^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 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 l J apift> 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 7 whzn 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_T rut h 
 
 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 s 7 
 
(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- 
 fi 0C K °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 filent y 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 
 is y 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 all y 
 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 Church 3 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 ; 
 yta y 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 firfi y 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 ttnited y 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 anfwer y 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- 
 tion 5 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 > Omitto 9 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 fepoJed y Truth m*y appear in its 
 c ullfplendcur, 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 
 7 ou 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(eafo J 
 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'ft 5 is 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 Syllogifm 5 
 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-] 
 
 drine 5 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] 
 x lnvi$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 it J hach 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 
 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 time 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 yvorld y 
 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 the 1 
 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 how ^ 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 ?°I e the Bi{ho P 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- p Ur p f e . 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 anticmiy y 
 •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, Neftorians y 
 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 ns 3 ^ 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 . cl t ^ ac C 
 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* 5 becaufe (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 Ghoft 3 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- p r / a L 
 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 6 7 . # ' 
 thefupream Authority of the Bifhops oi(f)concli m 
 Rowejt is determined in the (f) Council Sard.cap.'^ 
 of W*, That no Bifhop depofed by other ^ J y 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 p0 P e ^ P ower 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(ho P s 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. £ a j nt 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 A P- 
 he prefcntly did ; ( and many other Eaitern £: aI *f 
 Bifhops unjultly acculed by the Anans from l y ut 
 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-i u ^SV*[ 
 moned ) appeared not, fearing they ffcouid "^ at c ^. C 
 be condemned by the Pope and his Conn- mer i s 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- ac kn 0W - 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 faid tQ ^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 al 1 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. ^ n ce, 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 Patriarchatcs 5 but 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? 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°» rthl yi rhe Y 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]£ h jJ 
 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 Jf ^ n rC 
 their Letter to Pope Leo, acknowledged pU re'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 y cc 
 
 bly begged of him, that he would grant;^^ 
 
 that the Patriarch of Confiantinojd^ might t heChurch 
 
 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. C omes inCbro- 
 mco. Concil. C on ft cl ' 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 Con fi*» tiHg P le ' (°) 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 B e "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 was 3 
 
 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 
 <c chanas, 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 are t kksre* 
 pleafed to fay, That the weft part of the penting, 
 Catholike Church hath been againft us to this werc re ~ 
 day y 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 up 00 f°- 
 vholc Catholike Church was for us in this len i n P ro ; 
 
 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 Chrift 5 and 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 Sir 7 
 
 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 
 iny r H*t the fi r ft y 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 y r ur 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 i m . 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 call t 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 
 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 be 5 whohathPoflefiion 
 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 fupremacy y 
 
 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 ^ m P*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 Chalcedon y 
 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 it 3 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 
 
V I 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 
 r it}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 Papall y 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 y and 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 injury 7 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- 
 on 9 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 **' Re th 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. Cy r ^ 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 predeeeffor 3 whor 
 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 efi y 
 
 pd in continms^ & caafam fidei pr&cipuc 
 
 tinentibm articulis, confentiamns : e^n* 
 
 Pem videntur confenfum inter vos & not 
 
 pedire, talia funt y Ji velit quis, ut facile ea, 
 
 rigerc poffit. ■■ 'Gaudium in c<zlo& 
 
 er ter'ram erit , fi coibit in unitatem 
 
 acjHc Ecclejia, & idem [entiemm y & 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,i27 3 i2Ji 
 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 
 r unt : 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 funt y 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 y tandem y &c. — jj 
 I pray you now tell it to no more 3 that 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 
 :his 5 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 [ides y 
 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{ians 5 e^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 pi r cy 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 Leo y 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. 
 P3,6 5 . 
 
 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, 
 
 an y 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 $. 3 . ideirco enim^ 
 ? rater charifsime y copiofum eorpw eft facer- 
 dotum concordidt matUA glutino atqne ttnita- 
 +i$ 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\u f 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 behelj 1 
 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 
 
 )mmunicatehim 3 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- 
 rue 5 and 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 
 
 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 C on ft* n t> no flc* 
 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 Diocefs 5 examples 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 not 1 
 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 Re pb 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- 
 »ion 3 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 Anatolivu y 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 
 f rld, 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 Nice y 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 ccn r ented to B 
 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 mud 1 ' 
 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 th u 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 
 
 heft 3 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*M 9 
 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 pnde s and 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 fo 5 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 : jrea 9 
 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 
 
 t oJofir 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 Rome B 
 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 SLl ern 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 Council 5 fo 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 
 tu y Pater f anile, & par hi \ [ you command- 
 tdme, Holj Father , and J obeyed, ] Binnius 
 
 VI* 5 62 > 5 6 3, 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 
 Pontificiis y 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 ib r efaid 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 Majefiy 9 \ 
 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 compe m 
 dibus mtgnitudinis magni Regis liga, & ner 
 
 N 4 If i U» 
 
184 T& e Rtf>h t0 Mr.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 daj y 
 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 p ontifex 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 it t 
 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 Afonarchj y or 
 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 r knoweth 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 fi y 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 y p 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 
 fpuJca 9 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 Chrift t 
 x ohn 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 it y ( 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 ailforts r that 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,pAr m 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 obfirepant y 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 funt y 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 exempla y & 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- 
 pfiis y 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] 
 r as 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 7 h e f*cuf s * 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-^ 
 
 c eftatyr 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 Ecclefiarm tl 
 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 HU y fed toto Orm 
 dijfufa : Nee ea qua nunc eft in hominibm\ 
 qui pr<t(entem vitam agunt y fed ad eampertnr 
 ncntibus, etiam\his qui fuerunt ante nos y (ftr 
 his qui futuri funt p$ft n$s y 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 y eti.:?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 5 C# 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 
 
 clefia y 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.cem y com+ 
 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 
 
 34 z 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 LW e everywhere following the 
 definitions of the holy Fathers , and the 
 Canon, and the things that have been now 
 ' reac j ou he 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/lian y 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,Lybia y 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- f a y in g 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. / 
 
 A r g. 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 J ke 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. H e 
 
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 dicitur y 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>hcmidi y &c.J [[Far h - 
 this name of blafphemy from the hearts 
 Chriftians, &c . ] 
 
 And after again faith \Jtdnullmeor 
 unquam hoe fingularitatis vocabui 
 tffumpfit , ma mi confcnfit^ That none 
 
 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 Tauli y 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 Chrift 5 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- 
 bm P 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 Legt y 
 ^anttifub Gratia, tmnts hi perficientes Corpus 
 Domini in mzmbr is fttnt Ecclefi* ccnftittiti 9 
 &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- 
 traioitur y 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^gpfftali 9 
 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- 
 9 P.Diaconus 9 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 of v 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 of 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/cedoff i 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 a 1 
 Paftor of one Church , and be convid: and 1 
 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 the 1 
 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 % 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 Hereticks 5 it 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 
 
 an 1 
 
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, 
 
3 10 
 
 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 2 m . 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 revealed 1 
 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 n r ed 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 anfw T er 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(ition h 
 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 
 
f ht 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 
 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 Tb e f € n f e 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 
 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 anuniverfal y 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 Pafiors f 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 that f s 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 ir 3 
 muft fatisfic me m particular, that it fo 
 paft i 
 
 Z 4 Mr. J. 
 
3 44 Tfo f en ( 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 
 onvened y not all •, that being only fo me fart m 
 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 e i 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 BiJhofs y 
 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- 
 iation 5 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- 
 \efs y 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 
 fies 3 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 flreet 9 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 me f 
 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 be 5 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 
 
37 6 
 
 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 f c tf an " me <> be the one thing ne- 
 feffarji and jo to be "preferred to allobHg~ticns y 
 and bufinejfes of what concernment foever i yet 
 a rcfclntion formerly taken up, hath diverted 
 
 r> 
 
3 So 
 
 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- 
 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