- 
ment.  And  it  is  not  like  that  all  thefe  Afri- 
cane  Fathers  could  be  ignorant  of  thofe  Ca- 
nons of  Sariica%  when  fuch  abundance  oi 
AfricaneBifhops  were  at  the  Council,  and 
that  but  about  50  years  before  ;    you  may 
fee  in  Binmus  how  hard  a  ftrait  he  is  put  to, 
jo  give  any  tolerable  reafon  of  this,  and 
only  faith,that  its  like  fome  how  the  Canons 
were  loft;  fure  Tradition  was  then  grown 
untrufty.  Your  Cardinal  Cufanm  de Con- 
cord. Cath.  1.2.C.25. makes  a  doubt  whether 

the 


f  ?  He  fly  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fecwd  Pdfer.    137 

1  Canon  of  appeals  be  indeed  a  Canon  of 
h Council.  3.  But  grant  it  be,  yet  take 
ilfeobfervations,  and  you  (hall  find  fmall 
jafe  of  confidence  in  that  Canon. 
III.  It  was  made  in  a  Olfeof  the  diftrefle 
ft  Athanafiw  and  other  Orthodox  Orien- 
ts Biftiops,  meerly  in  that  ftrait,  to  favc 
dbmand  theChurrhes  from  the  Arrians. 
|k  ArrUns  withdrew  from  the  Council 
g  the  minor  part,  and  excommunicated 
}liHt  with  Athanafius  3%nd  other  Occiden- 
■  and  the  Occidental  Bifhops  excom- 
municated the  Oriental.    Athana[ms\xivr>- 
ftf  was  a  chief  man  in  the  Council,  and 
ijd  before  been  refcued  by  the  help  of  Ju- 
:i\uf  and  therefore  no  wonder  if  they  de- 
ified this  fafety  to  their  Churches.  2.Note, 
•tat  this  is  a  thing  newly  granted  now  by 
lis  Canon,  and  not  any   ancient  thing. 
P  Note,  that  therefore  it  was  of  Humane 
light,  and  not  of  Divine.     4.  Note,  that 
ft  this  Canon  was  not  received  orprafti- 
)dinthe  Church,  but  after  this  thejeon- 
ivary  maintained  by  Councils  ,   and  pra- 
ifed,  as  I  fhallanon  prove.     5.  That  it  is 
jot  any  antecedent  Governing  Power  that 
ie  Canon  acknowledgeth  in  the  Pope  •,  but 
\  honour  of  the  Memory  of  S.  Peter,  as 
•  tiey  fay,  (  yet  more  fpr  their  prefent  fecu- 

rityj 


138   The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  [econd  Pap 

rity  )  they  give  this  much  to  Rome  •,  it  t 

ing  the  vulgar  opinion  that  Peter  had  be 

there  Bilhop.    6.  That  it  is  not  a  Power 

judging  alone  that  they  give,  but  of  caufi 

the  re-examinatiorrof  Caufes  by  the  Cot 

cil,  and  adding  his  affiftants  in  thejudj 

ment,  and  fo  to  have  the  putting  of  ar 

ther  into  the  place  forborn  till  it  be  doi 

7.  And  I  hope  ftill  you  will  remember,  tl 

at  this  Council  were  no  Bifhops  withe 

the  Empire,  and  that  the  Roman  wo. 

was  narrower  then  the  Chriftian  worl 

and  therefore,  if  thefe  Bifhops  in  a  part 

the  Empire  had  now  given  (  not  a  Rulii 

but )  a  faving  Power  to  the  Pope,  fo  fai 

is  there  expreffed,  this  had  been  farfn 

proving  that  he  had  a  Ruling  Power,  as  1 

Vice-Chrift  over  all  the  world,  and  that 

Divine  right :  Blame  me  not  to  call  on  y 

to  prove  this  confequence.     8.  There  is 

much  for  Appeals  to  Conftantinofle ,  tl 

never  claimed  a  Vice-ChriiHhip  as  fure 

vino. 

6.  Your  fixth  inftance  out  of  Btjils  \ 
Epiftlel  imagine  you  would  havefuppi 
fed,  if  ever  you  had  read  that  Epiftle,  2 
had  thought  that  any  others  would  be 
duced  by  your  words  to  read  it.  I  h; 
given  you  out  of  this  and  other  Epiftle* 


i  Reply  to  Mr.JohnfonsfecendPdper.  139 

V;7,  a  fufficient  proof  of  his  enmity  to 
eery, in  my  Key,  cap.  26.  pag.  170, 171, 
and  cap.  27.  pag.  177.  that  very  Epi- 
fof  Bafils  was  written  to  the  Wefiern 
"hops,  and  not  to  the  Biftiop  of  Rome 
ir[p  ,  nor  fo  much  as  naming  him :  The 
p  that  he  defireth  is  either  a  Vifit ,  or 
elwafive  Letters,  never  mentioning  the 
ft  Power  that  the  Pope  had  more  then 
lerBifliops,  but  only  the  intereft  of 
,:dit  that  the  Weftern  Eiftiops  had  more 
n  Bajil  and  his  Companions  :  faith  he 
7 or  what  Vvefay  is  fuj petted  by  many,  as  if 
certain  private  contentions  ;  we  would 
jke  a  fear  and  pufillanimitj  into  their 
nds  :  But  for  you^  the  further  you  dwell 
mthem,fo  much  the  more  credit  Jouhave 
th  the  common  people  :  to  which  this  is 
ded,  that  the  grace  of  God  is  A  help  to  you 
rare  for  the  oppreffed.  And  if  many  of  you 
unimoufly  decree  the  fame  things,  it  is  ma» 
eft  that  the  Multitude  of  you  decreeing  the 
ne  things,  will  caufe  an  undoubted  recepti- 
of  your  opinion  with  all.^\  You  fee  here 
on  what  terms  Liberim  his  Letters 
ght  beftead  Eufta:  e  having  re- 

ived him  into  bis  own  i  :nion,  and 

vfiathius  being  Ortbod  ords,  no 

Dnder  that  the  Synod  01  T****  receive 

him 


140  "The  Reply  to  Mr.Johnfonsfectnd  Pi 

him  upon  an  Orthodox  confeffion ) 
their  fellow-Bifhops  reception  and  Lettl 
No  doubt  but  the  Letters  of  many  ana 
Eifhop  might  have  perfwaded  them  tc| 
reception  ^  though  hehadmoreadvant 
from  Rome.  Is  it  not  now  a  fair  Argun 
that  you  offer  ?  Liberitu  (  fomctime  an 
rianPopeof  Rome)  by  his  Letters  prcva 
with  a  Synod  at  Tjana  to  reflore  Enfta 
ns  (  an  Arrian  )  that  diffembled  an  Ort] 
dox  confefiion :  What  then  ?  Ergo 
Pope  of  Rome  is  the  Vice-Chrift,  or 
then  the  Governour  of  all  the  Chrij 
world.  Soft  and  fair.  i.  Bafd  gives  ]\ 
other  reafons  of  his  intereft.  2.  He  ne ] 
mentioneth  his  univerfall  Governme' 
when  he  had  the  greatefl  need  to  behelj1 
by  it,  if  he  had  known  of  fuch  a  thii 
3 .  The  Empire  is  not  all  the  world  :  If  1 
fil  knew  the  Roman  Soveraignty,  I  am 
rain  he  was  a  wilfull  Rebel  againft  it. 

7.  Your  fevemh  proof  is  from  'Chr] 
ftome,  who,  you  fay  £  exprefly  deprethPi 
Innocent  not  to  punifhh U  adversaries  iftk 
dQ  repent :  Chrjf.  Epifl.  2.  ad  Innoc*  \  il 
ply.  You  much  wrong  your  foul  intakii 
your  Religion  thus  on  truft  ^  fome  Bo( 
hath  told  you  this  untruth,  and  you  belie 
it ,  and  its  like  will  perfwade  others  of 


fleplyHMr.Johnfonsfecoxd  Paper.  141 

pu  would  do  me.  There  is  no  fuch  word 
yp  Epift.  of  Chrjfoftomc  to  Innocent, nor 
hing  like  it. 

Your  eighth  proof  is  this  \_  The  like  is 
\tn  to  the  Pope  by  the  Council  of  Ephe-  ^ 

\n   the    Cafe  of  John  of  Antioch  :  Con-  9 

\Ephef  p.  2.  All.  $.  ]  Reply.  1.  The 
(Council  at  Ephefu*  (  which  no  doubt 
iimean  )  is  in  Binnim  enough  to  make  a 

derable  Volume,  and  divided  into  fix 
es ,  and  each  of  thofe  into  Chapters, 

ot  into  A&s :  And  if  you  cxped  that 
Jbuld  exaftly  read  fix  Tomes  in  Folio  be- 

I  can  anfwer  your  feverall  fentences 

jireds,  you  will  put  me  on  a  twelve- 

ieths  work  to  anfwer  a  few  (beets  of 

er.  If  you  mean  by  fr>.a/]  [Tom.  2." 

|by  [Aft.5.]  [^Cap.5.3  then  Imufttcl 

d  there  is  not  a  word  of  that  you  fay, 

llike  it.  Only   there  is  reference  to  CV- 

nes  and  Cyrils  Epiftles  5  and  Celefiine 

is  Epiftle  recited  Tom.  1 .  cap.  1 7.  threa- 

\Nefterins}  that  if  he  repent  not,he  will 

)mmunicatehim3  and  they  will  have  no 

*c  communion  with  him,  which  others 

Lias  well  as  he  ^  but  not  a  worcf  of  fohn 

nop  of  Antioch  there.    Nor  can  I  find 

;  fuch  thing  in  the  4.  Tome,wherc  Johns 

|fe  is  handled.  Indeed  the  Notes  of  your 

Hiftorian 


1 42  The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fectni  Fa 

Hiftorian  divide  the  Council  into  Sefiic 
But  in  his  fifth  Seffion  there  is  nothin: 
John,  but  of  Nefiorius.  And  in  the  4. . 
fohn  and  his  Party  excommunicate  C 
.^  Memnon^  2nd  theirs.  And  it  was  the  Cci 

I  cil  that  iufpended  firft,  and  after  excom  1 

nicated  John.  And  it  is  the  EmperouJ 
whom  he  appeals.  Indeed  your  Annoti| 
in  Seff.  6.  mentions  fome  words  of 
vends  ^  that  he  (hould  at  lea  ft  hav 
garded  the  Roman  Legates,  it  being  t 
ftome  that  his  Church  be  dire&edby  ti 
But  I  fee  no  proof  he  brings  of  rf 
words  •  and  it  is  known ,  that  Cyrl 
Alexandria  did  prefide,  and  fubfcribed 
fore  the  Roman  Legates,  even  to  the  ft 
rail  Letters  of  the  Synod,  as  you  may  fe» 
Tom.  2.  cap.  zj.&paffim.  i 

2.  But  if  your  words  were  there  to| 
found,  what  are  they  to  your  purpoii 
The  Pope  can  punifli  the  Bilhop  of  4 
tiocb :  But  how?  Why  by  excommuni 
ting  him.  True,  if  he  deferve  it  :  th 
by  pronouncing  him  unfit  for  Chri 
Communion,  and  requiring  his  flock, 
exhorting  all  others  to  avoid  him. 
thus  may  another  Bifhop  do.-  aad  thus 
fohn  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria ,  though 
was  himfelf  of  the  inferiour   Seat  :  1 

th 


Ktflj  t$  ftfr.JohntonsfecMdPtfer.     1 4  j 

I  hath  the  Biftiop  of  Cwftantinople  done 
the  Bifhop  of  Rome ,  and  fo  may  c- 
s. 

.  Your  ninth  proof  is  from  the  applica- 
s  that  the  Arriansand  Athanafttts made 
ulim  :  Ex  Ativan.  adfolit.Efift.  Julius 
Lit.  ad  Arian.  apnd  Athan.Apol.  1  .^.75  3 . 
todoret.lib.Z.c.  4.  Athan.  Apol.2.  Zo- 
k  1. 3.  c.  7.3  Reply.    I  marvel  you  urge 
1  rancid  inltances,  to  which  you  have 
n  fo  fully  and  fo  often  anfwered  •  I  re- 
you    to  Blonddl  de  Primatu  cap,  25. 
.  14,  15.    Whittaker  de  Roman.  Pontif. 
150.  &  pafsim.  Dr.  Field  of  the  Ch. 
c.  3 5,  e£r.   Briefly,  this  may  (hew  the 
ityof  your  proof.    1,  Sowmcn  in  that 
cc  faith,  that  though  he  alone  wrote  for 
im,  yet  he  wrote  in  the  Name  and  by  the 
fent  of  all    the  Biftiops  of  the  Weft. 
The  advantages  of  Rome  by  its  reputa- 
i  and  greatnefs ,  and  the  number  and 
ility  ot  the  Weftern  Biftiops,  made  their 
lgement  and   Communion  valuable  to 
ers :  Bafd  before   cited  tells  you   on 
lat   grounds  when   Churches  difagree, 
)fe  that  are  diftant  are  fuppofed  to  be  im- 
all ,  efpecially  when   numerous.    To 
lich  is  added,  which  Bafil  intimates,  that 
nc    hope  of  help    from    the   Secular 

powers, 


i44  The  Replffo Mr Johnfons [eeotid Pap 

powers,  by  the  interpolation  of  the 
Hern  Bifhops,  made  them  th?  morefoug 
to.  3.  And  the  Primacy  of  Rome  (thou 
it  hadnoSoveraignty  )  made  it  feemin 
gular,  that  a. Patriarch  (hould  bedepof 
without  the  knowledge  and  judgment 
the  Patriarchs  of  the  precedent  Seats.  Tl 
was  the  cuftome  that  Julius  fpoke  of,  ai 
the  Patriarchs  of  Confis.minople  and  A 
xandria  misht  have  faid  as  much,  if  the 
triarch  of  Jtmfalem  or  Antioch  had  b 
depofed  without  them.  4.  Every  Pat 
arch  might  abfolve  the  Innocent,  and  hi 
communion  with  them  in  his  own  Patri 
chate  ^  and  if  any  beagainft  it^  (as  the 
rians  here  were,  andfent  falfe  accufatio 
againft  Atkanafius  to  Julim)  he  may 
quire  them  to  prove  their  accufatipns, 
they  will  have  him  moved  by  them.  Oo 
own  Communion  with  men,  is  to  be  dirt 
&ed  by  the  judgment  of  our  own  wellii 
formed  confeiences.  Julius  defired  not  a 
more  then  to  be  one  with  a  Council  t 
(hould  decide  the  cafe.  Councils  thenh 
the  Rule,  and  Patriarchs  were  th~  moft  h<J 
nourable  Members  of  thofe  Councils,  bu 
no  Rulers  of  them.  5.  Yet  Socmen  an< 
others  tell  you,  that  Julius^  when  he  hac 
done  his  beil  to  befriend  AthffltfiHs  an< 


'be  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  fccondPtper.    145 

dultu  could  do  no  good,  nor  prevail  with 
le  Bifliops  of  the  Eaft,  till  the  Emperors 
Mnmands  prevailed ;  yea  the  Eaitern  Bi- 
lops  tell  him  that  he  (hould  not  meddle 
ith  their  proceedings  no  more  then  they 
d  with  his,  when  he  dealt  with  the  Nova- 
ans  ^  feeing  the  greatnefs  of  Cities  maketh 
3t  the  power  of  one  Bifhop  greater 
ten  another:  and  fo  they  took  it  ill  that 
:  interpofed,though  buc  to  call  the  matter 
>  a  Synod,  when  a  Patriarch  was  dcpofed. 
ny  Bifhop  might  have  attempted  to  re- 
rve  the  oppreflcd  as  far  as  Julius  did : 
Specially  if  he  had  fuch  advantages  as 
brefaid  to  encourage  him.  All  your  con- 
quences  here  therefore  are  denied.  1.  It 
denied,  that  bccaufe  Julim  made  this  at- 
:mpt,  that  therefore  he  was  Univerfal  Ru- 
rinth^  Empire.  2.  It  is  denied  that  it 
ill  thence  follow,  if  he  were  fo,  that  it  had 
!en  by  Divine  Right,  any  more  then  Con- 
wtinofle  hadcquall  priviledges  by  Divine 
ight.  3.  It  is  denied  that  it  hence  fol- 
wcth,  that  cither  by  Divine  or  humane 
ght,  he  had  any  Power  to  govern  the  reft 
the  world  without  the  Empire.  Had 
ou  all  that  you  would  rack  thef:  teftimo- 
tes  to  fpeak,  it  is  but  that  he  was  made 
y  Councils  and  Empcrours  tho  chief  Bi- 

L  fhop 


146     The  Reply  to  Mr.Johnfonsfecortd  Paper 

(hop  or  Patriarch  in  a  Nationall  Churct 
(  I  mean,  a  Church  in  one  Princes  Domini- 
on )  as  the  Archbilhop  of  Canterbury  was 
in  England.  But  a  Nationall  or  Imperials 
Church  is  not  the  Univerfall.  And  wit 
all,  opprefTed  men  will  feek  relief  from  a 
that  may  help  them. 

In  your  Margin  you  adde  that  £  Concern 
ingS.  Athanafius  being  judged^  andrightlj% 
by  P.  Julius  ,  Chamier  ackpovp  ledge  th  tht 
matter  of  jaB  tobefo:  but  again  ft  allantt 
cjmty  pretends  that  judgment  to  have  been  un*  \ 
juft.  ]  Reply.  Take  it  not  ill  Sir  I  befeecl 
you,  if  I  awake  your  conscience,  to  tell  me, 
how  you  dare  write  fo  many  untruths, 
which  you  knew,  or  might  know,  I  could 
quickly  manifeft.  Both  parts  of  your  fay.  1 
ingof  Chamier  p. 497,  are  untrue.  1.  Th< 
matter  of  fad:  is  it  that  he  denieth;  He 
proveth  to  you  from  So^omens  words,  that 
Athanafius  did  make  no  appeal  to  a  Judge, 
but  only  fled  for  help  to  a  friend  ;  He 
(hews  you  that  Jnlitu  did  not  play  the 
Judge,  but  the  helper  of  the  fpoiled,  and 
that  it  was  not  an  ad  of  Judgement.  2.  He 
therefore  accufeth  him  not  of  wrong  judge- 1 
iiig,  but  only  mentioneth  his  not  hearing 
theaccufed,  to  (hew  that  he  did  not  play 
the  part  of  a  Judge,  but  a  friend  ^  as  Chry% 

fojlomt 


The  Replj  to  Mr  .Johnfons  fan  J  Paper.   147 

fefiome  did  by  fome  that  fled  to  him.  I  pray 
iiuvrer  his  reafons. 

And  for  what  you  fay  again  in  your 
Margin  of  Theodoret  •,  I  fay  again,  thac  he 
jippealech  to  the  Bifhop  of  Rome  for  heip^ 
is  a  perfon  who  wich  the  Weftern  Bifhops 
night  fway  much  againft  his  adverfaries, 
>ut  not  as  to  an  Univerfal  Governour  or 
udge:  no  not  as  to  the  UniverfU  Judge 
tf  the  Church  Imperiall  ^  much  lefs  of  all 
lie  Cathohck  Churches. 

iO.  Your  tenth  proof  is  from  Chryfa- 
romes  Cafe,  where  you  fay  fome  chines  ua- 
rue5and  fome  impertinent.  1 .  Thac  Chry- 
oftome  appeals  co  Innocent  from  the  Coun- 
il  of  Conftantinople  is  uncrue,  if  you  mean 
:of  an  Appeal  to  a  fuperiour  Court  or 
udge  ^  much  more  if  as  to  an  Univcrf;! 
udge :  But  indeed  in  h  s  bani(hment,\v.  ea 
II  ocher  help  failed,  he  wroLe  to  him  co  in- 
erpofeand  help  him  as  far  as  he  could.  I 
eed  no  other  proof  of  the  Negacive  then, 
.  That  there  is  no  proof  of  che  Affirma- 
ve,  that  ever  he  made  any  fuch  appeal. 
.  In  his  firft  Epillle  to  Innocent^  he  cells  him 
ver  and  ovcr,that  [  he  appealed  to  a  Synoi% 
nd  required  ftdgement^and  thau  he  w.is  caft 
ito  a  thip  tor  banifhment  Q  became  he  ap- 
rthd  t9  *  Synod  and  *  righteous  judgement] 

L  z  never 


i  48   The  Keplj  to  Mr  Johnfons  [econd  Paper. 

never  mentioning  a  word  of  any  fuch  ap4 
peal  to  the  Pope.  Yea  he  urgeth  the  Pop 
to  befriend  and  help  him,by  that  argument, 
that  he  was  ftill  ready  to  ftand  to  ur  corrupt 
ed  Judges  ,  never  mentioning  ihe  Pope 
Judge.  By  all  which  it  appears  it  was  but 
the  afliftancc  of  his  interceflion  that  he  re- 
quireth ;  and  withall,  perhaps  the  excom- 
municating of  the  wicked,  which  anoth 
Biftiop  might  have  done.  Yea,  and  it 
feems  it  was  not  to  Innocent  only,  but  to 
others  with  him  that  he  wrote  •,  for  he 
would  fcarce   elfe  have  ufed  the  termiJi 

\^K\!eioi  y.v    rt[AieJ7&rot    xj   «jA«CSsttTai]  Eu 

what  need  we  more  then  his  own  words 
know  his  rcqueft :  faith  he  ["  Let  tbofe  thA\i 
are  found  to  have  done  fo  wicked/},  he  fubjett 
to  the  penalty  of  the  Ecchfifiicall  Laws  : 
but  for  us  that  are  not  cenvilled,  nor  f oh 
guilt],  grant  m  to  enjoy  your  Litters,  an 
your  ^hudty^and  all  others  whofe  fociety  w 
did  formerly  enjoy.  ~]  The  Ecclefiaftical  Law! 
enabled  each  Patriarch  and  Bifhop  tofen^ 
tenceinhis  own  Dioc^ fs  •,  though  the  per^ 
fon  fentenced  lived  out  of  their  Diocefsj 
yet  they  might  renounce  all  communion 
with  him  ;  Churches  that  have  no  powei 
over  one  another,  may  have  communion 
with  one  another  -,  and  that  communion 

they 


T15  j 


I 


i 


"bt  Reply  te  Mr.  Johnfons/ewW  Paftr.   14^ 

hey  may  hold  and  renounce  as  there  is 
aufe.     Now  if  a  neighbour  Patriarch  with 

0  many  Biftiops  of  the  Weft  had  renounc'd 
Communion  with  Chrjfeftomes  enemies,  and 
Ifo  written  their  Letters  on  his  behalf,  and 
aken  him  ftillas  in  their  Communion,  this 
le  hoped  would  much  further  his  reftaurati- 
>n :  which  yet  he  doubted  ,  as  he  had  caufel 
for  in  his  fecond  Epiftle  he  thanks  him  for 
loinghis  part,  though  it  did  no  good,  or 
lid  not  avail. 

1  And  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  your  Author 
Ni&phorns  tells  you,  lib.  13.  cup.  J  I;  that 
UhryfoftomesLetters^nd  his  lellow-Biftiops 
ilfo,  and  the  Clergies  of  Conft*nt>noflc* 
pvere  all  written  both  to  the  Emperour  Hi?- 
\torius  and  to  Innocent :  And  therefore  you 
(nay  fee  by  that  on  what  account  it  was, 
fetnd  what  help  they  did  exped.  The  Em- 
berour  was  not  to  excommunicate,  but  his 
fetters  might  do  much. 

1  Well,  but  you  alledgeiWttpA.  /.I3.r.34.  , 
co  prove  1.  Chrjfeftomes  appeal ;  But  you 
have  better  or  worfe  eyes  then  I,  fori  can 
;find  there  no  fuch  thing,  but  afeeking  for 
ihelp  as  aforefaid.  2.  You  fay  [Jnnocen- 
\t\us  nulls  hU  condemnation  t  and  dec  lures  him 
innocent.]  Anf.  So  might  ano:her Bifliop 
have  declared  him  :  But  how  far  it  ftiould 
I  L  3  ^ 


1 50  The  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fecond  Tdfer* 

be  regarded  ,   was   not    in    his  power/ 
3.  You  fay  he  excommunicates  Attic  us  and 
Theophiltu,  and  4.  Arcadim  the  En  perour 
alio,  and  Eudcxia.  3    Re  fly.   1.  If  he  did 
fo  and  did  well,  another  Bifhop  might  as 
well  have  done  it.  Mtnnas  excommunicated 
Vifllias  oi  Rome.    Excommunicating  is  not 
aiuayes  an  aft  of  Jurifd.ftion  ,  but  a  re- 
nouncing of  Communion,  with  aMinifte- 
riall  binding  ,  which  any  Paftor  on  ajuft 
occafion  may  exercife,  even  on  thofethat 
are  nor  of  his  Diocefs5examples  in  Church-  * 
hiitory  are  common.     2.  Buc  I  would  have 
you  anfwer  Dr.  Whittakers  Reafons,  by 
which  he  proves  that  Nicefhorws  sa  fabler! 
in  this  relation,  and  that  that  Epiitle  is  not1 
Innocents  which  cap.  34.  he  reciteth,  Lib* 
de  font if   Rom   Contr.  4.  J^#.  4.^^.454, 
455.      i.  Neither  Socrates  .Theodore  t   orf 
Socmen  make  any  mention  of  this  ex- 
con  muni  cation  ,  who  yet  write  much  of 
the  Cafe  of  Chryjoftome  and  Arcadiu* ;And1 
would  chefe  men  that  lived  fo  n^ar  that  time 
have  all  filenced  fo  great  and  rare  a  thing, 
as  the  excommunication  of  the  Emperour 
and  Emprefs,  which  would  have  madefo 
great  a  noife  and  flir  ,    that  yet  mention 
Amlrofe  his  cenfure  of  Tkeodofius}    2.  This 
Bull  ot  Jnnoccnts ,  (  as  Nuephorn*  would 

have 


#* 


I  'be  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfonsfecsffd  Paper.  151 

avc  us  believe  it,)  hath  fuch  falfhoods,  con- 
rary  to  more  credible  hiftory,as  bewray  the 
:>rgery.  For  Socrates  lib.  6.c  19.  wrireth, 
i  hat  Eudoxia  died  the  fame  year  that  Chry- 
bftvme  was  banifhed,  and  that  Cbry(ofiome 
fied  the  third  year  of  his  banifhment  -  And 
mozjmen  faith  /.  8.^.28.  that  Chryfofiome 
Ivas  in  banifhment  three  years  atcer  the 
(lleathof  Eudoxia  :  But,  if  Nicephorus  were 
o  be  believed,  Eudoxia  was  aiiveand  ex- 
ommunicated  by  Innocent  after   Chryfo- 
vtomes  death.  Nor  can  it  be  faid  that  Inno- 
cent knew  not  of  her  death  •,  for  his  Legats 
tare  fent  to  Confiantinople  in  Aniens  time, 
whofucceeded  Arfacius,  who  outlived  Eu^ 
\oxia7\  This  is  the  fumme  of  Dr.Whitt^ksrs 
confutation  of  Nicefhorus.    And  wnhall, 
fvho  knows  not  how  full  of  fiftions  Nice- 
chorus  is? 

'  In  your  Margin  you  pretend  to  confute 
Chamierp.49%.  as  hy'\ng[_That  other  Bi- 
fbops  refiored  thofe  wrongfully  depofed  as 
bell'a*  the  Pope,  J  to  which  you  fay  that 
L  never  fingle  'Si/hop  reftered  any  who  were 
)Utof  their  reffettive  Diocefs,  &c.  whereas 
the  Bifiop  of  Rome  by  his  fole  and  (ingle  au- 
thority refiored  Bi/hops  wrongfully  depojed 
all  the  Church  aver.  ]  Reply.  I.  It  ieems 
you  took  Chamkrs  words  on  truft  :   perufe 

L  4  that 


15 j  ThcReflytoMr.JohnlLOTisfecondPdpei 

that  page,and  fee  his  words.  2 .  Single  Bi| 
(hops  have  cenfured,  and  therefore  migl 
as  well  remit  their  own  cenfures.  Ambro)\ 
cenfured  Theodoftm  ,  who  was  no  fixec) 
Member  of  his  charge,  and  he  remitted  th 
Cenfure.  Epiphamm  prcfumed  even 
Confiantinople  to  excommunicate  Diofcon 
and  his  Brethren,  Socrat.lib.  6.C.14..  An<| 
many  inftances  may  be  brought  both  of  ex 
communicating,and  again  receiving  to  com- 
munion by  particular  Bifhops,  even  as  tc 
thofe  that  were  not  of  their  charge.  Anc 
if  the  fad:  were  not  proved,  yet  the  for- 
bearance proveth  not  the  want  of  power 
3 .  I  deny  your  unproved  afTertion,  that  the 
Bifliop  of  Rome  fingly  reftored  all  the 
Church  over  :  It  is  a  meer  fi&ion.  How; 
many  reftored  he  out  of  the  Empire  ?  O* 
in  the  Empire  out  of  his  Patriarchate,  butt 
fuaforily  or  Synodically.  ; 

Your  next  inftance  of  Theodofins  his  noi 
permitting  the  Council  at  Ephefus  to  b( 
aflembled,  and  his  reconciling  bimfeff  u 
the  Church  ,  is  meerly  impertinent  .•  Wl 
know, that  he  and  other  Princes  ufualh 
wrote  to  Rome,  Confkantinople,  Alexandria, 
&c.  or  fpoKe  or  fent  to  more  then  one  of 
the  Patriarchs  before  they  called  a  Council. 
You  cannot  but  know  that  Councils  have 

been 


m  Reply  to  Mr.Johnfonsfecond  Paper.  155 

fen  called  without  the  Pope  .-   and  that 

either  this,  nor  an  Emperours  forfaking 

flrerrour,  is  a  fign  of  the  Popes  Univerfal 

ovcrnment.    That  Eraperour  gavcfuffi- 

:nt  teftimony,  and  fo  did  the  Bilhops  -has 

hered  to  Diofctrn*^  that  in  thofedayes 

e  Pope  was  taken  for  fallible  and  control- 

>le,  when  they  excommunicated  him  :  Bur 

hen  you  cite  out  of  any  Author  the  words 

at  you  build  on,  I  fhall  take  moreparti- 

ilar  notice  of  them.     Till  then  this  is 

lough,  with  this  addition,  that  the  Em- 

erours  fubjcftion,  if  he  had  been  fubjeft 

not  to  an  Ambrofe,  or  other  Bifhop,  but) 

nly  to  Rcme^  would  have  been  no  proof 

lat  any  without  the  Empire  were  his  fub- 

l&s :   No  more  then  the  King  of  England* 

bjeftion  to  the  Archbifhop  of  Canterbu- 

would  have  proved   that  the  King  of 

'ranee  was  fubjeft  to  him. 

12.  Your  twelfth  proof  from  the  Coun* 

1  of  Chalcedon ,  is  from  a  witnefs  alone 

fficicnt  to  overthrow  your  caufe,  as  I  have 

oved  to  you.    This  Synod  exprefly  deter- 

ineth,  that  your  Primacy  is  a  novel  hu- 

ne  invention  ^  that  it  was  given  you  by 

Fathers,  becaufe  Rome  was  tbelmperial 

eat.  If  you  believe  this  Synod,  the  Con- 

roverfic  it  at  an  end :  If  you  do  not,  why 

do 


**■ 


j J4  Tfc  Repb  teMr.  Johnsons  fecend  Paper  h 

do  you  cite  it  ?  and  why  pretend  you  to  bell 
lieve  Generall  Councils  ? 

But  what  have  you  from  this  Council 
againft  this  Council  ?    Why,      i.  You  fail 
Martian  wrote  to  Leo,  that  by  the  Popes  Ax 
thorlty  a  generall  Council  might  be  gathered  v 
in  Vvhat  City  of  the  Eaftern  Church  he/bouam 
pleafe  to  choofe.  ]     Reply.   I.  Whereas  foi 
this  you  cite  Alt.  ConciL  Chalcedon.  I .  Yoj 
tell  me  not  in   what    Author,    wheth< 
Crabbe  ,   Binnius ,  Surim  ,   Nicolimtt,  oil 
where  I  muft  feek  it.    I  have  perufed  thej 
A  fit.  i .  in  Binnitts,  which  is  63  pages  in  Fo*^ 
lio  (  fuch  casks  your  citations  fetme)  an^. 
find  no  fuch  thing  ^  and  therefore  take  it  to 
be  your  miftake.     But  in  the  preambuL  jf 
pifl.  I  find  that  Valentinian  and  Marti* 
defire  Leo's  prayers,  and  contrary  to  yoi 
words,  that  they  fay.  £  Hoc  ipfum  nobis pn 
friis  Uteris  tuajanttitas  manifeftet,  quatem 
in  omneyn  Orientem  &  in  iff  am  Thraciam 
Illyricumfacra  noflr<e  liter  a  dirigantur^ 
ad  quendam  definitum  locum  qui  nobis  plactA\ 
trit>   omnes  fanttijfimi  Epifcopi  debeant  con- 
venire.  J   It  is  not  [~  qui  vobis  placuerii\  bu& 
£  qui  nobis.  3   But  what  if  you  had  fpoke 
truth,  doth  it  follow  that  Leo  was  Chrilts 
Vicar- general  Governour  of  the  world, 
becaufe  that  the  Soveraign  of  one  Com- 
monwealth 


b  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  [esond  Paper.     155 

iwealth  did  give  him  leave  to  choofe 
place  of  a  Council  ?  Serious  things 
bid  not  be  thus  jefted  with. 
.  You  fay  Anatolius  and  the  reft  of  the 
:crn  Bifljofs  fent  to  Tope  Leo  the  prof eftr- 
of  their  faith  by  his  order. ~\  Reply  m 
uid  what  then  ?  therefore  Pope  Leo  was 

Governourof  them  and  alltheChri- 

world.  You  {hould  not  provoke  men 
mghter  about  ferious  things,   I  tell  you. 

you  prove  this  Confequence  ?  Confef- 
5  were  ordinarily  fent  in  order  to  Com- 
»ion3  or  to  fatisfie  the  offended,  without 
ed  to  fupenority.  2.  But  I  fee  not 
proof  of  your  impertinent  words.  Prd- 
ias  Epiftla  to  Leo,  expreffeth  that  Leo 
fent  his  Coi.feilion  firit  to  Anatolivuy  to 
ch  Anatolius  confented.  By  your  Rule 
n  Leo  W3S  iubjeft  to  Anatolia*. 

>  ou  fay  the  Popes  Legates  fate  fir  ft  in 
Weil.  \  Reply.  What  then  >  therefore 
Pope  was  Governour  of  theChnftian 
frld,  though  not  a  man  out  of  the  Empire 
re  of  the  Council.  Are  you  ftill  in  jeft  ? 
tifit  muft  be  fo?  then  I  can  prove  that 
lers  were  the  Univerfal  Governours,  be- 

4  at  Nicey  and  other  Councils  they  fate 
ore  the  Legates    of  the  Pope,  and  in 
my  his  Legau  had  no  place.     Is  this  ar- 
gument 


t 


11  : 

1 


Ij6  Tfo  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  /<tf ond  Papt 

gumcnt  good  think  you  ?   O  unfaithful  pa 
tiality  in  the  matters  of  falvation  / 

4.  You  fay,  they  prohibited  Diofcorus 
Jit  by  his  order  3    Reply.    1.    What  thetji 
therefore  he  was  Univerfal  Governour 
the  Church.   All  alike.    Any  accufer  in 
parliament  or  Synod  may  require  that  t 
Accufed  may  not  fie*  as  judge,  till  he  be  ti 
cd.    2.  But  did  you   not  know  that  Lei 
Legates  were  not  obeyed  •,  but  that  t 
GioriofiJJimi  jttdices  &  amplifsimus  fenati^ 
required  that  the  caufe  flnould  be  firft  mafc 
known ;  and  that  it  was  not  done  cillJEn] 
bins  Epifcop*  DoryUi  had   read  his  bill 
complaint?  Binnius  A£l  i.pag.%.         1 
5.  You  fay  the  Popes  Legates  pronoui 
ced  the  Church  of  Rome  to  be  Caput  own 
stm  Ecclefiarum~\     Reply.    1.  What  thee I 
therefore  he  was  Governour  of  all  the  Chtl 
itian  world  ?  I  deny  the  confequence.  Ycl 
do  nothing  but  _beg  ;  not  awordofprooj 
Caput  wzsbut  membr urn principale  ,  the  Pi 
triarch  prima  fedes,  and  that  but  in  the  En 
pire.     2.  The  Popes  Legates  were  not  tl 
Council,  nor  judges  in  their  own  caufe,an 
not  oppofing,  fignifies  not  alwayes  a  coi 
fent.     3.  But  the  Council  do  aslfaid,a 
prefly  deiine  the  point,  both  what  your  Pr 
^     macy  is,  and  of  how  long  {landing,  and 

who! 


( 


ft  Htflj  t$  MrJ]ohxifoYi$fccdndPdftr.    \  ^ 

irofe  inftitution  ,  and  that  Conftantinople 
)\  the   lame    grounds  had  equail  pnvi- 


e:es. 


5.  You  fay,  Mthe  Fathers  acknowledged 
mf  elves  Leo's  Children,  *nd  wrote  to  him 
rheir  Father.  ~]     Reply.    Of  this  you  give 
not  any  proof, buc  leave  me  to  read  19a 
sesm  Fclie,  to  fee  whether  you  fay  true 
no.   And  what  if  you  do,(as  I  believe  you 
&)  can  a  man  of  any  reading  be  ignorant 
Tw  ordinarily  ocher   Bilhops  were  ftiled 
thers,  even   by  their    fellow-Bifhops  as 
llasiheBifhopof  Rome? 
7*    You  add  ,  that  they  humbly  begged of 
\m  that    the  Patriarch  rf  Conitantinople 
mght  h«ve  the  firfi  place  next  Rome,  tyhich 
Wtwithfianding  the  Council  had  ccnrented  toB 
I  had  alfo  the  third  general  Council  at  Ephe- 
s  before, let  they  efteemed  their  grants  of  #* 
efficient  force ,  till  they  were  confirmed  by  ths 
ope.  ]  Reply.  So  far  w^re  the  Council  iron* 
*hac  you  talfly  fay  of  them,  that  they  put  it 
ito  their  Canons, that  Constantinople  fhould 
ive  the  fecund  pLnce,  yea  and  equal  privi- 
dges  with /frwf ,  and  that  they  had  this  on 
nefame  grounds  as  Rome  haditg  Primacy, 
fvenbetaufeic  was  the  Imperial  Seat  ;  Vid. 
Sin.  p*g.  133,  1?, 4.  col.  z.    And  not  only 
Sphefu;,  but  the  fecond  general  Council  at 

Con- 


1 5  8    The  Rfply  to  Mr.JohnConsfecond  P*fi 

Confiantinople,  they  tell  you  had  decreed t 
fame  before.  You  fee  then  (  contrary  to  yo 
fiftion  )  that  three  general  Councils  (oi  i 
greateft,  likened  by  Gregory  to  the  4  E 
gelifts)  not  only  judged  without  theP 
but  by  your  own  conteflion  againft  \\\m( 
you  fay,  he  confented  not )  yea  fo  much 
they  flight  the  Popes  confent,  that  when 
Legates   diffented,   they  were  not  heari 
See  Bin.  pag.  1 34,  1 36.     They  perfifte 
the   Council  to   maintain  their  Canon  J 
notwithftanding  the  contradiction  of  Li : 
.    cretins  and  Psifchafinus,  and  by  the  Judgi'l 
it  was  accordingly  pronounced,  p  137.  AiH 
unanimoufly  the  whole  Synod  contented 
never  {topping  at  the  Roman  diffent.  Perg* 
rniusBiihop  of  Antioch  faith  [_in  omnib%\ 
fanttijfimum  Archiepifcopum  RegU  civiuti\\ 
nov<eRomx  in  henore  & cur  a  ficut  Patren^ 
pr&cipHum  habere  nos  convenit.       No  ma*1 
contradi&ed  this :  And  is  not  this  as  mud1' 
or  more,  then  you  ailedge  as  fpoke  to  Le$ V 
They  call  Leo  (  you  fay  )  Father  :  And  ch< ( 
Bifhop  of  Ccnfiantinofle  is  pronounced  tb<  I 
Chief  Father  in   all  things^  in  honour  amf 
.    Cure.    And  £  #/f  £*'/*/ Biftiop  of  Dory  I.    rh<  I 
chief  adverfary  of  Diofcorusjvitneued  that 
hehimfelf,  in  the  prefence  of  the  Clergy  of  | 
Cenftantinople,  did  read  this  Canon  to  the 

Pope 


ve  Heplj  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fecond  Paper. 

ppc  at  Rome ,  and  he  received  it.     Upon 
ctiyour  Hiftorian  hath  no  better  an  ob- 
tion,  then  that  £  either  Eufebius/j^, 
elfe  At  that  hour  he  deceived  Leo,  3     Its 
c  that  the  Synod  writ  to  him  for  his  con- 
but  not  as  fufpending  any  of  their 
crees  on  it  ^  .  but  telling  him  over  and 
r,  that  the  things  were  by  them  defined 
confirmed  already,  pag.  140.  that  which 
ydefiredof  him  was,  what  Synods  ordi- 
ily  did  of  Bifhops  of  their  Communion 
t  were  abfent  £  H&c,  ficut  propria,  & 
tea,  &  *d  decorcm  convenientijsima,  dig* 
complefti ,    faiiEliJsimc    &   beatifsime 
<r.  3 

1 3 .  In  your  Margin  you  tell  me  that  A- 
>rin  the  time  of  ftfftinidn  depofed  Ari- 
'fHiHsinConftantinofle  againft  the  will  of 
Empcrour  &  theEmprefs.jifr/^.i.And 
:h  it  follow,  that  becaufe  he  did  it,  there- 
•e  he  did  it  juftly,  yea  and  astheGover- 
ir  of  that  Church  ?  when  MennA  Bifhop 
Confiantimple  excommunicated  Pope  Vi- 

\ius,  was  he  not  even  with  him?  and  did 
.t  prove  that  Rome  was  fubjeel  to  Con- 

\ntwoplc  ?  NicepJs.  /.  17.  c.26.  When  Bio- 
\rm excommunicated  Le 0,  and  anEaftern 
tod  excommunicated  Julius  (  Soz,omA.i>. 
1.)  that  proves  ron  thu  they  did  it  juft- 


159 


l<5o  The  Reply  to  Mr.Johnfons  fecond  P*pt\ 

ly 3  or  as  his  Governours.  HonoriHs  the  Ei  | 
perour  depofed  Boniface  I .  Oth$  with  a  S  | 
nod  depofed  Johan.  13.  Jujlinian  depot  | 
Sylverius  and  Vigilins  :  Will  you  eonf<  | 
it  therefore  juftly  done  ?    2.  As  to  thet  | 
ftory  I  refer  you  to  the  full  anfwer  oiBUn^ 
to  Perron,  cap.  2$.  fett.  84,  85.     3  •  Ufi 
pation  and  depoling  one  another  by  ri 
Sentences  was  then  no  rare  thing,  Eufcbi 
of  Nicomedia  threatened  the  depofing  ■  j 
Alexander  of  Conftantinofle,  who  Aire  w 
not  his  fubjed,  Socrat*  lib.  1.  r.3  7.(^.25  ^ 
Acacitts  of  C<zfarca  and  his  party  depofe  n< , 
only  Eletifius ,  Bafilim  and  many  other  j 
but  with  them  alfo  M^cedonius  Bifhopi 
Confiantinople :  SocratJib.Z.c.H.  (vel.+M 
Did  this  prove  Acacias  the  Vice-Chrifl  , 
What  fhould  I  inftance  in  Theophilns  adioj  | 
againft  Chryfoftome,  or  Cyrils  againft  fob*  , 
Antiochen.  and  many  fucn  like  ?    4.  Still  yo 
fuppofe  one  Empire  to  be  all  the  Chriftia  j 
world ;  We  muft  grant  you  that  in  all  yoi  , 
inftances  /  j] 

14.  For  what  you  alledgc  from  Gregor)\ 
I  (hall  give  you  enough  of  him  anon  fe 
your  fatisfaftion,  if  you  will  be  indiffereni 
As  to  your  citation  what  can  I  fay  ?  A  yeai  I 
time  were  little  enough  to  fearch  after  you 
citations  ,  v  if  you  fhould  thus  write  bu  I 

man 


1 


Ibe  Reply  U  Mr  Johnfons  fecond  Paper.    \Ci 

fcny  more {heets   (If  a  man  had fo much 
cue  and  fo  little  wit  as  to  attend  you  )  You 
srn  me  to  Greg.  cap.  7.  ep.  63.  but  what 
&ok,  or  what  Indication,  you  tell  me  not : 
j)t  whatever  it  be,  falfe  it  muft  needs  be, 
pre  being  no  one  Book  of  his  Epiftles  (  ac- 
kding  to  all  the  Editions  that  I  have  feen) 
pcrer.  7.  and*/?.  63.  do  agcee  or  meet  to- 
her.     But  at  laft  I  found  the  words  in 
7.  r.63.  fp.63.  To  which  Hay,  thatei- 
r  your  great  Gregory  by  £  fubjedf)  meant  r 
t  the  Biihop  of  Confiantinople  was  of  an 
1  lour  Order,  as  the  Patriarch  of  AU- 
dri.i  and  Antiocb  were  to  Conftantinople, 
tyet  had  no  Government  of  them  ;  or 
^  he  could  fay  and  unfay  :  But  I  doubt 
t  but  this  was  all  his  fenfe.     But  if  ir  had 
kn  othervvife,  Conjiantinople  and  the  Em- 
was  not  all  the  Chriftian  world, 
four  next  citation  is  lib.  7.  ep.  3  7.  But  its 
fly  cited  :    There  is  no  fuch  word  •  and 
are  in  fo  much  hafte  for  an  anfwer^  that 
ill  not  read  over  all  Gregories  Epiftles. 
5.  You  fay  Cyril  would  not  break  off 
Jmmunion  with  Nc florin*  till  Cdtfline  had 
demned   him  ^  of  this  you  give  us  no 
:  But  what  if  it  be  true?  Did  you 
nk  that  it  proved  the  Pope  to  be  the  Vice- 
ift  ?  Prudence  might  well  make  Cyril 

M  cau~ 


J 


i6z  The  Reply  to  il/r.Johnfons  fecwd  rsfe 

cautelous  in  excommunicating  a  Patriarch 

And  we  ftill  grant  you,  that  the  Order  o: 

the  Empire  had  given  the  Roman  Bifhop  thj 

Primacy  therein  ;  and  therefore  no  wondes 

if  h;s  content  were  expe&ed.    But  that  iV> 

fieriuswas  condemned  by  a  Council  need 

no  proof:  And  what  if  Celeftine  began  ani 

firft  condemned  h  m?  Is  he  therefore  th 

Univerfal  Bilhop  ?    But  it  was  not  Celeftik 

alor.e,buta<ynod  of  the  WefternBilhops 

And  yet  Cyril  did  not  hereupon  rejefthii 

without  lur.her  warning  :  And  whac  wast 

that  he  threatned,  but  tobold  no  Commi 

nion  with  him  ?  Vid.  Concil.  Ephef.  I .  Ton 

I.  cap.  14.     And   though   Pride  made 

communication  an  Engine  to  advance 

Biftiop  above  others,  I  can  eafily  prove  t 

if  I  had  then  lived,  it  had  been  my  duty! 

avoid  Communion  with  a  noconous  Heis 

tick,  though  he  had  been  Pope. 

The  long  ftory  that  \ou  rext  tell,  is 
to  fill  up  Paper,that  Cyril  received  the  Pop 
Letters,  that  Neflerixs  repented  not,  chad 
accuicdCjril,  that  Theodcfius  wrote  to  C 
hfiine  about  a  Council^  and  many  fuchu 
pertinent  worcs ;  But  theprodiis,  thatd 
W/was  the  Popes  chief  Legate  Ordinar 
Forfoothbecaule  in  his  abfence  he  was  1 
chief  Patriarchy  therefore  he  is  faid  Ct 


fc*  Riply  U  Mr. Johnfons  fecond  Paper  •  i$$ 

fwi  locum  tenere,  which  he  defired.     Well, 

It  your  jpopc  fie  higheft,  feeing  hefotrou- 

all  the  world  for  it.    Chrift  will  fhortly 

\  him  come  down  lower,  when  he  hum- 

th  them  that  exal  t  themfel ves.    That  Cy 

fubferibed  before  Philip,  you  may  fee, 

m.  2.  cap. 2$.  but  where  I  may  find  that 

Hip  fubferibed  fir  ft,  you  tell  me  not.  But 

at  if  the  Archbifhopof  Canterbury  fate 

heft3  and  fubferibed  firft  in  England^ 

>thit  follow  that  he  was  Governour  of 

the   world  ?  no    nor    of  Tork^  it  felf 
ther. 

6.    And  here  you  tell  us  of  Juveiul%AEt. 

epl.i.  The  Council  is  not  divided  into 
s  in  Binnim,  but  many  Tomes  and 
bpters  ;  but  your  words  are  in  the  Notes 
led  by  your  hiftorian  j  but  how  to  prove 
\m  ^Hvtnals  words  I  know  not,  nor  find 
lim  or  you.  2.  But  why  were  not  the  an- 
edent  words  of  the  Bifhop  of  Antioch 
I  his  Clergy  as  valid  to  the  contrary,  as 

nals  tor  this  ?  3 .  If  thefe  words  were 
ken  ,  they  only  import  a  Jndgeing  in 
mncil  as  a  chief  member  of  it,  and  not  of 
[nfelf.  And  his  apojiolica  ordimtiove  is  ex- 
fly  contrary  to  the  forecited  Canon  of. 
\  Council  of  Chalcedon ,  and  therefore 
£  to  be  believed.  Yet  fomc  called  things 

M  2  &qvp 


The  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  feccnd Paper. 

done  Ordination  apoftolica ,  which  were  or- 
dained by  the  Seats  which  were  held  Apo- 
ftolike.  4.  But  ftill  you  refolve  to  forget 
that  Antioch  or  the  Empire  extended  not 
to  the  Antipodes,  nor  contained  all  the  Ca- 
tholick  Church. 

17.  You    next  tell  me  of  Valentinians 
words  A.D.44.5. Reply  It  is  the  raoft  plaufible 
of  all  your  teitimonies,  but  worth  nothing 
to  your  end.   For    I.  Though  Theodefitu 
name  pro  forma  were  at  it,  yet  it  was  only 
Valentinians  ad,  and  done  at  Rome,  where] 
Leo   prevailed   with*  a  raw  unexperienced 
Prince  to  word  the  Epiftle  as  he  deiired;  fol 
that  it  is  rather  Leo's,  then  the  Emperoursi 
originally :  And  Lee  was  the  firft  that  at^j 
tempted  the  exceffiv?  advancement  of  hi< 
Seat  above  the  reft  of  the  Patriarchs.  2.  Ii 
is  known  that  the  Emperours  foraetime  gav< 
the  Primacy  to  Rome,  and  fometime  to  Ca 
ftantinople,  as  they  were  pleafed  or  difple; 
fed  by  each  of  them.  So  did  fuftinian,  wl 
A.D.  530.  Lampadio  &  Ore  ft  e  Cof.C. 
Epifcopis  lib.  I.  lege  24.  faith       Conftantti 
nopolitana  Bcclefta  omnium  aliarum  eft  Ca 
put^  [The  Church  of  Conftantinople#  tk 
Head  of  all other. "]  3.  It  is  yourfi&ion,aiH 
not  the  words  of  Valentinian  (  or  Leo)  tha 
t  the  fucceffion  from  Peter  was  the  foundation 

0, 


The  Reply  to  Mr.JohnConsfeco^d Paper.    165 

of  Romes  Primacy.      It  was.  then  believed 
that  dntiochznd  other  Churches  had  a  fuc- 
ceffion  from  Peter.  It  is  the  Merit  of  Peter, 
and  the  Dignity  of  the  City  of  Rome,  and 
the  Authority  of  the  Synod  joyntly  that  he 
afcribeth  it  to.    The  Merit  of  Peter  was  no- 
thing birt  the  Motive  upon  which  Leo  would 
have  men  believe  the  Synod  gave  the  Prima- 
cy to  Rome :  And  Hofius  in  the  Council  of 
Sardica  indeed  ufeth  that  as   his   motive, 
]  Let  us  for  the  honour  of  Peter,  &c]  They 
had  a  conceit  that  where  Peter  laft  preached, 
and  was  martyred  and  buried,  and  his  reli&s 
lay,  there  he   fhould  be  moft   honoured. 
4.  Here  is  not  the  leaft  intimation  that  this 
Primacy  was  by  Gods  appointment,  or  the 
Apoftles,  but  the  Synods;  Nor  that  it  had 
continued  fo  from  Peters  dayes,  but  that 
joyntly  for  Peters  Merits  (  and  honour*) 
and  the  Cities  dignity,  it  was  given  by  the 
Synod.     5.  And  it  was  but  Leo's  fraud  to 
,  perfwade  the  raw  Emperour  ofthe  autho- 
rity of  a  Synod,  which  he  would  not  name, 
[  becaufe  the  Synod  of  Sardica  was  in  little  or 
no  authority  in  thofe  daies.  The  reft  of  the 
reafons  were  fraudulent  alfo  5  which  though 
they  prevailed  with  this  Emperour,  yet  they 
took  not  in  the  Eaft.    And  Leo  himfelf  it 
feemsdurft  not  pretend  to  a  Divine  Right 

M  3  and 


l66  The  Reply  t$  Mr.  Johnfons  ftcond  Paper. 

and'lnftitution,  nor  to  a  fucceffion  of  Pri- 
vacy from  the  Apoftles.     6.  But  nothing 
is  more  falfe  then  your  affercion,  that  he  ex- 
tendeth  the  power  \_over  the  whole  vifible 
Church.  3  The  word  [_Vmverfita*~\  is  all 
that  you  tranilate  in  your  comment,  \[the 
whole  vifible  Church .  ]    As  if  you  knew  not 
that  there  was  a  Roman  Vnherfalitj^&c  that 
Roman  Councils  w:re   called  Vniverf*M9 
when  no  Bifhops  ouc  of  that  one  Common- 
wealth were  preftnt;  and  that  the  Church 
in  the   Empire    is   oft   called  £  the  whole 
Ck#rth.~]  Yez[_the  Roman  world]  was  not 
an  unufuall  phrafe.  And  I  pray  you  tell  me, 
what  power  Valentinian  had  out  of  the  Em- 
pire? who  yet   interpof:th  his  authority 
there  ,   \_Nequid  prater  authoritatem  fedis 
ijtitts  illicit um^    &c.         X&  ut  fax  ubique 
fervttHfk  ]]  And  in  the  end,it  is  All  the  Pro- 
vinces ,  that  is,  the  Vnivcrfity  that  he,  ex- 
tends his  precepts  to.     7.  And  for  that  an- 
nexed [  that. without  the  Emferours  Letters, 
his    anthority   was.    to   be    cf  force  through 
ftante^  for  what  {hall  not  be  lawful!,  &c.  } 
I  Anf.  No  wonder  :  For  France  was  part  of 
his  Patriarchate,  and  the  Laws  of  the  Em. 
pire  had  confirmed  his  Patriarchal  power  : 
^ndthofe  Laws  might  feem,  with  the  reve- 
rence of  S,ynods,without  new  Letters,  to  do 

much  ; 


The  Rfply  to  Mr  John  Ton s  fecond  Paper.  \  6j 

much  .-  But  yet  ic  ieerr  s,chac  the  ri(i»g  pow- 
er needed  th.s  extraordinary  fecular  help: 
HiUrj  it  feems  with  his  B  fhops  though^ 
tha  even  to  his  Patriarch  he  cwednofuch 
obedience  as  Leo  I  ere  by  iorce  exadeth.  So 
thac  your  1  gheit  witnefs  (  Leo  by  the 
mouth  ot  Vdintini.n)  is  tor  no  more  chen 
a  Pnnr  cy , ,  with  a  lwelled  power  in  the  Ro- 
man Univerfality  ^  but  they  never  medled 
With  the  reft  ot  the  Chnitian  world  :  Ic 
feerrsby  all  chcir  writings  and  atLempcs^his 
never  came  into  ihe.r  thoughts. 

And  its  no  credit  to  your  caufe,  that  this- 
Hi/r.ryw\*(b)  Baronitts  confe(\iou)d  man  of 
extraordinary  hohrefs  and  knowledge,  and 
is  Sainted  amo.  g)ou.,  and  hath  his  Day  in 
your  Calendar.    And    yet  VfilentinUu  had 
freat  p  ovocanoi  to  interpole  (itZfotold 
hni  no  uncru  Is,  tor  Iv.sow.i  advantage  j  : 
Eprit  was  no  Kfsthen  laying  fiege to  Cities, 
to  force  Bfhops  on  them  without  their  cori- 
fenr,  hache  is  accufedof^  vchich  (hews  to 
whac  odious  pndesand  uturpation,  proJpe- 
nty  even  then  had  rai  fed  the  Clergy;  fitter 
to  be  lamented  with  floods  of  tears,  then  co 
be  defended  by  any  honelt  Chriftian ;  Leo 
himfelf  may  be  the  principal  mllance. 

18.Y011  nextreturnto  the  Council  of  CW- 
ccdon,Att.i.  &ftq.  where  1.  Yourctcr  m^ 

M  4  to 


168  the  it^/y^^/r-Johnfons/ecW  ftytx. 

to  that  AH.  i  .where  is  no  fuch  matter  :  but 
you  add  [&feq. 3  that  I  may  hare  an  hun- 
dred and  ninety  pages  in  Folio  to  perufe,and 
then  you  call  for  a  fpeedy  anfwer  :  But  the 
EpiftletoZeoisin  the  end  of  AB.  16.  fag. 
{Bin.)  139.  2.  And  there  you  do  but 
falfly  thruft  in  the  word  £  thou  governfi  uf\ 
and  fo  you  have  made  your  felt"  a  witnefs, 
becaufe  you  could  find  none  :  The  words  are 
^Jguibus  tu quidem ficut  membru  caput  pr  it- 
er as,  in  his  qui  tuum  t enchant  ordinem  bene- 
volentiampraferens  :  lmptratorcs  vero  ador- 
nandum  decentijjime  prafidebant.  ]  Now  [  to 
go  before~]  with  you  muft  be  £  to  Govern~\: 
If  fo5  then  Aurelius at  the  Council  of  Car- 
thage, and  others  in  Councils  that  prefided, 
did  govern  them.  It  was  but  £  bcnevolenti- 
am  pr&tulijfe  ]  that  they  acknowledged  : 
And  that  the  Magiftrates  not  only  prefided 
indeed,  but  did  the  work  of  Judges  antf 
Govern  ours,  isexprcfs  in  the  Afts  $  its  after 
wrote  in  that  Epiftle  £  Hac  f urn, qua  tecum, 
quifpiritu  prtfens  eras,  &  complacere  tan- 
quam  fratribus  deliberafli^  &  qui  pene  per 
quorum  vicariorum  [apientiam  videbaris,a 
%obis  effecimus  3  And  £  h<ec  k  tuafanftitatc 
fuerint  inchoata  ]  and  yet  [  Jjhti  enim  locum 
veftra  fanttitatis  obtinent,  lis  it  a  confiitutis 
vehementerrejiftere  tentaverunt.  3  From  all 

which 


7he  Reply  U  Mr. Johnfons  [teond  Paper.  1 69 

which  it  appeareth,  that  he  only  is  acknow- 
ledged to  lead  the  way,  and  topleafethem 
as  his  brethren,  and  to  help  them  by  the  wif- 
dome  of  his  fubftitutes  •  and  yet  that  the 
Council  would  not  yield  to  their  vehement 
refiftancc  of  one  particular. 

But  I  have  told  you  oft  enough  that  the 
Council  (hall  be  judge,  not  in  a  comple- 
mentall  Epiftle,but  in  Can.  28.  where  your 
Primacy  is  acknowledged  ^  but  1.  As  a  gift 
ef  the  Fathers.  2.  And  therefore  as  new. 
3.  For  the  Cities  dignity.  4.  And  it  can  be 
of  no  further  extent  then  the  Empire  5  the 
Givers  and  this  Council  being  but  the  Mem- 
bersof  that  one  Commonwealth ;  So  that  all 
is  but  a  novel  Imperial  Primacy. 

19.  And  for  the  words  of  Vincent  ius  Li- 
rinenfisj.  9.  what  are  they  to  your  purpofe  ? 
[  quantum  loci  author  it  ate  3  figntfieth  no 
more  then  we  confefs,  viz.  that  in  thofe 
times  the  greatnefs  of  Rome,  and  humane 
Ordination  thereupon,  had  given  them  that 
precedency,  by  which  their  []  loci  authority] 
had  the  advantage  of  any  other 'Seat:  Or 
elfe  they  had  never  fwelled  to  their  impt-  ^ 
ous  Ufurpation. 

I  have  plainly  proved  to  you  in  the  End 
of  my  \_{afe  Religion']  that  Vincentius  was 
no  Papilt. 

But 


1 70  The  R  'fly  to  Mr .  John  fons  fee  end  Paper. 

Bur  you  draw  an  argument  from  the 
word  {,[  nxit\  As  if  you  were  ignorant 
that  bt£g:r  words  then  that  areappl-edco 
them  that  have  no  governing  power;<^^«- 
tuminfef*rixit,\\z&.zxgtdi  them  tha.  hey 
fh'ould  not  innovate:  And  what  ?  is  it  P. Ste- 
phen that  is  theLaw-giver  of  the  Law  agamft 
unjuft  innovation  ?  Did  not  CyprUnbzY.tvt 
that  this  was  a  Law  of  C  hrift  beiore  Stephen 
medied  in  that  bufinefs t  What  Stephens 
authority  was  in  thole  dayes,  we  need  no 
ocher  witnefles  then  flrnilUn,  Cyprl.n, 
and  a  Council  of  Curthage ,  who  lighted 
the  pope  as  much  as  1  do. 

I  pray  anfwer  Cyprians  tclHmony  and  ar- 
guments againft Popery,  cited  by  me  in  che 
JD/ij5:-j.of  tny^fafe  Religion.  ~] 

20.  You  fay  you  will  conclude  with  ihe 
fayir.gof  your  pritil  Philip y  and  Arcadlm 
zxEph.fiit:  And  i.You  tak*  it  for  gran,  ed 
that  ail  cvnfenteA  to  whut  they  ccntradiEftd 
mt :  But  your  word  is  all  the  proof  of  the 
confequence.  No:hing  more  common,  then 
in  Senates  and  Synods  to  fay  nothing  to 
many  paflages  in  fpceches,  not  contented 
to.  If  no  word  not  conientcd  to  in  any 
mans  fpeech  muft  pafs  without  contradicti- 
on, Senates  and  Synods  would  be  no  wifer 
Societies    then   Billingsgate    affords  ^  nor 

more 


the  Reply  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fee  end  Paper,    irji 

more  harmonious  then  a  Fair  or  vulgar 
rout :  What  confufion  would  contradicti- 
ons make  among  them  ? 

2.  You  turn  me  to  Tom.  2.  pxg.  327* 
AEl.i.  I  began  to  hope  of  fome  expedition 
here:  But  you  tell  me  not  at  all  what  Au- 
thor you  ufe  :  And  in  Binnlus  which  I  ufe, 
the  Tomes  arc  not  divided  into  Afts,  but 
Chapters,  and  piig.  327.  is  long  before  this 
Council.    So  that  I  mufi  believe  you ,  or 
fearch  paper  enough  for  a  weeks  reading  to 
difprove  you  .-This  once  I  will  believe  yon, 
to  fave  me  that  labour  ,  and  fuppofing  all 
rightly  cited  ,  I  reply  ;     1.  Philip  was  not 
the   Council.   You  bear   witnefs   to  your 
felves,  therefore  your  witnefs  is  not  credi- 
ble, Yet  I  have  given  you  inftances  in  my 
"  '■&*]  D    (  ^K'th  I  would  tranfenbe  if  I 
thought  that  you  could   not  as  well  read 
print  asM.  'SO  of  higher  expre-ffions  then 
Caput  and  fnniawent am,  given  to  Andrtvr 
by  Ifjcjsfius,  and  equal  exprefiions  to  others, 
as  well  as  Rome  and  Peter.  And  who  is  igno- 
rant that  knowerh  any  thing  of  Church- 
hiftory,  that  others  were  called  fucceflburs 
of  Teter  as  well  as  the  Bilhop  of  Rome  ? 
And  that  the  CUvts  regni  were  given  to 
him,  is  no  proof  that  they  were  not  given 
alfo  to  all  the  reft  of  the  Apoftles.    And 

where 


17*   The  Re  fly  to  Mr  Johnfons  [econd  Paper. 

where  you  fay  £  Af cadius  condemneth  Ne- 
florius  for  contemning  the  command  of  the 
'dpoftolick,  Sea.  ]  (  You  v  tell  me  not  where 
to  find  it.)  IanTwer  you  ltill,  that  its  long 
fince  your  Sea  begun  to  fwell  and  rage,  but 
if  you  malt  have  us  grant  you  all  thefe  con- 
fequenccs,  £Celefline  commanded \  therefore 
he  jufilj  commanded,  therefore  another  might 
not  as  well  have  commanded  him :  (  as 
one  Paftor  may  do  another,  though  cquail, 
in  the  name  of  Chrift  )  :  and  therefore  he 
hadpower  to  command  without  the  Empire^ 
even  over  all  the  Catholick.  Churchy  and 
therefore  the  Council  was  of  this  mind :  jrea9 
therefore  the  univerfal  Church  was  of  this 
mind^  that  the  Tope  Vvas  its  univerfal  head.] 
You  ftill  are  guilty  of  fporting  about  feri- 
ous  things,  and  moving  pity,  iaftead  of  of- 
fering the  leaft  proof. 

i  Yet  fear  you  not  to  fay  £  that  in  the  time 
of  the  holj  Oecumenical  Councils  of  Ephefus 
^fldChalcedon,  the  universal  cenfentofthe 
whole  Catholic^  Church  was  for  you  in  this 
point.  ]  The  Lord  keep  our  confeiences 
from  being  the  fervants  of  our  opinions  or 
interefts.  i.  Was  the  Popes  Legate  the 
whole  Catholick  Church  ?  2.  Was  there 
one  man  at  either  of  thefe  Councils  but 
within  the  Empire,  yea  a  piece  of  the  Em- 
pire ? 


The  Kef  If  t$  Mr.  JohnfonsfecMd  Paper.     1 7  3 

Pire  ?  So  that  they  were  but  fuch  as  we  now 
call  National  Councils,  that  is,  confifting  on- 
ly of  the  fub je#s  of  one  Republick.  3 .  Did 
the  Council  fpeak  a  word  for  your  power 
without  the  Empire?  4.  Do  they  not  de- 
termine it  fo  exprefly  to  be  of  humane 
right,  that  Bellarmine  hath  nothing  regard- 
abltto  fay  againft  \t(  Can.zS.Conc.Cbalced.) 
but  that  they  fpoke  falfly  ?  And  yet  your 
opinion  or  intereft  hath  tempted  you  to  ap- 
peal, viz.  to  the  Sun  that  there  is  no  fuch 
thing  as  light. 

21.  After  the  conclufion  you  haveafu- 
pernumerary  in  your  Margin ,  from  Greg. 
lib.io.Epift.lo.But  there  is  no  fuch  word  in 
that  Epiftle,  nor  is  it  of  any  fuch  fubjeft. 
But  its  [the  31.  Epftle  its  like  that  your 
leader  ,:meant.     And  there's  no  more  but 
that  a  Btfhop  not  named  (  perfon  or  place  ) 
having  fallen  into  Schifm  voluntarily,  fWore 
never  more  to  depart  from  the  Unity  of  the; 
Catholick  Church,  or  thefeaof  Rome.  But 
1.  So  may  aBifhop  of  the  Roman  province 
do    (  or  Patriarchate )  without   believing 
Rome  to  be  the  Univerfal  Head.    So  might 
one  in  any  other  Province  have  done:  And 
yet  it  follows  not  that  he  ought  to  do  fo,  be- 
caufehe^fo.  You  fee  now  what  all  your 
proofs  arc  come  to  ,   and  how  fhame- 

fully 


174  The  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  [ceondPapcf. 

fully  naked  you  have  kft  your  caufe. 
In  fumm,of  all  the  teftimonies  produced, 
i.  You  have  not  named  one  man  that  was  a 
Papift '(  Pope  Leo  was  the  neareft  of  any 
man)  nor  one  teftimony  that  everaPope 
of  Rome  had  the  Government  of  all  the 
Church  without  the  verge  of  the  Roman 
Empire  •  but  only  that  he  was  to  the  Roman 
Church,  as  the  Archbifhop  of  Canterbury 
to  the  Englifti  Church  :  And  as  between 
Canterbury  and  Tork^  fo  between  Rome  and 
Conftantinople,  there  have  been  contentions 
for  preheminency  :  But  if  I  can  prove  Can- 
terbury to  be  before  Yorl^,  or  Rome  before 
C°nftantinofle ,  that  will  prove  neither  of 
them  to  be  Ruler  at  the  Antipodes,  or  of  all 
the  Chriftian  world.  2.  Much  lefs  have 
you  proved  that  ever  any  Church  was  of  this 
opinion,  that  the  Pope  was  by  Divine  Right 
the  Go vernour  of  all  the  world  *  when  you 
cannot  prove  one  man  of  that  opinion. 
3 .  Much  lefs  have  you  proved  a  fucceffion 
of  fuch  a  Church  from  the  Apoftles,  having 
faid  as  much  as  nothing  concerning  thefirit 
3  00  years.  4.  And  yet  much  lefs  have  you 
proved  ,  that  the  whole  Catholic!^  Church 
was  of  this  o'pinion.  5.  And  lcart  of  all 
have  you  proved,  that  the  whole  Church 
tool^  thttTrimacy  of  Rome,  to  be  of  nsceffity 

it 


The  Reply  to  Mr.  John  Tons  fecond  Paper.  175 

to  the  very  Being  of  the  Church,  and  to  cur 
fdlvAtioa  •,  and  not  only  ad  melius  ejfe,  as  a 
point  of  Order.  So  that  joh  have  left  jo#r 
Caufe  in  fhamefptl  nakednefs,  as  if  yon  hddcon- 
ftjfed,  that  you  can  prove  nothir  g. 

In  the  end  you  return  to  terms.  To  urhtt 
you  fay  about  the  word  |  Chrift'w.ns ]  I  only 
lay,  thac  its  but  equivocally  applied  to  any 
that  profefs  roc  all  the  EfTentialis of  Chri- 
stianity, of  which  Popery  is  none,  anymore 
then  Pride  is. 

About  the  word  [Monarchy^  good  fad- 
,nefs?  do  you  deny  the  Pope  to  be  [  an  impe- 
rious fole  Commander.  m  Which  of  thefcis 
it  thai  you  deny  ?  not  that  he  is  [a  Com- 
mander J  not  that  he  is  imperious^]  not 
that  he  is  [  fule  J  in  his  Soveraignty  !  I 
Would  either  you  or  we  knew  what  you  hold 
deny.  But  perhaps  thj  next  words  fhew 
the  difference  ["  as  Temporal  Kings.  3  But 
th«s  faith  not  a  word  wherein  they  differ 
from  L  Temporal  Kings  ]  :  fure  your  fol- 
lowing words    fhew    not   the   difference. 

1.  Kings  may  !  receive  power  from  Chrifi.^ 

2 .  Kings  mult  rule  [  in  metkntfs,  charity  and 
humility.  But  I  tbink  the  meeknefs,  chanty 
and  humility  of  Popes,  hath  been  far  below 
even  wicked  Kings  (if  cruel  murdering  Chri- 
ftians  for  Religion,  and  fecting  the  world 

on 


1 76    The  Reply  to  Mr.JohnConsfecend  Payer* 

on  fire  may  be  witnefs )  as  your,  own  Hiflo- 
ries  allure  us.  3.  The  Government  of 
Kings  alfo is  for  \_mens eternal  good]  how- 
ever Papifts  would  make  them  but  their  ex- 
ecutioners in  fuch  things.  4.  Brethren,  as 
fuch,  are  no  fubje&s:  and  therefore  if  the 
Pope  Rule  men  but  as  Brethren ,  he  rules 
them  not  by  Governing  authority  at  all. 
5.  Children  to  him  we  are  not;  You  nauft 
mean  it  but  Metaphorically  /  And  what 
mean  you  then?  Is  it  that  he  muft  doit  in 
Love  for  their  good  ?  So  alfo  muft  Kings  : 
So  that  yon  have  yet  expreft  no  difference 
at  all. 

But  our  Queftionis  not  new,  norinun- 
ufuall  terms :  What  Soveraignty  you  claim, 
you  know  or  (hould  know.  Are  you  igno- 
rant that  Bellarmine,  Boverins,  and  ordina- 
rily your  Writers  iabour  to  prove  that  the 
Goverr^ment  of  the  Church  is  Monarchi- 
cal^ and  that  the  Pope  is  the  Monarch?  the 
fupream  Head  and  Ruler,  which  in  Englifh 
is  the  Soveraign.  Are  you  afhamedof  the 
very  Caufe  or  Title  of  it,  which  yoa  will 
have  necefTary  to  our  falvation  ? 
1  Next  you  lay,  that  you  [very  much  dif- 

like  the  Title  of  Vice-Chrij},  as  proud  and  in- 
folent,  and  utterly  dif claim  from  it,  neither 
7v as  it  ever  given  by  *ny  fujficient  authority 

to 


TB*> 


The  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  fecond Paper,    177 

toJofir  Popes ,  or  did  they  ever  accept  of  it. 
Reply.  Now  blefled  be  God  that  makes  fin' 
afhame  to  it  felf,  thai:  the  Patrons  of  ittlare 
fcarce  own  it  without  fome  paint  or  vi- 
zard. 

i.  Is  not  the  very  life  of  the  Caufe  be- 
tween you  and  us,  whether  the  Pop?  be  the 
Univerfal  Head  of  the  Church,  vice  Chrifti,, 
&  vicar itu  Chrifti?  Are  not  thefe  the  moft 
common  titles  that  Papifts  give  them  ,  and 
that  they  take  unto  themfelves  ?  Nay  look 
back  into  your  own  papers  here/w£.6.  whe- 
ther you  fay  not  that  they  are  [_Inft  tinted 
Governonrs  in  Chrifis  place  of  his  whole  Vi- 
ftble  Church.  J  2  Doth  not  Bellarwine  fas  I 
have  cited  elfewhere)  labour  to  prove,  that 
it  is  not  as  an  Apoftle  that  the  Popefucceeds 
Peter,  but  as  a  Head  of  the  Church  in  Chrifts 
Head  ?  Doth  not  Boverim  (  cited  in  my 
Key)  labour  to  prove  him  the  Vicar  of 
Chrift,  and  to  be  Vice  Chrifti  ?  And  what 
fitter  Englifh  have  we  for  .the  Kings  deputy 
in  a  diftant  Kingdom  ,  who  if  Vice  Regit ; 
then  theVice-King?Or  aChancelors  deputy, 
then^the  Vicechancellor\Vice  Chrifti  is  your 
own  common  word,  and  Vicarins Chrifti-, 
none  more  common  fcarce  then  the  latter  : 
And  what  Englilh  is  there  litter  for  this, 
then  the  Vuc-Chrift>  or  Vicar  of  Chrift  ? 

N  It 


178     The  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  fecond Paper. 

It  is  indeed  the  very  term  that  expreffeth 
properly  as  man  can  fpeak,  the  true  point 
end  life  of  the  Controverfic  between  us. 
And  how  could  you  fuffer  your  pen  to  fet 
down  that  the  Popes  did  never  accept  of 
this,  when  it  is  their  own  common  phrafc 
[Vice  Ckrifti.&Vicarim  Cbrifiij  But 
ncre  again  remember  (  and  let  ltbeawit- 
nefs  againlt  you  )  that  you  diflike  and  ut- 
terly difclaim  the  very  name  that  fignifieth 
the  Papal  Power  ,  as  Prowl  and  Infolent. 
And  if  you  abhor  Popery  while  you  tice 
men  to  it,  let  my  foul  abhor  it,  and  let  all 
that  regard  their  fouls  abhor  it.  Bleffed  be 
that  Light  that  hath  brought  it  to  be  num- 
bred  with  the  works  of  darknefs. 

Were  it  not  more  tedious  then  neceflary, 
I  would  cite  you  the  words  £  rice  Chrifii  & 
ricArim  Chrifii  ]  out  of  Popes  and  multi- 
tudes of  your  Writers.    But  alas  thats  not 
the  highcft :  The  rice-Cjod  is  a  Title  that 
they  have  not  thought  infolent,  or  words 
of  the  fame  fignification.  Wopld  you  have^ 
my  proof?  Pardon  it  then  for  proving  your ' 
pen  to  falfe  and  deceitfull  (  thats  not  my ' 
fault.) 

Pope  fulitis  *  the  fecond  in  his  General ' 
Council  at  the  Lacerane,  faith  (  Cont.  Prag~ 
mat.  fan  ft,  monitor,  Binnitu  fa  1, 4+p*l>  5  60.) 

[Though 


iht  Reply  U  Mr. Johnfons /*«/**/  Pdftr.  1 70 

[Though  the  infiitutions  of  fared  Canons> 
holy  fathers,  and  Pofes  $f  Rome  ■  ■  ■  and 
their  Decrees  be  judged  immutable ,  44  made 
by  Divine  infpiration  ;  jet  the  P°peof  RomeB 
who,  though  of  unequal  Merits ,holdeth  the 
place  of  the  eternall  King,  and  the  M-k?r  of 
*M things,  and  all  Laws  en  earth,  may  abro+ 
gate  thefe  decrees  when  they  are  abufed*]  Here 
from  your  Judge  of  faith  ic  felf,  yoii  hear 
[  that  the  Pope  holds  the  place  of  the  eternal 
King,  the  Maker  of  all  things  and  Ljws.] 

Pope  Sixtm  £*arttu  in  pajf agio  five  Bul- 
la contra  Turcos ,  fent  to  Philip  Palatine 
Eleftor  148 1,  in  Breheri  Tom,  ipag.  162. 
Vol.  2.  faith  "  V'riverfos  Chriflianos  Prin* 
cipes,  ac  omnes  Chrifiifiddcs  requirere,  eifqut 
mandare  Vice  Dei ,  cujtu  locum ,  quamvk 

'mmcriti  tenemm   in  terrii  J  that  is, 

ve  are  conftrained  ["  to  require  allChrifiian  s 
Princes,  and  all  believers  of  Chrifi,  and  to 
ommandthem,  in  thefiead  of  God,  whofe  place 
n  earth  we  hold,  though  undeferving  «J 

'  lerc  is  a  Vice-God,  holding  his  place  on 
irth,  and  commanding  all  Princes  and 
'hnftians  to  a  War  againft  the  Turks  in 

ods  ftead 

I  know  to  a  particular  people  Gods  Em- 
IfTadours  arc  (aid  to  fpeak  in  his  name  and 

ad,  at  if  Cod  did  befeech  men  by  us, 

N  %  aCV, 


1 80   Tfa  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  [econd  Paper. 

2  Ctr.  5. 19.  But  this  is  only  as  to  a  narrow 
and  limited  EmbafTage  ,  not  that  they 
hold  Gods  place  on  earth  ,  as  Rulers  over 
the  Univerfal  Church,  &c. 

The  fame  Pope  Sixtns^.  faith  ibid.pag^ 
1 63 .  [Sclafupereft  Romana  fedes  :  fedes  uti- 
que  immaculati  agni'  fedes  Vivtntisinfecu- 
U  (ecvlorum:  H&c  quippe  pradiflas  i'atri- 
archales  gcnuit  Ecclefias  •,  qua  quafl  filiain 
ejus  gremio  refldebant ,  &  in  circuitntan- 
quamfamuldin  ipfius  adfiflebant  obfequio.'* 
that  is,  'Onlj  the  Rowan  [eat  remaineth : 
even  the  feat  of  the  Immaculate  Lambe  :  the 
jeat  of  him  that  liveth  for  ever  (  my  flefh 
trembleth  to  write  thefe  things  )  :  This  did 
beget  the  fore f aid  Patriarchal  Churches  (  no- 
torious falfhood ! )  which  re  fled  as  daughters 
in  her  bofome^  and  as  fervants  flood  About  in 
her  obedience.  J  Here  you  fee  from  the  Pope 
<  himfelf,  that  the  other  Patriarchs  are  his 

fervants,  and  fo  to  obey  hirn^  and  that  Rome 
begot  them  all  (that  were  before  it,  except 
Conflantimyle )  and  neither  made  Chriitiam 
nor  Patriarchs  by  it,  and  that  Rome  is  now 
become  the  feat  of  the  Immaculate  Lai:  be, 
and  of  him  that  liveth  for  ever.  J  Truly 
the  reading  of  your  own  Hiftorians.  and 
the  Popes  Bulls,  &c.  hath  more  perlwaded 
fne,  that  the  Pope  is  Antichrift,  then  rhe 

Apo* 


The  Reply  to  Mr  Jon  n  ions  fee ond  Paper.    1 8  r 

Apocaiyps  haih  done  (  becaufe  I  diftriifted 
my  underftanding  of]  it.) 

Benedittus  de  Benediftis  wrote  a  Book 
againft  Dr.  Wbittal^r,  to  prove  that  its  as 
falfe  that  the  Pope  is  Anrichrifl:,  as  that 
Chriit  is  Antichrift,  and  dedicated  it  to  Pope 
Paul.$.  with  this  inscription,  Paul.  5.  Vice 
Deo :  To  Paul  5.  the  Vice-God.  3  printed 
2XBononia  1608. 

Caraff/s  Thefes printed  at  Naples  1609. 
had  the  fame  infeription  £  Paulo  5.  Vice 
Deo  ]  t9  Paul%.  the  .Vice-God. 

Alcazar  in  Apccal.  in  carmine  ad  Johan- 
nem  Apoftolum ,  faith  of  the  fame  Pope 
Paul.  5.  L  SLlern  numinis  inftar,  Vera  edit 
jrietas.  m      [_  whom  M  *  God  true  piety  adores. J 

Chriftofher.  Adarcellm  in  his  Oration  be- 
fore Pope  Julius  2.  in  the  approved  Coun- 
cil at  Lateranc,  Sejf.  4.  (and  you  take  nofc 
contradidmg  to  be  contenting;  and  verily 
to  fuch  blafphemy  in  a  Council5fo  it  is )  latch 
thus  £  Quum  tantdt  reipublicA  unicus  at  que 
fupremus  Princepsfueri*  inftitutns,  beatijfimc 
font  if  ex,  cui  fumma  data  pot  eft  as,  addivi- 

num  injunttum  imperium,  &c.  ]  -s &  an- 

tc\_fub  tuo  imperio  &  Q  ZJnus  princeps 
ejuifummam  in  terris  habeatpoteftatem.  ]  But 
thele  arc  fmall  things  £  Tcque  omnps  tvi, 
omnium  fcculorum,  omnium  gentium  Printi- 

N   3  pern 


1  Si  The  Re  fly  to  Mr.  Johnfons  fee  end  Taper. 

fern  &  Caput  appellant.  ]  But  yet  £  the 

Prince  and  Head  of  all  ages  and  Nations  ] 

is  too  low  [  Cur  a  Pater  beatiffime  utjfonf* 

tut,  forma  decorque  redeat7\  But  yet  to  make 

the  Church  £  his  fpoufe  J  is  nothing  \Cura 

denique  ut falutem  quam  dedifii  nobis,  &vi- 

tam  &  fpiritum  non  amittamus  :  Tu  tnim 

Pfftor,tu  wedictu,  tugubcrnator,  tucultor, 

tu  denique  alter  J)e$u  in  terru.  3  That'  is, 

£  See  that  we  lofe  net  the  health  that  thou  hafi 

given  us,  and  the  life  andfpirit.    For  thou  art 

the  Psfiur,  the  Phjfician^^to  conclude,  thou 

art  another  God  on  earthy 

If  you  fay  that  the  Pope  accepteth  not 
this  ;  lanfwer  it  was  in  an  oration  fpoken. 
in  a  Generall  Council,  in  his  prcfence,  with- 
out contradiction,  yea  by  his  own  com- 
mand, as  the  Oratour  profefTeth  £  fujfifii 
tuy  Pater f anile,  &  par  hi  \  [  you  command- 
tdme,  Holj  Father  ,  and  J  obeyed,  ]    Binnius 

VI*  562>  563,  564.    you    may  find  all 
this. 

JuGlcJf.  extravag.  Joan.  2l.de  Verb*  fig* 
nific.  ctp  Ch*>  inter, in  Glffa:  Credere  Don*i- 
nn&niftrum  Dettm  Papam  conditorem  ditta 
Secret  du  drift  ins,  non  potulffe  ft.tuereprout 
fiatuit,  hareticum  cenfeatur.  \  So  that  by 
your  Law  we  muft  believe  the  power  of 
your  Lord  God  the  Pope,  or  be  hereticks. 

If 


The  Reply  to  Mr.  ]o\\v\toTis[ec6tidPdftr.  183 

If  you  meet  with  any  Impreffions  that  leave 
ouc  [  Deum  ]  cake  Rivets  note  [haberiin  tdi- 
tione  format*  jtjfu  Greg.  13.  d  corecloribus 
Pontificiisy  nee  in  cenfuris  Gl  jf<e  jujf*  Pit  5, 
tditis,  qnjt  in  expurgatorio  indict  habentur^ 
nomen  JDeierafumfuiffe.  1 

Pope Nicolas  $.de  ELtt.  cap.  fundament  a 
in 6.  faith  [that Peter  yets  ^ffumedinto  tht 
Society  of  the  individual!  Trinity.] 

Angelus  Poli:.  in  Orat.ad  Alex.  6.  Pcnti- 
ficcm  ad  Divinitatem  iff  am  fublatum,  afferit: 
Hefairh,  the  Pope  was  taken  up  to  the  God- 
head itfelf. 

Ac  the  ibrefaid  Council  at  Laterant,  An- 
ionics Pucciusinzn  Oration  herore /,*•<>  the 
tenth  m  the  Council,  and  after  publilhed  by 
his  favour  y  faid  f  Diving  tut  Majtfiatis 
ctnfpettus,  rutilante  cujusfulgore  imbecitlcs 
oeulimei  callgant.  ]  His  eyes  were  darkened 
Vtith  beholding  the  Popes  Divine  Majefiy9\ 
None  concradidcd  this. 

In  th  j  fame  Council,  Simon  Befnius  Mo- 
drufienfis  Epifcopus,  in  an  Oauon  Sejf.  6. 
calls  Leo  [The  Lien  of  tht  Tribe  o/Juda, 
thtroot  of  Jcfle,  him  Whom  thej  had  looked 
forastbeSdviour.  ] 

In  the  fame  Council,  JVjf.  to  Stephanns 
Patracenfis  Archie f  faith  [  Rtgts  in  compem 
dibus  mtgnitudinis  magni  Regis  liga,  &  ner 

N  4  If  i  U» 


184  T&e  Rtf>ht0Mr.JohnforLsfeco#dP<ifer. 

biles  in  manic  is  f err  e  is  cenfurarum  conftringe> 
qmniam  tibi  data  eft  omnis  poteftas  in  cceh 

&  in  terra  - '1  and  before  [_  qui  totnm 

dicit,  nihil  excludit.  ]  So  that  all  Power  in 
heaven  and  earth  is  given  to  the  Pope. 

Paulus  osEmilius  dc  geftis  Francorum, 
lib.  J.  ialth,  that  the  Sicilian  Embaftadours 
lay  proftrateatthe  Pcpes  feet,  and  thrice  re- 
peated, [Then  that  mktft  away the  fins  of  the 
world,  have  wercy  en  us.] 

And  prove  to  me  that  ever  any  fuch  man 
was  reprehended  for  thefc  things  by  the 
Popes  of  late. 

Augufl.  Triumphus  in  Prtfat.  fum.  ad 
Joan.  22.  faith  £  That  the  Popes  power  is 
infinite:  for  great  is  the  Lord,  and  great  is. 
his  poweV  ,  and  of  his  greatnefs  there  is  no 
tnd. 

And  qu.  3  6.  ad  6.  he  faith  that  [  the  Pope 
infiuenceth  (  or  give th  )  the  Motion  of  dirctti- 
cn,  and  the  fenfe  of  cognition ,  into  all  the 
JMembers  of  the  Church,  for  in  him  we  live 
and  move  and  have  our  being /] 

And  a  little  after  he  faith,  [The  will  of 
God,  and  conjcquentlj  of  the  Pope,  who  is  his 
Vicar,  is  the  fir  ft  andhigheft caufe  of  all  cor- 
poral andfpiritual  motions.  ) 

Would  you  have  any  more  witnefs  of  the 
falfhood  of  your  words:faith  Zabare/la  LC. 

lib. 


The  Reply  te  Mr  Johnfons  fecond Paper.  1 85 

lib.  defchifm.  Innocent.  7.  &  Bened.pag.  20. 
"  For  this  long  time  pafl,  and  even  to  this  dajy 
thoje  that  would  pleafe  the  Popes,  pervaded 
them  that  they  could  do  all  things :  and  fu 
that  they  might  do  what  they  pleafed,  even 
things  unlawfully  and  fo  more  than  God.^ 

Antonius  parte  3.  tit.  21,  cap.  5*  >-4- 
fairh  The  Pope  receiveth  from  the  faith- 
full  adorations  ^profkrations  y  andkjjfes  of  hu 
feet,  which  Peter  permitted  not  from  Corne- 
lius ,  nor  the  Angel  from  John  the  Evan- 

lelift.l 

•  Cardinalis  Bertrandus  TraEl.  de  origin. 
jurifd.  q.  4.  num.  4.  (  &jn  Glof.  extragxom. 
1.  i.fol.  12.)  faith  Q  Becaufe  fefus  Chrifi 
the  [on  of  God  while  he  was  in  this  world,  and 
even  from  eternity  ,  was  a  Natural!  Lord, 
and  by  Naturall  right  could  pronounce  the 
fentence  of  depofition  on  Emperours,  or  any 
others ,  and  the  fentence  of  damnation  ,  and 
any  other,  as  upon  the  Perfons  tyhich  he  had 
created,  and  endowed  with  naturall  andfnr 
gifts,  and  alfo  did  cenferve  -5  it  is  his  will  that 
en  his  account  his  Vicar  may  do  the  fame 
things.  For  the  Lord  fljould  not  feem  dif erect 
(that  I  may  Jheakjwith  his  reverence)  unlefs 
he  had  left  behind  him  one  Vicar  that  can  do  all 
thefe  things.  3 

Tell  me  now  whether  you  faid  true  in 

the 


i$6  The  Reply  toMr.Jo\\Xifons[econd  Paper] 

the  Paragraph  about  the  Title  Vicc-Chrift  ? 
yea,  whe  her  it  be  not  much  more  that  hathj  P 
been  given  and  accepted  ? 

But  what  name  clfe  is  it  that  you  agree  on 
*9  proper  to  exprefs  the  power  which  is  con- 
travened ?  I  know  no  name  fo  fitted  to  the 
reall  controverfie  ?  And  therefore  in  dif- 
claiming  the  Name,  for  ought  1  know,  you 
difclaim}OurCaufe,and  confe fs  the  fhame 
of  Popery.  If  he  that  feeks  to  be  King  of 
England^  (bould  fay  he  difclaimeth  the  Title 
t>f  King  as  infultnt  and  proud,  doth  he  not 
allow  me  to  conclude  the  like  of  the  thing, 
which  he  concludeth  of  the  proper  name? 
The  name  £  Papa  3  [  Pope  ]  you  know  (its 
like)  was  ufually  by  the  ancients  given  to 
other  Biftiops  as  well  as  to  him  of  Rome ; 
and  therefore  that  cannot  diftinguifhhim 
from  other  men  ;  The  fame  I  may  fay  of 
the  Titles  Q  Dominut ,  Pater  fanttiffimus, 
beatiffimu*  ,Dei  awantijfimtu,  and  many  fuch 
like  J And  for  ["  Jummm  pontifex  J  Ba- 
ronies tells  you  (MartjrcL  Rom.  April. 9. ) 
that  ["  it  tpos  the  ancient  cufiome  of  the 
Church  to  call  all  Bijhops,  not  only  Pontifices, 
Popes,  but  the  Highefi  or  Chief  Popes  3  citing 
Hierom.  Ep- 99.  And  for  the  word  Headof 
the  Church,  or  of  all  Bifiops,  it  hath  been 
given  to  Confiantinople ,  that  yet  claimeth 

not 


The  Reflj  to  Mr.  John  ions  [tconi  Paper.     1 87 

not  (  as  JVV/w  tells  you  )  neither  a  prece- 
dency zoRcme,  nor  an  Univerfail  Govern- 
ment,much  lefs  as  the  Vice-Chrifl.  And  that 
the  Bifhopof  Ccnfiantinople  was  called  \the 
jffcftelic  £  Vniverfal  Bijhop  3  Baroniu*  te- 
flifittbfrom  an  eld  Vaticane  monument,  which 
on  the  other  fide  calls  Agcpttus  [Epifcopo- 
rum  Princeps.  ]  The  Title  lApcftJicl^]  was 
ufually  given  to  others.    Hieruftlem  was; 
called       the  mother   of  the  Churches.  \    A 
Council   gave  Ccnfiantinople    the  Title  of 
[  Vniverfal  Patriarch  ]  which  though  Gre- 
gory pronounced  fo  impious  and  intolerable 
Joranjto  ufe,  jet  the  following  Pop. s  made 
an  agreement  with  Conftantinople,  that  their 
Pttriarch  fhould  Keep  his  Title  of  Vniver- 
fal Patriarch']  and  the  Bifhop  of  Rcmebc 
called  £  the  Vniverfal  Pope\  3  which  can 
fignific  nothing  proper  to  him  (  the  name 
Pope  being  common  )  more  then  £  Vniver- 
fal Patriarch~]doth.  The  Foundations, and 
Pillars  of  the  Church,  and  the  Apoftles  fuc- 
ceffors,  yea  Peters  fucceflfors  ,  were  Titlei 
given  to  others  as  well  as  him  :  and  more 
then  thefe.   It  being  therefore  the  point  in 
controverfie  between  us,   whether  the  Bi- 
(hopof  Rome,  be  in  the  place  of  Chriftor 
as  his  Vicar,  the  Head,  Monarch,  or  Go- 
rernour  of  the  Church  unircrfal  ^  and  the 

tern* 


l8S    The  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  fecond  Paper. 

terms  £  Vice  Clorifii  &  Vicarim  C  hrifti  ]| 
being  thole  chat  Popes  and  Papifts  chooie  to| 
(ignifie  iheir  claim  ,  what  other  {hould  I 
ufe  ? 

As  to  what  you  fay  of  theCouncilofCon- 
fiance  (  which  you  muft  fay  alfo  of  Bafil^  and 
of  the  Frenth  Church,  Venetians,  &cj  you 
pretend  the  doubt  to  be  only  between  Ordi- 
nary and  extraordinary  Governours.  But 
i.  of  old  the  Councils  called  Generall  (in- 
deed but  of  one  Principality  )  were  more 
ordinary,  then,  now  the  Pope  hath  brought 
them  to  be:  fandl  blame  him  not,  if  he 
will  hold  his  greatnefs,to  take  heed  of  them.) 
2.  The  way  not  to  have  been  extraordina- 
ry, if  the  Council  of  Conftance  had  been  in- 
fallible, or  of  fuffitient  power ,  who  de- 
creed that  there  (hould  be  one  every  ten 
years.  3 .  The  Councils  that  continue  fo 
many  years  as  that  at  Trent  did ,  are  then 
become  an  Ordinary  Government.  4.  What 
is  given  to  the  Church  Reprefentative,  is  by 
many  of  you  given  to  the  Church  reall  or 
cffentiall  (  as  you  call  it )  which  is  ordinari- 
ly cxiftent ,  only  not  capable  of  exerting 
the  power  it  hath  ;  The  fingulU  major,  at 
univerfis  minor ,  is  no  rare  do&rine  with 
you.  5.  But  let  it  be  as  extraordinary  as 
you  pleafe,  if  while  thefe  Councils  fit,  the 

Pope 


the  Reply  u  Mr.JohnfonsfectnJPdper*    189 

Pope  lofc  his  Headftiip,  your  Church  is  then 
two  Churches  fpecifically  diftind,  and  the 
form  of  it  changeth  when  a  Council  fitteth; 
which  is  a  two-headed,  mutable  Church, 
not  like  the  Spoufe  of  Jefus  Chrift.    6.  As 
your  Popes  are  faid  to  live  in  their  conftitu- 
tions,  and  Laws,  when  the  perfon  dyeth  -, 
and  your  Church  is  not  thought  by  you  to 
die  with  them  ^  fo  why  may  not  Councils 
do  ?  The  Laws  of  Councils  live  when  they 
(it  not ,  and  the   French  think  that  thefe 
Laws  are  above  the  Pope  •,  though  T  fhewed 
you  even  now  that  luliusl.  in  Ccnc.  Later. 
concluded  otherwife  of  Decrees ,  and  the 
Council  of  the  Popes  power.     7.  If  a  Na- 
tion be  Governed  by  Triennial!  (  and  fo  De- 
cenniall    )    Parliaments     as    the    higheft 
power,  and  Councils  of  State  in  the  inter- 
vals, who  (hall  be  accountable  to  Parlia- 
ments ^  will  you  fay  that  thefe  Parliaments 
are   extraordinary ,  and  not  the  ordinary 
Soveraign?  No  doubt  they  are.    And  the 
Council  of  State  is  not  the  Soveraign,  but 
the  chief  Officer  or  Magiftrate  for  executi- 
on in  the  intervals, 


Having  begun  this  Reply  May  2.  I  was 
again  taken  off  it  about  May  5,  or  6.  And 

about 


t$0   The  R'plytt  Mr. ]ohnfon$ [tcotid Paper a 

about  May  n.  I  received  a  Letter  from 
you,  wherein  you  tell  me  of  a  quarter  of  a 
years  expe&ation.    Be  patient  good  Sir  / 
Thcfe  matters  concern  Ecernity ;  Believe  itt 
I  have  fomewhat  elk  to  do  of  greater  haft 
and  moment.    Even  fomc  of  your  own 
friends  find  me  more  work.  What  if  ten  of 
youwriretome  at  once,  is  it  fair  for  each 
one  of  you  to  call  for  an  anfwer  as  haftily  as 
if  I  had  but  one  in  hand  ?  This  is  not  my 
cafe,  but  it  is  more  then  thu9.  Fear  not  left 
I  give  you  over,  till  you  firft  prove  the  de- 
fercer,  and  turn  your  back  (if  God  enable 
mc: )  Only  I  muft  tell  you,  that  I  take  it 
for  a  flight  already,  and  a  forfaking  of  your 
Caufe,  chat  you  turn  to  thefe  rambling  im- 
pertinent citations  and  difcourfes,  in  ftead 
of  a  Syllogifticall  arguing  the  cafe,  and  that 
when  you  had  fpoken  fo  much  for  it.  I  have 
here  (  that  you  may  have  no  caufe  pf  exce- 
ption, nor  pretence  of  caufe  )  in  this  Paper 
replyed  to  your  laft  •,  and  in  another  proved 
the  Vifibility  of  our  Church  fyllogiftically  * 
and  (  as  overplus )  alfo  difproved  yours,  and 
proved  it  to  be  an  upftart ,  the  fprout  of 
Pride,  upon  occafion  of  the  greatnefs  of  the 
City  of  Rome ,  and  of  the  forming  the 
Church  to  the  Civil  State,  in  that  one  Em- 
pire, If  now  you  will  deny  to  do  the  like,  I 

M 


The  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  fecond  Paper.    19 1 

(hall  conclude  you  fly  and  forfake  your 
Cau  fe.  Befides  your  Rejoinder  to  this  Re- 
ply, I  principally  expeft  that  you  fyllogifti- 
cally  (  in  clofe  and  faithfull  Arguing  )  do 
prove  to  us  the  Affirmative  of  thefe  Quefti* 
cms  following. 

Qu.  [  Whether  the  Church,  of  -which  the 
fubjettsof  the  Pope  Are  Members,  hath  bee* 
vi fib le  'ever  fince  the  dayes  of  Chrift  on  earthy 
In  which  thefe  three  ^uefiions  are  involved^ 
Vvhich  you  have  to  prove  :  I.  Whether  the 
Papacy,  that  is,  the  Vniverfal  Afonarchjyor 
Soveraign  Government,  or  Vict-Chriflflip  of 
the  Pope  (  ta\e  which  term  you  lil^e  )  hark 
continued  from  Chrifls  dayes  till  now.  2  Whe~ 
thcr  all  the  Catholic!^  Church  did  fiillfubmit 
to  it,  andvperejubjtftsofthe  Pope.  I.  whe- 
ther thofethat  didfubmit  to  it,  did  take  it  to  be 
tecejfary  to  the  Btingof  the  Church,  and  the 
alvationof  all  believers,  or  only  to  the  more 
caceableand  better  being.  J  If  you  call  for 
,atalogucs,or  proof  of  Vifible  fucceflion, 
nd  pretend  fo  high  to  it  your  felves,  and 
et  will  give  us  none  when  we  importune 
,outoit,  you  tell  us  that  you  feek  not  to 
eveal  the  truth  and  Church  but  to  hide 
hem.  1  urge  you  the  harder  (  though  it 
lay  fcem  immodeft )  becaufe  as  the  Caufc 
och  he  upon  your  proof  here,  fo  I  know 

yom 


"•  J 


1 9  i   7^  2?<?/>/y  to  Mr.  JohnfottS  /ew#i  P^r. 

you  cannot  do  it  :  Pardon  my  confidence 
J  know  you  can  do  no  more  then  Baromus 
B ell ar mine,  Bellinger ,&c.  fet  together  hav< 
done  :  and  therefore  I  fay,  I  know  you  can 
not  do  it.  I  know  yoar  Vicc-Chrift  (  ] 
doubt  the  Antichrift  )  is  of  humane  introdu- 
ction, fringing  out  of  a  Nationall  ( I  mean 
Imperial! )  Primacy,  which  alfo  was  of  hu- 
mane invention.  It  was  but  one  Civil  Go- 
vernment or  Commonwealth,  in  which  your 
Bifliop  had  his  Primacy,  and  that  long  with- 
out a  Governing  power.  And  this  Nationa 
Primacy,  becaule  of  the  greatnefs  of  the 
Empire,  was  at  laft  called  Univerfal  t  Anc 
even  this  was  long  after  the  dayes  of  Chrifl 
( fome  hundreds  of  years  )  a  ftranger  in 
the  Church ,  nnlefs  as  the  Greatnefs  :of  the 
Church  of  Rome ,  and  advantages  of  the 
place,  did  give  that  Chuf  ch  fuch  authority 
as  arifeth  from  magnitude,  fplendour,  ho- 
nour, and  accidental  advantages  from  the 
populoufnefs,  wealth,  and  glory  of  the  City 
of  Rome. 

The  carnall  Church  is  led  by  the  Vice. 
Chritl,  the  earthly  Prince  of  Pride,  con- 
tending in  the  world  for  command  andfu- 
periority  •,  and  profecuting  his  Caufe  with 
Strappados,  fire,  fword  ,  and  gunpowder, 
when  Chrift  gave  no  Pallor  a   Coercive 

power,! 


The  Reply  t*  Mr.  John  Tons  fecond  Paper,    ig* 

power,   to  touch  mens  bodies  or  eftates. 
The  true  fpirituall  Church  is  Headed  and 
commanded  by  Jefiis  Chrift  the  Prince  of 
Peace,  and  rknoweth  no  other    Univerfal 
Head,  becaufeno  other  hath  either  Capa- 
city or  Authority.  It  obeyeth  his  Laws  •  and 
learneth  of  him  to  be  charitable ,  patient, 
meek,  and  lowly  •,  and  wonders  notater- 
rours  and  divisions  on  earth,  nor  therefore 
aceufeth  the  providence  of  God  ;  but  know- 
eth  by  faith ,  that  the  Univerfal  Judge  of 
Controverfies  is  at  the  door,  and  that  it  is 
but  a  very  little  while,  and  we  fhall  fee  that 
the  Church  had  an  Univerfal  Head,  that  was 
alone  fufficient  for  his  work-,  for  h:  that 
cometh  will   come,  and   will  not  tarry; 
Amefl,  Even  fo  come  Lord  Jefus  / 

Sir,  I  defire  you  prefently  to  fend  me 
word,  whether  you  will  by  clofe  Syllogifti- 
call  arguing,  prove  the  fucceflive  viability 
of  your  Church  as  Papal,  or  not,  that  I  may 
know  what  to  expert? 

And  once  more  I  pray  you  take  the  help 
of  the  ableft  of  your  party,  both  that  I  may 
not  be  fo  troubled  with  wrong,  or  imperti- 
nent allegations,  and  that  I  may  be  fure  that 
your  inefficient  arguings  are  not  from  any 
imperfeftion  of  the  pcrfon,but  of  the  Caufe. 

O  If 


s 


IP4  The  Reply  to  Mr  Johnfons  ftconi  Paper. 

If  you  meet  in  thcfe  Papers  with  any  paf- 
fa^es  which  you  think  too  confident  and 
earneft^  I  befeech  you  charge  them  not  with 
uncharitablenefs  or  paflion,  for  I  hope  it 
proceeded  not  from  either  ^  butlconfefsl 
am  inclined  to  fpeak  confidently  where  I  am 
certain ,  and  to  fpeak  ferioufly  about  the 
things  of  God ,  which  are  of  everlafting 
confequence. 


May  18.  1659^ 


For  Mr«  William  hhnfori. 


THE 

SECOND 

P     A     R    T: 

Wherein   the   fuccefsive 

Vifibility  of  the  Church,  of 
which  the  Proteftants  are 
chief  Members ,  is  clearly 
proved  *.  And  the  Papifts  ex- 
ceptions againft  it  confuted. 


4 


LONDON,  m 

Printed  in  the  year  1 660] 


ij>7 


:  $3fe$3&W& 


Qu.  Whether  the  Churchy  cf  which  the 
treteftants  are  Members^  have  been 
Vtftble  ever  fine e  the  dajes  of  Cbrtfi  on 
earth?  Aff. 

He  terms  explained. 

i .  [The  Church  3  fometime 
fignifieth  a  particular  Congre- 
gation adually  met,  or  aflbci- 
atcd  for  fuch  perfonal  meet- 
ing ,  for  Communion  in  Gods  worlhip. 
2.  Sometime  it  fignifieth  an  Aflbciacton  of 
Churches,  and  that  cither  of  iewer,  or  of 
more,  as  they  have  opportunity  of  Com- 
munion or  correfpondency  by  their  Paftors-, 
and  alfo  the  Aflemblies  of  the  Paftors  of 
the  particular  Churches  fo  afTociated.  Scri- 
pture ufeth  it  in  the  firft  fenfe,  and  Later 
cuftome  (  whether  Scripture  alfo  I  omit)  in 
the  later.  3 .  Botlfrgcripture  and  Cuftome 
have  ufed  the  wor#te>  fignifio  the  Church 
Univerfal,  of  which  all  particular  Churches 
are  Members.  This  is  [  the  Church'}  that 
we  fpeak  of  in  the  Qaeftion. 

Defin.  The  Univerfal  Church,  of  which 

O  3  the 


98    The  fucccfsive  Vifibility  of  the  Church 

the  Proteftams  profefs  thcmfelv^s  Members, 
\s ,T he  Kingdom e  of  Jefus  Chrifi:  or Jthe 
Whole  company  of  Believers  (  or  true  Chr'%- 
ftians  )  upon  earth,  fubjetted  to  fef  its  Chrifi 
their  Head."]  The  conititutive  parts,  or  the 
Relate  and  Correlate  are,  -(  as  in  every  Po- 
litick Body )lhepars  Jmperans.znd  parsfub- 
dita :  which  is  Chrifi  and  Chrifiians.  The  . 
form  confifteth  in  the  nautuall  Relation.  The 
End  is  the  common  good  of  the  Church, 
a-nd  the  glory  of  the  Head,  and  the  accom- 
plifhmentof  the  .will  of  God. 

2.  [  The  Proteftants  J   Be  fin.  £  Prote- 
ctants are  Chrifiians  prote fling    again fiy  or 
difowning  Popery  .1  The  word  \_PrctefianC\ 
expreflech  not  the  ejfence  of  our  Religion. 
And  therefore  it  mull  not  denominate  the 
Universal  Church,  of  which  we  are  Mem- 
bers :  we  are  not  to  call  it  £  A  Proteftant 
Univcrfai Church.]]  Nor  doth  itfigniiiean 
infef  arable  proper  accident.    For  when  the 
Cathohck  Church  had  no  Popery  ,  there 
\vas  none  to  proteft  againft,  and  therefore 
there  could  be  no  Proteftants.    And  Ethi- 
opia, India,  and  other  Nations  that  never 
had  Popery,  or  thofe  Nations  that  never 
heard  of  it,  have  no  occafion  to   proteft 
againftit.  Nor  doth  itfignifie  any  Pofitive 
■pari  (  dits&ly  )  of  our  Religion:  but  only 

the 


ef  which  m  are  Members yp roved.      jpp 

the  Negation  ,  or   Rejection  of  Popery  ; 
Even  as  when  a  man  is  called  £  Homo  purga- 
tHSy  fanatns,  liber  atns%  a  lepra,  pefte,  tabe, 
&c.  \    a  man  purged,  healed^freed  from  the 
leprofie,  plague,  consumption,  &c.  it  is  no 
pofitive  part,  nor  infeparable  proper  acci- 
dent, much  lefs  any  eflential  part  of  the 
man,  that  is  fignified  by  the  word   \  Healed, 
Pureed,  dzc.      Nor  is  it  necefTary  in  order 
to  the  proving  him  £  a  man]  or  []  a  health- 
ful] man,  '    to  prove  that  he  was  ever  [a 
purged,  or  healed  man.  ]  We  undertake 
not   therefore  to  prove  that  there  have 
been  al way es  p rote ft ants,  that  is,  men/Vo- 
te fling  again  ft  Popery  :    Nor  have  we  any 
need,  in  order  to  the  proof  of  our  Thefis, 
to  prove  that  the  Catholick  Church  hath  all 
been  free  from  Popery  in  all  ages,  or  in  any 
age  fince  the  Apoftles,  no  more  then  that  it 
hath  been  free  from  Pride,  Ambition,  or 
Contention.    (  But  yet  we  (hall  do  it  ex 
abundanti. )  The  Religion  then  of  a  Prote- 
ibnt  is  Chriftianity ,  and  he  knoweth  and 
owneth  no  other.  Which  is  called     the  Pro- 
tectant  Religion  ]   as   cleanfed  from  Po- 
pery. 

[.Members  ]  that  is,  true  integral  parts. 

[Of  which— are-]  By  Profeffion.  We 
profefs  our  felves  to  be  of  no  other  Church. 

O  4  And 


200    The  [uccefsive  Fifibilitj  cf  the  Church 

And  before  men,  a  man  is  to  be  taken  to  be 
of  that  Religion  and  Church  of  which  he 
profeffeth  himfelf  to  be,  till  he  be  proved 
falfeinthat  Profeffion.  It  a  Papift  affirm 
himfelf  a  member  of  the  Roman  Church,  in 
difputing  with  him  we  will  take  it  for  grant- 
ed that  he  is  fo-  every  man  being  beft  ac- 
quainted with  his  own  mind,  and  fitteft  to 
defcribe  the  Religion  which  he  owns.  So 
that  two  things  I  here  include,  i.  It  is  on- 
ly fucha'Caiholick  Church  that  hath  been 
{till  viiible,  £  that  Proteftants  own.]  2. And 
only  fuch  that  really  they  are  of,  their  pro- 
feffion being  valid. 

Note  alfo,  that  it  is  not  direftly  the  inex~ 
ifiency  by  internal  invifible  faith,  that  is  in 
que(tionaniongus,orthacI  mean:  but  the 
ir.exiftency  by  external  Vifible  Profeffion. 
Bellarmine  thinks  the  bare  Profejfors  that 
are  wicked,  are  beft  termed  £  Dead  mem- 
bers ]  and  £  the  true  Profejfors ,  £  Living 
members  ]  we  will  not  itick  needlefly  on 
words ;  We  take  the  Living  members  only 
to  be  in  find:  propriety  members  ^  but  Sin- 
cerity and  Hypocrifie  being  known  only  to 
God  and  the  poffeflbrs,  we  fpeak  of  Pro- 
fejfors as  Profeffors  abftraftively  from  their 
Sincerity  or  Hjpocrijie. 

[Hath  been  Vifible.]    1.  Not  vifible  to 

man 


of  which  wt  Ate  Members,  frevtd.      101 

man  in  its  Internal  faith  ^  but  in  its  external 
Trofefsion. 

2.  Not  Vifible  at  once  to  any  one  man : 
for  no  man  can  fee  all  the  Chriftian  world  at 
once :  But  Vifible  in  its  parts,  borh  in  Con- 
gregations and  individual  perfons. 

3.  Not  Vifible  in  the foundnefs  of  its  pre- 
fixed faith  unto  Infidels  and  Heretic ks : 
For  they  cannot  fee  that  faith  to  be  found, 
which  they  take  to  be  fabialous  and  falfe  ; 
But  Vifible  in  the  foundnefs  of  its  profeffed 
faith  to  themfelves,  that  know  the  foundnefs 
of  faith. 

4.  Not  Vifible  in  the  excellent  degree  of 
foundnefs  in  the  better  pares,  unto  the  cor- 
rupter or  infirmer  parts  :  For  though  de 
fatto  they  may  know  what  Doftrine  the 
better  part  do  hold  (as  Infidels  know  what 
Dodxine  the  Church  holdeth  )  yet  they 
know  it  not  to  be  true  and  iuund  in  the 
points  wherein  they  differ. 

And  note  again,  that  it  is  not  the  Vifi- 
bility'  of  every  accident  of  the  Church, 
nor  of  every  Truth  or  duty  that  is  but  of  the 
Integrity  of  Religion  r  and  ncceffary  only 
■ad  meliiu  ejfe  Ecclefia,  to  the  Better  being  of 
theChurch,  but  it  is  the  [_Vifibility  of 
the  Church  that  we  fpeak  of. 

Laftly,  it  is  the  Body  and  not  the  Hesd, 

u  h  fc 


20  2     The  faccefsive  Viftbility  of  the  Church 

whofe  Vifibillty  is  in  Queftion  by  us.Though 
•  the  Headatfo  is  truly  Vifible  in  Heaven  \  and 
Vifit*i  or  feen  to  the  moll  excellent  Trium- 
phant part  of  his  Body,  who  are  fitteft  to  be 
his  Courtier's,  and  in  hisprefence  ;  (and  as 
much  feeu  on  earth,  as  the  Pope  is  tomoft 
of  the  Church,  which  is  not  at  all. ) 

[_Everfince  the  dayes  of  Chrifi  ox  earth. 
i.  Butnotftillinoneand  the  fame  place  on 
earth.  It  might  be  in  one  age  much  of  it  in 
fpuJca9  at  Efhefw,  S^rdis,  Laddic<ea,Colejfe,. 
fhilippi'  and  other  parts  of  Afia  •,  and  in 
other  ages  removed  thence,  either  wholly 
or  for  the  mod  part  :  It  might  be  in  one  age 
inTenducy  Nubia,  and  other   great  King-! 
dorns,  where  it  (hall  after  ceafe  to  be:  But* 
in  feme  pare  or  other  of  the  earth  it  hack 
been  ft  ill; 

2.  Not  equally  vifible  in  all  Times  and 
Places  of  the  earth.  JnfomeTimes(asin  the 
Arrians  prevalency  )  it  wasfoopprefledand 
obfeured,  that  the  world  groaned  to  find  it 
ielf  turnM  Arrian,  and  the  Arrians  in  Ge-. 
neral  Councils  and  number  of  Biftiops  (  to 
whom  the  true  Chriftians  were  very  few) 
did  feem  to  carry  away  the  Name  and  glory, 
of  theCatholick  Church  ^  fo  that  in  their 
eyes-,  and  in  the  eyes  of  ftanders  by  that 
were  of  neither  party,  the  moft  Vifible  Ca- 

tholick 


of  which  we  dre  Members,  f  roved.       20? 

lolick  Church  was  theirs ;  who  yet  had  no 
art  ink, becaufe they #were  not  Chriilians 
as  denying  that  which  is  eflentiall  to 
;hrift,  the  objeft  of  the  Chriftian  faith), 
nd  therefore  none  of  the  Church  ,  and 
lerefore  though  mod  vifible  and  nume- 
ous,  yet  not  thev#ifible  Church  :  And  the 
church,  which  to  others  was  as  wheat  hid- 
den in  this  chaffe ,  or  rather  a  few  ears 
mong  fo  many  tares,  was  yet  Vifible  to  it 
rif  in  its  Truth  of  faith,  and  vifible  to  its 
Lnemies  in  its  Profeffion  and  aflemblies, 
hough  in  number  far  below  them. 

Soalfo  in  fome  yUccs  it  may  be  Latent 
hrough  perfecution  &  the  paucity  of  belie? 
;ers,  when  in  other  places  it  is  more  Patent. 

And  its  Degrees  of  foundnefs  being  va- 
ious,  are  accordingly  varioufly  vifible.  One 
:>art  may  be  really  and  vifibly  more  ilrong, 
*nd  another  more  weak  in  the  faith  ;  One 
part  much  more  corrupt  then  others,  and 
other  parts  retain  their  purity  ;    And  the 

me  Countries  increafe  or  decreafc  in  that 
purity ,  as  is  apparent  in  the  cafe  of  the 
Churches  of  Gdatia  ,  Corinth^  the  feven 
Afian  Churches,  ifri/.2.and  3.  &c. 

Laftly  note,  that  it  is  only  that  part  of  the 
Church  which  is  on  earth  whofe  vifibility 
we  a(Tcrt  .   though  that  in  Heaven   be 

alfo 


104     ™  jMcejsiw  Vtfibility  of  the  Church 
alfo  a  true  part  of  the  Body  of  Chrift. 

Nor  is  it  in  the  fame  Individuals  that  the 
Church  continueth  Vifible ,  but  infaccefsive 
Matter.   So  much  for  explication  of  the  J 
terms.  | 

Thef.  The  Church  of  which  the  Prote- 
flants  are  Members,  hath  been  Vifible  ever 
fince  the  dayes  of  Chrift  <Jn  earth. 

Art*  i .  The  Body  of  Chriftians  on  earth 
fubjected  to  Chrift  their  Head,  hath  been 
( in  its  parts )  Vifible  ever  fince  the  dayes  of 
Chrift  on  earth. 

But  the  Body  of  Chriftians  on  earth  fub- 
Jefted  to  Chrift  their  Head,  is  the  Church  of 
which  the  Proteftants  are  Members : 

Therefore  the  Church  of  which  the  Pro- 
teftants are  Members,  hath  been  vifible  ever 
fince  the  dayes  of  Chrift  on  earth, 

I  have  not  iagacity  enough  to  conjefture 
what  any  Papift  can  fay  againft  the  Major 
propofition. 

The  Minor  is  proved  by  our  own  Profef- 
fions:  As  the  profeffion  of  Popery,proveth 
a  man  a  Papift,  fo  the  profeffion  of  Christi- 
anity as  much'proveth  us  to  be  Chriftians. 

[«]  Thofe  that  profefs  the  trueChriftian 
Religion  in  all  its  efTentials,  are  Members  of 
that  Church  which  is  the  Body  of  Chrifti- 
ans on  earth  fubje&ed  to  Chrift  the  Head. 

But 


ef  which  m  art  Members,  prtved.     205 

But  the  Proteftants  profefs  the  true  Chri- 
"Han  Religion  in  all  its  effentialls :  therefore 
he  Proteftants  are  Members  of  that  Church 
vhich  is  the  Body  of  Chriftians  on  earth 
ub jefted  to  Chrift  the  Head. 

The  Major  is  undeniable.  The  Minor  is 
hus  proved.  1.  Thofe  that  profefs  fo 
nuch  as  God  hach  promifed  falvationupon 
n  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  do  profefs  the 
2hriftian  Religion  in  all  its  Eflentials.  (For 
3odpromifcth  falvation  in  that  Covenant 
:o  none  but  Chriftians. )  But  the  Proteftants 
>rofefs  fo  much  as  God  hath  promifed  fal- 
/ation  upon,  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace : 

Therefore  the  Proteftants  do  profefs  the 
Chriftian  Religion  in  all  its  eflentials. 

The  Minor  is  thus  proved.  All  that 
Profefs  faith  in  God  the  Father.,  Son  , 
knd  holy  Ghoft,  our  Creator,  Redeemer 
md  San&ifier,  and  love  to  him ,  and  ab. 
olute  obedience  to  all  his  Laws  of  Na- 
ture and  holy  Scripture  ,  with  willingnefs 
md  diligence  to  know  the  true  meaning  of 
ill  thefe  Laws  as  far  as  they  are  able,  and 
with  Repentance  for  all  known  fin,  do  pro- 
fefs fo  much  as  God  hath  promifed  falvation 
upon,  foh.  3.16,17.  Mart  16.  16.  Ueb.%. 
9  R»m.  8.  28.  1.  AEt.  26.  18.  But  fo  do 
:he  Proteftants :  Therefore  the  Proteftants 

profefs 


I 


106    Ihtfuccefsive  Viability  of  the  Church 

profefs  fo  much  as  God  hath  promifed  fal-I 
vation  on. 

2.  Thofe  that  profefs  as  much  andmucK 
more  of  the  Chriftian  faith  and  Religion,  as 
the  Catechumens  were  ordinarily  taught  in 
the  ancient  Churches,  and  the  Competentes 
at  Baptifm- did  profefs,  do  profefs  the  true 
Chriftian  Religion  in  all  its  effentials. 

Butfo  do  the  Proteftarfts :  Therefore,^- c 

3.  Thofe  that  explicitly  profefs  the  Be- 
lief of  all  that  was  contained  in  the  Churches 
Symbols,  or  Creeds,  for  fix  hundred  yearsi 
after  Chrift  (  and  much  more  holy  truth  )/ 
and  implicitly  to  believe  all  that  is  contained 
in  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  to  be  willing  and 
diligent  for  the  explicate  knowledge  of  alt 
the  reft,  with  a  Refolution-  to  obey  all  the 
will  of  God  which  they  know,  do  profefs 
the  true  Chriftian  Religion  in  ail  its  Effen- 
tials. But  fo  do  •  the  Proteftants.  There-: 
fore,  &c 

Adhominem^l  confirm  the  Ma  jor  (  and, 
moil  that  went  before  )  from  che  Teftimo- 
nies  of  fome  moft  eminent  Papifts, 

■Be  liar  mine  faith,  de  Verbo  Dei,  lib.  4-f .  1 1 J 
In  the  Chriftian  do&rine  both  of  faith  and 
mannersjfome  things  are  (imply  neceffary  to. 
falvation  to  all  •  as  the  knowledge  of  the 
Articles  of  the  Apoftles  Creed,  of  the  ten 

Command- 


of  which  rve  Hire  Members \  proved.       207 

Zommandmenq$,andof  fome  Sacraments: 
rhe  reft  are  not  fo  neceffary  that  a  man  can- 
lot  be  faved  without  the  explicite  know- 
edge,  belief,  and  profeffion  of  them 

rhefe  things  that  are  fimply  neceffary,  and 
:re  profitable   to  all,  the  Apoftles  preached' 

o  all All  things   are  written  by  the 

\poftles  which  are  NecefTary  to  all ,  and 

vhich  they  openly  preacht  to  all 

Cofierns  Encbirid.  c.i.f.  49.  C  We  deny 
lot,  that  thofe  chief  heads  of  Belief,  which 
ire  neceffary  to  all  Chriftians  to  be  known 
o  falvation,  are  perfpicuoufly  enough  com- 
prehended in  the  writings  of  the  Apoftles. J 

But  all  this  the  Proteftants  profefs  to 
relieve. 

'£  3  If  fincere  Proteftants are  Members 
)f  the  true  Church,  as  intrinfecally  inform- 
d  (  or  as  Bellarmine  fpeaks,  Living  Mem- 
bers )  then  profeffed  Proteftants  are  Mem- 
bers of  the  true  Church  as  extrinfecally  de- 
ominated  (  or  as  it  is  Vi(ible,confiftingof 
^rofeffors.)  But  the  Antecedent  is  true: 
Therefore  fo  is  the  Confequent. 

The  Reafon  of  the  Confequence  is,  be- 
caufe  it  is  the  fame  thing  that  is  profeffed  by 
all  Profeffors,  and  exiftent  in  all  true  Be- 
lievers ;  and  that  as  to  Profefilon  is  necef- 
fary to  Vifibility  of  Memberlhip ;  and  as 

to 


20$     The  fuceefsivc  Vifibilitytf  the  Church 

tofincere  inexiftence,  is  n^ceflary  toialva* 
tion. 

The  Antecedent  or  Minor  I  thus  prove 
All  that  by  faith  in  Chrift  are  brought  tc 
the  unfeigned  Love  of  God  above  all,  and 
fpeciall  Love  to  his  fervants,  and  unfeigned 
willingnefs  to  obey  him,  are  Members  of  the; 
true  Church  as  intrinfecally  informed,  hm 
fuch  are  all  fincere  Proteftants :  Therefori 
allfincere  Proteltants  are  Members  of  th( 
true  Church  as  intrinfecally  informed. 

The  Major  is  granted  by  the  Papifts,  who 
affirm  charity  to  be  the  form  of  Grace,  ancj] 
all  that  have  it  to  be  juftified.  And  the  pro-; 
mifes  of  Scripture  prove  it  to  our  Com* 
fort.  I 

The  Minor  i .  Is  proved  to  others  by  our 
profefiions  :  If  this  be  in  our  Profeflioni 
then  the  fincere  are  fuch  indeed.  But  this  is 
in  our  Profeflion  ;  Therefore,  &c. 

2.  Its  certainly  known  to  our  felves  by) 
the  inward    knowledge  and  fenfe  of  ourj 
fouls.  I  know  that  I  Love  God  andhisfer* 
vants,  and  am  willing  to  obey  him  ^  There-i 
fore  all  the  Papifts  Sophifms  fhall   ncvei(j 
make  me  not  know  what  I  do  know,  and 
not  feel  what  I  do  feel.    They  reafon  in  vain 
with    me,   when   they  reafon  againft  the 
knowledge  and  experience  pf  my  foul  Your 

fcopc 


•■*%- 


ef  which  we  are  Members 5  proved.       209 

fcope  is  to  prove  me  in  a  (late  of  damnati- 
on. You  confefs  that  if  I  have  chancy  I  am 
5*n  a  Hate  of  falvarion.  I  know  and  feel  that 
hare  charity  .-  Therefore  I  know  that  your 
leafonmgs  are  deceit. 

Arg.  2.  The  Church  whofe  faith  is  con- 
fined in  the  holy  Scriptures  as  itsRule  in  all 
)ointsnece(Tary  to  falvation,  hath  been  Vi- 
able ever  fince  the  dayes  of  Chnft  on 
earth. 

But  the  Church  whofe  faith  is  contained 
n  the  holy  Scriptures  as  its  Rule  in  all 
)oints  neceffary  to  falvation,  is  it  of  which 
;he  Proteltancs  are  Members. 

Therefore  che  Church  of  which  the  Pro- 
eftants  are  Members,  hath  been  vifible  ever 
ince  the  dayes  of  Chrift  on  earth. 
'That the  Catholick  Church  which  hath 
>een  Vifible  till  now,  hath  received  the  Ho- 
y  Scriptures  which  we  receive,  is  confefled 
>y  all  Papilts  that  ever  I  heard  or  read  ma- 
king mention  of  it.  And  no  wonder,  for 
t  cannot  be  denied. 

That  this  Church  hath  taken  thefe  Scri- 
ptures for  the  Rule  of  faith  in  all  points 
lecefTary  to  falvation  (  allowing  Church- 
3overnours  to  make  Canons  about  the  cir- 
:umftantials  of  Government  andworfhip, 

rhich  in  the  Univerfal  Law  are  notdere;- 
P  mined, 


119    Thefaccefsive  Fifibili^  of  the  Church 

mined,  but  left  to  humane  prudence  to  d 
termiae.  )     i.  I  have  proved  in  my  thir 
Difputeof  the fafe  Religion  already.  2.  Icl, 
is  confefled  by  the  Papifts  ;  the  forecited  % 
paffagesof  Betlarminc  and  Q/fcriaaiefuf-j 
ficient.  But  in  the  great  Council  at  2?../*/,  ] 
Orst.  Raguf.  Bin.  p.  299.  it  is  moft  plainly 
and  with  fuller  authority  afferted.   Q  The  < 
holy  Scripture  in  the  Literal  fenfe,'  found- 
ly  and  well  underftood,  is  the  infallible  and  J 
Moft  fufficient  Rule  of  faith. "     See  my  vin-1 
dicationof  this  Teftimony  in  my  Catholic!^ 
Key  :  and  the  like  from  Card.Richlieu. 

Gerfon&ith,  de  exam.  doElr.p.z.cvnt.  1 
Nihil  audendum  dicere  de  divinis,  nijlqu 
nobis  if acra  Scriptnratraditafunt. 

Durandns  in  his  Preface  is  wholly  for  the 
excellency  and  Sufficiency -of  the  Scripture?.. 
Three  wayes,  he  faith,  God  revealeth  hira- 
felf  and  other  things  to  man;  Theloweft, 
way  is  by  the  book  of  the  creatures  (fo 
heathens  may  know  him.)  The  higheft  id 
by  manifeft  Vifion  (  as  in  heaven  )  :  and  the- 
middle  way  is  in  the  Book  of  holy  Scripture,^ 
without  which  there  is  no  coming  to  the* 
higheft  way.  ]  And  going  on  to  extoll  the 
Scripture,  he  cite  th  Jeromes  words  adPau^ 
linum,  [[Let  us  learn  on  earth  the  know-; 
ledge  of  thofe  things;  which  will  abide  with 

us 


: 


*f  which  we  are  Member s,f  roved*      an 

us  in  heaven ;  ]  But  this  is  only  (faith  he^ 
in  the  holy  Scripture.  ]  And  after  ex  Hie- 

om.  act^MarcelL  £  If  Reafon  be  brought 
figainft  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  how 
acute  foever  it  is,  *it  cannot  be  true  :  ]  And 
fter  £  We   muft  fpeak  of  the  myfterie  of 

hrift,  and  univerfally  of  thofe  things  that 
heerly  concern  faith,  conformably  to  what 
he  holy  Scripture  delivereth :  So  Chriftt 
xohn  5.  Search  the  Scriptures,  It  is  they  that 
eftifie  of  me.  If  any  obferve  not  this,  he 
peaks  not  of  the  myfterie  of  Chrift,  and  of 
ther  things  dire&ly  touching  faith  as  he 
ught,  but  falls  into  that  of  the  Apoftle, 

Cor.S.  If  any  man  think  heknowethany 
iing,he  yet  knoweth  nothing  as  he  ought  to 
now.  for  the  meafure  is  not  to  exceed 
je  meafure  of  faith  .-  of  which  the  Apo- 
le  bids  us,  Rom.  12.  Not  to  be  wifer  then 
e  ought  to  be,  but  to  be  wife  to  fobriety f 
tid  as  God  hath  divided  to  every  man  the 
eafureof  faith.  Whuh  Meafure  confifteth 

two  things  •  to  wit,  that  we  fubtrad  not 
|om  faith  that  which  is  of  faith,  nor(N.B .) 
\  tribute  that  to  faith  which  is  not  of  faith  : 
br  by  either  of  thefe  wayes,  the  meafure 
1  faith  is  exceeded,  and  men  deviate  from 
|ic  continence  of  the  facred  Scripture, 
ihich  expreffeth  the   meafure  of  faithj 

P  2  (That 


Hi     The  fneeefsive  Vifibilitj  ef  the  Church    ; 

(That  is,  from  the  full  fufficiency  of  the 
Scripture  meafure: )  £  And  this  meafure,  by . 
Godsafliftance,  we  will  hold,  that  we  may 
.write  or  teach  nothing  diffonant  to  the  ho- 
ly Scripture.  But  if  by  ignorance  or  inad- 
vertency ,  we  fhould  write  any  thing  diffo-4 
nant,let  it  be  taken  ipfofotto  as  not  written.] 
This  is  a  confeffion  of  the  Religion  of  the! 
Proteftants.   And  though  he  adjoynafub-j 
miflion  to  the  Roman  Church,  becaufe  he 
was  bred  in  ir,  it  is  only  as  to  an  interpretet? 
of  doubtfull  Texts  of  Scripture :  So  that  the 
fufficiency  of  our  Rule  and  meafure  of  faith 
is  granted  by  him,  and  zealoufly  afferted  - 
and  that  without  Bellarmine  and  Coftertm 
limitation,  to  points  necefTary  totheialva- 
tion  of  all  -y   he  extendeth  it  to    all   the 
faith. 

Aquin. 22.  q.i.a.io. ad  I.  faith,  That 
intheDodrine  of  Chrjft  and  hisApoftles, 
the  truth  of  the  faith  is  fufficiently  explM 
cated ;  3  even  when  he  is  pleading  for  the 
Popes  power  to  make  new  Creeds  to  obviate 
errours. 

Andinhi$///7».  deVeritJlif.de  fide  <jMO. 
ad ii.  he  faith ,  Q  7'hat  all  the  means  by 
which  the  faith  cometh  to  us  arc  free  from 
fufpicion.  The  Prophets  and  Apoitles  we 
believe,  for  this  reafon,  becaufe  God  bore ! 

them 


ff  which  n>e  arc  Members %  proved* 

hem  witnefs  by  working  Miracles :  as  Mar. 
[6.  confirming  their  fpeech  with  following 
igns  :  But  their  fucceflbrs  we  believe  not, 
tat  fo  far  as  they  declare  to  us  thofe  things 
vhich  they  have  left  us  in  the  Scripture. ; 
This  is  the  Religion  of  the  Proteftants. 

Scotm  in^Prolog.  infent.  I,  makes  it  his 
econd  Queftion  ,  Whether  fupernaturall 
knowledge  ncceffary  to  us  in  the  Way,  be 
iifficiently  delivered  in  the  holy  Scripture, 
which  he  proveth  (  having  firft  given  ten  ar- 
guments to  prove  the  Truth  of  Scripture.} 
A.nd  firft  he  (hews  it  containeth  the  Do- 
ftrine  of  the  End ,  and  2.  of  the  things 
neceflfary  to  that  end,  and  the  fufficiency 
of  them-,    fummarily  in.  the    Decalogue, 

xphined  in  the  other  Scriptures,  as  to  mat- 
er of  faith,  hope,  and  pradice  -5  andfo 

oncludes,  i\  at  t$r:  holy  Scripture  fufficicne- 
y  containeth  the  *to  $ri  pceffary  viatcri, 
to.us  in  the  way :  And  he  anfwereth  ;th$  ob- 
jection, of  Difficulties  in  ity  (  without  fly- 
ing to  the  Church)  thac  £  no  fcience  ex- 
plainethall  things  to  be  known,,  bur  thofe 
things  from  which  therelt  may  convenient- 
ly be  gathered  :  and  fo  many  needtull 
itruths  are  not  expreflcd  in  Scrioture; 
though  they  are  virtually  chore  contained, 
as  conclufions  in  the  Principles,  about  the  in- 

P  3  vcftt- 


214    The  fuccefsiveVifibility  of  the  Church 

vcftigation  whereof  the  labour  of  Expo- 
fitors  and  Doftors  hath  been  profitable.]] 
This  is  hiscUxftrine  out  of  Origen. 

Greger.  Ariminenfts  in  Prel.  qll.att.  2.1 
Mefp.  adaEl.fol.  $.&  4.  faith  £  Adifcourfd 
properly  Theologicall ,  is  that  which  con- 
fifteth  of  words  or  propofitions  contained 
in  the  holy  Scripture  ^  or  of  thofe  that  arc; 
deduced  from  them  •,  or  at  leaft  from  one 
of  thefe;  This  is  proved  1.  by  the  foreal-} 
ledged  authority  of  Dionyf.  For  he  will  have 
it,  that  there  can  be  no  leading  of  that  man 
to  Theologicall  fcience,  that  aflenteth  not 

to  the  fayings  of  the  holy  Scripture. It 

follows  therefore  that  no  difcourfe  that  pro- 
ceeded not  from  the  words  of  holy  Scrii 
pture,  or  of  that  which  is  deduced  from 

them,  is  Theologicall. [_2.  The  fame 

is  proved  from  the  common  conception  of 
all  men.-  For  all  men  judge  chat  then  only 
is  any  thing  proved  Theologically ,  when 
they  prove  it  from  the  words  of  the  holy 
Scripture.  ] 

This  is  more  then  the  former  fay  :  For 
to  extend  the  fufficiency  and  neceflky  oi 
Scripture  to  all  thats  Theologicall,  is  more 
then  to  extend  it  to  matter  of  faith.  No 
Proteftant  goeth  higher  then  this  that  1 
know  of.  And  note,  that  he  makes  this  the 

very 


$f  which  we  nrc  Members^  proved.        215 

very  common  conception  and  judgement  of 
all  men.  See  rhen  where  our  Religion  and 
Church  was  before  Luther  I  even  among  all 
Cbriitians. 

Yet  more  fully  he  proceeds(*'^.)  [Hence 
it  further  appeareth  ,that  Principles  of  Theo- 
logy thus  taken,  that  is,which  is  acquired  by 
Theologicail  difcourfe,  are  the  very  Truths 
themfelvesof  the  holy  Canon,  becaufe  the 
ultimate  Resolution  of  all  Theologicail  dif- 
courfe doth  ftand  (  or  belong,}  to  them  ^  and 
all  Theologicail  conclufions^are  deduced  firft 
from  them.  But  diflinguifhing  the  Conclu- 
fions  Theologicail  from  the  Principles,  I  fay 
that  all  trutm  are  not  in  themfelves  formal- 
ly contained  in  the  holy  Scripture  :  but  of 
neceflity  following  from  thofe  that  are  con- 
tained in  them  •  and  this  whether  they  are 
Articles  of  faith,  ornot(NB>)i  and  whe- 
ther they  are  knowable  or  known  by  ano- 
ther fcience,or  not:  and  whether  they  are 
determined  by  the  Church  or  not.  But  of 
other  Truths,  to  wit ,  not  following  from 
the  words  of  the  holy  Scripture,  I  fay  there 
is  no  Theologicail  conclufion  :  This  it 
proved,  &c. ] 

When  I  read  over  the  Schoolmen  and  Di- 
vines of  ailfortsrthat  wrote  before  the  Re- 
formers fell  fo  cfofely  upon  the  Pope,  and 

P  4  [find 


2 1 6    The  fnccefsive  Vifibilitf  tf  the  Church 

[^find  how  generally  even  the  Papifts  them- 
felves  maintained  the  fufficiency  of  the 
holy  Scripture,  juft  as  the  Proteftants  now 
do,  I  am  convinced  i.  of  the  fucceffion  of 
the  Proceftants  Religion 'in  the  Univerfal 
Viable  Church  •,  and  2.  that  it  was  the 
Reformers  Arguments  from  Scripture,  that 
forced  ch  ills  to  oppofe  this  holy  Rule, 
as  to  its  fufficiency  >  and  to  invent  the  new 
doctrine  ot#fupplementall  Tradition  -5  (for 
confervaiive,  Minifteriall  Tradition  of  the 
holy  Scriptures  we  are  for  as  much,  at  leaft, 
as  they. )  i 

The  words  of  Guil.  Parifieufis,  too  large ! 
to  be  recited,  in  extolling  tfle  fulnefsand 
perfeftion  of  the  Scripture,  even  for  all  1 
forts  of  men,  you  may  read,  de  Legibusjaf. 
16.  p^f  .46. 

Bettarmine  de  Verba  Dei,  lib.  3.  cap.  10. 
adArg.15.  faith  £  We  malt  know  that  a 
propofition  of  faith  is  concluded  in  fuch  a 
fyllogifm  ;  Whatfoever  God  hath  revealed 
in  Scripture  is  true  :  But  this  God  hath  re- 
vealed in  Scripture;  Therefore  it  is  true.  ] 
(Though  he  require  another  word  of  God 
by  the  Pope,  or  Council,  to  prove  that  this 
is  revealed  in  Scripture.)  But  if  fo,  then 
Scripture  containeth  aUthats  true  in  points 
of  faith. 

2.  And 


• 


ef  which  we  are  Members,  -proved,      217 

z%  And  that  all  things  that  arerevealed, 
and  which  we  ought  to  believe,  are  not  Ei- 
fentiall  to  the  Chriftian  faith,  and  therefore 
f  hat  all  are  of  the  Church  that  hold  thefe 
I  BfTentialls,  and  that  fnch  a  diftinftion  mull 
::>e  maintained,  the  Papifts  have  itill  confef- 
,.ed,  till  lateiy,  that  difputing  hathencreafed 
:heir  novelcies  and  errours. 

Bellarmints  and  Co  ft  ems  confefiion,  I  re- 
kited  even  now. 

Guliel.   Pariftenfis  in  Operum  peg.  9,  ic, 

[II,  iz.de  ^,indultrioufly  proveththe  ne- 

ceflity   of    diftinguifhing  the    fundamer- 

s  or   efTentialls ,  from  the   reft   of  the 

points  of  fanh ;  and  it  is  they  thatconfti- 

tute  the  Catholick  faith,  which  he  faith  is 

therefore  called  Carholick  or  Univerfal,  be- 

caufe  it  is  the  common  faith,  or  the  com- 

men    foundation  of  Religion  ;    And    he 

proves  that  hence  it  is  that  the  Catholick 

i  faith  is  but  One,  and  found  in  all  Catbolicks, 

thefe  fundamental^  being  found  in  all.]  By 

many  arguments  heproveth  this. 

And  that  there  are  fome  points,  even 
thefe  common  Articles  neceffary  to  be 
known  of  all,  necejfitatimedii,  the  School- 
men commonly  grant:  as  Aquin.  n.q.z. 
a.  5-r.  Bannes  in  22.  <j.  2.  a.  S.C^r.  Of  thefe 
faith  EJpencam  (  in  2.  Ti.c.  %.iig*  17.) 

which 


4 18     The [uccefstve  Viftbiltty  of  the  Chttrck\ 

which  ate  the  objects  of  faith  perfe*  ar 
not  the  fecondary  obje&s,  the  adult  mu 
have  an  explicite  faith,  and  the  Colliei 
fjaith  at  this  time  decantate  by  the  Cathc 
licks,  will  not  ferve  the  turn.  ] 

And  wt  have  both  the  Scripture  fuffic 
ency  to  all  points  of  faith,  even  the  lowefl 
and  alfo  the  forefaid  diflin&ion  given  us  to 
gether,  by  Tho.  Aquinas  22.  q.  art.  $.c.  [W 
mull:  fay,  that  the  objeft  of  faith  pcrfe, 
that  by  which  man  is  Hiadebleffjd  :  Butty 
accident  and  fecondarily,  all  things  are  th< 
objed  of  faith  which  are  contained  in  th< 
holy  Scripture.] 

See  the  judgement  of  Occham ,  Canus^ 
Tolet,  and  many  more  cited  by  Dr.  Potter «. 
and  yet  more  for  the  fuffieiency  of  the  Sym- 
bole  or  Creed,  as  the  teft  of  Chriftianity, 
f*g.  89, 90, 91,  92, 93 .  Where  you  have 
the  fenfe  of  the  Ancients  upon  the  point, 
and/?.  102,103. 

I  conclude  therefore  with  the  Jefuite 
Az*ri$u,pArm  i  Jib.  S.c.6.  £The  fubftance 
of  the  Article  in  which  we  believe  One,  ho- 
ly, Catholick  Church,  is,  that  no  man  can 
be  faved  out  of  the  Congregation  of  men 
profeffing  the  reception  of  the  fjlith  and 
Religion  of  Chrift ,  and  that  falvation  may 
be  obtained  within  this  fame  Congregation 
of  godly  and  faithful  men.  And 


pf  which  we  are  Members,  freved.       2 19 

And  as  to  the  Eflence  of  the  Chriftian 
aith  and  Church,  we  fay  with  Tertullian  of 
he  Symbole  [  Fides  in  Regula  pofita  efi : 
*  hates  legem,  &falutem  ex  obfervatione  legis  ; 
exercitatio  autem  in  curio  fit  ate  cohfifiit,  ha- 
bens  gloriam [olam  ex  periti*  fiudio  :  Cedat 
curiofitasfidei:    Cedat  gloria  Jaluti.    Certc 
tut  non  obfirepanty  ant  qtiiefcattt  adverfus  re- 
gulam  :    Nihil  ultra  jcire^  efi  omnia  fclre."] 
That  is,  £  Faith  lieth   in  the  Rule  :  Here 
you  have  the  Law,  and  falvation  in  the  ob- 
servation of  that  Law ;    but  it  is  exercife 
that  confifteth  in  curiofity,  having  only  (a 
name  or  )  glory  by  the  ftudy  of  skill  •  Let 
curiofity  give  place  to  faith  ;  Let  glory  give 
place  to  falvation.  Let  them  not  prate,  or 
\  let  them  be  quiet,  againft  the  Rule.  To  know 
i  nothing  further,  is  to  know  all  things.]  j)e 
Prafcript.  cap.  i  3 , 1 4. 

So  cap.  8.  Nobis  curio  fit  ate  opus  non  efi 
pofi  Chrifium  Jefum  ,  nee  inquifitkne  pofi 
Evzngeliuw.  Cum  credimus^  nihil  defidera- 
mus  ultra  credere  ^  hoc  enim  prius  credimus^ 
nonejfe  cjuod  ultra  credere  debeamus.~\  That 
is,  As  tor  us  we  need  not  curiofity  after 
Jefus  Chrift,  nor  inquifition  after  the  Go- 
1;  When  we  believe,  we  need  to  believe 
no  further;  For  we  firft  believe  this,  that 
there  is  nothing  further  that  we  ought  to 
believe."  And 


-  2  20     7  m  jucceistve  ripiHUty  of  the  church 

And  here  (  on  •  he  by  )  for  the  right  un- 
demanding of  TtrtxliUns  Book  de  Prt- 
fcript.  nore,  i.  That  c  Rule  of  Effentir 
alls  extracted  from  the  whole  Scripture,  is 
the  Churches  ancient  Creed.  2.  That  the 
compleat  Rule  of  all  points  of  faith  is  the 
whole  Scripture.  And  that  Tertullian  had  tQ 
do  with  Heretidp  :hat  denied  the  EfTentials, 
and  defied  the  whole  Scripture  to  difputc 
their  cafe  from  both,becaufe  they  had  quefti- 
oned  or  reje&ed  much  of  it  ^  and  becaufe  it 
was  a  larger  field  to  exercife  their  wits  in, 
and  whence  they  might  gather  more  matter 
ofdifpuceto  puzzle  the  weak :  And  there- 
fore TertvllUn  advifeth  the  ordinary  Chri- 
stians of  Lis  cime,  inftead  of  long  puzzling 
&  s  with  them  out  of  Scripture,  to  hold 
them  :o  the  Churches  prescription,  of  the 
fimple  do&rine  of  the  Creed.  But  now  come 
in  thePapifts^  and  3.  will  neither  be  con- 
i  tent  with  Creed  nor  Scripture ,  tut  muft 
have  a  Church  or  faith  partly  made  up  of 
fupplemental  Traditions,  of  more  then  is  in 
ail  the  Scripture,  and  fo  run  further  from 
Tertullian  and  the  ancient  fimplicity,  then 
thefe  Hereticks,  and  yet  are  not  aftiamed  to 
glory  in  this  Book  of  Tertullian  as  for 
them. 

Of  the  Fathers  judgement  of  the  Scri- 
pture 


of  vthuh  ppe  are  Members ,  frtved.     221 

urc  fufficiency,  fee  the  third  part  of  my 
\  Me  Religion']  where  I  have  produced  Te- 
i'monics  enongh  to  prove  the  Antiquity  of 
he  Proteftants  Religion  ,  and  the  Novelty 
f  Popery.  But  nothing  can  be  fo  plain  and 
all,  which  pre-engaged  men  dare  not  deny, 
-etmeinftance  but  in  one  or  two  paffages 
f  Augufrine^  fo  plain  as  might  put  an  end 
o  the  whole  Controvert. 

Aug.  de  Doftr.  Chrifiian,  lib.  2.  e.g.  [in 
m  omnibus  libris  timentes  Denm  &  pietatc 
wanfueti ,  qnarunt  voluntatem   Dei.  Cujut 
peris  &  labor is prima  obfervatio  cfi,  ut  dixi- 
mtu,  noffe  iftos  libros,&  fi  nondum  adintel- 
ettum  legendo  tamen  vel  mandare  memorise, 
(  He  was  not  againft  the  Vulgars  reading 
Scripture  )  vel  omnino  incognitos  non  habere. 
\J)einde  Ma  qu<t  in  eis  aperte  fofita  funt^  vel 
precept  a  vivendi  vel  reguU  credendijolertisis 
diligentiufque  invefiigandafunt :  J$ujt  taw 
quifqueplurainvenit,  quanto  eft  intelligent ia 
caf^tior  :   In  its  enim  qna  aperte  in  Script*- 
ra  poftta  funty    inveninntur    ilia  omnia  qua, 
continent  fide?*    morefque  vivendi ,  (N.B.) 
fpem  ft ilicet  atquc  charitatem,  de  qnibns  li- 
bro  fupcriore  traEiavimtu.    Turn  verofatla 
quadam  familiaritate  cum  ipfa  lingua  divi- 
narumfcripturarum,  inea  qu<z  obfeura  funt 
aperienda,  &  difcutienda  pergendum  efi,  ut 

ad 


2X2     The fuccefshe  Vifibllity  of  the  Cburch\ 

*d  obfcuriores  locutiones  illuftrandas  de  mani\ 
fcfiationibm  fumantur  exemplay  &  quadanl 
cert  arum  fententiarum  tefilmottia,  dubitatio\ 
nem  de  inccrtis  auferdnt.  j  Yon  fee  here  thai) 
the  Scripture,  as  fufficient  to  faith  and  man- 
ners, to  be  read  by  all  that  fear  God,  and| 
can  read-,  and  the  harder  places  to  be  ex- 
pounded by  the  plainer,  was  the  ancient| 
r  Rule  of  faith  and  Religion  :  And  this  is  th< 
Religion  of  Protectants. 

Aug.  lib.  ix. 6.  contra  lit.  Petillani,  pag. 
12J.  ,   Troinde^five  de  Chrifto  five  de  ejus 
Ecclefayji've  de  quacunque  alia  re  qua  perti- 
net  ad  fidem  vitamque  nofiram  y  noy  dicam 
Nos,  nequaquam  comparand*  ei  qui  dixit[^Li- 
cetfi  nos  Ifed  omnino  quod  fecutus  adjecit,  [i 
Angelas  de  cvelo  vobis  annunciaverit  prater- 
quam  quod  in  Scripturu  &  Evangelicis  acce- 
pfiisy  Anathema  fit.  ]  I  mutt  needs  Englifh 
this  ftiort  paffage,  to  the  utter  confufion  of 
Popery.  £  And  therefore  whether  it  be  of 
Chrift,or  whether  it  be^of  the  Church,  or 
whether  it  be  of  any  other  matter  that  per- 
taineth  to  our  Faith  or  Life,  I  will  not  fay 
'ifwe^zs  being  not  worthy  to  be  com- 
pared with  him  that  faid    [Though  nre'   but 
( I  will  fay)  plainly  what  he  added  following: 
L  If  an  Angel  from  heaven  fhall  declare  to 
you  any  thing  betides  that  which  you  have 

received 


of  which  we  are  Members,  f  roved.       223 

reived  in  the  Legal!  and  Evangclicall  Seri- 
nes, let  him  be  Anathema,  or  accurfedf] 
ras  not  the  Church  then  purely  Proteitanc 
their  Religion  ? 

The  Minor  needs  no  proof  but  our  own 
ofeflion.  My  profeffion  is  the  beft  evi- 
:nce  of  my  own  Religion  to  another:  And 

•ofefs  this  to  be  my  Religion  •,  which  is 
>ntained  in  the  hely  Scripture,  as  the  Teft, 
|r  Law,  or  Rule.  And  let  no  man  contra-- 
A  me,  that  knoweth  not  my  Religion  bet- 
Sir  then  I  do :  The  Articles  of  the  Church 

England  profefs  this  alfo  to  be  the  Re- 

ion  of  the  Compofers.  And  the  Prote- 
cts commonly  uno  ore  do  profefs  it.  It  is 
le  great  difference  between  us  and  the  Pa- 
ifts.    The  whole  Univerfal  Law  of  God 

it  we  know  of,  and  own,  is  contained  in 
fature  and  Scripture  conjunft.  But  the 
Spirts  take   fomewhat  elfe  to  be  another 

irt.    We  allow  by-Laws  about  mutable 

^determined  things  (  as  aforefaid  )  to  Go- 
nours;  But  we  know  no  UniverfalLaw 
faith  and  holinefs,  but  Nature  and  Scri- 
turc  ;  This  is  our  Religion  :   And  thisRe- 

;ion  contained  in  Nature  and  Scriptures 

th  been  ftill  received. 

Obj.  Weconfefs  Scripture  is  Efficient  to 
hem  that  have  no  further  light :  All  that  is 

neceflary 


224     7he  f*cufs*ve  Vifibility  of  the  Ch  urch 

neceffary  to  the  falvation  of  all,  h  in  tha 
perfpicuoufly,  as  Cofttriu^  BelUrmine  am] 
others  fay  :  but  more  is  neceflary  to  iaivaj 
tionto  fome. 

Anf.  i.  Then  at  leaft  it  containeth 
the  Effeniialls  of  Chnftianity,  which  fu 
ceth  to  our  prefent  end.  2.  And  wha 
maketh  more  Neceflary  to  me  ,  or  other 
here  in  England^  if  it  be  not  neceffary  i\ 
all  ?  Is  it  becaufe  that  more  is  Revealed  t< 
us  ?  But  bow  and  by  whom  •,  and  with  whai 
Evidence  ?  We  are  willing  to  fee  it  ,  an< 
can  fee  no  fuch  thing  ;  But  if  this  be  it,  ( i 
Imayfpeak  fo  plainly  without  offence) 
feems  it  concerneth  us  to  keep  out  Friar: 
and  Jefuites  from  the  Land,  as  much  ( if  w< 
knew  how  )  as  to  keep  out  the  Devil.  F01 
they  tell  us,  1.  That  we  muft  believe 
Popes  Soveraignty,  againft  the  Traditio 
and  judgement  of  moft  of  the  Catholici 
Church.  2.  And  we  muft  believe  our  felves 
to  be  void  of  Charity  (  becaufe  no  PapiftsJ 
contrary  to  our  internall  fenfe  and  know- 
ledge. 3.  And  we  muft  believe  that  bread 
is  not  bread,  and  wine  is  not  wine,  contrary 
to  the  common  fenfes  of  all  found  men  ;  and 
if  we  will  not  thus  renounce  the  Churcbej 
Vote,  Tradition,  our  Certain  knowledge, 
Reafon ,  and  all  our  Senfes ,  we  muft  be 

damned : 


1 


ior 


of  which  we  are  Members,  proved.       225 

gunned  :  where  as  btf*  re  this  do&rine  was 
ought  us,  wemighc  have  beenfaved,  as 
iving  in  the  Scripcures  all  :hings  necefTary 
the  falvation  of  all 

But  the  Papilts  muft  needs  have  us  (hew 
em  where  our  Church  was,  and  name  ihe 
rfons.  Anfvr.  1.  It  were  noc  che  Ca- 
lolike  "hurch,  if  it  were  confined  to  any 
ace  chat  is  but  a  part  of  th:  Chriftian 
rrritones.  2.  Nor  were  ir  the  (  a:to  ike 
hunh  if  we  could  name  half  or  a  con- 
derable  part  of  the  members  :  As  p».gn- 
in  oft  cells  the  Don*tifts%  it  is  the  Church 
hich  begun  at  Jtrujalem,  and  cher.c.  is 
>read  throughout  the  world.  Pare  of  it 
ay  beinoncNaaon  oneyear,  which  may 
3rfeit  and  iofe  it  before  the  next.     God 

thnottyed  it  to  any  place.  3.  To  tell 
ou  where  the  Caiholike  Church  ha  h  bevii 
1  every  age,  and  who  were  the  Members 
r  the  Leaders,  requireth  much  knowledge 
n  Hiftory  and  Colinography,  which  God 

th  not  made  neceffary  to  folvation. 
There  are  no  known  Hiftories  that  de- 
iverus  the  Catalogues  of  the  (  hriftiar.sin 
rvery  age  of  the  world.  Had  any  been  lb 
boliflias  to  write  them,  they  would  have 
in  too  chargeable  to  keep,  and  too  long 
o  read,*  vea  were  it    but  of  the  Pallors. 

C^  5.  God 


12  6    The  fuccefsivc  yiftbtlitf  of  the  Church 

5.  God  hath  nowhere  commanded  th 
Church  to  keep  fuch  Catalogues  or  Hifto 
nes,  nor  promifed  when  they  are  written 
that  Papiits  (hall  not  purpofely  corrup:  an< 
deftroy  them  ,  nor  Turks  (as  at  liufy 
take  the  C  hriftian  Libraries,  and  burn  them 

6.  Pap. Us  cannot  p;ove  the  fuceeflive  ex 
tent  and  habitations  of  the  Catboli-k* 
Church  any  more  then  we  •,  and  we  ca: 
do  it  as  well  as  :hey  ;  for  we  have  the  fan* 
means.  If  they  can  teli  us  where  it  hati 
been  in  every  age,  they  need  not  ask  us 
If  ihey  cannot,  they  have  as  much  need  t< 
learn  as  we,  and  much  more.  They  thin, 
it  not  neceffary  to  their  Laity,  to  thepra 
ving  of  their  faiih,  to  be  able  to  prove  ih 
habitations  or  names  of  the  Members  o|. 
the  Cadiolike  C  hurch  in  all  ages :  and  wh 
is  it  more    neceffary    to  us    then    them 

7.  Butyec,  to  men  acquainted  with  hiftory 
what  can  be  more  eaiie  ,  then  to  tell  y 
where  great  multitudes  of  t  hnftians  in 
ages  have  inhah  ted,  and  where  many  parti 
of  the  Church  have  been  4  though  no  mar 
can  give  you  a  Catalogue  of  the  Church 
any  more  then  of  the  world  ? 

Would  you  know  then  where  oui 
Church,  that  is,  the  Caiholike  Church  hart 
been,  in  ail  ages?  whvithach  been  in  Afi* 

Ajrk 


ef  which  toe' are  Members, proved,      227 

\ifrica  and  Europe.    Is  that  too  general? 
]t  hath  been  in  Syria,  in  Mefopotamia,  Par- 
Voia%  Media,  Armenia,   Inaia,  Per/is,   in 
wgjp ',  Habajfia,  Georgia,  Cilicia,  Circaffu, 
mitngrelia,  Natolij^jfavria,  Thrace,  and 
liore  other  Countries  ,    then  I  haye  any 
jjeed  to  name  to  you,  (to  fay  nothing  of 
xrope,,  and  Brit  tain  by  name,  as  a  thing 
oft  known).     But  no  man  well  in  his  wits 
iJl  deny  a  fucceflion   of  the  Christian 
Kirch  which  I  have  defined,  from  the  firft* 
antationof  it  until  now.     If  Chnftianity 
ideverceafed  in  the  world,  how  came  it 
be  new  planted,  and  revived  ? 
That  this  before  defcribed    is  the  only 
Ltholike  Church  that  hath  been  owned 
the  ancient  DoAors,  appearech  by  their 
nftant  witnefTes.     To  cite  a  few,  and  ycc 
ough. 

Auguft.  in  Pfal  .21.     Z/bicuncjue  timet ur 

ens  &  landatur,  ibi  eft  Ecclejia. 

Jd.  Epift.  50.     In  SanElis  Libris  ubi  ma-^ 

ceftatyr    Dominm  Chriftm  ,    ibi  &  ejus 

tclefta  declaratur  (and  therefore  there  it 

lit  be  fought)   Jfti  autcm  mirab'di  c*ci~. 

e,cnm  ipfum  Chriftnm  prater  Scrip xnras 

riant,  ejus  tamen  Ecclefiam  non  divina- 

)rm  amhoritate  cognofcunt,  fed  hnmanarHm 

llawniarHin  vanitate  confingunt.      Chrift 


28     The  (uecefsive  yifibilitj  of  the  Church 

is  to  be  known  in  the  Scripture,  and  there  ¥ 
fore  lb  is  the  Church. 

Ibid.   In    caufa  Caciliani* fe    *b   E 

clefia  Ctthvlka,  hoc  eft,  ab  unit  ate  omniu~ 
gentium  diviferunt.  Its  not  the  CatholidK 
Church  becaufe  Roman,  but  becaufeexj'^ 
tended  to  all  Nations.  Sed  tamen  Ecclefiarmtl 
quancnlitigiojis  opinionibm  fingitur^  fedjHR* 
vinis  atteftationibns  comprobatur ,  propter/ 
quemlibet  hominem  relinquere  non  debe*1 
ihtu .  .  r 

Id.  In  Pfal.  56.  Corfu*  ejus  eft  EeW 
clejia  :  nonautem  ifta  aut  HUy  fed  toto  Orm 
dijfufa :  Nee  ea  qua  nunc  eft  in  hominibm\ 
qui  pr<t(entem  vitam  agunty  fed  ad  eampertnr 
ncntibus,  etiam\his  qui  fuerunt  ante  nosy  (ftr 
his  qui  futuri  funt  p$ft  n$sy  ufque  inftnemfm 
culi.  Toraenim  Eeclefiaconftans  ex  omnibA 
tidelibus ,  quia  fideles  omnes  membra  f, 
Chriftijhabet  ill W  Caput  pofttum  inccele^ 
bm  quod  gubernat  corpvu  fuum,  etfifepati 
rum  eft  d  vijione,  fed  annttkitur  charitate7\ 

Id.  Er.chirid.  ad  Laurent,  c.  56.  Ecclcfh 
tanquam  habitat  or  i  domus  J  ha,  &  Dto  tent 
plumfuum,&  conditori  civitM  faa  :  qua  ton 
hie  aecipicvda  eftjionfolum  ex  parte  qn&perr 
grinatur interns,  a  folisortu  ufque  adocat 
fum  laudans  norr.en  domini.  3  f 

id.  conir.    Petilian.   cap.  2.    Purpofelj  J 

openinf 


of  which  we  are  Members^  proved.       229 

I  )cning  the  true  nature  of  the  Cacholick 
hurch  for  the  flaring  of  the  Cafe,  faith, 
;  J^rtjeftio  certc  inter  nos  verfatur  ,  t:bi  fit 
z  eclefia  ?  utrum  apud  nos ,  an  tfud  illosi 
I  \#£  utique  Una  eft,  quam  majores  ncftri 
J  nholicam  nominarunt  ,  ut  ex  ipfo  nortine 

Enderent,  quia  per  tot  urn  eft. H<tc  au- 
Ecclefia  Corpus   Clorifti  eft:  ficut  Apo~ 
hs  dicit,  \  fro  corf  ore  ejus,  qu&  eft  Eccle- 
jlk       ZJnde  utique  wanifeftum  eft,  turn  qui 
\  n  eft  in  membrts  Chrifti,  Chriftianam  fa- 
,  tern  habere  non  foffe.   Membra  vero  Chrifti 
I  r  unitatis  charitatem   fibi  copulantur,   & 
i  reandem  capiti  fuo  adherent  quod  eft  Chri- 
\u  Jefus.  —  Jj)u<eftio  efl ,  ubi  fit  hoc  corpus, 
.ubiftt  Ec  cleft  a  ?  Qtnd  ergo  fatluri  fw 
\ts  ?  in  Verbis  noftris  earn  quafituri  ?  an  in 
\rbis  capitis  fuif  Domini  noftri  fefu  Chrifti  ? 
to  quod  in  Ulius  potius  verbis  earn  quzrerc 
emus,  qui  Veritas  eft,  &  optime  novit  cor- 

s  fuum After  he   calls  the    <  hurch 

er  and  over ,Vniverfum  Orbem  Chriftia- 
m ■  ■  —  cap.  3.   J^^i*  nolo  human  is  du  cu- 
nt is, fed  divtnis  oraculis  fanttam  Eichfti- 
demonftrari.    Sif*ntt<c  Script  ura  in  Air  - 

fola,  &c. Si  autem  Chrifti  Ecclefia 

nonicarum  Scripturarum  Divinis  &  ctr- 
ffimis  teftimoniis  in  omnibus  gentibus  deftg- 
ta  eft,  quicquid  attulerint  (  N.  BJ  &  *n- 

0^3  decun* 


230     Tbefuceefsive  Viftbditj  of  the  Church 

dicunq  He  recitavcrint ,  qui  dicunt^  £  Ecce  hie 
Chriftus,ecce  illic~\  audiamus  pctius,  ft  eves 
ejus ftwmus fjocem  paftoru  noftri  dicentis  \  No- 
lite  credere.'] ^Cap.  4.    Totus  Chrftus 

Caput  &  Corpus  eft  :  Csput  unigenltus  Dei 
filius ,  &  Corpus  ejus  Ecclefia ,  fponfus  & 
fpenfa  ;  duo  in ccrne  una. :   Qvicunque  de  ipfo 
eafite  ab  Script  uris  fanEiis  dijfentiunt  yeti.:?r>ji 
in  on.nibus loc[s  invent  >ratur in  quibus  Eccle-t 
fia  def.gns.ta  eft,  nun  fun t  in  Ectlefta  :    & 
thrlhs  qui<  unique  de    ipfo  tapite  Scripturis 
Senilis  cenfentiunt ',  er  ZJnitati  Ecclcfia  non 
communicant  y  (  or  as  alter)  ab  ejpts  corport 
quod  eft  Ecclefta  ira  diffentiunt,  ut  eorum 
commptnio  non  fit  cum  toto  quacunque  diffunj 
ditur,  fed  in  aliqua  p.  rtefeps.ratst  invenUtur-^ 
rr.x/iijifttim  eft  eos  n  n  ejfe  in  Catholic  a  Eck 
clefia.  ]  (  A  fad  conclution  to  ihe  Papiils.Jjj 
It  would  be  tedious  to  recite  half  thai 
Auftin  there  hath  tothispurpofe.  Through 
all  his  exquifite  dtfputes  with  the  Donatilts 
he  ftill  defcnbeih  the  Church,   1.  Asbeinj 
the  Body  of  Chrift,  its  Head.     2.  Asdifper 
fed  through  the  world,  and  containing  al 
the  Members  of  Chrift.    3.  And  that  whi 
begun  at  ferufalem.  4.  And  is  to  be  kno 
by  the  word  of  God :  Never  memioni 
the  Headfhip  cf  the  Pope  ,   nor  the  Mi 
flrjf-fhipof  Rome  :  cf  which  more  anon* 


of  which  tvenre  Members^  fwvcu.        231 

So  Optatus  lib.  2.  adverf.  Parmen.    Vbi 

trgo  erit  propriety  CatholUi  nominis^  cum 

inde  dicta  fit  Cat  ho  lie  6,  quod  Jit  raticnabilis 

&  ubique  diffufa^ikc]  And  before  (  p  46.) 

Ergo  Eccl.fia  una  efi,  cjqm  fantHiai  d?fa- 

cramentis  colligitur  ^  non  de  fuperbia  perfa- 

narum  ponder  at  ur  :  He    glorieih  ind.edin 

the  chair  of  Peter,   and  the  Roman  Church 

and  iucceflion,  as  being  vn  theCarholicxs 

fide  ^  buc  never  makeih  them  an  Eflentiall 

pare  of  the  Cacholick  Church,  nor  talks  of 

a  Unity  caufed  by  fubje&ion  to  them,  buc 

[Charitj  to  all-    And   therefore   calls   the 

Schiimaticks,//^.  3.  p.  72-   Cbaritatis  defer- 

tores ,  not  fubjellioms    defertores:   Adding, 

gaudet  tot  its  Orbis  de  Vnitate  Catholica  ;  buc 

never  de  fubjettione  Romae.    Yea  he  faith 

more  of  the  leven  Afian  Churches ,  lib.  2. 

p  5C#   Extra feptem  Ecclefias  quicquidforis 

efi.alienumeft-.     Nevermore    (ifiomuch) 

can  be  found  to  be  hid  of  Rome :   and  now 

Rome  it  felf  is  extra  feptem  Ecclejtas.   So  he 

fuppofeth  God  praifinp  the  Carholick,p.77. 

lib.  4.  Dijfentio  £r  fchifma  tibi   difplicuit; 

Ccncerdafticumfratre  tuo,  &  cum  una  Ec 

clefiay  qua  tfi  in  tcto  orbe  terrarum  :    Com- 

rnunlct.ftiftptem  Eicl  fiis  &  memoriis  Apo- 

flolcrum  :  auplexus  es   unitatem.    So  lib.  6. 

p.  95.    he  thus   detcribeth  the  Cathohik 

0^4  Com- 


231     The  fuccefsive  Vifwilitj  ef  the  Church 

Communion.  \_An  quia  vol tint  at  em  &]ufli- 
cnemDeifecHtifumtis  amundo  fj.cemycom+ 
municando  teti  crbi  ttrrarum^  [octet an  Oricn- 
t alii tts,  ubifecundum  hominem  fuum  nattu 
efi  Chrifttu ;  ubi  e]us  fantta  J  pint  i&prejfa 
vefiigiu  \  ubi  tin  bhL.'vt runt  adorttndi  pedes; 
ubi  *b  ipfo  j*tt&  funt  tot  &  tant&  virtutts; 
ubi  turn  funt  tot  Afyftcli  comitzti  -,  ubi  tfi 
feptiformts  Ecclefia  ^  a  qua  vos  concijos 
'jfe,  &c] 

Ttrtu/tian  dealing  wah  Hereticks  indeed, 
that-  denyed  the  Fundamentals ,  thought  it 
but  a  tirefome  way  to  difpute  with  them 
out  of  Scripture,  who  wrefted  fo  many 
things  in  it  to  their  deftrudion,  but  would 
have  them  convinced  by  Prefcription  ;  be- 
caufe  they  lived  near  the  Churches  that 
were  planted  by  the  Apoftles,  and  near  their 
daies  :  And  what  doth  he  ?  appeal  to  Rome, 
as  the  Judge,  or  Church  that  the  reft  are 
fubjeded  to  ?  No  :  but  i.It  is  the  common 
Creed  or  Symbole  of  the  Church,  that  he 
would  have  made  ufe  of  in  ftead  of  long 
difputes  (  and  not  any  other  dodrine. ) 
2.  And  it  is  all  the  Churches  planted  by  the 
Apoftles,  that  he  will  have  to  be  the  firft 
witneffes.  3.  And  the  prefent  Churches, 
the  immediate  witneffes  that  they  received 
this  Creed  (  not  any  fupernuraeraries ) 

from 


of  vthieh  pre  are  Members^  frevtd.     23  J 

romthem,  as  the  Apoftles  do&rine.  Sode 
jrtfcript.c.  13.  he  reciteth  the  Symboleit 
"elf,    and  fo  c*p.  20.   he  mentioneth   the 
"ending  of  the  twelve  to  teach  this  faith, 
md  plant  Churches ,   which  he  defcribeth 
:hns       Statim  igitur   Apoft'di^—primo  per 
}ud<eam  anteftatufide  In  fefum  Chriftum,& 
Ecclefiti  inftitutu^  dehinc  in  or  hem  profetti^ 
>*ndcm   doElrinam   ejufdem  fidri   n.tionibut 
Womnlgaverunt  ,  &  proinde  Eccbfias  apud 
HtiamquurnqHe  civitatem  condiderunt^  d  qni- 
hvu  traducem  fidci  &  femina  doBrin<t  extern 
?xinde  Etclefix  mutnata  fnnt^    &  quotidie 
mutu.ntur  ut  Ecclefit  fiant.    Ac  per  hoc  & 
ipf*  Apoftolica  depmantur  ut  foboles  Apufto- 
licarnm  Ettiefiarum    Omne  genm  adOrigi- 
nemfuam  cenfeatvr,  aeccfte  ejr.  Itaque  tot  ac 
tanta  Ecclefi*  an  a  (ft  ifla  ab  Apcftolisprima^ 
ex  qua  omnes.  (   Are  not  thole  too  grofs 
d  ceivers  that  would    perfwade  us  that  he 
here  meaneth  the  Church  of  Rome  by  the 
\_una,  ilia '] ,  when  he  plainly  fpeaks  of  the 
Catholick  Church  of  the    Apoftohck  age 
from  which  all  tie  reft  did  fpring  ?  If  of  a 
particular  Church,  it  muft  be  that  of  Jeru- 
i  falem.  Did'  all  the   reft  arife  from  Rome? 
Can  they  fay      ex  hac  omnes?  [     Sic  omnes 
prima,  0-  omnes  Apftolicz,  dum  mam  omnes 
probant  nnitatem.  Communicatio  pads,  & 

appclUtio 


*3  4     The  fuecefsive  Vifibility  of  the  Church 

appellatio  fraternitatis,  &  contefteratiohofpi- 
talitatis,  qua  jura  nun  a  lid  ratio  regit ,  quam 
ejufdem [acramenti  una  traditio.~] 

Note  here  i.  That  no  Original  Church 
is  mentioned  but  thofe  of  Judaa,  with  the 
reft  of  the  Apoftles  planting.  And  2.  That 
rhe  Churches  planted  by  the  Apoftles  them* 
felvcs,  (  without  any  mentioned  difference 
of  fuperiority  )  are  that  one  Church  whiclj 
all  the  reftmuft  try  their  faith  by,  as  the  wit- 
neffes,  3 .  That  they  are  equally  made  tra- 
duces, fidei,  and  mother* Churches  to  othen 
propagated  by  them.  4.  That  per  hoc,  by 
this  propagation  (  without  fubje&ton  to  the 
Church  or  Pope  of  Rome)  all  the  reft  are 
Apoftolicall.  5.  And  the  fufficient  prooi 
to  any  Church  then  that  it  was  prima  &  A: 
foftolica,  was  (  not  lubjedioa  to  Rome  but  ) 
that  unam  omnesprobant  unitatem.  That  is. 
of  the  Apoftohck  faith,  received  from  that 
one  Apoftolick  Church.  6.  Yea  when  he 
recitcth  the  external  Characters  of  the 
Church,  it  is  not  fubjeftion  to  Rome,  that  is 
any  one  of  them,  but,  Communicatio  pacis^ 
appellatio  fraternitatisy  contefferatio  hojpita* 
UtatuJi  7.  Yea  utterly  to  exclude  the  Ro- 
man fubjeftion,  he  adds  £  qua  jura  non  alia 
ratio  regit ,  quam  ejufdem  {acramenti  una 
traditio.  J 

Sc 


if  which  we  dre  Members ,  proved.        235 

So  he  proceeds  Si  h*c  itafunt,conftat  pro- 
inde  orr.nem  dottrinam^cjutt  cum  Mis  Ecclefiis 
Apoftolicvs    matricibus  &  originalibus  fidei 
confpiret ,  veritati  deptitandvm  id  fine  dubio 
ttnentew,quod  Eccle]i<£  ab  Apoftdis^Aptftdi 
d  Chriftc,  Ckriftus  d  Deo  fnfeepit  ±  rdiqvtam 
vero  on.nern  dcdrin.im  de  mendacio  prajudi- 
candam,qti&  fapiat  contra  itcritatem  Eccle-9 
fis.rtiW!,  &   Apoftdorum,  &  Chrifti,  &  Dd* 
Suptreft  ergo  ut  demonftrtn,u6>  an  h<ec  n<ftr* 
dedrina  (  the  Creed  •  not  the  Popes  additi- 
ons) cpt'jtu  regvUrn  fupra  ed'tdiwui^de  Apcft§- 
larum  trdditiune  cenfeatvr,  &  ex  hoc  ipfo,  an 
cetera  (  that  contradid:  the  Creed  )  dewtn- 
dacioveniant.  Corr<mnnicamus  cum  Eccleftu 
Apoft.  licit  (  Rome  is  not  made  the  ftandard^ 
cfttod  nulla  dcdrina  diverfa,  hoc  eft  tt ft  intern- 
um vcritMtiSm 

And  cap.  28.  he  doth  not  fend  us  to  the 
Roman  Church  as  Head  or  Judge,  but  cal- 
ling the  Holy  Ghoft  only,  Vicarius  Chrifti, 
Chrifts  Vicar,  makes  it  incredible  that  he 
(hould  fo  far  negled:  his  office  ,   as  to  let 
("not  Rome,  but)  all  the  Churches  to  lofe 
the  Apoftlesdoftrine-,  proving  the  certain 
fucceflionof  it,  by  the  Unity,  and  npt  by 
Romes  authority  £  Eccjuid  verifimile  eft.,  ut 
tot  ac  tantt  in  unam  fidern  err aver inti  Nullus 
inter  multos  event  m  eft  anus  exit  us  :  Vari- 

4< 


f  7, 3  6     The  fuceefsive  Pifibility  of  the  Church 

affe  deb  Herat  error  doUrina  EccUftarum. 
C&terum  quod  apndmultvs  unum  invenitur, 
non  eft  erratum,  fed  tradituw.  Audeat 
ergo  liquis  dicere  5  illos  erraffe  qui  traJi- 
dervint  ? 

So  c.  3  2.  when  he  calls  hem  to  the  Apo- 
ftolical  C  hu%  ch  ms  no  m  >re  to  Rome,  hen 
another.    $s£dant  ergo  origines  Ecclefiarum 

uarum ut  frimm  ilk  Epijcopus  t>  liquis 

ex  Apoftolu  vel  Aprs  ft  Luis  viris,  qui  tamen 

cum    Apufit  Us  perjeveraverint  ,    habuerit 

auttorem,  &  anteccfforem.     Hoc  enim  modo 

Ecclefia  Apeftjlica    cenfus  fuos    dfferunt  : 

ficm  Sn  jrntirum  Ecclefla  habens  Peljcar- 

fum  ab  Johtnne  Collocatum  refert\  ficut  Ro- 

mamrum  Clementem  a  Petroordinatum  edit : 

froinde  utique  &  CAter*  exhibent]  Here  vou 

fee  he  puts  Smyrna  before  Rome,  and  fohn 

before  Peter ,  and  refers  them  to  Rome,  but 

only  as  one  of  the  Churches  planted  by  the 

Apoilles .,  and  this  is  but  to  know  their  do- 

drine,  delivered  in  that  firft  age,  which  we 

appeal  to. 

And  after  he  exprefly  faith  [Ad  banc 
itaqueformarn,  provocabuntur  ab  Hits  Eccle- 
fiit,  qu<€  licet  nullum  ex  Apoftolit,  vel  Apo- 
ftolicu  aullorem  fuum  proferant,  ut  multo 
pofltriores,  qua  denique  quotidie  inftitutum  ^ 
tamen  in  eadem  fidem  con  {fir  antes,  non  minus 

Apofto- 


if  which  we  are  Mtmb'rs,  f  roved.    239 

jiptft  licdt  ecputantur  pro  ccnfanguinitate 
dittrin*  :  3  *  he  Apohles  do&rine  will 
prove  an  Apoftolical  Chiach,  when  ever 
pianted. 

And  c.  38.  he  draws  rhem  from  difputing 
from  the  Scripture,  becauie  Ley  cwned 
not  the  true  Scripture,  but  cor-upced  ir, 
and  charg  d  tlie^atholikes  wiJ.co  ruptioii 
'" Sic fit  Mis  non  pot  a  it  {accede re  cerrupt  U 
doEtrln*  fin,  corrupt  da  infirm^ent^ram  ejus  : 
It  a  &nolis  integrity  uitlrina  non  compe- 
tijfit)  fine  integritate  eornm  ( not  by  real 
tradition  alone  J  per  qu<t  dcEirina  trattatur  : 
Etenim  quid  contrarium  mlis  in  ncftris  ? 
quid  de  prvprio  intulimvu,  Ht  aliquld  ccn- 
trariam  ei  &  in  Striptaris  deprehenjum,  de- 
trattione  Vtl  adjtlicne  vel  tranfumtationt 
remediaremus  ?  Jjilyd  jamas,  hoc  fxnt.  Ab 
initio  fue  ex  Mis  f  urn  us  •  AMcquam  nihil 
aliterfuit,  quam  fumns.~\ 

hn&cdp.  36.  He  fends  chem  by  name  to 
the  particular  ApoUolical  Churches ,  and 
bep  ns  with  C<rinth  •  then  to  Thilippi^ 
Thcjf.Lnica,  Ephefus,  and  then  to  Rome, 
of  whole  Soveraigncy  he  never  fpeaks  a 
fyllable 

So  more  plainly  /.  4.  contr.  M.:rcion.  c.  5. 
becaufe  Mtrcion  denied  the  true  Scri- 
ptures, he  fends  them  to   the  Apollo'  ke 

Ctmrches 


%  j8     The  fuccefsive  Vifihility  of  the  Church 

Churches  for  the  true  Scriptures,  firfl  to 
the  Corinthians i  then  to  the  GalatUns,  then 
to  the  PhilippiamSThejfalonians,  Ephejians, 
and  laft  of  all.  to  Rome. 

But  it  would  be  tedious  to  cite  die  reft  of 
the  Ancients,  that  commonly  defcnbe  the 
Church  as  we^  and  fuchas  we  all  own  as 
members  of  it. 

Arg,  3.  If  the  Roman  Church  (as  Chri- 
ftian, though  not  as  Papal)  hatb  been  vifible 
ever  fince  the  daies  of  the  Apoftles,  then 
the  Church  of  which  the  Proteftancs  are 
members;  hath  been  vifible  ever  fince  the 
daies  of  the  Apoftles :  But  the  Antecedent 
is  their  own ;  therefore  they  may  not  deny 
the  confequent. 

The  confequence  alfo  is  paft  denyal; 
I.  Becaufe  the  Roman  as  Chriftian,  is  part 
of  the  univerfal  Chriftian  Church:  2.  Be- 
caufe they  profefs  to  believe  the  fame  holy 
Scriptures  and  Creed  as  we  do.  So  that 
though  they  add  more,  and  fo  make  a  new 
form  to  their  Church,  yet  do  they  not  deny 
our  Church,  which  is  the  Chriftian  Church 
as  fuch,  nor  our  Teft  and  Rule  of  faith ,  nor  ' 
any  Article  that  we  account  Eflenrial  to 
our  Religion.  So  that  themfelves  are  our 
fufficient   witnefles. 

Well !  but  this  will  not  fatisfie  the  Pa- 


of  which  we  are  Members,  proved.       2  39 

.pifts ,  unlefs  we  (hew  a  fuccefiion  of  our 
Churth  as  Proteftant. 

1.  This  we  need  not,  any  more  then  a 
found  man  lately  cured  of  the  Plague,  doth 
need  to  prove,  that  he  hath  ever  been,  not 
only  Janus  but  fanatus,  a  cured  man  (before 
he  was  Tick.)  How  could  there  be  a  C  hurch 
protefting  againft  an  univerfal  Vicar  of 
Chrift,  before  any  claimed  that  Vicarfhip? 
2.  And  when  the  Vicarfhip  was  ufurped, 
thofe  millions,  abroad,  ar  d  even  within  the 
Roman  territories,  that  let  the  pretended 
Vicar  calk,  and  followed  their  own  bufinefe, 
and  never  confented  to  his  ufurpation, 
were  of  the  very  fame  Religion  with  thofe 
that  openly  protefted  againft  him  :  And  fo 
were  thofe  that  never  heard  of  his  ufurpa- 
tion.  • 

Ob'jett.  But  at  leaft,  ( fay  they)  you  muft 
prove  a  Church  that  hath  be.n  without  the 
univerfal  Vicar  negatively,  though  not 
againft  him  pofnively. 

A*fw-  1.  In  all  reafon,  he  that  affirm* 
eth  muft  prove ;  It  is  n<  t  incumbent  on  us 
to  prove  the  negative,  that  the  Church  had 
not  fuch  a  Roman  head  ^  but  they  muft 
prove  that  it  had. 

Objttt.  But  they  have  poffeffion,  and 
therefore  you  that  would  difpoffels  them, 
muft  difprove  their  title.  A»f. 


2  40      The  fuccefshe  Vifibility  of  the  Church 

Anf.  i.  This  is  nothing  to  moft  of  the 
Catholike  Church  where  they  have  no 
pofTeffion  :  therefore  with  them  they  con- 
fck  themfelves  obliged  to  the  proof, 
2.  This  is  ameer  fallacious  diverfion.-  for 
we  are  not  now  upon  the  queftion  of  their 
Title,  but  the  matter  of  fad:  andhiftory: 
we  make  good  the  negative,  that  they  have 
no  Title  from  the  Laws  ofChrift  himfelf : 
and  fo  will  not  difpoffefs  them  without  dif- 
proving  their  pretended  Title.  But  when 
the  queftion  is  defa&o^  whether  they  have 
ever  had  that  poflfeffion  from  the  Apoftles 
daies,  chey  that  affirm  muft  prove,  when  we 
have  difabted  their  title  from  the  Law. 

2.  But  what  muft  we  prove?  that  *//the 
Church  hach  been  guiltlefs  of  ihePapal  ulur- 
pation,  or  only  fome  in  every  age  ?  of  all  its 
no  more  neceffary  to  us,  then  to  prove  that 
th^re  have  been  noHereftes  fince  the  Apo- 
ftles. If  a  piece  of  the  Church  may  turn 
Hereticks,  or  but  Schifmaticks,  as  the  No- 
vations^ and  African  Donatifts,  why  may 
not  anocher  piece  turn  Papifts? 

3.  What  will  you  fay  to  a  man  that 
knoweih  not  a  Protectant,  noraPapift,  or 
believeth  only  Chriftianity  it  felf,  and  med- 
dlech  not  wich  the  Pope,  any  furcher  then 
to  fay,  [I  believe  not  in  him,  Jefus  I  know  : 

and 


ef  which  we  Are  Members 5  proved.       24 1 

&nd  the  Apoftles,  and  Scripture,  and  Chri- 
ftianity  I  know,  but  the  Pope  I  know  not  :"" 
and  fuppofe  he  never  fubfcribed  to  the  Ah- 
gttftane^  Englip9>or  any  fuch  confeflion,  but 
only  to  the  Scripture,  and  the  Apoftles,  and 
Nicene,  and  other  ancient  Creeds  •  By 
what  (hew  ot  Juftice  can  you  require  this 
man  to  prove  that  there  hath  been  no  pope 
in  every  age? 

4.  The  foundation  of  all  our  contro- 
verfie  is  doftrina!,  whether  the  Papal  Sove- 
reignty be  Effential  to  the  Church  ?  or  ne- 
ceflary  to  our  memberftiip  ?  we  deny  it  -, 
you  affirm  it.  If  it  be  not  EfTential,  it  is 
enough  to  us,  to  prove  that  which  is  EfTen- 
tial, to  have  been  facceflive  :  we  be  not 
bound  in  order  to  the  proof  of  our  Church 
it  felf,  to  prove  the  fucceffion  of  every  thing 
that  maKeth  but  to  its  better  being. 

Yet  profefiing,  that  we  do  it  not  as  ne- 
cefTary  to  our  main  caufe,  we  fhall  ex  abun- 
danti  prove  the  negative,  that  the  Catholike 
Church  hath  not  alwaies  owned  the  Papal 
Soveraignty,  and  fo  that  there  have  been 
men  that  were  not  only  Chriftians,  but  as 
we ,  Chriftians  wichout  Popery ,  and 
againft  it  :  and  fo  fhall  both  prove  our 
Thefis,  and  overthrow  theirs. 

Arg.  4.  If  there   have   been  fince  the 

R  daieg 


ITi 


34z    The  fuccefsive  yipbtM)  ef  we  imrct, 

dales  of  Chrift,  a  Chriftian  Church  that  was 
not  fob  jeft  to  the  Roman  Pope,  as  the  Vicar 
ofChrift  anduniverfal  Head  and  Govern- 
our  of  the   Church  s  then  the  Church  of 
which  the  proteftants  are  members,   hath;' 
been  viable  botfcin  its  being,  and  us ircej 
dom  from  Popery\     But  the  Antecedent  is 
true-  therefore  fo  is  the  confequent 

1  (hall  prove  the  Antecedent,  and  therein 
the  viability  of  our  Church,  andthenon- 
exiftence  in  thofe  times  of  the  Papacy. 

Arg.  i.  My  firft  Argument  (hall  be 
from  the  general  Council  of  Chdcedon. 

If  the  oriviledges  of  the  Roman  Sea  were 
given  to  it  by  the  Bifhops  confequently 
becaufe  of  the  Empire   of  that  City,  and* 
therefore  equal  priviledges  after  given  to 
Conftantlnovlc  on  the  fame  account-,  then 
had  not  Rome  thofe  priviledges  from  the 
Apoftles  (and  confequently  the  whole  Ca- 
tholike  Church  was  without   them).    But 
the  Antecedent  is  affirmed  by  that  fourth 
great  approved  Council :  In  Att.  16.  £t». 
I  134    LWe   everywhere  following  the 
definitions  of  the  holy  Fathers ,  and  the 
Canon,  and  the  things  that  have  been  now 
'  reacj  ouhe  hundred  and  fitty  Bifhops  molt 
beloved  to  God ,    that  were  congregate 
under  the  Emperour  Theodofitu  the  great  of 

pious 


of  which  we  are  Members,  proved.       245 

pious  memory,  in  the  Royal  City  of  Con- 
stantinople ,  new  Rome^    we  alfo  knowing 
hem,have  defined  the  fame  things  concerni- 
ng the  priviledges  of  the   fame  moft  holy 
hurch  of  Confiantinople,  new  Rome  :  for 
othe  feat  of  old  Rome  y  becaufe  of  the  Em- 
pire of  that  City,  the  Fathers  confequently 
;ave  the  priviledges.     And  the  hundred 
nd  fifty  Bilhops,  moft  beloved  ot  God, 
eing  moved  wLh  the  fame  intention,  have 
,iven    equal  priviledges   to  the  moft  holy 
eat  of  new  Rome :  reafonably  judging,  that 
he  City  adorned    with  the  Empire  and 
enate,  (hall  enjoy  equal  priviledges  with 
Id  Regal  Rome.} 
Here  we  have  the  Teftimony  of  one  of 
c  greatcft  general  Councils,  of  che  hu- 
ane  original  of  Rome s  priviledges.    Bellar- 
\\ine  hath  nothing  to  lay  ,   but  thac  they 
e  falflv,  and  that  this  claufe  was  noc 
lonfirmed  by  the  pr-pe  ("which  are  fully  an- 
rlivered  by  me  elfewhere.)  But  this  is  no- 
'  ine  to  our  prefent  bufmefs :  It  is  a  matter 
fad:  that  1  ufe  their  Teftimony  for.    And 
all  ihe  Bifhops   in  two  of  the  moft  ap- 
proved general  Councils,    (called  the  Re- 
^Irefentative  Catholikc  Church)  were  noc 
♦•  fompetent  witneffes  in  luch  a  cafe,  to  tell 
llswhai  was  done,  and  whac  was  not  done 

R  2  in 


Q0 


2  44     Thefuccefsivc  Viability  of  the  Church 

in  thofe  times,  then  we  have  none.  The 
Papifts  can  pretend  to  no  higher  teftimony 
on  their  part.  The  Church  it  felf  there- 
fore hath  here  decided  the  contro. 
v'erfie. 

And  yet  note,  that  even  thefe  priviledges 
of  Rmt  were  none  of  his  pretended  univer- 
fal  Government. 
,  Its  in  vain  to  talk  of  the  Teftimonies  of 
particular  Do&ors,  if  the  moft  renowned 
general  Councils  cannot  be  believed.  Yet 
I  will  add  an  Argument  from  them  as  con- 
junct. 

Arg.  2.  Had  the  Rowan  univerfal  Sove*. 
raignty,  as   efTential    to    the    Catholikc 
Church,  been  known  in  the  daies  of  Ter 
tn/liany  Cyprian ,  Athanafius,   Naz.Unz.en 
Njjfen,  Bafil,  Opt«tus,  Anguftine^   and  thi 
other  Do&ors  that  confounded  the  Here 
fies  or  Schifms  of  thofe  times    (e.  g.  th< 
N&vfitians,  Donatifts,  Arrians^  &c.)    th 
faid  DoAors  would  have  plainly  and  fre 
quently  infifted  on  it  for  the  conviction  c 
thofe  HereticKs  and  Schifmaticks :  But  th  j 
they  do  not :  therefore  it  was  not  known  i 
thofe  times. 

The  confequerce  of  the  Major  is  evidcij 
hence  :  The  Doftors  of  the  Church  we 
sien  at  leaft  of  common  wit  and  prudence 

t 


tf  wbtcb  we  are  Members,  f  roved.      345 

the  matters  which  they  did  debate  ;  there- 
fore they  would  have  infiftedon  this  argu- 
ment it  hen  it  had  been  known.    The  rea- 
fbn  of  eh.  confequence  is,   Kcaufe  it  had 
been  molt  obvious,    eafie,   and  potent  to 
di. parch  .heir  controvcrfies.     1.  When  the 
Arriuns  and  many  other  Hereticks  denied 
Chriits  ecernal  Godhead,    had  it  not  been 
the  (horteft  expeditious  •  courfe  ,  to  have 
cited  them  to  the  barr  of  the  Judge  of  con- 
trover  les,  the  infallible  Soveraign  Head  of 
the  Church  ^  and  convinced  them  that  they 
were  to  ftand  to  his  judgement  ?    2.  Had 
not  this  Argument  been  at  hand,    to  have 
confounded  all  Herefies  at  once,     That 
which  agreeth   not  with  the  Belief  of  the 
Roman  Pope  and  Church  is  falfe  ;  But  futh 
is  your  opinion  :    therefore] 

2.  So  for  the  Donatifts  •,  when  they  dis- 
puted for  fo  many  years  againft  theCatho- 
likes,  which  was  the  true  Church,  had  it  not 
been  Ang^fiins  fhorteft,  furelt  way  to  have 
argued  thus :  That  only  is  the  true  Church 
that  is  fubjeft  to  the  Pop?  of  Rome^  and 
adhereth  to  him  :  But  fo  do  not  you  ;  there- 
fore] 

Either  the  Arriws,  Donatijls  and  futh 
others  did  believe  the  Papal  Soveraignty 
and  Vicarlhip,  or  not :  If  they  did ,  1 .  How 

R  3  i* 


2  efi    The  Juccefsive  Viftbilitj  of  the  Church 

is  itpofiiblc  they  fliould  aftually  rejeft  both 
the  Doftrine  and  Communion  of  the  Pope 
and  Roman  Church  ?  2.  And  why  did 
not  the  Fathers  rebuke  them  for  finning 
againft  confcience,  and  their  own  profeilion 
herein  ? 

But  if  they  did  not  believe  the  Papal  So- 
veraignty ,  then  2.  How  came  it  to  pafs  K 
that  the  Fathers  did  labour  no  more  to  con- 
vince them  of  that  (  now  fuppofedj  fun- 
damentallErrour  ?  when  1.  It  is  fuppofed 
as  hainous  a  fin  as  many  of  the  reft.  2.  And 
was  the  maintainer  of  the  reft.  Had  they 
but  firft  demonftrated  to  them ,  that  the 
Pope  was  their  Governour  and  Judge,  and 
that  his  Headfhip  being  eflentiall  to  the 
Church,  it  muft  needs  be  of  his  faith,  all 
Herefies  might  have  been  confuted,  the  peo- 
ple fatisfied,and  the  controverfies  difpatched 
in  a  few  words. 

3 .  Either  Arrians,  Donatifts  Novatians, 
and  fuch  like,  were  before  th«ir  defe&ion 
acquainted  with  the  Roman  Soveraignty,  or 
not.  If  they  were  not,  then  it  is  a  fign  it! 
was  not  commonly  then  received  in  the  , 
Church,  and  that  there  were  multitudes  of 
Chriftians  that  were  no  Papifts  :  If  they 
were,  then  why  did  not  the  Fathers,  1 .  U  rge 
them  with  this  as  a  granted  truth,  till  they 

had 


I 


1 


of  which  we  are  Members \  proved.       247 

fiaci renounced  it?  2.  And  then  why  did  they 
not  charge  this  defection  from  the  Pope  up- 
on them,  among  their  hainous  crimes?  why 
lid  they  not  teil  them,  that  they  were  fub- 
e&ed  to  him  as  foon  as  they  were  made 
Chriftians  •  and  therefore  they  (hould  not 
rcrfidioufly  revolt  from  him  ?  How  is  it 
hat  we  find  not  this  point  difputed  by  them 
>nboth  fides,  yea  and  as  copioufly  as  the 
eft,  when  it  would  have  ended  all  t> 

And  for  the  Minor,  that  the  lathers  have 
lot  thus  dealt  with  Hereticks,  the  whole 
Jooks  of  Tertulliun  ,  Na^ianztn,  Njjfen, 
3ajil,  Optatxs  ,  Hierom  ,  Augu^ine  ,  and 
thers  arc  open  certain  witnefles.  Th^yufe 
o  fuch  Argument,  but  fill  their  Books  with 
others  •,  mod  imprudently  and  vainly  ,  if 
hey  had  known  of  this,  and  had  believed 
.  Otherwifc  thePapiits  wou'd  never  have 
een  put  to  ga:her  up  a  few  impertinent 
:raps  :o  make  a  (hew  with. 
We  fee  b'  experience  here  among  us,  that 
s  point  is  Voluminously  debated-  and  if 
it  d  flfer  in  other  matters,  [he  Pap  lis  call  us 
o  :he  Roman  bar,  and  bring  in  this  as  the 
riocipall  difference.  And  why  would  it 
ot  have  been  fo  then  becween  the  1  athcrs, 
ndtheDonatiP  .rrians,  and  fuch!  \c,  if 
ic  Fathers  had  believed  this  ?    Its  clear 

K  4  hei.ee 


*$    The [nccefsiveViftbilit')  of  the  Church 

hence  that  the  Papall  Vicarfhip  was  then 
unknown  to  the  Church  of  Chnit. 

Arg.  3.  The  Tradition  witneflfedby  the 
greater  part  of  the  Univerfai  Church  faith, 
that  the  Papal  Vicarftiip  or  Soveraignty  is 
an  innovation  and  ufurpation/  and  that  the 
Catholick  Church  was  many  hundred  years 
without  it  ;  Therefore  there  was  then  no 
fuch  papal  Church. 

This  is  not  a  fingle  teftimony,  nor  of  tea 
thoufand,or  ten  millions,  but  of  the  Ma-* 
jor  Vote  of  the  whole  Church  ^  and  in 
Councils  the  Major  Vote  itands  for  the 
whole.  If  this  witnefs  therefore  be  refufed, 
we  cannot  exped  that  the  words  of  a  fevq 
Dodors  ihould  be  credited  •  Nor  mav 
they  exped  that  we  credit  any  witnefs  oj 
theirs,  that  is  nor  more  credible. 

And  that  the  Antecedent  is  true,  i 
known  to  the  world  .  as  we  know  that  th 
Turks  believe  in  Mahomet ,  by  the  commo 
confent  of  hiftory  and  travellers.  Part 
the  Churches  anathematize  the  Roman 
and  part  more  modeflly  difown  them,  an  J 
the  generality  that  fubjed  not  themfelvc 
do  pi  ofefs  that  Popery  is  an  ufurpation,  an 
that  in  the  ancient  Church  it  was  not  f< 
and  this  they  have  by  Tradition  from  gene 
nation  to  generation.   And  if  the  Roman 

pretended 


IT, 


•/  which  we  are  Memkrs,  f  roved.       249 

pretended  Tradition  be  with  them  of  value, 
the  Tradition  of  the  far  greater  part  of  the 
Church  is  with  us  to  be  of  more.  We  muft 
defpair  of  fatisfying  them  with  witnefs,  if 
moft  of  the  Chriftian  world  be  rejected, 
and  the  Tradition  of  the  greateft  part  of 
the  Church  be  taken  to  be  falfc  in  a  matter  of 
pubhek  notorious  fad. 

Arg.  4.  Many  Churches  without  the 
verge  of  the  Roman  Empire ,  never  fub- 
je&ed  therafelves  to  Rome,  (and many  not 
of  many  hundred  years  after  Chriit: )  there- 
fore there  were  vifible  Chriftian  Churches 
from  the  beginning,  to  this  day,  that  were 
not  for  the  Roman  Vicarfhip. 

That  abundance  of  Churches  were  plan- 
ted by  the  Apoftles,  without  the  reach  of  the 
Roman  Empire ,  is  plentifully  teftified  by 
the  ancients,  and  the  Papifts  commonly  con- 
fefs  it.    1  hat  thefe  were  under  the  Papal 
Government ,  all  the  Papifts  in  the  world 
cannot  prove.    The  contrary  is  confefTed 
by  them,  aud   proved   by  us.     1.  They 
came  not  fo  much  as  to  Gencrall  Councils. 
2.  They  had  no  Bifhops  ordained  by  the 
Pope,  or  any  impowred  by  him.     3.  They 
never  appealed  to  him.    4.  They  never  had 
any  cauies  judged  by  him.      5.  They  per. 
formed  no  obedience  to  him,  nor  lived  un- 
der 


I 

t 
1 

s 

5 


250     The  fnceefshe  Viftbility  of  the  Church    I 

der  his  Laws  ^  nor  fcarce  had  any  commu- 
nion wich  him,  more  then  the  common 
communion  thac  is  held  in  Charity,  and 
common  faith  and  ordinances  with  all.  Such! 
were  the  Indians,  the  Perfians,  the  further" 
Armenia  and  Partbia,  the  Habaffines  and 
many  more.  And  of  long  time  the  Englifti 
and  .he  Scots,  that  refuf.d  fo  much  as  to 
cat  and  drink  in  the  fame  Inn  with  the  Ro- 
man Legates ;  much  Ids  would  obey  him, 
fo  much  as  in  che  change  of  Eafter  day  ^  we 
challenge  chem  to  ftiew  us  any  appearance 
of  fubjeftion  to  the  Pope  in  the  generality 
of  the  Churches  without  the  Empire, 

But  you  fay,  that  the  Habaffines  were 
under  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  he 
under  the  Pope. 

*s>nf.  1.  If  that  were  true,  yet  whats 
that  to  all  the  reft  ?  2.  Give  us  your  proof 
that  the  Abaflines  were  under  the  Patri- 
arch of  Alexandria ,  before  that  Patriarch 
x  broke  off  his  communion  with  Rome.  The 
Canons  of  Pifanus,  of  yefterdayes  inven- 
tion, we  regard  not  :  Surely  the  true  Ca- 
nons of  Nice  (  Can.  6. )  meafure  out  no 
more  to  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria^  but 
v£g)ft,Lybiay  and  Pentafolis.  There's  no 
mention  of  Ethiopia  :  And  its  not  like  that 
the  greateft  part  of  his  Province  would 

have 


of  which  tve  are  Members 3  frwed.        251 

avc  been  left  out.  3.  If  it  had  beenio, 
et  we  utterly  deny  that  ever  the  Pope  had 
he  Government  of  the  Alexandrian  Patri- 
rch  ;  Only  for  a  little  while  he  had  a  pre- 
edency  in  honorary  Title,  and  in  Councils  ^ 
s  the  City  of  London  is  preferred  before 
fork^  but  doth  not  Govern  it  at  all. 

Here  therefore  (  without  the  Roman  Em- 
pire )  you  may  fee  thofe  Churches  that  have 
ucceflively  been  vifible,  and  yet  no  Pa- 
>ifts.  This  your  Rajnerins  confefleth  ccntr. 
Valdenf.  Catalog,  in  Ribliothec.  P^itr.  Tom. 
KMf-773-  faying  C  Armtniorum  Ecci 
ia^<^£thiopum>d^  lnddrum,&  CAterjt  quM 
Afoflcli  convertervnt)  mn  fubfunt  Roman* 
Eccleji*._  See  Cjodignns  de  Ret  us  Abajfi- 
sorum,  ot  their  Antiquity. 

Arg.  5.  The  Eaftern  Churches  within 
the  Empire  were  never  fubjeftsof  the  Pope: 
therefore  there  have  been  and  are  Churches 
Vifible,  that  neither  were  nor  are  his  fub- 
jefts 

The  Antecedent  I  have  proved  in  my  Key 
forCatholickji  from  the  Council  of  Car- 
thage's  Letters  to  Pope  Cixlefiine,  after  their 
relilUnccof  Zofimu*  ^  and  diwrs  teftimo- 
nies  from  Bafil  and  others.  And  they  can 
give  us  thcmfrlves  no  plaufiblc  appearance 
of  a  proof  of  that  fubjedion  which  they 

a  flirt ; 


a  J  %     The  [uecefslve  rtfihlUty  of  the  Church 

aflerc:  no  more  then  the  younger  Juftice 
on  the  Bench  are  fubjeft  to  the  elder,  or  thi 
Jury  to  the  foreman,  or  a  Mafter  of  Arts  h 
a  Colledge  to  a  Batchelor  in  Divinity,  o: 
then  the  Mayor  of  Brifioll  is  to  the  Mayo: 

of  r*rt 

i .  The  Pope  never  chofe  the  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria^  Antioch,  &C     2.   It  did 
belong  to  him  to  ordatn   them ;  nor  die 
he  authorize   any  other  to  do  it,  nor  die 
they  receive  or  hold  their  power  from  him. 

3.  They  receive  no  Laws  of  his  to  Rule  by. 

4.  They  were  not  rommanded  or  Judged 
by  him.  5 .  The  Patriarch  of  ConfttntinopU 
had  equall  Priviledges  with  him.  So  that 
here  is  nothing  like  to  Soveraigaty  and  fub- 
jeftion,  nor  any  acknowledgement  of  an 
universal  Vicar  of  Chrift.  Communion  in- 
deed they  held  with  Rome,  as  they  did  with 
one  another,  till  pride  divided  them  ^  but 
Communion  is  one  thing,  and  Subjection  is 
another.  The  Greek  Church  never  gave 
them  this.  / 

Arg.  6.  My  next  Argument  to  prove  the 
Novelty  of  their  Church  as  Papal,  and  con- 
fequently  that  the  Univerfal  Church  was 
void  of  Popery,  and  therefore  of  the  fame 
Religion  wuh  proteftants,  fliall  be  from  the 
tefrmony  of  their  own  raoft  magnified  Bi- 
(hops,  Grt- 


I 


ef  which  m  are  Members,  f  roved.       2  53 

:ty    Greger)  i.Eplft.  RegiftJ.^.  c  80.  fpeak- 
ngagaihit  the  Patriarch  of  Conftantinople^ 
otor  uiurping  che  Tide  of  OecumenicallPa- 
oitriarch,or  UniverfalBi{hop,faith(/J.  181, 
182.  Edit.  Pari/.  1 55 1.)     C  Sicut  tnim 
tvneranda  veftra  fantlitas  novit ,  neihi  per 
faniUm  Chaicedoneniem  Sjnodum  Pontifici 
fedts  Apofiolicd,  cui  Deo  difponente  defervio^ 
hoc  XJniverfalitatis  now  en  oblatum  efi:  fed 
JV alius  unquam  decefforum  meorum  hoe  tarn 
frophano  vocabulo  uti  conftnftt.  Quia  vi^ 
ft  Vnus  Patriarch*  Vniverfalis  dicitur^  Pa- 
triarcharum  mmen  Ceteris  derogatur.     Sed 
ah  [it  hoc,  abfit  a  Chrifiiana  mente^  idjibi  vel- 
le  quempiam  ar riper e,  unde  fratrum  fuorum 
honortm  imminucre  ex  quant ulacunque  parte 
videatur.  Cum  ergo  nos  hunc  honcrem  min- 
imis oblatum  fufcipere  •  pen  fate  quam  ignorr.i- 
niofum  fit  hunc  fibi  quempiam  vi<  Unti  r  tifur- 
fare  vrluijfe     Propttrea  funfliras  vflra  in 
fuis  Epifi 'its  neminem  Univerfalem  Hvminct^ 
ne  fibi  debitum  detrahat,  cum  altcri  honor  em 
effertindebitum.  J 

i.  Here  he  affirmeth  that  the  Tide  of 
Vniverfal  was  never  ufed  by  any  of  his  pre- 
dccefTors  nor  received.  2.  That  insapro- 
phane  Title.  3.  That  it  is  an  injury  to 
other  Patriarchs.  4.  That  itsunbefeeming 
aChriftian  mind  to  aflume  it.   5.  That  its 

undue. 


254      Jke  ft4ccefsive  Vifibilitj  of  the  Church 

undue.  6.  He  perfwaded  the .  Bifhops  of ' 
Alexandria  and  Antioch  to  give  it  to  no  man 
whofoever. 

Obj.  But  he  faith  that  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  offered  it  him.  Anf.  i.  If  he 
renounce  it  as  undue  and  prophane,  andfay 
that  defatto  none  of  his  predeceffors  took 
it,  this  is  as  much  as  we  defire.  2.  That  at 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  near  150.  years 
before  this,  two  Deacons  (  that  they  fay 
have  no  Votes  ^callM  Theodoras  and  Ifchi- 
rion,  did  fuperfcribe  their  Libels,  to  Leo 
Vniverfd  Archbijhop  9-l  End  1  but  no  more  • 
And  this  is  it  that  Gregory  here  brags  of: 
And  whats  two  Deacons  to  the  Council  ? 

Obj.  But  it  is  only  the  Afaw^and  not  the 
Thing  that  he  difclaims,  and  that  is  in  mo- 
defty.  Anf.  1.  How  then  could  he 'cen- 
fure  the  name  as  undue,  injurious,  prophane, 
and  blafphemous ,  if  he  owned  the  Thing? 
feeing  aptandafunt  verba  rebus  :  words  are 
to  be  fitted  to  Things.  2.  But  I  (hall  con- 
fute this  fully  from  his  following  words. 

\_  Ita  ut  Univerfa  fibi  tentet  afcribere,  & 
emnia^uA  foli  unicapiti  coherent  y  videlicet 
Chrifio ,  per  elationem  pomputici  fermonid, 
ejufdemChrifti  fibi  (iudeat  membra  fubju- 
gare.^ 

Here  it  is  plain    1 ,  That  it  is  the  Thing  as 
*  well 


J      ef  which  we  are  Mtmbns,  proved.      25  y 

Jwell  as  the    Name    that    Gregory   wrote 
:(againft.    2.    And  that  it  is  alio  a  palpable 
"fidionof  thePapifts(  for  want  of  abetter) 
.  that  Gregory  oppofe^h  only  fuch  an  Univer- 
fal  Epifcopacy  as    taketh  away  all  Epifco- 
:  pacy  from  others.  Ridiculous !  They  would 
;  make  us  believe,  that  John  of  Conslantincple 
would  have  hadnoB:(hop  in  the  world  but 
:  imfelf  •,  and  that  the  Council    that  gave 
!  him  the  Title,intcnded  al  1  to  degrade  them- 
feJves  •,  and  that  there  were  no  Bifhops  un- 
"  der  him  ever  after  •   when  other  Councils 
confirmed  his  Title.    On  the  contrary,  you 
here  fee    1.  That  there  is  but  one  Head, 
evenChrift.    2.  And  that  Johns  fin  in  arro- 
gating the  Title  [_  Vniverf.il     was,  that  he 
e  would   fubjugate,   or  fubjed  all   Chrifts 
Members  to  himfelf.   And  is  not  this  now 
•  the    very   form  of  Popery  ,  which    Gre- 
gory makes  fo  great  a  fin  ?  even  to  fubjeft 
ail  Chrifts  Members  to  one,  as  anUniverfal 
Patriarch  or  Biftiop  ?   Yea  much    higher 
Titles  do  they  arrogate,  even  to  be  |[  the  Vi- 
car of  Chnft,  and  God ,  and  in  ftead  of 
Chrift  and  God  •  and   to   be  the  Vice- 
Chrift.  ] 

He  proceeds  \_  Nee  mirum  quod  i/le  tern 
tator,  qui  imtinm  omntsfeccatijeit  ejfefuper- 
bium,  &c  J  Makiag  the  Devil  the  anchor  of 
this  Title.  He 


2  5  6     the  futcefsivc  Viability  of  the  Church 

He  adds  a  weighty  reafcyi  £  ft  enim  hoi 
dici  licenter  fermittitur,  honor  Patriarch* 
rum  omnium  negatur.  Et  cum  fort ajfe  is  it 
trrore  ptriit  qui  Vniverfalis  dicitury  nullvu 
jam  Epi[copw$  remanfijfc  in  ftatu  veritati 
invenitur]  or  as  more  plainly  before  c .  76 
foi.  r8o.  in  the  Epift.  to  the  Emperoui 
Maurice  £  ft  igitur  Hind  riomen  in  ea  Ecch. 
fid  fibi  quifquam  arripuit,  quod  apnd  bom 
rum  omnium  judicium  fuit  1  ZJniverfaerg 
Ecclefia,  quod  abfit ,  a  fiatu  fue  corruit 
quando  is  qui  appe  flat  ur  Vniverfalis  cadit 
The  reafon  is  plain,  becaufe  the  Head  o 
every  political  focicty  is  efTential  to  it 
and  therefore  if  the  Head  of  the  Uniyerfa 
Church  fall  away  to  Herefie  or  Infidelity 
the  Church  falls  ;  as  BeUarmine  knevt 
when  he  told  lis,  that  if  the  Pope  fheulc 
erre  in  determining,  the  Church  would  bt 
bound  to  take  evil  for  good,  and  vice  fo; 
venue. 

.  He  proceeds  in  the  fame  Epift.  ad  Mam 
Imperat.  [_Sedabftt  aCerdibfu  Chriftiano  J 
rum  nomen  ifiud  bla$f>hcmidiy  &c.J   [[Far  h  - 
this  name  of  blafphemy  from  the  hearts  0 
Chriftians,  &c .  ] 

And  after  again  faith  \Jtdnullmeor 
unquam  hoe  fingularitatis  vocabui 
tffumpfit ,  ma  mi  confcnfit^  That  none  0 

tb 


I 


\ 


cf  which  tve  Are  Members,  proved.       257 

the  Roman  Bifliops  did  ever  affume  this 
name  of  Angularity  ,  nor  confent  to 
life  it.]] 

And  therefore  he  concludes  to  the  Pa- 
triarchs of  Alexandria  ^vA  Amioch,  c.  80. 
\pporte t  e rgo  nt  conflanter  ac  fine  prtjudicio 
ftrvetisficut  accept  ft  is  Ec cleft as,  &  nihil  fibi 
in  nobis  hac  tentatio  diabolic*  ufurpationis 
afcribat.  State  f ortes,  flate  fecuri',  Script* 
cum  ZJniverfalis  nominis  faljitate,  nee  dare 
uncjuam,  nee  recipere  prxfumatis]  He  charg- 
eth  them  never  to  give  or  take  writing 
with  the  falfhood  of  this  name  [Vniwrfal] 
as  being  from  the  Devils  tentation. 

And    in    Ep.   38.  c.  82.  to  John  Confi. 
himfelf  he  calls  it      Nefandum  elationisvo- 
cabulum\  and  the  caufe  [Nefandum  &pro- 
hanum  iumorem]   and  after  he  calls  it  Qthe 
furping  of  a  proud  and  foolifh  word.] 
To  all  this  BeUarmine  miferably  aniwer- 
eth  de  Pontif.  Rom.  I.  2.  c.1,1.  that  the  title 
HlniverfaQ  as  it  fignifiech  a  fole  Bifhop  to 
|whom  all  other  are   but  Vicars,    is  indeed 
profane,  facrilegious  and  Antichriftian,  and 
is  it  that  Gregory  fpeaks  againft,  but  not  as 
it  excludeth  not  particular  Biftiops/)  To 
which  I  anfwer,    i .  To  be  the  Vicarins  of  a 
upcriour,is  not  an  excluiion.     The  Pope 
faith  he  is  the  Vicar  of  Chrift  the  chief 

S  Paftour 


258    The  fuccefsive  yiftbillty  tf  the  Church 

Pattour  and  Bifhop  of  fouls :  and  all  Pa- 
ftours  are  to  Preach  the  Word  of  recon- 
ciliation in  his  name  and  ftead,  i  CV.5. 19. 
-    and  yet  they  are  not  thereby  excluded  from 
being  Paftours.     if  to  be  Chrifts  fervants, 
may  confift  with  Epiicopacy  h  much  more  to 
be  his  Vicarii  over  their  particular  flocks. 
Rather  this  is  too  high  an  honour  for  us  to 
affume.    I  do  not  think  that  all  the  Clergy 
under  the  Pope,  do  think  themfelves  ho- 
noured  fo  much  as  they  (hould  be  if  they 
were  his  Vicars.     2.  Hath  not  that  man 
fold  bis  confcience  to  his  caufe,   that  will 
perfwade  the  world  that  the  Patriarch  of 
Conftantinofle  was  about  to  unbifhop  all  the 
Bifhops  in  the  world  except  himfelf  ?     Let 
any  man  (hew  us  by  tolerable  proof,   that 
John  of  Conftantinofle  did  claim  any  higher 
a  power  over  all  others,   or  would  bring 
other  Bifhops  by  his  Univerfality  to  be 
lower,  then  the  Pope  of  Rome  doth  by  his 
Univerfality,  and  then  I  will  confefs  that 
Papifts  only  have  eyes  and  reafon,  and  all 
the  world  befides  are  blind,  and  mad,  or 
beatts.     Their  caufe  is  at  a  fair  pafs,  when 
they  muft  fly  to  fuch  palpable  falfhoods,  as 
makes  them  the  wonder  of  their  fober 
readers.     3.  1  proved  before  from  the  ex- 
prefs  words  of  Greg^ffhax  it  is  Superiority 

of 


I 


of  which  we  are  Members,  f  roved.       2  59 

of  Government,  and  making  all  other  Bi- 
fhops  fubjed:  co  him,  that  he  condemned  in 
the  Patriarch  of  Conftantincple.  And  no 
doubt  he  made  not  the  leaft  of  his  arrogan- 
cy  ;  Nor  do  I  believe  that  it  can  be  proved 
that  John,  or  the  Council'  that  gave  him  the 
Title,  did  ever  intend  fo  much  as  a  Univer- 
fal  Government ,  which  the  Pope  now 
ufurpeth  .  but  only  a  Primacy  before  all, 
which  Popes  were  then  ftnving  for.  For 
the  Greeks  to  this  day  difclaim  it,  and  they 
never  ftrove  to  exercife  it. 

I  will  give  you  more  of  Gregories  words 
to  put  the  queftion  part  doubc ,  Cap.  82. 
Ep.  38.  to  f;hn,  faich      Humilitatem  ergo 
frater  chart  ffime  totis   vifceribm  dilige,  per 
quam  cunllorum  fratrum  Concordia  &fs>ntl& 
Universalis    Eccle/ix  unitas  valeat  c?*fto- 
iri  :  Ccrte  P aulas  Apofkdu*  cum  auMret 
uofdam  dicere,  Ego f urn  Tauliy  ego  Apollo, 
egovcroCepbdy  banc  dilacerationem  corporis 
Dominici,   per  ejuam  membra  ejus  aliis  cjho- 
mmodofecapitibus[ociabant,'vehementiffimc 
crhorrcfcens  exclamavit,  dictns:   Nuncjuid 
aulas  pre  vobis  cruel fixus  eft  :  ant  in  nomi- 
e  Pauli  baptiz^ati  eftis  ?  Sic  ergo  ifle  mem- 
ra  Dominici  corporis  certis  extra  Cbriftntn 
H*Ji  capitibvu  ,  &  ipfis   cjuidem   Apoftolis 
Hb)ici  particuUriter    evituvit  :    7'h   quid 

S  2  Chrift* 


2  6o     Thefuccefsive  Vifibility  of  the  Church 

Chrifto  Vniverfalis  fcilicet  Ecclefi*  capiti, 
in  extremi  judicii  es  diEiurw  examine^  qui 
cunUa  ejus  membra  tibimet  conaris  Ztniver* 
falls  appe/latione  fupponere  /] 

Here  you  fee  t.  That  the  unity  and 
concord  of  the  Church  is  not  maintained 
by  univerfal  Headfhip ,  but  by  fraternal 
communion  and  humility.  2.  That  it 
wounded  Paul,  and  fhould  do  us,  to  fee 
the  Church  make  men  as  it  were  their 
heads,   though  they  were  Apoftles ,  and 


1 


though  Peter  was  one  of  them:  and  that 
extra  Chriftum,  befide  Chrift5  none,  no  not 
Peter  fhould  be  as  a  Head  to  Chnits  mem- 
bers. 3 .  Much  more  abominable  is  it  for 
any  man  to  pretend  to  be  the  univerfal  I 
Biftiop  or  Head  to  all  Chrifts  members;  J pr 
4.  That   the  fin    of  this   ufurpation  was 


11! 


IK 
I 


againft  Chrift  the  Churches  Head,  and  that 
before  him  in  Judgement  the  ufurper  of  C 
univerfal  Epifcopacy    will  be  confounded 
for  this  very  thing.    5.  And  that  the  crime  fa 
of  this  title  of  univerlal  Bifhopwas,  that  it|inu 
endeavoured  to  put  all  Chrifts  member! 
under  him  that  ufed  it  (tibimet  fufponere :  J 
not  to  exclude  all  other  Bifhops,  but  to  pujea 
under  him  all  Chrifts  members.     Thefc  an 
the  words  of  Gregory :  and  if  men  can  main 
whag  their  lift  of  words  fo  full  and  plain 

an 


ef  which  tve  arc  Members,  prove  J.      261 

and  oft  repeated  in  many  Epiftles ,  what 
hope*  have  they  chat  their  Judge  of  Con- 
troverfies  fhould  do  any  more  to  end  their 
Controverfies  then  Scripture  harh  done, 
which  chey  cannot  understand  without  fuch 
an  unintelligible  Judge  ? 

He  proceeds  (ibid.)  [Qu}$  ergo  in  hoc 
tarn  perverfo  vocabulo,  nifi  Me  ad  imitandum 
proponittir,qtti  defyettis  Angelorum  legiqni- 
bmP  fecum  [ocialiter  conftitntis^  ad  culmen 
conatvu  eft  fingularitatis.  erumpere ,  ut  & 
nu/liffibejfe^  & Jul  pes  omnibm  praejfe  videre- 
tur.'j  He  maketh  him  the  imitator  of  the 
Devil,  that  afpiring  above  the  reft  of  the 
Angels,  fell  by  pride. 

I  But  BeEarmine  hath  three  Reafons  to 
rove  yet  that  Gregory  after  all  this  meant 
ot  the  universal  Hcadfhip  or  Epifcopacy 
ideed.  1.  Becaufe  the  holy  Council  of 
'htlcedon  offered  it  him.  Anf.  1.  A  fair 
•ffer  /  becaufe  two  or  three  Deacons  in- 
scribed their  Lib  :1s  to  him  with  the  name  of 
niverfal  Archbifhop  :  And  we  muft  br- 
ieve that  the  Council  approved  of  this, 
hough  we  cannot  prove  it.  Or  if  they 
ailed  him  the  Head,  as  the  City  of  London 
>  the  Head  City  in  England^nd  the  Earle 
t  Arxndel  the  Head  Earle,  or  the  Lord 
hancelour  the  Head  J  udge,  that  yet  have 

S3  no 


2  6%     The  fuccefsive  Vifibility  ef  the  Church 

no  Government  of  the  reft,  what  advan- 
tage were  this  to  the  Roman  Vicarfhip  ? 
2.  It  Gregory  judge  the  name  foblafphem- 
ous,  when  it  fignifieth  an  univerfal  Cover- 
nour  ot  the  Church,  iurely  he  believed  that 
the  Council  offered  it  not  to  him  in  that 
fence,  but  as  he  was  the  Efifcopus  prima 
fedis.  3.  But  again,  I  fay  the  matter  of 
fad  is  it  that  I  am  enquiring  of  ;  And  I 
have  the  teftimony  of  this  Roman  Biftiop 
that  none  of  his  PredecefTors  would  receive 
that  name. 
1  2.  But  faith  Bellarmine,  he  faith  that  the 

care  of  the  whole  Church  was  committed  to 
Peter,  which  is  all  one.]     Anf.   1.  But  fo 
it  was  committed  alfo    to  the.  reft  of  the 
Apoftles :    Paul  had  on  him  the  care  of  all 
the  Chnrches,  that  claimed  no  Headfhip. 
2.  Heexpr.fly  excludeth  Peters  Headfhip, 
both  in  the  words  before  recited,  and  after, 
faying    [_Ccrte   Petrm    /ifoftolus  primum  I 
membrum  for  rather  as  Dr.  fames  Corrupt.  I » 
of  the  Fathers  Part.  2.  p.  60  faith  he  found  1 I 
it  in  feven  written  Copies,  [  ApoftolcrumYk 
primus  membrum'}  Santta  &  Vniverfalisl 
Ectlijia  eft:    Paulas  ^  Andreas,   Johannes  A 
.  quid  t  liud  quam  fingularium  funt  plebium  I 
capita  ?  Et  tameufuJ?  uno  c.ipite  omnes  mem"  II  I 
bra  funt  Ecclejia]  that  is  £  Peter  the  firft 

of 


ef  which  m  are  Members^  proved.       263 

of  the  Apoftles,  is  a  member  of  the  holy  and 
univerfal  Church  :  Paul,  Andrew^  John, 
what  are  they  but  the  Heads  of  the  fingular 
flocks  of  the  people  ?  And  yet  all  are  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  under  one  Head]  (that 
is,  Chnft)  fo  that  Chrift  is  the  only  Head  : 
Peter  is  but  a  member,  as  the  other  Apoftles 
are  ^  but  not  a  Head. 

3.  But  faith  BcUartrine^  Gregory  could 
not   but  know  that  the  title  of  Epifccpu 
Vniverfalis  Ecclefia,  which  is  ail  ore,  had 
been     oft    affumed     by    the     Popes. 
Anf.  1.  Whether  was  BelUrrr.ir.z  or  Gre- 
gcrj  the  wifer  man?  at  lead:  the  'fitter  in- 
terpreter of  thofe  words ;  would  Gregory 
have  made  them  fo  blafphemous,  fool  1 
prophane,  anddevilifh,  if  he  had  thought 
them  of  the  .fame  importance  with  thofe 
which  his  Predeccffors  ufed  ?  Or  was  he  fo 
filly  as  not  to  know  that  this  migl 
been  retorted  on  him  ?   What  a  i 
whatawicked  diffembling hypocrite,  ~<  ch 
BelUrmine   teign   Pope  Grtgory   to    have 
been  ?     2.    But   verily  did   che    Learned 
Jefuite   believe  himfelr  that  [Vniverfalis 
Epifcvpus  EtiLcfu}  &  Epi  ctLfiA 

ZJniverfalis]  areotihe  fame  1  gnii  t 

ery  tfifhop  in  the  world,  that  adhered 
to  the  common  Communion  ot  ChnlUans 

S  4  and 


2  6%    Thefaccefsivc  yiftbiliti  of  the  Church 

and  was  a  Catholike,  was  wont  to  be  called 
[aBifhopof  theCatholike  Church,  3  an^ 
is  indeed  fuch  ^  but  he  is  not  therefore  [the 
univerfal  Bifhop  of  the  Church.] 

But  BelUrmine  Will  not  charge  Gregory 
of  fuch  horrid  diffimulation  without  rea- 
fon.  His  firft  reafon  is,  [that  Gregory  did 
it  for  caution,  to  prevent  abufe.  "J 
Anf.  What  /  charge  it  with  blafphemy , 
prophanefs  ,  devilifm ,  wrongiag  all  the 
Church,  and  alfo  to  excommunicate  men 
for  it,  and  all  this  to  prevent  abufe,  when 
he  held  it  lawful !  Did  hell  ever  fcatch 
worfc  hypocrifie  then  this  that  he  fathers 
on  his  holieftPope? 

But  2.  His  other  reafon  is  worfe  then 
this  ^  forfooth  "becaufe  the  qucftion  was 
only  whether  John  otConftantinofle  (hould 
have  this  title,  and  not  whether  the  Bifhop 
of  Rome  (hould  have  it  :  and  therefore 
Gregory  fimply  and  abfolutely  pronounceth 
the  name  facrilegious  and  prophane,that  is, 
as  given  to  fohn,  (but  not  to  himfelf )  yet 
he  refufed  it  himfelf,  though  due  to  him, 
that  he  might  the  better  reprefs  the  pride 
of  theBKhop  of  Conftantinople.']  Anf.  The 
fum  is  then,that  Gregory  did  meerly  lye  and 
diffemble  for  his  own  end.  He  labours  to 
prove  that  biafphemous,  facrilegious,  &c. 

which 


cf  which  we  are  Members  9  proved.       z6f 

yhich  he  defired  •,  But  we  will  not  judge 
oodiouflyof  the  Pope  as  Papiftsdo.  Doth 
ic  charge  the  other  Patriarchs  and  Bifhops 
o  give  it  no  man  ?  doth  he  blame  them-after 
i  other  Epiftles  that  gave  him  that  Title  ? 
nd  doth  he  profefs  that  never  any  of  his 
'redeceffors  received  it,and  makefo  hainous 

matter  of  it,  and  yet  all  this  while  approve 
tasfor  himfelf?  Who  will  believe  a  Saint 
o  be  fo  diabolical,  that  calls  it  an  imitation 
>f  the  Devil  ?  You  fee  now  what  the  Ro- 
nanCaufe  is  come  to,  and  whether  their 
Church  as  Papal,  that  is,  their  Univerfal  So- 
/eraignty,  benotfprung  up  fince  Gregories 
"ayes. 

Hear  him  a  little  further  ( ibid.)  [Atquc 
Ht  cunUa.  brevitef  cingnlo  Iccxtionis  adftrin* 
\am  :  fantti  unte  Legem  ,  fantti  fub  Legty 
^anttifub  Gratia,  tmnts  hi  perficientes  Corpus 
Domini  in  mzmbr is  fttnt  Ecclefi*  ccnftittiti9 
&nemofe  hnquam  IJniverjdlcm  vocare  vo- 
Ittit :  Veftra  autem  Jtntlitas  agno[cat  yuan* 
turn  aftidfe  t  time  at,  qy.£  illo  ncn  ine  Pectri  ap~ 
petit,  quo  vocari  nvAlus  prtfunpjit,  qui  vtr*- 

terfanfttufxit."]  That  is,  Q  And  to  Lind 
up  all  in  the  girdle  of  fpeech,  the  Saints  be- 
fore the  Law,  the  Saints  under  the  I..**, : he 
Saints  under  Grace,  all  thefc  making  up  chc 
tody  of  Chrift,  were  placed  among  tne 

Mcaibcrs 


: 


•" 


2  66     The  faceefsive  Vifibility  of  the  Ch  urch 

Members  of  the  Church ,  yet  wever  man 
would  be  called  Univerial.  Let  your  Holi- 
nefs  therefore  con.rder  how  with  your  fell 
you  well,  ihac  deiire  to  be  called  bytha 
name.,  by  which  no  man  baih  prefumedto 
be  called  that  was  truly  Holy/] 

Well  /  ii  this  be  not  as  piain  as  Prote- 
Hants  fpeak  againft  Popery  ,  I  will  never 
hope  to  underftand  a  Pope. 

I  only  add,  that  Gregory  makes  this  ufur- 
pation  of  the  name  ot  an  Univerfal'Biftiopa 
forerunner  of  Antiihrift :  And  that  Pope 
Telagim  condemned  it  before  him  ^  which 
Gratian  puts  into  their  Decrees,  or  Canon 
Law. 

And  that  he  took  the  Churches  authority 
to  be  greater  then  his  own ,  when  he  tells 
fohn,  [_Sed  quoad  in  me  a  correptione  deffiicior, 
re  flat  ut  Eciltfiam  debeam  adhibere.  3 

Lib.  7.  Ep.  3  o.  Dixi  nee  mihi  vos,nec  cui- 
quam  alteri  tale  *  liquid  fcriberc  debere  :  & 
ecce  in  prafatione  epiftola  quayn  ad  meipfum 
qui  prohibui  direxiflis,  f.pcrba  appellation/* 
verbum,  Univerfalem  mePapam  dicentes,im- 
primere  cur  a  flit.  JjJuod  peto  dulcijfima  fan- 
ttitas  veflra>  ultra  nun  faciat :  quij  vobitfub- 
traioitury  quod  alteri  plujquam  ratio  exigit, 
frtbetur.  See  then  whether  it  be  not 
judged  by  him  undue  to  himfelf  as  well  as 
toothers.  And 


1 


of  which  rve  are  Members ,  frwed.        26 7 

And  what  the  weigh:  of  the  matter 
emed  to  him,  judge  mote  by  thefe  words, 
p.  83. 1.4.  ad  Arrisn.  In  ifto  [ceUftovoca- 
\Ao  con  [entire  ,  nihil  eft  Hiud  qaam  fidem 
trdere?\      To  content  in  that  wicked  word, 

nothing  elfe  but  to  lofe  (  or  dcltroy  )  the 
tith.3  That  is,apoftafie. 

And  1.  6.  c.  194.  Mauric.  Aug.  Ego  ft- 
tnter  dicv,  quia  quifquis  fe  univerfalemfa- 
erdotem  vocat,  vel  vocs.re  de'fiderst,  inela- 
ionefua  Antichriftum  pracurrit  •,  quia  fn- 
erbiendofe  extern  prtepGnit,  nee  dif pari  fu- 
nrbia  ad  errorem  ducitur.  ] 

Arg.  7.  The  Papifts  tbcmfelves  confefs, 
hat  multitudes  of  Chnftians,  if  not  n.oftby 
kr,  have  been  the  oppoiers  of  the  Pope,  or 
lone  of  his  lubjefts  :  therefore  by  th^ir 
Feftimony  there  have  been  viiible  Churches 
:>f  fuch. 

<L/£nea&  Sylvius,  after  Pope  ?ius  2.  faith, 
kiall  regard  was  had  to  the  Church  of  Ron.e 
before  the  Council  of  Nice.  Fellarwine 
kith,  This  is  partly  true,  byreafonof  the 
perfecution  of  thofe  ages,  and  partly  fiilfe. 
Anf.  But,  if  true,  we  prove  the  matter  of 
fad,  and  leave  BelLxrmine  better  to  prove  his 
Reafon.  If  ic  be  falfe,  then  their  own  Hiito- 
rians  are  not  to  be  believed,  though  worthy 
to  be  Popes.  And  then  what  h  ;call  telti- 
mony  will  they  believe  ?  Vo- 


1 68     The  fuccefshe  Vifibilitj  of  the  Church 

Voluminoufly  do  their  Hiftorians  menti 
on  the  Oppofkion  of  the  Greeks  on  on 
fide,  and  of  the  Emperours  and  Kings,  arn 
Divines,  that  were  under  the  Popes  Patriae 
chal  power ;  as  Mich.  Goldaftut  in  abun 
dance  of  Treatifes  hath  manifefted. 

I  gave  before  the  teftimony  of  Rejneritu 
that  the  Churches  planted  by  theApoitles 
were  not  under  the  Pope. 

I  (hall  once  more  recite  the  words 
Mdch.Canits^  Loc.Theol.  lib.  6.  cap.  J.fol 
201 .    "  Not  only  the  Greeks,  but  almoft  a 
(  N.  B.)  the  reft  of  the  Biftiops  of  the  whol 
world,  have  vehemently  fought  to  deftroy 
the  Priviiedgeof  the  Church  of  Rome :  an 
indeed  they  had   on  their  fide,  both  th 
Arms  of  Emperours,  and  the  greater  Num- 
ber of  Churches  •   and  yet  they  could  never| 
prevail  to  abrogate  the  Power  of  the  One 
Pope  of  Rome.  3  By  the  Papifts  confeilion 
then  mod  of  the  Churches,  and  almoft  all 
the  Bifhops  of  the  whole  world ,   and  the 
Emperours  &  their  Armies,  have  vehement- 
ly fought  to  abrogate,rhe  Popes  power,  and 
deftroy  the  Priviledges  of  Rome. 

Rejneritu  his  teftimony  concerning  the 
Antiquity  of  the  Waldenfes,  as  from  Pope 
Sjlvefters  dayes,  if  not  the  Apoftles,  hath 
been  oft  cited  :  Had  they  beeo  but  from 

Gregories 


I  tf  which  we  are  Members,  frtved.       2  6$ 

egories  dayes,  it  had  been  enough,  when 
ha\ehisownTeftimony,  thatnoBifhop 
Rome  would  own  (  to  that  time  )  that 
eked ,  prophane ,  facrilegious  ,  foolifh, 
lphemous,  dividing  name  of  Umvtr{al 
itriarch  or  Bifhop,  which  who  ever  holds 
,  deftroys  the  faith. 

Arg.  8.  The  next  Argument  (hould  have 
een  from  the  Hiftorical  Teftimony  of  the 
.ncients,  that  the   Papal  Soveraignty  was 
ien  no  part  of  the  Churches  faith,  nor 
wned  by  them.   But  here  to  produce  the 
cftimonies  of  all  ages,  would  be  to  write 
.Volume  in  Folio,  on  this  one  Argument 
lone :  For  how  can  the  Hiftory  of  all  Ages 
fo  particularly  delivered  out  of  fuch  a 
ultitude  of  Books,  but  in  a  multitude  of 
ords? 

And  it  is  done  already  fo  fully ,  that  I 
provoke  the  Papirts  to  anfwer  the  Cata- 
logues and  hiftoricall  Evidence  given  in,  if 
they  can.  If  you  ask  where,  I  wih  now  only 
tell  you  of,  1.  Blwdell  againft  Perron  d* 
Primatuin  Ecclefiu  fin  French  j  that  (hews 
you  the  torrcne  of  Antiquity  againlt  the 
Papal  Soveraignty.  i.Molindtus  (in  French) 
de  Novitate  Papifwi  againil  the  fame  Per- 
ron. 3.  Bilhop  Vfljer,  defiatn  &fnccejfiune 
£a/f/w7W,andhis  Aniwer  to  the  (eiuuts 

challenge. 


w* 


270      The  fuccefshe  Vifibilitj  of  the  Churdf ' 

challenge.     4.  Dr.  Field  of  the  Chun 
who  lib.  5.   anfwereth   Bellarmines   alleg;! 
tions  from  all  fore  of  Antiquity,  which  ail- 
their  ftrength.   I  pafs  by  many  others,  fom| 
of  which  I  have  named  in  the  forefaid  3  .Dil 
pute  of  the  fafe  Religion ;  where  alfo  I  hav 
produced  more  of  this  evidence  then  the] 
can  anfwer.  At  leaft  much  more  then  yol 
have  returned  me  in  your  laft  Paper  for  th' 
contrary,  to  which  I  defirc  your  anfwer 
For  its  in  vain  to  write  one  thing  fo  oft. 

I  (hall  only  inftance  in  the  currant  Telli' 
mony  of  their  own  Hiitorians ,  of  the  Bel 
ginning  of  their  Univerfal  Hcadfhip*  Said 
Regino  Chron.l.  I .  An.  808.  p.  1 3 .  [  Bonif* 
cius  obtinuit  apud  Phocam  Principem^  ut  (e* 
des  Romano,  Caput  effet  omnium  Ecclefiarum  ; 
quia  Ecclefia  Conft 'antinop 'lit ana  primumft 
omnium  EccUfiarum fcribebat.  ] 

Hermanhus  Contraftus,  iVn.  M.  45SO. 
p  122.  [H^c  tempore  Phocas  Romanam  Ec- 
elefiam  omnium  Ecclefitrum  Caput  effecon-\ 
fiituit  :  Nam  Conft  antinop.  primam  fc  ejfe ) 
fcripfit.  1 

So  MarianusScotusin  Phoc.  {_Bonifacitts 
P  6j.  impetravit  a  phoc  a  C  a  fare  ut  fedes 
Apoftolica  Romano,  Caput  ejfet  Eccleji&fluum 
antea  Conftantinopolvs  Primam  omnium  ft 
fcriberet.  ]  The  fame  hath  Sigcbertus  Gem- 
bloc. 


$f  which  M  are  Members,  proved.      271 

u.  An.  607.  p.  526.  And  fo  Cvmpilat. 
hron.  and  many  more. 
Beneventus  de  Rambuldis  Lib.  A^gpfftali9 
thp  8.  in  Phoca  [_Phocas  ocrifor  Mau- 
ii  ■  qui  Primus  conftituit,  Quod  Ec- 
'fia  cffet  Caput  omnium  Ecclefiarum  :  Cum 
ins  Conftantin.  fupnmum  fe  nominaret. ' 
ark  here  the  \_  Primus  Conftituit.  [  So  Be- 
9P.Diaconus9  Anafiafiw,  Pcmponius  L<e- 
/,  &c. 

And  of  the  Novelty  of  their  worfhip, 
th  P/atina  in  Gregor.  1 .  £  What  Ihould  I 
y  more  of  this  holy  man  /  whofe  whole 
ftitution  of  the  Church  office ,  fpecially 
e  old  one,  was  invented  and  approved  by 
m  ?  which  Order  I  would  we  did  follow  : 
en  Learned  men  would  not  at  this  day  ab- 

>r  the  reading  of  the  Office •"   So 

at  here  is  all  invented  new  by  Gregory 
which  was  hardly  received  in  Sp^in)  and 
?t  that  changed  fince. 

Arg.9.    If  the  Generality  of  Chriftians 
the  firft  ages,  and  many  ( if  not  mod  )  in 
later  ages,  have  been  tree  from  the  Ef- 
ntialsof  the  Papiits  faith,  then  their  faith 
th  hadnofucceilive  Vifiblc  <  hurch  pro- 
fling  it  in  all  ages  .,  but  the  Chriftians  that 
:e  againft  it  have  been  Vilible  :  But  the 
ntecedent  is  true  ;  as  I  prove  in  fome  in- 
ances.  1.  It 


a  7 1     The  fuccefsive  Viftbilitj  of  the  Chnrd 

i.  It  is  an  Article  of  their  faith  detef&i 
mined  in  a  General  Council  at  Later -am  ar 
Florence,  that  the  Pope  is  above  a  Council  & 
But  that  this  hath  not  been  fucceffively  n 
ceived,  the  Council  of  Bafil  and  Confian  ko 
witnefs,  making  it  a  new  Herefic. 

2.  It  is  an  Article  of  their  faith,  that 
Generall  Council  is  above  the  Pope  :  for 
is  fo  determined  at  Bafil  and  Con  fiance ;  Bt  it 
that  this  hath  had  no  fucceffive  duratioi 
the  Council  of  Laterane  and  Florence  wi 
nefs. 

3 .  It  is  an  Article  of  their  faith,  that  tl 
Pope  may  depofe  Princes  for  denying  Trai 
fubftantiation  and  fuch  like  Herefies ,  ar 
alfo  fuch  as  will  not  exterminate  fuch  Her 
ticks  from  their  dominions,  and  may  gr 
their  dominions  to  others ,  and  difcharj 
their  Subjects  from  their  oaths  and  fidelity 
For  it  is<!et:ermined  fo  in  a  Council  at£ 
terane  :  But  this  hath  not  been  fo  from  tl 
beginning:  Not  when  the  13.  Chapter  1 
the  Romans  was  written  :  Not  till  the  day 
of  Ccnftantine  :  Not  till  the  daycs  of  Gr 
gerj  that  fpake  in  contrary  language  \ 
Princes;  AndGoldafius  his  three  Volura 
of  Antiquities  (hew  you,  that  there  ha 
been  many  Churches  ftill  againftit. 

4.  It  is  an  Article  of  their  faith,  that  tl 

Bo< 


cf  which  we  are  Members,  proved.       273 

[y  and  Blood,  together  with  the  Soul  and 
>ivinityof  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  is  truly, 
ally,  and  fuBftantially  in  the  Euchariit, 
id  that  there  is  a  Change  made  of  the 
ihole  fubftance  of  Bread  into  the  body, 
pd  of  the  whole  fubftance  of  Wine  into 
tc  blood,  which  they  call  Tranfubftantia- 
m.  3  So  the  Council  of  Trent :  But  the 

ttholick  Church  tath  been  of  a  contrary 
idgcment  from  age  to  age,  as  among  many 
thers,  Edm.  Albertintu  de  Euckarifi.  hath 

linly  evinced  (  though  a  quarreller  hath 
enyed  it  and  little  more  )  :  And  its  pro- 
ed,  in  that  fucceflively  they  judged  fenfe 
andReafon  by  it  )  a  competent  difcerner 
|f  Bread  and  Wine. 

5.  It  is  now  de  fid?  that  the  true  Sacra- 
lent  is  rightly  taken  under  one  kind  (  with-' 
fut  the  cup  )  as  the  Councils  of  Conftance 
>nd  Trent  (hew.  But  the  Catholick  Church 

ith  praftifcd,  and  the  Apoftles  and  the 
church  taught  otherwife,  as  the  Council  of 

Zonftance,  and  their  Writers  ordinarily  con- 

Vs. 

6.  It  is  an  Article  of  their  faith  (asap- 
>ears  in  the  Trent  Oath)  that  we  muft 
lever  take  and  interpret  Scripture, 
DUt  according  to  the  unanimous  con- 
tent of  the  Fathers  1  :  But  the  Catholick 

T  Church 


2  74      The  [uccefsive  Vifibility  of  the  Church 

Church  before  thefe  Fathers  could  not  be  of 
that  mind  :  and  the  Fathers  themfelves  are 
of  a  contrary  mind  ;  and  ^fo  are  many 
learned  Papifts. 

7.  It  is  an  Article  of  their  faith ,  that 
there  is  a  Purgatory,  and  that  the  fouls  there 
detained  are  holpen  by  the  fuffrages  of  the 
faithful.  But  the  latter  was  ftrange  to  all  the 
old  Catholick  Church  (  as  Bifhop  V/ber  and 
others  have  proved  )  and  the  very  beingoi 
Purgatory,  was  but  a  new,doubtfull,  indiffe- 

•        rent  opinion  of  fomevery  few  men, about 
AtiguftinesXAxne. 

8.  It  is  now  an  Article  of  their  faith,  thai 
£  the  holy  Catholick  Church  of  Rome  is  thi 
mother  and  miftris  of  all  Churches.  3  But! 
have  (hewed  here  and  elfewhere,  that  tt* 

•  Catholick  Church  judged  otherwife,  andf< 
doth  for  the  moft  part  to  this  day* 

9.  It  is  now  an  Article  of  their  faith,tha 
their  Traditions  are  to  be  received  wit] 
equall  pious  affe&ion  and  reverence  asth 
holy  Scripture.  ]  But  the  Catholick  Churs 
did  never  fo  believe. 

1  o.  The  Council  of  Bafil  made  it  de  fitL 
that  the  Virgin  Mary  was  conceived  witl 
out  Originallfin ;  But  the  Catholick  Churc 
never  judged  fo. 

1 1. Its  determined  by  a  Council  now,  tfc 


of  which  we  are  Memhers^  prtvedl.        275? 

the  people  may  not  read';the  Scripture  in  a 
known  tongue  without  the  Popes  Licenfe; 
But  theCatholick  Church  never  fo  thought, 
as  I.have  proved,!)///?.  3  .of  thefdft  Religion. 

12.  The  Books  of  Maccabees  andorhers 
are  now  taken  into  the  Canon  of  faiths 
which  theCatholick  Church  received  notaa 
fuch  ;  asDr.C^,andDr.  Return  his  hare 
fully  proved. 

To  this  I  might  add  the  Novelty  of  their 
V/orfhip  and  Difcip  line  ^  but.  it  wotiJdbe 
too  tedious :  and  I  have  faid  enoueh  of 
thefe  in  other  writings.  See  X^uCktlloncr^ 

In  1 6.  points  Dr.  Chalkner  provethyour 
Novelty  from  your  Confeflions.  Indeed  his 
Book  de  Ecclef.  Cath.  though  fmail,  is  a  full 
anfwer  to  your  main  Queftion. 

Arg.  10.  If  Multitudes  (  yea  the  far 
greateft  part )  of  Chriftians  in  all  ages  have 
been  ignorant  of  Popery,  but  not  of  Chri- 
ftianity^  then  hath  there  been  a  fucceffion  of 
Vifible  Profeflbrs  of  Chriftianity  that  were 
no  Papilts:  but  the  antecedent  is  true:  there- 
fore fo  is  the  confequent. 

In  this  age  it  is  an  apparent  thing,  that 
the  far  greateft  part  are  ignorant  of  formal 
Popery.  1.  They  confels  themfelves  that 
the  common  people,  and  moftof  thenobi- 

T  2  lity 


276    The  fuccefsive  Viftbilitf  of  the  Church 

iity  of  HabaJfia^ArntenityGreece^RHjfta,  and 

moft  other  Eaftern  Churches  that  are  not 

Papifts,  are  ignorant  of  the  Controverfie. 

2.  They  ufe  to  tell  us  here  among  Prote- 

ftants,  that  there  is  not  one  of  many  that 

know  what  a  Papift  is.     3 .  We  know  that 

of  thofe  that  go  und^r  the  name  of  Papifts, 

there  is  not  one  of  a  multitude  knoweth. 

We  hear  it  from  tjic  mouths  of  thofe  we 

ipeak' with  :  1  have  not  met  with  one  of  ten 

of  the  poorer  fort  0f  them,  even  here  among 

us,  that  knoweth  What  a  Papift  or  Popery 

is  ^  but  they  are  taught   to  follow  their 

Priefts,  and  to  fay  that  theirs   is  the  true 

Church  and  old  Religion,  and  to  ufe  their 

Ceremonious  worfhip  ,  and   to    forbear 

coming  to  our  Churches,  &c*  and  this  is 

their  Religion.  And  in  Ireland  they  are  yet 

far  more  ignorant :    And  its  well  known  to 

be  fo  in  other  parts :    Their  Pricfts   they 

know,  and  the  Pope  they  hear  of,   as  fome 

perfon  of  eminent  Power  in  the   Church : 

But  whether  he  be  the  Univcrfal  Vicar  of 

Chrift,  and  be  over  all  others  as  well  as 

them,&  whether  this  be  of  Gods  ipftitution, 

or  by  the  grant  of  Emperours  or  Councils, 

&c.  they  know  not.  And  no  wonder  ,when 

the  Papift s  think  that  the  Council  ofv  Chal- 

ctdw  fpoke  falfly  of  the  humane  Origihall  of 


of  which  we  are  Members  ^  froved.       277 

the  Primacy  in  the  Imperiall  territories:  And 
when  the  Councils  of  Bafil  and  Conftancc 
knew  not  whether  Pope  or  Council  was 
the  Head. 

And  that  the  people  were  as  ignorant  and 
much  more  in  former  ages  ,  they  teftifie 
themfelves  :  And  before  Gregories  dayes 
they  muft  needs  be  ignorant  ot  chat  which 
was  not  then  rifen  in  the  world. 

Yea  Dr.  Held  hath  largely  proved,  Ap- 
fend.  lib.  3  ihat  even  the  many  particular 
points  in  which  the  Papifts  now  differ  from 
us ,  were  but  the  opinions  of  a  fa&ion 
among  them  before  Luther :  and  that  the 
Weftern  Church  before  Luther  was  Prote- 
ftant,  even  in  thofe  particular  Controver- 
fies  •  though  this  is  a  thing  that  we  need 
not  prove.  And  as  Dr.  Potter  tells  them, 
pag.  68.  [_  The  Roman  Dodors  do  not 
fully  and  abfolutely  agree  in  any  one  point 
among  themfelves,  but  only  in  fuch  points 
wherein  they  agree  with  us  :  In  the  other 
difputed  between  u$,  they  differ  one  from 
another  as  much  almoft  as  they  differ  from 
us.  3  He  appeals  for  this  to  BelUrmines 
Tomes.  Though  I  cannot  undertake  to 
make  this  good  in  every  point  9  yet  tha: 
proper  Popery  was  held  but  by  a  Facti- 
on in  the  Weftern    Church  ,    even  at  its 

T  3  height 


*?8 


The [uccefsivcVtfibilit)  of  the  Church 

height  before  Luther,  is  eaiily  made  good. 
He  that  readeth  but  tht  Writers  befon 
Z^/ter,  and  in  Hiftory  noteth  the  defires  of  I 
Emperours,  Kings,  and Univerfities, and  Bi-| 
ftiops,  for  ^formation  of  the  things  that 
*wc  have  reformed,  may  foon  fee  this  to  be 
Very  true.    It  was  Avltat  Leges  &  con[uett4-\ 
dines  Anglic  (  as  Reg.  Hovedtn  and  Matth. 
Paris  in  H.  2.  fhew)  that  the  pope  here 
Uamned ,  and  anathematized  all   that  fa- 
voured and  obferved  them  (  O  tender  Fa- 
ther, even  to  Kings  I  O  enemy  of  Novel-! 
'ties/)  The  German   Hiftory   collefted  by, 
lleuberm,  Piftcriu,  Freheriu  and  GoUaftns^ 
ihews  it  as  plain  as  day  light,  that  a  Papal! 
Taction  by  fury  and  turbulency,  keptunderl 
the  far  greater  part  of  the  Church  by  force,] 
that  indeed  diffented  from  them,  even  froi 
HildebrarJs  dayes  till  Luthers  ,  or  near. 
jSauh  the  Apologia    Henrici  4.  Imperat.  in 
M-TreheriTow.  i.'/f;  178.  £  Behold  Pope 
Hi/delnr/jds-R\{i\o$s,  when  doubtlefs  they 
fire  murderers  of  Souls  and  bodies' — iuch 
as  defervedly  are  calleld  the  Synagogue  of! 
Satan —  yet  they  write,  that  on  his  and  on 
their  fide  (or  party  )  is  the  holy  Mother] 
Church:  When  the  Catholick,  that  is,  the 
Univerfal  Church,  is  not  in  the  Schifm  of 
any  iide,  (  or  parties )  but  in  theUniveifa- 


s 

Hi. 
bar 
i 


ef  which  we  are  Members,  proved.      2J9 

-  lity  of  the  faithfull  agreeing  together  by 
yihefpirit  of  Peace  and  Charity .  ] 
of,    And  p.  179.  £See  how  this  Miniftcr  of 
the  Devil  is  befide  himfelf,  and  would  draw 
us  with  him  into  the  ditch  of  perdition  > 
that  writeth  that  Gods  holy  Pnefthoodis 
with  only  1 3 .  or  few  more  Biftiops  of  Hil- 
debrmds :   and  that  the  Priefthood  of  all  the 
eft  through  the  world  are  feparated  from 
,  theChurch  of  God.-whencertainly,not  only 
.  theteftimony  of  Gregory  and  Innocent \  bun 
the  judgement  of  all  the  holy  Fathers  agree 

with  that  oiCjfrian that  he  is  an  Alien, 

prophane,  an  enemy  •,  that  he  cannot  have 
God  for  his  Father,  that  holdech  not  the 
ityof  theChurch:  which  he  after  de- 

fcribeth  to  have  one  Priefthood. 3  Etp.iSi. 
[But  fome  that  go  out  from  us  fay  and 
write,  that  they  defend  the  party  of 
their  Gregory  :  not  the  Whole,  which  is 
Chrifts,  which  is  the  Catholick  Church  of 
Chrift.]  And/?.  180.  Q  But  our  Adverfa- 
ries  ( that  went  from  us,  noc  we  from  them,) 
ufr  thus  to  commend  themfelves-- We  are 
theCatholicks,  we  are  in  the  Unity  of  the 
Church. 1  So  the  Writer  calls  them  Catho- 
Hcks,  ana  us  that  hold  the  faith  of  the  holy 
Fathers ,  that  confent  with  all  good  men, 
that  love  peace  and  brotherhood,— -us  he 

T  4  calls 


i  8o    the  face f she  Vifihilitj  of  the  Churci 

calls  Schifmaticks  and  Hereticks ,  and  I 
communicate  ,    becaufe  we  refift  not  t 
King— -]]  And  p.  1 8 1 .  [iftdore  faith,  Etj\ 
/  8.  The  Church  is  called  Catholick,  becai] 
it  is  not  as  the  conventicles  of  Heretic] 
confined  in  certain  countries ,  but  diffuf 
through  the  whole  world  :  therefore  th 
have  not  the  Catholick  faith  that  are  id 
part,  and  not  in  the  Whole   which  Chr 
hath  redeemed  ,    and    muft    reign   wil 
Chrift- "   They  that  confefs  in  the  Creel 
that  they  believe  the  holy  Catholick  Churcl 
and  being  divided  into  parties  hold  nottl| 
Unity  of  the  Church  :  which    Unity ,  b 
lievers  being  of  one  heart  and  one  foul,  pr< 
perly  belongs  to  the  Catholick  Church.     SJ 
this  ApoL 

One  Objection  I  muft  here  remove,  whi< 
is  all  an<4  nothing:  viz,.  That  the  Armeni] 
ans,  Greeks,  Georgians,  Abaffines,  and  m; 
ny  others  here  named,  differ  from  Prot< 
ftants  in  many  points  of  fairh  •,  and  there] 
fore  they  cannot  be  of  the  fame  Church. 

Anf.  1.  They  differ  in  nothing  Effencia 
to  our  Church  or  Religion,  nor  near  th< 
EfTence.  2.  Proteftants  differ  in  fome  leffej 
points,  and  yet  you  call  them  all  Proteftand 
your  felves.  j.  I  prove  undeniably  fron] 
your  own  pens,  that  men  differing  in  mat 

ten 


!cf  wbicti  voe  are  Members \  freved.  i% 
.  crs  of  faith,  are  all  taken  to  be  of  your 
Church,  and  fo  of  one  Church,  (and  there- 
fore you  contradift  your  felves  in  making 
\  II  points  of  faith  to  be  EfTentials  of  the 
|j  Zhriftian  Religion  or  Church.  ) 

1.  The  Council  of  Bafil  and  Conftance 
:  iiffered  de  fide  with  the  Pope  and  theCoun- 

:ilof  Laterane  and  Florence  :  They  ex- 
:xefly  affirm  their  do&rine  to  be  de  fide, 
I  hat  the  Council  is  above  the  Pope,  and  may 

lepofe  him,  &c.  and  the  contrary  Herefie. 
i And  Tighitts  (  Hierarchy  Ecclef.  lib.  6.  ) 
•  faith,  that  thcfe  Councils  went  [  againft  the 
'undoubted  faith  and  judgement  of  the  Or- 
•thodcx  Church  it  felf.  ] 

2.  Their  Saint  Tho.  Aquinas^  and  moll 
of  their  Doftors  with  him,  differ  from  the 

ifecond  Council  of  Nice ,  in  holding  the 
•Crofs  and  Image  of  Chriftto  bcworfhipped 
•with  Latvia ,  which  that  Council  determined 
■  againft. 

See  more  Arguments  in  my  Key  for  Cath. 
f.  127,  j  28.  and  after. 

I  will  now  add  a  Teftimony  fufficient  to 
filence  Papifts  in  this  point  :  and  that  is, 
The  Determination  of  the  Theological  fa- 
culty of  Paris  under  their  great  Scal,againft 
one  fohan.  de  JWontefono  or  din  is  Prddic*  as 
you  may  find  it  after  the  reft  of  the  Errors 

rejeded 


2  8  z     Tbt  fuccefsivt  Vifibilitj  of0  the  Church 

reje&ed  by  that  Univerfity,  in  the  end  of 
Lombard,  printed  at  Paris   1557.  pag.426. 
Their  3.  Conclufion  is,  that  Q  Saint  Thorn. 
Aquin.  doftrine  isnot.fo  approved  by  the 
Church,  -as  that  we  muft  believe  that  it  is 
i'n  no  part  of  it  erroneous  de  fide  (  in  matter 
of  faith)  or  heretical!.  They  prove  it,  be- 
eaufe  it  hath  many  contradi&ions,  even  in 
matter  of  faith  -  and  therefore  they  ought 
not  to  believe  it  not  heretical!.   Here/*?/. 
426,427.  they  give  fix  examples  of  his  con- 
tradictions; and  therefore  they  conclude, 
that  though  he  were  no  Heretick  (becaufe 
nor  pertinacious  )  yet  they  ought  not  to  be- 
lieve that  his  dodrine  was  in  no  part  hereti- 
cal}, or  erroneous  in  the  faith.  They  further 
argue  thus    ]  If  we  mult  believe  his  do&rine 
not  heretical!,  &c.  this  fhould  be  chiefly, 
becaufe  it  is  approved  by  the  Church.    But 
there  is  fome  doftrine  much  more  approved 
by  the  Church  then  thedo&rine  of  S.  Tho. 
which  yet  is  in  fome  part  of  it  hereticall  or 

erroneous  in  the  faith  ;  therefore The 

Mi-nor  they  prove  by  many  examples.  The 
firft  is  of  Peters  doftrine  ,  Gal.  2.  (I own 
not  this  by  citing  it".  )  Ihe  fecond  is  of 
Cjprian.  The  thtrd  of  Hizrom  ^  and  they 
add  ,  that  the  fame  may  be  faid  of  Au- 
gttfiine,  and  many  more  approved  DoAors. 
,  The 


of  which  rve  are  Members,  proved.        2  S3 

The  fourth  example  is  Lombard  himfelf,  who 
they  fay  hath  fomewhat  erroneous  in  che 
faith.  The  fifth  is  gratia*,  who  had  he  per- 
tinacioufly  adhered  to  hisdodrine,they  fay, 
had  been  a  manifeft  Heretick  :  And  (  fay 
they)  fome  fay  the  like  of  the  Ordinary 
Gloffes  of  the  Bible  ,    which  yet  feem  of 
greater  authority  then  Aquinas.    The  fixth 
example  is  of  fome  not  Canonized  Saints, 
as  Anfdm.  Cantuar.  Hugo  de  SanBo  Vitte- 
jy,  and  others,  as  authentick  as  S.  Thomas.  ] 
"  And  (  fay  they  )  his  Canonization  ,  hiri- 
dereth  not,  which  fome  pretend  as  of  great 
colour— --To  fay  that  S.  Tho.  in  fome  part  of 
his  dodrine  erred  in  faith  9  derogates  not 
from  h:s  Canonization  ,  nor  from  the  ap- 
probation  of    his  Theological!  doctrine  • 
even  as  to  fay  this  of  other  Saints  and  chief 
Dodors  derogateth  not  from  their  Canoni- 
zation or  approbation,    for  as  the  Church 
by  Canonizing  one  a  Saint,  doth  not  there- 
by approve  all  his  Deeds  ,  fo  in  approving 
hisdodrine,  it  doth  not  hereby  approve  all 
his  faying*  or  writings,  but  only  that  which 
is  notretraded  by  himfelf,  or  corrededby 
another,  or  defervedly  to  be  correded  as 
contrary  to  truth. 

And  now  when  lathers,  even  the  chief, 
and  your  Saints  and  higheft  Dodors  have 

this 


*84    Thefneeefsive  Vifibilitj of  the  Church 

this  Teftimony  from  the  famous  Univerfity 
of  PAris,  to  have  fomewhac  hereticall  or 
erroneous  in  the  faith  (  and  fo  who  among 
you  is  free  ?  )  I  leave  it  to  modefty  to  judge, 
whether  the  Greeks,  Armenians,  &e.  and 
we,  are  not  of  one  Faith,  Religion,  and  Ca- 
tholick  Church  ,  for  all  our  differences  in 
fome  points!  Have  you  had  all  thefe  Nati- 
ons man  by  man  before  your  bar  ,  and  con- 
vinced them  of  pertinacioufnefs  inherefie  ? 
If  not,  call  them  notHereticks  till  you  are 
willing  to  be  called  fuch  your  felves,and  that 
by  your  feives. 

And  thus  I  have  evinced  ,  i.  That  the 
Church  of  which  the  Proteftants  are  Mem- 
bers, hath  been  Vifible  fince  the  dayes  of 
Chrift  on  earth.  2.  And  ex  abundantly  that 
the  Papal  Church  as  Papal  hath  ncft  been  vi- 
fible, and  that  Chriftian  Churches  without 
Papal  Soveraignty  have  been  Vifible  fince 
Grcgories  dayes ,  and  the  whole  Catholick 
Church  was  fuch  before.  And  you  fee  bo  Ji 
in  the  EfTentialls,  and  in  the  freedom  from 
theRomifhVicc-Chrift,  where  our  Church 
hath  been  before  Luther  j  even  fince  Chrift. 


Sir,  I  have  performed  this  task  on  this 
fuppofed  condition,  that  you  will  now  do 

the 


,       e f  which  we  are  Members,  frwed.      a8j 

the  like  as  to  your  own  Church  ^  and  fend 
me  in  folid  Arguments  your  proof  of  this 
Thefis. 

t  The  Church  of  which  the  Subjetts  of  the 

\  Pope  are* Members,  hath  been  Vifible  ever 
ftncethedajefcf  Chrift  on  earthy 
*  Where  note,  that  it  is  not  the  Visibility  of 
your  Church  asChriftian,  United  in  Chrift 
the  Head,  that  is  in  Queftion  .-  We  grant,as 
Chriftians,  all  of  you  are  of  the  true  Chri- 
ftian  Church  that  deftroy  not  your  Chrifti. 
anity  :  But  it  is  your  new  Church  form,  as 
Papal,  that  we  queftion, and  renounce.  Pro- 
tettants  are  of  no  Church  but  the  Chriftian 

I  united  in  Chrift  •  The  name  Proteftaitf  fig- 
nifieth  not  any  efTentiall  of  their  Church,  - 
but  their  Reje&ion  of  your  Church  as 
Headed  by  the  Pope  ;  You  are  therefore  to 
prove  that  your  Catholick  Church  as 
Headed  by  the  Pope  hath  been  vifible  in  all 
ages. 

.  And  here  I  muft  in  Juftice  expeft,that  you 
give  us  fuch  a  Definition  as  you  willftand  to 
through  thedifpute,  1.  Of  £the  Church] 
2.  Of  T  the  Pope]  and  3.  [  OftheSub- 
je&s  of  the  Pope  ]  or  £  Papifts.  ]  The 
term  £  Roman  Catholicks  ]  would  but 
divert  and  elude :  For  it  is  not  as  £Romane3 
that  we  oppofeyou,  that  i$^  as  inhabitants 

of 


a  86     Thi [uccefsive  Vifibility  of  the  Chm 

of  Rome^  or  as  fubjedt  to.  him  as  a  Bi( 
of  R§me  :  Nor  is  it  as  {_  Catholicks] 
is,  as  of  the  Univerfal  Chriftian  Chur 
but  as  £  Papifts]  that  is,  £  fubje&s  of 
Pope  as  univerfal  Soveraign,  or  Biftiop." 
difpute  of  terms  'not  agreed  on  9  is  .lor 
bour  :  Define  iirft,  or  you  do  nothing 
find  of  your\yffters,fomeby  theQChur 
mean  f  the  Pope  3  &s  Gretfer  Defenf..  cap 
Ub.l*deVcrbo  Dei,f*g.  1450,1451.  [ 
the  Church  (  faith  he  )  we  mean  the  Pop 
Row*]  and  £  per  Ecclefiam  Papam'interi 
tarn ur  1  Non  abnno.~\  Some  by  Q  the  Chur 
mean  £  a  Council  Q  and  what  they  raear 
[~  a  Council  ~\  I  know  not  well.  Andfc 
mean  £  the  Roman  Clergy]  i.  e.  of  t 
Diocefs :  And  fome  mean  [  all  the  Cle 
under  the  Pope  :  "J  And  fome  mean  [_  all 
people  that  are  his  fubjeds. ]  I  have  gi 
you  the  Reafon  of  my  doubting  of  y 
meaning  in  thefe  terms,  in  a  Book  come 
.of  thePrefs  fince  your  laft  to  me,  whe 
have  anfwered  mod  of  yours. 

2.  Let  me  defireof  you  fuch  proofs 
in  your  own  judgement  are  cogent.  If 
pofe  fas  I  have  there  told  you,  Kej  pa£. 
cap.  12.)  that  none  of  you  will  takeeit 
Senfe,  Reafon,  Scripture,  the  Traditior 
judgement  of  moft  of  the  Church  fo. 

fuffici 


ef  which  rot  Art  Members  ,f  roved.        iSy 

efficient  proof;  but  yet  we  will  accept  of 
hem,  when  you  argue  but  ad  hominem  :  for 
/e  renounce  them  not.  I  think  what  ever 
ou  fay,  that  is  not  the  Determination  of 
he  Pope  or  a  Council  by  him  approved 
'which  is  all  one)  you  will  give  us  leave  to 
radge  that  you  are  uncertain  your  felves 
vhether  you  fay  true  in  it,  if  de fide.  Saith 
SkjtlRtvius  Afol.  fro  Bellf.rm.c.  6. p.  255. 
The  Popes  Power  is  as  the  hinge,  the  foun- 
dation, and  (that  I  may  comprehend  all  in  a 
word  )  the  fumm  of  the  Chriftian  faith. 

Greg.  Valer.t!  And.  fid.  I.  8.  c.  7.  £  The 
Authority  that  refideth  in  the  Pope  alone, 
is  called  the  Authoriy  of  the  Church  and 
Councils. 

[  Be  liar,  de  Rom.  Pont.L+.c.  3 .  £  It  is  ap- 
parent thax  the  whole  firmnefs  (or  ftrcngth) 
of  Councils  is  from  the  Pope  ^  not  partly 
of  the  Pope,  and  partly  of  the  Council,  ~ 
Binnius  Vol.  2.^.515.  faith  £  Every  Coun- 
cil hath  juft  fomuch  ftrength  and  authori- 
ty^ the  Apoftolike  feat  beltoweth  on  it/] 
But  I  leave  you  to  give  us  your  own  judge- 
ment. 

Your    Teftimonies   from    Fathers   can 

feem  of  no  great  weight  to  us,  while  you  fo 

.flight  them  your  felves  as   commonly  you 

do  :  with  what  lies,  or  Errors,  or  other  in- 

compe- 


288      7hefuccefshe  Vifibility  of  the  Church 

competency  ,  you  charge  fuftin  Mart. 
Iren&us^  Tertullian,  Origen,  Viltorinnt,  Cy- 
prian^  Eufebim  ,  Epiphanius  ,  Prudentitts, 
Hierom,  La&antius^  Augufilne  ,  Procopiusj 
Tneodoret,  Ifidore^  Enthymim,  Soz,omen,  Oe- 
cumenitu,  Bernard,  and  all  the  Fathers,  fee 
Dr.  fames  Corrupt,  of  Fath.  Part.  4.  />.  2,3^ 
Tell  us  therefore  how  far  you  credit  them. 

Sir  if  you  refufe  thus  firft  to  explain  youi 
terms,  and  then  prove  the  Vifibility  of  youi 
Church,  as  Papal, fueceffively,  as  I  have  pro- 
ved the  Vifibility  of  the  Church  that  I  an 
of,  I  (hall  be  forced  to  conclude,  that  yoi 
love  not  the  light,  but  at  once  give  up  you) 
caufe,  and  the  reputation  of  your  impartia 
Love  of  truth. 


Addend*  Mifccllanea. 

C*0*cil.  Ephef.  i.in  Epiftola  ad  Neftor 
J  Tom.  l.fol.^i^.ed.  Pet.  Crab.  £/V 
trtu  &  Johannes  tqualis  ftint  ad  alterutrm 
dignitatis^ 

Comment,  in  epifl.  Synodal.  Bafil.p.  31 
&  p-  40.  Imprejf.  Colon.  1613.  faith  thai 
QThe  Provinces  fubjeft  to  the  four  grea 
Patriarchs  from  the  beginning  of  the  Chri 

ftiaci 


§f  which  we  are  Members,  f  roved.       2  8p 

Han  Church,  did  know  no  other  fupream 

)'ur  their  own  Patriarcks >  .  And  if  the 

>ope  be  a  Patriarck,  in  is  by  the  Church  •  If 
le  be  Head  of  all  Churches  5  it  is  by  the 
church.  And  whereas  we  have  faid  thac  ic 
s  exprefled  in  the  Council  of  Nict\  thac 
nany  Princes  were  fubjeded  to  the  Church 
)f  Rome  by  Ecclefiaftical  cuftom  ,  and  no 
)ther  right-,  the  Synod  (hould  do  the  great- 
jft  injury  to  the  Bifhop  of  Rome ,  if  it  (hould 
ittribute  thofe  things  to  him  only  from  cu- 
}om,  which  were  his  due  by  Divine  Right. j 
This  Citation  I  take  from  Bifhop  Bwmhali, 
having  not  feen  the  Book  my  felf. 

The  Popifh  Bifhop  of  Ca/cedoffi  Survey 
cap.  $.  To  us  it  iufficeth  that  th*  Bifhop 
of  Rome  is  Saint  Peters  iuccelTour.,  and  this 
all  the  Fathers  teftifie,  and  all  the  Cacholick 
Church  believeth  ;  but  whether  ic  be  jure 
divino  ,  or  Immano  ,  is-no  point  of  Faith.  ] 
An  ingenuous  Confefiion  dellroying  Po- 
pery. 

See  Aabert  MWaus  riotitia  Epifcopxt. 
where  in  theantient  JVWr.and  LettncUvitss 
Record  of  Leo  Philof.  Jmpera.  There  are  none 
of  the  Abaifine  ,  or  other  extraimperial 
Nations  under  the  old  Patriarcks.  Caf- 
fander  Epift.  37.  D.  Xinunio  (operant 
/>.  1 132.  J  faith  of  that  learned  pious,  Bi 


*<?o     Thefuccefslvt  Viftbilitf  of  the  Church 

fhop  of  VtdcntU  MokIhcihs  ,   (  fo  highly 
commended  by  Thuanns  and  other  learned* 
men)  thathefatd?  Si  fibipermittatnr  in  his 
tribus  capitibus  QviZ.  forma  publicarum  pre 
cum,de  ritikus  Baptifmi ,  J*  formh  httcha- 
riftia,  five  Afifa)  Chriftianam  formam  ad 
normam  prifc*  Ecclefi&  Inftitutam  legi,  cen- 
fidenfe  quod  ex  quinquaginta  will,  quoshabet 
infua.  Dioectfi  a  pr&fenti  dijciplina  Ecclefut 
dlverjes^uadraginta  millia  ad  Ecclefiafiicam 
xnionewfitreduElurus^  Thar  is,  If  he  had 
but  leave  in  thefc  three  heads  (  the  form  of 
publick  Prayers,  of  the  rites  of  Baptifm, 
>  and  the  form  of  theEuchariftor  the  MafsJ 
to  follow  theChrillian  form  Inftituted  ac- 
cording to  the  rule  of  the  Antient  Church, 
he  was  confident  that  of  fifty  thoufand  that 
he  had  in  his  Diocefs  that  differed  from  the 
prcfent  difcipline  of  the  Church ,  he  fhould 
reduce  forty  thouland  to  Ecclefiaftical  uni- 
on/   By  this  teftimony  it  is  plain  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  hath  forfakenthe  antient 
Difcipline  and  Worfhip  of  the  Church  by 
Innovation  •  and  that  tl  e  Proteftants  dellre 
the  reftiiutionof  it,  and  would  be  fatisfied 
therewieh,but  cannot  obtain  it  at  the  Papifts 
hands. 

So Caffander himfelf,  Epifi.  42. p.  1138. 
£l  wouid  not  defpair   of  moderation  ,  ii 

they 


\ 


of  which  rve  are  Memhtrs^  proved,        i  p  i 

they  that  hold  the  Church  poffeffions  would 
remove  fome  intolerable  abufes,  and  would; 
rcftorc  a  tolerable  form  of  the  Church,  ac- 
cording  to  the  prefcripc  of  the  Word  of 
God,  and  of  theantient  Church  ,  efpecially 
that  which  flourifhed  for  fome  ages  after 
Conftantine ,  when  liberty  was  reftored  : 
which  if  they  will  not  do,  and  that  berime, 
there  is  danger  they  may  in  many  places  be 
caftout  of  their  poffeffions,  ]  Still  you  fee 
Rome  is  the  Innovator  •  and  it  is  Rettitution 
of  the  antient  Chi.n  h-:orm  that  would  have 
quieted  the  Protefta  s,  which  could  never  be 
obtained. 

So  again  more  plainly,  Epifi.  45.  p.  1 14 1 , 


U  i  When      ' 


29  a     Whether  Her  sticks  are  in  the  Church. 

When  I  came  to  London^  I  enquired  af- 
ter Mr.  tfoknfon^  to  know  whether  I 
might  at  allexpeft  any  Anfwerto 
the  foregoing  Papers,  or  not:  And 
at  laft  inftead  of  an  Anfwer,  I  re- 
ceived only  thefe  enfuing  lines. 


I^Ag-  5.  parti.  Touftj,  I  reply  ft&,  had 
.  not  you  defpairedof  making  good  your 
caufe,  you  du^l'd  have  gone  by  argumenta- 
tion 5  t$?£&Ji  had  forced  me  to  contradid 
ibrn&a^^tibn  principle. 

Ki^lhave  by  Argumentation,  forced  you 

tothitCifyou  will  maintain  ^hat  after j$h 

fet  <■      ajfert  in  divers  parages,  (  viz,.  )  That 

HereticKs  are  true  parts  of  Chrifts  Catho- 

lick  Church  ^  for  thus  yon  write  p.ii.  Some 

are  called  Herecicks  for  denying  points  £f- 

fential  to  Chrillianicy  ;   thofe  are  no  Chri- 

ftians,  and  fo  npt  in  the  Church  -y  but  many 

alio  are  called  Hercticks  by  you  ,  and  by  the 

Fathers  for  lefler  Errours  confident  with 

Chriftianity  •  And  thefe    may    be  in   the 

Church  :  And  p.  12.  you  anfwer thru  to  jour 

•adverfary  :  Whereas  you  fay  it  is  againll  all 

antiquity 


Whether  Hereticks  are  in  the  Church.     293 

antiquity  and  Chriitianity  to  admit  con- 
demned Hereticxs  into  the  Churchy  1  reply 
firft,  I  hate  their  condemnation,  rather  then 
reverence  it  •,  where  you  faying  nothing 
againfl  their  Admittance  into  the  Church  , 
feem  to  grant  it. 

I  therefore  huwbly  entreate you  to  declare 
your  opinion  n.ort  fully  in  this  quefiion  ^ 
Whether  any  prof 'ejfed. Hereticks  ,  properly  fo 
called,  are  true  parts  of  the  universal  vifiile 
Church  of  Chrifi  •,  fo  that  they  compofe  one 
univtrfal  Church  with  the  other  vijible  parts 
of  it. 

Wilifam  Johnfon. 


The  Anfwer. 

ANfw.  My  words  are  plain  ,  and  di- 
ftinftly  anfwer  yourqucftion  ,  fo  that 
I  know  not  what  more  is  needful  for  the  ex- 
plication of  my  fenfe  j  Unlefs  you  would 
call  us  back  from  the  Thing  to  the  meer 
Namc,  by  your  [  properly  fo  called,]  you 
are  anfwered  already.  But  I  would  fpeak  as 
plainly  as  I  can ,  and  if  it  bepoflibx  for  me 

U  3  to 


+9<t 


Whether  Hereticks  are  tn  the  Church. 

to  be  underftood  by  you,  I  (hall  do  my 

pare. 

i.  Itisfuppofed  that  you  and  I  are  not 
agreed  What  the  Vniverfal  vifiblt  Church  it 
felf  is,  while  you  take  the  Pope,  or  any  meer 
humane  Head  to  be  an  effential  part  •,  which 
is  an  affertion  that  with  much  abhorrence  I 
deny.     You  think  each   member    of  that 
Church  muft  neceffariiy  ad  ejfc,  be  a  fubjed 
-of  the  Pope  •,  and  I  think  it  enough  that  he 
be  a  iubjed  of  Chrft  •,  and  to  his  orderly 
and  well-being,  that  he  hold  local  Commu- 
nion with  fhe  parts  within  the  reach  of  his 
capacity,  and  be  fubjed:  to  the  Pallors  that 
arefet  over  him  •,  maintaining  due  affociati- 
on  with  and  charity  to  the  reft  of  the  more 
diftind:  members ,  as  he  is  capable  of  com- 
munion with  them  at  that  diilance.   So  that 
when  1  have  proved  a  perfon  to  be  a  member 
of  the  Ca:holick  Church,  it  is  not  your  Ca- 
tholick  Church  that  I  mean  :    No  found 
Christian  is  a  member  of  yours  ^  it  is  Here- 
ticks (  in  the  fofter  fenfe  )  that  are  its  mat- 
ter.   Its  neceflary  therelore  that  we  firft 
agree  of  ihe  Definition   of  the  Catholick 
Church,  before  we  difpute  who  is  in  it. 

2.  Your  word  ["  Properly  io  called]  is 
ambiguous:,  referring  either  to  theEtymo- 
Sogie,  or  to  fome  definition  in  an  authentick 

Canon  ; 


Whether  Hereticks  are  in  the  Church,      tp 

:  Canon  •  or  to  cuftom  and  common  fpeech.  \ 

I  Of  the  firft,  we  have  no  reafon  now  to  enter  \ 

I  controverlie  :  For  the  fecond  ,  I  know  no  \ 

fuch  ftabliftit  Definition  that  we  are  agreed 
on  :  For  the  third ,  cuftom  is   fo  variable 
here,  not  agreeing  with  it  felf,  that  what  is 
to  be  denominated  Proper  or  Improper  rrom 
it,  isnottobe  well  conj.&ureo.   However 
•all  this  is  but  de  nomine  •,  and  What  is   the 
proper,  and  What  the  improper  ufe  of  the 
word  Heretic k^is  no  Article  of  Faith  ,  nor 
necefTary  for  our  debate.    Therefore  again 
you    muft  accept   of  my   diftinguifhing , 
fcnd  give  me  leave  to  fly  confulion. 

i.  The  word  QHeretick]  is  either  fpo- 
ken  of  one  that  corrupteth  the  Do Arine  of 
Faith  (  as  fuch  )  ,  or  of  one  that  upon  iome 
difference  of  Opinion ,  or  fome  perfonal 
quarrels,  withdraweth  from  the  Communi- 
on of  thofe  particular  Churches  that  before 
he  held  communion  with  ,  and  gathereth  a 
feparated  party  :  fuch  are  molt  ufually  cal- 
led Schifmaticks •  butof  old,thenam;  [He- 
reticks J  was  oft  applyed  un:o  fuch. 

2.  The  word  £  Heretick  in  the  firft 
fenie,  is  either  fpoken  of  one  that  (  pro- 
fefling  the  reft  )  denyeth  fome  one  or  more 
efiential  Articles  of  the  Faith,  or  parts  of 
Chriftianity  •,  or  one  that  only  denyeth  not 

U   4  what 


i  g  6     Whether  Hereticks  Aft  in  the  Chunh. 

what  is  neceflary  to  the  Being  ,  but  to  th< 
Integrality  orlober  and  better-being  of  < 
Chnftian. 

3.  Hereticks  are  either  conviftand  con- 
'demned,  or  fuch  as  never  were  tryed  anc 
judged. 

4.  Hereticks  condemned,  are  either  con- 
demned by  their  proper  Paftors  ,  or  b) 
ethers. 

,5.  If  by  others,  either  by  Ufurpers^  or  bj 
meer  equal  neighbour  confociate  Paftors. 

6.  They  are  condemned  either  juftlj 
clave  non  err  ante ,  or  unjuftly  c  Live  er- 
rante. 

7.  They  are  either  judged  to  be  material 
ly,as  to  the  quality  of  their  errcur,  Here- 
tickj  \  of  alfo  formally  as  obftinate,  impe- 
nitent and  habitually  ftated  Hereticks. 

Upon  thefe  neceffary  diftin&ions,  Ian- 
fw srr  your  Queftion  in  thefe  Propofi- 
tions. 

Trop.  1.  As  the  word  J~  Hereticks]] 
figmhethSchifmaticksas  fuch,  fo  Hereticks 
wuh  drawing  from  fome  parts  of  the  umV 
verial  Chuich  only,  may  yet  be  parts  of  the 
whole  (  even  with  thofe  parts  from  which 
they  feparate).  If  they  fay  £  You  are  no 
parts,  and  therefore  we  difown  you,  and 
will  have  no  Communion  with  you]    this 

maketh 


Whether  Hereticks  are  in  the  Church.      297 

maketh  neither  ceafe  to  be  parts n  and  while 
both  own  the  Head  and  the  Body  asfuch  , 
they  have  an  union  in  tertio ,  and  fo  a  com- 
munion in  the  principal  refpe&s,  while  they 
peevifhly  difclaimitin  other  reipe&s.  Be- 
sides that  the  local  or  particular  Communi- 
on, is  it  that  is  proper  to  members  of  a  par- 
ticular Church  ,  and  therefore  the  renoun- 
cing it  only  feparates  him  from  that  Church. 
jBut  it  is  the  general  Communion  that  be- 
longs to  us  as  members  of  the  Church  Uni- 
verfal,  which  may  be  ftill  continued.  But 
(hould  any  renounce  the  Body  of  Chrift  as 
fuch  ,  and  fcparate  (  not  from  this  or  thax 
Church,  but )  from  the  whole,  or  from  the 
Church  Univerfal  as  fuch,  this  man  would  be 
no  member  of  the  Church. 

Pro^  2.  As  the  word  (^Heretick  3  is 
taken  tor  one  that  denyeth  any  thing  eflen- 
tial  to  Christianity  -9  fo  an  Heretick,  if  latent, 
is  out  of  the  Church  Deojndice,  as  to  the 
invifible  part,  or  foul  of  the  Church,  (as  Bd- 
Urmine  calls  it )  as  a  latent  Infidel  is  •  bun 
he  may  be  (if  latent  )  in  the  outward  com- 
munion  ,  or  f  as  BzllarmiKc  calls  him)  a 
dead  member ,  that  properly  is  none  •, 
as  the  draw  and  chaffe  are  in  the  corn- 
field. 

I'rop   3.  Such  an  Heretick  convift  and 

judged 


198     Whether  Hereticks  are  In  the  Church. 

judged  by  the  Paftors  of  that  paraculai 
Church,  of  which  he  is  a  fubjeft-member  j 
is  accordingly  to  be  avoided  ,  and  in  fort 
illius  Ecctefia ,  is  fo  far  caft  out  of  thai 
Chu  th,  as  the  fentence  importeth. 

Prof.  4.  Such  an  Heretick ,  if  he  be  a1 
Paftor  of  one  Church  ,  and  be  convid:  and1 
condemned  by  the  confociate  co-equal  Pa- 
flors  of  the  neighbour  Churches  ,  is  accor- 
dingly caft  out  from  communion  of  all  thd 
Churches,  of  which  they  are  Paftors. 

Prof.  5.  So.farasany Chriftians through 
the  world  have  fufficient.  proof  or  cog-J 
nifar.ee  of  the  faid  conviction  and  condem- 
nation ,  they  are  all  bound  accordingly  to 
eficem  the  condemned  Heretick  ,  and  avoid' 
him. 

Prof  6.  If  £Here£e"]  be  taken  for  the 
obftinate,  impenitent  refifting  or  rejecting' 
of  any  roint  of  Faith  (  ihat  is  f  of  Divine  < 
Revelation)  which  is  made  fo  plain  to  the1 
perfon,  that  nothing  but  a  wicked  will  could ' 
caufe  fuch  refftance  or  reje&ion  ,  fuch  per- 
fons  being  juftly  convifted  and  condemned 
as  aforefaid,  are  to  be  taken  as  perfons  con- 
demned for  obftinacy  and  impenitency  in 
any  other  fin-,  and  are  out  of  the  Church, 
as  far  as  a  man  condemned  for  impenitency 
in  drunkennefs  or  fornication  is. 

Prof. 


Whether  Heretic  fa  are  in  the  Church.      7.99 

Prop.  7.  Herefie  taken  in  this  fofcer 
ife  (  for  thedenyal  of  a  truth  of  Divine 
/elation ,  not  eflential  to  the  Chriftian 
rligion ,  or  neceffary  to  the  Being  of  a 
inftian )  excliideth  no  man  from  the 
lurch  of  ir  felf ,  unlefs  they  are  legally 
nvift  of  wicked  Isnpenitency  and  obffina- 
in  defending  it. 

Prop.  8.  A  fentenccpzffed  in  aliemforo  9 
I  an  Ufurper  that  hath  no  true  Authority 
ereto  ,  proveth  no  man  an  Heretick. 
Prop.  9.  A  fentence  paffed  by  an  Autho- 
red Paftor,  (  or  by  many  )  if  it  be  noto- 
oufly  unjuft ,  clave  erranre ,  proveth  no 
an  an  Heretick,  or  out  of  the  Univerfal 
hurch. 

Prop.  10.  A  fentence  paffed  by  one 
hurch,  or  many  confociate,  binds  Rone  to 
ke  the  condemned  perfon  to  be  an  Here- 
ck,  and  out  of  the  Univerfal  Church  ,  but 
lofe  that  have  fufficient  tiotice  of  the  Au- 
lority  of  the  Judges ,  and  validity  of  the 
vidcnce  ,  or  a  ground  of  violent  pre- 
emption ( as  its  called  )  that  the  fentence 

juft. 

Prop.  11.  He  that  isfcntencedanHere- 
tck  or  Impenitent  by  the  Pallors  of  fome 
lurches,  and  acquit  by  thcequaliy-au- 
homed  Paftorsof  other  Churches,  is  not 

90 


3Q0     Whether  Heretic ks  are  in  we  Chunk 

eo  nomine  to  be  condemned  or  acquit  I 
third  Church,  but  ufed  as  the  evidence 
quireth. 

Prof.  12.  There  is  an  aftual  excomr 
nication^n?  medela  and  pro  tempore,  due . 
an  a&ual,  willful  defence  of  error,  or 
other  willful  fin  •,  which  ftatedly  puts  no 
man  out  of  the  Church  •,  as  there  is  an 
communication  afiatu  &  Relatione,  whit 
due  for  ftated  habitual  or  obitinate 
penitency  in  that  or  other  great  or  kno 
fin. 

Having  thus  diftin&ly  told  you  my  jud^ 
rnent  how  far  Hereticks  are,  or  are  not  in 
out  of  theuniverfal  Church,  I  add  in  on 
to  the  application:  I.  That  this  wh 
debate  is  nothing  to  the  great  differed 
between  you  and  us,  it  being  not  defide* 
your  own  account,  but  a  dogma  theologies 
which  you  differ  about  among  your  ielvt 
Bdlarmine  tells#you  Alphon]m  a  CaJ. 
maintained  that  Herttickj  are  in  the  Cbur 
(deEcclef.  1. 3.  c.  4.)  And  he  himfelf  fa 
that  hxretici  pertinent  ad  Ecclefiam  ut  c 
adovile  ande  confngerunt,  ibid.  c.  4.  fo  tli 
they  are  oves  ftill,  and  if  it  be  but  evile  pi\ 
tic  alar  e  (yeluti  Roman  urn  )  that  they 
from,  and  not  the  Vniverfal,  that  pro\ 
them  not  out  of  the  Vniverfal  Chun 

A 


Vbtther  tiereticis  dre  in  the  Church.     301 

d  Bellarwine  faith  of  the  Catechumen.  & 
-xommHnicAtis,  that  they  uredeamma^etfi 

de  colore  Ecclefnt,  ib.  c.  2.  and  may  be 
fed,  cap.  6.  And  the  anima  Ecclefia  is  not 
.orporated  in  the  world  without  .•  All 
it  have  that  foul,  are  of  that  Church 
lich  Chrift  ("that  animateth  his  members) 
:he  head  of.  Which  made  MehhiorCanm 
atente  Bellarmino  de EccL  I.  3.  c*  3.)  con- 
's the  being  of  that  which  indeed  is  the 
jeCatholike  Church,  faying  of  the  Vn- 
ftized  Be/levers,  that  [funt  de  Ecclefia 
t£  comprehends  omnesfidcles  ab  Abel  ufqut 
\confttmmationem  mxndi.] 
2.  Many  Popes  have  been  condemned  for 
ereticks,  even  by  General  Councils,  as  not 
lly  Honorius  (by  two  or  three)  but  Eh- 
nins  by  the  Council  of  Bafil,  when  yet  he 
fpt  his  place,  and  the  reft  come  in  as  his 
cceffors.  And  your  writers  frequently 
mfefs  that  a  Pope  may  be  an  Heretick  (as 
)pe  Adrian  himfelf  affirmeth.)  Now  if 
lele  are  not  of  the  Church,  then  they  are 
x  Heads  of  the  Church,  and  then  being 
rential  parts  of  your  Church,  it  followeth 
lat  your  Church  is  heretical  and  unchurch- 
iwith  them.  But  if  thefe  Popes  may  be 
1  the  Church  (and  Heads  of  yours)  while 
kreticks,  then  fo  may  others. 

3.  Its 


■ 

3  0  %      Whether  Hfreticks  are  in  the  Church 

3.  Its  commonly  faid  by   others 
yours)  as  well  as  BelUrmin:%  that  the  Cq 
cils  were  mifinformed  about  Honoriui,  (; 
the  Popes  that  confented  to  thofe  Counc 
and  fo  that  he  was  not  a  Heretick  nor 
of  the  Church  :  Alfo  that  a  Pope  may  c 
in  matter  of  faft,  and  unjuftly  excommq 
cate.     If  fo,  a  Pope  and  Council  may  e 
about  another,  as  well  as  about  Honorim 
other  Popes  •  and  therefore  their  fentei 
be  no  proof  that  fuch  are  outof  the  Chur< 
no  more  then  that  he  and  Eugenins  wi 
out. 

4.  As  the  Pope  and  his  Synods  conder 
the  Greeks,  fo  the  Greeks  condemn  and  t 
communicate  you  •,  as  formerly  the  Pat 
arch  of  Conftantinofle^  and  the  Pope  ha 
excommunicated  each  other.  I  am  therefo 
no  more  bound  to  take  them  for  excomm 
nicate  perfons,  than  you,  they  having 
much  authority  over  you  as  you  over  thei 
and  their  witnefs  being  to  us  as  credible 
yours. 

5.  The  Abajfmcs^  Armenians^  Greeks ,& 
are  not  proved  to  deny  any  effential  poi 
of  the  Chriftian  Religion ,   or  which 
ncceffary  to   the  Being  of  a  Chriftian  1 
Church. 

0.  Nor  are  they  proved  to  be  willfi 

obftiaa 


Whether  Here  ticks  are  in  the  Church.      30$ 

bftinate  and  impenitent  in  defending 
ny  errors,  with  a  wicked  mind  ♦,  and  fo  10 
e  formally  Hereticxs  in  your  own  fenfe. 

7.    They  are  large  Nations,  and  millions 
f  fouls,  and  their  Paftours  numerous,    io 
bat  its  impoffible  they  (hould  be  all  legally 
y  you  convi&ed,     Th:y  never  fpake  for 
iemfelves,  nor  were  witncfTes  heard"  againft 
hem.     Noxa   caput  faqnitur.     Guilt     of 
fcrefie  is  to  be  proved  of  each  individual 
/horn  you  condemn.     ]f  a  few  Bifliop* 
yercHereticks,  or  a  Prince  were  fuch,  that 
jroves  not  that  the  reft,  and  all  the  Paftors, 
>r  people,  even  to  many  millions  are  fuch. 
3r  if  half  had  been  fuch  in  former  ages, 
hat  proves  not  that  half  or  any  are  fuch 
low.     Chrift  never  appointed  the  excom- 
nunicating  of  millions  for  the  fakes  of  a  few 
>f  their  Rulers,  nor  of  whole  Nations  un- 
ieard  •,  but  of  (ingle  perfons  upon  a  juft 
ind  equal  tryal.     lr  therefore  your  Pope, 
Or  any  of  his  Councils,   (which  you  iaifly 
call  General)  do  excommunicate   or  con- 
demn   HabaJJia^  Armenia,  Georgia^  Sjria^ 
and  other  Nations  as  Hereticks5it  is  (o  iar 
from  unchurching  them,    or  proving  them 
fuch,  as   hat  it  is  one  of  the  greateft  iins 
thac  can  be  committed  by  the  Ions  of  men, 
With  inhumane  injuftice,  cruelty,  pride  and 

arrogancy, 


304     Whether  Hereticks  are  in  the  Church. 

arrogancy ,  presuming  to  pafs  a  damning 
fentcnce  on  fo  many  millions  of  fouls,  whofc 
faces  you  never  faw,  nor  were  ever  called  to 
a  legal  try al. 

8.  Your  own  writers  ordinarily  acquit 
the  Greeks  from  Herefie  ^  and  thofe  of  them 
that  have  travelled  to  other  Countries,  as 
Syria^  &c.  acquit  moft  of  them,  as  I  have 
proved  in  former  writings  out  of  their  own 
words  (  not  needful  therefore  here  to  be 
recited,  when  you  may  fee  any  writings.] 

9.  Your  Pope  (and  Bifhops)  is  none  of 
their  authorized  Paftor,  and  therefore  hath 
no  power  as  fuch  to  judge  them.  And  as 
neighbour  Churches  they  have  as  much  to 
do  to  judge  you  as  you  to  judge  them. 
Therefore  they  are  never  the  more  out  of 
the  Church  for  your  judgement,  any  more 
than  you  for  theirs. 

10.  There  are  as  many  and  as  great  er- 
rors proved  by  them  to  be  in  your  Church 
as  is  by  you  to  be  in  theirs :  fo  that  (in  fum  J 
your  caufe  being  much  worfe ,.  and  yout 
cenfure  of  them  proving  you  guilty  of  fuch 
inhumane  cruelty  ,  injuftice,  arrogancy, 
ufurpation,  &c  by  condemning  them,  you 
go  much  nearer  «to  prove  your  felvcs  no 
Chriftians  and  no  Church  than  them; 

1 1 .  And  yet  I  think  the  far  greateft  part 

ol 


Whether  Hereticks  are  in  the  Church.      305 

>fthem  (many  thoufands  to  one)  are  no: 
iftually  excommunicated  or  condemned  by 
my  pretended  fentence  of  your  own,  \ 
iver  your  writers  may  fay  of  them,  and 
vhatever  one  Council  might  fay  of  fome 
:ew  in  fome  one  age. 

12.  Laftly,  It  can  be  no  matter  of  cer- 
:ainty  to  you  your  felf,  or  any  of  you,  that 
:hefe  Nations  or  Churches  are  Here:  ic  as, 
both  becaufe  it  is.  a  thing  that  none  of  your 
approved  Councils  have  determined  of,  as 
to  any  perfon  now  living,  nor  to  anycon- 
(Iderable  number  comparatively,  in  odier 
jiges^  and  alfo  becaufe  you  confefs  your 
Pope  and  Councils  fallible  in  chefe  cafes,  of 
faft  and  perfonal  application.  You  cannot 
therefore  build  upon  fuch  acknowledged 
uncertainties. 


B lit  Sir,  having  thus  anfweredyour  de- 
mand, I  mult  ask  you,  whatsali  thisco 
the  Anfwerofmy  laft  Papers,  which  lhave 
now  near  a  year  expefted  from  you  ?  I 
fufpeded  fome  fuch  tcrgiVerfation  ,  when 
I  took  the  boldnefs  to  urge  you  to  hard  to 
the  tasks  that  you  were  reafonably  enr 
to  perform  ,  viz.  1.  To  prove  by  clofe 
Argumentation, the  nullity  of  our  Church, 

X  as 


^oi5     Whether  Heretich  are  in  the  Church. 

as you  begun  in your firft  Argument.  2.  To 
anfwer  my  proofs  of  our  fucceffive  viability. 
3.  To  prove  your  own  fucceffive  vifibility 
in  all  ages  fince  Chrift,  as  I  have  provea 
ours.  I  do  therefore  once  more  urge  you 
fpeedily  to  do  this,  affuring  you  that  elfe  I 
mult  take  it  for  an  open  defertingof  your 
Caufe. 

But  yet  I  muft  add,  that  if  you  will  pleafe 
to  difpute  the  main  caufe  in  difference  be- 
tween us,  upon  equal  terms  •,   we  have  yet 
other  Queftions  in  which  we  differ, that  are 
lower  thenthefe,  and  nearer  the  foundati- 
on.   Befides  the  foremen tioned  work  there- 
fore, I  defire,  that  you  will  difpute  the  main 
Caufe,  in  two  diftind:  difputauons,  in  one 
of  which  be  you  the  Opponent,  and  bring 
your  ftrongeft  Arguments  againit  the  Re- 
formed Churches  and  Religion  .  and  in  the 
other  I  will  be  Opponent  and  argue  againft 
Popery  ^  in  the  beginning  agreeing  upon  the 
fenfe  of  thofe  terms  that  we  are  like  to  have 
greateftufe  of  through  our  difputation.     II 
you  will  but  lee  us  meet,  and  ftate  our  fenfc 
of  fuch  terms ,   before  I  return    into  th< 
Country,  that  we  may  the  better  _manag< 
it  after  at  a  diftance,  it  will  be  worth  oui 
labour :  And  for  verbal  difpute,  I  (hall  a 

an1 


Whether  Hereticks  are  in  the  Churchl      30^- 

any  fit  time  and  place  molt  cheerfully  en- 
tertain it,  if  fo  many  doubting  perfons 
may  be  prcfent,  as  that  it  may  be  worth 
our  labour.  In  the  mean  time  I  pray  par- 
don it ,  if  the  roughnefs  of  any  paflages 
difcover  the  frailty  of 


Tour  Servant  t 

fwej*  1660, 

R.  Baxter, 


X  z 


Mr."  fohnfons 
EXPLICATION 

OF 

Some  of  the  moll  ufed  Terms 

WITH 

Q^ll  ERIES 

Thereupon  ••  And  his  Ahswes- 
And  my  R  e  p  x  r. 


v      v 


LONDON,  Printed,  1661, 


310 


A  Jeter  the  writing  of  the  foregoing  Paper \ 
I  again  urged  Mr.  Johnfon  to  the 
(peedy  anfwering  my  Papers  :  Of  which 
ythen  he  gave  me  no  hope,  I  committed  them 
to  the  Prefs.  But  afterward  ,  he  feemed 
were  inclinable  both  to  that,  and  to  a  Ver- 
bal conference  :  And  in  order  to  both,  ( if 
we  had  opportunity )  I  defired  him  firft  that 
we  might  agree  on  the  fenfe  of  thofe  terms 
that  are  like  to  be  mofl  ufed  in  the  [nbftance 
cf  our  Contr  over  fie  ;  promijing  him  that  I 
will  give  him  my  fenfe  of  any  term  ,  when 
he  fhall  dejire  it ;  and  accordingly  he  ex- 
plained hi*  fenfe  of  many  ef  them  m  fol- 
loweth. 
I 


Queries 


.<!?*" 


3™ 


Queries  of  %,  35.  on  thefe 

definitions,  with  Mr.  fohnjons 
Anfwer,  and  my  Reply. 


Mr.  J. 

The  Catholick  Church  of  Chrift. 

TH  E  Catholick  Church  of  Chri/l  is 
alhhofe  viftble  Ajfemblies,  Congre- 
gations ,  or  Communities  of  Chriftians , 
who  live  in  unity  of  true  faith,  and  exter- 
nal communion  one  with  another,  and  in 
'dependance  of  their  lawful  Pajlors. 

RB. 

I  Of  the  Church. 

£fo.  i.  Whether  you  exclude  not 
all  chofc  converted  among  Infidels , 
that  never  had  external  Communion 
with,  nor  were  members  of  any  par- 
ticular vifible  Church,  of  which  you 

X  4  make 


312  Thofenfc  ofthtmoftufed  terms  difcufi. 

nuke  the  Catholick  to   be    confli- 
tuted f 

AfK  J. 

Anfvv.  Itisfufficitnt  that  fuch  be  fttbjett 
to  the  fup ream  Paftor,  and  in  voto,  quantum 
in  le  clt  ,  rejclved  to  be  of  that  particular 
Church  a£l natty \  Vrhich  fh+  11 \  or  may  be  affign- 
edfer  them  by  that  Pafior,  to  be  included  in 
my  definition. 

R.B.   Reply.- 

JS^i.  Repl-  *&  !m  t.  You  fee  then  that 
your  Definitions  fgnifie  nothing :  no  man 
can  know  your  meaning  by  them.  Firft  you 
make  the  Catholick  Church  to  conliftonly 
of  vifible  Aflemblies :  and  after  you  allow 
fuch  to  be  members  of  the  Church  that  arc 
of  1:0  vifible  Aflemblies  2.  You  now 
mention  fubjeftion  to  the  fupream  Paftor  as 
fiifficient,  which  in  your  description  or  defi- 
nition you  did  not.  3 .  If  to  be  only  in  voto 
refolvvdtobe  of  a  particular  Church  will 
ierve,  then  inexiftence  is  not  neccflary. 
To  be  only  in  voto  of  the  Catholick^  Church t 
proyes  no  man  a  member  ot  the  Catholick 
Church,  but  proves  the  contrary ,  becaufe  it 
is  Tern. inus  d'minvens.  Seeing  then  by  your 

own 


Thefenfe  of  the  mofl  u  fed  terms  difcuft. 

own  confeffion,  inexiflence  in  a  particular 
Church  is  not  of  necefiicy  to  inexiflence  in 
the  Catholike  Church  •  why  do  you  no: 
only  mention  it  in  your  definition ,  but  con- 
fine the  Church  to  fuch  ?  will  you  fay  you 
meant  invoto  ?  who  then  can  underftand 
you,  when  you  fay  they  muft  be  of  vifiblc 
'  Affemblies,  and  mean,  the)  need  not  be  of  any \ 
but  only  to  wijb,  defire  or  purpofe  it  ?  4.  Buc 
yet  you  fay  nothing  to  my  cafe  in  its  lati- 
tude. Many  a  one  may  be  converted  to 
Chrift  by  a  folitary  Preacher,  or  by  two  or 
three,  that  never  tell  him  that  there  is  any 
fupream  Paftor  in  the  world  :  How  then 
can  he  be  fubjeft  to  that  fuppofed  Paftor, 
that  never  heard  of  him  ?  The  Englijfj  and 
Dutch  convert  many  Indians  to  the  faith  of 
Chrift,that  never  hear  of  a  fupream  Pallor. 
5 .  If  it  be  neceffary  that  a  particular  Church 
muft  be  afiigned  for  fuch  members  by  the 
fupream  Paftor,  then  they  are  yet  little  the 
better  that  never  have  any  fuch  aflignation 
from  him  (as  few  have.) 

R.  B. 

gu.  2.    What  is  that  faith  in  unity 
whereof  all  members  of  the  Catholike 

Church 


3*3 


3 1 4    The  ftnfe  of  the  mo  ft  ufed  terms  difcufl.  ^  I 
Church  do  live  f  is  it  the  belief  of  ail 
that  God  hath  revealed  to  be  believed^ 
or  of  part?  and  what  part? 

Mr.  J. 

Arfw.  Of  all  j  either  explicitly,  or  im* 
plicitly. 

R.B.  Reply. 

Reply,  Ad  2m.  Your  fecond  anfwer  fur- 
ther proves  that  your  definitions  fignifie  juft 
noching.  They  muft  live  in  unity  of  the' 
faith  ;  that  is,  either  vrith  faith  or  without 
it :  with  a  be lief  of  what  Go  J  hath  revealed 
to  be  believed,  or  without  it.  For  to  believe 
any  point  implicitly,  in  your  ordinary  fenfe, i 
is  not  to  believe  it,  but  only  to  believe  one  of 
thePremifes,  whence  the  conclufion  rauft  be*. 
inferred.  But  why  do  you  not  tell  me  what 
you  mean  by  [an  Implicitefaithj  ?  Faith 
is  called  Implicite  in  feveral  lenies.  i .  Wfcerr 
feveral  truths  are  actually  underftood  and 
believed  in  cohfufo,  or  in  grofs,  in  fome  one 
propofition  which  containeth  the  fubftance 
ot  them  all  ^  but  not  with  accurate  diftind 
conceptions,  nor  fuch  as  are  ripe  for  any  fit 
expreffion :  This  indiftintt,  immature,  im- 

perfett 


the  fenfe  $f  the  moft  ufed  terms  dtfcuft.   315 

<feft  kind  ofapprehenfion  maybe  called 
lplicite  i  and  the  diftinfl;  and  more  digeft- 
[   conceptions    Exflicite.     2.    When  a 
ineral  propofition  is  believed  as  the  matter 
f  our  faith ,  but  the  particulars  are  not 
nderficod  or  not  believed :  As  to  believe 
lat  owne  animal  vivit ■,  not  knowing  whe- 
her  you  are  Animal  or  Cadaver.     Or  to 
idieve  that  £all  that  is  in  the  Scripture  is 
he  Word  of  God  and  truej  but  not  to 
mow  [what  is  in  the  Scripture].    3.  When 
t  is  only  the  formal  objeftof  faith  that  is 
relieved,  without  underftanding  themateri- 
*/objc&. 

The  firft  fort  of  thefe,  I  confefs,  is  Attual 
Belief \  though  indlfiintt :  But  I  fuppofe  you 
mean  not  this.  J .  Becaufe  it  is  not  the  or- 
dinary fenfe  of  your  party.  2.  Becaufe  elfe 
you  damn  either  all  the  world,  ormoftof 
your  own  profeflcd-party  at  lead  as  no 
members  of  the  Church:  for  few  or  none 
have  an  AElual  understanding  and  belief 'of 
all  that  ever  God  revealed  to  them  •,  be- 
caufe all  men  (or  moll  at  leaft)  have  been 
finfully  negligent  in  fearching  after,and  re- 
ceiving truth  •  and  fo  are  finfully  ignorant  • 
No  man  knoweth  all  that  God  hath  reveal- 
ed, or  that  he  ought  to  know.  3.  Becaufe 
by  this  rule  it  is  impoftibie  lor  you  or  any 

man 


*  1 6     The  ftnfc  of  the  mo  ft  u fed  terms  difcufi  I 

man  to  know  who  is  indeed  a  member  1>| 
your  Church  -9  for  you  cannot  know  met 
confufed  knowledge,  or  know  that  it  c 
tendeth  to  all  revealed ;  For  if  you  fpeak 
a\\  revealed  in  general^  or  in  Scripture,  y<: 
ftill  damn  all,  (or  moll  in  your  own  fenftl 
for  none,  as  I  faid  ,  underftand  it  all    to 
word:    But  if  you  fpeak  of  all  which  th; 
particular  man  hath  had  fufficient  means  t 
know,  it  is  then  impofiible  for  you  to  mat 
a  judgement  of  any  mans  faith  by  this :  Fc 
you  can  never  difcern  all  the  means  (in 
ternal  or  external)  that  ever  he  had  -5  muc. 
lefs  can  you  difcern  whether  his  faith  b' 
commenfurate  to  the  truth  fo  far  revealed1 
So   that  by    this  courfe   you  make    youi 
Church  invifible.     I  pray  tell  me  how  yot 
can  avoid  it  ? 

2.  The  fecond  fort  of  Implicite  Belief,  i< 
no  Belief  of  the  particulars  at  all.  An  Anl 
-mal  may  //w,  and  yet  it  followcth  not  thai 
you  are  alive  or  an  animal.  If  this  were 
your  meaning,  then  either  you  mean  "thai 
it  is  enough  if  all  be  believed  implicitly  bo- 
lides that  general  propofitionj  ^  or  yoi 
mean  that  fome  rauft  be  believed  explicit l\ 
fthat  is  actually )  and  fome  Implicitly,  (thai 
is,  not  at  all  j.  If  the  former  be  your  fenfe 
then  Infidels  or  Heathens  may  be  of  youi 

Church 


leftnfc  of  the  m$fi  ufed  terms  dtfcufl.  3 1  7 

rch.  For  a  man  may  believe  in  general 
[the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God  and 
]  and  yet  not  know  a  word  thats  in  it ; 
fo  not  know  that  Chrift  is  the  Meffias, 
lat  ever  there  was  fuch  a  perfon.  But 
wewbat  mult  be  explicit?/)  ( that  is, 
wily)  believed,  the  Queftion  that  you 
ild  have  anfwered  was,  QWhat  is  it  Q 
till  that  be  known,  no  man  can  know 
[ember  of  your  Church  by  your  de- 
)tion. 

.  If  you  take  \_Imf  licit f]  in  the  third 
e,  then  Implicit  e  faith  is  either  Divine  or 
mane.     Divine,  when  the  Divine  Vera." 
is  the  formal  Oh]ett.    Humane,  when 
is  Veracity  is  the  formal  Ob  jeft.  Which 
/  be  ConjunEi  where  the  TefHmonies  are 
conjunct,  as  that  we  are  fure  it  is  God 
t  fpeaks  by  man  ^  who  is  therefore  crcdi- 
pecaufeGod  infallibly  guideth  or  infpir- 
him  :  This  is  at  once  to  believe  a  Bh- 
\%e  and  Divine  Veracity.    If  any  of  this 
pur  meaning,  the  laft  queilions  remain 
to  be  refolved  by  you.    A  man  may  he- 
re that  [God  i$  true,]  and  that  Qhis  Pro- 
fs or  injpiredmeffengers  aretrue^  and  yet 
ttmderitand  a  word  of  the  meflage  :  fo 
it  ftill  if  this  will  ferve,  a  man  may  be  of 
ur  Church   that  knoweth  not  that  ever 

tie  e 


3 1 8   The  fenfe  of  the  m$  ufed  terms  dlfcaft 

there  was  fuch  a  perfon  as  Jefus  Chrift, 
thateverhedied  for  our  fins,  or  rofe  aga 
or  that  we  fliall  rife.  And  are  Infidels 
your  Church  while  you  are  arguing  us  ou 
But  if  there  be  fome  truths  befides  the  \ 
racity  of  God  (and  his  Meflengcrs  )  tl 
muft  be  believed,  you  muft  (hew  what  it 
or  yourChurch-members*  cannot  be  knov 
Tell  me  therefore  without  tergiverfatk 
[what  are  the  revealed  truths  that  m 
aftualiy  be  believed]]  or  [what is  the  fa 
materially,  in  unity  whereof  all  members 
the  Catholike  Church  do  live  ?  ]  J  pray 
not,  but  plainly  tell  me. 

And  if  again  you  fly  to  uncertain  pin 

becaufe  of  the  diverfity  of  means  of  infi 

mation,    and  fay,  [It  muft  be  fo  much 

every  man  as  he  had  means  to  know] 

gain  anfwer  you.    i.  If  a  man  had  no  me 

to  know  that  there  is  a  Chrift,  it  feems  tl 

he  is  one  of  your   Church.     2.  You  ] 

damn  all  your  own,  there  being  not  a  n 

that  knoweth  all  that  he  had  means  to  kn< 

becaufe  all  have  culpably  negleded  me* 

And  fo  you  have  no  Church.     3 .  Still  ) 

make  your  Church  invifible  ( if  you  i 

any : )  For  no  man  can  tell,  as  I  faid,  v 

kpomth  in  full   proportion  to   his   hi 

and  means.    Do   you  not  fee   now  v 


The  fen  feoftke  mo (I  nred  terms  difcnfl.   y$ 

Sier  your   Jmplicite  faith   hath   brought 
ou? 

R.  B. 

gu.  j.  Is  it  anj  lawful  Paftors.  or 
All,  that  muft  neccffarily  be  depend- 
ed on  bv  every  member  ?  and  who  are 
toefe  Paftors  i 

Mr.  I 

Anfw.  OfaU^refpeEiivelytoeachfubjeEl^ 
that  is,   that  the  authority  of  none  of  them, 
mediate    or  immediate  ,  be  rejcBed  or  con- 
temned by  him,  that  is  a  true  member  of  the 
Church. 

R.B.  Reply. 

Ad  Jj>*.  3.  R-  Reply  1.  Here  ftill  you 
tell  me  that  your  delcriptions  fignihed 
nothing.  You  told  me  that  the  members 
muft  [Jive  in  dependance  on  their  lawful 
Paftors.  j  And  now  you  tell  me  that  f  their 
authority  muft  not  be  re  jefted  or  contemn- 
ed/] And  indeed  ,  is  dependance  and  non- 
re)ettion  all  one  ?  The  millions  of  heachens 
that  never  heard  of  the  Pope  or  any  of  your 
Pallors  rejetl  them  not,  nor  contemn  them  : 

Are 


3*o  Tht  [enfe  of  the  mojt  u[cd  terms  difcufl. 

Are  they  therefore  fit  matter  for  your 
Church?  2.  If  you  fay,  that  you  mean  it 
of  fuch  only  as  have  a  fufficient  Revelation 
of  the  Authority  of  thcfc  Paftors,  I  further 
reply,  i.  It  feems  then  it  is  not  only  the* 
pope,  but  every  Prieft  refpeftively  that  is  an 
effential  member  of  your  Church  •,  or  to- 
whom  each  member  muft  be  fubjed:  neceffa- 
rily  dd  ejfe.  If  fo,  then  every  man  that  by 
falling  out  or  prejudice,  doth  culpably  re- 
jed  the  authority  of  any  one  Paftor  or 
Prieft  among  afwarm,  is  damned,  or  none 
of  the  Church,  though  he  believe  in  the 
pope  and  in  twenty  thoufand  Priefts  be- 
fides. 

2.  And  then  have  we  not  caufe  to  pray 
God  to  blefs  us  from  the  company  of  your 
Priefts  ?  or  at  leaft,  that  we  may  not  have, 
too  many,  when  among  a  multitude  we  may 
be  in  danger  of  rejeding  fome  one,  and 
then  we  are  caft  out  of  the  Church  I  What 
if  a  Gentleman  (hould  find  fome  fuch  as 
Wdtfon  or  Montdtus  defcribe  in  bed  with 
his  wife ^  or  a  Prince  find  a  Garnet,  a  Cam- 
pion, or  a  Parfons  in  a  Treafon,  and  by  fuch 
a  temptation  fhould  be  fo  weak,  as  to  con- 
remn,  or  rejed  theauthoricy  of  that  fingle 
Prieft,while  he  honoureth  all  the  reft  :  Is  it 
pertain,  that  fuch  a  man  is  none  of  the  Ca- 

tholikt: 


The  fenfc  of  the  mo  ft  ufed  terms  difcufl*    321 

:holike  Church  for  than  ?  How  hard  is  ic  in 
Vrance  and  Italy  then  to  be  a  Catholike, 
erfiere  Priefts  are  fo  numerous,  that  its  ten 
:o  one,  but  among  the  crowd  the  authority 
[)f  fomeone  maybe  rejected/ 

3.  But  is  ic  all  the  Priefts  that  we  never 
knew,  or  knew  not  to  be  Priefts,  that  we 
muft  depend  on,  or  is  it  Only  thofe  whofe 
authority  is  manifefted  to  us  by  fufficient 
evidence?  Doubtlefs  you  will  confine  our 
dependance  to  thefe  only  for  elfe  no  man 
could  be  a  Chriftian :)  And  if  fo,  you  know 
we  are  never  the  nearer  a  refolution  for 

!f bur  anfwer,  till  you  yet  tell  us  how  we  muft 
criow    our  Paftors  to  have  authority  in- 
deed.    What  if  they  fhew  me  the  Bifhops 
orders,   and  i  know   that  many  have  had 
forged  Orders  ?  am  I  bound  to  believe  in  his 
authority  ?   what  if  I  be  utterly  ignorant 
whether  he  that  ordained  him,  were  him- 
felf  ordained  ?  or  had  intentiwem  ordinandi  ? 
how  (hall  I  then  be  fure  of  his  authority 
that  is  ordained  >  And  how  can  the  people 
be  acquainted  with  the  paflages  in  Eie&ion 
2nd  Ordination  that  are  neccflary  to  the 
knowledge  of  their  authority  ?   elpecially 
of  the  popes  and  prelates.     And  what  if 
you  tell  me  your  own  opinion,  of  the  Suf- 
ficient mttns  by  which  1  muft  be  convinced 

Y  of 


3  *  a     The  fcnfe  of  the  mo  ft  ufed  terms  difcuft. 

of  the  Popes  and  Priefts  authority  ?  how  * 
(hall  I  know  that  you  are  not  deceived  ^ 
and  that  thefe  are  the  fufficicnt  means  in-  \ 
deed,  unlefs  a  General  Council  have  defined 
them  to  be  fufficient  ?  And  if  they  have,  if 
it  were  not  as  an  Article  of  faith,  you'l  fay 
I  am  not  bound  of  neceiTity  to  believe  their 
definition.  And  what  if  I  have  fufficient 
means  to  know  the  authority  of  a  thoufand 
Priefts,  but  am  culpably  ignorant  of  it  in 
fome  few  through  my  negled:  ?  Doth  it  fol- 
low that  therefore  I  am  out  of  the  Church  ? 
Is  my  obedience  to  each  Prieft  as  neccjflfary, 
as  my  belief  of  every  Article  of  my  faith  ? 
If  fo,  I  know  not  whether  your  multiplying 
Articles,  or  multiplying  Priefts,  doth  fill  hell 
fafter,  if  men  muft  be  judged  by  your  laws. 
But  it  is  our  Allegiance  to  our  Soveraign, 
that  is  the  chara&er  of  aSubjed  in  the  Com- 
mon-wealth, and  not  our  Allegiance,  or  du- 
ty to  every  inferiour  Magiftrate  ;  the  re- 
jedion  of  one  of  them  may  ftand  with  fub- 
jedion,  though  not  with  innocency :'  It  is 
not  treafon  to  rejed  a  Conftable ;  why  then 
fhould  more  be  neceflary  to  our  Church- 
memberlhip  and  falvation  ? 

But  ftillyou  make  your  Church  invifible  : 

For  as  no  man  can  know  that  liveth  in  the 

-  remote  parts  of  the  world.,  whether  your 

Popes 


The  fenfe  of  the  mbfl  uftd  terns  difcufl.   32$ 

Popes  themfelves  are  truly  Popes,  as  being 
duly  qualified  and  elefted,  nor  which  is  the 
true  Pope,, when  you  have  oft  had  more  then 
one  at  once  ^  foyou  can  never  know  con- 
cerning your  members ,  whether  their  de- 
pendance  on  their  Paitors  be  exrcnfively- 
proportionate  to  the  means  that  difcovered 
their  authority  ?  and  whether  their  difo- 
bedience  unchurch  them  or  no  ?  I  earneftly 
crave  your  anfwTer  to  the  thirty  uncertain- 
ties, which  I  have  mentioned  in  my  Safe  Re-  ' 
ligion,  p.  93,  to  104.  And  tell  us  how  all 
our  Paftours  may  be  known.  And  whether 
every  particular  fin  unchurch  men  ?  and  if 
not,  why  the  contempt  or  rejection  of  a 
drunken  Prieft  doth  it,  while  all  the  reft  are 
(perhaps  too  much)  honoured  ? 

R.  B. 

Jjhteft.  4.  Why  exclude  you  the 
chiet  Paftors  ,    that  depend  on  none? 

;  Mr.  J. 

Anfw. /  exclude  them  not^  but  include  them^ 
as  thofe  of  whom  all  the  reft  drptnd;  as  St- 
Hierom  does  in  his  definition ,  Ecclsfia  eft 
plebs  Epifcopo  unita. 

Y  2  Reply. 


3  24  Iheftnfe  of  fht  m$Jl  ufed  terms  difcufl. 

Repl.  ad  Reff>.  ad  £ueft.  4.  How  uncon- 
ftant  arc  you  among  your  felves  in  the  ufe  of 
terms?  How  frequent  is  it  with  you  to  ap- 
propriate the  name  of  £thc  Church]  to  the 
Clergy  ?  But  remember  hereafter,  when 
you  tell  us  of  the  Determinations,  and  Tra- 
ditions of  the  Church,  that  it  is  the  people 
that  you  mean,  and  not  only  the  Pa- 
ftors  in  Council  ^  much  lefs  the  Pope 
alone. 


Mr.  J* 

Heretic 

Is  an  inttSi  final  obftinate  oppofithn 
ugainft  divine  authority  revealing,  when 
it  is  fufficitntly  propounded* 

R.B. 

Of  Here  fie. 

Is  the  opposition  and  obftinacy  that 
makes  Herefie ,  in  the  Intellect  ot 

will  ? 

Mr.  J. 


Thefenfe  of  the  mofi  ufed  terms  difevft.    3 25 

Mr.  J. 

In  the  Voill,  by  an  imperate  AH,  reft  rain- 
ing the  under  ft  anding  to  that  errour. 

R.  B.  Reply. 

Of  Here  fie. 

SI*.  1.  Reply  1.  Still  your  defcriptions 

Kfignihe  juft  nothing.  You  defcribc  Here  fie 
,  to  be  An  Intellectual  obftinate  Opfo(itionh 
and  yet  lay  that  this  is  in  the  Kill.  And  yet 
again  you  contradift  your  felf  by  faying 
that  it  is  an  Imperate  a£t.  No  Imperate  ad 
is  in  the  mil ,  though  if  be  from  the  will.  It 
is  voluntary,  but  not  in  vol  ant  ate.  An  /#/- 
per  ant  aft  may  be  in  the  will,  but  not  Impe- 
rate. AW  Imperate  afts  are  in  (  or  imme- 
diately by  the  commanded  faculties  J  The 
Intelligere,  which  is  the  Imperate  aft,  is  in 
i  the  Jntellett  :  though  the  Velle  intelligere, 
which  is  an  Elicice  aft ,  be  in  the  will. 
2.  From  hence  its  plam  that  you  cannot 
prove  me  or  any  man  to  be  an  Herecick  thac 
is  unfeignedly  willing  to  know  the  truth, 
and  is  not  obftinately  willful  in  oppofing  it  r 
which  are  things  that  you  cannot  ordinarily 

Y  3  difcern 


3  %6    Thejcnjt  ef  the  mop  u}<&  terms  atjeup. 

difcern  and  prove  by  otters,  that  are  ready 
to  be  fworn  that  they  would  fain  know  the 
truth. 

R.  B. 

£1*4  2.   Muft  it  needs  be  againft 
the  Formal  eb]eft  of  Faith  ?  is  he  no 
Heretick,  that  denieth  the  matter  re- 
vealed, without  oppofing  obftinately 
'    the  Authority  revealing? 

Mr.  J. 

Anfw.  Yes.  Nor  is  he  <*  Formal,  but  only 
a  Material  Heretic^  who  opposes  a  revealed 
Truth  y  which  is  not  fufficiently  propounded 
to  him  to  be  a  Divine  revelation. 

R.B.  Reply. 

Slib  2-  fopfy  2t  Every  man  that  be- 
lieveth  that  there  is  a  God  indeed,  believeth 
that  he  is  true :  For  if  he  be  not  True,  he 
isnotGW.  If  therefore  no  man  be  For- 
malty  an  Heretick,  that  doth  not  obftinately 
oppofe  the  Veracity  of  God,  which  is  the 
formal  objeft,  then  as  there  are  I  hope  but 
few  Hereticks  in  the  world,   fo  thofe  few 

cannot 


The  fen fe  tf  the  mojl  ujed  terms  d/fcuft.    327 

cannot  by  ordinary  means  be  known  to 
you :  unlefs  they  will  fay  that  they  take 
God  to  be  a  lyar,  fo  that  you  make  none 
Hereticks  indeed  butAtheifis. 

What  if  a  man  deny  that  there  is  a  Chrift, 
a  Heaven,  a  Hell,  or  a  Refurre&ion?  and 
alfo  deny  the  Revelation  it  felf,  by  which  he 
fhould  difcern  thefe  truths?  and  yet  deny 
not  the  Veracity  of  God,  (no  nor  of  the 
Church  ? )  is  this  no  Heretick  ?  I  would 
your  party  that  have  murdered  fo  many 
thoufands  as  Hereticks,  had  fo  judged;  (it 
a  falfliood  may  be  wilhed,  as  a  thing  per- 
mitted, to  have  prevenced  fuch  a  mifchiefj 
It  is  not  Gods  Veracity  that  is  commonly 
denyed  by  Hereticks,  but  the  thing  revealed, 
and  the  Revelation  of  that  thing  ;  And  your 
Tnrnebnl  againft  Baronim  hath  told  you, 
that  the  Revelation  is  no  part  of  the 
Formal obj^AOi  faith,  but  as  it  were  the 
Copula,  or  a  condition  fine  qna  non.  If  he 
that  obftinately  refufeth  to  believe  that  the 
Godhead  of  Chrift,  or  the  Holy  Ghoft  is 
any  where  by  God  revealed,  and  fo  de'nyeih 
it,  be  no  Heretick,  unlefs  he  alfo  obftinately 
deny  or  refift  the  Veracity  of  God^  then 
there  are  few  that  you  can  prove  Hereticks, 
(For  forma  dat  nomen  5  and  he  that  is  not  a 
Heretick  Formally,  but  materially  only y  is  no 
Heretick  at  all.)  Y4  Laftly, 


3 1 8  The  fen  ft  of  the  moft  ufed  terms  difeuft. 

Laftly,  many  a  truth  is  finfully  negle&ed 
by  the  members  of  the  Church  ^  that  have 
a  propofal  fufiicient,  and  yet  not  effectual 
through  their  own  fault :  and  yet  they  arc 
no  hereticks.  Millions  in  your  Church  are 
ignorant  of  truchs  fufficiently  propofed, 
and  therefore  their  ignorance  is  their  fin : 
but  it  followeth  not  that  it  is  their  Herefie. 
But  if  it  be,  then  Hereticks  conftitutc 
yourChufch-  and  then  your  Church  is  a 
thing  unknown  •  becaufe  the  Hereticks 
cannot  be  known  ,  the  fufficiency  of  each 
mans  revelation  being  much  unknown  to 
others, 


N» 


£u.  3.  What  mean  you  by  a  faff- 
dent  propofal  ? 

Mr.  I 

Anfw.  /  mean  fucb  a  propofal  at  is  fuffi- 
cient  in  humanis,  to  oblige  one  to  take  notice^ 
that  a  King,  or  chief  Afagiflrate,  have  eH- 
a&edfuch^  orfuch  Laws,  &c.  that  it,  a  pub- 
licly Teftithony,  that  fuch  things  are  revealed 
by  the  infallible  authority  of  thofe  who  arc 
the  highefi  Tribunal  of  Gods  Church  ^  or 

h 


Thefertfe  of  the  moft  ufed  terms  difeuft.     32^ 

by     MtorioH*      and     miverfal     Tradition. 

R.  B.  Re  fly. 

Q*.  3.  Reply  1.  Inhumanu  there  lieth 
jnot  io  much  at  the  ftake  as  a  mans  falvation: 
and  man  is  not  fo  able  as  God  to  make  a 
truly  fufficient  revelation  of  his  will  to  all; 
and  therefore  the  proportion  holds  not. 
2.  Bur  if  it  did,  either  you  think  the  /#$- 
ciency  varieth  according  to  the  variety  of 
advantages,  opportunities,  and  capacities  of 
the  perfons,  or  elfe  that  it  confifteth  only  in 
the  a&  of  common  publication,  and  fo  is 
the  fame  to  all  the  fubjefts.  If  the  firftbe 
your  fenfe  (as  I  fuppofe  it  is  J  then  ftill  you 
are  uncertain  who  are  Hcreticks ,  as  be- 
ing uncertain  of  mens  various  capacities, 
and  fo  ofihefHJfic:encj  in  queftion.  Unlefs 
yon  will  conclude  (with  me)  that  thus  you 
make  all  Hereticks,  as  aforefaid  •  becaufe 
all  men  living  are  culpably  ignorant  of  fome 
truths,  which  they  had  a  revelation  of  that 
was  thus  far  fufficient.  If  the  fecond  be 
your  fenfe,  then  the  fame  unhappy  confe- 
quence  will  follow  (that  all  3re  Hereticks  •,) 
and  moreover,  that  fome  of  obfeure  educa- 
tion are  unavoidably  Hereticks,  becaufe 
they  had  no  opportunity  to  know  thofc 

things, 


£3  o    The  fenfe  of  the  mo  ft  ufed  terms  difcuft. 

things,  which  as  to  the  Majority,  arc  of  putr 
lick^  tefiimony  or  miverfal  Tradition.  1$ 
not  the  Bible,  a  publickTeftimony  and  re-* 
cord,  and  being  univerfaHy  received,  is  an' 
univerfal  Tradition  ?  And  yet  abundance  of 
truths  in  the  holy  Bible  are  unknown,  (andi 
therefore  not  adually  believed)  by  millions 
that  are  in  your  Church,  and  are  not  taken 
by  your  felves  for  Hereticks.  Your  be- ' 
friending  ignorance  would  eife  make  very 
many  Hereticks. 


Mr.  J. 
Pope. 

$y  Pope,  I  mean  St.  Peter,  or  any  of 
his  lawful  Succeflors  in  the  See  of  Rome, 
having  authority  by  the  Institution  of 
Chrift,  to  govern  all  f  articular  Chriftian 
Churches >  next  under  Chrijl. 

R.  B. 

Of  the  Pope. 

Jj>u.  i  .1  am  never  the  nearer  knowing 

the 


fht  fenfe  tf  the  r*oft  ufed  term  difcuft.   331 

e  Pope  by  this>till  I  know,howPeters 
icccffors  may    be  known  to  me. 
rhat  perfonal  qualification  is  oeccflk- 
adejfei 

Mr.  J. 

Anfw.    Such  aj  is  neceffarj  ad  effe  for 
her  Bifiops  -5  which  Ifuppofeyon  knoVr. 

I  R.B.  Reply. 

I  Of  the  Pope. 

SIh.  1.  Reply.  If  fo,  then  all  thofe  were 
10  popes  that  were  Hereticks,  or  denied 
iTential  points  of  faith  (as  Johan.  23.)  and 
0  were  no  Chriftians  •,  and  all  thofe  that 
vantcd  the  necefTary  abilities  to  the  effen- 
:ia!s  of  their  work.  .  And  fo  your  Church 
nth  oft  been  headlefs,  and  your  fuccefCon 
merrupted,  Councils  having  cenfured  many 
Popes   to  be  thus  unqualified  •    And  the 
difyofitio  materia  being  of  it  felf  ncceffary 
to  the  reception  of  the  form,  it  muft  needs 
(follow,  that  fuch  were  no  Popes,  even  before 
the  Councils  charged  them  with  incapacity 
or  Herefie ;  becaufe  they  had  it,  before  they 
iwere  accufed  of  it.   And  Simony  then  made 
many  uncapable. 

R.B. 


a  3 1,    the  fenfe  of  the  mfifi  ufed terms  M feu  ft. 

R.  S. 

gu.  2.  When  and  how  rrraft  the  in. 

fticuuon  of  Chnft  be  found  * 

Mr.  J. 

Anfw.  In  the  revealed  Word  »f  God,  writ; 
tetter  unwritten.  i 

R.B.  Reply. 

£lu.  2.  Re  fly  i.  You  never  gave  tht 
world  affuraace,  how  they  may  truly  know 
the  meafure  of  your  unwritten  Word,  noi 
where  to  find  it,  fo  as  to  know  what  it  is, 
2.  Till  you  prove  Chriffls  Infiitmim  (whicf: 
you  have  never  done,)  you  free  us  from  be- 
lieving in  the  Pope.  I 

R.  B. 

J$u.  j.  Will  any  ones  ele&ion  prove 
oac  to  be  Pope  ?  or  who  muft  ele&  him 
sdefel 

Mr.  J. 

Anfw.  Such  as  bj  approved  cufiome,  an 

efieemed 


t Tbtftnfe  of  tht  mft  nfed terms  d'tfcuft    ^^ 

faemed,  bjthofe  to  whom  it  belongs,  fit  for 
hat  charge  ±  and  with  whofe  election  the 
\hurchidfatUfied.  - 

[  R.B.  Reflj. 

£*.  3.  Meflj.  Here  you  are  fain  to 
de  your  felf  inftead  of  anfwering  •  and 
lew  indeed  that  a  Pope  ("chats  made  an 
fential  part  of  the  Church  •  fub jeftion  to 
horn  is  made  of  neceffity  to  falvationj  is 
deed  but  a  meer  name,  or  a  thing  un- 
iown  ^  and  fo  can  be  certainly  believed 
[  acknowledged  by  none.  For  either 
lettion  of  him  (by  fome  body  J  is  necefTary, 
I  not.  If  not,  then  you  or  another  man 
ichofen  may  be  Pope,  for  ought  I  know, 
:  any  man  elfe.  If  yea.,  then  it  is  either 
y  bodies  Elelhon  of  him  that  will  ferve 
irn,  or  not.  If  it  will,  then  you  may  be 
>pe,if  your  Scholars  choofe  you,and  then 
)u  have  had  three  true  Popes  at  once  •,  for 
>  many  were  Elctted.  But  if  it  will  not, 
len  it  muft  be  known  who  havh  the  Power 
;  Elettion,  before  it  can  be  known  who  is 
deed  the  Pope  ;  But  you  are  forced  here 
fyour  anfwerto  intimate  to  us,  that  the 
ower  of  jElettion  cannot  be  known  :  and 
tereforc  the  Pope  cannot  be  known.  For, 

1.  Here 


534    Tbe  f€  nfe  of  the  mo  (I  u fed  terms  dtfcufk. 

i .  Here  are  no  determinate  Eleftors  men 
tioned  •  and  therefore  it  fcems  none  know 
toycm :  ^nd  no  wonder:  for  ifyoa  con 
fine  it  to  the  people,  or  to  the  Cardinals,  o 
to  the  Emperours,  or  to  Councils,  you  cu 
off  all  your  Popes  that  were  chofen  by  th 
other  waies.  2.  Nor  do  you  determine  0 
any  particular  difcernable  note ,  by  whid 
theEle&ors,  and  power  of  ele&ion  may  b 
known  to  the  Church :  But  all  thefe  parche 
makeup  your  defcription.  1.  It  muftb 
thofe  that  are  efteemed  fit  for  the  charge 

2.  And  that  by  thofe  to  whom  it  belongs 

3.  And  that  by  cvftome.  4.  And  that  af 
proved.  5.  And  the  Church  mull  be  fatil 
iied  with  the  ele&ion.  O  miferable  bod; 
then  that  hath  been  fo  oft  headlefs,  as  Rom 
hath  been  /  1.  Will  efteeming  them  fit 
ferve  turn  though  they  be  unfit  ?  then  it  i 
not  the  fitne/s  that  is  neceffary ,  but  th 
efiimatien,  ("true  or  falfe .)  2.  But  why  di< 
you  not  tell  us  to  -whom  it  is  that  it  belong 
to  efieem  the  Choofersfit  ?  Here  you  were  a 
a  ftreight.  But  is  not  this  to  lay  nothin 
while  you  pretend  to  fpeak  ?  and  to  hid 
what  you  pretend  to  open  ?  3 .  And  wfo 
knows  what  cuftome,  and  of  what  continn 
ance  you  mean  ?  Primitive  cuftom  went  on 
way  ^  an£  Afterward  cuftom  went  anothe 

way 


The  fen  fc  of  the  mofl  nfed  terms  difcnft.   335 

ray  -y  and  later  cuftom  hath  varied  from 
oth  •    and  hath  the  power   of  Ele&ion 
hanged  fo  oft  ?.     4.   And  who  is  it  that 
luft  approve  this  cuftom  ?  and  what  appro- 
bation muft  there  be  ?  All  thefe  are  meer 
iding,  and  not  refolvingof  the  doubt,  and 
ell  us  that  a  Pope  is  a  thing  invifible  or  un- 
;nown.    5.  And  your/^afTurethus,  that 
'our  fucceffion   was   interrupted  through 
nany  usurpations,  yea  indeed  that  you  ne- 
'er had  a  Pope.   For  the  Church  was  un- 
atisfied  with  the  ele&ion  of  abundance  of 
four  Popes,  when  Whores,  and  Simony,  and 
Murder,  and  power  fet  them  up :  And  moft 
)f  the  Church  through  the  world  is  unfatif- 
ied  with  them  ftill  to  this  day.    And  you 
bavc  no  way  to  know  whether  the  greater 
part  of  the  Church  is  fatisfied  or  not  •,  for 
non-refiftance  is  no   fign  of  fatisfaftion, 
where  men  have  not  opportunity  or  power 
to  refift.    And  when  one  part  of  Europe 
was  for  one  Pope,  and  another  for  another 
through  fo  many  Schifms,who  knows  which 
had  the  approbation  of  that  which  may  be 
called  the  Church  ? 

R.B. 

$u.  4.  Is  Confecration  neceflary  ? 
and  by  whom  ad  ejje  ?  Anfw, 


3  $6  Tbefe/tfe  of  the  moft  ufed  terms  difcufl. 

Mr.}. 

Anfw.    It  is  not  absolutely  necejfary  a< 
effe.  1 

R.  B.  Reply.  | 

JJ#.  4.  Reply.  If confecration  be  not  nc- 
ceffary  to  the  Papacy,  then  it  is  not  necefl** 
ry  that  this  or  that  man  confecrate  him  more 
then  another.  And  then  it  is  not  rteceflary 
to  a  Bilhop.  And  then  the  want  of  it  makes 
.  no  interruption  in  fucccffion,in  any  Church, 
any  more  then  in  yours. 

R.'S. 

s 

gu.  5.  What  notice,  or  proof  is 
neceffary  to  your  Subjefts  ? 

Mr.  J. 

Anfw.  S*  much  as  is  neeejfary  to  oblige 
them^  to  accept  of  other  Elttted  Princes  to  be 
their  Sovereigns. 

R.  B.  Reply. 

£u.  5.  Reply.  When  you  have  anfwered 

to  the  forcmeotiuned   ti  s ,  we 

fhall 


thefenfe  of  the  moft  ufed  firms  difcaft.   337 

fhall  know   whac  that  general  fignirieth. 


Mr.  J. 
Bifhops. 

t  mean  bj  Bijhop,  fuch  4  chrlflhn 
Paflor  as  bdtb  power,  andjvrifdtftton,  to 
govern  the  inferior  Paflors,  Clergy,  and 
-people  within  his  Diocffc,  and  to  coffer 
hoi)  orders  to  fuch  as  are  f abject  to  btm* 

R.  B. 

Of  Bijhtp. 

g*.  1.  Do  you  mean,  that  he  mutt 
have  this  jure  divino  or  hurmnot  and 
if  jure  divino  ,  whether  mediately  or 
immediately  i 

]  Mr.  j; 

Anfw.  The  definition  abftrafts  from  par- 
ticulars ,  and  ftbfifts  Without  determining 
that  qneftion. 


338  Tbefenfe  of  the  mft  ufed  terms  difcufi. 

R,B.  Reply. 
Of  Bifhop. 

«££//.  r.  Repl.  i.    You  before  feem   to 

yeild  that  the  Papacy  is  but  jure  hnmano  •, 
('and  therefore  fiire  of  no  neceffity  tofalva* 
tion  :  )  For  if  man  can  change  the  power  of 
ele&ion,and  the  foundation  be  humane,  its 
like  the  relation  is  but  humane.  And  there- 
fore if  Bifhops  nuift  be  jure  divino,  they  are 
more  excellent  and  neceffary  then  the  Pope. 
2.  How  grofs  a  fubterfugeis  this?  either 
the  Bifhop  in  queftion  is  a  divine  creature 
or  a  humane :  If  a  divine  •,  as  you  may  ma- 
nifeft  it,  or  cxprefs  it  at  leaft,  fo  you  ought  j 
it  being  no  Indifferent  thing  to  turn  a  divine 
office  and  Church  into  an  humane  :  If  he 
be  not  Divine^  he  is  not  of  neceffity  to  a 
divine  Church,  nor  to  falvation.  And  yet 
thus  your  R.  Smith  Bifhop  of  Calcedon  (ubi 
fupraj  confefleth  it  to  be  no  point  of  your 
faith,  that  the  pope  is  St.  Peters  fucceflbr 
jnredivino.  And  if  you  leave  it  indifferent 
to  be  believed,  or  not,  that  both  your  Pope 
and  Biftiops  are  jure  divino%  you  confefs  you 
are  but  a  humane  policy  or  fociety,  and 
therefore  that  no  man  need  to  fear  the  lofs 
<  x  his  fatoation  by  renouncing  you. 


The  fenfe  of  the  mojtu}ed  terms  difcufl.    $%9 

R.  B. 

£u.  i.  How  (hall  we  Vnow  who 
hath  this  power  ?  what  Ele&ion,  or 
Confecration  is  neceflary  thereto  f  It 
I  know  not,  who  hath  it,  I  am  never 
the  better. 

Mr.  J. 

Anfw.  As  you  know,  who  hath  Temporal 
Power ,  bj  anuniverfaly  or  mofi common  con- 
fent  of  the  people  :  The  Elettiw  is  diff.  rent 
according  to  different  times,  places ,  and  other 
cir  cum  fiances.  Epif copal  Confecration  unot 
aJpfolutely  nectjfarj. 

R.B.  Reply. 

j£*.  2.  RepL  i.  How  now!  Are  all  the 
mylteries  of  your  fucceffion  and  miflion 
refolved  into  Popular  Confent  ?  Is  no  one 
way  of  Elettion  neceflary  ?  Do  you  leave 
that  to  be  varied  as  a  thing  indifferent  f 
And  is  Epifcopal  Confecration  alfo  unne- 
ceflary  ?  I  pray  you  here  again  remember 
then,  that  none  of  our  Churches  are  dif- 
abled  from  the  plea   of  a  continued  fuc- 

Z  2  ceflion, 


340     the  fenfe  of  the  mojt  nftd  terms  difcuft. 

ceflion,  for  want  of  Epifcopal  Confecration, 
or  any  way  of  Eleftion  -,  If  our  Paftors  have 
had  the  peoples  confenc ,  they  have  been 
true  Pallors,  according  to  this  reckoning ; 
And  if  they  have  now  their  content,  they  are 
true  Paftors.     But  we  have  more. 

2.  By  this  rule  we  cannot  know  of  one 
Bifhop  of  an  hundred  whether  hebeaBi- 
ihop  or  no  ^  for  we  cannot  know  that  he 
hath  the  Common  confent  of  the  people  :  yea 
we  know  that  abundance  of  your  Biftiops 
liave  no  fuch  confenc :  yea  we  know  that 
ycur  pope  hath  none  of  the  fonfent  of  moil 
of  the  Chriftians  in  the  world -,  nor  (for 
ought  you  or  any  man  knows,)  of  moil  in 
TEurope.  Its  few  of  your  own  party  that 
jknowwho  is  Pope,  (much  lefs  are  called  to 
Confenc  J  till  after  he  is  fectled  in  poffef- 
fion. 

3.  According  to  this  rule,  your  fuccefii- 
ons  have  been  frequently  interrupted,  when 
againft  the  will  of  general  Councils,  arid  of 
the  far  greateft  pare  of  Chriftians,  yo\ir 
Popes  have  kepc  the  feac  by  force. 

4.  In  cemporals  yoar  rule  is  not  univer- 
fally  truer  What  if  tire  people  be  engaged  to 
one  Prince,  and  afterward  break  their  vow, 
and  confent  to  allfurper?  Though  in  this 
cafe  a  particular  pcrfbn   may  be  obliged  to 

fubmif- 


Thefenfc  of  the  moft  ufod  ttrms  difcufl.    3  4 1 

fubmiilion  and  obedience  in  judicial  admi- 
nistrations ^  yet  the  ufurper  cannot  thereby 
de/endhis  Right,  and  juftifiehispofleffion, 
nor  the  people  juitifie  their  adhefion  to 
him,  while  they  lye  under  an  obligation  to 
difclaim  him,  becaute  of  their  preengage- 
ment  toanocher.  Though  fome  pare  of  the 
truth  befoundinyourafleirion. 

R'  B. 

£u.  3.  Will  any  Diocefs  ferve  *i 
effe  1  what  it  it  be  but  in  particular  Af- 
iemblies  '. 

Mr.  J. 

Anfw.  It  muft  be  more  then  a  Parifb^  cr 
then  one  Jingle  Congregation  t  which  hath  not 
dijfercn;  inferior  Pafiorsf  and  one,  tvho  is 
their  Superior. 

R.B.    Reply. 

J^.  3.  Repl.  This  is  but  your  naked 
affirmation.  I  have  proved  the  contrary 
from  Scriptures,  Fathers,  and  Councils  in 
my  difpuiation  of  Epifcopacy,  viz,,  that  a 
Bifhopmaybe  (and  of  eld  ordinarily  was) 
over  the  Presbyters  only  of  one  parifh,or 

Z  3  fingte 


34*  The fenfe  tfthe  mofl  ufed  terms  difcuft. 

(ingle  Congregation,  or  a  people  no  more 
numerous  then  our  Parifties.  You  muft 
fhew  us  fome  Scripture,  or  general  Council 
for  the  contrary  before  we  can  be  fare  you 
here  fpeak  truth.  Was  Gregory  Tbauntatur- 
gus  no  Biftiop,  becaufe  when  he  came  firlt  to 
Neoctfared,  he  had  but  feventeen  fouls  in 
his  charge  ?  The  like  I  may  fay  of  many 
more. 


Mr.  J. 

Tradition. 

/  under {land  by  Tradition  thevifible 
deliver)  from  hand  to  handtn  all  ages^  of 
the  revealed  Word  of  God>  either  mitt  en  ^ 
tr unwritten. 

R.  B. 

Of  Tradition. 

gu.  i.  But  all  the  doubt  is,  by 
whom  this  Tradition  thatfs  valid,  muft 
be  By  your  Paftors,  or  people,  or 
both  ?  By  Pope,  or  Councils,  or  Bi- 
fliops  disjunft  r  By  the  UHajor  part  of 

the 


The  fen fe  of  the  mo  (I  ufed  terms  difeufl.    343 

the  Church,  orBifhops  (or  Presbyters) 
or  the  Minor  ?  and  by  how  many  ? 

Mr.  J. 

Anfw.  By  fuch  and  fo  many  proportion* 
ably,  as  /office  in  a  Kingdom  to  certifie  the 
people,  rvhkh  are  the  Ancient  miverfallj  re- 
ceived customs  in  that  Kingdom,  which  is  to 
be  morally  conjidered. 

R.B.  Reply. 
Of  Tradition. 

Oh.  1.  Repl.  I  confent  to  this  general.  { 
But  then.  1.  How  certainlv  is  Tradition 
againft  you,  when  moft  of  the  Chriftian 
world,  yea  all  except  an  interefTed  party, 
do  deny  your  Soveraignty,  and  plead  Tra- 
dition againft  it  ?  And  how  lame  is  your 
Tradition,  wh:n  its  carried  on  your  private 
•affirmations,  and  is  nothing  but  the  unpro- 
ved layings  of  a  Sed  ! 

R.  B. 

Qu.  2  What  proof,  or  notice  of  ir3 
muft  fatisfic  me  m  particular,  that  it  fo 
paft  i 

Z  4  Mr.  J. 


3  44    Tfo  fen(e  tf the  mop  uft  d  terms  difcttfl. 


Mr.  J. 

Anfw.  Such,  as  with  proportion  isafuffi- 
cient  proof,  or  notice,  of  the  Laws  and  cnfiomt 
cf  umporal  Kingdoms. 

R.  B.  Reply.  ] 

£Im.  2.  RepL  But  is  it  ncceffary  for  eve- 
ryC'hnfiian,to  be  able  to  weigh  the  credit  of 
contradi&ing  parties,  when  one  half  of  the 
world  faith  one  thing,  and  the  orher  ano- 
ther thing  ?  what  opportunity  have  ordina- 
ry Chnltianstb  compare  chem,  and  difcern 
tne  mor$l  advantages  on  each  fide?  As  in 
the  cafe  of  the  Popes  Soveraignty ,  wher 
two  or  three  parts  of  the  Chriftian  world  i 
againft  it ,   and  the  reft  for  it,  can  privati 
thnftians   try  which  party   is   the  mon 
credible  ?  Oris  it  neceflfary  to  their  fa!va« 
tion  ?   If  fo,  they  are  caft  upon  unavoidabl< 
defpair.    If  not,   mult   they   all  take  the 
words   of'  their  prefent  Teachers  ?    Then 
moft  of  the  world  muft  believe  againft  you, 
becaufe  moft  of  the  Teachers  are  againft 
you:  And  then  it  feems  men?  faith  is  re- 
folved  into  the  authority  of  the  Parifh. 
prieftor  their  Confeflbrs.    The  Laws  of  a 
Kingdom  maybe  eafier  Jcnown,  then  Chri- 
ftian 


The  fenfe  of  the  mofi  ufcd  terms  difcnfl.    345 

Han  doftrines  can  be  known,   (efpecially 
iich  as  are  controverted  among  us)  by  meer 
inwritten   Tradition.     Kingdoms   are  of 
larrower  compafs  then  the  world  :    And, 
:hough  the  fenfe  of  Laws  is  oft  in  queftion, 
yec  the  being  of  them  is  feldom  matter  of 
controverfie  ^  becaufe  men  converfing  con- 
ftantlyand  familiarly  with  each  ocher,  may 
plainly  and  fully  reveal  their  minds  -,  when 
God  chat  condefcendeth  not  to  fuch  a  fa- 
miliarity,  hath  delivered  his  mind  by  in- 
fpired  perfons  long  ago,  with  much  lels  fen- 
fible  advantages,  becaufe  ic  is  a  life  of  faith 
that  he  dire&eth  us  to  live. 


:  Mr.  J. 

General  Council. 

■ 

^general  Council,  1  take  to  be,  an 
afjcmbly  of  Btfhcps  and  other  chief  Pre- 
lates, called,  convened,  And  confirmed,  hi 
tbofe  who  have  juffcicnt  Spiritual  autho- 
rity to  call,  convene,  and  confirms 

R.  B. 


Mr.  J. 


*  46     Tht  fenfe  of  the  mfifi  ufedterms  difcuft, 

R.  B. 

Of  a  General  Cornell. 

gu.  1.  Who  is  it  (ad  effe)  that  muft 
call,  convene,  confirm  it  i  till  I  know 
that,  I  am  never  the  nearer  knowing, 
what  a  Council  is $  and  which  is  one 
indeed. 

Anfw.  Definitions  abftratt  from  inferior 
fubdivifions.  For  your  fatisfattion  I  affirm, 
it  belongs  to  the  Bijbop  of  Rome. 

R.B.  Reply. 

£lu.  1.  Repl.  1.  If  it  be  neceflary  to  the 
being  or  validity  of  a  Council  that  it  be  cal- 
led or  confirmed  by  the  Pope,  then  your 
definition  (ignificth  nothing,  if  you  abftraft 
from  that  which  is  fo  neceflary  an  ingredi- 
ent, unlefs  it  were  prefuppofed  to  be  un- 
derstood. 2.  If  it  belong  to  the  Biftiop  of 
Rome  to  call  a  Council  as  neceflary  to  its 
being,  then  theHrft  great  General  Council, 
and  others  following,  were  none  j  it  being 
certain    that  they  were  not  called  by  him. 

And 


Thefenfe  of  the  aw/?  ufed  terms  difeuft. 

md  as  certain  that  he  hath  never  proved 
ny  fuch  authority  to  call  them,  or  confirm 
dem. 

R.  B. 

gu  2.  Muft  it  not  reprcfent  all  the 
^atholike  Church  i  Doth  not  your 
)efinition  agree  to  a  Provincial,  or 
he  fmalleft  Council  i 

Mr.  J. 

Anfw.  Yes,  my  Definition  fpeakj  JptcifL- 
a  fly  of  Bifafs  and  chief  Prelates,  as  contra- 
]ifiin£l  from  inferiuur  Paftors  and  Clergy , 
}nd  thereby  comfrifes  all  the  Individuums 
ontained  in  the  Species  •,  and  confequently 
na^es  a  diftinttion  from  National \  orfarti^ 
ulur  Councils ,  where  forr.e  Bijhops  only  are 
onvenedy  not  all  •,  that  being  only  fo me  fartm 
md  not  therfhqle  Species,  or  fpecifical Noti- 
n  allied  re  Bifaps  of  every  age.  And  yet  J 
aid  not  all  Bifhops,  but  Bi(hopsand  chief 
delates  •,  becaufe  though  all  are  'to  be  called^ 
]et  it  is  not  ncceffary  that  all  fhonld  come. 
vhence  appears  whst  I  am  toanfwtr  t$  the 
nxt  two  Qmftitns. 

R.B. 


$48    The[en[e  of  the  mojl  nfed terms  dtfcnfi. 

R.B.  Reply.  tj 

-^£.  2.  jfc?/>/.  i.  Then  you  have  had  no 
General  Councils-,  much  lefs  can  have  any 
more.-  For  you  have  none  to  reprefent  the 
greateft  pare  of  the  Church,  unlefs  by  a 
mock  reprefentation. 

2.  If  all  muft  be  called,  your  Councils 
have  not  been  General,  that  callM  not  a 
great  part  of  the  Church. 

3 .  If  mo  ft  are  neceflarily  detained  (as  by 
diftance,  the  prohibition  of  Princes,  &c!) 
the  call  made  it  not  their  duty  to  be  there, 
and  fo  makes  it  not  a  General  Council  ^ 
which  is  fo  called  from  the  generality  of  the 
meeting  and  reprefentation,  and  not  of  the 
invitation  :  no  more  then  a  Call  would 
make  it  a  true  Council  if  none  came. 

R.  S. 

£0.  3.  '  How  many  Bifliops,  and 
from  what  parts  muft  (ad  effe)  make 
(uch  a  Council  ? 

Mr.  J.  ' 

Anfw.  The  number  is  morally  to  be  con- 
Jtdered,  more  or  ft  war  according  to  the  difficul- 
ties 


7 he  fen  fe  of  the  mofi  nfed  terms  difctft.    3  49 

'es  of  times,  di fiances  of place,  and  other  dr- 
um ft  antes  •,  at  is  alfo  the  farts,  from  whence 
he j  are  to  come. 

R.B.  Reply. 

JJ#.  3.  Repl.  This  is  a  put-off  for  want 
>f  an  Anfwer.  Is  it  a  Council  if  difficul- 
ies  keep  away  all  ?  If  nor,  it  can  be  no 
General  Council,  when  difficulties  keepa- 
vay  i  he  mofi.  Much  lefs  when  fuch  a  petty 
:onfedefacy  as  mecatTrent,  (hall  pretend 
:o  reprefent  the-Chriftian  world.  You 
:hus  leave  us  uncertain  when  a  Council  is 
Deneral,and  when  not.  How  can  the  people 
tell,  when  you  cannot  tell  your  felf,  when 
the  Bifhops  are  fo  many  as  make  a  Council 
General  / 

R.  B. 

Jgv.  4.  May  none  but  Biihops  and 
chief  ^relates  be  members^  as  you  lfl- 
timate  ? 

Mr.  J. 

Anfw.  No  others  -,  anlefs  fnch  inferiors 
as  arefent  to  (apply  the  places,  *:nd  as  Dtpnties 
ofthofe  Bifhops  or  Prelates,  are  fnch  members 


5 jo  rhefenfe  of the  nsofiufed terms  difcufl. 

ef  the  Council ,  as  have  Decifive  votes  i* 
framing  Decrees  and  Definitions. 

R.B.  Reply. 

£>*;  4.  Kepi.  This  is  but  your  private 
opinion.  No  Council  hath  defined  it,  unlefs 
they  are  contradiftory.  Fori  fuppole  you 
know  that  Bafil  and  many  Councils  before 
it  had  Presbyters  in  them. 


Mr.  J. 

Schifm. 

1 

/  under  (land  by  Scbifm,  a  will  full  fc 
par  at  ion,  *r  iivifion  of  ones  (elf  from  tbt 
whole  vifible  ChvrtbtfChrift. 

R.  B. 

-  Of  Schifm. 

gu.  i.  Is  it  no  Schifm  to  feparati 
from  a  particular  Church,  unlefsfron 
the  whole  t  1 

Mr.  J. 

Anfwt  Nq-7  it  is  no  Schifm,  us  Schifm  i 

ttkfi 


The  fen fe  of  the  mtfk  ufed  terms  difc  ufl.  3  y* 

taken  in  the  Holy  Fathers,  for  that  great  and 
capital  crime ,  fo  feverely  cenfured  by  them  j 
in  Which  fenfe  only  I  take  it  here. 

R  B.  Re fly 
Of  Schifm. 

Jj>u.  1 .  Repl.  Though  I  take  Schifm  more 
comprehenfively,  and  I  think,  aptly  my  felf, 
yet  hence  I  obferve  your  juftification  of  the 
Proteftants  from  the  charge  of  Schifm  h  fee- 
ing they  feparate  not  from  the  Catholikeor 
whole  Church  ;  "For  they  feparate  not  from 
the  Armenian,  Ethiopian,  Greek,  &c.  nor 
from  you  as  Chriftians,  but  as  fcandalous 
offenders,  whom  we  are  commanded  to  a- 
void.  We  feparace  not  from  any,  but  as  they 
feparate  from  Chrift. 

-R.  B. 

gu.  2.  Or  is  it  no  Schifm,  unlefs 
willfull  ? 

Mr.  J. 

Anfw.  No-,  it  is  not  Schifm,  unlefs  the  fe- 
paration  be  WiUfnll  on  his  f*rt  who  makes  it. 

R.B. 


J5*    7<W  fcnfe  of  the  mofi  u fed  terms  difcufl. 

R.  B.  Reply. 

^u.  2.  Repl.  Again  you  further  juftifu 
us  from  Schifm.     If  it  be  Wi/lfull,  it  mull  bd 
againft  knowledge.  But  we  are  fo  far  from; 
feparating  willfully  or  knowingly  from  the 
whole  Church,  that  we  abhor  the  thought  of 
fuch  a  thing,  as  impious  and  damnable. 

R.  B.  • 

£>*  5.  Is  it  none,  if  you  make  a 
Divifion  in  the,  Church,  and  not  from 
the  Church? 

Mr.  J. 

A rifw.  Not , as  we  here  under fi and  Schifm, 
andas  the  Fathers  treat  it.  For  the  Church 
ofChrift  being  perfectly,  en ei  cannot  admit  of 
fi'/iy  proper  Schifm  within  it  felf:  for  that 
would  divide  it  into  two  •,  which  it  cannot  be. 

R.B.  Reply. 

j£/f.  3.  Repl.  Though  I  am  Aire  Paul  calls 
it  Schifm,  when  men  make  divifions  in  the 
Church,  though  not  from  it  ^  not  making  it 
two  Churches,  but  diflocating  fome  mem- 
bers, and  abacing  charity,  and  caufing  con- 
tentions 


thefenfc  of  the  mo  (I  ufed  terms  difcnfl.   353 

tentions  where  there  fhould  be  peace  ^  yet  I 
accent  your  continued  juftification  of  us, 
who  if  we  fhould  be  tempted  to  be  dividers 
in  the  Church,  fhould  yet  hate  to  be  dividers 
from  it  j  as  believing  that  he  that  is  iepara- 
ted  from  the  whole  body,  is  alfo  feparated 
from  the  Head. 


Mr.], 

Sir, 

The  TVf.nt  of  a  Scribe  hath  forced  me  to  fail 
a  little  in  point  of  tithe',  hut  I  hope  yon  will 
exeufe  him,  who  dejirestoferve  you, 

w.  J. 

JuneiiX  it 60. 

R.  B. 

.        Sir, 

ZJrgent  unavoidable  bufinefs  conftrained 
me  to  delay  my  return  to  your  folutions ,  or 
explications  of  your  definitions ,  till  this 
June  29.      1660. 

When  you  defire  me  to  anf^oer  any  fuch 
JHZueftionSj  or*  explain  any  doubtful  paff^ges 


3  54    The  [enfe  of  the  mft  u(ed  terms  difcuji. 

of  mine,  I  fh  all  willingly  doit.  In  the  mean 
time  you  may  fee,  while  your  terms  art  fiili 
unexplained,  andyour  Explications  or  Defi- 
nitions fo  infignificant,  how  unfit  we  are  to 
proceed  any  further  in  dilute,  till  we  better 
under  ft  and  each  other,  as  to  our  terms  andfub- 
je£l  :  which  when  you  have  done  jour  part  to, 
I Jhall gladly,  if  God  enable  me, go  on  with' you, 
till  we  come  (if  it  may  be)  to  our  de fired  iffue. 
But  ftill  J  crave  your  performance  of  the 
double  task^you  are  engaged  in. 

Richard  Baxter. 


zAppen* 


w 


appendix. 

HPHe  moft  that  I  here  faid  againft  the/kr- 
**  ceffive  Viftbilitj  of  our  Churchy  is  re- 
duced by  them  to  the  point  of  Ordination. 
They  fay,**'*  can  have  no  Church  without  Pa- 
flors:noPaftors  withe  ut  Ordinztion^and  no  Or- 
dination  but  from  the  Church  of  Rome  : 
therefore  when  we  broah^  off  from  the  Church 
of  Rome,  we  interrupted  our  fuccejjion^  which 
cannot  be  repaired  but  by  a  return  to  them* 
This  isthefum  ofmoft of  their  difcourfes, 
in  what  (hape  ioever  they  appear.  To  which 
]  anfwer. 

i.  As  [_a  Church^  is  taken  for  a  Commu- 
nity tf  Chriftians,  which  are  really  members 
of  the  Church univerfal,  foitmay^  effebz 
without  Paftors.  Eut  the  Catholike  Church 
can  never  be  -without  them ;  nor  yer,  any 
true  Political  ,  organized ,  particular 
Church. 

2.  It  is  contrary  to  the  Pap  lis  own  opi- 
nion that  Ordination  of  their  particular 
Paftors,  is  neceflary  to  the  being  of  a  true 
particular  Church.  Bellarrr.ine  granteth 
{Lib,  3.  deEcclef.  c.  10.)  that  it  is  indeed 

A  a  2  to 


to  us  uncertain  that  our  Pallors  have /><tf?/?d- 
tern  ordinis  &  jurifditlionis  ^  and  that  we 
have  but  a  moral  certainty  that  they  are  true 
Bifhops ;  though  we  may  know  that  they 
hold  Chrifts  place,  and  that  we  owe  them 
obedience  5  arid  that  to  know  that  they  are 
Our   Pstflors,  non  rcquiritur  nee  fides,    nee 
Character  Ordinis,  nee  legitima  eleftio^  fed 
folum  ut  habeantur  pro  talibus  ab  Ecclcjia. 
£i.  e.  It  isnotrecjuiftte^  that  they  have  faith^ 
or  the  Char  abler  of  Order,  or  lawful  eleUion  ^ 
but  only  that  they  be    taken  for  fuch  by  the 
Church.  ]  And  if  it  be  enough  that  their 
Church  repute  their  Pallors  to  be  ele&ed, 
ordained,  and  believers,though  they  are  not 
fo  indeed  •  then  can  no  more  be  neceffary 
to  ours.  We  repute  ours  as  confidently  to  be 
lawfully  eletled  and  ordained  as  they   do 
theirs. 

3.  It  is  contrary  to  the  Papifls  own  opi- 
nion, thu  any  ConfecratUn  (much  lefsC*- 
nonical)  is  neceffary  to  the  being  of  their 
Vnivcrfal  Head.  I  need  not  cite  their 
Authors  for  this  ^    as  long   as  you   have 

1.  The  Hiftory  of  their    Practices  :     And 

2.  The  confeiiion  of  this  learned  man  that 
I  difpute  wirh,  in  the  explication  of  the 
:erm£Pop<fl  in  thefe  his  lall  Papers.  And 
that  which  is  not  neceflary  to  their  Pope, 

cannot 


Appendix.  357 

cannot  by  them  be  made  neceflary  to  our 
Bifhops. 

4.  Nothing  in  Church  Hiftory  more  cer- 
tain, then  that  the  Church  oiRome  hath  h?d 
no  continued  fucceflion  of  a  truely  elefted 
or  ordained  Pope  according  to  their  own 
Canons*     1 .  If  Infidelity  or  Herefie  judged 
by  a  Council  (in  the  cafe  of  Hoxorifu,  fob. 
23.  Eugtnitu^  &c.)  will  not  prove  a  nullity 
and  intercifion.     2.   If  Simony  ,  Murder, 
Adultery,  &c.  will  not  prove  it.    3.  If  a- 
bout  fourty  years  Schifmc  at  once  will  not 
prove  it.*  none  knowing  who  was  the  true 
Pope,  but  by  the  prevalency  of  his  fecular 
power  •    and  their  writers  confeffing  that  ic 
is  known  to  none  but  God.    4.  Ifinrrufion 
without  any  juft  election  will  not  prove  it  • 
Then  there  is  no  danger  to  thofe  Churches 
that  art  lyable  to  no  fuch  accufations.    But 
if  any  or  all  of  thefe  will  prove  it,  the  Roman 
intercifion  is  beyond  difpute,  as  I  (hall  fur- 
ther manifeft  on  any  juft  call,  if  it  be  de- 
nycd. 

5.  The  flanding  L^rv  and  Inftitution  of 
Chrift,  is  it  that  gives  the  Power  (by  impo- 
fing  the  duty)  of  Miniftration  :  and  Ordina- 
tion only  determineth  of  the  per/on  that 
fhall  receive  it  (together  with  election,)  and 
foleranizeth  it  by  Inveftiture :  as  Corona- 

Aa  3  tion 


35$  Appendix. 

tion  to  a  King,  that  is  a  King  before. 
I  have  already  proved  that  an  uninterru- 
pted [ticcejfion  of  Regular  Ordination  is  no 
more  neceflary  to  the  being  of  a  Church, 
then  uninterrupted  fuccejfion  of  Regular 
Coronation  is  to  the  being  of  a  King  or  King- 
dom: which  I  am  ready  to  make  good. 

6.  This  whole  cafe  of  Ordination  I  have 
already  fpoken  to  (fo  carefully  and  fully  ac- 
cording to  my  meafure)  in  my  fecond  Di- 
fpute  of  Church  Government  ,  that  I  fhall 
fuppofe  that  man  hath  faid  nothing  to  me, 
requiring  my  reply,  on  this  point,  that  doth 
not  anfwer  that.  And  to  write  the  fame 
thing  here  over  again,  cannot  fairly  beex- 
pe&ed. 

7.  Voetim  de  deffierata  caufa  Pafatw, 
hath  copioufly  done  the  fame  againft  fanfe- 
nins,  which  they  fhould  anfwer  fatis&ctorily 

v     before  they  call  for  more. 

8.  The  Nullity  which  they  fuppofe  to 
make  the  Intercijion ,  is  either  the  Ordina- 
tion we  had  from  the  Pafift  Bifbops  before  our 
Reformation,  or  the  Ordination  that  Vve  re- 
ceived fince.  If  the  former  be  a  nullity,  then 
ail  the  Papifts  Ordinations  are  null-,  andfo 
they  nullifie  their  Church  and  Miniftry. 
That  the  latter  is  no  nullity,  we  are  ready  to 
make  good  againft  any  of  them  all. 

Objed. 


Objeft.  But  if  you  own  jour  Ordination 
as  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  you  own  their 
Church. 

Anfw>  We  confider  them,     1.  'As  Chri- 
ftian   Pafiors.     2.  As  Popijh  Pafiors  j    As 
Chriftian  Paftors  in  the  Cathoiike  Church, 
their  Ordination  is  no  more  a  nullity  than 
their  'Baptizing,  ("which  we  count  validj 
But  as  Popijb,  they  have  no  authority  for  ei- 
rher.     Objeft.   But  they  gave  both  Baptifm 
and  Ordination  as  Papifts ,    and  it  mufi  be 
judged  of   by  the  intention  ef  the  giver,  and 
receiver.     Anfw.  It  is  che  Baptifm  and  Or- 
dination of  Chrifis  Inftitution^asfucb,  which 
was  pretended  to  be  given    and  received  : 
Could  we  prove  that  they  Adminiftred  any 
other  or  otherwife,  they  fay  they  would  dif- 
own  it :   Asfuch  therefore  we  muft  take  it, 
till  we  cart  prove  that  they  deftroy  the  very 
eflence  of  it.     If  it  be  given  and    taken 
fecondarily  as  Popifb    the  fcab  of  their  cor- 
ruption polluteth  it,  bur  not  nuIlifUth  it.  So 
they  profefs  themfelves    firll   Mlnifiers  of 
Chrifi,nr\d  but  Jubordinately  fas  they  think) 
oithzPope:  fo  much  therefore  as  belongs 
to  them  in  their  fir  ft   and  lawful  relation 
may  be  vrtid  •  though  fo  much  as  refpe&ech  v 
their  ufurpedrelationbe  fitful.     Had  I  been 
baptized  or  ordained  by  one  of  their  Prieils, 

A  a  4  I 


Affendix. 

I  would  difown  all  the  corruptions  of  them, 
but    not  the  bapcifm    and   ordination  it 

felf. 

9.  There  is  no  neceflicy  to  the  being  or 
well-being  of  a  particular  Church,  that  it 
fiath  continued  from  the  Apoftles  daies,  or 
that  its  particular  Miniitry  have  had  noin- 
tercifion.  if  Germany  were  converted  but 
lately  to  the  Chriftian  Faith,  it  may  be  ne- 
verthelefs  a  true  part  of  the  Catholike 
Church.  If  ferufalem  had  fometime  a 
Church,  and  fomecime  none,  it  may  have 
now  a  true  Church  neverthelefs. 

10.  If  our  Ordination  had  failed  by  an 
intercifion  ,  it  might  as  well  be  repaired 
from  other  Churches  ( that  have  had  a  con- 
tinued fucceffion^)  as  from  Rome.  And  much 
better  ^  becaufe  without  participation  of 
their  peculiar  corruptions.  Or  if  anyBi- 
fhops  that  were  of  the  Papal  faftion  Ihould 
repent  of  their  Poperie  ,  and  not  of  their 
Ordination,  they  might  Ordainws  as  BiJhofsy 
and  repair  our  breach.  And  indeed  that 
was  the  way  of  our  continued  Ordination. 
Many  that  repented  that  they  were  Popijb 
Prelates,  continued  the  office  of  Chriftian 
Bijhps ,  and  by  fuch  our  Anceftors  were 
Ordained.  As  Chriftianitj  and  Epifccpacy 
were  before  Toperj,  and  fo  are  they  ftill 

feparable 


Afftndix.  36 1 

eparable  from  it,  and  may  continue  wben 
t  is  renounced.  Befides  what  I  have  more 
iilly  faid  in  the  forefaid  difpute  of  Ordt- 
iation5  I  fee  no  need  of  adding  any  more, 
igainft  thisObje&ion,  about  fucceflive  Or- 
lination  and  Minifterial  Power. 

As  to  their  other  Objection  (which  they 
nake  fuch  a  ftir  with,  and  take  no  notice  of 
;he  Anfwer  which  we  have  fo  ofcen  given) 
yiz.  \When  every  Sett  pretend  that  thej  have 
the  true    Church  and  Jldinifiry ,    who  {hall 
judge  ?3 1  again  Anfwer,  There  is  a  judicium 
privatum ,and publicum  :  A  private  judge- 
ment of  difcerning  belongs  to  every  man: 
The  publicly  judgement   is  either  Civil  or 
Ecclefiaflical.    T Tie  Civil  judgement  is  £wi>0 
ftiall  he  thus  or  thusefteemed  of,  in  order 
to  Civil  encouragement  or  dilcouragement] 
i(as  by  corporal  pumftimcnts,  or  rewards :) 
This  judgement  belongech  only  to  the  Civil 
Magiftrate.     The  Ecclefiafiical  judgement , 
is  in  order  to  Ecch  fiafiical  Communion  or 
Excommunication.     And    fo  it    belongs  to 
thofe  with  whom  the  pcrlbn  is  in  Communi- 
on, in  their  feveral  capacities.     The  mem- 
bers of  a  particular  Church,are  to  be  judged 
Authoritatively   by  the    Paftors    of    that 
Church,  (and  by  the  people,  by  a  Private 
judgement  of  Decerning.)  Pafiors   ftiould 

ajfvciatc 


,$2  Appendix. 

ajfociate  for  Communion  of  Churches :  and 
foin  order  to  that  Communion  otAffociation, 
it  belongs  to  the  feveral  AfTociations  to 
judge  of  the  Members  of  the  Society  :  which 
yet  is  not  by  a  publike  Governing  judgement : 
For  in  Councils  or  Affociaaons,  the  Major 
Vote  are  not  properly  the  Governors  Of  the 
leffer  pari :  But  thofe  that  are  out  of  ca- 
pacity of  Communion,  have  nothing  to  do 
to  judge  of  the  Aptitude  of  Pafiors  or 
Churches  in  order  to  Communion  or  non- 
Communion.  And  for  the  Pope,  he  hath  no- 
thing to  do  with  us  at  fuch  a  diftance , 
whofe  perfons  and  cafes  are  wholly  un- 
known to  him  ^  he  .being  neither  our  Go- 
vernour  nor  our  Affociate.  But  if  we  and 
our  cafe  were  known  to  him,  he  may  judge 
of  us  fo  far  as  we  may  judge  of  him.  And 
other  judgement  (what  ever  men  may  fay 
to  deceive  )  there  is  none  to  decide  our 
controverfies,  but  the  final judgement  of  the 
Vnivtrfal  fudge,  who  is  at  the  door. 


A 


LETTER 

Written  to 

Thomas    Smith 

A  Papift,  Concerning  the 
Church  of  Rome* 


L01^D0.N,  Printed,  1660. 


• 


3*J 


>  c|i  t^  4*  4?  4*  4*  4*  4*  4?  4*  4?  4?  4*  4* 

\ 

Reverend  Sir, 

f  Hi?  noted fanftity,  admirable  integrity , and 
extraordinary  charity  fo  eminently  ap* 
aring  in  pur  pious  actions,  (and  as  1  have 
me  caufe  to  thinks ,  the  indelible  characters  of 
wr  [acred  funftion  )   hath  animated  me  to 
'ake  choice  of  your  felf  rather  then  any  of 
mr  coat  to  this  prefent  addrefs  :  hoping  your 
xndour  and  tenderness  will  bear  with  what 
tay  be  (by  others  lefs  fenjible  of  the  value  of 
wmortal fouls  flighted)  interpreted  according 
7  the  candid  and  truefenfe  of  your  fupplicant 
y  you.     It  hath  pleafed  the  great  and  terrible 
'-udge    of  heaven  and  earth  to  put  me  upon 
ome  thoughts  mdre  ferioujly  then  ordinary  of 
ny  eternal  eft  ate,  and  to  be  fomewhat  doubtful 
in  the  midji  of  external  perturbations  )  of 
hofe  internal  grounds  which  I  have  formerly 
-elyed  upon,   And  truely  Sir  with  all  cordial- 
\efsy  my  defire  ts  clearly  to  know  the  mind  of 
ny  God  ,  which  were  I  truely  fatisfedin,  I 
Tiould  foon  wave  all  other  interefts  to  enter- 
ain  :  and  afiuring  my  felf  according  to  Vvhat 
1  have  feen  and  read,  the  Church  of  Rome,  to 
which  I  havflong  cleaved  and  adhered^  to  be 

the 


I«  1 

the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth,  and  that  Ca- 
tholike  Church  which  the  ancient  Creed  teftim 
fies3  we  are  to  believe  in  :  My  defire  is  to  be  ai 
fom  fat  is  fed  as  may  be  of  your  thought s,  whe- 
ther it  ever  were  a  true  Church,  which! 
fnppofe  you  wiU  not  deny,  when  you  conftdet 
the  fir  ft  verfe  of  the  E  fifth  to  the  Romany* 
and  iffoy  when  it  made  its  defe&ion  ?  Tk 
reafon  of  my  urging  this  is,  becaufe  1  think,  ah 
ether  que  ft  ion*  to  be  but  geing  about  the  bujh, 
and  the  true  Church  being  proved,  all  ar gut 
ments  elfeeafily  are  anfwered.  I  have  heart 
Proteftants  aver  the  ancient  maxime ,  viz 
Extra  Ecclefiam  non  eft  lalus.  Therefore . 
fuppofe  it  the  only  thing  pertinent  to  my  pur 
pofe  ,  and  necejfary  to  falvation  to  enquir 
after.  My  occafions  will  fuddenly  drawm 
from  thefe  parts ,  unlefs  I  hear  from  youjpeedt 
ly  :  and  doubt  not  Sir,  but  I  am  one  wh 
freely  will  refign  my  (elf  to  hear  truth  im 
partially.  Therefore  I  befeech  you  to  fen 
fomething  to  me  by  way  of  fatisfattion  tl 
next  Saturday,  after  ^ohich  you  jhall  be  moi 
particularly  fenfible  who  the  per f on  is  thata\ 
plies  himfelf  to  you,  and  in  the  interim  fm 
fcribes  himfelf ,     Sir, 

A  thirfty  troubled  foul,  and  you 
Feb.  ii,  \6$6:  to  his  power,  Tbo,  Smith. 

Din\ 


3*7 

DireEl  jour  Letter  to  me  if  you  pleafe  to 
JMr.  John  Smiths  houfe  next  door  tothefign 
of  the  Crown  in  the  broad  flreet9  Worcelter. 
Good  Sir,  be  private  for  the  prefent  •,  other  wife 
it  may  be  prejudicial  to  fome  temporal  affairs 
agitating  at  this  time. 


Sir, 

1~Hat  you  can  have  fuch  charitable 
thoughts  of  one  that  is  not  of  the 
/fo;#tf»fubjeftion,  and  of  my  fun&ion,  be- 
ing not  received  from  the  Pope,  is  fo  extra- 
ordinary, yea  and  contrary  to  the  judge- 
ment of  your  writers  ,  that  I  muft  needs 
entertain  it  with  the  more  gratitude,  and 
fome  admiration.  And  that  you  are  fo  im- 
partially willing  to  entertain  the  truth,  fas 
you  profefs^)  though  it  be  no  more  then  the 
truth  deferves  of  you,  and  your  own  well- 
fare  doth  require  j  yet  is  the  more  aimiablc 
in  you,  by  how  much  the  more  rare  in  thofe 
of  your  Profeflion,  fo  far  as  my  acquaint- 
ance can  inform  me  :  for  mod  of  them  that 
[have  met  with,  underftand  not  well  their 
own  Religion,  nor  think  themfelvcs  much 
concerned  tounderftand  it,  but  refer  me  to 
others  for  a  Reafon  of  their  hope.  For  my 
part,  I  do  the  more  gladly  entertain  the  oc- 

cafion 


368 


cafion  of  this  entcrcourfe  with  you  (though 
unknown  J  that  I  may  learn  what  I  know, 
not,  and  may  be  true  to  my  own  confciencet 
in  the  ufeof  all  means  that  may  conduce  to! 
my  better  information.     And  therefore  If 
fhall  plainly  anlwer  your  Queftions  accord  J 
ing  to' the  meafure  of  my  underftandirig^i 
moft  folemnly  profefling  to  you,  that  I  will 
fay  nothing  which  comes  not  from  my  heart' 
in  plain  fimplieity,  and  that  I  will  with  ex-j 
ceeding  gladnefs   and  a  thoufand   thanks 
come  over  to  your  way,  if  I  can  finde  by 
any  thing  that  you  fhall  make  known  to  mef 
that  it  is  the  mind  of  God  that  Ifhouldfo 
do.    And  therefore  I  am  defirous,  that  if 
what  I  write  to  you  fhall  feem  unfound,  yoir 
would  not  only  afford  me  your  own  advice 
for  the  corre&ion  of  it,  but  alfo  the  advice 
of  the  molt  learned  of  your  mind,  to  whom 
you  {hall  your  felf  think  meet  to  communi- 
cate it.   But  on  thefe  conditions,     i.  That 
it  beaperfon  of  a  tender  confcience,  that 
dare  fpeak  nothing  but  what  he  verily  be- 
lieves. 2.  That  he  will  argue  clofly,  and  not 
fly  abroad  or  dilate  Rhetorically.    And  for" 
any  divulging  of  it  to  your  danger  or  hurt; 
you  need  not  fear  it .-  For  thefe  two  grounds 
of  my  following  anfwers  •,  I  (hall  here  pro- 
mife,    i  ♦  That  I  am  fo  far  from  perfecuting 

bloody 


Woody  defircs  againft  thofe  of  ycur  way, 
that  their  own  bloody  principles  and  pra- 
ftices  where  they  have  power  (in  //v/y, 
Spain  ,'&c.)  hath  done  much  to  c 
me,  that  the  caufe  is -not  of  God  that  ru- 
be fo  upheld  and  carried  on,  2,  A  m 
fo  far  from  cruel  uncharitable  cenfures  of 
any  that  unfeignediy  love  the  L<  us 
and  his  truth,  that  it  is  the  grea 
to  me  of  all  other  to  diflike  your  Pr  m, 
becaufe  it  is  fo  notorioufly  :  rfl  CI 
charity,  reftraining  the  loiike  Church 
to  your  feives,  and  ourirrg  and  condemning 
the  far  greacuft  pajct  of  Chriftians  in  the 
world,  and  that  becaufe  theybelievs  not  in 
the  Pope,  though  they  believe  in  God  the 
rather,  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft,  and  all  thas 
the  Primitive  Church  believed.  I  am  fo 
Catholike,  that  (according  to  my  prefent 
judgement)  I  cannot  be  of  your  Church, 
becaufe  it  is  fo  little  Catholike.  I  am  of  the 
one  univcfal  Church,  which  containeth  all 
the  true  Chriftians  in  the  world;  And  you 
a*e  of  a  Tarty  which  bath  feparatcd  it  felt 
from  moll  ot  the  (  \  the  world.  I 
am  of  that  one  body  that  is  centred  in  Chrift 
theHead^  youare  of  apiece  of  this  body, 
that  hath  centred  in  a  man,  and  oft  acon- 
feffed  heretical    wicked  man ,   v;hom  you 

B  b  take 


3*£' 


take  while  he  lives  to  be  the  infallible  Judge 
and  foundation  of  all  your  faith  and  hope  ^ 
and  when  he  is  dead,  perhaps  pronounce  him 
to  be  in  hell  (as  BelUrmine  did  Vope Sixtns,  j 
and  others  commonly  J  I  know,  as  every  1 
Se&  hath  a  kind  of  unity  among  themfelves. 
however  divided  from  all  the  reft  of  the 
Church,  fo  alfo  hath  yours:  but  nothing 
will  fatisfte  me  but  a  Catholike  Unity 
Church  and  Faith.  So  much  being  premifed 
I  aniwer  your  C^ueftions.    . 


Queft.  i.   Whether  the  Church  of  Rom< 
was  a  true  Church  in  the  Aj>o files  dajes  ? 

Anfw.  The  word  [Church^  Signifies  more 
•things  then  one.  i.  Sometime  it  is  ufed  to 
fignifie  the  whole  myftical  body  of  Ch,rift, 
containing  all  and  only  thofe  that  are  jufti- 
fied,  whom  BelUrmine  calleth  living  mem- 
bers. And  in  this  fenfe  the  Church  of  Rome 
in  the  Apoftles  dayes  was  not  the  Churchy 
but  the  juftified  members  were  part  of  the 
Church.  2.  Sometime  it  is  ufed  to  fignifie 
all  that  profefs  true  Chriftianity  in  the 
world;  And  thus  the  Church  of  Rome  was 
notr/tfC/?#7r/?,butpartofit.  3.  It  is  oft* 
ufed  by  your  writers  to  fignirie  one  Church, 
that  by  Prerogative  is  the  Head  or  Miftris  of 

all 


all  Chriftians  in  the  world,  to  which  they 
muft  all  be  fubjeft,  and  from  which  they 
muft  receive  their  name,  as  the  Kingdom  of 
Mexico j  of  Tripoli* ,  of  Fez,,  &c.  are  fo 
called  from  the  chief  Cities  of  the  fame 
name,  and  from  whienfthey  receive  their 
Faith  and  Laws,  as  the  body  hath  life  and 
morion  from  the  head  or  heart.  In  this 
fenfe  the  Church  of  Rome  was  no  Church  in 
the  Apoftles  dayes.  4.  Sometime  itisufed 
to  fignifie  one  particular  Church,  aflbciated 
for  perfonal  Communion  in  Worlhip.  And 
thus  the  Church  of  Rome  ^as  a  true  Church 
in  the  Apoftles  dayes.  5.  Sometime  it  is 
is  fed  to  (igniiie  a  Colle&ion  or  Conjundion 
of  many  particular  Churches  (though  not 
all)  under  the  Bifnop  of  one  Church,  as  their 
Patriarch  or  Metropolitan.  And  thus  the 
Church  of  Rome  was  no  Church  in  the  Apo- 
ftles dayes  ,  but  about  two  hundred  years 
after  Chrift  it  was. 

It  is  only  the  Church  in  the  third  of  thefe 
fenfes,  that  is  in  controverfie  between  the 
Roman  and  Reformed  Churches.  Now  to 
your  next  Qucftion . 


37* 


Queft.   2.  When  Was  it  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  ceafed  to  be  a  true  Church  ? 

Bb  2  jinfto. 


37* 

Anfty,  In  the  firft ,  fecond  ,  and  third 
fences  it  never  ceafed  to  be  a  true  Church  ; 
for  it  never  was  one.  In  the  firft  and  fecond 
ferce  it  never  was  one  either  in  title  or 
claim,  (I  hope.)  In  the  third,  it  was  never 
one  in  Title,  nor  y^Pin  claim  for  many  hun- 
dred years  after  Chrift  ;  but  now  it  is. 
Therefore  the  Queftion  between  us  fhould 
not  be5  when  it  ceafed,  but  when  it  begun  to 
be  fuch  a  Capital  Ruling  Churchy  Effential 
to  the  whole  ? 

In  the  fifth  fence  it  never  ceafed  other- 
wife  then  as  it  is  fwallowed  up  in  a  higher 
Title.  It  begun  to  be  a  Patriarchal  Church, 
about  two*  or  three  hundred  years  after 
Chrift :  and  it  ceafed  to  be  tneerlj  Patri- 
archal when  it  arrogated  the  Title  of  Vni- 
verfal  or  MiftrU  of  alL 

In  the  fourth  fence,  the  Queftion  is  not 
fo  eafie,  and  I  fhall  thus  anfwer  it.  i.  By 
fpeaking  to  the  ufe  of  the  Queftion.  2.  By  a 
direft  anfwer  to  it. 

•  1.  It  is  of  fmall  concernment  to  my  fal- 
vation  or  yours,  to  know  whether  the 
Church  otRowe  be  a  true  "particular  Church 
or  not  :  no  more  then  to  know  whether  the 
Church  of  Theffalonica,  or  Ephifus,  or  An- 
tioch,  be  now  a  tr^y*  Church.  In  charity  to 
them  I  am  bound Xo  regard  it,  as  I  am  bound 

to 


to  regard  the  life  of  my  neighbour  •  But 
what  doth  it  concern  my  own  life,  to  know 
whether  the  Afxyor  and  Aldermen  of  Wor- 
cefler  or  Glacier  be  dead  or  alive  ?  So  what; 
doth.it  concern  my  Salvation  to  know  whe- 
ther the  Church  of  Rome  be  now  a  true 
particular  Church?  If  I  lived  at  the  Anti- 
podes or  in  Ethiopia,  and  had  never  heard 
that  there  is  fuch  a  place  as  Rome  in  the 
world  (as  many  a  thoufandChriftiansdoubt- 
lefs  never  heard  of  it)  this  would  not  hinder 
my  falvation,  as  long  as  I  believed  in  the 
bleffcd  Trinity, and  were  fan&ified  by  the 
Spirit  of  Grace.     So  that,  as  I  am  none  of 
their  Judge,  fo  I  know  not  that  it  much  con- 
cerned me,  to  know  whether  they  be  a  true 
particular  Church,  fave  for  charity  or  com- 
munion. 

2.  Yet  Ianfwerit  more  direftiy.  i.  If 
they  do  not  by  their  errors  fo  far  over- 
throw the  Chnftian  faith  which  they  pro- 
ofs, as  that  it  cannot  prafticaliy  be  believed 
*by  ihem ,  then  are  they  a  t;ue  particular 
Church,  or  par:  of  the  imiverfal  Church. 
2.  And  I  am  apt  to  I  :  at  leait  of  moft 
that  they  do  not  fo  hold  their  errors,  buc 
that  they  retain  with  them  fo  much  of  the 
effencials  of  Religion  a  ay  denominate 
them  a  true  frofeffin^  Cfofri  lore  plain- 

°  Bb  ;'  ly; 


373 


374 


/ 


ly  :  Rome  is  confidered  firft  as  Chriftian, 
fecondly  as  Papal:  As  Chriftian,  it  is  a  true 
Church  :  As  Pupal,  it  is  no  true  £hurch\ 
For  Popery  is  not  the  Church  according  to 
Chrifts  Inftitution,  but  a  dangerous  corruption 
in  the  Church.  As  a  Leprofie  is  not  the  man, 
but  the  difeaje  of  the  man.  Yet  he  that  is  a 
Leper  may  be  a  man.  And  he  that  is  a 
JP^/?*/?*  may  be  a  Chriftian  :  But  i .  Not  as 
he  is  aPapift.  2.  And  he  is  but  a  leprous  or 
difeafed  Chriftian. 
So  much  to  your  Queftions. 


By  this  much  you  may  fee  that  it  no  way 
concerneth  me  to  prove  when  Rome  ceafed 
to  be  a  true  Church.  For  if  you  {mean  fuch 
a  Church  as  Corinth,  Philippi,  Ephefus,  &c. 
was,  that  is  ,  but  a  part  of  the  Catholike 
Church,  folfticknot  much,  favingin  point 
of  Charity,  whether  it  be  true  or  falfe.  But 
if  you  mean  as  your  party  doth,  a  Miftris 
Church  to  Rule  the  Vvhole,  avd  denominate  the  I 
Catholike  Church  [Roman,"}  fo  I  fay,  its 
Ztfurpation  is  not  teafed  (that's  the  tmltvy) 
and  its  juft  title  never  did  begin.-  and  its 
claim  was  not  of  many  hundred  years  after 
Chrift ;  fo  that  your  Queftion  requireth  no 
further  Anfwer. 

But 


But  what  if  you  had  put  the  Queftion, 
At  what  time  it  was  that  your  Church  be- 
gan to  claim   this  univerfal   Dominion?  I 
(houldgive  you  thefe  two  anfwers.  i.  When 
I  underftand  that  it  is  of  any  great  moment 
to  the  deciiion  of  our  controverfie,  I  (hall 
tell  you  my  opinion  of  the  man  that  firft  laid  . 
the  claim,  and  the  year  when.     2.  But  it  is 
fufficientfor  me  to  prove,  that  from  the  be- 
ginning it  was  not  fo.     Little  did  the  Bt~ 
(hops  of  Rome  before   Conftantines  dayes, 
dream  of  governing  all  the  Chriftians  in  the 
world.    But  when  the  Emperours  became 
Chriftians,  their  great  favour  and  large  en- 
dowments of  the  Church,  and  the  greatnefs 
and  advantage  of  the  Imperial  City  did  give 
opportunity  to    the    Bifhop  of  Rome  ( as 
having  both  riches,  andtheEmperour^  and 
Commanders  ears)  to  do  fo  many  and  great 
favours  for  molt  other  Churches,  in  pre- 
serving and  vindicating  them,    rhat  it  was 
very  eafie  for  the  Bifhop  hereby  to  become 
the  chief  Patriarch    (  which  he  was  more 
beholden  to  the  Emperour  for,  then  to  any 
Title  that  he  had  from  Chrift  or  Peter.)  And 
then  the  quarrel  with  John  of  C 'on ft ant ino fie 
occafoned    the  thoughts   of  an  univerfal 
Headfhip  •,  which  Gregory  did  difclaim  and 
abominate,  but  Boniface  after  him,   by  the 

Bb  4  grant 


37J 


376 


grant  of  a  murdering  trayterous  Ernperour, 
did  obtain  :  But  fo  as  the  See  fwclled  before 
into  a  preparatory  magnitude. 

And  if  we  could  not  tell  you  the  time 
within  two  hundred  years  and  more,  it  were 
no  great  matter^  as  long  as  we  can  prove 
that  it  vp<u  not  fo  before.    For  who  knows 
not  that  even  fome  Kings  in  Europe  have 
come  from  being  limited  Monarcks,    to  b 
abf o I 'nte,  and  chat  by  fuch  degrees,  that  non 
can  tell  the  certain  time. .  Nay  I  may  giv 
you  a  ftranger  inftance.     The  Parliaments 
of  England  have  part  in  the  legiflative  po- 
wer ;  And  yet  I  do  not  think  that  any  Law- 
yer in  England  is  able  to  prove  the  juft  time, 
yea  or  the  age,  (or  within  many  ages )  when 
they  firtt  obtained  it :    which  yet  in  fo  nar-  j 
ro^  fpot  of  ground  may  be  eaftlier  done, 
then  the  time  of  the  popes  ufurpation  over 
all  the  world.     For*  iE  £ould  not  be  all  at 
once  :  for  one  Country  yeilded  to  his  (late/ 
claim  in  one  age,   and  another  in  another 
age,   and  many  a  bloody  battle  was  ^fought 
before  he  could  bring  the  Germane  Emper- 
ours  and  Chriftian  Princes  to  fubmit  to  him 
fully. 

3 .  But  let  me  tell  you  one  thing*  more  j 
Though  as  to  an  arrogant  claim^  the  Pope  is 
Head  and  Governour  of  all  the  Catholike 

Church, 


377 

Church,    and  Rome  their  Miftris,    (as  the 
Pope  makes  Patriarchs  of  Antioeh,  Alexan- 
dria, and  Hierufalem,  that  never  come  near 
the  place  or  people  J  yet  as  to  any  pojfeffion 
or  Acknowledgement  on  the  Churches  part, 
he  was  never  univerfd  Head,  nor  Rome  the 
Mifiru  to  this  day.  Tor  the  greater  half  of 
the  Cftriftians  did  never  fubjed  themfelves 
to  him  at  all,  nor  come  under  his  power.    So 
that   the  Pope   even  now   in  his   greateft 
height,   is  only  the  head  of  the  univerfal 
Church  by  his  own  claim,  and  naming  him- 
felf fo,  without  any  Title  given  by  God,  or 
acknowledged  by  men,    and  without  having 
ever  been  pojfejfed  of  what  he  claims.     The 
King  of  France  doth  fcarce  believe  that  the 
King  of  England  was  King  of  France ,  for 
all  that  he  put  it  into  his  ride  :  nor  do  the 
Swedes  take  the  Pile  for  their  King,  becaul 
he  fo  calls  himfelf.     I  am  fure  if  the  Turkjjk 
Emperour  call  himfelf  the  £mperour  of  the 
world,  that  doth  not  prove  that  he  is  fo. 
Rainerius  the  Popes  Inquifitor  {in  catal.  poji 
lib.cont.  Waldenf.)  faith  plainly,    Thr.t  the 
Churches  that  Vrcrt  planted  by  the  Apo  files 
themfelves  (fuchasthe  Abafiincs,  err. ) 

ot  jubject  to  the  Pope.  Once  he  had  the 
Government  of  no  Church  in  the  world,  but 
Rome  it  fclf:    After  that  he  grew  to  have 

the 


373 


the  government  of  the  Patriarchate  of  the 
Weft:  fince  that  he  hath  got  fome#w£,and 
claimed  all  ^  but  never  got  neer  half  the 
Churches  into  his  hands  to  this  day.  Do  I 
need  then  to  fay  any  more  to  difprove  his 
univerfal  Head(hip,and  that  Rome  is  not  the 
Catholike  Ruling  Church  ? 

But  having  gone  thus  far  in  opening  my 
thoughts  to  you ,.  I  (hall  forbear  the  ad- 
joyning  the  proof  of  my  Aflfertions  ,  till  I 
hear  again  from  you.  If  I  underftand  it, 
The  Queftion  between  you  and  me  to  be 
debated,  muft  be  this ,  f  Whether  the  Roman 
Church  was  in  the  Apoftles  dayes,  the  Miftris 
or  Ruling  Churchy  which  all  other  Churches 
were  bound  to  obey,  and  from  it  were  to  becal- 
ledthe  Roman  Catholike  Church  }~\  This  I 
deny .-  and  you  muft  maintain,  or  elfe  you 
mull  be  no  Papift.  The  motion  that  I  make 
is,  that  by  the  next  you  will  fend  me  your 
Arguments  to  prove  it  (for  it  belongs  to  you 
to  prove  it,  if  you  affirm  it.)  To  which  I 
will  return  you  ( if  they  change  not  my 
judgement)  both  my  Anfwers  and  my  Ar- 
guments for  the  Negative.  And  if  you  do 
indeed  make  good  but  this  one  Affertion, 
I  do  here  promife  you,  that  I  will  joyfully 
and  refolvedly  turn  Papift :  and  if  you  can- 
not make  it  good,  I  may  expeft  that  you 

ftioulc/ 


fliould  no  longer  adhere  to  Rome  as  the 
Ruling  or  Cathollke  Church,  and  the  Pillr.r 
tnd  Cj  round  of  Truth  ^  though  charity 
~  ould  allow  it  to  be  [_a  Cathollke  Church^ 
hat  is  a  member  of  the  Cathollke  Church, 
hich  is  indeed  the  Pillar  and  Ground  of 
Truth,  wherein  Rome  may  have  a  part  as  it 
is  part  of  the  Church  :  Eut  I  would  ic  were 
not  a  moft  dangeroufly  difeafed  part.  I 
crave  your  reply  with  what  fpeed  you  can, 
and  remain, 

An  unfeigned  lover  of  Truth 
and  the  friends  of  Truth. 
Feb.  12.  1657. 

Rich.  Baxter. 


119 


The  two  following  Letters,  with  the  Nar- 
rative ,  are  annexed  only  to  fhew  the 
effed:  of  the  former. 

S- 

r  ^  Hough  the  bufwefs  in  agitation  betwixt 
J'jtir fctf  an"  me<>  be  the  one  thing  ne- 
feffarji  and  jo  to  be  "preferred  to  allobHg~ticnsy 
and  bufinejfes  of  what  concernment  foever  i  yet 
a  rcfclntion  formerly  taken  up,  hath  diverted 

r> 


3So 

me  fomeVehat  from  the  prefent  tame  ft  profe-i 
cution  thereof  as  it  deferves.     Temporal  cre- 
dit, though  it  fbould  give  way  to  things  of 
eternal  moment ',  yet  it  often  fwajs  the  minds ' 
even  of  good  men  to  negleEi  very  important  op- 
portunities -,    which  though  I  cannot  excufe 
my  felf  of,  yet  1  defire  it  may  be  candidly  in- 
terpreted ,  and  that  this  may  be  accepted  as  a 
pledge  to  an  anfwer  of  what  you  have  infert- 
ed.  And  I  defire  your  next  may  be  directed  to 
me  to  London,  to  one  Mr>  T.  S.  who  is  a  kjnf- 
wan  of  mine  ,  and  no  f mall  admirer  of  your 
felf*      My  thanks  in  the  interim  I  return  for  , 
the  pains  you  have  taken ,  which  I  hope  through'' 
the  mercy  of  God  will  not  prove  fucceffelefs  for 
the  future  one  way  or  other  :  the  truth  is>  I 
have  not  divulged  my  felf,  or  intentions  as  jet 
to  any  of  my  own  way,  which  I  know  Will  be 
very  trouble  fome  \    and  I knoty  Ifhall  be  befet^ 
with  enemies  from  the  ignorant ,    that  way 
affetted,    as  I  doubt  not  of  help  from  the 
learned.     Tet  as  I  teld  you  in  my  former , 
without  any  carnal  inter  eft  re fpe^ling^  or  out- 
ward troubles  regarding,    or  inbred  enemies 
combating ,  I  refolve  by  the  grace  and  ajfi- 
ftance  of  God  to  be  guided  by  truth  impartially 
where  I  /ball  find  it  lye  clear  eft  :  and  {hall 
make  it  my  work^to  implore  the  throne  of  mer- 
cy, that  my  underftanding  may  befo  enlight- 

ned, 


3»i 

ted^as  to  difcern  tr  nth  from  hen  fie.  idefire 
Sir,  if  it  may  be  no  prejudice  to  your  more 
>arntft  occafions,  that  lm.iy  have  two  or  three  ~ 
lines  from  yon  by  Way  of  advice  to  meet  me  at 
London  at  the  place  aforcfaid,  andaffure  your 
felf,  however  Cod  {hall  dirett  thefuccejfe,  I 
(ball  reft ,  Sir, 


Tcb,i6.   16$6 


Athirfty  defirer  of  truth, 
and  yours  unfcignedly, 

The.  Smith* 


If  what  you  write  to  me  be  fir  ft  fent  to  Mr. 
John  Smiths  of  Worcefter  as  before,  it -will 
befafely  fent  to  me.  Good  Sir,  thinly  not  I 
flight  a  bufmefs  of  fo  eternal  confequenceby 
myneglettfor  the  prefent  •,  for  none  fi all  for 
the  future  be  found  more  earneft  to  find  out  the 
mind  of  God,  and  he  affifting^lhope,  as  chear- 
fully  to  clofe  therewith. 


Sir, 

THe  fpeed  of  your  former  applications  to 
me  by  way  of  anfwer,  incites  me  to  the 
confirmation  of  thofe  thoughts  of  your  worth 
which  were  at  my  firft  a  ■  Irejfes  to  you  har- 
boured in  my  heft-,  but  the  [usance  of  jour 

difcourfe 


382  ) 

difcourfe  is  a  fironger  motive.  Although  per- 
adventure  it  may  feem  fomewhat  wonderful  y 
that  I  fhould  fo  foon  be  brought  over  to  the 
ferious  apprehensions  of  the  weight  of  what 
you  have  written  to  me  •  yet  when  you  confult 
the  divine  providence ,  and  the  Almighty  di- 
rection which  prompted  me  to  the  choife  bfyour 
f elf  above  others  >  upon  grounds -not  altogether 
insufficiently  eftablijbed,whicb  will  befurtht 
made  good  when  Ijha/lhave  the  hafpinefs  of  a. 
perfonal  entercourfe  of  communion  with  you, 
.it  will  be  certainly  concluded  upon  by  your 
felf  and  whofoever  it  Jhall  be  communicated 
to,  that  the  truth,  Which  I  have  already  feri- 
cufly  pondered ,  was  the  full  aim  of  my  in- 
tentions :  which  truth  I /hall  impartially  and 
joyfully  entertain  where foever  I  find  it,  with- 
out any  thoughts  at  all  of  temporal  or  external 
difcouragements  >  of  which  1 have  already  con- 
t  e fie  d  With  fome,  and  expetl  {the  Lord  arm  me 
againfi  them)  far  greater.  It  is  no  fmall 
thing  that  I  Jhall  be  looks  upon  as  an  Apofiate, 
andfo  worthy  of  excommunication  utterly  ,  but 
I  conclude  according  to  St.  Auguftine  (I 
guefs)  that  it  is  no  Jhame  to  turn  to  the  better , 
and  withal  I  add  (  although .  I  could  infert. 
fome  fmall  exceptions)  lam  to  the  main  fa- 
cisfied,  but  yet  in  fome  doubtful  fufpence, 
Wherein  I  expett  full  fatisfattion  by  your 

book, 


book,  which  I  received  intimation  from  you 
is,  in  the  'Prefs,  and  quickly  to  bepublijbed. 
If  I  might  receive  two  or  three  lines  from  you 
in  the  interim ,  by  way  of  efiablijhment ,  it 
would  be  very  gratefully  accepted,  in  relation 
to  the  comfortable  taking  off  thofe  obfiacles 
which  I  am  certain  to  meet  with  in  my  change 
of  judgement.  Jam  very  forry  that  aperfon 
whom  I  knoty  to  be  fo  tender  of  eternal  fouls  in 
general,  fhouldbefo  continually  taken  off  your 
important  bufinefs  daily  by  particulars.  But 
being  likewife  fenftble  that  y$u  value  a  foul 
according  to  the  worth  of  the  fame  •,  lam  en- 
couraged to  thinks,  yM  I  verily  believe,  theft 
rude  things  proceeding  from  a  foul  that  is  t§ 
rife  or  fall  according  to  what  is  now  determin- 
ing between  m ,  it  will  not  be  macceptably 
received  from,    Sir, 


The  admirer  of  your 
worth, 

March  24.  165*. 

Tho*  Smith* 


3«j 


3»4 


A  Narrative  of  the  cafe  ef  T.  S.  by 
his  friend. 

Reverend  Sir, 

Mr.  Thomas  Smith  late  of  Martins 
Ludgate  London  was  brought  up  in 
the  Proteftant  Religion,  and  for  fome  years 
accounted  an  affe&ionate  profeffor  thereof, 
by  thofe  who  were  acquainted  with  his  dili- 
gence and  pains  in  writing  out  at  large  the 
notes  he  took  of  (Mr.  CaUmies  and  others) 
pious  Sermons  *.  but  afterwards  (not  living 
up  to  the  knowledge  he  had)  he  grew  more 
remifs  in  his  pra&ice,  and  in  his  company  ^ 
and  became  a  great  affliction  to  his  Father 
in  his  life-time  by  reafcn  thereof,  but  a 
greater  to  his  Mother  after  his  Farhers 
death :  which  I  fuppofe  Mr.  facomb,  Mr. 
7  duller  and  others  of  her  acquaintance  can- 
not forget.  But  when  (he  underftpod  the 
company  hemoft  frequented  were  Papiils, 
who  did  at  length  take  the  boidnefs  to  re- 
fort  to  her  houfe,  flie  was  very  much  per- 
plexed, fearing  that  they  had  prevailed  with 
her  fon  to  turn  Papift ,  which  fhe  foon 
found,  as  fhe  told  me,to  be  fo  indeed.  I  was 
not  willing  to  believe  her  report,  bin  defired 

^  to 


"°* 


38J 

ro  fatisfic  my  felf  by  difcourfing  with  him- 
felf,  hoping  that  I  fhould  not  have  found  his 
judgement  determined  that  way,  as  I  did  to 
my  great  trouble  find  it  to  be,  efpecially  in 
his  juftificarion  of  the  Jurifdidion  and  Au- 
thority of  the  Pope,  and  other  tenets  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.     By  this  time  he  had  waft. 
ed  his  Patrimony,  and  had  run  himfelf  into 
debt  fo  far,  that  he  durft  not  walk  up  and 
down  the  ftrects  as  he  had  done ;  he  went 
a  Voyage  to  the  Barbadoes,   but  returned 
thence  in  a  worfe  condition  then  he  went, 
yet  continued  ftill    in  the  opinion  he  had 
received,  notwithftandmg  the  great  offence 
and  trouble  it  was  to  thofe  from  whom  he 
expeded   relief  and  maintenance ,    whofe 
hearts   and  hands  were  in  that  particular 
fomewhat  (hut  upagainfthim,  in  fo  much 
that  he  was  reduced  to  manifold  extremities 
here.     Afterwards,  hopelefs  of  any  lively- 
hood  here,  he  went  over  to  Ireland  where 
he  had  a  kinfman  -  but  meeting  with  dif- 
appointment  there  of  what  heexpeded,  he 
returned  again  into  England  ^  and  fteered 
his  courfe  to  Worcefier  juherehe  had  another 
Kinfman  lived  .    during  this  Voyage  I  ex- 
changed feveral  letters  with  him,  being  de- 
firous  to  make  him  fenfible  of  the  hand  of 
God  eminently  out  againft  him,  hedging  up 

Cc  his 

■ 


l%6 

his  way  with  thorns  every  where ,  which  I 
defired  might  be  in  order  to  his  return  to 
God,  looking  upon  his  condition  to  be  ma- 
nifcftly  defpera  e  for  ever,if  he  ihould  refufc 
to  recurn,  and  harden  his  heart  againft  him. 
At  Worcefter  he  fell  Tick ,   whjch  through 
Gods  bleffing  brought  him  to  a  more  ferious 
confederation  of  his  everlafttng  itate  which 
he  apprehended  to  approach  near.     And  it 
wrought  fome  kind  of  doubt  in  him,  touch, 
ing  the  truth  of  fome  of  the  chief  of  thofe 
things  which  he  had  entertained  as  true 
about  the  Church  of  Rome,**  he  informed 
me  by  his  ktter  ^  whereunto  for  his  con- 
vidion  and  better  fatisfadion,   I  did  advife 
him  to  apply  himfelf  unto  Mr.  Baxter  of  I 
Kederminfter   (  who  I  told  him  I  did  be- 
lieve was  a  great  lover  of  fouls)  which  he  by 
letter  did  as  he  told  me,  and  that  Mr.  Baxter 
did  returnhim  an  anfwer  thereunto  in  writ-    j 
ing,  with  liberty  to  (hew  it  to  any  the  moft 
learned  of  his  way  ^  which  when  he  came     ' 
to  Lmdon  he  (hewed  me,  acknowledging     j 
himfelf  much  convinced  by  it :  and  the  more 
taken,  for  that  fo  large  and  full  an  anfwer 
with  that  liberty  ftiould  be  difpatch't  to  him 
with  fo  much  expedition,  which  as  I  remem- 
0  ber  he  faid  he  had  the  next  day  after  he  fent 
his.  Yet  was  he  confident,  as  he  faid,  that  it 

would 


3*7 

would  be  anfwcrcd,  and  as  he  told  me,  he 
had  left  it  with  one  that  had  undertaken  it  -, 
He  fpake  of  its  being  (hewn  to  EmbafTadors 
or  an  Embaflfador,  and  that  within  fourteen 
days  he  (hould  have  ananfwer  to  it-,  but 
enquiring  after  ic,  I  could  never  fee  any  an- 
fwer,    nor   could  he  nocwithftanding   all 
his  folicitations    and    provocations   ufed, 
prevail  to  have  an  anfwer  h  which  he  feem- 
ed  to  be   very  much  offended  at-,  and  at 
length,  as  he  told  me,  thole  with  whom  he 
had   to  do  about  it,  were  much  offended 
with  him :  in  fo  much  that    he  intimated 
himfelf  to  be  apprehenfivc  of  danger  from 
fome  of  them  :  yet  he  feemed  refolved  to 
adventure   whatsoever  might  befall  him  in 
that  refpeft,  rather  then  he  would  ftifle 
thofe   convi&ions  ,    which  by  Mr.  Baxters 
letter  had  been  begotten  in  him  ^  This  letter 
of  Mr.  Baxter j,togecher  with  [[The  Safe  Re- 
ligion^  a  Book  which  he  did  refer  him  to, 
either  then  or  near  that  time  in  the  prefs, 
which  he  went  for  and  had  of  the  Stationer 
upon  Mr.  Baxters  account,  (which  I  had  al- 
moft  forgot)  gave  him  fuch  refolurion  and 
fatisfadion,  that  he  thereupon  altered  his 
judgement  and  practice,  and  waited  upon 
the  Ordinances  here  in  London  mow  Con- 
gregations for  fomc  time  ^  I  my  felf  having 

Cc  2  fcen 


3»s 


fecn  him  at  the  morning  exercife  in  Lon- 
don :  what  further  eflfe&s  it  wrought  upon 
him  I  know  not  ^  for  that  he  left  the  City 
and  went  over  into  Flanders  as  his  Mo- 
ther hath  informed  me,  and  is  fince 
dead  : 

Sir, 

Tour  affectionate  friend 
to  ferve  you, 

T.  S. 


For  Mr.  William  Johnfon. 

Sir, 

VV7  Hen  I  was  invited  to  this  Difputation 
"  with  you,  I  entertained  hopes,  from 
yourprofeft  defiresof  clofe  argumentation, 
thjtt  we  ihould  fpeedily  bring  it  to  foch  an 
ifme,  as  might  in  fome  good  meafure  anfwer 
our  endeavours,  in  taking  off  the  covering 
that  Sophiftry  and  carnal  intereft  had  cai^ 
upon  the  truth.  When  my  neceffary  employ- 
ments denyed  me  the  leifure  of  reading  over 
your  fecond  Papers  for  fome  weeks  -3  and 
when  the  lofs  of  my  Reply  by  the  Carrier, 
and  the  difficulty  of  procuring  another  Co- 
py,had  caufed  a  little  longer  delay  ^  you  ur- 
ged fo  hard  for  a  Reply,  as  put  me  in  fome 

further 


3*9 

Further  hopes  that  you  were  refolved  to  go 
through  with  it  your  (elf.  But  after  near  a 
twelvemonths  expectation  of  a  Rejoinder ,and 
of  the  Proof  of  jour  own  fuccejfun  from  thi 
Apoflles,  being  here  at  London ;  1  deiircd  you 
to  refolve  me,  wherher  I  might  expefr  any 
fuch  Return  and  Performance  from  you,  or 
not :  And  when  you  would  not  promife  it, 
I  took  «p  the  thoughts  of  publishing  wnat 
had  pad  between  us :  But  upon  further  urg- 
ing you,  fome  moneths  after,  you  renewed 
my  hopes ,    which  caufed  me  to  make  fome ' 
ftay  of  my  publication  ,  and  to  define  you  to 
give  me  your  fenfe  of  the  moil:  ufed  terms  ^ 
(promifing  you  that  I  (hall  do  the  like,  when 
you  require  it  •  which  I  am  ready   to  per- 
form. )  But  yet  I  hear  nothing  to  this  day  of 
your  AnfVver  to  my  Papers,  or  the  Perform- 
ance of  what  is  incumbent  on  you  for  the 
juftification  of  your  Church :    And  there- 
fore having  waited  and  importuned  you  in 
vain  fo  long,  and  finding  by  your  laft,  that 
you  cannot    or  will  rot  fo  explicate  your 
terms,  as  to  be  underftood  ('without  which 
there  is  no  difputing-)  and  alfo  perceiving, 
that  my  abode  in  London  is  like  to  be  but  lit- 
tle longer  •,  my  difcretion  and  the  ends  of  my 
writing  have  commanded  me,  to  forbear  no 
longer  the  publication  of  what  hath  pail  be- 
tween 


39* 


twccn  us :  Tor,  though  the  work  be  not  co- 
pious and  elaborate,  yet  being  on  a  fubjeft, 
which  your  party  do  fo  much  infift  upon,  I 
am  aflured  it  may  be  of  common  ufe.  And 
I  know  that  the  publication  is  no  breach  of 
any  promife  on  my  part,  nor  do  I  perceive 
how  it  can  be  any  way  injurious  to  you  •,  and 
therefore  I  fee  nothing  to  prohibite  it :  And 
lam  not  willing  to  be  ufed  as  Mr.  Gunning 
and  Mr.  Pierfon  were,  by  the  partial  unhan- 
fome  publication  of  another. 

If  yet  I  may  prevail  with  you,  to  juftifie 
your  caufe,  as  you  arc  engaged,  I  muft  en- 
treat you  specially  to  try  your  ftrength  for 
the  proof  of  your  own  fucceffion :  for  we  | 
are  moft  confident  that  its  a  notorious  im- 1 
poflibility  which  you  undertake.  Our  Ar- 
guments  againft  it  are  fuch  as  thefe. 

i.  That  Church  which  fincethe  time  of 
Chrift  hathreceivedanew  eflential  part,hath 
not  its  being  fucceffively  from  the  Apoftles. 

But  fuch  is  the  Church  of  Rome  :  Ergo- 

The  Major  is  undenyable.  The  Minor  i$ 
thus  proved.  A  Vice-Chrift,or  Vice-head  ^or 
Governour  of  the  Univerfal  Church  is  an 
efTential  part  of  the  now  Church  of  Rome. 
But  a  Vice-Chrift,  or  Vice-head ,  or  Go- 
vernour of  the  Univerfal  Church,  is  new,  or 
t  novelty,  i  (or  hath  not  been  from  the  time 

of 


of  Chrifl  on  earth ; )  Ergo,  the  Church  of 
Home  fincethe  timeofChrift,  hath  received 
a  new  efTcntial  part.  The  novelty  I  have 
here  and  elfewhere  proved  :  And  Blondcl 
and  Molin&ut  againft  Perron  have  doneic 
more  at  large. 

2.  That  Church  which  hath  had  frequent 
and  long  interceifionsin  its  head  or  e/Tential 
part,  hath  not  had  a  continued  fucceflion 
from  the  Apoftles.  But  fuch  is  the  Church 
of  Rome  :  Ergo    ■    - 

The  Minor  is  hereprovcd :  and  fome  hints 
of  it  are  in  the  Appendix. 

3.  That  Church  which  hath  had  many 
new  efTcntial  Articles  of  Religion,  feach  not 
had  a  continued  fucceflion  from  the  Apo- 
ftles ;  (For  if  the  effence  be  new,  the  Church 
is  new.)  But  fuch  is  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Ergo  — 

Firft  it  is  commonly  maintained  by  you 
that  all  Articles   are  Ejfemial  or  FuncLi- 
mentali  and  you  deride  the  contrary  do- 
ftrine  from  the  Proreihnts. 
»  Secondly,  that  you  have  had  many  new 
Articles  of  Religion  (of  faith  and  points  of 
fforfhip)  is  proved  by  our  w  aters,  and  your 
:>wn  confeflions.    See  MoUntm  de  Ncvit. 
Papifmi.  Prove  a  fucceflion  of  all  that  is  de 
Hde  determined  in  your  Councils,  or  but  of 

all 


391 


3?* 


• 

aft  in  Pope  Pirn  his  Creed,  and  the  Council 
of  Trent  alone  •  or  of  all  that  with  you  is  d 
fide  of  thofe  two  and  thirty  points  whicl 
I  have  named  in  my   Key  for   Catholics. 
p.  143,144, 145.  Chap.25.  Detett.  i6.anc 
I  will  ycild  you  all  the  caufe :  or  I  will  pro- 
fefs  my  belief  of  every  one  of  thofe  points  oi 
which  you  prove  fuch  afucceffion^  as  held  by 
the  Catholike  Churches  you  now  hold  them. 

Read  and  anfwer  my  Detett.  2 1 .  Cap.  33.^ 
in  my  Key  for  Cat  ho  I  ikes. 

And  how  far  you  own  Innovations,  fee 
what  I  have  proved,  ibid,  cap.  35.  and  36. 

But  thefe  arguings  being  works  of  fuper-i 
erogation,  I  (hall  trouble  you  here  with  no! 
more  •  but  wait  for  fuch  proof  of  all  jour] 
effentials^  cu  we  give  yen  of  all  ours.  In  the  ' 
mean  time,  Khali  endeavour  fo  to  defend  1 
the  Truth,  as  not  to  lofe  or  weaken  Charity  1 
but  approve  my  felf 


Sep.  1.  1660. 


An  unfeigned  lover  of  the 
Truth  and  you. 

Richard  Baxter. 
FINIS, 


\ 


M