his reason to that his persuasion or assurance so as there may not subesse dubium against our rule of Faith acknowledg'd infallible Answ p. 36. at unawares by himself that he will never be either able or willing to show And so for the former pretence to wit that they separated not voluntarily it hath already been shown Schism Disarm'd p. 279. to be a most shameless untruth that by their own occasion they had voluntarily renounced our Government Rule of Faith and doctrines and that there wanted onely the punishment for their former voluntary faults to wit the Churche's Excommunication warning the faithful to avoid their company So that Dr. H's plea is no other than as if a Rebel should renounce both the Government and Laws of the Land and being out-law'd and cut off from the Communion of the good Subjects for these faults should lay all the blame on the Governours and Iudges saying no sedition nor division was made in the Common-wealth till they out-law'd him and his adherents and warned the good Subjects to live apart from them As for those pledges left by Christ to his Church for motives of union which the Cath. Gent. made one of our advantages they are these The submitting to the Government of one Head and Pastour the agreeing in one Rule of Faith to which all our private opinions and debates give place as to an infallible Law to decide al quarrels about Faith the multitudes of visible exteriour practices both in several Sacraments and also divine Service performed with such magnificence of Ceremonies lastly and most especially the coadunation of all the members of the Church in eating that heavenly food beleeved by us to be the true and real Body of our Blessed Lord and Saviour All these and some others are so many ties and tokens which make the Sons of the Catholick Church take one another for Fellows and Brothers that is they are unto them so many motives of Vnion In all which he is blind who sees not that our Church hath a most visible advantage over all other Yet Dr. H. assures us that 't is in vain to speak of those to him and why because his passion and disorder'd affections or Interest have so throughly persuaded him both without and against Evidence and two or three odde testimonies with an Id est in the end of them without ever considering the impossibility that Vniversal Attestation should erre have bred a kind of assurance in him cui non subest dubium which is all hee requires for his own or his Churche's certainty of Faith Rep. p. 16. that he professes himself incapable to heare motives and reasons and that 't is in vain to speak of them to him What was meant by the two Advantages of Antiquity and Possession was sufficiently explicated by the Cath. Gentl. in these words such Antiquity or Possession without dispute or contraction from the Adversary as no King can shew for his Crown and much less any person or persons for any other thing Now what more manifest than that we enjoy this acknowledgment of our Adversaries to have that this Antiquitie and Possession for many ages and that this acknowledgment is a particular advantage to us since the Protestants have none such from our party but were ever charged by us of novelty a late upstart original and that in this very point in debate between us This being plainly there exprest by the Catholick Gentleman to be his meaning Dr. H. first p. 20. shuffles off to Fraternal Communion next of a Divine turn'd Lawyer he cites as an affirmation of the Doctors presumi malam fidem ex antiquiori Adversarij possessione which apply'd means thus much that they being more anciently in possession 't is to be presumed that we usurp't So that till he evidence that they were more anciently in possession his law availes him nothing In the mean time let him consider our two advantage to wit that we had a Possession acknowledg'd before this present possession of theirs whereas their pretended possession before ours is in question and controvertible for Mr. H. will not say that he knows the contrary better than his Church does her Faith which at best he confess'd before had but probability of her not erring now then that which is a probability onely is in it's own nature liable to dispute and controvertible since it may perhaps be shown false to morrow Their possession then pretended to have been before ours is not onely disacknowledg'd by us but also in it's own nature subject to dispute ours before theirs acknowledg'd and not capable of dispute The other advantage we have is that the pretended usurpation of the Pope being of a Supremacy over the whole Church and all the Bishops in it must needs in all reason be most visible to the eyes of the whole world now since it is certain they could never evidence it thus visible as appears by their diversities of opinions about it's introduction to be seen in the Catalogue of Protestancy that is they know not when it came in consequently this consideration affords a certain prejudice against their former possession and the pretence of the Pope's Vsurpation For certainly that Authority which could not be usurp't but most visibly and yet the usurpation is not most visible was not usurp't at all but was ever Wherefore our possession and Authority is iustly presumable to have been coÌ„tinued ever since Christ's time since the beginning of our Faith could never be clearly manifested as many Protestant Authours beyond exception confess and onely some of them driven to that desperate task by our arguments blindly pretend the contrary whereas their bearing sway in this corner of the world is of confest and known original which differences us from them by a most manifest advantage The persuasion of Infallibility our fourth advantage p. 21. there mention'd must necessarily be mistaken and wrong apprehended as well as it's fellows that is now grown ordinary with Mr. H. and so we must not wonder at it I have already shown that this persuasion is the onely means to oblige the Subjects of any Church to Vnity of Belief nay that there can be no rationalâ—ty to any belief at all where this persuasion of the Churche's Infallibility is not found which being found in no Congregation but that of the Catholick Church she hath consequently an infinite advantage above all others in the notion ad nature of a Church which is to be a conserver of Faith or rather indeed it follows hence most evidently that none other can have the true nature of a Church but her self Now Dr. H. in stead of telling us I or no whether this Persuasion be of such a force as is pretended in order to the Vnity of the Faithfull flies off and sayes this can have no influence upon them though it be the onely thing which gives fundamentally Being to a Church as hath been shown telling us moreover for our further certainty
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
Church yet we see Protestants communicate with them aswell nay more than with Anabaptists nor are they look't upon with a different eye from the other sects or as more separated from the Church than the rest Again as Puritans are excluded by this Principle so all that reject any thing but these twelve Articles are admitted by it as part of God's Church Hence it follows that though any sect deny the Government of the Church by King by Bishops by Pope by Patriarch by Lay-elders by private Ministers nay all Government the Procession of the holy Ghost all the Sacraments nay all the whole Scripture except what interferes with those twelve points are members of God's Church Reader canst thou imagin a greater blasphemy Again when he says the Apostle's creed is onely necessary and fundamentall he either mean's the words of the Apostles creed onely or the sence meaning of it If the former the Socinians and Arians hold it whom yet I conceive he thinks no part of God's Church If the latter either the Protestants or we must be excluded contrary to his tenet from the universall Church for since points of faith are sence and we take two Articles to wit that of Christ's descending into Hell that of the Catholike Church in a different sence it follows that we have different points of our creed or different creeds and therefore either we or they must fundamentally err and be none of the universall Church Where then is this determinate universall Church or how shall we finde it by the Protestants Principles no certain mean's being left to determin which Congregations are worthy to be call'd particular Churches and so fit to compound that universall which not to be excluded from her For the second point in case there were many particular Churches yet an universall signifies one universall every universality involving an Vnity and so they must have some ty to vnite them according to the natures of those particulars Now those particulars consist of men governable according to Christ's law and so the whole must be a body united by order and Government for things of the same species or kinde cannot be otherwise exteriorly united But I have already shown in the foregoing Section that the Protestants Grounds have left no such order subordination of universall Government in God's Church therefore no universall Christian Common-wealth that is no universall Church To show then this determinate universall Church being the proper answer for the Bishop let me see how he be haves himself in this point First he toyes it childishly telling us that the Protestants acknowledge not indeed a virtuall Church that is one man who is as infallible as the universall Church I answer nor wee neither Ere he calumniates the Church with any such pretended tenets let him show out of her decrees they were hers otherwise if he will dispute against private men let him quote his Authors fall to work Secondly he tells us they acknowledge a Representative Church that is a generall Councill with signifies nothing unles they first determing certainly who are good Christians and fitt to vote there who Hereticks so vnfit that is till they show what Congregations are truly to be called Churches and what Church made up of such and such is to be esteemed universall otherwise how can a Representative of the universall Church which is a relative word be understood to be such unles it be first known which is the universall Church it ought to represent Thirdly he tells us they acknowledge an Essentiall Church I marry now we come to the point Expect now Reader a determinate universall Church so particularly character'd that thou canst not fail to acknowledge it The Essentiall Church that is saith he the multitude or multitudes of beleevers His that is seem'd to promise us some determinate mark of this Church and he onely varies the phrase into beleevers a word equally obscure as the former equally questionable nay the self same question For 't is all one to ask which is a Congregation of right beleevers as to ask which is a true Church But this is his vsuall and even thrid bare trick with which Mountebanklike he deludes his Readers and is too much inveterate in his manner of writing ever to hope to wean him of it They can do no more than shuffle about in Generall terms hold still to indeterminate confused universall expressions who have no Grounds to carry home to particular things He concludes with telling his Reader that we are in five or six severall opinions what Catholike Church is into which we make the last resolution of our faith Whither away my Lord The question at present is not about the resolution of faith nor about the formall definition of a Church but about what visible materiall persons countries make up the Church That you cannot pitch upon these in particular I have already shown that we can is as visible as the sun at noon day to wit those countries in Communion with the See of Rome These and no other are to us parts of the uniuersall Church Every ordinary fellow of your or our side can tell you what these are 't is as easie to do it as to know which is a Papist-Country as you call it which not And even in those places where they live mixt with others as in England they are distingvishable from others by most visible Marks Our Rule to distinguish our flock from Stragglers is the acknowledgment of immediate Tradition for the Rule Root of faith and of the present Government of our Church under S. Peter's successor who so ever renounced this Government or differ'd from us in any other point recommended by that Rule at the same time and in the same act renounced the said ever constantly certain Rule and by renouncing it their being of the Church as did your selves confessedly in the reign of King Henry the 8th and the Greeks with all out casts for those points in which they differ from us To this all Catholikes agree what ever school men dispute about the Resolution of faith Show us a Church thus pointed out visibly and such evident manifest Grounds why just so many and more can be of it or els confess you have lost the notion of an universall Church nor hold or know any Sect. 8. Nine or ten self contradictions in one Section How hee clears our Religion and condemns his own The Incoherence of the former Protestans blody laws with their own Principles How hee steals by false pretence from showing a visiblety of Vnity in the Church to invisible holes The reason why the succession into S. Peter's dignity should continue to the Bp. of Rome Plentifull variety of follies non-sence and quibbling mistakes The sleight account hee gives of the order Brother hood and fundamentalls of his Church HIs 8th Section presents us with his fifth Ground to iustify their separation and 't is this that the King
which such things were done In Answer the Bishop pretends first that hee will take my frame in peeces whereas hee not so much as handles it or looks upon it formine concern'd a Visible ty of Church Vnity his discourse reckons up out of S. Paul seven particulars all which except onely the common Sacrament of Baptism are invisible latent some of them no wayes proper to a Church The first is one Body Well leap't again my L d you are to prove first we are one Body if the Vnity of Government conseru'd by all those who acknowledge the Popes Head ship be taken away by you but you suppose this and then ask what can be more prodigious then for the members of the same Body to war with one another wee were inded once one Body and as long as the meÌ„bers remain'd worthy of that Body there was no warr between them But as when some member becomes corrupted the rest of the members if they do wisely take order to cut it of lest it infect the rest so 't was no prodigy but reason that the members of the former Church should excommunicate or cut you of when you would needs be infected and obstinacy had made you incurable nay when you would needs be no longer of that Body The former Body was One by having a visible Head common nerves Ligatures of Government Discipline united in that Head the lifeâ—giving Blood of faith essentiall to the faithfull as faithâ—full derived to those members by the common Channells or veins of immediate Tradition You separated from that Head you broke aâ—sunder those nerves of Government you stop'tâ—up and interrupted those Channells or veins the onely passage for divine beleef that is certainty grounded faith your task then is to show us by visible tokens that is by common exterior ties that you are one Body with us still not to suppose it and talk a line or two sleightly upon that groundles supposition Secondly one Spirit that is the Holy Ghost which hee rightly styles the common soul of the Church But his Lp must prove first that they are of the Body of the Church ere they can claim to be informed by the Soul of it It is not enough to talk of the Spirit which is latent invisible Quaker or Adamite can pretend that at pleasure but you must show us visible Marks that you are of that Body and so capable to have the same Spirit or Soul otherwise how will you convince to the world that you have right to that Spirit Thirdly one hope of our calling This token is both invisible again and besides makes all to be of one Church Iews all if they but say tthey hope to go to Heaven who will stick to say that Fourthly one Lord in order to which hee tells us wee must be friends because wee serve the same Lord Dark again How shall wee know they serve the same Lord Because they cry Lord Lord or because they call him Lord Their visible acts must decide that If then wee see with our eyes that they have broke in peeces his Church renounced the only-certain Grounds of his law they must eithers how us better Symptoms of their service and restore both to their former integrity by reacknowledging them else wee can not account them fellow servants to this Lord but Rebells enemies against this Lord his Church Fifthly one faith But how they should have one faith with us who differ from us in the onely certain that is in the onely Rule of faith as also in the sence that is in the thing or tenet of some Articles in the creed or indeed how they can have faith at all but opinion onely whose best Authors writers confess they have no more than probability to Ground their faith hee knows not so sayes nothing and therefore is not to be beleeu'd for barely saying wee have one faith Sixthly one Baptism As if Hereticks who are out of the Church could not all be baptised But hee tells us that by Baptism wee fight vnder the same Standard That wee should do so because of Baptism I grant indeed But as hee who wears the colours of his Generall yet deserts his Army fights against it will find his colours or Badgeso far from excusing him that they render him more liable to the rigour of Martiall law treatable as a greater enemy so the badge of Christianity received in Baptism is so far from being a plea for them who are out of the Church or for making them esteemed one of Christ's and hers if they run away from her take party against her that it much more hainously enhances their accusation and condemns you whom the undeniable matter of fact joyn'd with your acknowledgment of ours for a true Church manifests most evidently to have done both Lastly one God who is father of all c. By which if it be mean't that God is a father by Creation or ordinary Providence them Iews Pagans Atheists are of God's Church too if in the sence as God is fathers of Christians you must first prove that you have his Church on earth for your Mother ere you can claim God in Heaven for your father But to shew how weak a writer this Bp. is let the Reader peruse here my p. 324. 326. and hee shall see our charges is that without this Government they have no common ty under that notion to vnite them into one Christian common wealth and therefore that having rejected that Government unles they can show us what other visible ty they have substituted to that they cannot be shown to be Christians or of Christ's flock but separates Aliens from it Wee deny them to be truly-nam'd Christians for want of such a visible ty now the Bishop instead of showing us this supposes all hee was to prove towit that they are of Christ's Church and reckons up some invisible motives proposed by S. Paul to Christians already acknowledg'd for such to vnite them not into one Church for that was presupposed but into one harmony of affections There is no doubt then but all the seven points alledged are strong motives to vnite Christians in Wills but it is as undoubted on the other side that none of them onely pretended and being invisible they can be but pretended is a sufficient Mark to know who is a true Christian who not nor was this S. Paul's intent as appears by the quality of the persons hee writes to who were all Christians Now Christians being such because of their faith it followes that the Vnity in faith is the property to Christians as such and consequently in Government which by reason of it's concernment ought in all reason to bee a point of faith not in charity onely for this extends it self to Infidells all the world Since then the Bp. goes not about to show visibly their Ground for vnity of faith that is a
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
Phrases to his former calumny Next hee says that as for his self hee never raised himself by any insinuations I know my L d you are a Saint but the point is can you clear your self from calumny and prove that those Bishops whom otherwise you calumniate ever used such insinuations Hee was never hee saies parasiticall pentioner to any man nor much frequented any man's table You are still more Saint then formerly my L d But can you prove that those Bishops whom otherwise you calumniate are parasites or was it ever heard of or pretended that they sit at the Pope's table Hee adds that if his own table bee not so good as it hath been yet contentment a good conscience is a continuall feast Much good may it do you my L d fall to and eat heartily cannot you fare well hold your tongue but you must amongst your dainties slander your Neighbours men better then your self by calling them parasites Episcopelles the Pope's creatures hungry c. Or if you do can you expect less but that it shall be laid in your dish to sauce your dainties But the point is how hee proves these worthy persons to bee hungry parasiticall pentioners which unles hee does hee yeelds himself to bee a malitious calumniator Now his proof of it is contained in those words whether those Bishops were not his hungry parasiticall pentioners they knew best who know most Well argued my L d there 's none can overthrow such a proof because it is impossible to know where to take hold of it Or if any can bee taken 't is this that the Bp. of Derry knows better then all the world besides As for his pretence of his good conscience and to free himself from being a Parasite I would entreat his Lordship to examin his conscience truly whether hee does not get his living by preaching that doctrine which hee puts in his books the which how many notorious falsities contradictions tergiversations they have in them may bee judged by this present work Now if hee does let him consider whether any like parasitism can bee found as to hazard to carry men to damnation by taking away the highest principle that can correct them and bring all faith and Ground of faith to uncertainty dispute meerly to get his own bread for your other actions my L d I neither know what you do nor think it handsom to enquire In the close hee pretends to satisfy an exception of mine found in Schism Disarm'd 'T was this that hee quoted a testimony from Gerson against himself which showed that the Greeks acknowledg'd the Pope's Authority by their departing from the then Pope as Gerson sayes with these words wee acknowledge thy power wee cannot satisfy your covetousnes live by your selves Hee replies endeavours to show that by Power in that place is mean't not Authority nor iust power but might Whereas First the very opposition of Power acknowledged to covetousnes which they could not satisfy argues that their sullen departure proceeded from their sticking at the latter not the former which was there acknowledg'd Now if might were signify'd by the word Power in that place the sence of the whole would stand thus wee separate not for want of acknowledging thy might but for want of power to satisfy thy covetousnes which is as good as non-sence For if hee had might to force them what sence is there to say wee depart because wee cannot satisfy your avarice when departing could not save them whereas in the other sence it runs very currently wee separate not for de fault of acknowledging thy Authority or iust power but because however this be iust yet it is impossible wee should satisfy your covetousnes Secondly what might or power except that of Spirituall Iurisdiction the Pope can bee pretended to have then had over the Greeks appears not It was mean't therefore of no such might but of a rightfulnes of power Thirdly whereas hee sayes that Gerson apprehended the words in his sence cites the context for it the very proof hee brings for him is against him Gersons position according to the Bp. is this that men ought not generally to be bound to the positive determinations of Pope's to hold beleeve one the same form of Government in things that do not immediately concern the truth of our faith and the Gospell After which testimony the Bp. addes these words From thence hee proceedeth to set down some different customes of the Greek Latin Churches both which hee doth iustify citing S. Austin to prove that in all such things the custome of the country is to bee observed And amongst the rest of the differences this was one that the Creek Church paid not such subsidies duties as the Gallican Church did Thus far the Bishop Where it is manifest that the lawfulnes of resisting the Pope's determinations being in order to the not paying undue subsidies Taxes the discourse there relates to the no obligation of satisfying covetousnes and touches not at all the point of power or might as hee will have it Let us take then Gersons sence in the former and mine of iust power in the latter and the discourse stands thus that though men acknowledge the rightfull power of Pope's yet they ought not generally be bound to their positive determinations in things not of faith but belonging onely to the severall forms of Government customes in severall countries as paying subsidies duties c. And pertinently to the same sence the Greeks might bee imagined as indeed they did to answer Wee acknowledge thy power or cannot deny your rightfull Authority but esteem not our selves bound to obey your determinations importing such covetous demands contrary to the custome and Priviledges of our Church wherefore wee think our selves excused not to meddle with you at all Fourthly the Bp. sayes that it seems the Pope would have exacted those subsidies duties of the Grecians and that there upon they separated from him Which countenances all I said formerly implies more strongly my sence towit that it was there upon as the Bp. confesses that is upon their denying subsidies not upon their denying the rightfulnes of his power as coming under another a cheaper notion that they separated Fifthly the very demanding subsidies had there not been some preacknowledg'd power to Ground countenance such a demand seems incredibile had required a more positive Answer then wee cannot satisfy your covetousnes and rather this you have nothing at all to do with us nor the least Superiority to Ground the pretence of paying you any thing at all Whereas this answer rather sayes wee ow you indeed subjection but not such a subjection as engages us to satisfy your encroaching demands Lastly hee sayes Gerson hence concludes that upon this consideration they might proceed to the reformation of the french Churches and the Liberties thereof notwithstanding the contradiction which perhaps some of the Court of
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
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
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
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
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-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
upon this the Ianus fac'd word Gentium turns the other side of it's visage towards us represents to us Gentiles onely yet all this could not content Dr. H. he had a minde to limit S. Peter's Authority when he met S. Paul in the same City which he could finde no handsomerway to doe then by making one over the Iews onely the other over onely the Gentiles No sooner had Dr. H fancied this but immediately the obedient word Gentium turn'd round shew'd us both it's faces and did not now signify Iews onely nor yet Gentiles onely as fomerly but Iews Gentiles both And yet when this is done it expresses nothing to the contrary but that each preach't to both Is not this a rare disputant Lastly I would gladly know where he ever heard or how he came to imagin that the word Gentes could signifie Iews onely as it must according to his Grounds as apply'd to S. Iames at Hierusalem and S. Iohn at Ephesus Reader perhaps it may cause mirth in thee to read such Gottam-absurdities in a Dr. of Divinitie but I assure thee it is most wearisome to me to stand laying open such weake impertinencies nor doe I hope for any honourable triumph from the confuting such trash Sect. 18. Dr. H's Irrefragable Evidence from the Pope's Seals disclamed by himself and expressely deny'd to bee a proof His manner of arguing by asking questions But as the lesser lights vanish at the rising of the Sun so we cannot but imagin that all the former dim testimonies of Dr. H's which gave such a twinkling uncertain light disappear at the sight of his Evidence of Evidences or his Irrefregable Evidence as he calls it from the Seals of the Pope's and what say the Seals of the Pope or Mathew Paris in their behalf that S. Paul stands on the right hand the Crosse S. Peter on the left and this is produced by Dr. H. as an irrefragable Evidence that S. Peter was over the Iews at Rome S. Paul over the Gentiles of Schism p. 77. l. 25. 26. But first Dr. H. disclames Answ p. 49 any such pretence from those pregnantly testifying Seals but onely that they were brought for a testimony of the Church of Rome's being founded by S. Paul aswell as S. Peter If so I have wrong'd Mr. H. and shall ask him pardon If not I shall ask no further satisfaction of him save onely to leave him to the Reader 's iudgments when I shall have once conuinc't him by their eyes In his booke of Schism p. 76. the 9th paragraph begins thus The same is as evident at Rome where these two great Apostles met again and each of them erected managed a Church one of Iews another of Gentiles After which position immediately follow the testimonies which should have proved it begining thus So saith S. Irenaeus more expresly Epiphanius So the Inscription on their Tombes So Gaius So Dionysius So Prosper Then after the said testimonies immediately likewise follow these very words And the very Seals of Popes are an Irrefragable Evidence of the same Now what this same was is manifest by the beginning of the 9th parag to wit that S. Peter was over the Iews S. Paul over the Gentiles at Rome But 't is an ordinary evasion with him to deny his owne words Nor is this all which these Seals of the Popes were to Evidence Irrefragably Let us trace the originall position for which it was produced we shall finde it of Schism p. 74. to be this long rable that whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same City the one constantly apply'd himself to the Jews received Disciples of such formed them into a Church left them when he departed that region to be governed by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles This is his chimericall position which he pretended to manifest to have been at Antioch in his 8th parag immediately following these words and beginning with Thus we know it was at Antioch and to have been at Rome in his 9th beginning thus The same is as evident at Rome to wit that whensoever those two great Apostles came to that City to wit Rome c. after this follows his proofs for the same tenet So saith Epiphanius Gaius Dionysius c. and lastly immediately after these follows this Evidence of Evidences in these words And the very Seals of the Popes are an irrefragable Evidence of the same Now what this relative Same looks back upon is most irrefragably evident to any one that can read English understand common sence to wit that whensoever those two great Apostles came to one City c. and the rest of that large position before cited it being most palpable that he went forwards to prove that nor ever mentioned any other new thesis till long after his irrefragable evidencâ— was over past so that the bare pictures of S. Peter S. Paul upon the Seals of the Popes are still an Irrefragable Evidence that whensoever those great Apostles came to the same City 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 be governed by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles So rare a thing it is to have a strong faith against the Pope Nor hath he onely prevaricated from his Irrefragable Evidence by denying the manifest scope of it exprest in his own words and by mincing it to be an Instance not a proof though before he called it an Irrefragable Evidence but to cover the shame of it he quite annihâ—lates the force of it 's other fellow-testimony Evidences Answ p. 49 l. 31. 32. by denying them to be proofs also but to be spoken in agreement onely with his proof out of Scripture Gal. 2. that Peter was by agreement to betake himself to the Iews Whereas first that place of Scripture had been produced pag. 73. but this pregnant Seal-testimony most of it's felâ— ows p. 77 nor is there the least shadow of relation of these places to that as who so reads the 9th 10th parag where they are found will manifestly see Secondly Repl. p. 64. par 6. he told us that Epiphanius his words cleered the busines-concerning Rome that the other testimonies were Evidences to that purparse and concluded that Sure there can need no farther proofs nor testimonies from Antiquitie in this matter Nay he stuck so strongly to the testimony of Epiphanius Answ p. 48. that he maintain'd it impossible for S. W. to divert the force of it So that the same six testimonies Popes Seals were there called Evidences clear sole-sufficient proofs which are here deny'd to be proofs at all but onely things spoken in agreement But the reason of this double dealing is evident for there he was challenged not to have one testimony from Antiquity of
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
he was not likely without this exciration to perform well this particular charge or rather did not his whole carriage demonstrate the quite contrary that he was ever most zealous vehement and hot to prosecute any thing he went about What reason then there could be of a particular incitement to S. Peter to perform and look well to his charge more than to the rest without some particularity in his charge more than in the rest passes reason to imagin The force therefore in this thrice repetition of lovest thou me in all probability and according to the words rationally explicated wee make to bee this that since it is ever the method of God's sweet providence to dispose and fit the person for the charge ere he imposes the charge it self and the best disposition to perform any charge with exact diligence is a greater affection towards the person who imposes it our Saviour by asking S. Peâ—ter thrice in that tender manner lovest thou me more then these lovest thou me excited and stirred up in him a greater affection both to dispose him at present for the particularly-exprest charge of feeding his Sheep and also to minde him for the future upon what terms and conditions and with what dear and tender expressions he had pledged vnto him the care of his flock This explication I say of that thrice asking wee think most connaturall and consonant to the Text as rationally scann'd according to what is most befitting the divine wisedom by which rule or any other principle had Dr. H. guided himself in stead of recurring to and relying upon meerly his owne fancy for his voluntary explications I hope he would have been of the same minde too Solution 11. Wee need seek no other performance of this promise than that which was at once afforded all the Apostles together As suppose a Generall should promise a Commission this day to one and to morowe should make the like promise to Eleven more that one being in their company and then upon a set day some weeks after should seâ—â— twelve Commissions to those twelve one for each of them I wonder who would doubt of the exact performance of this promise to that first or seek for any more speciall performance of it Reply p. 67. Reply Dr. H. pretends a parallell and yet leaves all that in which the force of the parallell was to be put taking the common and indifferent circumstance onely First he puts the supposition that a Generall should promise a Commission this day to one but he omits all that in which wee place the strength of our argument to wit that the Generall should promise the said Commission to that one in a manner of expression not competent or competible to the rest as he did here sounding an advantage over the rest in his desert his confessing of Christ's Godhead by the revelation of his heavenly father with such allusionâ— to his name and other particularisations as in all prudence are apt to breed an expectation of something particular in the thing promised He should have made his Generall have promist a Commission to one in this manner and then the answer had been that that one man so manifoldly particulariz'd and as it were call'd and singled out from the rest in their owne presence had no reason to think himself ingenuously deal't with if his acknowled'g desert being particular and the promise there upon so particularly directed to him and him alone at that time he had received an equall Commission onely that is such a one as was common to all the by standers and not particular at all to himself Next Dr. H's following words suppose this Generall should to morrow make the like promise to eleven more that one being in their company hath two equivocations in it the one in the words the like promise by which if he means the promise of the same common thing to wit the power of the Keyes t' is granted but if he mean's as he ought this being the thing in controversy and the sence best suting with that word that the like promise denotes a promise made after thâ— same manner and apt to breed no more nor higher expectation of the thing to be given then if it had been exprest 〈◊〉 common onely then 't is palpably false and flatly deny'd The next equivocation lies in these words suppose he should make a promise to eleven more that one being in their company by which one would think that S. Peter who had it promised particularly before had it not promised again in common now but onely stood by at this time while it was promis'd to the other eleven By which device he hath avoided another point in which wee put force and left it out in his parallell and 't is this that S. Peter went a breast with the rest in having the common promise made to him as well as they had and exceeded or was preferr'd before them in this priviledge that over and above his common promise hee had a promise made to him at other times particularly and in a particularizing manner so that the Drs similitude hath not so much as one foot left to hop on that is it resembles no part of the point as it is in question betveen us nor touches at all the controverted difficulty and is all one as if going about to paint Cesar he should draw onely the rude lineaments common to all mankind and omit all the particular proportions and colours which were proper to delineate that person But the Dr. makes up his similitude by supposing twelve Commissions sent to the twelve Captains in which he would subtly have his Reader suppose the Commissions were equally for if they were unequall it would prove iust contrary to his pretence But what he mean's by his seal'd Commissions or how he thinks this is verified in the Apostles wee shall ere long discusse when he declares his meaning in it Dr. H's parallell having thus lamely play'd it's part let me see if I can make another more pat and expresse then his was Suppose then the late King of England as head of the Church there could have made and had been to create Bishops all over England and had already cast his eye particularly upon some one particular person so far as to give him in particular the sir name of Bishop as he did S. Peter the name Cephas a Rock this done upon occasion of a particular service of his first acnowledging or confessing him King which wee may suppose not to have been then acknowledged he breaks out into those parallell expressions Happy art thou N. N. who when others weakly doubt of my Royalty dost out of a particular affection to me acknowledg me King and I say vnto thee Thou art Bishop and upon this Bishop I wil build the Church of England and thus built it shall stand strong against all opposition and J will give vnto thee the power of binding loosing and whatsoever fault against our
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
your actuall reiecting that actuall Authority is notorious to the whole world and confest by your selves The second that you did it upon uncertain Grounds your self when you are prest to it will confess also for I presume you dare not pretend to rigorous demonstration Both because your self would bee the first Protestant that ever pretended it as also because your best Champions grant your faith it's Grounds but probable And should you pitch upon some one best reason or testimony pretended to demonstrate your point wee should quickly make an end of the Controversy by showing it short of concluding evidently as you well know which makes you alwaies either disclaime or decline that pretence never pitching upon any one pretended conuincing or demonstrative reason which you dare stand to but hudling together many in a diffused Discourse hoping that an accumulation of may-bee will persuade vulgar and half witted understandings that your tenet is certain must bee Thirdly the Bp. asks us who must put the case or state the question telling us that if a Protestant do it it will not bee so undeniably evident I answer let the least child put it let the whole world put it let themselves put it Do not all these grant hold that K. H. deny'd the Pope's Supremacy Does not all the world see that the pretended Church of England stands now otherwise in order to the Church of Rome than it did in H. the 7ths dayes Does not the Bps. of Schism c. 7. par 2. fellow-fencer Dr. H. confess in expresse terms And first for the matter of fact it is acknowledg'd that in the Reign of K. H. the 8th the Papall power in Ecclesiasticall affairs was both by Acts of Convocation of the Clergy by statutes or Acts of Parliament cast out of this Kingdome Was this power it self thus cast out before that is was it not in actuall force till and at this time and is not this time extoll'd as that in which the Reformation in this point began Wee beg then nothing gratis but begin our process upon truth acknowledg'd by the whole world Our case puts nothing but this undeniable and evident matter of fact whence wee conclude them criminally-Schismaticall unles their Exceptions against this Authority's right bee such as in their owne nature oblige the understanding to assent that this Authority was vsurpt onely which can iustify such a breach So that the Bishop first omits to mention the one half of that on which wee build our charge to wit the nature of their Exceptions and when hee hath done wilfully mistakes and mispresents the other persuading the unwary Reader that the case wee put is involu'd in ambiguities and may bee stated variously whereas 't is placed in as open a manifestation as the sun at noonday and acknowledg'd universally In neither of which the Bishop hath approved himself too honest a man Now let us see what hee answers to the case it self It was put down Schism Disarm p. 307. thus that in the beginning of H. the 8ths reign the Church of England agreed with that of Rome and all the rest of her Communion in two points which were then and are now the bonds of vnity betwixt all her Members One concerning faith the other Government For faith her Rule was that the Doctrines which had been inherited from their forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles were solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them to bee changed For Government her Principle was that Christ had made S. Peter first or chief or Prince of his Apostles who was to bee the first Mover under him in the Church after his departure out of this world c. and that the Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Peter inherited from him this priuiledge in respect of the successours of the rest of the Apostles and actually exercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began It is noe lesse evident that in the reigne of Ed the 6th Q. Elizabeth and her successours neither the former Rule of Vnity of faith nor this second of Vnity of Government which is held by the first have had any power in that Congregation which the Protestants call the English Church This is our objection against you c. This is our case ioyntly put by us and by the whole world which the Bp. calls an Engine and pretends to take a view of it But never did good man look soe asquint upon a thing which hee was concern'd to view as my L d of Deity does at the position of this plain case First hee answers that wee would obtrude upon them the Church of Rome and it's dependents for the Catholike Church Whereas wee neither urge any such thing in that place nor so much as mention there the word Catholik as is to bee seen in my words put down here by himself p. 3. but onely charge them that the Church of England formerly agreed with the Church of Rome in these two a foresaid Principles which afterwards they renounced In stead of answering positiuely to which or replying I or noe the fearfull Bishop starts a side to this needles disgression Next hee tells us what degree of respect they owe now to the Church of Rome Whereas the question is not what they owe now but what they did or acted then that is whether or no they reiected those two Principles of faith and Government in which formerly they consented with her To this the wary Bp. saies nothing After these weak evasions hee tells us that the Court of Rome had excluded two third parts of the Catholick Church from their Communion that the world is greater than the City and so runs on with his own wise sayings of the same strain to the end of the parag Whereas the present circumstances inuite him onely to confess or deny what they did and whether they renounced those two Principles of Vnity or no not to stand railing thus unseasonably upon his own head what our Church did shee shall clear herself when due circumstances require such a discourse Again whenas wee object that they thus broke from all those which held Communion with the Church of Rome hee falls to talk against the Court of Rome as if all those particular Churches which held Communion with the see of Rome had well approved of nor ever abhominated their breach from those two a foresaid Principles but the Court of Rome onely Did ever man look thus awry upon a point which hee aimed to reply to or did ever Hocus-pocus strive with more nimble sleights to divert his spectatour's eyes from what hee was about than the Bp. does to draw of his Readers from the point in hand In a word all that can bee gather'd from him in order to this matter consists in these words this pretended separation by which hee seems to intimate his deniall of any
sure they shall never come to open light lest by speaking out hee should bring himself into inconveniences Observe his words Those doctrines that discipline which wee inherited from our forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them is to bee changed which is substantiall or essentiall But what and how many those doctrines are what in particular that discipline is what hee means by In heriting what by forefathers what by substantiall none must expect in reason to know for himself who is the relater does not Are those doctrines their 39 Articles Alas noe those are not obligatory their best Champions reiect them at pleasure Are they contain'd in the Creed onely Hee will seem to say so sometimes upon some urgent occasion but then ask him are the processions of the divine Persons the Sacraments Bapâ—ism of children Government of the Church the acknowledging there is such a thing as God's written word or Scripture c. obligatory the good man is gravelld In fine when you urge him home his last refuge will bee that all which is in God's word is obligatory and then hee thinks himself secure knowing that men may wrangle with wit coniectures an hundred yeares there ere any Evidence that is conviction bee brought Thus the Bishop is got into a wood and leaves you in another and farther from knowing in particular what doctrines those are than you were at first Again ask him what in particular that discipline is own'd by Protestants to have come from Christ and his Apostles as their Legacy for hee gives us no other description of it than those generall terms onely and hee is in as sad a case as hee was before Will hee say 't is that of the secular power being Head of the Church or that of Bishops Neither of these can bee for they acknowledge the french Church for their sister Protestant and yet shee owns no such forms of Government to have come from Christ but that of Presbyters onely which they of England as much disown to have been Christ's Legacy It remains then that the Protestants have introduc't into the Church at or since the Reformation in stead of that they renounced no particular form of Government that is no one that is they have left none but onely pay their adherents with terms in generall putting them of with words for realities and names for things Again ask him what hee means by inheriting and hee will tell us if hee bee urged and prest hard for till then no Protestant speaks out that hee means not the succession of it from immediate forefathers and teachers which is our Rule of faith and that which inheriting properly signifies this would cut the throat of Reformation at one blow since Reformation of any point and a former immediate delivery of it are as inconsistent as that the same thing can both bee and not bee at once But that which hee means by inheriting is that your title to such a tenet is to bee look't for in Antiquity that is in a vast Library of books filld with dead words to bee tost and explicated by witts criticks where hee hopes his Protestant followers may not without some difficulty find convincing Evidence that his doctrine is false and that rather than take so much pains they will bee content to beleeve him and his fellows Thou seest then Reader what thou art brought to namely to relinquish a Rule that I may omit demonstrable open known and as easy to teach thee faith as children learne their A. B. C. for such is immediate delivery of visible and practicall points by forefathers to embrace another method soe full of perplexity quibbling-ambiguity and difficulty that without running over examining thousands of volumes that is scarce in thy whole life time shalt thou ever bee able to find perfect satisfaction in it or to chuse thy faith that is if thou followst their method of searching for faith and pursvest it rationally thou may'st spend thy whole life in searching and in all likelihood dy ere thou chusest or pitchest upon any faith at all The like quibble is in the word forefathers hee means not by it immediate forefathers as wee do that would quite spoil their pretence of Reformation but ancient writers and so hee hath pointed us out no determinate Rule at all till it bee agreed on whom those forefathers must bee and how their expressions are to bee understood both which are controverted and need a Rule themselves But the chiefest peece of tergiversation lies in those last words that nothing is to bee changed in those Legacies which is substantiall or essentiall That is when soever hee and his follows have a mind to change any point though never so sacred nay though the Rules of faith and discipline themselves 't is but mincing the matter and saying they are not substantiall or essentiall and then they are licenc't to reiect them Wee urge the two said Principles of Vnity in faith and discipline are substantiall points essentiall to a Church if Vnity it self bee essentiall to it These your first Reformers inherited from their immediate forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and de facto held them for such these youreiected and renounc't this fact therefore of thus renouncing them concludes you absolute Schismaticks and Hereticks till you bring demonstrative Evidence that the former Government was an usurpation the former Rule fallible onely which Evidence can iustify a fact of this nature It is worth the Readers pains to reflect once more on my L d of Derry's former proposition and to observe that though white and black are not more different than hee and wee are in the sence of it yet hee would persuade his Readers hee holds the same with us saying that hee readily admits both my first and second Rule reduced into one in this subsequent form c. and then puts us down generall terms which signify nothing making account that any sleight connexion made of aire or words is sufficient to ty Churches together and make them one Iust as Manasseh Ben Israel the Rabbi of the late Iews in the close of his petition would make those who profess Christ and the Iews bee of one faith by an aiery generall expression parallell to the Bishops here that both of them expect the glory of Israël to bee revealed Thus dear Protestant Reader thou seest what thy best Drs would bring thee to to neglect sence and the substantiall solid import of words and in stead thereof to bee content to embrace an empty cloud of generall terms hovering uncertainly in the air of their owne fancies In a word either the sence of your coÌ„tracted Rule is the same with that of our dilated one or not If not then you have broke the Rule of faith held by the former Church unles you will contend this Rule had no sence in it but non-significant words onely and by consequence are
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
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
were not I show First those inconveniences hee reckons up as extortions vsurpations of more than belong'd to them causing animosities between the crown and the miter c. though they had been true are evidently abuses of the Officer and argue no fault in the Office it self of Head of the Church nor that the Right use of it ought therefore to bee taken away Secondly some of those pretended Abuses are his own deductions onely as that it is against the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which hee endeavours not to show evidently out of the science of Politicks which is proper to those matters nor any thing else of this nature but out of two or perhaps three matters of fact which onely inferr'd that it happen'd so sometimes and then by the same reason Episcopacy and all the Offices in the world must bee abolish't and abrogated Thirdly that some of those pretended Abuses are indeed such and not rather just Rights hee no way proves for hee onely puts down that such and such things were done but whether rightfully or no I presume hee will not think himself such a rare Iuris vtriusque Doctor as to make a fit umpire to decide law quarrells of this highe'st nature And on the other side none is ignorant that either party had learned lawiers for them to avouch their pretences I omit that the Kings were worsted so metimes and renounc't their pretence as in that of investitures Fourthly the temporall laws hee cites conclude not evidently a Right for it is as easy for a Canon-lawier to object that the temporall laws wrong the Ecclesiasticall as it is for civill lawiers to say that the Ecclesiasticall wrong theirs but with this disadvantage to the latter that reason gives more particular respect and charines ought to bee used in disannulling or retrenching Ecclesiasticall laws than temporall by how much they are neerer ally'd to the Church and by consequence to the order of mankinde to Beatitude Fifthly hee abuses those pretended Abuses most unconscionably saying that the Pope usurp't most unjustly all Right civill Ecclesiasticall sacred prophane of all orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. Which is such a loud-mouth'd calumnie such a far-stretching fiction that it is as big as all Christendome For by this no man in the Church was master or owner of his own Kingdome Estate house nay not of the very bread hee eat but by the Pope's good leave Thus the Bishop in a fury of Schism runs himself out of breath nor will any thing pacify him or bring him into temper to speak a word of truth or sence but my granting him his two conditions that is my denying my own tenet which I am defending Sixthly grant all those Abuses had been true was there no other remedy but division Had not the secular Governours the sword in their hand did it not ly in their power to chuse whether they would admit or no things destructive to their Rights yes for the Bp. tells us p. 36. that All other Catholike countries which hee knows held the Pope's supremacy as well as England do maintain their own Priviledges inviolated And as for England hee tells us in a slovenly phrase that our Ancestours were not so stupid as to sitt still and blow their noses meaning that they did the same which other Catholike countries did so that according to himself there was a remedy still and a means to keep their priviledges inviolated Seventhly put case these temporall inconveniences had not been otherwise remediable I conceive there is not a good Christian in the world that understands what a Church is will say that Ecclesiasticall Communion is to bee broken for all the temporall concernments imaginable For first that the well being and peace of a Church cannot consist without Vnity is so evident that the very terms would convince him of a contradiction who should deny it since distraction and dissention the parents of dissolution and ruine must needs bee where there is no Vnity Secondly not onely the well being of a Church but the very Being of it consists in it's Vnity for what scholler knows not that things of this nature have no other Vnity nor consequently Entity or Being but that of order that is of Superiority and subordination Whence follows that if this Order bee broken which is done by disacknowledging the former Ecclesiasticall chief Magistrate the Vnity of the Church is dissolu'd that is her Entity is annihilated that is there is no one Church that is there is no Church This act then of yours since it dissolu'd that which was the chief bond of Vnity in the former Church was in it's own nature destructive of a Church A mischief which out-weighs the necessity of remedying the highest temporall inconveniences imaginable Thirdly since Christ came from heaven to plant a Church and the Being of a Church consist in Order it follows that Christ instituted the Order of the Church otherwise hee had not constituted a Church that is hee had not done what hee came to do Wherefore that fact which breaks the Order of the Church and that in the highest manner by disacknowledging the highest Magistrate in the Church is by good consequence in the highest manner against Christ's Institution and command that is in the highest manner sinfull and criminall and so no temporall inconveniences can bee a competent plea for such a fact since no temporall inconvenience can bee a sufficient reason for a man to sin Fourthly if the Communion of a Church may bee broken for temporall miscarriages it follows that all the generall Councils were to no purpose since whensoever the observation of these generall Councils hapens to bee inconvenient to the temporall state that is sute not with the humours of the Governed but are likely to breed combustion the remedying the temporall ills according to the Bp. ought to oversway The consequence is evident for general Councils cannot bee more sacred than the Communion of the Church since they are the effects of it or rather indeed they have their form and Essence from this Communion Since then this fact of theirs as appears by the charge broke Church Communion and by the Bishop's plea because of temporall inconveniences they may for the same and with better reason break Councils too and there 's an end of all Fifthly faith that is the supernaturall knowledge of God is so essentially necessary for the salvation of mankinde that no worldly consideration ought to ballance it Now then since faith if not one is none nor can it bee preseru'd one but by some certain Rule to keep it one it follows that no temporall mischief can deserve a remedy accompany'd with the renouncing this certain Rule of faith Wherefore temporall inconveniences cannot with any face bee alledg'd by a Christian who held formerly no certain Rule of faith but the living voice of the present Church that is immediate Tradition as did the first Reformers for a plea for them to renounce
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
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
common Rule of faith to his fellows and the rest nor yet a common Government which may show them visibly to us to be of the Church and on the other side stands indited by undeniable matter of fact to have rejected those points which were are visibly such to the Church they broke from 't is no lesse evident that hee hath not said a word to the purpose but stole it away as his custome is from the open field of the plain charge to invisible holes In a word those proposalls of S. Paul are motives why Christians should be united in Wills and also why those who are not Christians should be of the Church and Christian common wealth not the proper ties which make them of it for these must be visible remarkable known as are de facto our form of Government our Rule of faith The frame then of the Church as put by me was thus visible the joynts of it recounted by the Bp. out of S. Paul invisible yet the sincere man pretends here when hee brings these invisible points to take my frame in peeces to look upon it in parcells Which is to prevaricate from the whole Question and instead of answering to abuse wrong his Adversary Secondly hee sayes hee will not dispute whether Christ did give S. Peter a Principality among the Apostles so wee will be content with a Principality of order and hee wishes I had exprest my self more clearly whether I bee for a beginning of order Vnity or for a single Head of power Iurisdiction I answer I contende for no such singular Head ship of power that no Bishop in the Church hath power but hee for this is known to bee the Heresy which S. Gregory did so stoutly impugn when hee writ against Iohn of Constantinople A Principality or Primacy of order I like well provided this order signify not as the Bp. would have it a dry order which can do nothing but such an order as can act do something according to it's degree rank as the word order imports if taken in the Ecclesiasticall sence and as it is taken when it is applâ—'d to the Hierarchy as for example to Pâ—triarchâ— Primates Arch Bishops Bishops c. Which ought to bee the proper sence of it in our Controversy it being about an Ecclesiasticall preeminence As for what hee tells us that the Principality of power resiâ—es now in a generall Council besides other faults already noted it falters in this that generall Councils are extraordinary Iudicatures and never likely to happen in the sence you take a generall Council But our Question is whether the nature of Government require not some ordinary standing Supremacy of power ever ready to over look the publike concerns to promote the interests conserve the peace of the Christian Commonwealth by subordination to whom all the faithfull remain united in the notion of Governed If this bee necessary as plain reason avouches then wee ask where you have lest this standing ordinary Principality of power since you have renounc't the Pope's Supremacy Thirdly I added and consequently to his Successors This consequence exprest in generall terms hee tells us hee likes well enough and that such an head-shippe ought to continue in the Church but hee cannot digest it that such an Head ship should bee devolued to the Bp. of Rome yet what other Successor S. Peter had that could bee properly call'd such that is such a one who succeeded him dying except the Bp. of Rome himself will never attempt to show us This consequence then of ours applying in the Principality of S. Peter's to the Bishop of Rome which hee calls a rope of sand hangs together thus that whensoever Christ conferrs any power to any single person to be continued for the future good of the Church and has taken no further order for it's continuance hee is deem'd likewise to have conferd it upon those to whom according to the order of nature it is to come Now the naturall order requires that offices dignities should be devolu'd to those who succeed those persons dying who were vested with them in case there bee no other ordinary convenient meanâ— instituted to elect or transfer it to another That Christ lest any such institute that his Church should continue this dignity by election or traverse the common method of succession wee never read but on the contrary wee fide de facto that the Bishops of Rome in the Primitive Church enjoy'd a Principality by succession not by nomination of the Catholike Church nor is it convenient but extremely preter naturall that this Principality being of perpetuall necessity as hee grants the Church should remain without it at the death of every Pope till all the Churches in Iapan China India or where ever remotely disperst in all parts of the habitable world should bee ask't give their consent whether the Bishop of Rome should still continue with this Principality or no. No other means then being layd or lest to cross this way of succession as appears by common sence and the practice of the Church it follows that this naturall order must take place and so the particular dignity of S. Peter remain to those who succeeded him dying in his see of Rome His Argument then which hee pretends parallell to mine that such a Bishop of such a see died Lord Câ—ancellor of England therefore all succeeding Bishops of the same see must succeed him likewise in the Chancellor ship of England comes nothing home to my case for here is a supreme standing Magistrate to elect another traverse succession the transfering that charge is easily conveniently performable here are positive laws institutes made known accepted that a King should do this But put case that there were none of all these means of electing a new person on foot in the world and that the Chancellor ship were to be perpetuated there would bee no doubt in that case but the naturall order would take place there also and the Successors of that Bishop would succeed also into the Chancellor ship Christ left hee tells us the cheif managing of his family to his spouse that is the Church Pretty sence signifying thus much that the Church or universality of â—hristians must govern themselves have no cheif Governour at all Is it not rare that the Bishop should think Christ's family and his Spouse or Church are two distinct things What hee adds that hee lest it not to any single servant further then as subservient to his spouse is very true and all Governours in the world are or ought to bee subservient to the common good of the governed as even the Angells are Spiritus administratorij yet no more can the subjects command their Governours than wee can command Angells And so the chief Church her Bishop the chief Governour of Christ's family are for the good of the Church thouh over the Church however my
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
imaginarily ghesses which you must conceive will bee in Antichrist's time who according to their principles will bee the Head of the Church And lastly that they have a gracious Prince for a politicall Head Whos 's inward right if it bee lost by long prescription as the whole world grants it many it follows that they can in that case pretend to no Head at all in case the successour hap to bee no Protestant But I wonder the Bishop is so discourteous to his own tenet that whereas they ever held the King to bee Head of the Church or cheif in Ecclesiasticall matters hee should now deny it and put him to bee onely a politicall Head as contradistinguish't from Ecclesiasticall that is give him no more then France Spain c. Vse to do to their Kings where the Pope's Headship is acknowledg'd Again wee ask not how they are one amongsts themselves in England under one pretended visible Head or Government but how they are one with the rest of the Christian world though having that pretended Head Is there any orderly common ty of Government obliging this Head to correspend with the other Head If not where is the Vnity or common Headship of the whole Church or how is England visibly united to it vnder this notion If there bee why should the Bp envy us the happy sight of this rarity which onely which would satisfy the point clear his credit vindicate his Church His cavill that sometimes wee have two or three Heads sometimes never an Head is false groundles since there can bee but one true or rightly-chosen Pope however there may bee more pretended ones and till hee who is chosen bee known euidenced to bee such the Headship or cheif Government is in the cheif Clergy of the chief see whom wee call Cardinalls unles a generall Council actually sit As secure a method for the peace Vnity of a Commonwealth govern'd by an elective power as mans wit can invent though as in all humane affairs the contingency of the subject admits sometimes of miscarriages sidings animosities Hee promises us to shew the Vnity of Protestant Churches amongst themselves that the Harmony of Confessions will demonstrata to the world that their Controversies are not so many nor of so great moment as imagining I answer that truly I am so far from imagining any thing concerning their differences that I know not even what the word Contreversy means till they give us some certain Rule to settle Controversies to tell us which Controversies are of faith which of opinion onely But does the Harmony of Confessions show us not in the common expressions of the word but in the particularity of the thing that they have one common certain Rule of faith infallibly securing then that such points no other were taught by Christ and his Apostles or any particular sort of Government obliging them to an Vnity under the notion of Governed as a common ty Nothingless that is it does less than nothing and leaves my other objection good that otherwise they have no more Vnity then a body composed of Turks Iews Hereticks and Christians Nor does the Bp. disprove it otherwise than by reckoning up again the former motives to Vnity in affections out of S. Paul Six of which are invisible and some of them equally pretendable nay actually pretended by Turks Hereticks c. As deniable to them by him nor can they be in reason refused them till hee gives us some certain Rule of faith obligingly satisfactorily convincing that such sects in particular are to be admitted such to bee absolutely rejected which hee will never do without entangling himself worse than formerly And as for Baptism the seveâ—th motive 't is out of doubt amongst all the world that Hereticks may have true Baptism though the Bp. here forgets himself says the contrary At least the Turks Ianisaries who are children of Christians so Baptised cannot bee refused according to his Grounds to bee his Brother-Protestants this being the onely visible ty the Protestants have with the three parts of the world the Bp. so brags of Lastly I alledged that their pretended faith consisted in vnknown fundamentalls which is a meere Shist untill they exhibit a list of such points prove them satisfactorily that they onely they are essentiall to Christian Communion Hee replies they need not do it Why mee thinks the point seems very needfull yes but the Apostles have done it hee sayes to their hands in the creed And how proves hee that the Apostles intended this creed as a list of all fundamentalls onely for hee put neither before nor yet here any other proof in that the Primitive Church saith hee hath ordained that no more should bee exacted of any of Turks or Iews in point of faith when they were converted from Paganism or Iewism to Christianity And how proves hee the Primitive Church exacted no more out of his own manifold falsification of the Council of Ephesus already manifested Sect. 1. And this is the whole Ground of his certainty that those points are onely fundamentall or that they have any list of fundamentalls and consequently that there is any Grounds of Vnity in materiall points amongst the Protestant Churches or that they are of the Church since the Church hath in her self Grounds of Vnity I omit that the learned Bp. makes account Turks are Pagans or to bee converted from Paganism whereas 't is known they acknowledge a God and affirms that the Primitive Church in the Council of Ephesus for to this hee relates as appears p. 5. held in the year 430. order'd any thing concerning Turks which sect sprang not till the year 630. that is 200. years after Both good sport did not the Bp. cloy us with such scenes of mirth Again when hee saies the Apostles creed is a list of all fundamentalls either hee means the letter of the creed and then hee grants Socinians Arians to bee Christians both which admit the letter of the creed interpreted their own way and excludes the Puritans from all hopes of Salvation for denying a fundamentall towit Christs descent into Hell Or else hee means the sence of the creed and then hee excludes the Roman Catholikes whom yet in other circumstances hee acknowledges to bee of the Church for they hold some Articles found there in another sence than do the Protestants Let him then prove evidently that no points of faith were held formerly as necessary save those Articles in the Apostles creed next tell us whether hee means the letter onely or the sence of the creed then show us satisfactorily which is the onely true sence of it and lastly apply that piece of doctrine to particulars and so show us which sects are of the Church which excluded wee shall remain very much edifyd Sect. 9. How the Bp. of Derry falsifies his Adversary's words brings a Testimony against himself attended by a direct contradiction which hee
terms Fortifying With what incomparable art hee clears himself of another And how hee totally neglects the whole Question the Duty of a Controvertist in impugning opinions acknowledg'dly held onely by some in stead of points of faith held by the whole Church HHis Eighth chapter pretends to prove the Pope the Court of Rome most guilty of the Schism Which hee makes account hee hath done so strongly that hee needs not fortify any thing yet hee will needs do a needless bufines and goes about to fortify as hee calls it in his way not with standing To the first argument saith hee hee denieth that the Church of Rome is but a sister or a Mother and not Mistress to other Churches Which is first flatly to falsify my words to be seen Schism Disarm p. 327. which never deny her to bee a Mother but a Sister onely and this is his first endeavour of needles fortifying Next whereas the words Mistress may signify two things to wit a person that imperiously and proudly commands in which acception 't is the same with Domina and correlative to Serva a slave or hire ling slave Or else a Teacheress as I may say or one which instructs and so is coincident with Magistra and correlative to Discipula a Disciple or schollar Again it being evident both out of the Council of Florence where it is defined Romanam Ecclesiam esse Matrem Magistramque omnium Ecclesiarum and also out of common sence that wee take it in this latter signification the quibbling Bp. takes it in the former that is not as understood by us but by himself and then impugns his own mistake citing S. Bernard who exhorting Pope Eugenius to humility bids him consider that the Roman Church Ecclesiarum Matrem esse non Dominam is the Mother not Lady of all Churches And this is another attempt of his needles fortifying My L d of Derry may please then to understand that when wee say that the Roman Church is Mother Mistress of other Churches wee take the word Mother as relating to her Government or power of governing whose correlative is a sweet subjection not a hard or rigorous slavery and the word Mistress as expressing her power of teaching Or if the Bp. bee loath to grant the word Mistress taken in our sence which yet hee never goes about to impugn or disprove let him but allow stand to what the testimony himself brings here avouches to wit that shee is Mother of other Churches and that shee hath right to rule and teach her children as a Mother should do 't is as much as wee desire Now let us apply this see how rarely the Bishop hath cleared himself of Schism layd it at our doâ—e Hee hath brought a testimony which asserts the Church of Rome to bee the Mother of other Churches and so of the Church of England too if shee be Church nor does himself in this place deny her that title but seems to grant it But it is manifest de facto and by their solemn ordinances publike writings that her good Daughter the Church of England tells her flatly shee will not ought not obey her and thus by the Bp ' s Logick shee becomes acquitted of Schism Which I must confess is not onely a needles but a sleeveles manner of fortifying Again Schism involves in it's notion disobedience and the Bishop in this chapter pretends to show her Schismaticall that is disobedient to do which hee brings us a testimony which asserts our Church to bee Mother of other Churches and then concludes the Mother Schismaticall because shee is disobedient to her Daughter Pithy non-sence or if made sence flatly accusing their Church of Schism for disobeying her Mother and this deducible cleerly from that very testimony hee brought to prove the contrary which kind of arguing is in the Bp s phrase call'd needles fortifying His pretence of a new creed which was his second argument to prove us Schismaticall made by Pope Pius the fourth is already shown Sect. 1. to bee a calumny To which I add that our creed is the points of our beleef or faith since then 't is known that each point in that Profession of faith put out by him was held as of faith by the former Church ere hee thus collected them 't is a contradiction to pretend that hee made a new creed till it be shown that any of those points there contained was not formerly of faith and prove satisfactorily that the Apostles containes all necessary points of faith which will bee manifested at the Greek calends His third argument was because wee maintain the Pope in a rebellion against a generall Council To this hee sayes I answer not a word Let us see whether it deserves a word of Answer The difference between a Controvertist and a Schoolman is the same as is between a Church a School Controvertists therefore of severall Churches defend those points impugn the contrary ones which are held by those Churches as Churches that is as Congregations relying upon their Rule of faith Either then let him show that our Church holds as of faith or as received upon her Rule of faith the Pope's Supremacy to a generall Council else in impugning that point hee totally prevaricates from the office of a Controvertist hath done nothing which was his duty and so merits no answer save onely this that if hee will dispute against private opinions hee must cite his Authors argue against them not the Church whose beleef is contained in the decrees of Councils and universall consent of fathers Doctors Which answer I then gave him expresly Schism Disarm p. 327 Now to show the vanity of this third argument let him either manifest that our Church prest upon them this point of holding the Pope above Councils so as to excommunicate them upon their contrary tenet else all pretence of our causing the Schism is avoided for in case it were not thus prest his argument stands thus very many Schoolmen a great party among them held that opinion where upon wee left their Church ergo they are most guilty of the Schism Which is as senceles a paralogism as a sleepy brain could have stumbled on For why should any break Church-Communion as long as hee can keep it with conscience or how is my conscience concern'd in other men's opinions as long as they permit mee to hold the contrary Now that our Church permits the contrary tenet and denies none Communion for it himself testifies vindication p. 200. where hee puts down as one of the tenets of the now-french Church that generall Councils are above the Pope and may depose him c. The Bishop was conscious that hee had neglected the office of a Controvertist by impugning Schoolmen Lawyers Courtiers instead of our Church and an opinion held by many instead of a point of faith held by all To delude the Reader in reality to oppose the former which belonged not
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-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
the Question p. 39 69 70 71 74. and indeed almost over all the Book False pretence of a silly Argument as put by his Adversary whereas he feigned it himself p. 438 439. Falsification objected by Dr. H. cleared most evidently from p. 459 to p. 468. Falsifying his Adversaries manner of Expression wilfully to accuse him of a Falsification p. 464. 465. G. GEneral Councels now morally impossible and when probable to be had according to Dr. H. p. 141. Their Authority doubted of by him p. 138. Grounds concluding the whole Controversie p. 36 to 55. I. IGnorance in Logick p. 76 135 137 138 139 157. 158. 281. twice 376 384. twice 424. Ignorance in his Accidence shewn by ten several Instances p. 84. to p 90. Ignorance of the signification of the common School-terms in telling us the Pope is not a Summum Genus p. 159. Affected Ignorance of common sense in impugning a Name or Title instead of a Thing p. 164 165 166. in arguing from Fulness to Equality p. 261. 262. in concluding from either side of the Contradiction p. 304. 305. in deducing many consequences from perfectly unconcerning Premises p. 305. 306. 307. in building upon the reconcilement of contradictory Testimonies ere he knows or goes about to prove them true p. 325. 326. in expecting the like from his Adversary p. 364. 365. in arguing from Plurality to Equality p. 429. Ignorance how the Holy Ghost is in the Faithful p. 429 430 Miserable Ignorance in Dogmatizing upon the Mystical sense of Testimonies p. 417. 418 419 443. 444. Ignorance of the way of interpreting Scripture p. 187. 188. 189 190. 278. 279. Ignorance of the distinction between a Title and an Argument p. 176. between an Interpreter and a Grammarian p. 187. between a Parenthesis and a Comma p. 194. between a Parenthesis and a Comma p. 194. between Samaritans and Gentiles p 308. affected Ignorance of our Tenet p. 340. 341. 354. 369. 370. 385. 386. our Proofs p. 264. of his being the Opponent I the Defendant p. 249. Pitiful ignorance in not knowing the nature of a Proof p. 338. Most nonsensical Ignorance p. 401 402. Incertainty of Faith unable to ground a rational zeal p 14 15. Dr. H's Churches absolute incertainty of her faith avowed by himself p. 110. 111. Incertainty of faith how absurd and disedifying if brought into practice or put in a Sermon p. 125 126. Infallibility of our Church how held by us p. 97 98 No Church without Infallibity p. 98 99. No Power to binde to Belief without Infallibility ib. Also p. 108 109. Denial of infallibility pernicious to all Faith p. 123. K. MR. Knots Position vindicated p. 96. 97. 98 99. also p. 103. 104. M. MIstaking willfully every line of my Introduction p. 55 56 57 58. c. to 69 his other Mistakes sprung from wilfullness or weakness are too many to be reckoned up This one instance will abundantly suffice to inform the Reader what he may expect in his answering the rest and more difficult part of the Book Motives of Union in our Church p. 128. O. Omitting to answer to most concerning points p. 95 145 312 313. four times 329 330. other four times 381 382 383. Omitting to reply to my Answers or Exceptions and to strengthen his own weak Arguments p. 157 173 174 117 158 329 330. six times 425 426 thrice 429 445 446 447. twice 447 448. twice Omitting to mention those words in my Epistle to the Reader which solely imported p. 31 32. To answer the true import of my introduction p. 65 66. To answer whether his Reasons be onely probable or no p. 90 91. To oppose our true Evidence though he pretends it p. 175. To answer his Adversaries challenge that he had not one word in his many Testimonies to prove his main point but what himself put in of his own head p. 203. 204. Omitting to shew one testimony which confirmed his own We know but instead of doing so cavilling and railing at his Adversary p. 302 303. Omitting his Adversaries chief words and thence taking occasion to cavill against the rest p. 278. Omitting to clear himself of his falsifying Scripture p. 307 308. and of falsifying the Apostolical Constitutions p. 319 320 c. Omitting to reply to the Text of S. Mat. urged against him p. 394 also to two important Paragraphs of Schism Dis p 406 Omitting to cite the place or even the Book of three authors whereof those which could be found are expresly against him p. 414 to 421. Omitting our argument from Tu es Petrus though pretending he puts it p. 435 436 Reasons why the Disarmer omitted that part of Dr. H's Book which himself acknowledges unnecessary p. 452 453 c. Opponents part belongs to the Protestants Defendants to us p. 47 48 76 77 274. P. PAtriarchy of the Bishop of Rome mistaken for Metropolitical power p. 145. It s extent weakly impugned by four Testimonies which not so much as mention it p. 146. 147 by Rufinus 151 152 153. Rather justifiedly the Nicene Canon pretended to oppose it p. 149 150. Acknowledged by the Greeks our Adversaries to extend to all the West p. 155 156. Power of binding to Belief what it consists in p. 118 119 That our Church rationally claims this Power but that none else can p. 120 121 122. Possession not to be disturbed without sufficient motives p. 38 This of the Popes in England not to be rejected upon less reasons than rigorously evident that it was usurpt p 40 41 42. Possession of Catholicks justly pretendable to have some from Christ and so may be it self a Title but that of Protestants cann ot p. 49 So the advantages of ours the disadvantages of their Possession p. 129 130. Again most amply p 178. 179. Theirs not truly named a Possession p 180 181. Prevarication from his own most expres words the whole tenour of his Discourse the main scope of his most substantiall Chapter and lastly from the whole Question p 202 to 207. From performing a most advantageous challenge accepted by himself p 345 346. Other Prevarications p. 108 109 110 112 185 377 383 384 391 436 and in many other places too numerus to be noted Proofs brought by Protestants against our ground of Faith arrive not to a Probability p. 44 45 46 Dr. H's Proofs which he formerly call'd Evidences metamorphos'd now into Branches of Accordance Agreeances and Fancies and all deny'd by himself to be Proofs except one p. 360 361 362. That one found to be empty and ill-treated p. 362 363 364. R. REspect for mine Adversaries avowed Ep. to the Reader Also p. 18 19 472. 473. S. Schisms Nature and Definition p. 70. Schisms Divisions as put by Dr. H. in his Defence wanting all the principall sorts of Schism objected p 136. to p. 144. T. TEstimonies bâ—ought by Dr. H. against himself p 149 162 171 232 234 235. 238 239 300 171 324 thrice 368 433. Testimonies impertinent to the purpose four from Appeals
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
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
make use of the same method and every time I name them Schismaticks or their sect Schism feign that I say they call themselves so he might by this art make S. W. a monstrous lyer if the Reader were so monstrously silly as to believe him In the next place I must needs Answ p. 13. misunderstand the nature and ayme of the Churche's censures because I tell them They should rather threaten their Desertours with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication than cry so loud Not guilty when the lash hath been so long upon their own shoulders since he sayes a Schism arm'd with migâ—t is not either in prudence or charity to be contended with Whereas I pretend not that they ought to execute the punishments subsequent to Excommunication but to separate themselves had they any Grounds to make it good that they were God's Church from Schismaticks and avoid their Communion in Etern actions belonging to God's worship as God's Church ever accustomed not â—caring to denounce and preach to them in plain terms that they are Schismaticks and cut off from the Church Neither is this against Charity since Schism being such an hainous and damnable sin Charity avouches nay makes it an obligation to manifest Schismaticks to be such that they who have faln may apprehend the sâ—d state they are in and thence take occasion to arise and they who stand may beware of falling into that dangerous gulf which once open'd the earth to swallow Core Dathan and Abiron Nor is it against prudence since every one knows the permitting the weaker sort to communâ—cate with enemies in those very circumstances which may endanger them is the onely way to ruine any Government either Spiritual or Temporal At least why should they not dare had they Grounds to bear them out to do the same as the Catholicks did during the time of their greatest persecution under the Protestant Government that is let them be known to be Schismaticks and make the people abstain in divine matters from their contagious Communion But the confest uncertainty of their Faith makes them squeamish to assume to themselves any such Authority and therefore they are forced by their very Grounds when their Secular Power is gone to turn discipline into courtesy in matters of Government as they do in controversy turn zeal into civility and complement When he talks here piously of the Romanists sanguin try method sure he hath forgotten that ever Priests were hang'd drawn and quarter'd for their Faith at Tiburn and all over England in the time of their cruel Reign or if he remembers it he thinks to make us amends by preaching like a Saint of their meekness of edification and the more tragically-pittifull expressions of lamenting the ruptures of the Christian world which themselves have made with rivers of teares of bloud Answ p. 13. The next Section begins with the rehearsal of my reason why no colourable pretence can be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them which I exprest thus For that we prest them to believe false fundamentals Dr. H. and his Friends will not say since they acknowledge ours a true Church which is inconsistent with such a lapse They were therefore in their opinion things tolerable which were urged upon them and if not in the same rank yet more deserving the Church should command their observance than Copes or Surplices or the book of Common Prayer the allowance whereof they prest upon their Quondam brethen Which words though as moderately and modestly expressing the matter as could be invented yet the Reader shall see what a character the Doctors peevish zeal hath set upon them to wit that Answ p. 14. there are in them too many variations from the Rules of sober discourse so many indications of S. W. his temper that it will not be easy to enumerate them It shall be seen presently whether the Doctors Discourse or mine went a rambling when we writ The tenour of my Argument ad hominem was this The falsities which you pretend we prest upon you were either acknowledged by you to have been fundamental or not-fundamental that is tolerable that you acknowledg'd them fundamental you will not say since falsity in a fundamental ruines the essence of a Church which yet you grant ours to have therefore they were according to you not-fundamental or tolerable yet such kind of not-fundamental points as were more importing to be prest upon you by us than Copes or Surplices which you prest upon them therefore you can alledge no reason why you left us but they may alledge the same or a greater why they left you This evidently is the sense of my words to any man who can understand common reason and the answer to them ought to be a manifesting-some solid motive why they left us which the other Sects cannot with better right defend themselves with why they left the Protestants Let us hear now whether the Doctors discoursive power were sober when he reel'd into such an answer First he willfully puts a wrong meaning upon those words false Fundamentals as if by them I meant things which we onely not they hold for Fundamentals and then overthrows me most powerfully by showing as he easily might that he and his Friends say not but that we prest them to believe false Fundamentals in this sense that is such things as we held Fundamentals whereas 't is plain by my arguing ad hominem all the way as also by those words they will not say they acknowledge ours a true Church in their opinion c. that I meant such points as they accounted Fundamentals And when he hath thus voluntarily mistaken me he tailes against me that I affirm things without the least shadow and ground of truth and that I play foul play The Reader will quickly discern how meanly Dr. H. is skill'd in the game of reason though in that of citations where he can both shuffle and cut that is both alledge and explicate them with Id ests as he pleases he can pack the cards handsomly and show more crafty tricks than ever did Hocus Pocus And if any after all this can think I have wrong'd Mr. H. in affirming he is a weak reasoner himself shall ber ample testimony to this truth in the following Paragraph He slily touches at my true meaning of Fundamentals there and tells us that false Fundamentals is a contradiction in adjecto Grant it who ever affirmed that Fundamentals could be false my words were onely that Dr. H. and his Friends would not say that our Church prest them to believe false Fundamentals Is it any wrong to them or foule play in S. W. to affirm that Dr. H. and his Friends will not speak a contradiction Himself such is his humility sayes it is affirming here that when S. W. undertakes for him and his Friends that they will not say that the Romanists have prest them to
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
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
he very putting the Errour on the Churche's side takes away all obligation to believe her and by consequence justifyes all erroneous consciences Thus is the Wind-mill finish't at Dr. H's proper cost and charges although he sayes he contributed not the least stone or timber so truly liberal noble he is that after such profuseness he will not own nor acknowledge his bounty to his very Adversaries Next to these faults which Dr. H. hath committed in pleading for a weak conscience follows his sin of omission I mean his neglect to answer my seventeenth eighteenth pages which obliged him to speak out and say either I or no to two points which are horrible Bull-beggers to him wheresoever he meets them The first is whether all assent of the Vnderstanding which comes not from perfect and demonstrative Evidence springs not from passion and vice The second whether he and his Friends have such Evidence that our Church erred in delivering as of Faith that the Pope as Successour of S. Peter was Head of the Church These two points I made account were the two main hinges on which that door turns which must shut them out of or keep them in the Church and therefore expected not that he should produce his Evidence here but that he should have given some answer either affirmative or negative to them But Grounds are very perillous edged tooles to meddle with and cut the throat of errour at one slash which costs much hacking and hewing when a Controversy is managed by debating particularities Again the nature of Grounds is to entrench so near upon the first principles and their termes are for the most part so unquestionably evident that they leave no elbow-room for a shuffler to bestir his mock-reason in which in particulars not so capable of scientifical proofs especially in testimony-skirmishe seldom or never want And therefore Dr. H. who is of that Generation of Controvertists and very prudent in it dit wisely omit to meddle with these points though in that place he had ample occasion to treat of them But to proceed Mr. Knot had affirm'd that we may forsake the Churche's Communion in case she be fallible and subject to errour Dr. H. inferred hence of Schism p. 20. that it was lawfull if this were true to forsake Communion of all but Angels and Saints and God in heaven his reason was because onely they were infallible and impeccable To maintain the infallible certainty of Faith against this man who would bring all to probability I gave some instances to let him understand that Infallibility in men on earth was not so impossible a matter as he fancies Glancing also at his addition of Impeccable since the controversy there being about our tenet which is Infallibility the mingling it with Impeccability was a tacite calumny intimating to the weaker Readers that this was also out tenet or part of it To these Dr H. pretends an answer but so full of contradictions both to himself and common sense that it would be tedious to enumerate them It were not amiss first to put down our plain tenet which as far as it concerns this present controversy is this That since it is unworthy the Wisdom and Goodness of Almighty God who sent his Son to save mankind not to first lay and then leave efficacious means for that end which means considering the nature of mankind to which they were to be apply'd are no other than efficacious motives efficacioully proposed to make him forsake temporary and fleeting Goods and embrace Intellectual Eternal ones his onely Felicity with which the affections to the former are inconsistent again since these motives cannot be efficaciously proposed to the Vniversality of mankind unless Faith the doctrine of them be certain hence to ascertain Faith Christ gave testimony to his doctrine by doing such prodigious miracles as no man did before and when he left us unless he had left also some means to propose certainly those motives to future mankind his coming had been in a manner voyd for asmuch as concern'd posterity and the rational and convincing certainty of his doctrine and by consequence the efficacy of it had been terminated in those few which himself by his preaching and miracles converted Hence it was necessary the Apostles should also ascertain his and their doctrine by the extraordinary testification of miracles The multitudes of believers encreasing the ordinary and common working of miracles began to cease and controversies beginning to rise between those who pretended to the Law of Christ the consent of Christians in all Nations was now sufficient to convince that that was Christ's doctrine and true which the Apostles Successours told them they had received from the Apostles themselves For it was not possible so many dispers't in several Nations should conspire to a palpablely in a visible practicall and known thing cōcerning their eternal Interest They had nothing else now to doe but to attest what they had received Christ being unanimously acknowledg'd a perfect Law giver there needed no new revelations to patch and mend his noway-defective doctrine The Company of Believers multiplying daily and spreading this attestation encreased still and grew incomparable stronger and the impossibility of either voluntarily lying or involuntarily mistaking became every day greater and greater In this universal delivery from hand to hand called Tradition or to avoid equivocation Oral Tradition we place the impossibility of the Churche's conspiring to erre in attesting things most palpable and most important which we call her Infallibility Vpon this we receive God's written word hence we hold our Faith infallibly-certain that is so true as it cannot but be true as far as concerns that Christ his Apostles taught such doctrine hence lastly to come nearer home we hold for certain and of Faith that S. Peter is Chief of the Apostles and the Pope his Successour and that the renouncers of his Authority are Hereticks and Schismaticks since this sole-certain Rule of all Faith Oral Tradition now shown to be infallible recommended it to us as delivered from immediate Fore-fathers as from theirs and so upwards time out of mind which Rule the first Reformers in this point most manifestly renounced when they renounced that Authority For they could not have been the first Reformers had they found it delivered by Oral Tradition By this is shown first in what we place the Infallibility of the Church not in the bare words of a few particular men but in the manifest and ample attestation of such a multitude as cannot possibly conspire to tell a lie to wit in attesting onely that Christ's doctrine which is of a most concerning nature and of a most visible quality was taught to a world of Children by a world of Fore-fathers This clear and short explication of our tenet premised let us see how weakly Dr. H. hath proceeded in this dangerous point His first weakness is that he thinks Mr. Knot 's saying very strange that we might
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
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
from the strangling in the birth by the Printer's miscarriages yet gives it here a privy courteous-discourteous pinch by putting the Printer's mistake of conciliatory for conciliary to be the Cath. Gentl. pleasure to call it so pag 31. l. 10. 11. This done he objects that this conciliary Authority cannot with any propriety be said to be in the dispersion of the Churches Nor did the Cath. Gentl. say it was properly so called it sufficeth us if it be equivalent as doubtless it is For a private Bishop or Patriarch is no otherwise a Schismatick against them gathered together than in dissenting from the joynt-expression of their votes if then their votes be sufficiently exprest and testify'd either by communicatory letters or some other equally-certain way while they live dispersed why should not the opposing his consent of theirs be equally a Schism as when they are united But Schism against this Authority of theirs Mr. H. sayes parag ult is most properly comprised under the Head of Communion Fraternal treated by him Chap. 8. 9. 10. and there called Schism against mutual Charity Not considering that in the Church there must be unity in the Vnderstandings of the Faithful in a general rule of Faith as well as of their Wills in mutual Charity the former also of which belongs to them more particularly as they are Sons of the Church that is Faithfull and consequently there may be several breaches of those two Vnities so that certainly he must be a very proper man in the art of method who can think that a Schism or breach of the former is most properly comprised as he sayes here under that latter yet this method Dr. H. will vindicate as indeed he may doe any thing after his manner See his confusion for method sake Schism Disarm'd p. 230. To these former objections now rehearsed he at least pretends an Answer such as it is but to other exceptions sufficiently layd home to him Schism Disarm'd p. 32. 33. he thought it safest to give none at all He was asked there and I ask him here again why he omitted Schism against the Head of God's Church He cannot avoid by saying that this is not charg'd upon them it being as he here confesses the principal Schism objected p. 31. l. 2. 3. Will he say it is an usurpation Let him hold a while till he hath proved it and in the mean time let him tell us how hainous a Schism it is to renounce it without legitimate proof Secondly he was ask't why to state things indifferently he treated not of Schism against the Head of the Church as abstracted from an Ecclesiastical Governour the Pope and a Secular Magistrate the King Emperour c. for sure the disobeying or renouncing this Head must needs be a greater Schism than that which is against those reckon'd up by him who are all under this Head Lastly he was ask't why he treated not at least of Schism against the Secular-Ecclesiastical Head King Emperour c. and let us know what kind of Schismaticks we are for renouncing his Authority in Ecclesiastical matters His jurisdiction according to Mr. H. is supreme in such affaires since then the disobeying or rejecting any Authority takes it's measure of faultiness from the excellency of the Authority it opposes he ought to have let us know that we were supremely in the highest manner Schismaticks for denying the King 's Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction But alas this aiery Supremacy of Kings in sacred matters is such an addle piece of Ecclesiasticall Authority that though they pretend it to avoid the Pope's Iurisdiction yet as it appeares they decline to own it themselves as much as they can upon occasions lest coming to a controversial discussion it bewray it's weakness by the absurdity of some necessary consequence or other issuing from it Iustly therefore did Schâ—sm Disarm'd casting up the account of Mr. H's Division of Schism p. 34. charge him to have omitted the three principal Schisms against Government and those not onely principal in themselves but also solely importing the present controversy and onely mentioning those which were not objected and so nothing at all concerning the question Sect. 15. With what success Dr. H. goes about to retrench the Roman Patriarchy and to vindicate Ruffinus THe next question which comes to be discussed is of the extent of the Roman Patriarchy which the Cath. Gentl. show'd Dr. H. willing to limit from a word in Ruffinus so that it should not be extended to all Italy That this is the question is evident both by bringing Ruffinus his testimony upon the stage who acknowledg'dly spoke of Patriarchal Iurisdiction as also by Dr. H's words in his Reply p. 33. l. 2. and again p. 34. l 4. 5. To avoid the Doctors blundring art in which he is very exquisite alwayes but in handling this question hath excell'd himself we will clear the way towards the deciding it by premising these few notes First it is agreed upon between us that the Metropolitical power is distinct from the Patriarchal and of Schism p. 54. l. 19. 20. and p. 56. l. 5. 6. 7. of a less Authority and extent Next it is affirmed by Dr. H. of Schism p. 55. that the Authority of the Bishop was correspondent to the Defensor Civitatis that of the Arch-Bishop or Metropolitan to the President of every Province that of a Patriarch to the Liâ—utenant or Vicarius and in general that the Ecclesiastical Order follow'd the Political This I onely take notice of as an affirmation of his not granting it to be universally true nor doth he prove it was so otherwise than by Origen's saying It is fit it should be so For the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon where this was determin'd were held long after this Order in the Ecclesiastical Iurisdictions in Constantine's time of which he speaks here and so their testimonies rather prejudice it than prove it for had it been so universally practiced before what need was there of ordering it by following Councils These things being so as is most evident and undeniable let us see how incomparably Dr. H. blunders in this question His first and fundamental blundering is that he would conclude against the extent of the Patriarchal power by impugning the farther extent of he Metropolitical whose Authority notwithstanding he acknowledged higher his Iurisdiction larger as the second note shows Now that he indeed impugned a Metropolitical power onely in stead of a Patriarchal is manifested both because he impugnes this latter in the 17. parag ordained to treat of Metropolitical power onely his treating of Primates and Patriarchs not beginning till parag 21. as is most visible to the Reader 's eyes which Dr. H. would yet delude as also because himself confesses it of Schism p. 50. l. 18 19. So that he would conclude against the Patriarchal power which himself granted to extend to many Provinces of Schism p. 56. l. 6. by arguing against Metropolitical which himself granted to extend but to
pittifully this discourse hangs together that those Bishops shall be under the Patriarch of Alexandria seeing the Pope hath under him I cannot tell what or whom whereas however our Adversaries may pretend the material sense of one of the parts false yet themselves must confess that there is no difficulty in the formal coherence of the whole if it be supposed to signify thus That he shall have those for his Subjects because the Pope is accustomed to hold them for such or to judge it so This is yet more confirm'd because in both Languages it is evident that the Latine Hoc and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot possibly refer any thing but the thing decreed to wit that the Bishops named should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria This explication holding and hold it must till Mr. H. can show me a better that is another which shall agree better with the words and make better sense which will be never two things follow for us First that it was the Pope's custome to handle and judge matters belonging to the Patriarchy of Alexandria Next that the Council govern'd it self in this important matter by the custome of the Bishop of Rome Both which infer in all probability his higher Authority and make for us though intended otherwise Some Interpreters indeed are of opinion that this Canon was intended to order the Iurisdiction of the Patriarchs but this is a perfect Chimerical imagination originiz'd from the inveÌ„tion of those whose hatred against the Church of Rome occasion'd by their own guilt made them willing to say any thing in prejudice of Her though without all Ground either in the letter of the Canon as hath been shown or in the history of the Councils for nothing is more evident in this latter than that there was treated in the cause of Meletius Bishop of Licopolis â—n Egypt who refused to be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria and therefore that Canon chiefly touches thâ—t Patriarchy of which also the particulars are there specify'd nothing being order'd there concerning either Antioâ—h or the West but that their priviledges that is what by custome they had gotten should he conserved and continued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things standing thus no man unless driven by the desperate condition of his cause to catch at any thing can gather any such sense out of the words of the Canon Notwithstanding 't is granted that Schismaticks commonly make this Interpretation of it whose opinions were they any thing prejudicial to our Cause as they are not but most weak being of Adversaries yet they are made incomparably weaker by having Ruffinus for their Patron and first Founder of this Interpretation Who also to come nearer our question proceeding upon this former conceit added the word Suburbicarias without all Ground or show of Ground whether out of silliness and ignorance of propriety of Speech meaning to signify by that word all the Western Churches under the Empire of the City of Rome whose subjection to the Pope his eyes testify'd and other Schismaticks confess or out of knavery and malice it is uncertain This by the way is certain that an irregular proceeding and miscarriage sprung from both may justly be expected from Ruffinus But because this language of mine against this Paraphrast may be imagin'd to have sprung from passion by Dr. H. and some of his particular Friends who proceeding upon their Ground of uncertainty and indifferency of Religion have got a conceit that the preserving of courtesy is more worth than the preserving of souls from eternal damnation and that though one who does such a mischief be a knave and a fool both yet he cannot without incivility and scurrility be shown plainly to be either again because Mr. H. is such a veneratour of Antiquity that he deemes any testimony nay any one obscure word of any either old-knave or old-fool provided he lived but in the ancient times very competent to found his Religion on and worthy his vindication so it seem for his purpose we will see whether the character given Ruffinus by other Authours beyond all exception be more moderate than S. W's what unanswerable prejudices are producible against this Paraphrast his testification which Dr. H. here undertakes to vindicate First S. Hierom tells us contra Ruff. Apol. 2. that Ruffinus was excommunicated and cauteriz'd for heresy to wit Origenism and Pelagianism and that by Pope Anastasius as appeares both by the letter of the said Pope to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem as also by the same S. Hierom ibid upbraiding him that he so fled the judgement of the City of Rome that he rather â—hose to abide the siege of the Barbarians to wit in Aquilâ—ia besieged by Alaricus whither Ruffinus had retired himself than the sentence of a peaceable Town And again in the same book speaking of Ruffinus his Confession of his Faith which he feigned to have been approved by the Bishop of Italy he asks him how Italy should approve that which Rome had rejected and how the Bishops should receive that which the Apostolick See had condemned Adde to these which makes his prejudice most notorious and so his testimony most invalid that he writ his History after the entrance of Alaricus into Italy that is under the Popedome of Innocentius Successour of Anastasius and so had as much reason to write in prejudice of that See as an incorrigible and obstinate Heretick could have having been excommunicated by the same See before he writ Hence it is that he never meets with any occasion to speak of the Pope and Church of Rome but he spits his venome as may appear Euseb hist Eccles l. 5. cap 24. where speaking of Pope Victor he adds of his own in one place one whole line in another two in his prejudice Is not this then a fit Authouâ— to be first alledged afterwards vindicated by his fellow-brother and Friend Dr. H. who for no less guilt stands excommunicated by the same Church Thus much for his passion and prejudice which make his knavery very credible now Secondly as for his doltish ignorance he was the Monster of that and all future ages for eminency in that talent Some instances of it may be that he in hist Eccles Euseb l. 1. c. 1. makes of Iames Bishop of Hierusalem Iames Bishop of the Apostles of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Happy a Saint by name Macarius of Eusebius of Pamphilus Heretick and Arian Pamphilus Catholick and Martyr of Xystus Pythagorian and Pagan Philosopher Xystus Pope and Martyr of Chorepiscopus spoken of by the eighth Canon of the Council of Nice the vacant place of a Bishop and such innumerable others that St. Hierom ibid. affirmed him to be so unskilfull in either language that he was taken for a Greek by the Latines and for a Latin by the Grecians Must not he be a very wise man who sticks not first to build upon next to vindicate so wise an
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
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
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
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
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
to this that there neither is nor ever was a Papist country in the world For since 't is evident in terms that the King and his complices who made that Pope disclaiming Act were not Papists or acknowledgers of the Pope's Authority after they had thus renounc't the Pope's Authority Again since according to the Bp. the same laws were formerly made receiu'd and executed in England it follows that our Ancestours equally renounced the Pope's Authority also and so could bee no Papists neither and lastly since hee grants equivalent laws infrance Spain Italy Sicily Germany Poland c. it follows by the same reason that those countries are not Papists neither no not the very Papacy it self And so this miraculous blunderer hath totally destroy'd and annihilated all the Papists in the world with one self contradictory blast of his mouth And now Christian Reader can I do any less if I intend to breed a due apprehension in thee of the weaknes of his cause and falshood of this man than appeal to thy judgment whether any mad man or born fool could have stumbled upon such a piece of non sence Dos't not think my former words very moderate and very proper to character this man's way when I said How ridiculous how impudent a manner of speaking is this to force his Readers to renounce their eyes ears and all Evidence Could any man without a visard of brass on pretend to secure men's Souls from Schism a sin which of Schism c. 1. themselves acknowledge as great as Idolatry by alledging such sublimated non-sence for a sufficient excuse or ground when the acknowledg'd fact of schismatizing and renting God's Church cries loudly against them nay more since less motives and reasons cannot iustify such a fact nor a continuance of it to bring such an heap of contradictions for perfect Evidences and demonstrations Pardon mee you whose weaker or seldomer reflections on the certainty of faith and by consequence of the certainty of an eternall concernment in these kind of Controversies make you think courtesy violated by such home-expressions which may breed a smart reflexion and stir up a more perfect consideration in the Readers mind's Examin my harshest words in the utmost rigour as apply'd to his Demerits and if they exceed hold mee for blamed if not then think as reason grants that it is equally moderate but far more necessary to call great and wilfull faults by their right names of Cosenage impudence c. if they deserve them as 't is to call smaller lapses by theirs of a mistake or an oversight How can it ever bee hoped that Truth should bee righted as long as her Adversaries may take the liberty to act impudently against her and her Defenders must bee afraid to tell the world their faults and to say what they do Again were this shameles position of this Bp s some odd saying on the by or some petty branch of his discourse it deserv'd less animadversion but 't is the substantiallest part of his vindication where hee huddles together many laws which de facto consisted with the acknowledgment of the Pope's Authority both in England and other Catholike countries to parallell K. H's which were absolutely inconsistent with it and to show that K. H. did no more than his Ancestours and other Catholikes did So that hee alledges this as a chief ground of their vindication and wee shall see again afterwards an whole Section built on this one particular ground Now had hee grounded himself on a foundation of some sandy probability it had been though still insufficient yet more pardonable and in comparison of the other honourable or on an aiery fancy of some odd Crotchet of his own head as was Dr. H's conciet of the Apostles Exclusive Provinces it had been to bee pittied if sprung from weaknes or laught at if from wilfulnes but to ground his vindication that is to build his and his adherents security from Schism and eternall damnation on the meer vacuum of non sence and perfect coÌ„tradiction confutable by the contrary tenet acknowledgment and sight of the whole worlds eyes is such a piece of shamelesnes that it can admit no sufficient character as a non ens is incapable of a definition As for his particularities entrenching or pretended to entrench on the Pope's Authority whether they were lawfully done or no how far they extended in what circumstances and cases they held in what not how the letter of those laws are to bee understood c. all which the Bp. omits though hee press the bare words it belongs to Canon and secular Lawyers to scuffle about them not to mee I hold my self to the lists of the question and the limits of a Controvertist And Whenas hee asks mee what lawfull Iurisdiction could remain to the Pope in England where such and such laws had force I answer the same that remains still to him in france where you confess equivalent laws have force the same that remains to him still in Spain Italy Sicily c. So that either you must speak out according to the Grounds and say there it not a Papist country in the world that is not a country that acknowledges the Pope Head of the Church which is to put out the eyes of the whole world for wee see de facto that hee is acnowledg'd and exercises Iurisdiction in Catholike counttries or else confess that they retain still something notwithstanding those equivalent laws which you renounc't This something which they still retain more than you doe is that which makes you Schismaticks for rejecting it and is so far from grounding your excuse for which you produce it that it enhances your guilt and Grounds a most iust accusation against you that Whereas such and so many strong curbs were set by the former laws of England as are also in Catholike countries to secure you from the least fear of any extravagant encroachmeÌ„ts nay by which you confess here p. 36. they kept their priviledges inviolated yet your desperately-seditions humour could neither bee contented with that freedome from too much subjection which your own forefathers and all other countries then in CoÌ„munion with you enioy'd but you must quite extirpate the inward Right it self totally abolish and renounce the very substance of thâ— former Ecclesiasticall Government and cast it out of the Kingdome Sect. 4. My L d of Derry's senceles plea from the Church of England's succeeding the British Church in her pretended exemptions from forrain Iurisdiction and the uniustifiablenes of those pretensions The perfect weaknes of his Corroboratory proof and utter authenticknes of the Welsh Pueriles THe scope of his fifth Chapter as himself here acknowledges was to show that the Britannik Churches were ever exempted from forrain Iurisdiction for the first 600. yeâ—rs Now his book being entitled a vindication of the â—hurch of England to show this whole process frivolous I ask't what this belong'd to us unles it bee proved that their practicks were an
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 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
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
Authority deserved to bee abolish't for it's own sake as accompany'd with the sayd grievances Secondly the Bp. tells us that they seek not extirpation of the Papacy but the reducing it to the primitive constitution which is as good sence as to give a manabox on the ear and then tell him you intend not to strike him They have already totally extirpated it in England in such sort as all the world sees and acknowledges the Pope hath not the least influence upon the English Congregation over which before hee had the greatest yet they hope to bee taken for moderate men as long as they speak courteous non-sence and tell us they seek not to extirpate it Thus the Bp. wanders from the purpose but still all is my fault who would not grant him his two conditions Thirdly hee tells us that Monarchy and Episcopacy are of divine Institution so is not saith hee a Papall soueraignty of Iurisdiction That Monarchy should bee of divine Institution I much wonder surely the Venetians and Hollanders are in a sad case then who thus continue without relenting to break one of God's Commandments especially their Brethren the Hollanders who renounced the Monarchicall Government of the King of Spain But the learned Bp. hath some text or other in Scripture which hee interprets onely according to Grammar and Dictionary-learning without ever looking into Politicks the science which concerns such points passages which would have taught him that Government was instituted for the good of the Governed and that since human affairs are subject to perpetuall mutability and change it happens that in some countries and some circumstances one form of Government is convenient in others another according as it happens to bee best for the Governed which comes to this that no particular form of Government is of divine Institution and constituted to endure ever seing the end to which all Government is directed the good of the Governed is mutable and changeable As for the next part of his third excuse that the Pope's Authority or Headship in Iurisdiction is not of divine Institution as Episcopacy is you see 't is his old trick onely his own bare saying and which is worse saying over again the very point in dispute between us Whereas the point which wee urge here is a plain matter of fact that those who first renounc't the Papall Authority held immediately before they renounc't it as firmly that it was divine Institution as the Protestants do of Episcopacy now and therefore ought to have renounc't it upon the pretended pressure of inconveniencies no more than Episcopacy ought to bee abolish't upon the like inconveniences Nay more the first Reformers ere they grew newfangled and chang'd their mind held it much more firmly for they held it a point of faith and abhorr'd all them who renounc't it as Schismaticks and Hereticks both whereas the Protestants acknowledge the Huguenots of France for Brothers who yet deny Episcopacy which the Bp. tells us upon another occasion is of divine Institution But 't is all one with the Protestants whether they renounce all Christ's Institutions or no if they do but hate Rome they are saints and Brothers The common faction against the Pope is more powerfull to unite them than the professed and obstinate rejecting Christ's ordinances is to disunite them As for his Bravado how rarely hee could iustify his Parliamentary Prelacy what weak performances it would afford were it put to triall may bee judged from his numerous and enormous contradictions in this present treatise bragg'd on by the Protestants to bee his Master peece Sect. 6. How my Lâ— of Derry states the whole question false by pretending against the plain matter of fact that they separated onely from the Court and not from the Church of Rome His Grounds of separation shown insufficient in many regards nay confest such by himself granting there was another remedy besides division That the Reformers have neither left any open and certain method of coming to Christ's faith nor any form of Government in God's Church nor by consequence any Church His weak plea for England's independency from the Council of Ephesus Five palpable contradictions cluster'd together which the Bp. calls the Protestants more Experience than their Ancestors HIs sixth section pretends to vindicate his Grounds of separation to take notice of which the Bp. is violently importunate with the Reader bidding him observe and wonder Nor can I doe any less seeing such monstrous stuff throughout this whole Section It begins we are now come to the Grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome And this is the first Monster which the Bp's pen more fruitfull of such creatures than Africk it self proposes to our observation Which if it bee not as foul and uncouth an one as errour could hatch and obstinate Schism maintain you shall pay but pence a peece to see it and say I have abus'd you too The charge against the Protestants was this manifested by undeniable matter of fact that they had rejected the acknowledgment of S. Peters and his successours the Pope's Headhip over God's Church and that they had receded from this Rule of faith that nothing is to bee adhered to as of faith but what was inherited that is immediately delivered by their forefathers as the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles That they renounced the former is manifest by the whole worlds and their own Confession That they renounced the latter is no less manifest by the same undeniable attestation and indeed out of the very word Reformation which signifies a not immediate delivery It is no less evident that the acknowledgment of the former both was at the time of the Reformation and now is the Principle of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome that is to all the Churches they themselves communicated with or were united to before they broke for 't is as visible as the sun at nonday that France Spain Portugal Italy c. consent and center in a ioynt acknowledgment of the Pope's Headship and are therefore held by Protestants Puritans and all contrary sects for Papist Countreys It is evident likewise that the acknowledgment of the latter was and is to the sayd Churches the Principle of Vnity in faith for they ever held the living voice of the Church that is the immediate Tradition or delivery of Pastours and forefathers an infallible Rule of faith wherefore ' it is unavoidably consequent that the Protestants dissenting from and disagreeing in both the sayd Principles in which these then-fellow Churches consented and agreed were and are separated from all those Churches and all that belong to those Churches And this according to the two sayd Principles Again since nothing can bee more essentiall to a Church than that which is the Rule and Root of Vnity both in faith and Government it follows that the Protestants dissenting in both and acting accordingly that is having separated according to both separated and
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
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
and the exercisers of them punish't as Traitors meerly upon this Score because they performed such acts That this was the case is evidenced most manifestly out of the laws themselves every where extant which make it treason and death to hear a Confession or to offer up the unbloody Sacrifice of our Saviours Body c. and out of their own remitting this strange treason at the very last gasp nay rewarding the persons osten if they would renounce their tenets accompany them to their Churches These are our manifest and undeniable proofs what arguments does hee hring to blinde the Evidences nothing but obscure conceits to be look't for in mens breasts pretended fears ielousies that all who exercised such acts of Religion were Traitors meant to kill and slay the Governors or at most some particular attemps of private persons either true or counterfeited if some were true it was no wonder that such hert burnings passions should happen where people were violently forced to renounce the faith they had so zealously embraced were bred brought up in and per adventure no Protestant party living under Catholikes but have had the same or greater examples of the like attempts Yet I excuse not those who attempted any thing against Government nor accuse the Governors for treating them as they deserved onely that the faults of some should be so unreasonably reflected upon all nay upon Religion it self as to make the formality of guilt consist in the performing such acts of Religion was most senceles malicious nay self condemning since their own Profession admits the hearning a Confession to be a lawfull act of Religion and you would yet willingly hear them if the people were not wiser then to go to such sleightly authoriz'd Ghostly fathers Nor do I apprehend that you would think your selves very well dealt with if the present Government because of some â—isings of some of your party against them which they know to have been back't promoted fomented by some of your Lay Clergy should there upon presently make laws to hang as Traitors every one of the said Clergy whom they found either hearning a Confession or speaking of the Church Government by Bishops a point as much condemn'd by the present Government as any of our tenets was by Queen Elizabeth If then you would think this very hard dealing acknowledge others comparatively moderate and your selves to have been most unreasonably cruell In his p. 48. if hee mean as hee sayes hee clears our Religion from destroying subjection to Princes I subsume But the Supremacy of the Pope is to us a point of faith that is a point of Religion therefore the holding the said Supremacy is according to him if hee means honestly that is as hee speaks no wayes injurious to Princes If any extent of this power pretended to bee beyond it's just limits hath been introduced by Canon-Lawyers or others let him wrangle with them about it our Religion and Rule of faith owns no such things as is evident by the universality of Catholike Doctors declaring in particular cases against the Pope when it is necessary as the Lawyers in England did against the King without prejudice to their Allegiance which I hope characters those Doctors in his eye to bee good sujects to their Governors Yet he is sorry to have done us this favour or to stand to his own words even when they signify onely Courtesy Hee alledges therefore that these instances cited by him of Catholikes disobeying the Pope in behalf of Kings were before these poysonous opinions were hatched and so they do not prove that all Roman Catholikes at this time are loyall subjets Yet himself in his vindication p. 194. so naturall is self contradiction to him told us of as violent acts done against the Pope in Cardinall Richlieu's dayes in Portugall very lately and in a maner the other day in which also the Portugeses were abetted by a Synod of French Bishops in the year one thousand six hundred fiâ—ty one who were positive very round with the Pope in their behalf These were some of his instances in this very seventh Chapter which now a badd memory and self contradiction is ever a certain curse to falshood hee tells us were before our seditions opinions were hatched Now what seditious opinions have been hatched or can bee pretended to have been hatched within this five years I dare say hee is ignorant And lest you should think I wrong him you shall hear him contradict himself yet once-more so fully does hee satisfy his Reader on all sides affirm here p. 49. that hee hopes that those seditioâ—s doctrines at this day are almost buried So that spell the Bishop's words together and they sound thus much that those pretended seditious doctrines had their birth buriall both at once and were entomb'd in their shell that is were never hatch't at all So cruelly if you but confront the two faces of the same Ianus does hee fall together by the ears with himself baffle break his self divided head with one splay leg trip up the other After this hee presents the Reader with a plat from of the Church fancied by mee as hee sayes for which greevous fault he reprehends mee ironically telling mee that 't is pitty I had not been one of Christ's Councellors when hee form'd his Church that I am sawcy with Christ what not Now I never apprehended Christ had any Councellors at all when he first form'd his Church till the Bishop told mee hee had wish't I had been one of them or fancied any thing at all unles hee will say that what Catholikes received from their forefathers and what with their eyes wee see left in the Church still is onely the work of my fancy which is non-sence for I onely took what was delivered as of faith by immediate Tradition to wit that S. Peter was constituted by Christ Prince of his Apostles and that the Pope was his Successor into that Office and then show'd the admirable conveniencies the moderation the necessity of that form of Government how innocent if taken in it's due limits as held out to us by the Rule of faith to temporall Government nay how beneficiall to the same how absolutely necessary for and perfectly concerning the Vnity in the Church how impossible the said Vnity is without it c. which if it bee Saucines hee may with the same reason accuse all divinity of Saucines which takes what faith hath delivered for example that Christ was Incarnate thence proceeds to show the conveniency necessity c. of the Incarnation But the poor Bp. who has busied all his life in not in quaint concieted stories odd ends of Testimonies never had leisure to reflect that this is the method which Science takes when it proceeds a posteriori first building upon what it finds to have been done by experience or other Grounds and thence proceeding to finde out the causes why or by
is my task to defendit What say you to the Office it self as put down here by mee Return my L d whence you stray'd and tell us is not the Office it self thus moderately yet substantially exprest naturally conducing to the peace Vnity Faith Discipline other universall conveniencies of Christendome or is it though thus advantageous to the whole Church to be rejected because of the abuses of particular persons These are the points between us what say you to these why in the next parag hee would have us look upon the case without an if or as a Pope should bee no my Lord I ought not in reason to quit that method you I are not disputing about mens lives but the Catholike tenet and whether the very tenet bee advantageous to the Church or not If wee leave this wee leave the whole Question Yet wee must leave the Question else my Lord will not proceed nor dispute telling us that if wee look upon the case without an if or as the Pope should bee that is indeed if wee look not upon the case then wee shall finde the Papacy as it is settled or would have been sayes hee the cause of Schisms Ecclesiasticall dissentions war amongst Princes c. Where first if nothing follows out of my words but this disiunctive as it is settled or would have been then it remains for any thing hee expresses that as it is settled it is not apt to cause any of these inconveniences but onely would have been in case some vicious attemptors had had the power to corrupt that which was actually well in the Church Next if hee speak of the Papacy as it is settled hee must look upon it as held by the Rule of faith and acknowledg'd by all Romane Catholikes otherwise if hee considers it according to what is disputable wrangled about between Catholike Catholike hee considers it not as settled for this is to bee not setled nor indeed is this to speak of the Papacy it self about which Catholikes have no debates but of the extent of it Now let him either evince that Papacy as settled or held universally by all Catholikes is in it's own nature the cause of Schisms dissentions Warrs c. Or grant that 't is not such but the contrary as hee does here tacitly by yeelding that if it were as it should bee it would bee faultles and presently doubting whether it bee right settled that is as it should bee or no. The substance of the Pope's Authority being stated I show'd all the Bishop's arrows falling on his own head because not with standing such disputes it is evident that the nature and notion of one Church is intirely conserved the Papacy standing firm in those very Catholike countries which resisted the Pope and those countries governing themselves in an Vnity of faith Sacraments correspondence like one Body as is visible whereas their Reform or renouncing the Pope has cut of England from all this Communication or correspondence and made it no part of one Church greater then it self but an headles Synagogue without Brother hood or order Hee replies Neither so nor so How then my Lord why hee tells us first that the Eastern Southern Northern Churches admit none higher then the cheifest Patriarch Well my L d are you and they both joyntly under the Government of those Patriarchs or any other common Government If not how are you then of one community or Brotherhood as Governed Next hee alledges that agreat part of the Westerne Churches have shaken of the Roman Yoke Grant it were so and that those Congregations were in reality Churches which wee deny yet are you united with those Churches under some common Christian Government joyning you them into one Christian Commonwealth If not as your eyes witnes 't is not then how are you their Brothers or of their community Show us this visible ty of order uniting you together To say you are one or united to them without showing us this extern ty is very easy but convinces nothing Thirdly hee tells us that the rest of the Western world which acknowledge the Papacy do it with very many reservations cautions and restrictions Very good my Lord if they onely restrain'd they restrain'd something which they admitted as thus restrain'd to wit the substance of the Pope's Authority Are you at least united with them Alas no you are disunited from them by totally renouncing and not restraining onely that Authority which visibly united them Where then is your Brother hood where is your order Fourthly hee answers that for order they are for it as much as wee That you are for it desire it if your Grounds would let you wee doubt not But have you any such order uniting you visibly to the rest of the Christian world To say you are for it when the Question is whether you have it no without ever attempting to show us this visible order signifies you neither have any nor can show any or that you have indeed a feeble wish for it but not efficacious enough to make you use means to obtain it Fifthly hee tells us that for Christian Brother hood they maintain it three times larger then wee But he never goes about to show us any visible ty of Government uniting them into one CoÌ„monwealth or Brother hood 'T is a sufficient proof with him to say they maintain it that is they call more Brothers then wee do but whether they are so indeed or no 't is so evident with him though hee knows his own fellows say the contrary as may bee seen in Rosse's view of Religioâ—s that it needs no proof though it bee all the Question Sixthly as for their being an headles Synagogue hee replies that they want no head who have Christ a spirituall Head Wee are demanding a visible common Head or cheif GovernmeÌ„t of the whole Church common to England with the rest and hee relates us to Christ in Heaven Such an Head is God Amighty to all mankind must they therefore because of this invisible relation become one CoÌ„monvealth Again this latter towit whether Christ bee their spirituall Head or no is invisible unknown and is to bee judged by the other thus that if Christ have lest any Vnity of Goverment in his Church and commanded it to bee kept and they have taken a course to leave no such Vnity 't is evident that they have rebell'd against Christ as well as his Church and so falsly pretend to have him for their spirituall Head Next hee tells us that they have a generall Council for an Ecclesiasticall Head Which is to confess that there is no ordinary Vnity of Government in God's Church but extraordinary onely when a Council sits that is there is none de facto at present nay morally impossible there should bee any as Dr. H. sayes Reply p. 39. and 't is a great chance when there is any perhaps towards the end of the world as the same Dr.
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
preteÌ„d to treat a point of Canon-Law I might The point of faith I undertook to defend as a Controvertist whensoever I see any opposition to that I acknowledge it my Province to secure it by my resistance Sect. 10. My L d of Derry's vain pretence of his Churches large Communion His frivolous and groundles exceptions against the Council of Trent How weakly hee clears himself of calumny And how going about to excuse his citing a Testimony against himself hee brings three or four proofs to make good the accusation HEe pretended that the Protestants held Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do I reply'd that if by Christians hea means those who lay claim to the name of Christ I neither deny'd his Answer nor envy'd him his multitude for Manichees Gnosticks Carpocratians Arians Nestorians Eutychians and others without number do all usurp the honour of this title I added that I did not think hee had any solid reason to refuse Communion to the worst of them Now the Bp ' s task is evidently this to give us this solid reason show it conclusive why hee admits some of these rejects others But 't is against his humour to go about to prove any thing Talking is his an angry woman's best weapon and of voluntary talk he is not niggardly but deals us largess of it First hee falls into rhetoricall exclamations against our prejudice partiality want of truth charity candour ingenuity Words are but vapour let him put certainly-establish't Grounds to conclude himself or any of his sects true Christians which may not as well infer that all those other sects are such also otherwise his exclâ—mations which sound so high in Rhetorick are very-flat noted and signify just nothing in Controversy where the concernment of the subject renders all proofs inferior to rigorous convincing discourse dull toyish Secondly hee asks wherein can I or all the world charge the Church of England of Greece or any of the Eastern Southern or Northern Christians with any of these Heresies and then reckons up afterwards the materiall points held by the Manichees Gnosticks c. Suppose I could not are there no other heresies in the world but these old ones or is it impossible that a new heresy should arise It was not for holding those very materiall points that I accused the Church of England or the Bp. as hee purposely misrepresents mee but this that having no determinate certain Rule of faith they had no Grounds to reject any from their Communion who held some common points of Christianity with them though differing in others Again since the Rule of faith Protestants pretend to is the Scripture and all those Hereticks recurr'd still rely'd upon the same nay even the Manichees upon the new Testament it follows that these are all of the Protestants Communion because they have the same Grounds Rule of their faith if the Bp. reply that the letter of the Scripture is not the Rule of faith but the sence hee must either show us some determinate certain way to arrive to the true sence of it or else confess that this Rule is indeterminate uncertain that is as far as it concerns us none at all Now though indeed the Protestants hapt not to light into all the same materiall errors as did the Manichees Arians c. Yet they agree with them in the source of all error that is in having deny'd and renounc't the onely Ground of faiths certainty Tradition of immediate forefathers which alone could bring down to us security that Christ was God or that there was such a thing as God's word and so the deniall of this is in it's consequences equally nay more pestilentiall then is the denying the materiall point it self of Christ's divinity or the asserting any other held by the worst of those Hereticks They agree with them all therefore in the root of all errors though the branches chance and they but chance to be diverse as may bee seen if you do but consider what varieties of sects are sprung in England since your strong hand which truly did forbid the liberty of interpreting Scripture is taken from you whereof some be as learned as yourselves witnes the books of the Socinians for 't is an easy matter out of affection to turn Scripture to variety of errors as was cleerly seen in Luther who because Carolostadius had publish't the absence of Christ's Body from the Blessed Sacrament before himself found the middle tenet of compresence of both Body Bread and so by that base affection saved a great part of the world through God's Providence from a wickeder error Thirdly hee tells us that some few Eastern Christians are called Nestorians others suspected of Eutychianism but most wrongfully Though indeed nothing is more right full then to call them so as even Protestants confess But you see nature works in despite of Design and that hee hath a mind to cling in very brotherly and lovingly with the Nestorians Eutychians though hee saies hee will not and those tenets of theirs which in the close of his paragraph hee pretends to detest as accursed errors here hee strokes with a geâ—tle hand assuring us they are nothing but some unvsâ—all expressions as if all heresies when exprest were not expressions and also very unvsuall new to faith the faithfull Now their unvsuall expressions were onely these that Christ had two distinct persons and no distinct natures which are nothing in the Bp ' s mind had they deny'd Christ to be God too it had been also an unvsuall expression but I must confess a very scurry and pestiferous one as were the former But our favourable Bishop thimking it necessary to bolster up his Church with a multitude boldly pronounces what hee knows not in excuse of those Hereticks though it be contrary to the publike and best intelligence wee have from those remote countries Fourthly hee is very piously rhetoricall tells us that the best is they are either wheat or chaff of the Lord's floar bâ—t that our tongues must not winnow them Which is as absurd as the former That it is best for them to be wheat I understand very well but that it should be best as hee says that they are either wheat or chaff I confess I am at a loss to conceive Chaffe Ps 1. v. 5. signifies the vngodly and Mat. 3. v. 12. the very place which his Allegoâ—y relates to it is said that Christ will burn the chaff of his floar in vnquenchable fire which mee thinks is far from best So miserably the Bp. comes of still wâ—ether hee intends to speak finely or solidly Our tongues indeed shall not winnow them as hee says nor do we pretend to do so by our tongues or voluntary talking that were to vsurp the method of discourse proper to himself onely but our reason will winnow them unles wee turn Beasts use it not our proofs if they be evident as
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
falsification and an open abuse of the Council For as may bee seen immediately before the 7th Canon Theodorus Mopsuestensis Carisius had made a wicked creed which was brought and read before the Council After this begins the 7th Canon thus His igitur lectis decreuit sancta c. These things being read the holy synod decreed that it should bee lawfull for no man to compose write or produce alteram fidem another faith praeter eam quae definita fuit a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem in Spiritu sancto congregatis besides that which was defined by the holy fathers gather'd in the Holy Ghost at the City of Nice Where wee see the intention of the Council was no other than this that they should avoid hereticall creeds and hold to the Orthodoxe one not to hinder an enlargment to their Baptismall Profession as the Bishop would persuade us Hence His first falsification is that hee would have the words alteram fidem which taken by themselves and most evidently as spoken in this occasion signify a different or contrary faith to mean a prohibition to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession So by the words any more which hee falsly imposes to serve his purpose making the Council strike directly at the enlargment of such Profession Very good His 2 d is that to play Pope Pius a trick hee assures us the Council forbids to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession whereas there is no news there of exacting but of producing writing or composing false creeds lesse of Baptismall profession And though the Council forbide this to bee done his qui volunt ad cogâ—itionem veritatis conuerti to those who are willing to â—ee converted to the knowledge of the truth yet the punishments following extended also to Laymen in those words si vero Laici fuerint anathematiz entur if they the proposers of another faith bee Laymâ—n let them bee excommunicated makes it impossible to relate to Baptism unles the Bishop will say that in those dayes Laymen were Ministers of Baptism or exacted as hee phrases it Baptismall Professions His third falsification is that hee pretends the Council forbad to exact more than the Apostles creed whereas the Council onely forbids creeds different from that which was defin'd by the Council of Nice So that according to the Bishop the creed defined by the fathers in the Council of Nice and the Apostles creed are one and the sasame creed His fourth is that hee pretends from the bare word fidem a Baptismal profession for no other word is found in the Council to that purpose Now the truth is that upon occasion of those creeds containing false doctrine the Council onely prohibits the producing or teaching any thing contrary to the doctrine anciently establish't as appears more plainly from that which follows concerning Carisius Pari modo c. In like manner if any either Bishops Priests or Laymen bee taken sentientes aut docentes holding or teaching Carisius his doctrine c. let them bee thus or thus punisht Where you see nothing in order to exacting Baptismall professions or their enlargments as the Bp. fancies but of abstaining to teach false doctrines which those Hereticks had proposed Ere wee leave this point to do my L d D. right let us construe the words of the Council according to the sence hee hath given it and it stands thus that the holy synod decreed it unlawfull for any proferre scribere aut componere to exact alteram any more or a larger fidem Baptismall profession praeter eam quae a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem definita fuit than the Apostles creed Well go thy wayes brave Bp. if the next synod of Protestants doe not Canonize thee for an Interpreter of Councils they are false to their best interests The cause cannot but stand if manag'd by such sincerity wit and learning as long as women prejudic'd men and fools who examin nothing are the greater part of Readers Having gain'd such credit for his sincerity hee presumes now hee may bee trusted upon his bare word and then without any either reason or Authority alledged or so much as pretended but on his bare word onely hee assures the Reader if hee will beleeve him that they still professe the discipline of the ancient Church and that wee have changed it into a soveraignty of power above Generall Councells c. Yet the candid man in his vindication durst not affirm that this pretended power was of faith with us or held by all but onely p. 232. alledges first that it is maintaind by many that is that it is an opinion onely and then 't is not his proper task to dispute against it our own Schools and Doctours can do that fast enough and afterwards p. 243. hee tells us that these who give such exorbitant priviledges to Pope's do it with so many cautions and reservations that thâ—y signify nothing So that the Bishop grants that some onely and not all add this to the Pope's Authority and that this which is added signifies nothing and yet rails at it here in high terms as if it were a great matter deserving Church-unity should bee broken for it and claps it upon the whole Church After this hee grants S. Peter to have been Prince of the Apostles or first mover in the Church in a right sence as hee styles it yet tells us for prevention sake that all this extends but to a Primacy of order Whereas all the world till my Ld D. came with his right sence to correct it imagin'd that to move did in a sence right enough signify to act and so the first mover meant the first Acter Wee thought likewise that when God was call'd primum mouens the first mover those words did in a very right sence import actiuity and influence not a primacy of order onely as the acute Bp. assures us But his meaning is this that though all the world hold that to move first is to act first yet that sence of theirs shall bee absolutely wrong and this onely right which he and his fellows are pleased to fancie who are so wonderfully acute that according to them hee that hath onely Authority to sit first in Council or some things which is all they will allow S. Peter and the Pope shall in a right sence bee said to move first or to bee first mover I alledged as a thing unquestionable even by understanding ProtestaÌ„ts that the Church of England actually agreed with the Church of Rome at the time of the separation in this Principle of Government that the Bishops of Rome as successâ—urs of S. Peter inherited his priviledgâ—s c. as is to bee seen p. 307. by any man who can read English Now the Bishop who hath sworn to his cause that hee will bee a constant and faithfull prevaricatour omits the former paâ—t of my proposition and changes the busines from an evident matter of