(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
See other formats

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






^*» ■ 



SB ft 




« g 



w O 



^ g 


W M 


^ « 


5« *»• ?> 

+■* & 


3 3 % 













11 ISO 

y ~~^ \the atui'k' 

Succeffivc VI 

Jricc? — e-F THE 3^ 



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. 


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. 




The Preface. 


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, 


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 


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 



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^ 
fSlenon peccdrew, mors qmq^ nonfaciet, 


. nd even when God hath fully pardoned 



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 

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 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, 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 



infidias, facile fe per iff am defendit y faith 

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 

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 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 



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 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- 

£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 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-, 



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 



"\ 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 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 



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, 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- 


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 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 


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 


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- 

(« ) 

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, 


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 



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, ) 





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 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* 



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 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 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 


The Contents. 

The infiance of Flavianus Appeal refuted- 

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. 

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. 

Of Juvenals words. 163 

Of Valentinians and Theodofius words. 

Of Vincentius Lirinenfis words. 169 


inc v^on tenia. 

Of Philip and Arcadius at ConciL Ephcfus. 

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. 


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. 


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. 

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


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. 


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 


The Contents.- 

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

/ I 


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 


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 


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 

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 

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


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 

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

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

B 2 fccution, 


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 


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. 
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 Jnfiver to the firft 


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



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. 


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 


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 


14 The Anfwtr to the firfi Paper. 

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

[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 


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 


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 


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 

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 


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*- 


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 

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 

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 


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 


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 


The Anfwer t$ tbt fir ft Paper. 2 3 

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

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 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 


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. 


Mr. fohnfom fecond 


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 

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. 


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- 

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- 

To your Anfwer to my firft Syllogifm. 

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


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- 

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 


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- 

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 


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 


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! 


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 


$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- 


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. 


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 

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^- 


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 


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 


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, 


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- 

\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 


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 


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- 


&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, 


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 


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- 


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 
(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- 

. 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 


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- 

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, 


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, 


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 






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 

€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 





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









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 


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 

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. 


^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. 


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 

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. 

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 


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 


Worthy Sir, 

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


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) 


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 


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 

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 


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- 


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 


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- 


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 

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 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. 




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


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. 



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 ' 

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^ 


c K fflj to Mr. Johnfons feetnd fjpar. yp 

you Call 3 The Church xnitwr* 


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 






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 



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 


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 




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- 

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- 


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 


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 

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- 

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 


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 


"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 


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- 

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 


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^ 


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 


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 

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) 


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 


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- 

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- 

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 

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 


[ 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- 

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

See new hew little try rllfgatuns are to the 

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 


\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 


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

t, beyond all reafonable contradi&i, 

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> 


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 

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



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 


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 

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 




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 



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, 


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 

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 





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 


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* 


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 


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 

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. 


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- 

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. 


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- 

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 


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* 



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- 

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 


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 


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 



\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 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 


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- 


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 


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 


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 


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 


Ktflj t$ ftfr.JohntonsfecMdPtfer. 1 4 j 

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

. 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 


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 % 


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 


T15 j 



"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 



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 


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 



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- 

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- 


11 : 


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 



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

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


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 


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 


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- 


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 



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~ 


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 

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 


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 


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. 


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 


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 


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- 


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 


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 


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 



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- 

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 ' 

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.) 


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 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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- 


• 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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


"• 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 


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 


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 

May 18. 1659^ 

For Mr« William hhnfori. 



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. 



Printed in the year 1 660] 


: $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 


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- 

[.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 


of which wt Ate Members, frevtd. 101 

man in its Internal faith ^ but in its external 

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- 


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 


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 

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. 


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 



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 


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 

'£ 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 


20$ The fuceefsivc Vifibilitytf the Church 

tofincere inexiftence, is n^ceflary toialva* 

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 



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 

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 



*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 

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 

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 ! 


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 


$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 

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.) 


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 

Of the Fathers judgement of the Scri- 

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 


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 


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 


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 : 



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* 


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 

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 


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 ) 


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, & 


*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 


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- 


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 


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 

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 

So more plainly /. 4. contr. M.:rcion. c. 5. 
becaufe Mtrcion denied the true Scri- 
ptures, he fends them to the Apollo' ke 


% 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 : 


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 


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 


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 


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. 

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- 

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 


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- 

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 




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 



•/ 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- 





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 


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- 

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- 


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 


254 J ke ft4ccefsive Vifibilitj of the Church 

undue. 6. He perfwaded the . Bifhops of ' 
Alexandria and Antioch to give it to no man 

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- 

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; 

. 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 




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 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- 
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 


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 



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 


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 


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. 


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 

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 




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 

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 


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 


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 

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 



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- 

$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 

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 


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- 


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 

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 


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- 



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 


!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 


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 


*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 


, 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 

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 

. 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 


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. 


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 

[ 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- 

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- 


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 

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 


§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- 

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 

So Caffander himfelf, Epifi. 42. p. 1138. 
£l wouid not defpair of moderation , ii 



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 

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 


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 


Whether Hereticks are tn the Church. 

to be underftood by you, I (hall do my 


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 < 

3. Hereticks are either conviftand con- 
'demned, or fuch as never were tryed anc 

4. Hereticks condemned, are either con- 
demned by their proper Paftors , or b) 

,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- 

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- 

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 


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- 

I'rop 3. Such an Heretick convift and 


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' 

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. 


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 

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 


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 


3Q0 Whether Heretic ks are in we Chunk 

eo nomine to be condemned or acquit I 
third Church, but ufed as the evidence 

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 

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 


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 

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 

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 

0. Nor are they proved to be willfi 


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 


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 


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 

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 

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 


Some of the moll ufed Terms 



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- 




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. 


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 


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 



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* 

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- 


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- 

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 


* 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 


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- 

. 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 

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 

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 : 


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- 

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- 


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 


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 

Mr. J* 


Is an inttSi final obftinate oppofithn 
ugainft divine authority revealing, when 
it is fufficitntly propounded* 


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 

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 


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 


£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 


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 


£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. 

$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 


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- 

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. 


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 

Mr. J. 

Anfw. Such as bj approved cufiome, an 


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 


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 ? 


$u. 4. Is Confecration neceflary ? 
and by whom ad ejje ? Anfw, 

3 $6 Tbefe/tfe of the moft ufed terms difcufl. 


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. 



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 


thefenfe of the moft ufed firms difcaft. 337 

fhall know whac that general fignirieth. 

Mr. J. 

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- 

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 


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 

Mr. J. 


/ 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 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- 

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 

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. 


Thefenfe of the aw/? ufed terms difeuft. 

md as certain that he hath never proved 
ny fuch authority to call them, or confirm 

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. 


$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- 

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. 



/ 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 


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. 


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- 

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. 



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. 




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 

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 

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, 


Appendix. 357 

cannot by them be made neceflary to our 

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- 

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- 

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. 


Objeft. But if you own jour Ordination 
as from the Church of Rome, you own their 

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 


I would difown all the corruptions of them, 
but not the bapcifm and ordination it 


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 


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 


,$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. 



Written to 

Thomas Smith 

A Papift, Concerning the 
Church of Rome* 

L01^D0.N, Printed, 1660. 


> 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 


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. 



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. 


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 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 


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 


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 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 . 


Queft. 2. When Was it that the Church of 
Rome ceafed to be a true Church ? 

Bb 2 jinfto. 


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 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- 

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; 




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 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 


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 

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, 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 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 


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. 


The two following Letters, with the Nar- 
rative , are annexed only to fhew the 
effed: of the former. 


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 


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- 



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. 


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 


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, 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 

March 24. 165*. 

Tho* Smith* 



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 



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 



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 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 


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 : 


Tour affectionate friend 
to ferve you, 

T. S. 

For Mr. William Johnfon. 


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 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- 


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 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 





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.