thus granted all that was pretended to wit their Infallibleness in those two sorts of actions because he would be sure to say something to every thing though to never so litle purpose as his custome is he addes first that they were not infallible in all sorts of things What man in his wits ever pretended it or imagin'd but that the Apostles might count mony wrong or be mistaken in knowing what a clock it was Was ever such frivolous stuff heard of Next he tells us that as they were men on earth they were fallible What a mysterious piece of sence is here He hath already confuted himself by granting that when they were men on earth they were Infallible which was solely pretended now that he may seem to impugn us he tacitely counterfeits us to hold that their Infallibility proceeds as from it's formal reason not from the assistance of the holy Ghost but from their being men on earth and by consequence that each man on earth is infallible since à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia Thirdly whereas my words which Answ p. 34. hee makes head against are onely of those two said acts in which hee at length grants they were infallibly assisted by the confirmation of the holy Ghost he rakes up all the Apostles faults and failings before the holy Ghosts descent and thinks to elude my words and delude his Reader by these more than childish evasions His tenth weakness is that he extends p. 34. by a voluntary mistake because he would still have something to say Mr. Knot 's words that the Church was infallible and not subject to errour to signify that it shall undoubtedly be preserved from falling into errour and that not onely from this or that sort of errour but indefinitely from all As if the controversy between Mr. Knot and him were not onely about Infallibility in delivering matters of Faith Is not this a sincere man who would make persons wiser than himself seem so imprudent as to think the Church Infallible in judging whether the Circle can be squared whether Sprights walk in S. Faiths under Paul's or whether a goose-py or a shoulder of mutton be the better dish By Dr. H's Logick it must be out tenet that the Holy Ghost whispers the Church in the ear to speak truth in all these and millions of other such unnecessary fooleries and all this absurdity must light upon us onely from this because Mr. Knot and S. W. said the Church is infallible and not subject to errour when the discourse was about matters of Faith necessary for the salvation of mankind The like non sense shuts up his eleventh Paragraph as the result of the discourse before it so again in the twelfth and fourteenth the same mistaking weakness is that which gives all the strength to the discourse and it is worth the Readers notice that he never impugnes our tenet of Infallibility but by such kind of forgery His eleventh weakness is his shuffling in his eleventh Paragraph where after he had told us very truly that the Apostles had agreed on all things needful for the Church deposited them in each Church as their Rule of Faiâ—h when he drew near the point in question to wit wheâ—her the depositary or Church was infallible and could not erre in delivering the right depositum or whether she might perhaps deliver a wrong one he flies off and tells us Ans p. 35. if they would adhere to that there needed no sitperadded Infallibility to things unnecessary Did ever Mr. Knot or I talk of Infallibility in things unnecessary or is this the point disputed between Catholicks and Protestants Good Mr. H. speak out and tell us whether the depositary can mistake or no in delivering needfull points if she can where is the certainty of our Faith if she cannot then some company of men on earth are infallible in delivering things necessary for Salvation which is the point in Controversy His twelfth weakness is that in going about to show how he can be infallibly certain of the books of Scripture he unawares recurres to our Rule of Faith though he never intends to stand to it affirming here Answ p. 36. that the testimony of others founded in their several sensations being faithfully conveyed to us by undeniable Tradition are as unquestionably certain as if we had seen them ourselves that is as he intimates before l. 3. infallible instancing that of this sort is the tradition of the universal primitive Church c. Where first if this be true I have gained my intent which was to show against him that some company of men might be infallible in attesting things of Faith though not in all things as he calumniates us to hold Next if the Tradition of the Primitive Church be infallible for the reason given I ask why the succeeding Church should not enjoy the same priviledge since the doctrine of Fore fathers being visible practical and so founded in the several sensations of the children they can by witnessing transmit it to their posterity asun questionably truly as if the Grand-children had seen what was held and practised in the Grand-fathers time Nay unless he grant this he hath done nothing that is he hath not shown that he hath any certainty of the books of Scripture for if the Tradition in the primitive Church onely be infallible I may be mistaken in believing the succeeding Tradition in this point since that may deceive me for any thing I know if the after Tradition also was Infallible then we conquer without dispute in this and all other Controversies about Faith since we were found adhering to this universal testification of all our Forefathers whereas they renounc't it when they renounced the Authority it recommended and ran to other Grounds private interpretations of Scripture and odde scraps of misunderstood testimonies and still are glad to sow together these thin figge-leaves to cover the nakedness of their deformed Schism His thirteenth weakness is that in testifying as above-said he sayes the Church is not considered as a society of believers indowed with any inerrable priviledge but as a number of witnesses c. As if they did not first believe it themselves ere they could conspire to deliver it to their Children for true or as if the same persons may both be Beleevers in respect of their Progenitours and Witnesses in respect of their posterity No wiser is his assertion that nothing is here contested from the Authority of their judgments For if he means the points which they contest are not founded on their judgments 't is most certainly true since speaking of points of Faith they are truths revealed by God not productions of mens heads But if he means their judgments went not along with their contestations but while they testified to have received them from their Ancestours they spake contrary to their judgment then they all conspired to tell a ly to their posterity in things of Faith which is impossible
he met S. Paul cannot possibly infer such an exclusivenes or limitation of Iurisdiction in the now Popes or the Popes which have been since the imagind conjunction of those Congregations however hâ— may pretend it makes against the universal Iurisdictions of those Popes who preceded Clemens Thus at unawares Dr. H. grants the Pope as much as we desire yet very innocently thinks he impugns him or as himself expresses it Answ p. 11. laies the Axe to the root and stocks up Rome's universal Pastourship Sixthly the question being turned into exclusivenes of Iurisdiction when they met in the same City onely it followes there is not the least pretence of a testimony from Scripture for this position thus stated for 't is no where found nor pretended to be found in Scripture that their Iurisdictions were onely to be limited in case of meeting in the same City So that now the pretence of evidencing from Scripture which in the book of Schism made a great noise is by this new stating the question or rather evading it struck quite dumb Seventhly it is to be observed he has not a word in any testimony to prove their exclusive Iurisdictions in Rome Antioch but onely those which affirmed that they preach't were Bishop in Rome founded the Church in both places All which might easily be done by a promiscuous Authority nor does he offer one word of proof to underprop his weak testimonies why it could not be thus performed Eigthly his place in his book of Schism which he produces for their exclusive Iurisdictions falls short of what he alledges it for affirming onely that when they met at the same City one should constantly apply himself to the Gentiles the other to the Iews Now the prudent consideration of circumstances may determine one man to doe constantly this thing another to doe constantly another thing without inferring that either of them lost their right to doe the other by this constancy of action exercised upon this one By which faltring mistake of his own words we may see that when he alledges them now as a sufficient expression of his tenet of exclusivenes he onely sought to escape from change his former question and to evade by vertue of the more moderate word constantly which standing in the confines between exclusivenes not exclusivenes might at a dead litf by the Midwifry of an Id est or a criticism bring forth either signification Ninthly the Iews according to Dr. H. being S. Peter's Province exclusively to the Gentiles not exclusively till they met in one City it follows that unles they had met he had no exclusive Province at all Hence Tenthly since they agreed upon exclusive Provinces it follows they agreed to meet at such such cities else the bargain of exclusive Provinces had been spoil'd yet t' is no where read that ever they made any such agreement after this pretended distribution of Provinces Eleventhly put case S. Peter had come to some City two or three moneths before S. Paul and we cannot imagin their correspondence so precise nor their imployments other where so indifferent but this might very easily very often happen then it must follow that that Apostle had universal Authority to preach to both till S. Paul come nor can we imagin him idle or negligent to doe what good he could to all Put case then that that Prince of the Apostles who by one Sermon converted three thousand should by three months labour there convert twice that number of Gentiles to Christ's faith to govern whom the whole Authority over both being yet in his own hands it is fitting he should use the said Authority in ordaining constituting Deacons Priests for the orderly governing his numerous Converts and those too distinct in all points from the Priests of the Gentiles for Dr. H. grounds interdict them all Communion See Sch Dis p. 64. Things thus orderd and the Gentiles setled thus under S. Peter S. Paul arrives at the City Then begins the hurliburly S. Peter's Authority which before extended to both Nations begins suddenly to feel the cramp conuulsion-fits shrinks up to the Iews onely in all probability a very few perchance twenty or thirty more or lesse may be imagined to live in that City S. Peter's Iurisdiction being thus grown exclusive in respect of the Gentiles by S. Paul's coming consequently all the Gentiles formerly converted by him however addicted to their Apostle Pastour more then father S. Peter must presently change their Master doe Homage to S. Paul acknowledging him their proper now-sole-Governour The Gentil Priests ordained before his coming either may be degraded lawfully by S. Paul or else submit themselves to him receive the approbation of their Iurisdiction from him as the order of Government requires Moreover if S. Paul had hap to be alone in the same City before and to have converted Iews as his custome was then the poore Iews must avoyd S. Paul's Congregation run to S. Peter's Church assoon as hee arrives But to proceed with our case S. Paul's occasions call him away from that City and ere he removes Dr. H. assures that he must leave behind him a Bishop of his assignation that is over the Gentiles then presently we must imagin that S. Peter's Iurisdiction which had felt a kind of Winter-Season during S. Paul's residence there hee departing begins to feel a happy Spring budding now Sprouting out a fresh towards the Gentiles So that now the Scene of Iurisdiction Government is quite changed again according to Dr. H's grounds and were not S. Peter a good man he might undo all that S. Paul had done be revenged on him for coming to the same City where he was to limit his Authority The Gentiles therefore which were converted before by S. Peter assoon as S. Paul is out of sight begin to face about again S. Peter recovers his own To work therefore heegoes and fals to preach Christ's faith to the Gentiles the second time which before he durst not Converts many having by this time got power enough to do it being about to depart leaves a Bishop of his own constituting to govern them So that we have now got two Gentil Bishops in the same City and if Dr. H. say there was not he must say we are beholding to the Apostles prudence goodnes for it not to his grounds of illimited Iurisdiction when they met not limited when they met in the same City which infers they had Authority to do this many other absurdities and by consequence his position in it self destroyes all order both of Authority Government Again when they met at the same City in case a Gentile had come to S. Peter desired to hear Christ's doctrine S. Peter must refuse to teach him it send him to S. Paul telling him it was beyond his power because S. Paul he had exclusive Iurisdictions when they met
is that Historical proofs which manifest onely Fact do not necessarily conclude a Rigâ—t This is evident First because testimonies conclude no more than then express but they express onely the Fact therefore they conclude onely that the Fact was such a person 's not that the Right was his Secondly because no matter of Fact which concerns the execution of any business is such but it may be performed by another who hath no proper Rigth but borrows it from the delegation of some other to whom it properly belongs as we see in Vice-Roys Thirdly because in a process of fifteen or sixteen hundred years it cannot be imagin'd but there should happen some matters of Fact either out of ambition inter est ignorance or tyranny against the most inviolable Right in the world nay even sometimes out of too much zeal and piety great men if they have not discretion proportionable will be medling with things which do not concern them as we see by daily experience Now a testimony of a matter of Fact can never conclude any thing unless it be first manifested that that Act our when he proceeded to action was bassed with none of these but governed himself by pure Reason that is unless it be manifested that he had Right and if testimonies can be produced expressing that he had Right it was needless to stand alledging those which express't onely Fact Frivolous therefore it is to bring historical proofs of Fact upon the stage in a dispute about Right since taken alone they make onely a dumb show and can act no part in that Controversy for the very alledging that some of these faults might intervene disables such premises from inferring a Right Neither ought Mr. H. which I suppose for want of Logick or forgetfulness how men use to dispute he is ever apt to do exact of the Defendant a reason of his denial in particular but it is his part to prove that none of these defects could happen otherwise his Premisses of Fact hang together with his Conclusion of Right by no necessity of consequence Let the Reader then take notice by this plain information of reason how senselesly Dr. H. behaved himself in the business of erecting and translating Patriarchates and in many other places where from some particular matters of Fact he would needs conclude a Right The twelfth Ground is that The acceptation of the secular powers and their command to the people are necessary to the due and fitting execution of the Churches Lawes whence follows not that the Princes made those Lawes by their own Authority but that they obey'd and executed what the Church had order'd For unless the Churche's Ordinances should be put into temporal laws which oblige to their observance by aw and fear of punishment they could hardly ever find an universal reception since otherwise refractory and turbulent Spirits who cared not much for their obligation in confcience might at pleasure reject disobey and reclame against them which would both injure the Authority of the Church and scandalize the community of the Faithfull This therefore being of such an absolute conveniency for the Church we need not wonder that the temporal power of Christians should put the Churche's orders into temporal Laws and execute their performance nor consequently can testimonies of such execution and laws prejudice the Pope ' s Right since Catholick Governours do the self same at present as far as concerns this point which was done then The thirteenth Ground is that It is granted by Catholicks that Kings may exercise some Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction by the concession of the Church and yet not prejudice thereby the Pope's Vniversal Pastourship This is most visible from the unanimous acknowledgment of all Catholick Authours and verifyed by divers practical instances Hence it is evident that Dr. H. must either manifest likewise that the lawfulness of those matters of Fact related of Kings was not originiz'd from the Churche's precedent orders or else he concludes nothing at all against us Here I desire the Reader Mr. H. may joyntly take notice that the testimonies himself alledges from the Church in her Councils granting this to the Secular power is a strong prejudice against their self-and-proper Right as also that he hath not so much as attempted to produce one Testimony of any Authority expressing it to be the Right of the secular Magistrate independent of the Church The fourteenth and last Ground is that In case Scbism should invade a whole Country it could not be expected to have happen'd otherwise than D H. of Schism c. hath described For it is to be expected that the secular power should be for it and so use meanes to make the Clergy Vniversities assent to his novelty otherwise had either the Temporal Government awed them the Pastours of souls consented to inform the people right or the Vniversities the Seminaries of learning conspired to write against that innovation in all likehood it would have given a stop to it's proceding at least have hindred it's universal invasion Hence follows that Dr. H's narrative discourse of his Schism hath nothing in it to bewonder us but rather that it is as plain and particular a confession of the Fact as any penitent malefactour could make when he is about to suffer For that a Nation may fall into Schism none doubts as little that it should fall into it by those very means and the same degrees which he there layes down Nay more himself disgraces his own Narration by confessing p. 136. that the Clergy were inclined to subscribe by the feare of a premunire and the question about the Pope's Right in England being debated in the Vniversities he sayes onely p. 135. that it was generally defined in the negative that is when the King's party prevailed yet he omits that the Kings lust first moved him to think of Schismatizing and his final repentance of that Act which show that the first spring which mov'd the whole Engine was not purity of conscience but the impurest and basest of passions The positions which I have layed dow for Grounds to our future discourse will of themselves lay open the whole case clearly to the ordinary Readers and inform the more prudent ones that nothing is or can be sayd by Dr H. of a force and clearness comparable to that of our Possession and that of oral Tradition which we ever â—laim'd for our Tenour from which also they disclaimed when they reform'd in this point of the Pope's Supremacy So that litle more remains to be perform'd but to manifest his shallow weaknesses and trivial impertinences which I should willingly omit if the greatest part of Readers would be as willing to think a book fully answer'd when substantial points are shown to be nothing as they are to catch at the shadow of words as matters of importance and so imagine nothing done till they also be reply'd upon Nor do I fear this task though ingratefull in it's self and less
acknowledge a vice of the first magnitude if taken in it's primary signification to which our circumstances determine it includes for it's genus or material part a division or act of dividing the specifical difference gives it a reference to the Ecclesiastical Government instituted by Christ Now our great Masters of Moral Divinity assure us that no action is in it self good or bad but as it conduces to or averts from the attaining one's last end since all things else have the nature of meanes onely in order to the attainment of that and consequently the esteem of their goodness or badness is built upon their alliance to that order Whence follows that there is no action in the world not killing one 's own Son nor dividing from any Government whatsoever in it self so bad but might be done could there be assigned motives and reasons truly representing it better to attempt it Now our all-wise God hath ordered things so providently for the peace and good of his Church that it is impossible any cause or motive can be truly imagin'd sufficient to justify the rejecting it's Government since neither any private injury is comparable to such an universal good nor can it happen that any miscarriage can be so publick as to force it's renouncing for seeing our B. Saviour made but one Church and that to continue for ever if any cause were sufficient to break from that one Church there would be a just and sufficient cause to be of no Church which is against the Protestants own tenet and makes them so desirous to pretend a descent from ours Wherefore it remains impossible that those who acknowledg the Churche's Government to have bin instituted by Christ should pretend to any just cause to separate from it but they ought to behave themselves passively in case of an injury received not actively renouncing that Government or erecting another against it Notwithstanding all this yet it may happen sometimes that as no Authority is or can be so sacred inviolable but passion can make men dislike it some company of men may disacknowledge the Authority instituted by Christ to have come from him alledging for the reason and motive of their renouncing it that it is an usurpation which they also pretend to prove by arguments drawn either from Reason or Testimonies Now these men's plea might take place if it were possible they should produce absolute evidence and such as in it's own force obliges the understanding to assent notwithstanding the contrary motives which retard it and without pretending such a rigorous Evidence it were madness to hazard an error in abusiness of such main concernment both to the Church mankind and their own Souls as it would necessarily be if that fact of theirs happen'd to be Schismatical Now then let us see whether my Adversaries inference be good that because Schism can have no just causes for it's parents therefore Dr. H. in treating a Controversie of Schism ought not to heed or produce the causes or motives of it Indeed if he would grant himself and his Friends to be Schismaticks then it were to no purpose for him to alledge causes and motives since all men know that no just cause can be possibly alledged for Schism but if he does an external act which hath the resemblance or show of Schism and nevertheless will defend himself to be no Schismatick he must give account why he does that action and shew that that action is not truly Schism which cannot be done without discussing reasons and motives if common practise teach us any thing Will any man endeavour to turn one out of possession lawfully without a plea or produce a plea without either any motive or reason in it Iustly therefore did the Catholick Gentleman affirme it to be a pure contradiction for that a confest breach under debate should be concluded to have no just causes that is to be indeed Schismatical or to have just causes that is to be a self enfranchisment without producing examining any causes is a perfect implicancy Nor will his instance Reply p. 5. 6. of a seditious person or Rebell secure him at all for as it is true that if it be known that he confesses himself a Rebel there is no pleading of causes as Dr. H. well sayes to justify his Rebellion yet as long as he pretends to be no Rebel so long he is obliged to bring motives and reasons why his action of rising against the Government is not Rebellion though it be accused and seem to be such Now if Dr. H. hath not forgot the title of his book t is a Defence of the Church of England against the Exceptions of the Romanists to wit those by which they charge her of Schism that is their accusing her that this action of Separation from the Church of Rome is Schismatical so that the whole scope and work of his book must be to plead those motives and reasons which may seem to traverse that accusation and shew that this action of the Church of England makes not her Schismatical nor her Sons Schismaticks And how this can stand without producing motives or is not as plain a contradiction as ens and non ens I confess is beyond my understanding In his eighteenth p. he cunningly forges a false state of the question in these words that it is a matter in question between the Romanists and us whether the Bishop of Rome had before and at the time of the Reformation any supreme legal power here I willingly acknowlege By which he would perswade the Reader that he had condescended to a state of the question pretended by us which is absolutely false for we state the question thus That there being at that time an external confessed Government derived and in actual possession time out of minde abstracting from whether it be internally legal or no whether the pretended Reformers either did then or can now show sufficient reasons of the substracting themselves from obedience to it This is our state of the question which hath it's whole force as the Reader may see in the acknowledged external possession Now Dr. H. would make his Reader believe that the state of the question doth wholly abstract from the external possession and purely debate the internal right as if it hung hovering indifferently in the aire to be now first determin'd without taking notice of the stability and force our tenet had from the long possession And this handsome trick he gentilely put 's upon his Readers by those three sly words I willingly acknowledge Having thus mistaken voluntarily the state of the question consequently he imposes upon me that I said none doubts of the Bishop of Rome's supreme legal power over the Church of England at the time of the Reformation and then confutes me most palpably with telling me that they doubt it or make a question of it Can any man in reason imagin I was ignorant that such was their tenet since I impugn it in
assent sprung from Evidence From this short discourse follows first that our Churches Binding her children to beleef is evidently natural just charitable rational and necessary since she obliges them upon no other Ground than that which in it's own force had pre-obliged their nature to assent to wit Evidence Secondly that no man can revolt from the Faith of such an Authority to any other but through the highest degree of vice and passion since they would be found in this case to assent to another not onely without Evidence but against it Thirdly that therefore the Governours of the Church who proceed according to this power may justly punish and excommunicate those who recede from her Beleef founded in her Authority thus evidenced since this recession must spring from vice or a disorder'd affection in the will and vice all the world allows may be punished Fourthly that no tyranny can possibly be imputed to our Church as long as she proceeds upon such Grounds since she onely governs men according to their nature or Reason Fifthly that they who adhere to any other fallible Congregation upon onely probable that is inevident Grounds against her Authority thus evidenced being therefore as hath been shown in the highest degree vicious and passionate if they prove obstinate in it ought upon necessity to be Excommunicated cast out of the Church and separated from the Congregation of the Faithfull Reason showing plainly if no good can be done for their obstinate Souls order is to be taken that they do no hurt to the Souls of others Sixthly that all who forsake this infallible attestation of the Church they were in called Oral Tradition as did the Protestants in all points wherein they differ from us deserve this Excommunication since they left a pre-acknowledged Evidence and began to dogmatize upon acknowledg'd probabilities onely that is left proceeding to assent in that manner which was acknowledgedly rational connatural and virtuous and beginning to proceed in such a manner as is necessarily irrational unnatural and vicious Seventhly it follows that a Congregation which is fallible cannot without the greatest impudence in the world pretend to oblige rational Souls to assent upon her Authority since if she sees she may be in the wrong hic nunc in such a point she can have no Evidence that she is not actually deceived in it and so wanting Evidence to make good her Authority she wants whatsoever can oblige a rational Soul to assent upon her Authority Eighthly it follows hence that not onely the Independents Presbyterians c. may justly refuse to hear the Protestant Church which acknowledges her self fallible but that they sin if they should hear her since in that case they would be found to assent to an Authority without evidence of the veracity of that Authority Ninthly it follows that the Protestant Church acknowledging her self fallible and the like may be said of all fallible Congregations cannot even oblige the Independents Presbyterians c to behave themselves quietly within their Church and submit to their Government For in case that fallible Congregation oblige her Children to a subscription or declaration of their assent to her doctrine it were a vice either to assent without Evidence of authority which is wanting to a fallible Church or subscribe without a real inward assent as the Doctor himself confesses they may then resist such a command of that Church and express themselves contrary and disobedient Nay more if that Congregation be fallible it may possibly be in a damnable errour and some one or more may happen to see evidently that it is in such an errour and many of ordinary capacity rationally doubt what the others see now in that case why may not the former make account it is their obligatiō to oppose that Church and let men see their soul-endangering errour may maintain a party against her and defy her as one who would bring Souls to Hell by her doctrine As also why may not the latter rather than hazard the accepting a damnable errour adhere to this company of Revolters at least stand neutral between the Church and them Again since it hath been shown they may renounce the Faith of a fallible Church why may they not renounce her Government since her Faith must needs be as sacred as her Government which depends on Faith and is subordinate to it Government being chiefly to maintain Faith and such actions as proceed from Faith Neither is it lawfull yet to revolt against temporal Magistrates upon the score of their fallibility in case they oblige their Subjects onely to act or obey according to the civil State because that is a Government grounded onely upon natural reason instituted for natural ends and plainly evident it must be obey'd unavoydable inconveniences following upon disobedience which force us to confess there 's no safety for our lives or estates without this Obedience Tenthly it follows that Dr. H's denying any company of men on earth to be Infallible and by consequence to have power to bind to beleef is most exquisitely pernicious destroying at once all beleef and leaving no obligation in the world nay making it a sin to beleeve any Article of the Christian Faith For since neither Scripture nor the doctrine of the Primitive Church acknowledged by Dr. H. to have been built upon an Infallible Tradition can be evidenced to us but by some Authority faithfully conveying it down ever since that time if this Authority cannot be evidenced to be infallible no man is bound in reason to assent or believe either Scripture to be God's word or the Doctrine to be Christ's upon her Authority since there wants Evidence of that Authority's veracity which can onely oblige to assent nay more he must needs sin in precipitating his assent without Evidence to ground it on Eleventhly Dr. H. Answ p. 36. in another place grants that this universal attestation in which we found the Churche's Infallibility and all these deductions makes one as certain of a thing as if he had seen it with his own eyes and again confesses himself Infallibly certain of what he hath seen with his own eyes which is as much as we either say or desire Wherefore the good Doctor doth a◠once both confirm us and contradict himself Lastly it follows that it is the height of frivolousness for D. H. even to pretend excuse from obligation to beleeve our Church and assent to the doctrine of his own without most undeniable and rigorous Evidence both for the errableness of ours and the inerrableness of the Protestants Church By these brief deductions from that one evident Ground of the infallibility of Vniversal Attestation the prudent Reader will plainly see how consequently the Catholick Church proceeds to the grounds of Nature and Reason how inconsequently to both the Protestant Churches must necessarily goe when they would oblige either to Government or Faith Since Certainty and Evidence once renounced there remains nothing to move the Vnderstanding to
prove that the Emperour did it without the Pope's signifying such their desires to them next that if they did it without this they did it lawfully and lastly that were both proved it was not necessarily consequent that the Pope had therefore no Authority over the Church since there might be other Acts of Vniversal Authority besides gathering of Councils For answer Dr. H. refers me to his Reply p. 38. where nothing at all is found to strengthen the two former weaknesses of his consequences nor yet indeed the latter since he does not undertake to show that there can be no other Acts of supreme Authority besides gathering of Councils which if there can then those Acts can denominate the Pope Head of the Church notwithstanding the defect in the nor performance of the other and by consequence his argument of not being Head of the Church from not gathering Councils is at an end Yet something he pretends here to make good this latter defect to wit that this Authority of Convoking Councils is inseparable from the supreme power is most characteristical of it c. Whereas indeed this Convoking of Councils is no ordinary Act of any standing Iurisdiction or Government but an extraordinary affair springing from some necessity or extremity and so the necessity pressing may be performed by him or them who can best provide for that extremity Which if other circumstances agree is most fitting to be ordered by the Pope whose universal superintendency qualifies him for both care and knowledge of the Churche's wants But if Mr. H. means it is inseparable so that it cannot be done without the Pope's express and actual orders or undertaken by any but the Pope himself he is in a great mistake For it is very well known that in divers cases it is otherwise As suppose the See be vacant or the Pope himself be unsound in Faith be distracted or kept in close prison or in case there be an Anti-pope which makes the title dubious c. In which cases the Cardinals have power to call a Council or the Bishops to assemble themselves And in general whensoever there is an extremity damageable to the publick nor possible to be remedied by him to whom that duty most fittingly and so rightfully belongs any one that hath sufficient power and skill let him be Patriarch Bishop Prince or private man not onely may but ought apply both as much as in him lies to prevent the harme of the publick 'T is evident then that the notion of the actual power to gather General Councils is not the very notion of the Pope's Authority nor as Mr. H. expresses it Characteristical of it or inseparable from it since it has been shown that the one can be without the other To this proof from gathering Councils he proceeds to alledge some Testimonies Reply p. 39 that there was not anciently besides the Prince or Emperour any Supreme or as the Doctor strangely expresses it any summum genus and that the Bishop of Rome was not this summum genus It is a pleasant thing when those men will be nibbling at wit who never knew how to manage the knack Would not Supreme Bishop or Governour have served without being thus unfortunately witty in calling it a Summum genus and then to tell us that a particular man is not a Summum genus When we learn'd Logick we were told that a Summum genus was perfectly and actually included in every Individual conteined under it I hope the Pope's power is not found on this fashion in every Priest But let us take a view of his testimonies which are reduced to two heads to wit those which would prove the Pope no Summum genus from the denial of Appeals to him and those which would conclude him no Summum genus from titles and names deny'd him Those concerning Appeales which must manifest the individual person of the Pope to be no Summum genus are First from the Milevitan Council Repl. p. 39. 40. forbidding that Priests should appeale to any forrein power but onely to the African Councils or their own Primates Secondly from the Nicen Can. 5. ordaining that they who were excommunicated by some should not be received by others The third from the Synodical Epistle of the African Council to Pope Caelestine in these words We intreat you that for the future you will not easily admit those who are Excommunicated by us c. To these he addes a fourth from the 34. Apostolick Canon that the Bishops of every Nation must know him that is first among them and account him their Head I answer that as for the three first in general they only forbid the Appeals of Priests from their Bishops c. but leave it indifferent whether the Bishops Arch-Bishops nay Primates themselves may appeale to the Pope which we make account is a far greater honour to the Pope than the deciding the inferiour Controversies concerning Priests So that these testimonies argues no more against the Pope's Authority than it would against the Supreme power of any Prince or secular Magistrate if the Laws of the Land should forbid Theeves Robbers and such inferiours Delinquents after their condemnation by the Iudges and other inferiour Officers to appeal to him Who sees not that there could never be any Government or Iustice done if every Priest though found never so guilty at home by his own immediate Governours should have liberty granted him to appeal to the Supreme living perhaps in another Country far distant not skilled in the immediate circumstances which give the best light to judge of a cause but receiving his information from letters perhaps partial or from heare-say ever uncertain Again who sees not that such an easy admittance of every ordinary Delinquent's Appeal is both most cumbersom nay impossible to be perform'd by the Supreme and very derogatory to the esteem and Authority of Inferiour Officers without the Conservation of which all Government and Common-good goes to wrack Iustly then did the Church in the Nicen Council and elsewhere for these and many other reasons ordain that Priests should make no farther Appeal than to domestick Iudges the Pope himself being present and consenting to it yet without detriment to his Authority since this eases him of cumber not discredits his power for it denies not the Appeals even of Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs to him unless Mr. H. will say that every consenting upon rational Grounds not to execute Authory is to disannul and abolish quite that whole Authority for he ayms at no less in this worthy Discourse of his upon the said Citations And this may suffize in answer to his three first Testimonies as also to the first of these three in particular to wit that they forbid him not to execute an higher strain of power in receiving Appeals of Bishops and as for the making it unlawful for inferiour Delinquents to appeal to him it can onely infer necessarily the unfitness that the Pope should execute
that Authority not the want of Authority it self The second Testimony that they which are excommunicated by some shall not be received by others is the onely place in this Section most likely to infer the Doctor 's Conclusion that the Popes is not Supreme which indeed it does most amply if taken in it's whole latitude and extent but withall the Doctor must confess that if it be taken so it utterly destroys all Government and his former testimony from the Milevitan Council to boot For if those words be universally true then it is unlawful for a Priest to appeal from his Bishop to an Arch-Bishop Primate or Provincial Council granted in the said testimony which takes away all Authority in a Superiour over the Acts and Decrees of an Inferiour and by consequence all Government Now then since the said testimony which indeed was mean't of the Appeals of Priests and so is already answerd'd cannot serve him unless taken in it's full extent nor can it be taken so whitout subverting all Ground of Government it follows that it cannot serve him at all nor prejudice us Again since it cannot be taken as denying Appeals from Subordinate to Superiour Governours universally Mr. H's grounds must make it conclude against us by making it signify a denial of Appeals to Coequals in Authority onely Wherefore all it's force is built on this supposition that the Pope is not Superiour but coequal onely to a Patriarch so that his Argument is epitomiz'd into this pithy piece of sense as true as the first Principles which he must suppose to make this proof valid that the Pope not being Head of the Church is not Head of the Church and then all is clearly evidenced The third testimony We entreat you that you would not easily admit those to your Communion who are excommunicated by us is so far from gain-saying the Pope's power that the very expressions of which it is fram'd are rather so many acknowlegdments of it being onely a request not that he would not receive their Appeals or admit them at all much less that he could not but onely that he would not admit them easily that is without due and mature examination of the cause Now who sees not that an humble desire that he would not doe it easily intimates or supposes he had a power to doe it absolutely This is confirm'd by their subjoyning as the reason of their request not because the Pope had no power to admit others but because the Council of Nice had so decreed knowing that it was a strong motive for them and an obligation in the Supreme Governour to conserve the Laws of the Church inviolate unless Evidence that in these Circumstances it crost the common good licenc't him to use his extraordinary Authority in that Extremity and to proceed now not upon Laws but upon the dictates of Nature the Ground and Rule of all Laws So perfectly innocent to our cause are all the testimonies of weight alledged by Mr. H. against it if they be left to themselves and not inspired with malice by the bad meaning he will needs instill into them against their own good nature The fourth testimony is stil like Dr. H. as he maintains a bad cause that is incomparably weak and short of concluding any thing 'T is this that the Bishops of every Nation must account the Primate their Head What then is not a Parish-Priest Head of a Parish a Bishop Head of his Diocese an Arch-Bishop Head of his Arch-Bishoprick as well as a Primate Head of his Primacy Does it then follow from a Bishops being Head of the Priests in his Diocese that there is no degree of Authority Superiour to his yet this apply'd to a Primate is all Dr. H's argument to prove none higher than he But it is pretty to observe in what strange words he couches his inference from hence which saith he Repl. p. 40. sure infers that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely Head of all Bishops Observe that canting phrase one onely Head c His intent here manifestly was to show no degree of Authority Superiour to Patriarchs to prove this he alledges this testimony now agitated and then because he saw it would not carry home to the mark be aymed it at he infers warily that the Pope is not the one onely Head of all Bishops By which expression he prepares an evasion beforehand when the inconsequence of his discourse from the said testimony shall be obâ—ected or else would persuade the unwary Reader that we hold the Pope so Head of the the Church as that we admit not Primates to be Head of the Bishops under them Whereas our tenet is that as Primates are immediate Heads of the Metropolitans so the Pope is Head or Superiour over Primates and by consequence Supreme over the whole Church yet so Supreme as he leaves to Subordinate Governours their Headship inviolate over their proper Inferiours Thus much to his Testimonies concerning Appeals His other manner of arguing against the Pop'es Supremacy or his being a summum genus is from names and titles deny'd him The first testimony is from Decret part 1. dist 99. cap. 3. that Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum vel summus Sacerdos that the Bishop of the first Seat ought not to be called Prince of the Priests or Supreme Priest which the African Council confirms with aut aliquid eiusmodi sed tantum primae sedes Episcopus The second is from the same place cap. 4. Nec â—â—iam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus The third from the Epistle of Pope Pelagius Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur c. No Patriarch must use the title of Vniversal for if one Patriarch be called Vniversal the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest The fourth is their thred-bare and often answered testimony of Saint Gregory refusing the title of Vniversal Bishop But first these testimonies come short of what they are intended for in this that none speaks of the right of Iurisdiction but onely of names and titles as appears by the words appelletur appellandus Vniversalitatis vocabulo superbae appellationis verbum in the testimonies which denote no exception against any Authority but against the titular expression of it onely which sounded proudly and seem'd inconvenient and new at that time Secondly it is a great weakness in understanding the nature of words not to advert that the vogue of the world altering from plainess to complementalness as it does stil daily the same word may be used without fear of pride at one time which could not at another nay the same thing may be fitly signify'd by some word at some time which cannot be signify'd by the same at another as for example Tyrannus once was proper for a King ruling according to law and right which now is not competent but to him who rules arbitrarily against both or rather indeed once it signify'd a power
now it signifies a vice Thirdly this seems to have been the case of our word Vniversalis Papa at least in S. Gregory's time when that expression if taken in a due sense sem'd tolerable both by the example given in the Council of Chalcedon in order to Pope Leo and also by Eulogius Patriarch of Alexundria's letter giving it to Pope Gregory but 't was refused by that prudent and humble Pope because the proud Patriarch of Constantinople usurp't it in an illegitimate and intolerable sense Fourthly the sense of that title in the testimonies objected being evidently this that none could be Patriarchs but himself as appears by Pope Pelagius his Epistle cited here by Gratian quia si unus Patriarcharum Vniversalis dicatur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur and the like in S. Gregory's expression to Eulogius when he refused it this I say being evident and it being on the other side no less evident that our tenet concerning the Pope's Authority is not that it is of such a nature as debars others subordinate degrees and in particular Patriarchs and Bishops to be truly what they are called it is likewise evident that our meaning when we apply it to the Pope is different quite from the signification the objectors take it in Now that the Pope's Authority as held by Catholicks hinders not others to remain still Patriarchs is most plain For we grant him onely such an higher degree of power over Patriarchs as an Arch-Bishop hath over a Bishop from which superiory over them it follows that he is Supreme in God's Church As then the placing an Arch-Bishop over Bishops doth not un-bishop them so neither doth the exalting the Pope's Anthority above Paâ—â—iarchal destroy the notion of a Patriarch but each of them retains their compleat limits of Power in the Church notwithstanding their subordination to their Superiour and consequently the testimonies are not a jot to the Doctor 's purpose since they declare themselves to mean one thing and he brings them to denote a quite different matter Fifthly had not the Testimonies declared themselves to mean otherwise than we do yet to show more the miserable weakness of this testimony-gleaner it were no such great wonder that S. Gregory such was his humility should deny to accept what was due to him A plain instance of this may be found 4. Epist 31. where he denyes himself even to be a Priest Sixthly whoever reads his Epistles sent throughout the whole Church it is impossible but he should see that however he deny'd the word of Vniversal Bishop which sounded then proudly yet he both practised and challenged the thing it self that is the Papal Iurisdiction which we now mean by that word notwithstanding his profound humility which made him never desire to stand upon his power but when it was necessary A perfect instance of this is found 7 Epist 65. Ind. 2. where he sayes Si qua culpa c. If there be any fault or crime found in Bishops that every Bishop is subject to the Apostolical See but when their fault doth not exact it that is make it necessary for him to use his Authority that then upon the account of humility all were his Equals See also l. 7. Epist 64. where he puts it as undoubted that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolical See and this to be acknowledg'd by the Emperour and by the Bishop of Constantinople himself See another most express Testimony to the same purpose lib. 5. Epist 24. to Marinianus Bishop of Ravenna Seventhly those words Neâ— etiâ—m Romanus Pontifex Vniversalis est appellandus are not found either in the Council of Caâ—â—hage it self or in the ancient Copies but are Gratian's addition onely wherefore they are to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took thâ—m whose Epistle he cites to make good those words Eighthly equivalent terms to what we mean by those words were far more anciently given to the Bishop of Rome Zephyrinus by Teâ—tullian lib. 1. de pudicitia where de calls him Pontifex maximus Episcopus Episcoporum Ninthly and lastly to put this whole business out of doubt Dr. H's own dear Friend Balsamon a Greek Schismatick confesses and surely he knew as well as Dr. H. that that Title was forbidden to take away the Arrogancy of Names and that for that reason many Patriarchs did style themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vile and base See Bals in Conc. Carth. 3. Cant. 42. Where though he mingles something of his own Schism yet thus far is clear for me that the name or title was onely treated there nor the thing or Iurisdiction about which our controversy being Dr. H. ought to have brought testimonies impugning it not a bare name onely Calculate these manifold weaknesses kind Reader with thy understanding and then tell me if it must not be a most desperately weak cause which can drive it's Patrons to cast their strongest hopes upon such testimonies which to omit other frailties declare themselves and are confest by our bitterest Adversaries not to mean the thing or Iurisdiction the onely matter in debate but the Phrase of titular appellation onely which shows plainly that the Objecter's intent was to bring the question of the solid power and Authority into the Logomachy and word-skirmish of an aiery title So that Dr. H. payes his Reader with the same coyn as that hungry fellow did who having satisfy'd himself with the smell of the Cook 's meat pay'd his exacting host with the sound of the money in stead of the substanâ—e But now it being firmly settled by the former frothy Argument that the Pope had anciently no Vniversal Authority he proceeds to show when this strange Vsurpation impower'd it self over the whole Church And this he does from Paulus Diaconus de gestis Romanorum l. 18. who as he pretends tells us that Boniface the third with much adoe obtained an Edict of Phocas the Emperour to that purpose Where if he meanes that the name and title before forbidden were then first allowed by him what follows against us who maintain a real Power not a verbal title But if he means that the Supreme Iurisdiction over the whole Church was then given by Phocas then besides that this Iurisdiction we dispute of is over Kings and Emperours as well as others in Ecclesiastical matters and so not likely to be given by Phocas the Emperour we must be put to imagin which will cost us no less then perfect madness â—re we shall be able to doe it upon the blind and bare affirmation of an obscure Sentence that an Vniversal Government in Ecclesiastical matters over the whole Christian world could be introduc't nay held oâ— Faith and to have come from Christ without any visible effects of siding opposing deprecating submitting complaints applauses on the one side and the other together with change of Ecclesiastical Laws and the temporal also as concern'd in the Ecclesiastical and millions of other particular changes included in
This manner of treating Scripture then we Catholicks account in an high degree blasphemous nay to open the way to all blasphemousness and this because we do not dogmatize upon it or affix to it any interpretation that we build faith upon which is not warranted by the Vniversal practice of the Church and our Rule of Faith Vniversal Tradition though we know 't is the Protestant's gallantry to make it dance afther the jigging humour of their own fancies calling all God's word though never so absurd which their own private heads without ground or shadow of ground imagine deducible thence nay more to call it an Evidence that is a ground sufficient to found and establish Faith upon And thus much for Dr. H's blasphemous and irreverent treating both Faith and Scripture Sect. 4. How Dr. H. prevaricates from his own most express words the whole tenour of his Discourse the main scope of his most substantial Chapter and lastly from the whole Question by denying that he meant or held Exclusive Provinces And how to contrive this evasion he contradicts himself nine times in that one point AT length we are come home close to the question it self Whether the Pope be Head of the Church pretended to be evidently disproved by Dr. H. in the fourth Chapter of Schism by this argument S. Peter had no Supremacy therefore his Successour the Pope can have none The consequence we grant to be valid founding the Authority of the latter upon his succeding the former But we absolutely deny the Antecedent to wit that S Peter had no Supremacy that is supreme power and Iurisdiction in God's Church Dr. H. pretends an endeavour to prove it in this his fourth Chapter offering his Evidences for this negative p. 70. l. 4. First from S. Peter's having no Vniversal Iurisdiction from parag 5. to parag 20. Secondly from thence to the end of the Chapter from his not having the Power of the Keyes as his peculiarâ—â—ty and inclosure that is from his not having them so as we never held him to have had them His first Argument from S. Peter's not having an Vniversal Iurisdiction proceeds on this manner that each Apostle had peculiar and exclusive Provinces pretended to be evidenced in his fifth parag from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lot of Apostleship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudas his place in Hell of Schism p. 71. that the Iews onely were S. Peter's Province nay that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction that the Gentiles were S. Paul's c. and all this undertaken there to be evidenced by testimonies from Scripture Fathers and other Authours What hath been the success of his Evidences from his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath already been manifested by showing that he had neither any ground in the place it self to favour his explication of a lesser province nor among all the many-minded Commenters on Scripture so much as one Authority to second it As for his limiting S. Peter's Iurisdiction to the Iews onely and S. Paul's to the Gentiles by his pretended proofs his Disarmer offer'd him p. 52. that if among those many testimonies he produces to prove it there be but found any one sentence line word syllable or letter which excludes S. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles more than what himself puts in of his own head he would be content to yeeld him the whole Controversy which he vindicated to the very eyes of the Reader from every testimony one by one alledged by Dr. H. In this manner stood the case then between S. W. and his Adversary it remains now to be seen what reply he tenders to so grievous heavy and unheard-of a charge and how he can colour a fault so gross palpable and visible to the eye of every Reader Observe good Reader I beseech thee whether thou be Catholick ProtestaÌ„t or of whatever other profession that now the very point of the Controversy is in agitation For we pretend no tenour for the Pop'es Supremacy save onely that he succeeds S. Peter whom we hold to have had it if then it be evidenced as is pretended that S. Peter had none the Doctor hath inevitably concluded against us Reflect also I intreat thee on the grievousness of the charge layd by S. W. against Dr. H. and make full account as reason obliges thee and I for my part give thee my good leave that there must be most open knavery and perfect voluntary insincerity on one side or other and when thou hast examin'd it well I am a party and so must not be a Iudge lay thou the blame where thou shalt find the fault Neither despair that thou hast ability enough to be a coÌ„petent Iudge in this present contest here is no nice subtlety to be speculated but plain words to be read for what plainer than to see whether in the testimonies there be any words limiting the Iurisdiction of S. Peter or whether they were onely the additions of Dr. H. antecedently or subsequently to the testimonies But what needs any Iudge to determine or decide that which Dr. H. himself hath confest here in his Reply and Answer where seeing it impossible to show any one word in all that army of Testimonies which he muster'd up there limiting S. Peters Iurisdiction to the Iews or excluding it from the Gentiles which yet was there pretended he hath recourse for his justification to the most unpardonable shift that ever was suggested by a desperate cause viz. to deny that he mean't exclusiveness of â—urisdiction that is to deny his own express words the whole tenour of his discourse there the main scope and intention of that Chapter ' and lastly to change and alter the state and face of the whole Question This is my present charge against him consisting of these foure branches which if they be proved from his own words he is judged by his own mouth and can hope for no pardon but the heaviest coÌ„demnation imaginable from all sincere Readers since it is impossible to imagin a fifth point from which he could prevaricate omitted by him and consequently his present prevarication is in the highest degree culpable and unpardonable First then his own express words manifest he mean't Exclusiveness of Iurisdiction For of Schism p. 70. he uses the very word exclusively saying that S. Peter was Apostle of the Iews exclusively to the Gentiles and that this exclusiveness was meant to be of Iurisdiction is no less expressely manifested from the following page where it is said that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction which is seconded by his express words here also Reply p. 56 the portion of one Apostle is so his that he hath no right to any other part Excludes him from any farther right c. and sure if he have no right to preach to any other Provinces he hath no Iurisdiction at all
and not what the many-senc'd or rather indeed the noe senc'd Dictionary interpretation of two single words give them a possibility to signify Neither let Mr. H. think to excuse him self that he argues ad hominem in alledging these words and soe it imports not his cause at all what the Epistle it self sayes since he builds not upon it himself nor allows it's Authority for still as long as 't is shown that he imposes upon that Epistle and it's Author a sence which he knew they never intended he can never avoyd the note of insincerity and by how much the thing it self is more unlikely that the Authoritie wee alledge for us should be clearly against us as he sayes or the fell same Epistle contradict it self by soe much 't is a far more shamefull rashnes and an affected precipitation in him to pretend it and object it unles upon most evident and unavoidable grounds Sect. 14. Dr. H's trick to evade bringing some Testimony to confirm his own Wee know His two-edg'd argument to concluâ—e against S. Peter's supermacy both from Exclusivenes and not Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction IN the beginning of his fifth Section Dr. H. who was soe rarely skillfull in the art of memory as to contradict himself neere a dozen times in one point as hath been shown Part. 2. Sect. 4. is now on a suddain become Master of it and undertakes to teach'it S. W. whose memory alas as hee sayes is frail But ere my Master gives me my lesson he reprehends me first very sharply for my ill memory calling it my predominant fault and that railing is but my blind to keep it from being descry'd nay moreover this modest man who falsifies or corrupts every thing he medles with is angry with me that I doe not blush Expect Reader some great advantage gain'd against mee which can move this Preacher of patience to this passion who in the beginning of his book soe like a saint profess'd his readines to turn the other cheak to him who should strike him on the right To avoid mistakes on my part and cauills on mine Adversaries I shall put down both our words and appeal to the Readers eyes His were these of Schism p. 74 Thus wee know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted the Iews and S. Paul the Gentiles And what it was which Dr. H. in the plurall number Wee as became his Authority knew to be thus he exprest in the immediatly foregoing words to wit that whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same Citie the one constantly apply'd himself to the Iews received Disciples of such formed them into a Church left them when he departed that region to bee govern'd by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles This is that Reader which Dr. H. knew to have bâ—en thus at Antioch This is also the place Reply p. 57. when all els fail'd him he stood to as a sufficient expression of his exclusive tenet of those Apostles Iurisdictions Now my words Schism Disarm p. 62. upon his Thus wee knew it was at Antioch c were these That his first testimony was his own knowledge Thus wee know c. but that he put down no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one of his wee know which yet had been requisite that wee might have known it too And this was all What railing words the Dr. find's here which should make him complain so hainously I know not unles it were that I calld the testimony of his own knowledg weak and indeed if this be railing despaire of learning more courtesie till Dr. H. by growing wiser teach me it But my predominant fault of an ill and frail memory for which shame must make change colour is this that I said he put no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one of his Wee know yet afterwards set down two testimonies of that of which I lately denyed any If hee means such things as he produced for testimonies I set down indeed the very next Section not onely two but ten of them But if he means such testimonies as I exprest my self to deny there that is such as did confirm his own Thus wee know I am soe far from blushing at it that I still make him this bold profer that if amongst all the following testimonies there be found any one word confirming his own Thus wee know and what it relates to that is making S. Peter's Authority exclusive to the Iews and S. Paul's to the Gentiles when they met at the same City but what himself adds of his own head I will yeld him the whole controversy Nor let him tell me what he fancies to bee deduced thence but what the testimonies themselv's expresse the deductions are his the words onely are the testimonies let him show me any one exclusive word in any one testimony and I professe before all the world that I will not onely pardon him the impertinency of the rest but alsoe grant him all Iudge now Protestant Reader who hath most cause to blush examine well if ever thou heardst such a challenge made to any writer yet extant and not accepted of and then see to what a trifler thou trustest for thy salvation who in steed of replying to the purpose and showing thee those exclusive words tells his Adversary that it is a predominant fault in him to chalenge him that he had never a testimony to confirm his own Wee know and then seing himself unable to show any thinks to evade by telling his challenger he ought to blush for his frail memory whereas he should rather have blam'd him for his bad understanding and bad eyes neither apprehending nor seeing a word in any testimony to that purpose In answer to his pretended testimonies I noted Schism Disarm p. 63. that they affirmed no more but the founding the Church of Antioch by Peter and Paul which might be done by their promiscuous endeavours without distinction much lesse exclusion of Authority and Iurisdiction Dr. H. answers here 't is true this was possible and if it had been true had manifestly prejudged S. Peter's singular Iurisdiction and clearly joynd Paul socially with him It is impossible to gett a positive word of sence from this man first he will never willingly use the common words which expresse the question between us as chief in Authority amongst the Apostles their Head Prince c. but as before he used the ambiguous phrase of S. Peter's having noe singular supremacy at Hierusalem soe now he recurr's to singular Iurisdiction at Antioch which being doublesenc'd if wee take it in one he will be sure to evade hereafter by taking it in another Secondly let us suppose him to mean honestly that is to intend by it that S. Peter was not higher in Authority of Government than S. Paul as the question determines it let us observe how this quodlibeticall reasoner argues his whole intent was to conclude against S. Peter's
r H. found no other Antiquities in it and alledges that there might bee many more and yet not proper for a Collection of Ecclesiasticall Councils Pray does S r H. neglect all passages which are not of this grave nature How came hee then to take notice of this toy was this single Abbot either pretended to bee a Council or these words of his some authentick act of a Council I conceive you will not conclude it was otherwise Dr H. would not have undervalued it as inconsiderable and a proof you could unconcernedly and easily partwith as he does in his AppeÌ„dix p 168. How then was it so proper for à Collection of Ecclesiasticall Councils whereas the Collection might have been entire and perfect though this had been omitted Since then Sr H. who adored any new reuived piece of Antiquity found nothing in this manuscript worth mentioning but this in all likelihood it was made for this onely Secondly hee replies in case there had been no other Antiquity in it would S. W. condemn his creed for a counterfeit because it is not huddled together confusedly with some other Treatise in one Volume No my Ld my creed is sufficiently authoriz'd to my hand nor hath any iust exceptions against it This poor manuscript hath nothing at all to assert it's Authority and lies under many and very suspicious Exceptions But in case one who holds not his creed should bee dealt with to beleeve it onely upon these Grounds that it was found in a certain manuscript newly brought to light by one who holds the same creed and this manuscript not authoriz'd by any testimony asserting it to have been writ by the Apostles but onely that it might bee it was and against this very might bee many exceptions brought and amongst the rest that the style was very new and modern and so unlikely to have been the Apostles own words again in case this manuscript whence onely this creed is pretended to bee evinced had nothing in it worth note but this very creed that man were very weak and foolish to beleeve his creed thus slenderly proposed or rather totally unauthoriz'd nor can they bee iudg'd less weak who can think such a manuscript absolutely unauthentick and manifoldy excepted against a fitt Ground to build their assent upon to clear themselves from Schism that is to secure themselves from otherwise due damnation as themselves confess Will hee have mee reckon up again the exceptions against it To omit then what hath been sayd here First it is onely Sr H's coniecture that M. Moston's manuscript was transcribed out of an ancienter Copy now if this meer conjecture happen to fail the wise busines is at an end Secondly Sr H. who brought it to light confesses hee knows not when and by whom that manuscript was composed which is as much as to say it hath nothing to authorize it Thirdly 't is onely Sr H's conjecture that those words were the answer of Dinoth to S. Austin upon that occasion 4ly the same conjecture is all the Ground that the famous Dinoth was that Abbot 5ly the English found in an interlineary manner with the Welsh in that manuscript is evidently modern and later than K. H. the 8th which altogether disgraces the pretended Antiquity of that manuscript and Grounds a iust presumption of it's being forged to countenance his or his successours renouncing the Pope's Authority 6ly the learned in Welsh affirm that both the welsh language is modern and the spelling it is unlike to the ancient manner and doth manifestly and particularly resemble externs smattering when they first learn or write that language Diuers instances of which are found in few lines which evidences a forgery 7ly the Protestants are challenged to have abus'd it in the translation and yet so brave a proof it is they are glad to add paraphrases to make sence of it 8ly it is not past seventeen or eighteen years since this new piece of Antiquity came to light All which and much more to the same purpose may bee seen in the Appendix to the Manuall of Controuersies 9ly considering the foresayd exceptions as also that an English line is put alwayes word by word under each welsh line a method unheard of in Antiquity as our Ianua linguarum or the Praxis at the end of Clenard's Greek Grammar uses to bee it was in all likelihood invented after the form of our â—ueriles or Ianua linguarum by some Minister who was a Schoolmaster to teach the welsh School boy's English and withall to instill into them a dislike of the Pope the chief and most necessary point of their Cathecism in those days when all art was used to pervert the minds of the welsh and English and to blot out and disgrace as much as in them lay whatever concern'd the Catholike Church or it's Government 10ly in case all these exceptions were waved still the book is of no Authority in the world for there is no difficulty but a crafâ—y fellow may counterfeit a passage pretend it to have been found in Antiquity which may cohere so handsomly together that no great flaw can bee found in it nor grounded exceptioÌ„ taken against it yet it follows not hence that this piece of handsome forgery must therefore bee rely'd on as authentick unles hee can produce sufficient Grounds to authorize it viz. prove from Antiquity that such a person was held to bee the Authour of it that this pretended saying of this Authour or the book which recommended it was acknowledg'd by the common consent of good and learned men which is that which gives Authority to all books to have come down not corrupted at least in that passage to our times Vnles these bee shown still such a book however it tells it's tale handsomly fallâ— short of having any Authority since it wants all things which can Ground Authority See then Reader what weak men wee have to dispute with who think the deed done and that they may iustly obtrude upon the easy credulity of the world any pretended scrap of Antiquity so they can solve exceptions against it which yet they will never doe though they bring not nor even goe about to bring the least proof to gain it Authority but totally neglect that necessary task nay more confess themselves to seek in those points as wee have seen lately and as Mr Fuller tacitly grants by waving to patronize it who in his Church History Cent. 7. part 3. going about to rehearse this wise testimony bid it in plain terms Shift as well as it could for it's own authenticalnes In a word the busines comes to this that had there been some welsh pamphlet or ballad made in Ed. the 6th's dayes against the Pope found in some Library in manuscript printed put forth by some Protestant Authour and supposed by the partiall Antiquary without the least proof extracted out of ancienter copies presently there needs no more to authorize it soe it bee but against the Pope
that Ballad shall bee confidently asserted to have been sung by the old British Bards and to have signify'd the sence of the British Churches in those days And thus Protestant Reader thou seest what demonstrations thy BP's and Dr's bring thee to secure thy Soul from the horrid sin of Schism which yet Dr. H. of Schism c. 1. they tell thee is greater than Idolatry Lastly put case all had been true yet what had they concluded unles they had proved likewise that this Abbot in saying so had spoken the mind of the then Catholike world for no man that hath any sence in his head will undertake to defend that in the space of fifteen or sixteen hundred years there cannot bee found some few who either out of disgust ambition interest or ignorance might speak or act against the Pope's Authority or against the most inuiolable right that can be imagined but 't is clearly sufficient to maintain that in so saying they pronounced not the sence of the then Catholike world Have there been heresies against almost all other points of faith arisen in severall ages and shall wee imagin noe possibility of opposition against that point which concerns Government Or will it bee deem'd by any indifferent man a competent proof against true faith to say that such and such hereticks deny'd it No more ought it to bee held sufficient that such or such persons now and then deny'd that point which concerns Government unles such a deniall can Ground an inference that God's Church in that age held otherwise If then the Bp. will first clear his welsh copy book of all the exceptions brought against it next assert and establish it's Authority and lastly evince that this Abbot in thus saying spoke the thoughts of the world at that time hee will conclude strongly against us and till hee does this hee does nothing For onely the beleef of a Church relying on immediate Tradition pretended and evinced can bee possibly held able to counterpoise the tenet of a Church which confessedly relies on immediate Tradition possest As for what the Bp. addes concerning his corroboratory proof from the British Synods I must confess indeed that corroboratory is a very thumping and robust word but what does it corroborate Does it prove that the Authour of this welsh manuscript was worth a straw Not a iot The chief strentgh of this corrobototy proof lies in this that all the British Clergy did in those Synods renounce all obedience to the see of Rome as hee tells us here p. 29. and urges mee to answer it I shall and reply that 't is an arrant falsification at once of all Historians for if hee means that they onely disobey'd the Pope in not conforming themselves to his commands I grant 't is clear in all history they did so and so have many who remain Catholikes done who yet own the Pope's Authority it self but if it signifies as his circumstances and words make it that they renounced the Pope's Authority and deny'd his power to command or Supremacy 't is absolutely false no such thing being debated or denyâ—d in those Synods Yet to corroborate this this Bp. tells us in his iust vindication p. 104. That Austin S. Gregory's Legate proposed three things to them first that they should submit to the Roman Bishop 2ly that they should conform to the Roman customes about the obseruation of Easter and administration of Baptism and Lastly that they should ioyn with him in preaching to the saxons All which are preteÌ„ded to bee deny'd in those Synods Whereas again the first pretended proposall of S. Austin's is a very flat falsification of the Bp's no such thing being there proposed The three proposalls were concerning Easter Baptism and preaching to the English as your friend Dr. H. who happen'd here to bee more ingenuous tells you expresly out of Bede Appendix p. 181. l. 8. 9. Yet the Bp. cites there for this proposall and deniall Beda omnes alij in the margent that is at once belies Bede and all our Historians and to compleat the iest in his vindication p. 104. l. 1. 2. hee brags that this would strike the question dead And truly soe it hath for whereas the question before depended most upon the Bp's own words and partly on his sincâ—rity nothing is more questionles now than this that hee is a most unquestionable falsifier Now to falsify wee are told signifies to corroborate that Protestant cause and so is no shame but a beautifull stain and an honorable scar Again hee assures us here from his corroboratory proof that all the British Clerâ—y did râ—nounce all obedience to the Bp of Rome of which all our Historiographers do bear witnes You see by his many All 's what care hee hath of sincerity Whereas the Right of their subjection never came into play much less did they profess a renouncing all obedience but onely in not conforming to the customes of another Church Nor shall hee find one Historiographer who affirms that they deny'd all subjection due or disacknowledg'd the Pope's Headship though in some things they disobey'd him except his welsh paper and those of his own side who presume it upon their own conjecture And to confute his All Pitseus tells us onely that neque in maiori tonsurâ neque in ritu baptismatis neque in celebratione Paschatis se Romanae Ecclesiae ullâ ratione conformare voluerunt Which shows that there was no talk there of the Pope's Authority but of conforming to rites and customes Yet this the corroborating Bp. there calls an evident demonstration that I but trifle vainly against the testimony of Dionothus But in case this British Clergy which made these laws had renounced the Pope's Authority Let us see what cause hee had to brag of them S. Bede l. 2. c. 2. calls them unfaithfull naughty and detestable people Their own Country man Gildas sayes they were wolues enemies of truth and friends to lies enemies of God and not Priests marchants of mischief and not Bp's impugners of Christ and not his Ministers more worthy to bee drawn to Prison than to Preisthood And the Bp's dear friend Iohn Fox tell us out of an old Chronicle Acts l. 2. p. 114. that all things whether they pleased or displeased Cod they regarded alike not onely secular men did this but their Bishops and Teachers without distinction Thus my Ld D. hath again corroborated the Protestant cause by crying Hail Brethren well met to those folks who have been proved to bee detestable fellows and enemies of God that is as good as Atheists of which gang if this Dinoth were one wee shall neither wish the Pope such friends nor enuy them to the Protestants And this may serue for another of the Bp's demonstrations against the Pope to vindicate his Church from Schism and secure his Readers from damnation which hee acknowledges due to that vice by their relying on such proofs and adhering to such good company I am not ignorant
Rome would make which more more evidences that the acknowledgment of the Popes iust power was retained by the Greeks and encroachments upon their Liberties onely deny'd which the French Church intended to imitate Now 〈◊〉 cannot bee pretended with any shame that Gerson and the french Church mean't to disacknowledge the Pope's iust power as Head of the Church nor will Gersons words even now cited let it bee pretended for then without any perhaps not onely some as hee doubts but all in the Court of Rome would most certainly have contradicted it Their consideration then being parallell to that of the Greeks as the Bp. grants it follow'd that they acknowledg'd the Pope's Authority though they passively remain'd separate rather than humour a demand which they deem'd irrationall Thus the Bishop first cited a testimony against himself as was shown in Schism Disarm'd and would excuse it by bringing three or four proofs each of which is against himself also so that as hee begun like a Bowler hee ends like one of those Artificers who going to mend one hole use to make other three THE CONCLVSION The Controuersy between us is rationally and plainly summ'd up in these few Aphorisms 1. THat whatsoever the Extent of the Pope's Authority bee or bee not yet 't is cl ar that all Roman-Catholikes that is all Communicants with the Church of Rome or Papists as they call them hold the substance of the Pope's Authority that is hold the Pope to bee Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour in God's Church This is euident out of the very terms since to acknowledge the Papall Authority is to bee a Papist or a Communicant with the Church of Rome 2. The holding or acknowledging this Authority is to all that hold it that is to the whole Church of Rome or to all those particular Churches united with Rome a Principle of Vnity of Government This is plain likewise out of the terms since an acknowledgment of one Supreme Governour either in Secular or Spirituall affairs is the Ground which establishes those acknowledgers in submission to that one Government that is 't is to them a Principle of Vnity in Government 3. 'T is euident and acknowledg'd that whateuer some Catholikes hold besides or not hold yet all those Churches in Communion with the Churches of Rome hold firmly that whatsoever the living voice of the present Church that is of Pastours and Fathers of Famâ—lies shall unanimously conspire to teach and deliuer Learners and Children to have been recieued from their immediate fathers as taught by Christ and his Apostles is to bee undoubtedly held as indeed taught by them that is is to bee held as a point of faith and that the voice of the present Church thus deliuering is infallible that is that this deliuery from immediate forefathers as from theirs as from Christ is an infallible and certain Rule of faith that is is a Principle of Vnity in faith This to bee the tenet of all these Churches in Communion with Rome both sides acknowledge and is Evident hence that the Body made up of these Churches ever cast out from themselves all that did innouate against this tenure 4. 'T is manifest that all the Churches in Communion with Rome equally held at the time of the Protestant Reformation in K. Henry's dayes these two Principles as they do now that is the substance of the Pope's Authority or that hee is Supreme in God's Church and that the living voice of the present Church delivering as aboue said is the infallible Rule of faith This is manifested by our Aduersaries impugning the former Churches as holding Tradition and the Pope's Headship nor was it ever pretended by Friend or Foe that either those Churches held not those tenets then or that they have renounc't them since 5. The Church of England immediately before the Reformation was one of those Churches which held Communion with Rome as all the world grants and consequently held with the rest these two former tenets prou'd to have been the Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government 6. That Body of Christians or that Christian Common-wealth consisting of the then-Church of England and other Churches in Communion with Rome holding Christ's law upon the sayd tenure of immediate Tradition and submitting to the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of the Pope was a true and reall Church This is manifest by our very Adversaries acknowledgment who grant the now Church of Rome even without their Church to bee a true and reall one though holding the same Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government 7. That Body consisting of the then Church of England and her other fellow communicants with Rome was united or made one by means of these two Principles of Vnity For the undoubted acknowledgment of one common Rule of faith to bee certain is in it's own nature apt to unite those acknowledger's in faith that is to unite them as faithfull and consequently in all other actions springing from faith And the undoubted acknowledgment of one Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour gave these acknowledgers an Ecclesiasticall Vnity or Church-communion under the notion of Governed or subjects of an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth Now nothing can more neerly touch a Church than the Rules of faith and Government especially if the Government bee of faith and recieved upon it's Rule Seeing then these principles gave them some Vnity and Communion as Faithfull and as belonging to an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth it must necessarily bee Church Vnity and Comunion which it gave them 8. The Protestant Reformers renoun'ct both these Principles This is undeniably evident since they left of to hold the Popes Supreme power to act in Ecclesiasticall affairs and also to hold diverse points which the former Church immediately before the breach had recieved from immediate Pastours fathers as from Christ 9. Hence follows unavoidably that those Reformers in renouncing those two Principles did the fact of breaking Church Communion or Schismatizing This is demonstrably consequent from the two last Paragraphs where 't is proved that those two Principles made Church Communion that is caused Vnity in that Body which themselves acknowledge a true Church as also that they renounced or broke those Principles therefore they broke that which united the Church therefore they broke the Vnity of the Church or Schismatiz'd 10. This renouncing those two Principles of Ecclesiasticall Communion prou'd to have been an actuall breach of Church Vnity was antecedent to the Pope's excommunicating the Protestants and his commanding Catholikes to abstain from their Communion This is known and acknowledg'd by all the world nor till they were Protestants by renouncing those Principles could they bee excommunicated as Protestants 11. This actuall breach of Church Vnity in K. Henry's E d the 6th's and the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign could not bee imputable to the subsequent Excommunication as to it's cause 'T is plain since the effect cannot bee before the cause 12. Those subsequent Excommunications caused not the actuall breach or
denyed p 159 160 161. 162 163 From Names and Titles denyed p 164 165 166 167 from S. Ambâ—ose 23â— 232. and 234. from S. Chrysost and Theophylact. p 233 from Clemens p. 258. 259. from S Chrysost again p. 274 275 also p 286 287 Three impertinent Testimonies for S. Johns being over the Jews onely p. 366 367 His Testimony from Scripture for his Exclusive Provinces truely explicated and that Explication made good p. 224 225 c. His most serviceable Testimony from the Arch-heretick Pelagius p. 239. This Testimony mainly rely'd on p. 242. 306. 346. 348. Testimony from S. Hierom clearing the point of Exclusive Jurisdiction p. 251. to 255. S. Chrysostomes express Testimony against himself whom he cites most for him in this point p 279. 280. Three most manifest Testimonies from S. Chrysost for S. Peters Supremacy p. 288. to 292. Testimony from S. Cyprian and S. Austinc for S. Peters Authority p. 292. to 297. Testimony from our own Canon Law senselesly brought against us p. 297. to 301. A Testimony expresly against himself 〈◊〉 every Tittle brought to make good all his former Testimonies p. â—26 327. Six Testimonies of 〈◊〉 shown invalid by Schism disarm'd left unmaintained by their Alledger p. 329. 330. Testimonies from Scripture for the promise and performance of a particular degree of Authority in S. Peâ—â—â— urged p. 393. to 400 His own Testimony from S. Hillary expresly against him p. 416 A Testimony produc'd as for him which contradicts him in five particulars p. 418 419. His Testimony from Scripture for twelve Episcopall Chairs p. 421. 423. The Testimony Tu es Petrus c. urged by us p. 434. 435. Testimony from Justinians Novels â—oubly and notoriously falsified p. 468. 469. W. WEaknesse in producing blindly places of Scripture unapplyed to any Circumstance p. 4 5. In imputing Contumeliousness to his Adversary p 6 7 9. Yet using worse himself p. 6. 8 9 10. In expecting that Adversaries in a scrious quarrell should spare one another p. 7. In his manner of writing Epist to the Reader p. 6 17 19 In quoting Saint Hierom against the Disarmer to his own utter overthrow p. 21 22 23 c. In totally mistaking the common sense of a plain Epistle to the Reader p. 29 30. c. In arguing by Ifs p. 77 78. thrice Also p. 138 182 183 356 357 Thirteen weaknesses about one point p. 96 to 106. There are innumerable others but I am weary A List of their common Heads may be seen p. 454 455. The total sum of Dr. Hammond's faults committed in the first Part of his reply that is within the compass of thirty seven leaves favourably reckon'd is this Absurdities threescore and two Abuses twenty nine Blasphemies seven Groundless Cavils fifteen Calumnies twelve Contradictions seventy six False-dealings forty four besides his changing the words and sense of others Ignorances great part of which are affected fifty Omissions of his necessary duty forty Bringing Testimonies for him which are against him one and twenty Mistakes Prevarications Shufflings Weaknesses for the most part voluntary sans nombre INDEX To the Treatise against my Lord of DERRY ABsurdities p. 484 485 491 493 496 498 506 516 521 527 528 529 530 536 537 541 542 574 594 595 603 621 622 629 twice 635 640 641 647 524 570 571. Absurdity in bragging of his Churches large Communion p 641 642 643 Breaking Church-Unity inexcusable p. 569. 570. 571. 662. 663. 664. Cavills groundlesly rais'd p. 483 484 485 499 501 502 524 541 565 572 599 632 935 952 653. Cavills against the Council of Trent answered p. 645 646 647 648 649. Contradictions to himself p. 491 496 twice 500 527 540 twice 554 565 571 576 577. also p. 578 579 four times 590 591 594 601 602 603 604 607 twice 610 twice 611 621 twice 631 632 633 644 653 654 655 656 Other Contradictions p. 497 498 522 527 528 582 583 thrice 587 634 651. Contradicting the whole world's ages p. 530 559 560. Controversy what p. 502. Creed of the Apostles why instituted p. 492. why other Creeds or Professions p. 492 463. Defendent who properly p 511. Falsification of the Council of Ephesus in four respects p. 493 494 495. of his Adversaries words p. 525 526 630 631 of the Council of Sardica p. 537 538 of Bede p 550 of all our Historians at once p. 549. False pretence of our stating the Question p. 499. False stating the question p 500 501. Moderation of Protestants misrepresented from p. 581 to 601. Mistaking wilfully our charge p. 479 480. Omitting to tell us whether his Exceptions were Demonstrative or only probable p 475. Omitting one halfe of our charge p. 477 478. Omitting to speak one positive word to the matter of Fact p. 481 482. Omitting words most reli'd on by his Adversary p 540. Opponent who properly p 511. Prevarication from answering and substituting common words for particular things p. 486 487 488 489 490 599. Other Prevarications p. 497 498 534 twice 569 570 575 632 633 638 twice A most absurd and manifold Prevarication p. 505 506 507 508. Again 509 510. Also 511 512 513 Prevarications from the question p. 553 557 562 563 564 592 600 607 608 612 613 614 615 616 621 622 623 624 625 526 627 635 650 651. Succession into St. Peters Headship due to the Bishop of Rome p. 617 618. Testimony from the Council of Ephesus produced by Lord D. p. 493 569 573 from English Statutes p. 524 from the Epistle of Pope Eleutherius p. 539 540. Testimony from S. Prosper rejected by him p. 540 541. His Testimony from the Welsh Manuscript mâ—nifoldly weak from p. 542 to p. 549. Unity of Faith broak by the Reformers p. 570 571 572 657 658 659. Unity of Government broke by them p. 573 574 575 576 658. 659. Universal Church impossible to be known by Protestant Grounds from p. 595 to p. 599. The total sum of faults committed by my Lord of Derry in his short Appendix cast up amount to Absurdities twenty nine Cavils sixteen Contradictions forty four False dealings twelve Omissions of most important matters which concerned the whole question four Prevarications forty two Corrections of the ERRATA IN the Title l. 2. dispach't Epist to the Reader p. 2. l. 11. this method ib. p. 6. t. 8. oratoriall p. 12. l. ult them being p. 13. l. 17. I doubt not p. 14. l. 32. be otherwise p. 21. l. 15. his award p. 32. l. 1. ruin more p. 53. l. 11. if Christians p. 54. l. 2. of schism p. 54. l. 29. these positions p 59. l. 17 extern p. 95. l. 1. chap. 2. p. 105. l. 20 may not both p. 108. l. 15. lawfull p. 113. l. 22 most probable p. 129. l. 20. have had p. 142. l. 28. this consent p. 146. l. 26 Bishops p. 147. l. 26 quos p. 149. l. 3 reply p. 34. p. 150. l. 26 in it p. 152. l. 17 Bishops p. 154. l. 20 epist 10 p. 172. l. 7 Province ib. l. 25 fifth p. 173. l. 1 fifth p. 177. l. 11 his side p. 187. 18. the word is p. 195. l. 30 prepositive p. 216. l. 29 offer here p. 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. l. 17. p. 222. l. 22 a pact ib. l. 28 a pact p. 241. l. 7 our Doctors p. 252. l. 18 gentilem p. 236â— l. 7 il phras'd p. 257. l. 13 hath no. p. 261. lâ— 20 same tune p. 266. l. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 301. l. 7 prejudiciall p. 306. l. 34 possibly p. 308. 13 from all otheâ— ib. 33. hence all p. 310. l. 34 commanded togather together p. 318. l. 20 take to be p. 322. l. 13 in soft-reason'd ib. l. 17 attending p. 346. l. 19 which he affirms p. 347. l. 12 vers 1. we ib. l. 15 Greeks p. 350. l. 16 argumentative ib. l. 31 fourth p. 353. l. 8 â—ad won p. 359. l. 28 here Answer p. 53. â— 361. l. 2 to him Answ p. 49. l. 32. 33. p. 365. l. 1 repugnancies p. 378. â—28 of asks p. 381. l. 23 24 assents not sprung p. 382. l. 31 it would p. 391. l. 13 inclosure p. 393. l. 9. found p. 87. â— 406 l. 17 rule p. 407 l. 1. par 10. Answ p. 63. ib. l. 11 exhortation p. 408. l. 12. preferment Rep. p. 68. Reply p. 412. l. 13. as our Saviour did ib. l. 31. expression p. 420. l. 15. hands reaping â— 424. l. 20. 〈◊〉 your p. 443. l. 33. destroy ours from his own p. 448. l. 27. proportion p. 450. l. 10. explicated ib. l. 28. us three p. 459. l. 2. ingenuous p. 462. l. 2. grant p. 469. l. 8. his former fault p. 480. 4. 5. the Bishops fâ—llow-sencer Dr. H. of Schism cap. 7. par 2. confess c. p. 484. l. 8. Sons by attestation p. 486. l. 5. none can be p. 490. l. 11. than that the ibid. l. 33. immediate p. 496. l. 33. some such things p. 498. l. 23. all the Grounds p. 500. l. 3. Church or Successour of S. Peter p 502. l. 8. These points p. 506. l. 1. and indeed p. 507. l. 3. manifest in p. 511. l. 6. doth aloud p. 511. l. 17. Opponent or Accaser p. 512. l. ult have afforded some p. 513. l. 7. his Church since if he means the discipline of the Church of England c. p. 514. l. 11â— flickering p. 519. l. 24. by my first p. 520. l. 27. of non-ens p. 533. l. 26. utter unauthentickness p. 542. l. 34. the concomitant 549. l. 2. are put down p. 550. l. 32. corroborate the. p. 554. l. 21. Levi. p. 557. l. 25. now hold p. 568. l. 11 by any tie p. 577. l. 11. confâ—sses p. 21. l. 7. 8. Pag. 578 l. 33. nationall Laws p. 591. l. 28. that no Society p. 595. l. 3. have it hâ—ld p. 600. l. 30. and no more p. 603. l. 1. any 〈◊〉 ib. l. 4. â—ontests p. 604. l. 17. no my Lord. p. 605. l. 12. renouncing p. 609. l. 2. These Evidencies p. 612. l. 7. in noting p. 613. l. 22. evince p. 617. l. 26. 27. applying the. p. 620. l. 16. unites God's p. 634. l. 10. as suchâ— p. 638. l. 20. discourse dull p. 642. l. 21. but there is p. 644. l. 8. dâ—ametricall p. 645. l. 27. or of the p. 651. l. 4. A Patriarchall Aâ—istocraticall Authority p. 666. l. 19. neither their FINIS
own their reason and bring it home to it self rather than suffer it to wander in a pathlesse wildernesse of words and think it an endeavour more worthy a rationall soul to weave well compacted Treatises by evident connexion of terms than fruitlesly to stand picking thrums-ends out of overworn garments when they have done scarce know what colour they are of or how to knit them handsomely together without the motley of non-sence Thus much to give account of my obligation not to favour Mr. H. while he impugnes that Faith which I esteem most certain and most concerning Now for his person as it comes to me under any other notion than of a writer against God's Church I profess with all sincerity to honour and love it in the measure which reason requires As a member of the civil commonwealth I live in I bear him a civil respect I hear he is much a Gentleman and very courteous in return to which if it be my good fortune to meet him I shall be as ready to serve him in what may not concern my cause and do him as much civility as I would to most Gentlemen in England According to the degree of scholarship I find in him I shall candidly allow him a proportionable honour and shall not envy it him though mine Adversary even in his absence amongst mine own Friends I value-him for his skill in Greek a language I much love my self and think it a great ornament to a scholar if he know how to use it seasonably and not wantonly shew it upon all or rather no occasion in which Mr. H. hath very mvch diminish't himself giving his Readers a fair title to suspect him either of too much vanity in that or emptiness in other knowledges I applaud his unwearied industry half of which employed in a rationall way by some strong brain might be the happy Mother of many rare productions His looking into such variety of Authours deserves also it's commendation since testimonies have their degree of probation allowed them by their Governesse Reason that is according to the degree of knowledge or Authority subsequent to it found in the Testifier and the clearnesse from ambiguity found in the words alledged nay rather I should esteem him more for this than all the rest were this way of testimonies in it self much estimable since his chief and almost onely talent lies in this which furnishes him with sufficient store of such declamatory proofs and enables him to bring some kind of testimony against any thing that can be opposed as the nature of such sleight quotation-argumenrs uses to be for indeed what so absurd but a testimony may be produc't even from the best Authours seeminly favouring it as we experience daily in Scripture Lastly and more especially I acknowledge I am much his for the sakes of some Friends common to him and me which as no man with more veneration honours that sâ—cred relation of minds than my self doth in a manner mediately ally me to him and makes me desirous to flatter my self that the agreeing in a third should make us not disagree amongst our selves All these motives give him no mean place in my thoughts and esteem yet all these temporall considerations vanish and he straight becomes again indifferent to me when a quarrell about Eternity of mankind's blisse or misery is to be controverted betwen us and my deemed certainty of my Cause which concludes him by consequence certainly pernicious obliges me in Conscience to confute nay even disgrace him as far as he shall be found the promoter of a pestilent and soul-ruining Tenet Although I must confesse withall I am sorty that by is own fault he occasion'd this conscientious engagement in me for had there been no infection spread there had needed no Antidote What I have said here was to satisfy some whom I found much mistaken in the manner how Controversies ought to be treated by a Catholick not considering that Courtesy is a vertue onely in fit circumstances otherwise but an impertinent flattery or affectation and in a serious controversy about faith whose both Concernment and Certainty justify zeal and make it necessary as improper as for souldiers who are to try the field about their Kings and Countreys interests to hold their sword in one-hand and hat in the other complement and kisse their hands to one another instead of striking or by any unnaturall mixture of both make a gallant show of a mock fight preferring the care of court esy before the losse of their Cause For the satisfaction of these I have Apologiz'd thus far not in relation to Mr. H. The proper way to answer his weak proofs out of Scripture here were to gather by the help of an honest Concordance all the harsh words in the Scriptures spoken by our Saviour or his Saints and apply them voluntarily against him as he has done against me at which if he repine then to ask why my interpretation should not be as valid as his And with good-reason too should I daing him onely a reply in this method for why should not an answer of any thing serve to a quodlibeticall objection Sect. 3. How unfortunate and weak Dr. H. is in quoting S. Hierome against the Disarmer for writing plainly His crafty and discourteous Calumny AFter the testimonies from Scripture blindly levell'd at S. W. followes in the sixt Paragraph that it was a deviation from art to treat him thus unkindly to which I have answered above and that S. Hierome notes it as a great errour in Helvidius that he took railing for eloquence Wherefore since Mr. H. chuses S. Hierome for his Patron against S. W. in this point of the manner of writing controversy let us stand to his ward and example and see how he treated Vigilantius Dr. Hs. and the Protestants Forefather in the point of denying veneration to Holy Reliques and wether he stood upon courtesy when he made account he had a just occasion to shew his zeal In his Epistle to Riparius the first he writ against Vigilantius he hath these words O praecidendam lingâ—am c. O tongue worthy to be cut out by Physicians or rather oh frantick head to be cured by them c. Ego vidi hoc aliquando portentum I once saw this prodigious monster Tacita me forsan cogitatione repre hendas c. Perhaps thou mayest reprehend me in thy silent thought why I inveigh against one absent I confesto thee my passion I cannot hear so great sacriledge with patience For I have read of the lance of Phinees the austere rigour of Elias the zeal of Simon of Cananee the severity of Peter killing Ananias and Sapphira the constancy of Paul who condemned to eternall blindnesse Elymas the Sorcerer resisting the wayes of our Lord. Piety in Gods behalf is not cruelty Nor by consequence is zeale in behalf of Faith railing if that Faith be held to have certain grounds which onely can justify zeal and make it discreet But
England flies off presently and denies it saying he had no title to such an Authority there whereas when we maintain his possession we pretend not yet a Right which is our inference thence but that actually England was under such an Authority and acknowledg'd it whether it were rightly pretended or injustly remains to be inferred which the Dr. mistaking and not distinguishing between possession and right sayes we beg the question when we onely take what is evident that he was in possession and thence infer a right until the contrary be proved The second Ground is that This Authority actually over England and acknowledged there was acknowledged likewise to be that of the Head of the Vniversal Church and not of a Patriarchate onely This Ground is no less evident than the former by our adversaries confession since this is the Authority they impugn as unlawfull and from which they reformed which last word implies the actual acknowledgment that Authority had before Hence Mr. H's digression to show that Kings could erect and translate Patriarchates was perfectly frivolous as far as concerns this purpose for whether they can change Patriarchates or no is impertinent when we are questioning an Authority above Patriarchs and pretended to be constituted by Christ himself The third Ground is that This Papal Authority actually over the Ecclesiastical affaires in England was held then as of Christ's Institution and to have been derived to the Pope as he was Successour to S. Peter The truth of this appears by the known confession of the then Roman Church and the self-same Controversy perpetually continued till this day The fourth Ground is that This actual power the Pope then had in England had been of long continuance and settled in an ancient Possession This is evinced both from our Adversaries grant the evidence of the fact it self and even by the carriage of S. Aust in the Monk and the Abbot of Bangor exprest in that counterfeited testimony alledged by Dr. H. whence we see it was the doctrine S. Austin taught the Saxons The fifth Ground shall be that No Possession ought to be disturbed without sufficient motives and reasons and consequently it self is a title till those reasons invalidate it and show it null This is evident first by Nature's Principles which tell us there is no new cause requisite for things to remain as they are wheras on the other side nothing can be changed without some cause actually working and of force proportionable to the weight and settledness of the thing to be moved Secondly by Morals which teach us that mans understanding cannot be changed from any opinion or beleef without motives ought not without sufficient ones and consequently needs no new motive to continue it in any former assent besides the foregoing Causes which put it there Thirdly we find that Politicks give testimony to or rather stand upon this Ground assuring us when any Government is quietly settled it ought so to stand till sufficient motives and reasons in Policy that is a greater common good urge a change And if Possession were held no title then the Welshmen might still pretend to command England and each line or race which preceded and was outed quarrel with any subsequent one though never so long settled and so no certain right at all would be found of any possession in the World till we come to Adam's time Fourthly as for the particular Laws of our Countrey they clearly agree in the same favour for Possession I shall onely instance in one common case If I convey Blackâ—cre to I. S. for the life of I. N. and after wards I. S. dy in this case because I cannot enter against mine own Grant and all the world else have equal title whoever first enters into the land is adjudged the true and rightfull Owner of it during the life of I. N. and that by the sole title of Occupancy as they call it which they wholly ground upon this known reason that in equality of pretensions Possession still casts the ballance Nay such regards is given by our Law to Possession that were the right of a former Title never so evident yet a certain time of peaceable Possession undisturb'd by the contrary claim would absolutely bar it And here I should take my self obliged to ask my Adversary's pardon for using such words as a Dr. of Divinity is not presumed to be acquainted with did not his own Example at least excuse if not provoke my imitation Thus much of the force of Possession in general without descending to the nature of ours in particular that is of such a Possession as is justly presumable to have come from Christ Hence followes that since Possession of Authority must stand till sufficient Reasons be alledged that it was unjust those Motives and Reasons ought to be weighed whether they be sufficient or no ere the Authority can be rejected wherefore since the relinquishing any Authority actually in power before makes a material breach from that Government the deciding the question onely stands in examining those Reasons which oppose its lawfulness since the sufficiency of them cleares the breakers the insufficiency condemns them and in our case makes the material Schism formal Let the Reader then judge how little advised Dr. H. was in stating the question rightly and clearly of Schism pag 10. where he tells us that the motives are not worth he eding in this controversy but onely the truth of the matter of fact For the matter of fact to wit that there was then an actual Government and that they broke from it being evident to all the world and confest by themselves if there be no reasons to be examined he is convinced by his own words to be a Schismatick so flatly and palpably that it is left impossible for him even to pretend a defence The sixth Ground shall be that Such a Possession as that of the Pope's Authority in England was held ought not to be changed or rejected upon any lesser motives or reasons than rigorous and most manifest Evidence that it was usurp't The reasons for this are fetch 't by parity from that which went before onely the proportions added For in moving a Body in nature the force of the cause must be proportion'd to the gravity settledness and other extrinsecal impediments of the Body to be moved otherwise nothing is done In morals the motives of dissent ought to be more powerfull than those for the former continuance in assent otherwise a soul as a soul thas is as rational is not or ought not to be moved and so in the rest Now that nothing less than Evidence rigorously and perfectly such can justify a rejecting of that Authority is thus show'd That Authority was held as of Faith and to have been constituted by Christ's own mouth it had been acknowledgedly accounted for such by multitudes of pious learned men for many ages before in all Christian Countries of the Communion of the Roman Church
whereof England was one It claimed Vniuersal Tradition for it's tenour an Authority held of great efficacy by our very Adversaries the rejecting it if groundless was known to be an hainous Schism and to unknit the whole frame of the Churche's present Government which by consequence must render it in an high degree damnable to those who should go about to violate it Now then let us consider whether a Reason in it's own nature probable for except rigorous Evidence no reason can be more and no way in it's self obliging the Vnderstanding to assent be a sufficient and secure motive to reject an Authority of so long continuance held sacred and of Christ's Institution of such importance to the peace of the Church in rejecting which if one happen to mistake he is liable to the horrid vice of Schism and it 's condign punishment eternal damnation It must then be most peâ—fect demonstrative Evidence such as forces the understanding to assent which can in common prudence engage a man to hazard his salvation by renouncing that Authority Let Dr. H. then remember that they must be such kind of Evidences which can serve his turn not any ordinary common sleight testimony-proofs which for the most part arrive not to the pitch of a poor probability in them selves but compar'd to the tenour of our Government Vniversal Tradition vanish into aire or which is less into nothing To make this yet clearer let us suppose as it happens in our case that they who began to reform in this point first and to deny the lawfulness of this Authority were bred up formerly in a contrary belief ortherwise they must have received it from their Fathers which would quite spoil the supposition of being the first Reformers Neither is it likely that multitudes began to think or speak against it all in one instant but either one or some few chief who propagated it by suggesting it to the rest Now then let us consider what motives are sufficient to oblige these men to this new-begun disbelief and disobedience so as to absolve them even in common prudence from a most self-conceited pride and desperate precipitancy In prejudice of them is objected that heretofore they held that forme of Government as of Faith and acknowledged to receive it upon the same sole certain Rule of Faith which assured them that Christ was God the whole Church they left had confessedly for some ages held the same so that it was now found in quiet Possession If they were learned they could not but in some measure penetrare the force of Vniversal Tradition which stood against them in this point since orall Tradition of which we speak was pleaded by Catholicks for this point but never so much as pretented by the separaters against it because Reformation in a point of Faith and Tradition of it destroy one the other In a word should all these most ponderous Considerations be waved and onely the Authority of the Church they left consider'd t' is impossible they should reform unless they should conclude millions of Doctours which had been in the Church many of them reverenced even yet by the Protestants for their admirable learning to be ignorant in comparison of themselves or else all insincere and to have wronged their Conscience in holding and teaching against their knowledge Now let any ingenuous person consider whether such a strange self-extolling judgment and condemning others ought in reason be made by a few men against the aforesaid most important motives without a most undeniable and open Evidence able to demonstrate palpably and convincingly that this pretended Government was unjust and usurp't And if the first Reformers could have no just and lawfull that is evident Ground to begin their disobedience to that Government neither can their Proselytes and Successours the Protestanrs have any pretence for continuing it since in matters belonging to Eternity whose nature is unchangeable by the occurrence of humane circumstances none can lawfully adhere to that which could never lawfully be begun Neither are there any proofs against that Authority producible now which were not producible then The seventh ground is that No Evidence can possibly be given by the Protestants obliging the understanding to beleeve that this Authority was usurp't This is proved by the case of the first Reformers now explicated whose words could not in any reason be imagin'd evident against such an universall Verdict of the whole Church they left and particularly of all the learned men in it incomparably and confessedly more numerous and as knowing as any have been since Yet we shall further evince it thus They pretend not to any evidence from natural Principles concluding demonstratively that the former Government was usurp't nor yet from oral Tradition since their immediate Forefathers deliver'd them other doctrine else the Reformation could never have begun against our common Supposition Their Grounds then must be testimonial proofs from Scriptures Fathers or Councils But since these are most manifestly liable to be interpreted divers ways as appears de facto no sufficient assurance can be pretended hence without evidencing either more skill to fetch out their certain sense or more sincerity to acknowledge what they knew than was found in the Church they left a task I am perswaded few will undertake I am confident none can perform since all the world knows that the vast number of eminent and learned Doctors we have had in the process of so many ages and extent of so many Countries were persons not meanly vers't in Scriptures Fathers Councills yet held all these most consonantâ—to the Catholick doctrine though the polemical vein of the Schools which left nothing not throughly ventilated gave them ample occasion to look into them Adde to this that our late Doctors and Controvertists have not feared nor neglected to answer all those testimonies and produce a far greater number out of all the said Authorities nor have they behaved themselves so in those conflicts that the indifferent part of the world have held them non-sensical which surely they would had they deemed the other a perfect and rigorous Evidence From hence followes that though they may blunder and make a show with testimonies yet in reality they can never produce sufficient that is evident reasons thence for rejecting a Government qualify'd with so many circumstances to confirm and establish it Though I must confess if they could demonstrate by evident and unavoidable connexion of termes from some undeniable authority that this Government was unjust their Vnderstandings would in that case be obliged to assent to that inference But this is not to be hoped as long as divers words have divers significations as divers Sentences by reference to divers others put on different faces or by relation to several circumstances in history give us occasion to raise several conjectures Again if Evidence were easily producible from such kind of wordish testimonies yet they would still be as far to seek for an Authority
necessary will be voyd of fruit specially to Mr. H's Friends who may see by this Answer of mine how bad that cause must be which can cast so understanding a man as some of them imagine him upon such non sense weaknesses of reasoning voluntary mistakes falsifications denying his own words and many other ridiculous shifts as shall be seen most amply in the process of this Treatise Sect. 7. Dr. H's accurate mistake of every line of the Introduction to Schism Disarm'd and his wilful avoyding to answer the true import of it Mr. H's reason which was gravelled in understanding the plain words in my Epistle to the Reader as hath been shown has no better fortune in confuting my Introduction I exprest in the beginning of it that It bred in me at first some admiration why the Protestants should now print books by pairs to defend themselves from Schism who heretofore more willingly skirmish't in particular Controversies than bid battel to the main Body of the Church c. Vpon which Dr. H. not aware that upon every new occurrence or effect the admirative faculty first playes it's parts and stirres up the reason to disquisitiveness for the cause of it such reflections ly much out of the way of one who gleans testimonies will not give me leave something to admire at first till I had found the reason at an occurrence evidently new that is their writing at this time books by pairs to clear them selves from Schism but is pleased to turn my ordinary easy moderate words of some admiration at first into those loud phrase p. 12. l. 19. of great vnheard of news and prodigy putting news and prodigy in different letters that himself might be thought an Oedipus who had unriddled my imagin'd aenigma But since any thing which is uncouth and disorderly justly stirres up admiration what necessity is there that Dr. H. and his Friends should hap to do all things so orderly wisely and reasonably that poore S. W. whom he confesses here p. 10. l. 36 not to have been of his Councel in his designment might not be allow'd to have some admiration at first at their mysterious imprudence But he will needs undertake to allay my admiration though I was much better satisfy'd with my own reason there given by telling me it was seasonable charity to undeceive weak seducible Christians because the Romish Missaries by pretence of their Schism endeavour'd to defame them out of a persecuted profession Where first I assure him that many of those who have of late become Catholicks are as great Scholars and wits as have been left behind and so more likely to have been reduced by reason than seduced by the industry of others working upon their weakness the weak seducihle Souls of the former Protestants are either turn'd Quakers or such like kind of things those who have run back to the lap of their Mother the Holy Catholick Church are such as are neither easily deceivable by our Missaries nor possibly undeceivable by Dr. H. multitudes of them being such as might wiâ—h far better reason be wish't to have the Answering of Dr. H. in my stead than be feared to be mo'vd by his reasons to renounce their own Nor needed they be tempted by others their own reason if disinteressed could not but inform them that that Religion was not true that Church but counterfeit whose grounds were rotten and whose Fates depended upon the Temporal Power Nor hath the other part of that poor sentence scap't better from his artificial mistakes I onely affirmed that they heretofore seem'd more willing to skirmish in particular controversies than bid battel to tâ—e main body of the Church which he misunderstands as if I had said that no Protestants ever writ against the Authority of our Church and then impugnes his own mistake father'd upon S. W. very strongly by nominating some few books upon that subject Ans p. 11. l. 2. pittying himself that he should 〈◊〉 set to prove what none said but himself and truly I pitty him too But are not there near an hundred times that number who have skirmish't against us in particular Controversies I hope then this will serve to justify those moderate words of mine that they seem'd more willing to that task Yet he triumphs over me saying that it is much juster matter of wonder to him that S. W. should set out so unauspiciously as to begin with an observation founded in a visible contrariety to a plain matter of Fact that every man that thinks of must discern to be so Thus doth he trample down and then strut over S. W. at the first onset so potent still and victorious is he when he fights against his own Chimaera's I am persuaded a little sooth-saying will serve the Reader to determine who began the more inauspiciously and at whose door the sinister bird croak't Yet though saith he those words had been true that formerly the Protestants were more willing to skirmish in paâ—â—icular Controversies yet Dr. H. tells us it were obvious to every man what might now suggest the change of that course and what obvious reason might this be but that after particular Controversies were competently debated to set the Axe to the root of the tree and stock up Rome's universal Pastourship and infallibility Where he sees not that the question remains still to be ask't why the competent debating of particular Controversies should just then end and the propter time then begin for the Protestants to stock up Rome when themselves had never a legg left them to stand on and why they should hope then rather to get the upper hand when they ly flat along themselves as if Antaeus-like they were stronger by falling Again had many been induced by reason to return to the Catholick Church yet I cannot understang why the Protestants zeal should think it more seasonable to write Books by pairs against us than against their other Desertours since they who have gone from them into other Sects are above an hundred for one in comparison of the Catholik Converts so that had not S. W. found out a reason to rid himself of his some admiration he might still have remain'd in it for any thing M. H. hath produc't Vpon occasion of my saying that it was more seasonable to denounce to those Sects the unreasonableness of their Schism than plead the reasonableness of their own he voluntarily mistakes my words as if I meant that he had confess 't it Schism and then gone about to plead the reasonableness of it whereas I onely intended as is evident that he went about to plead the reasonableness of that which I who am the Defendant doe and must hold for Schism and consequently may nominate it so that is of his breaking from our Churche's Government Yet for this I have lost my credit this being another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he tells the Reader if he can understand Greek what trust is due to S. W. in his affirmations Should he
believe false Fundamentals his words are not intelligible sense for the following words or else they have no degree of truth in them relate to the other acception of Fundamental already sopoken of so that according to Dr. H. it is not intelligible sense to undertake for him and his Friends that they should not speak contradictions Is this a sober discourse which falls reelingly to the Ground of it self when none pushes it or was it a friendly part to involve his Friends in his own wise predicament And now can any man imagine that when I said Dr. H. and his Friends acknowledge ours a true Church there should be any difficulty in the sense of those words or that I should impose upon them that they held our Church not to have erred yet this Doctor who alwayes stumbles most in the plainest way will needs quibble in the word true and S. W. must bear the blame for grossely equivocating whereas the sense was obvious enough to every child as the words before cited will inform the Reader that I meant them of the true nature of a Church which since they acknowledged ours to have I argued hence that they must not say we held false Fundamentals that is such as they account Fundamentals for since a Church cannot be a Church but by Fundamental points of Faith and Faith must not be false it follows that a falshood in Fundamental destroyes the very Being of a Church This being so I shall beg Dr. H's pardon if I catechize him a litle in point of reason in which his Cause makes him a meer Cathecumenus and ask him how he can hold ours to have even the true nature of a Church since he hold that which she esteems as her Fundamental of Fundamentals and that upon which as her sole certain Ground she builds all her Faith to wit her infallible Authority to be false erroneous If the sole Authority upon which immeditately she builds all Faith be a ruinous falshood she can have no true Faith of any Article consequently can have no Faith at all nor be a true Church since a Church cannot survive the destruction of Faith But their ambition to honour their Nag's-head Bishops with the shadow of a Mission from our Church makes them kindly speak non sense to do her a seeming courtesy for their own interest I know he tells us here in general termes Answ p. 15. that she is not unchurch't because she holds the true Foundation layd by Christ but offends by enlarging and superadding but he must show why the Catholicks who hold no point of Faith but solely upon their Churche's infallibility if thar Ground be false that is be none as he sayes can hold any thing at all as of Faith that is have any Faith at all at least how they can have Certainty of any point of Faith or the written word of God if the sole-certain Rule of Faith by which onely they are assured of all those were taken sometimes in a lie to wit while it recommended to them those superadditions they account false received in the same tenour as the rest from the hands of our immediate Forefathers But let us follow Dr. H. who goes jogging forward but still rides as his ill fortune is beside the saddle To points which they accounted fundamental I counterpos'd tolerable ones that is such as they esteemed not-fundamental which I therefore call'd tolerable because they account these neither to touch the Foundation of Faith as building or destroying such as he acknowledged in the fore-going Paragraph our pretended super additions to be saying that the dross doth not annibilate the Gold It being therefore plain that falshoods which are not in fundamentals so unconsistent with the essence of a Church must be in things not-fundamental and therefore consistent with the nature of a Church that is tolerable if taken in themselves he neglects to take notice of them as they are in themselves that is such as their admission ruines not Faith nor the essence of a Church and sayes the pressing them upon them is intolerable and not admittable without hypocrisy or sin against conscience and why because they believe them not I ask had they a demonstration they were false if so then let them produce it and if it bear test I shall grant them innocent if not then since nothing else can oblige the Vndâ—rstanding but the foresaid Evidence their pretended obligation in Conscience to disaccept them is convinc't to spring from weakness of passion not from force of reason I added that those points more deserved the Church should command their obseruance than Copes or Surplices c. And though Mr. H. knowes very well that one of those points was the fundamental Ground of all Faith in the Church they left and Copes c. but things indifferent yet by a cheap supposal that all is false which we hold he can deny that they are more deserving our Church should command their observance and so carries the cause clear He addes Answ p. 16. that they weightier the importance of the things commanded is the more intolerahle is the pressure of imposing them and makes disobedience greater in things indifferent Whereas surely the Governours are more highly obliged to command the observance of that on which they hold Faith to be built than all the rest put together Is it a greater obstinacy to deny a Governour taxes than to rebell absolutely against him the Doctor 's Logick sayes it is since obstinacy according to him is greater in resisting commands in things indâ—fferent Especially if the Rebel please to pretend that the urging his submission to that Authority is an intolerable pressure Mr. H. here acquits him without more adoe But to return since it was our Churche's greater obligation to command their observance of those points and the holding of such points was not deemed then by them destructive to Faith but on the other side known by reason of their pretended importance to be in an high degree damnable to themselves and others if they hap't to be mistaken no less than most palpable and noon-day evidence can excuse them in common prudence from a most desperate madness and headlong disobedience but the least shadow of a testimony-proof is a meridian Sun to Dr. H. and gives as clear an evidence as his understanding darkened by passion is willing to admit Thus much to show the particular miscarriarges of Dr. H. in every Paragraph of his answer to my Introduction there remaines still the Fundamental one that he hath said nothing at all to the point of reason in it but onely mistaken each particular line of it I alledged as my reason why they dealt not seriously against their own Desertours because no colourable pretence could possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the very same would hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them This proved ad hominem thus because the Protestants acknowledge the points
deny'd by both to be tolerable that is such as could consist with Faith and a Church but with this disadvantage on the Protestants side that the points they deny'd being of more importance more deserved our Church should command their observance Now every one sees that the proper Answer to his Discourse is to specialize some plea for themselves which will not as well excuse their Desertours The Doctor alledges none nor goes about to alledge any but as if he were dividing his Text playes upon my words in particular neglecting the import of them altogether He sayes indeed it is against their conscience to admit those other super additionary points the same say the Puritans of Copes Surplices and Organs The Doctor will object that they are indifferent and stight matters and therefore it is a greater disobedience not to admit them they will answer that Surplices are ragges of Rome that Organs are Babylonish Bagpipes and all the rest scandalous and superstitious inventions Still they are equall in their pleas Nay if a Socinian deny Christ to be God and pretend as doubtless he will with as much seriouness as Mr. H. that he cannot but sin against Conscience if he think otherwise and therefore 't is tyranny to press it upon him the Church may not oblige him to believe that Christ is God Dr. H. hath pleaded his cause joyntly with his own that is hath said no more in his own excuse than the Socinian may for his Again if Dr. H or his Church press upon the Socinian the belief of Christ's Divinity upon this ground that it is a point of most weighty importance he presently answers the Doctor with his own words that the weightier the importance of the things commanded are the more intolerable is the pressure of imposing them And so in stead of impugning Dr. H. hath made good S. W's words that they can alledge no colourable pretence which may not be alledged by the other Sects What if we should adde that the Church they left had been in long possession of the belief of Infallibility and so proceeded upon these Grounds that her Faith was certain when she prest those points upon them but they confess their unceâ—tâ—in and could proceed upon no better then probable Grounds when they prest any thing upon their Desertours is there not a palbable difference put between the pretended Authorities of imposing points to be held in us and them and a greater danger of disaccepting ours in them than theirs in the Puritans If they erred onely a confest probability stood against them which gave them just licence to dissent if they had a probable reason that the admission of those points was bad since nothing but absolute Evidence pretended could even pretend to oblige their Vnderstandings to assent to them if you erred a pre acknowledg'd Infallibility strengthen'd by a long Possession asserted by the attestation of Tradition and many other motives stood against you so that nothing but most palpable undeniable and rigorous Evidence could possibly disoblige your first Reformers from their ancient belief or oblige them to this new one If the Puritans erred since they were onely ornaments and Rituals they refused to admit the utmost harm which could accrue by their non-admission of them was terminated in the want of exren decency onely and held by the very Authority which imposed them to be but indifferent and far from being essentially-destructive to a Church But if you or your first Reformes chanc't to erre which the bare probability of your Faith confess 't by your selves in this case makes more than likely then your contrary position ruin'd all Faith and Government since the Church you disobey'd held no other Ground of Faith or Church Government save onely those you reâ—ected and disacknowledg'd to wit her own Infallibility and the Popes Authority Again if you happen'd to be in the wrong and that indeed there was no other either Church Government or Ground of Faith than these then how wickeldy desperate to your own soules and universally destructive to all man-kind and their means of attaining eternal bliss must your disclaiming and publikely renouncing both these be none of which can be objected to the Puritanes by you So evidently true were my words that no colourable pretence can possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm nay much firmer for other Sects why they left them Yet I doubt not but the Doctor will after all this as he does here Answ p. 16. applaud his own victory with a triumphant Epiphonema and say that S. W. his probations are beyond all measure improbable when himself had not said a word to the intent of the discourse but onely play'd mistakingly and non-sensically upon some particular words Yet when he hath done like a tender hearted man he pittyes himself again that he should so unnecessarily insist upon it Truly so do I pitty him or any man else who takes much pains to no purpose though I pitty more the Reader who can imagine any credence is to be given to so weak a Writer He ends his Answer to my Introduction with telling the Reader that I have with no shew of Iustice suggested his tediousness in things acknowledged Whereas almost all his first Chapter and third together with those where he proves the Pope not Head of the Church from the title of converting England or Concession of our Kings as also almost all his narrative Confession of his Schism with many other scatter'd discourses are things acknowledg'd by both parties and were very tedious and dull to me What he addes that he will not disturb me when I speak truth unless he shall discern some part of his arguing concern'd is a very pretty jest intimating that he stands in preparation of mind to oppose even Truth it self if it stand in his way or his arguing be concern'd in it and not vindicated in his former Reply A sincere person Hovver let him onely grant that what he vindicates not but leaves untouch't is Truth and we shall without difficulty strike up a bargain Sect. 8. How Dr. H. prevaricates from the Question by stating it wrong His powerfull way of arguing by Ifs and how he defends himself for mincing the Fathers words THe Fathers alledged by Mr. H. attested that no just cause could be given of Schism whence he inferres of Schism p. 10. that the causes and motives of Schism are not worth producing or heeding in this controversy The Catholick Gentleman and S. W. both exprest their dislike of this inference the Doctor pretends to vindicate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it as he pedantically calls it and referres me to his Reply for his reasons to which I shall both give a solution and at once lay open the nature of Sâ—hism and the manner in which they ought to controvert it I mean as far as it can have any show of bearing controversy Schism then which we joyntly
this present controversy as Schismatical yet Dr. H's great reach of wit can by the way and within a Parenthesis make such a dolt of S. W. His proof from my words is better then the supposiâ—ion it self I said our Church could cast them out and deny them communion if they be found to deserve it being then her Subjects and Children Actually they were under her at that time if then they could alledge just that is evident reasons why they thought her Government an usurpation then they did not deserve it and so she could not excommunicate them if they did not and yet would subtract themselves from her obedience then they deserv'd it and were justly excommunicated Can any man doubt of this or impose such a piece of known non-sense as his former deduction out of it is upon another unless possess 't with Dr. H's want of ingenuity yet this he repeats again p. 21. and calls his own straining at a gnat my swallowing down the question at one haust Now let us examin my words which breed his scruple they are these as cited in the Marge by himself That our Church could cast you out if you be found to deserve it being then her Subjects and Children none doubts Here I ask first whether he can shew that I speak of any interiour or legal Authority which if he cannot 't is a plain imposture to father upon me the word legal as he does in this place Secondly I demand whether any Protestant or Dr. H. himself doubts whether there was an extern apparent and acknowledged Authority the which for being such was to be obeyed until it was disproved in the Church of Rome over the pretended Reformers This being acknowledged I ask what it is he excepts against That such an Authority could not proceed against her esteemed Subiects if they deserv'd it for this is all my words signify'd and is so plain of it self that no man that hath any common sense can make difficulty of it He tells us p. 19. that the questions is equally and indifferently whether they or the Romanists be guilty of Schism including also the remorseless Governours in the Romish See Where he quite mistakes the business his meaning as I perceive by his whole procedure and particularly p. 22. where he sayes that the Pope ought to clear his title to his pretended power is that we should be mutually counter-opponent and counter-defendants and each produce proofs ere we can claim any thing But he is in a gâ—eat errour we need no new proofs to convince the lawfulness of our Authority our plea is provided to our hand before they opposed us and started the question Possession is all the proofs we need bring and such a possession as had to strengthen it an universal belief that it came from Christ's time grounded upon the certainty of Oral Tradition so that we made no question of it it was a point of our Faith and therefore need produce no proofs for our affirmative whereas they who first question'd this before-unquestionable and reâ—ected this before-received Authority must bring reasons why they did so and proofs why they deemed it usurp't The question therefore in this preâ—ent debate devolves to this whether the proofs Dr. H. produces be convincingly evident against a possession so qualify'd as is before declared if they fall short of that force eo ipso he and his Friends are concluded Schismaticks for relinquishing without just motives an Authority whose possession is justly presumable to have come from Christ if they be perfect Evidences then they are excusable and in their excusableness is terminated the controversy in hand if we may trust the title of his book which is A Defence against the exceptâ—on of the Romanists or his own stating the questâ—on of Schism p. 11. from which he here prevaricates p. 19. What follows further out of their excusableness against us that is whether we were unjust usupers tyrannical c. is another question for which sequel I would not contend with them if the premisses could be possibly evinced However if we usurp't it was not lately but a thousand years agoe But that our Church shall in that case be schismatical as he here sayes that expression comes out from the mouths and pens of his Friends so weakly and faintly the light of nature and common language of mankind checking them that the whole is not said to be broken from a part but a part from the whole that he must have recourse to the universal obligation of Charity to pretend us such for we can never be â—hown even in his supposed case Schismatical against Government or Vnity in the Church if no such Vnity can be found as it cannot in that mould he hath cast Christianity in by making each Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Independent or self-govern'd since there can be no division made where the things are already many After his pretended indifferency of the question he tells us that it must not be begg'd on either side and hereafter he complains of me grievously for the same fault I am sorry to see M. H. so ignorant in Logick that he mistakes the most ordinary things in disputing Let him know then that a Defendant as a Defendant cannot be sayd to beg the question since it is his office to hold his tenet which is the thing in controversy and stick close by it whatever prejudices or impossibilities are objected to deny them coÌ„sequent from it granting those things which he takes to be consistent with it denying those which he deems inconsistent unless it be an open evidence if an ambiguity occur to distinguish the double sense and show again which part of the distinction is consistent with it which otherwise in all which it is manifest he supposes the truth of the question and holds fast to it nor ought he let go that hold til he be non-plust and the dispute at an end My part then being the Defendant's as hath been proved out of the tenth Ground the Reader may see with how much Logick D. H. complains of me all over for only holding my tenet which he calls begging the question For however he may pretend to the name of a Defender yet since his party begun first to oppose that is to object and argue against ours who at that time quietly held their tenet 't is clear he is in no other sense a Defendant than as one who maintains his first objected Syllogism with a second may be said to defend it which is very improper and abusive of the right notion Whereas we who started not the dispute nor begun the opposition but sate still have yet a just title to continue in that our posture of defence till the Evidence of their Arguments drive us out of it His next complaint is against the Governours in the Romish See who if you will trust him without all cause deny Communion without remorse or relenting not onely to them but to many other Churches
east and west north and south in all parts of the habitable word And was not this ever the constant practice of God's Church to Excommunicate all those who renounced either the Government or any other point of Faith received from their Forefathers that is all Schismaticks and Hereticks and never to readmit them till they repented their lapse and did fruits worthy of penance I grant therefore that the Romish Governours inherit the remorslesness of the foregoing Church so that if any be found misdeserving in the same manner in what part soever of the habitable world they live whether East West North or South all is one to her or how many soever they be Arians Socinians Eutychians Nestorians Carpocratians Lutherans Calvinists Protestants c. she values not their number nor yet their situation if they grow scabb'd with self opinionated novelties or disobedience they must be separated from the sounder flock nor ever be re-admitted till their repentance hath wrought their cure His fifth sixth seventh eighth Paragraphs which follow lay down for their foundation a very excellent principle introduc'â— with an If as If the Church of England p. 19. l. 22. be really 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Bishop of Rome p. 20. l. 1. had really no more power and Authority over this Church than the Bishop of Antioch over Cyprus that is none at all In case the Bishop of Rome p. 21. l. 16. have no legal Authority over us c. and upon this he runs on very confidently a whole leaf and an half concluding most evidently whatever he pleases in prejudice of the Pope none daring to stop his career or deny his consequences so great vertue there is in the particle If onely we may take leave to propose a parallel to it that as he who intends to dine on larks prepares all things necessary whithout any greater security than If the sâ—y should fall may in all likelyhood miss his meal so in greater probability must Dr. H. fail of his conclusion which relies upon a conditional If grounded onely in his own fancy He expresses p. 22. much Charity towards the humble members of the Papacy who pray for the peace of the Caetholick Church But if he would consider how litle they think of his Church under that notion he would con them litle thanks for their prayers They never intended to pray for the peacefull a biding of the Protestants where they are but rather for that salutiferous trouble of compunction and sorrow of heart for their disobedience and pervicacious obstinacy Yet he will needs be beholding to them for praying for the Protestant Churches peace with the rest and in courteous requital retains the favorable opinion of Salvation attainable amognst them But cannot absolve from the guilt of the most culpable Schism the setters up and maintainers of the partition-wall betwixt us The Pope Cardinals and all the Clergy must beaâ— S. W. company to Hell that 's decreed S. Paul hath doubt less long a goe pronounced sentence against them also He would clear himself in the next place for mincing the Father's words S. Austin affirmed non esse quicquam gravius Schismate he render'd it scarce any so great Now S. W. knowing how willing he was to seek evasions to palliate Schism by pretence of some greater sin as he does most amply of Schism cap. 2. part 8. and therefore not willing to grant him any the least startinhole exprest by the way his dislike of his mincing the absolute not with scarce But as Mr. H's good fortune would have it his Genius led him into this profitable mistake as to translate gravius so great and by the jumbling of these two together he hath compounded an excuse alledging that scarce any is so great is fully as much or more comprehensive than none greater Whereas first it is manifest that non esse quicquam gravius is most obviously and easily render'd there is nothing greater and if a qualifying expression be made use of in stead of an absolute one S W. had good reason to be jealous of it specially coming from Dr. H. Next the reasons he alledges to make good the equivalence of the sense that there may possibly be many crimes as great though no one were supposed greater is false Moral Science assuring us that no two kinds of vices are equall Thirdly if Dr. H. please to rub up afresh his forgotten Logick he will find that with S. Austin's proposition that none is greater it cannot stand that one is greater since they are contradictories but with his proposition that scarce any is so great it vell stands that one or some few may be greater Therefore it is manifest that he minced S. Austin Lastly whereas he sayes he assumed not to affirm more than his Authorities did induce that there was none greater is the strangest lapse of all before he onely minc'd the words non est quicquam gravius now they have totally lost their signification since he tells us his Authorities did not induce that there was none greater which is directly contrary to the words cited This is the result of Dr. H's deliberate thoughts apply'd to remedy his Disarmer's too great hast Me thinks another man in another cause might have done better ex tempore I took notice by the way with a glance of a parenthesis that he mitigated S. Irenaeus his words Nulla ab eis tanta fieri potest correptio quanta est schismatis pernicies by rendring the absolute tenour of them Nulla potest c. by the softer language of It is very hard if not impossible to receive such an injury from the Governours c. To clear himself he asks me first why I took no notice of his ill rendring Schismatis pernicies I answer that it is not necessary to score up all his faults it suffices to note what I conceived most needfull Next he excuses himself by telling us that he set down the Latin punctually and so left it not possible to impose on any that understood that I answer that my intent in noting it was that he should not even impose on those who understand English onely and make up the greater part of Readers Thirdly he sayes he was carefull not to goe beyond the limits of the testimonies I grant it and onely find fault that he was over-carefull so as to fall short of their just sense Fourthly he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Scripture and other Authours is render'd hard or difficult Which evasion is nothing unless he had this testimony out of Irenaeus in Greek as his words seem willing underhand to make the Reader believe which if he have I am sure he hath seen more than other men though very curious could ever hear of These are his evasions let us see what plain reason will say against them It is very hard if not impossible to receive such an iniury sufficient to excuse Schism evidently is consistent with this sense that
truly that he was not actually and de facto under him when he had renounced his Authority and raised an Army against him He tells us moreover upon his honest word if we will believe him that the King and Bishops here had the supreme power under Christ to reiect the Pope's Authority that the Pope's power was usurp't c. and then hiding his head under these thin leaves he concludes himself perfectly safe till we make it appear that we were Governours and they faulty So that by the Doctor 's Logick a boy though undoubtedly held the son of such a Father may not be whip't by him for disobedience as long as the boy can call his mother whore and deny himself to be his Son unless the Father make it first appear that he is his Child Till you first renounced the Authority of our Supreme Governour let it be when it will you were under him and held his Children and Subjects your disobedience is most notorious and confest and that not a meer disacceptance of his commands but disallowance of his Authority yet as long as you can deny it and say the Roman-Church your then-Mother was a strumpet and had erred in Faith she may not punish nor excommunicate you without first making it appear you are her Children A solid piece of reason Observe Reader that Dr. H. in all these raw affirmations of his that not begg'd the question a jot although he be the opponent 't is his privilege to say what he will every one knows 't is his humour In a word let him either show that his reasons for renouncing that Authority are above all degrees of probability which was the proper answer or else let him confess as he must that he is evidently a Schismatick in rejecting an Authority for so many Ages acknowledg'd certain upon slight and phantastical Grounds One piece of wit I must not omit because I have heard more than one of Dr. H's Friends misled by it The Doctor affirms here Answ p. 30. l. 14. that the Pope's Authority was first cast off by Papists 'T is strange that the same men who nominate us Papists for onely acknowledging the Pop's Authority should call them also Papists who disacknowledge it But perhaps he means they were Roman-Catholicks if so then let me ask does he mean that they were of our Profession ere they renounc't it so was every one that turned Knave or Rebel an honest man and true Subject formely else he had never turn'd so but ever been so must then Knaves and Rebels impute knavery and rebellion to honest men and true Subjects and say it was they who first began those Vices or does he mean perhaps that they remain'd Catholicks after the renouncing it If his mistake be there he may right it by taking notice that such a renouncing is an Act of Schism involving heresy by corenouncing the Rule of Faith After this renouncing therefore they were Schismaticks and Hereticks not Catholicks and whatever tenets they may be pretended ro retain still were not now Faith but Opinion onely the sole certain Ground of Faith Oral Tradition being abandon'd and rejected unless the Doctor will say that they had yet Catholick Faith in them who denyed all the ground of Catholick Faith and then indeed I shall not refuse to give them leave to hold them without Ground and rank them in Dr. H's Predicament of Probablists Sect. 10. Dr. H's plea of a weak conscience common to the Prostants and any malefactour Thirteen shamefull and wilful weaknesses in answering Mr. Knot 's position that we may lawful'y forsake the Churche's Communion if she be not infallible Mr. H. begins his third Section very angrily calling mine p. 31. a perfect Romane-combate with a Wind-mil of my own erecting toward which he never contributed the least stone or timber But what if I show the Doctor that he hath contributed great mill-stones and huge logges towards the making this Wind-mill of his My affirmation was that Schism Disarm'd p. 14. he had got a new cloak for his Schism the pretence of a weak conscience citing for it his excusing words that they could not subseribe to things which their conscience tells them is false and that it is hard to say a man can lawfully subscribe in that case though the truth be on the Churche's side Hence I deduced some consequence how his doctrine excused those malefactours and their three pretended Schismaticks In answer he calls this a manifest perversion of his most innocent expressions because afterwards he sayes that such a weak-conscienc't erroneous man is in several respects crimtnous c. I reply I do not forbid him to speak contradictions for I perceive by his litle amendement he is not likely to take my friendly counsell but let us see what those places which I related to there in the Doctor gave me occasion to say and what they contributed towards this Wind-mill His first contribution is that there is nothing alledged by him where he pretends conscience in not obeying us but the very same will much better serve any malefactour so that his words may become their plea and consequently unless he gave us some distinctive sign of the goodness of his conscience above theirs his words are justly appliable to plead their cause His second is that whereas onely rigorous and convincing Evidence can excuse such a disobedience and he pretends none I ought to think his conscience erroneous and that for pleading for it he pleads for erroneous Consciences and may by the same resons plead for the other malefactours His third contribution is that since on the one side he tells us it is hard to affirm that a man in an errour may lawfully subscribe and on the other leaves no Grounds to convince him rationally for how can any man pretend to convince him or he rationally assent to be convinced by an Authority which tells him it may be mistaken this weak-conscienc'd man may consequently have a rational Ground to remain in his false opinion at least cannot be obliged to contrary belief but thanks Dr. H. heartily for pleading for his lawfull continuance in his beloved errour Or if he be scrupulous of his errour and Dr. H. afford him no perfectly-certain grounds to right it but that as he sayes here and his Grounds make good he is sure to sin which way soever he turns 't is likely Mr. H's good doctrine may make the poor fellow come straight home from the Probability-lecture take a rope hang himself This indeed were no great favour to a weak conscience His fourth contribution cap. 7. par 9. is his position of the errour in some case on the Churche's side in some places in this Chapter which very thing favours the self-conceit of every proud fellow and gives him a fine pretence to think his erroneousness lawfull in disobeying that Authority which could not oblige him in reason to believe what herself knew not but might be mistaken and erre in Nay more
forsake the Churchâ—'s Communion in case she were fallible Whereas nothing can be more rational and solid than that position For why may not we forsake the Churche's Communion if she hath no power to bind to unity in Faith which makes us one of hers and how can she have any power to bind us to unity in Faith unless she be altogether certain first her self of that to which she would oblige others that is unless she be infallible in teaching attested truths To answer as hee does Reply p. 13. she may oblige others to believe though fallible as long as she is not actually in errour is the greatest piece of folly imaginable for still the question recurres Is she infallibly certain that she is not actually in errour if she be she is again Infallible if not she cannot impose any obligation of belief Hence Dr. H. may see that unless there he some company of men on earth infallible it is impossible there should be an obligation to Vnity in Faith nay there can be no positive obligation to hold any point of Faith at all unless they conspire to do so and hang together by hap-hazzard that is be no Body of men but a company of good fellows met together by chance and consequently there can be no Church or Common-wealth of Believers much less a lasting one without this Infallibility Note that the obligation here spoken of is not an obligation to act or comport ones self exteriourly as in temporal Common-wealths but to hold and believe and consequently man's nature being Reason nothing but an Authority built on evidence of inerrability can rationally oblige men to assent upon that Authority So that Mr. Knot and I shall very readily grant all Mr. H's consequence Answ p. 32. that if there be no infallible Church there would be no possibility for any on earth to be guilty of the sin of Schism His second weakness is that in excusing himself for adding impeccable he thinks to evade by telling us p. 32 that he conceived humane nature to be in it self equally liable to sin and errour and so no more infallible than impeccable Suppose it were which yet is not granted what follows for his advantage thence unless he could manifest that all men might fall at once into any one self-same kind of sin Are there causes layd in the world or can there be considering the nature of a world able to make all men conspire to cut their own throats to morrow if not then in case this should happen there would be an effect without a cause that is there would follow a Contradiction which being impossible it must follow likewise that it is impossible they should be all peccable in that kind and consequently the Doctor may learn that a multitude of men may be also impeccable in some kind of sin Now to parallel this with Infallibility as held by us we doubt not but of this multitude called the Church some may be fallible in one thing some in another but that all should conspire either to mistake or delude so as to tell so damnable and palpable a ly as that they had been thus tauhgt by their Ancestour if they had not is the Impossible of Impossibles nay equally impossible as for Nature to fail in the propagation of any entire species as for all the houses in the world to be set on fire to morrow or for all men to die in their sleep this night none of which can be done without destroying nature whose causes are placed necessarily in several circumstances and so work with variety Yet Dr. H. tells us Answ p. 33. that his words are as evident a truth as could have been mentioned by him and truly I think the Reader will believe him ere we come to the end of this book But I hast His third weakness is that whereas we place this Infallibility in a Church that is in a multitude of Believers he tells us p. 33. and 35 the Pope the Bishop of Ephesus Loadicea c. and many other Governours have fallen into errour but can he show me that all the Governours of the Church or half of them have erred or indeed can possibly erre in attesting as aforesaid If not let him acknowledge how weak a Scripturist he is in giving it such an Interpretation as impossible to be true whiles Answ p. 35. he makes the Text I am with you always even to the end of the world because secondarily spoken to the succeding Governours to stand with their errableness Hi fourth weakness is that like those who are making a pittifull excuse for a bad cause his unfledg'd discourse sticks between the teeth of a parenthesis and dates not come out plain His words are after he had told us p. 33 the Pope and any other single man in the world might erre as well as sin that in proportion any multitude or assembly might the major and so prevalent part of them consent in an errour as well as in a vice I ask can that whole multitude consent in a palpable errour in things visible or no If they can what means that grumbling parenthesis of the maior part and to what end or purpose was it brought since all might erre If they cannot all erre in such a case but the major part onely then there can be some company on earth Infallible to wit that whole multitude which is the thing in question How much more credit were it to lose a bad cause by speaking out candidly than to strive to maintain it by such pittiful shifts His fifth weakness is that whereas he affirmed onely Saints and Angels in heaven and God to be infallible and I instanced Schism Disarm'd p. 19. in some on earth to wit the Apostles whom I alledged to have been infallible in penning the sacred writ and preaching the Gospel He answers Answ p. 33. that sure they are comprehended in the number of Saints in beaven for there undoubtedly they are Tell me seriously good Reader and without smiling is not Dr. H. worthy to be reckon'd the eighth wise-man who when I ask him concerning men doing offices in their life-time here on earth tells me that they are now or were aftervards Saints in heaven His sixth weakness is his second answer to the same instance of mine to wit that it is most true that they were assisted by Christ so as they did not nor could erre in penning the sacred writ and preaching the Gospel That is he grants my instance brought against him to be true and himself to be in an errour when he said that none but those in heaven were infallible For sure if those could not erre as he grants in doing these offices performed by them while they were on earth then some men on earth may be Infallible in some thing to wit in things necessary for the Salvation of mankind which is all we demand and as much as we profess His seventh eighth and ninth weaknesses are that after he had
The fourteenth Paragraph runs partly upon the same affected mistake of Infallibility I asked him to put in him some apprehension that a company of men on earth might be Infallible which he deny'd if all the Protestants could be fallible in witnessing whether twenty years agoe there were Protestant Bishops or no. First he will neither say I nor no to the point onely he sayes Answ p. 37. he beleeves not they can probably mistake in that thing Next he tells us this is no proof that they are any way infallible in all matters of fact without all possible mixture of errour Is it possible Mr. H. should think his Reader so silly as to take such ridiculous tergiversations for a sufficient Answer My question was whether they could erre and conspire to tell an open ly in a thing visible as the Sun at noon-day and Dr. H. first shuffles at that and then counterfeits that I pretend them Infallible in all matters of Fact whatsoever as in ghessing what past in the late Kings priuy Councel while he was living or whether Bevis of Hampton fought with a Dragon or no. Dear Reader I must address a line or two to thee and desire thee if thou beest Dr. H's Friend to ask him whether it be the Catholicks tenet that the Church is infallible in matters of Faith onely or in all things indefinitely as in knowing the height number of the Starres what weather it shall be every day next yeare c. if he cannot show the latter to be the tenet of our Church then aâ—k him from S. W. whether he hath either shame or conscience in him to evade answering the point by imposing upon our Church a counterfeit tenet and which himself knows to be such and then making it the but of his ayre-beating impugnation repeating it so often though once were enough to move a blush had not custome taken away sense that I am confident any candid Reader will nauseate and be offended at so odious a piece of fundamental insincerity His other weaknesses mingled with this especially his skipping aside from the question to the fallibility of private men shuffling about for excuses in stead of answering I or no with other sleights already lay'd open make up a mess of most excellent non-sense call'd in another phrase Dr. H's third Section Sect. 11. What miserable work Dr. H. makes with that plain proposition A Church that is fallible and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition cannot have Power to bind any to believe her MY fourth Section touched at three points Schism Disarm'd p. 21. the ground of Vnity in a Church the groundlesness of Schism and of Mr. H's manner of arguing to clear himself of the latter inserting also some part of the Catholick Gentleman 's letter which tended to those purposes The first I show'd to consist in the Infallibility of that Authority which justly pretends to oblige the assent of others to her proposals Hence follows the second that no Schismatical Congregation that acknowledges it self fallible can with any face pretend to impose an obligation of belief nor yet excuse it self for breaking from acknowledg'd Antiquity or possession upon fallible that is probable Grounds The third was that since the Schism we object to the Protestants is charged by us to be such as involves heresy and by consequence the renouncing our Rule of Faith it was the weakest piece of reason that ever was reason'd by a Doctor of Divinity to make the summe and ground of all his Answer the denying the said Rule of Faith our Churche's Infallibility which was in effect to confess the Fact and to prove he is no Schismatick because he is an Heretick and Schismatick both For answer to these three points he referres me to his Reply cap. 2 Sect. 3. In return to which as far as hath not already been answered I shall give these satisfactory reflexions upon the main points not attending him in each Paragraph in many of which the insipid Crambe of his own self sayings is boyl'd over and over But first he sends three or four whifflers upon the stage to trifle it ere the tragedy of Faith and it's certainty begins His first trifle is that the Catholick Gentleman calls that Mr. Knot 's concession which is his Conclusion from that Concession A sore quarrel as if he who granted the premisses and made the inference himself must not also grant the Conclusion if so then his Conclusion is his Concession as well as the premisses His second trifle is that Reply p. 14. he pretends all that was by him taken notice of was the consequence between the Premisses and that Conclusion which naturally inferred a third thing that it was unlawful to forsake the Communion of any fallible Church and the Catholick Gentleman 's impugning his admiration at it and confirming this main point of the Controversy he calls a digression whereas it is a pure shuffling in him to avoyd this Question which is fundamental and solely important to this present Controversy concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of separating from the true Church upon pretence of being bound by her to equivocate or ly His third trifle is that he tells us Repl. p. 14. he may certainly affirme how this Thesis of ours A Church that is fallible and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition cannot have power to bind any to beleeve what she saith is no infallible truth nor deduced from any infallible principle whereas it is as evident a principle as any in nature that no man can in reason oblige another to hold what himself knows not as also that he cannot be said truly to know that in which he knows and confesses he may be mistaken To this the Shuffler sayes nothing His fourth trifle is when we speak of obligation of beleef to slip the point and talke of obligation to act or obey telling us wisely here that A Prince can command obedience though he be not infallible Is it possible Mr. H. must be continually obliged by his cause to such affected insincerity as still to counterfeit the mistake of the question The same he repeats again p. 16. and sayes the Governours thus oblige inferiours to obedience by force of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas the question is whether the Apostles who held that without Faith that is without truth it is impossible to please God ever commanded us to believe that Congregation which being fallible might for any thing it or we know lead us into damnable errours I know that a probability of the thing in it self can oblige a man to act as a sudden Alarum of the enemies probable approach ought in prudence to rouse a General to provide for resistance but nothing except evidence can move to assent nor can any pretend lawfully and rationally to oblige to it but they who have Evidence that they cannot be mistaken in what they would bind others to believe See the judicious and
onely to our purpose that there may farther be meant by those words he ought to have said there must be onely meant by them à general obligation to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed But how a Church uncertain of what herself holds can duly propose Grounds able to convince rationally or that a confest and known fallibility in the proposer is sufficient in it self to make such a ground he shall never show unless he can show reason to be non-sense and non-sense Reason though he can talk finely and shuffle about in general terms I am confident the Reader will think that the former words in that proposition are very ill handled by Dr. H. but the last word Believing comes not off so well Death is too good for it nothing but annihilation and total destroying it's essence must be it's merciless doom His explication of it comes to this Reply p. 16. that they who are so wise as to search must consent according to the Grounds proposed as most palpable that is they must believe themselves I ask are they bound or no to believe the Church when they have but probability to the contrary if not where is their submission of their judgements where is their believing the Church unless they be willing to submit their private opinions to her Authority how can they be said to believe her at all Is there any easier deference than to for goe a probability upon her contrary affirmation Or if he say they may have rigorous and convincing Evidence against her that is if he grant Infallible Certainty in Faith can be had then why should Dr. H. take this from the Church and give it to a private fellow As yet therefore we have found Belief by his explication to signify in reality no belief of the Church at all let us proceed He tells us next that when the person is not competent to search Grounds then Repl. p. 17. Belief may signify a believing so far as not to disbelieve Was ever such an explication heard of Good Reader if thou beest Dr. H's Friend trust nothing but thine own eyes in such an incredible piece of fledge heresy and Atheism in the shell let nothing but thine own eyes satisfy there that it is possible for one who hath the title of Doctor of Divinity to print and set forth a position so full fraught with absurdities of the seventeens Let us count them by the poll First if the measure of that belief to which the Church can oblige the ruder sort be onely to believe so far as not to disbelieve then in reality she can oblige them to believe nothing at all but onely to remain in an indifferency of Scepticism for he who doubts of all things or halts between two opinions believes so far as not to disbelieve since not holding the contrary to any thing he positively disbelieves nothing Secondly an Heathen who never heard of Christ believes so far as not to disbelieve for how can he be said to disbelieve a thing of which he never heard So that Dr. H's Church can onely oblige her Subjects to be as good believers or Christians as Heathens are but to proceed Thirdly to believe so far as not to disbelive signifies in plain terms to belive nothing at all for he puts it not to signify a believing so far as to believe but a believing so far as not disbelieve that is he exacts no belief for the point provided there be no disbelief against it So that as before p. 16. he made the knowledge of a Church that she defin'd truly to be no more than a not doubting of it which can proceed from ignorance as well as knowledge so here Belief must pretended capable to bear the sense of not-believing provided that the not-believing be not a positive disbelief of this or belief of the contrary Fourthly I would gladly know of Mr. H. why the same Authority which has power to bind one not to disbelieve may not also oblige to believe if she can propose evident and convincing reasons to her Children that she cannot erre then she may without dispute oblige me to the latter for such motives are in their own nature able to convince the understanding and unless she can propose such by what ground can she withhold me from disbelieving or holding the contrary Vnless perhaps the Doctor pretend to show that the probable reasons for her fallibility and Infallibility be so justly and equally poiz'd in the Sceptick ballance that none can say whether the pound of rushes in the one end or the pound of strawes in the other be the weightier ware or better worth three-halfepence These explications with their wise appurtenances thus premised Dr. H. knits them up in these two propositions p. 17. 1. A Congregation that is fallible and hath no knowledge or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum that it is not deceived in any particular proposition may yet have authority to make decisions and require inferiours so far to acquiesce to their determinations as not to disquiet the peace of the Church with their contrary opinions that is no to believe at all but onely to behave themselves quietly 2. But for any absolute Infallible belief or consent That no Church which is not it self absolutely infallible and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible hath power to require of any Where the first proposition is certainly false if the subject be certain that that is false which his fallible Church proposes to him and that it is a point which concerns salvation not to erre in and senseless if as Dr. H. seems to suppose it may be the inferiours assent is no way required for how can a speculative point be decided authoritatively if the inferiour be no way bound to assent but to acquiesce onely The second proposition is the granting that very point against which he pretended to make head to the resolution also of which his former discourse hath not in the least sort contributed So perfectly needless and to no imaginable purpose but onely to shuffle words together on any fashion is his elaborate non-sense Note Reader that in his first proposition he puts not Belief at all which yet is the onely matter in question but in the latter onely nor dares he trust it abroad there but well guarded with absolute and Infallible But I fear not his big words Let him know our tenet is that our Church hath power to oblige not to an hovering conditional belief but to an absolute and infallible one nor do we fear to affirm that the Faithful in the Catholick Church have infallible certainty of their Faith though they cannot explicate it or give a Logical account of their own thoughts It were not amiss here to let the Reader see upon this occasion what Dr. H's manner of answering is of which his whole book is ful but one example once put will make the Reader easily find it's fellows The question
is whether obligation to belief can be without Infallibility He quibbles upon each word as if he would do strange things against it and makes up by his explications this worthy proposition that a Church which it is p. 16. l. 1. not strongly probable that it will erre and p. 16. l. 8 properly speaking knows not whether it erre or no may p. 16. l. 16. yet oblige men to obedience and them that cannot search to believe not positively and indeed as the Reader must conceive but onely so far as not to disbelieve that is that her self knowing nothing properly or positively can by consequence oblige none to believe any thing properly and positively but to obey onely Is not this a fine upshot of such an elaborate answer And when he hath done this then he addes another proposition Parag 22. which confesses all that he stumbled at before and which onely was in question Let us put a parallel to his manner of discourse Suppose one should affirm that a whole Apple is bigger than a half and maintain it because Totum est majus parte A whole is greater then a part Dr. H's manner of answering would work upon it in this sort First the word whole may signify a whole Mole hill or a whole Mountain a whole web of cloath or a whole thred Next the word majus or greater may signify greater in longitude in latitudine or in profundity Lastly the word pars may signify part of a Mole hill part of a Mountain part of a web c. This done he would joyn these together which are not the things in question as he did in the former of his two proposition and tell us that speaking of a Mole-hill and a Mountain 't is certain that part of a Mountain may not be greater than a whole Mole-hill and so likewise part of the web of cloth to wit a whole thred may not be greater in longitude than the whole web Then coming to the question adde a parallel to his second proposition and conclude in these words But as for an Apple and it's part speaking of the quantity belonging to a body that is profundity or bulk 't is granted that the whole Apple is greater than the half one which might as well have been granted at first and have excused all this trifling Sect. 12. What the Power of binding to Beleef consists in and how rationally our Church how irrationally the Protestants pretend to such a Power together with a Godly and edifying Sermon of Mr. H's according to his Doctrine when he disputes against us IT were not amiss here to clear this important point the better to lay open in brief what is this Power in the Church to bind her Sons to beleef and in what it consists For I doubt not but Mr. H. wonders and many judicious Protestant Readers may perhaps remain sollicitous to imagine how and in what manner there can be any power to force cōmand the Soul to an interiour beleef or assent But I hope this short hint will make them see that this power is founded upon free rationall Grounds not a tyrannical bare command of any authority whatsoever It is confest then that as a body cannot be moved locally but after a corporeal quantitative manner as is it's nature so neither can a soul which is of it's nature rational be moved to assent but by resons and motives whether true or false and were it moved otherwise it were not moved as a thing of such a nature that is it would not be a rational soul Now since pure Reason consists in inferring a connexion of two things or notions because of their joynt connexion with a third in the premisses and this also an immediate one for a connexion which is not immediate is in reality none at all at least to the Vnderstanding since in that case it sees it not it follows that the Soul is never moved out of pure Reason to any assent but by such an immediate connexion seen that is by Evidence and consequently all assents which have not this originall spring from impurity of passion that is from vice Wherefore since it is impossible God who is Essential Sanctity should command a vice it follows that as on the one side either he has left no power to oblige to assent or if he have it must be founded in Evidence so on the other if there be any authority on earth which can evidence her Certainty of what she sayes that Authority hath power to oblige others in vertue of the said Evidence to assent to what she shall affirm that is to oblige them to beleef for this is no harder a treaty than to bind them to that to which their own nature had bound them before-hand that is to assent upon Evidence To apply this then to the point in hand The Church obliges her Children to rest and continue in her beleef by the same motive by which she could oblige them when they were out of her to assent to her doctrine so far as concerns it's having been taught by Christ and his Apostles This motive is the proposal of her own Authority or of millions and millions of Fathers in the Catholick Church all conspiring to witness that those points of doctrine things visible and most concerning were received from their Ancestours as from their and so ascending upwards as from Christ The vertue by which this Authority or incomparable multitude of witnesses claims to be a motive and to have power to convince the Vnderstanding and so oblige to assent to their word that is to beleeve is the Evidence of the treble-twisted Impossibility that this Authority either would conspire in any age to attest so notorious an untruth and so pernicious to their own and their Children's eternal bliss or that they could either erre or mistake in things so visible or even contrive a conspiracy to embrace any one errour considering the several Countreys in which they liv'd dispers't and consequently their several natures obligations inclinations interest and other manifoldly-varying circumstances or lastly if they would and could that is did attest and so introduce an errour that it should not be most visible and palpable in most undeniable and manifest circumstances to the whole world being a change of things openly-evident in manifest and universal practice before and in a matter of highest concernment These impossibilities of erring in delivering any point of Faith render that Congregation evidently infallible which sticks close to this Rule of delivering onely what she received as thus attested The Evidence of her Infallibility obliges a rational nature to assent upon such an Authority that is to beleeve and consequently her Power to oblige Beleef is as firm as this Truth that Evidence obliges the Vnderstanding to assent which is reduced into this first principle that Idem est idem sibi ipsi or that Reason is Reason since the act of Reason adhering to truth is nothing else but an
she failes for I hope Dr. H. will not say it must be Scripture without an Interpreter of Scripture and if so who a more certain Interpreter than her self If he say she must compare her self with other Churche's he not onely grants each may erre but even Repl. p. 15. l. 32. after recourse had to the said means he onely puts here pag. 16. l. 1. that it is not strongly probable that such a Church will erre so that if she can erre she does erre for any thing any body knows What follows is onely a trifling defence of himself for his bad disputing He was accused by us of a Schism twisted with Heresy he defended himself by alledging that he held not our Church Infallible which he knows we charge upon the deniers as the heresy of heresies Now his excuse for this Logick is that he put Repl. p. 24. onely a fiction of case but 't is plain he relies upon that fiction as on a real Ground saying there expressely of Schism p 28. 29. that he needs give no more distinct answer than this first that they not holding the Church of Rome infallible may be allow'd to make some suppositions c. Again he sayes he makes but one but yet he there puts down four so that the difficulty is onely this to determine in whether place he deserves most to be trusted or which of them is the child of his second thoughts Lastly he imposes falsly upon the Cath. Gentl. Repl. p. 26. that he requires him at the begenning of the dispute to grant the Chvrch of Rome infallible Whereas we onely mind him that since he is accused of a Schism link't with Heresy he ought to show that his motives bear the weight of a perfect Evidence notwithstanding the counterpoise of our Rule of Faith the Churche's Infallibility and not suppose this first and then run a Voluntary upon what he had granted himself gratis Thus I have given an answer to Dr. H's third Section of his second Chapter to which he referred me In which I confess to have been larger than the rigour of answering required but the point of Power to oblige Beleef was as I conceived very important and well worth clearing neither do I remember to have read it in any other place fetcht from it's first Grounds that so I might refer the Reader thither I have also vindicated the Cath Gentl. something more particularly than I proposed to my self at first or than was my obligation which was onely this to clear those passages in him which vere coincident with mine Hereafter I fear the apprehension of my future prolixity will not let me exceed my first-intended limits SECT 14. How Dr. H. defends the sufficiency of his Division charged to want the three most principal sorts of Schism and solely important to the Controversy THe third Chapter in his Reply begins with curing his Division of Schism which was shown by the Cath. Gentl. to want two of it's best limbs and those too most useful in this present controversy that to wit of Schism from the whole Church and from Authority of Councils also by S. W. to be pittifully maimed of the third which was against subjection to some one Superiour His skill employ'd in plastering it comes to this that all Schism is either in inferiours against Superiours or in equals against equals Rep. p. 28. He should have said against some one Superiour in the singular for his Discourse in his book of Schism never look't further which occasion'd the Cath. Gentleman's calling it Monarchical His first excuse for his first fault is that it is strange to think that that man who breaks from the whole Church was not comprised in either member of his division when certainly he is guilty of both This it is to forget one's Logick for let the man be where he will our question is of the sin Schism against the whole Church which is therefore not comprised in any one head because it is in an higher nature sinfull and so exceeds it Sacriledge and Patricide according to the common notions are found indeed in every simple theft and murther but according to their specifical differences by which they are distinguish't from them they exceed them and so are not compris'd in them This Particularity then and Specialty of schismatical guilt in breaking from the whole Church makes a man in a higher and more special manner faulty And this is the reason why we require that the Specialty of this Schism should as it ought be taken notice of by ranking it in a Special head which was omitted by Mr. H. who talk't onely of the petty Schisms against some one particular Superiour not against all in collection nor against the whole Church And here when he is challenged of it in stead of showing us that this greater sin is compris'd in one of those lesser heads he privaricates from the question which is about the sin and talks of the man who is compris'd in his Division for having done another sin less than this and not for having done this His second excuse or rather his continuation of the former is the saddest piece of Logick that ever was read and begins at the wrong end He is accused of omitting Schism against the whole Church and pretends he treated it as involved in another to wit in Schism against some particular Governour and Schism against Charity to our Equals which he proves in these words Repl. p. 28. For how can one separate from the whole Church unless he separate both from his Superiours and equals too which indeed had been to some purpose in case he had treated of Schism against the whole Church and omitted Schism against some particular Superiour or against Equals Otherwise for this purpose in hand he must argue in a quite contrary manner and put it thus How can one separate from a particular Superiour or from his Equals but he must in so doing separate from the whole Catholick Church and then the wise argument had evidently bewray'd it's weakness In a word either he means by Superiours some of them onely and then he runs over boots into a Contradiction to get out of a less fault in which he stood wet-shod for some of them cannot be aâ—â— or the whole Church or if by Superiours he means all then let him show me that in his Book of Schism he hath treated of that which is against all the Superiours of the Church in any collective sense if not then let him confess without more shuffling that he treated not of Schism against the whole Church As for his omitting Schism against the Authority of Councils he endeavours to clear it first by seeming to doubt whether Councils have any Authority Durum telum necessitas in another occasion I doubt not but he would extoll to the skies those Councils which deposed a Pope though now because he had granted them no Authority in omitting Schism against them he can shuffle up and
down at a cheap rate Repl. p. 29. l. 27. with If Councils have any Authority for he is sure no man can possibly oppose him as long as he sayes nothing positively but keeps himself within the powerfull spell of an If. But let us see what follows if Mr. H. pleases to grant Councils any Authority then he tells us that this Authority will certainly be reducible to paternal power meaning of a Priest Bishop Metropolitan c. and this both in Provincial National and General Councils The reason he assignes for his evasion comes to this that the of fence against the whole was consequently an offence against any one there residing True but must the offence against some one Governour of which onely he treated be necessarily an offence against them all or against the whole Council otherwise what will it avail him who is not charged with omitting Schism against any particular Governour after having put that which is against the whole Church or the collection of many but quite contrary which putting down onely the Schisms against particular Governours and omitting that which was against them as collected in a Council Did ever man's Reason run counter in this manner or his insincerity so resolutely persist never to acknowledge any lapse that whereas it is as evident as noon-day that one may dissent from any one Bishop in his grounds and yet consent to the rest still he will needs prove the contrary and that the disobedience to some one sort of paternal Governour is the disobedience to all Again though a Bishop have a kind of paternal Authority over a Priest a Metropolitan over a Bishop c. and so the disobedience of these Inferiours would be against Paternal power as Dr. H. calls his first Head yet what Paternal power hath a Company of Bishops over a single Bishop or a Council consisting of three Patriarchs and five hundred Bishops over one single Patriarch It is evident then that should this Patriarch rebel against the common decrees of all the rest he could not be called a Schismatick against Paternal power and so according to Dr. H's division would be no Schismatick at all since there is no Authority there which could be said to be Paternal in respect of him himself being coequally high that is placed in the top of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy with the rest of the other Patriarchs and a Father in an Ecclesiastical sense over all the rest Their power therefore over him consists in the collective force of so many united which makes them considerable in respect of him as a whole compared to a part Now then since Dr. H cannot even pretend to have treated of a Schism against any collective power but against an Authority consisting in higher rank or degree onely 't is most evident to the most ordinary Vnderstanding that he omitted Schism against Authority of Councils After all this adoe he confesses here Rep. p. 30. that he treated not specially of Schism against General Councils that is he confesses his Division of Schism insufficient which was onely objected No I had forgot he onely goes about to give reasons why he did not treat it more specially by which pretty expression the good Reader is to be made beleeve that he had treated of it specially and onely omitted to handle it more specially whereas he purposely and professedly waved the handling it at all in this Controversy as is to be seen Of Schism p. 60. Ad now so exquisite is his shuffling art after he had labour'd to produce proofs that he did treat of Schism against Councils he brings his excuses why he did not doe it ibid. First because Councils were remedies of Schism But since they remedied them authoritatively and with such an Authority as in comparison of any one degree of power by him treated was as it were of an Vniversal in respect of a particular the Schism against them was by consequence proportionably or rather improportionably greater and so deserved in all right an eminent place of it 's own in his division Next because they are extraordinary and not standing Iudicatures I answer they are likewise of an extraordinary Authority as hath been shown and therefore could not merit to be slighted by him His third is because this was not a constant sort of Schism but upon accidental emergencies That is his treatise of Schism doth not absolutely forbid a man to be a Schismatick in an higher sort of Schism so it happen upon occasion but takes care first and more specially that he be not a Schismatick in one of those constant sorts of Schism though it be of far less guilt His fourth excuse as I reckon them is because they are now morally impossible to be had Very good his Church is accused by us of Shism against General Councils already past and Dr. H. in this book entitled their Defence therefore treats not particularly of Schism against them because they are morally impossible to be had at present and for the future though towards the end of the world he thinks it probable there may be one Of which divination of his I can give no better reason than this that Antichrist who is to be then the Vniversal secular Governour and by consequence according to Mr. H's grounds the Head of God's Church or Supreme in Ecclesiastical affaires will doe Christianity that favour as to gather a General Council This I say if any must be his meaning for the reason given by him here why they are now morally impossible to be had is because the Christian world is under so many Empires and when they are likely to be united into one towards the end of the world unless it be under Antichrist I confess my self unable to prognosticate His last excuse is Repl. p. 31. l. 2. because the Principal sort of Schism charged by the Romanists is the casting out the Bishop of Rome I answer that we charge not the Protestant with a simple Schism but a decompound one involving also heresy in each of it's parts First with a Schism from the whole Church in renouncing the Rule and Root of all our Faith Vniversal Oral Tradition of immediate Fore-fathers and by consequence separating themselves from the whole Body of the Faithful as Faithful next with renouncing the Authority of Councils proceeding upon this Ground in declaring things of Faith and lastly with not onely disobeying but disacknowleding the Authority of the Pope recommended to us by both the former And it seems strange that Mr. H. should goe about to clear the sufficiency of his division by recurring to our charging or not charging of Schism whereas he has not taken notice of any of these three Schisms charged against him but onely of petty ones against the Paternal power of a Bishop Patriarch c. which may be consistent with a guiltlesness from the other three principal ones He promised us in his Answer p. 8. 9. that he had rescued the Catholick Gentleman 's letter
one of Schism p. 55. l. 22. 23. and 26. and so infer the no-farther extent of the former out of the no-farther extent of the latter after he had acknowledg'd the former of much farther extent than the latter was Is not this a most shameful and unconscionable sleight to mingle and jumble two Authorities together for his own ends in that very Chapter where he pretended to treat of them distinctly His next manifold blundering is to bring testimonies which he tells the Reader here Rep. p. 32. 33. manifestly distinguish't the Province of the Bishop of Rome from the Province of Italy which he assures us could not have had truth in them if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy and yet not one word is found in any of the testimonies making mention of the Patriarchy nor yet of the Province of the Bishop of Rome at all nay the three first onely mention the City of Rome The first is this as cited by himself Rep p. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the house be delivered to those to whom the Bishop through Italy and the City of Rome should decree it The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The holy Synod assembled from Rome and Spain France and Italy The third foure hundred Bishops both from great Rome and from all Italy and Calabria Now suppose insisting on the Grounds of mine own cause I should onely reply that they mention'd Rome in particular for eminency of Authority not contradistinction of it were it not a thousand times more likely on my side there being no City particulariz'd but this in the testimonies for all the rest are Regions or Provinces Again were the testimonies most express for the Roman Province yet if Mr. H. mean't honestly that is to speak of the Metropolitical Iurisdiction onely as he pretended and as the place properly required then what had he concluded since the proving the Metropolical Iurisdiction less than all Italy proves not that the Patriarchal reach't not much farther But to come home to the testimonies that the Reader may see what a strong disputant Dr. H. is in his own way I would gladly ask who told him that the City of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The City Great Rome as it is in the testimonies must needs signify so manifestly the whole Province of Rome So that if he infer a Contradistinction and so a limitation of Iurisdiction from these words he must conclude that neither the Metropolitical nor Patriarchal Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome reach't beyond it's own walls which being acknowledg'dly impossible it is impossible these testimonies should mean a distinction of the Bishop of Rome's Authority from Italy but an Eminency of his Dignity which occasion'd his particular mentioning Thus the very testimonies which he produced against us will needs speak for us notwithstanding his prompting them to the contrary The fourth Testimony ex provinciâ Italiae Civitate Mediolanensi ex Vrbe Roma quod Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provinciâ Romanâ Civitate Portuensi c. is indeed a fit testimony for Dr. H. to blunder in being not intelligible in the Latin and as he cannot but know very corrupt especially being held for such in naming the Bishops which met there And were it beyond exception yet is it very explicable to mean the Pop'es Metropolitical Iurisdiction never so much as naming his Patriarchal His third blundering is his self-contradiction a necessary evil accompanying always the defence of a bad cause All his endeavours hitherto had been bent to limit the Pope's Patriarchy to a particular Province of Italy building still all the way upon the necessity that the Ecclesiastical Order should follow the Political yet treating of Primates and Patriarchs of Schism p. 54. he gives such doctrine as upon the same grounds must needs conclude that the said Patriarchy did extend to all Italy He tells us there that Constantine the great instituted four Praefecti Praetorio two in the East as many in the West of the Western one at Rome another at Triers Now then let the Ecclesiastical Order as Mr. H. will have it follow the Political and we must have some Ecclesiastical Governour at Rome of equally-extended and correspondent Authority to the Praefectus Praetorio at Rome that is to all Italy at least This could not be as he confesses Metropolitical Authority in the Bishop of Rome therefore a Patriarchal one The Pope's Patriarchy then even according to his own Grounds included all Italy nay all the West except that part which the pretended Patriarch of France must be imagin'd upon the same Grounds to have had And since the Praefect at Triers was called of Schism p. 54. Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum as Dr. H. confesses consequently to his Grounds it must follow that the Ecclesiastical power corresponding to this Political must have onely France under him the other at Rome all the West besides So that at unawares though he will not grant his Patriarchy to extend to the whole West which is his due yet Mr. H's own grounds grant the Pope all but France which is ten times more than the Suburbicarian Province his former too niggardly allowance If he reply that the Patriarchal power corresponds to the Vicarij onely and not to that of the Praefecti Praetorio then besides that all his Grounds of the necessary proportion of the Ecclesiastical to the Secular power totter which hold not in the main subordinate Magistrate to wit the Praefectus Praetorio to whom he will have no Ecclesiastical dignity correspond besides this I say his foresaid testimony of Origen cited for him Reply 14. is absolutely against him So sad a piece of Scholarship it is to cite Testimonies without first laying Grounds which onely can make testimonies hang together Out of which it is evident that all the strength of his pretended limitation of the Pope's Patriarchy is finally reduced to that Authority from Ruffinus Now then as for Ruffinus his testimony saying that the Bishop of Rome was by the Nicene Canon authoriz'd Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerere this being the main business which occasion'd this debate and gave birth to this imagin'd limitation of the Pope's Patriarchate we shall take a litle pains to fetch it from it's first Grounds by showing the sense of that Canon by which will be seen how great a knave this Paraphrast was whom Dr. H. pretends to vindicate The words of the Council upon which this Interpreter works are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which I cannot imagin a sense more proper than this that the Bishops of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria because the Pope had used to hold them for so The reason of my conjecture is because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quandoquidem manifests that the words following are the reason of the Decree precedent This being so who sees not how
Authority Yet knavery and folly are less intolerable if practised modestly and warily but temerity and audacity are the gallantry of Ruffinus his former faults he practises them when and where he pleases and so his testimony becomes more perfectly fit for Dr. H's cause S. Hierom ibid. challenges him that he knew in his conscience how he added detracted and changed things as he listed Erasmus in his Preface upon S. Hilary sayes that Ruffinus took to himself not the liberty of an Interpreter but the licence of a Contaminatour of other men's writings And Annot. in Chron. Euseb anno MMLXV Scaliger notes it to be his custom to omit pervert and change the texts as he pleased Lastly if Dr. H. yet makes account he can vindicate the sufficiency of Ruffinus his Authority against so many opposers I will adde for an upshot the words of their most famed Daillé against whom I am sure he will not take up cudgels being a person so highly commended by the Lords Falkland and Dighy who l. 2. c. 4. characters Ruffinus to be an arrant woodden statue a pittiful thing one that had scarâ—e any reason in what he said and yet much less dexterity in defending himself Let the Reader judge then how desperate that cause must be which drives it's Patrons to rely upon such a barbarous heretical malicious and silly fellow's Authority who wanted both ordinary learning and common honesty the onely things which can give him any Authority at all and this in the judgment of persons beyond all exception either of ignorance or prejudice This miserable and ruinous testimony upon which yet our Adversaries build so much being resolv'd into the rubbish of Ruffinus his defects it would not be much amiss to try whether our testimonies for the Pope's Patriarchy over all the West be establish't upon better Authority than this which gave the ground of retrenching it to Ruffinus his followers St. Basil speaking Basil Epist 10. of him as Patriarch calls him The Coryphaeus or Head of the Western Churches S. Hierom makes account that Hier. ad Marc. Presb. Celed Epist 77. to be condemned with Pope Damasus with the West is the self-same thing But because the testimony of Adversaries is freest from favour and partiality the satisfaction given by such is much more ample and valid To these therefore let us have recourse I mean the Greek Schismaticks who though the competition between the Eastern and Western Church provoked them to retrench the Pope's Patriarchat as much as they could possibly justify yet they freely and ingenuously grant that it contained anciently all the Provinces of Italy Spain France Germany England Illyricum Occidentale under which were understood Dalmatia Hungary and other neighbouring Provinces Our first Testimony shall be that of Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica de prim Pap. in that very book in which he disputes against the Latins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canon of the Council of Nice thinks fit that the rules of the Fathers be confirmed who have distributed to every Church their Priviledges to wit that some Nations be under the Bishop of Alexandria others under the Bishop of Antioch c. and to the Bishop of Rome the same is given to wit that he govern the Occidental Nations The second shal be of Zonaras a Greek Schismatick and Commentatour living long before Nilus who in his exposition of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice the same to which Ruffinus added his conceit of Suburbicarian and thence gave occasion to his imagin'd limitation of the Pope's Patriarchy before spoken of hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Council ordaines that the Bishop of Alexandria have the superintendency of Egypt Libya and Pentapolis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the ancient custome had given to the Bishop of Rome to grovern the Provinces of the West The third testimony shall be of the same Zonaras in Concil Sard. Can. 5â— which proceeds farther and grants him over and above all the Provinces of the Western Empire almost all those Provinces of the Eastern also which lay westwardly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Roman Church saith he writing his Comment upon the fifth Canon of the Council of Sardica were then subject all the Western Churches to wit those of Macedonia Thessalia Illyricum Epirus which were afterwards subjected to the Church of Constantinople Here thou seest Reader three testimonies in themselves most ample and express of Authours beyond all pretence of partiality towards us whose interest and passion ought rather have obliged them to detract than superadde to the Pope's Iurisdiction Not were they less secure from opinion of ignorance the quality of Archbishop in one of them and of profest Writers for the Greeks in both rendering them not liable either to exception of supineness or want of knowledge Iudge then again how bad that cause must be which can oblige men rational enough in other businesses to refuse assent to a Verdict thus qualify'd and adhere to a bare word capable of a different and so unprejudicial signification as coming from an Authour so intolerably barbarous as this Ruffinus hath been shown or if meant in that stricter signification can yet claim no credit as being onely his word who hath been manifested by witnesses beyond exception to have lost his indifferency sincerity nay all shame and honesty together with his Faith I hope the Candid Reader will gather what stuff is to be expected from that Treatise de Suburbicariis regionibus which Dr. H. Repl. p. 35. is pleased to call a Tract and afford it the Epithet of learned and how wise or sincere a person Lescaserius is though styled here by Dr. H. most Excellent who undertakes to vindicate this Ruffinus but with such weak arguments as were it not out of my way to confute that Treatise I would undertake to manifest they neither argue too much learning nor any excellency at all in the study of Antiquity in that point unless that excellency were corrupted by a passionate insincerity though I know any thing is excellent which makes excellently well for Dr. H's purpose or does any excellent prejudice to Rome Sect. 16. Dr. H's fruitless endeavours to prove the Pope as he calls it no Summum Genus from the pretended denial of Appeales and the denial of Names or Titles as also how weakly he argues against that demonstrably-evident Authority THe Pope's Patriarchy being thus limited to litle more than nothing his chief Pastourship must in the next place be totally annihilated against which Mr. H. as the nature of Schism requires hath so much the greater spite by how much it is higher in Authority than the Patriarchy This he doth de professo afterwards here on the by onely of Schism p. 59 telling us that there was none over the Patriarchs but the Emperour onely which he proved because they use to gather Councils His Disarmer broke the reeds of the testimonies he produced by shewing them unable to conclude unless they
and dependent on these general ones no effect of it at all being notorius but onely a testimony or perhaps two in a rumour-grounded History-book If the Doctor would persuade us that the Supreme Iurisdiction of Rome was then introduc't let him show effects proportionable to such a novelty of usurpation in things of highest concernment that is such effects as in all reason were likely to issue out of that cause put or otherwise rational Readers must in all reason have leave to think that he speaks against all reason And let him never hope to persuade any man that hath an ounce of brains in his head though he bring twenty testimonies more valid than this that an Vniversal Iurisdiction in highest matters could creep into the world with pantofles of matt on without discovering it self in multitudes of circumstances proportionable to its visibleness and weightiness that is let him not hope to gul men of reason with words to deny the light of their reason demonstrative Evidence Demonstrative I say for I account it as great and firm a Demonstration as any in nature that it is impossible it should come in unattended by universal and visible changes over the face of the whole Christian world which I thus show in brief The cause was put to wit a novelty in the highest degree of Government and in highest matters The matter to work on was put to wit rational Soules or men's minds because of their diverse dispositions apt to be wrought upon diversly that is to be stir'd up to diverse Thoughts to diverse Passions the result of those thoughts and diverse outward Expressions the effects of those passions and all this according to the weight and moment of the cause which was of the highest nature imaginable Lastly the cause was apply'd to the matter for it is equally impossible that an universal Government should be brough in and all not know of it as that is should at once be and not-be since it cannot be introduc't universally without signifying at least to the Subjects either by writing or other carriage that their obedience is expected This being so it is as evident and demonstrable that universal most visible and mighty commotions and changes must accompagny such a novelty of Rome's usurpation as that the effect must necessarily be when the cause is actually causing which none ever deny'd or can without denying the first principles Now add to this that the Protestant Authours themselves are in twenty minds about the times that this change came in and that their best Authours beyond exception of which I remember Doctor Whittaker is one confess in express terms that the time of the Romane Churche's change cannot easily be told and that they cannot tell by whom nor at what time the Enemy did sow the Papist's doctrine as may be seen in the Catalogue of Protestancy where they are cited adde this I say and it follows that no such visible effects of it's introducing can be shown at all and consequently that it was never introduc't Which as it immoveably strengthâ—ns our title of possession rendring it such as is not onely justly presumable but necessarily demonstrable to have come from Christ so it will also let the rational Protestant Readers see plainly what it is to which their wisest Doctors would persuade them to wit to renounce the clear solid and certain light of reason demonstrative Evidence to follow the obscure uncertain and wordish dictionary stuffe of every trifling controvertible or at best waxen-natur'd Testimony Yet the Doctor 's own words are but these that Boniface the third with much adoe obtained of Phocas the Emperour an Edict for the Primacy and Vniversal Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome See Paulus Diac. de gestis Rom. l. 18 which still is an argument that till then it had no foundation Where first is to be noted that of his own good will the Doctor puts in those words with much adoe whereas the Authour onely sayes rogante Papâ the Pope intreating it Secondly that whereas the Authour sayes Caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum in his book de gestis Longobardorum l. 4. c. 37. which Book without controversy is his and plainly sayes that the Emperour defined that the Roman Church was the Head of all Churches our Doctor dissembles this and follows a text out of de gestis Roman which book is doubted of by learned men to be none of his and by the very phrase seems to be a corruption of the other and that ut esset is put for esse it being an odd piece of Latin to say Statuit sedem Romanam ut esset caput whereas a Latinist would have said statuit sedes ut esset Wherefore 't is evident that the Doctor 's great bragging that the Story is known to all is resolv'd into the corruption of an unauthentick text Which is most evident by the words following in both places of the said Authour Quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat which bears no sense if the Decree gave the Iurisdiction but an excellent one if the decree onely defined it against the wrongful challenge of the Constantinopolitan Church Wherefore you see that the Doctors Inference which yet is an argument that til then it had no foundation is so wretched that the contrary ought to be deduced tha it is an argument the Authority which Phocas defined to be his had been his before And thus much in refutation of Dr. H's Defence of his three first Chapters SECOND PART Containing a Refute of Dr. H's first fundamental Exception against the Pope's Authority from the pretended limitation of S. Peter's Provinces Sect. 1. Dr. H's prelusory toyes answered No obligation for Catholiks to produce Evidence The infinite Advantages our true Possession hath and the perfect nullity of their vainly-pretended one together with a most rare sample of his manner of arguing Dr H. in his answer p. 38. puts a distinction of his own endeavours affirming that he had fûlly answered my fourth Section onely saying that he had answered the following ones Among these which are answered onely my sixth Section is one which he pretends to have given Satisfaction to Reply c. 3. sect 2. and 4. where not a word is found in reference to that but to my first onely of which he was pleased to make two This done he proceeds upon this mistake of his own and the Printer's mis-ciphering it to call my sixth the seventh and to be witty against me in his dry way telling the Reader as if he would let him see that S. W. could not reckon as far as eight that I have another seventh Section though both the Errata at the end corrected that small lapse of the Printer the titles of the Sections in the beginning of the book might have clear'd Mr. H's head in that point and the first Section immediately going before would have told him had not he been pleased to mistake it and divide it into two that
over them Secondly the whole tenour of the discourse there manifests that he meant exclusiveness of Iurisdiction Exclusiveness of Jurisdiction is mentioned by him as the Ground of all his ensuing dispute as was shown in the foregoing parag to which we will add his other parallel expressions The Iurisdiction of that Metropolis belonged to Iames the Iust and not to Peter of Sschism p. 73. S. Paul's independence on S. Peter pag. 74. to wit in Iurisdiction or power No power can descend from S. Peter to any other for another great part of the Christian world p. 80. Had he meaning S. Peter any Iurisdiction over the Churches of Asia p. 83. No other Apostle could countermand S. Paul's instructions no appeal left c. p. 83. S. Peter's baptizing in Brittany must in all reason be extended no farther than this his line Id est to the Iews which might at that time be disperst there c. p. 84. All which render it most manifest that he meant Exclusiueness of Iurisdiction and power to preach to another line or Province if there were any tenour or connexion at all in his discourse and that it rambled not forwards blindly himself knew not how nor whither Thirdly and lastly not onely the whole Controversy of Schism is about the limitation or illimitation exclusiveness or not exclusiveness of the Pope's Iurisdiction and the Doctor 's tenet that this Iurisdiction is limited to such an extent excluded from the rest of the Christian world so as he hath no power or command at all over them but also his present Chapter 4. of Schism pretends to evidence this limitation of his from the limitation of S. Peter's as is most visible parag 6. of the said Chapter and indeed in each parag there to the twentieth So that the import of his argument stands thus S. Peter had no Vniversal Iurisdiction thefore his Successour the Pope can have none This being so who sees not that since the thing to be infer'd is the Pope's limitation of Iurisdiction as held by the Protestants that is such a limitation as debats and excludes him from any lawfull power or right at all to intermeddle with more than is his imagin'd Province and that this inference is built upon his succeeding a limited Predecessour S. Peter who sees not I say that the Antecedent must mean S. Peter's Iurisdiction was so limited to his supposed Province that he had no Iurisdiction or power at all to meddle with a Gentile but that it was against right and vnlawful for him to do so This therefore is an evidence beyond all shuffling to avoid it that Dr. H. in his fourth Chap. of Schism intended to prove the Iurisdictions of the Apostles were exclusively-limited to their own Provinces so that they lost all power to preach to another Province from which Dr. H. prevaricating here and not defending his testimonies produc't there to prove it it follows that he acknowledges S. W. charge to be true Schism Disarm'd p. 52. that among those many testimonies he produces to prove it there is not found any one sentence line syllable or letter excluding S. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles save onely what the Doctor puts in of his own head as he shews there in each particular allegation This being then Dr. H's meaning till S. W. charge of the perfect dumbness of his testimonies put second thougâ—hs into his Head let us see how he waves his own express words and manifest intentions there which being so perfectly visible as hath been shown we may be sure the prevaricating from them can cost him no less than plain self contradictions His first self-contradiction is found Answ p. 38. parag 2. where he makes the point he was to prove to be no more but this that the Apostles went not all to one but disposed themselves over all the world to several Provinces By which meaning as he must for otherwise it cannot be said to be evident by it's own light that one went to one place ordinary Province or region of the world to preach another to another without any relation at all to exclusiveness of Iurisdiction we have quite lost the question which was not Whether the Apostles one went one way another another way to preach but whether S. Peter and consequently the Pope his Successour had an Vniversal or limited Iurisdiction extending his power to all or excluding it from all but his pittifull Province as was manifested before by Mr. H's express words to have been his meaning His second self-contradiction is found in the same place where he sayes that what was signify'd by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exclusive Provinces belonging to each Apostle which was shown plainly before to be his express meaning is evident by it's own light and needs no evidencing And yet in his book of Schism c. 4. parag 4. he set himself very formally to offer his Evidences for that point and prosecuted his intent from parag 5. to the 20. to evidence it by such clouds of testimonies which he calls Evidences and some of them irrefragable and unquestionable ones as may very neer if not perfectly equal all the rest that are found in his whole book So that either he must coÌ„fess he spent the most substantial part of his book to evidence that which needed no Evidencing but was Evident by it's own light or else which is the truth of the business that he hath chang'd the whole question here from what it was there For there it was of Exclusiue Iurisdiction and therefore very obscure needing the pretence of many testimonies though dumbe and his own Id ests and voluntarily addâ—d words to make it seem evident here it is onely of one Apostle going one way another going another to preach which indeed needs no evidencing nor was ever in question between us His third self-contradiction is that notwithstanding his own express words the scope of his whole Chapter the tenour of his whole discourse and the state of the whole question manifesting he both did and could not but mean it of exclusive Iurisdiction as hath been most expressely and amply shown yet he calls my acception of his words in that sense my mistake Answ p. 39. l. 34. and again p. 41. l. 7. 8. c. he complains that S. W. would conclude from his words that he would have all the Apostles to have several Provinces limiting their Iurisdictions exclusive of one another's right which he calls there also a mistake and detortion Where the Reader may see how perfectly he denies his own words of exclusive Iurisdiction and how openly he prevaricates from all the foure formerly-mention'd pretences shown already to have been his own which were the strongest ries imaginable to bind any man to hold to what he hath said who had not forsworn all respect to truth or honesty His fourth self-contradiction is that though in the place now alledged he complains of me that I would conclude from his words that the
Book of Schism p. 84. where Speaking of S. Peters Baptizing constituting Bishops in Britany he tels us it must in all reason be extended no farther then S. Peters line as he was Apostle of the Circumcision Id est saith hee to the Iews that might at that time be dispersed there In which place he manifestly makes S. Peter's Province exclusive in Britany where he never pretends that S. Paul met him though before he told us that the agreement between S. Peter S. Paul was onely exclusive when they met at the same City c. How powerfull terrible is truth which can drive her opposers to defend themselves by such miserable and weak implications His ninth self-contradiction quarrels with both parts of his sixth at once according to the former part of which S. Paul had not his Province from Christ's assignation according to the later part of it he had it imediately from Christ's assignation yet maugre both these Repl. 58. par 5. he makes S. Pauls peculiar Province Spring onely from the Iews refusing rejecting his doctrine onely I say for he affirms there expresly that till the Iews refused rejected it he does not betake himself so peculiarly to the Gentiles whence follows in all likelihood that if the Iews had not rejected Christ's doctrine tenderd by S. Paul that Apostle had never gone peculiarly to the Gentils nor by consequence should have had any peculiar or exclusive Province at all Is not this a solid man To omit that this experiencing of more fruit among the Gentiles then among the Iews is that which S. w. puts for the reason of his peculiar Apostleship the Appellation of Apostle of the Gentils ensuing thereupon These some others are the self-contradictions with which this Adversary of mine seing it impossible to shew one word in any testimony excluding limiting the Iurisdiction of the Apostles shuffles to fro on all sides that so what ever position he should be challenged with he may slip avoyd it by shewing as he easily may that he said in another place the expresse contrary and then when he hath done he preaches repentance or else Hell damnation to his wicked Adversary for calumniating him who thus earnestly desires for Sooth to speak the full truth of God Answ p. 18. and that so carefully that to make sure work for fear one part of the contradiction should not be the truth of God he affirms both But I hope the Reader will be aware of his shifting weakneses waving all his self said affirmations his Gentile non-sence his pious formalities will presse him home with this Dilemma Either S. Peter's Authority was so limited by his pretended designation to one Province as he had no power to preach to another or it was not but remaind stil illimited Vniversal not witstanding this imagind designation if it remaind stil unlimited and Vniversal how can the Pope's Authority be concluded limited from his succeeding S. Peter if S. Peter's remaind ever unlimited But if his Authority Iurisdiction was limited and that this was the thing to be proved by Dr. H. in his book of Schism then why does he not vindicate his testimonies from that shamefull charge layd against them particularly by S. W. that there is not one wordin them limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions but what himself adds of his own Head And why does he instead of thus vindicating them here sometimes flatly deny the question sometimes shuffle about to blunder a point so clear at any rate though it cost him no lesse then such numerous most palpable self-contradictions sure the knot must be great which could stand need of having wedges thus driven in point-blank oppositely on both sides to break it asunder Sect. 5. What multitudes of absurdities and accesse of fresh self-contradictions follow out of his newly-invented tenet of Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction then onely when the Apostles met in the same City AFter his self-contradictions march his lesser absurdities not so bulkie substantiall ones as the former yet still his too big to bee wielded by any man but Dr. H. nor by him neither unles the necessity of a bad cause incumbent on him to defend had added to him such an increase of strength as vses to proceed from desperation But not to take notice of them all I will onely take that part of his Reply which I find most pertinent to the point in hand then see what abondance of that kind of fruit it bears In his Reply therefore p. 57. I find these words I have sufficiently exprest tract of Schism c. 4. p. 7. how far this agreement extended how far exclusive it was not that it should be unlawful for Peter to preach to a Gentil or for Paul to a Iew but hâ—at when they mâ—t at the same City as at Antioch certainly they did and at Rome also I make no question then the one should constantly apply himself to the Iews receive Disciples form them into a Church leave them to be governed by a Bishop of his assignation and the other should doe in like manner to the Gentiles Thus he very pithily let us unfold lay open what he has as his custome is involued here see what a heap of weaknesses lies sweating there crowded up in so narrow a room First he brings these words here as an explanation of his meaning that is of the state of the question between us concerning how far these Provinces were exclusive whereas in the place cited of Schism c. 4. par 7. it is onely put as an instance of their imagin'd exclusive Iurisdictions introduc't with an Accordingly not purposely Stating or determining the measure or extent of their agreement nor is there any expression found there which sounds to this purpose Secondly this Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction which before made such a loud sound is now onely come to be such when they met at the same City by consequence abstracting from that circumstance S. Peter had Vniversal Authority which is a great largness of his towards S. Peter and I wonder whence this kindnes springs towards the Pope's Predecessor Thirdly since these two Apostles as far as we hear never met in any City after this pretended distribution of Provinces save onely at Rome at Antioch it follows that as far as Dr. H. knows S. Peter's Iurisdiction was universal over both Iews and Gentiles in all the world besides at all other times except onely those short seasons in which they met together Fourthly it follows that the Pope's Authority is not limited save onely where he meets S. Paul or his Successors or perhaps as he needs will have it S. Iohn and then I conceive it will be very ample Fifthly since he grants that both the Congregations of Iews Gentils were joyned in one under Pope â—lement of Schism p. 79. that Pope by consequence succeeded them both so the exclusivenes of S. Peter's Iurisdiction when
same towards the Gentiles Where nothing is or can be more evident then this that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there spoken of was the self same as was exprest by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the self-same efficacy of preaching which nothing concerns equality or superiority of power or command in order to Government as plain sence tells every man and Dr. H. himself grants Answ p. 51. l. 26. The fourth testimony or rather the second part of the first is still from S. Amb. which as the Caspian sea runnes under ground a long way and then rises up again in the Euxine sculks under a parenthesis in which the two late Testimonies are found and shows it's Head again at the end of it in this form Ita tamen vt Petrus praedicaret Gentibus si causa fuisset Paulus Iudaeis nam vterque invenitur vtrumque fecisse sed tamen plena authoritas Petro in Iudaismi praedicatione data agnoscitur Pauli perfecta authoritas in praedicatione gentium invenitur yet so that Peter might preach to the Gentiles also if there were cause and Paul to the Iews for both of them is found to have done both but yet the full Authority is acknowledged given to Peter in the preaching to the Iews and Paul's perfect Authority is found in preaching to the Gentiles Where the first part of the testimony is expressely contrary to Dr. H. this granting that each might preach to either he denying they had right to doe so Repl. p. 56. and that S. Peter had no Iurisdiction save over one portion onely of the dispersed Iews of Schism p. 71. The second part of it which concerns plena authoritas full Authority or power is onely meant of greater powerfulness and authoritative efficacity in preaching not of fuller power of Iurisdiction Noâ— can it be otherwise either proceeding upon grounds common to us both these words being the explication or comment upon the greater efficacity of preaching spoken of in the 8. v. and so are to be understood to mean that said efficacy which none imagins to signify Iurisdiction and particularly upon Dr. H's grounds which makes no designation of Provinces till the agreement exprest as he will needs have it in the 9. v. by their giving the right hands of fellowship to which this speciall efficacity of preaching mention'd in the 8. v. and it 's exposition are antecedent Again suppose it signified full power of Iurisdiction yet there wants when they met in the same City onely to make it expresse for Mr. H's tenet So that neither can it concern our question of Iurisdiction nor did it could it reach home to Dr. H's purpose Lastly to render this place impossible to serve Dr. H's turn let us look Answ p. 51. l. 26. and we shall find him expressely contend that preaching or converting is nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction and therefore not argumentatiue for us to infer S. Peter's larger Iurisdiction from his preaching to more Now then since the Authority here spoken of is onely in praedicatione in preaching as the testimony it self inform us consequently it can neither concern our question which is about Iurisdiction nor make for his purpose and all this follows out of his own words and his own grounds The fifth Testimony is from S. Hierom as hee tells us that the Churches of the Iews seorsim habebantur nec his quae erant ex gentibus miscebantur were held a part nor mingled with these of the Gentiles and that the agreement was made that S. Paul should preach to the Gentiles Peter Iames and Iohn to the Iews The latter part of this testimony is already answered and shown that this was a prudent consent to act in such sort as God's speciall concurrence had manifested to be best in those circumstances To act I say not to make a formall and perpetuall pact the one Province should be as Dr. H. expresses it Repl. p. 56. l. 2. 5. so one Apostles that he hath no right to another part but is excluded from any farther right which includes two things besides some to go one way and some another to wit perpetuâ—ty of such a right and exclusivenes neither of which are any where exprest in this testimony As for the first part of this place concerning the severing of the Iewish and Gentile Churches First I Answer that I doubt not but the Apostles did prudently let them vse their devotions a part as long as the Iewish customes were in fresh observation and therefore the conjuction of them in common Acts of devotion would have been subject to breed offence and scandalls but I deny absolutely that which can serve Dr. H's turn to wit that they â—sed their endeavours to keep them still a part for the future which they had done had they constituted distinct Bishops over them to govern them as contradistinct Provinces for this would have made the breach which was onely occasionall at first and so easily by degrees alterable passe into ecclesiasticall Constitution not easily violable by this means keeping on foot the division and also this carriage of the Apostles would have countenanced the breach and the groundless scandall which occasion'd the breach All therefore the Apostles did was no more then as if Magistrates who govern in common a City if the Citizens chance to fall at variance some prudently comply with one side others with the other to reduce both to unity ad amity which is far from making two litle commoÌ„wealths of them or assigning them distinct Magistrates to govern them which had they done who sees not but by taking a way the Vnity of Government they had establisht the division Such was evidently the Apostles demeanour here such their intentions to wit as much as they could without scandalizing either party to bring them to Vnity and Vniformity into one Church and to Vnite them in him whom they taught to be the head corner-stone Christ Iesus in whom was no distinction of Iew and Gentile And surely had the distraction in the Primitive Church been thus coÌ„tinued by Apostolicall agreemeÌ„t to sever them as distinct Provinces and constitute over them opposite-litled Bishops we should both have heard news of â—ome of those Bishops exprest by some testimony from antiquity to have been over Iews onely or Gentiles onely and also have heard of their reuniting after wards under one common Bishop and how the former Bishops either one or both were dispossest or lost their place Yet not a syllable could Dr. Hammond find to expresse the former save his own Id est nor to countenance the latter but his own new invented Scholion or as he calls it of Schism p 79. his clew to extricate the Reader out of the mazes into which antient writers may lead him as hath been shown particularly in Schism Disarm'd Part. 1. Sect. 10. 11. 12. Secondly to return to our Testimony Dr. H. prettily ioyns these two places together thus S. Hierom having affirmed on Gal. 1.
in the lesser not in the genuine but in those which are acknowledg'ly spurious consequently this sleight half citing it savours very strong of a wilfully-affected insincerity Now the exceptions of our Dr. against these briefer commentaries as also all those shorter ones upon S. Paul's Epistles are these that it is manifestly shown from S Augustin that they were writ by the Arch heretick Pelagius For that father in his third book de peccatorum meritis remissione c. 1. sayes that he had read the short commentaries of Pelagius upon all the Epistles of Paul and in the same book c. 12. he cites some things out of the 7. c. of the. 1. Cor. which are found in them Our Doctors also gather manifestly Pelagian opinions and positions out of the same commentaries upon Rom. c. 5. 6. 7. 8. and. 11. Vpon 1. Cor. 4. Phil. 1. and 3. Vpon Tim. c. 6. Nor have the Protestants a better opinion of them their own much approved Rivetus in his book Critiâ—i sacri printed at Geneva p. 374. affirms that both the difference of the stile and the opinions of them shew them to be none of S. Hierom. that Ambrosius Catharinus thinks that Peâ—agius writ them because upon the sixth and ninth ad Rom. he teaches that eternall predestination is from the merits of the elect foreseen by the divine foreknowledge that Senensis doubts not but the author of them was sick of the Pelagian pestilence because upon the 7. c. ad Rom. he calls it a madnesse to think that originall sinne was derived from Adam After this he quotes Victorius and Bellarmine and sayes that the latter of them proves them out of S. Augustin to be writ by the Arch-heretick Pelagius Thus far their own Rivetus And now I beseech thee Protestant Reader be true to thy self and thine own Soul and see what sincere Drs thou reliest on who though when they speak freely and are not put to it in dispute they grant that these commentaries are an Arch-hereticks yet when they are put to it to maintain their paradoxicall faith make S. Hierom an Arch-heretick or else the Arch-heretik Pelagius his doctrine S. Hierom and Orthodox by making those books his so they can but glean any sorry scrap of a testimony thence to lend a dim colour to their cause and to countenance it by a sophisticate and counterfeit Authority nay onely half-cite the place to cloak the insincerity of which their own hearts are conscious and lastly which is most worth noting this very testimony so miserably authorised is soe mainely rely'd on that he can never make the ends of his discourse meet without the help of this every foot nor even pretend to show one word in any testimony for his tenet but by making this one of the three testimonies which must peece up that one word as shall be seen hereafter Thus much to shew how weak this Testimony is in it self had it been true and how the Dr. falsifies it's Authority to gain it an undue credit but this is not all the falsifying the Authority of this Testimony could not serve his turn but he must falsify the words two pretending that S. Hierom added upon Gal. c. 2. v 8. that the agreement was made that S. Paul should preach to the Gentiles and Peter Iames and Iohn to the Iews whereas there is noe newes of any agreement exprest in that place for upon the words dextras dederunt they gave us their right hands in which phrase Dr. H. places the agreement there is noe comment at all found save onely this ita nos docere debere that Paul and Barnabas should teach thus and thus and upon the following words relating to Paul and Barnabas nothing but onely this ambo enim missi erant simul vt gentibus praedicarent for they were both sent together that they might preach to the Gentiles But whether this sending sprung from an agreement among the Apostles or from the sole designation of God Almighty exprest both by his speciall cooperation with them as also by those words separate for me Paul and Barnabas c. the testimony alledged sayes nothing Now Dr. H. building mainly upon this agreement and expresly citing this place for it where noe agreement at all is found 't is most manifest that he hath falsified the words of the testimony aswell as it's Authority Sect. 8. Two other Testimonies for the same point scan'd the first abus'd and yet still impertinent to his purpose the second a most egregious and notorious falsification S Hierom's mind in this point of Exclusive Provinces THe sixth Testimony is from Theophylact on Gal. 1. 22. recited by Dr H. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Being come to Iudea he departed thence both because he was sent a preacher to the Gentiles and because he would not build on another's foundation In Answer does hee say hee could not build on another's foundation or as Dr. H. expresses it Reply p. 56. had not right to doe it if not what are these words to us who do not desire that S. Paul should do imprudently as it had been if leaving the Gentiles where himself had begun to preach with experience of so much fruit he should apply himself to preach in Iudea where S. Peter had experienc't the like fruit which was in other language to leave a place where his preaching was most needfull and most particularly fruit full and stay in another where his preaching was needles and not so particularly fruitfull Is this any thing at all to our question of limited or unlimited Iurisdiction Secondly the words because he was sent a preacher to the Gentiles are meant of Christ's Mission as shall presently be demonstrated acknowledged by Dr. H. of Schism p. 70. to have been unlimitedly and indefinitely given to all the Apostles not restrained by Christ's words to any particular Province and in particular speaking of S. Paul's Province Repl. p. 55. l. 31. Soe that the bringing this proof for lesser Provinces is perfectly frivolous and self-contradictory Thirdly this testimony is upon Gal. 1. 21. and speakes of his coming to Judea to see Peter which was more then fourteen years before his next coming thither Gal. 2. when this distribution of those lesser Provinces by agreement are pretended to bee made This is seen most evidently from the direct tenour of those places counting exactly the years I went to Hierusalem to see Peter Gal. 1. 18. After I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia Gal. 1. 21. After which imediately follows Then after fourteen years I went up again to Hierusalem with Barnabas c. at which time the pretended agreement was made and the right hands of fellowship given as is to be seene in the following verses upon which he builds the assignation of those fancied Provinces of Schism p. 73. Answ p. 41. l. 5. Repl. p. 56. l 14. and p. 57. l. 4. c. and in many other places soe that we see this second going up
preeminence in Authority and Iurisdiction or does it not but some other priority as of favour gifts c. If it does then it makes these three Apostles superior in Iurisdiction to the rest and puts the rest subject to them which Dr. H. will Iam sure by noe means admit nay expresly denies in this very page If it does not then what does it concern our question which is about Iurisdictionâ— for let the rest be never soe much before S. Peter in all other regards yet as long as they are not equall'd to S. Peter in Iurisdiction and Authority still our Tenet is in tire to us and untuch't Testimonies therefore which can make against us must concern Iurisdiction and shew an equality among the Apostles in that of which since this place cannot be understood as hath been shown it cannot consequently pretend to tuch us at all Again admit the honoring above the rest spoke in common of these three Apostles signified any Iurisdiction or higher degree of Authority yet how does it appear hence that one of these three was not honoured above the other two since the words themselves expresse nothing to the contrary but easily permit it to be so without any violence offer'd to their sence Cities are honored more then Villages yet it follows not from these words that all Cities are of equall honor with one another Soe miserably weak is Dr. H's reason which is onely declamation pitch that it cannot be imagin'd unlesse a man had his strong fancy how his best testimonies which deserve as he tells us such consideration can in any manner concern the question for which they are alledged nor carry home to the meanest semblance or shadow of a conclusion But to proceed having proved gallantly from three being honored before the rest an equality of that honor in all those three and supposed against his own Tenet that this preference of honor means Iurisdiction and Authority and so that these three Apostles were equall in that respect he adds and as such they chose and ordain'd the brother of the Lord which sure is not after the manner of an Arch-bishop and his suffragan Bishops where you see the upshot of all exprest in his sure-footed conclusion which sure c. depends upon the as such and the as equall in Authority and that as such depends upon Dr. H's invention no such reduplicative expression being found in the testimony so that as long experience hath tought us Dr. H's arguments and testimonies put to the Analytick test are resolved into his own sayngs and self confident sures as into their first principles and the ground work of his testimonies which are allowed onely to descant and reflect glancingly upon his own more substantiall solid and pregnant affirmations Thus much to show how impossible it is this testimony should prejudice us now though we have better grounds then to stand need to build upon it in all probability it makes rather for us for what strange matter was it or worth taking notice of that they should not contend for dignity about chusing him if they were all equall in digniâ—y what soe high commendation is it in those Apostles that none of them strove for preeminence of Authority if there had been unquestionably none at all belonging to any one of them Or what novelty is it that persons of equall Authority should doe things by common consent Whereas had some one had power to do it alone and yet condescended to it with the joint-consent and joint-execution of others the carriage was worth observation for the particularity of their peaceablenes humility mutuall confidence and brotherly charity After this worthy testimony comes hobbling in a Scripture-proof to make good all that went before in this form And so also in the place to the Gal. e. 2. v. 9. Iames and Cephas and Iohn are equally dignified by S. Paul and have all there the style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeming to be pillars This testimony hath two parts as it is put by Mr. H. the first that they were equally dignified by S. Paul in the 9. v. the second that they are all three called pillars But as for the first look in the place and you shall find noe other note of their being equally dignified save onely that these three are named together Hath not this Dr. of Divinity a strange reach of reason who can conclude men equall in Authority because he finds their names in the same place so that should he hap to find the King Tom fool and Iohn a Nokes named all together presently his levelling logick concludes them all equally dignified The like acutenes is shown in the second part which sounds to the same time both being non-sence in Ela. They are all called pillars ergo they are all equall cries the Dr. as if one pillar could not be higher then another But he makes noe distinction between a community and an equality nor will vouchsafe to understand that degrees are notions superadded to the common species of things whatever things he finds named by the same name in the plurall number presently he makes them go a breast in the same degree of height or worth He would make a rare man to write a book of logick for the levellers If he â—bserves that peasants as well as Princes agree in the common name of men and are call'd so in the plurall presently he concludes that peasants and Princes are equally dignified the Lord Ma or of London and the Geffer Major of Grimsâ—y are equall in Authority and dignity by the same reason because they are both in the plurall called Majors Nor onely this but Cities Commonwealths rivers horses books noses mountains starrs and universally all things in the world must be levell'd into an equality because the common name in the plurall agrees to all of each kind by Dr H's paralell logick which concludes the Apostles equall because they are called pillars nay even from their being named together Is the answering such a pitifull Adversary worth the losse of an hovers time were it not that the sleight-reasond preaching-vogue which now takes vulgar heads had got him an opinion amongst many and so by means of that not by any force of his reasons enabled him to do mischief unlesse his wilfull and affected weaknesses be laid open I might hope also for some ameandment from another but I finde him so long beaten to his slender-woven cobwebb declamation-stuffe I despaire that all these friendly reprehensions will make him reflect upon his weak reasonings and make them stronger for the future He was told in Schism Disarm'd of the same faults to wit of proving the Apostles equally foundation-stones because they were all called so in the plurall that the Apostles were all equall because that common Appellation in the plurall was given to all that none had more power then another that is all had equal power because each sitt vpon a throne to judge that is had power onely that the
Spirit satt without distinction that is equally upon each because the Scripture sayes in common that it sate upon them that all had the holy ghost equally by the plowmans argument for the equality of his eggs because all were full of it For these and other faults of the same strain Dr. H. was reprehended by his Disarmer yet still noe amends not hopes of amends appears in these answering books after he had been so oft told of it nor by consequence are we to expect any other from him in his following treatises Sect. 10. Dr. H's Pretences of Testimonies as hee calls them and his manifold falsification of S. Chrysostome to prove Iames at Hierusalem clearly superiour to S. Peter AS for the point it self concerning S. Iames I am reprehended for misunderstanding Dr. H. and that he endeauored not to prove S. Iames his priority of dignity and Authority but onely to prove that in his see James was considered as a Bishop Answ p. 43. l. 20. 21. and 27. whereas neither any man denied him to have been Bishop there nor could it any way advantage Dr. H's cause if this were ptoved for what follows against S. Peter's being chief of the Apostles that S. Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem and the Iurisdiction of that Metropolis Hath not each Catholike Bishop the same now a dayes over his private Diocese and yet remains subject to the head of God's Church notwithstanding Again if he intended not that S. Iames had greater Authority there what meant his fiction of his having the principall place and giving the sentence that the Rescript is grounded upon his sentence c. Surely when one gives the sentence and the others onely propose the former must be held to have greater power in that place and those circumstances then the latter But principall with him sounds noe priority at all nor can he be held to any thing who hath got once the priviledge to say and unsay again as hee pleases He was accused of making S. Iames at Hierusalem superior to S. Peter which he denies p. 43. blaming me for misunderstanding him yet in the p. 44. ere the Eccho of the former words were well out of the Reader 's ears he goes about to prove and infer in expresse words from testimonies that Iames in this council was clearly superior to S. Peter which is clearly contradictory to his former words But we are not to wonder at what is grown customary and familiar Next he goes about to shew Answ p. 44. that he hath at least pretences of testimonies that S. Iames had the principall place the first of which pretences is that he is named before Peter and unlesse this conclude our argument from S. Peter's being named first must be prejudiced I Answer our argument drawn thence for his principall place among the Apostles insists upon his constantly being named first and not once onely which might happen without any great mistery in it Again what mean these words the Romanists argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluding his primacy from being first named These are two quite different things The argument from his being first named consists in this that in the orderly naming of the Apostles his name is found first placed whereas the argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lies in this not that he is first named but that he is in these words nam'd or exprest to be the first of the Apostles His second pretence of a Testimony as he calls it is from S. Iames his giving the sentence and though their own translation rendred the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore my sentence is by this means making it onely his iudgment in the matters yet Dr. H. tells us he still beleeves it signifies the sentence The first ground of this his beleef is because 't is S. Chrysostomes observation that his speaking last was founded in his being Bishop of Hierusalem what then could not he be Bishop there and speak last both without giving the sentence were there noe worthier persons present or did the thing to be concluded onely concern his see or indeed did it concern it at all the Rescript the effect of this consult being directed onely to Gentiles which were noe wayes subject to the Bishoprick of Hierusalem But let us see S. Chrysostomes testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was Bishop of the Church in Hierusalem therefore he speaks last unfortunate man with whom nothing succeeds nor any testimony thrives but either they are against him or nothing at all to his purpose as hath been shown all over or when they hap to be full and expresse as this is then they come of worst of all Let him look into their own edition of S. Chrysostome and Dannaeus his Notes upon them printed at Eton and he shall see what is become of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore he speaks last upon which onely hee builds verba haec saith hee interpres non agnoscit nec certè videntur aptè locari nam quòd Episcopus esset ideò prior loqui debuit non posterior The Interprâ—ter doth not acknowledge these words neither truly doe they seem to be fitly placed for in regard he was a Bishop he ought in that respect to speak first not last But 't is noe matter Dr. H. can cast a figure of hysteron proteron make first be last and any corrupt piece of an Author become pure Chrysostome and rare sence so it do but be befriend him at a dead lift His second worthy proof is that S. Chrysostome sayes that Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordains or decrees those things As if the decree were not manifestly made by all present but by Iames onely and called there by S. Chrysostome himself p. 795. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common decree yet because he finds an expression of decreeing common as he wel knows to all that were present but his present occasion not inviting him not taken notice of by S. Chrysostome in that place imediately S. Iames is thence concluded the best man in the companie the giver of the sentence or whatever else Dr. H. pleases Any thing may be aswel inferd as that which he pretends Again I would ask Dr. H. why he leaves out the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the law which were imediately joind in context with the former thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he ordains those things out of the law by this simple putting down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gaining something a better semblance for the absolutenesse of S. Iames his decree But I shall have occasion to explicate hereafter this whole place out of which Dr. H. as his sleight manner is picks out a couple of words His third proof is from S. Chrysostome's setting down the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good order observed in their speaking first I will transcribe the place as I find it in that father and afterwards let the Reader see how craftily Dr. H. abuses it for his
had neither been thus exalted nor the other Apostles thus depres't 't was S. Peter's being there which put all out of order Lastly what means his inference of his being clearly superiour in that council This is the most unlikely point of all the rest this council as hath been shown concern'd not S. Iames his particular Iurisdiction but the common good of the Church of which the Apostles were overseer's nor did this in particular concern S. Iames who as Dr. H. here grants was none of the Apostles In a word if he contend that they let him have the principall place out of a respectfull and courteous deference upon another score as he was our Lord's brother and very ancient let him bring authentick testimonies that they did so and wee shall easily grant it But what does courtesy concern power or the right to a thing or place Thus wee read that Pope Anicetus gave S. Polycarp the preeminence even in his own Church yet wee think not that his civill condescension wrong'd his Iurisdiction though I know if Dr. H. could prove so much of S. Iames here all were lost to S. Peter without hopes of recovery But if he proves his principal place by right upon the account onely of being Bishop there 't is infinitly weak and inconsequent reason absolutely disclaiming any such inference and as for authority the very testimonies he brings to prove it are either expressely against him and contrary to his own grounds or els unauthentick or lastly nothing at all to his purpose as hath been shown His next testimony that S. Iames saith with power I iudge makes neither for him nor against us since wee grant that each here had power and vsed that power invoting or decreeing soe hath and doth each member in Parlament which yet consists wel enough with their different degrees of power in thus voting and decreeing so that though wee read that one member did it upon an occasion relating to him in particular without excluding the rest wee cannot upon that negative argument either infer that he alone did so or pronounced the Decree unles his expression had something particular not competent to the rest As for example had it been phras'd thus Let it be enacted Bee it decreed c. there had been some ground that he pronounced the sentence but his words being onely I iudge or as their own translation renders it my sentence is which sounds no higher strain of authority nor any thing not equally-competent to any or each of the rest since each might without any great ambition say my sentence is thus and thus 't is impossible any reason unprejudiced can think any more deducible thence then that his particular sentence was exprest by those words Thus much for the words following Dr. H's explication of them But to give S. Chrysostome leave to explicate himself let us hear what hee sayes In the same Homily and upon the same passage wee find these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he with good reason ordains those things to witt to abstain from things strangled c. out of the law lest he should seem to abrogate the law then follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And observe how he lets not them hear those things from the law but from himself saying I iudge that is from my self not having heard it from the law Where we have two things remarkable in this prudent cariage of S. Iames whose circumstances being Bishop and Resident in Hierusalem required on the one side that he should not disgust the Iews his Diocesans by seeming to sleight the law on the other side he was not to wrong Christianity by making those things necessary to be observed precisely upon this account because the law of Moses prescribed them To compose himself equally in this case without giving offence to one side or other S. Chrysostome observes first that he ordains these things out of the law that is such things as were materially found in the law and commanded there and so auoids the Iews displeasure but does not ordain them formally because they were commanded by the law soe avoiding the wronging of Christianity but of himself who as an Apostle had power to do such things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I iudge that is of my self or own Authority not as having heard it from the law that is not as from the Authority of the law of Moses This being so the words cited by Dr. H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I iudge that is I say with power is given by all reason to signify the same as the former explication now layd out at large and of which this seems to bee onely a brief repetition For first why should wee imagine that S. Chrysostome should give two disparate interpretations of the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in the self same circumstances Next were it not onely a repetition of the former why is he so short in this latter explicatiō as to passe it over sleightly in these words nothing neither before nor after relating to that interpretation Thirdly because the words I say with power are perfectly consonant to the other I say it of my self not as from the law that is from mine own power not from the power of the law to which mine succeeds And lastly because if wee look more narrowly into the place wee shall find that neither Testimony is an explication of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies iudging or as Dr. H. will needs have it giving the sentence but of the emphatical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I which in the first place denoting a self authoritative expression of his power in opposition to the law and it's power consequently in the latter place where the emphasis of the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is explicated by with power there is no ground imaginable why it should signify otherwise than the forme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my self or why it should have any emphaticall relation or opposition to any other Authority save that of the law onely So that there is not the slenderest appearance of S. Iames his having the principall place or giving the sentence from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with power more than from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my self This self power there spoken of relating to the law 's no power nor influence of power in thus decreeing not to the other Apostles lesser power then his as Bishop But as his ordinary custome is Dr. H. picks out any two words neglecting to consider the true import of the father's meaning by them and having thus singled them out he onely touches them sleightly with a grave carelesnes and thinks the deed is done What follows in his 12. paragraph craves onely that the Readers would vse their eyes to avoyd his crafts who would blind them All I need do in answer is to quote particularly the places in which I am sure there can bee no deceit Dr. H. told us in the last
had greater Authority then S. Peter Thus Dr. H. thinking he had served S. Peter and the Pope a trick by making S. Chrisostome intimate that S. Paul had greater Authority then he hath at once contradicted his own grounds and quite disanull'd his own best testimonie rendring it impossible to relate to power or Authority for which he produced it unlesse the opinion of the whole world or which is firmer and more inviolable Dr. H's own word 's bee a mistake asserting that no Apostle had greater power then S. Peter As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equall honour of those two Apostles it hath already been shown formerly from the father's words to signify equall honour for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same efficacity of preaching and in this place both it and the not needing S. Peter's voyce relate onely to the sufficiency of S. Paul's knowledge making S. Peter's instructions needles as appears by the words a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. not as if S. Paul were to learn any thing of S. Peter c. And thus indeed the possibility of S. Chrysostomes saying more of S. Paul or that he was more honour'd and higher then S. Peter may have good sense many holding that S. Paul was higher in learning and the greater Divine They must bee therefore testimonies expressing equality in power of Government which can conclude any thing against our tenet concerning his power for in other things 't is no question but that S. Paul â—ad many advantages above S. Peter as in preaching to more Nations in writing more Epistles in greater sufferings and many other regards where of some be exprest 2. Cor. c. 11. Again this very Verse which Dr. H. would have relate to power after it was given and it's independence on S. Peter S. Ambrose whose judgment I shallever preferr before Mr. H's interprets in the same sence as wee take it to wit of independence in learning onely explicating S. Paul's words thus non fuisse dicit necessitatem electum se a Deo pergendi ad praedecessores suos Apostolos vt aliquid fortè disceret ab illis quia Deus ei reuelauit perfilium suum quomodo doceret S. Paul says it was not necessary that he being chosen by God should go to the former Apostles that he might learn any thing of them because God had revealed to him by his son how he should teach But because S. Chrysostome hath been pretended as his constant Patron in this particular controversy therefore though it cannot be exacted of me who am the Defendant to produce testimonies and object to let the Reader see how unhappy Dr. H. is in the choice of his freinds I shall take liberty to manifest and I hope with evidence from two or three places of that father what S. Chrysostome's opinion was in this point of S. Peter's higher Authority amongst the Apostles I will not presse here the high titular expressions he gives S. Peter Panâ—g in Pet. Paul how iustly soever I might of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the leader or Captain of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning of the right faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great pronouncer of sacred things in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Corypheus or Head of the Apostles c. Nor will I insist much upon my formerly-alledged testimony that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entrusted with the Sheep-fold though I might with good reason the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a collective and denoting an Vniversality But My first place which I rather make choice of because it relates to S. Iames whom Dr. H. would make clearly Sue periour to S. Peter in his own see is taken out of Hom. 87. upon S. John where speaking of our Saviours extraordinary affection and familiarity towards S. Peter he immediately subjoyns this interrogatory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this be so how then came Iames to have the Episcopall seat of Hierusalem he solves it him self thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he ordaind him S. Peter not Master of that seat but of the whole world Here wee see the vast difference between S. Iames and S. Peter's Iurisdictions one being Master of that private seat at Hierusalem the other Master of the whole world whence follows evidently that neither S. Peter's Iurisdiction is limited by any other bounds then the world it self is and that he had Iurisdiction also at Hierusalem it self not after the nature of the particular Bishop there but of an universall Governour or Master of the world unles perhaps Mr. H will alledge that Hierusalem is no part of the world for then indeed I shall not know how to reply Neither let him as his custome is run to the Dictionaries and Lexicons to tell me that the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such a Master as teaches or instructs and so sounds no Government nor Iurisdiction for he must know that that is the proper signification of the word as it is found here which the circumstances accompanying it determin it to have To them then let us look the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Master is appropriated here to S. Peter in order to the whole world as it is to S. Iames in order to Hierusalem it being exprest but once and in construction refer'd to both Since then as applyd to S. Iames it signifies his being Bishop of Hierusalem and so expresses directly Iurisdiction and power of Government it is against all reason to say it can possibly signify another thing as apply'd to S. Peter According to this testimony then S. Peter was universall Bishop of the Church and of an illimited Iurisdiction But perhaps Dr. H. will not allow the parenthesis in the testimony I answer I put down the testimony here as I found it in the Greek Context set out by themselves and printed at Eton and though it were left out the sence it self putt's the opposition between S. Peter's being such over the world as S. Iames was over Hierusalem which concerns commanding power and Iurisdiction My second place is fech't from his comment on Act. 1. where speaking of S. Peter's behaviour about the election of a new Apostle he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with good reason doth the first S. Peter undertake the busines with Authority as having them all delivered into his hand What can this signify but that he as first and as a supreme Governour had power over all the rest that were present and who were those who were present all the rest of the Apostles and the chief of the Disciples In what other manner he as first can be said to have had all the rest within his hand and therefore with good reason to have taken the management of that busienes authoritatively to himself I professe I cannot in Dr. H's behalf imagine and am perswaded himself will confess it after perusall of the following testimony that
this was S. Chrysostome's meaning The Third testimony which shall be also my last for I deem it impossible to finde another more expresse for this or any other point is taken from the same place and spoken upon the same occasion the election of some one to bee Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then was it not in Peter's power to elect him yes it was altogether in his power but he does it not lest he might seem to do it out of fauour What can be more expresse and full The thing to be performed was an Act of the highest Iurisdiction imaginable amongst the Apostles to wit the making a new Apostle The other Apostles and chief Disciples were present to the number of one hundred and twenty yet S. Peter had power to do this of himself in their presence Nor is this exprest dubiously by the father but as a thing certain and beyond all question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yes altogether absolutely or without doubt Nor have wee here any divers Lections to diminish the Authority of the words which the Dr. makes a pittifull and little prevailing use of in his lisping testimonies nor is it a word or two pickt out blindly and wrested to a quite different interpretation as is his of discovered Method but a pithy expression of the full scope and import of the place Nor is this perfect expression put alone but seconded with a note that he did it not of his own single power lest he should bee mistaken by others to make such a one an Apostle out of favour which is the frequent and ordinary carriage of every wise and prudent Governour Nor do wee pretend to any higher strain of Iurisdiction in S. Peter then that he could elect a new Apostle by his own power which this father not onely grants but strenuously assertes nor in our paralell tenet of the Pope's Authority can we attribute to him any particâ—lar act more supreme or more savouring of highest Authority than to constitute Bishops and Patriarchs in the Church by himself and of his own particular power Nor lastly was this testimony peep 't out for in strange places but offred me by the same Author whom Dr. H. most relies on and in the same Treatise which he most frequently cites Iudge then Reader whether it bee likely or no that Dr. H. considering his industrious reading this father and this Treatise as he manifests here could possibly remain ignorant what was S. Chrysostome's tenet in this point and then tell me what he deserves who against his own knowledge and conscience alledges imperfectly mangles corrupts and falsifies this fathers words to gain some show of his consent to his paradoxicall point of faith nay makes him by such leger de main sleights his chiefest Patron to defend it as hath been layd open and discover'd particularly heretofore though he could not but know that no writer extant could be more expressely against it then is this holy and learned father S. Chrysostome Sect. 13. Dr. H's successe in answering his Adversaries first Testimony His insincerity in pretending our own law against the Pope's Authority IN his book of Schism p. 74. Dr. H. told us with Authority and very confidently that certainly S. Paul was noe way subordinate or dependent on S. Peter at Antioch as appears by his behaviour towards him avowed Gal. 2. 11. that is his withstanding him to the face Discourteous S. W. who gives not a jott more credit to Mr. H. wher he cries certainly surely irrefragably unquestionably expressely distinctly accordingly c. which are the nerves of his discourse than if he had said nothing at all would not budge into assent notwithstanding his soe confident assurance to warrant him and as for Gal. 2 11. by which he pretended to make it appear he reply'd Schism Disarm p. 62. that S. Cyprian and S. Austin thought otherwise who interpreted S. Peter's bearing it patiently not as an argumeÌ„t of his lesse or equall Authority but of his greatest humility that being higher in dignity he should suffer so mildly the reprehensions of an inferiour The place alledged from those fathers was this Quem quamuis primum Dominus elegerit super eum aedificaverit Ecclesiam suam tamen cum secum Paulus disceptauit non vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit vt diceret se Primatum tenere obtemperari à nouellu posteris sibi potius opportere nec despexit Paulum quòd Ecclesiâ—e priùs persecutor fuisset sed consilium veritatis admisit Whom though our Lord chose to be the first of the Apostles and upon him built his Church yet when Paul contended with him he did not challenge and assume to him self any thing in any insolent and proud manner as to say he had the Primacy and so should rather be obeyed by new and late Apostles nor did he despise Paul because he had formerly been a Persecutor of the Church but admitted the counsell of truth Dr. H. preparing to answer this place Answ p. 46. notes first that this is the first testimony I have brought from Antiquity as if it necessarily belong'd to me who was answering his book and showing his allegations unable to conclude to object testimonies also my self and so bee Opponent and defendent both but as it was not my task so neither do I esteem it so rare a busines to transcribe out of books as needlesly to put my self upon that dull employment though I know well that annotation-men and commonâ— place book souls think it the rarest thing imaginable Next he tells us that he never doubted S. Peter's Primacy in the sence this holy fathers speaks any more than of Christs building his Church on him and that he gave me a testimony even now from S. Ambrose which expressely avouched it I remember indeed such a Testimony Answ 39 in the Margent but I remember withall that he brought it not nay would not let it signify S. Peter's Primacy in any sence over the whole Church but over the Iews onely as appears by the fourlast lines of the same page 39. how ever wee thank him for granting here that he gaves us a testimony from S. Ambrose which expressely avoued S. Peter's Primacy in any sence over the Church so he will promise us not to repent him self and recall his grant which he pretends to have so expressely avouched there But alas what faith is to bee given to the most formall bargain made with such Copes-masters of testimonies he had scarce writt eight lines after this profest expresse avouching it but he quite forgets his so solemn promise and makes the said place in S. Ambrose signify a limited and contradistinct Primacy saying that by the words of S. Ambrose S. Paul had a Primacy amongst the Gentiles as Peter amongst the Iews though the place it self in reference to S. Peter sayes onely that Petrus Primatum acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam Peter had received the Primacy to found the
Church How necessary an endowment is a good memory to defend a bad cause Thirdly he onely denyes as he sayes that this Primacy gave him any power over S. Paul and that I will remember he had reason to deny it from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall honour given S. Paul by Chrysostome and Theophylact. I remember indeed the words but have quite forgot that he had any reason to deduce from those words equality of honor sprung from Government or power of command having shown from those fathers explicating themselves that it is impossible the words can beare that interpretation Fourthly in relation to those words he did not vindicate any thing to himself insolently or assume it arrogantly as to say he had the Primacy and rather ought to bee obeyed c. Dr. H. discant's with this glosse leaving us saith he p. 47. to resolve that if he had claimed any obedience at all from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him Thus he soe that the difference between Dr. H. and mee in explicating this place stands thus that he makes those words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assump sit to signify that S. Peter's praise worthines exprest consisted in his not chalenging what did not truly belong to him whereas I make it consist in his not chalenging it in those circumstances though it truly belonged to him he would have the words insolenter and arroganter so taken as if the pride they denoted did involve falsehood injustice or overweening whereas I contend that they signify onely in an insolent and proud manner well exprest in our English phrase by standing upon his point which well consists with the truth of what he challenges and the right of what he assumes Ere I descend to manifest that this is the sence of that place I desire the Reader to review the entire testimony in which he will do right both to my discourse and his own memory and when he hath done this I offer him for his satisfaction these following notes First that it had been no such great commendation of humility to say that S. Peter did not usurpingly challenge what was not his right but rather an impudence and an absurd haughtines to have done it since then the fathers intend here a particular commendation of S. Peter's modesty it must consist in this that though he might with rigour of right have stood upon his tip-toes as wee may say yet his goodnes so moderated his height that he was content with mildenes to bear an inferiour's reprehensions in which great vertue is shown and which being put those fathers suppose that truly he was Superiour Secondly unles this bee the meaning of that place wee have quite lost the adversative sence which yet is unavoidable for what sence is this Though our Lord chose him to be the first yet he did not challenge to himself more then belongs to him or what speciall commendation do these words import Though King Iames was King of England yet he did not challenge or assume to himself to bee Emperour of Germany sure it must bee an enuy of S. Peter's sanctity as well as of his dignity to diminish his praise-worthines intended here by so frivolous and incoherent an explication Thirdly the words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter he challenged not any thing insolently to himself make good my explication for it had been a very hard case if he could have challenged nothing at all to himself with truth according to these fathers no not even that which themselves had granted the line before to wit that our Lord had chosen him to bee the first and had built his Church upon him with truth therefore he might have challenged that which out of modesty he stood not insolenty and arrogantly upon Fourthly Dr. H. grants that a Primacy at least in some sence is granted S. Peter from this place wherefore the redditive part of the testimony yet he challenged not any thing c. so as to say he had the Primacy must be granted to bee true also or rather it is the self same Neither is it possible that any man not totally possest by prejudice can imagine any other but that in these words Though our Lord chose him to bee the first yet he said not or alledged not that he had the Primacy or was the first the latter part should be false unles the former were so too Firfthly this being so the following words in the reddiâ—ive part of the testimony and ought rather to be obey'd by laâ—er Apostles c. must necessarily bee true too since they follow in the same tenour of redditive sence to the adversative and are joyned immediately by a copulative particle to the former of having the Primacy True therefore it is that he might in right expect obedience in other circumstances from S. Paul and by consequence this Primacy here spoken of was not a dry and barren one as the Dr. would fancy it Sixthly the subsequent words of his not objecting to S. Paul that he had been a persecutour of the Church make it yet more evident since he might with truth have said so but of his goodnes would not since then the foregoing word 's of his having the Primacy are true and the following ones also of S. Paul's having been a persecutour are true also upon what grounds can this Adversary of S Peter's imagine that the midle words importing his rather right to S. Paul's obedience which run on in the same even tenour with both the other should be false or how could he â—hink to evade by deducing from those words that the fathers left us to resolve hence that if hee had claimed any obedience from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him nay making this the summe of his answer to that place Lastly the concluding words but admitted the counsell of truth expressing the result of the whole busines show that iâ— plainly imports an Encomium of S. Peter's candour that wheÌ„ the thing objected against him was true he maintained not his own saying by Authority but made his heâ—gâ—h of dignity exprest there to bee most eminent stoop to the sincere acceptation of truth which in a Superiour and Governour is a most laudable carriage and an unparalell'd commendation And thus Dr. H. comes of in answering S. W. first testimony which being prest speaks more against him then was at first intended being onely brought to show that these fathers thought that manner of carriage between S. Peter and S. Paul exprest Gal. 11. rather argued S. Peter's greater humility then his lesser or equall Authority After Mr. H. had endeavoured by wresting the former testimony to win S. Cyprian and S. Austin to side with him against S. Peter's Authority he proceeds to destroy the Popes
Authority in that Apostles even from domestick testimonies also His own canon law approved publickly by himself as legitimate shall secretly by Dr. H's inspiration play the Traitour and under mine now in these latter dayes the said Authority which till now every one took it to confirme A strange attempt if Mr. H's strength were equall to his courage The place is cited in the Decret out of the 2. Epist of Pope Anacletus which makes it yet more home and terrible against the now adays-Popes it begins thus Post Christum a Petro sacerdotalis coepit ordo After Christ the sacerdotall order began from Peter and soe goes on in other expressions of that strain soe far from prejudiciall that they are very favorable and as for these first words if wee look into the Epistle it self it makes S. Peter the same in order to Christian Hierarchy as Aaron was to the Leuiticall which wee account no small honour He addes saith Dr. H. that the Apostles ipsum Principem eorum esse voluerunt would have him to bee their Prince that is consented he should bee such To which words Dr. H. subjoyns in a parenthesis where he read this I know not Thus Dr H. takes liberty to talk ridiculously yet should I smile at him a little he would excommunicate me again in Greek and his friends would be displeased Anacletus lived in the Apostles dayes and as he tell 's us in the said Epistle was ordained by S. Peter himself yet Dr. H. finds fault with this his assertion because he knows not where he read it Christ and his Apostles came not with books in their hands but with words in their mouths to teach the world their doctrine Therefore Dr. H. should rather have scrupled where he had heard it then where he had read it and put the force of his exception there and then wee could have told him there was none in those dayes for him to hear but onely either Christ or his Apostles and Disciples neither can wee doubt of his immediate conversation with them who was as the same Epistle expresses ordained by S. Peter himself These preambulatory expressions favouring soe much our cause would make one think that the same Author could not bee so forgetfull as to undo vtterly the same Authority in the self same Epistle nay in the next line after he had calld S. Peter Prince of the Apostles nor that Anacletus was such a Courtier as to speak those former kinde words onely for complement sake and afterwards when it came to the point immediately deny all yet Dr. H. expresses him here as speaking first on the one side then on the other and that when on the one side he had given us the former favorable word 's the false tokens it seems of otherwise-meant friendship presently like Margery's good cow which gave a good meal and when she had done kick't it down with her foot on the other side as Mr. H. tells us with equal clearnes he prevaricates from what he had pretended and over-throws S. Peter's supremacy quite The clear words as he calls them are these caeteri verò Apostoli cum eodem pari consortio honorem potestatem acceperunt But the other Apostles in like consortship received honour and power with him Which he never explicates nor applies as his sleighting custome is but puts them onely down and then triumphs upon them as if they could not possibly bear any other interpretation Whereas I make account every good Catholick may grant these words without any difficulty and that they make nothing at all against us For to say that the other Apostles received pari consortio honorem c. in like consortship honour and power does not infer that they received parem honorem potestatem equall honour and power but that as he had received it from Christ so they pari consortio likewise or in like manner as being his fellows received it to Again our tenet granting to each universall Iurisdiction all over the world grants likewise that each precisely under the notion of Apostle that is of one sent to preach Christs faith had a like consortship of honour and power each of them being dignify'd with an unlimited Apostleship and Iurisdiction or power to preach but speaking of the Apostolicall Colledge as a community and soe requiring order of Government wee affirm with S. Hierome that S. Peter was supreme in that respect nor is there any thing to the contrary found in this place Again the words cum eodem appear by their placing to be better joynd with acceperunt then with pari for then they should rather have been put after it paricum eodem c. and soe the whole place imports thus much that though our saviour chose S. Peter to be first yet the rest of the Apostles acceperunt cum eodem received with him that is at the same time he received it in like consortship that is of Apostleship honour and power which was verified when he in a common indifferent expression after his Resurrection gave them their last and unlimited Apostolicall mission euntes in vniuersum mundum praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae Going into the whole world preach the Gospell to every creature By this it appears that the place may have another meaning than that which Mr. H. fancies now that it must have another none but Anacletus him self in the same Epistle shall certifie us who manifests himself as plain a Papist in this point of the Pope's supremacy as either the Cath. Gent. or S. W. Putting down there the orderly ascent of Ecclesiasticall judicatures after that of Bishops being to be judged by their Metropolitans he rises higher to that of Primates and still higher to that of the Apostolicall seat or the Pope's in these words Primates tamen vt praefixum est tunc nunc habere iussae sunt ad quos post sedem Apostol cam summa negotia conueniant yet the Cities are order'd to have their Primates to whom the chief busienesses after the Apostolicall seat may come And a little after Episcoporumque causae summorum negociorum iudiciae Saluà Apostolicae sedis authoritate iustissimè terminentur And let the causes of Bishops and the judgments of the highest matters bee most justly decided by them the Authority of the Apostolicall seat remaining unprejudic'd By these two places wee may take an estimate of Dr. H. solidnes and sincerity who catches at the shadow of a word or two pari consortio in like consortship so waxen natur'd that they are easily capable of a diverse shap't signification and thence argues ad hominem against us that our own Authors and our canon law are clearly opposite to our doctrine whereas he could not but know and see in the very same place that there was noe testimony imaginable more expressely for us or more prejudiciable to him then the said Epistle if wee look after the meaning of the Author in the entire import of it
Authority in question from his being exclusively limited to the Iews when he met with S. Paul in the same Citie and now here though he should grant their preaching in the same city to have been promiscuous and indifferent both to Iews and Gentiles yet hee sayes it manifestly prejudges S. Peter's higher Authority still nothing can come wrong to him let it be exclusive or not exclusive still either part of the contradiction equally fitts his concluding faculty Dull Aristotle Dull Schools and Vniversities who could never light on this secure method of disputing Thirdly let us put this manifest proof into form and it stands staggering thus S. Peter and S. Paul preach't promiscuously to the Antiochians therefore S. Peter had manifestly noe higher Authority then S. Paul Good did not Paul and Titus do the same in other places were they therefore equall in Authority Fourthly observe these words that their promiscuous preaching clearly joyn'd Paul socially with him Here again wee must give Dr. H. leave to talk impertinently and be content not to understand him for if he means that he was socially joyn'd with S. Peter as his fellow-Apostle or fellow-labourer who either doubts it or imagins that it prejudices us but if he means that he was equall in Authority what force of reason can make these two so remote ends meet in a Conclusion he was his fellow-preacher or preach't with him tâ—eâ—efore he was equall in Authority with him as if the community of things under one notion could not stand with their inequality under another or as if wee were not all fellow Christians yet one notwithstanding of greater dignity and Authority then another In answer to his dumbe testimonies which affirmed onely that S. Peter and S. Paul taught the Antiochians and founded the Church there I replyd Shism Disar p. 63. that this might have been done by the promiscuous endeavors of those Apostles Dr. H. undertakes here p. 48. to remove this might be that is to shew it impossible that they promiscuously taught the Iews and Gentiles at Antioch His first argument is drawn from the Inscription of the Rescript which was directed to the Gentiles separately from the Iews that they should abstain from things strangled c. Let us not wrong the argument but put it into form as it deserves The Rescript was directed to the Gentiles and not to the Iews ergo S. Peter and S. Paul did not preach promiscuously both to Iews and Gentiles in Antioch what unseen mysterious wires there are which make this Antecedent and Consequent hang together is beyond my ghesse and proper to Revelation for the words in which he puts most force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the brethren which are of the Gentiles expresse onely that there were some Brethren at Anâ—ioch Gentiles besides some others of another Sect but they expresse nothing at all of preaching nor of promiscuous or exclusive Authority over either or if either be intimated here it must be the former of promiscuous Iurisdiction over the Gentiles since the Rescript was sent to them as well in the name of S. Peter whom he will have onely over the Iews there as of S. Paul whom he places over the Gentiles yet this he calls an Evidence introducing his second testimony thus And besides more Evidence which therefollows Act 15. to the same matter which as superabundant wee must imagine he omitts and chuses this impertinent proof even now related for a more irrefragable Evidence than all the rest After this follows his second proof against their promiscuous preaching out of S. Hierome as hee sayes Seorsim c. the Churches which were of the Iews were held a part nor were mixed with those which were of the Gentiles Which testimony in the space of four pages he makes use of thrice and it deserves to bee made much of by Dr. H. for it is borrowed from the Arch-heretick Pelagius and falsly impos'd upon S. Hierome as hath been shown largely heretofore Sect. 7. As for the argument he makes from it wee shall do it the right to put it into form also which done it stand's thus The Churches of Iews and Gentiles were held a part therefore S. Peter and S. Paul could not impossibly preach both to Iews and Gentiles Thus Dr. H. undertakes to remove my might bee and shew the endeavours of the Apostles at Antioch impossible to have been promiscuous by such a Medium as none can possibly imagine the necessary connexion it hath with other termes What forther reply may by needfull to these words of the Arch heretick Pelagius upon another score is already given when wee treated of it formerly Sect. 15. How Dr. H. omitts to clear himself of his falsification of Scripture His unparellâ—d absurdity that it was forbidden by Moses his law to converse with or preach to a Gentile Dr. H. unwilling that the Iews and Gentiles should communicate in any thing no not even so much as in a common teacher had these very words in his book of Schism p. 75. wee read of S. Peter and the Iewish Proselytes Gal. 2. 11. that they withdrew from all Communion and society with the Gentile Christians upon which S. Paul reprooved him publickly c His Disarmer challenged him to have abus'd S. Peter and his Iewish Proselytes and the sacred Scripture too alledging that in the Text cited by him as the place where wee read it there is noe such word to be read as the large-senc'd All in which the Dr. places the whole force of his argument One would think now that a man who had not over come those triviall considerations of shame and dishonour should either have shown that the solely important word All was in the place which he cited expressely for it and assirmed it was read there or els confesse candidly and ingenuously that hee wrong'd or at least was mistaken in the place he alledged But Mr. H. is of another Spirit when he is challenged of falsifying any place by his self additions seeing it a desperate or impossible task to clear himself he either passes it by with a gravely-Gentile carelesnes or else grows angry would persuade his Adversary to blush when-'tis his owne turn He never goes about to shew us 't is read there where he promis't us it was which was objected and so was his task to clear but instead thereof Reply p. 61. where he undertakes to answer it recurs to an euasion as weak unwarrantable as the clearing his falsification had been impossible His euasion comes to this that since S. Peter abstained from the Gentile diet least he should seeme to offend against the Iewâ—sh law therefore since it was equally against the Iewish law to converse with a Gentile as to eat the Gentile diet he must certainly be supposed to abstain from other communion with them That it was forbidden by the Iewish law to converse with a Gentile he proves first from the Text the Iews have no dealing with the
follows by most absolute necessary consequence that they must be all Schismaticks and Blessed S. Peter their Ringleader But 't is no matter with him rather shall S. Peter instead of being Head of the Church be an Head of Schismaticks than Dr. H. be acknowledged a Schismatick a falsifier and not onely the Authority but also the Sanctity of that holy Apostle be sacrific'd to the Protestant interest rather than so great a Patron of theirs and so saintly a falsifier shall want an evasion to soder his crack't credit Neither let Dr. H. think to escape making S. Peter his Iewish converts Schismaticks by saying that this was a prudent managery onely Rep. p. 62. so iustifiable by the present circumstances since it is most undeniable that the breaking of all Communion with another Church is the extern Act of Schism then let him remember his own grounds layd against himself in his first Chapter of Schism p. 10. that the matter of fact onely is to be considered not the causes or motives Since eo ipso that fact is Schism nor can be iustifi'd from being such by any causes motives or circumstances what-soever Now then since the fact of breaking from all-Communion which the Gentile Church that is of Schism from it is in expresse terms imputed to S. Peter his Iewish Proselytes by Dr. H. I expect then what possible motive this Author can pretend to alledge sufficient to excuse them from Schism whose doctrine it is in the place cited that no motive or reason was sufficient to render matter of fact of this nature excusable or iustify it from being Schism nay damnable worse then sacriledge Idolatry c. as the fathers there cited by D H. avouch The summe then of this part of Dr. H's defence is that he takes no notice at all of his falsifying by adding the onely important large-senc't word All to the Scripture nor attempts to clear himself of it but instead of doing this he goes about to maintain his position counterfeited to be found there to wit that Iewish Christians withdrew from all-Communion with the Gentile ones by this argument that it was equally forbidden by Moses his law to converse with or preach to a Gentile as to eate their diet A paradox so incomparably notoriously absurd that it is at once both perfectly opposite to the law it self repugnant to innumerable examples from Scripture to the contrary the universall practice of the Synagogue injurious to the Iewish Church in it's purest times making them frequently publikely uncontrolledly break the law in a point as he saies equally forbidden as eating the Gentile diet implicatory in terms supposing once the lawfulnes of making a Proselyte impertinent to his present purpose circumstances were it granted expressely contradictory to his own words about which the present contest was raised derogating from those ancient Primitive Christians all charity nay even in the least and sleightest degree and lastly beyond all evasion making them perfectly Schismaticks S. Peter their Ring-leader and that proceeding on Dr. H's own grounds Nor hath he any thing to counterpoâ—ze this heap of absurdities of the Seuenteens but onely a misunderstood place of Scripture of which himself must be the Interpreter which is the right Protestant Method who build their faith upon any Text which seems at first sight to make for them or is hard to explicate although universall Tradition of the foregoing Church importing involving bringing downe to us all imaginable motives of the contrary truth evidence that Interpretation to be impossible But 't is no matter what Dr. H. does or sayes if he can but talk any thing gentilely sleightly the grave negligence must supply the want of sence Truth especially if hee but shut upwith a victorious Epiphonema pronounced with a serious-sobersadnes Repl p. 61. l. vlt. Thus unhappy is this gentleman continually in his objections all is well and his sleight-sould Sermon-admiâ—ers take that to be the rarest Nectar of reason which if examin'd is the most sublimated quintessence of contradiction-absurdity as hath amply been shown Now as for S. Peter's words that it was unlawfull for a man that was a Iew to keep company or come to one that is of ther Nation upon which onely he build his position otherwise altogether destitute of any shadow of proof I answer that the Scribes such like pretenders to a preciser Kinde of holines had lately introduced many customes of their owne forging under the notion of Traditions of some of which they are accused by our saviour and obtruded them upon the consciences of the Iews to be religiously observed especially at Hierusalem the Rendevous of Iewish Doctors and the place where their doctrine had more immediate influence upon the mindes of of thei Auditors Of those precise customes this was one of not going to a Gentiles house or conversing with them To this amongst others S. Peter was inured by long education in so much that though he heard our B. Saviour with his own mouth give them commission to go to preach all over the world in vniuersum mundum and omni creaturae to every creature yet finding employment enough amongst those of the Circumcision he never attempted it till by a vision he was immediately set upon it by Almighty God especially the obligation to his country laying a stronger ty upon him and having received order to preach first to the Iews untill they shew'd themselves unworthy he needed a vision to tell him when that time came circumstances were ripe for it In like manner we read that S. Paul though chosen particularly to preach to the Gentiles Act. 9. 15. yet he affirmed Act. 13 46. that it was necessary that the words of God should first have been spoken to the Iews did not turn to the Gentiles but upon their rejecting him By unlawfull then in this place I take not to bee mean't not against the law of Moses but what their Teachers and Doctors who govern'd their Consciences bore them in hand was unlawfull in the same manner as wee now call many things unlawfull which are not found forbidden by Christ's law but which our Doctours and Casuists iudge to bee unlawfull Again wee read that though the Apostles and Brethren that were in Iudea had heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God Act. 11. v. 1. yet the second verse let ts us know of none that found fault with him save those at Hierusalem onely and that not meerly upon the account of going to the houses of Gentiles but of eating with them also as the third verse expresses But let their zeal have been never so hot to maintain this new-fangled apprehension and let it bee never so universall to abhorre the conversation of Gentiles whiles they remain'd Gentiles yet it is the strangest fancy that ever entred into a rational head to imagin that they should still retain the same uncharitable feud towards them after
presiding over Iews the other over Gentiles argue a limitation of that power it self or at all necessarily touch the interior Right â—uppose I should deny his consequence using Dr. H's word Repl. p. 62. upon a like occasion at Antioch say that this might have been onely a prudent managery a wise ordering designed by S. Peter S. Paul I wonder how he would proceed with his argument prove his consequence that it was intended for a reall not seeming counter-Iurisdiction I am sure as yet he hath not produced any thing at all to disannull this instance of his arguments in consequence nor strengthen'd his proof against this obvious pretence that it might have been thus otherwise Again was there not room enough in Antioch and the like may much better be said of Rome for two to preside preach in could not they divide the City into two halves for the better convenience of their Auditours coming promiscuously to hear their doctrine but there must necessarily be a distinction of the Iewish Gentile caetus the Iewish under one the Gentiles under tother as Dr. H. expresses it Answ p. 48. lin vlt. telling us there that there could not be two Bishops in Rome without this distinction Further let us suppose that the Iewish Christians would not mingle with the Gentiles in the exercise of divine worship where there was this scandalizing diversity of their ceremonies for I cannot think that holding them their fellow Christians they should be so uncharitable as to abhorre their Communion as much as if they had been excommunicate Schismaticks Hereticks or as if they had still remain'd Heathen as Dr. H. contends yet I see no impossibility that S. Peter in his half of the City should some times go to Iewis Congregation sometimes to the Gentile S. Paul do the like in his So that still Dr. H's supple bow of reason is farre from carrying home to his mark or concluding what he purposed Nor let him object that this distinction of the City into two parts signifies exclusion of Iurisdiction when they met It infers no more but that they acted prudently in so doing so as no wise man can be imagind ' willing to do otherwise since common sence teaches us that if two Preachers come to one City each be able to perform his office without the assistance of the other it were the height of imprudence not to separate themselves preach a part nay to show a particular care affection over sight towards their own converts and to let them know 't was convenient they should continue rather with him wtih whom they had begun And this shall serve for an Answer to his lisping testimony out of Epiphanius that S. Peter S. Paul were Bishops in Rome Which Dr. H. Answ p. 48. relies upon as a busines whose force it is not possible S. W. should dicert though neither it nor any testimony else expresse a syllable of S. Peter being over â—ews onely S. Paul over Gentiles is the point to be proved by it but no where exprest save onely in his own falsification interdicting them all Communion his own Thus we know it was at Antioch But to return to his prudent neglects Secondly he was told that the testimonies alledged by himself out of Eusebius and Origen calling Ignatius the second out of S. Ierome calling him the third make against the sitting of those two together his expresse important pretence Yet he never answers these self opposed testimonies but instead of doing so adds two more Reply p. 63 out of Simeon Metaphrastes an Anonymus ancient writer to witnes the same confirm my objection Thirdly he was told that he will never finde S. Paul was accounted a parcell-Bishop in Antioch that he should have a properly call'd successor there c. In order to which he offers us no reply save onely his owne former weak fancy Fourthly that he undid all he had said with a testimony of Theodoret which affirm'd in expresse opposition to his former place out of the Apostolicall Constitutions that Ignatius was ordain'd by S. Peter To which opposite testimony instead of answering he seconds it with a another Reply p. 63. lin vlt. was ever such a disputant heard of Lastly it was objected that the Apostolicall Constitutions upon which he builds was a book excepted against by all sides Theodoret who opposes it in this point was an Author beyond exception and that therefore wee have far more reason to iudge that S. Peter ordain'd Ignatius also then Evodius onely Whence I furthe deduce that if in the Drs. grounds Ignatius were over the Gentiles ordain'd by S. Peter as Theodoret his better Author testifies S. Peter by consequence was over the Gentiles also in Antioch Now what reply attempts Dr. H. against an objection which enervates all the whole Authority he relies on shows him baffled in his own testimonies not a word yet he tells us in Greek that he attends his aduersaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is step by step though hee still auoids him then most warily when his attendance is most necessary Nothing therefore hath Mr. H. reply'd to those concerning Exceptions of mine nothing to his own testimonies in particular though shown to have been against him Yet somthing he must say to every thing in one manner or other that 's resolu'd except it be to shew the falsifying words in a testimony where they are not found in which case he is wisely silent His argument from these contradictory places is founded Repl. p. 64 in reconciling them and making them friends the difference he tells us is but seeming he goes about to remove it which way of arguing in the first place is perfectly absurd unles he first prove the necessity of each testimonies being true which he never attempts otherwise to go about to prove a truth by reconciling falshoods or truths with falshoods is such a new inuention or arguing that Dr. H. hath all the right reason in the world to get a Patent of it that none should use it without his licence Secondly the Authority of the Apostolicall Constitutions is acknowled'gd to be corrupt by the Protestants themselves consequently unles he vindicate first that his main testimony fetc'ht thence is true for any thing he knows he goes about to reconcile a truth with a falshood at least Theodorets Authority standing against it it is iustly presumed to be such which makes Dr. H's plea for his said Patent stronger Thirdly is it such news that Authors should be of severall opinions or was there ever Protestant till Dr. H. who held so even of the fathers themselves yet contrary here to his own Grounds he will have none of them mistaken though they contradict one another he hath inuented a fancy how to reconcile their sayings ere he knows or proves whether they were mistaken or no in an obscure matter of fact done long before their time Nor
cares he what this reconcilement of contradictions costs though it make all Antiquitie blind â—ll his new fangled coÌ„cied or Scholion which he putts down of Schism p. 79. l. 12. gave light to the world yet as long as he can by screwing wresting make them favour his cause he is a man of peace contradictions shall shake hands and bee friends But who is the Vmpire to decide this contradiction-quarrell one God knows whom called Ioannes Malela Antiochenus and the testimony from him is found in a manuscript in Oxford Library that is we may goe look it God knows where Yet we will trust Dr. H. for once in a testimony not extant who hath deceived us so often in those which were publike easie to be examined and take the place as we find it by himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. when Peter went to Rome passing by Antioch the Great Euodius Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch happend ' to dy Ignatius received the Bishoprick S. Peter ordaining enthroning him Was there ever testimony imaginable more expresse against this very point in controversie and that in every particular than this he alledges as the knot of all his proof See his booke of Schism p. 75. l 26. 27. where he contends from the Apostolicall Constitutions that Euodius Ignatius sate at the same time Bishops of Antioch See Ioannes Malela's testimony which was to button together all the rest and conclude the controversy Euodius happen'd to dy Ignatius succeeded him in the Bishoprick See in the true testimony from the Apostolicall Constitutions put downe Schism Disarm'd p. 65. because Dr. H. had falsify'd it Ignatius ordinatus est a Paulo Ignatius was ordain'd by Paul See Malela Ignatius received the Bishoprick S. Peter ordaining him Lastly see in Malela's testimony Bishoprick in the singular Bishop and Patriarch in the singular whereas Dr. H. all over makes it his whole design to prove Bishops two Bishopricks at once in the same City Observe the word Patriarch ask Dr. H. whether he thinks in his conscience there were two Patriarchs at Antioch one over Iews another over Gentiles or where caÌ„ he even preten'd to have read or heard of such an absurd tenet In a word there is scarce any proposition affirm'd by Dr. H. in order to this present point but finds here it's expresse contrary and yet he brings this as the upshot of all his proofs and as that where in he mean't to make all ends meet introducing it here in these confident terms Repl. p. 64. l. 2. 3. that the seeming difference of his former testimonies is removed by Io. Malela Antiochenus who thus sets down the whole matter whereas indeed the matter he sets down is wholy contrary to Mr. H. Does this man care a pin with what false pretences he mocks his Reader abuses his very eyes But was there no design in alledging this testimony or can he make it though quite contrary to his tenet serve his turn for nothing yes for there is nothing so contradictory to Dr. H's doctrine in it's self but by cooking it up hand somely he can make his advantage of it He wedges in two parenthesisses of his own in the middle of the testimony and then all is evident The testimony then as by him put down stands gaping thus when Peter went to Rome passing by Antioch the Great Euodius Bishop Patriarch of Antioch happen'd to dy and Ignatius who was as was said first constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there received the Bishoprick that I suppose must now be of the Iewish Province also over which Euodius had been in his life time S. Peter ordaining enthroning him Now as for the testimony it self taken alone it is expresly against him as hath been shown the onely vertue force of it lies in the parenthesisses and if we examin these the totall strength of the first lies in the words as was said that is by himself for he hath produced as yet never a testimony which says Evodius was constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles the sole force of the latter parenthesis lies in the all-conquering I suppose which is perfectly gratis and without all show of any Ground either in Antiquitie or comon sence as hath been largely manifested And so by this mean's we have gotten two other very strong testimonies to confirm his own we know to wit as was said and I suppose nor have we one expresse word from any testimony save from his own knowledge his own saying and his owne suppositions The result is that this testimony the upshot knot of all the rest is it self absolutely against him and onely brought to countenance his parenthesisses not with it's influence but with it's presence So that his testimonies are as it were the Stock upon which he ingrafts his owne sayings either in the middle by way of a parenthesis or by means of an Id est in antecedent or subsequent words sometimes with distinction sometimes with none and so it matters not with him what nature the Stock it self is of since the fruit of testifying in favour of his tenet is to be expected from the accessory scyons or spriggs his voluntary additions and so need not resemble the Stock which may be of an indifferent perhaps contrary nature Sect 17. How Dr. H. sleightly waves to strengthen his six Testimonies shown invalid by Schism Disarm'd and in particular what work hee makes with a Testimony from S. Prosper HIs six following testimonies to prove that S. Peter was over Iews onely at Rome and S Paul over Gentiles are shown Schism Disarm'd p. 67. 68. 69. first not to have a word in them to that purpose nor intimating any thing which may not aswell much better infer a promiscuous Authoritie than an exclusive one since they onely signify that they founded the Church there and were Apostles Bishops there Secondly he was accused there for calling those obscure testimonies Evidences for the exclusive Iurisdiction of these Apostles one over Iews the other over Gentiles whereas there was not one exclusive particle in any one of them nor so much as Iew or Gentile named by them Thirdly in order to this the notion of an Evidence was set down manifested how far his twilight-testimony-proof were from the pretence of being such Fourthly his sly gullery of the Reader to his face by endeavouring to make him beleeve that the testimonies were parallell to his owne confident affirmation that it was evident was there layd open shown to be a deceit His words of Schism p. 76 being the same is as evident at Rome where these two Apostles met again and each of them erected managed a Church S. Peter of Iews S. Paul of Gentiles whereas the testimonies which he usher'd in with so many Soe 's had not a word to that purpose as was there shown Of all these weaknesses Dr. H. was accused by his Disarmer in answer to which he
tells me Answ p. 48. l. 35. that that wherein Rome was concern'd is reviewed Repl c. 9. where nothing is found to that purpose nor any where else save onely in the Sect. 7. par 6. Where when I came to look in expectation of some return to my exceptions I found that he onely enumerated briefly the same testimonies of his former book his irrefâ—agable one as he calls it from the Popes â—eales his falsification as shall be seen ere long concerning Linus Clemens which he tells us again are evidences that they clear that part which concerned Rome and then having made this learned mock-Reply that is said over again out of his former book what had been excepted against by mee related us back in the margent to that very place in it which I had impugned as thus manifoldly weak he ends with these words that Sure there can be no need of farther proofs or testimonies from Antiquity in this matter That bold fac'd word Sure is a Sure card and Mr. H's Ace of th' trumps there is no resisting it when the game seems quite gone it retrives the losse carries all before it My answer was that all which those testimonies intimated might have been performed by promiscuous preaching of each both to th' Iews Gentiles the summe of his Reply is onely this that Sure it cannot I objected that those testimonies were weak concluded nothing at all of such a distinction he answers that they are clear are evidences that Sure there can need no farther proof So that we have now got a fourth express proofe added to his Wee know I say I suppose to wit his owne Sure the Sure naile fasten'd by the master of the Protestant Assembly Dr. H. As for the testimony of S. Prosper in which he was accused to render Ecclesiam Gentium the Church of the Nations lest S. Peter S. Paul should both have meddled with Gentiles in Rome which words should they be render'd the Church of the Gentiles must necessarily follow he referts me to his Repl. p. 65. parag 10. for satisfaction where he acquaints me with his desire that the truth of his interpretation may be consider'd by the words cited from him The words are these in ipsâ Hierusalem lacobus c. Iames at Hierusalem Iohn at Ephesus Andrew the rest through out all Asia Gentium Ecclesiam sacrârunt consecrated the Church of the Nations sayes Dr. H. Gentiles says S. W. Vpon this testimony Dr. H. argues thus What Nations were these Sure of Iews aswell as Gentiles then follow the Grounds of this his assurance else Hierusalem could be no part of them no nor Iohn's converts at Ephesus for they were Iews and then he concludes his mild-reasoning discourse with as mild a reprehension that therefore the Catholike Gentleman did not doe well Now as for his Sure 't is indeed a pregnant expression but I deny the sufficiency of the Authoritie which so Magisterially pronounces it And for what concerns the Grounds of his assurance they are both of them found onely in his own sayings no where in any testimony my tenet he knows is that all those Apostles preach't promiscuously to Gentiles also where soever they came But lest he should think me hard hearted for not beleeving his Sure I shall at least show my self far from cruelty in making him this friendly proffer that if he can show mee any one word in any testimony yet produc't which expresses that S. Iames preach't to Iews onely in Hierusalem or S. Iohn to Iews onely in Ephesus upon which alone he builds here that Gentium cannot signifie Gentiles I will pardon him the answering this whole book which to doe on any fashion will I know be very laborious shamefull to him but to doe it satisfactorily impossible unles he could put out his Reader 's Eyes so hinder them from reading his corrupted falsified citations aright Is there anything easier then to show us an exclusive particle or expression if any such thing were to be found there But if there be none what an emptines vanity open cozenage of his Reader is it to cry Sure Surely Certainly Vnquestionably and the like when there is no other warrant to ground this assurance save his owne weake fancy inconsequent deductions hâ—s interlac'd parenthesisses his facing the testimonies with antecedent peecing them with subsequent words whiles in the meane time the testimony it self must stand by look on onely like a conditio sine quâ non as if it were an honourable spectator to grace his personating and not have any efficacious influence or act any part in the Argument which bears it's title But to come to the testimony it self first I would know of Mr. H. how oft he hath read Gentes taken alone without any additionall determining expression to signifie both Iews Gentiles unles it be in this sence as it probably might be in S Prosper's time that Gentium Ecclesia signified the Christian Church in which the Iews were included yet being no considerable part of it they needed not be exprest Next as for the word Nations which he recurs to I would ask whether though those in Iudea were styled the Nation of the Iews yet whether those in dispersion at Rome were called a Nation or no or rather a Sect Thirdly let Gentium signifie of the Nations as he would have it let us see how Dr. H. hath advantaged his cause For if it be so then the words Gentium Ecclesiam sacrarunt they consecrated the Church of the Nations are to be applyed to all the Apostles there mention'd Now then since Nations as Dr. H. tells us here is Sure of Iews aswel as Gentiles the testimony must run thus Iames at Hierusalem consecrated the Church of Iews aswell as Gentiles Iohn at Ephesus consecrated the Church of Iews aswell as Gentiles Andrew the rest throughout all Asia consecrated the Church of the Iews aswell as Gentiles and the like of Peter Paul at Rome Thus Dr. H. thinking to stop one hole hath made other three quite destroyes the substance of his exclusive tenet while he went about to mend a circumstance Fourthly if he will not allow this signification of the word given allowed by himself as'applyed to S Peter S. Paul when it was his interest to be appliable to all the rest of those Apostles likewise let us see what an unreasonable beleef he exacts of his Readers to imagine that the word Gentium should dance from one signification to another as his fancy shall please to strike up a diverse tune Hence apply'd to S. Iames S Iohn it must be imagin'd to signify Iews onely because 't is against the interest of his tenet that they should open their mouths to convert a Gentile at Hierusalem and Ephesus But then S. Andrew the rest are not Apostles of the Circumcision so according to him must not preach to a Iew in Asia presently
would it serve your intent that there was exclusivenes in the actuall endeavours of the Apostles but you must evince an Exclusivenes in Right ere you can pretend to limit a Right nor have you brought as yet one expresse word of any testimony to make good the least of these Again if by universall Pastour you mean one who hath Iurisdiction to preach in all places of the world and to all sorts of people as your wise Argument seems to intend you need not trouble your self we grant each Apostle to have been an universall Pastour in this sence but if you mean that S. Peter was not higher in Authoritie amongst the Apostles how does this follow though he were supposed to be limited as a particular Bishop to his private Province or as a Bishop had a flock distinc't from S. Paul's is not even now a dayes the Pope's Bishoprick limitted to the Roman Diocese his Patriarchate to the West and so his Authority under both these notions limited exclusively and contradistinguisht from other Bishops and Patriarchs and yet wee see de facto that he is held chief Bishop in the Church higher in Authoritie then the rest notwithstanding Doe not our eyes and the experience of the whole world testifie this to be so yet were all the former absurd inventions of Apostolicall Provinces their exclusivenes S. Peter over the Iews onely c. granted still his utmost inference would be no stronger then this now related which the eyes of all the world gainsay to wit that because others had their particular assignations Provinces or Bishopriks distinct from S. Peter's therefore S. Peter could not be higher in Authoritie then those others by which one may see that my learned Adversary understands not what is mean't by the Authority he impugns but makes account the Pope cannot be Head of the Church unles he be the particular immediate Bishop of every Diocese in it Whereas we hold him contradistinct from his fellow Bishops for what concerns his proper peculiar assignation and onely say that he is higher then the rest in Iurisdiction power of command in things belonging to the universall good of the Church This point then should have been struck at disputed against not that other never held by us that none in the Church hath his particular Bishoprick or assignation save the Pope onely against which onely Dr. H. makes head while he makes it the utmost aym of his weak endeavours to prove S. Peter a distinct Bishop from S. Paul to have had a distinct flock Sect. 19. Dr. Hammond's method in answering his Disarmer's challenge that hee could not show one expresse word limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions in any of those many Testimonies produced by him for that End and how he puts three Testimonies together to spell that one word His palpahle falsification and other pittifull weaknesses AFter Dr. H's Irrefragable Evidence follow'd immediately of Schism p. 74. And all this very agreable to the story of Scripture which according to the brevitie of the relations there made onely sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the Circumcision and of his being so at Rome we make no question Vpon these words his Disarmer Schism Disarm p 73. enumerated as many significations imported by that word onely as were obvious confuted them severally because he found the words ambiguous telling him that neither doth Scripture onely set down S. Peter as Apostle of the Circumcision but Iames Iohn also Gal. 2. 9. nor is S. Peter any where exprest as Apostle of onely the Circumcision but expresly particularized the contrary Act. 15. 7. His Answer p. 50. affords us a third signification so impossible for S. W. to imagin as it was to foresee all the weakneses Dr. H's cause could put him upon 'T is this that the words onely is set clearly in opposition to the Scripture's making more particular relations of S. Peter's preaching to the Iewish caetus at Rome c. Now had the Scripture produced by him made any particular relation at all of any such matter then indeed his onely might have been thought to mean the want of more particular relation c. but if in no place alledged by him there had been found the least particular relation at all either of a Iewish caetus at Rome or S. Peter's preaching to it particularly or indeed so much as intimating his preaching in that City then what ground had Dr. H. given me to imagine that the restrictive particle onely was put in opposition to a more particular relation from Scripture of that of which the Scripture had given me no relation at all Is there a greater misery then to stand trifling with such a brabbler To omit that take away the former parenthesis from having any influence upon the words without it as it ought then one of the significations given by me is absolutely unavoidable But against the first signification impugned by me he challenges my knowledge that he could not mean so without contradicting himself and my knowledg challenges his conscience that he cannot be ignorant how he contradicts himself frequently purposely upon any occasion when he cannot well evade As for the second sence I conceived that ambiguous word might bear I repeated my challenge to him Schism Disarm p. 73. that If he could shew me the least syllable either in Scripture or other testimonies expresly and without the help of his Id ests and scruing deductions restraining S. Peter's Jurisdiction to the Iews onely excluding it from the Gentiles I would yeild him the Laurell and quit the Controversie This challenge though offered him before p. 52. 53. p. 68. yet he here first accepts not for the Laurell's sake he remitts that to S. W. but upon so tempting an hope as to be at an end of Controversie which I dare say he repents he ever medled with yet was hee very hasty to begin with Controversies voluntarily unprovoked and now when he sees himself answer'd unable to reply the moderate man growes weary wishes himself at an end of them as if he thought himself when hee begun first so great a Goliah that there could not be found in the whole Army of the Church a sling and a stone to hit him in the fore head Ere I come to lay open how he acquits himself of this accepted challenge I desire the Reader to consider first the import of it which is to exact onely of him to show one exclusive word exprest in order to S. Peter's Iurisdiction in any one of those many testimonies he produced for that end Secondly let him candidly observe what infinite disadvantage I offer my self what an incomparable advantage I offer my adversary in such an unparalleld proffer and condescension one restrictive word for the restrictive point now in question between us makes him and undoes mee Thirdly let him remember how Dr. H. call'd those proofs Evidences for that restrictive point
the whole Controversie being about the limitation or illimitation of Iurisdiction and the totall scope of that first half of c. 4. to limit S. Peter's to the Iews onely Fourthly hence follows that it is mainly important most absolutely necessary that Dr. H. should now lay hold of this fair occasion to lay the Axe to the root of Rome as he exprest his intent Answ p. 11. Fifthly the conditions of the victory are the most facil that can be imagin'd for what easier than to shew one exclusive particle as onely solely alone or some such like exprest in any testimony if any such thing were there Sixthly it is to be observed that he hath accepted of the challenge so stands engaged to shew some such word exprest in some testimony Seventhly he is allured to do it by the tempting hope to be at an end of Controversie as himself confesses And lastly unles he come of well from so condescending so easy a challenge already accepted of that is unles he show some such exclusive particle exprest in some testimony he cannot avoid manifesting himself the most shamefull writer that ever handled pen the most pernicious ruiner of Souls that ever treated controversy the most insincereconscienc'd man that ever pretended to the name of a Christian if in treating a question about Schism in which is interessed mens eternall salvation damnation as himself proves amply of Schism c. 1. and the most fundamentall point thereof as himself likewise confesses this to be which concerns S. Peter's universall Iurisdiction Answ p. 74 hee cannot produce nor pick out one expresse word to that purpose from that whole army of his testimonies which he call'd Evidences but from his own words onely So that all the motives imaginable conspire to maâ—e Dr. H. as good as his word the hazard of his Reader 's eternall damnation the care of his owne conscience of his owne credit the hope to be at an end of Controversie none of the least to him as he is caught in these present circumstances promise of victory the extreme moderation facility of the understanding and lastly his owne acceptation here of the challenge By this time I know the Reader expects that Dr. should come thundering out with a whole volly of testimonies shewing in each of them plain words expressing his tenet at least that he should produce some one expresse particle limitting S. Peter's Authoritie without the help of his scruing deductions as he promist his challenger But he never so much as attempts what he late pretended thâ—t is he attempts not to show any expresse word in any testimony but instead there of prevaricates to his old shuffling tricks huddles together three testimonies and fancies a shadow like allusion from one to the other and thence adventures to infer a conclusion What is this to our question or my challenge it debarr'd his scruing deductions and required some one expresse restrictive word he linkes three citations together to make a sleight glosse which no one alone could do and then deduces concludes which was interdicted by his self-accepted challeÌ„ge What need three testimonies strung together to shew one restrictive word or what relation hath the pointing out to us such a word to the inferring a conclusion from three testimonies I desired he promist me some one word which was express that is which needed no conclusion at all he puts me of with a conclusion onely which intimates there was never an express word His deductions are his the words are the testimonies I never challeng'd him that he could not deduce the most ivicy conclusion from the most flinty testimony as he did the best in all his book of Schism from the bare monosyllable come My challenge was that his deductions were loud his testimonies quite dumbe without one expresse word in them to his purpose This word which would have sav'd gain'd Dr. H. so much credit Ease I desired should be shown me But since he is silent in pronouncing it he gives it for granted that he could produce none and so the Reader I know what to think of him whose self-conciet dares hazard his Reader 's Salvation upon his owne bare unauthorized sayings and altogether unwarrantable imaginations Now as for his three testimonies themselves they are the former old ones already answered over over towit that from Gal. 2. of the imagin'd agreement for exclusive Provinces that of Epiphanius saying that the two Apostles were Bishops in Rome and that of the Arch heretick Pelagius concerning the holding a part the Iewish Gentile Churches The first he can make nothing of without an Ellipsis which he makes up himself Our bargain was that he should show me some exclusive word exprest in any one of his citations for his exclusive tenet and the first of the three loÌ„g letterd testimonies which by being put together were to spell this one exclusive word is imperfect without something understood that is notexprest Good The whole force of the second from Epiphanius lies in this word Bishops which yet affirms S. Peter S. Paul to have been at Rome which word is so far from being of an exclusive signification that it is common inclusive of both Yet he tells us here that it is expresse makes it more ample by reciting it thus that in Rome Peter Paul were the same persons both Apostles Bishops What force he puts in the same persons none but himself can imagin since none ever dream't that Epiphanius spoke of two different Peters Pauls whom he call'd Bishops from those he call'd in the same line with in the same comma Apostles And as for his last testimony 't is borrowed froÌ„ the Arch-heretick Pelagius as hath been shown heretofore Sect. 7. Moreover grant that the Congregations of Iews Gentiles were for a while during the heat of the Scandall held a part at Antioch and some other places yet this Arch-heretick's testimony expresses not it was so at Rome when the Apostles met there which was some years after that fit of Iewish zeal at Antioch and the vehemency of the Scandall by the Apostles prudence went on mitigating every day So as this unauthentick testimony borrow'd from the wicked Pelagius hath not one expresse word of exclusion even of the Iewish caetus at Rome much lesse of the Apostles were exclusively over those two caetusses as he terms them nor hath Dr. H. any reason to think that all the Iews of the dispersion were thus zealous since we may gather easily Act. 13. 42. that both Iews Gentiles were together when S. Paul preached at the Synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia and most expressely Act. 14. v. 1. 19. we read that in Iconium Paul Barnabas went both together into the Synagogue of the Iews so spake that a great multitude both of the Iews also of the Gentiles beleeved Which besides that it shows plainly the Iews there thought it not against
Dr. When he say's that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not set to denote all the severall sorts of caetus in Asia I ask doâ—s it exclude any or is it set in opposition to the Iews if not how can it possibly signifie the Gentile part onely for which hee produced it my blindnes then Reader consists in this that I would not renounce the most common light of nature think that an whole a part is the same nor consent to believe that the words an whole entire Nation signifie one sort of people living there or part of that Nation onely In order to these late testimonies it is to be observed first that our tenet makes the Pope over the whole Church in this sence not that he governs each particular Church immediately but that he is chief in Authority over those inferior Bishops Metropolitans c. who are the immediate Governours of those particular Churches and so he becomes mediately in this sence over all Churches or the whole Church Secondly our parallel tenet of S. Peter is not that when he was Apostle he could preach in more places then another but that he had an higher Authority then the other each of which could preach in any or all places of the world and that when he was fixt Bishop he had an influence of Authority over any other Apostles when they were fixt Bishops in other places not that he was immediate Bishop or Metropolitan of their particular Bishopricks Thirdly hence is evident that the proofs which can prejudice this point must signifie that those particular Apostles Metropolitans or Bishops had none superior to themselves and by consequence who were mediateâ—y over their Churches and that it avails nothing at all nor comes to the point to prove that such such were over such such particular Iurisdictions immediately no more than if some writer 500. years hence should argue that the Pope was not in the year 1650. Supreme Governour in our Church because he findes at that time such a one Primate in France another Arch-bishop of Toledo in Spain Fourthly it is no lesse evident that Dr. H's pretence that it is manifest that S. Peter had nothing to do either mediately or immediately in governing the Churches of Asia from the former testimonies which exprest onely that those Churches or that country were under those Apostles or Bishops without a Syllable signifying that those Apostles themselves were not vnder an higher Apostle and so their Churches mediately subject to him it is evident I say that he hath not produc't a word to prove his position except his own It is manifest and consequently it was no artificiall trick but plain downright naturall Truth to challenge him with that palpable weaknes Fiftly his whole processe is in another respect totally impertinent frivolous His fundamentall intent was to limit the Iurisdictions of the Apostles as such to make them mutually-exclusive under that notion by giving to each proper Apostolicall Provinces and here proceeding to make good that his intent he proves them limitted as they were Bishops which is a quite different thing For every Bishop as such is over his own peculiar flock and particulariz'd to it where as that of an Apostle being not a settled Authority as the other hath not in it's own nature any ground to be constant to such but may be promiscuous to all Though it was not forbidden to any Apostle to settle himself in some particular seat so become a Bishop of that place The result then of all the former testimonies is this that Dr. H. avoyd's the whole question of the mediate Government of S. Peter which is the point his Adversary holds and disproves the immediate onely which wee never held and when he hath done tells his Readers Answer p. 56. S. W. hath little care to consider that wherein the difficulty consists when as himself never toucht the difficultie at all But I had forgot the beginning of his 14. par that S. Iohn had the dignity of place before all other in Christ's life time even before S. Peter himself Now I went about to parallell it by the proportion an elder Brother hath to a younger which is a precedence without Iurisdiction so resembles Dr. H's dry Primacy But the Dr. Answ p. 55. catches my similitude by one of those feet by which it was not pretended to run add's to it excellencie of power of his own head which was never named nor insisted on by me and when he hath done say's that 't is an addition of my fertile fancy whereas I never pretended it as his words but my parallell nor yet put force in the superiority of Iurisdiction but in that of a dry precedency onely neither meaning nor expressing any more by highest in dignity than himself did by dignity of place before all others In his Answ p. 54 he tells us he mention'd two things of Iohn 1. of Christ's favour to him and this he say's is infallibly inferr'd from the title of beloved Disciple I stand not upon the thing both because 't is unconcerning our question true in it self onely I am glad to see that Dr. H. is more certain in his inferences than his Church is of her faith since he is confident of his infallibility in those whereas in this to wit in faith he onely affirm's that it is not strongly probable his Church will erre Repl. p. 16. At length Protestant Reader thou seest whether thou art to recurre for thy infallible Rule of faith to wit to Dr. Hâ—s inferences The second is S. Iohn's dignity of place before all others which he say's was irrefragably concluded from the leaning in his breast at Supper Here again Dr. H. is irrefragable infallible yet he no where reads that S. Iohn thus lean'd on Christ's breast more then once nor can we imagin that our Saviour taught his Disciples that complementalnes as to sit constantly in their ranks at meat seeing that in this very occasion to wit that very night he forbid such carriage by his own example and that euen at meat Luke 22. v. 26. 27. Lâ—â— him that is grâ—atest among you be as the younger he that is chief as he that doth serve For whether is greater he that sitteth at meat or he that serveth Is not he that sitteth at meat But I am among you as he that serveth So far was our Saviour from giving occasion for over weening by any constant partiality of placing them at table that his expresse doctrine and example was to bring them to an humle indifferency and that in serving one another much more in sitting before or after another But to return to Dr. H. as he is Master of ceremonies to the Apostles places them at table His doctrine is that S. Peter had a Primacy of order onely amongst the Apostles without Iurisdiction which consequently could be nothing but a dry complementary precedency to walk stand or speak first
that the greater part of them will be arrant fools First putting down a company of expressions totally disanulling S. Peter's Authority and immediately quoting for them 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Next when he is challenged of falsifying instead of showing any word there more then the poor monosyllable Come saying he onely mean't it was conclusible or deducible thence And lastly instead of concluding proving or deducing that Iurisdiction limiting sence from those words which at least was necessary onely saying the same words over again asking some questions to which he knew the answer long ago bidding his Answerer supply his turn prove telling us we dare not do not affirm what his own knowledge what his own eyes assure him we both dare do in this very present Controversy and then concluding all with an If built upon the former no doubt bred in his own head grounded upon his own fancy Is such an Adversary worth the losse of an hour's time to confute were it not that the Authority he hath got by a sleightly-connected Sermon enabling him to do some mischief amongst the more vulgar made it necessary to lay him open plainly to show how unsafe it is for them to let their Salvations rely in the least upon so incomparably weak a Controvertist THIRD PART Containing a Refute of Dr. H's second fundamentall Exception against the Pope's Authority from the pretended equall donation of the Keys to S. Peter Sect. 1. How Dr. H's Shuflingly avoids either to acknowledge or dâ—sacknowledge the notion of an Evidence given What he means by his Evidences and what is to be expected from Catholikes in managâ—ng a Wit-controversy concerning Scripture His weak attempt to clear himself of Prevarication Injuriousnes and Calumny objected MY 13. Section in Schism Disarm'd begun with putting down the true notion of an Evidence having already shown p. 17. that nothing but a perfect certainty sprung from such rigorous convincing proofs could rationally oblige the understanding to assent and that all assents sprung from that were originiz'd from passion Whence follows that the first Protestants could no way rationally relinquish the Authority Government of the former Church they were bred in conclude in their thoughts that her Doctrine was false her Government an usurpation unles moved by the said light of evident demonstrative Reasons that is unles they had grounds sufficient in their own nature to convince them that it was so and could not but be so For surely even in common prudence it had been the most rash action imaginable to hazard the most greeveus sin of Schism consequently an eternity of misery to their Souls upon probability onely How great a favour Dr. H. had done himself who though he begun first to write yet now Answ p. 50. l. 32. expresseth a great desire to be at an end of Controversie and how great a kindnes he had confer'd on S. W to have answer'd positively to these two points I or no to wit whether lesse then such a rigorous Evidence could iustify the renouncing an Authority possession so qualified and whether his pretended Evidences I or no were such I need not much declare The whole controversy depends upon these two hinges will quickly finde a decisive conclusion if these points were positively answer'd to vigorously pursued Now my notion of a Testimony Evidence Schism Disarm p. 88. was this that the testimony it self must be authentick beyond dispute and the words alledged so directly expressing the thing to be proved that they need no additions or explications to bring them home to the matter but are of themselves full ample clear such as the Alledger himself were he to expresse his thoughts in the present Controversy would make choice of to use Whether he likes this definition of a Testimony Evidence or no he is resolu'd wee shall not know He dares not be negative or say he dislikes it because what ever testimony falls short of this falls short likewise of proving that the thing must be and so concludes onely that it may be which being too weak a ground in the iudgment of every prudent Conscientious man to hazard his Soul upon as he must if he begin to Schismatize upon no better Grounds he saw it could turn to his disgrace if he deny'd the notion given or pretended that lesse Evidence would serve in a Controversy about Schism nor durst he bee affirmative or approve of it because he saw he had not produced one testimony in his whole book worth a straw if it were brought to that Test nor worthy to bestyled an Evidence Wherefore being in this perplexity and as the proverb is holding a Wolf by the ears he recurs to his old Prevarications and instead of approving or disapproving of my Description of an Evidence tells me Answ p. 58. what he meant by his own Evidences to wit that he takes Evidence in the familiar vulgar notion for a testimony to prove any Question of Fact either in the Affirmation or the nagative But what kinde of Testimonies these must be which can serve in such a concerning discourse whether such as I described heretofore manifesting that the thing must be or not be or probable ones inferring onely that his Affirmative or Negative may be or whether these Testimonies need be proofs at all but branches of accordance onely or spoken in agreement as almost all the Testimonies he hath hitherto produced were he defines nothing By his carriage in his book of Schism he seems to mean these latter onely nor do his words here exact more then onely a testimony not expressing any thing at all concerning the quality of this testimony whether the Authority of it must be valid or invalid clear or obscure expresse or dumbe entire or maim'd with an Ellipsis originally proving oâ— agreable onely set down right or corrupted falsified an Orthodox Fathers or an Arch-Heretick's all is one with Dr. H. still that testimony is one of his Vulgarly-Styl'd Evidences and so vulgar half-witted Souls will rely upon them in a Controversy importing no lesse then their eternall Salvation In the same place of Schism Disarm'd Dr. H. was charg'd with prevaricating from his pretended promise instead of bringing Evidence of his own solving our pretended ones and that this was to sustain a different part in the dispute he first undertook to wit the part of the Defendant for so we used ever to style him who solved objections He answers that the one possible way to testify any negative is to take a view of the places the Affirmers pretend and to shew that those places have no such force in them Obserue these canting words the one possible way so handsomly preparing for an evasion which though more likely to signify the onely possible way as Vnus is often taken for Solus in Latin yet he hath a glosse in readines to say he meant ' otherwise But because he puts not down the other
Bishop and his consistory afterwards which was I deated in this first consistory of the Apostles wherefore since Dr. H. grants no higher degree of Authority in S. Peter than in the rest of the Apostles he can conclude no more but this that the Presbyters are all equall in Authority as the Apostles were that is there ought to bee no more-highly-authoriz'd Bishop over them but onely that one of those equally-dignify'd Presbyters ought to sit talk or walk before the rest according to Dr. H's explication of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Primacy of order Thus whiles the Dr. disputes from this place against the Presbytery he falls into Popery As for what he tells me here that it is the interest of S. W. as well as of the Protestants to mantain this point against the Presbyterians who a lone can gain by the questioning it I answer that I love the Presbyterians so well as not to wish them renounce their reason that is man's nature which they must doe if they assent to what the Protestants say upon a probability onely nay a totally improbable and rather opposit Text. Nor should I wish them so much hurt as to beleeve Episcopacy unles I made account the Catholick Church was able to give them rigorously convincing evidence for her Authority asserting it which is impossible the Protestants should do unles they plow with our heifer and recur to our Rules of faith universall Tradition so oft renounc'd by them for other points Observe Reader that I had shown his explication of this place of Scripture against the Presbyterians to make unavoidably against thim self Schism Disarm'd p. 95. In reply to which dangerous point Answ p. 66 par 16. he onely calls my reasons expressions of dislike to his argument against Presbytery that it is not pertinent to the question that it hath not as he supposes any show of the least diâ—ficulty in it and so ends As if my showing that our tenet follows more naturally out of the words even as explicated thus by him self were onely an expression of dislike impertinent to our question or had not if proved any show of the least difficulty in it yet he braggs at the end of this Section that he hath attended me precisely and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 step by step though he makes when he spies danger such large skips over me Solution 8. The words feed my Sheep are nothing but an â—xhortation to discharge that duty to which he was beforâ— commissionated Rep. p. 68. par 10. p. 63. Reply had he ever a particular Commission given him correspondent to the particularizing promise but here or was not the word pasce spoken imperatively by a Master to his servant as apt to signify a Commission as the words Goe teach all Nations were how then appears it from the words that this was onely an exortation and if it does not what is it more then Dr. H's own saying Solution 9 The circumstances in the Text can never work a change in the matter an inculcated expresse particulariz'd explication introduc'd with a question to quicken and impresse it can never be converted by these accumulationâ— into a Commission for supremacy Answ p. 63. Reply first you must show that the words persuade it was onely an Exhortation else all this and your following discourse falls to the ground Next such particularizing circumstances to S. Peter in the presence of the rest are apt in their owne nature to make him or any man living ready to apprehend that the thing promised belonged to him in a particular manner els to what end serv'd they would noâ— a common promise have sufficed if this had not been intended Thirdly there needed no converting the signification of the pasce from an Exhortation into a Commission of Supremacy The word was apt before of it self to signify a Commission the accumulation of particularizing circumstances gave it to signify a particular Commission Let the reader examin Dr. H. by what force of the words he proves t' is an exhortation onely since the words themselves are words of Commission there being nothing proper to a meer exhortation in them And as for the Drs parallell here that Christ's praying the same prayer thrice did not make it cease to be a prayer and commence a precept t 's soe silly as a sillier cannot be imagin'd since neither the words of Christ's prayer are apt to be converted from a praying to a commanding signification nor was it likely or possible that Christ should impose precepts upon his heavenly father to whom he pray'd as he could upon S. Peter not lastly is it onely the thrice saying that wee build upon as abstracted from all the other particularising circumstances but the thrice saying a precept and a precept thus exprest Solution 10. The asking him thriâ—e lovest thou me made S. Peter no doubt deem it a reproach of his thrice denying his Master Answ p. 63. The Text saith Peter was greeved because he said vnto him the third time Lovest thou me which Sure he would not have been if he had looked on it as an introduction to so great a preferment Reply Dr. H. hath here at unawares bewray'd what kinde of Spirit he is of who makes account that the getting some great preferment is a ground of more gladnes then our Saviours seeming to doubt of his love to him would be occasion of sorrow But he shall give me and all good Christians â—eave to think that good S. Peter was of another temper and that he valued the good opinion of his Master questioning so much his love to him above the attainment of any dignity imaginable Though I must confesse Dr. H's Noe doubt and Sure upon which all depends are two sure cards were they authoris'd by any thing besides his own words and 't is a very competent answer with him to say he is sure and there is no doubt but that S. Peter gap't so much after a preferment that he car'd not in comparison of it what opinion his B. Master had of him in order to his loving him Again how do the words soe put it beyond all doubt that the asking him thrice lovest thou mee was deemed by S. Peter a reproach of his thrice deniall whereas the Text tells us that S. Peter was fully persuaded of his Masters knowledge of his love and confidently appeal'd to that knowledge Lord thou knowest all things thou knowest that I love thee Nor have wee any ground to think that S. Peter apprehended his sweet Master so cruell as to upbraid a forgiven sin especially seeing the return of so much love in the breast of his dear Disciple If Dr. H. pretend that it was to excite in him a greater care of Christ's flok the words indeed give countenance to it But then it should be ask'd what necessity was there of exciting a greater care in S. Peter in particular had he shown him self of soe negligent a nature as to give occasion of doubt that
used these words They were all fill'd with the Holy Ghost and so this promise equally performed to all But being shown the infinite weaknes of his arguing from fulnes to equality he shuffles about neither positively standing to his pretended proofby going about to make it good nor yet granting or denying any thing positively or giving any ground to fix upon any word he says but telling us first in a pretty phrase that he is not concerned to doubt of the consistance of fulnes and inequality of the Holy Ghost if it bee mean't of the inequality of divine endowments and then when he should telle us the other part of his distinction and of what other inequality besides that of endowments and graces the Holy Ghost can be said to be in the Apostles founding Commission and so concerning him to impugn and deny he shufflingly ends thus Our question being onely of power or Commission to Authority and dignity in the Church and every one having that sealed to him by the Holy Ghost descent upon every one there is no remaining difficulty in the matter Where first he sayes the question is of power and dignity whereas indeed it is of the equality or inequality of this dignity not of the dignity it self since none denyes but that each Apostle had power in the Church but that the rest had equall power to S. Peter Secondly he never tells us in what manner of the Holy Ghosts inexistence besides that of divine indowments this Authority was founded Thirdly he instances onely against us that every Apostle had power so tacitely calumniating our tenet again and leaves out the word eqâ—ally which could onely contradict and impugn it Fourthly that this coming of the Holy Ghost gave CoÌ„mission and Authority is onely his owne worâ—s and proved from his own fancy And lastly when he hath used all these most miserable evasions he concludes that there is no remaining difficulty in this mattâ—â— when as he hath not touch't the difficulty at all but avoided it with as many pitifull shift's as a crafty insincerity could suggest to an errour harden'd Soul Sect. 6. Our Argument from the Text Tues Petrus urged his arts to avoid the least mentioning it much lesse impugning it's force which hee calls evacuating it With what sleights hee prevaricates from it to the Apocalyps His skill in Architecture and miserably-weak arguing to cure his bad quiboling Dr. H. of Schism p. 89. 90. alledged some Testimonies out of the fathers affirming that the power of binding was conferred on all the Apostles that the Church is built upon Bishops that all in S. Peter received the Keyes of the Kingdomio of Heaven that Episcopacy is the presidency of the Apostles Now since Dr. H. pretends to impugn our tenet by these and these infert onely that more Bishops have the power of the Keyes besides S. Peter it follows necessarily that he counterfeihed our tenet to be that none had this power but S. Peter onely Hence Schism Disarm'd charged this either insincere or silly manner of discoursing upon him as a pittifull ingnorance or els as malicious to pretend by objecting these that wee build not the Church upon Bishops in the plurall nor allow any Authority to them but to the Pope onely Hee replies Answ p 69. that 't is apparent those words inject not the least suspition of that I answer 't is true indeed for it was not a suspition they injected as he phrases it but plain and open evidence see of Schism p 89. l. 28. 9. where after the testimony had told us that the Church is built upon Bishops the Dr. addes within a parenthesis in the plurall so placing the particular energie and force of that place in the plurality of Bishops founding the Church See again p. 90. l. 11. 12. c. S. Basil calls Episcopacy the presidency of the Apostles the very same addes the Dr. that Christ bestowd upon all and not onely on one of them Yet as long as Dr. H. can deny it and say with a gentile confidence that 't is apparent his words did not inject the least suspition of that words shall lose their signification and his Readers if he can compasse it shall be fool'd to deny their eye sight As for the Testimonies themselves there is not a word in them expressing that this power was in like manner entrusted to every single Apostle as well as to S. Peter which yet he sayes p. 90. l. 16. 17. c. if by as well he mean's equally as he must if he intend to impugn our tenet And the other sence which Answ p. 70. l. 2. 3. he relies on that from the Donation to S Peter all Episcopal power which in the Church flows and in which he puts force against our tenet it as much favours and proves it as the being the fountain and source of all honour and Magistracy in a Commonwealth argues that that person from whom these flow is highest in dignity and supreme in command in the same common wealth After this he catches at an expression of mine saying that the former Testimonies rather made for us which moderate words though I hope the later end of my former paragraph hath sufficiently iustify'd them yet wee must answer the impertinent carpings of our Adversary else the weak man will be apt to think that the shadow he catch't at is most substantiall and solid My word 's in relation to the said Testimonies were these Nay rather they make for us for the Church being founded on Apostles and Bishops prejudices not S. Peter to be the cheefest and if so then the Church is built most chiefly on S. Peter which is all wâ—e Catholicks say Now my discourse stands thus If so that is if S. Peter be the cheefest then the Church is built more chiefly upon him and I made account as I lately shew'd that those Testimonies rather made S. Peter the chiefest but this peece of willfull insincerity first makes my if so relate to if it prejudices not c. and disfigures my discourse by making me say if it prejudices not S. Peter to be the chiefest then the Church is built chiefly upon him and that I inferr from Testimonies not preiudicing that the thing is true Next he calumniates me most grossely and manifestly Answ p. 70. l. 35. 36. by making me bring this for a clear Evidence on my side whereas my words Schism Dism p. 99. are onely Nay rather thâ—y make for us which are so far from pretending a clear evidence from them that they neither expresse the least reliance on them not say positively that they make for us at all He shall not catch mee calling toyes Evidences as is his constant guize yet to render his calumny more visible he prints the words clear evidence in a different letter so that the honest Reader would easily take them to be my words Then when he hath done hee grows suddainly witty anâ— insults over me without mercy calling mee an
his most partiall Admiter if he have not absolutely renounc't his reason resolved the slender fading thing into the Drs Authority must see confess he was wilfully fraudulent intended to breed in the Readers minde by the words thus maimedly falsly put another apprehension than the testimony it self rightly dealt with could have caused Yet as long as this Enemy to Truth true dealing makes zealous professions of his entire desire to speak the full Truth of God and that he did in the sincerity of his heart verily beleeve and such like womanish demurenesses he hopes there will be found a company so weakly simple as to give him credence and that his moderate bashfull language will to these good weak sighted Souls be a cloack thick enough to hide or excuse his immoderately shamefull deeds Of such kinde of falsifications Reader I could afford thee variety were it necessary but I have already done enough to secure thee from this Drs Arts and the consequence of them Schism as maintain'd asserted by him Peruse my book attentively thou shalt observe I never call his materiall error in transcribing a falsification I doubt not but I could show thee one hundred such of his for my single one were it worth the pains but onely when I manifest the advantage he got by such a carriage which he never goes about to show in those he objects to mee Again thou â—eest how easily those falsifications he pretends as mine are clear'd nay shown to thine eye to be unconcerning toies or groundles willfull calumnies His which I objected in Schism Disarm'd are left by him unclear'd as this Treatise hath from place to place shown thee And so Reader I leave thee to thy candid thoughts which I desire thee to employ in ruminating upon the Dr. as put in this pickle requesting of thee in mine Adversary's behalf not to be too rigorous in thy censures of him abate as much as the consideration of humane errablenes frailty can suggest to a rationally-compassionate minde onely be not partiall in what is evidently fraudulent and then thou shalt right Truth thy self mee too by one impartially ingenuous rationall act I have onely one word to speak to the Dr. and then I take my leave You see Dr. H. it will not do no tricks can prevail against Truth she will conquer and knows how to defend herself by the weakest Weapon Were it not better now to give God and his Church the honour due to them and show at length your willingnes to acknowledge faults so plainly undeniably open than to continue your fruitles pains to show your self unretractably obstinate Nor do I impute them however I may seem rigorous too plain originally to you I know the necessity of your cause obliges you forcibly to rely on such uniustifiable waies I know and your self cannot but know the same how miserably you are glad to pervert the words voluntarily mistake and thus mistakingly propose to your Readers the true import and sence of your Testimonies and to content your self with any sleight gloss which not your impartiall judgment gives absolutely to be the meaning but what your partiall fancy can imagin may be defended on some sleight fashion to be the meaning See in the Index what undeniable self contradictions weaknesses absurdities voluntary mistakes falsifications your task of defending Schism hath put you upon Be true to your own best interest a sincere conscience be true at least to your own honour and neglect for the future the defence of that cause which must inevitably throw you upon such Rocks The further you reply the worse it will still fare with you For to clear your self of these falsifications other manifold faults satisfactorily is impossible eye-sight attesting them not to clear your self of them is doubly disgracefull fluttering up down as your way of writing is entangles you more Sit still and you will be safer You cannot but see acknowledge that your position of a probable faith leads directly to Atheism if follow'd and that since none has reason to assent further then he has reason that is further then the reasons given convince and since no probability can possibly convince the thing is true or that the Authority speaks true it is impossible any man living can have any obligation in your Grounds to assent that any point of faith is true or any Authority to be beleeved nay if he will not renounce his nature he ought to suspend in both these that is embrace no faith at all The necessity of holding which tenet so fundamentally pernicious to all Christianity so odious to all good Christians unavoidably follows out of your principles of Schism built upon the rejecting the onely certain Rule of faith immediate TraditioÌ„ and the consciousnes to your self that your weak testimony-way reaches no further than probability enforces you to own it and aym at no higher a pitch of satisfaction that is none at all for how can probability satisfy Look behinde you then see what a great deal of industry time you have fruitlesly lost in turning over promiscuously multitudes of Authors without first studying Grounds that is without first laying your thoughts in order with evident deduction from and connexion with first Principles This task onely is called knowledge the former without this is more apt to lead to ignorance mistake leaving onely a confusion of motley incohereÌ„t thoughts in a mans head impossible to be orderly rank't in the posture of knowledge unles regulated by fore layd Grounds Look before you and you shall see many late wits whose gallant self-understanding Souls own their nature rationally scorn to submit to any assent but upon rigorous demonstrative Evidence either of the thing it self in Science or of the Authority in faith Suffer your self to be won to the imitation of these pursvers of knowledge leave talking words begin to speak Sence leave of to diffuse scatter abroad your fleeting thoughts in a Sermonary Preaching way and begin to connect them into rigorous discourse that is instead of aiery talk begin to iudge know instead of empty florish learn to be solid Ina word aym seriously to know that is to assent upon Evidence and then I am confident our understandings will meet in a ioynt-assent and I hope our wills in a consent submission to the Authority of that Church whose Rule of faith immediate Tradition is evidently demonstrable This Sâ— is the hearty wish of him who however you may apprehend him protests he preserves a more prompt zeal naturall alacrity to honour serve you in what you can iustly be concieved deserving than he hath to discover the faults your tenets made you commit which yet was at present his unavoidable duty the truth of your miscariages being ioyn'd to the certainty concernment of his cause you iniur'd by them YOVR SERVANT S. W. FINIS THE APPENDIX VINDICATED AGAINST
THE PRETENDED REPLY OF Dr. Bramhall L d of Derry THE INTRODVCTION LITTLE remains to bee reply'd to my second Adversary in substantiall and fundamentall points either in behalf of R. C. or S. W. if those passages in which I bring Dr. H. to Grounds bee duly reflected on since neither can my Lord of Derry deny but that there is now a breach made between us in the points now controverted nor does hee pretend demonstrative and rigorous Evidence that the Pop'es Authority was an vsurpation and so their renouncing it no criminall breach but a lawfull self-enfranchisement Nor lastly does hee endeavour to shew that less than such rigorous Evidence that is that probable reasons are sufficient ground to renounce such an Authority and soe strongly supported by a long possession an vniversall delivery of immediate forefathers as come from Christ c. or that it was prudence to hazard a Schism consequently their salavations upon the uncertain lottery of a probability This was all which fundamentally concern'd this Controversy and this is wholly omitted by his fellow Mr. H. aswell as himself and consequently till they speak out directly to this point to do which they are ever very warily loath they can onely hope it from courtesy not claim it from iustice that they are vouchsafed any answer at all since they who will not bee drawn to speak to the purpose deserve to been neglected and suffer'd to talk to no purpose Now for satisfaction how little can bee said to those most concerning points to omit other places I refer my Reader to Sect. 9. 10th of the 2 d part of Schism Disarm'd left in a manner wholly unanswer'd as yet by Mr. H. and to my Grounds before the foregoing Treatise In answer to the Title Down-Derry hee shows himself mystically proverbiall and tells the amused Readers that it were strange if hee should throw a good cast who seals his Bowl upon an undersong I must confess the Bp. is far the better Bowler that S. W. is so unexpert as not to understand what should bee mean't by sealing a Bowl vpon an undersong Onely lest hee should conceit some petty victorie in having thus pos'd his Adversary hee may please to take notice that it nothing concerns him for the Bp is beholding for the title Down-Derry and consequently the world for this rare bowling phrase sprung from that happy occasion to the merry stationer who without my knowledge or approbation would needs make it the post-past to his Bill of fare The iest was very proper fatall but whether courteous or no I leave the Bp. and him to scuffle for it and address my self to a serious examin of the Bishop's Reply Wee have seen already that hee is a good Bowler let us see now whether hee bee an honestman Sect. 1. How my L d of Derry omits totally to mention the second part of our charge and preuaricates from answering any title of the first by cavilling groundlesly at unconcerning toyes giving us generall terms in stead of the particular thing falsifying openly the Council of Ephesus contradicting common sence of controvertist turning Lawyer and impugning the Extent of the Pope's Authority instead of the substance of it wilfully misrepresenting every word of our Rule of faith as put down by his Adversary and lastly by plainly confessing hee will not answer our charge or Objection IT was objected that the crime of Schism would appear to bee iustly charged upon his Church not onely with colour but with undeniable Evidence of fact by the very position of the case and the nature of his exceptions Meaning that there was a manifest fact of renouncing and breaking from an Authority long acknowledg'd as of Christ's Institution upon Exceptions short of Demonstration that is short of power to convince a rationall understanding that is Passion not those reasons must move first the will and by it the understanding to a conuiction that is the breach or Schism was criminall Now the good Bishop First leaves out the second part of these words the nature of his Exceptions which concern'd himself and puts down onely the first part to wit the position of the case Whereas wee charge them not with Schism upon this single account that they broke from a formerly-acknowledg'd Authority which is the position of the case but that they broke from it without hauing Evident demonstratiue reasons and Exceptions against it but at best pretended probable ones onely that is such as are no waies either able to oblige the understanding to assent upon them nor sufficient Grounds to renounce any Authority at all much less an Authority held sacred before thus qualify'd For what a slack thing would the world bee if probable Exceptions of the subjects I mean such as are held noe more than probable by the subjects themselves should bee held sufficient ground to disacknowledge their Governour 's right and alter the present Government Would any Government in the world remain on foot three years to an end if this method were allow'd and practised unles perhaps force preuaild over reason The Bishop had good reason then to omit that which concern'd the nature of his own Exceptions For though himself and his friends love extremely to talk prettily yet they cannot endure the reasons which make up their Discourse should bee brought to the test or their validity to convince the understanding scann'd that is they love not to speak out whether they bee demonstrative or probable onely They dare not assert the former conscious that their best way of discoursing is onely thetoricall topicall and for the most part quibbling and blūdering in a wordish testimony whence no demonstration or it's proper effect conviction is likely to bee expected Nor yet dare they for shame confess the latter knowing that a probability though never so strong still leaves room for a may bee-otherwise and so can never conclude that the thing must-bee that is can never without iniury to a rationall nature claim it's assent that the thing 〈◊〉 for how can any man in reason assent that the thing is so upon that motive which very motive permits that it may not bee so It was not therefore dishonesty in the Bishop going about to impugn his Adversary to omit one halfe of that which hee grounded himself on but a great deal of prudenc◠and warines or indeed a kind of necessity Secondly proceeding upon this mistake of his own hee wrangles with us for calling this our chief objection against them as king us if stating the question and objecting bee all one No sure if wee speak rigorously but a Charge against one is often call'd an Objection Now ours against you which you here purposely mutilate is this that you left a preacknowledg'd Ecclesiasticall Authority upon fantastick Exceptions that is unpon uncertain Grounds Which objection if verify'd so euidently concludes you wilfull Schismaticks that it is impossible to bee cloak't or evaded Now the first part which cōcerns
fact and acknowledged by Protestants viz that the Church of Englands Principle was actually such and such at that time into the point and tenet it self which is question'd and controverted bâ—tween us His words are these p. 6. Thirdly hâ—e addeth that the Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Iâ—e er inherited his priviledges whereas hee ought to have repâ—esented my words thus that the Principle agreed on by the Church of England and the Church of Rome before the breach was such and thâ—n have told us what hee thought of it by â—â—her expressing a deniall or â— grant But positivenes even in things manifest and acknowledg'd is a thing thâ— Bishop hates wiâ—h all his heart for were I or noe said to any point the discourse might proceed rigoâ—ously upon it which would marr all the Bp voluntary talk It follows in my words put down by him p. 6. that the Bishops of Rome actually exercised this power viz of first mover in the Church S. Peter's priviledge in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began Mee thanks it is not possible to avoid being absolute here But nothing is impossible to the Bp. hee either will not speak out at all or if hee does it must bee of no lower a strain than flat contradiction Hee tells us first that it cometh much short of the truth in one respect and why for the Pope's saith hee exercised much more power in those countries which gave them leave than ever S. Peter pretended to So that according to the Bp. hee did not exercise S. Peter's lesser power because hee exercised a power far greater that is hee did not exercise S. Peter's power because hee exercised S. Peter's power and much more which is as much as to say Totum est minus parte and more does not contain lesse A hopefull disputant who chuses rather to run upon such rocks then to grant that the Pope actually govern'd as supreme in those countries which were actually under him A point which it is shamefull to deny dangerous positively to confess and therefore necessary to bee thus blunder'd Secondly hee tells us that it is much more short of that universall Monarchy which the Pope did then and doth still claim And why for saith hee as I have already said observe the strength of his discourse his saying is proving two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion meaning the Greeks Armenians c. Are moderate expressions of shamelesnes sufficient to character this man who in every line manifests himself in the highest degree deserving them Our position as put down even by himself was this that the Pope's did actually then exercise this power in those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome and the Bps answer comes to this that hee did not exercise it in those countries which kept not Communion with the Church of Rome But to give the Reader a satisfactory answer even to the Bps impertinences I shall let him see that the Pope exercis'd his power at that time even over those countries as much as it can bee expected any Governour can or should do over revolters whom hee cannot otherwise reduce As then a Governour exercises his power over obedient subjets by cherising them and ordering them and their affairs soe as may best conduce to their common good but cannot exercise it over contumacious and too potent Rebells any other way than by proclaiming them Outlaws and incapable of priviledges or protection from the laws of the Commonwealth so neither could it bee imagiâ—'d or expected by any rationall man that the Pope in those circumstances though hee were supposed and granted by both sides lawâ—ull Governour could exercise power over them in any other way hâ—n onely in iâ—flicting on them Ecclesiasticall punishments or censures and excommunicating or outlawing them from that Commonwealth which remain'd obed enâ— to him as he Bp. complainingly grant hee did Having thus shustled in every tittle of the staâ—e of the question hee accuses his Refuter that hee comes not neer the true question at all Can there bee a more candid stating a question and free from all equivocation than to begâ—n with a known matter of fact and acknowleâ—geâ— by boâ—h sides and thence to conclude those acters 〈◊〉 is breakers Schismaticks unles they can bring â—â—fficâ—ent reasons to warrant such a breach But let uâ— examiâ— a litâ—lâ— the ground of his Exception The true question saith hee is not whether the Bishop of Râ—me had any Authority in the Catholiâ—e Church Good Reader ask the Bp. whether his Refuter or any Catholike or even moderate Protestant ever mouâ—d such a question and whâ—ther it bee not frivolousnes and insincerity in the abstract to impose on us such as stating of the question whenas every child sees it is not barely his havâ—ng any Authority but his having a supreme Authority which is question'd and debaâ—ed between us and the Protestant It follows in him immediately The Pope had Authority in his Diocese as a Bishop in his Province as a Metropolitane in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs and all over as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church or S. Peter Where all the former words are totally besides the purpose nor ever made the question by us as the Bp. calumniates But the last words which grant the Pope had Authority all over as successour of S. Peter deserve consideration and thanks too if meant really for these words grant him an Authority more than Patriarchall nor a â—â—y primacy onely but an Authoriâ—y all over that is a power to act as the highest in Gods Church and in any part of the Church that is an universall Iurisdiction all over or over all the Church at least in some cases Now in this consists the sustance of the Papall Authority and had they of England retain'd still practically a subjection to this Authority as thus character'd they had not been excommunicated upon this score onely But the misery is that this our back-friend after hee hath given us alâ— this fair promising language that the Pope's Authority is higher than Patriarchall as the Climax in his discourse signifies that it is all over or universall and lastly that hee hath this universall Authority as hee is successour of S. Peter after all this I say if hee been prest home to declare himself as before hee granted S. Peter the first mover in Church and then told us that in a right sence it meant but a Primacy of order so hee will tell us the same of these flattering expressions and thâ—t the words Authority doth not in a right sence signify a power to act as a Governour though all the world else understand it so but onely a right to sit talk or walk first Et sic vera rerum nomina amisimus Thus my Refuter hath shown that I stated the question wrong now let us
hear him state it right The true question saith hee is what are the right bounds and limits of this Authority and then reckons up a company of particularities some true most of them coâ—â—erning the extent of the Pope's Authority iâ—self and debated amoÌ„gst our owne Canon-Lawyers some flat lies and calumnies as whether the Pope have power to sell palls pardons and Indulgences to impose pensions at his pleasure to infringe the liberties and customes of whole nations to deprive Princes of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their Allegiance c. Was ever such stuff brought by a Controvertist or was ever man soe frontles as to make these the true state of the question between us that is to preteÌ„d that our Church holds these things as of faith To manifest more the shallownes of my Adversary the Reader may please to take notice of the difference between the substance of the Pope's Authority as held by us and the extent of it The substance of it consists in this that hee is Head of the Church that is first mover in it and that hee hath Authority to act in it after the nature of a first Governour This is held with us to bee of faith and acknowledg'd unanimously by all the faithfull as come from Christ and his Apostles so that none can bee of our Communion who deny it nor is this debated at all between Catholike Catholike but between Catholike and Heretike onely Hence this is held by our Church as a Church that is as a multitude receiving it upon their Rule of faith universall Attestation of immediate Ancestours as from theirs and so upwards as from Christ and not upon criticall debates or disputes of learnedmen The extent of this Authority consists in determining whether this power of thus acting reaches to these and these particularities or no the resolution of which is founded in the deductions of divines Canon-Lawyers and such like learnedmen and though sometimes some of those points bee held as a common opinion of the schoolmen and as such embraced by many Catholikes yet not by them as faithfull that is as relying â—pon their Ancestours as from theirs as from Christ but as relying upon the learnedmen in Canon-law and implicitely upon the reasons which they had to judge so and the generality's accepting their reasons for valid which is as much as to say such points are not held by a Church as a Church no more than it is that there is an Element of fire in Concavo Lunae or that Columbus found out the Indies The points therefore are such that hee who holds or deems otherwise may still bee held one of the Church or of the Commonwealth of the faithfull nor bee blameable for holding otherwise if hee have better reasons for his tenet than those other learned men had for theirs as long as hee behaves himself quietly in the said Commonwealth Perhaps a parallel will clear the matter better The acknowledgment of the former Kings of England to bee supreme Governours in their Dominions was heretofore as wee may say a point of civill faith nor could any bee reputed a good subject who deny'd this in the undifputable acknowledgment of which coÌ„sisted the substance of their Authority But whether they had power to raise ship money impose subsidies c. alone and without a Parliament belong'd to the extent of their Authority was subject to dispute and the proper task of Lawyers nor consequently did it make a man an Outlaw or as wee may say a civill Schismatick to disacknowledge such extents of his Authority so hee admitted the Authority it self I concieve the parallell is soe plain that it will make it 's owne application This being settled as I hope it is so let it stand a while till wee make another consideration A Controversy in the sence which our circumstances determine it is a dispute about faith and so a Controvertist as such ought to impugn a point of fâ—ith that 〈◊〉 hee ought to iâ— pugn that which is held by a Church as a Church or that which is held by a Church upon her Rule of faith Hence if the Government of that Church bee held of faith according to it's substance and not held of faith according to it's extent hee ought to impugn it according to the substance of the said Government and not it's extent otherwise hee totally prevaricates from the proper office of a Controvertist not impugning faith but opinions noâ— that Church as a Church and his Adversary but falsly supposing himself as it were one of that company and to hold all the substance of it's Authority hee sides with one part of the true subjects and disputes against the other in a point indifferent to faith unconcerning his duty These things Reader observe with attention and then bee thine own judge whether hee play not the Mountebank with thee instead of the Controvertist who in his former book pretended to vindicate the Church of England which renounced the substance of this Authority by impugning the extent of it onely and here undertaking to correct his Refuter and state the question rightly first grants in very plain but wrong mean't terms the whole question to wit that the Pope hath Authority over the whole Church as successour of S. Peter and then tells thee that the true question is about the extent of it and what are the right limits and bounds of this Authority which kind of questions yet hee knows well enough are debated by the obedient and true members of that Commonwealth whence hee is Outlaw'd and which hee pretends to impugn His 8th page presents the Reader with a great mistake of mine and 't is this that I affirmed it was and is the constant beleef of the Casholike world by which I mean all in Communion with the Church of Rome whom onely I may call Catholikes that these two Principles were Christ's owne ordination recorded in Scrpture Whereas hee cannot but know that all our Doctourâ—s de facto did and still do produce places of Scripture to prove that former Principle to wit that Tradition is the Rule of faith as also to prove S. Peter's higher power over the Apostles nor is it new that the succession of Pastours till wee all meet in the Vnity of Glory should bee Christ's own Ordination and recorded there likewise Nor can I devise upon what Grounds hee and his fellow-Bishops of England who hold Scripture onely the Rule of faith can maintain their Authority to bee iure divino unles they hold likewise that it bee there recorded and bee Christ's Ordination that following Pastours succed into the Authority of their predecessours But the pretended mistake lies here that whereas I said the Bishops of Rome inherited this priviledge from S. Peter mâ—aning that those who are Bpâ— of Rome being S. Peter's successours inherited this power hee will needs take mee in a reduplicative sence as if I spoke of the Bishop of Rome as of Rome and
ten years to ten years and wee tell him that this Rule is a manifest Evidence because 't is impossible the latter age should bee ignorant of what the foregoing age beleeved Hee runs away from Tradition or the delivering to points delivered and tells us they must come downwards from the Apostles uninterruptedly ere they can bee certain Whereas this point is confest by all and avouched most by us who place the whole certainty of faith in this uninterrupted succession The point in question is whether there be any certain way to bring a point downwards uninterruptedly from the Apostles but this of Tradition or attestation of immediate fathers to sons or rather wee may say 't is evident from the very terms that it could not come down uninterruptedly bur by this way since if it came not down or were not ever delivered immediately the descent of it was mediate or interrupted and so it came not down uninterruptedly The like voluntary mistake hee runs into when hee calls the Apostles creed a Tradition since hee knows wee speak of the method or way of conveying points of faith downwards not of the points convey'd But I am glad to see him acknowledge that the delivery of the Apostles creed by a visible practice is an undeniâ—ble Evidence that it came from the Apostles If hee reflect hee shall find that there is scarce one point of faiâ—h now controverted between us and Protestants but was recommended to his first Reformers by immediate forefathers as derived from the Apostles in a practice as daily visible as is the Apostles creed and that the lawfulnes of Invoking saincts for their intercession the lawfulnes of Images Praying for the Dead Adoration of the B. Sacrament c. and in particular the subjection to the Pope as supream Head were as palpable in most manifest and frequent circumstances as was that creed by being recited in Churches and professed in Baptism After I had set down the first part of the matter of fact to wit that at the time of the Reformation the Church of England did actually agree with the Church of Rome in those two Principles I added the second part of it in these words It is noe lesse evident that in the dayes of Edward the sixth Q Elizabeth and her successours neither the former Rule of Vnity in faith nor this second of Vnity in Government have had any power in that Congretion which the Protestants call the English Church The Bp. who must not seem to understand the plainest words lest hee should bee obliged to answer them calls this down right narration of a matter of fact my Inference and for answer tells us hee holds both those Rules Well shuffled my Ld pray let mee cut Either you mean you hold now the sence of those Rules that is the thing wee intend by them and then you must say you hold the Pope's supremacy and the Tradition of immediate forefathers both which the world knows and the very terms evince you left of to hold at your Reformation or else you must mean that you hold onely the same words taken in another sence that is quite another thing and then you have brought the point as your custome is to a meere logomachy and shown yourself a downright and obstinate prevaricatour in answering you hold those words in stead of telling us whether you hold the thing or noe Possum-ne ego ex te exculpere hoc verum The Principle of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome immediately before your Reform was de facto the acknowledgment of the Pope's Authority as Head of the Church the Principle of Vnity in faith was then de facto the ineheriring from or the immediate Tradition of Ancestours De facâ—o you agreed with those of the Church of Rome in those two Principles de facto you have now renounced both those principles and hold neither of them therefore you have de facto broke both those bonds of Vnity therefore de facto you are flat Schismaticks As for what follows that there is a fallacy in Logick â—all'd of more interrogations than one I answer that there is in deed such a fallacy in Logick but not in my discourse who put no interrogatory at all to him As for the two positions which so puzzle him the former of S. Peter's being supreme more than meerly in order hee knows well is a point of my faith which I am at present defeâ—ding against him and have sufficiently exprest my self p. 307. l. 1â— c. by the words first Mover â—o mean a Primacy to act first in the Church and not to sit first in order onely The latter point is handled in this Treatise in its proper place No sincerer is his 12. page than the former I onely put down p. 308 what our tenet was and hee calls my bare narration my second inference and when hee hath done answers it onely with voluntary railing too silly to merit transcribing or answering The matter of fact being declared that actually now they of the Church of England had renounced both the said Principles it was urged next that his onely way to clear his Church from Schism is either by disproving the former to bee the necessary Rule of Vnity in faith or the latter the necessary bond of Government for if they bee such Principles of Vnity it follows inevitably that they having broke them both as the matter of fact evinces are perfect Schismaticks since a Schismatick signifies one who breaks the Vnity of a Church What sayes my Ld D. to this this seems to press very close to the Soul of the question and so deserves clearing Hee clears it by telling us wee are doubly mistaken and that hee is resolu'd to disprove neither though unles hee does this the very position of the matter of fact doth alone call him â—chismatick But why is hee in these his endeavours to vindicate his Church from Schism so backwards to clear this concerning point Why first because they are the persons accused By which method no Rebell ought to give any reason why hee did so because hee is accused of Rebellion by his lawfull Governour Very learnedly Now the truth is wheresoever there is a contest each side accuses the other and each side again defends it self against the the others accusations but that party is properly call'd the defendant against which accusations or objections were first put and that the OpponeÌ„t or Aunswerer which first mou'd the accusations It being then most manifest that you could not with any face have pretended your Reform but you must first accuse your former actuall Governour of vsurpation your former Rule of faith of Erroneousnes it follows evidently that wee were the parties first accused that is the defendants you the accusers or opponents for whoever substracts himself from a former actuall Governour and accuses not that Governour of something which hee alledges for his motive of rising that person eo ipso
accuses himself since then wee never accused you of breaking from our Goverment till you had broke from it and you could not have broke from it without first accusing the say'd Government and objecting some reason against it as the motive of your breaking You must therefore oppose and alledge those reasons and show them sufficient ones else your very fact of renouncing that former Government doth unavoidable convince you of Schism Next hee tells us that if the proof did rest on their sides yet hee does not approve of my advice And I dare swear in the Bps behalf that hee never spoke truer word in his life and will bee bound for him that hee shall never follow any advice that bids him speak home to the point or meddle with such a method as is likely to bring a speedy end to the Controversy Make an Heretike speak out saith S. Augustin and you have hâ—lf-confuted him But what reason gives hee why hee disapproves of my advise Will hee shew us a more easy efficacious or likely way to bring the dispute to a finall Conclusion His reason is because saith hee it is not wee who have alter'd the doctrine or discipline which Christ lefâ— in the Church but they c. and so runs rambling forwards with his own sayings to the end of the Section All the world sees and Dr. H. acknowledges you have alter'd the discipline left in the Church of England in K. H's dayes and now you are to give a reason to iustify this alteration you tel us you have made none I am not ignorant of the dexterity with which you have shuffled a reserve into those words which Christ left in the Church to persuade the Reader the discipline of the Church of England in H the â—th's dâ—yes was not the same which Christ left to his Church But I prest no more than that it was used then as a thing held to have been inherited from Christ and that it was then and still is a bond of Vnity to all â—hose that communicated in it and therefore that you now reiecting it must either shew it to bee no necessary bond of Vnity or necessarily remain convinced of destroying Vnity that of Schism Mee thinks a man who pretends to answer should either say I or No they are usvally the returns wee make to questions But S Austin's saying is Oracle no speaking out hee thanks you Hee knew well enough that either part of the Contradiction own'd would have some means to go about to disprove which by destroying all doubt in the case would have destroy'd his own and the Authority of all those who speak against Evidence Altum silentium is all you can get from him onely in the hard streight hee is driven to of either saying nothing or nothing to the purpose hee tels you hee is not obliged to answer because hee has not alter'd the discipline left by Christ to his Church of England in K. H. the 8th's dayes of which my objection runs 't is false even to ridiculousnes for I cannot imagin hee fancies his Authority can so much over sway the simplicity of any Reader his book will meet with as to hope to make him beleeve the Church of England in his Lops time had the same discipline she had in K. H's dayes If hee mean of the discipline left by Christ to the Primtive times 't is no less false and more impertineÌ„t first in answering of the Primitive times to an objection concerning the time of H. the 8. Secondly whenas I begun with an evident matter of fact beyond alldispute and thence grounded a progress to a decisive discourse in skipping aside to a point mainly disputable between us in stead of answering to that Evidence and which is still weaker by thinking to carry that whole matter by barely saying it And if the Reader please now to review the Bishops first Section with a narrower eye I am confident hee will percieve that besides that hee hath not said a word in answer to us above three quarters of the said Section is made up of this stuff to wit of reuolving and repeating over his own tenets and the very question and talking any thing upon his own Authority without a syllable of proof and twice or thrice where hee pretends any they are mere falsifications abuses as hath been shown I must request the Reader whom the love of truth may invite to seek satisfaction in perusing a book of this nature to right himself the Bp. and mee by giving a glance back upon my words p. 306. 307. where I affirmed that it would appear that Schism was iustly charged upon his Church with undeniable Evidence of faith by two things viz out of the very position of the case and out of the nature of his Exceptions How hee hath reply'd to the first which is the position of the case hath already been shown to wit that hee would not speak one positive word I or no to a plain matter of faith nor bee willing to step forwards one step by answering directly to any thing which neerly concern'd the question but stood continually capering and flickhering up and down in the air at the pleasure of his own fancy As for the second thing to wit that it would appear out of the nature of 〈◊〉 Exceptions I show'd that hee in reciting my charge had purposely omitted that as loath his Exceptions should bee brought to the test of Reason or have their sufficiency examin'd And to let thee see that hee did this purposely looke Schism Disarm'd p. 309. and thou shalt see the whole paragraph which concern'd that second point omitted without any Reply pretended I shall therefore repeat it again here and leave it to the Bishop's second thoughts They must remember how their forefathers who began that which they call Reformation were themselves of this profession before their pretended Reform They ought to weigh what reasons their Ancestours should have had to introduce such an alteration They must confess themselves guilty in continuing the breach unles they can alledge causes sufficient to have begun it had the same ancient Religion descended to these dayes For the constant beleef of the Catholike world was at the time of our division and still is that these Principles are Christ's own ordination recorded in Scripture derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our nature is capable of to attain assurance what was done in Antiquity Evidences inviolable by any humane either poweror proof except perfect and rigorous demonstration to which our Adversaries doe not so much as pretend and therefore without farther dispute remain unanswerably convicted of Schism I suppose I need not inform the Reader what service it would have done to the Controversy and how necessary it was for my Ld D. to tell us whether his reasons were rigourously evidencing or demonstrative or else that less than demonstrative reasons that is probable ones would serve This would quickly have decided the busines
Evident reason and thine own eyes tell thee Reason tells thee 't is evident they renounc't those tenets which were the Principles of Vnity to the former Church both in faith and Government Reason tells thee that such a fact is in it's own nature schismaticall unles they can produce sufficient motives to iustify it Reason tells thee that noe motives less than certain that is demonstrative ones can suffice to alledge for such a revolt which yet they never pretend to Therefore reason tells thee and any one who understands morality and nature as evidently as that two and three are five that their revolt did not spring from the pure light of reason but from an irrationall Principle that is from passion and vice And so wee cannot but judge them obstinate and consequently Schismaticks unles they can show us these sufficient that is demonstrative reasons to excuse their otherwise manifestly schismaticall fact or if wee do wee must renounce the light of our own reason to do them an undeserved favour Thus much in generall Now as for this Bp. in particular Thou hast seen him shuffle up and down when hee should have answer'd to the charge objected Thou hast seen him wilfully mistake all over to evade answering Thou hast seen him totally omit so much as to mention one half of the charge and totally to avoid the whole import nay every tittle of the other There needs nothing but thine own eyes directed by any first Section to make all this evident to thee 'T is by these evident testimonies of thine eyes these undeniable verdicts of thy reason Reader by which thou must judge of these men whether they bee carefully inquisitive after readily embrace the truth or rather bee obstinate Schismaticks and not by the dark holes of their consciences which they assert to bee sincere by their bare sayings ouely obtrude them thus weakly authoriz'd upon they easy credulity and then tell thee thou must beleeve S. Austin that they are guiltles and acquitted from Schism In the second place I glanced at the inconsequence of his proof that those Bishops were not Protestants because they persecuted Protestants instancing in some sects of Protestants which persecuted others Hee replies what then were Watham and Heath c. all Protestants Then My Ld which is onely the question between us your argument was naught for let them bee accidentally what they will you cannot conclude them no Protestants from the persecuting Protestants as long as 't is shown and known that those who were Protestants did the same Secondly if they were Protestants hee demands of which sect they were I answer that as between every species of colour which wee have names for there are hundreds of middle degrees which have no names or as in a perpetuall motion there are millions of unnam'd proportions sow'd all along in it's progress to whose quantities wee can give no particular names so within the latitude of the name Protestant or Reformer and every sect of it there are thousands of others soe petite and minute that they have not deserved a name from the world I see the Bp. mistakes us and his own sect for hee makes account the Protestant Profession and it's subordinate sects are fixt things which may bee defined whereas Experience teaches us that the fellow in the fable might as easily have taken measure of the Moon to fit her right with a coat as one can imagin one notion to fit the word Protestant 'T is ever in motion like the rowling sea and therefore hath such an alloy of no ens in it that it admits noe positive definition but must bee described like a privation in order to the former habit No-Papist and a Reformer is the best character I can make of it Since then those Bishops were Reformers and no-Papists for they renounced the Pope's Authority which gives this denomination reformed in that point it follows that they were Protestants though the new-born thing was not as yet christend with any other name than that common one of Reformation But my Ld. D. makes account that none can bee a Protestant unles hee hold all which the now-Protestants doe Whereas 't is against nature and reason to expect that the Protestants could at first fall into all their present negative tenets nemo repentè fit turpissimus The former faults must by degrees get countenance by growing vulgar quotidian an by little little digest their shamefulnes ere the world could bee prepared to receive or men's minds apt and audacious enough to broach new ones First they renounc't one point then another and so forwards till at lenghth they have arrived to Quakerism which therefore is the full-grown fruit of the Reformation Thirdly whereas I told him those Bishops by renouncing the Pope held the most essentiall point of their Reformation and so had in them the quintessence of a Protestant The Bp. first calls this our Reformation as if wee had not ever held them Schismaticks that is separated from our Church for doing so Since then they went out from us by that fact they left to bee of us and if they were not of us how was it our Reformation in any other sence than as the Rebellion of those who were true subjects before is to bee imputed to those who remain true subjects still was ever common sence so abus'd Next hee braggs that then to wit if renouncing the Pope bee essentiall to a Protestant the Primitive Church were all Protestants which is onely sayd and flatly false that then all the Greciâ—n Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day which is onely said again and partly true partly false and that which is true onely steads him soe far as to evince that the Protestants are not the onely men but have fellow-Schismaticks And lastly that then they want not store of Protestants even in the bosome of the Roman Church it self which to speak moderately is an impudent falshood and a plain impossibility For who ere renounces the substance of the Pope's Authority and his being Head of the Church doth ipso facto renounce the Rule of Vnity of Government in our Church and by consequence the Rule of Vnity of faith which Grounds and asserts the former that is such a man renounces and breaks from all the Vnity of our Church and so becomes totally disunited from our Church Now how one who is totally disunited and separated from the whole body of our Church can bee intimately united to her still no understanding but the BP s can reach which as Mithridates could use poison for his daily food can without difficulty digest contradictions and findes them more connatural and nutritive to his cause than the solidest demonstrations Now if my L d D. bee not yet satisfy'd with my reasons p. 311. that the renouncing the Pope is essentiall to Protestantism to which yet hee is pleased to give no answer I send him to learn it of his friend Dr. H.
who of Schism p. 145. l. 5. seems even to strain sence it felf to express this calling this disclaiming the Pope's power tbe Bottome upon which the foundation of Reformation was laid that is the foundation of their foundation their fundamentall of fundamentalls Now then how those Bishops should not bee then Protestants who held the fundamentall of fundamentalls of Protestantism passes my skill to explicate and as I am persuaded my L ds too Sect. 3. How my L d of Derry endeavours to clear his Church from Schism by bringing Protestants to speak in their own cause nay the very Act or statute for which wee accuse them as an undeniable Testimony for them Likewise how hee produces for his chief Plea a Position opposit both to his own and our party's acknowledgment nay to the very eysight of the whole world twisting in it self a multitude of most direct contradictions and lastly quite annihilating at once all the Papists in the world HIs third Section pretends to make good his second grownd for dividing from the Church which was this because in the separation of England from Rome there was no now law made but onely their ancient liberties vindicated This I calld as I could do no less notoriously false and impudence it self alledging that a law was made in H. the 8th's time and an oath invented by which it was given the King to bee Head of the Church and to have all the power which the Pope did at that time possess in England Hee asks if this bee the language of the Roman Schools No my L d it is and ought to bee the language of every sincere man who bears any respect to truth shame or honesty against those who are profest and sworn Enemies of all three in case his circumstances have put him upon the task to lay such persons open and confute them Hee appeals to any indifferent Christian judge I decline not the Tribunal nay more I shall bee willing to stand to the award of the most partiall Protestant living who hath but so much sincerity as to acknowledge the Sun's shining at noonday or that the same thing cannot both bee not bee at once But. First hee goes about to acquit himself by confessing that hee sayd no new law was made then but denying that hee said no new statute was made Wee will not wrangle with him about the words onely I say if there were something new it was new and a statute made and approved by the King and his Parliament as this was wee Englishmen use to term a law if then there were a new statute made as hee confesses I concieve I have not wrong'd in the least the common language of England to call it a new law But his meaning is that King H. the 8th did noe new thing when hee renounced the Pope's Authority but what had been done formerly and therefore Secondly hee quotes Fitz-herbert and my Lord Cook who say that this statute was not operative to create a new law but declarative to restore an ancient law That is hee quotes two of his own party to prove hee sayd right and two Protestants to speak in behalf of Protestants Convincing proofs doubtles against us Thirdly hee promises to make it appear undeniably Whence or from what Authority from the very statute it self which sayes That England is an Empire and that the King as Head of the body politick consisting of the Spirituality and temporality hath plenary power to render finall iustice for all matters That is hee quotes the schismaticall King himself and his schismaticall Parliament who made this statute to speak in their own behalfs Does such a trifler deserve a Reply who in a dispute against us cites the authorities of those very persons against whom wee dispute nay that very Act of theirs which wee are challenging to have been schismaticall and relies upon them for undeniable Testimonies Fourthly hee alledges another statute made in the 24. of King H. the 8th the best hee could pick out you may bee sure yet there is not a syllable in it concerning spirituall Iurisdiction directly that is not a syllable to his purpose 'T is this The Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subjected to God in all things touching it's Regality and to no other and ought not to bee submitted to the Pope Wee are disputing about spirituall Iurisdiction and whether it were due to the Pope and the Bp. brings a statute which fpeaks of the Crown of England it self as not to bee submitted to the Pope as touching it's Regality that is a statute which expresly speaks of temporall Iurisdiction Hee tells us that Ecclesiasticall greivances are mention'd in that statute but sleightly omits so much as to name them much less to urge them which were they worth it wee may bee sure hee would have done with a triumph And besides hee knows wee hold every good King is to take order to see Ecclesiasticall grievances remedy'd and the Canons of the Church observ'd Nay hee knows if hee knows any thing our own Lawyers grant that Ecclesiasticall affairs sometimes fall under temporall power indirectly as on the other side temporall affairs fall indirectly under the Ecclesiasticall Yet that there is any more than this nay even so much in this statute my L d D. hath not shown us and if wee will bee judged by the words of the statute which hee cites they look quite another way But what matters it what this statute sayes being made two years after his unlawfull marriage with Anna Bullon which was the source of all his rebellion intended in all Likelihood when that match was made up As for his pretence that I conceal'd some of his particulars hee knows I undertook no more than to answer the substance and to show that such kindes of particularities were not worth alledging as I did in this very place and shall do again presently more amply Fifthly hee quarrells with mee for calling his Authorities meer Allegations which hee tells us are authentick Records c. whereas my words were onely these p. 311. l. 30. that hee brought diverse allegations in which the Pope's pretences were not admitted c. Now I concieve a Record or any other Authority alledged is an Allegation which was the word I vsed the word meer was meerly his own fiction to gain an occasion to cavill as the place now cited where my words are found will inform the Readers eyes These straws being stept over with which the learned Bp. thought to block up our passage Wee come to the point it self Whether King H. the 8th did any more than his Ancestours My L d of D. in his vindication to show hee did no more or made no new law gathers up Instances from our former laws and reiterates them here though sometimes hee uses a phrase louder than hâ—s proofs how the Pope's were curb'd or limited in their pretences Wee answer'd that
obliging precedent to us To show more the impertinency of this allegation I deny'd that the Church of England hath any title from the Britannick Churches otherwise than by the Saxon Christians who onely were our Ancestours and by whose conquests and laws all that is in the Britannick world belongs and is derived to us The Bp. replies yes well enough and why first saith hee Wales and Cornwall have not onely a locall but a personall succession and therefore noe man can doubt of their right to the priviledges of the Britannick Churches Grant it what is this to our purpose how does this vindicate the Church of England or take of my exception For let their succession bee what it will it follows not that the body of England of which our Controversy is hath any such priviledges by descending from Cornwall or Wales Again 't is evident that for these many hundred years they acknowledg'd the Pop'es Authority as much as England And lastly 't is a clear case they were under those which were under the Pope But the wily Bp. being ask't an hard question to wit whether the Church of England had any title from or dependence on the Britannick Churches answers quite another matter and then tels us hee hath done well enough Secondly hee sayes that there is the same reason for the Scots and Picts who were no more subjected to forrain Iurisdiction than the Britans themselves I answer none of the Picts are now extant but totally exterminated so no succession from them And as for the Scots what doe they concern the Church of England's vindication our purpose or my question unles hee can show which hee never pretends that his Church of England receives title to any thing by way of the scottish Churches Again since they have been submitted to the Pope what avails it if they had any exemption anciently for they could never derive it to us for want of continuation of succession yet as long as hee tells us hee does well enough all is well Thirdly hee should have said first for the two former answer are nothing to the purpose hee tells us that among the saxons themselves the great Kingdomes of Mercia and Northumberland were converted by the ancient Scots and had their Religion and Ordination first from them afterwards among themselves without any forrain dependance and so were as free as the Britons where all the force lies in those words without any forrain dependance which hee obtrudes upon us on his own credit onely without a word of proof or if there bee any shadow of reason for it there it must bee this that â—hey were converted by the ancient Scots which himself tells us two pages after is nothing at all to Iurisdiction But that which is of main importance is that hee brings here no proof that the Britons and Scots and Picts had no forrain dependance save his own word onely And the trifles hee brings afterwards are of less credit than even his own words as will bee seen when they come to scanning Fourthly hee assures us â—â—at after the Conquest throughout the rest of England a woâ—â—d of British Christians did still live mixt with the saxons And how proves hee this because otherwise the saxons had not been able to people the sixth part of the Land I ask did hee measure the Land and number the saxons If not how does hee know or how can hee affirm this Or how does hee prove the Land must necessarily bee peopled as fully as before immediately after a Conquest so universall and cruell Our historians tell us that to avoid their barbarous cruelty which spared none the ancient Britains retired into Wales yet hee would persuade us both without and against all history that a world stayd behind and this not because the saxons stood in need of them as hee pretends who as 't is known brought their whole families with them but indeed because the Bp. stood in need of them to make good his cause But granting the likelihood that some few of them remain'd still in their former homes how can the Bp. make any advantage of it Thus Who can deny saith hee those poore conquer'd Christians and their Christian posterity though mixed with saxons the iust priviledges of their Ancestours A compassionate man who speaks a great deal of tender-hearted non-sence rather than hee will seem unmercifull not to the ancient Britons as hee pretends but to his own cause which hee shows to bee good-naturd at least though it bee destitute of reason for unles hee can show which yet never was pretended by any Protestant or man of common sence that those who remain'd had yet British Bishops amongst them or unles hee can pretend that they remain'd not subject to the Bishops of the saxons it is a madnes to imagin those few lay people should inherit those former supposed priviledges For since all the world grants that they if there were any such became subject to the Bishops of the saxons which were subject to the Pope all pretence of their exemption from that power to which their Governours were subject is taken away And the Bp s mercifull reason is all one as if some few Englishmen by some accident remaining and settling in France should pretend an exemption from the french laws both Ecclesiasticall and temporall and to enioy the priviledges they had while they were in England that is while they were under another Government But His last reason is to the purpose and a rare one 't is this that the saxon Conquest gave them as good title to the priviledges as to the Lands of the Britons As if hee made account that Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction is a thing of that nature as to bee won by the sword or that the Saxons could plunder the Britons of their spirituall priviledges as well as of a bag of money But the iest is hee would have those priviledges at once goe into Wales with the British Bishops and stay at home in England not considering that Ecclesiasticall priviledges are things inherent in men that is in the Ecclesiasticall Governours as enioyers or else as conservers and dispensers of them to the people and in the Governed as subiect to those Governours and laws not in stones woods and mountains as hee fancies Again whereas those priviledges originally belong to Ecclesiasticall Governours and are annex't unto them as such as they are supposed to doe in the Bp s case they cannot bee transmitted to posterity but by a succession into the Authority of the former Governours wherefore let him either show that the after Bps of the Church of England ever had succession of Authority from or were impower'd by the British Bishops or else let him confess that they could inherit no priviledges from them and by consequence that his pretence of it is groundles and impertinent What is said hitherto was to show the inconsequence of deriving those priviledges from the British to â—he English Church in case the British
had any such priviledge of independency as the Bishop contends But My second objection was that this pretended exemption of the British Church was false My reason was because the British Bishops admitted appellation to Rome at the Council of Sardica In answer First hee tells mee that ere I can alledge the Authority of the Council of Sardica I must renounce the divine Institution of the Papacy and why for said hee that Canon submitted it to the good pleasure of the fathers and groundeth it upon the memory of S. Peter not the Institution of Christ Which is first flat falsification of the Council there being not a word in it either concerning the Papall power it self or it's Institution but concerning Appeals onely Next since wee call that of divine Institution which Christ with his own mouth ordain'd and never any man made account or imagin'd that Christ came from heaven to speak to the after Pope's and so give them a Primacy but that hee gave it by his own mouth to S. Peter whiles hee lived here on earth This I say being evidently our tenet and the Council never touching this point at all what a weaknes is it to argue thence against the diuine Institution of the Papacy and to abuse the Council saying that it submitted this to the good pleasures of the fathers Secondly hee asks how does it appear that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon which a little after hee calls my presumption And truly I shall ever think it a most iust presumption that they who confessedly sate in the Council assented to what was ordain'd by the Council in which they sate as was their duty unles some objection bee alledged to the contrary as the Bp brings none Thirdly hee sayes the Council of sardica was no generall Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed as they were before the making of that Canon What means hee by the Eastern Bishops the Catholicks or the Arians The Arian Bishops indeed fled away fearing the judgment of the Church as Apol. 2. ep ad solitarios S. Athanasius witnesses but how shows hee that any of the 76. Eastern Bishops were gone ere this Canon which is the third in that Council was made So that my L d of Derry is willing to maintain his cause by clinging to the Arians against S. Athanasius and the then Catholike Church as hee does also in his foregoing Treatise p. 190. 191 denying with them this to have been a generall Council because his good Brother Arians had run away from it fearing their own just coÌ„deÌ„mnation Fourthly hee says the Canons of this Council were never received in England or incorporated into the English laws I ask has hee read the British laws in those times if not for any thing hee knows they were incorporated into them and so according to his former Grounds must descend down to the English But wee are mistaken in him his meaning is onely that the aduantages and priuiledges should bee inherited from the Britons not their disadvantages or subjection So sincere a man hee is to his cause though partiall to common sence Lastly saith hee this Canon is contradicted by the great generall Council of Chalcedon which our Church receiveth Yet it seems hee neitheir thought the words worth citing nor the Canon where the abrogation of the Sardica Canon is found worth mentioning which argues it is neither worth answering nor looking for I am confident hee will not find any repealing of the Sardica Canon exprest there It must therefore bee his own deduction on which hee relies which till hee puts it down cannot bee answerd As for their Church receiving the Council of Chalcedon the Council may thanke their ill will to the Pope not their good will to receive Councils For any Council in which they can find any line to blunder in mistakingly against him they receive with open arms But those Councils which are clear and express for him though much ancienter as this of Sardica was shall bee sure to bee rejected and held of no Authority and when a better excuse wants the very running away of the guilty Arians shall disannul the Council and depriue it of all it's Authority Hee subjoyns there appears not the least footstep of any Papall Iurisdiction exercised in England by Elentherius I answer nor any certain footstep of any thing else in those obscure times but the contrary for hee referd the legislative part to King Lucius and the British Bishops Here you see my Ld D. positive and absolute But look into his Vindication p. 105. and you shall see what Authority hee relies on for this positive confidence viz. the Epistle of Eleutherius which himself conscious it was nothing worth and candid to acknowledge it there graces with a parenthesis in these words If that Epistle bee not counterfeit But now wee have lost the candid conditionall If and are grown absolute Whence wee see that the Bp. according as hee is put to it more and more to maintain his cause is forced still to abâ—te some degree of his former little sincerity And thus this if-not counter feited testimony is become one of his demonstrations to clear himself and his Church from Schism Now though our faith relies on immediate TraditioÌ„ for it's onely and certain Rule and not upon fragments of old Authours yet to give some instances of the Pope's Iurisdiction anciently in England I alledged S. Prosper that Pope Celestin Vice sua in his own stead sent S German to free the Britons from Pelagianism and converted the scots by Palladius My L d answers that converting and ordaining c. are not acts of Iurisdiction yet himself sayes here p. 193. that all other right of Iurisdiction doth follow the right of ordination Now what these words all other mean is evident by the words immediately foregoing to wit all other besides Ordination and Election by which 't is plain hee makes these two to bee rights of Iurisdiction So necessary an attendant to errour is self contradiction and non-sence But the point is hee leaues out those words I relied on Vice sua in his own stead which show'd that it belong'd to his office to do it These words omitted hee tells us that hee hath little reason to beleeve either the one or the other that is hee refuses to beleeve S. Prosper a famous and learned father who lived neer about the same time and was conversant with the affairs of the Pelagians and chuses to relie rather on an old obscure Authour whence no prudent man can Ground a certainty of any thing and which if hee would speak out himself would say hee thought to bee counterfeit What follows in his 25. page is onely his own sayings His folly in grounding the Pope's Supremacy on Phocas his liberality hath been particularly answer'd by mee heretofore Parâ— 1. Sect. 6. whether I refer him I found fault with him for leaving the Papall power and spending his time in impugning the Patriarchalâ—
that there is a thing call'd an Answer or account to H. T 's Appendix which confuted this forged manuscript writ by Dr. H though I briefly hinted here some exceptions found in it without taking notice of their pretended answer partly because I know by long experience that nothing but shuffling impertinences paralogisms and falsifications are to bee expected from that Authour and principally because I understood that the sayd Appendix is patroniz'd by the same learned pen that writ it and those Exceptions shown untouch't by the mock shirmish of his Adversary Thither I refer the Reader for compleat satisfaction where hee will see my BP more fully confuted and my present charge against the sleight Accountant most amply made good Sect. 5. How my Ld of Derry digresses from a Papall Authority to a Patriarchall that is from t who le question His prafest resolution not to return to it but upon conditions and such as hee is sure no Catholike can yeeld to His waving the whole scope of his Adversary's Discourse together with diverse impertinent non sencicall and unskilfull Replies MY Lord of Derry undertook to prove three things in his 6th Chapter first that the King Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdraw their obedience from the Roman Patriarch 2 ly that they had iust Grounds to do it and 3 ly that they did it with due moderation I objected that this was to shuffle away the whole question For whereas the question is of the Priviledge given by Christ to S. Peter and from him descended to the Pope's his successours that is whereas our Controversy is about a Papall Authority or that of the Head of God's Church held by us and by themselves formerly to bee of faith and of divine Institution hee leaves this to talk of a Patriarchall Authority not held as from Christ but of humane Institution By which sleight hee tacitly intimates that the Authority actually in force in England at the time of the Reformation and then renounced was onely Patriarchall not Papall which waves the main if not the whole charge and is plainly contradictory to the whole world's eyes at that time Now what excuse brings the Bishop for this fundamentall shuffling importing no less than the avoiding the whole question Hee tells us here p. 30. that when hee first undertook this subject hee coÌ„ceived the great strength of the Roman sampson did lie in his Patriarchate By which words if the Bp. pretends that hee intended to express himself finely I shall grant it but if hee sayes that hee intended to speak truly I have so good an opinion of those of his own party that I am confident the most partiall and simplest of them will bee too candid and too wise to beleeve him For how can it bee imagin'd that a Bp. and so well read a man as hee is accounted to bee should bee ignorant that the Reformers renounc't a Papall Authority and higher than Patriarchall and that a Papall Authority that is a Supremacy over the whole Church in Ecclesiasticall matters was held immediately before the Reformation or rejection of it Who knows not likewise that they stand accused by us of the fact of renouncing an Authority far higher than Patriarchall yet this Bp. undertaking that subject that is to vindicate his Church from Schism in renouncing that higher Authority pretends hee conceived that the great strength of the Roman sampson lay in his Patriarchate though hee knows the Patriarchate was held but of human that Papacy of divine Institution the Patriarchate limited to some particular part within God's Church the Papacy which they actually renounced held to bee universally extended and to have no other bounds or limits but God's Church the Papacy superior nay supreme the Patriarchate inferior and subordinate to the former This is the notion which both the former and present world nay themselves too had of the Papacy at least ere they rejected it which a man would think supperadds a great and manifold increase of strength above the other But the sincere Bp. thinks otherwise now though in his former book hee confesses the Pope had quitted the Patriarchall power that is pretended none for these last 600. years and here enlargeth it to a 1000. Which shows that Dr. H. and hee are the Simeon and Levy of the Protestant fraternity and have the same fundamentall faults common to both But now being taken tardy and caught running away from the question hee is well contented hee sayes to give over that subject to wit his disgression to the Patriarchate but yet not but upon two conditions wise ones you may bee sure Observe by the way Reader that though other disputants make account it is their duty and absolute obligation to speak to the point in hand in the Bp. 't is a courtesy and to bee condescended to conditionally 't is against his nature and inclination to hold to the question and therefore wee must bribe him to it 〈◊〉 sâ—bscribing to the bargain hee proposes The first condition hee requires ere hee will leave of rambling to a Patriarchate and come home to the question is that wee must not presume the Pope is a spirituall Monarch without proving it What hee means by spirituall Monarch I know not 'T is a word without sence till it bee explicated For either hee means by Monarch a Commander in whose breast all concernments of the subjects are put so that his will is a law to dispose of them as hee lists and then wee held not the Pope to bee such a Monarch for this however it bee call'd Monarch is indeed flat Tyranny or else hee means a Monarch is the ordinary chief Governour and such wee hold the Pope to bee in the Church and shall ever presume hee is so till his subjects who actually rebell'd against his Authority disprove it Wee hold on the Governours side your first Reformers were before their separation actually his subjects actually they deny'd their subjection and rose against his Government ' This actuall rising against him this very fact I say proves you Rebells his former long-enjoy'd possession stands a proof of his Right unles you evidence and demonstrate him an vsurper or though none yet that the Government ought to bee abolish't But the Bp. will not hold to the question unles wee will grant that when a subject rises against a former long possest Governour hee shall at pleasure call the Governour to account and oblige him to prove his title ere hee will acknowledge him and on the other side that the subject must bee freed from all obligation to give account of his rising against his Governour or from being bound to prove that the Authority hee rebell'd against was an usurpation and unjust Good sence but hard law His second condition ere hee will come to the question is that wee must not attempt to make Patriarchall priviledges to bee Royall Prerogatives what hee means by Royal Prerogatives I know not there being no determinate
certainty what Royalty is the notion varying according to diuerse countries But hee understands perhaps that a Patriarch shall not bee independēt of the King in Ecclesiasticall affairs within his own Patriarchate and that this is the King's priviledge to which condition hee knows no Catholike will ever yeeld any more than to the former otherwise wee must grant that S. Peter could not preach at Rome if Nero were a King not S. Iames at Hiernsalem without unkinging Herod Yet the Bp. will bee even with mee for as I will not condescend to his conditions so on the other side hee neither hath heretofore nor ever will hereafter bee brought to hold to the question or speak directly to the point as hath been seen hitherto all along and shall more particularly bee seen hereafter Nor will hee long defer his revenge but puts it in execution the very next thing hee does being assured to have demanded such conditions as should never bee granted for Whereas hee had remou'd the question from a Papall Authority held of divine to a Patriarchall acknowledg'd but of human Institution not to desert our question totally and to give him fair law I put the case that the Papall Government had been onely of human Institution it ought not to have been rejected unles the abuses had been irremediable I urged that considering this Head was chosen in that case to preserve Vnity in Religion and that eternall dissentions would inevitably follow upon it's rejection and a separation of the rejecters from the rest of that common-wealth which acknowledg'd that Head therefore far weightier causes must bee expected or greater abuses committed ere not onely the person but this very Government should bee abolish't Now the matter of fact being evident and confest that the first Reformers consented with all the Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome in their submitting to that Authority till they began to reject it that they acknowledg'd it lawfull ere they began to disclame it as unlawfull that they held none at that time true Christians but those who agreed consented and submitted to that Authority that the acknowledging this Head then was as it still is to us the Principle of Vnity in Government for all Christianity as such then held by them Likewise it being equally evident confest that they have now actually renounced that Authority thus held acknowledg'd and submitted to by all whom they then deemed Christians as the Rule and Ground of all Vnity in that commonwealth These things I say being so I had good reason to put that supposition not as our bare tenet as the Bp. seems to imagin but as the evident matter of fact as the case stood then One would think it were the Bp's task now to show that notwithstanding all this the first Abolishers of this Authority had sufficient reasons to disannull it and that the abuses of the sayd Authority did outweigh the right use of it so that it might and ought have been rejected by one part of that Christianity though once establisht or which is all one long accepted by their common consent as this was de facto What does the Bp. Hee tells us what hee and the Protestants now held concerning that point putting as it were his counter tenet to ours sayes the Pope is onely as a Proclocutor in a Generall Assembly was their steward that is not their Governour all contrary to the matter of fact which my case is built on that they nourish a more Catholik-Communion than wee and such other stuff all out of his own head without a word of proof then thinks the deed is done Was ever such an Answer contriu'd the poak-full of plums was pertinent if compar'd to ' this But still the Bishop is innocent t was my fault who would not accept of the two conditions hee proposed which should have been the guerdon of his returning to the question that is without the performance of which hee thinks himself not bound to speak a word to the purpose And so the Reader must look upon him hereafter as on a man who hath got or took licence to run astray Observe Reader in what a different manner the Bp. I treat thee I still bring thee to evident and acknowledg'd matter of fact or such suppositions which need onely application and another name to bee so according as the case stood at the time of the first breach Whereas the Bp. brings thee his own sayings their party's tenet for Grounds and proofs things not acknowledg'd but disputable nay disputed in this present debate that is obscure as far as concerns this question And this is his solemn manner all over this treatise which shows that hee hates the light his unfriendly betrayer but truth's Glory and that the obscurity of ambiguities is most proper and least offensive to his errour-darkned eyes I demanded of him whether hee would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes or abuses of Prelates Hee answers that never such abuses as these were objected either to Princes or Prelates in England Not objected that 's strange Read the Court of K. Iames and the charge against King Charles in Westminster Hall Did not the Scots and Puritans object Popery intolerable pride and overburthening weak consciences to your Brother Bp's Can there bee greater abuses objected than these in your Grounds or is not the design to bring in Popery which makes such a noise in your book as a Pandera's box of all mischiefs and inconveniences as horrid an accusation against you as the same inconveniences were against Popery when it stood on foot in K. H's daies I was told by a worthy grave person and whose candour I have no reason to suspect that in a priuate discourse hee had with the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in his own garden concerning the point of Schism the Arch-Bishop confest upon his urging the evident matter of fact that hee was in a Schism upon which free confession of his being prest again by that Gentleman how hee could in conscience remain in a Schism and separated from God's Church hee reply'd that it might lawfully bee done if warranted by an intention to reunite by such compliance a schismatizing Congregation to the Body it broke from citing to make good his plea a place from S. Austin in reference to some Catholike Bishops complying with the Donatists for the same end Now I ask whether in case the Arch-Bishop had endeavoured to bring in Popery Episcopacy held to bee of divine right ought therefore to bee abolisht If bee answer No as I suppose his interest will prevail above his Grounds to make him then I ask again why an inferiour actuall power to wit Episcopacy should not bee held to merit abolishing for Popery's sake and introducing it so fraught with inconveniences which Popery so full alas of grievances though held immediately before equally of divine Institution and of far higher
broke from the former Church consisting of those Churches thus united according to the Essentialls and fundamentalls of a Church Now then after all this as evident as that two ad three make five to wave answering this true charge that they broke by this double dissent from all those Churches and to make as though they separated from the Court of Rome onely and to defend themselves as breaking onely from that Court is to say that none hold those two Principles but onely the Court of Rome which to speak moderately is perfect Impudence the most proper and characteristicall expression of this Bp's manner of writing but the blame is mine for had I perform'd those two powerfull conditions the Bishop had not thus â—huffled of the true charge nor avoided thus the whole question I shall desire the Reader to consider once again the true charge for otherwise it is impossible hee should iudge of the sufficiency or insufficiency of their Grounds for separation as likewise to reflect that though hee pretend here they had sufficient Grounds yet hee thinks it not safe to speak out to the point as I urged him heretofore nor tell us whether those Grounds of his exceptions bee demonstrative that is apt to infer with absolute necessity therefore the Authority was an vsurpation and not come from Christ or though come from Christ yet for those reasons to bee rejected nor dares hee confess that they are onely probable yet sufficient For if probable reasons were sufficient to abolish an Authority as an vsurpation held till those reasons appear'd to have been of Christ's Institution what Government in the world could stand Nor lastly that there is a middle sort of proof between demonstration and Probability that is above a may bee yet below a must bee which can convince sufficiently the understanding and oblige it to an assent contrary to it's former faith These points are of too hard digestion for verb â—ll souls and come so neer the first Principles that they would quickly end this and all Controversies should they come to bee perfectly scann'd Wherefore as before hee totally omitted to answer those words of mine which prest him to declare himself in that point so here constant to his Principles hee absolutely declines to inform us what kinde of proofs they must bee onely hee calls them Grounds sayes they are just and sufficient His pretended Grounds I reduce to three generall Heads some of them entrench upon Eternity conscience some urge onely temporall inconveniences Lastly some are of a middle nature and pretend to more knowledge of Right Those of the first sort are all meer falshoods and calumnies and equally competent for any Heretick in the world to object against the Church in a like occasion that is are no wayes proper or serviceable to his cause For may not any Heretick voluntarily object that the Church impos'd new Articles of faith upon him when hee had a mind to beleeve or hold nothing of faith but what agreed with his own fancy Might not hee complain of new creeds impos'd when the Church upon occasion of new emergent heresies added to her publick Professions some points of faith held so formerly which might distinguish her old friends from up start foes Might not hee complain of Perill of Idolatry as your Brother Puritans did for surplisses and your reform'd Communion-table when hee had a mind to deny that Christ was more than a man as did the Arians or to renounce any decent or rationall practice in God's Church might not hee pretend that all Hereticks and Schismaticks in the world were good Christians and that the Church was tyrannicall in holding them for excommunicate Might not hee shuffle together faith with opinions and alledge falsly as you doe here you were forced to approve the Pope's rebellion against generall Councils and taking Oaths to maintain vsurpation of the Pope whenas you know and confess your self one may bee of our Church and yet neither hold the Pope above the Council nor accept of such Oaths Iust vindic p. 200. Again all these Exceptions you produce are the very points you pretend to dispute against us wherefore it depends upon the goodnes of your reasons whether those Articles pretended to bee new were indeed such and endangering Idolatry or no in iudging which concerning points Fancy must bee allow'd to pass no verdict onely rigour of reason that is demonstration can bee presumed sufficient to render points held formely by themselves and their immediate forefathers as of faith sacred and Christ's doctrine to bee obnoxious to Exceptions of new false and Idolatrous Yet nothing is more evident than that you have no such reasons for our Drs have vindicated these very points against your Reformers in such a manner that to speak much within compass the unpassionate part of the world never imagin'd you have carried the cause clearly and conclucluded decisively against us which is an Evidence that you have not evidenced against us nor demonstrated the counter Authority upon which you build your contrary tenet To omit that the Evidence of our Churches Authority hath been pretended by our late Controvertists and as yet unreply'd upon by your party nay that your own best writers confess you have nothing but proâ—ability wheron to Ground your faith All which shows the vanity of your pretended fear of Idolatry and new points of faith and coÌ„cludes your breach temerarious and irrationall And as for your fear of separating from the Communion of three parts of that which you call Christendome it shall bee shown hereafter Sect. 10 from your own side that you had ten times more Communion even with that in materiall points when you were in our Church than you can pretend to have had since His second sort of Grounds are those which relate to temporall inconveniences and injuries to the civill state by reason of the Pope's pretended encroachments against all which hee hath told us before p. 21. that diverse Catholike countries have laws in force that is that men may remain Catholiks without holding nay resisting those pretended encroachments and tells us here p. 36. that al other Catholike countries maintain their priviledges inviolated Yet these pretended inconveniences hee huddles together in big terms and puts them for a ground of their separation from our Church in which Church yet hee confesses they might have continued still in union and have stood out against them Now whether many of these were Abuses or just Rights hee knows is disputable between canoÌ„ and civil Lawyers of which kinde of CoÌ„troversy I neither think my self nor the Bp. a competent iudge since this kind of learning is not our proper profession Yet hee will needs have mee engage into such questions nothing concerning our present quarell which is about a point of faith not a point of law Our question is whether these Exceptions of his were sufficient Grounds of renouncing the Authority it self and separating from the former Church That they
the said Rule of faith which brings faith to an uncertainty that is to a nullity or no obligation of holding any thing to bee of faith Yet this former Rule of faith the first Reformers renounc't when they renounced the Pope's Headship recommended by that Rule Sixthly the matter of fact not onely charges you to have rejected the Rules of Vnity in faith and Government in the Church you left and by consequence since both then and now you acknowledge her a true Church broke Church Communion but it is also equally evident that your Grounds since have left the Church no Rule of either but have substituted opinion in stead of faith or obscurity of Grammaticall quibbling in stead of Evidence of Authority and Anarchy in stead of Government For the Rule of faith if the former Church was so easy and certain a method of coming to Christ's law that none that had reason could bee either ignorant or doubtfull of it what easier than Children to beleeve as they were taught and practice as they were shownd What more impossible than for fathers to conspire to either errour or malice in teaching their Children what was most evident to them by daily practice of their whole lives to have been their immediately foregoing fathers doctrine and was most important to their and their Children's endles bliss or misery And what more evident than that they who proceed upon this principle as Catholikes do will alwaies continue and ever did to deliver embrace what was held formerly that is to conserve true faith Now in stead of this though the Protestants will tell us sometimes upon occasion that they hold to Tradition and at present beleeve their immediate forefathers yet if wee goe backward to King H. the 8th's time their chain of immediate delivery is interrupted and at an end the Reformation which they own broke that and shows their recourse to iâ— a false hearted pretence ours goes on still Whether run they then finding themselves at a loss here for an easy open and certain method of faith Why they turn your wits a woolgathering into a wildernes of words in the Scriptures ask them for a certain method to know the true sence of it they 'l tell you 't is plain or that you need no more but a Grammar and a dictionary to find out a faith nay less and that common people who neither understand what Grammar nor dictionary means may find it there though our eyes testify that all the world is together by the ears about understanding the sence of it Ask them for a certain interpreter perhaps sometimes they will answer you faintly that the generall Councils and fathers are one that is you must run over Libraries ere you can rationally embrace any faith at all and if you bee so sincere to your nature reason as to look for certainty which books are legitimate fathers which not which Councils generall authentick and to bee beleeved which not you are engag'd again to study all the School-disputes Controversies which concern those questions And if you repine at the endles laboriousnes of the task the insecurity of the method and the uncertainty of the issue and urge them for some other certainer shorter and plainer way of finding faith they will reply at length and confess as their best Champions Chillingworth and Faulkland do very candidly that there is no certainty of faith but probability onely which signifies that no man can rationally bee a Christian or have any obligation to beleeve any thing since it is both most irrationall and impossible there should bee any obligâ—tion to assent upon a probability And thus Reader thou se est what pass they bring faith and it's Vnity to to wit to a perfect nullity and totall ruin Next as for Government let us see whether they have left any Vnity of that in God's Church That which was held for God's Church by them while they continued with us were those Churches onely in Communion with the see of Rome the Vnity of Government in this Church was evident and known to all in what it consisted to wit in the common acknowledment of the Bishop of Rome as it's Head Since they left that mother they have got new Brothers and sisters whom before they accounted Bastards and Aliens so that God's Church now according to them is made up of Greeks Lutherans Huguenots perhaps Socinians Presbyterians Adamites Quakers c. For they give no Ground nor have any certain Rule of faith to discern which are of it which not But wee will pitch upon their acknowledg'd favourites First the Church of England holds the King the Head of their Church Next the Huguenots whom they own for dear Brothers and part of God's Church hold neither King nor yet Bishop but the Presbyteâ—y onely strange Vnity which stands in terms of contradiction Thirdly the Papists are accounted by them lest they should spoil their own Mission part of God's Church too and these acknowledge noe Head but the Pope Fourthly the Lutherans are a part of their kind hearted Church and amongst them for the most part each parish-Minister is Head of his Church or Parish without any subordination to any higher Ecclesiasticall Governour Lastly the Greek Church is held by them another part and it acknowledges no Head but the Patriarch I omit those sects who own no Government at all Is not this now a brave Vnity where there are five disparate forms of Government which stand aloof and at arms end with one another without any commonty to unite or connect them Let them not toy it now as they use and tell us of an union of charity our discourse is about an Vnity of Government either then let him show that God's Church as cast in this mold has an Vnity within the limits and notion of Government thaâ— is any commonty to subscribe to some one sort of Government either acknowledg'd to have been instituted by Christ or agreed on by common coÌ„sent of those in this new-fashion'd Church or else let him confess that this Church thus patch't up has no Vnity in Government at all Wee will do the Bishop a greater favour and give him leave to set aside the french Church and the rest and onely reflect upon the form of Government they substituted to that which they rejected to wit that the King or temporall power should bee supreme in Ecclesiasticall Affairs Bee it so then and that each particular pretended Church in the world were thus govern'd wee see that they of England under their King would make one Church they of Holland under their Hogen Moghen Magistrates another France under it's King a third and so all the rest of the countries in the world Many Churches wee see here indeed in those Grounds and many distinct independent Governours but where is there any Vnity of Government for the whole where is there any supreme Governour or Governours to whom all are bound to submit and conform themselves in the
common concerns of the Church Or without this how is it possible there should bee any Vnity of Government or a Church that is a thing connected united or made one by Order or by Vnity of Government The Church is God's Family can that bee calld a Family where mutually independent persons live in severall rooms of the house that is are many families without any Master or Mistress of the house or some person or persons higher than the rest by subordination to whom they become united or made one The Church is a City whose Vnity is in it self can that bee calld a City where each Master of a family is supreme that is where there are an hundred distinct supremes which stand aloof from one another without any Colligation of themselves under the notion of Governed by which means those many otherwise wholes become now parts and make up one whole which is done by submitting to some superiour Magistrate or Magistrates The Church is a Christian Common-wealth can there bee a Common-wealth which can bèe calld one if every City and town have a particular supreme Governour of it's own without owing deference to any superiour or superiours Does not common sence inform us that in this cause each City is a particular that is one compleat self bounded Common-wealth that is that those many Cities are more ones that is many CoÌ„mon-wealths Wherefore either show us some one standing ordinary form of Magistracy or Government to which all Christendome ought to submit and some Magistrate or Magistrates Governour or Governours to whom they owe a constant obedience which is impossible in your Grounds or else acknowledge plainly that you have left no Vnity of Government in God's Church at all but have unravell'd all the frame and disannull'd all the Being of a Church which consisted essentially in Order and made that parts of it have no more connexion or Vnity than a rope of sand Yet as long as these pittifull shufflers can but tell the abused Reader in generall terms that they acknowledge the discipline left by Christ and his Apostles they make account their adherents will renounce both their eyes and common sence and bee content to follow hood-wintk't after the empty tinkling sound of these hollow and nothing signifying phrases Perhaps the Bp. will reply that a generall Council is acknowledg'd by them as of obligatory Authority and that therefore there is yet a means left for Vnity of Government in the whole Church Vpon which answer the good Protestant Reader thinks them humble and reasonable men But this is indeed the greatest mockery that can bee invented For first they give us no certain Rule to know which is a generall Council which not that is who are to bee call'd to that Council who not for once taking away a certain Rule of faith there is no certainty who are Hereticks that is men not to bee call'd to a Council as to sit in it and vote who good Catholiks that is to bee call'd thither to sit and vote there Next generall Councils being onely call'd upon extremities if the Churche's Vnity in Government consist onely in them it follows that the Church hath actually no Vnity of Government but just at that pinch when a generall Council is to bee call'd that is it is never a Church but at that happy time onely when it is most unhappy But the greatest piece of foolery is that they having renounc't an actuall standing Authority pretend to show their goodnes a readines to submit to the Authority of a generall Council which themselves will acknowledge with the next breath impossible to bee had that is they profess themselves very humbly and heartily ready though they have renounc't one Government yet to submit to another which can never bee and so is never likely to trouble or controll them Is not this a piece of hollow hearted humility Yet that such Councils as they will daign to call generall are held by them impossible Dr. H. tells us Reply p. 30. in those words generall Councils are now morally impossible to bee had the Christian world being under so many Empires and divided into so many CoÌ„munions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should bee regularly assembled Here Reader thou seest all nâ—y discourse asserted to wit that God's Church as they have form'd it is so divided into disparate parts that as there is no Vnity of Government in it now for if there were there would bee also a means to assemble a generall Council so it is impossible there should bee any for the future according to their Grounds till some one temporall Governour come to Lord it ovâ—r the whole or greatest part of the Christian world which in all likelihood will bee never Consider again their candour they have renounc't the former notion of God's Church and his Authority whose proper office it was to call a generall Council of that whole Church as hee did often and then profess a willingnes to submit to such a Council or a Representative of their new notion'd Church but with the next breath lament alas that such a generall Council or Representative cannot possibly bee had after themselves had taken order to hinder all means of having it and so they are free and need obey no body How much better and stronger were it argued thus that since it is most irrationall and unbeseeming God's Providence that his Church should bee destitute of a means to remedy her extremities that is of means to gather a generall Council and that there was a means to doe this before you rejected the Pope's Authority and by your own Confession no possibility of it since that therefore you have renounced the right notion of a Church and the right Government of that Church This then is our totall charge against you that you have broke the Vnity of the former Church and not of the Court onely as you trifle it which you were in by renouncing those Principles in which consisted her Vnity both in Faith and Government and to which Principles the whole Church you broke from consented Thus far the matter of fact evidences Nor is it less evident that you have substituted no certain Rule of faith nor any certain or particular form of Government which can ground an Vnity to your new fashion'd Church in either respect but that you have turn'd Evidence of Authority the onely certain Rule and Root of faith into a drowsy probability and by consequence faith thus grounded into Opinion as likewise that you have turn'd the former Government of the Church into a perfect Anarchy there being no colligation or Vnity of the whole together ty any by of Government and that had not God's mercy been above your malice you had made the Church our Hierusalem which is built as a City at Vnity with it self that is which hath an Vnity of Government an heap of stones without connexion without order and consequently without being which consisted
in that Order This is your crime in this lies your sinfull guilt of Schism and heresy that your fact and tenet is intrinsecally destructive to the very being of God's Church and that it tears and rents it peece-meal all asunder A mischief equally pernicious to man-kind's attaining Beatitude as the renouÌ„cing the supreme Government in a Kingdome or commonwealth would bee in order to their safe enjoyment of their temporall livelihoods and therefore no waies to bee ballanced or excused by alledging temporall inconveniences since it as far ouerpoises it's excuse as Eternity of bliss does a peece of earth that is infinitely His third sort of Grounds is the weaknes of the Pope's pretences and the exemption of the Britannick Churches from forrain Iurisdiction by the Council of Ephesus For the fitst the Bp. never so much as directly mentions that in which wee place the strength of the Pope's pretence of his supreme Authority much lesse impugnes it save onely a little on the by as it were in his sleight way 't is this that it was held and deliver'd by a world of immediate fathers to sons as from their fathers so upwards as from Christ that this Authority was sacred of Christ's Institution of faith and recommended to us by the same Rule that assured us Christ was God Vpon this tenure as strongly supported as nature could bear held demonstrably evident and so shown by us not yet answer'd or pretended to bee answer'd by the Protestant party wee Ground this Doctrine of the Pope's Headship or the substance of his Authority But I fear the Bp. either understands not our tenure for otherwise sure hee would have nam'd it or else hee is impugning some Canon Lawier and the extent of the Pope's Authority in stead of impugning the Church and the substance of the said Authority As for his second trifle I have already shown Sect. 4. that the Britannick Churches have no influence upon our Churches descended from saxons nor shall hee ever show a syllable in the Council of Ephesus exempting them from the Pope's Iurisdiction as Head of the Church however Cyprus and some others are there exempted from a neighbouring superiour falsly pretending a Iurisdiction over them But of this more shall bee said hereafter in this present Section The Vnity of the Church being of such importance and the fact breaking it by consequence so hainous the alledging the greatest abuses imaginable are absolutely concluded insufficient excuses for such a fact much more unles it bee shown there were no other possible means to remedy them Hereupon I alledged that it was of little concernment to examine whether his complaints were true or false since hee does not show there was no other remedy but division First the Bishop replies sharply What is it of little concernment to examin whether the Grounds bee sufficient or no well leap't my Lord I speak of the inconsiderablenes of their truth or falshood your Lâ— talks of inconsiderablenes of their sâ—fficiency pretends against both plain words and conscience that I wave that There may bee obâ—ections against the Abuses perhaps of all Governours in the world and these also true but their truth does not infer their sufficiency for rejecting that very Government as long as they are less considerable than good of the Government it self and that there is another cure This it that in which I show'd your manner of arguing defective in the main because you never prou'd nor ever shall that there was no other remedy except division for unles you put in this and more too your argument stands in this posture True complaints against Governours whether otherwise remediable or no are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government At which position if spoke out candidly I hope you will blush though it bee perfectly your own cloak't a little in other but equivalent terms Next hee tells us it is a negative and so it belongs not to him to prove it Yes my Ld it belongs to your party or any one who rises against an actuall Authority either to show that that Authority was none or else that though it was a lawfull one yet there was no other remedy for it's Abuses but a totall Abolishment of it Otherwise the very maiesty which Government carries in it's notion the Vnity peace and a thousand blessings and conveniences which spring from that Vnity found in the common acknowledment of that Authority oversway the private credit or any other less publike concerns which the disobedient party can pretend to and render's their fact of rising irrationall and destructive to the common engaging them needlesly in a thousand distractions and by consequence hazards of ruin which attend such divisions Thirdly hee would persuade the Reader that a negative is not capable of proof or at least not so easily capable of it for answer I refer him to any boy who hath been two years at the Vniversities who will inform him that negatives may witht equall evidence bee concluded in Celarent Ferio as affirmatives may in Barbara and Darij Lastly the proof which hee proposes for his negative to show no other remedy but dares not much stick to them are both equally competent to France Spain c who yet as hee tells us in the next page in contradiction to himself here found other remedies to preserve their priviledges inviolated and his pretended proofs are such pittifull ones though on them is built the sufficiency of their motives that they evencry for mercy as soon as they show their faces They are these that the King of England could not call the Pope and his ourt to a personall account and that the Pope would not ease them upon many Adresses made what then Had not the King the sword in his own hands did it not ly in his power to right himself as hee â—isted and to admit those pretended eneroachments onely so far as hee thought iust and fitting Nay do not your self lay open and repeat in many places that not onely Kings of England but also those of all other countries both could and did do it often and by doing so preserve their priviledges inviolated How does this prove then that there was sufficient Grounds of dividing from the former Church since your self confess so often it could have been remedied otherwise Or how is it a sufficient motive to abolish an Authority for the Abuses which very pretended Abuses they had power to curb and keep within compass without dividing and so that they should not violate their priviledges Not a word then hath the Bp. brought to prove they had sufficient Grounds of division that is that there was no other remedy but in stead thereof expresly told us the contrary and manifoldly contradicted himself I added And much more if the Authority bee of Christ's Institution no iust cause can possibly â—ee given for it's abolishment The merry Bp. laughs at this as hee calls it Kind of arguing which neither looks like an Argument
hee sayes p. 21. are equivalent to those of England which hee pretends here not to bee sufficient it follows that the laws of other countries were equivalent to those of England but those of England not equivalent to them or that though equivalent to one another that is of equall force yet the one was sufficient the others not that is of less force And thirdly that all Catholike countries did maintain their priviledges inviolate by means which did not maintain them or by laws which were not sufficient to do it Lastly hee tells us p. 20. that the former laws deny'd the Pope any Authority in England and p. 21. l. 9. that those laws were in force before the breach that is did actually leave him no Authority in England and here that those nationall laws were not sufficient remedies Whence 't is manifestly consequent according to him that those laws which deny'd the Pope all Authority and were actually in force that is actually left him none were not sufficient remedies against the Abuses of that Authority which they had quite taken a way And this plenty of contradictions the Bp's book is admirably stor'd with which are his demonstrations to vindicate his Church from Schism onely hee christens the monstrous things with a finer name and calls them their greater experience Whereas indeed as for more experience hee brags of God know poor men 't is onely that which Eve got by eating the Apple the expeperience of evill added to that which they had formerly of good Their Ancestors experienc't an happy Vnity Vnanimity Vniformity and constancy in the same faith while they remain'd united to the former Church and they since their breach have experienc't nothing but the contrary to wit distractions dissentions Vnconformity with a perpetually-fleeting Changeablenes of their tenet and at last an utter dissolution and disapparition of their Mock Church built onely in the Air of phantastick probabilities In the last place I alledged that the pretences upon which the Schism was originally made were far different from those hee now takes up to defend it For it is well known that had the Pope consented that K. H. might put away his wife and marry another there had been no thoughts of renouncing his Auâ—hority Which shows that at most the scales were but equally ballanc't before and the motives not sufficient to make them break till this consideration cast them A great prejudice to the sufficiency of the other reasons you alledge which you grant in the next page were most certainly then obseru'd or the greatest part of them For since they were observed then that is since the same causes were apply'd then apt to work upon men's minds those same causes had been also formerly efficacious that is had formerly produc't the effect of separating as well as now had there not been now some particular disposition in the patient and what particular disposition can bee shown at the instant of breaking save the King's lust which was most manifest and evident I confess I cannot imagin nor as I am persuaded the Bp. himself at least hee tells us none but onely in generall terms sayes they had more experience than their Ancestours Sect. 7. The first part of the Protestant's Moderation exprest by my L d of Derry in six peeces of non-sence and contradiction with an utter ruin of all Order and Government His pretended undeniable Principles very easily and rationally deny'd His Churche's inward charity and the speciall externall work thereof as hee calls it her Good-friday-Prayer found to bee self contradictory Pretences His Moderation in calling those tenets Weeds which hee cannot digest and indifferent Opinions which hee will not bee obliged to hold That according to Protestant Grounds 't is impossible to know any Catholike Church or which sects are of it HIs next Head is the due Moderation of the Church of England in their reformation This I called a pleasant Topick Hee answers so were the saddest subjects to Democritus I Reply the subject is indeed very sad for never was a sadder peece of Logick produced by a non-plust Sophister yet withall so mirthfull as it would move laughter even in Heraclitus The first point of their Moderation is this that they deny not the true being to other Churches nor separate from the Churches but from their accidentall errors Now the matter of fact hath evidenced undeniably that they separated from those points which were the Principles of vnitie both in faith GovernmeÌ„t to the former Church with which they communicated and consequently from all the persons which held those Principles and had their separation been exprest in these plain terms and true language nothing had sounded more intolerable and immoderate wherefore my L d took order to use his own bare Authority to moderate and reform the truth of these points into pretended erroneousnes and the concerningnes or fundamentalnes of them into an onely accidentalnes and then all is well and hee is presently if wee will beleeve his word against our owne eyes a moderate man and so are the Protestans too who participate his Moderation But if wee demand what could be Essentiall to the former Church if these too Principles renounced by them which grounded all that was good in her were accidentall onely or how he can iustly hold her a true Church whose fundâ—mentall of fundamentalls the Root Rule of all her faith was as he saies here an error his candid answer would shew us what common sence already informs us that nothing could be either Essentiall or fundamentall to that Church And so this pretended Moderation would vanish on one side into plain non-sence in thinking any thing could be more Essentiall to a Church then Vniâ—y of faith and Government on the other side into meer folly and indeed coÌ„tradiction in holding her a true Church whose Grounds of both that is of all which should make her a true Church are Errors Lies His Church of England defines Art 19. that our Church erres in matters of faith Art 22. that four points of our faith are vain fictions contradictory to God's word The like character is given of another point Art 28. Our highest act of deuotion Art 31. is styled a blasphemous fiction pernicious imposture and Art 33. that those who are cut of from the Church publikely I conceive they mean Catholikes or at least include them whom they used to excommunicate publikely in their Assemblies should be held as Heathens and Publicans Again nothing was more uncontrollably nay more laudably common in the mouths of their Preachers then to call the Pope Antichrist the Church of Rome the whore of Babylon Idolatrous Superstitious Blasphemous c. And to make up the measure of his fore fathers sins the Bp. calls here those two Principles of Vnity both in faith Government without which she neither hath nor can have any thing of Church in her as hath been shown in the foregoing Section both Errors and falshoods Now
according to their Grounds can be sayd to pray for us at all in particular on Good friday or for our conversion as he forget-full of his own tenet affirms Their prayer is this Mercifull god who hast made all men and hatest nothing that thou hast made nor wouldest the death of a Sinner but rather that he should be converted and live have mercy upon all Iews Turks Infidells and Hereticks c. Fetch them home to thy flock that they may be saved c. I ask now under which of these heads does he place Papists when he pretends their cōversion is here pray'd for in particular Vnder that of Hereticks How can this stand with his Principles who acknowledges ours a true Church that is not hereticall and lately told us as a point of his Churches Moderation that she forbears to censure others Again they grant us to be of Christ's flock already in a capacy to be saved whereas those they pray for here are supposed reducible to Christ's flock that is not yet of it and by being thus reduced capable of Salvation that is incapable of it before they be thus reduced none of these therefore are competent to us nor are we prayed for there as Hereticks if his own Grounds his own pretended Moderation are to be held to by himself Much less will he say we are pray'd for there under the notion of Iews Turcks or Infidels for this were to censure us worse nor was ever pretended by Protestants It follows then that our conversion in particular is not there pray'd for at all but that there is such a pittifull dissonancy between the pretended Church of England's doctrine her practice that her greatest Bp's Doctors cannot make sence of one related to the other Nay more since hee culls out this Good friday prayer for the speciall externall work of their charity towards us and that this cannot concern us at all without a self contradiction it follows that their other externall works argue no charity at all towards us And this is the great inward charity the Bp. brags of as a proof of their due Moderation He adds that we excommunicate them once a year that is the day before Good-friday I reply that to expect a Church should not excommunicate those whom she holds to be Schismaticks and Hereticks is at once to be ignorant of the Churches constant practice and the common Principles of Government It being equally evident that the Church in all ages tooke this course with obstinate Adversaries of faith as it is that Society in the world can subsist without putting a distinction and separating avowed enemies and Rebels from true subjets friends If then they hold us Hereticks and unles they hold us such they do not pray for us in particular as is pretended they ought in all reason to excommunicate as indeed sometimes they did some particular Catholikes in their Churches though not all our Church in generall their new started congregation was conscious to herself that she had no such Authority which made her also instead of those words in our Good-friday prayer ad sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam revocare digneris recall them to our holy Mother the Catholike Apostolike Church vary the grave and too authoritative phrase too loud alas for her as taken in contra distinction to us into that dwindling puling puritanicall expressions of one flock the rem nant of the true Israelites one fold under one Shepheard c. equally pretendable if taken alone by Quakers as by them since they include no visible Marks in their notion which can satisfy us of any distinction between the one the other The third proof of their Moderation is that they added nothing but took away onely from the former doctrines of the Church which he expresses by saying they pluck up the weeds but retain all the plants of saving truths I answer'd that to take away goodnes is the greatest evill c. He replies that he spake of taking away errors No my L d this was not the intent of your discourse there both because you pretended there to prove something whereas I conceive to rely on onely the cheap saying that all is erroneous you tooke away proves nothing but is a meere self supposition as also because it is not a proof of Moderation to take away errors but a rigorously requisite act of Iustice Your intent then was to show the Moderation in your method of proceeding which you pretended all the way long to have been that you added no new thing but onely took away something of the old This I glanc't at as a fond and idle pretence since till you prove evidently and demonstrably from your new Rule of faith that the former of immediate Tradition which asserted those points denied by you did there in erre the presumption stands against you that it was Christ's doctrine which you maimed by thus detracting from it or if you suppose gratis that 't was not Christ's doctrine but errors falshoods then it is not proper to call it Moderation but rather an act of necessary charity to root it out I know it is an easy matter to call all weeds which your nice stomachs cannot digest but if that point of immediate Tradition renounced by you which onely could ascertain us that there was any such thing as Christ or God's word be a weed I wonder what can deserve to be called a flower What he vapours of holding what the primitive fathers iudged necessary and now Catholike Church does is an emptie brag vanishes into smoak by it self since as shall shortly bee shown their Grounds can never determin what is the Catholike or universall Church In order to the same proof of his Moderation I likewise answered that he who positively denies ever adds the contrary to what he takes away and that he who makes it an Article that there is no Purgatory no mass no prayer to Saints has as many Articles as he who holds the contrary He replies that he knows the contrary instancing that they neither hold it an Article of faith that there is a Purgatory nor that there is none I ask what kinde of things are their thirty nine Articles Are they of faith or opinions onely I conceive his Lp. will not say they are meere opinions but contra-distinctive of the Protestant faith from ours at least the good simple Ministers were made beleeve so when they swore to maintain them and unles they had certainty as strongly grounded as divine beleef for those points or Articles how could they in reason reject the cōtrary tenets which they held by divine beleef Now the 22. Article defines the negative to Purgatory three other points of our doctrine yet this ill-tutour'd Child tells his old crasy mother the Church of England that she lies that he knows the contrary Now his reason is better then his position 't is this because a negative cannot be
an Article of faith So that he would not have held it of faith against the Manichees that there are not two God's because the proposition is negative nor that the Divells shall not be saved nor the Saints in Heaven damn'd nor that there is no Salvation but through Iesus-Christ all these by the Bishop's Logick must cease to be Articles of faith and become indifferent and unconcerning opinions because they are all negatives After this he talks ramblingly again as his custome is of Theologicall opinions indifferent opinions c. and then on his own kinde word assures us that these points are such and so wipes his hands of them His last proof of their Moderation is their preparation of minde to beleeve practice what ever the Catholike Church even of this present age doth universally beleeve practice Proofs should be visible known and he brings us here for a proof a thing hid in the dark hole of their own breasts nor ever likely to come to light but by their own sayings onely all other Symptoms standing in opposition to it But the greatest foolery is that as I told him they first say there is no universall Church or if any indeterminate so that no body can tell which it is and then make a hollow-hearted profession of a readines to beleeve it and conclude themselves moderate Reformers My Ld replies that then they have renounced their creed the badge of their Christianitie I answer we doubt not but they have and that as they hold onely the word Church and not the thing so they hold onely the word the creed and not the sence of it both in that and what other Articles their fancie pleases Is it not then wisely argued to think to confute us by bringing us to this absurditie as he imagins that then they have renounced their creed whereas 't is our known tenet which we hold as undoubtedly as we do that they are out of the Church The next absurditie he brings me to upon this account is that then they have renounc't their reason also As little can we doubt of this as of the former having seen lately how you deny'd the first Principles and common sense almost in every particular of this discourse and even this present maner of arguing testifies how little reason your bad cause will allow you the use of But how proves he that then they must have lost their reason Thus for if there be many particular Churches wherefore not one universall Church whereof Christ is the Head and King Very good my Ld but if you give us no certain Rule to know what congregations are to be truly accounted Churches and which not such but hereticall and show us no some common ty of ordinary Government in the Church how will you make up of them one universall Church which may bee known for such This is the thing we object as you well know that you give us no such Rule to know a true Church by This is the reason why we affirm you deny an universall Church because you deny all Grounds which can establish such a Church As for what I alledged that if they say there is a Catholike Church 't is indetermin'd that is none knows which it is He answers first that then 't is all one as if it were not Very true for if there be no determinate one there is none at least to us Next that this is a calumny to say they know not determinately which this Church is Let us examine whether it be or no. Two things are requisite to the notion of an universall or Catholike Church One that the particular companies which compound it be indeed true Churches that is consisting of true beleevers and not hereticall Congregations without certain knowledge of which none can possibly know which is the universall Church made up of them The other that these particular Congregations of true beleevers cling together by mean's of order into one entire company to be called when thus united one universall Church For the first I appeal to any candid learned Protestant whether he ever in his life knew any of their Authors who gives us a positive Catalogue of which particular Congregations are to he held for true Churches and a part of the universall which no but to be excluded from it as hereticall or whether himself can stand to it positively upon Grounds given agreed upon by them that such such a Congregation is without the verge of the universall Church such with in it My self have lived in circumstances to be aswell acquainted with their doctrine as most men are and I profess sincerely were my life at stake onely redeemable by the resolving this question I could not determin absolutely upon any Grounds constantly acknowledg'd by them whether Presbyterians Anabaptists or Quakers are to be excluded from the universall Church or no. And if we cannot determin of sects so neer at hand though prest to it by our conversation carriage to declare express our selves distinctively much lesse can we expect it in order to the Armenians Ethiopians Iacobites with whose customes and tenets we are so litle acquainted But alas how vain is it to expect from Protestants such a distinctivenes of true beleevers from false who have no Grounds to make such a distinction For what Principles have they to character a true beleever Is it to acknowledge the letter of the Scripture sufficient All Hereticks in the world almost own this Arians Socinians who deny Christ's divinity most of all Is it the true sence of it how shall they agree in this without some certain mean's or Rule to interpret it make them agree Must the common doctrine of the universall Church interpret it This is the very thing we are in quest of and till wee know what particular Congregations are to bee held true Churches know not yet which it is Must consent of fathers They have no Authority but from the Church in which they lived and as declarers of her doctrine unles therefore we have some Rule to conclude antecedently that the Church whose doctrine they taught was the true Church we are still ignorant whether they be true fathers and to be beleeved or no. Is it the private Spirit The most frantick Enthusiasts then have an equall pretence Is it private reason In steps the Socinian and indeed all heresies in the world for every one hath a private reason of his own and can use it to his power in interpreting Scripture But my L d of Derry seems to drive another way affirming here p. 43. that he knows no other necessary Articles of faith but the Apostles creed though other Protestant Authors affirm more This then according to him must be the fundamentall Rule of faith and the Touch stone to try who are true beleevers who not The Puritans therefore who deny'd one of those Articles to wit Ghrists descent into Hell must be excluded quite from the universall
and Church of England did no more than all other Princes Republikes of the Roman Communion have done in effect This word in effect deserves a Comment and then if it bee candidly explicated we shall finde it â—ignifies the whole busines though it seeme to speak coyly mincingly Did they ever make laws to renounce and abrogate the Popes Authority and define absolutely against essentiall right Did they ever erect an Ecclesiasticall Superior as you did the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and pretend that he was in no manner of way subordinate to the Pope but vtterly independent on him Did any of them ever separate from the Church by disacknowledging his Head ship and by consequence the Rule of faith immediate Tradition which asserted it Not one Did not your self in your vindication p. 184. after your had put down the parallell acts of Henry the 8th to other Princes when you came to the point confess that Henry the 8th abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions but the Emperors with whom you run along with your parallel in other points did not so Did not your self here p. 37. where you put downe a gradation of the oppositions of the former Kings to the Pope tell us onely as the highest step of it that they threaned him further to make a Wall of separation between him them If then they but threaned to do what K. H. as appears by this law which vtterly renounces the Pope did it follows plainly that they did nothing and King Henry did all as farr as concerns our Controversy which is not about extent of his Authority or in what cases he may be check't from exercising particular Acts of that Authority but about the denying the very Right it self and which is consequent by denying joyintly the Rule of faith and by those denialls separating from the Body of the former Church which held both The signification then of this iuggling phrase in effect as apply'd to our purpose by his own interpretation is this that other Catholike countries did just nothing and King Henry the 8th did all To no imaginable purpose then save onely to show his diligence in nothing the politicall wranglings between Kings and Popes are all the instances produced by the Bishop that Catholike Kings in such such particular cases permitted not the Pope to execute what he intended unles he can deny his own words and prove that they did as much as K. Henry and not threaned onely But my Ld of Derry having taken a great deal of pains to gather together these notes which the way being new he made account would come of bravely grows much perplex't to see them all defeated at once by showing plainly that they are nothing to the purpose and therefore both heretofore and especially at present complains much that we answer them not in particular assuring the Reader that would our cause have born it we had done so Was ever man so ignorant of the common laws of disputing Needs any mory answer be given to particulars which one yeelds to than to say he grants them We grant therefore all his particular instances of these contess between Kings Popes and yeeld willingly that such such materiall facts happen'd many more not entring into that dispute how far they were done iustly how far un iustly which is little to our purpose since the Authority it self was still acknowledg'd on both sides What need we answer each in particular by saying first I grant this next I grant the other Now the use or application he makes of them that is to pretend thence that they did as much as King Henry the 8th so to iustify him is a particular point and one and to this I have answer'd particularly both here and also in my third Section where I have demonstrated it to be the most shameles manifoldly contradictory absurdity that ever bid defiance to the universall acknowledgment and ey-verdict of the whole word Vpon occasion of his alledging that all Catholike countries do the same in effect against the Pope as the Protestants I raised an exception of his incoherent manner of writing To which he thus replies p. 45. But what is the Ground of his exception nothing but a contradiction As if he made account that a contradiction is a matter of nothing nor worth excepting against His contradiction is this that our doctrine concerning the Pope is injurious to Princes prejudices their crowns and yet that we hold do the same against the Pope in effect as Protestants do He would salve the contradiction first by alledging that Papists may be injurious to Princes in one respect one time and do them right in another respect and another time Well my Lord but since the doctrine of the Papists concerning the substance of the Pope's Authority is ever constantly the same for none can be Papists longer then they hold it it knows no varitie of respectt not times and so if it be prejudiciall in it self once 't is prejudiciall alwayes The extent of it varies upon occasions this consists in an indivisible cannot alter This substance of his Authority is the point which belongs to you to impugn if you go to work consequently since you are onely accused of Schism for rejecting this not for hindring him from acting in particular cases Either grant then that this tenet is not preâ—udiciall to Princes being like yours and then you contradict your former pretence that it was or say that yours is prejudiciall to Princes also being the same in effect with it and then you have evaded indeed a contradiction but by as great an absurdity Secondly to show his former answer was nothing worth he alledges that I have changed the subject of the Proposition and that he spoke not of Papists but of the Pope Court of Rome No Ld but I would not let you change the subject of the whole question 'T is a separation from all the Churches in Communion with Rome that you stand accused of the undeniable fact evidences that you have broke from all those Churches by renouncing those two said Principles of Vnity in which they agree This is our accusation against you and so your excuses must be apply'd to this or else they are no excuses at all Now one of your excuses is that the Pope's Authority is prejudiciall to Princes and it must be mean't of the Pope's Authority as held universally by all those Churches else why did you separate from all those Churches upon that pretence But those Churches universally as you say hold the same in effect with the Protestants for you say you separated from the Court onely what needed them excuses from you to them unles there had been a contradiction in the busines Had you opposed onely some attempts of the Court of Rome by your tenet you might have remain'd still united with France Spain c who did as you confess the same in effect but
now you remain disunited from Catholike countries and their Churches in the very tenet of the Pope's Authority held by them as our eyes testify therefore 't is evident 't was the doctrine of all those Churches you lest and would vindicate your self for leaving by pretending that doctrine injurious to Princes and by consequence you contradict your self In order to the same point and to let him see that those restrictions of the Pope's Authority avouched by the laws practice of Catholike countries concern'd not faith as the Protestants renouncind the Authority it self did I told him Schism Disarm p. 321. that the Pope's did not cast out of Communion those Catholike divines which opposed them and that this argues that it is not the Roman Religion nor any publike tenet in their Church which binds any to these rigorous assertions which the Protestants condemn He replies first thus I know it is not the Roman Religion their Religion ours is the same So you say my L d to honour your selves which such good company but answer seriously are not the Roman Religion yours different in this very point of the Pope's Supremacy which is the thing in hands and do not the Romanists excommunicate you and think you of another Religion because you hold it True it is you may account them of your Religion because you have no bounds but voluntary and so can take in put out whom you please but they who are bound to a certaine Rule of Religion cannot do so because your new fashion'd tenets stand not with their Rule To what end then is this show of condiscension to shuffle away the point Again if these rigorous assertions which you impugn be not their Religion some other more moderate tenet concerning the Pope's Authoritz is their Religion for 't is evident that all Catholike Doctors defet something to the Pope as a point of their Religion or as received upon their Rule of faith why did you then reject the more moderate tenet which belongd to their Religion because some men attribute more to him by their more rigorous tenets which you acknowledge belong not to their Religion or how do you hope to excuse your self for rejecting the more moderate tenet of the substance of the Pope's Authority by alledging that others held the extent of it too rigorously Is this a sufficient Plea for your breaking God's Church Secondly he confesses that those rigorous assertions extending thus the Pope's Authority are not the generall tenet of our Church Whom do you impugn then or to what end do you huddle together those pretended extravagancies for your vindication must you necessarily renounce the substance of the Popes Authority which was generally held by all and so break the vnitie of the Church because there was a tenet attributing too much to him which you confess to have been not generally held nay generally resisted what Logick can conclude such an Act pardonable by such a Plea Thirdly hee affirms that the Pope's many times excommunicated Princes Doctors and whole Nations for resisting such rigorous pretences True he excommunicated them as pretending them disobedient or infringing some Ecclesiasticall right as he might have done for violently and unjustly putting to death some Ecclesiasticall person and in an hundred like cases and no wonder because as a Prelate he has no other Weapons to obtain his right when it is deny'd him But did he ever excommunicate them as directly infringing the Rule of faith or did the Catholike world ever looke upon them as on Hereticks when thus excommunicated as they look't upon you renouncing in terms the very Authority it self Nay did not the Pope's when their Passion heated by the present contest was over admit them into Communion again though still persisting in their unretracted opposition what weaker then than to think they were separated from the Church for oppositing those more rigorous pretences or that those came down recommended by that Rule of faith as did the Authority it self which you rejected and for rejecting it be came held by all the Churches of that Communion for Schismaticks Hereticks Fourthly to let us see that hee will not stand to his former Answer hee tells us that the Pope his Court had something else to do than to enquire after the tenets of private Doctors That is after himself had taken a great deal of pains to prove that all Catholike Kings abetted by their Doctors and Casuists had thus resisted the Pope in these particular cases that is that it was Publikely done all over the whole Church hee alledges in the next place that onely private Doctors held it So fruitfull is error of contradictions Fifthly hee alledges that perhaps those Doctors lived about the time of the Councells of constance Basile and then the Popes durst not meddle with them Yet many if not most of the instances produced by him are modern some of them as that of Portugall in our dayes and not past seaven years ago another of the Venetians in this very last age which no perhaps can make happen in the time of those Councells Score up another self contradiction What hee means by their living perhaps out of the Pope's reach none can tell The Pope's Spirituall Iurisdiction by which hee acts such things excommunicates reachers as far as those Churches in Communion with Rome as all men know and if our Bishop speak of those who lived in other places hee changes the subject of the question for wee speake of Doctors abetting Roman Catholike Kings Kingdomes in such opposition Sixthly hee asks what did the Sorbon Doctors of old value the Court of Rome S. Trifle not my Ld they ever valued the tenet of the Popes Supremacy as a point of faith what they thought of the Court concerns not you nor our Question nor are you accused or out of the Church for not over valving or not justly valuing the Court but for under-valuing the very substance of the Pope's Authority and calling that an Error which the Rule of faith delivered us as a point of faith In a word all your process here is convinced to be perfectly frivolous to no purpose since none of these things you alledge as done by Catholike countries are those for which you are excommunicate cast out of the Church accused for Schismaticks Hereticks by us but another far greater not at all touched by you towit the renouncing disacknowledging the very inward Right of the Pope Which shows that all your allegations are nothing but laborious cobwebs signs of a fruitles industries but vtterly unable to support Truth I upbraided them upon occasion for their bloody laws and bloodier execution Hee referrs me for Answer to his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon Where hee makes a long-law preamble no wayes appliable to the present case which even by his own Confession is this whether though treasonable acts be punishable acts of Religion ought for any reason be made treason
L d who looks into the sounds of words not the meaning of them enflames the expressions improves them to flanting proud sence Hee tells us that Rome may bee destroyed with an Earthquake I answer it must be an unheard of Earthquake which can swallow up the whole Diocese for if the City onely run that hazard the Clergy of the Roman Diocese yet remain who can elect to themselves a new Bishop And no harm will succed to our cause Next hee sayes it may become hereticall or Mahumetan True so may the whole Church if it had pleased God so to order causes But that it pleases him not wee have this strong presumption that the good of his Church so much concern'd in the perpetuity of this succession as hath been shown will crave his perpetuall assistance to that see Wee have also for pledge of this perpetuity the experience of his gratious conservation of it for sixteen hundred years the establishment of it at present not giving us the least Ground to think it's ruine likely If his Lp do and that this trouble him at least let him yeeld his obedience till that happens and then preach liberty from Rome's Iurisdiction to those that shall live in that age What hee addes concerning the Churches disposing of her offices is meer folly Himself granted in the foregoing page that Christ himself not the Church instituted this Principality let him them show first that the Church hath Authority to change Christ's Institutes ere he thus frankly presume it left to the Churches disposall Next hee tells us that betweene Tyranny Anarchy there is Aristocracy which was the ancient regiment of the Christian Church Wee blame them not for renouncing any one sort of Government but all Government in the Church and alledge that there is no Kinde of Government which actually vnite God's Church in one but this of the Pope's Headship An Aristocracy signifies a Government by some cheif persons who sitt either constantly or else often easily meet that the difficulties occurring in the ordinary Government of the CoÌ„monwealth may bee settled by them Was this the ordinary Government of the Primitive Church Had they any generall Council which the Bishop means by Aristocracy as appears by his p. 56. l. vlt. till Constantine's time Nay have wee had any this six handred years or indeed eight hundred last past which they will acknowledge to bee such or shall wee have any for the future they tell us not till towards the end of the world and that even then 't is but probable neither See D r H. Reply p. 30. His position then comes to this that Aristocracy in a generall Councill being the Ecclesiasticall Hâ—ad p. 56. l. vlt. or the Government which vnites God's Church the said Church had no Head nor Government at all till Constantine's time none betweene Council Council afterwards none at all again this six or seven hundred years past and lastly perhaps shall have none at all for the future Farewell Church Government and many thanks to my good L d of Derry D r. H d. But I most wonder that a man of his Principles could finde no middle sort of Government between Tyranny Anarchy but Aristocracy Is Monarchy with him none at all or none of the best which even now hee told us was of divine Institution You good people who depend so zealously of this new Prelacy observe how your Dooctrs have either a very short memory to inform you right or a very strong will to cheat you into the wrong Heed adds that a Primacy of order is more sufficient in this case to prevent dangers and procure advantages to the Church than a Supremacy of power Which signifies thus much directly in other terms that hee who hath no power to act at all in order to the universall Church or as a first hath power to procure her more good prevent more harms towards her that is hath power to act better for that Church than hee who has power to act hath And thus my friend here feasts his Readers with contradictions his whole discourse being such in it's self wants onely to bee put into something more immediate terms of the same signification After I had put down the necessity yet moderatenes of the Pope's Authority as held of faith by us I added that this was the bridle our Saviour put in the mouth of his Church to wield it sweetly which way hee pleased My Bp. replies that I make the Church to bee the Beast and the Pope's office to ride upon the Church No my Lord I styl'd the Pope's office the Bridle do bridles use to ride upon horses or did your Lp ever meet a bridle on horsback I see the Bishop is a better Bowler then hee is an Hors-man Next hee tells us that our Saviour put his bridle not into the mouth but hand of his Church Good my L d inform us for you chop your Logick so snall are grown so mysteriously acute that without a revelation none can understand you when the Church holds the bridle in her hand as you say whom does she govern by that bridle Do the whole multitude of beleevers hold the bridle govern themselves Then there are no Governors at all oâ—at least none distinct from the governed which is all one Or do some Governors onely hold the bridle weild by it the multitude of beleevers then returns his Lp's cavill buffets himself that then the Church is the Beast as hee irreverently wantons it and those Governors ride upon the Beast and the bridle gets into the Mouth of the Church again for as Governors are said to hold the reins or bridle so if wee will prosecute the metaphor into an Allegory the Governed must be said to have it in their Mouths that is to be ruled guided by it So unfortunate is his Lp that hee can neither approve himself a good Controvertist nor a tolerable guibbler but while hee pretends to be solid in the former he still runs into contradictions when witty in the latter hee rambles into absurdities and in either performance his own both Arguments Quips light upon his own head I represented the advantages coÌ„veniences this Headship brought to the world when duly observed by good Pope's Hee replies that I write dreaming as Plato did and look upon men not as they are but as they ought to bee This mistake is of the same strain onely something more voluntary I look not my Lord upon men at all in this place but speak of the Office it self how admirabily convenient it is if rightly performed What men do or how they execute it whether well or ill concerns not a Controvertist noâ— mee the point or tenet concerns mee The personall managing this office is not of faith and belongs not to mee but to Historians Lawyers to talk of the Office it self is of faith fals under the sphere of Controversy
to him yet seem to strike at the latter as hee ought hee joyns both however in consistent into one and being to wrangle against the Pope's Headship proposes it first under this Chimericall notion The Papacy Quà talis or as such as it is maintained by many And this hee calls laying the Axe to the root of Shism though it bee as directly leuell'd a stroak at his own legs and inflicting as deep a wound on the supports of his cause as a contradiction can give to pretended sence For since all Papists as such hold a Papacy or the Pope's Headship of Iurisdiction over the whole Church and differ in this point from Protestants it is evident that the Papacy of such is that which is held by all for none can be Papists longer then they hold it Now then to say the Papacy as such as it is now held by many is the same as to say the Papacy as held by all as held by many onely which is in other language to legitimate an Hircoceruus and to clap together non ens and ens into the same notion But how does hee clear himself of this shuffling nonsence why first hee asks do not some Roman Catholikes subject the Pope to a generall Council and others nay the greater part of them c subject a generall Council to the Pope What is this to the Question whether these words the Papacy as such as it is now maintain'd by many cohere in sence or no Secondly hee asks whether hee might not then well say the Papacy quà talis c. No my L d for it being evident that all Roman Catholikes hold the Papacy in some sence if you call it the Papacy as such as it is held by many pray how will you stile it as held by all as not such or the Papacy with super additions or can all hold what some do not hold Thirdly hee saies his conclusion was not against the Church of Rome in generall but against the Pope Court of Rome that they were guilty of the Schism For what for maintaining the substance of the Pope's Authority held by all then you accuse the Church of Rome in generall of Schism for the Church in generall holds what all in her hold Or was it for this opinion of the Pope above the Council and others of this strain How were they guilty of Schism for this unles they had deny'd you Communion for holding the contrary or prest upon you an unconscientious approbation of it which you know they did not Fool not your Readers my L d 't was not for this tenet which you impute to the Court of Rome but for that of the Pope's Headship or Spirituall Iurisdiction over all God's Church held by all Catholikes and by that whole Church equally then as it is now for which you are excommunicated and so ought either to submit to that whole Church again in that point as formerly or else if you would deal candidly impugn that whole Church and not the Court onely thus opposite to you in that mainly-concerning point Fourthly as hee saies although aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus that is sometimes honest Homer takes a nodd and though hee had stol'n a napp it had been neither felony nor treason yet to let us see hee did not sleep he will put his argument into form without a quâ talis which is to affect a sleepines still or as our English Proverb saies to sleep fox sleep Hee is accus'd of a contradiction non-sence and to clear himself hee tells us hee will now lay aside one part of the contradiction and endeavour to make good sence of the other Now his first argument is that the Court of Rome is guilty of Schism for preferring the Pope before a generall Council to which I have already answer'd His second is that ours are thus guilty for making all Apostolicall succession Episcopall Iurisdiction come from Rome onely By which if hee means our Church as a Church holds it as hee ought if hee speak like a Controvertist 't is a most gross false imputation as I told him If of the Court of Rome onely then since they neither prest it as of faith nor deny'd you Communion for these points but for another held by all as I lately show'd they cannot hence be concluded guilty nor you guiltles of Schism This argument past over hee confesses this tenet is not generall amongst us I add but points of faith are generally held therefore this tenet is but an opinion and being not generall as hee grants it follows that it is onely a particular or private opinion as I call'd it his own words evince it Yet hee is loath these should be call'd private opinions because they are most common most current Whereas unles they come down recommended by our Rule of faith immediate Tradition or the voice of the Church so become perfectly common generall universall undoubtedly current our Church looks upon them onely as deductions of private men's reasons nor shall I own them for other That the former is a common tenet hee brings Cardinal Bellarmine to say that it is almost de fide or a point of faith which the good Bp. sees not that it signifies it was almost reveald or that the revelation fell an inch or two short of reaching our knowledge or that God has not indeed reveald it but yet that t was twenty to one but hee had done it Next that the Council of Florence seem'd to have defin'd it now the word seems signifies I know not that ever it defin'd it at all or if it defin'd it so 't is more than I know Thirdly that the Council of Lateran I suppose hee means not the generall Council there held defin'd it most expresly Yet the Bp here descanting upon the words of that Council sayes onely that they seem to import no less that is it may bee they mean no such thing or it may bee they mean much less For the latter opinion as hee candidly here calls it hee tells us Bellarmine declares it to bee most true that hee cites great Authors for it saith that it seemeth again to have been the opinion of the old Schoolmen speaking highly at least seemingly of the Pope's Authority So that all is seeming all opinion and uncertainty Now the use the Bp. makes of this gear is this The Court of Rome many with it held an over weening opinion of their own Authority though they permitted us whole Churches to hold the contrary therefore wee very innocently broke God's Church or therefore wee quite renounc't the Principles of Vnity in both faith Government as the fact witnesses you did because they held an erroneous op nion too much extending the latter In a word let Bellarmine the Bp. wrangle about the opinionative point I shall not think my self concern'd as a Controvertist to interrupt their dispute or â—oyn mine interest with either party however did I
our charge of their Schismaticall breach is will winnow them the Rule of faith the voice of the Church or immediate Tradition will winnow or rather Christ hath winnow'd them by it having already told them that if they hear not the Church they are to be esteemed no better than Heathens Publicans Since then 't is evident out of the terms that you heard not the Church for your nâ—w fangled Reformations nor Ground those tenets upon the voice of the Church nay according to your Grounds have left no Church nor common suprem Government in the Church to hear it follows that you have indeed winnow'd your selves from amongst the wheat of Christians and are as perfect chaff I mean those who have voluntarily broken Church Communion as Publicans Heathens Now to show how empty a brag it is that they hold Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee to omit their no Communion in Government already spoken of Sect. 6. let us see what Communion they have with the Greek Church in tenets by the numerosity of which they hope for great advantages and whether the Protestants or wee approach nearer them in more points held equally by both I will collect therefore out of one of their own side Alexander Ross the tenets of the present Greek Church in which they agree with us though in his manner of expressing our tenet hee sometimes wrongs us both The Greeks place saith hee much of their deuotion in the worship of the Virgin Mary and of painted Images in the intercession prayers help and merits of the saints which they invocate in their Temples They place Iustification not in faith but in works The sacrifice of the Mass is used for the quick and the dead They beleeve there is a third place between that of the blessed and the damned where they remain who deferr'd repentance till the end of their life If this place bee not Purgatory adds Ross I know not what it is nor what the souls do there View of all Religions p. 489. And afterwards p. 490. They beleeve that the souls of the dead are better'd by the prayers of the living They are no less for the Churches Authority and Traditions than Roman Catholikes bee when the Sacrament is carried through the Temple the People by bowing themselves adore it and falling on their knees kiss the earth In all these main points if candidly represented they agree with us and differ from Protestants Other things hee mentions indeed in which they differ from us both as in denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost not using Confirmation observing the Iewish Sabbath with the L d' s day c. As also some practises not touching faith in which they hold with the Protestants not with us as in administring the Sacrament in both kinds using leauened bread in the Sacrament Priests marriage there is no one point produced by him which our Church looks upon as a point of faith in which they dissent from us and consent with the Protestants except that one of denying the Pope's Supremacy for their onely not using Extreme-Vnction which hee intimates signifies not that they hold it unlawfull or deny it Iudge then candid Protestant Reader of they Bp ' s sincerity who brags of his holding Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do whereas if wee come to examin particulars they neither communicate in one common Government one common Rule of faith if wee may trust this Authour of their own side since if the Greeks hold the Authority of the Church and Traditions as much as Catholikes do as hee sayes they must hold it as their Rule of faith for so Catholikes hold it nor yet in any one materiall point in opposition to us save onely in denying the Pope's Supremacy And how more moderate they are even in this than the greatest part of if not all Protestants may bee learned from the Bp ' s mistaken testimony at the end of this Section as also from Nilus an avowed writer of theirs for the Greek Church against the Latine and one of the gravest Bp ' s and Authours of that party who shuts up his book concerning the Pope's Primacy in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The summe is this As long as the Pope preserves order and stands with truth hee is not removed from the first and his proper Principality and hee is the Head of the Church and chief Bishop and the successour of Peter and of the rest of the Apostles and it behooves all men to obey him and there is nothing which can detract from the honour due to him but if when hee hath once strayed from the Truth hee will not return to it hee will bee liable to the punishment of the damned Where the Reader will easily judge whether the former words sound more incliningly to the Catholike or the Protestant tenet and as for the latter words But if c. There is no Catholike but will say the same Thus much then for my L d of Derry's Communion with the Eastern Church And as for his Communion with the Southern Northern Western Churches which hee thunders out so boldly as if all the world were on his side and of his Religion if examin'd 't is no better than the former sence his side denies immediate Tradition of forefathers or the living voice of the present Church to bee the Rule of faith which is to the Roman Church the fundamentall of fundamentalls Nor has hee any other Rule of faith that is a plain and certain method of interpreting Scripture common to him and his weakly relâ—ted Brethren so that if they hit sometimes in some points 't is but as the Planets whichare ever wandring hap now and then to have conjunctions which hold not long but pursving their unconstant course decline and vary from one another by degrees and are at length crost by diacentricall oppositions The rest of this paragraph insists again upon his often answer'd saying that the creed contains all necessary points which is grounded onely upon his falsifying the Council of Ephesus as hath been shown heretofore To my many former replies vnto this pretence I add onely this that either it is a necessary point to believe there is such a thing as God's written word or the Scripture or not If not then why do the Protestants challenge it for their Rule of faith Is not the Ground of all faith a necessary point But if it bee a necessary point then all necessary points are not in the Apostles creed for there is no news there of the Scripture nor is it known how much thereof was written when the Apostles made their creed what hee adds of our having chaÌ„ged from our Ancestors in opinions either hee means by opinions points of faith held so by us and then 't is calumny and is to be solidly proued not barely said But if hee mean School opinions what hurt is done that those things should be changed which are in their
in that Council and yet bee a lawfull one too Rub up your memory my L d. you pretend to bee a piece of a Lawyer and I beleeve you will finde an English law that Sixty members is a sufficient number to make a lawfull Parliament and before that law was made common consent custome which is either equivalent or perhaps above law gave the same for granted Fourthly he excepts against the super proportion'd multitude of members out of one Province which hee sayes never lawfull Parliament had I ask if other Provinces would neither send a fit number nor they had a minde to come by what law by what reason should it render illegitimate either Parliament or Council Now 't is certain and not deny'd by any but that Bishop's had as free liberty to come out of other Provinces as out of Italy had they pleased Again the principall busines being to testify the Tradition of former ages a small number of Bishops serving for that and the collaterall or secundary busines being to examin the difficulties those Hereticks which were the occasion of the Council produced that they might be confuted fully out of their own mouthes which is a thing to bee performed by committees in which learned men that were not Bishops might sit it little inferred the want of Bishops Wherefore if there were any error in the supernumerarines of Bishops out of some one Province it was for some other end than for the condemnation of Heresies so is nothing to our purpose unles perhaps my L d will pretend that had those Catholike B p' s out of other Provinces been there they would have voted against their fellow Catholikes in behalf of Luther or Calvin which were a wise Answer indeed Fifthly hee excepts that the Council of Trent is not received in France in point of Discipline What then why by his parallell to a Parliament hee concludes hence t was no lawfull Council Which is to abuse the eyes of the whole world who all see that France who denies the admission of those points of Discipline acknowledges it not withstanding a generall lawfull Council and receives it in all determinations belonging to faith which are so essential to it as it were disacknowledg'd were they deny'd though not in matters of fact which are accidentall to it's Authority nay allow'd by the Church it self however made exprest generally to binde particular countries onely in due circumstances according to their conveniencies Lastly hee alledges that they were not allow'd to speak freely in the Council of Trent Which is a flat calumny and though most important to his cause could hee prove it yet after his bold custome 't is onely asserted by his own bare saying by Sleidan a notoriously lying Author of their own side and by a passage or two in the History of the Council of Trent whereof the first is onely a ieering expression any thing will serve the B p. the other concerning the Pope's creating new Bp's nothing at all to his purpose since both these new the other old B p' s were all of one Religion Catholikes so not likely to dissent in voâ—ing Doctrines which kind of votes are essentiall to a Council pertinent to our discourse which is about Doctrines not about Discipline After this hee puts down three solutions as hee calls them to our plea of the Patriarchall Authority First that Britain was no part of the Roman Patriarchate And this hee calls his first solution Secondly that though it had been yet the Popes have both quitted forfeited their Patriarchall power and though they had not yet it is lawfully transferred And this is his second solution The third is that the difference between them and us is not concerning any Patriarchall Authority And this is his third solution which is a very really good one shows that the other need no reply our charge against them being for renouncing the supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority of divine Institution not a Patriarchate onely of humane Institution If further answer bee demanded first the Greek Schismaticks our enemies confess that England was a part of the Pope's Patriarchate if it bee truly called a Western Church see Barlaam Monachus de Papae Principatu c. 11 and Part. 1. Sect. 15. of the adjoyning Treatise Next it is falsely pretended that the Pope's have either quitted or forfeited their Patriarchall Authority and may with equall reason bee concluded that a Bishop quits Episcopall Authority if hee is also a Patriarch or that a person must leave of to be Master of his own family because hee is made King and his Authority universally extended to all England Which last instance may also serve against the pretended inconsistency of the Papall and Patriarchall power if it need any more answer than what hath formerly been given Sect. 4. I omit his calumnies against the Papall Authority charactering it falsly as a meere unbridled tyranny And his thrice repeated non-sence when hee joyns in one notion Patriarchall Authority a Patriarchy being a Government by one an Aristocracy by many Nor is his other calumniating expression much better when hee calls the Papall Authority a Soveraign Monarchicall Royalty since it was never pretended by Catholikes that the Pope is the King of the Church The notion of Priest and Sacrifice being relative the failing of the one destroyes the other since then the Protestants have no Sacrifice they are convinced to have no Priests This point in particular hee never touch't but talk't a little in obscure terms of matter form of ordination as if it were not an easy thing to say what words they pleased and do what actions they pleased To this the Bishop onely replies that hee over did and set down the point of Sacrifice over distinctly Next hee tells us their Registers are publike offices whether any man may repair at pleasure whereas our question is not of the Registers in generall but of that one particular pretended Register of the right ordination of Protestant Bishops kept conceal'd from the free perusall of Catholikes though the circumstances to wit their alledging the unlawfulnes of the Protestant Bishops ordination requir'd it should bee shown His next paragraph concerning their uncharitablenes needs not bee repeated unles it could be mended My expedient to procure peace Vnity which was to receive the root of Christianity a practicall infallibility in the Church hee seems willing to admit of Onely hee adds that the greater difficulty will bee what this Catholike Church is and indeed to his party 't is an insuperableone though to us most facil as I have shown formerly Sect. 7. Hee call'd the Bishops of Italy the Pope's parasiticall pentioners I reply'd it seem'd his Lordship Kept a good table and had great revenews independent on any Hee answers hee was not in passion and that hee Spoke onely against meer Episcopelles which is to show that his passion is nothing abated yet by adding such unsavory
whence to alledge those testimonies comparable to that of the Church they left since they can never even pretend to show any company of men so incomparably numerous so unquestionably learned holding certainly as of Faith and as received from the Apostles that Government which they impugned and this so constantly for so many hundred years so unanimously and universally in so many Countries where knowledge most flourish't testifying the same also in their General Councels all which by their own aknowlegedment was found in the Church they left The eihtgh Ground is that The proofs alledged by Protestants against us bear not even the weight of a probability to any prudent man who penetrates and considers the contrary motives For the proofs they alledge are testimonies that is words capable of divers senses as they shall be diversely play'd upon by wits Scholars and Criticks and it is by experience found that generally speaking their party and ours give severall meanings to all the Testimonies controverted between us Now it is manifest that computing the vastnefs of the times and places in which our Profession hath born sway we have had near a thousand Doctors for one of the Protestants who though they ever highly venerated and were well versed in all the Ancient Fathers and Councells yet exprest no difficulty in those proofs but on the contrary made certain account that all Antiquity was for them Thus much for their knowledge Neither ought their sincerity run in a less proportion than their number unless the contrary could be evidently manifested which I hear not to be pretended since they are held by our very Adversaries and their acts declare them to have been pious in other respects and on the other side considering the corruptness of our nature the prejudice ought rather to stand on the part of the disobeyers than of the obeyers of any Government Since then no great difficulty can be made but that we have had a thousand knowing men for one and no certainty manifested nor possible to be manifested that they were unconscientious we have had in all morall estimation a thousand to one in the meanes of understanding aright these testimonial proofs and then I take not that to have any morall probability which hath a thousand to one against it But I stand not much upon this having a far better game to play I mean the force of Tradition which is fortify'd which such and so many invincible reasons that to lay them out at large and as they deserve were to transcribe the Dialogues of Rusworth the rich Storehouse of them to them I refer the Reader for as ample as satisfaction as even Scepticism can desire and onely make use at present of this Consideration that if it be impossible that all the now-Fathers of Families in the Catholick Church disperst in so many nations should conspire to tell this palpablely to their Children that twenty yeares agoe such a thing visible and practical as all points of Faith are was held in that Church if no such thing had been and that consequently the same impossibility holds in each twenty yeares upwards till the Apostles by the same reason by which it holds in the last twenty then it followes evidently that what was told us to have been held twenty yeares agoe was held ever in case the Church held nothing but upon this Ground that so she received or had been taught by the immediately-foregoing Faithfull for as long as she pretends onely to this Ground the difficulty is equal in each twenty yeares that is there is an equal impossibility they should conspire to this palpable lie Now that they ever held to this Ground that is to the having received it from their Ancestours is manifested by as great an Evidence For since they now hold this Ground if at any time they had taken it up they must either have counterfeited that they had received it from their Ancestours or no. The former relapses into the abovesaid impossibility or rather greater that they should conspire to tell a lie in the onely Ground of their Faith and yet hold as they did their Faith built upon that Ground to be truth the latter position must discredit it self in the very termes which imply a perfect contradiction for it is as much as to say nothing is to be held as certainty of Faith but what hath descended to us from our Forefathers and yet the onely Rule which tells us certainly there is any thing of Faith is newly invented Wherefore unless this chain of Tradition be shown to have been weak in some link or other the case between us is this whether twenty testimonies liable to many exceptions and testify'd by experience to be disputable between us can bear the force even of a probability against the universal acknowledgment and testification of millions and millions in any one age in a thing visible and practical To omit that we are far from being destitute of testimonies to counterpoise nay incomparably over poise theirs By this Ground and the reason for it the Reader may judge what weak and trivial proofs the best of Protestant Authours are able to produce against the clear Verdict of Tradition asserted to be infallible by the strongest supports of Authority and reason To stop the way against the voluntary mistakes of mine Adversary I declare my self to speak here not of written Tradition to be sought for in the Scriptures and Fathers which lies open to so many Cavils and exceptions but of oral Tradition which supposing the motives with which it was founded and the charge with which it was recommended by the Apostles carries in it's own force as apply'd to the nature of mankind an infallible certainty of it's lineal and never-to-be-interrupted perpetuity as Rushworth's Dialogues clearly demonstrate Sect. 6. The Continuation of the same Grounds THe ninth Ground is that The Catholick Church and her Champions ought in reason to stand upon Possession This is already manifested from the fifth Ground since Possession is of it's self a title till sufficient motives be produced to evidence it an usurpation as hath there been shown By this appears the injustice of the Protestants who would have it thought reasonable that we should seem to quit our best tenour Possession attested by Tradition and fall upon the troublesome and laborious method of citing Authours in which they will accept of none but whom they list and after all our pains and quotations directly refuse to stand to their judgment as may be seen in the Protestant's Apology in which by the Protestant's own confessions the Fathers held those opinions which they object to us for errours The tenth Ground is that In our Controversies about Religion reason requires that we should sustain the part of the Defendant they of the Opponent This is already sufficiently proved since we ought to stand upon the title of Possession as a Ground beyond all arguments untill it be convinced to be malae fidei which is