Novelty represt, in a reply to Mr. Baxter's answer to William Johnson wherein the oecumenical power of the four first General Councils is vindicated, the authority of bishops asserted, the compleat hierarcy of church government established, his novel succession evacuated, and professed hereticks demonstrated to be no true parts of the visible Church of Christ / by William Johnson.

CHAP. II.

The ARGUMENT:

No Negative fram'd in Positive, Historical matters to be proved, num. 24. but the Instances al∣ledged against it, to be disproved by the Oppo∣nent. num. 25. The Pope obeyed in England, not only as Patriarch of the West, but as Su∣pream visible Pastor of the whole Militant Church,* 1.1 was in quiet possession of the spiritual government of the English Church when Protestancy first appear∣ed in it. Mr. Baxter forced n. 27. to deny two common principles, n. 28. His unfair dealing with his adversa∣ry. n. 33, 34. Visible Pastors, though Christs Officers Essential to his visi∣ble Church; and if they, why not the Supream amongst them? n. 35, 36. Some under Officers are Essential to Monarchies. p. 38. No new work to be attempted till the old

be finish'd. n. 39, 40, 41, 42, &c. Mr. Baxter puts many questions and doubts where there is no need; and n. 46. mistakes grosly his Adversa∣ries words and meaning.

Baxter.

Num. 24. In stead of prosecuting your Argument, when you had cast the work of an Opponent upon me, you here appeal to any true Logician, or expert Lawyer. Content, I admit your Appeal. But why then did you at all put on the face of an Opponent? Could you not without this lost labour, at first have called me to prove the suc∣cessive visibility of our Church? But to your Appeal. Ho all you true Logicians, this Learned man and I re∣fer it to your Tribunal, whether it be the part of an Op∣ponent to contrive his Argument so, as that the Nega∣tive shall be his, and then change places, and become Respondent, and make his Adversary Opponent at his pleasure We leave this Cause at your Bar, and expect your Sentence. But before we come to the Lawyers Bar, I m••••st have leave more plainly to state our Case.

Iohnson.

Num. 24. I am still content to refer my case, as I state it in your Edition, p. 35. But why do you refer what I admit not? I say not, that every Opponent may come to a Negative at his pleasure, (as you make me say) but when that Negative is deduced by force of Syllogistical form, and denied by the Respondent in a matter proveable by instances, as this is, I affirm, and desire it should be sent to both our Learned Univer∣sities, that he, who denies the universal Negative, is

obliged, in Logical process, to give some instance to the contrary: and that there is no other means to prove that Negative, but by infringing the instances, which the Respondent produces against it. For if the Oppo∣nent go to prove his universal negative by Induction, viz. in my present Minor, But no Congregation of Chri∣stians hath been alwayes visible, save those which acknow∣ledge St. Peter, &c. he must come at last to this, Such a Congregation is neither that of the Arrians, nor of the Eutychians, nor of Nestorians, nor any other Congre∣gation that can be named. Then, if the Respondent deny that Proposition, and affirm there is some name∣able, he is obliged to tell which it is, otherwise it is impossible to make progress in the Argument: which way of arguing notwithstanding is most Logical, and usually practised amongst Learned Disputants.

Baxter.

Num. 25. We are all agreed, that Christianity is the true Religion, and Christ the Churches universal Head, and the Holy Scriptures the Word of God. Papists tell us of another Head and Rule; the Pope and Tradition, and Iudgement of the Church. Protestants deny these Additionals, and hold to Christianity and Scripture one∣ly: our Religion being nothing but Christianity, we have no controversie about: their Papal Religion, superadded, is that which is controverted. They affirm 1. the Right, 2. the Antiquity of it: We deny both. The Right we disprove from Scripture, though it belongs to them to prove it. The Antiquity is it, that is now to be refer∣red. Protestancy being the denial of Popery, it is we that really have the Negative, and the Papists, that have the Affirmative. The Essence of our Church

(which is Christian) is confessed to have been successive∣ly visible: But we deny that theirs, as Papal, hath been so: and now they tell us, that it is Essential to ours, to deny the Succession of theirs; and therefore require us to prove a Succession of ours, as one that still hath denied theirs. Now we leave our Case to the Lawyers, seeing to them you make your Appeal, 1. Whether the Substance of all our Cause lie not in this question, Whether the Pa∣pacy, or universal Government by the Pope, be of Hea∣ven or of Men?* 1.2 and so, Whether it hath been from the beginning? which we de∣ny, and therefore are called Protestants; and they af∣firm, and are therefore called Papists. 2. If they can∣not first prove a Successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church, then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world, or ever any pleaded for it? 3. And as to the point of Possession, I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The possession of this, or that particular Parish Church, or Tythes, is not the thing in question; but the universal Headship is the thing. But if it were, yet it is I that am yet here in Possession; and Protestants before me for many Ages Successively. And when possessed you the Head-ship of the Ethiopian, Indian, and other Extra-Imperial Churches? never to this day. No, nor of the Eastern Churches, though you had Communion with them. 2. If the question be, who hath possession of the universal Church, we pretend not to it; but onely to a part, and the soundest, safest part 3. The Case of Pos∣session therefore is, Whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion, which is bare Christianity, then you of your super-added Popery. Our Possession is not denied of Christianity: yours of Popery we deny: (and our denial makes us called Protestants) Let therefore

the reason of Logicians, Lawyers, or any rational sober man determine the case, whether it do not first and prin∣cipally belong to you, to prove the visible Succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church.

Iohnson.

Num. 25. Fair and softly, Sir, you are run quite out of the field, and have lost your self I know not where. The present question is not, who is to prove the univer∣sal and perpetual Supremacy of the Roman-Bishop? See you not, that I have already undertaken the proof of that in this present Argument? The question at pre∣sent is nothing but this, when I have brought the Argu∣ment to this Head; that no other Congregation of Chri∣stians can be named perpetually visible, save that which acknowledges the Roman Supremacy, and you deny that negative Proposition of mine, whether you be not obliged upon that denial, to name some Congregation, which has been perpetually visible beside it. This, and this onely, is that which I referr'd, and still refer to the the judgement of the Learned: as to your Case, when it comes in season; it shall be resolved. This onely ex abundanti for the present: whatsoever may be, or not be, of the Indians and Ethiopians, &c. (which shall hereafter be examined.) You, who confess the Pope to have been constituted,* 1.3 at least by the Churches grant, Patriarch of the West, and thereby to have acquired a lawfull Supremacy over the Western Churches, (and consequently over that of Eng∣land) and was in full and quiet possession of that Right, when your first Protestants began to reject it; you, I say, cannot deny, those first Protestants at least to have been obliged, by reason of that possession, to bring convin∣cing

proofs that it was unlawfull: which notwithstand∣ing you must hold impossible to be done, because you hold that Patriarchal power over them to have been law∣full. Now what obligation falls upon you, as maintain∣ing successively so wrongfull a cause, I leave to your consciences to determine. Nay, it is most evident, in time of the first breach with the Roman Bishop, he was in as quiet possession of Supremacy over the English Church, in quality of Supreme visible Pastor over the whole Church, as he was in quality of the Western Pa∣triarch; for the English obeyed him as Supreme over all, and not as Patriarch of the West onely, as appears by thousands of testimonies extant in our National Coun∣cils, Doctors, Bishops, Historians, Records, De∣crees, &c. Therefore those, who dispossest him of that possession, were bound either to have demonstrated it undeniably to be unlawfull, or to have procured a de∣finitive Sentence against him by such as had full Au∣thority to judge him, that his possession was unjust: neither of which either hath been done, nor can ever be done.

Baxter.

Num. 26 As to your contradictory impositions, I re∣ply, 1. Your exception was not exprest, and your impo∣sition was peremptory.

Iohnson.

Num. 26. But I supposed my Adversaries to be Lo∣gicians, and stood not in need to be instructed in usual Logical processes, belonging to Syllogisti∣cal Form.* 1.4 Do what I can, you will mis∣take me. I speak of a Church denying that the Pope hath alwayes had it, that is, of a Church

which now, or of late times denies it; and you make me speak of a Church, which hath alwayes denied it, contrary to my express words immediately following. as you presently acknowledge. All I pretend is this; Prove that any Church, which now denies it, hath been alwayes visible, and I am satisfied, whether that Church alwayes denied it, or no.

Baxter.

Num. 27. I told you, I would be a Papist, if you prove, That the whole visible Church in all Ages held the Popes universal Head-ship. You say that you have proved it by this Argument, that either he hath that▪ Su∣premacy, or some other Church, denying that he hath alwayes had it, hath been alwayes visible: and that Church you require should be named. I reply, 1. Had not you despaired of making good your Cause, you should have gone on by Argumentation▪ till you had forced me to contradict some common Principle. 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world, and tell them, that you have no better proof of the Succession of your Papacy, then that we prove not, that it hath alwayes been denied by the visible Church, you would sure turn thousands from Po∣pery, if there be so many rational considering impartial men, that would peruse them, and believe you. For any man may know, that it could not be expected, that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ, before he was sprung up. Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop, or Patriarch, till Pelagius and Gregory? but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it. How should any Heresie be op∣posed, or condemned, before it doth arise?

Iohnson.

Num. 27. I have manifestly forced you to contradict a common Principle; and not one, but Two of them. First, you are forced to contradict that Principle in Lo∣gick, That he, who denies an universal Negative Pro∣position, framed in a positive Historical matter, as mine is, is not obliged to give an instance, when it is de∣manded, to infringe the universality of it: and this I have, and do refer. The second is a Theological, or ra∣ther Christian Principle, That no professed Heretick, nor Schismatick properly so called, is a true part of the universal visible Church of Christ. That this is such a Principle, shall appear hereafter; where I shall make it evident, that a professed Heretick, properly so called, had, or could have, true Christian Faith, or the profes∣sion of it, without which no man can be a true member of the Catholick Church, that is, united to Christ as his Head, as you explicate your meaning. Your other dif∣ficulties, about the Title of Universal Bishop, &c. shall be answered in their place.

Baxter.

Num. 28. But you fairly yield me somewhat here, and say, that you oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church, formally and expresly denying it; but that it was of such a Constitution as was inconsistent with any such Supremacy, or could and did subsist without it. Reply. I confess, your first part is very ingenious and fair. Remember it hereafter, that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly.

Iohnson.

Num. 28. But have you dealt as fairly with me; when after I had so clearly explicated my self, in my former Answer, not to exact a perpetual visible Church, for∣mally and expresly denying that Supremacy, you make me frame an Argument, in the precedent Paragraph, exacting the formal and express denial of it in all Ages: is this fair? You corrupt again my Proposition, I say not that I freed you from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly, but (as you acknow∣ledge in this Paragraph) that I obliged you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it, that is, such a Church, as denied it so, all the time that it was visible; yet I quitted you not of the obliga∣tion, of instancing in a Church which at some time or other denied it formally and expresly, as your infe∣rence seems to affirm I do. For seeing it has for many hundred years been publickly acknowledged, as due to the Bishop of Rome, it was deniable by those who lived in the said Ages.

Baxter.

Num. 29. But as to what you yet demand, 1. I have here given it you, because you shall not say I••••le fail you: I have answered your desire. But, 2. It is not as a thing necessary, but ex abundanti, as an overplus. For you may now see plainly, that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor (which you require) is to prove the Negative, viz. that then there was none such; whereas it's you that must prove, that there was such. I prove our Religion; do you prove yours: though I say

to pleasure you, Ile disprove it, and have done it in two Books already.

Iohnson.

Num. 29. I had no farther Obligation in the Process of this Argument, then to inforce you to produce an in∣stance of some Church perpetually visible, which either denied, or was inconsistent with, and Independent of that Supremacy. And this I say, you were obliged to do ac∣cording to Logical Form; say as much as you please, that it was ex abundanti, no good Logician will be∣leeve you. I mention not the Churches being without a Supream visible Pastor, which you term universal, nor oblige I you precisely to prove that, but to prove a perpetual visible Church whose government was incon∣sistent with one supream visible Pastor over all, which is an Affirmative Proposition. Why mistake you perpetu∣ally? prove this, and I am satisfied: Nor yet have you in what you have done performed what you undertake, as shall appear in my following Rejoynder to your Argu∣ments.

Baxter.

Num. 29. My reason from the stress of necessity, which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions, was but sub∣servient to the foregoing Reasons, not first to prove you bound, but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative. And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is impertinent. He that saith, you shall be damned if you beleeve not this or that, is more obliged to prove it, then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment.

Iohnson.

Num. 30. Sure if you prove me more bound, you prove me bound, à fortiori; For every comparative supposes its positive. The instance I bring is pertinent; and all who read it attentively, will see it is so. Your last sen∣tence is a repetition of what I denied, without answer∣ing my answering my Argument against it. Then, say I, a Christian is bound to prove his Religion to a Mahume∣tan, but a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his to a Chri∣stian; or if you will have it so, is more bound of the two; this you answer not, because the same reason holding in both, you saw you could not answer it.

Baxter.

Num. 31. To what I say of an Accident, and a corrupt part, you say you have answered, and do but say so, having said nothing to it that is considerable.

Iohnson.

Num. 31. Let the Reader judge that, by what hath been said on both parts.

Baxter.

Num. 32▪ Me thinks you that make Christ to be cor∣porally present in every Church in the Eu∣charist, should not say,* 1.5 That the King of the Church is absent.

Iohnson.

Num. 32. Why dally you thus, to amuse your Rea∣der? you know we we dispute now of a proper visible presence, Such as is not that in the Eucharist.

Baxter.

Num. 33. But when you have proved, 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church, that there's need of a Depu∣ty to Essentiate his Kingdom; and 2. That the Pope is so deputed, you will have done more, then is yet done for your cause.

Iohnson.

Num. 33. I have proved that Christ instituted S. Pe∣ter and his Successors to govern visibly his whole Uni∣versal Church on earth in all ages, and that nothing so in∣stituted is accidental to his Church; and you have not yet given any instance to infringe it; so that my proof stands in full force against you, till it be answered. I presse you therefore once more to give an instance of something which has been ever in the visible Church by Christs Institution, and yet is accidental to his Church.

Baxter.

Num. 34. And yet let me tell you, that in the absence of a King, it is only the King and Subjects, that are Essential to the Kingdome: the Deputy is but an Officer, and not essential.

Iohnson.

Num. 34. 'Tis so indeed de facto, but suppose (as I do) that a Vice-King be by full Authority made an Ingredient into the Essence of the Kingdome;* 1.6 then sure he must be essential; this is evident in our present subject: For though all the Pastors in Christs Church be only his Of∣ficers and Deputies, yet you cannot deny, such Officers are now Essential to his visible Church. I wonder you

look no deeper then to the Superficies; nor consider what inconveniences follow against your self by your replies, for what true Christian ever yet denied, that either Bi∣shops, or Presbyters, or both, though they are all Christs Officers and Deputies are essential to Christs visible Church?

Baxter.

* 1.7 Num. 35. Your naked Assertion, That whatsoever Government Christ institu∣teth of his Church, must be essential to his Church, is no proof; nor like the task of an Opponent.

Iohnson.

Num. 35. My Assertion is of force, till you produce some instance of perpetual Church Government insti∣tuted by our Saviour, which is not Essential to his Church: which you neither have done, nor can you do it. And certainly, when any Common-wealth is instituted in such a determinate kind of perpetual Go∣vernment, by one of so eminent Authority, that no o∣ther hath power to change that Institution (as it passes in our case) the government, which he instituted is not acci∣dental to that Common-wealth; so far, that it will be no longer the Common-wealth instituted by him when the Government is changed.

Baxter.

Num. 36. The Government of Inferiour Officers is not Essential to the Vniversal Church, no more then Iudges and Iustices to a Kingdom.

Iohnson.

Num. 36. Your Assertion is not true; for Iudges

and Iustices may be changed into other Officers, by the Supream authority: whereas none have power to change the Officers which Christ hath instituted to be perpetu∣al in his Church. Again even in Common-wealths and Kingdoms, though these determinate Officers are not essential to them, yet it is essential to have some inferi∣our Officers; seeing it is impossible, that the Supream Magist••••ate should govern the whole Common-wealth immediatly by himself.

Baxter.

Num. 37. And yet we must wait long, before you will prove, that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place, as Governours of the Universal Church.

Iohnson.

Num. 37. I have proved it; and my proof is good, till it be convinced, that you have answered my Argu∣ment: Governours they are, but under Christ, and no farther then to a visible government of the universal Mi∣litant Church.

Baxter.

Num. 38. Sir, I desire open dealing, as between men that beleeve these matters are of eternal consequence. I watch not for any advantage against you. Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative, yet I have begun the proof of our Negative, but it was on supposition, that you will equally now prove your Affirmative, better then you have here done. I proved a visible Church successively, that held not the Popes Vniversal Government? Do you now prove, That the Universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes Universal Government, which is your part; or I must say again, I shall think you do but run away, and

give up your cause, as unable to defend it: I have not failed you, do not you fail me.

Iohnson.

Num. 38. Sir, All that I contend is, that my Argu∣ment sent to you, and the Answer to it promised and as∣sayed by you, be respectively accomplished by us both: when that is done, I shall refuse no reasonable Proposi∣tions, and shall endeavour to give you all possible satis∣faction. But give me leave to tell you, till that be done, I shall take it for an Effugium from you, and (and so I think will all rational men) to set upon a new work before the old be finisht: For by this means we shall bring nothing to an Issue, but still flit superficially from one difficulty to another, without bringing any thing to a period; and thereby both lose our time and credit. Let us first follow this close, and when we are come to an end, we shall be ready to begin another. It is not for the present the proof of the perpetual visibility of your Protestant Church in particular, which is aimed at for answer to my Argument: Be it that, or any other In∣dependent of the Bishop of Romes authority, 'tis all one for solution of the Argument: The force of my dis∣course consists in this, No Congregation of Christians has been perpetually visible, save that which acknowledges the Popes Supremacy; Ergo, No Congregation of Chri∣stians is Christs true Church, save that. Now this Argu∣ment presses all Congregations of Christians, whether Ancient or Modern, not acknowledging that Supremacy, as much as Protestants; and if any of them can be proved to be perpetually visible, the Argument is solv'd: So that the Argument is not directed particularly against Protestants, but as well against Grecian Schismaticks, Eu∣tychians, Nestorians, Montanists, &c. as against them;

and had it fallen into their hands, as it did into yours, the proving their visibility (though yours had not been pro∣ved) would have given satisfaction: nay if you had shew∣ed the perpetual visibility of any others, as you have as∣sayed to do of yours, you had given an equal satisfaction to the Argument. But seeing you have pitcht upon the visibility of your Protestant Church you have imposed an obligation upon me of answering the reasons and alle∣gations, whereby you labour to prove it to have been per∣petually visible.

Baxter.

Num. 39. You complain of a deficiency in quality, though you confess, that I abound in number. But where is the dese••••t! You say I must assert both, that these were one Congregation, and ever visible since Christs time. Reply. If by one Congregation you meant one Assem∣bly met for personal Communion, which is the first sense of the word Congregation, it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such.

Iohnson.

Num. 39. You know, I mean not that; why lose you time in putting an if upon it.

Baxter.

Num. 40. If you mean one as united in one visible humane Head, thats it that we deny; and therefore may not be required to prove.

Iohnson.

Num. 40. I abstract from that also, be it but truly and properly one, whencesoever that unity is drawn, 'tis all alike to the Solution of my Argument.

Baxter.

Num. 41. But that these Churches are one, as united in Christ the Head, we easily prove: in that from him the whole Family is named, the Body is Christs Body, 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. and one in him, Ephes. 4.4, 5, 6. &c.

Iohnson.

Num. 41. These Churches; which these? mean you all that you seem to point at in your Catalogue? All sure, or you prove nothing; but which are those all? You name only those of the present age, Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Protestants: After these, for eleven hundred years, you name none at all: How shall we then know determinately, what you mean here by these Churches, when you give no light to know your meaning. Let us therefore first know, which are these Churches you here relate to by some particular designation, and denomina∣tion of them; or how can you either prove, or we know, whether they were united in Christ, or no? and then, and not till then, can it be discerned whether these Churches be, or be not, parts of Christs family, or body, accord∣ing to the places you here cite.

Baxter.

Num. 42. All that are true Christians are one King∣dome, or Church of Christ; but these of whom I speak are true Christians; therefore they are one Kingdom, or Church of Christ.

Iohnson.

Num. 42. I grant your Major, and deny your Minor, if they were independent of the Roman Bishop.

Baxter.

Num. 43. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now, all History, even your own affirm: as in Judea, and from the Apostles times in Ethiopia, Egypt, and other parts: Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth.

Iohnson.

Num. 43. Let them have been as visible as you please; thats nothing to me, so were the Arrians, Sabellians, Montanists, &c. as much as many of these: prove they were no more then one visible Congregation of Chri∣stians amongst themselves, and with Orthodox Christi∣ans; thats the present controversie.

Baxter.

Num. 44. And to what purpose talk you of deter∣minate Congregations? Do you mean individual Assem∣blies? those cease, when the persons die: Or do you mean Assemblies meeting in the same place? So they have not done still at Rome.

Iohnson.

Num. 44. Why do you still ask me if I mean, what you know I mean not?

Baxter.

Num. 45. I told you, and tell you still, that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country; but if it cease in one place, it is still in others. It may cease at Ephesus, at Phillippi, Colosse, &c. in Tenduc, Nubia, &c. and yet remain in other parts. I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country.

Iohnson.

Num 45. I assent to you in this: why lose you la∣bour in asserting that which no man questions.

Baxter.

Num. 46. And yet it hath been so de facto, as in Asia, Ethiopia, &c. But you say, I nominate none. Are you serious! must I nominate Christians of these Nations, to prove that there were such? You req••••ire not this of the Church-Historians. It suffic••••th, that they tell you, that Ethiopia, Egypt, Armenia, Syria, &c. had Christians, without naming them. When all History tells you, that these Countreys were Christians, or had Churches, I must tell you what and who they were! Must you have their Names, Sirnames, and Genealogies? I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation, in the Age I live in: how then should I name you the people of Armenia, Abassia, &c. so long ago? You can name but few of the Roman Church in each Age: and had they wanted Learning and Records, as much as Abassins and Indians, and others, you might have been as much to seek for names, as they.

Iohnson.

Num. 46. You trifle away time exceedingly; I re∣quire (as you have seen above) the nomination of the determinate Opinions, or Societies, as Hussites, Wal∣denses, Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. not of their per∣sons. And therefore I say you nominate none,* 1.8 much less prosecute you those with whom you begun. Now these were Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Protestants; so that I speak undeniably of the nomination of Sects, and Societies, not of Names,

Sirnames, and Genealogies of persons. There were dif∣ferent Sects and Professions in different Countreys, as Armenia, Abassia, &c. I require the nomination of which of those Sects, or parties, you mean in those times and Nations, not what were their names and sirnames. Nor is it sufficient, that you say there were Christians, that is, Christians univocally so called, or true Christi∣ans, in all Ages in Armenia, Ethiopia, Egypt, &c. who denied the Popes Supremacy; for unless you nominate of what party, sect, opinion, or profession they were, how shall any man judge, whether they held not some Opinion contrary to the Essentials of Christianity, and by that became no Christians, even in your opinion? You must therefore, either have nominated, and design∣ed what sort of professions you mean, or acknowledge you have spoken in the air, and produc'd a pure non-proof, in the nomination of those Countreys, since no man can know by that, what sort of profession you mean, amongst all those different professions which have inha∣bited the said Nations; for Arrians, Sabellians, Mani∣chees, Menandrians, &c. whom you hold to be no Chri∣stians, and to erre in Essentials, denied the Popes Su∣premacy in those Nations.

Notes

• * 1.1

  See Stow and Sp••••ed, with the Statutes of Parliaments, and decrees of our English Councils, in and before the beginning of King H••••nry the eighths R••••ign of this matter.
• * 1.2

  Fallacy 8.
• * 1.3

  Part 2.
• * 1.4

  p. 37. Baxt. Edit.
• * 1.5

  Fallacy 8.
• * 1.6

  See my words Baxter, p. 38.
• * 1.7

  Fallacy 6. The word ever left out the thi••••d time.
• * 1.8

  See Baxt. p. 41.