This book made available by the Internet Archive.

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 already written , were improved. Nor were there need of any writings, if men would not renounce they: common fenfes. We cannot hope or pretend, 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 •, fednon $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 undertaking at the firft , but alfo did incline my thoughts to a publication ^ there being here 'noftinkingbreath to annoy anddriyg away the Reader. I have learned by experience, 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 malignantwrerches, (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 temptuoufly 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 confutation; 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 believe 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 heavier 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 honour, 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 ofan Orator, and the very 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. Frugality of fpeecb ? and ferinonem habere rebus paremjdojhtw and wake our fpeeches valuable. Truth would be adorned , but not covered : attended, but not crowded; proclaimed, 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 dealings 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 Supremacy and Allegiance, as many did the engagement 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 fetching 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 homines fallant^ fedut eit qnifque in rtteriu* no-ticiam cogitationes f Has proferat,~\ 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. Lying 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". whether 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 Cathelike Church dijeribed.) It is one of the reproaches of humane nature, that ever it could, be. corrupted into f j fenflefs, unreafonable., impious, uncharitable a thing as Popery : And one of the prodigies 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 corruptions.- 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 Religion that fliall undo them in the world :

And

(9)

And therefore to efcape reproach, and torment, 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 prejudice , 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 forefathers, emboldeneth them againft the name and reverence of God. Adeb ct teneris tffu-efcere multum efi. Saith Seneca , inter caufas malarum eft quodvivimus ad exempla, nee ratione componimur, fed confuetudine ab-ducimurJ Qfod ft paucifacerent, nclumus imitari ; quumplures'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)

imperiumconfuetudinis^ 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 Popery, 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 difobedience, 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 pardoned 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, Bavaria, j4t<firia,&cc- and tnenl undertake to give him a fatisfa&ory anfwer of this question. In the mean time, I fhall only fay as Seneca, Nemo ex imprudent thus eft qui relin-<qui ftbi dekeat : cfpccially men that renounce 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 guardian. 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 corrupted party half way in their fins and "errors, 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 participate of; any fin for peace, is not the way, Ler fpme plead for all the Greek corruption^ 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 Council, 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 pattern, and to make all the forms and ceremonies to beneceflary toour concord, which the third or fourth Century ufed but as things indifferent, with diveriity and mutation, 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 pertinent to the prefent bufinefs.

(14)

Readers,

"\ j\ ; Ere not the Judgements of God fo V * dreaaftill, and infatuation fo lamentable 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 Damnation of Souls fuch deplorable things , as tolerate 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 intoxicate 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-falDecider of them, or to charge God Vvitb felly or everflght, if he have not appointed fome fuch univerfal Judge in the World, to end all (fentrcverftes in matters of fuch weight. But if in Phylick's, Law, cr any

of the Sciences,the C ontr over fie sjhould be never 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 thej 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 Difficulties 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 Popery, 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. 11. 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 Scriptures 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,

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 greaterpart\ 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 univerfal 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 underfiood, 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 approved 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 difown, 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 renunciation ^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 fomelatent 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 belong 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 >they 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 (ifwe 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 Jobjection.

11. They are notorious Enemies t& Knowledge under pretence of Obedience and Unity, 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 Fathers 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 Inventions

(«)

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

13. They are Oppofers e/Holinefs, both by the forefaid enmity to Knowledge^ Charity, and purity of JYorJhip, and by many unholy Dottrines , and by deluding Souls with an outfide hifirionicallway of Religion, never required 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 linefs 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 odious 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 unknown 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 unlaw full to tolerate Heretical Kings that propagate their Herefie, _( that is, the ancient Faith.) HeWwell Dotlor Heylin hath vindicated 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, 13. 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 themfelves 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 ferr 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 theirfiinking 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 power. And yet it was not openly profefled. to be for my oppofition to Popery, but on fome other account: and though the fountain 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 innocent 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 acquainted 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

and be fo far prefcrved from the contrivances of malice, as is needful to his appointed 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 ourReparation. 107

Whether the Armenians, Ethiopians, Syrians,

&c. are excluded as Heretic\s ? 113

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

refuted. 1 z 7

(b) The

The Contents.

The infiance of Flavianus Appeal refuted-

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. 154

Of Pope Agapet depofing Anthymius of Con-

ftantinople. n 159

Of Gregories words. 160

Of Cyril and Celeftine againfi Neftorius.

161 Of Juvenals words. 163

Of Valentinians and Theodofius words.

164. Of Vincentius Lirinenfis words. 169

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 Scripture 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 pertinent 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 Originalof Vniverfal Headfhrp.

269

Argument 9. The generality of Chriftians in thefirft ages^ ana mo ft in the Utter ', free from owning the Tupacy. 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 applyed to the Eaftern and Sou-

them Churches. 293 ,&c.

Mr. Johnfons Explication of the moft ufed terms, withmj j^uere's thereupon , and his Anfwer , and mj 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*. L14* 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 Christians who were united in communion 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, acknowledges 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 belong 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 acknowledges 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, acknowledges 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 Chriftians is now the true Chu rch of Chrift, hath alwaies had vilible Paftors and People united.

Ergo, whatfoever Congregation of Chriftians 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 preferving 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 included 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 Aefires of brevity, and of confining my felf to half a fheet of

6 'Mr. Johnfons firfi Pa$cr.

paper -, I fend you at prefent only one Argument, which being fully dlfcuffed^ 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 difficulties, or balk^ yourftrength, or tranfgrefs the fart of a Refpendent. 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 thereby oblige jour felf> if you rviltbe ingenuous, to make only the learned, and not any ignorant

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. Refp. 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 Subjed 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 Chriftians 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 Congregation of Chriftians but one, which contain-cth ail particular Congregations and Chriftians, chat univpcaHy deferve that name.

2. Either you mean that " this whole Congregacion or true Church acknowledged] 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 confidently 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 destroys 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 acknowledge 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

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 univerfalight 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 acknowledgeth 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 cunningly lapt up, that is the life of your imported 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

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.- therefore no protedion is due to any that acknowledge 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

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 Congregation without being of that opinion. 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Congregation 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 Philemon 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. Salvation 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 overthrown. 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 viability 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

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

[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 particular 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 Congregation 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 Univerfal Church] I deny your Minor: Communities 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

tins and Edefius were there preaching,: before they had any Paftor, were yet Christians 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 company converted to Chrift, are members of the Univerfal Church,, ( though they never 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 declaim the vain objeftion £.of Conditionally 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 acknowledges, &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 obliging the an fwerers to nominate any Congregation of Chriftians which alwaies till this prefent time fince Chrift hath been vifible fave that only which acknowledges &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 Minor : 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 Opponent^ 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 Univerfal Head.fhip.] Or [ the whole Vifible

C 2 Church

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 Major part was of that mind; ( though that would be nothing to prove the condemnation 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 contrary, 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 favedwithout 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

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 Catholike Church. For I will without it prove to you a fucceflive Visibility of the Catholike Church,from the VifibiJity of its EfTen-tial or Conftitutiveparrs (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 requireth 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

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 Congregation hath been ftill vifible, but fuch as yours 3 or that [ the whole Catholike Chwrchhath ever fince the afcention held a Humane Univerfal Governour under 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 Confident with falvation as yours. Fcr the reft of the Catholike Church is favable .2. And then you will allow me to turn your Argument 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 always Vifible ; But no Congregation of Chntlians hath been alwaies Vifible, but that which quoai partem denyeth the Pope$ univerfal Headlhip -, thereiore whatever

Congregation

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 nothing that's reafonable, which I can per-form. A CatholikeChurch 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 Nation 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 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 dignity -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

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 ( whether 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 exceeding 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.nffitted into your learned and quia hands-^which gratefully returns as fair a meagre 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

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 Argument, 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 difference 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 Congregation.

To your Anfwer to my firft Syllogifm.

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

his

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 England.

Again .you diftinguifh , that fome hings are EfTentials, or Ncccffanes, and >thers Accidents, which are acknowledged )rpradifed in the Church. Now to apply ihis 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 acknowledged 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 theEucharift 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 thereiOre 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 infilling

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 propofition, 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 Congregation, which is an univerfal negative ± land when I fay, none, Save that Congregation which acknowledges Saint Peter, &c. the term Congregation fuppofes for the lame [whole Cathoiike Church mentioned in my

former

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 exprefs •, 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 >fme, 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 Peterandhls 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 fubjeft 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,

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 affirmed 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 Jelf, and another fhould deny what you faid • would not you, or any rational man in your cafe, anfwer him, that by denying your propofition he affirmed that fome other had right to them, and to make good that affirmation was obliged to produce 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 nothing clfe, follows nor. For that prescription 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 opponent, 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

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 cannot 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

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 obligation 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 being neceffary to the Conftitution of a kingdom, 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<

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

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

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

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

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

1) 4 which

which I require. I demand, that the Answerer 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 continued half that time 0 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 otterj ?. I required fome'determinate Con^-

gregation

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 nominated 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 incomparably, 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-Chriff/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

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 0 ^ 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 0 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 [hallprefently 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, Afanichses, 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 beseeming 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 demand, 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

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 principles, 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 felves, 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 Commonwealths men ? Though therefore you do account

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 rhemfelves 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 0 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*? Ntflorins , 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 Patriarch 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

both us and you, they muft be thought to maintain raanifeft Herefie 1 it being a point in a fundamental matter of faith, the Trinity ; 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 different Congregation of Christians , from that which holds the Popes Supremacy y which was my propofition. Por in the year 1500. 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 Congregation 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

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 Supremacy, not of Order only, but of Power^Authority ,& Jurifdiction 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

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*[ 0 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 ^° Tbeodoret 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 Bifhop 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 particularly to the Biftiop of Rome to pafs a definitive 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 together 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 JohnCohsfecovd 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 Emprefs 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 Roman Bifhop L?0 the firft • and fo wrote to him to have his prefence in it % who fent his Legacs unto them. And though both LcSs lecters were diffcmbled, and his Legats affronted, and himfelf excommunicated by

E 3 wicked

54 Mr * Johnfons/ttW Paper.

wicked Diofcorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, andprefidentof that Coven tide, whoalfo was the chief upholder of the Eutychians, yet Theodofius repented befofe his death, baniihed his wxfePuIchcria and Chryfafhiui the Eunuch, the chief favourers of the Eutychians, 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 Biofcor us Patriarch 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 Council!

. T^r

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 Diofcorns 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 0 ^ 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 \

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 Alexandria 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 condemned him : whofe Cenfure he required 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

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, feeing 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 examine 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 contempt, 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 fecond 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 foundation of the Roman Churches primacy ^ md his authority to : be, not only in place,

but

but in power and Government over the] whole vifibleChurch: 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 Imperial precept, inthefewords. "But this cc occafion hath provoked alfo our command, that hereafter it (hall not be lawful, 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 perpetual 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

"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 acligandi 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

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 'onftaminopie , 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

As to what you fay of Congregation of Chriftians in the beginning, I anlwer, I took the word Chriftians in a large fenfe, comprehending 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 Monarch 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 brethren 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

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 extraordinary 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 reply 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 hereafter I fhafl find Scribes more at leafure. Imxft 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 Johnfon*

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 appeared. 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 certainly truth is Firong, and it will not be found an eafie thing to off ofe 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 untill 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 hitherto found you fweet and gentle in y r ur proceedings 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

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

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

Sir,

THough 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 Reply, 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 rather, 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 theiwe!led Primate 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

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* ToMr.H. L. (who calledmttothu work.)

Take from them their Clergies vaft Dominions, 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 authority declareth it • and by making it a nofe of wax, they take it as if it were not fenfe, nor intelligible without the Popes interpretation (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

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 approved 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

thenifthey 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 Script 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 determined K, you are damned by them for denying the faith: and if you depart from the infallibility of their Rule and judge in pomes of faith, oratlejift from the obligation 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 lamenter 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 mucheffo 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

The Reader mufitake notice that Iwroh\ 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

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 ihcother: 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 Controverfixes 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 argumentation, 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

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. ¥oufay [ It cannot be meant of any Accidental 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

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 knowledge 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 members, 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-member, 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 ancient Churches the Eucharift was but of the Integrity, and not the EfTence of a member of the Church ^ and the acknowledgement 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 Learned and fubftantUl~\ can do you no wrong. They do but fecure our true underftariding

£f one another: And a few lines in the beginning 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 [AllChrifiiansagree fa,]you make no re-plj to it.

As to yourMinor^Ihave given you theRea-

fons

fons of the neceffity and harmlefncfs of my diftindionsiwe need fay no more to that (\e Congregation of Ckrifiians~\ and^aCkfirch^ rire Synonima : But the v?ord[true\ was not added to your firft term by you or me; and therefore your inltance here is delufory.But 0 fay \jwhatfoever Congregation of Chrifti-wsjs now the true Church^ is all one as to fay wbatfoever Church of ( / hriftiansisnoy9 the true Chnrch.~\ When 1 know your meaning 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 preached 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 members. 2. In the Profeflion. 3. Chrift himfelf is vifible in the Heavens, and as much feea 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 : Whether you will Call Chrift vifible or not, t leave tdtyou; I think he is vifible : But

that

that which I affirm, is, that theunivcr-fal Church hath no other vifible univcr-fal Head or Paftor ; But particular Churches 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 Paftors, 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 Opponent 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 Opponent ? 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

whether it be the fart of an Off event, to contrive his Argument fo as that the Negative Jballbe^is^and then change f laces y and become 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. Protectants 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 Controverted : 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

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 argument % that either he hath that fupremacy y

"The Reply to Mr. Johnfons fecond Paper. 91

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 thousands from Popery, if there be fo many rational 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 Patriarch, 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 hereafter, 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 foregoing 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 impertinent. He that faith, you (hall be damned

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

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

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

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

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 advantage againft you. Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative which our Negative 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 universal 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 Congregations ? 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,

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 yet it hath been fo de fafto, as in Afia, Ethiopia, &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 Congregations} ] Anfo. As united in Chrift they were one Church : but as affembling

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 fons {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 [econttPaper.

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

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 Individual.

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 authorities 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. Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons , nor there hath any fuch words which might occafion your miftake : and therefore

H 3 doubt-

jo2 The Reflj to Mr. Johnfons fecond Pdper,

doubtlefs you believed fomebody fonthis that cold yon an untruth-, and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth. Ye: let me tell you, that I will take Pope Leo for no competent judge or witnefs, though you call him a Saint; as long as we know what paft between 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 Alexandria 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 Patriarch 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 contrary 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 deny

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 under 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 impartially read the ancient Church hiftory,and yet can believe that all thefe Churches were then under the Pope, defpair not of bringing your felf to believe any thing imaginable that you would have to be true.

3. Your next queftion is \Whcntht Roman 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

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. Primacy 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 (BlondeI 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 Emperours, and yet not meddle out of the Empire. Yet indeed Cyprians words intimate 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 Counts 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 arrogant 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 portion 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 Congregation ,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

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 effectively 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, whether they will or not : And your modeft ftile makes me hope that you and I are of one Church, though you never fo much renounce 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 Jelves y and remain fiill feparate from the Communion of the Roman Church* Anfw. 1. We never feparatcd from you a>

you

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

*

(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 Dine 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

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 Churchr\ 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 uMr. Johnfons fectndPafcr. 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

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 devoted. 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 Chriftiaaworld, that except they wiH be ruled by the Pope of Rome, and be burned 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 Congregation of Christians,as it is required to make 4

Con-

ft

^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 Dominicans 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 evidence 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. Johnfons 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

&

;

<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

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 feean.

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 ■■ "

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

yefude Converf. omn.gentium, lib. 6. cap. 8. 28r. 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. Bernards* (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 mapert'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 Filib que procedere ut in Bulla ZJnionis Euge-nii 4. dieaur, exiftimantes Latinos /entire cL 'Patre Filioque procedere tanquam a duobus principals-, cum tamen Latino, doceat Ecclefia 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 admitted} and that \jje fndeth not any fair ftantial point that they differ from yon in^ but \ the Primacy'} (So the Armenians were received 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 confidence 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. 12 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 Spinas Santti procejfione fumma cum diligentia 5' AJftdua inqnifitione dvfcuteretnr. Prodis vera teftimoniu ex Divinis Script uru, \Hrimifque author itatibus fanttor am dolio-itm orientaltum & accident *lium> aliquibus uidem ex Patre & Filio, quibufdam vero ex Atrc perFiUnm procedere dicentibus Spirit*

Stnttum,

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^^Bus 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 veritatisfenfus 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

:aufe you to pafs fo direful a doom (without 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 pronounced 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 ^pcfiles

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

&c. The

&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 ofthe 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

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

But you fay that when I have made the >eft of thefe Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Proteftants, I cannot deduce them uccefliveiy in all ages till (Thrift zsadijfer-nt Congregation of Chriftians from that vkich holds the Topesfxprewary, 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,

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 withering 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

: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 Bifiopof 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-ius ,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. 18. ) ad AnJ). 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

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-jwaded 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 relieve 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. Johnfons/err ond Paper; 119

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 appealed to Rome, therefore he appealed thither as to the ZJniverfal Ruler of the [Church. ' The ftory derideth your conference. 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

over Volumes thus in vain for your citations, 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 evident 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 Empire.

It being the cuflome of the Churches ic the Empire, to make the Votes of the Patriarchs 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

peals were made to that Seat • fo alfothey gave Rome the firft Seat. Of this whole matter Perron is fully anfwered already by BlondeIIde 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 Empire and the Councils thereof, fo the Empire 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 Government 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

ftating of the Primacy at lafi in Gregories dajes on Conftantinople it felf, whofe pretence 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 Flavians dayes,that were the fame as Leo*$ y and the bufineffe done about 449. This Argument 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 Orthodox, 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

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 Fathers, and give Confiantimple equall pri-iviledges, though his Legates refufe to consent. 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 cannot be proved to be Cyprians : for the Reasons 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 **,

an y ancientM.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 ultra 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

•

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 Council 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*

136 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 Canons 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 deConcord. Cath. 1.2.C.25. makes a doubt whether

the

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 Orients 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 excommunicated 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 deified 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

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*

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 fujpetted 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

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 punifhhU 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

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. 17. 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

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

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. 35, 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,

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<

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 Dominion ) 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

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

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 excommunicating 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

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

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

1 And it is to be noted, that your Author Ni&phorns tells you, lib. 13. cup. J I; that UhryfoftomesLetters^nd his lellow-Biftiops ilfo, and the Clergies of 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:herBifliop have declared him : But how far it ftiould I L 3 ^

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 renouncing 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 fontif 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

#*

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 Innocent 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 authority refiored Bi/hops wrongfully depojed all the Church aver. ] Reply. I. It ieems you took Chamkrs words on truft : perufe

L 4 that

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 communion by particular Bifhops, even as tc thofe that were not of their charge. Anc if the fad: were not proved, yet the forbearance 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

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

**■

jJ4 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 nobispn 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 Commonwealth

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 profeftr-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 argument

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 theeI therefore he was Governour of all the Chtl itian world ? I deny the confequence. Ycl do nothing but _beg ; not awordofprooj Caput wzsbut membrurnprincipale , 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 beggedof \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-

15 8 The Rfply to Mr.JohnConsfecond P*fi

Confiantinople, they tell you had decreedt 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. 134, 136. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

man

Ibe Reply U Mr Johnfons fecond Paper. \Ci

fcny more{heets (If a man hadfomuch 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 Ncflorin* 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

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 themfelves. 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 feccndPaper.

done Ordination apoftolica , which were ordained 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 allother. "] 3. It is yourfi&ion,aiH not the words of Valentinian ( or Leo) tha t the fucceffion from Peter was the foundation

The Reply to Mr.JohnConsfeco^dPaper. 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 nothing birt the Motive upon which Leo would have men believe the Synod gave the Primacy 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 authority 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 Privacy 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 Commonwealth 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 Empire? who yet interpof:th his authority there , \_Nequid prater authoritatem fedis ijtitts illicitum^ &c. X& ut fax ubique fervttHfk ]] And in the end,it is All the Provinces , that is, the Vnivcrfity that he, extends his precepts to. 7. And for that annexed [ 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 reverence of S,ynods,without new Letters, to do

much ;

The Rfply to Mr John Tons fecond Paper. \ 6j

much .- But yet ic ieerr s,chac the ri(i»g power 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 Roman 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 fiegeto 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

to that AH. i .where is no fuch matter : but you add [&feq. 3 that I may hare an hundred 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 tuquidemficut membru caput pr iter as, in his qui tuum tenchant 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 Carthage, 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 furn,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

which it appeareth, that he only is acknowledged 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

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.Stephen 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 arguments againftPopery, 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 contradiction, 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 contradictions 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 Author 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 credible, 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 fnniawentam, given to Andrtvr by Ifjcjsfius, and equal exprefiions to others, as well as Rome and Peter. And who is ignorant 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

where you fay £ Afcadius 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 offering 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 Empire ?

Pire ? So that they were but fuch as we now call National Councils, that is, confifting only of the fubje#s of one Republick. 3. Did the Council fpeak a word for your power without the Empire? 4. Do they not determine 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 appeal, 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

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 Canterbury 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 Governour 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

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 EfTentialisof Christianity, of which Popery is none, anymore then Pride is.

About the word [Monarchy^ good fad-,nefs ? do you deny the Pope to be [ an imperious fole Commander. m Which of thefcis it thai you deny ? not that he is [a Commander 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 following 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

on fire may be witnefs) as your, own Hiflo-ries allure us. 3. The Government of Kings alfois for \_menseternal good] however Papifts would make them but their executioners 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 ignorant that Bellarmine, Boverins, and ordinarily your Writers iabour to prove that the Goverr^ment of the Church is Monarchical^ 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 difclaim from it, neither 7vas it ever given by *ny fujficient authority

to

TB*>

The Reply to Mr Johnfons fecondPaper, 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 vizard.

i. Is not the very life of the Caufe between you and us, whether the Pop? be the Univerfal Head of the Church, vice Chrifti,, & vicaritu 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. whether 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 VicarinsChrifti-, none more common fcarce then the latter : And what Englilh is there litter for this, then the Vuc-Chrift> or Vicar of Chrift ?

178 The Reply to Mr Johnfons fecondPaper.

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 utterly 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 multitudes 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

[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 *Mthings, 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 pajfagio five Bulla contra Turcos , fent to Philip Palatine Eleftor 1481, 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,

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^ 163. [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 forefaid Patriarchal Churches ( notorious 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*

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 before Pope Julius 2. in the approved Council 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

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 utfalutem 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, without contradiction, yea by his own command, as the Oratour profefTeth £ fujfifii tu y Paterfanile, & 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

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 Godhead itfelf.

Ac the ib r efaid Council at Laterant, Anionics 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 Archief faith [ Rtgts in compe m dibus mtgnitudinis magni Regis liga, & ner

N 4 If i U»

biles in manic is ferr 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 repeated, [Then that mktft awaythe 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 giveth ) 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 andhigheftcaufe of all corporal andfpiritual motions. )

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

lib.

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 Cornelius , 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 diferect (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 contravened ? 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 confefs 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 Baronies 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

not ( as JVV/w tells you ) neither a precedency 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 Gregory 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 Vniverfal 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-falPatriarch~]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*

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 Ordinary and extraordinary Governours. But i. of old the Councils called Generall (indeed 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 extraordinary, if the Council of Conftance had been infallible, or of fuffitient power, who decreed 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 ordinarily 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

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 Nation be Governed by Triennial! ( and fo De-cenniall ) Parliaments as the higheft power, and Councils of State in the intervals, who (hall be accountable to Parliaments ^ 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 execution in the intervals,

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

about

t$0 The R'plytt Mr.]ohnfon$[tcotidPaper 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 impertinent 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 exception, 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 Empire, If now you will deny to do the like, I

M

(hall conclude you fly and forfake your Cau fe. Befides your Rejoinder to this Reply, 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* vifible '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. whether 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

19 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 Bellarmine, 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 introduction, fringing out of a Nationall (I mean Imperial!) Primacy, which alfo was of humane invention. It was but one Civil Government or Commonwealth, in which your Bifliop had his Primacy, and that long without 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, honour, 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, contending 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 Capacity 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 impertinent allegations, and that I may be fure that your inefficient arguings are not from any imperfeftion of the pcrfon,but of the Caufe.

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 exceptions againft it confuted.

4

LONDON, m

: $3fe$3&W&

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

He terms explained.

i. [The Church 3 fometime fignifieth a particular Congregation adually met, or aflbci-atcd for fuch perfonal meeting , 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 Communion or correfpondency by their Paftors-, and alfo the Aflemblies of the Paftors of the particular Churches fo afTociated. Scripture 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

the Proteftams profefs thcmfelv^s Members, \s,The Kingdome 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 Politick 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. £ Protectants are Chrifiians protefling againfi 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 Members : we are not to call it £ A Proteftant UnivcrfaiChurch.]] 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 Ethiopia, 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 proved. 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 accident, 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 healthful] man, ' to prove that he was ever [a purged, or healed man. ] We undertake not therefore to prove that there have been alwayes proteftants, that is, men/Vo-tefling 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 Protectant 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.

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 granted that he is fo- every man being beft acquainted with his own mind, and fitteft to defcribe the Religion which he owns. So that two things I here include, i. It is only fucha'Caiholick Church that hath been {till viiible, £ that Proteftants own.] 2.And only fuch that really they are of, their profeffion 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 members ] 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 Sincerity and Hypocrifie being known only to God and the poffeflbrs, we fpeak of Profejfors as Profeffors abftraftively from their Sincerity or Hjpocrijie.

[Hath been Vifible.] 1. Not vifible to

man

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 Congregations and individual perfons.

3. Not Vifible in the foundnefs of its prefixed faith unto Infidels and Hereticks: 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 corrupter 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 Triumphant 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

lolick Church was theirs; who yet had no art ink,becaufethey # 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 hidden 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 Proteftants 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 Christianity 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 Chriftians on earth fubje&ed to Chrift the Head.

But

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 ubjefted 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 Nature 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 profefs 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

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 Belief 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 Effentials. 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. 11J 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-

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 comprehended in the writings of the Apoftles.J

But all this the Proteftants profefs to relieve.

'£ 3 If fincere Proteftantsare Members )f the true Church, as intrinfecally inform-d ( or as Bellarmine fpeaks, Living Members ) then profeffed Proteftants are Members 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 Believers ; and that as to Profefilon is neceffary 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 damnation. 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 confined in the holy Scriptures as itsRule in all )ointsnece(Tary to falvation, hath been Viable 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. 'Thatthe 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 making mention of it. And no wonder, for t cannot be denied.

That this Church hath taken thefe Scriptures 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 ifacra 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 Members,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 holy Scripture. But if by ignorance or inadvertency , 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 arguments 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 mater of faith, hope, and pradice 5 andfo

oncludes, i\ at t$r: holy Scripture fufficicne-y containeth the *to $ri pceffary viatcri, to.us in the way: And he anfwereth ;th$ objection, of Difficulties in it y ( without flying to the Church) thac £ no fcience ex-plainethall things to be known,, bur thofe things from which therelt may conveniently 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-

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 proceeded 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

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 Theology 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 difcourfe 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 formally contained in the holy Scripture : but of neceflity following from thofe that are contained in them • and this whether they are Articles of faith, ornot(NB > ) i and whether they are knowable or known by another 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 Divines of ailforts r that wrote before the Reformers fell fo cfofely upon the Pope, and

P 4 [find

216 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 revealed 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

•

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 Schoolmen 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

418 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, holy, 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

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 observation 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 3,14.

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 undemanding 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 therefore TertvllUn advifeth the ordinary Christians 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 Scripture

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 & laborisprima 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 intelligentia caf^tior : In its enim qna aperte in Script*-ra poftta funt y inveninntur ilia omnia qua, continent fide?* morefque vivendi , (N.B.) fpem ftilicet 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 Thefuccefshe 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 manners, to be read by all that fear God, and| can read-, and the harder places to be expounded 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 compared 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

reived in the Legal! and Evangclicall Serines, 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 Protects 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

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 knowledge. 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

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

\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 timetur

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 Scripxnras

riant, ejus tamen Ecclefiam non divina-

)rm amhoritate cognofcunt, fed hnmanarHm

llawniarHin vanitate confingunt. Chrift

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 grinaturinterns, a folisortu ufque adocat fum laudans norr.en domini. 3 f

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

openinf

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 cunt 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 ejusftwmusfjocem paftoru noftri dicentis \ No-lite credere.'] ^Cap. 4. Totus Chrftus

Caput & Corpus eft : Csput unigenltus Dei filius , & Corpus ejus Ecclefia, fponfus & fpenfa ; duo inccrne una.: Qvicunque de ipfo eafite ab Script uris fanEiis dijfentiunt y eti.:?r>ji in on.nibusloc[s invent >raturin quibus Eccle-t fia def.gns.ta eft, nun funt 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*

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# Extrafeptem 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 voltint at em &]ufli-cnemDeifecHtifumtis amundo fj.cem y com+ municando teti crbi ttrrarum^ [octetan Oricn-taliitts, ubifecundum hominem fuum nattu efi Chrifttu; ubi e]us fantta J pint i&prejfa vefiigiu \ ubi tin bhL.'vtrunt 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

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 traduces, 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 Roman fubjeftion, he adds £ qua jura non alia ratio regit , quam ejufdem {acramenti una traditio. J

Sc

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 Eccle9 fis.rtiW!, & Apoftdorum, & Chrifti, & Dd* Suptreft ergo ut demonftrtn,u6> an h<ec n<ftr* dedrina ( the Creed • not the Popes additions) 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 ttft internum vcritMtiSm

And cap. 28. he doth not fend us to the Roman Church as Head or Judge, but calling 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 erraverinti Nullus inter multos event m eft anus exit us : Vari-

4<

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-

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 '" Sicfit Mis non pot a it {accedere 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 Scriptures, he fends them to the Apollo' ke

Ctmrches

% j8 The fuccefsive Vifihility of the Church

Churches for the true Scriptures, firfl to the Corinthiansi 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 Chriftian, 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. Becaufe 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-

.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.

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 Apoftles. If a piece of the Church may turn Hereticks, or but Schifmaticks, as the Novations^ 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

&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 Sovereignty 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 EfTential, 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 usircej 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

pious memory, in the Royal City of Constantinople , new Rome^ we alfo knowing hem,have defined the fame things concerning the priviledges of the fame moft holy hurch of Confiantinople, new Rome : for othe feat of old Rome y becaufe of the Empire 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 Romes 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 approved 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 therefore 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 conjunct.

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

the matters which they did debate ; therefore they would have infiftedon this argument 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 disputed 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 ; therefore]

Either the Arriws, Donatijls and futh others did believe the Papal Soveraignty and Vicarlhip, or not: If they did, 1. How

R 3 i*

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 convince 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 people 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

fiacirenounced it? 2. And then why did they not charge this defection from the Pope upon 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

•/ 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, (andmany not of many hundred years after Chriit:) therefore there were vifible Chriftian Churches from the beginning, to this day, that were not for the Roman Vicarfhip.

That abundance of Churches were planted 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 under

t 1

s

5

250 The fnceefshe Viftbility of the Church I

der his Laws ^ nor fcarce had any communion 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 Roman 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 Patriarch of Alexandria , before that Patriarch x broke off his communion with Rome. The Canons of Pifanus, of yefterdayes invention, we regard not : Surely the true Canons 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

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 Empire ) 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 indeed they held with Rome, as they did with one another, till pride divided them ^ but Communion is one thing, and Subjection is another. The Greek Church never gave them this. /

A r g. 6. My next Argument to prove the Novelty of their Church as Papal, and con-fequently that the Univerfal Church was void of Popery, and therefore of the fame Religion wuh proteftants, fliall be from the tefrmony of their own raoft magnified Bi-(hops, Grt-

ef which m are Members, f roved. 2 53

: ty Greger) i.Eplft. RegiftJ.^. c 80. fpeak-ngagaihit the Patriarch of Conftantinople^ otor uiurping che Tide of OecumenicallPa-oitriarch,or UniverfalBi{hop,faith(/J. 181, 182. Edit. Pari/. 155 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 arripere, unde fratrum fuorum honortm imminucre ex quantulacunque parte videatur. Cum ergo nos hunc honcrem minimis 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 confute 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

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 arrogating 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 Gregory 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 Vicar 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

He adds a weighty reafcyi £ ft enim hoi dici licenter fermittitur, honor Patriarch* rum omnium negatur. Et cum fortajfe 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 0 Chriftians, &c. ]

And after again faith \Jtdnullmeor unquam hoe fingularitatis vocabui tffumpfit , ma mi confcnfit^ That none 0

tb

I

\

the Roman Bifliops did ever affume this name of Angularity , nor confent to life it.]]

And therefore he concludes to the Patriarchs of Alexandria ^vA Amioch, c. 80. \pportet ergo nt conflanter ac fine prtjudicio ftrvetisficut accept ft is Eccleftas, & nihil fibi in nobis hac tentatio diabolic* ufurpationis afcribat. State fortes, 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

Pattour and Bifhop of fouls: and all Pa-ftours are to Preach the Word of reconciliation 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 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 Paulas Apofkdu* cum auMret uofdam dicere, Egofurn 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 cruelfixus 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*

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 members. 3. Much more abominable is it for any man to pretend to be the univerfal I Biftiop or Head to all Chrifts members; Jpr 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 inscribed their Lib :1s to him with the name of niverfal Archbifhop : And we muft brieve 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 advantage 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 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 members 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 interpreter 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 diffemblinghypocrite, ~< 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

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 mzmbris 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 before 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

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 difpari 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-

168 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 Number 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 vehemently 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

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 Catalogues 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 Perron. 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. 13. [ Bonif* cius obtinuit apud Phocam Principem^ ut (e* des Romano, Caput effet omnium Ecclefiarum ; quia Ecclefia Conft'antinop'litana primumft omnium EccUfiarumfcribebat. ]

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.

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 71 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<

[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 content 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.

11.Its determined by a Council now, tfc

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 16. 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: therefore 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 Papifts think that the Council of v Chal-

ctdw fpoke falfly of the humane Origihall of

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 Faction 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, andUniverfities,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 favoured and obferved them ( O tender Father, 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 13. 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 facefshe Vifihilitj of the Churci

calls Schifmaticks and Hereticks, and I communicate , becaufe we refift not t King—-]] And p. 181. [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 therefore 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. iAnd 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 faculty 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

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 contradictions; and therefore they conclude, that though he were no Heretick (becaufe nor pertinacious ) yet they ought not to believe that his dodrine was in no part heretical}, 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. (Iown 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 approbation of his Theological! doctrine • even as to fay this of other Saints and chief Dodors derogateth not from their Canonization or approbation, for as the Church by Canonizing one a Saint, doth not thereby 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 Vifibilitjof 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 Nations man by man before your bar , and convinced 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 Members, hath been Vifible fince the dayes of Chrift on earth. 2. And ex abundantly that the Papal Church as Papal hath ncft been vifible, 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

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 tarnur 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 defide. Saith SkjtlRtvius Afol. fro Bellf.rm.c. 6.p. 255. The Popes Power is as the hinge, the foundation, 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 apparent 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 Council hath juft fomuch ftrength and authority^ the Apoftolike feat beltoweth on it/] But I leave you to give us your own judgement.

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 proved 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

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 Popery.

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 />. 1132. 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 according 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 union/ 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

\

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. 1141,

U i When '

29 a Whether Her sticks are in the Church.

When I came to London^ I enquired after Mr. tfoknfon^ to know whether I might at allexpeft any Anfwerto the foregoing Papers, or not: And at laft inftead of an Anfwer, I received 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 argumentation 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 anfwerthru to jour

•adverfary : Whereas you fay it is againll all

antiquity

Whether Hereticks are in the Church. 293

antiquity and Chriitianity to admit condemned 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 entreateyou 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 explication 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 Communion 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 communion 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 Hereticks ( in the fofter fenfe ) that are its matter. 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 Heretick^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 DoArine of Faith ( as fuch ) , or of one that upon iome difference of Opinion, or fome perfonal quarrels, withdraweth from the Communion of thofe particular Churches that before he held communion with , and gathereth a feparated party : fuch are molt ufually called Schifmaticks• butof old,thenam; [Hereticks 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 condemned 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, impenitent and habitually ftated Hereticks.

Upon thefe neceffary diftin&ions, Ian-fwsrr 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 communion in the principal refpe&s, while they peevifhly difclaimitin other reipe&s. Besides that the local or particular Communion, is it that is proper to members of a particular Church , and therefore the renouncing it only feparates him from that Church. jBut it is the general Communion that belongs 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 cornfield.

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 accordingly caft out from communion of all thd Churches, of which they are Paftors.

Prof. 5. So.farasanyChriftiansthrough the world have fufficient. proof or cog-J nifar.ee of the faid conviction and condemnation , 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 condemned 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 Authored 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 preemption (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

3Q0 Whether Hereticks 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

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 deEccL I. 3. c* 3.) con's the being of that which indeed is the jeCatholike Church, faying of the Vn-ftized Be/levers, that [funt de Ecclefia t£ comprehends omnesfidcles ab Abel ufqut \confttmmationem mxndi.] 2. Many Popes have been condemned for ereticks, even by General Councils, as not lly Honorius (by two or three) but Eh-nins by the Council of Bafil, when yet he fpt his place, and the reft come in as his cceffors. And your writers frequently mfefs that a Pope may be an Heretick (as )pe Adrian himfelf affirmeth.) Now if lele are not of the Church, then they are x Heads of the Church, and then being rential parts of your Church, it followeth lat your Church is heretical and unchurch-iwith them. But if thefe Popes may be 1 the Church (and Heads of yours) while kreticks, then fo may others.

3. Its

■

3 0 % Whether Hfreticks are in the Church

3. Its commonly faid by others yours) as well as BelUrmin: % that the Cq cils were mifinformed about Honoriui, (; the Popes that confented to thofe Counc and fo that he was not a Heretick nor of the Church : Alfo that a Pope may c in matter of faft, and unjuftly excommq cate. If fo, a Pope and Council may e about another, as well as about Honorim other Popes • and therefore their fentei be no proof that fuch are outof the Chur< no more then that he and Eugenins wi out.

4. As the Pope and his Synods conder the Greeks, fo the Greeks condemn and t communicate you •, as formerly the Pat arch of Conftantinofle^ and the Pope ha excommunicated each other. I am therefo no more bound to take them for excomm nicate perfons, than you, they having much authority over you as you over thei and their witnefs being to us as credible yours.

5. The Abajfmcs^ Armenians^ Greeks ,& are not proved to deny any effential poi of the Chriftian Religion, or which ncceffary to the Being of a Chriftian 1 Church.

0. Nor are they proved to be willfi

obftiaa

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 condemn 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 tryal.

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 errors 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;

11. And yet I think the far greateft part

ol

>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.

Blit Sir, having thus anfweredyour demand, 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.

asyou begun inyourfirft 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 between us, upon equal terms •, we have yet other Queftions in which we differ,that are lower thenthefe, and nearer the foundation. Befides the forementioned work therefore, 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 Reformed 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

any fit time and place molt cheerfully entertain it, if fo many doubting perfons may be prcfent, as that it may be worth our labour. In the mean time I pray pardon 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

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 Verbal 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 explained 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, Congregations , or Communities of Chriftians , who live in unity of true faith, and external 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 particular vifible Church, of which you

X 4 make

nuke the Catholick to be confli-tutedf

AfK J.

Anfvv. Itisfufficitnt that fuch be fttbjett to the fupream Paftor, and in voto, quantum in le clt , rejclved to be of that particular Church a£lnatty\ 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 definition 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 confine 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 latitude. 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

314 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 further 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 belief 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

<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 ordinary 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 •, becaufe all men (or moll at leaft) have been finfully negligent in fearching after,and receiving truth • and fo are finfully ignorant • No man knoweth all that God hath revealed, or that he ought to know. 3. Becaufe by this rule it is impoftibie lor you or any

man

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 bolides that general propofitionj ^ or yoi mean that fome rauft be believed explicitl\ 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

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 licitf] 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 here that [God i$ true,] and that Qhis Profs 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

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 [whatis 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 depended 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 contemned 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 contemned/] 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

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 Campion, 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:

: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

!fbur anfwer, till you yet tell us how we muft criow our Paftors to have authority indeed. 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 Sufficient 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 follow 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 Common-wealth, and not our Allegiance, or duty 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

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 concerning 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 uncertainties, 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.

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 appropriate the name of £thc Church] to the Clergy ? But remember hereafter, when you tell us of the Determinations, and Traditions 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. 325

Mr. J.

In the Voill, by an imperate AH, reft raining 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 Imperate. AW Imperate afts are in ( or immediately 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

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 revealed, 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

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 permitted, 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 Formalobj^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,

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 publicly Teftithony, that fuch things are revealed by the infallible authority of thofe who arc the highefi Tribunal of Gods Church ^ or

h

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 being 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 education 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

e Pope by this>till I know,howPeters icccffors may be known to me. rhat perfonal qualification is oeccflk-adejfei

Mr. J.

Anfw. Such aj is neceffarj ad effe for her Bifiops 5 which Ifuppofeyon knoVr.

I R.B. Reply.

I Of the Pope.

SIh. 1. Reply. If fo, then all thofe were 10 popes that were Hereticks, or denied iTential points of faith (as Johan. 23.) and 0 were no Chriftians •, and all thofe that vantcd the necefTary abilities to the effen-:ia!s of their work. . And fo your Church nth oft been headlefs, and your fuccefCon merrupted, Councils having cenfured many Popes to be thus unqualified • And the difyofitio materia being of it felf ncceffary to the reception of the form, it muft needs (follow, that fuch were no Popes, even before the Councils charged them with incapacity or Herefie; becaufe they had it, before they iwere accufed of it. And Simony then made many uncapable.

R.B.

a 3 1, the fenfe of the mfifi ufedterms Mfeu 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 believing 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 nfedterms 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 • fubjeftion 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

i. Here are no determinate Eleftors men tioned • and therefore it fcems none know toycm: ^nd no wonder: for ifyoa con fine it to the people, or to the Cardinals, o to the Emperours, or to Councils, you cu off all your Popes that were chofen by th other waies. 2. Nor do you determine 0 any particular difcernable note, by whid theEle&ors, and power of ele&ion may b known to the Church: But all thefe parche makeup your defcription. 1. It muftb thofe that are efteemed fit for the charge

2. And that by thofe to whom it belongs

3. And that by cvftome. 4. And that af proved. 5. And the Church mull be fatil iied with the ele&ion. O miferable bod; then that hath been fo oft headlefs, as Rom hath been / 1. Will efteeming them fit ferve turn though they be unfit ? then it i not the fitne/s that is neceffary, but th efiimatien, ("true or falfe .) 2. But why di< you not tell us to -whom it is that it belong to efieem the Choofersfit ? Here you were a a ftreight. But is not this to lay nothin while you pretend to fpeak ? and to hid what you pretend to open ? 3. And wfo knows what cuftome, and of what continn ance you mean ? Primitive cuftom went on way ^ an£ Afterward cuftom went anothe

way

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 approbation 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,

Mr.}.

Anfw. It is not absolutely necejfary a< effe. 1

R. B. Reply. |

JJ#. 4. Reply. Ifconfecration 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

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 fabject 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 particulars , and ftbfifts Without determining that qneftion.

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 therefore 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.

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 moficommon con-fent of the people : The Elettiw is diff. rent according to different times, places , and other cir cum fiances. Epifcopal 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-

fubmiilion and obedience in judicial administrations ^ 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

(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 ^ trunwritten.

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 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 received 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 Tradition againft it ? And how lame is your Tradition, wh:n its carried on your private •affirmations, and is nothing but the unproved 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 tfthe 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 another thing ? what opportunity have ordinary 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 Chriftian

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 familiarity, hath delivered his mind by in-fpired perfons long ago, with much lels fen-fible advantages, becaufe ic is a life of faith that he dire&eth us to live.

: Mr. J.

General Council.

■

^general Council, 1 take to be, an afjcmbly of Btfhcps and other chief Prelates, called, convened, And confirmed, hi tbofe who have juffcicnt Spiritual authority 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 called or confirmed by the Pope, then your definition (ignificth nothing, if you abftraft from that which is fo neceflary an ingredient, unlefs it were prefuppofed to be understood. 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 fome fart m md not therfhqle Species, or fpecificalNoti-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 nfedterms 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 difficulties

'es of times, difiances ofplace, and other drum ft antes •, at is alfo the farts, from whence hej 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

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 Nq7 it is no Schifm, us Schifm i

ttkfi

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. Refly 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 feeing 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 ufed 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.

Arifw. Not , as we here underfiand Schifm, andas the Fathers treat it. For the Church ofChrift being perfectly, ene 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 members, and abacing charity, and caufing contentions

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 it60.

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 Definitions 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, IJhallgladly, if God enable me,go on with'you, till we come (if it may be) to our defired 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 reduced 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 ofmoftof their difcourfes, in what (hape ioever they appear. To which ] anfwer.

i. As [_a Church^ is taken for a Community tf Chriftians, which are really members of the Churchuniverfal, 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 opinion 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 opinion, 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

cannot by them be made neceflary to our Bifhops.

4. Nothing in Church Hiftory more certain, 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 further 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 Ordination only determineth of the per/on that fhall receive it (together with election,) and foleranizeth it by Inveftiture: as Corona-

Aa 3 tion

tion to a King, that is a King before. I have already proved that an uninterrupted [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 Kingdom: which I am ready to make good.

6. This whole cafe of Ordination I have already fpoken to (fo carefully and fully according 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 Ordination we had from the Pafift Bifbops before our Reformation, or the Ordination that Vve received 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 Ordination 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 corruption 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,

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 continued 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

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 ?31 again Anfwer, There is a judicium privatum ,and publicum : A private judgement of difcerning belongs to every man: The publicly judgement is either Civil or Ecclefiaflical. TTie 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 Communion, in their feveral capacities. The members 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 capacity 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 nothing to do with us at fuch a diftance, whofe perfons and cafes are wholly unknown 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 finaljudgement of the Vnivtrfal fudge, who is at the door.

A

LETTER

Written to

Thomas Smith

A Papift, Concerning the Church of Rome*

•

> c|i t^ 4* 4? 4* 4* 4* 4* 4? 4* 4? 4? 4* 4*

\

Reverend Sir,

f Hi? notedfanftity, 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 wmortalfouls 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

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 thoughts, whether 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 argut 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 perfon 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\

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, being not received from the Pope, is fo extraordinary, yea and contrary to the judgement of your writers , that I muft needs entertain it with the more gratitude, and fome admiration. And that you are fo impartially 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 acquaintance 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

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 communicate it. But on thefe conditions, i. That it beaperfon of a tender confcience, that dare fpeak nothing but what he verily believes. 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 rube fo upheld and carried on, 2, A m fo far from cruel uncharitable cenfures of any that unfeignediy love the L< us and his truth, that it is the grea to me of all other to diflike your Pr m, becaufe it is fo notorioufly : rfl CI charity, reftraining the loiike Church to your feives, and ourirrg and condemning the far greacuft pajct of Chriftians in the world, and that becaufe theybelievs not in the Pope, though they believe in God the rather, Son and Holy Ghoft, and all thas the Primitive Church believed. I am fo Catholike, that (according to my prefent judgement) I cannot be of your Church, becaufe it is fo little Catholike. I am of the one univcfal Church, which containeth all the true Chriftians in the world; And you a*e of a Tarty which bath feparatcd it felt from moll ot the ( \ the world. I am of that one body that is centred in Chrift theHead^ youare of apiece of this body, that hath centred in a man, and oft acon-feffed heretical wicked man, v;hom you

B b take

take while he lives to be the infallible Judge and foundation of all your faith and hope ^ and when he is dead, perhaps pronounce him to be in hell (as BelUrmine did VopeSixtns, 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>ofiles 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 members. 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 Mexicoj 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 Apoftles 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.

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 hundred 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 Patriarchal 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 whether the Church of Rome be now a true particular Church? If I lived at the Antipodes 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 concerned me, to know whether they be a true particular Church, fave for charity or communion.

2. Yet Ianfwerit more direftiy. i. If they do not by their errors fo far overthrow the Chnftian faith which they proofs, as that it cannot prafticaliy be believed *by ihem, then are they a t;ue particular Church, or par: of the imiverfal Church. 2. And I am apt to I : at leait of moft that they do not fo hold their errors, buc that they retain with them fo much of the effencials of Religion a ay denominate them a true frofeffin^ Cfofri lore plain-

° Bb ;' ly;

/

ly : Rome is confidered firft as Chriftian, fecondly as Papal: As Chriftian, it is a true Church : As Pupal, it is no true £hurch\ For Popery is not the Church according to Chrifts Inftitution, but a dangerous corruption in the Church. As a Leprofie is not the man, but the difeaje of the man. Yet he that is a Leper may be a man. And he that is a JP^/?*/?* may be a Chriftian : But i. Not as he is aPapift. 2. And he is but a leprous or difeafed Chriftian. So much to your Queftions.

By this much you may fee that it no way concerneth me to prove when Rome ceafed to be a true Church. For if you {mean fuch a Church as Corinth, Philippi, Ephefus, &c. was, that is , but a part of the Catholike Church, folfticknot much, favingin point of Charity, whether it be true or falfe. But if you mean as your party doth, a Miftris Church to Rule the Vvhole, avd denominate the I Catholike Church [Roman,"} fo I fay, its Ztfurpation is not teafed (that's the tmltvy) and its juft title never did begin.- and its claim was not of many hundred years after Chrift; fo that your Queftion requireth no further Anfwer.

But

But what if you had put the Queftion, At what time it was that your Church began 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 beginning 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 endowments 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 preserving 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'onftantinofie occafoned the thoughts of an univerfal Headfhip •, which Gregory did difclaim and abominate, but Boniface after him, by the

Bb 4 grant

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 power ; And yet I do not think that any Lawyer 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,

Church, and Rome their Miftris, (as the Pope makes Patriarchs of Antioeh, Alexandria, 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 himfelf 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

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 Arguments 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 cannot 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 Narrative , 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>

me fomeVehat from the prefent tame ft profe-i cution thereof as it deferves. Temporal credit, though it fbould give way to things of eternal moment ', yet it often fwajs the minds' even of good men to negleEi very important opportunities -, which though I cannot excufe my felf of, yet 1 defire it may be candidly interpreted , 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 fmall 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 Iknoty 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 refpe^ling^ or outward 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 mercy, that my underftanding may befo enlight-

ned,

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 fiall 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 harboured in my heft-, but the [usance of jour

difcourfe

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 direction which prompted me to the choife bfyour felf 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 intentions : which truth I/hall impartially and joyfully entertain wherefoever I find it, without any thoughts at all of temporal or external difcouragements > of which 1have already con-t efie 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 encouraged to thinks, yM I verily believe, theft rude things proceeding from a foul that is t§ rife or fall according to what is now determining between m , it will not be macceptably received from, Sir,

The admirer of your worth,

March 24. 165*.

Tho* Smith*

A Narrative of the cafe ef T. S. by his friend.

Reverend Sir,

Mr. Thomas Smith late of Martins Ludgate London was brought up in the Proteftant Religion, and for fome years accounted an affe&ionate profeffor thereof, by thofe who were acquainted with his diligence 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 cannot 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 perplexed, 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 Authority 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 exchanged 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 believe was a great lover of fouls) which he by letter did as he told me, and that Mr. Baxter did returnhim an anfwer thereunto in writ- j ing, with liberty to (hew it to any the moft learned of his way ^ which when he came ' to Lmdon he (hewed me, acknowledging j himfelf much convinced by it: and the more taken, for that fo large and full an anfwer with that liberty ftiould be difpatch't to him with fo much expedition, which as I remem-0 ber he faid he had the next day after he fent his. Yet was he confident, as he faid, that it

would

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 Congregations for fomc time ^ I my felf having

Cc 2 fcen

fecn him at the morning exercife in London : what further eflfe&s it wrought upon him I know not ^ for that he left the City and went over into Flanders as his Mother 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 employments 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 urged fo hard for a Reply, as put me in fome

further

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 urging 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 perform. ) But yet I hear nothing to this day of your AnfVver to my Papers, or the Performance of what is incumbent on you for the juftification of your Church: And therefore 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 little longer •, my difcretion and the ends of my writing have commanded me, to forbear no longer the publication of what hath pail between

twccn us: Tor, though the work be not copious 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 entreat 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 Governour 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

•

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