^
J
Si
6
£
^*» ■
3
cd
SB ft
_l
ta
r-
« g
ti
-»-'
w O
k.
3
^ g
to
W M
o
^ «
■P
5« *»• ?>
+■* &
_0>
.a
3 3 %
**£
~o
o
CJ
&i
>*
**
Vf
4£
'<#)
Sc
£
11 ISO
y ~~^ \the atui'k'
Succeffivc VI
Jricc? — e-F THE 3^
CHURCH
OF
Which the Protestants
v are the founder! Members.
I. Defended againft the Oppofidon of
Mr. William febxfcr,.
I L Proved by many Arguments,
By Richard (Baxter.
Whereto is added* I. An account of my judgment to
Mi . J. boTvf.u Heretic fa aie or are not in the Church.
2. &tr. ]'. Explication of the moft uftd terms ^ with my
Qh'ic'j thereupon, and his An fivers and my 'Qeply*
2. /in Appcndi- about fuccejfive Ordination.
~ Lett 1 1 i between me, and T. S. a l J apift> with a Narrd-
tive of the fuccefs.
LONDON,
Printed by J?. W. for Nevil Simw oris Book-
fejler in Kederminfter, and are to be fold
by Francis Tjton at the thred
Daggers in fleet- ftreet. 1660.
V
i
CD
The Preface.
Reader,
F thou meet me at the
threfholdwich a ' W7;;zt
need any more agair,jl P
perj then is written ? I
mull anfwer thee, \ No
need, if all that is alrea-
dy written , were im-
proved. Nor were there need of any
writings, if men would not renounce they:
common fenfes. We cannot hope or pre-
tend, by any writings, to bring any contro-
verfieto a plainer, becter if tie, then to re-
folve it by the judgement of the common
fenfes of all the world; and yet this doth
not end the controversies between us and
the Papills ^ whether Bread be Bread, and
Winebz trine 7 whzn they are fcen,felt,taft-
A 3 cd,
(O
ecL &c. But foine writings are ufcfuU to
awake men to the ule of JReafcn^rA to help
them to improve their other helps. And,
as Seveca laith, JMuttum cgcrmt qui ant*
nos fnerunt •, fed non $ereger##t : fvfeifi-
endi tarxen funt~] Though I thought! had
jfaid enough before in three or four former
writings, yet the weight of the Q^ueftion
here debated , and the common ule thats
made of it by the Papifts, have perfwaded
me, that this alfo will be ufefull to the
Church.
And I rnuft confefs the moderation and
ingenuity of the Gentleman that I contend
with, did not only tempt me into the un-
dertaking at the firft , but alfo did incline
my thoughts to a publication ^ there being
here 'noftinking breath to annoy anddriyg
away the Reader. I have learned by expe-
rience, that its only prudent, charitable,
ftlf-denying, humble men, that are fit to be
engaged in controversies. We bring fire
to Gun-powder, when we deal with proud
malignant wrerches, (fuch as I havelately
had to do with,) that have fouls fofbr-
faken,and confidences fo feared, as that
they feemto make malicious lies, their glo-
v and delight. Seme think that the eon-
'tending with fuch, i$a needfully though an
unfavoury
(3)
mfavoury work : I confcfs.a Lyar Is not to
be encouraged, nor our juft reputation to
be prodigally caft away, or con tempt uoufly
neglefted. Duo funt necejfaria^ faith Ah-
guftine, ConfclentU & fama : Confcientia
propter Deum • fama propter proximum*
But for our /elves , Gods approbation is
enough j and for others , if Duty fatisfte
them not, contending will not.
JSacchdt bacchanti Ji veils adverfarier ,
Ex injana infanioremfacies^ ferietftpus,
faith Plaut.
If Truth make blinded men our enemies,
and the performance of our duty be our
greateft crime, and no purgation be lefc us
but by becoming erroneous or 'ungodly , its
not worth our labour to word it with fuch
men. Pride and Malice hearken not to
Reafon ; Apologies will not cure the envy
of a Cain y or the pride of a Diotrephes ,
or thehypbcrifie and perfecuting fury of a
Pharifee. But ( as Auguft. ) Confcientiam
walam laudantvs prtccnium non fanat^ncG
bonam vulnerat convitiurn. 3 Praife healeth
not an ill Conscience ^ and reproach cannot
wound d goodone. Confcience refpefts a
higher tribunal. Could a Calumniator be
believed, it were a imall thing to be judge-
cd by man : and
A 4 CwfcU
(4) '
ConfcU mens rcfti famt n fikteia ridet.
But when they make themselves theob-
Jefts" of the' common companion or deri-
iion, they fpare me the labour of a con-
futation; Its enough to fay with thePhilo-
fopher, £ Ego fie vivam^ut nemo Mi credat~]
\l will fo .live \ that no man (hall believe
him •, 3 when they themfelves will fo He
that no man ( or next to none ) fhall be-
lieve them. Its a far more neceffary and
profitable employment, to oppofe our Jins
then om accufers^ and to fee that we are
blamelefs, then that we are fo refuted : and
to efcape the testations of Satan y rather
then the calumnies of his instruments. Its
better this wind offend our cars, then guilt.
fhould wound our hearts. 'Penalty is hea-
vier then injurious perfecution, tccaufeof
its relation to guilt ; but culpability it fe!f
is worfe then both.
Jt&tia potefi demi; culpa perennis crlt.
Afcrs fackt certe, uefim , cum veneriv^
exul.
fSlenon peccdrew, mors qmq^ nonfaciet,
*-
. nd even when God hath fully pardoned
us.
(3)
u$ i LittiYii fatten extat. A foul that knows
the evil of fin , and feeth by fcith the
dreadful! Majefty -," and the judgement to
which he muft 'ftartd or fall, is taken up
with greater cafe*, then the defence of his
reputation with men - except as Gods ho-
nour, or the good of fouls may be concern,
ed in it.
Another thing that encouraged me to
this engagement was, that my Antagonift
feemed exceeding defirous of a dofe fyl-lo-
giftical way of arguing, which put me in
hope of a fpeedier and better ifTue, then
with wordy wandring Sophifters I could
expert. I never liked , either the feafts
that confilt of fawce and ceremony with
little meat-, or the bawling rooks, th^t
will not receive a bit without a troubisfcme
noiie
SedtticitHS pafci ft pojfet ccrviis^ hrferet
Phis 3ia6U% & ?ix* multo minus: inyHi&b\
Nor the prodigal covetoufnefs thatturns
the Cock when none requireth it { and
plucks up the flood-gates, and fets the mill
% going when there is no grift^ omnia vnlt
diccre, & nihil at'.dirc.
V/hen words are too cheap.it either proves-
them
(O
them worthlefs, or makes them fo efteem-
cd. Ihzfentencc of an Orator, and the ve-
ry Syllables of a Difputant fhould be (hort.
There (hould be no more dijhes then are ne-
.ceflary for the meat: nor no more ftraw
then isneceffary tofuftain the grain. Fru-
gality of fpeecb ? and ferinonem habere rebus
paremjdojhtw and wake our fpeeches valu-
able. Truth would be adorned , but not
covered : attended, but not crowded ; pro-
claimed, but not buried in an heap of words.
Arguments are like money, that is valuable
according to the mettal and the weight,
and not according to the number of pieces,
or curiolicy of the ftamp.
And a third thing that made me the
willinger to this task , was ^ that the
aflaults of Juglers, that thought to catch
me under the names and mask of Seekers,
Behmenifts, and fuch other fe&s, had pof
fefled me with fo much indignation and
diftafte , that I was glad to meet with a
bare-fac't Papift, that was not afhamed of
his Religion, but would profefs himfelf to
be what he is. I could never hear that the
Papifts won fo many, and fo confiderable
perfons this threefcore years, by open deal-
ings I have caufe to think they have won
by fraud under the vizor of Seekers, and
Sectaries,
(7)
Sectaries, within a few years paft. I fear
no papifts, but Proteftant Papifts, chat come
to Church, and take the paths of Suprema-
cy and Allegiance, as many did the en-
gagement but a while ago-, or that wear
feme other vizor of diffimuiation. Hypo-
crifie is nowhere fo odious as in Religion,
where men have to do with a heart fetch-
ing God, and deal in matters of everlafting
confequence. He hath no Religion ■, that
thinks it his duty to lie for his Religion,
For he hath no Religion that believeth nc
in God. And he that believeth him to be
a Lover of Lies, believeth not that he is
God. Verba (inq. Auguft.y propterea In-
ftituta fi*nt , non pit per ea fe invicem homi-
nes fallant^ fed ut eit qnifque in rtteriu* no-
ticiam cogitationes f Has prof erat ,~\ Verbis ergo
uti adfa/laciam, non adqnod fant inftituta^
feccatum eft. — -*- Lvnge tamen tclera-
bilius eft) in his qua, h religione fidei fejun-
lUzfunt mentiri, quant in his, &c. 3_T rut h
is great, (and the greateft advantage to a
Difputant:) and willatlaft prevail. Ly-
ing is a remedy that needeth a remedy • eaf-
ing for the time by palliation, but much
increafmg the difeafe. " Magna eft viis
Veritatis quA contra omnium ingenla, calli-
ditatem > fohrtiam, contra fiftas hominum
injidias.
(S)
infidias, facile fe per iff am defendit y faith
Seneca.
Three Queftiojis about Pppe&y bayeput
thewqrldto.much difpute,, Qu. i". whe-
ther it b$ the tight jwd .fafe j Religion ?
2. V/hethwit may he folerapcAi . -.5. TV/??-
fAffi it be our dutytb enter , intp.recmciUation
and communion with the Papift, (though not
iubjeCtionJ andon what terms?
The firft I have debated m this and divers
oeh^r writings , ( viz. three Disputations,
called the fafe Religkn, a Key for Catholikes,
&:c. awhrtding'JJjeet for Popery, and the true
Cathohke, and Cathe like Church dijeribed.)
It is one of the reproaches of humane na-
ture, that ever it could, be. corrupted into f j
fenflefs, unreafonable., impious, uncharita-
ble a thing as Popery : And one of the pro-
digies of mifery, in the world,, that any fave
one that Inguinis & capitis qua fmt difcri-
minanefcit, ihould be*iully, and feriouflya
Papift.
But four things I find are the pillars of
their Church, and propagates their corru-
ptions.- 1. One is the love of themfelves
and of the world in unfan&ified hearts :
which makes them be of the Religion of
their Rulers ; and refolve to be of no Re-
ligion that fliall undo them in the world :
And
(9)
And therefore to efcape reproach, and tor-
ment, and death, they will do any thing, and
as they fpeak^wilffrtf/? God with their fouls,
rather then men with' ~ their bodies : The
meaning is, they will rather venture on the
wrath of God, thenoffadh^ and fave their
bodies, then their fouls ; ahd fecure this life
(as long as they can) then life everlafting.
2. Another is" Cuftom and Education ,
poflefling men with' blinding ftupifying pre-
judice , together with. a' contempt of truth
and happineft , that keepeth fluggifh fouls
from that diligent fearch and tryal that is
neceflary to a conqueft of that temptation,
and to a faving entertainment of the truth.
And the name and reverence of their fore-
fathers, emboldeneth them againft the name
and reverence of God. Adeb ct teneris tffu-
efcere multum efi. Saith Seneca , inter
caufas malar um eft quodvivimus ad exempla,
nee ratione componimur, fed confuetudine ab-
ducimurJ Qfod ft paucifacerent, nclumus
imitari ; quum plures'facere caperunt, qua ft
honeftiiu fit, quia frequentius fequimur, &
retti apud nes locum ten'ef error, ubi publicus
fattm eft. Not what God faith, but what
wan doth, is made the rule of this humane
apifh kind of Religion. And fo the Tyrant
Cultom ruleth them ; £t graviffmum eft
imperiam
do)
imperium confuetudinis^ Senec. Education
difciplina meres facit : & id fapit mpifquif-
que quod didicit : Id.
3. Another caufe is fuperftitious fears
which the falfe doftrins of Purgatory, and
no falvation out of their Church, &c. have
cart into mens minds. The Priefts rule their
fubjefts, as one of their Captains ruled the
Thracians, by making ladders, and making
tnem believe he would climb up to Juno to
complain of them.
4. And it is not the leaft fupport of Po-
pery, that it maketh light of heynous fins,
is fornication, drunkennefs, fwearing, for-
fwcaring, lying, equivocation, &c. and pro-
videth for them the eafie remedies of con-
feflion, and fuch gentle pennance as the fa -
gacious tradable Prieft fhall impofe. But
holy water will not wafh out their fpots.
God judgeth not as the pope or Mafs Prieft.
Let no man deceive you ^ith vain words : for
fuch things t (as fornication, uncleannefs^ fil-
ihinefs,foolijh talking, &cj cometh the wrath
cf Cjod on the children of dif obedience, Eph. 5.
3,5,6. For all the flatteries of indulgences,
and pardons, and the name of Venial fin, yet
tonfeience hath not pardoned all that is par-
doned by the Pope, And,
Prima
prima eft h*c Piltio, quodfe
ftidice nemo weens abjolvitur
And its no great eafc to have an external
pardon, and neither an Eternal , nor Inter*
%*l ^ but Nctte diequefuum geftart inpeBore
teftew. How many nuift be damned by
Chrift , that were pardoned by the Vice-
chrift.
£lt4. 2. And for the fecond Queftion,
about the Toleration of Popery, let him that
defireth it, but procure a Toleration of the
Proteftant Profeffion in Spain, Italy, Bava-
ria, j4t<firia,&cc- and tnenl undertake to
give him a fatisfa&ory anfwer of this que-
stion. In the mean time, I fhall only fay as
Seneca, Nemo ex imprudent thus eft qui relin-
<qui ftbi dekeat : cfpccially men that re-
nounce all their fenfes and reafen fo far, as
not to believe that bread is bread, and wine
is wine, fhould not be left without a guar-
dian. But in general, we muft on one hand
avoid inhumane cruelty ( and leave them
tbo/e means that are fuited to their caufe.-,)
and on the other hand we muft take heed
that we betray not the Gofpel and the fouls
of men, to the fubtilty and pernitious fraud
of trained deceivers. We muft vigilantly
and firenuoufly defend? though we muifc
tenderly
(I*)
tenderly dnd fparingly offend, any further
-then is neceffary to fuch defence.
^^. 3. And for the third queftion, a-
bout Reconciliation, I have fpoken to it, and
offered the terms in other writings (elpeci-
ally my Kcjfor Catholikes) I only add now,
that the Peacemakers no doubt ere buffed-,
and if it be y.trlfiklejM much as in its Ijetb^ we
muft live peaceably withallmen. But for the
terms, we cannot poflibly meet every cor-
rupted party half way in their fins and "er-
rors, that we may be friends. Let us hold
to the immutable fttfficiettt Rale , indited by
the HdyGhofi,. and judge of all that fiygrye
from it, according to the degree of elixir
deviation, and unite in the ancient fimpUcity
of Do&rine, Worfhip , and Government,
and lay our unity only on things neceffary •
lor whofoever devifeth any other Rule and
terms of unity then thefe, {hall never attain
it, but raife up a new Se&, and encreafe our
wounds. I am as much, for unity as ever
wasCajfander, Erafmus^Grotim^ or any of
the Reconcilers ; Buc I am certain that to
fubferibe to the Trent Decrees and Greedy
and to turn Papift , or Semi-Papift, or par-
ticipate of ; any fin for peace, is not the way,
Ler fpme plead for all the Greek corrupti-
on^ arnd fome for the Popes fupremacy. re-,
gulated
(13)
gulatcdby Canons • and fomefor his meer
Primacy as frincifinm ttnitatis , and his
Government of all the Weft as Parriark^
let them digladiate about a Pope and Coun-
cil, as wifely as Greece and Troy did fight ten
years for a beautiiul whore ^ 1 am fure that
none of thefe are the way to the Churches
Unity and peace (as 1 have opened in my
defcription of the true achohke Church)
Nor will their deiign be more futceffefuL
that would fo difcordantiy agree us all wuh
the firit three hundred years, as to d.ny the
firft hundred, or two hundred to be our pat-
tern, and to make all the forms and ceremo-
nies to beneceflary toour concord, which
the third or fourth Century ufed but as
things indifferent, with diveriity and muta-
tion, and mutual forbearance.
But of the terms of Catholtkj Vnitj, I
havefpoken,asinthe forecited papers, fo in
a Pacificatory Letter of the XVurcefterfhire
Mirny ers to Mr. J. Dury : and if God will,
ftiall do it yet more fully.
And of the evils in Popery, that move
me to diftaft it, having given a BrevUte in
an Epiftle before another mans Book,
which I perceive isfeen of very few, I (hall
here annex fo much of that Epiitle, as is per-
tinent to the prefent bufinefs.
( a ) Ruder s 7
(14)
Readers,
"\ j\ ; Ere not the Judgements of God fo
V * dreaaf till, and infatuation fo lamen-
table In matters of ever I a fling confequence ,
and fin fo odious , and the calamities of the
Churchy the di (honour of God, and the Dam-
nation of Souls fuch deplorable things , as to-
lerate not a laughter in the flanders by , it
would feem one of themofl ridiculous things
in the World, that a man of feeming Vrifdom
fljould be a Papift-, and that fo many Princes ,
and learned then ,with the vulgar multitude \
Jbould be able fo far to renounce or intoxi-
cate their Reafon while they are awa^e ; ,
And a Papift would be defcribedjo be one that
fets up his under ft andingto be the laughing-
fi 0C K °f the fober rational World. There
are abundance of Controverfies among Phy-
fitians that concern mens lives ; and yet I
have heard of none fo vain^as to fief forth and
challenge the Authority of being the univer-
fal Decider of them, or to charge God Vvitb
felly or everflght, if he have not appointed
fome fuch univerfal Judge in the World, to
end all (fentrcverftes in matters of fuch
weight. But if in Phylick's, Law, cr any
of
of the Sciences, the C ontr over fie sjhould be ne-
ver fo many or fo great , if jet you could
refolve them into fenfe it felf, and bring atf.
to the judgement of mens eyes, and»ears, and
tafte, andfeeling,who would not laugh or bits
at him that would fiill make them the matters
offcrious doubts}
The papift? finding that man is yetimper-
fett, and knoweth but in part, and that in the
Sc ripture there are lome things are hard 10
be understood, and that Earth hath not fo
much Light as Heaven , imagine that hereby
the j have a fair advantage to plead for an
univerfal terrcfirial Judge, and to reproach
God, if he have appointed none fuch , and
next to plead that their Pope or his approved
Councils wufi needs have this Authority.
And when they come to the Decifion^ they are
not afvamed to fee after fo many hunared *
years pretentions, that the World is but baffled
with the empty name of a Judge ofConcro-
verfies, and that Difficulties art no lefs Dif-
ficulties fiill, and Controversies are nowhere
fo voluminous 06 with them. But this is A
fmall matter with them. Thtir Judge feems
much wifer when he is filent y then when he
fpe*kj- When he comes to' a Deeifun, a>,>J
formethuptheribj the Hodge-podge of Po-
pery, they feem mt to fmile at, nor be afiamed
(ai) cf
m*
do
of the Pitture which they have drawn^which
is y of an Harlot fhewing her nakednefs, and
committing her lewdnefs in the of en AJfem-
blies, in the ficrht of the Sun. They openly
proclaim their {hame againfi the light of all
the acknowledged Principles in the World,
their owner others, and in oppojiti&n to all y
or almoft all that is commendable among men.
The charge feems high, but ( in afeV9 words)
take the proof.
J. They confefs the Scripture to be the
Word of God : find yet Vvhen we would appeal
to that as the Rule of Faith and Life, or as a
divine Revelation, in our Difputes, they fly
off, and tell us of its obfeurity, and the necef-
ftty of a fudge. If they meet with a Hoc eft
corpus meum, they feem for a while to be
zealous for the Scripture : But tell them
that Paul in i Cor. 1 1 . 26, 27, 28. doth call
it Bread after the Confecration, nolefs than
three times in the three next Verfes, and then
Scripture isnon-fenfe to them till the Pope
wake fenfe of it. It is one of their principal
labours againfi us, to argue againfi the Scrip-
tures fufftciency to thisufe. By no means can
we prevail with them to ft and to the Decijion
of the Scripture.
2. They exceffively cry up the Church 3 and
appeal to its Decijion ; and therefore we might
hope,
07)
hope, that here if anywhere , we might have
fome hold of them. But -when it comes to
the Point ^they not only difownthe judgement
of the Churchy but impudently call Chrift's
Spoufe a Strumpet, and cut off ( in their n>% -
charitable imagination) two or three parts
of the univerfal Church as Hereticks or Schif-
maticks. The judgement of the Churches
in Armenia, Ethiopia , Egypt, Syria, the
Greeks, and many more be fides the Reformed
Churches in the Weft, is againfi their Popes
univerfal Vicarfhip or Soveraignty , and
many of their Errours that depend thereon :
And yet their judgement is not regarded by
this FatHon. And if a third or fourth part
( fuchas it is) of the Univerfal Church,
way cry up themfelvei as the £hurch to be
appealed to, and condemn the far greater part \
Vvhy may not a tenth or a twentieth part do
the like ? Why may not the Donariits , the
Novatians, or the Greeks {much more) do fo
at ??f//^Papifts?
3. They cry np Tradition. And when we
ask^them, Howwe Jh,ill know it , and Where
it is to be found, they tell ns, principally in the
profeffion andprallice of the frefent Church.
. And yet when two or three farts of the uni-
verfal Church profefs that Tradition is
againfi the Papal Monarchy, and ether Pants
( a 3 ) depend-
(I*)
depending on it 9 they cafi Tradition behind
their backs.
4. They cry up the fathers : and when we
bring their judgements sgainfl the fub /lance
of Popery , they Sometime vilifie or accufe
them as erroneous, and fometime tell us, that
Fathers ojs well as Scripture mufi be no other-
-wife under fiood, than their Church expound-
cth them.
%. They plead for an appeal to Councils^W
(though we eafily prove that none of them
were univcrfal,yetfuch as they were) they
call them all Reprobate, which were not ap-
proved by their Tope, let the number of Bi~
fljops there be never fe great. And thofe that
were approved, if they fpeaf^againfi them, they
rejeEl a/fo, either wtfh lying fbijts denying
the approbation, or faying , the dels are nut
defide, tfr^fconciliariterfafta, orthefenfe
w&fi be given by their prefent Church, or
cxe fuch contemptible Jhft or other.
6. At leajl one would thinks they Jhould
fiand to the judgement of the Pope, which yet
they will not ' for /Same forbids them to own
the Dottrine of thofe Popes that were Here-
ticks or Infidels ( and by Councils fo judged:)
And others they are forced to dif own, becaufe
they contraditl their Predecejfors. And At
Rome the Cardinals are the Pope, while he
that
dp)
that hath the n;tme is oft made light cf. And
hew infallible he is judged by the French and
ji* Venetians ^ hoVpSixtm the fifth tyAsva-
luedby /•£? Spaniards, ,W by Bellarmine, is
commonly known.
7. But all this it nothing to their renunci-
ation ^humanity, even of the common fenfes
and rcafon of the world, when the matter
is brought to the Decifion of their eyes, and
tafie, and feelings whether Bread be Bread,
and Wine be Wine - and jet all Italy, Spa n ,
Auftria,Bravaria, &c. cannot refolve it ;
yta y generally (unlefs fome latent Protefianr)
do pafs their judgement againfl their fenfes ,
& the fenfes of all found men in the JYcrld^&
that not in a matter beyond the reach offenfe
(as Whether Chrilt be there fpiritually)but in
a matter belonging to fenfe, if any thing be-
long to it . as whether Bread be bread, &c.
Kings and Nobles y Prelates and Priefls^do all
give their judgement y that all their fenfes
arc deceived* And is it poffible for thefe men
then to know any thing ? or any controver,
between m and them to be decided ? If we fry
that the Sun is lighter that the Pope is 4 m.m,
and Scripture legible, or that there are the
Writings of Councils and Fathers extant in
the World >t hey m*y as well concur in a deny /.I
of all this, or any thing elfe that fenfe fbould
(a 4) judge
do)
judge of. If they tell us that Scripture re-
quireththem to contradict all th?ir fenfes in
this pint ; I anfwcr,
J. Not that Scripture before mentionedjhat
calleth it [[Bread] after the Confecration ,
thrice in the three ntxt Vrrfes.
l.Andhowknowthty that there isfuch a
Scrip -pre, if M their fenfes be fo fallible ?
Jf the certainty of fenfe be not fuppofed, a
little learning or Vrit might fatisfie them,
that Faith can have no certainty. But is it
not amoft dreadful judgement of God^ that
Princes «nd Nations, Learned men^and fome
that in their Voay are confcientious^ Jhould be
given ever to fo much inhumanity , and to
make a Religion cf this brutifhnefs , ( and
wor/e) and toferfecute thefe with Fire and
Sword, that ate not fo far forfaken by God^
and by their reafeni and that they fhould fe
folic it a- fly labour the perverjion of States
and Kingdoms for the promoting of ftupidity
crftark^madnefs ?
8. And (if we go from their Principles to
their Ends, or Wayes^ we Jhall foon fee that )
they are alfo again ft the Unity of the Church,
while they pretend this M their chief eft Argu-
gument, to draw men to their way. They fet
tip a corrupted Fattion, and condemn the far
greater part of the Church ^ and will have
no
n$ unity With any but thcfe of their own Ft-
flion and Subjettion : and fix this as an effen*
tial fart of their Religion, creating thereby
an impoffibility of univerfal concord.
9-Thty alfo contraditt the Experience of
many thoufand Saints •> averting that they
are all void of the Love of God and fating
Grace, till they become fubjeSi to the Pope of
Rome ^ when as the Souls of thefe Believers
have Experience of the Love of God within
them, and feel that Grace that proveth their
Jufiifcation. I wonder what kind of thing it
is that is<alled Love or Holinefj in a Papifi,
Tchich Protefiants another Chriftians have
not, and What is the difference.
10. The) are mofi notorious Enemies to
Charity , condemning mofi of the Chriftian
world to He 11, for being out of their J objection.
1 1. They are notorious Enemies t& Know-
ledge under pretence of Obedience and Uni-
ty, and avoiding Herefie. They celebrate
their Worfiip in a Language not under flood
by the vulgar Worflnppers. They hinder the
People from Reading the holy Scriptures,
(which the ancient Father s exhorted men and
women to, as an ordinary thing. ) The quality
of their Pri fts and People, teftifies this.
12. They oppofethe Purity of divine Wor-
(hip, fitting pip a multitude of humane In-
ventions
(« )
ventionsinftead thereof, and idolatroufly{for
mlefs can be f aid of it ) adoring a piece of
confecraced Bread as their God.
1 3 . They are Oppofers e/Holinefs, both by
the forefaid enmity to Knowledge^ Charity,
and purity of JY or Jhip, and by many unholy
Dottrines , and by deluding Souls with an
outfide hifirionicallway of Religion, never re-
quired by the Lord, confifting in a multitude
of Ceremonies, and worflnpping of Angels,
and the Souls of Saints, and Images, and
Crojfes, &c. Let experience fpeak^ how much
the Life of Ho line fs is promoted by them.
9 1<\>-They are Enemies to common Honefty,
' teaching the Do&rines of Equivocations and
JHental Refervations , and making many hai-
nous fins venial , and many of the mo ft odi-
ous fins to be Duties, as killing Kings that
are excommunicated by the Pope, taking Oaths
with the forefaid Refervations, and breaking
them,&cc. For the Jefuits Dottrine,Montal-
tus the Janfenift, and many of the French
Clergy have pretty well opened it : And the
Tefe himfelf hath lately been fain to publifh
a condemnation of their Apology. And yet
the power and inter eft of the Jefuites and their
followers amnng them, it not altogether un-
known to the 'World.
i. 15. They are Enemies to Civil Peace and
i Government,
<»3)
Government, {if there be any fuch in tkt
World) as their DotTrine and Practice of
killing and depofing excommunicate Princes,
breaking Oaths, &c. /hews. Bellarmine that
will go a middle w.:y, gives the Pope power
in ordine ad fpiritualia , and indiretlly, t3
difpofe of Kingdoms, and tells usjhat it U un-
law full to tolerate Heretical Kings that pro-
pagate their Herefie, _( that is, the ancient
Faith.) HeWwell Dotlor Heylin hath vin-
dicated their Council of Laterane in this,
( whofe Decrees ftand as a Monument of the
horrid treafonable Dottrine of the Papifis ) I
Jhall, if Godwill, hereafter manifefi : Jn the
mean time Jet any man read the Words of the
Council, and fudge.
And now whether a Religion that is at fuch
open enmity with i .Scripture, 2, The Church,
3. Tradition , 4. Fathers, 5. Councils ,6. Some
Popes, 7. The common fenfes and Reafon of aE
the World, eventheir own, 8. V nity tf/Chri-
ftians, 9. Knowledge, ic. Experience of
Believers, I 1 . Charity, M. Purity ofWorflAp,
1 3 . Holinefs, i ^.Common Hunefiy, 1 $.And
to Civil Government and Peace {which might
all eafily be fully proved, though here but
touched ) / (ay , whether fuch a Religion
fhould be embraced and advanced With fuch
diligence and violence, and mens fouls laid
upon
(*4)
Mpon it, is the controverfie before us. And
whether it fhould be tolerated {even the pro"
fagation of it, to the damnation of the peoples
fouls) is mw the Jjtueftion which the juggling
Papifts havefet afoot among thofe that have
made themf elves our Rulers : and. there are
found men among us , that call themf elves
Proteftants<W£0d/7, that plead for thefaid
Toleration ; ( andconfequently for the deli-
vering up of thefe Nations to ropery \ if not
r<?Spanifh,6r other f err zign Powers) which
if they effeQ > and after their contrary Pro-
feffionS) prove fuch Traitors to Chrift, his
Gofpel and their pofterity, as they leave the
Land of their Nativity in mifery, they fhall
leave their fiinking names for a reproach and
curfe to future Generations -, and on fuch
Pillars fhall be written, Q This pride, felf-
feeking, uncharitablenefs, and fchifm hath
done. ]
( This was written and printed under the
late Ufurpers, )
Poftfcrift.
(*5)
Poftjcrift.
Redder^
T Hough the Papifts have feemed to be
the moft difcountenanced party under
:he late Ufurpers^and to have no intereft or
x>wer,yet I have ftill found, that thofe fped
vorft from men , that were moft againft
;hem ^ and that I never wrote any book
igainft them, but it brought a (harper ftorm
upon me,then any thing that I wrote againft
my other Sed that was more vifibly in po-
wer. And yet it was not openly profefled.
to be for my oppofition to Popery, but on
fome other account : and though the foun-
tain by the tafte of the waters, might be
known, yet it felf and fecrct condu&s were
all underground and undifcernable. The
Jefuits that are the fpring of thefe, and
greater things then thefe, are latent, and
their motion is not feen, while we fee the
motions which are caufcd by their fecret
force. So that by this means its only thofe
few inquifitive difcerning perfons, that can
feeacaulein its effed", that find them out:
and thofe few are unable to make full proof,
even of the things they know , and thereby
are
• are prohibited from appearing openly in the
caufe, left coming (hort in legal proof, they
leave the guilty triumphing over the inno-
cent as calumniators. lor the laft book
that I wrote againft them {My Kejfcr Ca-
t hoi ikes) theParliamenr-houfe it felf, and all
the land did ring of my accufations • and the
menaces were fo high, that my intended
ruine was the common talk. And I know
their Indignation is not abated. My crime
is, that their zeal to profely te me, harh ac-
quainted me with fome of their fecrecs, and
let me know what the Jefuits are doing, and
how great a party that are masked under
the name of Seekers , Famillfis, &c. they
have in the land. I have therefore Reader,
this double requeft to thee : Firft, arm thy
felf diligently againft Popery , if thou
would'ft preferve thy Religion and thy foul
Whatever Sedsaflault thee openly, fufped:
and avoid the difeafe that is endeavouring
with greateft advantages to be Epidemical.
To thread, be well ftudied in the writings
that have opened their vanity and fhamc :
I hope, what I have written on that fubjeft,
will not be ufelefs to them that are not at
leifure to read the larger volumes. Read
Dr. Challoners Credo JanBam Ecclefium Ca.
tholkam. Peter Monlins Anfwer to Cotton*
Queftions
(*7>
Queftionsi And for larger Volumes, Vfb'er,
Chillingrvorth^ Field, Whittakers, efpecially
de Pomif. Roman, may be numbered with
the moft folid, judicious and ufeful; And Dr.
Afouline of the Novelty of Popery now in
the prefs , with Rivet , and Chamier , to
add no more.
And if ever thou fall in company with
Seekers, or Famlifts, that are queftioning
all things, and endeavouring to difparage
the holy Scriptures, and the Miniilry, and
Church, and Ordinances^ though but in a
queftioning way, look then to thy Religion,
and fufpeft a Papift : Secondly , becaufe
experience hath taught me to exped: that
my renewed affault of Popery {hould raife
fomeftorm,and renew my dangers, (though
I know not which way it will come, and ex-
ped it (hould be upon pretence of fome-
thing that is no kin to the real caufej let
him that hath been fo exceedingly beholden
to the fervants of Chrift for prayers, have
thy prayers in particular for this, that he
may befatished in Gods approbation, and
count it a fmai!n;atter to be cenfured by
man, or to fuffer thofe fotc and harmlefs
ftroaks, that tlu impotent armofflefh can
inflid • and may live and dye in the Army
of believers, delcribed Hel. u,and iz.
and
U8)
and be fo far prefcrved from the contri-
vances of malice , as is needful to his ap-
pointed work ; in which it is the top of his
ambition to be found
A faithful, though unworthy fer-
vant of Chrififor his Churchy
Rich. Baxter.
The
w
V
*wS^Sw^wJ.w?.w5!^J
The Contents.
The firft Part.
Mr. Johnfons Argument profecnud^ t$
pag. 6
Mj Anfwer. 7 to 26
Mr. Jobnfons fecond Paper. 27
Ws attempt U prove thefucceffion of the Ko~
mznSoveraigntj. 49 to the end.
My letter to the fender of his. 68
M] Reply to the fecond Paper. 77
On which tfut the Proof is incumbent. 87
Of the Eaftern and Southern Churches-.
94, 95, &c.
Whether Vre are one Church with them cf
Rome. 107, &c.
Cf our Reparation. 1 07
Whether the Armenians, Ethiopians, Syrians,
&c. are excluded as Heretic\s ? 113
The inftance of an Appeal of John 0/ Ant*< ch
refuted. 1 z 7
(b) The
i
The Contents.
The infiance of Flavianus Appeal refuted-
129
Of Leo's pretended reftoring Theodoret upon
Appeal. 132
Of Cyprians defire that Stephen -would depofe
Martian Bifhop of Aries. 133
A pretended Decree of the Council of Sardis
examined. 135
Bafils -words Epifi. 74. examined . 138
Chryfoftoms words to Innocent. 140
A pretended Proof from the Council of Ephe-
lus confuted. •'- 141
Of the address to? ope Julius/^ Athanafius
and the Arrians. 143
Chamiers words hereabout. 146
Of Chryfoftoms cafe. 147
Of Theodofks and the ConclL Ephef.
152
Of the Council of Calccdon. 1 54
Of Pope Agapet depofing Anthymius of Con-
ftantinople. n 159
Of Gregories words. 1 60
Of Cyril and Celeftine againfi Neftorius.
161
Of Juvenals words. 163
Of Valentinians and Theodofius words.
164.
Of Vincentius Lirinenfis words. 169
of
inc v^on tenia.
Of Philip and Arcadius at ConciL Ephcfus.
170
The nullity of all thefe fretended Proofs.
Whether Papifis give , and Popes accept
the Title of Vice-Chrifi , Monarchy &c.
175 to 188
Of the Contefi of Councils for the Rule.
188
yfcfr. Johnfons work^ to which his caufe en-
gagethhim. 191
The Concents of the fccond Part.
Qtt;\V7 Hether the Church of which the
Proteflants are members have been
vifible ever fince the daies of Chrifl on
earth} Aff.
The Church what. 1 9j
Proteftants what . 198
Of Membcrfhip,^ Vifibility. 201
The firfi Argument, to prove the fucceffive
Vifibilitj. 204
The fccond Argument. 209
PapifisTefiimonies for the fufficiencji of Scri-
pture as the RuU. 219
(b 2) Some
The Contents.'
Some cf the Fathers cf the fame. 22 f
Where was our Church, 225
The true Catholike Church ^how defcribedbj
Auguftine. 227
Optacus. 231
Tertullian. 232
The third Argument. 238
The fourth Argument. 241, 242
Arguments proving* the Vijibility of *
Church without the Papacy , fince Chrift.
Argument firfi y from the Council of Cal-
cedon. 242
Argument 2. From the filence of the An-
cients in cafes where the allegation of the
Papal poster would have been mo ft perti-
nent and necejfarj. 244
Argument 3 . From the Tradition and Te-
ftimeny of the greatefl part of the Church.
248
Argument 4. From the Churches without
the verge of the Empire, not fubjett to the
Pope. 249
Argument 5. From the Eaftern Churches
within the Empire , not fubjeEls of the Pope.
251
Argument 6. From the full Tefiimony of
Gregory the firft, p. 252, &c. defended
againjl Bellarminc*
Argument
The Content*.
Argument 7. From the Confeffton of chief
Papifts. -firms Sylviys, Mtlchior Ca*
nus, Reyncrius. 267
Argument 8. From Hiftorical Teftimonj
about the Original of Vniverfal Headfhrp.
269
Argument 9. The generality of Chriftians
in the fir ft ages^ ana mo ft in the Utter ', free
from owning the Tupac y. 271
Argument 10. Moft Chriftians in all ages
ignorant of Popery. 275
Objed. The Armenians, Greeks, &c. difftr
from P rot eft ants : Anfaered. 280
MifcelUny confiderable TeftlmcttiJ. 288
Mr. Johnfons exception. 292
My Anfwer to hi* exception, Jhewing in what
fenfe Here ticks are , or are noc in the
Churchy apply ed to the Eaftern and Sou-
them Churches. 293 ,&c.
Mr. Johnfons Explication of the moft ufed
terms, withmj j^uere's there upon , and his
Anfwer , and m j Reply. 1. Of the Church.
2. Of Here fie. 3 24, &c.
3. Of the Pope. 3 30,&c.
4; Of Bifhops. 337
5- Of Tradition. v 342
Of General Councils. 345
t.ef
The Contents.-
Letters between me WT.S. aFafift-.witk
"Narrative of the f*ccej * writt* hg
friend.
/ I
ERRATA.
DAgc 17*. L 14* for it r. ffetf. p.179* llA t. Praferi.
*■ p. 117. 1 **• *• ^cej^tate. p. 271. 1, f • r. JEtt&jfci
Mr. fohnfons firft
Paper,
jMp Hf Church of Chrift^ wherein
only Solvation is to be had,
never was nor u any other then
thofe Affembnes of Christi-
ans who were united in com-
munion and obedience to S>
Peter in the beginning fmcc the Afcen(ion of
Chrift, And ever fince to his lawful fuc-
cejfors, the*BiJhopsof Rome, as to their chief
Faftor.
Proof.
Whatfoever Congregation of Chriftians
is now the true Church of Chrift , acknow-
ledges S. Teter and his lawful fucceffors
the Bifhops of Rome , ever fince the Afcen-
fion of Chrift te have been • and now co
be by the Inftitution of Chrift, their chief
B Head
Mr. Johnfons firfi Paper.
Head and Governour on earth in matters
belonging to the foul next under Chrift.
But there is no falvation to be had out
of that Congregation of Chriftians, which
is now the true Church of Chrift;
Erge^ there is no falvation to be had out
of that Congregation of Chriftians which
acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful fuc-
cefTors the Biftiops of Rome ever to have
been fince the Afcenfion of Chrift ; and
now to be by the Inftitution of Chrift their
chief Head and Governour on earth in
matters belonging to the foul next under
Chrift.
The Minor is clear •, For all Chriftians
agre : e in this, that to be faved, it is necefTary
to be in the true Church of Chrift • that
only being his myftical Body, Spoufe and
Mother of the faithful, to which muft be-
long all thofe who ever have been, are, or
fhall be faved.
The Major I prove thus.
Whatfoever Congregation of Chriftians
is mw the true Church of Chrift, hath been
alwaics vifible fince the time of Chrift ,
either under perfecution, or in peace and
flourifhing.
But no Congregation of Chriftians hath
been alwaies viiible fince the time of Chrift,
cither
Mr. Johnfons fir ft Paperl
either under perfecution or in peace and
flouriftiing, fave that only which acknow-
ledges S. Peter znd his lawful Aicceflbrs
the Bifhops of Rome , ever to have been
fince the Afcenfion of Chrift ; and now
to be by Chrifts Inltitution , their chief
Head and Governour on earth, in matters
belonging to the foul next under Chrift.
Ergo, whatfoever Congregation of Chri-
ftiansis now the true Church of Chrift, ac-
knowledges St. Peter, and his lawful fuc-
ceflbrs the Biftiops of Rome , ever to have
been fince the Afcenfion of Chrift'} and
now to be by Chrifts Inftitution their chief
Head and Governour on earth, in matters
belonging to the foul, next under Chrift.
The Major is proved thus.
•Whatfoever Congregation of Chriftians
hath alwaies had vifible Paftors and People
uniteji, hath alwaies been vifible , either
under perfecution , or in peace and
flo.uriftiing.
But whatfoever Congregation of Chri-
ftians is now the true Chu rch of Chrift, hath
alwaies had vilible Paftors and People
united.
Ergo, whatfoever Congregation of Chri-
ftians is now the true Church of Chrift,
hath alwaies been vifible, either under per-
B 2 fccution,
-Z--TT
Mr. Johnfons fir ft Paper.
fecution, or in peace and flourifliing.
The Major of thislaft Sylogifm is evident,
for feeing a vifible Church is nothing but a
vifible Paftor and people united : where
there havealwaies been vifible Paftors and
people ttnited y there hath alwaies been a
vifible Church.
The Minor I prove from Ephefians, cap.
4. ver. 10, 11, 12,13, i^&c.
Where S. 7aul faies , that Chrift had
Inftitured, that there (hould be Paftors and
Teachers in the Church for the work of the
Miniftry , and prefer ving the people under
their refpeftive charges from being carried
away with every wind of dodrine, &c
which evidently (hews, thofe Paftors muft
be vifible, feeing the work of the Miniftry,
which Preaching, and Adminiftracion of
Sacraments, and Governing their flocks,
are all external and vifible a&ions. And
this (hews likewife, that thofe Paftors and
People muft be alwaies vifible, becaufe they
are to continue from Chrifts Afcenfion,
untill we all meet together in the unity of
faith, &c which cannot be before the day
of judgement.
Neither can it befaid (asfomefay) that
this promife of Chrift is only conditional,
fince to put it to be fo without evident
Reafon,
cJWr. John Con s firft Paper.
Reafon, giveth fcope to every one at his
pleafure, to make every other promife of
Chnft to be condicional. And fo we (hall
be certain of nothing that Chrift hath pro-
mifed, neither that (hall aiwaics beavifible
or invifible Church, nor any Church at all ^
no nor of Judgement, nor of Eternal life,
or of the Refurre&ion of the dead, &c
for one may fay with as much ground, as
this is faid, that fome conditions were in-
cluded in all thofe promifes, which being
not fulfilled, hinders the execution of them.
There remains only, to prove the Minor
ofthefecondSylogifm,^/*,. That no Con.
gregation of Chriftians hath been alwaies
vifiblc, &c. fave that which acknowledges
S. Peter , and his lawful fuccefTors , &c.
to be their chief Head and Governour, &c.
next under Chrift.
This Minor I prove, by obliging the an-
fwerers to nominate any Congregation of
Chriftians, which alwaies till this prefent
time, fince Chrift,hath been vifible^ either
under perfecution, or in peace and flourifti-
ing, fave chat only which acknowledges S.
Peter, &c. utfupra.
Sir,
To comply Vvith your Ae fires of brevity,
and of confining my felf to half a fheet of
B 3 f*ptr;
6 'Mr. Johnfons firfi Pa$cr.
paper -, I fend you at prefent only one Argu-
ment, which being fully dlf cuffed^ Jhall be
followed by others God willing. To this as to
all the refi of my Arguments , which may
hereafter be urged : / require a Categorical
andflriSl Sylogifiical Anfwerin Form, by
Concedo,Nego, Diftinguo, Omitto, Tran-
. feat. And the particular Provofitionsfpeci-
fied, to which the Rejpondents apply any of
them ; and no more then precifely thus,
neither adding Amplifications , Reafons ,
Proofs, &c. of their own out $f form, and
that this may be done with all convenient
\ jpeed. To the place of Scripture > Ephef.4.
&c. is alfo required a Categorical anfwer,
to what is precifely prejfed in it, without
direBing the difcourfeto other things: And
what is anfwered otherwife, I {ball not efteem
an anfwer y but an Effagium, or declining of
the difficulty. By this method exaffly obfer-
ved, Truth will eafily and fpeedily be made
manifefi ^ and your ds fires of Brevity ^oill be
punctually complied with. • I alfo de fire, that
the Respondent or Refpondents will {as I do to
this) fubfcribe his, or their name or names to
their anfwers, fo often as any are by him or
them returnedjvith the day of the month when
rtt timed. William Johnfon.
Decern. 9. 1658
The
The Jnfiver to the firft
Paper.
I received yours, and writ this Anfwer 3
fan. 4. 1658.
W
Sir,
Hoever you are,aferi*us debate with fo
fober a Difputant, is to me an exceeding
acceptable employment : 1 /hall not , I hope, give
joh any caufetofay, that I decline any diffi-
culties, or balk^ yourftrength, or tranfgrefs
the fart of a Re f pendent. But becaufe, 1 . You
have not (as ]ou ought to have done)explaincd
the terms of your The (is. 2. And have made
your Proportions fo long. 3 . And have fo
cunningly lapped up your fallacies 5 your
Refpondent is ntceffitated to be the larger in
diftinftion and explication. And feeing you
are foinfiant with me for ftrittnefs,you there-
by oblige jour felf> if you rviltbe ingenuous,
to make only the learned, and not any ignorant
B 4 men
8 The J # fiver te the fir ft Ptfer.
men the Judges of our dilute : becaufe you
kpow that tc the unlearned a bare Nego Jig-
nifieth noi Hng ^ but when fuch have read
jour Arguments at lengthy thej will expeB
as plain and large a confutation^ or judge you
to be in the right for peaking mofi.
TO your Argument, i . Your conclufion
contained not your Thefis, or Quefti-
on. And fo you give up your caufe the firft
itep, and make a new one. It fhouldhave
contained your Queftion in terms, and ic
doth not fo much as contain it in the plain
fenfe .- fo much difference is there between
£ Affemblies of Chriftians united, &c7\ and
{^Congregation of Chriftians] and between
[[Salvation or the Church, never was in
any other then thofe AfTemblies] and [no
Salvation out of that Congregation] ^ as I
fhall (hew you : befides other differences
which you may fee.
Ad Major em. Ref p. i. By[Congrega-
tionj you mean, either the whole Catholike
Church united in Chrift, or fome particular
Congregation, which is but part of that
whole. In the latter fenfe, your Sub jed
hathafalfe fuppofition, viz. that a part is
the whole ^ and your Minor will be falfe.
And
The Anfacr+o tbefirji Paper.
And your {[whatsoever Congregation of
Chriftians ] fecms to diftinguifti that from
fome other excluded Congregation of Chri-
ftians that is not part of the Catholike
Church, which is a fuppofing the chief pare
of the Queftion granted you, which we
deny. We know no univerfal Congrega-
tion of Chriftians but one, which contain-
cth ail particular Congregations and Chri-
ftians, chat univpcaHy deferve that name.
2. Either you mean that " this whole
Congregacion or true Church acknowledg-
ed] the Popes Sovereignty, or elfe [[that
:^partot it doth acknowledge it.] The
former I deny, and challenge any man living
to prove; If it be [part only] that you
mean, then either [the greater partj or
[the leffer]] : that it is the greater, I as con-
fidently alrnoft deny ; for it is againft the
common knowledge of men acquainted
with the world, &c. If you mean ] the
lefferpart] you fhall fee anon that it de-
stroys your caufe.
3 . Either you fpeak de Ecclefa qtt& talx,
or de Ecclefia qua talis : and mean that this
[acknowledgement] is effential to it, or at
leatt an infeparable property, or elfe that
it is afeparabie acudenr. The latter will
do you no good % the former 1 deny. In
fumm :
lo The i^Anfacr te thejirfi Pdper.
fumm : I grant that a fmall corrupt part of
the Catholike Church doth now acknow-
ledge the Pope to be Chrifts Vicar, for the
Vice-chrift ) •, but I deny, i. That the
whole doth fo ("which is your great caufej
2. Or the major part. 3. Or any Con.
gregation through all ages (though if they
had,it would do you no good.) 4. Or that
it is done by any upon juft ground, but is
their corruption.
Ad minor em Refp. I. If you mean any
[part] of the Univerfal Church by [that
Congregation which is now the true
Church 3 I deny your Minor : If [the
whole] I grant it. 2. You fay [[all Chri-
ftians agree]] in it, &c. Refp. I think all
proteftants,or near all, do : but Francifcus
bfantta Clara hath copioufly told us (in
Artie. Anglic.) that moft of your own
Doftors are for the falvation of Infidels •
and then either you take Infidels for your
Church members, or yourDodors for no
Chriftians, or you play not fair play to tell
us fo grofs an untruth, that all Chriftians
are agreed in it.
To your conclufion. Refp.i. Either you
mean that [\here is no Salvation to be had
out of that Univerfal Church, whofe part
(a minor corrupt part) acknowledged the
Popes
The i^»fwer to the frfi Paper. 1 1
Popes Sovereignty ]] orelfe [[that there is
no Salvation to be had out of that Univer-
fal Church which wholly acknowledged it]
or elfe £that there is no Salvation to be had
out of that part of the Univerfal Church
which acknowledgeth it.] In the firft fenfe
I grant your conclufion fif really you are
part of the Church.) There is no Salvation
to be had* out of Chrifts Univerfal Church,
of which you are a fmall corrupted part.
In the fecond fenfe I told you we deny the
fuppofition in the fubjeft. In the third
fenfe I deny the fequel ^ nonfequitur, be-
caufe your Major propofition being falfe
deEcclefia univerf alight conclufion mult be
faife de parte ifta, as excluding the reft.
But to the unskilful or unwary reader
your conclufion feemeth to import , that
fthe being in fuch a Church which acknow-
ledgeth the Popes Soveraignty, as it is fuch
a Church, is neceffary to Salvation] andfo
that theperfons acknowledgement is ne-
cefTary.3 But it is a fallacia accident is cun-
ningly lapt up, that is the life of your im-
ported caufe. That part of the Univerfal
Church doth hold to the Popes Soveraign-
ty,is per accident-, and could you prove that
the whole Church doch fo ( which you are
mlike to do) I would fay the like. And
that
14 The Anfwtr to the firfi Paper.
that your fallacy may the better appear ^ I
give you fomc examples of fuch like
iophifms.
[Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom
of Spain is proud and cruel againft Proce-
ftants : But there is no protection there due
to any that are not of that Kingdom :
therefore there is no prote&ion due to any
that are not proud and cruel.] Or [[what- *
foerer Nation is the true Kingdom of
France acknowledged] the Pope : but no
protedion is due from the Governours to
any that are not of that Kingdom.- there-
fore no protedion is due to any that ac-
knowledge not the Pope. J Or [what
ever Nation is the Kingdom of Ireland in
the daies of Queen Elizabeth, was for the
Earl of Tyrone i but there was no right of
Inheritance for any that were not of that
Nation : therefore there was no right of
Inheritance for any that was not for the
Earl of Tyrone.'} Or fuppofc that yon
could have proved it of all rhe Church, if
you had lived four hundred years after
Chrift, you might as well have argued thus.
[[Whatfoever Congregation of Chriftians is
now the true Church of Chrift, is againft
kneeling in Adoration on the Lords daies.
But there is no Salvation to be had out of
that
The Anfaer to the fir (I Paper. 1 5
that Congregation of Chriftians, which is
now the true Church of Chrill : therefore
there is no Salvation to be had out of that
Congregation which is againft kneeling on
the Lords day, &c.~\ Buc yet, I. There
was Salvation to be had in that Congrega-
tion without being of that opinion. 2. And
there is now Salvation to be had in a Con-
gregation that is not of that opinion,asyou
will confefe.
Or [whatfoever Congregation of Chri-
ftians is now the true Church of Chrift , doth
hold the Canticles and the Epiftle to Phile-
mon to be Canonical Scripture , (and fo
have done, &c.) But there is no Salvation
to be had out of the true Church : there-
Fore there is no Salvation to be had out of
that Congregation which holdeth the
Canticles ana Epiftle to Philemon to be
Canonical Scripture.^] But yet , 1. Sal-
vation is to be had in that Church without
holding it. 2. And its poffible hereafter a
Church may deny thofe two-books, and yet
you will think Salvation not thereby over-
thrown. This is but to (hew your fallacy
from a corrupt accident, and indeed but of
1 part of the Church, and a fmall part.
Now to your proof of the Major. Refp.
«d Major. The prefent matter of the
Church
14 The A'afrcrtotke fir ft Paper,
Church was not vifible in the laft Genera-
tion 5 for we w^re not then born : but the
fame form of the Church was then exiftent
in a vifible Matter, and their Profeffion
was vifible or audible, though their faith it
felf was invifible. I will do more then you
ihall do, in maintaining the conftant viabi-
lity of the Church.
Ad minor em. I. If you mean that no
Congregation hath been alwaies vifible
[but that Univerfa4 Church whofe lejflfer
corrupt part acknowledges 3 the Popes
Soveraignty, I grant it. For befides £ the
whole containing all Chriftians as the
parts] there can be no other. If you mean
[Tave that part which acknowledgeth] you
contradid your felf, becaufe a part imply-
eth other parts. If you mean [Tave that
Univerfal Church, all whofe members for
the moft) acknowledge it J, there is no fuch
fubjeft exiftent. 2. I diftinguifh of Vifi-
bility : Its one thing to be a vifible Church,
that is, vifible in its eflentials^ and another
thing to be vifible quoad hoc, as tofome fe-
parable accident. QThe Univerfal Church]
was ever vifible •, becaufe their Profeffion
of Chriflianity was fo, and the perfons pro-
feffing : But [[the acknowledgement of the
Vice-chrift] was not alwaies vifible, no not
in
The Afifoer to the fir ft Paper. I J
n any part, much lefs in the whole. And
fit had, it was but a feparable accident
if your difeafe be not incurable,) that was
dfible: and therefore, i. It was not ne-
:effary to Salvation, nor a proper mark of
he Church. 2. Nor can it befo for the
ime to come.
I need to fay no more to your conclusion,
four Argument is no better then this,
\vhatfoever Congregation of Chriftiansis
tow the true Church ofChrift, hath been
ilwaies vifible fince the time of Chrift ;
3ut no Congregation of Chriftians hath
)een fo vifible, faveonly that which con-
iemneth the Greeks, which hath a Colledge
:>f Cardinals to choofe the Popes, which
ienieth the cup to the laity, which forbid-
zxh the reading of Scripture in a known
tongue without licenfe, &c. Therefore
whatsoever Congregation of ChriAians is
now the true Church of Chrift, hath all
thefe] •, 1 . In a corrupt part it hath. 2. But
it had not alwaies. 3 . And may be cured
hereafter.
To your proof of the Major ; 1 . I grant
your Major.
2. Aa minorem. I, Either you mean
Qlniverfal Paftors^ each one, orfomeone
having charge and Government of the
[whole
1 6 ?ht Anfotr to the firjl Paper.
[whole Church, ] or you mean, [[unfixed
Paftors having an indefinite charge of
Preaching and Guiding when they come
and have particular calls and opportunities']
or you mean [[the fixed Paftors of particu-
lar Churches "-In the firft fenfe your Minor is
falfe, the Cacholike Church was never fo
united to any Univerfal Head but Chrift:no
one of the Apoftles governed the reft & the
whole Church , much lefs any fince their
time. In the fecond fenfe, I grant that the
Church bach ever had Paftors fince the
Afcenfion. In the third fenfe, I grant that
fome parts or other of the Catholike
Church, have ever had fixed Paftors of
Congregations fince the firft fettling of
fuch Paftors. But any one particular Con-
gregation may ceafe to have fuch Paftors,
and may ceafe it felf: and Rome hath been
long without any true Paftors -, andthere^
fore was then no fuch vifible Church.
2. If by [Congregation] you mean not
the Univerfal Church, but [a part\ or if
you mean it of [[all the parts of the Univer-
fal Church] I deny your Minor : Commu-
nities of Chriftians, and particular perfons
have been and may be without any Paftors,
to whom they are united or fubjed. The
Indians that died in the faith while Frame*-
tins
The Anftver to the pft Paper. 17
tins and Edefius were there preaching,:
before they had any Paftor, were yet Chri-
stians and fayed ; If a Lay-man Convert
one, or a thoufand, (and you will fay that
he may baptize them ) and they die before
they can have a Paftor , or ever hear of any
to whom rhey owe fubje&ion , they are
neverthelefs faved, as members of the
Church • And if allthePaftorsina Nation
were murdered or baaifhed, the people
would not ceafe to beChriftians and menu
bers of the Church. Much lefs if the pope
were dead or depofed, or a vacancy befell
his feat, wouIdalhheCatholike Church be
annihilated, or ceafe.
To your Confirmation of the MajV
"that a vifible Church is nothing but a
Vifible Paftor, and people united] I an-
fwer: 1. Its true of the univerfal Church,
as united in Chrift, the great Paftor, but
not as united in a Vice-Chrift or humane
head. 2. It is true of a particular Political
or organized Church, as united to their
proper . paftors 3. But it is not true of
every Community of Chriftians who are
a part of the Univerfal Church. A compa-
ny converted to Chrift, are members of the
Univerfal Church,, ( though they ne-
ver heard of a Pope at Rome) before
C they
l $ The Jnftver to t be fir ft Paper.
they arc United to Paftors of their
own.
The Proof of the Minor from Eph. 4.
I grant as aforefaid : The text provech
that Paftors the Church fhall have; I de-
claim the vain objeftion £.of Conditiona-
lly in the promife 3 which you mention.
But it proves nor, 1 . That the Church (hall
have an Univerfal Monarch or Vice- Chrift,
under Chrift. 2. Nor that every member
of the Univerfal Church, (hali certainly be
a mcir.ber of a particular Church, or ever
fee the face of a Paftor, or be fubjeft to
him.
You fay next There remains only
to prove the Minor of the fecond Syllogifm,
*//*,. that no Congregation of Chnftians
hath been alwaies vifible but that which ac-
knowledges, &c 3 This is the great point
which all lyeth on : The reft hath been all
nothing, but a cunning (booing horn to
this. Prove this, and prove all ; Prove
not this, and you have loft your time.
You fay [_ The Minor 1 prove, by obli-
ging the an fwerers to nominate any Con-
gregation of Chriftians which alwaies till
this prefent time fince Chrift hath been vi-
fible fave that only which acknow-
ledges &c.~\ And have I waited all this
while
The Anfwer to the fir ft Paper. \p
while for this? You prove ic by obliging
me to prove the contrary. Ridiculous /
fed qn$ jure ? i. Your undertaken form
of arguing obligeth you to prove ^our Mi-
nor : You cannot caft your Refpondenc
upon proving and fo arguing, and doing
the Opponents part. 2. And in your
Pcftfcript you prefently forbid it me ^ You
require me to hold to a Ccncedo^ Negv, Di*
fiingH9 > Omitto 9 Tranfeat 5 threatning that
elie you will take it tor an Effuginm. And
I pray you re 1 me in your next, to which of
thefe doth the nomination or proof of fuch
a Church as you defcnbe belong? Plainly ,
you firit flip away when you fhould prove
your Minor, and then oblige me to prove
the Contrary, and then te'l me, if I attempt
it, you'i take it for an Effttgittm. A good
caufe needs not fuch deaimgas this : which
me thinks you (hould be loth a learned
manlhould hear of. 3 .Your intereftalfoin
the Mttttt fas well as your office as Oppo-
nent^ doth oblige you to the proof. For
though you make a Negative of it, you may
put it in other terms at your pl.afure. It
is your main work to prove ^khat All the
members of the Univerfal Church havem
all ages held the Popes Sovereignty or Uni-
verfal Head.fhip.] Or [ the whole Vifible
C 2 Church
20 The Anfotr to the fir ft Ptfer.
Church hath held it] Prove this, and I
will be aPapift ; you have ray promife.
You affirm, and you mud prove. Prove
a Catholike Church, at leaft that in the Ma-
jor part was of that mind ; ( though that
would be nothing to prove the condemna-
tion of the reft.) If you are an impartial
enquirer after truth , fly not when you
come to the fetting too. I give you this
further evident reafon why you cannot
oblige me to what you here impofe ;
i. Bfcaufe you require me to prove the
Vifibility of a Church which held not your
point of Papacy • andfo putanunreafon-
able task upon me, about a Negative : or
. elfe, I muft prove that they held the con-
trary, before your opinion was ftarted ;
And it is the Catholike Church that we are
difputing about •,' fothat I muft prove this
Negative of the Catholike Church. 2. ft
is you that laythe great ftrefs of Neceflity
on your Affirmative, more then we do on
the Negative • you fay that no man can be
faved without your Affirmative^ that the
Pope is the univerfal Head and Governor 1
Butwefay#ot that no man can be faved
that holdeth no: our Negative, ~ that he is
not the Vice-Chrift J For one that hath
the plague or leprofie may live. Therefore
it
The i^dnfrvcr te thefrft Paper. 2 1
it is you that muft prove that all the Catho-
iike Church was ftill of your mind. 3 .And it
is an Accident, and but an Accident of a
fmaller corrupted part of the Catholike
Church that you would oblige me to prove
the Negation of ^ and therefore it is utterly
needlels to my proof of a Vifible Catho-
like Church. For I will without it prove
to you a fucceflive Visibility of the Catho-
like Church, from the VifibiJity of its EfTen-
tial or Conftitutive parrs (of which your
Pope is none. ) I will prove a fucceflive
vifible Church that harh ftill profeffed faith
in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft,
and been united to the Univerfal Head, and
had particular Paftors, fome fixed, fome
unfixed, and he'd all effential to a Chriftian.
And proving this, I have proved the
Church of which 1 am a member. To
prove that England hath been fo long a
Kingdom, requireth no more but to prove
the two Effential parts, King and Subjects,
to have fo long continued united. It re-
quireth not that I prove that it ever either
d, or oppofed a Vice-King. This is our
plain cafe. If a man have a botch on one
of his hands ^ it is not needful in order to
my proving him a man heretofore, that I
prove he was born and bred without it : fo
C3 be
3 z The Anjwer to the pfl Pafcr^
be it I prove that he was born a mair, it fuf-
fkech. Nor is it ntedfull that I prove the
ochf r hand alwaies to have been free, in
order to prove it a member of the body :
It fufficcth that 1 prove it to have been ftill
m hand.
I do therefore defire you to perform
your work, and prove that [no Congre-
gation hath been ftill vifible, but fuch as
yours 3 or that [ the whole Catholike
Chwrchhath ever fince the afcention held
a Humane Univerfal Governour un-
der thrift,] or elfe I (hall take it as a
giving up your caufe asindefenfible. And
pbferve, if you (hall prove only that apart
of the Catholike Church ftill held this
(which you can never do ) then, t. You
will make the Contrary opinion as Confi-
dent with falvation as yours. Fcr the reft
of the Catholike Church is favable .2. And
then you will allow me to turn your Argu-
ment againft your lelf as much as it is agamft
us (and fo caft it away.) e.g. what
ever Congregation of Chriftians is now the
rrue Church of Chrift , hath been al-
ways Vifible ; But no Congregation of
Chntlians hath been alwaies Vifible, but
that which quoai partem denyeth the Pope$
univerfal Headlhip -, thereiore whatever
Congregation
The Anfwer t$ tbt fir ft Paper. 2 3
Congregation of Chriftians is the true
Church, denyech the Popes univerfal Head-
fhip.
Well ! but for all this (fuppofing you
will do your part ) I wili rail you in no-
thing that's reafonable, which I can per-
form. A Catholike Church in all ages that
was againft the Pope,in every member of it,
I hope I cannot (hew you •, becaufe I hope
that you are members, though corrupt.
But you (hall have more then a particular
Congregation, or a hundred.
1. At this prefent, two or three parts of
the Catholike Church is known to be
againft your Univerfal Monarchy. The
Greeks, Armenians , Ethiopians , e£r.
befides the Proteftants. 2. In the laft
age there were as many or more. 3. In
the former ages till An. D. 1000. there
were neer as many, or rather many
more. For more be fain off in TenJuf %
iV*£#*,and other parts then the Proteftants
that came in. 4. About the year 600.
there were many more , incomparably ^
and I think then, but ac leaft of 400.
years after Chrift I never yet favr valid
proof of one Papift in all the world, that
is, one that was for the Popes Univerfal
Monarchy or Vice-Chnft-ihip. So that
C4 moft
i 4 Tbt ^Anfwer to the fir ft Paper.
moft of the Catholike Church ( about
rhree parts to onej hath been againft yoa
to this day ^ and ail againft you for many
hundred years. Gould I name but a Nati-
on againft you, I fhould think I had done
nothing y much lefs if I cited a few men
in an age, 5. And all thofe of Ethiopia,
India, &c. 'that arc^ without the verge and
awe of the Ancient Roman Empire, never
fo much as gave the Pope that Primacy of
dignity, which thofe within the Empire
gave him, when he was. chief, as the Earl
of Arundel is of the Earls of England
that governeth none of them, and as the
Lord Chancellor may be the chief judge,
that hath no power in alieno foro : or as
t-hc Eldeft Juftice is chief in the County and
on the bench, that ruleth not the reft.
Miftake not this Primacy for Monarchy,
nor the Romane Empire for the world, and
you can fay nothing.
At prefent, adhomintm^ give you fuffici-
ent proof of this fuccellion. As you ufe
'to fay that the prefent Church beft knew
the Judgement of the former age, and fo
on to the h^ad*, and fo Tradition beareth
you out ; I turn^this unrefiftibly againft
you. The far greatelt part of Christians
the world that now arc in poffeffion of
•
the
The Anfatr to the ft [I Pdfer. 25
the dodrine contrary to your Monarchy,
tell us that they had it from their Fathers,
indfo on. And as in Councils, fo with
the Church Real, the Major part ( three to
one ) is more to be credited then the
Minor part ; efpecially when it is a vifible
felf-advancement that the Minor part in-*
fifteth on. 6. And were not this enough,
I might add, that your weftern Church it
felf in its Reprefentative Body at Conftancc
and Bafil, hath determined that not the
P( pe but a General Council is the chief
Governor under Chrift •, and that this
1 ath been ftill the judgement of the Church,
and that its Herefie in whoever that hold
the Contrary. 7. And no man can prove
that one half or tenth part of your people
called Papifts are of yojur opinion ; for they
are not called to profefsit by words: and
their obedience is partly forced/ and partly
upon other principles •, fomc obeying the
Pope as their weftern Patriarch of chief dig-
nity -andfomeand moft doing all for their %
own peace and fafety : Their outward afts
Mr ill prove no more.
And now Sir, I have told you what
Church of which we are members, hath been
vifible • yea and what part of it hath oppo-
fedtheVicc-Chriftof^^we. This I delayed
not
i6 "the Anjtver Utht fir Jl Paper.
not an hour after 1 received yours, becaufe
you defired fpeed. accordingly 1 crave
your fpeedy return ^ and intreat you to
advife with the moft learned men ( whe-
ther Jefuites or others ) of your party in
London that think it worth tneir thoughts,
and time ; not that I have any thoughts of
being their Equal in learning, but partly
becaufe the caiefeemeth to me fo exceed-
ing palpable, that I think it will fuffice me
tofupply ail my dtfefts againft the ableft
men on earth, or all of them together, of v
your way ^ and principally becaufe I would
feeyourftrength, and know the moft that
can be faid, that I may be re&ified if I err
( which I fufpeft not ) or confirmed the
more if you cannot evince it, and fo may be
true to Gods Truth and my own foul.
Kick. Baxter.
*7
Mr. fohnfom fecond
Paper*
Sir,
IT was my happinefs to have this Argument
tr.nf fitted into your learned and quia
hands-^which gratefully returns as fair a mea-
gre as it received from yen : that Animo /tries
m both fides fepoJed y Truth m*y appear in its
c ullfplendcur, and feat it [elfin the Center of
both our hearts.
To your firft Exception.
My Thefts was fufficiently made cleer to
my friend, who was concerned in it ■ and
needed no explication in usaddrefs to the
earned.
To your fecond Exception.
My Propofitions were long, that tny
Argument? as was required,) migh: be very
(hort, and not exceed the quantity of half
iftieet : which enforced me to penetrate
many Syllogifms into one ^ and by that
means in the firft not to be fo preofe in
form, as otherwife I (hould have been.
To
1 8 Mr. Jotinfons fee end Payer.
To your third Exception.
Seeing I required nothing but Logicall
form in Anfwering, I conceive that regard
was more to be had amongft the learned to
that, then to the errours of the vulgar :
that whileft ignorance attends to moft
words, learning might attend to moft rea-
fon.
To your fourth Exception.
■My Argument contains not precifcly the
terms of my Thefts', becaufe, when I was
called upon to haften my Argument, 1 had
not then at hand my Thefts. Had Iput
more in my. The (is, then I prove in my Ar-
gument, I had been faulty • but proving
more then my Thefts contained ( as I
cleeriy do ) no body hath reafon to find
fault with me, fave my felt". The real'l diffe-
rence betwixt Affemblies of Chriftians, and
fongregation of Chriftitns, and betwixt
Salvation is cnlj to be had in thofe Affem-
blics , and Salvation is not to be had
out of that Congregation^ I underftand
not : feeing all particular affemblies of true
Chrifuans , muft make one Congregati-
on.
To your Anfwer to my firft Syllogifm.
He who diitinguiftjes Logically the
terms of any propofition, muft not apply
his
Mr. Johnfons fccond Paper, 29
is diftin&ion to fome one part of the
>rm only^but to the whole re r#z,as it ftands
1 the propofition diftinguifhed. Now in
\y propofition I affirm, that the Congrega-
iqnof Chriftians I fpeak of there, isfuch
Congregation, that it is the true Church
f Chrifi, that is, (as all know) the whole
^atholike Church ; and you diftinguifh
hus, That I either mean by Congregation
he whole Catholike Church, or only fome
>artof it as, if onefhould fay, Whatsoever
Congregation of men is thcCommon-wealth of
England^ and another in anfwer 10 it fhould
liitmguifh, either by Congregation of men
7 ou mean the whole Common-wealth, or
bme part of it, when all men know, that by
he Common-wealth of England muit be
neant the whole Common-wealth : for
10 part of it is the Common- wealth of Eng-
land.
Again .you diftinguifh , that fome
hings are EfTentials, or Ncccffanes, and
>thers Accidents, which are acknowledged
)rpradifed in the Church. Now to apply
i his diftinftion to my Propofition , you muft
liltinguifh that which I fay is acknowledged
o have been ever in the Church by the In-
itmion of Chrift, either to be meant of an
ifTential , or an Accident ; when all the
world
jo <LMr. Johnfons fecond Paper.
world knows chat whatfoevcr is acknow-
ledged ro have Joave been tver in the Church
by Chrifis JnftitHtion, cannot be meant of
Any Accidental thing, but of a nectffary,
unchangeable and Efttntial thing, in Chrifts
true Church. If one (hould advance this
propofition, Whatfoever Congregation is
the true Church of <: hrift, acknowledges
the Eucharift ever to have been by Chrifis
JnfiiiutiunTi proper Sacrament of the new
Law: and another (hould d:ftingui(h (as
you do my propofition ) This may be meant
either of an Ejf'.ntial or Accidental thing t$
Chrifis true Church : Seeing whatsoever is
acknowledged to have been alwaies in
Chrifts Church and inftituted by Chrift,
cannot be acknowledged but as necejfary
and iffentid to his Church. If there iOre
my Ma'yr, as the terms lie expreffed in it,
be true, it (hould have been granted: it
faife , it (hould have been denyed. But no
Logick allows that it (hould be diftinguifti-
ed into iuch different members , whereof
one is exprefly excluded in the very terms
of the propofition. Thefe diftinftions
therefore, though learned and fubftantial
inthemfelves,yec were they here un(eafo J
nable,and too illogical to ground an anfwer
id forme (as you ground yours ) ftill in-
filling
UHr. Johnfons fecond Paper. $i
iftingupon them in your addrcfs alraoft to
:very propofition. Hence appears firft,thatl
ifed no fa.lacy at all ex Accidente : feeing
ny propofition could not be verified of an
Acsident. Secondly that all your inftances
)f Spain, France , &c. which include Acci-
ients, are not appofite ; becaufe your pro-
pofitions, as they lie, have no. term which
excludes Accidental Adjnntts, as mine hath.
To thw Proof of my Major. Syll. i
You feem to grant the Major of my fe-
condSyllogifm ^ not excepting any thing
material againft it.
To my Minsr.
You fall again into the former diftin&t-
ons, now difproved and excluded, ot the
meaning of Congregation, &c. in my propo-
fition, and would have me to unaerttand
determinately either the whole Cathohke
Church, or fome part of it, ( and fo make
four terms in my Syllogifm ; ) whereas in
my Minor, Congregation if Cbrifti. ns is
taken generically, and abiirafts, as an uni-
verfal, from all particulars. I fa} no Con-
gregation, which is an univerfal negative ±
land when I fay, none, Save that Congregati-
on which acknowledges Saint Peter, &c. the
term Congregation fuppofes for the lame
[whole Cathoiike Church mentioned in my
former
3 * Mr. Job n fons (econd Paftf.
former Syllogifm, bur^expreffes it Binder a
general cermoi Congregation in confufo^
as I exprefs Homo, when I fay he is Animal \
a mm, when I fay he is a living creature,
but only generically, or in confu/o. Now
fliould I have intended determinately either
the whole Catholike Church, or any part of
it, Ifhouldhave made an inept Syllogifm,
which would have run thus. Whatfoever
true Church of Chrift is now the true
Church of Chrift, hath been always vifible,
&c. But no true Church of Chrift hath
been alwaies vifible, fave the true Church
of Chrift, which acknowledges Saint Peter,
&c. Erg* whatfoever true Churh of Chrift
is now the true Church,acknowledges Saint
Peter, dec. which would have been idem per
idem • for every one knows, that the true
Church of Chri'ft 5 is now the true Church of
Chrift. But fpeaking, as Ido,inabftra&ive
and generical terms, I avoid this abfurdi-
ty,and frame a true Syllogifm.
Now my meaning in this Minor could
be no other then this, which my words ex-
prefs •, That the Congregation , that is, I
the whole Congregation acknowledges Saint
Peter, Sic. and is vifible, &c. and not any
part, greatorfmallofit. For when I fay,'
the Parliament of thefe Nations doth, or
hath'
Mr. JohnConsfecend Paper] £3
rath cnafted a Stature, who would demand
>f me, whether I meant ,the ; whole Parlia-
nent, or fome determinate part of it I
foufhould therefore have denyed, not
iiuffdiftinguilhedmy Minor quite againft
he exprefc words of it. What you fay
igain of Eflfentials and Accident?, is already
"cfuted ^ and by that alfo your Syllogifm 5
wrought by way of inftance. For your
^ropofition doth not fay, that the Church
of Rome acknowledges thofe things were
rjwaies done, and cbac by Chrifis Inftituti-
)»,as my prcpofirion fays (he acknowledges
Saint Peter andhls fuccefTors. i
< To oiy third Syllogifm.
• Granting my Major, you diftinguifh tba
term Pafiors in my Minor y into particular
and univerfal, fixed and unfixed, &c. 1
anfwer, that the teem Paftonrs ( as before
Congregation) fignifies determinately.no
one of thefe,but generically and in confufo
all - and fo abftrads from each of them in
particular, as the word Animal* 3.b{\ta&$
from homo and brutum. Neither can I
mean fome parts of the Church only, had
Paftors * for I fay, tvhatfocver CongrtgktitH
of £hriftians is, now . the true Church of,
Cfcrifiyhath altvaies had. vifible Paftors and
People united. Now fbc Church is not. a
D part,
3 4 Mr. John [onsjecond Paper. j
part but the whole Church , that is, both thq
whole body of the Church, and all particuJ
lar Churches the parts of it. And hence is]
folved your argument of the Indians, of]
people converted by lay-men, when parti-J
cular Pallors are dead, &c. For thofe were
fubjefts of the chief Bifhop alone, till fome
infenour Paftors were lent to them. For
when they were taught the Chriftian Do-]
drine 5 in the explication of that Article, /]
believe the Holy Catholik? Church, they]
were alfo taught, that they being people ofl
Chrifts Church, muft fub jeft themfelves to]
their lawful Paftors, this being a part of the j
Chriftian doftrine. Heb. 13. who though J
abfentinbody, may yet be prefent in fpiJ
rit with them, as Saint P^/z/faith of himfclfj
I Cor. 5. 3.
Your Anfwer to the confirmation of my j
Major feems ftrange. For I fpeak of vi-\
fible Paftors, and you fay lis true of an]
x lnvi$ble Paftor, that is, Chrift our Saviour,!
who is now mht&ven^ invifible to men on]
earth. The reft is a repetition of what is!
immediately before anfwered.
£phef.4. proves not only that fome]
particular Churches, or parts of the whole^
Church, muft alwaies have Paftors, but]
that the whole Church it felf muft have!
Paftors,
Mr. Johnfons fecond Paper. 3 j
Paftors, and every particular Church in it ^
for it fpeaks of that Church which is the
Body of Cbrifi • which can be no lels then
the whole Church. For no particular
Church alone is his myftical Body, but only
a part of it.
Ephef. 4. is not dire&ly alledged to
prove an univerfal Monarch, ( as you fay J
but to prove an uninterrupted continuance
of vifiblc Paftors • that being only affirm-
ed in the propofition, which I prove by it.
2. This is already Anfwered.
I ftand to the judgement of any true
Logitian , nay or expert Lawyer, or rational
perfon, whether a Negative propofition be
to be proved otherwife then by obliging
him who denies it, to give an initance to
infringe it. Should you- fay, no man hath
right to my Benefice andFunBionin myyarifh^
fave my J elf, and another fhould deny what
you faid • would not you, or any rational
man in your cafe, anfwer him, that by de-
nying your propofition he affirmed that
fome other had right to them, and to make
good that affirmation was obliged to pro-
duce who that was : which till he did, you
.ftill remained thefole juft pofTeffour of your
Benefice as before-, and every one will
judge, that he had no reafonto deny your
D 2 aflfertionp
r
$6 Mr. Johnfons fccond Papetl
affertion,whcn he brought no proof againft
it. This is our cafe.
The Contradiction, which you would
draw from this, againft my- Nego, Concedo^
&c. exaded from the Refpondent, and no-
thing clfe, follows nor. For that prescri-
ption is to be underftood, that the Refpon-
dent of himfelf, without fcope given him by
the opponent, was not to ufe any other
forms in Anfwering-, But if the opponent
fliould require that the refpondent give rea-
fons.orinltances, or proofs, of what he de-
nies,that then the Refpondent is to proceed
to them. And this is moft ordinary in all Lo-
gicall Difputations, where ftrid form is ob-
ierved, and known to every yong Logitian.
Inftances therefore demanded by the oppo-
nent, were not excluded, but only fuch ex-
curfions out of forra,as fhould proceed from
the refpondent, with out being exadedby
the opponent.
You fay, though 1 make a Negative of
it, I may put it in other terms at myplea-
fure. But the queftion is not what I may
do, but what I did : I required not an An-
fwer to an Argument, which I nfiay frame,
but to that which I had then framed, which
was exprefled in a negative propofition.
You tell mc if I prove the Popes univer-
fai
Mr. Johnfons ftcond Paper. 3 j
fal Supremacy, you will be a Papift : And I
tell you, I ha ye proved it by this rery Ar-
gument,That either He hath that fuprema-
cy, or fome other Church • denying that he
hath alwaieshail it J hach beenalwaiesviftble-,
and that Church I require fhould be named,
if any fuch be,and whileft you refufe to name
that Church ('as here you do ) you neither
anfwer the Argument, nor become a Papift.
You fay I^ffirm^nd Intvft prove. I fay in
the propofition,about which we now fpeak,
I affirm not,and fo muft not prove - y and you
by denying it ,muft affirm,ani fo muft prove.
You prove it is not your part here to
prove, becaufe the Popes fupremacy could
not be denyed 5 before it was affirmed • and
you muft be obliged to prove that denyal.
I oblige you not to prove acontinued vifible
Church formally and exprefly denying it,
but that it was of fuch a Conftitution as
was inconfiftent with any fuch fupremacy,
or could and did fubfift without it ^ which
is an Affirmative.
You affirm, that becaufe I fay you can-
not be fayed if you deny that Supremacy,
and you fay that I may be faved though
I hold it, Therefore you are not bound to
prove whar I reprove, but 1 to prove my
negative proportion. But this would prove
D 3 as
38 Mr. Johnfonsfecwd Paper.
as well, that a Mahumetan is not bound
to prove his religion to you, but you to
prove yours to him, becaufe you fay he
cannot be faved being a Mahumetan •, and
he fays, that you may be faved being
a Chriftian. See you not, that the obliga-
tion of proof in Logicall form depends not
ofthefirftpoficion.or Thefts, but mult be
drawn from the immediate proportion,
affirmative or negative, which is or ought
to be propofed ?
To what you fay of an Accident and a
corrupt part, I have already anfwered.
To what you fay of a vice-king, not be-
ing neceffary to the Conftitution of a king-
dom, but a king andfubje&s only, is true,
if a vice-king be not inftituted by the Full
power of an Abfolute Authority over $hat
kingdom, to be an ingredient into the
effenceof the Kingdom, in the Kings ab-
fence; But if fo conftituted, it will be
effential - 5 now my propofitionfaith,and my
Argument proves, that by the Abfolute
Authority of Chrlft, Saint Peter and his Sue-
cejfors were inftituted Governors in Chrifis
'place of his Whole vifible Church •, and
.whatfoever Government Chrift inftitutes
of his Church, muft be effential to his
hurchr You fee now the Difparity.
You<
CMr, Jonnions Jecond Paper. 39
You infitt to have me prove a Negative ^
md I infift to have you prove that Af-
irmative, which you h\\ into by deny-
ng my Negative, and leave it to judge-
nent, whole exaction is the more conform
reafon, and logical form.
Eut if I prove not here , fay you , the
whole Caiholike Churches holding ever the
Popes Supremacy, yotifbtlltake it as a give-
\ng up my caufe. I tell you again, that I
tave proved it by this very Argument,
by force of Syllogiftical form : and it is
not reafonable to judge that I have
en up my caufe, it I prove not a-
gain, what I have already proved.
Your caking upon you the part of an
opponent now is, you know, out -of Sea-
fon • when that is yours, minefhal! be the
Respondent.
AT length you give a fair attempt to
fatisfie your obligation , and
to return fuch an inftancc as I demanded
of you. But you are too free by much in
your offer. I demand one Congregation,
and you promife to produce more then an
hundred. But as they abound in the num-
ber, fo are they deficient in the quality
1) 4 which
4P Ur. Jphnfons \econd Ptfer.
which I require. I demand, that the An-
swerer nominate any Congregation of Chrifii-
*hs % which alwayes till this prefent time finve
Chrifi hath been vifible, &c. and you tell mc
of more then, an hundred Congregations,
befides that which acknowledges Saint Per
ter, &c. whereof not any one Jhath been all
that clefigned time vifible: which is as if I
had demanded an Anfwerer to nominate
any Family of Gentry, which hath fuccef-
fively continued ever fince William the
jConquerour tijl this prefent time \ and h$
who undertakes to fatisfie my demand,
fhoujd nominate more then a hundred Fa?-
inilies, whereof not fo much as one conti-
nued half that time You nominate fir ft
all thefe prefent, the Greekj\ Armeni^m^
-Ethiopians, befides the Protectants. Thefe
you begin with. Now to fatisfie my de-
nr.and^ you muft affert, that thefe, whom
ytTu firft name, are Both one Congregation^
^nd h^ve been vifible ever fince thrifts
fime. This you do not in the purfuee of
your Allegations. For Nurr>b. 2. you no-
Siiinate none at all, but tell me, that in the
}afi age there yeere as many or more. What
,i<v?re thefe as many- or more ? were they
tji.e fame which you nominated firft, or
otter j ?. I required fome 'determinate Con^-
gregation
Mr. Johnfons fecdnd paptrl 4 1
wcation to be nominated all the while
md you tell tne of as manj or more, but fay
lot of what determinate congregation they
tfere. In your Num. 3. you tell me ,
n the for merages, till one thoufand, there
were neer as many, or rather many more,
K fair account ! But in the mean time you
nominate none, much lefs profecute you
:hofe with whom you begun.' Num. 4. You
fay, in the year fix hundred there were many
mere incomparably. Whar many ? whac
more} were they the fame which you no-
minated in the beginning, and made one
Congregation with them ? or were they
quite different Congregations ? what am
I the wifer by your faying many more incom-
parably, when yo"u tell me not what, or who
rheywere? Then you fay, But at lea ft for
f </ur hundred years after Chrift, I never lei
faw valid proof of tne P apt ft in all the yvorld y
it is, one that Was for the Popes nniverfal
Monarchy ,or vlce-Chr iff /hip. What then ?
are there no proofs in the world, but what
you have feen ? or may not many of thofe
proofs be valid which you have feen ,
though you efteemthem not fo /and can
you think it reafonabie ; upon your fingle
nvffeeing,or: not]ndgir. to C mtfude
abfolutely,asyou bcreao, >£***£/ been
againft
42 Mr. J ohnfons fecond P4per*
againftusfor many hundred years? In yout'
Num. 5 . You name Ethiopia and India
as having been without the limits of the 1
Roman Empire, whom you deny to have
acknowledged any fupremacy of power and!
authority above all other Bifhops. You
might have done well to have cited atleaft
one antient Author for this AfTertion.Were
thofe primitive Chriftians of another kind
*B how ^ Church-order and Government, then]
far from were thofe ^nder the Roman Empire * ?.'
truth this When the Roman Emperors were yet H:a-
is, appears thens, had not the Biftiop of Rome the Su-
from St. premacy over all other Bifhops through the.
Sermons 1S w ^ e Church ? and did thofe Heathen]
denatali Emperors give it him ? How came St.
fuo, where Cyprian, in time of the Heathen Empire to
he faies, requeft Stephen the Pope to punifh and de-
maPtin ?°I e the Bi{ho P of ArUs > as we llia11 fee
quicqJd hereafter? Had he that authority ( think
nmpoffidet you) from an Heathen Emperour ? See
*lmu, 7{p- now how little your Allegations are to the
ligion: te- p Ur p f e . vvhere you nominate any de-
by this, terminate Congregations to fatisfie my de-
that the mand. - j
Abyfrdcs
ef Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anticmiy y
•which Patriarch was m&tr the Authority of the 7tymaneBi(bop, as
we [hall pre fently fee.
J Mr, Johnfons feccnd Paper. 4 *
II had no reafon to demand of you
ferent congregations, of all forts and
! e &s oppofing the Supremacy, to have been
. tewn vifible in all ages. I was not fo ig-
)rant, as not to know, that the Nicolai-
ts , Valentinians , Gnofiickj, Afanichs es,
Afontanifts, Arians , Dwatifts, Neftorians y
lfHtychians, Pelagians, IconocUlis, Beren-
ians.Waldenftans, Albigenfes, Wicleffifis,
fujjits, Lutherans, Calvinifis> &c. each
lowing others had fome kind of vifibili-
, divided and dillrafted each to his own
fpeftive age, fromoiir time totheApo-
plts, in joymng their heads and hands to-
her againft the Popes Supremacy. But
)ecaufc thefe could not be called one fttc-
effive Congregation of Chriftians, being all
;ether by the ears amongft themfelves •
fhould not have thought it a demand be-
seeming a Scholar, to have required fuch a
ibility as this. Seeing therefore all you
determinatcly nominate , are as much
different as thefe- pardon me, if I take it
: for any fatisfadion at all to my de-
mand, or acquittance of your obligation,
-ng me a vifible fucceflion of any one
Congregation of Chriftians, of the fame
belief, profeffion, and communion, for the
defigned time, oppofing that Supremacy,
and
44 #>"•• John Cons fee end Paper.
and you will have fatisfied ; but till that b
done, I leave it to any equal judgement,
whether my demand be fatisfied or no.
You anfwer *o this, That all thofe., who are
nominated by you^are farts of the Catholikt
Church, andfo one Congregation. But Sir,
give me leave to tell you, that in your prin-
ciples, you put both the Church of RomeM
3nd your felves, to be parts of theCatho-i |
like Church ; and yet fure you account
them not one Congregation of Chriftians,
feeing by feparation one from another they
are made two : or if you account them one\
why did you feparate your fel ves, and ftill
remain feparate from communion with the
Ruman Church ? why poffeffed you your
m felvesof the Bifhopricks and Cures of your
own Prelates and Paftors, they yet living
in Queen Elizabeths time ? and drew both
your felvesand their other fubjefts from all
fubje&ion to them , and communion with
them ? Is this difunion, think you, fit to
make one and the fame Congregation of
you and them? is not charity, fubordina-
tion, and obedience to the fame flate and*
government required as well to make one
Congregation of Chriftians, as it is required
to make one Congregation of Common-
wealths men ? Though therefore you do ac-
count
\M r i Joh n fons fecotid Paper* 4$
xnint them all parts of the Catholike'
church, yet you cannot make them in your
principles one Congregation ot Chriftians.
Secondly, your poficion is not true • the
particulars named by you neither are, nor
:anbe parts of the Catholike Church, un-
.efs you make Avians, and Pelagians, and
Donatifts, pa*:ts of the Catholike Church :
which were either to deny them to be He-
reticks and Schifmaticks ^ or to affirm,
that HereticKs and Schifmaticks, feparating
rhemf elves from the communion of the
Catholike Church, notwithftanding tbat|? ec .^^
feparation, do continue parts of the Catho- ^Rcliei-
like Church. For who knows not that the ns 3 ^ 99I
Ethiopians to this day ar.^ * Eutychian He- ^9', 491*
recicks. And a great part of tbofe Greeks & " c -
and Armenians, who deny the Popes Supre- 5 . cl t ^ ac C
macy, are infe&ed with the Herefie <)£ they'd*?
Nt florins , and all of them profefs generally cumclfe
all thofe points of taith with us agamlt you, *e« cha?
wherein you differ from us • and deny to en * he
' > J eighth
day, they
ufe Mofaical ceremonies. They mention not the council of
Cd/cft/0* 5 becaufe (faies he) they are Eutychians and Jacobites,
and confefles that their Patriarch is in fubjection to the Patri-
arch of Alextuidria, &c. See more of the Chofti, Jacobites,
Maronitcs, &c. p. 493,4^4. where he confefles that many of
them are now fubject to the Pope* and have renounced their old
errors.
com-
4$ Mr. Johnfons fecond Paper.
communicate with you, or to efteem yon
other then Hereticks and Schifmaticks, un-
lefs you both agree with them in thofe
differences of faith, andfubjeft your felve*
to the obedience of the Patriarch of Con
ftantinofle, as to the chief Head and Go
vernour of all Chriftian Churches next
under Chrift • and confequently as muct «
avice-Chrift, in your account, as the Pope
can be conceived to be. Sec, if you pleafe.
'Hieremias Patriarch of Conftantinofle, hi<
Anfvver to the Lutherans, especially in the
beginning and end of the book • Atta Theo-
logorum Wittebergenfium^ &c. and Sir Ed-
ypyn Sands, of this iubjed, in his Survey
f. 232,233,242, &c.
Either therefore you muft make the
Eutychians and Neftorians no Hereticks.
andfo contradidthe Oecumenical Coun-
cils of Efhefpts , and Chalcedon , whici
condemned them as fuch • and the conieni
of all Orthodox Chriftians, whoever fina
efteemed them no others • or you mud
make condemned Hereticks parts of the
Cathoiick Church, againft all antiquity
and Chriftianity. And for thofe Greek
neer Conflantinople, who are not infe&ec
with Neftorianiim and Eutychianifm, yet
in the Procefiion of the Holy Ghoft 3 againfl
bott
Mr. Johnfons fe cond Paper. 47
both us and you, they muft be thought to
maintain raanifeft Herefie 1 it being a point
in a fundamental matter of faith, the Trini-
ty ; and the difference betwixt thofe Greeks
and the Weftern Church, now for many
hundred of years, and in many General
Councils efteemed and defined to be real
and great •, yea fo great, that the Greeks
left the Communion of the Roman Church
upon that difference alone, and ever
efteemed theBifhopof Rome and his party Sec Nilus
to have fallen from the true faith, and loft ° n . *£
his ancient authority by that fole pretend- *
ed error ^ and the Latins alwaies efteemed
the Greeks to be in a damnable error , in
maintaining the contrary to the do&rine
of the Weftern or Roman Church in that
particular. And yet fure they understood
what they held, and how far they differed
one from another, much better then feme
Novel writers of yours, who preft by force
of Argument, have no other way left them
to maintain a perpetual vilibility, then by
extenuating that difference of Procejficn
betwixt the Greek and Latin Church,which
fo many ages before Proteftancy fprung up,
was efteemed a main fundamental error by
both parts, caufed the Greeks to abandon
all fubje&ion and Communion to the Bi-
fhops
&fi tMr. Johnfcns fccotod Paper
fhops of Home ^ made them fo divided the
one from the other, that they held each
other Hereticks v Schifmaticks, and de-
fercors of the true faith, as they, continue
ftill to do to this day, and /yet you will hav.e
them both to be parts of the . Catholike
Church. , [ .
But when you have made the beft you can
of thefe Greeks, Armenians , Ethiopians,
Proteftants, whom you firft name , yoa
neither have deduced, nor can deduce them
fucceffively in all ages till Chrift, as a diffe-
rent Congregation of Christians , from that
which holds the Popes Supremacy y which
was my propofition. Por in the year 1 500.
thofe who became the firft Proteitants,were
not a Congregation, different from thofe
who held that fupremacy; nor in the year
500. were the Greeks a vjfible Congregati-
on different from it ^ nor in the year 300.
were the Neltorians 5 nor in the year, 20<i
the Eutychians a -different m Congregation
from thofe who held, the faid. Supremacy l
But in thofe refpeftive years, thofe who
firft begun thofe Herefies, were involved
* within that Congregation, which held it, as
apart of it, and aflenting therein with it :
who after in, their feveral ages and ; begin-
flings fell offfrom it, as dead branches fronj,
the
Mr. Johnfons feeond Paper. 49
the tree ^ that, ftill remaining what it
*verwas,and only continuing in a perpe-
tuall vifibility of iucceflion.
Though therefore you profefs never to
have feen convincing proof of this in the fir ft
400 years, & labour to infringe it inthenext
ages, yet 1 will make aneflay to give you a
tafte of thofe innumerable proofs of this vir,
fible Confent in the Bifhop of Rome's Supre-
macy, not of Order only, but of Power ^Au-
thority ,& J urif diction over ail otherBifhops,
in the enfuing inftances, which happened (*)Ub£~
within the firft 400, or 500, or 600, years. ratHS llt
(aj John Bifhop of Antioch makes an ^ h x *
Appeal to Pope Simplicius. And FUvi- p r / a L
anus ( b ) Bifhop of Constantinople, being biilaXmciU
depofed in the falfe Councill of Ephefm, clulcedon.
immediately appeals to the Pope, as to Lis ty cowl.
judge, (c) Theodoret was by Pope Leo re- ^a. 1.
ftored, and that by an ( d ) appeal- (6) com!,
unto a juft judgement, (e) Saint Cy- chatcedon.'
friun defires Pope Stephen to depofe Mar- ^ &•
cian Bifhop of Aries, that another might ^i^ff".
be fubftituted in his place. And to evince 6 7 . # '
thefupream Authority of the Bifhops oi(f)concli m
Rowejt is determined in the (f) Council Sard.cap.'^
of W*, That no Bifhop depofed by other ^ J y Sc *
neighbouring Bifhops, pretending to be ApL\.fs*
heard again, was to have any fucceflbur 7^,
E appointed,
jo Mr. John [cms fee endpaftrl
appointed, until the cafe were defined by
(g) ft.Ba- the Vope.Euftathius ( g )Bi(hop of Sebafi in
fii. Epifl. Armenia was reftored by Pope Liberia his
(h ) st Letters read and received in the Council of I
Chryfoft* Tyana ; and ( h ) Saint Chryfvftome ex- |
Bplfi. z. ad prefly defires Pope Innocent not to punifh
unocent. h[ s Adverfaries, if they do repent. Which
(i)Concii. ev [ nces that Saint Chryfofiome thought
!*#! . 2 * ^ at c ^ e p0 P e ^ P ower to punifh them,
(k; §t. A- And the like is written to the Pope by the
thanaf. ad ( i) Council of Ephefus in the cafe of John
Sollt. Epift. Bifhop oiAntioch.
Ih^An- ( k ) The Bl(ho P s of the Greek > 0r Eaft -
ari ap.A- ern Church, who fided with Arius, before
than. Apo* they declared themfelves to be Arians, fent
leg i. fag. their Legates to Julius Bifhop of Rome to
Vh'rA have their caufe heard before him againft
lib I cap* 1 '. ^ a * nt ^thanafius : the fame did Saint Atha-
AthanafJ ' nafiv* to defend himfelf againft them :
Apot. i. which Arian Bilhops having underftood
Zo^em. lib. from Julius, that their Accufations againft
3.cap.j. £ a j nt AthantfiHSi upon due examination
of both parties, were found groundlefs and
falfe, required ( rather fraudulently, then
fenoufly) to have a fuller Tryal before a
General Council at Rome ; which ( to
take away all fhew of excufe from them )
Pope Julius affcmbled.Saint Athanafius was
fummoned by the Pope to appear before
him
cflf r. Johnfons fectnd Paper. 5 1
him and the Councill in Judgement : which Tne A P-
he prefcntly did ; ( and many other Eaitern £: aI *f
Bifhops unjultly acculed by the Anans from l y ut
aforefaid, had recourfeto Rome with him J Council as
andexpe&ed there a year and a half : All to his
which time his Accufers (though alfo fum-i u ^SV*[
moned ) appeared not, fearing they ffcouid "^ at c ^. C
be condemned by the Pope and his Conn- mer i s for-
till. Yet they pretended not (asProte- ced«oac-
ftantshave done in thefe lift ages of the knowledge
tings of England) That Conftxntim, thej^J^J
Arian Emperour of the Eaft, was Head, or ^ * 93% '
chief Governour over their Church in all and the
c aufes Ecclefiaftical - o and confequently whole
that the Pope had nothing to do with them, ^"Jr ^
but only pretended certain frivolous ex- ac kn 0W - 3
cufes to delay their appearance from one kdged the
time to another. Where it is worth the right of
noting, that Julius^ reprehending the faid tQ ^Ap-
Arid* Bifhops ( before they publiihed ^° Tbeo-
doret to his
Biflioprkk, by force of an order given upon that Appeal by Leo
Poft to reftorchim.
Concerning Saint Ath.mnfius being judged and righted bv
Julius Pope, Cbamitr* cic.p. 497. acknowledges the matter of
fad to be fo, but againft al 1 antiquty, pretends that judgment
to have been unjuft. Which, had it bcenfo, yet it (hews a true
power of judging in the Pope, though then unduly executed ,
other wife Saint Aihj<iafiu^ would never have made ufc of it.,
neither can it be condemed of injuftice ; unlcfs Sain; Atfjinapui
be alfo condemed as unjuft, in contenting to it,
E 2 their
»J J "J *'l|
5 2 ii/r. Johnfons/i*W r*/>.'r.
their Herefie, and fo taking them to be
Catholikes) forcondemriiigSaim Athna-
fiiu in an Eaftern Councill , gathered by
them before they had acquainted the Bi-
fhop of Rome with fo important a caufe,
ufeth thefe words, An ign&ri eft is hanc ccn-
fnetudinem ejfe, ut prirnum nobts fcribatur •,
ut bine quod jpiftnm eft, dtfiniri fejfit, &c.
Are joh ignorant , faith he, that this is the
cufkome,toTvriteto us firft, Thtt htnee that,
which is jnft may be defined, &c. where moft
cleerly it appears, that it belonged particu-
larly to the Biftiop of Rome to pafs a defini-
tive fentence even againft the Bifhops of the
Eaftern, or Greek Church ^ which yet is
more confirmed by the proceedings of Pope
Innocent the firft, about 12. hundred years
Wceph* lib. ^ n ce, in the Cafe of Saint Chrj/foftome :
13.cap.34. Where firft Saint Chrjfcftome appeals to
Jnnocentiw from he Cou ;cill aflembled at
cbmhr. Constantinople ,wberein he was condemned.
cit.p. 498. Secondly Inmcentim annulls his condem-
faycs,other
Bifhops reftored thofe who were wrongfully depofed, as \ etl as
the Pope Which though it w.re fo, yet never was there any
fingle Bifhop fave the Pope, who reflored any, who were out of
their refpeftiveDiocefs,or Patriarchatcs 5 but always col I e&ed to-
gether in a Synod,by common voice, and that in regard only of
their neighbouring Bifhops- whereas the Bifhop of T^eme
by his folc and ftngle authority , rcftored Bifhops wrongfully
depofcdall the Church over.
, * nation,
Mr JohnCohs fecovd Paper. jj
nation, and declares h<"m innocent. Thrid-
Jy, he ^Excommunicato Atticus Bifhop of*
Cunftantimple^ and Theophilm Bifhop of
Alexandria for persecuting Saint Chrj-
fofiome. Pourthly, after Saint Ckrj[<fior,;e
was dead in Banifhment, Pope Innocent ins
Excommunicares Arcadim the Emperour
of the Eaft, and Ettdcxia his wife. Fifthly,
the Emperour and Emprefs humble them*
felves, crave pardonor him, and were ob-
folved by him. The fame is evident in
thofe matters which pafTed about the year
450. where Theodofius the Emperour of
the Ealt having too much favoured theEu-
tych-anHereticksby theinftigationofCAry-
J^phius the Eunuch, and Pulcheriahis Em-
prefs and fo intcrmedled too far in Ecclefi-
afticall caufes, yet he ever bore that re-
fped to the See of Rome, (which doubtlefs in
thofc ci:cumftances he would not have
done, had he not believed it an Obligation)
that he would not permit the Eutychian
Council at Ephefus to be aflcmbled, without
the knowledge and Authority of the Ro-
man Bifhop L? the firft • and fo wrote to
him to have his prefence in it % who fent his
Legacs unto them. And though both
LcSs lecters were diffcmbled, and his Legats
affronted, and himfelf excommunicated by
E 3 wicked
54 Mr * Johnfons/ttW Paper.
wicked Diofcorus, Patriarch of Alexandria,
andprefidentof that Coven tide, whoalfo
was the chief upholder of the Eutychians,
yet Theodofius repented befofe his death,
baniihed his wxfePuIchcria and Chryfafhiui
the Eunuch, the chief favourers of the Eu-
tychians, and reconciled himfelf to the
Church with great evidences of Sorrow and
Pennance.
(m)$oncil. (m) Prcfently after, ^##0.451. fol-
cbalced. lows the Fourth General Council of Chair
Afaoyu i. ce ^ m : concerning which thefe particulars
occur to our prefent purpofe. Firft Mar-
tianus the Eaftern Emperour wrote to Pope
£50, That by the Popes Authority a Gene-
\ raj Council might be gathered in what City
of the Eaftern Church he (hould pleafe to
chule. Secondly, both Anatolia* Patriarch
'jMft&qinoflc, and the reft of the Eaftern
ops- fent> to the legats of Pope Leo,
order, the profeflionof their Eaitb.
lsrffly, the Popes Legats fate in the firft
place of theCouncil before all thepatriarchs.
SSSl ''*-") TF°» rthl yi rhe Y prohibited / by his
itttml-*. order given them) That Bio f cor us Patri-
arch of Alexandria, and chief upholder of
the Eutychians, fhould fit in the Council! ;
but be prefented as a guilty perfon to be
judged ; becaufe he had celebrated a Coun-
cil!
. T^r
Mr. Johnfons fccond Paper. 5 5
cill in the Eaftcrn Church without the co n-
fent of the Bifhop of Rome -, which ( faid , which
the Legats ) never was done before, nor could could not
be done lawfully. This order of Pope Ze^bebyrea-
was prefently put in execution by confent f° n °f **
of the whole Councill, and Diof corns was ^tJuth
judged and condemned - 5 his condemnation ^cb. wa$
and depofition being pronounced by the then in it $
Popes Legats, and after fubfehbred by the& r the
Council!. Fifthly the Popes Legats pro-^J]£ h jJ
nounced the Church of Rome to be * Ca- many
put omnium Ecclefiaru?n,the Head of rf//oth:rs in
Churches, before the whole Council, and F,^e x _ x
none contradicted them. Sixthly, all the'f'^ 3 ^
Fathers affembled in that Holy Councill, in Jf ^ n rC
their Letter to Pope Leo, acknowledged pU re'and
themfelves to be his children, and wrote to ho!y,and
none
In the time of fuftinian the Emperq&r, Agapct Pop
in CoKflvriinopk) againft. the will bom of the Emper<
him as to their Father. Seventhly,theyl)iWTr y cc
bly begged of him, that he would grant;^^
that the Patriarch of Confiantinojd^ might t heChurch
of Rente*
>e, even
>erour and
Emprefs, depofed A/i'hymiM, and ordained Mtnnis in his
place. Libera?, id Brtv'uti to. cap .ii. MaiutLhiM. C omes inCbro-
mco. Concil. C on ft cl ' ltl)l ' fab Menna. acl. 4. And the fame
S t. Greg. C. 7. SP.6J. declares that botli the Eaiperour and Bi-
fhopof Coxftvuintple acknowledged that the Church of Conflan*
tinoplcwzs fubje&tothe Sec of l(am\ And /. 7. Ep. 57. Et
al:bi pronounces, that in cafe of falling into offences he knew »o* 4
Bifhop which was not fubjeft to the bifliop of Rome. *\ f
E 4 Hajie \
5 6 Mr. J ohnfons/ittW Paper.
have the firit place among the Patriarch*,
after that of Rome : which notwithftand-
ing that the Council! had confented to
(as had alfo the Third General Councill
of Ephefu* done before ) yet they efteem-
ed their grants to be of no fufficient force,
untill they were confirmed by the Pope*
; AhdLeo thought not fit to yield to their
petition, againft the exprefs ordination of
< theFirft Councill of Nice ; where Alexan-
dria had the preheminence, as alfo Antioch
and Hierttfalem, before that ofConftantino-
fie.
Saint Cyril of Alexandria^ though he
wholly dilallowediVV/?0r;*tf his doftrine,yet
he would not break off Communion with
him, till Cele^inm the Pope had con-
demned him : whofe Cenfure he requi-
red and expe&ed. Neftoritis alfo wrote to
Celeftine, acknowledging his Authority ,
and expecting from him the Cenfure of his
doftrine. Celeftinus condemned Neftorins %
and gave him the fpaceof ten daies to re-
(o)St.^- pent, after he had received his condemna-
guflin. tion. All which had effeft in the Eaftern
Tom. i Church, where Neftorim was Patriarch of
PoSiSS Con fi*» tiHg P le ' (°) After this Saint QnV/
epift.%. ad having received Pope Leo's Letters ,wherein
hlefl'miim. he gave power to Saint Cyrill to execute
1/ his
Mr. Johnfons fec$nd P*$cr. 57
his condemnation againft Neftorius, and to
fend his condemnatory letters to him >
gathered a Council of his next Biftiops, and
fent Letters and Articles to be fubferibed,
with the Letters or Celefiine to Nefiorius :
which when Nefiorius had received, he was
fo far from repentance, that he accufed St.
Cyril inthofe Articles, to be guilty of the
Herefic of ApoRinaris : fo that St. Cyril
being alfo accuied of Herefie, was barred
from pronouncing fentence againft Nefio-
rius^ fo long as he ftood charged with that
Accufation. Theodofius the Emperour, fee-
ing the Eaftern Church embroyled inthefc
difficulties, writes to Pope Celefiine about
the affembling of a general Council at Ephe-
fus, by Petroriius afterwards Biftiop of
Bononia (as is manifeft in his life written by
Sigonius) Pope Celefiine in his Letters to
Theodofius^ not only profelfeth his confent
to the calling of that Council, but alfo pre-
fcribeth in what form it was to be celebrat*
cd • as Firmtis Bifhop of Csfarea in Op-
padocia teftified in the Council of Ephefus*
Hereupon Theodofius fent his Letters to
affemble theBifhops both of the Eaft and
Weft to that Council. And Celefiine fent
his I egats thither, with order not to exa-
mine again in the Council the caufe of
Ne (tori us,
<
5 8 Mr> Johnfons [econd Paper.
Neftorius, but rather to put Celeftines conr
demotion of him, given the year before,
into execution. St. Cyril Bifliop ot
Alexandria being conftituted by Celefline\
his chief Legate ordinary in the Eaft, byji
reafon of that preheminency, and primacy}]
of his See after that of Rome , prefided in
the Council: yet fo, that Philip, who was|
only a Priell and no Bifhop, by reafon that
he was fent Legates a Latere from Celcftine,
• and fo fupplied his place as he was chief
Bifhopofthe Church, fubferibed thefirft,
even before St. Cyril, and all the other
Legats and Patriarchs. In the fixth Aftion
of this holy Council, Juvenilis Patriarch of
Hiernfalem , having underftood the con-
tempt, which John Patriarch of Antijcb,
who was cited before the Council, {hewed
of theBifhops and the Popes Legats there
affembled, expre(Ted himfelf againft him in
thefe words, ^uod Apoftolica ordinatione
& AntiqHA Traditione fwhich were no way
oppofed by the Fathers there prefent)
Antiochena fedes ferpetm a Romans dirigere-
tur judkarernrque , That by Apoftolical
ordination and ancient Tradition the See of
Antioch was perpetually dire&ed and
judged by the See of Rome : which words
not only evidence the precedency of place,
as
Mr. Johnfoas fe cond Paper* %$
is Dr. Hammond would have it , but of
)0wcr and judicature in the Bifhop of
Rome over a Patriarch of the Eaftern
"hurch •, and that derived from the time
md ordination of the Apoftles. The
"ouncil therefore fent their decrees, with
heir condemnation of Neflorius, to Pope
Zeleftine, who prcfently ratified and con-
irmed them.
Not long after this, in the year 445.
Palestinian the Emperour makes this mani-
"cfto of the moft high Ecclefiaftical authori-
y of the See of Rome^ in thefe words :
c Seeing that the merit of St. Peter , who is
c the Prince of the Epifcopal Crown, and
c the Dignity of the City of Rome , and no
c lefs the authority of the holy Synod, hath
1 eftablifhed the primacy of the Apoftoli-
: cal See, left preemption (hould attempt
: any unlawful thing againft tbe authority
'of that See, (for then finally will the^ cc * 5 ? at
c peace of the Churches be preferved every B e "f^
: where, if the whole univerfality acknow- in the year
1 ledge their Governour ) when thefe 44$.
1 things had been hitherto inviolably ob-
1 ferved, &c . Where he makes the fuc-
reflion from St. Peter to be the firft foun-
dation of the Roman Churches primacy ^
md his authority to : be, not only in place,
but
60 Mr. Johnfons fccend Paper.
but in power and Government over the]
whole vifible Church: And adds pitfent-
ly, that the definitive fentencc of the!
Bifhopof Rome, given againft atiy French]
Bifhop, was to be offeree through France ,
eveti without the Empcrours Letrers Pat-
tents. ' For what /ball not be lawful for the
Authority of fo great a Bijh.^p to exercife
upon the Churches ? And then adds his Im-
perial precept, in thefe words. "But this
cc occafion hath provoked alfo our com-
mand, that hereafter it (hall not be law-
ful, neither for Hilarius (whom to be
ftill entituled a Biftiop, the iole humanity
of the meek Prelate (id eft, the Biftiop of
Rome) permits ) neiiher tor any other to
mingle arms with Ecclefiaftical matters,
or to refill the commands oftheBifliop
of Rome, &c. We define by this our per-
petual decree, that it (hall neither be
lawful for die French Bifhops, nor for
c - thofe of other provinces, againft the an-
lc cient cullom, to attempt any thing with-
cc out the authority of the venerable Pope
Ce of the eternal City : But let it be for a
"law to them and to all, whatfoever the
^'authority of the Apoitolick See hath de-
" termined, or (hall determine. So that
"what Bilhop foever, being called to the
iC Tribunal
CI
cc
cc
CC
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
Cc
ji/^ Johnfons fecwd Taper. 6i
"Tribunal of :he Rowan Biihop , fha!l
" reeled to co e, is to be compelled by
cl the Governour of che lame Province, to
"prefent himklf before km. Which evi- 1
dently proves, hai chehgheii, Um've-fal,
Eccl.fiaftical Judpe and Governour was 3
and ever is to be the Bifhop ot Rome :
which the Council of Chalredcn before
mentioned, plainly owned, when writing co
Pope Leo they fay, Thou Governefi u* 3 as
the head doth the members ^ contributing thy €p:ft. Con-
Zood "bill bj thofe -which hold thy place. Be- ciLadLcon.
hold a Primacy, not only of Precedency, a $\ f
but of Government and Authority . which
Lerixenfis confirms, ccntr. Haref. cap. 9.
where fpeaking of Stephen Pope, he faies,
Dignttm, ut opinor, exiftimans, fi reliquos
:rrnts tantum fidci dcvoticnc, quantum loci
tuthoritate, [up rabat : ei;c ruing it (as I
liinkj a thing worthy of h.mfelf, if he
bvercame all others asmichtnthe devo-
ionot faith, as lie did in the Authority of
lis place. And co confirm what ih:s uni-
rerfal Authoricy was-, he affirms, that he
ent a Law, Decree, or C ommand into
Africa, (S^nxitJ That in matter of re-
>aptization of Hereticks nothing (hould be
nnovatedj which was a manii um^nc
Ibis Spiritual Authority over thofe of
A
1
€i Mr. Johnfons [ccond Paper*
Africa } and a paritate rationis , over all
others. I will (hut up all with that which
was publickly pronounced , and no way
contradicted, and confequently affented to
in the Council of Epbefus, (one of the four
firft general Councils ) in this matter,
Tern. 2. Ccncil. pag. 327. Aft. I. where
Philip, Prieft and Legate of Pope Celeftine^
lkycs thws, cC Gratia* tgimus fanfta vene-
" randaque fynodo, quod Uteris fanfti beati-
lc que Papa mflri vobis recitatis^ fanftas
<c chanas, fan&isveftris vocibus, fanfto ca-
piti vefiro, fanftis veftris exclamationi-
bus, exhibueritis. Non enim ignorac
"veftra beatitudo, totius fidei; vel ctiam
Apoftoloriim, caput effe beatum Apofto-
lumPetrum. And the fame Philip, Aft.
3. p. 330. proceeds in this manner, Nuili
Cc
CC
cc
Cc
CC
<c dubium, imo feculis omnibus notum eft,
1 quod fanftusbeatiflimufquePetrus, Ap<
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
«c
Ci
ftolorum Princeps & caput , Fideiqi
columna , JEcclcJi* Catholic a Fundamen-
turn, a Domino noftro Jcfu Chrifto , Sal-
vatore generis humani ?C redemptorc
c noftro claves regni sccepit, folvendique
ac ligandi p^ccata poteftas ipfi daca eft^
qui ad hoc ufque tempus ac femper in fuis
fucceflbribus vivit & judicium exer-
cet : -Hujus itaque fecundum ordinem
fucceffor
Mr. Johnfons fccond V&yti. 6$
fucceffor & locnm-tenens ^ fan&us beatiffi-
mufque Papa noftcr Ccleftinus, nos ipfius
praefentiam fupplentes hue mifit. And
Arcadius another of the Popes Legats en-
veighing againft the Heretick Ntforins,
accufes him, ( though he was Patriarch of
C 'on ft amino pie , which this Council requires
to be next in dignity after Rome) as of a
great crime, that he contemnedthe command^ 01 ^*
of the Afoftolick See , char is , of Pope Jg £°-
C: left we. Now had Pope Ccleftine had no Qfwry
ipower to command him (and by the like Popc^.io.
jreafonto command all other Bilhops^ he*j>- 30.
jhad committed no fault in tranfgrefling and wnei £ Hc "
contemning his command. By thefe tefti-"^^ 1
monies it will appear, that what you are t kksre*
pleafed to fay, That the weft part of the penting,
Catholike Church hath been againft us to this werc re ~
day y and all for many hundred of years, is far J^ into
rom truth : feeing in the time of the holy tae
Oecumenical Councils of Efhcfus and Church,
Chalcedon^ the univerfal confent of the up 00 f°-
vholc Catholike Church was for us in this len i n P ro ;
mile, and
> inr - publike
protcftati-
that they would never any more feparate/VflW* but alwaies
main in the unity of the Catholike Church, and communion
all things with the Bifiiop of Rome.
As
^4 Mr. Johnfons [econdPapcrl
As to what you fay of Congregation of
Chriftians in the beginning, I anlwer, I took
the word Chriftians in a large fenfe, com-
prehending in it all thofe (as it is vulgarly
taken^ who are Baptized and profefs to
believe in Chrift 5 and are diftinguifhed from
Jews, Mahumetansand Heathens,under the
denomination of Chriftians.
What you often fay of an univerfal
Monarch,^, if you take Monarch for an
Imperious fcle Commander , as temporal
Kings are, we acknowledge no fuch Mo-
narch in the Church : if only for one who
hath received power from Chrift, in meek-
nefc, charity, and humility to govern all
the reft, for their own eternal good, as bre-
thren or children, we grant it.
What alfo you often repeat of a Vice*
Chrift , we much diflike that title,, as proud
and infolent, and utterly difclaim from it ^
neither was it ever given by any iufficienc
Authority to our Popes, or did they ever
accept of it.
As to the Council of Conftance, they ne
ver queftioned the Supremacy of the Pope,
as ordinary chief Governour of all Biftiops
and people in the whole Church : nay they
exprefly give it to Martinm guintus
when he was chofen.
B
iM r. John /on s [econd Paper. 6$
But in extraordinary cafes , efpecially
when it is doubtful who is true Pope, as it
was in the beginning of this Council, till
Afartintts Quintus was chofen : Whether.
any extraordinary power be in a general
Council, above that ordinary power of the
Pope : which is a queftion difputed by fome
amongft our felves, but touches not the
matter in hand j which proceeds only of .
the ordinary and conftant Supream Paftor
ofaltChriftians, abftra&ing from extraor-
dinary tribunals and powers, which are
feldom found in the Church, and colle&ed
only occafionally, and upon extraordinary
accidents.
Thus honoured Sir, T haveas much as my
occafions would permit me, hafteneda re-
ply to your anfwer^ and if more berequi-
iite, it (hall not bedenyed. Only pleafe to
give me leave to tell- you , that I cannot
conceive my Argument yet anfwered by all
you have faid to it.
Feb. i. 1658.
William Johnfon.
Sir,
It was the 21. of January, before j^ur
Anfypqr came to mj bands • and though my
f 66 Mr. John Tons feccnd Tdper.
Reply was made ready by me the third inftarit %
yet 1 hsve found ft great difficulties to get it
transcribed^ that it "tods not pojfikle to tranf-
iv.it it to you before nowj But I hope here-
after I fhafl find Scribes more at leafure.
I mxft defire j:H to exenfe what errors yon
find in the Copy which I fend ^ As alfo, that
being unwilling to mtk^ a farther delay , lam
i enforced to fend a Copy which hath in it more
interlineations then would otherwife become
me to fend to aperfon of jour worth. Tet I
cannot do ubt^ but your Candor will pdfs by
a 11 things of this nature. I am Sir 7
Your very humble fervant,
feb. 15.1658. William Johnf on*
Worthy Sir,
J haze now expeEled neer three moneths for
yesr reyynder to the Reply which I made to
that A^wer which you wtre pleafed to fend y
and return to nj Argument a naming the
Lhvrch vfChrift , tut as yet nothing h.th ap-
peared. I mtft cenfefs, I have wondered at
it, cenfidtring the earn^ftnefs which appeared
iny r H*t the fi r ft y to proceed with freed in 4
bufinefs ofthn nature ; what the impediment
hath
Mr. Jobnfons fee end Paper. Cj
hath been, I am only left to guefs : but cer-
tainly truth is Firong, and it will not be found
an eafie thing to off of e her while we keep clofe
to form. lam now necefptated ^o go out of
London-, fo that if jour Payers come inn* j
tbfence, I (hall hope j>u will have the patience
to exptft unt ill they can befentfrom London
tome^andmy Anfwers returned by the way
of London : but I do engage not to mak^ a
delay longer then the circun.ftances of the
pUce and times PjaII enforce.
Sir, / do highly honour and efteem y«ur
parts and per/on • and fhall be very gl..d to
bring that bufinefs to an handfome iffne which
bath been fo calmly and foberly profecuted,
Jam an enemy to paffion^ and as I have hi-
therto found you fweet and gentle in y r ur pro-
ceedings towards me, fo fhallyou alwaies find
me.
Worthy Sir,
Tour friend tofervevou,
May i. 1659, William Jonnfon*
Sir,
Be pleafed to return your Anfwer % Papers
or Letters which you intend for. me, to the
farne place to which you direlied your former-^
by whhh means , I foallbe fecureto receive,
V 1 them
68 To Mr. T.L, {wh§ called we to this work.)
thtnfat mj houfe, which is four/core wiles
from London.
To Mr. T. L. (who called me to this yvorkj)
Sir,
T Hough I am a ftranger to you, I
thought meet to take notice of the
Letters which you fent your friend here
(T« H.) It feems you urge hard for a Re-
ply, and intimate fomewhat of triumph in
'my delay; you fpeak as an incompetent
Judge. God is the Matter of my time and
work \ and him I muft ferve : and not
negleft his greater work, for fuch trivial
objeftions as your friend hath fent me,
which are anfwered over and over by many
fo long ago. Had you read Blondel, Mo-
linem de novitate Papifmi, whital^er , Si-
brandus ,Lubbertus ^Chamicr ', Abbots, Cra^
kenthorf, Spdatenfts, or one of many that
have confuted them, you would fure call
for no more ; Or if in Englifo you had
read Dr. Field, Dr. White ^ yea, or but Sir
ZJumpherj Lind (to pafs by multitudes^
you might have k^n their vanity. Yea
plainly read impartially my two books
againft
To Mr.T.L. (who called me to this work.) 6p
againft Popery, and be aPapift if you can.
But it feems -you take it for a poor anfwer
to be referred to books. Do not fear it.
But yet let me tell you, that my hand is
not more legible then my printed books :
and if I had fent you this in print, would
ttatt have made it a poor anfwer ? Or ra-
ther, is not this a poor exception, and
(hews that it is not truth that is lookt after :
for truth may be printed as well as written.
If you be deceived by the men of the Papal
way, let me yet intreat you, but to read
over thofe two books ("The fafe Religion,
and the Key for Catholikes) : If your foul
be not worth fo much labour, take your
courfe : I did my duty.
But I muft fay, that it is a doleful cafe
that profeffors are fo ungrounded, that
fuch vanities (hould carry them away from
Catholike verity and unity, to a faftion
that ufurps the name of Catholikes. To be
free with you, I think it is that pride and
levity that brings them firffc to feparation
from our Churches into Sefts , and the
guilt which they there incur , that pre-
pareth profeffors to be fo far forfaken of
God, as to be given up to believe a lie, and
toturnPapifts.
O dreadful cafe I that one Biftiop can-
F 3 not
jo TeMr.l \L.(whccaDeJwetoibiswbrk.)
not fwell in pride, but men muft make a
Religion of his pride / yea and make a
Catholixe Church of it ! yea and plead for
It, and make the fin their own • yea con.
tlemn'ail Chriftians that lift not themfelves
under this Prince of pride. He is culpably,
if not wilfully blind, that hath read S#f-
pture and Church hiftory , ■ and knoweth
not, that the Pope for three hundred years
after Chrift, was not the crca:ure that now
be is i nor had for molt of that time any
more Government over other Bifhops,
then I have over neighbour Paftors : and
after chat time, he was no more an univerfal
Head, or Governour, or Vicar of Chrift,
then the Archbifhopof Canterbury was «,
having indeed a far larger Diocefs then he,
but never was more then t he iwe! led Pri-
mate of one National (Imperial,) Church,
Whert Synods began to be gathered out of
a Principality (che Emperours defiring that
means of unity within their Empire), the
prideof the Prelates fee them prefemlya
Striving for fuperiority , who {hould fie
iigheft, and write his name firft, and have
the largelt Diocefs, &g ! And now men
make a Relgion of the fruits of this
abon-.in'abie- pride. ' What are all their
^iiputings ior^ and all this ftir that they
make
t$ Mr.T.L. {who csBed me to thts mrk.) 71
makein the world, but to fee up one man
orcr all the earth ? and that to do a fpiritu-
allwork, which confiiteth not with force,
but is managed on conscience ; One wretch-
ed man mull govern the Antipodes on
the other fide of the earth, that is indeed
uncapable of truly and juitly Governing
the City of R$me ic felf. Popes, that their
own Councils have condemned forravifh-
ing maids and wives at their doors, ior
Murders, Simony, Drunkennefs, Herefie,
denying the Refurredion and the life to
come (thae is,being noChriftians)thefefor-
footh muft be che univerfal Governours, or
we are all undone ; and we are damned if
we believe it not : O how dreadful! are che
effects of fin •, and how great a judgement
is a blinded mind ! This comes ot falling
into Seds and parties, which leads men imo
the gulf of che moft odious Schifm (even
Popery) in the world.
Eut if you are engaged in this party, its
two co one but you are presently made
partial, and will not fo much as read what
isagaii.ft them •, or will believe chem it they
do buc tell you chat we write lies ^ when
they are things done in the open fun, and
which they cinnoc confu.c, nor dare
attempt, kft they manneit their (haim\
Y 4 laKC
HP 7* To Mr.H. L. (who called mtto thu work.)
Take from them their Clergies vaft Do-
minions, Principalities, Lands and Lord-
ftiips, Riches and worldly Honours, with
which they fo much abound, and then try
how many will plead for the Pope: then
they'l fay, If Bad be a God, let him plead
for himfelf. But I confefs, I have little
hopes of turning any of them, though I
could {hew it them written by an Angel
from heaven that Popery is a deceit : for
the Scripture that's above Angelical autho-
rity declareth it • and by making it a nofe
of wax, they take it as if it were not fenfe,
nor intelligible without the Popes interpre-
tation (which in difficult cafes he dare not
give,). They cry up the Churchy and when
we would have them ftand to the Church,
they fhamefully turn their backs^ and when
two or three parts of the Churches through
the world areagainft the Papal Soveraign-
ty, they refufe them as Hereticks or Schif-
rnaticks. They cry up Tradition^ and when
we offer them in the main point to be tried
By it, they difclaim thj Tradition of rwo or
three parts of the univerfal Church as being
all Hereticks. And may not any Se& do
fo too as honeftly as they ? yea among the
ignorant that know not Chaffe from Corn,
ttiey havefomeof them 'the faces to per-
fwade
To Air-T. L. (rvh called mt to this work.) 7 3
fwade them that their Church is the greater
W/of the Chriftian world! when they know
:hey fpeak notorioufly falfly, or elfe they
ire unworthy to fpeak of fuch things that
:hey underftand not.
But to what purpofe fhould any words
:>e ufed with men, that have taught fo great
i part of the world, not to believe their
?yes and other fenfes ! Can any writing
nake any matter plainer to you, then that
Bread is Bread, and Wine is Wine, when
/ou fee them, and tail:, and eat, and drink
:hem ? And yet their general Councils ap-
proved by the Pope, have made it an Arti-
:le of their faith , that the whole fub-
-tanceof the Bread and Wine is turned into
he Body and Blood of Chrift, fo that there
s lefc no Bread or Wine, but only that
colour, quantity and taft that before be-
nged to it. And if you know not Bread
when you eat it, or Wise when you drink
it, and when the fenfes of all the found men
in the world concur with yours, is it not
vain for me, or any man to difpute with
you ? Can you have any thing brought to
a furer judgement then to all your fenfes?
And yet no doubt but your leducers can
fay fomething to prove that Bread is not
Bread when you fee and eat it : No wonder
then
74 'T* Mr * T* L Avtho caffeJme to this vom . )
then if they canconfocc me. But do they
indeed be! eve themfelves <* hows it pofli-
ble? there is no exercife or realon, and
belief that fuppofeth not the certainty of
fenfe. If I cannot know Bread and Wine
when I fee, touch, caft chem ^ then cannot
1 know the Pope, the Councils, the Scri-
pt ore, the Prieit, or any thing clfe. If you
think to let go this point of Popery and
hold the reft, you know not what Popery
is: for a Pope and Council having deter-
mined K, you are damned by them for de-
nying the faith: and if you depart from
the infallibility of their Rule and judge in
pomes of faith, oratlejift from the obliga-
tion of ir,in one thirig, they will confefs to
you that }ou may as well do it in more ^
Fdtfe in this, and certain in nothing, is their I
own condition. Sir, I have not been un-
willirg ro know the tnuh,having a foul to
feve oriole as well as you, and having as
much reafon to be loth to perifh. If you
have fo far forfeiced the Grace of God, as
roeerly to follow the pride of a pretended
YkcCkrift (that hath turned do&rine into
error, worfhtp into fuperftition and dead
formality, light into darknefs , difcipline
into confufion mixt with tyranny) ^ if
inecrly to let up one Tyrant over the con-
fciences
to Mr.T !>X*>bo caUcJl me to this mrk.) y <
fciences (and bodies tooJ of all believers in
the worid, you can fall into a Sed:, deny
Scripture, Reafon, the Judgement and
Tradition ofmoft of the Church, and your
own and all mens eye-fight, taft and other
fenfes, the Lord have mercy on you, if you
be not paftit : I have done with you, yet
remaining
An unfeigned defirer of jour
Welfare , and lament er of
the Apoft^cies *nd giddi*
tiefs oftbefe times ,
j Mr.]i$. 1659. Richard Baxter.
Did jo u know what it is^ bj looft andf l~e
aUegt.tiuns , to be put to read fa manj } ,s
(in grext p>irt) in foli , 1 try wh thtr the
alltcger J>J true cr ] l/e , you Would net
e.xptth that Ifljould return an s.njwcr, and
reaafo much effo v *.< nj Irs in enj Ifs then
ten or eleven dates , m 1 thinl^ b^tbtecm
1 all tlat I have had to write and read fo
1 much:
The
7*
The Reader mufitake notice that I wroh\
the former Letter to the perfou that fent\
Mr. Johnfons Letters , with a charitable]
iesknfie> that if he were himfelf in doubt, he\
mi*ht be revived : But in his return h$\
futj dij 'claimed popery , and affured me, that\
it is for the fake of fome friends that he deftredl
9*r labour, and not for his own.
R.B.
The
17
The %e]jly to Mr. Johnfons
fecond Paper,
Sir,
TH E multitude and urgency of my
employments gave me not leave till
this day (AUyz.) fo much as to read
over all your Papers ■ But I {hall be as loth
to break off our Difputation, as you can
be, though perhaps neceflity may fome-
time caufe fome weeks delay. And again,
I profefs, my indignation againft the Hypo-
crital Jugling of this age, doth provoke
, me to welcome fo ingenuous and candid a
difputantas yourfelf, with great content.
But I muft confefsalfo, that I wasthelefs
haftyin fending you this Reply, becaufe I
defired you might have leifure to perufe
a Book which I publifhed fince your laft,
(A Key for Catholikes •,) feeing that I have
there anfwered you already, and that more
largely then I am like to do in this Reply.
lor
p
78 The Reply to Mr .Jcfonfons fccond Paper.
Tor the (harpnefs of that I muft craveyour $
patience ^ the perfons and caufe I thought
required it.
Ad i m . What explications were madeh'i
to your Friend of your Thefis, I could j*
not take notice of, who had nothing but 1
your writing to Anfwer. »
2. If you will not be precife in Arguing^ i
you had little reafon to cxped: ( much lefs p
10 ftriftly to exaft ) a precife Anfwer ^ a
which cannot be made as you prefcribed,
to an Argument not precife.
3.I therefore exped accordingly that!
the unlearned be not made the Judges ofl \
a difpute which/they are not fit to judge
of • feeing you defire us to avoid their '
road.
4. Again I fay, if you will not be precife
in arguing, I can hardly be fo in anfwering..
And by Q a Congregation ofChriftians ] you
may mean \_Chriftians foliticallj related,
to we Head,'] whecherChnit,or the Pope;
But the word. .£ Ajfemblies J exprefTecfe
their a&uall Afiembllng together, and fo
excludeth all Chriftians that are or were
Members of no particular ajfllmblies, from
having Relation as Members to Chriil(our :
Head J or the Pope ( your Head,) and
fo from being of the Congregation^
as
c K fflj to Mr. Johnfons feetnd fjpar. yp
you Call 3 The Church xnitwr*
a.
5, I had great rcafon to avo : d the frare
fan equiv< cation, or ambiguity, of wh th
ou gave me caufe of jea ouiie by your
whAtforver~] as I told }ou : as ieeming
d intmjace a falfe fuppoution : To your
i^Ianfw.r,!* is unli\e> and ltil! more
timates tie talfe fupp*>iicion« [WbAtfi-
} er Congrtgati n cf nun is the Conm.**-
Xedth sf EngUnd~\ is a phrafe that <m-
rich hat ' Tktre is* Congregation
wen yphhh is not the Commen-pre/lth of
ngUnd. } Whxh is true, here being
ore men in the wo-ld. bo ^rvkatfoevtr
cngregatitn of Chrtftltns is now the trut
hurcb J dothfeem to in port, tjtet y<>u
upp>ie J" there U dCongrtgutionof Chriftir
s fumvocaliy <o called ; that are not tht
ueChnrch \ wh ih you would diflm£Ui(h
rom ihc other : Wh ch , only lee ^ou know
t the entrance, bat I deny, .hat jou may
noc think it grafted.
Yet I muft tell you tlm nothing is more
ordinary then for the Borj to be faid to do
that wh iha part of ic ouiy doh^ Asthac
£ the Church ddrr inijtreth S cranents, J)if-
cipline, Te.thtth,^. the Chnnh is tffem-
hiedin [neb a^'onnM Oct. J when ycc It is
but
ai
i
Ifc
%
u
80 The Reply to Mr. Johnfons ftcond Paper}
but a /m*# part of the Church that dot^
thefe things. And when Be/larmine, Grett
fer, Sec. fay [ the Church is the infallible
judge of Controver fixes of faith, ] they mean
not |_ the whole Churm\ which containeth
every Chriftian, when they tell you that
It is the Pop they mean, and therefore
I had reafon to enquire into your fenfe
unlefs I would willfully be over-reacht.
You now facisfie me that you mean it uni
verfally, viz. " ^11 that Congregation (o
Church ) of Chrifiians Vphich ts now th
trueChurch ofChrifi^doth acknowledge ^cc.
which I told you I deny.
6. To my following diftin&ion you fa
■£ that all the world knows that whatfoever
acknowledged to have been ever in the Churc
by Chrifis infitlution, cannot be meant of an
accidental thing, but of a nccejfarj unchanged
able and ejfentiall thing, in Chrifis true
Church,'] To which I Reply, Either youllj
fee the grofs fallacy of this defence, or you
do not ; If you do nor, then never more
call for anexaft Difputant, nor look to be
delivered from your errors by argumenta-
tion, though never fo convincing, if you
do, then you are not faithful] to the truth.
In your Major propofition the words being
many ( as you fay, you penetrated divers
i
arguments
iht Xeplj to Mr Johnfons/iw/;^ Paprr* 8 1
arguments together,) ambiguities were the
fier hidden in the heap. That which I
jtold you is Accidental to the C hutch ( and
that but to a corrupted part) was "the
Acknowledging o{ the V^p^icy as of Chrifts
[rftitution , and therefore if it were
granted that a thing [of Chrifts Jnftituti-
m ~] could not be Accidental, yet Q the
Acknowledgment'] that is, the Opinion or
averting of it may. If the Church by mifiake
fhould think that to be Effential to it which
is not, though it will not thence follow
:hat its £ fence is but an Accident, yet it
wilf follow that both ihefalfe opinion, and
he thing it felf fo falfly conceited to be
^ffential, are butaccidcnts,or not eiTntial.
¥ou fay [ It cannot be meant of any Acciden-
tal thing | But i. That Meaning it felf of
peirsmay be an Accidenr. 2. And the
ueftion is not what they \_Mean^ that is,
magine or affirm ] it to be • But what
t is in deed and truth, That may be an
Accident , which they think to be none.
2. But that which you fay [_ all the world
bows] is a thing that [all the world of
Chriftians except your (elves,\ that ever
heard of, do know, or acknowledge to be
:alfe. What j doth all the world know
:hat Chrift hath inftituted in his Church
G nothing
ta
8a The Reply to Mr . Johnfons ftcond Paper
nothing but what is cflential to it ? I (hould
hope that few in the Chriftian world
would be fo ignorant as ever to have fuch
a thought, if they had the means of know-
ledge that Proteftants would have thei
have. There is no natural body but hat
natural Accidents as well as EfTence : No
is there any other fociety under heave
{Community or Policy ) that hath not its
Accidents as well as Effence ; And yet
hath Chrift inftituced, a Church that hath
nothing but Ejjence without Accidents ?
Do you build upon fuch foundations I
What ! upon the denyal of common prin
ciples and fence ? But if you did, yo
fhould not have feigned all the world to d
fo too .Were your afferiton true, then every
foul were cut off from the Church, and fo
from falvation, that wanted any thing o
Chrifts Inftitution , yea for a moment
And then what would become of you
You give me an inftance in [the Eucha>
rift] But i. Will it follow that if th
Eucharifi be not Accidental or integral
but EfTential, that therefore every thing In
fiituted by Chrift is Effentiall ? furely no
2. The Queftion being not whether th
Being of the Eucharift in the Ghurch be
EfTential to the UnLverfal Church ; Bu
whcch
i
n
The Re fly to Mr Johnfofls/ir*W Taper > $3
whether the Belief or Acknowledgment
of it by All and every one of the mem-
bers, be Effentiai to the Members ? I
would crave your anfwer but to this Que-
ftion ( though it be nothing to my caufe. )
Was not a Baptized perfoa in the primitive
and ancient Churches a true Church-mem-
ber, prefently upon Baptifm ? And then tell
me alfo, Did not the ancient Fathers and
Churches unanimously hide from their
Catechumens, even fnrfofelj hide, the my-
fterie of the Eucharift, as proper to the
Church to underftand ? and never opened
it to the auditors, till they were Baptized ?
Thisismoft undenyable in the concurrent
vote of the ancients.I think therefore that it
follows that in the Judgement of the an-
cient Churches the Eucharift was but of the
Integrity, and not the EfTence of a
member of the Church ^ and the acknow-
ledgement of it by all the members, a thing
that never was exiftent.
Where you fay, your Major fbonld have
keen granted or denyed -without thefe diflin-
ttions : I Reply, i . If you mean fairly,
andnottoabufe the truth by Confufion,
filch diftin&ions as you your felf call t Learn-
ed and fubftantUl~\ can do you no wrong.
They do but fecure our true underftariding
Gz of
84 the Reply to Mr Johnfons [econd Paper.
£f one another : And a few lines in the be-
ginning by way of diftin&ion are not vain,
that may prevent much vain altercation
afterwards. . When I once underftand
you, 1 have done : And I befeech you, take \
it not for an injury to be underftood.
As to your conclufion, that you ufed no
fallacy ex A ceidente ^zn&that my infiances\
are notafpoftte ^ I Reply, thats the very life
of the Controverfie between us ; And our
main ^uefiien k not fo to be begged. On
the grounds I have (hewed you, I {till a-
verr, that [ the holding of the ^Papacy is as
e/^ ccidental to the univerfal Church, as a
Cancer in the breaft is to a woman •, _ And
though you fay % It is Effential, and of
Chrifis Inftitution, that maketh it neither
EfTential, nor of Chrifts Inftitution 5 nor
doth it make all his inftitutions to be effen-
tialls.
NowofyourfecondSyllogifm. 1. 1 (hall
never queftion the fucceffive Vilibility of
the Church.
Whereas I told you out of your Franfc.
a S. Clara, that many or moft of your own
Schoolmen agree not to that which you fay
[All Chrifiians agree fa,] you make no re-
plj to it.
As to yourMinor^Ihave given you theRea-
fons
The Reply to Mr. }o\\r\fotft[ccond Paper. 85
fons of the neceffity and harmlefncfs of my
diftindionsiwe need fay no more to that (\e
Congregation of Ckrifiians~\ and^aCkfirch^
rire Synonima : But the v?ord[true\ was not
added to your firft term by you or me; and
therefore your inltance here is delufory.But
fay \jwhatfoever Congregation of Chrifti-
wsjs now the true Church^ is all one as to
fay wbatfoever Church of ( / hriftiansisnoy9
the true Chnrch.~\ When 1 know your mean-
ing I have my end.
Though my fvllogifm fay not that " the
[ church of Rome achnoypledgeth thofe things
ilwaies done, and that by Chrifis infiitHtivn]
t neverthelefs explicateth the weaknefs of
yours,as to the fallacy accident is : For i.The
molding it alwaies done, and that t/fChrifts
|/*/?/r/*m#,rr,ay be either an Accident, or
I duc of the Integrity, and ad bene ejfe, yea
_poflib!y an en our. 2. And I might as eafily
lhave given you Ir.fiancesofthatkind.
To your 3. Syllogifm 1 Reply. i.When
;ou fay the C hurch [ had Pcftors~] as you
uftfpeakof what cxifted, (and Univcr-
alls cxift not of themfelvcs) fo it is ne-
reffary that I tell you, How far I grant
four Minor, and hew far I deny it.
My argument from the Indians and
thers, is not folved by you. ft>r j. You
G 3 can
'
$6 The Reply to Mr. Johnfons fecond Paper.
\ can never prove that the Pope was preach-
ed to the Iberians by the Captive maid, .
nor to the Indians by Frumentius. 2. Thou-
fands were made Chriftians and baptized
by the Apoftles, without any preaching or
profeflion of a papacy, Alt. 2. &pajfim.'
3 . The Indians now Converted in America
by the Englifh and Dutch, hear nothing of
the Pope, nor thoufands in Ethiopia.
4. Your own do or may baptize many
without their owning the Pope , who yet
would be Chriftians. And a Paftor not-
known, or believed, or owned, is a&ually
no Paftor to them.
To your confirmation, I Reply : You
mifread my words : I talk not- of " Invi-
fible.~] I fay it is true that the Univerfal
Church is united toChriftas their univer-
fallHead: and is Vifible 1. In the mem-
bers. 2. In the Profeflion. 3. Chrift himfelf
is vifible in the Heavens, and as much fe e a
of moft of the Church as the Pope is, that
is 9 not. at all. As the Pope is notlnvifible,
though one of a million fee him not/ no
more is Chrift, who isfeen by moft of the
Church, and by the beft part, even by the
glorified. You know my meaning : Whe-
ther you will Call Chrift vifible or not,
t leave tdtyou ; I think he is vifible : But
that
The Reply to Mr. Johnfons/irW Paper. 87
that which I affirm, is, that theunivcr-
fal Church hath no other vifible univcr-
fal Head or Paftor ; But particular Chur-
ches have their particular Pallors all under
Chrift.
Of Epk 4. I eafily grant that the whole
Church may be faid to have Paftors, in that
all the particular Churches have Paftors,
But I deny that the whole have any one u-
niverfal Paftor but Chrift. Of that which is
rhe point in controverfie, you bring no
proof. If you mean no more then I grant,
that the whole Church haih Paftors both
in that each particular Church hath Pa-
ftors, and in that unfixed Paftors are to
preach to all as they have opportunity,
then your Minor hath no denyall from
me. N
Inftead of profecuting your Argument,
when you had caft the work of an Oppo-
nent upon me, you here appeal [ to anj
true Logician or expert Lawyer " Content -,
I admit of your Appeal. But why then did
you at all put on the lace of an Oppo-
nent ? could you noc without this loft labour
at firft have called me to prove the fuccef-
five vifiblity of our Church ? Put to your
Appeal, Ho all yon true L^ici*ns, this
Learned ma* and J refer it to jonr tribunal,
G4 whether
88 The Reply to Mr Johnfons [econd Paper.
whether it be the fart of an Off event, to con-
trive his Argument fo as that the Negative
Jballbe^is^and then change f laces y and be-
come Refpondcnt , and make his adverfarj
Opponent at his Pleafure. ] We leave this
caufe at your bar, and expeft your fen-
tence.
But before we come to the Lawyers bar, I
mufthavi leave more plainly to Hate our
cafe. I
We arc all agreed chat Chriftianity is the
true Religion, and Chhft the Churches
Univerfal Headland the holy Scriptures the
Word of God. • Papifts tell us of another
Head and Rule ^ the Pope and Tradition,
and judgement of tj[ie Church. Prote-
ctants deny thefe Additionals^nd hold to ■;
Chrifiianitj and Scripture only •, Our Religi- •
*#, being nothing but Chriftitmity, we have i
no Controverfie about : Their Rapdl Re-\
ligion, fuperadded, is that which is Contro-
verted : They affirm i. the Right. 2. the
Antiquity of it .- We deny both i The
Right we difprove from Scripture, though it
belorgs to them to prove it. The Ami-
ihtfti is it that is now to be referred. Pro-
t.ftancy being the Denyall of Popery, it is
*&e that Realty have the Negative, and the
Pzpifts that have the t^ffirmative. The
jEjfcncc
The Reply to Mr. Johnfons fecond Paper. 89
Ejfence of our Church (which is Chriftian)
is confeffed to have been fucceflively vi-
fible : But we deny that theirs as Papal bath
been fo 5 and now they tell us, that it is
Ejfential 10 ours to deny the fucceflion of
theirs, and therefore require us to prove a .
fucceflion of ours , as one. that ftill hath
deny ed theirs: Now we leave our cafe to
the Lawyers, feeing to them you make your
appeal, 1. Whether the fubitance of all
our caufe lie not in this Queftion, Whether
the Papacy or universal Government by the
Pope, be of heaven ,or of men ? and fo whether
it bath been from the beginning? which we
deny, and therefore are called Protefiants ^
d they affirm, and are therefore called
Papifts. 2. If they cannot fir ft prove a
fncceffive vifibility of their Papacy and
Papal Church, then what Law can bind us to
prove that it was denied, before it did arife
in the world, or ever any pleaded for it?
3. And as to the point of PolTeffion , I
know not what can be pretended on your
lide. 1. The Poffeflion of this or that
particular parifh Church or Tythes, is not
the thing in queftion ^ but the timverfal
Headfhhp is the thing : But if it were, yet it
I that am yet here in PofTefficn - 9 and
Protcftants before me for many ages fuc-
cellivcly :
£0 The Re fly to Mr . Johnfons fee end Pafer.
ceffivcly : And when pofTeflfed you the
Headfhip of the Ethiopian , Indian, and
other extra-imperial Churches? never to
this day. No nor of the Eaftern Churches,
though you had communion with them.
2. If the Queftion be 5 whohathPoflefiion
of the univerfal Church •, we pretend not to
it > but only to be a part, and the founded
jfafeft part. 3. The cafe of Poffefiion
therefore is , whether we have not been
longer inPofleffion of our Religion, which
is bare Chriftianity, then you of your fu-
peradded Popery. Our Poffefiion is not
denied, of Chriftianity. Yours of Popery
we deny : ( and our denyal makes us called
ProteftantsJ ; Let therefore thereafon of
Logicians, Lawyers, or any rational fpber
man determine the cafe, whether it do not
firft and principally belong to you, to prove
thevifible fucceffion of a Vice-Chrift over
the univerfal Church.
As to your contradictory impofitions
Reply, 1. Your exception was not ex-
preft, and your impofition was peremptory.
2. I told you I would be a Papift if you
prove [that the Vohole vifible Church in all
ages hath held the Popes univerfal headfbip~]
you fay that you [have proved it by this ar-
gument % that either he hath that fupremacy y
or
"The Reply to Mr. Johnfons fecond Paper. 9 1
crfome other Church ; denying that he hath
a/waies had it, hath been alwaies vijible,']
and chat Church you require (houid be
named. I Reply, 1. Had nor you de-
fpaired of making good your caule, you
fhould have gone on by Argumentation,
till you had forced me to contradid: fome
common principle. 2. If you fhould (hew
thefe Papers to the world, and tell them
that you have no better proof of the fuc-
ceflion of your Papacy, then that we prove
not that it hath alwaies been denied by the
vifible Church, you would fure turn thou-
sands from Popery, if there be fo many ra-
tional considering impartial men at
would perufe them, and believe you. For
any man may know chat it could not be
cxpeded that the Churches fhould deny a
Vice-Chrift before he was fprung up. Why
did not all the precedent Raman Bifhops
difclaim the title of univerj.l Bi/hop or Pa-
triarch, till Ptlagius and Gregory ? but
bccaule there was none in the world that
gave occafion for it. How fhould any
Hcrefie be oppofed or condemned befoi
it dotharife?
But you fairly yield me fomewhat here,
and fay thac you [_oblige me not to prove *
continued vifible Church formally and ex-
frt (ly
f t the Reply toMr.Johnfonsfecond Paper .
pre fly denying it \ but that it was of fuch a I
conftitutionas was inconfiffent with any fuch
fupremacy, cr could and did fubfifl without
if. J Reply > 1 confefsyour firftpart is very
ingenuous and fair. Remember it here-
after, that you have difcharged me from
proving [_a Church that denied the Papacy
formally & exprefly.'} But as to what you
yen demand, i. I have here given it you,
becaufe you (hall not fay 1'ie fail you .- I
have aniwered vour deiire. But 2. It is
not as a thing neceffary, but ex abundant* ,
as an overplus.. For you may now fee
plainly, that to prove that the Church was
without an univerfal Paftor, (which you
require) is to prove the Negative, ndi. that
then there was none fucb $ whereas its you
that mult prove that there was fucb. I
prove our Religion : do you prove yours i
though I fay to pleafure you,l'ie di fprove it,
and have done it in two books already.
My reafon from the ftrefs of neceflity,
Tvhich you lay on your Affirmative and
Addition?, was but fubfervient to the fore-
going Reafons, not firfl to prove you bound^
but to prove you che more bound to the
proof of your Affirmative. And therefore
your inftance of Mahumetans is imperti-
nent. He that faith, you (hall be damned
if
The Reply to Mr. Johnfons [econd Paper. $ j
if you believe not this or that, is more
obliged to prove it, then he thataffirmetha
point as of no fuch moment.
To what I lay of an accident and a
corrupt part) you faj you hs.ve anfwered, and
do bmfaj /a, having laid nothing to it that
is confiderable.
Me thinks you that make Chrift to be
corporally prefent in every Church in the
Eucharift,fhouldnocfay, that the King of
the Church is abfent. But when you have
proved, i. That Chrift is fo abfent from
Ihis Church, that there's need of a Deputy to
effentiate his Kingdom, and 2. That the
Pope is fo Deputed-^ you will have done
more then is yet done for your caufe.
And yet let me tell you, that in the abfence
of a King, it is only the King and Subjects
jthat are effential to the Kingdom. The
(Deputy is but an officer, and not effen-
:ial.
Your naked ajfertiutt , that whatfocver
Government Chrift mftituteth, of his Church,
. ynnjt be cfttntial to hps Church, is no proof,
ior like the task of an Opponent. The
. government of inferiour officers is not
, >(Tentialto the univerial Church, no more
. ^hen Judges and Juftices to a Kingdom.
\nd yet we muft wait long before you will
proyc
94 The Reply to Mr. Johnfons feeond Paper]
prove that Peter and the Pope of Rome art
inChfifts place, as Governoursofthe uni-
verial Church.
Sir, I defire open dealing, as between
men chat believe thefe matters are of eternal
confequence. I watch not for any advan-
tage againft you. Though it be your part
to prove the Affirmative which our Ne-
gative fuppofeth 5 yet I have begun the
proof of our Negative ^ but it was on fup-
pofition that you will equally now prove
your Affirmative, better then you have
here done. I have proved a vifible Church
fucceffively that held not the Popes univer-
sal Government : do you now prove {that
the universal Church in all ages did hold the
Popes univerfd Government) which is your
part-, orlmuft fay again, I (hall chink you
do but run away, and give up your caufe as
unable to defend it : I have not failed you •
• do not you fail me.
You complain of a deficiency in quality,
though vou confefs that I abound in num-
ber. But where is che defect! you lay, I
mull [sffert both that thefe were one Congre-
gation, and ever vifible ftnee Chrifis timej
Reply, If by [one Congregation'] you meant!
[one affembly met for perfonal Communion^
wnict
The Reply to Mr Johnfons feccnd Paper. $ j
which is the firft fenfe of the word [Con-
gregation] it were ridiculous to feign the
univerfal Church to be fuch. If you mean,
One as united In one vifible humane Head,
thats it that we deny, and therefore may
not be required to prove. Bat that thefc
Churches are One as united in Chrift the
Head , we eafily prove ^ In that from him
the whole family it named ^ the body is
Chrifts body, I Cor. 12. 12, 13. and one in
him, Eph.4. 4, 5,6, &c. All that are true
Chriftians are one Kingdom or Church of
Chrift • but theie of whom I fpeak are true
Chnftians^ therefore they are one Kingdom
orChurch oiChnft.And that they have been
vifible fmce Chrifts time till now,all hiftory,
even your own affirms; As in fud<ea,&L from
the Apofties times, in Ethiopia, Egypt and
other parts, (Rome was no Church in the
time of Chrifts being on earth.) And to
what purpofe talk you of determinate Con-
gregations ? Do you mean individual aflem-
bl.es? thofe ceafewhen the perfons die ^
or do you mean aflkmblies meeting in the
fame place? fo they have not done ftillat
{Rome. I told you, and tell you ftill, that
we hold not that God hath fecured the
perpetual vifibility of his Church in any
one City or Country ; but if ic ceafe in one
place,
95 The Reply te Mr.JohnConsfecond Paper.
place, it is ftill in others. It may ceafe at
Ephefus, at Philippi, Colojfe,&CC in Tenduc,
Nubia, &c. and yet remain in other parts.
I never faid that the Church mufi needs be
vifible ftill in one Town or Country. And
y et it hath been fo de fafto, as in Afia, Ethi-
opia, &c. But you fay, / nominate none.
Are you ferious / mud I nominate Chriftians
of thefe Nations, to prove that there were
fuch? you require not this of the Church
Hiftorians. It fufficeth that they tell you,
that Ethiopia, Egypt, Armenia, Syria, &c.
had Chriftians , without naming them;
When all hiftory tells you that thefe Coun-
tries were Chriftians, or had Churches, I
muft tell you [yvhat and who they were^ I
muft you have their names, firnames, and
Genealogies? I cannot name you one of a
thoufand in this fmall Nation, in the age
I live in : How then fhouldl name you the
people of Armenia, Abajfia,8cc. fo long
ago ? You can name but tew of the Roman
Church in each age : And had they wanted
learning and records as much as the
Abaflins and Indians, and others, you might
have been as much to feekfor names as
they. You ask \yere they different Con-
gregations} ] Anfo. As united in Chrift
they were one Church : but as affembling
7 he Refl^j to A/r Johnfon$/5rW Pdptr. $y
at one time, or in one place, or under the
fame guide, fo they were not one, but divers
Congregations.
That there were any Papifts of 400.years
after Chrift, do you prove if you are able.
My conclusion, that fill have been againft
jot* for many httndredjears, muft ftand good,
till you prove that fome were for you ? yet
I have herewith proved that there were
none, at leaft that could deferve the name
pf the Church.
Do you think to fatisfie any reafonable
Iman by calling for pofuive proof from
Authors, of fuch Negatives f yet proof
ou (hall not want, fuch as the nature of
he point requireth , viz,. That the faid
Churches of Ethiopia, India, the outer
Armenia, and other extra-imperial Nations,
vere not under the jurifdi&ion of the
3ifhop of Rome. I. You find all thefe
Churches, or moft of them at this day (chat
emain ) from under your jurifdi&ion :
nd you cannot tell us when or how they
urned from you. If you could, it had
een done. 2. Thefe Nations profefs it to
their Tradition, that the Pope was never
heir Governour, 3; No hiftory or. au-
hority of the leaft regard, is brought by
'our own writers to prove thefe Churches
H under
98 The Reply to Mr. Johnfons/fflWdf Paper.
under your jurifdi&ion : no not by fiaro-
nitu himfelf, that is fo copious, and fo skil-
I ful in making much of nothing. No credi-
ble witneffes mention your Ads of jurif-
di&ion over them, or their Ads of fubje-
ftion, which Church hillory rauft needs
have containcd,ifit had been true, that they
were your fubjefts. 4. Their abfence from
general Councils, and no inviraiion of them
thereunto, (that was ever proved, or is
ftiewed by you J is fufficient evidence.
5. Their Liturgies, even the moft ancient,
bear no footfteps of any fubjeftion to you.
Though your forgeries have corrupted
them ; as I (hall here (digreffively) give
one inftance of: The Ethiopick Liturgy,
becaufe of a [Hoc eft corpus meurn\ which
wealfoufe, is urged to prove that they are
for the corporal prefence, or Tranfubftan-
tiation ; But faith Vjher, defuccef. Ecclef.
In Ethiopicarum- Eccleftarum nniverfali
Canone, defcriptum habebatur \_Hic pants eft
corpus meum\ : In Latin* t ran flat ione contra
fidem Ethiopic. Exemplaritim (ut in prima
vperis edition* confirmat Pontificius ipfe
Scholiaftes) expunttutn eft nomen ^ m P*ni*.~]
6. Conftantines Letters of requeft to the
King of Perjia for the Churches there
(which Enfeb. in vit. Conftant. mentioneth)
do
The Reply to Mr. John fon s {tcond Paper. $9
do intimate that then the Roman Bifhop
ruled not there. 7. Even at home, the Scots
and Brittains obeyed not the Pope, nor
conformed about the Eafter obfervation,
even in the daies of Gregory •, but refilled
his changes, and refufed communion with
hisMinifters. 8. I have already elfewhere
given you the teftimony of fome of your
own writers : as Reynerius contra Waldenf,
fatal, in TZiblioth. Patr. Tom. 4. />. 773,
faying [The Churches of the Armenians ^and
Ethiopians y and Indians, and the reft which
the Apoftles converted , are not under the
Church 0/ Rome.] 9. I have proved from
the Council of Chalcedon^ that it was the
Fathers, that is^the Councils that gave Rome
its preheminence : But thofe Councils gave
the Pope no preheminence over the extra-
imperial Nations : For 1. Thofe Nations
being not called to the Council, could not
be bound by it. 2. The Emperours called
and enforced the Councils, who had no
power out of their Empire. 3. The Dio-
cefs are defcribed and expreily confined
within the verge of the Empire -, fee both
the defcription, and full proof in Blondel de
Primatuin Ecclefia.Gall. And 10. The
Emperours themfelvesdidfometime (give-
ing power to the Councils Ads ) make
H 2 fyme
ioo The Re fly to Mr.Johntons [econtt Paper.
Rome the jchief •, and fometime ( as the
Councils did alfo) give Conftantinople equal
priviledge • and fometime fet Conftantino-
ple higheft, as I have (hewed in rny Key,
■ p. 174,175. But the Emperours had no
power to do thus with refpeft to thofe
without the Empire.
*But what fay you now to the contrary ?
Why 1. You ask, \jVere thofe Primitive
Chriftians of another kjfjd of Church order
and Government then were thofe under the
Roman Empire^] Anfw. When the whole
body of Church hiftory fatisfieth us that
they were not fubjed to the Pope, which is
the thing in queftion, is it any weakening
of fuch evidence in a matter of fqcb publick
faft, to put fuch a queftion as this , Whether
they were under another kjnd of Government?
i. We know that they were under Bifhops
or Paftors of their own : and fo far their '
Government was of the fame kind. 2. If
aijy of them, or all, did fuit their Church
aflbciations to thefeveral Commonwealths
in which they lived, and fo held National
Councils, and for order fake made one a-
mong rhem the Biftiop prima fedtis^ then was
that Government of the fame kind with
that of the Imperial Churches, and not of
another kind. The Roman Government
was
The Reply to Mr. JohnConsfecoffd Paper. 401
was no other, but One, thus Ordered^ in
one Em fire : And if there were aifo One, fo
ordered, in England, one in Scotland, one in
Ethiopia, &c. this was of the fame kjnd
with the Roman. Every Church fuked ;o
the form of the Common-wealth, is even
(as to that humane mode J of the fame kind
(if a humane mode muft be called a Kind.)
It may be of that fame kind , and mode,
withouc being part of the fame Indivi-
dual.
But 2. You fay that [How far from
truth this is,appeareth from St. j in hi$
Serrr.cns de Natali fuo, where he fayes ,[Sedes
Roma Petri • quicquid non poiiicet armis,
lleligione tenet.] Reply, If you take your
Religion on trull, as you do your authori-
ties that are made your ground of ir, and
bring others to it when you are deceived
your felves, how will you look Chrift in the
the face when you muft anfwer for fuch
temerity ? Leo hath no Sermons de Nattli
fuo, but only one Sermon affixed to his
Sermons, lately found in an old book of
Nicol. Fabers. And in that Sermon there
is no fuch words as you here alledge. Nei-
ther doth he Poetize in his Sermons , nor
there hath any fuch words which might
occafion your miftake : and therefore
H 3 doubt-
jo 2 The Reflj to Mr. Johnfons fecond Pdper,
doubtlefs you believed fomebody fonthis
that cold yon an untruth-, and yet ven-
tured to make it the ground of charging my
words with untruth. Ye: let me tell you,
that I will take Pope Le o for no competent
judge or witnefs, though you call him a
Saint ; as long as we know what paft be-
tween him and the Council of Chalcedon y
and that he was one of thefirft tumified
Bifhops of Rome ^ he (hall not, be judge in his
own caufe.
3. But you add that [The Abaffines of
Ethiopia -were under the Patriarch of Alex-
andria anciently i and be tinder the authority
cf the Roman £ijhcp.~] Reply, i. Your bare
word without proof (hall not perfwade
us that the Abaflines were under the Patri-
arch of Alexandria for above three hun-
dred,if not four hundred years after Chrift.
Prove it 3 and then your words are regard-
able. 2. At the Council of Nice the con-
trary is manifeft by the fixth Can. [ Mos
antiquum perdurat in ^£gypto^ vel LybU &
PentapUiyHt Ahxandrimu Epifcopus horum
omnium habeat potefiatem^bcc.\ And the
common defcripcions of the Alexandrian
Patriarchate in thofe times confine it to the
Empire, and leave out (Ethiopia ( Pifantu
new inventions we regard not.) 3. I de-
ny
the Re fly U Mr. John fonzfccond Paper. 103
ny that the Patriarch of %yilexandrU was
under the Government of the Bifhop of
Rome^ any more then the Jury are under
the Foremen, or the junior Juftices on the
bench are under the fenior, or Tork^ is un-
der London- or the other Earls ©f England
are under the Earl of Arundel. 4. But if
both thefe were proved, that Ethiopia was
under Alexandria, and Alexandria under
Rome ,1 deny the confequence, that Ethic
pi a was under Rome : for Alexandria was
under Rome but fecundum quid, and lo far
as it was within the Empire, and therefore
thofe withoHt the Empire that were under
Alexandria , were not therefore under
Rome. 5. And if it could ("as it neyer can)
be proved of Abajfia, what is that to all the
other Churches in India ^ Perfta, and the
reft of the world ? Sir, If you have impar-
tially read the ancient Church hiftory,and
yet can believe that all thefe Churches were
then under the Pope, defpair not of bring-
ing your felf to believe any thing imagina-
ble that you would have to be true.
3. Your next queftion is \Whcntht Ro-
man Emper ours were jet Hetyhens^ had not
the Bijhops of Rome the fxpremacy over all
other Bijhops through the -whole Church ? 3
Anfw. No ; they had not -, nor -in the
H 4 Empire
V I 04 The Reply to Mr. John Tons fecotid Pdper.
Empire neither. Prove it, ibefeechyou,
better then by queftioning. If you askt,
Whether men rule not Angels} yourQiiefti-
on proves not the Affirmative.
4. But ycu ask again [Did thofe Heathen
Emperours give it him} ] Anfw. I . Power
Over all Churches none ever gave him, till
titularly hisownParafites of late. 2. Pri-
macy ofmeer degree in the Empire, for the
dignity and many advantages of the Em-
# perial feat , the Bifhops of the Empire gave
him by confent (Blonde I de primatu, gives
you the prcof and reafon at large : ) yet fo
as that [/wall regard was had to the Church
of Rome before the Nictne Council] as faith
your apneas Sylvius , Pope Pins the
fecond.
5. [ whether the Fijhop 0/ Rome hadpower
ever the Bifhop of Aries ky Heathen Emper-
ours,'} is a frivolous queftion. Aries was
in the Rom^n Patriarchate , and not out of
the Empire. The Churches in the Empire,
might by confent difpofe themfelves into
the Patriarchal orders, without the Em-
perours, and yet not meddle out of the
Empire. Yet indeed Cyprians words inti-
mate no power Rome had over Aries ^ friore
then Aries had over Rome : that is, to
rejeft communion with each other upon
difTenr,
[ he Reply to Mr. Johnfons fecond Paper, xoj
iiffent. Nay it more confuteth you, that
yen under Heathen Emperours, when
.'hutch afTcciations were by voluntary
onfent of Paftors only ^ and fo if they had
hot'ght it recefTary, they rri^ht have ex-
endcd them to other Principalities : yet de
r it}c they did rot do ir, as all hiitory of the
Lhurch declareth, mentioning their Coun-
ts and afTcciations s without thtfe ta-
^enin.
See now how little your obje&ions are
,vorth •, and hew gioundiefly you bid me
See new hew little try rllfgatuns are to the
urfofe~]
As for the rabble of Herericks which you
cckonup, ( as you eiteem them,) fomeof
hem are no Christians univocally fo called,
ind thofe cannot be of the Chriftian
Church. Others of them were better
Chrifliars then ihe Romanifis, and fo were
:>f the fame Church with us ; And it is noc
many reproachfull names put on them by
x.alice that makes them no Chriftians, or of
any Churches or Religions, If an arro-
gant ufurper will put nick-names on all
at will not bow to him as the Vice-Chrift,
f ind call them Iconoclafts, Berengarians,
Waldenfians, Albigenfes, Wicklefifts, Huf-
fites,Luthcrans, Calvinifls (you may as well
give
\q6l The Re fly to Mr. Johnfons [ecwd Paper.
give them a thoufand more names ) this
makes them not of various Religions, nor
blots out their names from the book of life.
I have in my moft retired thoughts perufed
the Hiftory of thofe mens lives, and of the
lives of many of your Popes, together with
their feverali do&rines •, and with death and
judgement in my eyes, as before the great
God of Heaven, I humbly beg of him,
that I may rather have my everiafting por-
tion with thofe holy men whom you bur-
ned^as Waldenfes, Albigenfes,Huffites,^v.
then with the Popes that burned them, or
thofe that follow them in that cruelty, un-
, Icfs reconciling grace have given them re-
pentante unto life. The Religion of all
thefe men was one, and they were all of one
univerfall Church.
Where you again call for One Congrega-
tion ,1 tell you again that we know no Vnity
effentiall, from whence the Church can be
called one, but either Chrift or the Vice-
Chrift : the former only is afferted by us,
and the latter alfo by you, which we deny .•
And therefore we cannot call the univerfall
Church One, in any other formal refpe&s,
but as it is C£r*/?*V?#, and fo One in Chrift.
Yet have I herewith fatisfied your demand,
but (hewed you the unreafonablenefs of
it.
Xht Re fly to Mr. Johnfons [ecdnd ?*pr. 1 07
t, beyond all reafonable contradi&i,
)n.
You next enquire whethtr [we account
lome and us One Congregation of Chrifli-
ins ?~\\ anfwer.the Roman Church hath
wo Heads , and ours but one^ and thats the
lifference. They are Chriftians, and fo
One Church as united in Chrift, with us and
ill other true Chriftians. If any fo hold
:heir Papacy and other errours as effective-
ly and practically to deftroy their Chrifti-
anity,thofe are not Chriftians, and fonoc
of the fame Church as we. But thofe that
donotfo, but are fo Papifts, as yet to be
truly and practically Chriftians, are and
(hall be of the fame Church with us, whe-
ther they will or not : And your modeft
ftile makes me hope that you and I are of
one Church, though you never fo much re-
nounce it. As Papall y we are not of your
Church •, thats a new Church form • But
as Chriftian, we are and will be of it, even
when you are condemning, torturing and
burning us ( if fuch perfecution can ftand
With your Chriftianity. )
But you aske [ Why did you then feparate
jour J elves y and remain fiill feparate from the
Communion of the Roman Church*
Anfw. 1. We never feparatcd from you a>
you
o8 The Reply toMr.Johtitonsftcdnd Paper
you arc Chriftians •, We ftill remain of tha
Church as Chriftian, and we know ( o
will know ) no other form -, becaufe tha
Scripture and primitive Churches knew n<
other. Either you have by Popery fepa
rated from the Church as Chriftian, o
not ^ If you have, its you that are th
fdamnable)Separatifts.If you have not,thet
we are not feparated from you,in refpeft i
the form of theChnftian Church. And f<
your other form (the Papacy) i. Neither I
nor my Grand-father,or great grand-fathe
did feparate from it : becaufe they neve
entertained it. 2. Thofe that did fo, di
but Repent of their fin,and thats no fin. W«
ftill remain feparated from you as Papiils I
even as we are feparate from fuch as we an i
commanded to avoid, for impenitency h J
fome corrupting doftrine or fcandalou
fin ♦, Whether fuch mens fins or their pro *
. fdfed Chriftianity be moft predominant a
the heart, we know not ; but till thei !
fhew Repentance we muft avoid them • ye
admoniihing them as brethren, and no
taking them as men of another Church
but as finding them unfit for our Commu
nion.
But Ofir, what manner of dealing havt
we from you ! muft we be imprifoned
rackf
*
he Rtplj to Mr Johnfons fecond Paper, i o ?
(icktjhang'd or burn'd,ifwe will not believe
lat bread & wine, are not bread and wine,
ontrary to our own and all mens fenfes-
id if we will not worlhip them with Di-
ne worfhip, and will not obey the Pope
T Rome in all fuch matters contrary to our
nfciences : and then muft we be chidden
r feparating from you, if we can but a
ile efcape theftrappado and the flames?
hat / will you blame us for not believing
tali mens fenfes are deceived, and the
eater part of Chriltians and their Tradi-
: )ns ( againft you ) are falfe , when we
ad,andftudy,and fufpeft our (elves, and
ay tor light,and are willing to hear any of
r reafons, bur cannot force our own un-
rftandings to believe all fuch things that
u believe, and meerly becaufe the Pope
mands it : and wnen we cannot thus
ce our own underftandings, mult we be
rned, or elfe called Separates ? would
have the Communion of our Afies, or
fay, We forfake jour Communion} In
r Churches we cannot have leave to
without lying againft God and our
nces,and faying,JfV believe what our
ontraditt j and without committing '
t which our consciences tell us are molt
nous fins. We folemnly proteft that
we
1 1 o Tht Reply to Mr. Johnfons fectnd Pa
we would do as you do, and fay as you &
were it not for the love of truth and h
nefs, and for fear of the wrath of God,
the flames of hell : but we cannot, we J
not rufh upon thefe errours, and fell o
fouls to pleafe the Pope. And rnuft ]
then either be murdered, or taken fort
charitable i -will you fay to fo many po
fouls, that are ready to enter into anorf
world [_Either (in againfi jour confcienc
tndfo cUmn your fouls, or elje let us burn a
murder you, or elfe you do mt love us ; j\
art uncharitable if you deny us leave to l
you, and you feparate from the Communior
the Church r\ We appeal from the P<
and all unreafonable men, to the gr
God of heaven and earth, to judge rij
teoufly between you and us concerning t
dealing.
As for poffeffing our felves of y<
Eifhopricks and Cures , if any partial
perfon had perfonal injury 7 in the chan
being calt out without caufe, they tn
anfwer for it that did it, and not I ; thoc
I never heard any thing to make me beli*
it. But m'uft the Prince and people
alone delinquent Paftors for fear dftbe
blamed for taking their Bifhopricks ? Mi
fters of the fame Religion with us may
\he Reply u Mr. Johnfons fectnd Pafcr. ti\
*ft out for their crimes : Princes have
pwer over Paftors as well as David, Sclo-
on 9 and other Kings of Ifrad had. Gnil.
\arklaj and fome few of your own knew
is. The Popes treafonablc exemption of
c Clergy from their Soveraigns judge-
ent, will not warrant thofe Princes before
d , that negleft to punifh offending
ors. And I befeech you tell us, when
r confciences ( afcer the ufe of all means
at we can ufe to be informed) cannot re-
unce all our fences, nor our reafon, not
judgement of the mod of the Church,
of antiquity , or the Word of God, and
t we muft do fo, or be no members of
ur Church, what wrong is it to you if
choofe us Paftors of our own, in the
derthat God hath appointed? Had not
e people in all former ages the choice of
eir Paftors ? we and our late forefathers
re were never under your overfight :
t we know not why we may not now
ofe our Paftors as well as formerly. We
it not by tumults i we kill not men, and
ad not in their blood, while we choofe
r Paftors, as Pope Damtfus was chofen.
e tythes and other temporal mainte-
nee we take from none, but the Magi-
ate difpofeth of ic as he feech rnaet for the
Chnrches
114
b
The Rtfly to Mr Johnfons fecotid Paper,
Churches good. And the maintenance h
for the cure or work: and therefore they
that are juftly call out of the cure, are jufriy
deprived of the maintenance. Andfurely
.when they are dead, none of you can with
any (hew of reafon, itand upandfay,77>f/i
Bifbofrickj are yours : or thefe Parfonagei
yours. Ic is the Incumbent perfonally that
only can claim title-, faving the fuperemi-
nent tide of (Thrift, to whom they are de-
voted. But the fucceffivc Popes cannot
have title to all the tithes and Temples in
the world-, nor any. of his Clergy that nd-
ver were called to the charges. If this be
difunion, it i> you that are the Scfaratifti
and caufe of all. If you will needs tell all
the Chriftiaa world, that except they wiH
be ruled by the Pope of Rome, and be burn-
ed if they believe not as he bids them in de.
fpight of all their fenfes, he will call them
Separatists, Schifmaticks , and fay they
difunite and are uncharicable : again, we
appeal to God and all wife men that arc
impartial, whether it be he or we that is thfi
divider ?
You ask me [_Js not charity Subordination^
find obedience to the [ame ft ate and Govern''
went, required as we/l to wake one Congre-
gation of Christians, as it is required to make 4
Con-
ft
M7 be Reply to Mr .Johafons fccend Paper. 113
^Congregation of Commonwealths men ? 3
? Anfw. Yes, it is : But as all the world is
?ne Kingdom under God the univerfal
iing, but yet hath no univerfal Vice-King,
)ut every Commonwealth only hath its
\ )wn Soveraign •, even fo all the Chriflian
vorld is one Church underthrift the uni-
1; r erfal King of the Church, but hath not
i |3ne Vice-Chrift, but every Church hath its
pwn Paftors, as every School hath its own
|>choolmafter. But all the anger is becaufe
ve are loth to be ruled by a cruel ufurper
herefore we are uncharitable.
Your next reafon againft me, is, becaufe
They cannot be parts of the Catholike
'hutch, nnlefs Arrians, and Pelagians , and,
hnatifis be parts~\ and fo Heretiekj and
chifmatickj be parts. ~\ Reply I. You know
ure, that your own Divines are not agreed
hether Hereticks and Schifmaticks are
res of the Church. And if they were,
yet it is not defide with you, as not deter-
nined by the Pope. If it be, then all yours
:ire Hereticks that are for the affirmative
' Be/larmine nameth youfomeof them^ If
t be not, then how can you be fure its true ,
md fo impofe it on me, that they are no
^arts. .
I 2. Arrians are no ChriftianSj as denying.
I t/u t
114 **' Re th t0 Mr Johnfons faond Paper*
that which is effential to Chrift, and fo tcl
Chriftianity. Pelagianifm is a thing thai
you are not agreed among your felves o;
the true nature of. Many of the Domini-
cans and Janfenills think the Jefuits PelagiJ
anize, or Semipelagianize at leaft. I hope
you will not ftiut them our. Donatifts!
were Schifmaticks, becaufe they divided **
theCatholike Church, and not abfolutely|
from it .- and becaufe they divided from the
particular Churches about them that held
the raoft univerfal external Communion,
I think they were ftill members of the uni-j
verfal Church : but Tie not contend with
any that will plead for his uncharitable
denyal. Its nothing to our cafe.
That the ./Ethiopians are Eutychian Here-
ticks, I will fee better proved before I will
believe it. Rojfes words I fo little regard,
that I will not lo much as open his book to
fee whether he fay fo or nor. I know that
Herefie is a perfonal crime, and cannot be
charged on Nations, unlefs you have evi-
dence that the Nations confent to it ; which
here you have none ; Some are called
Hereticks for denying points efTential to
Chriftianity; thefe are no Chriftians, and
fo not in the Church; but many alfo are
called Hereticks by you,and by the Fathers,
for
we Reply to Mr. Johnf ons fecond Paper, i i 5
]>r lefTer errors confiftent with Chrifti-
ry : and thefe may be in the Church.
'he Abaffines, and all the reft have not
pen yettryed, andconvi&ed before any
mpetent Judge : and flanderers we re-
rd not.
2. Many of your own writers acquit
em of Herefie, and fay, the difference is
found to be but in words, or little
are.
To what you fay of their difclaiming us,
jj.lefs we take the Patriarch of Ccnftamino-
for the Vice-Chrift • you many waies
aJ>e. r. If this were true, that they
e&cd us, it were no proof chat we are
t of one univerfal Church. 2. They
not claim to be Vice Chrifti, the univer-
Governours of the Church: the title of
verfal Patriarch they excended but to
then Roman Empire j and that not to
univerfal Government Jmx. Primacy. And
| " oi: them have been of brotherly cha-
f to our Churches of late. Cy r ^ I nce< ^
name to you, whom your party pro-
ed Murdered for being a Protectant.
eletius { firft Patriarch of A/ex.r/jdriaand
*n of Conft,wtino])le) was highly offended
-h the ri&ion of a fubmiilion of the
xAndrian Church to Rome , (under a
I z counterfeit
&
;
<r*
-I
I \6 The Replyto Mr .JohnGons [ccmJ Papi !
counterfeit Patriarch-G^r*V/j name) • a
wrote thus of the Pope in his Letters
Sigifmund King of Poland An. 1600. [\p>
Jpiceret Afajeflas tua, nos cum majorib
nojlris, mn ignorare (quern precaris ut 4
nofcamus ) Pontificem fcilicet Romanu
veluti & Conftantinopolitanum Pontificet
Pontificem Ccnfiant. Caterefque Apo
Hear urn fedium Pontifiees. £zui non m
omnium, fed inter omnes & ipfe unus.
ZJnum univerfale Caput 5 quod fit J). 1
fefus Chrifius •, alius ejfe non pojfit , nt
biceps aliquodjit corpus, autpotius monftruA
corporis. Perjplceres, Rex ferenijfime, ($ l
interim de Concilio illo Florentino, veluti A
refilentio digna taceam) non Nos, e Patrl
turn Orient all urn, turn Occidentalium dogm}
V tibus traditionibufque qua per feptem unive) '
falia concilia nobis confignarunt at que obfi^ I
narunty egrejfos : Illos egrejfos, qui novitt
tibus in dies deleSlantur^] In the fame Let !
Bj ters he commendeth Cyril. And what ca I
a Proteftant fay more againft the Vice
Ghriftihip, and your novelties?
And for Jeremiad his predeeeffor 3 whor
you mention, though they that dnpure
with him by Letters (Stephana's Gerlochiu
& Martinus Crufius) did not agree in a!
things with him, yet he ftill profeffed hi
defir
fie Reply to Mr. JohnConsfecwd Paper. 117
ire of unity and concord with us, and
the beginning of his fecond anfwer re-
cxech, that we agreed with them in fo
ny things. And Johan. Zygomata* in his
iters toCrttfius 1576. May 15. faith,
'erfpicuum tibi & omnibus jutttmm efi y
pd in continms^ & caafam fidei pr&cipuc
tinentibm articulis, confentiamns : e^n*
Pem videntur confenfum inter vos & not
pedire, talia funt y Ji velit quis, ut facile ea,
rigerc poffit. ■■ 'Gaudium in c<zlo&
er ter'ram erit , fi coibit in unitatem
acjHc Ecclejia, & idem [entiemm y & fi-
dvivemm in omni concordia & pace fee an.
Denm & injincera chs.ritatis vinculo ~_
But as it is not the Patriarch that is the
Lole Greek Church, fo ic is not their
tors in fome lefTer or tolerable points
\ at prove us of two Churches or Religions.
j|Whereas you fay, It is againft all Anti-
bity and Chriltianity to admit condemned
fcreticks into the Church. I Reply ,
\ I hace their condemnation, rather chen
verence it, that (even being nonjudices)
\ve condemn whole Nations without
laring one man of them fpeak for himfelf,
I hearing one witnefs that ever heard
kern defend Herefie •, and this meerlybe-
tufc fome few Bilhops have in the daies
r ■■ "
1 1 8 The Reply to Mr. Johnfons ftcond Papn
of old maintained Herefie , and perhaj,
fomemaydofo ftill, or rather differ fk
you in words, while you mifunderftai
each other, Did I find fuch errors wit
them as with you, yet I durft charge the
on no one man that I had not reafon t
hold guilcy of them ; I dare not acc^
whoie Nations of your errors. But of a
thefechings ("and of Sandys words whic
you cite J I have fpoken already in tw
Books, and in the latter fully proved th;
you differ in many points of faith, an
greater things then you call Herefies i
others among your felves , even yoi
Popes, Saints, and Councils, and yet neitht i
part is judged by you to be out of dH
Church. Scemy JSTfjr,p.i24,i25,i27 3 i2Ji
129. p. 52. ad 62.
When you lay fo much to prove tl
Grcekjgttiltj of manifeft Herefie, and pr(
tend that it 16 but fome novel writers of 01.
that deny it, as f creed by jour arguments^
imuftfay, that you prove but ycurow
uncharitablenefs inftead of their Herefie
and you (hew your felf a firanger to you
own 'writers, who frequently excufe th
Greeks from Herefie,. and fay the differenc i
at the Council of Florence was found tob
more about words then faith. Thomas
ITht Reply to Mr. John fons (econd Pdper. 1 19
yefude Converf. omn. gentium, lib. 6. cap. 8.
28 r. faith, [_Hps tamen non obfi'antibtts
Hi cpinanturGracos tantum ej]efchifm«ti- >
$s : It a, ex junior ibtu docet Pater AzmHva
. prima Infiitut. /Aornl. lib. 8. cap. 20,
Jio. ^uare merit o ab EcclefiaCatholica
on htretici, fed fchifmatici cenfentur &
ppelluntur : Ita apert" ipjinuat D. Bernar-
ds* (no Novel Procefiant) in Epift. ad Eu-
Kenium, lib. 3 . \_Ego addo (inquit) de perti-
pacia Gr&corum qui nobifcum funt^ & non
r unt : jmEti fide, pace divifi ^ quanquam &
nfide iff a claudicavcrint aretltsfemitisT
m apert'c tenet D. Thomas Opufcul. 2. ubi
docet patres Gr&cos in Cathclico fenfu ejfe
'xponendos. Ratio hujtts Opinion** efi quo-
mam ut pr & dill w author docet, inpr&ditlis
fidci articulw, de quibus Graci accufantur
ab diquibpu ut hxrctici, potius Nomine^
quarn Re ab Ecclefia Romana diffident. Inpri-
tn:s Inficiantur Mi Spirit urn Santtum a Patre
Fi lib que procedere ut in Bulla ZJnionis Euge-
nii 4 . die aur, exiftimantes Latinos /entire cL
'Patre Filioque procedere tanquam a duobus
principals -, cum tamen Latino, doceat Eccle-
fia procedere a duabus per fonts tanquam ab
uno principio & fpiratore -, quare Graci ut
unum principium ftgnificent ,dicunt Spiritum
nUum a Patre per Folium procedere ab
cmni 4ternitaie.~] I 4 Yo\tf
no The Reply to 3/rJohnfons fecond PdperM
Your Paulas Veridicus (Paul Harris Dean |
of your Academy lately in Dublin) in his n
Confutation of Bifhop Z^tj Sermon, faith |<
that the Greeks Doftrine about the Pro- (
ceffion of the Holy Ghoft h Patre per Fill- I
##?, and not a Patre Filioque, was fuch that
\jVhenthey hadexplicatedit, they were found
to believe very Orthodoxly and Catholikely \
in the fame matter , and for fuch were ad-
mitted} and that \jje fndeth not any fair
ftantial point that they differ from yon in^ but \
the Primacy'} (So the Armenians were re-
ceived in the fame Council of Florence.)
Many more I have read of your own writers
that all vindicate the Greeks (and others
that difown yoii) trom Herefie, I think
more then I have read of Proteftants that
do it. And do you think now that it is not
a difgrace toyour caufe,that a man of your
learning, and one that I hear hath the con-
fidence to draw others to your opinions,
ftiould yet be fo unacquainted with the
Opinions of your own Divines, and upon
this miftake fo confidently feign that it i
cur Novel writers forced to it by jonr argu
irient$\\\2X have been fo charitable to thefc
Churches againft antiquity that knew
better ? If the Greeks and Latins tear
the Church of Chrift by their Condemna-
• tions
t Reply to Mr. Johnfons fccond Paper. 1 2 r
ns of each other, they may bothbc fchif-
t;V*/, as guilty of making diviftonsin the
arch, though not as dividing from the
urch. And if they pretend the denyal
the Chriftian faith againft each other as
| caufe, you (hall not draw us into the
It of the uncharitablenefs, by telling us
lit they know better then we. If wife men
;[ out and fight, I will not juftilie either
ie, becaufe they are wife and therefore
telier then I to know the caufe. But what
led we more to open your iirange miftake
d unjuft dealing, then the authority of
<ur fo much approved Council of Ffarence,
at received both Greeks and Armenians ^
id the very words of the Popes Bull of
e union, which declare that the Greeks
id Latins were found to mean Orthodoxly
tth ? the words are thefe [Convenientes
Utini & Grdtci in hac facrofantta Oecume-
vafjnodo magnofiudio invicem uji funt y Ht
ker all* articttlus etiam ille de Divina Spi-
nas Santti procejfione fumma cum diligentia
5' AJftdua inqnifitione dvfcuteretnr. Pro-
dis vera teftimoniu ex Divinis Script uru,
\Hrimifque author itatibus fanttor am dolio-
itm orient altum & accident *lium> aliquibus
uidem ex Patre & Filio, quibufdam vero ex
Atrc perFiUnm procedere dicentibus Spirit*
Stnttum,
I»2 The Reply to Afr.Johnfons fectnd Paft
SfinctHrfi, & dd eandem intelligentiam afpit
entibus omnibus fub diver (is vocabulis: Grt
quidem after Her unt quodidquod dicunt Spitl
turn SanBum ex Patre procedere , non
mente prof err ent ut excludant Filii, fed q\
eisvidebatur^ Htaiunt, Latinos after ere ft
ritum SanBum ex patre Filioque procet
tdnqztaw ex duobus principiis cr ambus S\
rationibus, ideo abftinuerunt a dicendo qin
Spirit us SttnBus ex patre procedat & Fil%\
Latini vero affrmaverunt nonje hue wen!\
Metre Spiritum SanBurn ex Filioque proc\\
iere ut excludant Patrem, quin fit fons J
principium totius Ddtatis , Filii fcilicet^ t
Sptritus SanBl ,aut quod id quod Spirit*
S^^B us procedat ex Filio % Fdius A Patre m
hibeat, five quod duo pontine efte principu
feu duos fplrationes, fed ut unum tantm
aftcrunt eftc principium, unicamque fpiratl
nrm Spirit us SanBi , prout haBenus aft. r'm
runt - 5 & cum ex his omnibus unus & ide\
eliciatur veritatis fenfus y tandem y &c. — jj
I pray you now tell it to no more 3 that it?
we Novel writers of ours ^pr eft by force o
'lument, that have been the authors of th
extenuation. My heart even trembleth t
think that there (hould he a thing calle
Religion among you, that can fo far extin
guifh both Chanty and Humanity, as t
cauf
the Reply to Mr. Johnfons fecond Paper. 123
:aufe you to pafs fo direful a doom (with-
out authority or tryalj on fo great,a part
of the Chriftian world, forfuch a word as
:his 5 about fo exceeding high a myft.erie,
when your Pope and Council have pro-
nounced a union of meanings /
And what mean you in your Margin to
refer me to NUhs^ as if he aflerted [That
the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman
Church upon that difference alone.'} Verily
,in the high matters of God, this dealing
is lcarce fair I (pardon this plainnefs : con-
fider of it your ielf.) Thefubitance of Nilus
fcook is about the Primacy of the Pope :
The wry contents prefixed to the firft book
fire thete [Oratio dcmonftrans non aliam^
&c. An Oration demunftrating; that there
\u no other caufeof the dijjenfion between the
Latin and Greik^ Churches, then that' the
Pope refufcth to dtfcr the cognifance and
judgement of that^hich is controverted to a
general Council : but he will fit the fole
fler and Judge of the Controver fie \ and
Vpillhave the reft as Difciples to be hearers of
(or obey) his word, tyhich is a thing alicne
from the Laws and anions of the ^pc files
Fathers.]
And he begins his Book (after a few
words) thus, [Caufa itaque hujus diffidii^ %
&c. The
I J4 The Reply toMr .Johnfons fecond Paper.
&c. The caufe therefore of this difference,
as I judge, is not the fublimity of the pint
exceeding mans capacity : For other mutters I
that have diners times troubled the Churchfi
have been of the fame kind : This therefore is
not the caufe of the diffention •, much lefs is I
it thefpeech of the Scripture it felf, which as I
being concife, doth pronounce nothing openly \
of that which is controverted. For to accufe
the Scripture, is as much as to accufe God
himfelf* But Cjod is without all fault. But
-who the fault is in, anyontmayeaftly tell,
that is well in his wits.'} He next (hews, that
it is not for want of learned men on both [ides y
nor is it becaufe the Greeks do claim the Pri-\
macy, and then concludeth it as before^!
He maintaineth that your Pope fucceedtth
Peter only as a Bifliop ordained by him^ as
many other Bijhops that originally were ort\
dained by him in like manner do fucceed him jij.
and that his Primacy is no Governing power ,.
nor given him by Peter, but by Princes and
Councils for order (ake : and this he proves
at large, and makes this the main difference.}
BeUarmines anfwering his fo many Argu-*
ments might have told you this, if you had
never read Uilus himfelf. If you lay thae,^
This point was the fir ft caufe, I deny it -, but-
if it were fme, yet was it not the only or.
chief
The Reply to Mr. Johnfons fecond Paper. 1 2 j
:hief caufe afterward. The Manner of
wringing in the \JMoque~] by Papal authori-
ty wichout a general Council, was it that
greatly offended the Greeks from the be-
ginning.
But you fay that when I have made the
>eft of thefe Greeks, Armenians, Ethio-
pians, Proteftants, I cannot deduce them
uccefliveiy in all ages till (Thrift zsadijfer-
nt Congregation of Chriftians from that
vkich holds the T ope sfxpre wary, which was
tourjpropoluion. Reply I have oft told
ouweown no universal informing Head
)utChrilt. In refpeft to him I have proved
oyou, that it is not my intereft ordefign
llo prove us or ihem [a different Congregati-
n from joh as you are Chriftians^] Nor
hall you tempt me tobeio uncharitable,
$ to damn, or anchriften all Papiits as fa r
ttsyou do others, incomparab'y fafer and
better then your felves.But as you are Papal,
Und fet up a new informing head, I have
roved that you differ from all theantient
"hurches, but yet that my caufe requireth
ne not to make this proof,but to call you to
rove your own univcrfal fucceflion.
You add your Reafon,' becaufe thefe be-
^renamed were atfrft involved inytur Cc/t-
egation, and then feUoff as dead branches.
Reply,
ii6 "The Reply to Mr. Johnfons [eeondPdpcrl
Replj. This is but an untruth in a moft pub-
lick matter of fad. All the truth is this.
i. Thofe Indians, Ethiopians, per{ians 5 e^c.
without the Empire, never fell from you, as
to fubjeftion, as never being your fubjefts. I
Prove that they were, and -you have done
a greater wonder then Raronins in all his :
Annals. 2. The Greeks, and all the reft !
within the Empire , without the Roman \
Patriarchate, are fallen from your Comrnu- i
nion (if renouncing it be a fall) but not \
from your fubje&ion , having given you \
but a Primacy, as iW//// (hews, and not a
Governing pewer over them. The wither-
ing therefore was in the Rowan branches,
if the corruptions of either part may be
called a withering. You that are the lefler
part of the Church may eafily call your
felvcs the Tree, and the greater part
(two to one) the Branches •, but thefe
beggings do but proclaim your necef-
fities.
In good time you come to give me here
at laft fome proof of an ancient Papacj, as
you think. But firft, you quite forget (or
worfe) that it is not a man or two in the
whoie world in an age, but the miverfat
Tbt Reply to Mr. Johnfons fecond Paper. 1 27
:b*rch, whofe judgement (and form) wc
re now enquiring after. You are to prove
That all the Church in every age was for
he Papal univerfal Government^ and fo
hat none can be faved chat is nor. ■
2. Butinftead of this which you (hould
•rove, you piove not that thofe very fingle
►erfons named by you, had any opinion of
he Papal Soveraignty.
1 . Your firft Teftimony is from Libera-
hs,ci6. [John Bifiop of Antioch mck^san
ppeal to Pope Simplicius. | Reply. 1. I fee
ou are deceived by going upon cruft : But
|:s pi r cy fo to deceive others. There was
lio fuchmanas John Bi(hop of Antioch in
Yimplicius raign. John of Antioch was he
hat made the ftirsand divifions for Nefto-
i us ,againft Cyril and called the Schifma-
il Council at Ephefus, and dyed, Anno
-36 having raigned thirceen years, as Ba-
onins faith, and eighteen as Nicephorust
le dyed in Sixtus the fifths time. But its
i indeed that John Bifhop of Alexandria
nade fome addrels to Simplicius : of which
?*r0*z#.rciteth Liberates words (note. 16.
>uc c. 1 8 . ) ad An J). 48 3 . that John being
xpelled by the Emperour Zeno's command,
\vent firft to Calendion Bifhop of Antioch,
mi fo to Rome to Simplicius, (if Btronixs
were
i8 The Reply to Mr. John fans [econd Paper
were to be believed, as his judge) Liber at u
faith, that he tool^ from Calendion Bi/hopo.
Antioch Letters to Simplicius, to whom h
appealed as Athanafius had done, and per-
j waded him to write for him to Acacius BiJho\
ef Conitantinople ^ which Simplicius did
But Acacius upon the receipt of Simpliciu:
Letters, writ flatly to him, that he knew n>
John Bifhop of Alexandria , but had take*
Petrus Mogus as Bifhop of Alexandria inu
his Communion, and that without Simplicius.
for the Churches unity, at the Emperour.
command 3 Here you fee how little regarc
Acacius made of your Pope : and that thf
appeal was but to procure his Letters t<
Acacius, which did him no good. 2. Bu
do you in good earneft think that all fuel
addreffes, or appeals are ad fuperiorem ju
dicem? What more common then to ap.
peal or make fuch addreffes to any thai
have advantage of intereft, for the relief o;
the oppreffed ? Young men appeal to the
aged in Controversies ; and the lefs learned
to the more learned : and the poor to the
rich, or to the favorites of fuch as can re-
lieve them. Johns going firft to Antioci
was no acknowledgement of fuperiority
3 . But of this I muft refer you to a fall an-
fwztoiBlondel againft Perron, de Primat*
h
X
Tfo £*/>/y to Mr. John fons /err ond Paper; 1 1 9
in Ecclef. cap. 2$.fett. 76. where you may
be fati9fiedof the vanity of your inftance.
Whereas therefore you infer (or you fay
'nothing ) that becaufe this fohn thus ap-
pealed to R ome, therefore he appealed thi-
ther as to the ZJniverfal Ruler of the
[Church. ' The ftory derideth your confe-
rence. Much more that £ therefore the
Vniverfall Church held the Pope then to be
he Vniverfall Head or Govemour. 3 Heres
othing of Government but intreaty, and
t but -within the Empire , and that but
pon the feeking of one diftrefled man
at would be apt to go to thofe of moft
tereft that might relieve him, and all this
jefted by Acacias and the Emperour. A
ir proof /
2. Your 2. inftance is, that Flavianus ap-
alsto the Pope as to hu fudge. Epifi. pr<t-
bul. Concil. Chalced. Reply. I have
rufed all the Council of Chalcedon y as it
in Binnim, purpofely to find the words
u mention of Flavians appeal, and I find
t any fuch words. In plavianm own
iftle to Leo there are no fuch words, nor
y other that I can find, but the word
) appeal] once in one of the Emperours
& piftles ( as I remember ) but without men-
fningany Judge. I will not ufc to turn
K over
1 30 The Reply to Mr Johnfons/<?M»*f Paper.
over Volumes thus in vain for your citati-
ons, while I fee you take them on truft, and
do not tell me in any narrow corflpafTe of
cap. fed:, or pag. where to find them. BuiL
had you found fuch words, 1 . An appeal is
oft made from a fartiall to an impartiall
Judge, though of equal power. 2. He
might appeal to the Biihop of Rome as one
of his Judges in the Council where be was
to be tried, and not as alone. And it is evi-
dent in the Hiftory, that it was not the
Pope, but the Council that -00s his fudge.
3 . The greatneffe of Rome , and Primacy of
Order ( not of Jurifdiftion ) made that
Bifhop of fpeciall intereft in the Empire :
and diftrefled perfecuted men will appeal to
thofe that may any whit relieve them. But
this proves no Governing power, nor fo
much as any Intereft without the Em-
pire.
It being the cuflome of the Churches ic
the Empire, to make the Votes of the Pa-
triarchs neceffary in their general Councils.
no wonder if appellations be made froir
thofe Councils that wanted the Patriarch
confent to other Councils where the]
confented-, in which as they gwcCcnftaH'
tinople the fecond place, without any pre
tence of a Divine Right, and frequent ap
peal
The Reply to Mr Johnfons fecond Paper. 131
peals were made to that Seat • fo alfothey
gave Rome the firft Seat. Of this whole
matter Perron is fully anfwered already by
Blonde II de primatu,cap. 25.fett.63.to which
I refer you, it being as eafie to read it in
Print as Writing. Adding this only, that
as Flavian ( in his neceflity ) feekinghelp
from the Bifhop of the prime Seat in the
Empire, did acknowledge no more but his
Primacy of Order by the Laws of the Em-
pire and the Councils thereof, fo the Em-
pire was not all the world, nor Flavian all
f the Church, nor any more then one man,
and therefore if he had held ( as you will
I never prove he did ) the Uaiverfall Govern-
ment of the Pope, if you would thence
argue that it was held by all the Church,
your confequence muft needs be marvelled
at, by them that believe that One man is
not the Catholick Church , no more then
feeking cf help was an acknowledging an
Univerfal Headftiip or Governing power.
And it is undeniably evident, that the
hurch of Constantinople and all the Greek
hurches did believe that Univerfal Prima-
y which in the Empire was fet up, to be of
umane right, and new, and changeable, as
prove not only by the expreffe teftimo-
ny of the Council of Chaloedon, but by the
K Z fitting
132 The Reply toMr.johnfonsfecMtlPdper.
ftating of the Primacy at lafi in Gregories
daje s on Conftantinople it felf, whofe pre-
tence neither was nor could be any other then a
humane late inftitution. And ff the Greek
Churches judged fo of it in Gregories daies,
and at the Council of Chalcedon in Leo's
daies, we have no reafon to think that they
ever judged otherwife j at leaft not in Fla-
vians dayes,that were the fame as Leo*$ y and
the bufineffe done about 449. This Argu-
ment I here fet againft all your inftances at
once j and it is unanfwerable.
3. Your next inftance is of Pope Leo's
reftoring77tf0^m,upon an appeal to juft
judgement'] Reply. I. Every Biftiop hath a
power to difcern who is fit for his own
Communion • and fo Leo and the Bifhops
of the Weft perceiving Theodoret to be Or-
thodox, received him as a Catholick inco
their Communion ; and fo might the Bi-
fhop of Conftantinople have done. But
when this was done, the Council did not
hereupon receive him, and reftore him to
bis Bifhoprick, no nor would hear him read
thepafTages between Pope Leo and him, no
nor make a Confeflion of his faith , but
cried out againft him as a Neftorian, till he
had exprefly Anathematized Neftorius and
JEutiches before the Council, and then they
received
The Reply to MrJohnfonsftcMa' Paper. 135
received and reftored him: f© that the fi*
nail judgement was not by Leo y but by the
Council : But if in his diftrefTe he appealed
as you fay, to a jufi judgement ', from an un-
juft, or fought to make Leo his friend, no
wonder ^ but this is no grant of an Univer-
fa!l Soveraignty in Leo : and ■ if it had
granted it in the Empire, thats nothing to
the Churches in other Empires : Or it he
had granted it as to all the world, he was
but one man of the world, and not the Ca-
tholick Church. The Council exprefly
take on them the determination after Leo,
and they flight the Legates of the Pope,
and pronounce him a creature^of the Fa-
thers, and give Confiantimple equall pri-
iviledges, though his Legates refufe to con-
sent. But of thefrivoloufnefTeof this your
inftance, fee Dr. Field of the Church,/*£.
\ycap. 35. p*g. 537, 538. and more fully
YBlcndell de primatu, ubi (up. cap. 25. fett.
P3,6 5 .
4. Your next inftance is of Cyprians de*
Irethat Stephen would depofe Martian Bi-
hop of Aries. ] Reply 1 . That Epiftle can-
not be proved to be Cyprians : for the Rea-
sons I refer you to M. de Lanny on that
ubjeft, and Rivets Critic* Sacra : only
idding that there are eight copies of Cyprh
K 3 **,
134 The Reply to Mr Johnfons feconi Ptper,
an y ancient M.S.S. in the Englifti Univer-
fities, that have none of them this Epiftle
to Stephen (of which fee ferem. Stephens
Edition of Cyprian de unitate Ecclefit)
2. Could you prove this Epiftle to be C/-
prians^ it makes againft you more then for
you. Not for jou: for the diftanceof Cj~
prian, the nearneflfe of Stephen might
make it a matter more concerning him, and
fitter for him to tranfaft; And it was within
his Patriarchate, and therefore no wonder if
he were minded of it. And yet Cyprian
only writes to him to write to theBifhops
of Trance to reftrain Martian: £ §..2.£ua-
propter facere te oportet plemfsimat liter as ad
coepifcopos noftros in Gallia confiitutos, ne ul-
tra JMartUnnmpervicacem & fuperhum^ &
divina pietatis acfraterna faint is inimicum^
collegio nofiro infultare patiantur. ~\ Cypri*
an did as much to Stephen^ as hedefired
Stephen to do to the Bifhopsof Trance :
This therefore is againft you, if any thing to
the purpofe; Had you found but fuch words
of a Pope to another Bifhop as Cyprian,
ufeth to your Pope, you would have taken
it as an evidence of his fuperiority. $. 3
Dirigantttr in provinciam & plebem in Are-*
late coexfiftentem a te liters, &c. " Let thy
Letters be directed to the Province and people
at
•
\Tbt Re fly to Mr . John tonsfecond Paper. 135
it Aries, &c. ] And its plainly an aft of
ion-Communion common to all Bifhops
:owards thofe unfit for their Communion,
:hat Cyprian fpeaks of $. 3 . ideirco enim^
? rater charifsime y copiofum eorpw eft facer-
dotum concordidt matUA glutino atqne ttnita-
+i$ vinculo copulatnm^ tit fiquis ex colUgio
noftro h&repm facere, & gregem Chrifti la-
cerare & vaftare tentaverit, fubveniant ca-
teri,&quafi paftores utiles & mifericordes
eves deminicas in gregem coUigant. You
fee it is a common duty of brotherhood.,
land not an act of jurifdiftion that Cyprian
fpeaks of.
5. Your next inftance is,that [^the Coun-
cil of Sardis determined that no Bifhop depo-
ftd by other neighbouring Bifhops, pretending
to be heard again, wot to have any fncceffor
appointed till the cafe -were defined bj the
Tope : Cone. Sard. cap. 4. cited by Athanaf.
jipcl.i.pag. 753. ] Reply. It fcemsyou
are well acquainted with ihe Council, that
know not of what place ii was / I: was the
Council at Sardica, and \ot at Sardts, that
you would mean. Sardis was z City of
Lydia, apnd Tmolnm montem , dim Regio
Cr<efi, inter Thiutiram & V iilphu .
But this Sardica was a City < I 1
the confines of the higher Myfiajntcr AT*-
K 4 iff»r*
1
1 36 The Reply to Mr. Johnfons [econd Paper.
i§um Mjfsi<e & Philippopolim Thracia. A&
to the inilancc, 1 . This Council was by
Augufiine rejeded as hereticall, though 1
defend not his opinion. 2. It was of fo little
note and authority, fchat it was not known
to the Council of Carthage to have the
next antecedent Canons ( which you would
not have omitted if you had read them, its
like) in which your writers glory as their
chiefeft ftrength h and which BelUrmint\
thinks Pope Z'ofimm called, the Nicene Ca*
non : or rather is it not fufpicious that this
Canon is but forged, when thofe Carthage
Fathers plainly fay, Jn ntillo Patrum conctlU
decretum xnvenimm \ mentioning that an-
tecedent Canon propofed by Hufins , tc
which this mentioned by you propofed by
Gdudentitts is but an addition or fupple-
ment. And it is not like that all thefe Afri-
cane Fathers could be ignorant of thofe Ca-
nons of Sariica % when fuch abundance oi
AfricaneBifhops were at the Council, and
that but about 50 years before ; you may
fee in Binmus how hard a ftrait he is put to,
jo give any tolerable reafon of this, and
only faith,that its like fome how the Canons
were loft; fure Tradition was then grown
untrufty. Your Cardinal Cufanm de Con-
cord. Cath. 1.2.C.25. makes a doubt whether
the
f ? He fly to Mr. Johnfons fecwd Pdfer. 137
1 Canon of appeals be indeed a Canon of
h Council. 3. But grant it be, yet take
ilfeobfervations, and you (hall find fmall
jafe of confidence in that Canon.
III. It was made in a Olfeof the diftrefle
ft Athanafiw and other Orthodox Orien-
ts Biftiops, meerly in that ftrait, to favc
dbmand theChurrhes from the Arrians.
|k ArrUns withdrew from the Council
g the minor part, and excommunicated
}liHt with Athanafius 3 %nd other Occiden-
■ and the Occidental Bifhops excom-
municated the Oriental. Athana[ms\xivr>-
ftf was a chief man in the Council, and
ijd before been refcued by the help of Ju-
:i\u f and therefore no wonder if they de-
ified this fafety to their Churches. 2.Note,
•tat this is a thing newly granted now by
lis Canon, and not any ancient thing.
P Note, that therefore it was of Humane
light, and not of Divine. 4. Note, that
ft this Canon was not received orprafti-
)dinthe Church, but after this thejeon-
ivary maintained by Councils , and pra-
ifed, as I fhallanon prove. 5. That it is
jot any antecedent Governing Power that
ie Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope •, but
\ honour of the Memory of S. Peter, as
• tiey fay, ( yet more fpr their prefent fecu-
rityj
138 The Reply to Mr. Johnfons [econd Pap
rity ) they give this much to Rome •, it t
ing the vulgar opinion that Peter had be
there Bilhop. 6. That it is not a Power
judging alone that they give, but of caufi
the re-examinatiorrof Caufes by the Cot
cil, and adding his affiftants in thejudj
ment, and fo to have the putting of ar
ther into the place forborn till it be doi
7. And I hope ftill you will remember, tl
at this Council were no Bifhops withe
the Empire, and that the Roman wo.
was narrower then the Chriftian worl
and therefore, if thefe Bifhops in a part
the Empire had now given ( not a Rulii
but ) a faving Power to the Pope, fo fai
is there expreffed, this had been farfn
proving that he had a Ruling Power, as 1
Vice-Chrift over all the world, and that
Divine right : Blame me not to call on y
to prove this confequence. 8. There is
much for Appeals to Conftantinofle , tl
never claimed a Vice-ChriiHhip as fure
vino.
6. Your fixth inftance out of Btjils \
Epiftlel imagine you would havefuppi
fed, if ever you had read that Epiftle, 2
had thought that any others would be
duced by your words to read it. I h;
given you out of this and other Epiftle*
i Reply to Mr.JohnfonsfecendPdper. 139
V;7, a fufficient proof of his enmity to
eery, in my Key, cap. 26. pag. 170, 171,
and cap. 27. pag. 177. that very Epi-
fof Bafils was written to the Wefiern
"hops, and not to the Biftiop of Rome
ir[p , nor fo much as naming him : The
p that he defireth is either a Vifit , or
elwafive Letters, never mentioning the
ft Power that the Pope had more then
lerBifliops, but only the intereft of
,:dit that the Weftern Eiftiops had more
n Bajil and his Companions : faith he
7 or what Vvefay is fuj petted by many, as if
certain private contentions ; we would
jke a fear and pufillanimitj into their
nds : But for you^ the further you dwell
mthem,fo much the more credit Jouhave
th the common people : to which this is
ded, that the grace of God is A help to you
rare for the oppreffed. And if many of you
unimoufly decree the fame things, it is ma»
eft that the Multitude of you decreeing the
ne things, will caufe an undoubted recepti-
of your opinion with all.^\ You fee here
on what terms Liberim his Letters
ght beftead Eufta: e having re-
ived him into bis own i :nion, and
vfiathius being Ortbod ords, no
Dnder that the Synod 01 T**** receive
him
140 "The Reply to Mr.Johnfonsfectnd Pi
him upon an Orthodox confeffion )
their fellow-Bifhops reception and Lettl
No doubt but the Letters of many ana
Eifhop might have perfwaded them tc|
reception ^ though hehadmoreadvant
from Rome. Is it not now a fair Argun
that you offer ? Liberitu ( fomctime an
rianPopeof Rome) by his Letters prcva
with a Synod at Tjana to reflore Enfta
ns ( an Arrian ) that diffembled an Ort]
dox confefiion : What then ? Ergo
Pope of Rome is the Vice-Chrift, or
then the Governour of all the Chrij
world. Soft and fair. i. Bafd gives ]\
other reafons of his intereft. 2. He ne ]
mentioneth his univerfall Governme'
when he had the greatefl need to behelj 1
by it, if he had known of fuch a thii
3 . The Empire is not all the world : If 1
fil knew the Roman Soveraignty, I am
rain he was a wilfull Rebel againft it.
7. Your fevemh proof is from 'Chr]
ftome, who, you fay £ exprefly deprethPi
Innocent not to punifhh U adversaries iftk
dQ repent : Chrjf. Epifl. 2. ad Innoc* \ il
ply. You much wrong your foul intakii
your Religion thus on truft ^ fome Bo(
hath told you this untruth, and you belie
it , and its like will perfwade others of
fleplyHMr.Johnfonsfecoxd Paper. 141
pu would do me. There is no fuch word
yp Epift. of Chrjfoftomc to Innocent, nor
hing like it.
Your eighth proof is this \_ The like is
\tn to the Pope by the Council of Ephe- ^
\n the Cafe of John of Antioch : Con- 9
\Ephef p. 2. All. $. ] Reply. 1. The
(Council at Ephefu* ( which no doubt
iimean ) is in Binnim enough to make a
derable Volume, and divided into fix
es , and each of thofe into Chapters,
ot into A&s : And if you cxped that
Jbuld exaftly read fix Tomes in Folio be-
I can anfwer your feverall fentences
jireds, you will put me on a twelve-
ieths work to anfwer a few (beets of
er. If you mean by fr>.a/] [Tom. 2."
|by [Aft.5.] [^Cap.5.3 then Imufttcl
d there is not a word of that you fay,
llike it. Only there is reference to CV-
nes and Cyrils Epiftles 5 and Celefiine
is Epiftle recited Tom. 1 . cap. 1 7. threa-
\Nefterins } that if he repent not,he will
)mmunicatehim 3 and they will have no
*c communion with him, which others
Lias well as he ^ but not a worcf of fohn
nop of Antioch there. Nor can I find
; fuch thing in the 4. Tome,wherc Johns
|fe is handled. Indeed the Notes of your
Hiftorian
1 42 The Reply to Mr. Johnfons fectni Fa
Hiftorian divide the Council into Sefiic
But in his fifth Seffion there is nothin:
John, but of Nefiorius. And in the 4. .
fohn and his Party excommunicate C
.^ Memnon^ 2nd theirs. And it was the Cci
I cil that iufpended firft, and after excom 1
nicated John. And it is the EmperouJ
whom he appeals. Indeed your Annoti|
in Seff. 6. mentions fome words of
vends ^ that he (hould at lea ft hav
garded the Roman Legates, it being t
ftome that his Church be dire&edby ti
But I fee no proof he brings of rf
words • and it is known , that Cyrl
Alexandria did prefide, and fubfcribed
fore the Roman Legates, even to the ft
rail Letters of the Synod, as you may fe»
Tom. 2. cap. zj.&paffim. i
2. But if your words were there to|
found, what are they to your purpoii
The Pope can punifli the Bilhop of 4
tiocb : But how? Why by excommuni
ting him. True, if he deferve it : th
by pronouncing him unfit for Chri
Communion, and requiring his flock,
exhorting all others to avoid him.
thus may another Bifhop do.- aad thus
fohn by Cyril of Alexandria , though
was himfelf of the inferiour Seat : 1
th
Ktflj t$ ftfr.JohntonsfecMdPtfer. 1 4 j
I hath the Biftiop of Cwftantinople done
the Bifhop of Rome , and fo may c-
s.
. Your ninth proof is from the applica-
s that the Arriansand Athanafttts made
ulim : Ex Ativan. adfolit.Efift. Julius
Lit. ad Arian. apnd Athan.Apol. 1 .^.75 3 .
todoret.lib.Z.c. 4. Athan. Apol.2. Zo-
k 1. 3. c. 7.3 Reply. I marvel you urge
1 rancid inltances, to which you have
n fo fully and fo often anfwered • I re-
you to Blonddl de Primatu cap, 25.
. 14, 15. Whittaker de Roman. Pontif.
150. & pafsim. Dr. Field of the Ch.
c. 3 5, e£r. Briefly, this may (hew the
ityof your proof. 1, Sowmcn in that
cc faith, that though he alone wrote for
im, yet he wrote in the Name and by the
fent of all the Biftiops of the Weft.
The advantages of Rome by its reputa-
i and greatnefs , and the number and
ility ot the Weftern Biftiops, made their
lgement and Communion valuable to
ers : Bafd before cited tells you on
lat grounds when Churches difagree,
)fe that are diftant are fuppofed to be im-
all , efpecially when numerous. To
lich is added, which Bafil intimates, that
nc hope of help from the Secular
powers,
i44 The Replffo Mr Johnfons [eeotid Pap
powers, by the interpolation of the
Hern Bifhops, made them th? morefoug
to. 3. And the Primacy of Rome (thou
it hadnoSoveraignty ) made it feemin
gular, that a. Patriarch (hould bedepof
without the knowledge and judgment
the Patriarchs of the precedent Seats. Tl
was the cuftome that Julius fpoke of, ai
the Patriarchs of Confis.minople and A
xandria misht have faid as much, if the
triarch of Jtmfalem or Antioch had b
depofed without them. 4. Every Pat
arch might abfolve the Innocent, and hi
communion with them in his own Patri
chate ^ and if any beagainft it^ (as the
rians here were, andfent falfe accufatio
againft Atkanafius to Julim) he may
quire them to prove their accufatipns,
they will have him moved by them. Oo
own Communion with men, is to be dirt
&ed by the judgment of our own wellii
formed confeiences. Julius defired not a
more then to be one with a Council t
(hould decide the cafe. Councils thenh
the Rule, and Patriarchs were th~ moft h<J
nourable Members of thofe Councils, bu
no Rulers of them. 5. Yet Socmen an<
others tell you, that Julius^ when he hac
done his beil to befriend AthffltfiHs an<
'be Reply to Mr Johnfons fccondPtper. 145
dultu could do no good, nor prevail with
le Bifliops of the Eaft, till the Emperors
Mnmands prevailed ; yea the Eaitern Bi-
lops tell him that he (hould not meddle
ith their proceedings no more then they
d with his, when he dealt with the Nova-
ans ^ feeing the greatnefs of Cities maketh
3t the power of one Bifhop greater
ten another: and fo they took it ill that
: interpofed,though buc to call the matter
> a Synod, when a Patriarch was dcpofed.
ny Bifhop might have attempted to re-
rve the oppreflcd as far as Julius did :
Specially if he had fuch advantages as
brefaid to encourage him. All your con-
quences here therefore are denied. 1. It
denied, that bccaufe Julim made this at-
:mpt, that therefore he was Univerfal Ru-
rinth^ Empire. 2. It is denied that it
ill thence follow, if he were fo, that it had
!en by Divine Right, any more then Con-
wtinofle hadcquall priviledges by Divine
ight. 3. It is denied that it hence fol-
wcth, that cither by Divine or humane
ght, he had any Power to govern the reft
the world without the Empire. Had
ou all that you would rack thef: teftimo-
tes to fpeak, it is but that he was made
y Councils and Empcrours tho chief Bi-
L fhop
146 The Reply to Mr.Johnfonsfecortd Paper
(hop or Patriarch in a Nationall Churct
( I mean, a Church in one Princes Domini-
on ) as the Archbilhop of Canterbury was
in England. But a Nationall or Imperials
Church is not the Univerfall. And wit
all, opprefTed men will feek relief from a
that may help them.
In your Margin you adde that £ Concern
ingS. Athanafius being judged^ andrightlj %
by P. Julius , Chamier ackpovp ledge th tht
matter of jaB tobefo: but again ft allantt
cjmty pretends that judgment to have been un* \
juft. ] Reply. Take it not ill Sir I befeecl
you, if I awake your conscience, to tell me,
how you dare write fo many untruths,
which you knew, or might know, I could
quickly manifeft. Both parts of your fay. 1
ingof Chamier p. 497, are untrue. 1. Th<
matter of fad: is it that he denieth; He
proveth to you from So^omens words, that
Athanafius did make no appeal to a Judge,
but only fled for help to a friend ; He
(hews you that Jnlitu did not play the
Judge, but the helper of the fpoiled, and
that it was not an ad of Judgement. 2. He
therefore accufeth him not of wrong judge- 1
iiig, but only mentioneth his not hearing
theaccufed, to (hew that he did not play
the part of a Judge, but a friend ^ as Chry %
fojlomt
The Replj to Mr .Johnfons fan J Paper. 147
fefiome did by fome that fled to him. I pray
iiuvrer his reafons.
And for what you fay again in your
Margin of Theodoret •, I fay again, thac he
jippealech to the Bifhop of Rome for heip^
is a perfon who wich the Weftern Bifhops
night fway much againft his adverfaries,
>ut not as to an Univerfal Governour or
udge: no not as to the UniverfU Judge
tf the Church Imperiall ^ much lefs of all
lie Cathohck Churches.
iO. Your tenth proof is from Chryfa-
romes Cafe, where you fay fome chines ua-
rue 5 and fome impertinent. 1 . Thac Chry-
oftome appeals co Innocent from the Coun-
il of Conftantinople is uncrue, if you mean
:of an Appeal to a fuperiour Court or
udge ^ much more if as to an Univcrf;!
udge : But indeed in h s bani(hment,\v. ea
II ocher help failed, he wroLe to him co in-
erpofeand help him as far as he could. I
eed no other proof of the Negacive then,
. That there is no proof of che Affirma-
ve, that ever he made any fuch appeal.
. In his firft Epillle to Innocent^ he cells him
ver and ovcr,that [ he appealed to a Synoi %
nd required ftdgement^and thau he w.is caft
ito a thip tor banifhment Q became he ap-
rthd t9 * Synod and * righteous judgement]
L z never
i 48 The Keplj to Mr Johnfons [econd Paper.
never mentioning a word of any fuch ap4
peal to the Pope. Yea he urgeth the Pop
to befriend and help him,by that argument,
that he was ftill ready to ftand to ur corrupt
ed Judges , never mentioning ihe Pope
Judge. By all which it appears it was but
the afliftancc of his interceflion that he re-
quireth ; and withall, perhaps the excom-
municating of the wicked, which anoth
Biftiop might have done. Yea, and it
feems it was not to Innocent only, but to
others with him that he wrote •, for he
would fcarce elfe have ufed the termiJi
\^K\!eioi y.v rt[AieJ7&rot xj «jA«CSsttTai] Eu
what need we more then his own words
know his rcqueft : faith he [" Let tbofe thA\i
are found to have done fo wicked/}, he fubjett
to the penalty of the Ecchfifiicall Laws :
but for us that are not cenvilled, nor f oh
guilt], grant m to enjoy your Litters, an
your ^hudty^and all others whofe fociety w
did formerly enjoy. ~] The Ecclefiaftical Law!
enabled each Patriarch and Bifhop tofen^
tenceinhis own Dioc^ fs •, though the per^
fon fentenced lived out of their Diocefsj
yet they might renounce all communion
with him ; Churches that have no powei
over one another, may have communion
with one another -, and that communion
they
T15 j
I
i
"bt Reply te Mr. Johnfons/ewW Paftr. 14^
hey may hold and renounce as there is
aufe. Now if a neighbour Patriarch with
many Biftiops of the Weft had renounc'd
Communion with Chrjfeftomes enemies, and
Ifo written their Letters on his behalf, and
aken him ftillas in their Communion, this
le hoped would much further his reftaurati-
>n : which yet he doubted , as he had caufel
for in his fecond Epiftle he thanks him for
loinghis part, though it did no good, or
lid not avail.
1 And it is to be noted, that your Author
Ni&phorns tells you, lib. 13. cup. J I; that
UhryfoftomesLetters^nd his lellow-Biftiops
ilfo, and the Clergies of C on ft* n t> no flc*
pvere all written both to the Emperour Hi?-
\torius and to Innocent : And therefore you
(nay fee by that on what account it was,
fetnd what help they did exped. The Em-
berour was not to excommunicate, but his
fetters might do much.
1 Well, but you alledgeiWttpA. /.I3.r.34. ,
co prove 1. Chrjfeftomes appeal ; But you
have better or worfe eyes then I, fori can
;find there no fuch thing, but afeeking for
ihelp as aforefaid. 2. You fay [Jnnocen-
\t\us nulls hU condemnation t and dec lures him
innocent.] Anf. So might ano:her Bifliop
have declared him : But how far it ftiould
I L 3 ^
1 50 The Reply to Mr. Johnfons fecond Tdfer*
be regarded , was not in his power/
3. You fay he excommunicates Attic us and
Theophiltu, and 4. Arcadim the En perour
alio, and Eudcxia. 3 Re fly. 1. If he did
fo and did well, another Bifhop might as
well have done it. Mtnnas excommunicated
Vifllias oi Rome. Excommunicating is not
aiuayes an aft of Jurifd.ftion , but a re-
nouncing of Communion, with aMinifte-
riall binding , which any Paftor on ajuft
occafion may exercife, even on thofethat
are nor of his Diocefs 5 examples in Church- *
hiitory are common. 2. Buc I would have
you anfwer Dr. Whittakers Reafons, by
which he proves that Nicefhorws sa fabler!
in this relation, and that that Epiitle is not 1
Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth, Lib*
de font if Rom Contr. 4. J^#. 4.^^.454,
455. i. Neither Socrates .Theodore t orf
Socmen make any mention of this ex-
con muni cation , who yet write much of
the Cafe of Chryjoftome and Arcadiu* ;And1
would chefe men that lived fo n^ar that time
have all filenced fo great and rare a thing,
as the excommunication of the Emperour
and Emprefs, which would have madefo
great a noife and flir , that yet mention
Amlrofe his cenfure of Tkeodofius} 2. This
Bull ot Jnnoccnts , ( as Nuephorn* would
have
#*
I 'be Reply to Mr. Johnfonsfecsffd Paper. 151
avc us believe it,) hath fuch falfhoods, con-
rary to more credible hiftory,as bewray the
:>rgery. For Socrates lib. 6.c 19. wrireth,
i hat Eudoxia died the fame year that Chry-
bftvme was banifhed, and that Cbry(ofiome
fied the third year of his banifhment - And
mozjmen faith /. 8.^.28. that Chryfofiome
Ivas in banifhment three years atcer the
(lleathof Eudoxia : But, if Nicephorus were
o be believed, Eudoxia was aiiveand ex-
ommunicated by Innocent after Chryfo-
vtomes death. Nor can it be faid that Inno-
cent knew not of her death •, for his Legats
tare fent to Confiantinople in Aniens time,
whofucceeded Arfacius, who outlived Eu^
\oxia7\ This is the fumme of Dr.Whitt^ksrs
confutation of Nicefhorus. And wnhall,
fvho knows not how full of fiftions Nice-
chorus is?
' In your Margin you pretend to confute
Chamierp.49%. as hy'\ng[_That other Bi-
fbops refiored thofe wrongfully depofed as
bell'a* the Pope, J to which you fay that
L never fingle 'Si/hop reftered any who were
)Utof their reffettive Diocefs, &c. whereas
the Bifiop of Rome by his fole and (ingle au-
thority refiored Bi/hops wrongfully depojed
all the Church aver. ] Reply. I. It ieems
you took Chamkrs words on truft : perufe
L 4 that
15 j ThcReflytoMr.JohnlLOTisfecondPdpei
that page,and fee his words. 2 . Single Bi|
(hops have cenfured, and therefore migl
as well remit their own cenfures. Ambro)\
cenfured Theodoftm , who was no fixec)
Member of his charge, and he remitted th
Cenfure. Epiphamm prcfumed even
Confiantinople to excommunicate Diofcon
and his Brethren, Socrat.lib. 6.C.14.. An<|
many inftances may be brought both of ex
communicating,and again receiving to com-
munion by particular Bifhops, even as tc
thofe that were not of their charge. Anc
if the fad: were not proved, yet the for-
bearance proveth not the want of power
3 . I deny your unproved afTertion, that the
Bifliop of Rome fingly reftored all the
Church over : It is a meer fi&ion. How;
many reftored he out of the Empire ? O*
in the Empire out of his Patriarchate, butt
fuaforily or Synodically. ;
Your next inftance of Theodofins his noi
permitting the Council at Ephefus to b(
aflembled, and his reconciling bimfeff u
the Church , is meerly impertinent .• Wl
know, that he and other Princes ufualh
wrote to Rome, Confkantinople, Alexandria,
&c. or fpoKe or fent to more then one of
the Patriarchs before they called a Council.
You cannot but know that Councils have
been
m Reply to Mr.Johnfonsfecond Paper. 155
fen called without the Pope .- and that
either this, nor an Emperours forfaking
flrerrour, is a fign of the Popes Univerfal
ovcrnment. That Eraperour gavcfuffi-
:nt teftimony, and fo did the Bilhops -has
hered to Diofctrn*^ that in thofedayes
e Pope was taken for fallible and control-
>le, when they excommunicated him : Bur
hen you cite out of any Author the words
at you build on, I fhall take moreparti-
ilar notice of them. Till then this is
lough, with this addition, that the Em-
erours fubjcftion, if he had been fubjeft
not to an Ambrofe, or other Bifhop, but)
nly to Rcme^ would have been no proof
lat any without the Empire were his fub-
l&s : No more then the King of England*
bjeftion to the Archbifhop of Canterbu-
would have proved that the King of
'ranee was fubjeft to him.
12. Your twelfth proof from the Coun*
1 of Chalcedon , is from a witnefs alone
fficicnt to overthrow your caufe, as I have
oved to you. This Synod exprefly deter-
ineth, that your Primacy is a novel hu-
ne invention ^ that it was given you by
Fathers, becaufe Rome was tbelmperial
eat. If you believe this Synod, the Con-
roverfic it at an end : If you do not, why
do
**■
j J4 Tfc Re pb teMr. Johnsons fecend Paper h
do you cite it ? and why pretend you to bell
lieve Generall Councils ?
But what have you from this Council
againft this Council ? Why, i. You fail
Martian wrote to Leo, that by the Popes Ax
thorlty a generall Council might be gathered v
in Vvhat City of the Eaftern Church he/bouam
pleafe to choofe. ] Reply. I. Whereas foi
this you cite Alt. ConciL Chalcedon. I . Yoj
tell me not in what Author, wheth<
Crabbe , Binnius , Surim , Nicolimtt, oil
where I muft feek it. I have perufed thej
A fit. i . in Binnitts, which is 63 pages in Fo*^
lio ( fuch casks your citations fetme) an^.
find no fuch thing ^ and therefore take it to
be your miftake. But in the preambuL jf
pifl. I find that Valentinian and Marti*
defire Leo's prayers, and contrary to yoi
words, that they fay. £ Hoc ipfum nobis pn
friis Uteris tuajanttitas manifeftet, quatem
in omneyn Orientem & in iff am Thraciam
Illyricumfacra noflr<e liter a dirigantur^
ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis plactA\
trit> omnes fanttijfimi Epifcopi debeant con-
venire. J It is not [~ qui vobis placuerii\ bu&
£ qui nobis. 3 But what if you had fpoke
truth, doth it follow that Leo was Chrilts
Vicar- general Governour of the world,
becaufe that the Soveraign of one Com-
monwealth
b Reply to Mr. Johnfons [esond Paper. 155
iwealth did give him leave to choofe
place of a Council ? Serious things
bid not be thus jefted with.
. You fay Anatolius and the reft of the
: crn Bifljofs fent to Tope Leo the prof eftr-
of their faith by his order. ~\ Reply m
uid what then ? therefore Pope Leo was
Governourof them and alltheChri-
world. You {hould not provoke men
mghter about ferious things, I tell you.
you prove this Confequence ? Confef-
5 were ordinarily fent in order to Com-
»ion 3 or to fatisfie the offended, without
ed to fupenority. 2. But I fee not
proof of your impertinent words. Prd-
ias Epiftla to Leo, expreffeth that Leo
fent his Coi.feilion firit to Anatolivu y to
ch Anatolius confented. By your Rule
n Leo W3S iubjeft to Anatolia*.
> ou fay the Popes Legates fate fir ft in
Weil. \ Reply. What then > therefore
Pope was Governour of theChnftian
f rld, though not a man out of the Empire
re of the Council. Are you ftill in jeft ?
tifit muft be fo ? then I can prove that
lers were the Univerfal Governours, be-
4 at Nice y and other Councils they fate
ore the Legates of the Pope, and in
my his Legau had no place. Is this ar-
gument
t
11 :
1
Ij6 Tfo Reply to Mr. Johnfons /<tf ond Papt
gumcnt good think you ? O unfaithful pa
tiality in the matters of falvation /
4. You fay, they prohibited Diofcorus
Jit by his order 3 Reply. 1. What thetji
therefore he was Univerfal Governour
the Church. All alike. Any accufer in
parliament or Synod may require that t
Accufed may not fie* as judge, till he be ti
cd. 2. But did you not know that Lei
Legates were not obeyed •, but that t
GioriofiJJimi jttdices & amplifsimus fenati^
required that the caufe flnould be firft mafc
known ; and that it was not done cillJEn]
bins Epifcop* DoryUi had read his bill
complaint? Binnius A£l i.pag.%. 1
5. You fay the Popes Legates pronoui
ced the Church of Rome to be Caput own
stm Ecclefiarum~\ Reply. 1. What thee I
therefore he was Governour of all the Chtl
itian world ? I deny the confequence. Ycl
do nothing but _beg ; not awordofprooj
Caput wzsbut membr urn principale , the Pi
triarch prima fedes, and that but in the En
pire. 2. The Popes Legates were not tl
Council, nor judges in their own caufe,an
not oppofing, fignifies not alwayes a coi
fent. 3. But the Council do aslfaid,a
prefly deiine the point, both what your Pr
^ macy is, and of how long {landing, and
who!
(
ft Htflj t$ MrJ]ohxifoYi$fccdndPdftr. \ ^
irofe inftitution , and that Conftantinople
)\ the lame grounds had equail pnvi-
e:es.
5. You fay, Mthe Fathers acknowledged
mf elves Leo's Children, *nd wrote to him
rheir Father. ~] Reply. Of this you give
not any proof, buc leave me to read 19a
sesm Fclie, to fee whether you fay true
no. And what if you do,(as I believe you
&) can a man of any reading be ignorant
Tw ordinarily ocher Bilhops were ftiled
thers, even by their fellow-Bifhops as
llasiheBifhopof Rome?
7* You add , that they humbly begged of
\m that the Patriarch rf Conitantinople
mght h«ve the firfi place next Rome, tyhich
Wtwithfianding the Council had ccn r ented to B
I had alfo the third general Council at Ephe-
s before, let they efteemed their grants of #*
efficient force , till they were confirmed by ths
ope. ] Reply. So far w^re the Council iron*
*hac you talfly fay of them, that they put it
ito their Canons, that Constantinople fhould
ive the fecund pLnce, yea and equal privi-
dges with /frwf , and that they had this on
nefame grounds as Rome haditg Primacy,
fvenbetaufeic was the Imperial Seat ; Vid.
Sin. p*g. 133, 1?, 4. col. z. And not only
Sphefu;, but the fecond general Council at
Con-
1 5 8 The Rfply to Mr.JohnConsfecond P*fi
Confiantinople, they tell you had decreed t
fame before. You fee then ( contrary to yo
fiftion ) that three general Councils (oi i
greateft, likened by Gregory to the 4 E
gelifts) not only judged without theP
but by your own conteflion againft \\\m(
you fay, he confented not ) yea fo much
they flight the Popes confent, that when
Legates diffented, they were not heari
See Bin. pag. 1 34, 1 36. They perfifte
the Council to maintain their Canon J
notwithftanding the contradiction of Li :
. cretins and Psifchafinus, and by the Judgi'l
it was accordingly pronounced, p 137. AiH
unanimoufly the whole Synod contented
never {topping at the Roman diffent. Perg*
rniusBiihop of Antioch faith [_in omnib%\
fanttijfimum Archiepifcopum RegU civiuti\\
nov<eRomx in henore & cur a ficut Patren^
pr&cipHum habere nos convenit. No ma* 1
contradi&ed this : And is not this as mud 1 '
or more, then you ailedge as fpoke to Le$ V
They call Leo ( you fay ) Father : And ch< (
Bifhop of Ccnfiantinofle is pronounced tb< I
Chief Father in all things^ in honour amf
. Cure. And £ #/f £*'/*/ Biftiop of Dory I. rh< I
chief adverfary of Diofcorusjvitneued that
hehimfelf, in the prefence of the Clergy of |
Cenftantinople, did read this Canon to the
Pope
ve Heplj to Mr. Johnfons fecond Paper.
ppc at Rome , and he received it. Upon
ctiyour Hiftorian hath no better an ob-
tion, then that £ either Eufebius/j^,
elfe At that hour he deceived Leo, 3 Its
c that the Synod writ to him for his con-
but not as fufpending any of their
crees on it ^ . but telling him over and
r, that the things were by them defined
confirmed already, pag. 140. that which
ydefiredof him was, what Synods ordi-
ily did of Bifhops of their Communion
t were abfent £ H&c, ficut propria, &
tea, & *d decorcm convenientijsima, dig*
complefti , faiiEliJsimc & beatifsime
<r. 3
1 3 . In your Margin you tell me that A-
>rin the time of ftfftinidn depofed Ari-
'fHiHsinConftantinofle againft the will of
Empcrour & theEmprefs.jifr/^.i.And
:h it follow, that becaufe he did it, there-
•e he did it juftly, yea and astheGover-
ir of that Church ? when MennA Bifhop
Confiantimple excommunicated Pope Vi-
\ius, was he not even with him? and did
.t prove that Rome was fubjeel to Con-
\ntwoplc ? NicepJs. /. 17. c.26. When Bio-
\rm excommunicated Le 0, and anEaftern
tod excommunicated Julius ( Soz,omA.i>.
1.) that proves ron th u they did it juft-
159
l<5o The Reply to Mr.Johnfons fecond P*pt\
ly 3 or as his Governours. HonoriHs the Ei |
perour depofed Boniface I . Oth$ with a S |
nod depofed Johan. 13. Jujlinian depot |
Sylverius and Vigilins : Will you eonf< |
it therefore juftly done ? 2. As to thet |
ftory I refer you to the full anfwer oiBUn^
to Perron, cap. 2$. fett. 84, 85. 3 • Ufi
pation and depoling one another by ri
Sentences was then no rare thing, Eufcbi
of Nicomedia threatened the depofing ■ j
Alexander of Conftantinofle, who Aire w
not his fubjed, Socrat* lib. 1. r.3 7.(^.25 ^
Acacitts of C<zfarca and his party depofe n< ,
only Eletifius , Bafilim and many other j
but with them alfo M^cedonius Bifhopi
Confiantinople : SocratJib.Z.c.H. (vel.+M
Did this prove Acacias the Vice-Chrifl ,
What fhould I inftance in Theophilns adioj |
againft Chryfoftome, or Cyrils againft fob* ,
Antiochen. and many fucn like ? 4. Still yo
fuppofe one Empire to be all the Chriftia j
world ; We muft grant you that in all yoi ,
inftances / j]
14. For what you alledgc from Gregor)\
I (hall give you enough of him anon fe
your fatisfaftion, if you will be indiffereni
As to your citation what can I fay ? A yeai I
time were little enough to fearch after you
citations , v if you fhould thus write bu I
man
1
Ibe Reply U Mr Johnfons fecond Paper. \Ci
fcny more {heets (If a man had fo much
cue and fo little wit as to attend you ) You
srn me to Greg. cap. 7. ep. 63. but what
&ok, or what Indication, you tell me not :
j)t whatever it be, falfe it muft needs be,
pre being no one Book of his Epiftles ( ac-
kding to all the Editions that I have feen)
pcrer. 7. and*/?. 63. do agcee or meet to-
her. But at laft I found the words in
7. r.63. fp.63. To which Hay, thatei-
r your great Gregory by £ fubjedf) meant r
t the Biihop of Confiantinople was of an
1 lour Order, as the Patriarch of AU-
dri.i and Antiocb were to Conftantinople,
tyet had no Government of them ; or
^ he could fay and unfay : But I doubt
t but this was all his fenfe. But if ir had
kn othervvife, Conjiantinople and the Em-
was not all the Chriftian world,
four next citation is lib. 7. ep. 3 7. But its
fly cited : There is no fuch word • and
are in fo much hafte for an anfwer^ that
ill not read over all Gregories Epiftles.
5. You fay Cyril would not break off
Jmmunion with Nc florin* till Cdtfline had
demned him ^ of this you give us no
: But what if it be true? Did you
nk that it proved the Pope to be the Vice-
ift ? Prudence might well make Cyril
M cau~
J
i6z The Reply to il/r.Johnfons fecwd rsfe
cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch
And we ftill grant you, that the Order o:
the Empire had given the Roman Bifhop thj
Primacy therein ; and therefore no wondes
if h;s content were expe&ed. But that iV>
fieriuswas condemned by a Council need
no proof: And what if Celeftine began ani
firft condemned h m? Is he therefore th
Univerfal Bilhop ? But it was not Celeftik
alor.e,buta<ynod of the WefternBilhops
And yet Cyril did not hereupon rejefthii
without lur.her warning : And whac wast
that he threatned, but tobold no Commi
nion with him ? Vid. Concil. Ephef. I . Ton
I. cap. 14. And though Pride made
communication an Engine to advance
Biftiop above others, I can eafily prove t
if I had then lived, it had been my duty!
avoid Communion with a noconous Heis
tick, though he had been Pope.
The long ftory that \ou rext tell, is
to fill up Paper,that Cyril received the Pop
Letters, that Neflerixs repented not, chad
accuicdCjril, that Theodcfius wrote to C
hfiine about a Council^ and many fuchu
pertinent worcs ; But theprodiis, thatd
W/was the Popes chief Legate Ordinar
Forfoothbecaule in his abfence he was 1
chief Patriarchy therefore he is faid Ct
fc* Riply U Mr. Johnfons fecond Paper • i$$
fwi locum tenere, which he defired. Well,
It your jpopc fie higheft, feeing hefotrou-
all the world for it. Chrift will fhortly
\ him come down lower, when he hum-
th them that exal t themfel ves. That Cy
fubferibed before Philip, you may fee,
m. 2. cap. 2$. but where I may find that
Hip fubferibed fir ft, you tell me not. But
at if the Archbifhopof Canterbury fate
heft 3 and fubferibed firft in England^
>thit follow that he was Governour of
the world ? no nor of Tork^ it felf
ther.
6. And here you tell us of Juveiul % AEt.
epl.i. The Council is not divided into
s in Binnim, but many Tomes and
bpters ; but your words are in the Notes
led by your hiftorian j but how to prove
\m ^Hvtnals words I know not, nor find
lim or you. 2. But why were not the an-
edent words of the Bifhop of Antioch
I his Clergy as valid to the contrary, as
nals tor this ? 3 . If thefe words were
ken , they only import a Jndgeing in
mncil as a chief member of it, and not of
[nfelf. And his apojiolica ordimtiove is ex-
fly contrary to the forecited Canon of.
\ Council of Chalcedon , and therefore
£ to be believed. Yet fomc called things
M 2 &qvp
The Reply to Mr Johnfons feccnd Paper.
done Ordination apoftolica , which were or-
dained by the Seats which were held Apo-
ftolike. 4. But ftill you refolve to forget
that Antioch or the Empire extended not
to the Antipodes, nor contained all the Ca-
tholick Church.
17. You next tell me of Valentinians
words A.D.44.5. Reply It is the raoft plaufible
of all your teitimonies, but worth nothing
to your end. For I. Though Theodefitu
name pro forma were at it, yet it was only
Valentinians ad, and done at Rome, where]
Leo prevailed with* a raw unexperienced
Prince to word the Epiftle as he deiired; fol
that it is rather Leo's, then the Emperoursi
originally : And Lee was the firft that at^j
tempted the exceffiv? advancement of hi<
Seat above the reft of the Patriarchs. 2. Ii
is known that the Emperours foraetime gav<
the Primacy to Rome, and fometime to Ca
ftantinople, as they were pleafed or difple;
fed by each of them. So did fuftinian, wl
A.D. 530. Lampadio & Ore ft e Cof.C.
Epifcopis lib. I. lege 24. faith Conftantti
nopolitana Bcclefta omnium aliarum eft Ca
put^ [The Church of Conftantinople# tk
Head of all other. "] 3. It is yourfi&ion,aiH
not the words of Valentinian ( or Leo) tha
t the fucceffion from Peter was the foundation
0,
The Reply to Mr.JohnConsfeco^d Paper. 165
of Romes Primacy. It was. then believed
that dntiochznd other Churches had a fuc-
ceffion from Peter. It is the Merit of Peter,
and the Dignity of the City of Rome, and
the Authority of the Synod joyntly that he
afcribeth it to. The Merit of Peter was no-
thing birt the Motive upon which Leo would
have men believe the Synod gave the Prima-
cy to Rome : And Hofius in the Council of
Sardica indeed ufeth that as his motive,
] Let us for the honour of Peter, &c] They
had a conceit that where Peter laft preached,
and was martyred and buried, and his reli&s
lay, there he fhould be moft honoured.
4. Here is not the leaft intimation that this
Primacy was by Gods appointment, or the
Apoftles, but the Synods; Nor that it had
continued fo from Peters dayes, but that
joyntly for Peters Merits ( and honour*)
and the Cities dignity, it was given by the
Synod. 5. And it was but Leo's fraud to
, perfwade the raw Emperour ofthe autho-
rity of a Synod, which he would not name,
[ becaufe the Synod of Sardica was in little or
no authority in thofe daies. The reft of the
reafons were fraudulent alfo 5 which though
they prevailed with this Emperour, yet they
took not in the Eaft. And Leo himfelf it
feemsdurft not pretend to a Divine Right
M 3 and
l66 The Reply t$ Mr. Johnfons ftcond Paper.
and'lnftitution, nor to a fucceffion of Pri-
vacy from the Apoftles. 6. But nothing
is more falfe then your affercion, that he ex-
tendeth the power \_over the whole vifible
Church. 3 The word [_Vmverfita*~\ is all
that you tranilate in your comment, \[the
whole vifible Church . ] As if you knew not
that there was a Roman Vnherfalitj^&c that
Roman Councils w:re called Vniverf*M 9
when no Bifhops ouc of that one Common-
wealth were preftnt; and that the Church
in the Empire is oft called £ the whole
Ck#rth.~] Yez[_the Roman world] was not
an unufuall phrafe. And I pray you tell me,
what power Valentinian had out of the Em-
pire? who yet interpof:th his authority
there , \_Nequid prater authoritatem fedis
ijtitts illicit um^ &c. X& ut fax ubique
fervttHfk ]] And in the end,it is All the Pro-
vinces , that is, the Vnivcrfity that he, ex-
tends his precepts to. 7. And for that an-
nexed [ that. without the Emferours Letters,
his anthority was. to be cf force through
ftante^ for what {hall not be lawful!, &c. }
I Anf. No wonder : For France was part of
his Patriarchate, and the Laws of the Em.
pire had confirmed his Patriarchal power :
^ndthofe Laws might feem, with the reve-
rence of S,ynods,without new Letters, to do
much ;
The Rfply to Mr John Ton s fecond Paper. \ 6j
much .- But yet ic ieerr s,chac the ri(i»g pow-
er needed th.s extraordinary fecular help:
HiUrj it feems with his B fhops though^
tha even to his Patriarch he cwednofuch
obedience as Leo I ere by iorce exadeth. So
thac your 1 gheit witnefs ( Leo by the
mouth ot Vdintini.n) is tor no more chen
a Pnnr cy , , with a lwelled power in the Ro-
man Univerfality ^ but they never medled
With the reft ot the Chnitian world : Ic
feerrsby all chcir writings and atLempcs^his
never came into ihe.r thoughts.
And its no credit to your caufe, that this-
Hi/r.ryw\*(b) Baronitts confe(\iou)d man of
extraordinary hohrefs and knowledge, and
is Sainted amo. g)ou., and hath his Day in
your Calendar. And yet VfilentinUu had
freat p ovocanoi to interpole (itZfotold
hni no uncru Is, tor Iv.sow.i advantage j :
Eprit was no Kfsthen laying fiege to Cities,
to force Bfhops on them without their cori-
fenr, hache is accufedof^ vchich (hews to
whac odious pnde s and uturpation, proJpe-
nty even then had rai fed the Clergy; fitter
to be lamented with floods of tears, then co
be defended by any honelt Chriftian ; Leo
himfelf may be the principal mllance.
18.Y011 nextreturnto the Council of CW-
ccdon,Att.i. &ftq. where 1. Yourctcr m^
M 4 to
168 the it^/y^^/r-Johnfons/ecW ftytx.
to that AH. i .where is no fuch matter : but
you add [&feq. 3 that I may hare an hun-
dred and ninety pages in Folio to perufe,and
then you call for a fpeedy anfwer : But the
EpiftletoZeoisin the end of AB. 16. fag.
{Bin.) 139. 2. And there you do but
falfly thruft in the word £ thou governfi uf\
and fo you have made your felt" a witnefs,
becaufe you could find none : The words are
^Jguibus tu quidem ficut membru caput pr it-
er as, in his qui tuum t enchant ordinem bene-
volentiampraferens : lmptratorcs vero ador-
nandum decentijjime prafidebant. ] Now [ to
go before~] with you muft be £ to Govern~\:
If fo 5 then Aurelius at the Council of Car-
thage, and others in Councils that prefided,
did govern them. It was but £ bcnevolenti-
am pr&tulijfe ] that they acknowledged :
And that the Magiftrates not only prefided
indeed, but did the work of Judges antf
Govern ours, isexprcfs in the Afts $ its after
wrote in that Epiftle £ Hac f urn, qua tecum,
quifpiritu prtfens eras, & complacere tan-
quam fratribus deliberafli^ & qui pene per
quorum vicariorum [apientiam videbaris,a
%obis effecimus 3 And £ h<ec k tuafanftitatc
fuerint inchoata ] and yet [ Jjhti enim locum
veftra fanttitatis obtinent, lis it a confiitutis
vehementerrejiftere tentaverunt. 3 From all
which
7he Reply U Mr. Johnfons [teond Paper. 1 69
which it appeareth, that he only is acknow-
ledged to lead the way, and topleafethem
as his brethren, and to help them by the wif-
dome of his fubftitutes • and yet that the
Council would not yield to their vehement
refiftancc of one particular.
But I have told you oft enough that the
Council (hall be judge, not in a comple-
mentall Epiftle,but in Can. 28. where your
Primacy is acknowledged ^ but 1. As a gift
ef the Fathers. 2. And therefore as new.
3. For the Cities dignity. 4. And it can be
of no further extent then the Empire 5 the
Givers and this Council being but the Mem-
bersof that one Commonwealth ; So that all
is but a novel Imperial Primacy.
19. And for the words of Vincent ius Li-
rinenfisj. 9. what are they to your purpofe ?
[ quantum loci author it ate 3 figntfieth no
more then we confefs, viz. that in thofe
times the greatnefs of Rome, and humane
Ordination thereupon, had given them that
precedency, by which their [] loci authority]
had the advantage of any other 'Seat: Or
elfe they had never fwelled to their impt- ^
ous Ufurpation.
I have plainly proved to you in the End
of my \_{afe Religion'] that Vincentius was
no Papilt.
But
1 70 The R 'fly to Mr . John fons fee end Paper.
Bur you draw an argument from the
word {,[ nxit\ As if you were ignorant
that bt£g:r words then that areappl-edco
them that have no governing power ;< ^^«-
tuminfef*rixit,\\z&.zxgtdi them tha. hey
fh'ould not innovate: And what ? is it P. Ste-
phen that is theLaw-giver of the Law agamft
unjuft innovation ? Did not CyprUnbzY.tvt
that this was a Law of C hrift beiore Stephen
medied in that bufinefs t What Stephens
authority was in thole dayes, we need no
ocher witnefles then flrnilUn, Cyprl.n,
and a Council of Curthage , who lighted
the pope as much as 1 do.
I pray anfwer Cyprians tclHmony and ar-
guments againft Popery, cited by me in che
JD/ij5:-j.of tny^fafe Religion. ~]
20. You fay you will conclude with ihe
fayir.gof your pritil Philip y and Arcadlm
zxEph.fiit: And i.You tak* it for gran, ed
that ail cvnfenteA to whut they ccntradiEftd
mt : But your word is all the proof of the
confequence. No:hing more common, then
in Senates and Synods to fay nothing to
many paflages in fpceches, not contented
to. If no word not conientcd to in any
mans fpeech muft pafs without contradicti-
on, Senates and Synods would be no wifer
Societies then Billingsgate affords ^ nor
more
the Reply to Mr. Johnfons fee end Paper, irji
more harmonious then a Fair or vulgar
rout : What confufion would contradicti-
ons make among them ?
2. You turn me to Tom. 2. pxg. 327*
AEl.i. I began to hope of fome expedition
here: But you tell me not at all what Au-
thor you ufe : And in Binnlus which I ufe,
the Tomes arc not divided into Afts, but
Chapters, and piig. 327. is long before this
Council. So that I mufi believe you , or
fearch paper enough for a weeks reading to
difprove you .-This once I will believe yon,
to fave me that labour , and fuppofing all
rightly cited , I reply ; 1. Philip was not
the Council. You bear witnefs to your
felves, therefore your witnefs is not credi-
ble, Yet I have given you inftances in my
" '■&*] D ( ^K'th I would tranfenbe if I
thought that you could not as well read
print asM. 'SO of higher expre-ffions then
Caput and fnniawent am, given to Andrtvr
by Ifjcjsfius, and equal exprefiions to others,
as well as Rome and Peter. And who is igno-
rant that knowerh any thing of Church-
hiftory, that others were called fucceflburs
of Teter as well as the Bilhop of Rome ?
And that the CUvts regni were given to
him, is no proof that they were not given
alfo to all the reft of the Apoftles. And
where
17* The Re fly to Mr Johnfons [econd Paper.
where you fay £ Af cadius condemneth Ne-
florius for contemning the command of the
'dpoftolick, Sea. ] ( You v tell me not where
to find it.) IanTwer you ltill, that its long
fince your Sea begun to fwell and rage, but
if you malt have us grant you all thefe con-
fequenccs, £Celefline commanded \ therefore
he jufilj commanded, therefore another might
not as well have commanded him : ( as
one Paftor may do another, though cquail,
in the name of Chrift ) : and therefore he
hadpower to command without the Empire^
even over all the Catholick. Churchy and
therefore the Council was of this mind : jrea 9
therefore the univerfal Church was of this
mind^ that the Tope Vvas its univerfal head.]
You ftill are guilty of fporting about feri-
ous things, and moving pity, iaftead of of-
fering the leaft proof.
i Yet fear you not to fay £ that in the time
of the holj Oecumenical Councils of Ephefus
^fldChalcedon, the universal cenfentofthe
whole Catholic^ Church was for you in this
point. ] The Lord keep our confeiences
from being the fervants of our opinions or
interefts. i. Was the Popes Legate the
whole Catholick Church ? 2. Was there
one man at either of thefe Councils but
within the Empire, yea a piece of the Em-
pire ?
The Kef If t$ Mr. JohnfonsfecMd Paper. 1 7 3
Pire ? So that they were but fuch as we now
call National Councils, that is, confifting on-
ly of the fub je#s of one Republick. 3 . Did
the Council fpeak a word for your power
without the Empire? 4. Do they not de-
termine it fo exprefly to be of humane
right, that Bellarmine hath nothing regard-
abltto fay againft \t( Can.zS.Conc.Cbalced.)
but that they fpoke falfly ? And yet your
opinion or intereft hath tempted you to ap-
peal, viz. to the Sun that there is no fuch
thing as light.
21. After the conclufion you haveafu-
pernumerary in your Margin , from Greg.
lib.io.Epift.lo.But there is no fuch word in
that Epiftle, nor is it of any fuch fubjeft.
But its [the 31. Epftle its like that your
leader , : meant. And there's no more but
that a Btfhop not named ( perfon or place )
having fallen into Schifm voluntarily, fWore
never more to depart from the Unity of the;
Catholick Church, or thefeaof Rome. But
1. So may aBifhop of the Roman province
do ( or Patriarchate ) without believing
Rome to be the Univerfal Head. So might
one in any other Province have done: And
yet it follows not that he ought to do fo, be-
caufehe^fo. You fee now what all your
proofs arc come to , and how fhame-
fully
174 The Reply to Mr Johnfons [ceondPapcf.
fully naked you have kft your caufe.
In fumm,of all the teftimonies produced,
i. You have not named one man that was a
Papift '( Pope Leo was the neareft of any
man) nor one teftimony that everaPope
of Rome had the Government of all the
Church without the verge of the Roman
Empire • but only that he was to the Roman
Church, as the Archbifhop of Canterbury
to the Englifti Church : And as between
Canterbury and Tork^ fo between Rome and
Conftantinople, there have been contentions
for preheminency : But if I can prove Can-
terbury to be before Yorl^, or Rome before
C°nftantinofle , that will prove neither of
them to be Ruler at the Antipodes, or of all
the Chriftian world. 2. Much lefs have
you proved that ever any Church was of this
opinion, that the Pope was by Divine Right
the Go vernour of all the world * when you
cannot prove one man of that opinion.
3 . Much lefs have you proved a fucceffion
of fuch a Church from the Apoftles, having
faid as much as nothing concerning thefirit
3 00 years. 4. And yet much lefs have you
proved , that the whole Catholic!^ Church
was of this o'pinion. 5. And lcart of all
have you proved, that the whole Church
tool^ thttTrimacy of Rome, to be of nsceffity
it
The Reply to Mr. John Tons fecond Paper. 175
to the very Being of the Church, and to cur
fdlvAtioa •, and not only ad melius ejfe, as a
point of Order. So that joh have left jo#r
Caufe in fhamefptl nakednefs, as if yon hddcon-
ftjfed, that you can prove nothir g.
In the end you return to terms. To urhtt
you fay about the word | Chrift'w.ns ] I only
lay, thac its but equivocally applied to any
that profefs roc all the EfTentialis of Chri-
stianity, of which Popery is none, anymore
then Pride is.
About the word [Monarchy^ good fad-
,nefs ? do you deny the Pope to be [ an impe-
rious fole Commander. m Which of thefcis
it thai you deny ? not that he is [a Com-
mander J not that he is imperious^] not
that he is [ fule J in his Soveraignty ! I
Would either you or we knew what you hold
deny. But perhaps thj next words fhew
the difference [" as Temporal Kings. 3 But
th«s faith not a word wherein they differ
from L Temporal Kings ] : fure your fol-
lowing words fhew not the difference.
1. Kings may ! receive power from Chrifi.^
2 . Kings mult rule [ in metkntfs, charity and
humility. But I tbink the meeknefs, chanty
and humility of Popes, hath been far below
even wicked Kings (if cruel murdering Chri-
ftians for Religion, and fecting the world
on
1 76 The Reply to Mr.JohnConsfecend Payer*
on fire may be witnefs ) as your, own Hiflo-
ries allure us. 3. The Government of
Kings alfo is for \_mens eternal good] how-
ever Papifts would make them but their ex-
ecutioners in fuch things. 4. Brethren, as
fuch, are no fubje&s: and therefore if the
Pope Rule men but as Brethren , he rules
them not by Governing authority at all.
5. Children to him we are not; You nauft
mean it but Metaphorically / And what
mean you then? Is it that he muft doit in
Love for their good ? So alfo muft Kings :
So that yon have yet expreft no difference
at all.
But our Queftionis not new, norinun-
ufuall terms : What Soveraignty you claim,
you know or (hould know. Are you igno-
rant that Bellarmine, Boverins, and ordina-
rily your Writers iabour to prove that the
Goverr^ment of the Church is Monarchi-
cal^ and that the Pope is the Monarch? the
fupream Head and Ruler, which in Englifh
is the Soveraign. Are you afhamedof the
very Caufe or Title of it, which yoa will
have necefTary to our falvation ?
1 Next you lay, that you [very much dif-
like the Title of Vice-Chrij}, as proud and in-
folent, and utterly dif claim from it, neither
7v as it ever given by *ny fujficient authority
to
TB*>
The Reply to Mr Johnfons fecond Paper, 177
t oJofir Popes , or did they ever accept of it.
Reply. Now blefled be God that makes fin'
afhame to it felf, thai: the Patrons of ittlare
fcarce own it without fome paint or vi-
zard.
i. Is not the very life of the Caufe be-
tween you and us, whether the Pop? be the
Univerfal Head of the Church, vice Chrifti,,
& vicar itu Chrifti? Are not thefe the moft
common titles that Papifts give them , and
that they take unto themfelves ? Nay look
back into your own papers here/w£.6. whe-
ther you fay not that they are [_Inft tinted
Governonrs in Chrifis place of his whole Vi-
ftble Church. J 2 Doth not Bellarwine fas I
have cited elfewhere) labour to prove, that
it is not as an Apoftle that the Popefucceeds
Peter, but as a Head of the Church in Chrifts
Head ? Doth not Boverim ( cited in my
Key) labour to prove him the Vicar of
Chrift, and to be Vice Chrifti ? And what
fitter Englifh have we for .the Kings deputy
in a diftant Kingdom , who if Vice Regit ;
then theVice-King?Or aChancelors deputy,
then^the Vicechancellor\Vice Chrifti is your
own common word, and Vicarins Chrifti-,
none more common fcarce then the latter :
And what Englilh is there litter for this,
then the Vuc-Chrift> or Vicar of Chrift ?
N It
178 The Reply to Mr Johnfons fecond Paper.
It is indeed the very term that expreffeth
properly as man can fpeak, the true point
end life of the Controverfic between us.
And how could you fuffer your pen to fet
down that the Popes did never accept of
this, when it is their own common phrafc
[Vice Ckrifti.&Vicarim Cbrifiij But
ncre again remember ( and let ltbeawit-
nefs againlt you ) that you diflike and ut-
terly difclaim the very name that fignifieth
the Papal Power , as Prowl and Infolent.
And if you abhor Popery while you tice
men to it, let my foul abhor it, and let all
that regard their fouls abhor it. Bleffed be
that Light that hath brought it to be num-
bred with the works of darknefs.
Were it not more tedious then neceflary,
I would cite you the words £ rice Chrifii &
ricArim Chrifii ] out of Popes and multi-
tudes of your Writers. But alas thats not
the highcft : The rice-Cjod is a Title that
they have not thought infolent, or words
of the fame fignification. Wopld you have^
my proof? Pardon it then for proving your '
pen to falfe and deceitfull ( thats not my '
fault.)
Pope fulitis * the fecond in his General '
Council at the Lacerane, faith ( Cont. Prag~
mat. fan ft, monitor, Binnitu fa 1, 4+p*l> 5 60.)
[Though
iht Reply U Mr. Johnfons /*«/**/ Pdftr. 1 70
[Though the infiitutions of fared Canons >
holy fathers, and Pofes $f Rome ■ ■ ■ and
their Decrees be judged immutable , 44 made
by Divine infpiration ; jet the P°peof Rome B
who, though of unequal Merits ,holdeth the
place of the eternall King, and the M-k?r of
*M things, and all Laws en earth, may abro+
gate thefe decrees when they are abufed*] Here
from your Judge of faith ic felf, yoii hear
[ that the Pope holds the place of the eternal
King, the Maker of all things and Ljws.]
Pope Sixtm £*arttu in pajf agio five Bul-
la contra Turcos , fent to Philip Palatine
Eleftor 148 1, in Breheri Tom, ipag. 162.
Vol. 2. faith " V'riverfos Chriflianos Prin*
cipes, ac omnes Chrifiifiddcs requirere, eifqut
mandare Vice Dei , cujtu locum , quamvk
'mmcriti tenemm in terrii J that is,
ve are conftrained [" to require allChrifiian s
Princes, and all believers of Chrifi, and to
ommandthem, in thefiead of God, whofe place
n earth we hold, though undeferving «J
' lerc is a Vice-God, holding his place on
irth, and commanding all Princes and
'hnftians to a War againft the Turks in
ods ftead
I know to a particular people Gods Em-
IfTadours arc (aid to fpeak in his name and
ad, at if Cod did befeech men by us,
N % aCV,
1 80 Tfa Reply to Mr Johnfons [econd Paper.
2 Ctr. 5. 19. But this is only as to a narrow
and limited EmbafTage , not that they
hold Gods place on earth , as Rulers over
the Univerfal Church, &c.
The fame Pope Sixtns^. faith ibid.pag^
1 63 . [Sclafupereft Romana fedes : fedes uti-
que immaculati agni' fedes Vivtntisinfecu-
U (ecvlorum: H&c quippe pradiflas i'atri-
archales gcnuit Ecclefias •, qua quafl filiain
ejus gremio refldebant , & in circuitntan-
quamfamuldin ipfius adfiflebant obfequio.'*
that is, 'Onlj the Rowan [eat remaineth :
even the feat of the Immaculate Lambe : the
jeat of him that liveth for ever ( my flefh
trembleth to write thefe things ) : This did
beget the fore f aid Patriarchal Churches ( no-
torious falfhood ! ) which re fled as daughters
in her bofome^ and as fervants flood About in
her obedience. J Here you fee from the Pope
< himfelf, that the other Patriarchs are his
fervants, and fo to obey hirn^ and that Rome
begot them all (that were before it, except
Conflantimyle ) and neither made Chriitiam
nor Patriarchs by it, and that Rome is now
become the feat of the Immaculate Lai: be,
and of him that liveth for ever. J Truly
the reading of your own Hiftorians. and
the Popes Bulls, &c. hath more perlwaded
fne, that the Pope is Antichrift, then rhe
Apo*
The Reply to Mr Jon n ions fee ond Paper. 1 8 r
Apocaiyps haih done ( becaufe I diftriifted
my underftanding of] it.)
Benedittus de Benediftis wrote a Book
againft Dr. Wbittal^r, to prove that its as
falfe that the Pope is Anrichrifl:, as that
Chriit is Antichrift, and dedicated it to Pope
Paul.$. with this inscription, Paul. 5. Vice
Deo : To Paul 5. the Vice-God. 3 printed
2XBononia 1608.
Caraff/s Thefes printed at Naples 1609.
had the fame infeription £ Paulo 5. Vice
Deo ] t9 Paul%. the .Vice-God.
Alcazar in Apccal. in carmine ad Johan-
nem Apoftolum , faith of the fame Pope
Paul. 5. L SLl ern numinis inftar, Vera edit
jrietas. m [_ whom M * God true piety adores. J
Chriftofher. Adarcellm in his Oration be-
fore Pope Julius 2. in the approved Coun-
cil at Lateranc, Sejf. 4. (and you take nofc
contradidmg to be contenting; and verily
to fuch blafphemy in a Council 5 fo it is ) latch
thus £ Quum tantdt reipublicA unicus at que
fupremus Princepsfueri* inftitutns, beatijfimc
font if ex, cui fumma data pot eft as, addivi-
num injunttum imperium, &c. ] -s & an-
tc\_fub tuo imperio & Q ZJnus princeps
ejuifummam in terris habeatpoteftatem. ] But
thele arc fmall things £ Tcque omnps tvi,
omnium fcculorum, omnium gentium Printi-
N 3 pern
1 Si The Re fly to Mr. Johnfons fee end Taper.
fern & Caput appellant. ] But yet £ the
Prince and Head of all ages and Nations ]
is too low [ Cur a Pater beatiffime utjfonf*
tut, forma decorque redeat7\ But yet to make
the Church £ his fpoufe J is nothing \Cura
denique ut falutem quam dedifii nobis, &vi-
tam & fpiritum non amittamus : Tu tnim
Pfftor,tu wedictu, tugubcrnator, tucultor,
tu denique alter J)e$u in terru. 3 That' is,
£ See that we lofe net the health that thou hafi
given us, and the life andfpirit. For thou art
the Psfiur, the Phjfician^^to conclude, thou
art another God on earthy
If you fay that the Pope accepteth not
this ; lanfwer it was in an oration fpoken.
in a Generall Council, in his prcfence, with-
out contradiction, yea by his own com-
mand, as the Oratour profefTeth £ fujfifii
tu y Pater f anile, & par hi \ [ you command-
tdme, Holj Father , and J obeyed, ] Binnius
VI* 5 62 > 5 6 3, 564. you may find all
this.
JuGlcJf. extravag. Joan. 2l.de Verb* fig*
nific. ctp Ch*> inter, in Glffa: Credere Don*i-
nn&niftrum Dettm Papam conditorem ditta
Secret du drift ins, non potulffe ft.tuereprout
fiatuit, hareticum cenfeatur. \ So that by
your Law we muft believe the power of
your Lord God the Pope, or be hereticks.
If
The Reply to Mr. ]o\\v\toTis[ec6tidPdftr. 183
If you meet with any Impreffions that leave
ouc [ Deum ] cake Rivets note [haberiin tdi-
tione format* jtjfu Greg. 13. d corecloribus
Pontificiis y nee in cenfuris Gl jf<e jujf* Pit 5,
tditis, qnjt in expurgatorio indict habentur^
nomen JDeierafumfuiffe. 1
Pope Nicolas $.de ELtt. cap. fundament a
in 6. faith [that Peter yets ^ffumedinto tht
Society of the individual! Trinity.]
Angelus Poli:. in Orat.ad Alex. 6. Pcnti-
ficcm ad Divinitatem iff am fublatum, afferit:
Hefairh, the Pope was taken up to the God-
head itfelf.
Ac the ib r efaid Council at Laterant, An-
ionics Pucciusinzn Oration herore /,*•<> the
tenth m the Council, and after publilhed by
his favour y faid f Diving tut Majtfiatis
ctnfpettus, rutilante cujusfulgore imbecitlcs
oeulimei callgant. ] His eyes were darkened
Vtith beholding the Popes Divine Majefiy 9 \
None concradidcd this.
In th j fame Council, Simon Befnius Mo-
drufienfis Epifcopus, in an Oauon Sejf. 6.
calls Leo [The Lien of tht Tribe o/Juda,
thtroot of Jcfle, him Whom thej had looked
forastbeSdviour. ]
In the fame Council, JVjf. to Stephanns
Patracenfis Archie f faith [ Rtgts in compe m
dibus mtgnitudinis magni Regis liga, & ner
N 4 If i U»
184 T& e Rtf>h t0 Mr.JohnforLsfeco#dP<ifer.
biles in manic is f err e is cenfurarum conftringe>
qmniam tibi data eft omnis poteftas in cceh
& in terra - '1 and before [_ qui totnm
dicit, nihil excludit. ] So that all Power in
heaven and earth is given to the Pope.
Paulus osEmilius dc geftis Francorum,
lib. J. ialth, that the Sicilian Embaftadours
lay proftrateatthe Pcpes feet, and thrice re-
peated, [Then that mktft away the fins of the
world, have wercy en us.]
And prove to me that ever any fuch man
was reprehended for thefc things by the
Popes of late.
Augufl. Triumphus in Prtfat. fum. ad
Joan. 22. faith £ That the Popes power is
infinite: for great is the Lord, and great is.
his poweV , and of his greatnefs there is no
tnd.
And qu. 3 6. ad 6. he faith that [ the Pope
infiuenceth ( or give th ) the Motion of dirctti-
cn, and the fenfe of cognition , into all the
JMembers of the Church, for in him we live
and move and have our being /]
And a little after he faith, [The will of
God, and conjcquentlj of the Pope, who is his
Vicar, is the fir ft andhigheft caufe of all cor-
poral andfpiritual motions. )
Would you have any more witnefs of the
falfhood of your words:faith Zabare/la LC.
lib.
The Reply te Mr Johnfons fecond Paper. 1 85
lib. defchifm. Innocent. 7. & Bened.pag. 20.
" For this long time pafl, and even to this daj y
thoje that would pleafe the Popes, pervaded
them that they could do all things : and fu
that they might do what they pleafed, even
things unlawfully and fo more than God.^
Antonius parte 3. tit. 21, cap. 5* > -4-
fairh The Pope receiveth from the faith-
full adorations ^profkrations y andkjjfes of hu
feet, which Peter permitted not from Corne-
lius , nor the Angel from John the Evan-
lelift.l
• Cardinalis Bertrandus TraEl. de origin.
jurifd. q. 4. num. 4. ( &jn Glof. extragxom.
1. i.fol. 12.) faith Q Becaufe fefus Chrifi
the [on of God while he was in this world, and
even from eternity , was a Natural! Lord,
and by Naturall right could pronounce the
fentence of depofition on Emperours, or any
others , and the fentence of damnation , and
any other, as upon the Perfons tyhich he had
created, and endowed with naturall andfnr
gifts, and alfo did cenferve - 5 it is his will that
en his account his Vicar may do the fame
things. For the Lord fljould not feem dif erect
(that I may Jheakjwith his reverence) unlefs
he had left behind him one Vicar that can do all
thefe things. 3
Tell me now whether you faid true in
the
i$6 The Reply toMr.Jo\\Xifons[econd Paper]
the Paragraph about the Title Vicc-Chrift ?
yea, whe her it be not much more that hathj P
been given and accepted ?
But what name clfe is it that you agree on
*9 proper to exprefs the power which is con-
travened ? I know no name fo fitted to the
reall controverfie ? And therefore in dif-
claiming the Name, for ought 1 know, you
difclaim}OurCaufe,and confe fs the fhame
of Popery. If he that feeks to be King of
England^ (bould fay he difclaimeth the Title
t>f King as infultnt and proud, doth he not
allow me to conclude the like of the thing,
which he concludeth of the proper name?
The name £ Papa 3 [ Pope ] you know (its
like) was ufually by the ancients given to
other Biftiops as well as to him of Rome ;
and therefore that cannot diftinguifhhim
from other men ; The fame I may fay of
the Titles Q Dominut , Pater fanttiffimus,
beatiffimu* ,Dei awantijfimtu, and many fuch
like J And for [" Jummm p ontifex J Ba-
ronies tells you (MartjrcL Rom. April. 9. )
that [" it tpos the ancient cufiome of the
Church to call all Bijhops, not only Pontifices,
Popes, but the Highefi or Chief Popes 3 citing
Hierom. Ep- 99. And for the word Headof
the Church, or of all Bifiops, it hath been
given to Confiantinople , that yet claimeth
not
The Reflj to Mr. John ions [tconi Paper. 1 87
not ( as JVV/w tells you ) neither a prece-
dency zoRcme, nor an Univerfail Govern-
ment,much lefs as the Vice-Chrifl. And that
the Bifhopof Ccnfiantinople was called \the
jffcftelic £ Vniverfal Bijhop 3 Baroniu* te-
flifittbfrom an eld Vaticane monument, which
on the other fide calls Agcpttus [Epifcopo-
rum Princeps. ] The Title lApcftJicl^] was
ufually given to others. Hieruftlem was;
called the mother of the Churches. \ A
Council gave Ccnfiantinople the Title of
[ Vniverfal Patriarch ] which though Gre-
gory pronounced fo impious and intolerable
Joranjto ufe, jet the following Pop. s made
an agreement with Conftantinople, that their
Pttriarch fhould Keep his Title of Vniver-
fal Patriarch'] and the Bifhop of Rcmebc
called £ the Vniverfal Pope\ 3 which can
fignific nothing proper to him ( the name
Pope being common ) more then £ Vniver-
fal Patriarch~]doth. The Foundations, and
Pillars of the Church, and the Apoftles fuc-
ceffors, yea Peters fucceflfors , were Titlei
given to others as well as him : and more
then thefe. It being therefore the point in
controverfie between us, whether the Bi-
(hopof Rome, be in the place of Chriftor
as his Vicar, the Head, Monarch, or Go-
rernour of the Church unircrfal ^ and the
tern*
l8S The Reply to Mr Johnfons fecond Paper.
terms £ Vice Clorifii & Vicarim C hrifti ]|
being thole chat Popes and Papifts chooie to|
(ignifie iheir claim , what other {hould I
ufe ?
As to what you fay of theCouncilofCon-
fiance ( which you muft fay alfo of Bafil^ and
of the Frenth Church, Venetians, &cj you
pretend the doubt to be only between Ordi-
nary and extraordinary Governours. But
i. of old the Councils called Generall (in-
deed but of one Principality ) were more
ordinary, then, now the Pope hath brought
them to be: fandl blame him not, if he
will hold his greatnefs,to take heed of them.)
2. The way not to have been extraordina-
ry, if the Council of Conftance had been in-
fallible, or of fuffitient power , who de-
creed that there (hould be one every ten
years. 3 . The Councils that continue fo
many years as that at Trent did , are then
become an Ordinary Government. 4. What
is given to the Church Reprefentative, is by
many of you given to the Church reall or
cffentiall ( as you call it ) which is ordinari-
ly cxiftent , only not capable of exerting
the power it hath ; The fingulU major, at
univerfis minor , is no rare do&rine with
you. 5. But let it be as extraordinary as
you pleafe, if while thefe Councils fit, the
Pope
the Reply u Mr.JohnfonsfectnJPdper* 189
Pope lofc his Headftiip, your Church is then
two Churches fpecifically diftind, and the
form of it changeth when a Council fitteth;
which is a two-headed, mutable Church,
not like the Spoufe of Jefus Chrift. 6. As
your Popes are faid to live in their conftitu-
tions, and Laws, when the perfon dyeth -,
and your Church is not thought by you to
die with them ^ fo why may not Councils
do ? The Laws of Councils live when they
(it not , and the French think that thefe
Laws are above the Pope •, though T fhewed
you even now that luliusl. in Ccnc. Later.
concluded otherwife of Decrees , and the
Council of the Popes power. 7. If a Na-
tion be Governed by Triennial! ( and fo De-
cenniall ) Parliaments as the higheft
power, and Councils of State in the inter-
vals, who (hall be accountable to Parlia-
ments ^ will you fay that thefe Parliaments
are extraordinary , and not the ordinary
Soveraign? No doubt they are. And the
Council of State is not the Soveraign, but
the chief Officer or Magiftrate for executi-
on in the intervals,
Having begun this Reply May 2. I was
again taken off it about May 5, or 6. And
about
t$0 The R'plytt Mr. ]ohnfon$ [tcotid Paper a
about May n. I received a Letter from
you, wherein you tell me of a quarter of a
years expe&ation. Be patient good Sir /
Thcfe matters concern Ecernity ; Believe it t
I have fomewhat elk to do of greater haft
and moment. Even fomc of your own
friends find me more work. What if ten of
youwriretome at once, is it fair for each
one of you to call for an anfwer as haftily as
if I had but one in hand ? This is not my
cafe, but it is more then thu9. Fear not left
I give you over, till you firft prove the de-
fercer, and turn your back (if God enable
mc: ) Only I muft tell you, that I take it
for a flight already, and a forfaking of your
Caufe, chat you turn to thefe rambling im-
pertinent citations and difcourfes, in ftead
of a Syllogifticall arguing the cafe, and that
when you had fpoken fo much for it. I have
here ( that you may have no caufe pf exce-
ption, nor pretence of caufe ) in this Paper
replyed to your laft •, and in another proved
the Vifibility of our Church fyllogiftically *
and ( as overplus ) alfo difproved yours, and
proved it to be an upftart , the fprout of
Pride, upon occafion of the greatnefs of the
City of Rome , and of the forming the
Church to the Civil State, in that one Em-
pire, If now you will deny to do the like, I
M
The Reply to Mr Johnfons fecond Paper. 19 1
(hall conclude you fly and forfake your
Cau fe. Befides your Rejoinder to this Re-
ply, I principally expeft that you fyllogifti-
cally ( in clofe and faithfull Arguing ) do
prove to us the Affirmative of thefe Quefti*
cms following.
Qu. [ Whether the Church, of -which the
fubjettsof the Pope Are Members, hath bee*
vi fib le 'ever fince the dayes of Chrift on earthy
In which thefe three ^uefiions are involved^
Vvhich you have to prove : I. Whether the
Papacy, that is, the Vniverfal Afonarchj y or
Soveraign Government, or Vict-Chriflflip of
the Pope ( ta\e which term you lil^e ) hark
continued from Chrifls dayes till now. 2 Whe~
thcr all the Catholic!^ Church did fiillfubmit
to it, andvperejubjtftsofthe Pope. I. whe-
ther thofethat didfubmit to it, did take it to be
tecejfary to the Btingof the Church, and the
alvationof all believers, or only to the more
caceableand better being. J If you call for
,atalogucs,or proof of Vifible fucceflion,
nd pretend fo high to it your felves, and
et will give us none when we importune
,outoit, you tell us that you feek not to
eveal the truth and Church but to hide
hem. 1 urge you the harder ( though it
lay fcem immodeft ) becaufe as the Caufc
och he upon your proof here, fo I know
yom
"• J
1 9 i 7^ 2?<?/>/y to Mr. JohnfottS /ew#i P^r.
you cannot do it : Pardon my confidence
J know you can do no more then Baromus
B ell ar mine, Bellinger ,&c. fet together hav<
done : and therefore I fay, I know you can
not do it. I know yoar Vicc-Chrift ( ]
doubt the Antichrift ) is of humane introdu-
ction, fringing out of a Nationall ( I mean
Imperial! ) Primacy, which alfo was of hu-
mane invention. It was but one Civil Go-
vernment or Commonwealth, in which your
Bifliop had his Primacy, and that long with-
out a Governing power. And this Nationa
Primacy, becaule of the greatnefs of the
Empire, was at laft called Univerfal t Anc
even this was long after the dayes of Chrifl
( fome hundreds of years ) a ftranger in
the Church , nnlefs as the Greatnefs :of the
Church of Rome , and advantages of the
place, did give that Chuf ch fuch authority
as arifeth from magnitude, fplendour, ho-
nour, and accidental advantages from the
populoufnefs, wealth, and glory of the City
of Rome.
The carnall Church is led by the Vice.
Chritl, the earthly Prince of Pride, con-
tending in the world for command andfu-
periority •, and profecuting his Caufe with
Strappados, fire, fword , and gunpowder,
when Chrift gave no Pallor a Coercive
power,!
The Reply t* Mr. John Tons fecond Paper, ig*
power, to touch mens bodies or eftates.
The true fpirituall Church is Headed and
commanded by Jefiis Chrift the Prince of
Peace, and r knoweth no other Univerfal
Head, becaufeno other hath either Capa-
city or Authority. It obeyeth his Laws • and
learneth of him to be charitable , patient,
meek, and lowly •, and wonders notater-
rours and divisions on earth, nor therefore
aceufeth the providence of God ; but know-
eth by faith , that the Univerfal Judge of
Controverfies is at the door, and that it is
but a very little while, and we fhall fee that
the Church had an Univerfal Head, that was
alone fufficient for his work-, for h: that
cometh will come, and will not tarry;
Amefl, Even fo come Lord Jefus /
Sir, I defire you prefently to fend me
word, whether you will by clofe Syllogifti-
call arguing, prove the fucceflive viability
of your Church as Papal, or not, that I may
know what to expert?
And once more I pray you take the help
of the ableft of your party, both that I may
not be fo troubled with wrong, or imperti-
nent allegations, and that I may be fure that
your inefficient arguings are not from any
imperfeftion of the pcrfon,but of the Caufe.
O If
s
IP4 The Reply to Mr Johnfons ftconi Paper.
If you meet in thcfe Papers with any paf-
fa^es which you think too confident and
earneft^ I befeech you charge them not with
uncharitablenefs or paflion, for I hope it
proceeded not from either ^ butlconfefsl
am inclined to fpeak confidently where I am
certain , and to fpeak ferioufly about the
things of God , which are of everlafting
confequence.
May 18. 1659^
For Mr« William hhnfori.
THE
SECOND
P A R T:
Wherein the fuccefsive
Vifibility of the Church, of
which the Proteftants are
chief Members , is clearly
proved *. And the Papifts ex-
ceptions againft it confuted.
4
LONDON, m
Printed in the year 1 660]
ij>7
: $3fe$3&W&
Qu. Whether the Churchy cf which the
treteftants are Members^ have been
Vtftble ever fine e the dajes of Cbrtfi on
earth? Aff.
He terms explained.
i . [The Church 3 fometime
fignifieth a particular Congre-
gation adually met, or aflbci-
atcd for fuch perfonal meet-
ing , for Communion in Gods worlhip.
2. Sometime it fignifieth an Aflbciacton of
Churches, and that cither of iewer, or of
more, as they have opportunity of Com-
munion or correfpondency by their Paftors-,
and alfo the Aflemblies of the Paftors of
the particular Churches fo afTociated. Scri-
pture ufeth it in the firft fenfe, and Later
cuftome ( whether Scripture alfo I omit) in
the later. 3 . Botlfrgcripture and Cuftome
have ufed the wor#te> fignifio the Church
Univerfal, of which all particular Churches
are Members. This is [ the Church'} that
we fpeak of in the Qaeftion.
Defin. The Univerfal Church, of which
O 3 the
98 The fucccfsive Vifibility of the Church
the Proteftams profefs thcmfelv^s Members,
\s ,T he Kingdom e of Jefus Chrifi: or Jthe
Whole company of Believers ( or true Chr'%-
ftians ) upon earth, fubjetted to fef its Chrifi
their Head."] The conititutive parts, or the
Relate and Correlate are, -( as in every Po-
litick Body )lhepars Jmperans.znd parsfub-
dita : which is Chrifi and Chrifiians. The .
form confifteth in the nautuall Relation. The
End is the common good of the Church,
a-nd the glory of the Head, and the accom-
plifhmentof the .will of God.
2. [ The Proteftants J Be fin. £ Prote-
ctants are Chrifiians prote fling again fi y or
difowning Popery .1 The word \_PrctefianC\
expreflech not the ejfence of our Religion.
And therefore it mull not denominate the
Universal Church, of which we are Mem-
bers : we are not to call it £ A Proteftant
Univcrfai Church.]] Nor doth itfigniiiean
infef arable proper accident. For when the
Cathohck Church had no Popery , there
\vas none to proteft againft, and therefore
there could be no Proteftants. And Ethi-
opia, India, and other Nations that never
had Popery, or thofe Nations that never
heard of it, have no occafion to proteft
againftit. Nor doth itfignifie any Pofitive
■pari ( dits&ly ) of our Religion: but only
the
ef which m are Members y p roved. jpp
the Negation , or Rejection of Popery ;
Even as when a man is called £ Homo purga-
tHSy fanatns, liber atns % a lepra, pefte, tabe,
&c. \ a man purged, healed^freed from the
leprofie, plague, consumption, &c. it is no
pofitive part, nor infeparable proper acci-
dent, much lefs any eflential part of the
man, that is fignified by the word \ Healed,
Pureed, dzc. Nor is it necefTary in order
to the proving him £ a man] or [] a health-
ful] man, ' to prove that he was ever [a
purged, or healed man. ] We undertake
not therefore to prove that there have
been al way es p rote ft ants, that is, men/Vo-
te fling again ft Popery : Nor have we any
need, in order to the proof of our Thefis,
to prove that the Catholick Church hath all
been free from Popery in all ages, or in any
age fince the Apoftles, no more then that it
hath been free from Pride, Ambition, or
Contention. ( But yet we (hall do it ex
abundanti. ) The Religion then of a Prote-
ibnt is Chriftianity , and he knoweth and
owneth no other. Which is called the Pro-
tectant Religion ] as cleanfed from Po-
pery.
[.Members ] that is, true integral parts.
[Of which— are-] By Profeffion. We
profefs our felves to be of no other Church.
O 4 And
200 The [uccefsive Fifibilitj cf the Church
And before men, a man is to be taken to be
of that Religion and Church of which he
profeffeth himfelf to be, till he be proved
falfeinthat Profeffion. It a Papift affirm
himfelf a member of the Roman Church, in
difputing with him we will take it for grant-
ed that he is fo- every man being beft ac-
quainted with his own mind, and fitteft to
defcribe the Religion which he owns. So
that two things I here include, i. It is on-
ly fucha'Caiholick Church that hath been
{till viiible, £ that Proteftants own.] 2. And
only fuch that really they are of, their pro-
feffion being valid.
Note alfo, that it is not direftly the inex~
ifiency by internal invifible faith, that is in
que(tionaniongus,orthacI mean: but the
ir.exiftency by external Vifible Profeffion.
Bellarmine thinks the bare Profejfors that
are wicked, are beft termed £ Dead mem-
bers ] and £ the true Profejfors , £ Living
members ] we will not itick needlefly on
words ; We take the Living members only
to be in find: propriety members ^ but Sin-
cerity and Hypocrifie being known only to
God and the poffeflbrs, we fpeak of Pro-
fejfors as Profeffors abftraftively from their
Sincerity or Hjpocrijie.
[Hath been Vifible.] 1. Not vifible to
man
of which wt Ate Members, frevtd. 101
man in its Internal faith ^ but in its external
Trofefsion.
2. Not Vifible at once to any one man :
for no man can fee all the Chriftian world at
once : But Vifible in its parts, borh in Con-
gregations and individual perfons.
3. Not Vifible in the foundnefs of its pre-
fixed faith unto Infidels and Heretic ks :
For they cannot fee that faith to be found,
which they take to be fabialous and falfe ;
But Vifible in the foundnefs of its profeffed
faith to themfelves, that know the foundnefs
of faith.
4. Not Vifible in the excellent degree of
foundnefs in the better pares, unto the cor-
rupter or infirmer parts : For though de
fatto they may know what Doftrine the
better part do hold (as Infidels know what
Dodxine the Church holdeth ) yet they
know it not to be true and iuund in the
points wherein they differ.
And note again, that it is not the Vifi-
bility' of every accident of the Church,
nor of every Truth or duty that is but of the
Integrity of Religion r and ncceffary only
■ad meliiu ejfe Ecclefia, to the Better being of
theChurch, but it is the [_Vifibility of
the Church that we fpeak of.
Laftly, it is the Body and not the Hesd,
u h fc
20 2 The faccefsive Viftbility of the Church
whofe Vifibillty is in Queftion by us.Though
• the Headatfo is truly Vifible in Heaven \ and
Vifit*i or feen to the moll excellent Trium-
phant part of his Body, who are fitteft to be
his Courtier's, and in hisprefence ; (and as
much feeu on earth, as the Pope is tomoft
of the Church, which is not at all. )
[_Everfince the dayes of Chrifi ox earth.
i. Butnotftillinoneand the fame place on
earth. It might be in one age much of it in
fpuJca 9 at Efhefw, S^rdis, Laddic<ea,Colejfe,.
fhilippi' and other parts of Afia •, and in
other ages removed thence, either wholly
or for the mod part : It might be in one age
inTenducy Nubia, and other great King-!
dorns, where it (hall after ceafe to be: But*
in feme pare or other of the earth it hack
been ft ill;
2. Not equally vifible in all Times and
Places of the earth. JnfomeTimes(asin the
Arrians prevalency ) it wasfoopprefledand
obfeured, that the world groaned to find it
ielf turnM Arrian, and the Arrians in Ge-.
neral Councils and number of Biftiops ( to
whom the true Chriftians were very few)
did feem to carry away the Name and glory,
of theCatholick Church ^ fo that in their
eyes-, and in the eyes of ftanders by that
were of neither party, the moft Vifible Ca-
tholick
of which we dre Members, f roved. 20?
lolick Church was theirs ; who yet had no
art ink, becaufe they # were not Chriilians
as denying that which is eflentiall to
;hrift, the objeft of the Chriftian faith),
nd therefore none of the Church , and
lerefore though mod vifible and nume-
ous, yet not thev # ifible Church : And the
church, which to others was as wheat hid-
den in this chaffe , or rather a few ears
mong fo many tares, was yet Vifible to it
rif in its Truth of faith, and vifible to its
Lnemies in its Profeffion and aflemblies,
hough in number far below them.
Soalfo in fome yUccs it may be Latent
hrough perfecution & the paucity of belie?
;ers, when in other places it is more Patent.
And its Degrees of foundnefs being va-
ious, are accordingly varioufly vifible. One
:>art may be really and vifibly more ilrong,
*nd another more weak in the faith ; One
part much more corrupt then others, and
other parts retain their purity ; And the
me Countries increafe or decreafc in that
purity , as is apparent in the cafe of the
Churches of Gdatia , Corinth^ the feven
Afian Churches, ifri/.2.and 3. &c.
Laftly note, that it is only that part of the
Church which is on earth whofe vifibility
we a(Tcrt . though that in Heaven be
alfo
104 ™ jMcejsiw Vtfibility of the Church
alfo a true part of the Body of Chrift.
Nor is it in the fame Individuals that the
Church continueth Vifible , but infaccefsive
Matter. So much for explication of the J
terms. |
Thef. The Church of which the Prote-
flants are Members, hath been Vifible ever
fince the dayes of Chrift <Jn earth.
Art* i . The Body of Chriftians on earth
fubjected to Chrift their Head, hath been
( in its parts ) Vifible ever fince the dayes of
Chrift on earth.
But the Body of Chriftians on earth fub-
Jefted to Chrift their Head, is the Church of
which the Proteftants are Members :
Therefore the Church of which the Pro-
teftants are Members, hath been vifible ever
fince the dayes of Chrift on earth,
I have not iagacity enough to conjefture
what any Papift can fay againft the Major
propofition.
The Minor is proved by our own Profef-
fions: As the profeffion of Popery,proveth
a man a Papift, fo the profeffion of Christi-
anity as much'proveth us to be Chriftians.
[«] Thofe that profefs the trueChriftian
Religion in all its efTentials, are Members of
that Church which is the Body of Chrifti-
ans on earth fubje&ed to Chrift the Head.
But
ef which m art Members, prtved. 205
But the Proteftants profefs the true Chri-
"Han Religion in all its effentialls : therefore
he Proteftants are Members of that Church
vhich is the Body of Chriftians on earth
ub jefted to Chrift the Head.
The Major is undeniable. The Minor is
hus proved. 1. Thofe that profefs fo
nuch as God hach promifed falvationupon
n the Covenant of Grace, do profefs the
2hriftian Religion in all its Eflentials. (For
3odpromifcth falvation in that Covenant
:o none but Chriftians. ) But the Proteftants
>rofefs fo much as God hath promifed fal-
/ation upon, in the Covenant of Grace :
Therefore the Proteftants do profefs the
Chriftian Religion in all its eflentials.
The Minor is thus proved. All that
Profefs faith in God the Father., Son ,
knd holy Ghoft, our Creator, Redeemer
md San&ifier, and love to him , and ab.
olute obedience to all his Laws of Na-
ture and holy Scripture , with willingnefs
md diligence to know the true meaning of
ill thefe Laws as far as they are able, and
with Repentance for all known fin, do pro-
fefs fo much as God hath promifed falvation
upon, foh. 3.16,17. Mart 16. 16. Ueb.%.
9 R»m. 8. 28. 1. AEt. 26. 18. But fo do
:he Proteftants : Therefore the Proteftants
profefs
I
106 Ihtfuccefsive Viability of the Church
profefs fo much as God hath promifed fal-I
vation on.
2. Thofe that profefs as much andmucK
more of the Chriftian faith and Religion, as
the Catechumens were ordinarily taught in
the ancient Churches, and the Competentes
at Baptifm- did profefs, do profefs the true
Chriftian Religion in all its effentials.
Butfo do the Proteftarfts : Therefore,^- c
3. Thofe that explicitly profefs the Be-
lief of all that was contained in the Churches
Symbols, or Creeds, for fix hundred yearsi
after Chrift ( and much more holy truth )/
and implicitly to believe all that is contained
in the holy Scriptures, and to be willing and
diligent for the explicate knowledge of alt
the reft, with a Refolution- to obey all the
will of God which they know, do profefs
the true Chriftian Religion in ail its Effen-
tials. But fo do • the Proteftants. There-:
fore, &c
Adhominem^l confirm the Ma jor ( and,
moil that went before ) from che Teftimo-
nies of fome moft eminent Papifts,
■Be liar mine faith, de Verbo Dei, lib. 4-f . 1 1 J
In the Chriftian do&rine both of faith and
mannersjfome things are (imply neceffary to.
falvation to all • as the knowledge of the
Articles of the Apoftles Creed, of the ten
Command-
of which rve Hire Members \ proved. 207
Zommandmenq$,andof fome Sacraments:
rhe reft are not fo neceffary that a man can-
lot be faved without the explicite know-
edge, belief, and profeffion of them
rhefe things that are fimply neceffary, and
:re profitable to all, the Apoftles preached'
o all All things are written by the
\poftles which are NecefTary to all , and
vhich they openly preacht to all
Cofierns Encbirid. c.i.f. 49. C We deny
lot, that thofe chief heads of Belief, which
ire neceffary to all Chriftians to be known
o falvation, are perfpicuoufly enough com-
prehended in the writings of the Apoftles. J
But all this the Proteftants profefs to
relieve.
'£ 3 If fincere Proteftants are Members
)f the true Church, as intrinfecally inform-
d ( or as Bellarmine fpeaks, Living Mem-
bers ) then profeffed Proteftants are Mem-
bers of the true Church as extrinfecally de-
ominated ( or as it is Vi(ible,confiftingof
^rofeffors.) But the Antecedent is true:
Therefore fo is the Confequent.
The Reafon of the Confequence is, be-
caufe it is the fame thing that is profeffed by
all Profeffors, and exiftent in all true Be-
lievers ; and that as to Profefilon is necef-
fary to Vifibility of Memberlhip ; and as
to
20$ The fuceefsivc Vifibilitytf the Church
tofincere inexiftence, is n^ceflary toialva*
tion.
The Antecedent or Minor I thus prove
All that by faith in Chrift are brought tc
the unfeigned Love of God above all, and
fpeciall Love to his fervants, and unfeigned
willingnefs to obey him, are Members of the;
true Church as intrinfecally informed, hm
fuch are all fincere Proteftants : Therefori
allfincere Proteltants are Members of th(
true Church as intrinfecally informed.
The Major is granted by the Papifts, who
affirm charity to be the form of Grace, ancj]
all that have it to be juftified. And the pro-;
mifes of Scripture prove it to our Com*
fort. I
The Minor i . Is proved to others by our
profefiions : If this be in our Profeflioni
then the fincere are fuch indeed. But this is
in our Profeflion ; Therefore, &c.
2. Its certainly known to our felves by)
the inward knowledge and fenfe of ourj
fouls. I know that I Love God andhisfer*
vants, and am willing to obey him ^ There-i
fore all the Papifts Sophifms fhall ncvei(j
make me not know what I do know, and
not feel what I do feel. They reafon in vain
with me, when they reafon againft the
knowledge and experience pf my foul Your
fcopc
•■*%-
ef which we are Members 5 proved. 209
fcope is to prove me in a (late of damnati-
on. You confefs that if I have chancy I am
5*n a Hate of falvarion. I know and feel that
hare charity .- Therefore I know that your
leafonmgs are deceit.
Arg. 2. The Church whofe faith is con-
fined in the holy Scriptures as itsRule in all
)ointsnece(Tary to falvation, hath been Vi-
able ever fince the dayes of Chnft on
earth.
But the Church whofe faith is contained
n the holy Scriptures as its Rule in all
)oints neceffary to falvation, is it of which
;he Proteltancs are Members.
Therefore che Church of which the Pro-
eftants are Members, hath been vifible ever
ince the dayes of Chrift on earth.
'That the Catholick Church which hath
>een Vifible till now, hath received the Ho-
y Scriptures which we receive, is confefled
>y all Papilts that ever I heard or read ma-
king mention of it. And no wonder, for
t cannot be denied.
That this Church hath taken thefe Scri-
ptures for the Rule of faith in all points
lecefTary to falvation ( allowing Church-
3overnours to make Canons about the cir-
: umftantials of Government andworfhip,
rhich in the Univerfal Law are notdere;-
P mined,
119 Thefaccefsive Fifibili^ of the Church
mined, but left to humane prudence to d
termiae. ) i. I have proved in my thir
Difputeof the fafe Religion already. 2. Icl,
is confefled by the Papifts ; the forecited %
paffagesof Betlarminc and Q/fcriaaiefuf-j
ficient. But in the great Council at 2?../*/, ]
Orst. Raguf. Bin. p. 299. it is moft plainly
and with fuller authority afferted. Q The <
holy Scripture in the Literal fenfe,' found-
ly and well underftood, is the infallible and J
Moft fufficient Rule of faith. " See my vin-1
dicationof this Teftimony in my Catholic!^
Key : and the like from Card.Richlieu.
Gerfon&ith, de exam. doElr.p.z.cvnt. 1
Nihil audendum dicere de divinis, nijlqu
nobis if acra Scriptnratraditafunt.
Durandns in his Preface is wholly for the
excellency and Sufficiency -of the Scripture?..
Three wayes, he faith, God revealeth hira-
felf and other things to man; Theloweft,
way is by the book of the creatures (fo
heathens may know him.) The higheft id
by manifeft Vifion ( as in heaven ) : and the-
middle way is in the Book of holy Scripture,^
without which there is no coming to the*
higheft way. ] And going on to extoll the
Scripture, he cite th Jeromes words adPau^
linum, [[Let us learn on earth the know-;
ledge of thofe things; which will abide with
us
:
*f which we are Member s,f roved* an
us in heaven ; ] But this is only (faith he^
in the holy Scripture. ] And after ex Hie-
om. act^MarcelL £ If Reafon be brought
figainft the authority of the Scriptures, how
acute foever it is, *it cannot be true : ] And
fter £ We muft fpeak of the myfterie of
hrift, and univerfally of thofe things that
heerly concern faith, conformably to what
he holy Scripture delivereth : So Chrift t
x ohn 5. Search the Scriptures, It is they that
eftifie of me. If any obferve not this, he
peaks not of the myfterie of Chrift, and of
ther things dire&ly touching faith as he
ught, but falls into that of the Apoftle,
Cor.S. If any man think heknowethany
iing,he yet knoweth nothing as he ought to
now. for the meafure is not to exceed
je meafure of faith .- of which the Apo-
le bids us, Rom. 12. Not to be wifer then
e ought to be, but to be wife to fobriety f
tid as God hath divided to every man the
eafureof faith. Whuh Meafure confifteth
two things • to wit, that we fubtrad not
|om faith that which is of faith, nor(N.B .)
\ tribute that to faith which is not of faith :
br by either of thefe wayes, the meafure
1 faith is exceeded, and men deviate from
|ic continence of the facred Scripture,
ihich expreffeth the meafure of faithj
P 2 (That
Hi The fneeefsive Vifibilitj ef the Church ;
(That is, from the full fufficiency of the
Scripture meafure: ) £ And this meafure, by .
Godsafliftance, we will hold, that we may
.write or teach nothing diffonant to the ho-
ly Scripture. But if by ignorance or inad-
vertency , we fhould write any thing diffo-4
nant,let it be taken ipfofotto as not written.]
This is a confeffion of the Religion of the!
Proteftants. And though he adjoynafub-j
miflion to the Roman Church, becaufe he
was bred in ir, it is only as to an interpretet?
of doubtfull Texts of Scripture : So that the
fufficiency of our Rule and meafure of faith
is granted by him, and zealoufly afferted -
and that without Bellarmine and Coftertm
limitation, to points necefTary totheialva-
tion of all - y he extendeth it to all the
faith.
Aquin. 22. q.i.a.io. ad I. faith, That
intheDodrine of Chrjft and hisApoftles,
the truth of the faith is fufficiently explM
cated ; 3 even when he is pleading for the
Popes power to make new Creeds to obviate
errours.
Andinhi$///7». deVeritJlif.de fide <jMO.
ad ii. he faith , Q 7'hat all the means by
which the faith cometh to us arc free from
fufpicion. The Prophets and Apoitles we
believe, for this reafon, becaufe God bore !
them
ff which n>e arc Members % proved*
hem witnefs by working Miracles : as Mar.
[6. confirming their fpeech with following
igns : But their fucceflbrs we believe not,
tat fo far as they declare to us thofe things
vhich they have left us in the Scripture. ;
This is the Religion of the Proteftants.
Scotm in^Prolog. infent. I, makes it his
econd Queftion , Whether fupernaturall
knowledge ncceffary to us in the Way, be
iifficiently delivered in the holy Scripture,
which he proveth ( having firft given ten ar-
guments to prove the Truth of Scripture.}
A.nd firft he (hews it containeth the Do-
ftrine of the End , and 2. of the things
neceflfary to that end, and the fufficiency
of them-, fummarily in. the Decalogue,
xphined in the other Scriptures, as to mat-
er of faith, hope, and pradice - 5 andfo
oncludes, i\ at t$r: holy Scripture fufficicne-
y containeth the *to $ri pceffary viatcri,
to.us in the way : And he anfwereth ;th$ ob-
jection, of Difficulties in it y ( without fly-
ing to the Church) thac £ no fcience ex-
plainethall things to be known,, bur thofe
things from which therelt may convenient-
ly be gathered : and fo many needtull
itruths are not expreflcd in Scrioture;
though they are virtually chore contained,
as conclufions in the Principles, about the in-
P 3 vcftt-
214 The fuccefsiveVifibility of the Church
vcftigation whereof the labour of Expo-
fitors and Doftors hath been profitable.]]
This is hiscUxftrine out of Origen.
Greger. Ariminenfts in Prel. qll.att. 2.1
Mefp. adaEl.fol. $.& 4. faith £ Adifcourfd
properly Theologicall , is that which con-
fifteth of words or propofitions contained
in the holy Scripture ^ or of thofe that arc;
deduced from them •, or at leaft from one
of thefe; This is proved 1. by the foreal-}
ledged authority of Dionyf. For he will have
it, that there can be no leading of that man
to Theologicall fcience, that aflenteth not
to the fayings of the holy Scripture. It
follows therefore that no difcourfe that pro-
ceeded not from the words of holy Scrii
pture, or of that which is deduced from
them, is Theologicall. [_2. The fame
is proved from the common conception of
all men.- For all men judge chat then only
is any thing proved Theologically , when
they prove it from the words of the holy
Scripture. ]
This is more then the former fay : For
to extend the fufficiency and neceflky oi
Scripture to all thats Theologicall, is more
then to extend it to matter of faith. No
Proteftant goeth higher then this that 1
know of. And note, that he makes this the
very
$f which we nrc Members^ proved. 215
very common conception and judgement of
all men. See rhen where our Religion and
Church was before Luther I even among all
Cbriitians.
Yet more fully he proceeds(*'^.) [Hence
it further appeareth ,that Principles of Theo-
logy thus taken, that is,which is acquired by
Theologicail difcourfe, are the very Truths
themfelvesof the holy Canon, becaufe the
ultimate Resolution of all Theologicail dif-
courfe doth ftand ( or belong,} to them ^ and
all Theologicail conclufions^are deduced firft
from them. But diflinguifhing the Conclu-
fions Theologicail from the Principles, I fay
that all trutm are not in themfelves formal-
ly contained in the holy Scripture : but of
neceflity following from thofe that are con-
tained in them • and this whether they are
Articles of faith, ornot(NB > ) i and whe-
ther they are knowable or known by ano-
ther fcience,or not: and whether they are
determined by the Church or not. But of
other Truths, to wit , not following from
the words of the holy Scripture, I fay there
is no Theologicail conclufion : This it
proved, &c. ]
When I read over the Schoolmen and Di-
vines of ailforts r that wrote before the Re-
formers fell fo cfofely upon the Pope, and
P 4 [find
2 1 6 The fnccefsive Vifibilitf tf the Church
[^find how generally even the Papifts them-
felves maintained the fufficiency of the
holy Scripture, juft as the Proteftants now
do, I am convinced i. of the fucceffion of
the Proceftants Religion 'in the Univerfal
Viable Church •, and 2. that it was the
Reformers Arguments from Scripture, that
forced ch ills to oppofe this holy Rule,
as to its fufficiency > and to invent the new
doctrine ot # fupplementall Tradition - 5 (for
confervaiive, Minifteriall Tradition of the
holy Scriptures we are for as much, at leaft,
as they. ) i
The words of Guil. Parifieufis, too large !
to be recited, in extolling tfle fulnefsand
perfeftion of the Scripture, even for all 1
forts of men, you may read, de Legibusjaf.
16. p^f .46.
Bettarmine de Verba Dei, lib. 3. cap. 10.
adArg.15. faith £ We malt know that a
propofition of faith is concluded in fuch a
fyllogifm ; Whatfoever God hath revealed
in Scripture is true : But this God hath re-
vealed in Scripture; Therefore it is true. ]
(Though he require another word of God
by the Pope, or Council, to prove that this
is revealed in Scripture.) But if fo, then
Scripture containeth aUthats true in points
of faith.
2. And
•
ef which we are Members, -proved, 217
z% And that all things that arerevealed,
and which we ought to believe, are not Ei-
fentiall to the Chriftian faith, and therefore
f hat all are of the Church that hold thefe
I BfTentialls, and that fnch a diftinftion mull
::>e maintained, the Papifts have itill confef-
,.ed, till lateiy, that difputing hathencreafed
:heir novelcies and errours.
Bellarmints and Co ft ems confefiion, I re-
kited even now.
Guliel. Pariftenfis in Operum peg. 9, ic,
[II, iz.de ^,indultrioufly proveththe ne-
ceflity of diftinguifhing the fundamer-
s or efTentialls , from the reft of the
points of fanh ; and it is they thatconfti-
tute the Catholick faith, which he faith is
therefore called Carholick or Univerfal, be-
caufe it is the common faith, or the com-
men foundation of Religion ; And he
proves that hence it is that the Catholick
i faith is but One, and found in all Catbolicks,
thefe fundamental^ being found in all.] By
many arguments heproveth this.
And that there are fome points, even
thefe common Articles neceffary to be
known of all, necejfitatimedii, the School-
men commonly grant: as Aquin. n.q.z.
a. 5-r. Bannes in 22. <j. 2. a. S.C^r. Of thefe
faith EJpencam ( in 2. Ti.c. %.iig* 17.)
which
4 18 The [uccefstve Viftbiltty of the Chttrck\
which ate the objects of faith perfe* ar
not the fecondary obje&s, the adult mu
have an explicite faith, and the Colliei
fjaith at this time decantate by the Cathc
licks, will not ferve the turn. ]
And wt have both the Scripture fuffic
ency to all points of faith, even the lowefl
and alfo the forefaid diflin&ion given us to
gether, by Tho. Aquinas 22. q. art. $.c. [W
mull: fay, that the objeft of faith pcrfe,
that by which man is Hiadebleffjd : Butty
accident and fecondarily, all things are th<
objed of faith which are contained in th<
holy Scripture.]
See the judgement of Occham , Canus^
Tolet, and many more cited by Dr. Potter «.
and yet more for the fuffieiency of the Sym-
bole or Creed, as the teft of Chriftianity,
f*g. 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 . Where you have
the fenfe of the Ancients upon the point,
and/?. 102,103.
I conclude therefore with the Jefuite
Az*ri$u,pAr m i Jib. S.c.6. £The fubftance
of the Article in which we believe One, ho-
ly, Catholick Church, is, that no man can
be faved out of the Congregation of men
profeffing the reception of the fjlith and
Religion of Chrift , and that falvation may
be obtained within this fame Congregation
of godly and faithful men. And
pf which we are Members, freved. 2 19
And as to the Eflence of the Chriftian
aith and Church, we fay with Tertullian of
he Symbole [ Fides in Regula pofita efi :
* hates legem, &falutem ex obfervatione legis ;
exercitatio autem in curio fit ate cohfifiit, ha-
bens gloriam [olam ex periti* fiudio : Cedat
curiofitasfidei: Cedat gloria Jaluti. Certc
tut non obfirepant y ant qtiiefcattt adverfus re-
gulam : Nihil ultra jcire^ efi omnia fclre."]
That is, £ Faith lieth in the Rule : Here
you have the Law, and falvation in the ob-
servation of that Law ; but it is exercife
that confifteth in curiofity, having only (a
name or ) glory by the ftudy of skill • Let
curiofity give place to faith ; Let glory give
place to falvation. Let them not prate, or
\ let them be quiet, againft the Rule. To know
i nothing further, is to know all things.] j)e
Prafcript. cap. i 3 , 1 4.
So cap. 8. Nobis curio fit ate opus non efi
pofi Chrifium Jefum , nee inquifitkne pofi
Evzngeliuw. Cum credimus^ nihil defidera-
mus ultra credere ^ hoc enim prius credimus^
nonejfe cjuod ultra credere debeamus.~\ That
is, As tor us we need not curiofity after
Jefus Chrift, nor inquifition after the Go-
1; When we believe, we need to believe
no further; For we firft believe this, that
there is nothing further that we ought to
believe." And
- 2 20 7 m jucceistve ripiHUty of the church
And here ( on • he by ) for the right un-
demanding of TtrtxliUns Book de Prt-
fcript. nore, i. That c Rule of Effentir
alls extracted from the whole Scripture, is
the Churches ancient Creed. 2. That the
compleat Rule of all points of faith is the
whole Scripture. And that Tertullian had tQ
do with Heretidp :hat denied the EfTentials,
and defied the whole Scripture to difputc
their cafe from both,becaufe they had quefti-
oned or reje&ed much of it ^ and becaufe it
was a larger field to exercife their wits in,
and whence they might gather more matter
ofdifpuceto puzzle the weak : And there-
fore TertvllUn advifeth the ordinary Chri-
stians of Lis cime, inftead of long puzzling
& s with them out of Scripture, to hold
them :o the Churches prescription, of the
fimple do&rine of the Creed. But now come
in thePapifts^ and 3. will neither be con-
i tent with Creed nor Scripture , tut muft
have a Church or faith partly made up of
fupplemental Traditions, of more then is in
ail the Scripture, and fo run further from
Tertullian and the ancient fimplicity, then
thefe Hereticks, and yet are not aftiamed to
glory in this Book of Tertullian as for
them.
Of the Fathers judgement of the Scri-
pture
of vthuh ppe are Members , frtved. 221
urc fufficiency, fee the third part of my
\ Me Religion'] where I have produced Te-
i'monics enongh to prove the Antiquity of
he Proteftants Religion , and the Novelty
f Popery. But nothing can be fo plain and
all, which pre-engaged men dare not deny,
-etmeinftance but in one or two paffages
f Augufrine^ fo plain as might put an end
o the whole Controvert.
Aug. de Doftr. Chrifiian, lib. 2. e.g. [in
m omnibus libris timentes Denm & pietatc
wanfueti , qnarunt voluntatem Dei. Cujut
peris & labor is prima obfervatio cfi, ut dixi-
mtu, noffe iftos libros,& fi nondum adintel-
ettum legendo tamen vel mandare memorise,
( He was not againft the Vulgars reading
Scripture ) vel omnino incognitos non habere.
\J)einde Ma qu<t in eis aperte fofita funt^ vel
precept a vivendi vel reguU credendijolertisis
diligentiufque invefiigandafunt : J$ujt taw
quifqueplurainvenit, quanto eft intelligent ia
caf^tior : In its enim qna aperte in Script*-
ra poftta funt y inveninntur ilia omnia qua,
continent fide?* morefque vivendi , (N.B.)
fpem ft ilicet atquc charitatem, de qnibns li-
bro fupcriore traEiavimtu. Turn verofatla
quadam familiaritate cum ipfa lingua divi-
narumfcripturarum, inea qu<z obfeura funt
aperienda, & difcutienda pergendum efi, ut
ad
2X2 The fuccefshe Vifibllity of the Cburch\
*d obfcuriores locutiones illuftrandas de mani\
fcfiationibm fumantur exempla y & quadanl
cert arum fententiarum tefilmottia, dubitatio\
nem de inccrtis auferdnt. j Yon fee here thai)
the Scripture, as fufficient to faith and man-
ners, to be read by all that fear God, and|
can read-, and the harder places to be ex-
pounded by the plainer, was the ancient|
r Rule of faith and Religion : And this is th<
Religion of Protectants.
Aug. lib. ix. 6. contra lit. Petillani, pag.
12J. , Troinde^five de Chrifto five de ejus
Ecclefayji've de quacunque alia re qua perti-
net ad fidem vitamque nofiram y noy dicam
Nos, nequaquam comparand* ei qui dixit[^Li-
cetfi nos Ifed omnino quod fecutus adjecit, [i
Angelas de cvelo vobis annunciaverit prater-
quam quod in Scripturu & Evangelicis acce-
pfiis y Anathema fit. ] I mutt needs Englifh
this ftiort paffage, to the utter confufion of
Popery. £ And therefore whether it be of
Chrift,or whether it be^of the Church, or
whether it be of any other matter that per-
taineth to our Faith or Life, I will not fay
'ifwe^zs being not worthy to be com-
pared with him that faid [Though nre' but
( I will fay) plainly what he added following:
L If an Angel from heaven fhall declare to
you any thing betides that which you have
received
of which we are Members, f roved. 223
reived in the Legal! and Evangclicall Seri-
nes, let him be Anathema, or accurfedf]
r as not the Church then purely Proteitanc
their Religion ?
The Minor needs no proof but our own
ofeflion. My profeffion is the beft evi-
:nce of my own Religion to another: And
•ofefs this to be my Religion •, which is
>ntained in the hely Scripture, as the Teft,
|r Law, or Rule. And let no man contra--
A me, that knoweth not my Religion bet-
Sir then I do : The Articles of the Church
England profefs this alfo to be the Re-
ion of the Compofers. And the Prote-
cts commonly uno ore do profefs it. It is
le great difference between us and the Pa-
ifts. The whole Univerfal Law of God
it we know of, and own, is contained in
fature and Scripture conjunft. But the
Spirts take fomewhat elfe to be another
irt. We allow by-Laws about mutable
^determined things ( as aforefaid ) to Go-
nours; But we know no UniverfalLaw
faith and holinefs, but Nature and Scri-
turc ; This is our Religion : And thisRe-
;ion contained in Nature and Scriptures
th been ftill received.
Obj. Weconfefs Scripture is Efficient to
hem that have no further light : All that is
neceflary
224 7 h e f*cuf s * ve Vifibility of the Ch urch
neceffary to the falvation of all, h in tha
perfpicuoufly, as Cofttriu^ BelUrmine am]
others fay : but more is neceflary to iaivaj
tionto fome.
Anf. i. Then at leaft it containeth
the Effeniialls of Chnftianity, which fu
ceth to our prefent end. 2. And wha
maketh more Neceflary to me , or other
here in England^ if it be not neceffary i\
all ? Is it becaufe that more is Revealed t<
us ? But bow and by whom •, and with whai
Evidence ? We are willing to fee it , an<
can fee no fuch thing ; But if this be it, ( i
Imayfpeak fo plainly without offence)
feems it concerneth us to keep out Friar:
and Jefuites from the Land, as much ( if w<
knew how ) as to keep out the Devil. F01
they tell us, 1. That we muft believe
Popes Soveraignty, againft the Traditio
and judgement of moft of the Catholici
Church. 2. And we muft believe our felves
to be void of Charity ( becaufe no PapiftsJ
contrary to our internall fenfe and know-
ledge. 3. And we muft believe that bread
is not bread, and wine is not wine, contrary
to the common fenfes of all found men ; and
if we will not thus renounce the Churcbej
Vote, Tradition, our Certain knowledge,
Reafon , and all our Senfes , we muft be
damned :
1
ior
of which we are Members, proved. 225
gunned : where as btf* re this do&rine was
ought us, wemighc have beenfaved, as
iving in the Scripcures all :hings necefTary
the falvation of all
But the Papilts muft needs have us (hew
em where our Church was, and name ihe
rfons. Anfvr. 1. It were noc che Ca-
lolike "hurch, if it were confined to any
ace chat is but a part of th: Chriftian
rrritones. 2. Nor were ir the ( a:to ike
hunh if we could name half or a con-
derable part of the members : As p».gn-
in oft cells the Don*tifts % it is the Church
hich begun at Jtrujalem, and cher.c. is
>read throughout the world. Pare of it
ay beinoncNaaon oneyear, which may
3rfeit and iofe it before the next. God
thnottyed it to any place. 3. To tell
ou where the Caiholike Church ha h bevii
1 every age, and who were the Members
r the Leaders, requireth much knowledge
n Hiftory and Colinography, which God
th not made neceffary to folvation.
There are no known Hiftories that de-
iverus the Catalogues of the ( hriftiar.sin
rvery age of the world. Had any been lb
boliflias to write them, they would have
in too chargeable to keep, and too long
o read,* vea were it but of the Pallors.
C^ 5 . God
12 6 The fuccefsivc yiftbtlitf of the Church
5. God hath nowhere commanded th
Church to keep fuch Catalogues or Hifto
nes, nor promifed when they are written
that Papiits (hall not purpofely corrup: an<
deftroy them , nor Turks (as at liufy
take the C hriftian Libraries, and burn them
6. Pap. Us cannot p;ove the fuceeflive ex
tent and habitations of the Catboli-k*
Church any more then we •, and we ca:
do it as well as :hey ; for we have the fan*
means. If they can teli us where it hati
been in every age, they need not ask us
If ihey cannot, they have as much need t<
learn as we, and much more. They thin,
it not neceffary to their Laity, to thepra
ving of their faiih, to be able to prove ih
habitations or names of the Members o|.
the Cadiolike C hurch in all ages : and wh
is it more neceffary to us then them
7. Butyec, to men acquainted with hiftory
what can be more eaiie , then to tell y
where great multitudes of t hnftians in
ages have inhah ted, and where many parti
of the Church have been 4 though no mar
can give you a Catalogue of the Church
any more then of the world ?
Would you know then where oui
Church, that is, the Caiholike Church hart
been, in ail ages? whvithach been in Afi*
Ajrk
ef which toe' are Members, proved, 227
\ifrica and Europe. Is that too general?
]t hath been in Syria, in Mefopotamia, Par-
Voia % Media, Armenia, Inaia, Per/is, in
wgjp ', Habajfia, Georgia, Cilicia, Circaffu,
mitngrelia, Natolij^jfavria, Thrace, and
liore other Countries , then I haye any
jjeed to name to you, (to fay nothing of
xrope,, and Brit tain by name, as a thing
oft known). But no man well in his wits
iJl deny a fucceflion of the Christian
Kirch which I have defined, from the firft*
antationof it until now. If Chnftianity
ideverceafed in the world, how came it
be new planted, and revived ?
That this before defcribed is the only
Ltholike Church that hath been owned
the ancient DoAors, appearech by their
nftant witnefTes. To cite a few, and ycc
ough.
Auguft. in Pfal .21. Z/bicuncjue timet ur
ens & landatur, ibi eft Ecclejia.
Jd. Epift. 50. In SanElis Libris ubi ma-^
c eftatyr Dominm Chriftm , ibi & ejus
tclefta declaratur (and therefore there it
lit be fought) Jfti autcm mirab'di c*ci~.
e,cnm ipfum Chriftnm prater Scrip xnras
riant, ejus tamen Ecclefiam non divina-
)rm amhoritate cognofcunt, fed hnmanarHm
llawniarHin vanitate confingunt. Chrift
28 The (uecefsive yifibilitj of the Church
is to be known in the Scripture, and there ¥
fore lb is the Church.
Ibid. In caufa Caciliani* fe *b E
clefia Ctthvlka, hoc eft, ab unit ate omniu~
gentium diviferunt. Its not the CatholidK
Church becaufe Roman, but becaufeexj'^
tended to all Nations. Sed tamen Ecclefiarm tl
quancnlitigiojis opinionibm fingitur^ fedjHR*
vinis atteftationibns comprobatur , propter/
quemlibet hominem relinquere non debe* 1
ihtu . . r
Id. In Pfal. 56. Corfu* ejus eft EeW
clejia : nonautem ifta aut HU y fed toto Orm
dijfufa : Nee ea qua nunc eft in hominibm\
qui pr<t(entem vitam agunt y fed ad eampertnr
ncntibus, etiam\his qui fuerunt ante nos y (ftr
his qui futuri funt p$ft n$s y ufque inftnemfm
culi. Toraenim Eeclefiaconftans ex omnibA
tidelibus , quia fideles omnes membra f,
Chriftijhabet ill W Caput pofttum inccele^
bm quod gubernat corpvu fuum, etfifepati
rum eft d vijione, fed annttkitur charitate7\
Id. Er.chirid. ad Laurent, c. 56. Ecclcfh
tanquam habitat or i domus J ha, & Dto tent
plumfuum,& conditori civitM faa : qua ton
hie aecipicvda eftjionfolum ex parte qn&perr
grinatur interns, a folisortu ufque adocat
fum laudans norr.en domini. 3 f
id. conir. Petilian. cap. 2. Purpofelj J
openinf
of which we are Members^ proved. 229
I )cning the true nature of the Cacholick
hurch for the flaring of the Cafe, faith,
; J^rtjeftio certc inter nos verfatur , t:bi fit
z eclefia ? utrum apud nos , an tfud illosi
I \#£ utique Una eft, quam majores ncftri
J nholicam nominarunt , ut ex ipfo nortine
Enderent, quia per tot urn eft. H<tc au-
Ecclefia Corpus Clorifti eft: ficut Apo~
hs dicit, \ fro corf ore ejus, qu& eft Eccle-
jlk ZJnde utique wanifeftum eft, turn qui
\ n eft in membrts Chrifti, Chriftianam fa-
, tern habere non foffe. Membra vero Chrifti
I r unitatis charitatem fibi copulantur, &
i reandem capiti fuo adherent quod eft Chri-
\u Jefus. — Jj)u<eftio efl , ubi fit hoc corpus,
.ubiftt Ec cleft a ? Qtnd ergo fatluri fw
\ts ? in Verbis noftris earn quafituri ? an in
\rbis capitis fuif Domini noftri fefu Chrifti ?
to quod in Ulius potius verbis earn quzrerc
emus, qui Veritas eft, & optime novit cor-
s fuum After he calls the < hurch
er and over ,Vniverfum Orbem Chriftia-
m ■ ■ — cap. 3. J^^i* nolo human is du cu-
nt is, fed divtnis oraculis fanttam Eichfti-
demonftrari. Sif*ntt<c Script ura in Air -
fola, &c. Si autem Chrifti Ecclefia
nonicarum Scripturarum Divinis & ctr-
ffimis teftimoniis in omnibus gentibus deftg-
ta eft, quicquid attulerint ( N. BJ & *n-
0^3 decun*
230 Tbefuceefsive Viftbditj of the Church
dicunq He recitavcrint , qui dicunt^ £ Ecce hie
Chriftus,ecce illic~\ audiamus pctius, ft eves
ejus ftwmus fjocem paftoru noftri dicentis \ No-
lite credere.'] ^Cap. 4. Totus Chrftus
Caput & Corpus eft : Csput unigenltus Dei
filius , & Corpus ejus Ecclefia , fponfus &
fpenfa ; duo in ccrne una. : Qvicunque de ipfo
eafite ab Script uris fanEiis dijfentiunt y eti.:?r>ji
in on.nibus loc[s invent >ratur in quibus Eccle-t
fia def.gns.ta eft, nun fun t in Ectlefta : &
thrlhs qui< unique de ipfo tapite Scripturis
Senilis cenfentiunt ', er ZJnitati Ecclcfia non
communicant y ( or as alter) ab ejpts corport
quod eft Ecclefta ira diffentiunt, ut eorum
commptnio non fit cum toto quacunque diffunj
ditur, fed in aliqua p. rtefeps.ratst invenUtur-^
rr.x/iijifttim eft eos n n ejfe in Catholic a Eck
clefia. ] ( A fad conclution to ihe Papiils.Jjj
It would be tedious to recite half thai
Auftin there hath tothispurpofe. Through
all his exquifite dtfputes with the Donatilts
he ftill defcnbeih the Church, 1. Asbeinj
the Body of Chrift, its Head. 2. Asdifper
fed through the world, and containing al
the Members of Chrift. 3. And that whi
begun at ferufalem. 4. And is to be kno
by the word of God : Never memioni
the Headfhip cf the Pope , nor the Mi
flrjf-fhipof Rome : cf which more anon*
of which tvenre Members^ fwvcu. 231
So Optatus lib. 2. adverf. Parmen. Vbi
trgo erit propriety CatholUi nominis^ cum
inde dicta fit Cat ho lie 6, quod Jit raticnabilis
& ubique diffufa^ikc] And before ( p 46.)
Ergo Eccl.fia una efi, cjqm fantHiai d?fa-
cramentis colligitur ^ non de fuperbia perfa-
narum ponder at ur : He glorieih ind.edin
the chair of Peter, and the Roman Church
and iucceflion, as being vn theCarholicxs
fide ^ buc never makeih them an Eflentiall
pare of the Cacholick Church, nor talks of
a Unity caufed by fubje&ion to them, buc
[Charitj to all- And therefore calls the
Schiimaticks,//^. 3. p. 72- Cbaritatis defer-
tores , not fubjellioms defertores: Adding,
gaudet tot its Orbis de Vnitate Catholica ; buc
never de fubjettione Romae. Yea he faith
more of the leven Afian Churches , lib. 2.
p 5 C# Extra feptem Ecclefias quicquidforis
efi.alienumeft-. Nevermore (ifiomuch)
can be found to be hid of Rome : and now
Rome it felf is extra feptem Ecclejtas. So he
fuppofeth God praifinp the Carholick,p.77.
lib. 4. Dijfentio £r fchifma tibi difplicuit;
Ccncerdafticumfratre tuo, & cum una Ec
clefia y qua tfi in tcto orbe terrarum : Com-
rnunlct.ftiftptem Eicl fiis & memoriis Apo-
flolcrum : auplexus es unitatem. So lib. 6.
p. 95. he thus detcribeth the Cathohik
0^4 Com-
231 The fuccefsive Vifwilitj ef the Church
Communion. \_An quia vol tint at em &]ufli-
cnemDeifecHtifumtis amundo fj.cem y com+
municando teti crbi ttrrarum^ [octet an Oricn-
t alii tts, ubifecundum hominem fuum nattu
efi Chrifttu ; ubi e]us fantta J pint i&prejfa
vefiigiu \ ubi tin bhL.'vt runt adorttndi pedes;
ubi *b ipfo j*tt& funt tot & tant& virtutts;
ubi turn funt tot Afyftcli comitzti -, ubi tfi
feptiformts Ecclefia ^ a qua vos concijos
'jfe, &c]
Ttrtu/tian dealing wah Hereticks indeed,
that- denyed the Fundamentals , thought it
but a tirefome way to difpute with them
out of Scripture, who wrefted fo many
things in it to their deftrudion, but would
have them convinced by Prefcription ; be-
caufe they lived near the Churches that
were planted by the Apoftles, and near their
daies : And what doth he ? appeal to Rome,
as the Judge, or Church that the reft are
fubjeded to ? No : but i.It is the common
Creed or Symbole of the Church, that he
would have made ufe of in ftead of long
difputes ( and not any other dodrine. )
2. And it is all the Churches planted by the
Apoftles, that he will have to be the firft
witneffes. 3. And the prefent Churches,
the immediate witneffes that they received
this Creed ( not any fupernuraeraries )
from
of vthieh pre are Members^ frevtd. 23 J
romthem, as the Apoftles do&rine. Sode
jrtfcript.c. 13. he reciteth the Symboleit
"elf, and fo c*p. 20. he mentioneth the
"ending of the twelve to teach this faith,
md plant Churches , which he defcribeth
:hns Statim igitur Apoft'di^—primo per
}ud<eam anteftatufide In fefum Chriftum,&
Ecclefiti inftitutu^ dehinc in or hem profetti^
>*ndcm doElrinam ejufdem fidri n.tionibut
Womnlgaverunt , & proinde Eccbfias apud
HtiamquurnqHe civitatem condiderunt^ d qni-
hvu traducem fidci & femina doBrin<t extern
?xinde Etclefix mutnata fnnt^ & quotidie
mutu.ntur ut Ecclefit fiant. Ac per hoc &
ipf* Apoftolica depmantur ut foboles Apufto-
licarnm Ettiefiarum Omne genm adOrigi-
nemfuam cenfeatvr, aeccfte ejr. Itaque tot ac
tanta Ecclefi* an a (ft ifla ab Apcftolisprima^
ex qua omnes. ( Are not thole too grofs
d ceivers that would perfwade us that he
here meaneth the Church of Rome by the
\_una, ilia '] , when he plainly fpeaks of the
Catholick Church of the Apoftohck age
from which all tie reft did fpring ? If of a
particular Church, it muft be that of Jeru-
i falem. Did' all the reft arife from Rome?
Can they fay ex hac omnes? [ Sic omnes
prima, 0- omnes Apftolicz, dum mam omnes
probant nnitatem. Communicatio pads, &
appclUtio
*3 4 The fuecefsive Vifibility of the Church
appellatio fraternitatis, & contefteratiohofpi-
talitatis, qua jura nun a lid ratio regit , quam
ejufdem [acramenti una traditio.~]
Note here i. That no Original Church
is mentioned but thofe of Judaa, with the
reft of the Apoftles planting. And 2. That
rhe Churches planted by the Apoftles them*
felvcs, ( without any mentioned difference
of fuperiority ) are that one Church whiclj
all the reftmuft try their faith by, as the wit-
neffes, 3 . That they are equally made tra-
duces, fidei, and mother* Churches to othen
propagated by them. 4. That per hoc, by
this propagation ( without fubje&ton to the
Church or Pope of Rome) all the reft are
Apoftolicall. 5. And the fufficient prooi
to any Church then that it was prima & A:
foftolica, was ( not lubjedioa to Rome but )
that unam omnesprobant unitatem. That is.
of the Apoftohck faith, received from that
one Apoftolick Church. 6. Yea when he
recitcth the external Characters of the
Church, it is not fubjeftion to Rome, that is
any one of them, but, Communicatio pacis^
appellatio fraternitatisy contefferatio hojpita*
UtatuJi 7. Yea utterly to exclude the Ro-
man fubjeftion, he adds £ qua jura non alia
ratio regit , quam ejufdem {acramenti una
traditio. J
Sc
if which we dre Members , proved. 235
So he proceeds Si h*c itafunt,conftat pro-
inde orr.nem dottrinam^cjutt cum Mis Ecclefiis
Apoftolicvs matricibus & originalibus fidei
confpiret , veritati deptitandvm id fine dubio
ttnentew,quod Eccle]i<£ ab Apoftdis^Aptftdi
d Chriftc, Ckriftus d Deo fnfeepit ± rdiqvtam
vero on.nern dcdrin.im de mendacio prajudi-
candam,qti& fapiat contra itcritatem Eccle- 9
fis.rtiW!, & Apoftdorum, & Chrifti, & Dd*
Suptreft ergo ut demonftrtn,u6> an h<ec n<ftr*
dedrina ( the Creed • not the Popes additi-
ons) cpt'jtu regvUrn fupra ed'tdiwui^de Apcft§-
larum trdditiune cenfeatvr, & ex hoc ipfo, an
cetera ( that contradid: the Creed ) dewtn-
dacioveniant. Corr<mnnicamus cum Eccleftu
Apoft. licit ( Rome is not made the ftandard^
cfttod nulla dcdrina diverfa, hoc eft tt ft intern-
um vcritMtiSm
And cap. 28. he doth not fend us to the
Roman Church as Head or Judge, but cal-
ling the Holy Ghoft only, Vicarius Chrifti,
Chrifts Vicar, makes it incredible that he
(hould fo far negled: his office , as to let
("not Rome, but) all the Churches to lofe
the Apoftlesdoftrine-, proving the certain
fucceflionof it, by the Unity, and npt by
Romes authority £ Eccjuid verifimile eft., ut
tot ac tantt in unam fidern err aver inti Nullus
inter multos event m eft anus exit us : Vari-
4<
f 7, 3 6 The fuceefsive Pifibility of the Church
affe deb Herat error doUrina EccUftarum.
C&terum quod apndmultvs unum invenitur,
non eft erratum, fed tradituw. Audeat
ergo liquis dicere 5 illos erraffe qui traJi-
dervint ?
So c. 3 2. when he calls hem to the Apo-
ftolical C hu % ch ms no m >re to Rome, hen
another. $s£dant ergo origines Ecclefiarum
uarum ut frimm ilk Epijcopus t> liquis
ex Apoftolu vel Aprs ft Luis viris, qui tamen
cum Apufit Us perjeveraverint , habuerit
auttorem, & anteccfforem. Hoc enim modo
Ecclefia Apeftjlica cenfus fuos dfferunt :
ficm Sn jrntirum Ecclefla habens Peljcar-
fum ab Johtnne Collocatum refert\ ficut Ro-
mamrum Clementem a Petroordinatum edit :
froinde utique & CAter* exhibent] Here vou
fee he puts Smyrna before Rome, and fohn
before Peter , and refers them to Rome, but
only as one of the Churches planted by the
Apoilles ., and this is but to know their do-
drine, delivered in that firft age, which we
appeal to.
And after he exprefly faith [Ad banc
itaqueformarn, provocabuntur ab Hits Eccle-
fiit, qu<€ licet nullum ex Apoftolit, vel Apo-
ftolicu aullorem fuum proferant, ut multo
pofltriores, qua denique quotidie inftitutum ^
tamen in eadem fidem con {fir antes, non minus
Apofto-
if which we are Mtmb'rs, f roved. 239
jiptft licdt ecputantur pro ccnfanguinitate
dittrin* : 3 * he Apohles do&rine will
prove an Apoftolical Chiach, when ever
pianted.
And c. 38. he draws rhem from difputing
from the Scripture, becauie Ley cwned
not the true Scripture, but cor-upced ir,
and charg d tlie^atholikes wiJ.co ruptioii
'" Sic fit Mis non pot a it {accede re cerrupt U
doEtrln* fin, corrupt da infirm^ent^ram ejus :
It a &nolis integrity uitlrina non compe-
tijfit) fine integritate eornm ( not by real
tradition alone J per qu<t dcEirina trattatur :
Etenim quid contrarium mlis in ncftris ?
quid de prvprio intulimvu, Ht aliquld ccn-
trariam ei & in Striptaris deprehenjum, de-
trattione Vtl adjtlicne vel tranfumtationt
remediaremus ? Jjilyd jamas, hoc fxnt. Ab
initio fue ex Mis f urn us • AMcquam nihil
aliterfuit, quam fumns.~\
hn&cdp. 36. He fends chem by name to
the particular ApoUolical Churches , and
bep ns with C<rinth • then to Thilippi^
Thcjf.Lnica, Ephefus, and then to Rome,
of whole Soveraigncy he never fpeaks a
fyllable
So more plainly /. 4. contr. M.:rcion. c. 5.
becaufe Mtrcion denied the true Scri-
ptures, he fends them to the Apollo' ke
Ctmrches
% j8 The fuccefsive Vifihility of the Church
Churches for the true Scriptures, firfl to
the Corinthians i then to the GalatUns, then
to the PhilippiamSThejfalonians, Ephejians,
and laft of all. to Rome.
But it would be tedious to cite die reft of
the Ancients, that commonly defcnbe the
Church as we^ and fuchas we all own as
members of it.
Arg, 3. If the Roman Church (as Chri-
ftian, though not as Papal) hatb been vifible
ever fince the daies of the Apoftles, then
the Church of which the Proteftancs are
members; hath been vifible ever fince the
daies of the Apoftles : But the Antecedent
is their own ; therefore they may not deny
the confequent.
The confequence alfo is paft denyal;
I. Becaufe the Roman as Chriftian, is part
of the univerfal Chriftian Church: 2. Be-
caufe they profefs to believe the fame holy
Scriptures and Creed as we do. So that
though they add more, and fo make a new
form to their Church, yet do they not deny
our Church, which is the Chriftian Church
as fuch, nor our Teft and Rule of faith , nor '
any Article that we account Eflenrial to
our Religion. So that themfelves are our
fufficient witnefles.
Well ! but this will not fatisfie the Pa-
of which we are Members, proved. 2 39
.pifts , unlefs we (hew a fuccefiion of our
Churth as Proteftant.
1. This we need not, any more then a
found man lately cured of the Plague, doth
need to prove, that he hath ever been, not
only Janus but fanatus, a cured man (before
he was Tick.) How could there be a C hurch
protefting againft an univerfal Vicar of
Chrift, before any claimed that Vicarfhip?
2. And when the Vicarfhip was ufurped,
thofe millions, abroad, ar d even within the
Roman territories, that let the pretended
Vicar calk, and followed their own bufinefe,
and never confented to his ufurpation,
were of the very fame Religion with thofe
that openly protefted againft him : And fo
were thofe that never heard of his ufurpa-
tion. •
Ob'jett. But at leaft, ( fay they) you muft
prove a Church that hath be.n without the
univerfal Vicar negatively, though not
againft him pofnively.
A*fw- 1. In all reafon, he that affirm*
eth muft prove ; It is n< t incumbent on us
to prove the negative, that the Church had
not fuch a Roman head ^ but they muft
prove that it had.
Objttt. But they have poffeffion, and
therefore you that would difpoffels them,
muft difprove their title. A»f.
2 40 The fuccefshe Vifibility of the Church
Anf. i. This is nothing to moft of the
Catholike Church where they have no
pofTeffion : therefore with them they con-
fck themfelves obliged to the proof,
2. This is ameer fallacious diverfion.- for
we are not now upon the queftion of their
Title, but the matter of fad: andhiftory:
we make good the negative, that they have
no Title from the Laws ofChrift himfelf :
and fo will not difpoffefs them without dif-
proving their pretended Title. But when
the queftion is defa&o^ whether they have
ever had that poflfeffion from the Apoftles
daies, chey that affirm muft prove, when we
have difabted their title from the Law.
2. But what muft we prove? that *//the
Church hach been guiltlefs of ihePapal ulur-
pation, or only fome in every age ? of all its
no more neceffary to us, then to prove that
th^re have been noHereftes fince the Apo-
ftles. If a piece of the Church may turn
Hereticks, or but Schifmaticks, as the No-
vations^ and African Donatifts, why may
not anocher piece turn Papifts?
3. What will you fay to a man that
knoweih not a Protectant, noraPapift, or
believeth only Chriftianity it felf, and med-
dlech not wich the Pope, any furcher then
to fay, [I believe not in him, Jefus I know :
and
ef which we Are Members 5 proved. 24 1
&nd the Apoftles, and Scripture, and Chri-
ftianity I know, but the Pope I know not :""
and fuppofe he never fubfcribed to the Ah-
gttftane^ Englip9>or any fuch confeflion, but
only to the Scripture, and the Apoftles, and
Nicene, and other ancient Creeds • By
what (hew ot Juftice can you require this
man to prove that there hath been no pope
in every age?
4. The foundation of all our contro-
verfie is doftrina!, whether the Papal Sove-
reignty be Effential to the Church ? or ne-
ceflary to our memberftiip ? we deny it -,
you affirm it. If it be not EfTential, it is
enough to us, to prove that which is EfTen-
tial, to have been facceflive : we be not
bound in order to the proof of our Church
it felf, to prove the fucceffion of every thing
that maKeth but to its better being.
Yet profefiing, that we do it not as ne-
cefTary to our main caufe, we fhall ex abun-
danti prove the negative, that the Catholike
Church hath not alwaies owned the Papal
Soveraignty, and fo that there have been
men that were not only Chriftians, but as
we , Chriftians wichout Popery , and
againft it : and fo fhall both prove our
Thefis, and overthrow theirs.
Arg. 4. If there have been fince the
R daieg
ITi
34 z The fuccefsive yipbtM) ef we imrct,
dales of Chrift, a Chriftian Church that was
not fob jeft to the Roman Pope, as the Vicar
ofChrift anduniverfal Head and Govern-
our of the Church s then the Church of
which the proteftants are members, hath;'
been viable botfcin its being, and us ircej
dom from Popery\ But the Antecedent is
true- therefore fo is the confequent
1 (hall prove the Antecedent, and therein
the viability of our Church, andthenon-
exiftence in thofe times of the Papacy.
Arg. i. My firft Argument (hall be
from the general Council of Chdcedon.
If the oriviledges of the Roman Sea were
given to it by the Bifhops confequently
becaufe of the Empire of that City, and*
therefore equal priviledges after given to
Conftantlnovlc on the fame account-, then
had not Rome thofe priviledges from the
Apoftles (and confequently the whole Ca-
tholike Church was without them). But
the Antecedent is affirmed by that fourth
great approved Council : In Att. 16. £t».
I 134 LW e everywhere following the
definitions of the holy Fathers , and the
Canon, and the things that have been now
' reac j ou he hundred and fitty Bifhops molt
beloved to God , that were congregate
under the Emperour Theodofitu the great of
pious
of which we are Members, proved. 245
pious memory, in the Royal City of Con-
stantinople , new Rome^ we alfo knowing
hem,have defined the fame things concerni-
ng the priviledges of the fame moft holy
hurch of Confiantinople, new Rome : for
othe feat of old Rome y becaufe of the Em-
pire of that City, the Fathers confequently
;ave the priviledges. And the hundred
nd fifty Bilhops, moft beloved ot God,
eing moved wLh the fame intention, have
,iven equal priviledges to the moft holy
eat of new Rome : reafonably judging, that
he City adorned with the Empire and
enate, (hall enjoy equal priviledges with
Id Regal Rome.}
Here we have the Teftimony of one of
c greatcft general Councils, of che hu-
ane original of Rome s priviledges. Bellar-
\\ine hath nothing to lay , but thac they
e falflv, and that this claufe was noc
lonfirmed by the pr-pe ("which are fully an-
rlivered by me elfewhere.) But this is no-
' ine to our prefent bufmefs : It is a matter
fad: that 1 ufe their Teftimony for. And
all ihe Bifhops in two of the moft ap-
proved general Councils, (called the Re-
^Irefentative Catholikc Church) were noc
♦• fompetent witneffes in luch a cafe, to tell
llswhai was done, and whac was not done
R 2 in
Q0
2 44 Thefuccefsivc Viability of the Church
in thofe times, then we have none. The
Papifts can pretend to no higher teftimony
on their part. The Church it felf there-
fore hath here decided the contro.
v'erfie.
And yet note, that even thefe priviledges
of Rmt were none of his pretended univer-
fal Government.
, Its in vain to talk of the Teftimonies of
particular Do&ors, if the moft renowned
general Councils cannot be believed. Yet
I will add an Argument from them as con-
junct.
Arg. 2. Had the Rowan univerfal Sove*.
raignty, as efTential to the Catholikc
Church, been known in the daies of Ter
tn/lian y Cyprian , Athanafius, Naz.Unz.en
Njjfen, Bafil, Opt«tus, Anguftine^ and thi
other Do&ors that confounded the Here
fies or Schifms of thofe times (e. g. th<
N&vfitians, Donatifts, Arrians^ &c.) th
faid DoAors would have plainly and fre
quently infifted on it for the conviction c
thofe HereticKs and Schifmaticks : But th j
they do not : therefore it was not known i
thofe times.
The confequerce of the Major is evidcij
hence : The Doftors of the Church we
sien at leaft of common wit and prudence
t
tf wbtcb we are Members, f roved. 345
the matters which they did debate ; there-
fore they would have infiftedon this argu-
ment it hen it had been known. The rea-
fbn of eh. confequence is, Kcaufe it had
been molt obvious, eafie, and potent to
di. parch .heir controvcrfies. 1. When the
Arriuns and many other Hereticks denied
Chriits ecernal Godhead, had it not been
the (horteft expeditious • courfe , to have
cited them to the barr of the Judge of con-
trover les, the infallible Soveraign Head of
the Church ^ and convinced them that they
were to ftand to his judgement ? 2. Had
not this Argument been at hand, to have
confounded all Herefies at once, That
which agreeth not with the Belief of the
Roman Pope and Church is falfe ; But futh
is your opinion : therefore]
2. So for the Donatifts •, when they dis-
puted for fo many years againft theCatho-
likes, which was the true Church, had it not
been Ang^fiins fhorteft, furelt way to have
argued thus : That only is the true Church
that is fubjeft to the Pop? of Rome^ and
adhereth to him : But fo do not you ; there-
fore]
Either the Arriws, Donatijls and futh
others did believe the Papal Soveraignty
and Vicarlhip, or not : If they did , 1 . How
R 3 i*
2 efi The Juccefsive Viftbilitj of the Church
is itpofiiblc they fliould aftually rejeft both
the Doftrine and Communion of the Pope
and Roman Church ? 2. And why did
not the Fathers rebuke them for finning
againft confcience, and their own profeilion
herein ?
But if they did not believe the Papal So-
veraignty , then 2. How came it to pafs K
that the Fathers did labour no more to con-
vince them of that ( now fuppofedj fun-
damentallErrour ? when 1. It is fuppofed
as hainous a fin as many of the reft. 2. And
was the maintainer of the reft. Had they
but firft demonftrated to them , that the
Pope was their Governour and Judge, and
that his Headfhip being eflentiall to the
Church, it muft needs be of his faith, all
Herefies might have been confuted, the peo-
ple fatisfied,and the controverfies difpatched
in a few words.
3 . Either Arrians, Donatifts Novatians,
and fuch like, were before th«ir defe&ion
acquainted with the Roman Soveraignty, or
not. If they were not, then it is a fign it!
was not commonly then received in the ,
Church, and that there were multitudes of
Chriftians that were no Papifts : If they
were, then why did not the Fathers, 1 . U rge
them with this as a granted truth, till they
had
I
1
of which we are Members \ proved. 247
fiaci renounced it? 2. And then why did they
not charge this defection from the Pope up-
on them, among their hainous crimes? why
lid they not teil them, that they were fub-
e&ed to him as foon as they were made
Chriftians • and therefore they (hould not
rcrfidioufly revolt from him ? How is it
hat we find not this point difputed by them
>nboth fides, yea and as copioufly as the
eft, when it would have ended all t>
And for the Minor, that the lathers have
lot thus dealt with Hereticks, the whole
Jooks of Tertulliun , Na^ianztn, Njjfen,
3ajil, Optatxs , Hierom , Augu^ine , and
thers arc open certain witnefles. Th^yufe
o fuch Argument, but fill their Books with
others •, mod imprudently and vainly , if
hey had known of this, and had believed
. Otherwifc thePapiits wou'd never have
een put to ga:her up a few impertinent
:raps :o make a (hew with.
We fee b' experience here among us, that
s point is Voluminously debated- and if
it d flfer in other matters, [he Pap lis call us
o :he Roman bar, and bring in this as the
riocipall difference. And why would it
ot have been fo then becween the 1 athcrs,
ndtheDonatiP .rrians, and fuch! \c, if
ic Fathers had believed this ? Its clear
K 4 hei.ee
*$ The [nccefsiveViftbilit') of the Church
hence that the Papall Vicarfhip was then
unknown to the Church of Chnit.
Arg. 3. The Tradition witneflfedby the
greater part of the Univerfai Church faith,
that the Papal Vicarftiip or Soveraignty is
an innovation and ufurpation/ and that the
Catholick Church was many hundred years
without it ; Therefore there was then no
fuch papal Church.
This is not a fingle teftimony, nor of tea
thoufand,or ten millions, but of the Ma-*
jor Vote of the whole Church ^ and in
Councils the Major Vote itands for the
whole. If this witnefs therefore be refufed,
we cannot exped that the words of a fevq
Dodors ihould be credited • Nor mav
they exped that we credit any witnefs oj
theirs, that is nor more credible.
And that the Antecedent is true, i
known to the world . as we know that th
Turks believe in Mahomet , by the commo
confent of hiftory and travellers. Part
the Churches anathematize the Roman
and part more modeflly difown them, an J
the generality that fubjed not themfelvc
do pi ofefs that Popery is an ufurpation, an
that in the ancient Church it was not f<
and this they have by Tradition from gene
nation to generation. And if the Roman
pretended
IT,
•/ which we are Memkrs, f roved. 249
pretended Tradition be with them of value,
the Tradition of the far greater part of the
Church is with us to be of more. We muft
defpair of fatisfying them with witnefs, if
moft of the Chriftian world be rejected,
and the Tradition of the greateft part of
the Church be taken to be falfc in a matter of
pubhek notorious fad.
Arg. 4. Many Churches without the
verge of the Roman Empire , never fub-
je&ed therafelves to Rome, (and many not
of many hundred years after Chriit: ) there-
fore there were vifible Chriftian Churches
from the beginning, to this day, that were
not for the Roman Vicarfhip.
That abundance of Churches were plan-
ted by the Apoftles, without the reach of the
Roman Empire , is plentifully teftified by
the ancients, and the Papifts commonly con-
fefs it. 1 hat thefe were under the Papal
Government , all the Papifts in the world
cannot prove. The contrary is confefTed
by them, aud proved by us. 1. They
came not fo much as to Gencrall Councils.
2. They had no Bifhops ordained by the
Pope, or any impowred by him. 3. They
never appealed to him. 4. They never had
any cauies judged by him. 5. They per.
formed no obedience to him, nor lived un-
der
I
t
1
s
5
250 The fnceefshe Viftbility of the Church I
der his Laws ^ nor fcarce had any commu-
nion wich him, more then the common
communion thac is held in Charity, and
common faith and ordinances with all. Such!
were the Indians, the Perfians, the further"
Armenia and Partbia, the Habaffines and
many more. And of long time the Englifti
and .he Scots, that refuf.d fo much as to
cat and drink in the fame Inn with the Ro-
man Legates ; much Ids would obey him,
fo much as in che change of Eafter day ^ we
challenge chem to ftiew us any appearance
of fubjeftion to the Pope in the generality
of the Churches without the Empire,
But you fay, that the Habaffines were
under the Patriarch of Alexandria, and he
under the Pope.
*s>nf. 1. If that were true, yet whats
that to all the reft ? 2. Give us your proof
that the Abaflines were under the Patri-
arch of Alexandria , before that Patriarch
x broke off his communion with Rome. The
Canons of Pifanus, of yefterdayes inven-
tion, we regard not : Surely the true Ca-
nons of Nice ( Can. 6. ) meafure out no
more to the Patriarch of Alexandria^ but
v£g)ft,Lybia y and Pentafolis. There's no
mention of Ethiopia : And its not like that
the greateft part of his Province would
have
of which tve are Members 3 frwed. 251
avc been left out. 3. If it had beenio,
et we utterly deny that ever the Pope had
he Government of the Alexandrian Patri-
rch ; Only for a little while he had a pre-
edency in honorary Title, and in Councils ^
s the City of London is preferred before
fork^ but doth not Govern it at all.
Here therefore ( without the Roman Em-
pire ) you may fee thofe Churches that have
ucceflively been vifible, and yet no Pa-
>ifts. This your Rajnerins confefleth ccntr.
Valdenf. Catalog, in Ribliothec. P^itr. Tom.
KMf-773- f a y in g C Armtniorum Ecci
ia^<^£thiopum > d^ lnddrum,& CAterjt quM
Afoflcli convertervnt) mn fubfunt Roman*
Eccleji*._ See Cjodignns de Ret us Abajfi-
sorum, ot their Antiquity.
Arg. 5. The Eaftern Churches within
the Empire were never fubjeftsof the Pope:
therefore there have been and are Churches
Vifible, that neither were nor are his fub-
jefts
The Antecedent I have proved in my Key
forCatholickji from the Council of Car-
thage's Letters to Pope Cixlefiine, after their
relilUnccof Zofimu* ^ and diwrs teftimo-
nies from Bafil and others. And they can
give us thcmfrlves no plaufiblc appearance
of a proof of that fubjedion which they
a flirt ;
a J % The [uecefslve rtfihlUty of the Church
aflerc: no more then the younger Juftice
on the Bench are fubjeft to the elder, or thi
Jury to the foreman, or a Mafter of Arts h
a Colledge to a Batchelor in Divinity, o:
then the Mayor of Brifioll is to the Mayo:
of r*rt
i . The Pope never chofe the Patriarch
of Alexandria^ Antioch, &C 2. It did
belong to him to ordatn them ; nor die
he authorize any other to do it, nor die
they receive or hold their power from him.
3. They receive no Laws of his to Rule by.
4. They were not rommanded or Judged
by him. 5 . The Patriarch of ConfttntinopU
had equall Priviledges with him. So that
here is nothing like to Soveraigaty and fub-
jeftion, nor any acknowledgement of an
universal Vicar of Chrift. Communion in-
deed they held with Rome, as they did with
one another, till pride divided them ^ but
Communion is one thing, and Subjection is
another. The Greek Church never gave
them this. /
A r g. 6. My next Argument to prove the
Novelty of their Church as Papal, and con-
fequently that the Univerfal Church was
void of Popery, and therefore of the fame
Religion wuh proteftants, fliall be from the
tefrmony of their own raoft magnified Bi-
(hops, Grt-
I
ef which m are Members, f roved. 2 53
: ty Greger) i.Eplft. RegiftJ.^. c 80. fpeak-
ngagaihit the Patriarch of Conftantinople^
otor uiurping che Tide of OecumenicallPa-
oitriarch,or UniverfalBi{hop,faith(/J. 181,
182. Edit. Pari/. 1 55 1.) C Sicut tnim
tvneranda veftra fantlitas novit , neihi per
faniUm Chaicedoneniem Sjnodum Pontifici
fedts Apofiolicd, cui Deo difponente defervio^
hoc XJniverfalitatis now en oblatum efi : fed
JV alius unquam decefforum meorum hoe tarn
frophano vocabulo uti conftnftt. Quia vi^
ft Vnus Patriarch* Vniverfalis dicitur^ Pa-
triarcharum mmen Ceteris derogatur. Sed
ah [it hoc, abfit a Chrifiiana mente^ idjibi vel-
le quempiam ar riper e, unde fratrum fuorum
honortm imminucre ex quant ulacunque parte
videatur. Cum ergo nos hunc honcrem min-
imis oblatum fufcipere • pen fate quam ignorr.i-
niofum fit hunc fibi quempiam vi< Unti r tifur-
fare vrluijfe Propttrea funfliras vflra in
fuis Epifi 'its neminem Univerfalem Hvminct^
ne fibi debitum detrahat, cum altcri honor em
effertindebitum. J
i. Here he affirmeth that the Tide of
Vniverfal was never ufed by any of his pre-
dccefTors nor received. 2. That insapro-
phane Title. 3. That it is an injury to
other Patriarchs. 4. That itsunbefeeming
aChriftian mind to aflume it. 5. That its
undue.
254 J ke ft4ccefsive Vifibilitj of the Church
undue. 6. He perfwaded the . Bifhops of '
Alexandria and Antioch to give it to no man
whofoever.
Obj. But he faith that the Council of
Chalcedon offered it him. Anf. i. If he
renounce it as undue and prophane, andfay
that defatto none of his predeceffors took
it, this is as much as we defire. 2. That at
the Council of Chalcedon, near 150. years
before this, two Deacons ( that they fay
have no Votes ^callM Theodoras and Ifchi-
rion, did fuperfcribe their Libels, to Leo
Vniverfd Archbijhop 9 -l End 1 but no more •
And this is it that Gregory here brags of:
And whats two Deacons to the Council ?
Obj. But it is only the Afaw^and not the
Thing that he difclaims, and that is in mo-
defty. Anf. 1. How then could he 'cen-
fure the name as undue, injurious, prophane,
and blafphemous , if he owned the Thing?
feeing aptandafunt verba rebus : words are
to be fitted to Things. 2. But I (hall con-
fute this fully from his following words.
\_ Ita ut Univerfa fibi tentet afcribere, &
emnia^uA foli unicapiti coherent y videlicet
Chrifio , per elationem pomputici fermonid,
ejufdemChrifti fibi (iudeat membra fubju-
gare.^
Here it is plain 1 , That it is the Thing as
* well
J ef which we are Mtmbns, proved. 25 y
Jwell as the Name that Gregory wrote
: (againft. 2. And that it is alio a palpable
"fidionof thePapifts( for want of abetter)
. that Gregory oppofe^h only fuch an Univer-
fal Epifcopacy as taketh away all Epifco-
: pacy from others. Ridiculous ! They would
; make us believe, that John of Conslantincple
would have hadnoB:(hop in the world but
: imfelf •, and that the Council that gave
! him the Title,intcnded al 1 to degrade them-
feJves •, and that there were no Bifhops un-
" der him ever after • when other Councils
confirmed his Title. On the contrary, you
here fee 1. That there is but one Head,
evenChrift. 2. And that Johns fin in arro-
gating the Title [_ Vniverf.il was, that he
e would fubjugate, or fubjed all Chrifts
Members to himfelf. And is not this now
• the very form of Popery , which Gre-
gory makes fo great a fin ? even to fubjeft
ail Chrifts Members to one, as anUniverfal
Patriarch or Biftiop ? Yea much higher
Titles do they arrogate, even to be |[ the Vi-
car of Chnft, and God , and in ftead of
Chrift and God • and to be the Vice-
Chrift. ]
He proceeds \_ Nee mirum quod i/le tern
tator, qui imtinm omntsfeccatijeit ejfefuper-
bium, &c J Makiag the Devil the anchor of
this Title. H e
2 5 6 the futcefsivc Viability of the Church
He adds a weighty reafcyi £ ft enim hoi
dici licenter fermittitur, honor Patriarch*
rum omnium negatur. Et cum fort ajfe is it
trrore ptriit qui Vniverfalis dicitur y nullvu
jam Epi[copw$ remanfijfc in ftatu veritati
invenitur] or as more plainly before c . 76
foi. r8o. in the Epift. to the Emperoui
Maurice £ ft igitur Hind riomen in ea Ecch.
fid fibi quifquam arripuit, quod apnd bom
rum omnium judicium fuit 1 ZJniverfaerg
Ecclefia, quod abfit , a fiatu fue corruit
quando is qui appe flat ur Vniverfalis cadit
The reafon is plain, becaufe the Head o
every political focicty is efTential to it
and therefore if the Head of the Uniyerfa
Church fall away to Herefie or Infidelity
the Church falls ; as BeUarmine knevt
when he told lis, that if the Pope fheulc
erre in determining, the Church would bt
bound to take evil for good, and vice fo;
venue.
. He proceeds in the fame Epift. ad Mam
Imperat. [_Sedabftt aCerdibfu Chriftiano J
rum nomen ifiud bla$f>hcmidi y &c.J [[Far h -
this name of blafphemy from the hearts
Chriftians, &c . ]
And after again faith \Jtdnullmeor
unquam hoe fingularitatis vocabui
tffumpfit , ma mi confcnfit^ That none
tb
I
\
cf which tve Are Members, proved. 257
the Roman Bifliops did ever affume this
name of Angularity , nor confent to
life it.]]
And therefore he concludes to the Pa-
triarchs of Alexandria ^vA Amioch, c. 80.
\pporte t e rgo nt conflanter ac fine prtjudicio
ftrvetisficut accept ft is Ec cleft as, & nihil fibi
in nobis hac tentatio diabolic* ufurpationis
afcribat. State f ortes, flate fecuri', Script*
cum ZJniverfalis nominis faljitate, nee dare
uncjuam, nee recipere prxfumatis] He charg-
eth them never to give or take writing
with the falfhood of this name [Vniwrfal]
as being from the Devils tentation.
And in Ep. 38. c. 82. to John Confi.
himfelf he calls it Nefandum elationisvo-
cabulum\ and the caufe [Nefandum &pro-
hanum iumorem] and after he calls it Qthe
furping of a proud and foolifh word.]
To all this BeUarmine miferably aniwer-
eth de Pontif. Rom. I. 2. c.1,1. that the title
HlniverfaQ as it fignifiech a fole Bifhop to
|whom all other are but Vicars, is indeed
profane, facrilegious and Antichriftian, and
is it that Gregory fpeaks againft, but not as
it excludeth not particular Biftiops/) To
which I anfwer, i . To be the Vicarins of a
upcriour,is not an excluiion. The Pope
faith he is the Vicar of Chrift the chief
S Paftour
258 The fuccefsive yiftbillty tf the Church
Pattour and Bifhop of fouls : and all Pa-
ftours are to Preach the Word of recon-
ciliation in his name and ftead, i CV.5. 19.
- and yet they are not thereby excluded from
being Paftours. if to be Chrifts fervants,
may confift with Epiicopacy h much more to
be his Vicarii over their particular flocks.
Rather this is too high an honour for us to
affume. I do not think that all the Clergy
under the Pope, do think themfelves ho-
noured fo much as they (hould be if they
were his Vicars. 2. Hath not that man
fold bis confcience to his caufe, that will
perfwade the world that the Patriarch of
Conftantinofle was about to unbifhop all the
Bifhops in the world except himfelf ? Let
any man (hew us by tolerable proof, that
John of Conftantinofle did claim any higher
a power over all others, or would bring
other Bifhops by his Univerfality to be
lower, then the Pope of Rome doth by his
Univerfality, and then I will confefs that
Papifts only have eyes and reafon, and all
the world befides are blind, and mad, or
beatts. Their caufe is at a fair pafs, when
they muft fly to fuch palpable falfhoods, as
makes them the wonder of their fober
readers. 3. 1 proved before from the ex-
prefs words of Greg^ffhax it is Superiority
of
I
of which we are Members, f roved. 2 59
of Government, and making all other Bi-
fhops fubjed: co him, that he condemned in
the Patriarch of Conftantincple. And no
doubt he made not the leaft of his arrogan-
cy ; Nor do I believe that it can be proved
that John, or the Council' that gave him the
Title, did ever intend fo much as a Univer-
fal Government , which the Pope now
ufurpeth . but only a Primacy before all,
which Popes were then ftnving for. For
the Greeks to this day difclaim it, and they
never ftrove to exercife it.
I will give you more of Gregories words
to put the queftion part doubc , Cap. 82.
Ep. 38. to f;hn, faich Humilitatem ergo
frater chart ffime totis vifceribm dilige, per
quam cunllorum fratrum Concordia &fs>ntl&
Universalis Eccle/ix unitas valeat c?*fto-
iri : Ccrte P aulas Apofkdu* cum auMret
uofdam dicere, Ego f urn Tauli y ego Apollo,
egovcroCepbdy banc dilacerationem corporis
Dominici, per ejuam membra ejus aliis cjho-
mmodofecapitibus[ociabant,'vehementiffimc
crhorrcfcens exclamavit, dictns: Nuncjuid
aulas pre vobis cruel fixus eft : ant in nomi-
e Pauli baptiz^ati eftis ? Sic ergo ifle mem-
ra Dominici corporis certis extra Cbriftntn
H*Ji capitibvu , & ipfis cjuidem Apoftolis
Hb)ici particuUriter evituvit : 7'h quid
S 2 Chrift*
2 6o Thefuccefsive Vifibility of the Church
Chrifto Vniverfalis fcilicet Ecclefi* capiti,
in extremi judicii es diEiurw examine^ qui
cunUa ejus membra tibimet conaris Ztniver*
falls appe/latione fupponere /]
Here you fee t. That the unity and
concord of the Church is not maintained
by univerfal Headfhip , but by fraternal
communion and humility. 2. That it
wounded Paul, and fhould do us, to fee
the Church make men as it were their
heads, though they were Apoftles , and
1
though Peter was one of them: and that
extra Chriftum, befide Chrift 5 none, no not
Peter fhould be as a Head to Chnits mem-
bers. 3 . Much more abominable is it for
any man to pretend to be the univerfal I
Biftiop or Head to all Chrifts members; J pr
4. That the fin of this ufurpation was
11!
IK
I
againft Chrift the Churches Head, and that
before him in Judgement the ufurper of C
univerfal Epifcopacy will be confounded
for this very thing. 5. And that the crime fa
of this title of univerlal Bifhopwas, that it|inu
endeavoured to put all Chrifts member!
under him that ufed it (tibimet fufponere : J
not to exclude all other Bifhops, but to pujea
under him all Chrifts members. Thefc an
the words of Gregory : and if men can main
whag their lift of words fo full and plain
an
ef which tve arc Members, prove J. 261
and oft repeated in many Epiftles , what
hope* have they chat their Judge of Con-
troverfies fhould do any more to end their
Controverfies then Scripture harh done,
which chey cannot understand without fuch
an unintelligible Judge ?
He proceeds (ibid.) [Qu}$ ergo in hoc
tarn perverfo vocabulo, nifi Me ad imitandum
proponittir,qtti defyettis Angelorum legiqni-
bm P fecum [ocialiter conftitntis^ ad culmen
conatvu eft fingularitatis. erumpere , ut &
nu/liffibejfe^ & Jul pes omnibm praejfe videre-
tur.'j He maketh him the imitator of the
Devil, that afpiring above the reft of the
Angels, fell by pride.
I But BeEarmine hath three Reafons to
rove yet that Gregory after all this meant
ot the universal Hcadfhip or Epifcopacy
ideed. 1. Becaufe the holy Council of
'htlcedon offered it him. Anf. 1. A fair
•ffer / becaufe two or three Deacons in-
scribed their Lib :1s to him with the name of
niverfal Archbifhop : And we muft br-
ieve that the Council approved of this,
hough we cannot prove it. Or if they
ailed him the Head, as the City of London
> the Head City in England^nd the Earle
t Arxndel the Head Earle, or the Lord
hancelour the Head J udge, that yet have
S3 no
2 6% The fuccefsive Vifibility ef the Church
no Government of the reft, what advan-
tage were this to the Roman Vicarfhip ?
2. It Gregory judge the name foblafphem-
ous, when it fignifieth an univerfal Cover-
nour ot the Church, iurely he believed that
the Council offered it not to him in that
fence, but as he was the Efifcopus prima
fedis. 3. But again, I fay the matter of
fad is it that I am enquiring of ; And I
have the teftimony of this Roman Biftiop
that none of his PredecefTors would receive
that name.
1 2. But faith Bellarmine, he faith that the
care of the whole Church was committed to
Peter, which is all one.] Anf. 1. But fo
it was committed alfo to the. reft of the
Apoftles : Paul had on him the care of all
the Chnrches, that claimed no Headfhip.
2. Heexpr.fly excludeth Peters Headfhip,
both in the words before recited, and after,
faying [_Ccrte Petrm /ifoftolus primum I
membrum for rather as Dr. fames Corrupt. I »
of the Fathers Part. 2. p. 60 faith he found 1 I
it in feven written Copies, [ ApoftolcrumYk
primus membrum'} Santta & Vniverfalisl
Ectlijia eft: Paulas ^ Andreas, Johannes A
. quid t liud quam fingularium funt plebium I
capita ? Et tameufuJ? uno c.ipite omnes mem" II I
bra funt Ecclejia] that is £ Peter the firft
of
ef which m are Members^ proved. 263
of the Apoftles, is a member of the holy and
univerfal Church : Paul, Andrew^ John,
what are they but the Heads of the fingular
flocks of the people ? And yet all are mem-
bers of the Church under one Head] (that
is, Chnft) fo that Chrift is the only Head :
Peter is but a member, as the other Apoftles
are ^ but not a Head.
3. But faith BcUartrine^ Gregory could
not but know that the title of Epifccpu
Vniverfalis Ecclefia, which is ail ore, had
been oft affumed by the Popes.
Anf. 1. Whether was BelUrrr.ir.z or Gre-
gcrj the wifer man? at lead: the 'fitter in-
terpreter of thofe words ; would Gregory
have made them fo blafphemous, fool 1
prophane, anddevilifh, if he had thought
them of the .fame importance with thofe
which his Predeccffors ufed ? Or was he fo
filly as not to know that this migl
been retorted on him ? What a i
whatawicked diffembling hypocrite, ~< ch
BelUrmine teign Pope Grtgory to have
been ? 2. But verily did che Learned
Jefuite believe himfelr that [Vniverfalis
Epifcvpus EtiLcfu} & Epi ctLfiA
ZJniverfalis] areotihe fame 1 gnii t
ery tfifhop in the world, that adhered
to the common Communion ot ChnlUans
S 4 and
2 6% Thefaccefsivc yiftbiliti of the Church
and was a Catholike, was wont to be called
[aBifhopof theCatholike Church, 3 an ^
is indeed fuch ^ but he is not therefore [the
univerfal Bifhop of the Church.]
But BelUrmine Will not charge Gregory
of fuch horrid diffimulation without rea-
fon. His firft reafon is, [that Gregory did
it for caution, to prevent abufe. "J
Anf. What / charge it with blafphemy ,
prophanefs , devilifm , wrongiag all the
Church, and alfo to excommunicate men
for it, and all this to prevent abufe, when
he held it lawful ! Did hell ever fcatch
worfc hypocrifie then this that he fathers
on his holieftPope?
But 2. His other reafon is worfe then
this ^ forfooth "becaufe the qucftion was
only whether John otConftantinofle (hould
have this title, and not whether the Bifhop
of Rome (hould have it : and therefore
Gregory fimply and abfolutely pronounceth
the name facrilegious and prophane,that is,
as given to fohn, (but not to himfelf ) yet
he refufed it himfelf, though due to him,
that he might the better reprefs the pride
of theBKhop of Conftantinople.'] Anf. The
fum is then,that Gregory did meerly lye and
diffemble for his own end. He labours to
prove that biafphemous, facrilegious, &c.
which
cf which we are Members 9 proved. z6f
yhich he defired •, But we will not judge
oodiouflyof the Pope as Papiftsdo. Doth
ic charge the other Patriarchs and Bifhops
o give it no man ? doth he blame them-after
i other Epiftles that gave him that Title ?
nd doth he profefs that never any of his
'redeceffors received it,and makefo hainous
matter of it, and yet all this while approve
tasfor himfelf? Who will believe a Saint
o be fo diabolical, that calls it an imitation
>f the Devil ? You fee now what the Ro-
nanCaufe is come to, and whether their
Church as Papal, that is, their Univerfal So-
/eraignty, benotfprung up fince Gregories
"ayes.
Hear him a little further ( ibid.) [Atquc
Ht cunUa. brevitef cingnlo Iccxtionis adftrin*
\am : fantti unte Legem , fantti fub Legt y
^anttifub Gratia, tmnts hi perficientes Corpus
Domini in mzmbr is fttnt Ecclefi* ccnftittiti 9
&nemofe hnquam IJniverjdlcm vocare vo-
Ittit : Veftra autem Jtntlitas agno[cat yuan*
turn aftidfe t time at, qy.£ illo ncn ine Pectri ap~
petit, quo vocari nvAlus prtfunpjit, qui vtr*-
terfanfttufxit."] That is, Q And to Lind
up all in the girdle of fpeech, the Saints be-
fore the Law, the Saints under the I..**, : he
Saints under Grace, all thefc making up chc
tody of Chrift, were placed among tne
Mcaibcrs
:
•"
2 66 The faceefsive Vifibility of the Ch urch
Members of the Church , yet wever man
would be called Univerial. Let your Holi-
nefs therefore con.rder how with your fell
you well, ihac deiire to be called bytha
name., by which no man baih prefumedto
be called that was truly Holy/]
Well / ii this be not as piain as Prote-
Hants fpeak againft Popery , I will never
hope to underftand a Pope.
I only add, that Gregory makes this ufur-
pation of the name ot an Univerfal'Biftiopa
forerunner of Antiihrift : And that Pope
Telagim condemned it before him ^ which
Gratian puts into their Decrees, or Canon
Law.
And that he took the Churches authority
to be greater then his own , when he tells
fohn, [_Sed quoad in me a correptione deffiicior,
re flat ut Eciltfiam debeam adhibere. 3
Lib. 7. Ep. 3 o. Dixi nee mihi vos,nec cui-
quam alteri tale * liquid fcriberc debere : &
ecce in prafatione epiftola quayn ad meipfum
qui prohibui direxiflis, f.pcrba appellation/*
verbum, Univerfalem mePapam dicentes,im-
primere cur a flit. JjJuod peto dulcijfima fan-
ttitas veflra> ultra nun faciat : quij vobitfub-
traioitur y quod alteri plujquam ratio exigit,
frtbetur. See then whether it be not
judged by him undue to himfelf as well as
toothers. And
1
of which rve are Members , frwed. 26 7
And what the weigh: of the matter
emed to him, judge mote by thefe words,
p. 83. 1.4. ad Arrisn. In ifto [ceUftovoca-
\Ao con [entire , nihil eft Hiud qaam fidem
trdere?\ To content in that wicked word,
nothing elfe but to lofe ( or dcltroy ) the
tith.3 That is,apoftafie.
And 1. 6. c. 194. Mauric. Aug. Ego ft-
tnter dicv, quia quifquis fe univerfalemfa-
erdotem vocat, vel vocs.re de'fiderst, inela-
ionefua Antichriftum pracurrit •, quia fn-
erbiendofe extern prtepGnit, nee dif pari fu-
nrbia ad errorem ducitur. ]
Arg. 7. The Papifts tbcmfelves confefs,
hat multitudes of Chnftians, if not n.oftby
kr, have been the oppoiers of the Pope, or
lone of his lubjefts : therefore by th^ir
Feftimony there have been viiible Churches
:>f fuch.
<L/£nea& Sylvius, after Pope ?ius 2. faith,
kiall regard was had to the Church of Ron.e
before the Council of Nice. Fellarwine
kith, This is partly true, byreafonof the
perfecution of thofe ages, and partly fiilfe.
Anf. But, if true, we prove the matter of
fad, and leave BelLxrmine better to prove his
Reafon. If ic be falfe, then their own Hiito-
rians are not to be believed, though worthy
to be Popes. And then what h ;call telti-
mony will they believe ? Vo-
1 68 The fuccefshe Vifibilitj of the Church
Voluminoufly do their Hiftorians menti
on the Oppofkion of the Greeks on on
fide, and of the Emperours and Kings, arn
Divines, that were under the Popes Patriae
chal power ; as Mich. Goldaftut in abun
dance of Treatifes hath manifefted.
I gave before the teftimony of Rejneritu
that the Churches planted by theApoitles
were not under the Pope.
I (hall once more recite the words
Mdch.Canits^ Loc.Theol. lib. 6. cap. J.fol
201 . " Not only the Greeks, but almoft a
( N. B.) the reft of the Biftiops of the whol
world, have vehemently fought to deftroy
the Priviiedgeof the Church of Rome : an
indeed they had on their fide, both th
Arms of Emperours, and the greater Num-
ber of Churches • and yet they could never|
prevail to abrogate the Power of the One
Pope of Rome. 3 By the Papifts confeilion
then mod of the Churches, and almoft all
the Bifhops of the whole world , and the
Emperours & their Armies, have vehement-
ly fought to abrogate,rhe Popes power, and
deftroy the Priviledges of Rome.
Rejneritu his teftimony concerning the
Antiquity of the Waldenfes, as from Pope
Sjlvefters dayes, if not the Apoftles, hath
been oft cited : Had they beeo but from
Gregories
I tf which we are Members, frtved. 2 6$
egories dayes, it had been enough, when
ha\ehisownTeftimony, thatnoBifhop
Rome would own ( to that time ) that
eked , prophane , facrilegious , foolifh,
lphemous, dividing name of Umvtr{al
itriarch or Bifhop, which who ever holds
, deftroys the faith.
Arg. 8. The next Argument (hould have
een from the Hiftorical Teftimony of the
.ncients, that the Papal Soveraignty was
ien no part of the Churches faith, nor
wned by them. But here to produce the
cftimonies of all ages, would be to write
.Volume in Folio, on this one Argument
lone : For how can the Hiftory of all Ages
fo particularly delivered out of fuch a
ultitude of Books, but in a multitude of
ords?
And it is done already fo fully , that I
provoke the Papirts to anfwer the Cata-
logues and hiftoricall Evidence given in, if
they can. If you ask where, I wih now only
tell you of, 1. Blwdell againft Perron d*
Primatuin Ecclefiu fin French j that (hews
you the torrcne of Antiquity againlt the
Papal Soveraignty. i.Molindtus (in French)
de Novitate Papifwi againil the fame Per-
ron. 3. Bilhop Vfljer, defiatn &fnccejfiune
£a/f/w7W,andhis Aniwer to the (eiuuts
challenge.
w*
270 The fuccefshe Vifibilitj of the Churdf '
challenge. 4. Dr. Field of the Chun
who lib. 5. anfwereth Bellarmines alleg;!
tions from all fore of Antiquity, which ail-
their ftrength. I pafs by many others, fom|
of which I have named in the forefaid 3 .Dil
pute of the fafe Religion ; where alfo I hav
produced more of this evidence then the]
can anfwer. At leaft much more then yol
have returned me in your laft Paper for th'
contrary, to which I defirc your anfwer
For its in vain to write one thing fo oft.
I (hall only inftance in the currant Telli'
mony of their own Hiitorians , of the Bel
ginning of their Univerfal Hcadfhip* Said
Regino Chron.l. I . An. 808. p. 1 3 . [ Bonif*
cius obtinuit apud Phocam Principem^ ut (e*
des Romano, Caput effet omnium Ecclefiarum ;
quia Ecclefia Conft 'antinop 'lit ana primumft
omnium EccUfiarum fcribebat. ]
Hermanhus Contraftus, iVn. M. 45SO.
p 122. [H^c tempore Phocas Romanam Ec-
elefiam omnium Ecclefitrum Caput effecon-\
fiituit : Nam Conft antinop. primam fc ejfe )
fcripfit. 1
So MarianusScotusin Phoc. {_Bonifacitts
P 6j. impetravit a phoc a C a fare ut fedes
Apoftolica Romano, Caput ejfet Eccleji&fluum
antea Conftantinopolvs Primam omnium ft
fcriberet. ] The fame hath Sigcbertus Gem-
bloc.
$f which M are Members, proved. 271
u. An. 607. p. 526. And fo Cvmpilat.
hron. and many more.
Beneventus de Rambuldis Lib. A^gpfftali 9
thp 8. in Phoca [_Phocas ocrifor Mau-
ii ■ qui Primus conftituit, Quod Ec-
'fia cffet Caput omnium Ecclefiarum : Cum
ins Conftantin. fupnmum fe nominaret. '
ark here the \_ Primus Conftituit. [ So Be-
9 P.Diaconus 9 Anafiafiw, Pcmponius L<e-
/, &c.
And of the Novelty of their worfhip,
th P/atina in Gregor. 1 . £ What Ihould I
y more of this holy man / whofe whole
ftitution of the Church office , fpecially
e old one, was invented and approved by
m ? which Order I would we did follow :
en Learned men would not at this day ab-
>r the reading of the Office •" So
at here is all invented new by Gregory
which was hardly received in Sp^in) and
?t that changed fince.
Arg.9. If the Generality of Chriftians
the firft ages, and many ( if not mod ) in
later ages, have been tree from the Ef-
ntialsof the Papiits faith, then their faith
th hadnofucceilive Vifiblc < hurch pro-
fling it in all ages ., but the Chriftians that
:e againft it have been Vilible : But the
ntecedent is true ; as I prove in fome in-
ances. 1. It
a 7 1 The fuccefsive Viftbilitj of the Chnrd
i. It is an Article of their faith detef&i
mined in a General Council at Later -am ar
Florence, that the Pope is above a Council &
But that this hath not been fucceffively n
ceived, the Council of Bafil and Confian ko
witnefs, making it a new Herefic.
2. It is an Article of their faith, that
Generall Council is above the Pope : for
is fo determined at Bafil and Con fiance ; Bt it
that this hath had no fucceffive duratioi
the Council of Laterane and Florence wi
nefs.
3 . It is an Article of their faith, that tl
Pope may depofe Princes for denying Trai
fubftantiation and fuch like Herefies , ar
alfo fuch as will not exterminate fuch Her
ticks from their dominions, and may gr
their dominions to others , and difcharj
their Subjects from their oaths and fidelity
For it is<!et:ermined fo in a Council at£
terane : But this hath not been fo from tl
beginning: Not when the 13. Chapter 1
the Romans was written : Not till the day
of Ccnftantine : Not till the daycs of Gr
gerj that fpake in contrary language \
Princes; AndGoldafius his three Volura
of Antiquities (hew you, that there ha
been many Churches ftill againftit.
4. It is an Article of their faith, that tl
Bo<
cf which we are Members, proved. 273
[y and Blood, together with the Soul and
>ivinityof our Lord Jefus Chrift, is truly,
ally, and fuBftantially in the Euchariit,
id that there is a Change made of the
ihole fubftance of Bread into the body,
pd of the whole fubftance of Wine into
tc blood, which they call Tranfubftantia-
m. 3 So the Council of Trent : But the
ttholick Church tath been of a contrary
idgcment from age to age, as among many
thers, Edm. Albertintu de Euckarifi. hath
linly evinced ( though a quarreller hath
enyed it and little more ) : And its pro-
ed, in that fucceflively they judged fenfe
andReafon by it ) a competent difcerner
|f Bread and Wine.
5. It is now de fid? that the true Sacra-
lent is rightly taken under one kind ( with-'
fut the cup ) as the Councils of Conftance
>nd Trent (hew. But the Catholick Church
ith praftifcd, and the Apoftles and the
church taught otherwife, as the Council of
Zonftance, and their Writers ordinarily con-
Vs.
6. It is an Article of their faith (asap-
>ears in the Trent Oath) that we muft
lever take and interpret Scripture,
DUt according to the unanimous con-
tent of the Fathers 1 : But the Catholick
T Church
2 74 The [uccefsive Vifibility of the Church
Church before thefe Fathers could not be of
that mind : and the Fathers themfelves are
of a contrary mind ; and ^fo are many
learned Papifts.
7. It is an Article of their faith , that
there is a Purgatory, and that the fouls there
detained are holpen by the fuffrages of the
faithful. But the latter was ftrange to all the
old Catholick Church ( as Bifhop V/ber and
others have proved ) and the very beingoi
Purgatory, was but a new,doubtfull, indiffe-
• rent opinion of fomevery few men, about
AtiguftinesXAxne.
8. It is now an Article of their faith, thai
£ the holy Catholick Church of Rome is thi
mother and miftris of all Churches. 3 But!
have (hewed here and elfewhere, that tt*
• Catholick Church judged otherwife, andf<
doth for the moft part to this day*
9. It is now an Article of their faith,tha
their Traditions are to be received wit]
equall pious affe&ion and reverence asth
holy Scripture. ] But the Catholick Churs
did never fo believe.
1 o. The Council of Bafil made it de fitL
that the Virgin Mary was conceived witl
out Originallfin ; But the Catholick Churc
never judged fo.
1 1. Its determined by a Council now, tfc
of which we are Memhers^ prtvedl. 275?
the people may not read';the Scripture in a
known tongue without the Popes Licenfe;
But theCatholick Church never fo thought,
as I.have proved,!)///?. 3 .of thefdft Religion.
12. The Books of Maccabees andorhers
are now taken into the Canon of faiths
which theCatholick Church received notaa
fuch ; asDr.C^,andDr. Return his hare
fully proved.
To this I might add the Novelty of their
V/orfhip and Difcip line ^ but. it wotiJdbe
too tedious : and I have faid enoueh of
thefe in other writings. See X^uCktlloncr^
In 1 6. points Dr. Chalkner provethyour
Novelty from your Confeflions. Indeed his
Book de Ecclef. Cath. though fmail, is a full
anfwer to your main Queftion.
Arg. 10. If Multitudes ( yea the far
greateft part ) of Chriftians in all ages have
been ignorant of Popery, but not of Chri-
ftianity^ then hath there been a fucceffion of
Vifible Profeflbrs of Chriftianity that were
no Papilts: but the antecedent is true: there-
fore fo is the confequent.
In this age it is an apparent thing, that
the far greateft part are ignorant of formal
Popery. 1. They confels themfelves that
the common people, and moftof thenobi-
T 2 lity
276 The fuccefsive Viftbilitf of the Church
iity of HabaJfia^ArntenityGreece^RHjfta, and
moft other Eaftern Churches that are not
Papifts, are ignorant of the Controverfie.
2. They ufe to tell us here among Prote-
ftants, that there is not one of many that
know what a Papift is. 3 . We know that
of thofe that go und^r the name of Papifts,
there is not one of a multitude knoweth.
We hear it from tjic mouths of thofe we
ipeak' with : 1 have not met with one of ten
of the poorer fort 0f them, even here among
us, that knoweth What a Papift or Popery
is ^ but they are taught to follow their
Priefts, and to fay that theirs is the true
Church and old Religion, and to ufe their
Ceremonious worfhip , and to forbear
coming to our Churches, &c* and this is
their Religion. And in Ireland they are yet
far more ignorant : And its well known to
be fo in other parts : Their Pricfts they
know, and the Pope they hear of, as fome
perfon of eminent Power in the Church :
But whether he be the Univcrfal Vicar of
Chrift, and be over all others as well as
them,& whether this be of Gods ipftitution,
or by the grant of Emperours or Councils,
&c. they know not. And no wonder ,when
the Papift s think that the Council of v Chal-
ctdw fpoke falfly of the humane Origihall of
of which we are Members ^ froved. 277
the Primacy in the Imperiall territories: And
when the Councils of Bafil and Conftancc
knew not whether Pope or Council was
the Head.
And that the people were as ignorant and
much more in former ages , they teftifie
themfelves : And before Gregories dayes
they muft needs be ignorant ot chat which
was not then rifen in the world.
Yea Dr. Held hath largely proved, Ap-
fend. lib. 3 ihat even the many particular
points in which the Papifts now differ from
us , were but the opinions of a fa&ion
among them before Luther : and that the
Weftern Church before Luther was Prote-
ftant, even in thofe particular Controver-
fies • though this is a thing that we need
not prove. And as Dr. Potter tells them,
pag. 68. [_ The Roman Dodors do not
fully and abfolutely agree in any one point
among themfelves, but only in fuch points
wherein they agree with us : In the other
difputed between u$, they differ one from
another as much almoft as they differ from
us. 3 He appeals for this to BelUrmines
Tomes. Though I cannot undertake to
make this good in every point 9 yet tha:
proper Popery was held but by a Facti-
on in the Weftern Church , even at its
T 3 height
*?8
The [uccefsivcVtfibilit) of the Church
height before Luther, is eaiily made good.
He that readeth but tht Writers befon
Z^/ter, and in Hiftory noteth the defires of I
Emperours, Kings, and Univerfities, and Bi-|
ftiops, for ^formation of the things that
*wc have reformed, may foon fee this to be
Very true. It was Avltat Leges & con[uett4-\
dines Anglic ( as Reg. Hovedtn and Matth.
Paris in H. 2. fhew) that the pope here
Uamned , and anathematized all that fa-
voured and obferved them ( O tender Fa-
ther, even to Kings I O enemy of Novel-!
'ties/) The German Hiftory collefted by,
lleuberm, Piftcriu, Freheriu and GoUaftns^
ihews it as plain as day light, that a Papal!
Taction by fury and turbulency, keptunderl
the far greater part of the Church by force,]
that indeed diffented from them, even froi
HildebrarJs dayes till Luthers , or near.
jSauh the Apologia Henrici 4. Imperat. in
M-TreheriTow. i.'/f; 178. £ Behold Pope
Hi/delnr/jds-R\{i\o$s, when doubtlefs they
fire murderers of Souls and bodies' — iuch
as defervedly are calleld the Synagogue of!
Satan — yet they write, that on his and on
their fide (or party ) is the holy Mother]
Church: When the Catholick, that is, the
Univerfal Church, is not in the Schifm of
any iide, ( or parties ) but in theUniveifa-
s
Hi.
bar
i
ef which we are Members, proved. 2J9
- lity of the faithfull agreeing together by
yihefpirit of Peace and Charity . ]
of, And p. 179. £See how this Miniftcr of
the Devil is befide himfelf, and would draw
us with him into the ditch of perdition >
that writeth that Gods holy Pnefthoodis
with only 1 3 . or few more Biftiops of Hil-
debrmds : and that the Priefthood of all the
eft through the world are feparated from
, theChurch of God.-whencertainly,not only
. theteftimony of Gregory and Innocent \ bun
the judgement of all the holy Fathers agree
with that oiCjfrian that he is an Alien,
prophane, an enemy •, that he cannot have
God for his Father, that holdech not the
ityof theChurch: which he after de-
fcribeth to have one Priefthood. 3 Etp.iSi.
[But fome that go out from us fay and
write, that they defend the party of
their Gregory : not the Whole, which is
Chrifts, which is the Catholick Church of
Chrift.] And/?. 180. Q But our Adverfa-
ries ( that went from us, noc we from them,)
ufr thus to commend themfelves-- We are
theCatholicks, we are in the Unity of the
Church. 1 So the Writer calls them Catho-
Hcks, ana us that hold the faith of the holy
Fathers , that confent with all good men,
that love peace and brotherhood,— -us he
T 4 calls
i 8o the face f she Vifihilitj of the Churci
calls Schifmaticks and Hereticks , and I
communicate , becaufe we refift not t
King— -]] And p. 1 8 1 . [iftdore faith, Etj\
/ 8. The Church is called Catholick, becai]
it is not as the conventicles of Heretic]
confined in certain countries , but diffuf
through the whole world : therefore th
have not the Catholick faith that are id
part, and not in the Whole which Chr
hath redeemed , and muft reign wil
Chrift- " They that confefs in the Creel
that they believe the holy Catholick Churcl
and being divided into parties hold nottl|
Unity of the Church : which Unity , b
lievers being of one heart and one foul, pr<
perly belongs to the Catholick Church. SJ
this ApoL
One Objection I muft here remove, whi<
is all an<4 nothing: viz,. That the Armeni]
ans, Greeks, Georgians, Abaffines, and m;
ny others here named, differ from Prot<
ftants in many points of fairh •, and there]
fore they cannot be of the fame Church.
Anf. 1. They differ in nothing Effencia
to our Church or Religion, nor near th<
EfTence. 2. Proteftants differ in fome leffej
points, and yet you call them all Proteftand
your felves. j. I prove undeniably fron]
your own pens, that men differing in mat
ten
!cf wbicti voe are Members \ freved. i%
. crs of faith, are all taken to be of your
Church, and fo of one Church, (and there-
fore you contradift your felves in making
\ II points of faith to be EfTentials of the
|j Zhriftian Religion or Church. )
1. The Council of Bafil and Conftance
: iiffered de fide with the Pope and theCoun-
:ilof Laterane and Florence : They ex-
:xefly affirm their do&rine to be de fide,
I hat the Council is above the Pope, and may
lepofe him, &c. and the contrary Herefie.
i And Tighitts ( Hierarchy Ecclef. lib. 6. )
• faith, that thcfe Councils went [ againft the
'undoubted faith and judgement of the Or-
•thodcx Church it felf. ]
2. Their Saint Tho. Aquinas^ and moll
of their Doftors with him, differ from the
ifecond Council of Nice , in holding the
•Crofs and Image of Chriftto bcworfhipped
•with Latvia , which that Council determined
■ againft.
See more Arguments in my Key for Cath.
f. 127, j 28. and after.
I will now add a Teftimony fufficient to
filence Papifts in this point : and that is,
The Determination of the Theological fa-
culty of Paris under their great Scal,againft
one fohan. de JWontefono or din is Prddic* as
you may find it after the reft of the Errors
rejeded
2 8 z Tbt fuccefsivt Vifibilitj of the Church
reje&ed by that Univerfity, in the end of
Lombard, printed at Paris 1557. pag.426.
Their 3. Conclufion is, that Q Saint Thorn.
Aquin. doftrine isnot.fo approved by the
Church, -as that we muft believe that it is
i'n no part of it erroneous de fide ( in matter
of faith) or heretical!. They prove it, be-
eaufe it hath many contradi&ions, even in
matter of faith - and therefore they ought
not to believe it not heretical!. Here/*?/.
426,427. they give fix examples of his con-
tradictions; and therefore they conclude,
that though he were no Heretick (becaufe
nor pertinacious ) yet they ought not to be-
lieve that his dodrine was in no part hereti-
cal}, or erroneous in the faith. They further
argue thus ] If we mult believe his do&rine
not heretical!, &c. this fhould be chiefly,
becaufe it is approved by the Church. But
there is fome doftrine much more approved
by the Church then thedo&rine of S. Tho.
which yet is in fome part of it hereticall or
erroneous in the faith ; therefore The
Mi-nor they prove by many examples. The
firft is of Peters doftrine , Gal. 2. (I own
not this by citing it". ) Ihe fecond is of
Cjprian. The thtrd of Hizrom ^ and they
add , that the fame may be faid of Au-
gttfiine, and many more approved DoAors.
, The
of which rve are Members, proved. 2 S3
The fourth example is Lombard himfelf, who
they fay hath fomewhat erroneous in che
faith. The fifth is gratia*, who had he per-
tinacioufly adhered to hisdodrine,they fay,
had been a manifeft Heretick : And ( fay
they) fome fay the like of the Ordinary
Gloffes of the Bible , which yet feem of
greater authority then Aquinas. The fixth
example is of fome not Canonized Saints,
as Anfdm. Cantuar. Hugo de SanBo Vitte-
jy, and others, as authentick as S. Thomas. ]
" And ( fay they ) his Canonization , hiri-
dereth not, which fome pretend as of great
colour— --To fay that S. Tho. in fome part of
his dodrine erred in faith 9 derogates not
from h:s Canonization , nor from the ap-
probation of his Theological! doctrine •
even as to fay this of other Saints and chief
Dodors derogateth not from their Canoni-
zation or approbation, for as the Church
by Canonizing one a Saint, doth not there-
by approve all his Deeds , fo in approving
hisdodrine, it doth not hereby approve all
his faying* or writings, but only that which
is notretraded by himfelf, or corrededby
another, or defervedly to be correded as
contrary to truth.
And now when lathers, even the chief,
and your Saints and higheft Dodors have
this
*84 Thefneeefsive Vifibilitj of the Church
this Teftimony from the famous Univerfity
of PAris, to have fomewhac hereticall or
erroneous in the faith ( and fo who among
you is free ? ) I leave it to modefty to judge,
whether the Greeks, Armenians, &e. and
we, are not of one Faith, Religion, and Ca-
tholick Church , for all our differences in
fome points! Have you had all thefe Nati-
ons man by man before your bar , and con-
vinced them of pertinacioufnefs inherefie ?
If not, call them notHereticks till you are
willing to be called fuch your felves,and that
by your feives.
And thus I have evinced , i. That the
Church of which the Proteftants are Mem-
bers, hath been Vifible fince the dayes of
Chrift on earth. 2. And ex abundantly that
the Papal Church as Papal hath ncft been vi-
fible, and that Chriftian Churches without
Papal Soveraignty have been Vifible fince
Grcgories dayes , and the whole Catholick
Church was fuch before. And you fee bo Ji
in the EfTentialls, and in the freedom from
theRomifhVicc-Chrift, where our Church
hath been before Luther j even fince Chrift.
Sir, I have performed this task on this
fuppofed condition, that you will now do
the
, e f which we are Members, frwed. a8j
the like as to your own Church ^ and fend
me in folid Arguments your proof of this
Thefis.
t The Church of which the Subjetts of the
\ Pope are* Members, hath been Vifible ever
ftncethedajefcf Chrift on earthy
* Where note, that it is not the Visibility of
your Church asChriftian, United in Chrift
the Head, that is in Queftion .- We grant,as
Chriftians, all of you are of the true Chri-
ftian Church that deftroy not your Chrifti.
anity : But it is your new Church form, as
Papal, that we queftion, and renounce. Pro-
tettants are of no Church but the Chriftian
I united in Chrift • The name Proteftaitf fig-
nifieth not any efTentiall of their Church, -
but their Reje&ion of your Church as
Headed by the Pope ; You are therefore to
prove that your Catholick Church as
Headed by the Pope hath been vifible in all
ages.
. And here I muft in Juftice expeft,that you
give us fuch a Definition as you willftand to
through thedifpute, 1. Of £the Church]
2. Of T the Pope] and 3. [ OftheSub-
je&s of the Pope ] or £ Papifts. ] The
term £ Roman Catholicks ] would but
divert and elude : For it is not as £Romane3
that we oppofeyou, that i$^ as inhabitants
of
a 86 Thi [uccefsive Vifibility of the Chm
of Rome^ or as fubjedt to. him as a Bi(
of R§me : Nor is it as {_ Catholicks]
is, as of the Univerfal Chriftian Chur
but as £ Papifts] that is, £ fubje&s of
Pope as univerfal Soveraign, or Biftiop."
difpute of terms 'not agreed on 9 is .lor
bour : Define iirft, or you do nothing
find of your\yffters,fomeby theQChur
mean f the Pope 3 &s Gretfer Defenf.. cap
Ub.l*deVcrbo Dei,f*g. 1450,1451. [
the Church ( faith he ) we mean the Pop
Row*] and £ per Ecclefiam Papam'interi
tarn ur 1 Non abnno.~\ Some by Q the Chur
mean £ a Council Q and what they raear
[~ a Council ~\ I know not well. Andfc
mean £ the Roman Clergy] i. e. of t
Diocefs : And fome mean [ all the Cle
under the Pope : "J And fome mean [_ all
people that are his fubjeds. ] I have gi
you the Reafon of my doubting of y
meaning in thefe terms, in a Book come
.of thePrefs fince your laft to me, whe
have anfwered mod of yours.
2. Let me defireof you fuch proofs
in your own judgement are cogent. If
pofe fas I have there told you, Kej pa£.
cap. 12.) that none of you will takeeit
Senfe, Reafon, Scripture, the Traditior
judgement of moft of the Church fo.
fuffici
ef which rot Art Members ,f roved. iSy
efficient proof; but yet we will accept of
hem, when you argue but ad hominem : for
/e renounce them not. I think what ever
ou fay, that is not the Determination of
he Pope or a Council by him approved
'which is all one) you will give us leave to
radge that you are uncertain your felves
vhether you fay true in it, if de fide. Saith
SkjtlRtvius Afol. fro Bellf.rm.c. 6. p. 255.
The Popes Power is as the hinge, the foun-
dation, and (that I may comprehend all in a
word ) the fumm of the Chriftian faith.
Greg. Valer.t! And. fid. I. 8. c. 7. £ The
Authority that refideth in the Pope alone,
is called the Authoriy of the Church and
Councils.
[ Be liar, de Rom. Pont.L+.c. 3 . £ It is ap-
parent thax the whole firmnefs (or ftrcngth)
of Councils is from the Pope ^ not partly
of the Pope, and partly of the Council, ~
Binnius Vol. 2.^.515. faith £ Every Coun-
cil hath juft fomuch ftrength and authori-
ty^ the Apoftolike feat beltoweth on it/]
But I leave you to give us your own judge-
ment.
Your Teftimonies from Fathers can
feem of no great weight to us, while you fo
.flight them your felves as commonly you
do : with what lies, or Errors, or other in-
compe-
288 7hefuccefshe Vifibility of the Church
competency , you charge fuftin Mart.
Iren&us^ Tertullian, Origen, Viltorinnt, Cy-
prian^ Eufebim , Epiphanius , Prudentitts,
Hierom, La&antius^ Augufilne , Procopiusj
Tneodoret, Ifidore^ Enthymim, Soz,omen, Oe-
cumenitu, Bernard, and all the Fathers, fee
Dr. fames Corrupt, of Fath. Part. 4. />. 2,3^
Tell us therefore how far you credit them.
Sir if you refufe thus firft to explain youi
terms, and then prove the Vifibility of youi
Church, as Papal, fueceffively, as I have pro-
ved the Vifibility of the Church that I an
of, I (hall be forced to conclude, that yoi
love not the light, but at once give up you)
caufe, and the reputation of your impartia
Love of truth.
Addend* Mifccllanea.
C*0*cil. Ephef. i.in Epiftola ad Neftor
J Tom. l.fol.^i^.ed. Pet. Crab. £/V
trtu & Johannes tqualis ftint ad alterutrm
dignitatis^
Comment, in epifl. Synodal. Bafil.p. 31
& p- 40. Imprejf. Colon. 1613. faith thai
QThe Provinces fubjeft to the four grea
Patriarchs from the beginning of the Chri
ftiaci
§f which we are Members, f roved. 2 8p
Han Church, did know no other fupream
)'ur their own Patriarcks > . And if the
>ope be a Patriarck, in is by the Church • If
le be Head of all Churches 5 it is by the
church. And whereas we have faid thac ic
s exprefled in the Council of Nict\ thac
nany Princes were fubjeded to the Church
)f Rome by Ecclefiaftical cuftom , and no
)ther right-, the Synod (hould do the great-
jft injury to the Bifhop of Rome , if it (hould
ittribute thofe things to him only from cu-
}om, which were his due by Divine Right. j
This Citation I take from Bifhop Bwmhali,
having not feen the Book my felf.
The Popifh Bifhop of Ca/cedoff i Survey
cap. $. To us it iufficeth that th* Bifhop
of Rome is Saint Peters iuccelTour., and this
all the Fathers teftifie, and all the Cacholick
Church believeth ; but whether ic be jure
divino , or Immano , is-no point of Faith. ]
An ingenuous Confefiion dellroying Po-
pery.
See Aabert MWaus riotitia Epifcopxt.
where in theantient JVWr.and LettncUvitss
Record of Leo Philof. Jmpera. There are none
of the Abaifine , or other extraimperial
Nations under the old Patriarcks. Caf-
fander Epift. 37. D. Xinunio (operant
/>. 1 132. J faith of that learned pious, Bi
*<?o Thefuccefslvt Viftbilitf of the Church
fhop of VtdcntU MokIhcihs , ( fo highly
commended by Thuanns and other learned*
men) thathefatd ? Si fibipermittatnr in his
tribus capitibus QviZ. forma publicarum pre
cum,de ritikus Baptifmi , J* formh httcha-
riftia, five Afifa) Chriftianam formam ad
normam prifc* Ecclefi& Inftitutam legi, cen-
fidenfe quod ex quinquaginta will, quoshabet
infua. Dioectfi a pr&fenti dijciplina Ecclefut
dlverjes^uadraginta millia ad Ecclefiafiicam
xnionewfitreduElurus^ Thar is, If he had
but leave in thefc three heads ( the form of
publick Prayers, of the rites of Baptifm,
> and the form of theEuchariftor the MafsJ
to follow theChrillian form Inftituted ac-
cording to the rule of the Antient Church,
he was confident that of fifty thoufand that
he had in his Diocefs that differed from the
prcfent difcipline of the Church , he fhould
reduce forty thouland to Ecclefiaftical uni-
on/ By this teftimony it is plain that the
Church of Rome hath forfakenthe antient
Difcipline and Worfhip of the Church by
Innovation • and that tl e Proteftants dellre
the reftiiutionof it, and would be fatisfied
therewieh,but cannot obtain it at the Papifts
hands.
So Caffander himfelf, Epifi. 42. p. 1138.
£l wouid not defpair of moderation , ii
they
\
of which rve are Memhtrs^ proved, i p i
they that hold the Church poffeffions would
remove fome intolerable abufes, and would;
rcftorc a tolerable form of the Church, ac-
cording to the prefcripc of the Word of
God, and of theantient Church , efpecially
that which flourifhed for fome ages after
Conftantine , when liberty was reftored :
which if they will not do, and that berime,
there is danger they may in many places be
caftout of their poffeffions, ] Still you fee
Rome is the Innovator • and it is Rettitution
of the antient Chi.n h-:orm that would have
quieted the Protefta s, which could never be
obtained.
So again more plainly, Epifi. 45. p. 1 14 1 ,
U i When '
29 a Whether Her sticks are in the Church.
When I came to London^ I enquired af-
ter Mr. tfoknfon^ to know whether I
might at allexpeft any Anfwerto
the foregoing Papers, or not: And
at laft inftead of an Anfwer, I re-
ceived only thefe enfuing lines.
I^Ag- 5. parti. Touftj, I reply ft&, had
. not you defpairedof making good your
caufe, you du^l'd have gone by argumenta-
tion 5 t$?£&Ji had forced me to contradid
ibrn&a^^tibn principle.
Ki^lhave by Argumentation, forced you
tothitCifyou will maintain ^hat after j$h
fet <■ ajfert in divers parages, ( viz,. ) That
HereticKs are true parts of Chrifts Catho-
lick Church ^ for thus yon write p.ii. Some
are called Herecicks for denying points £f-
fential to Chrillianicy ; thofe are no Chri-
ftians, and fo npt in the Church - y but many
alio are called Hercticks by you , and by the
Fathers for lefler Errours confident with
Chriftianity • And thefe may be in the
Church : And p. 12. you anfwer thru to jour
•adverfary : Whereas you fay it is againll all
antiquity
Whether Hereticks are in the Church. 293
antiquity and Chriitianity to admit con-
demned Hereticxs into the Churchy 1 reply
firft, I hate their condemnation, rather then
reverence it •, where you faying nothing
againfl their Admittance into the Church ,
feem to grant it.
I therefore huwbly entreate you to declare
your opinion n.ort fully in this quefiion ^
Whether any prof 'ejfed. Hereticks , properly fo
called, are true parts of the universal vifiile
Church of Chrifi •, fo that they compofe one
univtrfal Church with the other vijible parts
of it.
Wilifam Johnfon.
The Anfwer.
ANfw. My words are plain , and di-
ftinftly anfwer yourqucftion , fo that
I know not what more is needful for the ex-
plication of my fenfe j Unlefs you would
call us back from the Thing to the meer
Namc, by your [ properly fo called,] you
are anfwered already. But I would fpeak as
plainly as I can , and if it bepoflibx for me
U 3 to
+9<t
Whether Hereticks are tn the Church.
to be underftood by you, I (hall do my
pare.
i. Itisfuppofed that you and I are not
agreed What the Vniverfal vifiblt Church it
felf is, while you take the Pope, or any meer
humane Head to be an effential part •, which
is an affertion that with much abhorrence I
deny. You think each member of that
Church muft neceffariiy ad ejfc, be a fubjed
-of the Pope •, and I think it enough that he
be a iubjed of Chrft •, and to his orderly
and well-being, that he hold local Commu-
nion with fhe parts within the reach of his
capacity, and be fubjed: to the Pallors that
arefet over him •, maintaining due affociati-
on with and charity to the reft of the more
diftind: members , as he is capable of com-
munion with them at that diilance. So that
when 1 have proved a perfon to be a member
of the Ca:holick Church, it is not your Ca-
tholick Church that I mean : No found
Christian is a member of yours ^ it is Here-
ticks ( in the fofter fenfe ) that are its mat-
ter. Its neceflary therelore that we firft
agree of ihe Definition of the Catholick
Church, before we difpute who is in it.
2. Your word [" Properly io called] is
ambiguous:, referring either to theEtymo-
Sogie, or to fome definition in an authentick
Canon ;
Whether Hereticks are in the Church, tp
: Canon • or to cuftom and common fpeech. \
I Of the firft, we have no reafon now to enter \
I controverlie : For the fecond , I know no \
fuch ftabliftit Definition that we are agreed
on : For the third , cuftom is fo variable
here, not agreeing with it felf, that what is
to be denominated Proper or Improper rrom
it, isnottobe well conj.&ureo. However
•all this is but de nomine •, and What is the
proper, and What the improper ufe of the
word Heretic k^is no Article of Faith , nor
necefTary for our debate. Therefore again
you muft accept of my diftinguifhing ,
fcnd give me leave to fly confulion.
i. The word QHeretick] is either fpo-
ken of one that corrupteth the Do Arine of
Faith ( as fuch ) , or of one that upon iome
difference of Opinion , or fome perfonal
quarrels, withdraweth from the Communi-
on of thofe particular Churches that before
he held communion with , and gathereth a
feparated party : fuch are molt ufually cal-
led Schifmaticks • butof old,thenam; [He-
reticks J was oft applyed un:o fuch.
2. The word £ Heretick in the firft
fenie, is either fpoken of one that ( pro-
fefling the reft ) denyeth fome one or more
efiential Articles of the Faith, or parts of
Chriftianity •, or one that only denyeth not
U 4 what
i g 6 Whether Hereticks Aft in the Chunh.
what is neceflary to the Being , but to th<
Integrality orlober and better-being of <
Chnftian.
3. Hereticks are either conviftand con-
'demned, or fuch as never were tryed anc
judged.
4. Hereticks condemned, are either con-
demned by their proper Paftors , or b)
ethers.
,5. If by others, either by Ufurpers^ or bj
meer equal neighbour confociate Paftors.
6. They are condemned either juftlj
clave non err ante , or unjuftly c Live er-
rante.
7. They are either judged to be material
ly,as to the quality of their errcur, Here-
tickj \ of alfo formally as obftinate, impe-
nitent and habitually ftated Hereticks.
Upon thefe neceffary diftin&ions, Ian-
fw srr your Queftion in thefe Propofi-
tions.
Trop. 1. As the word J~ Hereticks]]
figmhethSchifmaticksas fuch, fo Hereticks
wuh drawing from fome parts of the umV
verial Chuich only, may yet be parts of the
whole ( even with thofe parts from which
they feparate). If they fay £ You are no
parts, and therefore we difown you, and
will have no Communion with you] this
maketh
Whether Hereticks are in the Church. 297
maketh neither ceafe to be parts n and while
both own the Head and the Body asfuch ,
they have an union in tertio , and fo a com-
munion in the principal refpe&s, while they
peevifhly difclaimitin other reipe&s. Be-
sides that the local or particular Communi-
on, is it that is proper to members of a par-
ticular Church , and therefore the renoun-
cing it only feparates him from that Church.
jBut it is the general Communion that be-
longs to us as members of the Church Uni-
verfal, which may be ftill continued. But
(hould any renounce the Body of Chrift as
fuch , and fcparate ( not from this or thax
Church, but ) from the whole, or from the
Church Univerfal as fuch, this man would be
no member of the Church.
Pro^ 2. As the word (^Heretick 3 is
taken tor one that denyeth any thing eflen-
tial to Christianity - 9 fo an Heretick, if latent,
is out of the Church Deojndice, as to the
invifible part, or foul of the Church, (as Bd-
Urmine calls it ) as a latent Infidel is • bun
he may be (if latent ) in the outward com-
munion , or f as BzllarmiKc calls him) a
dead member , that properly is none •,
as the draw and chaffe are in the corn-
field.
I'rop 3. Such an Heretick convift and
judged
198 Whether Hereticks are In the Church.
judged by the Paftors of that paraculai
Church, of which he is a fubjeft-member j
is accordingly to be avoided , and in fort
illius Ecctefia , is fo far caft out of thai
Chu th, as the fentence importeth.
Prof. 4. Such an Heretick , if he be a 1
Paftor of one Church , and be convid: and 1
condemned by the confociate co-equal Pa-
flors of the neighbour Churches , is accor-
dingly caft out from communion of all thd
Churches, of which they are Paftors.
Prof. 5. So.farasany Chriftians through
the world have fufficient. proof or cog-J
nifar.ee of the faid conviction and condem-
nation , they are all bound accordingly to
eficem the condemned Heretick , and avoid'
him.
Prof 6. If £Here£e"] be taken for the
obftinate, impenitent refifting or rejecting'
of any roint of Faith ( ihat is f of Divine <
Revelation) which is made fo plain to the 1
perfon, that nothing but a wicked will could '
caufe fuch refftance or reje&ion , fuch per-
fons being juftly convifted and condemned
as aforefaid, are to be taken as perfons con-
demned for obftinacy and impenitency in
any other fin-, and are out of the Church,
as far as a man condemned for impenitency
in drunkennefs or fornication is.
Prof.
Whether Heretic fa are in the Church. 7.99
Prop. 7. Herefie taken in this fofcer
ife ( for thedenyal of a truth of Divine
/elation , not eflential to the Chriftian
rligion , or neceffary to the Being of a
inftian ) excliideth no man from the
lurch of ir felf , unlefs they are legally
nvift of wicked Isnpenitency and obffina-
in defending it.
Prop. 8. A fentenccpzffed in aliemforo 9
I an Ufurper that hath no true Authority
ereto , proveth no man an Heretick.
Prop. 9. A fentence paffed by an Autho-
red Paftor, ( or by many ) if it be noto-
oufly unjuft , clave erranre , proveth no
an an Heretick, or out of the Univerfal
hurch.
Prop. 10. A fentence paffed by one
hurch, or many confociate, binds Rone to
ke the condemned perfon to be an Here-
ck, and out of the Univerfal Church , but
lofe that have fufficient tiotice of the Au-
lority of the Judges , and validity of the
vidcnce , or a ground of violent pre-
emption ( as its called ) that the fentence
juft.
Prop. 11. He that isfcntencedanHere-
tck or Impenitent by the Pallors of fome
lurches, and acquit by thcequaliy-au-
homed Paftorsof other Churches, is not
90
3Q0 Whether Heretic ks are in we Chunk
eo nomine to be condemned or acquit I
third Church, but ufed as the evidence
quireth.
Prof. 12. There is an aftual excomr
nication^n? medela and pro tempore, due .
an a&ual, willful defence of error, or
other willful fin •, which ftatedly puts no
man out of the Church •, as there is an
communication afiatu & Relatione, whit
due for ftated habitual or obitinate
penitency in that or other great or kno
fin.
Having thus diftin&ly told you my jud^
rnent how far Hereticks are, or are not in
out of theuniverfal Church, I add in on
to the application: I. That this wh
debate is nothing to the great differed
between you and us, it being not defide*
your own account, but a dogma theologies
which you differ about among your ielvt
Bdlarmine tells#you Alphon]m a CaJ.
maintained that Herttickj are in the Cbur
(deEcclef. 1. 3. c. 4.) And he himfelf fa
that hxretici pertinent ad Ecclefiam ut c
adovile ande confngerunt, ibid. c. 4. fo tli
they are oves ftill, and if it be but evile pi\
tic alar e (yeluti Roman urn ) that they
from, and not the Vniverfal, that pro\
them not out of the Vniverfal Chun
A
Vbtther tiereticis dre in the Church. 301
d Bellarwine faith of the Catechumen. &
-xommHnicAtis, that they uredeamma^etfi
de colore Ecclefnt, ib. c. 2. and may be
fed, cap. 6. And the anima Ecclefia is not
.orporated in the world without .• All
it have that foul, are of that Church
lich Chrift ("that animateth his members)
:he head of. Which made MehhiorCanm
atente Bellarmino de EccL I. 3. c* 3.) con-
's the being of that which indeed is the
jeCatholike Church, faying of the Vn-
ftized Be/levers, that [funt de Ecclefia
t£ comprehends omnesfidcles ab Abel ufqut
\confttmmationem mxndi.]
2. Many Popes have been condemned for
ereticks, even by General Councils, as not
lly Honorius (by two or three) but Eh-
nins by the Council of Bafil, when yet he
fpt his place, and the reft come in as his
cceffors. And your writers frequently
mfefs that a Pope may be an Heretick (as
)pe Adrian himfelf affirmeth.) Now if
lele are not of the Church, then they are
x Heads of the Church, and then being
rential parts of your Church, it followeth
lat your Church is heretical and unchurch-
iwith them. But if thefe Popes may be
1 the Church (and Heads of yours) while
kreticks, then fo may others.
3. Its
■
3 % Whether Hfreticks are in the Church
3. Its commonly faid by others
yours) as well as BelUrmin: % that the Cq
cils were mifinformed about Honoriui, (;
the Popes that confented to thofe Counc
and fo that he was not a Heretick nor
of the Church : Alfo that a Pope may c
in matter of faft, and unjuftly excommq
cate. If fo, a Pope and Council may e
about another, as well as about Honorim
other Popes • and therefore their fentei
be no proof that fuch are outof the Chur<
no more then that he and Eugenins wi
out.
4. As the Pope and his Synods conder
the Greeks, fo the Greeks condemn and t
communicate you •, as formerly the Pat
arch of Conftantinofle^ and the Pope ha
excommunicated each other. I am therefo
no more bound to take them for excomm
nicate perfons, than you, they having
much authority over you as you over thei
and their witnefs being to us as credible
yours.
5. The Abajfmcs^ Armenians^ Greeks ,&
are not proved to deny any effential poi
of the Chriftian Religion , or which
ncceffary to the Being of a Chriftian 1
Church.
0. Nor are they proved to be willfi
obftiaa
Whether Here ticks are in the Church. 30$
bftinate and impenitent in defending
ny errors, with a wicked mind ♦, and fo 10
e formally Hereticxs in your own fenfe.
7. They are large Nations, and millions
f fouls, and their Paftours numerous, io
bat its impoffible they (hould be all legally
y you convi&ed, Th:y never fpake for
iemfelves, nor were witncfTes heard" againft
hem. Noxa caput faqnitur. Guilt of
fcrefie is to be proved of each individual
/horn you condemn. ]f a few Bifliop*
yercHereticks, or a Prince were fuch, that
jroves not that the reft, and all the Paftors,
>r people, even to many millions are fuch.
3r if half had been fuch in former ages,
hat proves not that half or any are fuch
low. Chrift never appointed the excom-
nunicating of millions for the fakes of a few
>f their Rulers, nor of whole Nations un-
ieard •, but of (ingle perfons upon a juft
ind equal tryal. lr therefore your Pope,
Or any of his Councils, (which you iaifly
call General) do excommunicate or con-
demn HabaJJia^ Armenia, Georgia^ Sjria^
and other Nations as Hereticks 5 it is (o iar
from unchurching them, or proving them
fuch, as hat it is one of the greateft iins
thac can be committed by the Ions of men,
With inhumane injuftice, cruelty, pride and
arrogancy,
304 Whether Hereticks are in the Church.
arrogancy , presuming to pafs a damning
fentcnce on fo many millions of fouls, whofc
faces you never faw, nor were ever called to
a legal try al.
8. Your own writers ordinarily acquit
the Greeks from Herefie ^ and thofe of them
that have travelled to other Countries, as
Syria^ &c. acquit moft of them, as I have
proved in former writings out of their own
words ( not needful therefore here to be
recited, when you may fee any writings.]
9. Your Pope (and Bifhops) is none of
their authorized Paftor, and therefore hath
no power as fuch to judge them. And as
neighbour Churches they have as much to
do to judge you as you to judge them.
Therefore they are never the more out of
the Church for your judgement, any more
than you for theirs.
10. There are as many and as great er-
rors proved by them to be in your Church
as is by you to be in theirs : fo that (in fum J
your caufe being much worfe ,. and yout
cenfure of them proving you guilty of fuch
inhumane cruelty , injuftice, arrogancy,
ufurpation, &c by condemning them, you
go much nearer «to prove your felvcs no
Chriftians and no Church than them;
1 1 . And yet I think the far greateft part
ol
Whether Hereticks are in the Church. 305
>fthem (many thoufands to one) are no:
iftually excommunicated or condemned by
my pretended fentence of your own, \
iver your writers may fay of them, and
vhatever one Council might fay of fome
: ew in fome one age.
12. Laftly, It can be no matter of cer-
:ainty to you your felf, or any of you, that
:hefe Nations or Churches are Here: ic as,
both becaufe it is. a thing that none of your
approved Councils have determined of, as
to any perfon now living, nor to anycon-
(Iderable number comparatively, in odier
jiges^ and alfo becaufe you confefs your
Pope and Councils fallible in chefe cafes, of
faft and perfonal application. You cannot
therefore build upon fuch acknowledged
uncertainties.
B lit Sir, having thus anfweredyour de-
mand, I mult ask you, whatsali thisco
the Anfwerofmy laft Papers, which lhave
now near a year expefted from you ? I
fufpeded fome fuch tcrgiVerfation , when
I took the boldnefs to urge you to hard to
the tasks that you were reafonably enr
to perform , viz. 1. To prove by clofe
Argumentation, the nullity of our Church,
X as
^oi5 Whether Heretich are in the Church.
as you begun in your firft Argument. 2. To
anfwer my proofs of our fucceffive viability.
3. To prove your own fucceffive vifibility
in all ages fince Chrift, as I have provea
ours. I do therefore once more urge you
fpeedily to do this, affuring you that elfe I
mult take it for an open defertingof your
Caufe.
But yet I muft add, that if you will pleafe
to difpute the main caufe in difference be-
tween us, upon equal terms •, we have yet
other Queftions in which we differ, that are
lower thenthefe, and nearer the foundati-
on. Befides the foremen tioned work there-
fore, I defire, that you will difpute the main
Caufe, in two diftind: difputauons, in one
of which be you the Opponent, and bring
your ftrongeft Arguments againit the Re-
formed Churches and Religion . and in the
other I will be Opponent and argue againft
Popery ^ in the beginning agreeing upon the
fenfe of thofe terms that we are like to have
greateftufe of through our difputation. II
you will but lee us meet, and ftate our fenfc
of fuch terms , before I return into th<
Country, that we may the better _manag<
it after at a diftance, it will be worth oui
labour : And for verbal difpute, I (hall a
an 1
Whether Hereticks are in the Churchl 30^-
any fit time and place molt cheerfully en-
tertain it, if fo many doubting perfons
may be prcfent, as that it may be worth
our labour. In the mean time I pray par-
don it , if the roughnefs of any paflages
difcover the frailty of
Tour Servant t
fwej* 1660,
R. Baxter,
X z
Mr." fohnfons
EXPLICATION
OF
Some of the moll ufed Terms
WITH
Q^ll ERIES
Thereupon •• And his Ahswes-
And my R e p x r.
v v
LONDON, Printed, 1661,
3 10
A Jeter the writing of the foregoing Paper \
I again urged Mr. Johnfon to the
(peedy anfwering my Papers : Of which
ythen he gave me no hope, I committed them
to the Prefs. But afterward , he feemed
were inclinable both to that, and to a Ver-
bal conference : And in order to both, ( if
we had opportunity ) I defired him firft that
we might agree on the fenfe of thofe terms
that are like to be mofl ufed in the [nbftance
cf our Contr over fie ; promijing him that I
will give him my fenfe of any term , when
he fhall dejire it ; and accordingly he ex-
plained hi* fenfe of many ef them m fol-
loweth.
I
Queries
.<!?*"
3™
Queries of %, 35. on thefe
definitions, with Mr. fohnjons
Anfwer, and my Reply.
Mr. J.
The Catholick Church of Chrift.
TH E Catholick Church of Chri/l is
alhhofe viftble Ajfemblies, Congre-
gations , or Communities of Chriftians ,
who live in unity of true faith, and exter-
nal communion one with another, and in
'dependance of their lawful Pajlors.
RB.
I Of the Church.
£fo. i. Whether you exclude not
all chofc converted among Infidels ,
that never had external Communion
with, nor were members of any par-
ticular vifible Church, of which you
X 4 make
312 Thofenfc ofthtmoftufed terms difcufi.
nuke the Catholick to be confli-
tuted f
AfK J.
Anfvv. Itisfufficitnt that fuch be fttbjett
to the fup ream Paftor, and in voto, quantum
in le clt , rejclved to be of that particular
Church a£l natty \ Vrhich fh+ 11 \ or may be affign-
edfer them by that Pafior, to be included in
my definition.
R.B. Reply.-
JS^i. Repl- *& ! m t. You fee then that
your Definitions fgnifie nothing : no man
can know your meaning by them. Firft you
make the Catholick Church to conliftonly
of vifible Aflemblies : and after you allow
fuch to be members of the Church that arc
of 1:0 vifible Aflemblies 2. You now
mention fubjeftion to the fupream Paftor as
fiifficient, which in your description or defi-
nition you did not. 3 . If to be only in voto
refolvvdtobe of a particular Church will
ierve, then inexiftence is not neccflary.
To be only in voto of the Catholick^ Church t
proyes no man a member ot the Catholick
Church, but proves the contrary , becaufe it
is Tern. inus d'minvens. Seeing then by your
own
Thefenfe of the mofl u fed terms difcuft.
own confeffion, inexiflence in a particular
Church is not of necefiicy to inexiflence in
the Catholike Church • why do you no:
only mention it in your definition , but con-
fine the Church to fuch ? will you fay you
meant invoto ? who then can underftand
you, when you fay they muft be of vifiblc
' Affemblies, and mean, the) need not be of any \
but only to wijb, defire or purpofe it ? 4. Buc
yet you fay nothing to my cafe in its lati-
tude. Many a one may be converted to
Chrift by a folitary Preacher, or by two or
three, that never tell him that there is any
fupream Paftor in the world : How then
can he be fubjeft to that fuppofed Paftor,
that never heard of him ? The Englijfj and
Dutch convert many Indians to the faith of
Chrift,that never hear of a fupream Pallor.
5 . If it be neceffary that a particular Church
muft be afiigned for fuch members by the
fupream Paftor, then they are yet little the
better that never have any fuch aflignation
from him (as few have.)
R. B.
gu. 2. What is that faith in unity
whereof all members of the Catholike
Church
3*3
3 1 4 The ftnfe of the mo ft ufed terms difcufl. ^ I
Church do live f is it the belief of ail
that God hath revealed to be believed^
or of part? and what part?
Mr. J.
Arfw. Of all j either explicitly, or im*
plicitly.
R.B. Reply.
Reply, Ad 2 m . Your fecond anfwer fur-
ther proves that your definitions fignifie juft
noching. They muft live in unity of the'
faith ; that is, either vrith faith or without
it : with a be lief of what Go J hath revealed
to be believed, or without it. For to believe
any point implicitly, in your ordinary fenfe, i
is not to believe it, but only to believe one of
thePremifes, whence the conclufion rauft be*.
inferred. But why do you not tell me what
you mean by [an Implicitefaithj ? Faith
is called Implicite in feveral lenies. i . Wfcerr
feveral truths are actually underftood and
believed in cohfufo, or in grofs, in fome one
propofition which containeth the fubftance
ot them all ^ but not with accurate diftind
conceptions, nor fuch as are ripe for any fit
expreffion : This indiftintt, immature, im-
perfett
the fenfe $f the moft ufed terms dtfcuft. 315
<feft kind ofapprehenfion maybe called
lplicite i and the diftinfl; and more digeft-
[ conceptions Exflicite. 2. When a
ineral propofition is believed as the matter
f our faith , but the particulars are not
nderficod or not believed : As to believe
lat owne animal vivit ■, not knowing whe-
her you are Animal or Cadaver. Or to
idieve that £all that is in the Scripture is
he Word of God and truej but not to
mow [what is in the Scripture]. 3. When
t is only the formal objeftof faith that is
relieved, without underftanding themateri-
*/objc&.
The firft fort of thefe, I confefs, is Attual
Belief \ though indlfiintt : But I fuppofe you
mean not this. J . Becaufe it is not the or-
dinary fenfe of your party. 2. Becaufe elfe
you damn either all the world, ormoftof
your own profeflcd-party at lead as no
members of the Church: for few or none
have an AElual understanding and belief 'of
all that ever God revealed to them •, be-
caufe all men (or moll at leaft) have been
finfully negligent in fearching after,and re-
ceiving truth • and fo are finfully ignorant •
No man knoweth all that God hath reveal-
ed, or that he ought to know. 3. Becaufe
by this rule it is impoftibie lor you or any
man
* 1 6 The ftnfc of the mo ft u fed terms difcufi I
man to know who is indeed a member 1>|
your Church - 9 for you cannot know met
confufed knowledge, or know that it c
tendeth to all revealed ; For if you fpeak
a\\ revealed in general^ or in Scripture, y<:
ftill damn all, (or moll in your own fenftl
for none, as I faid , underftand it all to
word: But if you fpeak of all which th;
particular man hath had fufficient means t
know, it is then impofiible for you to mat
a judgement of any mans faith by this : Fc
you can never difcern all the means (in
ternal or external) that ever he had - 5 muc.
lefs can you difcern whether his faith b'
commenfurate to the truth fo far revealed 1
So that by this courfe you make youi
Church invifible. I pray tell me how yot
can avoid it ?
2. The fecond fort of Implicite Belief, i<
no Belief of the particulars at all. An Anl
-mal may //w, and yet it followcth not thai
you are alive or an animal. If this were
your meaning, then either you mean "thai
it is enough if all be believed implicitly bo-
lides that general propofitionj ^ or yoi
mean that fome rauft be believed explicit l\
fthat is actually ) and fome Implicitly, (thai
is, not at all j. If the former be your fenfe
then Infidels or Heathens may be of youi
Church
leftnfc of the m$fi ufed terms dtfcufl. 3 1 7
rch. For a man may believe in general
[the Bible is the Word of God and
] and yet not know a word thats in it ;
fo not know that Chrift is the Meffias,
lat ever there was fuch a perfon. But
wewbat mult be explicit?/) ( that is,
wily) believed, the Queftion that you
ild have anfwered was, QWhat is it Q
till that be known, no man can know
[ember of your Church by your de-
)tion.
. If you take \_Imf licit f] in the third
e, then Implicit e faith is either Divine or
mane. Divine, when the Divine Vera."
is the formal Oh]ett. Humane, when
is Veracity is the formal Ob jeft. Which
/ be ConjunEi where the TefHmonies are
conjunct, as that we are fure it is God
t fpeaks by man ^ who is therefore crcdi-
pecaufeGod infallibly guideth or infpir-
him : This is at once to believe a Bh-
\%e and Divine Veracity. If any of this
pur meaning, the laft queilions remain
to be refolved by you. A man may he-
re that [God i$ true,] and that Qhis Pro-
fs or injpiredmeffengers aretrue^ and yet
ttmderitand a word of the meflage : fo
it ftill if this will ferve, a man may be of
ur Church that knoweth not that ever
tie e
3 1 8 The fenfe of the m$ ufed terms dlfcaft
there was fuch a perfon as Jefus Chrift,
thateverhedied for our fins, or rofe aga
or that we fliall rife. And are Infidels
your Church while you are arguing us ou
But if there be fome truths befides the \
racity of God (and his Meflengcrs ) tl
muft be believed, you muft (hew what it
or yourChurch-members* cannot be knov
Tell me therefore without tergiverfatk
[what are the revealed truths that m
aftualiy be believed]] or [what is the fa
materially, in unity whereof all members
the Catholike Church do live ? ] J pray
not, but plainly tell me.
And if again you fly to uncertain pin
becaufe of the diverfity of means of infi
mation, and fay, [It muft be fo much
every man as he had means to know]
gain anfwer you. i. If a man had no me
to know that there is a Chrift, it feems tl
he is one of your Church. 2. You ]
damn all your own, there being not a n
that knoweth all that he had means to kn<
becaufe all have culpably negleded me*
And fo you have no Church. 3 . Still )
make your Church invifible ( if you i
any : ) For no man can tell, as I faid, v
kpomth in full proportion to his hi
and means. Do you not fee now v
The fen feoftke mo (I n r ed terms difcnfl. y$
Sier your Jmplicite faith hath brought
ou?
R. B.
gu. j. Is it anj lawful Paftors. or
All, that muft neccffarily be depend-
ed on bv every member ? and who are
toefe Paftors i
Mr. I
Anfw. OfaU^refpeEiivelytoeachfubjeEl^
that is, that the authority of none of them,
mediate or immediate , be rejcBed or con-
temned by him, that is a true member of the
Church.
R.B. Reply.
Ad Jj>*. 3. R- Reply 1. Here ftill you
tell me that your delcriptions fignihed
nothing. You told me that the members
muft [Jive in dependance on their lawful
Paftors. j And now you tell me that f their
authority muft not be re jefted or contemn-
ed/] And indeed , is dependance and non-
re)ettion all one ? The millions of heachens
that never heard of the Pope or any of your
Pallors rejetl them not, nor contemn them :
Are
3*o Tht [enfe of the mojt u[cd terms difcufl.
Are they therefore fit matter for your
Church? 2. If you fay, that you mean it
of fuch only as have a fufficient Revelation
of the Authority of thcfc Paftors, I further
reply, i. It feems then it is not only the*
pope, but every Prieft refpeftively that is an
effential member of your Church •, or to-
whom each member muft be fubjed: neceffa-
rily dd ejfe. If fo, then every man that by
falling out or prejudice, doth culpably re-
jed the authority of any one Paftor or
Prieft among afwarm, is damned, or none
of the Church, though he believe in the
pope and in twenty thoufand Priefts be-
fides.
2. And then have we not caufe to pray
God to blefs us from the company of your
Priefts ? or at leaft, that we may not have,
too many, when among a multitude we may
be in danger of rejeding fome one, and
then we are caft out of the Church I What
if a Gentleman (hould find fome fuch as
Wdtfon or Montdtus defcribe in bed with
his wife ^ or a Prince find a Garnet, a Cam-
pion, or a Parfons in a Treafon, and by fuch
a temptation fhould be fo weak, as to con-
remn, or rejed theauthoricy of that fingle
Prieft,while he honoureth all the reft : Is it
pertain, that fuch a man is none of the Ca-
tholikt:
The fenfc of the mo ft ufed terms difcufl* 321
:holike Church for than ? How hard is ic in
Vrance and Italy then to be a Catholike,
erfiere Priefts are fo numerous, that its ten
:o one, but among the crowd the authority
[)f fomeone maybe rejected/
3. But is ic all the Priefts that we never
knew, or knew not to be Priefts, that we
muft depend on, or is it Only thofe whofe
authority is manifefted to us by fufficient
evidence? Doubtlefs you will confine our
dependance to thefe only for elfe no man
could be a Chriftian :) And if fo, you know
we are never the nearer a refolution for
!f bur anfwer, till you yet tell us how we muft
criow our Paftors to have authority in-
deed. What if they fhew me the Bifhops
orders, and i know that many have had
forged Orders ? am I bound to believe in his
authority ? what if I be utterly ignorant
whether he that ordained him, were him-
felf ordained ? or had intentiwem ordinandi ?
how (hall I then be fure of his authority
that is ordained > And how can the people
be acquainted with the paflages in Eie&ion
2nd Ordination that are neccflary to the
knowledge of their authority ? elpecially
of the popes and prelates. And what if
you tell me your own opinion, of the Suf-
ficient mttns by which 1 muft be convinced
Y of
3 * a The fcnfe of the mo ft ufed terms difcuft.
of the Popes and Priefts authority ? how *
(hall I know that you are not deceived ^
and that thefe are the fufficicnt means in- \
deed, unlefs a General Council have defined
them to be fufficient ? And if they have, if
it were not as an Article of faith, you'l fay
I am not bound of neceiTity to believe their
definition. And what if I have fufficient
means to know the authority of a thoufand
Priefts, but am culpably ignorant of it in
fome few through my negled: ? Doth it fol-
low that therefore I am out of the Church ?
Is my obedience to each Prieft as neccjflfary,
as my belief of every Article of my faith ?
If fo, I know not whether your multiplying
Articles, or multiplying Priefts, doth fill hell
fafter, if men muft be judged by your laws.
But it is our Allegiance to our Soveraign,
that is the chara&er of aSubjed in the Com-
mon-wealth, and not our Allegiance, or du-
ty to every inferiour Magiftrate ; the re-
jedion of one of them may ftand with fub-
jedion, though not with innocency :' It is
not treafon to rejed a Conftable ; why then
fhould more be neceflary to our Church-
memberlhip and falvation ?
But ftillyou make your Church invifible :
For as no man can know that liveth in the
- remote parts of the world., whether your
Popes
The fenfe of the mbfl uftd terns difcufl. 32$
Popes themfelves are truly Popes, as being
duly qualified and elefted, nor which is the
true Pope,, when you have oft had more then
one at once ^ foyou can never know con-
cerning your members , whether their de-
pendance on their Paitors be exrcnfively-
proportionate to the means that difcovered
their authority ? and whether their difo-
bedience unchurch them or no ? I earneftly
crave your anfw T er to the thirty uncertain-
ties, which I have mentioned in my Safe Re- '
ligion, p. 93, to 104. And tell us how all
our Paftours may be known. And whether
every particular fin unchurch men ? and if
not, why the contempt or rejection of a
drunken Prieft doth it, while all the reft are
(perhaps too much) honoured ?
R. B.
Jjhteft. 4. Why exclude you the
chiet Paftors , that depend on none?
; Mr. J.
Anfw. / exclude them not^ but include them^
as thofe of whom all the reft drptnd; as St-
Hierom does in his definition , Ecclsfia eft
plebs Epifcopo unita.
Y 2 Reply.
3 24 Iheftnfe of fht m$Jl ufed terms difcufl.
Repl. ad Reff>. ad £ueft. 4. How uncon-
ftant arc you among your felves in the ufe of
terms? How frequent is it with you to ap-
propriate the name of £thc Church] to the
Clergy ? But remember hereafter, when
you tell us of the Determinations, and Tra-
ditions of the Church, that it is the people
that you mean, and not only the Pa-
ftors in Council ^ much lefs the Pope
alone.
Mr. J*
Heretic
Is an inttSi final obftinate oppofithn
ugainft divine authority revealing, when
it is fufficitntly propounded*
R.B.
Of Here fie.
Is the opposition and obftinacy that
makes Herefie , in the Intellect ot
will ?
Mr. J.
Thefenfe of the mofi ufed terms difevft. 3 25
Mr. J.
In the Voill, by an imperate AH, reft rain-
ing the under ft anding to that errour.
R. B. Reply.
Of Here fie.
SI*. 1. Reply 1. Still your defcriptions
Kfignihe juft nothing. You defcribc Here fie
, to be An Intellectual obftinate Opfo(ition h
and yet lay that this is in the Kill. And yet
again you contradift your felf by faying
that it is an Imperate a£t. No Imperate ad
is in the mil , though if be from the will. It
is voluntary, but not in vol ant ate. An /#/-
per ant aft may be in the will, but not Impe-
rate. AW Imperate afts are in ( or imme-
diately by the commanded faculties J The
Intelligere, which is the Imperate aft, is in
i the Jntellett : though the Velle intelligere,
which is an Elicice aft , be in the will.
2. From hence its plam that you cannot
prove me or any man to be an Herecick thac
is unfeignedly willing to know the truth,
and is not obftinately willful in oppofing it r
which are things that you cannot ordinarily
Y 3 difcern
3 %6 Thejcnjt ef the mop u}<& terms atjeup.
difcern and prove by otters, that are ready
to be fworn that they would fain know the
truth.
R. B.
£1*4 2. Muft it needs be againft
the Formal eb]eft of Faith ? is he no
Heretick, that denieth the matter re-
vealed, without oppofing obftinately
' the Authority revealing?
Mr. J.
Anfw. Yes. Nor is he <* Formal, but only
a Material Heretic^ who opposes a revealed
Truth y which is not fufficiently propounded
to him to be a Divine revelation.
R.B. Reply.
Slib 2 - fopfy 2t Every man that be-
lieveth that there is a God indeed, believeth
that he is true : For if he be not True, he
isnotGW. If therefore no man be For-
malty an Heretick, that doth not obftinately
oppofe the Veracity of God, which is the
formal objeft, then as there are I hope but
few Hereticks in the world, fo thofe few
cannot
The fen fe tf the mojl ujed terms d/fcuft. 327
cannot by ordinary means be known to
you : unlefs they will fay that they take
God to be a lyar, fo that you make none
Hereticks indeed butAtheifis.
What if a man deny that there is a Chrift,
a Heaven, a Hell, or a Refurre&ion? and
alfo deny the Revelation it felf, by which he
fhould difcern thefe truths? and yet deny
not the Veracity of God, (no nor of the
Church ? ) is this no Heretick ? I would
your party that have murdered fo many
thoufands as Hereticks, had fo judged; (it
a falfliood may be wilhed, as a thing per-
mitted, to have prevenced fuch a mifchiefj
It is not Gods Veracity that is commonly
denyed by Hereticks, but the thing revealed,
and the Revelation of that thing ; And your
Tnrnebnl againft Baronim hath told you,
that the Revelation is no part of the
Formal obj^AOi faith, but as it were the
Copula, or a condition fine qna non. If he
that obftinately refufeth to believe that the
Godhead of Chrift, or the Holy Ghoft is
any where by God revealed, and fo de'nyeih
it, be no Heretick, unlefs he alfo obftinately
deny or refift the Veracity of God^ then
there are few that you can prove Hereticks,
(For forma dat nomen 5 and he that is not a
Heretick Formally, but materially only y is no
Heretick at all.) Y4 Laftly,
3 1 8 The fen ft of the moft ufed terms difeuft.
Laftly, many a truth is finfully negle&ed
by the members of the Church ^ that have
a propofal fufiicient, and yet not effectual
through their own fault : and yet they arc
no hereticks. Millions in your Church are
ignorant of truchs fufficiently propofed,
and therefore their ignorance is their fin :
but it followeth not that it is their Herefie.
But if it be, then Hereticks conftitutc
yourChufch- and then your Church is a
thing unknown • becaufe the Hereticks
cannot be known , the fufficiency of each
mans revelation being much unknown to
others,
N»
£u. 3. What mean you by a faff-
dent propofal ?
Mr. I
Anfw. / mean fucb a propofal at is fuffi-
cient in humanis, to oblige one to take notice^
that a King, or chief Afagiflrate, have eH-
a&edfuch^ orfuch Laws, &c. that it, a pub-
licly Teftithony, that fuch things are revealed
by the infallible authority of thofe who arc
the highefi Tribunal of Gods Church ^ or
h
Thefertfe of the moft ufed terms difeuft. 32^
by MtorioH* and miverfal Tradition.
R. B. Re fly.
Q*. 3. Reply 1. Inhumanu there lieth
jnot io much at the ftake as a mans falvation:
and man is not fo able as God to make a
truly fufficient revelation of his will to all;
and therefore the proportion holds not.
2. Bur if it did, either you think the /#$-
ciency varieth according to the variety of
advantages, opportunities, and capacities of
the perfons, or elfe that it confifteth only in
the a& of common publication, and fo is
the fame to all the fubjefts. If the firftbe
your fenfe (as I fuppofe it is J then ftill you
are uncertain who are Hcreticks , as be-
ing uncertain of mens various capacities,
and fo ofihefHJfic:encj in queftion. Unlefs
yon will conclude (with me) that thus you
make all Hereticks, as aforefaid • becaufe
all men living are culpably ignorant of fome
truths, which they had a revelation of that
was thus far fufficient. If the fecond be
your fenfe, then the fame unhappy confe-
quence will follow (that all 3re Hereticks •,)
and moreover, that fome of obfeure educa-
tion are unavoidably Hereticks, becaufe
they had no opportunity to know thofc
things,
£3 o The fenfe of the mo ft ufed terms difcuft.
things, which as to the Majority, arc of putr
lick^ tefiimony or miverfal Tradition. 1$
not the Bible, a publickTeftimony and re-*
cord, and being univerfaHy received, is an'
univerfal Tradition ? And yet abundance of
truths in the holy Bible are unknown, (andi
therefore not adually believed) by millions
that are in your Church, and are not taken
by your felves for Hereticks. Your be- '
friending ignorance would eife make very
many Hereticks.
Mr. J.
Pope.
$y Pope, I mean St. Peter, or any of
his lawful Succeflors in the See of Rome,
having authority by the Institution of
Chrift, to govern all f articular Chriftian
Churches > next under Chrijl.
R. B.
Of the Pope.
Jj>u. i .1 am never the nearer knowing
the
f ht fenfe tf the r*oft ufed term difcuft. 331
e Pope by this>till I know,howPeters
icccffors may be known to me.
rhat perfonal qualification is oeccflk-
adejfei
Mr. J.
Anfw. Such aj is neceffarj ad effe for
her Bifiops - 5 which Ifuppofeyon knoVr.
I R.B. Reply.
I Of the Pope.
SIh. 1. Reply. If fo, then all thofe were
10 popes that were Hereticks, or denied
iTential points of faith (as Johan. 23.) and
were no Chriftians •, and all thofe that
vantcd the necefTary abilities to the effen-
:ia!s of their work. . And fo your Church
nth oft been headlefs, and your fuccefCon
merrupted, Councils having cenfured many
Popes to be thus unqualified • And the
difyofitio materia being of it felf ncceffary
to the reception of the form, it muft needs
(follow, that fuch were no Popes, even before
the Councils charged them with incapacity
or Herefie ; becaufe they had it, before they
iwere accufed of it. And Simony then made
many uncapable.
R.B.
a 3 1, the fenfe of the mfifi ufed terms M feu ft.
R. S.
gu. 2. When and how rrraft the in.
fticuuon of Chnft be found *
Mr. J.
Anfw. In the revealed Word »f God, writ;
tetter unwritten. i
R.B. Reply.
£lu. 2. Re fly i. You never gave tht
world affuraace, how they may truly know
the meafure of your unwritten Word, noi
where to find it, fo as to know what it is,
2. Till you prove Chriffls Infiitmim (whicf:
you have never done,) you free us from be-
lieving in the Pope. I
R. B.
J$u. j. Will any ones ele&ion prove
oac to be Pope ? or who muft ele& him
sdefel
Mr. J.
Anfw. Such as bj approved cufiome, an
efieemed
t Tbtftnfe of tht mft nfed terms d'tfcuft ^^
faemed, bjthofe to whom it belongs, fit for
hat charge ± and with whofe election the
\hurchidfatUfied. -
[ R.B. Reflj.
£*. 3. Meflj. Here you are fain to
de your felf inftead of anfwering • and
lew indeed that a Pope ("chats made an
fential part of the Church • fub jeftion to
horn is made of neceffity to falvationj is
deed but a meer name, or a thing un-
iown ^ and fo can be certainly believed
[ acknowledged by none. For either
lettion of him (by fome body J is necefTary,
I not. If not, then you or another man
ichofen may be Pope, for ought I know,
: any man elfe. If yea., then it is either
y bodies Elelhon of him that will ferve
irn, or not. If it will, then you may be
>pe,if your Scholars choofe you,and then
)u have had three true Popes at once •, for
> many were Elctted. But if it will not,
len it muft be known who havh the Power
; Elettion, before it can be known who is
deed the Pope ; But you are forced here
fyour anfwerto intimate to us, that the
ower of jElettion cannot be known : and
tereforc the Pope cannot be known. For,
1. Here
534 Tb e f € n f e of the mo (I u fed terms dtfcufk.
i . Here are no determinate Eleftors men
tioned • and therefore it fcems none know
toycm : ^nd no wonder: for ifyoa con
fine it to the people, or to the Cardinals, o
to the Emperours, or to Councils, you cu
off all your Popes that were chofen by th
other waies. 2. Nor do you determine
any particular difcernable note , by whid
theEle&ors, and power of ele&ion may b
known to the Church : But all thefe parche
makeup your defcription. 1. It muftb
thofe that are efteemed fit for the charge
2. And that by thofe to whom it belongs
3. And that by cvftome. 4. And that af
proved. 5. And the Church mull be fatil
iied with the ele&ion. O miferable bod;
then that hath been fo oft headlefs, as Rom
hath been / 1. Will efteeming them fit
ferve turn though they be unfit ? then it i
not the fitne/s that is neceffary , but th
efiimatien, ("true or falfe .) 2. But why di<
you not tell us to -whom it is that it belong
to efieem the Choofersfit ? Here you were a
a ftreight. But is not this to lay nothin
while you pretend to fpeak ? and to hid
what you pretend to open ? 3 . And wfo
knows what cuftome, and of what continn
ance you mean ? Primitive cuftom went on
way ^ an£ Afterward cuftom went anothe
way
The fen fc of the mofl nfed terms difcnft. 335
ray - y and later cuftom hath varied from
oth • and hath the power of Ele&ion
hanged fo oft ?. 4. And who is it that
luft approve this cuftom ? and what appro-
bation muft there be ? All thefe are meer
iding, and not refolvingof the doubt, and
ell us that a Pope is a thing invifible or un-
;nown. 5. And your/^afTurethus, that
'our fucceffion was interrupted through
nany usurpations, yea indeed that you ne-
'er had a Pope. For the Church was un-
atisfied with the ele&ion of abundance of
four Popes, when Whores, and Simony, and
Murder, and power fet them up : And moft
)f the Church through the world is unfatif-
ied with them ftill to this day. And you
bavc no way to know whether the greater
part of the Church is fatisfied or not •, for
non-refiftance is no fign of fatisfaftion,
where men have not opportunity or power
to refift. And when one part of Europe
was for one Pope, and another for another
through fo many Schifms,who knows which
had the approbation of that which may be
called the Church ?
R.B.
$u. 4. Is Confecration neceflary ?
and by whom ad ejje ? Anfw,
3 $6 Tbefe/tfe of the moft ufed terms difcufl.
Mr.}.
Anfw. It is not absolutely necejfary a<
effe. 1
R. B. Reply. |
JJ#. 4. Reply. If confecration be not nc-
ceffary to the Papacy, then it is not necefl**
ry that this or that man confecrate him more
then another. And then it is not rteceflary
to a Bilhop. And then the want of it makes
. no interruption in fucccffion,in any Church,
any more then in yours.
R.'S.
s
gu. 5. What notice, or proof is
neceffary to your Subjefts ?
Mr. J.
Anfw. S* much as is neeejfary to oblige
them^ to accept of other Elttted Princes to be
their Sovereigns.
R. B. Reply.
£u. 5. Reply. When you have anfwered
to the forcmeotiuned ti s , we
fhall
thefenfe of the moft ufed firms difcaft. 337
fhall know whac that general fignirieth.
Mr. J.
Bifhops.
t mean bj Bijhop, fuch 4 chrlflhn
Paflor as bdtb power, andjvrifdtftton, to
govern the inferior Paflors, Clergy, and
-people within his Diocffc, and to coffer
hoi) orders to fuch as are f abject to btm*
R. B.
Of Bijhtp.
g*. 1. Do you mean, that he mutt
have this jure divino or hurmnot and
if jure divino , whether mediately or
immediately i
] Mr. j;
Anfw. The definition abftrafts from par-
ticulars , and ftbfifts Without determining
that qneftion.
338 Tbefenfe of the mft ufed terms difcufi.
R,B. Reply.
Of Bifhop.
«££//. r. Repl. i. You before feem to
yeild that the Papacy is but jure hnmano •,
('and therefore fiire of no neceffity tofalva*
tion : ) For if man can change the power of
ele&ion,and the foundation be humane, its
like the relation is but humane. And there-
fore if Bifhops nuift be jure divino, they are
more excellent and neceffary then the Pope.
2. How grofs a fubterfugeis this? either
the Bifhop in queftion is a divine creature
or a humane : If a divine •, as you may ma-
nifeft it, or cxprefs it at leaft, fo you ought j
it being no Indifferent thing to turn a divine
office and Church into an humane : If he
be not Divine^ he is not of neceffity to a
divine Church, nor to falvation. And yet
thus your R. Smith Bifhop of Calcedon (ubi
fupraj confefleth it to be no point of your
faith, that the pope is St. Peters fucceflbr
jnredivino. And if you leave it indifferent
to be believed, or not, that both your Pope
and Biftiops are jure divino % you confefs you
are but a humane policy or fociety, and
therefore that no man need to fear the lofs
< x his fatoation by renouncing you.
The fenfe of the mojtu}ed terms difcufl. $% 9
R. B.
£u. i. How (hall we Vnow who
hath this power ? what Ele&ion, or
Confecration is neceflary thereto f It
I know not, who hath it, I am never
the better.
Mr. J.
Anfw. As you know, who hath Temporal
Power , bj anuniverfal y or mofi common con-
fent of the people : The Elettiw is diff. rent
according to different times, places , and other
cir cum fiances. Epif copal Confecration unot
aJpfolutely nectjfarj.
R.B. Reply.
j£*. 2. RepL i. How now! Are all the
mylteries of your fucceffion and miflion
refolved into Popular Confent ? Is no one
way of Elettion neceflary ? Do you leave
that to be varied as a thing indifferent f
And is Epifcopal Confecration alfo unne-
ceflary ? I pray you here again remember
then, that none of our Churches are dif-
abled from the plea of a continued fuc-
Z 2 ceflion,
340 the fenfe of the mojt nftd terms difcuft.
ceflion, for want of Epifcopal Confecration,
or any way of Eleftion -, If our Paftors have
had the peoples confenc , they have been
true Pallors, according to this reckoning ;
And if they have now their content, they are
true Paftors. But we have more.
2. By this rule we cannot know of one
Bifhop of an hundred whether hebeaBi-
ihop or no ^ for we cannot know that he
hath the Common confent of the people : yea
we know that abundance of your Biftiops
liave no fuch confenc : yea we know that
ycur pope hath none of the fonfent of moil
of the Chriftians in the world -, nor (for
ought you or any man knows,) of moil in
TEurope. Its few of your own party that
jknowwho is Pope, (much lefs are called to
Confenc J till after he is fectled in poffef-
fion.
3. According to this rule, your fuccefii-
ons have been frequently interrupted, when
againft the will of general Councils, arid of
the far greateft pare of Chriftians, yo\ir
Popes have kepc the feac by force.
4. In cemporals yoar rule is not univer-
fally truer What if tire people be engaged to
one Prince, and afterward break their vow,
and confent to allfurper? Though in this
cafe a particular pcrfbn may be obliged to
fubmif-
Thefenfc of the moft ufod ttrms difcufl. 3 4 1
fubmiilion and obedience in judicial admi-
nistrations ^ yet the ufurper cannot thereby
de/endhis Right, and juftifiehispofleffion,
nor the people juitifie their adhefion to
him, while they lye under an obligation to
difclaim him, becaute of their preengage-
ment toanocher. Though fome pare of the
truth befoundinyourafleirion.
R' B.
£u. 3. Will any Diocefs ferve *i
effe 1 what it it be but in particular Af-
iemblies '.
Mr. J.
Anfw. It muft be more then a Parifb^ cr
then one Jingle Congregation t which hath not
dijfercn; inferior Pafiors f and one, tvho is
their Superior.
R.B. Reply.
J^. 3. Repl. This is but your naked
affirmation. I have proved the contrary
from Scriptures, Fathers, and Councils in
my difpuiation of Epifcopacy, viz,, that a
Bifhopmaybe (and of eld ordinarily was)
over the Presbyters only of one parifh,or
Z 3 fingte
34* The fenfe tfthe mofl ufed terms difcuft.
(ingle Congregation, or a people no more
numerous then our Parifties. You muft
fhew us fome Scripture, or general Council
for the contrary before we can be fare you
here fpeak truth. Was Gregory Tbauntatur-
gus no Biftiop, becaufe when he came firlt to
Neoctfared, he had but feventeen fouls in
his charge ? The like I may fay of many
more.
Mr. J.
Tradition.
/ under {land by Tradition thevifible
deliver) from hand to handtn all ages^ of
the revealed Word of God> either mitt en ^
tr unwritten.
R. B.
Of Tradition.
gu. i. But all the doubt is, by
whom this Tradition that f s valid, muft
be By your Paftors, or people, or
both ? By Pope, or Councils, or Bi-
fliops disjunft r By the UHajor part of
the
The fen fe of the mo (I ufed terms difeufl. 343
the Church, orBifhops (or Presbyters)
or the Minor ? and by how many ?
Mr. J.
Anfw. By fuch and fo many proportion*
ably, as /office in a Kingdom to certifie the
people, rvhkh are the Ancient miverfallj re-
ceived customs in that Kingdom, which is to
be morally conjidered.
R.B. Reply.
Of Tradition.
Oh. 1. Repl. I confent to this general. {
But then. 1. How certainlv is Tradition
againft you, when moft of the Chriftian
world, yea all except an interefTed party,
do deny your Soveraignty, and plead Tra-
dition againft it ? And how lame is your
Tradition, wh:n its carried on your private
•affirmations, and is nothing but the unpro-
ved layings of a Sed !
R. B.
Qu. 2 What proof, or notice of ir 3
muft fatisfic me m particular, that it fo
paft i
Z 4 Mr. J.
3 44 Tfo f en ( e tf the mop uft d terms difcttfl.
Mr. J.
Anfw. Such, as with proportion isafuffi-
cient proof, or notice, of the Laws and cnfiomt
cf umporal Kingdoms.
R. B. Reply. ]
£Im. 2. RepL But is it ncceffary for eve-
ryC'hnfiian,to be able to weigh the credit of
contradi&ing parties, when one half of the
world faith one thing, and the orher ano-
ther thing ? what opportunity have ordina-
ry Chnltianstb compare chem, and difcern
tne mor$l advantages on each fide? As in
the cafe of the Popes Soveraignty , wher
two or three parts of the Chriftian world i
againft it , and the reft for it, can privati
thnftians try which party is the mon
credible ? Oris it neceflfary to their fa!va«
tion ? If fo, they are caft upon unavoidabl<
defpair. If not, mult they all take the
words of' their prefent Teachers ? Then
moft of the world muft believe againft you,
becaufe moft of the Teachers are againft
you: And then it feems men? faith is re-
folved into the authority of the Parifh.
prieftor their Confeflbrs. The Laws of a
Kingdom maybe eafier Jcnown, then Chri-
ftian
The fenfe of the mofi ufcd terms difcnfl. 345
Han doftrines can be known, (efpecially
iich as are controverted among us) by meer
inwritten Tradition. Kingdoms are of
larrower compafs then the world : And,
:hough the fenfe of Laws is oft in queftion,
yec the being of them is feldom matter of
controverfie ^ becaufe men converfing con-
ftantlyand familiarly with each ocher, may
plainly and fully reveal their minds -, when
God chat condefcendeth not to fuch a fa-
miliarity, hath delivered his mind by in-
fpired perfons long ago, with much lels fen-
fible advantages, becaufe ic is a life of faith
that he direð us to live.
: Mr. J.
General Council.
■
^general Council, 1 take to be, an
afjcmbly of Btfhcps and other chief Pre-
lates, called, convened, And confirmed, hi
tbofe who have juffcicnt Spiritual autho-
rity to call, convene, and confirms
R. B.
Mr. J.
* 46 Tht fenfe of the mfifi ufedterms difcuft,
R. B.
Of a General Cornell.
gu. 1. Who is it (ad effe) that muft
call, convene, confirm it i till I know
that, I am never the nearer knowing,
what a Council is $ and which is one
indeed.
Anfw. Definitions abftratt from inferior
fubdivifions. For your fatisfattion I affirm,
it belongs to the Bijbop of Rome.
R.B. Reply.
£lu. 1. Repl. 1. If it be neceflary to the
being or validity of a Council that it be cal-
led or confirmed by the Pope, then your
definition (ignificth nothing, if you abftraft
from that which is fo neceflary an ingredi-
ent, unlefs it were prefuppofed to be un-
derstood. 2. If it belong to the Biftiop of
Rome to call a Council as neceflary to its
being, then theHrft great General Council,
and others following, were none j it being
certain that they were not called by him.
And
Thefenfe of the aw/? ufed terms difeuft.
md as certain that he hath never proved
ny fuch authority to call them, or confirm
dem.
R. B.
gu 2. Muft it not reprcfent all the
^atholike Church i Doth not your
)efinition agree to a Provincial, or
he fmalleft Council i
Mr. J.
Anfw. Yes, my Definition fpeakj JptcifL-
a fly of Bifafs and chief Prelates, as contra-
] ifiin£l from inferiuur Paftors and Clergy ,
} nd thereby comfrifes all the Individuums
ontained in the Species •, and confequently
na^es a diftinttion from National \ orfarti^
ulur Councils , where forr.e Bijhops only are
onvened y not all •, that being only fo me fart m
md not therfhqle Species, or fpecifical Noti-
n allied re Bifaps of every age. And yet J
aid not all Bifhops, but Bi(hopsand chief
delates •, becaufe though all are 'to be called^
] et it is not ncceffary that all fhonld come.
vhence appears whst I am toanfwtr t$ the
nxt two Qmftitns.
R.B.
$48 The[en[e of the mojl nfed terms dtfcnfi.
R.B. Reply. tj
-^£. 2. jfc?/>/. i. Then you have had no
General Councils-, much lefs can have any
more.- For you have none to reprefent the
greateft pare of the Church, unlefs by a
mock reprefentation.
2. If all muft be called, your Councils
have not been General, that callM not a
great part of the Church.
3 . If mo ft are neceflarily detained (as by
diftance, the prohibition of Princes, &c!)
the call made it not their duty to be there,
and fo makes it not a General Council ^
which is fo called from the generality of the
meeting and reprefentation, and not of the
invitation : no more then a Call would
make it a true Council if none came.
R. S.
£0. 3. ' How many Bifliops, and
from what parts muft (ad effe) make
(uch a Council ?
Mr. J. '
Anfw. The number is morally to be con-
Jtdered, more or ft war according to the difficul-
ties
7 he fen fe of the mofi nfed terms difctft. 3 49
'es of times, di fiances of place, and other dr-
um ft antes •, at is alfo the farts, from whence
he j are to come.
R.B. Reply.
JJ#. 3. Repl. This is a put-off for want
>f an Anfwer. Is it a Council if difficul-
ies keep away all ? If nor, it can be no
General Council, when difficulties keepa-
vay i he mofi. Much lefs when fuch a petty
:onfedefacy as mecatTrent, (hall pretend
:o reprefent the-Chriftian world. You
:hus leave us uncertain when a Council is
Deneral,and when not. How can the people
tell, when you cannot tell your felf, when
the Bifhops are fo many as make a Council
General /
R. B.
Jgv. 4. May none but Biihops and
chief ^relates be members^ as you lfl-
timate ?
Mr. J.
Anfw. No others -, anlefs fnch inferiors
as arefent to (apply the places, *:nd as Dtpnties
ofthofe Bifhops or Prelates, are fnch members
5 jo rhefenfe of the nsofiufed terms difcufl.
ef the Council , as have Decifive votes i*
framing Decrees and Definitions.
R.B. Reply.
£>*; 4. Kepi. This is but your private
opinion. No Council hath defined it, unlefs
they are contradiftory. Fori fuppole you
know that Bafil and many Councils before
it had Presbyters in them.
Mr. J.
Schifm.
1
/ under (land by Scbifm, a will full fc
par at ion, *r iivifion of ones (elf from tbt
whole vifible ChvrtbtfChrift.
R. B.
- Of Schifm.
gu. i. Is it no Schifm to feparati
from a particular Church, unlefsfron
the whole t 1
Mr. J.
Anfwt Nq- 7 it is no Schifm, us Schifm i
ttkfi
The fen fe of the mtfk ufed terms difc ufl. 3 y*
taken in the Holy Fathers, for that great and
capital crime , fo feverely cenfured by them j
in Which fenfe only I take it here.
R B. Re fly
Of Schifm.
Jj>u. 1 . Repl. Though I take Schifm more
comprehenfively, and I think, aptly my felf,
yet hence I obferve your juftification of the
Proteftants from the charge of Schifm h fee-
ing they feparate not from the Catholikeor
whole Church ; "For they feparate not from
the Armenian, Ethiopian, Greek, &c. nor
from you as Chriftians, but as fcandalous
offenders, whom we are commanded to a-
void. We feparace not from any, but as they
feparate from Chrift.
-R. B.
gu. 2. Or is it no Schifm, unlefs
willfull ?
Mr. J.
Anfw. No-, it is not Schifm, unlefs the fe-
paration be WiUfnll on his f*rt who makes it.
R.B.
J5* 7<W fcnfe of the mofi u fed terms difcufl.
R. B. Reply.
^u. 2. Repl. Again you further juftifu
us from Schifm. If it be Wi/lfull, it mull bd
againft knowledge. But we are fo far from;
feparating willfully or knowingly from the
whole Church, that we abhor the thought of
fuch a thing, as impious and damnable.
R. B. •
£>* 5. Is it none, if you make a
Divifion in the, Church, and not from
the Church?
Mr. J.
A rifw. Not , as we here under fi and Schifm,
andas the Fathers treat it. For the Church
ofChrift being perfectly, en e i cannot admit of
fi'/iy proper Schifm within it felf: for that
would divide it into two •, which it cannot be.
R.B. Reply.
j£/f. 3. Repl. Though I am Aire Paul calls
it Schifm, when men make divifions in the
Church, though not from it ^ not making it
two Churches, but diflocating fome mem-
bers, and abacing charity, and caufing con-
tentions
thefenfc of the mo (I ufed terms difcnfl. 353
tentions where there fhould be peace ^ yet I
accent your continued juftification of us,
who if we fhould be tempted to be dividers
in the Church, fhould yet hate to be dividers
from it j as believing that he that is iepara-
ted from the whole body, is alfo feparated
from the Head.
Mr.],
Sir,
The TVf.nt of a Scribe hath forced me to fail
a little in point of tithe', hut I hope yon will
exeufe him, who dejirestoferve you,
w. J.
JuneiiX it 60.
R. B.
. Sir,
ZJrgent unavoidable bufinefs conftrained
me to delay my return to your folutions , or
explications of your definitions , till this
June 29. 1660.
When you defire me to anf^oer any fuch
JHZueftionSj or* explain any doubtful paff^ges
3 54 The [enfe of the mft u(ed terms difcuji.
of mine, I fh all willingly doit. In the mean
time you may fee, while your terms art fiili
unexplained, andyour Explications or Defi-
nitions fo infignificant, how unfit we are to
proceed any further in dilute, till we better
under ft and each other, as to our terms andfub-
je£l : which when you have done jour part to,
I Jhall gladly, if God enable me, go on with' you,
till we come (if it may be) to our de fired iffue.
But ftill J crave your performance of the
double task^you are engaged in.
Richard Baxter.
zAppen*
w
appendix.
HPHe moft that I here faid againft the/kr-
** ceffive Viftbilitj of our Churchy is re-
duced by them to the point of Ordination.
They fay,**'* can have no Church without Pa-
flors:noPaftors withe ut Ordinztion^and no Or-
dination but from the Church of Rome :
therefore when we broah^ off from the Church
of Rome, we interrupted our fuccejjion^ which
cannot be repaired but by a return to them*
This isthefum ofmoft of their difcourfes,
in what (hape ioever they appear. To which
] anfwer.
i. As [_a Church^ is taken for a Commu-
nity tf Chriftians, which are really members
of the Church univerfal, foitmay^ effebz
without Paftors. Eut the Catholike Church
can never be -without them ; nor yer, any
true Political , organized , particular
Church.
2. It is contrary to the Pap lis own opi-
nion that Ordination of their particular
Paftors, is neceflary to the being of a true
particular Church. Bellarrr.ine granteth
{Lib, 3. deEcclef. c. 10.) that it is indeed
A a 2 to
to us uncertain that our Pallors have /><tf?/?d-
tern ordinis & jurifditlionis ^ and that we
have but a moral certainty that they are true
Bifhops ; though we may know that they
hold Chrifts place, and that we owe them
obedience 5 arid that to know that they are
Our Pstflors, non rcquiritur nee fides, nee
Character Ordinis, nee legitima eleftio^ fed
folum ut habeantur pro talibus ab Ecclcjia.
£i. e. It isnotrecjuiftte^ that they have faith^
or the Char abler of Order, or lawful eleUion ^
but only that they be taken for fuch by the
Church. ] And if it be enough that their
Church repute their Pallors to be ele&ed,
ordained, and believers,though they are not
fo indeed • then can no more be neceffary
to ours. We repute ours as confidently to be
lawfully eletled and ordained as they do
theirs.
3. It is contrary to the Papifls own opi-
nion, thu any ConfecratUn (much lefsC*-
nonical) is neceffary to the being of their
Vnivcrfal Head. I need not cite their
Authors for this ^ as long as you have
1. The Hiftory of their Practices : And
2. The confeiiion of this learned man that
I difpute wirh, in the explication of the
:erm£Pop<fl in thefe his lall Papers. And
that which is not neceflary to their Pope,
cannot
Appendix. 357
cannot by them be made neceflary to our
Bifhops.
4. Nothing in Church Hiftory more cer-
tain, then that the Church oiRome hath h?d
no continued fucceflion of a truely elefted
or ordained Pope according to their own
Canons* 1 . If Infidelity or Herefie judged
by a Council (in the cafe of Hoxorifu, fob.
23. Eugtnitu^ &c.) will not prove a nullity
and intercifion. 2. If Simony , Murder,
Adultery, &c. will not prove it. 3. If a-
bout fourty years Schifmc at once will not
prove it.* none knowing who was the true
Pope, but by the prevalency of his fecular
power • and their writers confeffing that ic
is known to none but God. 4. Ifinrrufion
without any juft election will not prove it •
Then there is no danger to thofe Churches
that art lyable to no fuch accufations. But
if any or all of thefe will prove it, the Roman
intercifion is beyond difpute, as I (hall fur-
ther manifeft on any juft call, if it be de-
nycd.
5. The flanding L^rv and Inftitution of
Chrift, is it that gives the Power (by impo-
fing the duty) of Miniftration : and Ordina-
tion only determineth of the per/on that
fhall receive it (together with election,) and
foleranizeth it by Inveftiture : as Corona-
Aa 3 tion
35$ Appendix.
tion to a King, that is a King before.
I have already proved that an uninterru-
pted [ticcejfion of Regular Ordination is no
more neceflary to the being of a Church,
then uninterrupted fuccejfion of Regular
Coronation is to the being of a King or King-
dom: which I am ready to make good.
6. This whole cafe of Ordination I have
already fpoken to (fo carefully and fully ac-
cording to my meafure) in my fecond Di-
fpute of Church Government , that I fhall
fuppofe that man hath faid nothing to me,
requiring my reply, on this point, that doth
not anfwer that. And to write the fame
thing here over again, cannot fairly beex-
pe&ed.
7. Voetim de deffierata caufa Pafatw,
hath copioufly done the fame againft fanfe-
nins, which they fhould anfwer fatis&ctorily
v before they call for more.
8. The Nullity which they fuppofe to
make the Intercijion , is either the Ordina-
tion we had from the Pafift Bifbops before our
Reformation, or the Ordination that Vve re-
ceived fince. If the former be a nullity, then
ail the Papifts Ordinations are null-, andfo
they nullifie their Church and Miniftry.
That the latter is no nullity, we are ready to
make good againft any of them all.
Objed.
Objeft. But if you own jour Ordination
as from the Church of Rome, you own their
Church.
Anfw> We confider them, 1. 'As Chri-
ftian Pafiors. 2. As Popijh Pafiors j As
Chriftian Paftors in the Cathoiike Church,
their Ordination is no more a nullity than
their 'Baptizing, ("which we count validj
But as Popijb, they have no authority for ei-
rher. Objeft. But they gave both Baptifm
and Ordination as Papifts , and it mufi be
judged of by the intention ef the giver, and
receiver. Anfw. It is che Baptifm and Or-
dination of Chrifis Inftitution^asfucb, which
was pretended to be given and received :
Could we prove that they Adminiftred any
other or otherwife, they fay they would dif-
own it : Asfuch therefore we muft take it,
till we cart prove that they deftroy the very
eflence of it. If it be given and taken
fecondarily as Popifb the fcab of their cor-
ruption polluteth it, bur not nuIlifUth it. So
they profefs themfelves firll Mlnifiers of
Chrifi,nr\d but Jubordinately fas they think)
oithzPope: fo much therefore as belongs
to them in their fir ft and lawful relation
may be vrtid • though fo much as refpe&ech v
their ufurpedrelationbe fitful. Had I been
baptized or ordained by one of their Prieils,
A a 4 I
Affendix.
I would difown all the corruptions of them,
but not the bapcifm and ordination it
felf.
9. There is no neceflicy to the being or
well-being of a particular Church, that it
fiath continued from the Apoftles daies, or
that its particular Miniitry have had noin-
tercifion. if Germany were converted but
lately to the Chriftian Faith, it may be ne-
verthelefs a true part of the Catholike
Church. If ferufalem had fometime a
Church, and fomecime none, it may have
now a true Church neverthelefs.
10. If our Ordination had failed by an
intercifion , it might as well be repaired
from other Churches ( that have had a con-
tinued fucceffion^) as from Rome. And much
better ^ becaufe without participation of
their peculiar corruptions. Or if anyBi-
fhops that were of the Papal faftion Ihould
repent of their Poperie , and not of their
Ordination, they might Ordainws as BiJhofs y
and repair our breach. And indeed that
was the way of our continued Ordination.
Many that repented that they were Popijb
Prelates, continued the office of Chriftian
Bijhps , and by fuch our Anceftors were
Ordained. As Chriftianitj and Epifccpacy
were before Toperj, and fo are they ftill
feparable
Afftndix. 36 1
eparable from it, and may continue wben
t is renounced. Befides what I have more
iilly faid in the forefaid difpute of Ordt-
iation 5 I fee no need of adding any more,
igainft thisObje&ion, about fucceflive Or-
lination and Minifterial Power.
As to their other Objection (which they
nake fuch a ftir with, and take no notice of
;he Anfwer which we have fo ofcen given)
yiz. \When every Sett pretend that thej have
the true Church and Jldinifiry , who {hall
judge ?3 1 again Anfwer, There is a judicium
privatum ,and publicum : A private judge-
ment of difcerning belongs to every man:
The publicly judgement is either Civil or
Ecclefiaflical. T Tie Civil judgement is £wi>0
ftiall he thus or thusefteemed of, in order
to Civil encouragement or dilcouragement]
i(as by corporal pumftimcnts, or rewards :)
This judgement belongech only to the Civil
Magiftrate. The Ecclefiafiical judgement ,
is in order to Ecch fiafiical Communion or
Excommunication. And fo it belongs to
thofe with whom the pcrlbn is in Communi-
on, in their feveral capacities. The mem-
bers of a particular Church,are to be judged
Authoritatively by the Paftors of that
Church, (and by the people, by a Private
judgement of Decerning.) Pafiors ftiould
ajfvciatc
,$2 Appendix.
ajfociate for Communion of Churches : and
foin order to that Communion otAffociation,
it belongs to the feveral AfTociations to
judge of the Members of the Society : which
yet is not by a publike Governing judgement :
For in Councils or Affociaaons, the Major
Vote are not properly the Governors Of the
leffer pari : But thofe that are out of ca-
pacity of Communion, have nothing to do
to judge of the Aptitude of Pafiors or
Churches in order to Communion or non-
Communion. And for the Pope, he hath no-
thing to do with us at fuch a diftance ,
whofe perfons and cafes are wholly un-
known to him ^ he .being neither our Go-
vernour nor our Affociate. But if we and
our cafe were known to him, he may judge
of us fo far as we may judge of him. And
other judgement (what ever men may fay
to deceive ) there is none to decide our
controverfies, but the final judgement of the
Vnivtrfal fudge, who is at the door.
A
LETTER
Written to
Thomas Smith
A Papift, Concerning the
Church of Rome*
L01^D0.N, Printed, 1660.
3*J
> c|i t^ 4* 4? 4* 4* 4* 4* 4? 4* 4? 4? 4* 4*
\
Reverend Sir,
f Hi? noted fanftity, admirable integrity , and
extraordinary charity fo eminently ap*
aring in pur pious actions, (and as 1 have
me caufe to thinks , the indelible characters of
wr [acred funftion ) hath animated me to
'ake choice of your felf rather then any of
mr coat to this prefent addrefs : hoping your
xndour and tenderness will bear with what
tay be (by others lefs fenjible of the value of
wmortal fouls flighted) interpreted according
7 the candid and truefenfe of your fupplicant
y you. It hath pleafed the great and terrible
'-udge of heaven and earth to put me upon
ome thoughts mdre ferioujly then ordinary of
ny eternal eft ate, and to be fomewhat doubtful
in the midji of external perturbations ) of
hofe internal grounds which I have formerly
-elyed upon, And truely Sir with all cordial-
\efs y my defire ts clearly to know the mind of
ny God , which were I truely fatisfedin, I
Tiould foon wave all other interefts to enter-
ain : and afiuring my felf according to Vvhat
1 have feen and read, the Church of Rome, to
which I havflong cleaved and adhered^ to be
the
I« 1
the pillar and ground of truth, and that Ca-
tholike Church which the ancient Creed teftim
fies 3 we are to believe in : My defire is to be ai
fom fat is fed as may be of your thought s, whe-
ther it ever were a true Church, which!
fnppofe you wiU not deny, when you conftdet
the fir ft verfe of the E fifth to the Romany*
and iffoy when it made its defe&ion ? Tk
reafon of my urging this is, becaufe 1 think, ah
ether que ft ion* to be but geing about the bujh,
and the true Church being proved, all ar gut
ments elfeeafily are anfwered. I have heart
Proteftants aver the ancient maxime , viz
Extra Ecclefiam non eft lalus. Therefore .
fuppofe it the only thing pertinent to my pur
pofe , and necejfary to falvation to enquir
after. My occafions will fuddenly drawm
from thefe parts , unlefs I hear from youjpeedt
ly : and doubt not Sir, but I am one wh
freely will refign my (elf to hear truth im
partially. Therefore I befeech you to fen
fomething to me by way of fatisfattion tl
next Saturday, after ^ohich you jhall be moi
particularly fenfible who the per f on is thata\
plies himfelf to you, and in the interim fm
fcribes himfelf , Sir,
A thirfty troubled foul, and you
Feb. ii, \6$6: to his power, Tbo, Smith.
Din\
3*7
DireEl jour Letter to me if you pleafe to
JMr. John Smiths houfe next door tothefign
of the Crown in the broad flreet 9 Worcelter.
Good Sir, be private for the prefent •, other wife
it may be prejudicial to fome temporal affairs
agitating at this time.
Sir,
1~Hat you can have fuch charitable
thoughts of one that is not of the
/fo;#tf»fubjeftion, and of my fun&ion, be-
ing not received from the Pope, is fo extra-
ordinary, yea and contrary to the judge-
ment of your writers , that I muft needs
entertain it with the more gratitude, and
fome admiration. And that you are fo im-
partially willing to entertain the truth, fas
you profefs^) though it be no more then the
truth deferves of you, and your own well-
fare doth require j yet is the more aimiablc
in you, by how much the more rare in thofe
of your Profeflion, fo far as my acquaint-
ance can inform me : for mod of them that
[have met with, underftand not well their
own Religion, nor think themfelvcs much
concerned tounderftand it, but refer me to
others for a Reafon of their hope. For my
part, I do the more gladly entertain the oc-
cafion
368
cafion of this entcrcourfe with you (though
unknown J that I may learn what I know,
not, and may be true to my own confciencet
in the ufeof all means that may conduce to!
my better information. And therefore If
fhall plainly anlwer your Queftions accord J
ing to' the meafure of my underftandirig^i
moft folemnly profefling to you, that I will
fay nothing which comes not from my heart'
in plain fimplieity, and that I will with ex-j
ceeding gladnefs and a thoufand thanks
come over to your way, if I can finde by
any thing that you fhall make known to me f
that it is the mind of God that Ifhouldfo
do. And therefore I am defirous, that if
what I write to you fhall feem unfound, yoir
would not only afford me your own advice
for the corre&ion of it, but alfo the advice
of the molt learned of your mind, to whom
you {hall your felf think meet to communi-
cate it. But on thefe conditions, i. That
it beaperfon of a tender confcience, that
dare fpeak nothing but what he verily be-
lieves. 2. That he will argue clofly, and not
fly abroad or dilate Rhetorically. And for"
any divulging of it to your danger or hurt;
you need not fear it .- For thefe two grounds
of my following anfwers •, I (hall here pro-
mife, i ♦ That I am fo far from perfecuting
bloody
Woody defircs againft thofe of ycur way,
that their own bloody principles and pra-
ftices where they have power (in //v/y,
Spain ,'&c.) hath done much to c
me, that the caufe is -not of God that ru-
be fo upheld and carried on, 2, A m
fo far from cruel uncharitable cenfures of
any that unfeignediy love the L< us
and his truth, that it is the grea
to me of all other to diflike your Pr m,
becaufe it is fo notorioufly : rfl CI
charity, reftraining the loiike Church
to your feives, and ourirrg and condemning
the far greacuft pajct of Chriftians in the
world, and that becaufe theybelievs not in
the Pope, though they believe in God the
rather, Son and Holy Ghoft, and all thas
the Primitive Church believed. I am fo
Catholike, that (according to my prefent
judgement) I cannot be of your Church,
becaufe it is fo little Catholike. I am of the
one univcfal Church, which containeth all
the true Chriftians in the world; And you
a*e of a Tarty which bath feparatcd it felt
from moll ot the ( \ the world. I
am of that one body that is centred in Chrift
theHead^ youare of apiece of this body,
that hath centred in a man, and oft acon-
feffed heretical wicked man , v;hom you
B b take
3*£'
take while he lives to be the infallible Judge
and foundation of all your faith and hope ^
and when he is dead, perhaps pronounce him
to be in hell (as BelUrmine did Vope Sixtns, j
and others commonly J I know, as every 1
Se& hath a kind of unity among themfelves.
however divided from all the reft of the
Church, fo alfo hath yours: but nothing
will fatisfte me but a Catholike Unity
Church and Faith. So much being premifed
I aniwer your C^ueftions. .
Queft. i. Whether the Church of Rom<
was a true Church in the Aj>o files dajes ?
Anfw. The word [Church^ Signifies more
•things then one. i. Sometime it is ufed to
fignifie the whole myftical body of Ch,rift,
containing all and only thofe that are jufti-
fied, whom BelUrmine calleth living mem-
bers. And in this fenfe the Church of Rome
in the Apoftles dayes was not the Churchy
but the juftified members were part of the
Church. 2. Sometime it is ufed to fignifie
all that profefs true Chriftianity in the
world; And thus the Church of Rome was
notr/tfC/?#7r/?,butpartofit. 3. It is oft*
ufed by your writers to fignirie one Church,
that by Prerogative is the Head or Miftris of
all
all Chriftians in the world, to which they
muft all be fubjeft, and from which they
muft receive their name, as the Kingdom of
Mexico j of Tripoli* , of Fez,, &c. are fo
called from the chief Cities of the fame
name, and from whienfthey receive their
Faith and Laws, as the body hath life and
morion from the head or heart. In this
fenfe the Church of Rome was no Church in
the Apoftles dayes. 4. Sometime itisufed
to fignifie one particular Church, aflbciated
for perfonal Communion in Worlhip. And
thus the Church of Rome ^as a true Church
in the Apoftles dayes. 5. Sometime it is
is fed to (igniiie a Colle&ion or Conjundion
of many particular Churches (though not
all) under the Bifnop of one Church, as their
Patriarch or Metropolitan. And thus the
Church of Rome was no Church in the Apo-
ftles dayes , but about two hundred years
after Chrift it was.
It is only the Church in the third of thefe
fenfes, that is in controverfie between the
Roman and Reformed Churches. Now to
your next Qucftion .
37*
Queft. 2. When Was it that the Church of
Rome ceafed to be a true Church ?
Bb 2 jinfto.
37*
Anfty, In the firft , fecond , and third
fences it never ceafed to be a true Church ;
for it never was one. In the firft and fecond
ferce it never was one either in title or
claim, (I hope.) In the third, it was never
one in Title, nor y^Pin claim for many hun-
dred years after Chrift ; but now it is.
Therefore the Queftion between us fhould
not be 5 when it ceafed, but when it begun to
be fuch a Capital Ruling Churchy Effential
to the whole ?
In the fifth fence it never ceafed other-
wife then as it is fwallowed up in a higher
Title. It begun to be a Patriarchal Church,
about two* or three hundred years after
Chrift : and it ceafed to be tneerlj Patri-
archal when it arrogated the Title of Vni-
verfal or MiftrU of alL
In the fourth fence, the Queftion is not
fo eafie, and I fhall thus anfwer it. i. By
fpeaking to the ufe of the Queftion. 2. By a
direft anfwer to it.
• 1. It is of fmall concernment to my fal-
vation or yours, to know whether the
Church otRowe be a true "particular Church
or not : no more then to know whether the
Church of Theffalonica, or Ephifus, or An-
tioch, be now a tr^y* Church. In charity to
them I am bound Xo regard it, as I am bound
to
to regard the life of my neighbour • But
what doth it concern my own life, to know
whether the Afxyor and Aldermen of Wor-
cefler or Glacier be dead or alive ? So what;
doth.it concern my Salvation to know whe-
ther the Church of Rome be now a true
particular Church? If I lived at the Anti-
podes or in Ethiopia, and had never heard
that there is fuch a place as Rome in the
world (as many a thoufandChriftiansdoubt-
lefs never heard of it) this would not hinder
my falvation, as long as I believed in the
bleffcd Trinity, and were fan&ified by the
Spirit of Grace. So that, as I am none of
their Judge, fo I know not that it much con-
cerned me, to know whether they be a true
particular Church, fave for charity or com-
munion.
2. Yet Ianfwerit more direftiy. i. If
they do not by their errors fo far over-
throw the Chnftian faith which they pro-
ofs, as that it cannot prafticaliy be believed
*by ihem , then are they a t;ue particular
Church, or par: of the imiverfal Church.
2. And I am apt to I : at leait of moft
that they do not fo hold their errors, buc
that they retain with them fo much of the
effencials of Religion a ay denominate
them a true frofeffin^ Cfofri lore plain-
° Bb ;' ly;
373
374
/
ly : Rome is confidered firft as Chriftian,
fecondly as Papal: As Chriftian, it is a true
Church : As Pupal, it is no true £hurch\
For Popery is not the Church according to
Chrifts Inftitution, but a dangerous corruption
in the Church. As a Leprofie is not the man,
but the difeaje of the man. Yet he that is a
Leper may be a man. And he that is a
JP^/?*/?* may be a Chriftian : But i . Not as
he is aPapift. 2. And he is but a leprous or
difeafed Chriftian.
So much to your Queftions.
By this much you may fee that it no way
concerneth me to prove when Rome ceafed
to be a true Church. For if you {mean fuch
a Church as Corinth, Philippi, Ephefus, &c.
was, that is , but a part of the Catholike
Church, folfticknot much, favingin point
of Charity, whether it be true or falfe. But
if you mean as your party doth, a Miftris
Church to Rule the Vvhole, avd denominate the I
Catholike Church [Roman,"} fo I fay, its
Ztfurpation is not teafed (that's the tmltvy)
and its juft title never did begin.- and its
claim was not of many hundred years after
Chrift ; fo that your Queftion requireth no
further Anfwer.
But
But what if you had put the Queftion,
At what time it was that your Church be-
gan to claim this univerfal Dominion? I
(houldgive you thefe two anfwers. i. When
I underftand that it is of any great moment
to the deciiion of our controverfie, I (hall
tell you my opinion of the man that firft laid .
the claim, and the year when. 2. But it is
fufficientfor me to prove, that from the be-
ginning it was not fo. Little did the Bt~
(hops of Rome before Conftantines dayes,
dream of governing all the Chriftians in the
world. But when the Emperours became
Chriftians, their great favour and large en-
dowments of the Church, and the greatnefs
and advantage of the Imperial City did give
opportunity to the Bifhop of Rome ( as
having both riches, andtheEmperour^ and
Commanders ears) to do fo many and great
favours for molt other Churches, in pre-
serving and vindicating them, rhat it was
very eafie for the Bifhop hereby to become
the chief Patriarch ( which he was more
beholden to the Emperour for, then to any
Title that he had from Chrift or Peter.) And
then the quarrel with John of C 'on ft ant ino fie
occafoned the thoughts of an univerfal
Headfhip •, which Gregory did difclaim and
abominate, but Boniface after him, by the
Bb 4 grant
37J
37 6
grant of a murdering trayterous Ernperour,
did obtain : But fo as the See fwclled before
into a preparatory magnitude.
And if we could not tell you the time
within two hundred years and more, it were
no great matter^ as long as we can prove
that it vp<u not fo before. For who knows
not that even fome Kings in Europe have
come from being limited Monarcks, to b
abf o I 'nte, and chat by fuch degrees, that non
can tell the certain time. . Nay I may giv
you a ftranger inftance. The Parliaments
of England have part in the legiflative po-
wer ; And yet I do not think that any Law-
yer in England is able to prove the juft time,
yea or the age, (or within many ages ) when
they firtt obtained it : which yet in fo nar- j
ro^ fpot of ground may be eaftlier done,
then the time of the popes ufurpation over
all the world. For* iE £ould not be all at
once : for one Country yeilded to his (late/
claim in one age, and another in another
age, and many a bloody battle was ^fought
before he could bring the Germane Emper-
ours and Chriftian Princes to fubmit to him
fully.
3 . But let me tell you one thing* more j
Though as to an arrogant claim^ the Pope is
Head and Governour of all the Catholike
Church,
377
Church, and Rome their Miftris, (as the
Pope makes Patriarchs of Antioeh, Alexan-
dria, and Hierufalem, that never come near
the place or people J yet as to any pojfeffion
or Acknowledgement on the Churches part,
he was never univerfd Head, nor Rome the
Mifiru to this day. Tor the greater half of
the Cftriftians did never fubjed themfelves
to him at all, nor come under his power. So
that the Pope even now in his greateft
height, is only the head of the univerfal
Church by his own claim, and naming him-
felf fo, without any Title given by God, or
acknowledged by men, and without having
ever been pojfejfed of what he claims. The
King of France doth fcarce believe that the
King of England was King of France , for
all that he put it into his ride : nor do the
Swedes take the Pile for their King, becaul
he fo calls himfelf. I am fure if the Turkjjk
Emperour call himfelf the £mperour of the
world, that doth not prove that he is fo.
Rainerius the Popes Inquifitor {in catal. poji
lib.cont. Waldenf.) faith plainly, Thr.t the
Churches that Vrcrt planted by the Apo files
themfelves (fuchasthe Abafiincs, err. )
ot jubject to the Pope. Once he had the
Government of no Church in the world, but
Rome it fclf: After that he grew to have
the
373
the government of the Patriarchate of the
Weft: fince that he hath got fome#w£,and
claimed all ^ but never got neer half the
Churches into his hands to this day. Do I
need then to fay any more to difprove his
univerfal Head(hip,and that Rome is not the
Catholike Ruling Church ?
But having gone thus far in opening my
thoughts to you ,. I (hall forbear the ad-
joyning the proof of my Aflfertions , till I
hear again from you. If I underftand it,
The Queftion between you and me to be
debated, muft be this , f Whether the Roman
Church was in the Apoftles dayes, the Miftris
or Ruling Churchy which all other Churches
were bound to obey, and from it were to becal-
ledthe Roman Catholike Church }~\ This I
deny .- and you muft maintain, or elfe you
mull be no Papift. The motion that I make
is, that by the next you will fend me your
Arguments to prove it (for it belongs to you
to prove it, if you affirm it.) To which I
will return you ( if they change not my
judgement) both my Anfwers and my Ar-
guments for the Negative. And if you do
indeed make good but this one Affertion,
I do here promife you, that I will joyfully
and refolvedly turn Papift : and if you can-
not make it good, I may expeft that you
ftioulc/
fliould no longer adhere to Rome as the
Ruling or Cathollke Church, and the Pillr.r
tnd Cj round of Truth ^ though charity
~ ould allow it to be [_a Cathollke Church^
hat is a member of the Cathollke Church,
hich is indeed the Pillar and Ground of
Truth, wherein Rome may have a part as it
is part of the Church : Eut I would ic were
not a moft dangeroufly difeafed part. I
crave your reply with what fpeed you can,
and remain,
An unfeigned lover of Truth
and the friends of Truth.
Feb. 12. 1657.
Rich. Baxter.
119
The two following Letters, with the Nar-
rative , are annexed only to fhew the
effed: of the former.
S-
r ^ Hough the bufwefs in agitation betwixt
J' jtir f c tf an " me <> be the one thing ne-
feffarji and jo to be "preferred to allobHg~ticns y
and bufinejfes of what concernment foever i yet
a rcfclntion formerly taken up, hath diverted
r>
3 So
me fomeVehat from the prefent tame ft profe-i
cution thereof as it deferves. Temporal cre-
dit, though it fbould give way to things of
eternal moment ', yet it often fwajs the minds '
even of good men to negleEi very important op-
portunities -, which though I cannot excufe
my felf of, yet 1 defire it may be candidly in-
terpreted , and that this may be accepted as a
pledge to an anfwer of what you have infert-
ed. And I defire your next may be directed to
me to London, to one Mr> T. S. who is a kjnf-
wan of mine , and no f mall admirer of your
felf* My thanks in the interim I return for ,
the pains you have taken , which I hope through''
the mercy of God will not prove fucceffelefs for
the future one way or other : the truth is> I
have not divulged my felf, or intentions as jet
to any of my own way, which I know Will be
very trouble fome \ and I knoty Ifhall be befet^
with enemies from the ignorant , that way
affetted, as I doubt not of help from the
learned. Tet as I teld you in my former ,
without any carnal inter eft re fpe^ling^ or out-
ward troubles regarding, or inbred enemies
combating , I refolve by the grace and ajfi-
ftance of God to be guided by truth impartially
where I /ball find it lye clear eft : and {hall
make it my work^to implore the throne of mer-
cy, that my underftanding may befo enlight-
ned,
3»i
ted^as to difcern tr nth from hen fie. idefire
Sir, if it may be no prejudice to your more
>arntft occafions, that lm.iy have two or three ~
lines from yon by Way of advice to meet me at
London at the place aforcfaid, andaffure your
felf, however Cod {hall dirett thefuccejfe, I
(ball reft , Sir,
Tcb,i6. 16$6
Athirfty defirer of truth,
and yours unfcignedly,
The. Smith*
If what you write to me be fir ft fent to Mr.
John Smiths of Worcefter as before, it -will
befafely fent to me. Good Sir, thinly not I
flight a bufmefs of fo eternal confequenceby
myneglettfor the prefent •, for none fi all for
the future be found more earneft to find out the
mind of God, and he affifting^lhope, as chear-
fully to clofe therewith.
Sir,
THe fpeed of your former applications to
me by way of anfwer, incites me to the
confirmation of thofe thoughts of your worth
which were at my firft a ■ Irejfes to you har-
boured in my heft-, but the [usance of jour
difcourfe
382 )
difcourfe is a fironger motive. Although per-
adventure it may feem fomewhat wonderful y
that I fhould fo foon be brought over to the
ferious apprehensions of the weight of what
you have written to me • yet when you confult
the divine providence , and the Almighty di-
rection which prompted me to the choife bfyour
f elf above others > upon grounds -not altogether
insufficiently eftablijbed,whicb will befurtht
made good when Ijha/lhave the hafpinefs of a.
perfonal entercourfe of communion with you,
.it will be certainly concluded upon by your
felf and whofoever it Jhall be communicated
to, that the truth, Which I have already feri-
cufly pondered , was the full aim of my in-
tentions : which truth I /hall impartially and
joyfully entertain where foever I find it, with-
out any thoughts at all of temporal or external
difcouragements > of which 1 have already con-
t e fie d With fome, and expetl {the Lord arm me
againfi them) far greater. It is no fmall
thing that I Jhall be looks upon as an Apofiate,
andfo worthy of excommunication utterly , but
I conclude according to St. Auguftine (I
guefs) that it is no Jhame to turn to the better ,
and withal I add ( although . I could infert.
fome fmall exceptions) lam to the main fa-
cisfied, but yet in fome doubtful fufpence,
Wherein I expett full fatisfattion by your
book,
book, which I received intimation from you
is, in the 'Prefs, and quickly to bepublijbed.
If I might receive two or three lines from you
in the interim , by way of efiablijhment , it
would be very gratefully accepted, in relation
to the comfortable taking off thofe obfiacles
which I am certain to meet with in my change
of judgement. Jam very forry that aperfon
whom I knoty to be fo tender of eternal fouls in
general, fhouldbefo continually taken off your
important bufinefs daily by particulars. But
being likewife fenftble that y$u value a foul
according to the worth of the fame •, lam en-
couraged to thinks, yM I verily believe, theft
rude things proceeding from a foul that is t§
rife or fall according to what is now determin-
ing between m , it will not be macceptably
received from, Sir,
The admirer of your
worth,
March 24. 165*.
Tho* Smith*
3«j
3»4
A Narrative of the cafe ef T. S. by
his friend.
Reverend Sir,
Mr. Thomas Smith late of Martins
Ludgate London was brought up in
the Proteftant Religion, and for fome years
accounted an affe&ionate profeffor thereof,
by thofe who were acquainted with his dili-
gence and pains in writing out at large the
notes he took of (Mr. CaUmies and others)
pious Sermons *. but afterwards (not living
up to the knowledge he had) he grew more
remifs in his pra&ice, and in his company ^
and became a great affliction to his Father
in his life-time by reafcn thereof, but a
greater to his Mother after his Farhers
death : which I fuppofe Mr. facomb, Mr.
7 duller and others of her acquaintance can-
not forget. But when (he underftpod the
company hemoft frequented were Papiils,
who did at length take the boidnefs to re-
fort to her houfe, flie was very much per-
plexed, fearing that they had prevailed with
her fon to turn Papift , which fhe foon
found, as fhe told me,to be fo indeed. I was
not willing to believe her report, bin defired
^ to
"°*
38J
ro fatisfic my felf by difcourfing with him-
felf, hoping that I fhould not have found his
judgement determined that way, as I did to
my great trouble find it to be, efpecially in
his juftificarion of the Jurifdidion and Au-
thority of the Pope, and other tenets of the
Church of Rome. By this time he had waft.
ed his Patrimony, and had run himfelf into
debt fo far, that he durft not walk up and
down the ftrects as he had done ; he went
a Voyage to the Barbadoes, but returned
thence in a worfe condition then he went,
yet continued ftill in the opinion he had
received, notwithftandmg the great offence
and trouble it was to thofe from whom he
expeded relief and maintenance , whofe
hearts and hands were in that particular
fomewhat (hut upagainfthim, in fo much
that he was reduced to manifold extremities
here. Afterwards, hopelefs of any lively-
hood here, he went over to Ireland where
he had a kinfman - but meeting with dif-
appointment there of what heexpeded, he
returned again into England ^ and fteered
his courfe to Worcefier juherehe had another
Kinfman lived . during this Voyage I ex-
changed feveral letters with him, being de-
firous to make him fenfible of the hand of
God eminently out againft him, hedging up
Cc his
■
l%6
his way with thorns every where , which I
defired might be in order to his return to
God, looking upon his condition to be ma-
nifcftly defpera e for ever,if he ihould refufc
to recurn, and harden his heart againft him.
At Worcefter he fell Tick , whjch through
Gods bleffing brought him to a more ferious
confederation of his everlafttng itate which
he apprehended to approach near. And it
wrought fome kind of doubt in him, touch,
ing the truth of fome of the chief of thofe
things which he had entertained as true
about the Church of Rome,** he informed
me by his ktter ^ whereunto for his con-
vidion and better fatisfadion, I did advife
him to apply himfelf unto Mr. Baxter of I
Kederminfter ( who I told him I did be-
lieve was a great lover of fouls) which he by
letter did as he told me, and that Mr. Baxter
did returnhim an anfwer thereunto in writ- j
ing, with liberty to (hew it to any the moft
learned of his way ^ which when he came '
to Lmdon he (hewed me, acknowledging j
himfelf much convinced by it : and the more
taken, for that fo large and full an anfwer
with that liberty ftiould be difpatch't to him
with fo much expedition, which as I remem-
ber he faid he had the next day after he fent
his. Yet was he confident, as he faid, that it
would
3*7
would be anfwcrcd, and as he told me, he
had left it with one that had undertaken it -,
He fpake of its being (hewn to EmbafTadors
or an Embaflfador, and that within fourteen
days he (hould have ananfwer to it-, but
enquiring after ic, I could never fee any an-
fwer, nor could he nocwithftanding all
his folicitations and provocations ufed,
prevail to have an anfwer h which he feem-
ed to be very much offended at-, and at
length, as he told me, thole with whom he
had to do about it, were much offended
with him : in fo much that he intimated
himfelf to be apprehenfivc of danger from
fome of them : yet he feemed refolved to
adventure whatsoever might befall him in
that refpeft, rather then he would ftifle
thofe convi&ions , which by Mr. Baxters
letter had been begotten in him ^ This letter
of Mr. Baxter j,togecher with [[The Safe Re-
ligion^ a Book which he did refer him to,
either then or near that time in the prefs,
which he went for and had of the Stationer
upon Mr. Baxters account, (which I had al-
moft forgot) gave him fuch refolurion and
fatisfadion, that he thereupon altered his
judgement and practice, and waited upon
the Ordinances here in London mow Con-
gregations for fomc time ^ I my felf having
Cc 2 fcen
3»s
fecn him at the morning exercife in Lon-
don : what further eflfe&s it wrought upon
him I know not ^ for that he left the City
and went over into Flanders as his Mo-
ther hath informed me, and is fince
dead :
Sir,
Tour affectionate friend
to ferve you,
T. S.
For Mr. William Johnfon.
Sir,
VV7 Hen I was invited to this Difputation
" with you, I entertained hopes, from
yourprofeft defiresof clofe argumentation,
thjtt we ihould fpeedily bring it to foch an
ifme, as might in fome good meafure anfwer
our endeavours, in taking off the covering
that Sophiftry and carnal intereft had cai^
upon the truth. When my neceffary employ-
ments denyed me the leifure of reading over
your fecond Papers for fome weeks - 3 and
when the lofs of my Reply by the Carrier,
and the difficulty of procuring another Co-
py,had caufed a little longer delay ^ you ur-
ged fo hard for a Reply, as put me in fome
further
3*9
Further hopes that you were refolved to go
through with it your (elf. But after near a
twelvemonths expectation of a Rejoinder ,and
of the Proof of jour own fuccejfun from thi
Apoflles, being here at London ; 1 deiircd you
to refolve me, wherher I might expefr any
fuch Return and Performance from you, or
not : And when you would not promife it,
I took «p the thoughts of publishing wnat
had pad between us : But upon further urg-
ing you, fome moneths after, you renewed
my hopes , which caufed me to make fome '
ftay of my publication , and to define you to
give me your fenfe of the moil: ufed terms ^
(promifing you that I (hall do the like, when
you require it • which I am ready to per-
form. ) But yet I hear nothing to this day of
your AnfVver to my Papers, or the Perform-
ance of what is incumbent on you for the
juftification of your Church : And there-
fore having waited and importuned you in
vain fo long, and finding by your laft, that
you cannot or will rot fo explicate your
terms, as to be underftood ('without which
there is no difputing-) and alfo perceiving,
that my abode in London is like to be but lit-
tle longer •, my difcretion and the ends of my
writing have commanded me, to forbear no
longer the publication of what hath pail be-
tween
39*
twccn us : Tor, though the work be not co-
pious and elaborate, yet being on a fubjeft,
which your party do fo much infift upon, I
am aflured it may be of common ufe. And
I know that the publication is no breach of
any promife on my part, nor do I perceive
how it can be any way injurious to you •, and
therefore I fee nothing to prohibite it : And
lam not willing to be ufed as Mr. Gunning
and Mr. Pierfon were, by the partial unhan-
fome publication of another.
If yet I may prevail with you, to juftifie
your caufe, as you arc engaged, I muft en-
treat you specially to try your ftrength for
the proof of your own fucceffion : for we |
are moft confident that its a notorious im- 1
poflibility which you undertake. Our Ar-
guments againft it are fuch as thefe.
i. That Church which fincethe time of
Chrift hathreceivedanew eflential part,hath
not its being fucceffively from the Apoftles.
But fuch is the Church of Rome : Ergo-
The Major is undenyable. The Minor i$
thus proved. A Vice-Chrift,or Vice-head ^or
Governour of the Univerfal Church is an
efTential part of the now Church of Rome.
But a Vice-Chrift, or Vice-head , or Go-
vernour of the Univerfal Church, is new, or
t novelty, i (or hath not been from the time
of
of Chrifl on earth ; ) Ergo, the Church of
Home fincethe timeofChrift, hath received
a new efTcntial part. The novelty I have
here and elfewhere proved : And Blondcl
and Molin&ut againft Perron have doneic
more at large.
2. That Church which hath had frequent
and long interceifionsin its head or e/Tential
part, hath not had a continued fucceflion
from the Apoftles. But fuch is the Church
of Rome : Ergo ■ -
The Minor is hereprovcd : and fome hints
of it are in the Appendix.
3. That Church which hath had many
new efTcntial Articles of Religion, feach not
had a continued fucceflion from the Apo-
ftles ; (For if the effence be new, the Church
is new.) But fuch is the Church of Rome.
Ergo —
Firft it is commonly maintained by you
that all Articles are Ejfemial or FuncLi-
mentali and you deride the contrary do-
ftrine from the Proreihnts.
» Secondly, that you have had many new
Articles of Religion (of faith and points of
fforfhip) is proved by our w aters, and your
:>wn confeflions. See MoUntm de Ncvit.
Papifmi. Prove a fucceflion of all that is de
Hde determined in your Councils, or but of
all
391
3?*
•
aft in Pope Pirn his Creed, and the Council
of Trent alone • or of all that with you is d
fide of thofe two and thirty points whicl
I have named in my Key for Catholics.
p. 143,144, 145. Chap.25. Detett. i6.anc
I will ycild you all the caufe : or I will pro-
fefs my belief of every one of thofe points oi
which you prove fuch afucceffion^ as held by
the Catholike Churches you now hold them.
Read and anfwer my Detett. 2 1 . Cap. 33.^
in my Key for Cat ho I ikes.
And how far you own Innovations, fee
what I have proved, ibid, cap. 35. and 36.
But thefe arguings being works of fuper-i
erogation, I (hall trouble you here with no!
more • but wait for fuch proof of all jour]
effentials^ cu we give yen of all ours. In the '
mean time, Khali endeavour fo to defend 1
the Truth, as not to lofe or weaken Charity 1
but approve my felf
Sep. 1. 1660.
An unfeigned lover of the
Truth and you.
Richard Baxter.
FINIS,
\
M
TVNews
OpenLibrary