certainly tru I will undertake to reconcile them better then Dr. H. hath done in making one over Iews the other over Genâ—iles onely Although if one side or both be false I must confesse it beyond my skill to reconcile truths with falshoods or falshoods with one another Moreover Schism Disarm p. 77. directed him expresly to some other wayes how the fathers went about to reconcile that repugnance which he instead of confuting or so much as acknowledging I did objects here that I should direct him to some other solid way and truly I shall ever account the ancient fathers more solidly able to reconcile repugnances in Story near their dayes were they reconcileable then such a weak iudgment as Mr. H's so long after Sect. 22. Dr. H. affected ignorance of the Popes Authority which hee impugns framing his Objections against an immediate Governour not a mediate or Svperiour His pretended infallibility in proving S. Iohn higher in dignity of place than S. Peter His speciall gift also in explicating Parables and placing the saâ—nts in Abraham's bosome Dr. H. of Schism c. 4. par 13. affirmed that for another great part of the Christian world It is manifest that S. Peter had never to do either mediately or immediately in the planting or governing of it and instanced in Asia pretended to be onely under S. Iohn I answer'd Schism Disarm p. 78. that he brought nothing to prove his own It is manifest He replies here Answ p. 54. that this is manifestly evinced by the testimonies annexed p. 14. and upon this calls me an Artificer that he is now grown into some acquaintance with me and yet virtue is grown necessity with him he must not take it amisse nor shall he truly if I can give him any iust satisfaction I desire to gain keep every man's good will though I will not court it by the least compliance nor kindnes to the detriment of Truth Bear in memory Reader this positiuely absolute tâ—â—sts of his that S. Peter had nothing to do either mediately or immediately c. And if thou findest any word in any testimony produced by him expressing this ample position or that S. Peter had nothing to do in governing them mediately which is the question save onely that he govern'd them not immediately which is nothing to our question then I give thee leave to account me an Artificer or what thou wilt but if thou findest not a word to that purpose do thy self the right as to think Dr. H. is a most notorious deluder beware of him as such I shall put down all his testimonies as largely as himself did in the 14. par to which he refers me The first is from Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where appointing Bishops The second and third are from Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where obtaining some one part or lott 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he administred the Churches there Now in these three testimonies we finde onely that S. Iohn appointed Bishops in Asia which we grant that each Apostle might do where ever he came over all the world that he obtained one certain lott or Bishoprick to wit that of Ephesus which signifies no more but that he was a particular Governour there that he administred the Churches there all which is competent to every Metropolitan in God's Church whom yet wee see daily with our eyes to be under an higher Ecclesiasticall Governour and coÌ„sequently his Churches under him are under the same Governour mediately although immediately under the inferior onely His fourth testimony is a flat wilfull falsification 'T is taken from S. Prosper put down by him thus Ioannes apud Ephesum Ecclesiam sacrauit Iohn at Ephesus consecrated a Church Whereas the place it self is Gentium Ecclesiam sacrauit consecrated the Church of the Gentiles Now because all over this par 't is Dr. H's pretence that S. Iohn was at Ephesus over Iews onely and the word Gentium would by no means be won to signify that nor yet would the word Nations as he render'd it before any way serve to signify onely Iews he prudently maim'd the testimony left out the malignant word Gentium because it could by no art be brought to favour but vtterly defy'd contradicted his party A politick Divine yet as long as this rare crafts man in the art of falsifying can but call S. W. an Artificer all is well the good women will believe him The testimonies for Timothy under S. Paul being over the Gentiles in Asia are of the same strain or worse the first of which expresses no more but that he undertook the care of the Metropolis of Ephesus that is was particular Metropolitan of that place The second affirms at large that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. An whole entire Nation that of Asia was entrusted to him Now S. W. imagining that an whole entire Nation could not signify Gentiles onely or a part of that Nation call'd it an unpardonable blindnes to alledge this testimony for a tenet quite contrary to what it exprest But I am suddenly struck blind my self and caught that disease onely by seeing Dr. H's blindnes And first I am blind for not seeing that the testimony related to Timothy not to S. Paul whereas himself promising us in the end of his 13. par to insist on S. Iohn S. Paul and after he had treated of S. Iohn in the 14th using these very words in the 15. throughout all the Lydian Asia the faith was planted by S. Paul among the Gentile part and by him Timothy constituted Bishop there and then immediately introducing his testimony with so saith Chrysostome he must be blind who could think this testimony was not mean't of S. Paul Add that the testimony it self speaks not of constituting a Bishop so gave me no occasion to imagin it related to Timothy's being thus constituted and besides the words throughout all Asia which he joyns there with S. Paul were fittest to be related to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the testimony Nor can it be pretended to have been an affected oversight since I gain not the least advantage by it it being equally strong for Dr. H's weak argument whether Timothy or S. Paul were onely over Gentiles there for which it was produced My second blindnes is that I could not see the obvious Answer which is that S. Chrysostome puts it onely in opposition to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 precedent the testimony being as he afterwards puts it that Timothy was entrusted with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather an entire Nation Now in the book of Schism he omitted himself the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the former part of the testimony then tells me 't is obvious it was put in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so I am become blind for not seeing that which was not at all there but left out by himself Gramercy good
same towards the Gentiles Where nothing is or can be more evident then this that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there spoken of was the self same as was exprest by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the self-same efficacy of preaching which nothing concerns equality or superiority of power or command in order to Government as plain sence tells every man and Dr. H. himself grants Answ p. 51. l. 26. The fourth testimony or rather the second part of the first is still from S. Amb. which as the Caspian sea runnes under ground a long way and then rises up again in the Euxine sculks under a parenthesis in which the two late Testimonies are found and shows it's Head again at the end of it in this form Ita tamen vt Petrus praedicaret Gentibus si causa fuisset Paulus Iudaeis nam vterque invenitur vtrumque fecisse sed tamen plena authoritas Petro in Iudaismi praedicatione data agnoscitur Pauli perfecta authoritas in praedicatione gentium invenitur yet so that Peter might preach to the Gentiles also if there were cause and Paul to the Iews for both of them is found to have done both but yet the full Authority is acknowledged given to Peter in the preaching to the Iews and Paul's perfect Authority is found in preaching to the Gentiles Where the first part of the testimony is expressely contrary to Dr. H. this granting that each might preach to either he denying they had right to doe so Repl. p. 56. and that S. Peter had no Iurisdiction save over one portion onely of the dispersed Iews of Schism p. 71. The second part of it which concerns plena authoritas full Authority or power is onely meant of greater powerfulness and authoritative efficacity in preaching not of fuller power of Iurisdiction Noâ— can it be otherwise either proceeding upon grounds common to us both these words being the explication or comment upon the greater efficacity of preaching spoken of in the 8. v. and so are to be understood to mean that said efficacy which none imagins to signify Iurisdiction and particularly upon Dr. H's grounds which makes no designation of Provinces till the agreement exprest as he will needs have it in the 9. v. by their giving the right hands of fellowship to which this speciall efficacity of preaching mention'd in the 8. v. and it 's exposition are antecedent Again suppose it signified full power of Iurisdiction yet there wants when they met in the same City onely to make it expresse for Mr. H's tenet So that neither can it concern our question of Iurisdiction nor did it could it reach home to Dr. H's purpose Lastly to render this place impossible to serve Dr. H's turn let us look Answ p. 51. l. 26. and we shall find him expressely contend that preaching or converting is nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction and therefore not argumentatiue for us to infer S. Peter's larger Iurisdiction from his preaching to more Now then since the Authority here spoken of is onely in praedicatione in preaching as the testimony it self inform us consequently it can neither concern our question which is about Iurisdiction nor make for his purpose and all this follows out of his own words and his own grounds The fifth Testimony is from S. Hierom as hee tells us that the Churches of the Iews seorsim habebantur nec his quae erant ex gentibus miscebantur were held a part nor mingled with these of the Gentiles and that the agreement was made that S. Paul should preach to the Gentiles Peter Iames and Iohn to the Iews The latter part of this testimony is already answered and shown that this was a prudent consent to act in such sort as God's speciall concurrence had manifested to be best in those circumstances To act I say not to make a formall and perpetuall pact the one Province should be as Dr. H. expresses it Repl. p. 56. l. 2. 5. so one Apostles that he hath no right to another part but is excluded from any farther right which includes two things besides some to go one way and some another to wit perpetuâ—ty of such a right and exclusivenes neither of which are any where exprest in this testimony As for the first part of this place concerning the severing of the Iewish and Gentile Churches First I Answer that I doubt not but the Apostles did prudently let them vse their devotions a part as long as the Iewish customes were in fresh observation and therefore the conjuction of them in common Acts of devotion would have been subject to breed offence and scandalls but I deny absolutely that which can serve Dr. H's turn to wit that they â—sed their endeavours to keep them still a part for the future which they had done had they constituted distinct Bishops over them to govern them as contradistinct Provinces for this would have made the breach which was onely occasionall at first and so easily by degrees alterable passe into ecclesiasticall Constitution not easily violable by this means keeping on foot the division and also this carriage of the Apostles would have countenanced the breach and the groundless scandall which occasion'd the breach All therefore the Apostles did was no more then as if Magistrates who govern in common a City if the Citizens chance to fall at variance some prudently comply with one side others with the other to reduce both to unity ad amity which is far from making two litle commoÌ„wealths of them or assigning them distinct Magistrates to govern them which had they done who sees not but by taking a way the Vnity of Government they had establisht the division Such was evidently the Apostles demeanour here such their intentions to wit as much as they could without scandalizing either party to bring them to Vnity and Vniformity into one Church and to Vnite them in him whom they taught to be the head corner-stone Christ Iesus in whom was no distinction of Iew and Gentile And surely had the distraction in the Primitive Church been thus coÌ„tinued by Apostolicall agreemeÌ„t to sever them as distinct Provinces and constitute over them opposite-litled Bishops we should both have heard news of â—ome of those Bishops exprest by some testimony from antiquity to have been over Iews onely or Gentiles onely and also have heard of their reuniting after wards under one common Bishop and how the former Bishops either one or both were dispossest or lost their place Yet not a syllable could Dr. Hammond find to expresse the former save his own Id est nor to countenance the latter but his own new invented Scholion or as he calls it of Schism p 79. his clew to extricate the Reader out of the mazes into which antient writers may lead him as hath been shown particularly in Schism Disarm'd Part. 1. Sect. 10. 11. 12. Secondly to return to our Testimony Dr. H. prettily ioyns these two places together thus S. Hierom having affirmed on Gal. 1.
and not what the many-senc'd or rather indeed the noe senc'd Dictionary interpretation of two single words give them a possibility to signify Neither let Mr. H. think to excuse him self that he argues ad hominem in alledging these words and soe it imports not his cause at all what the Epistle it self sayes since he builds not upon it himself nor allows it's Authority for still as long as 't is shown that he imposes upon that Epistle and it's Author a sence which he knew they never intended he can never avoyd the note of insincerity and by how much the thing it self is more unlikely that the Authoritie wee alledge for us should be clearly against us as he sayes or the fell same Epistle contradict it self by soe much 't is a far more shamefull rashnes and an affected precipitation in him to pretend it and object it unles upon most evident and unavoidable grounds Sect. 14. Dr. H's trick to evade bringing some Testimony to confirm his own Wee know His two-edg'd argument to concluâ—e against S. Peter's supermacy both from Exclusivenes and not Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction IN the beginning of his fifth Section Dr. H. who was soe rarely skillfull in the art of memory as to contradict himself neere a dozen times in one point as hath been shown Part. 2. Sect. 4. is now on a suddain become Master of it and undertakes to teach'it S. W. whose memory alas as hee sayes is frail But ere my Master gives me my lesson he reprehends me first very sharply for my ill memory calling it my predominant fault and that railing is but my blind to keep it from being descry'd nay moreover this modest man who falsifies or corrupts every thing he medles with is angry with me that I doe not blush Expect Reader some great advantage gain'd against mee which can move this Preacher of patience to this passion who in the beginning of his book soe like a saint profess'd his readines to turn the other cheak to him who should strike him on the right To avoid mistakes on my part and cauills on mine Adversaries I shall put down both our words and appeal to the Readers eyes His were these of Schism p. 74 Thus wee know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted the Iews and S. Paul the Gentiles And what it was which Dr. H. in the plurall number Wee as became his Authority knew to be thus he exprest in the immediatly foregoing words to wit that whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same Citie the one constantly apply'd himself to the Iews received Disciples of such formed them into a Church left them when he departed that region to bee govern'd by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles This is that Reader which Dr. H. knew to have bâ—en thus at Antioch This is also the place Reply p. 57. when all els fail'd him he stood to as a sufficient expression of his exclusive tenet of those Apostles Iurisdictions Now my words Schism Disarm p. 62. upon his Thus wee knew it was at Antioch c were these That his first testimony was his own knowledge Thus wee know c. but that he put down no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one of his wee know which yet had been requisite that wee might have known it too And this was all What railing words the Dr. find's here which should make him complain so hainously I know not unles it were that I calld the testimony of his own knowledg weak and indeed if this be railing despaire of learning more courtesie till Dr. H. by growing wiser teach me it But my predominant fault of an ill and frail memory for which shame must make change colour is this that I said he put no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one of his Wee know yet afterwards set down two testimonies of that of which I lately denyed any If hee means such things as he produced for testimonies I set down indeed the very next Section not onely two but ten of them But if he means such testimonies as I exprest my self to deny there that is such as did confirm his own Thus wee know I am soe far from blushing at it that I still make him this bold profer that if amongst all the following testimonies there be found any one word confirming his own Thus wee know and what it relates to that is making S. Peter's Authority exclusive to the Iews and S. Paul's to the Gentiles when they met at the same City but what himself adds of his own head I will yeld him the whole controversy Nor let him tell me what he fancies to bee deduced thence but what the testimonies themselv's expresse the deductions are his the words onely are the testimonies let him show me any one exclusive word in any one testimony and I professe before all the world that I will not onely pardon him the impertinency of the rest but alsoe grant him all Iudge now Protestant Reader who hath most cause to blush examine well if ever thou heardst such a challenge made to any writer yet extant and not accepted of and then see to what a trifler thou trustest for thy salvation who in steed of replying to the purpose and showing thee those exclusive words tells his Adversary that it is a predominant fault in him to chalenge him that he had never a testimony to confirm his own Wee know and then seing himself unable to show any thinks to evade by telling his challenger he ought to blush for his frail memory whereas he should rather have blam'd him for his bad understanding and bad eyes neither apprehending nor seeing a word in any testimony to that purpose In answer to his pretended testimonies I noted Schism Disarm p. 63. that they affirmed no more but the founding the Church of Antioch by Peter and Paul which might be done by their promiscuous endeavours without distinction much lesse exclusion of Authority and Iurisdiction Dr. H. answers here 't is true this was possible and if it had been true had manifestly prejudged S. Peter's singular Iurisdiction and clearly joynd Paul socially with him It is impossible to gett a positive word of sence from this man first he will never willingly use the common words which expresse the question between us as chief in Authority amongst the Apostles their Head Prince c. but as before he used the ambiguous phrase of S. Peter's having noe singular supremacy at Hierusalem soe now he recurr's to singular Iurisdiction at Antioch which being doublesenc'd if wee take it in one he will be sure to evade hereafter by taking it in another Secondly let us suppose him to mean honestly that is to intend by it that S. Peter was not higher in Authority of Government than S. Paul as the question determines it let us observe how this quodlibeticall reasoner argues his whole intent was to conclude against S. Peter's
cares he what this reconcilement of contradictions costs though it make all Antiquitie blind â—ll his new fangled coÌ„cied or Scholion which he putts down of Schism p. 79. l. 12. gave light to the world yet as long as he can by screwing wresting make them favour his cause he is a man of peace contradictions shall shake hands and bee friends But who is the Vmpire to decide this contradiction-quarrell one God knows whom called Ioannes Malela Antiochenus and the testimony from him is found in a manuscript in Oxford Library that is we may goe look it God knows where Yet we will trust Dr. H. for once in a testimony not extant who hath deceived us so often in those which were publike easie to be examined and take the place as we find it by himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. when Peter went to Rome passing by Antioch the Great Euodius Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch happend ' to dy Ignatius received the Bishoprick S. Peter ordaining enthroning him Was there ever testimony imaginable more expresse against this very point in controversie and that in every particular than this he alledges as the knot of all his proof See his booke of Schism p. 75. l 26. 27. where he contends from the Apostolicall Constitutions that Euodius Ignatius sate at the same time Bishops of Antioch See Ioannes Malela's testimony which was to button together all the rest and conclude the controversy Euodius happen'd to dy Ignatius succeeded him in the Bishoprick See in the true testimony from the Apostolicall Constitutions put downe Schism Disarm'd p. 65. because Dr. H. had falsify'd it Ignatius ordinatus est a Paulo Ignatius was ordain'd by Paul See Malela Ignatius received the Bishoprick S. Peter ordaining him Lastly see in Malela's testimony Bishoprick in the singular Bishop and Patriarch in the singular whereas Dr. H. all over makes it his whole design to prove Bishops two Bishopricks at once in the same City Observe the word Patriarch ask Dr. H. whether he thinks in his conscience there were two Patriarchs at Antioch one over Iews another over Gentiles or where caÌ„ he even preten'd to have read or heard of such an absurd tenet In a word there is scarce any proposition affirm'd by Dr. H. in order to this present point but finds here it's expresse contrary and yet he brings this as the upshot of all his proofs and as that where in he mean't to make all ends meet introducing it here in these confident terms Repl. p. 64. l. 2. 3. that the seeming difference of his former testimonies is removed by Io. Malela Antiochenus who thus sets down the whole matter whereas indeed the matter he sets down is wholy contrary to Mr. H. Does this man care a pin with what false pretences he mocks his Reader abuses his very eyes But was there no design in alledging this testimony or can he make it though quite contrary to his tenet serve his turn for nothing yes for there is nothing so contradictory to Dr. H's doctrine in it's self but by cooking it up hand somely he can make his advantage of it He wedges in two parenthesisses of his own in the middle of the testimony and then all is evident The testimony then as by him put down stands gaping thus when Peter went to Rome passing by Antioch the Great Euodius Bishop Patriarch of Antioch happen'd to dy and Ignatius who was as was said first constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there received the Bishoprick that I suppose must now be of the Iewish Province also over which Euodius had been in his life time S. Peter ordaining enthroning him Now as for the testimony it self taken alone it is expresly against him as hath been shown the onely vertue force of it lies in the parenthesisses and if we examin these the totall strength of the first lies in the words as was said that is by himself for he hath produced as yet never a testimony which says Evodius was constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles the sole force of the latter parenthesis lies in the all-conquering I suppose which is perfectly gratis and without all show of any Ground either in Antiquitie or comon sence as hath been largely manifested And so by this mean's we have gotten two other very strong testimonies to confirm his own we know to wit as was said and I suppose nor have we one expresse word from any testimony save from his own knowledge his own saying and his owne suppositions The result is that this testimony the upshot knot of all the rest is it self absolutely against him and onely brought to countenance his parenthesisses not with it's influence but with it's presence So that his testimonies are as it were the Stock upon which he ingrafts his owne sayings either in the middle by way of a parenthesis or by means of an Id est in antecedent or subsequent words sometimes with distinction sometimes with none and so it matters not with him what nature the Stock it self is of since the fruit of testifying in favour of his tenet is to be expected from the accessory scyons or spriggs his voluntary additions and so need not resemble the Stock which may be of an indifferent perhaps contrary nature Sect 17. How Dr. H. sleightly waves to strengthen his six Testimonies shown invalid by Schism Disarm'd and in particular what work hee makes with a Testimony from S. Prosper HIs six following testimonies to prove that S. Peter was over Iews onely at Rome and S Paul over Gentiles are shown Schism Disarm'd p. 67. 68. 69. first not to have a word in them to that purpose nor intimating any thing which may not aswell much better infer a promiscuous Authoritie than an exclusive one since they onely signify that they founded the Church there and were Apostles Bishops there Secondly he was accused there for calling those obscure testimonies Evidences for the exclusive Iurisdiction of these Apostles one over Iews the other over Gentiles whereas there was not one exclusive particle in any one of them nor so much as Iew or Gentile named by them Thirdly in order to this the notion of an Evidence was set down manifested how far his twilight-testimony-proof were from the pretence of being such Fourthly his sly gullery of the Reader to his face by endeavouring to make him beleeve that the testimonies were parallell to his owne confident affirmation that it was evident was there layd open shown to be a deceit His words of Schism p. 76 being the same is as evident at Rome where these two Apostles met again and each of them erected managed a Church S. Peter of Iews S. Paul of Gentiles whereas the testimonies which he usher'd in with so many Soe 's had not a word to that purpose as was there shown Of all these weaknesses Dr. H. was accused by his Disarmer in answer to which he
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
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
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
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
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
to proceed His second Epistle against Vigilantius begins thus Multa in orbe monstra c Many monsters have been begotten in the world we read in Esaias of Centaurs and Sirens Screech-owls and Onocrotals Iob describes Leviathan and Behemoth in mysticall language the fables of the Poets tell of Cerberus and the Stymphals and the Erymanthian Boar of the Nemean Lion of Chimera ad many-headed Hydra Virgil describes Cacus Spain hath brought to light three-shap't Geryon France onely had no Monsters Suddenly there arose Vigilantius or more truly Dormitantius who with an unclean spirit fights against the spirit of Christ and denies that the sepulchres of the martyrs are to be venerated Insanum caput mad or frantick fellow Sanctas reliquias Andreae Lucae Timothei apud quas Daemones rugiunt inhabitatores Vigilantij illorum se sentire praesentiam confitentur The holy reliques of Andrew Luke and Timothy at which the Devils roare and the possessours of Vigilantius confesse that they feel their presence Tu vigilans dormis dormiens scribis Thou sleepest waking and writest sleeping De barathro pectoris tui coenosam spurcitiam evomens vomiting dirty filth from the hell of thy breast Lingua viperea Viperine tongue Spiritus isle immundus qui haec te cogit scrâ—bere saepe hoc vilissimo tortus est pulvere immo hodieque torquetur qui iu te plagas dissimulaâ— in aliis confitetur That unclean spirit which compells thee to write these things has oftentimes been tortured with this contemptible dust meaning the Holy Reliques which Vigilantius styled thus yea and is now adayes still tortur'd and he who in thee dissembles his wounds confesses them in others But let us come to the Treatise our Adversary cites and see how roughly S. Hierome handles Helvidius whom Dr. H. would have him accuse in the same treatise of the self-same fault Sedâ—ne te quasi lubricus anguis evolvas testimoniorum stringendus es vinculis ne querâ—lus sibiles but lest like a stippery snake thou disentangle thy self thou must be bound with the cords of testimonies that thou mayest not querulously hiss Imperitissime hominum siliest of men Nobilis es factus in scelere Thou art ennobled made famous by thy wickednesse Quamvis sis hebes dicere non aâ—debis although thou beest dull or blockish yet thou darest not affirm it Risimus in te proverbinm Camelum vidimus saltantem We have laught at the old proverb in thee We have seen a dancing Camel c. Where we see First that if S. Hierome's verdict exprest in his own manifold example be allowable whom Dr. H hath chosen for Vmpire in his matter t is very lawfull and fitting to give the Adversaries of Faith their full desert in controversies concerning Faith and not to spare them as long as the truth of their faultinesse can justify the rigorous expressions Neither let Dr. H. objet that I beg the question in supposing him an Adversary of the true faith for to put the matter indifferently and so as may please even the Protestants them selves either Dr. H's cause is false and then 't is laudable to use zeal against him who perniciously endeavours to mantain a falsehood or else it is true then he deserves as great a reprehension who abuses his cause by going about to defend it by such wilfull falsifications and so many frauds and weaknesses as he hath been discovered Whence it appears that the indifferent Reader is not to consider at all whether the expressions sound harshly or no but whether they be true or no for if they be then that person will be found in reason to deserve reprehension be the cause he defends true or false if he defend it either senselesly or insincerely Secondly these harsh expressions of S. Hieromes being due to Dr. H's forefather Vigilantius for denying veneration to holy Reliques are due likewise upon that onely score to Dr. H. and the Protestant writers who deny the same Point what then may we imagine the Protestants deserve for filling up the measure of their forefathers sinnes by denying the onely certain Rule of Faith Vniversall Tradition the former governmeÌ„t of God's Church almost all the Sacraments and many other most important points besides and of much greater concernment than is this of venerating holy Reliques Thirdly the Reader shall find no where in Schism Disarm'd such harsh language given to Dr. H. or which if taken in it's own nature sounds so contumeliously as this of S. Hieromes against Vigilantius is frantick fellow monster prodigious monster possest with the Devill possest with an unclean Spirit snake famous for wickednesse blockhead c. My harshest words in comparison of these are moderate and ciuil mine are smiling Ironies his are stern and bitter Sarcasmes and if I whipt Dr. H. gently with rods S. Hierome wihpt his forefather Vigilantius with Scorpions Whence followes that I am to be thank't by Dr. H. for my moderation not excommunicated for my excesse in reprehending him since all those more severe expressions far out-vying mine were his due as he is in the same fault with Vigilantius besides what accrues to him out of later titles and this by the judgement of S. Hierome the very Authour he quotes for himself in this point Fourthly what a miserable weaknesse is it to quote this Father against me for using harsh language who himself uses far harsher which evidences that if this Fathers authority and example be of weight in this point as Dr. H. grants by bringing him against me for that purpose then the roughnesse of the language is not railing or reprehensible if taken alone or abstracted from the cause since Dr. H. will not say that this holy Father thought that manner of language railing or reprehensible in himself which showes that Dr. H's first Chapter fighting against the words as abstracted from the cause as much accuses S. Hierome as me nay much more as his words exprest more fully his justly-caused zeal than my more moderate pen did Fifthly abstracting from the cause and impugning the manner of expression onely as Dr. H. does who sees not that the Heretick Vigilantius might with the same reason as he have entitled the first Chapter of his Reply to S. Hierome in the like manner as he did to wit thus Of Hieroms style and contumelies The Scriptures sentence on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Character belonging thereto Then in the Chapter it self have call'd S Hierome's plain discovery of his faults scoffes and contumelies have told him that he had just title to the scorners chair that his writing against him was like Goliahs cursing of David Rabshakels reproaches against Israel that the Apostle had long ago pronounced sentence against him that none should eat with him that he was in reality no Christian a detestable person faln under the censures of the Church ipso jure excommunicate in a speciall sort one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unrighteous that he shall not
whence to alledge those testimonies comparable to that of the Church they left since they can never even pretend to show any company of men so incomparably numerous so unquestionably learned holding certainly as of Faith and as received from the Apostles that Government which they impugned and this so constantly for so many hundred years so unanimously and universally in so many Countries where knowledge most flourish't testifying the same also in their General Councels all which by their own aknowlegedment was found in the Church they left The eihtgh Ground is that The proofs alledged by Protestants against us bear not even the weight of a probability to any prudent man who penetrates and considers the contrary motives For the proofs they alledge are testimonies that is words capable of divers senses as they shall be diversely play'd upon by wits Scholars and Criticks and it is by experience found that generally speaking their party and ours give severall meanings to all the Testimonies controverted between us Now it is manifest that computing the vastnefs of the times and places in which our Profession hath born sway we have had near a thousand Doctors for one of the Protestants who though they ever highly venerated and were well versed in all the Ancient Fathers and Councells yet exprest no difficulty in those proofs but on the contrary made certain account that all Antiquity was for them Thus much for their knowledge Neither ought their sincerity run in a less proportion than their number unless the contrary could be evidently manifested which I hear not to be pretended since they are held by our very Adversaries and their acts declare them to have been pious in other respects and on the other side considering the corruptness of our nature the prejudice ought rather to stand on the part of the disobeyers than of the obeyers of any Government Since then no great difficulty can be made but that we have had a thousand knowing men for one and no certainty manifested nor possible to be manifested that they were unconscientious we have had in all morall estimation a thousand to one in the meanes of understanding aright these testimonial proofs and then I take not that to have any morall probability which hath a thousand to one against it But I stand not much upon this having a far better game to play I mean the force of Tradition which is fortify'd which such and so many invincible reasons that to lay them out at large and as they deserve were to transcribe the Dialogues of Rusworth the rich Storehouse of them to them I refer the Reader for as ample as satisfaction as even Scepticism can desire and onely make use at present of this Consideration that if it be impossible that all the now-Fathers of Families in the Catholick Church disperst in so many nations should conspire to tell this palpablely to their Children that twenty yeares agoe such a thing visible and practical as all points of Faith are was held in that Church if no such thing had been and that consequently the same impossibility holds in each twenty yeares upwards till the Apostles by the same reason by which it holds in the last twenty then it followes evidently that what was told us to have been held twenty yeares agoe was held ever in case the Church held nothing but upon this Ground that so she received or had been taught by the immediately-foregoing Faithfull for as long as she pretends onely to this Ground the difficulty is equal in each twenty yeares that is there is an equal impossibility they should conspire to this palpable lie Now that they ever held to this Ground that is to the having received it from their Ancestours is manifested by as great an Evidence For since they now hold this Ground if at any time they had taken it up they must either have counterfeited that they had received it from their Ancestours or no. The former relapses into the abovesaid impossibility or rather greater that they should conspire to tell a lie in the onely Ground of their Faith and yet hold as they did their Faith built upon that Ground to be truth the latter position must discredit it self in the very termes which imply a perfect contradiction for it is as much as to say nothing is to be held as certainty of Faith but what hath descended to us from our Forefathers and yet the onely Rule which tells us certainly there is any thing of Faith is newly invented Wherefore unless this chain of Tradition be shown to have been weak in some link or other the case between us is this whether twenty testimonies liable to many exceptions and testify'd by experience to be disputable between us can bear the force even of a probability against the universal acknowledgment and testification of millions and millions in any one age in a thing visible and practical To omit that we are far from being destitute of testimonies to counterpoise nay incomparably over poise theirs By this Ground and the reason for it the Reader may judge what weak and trivial proofs the best of Protestant Authours are able to produce against the clear Verdict of Tradition asserted to be infallible by the strongest supports of Authority and reason To stop the way against the voluntary mistakes of mine Adversary I declare my self to speak here not of written Tradition to be sought for in the Scriptures and Fathers which lies open to so many Cavils and exceptions but of oral Tradition which supposing the motives with which it was founded and the charge with which it was recommended by the Apostles carries in it's own force as apply'd to the nature of mankind an infallible certainty of it's lineal and never-to-be-interrupted perpetuity as Rushworth's Dialogues clearly demonstrate Sect. 6. The Continuation of the same Grounds THe ninth Ground is that The Catholick Church and her Champions ought in reason to stand upon Possession This is already manifested from the fifth Ground since Possession is of it's self a title till sufficient motives be produced to evidence it an usurpation as hath there been shown By this appears the injustice of the Protestants who would have it thought reasonable that we should seem to quit our best tenour Possession attested by Tradition and fall upon the troublesome and laborious method of citing Authours in which they will accept of none but whom they list and after all our pains and quotations directly refuse to stand to their judgment as may be seen in the Protestant's Apology in which by the Protestant's own confessions the Fathers held those opinions which they object to us for errours The tenth Ground is that In our Controversies about Religion reason requires that we should sustain the part of the Defendant they of the Opponent This is already sufficiently proved since we ought to stand upon the title of Possession as a Ground beyond all arguments untill it be convinced to be malae fidei which is
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
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
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
thus granted all that was pretended to wit their Infallibleness in those two sorts of actions because he would be sure to say something to every thing though to never so litle purpose as his custome is he addes first that they were not infallible in all sorts of things What man in his wits ever pretended it or imagin'd but that the Apostles might count mony wrong or be mistaken in knowing what a clock it was Was ever such frivolous stuff heard of Next he tells us that as they were men on earth they were fallible What a mysterious piece of sence is here He hath already confuted himself by granting that when they were men on earth they were Infallible which was solely pretended now that he may seem to impugn us he tacitely counterfeits us to hold that their Infallibility proceeds as from it's formal reason not from the assistance of the holy Ghost but from their being men on earth and by consequence that each man on earth is infallible since à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia Thirdly whereas my words which Answ p. 34. hee makes head against are onely of those two said acts in which hee at length grants they were infallibly assisted by the confirmation of the holy Ghost he rakes up all the Apostles faults and failings before the holy Ghosts descent and thinks to elude my words and delude his Reader by these more than childish evasions His tenth weakness is that he extends p. 34. by a voluntary mistake because he would still have something to say Mr. Knot 's words that the Church was infallible and not subject to errour to signify that it shall undoubtedly be preserved from falling into errour and that not onely from this or that sort of errour but indefinitely from all As if the controversy between Mr. Knot and him were not onely about Infallibility in delivering matters of Faith Is not this a sincere man who would make persons wiser than himself seem so imprudent as to think the Church Infallible in judging whether the Circle can be squared whether Sprights walk in S. Faiths under Paul's or whether a goose-py or a shoulder of mutton be the better dish By Dr. H's Logick it must be out tenet that the Holy Ghost whispers the Church in the ear to speak truth in all these and millions of other such unnecessary fooleries and all this absurdity must light upon us onely from this because Mr. Knot and S. W. said the Church is infallible and not subject to errour when the discourse was about matters of Faith necessary for the salvation of mankind The like non sense shuts up his eleventh Paragraph as the result of the discourse before it so again in the twelfth and fourteenth the same mistaking weakness is that which gives all the strength to the discourse and it is worth the Readers notice that he never impugnes our tenet of Infallibility but by such kind of forgery His eleventh weakness is his shuffling in his eleventh Paragraph where after he had told us very truly that the Apostles had agreed on all things needful for the Church deposited them in each Church as their Rule of Faiâ—h when he drew near the point in question to wit wheâ—her the depositary or Church was infallible and could not erre in delivering the right depositum or whether she might perhaps deliver a wrong one he flies off and tells us Ans p. 35. if they would adhere to that there needed no sitperadded Infallibility to things unnecessary Did ever Mr. Knot or I talk of Infallibility in things unnecessary or is this the point disputed between Catholicks and Protestants Good Mr. H. speak out and tell us whether the depositary can mistake or no in delivering needfull points if she can where is the certainty of our Faith if she cannot then some company of men on earth are infallible in delivering things necessary for Salvation which is the point in Controversy His twelfth weakness is that in going about to show how he can be infallibly certain of the books of Scripture he unawares recurres to our Rule of Faith though he never intends to stand to it affirming here Answ p. 36. that the testimony of others founded in their several sensations being faithfully conveyed to us by undeniable Tradition are as unquestionably certain as if we had seen them ourselves that is as he intimates before l. 3. infallible instancing that of this sort is the tradition of the universal primitive Church c. Where first if this be true I have gained my intent which was to show against him that some company of men might be infallible in attesting things of Faith though not in all things as he calumniates us to hold Next if the Tradition of the Primitive Church be infallible for the reason given I ask why the succeeding Church should not enjoy the same priviledge since the doctrine of Fore fathers being visible practical and so founded in the several sensations of the children they can by witnessing transmit it to their posterity asun questionably truly as if the Grand-children had seen what was held and practised in the Grand-fathers time Nay unless he grant this he hath done nothing that is he hath not shown that he hath any certainty of the books of Scripture for if the Tradition in the primitive Church onely be infallible I may be mistaken in believing the succeeding Tradition in this point since that may deceive me for any thing I know if the after Tradition also was Infallible then we conquer without dispute in this and all other Controversies about Faith since we were found adhering to this universal testification of all our Forefathers whereas they renounc't it when they renounced the Authority it recommended and ran to other Grounds private interpretations of Scripture and odde scraps of misunderstood testimonies and still are glad to sow together these thin figge-leaves to cover the nakedness of their deformed Schism His thirteenth weakness is that in testifying as above-said he sayes the Church is not considered as a society of believers indowed with any inerrable priviledge but as a number of witnesses c. As if they did not first believe it themselves ere they could conspire to deliver it to their Children for true or as if the same persons may both be Beleevers in respect of their Progenitours and Witnesses in respect of their posterity No wiser is his assertion that nothing is here contested from the Authority of their judgments For if he means the points which they contest are not founded on their judgments 't is most certainly true since speaking of points of Faith they are truths revealed by God not productions of mens heads But if he means their judgments went not along with their contestations but while they testified to have received them from their Ancestours they spake contrary to their judgment then they all conspired to tell a ly to their posterity in things of Faith which is impossible
is whether obligation to belief can be without Infallibility He quibbles upon each word as if he would do strange things against it and makes up by his explications this worthy proposition that a Church which it is p. 16. l. 1. not strongly probable that it will erre and p. 16. l. 8 properly speaking knows not whether it erre or no may p. 16. l. 16. yet oblige men to obedience and them that cannot search to believe not positively and indeed as the Reader must conceive but onely so far as not to disbelieve that is that her self knowing nothing properly or positively can by consequence oblige none to believe any thing properly and positively but to obey onely Is not this a fine upshot of such an elaborate answer And when he hath done this then he addes another proposition Parag 22. which confesses all that he stumbled at before and which onely was in question Let us put a parallel to his manner of discourse Suppose one should affirm that a whole Apple is bigger than a half and maintain it because Totum est majus parte A whole is greater then a part Dr. H's manner of answering would work upon it in this sort First the word whole may signify a whole Mole hill or a whole Mountain a whole web of cloath or a whole thred Next the word majus or greater may signify greater in longitude in latitudine or in profundity Lastly the word pars may signify part of a Mole hill part of a Mountain part of a web c. This done he would joyn these together which are not the things in question as he did in the former of his two proposition and tell us that speaking of a Mole-hill and a Mountain 't is certain that part of a Mountain may not be greater than a whole Mole-hill and so likewise part of the web of cloth to wit a whole thred may not be greater in longitude than the whole web Then coming to the question adde a parallel to his second proposition and conclude in these words But as for an Apple and it's part speaking of the quantity belonging to a body that is profundity or bulk 't is granted that the whole Apple is greater than the half one which might as well have been granted at first and have excused all this trifling Sect. 12. What the Power of binding to Beleef consists in and how rationally our Church how irrationally the Protestants pretend to such a Power together with a Godly and edifying Sermon of Mr. H's according to his Doctrine when he disputes against us IT were not amiss here to clear this important point the better to lay open in brief what is this Power in the Church to bind her Sons to beleef and in what it consists For I doubt not but Mr. H. wonders and many judicious Protestant Readers may perhaps remain sollicitous to imagine how and in what manner there can be any power to force cōmand the Soul to an interiour beleef or assent But I hope this short hint will make them see that this power is founded upon free rationall Grounds not a tyrannical bare command of any authority whatsoever It is confest then that as a body cannot be moved locally but after a corporeal quantitative manner as is it's nature so neither can a soul which is of it's nature rational be moved to assent but by resons and motives whether true or false and were it moved otherwise it were not moved as a thing of such a nature that is it would not be a rational soul Now since pure Reason consists in inferring a connexion of two things or notions because of their joynt connexion with a third in the premisses and this also an immediate one for a connexion which is not immediate is in reality none at all at least to the Vnderstanding since in that case it sees it not it follows that the Soul is never moved out of pure Reason to any assent but by such an immediate connexion seen that is by Evidence and consequently all assents which have not this originall spring from impurity of passion that is from vice Wherefore since it is impossible God who is Essential Sanctity should command a vice it follows that as on the one side either he has left no power to oblige to assent or if he have it must be founded in Evidence so on the other if there be any authority on earth which can evidence her Certainty of what she sayes that Authority hath power to oblige others in vertue of the said Evidence to assent to what she shall affirm that is to oblige them to beleef for this is no harder a treaty than to bind them to that to which their own nature had bound them before-hand that is to assent upon Evidence To apply this then to the point in hand The Church obliges her Children to rest and continue in her beleef by the same motive by which she could oblige them when they were out of her to assent to her doctrine so far as concerns it's having been taught by Christ and his Apostles This motive is the proposal of her own Authority or of millions and millions of Fathers in the Catholick Church all conspiring to witness that those points of doctrine things visible and most concerning were received from their Ancestours as from their and so ascending upwards as from Christ The vertue by which this Authority or incomparable multitude of witnesses claims to be a motive and to have power to convince the Vnderstanding and so oblige to assent to their word that is to beleeve is the Evidence of the treble-twisted Impossibility that this Authority either would conspire in any age to attest so notorious an untruth and so pernicious to their own and their Children's eternal bliss or that they could either erre or mistake in things so visible or even contrive a conspiracy to embrace any one errour considering the several Countreys in which they liv'd dispers't and consequently their several natures obligations inclinations interest and other manifoldly-varying circumstances or lastly if they would and could that is did attest and so introduce an errour that it should not be most visible and palpable in most undeniable and manifest circumstances to the whole world being a change of things openly-evident in manifest and universal practice before and in a matter of highest concernment These impossibilities of erring in delivering any point of Faith render that Congregation evidently infallible which sticks close to this Rule of delivering onely what she received as thus attested The Evidence of her Infallibility obliges a rational nature to assent upon such an Authority that is to beleeve and consequently her Power to oblige Beleef is as firm as this Truth that Evidence obliges the Vnderstanding to assent which is reduced into this first principle that Idem est idem sibi ipsi or that Reason is Reason since the act of Reason adhering to truth is nothing else but an
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
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
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
that Authority not the want of Authority it self The second Testimony that they which are excommunicated by some shall not be received by others is the onely place in this Section most likely to infer the Doctor 's Conclusion that the Popes is not Supreme which indeed it does most amply if taken in it's whole latitude and extent but withall the Doctor must confess that if it be taken so it utterly destroys all Government and his former testimony from the Milevitan Council to boot For if those words be universally true then it is unlawful for a Priest to appeal from his Bishop to an Arch-Bishop Primate or Provincial Council granted in the said testimony which takes away all Authority in a Superiour over the Acts and Decrees of an Inferiour and by consequence all Government Now then since the said testimony which indeed was mean't of the Appeals of Priests and so is already answerd'd cannot serve him unless taken in it's full extent nor can it be taken so whitout subverting all Ground of Government it follows that it cannot serve him at all nor prejudice us Again since it cannot be taken as denying Appeals from Subordinate to Superiour Governours universally Mr. H's grounds must make it conclude against us by making it signify a denial of Appeals to Coequals in Authority onely Wherefore all it's force is built on this supposition that the Pope is not Superiour but coequal onely to a Patriarch so that his Argument is epitomiz'd into this pithy piece of sense as true as the first Principles which he must suppose to make this proof valid that the Pope not being Head of the Church is not Head of the Church and then all is clearly evidenced The third testimony We entreat you that you would not easily admit those to your Communion who are excommunicated by us is so far from gain-saying the Pope's power that the very expressions of which it is fram'd are rather so many acknowlegdments of it being onely a request not that he would not receive their Appeals or admit them at all much less that he could not but onely that he would not admit them easily that is without due and mature examination of the cause Now who sees not that an humble desire that he would not doe it easily intimates or supposes he had a power to doe it absolutely This is confirm'd by their subjoyning as the reason of their request not because the Pope had no power to admit others but because the Council of Nice had so decreed knowing that it was a strong motive for them and an obligation in the Supreme Governour to conserve the Laws of the Church inviolate unless Evidence that in these Circumstances it crost the common good licenc't him to use his extraordinary Authority in that Extremity and to proceed now not upon Laws but upon the dictates of Nature the Ground and Rule of all Laws So perfectly innocent to our cause are all the testimonies of weight alledged by Mr. H. against it if they be left to themselves and not inspired with malice by the bad meaning he will needs instill into them against their own good nature The fourth testimony is stil like Dr. H. as he maintains a bad cause that is incomparably weak and short of concluding any thing 'T is this that the Bishops of every Nation must account the Primate their Head What then is not a Parish-Priest Head of a Parish a Bishop Head of his Diocese an Arch-Bishop Head of his Arch-Bishoprick as well as a Primate Head of his Primacy Does it then follow from a Bishops being Head of the Priests in his Diocese that there is no degree of Authority Superiour to his yet this apply'd to a Primate is all Dr. H's argument to prove none higher than he But it is pretty to observe in what strange words he couches his inference from hence which saith he Repl. p. 40. sure infers that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely Head of all Bishops Observe that canting phrase one onely Head c His intent here manifestly was to show no degree of Authority Superiour to Patriarchs to prove this he alledges this testimony now agitated and then because he saw it would not carry home to the mark be aymed it at he infers warily that the Pope is not the one onely Head of all Bishops By which expression he prepares an evasion beforehand when the inconsequence of his discourse from the said testimony shall be obâ—ected or else would persuade the unwary Reader that we hold the Pope so Head of the the Church as that we admit not Primates to be Head of the Bishops under them Whereas our tenet is that as Primates are immediate Heads of the Metropolitans so the Pope is Head or Superiour over Primates and by consequence Supreme over the whole Church yet so Supreme as he leaves to Subordinate Governours their Headship inviolate over their proper Inferiours Thus much to his Testimonies concerning Appeals His other manner of arguing against the Pop'es Supremacy or his being a summum genus is from names and titles deny'd him The first testimony is from Decret part 1. dist 99. cap. 3. that Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum vel summus Sacerdos that the Bishop of the first Seat ought not to be called Prince of the Priests or Supreme Priest which the African Council confirms with aut aliquid eiusmodi sed tantum primae sedes Episcopus The second is from the same place cap. 4. Nec â—â—iam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus The third from the Epistle of Pope Pelagius Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur c. No Patriarch must use the title of Vniversal for if one Patriarch be called Vniversal the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest The fourth is their thred-bare and often answered testimony of Saint Gregory refusing the title of Vniversal Bishop But first these testimonies come short of what they are intended for in this that none speaks of the right of Iurisdiction but onely of names and titles as appears by the words appelletur appellandus Vniversalitatis vocabulo superbae appellationis verbum in the testimonies which denote no exception against any Authority but against the titular expression of it onely which sounded proudly and seem'd inconvenient and new at that time Secondly it is a great weakness in understanding the nature of words not to advert that the vogue of the world altering from plainess to complementalness as it does stil daily the same word may be used without fear of pride at one time which could not at another nay the same thing may be fitly signify'd by some word at some time which cannot be signify'd by the same at another as for example Tyrannus once was proper for a King ruling according to law and right which now is not competent but to him who rules arbitrarily against both or rather indeed once it signify'd a power
now it signifies a vice Thirdly this seems to have been the case of our word Vniversalis Papa at least in S. Gregory's time when that expression if taken in a due sense sem'd tolerable both by the example given in the Council of Chalcedon in order to Pope Leo and also by Eulogius Patriarch of Alexundria's letter giving it to Pope Gregory but 't was refused by that prudent and humble Pope because the proud Patriarch of Constantinople usurp't it in an illegitimate and intolerable sense Fourthly the sense of that title in the testimonies objected being evidently this that none could be Patriarchs but himself as appears by Pope Pelagius his Epistle cited here by Gratian quia si unus Patriarcharum Vniversalis dicatur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur and the like in S. Gregory's expression to Eulogius when he refused it this I say being evident and it being on the other side no less evident that our tenet concerning the Pope's Authority is not that it is of such a nature as debars others subordinate degrees and in particular Patriarchs and Bishops to be truly what they are called it is likewise evident that our meaning when we apply it to the Pope is different quite from the signification the objectors take it in Now that the Pope's Authority as held by Catholicks hinders not others to remain still Patriarchs is most plain For we grant him onely such an higher degree of power over Patriarchs as an Arch-Bishop hath over a Bishop from which superiory over them it follows that he is Supreme in God's Church As then the placing an Arch-Bishop over Bishops doth not un-bishop them so neither doth the exalting the Pope's Anthority above Paâ—â—iarchal destroy the notion of a Patriarch but each of them retains their compleat limits of Power in the Church notwithstanding their subordination to their Superiour and consequently the testimonies are not a jot to the Doctor 's purpose since they declare themselves to mean one thing and he brings them to denote a quite different matter Fifthly had not the Testimonies declared themselves to mean otherwise than we do yet to show more the miserable weakness of this testimony-gleaner it were no such great wonder that S. Gregory such was his humility should deny to accept what was due to him A plain instance of this may be found 4. Epist 31. where he denyes himself even to be a Priest Sixthly whoever reads his Epistles sent throughout the whole Church it is impossible but he should see that however he deny'd the word of Vniversal Bishop which sounded then proudly yet he both practised and challenged the thing it self that is the Papal Iurisdiction which we now mean by that word notwithstanding his profound humility which made him never desire to stand upon his power but when it was necessary A perfect instance of this is found 7 Epist 65. Ind. 2. where he sayes Si qua culpa c. If there be any fault or crime found in Bishops that every Bishop is subject to the Apostolical See but when their fault doth not exact it that is make it necessary for him to use his Authority that then upon the account of humility all were his Equals See also l. 7. Epist 64. where he puts it as undoubted that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolical See and this to be acknowledg'd by the Emperour and by the Bishop of Constantinople himself See another most express Testimony to the same purpose lib. 5. Epist 24. to Marinianus Bishop of Ravenna Seventhly those words Neâ— etiâ—m Romanus Pontifex Vniversalis est appellandus are not found either in the Council of Caâ—â—hage it self or in the ancient Copies but are Gratian's addition onely wherefore they are to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took thâ—m whose Epistle he cites to make good those words Eighthly equivalent terms to what we mean by those words were far more anciently given to the Bishop of Rome Zephyrinus by Teâ—tullian lib. 1. de pudicitia where de calls him Pontifex maximus Episcopus Episcoporum Ninthly and lastly to put this whole business out of doubt Dr. H's own dear Friend Balsamon a Greek Schismatick confesses and surely he knew as well as Dr. H. that that Title was forbidden to take away the Arrogancy of Names and that for that reason many Patriarchs did style themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vile and base See Bals in Conc. Carth. 3. Cant. 42. Where though he mingles something of his own Schism yet thus far is clear for me that the name or title was onely treated there nor the thing or Iurisdiction about which our controversy being Dr. H. ought to have brought testimonies impugning it not a bare name onely Calculate these manifold weaknesses kind Reader with thy understanding and then tell me if it must not be a most desperately weak cause which can drive it's Patrons to cast their strongest hopes upon such testimonies which to omit other frailties declare themselves and are confest by our bitterest Adversaries not to mean the thing or Iurisdiction the onely matter in debate but the Phrase of titular appellation onely which shows plainly that the Objecter's intent was to bring the question of the solid power and Authority into the Logomachy and word-skirmish of an aiery title So that Dr. H. payes his Reader with the same coyn as that hungry fellow did who having satisfy'd himself with the smell of the Cook 's meat pay'd his exacting host with the sound of the money in stead of the substanâ—e But now it being firmly settled by the former frothy Argument that the Pope had anciently no Vniversal Authority he proceeds to show when this strange Vsurpation impower'd it self over the whole Church And this he does from Paulus Diaconus de gestis Romanorum l. 18. who as he pretends tells us that Boniface the third with much adoe obtained an Edict of Phocas the Emperour to that purpose Where if he meanes that the name and title before forbidden were then first allowed by him what follows against us who maintain a real Power not a verbal title But if he means that the Supreme Iurisdiction over the whole Church was then given by Phocas then besides that this Iurisdiction we dispute of is over Kings and Emperours as well as others in Ecclesiastical matters and so not likely to be given by Phocas the Emperour we must be put to imagin which will cost us no less then perfect madness â—re we shall be able to doe it upon the blind and bare affirmation of an obscure Sentence that an Vniversal Government in Ecclesiastical matters over the whole Christian world could be introduc't nay held oâ— Faith and to have come from Christ without any visible effects of siding opposing deprecating submitting complaints applauses on the one side and the other together with change of Ecclesiastical Laws and the temporal also as concern'd in the Ecclesiastical and millions of other particular changes included in
Book of Schism p. 84. where Speaking of S. Peters Baptizing constituting Bishops in Britany he tels us it must in all reason be extended no farther then S. Peters line as he was Apostle of the Circumcision Id est saith hee to the Iews that might at that time be dispersed there In which place he manifestly makes S. Peter's Province exclusive in Britany where he never pretends that S. Paul met him though before he told us that the agreement between S. Peter S. Paul was onely exclusive when they met at the same City c. How powerfull terrible is truth which can drive her opposers to defend themselves by such miserable and weak implications His ninth self-contradiction quarrels with both parts of his sixth at once according to the former part of which S. Paul had not his Province from Christ's assignation according to the later part of it he had it imediately from Christ's assignation yet maugre both these Repl. 58. par 5. he makes S. Pauls peculiar Province Spring onely from the Iews refusing rejecting his doctrine onely I say for he affirms there expresly that till the Iews refused rejected it he does not betake himself so peculiarly to the Gentiles whence follows in all likelihood that if the Iews had not rejected Christ's doctrine tenderd by S. Paul that Apostle had never gone peculiarly to the Gentils nor by consequence should have had any peculiar or exclusive Province at all Is not this a solid man To omit that this experiencing of more fruit among the Gentiles then among the Iews is that which S. w. puts for the reason of his peculiar Apostleship the Appellation of Apostle of the Gentils ensuing thereupon These some others are the self-contradictions with which this Adversary of mine seing it impossible to shew one word in any testimony excluding limiting the Iurisdiction of the Apostles shuffles to fro on all sides that so what ever position he should be challenged with he may slip avoyd it by shewing as he easily may that he said in another place the expresse contrary and then when he hath done he preaches repentance or else Hell damnation to his wicked Adversary for calumniating him who thus earnestly desires for Sooth to speak the full truth of God Answ p. 18. and that so carefully that to make sure work for fear one part of the contradiction should not be the truth of God he affirms both But I hope the Reader will be aware of his shifting weakneses waving all his self said affirmations his Gentile non-sence his pious formalities will presse him home with this Dilemma Either S. Peter's Authority was so limited by his pretended designation to one Province as he had no power to preach to another or it was not but remaind stil illimited Vniversal not witstanding this imagind designation if it remaind stil unlimited and Vniversal how can the Pope's Authority be concluded limited from his succeeding S. Peter if S. Peter's remaind ever unlimited But if his Authority Iurisdiction was limited and that this was the thing to be proved by Dr. H. in his book of Schism then why does he not vindicate his testimonies from that shamefull charge layd against them particularly by S. W. that there is not one wordin them limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions but what himself adds of his own Head And why does he instead of thus vindicating them here sometimes flatly deny the question sometimes shuffle about to blunder a point so clear at any rate though it cost him no lesse then such numerous most palpable self-contradictions sure the knot must be great which could stand need of having wedges thus driven in point-blank oppositely on both sides to break it asunder Sect. 5. What multitudes of absurdities and accesse of fresh self-contradictions follow out of his newly-invented tenet of Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction then onely when the Apostles met in the same City AFter his self-contradictions march his lesser absurdities not so bulkie substantiall ones as the former yet still his too big to bee wielded by any man but Dr. H. nor by him neither unles the necessity of a bad cause incumbent on him to defend had added to him such an increase of strength as vses to proceed from desperation But not to take notice of them all I will onely take that part of his Reply which I find most pertinent to the point in hand then see what abondance of that kind of fruit it bears In his Reply therefore p. 57. I find these words I have sufficiently exprest tract of Schism c. 4. p. 7. how far this agreement extended how far exclusive it was not that it should be unlawful for Peter to preach to a Gentil or for Paul to a Iew but hâ—at when they mâ—t at the same City as at Antioch certainly they did and at Rome also I make no question then the one should constantly apply himself to the Iews receive Disciples form them into a Church leave them to be governed by a Bishop of his assignation and the other should doe in like manner to the Gentiles Thus he very pithily let us unfold lay open what he has as his custome is involued here see what a heap of weaknesses lies sweating there crowded up in so narrow a room First he brings these words here as an explanation of his meaning that is of the state of the question between us concerning how far these Provinces were exclusive whereas in the place cited of Schism c. 4. par 7. it is onely put as an instance of their imagin'd exclusive Iurisdictions introduc't with an Accordingly not purposely Stating or determining the measure or extent of their agreement nor is there any expression found there which sounds to this purpose Secondly this Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction which before made such a loud sound is now onely come to be such when they met at the same City by consequence abstracting from that circumstance S. Peter had Vniversal Authority which is a great largness of his towards S. Peter and I wonder whence this kindnes springs towards the Pope's Predecessor Thirdly since these two Apostles as far as we hear never met in any City after this pretended distribution of Provinces save onely at Rome at Antioch it follows that as far as Dr. H. knows S. Peter's Iurisdiction was universal over both Iews and Gentiles in all the world besides at all other times except onely those short seasons in which they met together Fourthly it follows that the Pope's Authority is not limited save onely where he meets S. Paul or his Successors or perhaps as he needs will have it S. Iohn and then I conceive it will be very ample Fifthly since he grants that both the Congregations of Iews Gentils were joyned in one under Pope â—lement of Schism p. 79. that Pope by consequence succeeded them both so the exclusivenes of S. Peter's Iurisdiction when
he met S. Paul cannot possibly infer such an exclusivenes or limitation of Iurisdiction in the now Popes or the Popes which have been since the imagind conjunction of those Congregations however hâ— may pretend it makes against the universal Iurisdictions of those Popes who preceded Clemens Thus at unawares Dr. H. grants the Pope as much as we desire yet very innocently thinks he impugns him or as himself expresses it Answ p. 11. laies the Axe to the root and stocks up Rome's universal Pastourship Sixthly the question being turned into exclusivenes of Iurisdiction when they met in the same City onely it followes there is not the least pretence of a testimony from Scripture for this position thus stated for 't is no where found nor pretended to be found in Scripture that their Iurisdictions were onely to be limited in case of meeting in the same City So that now the pretence of evidencing from Scripture which in the book of Schism made a great noise is by this new stating the question or rather evading it struck quite dumb Seventhly it is to be observed he has not a word in any testimony to prove their exclusive Iurisdictions in Rome Antioch but onely those which affirmed that they preach't were Bishop in Rome founded the Church in both places All which might easily be done by a promiscuous Authority nor does he offer one word of proof to underprop his weak testimonies why it could not be thus performed Eigthly his place in his book of Schism which he produces for their exclusive Iurisdictions falls short of what he alledges it for affirming onely that when they met at the same City one should constantly apply himself to the Gentiles the other to the Iews Now the prudent consideration of circumstances may determine one man to doe constantly this thing another to doe constantly another thing without inferring that either of them lost their right to doe the other by this constancy of action exercised upon this one By which faltring mistake of his own words we may see that when he alledges them now as a sufficient expression of his tenet of exclusivenes he onely sought to escape from change his former question and to evade by vertue of the more moderate word constantly which standing in the confines between exclusivenes not exclusivenes might at a dead litf by the Midwifry of an Id est or a criticism bring forth either signification Ninthly the Iews according to Dr. H. being S. Peter's Province exclusively to the Gentiles not exclusively till they met in one City it follows that unles they had met he had no exclusive Province at all Hence Tenthly since they agreed upon exclusive Provinces it follows they agreed to meet at such such cities else the bargain of exclusive Provinces had been spoil'd yet t' is no where read that ever they made any such agreement after this pretended distribution of Provinces Eleventhly put case S. Peter had come to some City two or three moneths before S. Paul and we cannot imagin their correspondence so precise nor their imployments other where so indifferent but this might very easily very often happen then it must follow that that Apostle had universal Authority to preach to both till S. Paul come nor can we imagin him idle or negligent to doe what good he could to all Put case then that that Prince of the Apostles who by one Sermon converted three thousand should by three months labour there convert twice that number of Gentiles to Christ's faith to govern whom the whole Authority over both being yet in his own hands it is fitting he should use the said Authority in ordaining constituting Deacons Priests for the orderly governing his numerous Converts and those too distinct in all points from the Priests of the Gentiles for Dr. H. grounds interdict them all Communion See Sch Dis p. 64. Things thus orderd and the Gentiles setled thus under S. Peter S. Paul arrives at the City Then begins the hurliburly S. Peter's Authority which before extended to both Nations begins suddenly to feel the cramp conuulsion-fits shrinks up to the Iews onely in all probability a very few perchance twenty or thirty more or lesse may be imagined to live in that City S. Peter's Iurisdiction being thus grown exclusive in respect of the Gentiles by S. Paul's coming consequently all the Gentiles formerly converted by him however addicted to their Apostle Pastour more then father S. Peter must presently change their Master doe Homage to S. Paul acknowledging him their proper now-sole-Governour The Gentil Priests ordained before his coming either may be degraded lawfully by S. Paul or else submit themselves to him receive the approbation of their Iurisdiction from him as the order of Government requires Moreover if S. Paul had hap to be alone in the same City before and to have converted Iews as his custome was then the poore Iews must avoyd S. Paul's Congregation run to S. Peter's Church assoon as hee arrives But to proceed with our case S. Paul's occasions call him away from that City and ere he removes Dr. H. assures that he must leave behind him a Bishop of his assignation that is over the Gentiles then presently we must imagin that S. Peter's Iurisdiction which had felt a kind of Winter-Season during S. Paul's residence there hee departing begins to feel a happy Spring budding now Sprouting out a fresh towards the Gentiles So that now the Scene of Iurisdiction Government is quite changed again according to Dr. H's grounds and were not S. Peter a good man he might undo all that S. Paul had done be revenged on him for coming to the same City where he was to limit his Authority The Gentiles therefore which were converted before by S. Peter assoon as S. Paul is out of sight begin to face about again S. Peter recovers his own To work therefore heegoes and fals to preach Christ's faith to the Gentiles the second time which before he durst not Converts many having by this time got power enough to do it being about to depart leaves a Bishop of his own constituting to govern them So that we have now got two Gentil Bishops in the same City and if Dr. H. say there was not he must say we are beholding to the Apostles prudence goodnes for it not to his grounds of illimited Iurisdiction when they met not limited when they met in the same City which infers they had Authority to do this many other absurdities and by consequence his position in it self destroyes all order both of Authority Government Again when they met at the same City in case a Gentile had come to S. Peter desired to hear Christ's doctrine S. Peter must refuse to teach him it send him to S. Paul telling him it was beyond his power because S. Paul he had exclusive Iurisdictions when they met
at the same City or else desiring him to stay till S. Paul was gone away or else to watch some handsome opportunity when S Paul should go to the next Town then he would doe him the favour And the like must wee imagin in case a Iew went to S. Paul Lastly when those two Apostles preach't Christ's faith publikely as their custome was then in case S. Peter had spy'd some Gentiles or S. Paul some Iews coming to their Sermon presently as if some excommunicated person had come in presence all must be supposed to be hush't the Sermon quasht else we must imagin that that Apostle civilly makes a parenthesis in his discourse desiring them to withdraw retire to the others Congregation confessing candidly that now that his counter-Apostle meets him in the same city his Iurisdiction is exclusive that he has no power at all to give them any notice of Christ his Law but must be forced to exclude them from his Congregation Canst thou refrain smiling Reader at such a heap of comical absurdities But to return to the place in his Reply the source of all these gallant consequences to bundle up together the other absurdities in it which to treat diffusedly were a wearisome ingrateful task what meanes his saying here it is not unlawful to preach to anothers Province yet saying Repl. p. 56. l. 2. he had no right to doe it what means his putting here the meeting in one City to give an exclusive and peculiar Province to S. Paul whereas he had before according as it serv'd his turn best made it come from three other severall causes and some of them contradictories to wit imediately from Christ's assignation not from Christ but from agreement among themselves and lastly onely from the Iews rejecting refusing him as hath been shown from his own words before in his sixth ninth self contradictions what means his putting here S. Peter's exclusivenes of Iurisdiction to arise from the same circumstance of meeting S. Paul in the same City yet of Schism p. 84. excluding S. Peter from medling with Gentiles in Britany into which countrye he pretends not to shew S. Paul came much lesse met him there in the same City what means his stating here S. Peter's Iurisdiction not exclusive that is illimited till he meets S. Paul and yet of Schism p. 71. l. 21. 24. stating the same Iurisdiction exclusive to all but one portion onely of the dispersed Iews without reference at all to S. Paul's meeting or not meeting him but to the division of places Provinces onely Lastly what mean't he to talk of evidencing his then tenet from Scripture yet the exclusivenes of Iurisdiction onely when they met in the same City not so much as pretended to be shown from Scripture These man fest manifold self-contradictions heaps of absurdities shown from Mr. H's own words will let every rationall man see make every sincere man acknowledge that he cares not a pin what he saies nor what non-sence he deludes his Reader with provided he delude him civilly courteously gentilely nor what contradictions he maintains so he can but imbosk himself handsomely in them hide his head from being discovered Yet he tells us Rep. p. 56. he doubts not to reconcile all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here at least that one who hath a greater 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may do it and so fully satisfies his Reader if he will be content with pedantry in Greek instead of plain sence truth in honest English Sect. 6. The Question concerning his imagin'd Exclusive Provinces stated and cleared A plain Explication of the place Gal. 2. upon which hee grounds them HAving thus layd open how Dr. H. shuffles about to avoyd the effects of his own position we will proceed to examin the point it self and lastly Answer his testimonies alledged to conclude these exclusive Provinces Concerning the point it self four positions are to be considerd which may be imagind to concern it first that the Apostles went not all one way to preach but one or more one way others another The second that all the Apostles made a positive agreement to goe one or more to such or a Province The third is that they so agreed to goe to such such Provinces at their present parting as they agreed never to go to any other for the future The fourth is that their Iurisdiction was included within such a Province and excluded from all other imagind Provinces The first is evident confest but nothing at all to our question which is concerning limitation or illimitation of Iurisdiction And who sees not how shallow this inference is the Apostles went some one way some another to preach therefore S. Peter is not Prince of the Apostles or Head of God's Church Or thus the Apostles who confessedly had their Iurisdictions Vniversall from Christ thought it more discreet fitting to goe some one way some another therefore their Iurisdictions become limited which is as much as to say that when Christ gave to each Vniversall Iurisdiction sent them to teach all Nations he mean't they should all goe one way for otherwise according to this manner of arguing had he meant they should goe severall wayes it could not consist with that present intention of his to give them at that very time universal Iurisdiction The second to wit that they all made a part or positive agreement to goe determinate severall wayes or to such particular places is very obscure rather related as a thing imagind or opinionated to have been then asserted and manifested by any authentick proof Nor does it at all touch our question which is about Iurisdiction vnles it can be proved that they made a part of exclusive o◠limited Iurisdiction Of which nature not the least word o◠proof has hitherto been produced not will ever be producible for the future The third to wit that they made a positive pact for each one or more to go to such determinate places no other is yet obscurer lesse authentick then the former no exact Itinerary of their travells being extant much lesse of their non-plus vltra's by pact agreement but all the whole busines is left to blind and inconsequent conjectures according as they were found or obseru'd to haue preach't in one Country and not obseru'd to have done so in another but whether persecution a mutuall war or conveniency of circumstances dispersed them thus nothing is or can be concluded hence Nor were it all granted can any inference be grounded upon this prejudicing our tenet or even touching our question which is concerning Iurisdiction since prudent consideration of circumstances might be of force to determin the Apostles to agree that such such should stay constantly in this Province and nor preach actually in another without any necessity of their agreeing to limit their universal Iurisdiction given by Christ and so it cannot bear
any shew of inference that they agreed to limit the power it self about which our controversie is because they agreed to limit the exercise of that power The fourth position which concerns the exclusivenes of their Iurisdiction from all save their own Provinces is the onely thing which can seem to advantage Mr. H. or concern our question which is about the limitation of Iurisdiction is absolutely false vterly groundles not warranted by any one testimony first invented by Mr. H's fancie pretended to be evidenced by testimonies in his book of Schism challenged by S. W. not to have a word concerning it in any one testimony there alledged to prove it not ownd constantly by Dr. H. in his Answers but absolutely prevaricated from deny'd though at the cost of so many so grosse self-contradictions attended on by a troop of absurdities as hath been shown And lastly not coming home the question neither as shall be seen hereafter for what inference is this Each Apostle was imediate overseer of his own particular Province therefore one of them was not over all the rest The place from Scripture insisted on to evidence this for Dr. H in his Answ p. 38. is of late grown jealous that his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fall short of evidences is Gal. c. 2. v. 7. 8. 9. 10. which I will first put down as I finde it in their own translation then explicate it whether with more consonancy to all circumstances then Dr. H's Exclusive Iurisdiction when they met does let the Reader judge The words in the place cited are S. Paul ' s these When they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me as the Gospel of the Circumcision was to Peter for he that wrought effectually with Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision was mighty in me towards the Gentiles And when Iames Cephas Iohn who seemed to be pillars perceived the grace which was given unto mee they gave me Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the Circumcision onely they would that we should remember the poor c. This is the place upon which Mr. H. builds his tenet of exclusive Provinces with what right let this plain connaturall explication inform the Reader Our Blessed Lord Saviour determined the conversion of his elect both of Iews Gentiles had already sent down his holy Spirit upon his Apostles in Hierusalem wher upon their zeal inciting them the place they were in giving them occasion they added by their preaching multitudes of the Iews to the new-growing Church Stil the Gentiles out of Iudea heard no more news of him than the star led Sages and some straggling preachers had told and were ignorant of his heavenly doctrine except what rumour might have variously and obscurely spread He chose therefore S. Paul both for zeal though hitherto misled naturall acquired abilities as also his being bred among the Heathens being born at Tarsus in Cilicia fit proportioned for that end To him he appeared near Damascus enlighten'd the eyes of his minde by striking blinde those of his body made him powerfully his told him his errand that he should carry his name before the Gentiles not that his comission should extend to them onely since the Commission given by Christ to each Apostle is acknowledgedly universall but that he was by God's all-ordering providence fitted chrosen designed more particularly for that end The former circumstances gave him his addiction his addiction so qualified produced great fruit all these together got him the appellation of Apostle of the Gentiles particularly such indeed but not exclusively it being otherwise evident all over the Acts that he preach't commonly earnestly to the Iews Where he was converted there he imediately began to preach so proceeded in that work till some began to suspect him his doctrine as not coming from Christ because he had not lived conver'st with Christ as the other Apostles had Vpon this he is forc't to come to Iudea to confer his doctrine with the other Apostles and receive their approbations which they found exact entire exprest by those words nihil comulerunt they in conference added nothing to me S. Paul having thus given account of his doctrine the efficacie of his preaching to the Gentiles and the Apostles finding that S. Peter was in like manner eminently particularly efficacious in converting the Iews in Iudea exprest here in the 8. v. two things ensved here upon to wit that by giving S. Paul the right hand of fellowship they acknowledged him a true Apostle or a fellow Apostle at once determined that since he thriu'd best among the Gentiles S. Peter best among the Iews the greatest harvest of which was found in Iudea S. Paul should goe â—ut of Iudea to the Gentiles take Barnabas with him S. Peter with therest remain in Judea still to preach to the Iews and this is all the busines which Mr. H. would make to be an agreement to distribute exclusive Provinces The meaning then of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Circumcision in the ninth verse to which S. Peter was to apply himself I take to be Iudea or the Iews there not those in dispersion and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles to be those out of Iudea Now if this be so then to omit all which hath been said formerly Dr. H's assigning S. Peter of Schism p. 71. onely the Apostleship of some of the Iews in dispertion by founding the exclusivenes of his Authoritie upon this place vanishes into it 's original nothing for in case any distribution of Provinces be signified here S. Peters's must be the Iews at home in Iudea not those abroad or in dispertion if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denote here onely Iudea or the Iewes in it Now the reasons for this explication of mine are first because the efficacie of S. Peter's preaching to the circumcision had been experienced with in Iudea S. Paul's over the Gentiles without Iudea consequently their severing themselves being upon this account should mean that one should stay where he had experienced such fruit that is in Iudea the other goe where he had found the like that is out of Iudea Secondly the words very well bear it since the Iews doe not live vnited in any considerable confluence save in Iudea nor the Gentiles but out of it which is the thing that gives a common denomination to a people Thirdly S. Paul's words onely they would that we should remember the poore imediately following shew plainly the meaning is that he was designed by these words to go out of Iudea therefore desired to remember the poor which were in Iudea as he accordingly did Rom. 15. v. 25. 26. But now I goe to Hierusalem to minister to the Saints for it hath pleased them of Macedonia Achaia to make a certain
of fellowshâ—p the agreement that was made betwixt them c. is sure the interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if it be so to wit that their entrusting exprest antecedently have the same sence as their subsequent agreement then I wonder what is become of his farther designation since one is but the interpretation of the other that is hath the same sence with the other Sect. 7 The Examination of five Testimonies brought in recruit for his exclusive Provinces of which the first is expressely against himself the next three even in his own grounds impertinent to our Question and the first borrowed from the Arch heretick Pelagius and falsify'd to boot AT present we have no more to do but to Answer his lately gleand testimonies huddled together confusedly in his Answ p. 39. 40. And though when reason is to manage the busines we are to expect nothing but contradictions from this Dr. as himself has amply inform'd us yet being now got into his own element of comon-place-book testimony-parcels we must imagin his art is at it's vertical heighth The first is from S. Ambrose on Gal. 2. 8. which I shall transcribe as I finde it cited by him Pétrum solum nominat ac sibi comparat quia Primatum ipse acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam se quoque pari modo electum ut Primatum habeat in fundandis Gentium Ecclesiis He names Peter alone compares him to himself because he had received the Primacie to found the Church and he likewise is chosen to have the Primacie of founding the Churches of the Gentiles where first if Primatus signifies Primacy of Iurisdiction and unles it signifies so 't is nothing to our question which is about Iurisdiction onely then it is not possible to imagin a testimony more expresly for our tenet of S. Peter's universal Iurisdiction and greater then S. Paul's than this which he alledges against it saying that S. Peter had the Primacy to found the Church without any limitation at all mentioned confining him to this or that Church So that if there be any exclusivenes or shadow of exclusivenes found in that place as I see none then it ought in all reason be the exclusivenes of S. Paul from the Iews since he is particulariz'd by it to the Gentiles and not of S. Peter from any who is not particulariz'd here at all to any part or portion of the Church but extended to all unles D. H. will say that the word Ecclesia Church signifies a peece of the Church onely This testimony therefore might serue to some purpose were it brought to prove that S. Peter's Iurisdiction was Vniversal S. Paul's limited but to prove S. Peter's limited from words that extend it to the Church without any note of limitation at all found there is still Dr. H's old bold trick of gulling the Reader to his face with out either shame or conscience Secondly the comparison between those two Apostles and the pari modo electus if we will stand to the words in the testimony make this sence as apply'd to particulars that as S. Paul was particularly chosen to found the Gentiles Church so S. Peter was in like manner particularly chosen to found the whole Church which signifies that S. Peter was universal Pastor and S. Paul vnder him which is kindly done of Mr. H. and deserves great thanks from us Though I wonder the sincere Reader can without just resentment suffer himself to be so tamely deluded as D. H. endeavors here by making him beleeve that testimony of S. Peter's Primacy to build the Church signifies that he was onely over the Iews and that not all these neither but onely over one portion of them in dispersion nor yet that these were his exclusive or peculiar Province unless S. Paul chanced to meet him in the same City Thus perfectly careless is he whether the place hee alledges be indifferent for him or against him as hath been shown all over in Schism Disarm'd so he can dazle a vulgar headed reader's eyes with the glorious pretence of a father's or councill's testimony and make way to introduce it by some voluntary and boldly-promising preamble of his own as he does at present assuring us here Answ p. 39. l. 35. that these words of S. Ambrose are plain but whether plain for him or plainly against him it matters not with him and that in them S. Ambr. asserts all that was either his purpose or interest to affirm as if it were either Dr. H's intent or his advantage to conclude S. Peter over the Church without any limitation put down that is over the whole Church and S. Paul over the Gentiles onely and so vnder him The second testimony is from S. Chrysostom saying that S. Paul demonstrates himself to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and compares himself with Peter the chief of them Thus hee In Answer First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies any kind of extrinsecall honor whether it springs from better parts greater efficacy more industry in preaching or from what so ever cause and not onely from dignity of Iurisdiction it follows likewise that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in it's self as indifferently appliable by circumstances to signify an equality in any of the former respects as it is to signify an equality in the latter of Iurisdiction and the like may be said of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since of it self it onely signifies that S. Paul compared himself to S. Peter but in which of the former regards this comparison was made the generall signification of the word leaves indifferent and to be deermined by circumstances Secondly the best circumstance to judge what this word should signify in that place is the subjecta materia or place it self of which this is the explication which being Gal. 2 8. where there is nothing at all relating to Iurisdiction but to efficatiousness in preaching to Iews and Gentiles of this therefore the comparison between these two Apostles must be understood in this respect onely must they necessarily be signified by these words to have been equally-dignified and not in Iurisdiction or governing power which is not there spoken of Thirdly that this is the meaning of it is clearly shown by the following Testimony which is his third out of Theophylact who for the most part transcribes out of and follows S. Chrysostom 'T is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shows himself equall 〈◊〉 Peter which words D. H. cites but leaves out the words imediately following lest they should quite spoil his pretence of proving out equality of power from the other The following words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that the testimony taken entirely is this he shows himself equally honored with Peter for he who had given to Peter efficacy of preaching to the Iews gave mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the
Spirit satt without distinction that is equally upon each because the Scripture sayes in common that it sate upon them that all had the holy ghost equally by the plowmans argument for the equality of his eggs because all were full of it For these and other faults of the same strain Dr. H. was reprehended by his Disarmer yet still noe amends not hopes of amends appears in these answering books after he had been so oft told of it nor by consequence are we to expect any other from him in his following treatises Sect. 10. Dr. H's Pretences of Testimonies as hee calls them and his manifold falsification of S. Chrysostome to prove Iames at Hierusalem clearly superiour to S. Peter AS for the point it self concerning S. Iames I am reprehended for misunderstanding Dr. H. and that he endeauored not to prove S. Iames his priority of dignity and Authority but onely to prove that in his see James was considered as a Bishop Answ p. 43. l. 20. 21. and 27. whereas neither any man denied him to have been Bishop there nor could it any way advantage Dr. H's cause if this were ptoved for what follows against S. Peter's being chief of the Apostles that S. Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem and the Iurisdiction of that Metropolis Hath not each Catholike Bishop the same now a dayes over his private Diocese and yet remains subject to the head of God's Church notwithstanding Again if he intended not that S. Iames had greater Authority there what meant his fiction of his having the principall place and giving the sentence that the Rescript is grounded upon his sentence c. Surely when one gives the sentence and the others onely propose the former must be held to have greater power in that place and those circumstances then the latter But principall with him sounds noe priority at all nor can he be held to any thing who hath got once the priviledge to say and unsay again as hee pleases He was accused of making S. Iames at Hierusalem superior to S. Peter which he denies p. 43. blaming me for misunderstanding him yet in the p. 44. ere the Eccho of the former words were well out of the Reader 's ears he goes about to prove and infer in expresse words from testimonies that Iames in this council was clearly superior to S. Peter which is clearly contradictory to his former words But we are not to wonder at what is grown customary and familiar Next he goes about to shew Answ p. 44. that he hath at least pretences of testimonies that S. Iames had the principall place the first of which pretences is that he is named before Peter and unlesse this conclude our argument from S. Peter's being named first must be prejudiced I Answer our argument drawn thence for his principall place among the Apostles insists upon his constantly being named first and not once onely which might happen without any great mistery in it Again what mean these words the Romanists argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluding his primacy from being first named These are two quite different things The argument from his being first named consists in this that in the orderly naming of the Apostles his name is found first placed whereas the argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lies in this not that he is first named but that he is in these words nam'd or exprest to be the first of the Apostles His second pretence of a Testimony as he calls it is from S. Iames his giving the sentence and though their own translation rendred the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore my sentence is by this means making it onely his iudgment in the matters yet Dr. H. tells us he still beleeves it signifies the sentence The first ground of this his beleef is because 't is S. Chrysostomes observation that his speaking last was founded in his being Bishop of Hierusalem what then could not he be Bishop there and speak last both without giving the sentence were there noe worthier persons present or did the thing to be concluded onely concern his see or indeed did it concern it at all the Rescript the effect of this consult being directed onely to Gentiles which were noe wayes subject to the Bishoprick of Hierusalem But let us see S. Chrysostomes testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was Bishop of the Church in Hierusalem therefore he speaks last unfortunate man with whom nothing succeeds nor any testimony thrives but either they are against him or nothing at all to his purpose as hath been shown all over or when they hap to be full and expresse as this is then they come of worst of all Let him look into their own edition of S. Chrysostome and Dannaeus his Notes upon them printed at Eton and he shall see what is become of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore he speaks last upon which onely hee builds verba haec saith hee interpres non agnoscit nec certè videntur aptè locari nam quòd Episcopus esset ideò prior loqui debuit non posterior The Interprâ—ter doth not acknowledge these words neither truly doe they seem to be fitly placed for in regard he was a Bishop he ought in that respect to speak first not last But 't is noe matter Dr. H. can cast a figure of hysteron proteron make first be last and any corrupt piece of an Author become pure Chrysostome and rare sence so it do but be befriend him at a dead lift His second worthy proof is that S. Chrysostome sayes that Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordains or decrees those things As if the decree were not manifestly made by all present but by Iames onely and called there by S. Chrysostome himself p. 795. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common decree yet because he finds an expression of decreeing common as he wel knows to all that were present but his present occasion not inviting him not taken notice of by S. Chrysostome in that place imediately S. Iames is thence concluded the best man in the companie the giver of the sentence or whatever else Dr. H. pleases Any thing may be aswel inferd as that which he pretends Again I would ask Dr. H. why he leaves out the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the law which were imediately joind in context with the former thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he ordains those things out of the law by this simple putting down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gaining something a better semblance for the absolutenesse of S. Iames his decree But I shall have occasion to explicate hereafter this whole place out of which Dr. H. as his sleight manner is picks out a couple of words His third proof is from S. Chrysostome's setting down the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good order observed in their speaking first I will transcribe the place as I find it in that father and afterwards let the Reader see how craftily Dr. H. abuses it for his
line of p. 72. and the first of p. 73. in his book of Schism that the Rescript was grounded upon S. Iames his sentence which a little before he made the sentence quoting for it Acts 15. v. 22. My answer Schism Disar p. 59. l. 1. 2. c. Was that in that place there was nothing particularizing S. Iames but onely that then to wit after S. Peter S. Paul and Barnabas and S. Iames had spoken It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church c. Now if there be nothing in that Verse alledged signifying that the Rescript was grounded upon S. Iames his sentence for which it was brought then 't is plain I neither misvnderstand nor mistake To avoyd all caville I took the Verse as I found it in their own translation in which nothing was found sounding to that purpose yet all this exactest diligence avails nothing at all with an Adversary who takes liberty to say any thing I must needs commit two faults in transcribing one Verse and yet transcribe it right too so that S. W. faultines is now become the Text and this Text beloved is divided into two parts the first part is a misunderstanding the second is a Mistake The first that S. W. would make him imagin the sentence was so his as not to bee the Councills whereas indeed S. W. made him imagin noe such thing but onely as himself told me there that S. Iames his particular sentence exprest by my sentence was the sentence But this was antecedent to the point there treated and here vindicated the question there was whether the 22. v. there cited signified that the Rescript was grounded upon S. Iames his sentence which was the thing he produced it for but to this point he sayes nothing neither vindicating that signification of the Verse nor so much as putting it down Thus much for S. W. first fault of misunderstanding The second fault is as hee courteously counterfeits is a farther mistake and that the words then seemd it good c. mean a subsequent determination to the Dogma or Decree If so I wonder who was in the fault or mistook I pretend to prove nothing from it and so was not in possible circumstances to mistake it he pretended to prove from it that the Rescript is founded on S. James his sentence which he says here it signifies not but a subsequent determination of sending men to Antioch and then when he hath done he kindly and courteously layes the blame from himself and on S. W. telling him he hath mistaken which when hee hath done hee concludes with a Gloria Patri how well hee hath qualify'd S. W. to consider whether Dr. H. or hee bee wiser or honester But in case I had mistook in calling those words then seemed it good c. the Dogma or Decree I at lest mistake with good Company for good S. Chrysostome was expressely of my mind who after he had commented upon the former Verses he makes his transition to this in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after wards the common decree follows and immediately produces this very Verse which the Dr. denyes here to signify the Dogma or Decree but onely a subsequent determination Next he tells the Reader par 13. that I would conclude in fauour of S. Peters Authority from his speaking first c. It had been more ingenuous to represent me in mine own language I use not to build conclusions absolutely upon conjecturall premisses without expressing how far I build on them as I did there Schism Disar p. 60. by saying that in reason one should rather think c. nor did I rely even for thus much upon onely his speaking first but that after such debate as had been concerning this matter v. 7. in reason one should rather think it argued some greater Authority in him who should first break the ice and interpose his iudgement in such a solemnly pronounc'd oration as did S. Peter But Dr. H. omits that which I grounded on to wit after such debate c. which add's a circumstance much encreasing the rather-probability of his greater Authority and truly to a man not prepossest with prejudice the Text it self is sufficiently fauourable as far as I pretended And the Apostles Elders came together for to consider of this matter and when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said vnto them c. Now Dr. H. will have his first speaking arise hence that he had been accused of preaching to Cornelius a Gentile and so gives an account of his actions But the Text it self gives no countenance at all but looks much awry upon such an evasion S. Peter's words are men and brethren you know that a good while ago God made choice among us that the Gentils by my mouth should hear the words of the Gospell where wee see that his preaching to the Gentiles was a thing already known to the Congregation known long agoe and known to have been God's will and choice the former knowledge of which was enough to satisfy such persons and to make S. Peter's giving a new account of that action needles and to no purpose Neither indeed does it sound like an Apology nor is there any circumstance fauouring that interpretation The occasion was about the necessity or no necessity of circumcision v. 5. and more immediatly their long disputing upon that matter Next the action of preaching to the Gentiles is express't clearly here as needing no account but as known by them long ago to have been God's will And lastly pursving the same matter and saying that God had put no difference between Iews and Gentiles he comes to the point Now therefore why tempt yee God c. where the word therefore making his former discourse have an influence upon this latter of not obliging to Circumcision show's it to bee meerly a pertinent and orderly exordium to confirm and give light to what follow'd which this voluntary Interpreter of Scripture in despite of all the circumstances as his custome is will need 's have to denote S. Peter's Apology or iustification of him self for preaching to the Gentiles Again were S. Peter necessitated to iustify himself how does it follow that he must therefore need 's speak first Do even those who hold up their hand 's at the bar vse to begin with their defence and Apologize for their innocence in the first place No strength of reason but Mr. H's could have defended it self soe confidently with such a paper-buckler or have thought cob-webs impenetrable Iames must be first because he spoke last and S. Peter must speak first because he was to Apologize and give account of his actions Whereas S. Chrysostome in Act. 1. v. 15. whom Dr. H. most relies upon in this place makes his speaking first both here and in all other places an argument of his Primacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Peter saith he as entrusted by Christ with the sheepfold and as the
had greater Authority then S. Peter Thus Dr. H. thinking he had served S. Peter and the Pope a trick by making S. Chrisostome intimate that S. Paul had greater Authority then he hath at once contradicted his own grounds and quite disanull'd his own best testimonie rendring it impossible to relate to power or Authority for which he produced it unlesse the opinion of the whole world or which is firmer and more inviolable Dr. H's own word 's bee a mistake asserting that no Apostle had greater power then S. Peter As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equall honour of those two Apostles it hath already been shown formerly from the father's words to signify equall honour for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same efficacity of preaching and in this place both it and the not needing S. Peter's voyce relate onely to the sufficiency of S. Paul's knowledge making S. Peter's instructions needles as appears by the words a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. not as if S. Paul were to learn any thing of S. Peter c. And thus indeed the possibility of S. Chrysostomes saying more of S. Paul or that he was more honour'd and higher then S. Peter may have good sense many holding that S. Paul was higher in learning and the greater Divine They must bee therefore testimonies expressing equality in power of Government which can conclude any thing against our tenet concerning his power for in other things 't is no question but that S. Paul â—ad many advantages above S. Peter as in preaching to more Nations in writing more Epistles in greater sufferings and many other regards where of some be exprest 2. Cor. c. 11. Again this very Verse which Dr. H. would have relate to power after it was given and it's independence on S. Peter S. Ambrose whose judgment I shallever preferr before Mr. H's interprets in the same sence as wee take it to wit of independence in learning onely explicating S. Paul's words thus non fuisse dicit necessitatem electum se a Deo pergendi ad praedecessores suos Apostolos vt aliquid fortè disceret ab illis quia Deus ei reuelauit perfilium suum quomodo doceret S. Paul says it was not necessary that he being chosen by God should go to the former Apostles that he might learn any thing of them because God had revealed to him by his son how he should teach But because S. Chrysostome hath been pretended as his constant Patron in this particular controversy therefore though it cannot be exacted of me who am the Defendant to produce testimonies and object to let the Reader see how unhappy Dr. H. is in the choice of his freinds I shall take liberty to manifest and I hope with evidence from two or three places of that father what S. Chrysostome's opinion was in this point of S. Peter's higher Authority amongst the Apostles I will not presse here the high titular expressions he gives S. Peter Panâ—g in Pet. Paul how iustly soever I might of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the leader or Captain of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning of the right faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great pronouncer of sacred things in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Corypheus or Head of the Apostles c. Nor will I insist much upon my formerly-alledged testimony that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entrusted with the Sheep-fold though I might with good reason the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a collective and denoting an Vniversality But My first place which I rather make choice of because it relates to S. Iames whom Dr. H. would make clearly Sue periour to S. Peter in his own see is taken out of Hom. 87. upon S. John where speaking of our Saviours extraordinary affection and familiarity towards S. Peter he immediately subjoyns this interrogatory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this be so how then came Iames to have the Episcopall seat of Hierusalem he solves it him self thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he ordaind him S. Peter not Master of that seat but of the whole world Here wee see the vast difference between S. Iames and S. Peter's Iurisdictions one being Master of that private seat at Hierusalem the other Master of the whole world whence follows evidently that neither S. Peter's Iurisdiction is limited by any other bounds then the world it self is and that he had Iurisdiction also at Hierusalem it self not after the nature of the particular Bishop there but of an universall Governour or Master of the world unles perhaps Mr. H will alledge that Hierusalem is no part of the world for then indeed I shall not know how to reply Neither let him as his custome is run to the Dictionaries and Lexicons to tell me that the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such a Master as teaches or instructs and so sounds no Government nor Iurisdiction for he must know that that is the proper signification of the word as it is found here which the circumstances accompanying it determin it to have To them then let us look the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Master is appropriated here to S. Peter in order to the whole world as it is to S. Iames in order to Hierusalem it being exprest but once and in construction refer'd to both Since then as applyd to S. Iames it signifies his being Bishop of Hierusalem and so expresses directly Iurisdiction and power of Government it is against all reason to say it can possibly signify another thing as apply'd to S. Peter According to this testimony then S. Peter was universall Bishop of the Church and of an illimited Iurisdiction But perhaps Dr. H. will not allow the parenthesis in the testimony I answer I put down the testimony here as I found it in the Greek Context set out by themselves and printed at Eton and though it were left out the sence it self putt's the opposition between S. Peter's being such over the world as S. Iames was over Hierusalem which concerns commanding power and Iurisdiction My second place is fech't from his comment on Act. 1. where speaking of S. Peter's behaviour about the election of a new Apostle he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with good reason doth the first S. Peter undertake the busines with Authority as having them all delivered into his hand What can this signify but that he as first and as a supreme Governour had power over all the rest that were present and who were those who were present all the rest of the Apostles and the chief of the Disciples In what other manner he as first can be said to have had all the rest within his hand and therefore with good reason to have taken the management of that busienes authoritatively to himself I professe I cannot in Dr. H's behalf imagine and am perswaded himself will confess it after perusall of the following testimony that
this was S. Chrysostome's meaning The Third testimony which shall be also my last for I deem it impossible to finde another more expresse for this or any other point is taken from the same place and spoken upon the same occasion the election of some one to bee Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then was it not in Peter's power to elect him yes it was altogether in his power but he does it not lest he might seem to do it out of fauour What can be more expresse and full The thing to be performed was an Act of the highest Iurisdiction imaginable amongst the Apostles to wit the making a new Apostle The other Apostles and chief Disciples were present to the number of one hundred and twenty yet S. Peter had power to do this of himself in their presence Nor is this exprest dubiously by the father but as a thing certain and beyond all question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yes altogether absolutely or without doubt Nor have wee here any divers Lections to diminish the Authority of the words which the Dr. makes a pittifull and little prevailing use of in his lisping testimonies nor is it a word or two pickt out blindly and wrested to a quite different interpretation as is his of discovered Method but a pithy expression of the full scope and import of the place Nor is this perfect expression put alone but seconded with a note that he did it not of his own single power lest he should bee mistaken by others to make such a one an Apostle out of favour which is the frequent and ordinary carriage of every wise and prudent Governour Nor do wee pretend to any higher strain of Iurisdiction in S. Peter then that he could elect a new Apostle by his own power which this father not onely grants but strenuously assertes nor in our paralell tenet of the Pope's Authority can we attribute to him any particâ—lar act more supreme or more savouring of highest Authority than to constitute Bishops and Patriarchs in the Church by himself and of his own particular power Nor lastly was this testimony peep 't out for in strange places but offred me by the same Author whom Dr. H. most relies on and in the same Treatise which he most frequently cites Iudge then Reader whether it bee likely or no that Dr. H. considering his industrious reading this father and this Treatise as he manifests here could possibly remain ignorant what was S. Chrysostome's tenet in this point and then tell me what he deserves who against his own knowledge and conscience alledges imperfectly mangles corrupts and falsifies this fathers words to gain some show of his consent to his paradoxicall point of faith nay makes him by such leger de main sleights his chiefest Patron to defend it as hath been layd open and discover'd particularly heretofore though he could not but know that no writer extant could be more expressely against it then is this holy and learned father S. Chrysostome Sect. 13. Dr. H's successe in answering his Adversaries first Testimony His insincerity in pretending our own law against the Pope's Authority IN his book of Schism p. 74. Dr. H. told us with Authority and very confidently that certainly S. Paul was noe way subordinate or dependent on S. Peter at Antioch as appears by his behaviour towards him avowed Gal. 2. 11. that is his withstanding him to the face Discourteous S. W. who gives not a jott more credit to Mr. H. wher he cries certainly surely irrefragably unquestionably expressely distinctly accordingly c. which are the nerves of his discourse than if he had said nothing at all would not budge into assent notwithstanding his soe confident assurance to warrant him and as for Gal. 2 11. by which he pretended to make it appear he reply'd Schism Disarm p. 62. that S. Cyprian and S. Austin thought otherwise who interpreted S. Peter's bearing it patiently not as an argumeÌ„t of his lesse or equall Authority but of his greatest humility that being higher in dignity he should suffer so mildly the reprehensions of an inferiour The place alledged from those fathers was this Quem quamuis primum Dominus elegerit super eum aedificaverit Ecclesiam suam tamen cum secum Paulus disceptauit non vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit vt diceret se Primatum tenere obtemperari à nouellu posteris sibi potius opportere nec despexit Paulum quòd Ecclesiâ—e priùs persecutor fuisset sed consilium veritatis admisit Whom though our Lord chose to be the first of the Apostles and upon him built his Church yet when Paul contended with him he did not challenge and assume to him self any thing in any insolent and proud manner as to say he had the Primacy and so should rather be obeyed by new and late Apostles nor did he despise Paul because he had formerly been a Persecutor of the Church but admitted the counsell of truth Dr. H. preparing to answer this place Answ p. 46. notes first that this is the first testimony I have brought from Antiquity as if it necessarily belong'd to me who was answering his book and showing his allegations unable to conclude to object testimonies also my self and so bee Opponent and defendent both but as it was not my task so neither do I esteem it so rare a busines to transcribe out of books as needlesly to put my self upon that dull employment though I know well that annotation-men and commonâ— place book souls think it the rarest thing imaginable Next he tells us that he never doubted S. Peter's Primacy in the sence this holy fathers speaks any more than of Christs building his Church on him and that he gave me a testimony even now from S. Ambrose which expressely avouched it I remember indeed such a Testimony Answ 39 in the Margent but I remember withall that he brought it not nay would not let it signify S. Peter's Primacy in any sence over the whole Church but over the Iews onely as appears by the fourlast lines of the same page 39. how ever wee thank him for granting here that he gaves us a testimony from S. Ambrose which expressely avoued S. Peter's Primacy in any sence over the Church so he will promise us not to repent him self and recall his grant which he pretends to have so expressely avouched there But alas what faith is to bee given to the most formall bargain made with such Copes-masters of testimonies he had scarce writt eight lines after this profest expresse avouching it but he quite forgets his so solemn promise and makes the said place in S. Ambrose signify a limited and contradistinct Primacy saying that by the words of S. Ambrose S. Paul had a Primacy amongst the Gentiles as Peter amongst the Iews though the place it self in reference to S. Peter sayes onely that Petrus Primatum acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam Peter had received the Primacy to found the
unparalleld absurdity that the Iews at Antioch had no Communion at all no not even civill conversation with the Gentiles their fellow-Christians because they were forbidden to do it by the Iudaicall law of which they were zealous Thus much for Dr. H's absurdity of absurdities that it was forbidden by Moses his law that the Iews should either civilly converse with or charitably endeavour to convert a Gentile Now put the case it had been thus forbidden thus unlawfull what likelyhood was there that the apprehension of that unlawfulnes should still remain at the time we speak of so as to make the Iewish Christians abhor still all conversation with the Gentile ones at Antioch For this vision of S. Peter's directing his endeavours to preach to the Gentiles could not but be universally known both by the occasionall relating it of which there was great necessity by reason of the scandall which that nouelty caused at first as also by it's effects the conversion of multitudes of Gentiles which ensved thereupon Grant then that the action was accounted scandalous to all that heard it that this vision of S. Peter's iustify'd it him for doing it it cannot be imagind but that this relation of his vision was spread far near amongst the Iews with whom he conversed specially Dr. H. granting that when S. Paul met him not he preacht both to Iews Gentiles he was obliged to publish the said vision as a warraÌ„table excuse of his and the other Apostles frequently preaching to the latter Again we read that those that were scandalized at S. Peter's conversing with the Gentiles Act. 11. after he had cleared himself related his vision exprest their full satisfaction by holding their peace glorifying God for it v. 18. Now then I argue either the Iews at Antioch were in like disposition of minde to be scandalized seeing S. Peter converse with Gentiles there Gal. 2. or not if not then there is no ground why Mr. H. should thinke that the Iewish Christians there held it unlawfull to converse with the Gentile ones if they held it unlawfull then I ask again upon what grouÌ„ds can Dr. H. think that S. Peter should not as he was obliged endeavour to satisfy them that it was God's will by declaring his vision to them also aswell as he did to the Iews at Hierusalem Act. 11. Or why he should conceit that the Iews at Antioch were so incomparably more unreasonable than the others that whereas those at Hierusalem though at first so hott as to contend with S. Peter about it Act. 11 v. 2. yet remaind so perfectly satisfied by S. Peter's discourse as to glorifie God v. 18. those at Antioch should persist still obstinate unsatisfied not give any credit at all to their Apostle and according to Mr. H. their onely Governour S. Peter Moreover ere this contest happen'd at Antioch about eating the Gentile diet it was no new matter which is that which causes scandall but a publike known thing that the Gentiles were convers't with preach't too Act. 11. v. 1. we read that the Apostles Brethren which were in Iudea heard of it v. 20. that some who were of Cyprus and Greece preached to the Grecians in Antioch v. 22. that when the Church at Hierusalem heard of it they sent Barnabas to them to Antioch for the same end So that see how the Church of the Iews further'd promoted the preaching to the Gentiles so far were they from being now scandalized at it After that Barnabas brought Paul also thither they preach't there one whole year v. 26. and more particularly to the Gentiles as Dr. H. grants at least promiscuously none ever deny'd nor did this year onely intervene sufficient time to let the Iews in the same city know that the Gentiles might be convers'd with preach't to but many more ere the controversy about the Gentile diet happen'd as may easily be gather'd from the 2. chapter to the Gal it being exprest there to have been fowerteen years at least after S. Paul's conversion which is related Act. 9. immediately before the conversion of Cornelius Act. 10. Now as for other particulars Philip had preached to the Eunuch a Gentile Act. 8. 35. and in Samatia Act. 8. 5. and in the same Chapter v. 25. S. Peter also with him preacht the Gospell in many villages of the Samarians Yet Dr. H after all this publike preaching to Gentiles Samaritans avowed to be lawfull by the so long frequent practice doctrine of the chiefest Apostles pillars of Christianitie and which is worth noting most solemnly openly profest exercised at Antioch in particular will yet after all this have the Iewish Christians in Antioch ignorant that it was lawfull to converse with or preach to a Gentile And all this because rather then he will yeeld to the plainest truth there is no paradox so absurd so non-sensicall contradictory but he thinks it worth his patronage so it yeelds him the mutuall succour of any sorry evasion when he is taken in a falsification or some other unavoidable weaknes But though nothing else could bridle Dr. H. from such extravagancy of insincerity weaknes yet I wonder much his own words could not curb him make him if he needs would run the Maze to do it at least with in his owne lists His owne words which occasionâ—d this debate of Schism p. 75 are these we read of S. Peter the Iewish Proselytes Gal 2. 11. that they withdrew from all Communion Society with the Gentile Christians Now if they withdrew from all Communion Society I suppose they had used formerly both Communion Society with them else how could they be said to withdraw from it yet this Patron of Protestantism from whom 't is impossible to get a word of sence or sincerity but perpetually he both corrupts other mens sayings contradicts his own will have them never to have had at all that from which he tells us they withdrew since they were equally zealous of Moses his law before as after the breach by which law he assures us it was forbidden so much as to converse with a Gentile Lastly is it possible that passion should inveigle any man of reason to such a strange conceit as to imagin that each party being Christians they should avoid even courteous or civill commerce one with another or that the Apostles would have countenanced by their compliance such an uncharitable carriage But is this all let us see between whom this all-Communion was broke between two Churches and by whom by S. Peter his Iewish Proselytes Now since Schism is formally point blank counterpos'd to Vnion Communion between Churches if all-Communion be broke between those Churches it is a perfect contradiction in terms to say there is not a Schism made between them And since it was S. Peter his Iewish Proselytes who behaved themselves actively in this point it
they were become Christians and their fellow-Brothers in him in whom they were taught there was no distinction of Iew nor Gentile Which sounds a far greater absurdity in a Christian eare than to say that they likewise abhorr'd still the conversation of the Proselytes to the law of Moses after their conversion that those one hundred fifty three thousand workmen who lived dispersed among the Iews in Salomon's time neither converst with their neighbour Iews nor took directions how to order their labour towards the building of Salomon's Temple but did their work by instinct and the guidance of the private Spirit as Dr. H. interprets Scripture Sectio 16. How Dr. H. omitts to clear himself of falsifying the Apostolicall Constitutions and to take notice of all the Exceptions brought against that Testimony in Schism Disarm'd His acute manner of arguing As also how hee brings a Testimony against him in every particular to make good all his former proofs and by what art hee makes it speak for him THe next Testimony of Mr. H's which comes under examination is taken from the writer of the Apostolicall Constitutions who tells us according to Dr. H. of Schism p. 75. that Evodâ—us Ignatius at the same time sate Bishops at Antioch one succeeding S. Peter the other S. Paul one in the Iewâ—sh the other in the Gentile Congregation Now if that writer tells us no such thing no not a word of this long rabble is it possible Dr. H. can deny himself to be a manifest wilfull falsifier Schism Disarm'd challeng'd him upon this occasion of a manifest falsification and that that writer neither tells us as Dr. H. pretended that they sate at the same time Bishops in whichwords consists the greatest force of the Testimony nor that they succeeded the Apostles with that distinction nor that the Iewish Gentile Congregations were distinct much lesse that those Apostles Iurisdictions at Antioch were mutually limitted which indeed onely concern'd his purpose but onely that they were ordained by the Apostles The text being onely this Antiochiae Euodius ordinatus est a me Petro Ignatius a Paulo At Antioch Euodius was ordained by me Peter Ignatius by Paul without the least word before or after concerning that matter Of all these falsifications voluntary additions Schism Disarm'd p. 65. 66. challenged Mr. H. yet in return he offers not one word to clear himself Reply c. 4. Sect 7. the place whither Answ p. 48. l. 31. 32. hee râ—ferd mee for answer to this point nor to shew us that that writer tells us what he so largely promist us of Schism p. 75. onely in his Answer p. 48. he assures us that in his Reply the whole matter of Euodius Ignatius is further cleared as if he had cleared it already and S. W' s elaborate misunderstandings forestall'd he should have said misreadings for it was mine eyes not mine understanding which fail'd me if he had not added to this testimony all which made for his purpose Foure observations I shall recomend the Reader to let him see that this insincerity in Dr. H. was affected voluntary First the words in the testmony importing their Ordination neither make against us nor touch our controversy Next all the words added of his own head are made use of by him solely-important in this occasion Thirdly that he never particulariz'd the place in the Author where this testimony was to be found which he ordinarily vses but leaves us to look for it in a whole book hoping we might either be weary in looking it or misse soâ— himself in the mean time escape scot-free Lastly he so iumbles together the two different letters as his comon trick is that no man living can make any ghesse which words are the testimonies which his own and should we pitch upon any to be the testimonies relying upon the translation letter in that part they sate at the same time Bishops we finde the most considerable word same put in a lesse letter as if it were part of the citation whereas no such word nor any thing to that sence was found in the Author And thus Dr. H. as he professes Answ p. 18. speaks the full truth of God But instead of clearing himself from being an arrant falsifier Dr. H. as his custome is attempts to shâ—w himself an acute Doctour and when it was his turn to shâ—w us the pretended words in his testimony he recurs to the defence of the position it self And first he cries quits which the Catholike Gentleman who as he tells us in a drie phrase Repl. Sect. 7. num 1. casts one stone at all his buildings together And what stone is this He challenged him not to have brought one word out of Antiquity to prove the with drawing from all Communion already spoken of to have been the cause of the division of the Bishopriks in Antioch Rome This is the Catholike Gentleman's stone as he calls it which levell'd by him at such an impenetrable Rock of solid reason as Mr. H. rebounds upon the thrower's head with this violence First that he manifested from Antiquity in his book of Schism that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter S. Paul Repl. p 63 I answer 't is graunted but what is this to the point since this might easily be performed by their promiscuous preaching without exclusion of Iurisdiction or breaking of all Communion between Churches Secondly that he manifested there that there were two Churches at Antioch the one of the Iews the other of the Gentile Christians I answ he hath not one testimony in the whole book of Schism which expresses this position nor in these later books save onely that from the Arch-heretick Pelagius already reply'd to Sect 7 Thirly that in those Churches at the same time sate two distinct Bishops Euodius Ignatius I answer this is onely prou'd from his owne falsification of the testimony from the Apostolicall Constitutions not a word of the fitting together of two in those two distinct Churches found either in that or any other place as yet cited by him Thus the Catholike Gentleman's stone sticks yet insost reason'd Dr. H. for want of solidnes in the place it light to reverberate its motion Now let us see what Dr. H. who braggs so much of a Hending his Adversaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath left unreply'd upon in this his Answer to Schism Disarm'd in which Treatise p. 66. I objected all these weaknesses in this one point First that were it granted that two sate together it would not serve his turn a iott the more For what would he infer hence that S. Peter S. Paul were distinct Bishops there also Grant this too what follows hence against the Pope's Authory I know his intent is to conclude hereupon that therefore S. Peter S. Paul had exclusive Iurisdictions at Antioch therefore S. Peter's Iurisdiction was limited therefore the Pope had not an illimitted one but how doth the one's
tells me Answ p. 48. l. 35. that that wherein Rome was concern'd is reviewed Repl c. 9. where nothing is found to that purpose nor any where else save onely in the Sect. 7. par 6. Where when I came to look in expectation of some return to my exceptions I found that he onely enumerated briefly the same testimonies of his former book his irrefâ—agable one as he calls it from the Popes â—eales his falsification as shall be seen ere long concerning Linus Clemens which he tells us again are evidences that they clear that part which concerned Rome and then having made this learned mock-Reply that is said over again out of his former book what had been excepted against by mee related us back in the margent to that very place in it which I had impugned as thus manifoldly weak he ends with these words that Sure there can be no need of farther proofs or testimonies from Antiquity in this matter That bold fac'd word Sure is a Sure card and Mr. H's Ace of th' trumps there is no resisting it when the game seems quite gone it retrives the losse carries all before it My answer was that all which those testimonies intimated might have been performed by promiscuous preaching of each both to th' Iews Gentiles the summe of his Reply is onely this that Sure it cannot I objected that those testimonies were weak concluded nothing at all of such a distinction he answers that they are clear are evidences that Sure there can need no farther proof So that we have now got a fourth express proofe added to his Wee know I say I suppose to wit his owne Sure the Sure naile fasten'd by the master of the Protestant Assembly Dr. H. As for the testimony of S. Prosper in which he was accused to render Ecclesiam Gentium the Church of the Nations lest S. Peter S. Paul should both have meddled with Gentiles in Rome which words should they be render'd the Church of the Gentiles must necessarily follow he referts me to his Repl. p. 65. parag 10. for satisfaction where he acquaints me with his desire that the truth of his interpretation may be consider'd by the words cited from him The words are these in ipsâ Hierusalem lacobus c. Iames at Hierusalem Iohn at Ephesus Andrew the rest through out all Asia Gentium Ecclesiam sacrârunt consecrated the Church of the Nations sayes Dr. H. Gentiles says S. W. Vpon this testimony Dr. H. argues thus What Nations were these Sure of Iews aswell as Gentiles then follow the Grounds of this his assurance else Hierusalem could be no part of them no nor Iohn's converts at Ephesus for they were Iews and then he concludes his mild-reasoning discourse with as mild a reprehension that therefore the Catholike Gentleman did not doe well Now as for his Sure 't is indeed a pregnant expression but I deny the sufficiency of the Authoritie which so Magisterially pronounces it And for what concerns the Grounds of his assurance they are both of them found onely in his own sayings no where in any testimony my tenet he knows is that all those Apostles preach't promiscuously to Gentiles also where soever they came But lest he should think me hard hearted for not beleeving his Sure I shall at least show my self far from cruelty in making him this friendly proffer that if he can show mee any one word in any testimony yet produc't which expresses that S. Iames preach't to Iews onely in Hierusalem or S. Iohn to Iews onely in Ephesus upon which alone he builds here that Gentium cannot signifie Gentiles I will pardon him the answering this whole book which to doe on any fashion will I know be very laborious shamefull to him but to doe it satisfactorily impossible unles he could put out his Reader 's Eyes so hinder them from reading his corrupted falsified citations aright Is there anything easier then to show us an exclusive particle or expression if any such thing were to be found there But if there be none what an emptines vanity open cozenage of his Reader is it to cry Sure Surely Certainly Vnquestionably and the like when there is no other warrant to ground this assurance save his owne weake fancy inconsequent deductions hâ—s interlac'd parenthesisses his facing the testimonies with antecedent peecing them with subsequent words whiles in the meane time the testimony it self must stand by look on onely like a conditio sine quâ non as if it were an honourable spectator to grace his personating and not have any efficacious influence or act any part in the Argument which bears it's title But to come to the testimony it self first I would know of Mr. H. how oft he hath read Gentes taken alone without any additionall determining expression to signifie both Iews Gentiles unles it be in this sence as it probably might be in S Prosper's time that Gentium Ecclesia signified the Christian Church in which the Iews were included yet being no considerable part of it they needed not be exprest Next as for the word Nations which he recurs to I would ask whether though those in Iudea were styled the Nation of the Iews yet whether those in dispersion at Rome were called a Nation or no or rather a Sect Thirdly let Gentium signifie of the Nations as he would have it let us see how Dr. H. hath advantaged his cause For if it be so then the words Gentium Ecclesiam sacrarunt they consecrated the Church of the Nations are to be applyed to all the Apostles there mention'd Now then since Nations as Dr. H. tells us here is Sure of Iews aswel as Gentiles the testimony must run thus Iames at Hierusalem consecrated the Church of Iews aswell as Gentiles Iohn at Ephesus consecrated the Church of Iews aswell as Gentiles Andrew the rest throughout all Asia consecrated the Church of the Iews aswell as Gentiles and the like of Peter Paul at Rome Thus Dr. H. thinking to stop one hole hath made other three quite destroyes the substance of his exclusive tenet while he went about to mend a circumstance Fourthly if he will not allow this signification of the word given allowed by himself as'applyed to S Peter S. Paul when it was his interest to be appliable to all the rest of those Apostles likewise let us see what an unreasonable beleef he exacts of his Readers to imagine that the word Gentium should dance from one signification to another as his fancy shall please to strike up a diverse tune Hence apply'd to S. Iames S Iohn it must be imagin'd to signify Iews onely because 't is against the interest of his tenet that they should open their mouths to convert a Gentile at Hierusalem and Ephesus But then S. Andrew the rest are not Apostles of the Circumcision so according to him must not preach to a Iew in Asia presently
those Apostles exclusive Iurisdictions and so had then no better shift save onely to make another dumbe show of the self-same testimonies then crie them up for clear Evidences sole-sufficient proofs from Antiquitie Here the weaknes of his pretended best I mean his Irrefragable Evidence was shown to be most silly weak where upon himself modestly decries both that it's fellow Evidences of an inferior rank sayes that they are no proofs at all but things spoken in agreement Nor let him say that in his Reply where he called them such clear evidences proofs he mean't they were onely sufficient proofs that those Apostles both founded the Church at Rome This was never in question between us but granted by both sides Neither did Schism Disarm'd ever challenge him to prove this but that they founded that Church with exclusive Iurisdiction over Iews Gentiles Now then since in his Answer to that except on p. 48. l. 34. 35. he refers to the said place in his Reply he must mean there that they are sole-sufficient proofs clear Evidences to prove exclusive Iurisdiction of the one over Iews at Rome the other over Gentiles unles he will confesse himself an open manifest prevaricatour from the whole Question Thirdly since he puts down his own thesis in these words that each of them at Rome erected and managed a Church S. Peter of Iews S. Paul of Gentiles and then immediately subjoyned his proofs in this form So saith Irenaeus c. it is impossible to imagin other but that these testimonies were produced to prove the immediate foregoing thesis Fourthly by denying these to be proofs that S. Peter was at Rome over Iews S. Paul over Gentiles he denies by consequence that he hath produced any proof at all for that fancie of his except his owne blush-proof confident expression The same as evident at Rome since in the 9th parag the proper place to prove that point there is nothing at all sound but those testimonies denied by him here to be proofs and his own now recited words Though I must confesse towards the latter end of the 10th parag he hath a very expresse proof in these words of S. Peter's being over the Iews at Rome we make no Question he must mean over Iews onely for otherwise it opposes not us who hold him our selves to have been over both Iews Gentiles there So that he carries the whole question between us by saying 't is evident and himself makes no question of it relying finally upon nothing but these confident raw affirmations of his own since he denies all the testimonies he produces to be proofs of the point Lastly seeing he sayes that these testimonies are spoken onely in agreement with some other thing and they had no imaginable relation to a farre-of-afore-going place of Scripture as appears by my first note are most necessarily manifestly related to prove the exclusive thesis it self as is evident by my second let us examin a litle nearer Dr. H's reach of reason and strength of Logick What mean these words that they are not produced for proofs but in agreement I ask have they any influence or efficacitie at all upon the conclusion or thing they are brought for or no if they have they are proofs if not they are indifferent If any thing follow out of them they infer or prove it if nothing what do they there Either they are for the point then they ground a deduction to establish it and are argumēts proofs in it's behalf or else they are against it are still proofs though for the contrary or lastly they are in themselves indifferent that is neither for it nor against it and then the first chapter of Genesis would have served his turn aswell as these neutrall testimonies yet Dr. H. takes it ill here that I should offer to make any incoherence appear in his discours who never in his life knew what it was to make any notions cohere at all save onely in a loose Sermonary way which the least puffe of declamatory aire would counterbuffe and dissipate to nothing But the Hydra head of this Irrefragable Evidence starts up with a numerous recruit in the form of questions Answer p. 49. l. vlt. Is not the Pope's Seal saith Dr. H. an Evidence that Paul aswell as Peter had the planting the Church of Rome I answer grant it what follows hence this could have been done by their promiscuous endeavours And is not that agreable to Peter's preaching the Iews and Paul's to the Gentiles when they met in a City where were multitudes of both I answer you must mean to Iews onely for 't is our tenet that each preach't to both and then you have been often challēged that you have not brought one syllable of proof for it but your owne word onely Nor is their founding the Church agreable even to your owne words in any other sence then as agreable signifies indifferent or not contrary to it since the founding a Church signifies onely the thing done in common not the particular manner of doing it either promiscuously or exclusively which is all our question but is equally appliable to both or rather indeed sounding onely a common endeavour in doing it 't is rather inclinable to a promiscuous sence nay the force of the word the Church which is to be understood of God's Church at Rome evdently gives us to understand that there was but one Church not two for otherwise he was bound to say the Churches not the Church It follows immediately after his former question And was not that the importance of the agreement Gal. 2. 9. I answer there was no agreement there to any such purpose The giving the right hand of fellowship was to acknowledge S. Paul a fellow-Apostle and his doctrine sincere the applying themselves some to Iews others to Gentiles was a pure sequell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Circumcision to which S. Peter lent at that time his speciall endeavours signified the countrey of Iudea not the Iews in dispersion all which hath been manifested most particularly heretofore Sect. 6. much lesse is it imported there as Dr. H. after his openly-falsifying manner pretends here that when they met in a City where were multitudes of both they should carry themselves thus thus there being no talk there of either Cities or multitudes which he tells us here the agreement there imported and then cites immediately for it Gal. 2. 9. without the words But he proceeds And is not that an Argument that Peter was not the universall Pastor but that the Gentiles were S. Paul's Province as the Iews S. Peter's Not a jott good Dr. your premisses are no stronger then your bare saying which makes your inference thence weaker then water Your conciet of Provinces the ground-work of all your pitifull dicourse was shown to be a groūdles fiction Nor were there such would it make for your purpose unles they were exclusive nor
would it serve your intent that there was exclusivenes in the actuall endeavours of the Apostles but you must evince an Exclusivenes in Right ere you can pretend to limit a Right nor have you brought as yet one expresse word of any testimony to make good the least of these Again if by universall Pastour you mean one who hath Iurisdiction to preach in all places of the world and to all sorts of people as your wise Argument seems to intend you need not trouble your self we grant each Apostle to have been an universall Pastour in this sence but if you mean that S. Peter was not higher in Authoritie amongst the Apostles how does this follow though he were supposed to be limited as a particular Bishop to his private Province or as a Bishop had a flock distinc't from S. Paul's is not even now a dayes the Pope's Bishoprick limitted to the Roman Diocese his Patriarchate to the West and so his Authority under both these notions limited exclusively and contradistinguisht from other Bishops and Patriarchs and yet wee see de facto that he is held chief Bishop in the Church higher in Authoritie then the rest notwithstanding Doe not our eyes and the experience of the whole world testifie this to be so yet were all the former absurd inventions of Apostolicall Provinces their exclusivenes S. Peter over the Iews onely c. granted still his utmost inference would be no stronger then this now related which the eyes of all the world gainsay to wit that because others had their particular assignations Provinces or Bishopriks distinct from S. Peter's therefore S. Peter could not be higher in Authoritie then those others by which one may see that my learned Adversary understands not what is mean't by the Authority he impugns but makes account the Pope cannot be Head of the Church unles he be the particular immediate Bishop of every Diocese in it Whereas we hold him contradistinct from his fellow Bishops for what concerns his proper peculiar assignation and onely say that he is higher then the rest in Iurisdiction power of command in things belonging to the universall good of the Church This point then should have been struck at disputed against not that other never held by us that none in the Church hath his particular Bishoprick or assignation save the Pope onely against which onely Dr. H. makes head while he makes it the utmost aym of his weak endeavours to prove S. Peter a distinct Bishop from S. Paul to have had a distinct flock Sect. 19. Dr. Hammond's method in answering his Disarmer's challenge that hee could not show one expresse word limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions in any of those many Testimonies produced by him for that End and how he puts three Testimonies together to spell that one word His palpahle falsification and other pittifull weaknesses AFter Dr. H's Irrefragable Evidence follow'd immediately of Schism p. 74. And all this very agreable to the story of Scripture which according to the brevitie of the relations there made onely sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the Circumcision and of his being so at Rome we make no question Vpon these words his Disarmer Schism Disarm p 73. enumerated as many significations imported by that word onely as were obvious confuted them severally because he found the words ambiguous telling him that neither doth Scripture onely set down S. Peter as Apostle of the Circumcision but Iames Iohn also Gal. 2. 9. nor is S. Peter any where exprest as Apostle of onely the Circumcision but expresly particularized the contrary Act. 15. 7. His Answer p. 50. affords us a third signification so impossible for S. W. to imagin as it was to foresee all the weakneses Dr. H's cause could put him upon 'T is this that the words onely is set clearly in opposition to the Scripture's making more particular relations of S. Peter's preaching to the Iewish caetus at Rome c. Now had the Scripture produced by him made any particular relation at all of any such matter then indeed his onely might have been thought to mean the want of more particular relation c. but if in no place alledged by him there had been found the least particular relation at all either of a Iewish caetus at Rome or S. Peter's preaching to it particularly or indeed so much as intimating his preaching in that City then what ground had Dr. H. given me to imagine that the restrictive particle onely was put in opposition to a more particular relation from Scripture of that of which the Scripture had given me no relation at all Is there a greater misery then to stand trifling with such a brabbler To omit that take away the former parenthesis from having any influence upon the words without it as it ought then one of the significations given by me is absolutely unavoidable But against the first signification impugned by me he challenges my knowledge that he could not mean so without contradicting himself and my knowledg challenges his conscience that he cannot be ignorant how he contradicts himself frequently purposely upon any occasion when he cannot well evade As for the second sence I conceived that ambiguous word might bear I repeated my challenge to him Schism Disarm p. 73. that If he could shew me the least syllable either in Scripture or other testimonies expresly and without the help of his Id ests and scruing deductions restraining S. Peter's Jurisdiction to the Iews onely excluding it from the Gentiles I would yeild him the Laurell and quit the Controversie This challenge though offered him before p. 52. 53. p. 68. yet he here first accepts not for the Laurell's sake he remitts that to S. W. but upon so tempting an hope as to be at an end of Controversie which I dare say he repents he ever medled with yet was hee very hasty to begin with Controversies voluntarily unprovoked and now when he sees himself answer'd unable to reply the moderate man growes weary wishes himself at an end of them as if he thought himself when hee begun first so great a Goliah that there could not be found in the whole Army of the Church a sling and a stone to hit him in the fore head Ere I come to lay open how he acquits himself of this accepted challenge I desire the Reader to consider first the import of it which is to exact onely of him to show one exclusive word exprest in order to S. Peter's Iurisdiction in any one of those many testimonies he produced for that end Secondly let him candidly observe what infinite disadvantage I offer my self what an incomparable advantage I offer my adversary in such an unparalleld proffer and condescension one restrictive word for the restrictive point now in question between us makes him and undoes mee Thirdly let him remember how Dr. H. call'd those proofs Evidences for that restrictive point
the whole Controversie being about the limitation or illimitation of Iurisdiction and the totall scope of that first half of c. 4. to limit S. Peter's to the Iews onely Fourthly hence follows that it is mainly important most absolutely necessary that Dr. H. should now lay hold of this fair occasion to lay the Axe to the root of Rome as he exprest his intent Answ p. 11. Fifthly the conditions of the victory are the most facil that can be imagin'd for what easier than to shew one exclusive particle as onely solely alone or some such like exprest in any testimony if any such thing were there Sixthly it is to be observed that he hath accepted of the challenge so stands engaged to shew some such word exprest in some testimony Seventhly he is allured to do it by the tempting hope to be at an end of Controversie as himself confesses And lastly unles he come of well from so condescending so easy a challenge already accepted of that is unles he show some such exclusive particle exprest in some testimony he cannot avoid manifesting himself the most shamefull writer that ever handled pen the most pernicious ruiner of Souls that ever treated controversy the most insincereconscienc'd man that ever pretended to the name of a Christian if in treating a question about Schism in which is interessed mens eternall salvation damnation as himself proves amply of Schism c. 1. and the most fundamentall point thereof as himself likewise confesses this to be which concerns S. Peter's universall Iurisdiction Answ p. 74 hee cannot produce nor pick out one expresse word to that purpose from that whole army of his testimonies which he call'd Evidences but from his own words onely So that all the motives imaginable conspire to maâ—e Dr. H. as good as his word the hazard of his Reader 's eternall damnation the care of his owne conscience of his owne credit the hope to be at an end of Controversie none of the least to him as he is caught in these present circumstances promise of victory the extreme moderation facility of the understanding and lastly his owne acceptation here of the challenge By this time I know the Reader expects that Dr. should come thundering out with a whole volly of testimonies shewing in each of them plain words expressing his tenet at least that he should produce some one expresse particle limitting S. Peter's Authoritie without the help of his scruing deductions as he promist his challenger But he never so much as attempts what he late pretended thâ—t is he attempts not to show any expresse word in any testimony but instead there of prevaricates to his old shuffling tricks huddles together three testimonies and fancies a shadow like allusion from one to the other and thence adventures to infer a conclusion What is this to our question or my challenge it debarr'd his scruing deductions and required some one expresse restrictive word he linkes three citations together to make a sleight glosse which no one alone could do and then deduces concludes which was interdicted by his self-accepted challeÌ„ge What need three testimonies strung together to shew one restrictive word or what relation hath the pointing out to us such a word to the inferring a conclusion from three testimonies I desired he promist me some one word which was express that is which needed no conclusion at all he puts me of with a conclusion onely which intimates there was never an express word His deductions are his the words are the testimonies I never challeng'd him that he could not deduce the most ivicy conclusion from the most flinty testimony as he did the best in all his book of Schism from the bare monosyllable come My challenge was that his deductions were loud his testimonies quite dumbe without one expresse word in them to his purpose This word which would have sav'd gain'd Dr. H. so much credit Ease I desired should be shown me But since he is silent in pronouncing it he gives it for granted that he could produce none and so the Reader I know what to think of him whose self-conciet dares hazard his Reader 's Salvation upon his owne bare unauthorized sayings and altogether unwarrantable imaginations Now as for his three testimonies themselves they are the former old ones already answered over over towit that from Gal. 2. of the imagin'd agreement for exclusive Provinces that of Epiphanius saying that the two Apostles were Bishops in Rome and that of the Arch heretick Pelagius concerning the holding a part the Iewish Gentile Churches The first he can make nothing of without an Ellipsis which he makes up himself Our bargain was that he should show me some exclusive word exprest in any one of his citations for his exclusive tenet and the first of the three loÌ„g letterd testimonies which by being put together were to spell this one exclusive word is imperfect without something understood that is notexprest Good The whole force of the second from Epiphanius lies in this word Bishops which yet affirms S. Peter S. Paul to have been at Rome which word is so far from being of an exclusive signification that it is common inclusive of both Yet he tells us here that it is expresse makes it more ample by reciting it thus that in Rome Peter Paul were the same persons both Apostles Bishops What force he puts in the same persons none but himself can imagin since none ever dream't that Epiphanius spoke of two different Peters Pauls whom he call'd Bishops from those he call'd in the same line with in the same comma Apostles And as for his last testimony 't is borrowed froÌ„ the Arch-heretick Pelagius as hath been shown heretofore Sect. 7. Moreover grant that the Congregations of Iews Gentiles were for a while during the heat of the Scandall held a part at Antioch and some other places yet this Arch-heretick's testimony expresses not it was so at Rome when the Apostles met there which was some years after that fit of Iewish zeal at Antioch and the vehemency of the Scandall by the Apostles prudence went on mitigating every day So as this unauthentick testimony borrow'd from the wicked Pelagius hath not one expresse word of exclusion even of the Iewish caetus at Rome much lesse of the Apostles were exclusively over those two caetusses as he terms them nor hath Dr. H. any reason to think that all the Iews of the dispersion were thus zealous since we may gather easily Act. 13. 42. that both Iews Gentiles were together when S. Paul preached at the Synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia and most expressely Act. 14. v. 1. 19. we read that in Iconium Paul Barnabas went both together into the Synagogue of the Iews so spake that a great multitude both of the Iews also of the Gentiles beleeved Which besides that it shows plainly the Iews there thought it not against
call'd Evidences deny'd now by himself to bee proofs for the point but metamorphos'd into Branches of Accordances seasonable Advertissements and Fancies The rare game in hunting aâ—â—er his proofs with the issue of that sport SChism Disarm'd p. 76. accused Dr. H of subjoyning out of his own head words most important expresly testifying the point in hand to a dry testimony of S. Ignatius He qualifies the fault too great to be acknowledg'd with what truth shall be examin'd The place it self onely related that Linus was Deacon to S. Paul Clemens to S. Peter Dr. H. of Schism p. 78. puts it thus Accordingly in Ignatius Ep. ad Trall we read of Linus Clemens that one was S. Paul's the other S. Peter's Deacon both which afterwards succeeded them in the Episcopall Chair Linus being constituted Bishop of the Gentile Clemens of the Iewish Christians there Where note First that there is nothing but a simple comma at the word Deacon where the testimony ends nor any a thing like a full point of a testimony till the words the Iewish Christians there Secondly there is no other distinctive note imaginable to let us know which are testimonies which his own words Thirdly all the art insincerity could imagin was used here to make no distinction appear as to tell us we read what follow'd there never telling us how far we read it to iumble the two different letters confusedly together and to put the words Episcopall Chair Bishop Gentile Iewish Christians which were not found in the testimony in the small translating letter and the same with the word Deacon which was found therein Fourthly the word Deacons found in the testimony is nothing at all to our controversy for what is it to us that S. Peter had such a Deacon and S Paul such another whereas the other words subjoined by himself are mainly important to his point Lastly this confident affirmation of his that Linus was constituted Bishop of the Gentile Clemens of the Iewish Christians there is no where els either found or so much as pretended to be shown and so it could not be imagined but that those words were part of this testimony For who could ever think that any man should be so shamelesly insincere as to put down such concerning expressions under the shadow of a testimony and yet those expressions authorised by nothing but his owne word nor found any where but in his self-inuented additions All these sleights discover plainly that there was artifice and design in the busines and that he slily abused his Reader by putting a testimony which signify'd nothing for a cloake and then adding what he pleas'd hoping it might be countenanced by the grave Authority of Ignatius and by such a dexterous management bee taken for his at least he hop't it might passe unsuspected by his confident asserting it or how ever he hop't at least that for his last refuge he could evade by saying he mean't it not for a proof but in agreement onely or as hee prettily calls it here a branch of accordance and that 's a defence good enough for him being as good as the nothing-proving proof was The shadow of a buckler is the fittest to defend the shadow of a body He is troubled that I expected this testimony should say any thing to S Peter's being onely over the Iews What could I expect other our question is about the limitation of Iurisdiction what serve his testimonies for or what do they there unles they can prove that But he say's that that conclusion was proved out of Scripture which is a flat falsification since he could neither show me one restrictive word in Scripture to that purpose whereas his position even now put down pretended to be proved thence is restrictive nor durst he rely upon Scripture alone when he was to find us that so much desired one word but was forced to peece it out with other two places from Epiphanius Pelagius the Archeretick To omit that the testimony it self Gal. 2. expresses nothing of any agreement for such an end as Sect. 6. hath been amply shown He adds that this from Ignatius is onely a branch of accordance with that In the name of wonder where shall we look for Dr. H's proofs There is not one testimony he hath produced out of Antiquitie as yet for this point but he falls from it when he should maintain it say's 't is no proof but onely spoken in agreement or as here iâ— a quainter gentiler phrase a branch of accordance and a seasonable advertissement Come along Reader let thee and I go hunt after Dr. H's proofs for this point from the first starting it To trace it step by step we begin with of Schism c. 4 par 4. where he say's that question of S. Peter's supremacy must be managed by Evidences so concluded either on the one side or the other professing there that he began to offer his Evidence for the Negative Let us not despair then of these Evidences proofs so solemnly promis't us but addresse our selves for their quest The fifth par begins thus And first it is evident by Scripture S. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision or Iews exclusively to the Vncircumcision or Gentiles Here we se the point to be evidenced and from Scripture Now in this par which hath such a fair promising beginning there are two places of Scripture the famous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which he denies to be Evidences Answ p. 38. But to proceed The 6. par begins with an If proceeds with a parenthesis agreable onely as hee there expresses it and so according to him no proof The rest are his own words onely till we come at S. Iames and the proofs following till we come to the end of the par are not in order to the main point but onely to prove that Iames at Hierusalem was consider'd as a Bishop which was out of question between us as himself declares his owne meaning Answ p. 43. l. 27. The rest of that as also the next parag proceeds with Accordingly p. 74. l. 4. and again Accordingly ibid. lin 20. According p 75. lin 22. which show that all these were not proofs but things spoken in agreement or branches of accordance onely Five testimonies follow par 9. in order to those two Apostles planting the Church at Rome which he expresly denies to be proofs of this our point Answ p. 49. l. 32. 33. and sayes they are spoken in agreement onely as also the next three which are found in the beginning of the tenth though one of them be here call'd an Irrefragable Evidence But let us pursve our game These testimonies over past the next from Scripture are introduc't with Agreable and so are meant to be in agreement onely and no proofs The 11th par begins with Accordingly again which leads in the late-ill-treated testimony from Ignatius deny'd here Answ p. 53. to
Is it possible now that any man should go about to cloak such a falsification which evidence as clear as eyesight had manifested in it's most shame full nakednes nothing is impossible to be done in Dr. H's way He excuses himself first Answ p. 57. l. 9. because he thought it was conclusible from those words 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. But who bad him think so when there was never a word in the testimony or in the whole Epistle but might have been said by a Metropolitan to a Bishop or a Bishop to any Priest to wit that he would order things when he came bidding him be have himself well c. Again if he intended to conclude why did he not put some expression of that his intent that the Reader might not be deluded by his quoting the place immediately after those words This pretence therefore is most frivolous vain First because his words are positive absolute as it were commanding our assent from the Authority of Scripture not exprest like an inference or conclusion doth not S. Paul c. as also because they are relations of matters of fact and lastly because they who conclude from Scripture put the place first then deduce from it whereas he quotes the place after his own words as we use to do for words found really in Scripture wherefore either he intended not to conclude but to gull the honest Reader that his sole important forgeries were sure Scripture or else if he meant to conclude he very wisely put his conclusion before the premises and such a conclusion as had but one unconcerning useles word common to it the premises Secondly he tells us that to say that he inferr'd the whole conclusion from the word come is one of S. W's arts whereas I charged him not for inferring thence but for putting down those words for pure Scripture Again himself so good is his memory confesses this same thing seven or eight lines before which he here renounces where having mention'd the former long rabble he told us in expresse terms that he thought it was conclusible from S. Paul's words 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Now then there being not one word of this pretended conclusion found in that place save the monosyllable Come nor one exclusive particle nor even the least ground of any he must either infer his pretended conclusion from that or from nothing Thirdly he alledges that he thought his grounds had been visible enough being thus laid and then proceeds to lay them But the iest is he never layd down any such pretended grounds at all in the book of Schism where he cited that place and so it was impossible they should be visible being then perhaps not so much as in their causes And as for these pretended grounds they are nothing but a kinde of explication of that place that S. Paul sent an whole Epistle of Instructions hoped to give him farther instructions that he should behave himself well in his office c. which are all competent to any Bishop in order to a Priest or to any subaltern Governor in respect of an inferior and so hinders not but S. Paul might be under another though thus over Timothy Fourthly as for those exclusive words no other Apostle could countermand or interpose in them leaving no Appeal no place for farther directions onely to himself which were objected so it belonged to him if he could not show them exprest there so clear his falsified citation at least to show them concluded deduced thence as 6. or 7. lines before he had promist us But he quite prevaricates even from deducing them thence when it comes to the point and instead of doing so proving them from the pretended place he repeats again the same demands bids us prove the contrary I now demand saith he whether S. Paul left any other Appeal or place for farther directions save onely to himself I answer does the place alledged say any thing to the contrary or is any such thing conclusible thence as you pretended If it be why do not you make good your own proof from the place show this restrictive sence either there in expresse terms or else by framing your conclusion from it why do you instead of thus doing your duty stand asking me the same question over again He proceeds Whether could any other Apostle by any power given him by Christ countermand or interpose in them what need you ask that question you knew long ago that our Answer would be affirmative that S. Peter could in case he saw it convenient for the good of God's Church or what is the asking this question over again to the showing that the contrary was either expresly or conclusively there as you pretended If any could let him be named his power specified saith the Dr. Is not this a rare man to counterfeit himself ignorant whom we hold for Head of the Apostles when as himself hath from the beginning of this Chapter impugned S. Peter as held such by us And to carry the matter as if he delay'd his proofs till he knew our Answer aswell known to him before hand as his own name It follows let the power be proved by virtue whereof he should thus act I marry now the Dr. is secure when all else fails he hath constantly recourse hither to hide his head When his Argument or proof is shown to bee falsify'd in the expresse terms hee pretends to conclude thence and when 't is shown unable to conclude any thing instead of proceeding to make it good or show that cōclusible from thence which he promised he leaves it of as some impertinent questions and bids his Answerer take his turn prove because he alas is graveld and cannot go a step further This done he triumphs But S. W. dares not I am sure doth not affirm this What dare not I and do not I affirm that S. Peter had power over the rest of the Apoles in things cōcerning the good of the universall Church 'T is my expresse tenet which he is at present impugning and which I both do affirm dare maintaine so prevalent is Truth against Dr H. though back't by forty more learned then himself But this politick Adversary of mine seeing he could not argue me out of my faith would needs fright me or persuade me from it threat'ning me first that I dare not next assuring mee that I do not affirm i◠This solid discourse premised hee shuts up with an acclamation of victory thus And if it cannot be said as no doubt it cannot then where was S. Peter's supreme Pastorship Where all the force of this upshot of his lies in the If and no doubt both of them equally addle frivolous since himself all the world knows very well that we both can do affirm hold that S. Peter was Superior in Authoritie to all the rest of the Apostles Thus Dr. Hr. toyes it with his Readers hoping
Ecclesiasticall laws thou shalt absolve from I will hold that person thus absolved guiltles and whatsoever thou shalt refuse to pardon I will hold it unpardon'd likewise Now I appeal to Dr. H's coÌ„science whether this person he would not in prudence judge by this carriage that he should have some thing particualr given him and whether though the King afterwards in a common exposition had promis't to make him aud the rest Bishops yet there would not remain still imprinted in his minde an expectation that he should be a Bishop in a higher degree then the rest to wit an Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or Yorke since I think it as plain in prudence that such a carriage and such expressions should breed such an expectation as most prudentiall actions use ordinarily to bee Therefore it was worthy our Saviour not to delude the expectation of S. Peter iustly rationally and prudently raised by his particularizing carriage and expressions to higher hopes Therefore he satisfy'd it with a proportionable performance therefore S. Peter had in higher manner and degree the power of the Keyes than the rest of the Apostles which is the thing to bee evinced And thus ends this wit-combat between me and Dr. H. in which I hope I have performed fully my taks which was to shew out of the very words in the Text that they sound in all probability and likelihood more favorably to my advantage And if Dr. H. goes about to answer me let him show out of those very words pâ—udentially scann'd that they persuade another interpretation and not tell us of his own fancy what he is able to imagin as he does here all over Nor let him thinke t' is sufficient to solve my deductions by showing them not to spring from those words by rigorous evidence For first this is to oppose that which was never pretended for I pretend not to evidence by my private wit working upon pliable natur'd words a greater probability is pretended from the letter of the Text as it lies how he will impugn this but by showing his more probable from the letter of the same Text I confesse I know not Next to fancy an explication which the words themselves persuade not and so to solve my probable deduction because another is possible in it self is very disallowable and unreasonable because a meer possibility of another destroy's not the probability of this onely a greater or equall probability pretended can frustrate a greater probability presumed where the Grounds of controverting exceed not probability And-lastly to think to prejudice our tenet or faith even by solving those places thus interpreted by privates skill is the weakest errour of all since neither our faith nor my self as one of the faithfull rely at all upon any place of Scripture as thus interpreted This conceit therefore is noe wiser than if a man should thinke to throw mee down or disable me from walking by taking away my stilts and yet leaving me my leggs whereas I stand a thousand times more firm upon these than I did upon the former And I so totally build my faith upon the sence of the Church so litle upon places of Scripture play'd upon by wit that what Dr. H. ob ects and thinks me in chanted for holding it Answ p. 64. I freely and ingenuously confesse to wit that the infallibility of our Church consisting in this that she acknowledges no rule of faith save immediate attestation of forefathers would equally have done it and equally have ascertain'd me that S. Peter was cheef of the Apostles as if our Saviour had never asked S. Peter three times lovest thou me Although in other respects I doubt not but that these sacred Oracles of the written word are both a great confort and ornament to the Church and very usefull to our Doctors yet not to hammer or coine a faith out of them by the dints and impressions of wit as the Protestants imagin Sect. 4. D H's most wilfull and grand Falsification in pretending an Authour for him and concealing his words found to bee expresly point blank against him His unparallell'd weaknes in dogmatizing upon the mysticall sence of another which almost in every point contradicts his Doctrine AFter Dr. H. had pretended of Schism p. 88. that the power of the Keyes was as distinctly promis't to each single Apostle as to S. Peter and after his falsifying manner quoted Matth. 18. v. 18 as most clear for that purpose where no such distinction or singularizing expression was found his discourse sprouts out into another branch of accordance in these words And accordingly Math. 19. the promise is again made of twelve thrones for each Apostle to sit on one to judge id est saith the Dr. to rule or preside in the Church The Cath. Gent. and S. W. made account this interpretation was an odde one Dr. H. Answ p. 67. referr's us to his Reply c. 4. Sect. 10. and there he sayes the sence which S. W. never heard of was vouched from S. Augustine But upon view of the place I neither finde a word of S. Augustine put down to vouch it nor so much as a citation of any place in that father where wee may look it onely he barely tells us that S. Augustine long ago so understood it leaving us without any direction to look for this sentence in whole volumes where he is sure wee are not likely to finde it and this he calls vouching his interpretation Is not this neat But I commend his wit he loves not be confuted if he can help it which had he told us where to finde this vouching it from S. Augustine he providently foresaw was likely to follow By the same prudentiall method he govern's himself in the two other Testimonies he addes to that of S. Augustine in these words to whom I may also adde Hilarius Pictaviensis and the Author imperfecti operis and this in all without either relating us to the places or quoting the words But since he is so reserved I will take the pains to do it for him knowing well that the Reader by this time grown acquainted with the Drs tricks will expect some mystery of iniquity in such aldesign'd omission Not will Dr. H. suffer him to be deluded in that his expectation being very apt to give his Readers satisfaction alwaies in that point Note Reader what is in question at this time Wee interpret this place to relate to the day of iudgment and to mean the Apostles sitting upon twelve thrones to judge the Dr. interprets it of the regeneration of the world by faith in Christ or the first beginning or settling of Christ's Church immediately or not long after his Ascension and the Holy Ghost's coming and of the Apostles sitting then upon twelve Episcopall chaires to judge id est saith he to preside in the Church Now to our Testimonies Hilarius Pictaviensis his interpretation of this place is found in his explication of some passages upon S. Mathew the title
should be really and properly to judge and preside over them so it is equally a madnes to pretend that the Apostles life time and not the day of â—udgment is signified here really and properly since the word it self not necessarily denoting it this interpretation is onely built upon the applicablenes of the circumstant expressions which being all mysticall and improper cannot make it proper and literall but mysticall and improper onely Thou seest then Protestant Reader to wâ—â—t rare Drs thou entrustest thy hopes of salvation who either bring Testimonies for their tenet which is most expressively against them when the Author speaks literally or els dogmatize upon a mysticall sence and pretend 't is mean't really Which method were it follow'd there is no such contradictions in the world but might be made rare truths The testament given in Mount sina would be really a woman and â—gar Abraham's handmaid Gal. 4. v. 25. Christ's doctrine would be reall corne preaching would be reall sowing men would bee in reality meere vegetables the good wheat by bad tares Heaven nothing in reality but a barn the Angels would be really reapers and sweaty tann'd country-drudges with sickles rakes and forks in their hands preaching loding into carts driving home and unloading into this barn mens Souls by Dr. H's learned Metamorphosis far out-vying Opid's turn'd really into meere Vegetables and so many grains of wheat These and millions of others perhaps greater absurdities might an Atheist object to Christianity and make it the most ridiculous absurdity nay the perfectest madnes that ever abus'd the world by interpreting mysticall things really that is by following Dr. H's method here who out of a place evidently mysticall and so exprest by the Author deduces dogmatically as a reall truth that the promise was made for twelve reall and properly called thrones for each Apostle to siâ— on one to rule and preside in the Church in the Apostles time And were it worth the pains to looke for the omitted place in S. Austin I doubt not but wee should finde it of the same mysticall strain in some Homily or other for he writ no comments upon S. Mathew that I know of from whence wee may certainly expect such a literall explication Sect. 5. How Dr. H. goes about to prove the donation of equall power from the Descent of the Holy Ghost and from fathers by an heap of weaknesses contradâ—ction of his own calumnies of our tenet forgâ—ries of his Advers ary's sence and words denying his own avoydings to answer and other shuffling impertinencies IT follows in Dr. H. of Schism p. 88. in the half-side of a leaf parenthesis and when that promise to wit of twelve Episcopall thrones was finaâ—ly performed in the descent of the Spirit Act. 2. the fire that represented that Spirit was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sate upon every one of them without any peculiar mark allow'd S. Peter and they were all filld ' with the Holy Ghost and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all Observe Reader these words particularly and then I an confident if thou knowst what Controversy is thou with pity me for being task to answer such a dreamer Here is not a word here which even seems to make against us but these without any particular mark allow'd to S. Peter and the having the Holy Ghost equally neither of which are or can be prov'd by any man living for who can see man's heart or know in what degree he hath the Holy Ghost but God onely or who can tell us now that S. Peter had no peculiar mark or greater tongue of fire than the rest as the wise Dr. pretends and builds upon nothing being recorded either pro or con concerning that impertinent curiosity Nor can these ridiculous arguments seem in the least sort to make against S. Peter's higher Authority and our tenet but by supposing Dr. H's false and weak principle to bee true that none can be higher in Authority but he must necessarily have more of the Holy Ghost in him As for all the other words they nothing at all concern our purpose or impugn our present tenet since wee hold that each Apostle had the promise made had a performance of that promise that the fiery tongues sate on every of them c. And as for his saying that this promise of twelve thrones was finally performed in the descent of the Holy Ghost though it be most miserably weak as shall be shown yet it nothing at all impugns us inducing onely that each Apostle had power in the Church which wee voluntarily grant To answer these phantastick toyes the better I will take the whole peece a sunder into propositions and impugn them singly The first proposition is that the promise of the twelve thrones of Episcopall presidency was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit Observe Reader that our question is about Authority and Iurisdiction as Dr. H's chairs to rule and preside in tells thee and then ask Dr. H. whether it was ever heard of before in this world that the coming of the Holy Ghost gave Iurisdiction or Authority to the Apostles but zeal charity knowledge courage vigor strength and such other gifts onely See the Scripture Luke 24. 49. Tarry yee in Hierusalem untill yee be endued virtute ex alto that is with power or powerfulnes efficaciously to prosecute what they were a ready design'd and commissioated for not till you have finally Authority and Iurisdiction given you Again the Holy Ghost fell upon all the 120. as appears by Act. 1. and upon multitudes both of men and women in many places and occasions afterwards and yet no man ever dream'd that they got by this means any Authority or Iurisdiction But to show the absurdity of this conceit there needs no more but to reflect upon the Drs words He sayes that the promise of twelve thrones of presidency or â—â—welve Episcopall chairs as he expresses him self Aâ—sw p. 67. was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit if so then the Holy Ghost consecrated the twelve Apostles actually Bishops for the finall performanâ—e is the actuall giving a thing and the thing to be given then is by him exprest to be twelve Episcopall chairs wherefore actually then and not before the Apostles were made Bishops and had so many Episcopall chairs given them so pretty a foolery that laughter is it's properest confutation But to mend the iest himself in other places strenously defends that the distinction of the Apostles presidencies of Provinces by Apostolicall agreement long after the coming of the Holy Ghost as appears by the place Gal. 2. on which hee relies And if we should ask him how there could be twelve Episcopall chairs to rule and preside in without twelve sorts of subjects to be presided over and ruled that is twelve Bishopricks and then ask him again where those twelve distinct Bishopricks were at the coming of the Holy Ghost I know the good man in
stead of making good his owne argument would be forc't to turn taile as he does often and bid us prove the contrary The second proposition is this The fire which represented that Spirit was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Dr. sate upon each of them Who ever deny'd but that each of them had a tongue of fire and that this tongue of fire sate upon them what then what follows hence against us He tells us Answ p. 68. in these words This I suppose an argument of some validitie that the promise being seald distinctly to every one of them was mean't in the making of it distinctly to every one of them Grant the inference shown lately to be nothing worth whas tenet of ours does his conclusion contradict onely this that the promise of the Keyes was mean't to one Apostle onely or els to them altogether or in common so that each single Apostle could not use it neither of which being out tenet as he willfully counterfeits his argument of some valedity onely impugns a calumny forg'd by himself and onely proves that he hath bid his last adieu to all sincerity who newly hath pretended an endeavour to clear himself of calumny in making our tenet to be that the power of the Keyes was S. Peter's peculiarity and inclosure and yet ever since reiterates it upon all occasions with the same vigour Once more Mr. H. I desire you to take notice that wee hold and are readie to grant nay mantain and â—ssert that each particular Apostle had the power of the Keyes given him and that he could use them singly the inequality and subordination of this power in the other Apostles to a higher degree of it in S. Peter is that wee assert If yoouintend really to impugn it bring proofs for an equality and no subordination and do not thus willfully wrong your own conscience hazard the losse of your own and other men's Souls and lastly thas openly abuse your Readers by calumniating our tenet and calling your wise proofs arguments of validity whereas they neither invalidate nor touch any thing which our adversary holds The 3d proposition is this There was no peculiar mark of fire allow'd to S. Peter In answ Schism Disarm p. 97. call'd this proof a dumb negative and askd him how he knew there was no particular mark allow'd S. Peter since he was not there to see and there is noe history either sacred or profane that expresâ—es the contrary Now the Dr. in stead of shewing us upon what Grounds he affirmed this which properly belong'd to him makes this impertinent and prevaricating objection Answ p. 68. It seem's a negative in S. W. mouth is perfectly vocall though it be but dumb in another man's so that the good Dr. supposes that I go about to prove S. Peter to have had a peculiar maâ—k of fire because 't is no where heard of so much is the most common sence above his short reach Whereas I onely ask't him why he did affirm it without knowing it or how he could know it having noe ground to know it perhaps it would clear his understanding a litle better to put his sence and mine into syllogisme mine stand's thus No man not having ground from sense nor Authority can know and so affirm a matter of fact but Dr. H. hath neither ground from sense nor Authority that S. Peter had no peculiar mark therefore he hath no ground to know it nor affirm it His can onely make this Enthymene wee read of no peculiar mark or fire allow'd S. Peter therefore he had none Or if it be made a compleat syllogism it must be this the Apostles had nothing which is not read of in Scripture but S. Peter's peculiar mark of fire is not read of in Scripture therefore he had noe such mark And then the sillines of the Major had shown the wisedom of it's Author who may conclude by the same Logick as well that the Apostles had no noses on their faces since this is equally not mentioned in Scripture as S. Peter's peculiar mark is Next it was ask't him why S. Peter could not be head of the Church but God must needs watch all occasions to manifest it by a particular miracles or why he could not be chief of the Apostles without having a greater tongue of fire so that could the equality of fiery tongues bee manifested yet the silliest old wife that ever liv'd could not possibly stumble upon a more ridiculous proof but the position it self which he affirmed being impossible to be manifested it surpasses all degrees of ridiculousnes and oughâ— to move rather a iust indignation in any Christian who understands what belongs to Grounds of faith to see it so brought to the lowest degree of contempt and disgrace as to be debated by such childish non-sence and by one who professes him self a Christian and a Dr. Now Dr. H. against these exceptions made in Schism Disarm'd sayes not a word that is he neither goes about to show that there was no particular mark nor that it was to any purpose had there been one onely he tells us Answ p. 68. that thought it be a negative argument that is though it prove nothing yet he hopes by being annex't to the affirmative probation precedent it will not be a gagge to make that dumbe and negative also So that he confesses it does no good at all onely he hopes it will do no hurt to his affirmative probation that is to his aâ—gument of some validity already spoken of and truly no more it does for it remains still as arrant an affected willfull calumny of our tenet as ever it was I added that if wee may judge by exteriour actions and may beleeve that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks then perhaps the Dr. may receive some satisfaction in this point also that S. Peter had in more peculiar manner the Holy Ghost For it was he that first burst out into that heavenly Sermon whâ—ch converted three thous and. First the Dr. calls this Answ p. 68. l. 12. 13. in a prettie odd phrase a doubty proof to evidence on S. Peter's behalf Whereas I onely brought it for the Drs sake who good man uses to fancy any Scripture-proof better then a demonstration not for mine owne or my tenet's inteâ—est having diclaimed the necessity of consequence from his being fuller of the Holy Ghost to his being higher in dignity Schism Disarm p. 97. l. vlt. p. 98 l. 1. 2. Nor did I pretend it as an evidence as the Dr. calumniates expressing both my intent and degree of reliance on it sufficiently in these moderate words perhaps the Dr. may receive some satisfaction c. Secondly he sayes I bring it to evidence he know's not what for 't is not exprest but left doubtfully betwixt his being Head of the Apostles and his having some peculiar mark yet one he supposes designed to infâ—r and conclude the other whereas the intended point is
expressely put down in my words now repeated by him self to wit that S. Peter had in a peculiar manner the Holy Ghost and the necessary connexion of this with his higher Authority expressly disclaim'd in the place even now cited Thirdly after he had repeated my whole discourse he subjoyn's immediately here was one honest word the perhaps As if our Saviour's words out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and those others of the Scripture that S. Peter converted three thousand by his first Sermon were all dishonest words But since I intended onely to give the Dr. some satisfaction of which knowing his humor I was not certain why was it not honester to expresse my self ambiguously then to cry a loud Certainy surely no doubt unquestionably irrefragably as Dr. H. does all over before his Testimonies whereas all is obscure uncertain falsified not a word in them sounding to the purpose as hath been shown all over this book It may be the Reader may accound Dr. H. the greater wit for using such confident and loud-crying expressions when there is so litle wooll but I hope he will thinke S. W. the honester man for speaking withim compasse Fourthly he sayes that the Dr. meaning himself may not be satisfy'd thence that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner to which he addes of his own falsifying invention or was designed head of the Apostles as if I had pretended this either as equivalent or necessarily consequent out of the former whereas he knows I absoluty disclaimed against him any such pretence This done without having afforded owne word of answer or sence he bids us farewell in these words I shall answer it no further then by repeating Good night good Dr. But to let the Reader see how much stronger my perhaps is than the Drs surely I will briefly put doun the import of this late proof ad hominem and 't is this that since out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks 't is probable that S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in his heart more abundantly or in a higher degree since he first exprest it 's interiour motions by speaking and speaking soe vigorously and powerfully Now then since in Mr. H's Grounds the receiving the holy Ghost seald the Commissions of the Apostles and finally performed the promise of their ruling and presiding in the Church whence he contended also that all had this promise equally performed that is according to him had equally the Holy Ghost lest one should exceed anoâ—her in Iurisdiction it follows unavoidably ad hominem it against him that if be probable S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in an higher degree it is probable likewise that he had a higher rule and presidencie in the Church performed to him The argument bearing this sence who sees not 't is Dr. H's task to let us knowe why this so early and vigorous pouring forth argued not a fuller measure of the Holy Ghost within what does he He calumniates me to bring this as a clâ—ar evidence putting the words clear evidence in other letters as if thay had bene mine falsifies my known pretence twice calls the word perhaps the one honest words says the Dr. may not be satisfie'd by the reason alledged that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner and then in stead of telling us why he may not be satisfie'd immediately concluding that he shall not answer it further than by repeating it Thus Dr. H's reason like some sorry creature taken tardy in a tale first mutters and stammers as if it would say something or were hand-bound with some bad excuse but seing it could make no coherence at length very honestly hands down it's head and sayes iust nothing The fourth proposition is And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost which he tells us here was sure no distinct argument of his But why it should not be as good and sole suffiâ—ient a proof as this that the fire was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he pedantizes it sate on every one of them which he called Answ p. 68. l. 3. an argument of somevalidity I had no ground in the world to imagin both of them equally impugning our tenet that is not at all For wee equally grant that each single Apostle had power giuen him to bind and loose or Authority in the Church which he without any ground will have signified by the division of this fire as wee do that they were all filled with the Holy Ghost The fifth and last proposition immediately follows the former and is this and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all that is all had equally the Holy Ghost and this is pretended as deduced out of the fourth saying that they were all full of it Schism Disarm p. 98. showd the weaknes of this arguing from fulnes to equality by the instances of our Saviour Barnabas who are both said in Scripture to be full of the Holy Ghost as also of the saints in heaven being full of glory though there were an inequality between them in those respects and by the parallell ridiculousnes of the plow man's silly argument who concluded alleggs equall and that none had more meat in it than another because all were full To take of these exceptions and strengthen his feeble argument the Dr. offers nothing though he braggs at the end of the Section that he hath attended me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely he tells us here p. 69 gentily that he is not concern'd to doubt but that they which are full of the Holy Ghost may have it unequally if by unequally be meant the inequality of divine endowments How he is concern'd to doubt it shall be seen presently in the meane time let us reflect on his other words and ask him what is meant by the Holy Ghosts abiding in the Souls of the faithfull or by what other way he imagins him to be there than by divine endowmeÌ„ts onely I hope he thinks not that the Holy Ghost is hypostatically united to them or incarnate in them An inequality then of divine endowments is all the inequa'ity which can be imagin'd in this matter and thefore if any inequality prejudice Dr. H's tenet he is concern'd to avoid this Now how much it concerns Dr. H's circumstances to avoid an inequality of the Holy Ghosts being in the Apostles is as plain as it is that it concerns him to say any thing to the question and not talk onely in the aire He is about to impugn S. Peter's higher Authority by the performance of the promise of Authority and Commission made finally as he thinks by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them wherefore unles he prove that the Holy Ghost descended equally upon each he can never argue hence against the inequality of S. Peter's Authority pretended by us and so it avalis him nothing He saw this in his book of Schism where he
immortall disputer and truly I shall not dispaire of being immortall if nothing be likely to kill me but Dr. H's harmles blunt reason Next he tells me that I have deformed his answer to the Text tu es Petrus but in what I have deformed it he tells me not Nor indeed was it an answer at all to us since he not at all put our argument much lesse impugned it Our argument stands thus that the name Peter signifying a Rock and this name being not onely given particularly to S. Peter but also after a particularizing manner in all probability S. Peter was in particular manner a Rock to build Gods Church Now the way for Dr. H. to take in this wit contest about words of Scripture according to the method already set down is to show out of the words that it was not either given to S. Peter in particular and after a particularizing manner or els that though this were so yet that there was no ground prudentially speaking to think that S. Peter was in an higher degree or in a particular manner a Rock than the rest As for the first to wit the giving the name to him in particular wee argue thus from it Suppose there were twelve Orators and yet one of those twelve called antonomastically or particularly Orator and were as well known by that name and as comonly called by it as by his own proper name certainly if that name were suppoâ—ed to be prudently appropriated to that one it were great imprudence not to think that that person was in an higher degree an Orator than the rest Since then our â—aviour made this common appellative of Rock the proper name to S. Peter none being call'd Peter but he and that wee cannot doubt of our Saviours prudence in thus appropriating it to him wee expect what Dr. H. can show us not out of his own head but out of plain reason working upon the words Grammatically attended to sounding to our disadvantage so much as this sounds to our manifest advantage As for the second to wit the repeating the words after a particularizing manner besides all other circumstances concerning the power of the Keyes heretofore which are competent to this also two things in particular are energeticall or of force here to wit that repeating the name Peâ—er to him Tues Petrus followâ—d immediatly after his confession of Christ's divinity an occasion as proper to make him confirm'd a Rock in a particular manner and degree as it would be to confirm the Antonomasticall title of Orator to that other parallell person upon occasion of some excellent oration made and pronounced by him Wherefore as the repeating and confirming the name Orator to him by some eminent and knowing Governour upon such a proper occasion would in prudence argue that this person was in an higher proportion degree an Oratour so the repeating this name in such a way to S. Peter and I say vnto thee thou art Peter or a Rock after a parallell occasion his particular confession of Christ's divinity as much fitting him for it ought in prudence to infer that he was in an higher degree a Rock than the rest The other thing in which a particular energie is placed is in the allusion of the words hanc Petram as impossible to relate to the other Apostles in the same particular manner as it is to pretend that all their particular names were Peter This in the sence of our argument from the Text Tu es Petrus as joyn'd with the antecedent and subsequent circumstances in stead of solving which or showing that his opposite sence more probably or connaturally follows from the very words Grammatically or rationally explicated Dr. H of Schism p. 91. first puts down the bare word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes that it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are directly the same then relinquishes both the signification which the Scripture and their own translation gives that word as shall be shown and shows out of an odd place in Homer that it is an ordinary stone though he knows well that Poets are the worst Authors to fetch the propriety of words from than by Math. 16. that apply'd to a building it must needs signify a foundation-stone thence by the Apocalyps a precious stone this done he fall's to deduce from the measuring a wall in the same Apocalypse and dogmatizes upon it though he knows it is the obscurest and most mysticall part of Scripture and then thinks he hath play'd the man and that this rare proof is worthy to shut up finally the discourse against S. Peter's Supremacy and as himself confesses the most substantiall part of â—his Controversy now to his toyes He assures us Answ p. 71. that his answer cannot misse to have this discernable efficacy in it that there bâ—ing no more mean't by it then that Peter was a foundation stone and all the other Apostles being such as well as he this cannot constitute him in any Superiority over them c. I Reply first that pretended answer Misses of being an Answer to the place Tu es Petrus and is turn'd to be an argument from the foundation-stones in the Apocalyps Why did not he show that the particularizing circumstances in the objected place had noe force in them or were as congruously explicable some other way but in stead of doing so ramble as far as the Apocalypse ferrying over the question thither by the mediation of Homer and such another unconnected train of removalls as was vs'd once to prove that Cooper came from King Pipin His answer therefore hath mis't to be an answer at all to that place that is of being all it should bee Next how knows he no more is mean't by it than that S. Peter was a foundation-stone unles he can answer first the particularizing circumstances in the Text which entitle him to be a Rock after a particular manner or show that his contrary sence more genuinly emerges out of or a grees to the words there fouÌ„d Thirly that the other Apoâ—tles are such as well as S. Peter if by as well he means that the rest were so too 't is true but nothing against us who hold voluntarily that the Church was built upon all the Apostles but if by as well he means equally as hee ought this being the question between us then wee expect he should show us out of the words that this is equally probably their sence Till he show this our argument from the words makes still in his prejudice and is iustly presumed to constitute S. Peter in some higher degree a Rock then the rest were His reason against S. Peter's Superiority upon these Grounds is that Christ onâ—ly is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief corner-stone and no other place in the foundation gives any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of power to one foundation above another which he manifest's from the known position of foundation-stones one by not on the top of another Thus this Apocalypticall
Architect In answer first I ask him how he knows that this place in the Apocalypse was designed to signify the order of dignity amongst the things there specified which is in question or onely this that all the Apostles were foundations upon which the Church is built which is graunted till he manifest the former he can not pretend to deduce any thing from it against us Secondly 't is impossible to pâ—etend that it was design'd to prove any such order of dignity for it neither shows us which was the chief corner stone or that the chief corner-stone was higher bigger or more precious then the rest So that if the bringing no positive signe of an higher position prejudices S. Peter's Superiority it prejudices Christ also as much expressing noe peculiar eminency to the head corner-stone at all more than to the rest Thirdly the corner-stone signifying some eminency of power as appears by our Saviour's being call'd the head corner-stone and this wall being-four-square Apoc. 21. v. 16. it follows that there are other corners besid's that which is allow'd to our Saviour and consequently three chiefs in power over the rest of the Apostles which being against both our principles it is manifest that the order of dignity was not intended to be here signifyed and consequently the whole place is quite besides the Drs purpose and our question Fourthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being directly the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Dr. H. graÌ„ts and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in near three score places of Scripture taken for a Rock and so traÌ„slated by themselves and in particular in this very place in Controversie Mat. 16. v. 18. super hanc Petram upon this Rock c. although the other Apostles be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foundations yet since none of them is exprest to be a Rock but S. Peter onely nor that the Church is built on any of them els as on a Rock still he hath good title in all reason to bee in a more eminent notion a foundation-stone For the notion of a foundation-stone not coÌ„sisting in this that it rise higher that it be longer vpwards or shorter but that it bee unmoveable and the strongest bearer of the superstructure and a Rock in the Scripture being exprest to be the best for that purpose as appears Mat. 7. v. 24. 25. it follows that S. Peter was in a more eminent manner a foundation-stone and that the Church had a particular firmnes and immoveablenes in being built upon him yet the Dr. can imagin noe distinction amongst foundation-stones under that notion as long as they lye one by not on the top another So wise an Architect is the good man that he forgets that to bee in a higher degree a foundation-stone is to bee in a higher degree of firmnes but in a lower degree of position Thus Reader tho seest what advantage Dr. H. would gain should I delight to quible with him in his own and onely way But I am already weary of this wordish stuffe Next he undertakes to solve an argument which none objects but himself and 't is this that if S. â—eter be the first stone and soe Superiour then the next stone that is the second must needs be Superiour to all the rest c. Soe kinde an Adversary have I that he leav's untouch't the argumente from Tu es Petrus which he pretends in this very place to answer and in stead of doing so help 's me with an argument of his own coyning from the Apocalyâ—se not worth a straw ad then demolishes at pleasure and very easily what his own ayrie fancy had built But as I never made any such argumeÌ„t as this which he thrusts upon me so in that which I made Schism Disarm p. 103. from the Iasper stone I both exprest my self to do it for the Doctor 's sake and renounced all reliance upon it in these words that Catholicks who understand the Grounds of their faith sleight such poor supports as a self-fancied explication of the obscurest part of Scripture Schism Disarm p. 103. I objected that his argument was negative thus no distinction was put among the foundation-stones therefore there was none He answers that his conclusion onely not his proof was negative Therefore the words tu es Petrus neither give nor affirm more of him than is given and affirmed of every of the other Apostles Whereas first he neither made any such conclusion no not any conclusion at all against the Text Tu es Petrus as wee object it nor takâ—s notice of any particularizing circumstaÌ„ce in the whole place so full fraught with them much lesse concludes against them And secondly his wise proof which inferrs this worthy conclusion is no other than this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rock and foundation are the same As if there could not be foundation-stones less firm then a Rock and so lesse worthy the notion and name of a foundation or a thing fit to build on which if there be as common sense tells us then the notion of a Rock superadded to the bare notion of foundation and that within the limits of that common notion that is it signifies a thing in an higher degree apt to sustain the building or which is all one in a higher degree a foundation Next I objected that it was a most pittifull piece of ignorance to persuade the Reader from a plurality and naming twelve Apostles that all were equall He Answers p. 72. that that was not his reasoning but the rest of the Apostles were foundation stones as well as Simon and therefore that that title of tu es Petrus was not proof of inequality Thus the Dr. rowls the same stone still for to omit that he impugns not the Text Tu es Petrus as found in it's own place attended by a throng of manifestly particularizing circumstances but the bare word Petrus onely nor that neither according to it 's particular efficacitie as it signifies a Rok either the words as well as Simon mean that the other Apostles were foundations also and then he calumniates our tenet not impugns it since wee never deny'd but that each of them was such or els aswell signifies equally and then I would know whether he suppose it that is the whole question gratis or infer it or from what he can bee imagined to infer it there but from a plurality onely of the common appellation Neâ—ther could I wrong Dr. H's reasoning faculty in thinking so whose common custome it is all over to argue for an equality from a plurality and most expressely of Schism p. 87. l 2. 3. 4. 5. wheâ—e also he calls it an evidence and why he should not think the self same proof an evidence here as well as there or why he should omit it if he thought it such I confesse I was so dull as not to apprehende Thirdly I objected that he had quite overthrown his own cause since granting
his purpose And yet after all this calling this piece of midnight obscurity and his cimmerian proof thence an Evidence Of Schism p. 91. l. 22. His argument is this It bâ—ing there in vision apparent that the wall of the City id est of the Church being measured exactly and found to be 144 id est repeats the Dr. twelve times twelve cubits 't is evident that this mensuration assignes an equall proportion whether of power or Province to all and every of the Apostles the sence of which he repeats again here Answ p. 73. To show the ridiculousnes of this proof Schism Disarm p. 102. ask't him whether none of those precious stones which equally made up this wall be richer then the rest and why if it were so the inequality in richnes should not more argue an inequality in dignity and Authority amonst those who were represented by them than the equall bulk can argue an equality since the worth dignity value of precious stones is taken from their richnes and not from their bulk Next arguing against him in his owne way I inferr'd that since the first stone in this wall represented S. Peter as appeared by Dr. H's Grounds allowing that Apostle a Primacy of order and was there exprest to be a Iasper the same stone whose lustre shined in our Saviour Apoc. 4. 3. and also in his Church Apoc. 21. 11. it would have bene priz'd for a rare argument by Dr. H. were he in my case though sleighted by me that S. Peter onely having the same lustre with our Saviour was like him in representation and so he onely resembles him as his Vicegerent and Vicar As also that being the same stone the Church is made of and the first of all the rest that he is consequently the first part of the Church that is her head In answer to those first exceptions the Dr. sayes nothing at all and so is nothing punctuall in his promised attendance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he vindicates not his argument to be worth a rush for if the lustre richnes be more valuable and worthy in it's self and so more apt to expresse dignity than the bignes or bulk then the inequality of richnes is more significative of inequality of dignity than the equality of bulk is of an equality under the same notion of dignity nay more as he was told there being an equality in the bulk found amongst them all if there be found besides an inequality in richnes as there is amongst those stones every Lapidary and even common sence will inform us that an inequality in dignity is unavoidable But the good Dr. who at first thought his nice argument a rare busines seing it marr'd and all unravell'd as easily happens to such cobweb stuffe sees and acknowledges now that it was neither worth nor capable of repairing and so grew wise and let it alone hoping that his Readers would easily be perswaded that he had answered me perfectly and made good his argument if he did but tell him in the end of the Section that he had attended me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is a rare method of answering to make two litle pedaÌ„tick Greek words which a man would think had nothing in them stop such great holes In answer to that which concern's the Iasper stone he tells us first if we will beleeve him that iâ— is most proper to signify the lustre of zeal and other gifts But why it should be most properly significative of those he affords not the least attempt of any reason to oppose my contrary exceptions Next he tells me that he can allow me in this sence to make my aduantage of it And seing wee must have no other signification of that particular lustre nor yet know any reason why I shall take his allowance and make my advantage of it thus against him His Grounds made the coming of the Holy Ghost finally perform that is actually give Authority to the Apostles since then the Holy Ghost neither was nor can bee any otherwise in the hearts of the Apostles than by his gifts the allowing an advantage to S. Peter above the rest in those gifts is the allowing him an advantage over them in Authority according to the same Grounds Nor can he deny but that I have gained S. Peter this advantage if I make good my coÌ„ditions propos'd here by himself in which I shall finde no difficulty they being both tacitly granted already The first condition is that I must finde mean's to assure my self that S. Peter was signify'd by that Iasper-stone Is not this a sincere man and a pretty discourser who would have me finde a thing ere it bee lost I aâ—ready found that mean's he well knows in Schism Disarm p. 103. which he braggs here he attends on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that from his own words for the twelve foundation-stones he grants to be the twelve Apostles of Schism p. 91 Now then since himself in many places and particularly in that quoted by mee Schism Disarm p. 103 grants S. Peter a Primacy of order and Apoc. 21. 19. in the orderly recounting the stones the Iasper is mentioned to be the first in that order I see no possibility for Dr. H. to evade but S. Peter was mean't by the Iasper Himself saw the same also which made him soe shufflingly wary that in stead of replying to it which was likely to cost him no lesse than either the denying his own most expresse words or the most expresse words of Scripture he onely tells me gentily I must finde mean's to assure my self that S. Peter was signify'd by that Iasper-stone which he knew well I had already found nor were they ever lost to me by any Reply of his But in stead of invalidating that my assurance ad hominem he tells me I must finde them again the second time and this is the signification of that mungrell phrase to attend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is never to take notice of his Adversaries argument but bidding him find it or repeat it over again himself The second coÌ„dition is that I must finde mean's to assure myself that the lustre of the Iasper exceeded the lustre of every of the other stones This is another attendance of the same negligent strain as the former Schism Disarm p. 103. told him that the lustre of this stone shined in our Saviour Apoc. 4. 3. and also in his Church Apoc. 21. 11 In stead of answering which or giving any reason why our Saviour and his Church should bee represented by a lesse lustrous stone than the rest the sincere man onely bids me finde it again whereas it remains still visibly extant in it's originall integrity and untouch't yet by Dr. H. and so he knew well enough where to finde it himself without my showing him it did ever answerer so lazily attend his Adversary as Dr. H. does me yet if he still desire a reason of me I shall give him this
flat Schismaticks But if you say 't is the same you are reuinc't by the plain matter of fact nay by the most undeniable force of self-evident terms since no first Principle can bee more clear than the leaving to hold what your immediate forefathers held was not to continue to hold what was held by the same forefathers and that to disclame their doctrine and discipline was not to inherit it After hee had told us that the Church of England and the Church of Rome both maintaine this Rule of faith that is indeed a different thing but the same words hee immediately disgraces the said Rule by adding that the question onely is who have changed that doctrine or this discipline wee or they the one by substraction the other by addition Which is as much as to say the pretended Rule is noe Rule at all or else that wee do not agree in it which yet hee immediately before pretended for sure that Rule can bee no Rule to him that follows it and yet is misled as one of us must necessarily bee who according to him hold the same Rule and yet different doctrines Either then there is no Rule of faith at all or if there bee one of us must necessarily have receded from that Rule and proceeded upon another ere hee could embrace'an errour or differ from the other It being known then and acknowledg'd that wee hold now the same Rule as wee did immediately before their Reformation that is the Tradition of immediately forefathers it is evident out of the very word Reformation that they both renounced the said Rule and wee continue in it Next hee assures his Reader that the case is clear to wit that wee have changed that doctrine discipline by addition This hee proves by the wildest Topick that ever came from a rationall head Because the Apostles contracted this doctrine into a summary that is the creed and the ancient Church forbad to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession whereas wee now exact more What a piece of wit is here did ever Protestant hold that there is nothing of faith but the 12. Articles in that creed doe not they hold that the Procession of the Holy Ghost the Baptism of Infants the Sacraments c. are the Legacies of the Apostles and so of faith yet not found in that creed Is it not of faith with them that there is such a thing as God's words though it bee not in that creed How then follows it that they have changed Christ's doctrine by addition who hold more points than are in that creed of the Apostles may not wee by the same Logick accuse the Church at the time of the Nicene Council who prest the word Consubstantiall to distinguish Catholicks from Arians nay may not wee by the self-same argument charge his own Church for making pressing the profession of their 39. Articles in which are many things as hee wel knows not found nor pretended to bee found in the Apostles creed What an incomparable strain of weaknes is it then to conclude us to have changed Christ's doctrine by addition from our obliging to more points than are found in that creed whereas 't is evident and acknowledg'd that very many points were held anciently and ever which are not put there And what a self contradicting absurdity is it to alledge for a reason against us that which makes much more against their own every way overthrown Congregation It being then manifest that the Apostles creed contains not all that is of faith it follows that it was not instituted as such by them or receiv'd as such by the ancient Church Let us see then to what end it served and how it was used by them the ignorance whereof puts the Bp. upon all this absurdity which hee might partly have corrected had hee reflected on his owne words Baptismall profession It is prudence in a Church and in any Government whatever not to admit any to their Communion or suffer them to live amongst them till they have sufficient cognizāce that they are affected to them and not to their Enemies party Hence at their Baptism the solemnity which admits persons into the Church they proposed to them some such form of tenets which they therefore call'd a symboll or badge as might distinguish them from all the other sects rife at that time for some time the Apostles creed was sufficient for that and to difference a Christian from all others because at the time it was made the rest of the world was in a manner either Pagans or Iews Afterwards when other Adversaries of the Church that is Hereticks arose against points not found in that creed it was necessary upon occasion to enlarge that Profession of faith or symboll soe as to signify a detestation of or an aversion from that heresy Either then the Bp. must say that no new heresy shall or can arise against any point not found in the creed and then the Anabaptist is iustify'd and made a member of the Chimericall Geryon-Shap't Church of England or else hee must grant that the Church when such arise must make new Professions or symbolls to distinguish friends from those foes unles shee will admit promiscuously into her Bowells Adversaries for friends a thing able to destroy any Commonwealth either Ecclesiasticall or temporall This is evident out of naturall prudence yet this is that which my L d D. carps at that when new up start heresies had risen the Church should ordain such a Profession of faith and cōsisting of such points as may stop the entrance of such into the Church As then if the reformed Congregation were to baptize one now at age and so make him one of their company none can doubt but it were prudence in her had shee any Grounds to own herself to bee a Church to ask him such questions first as should manifest hee were not a Socinian Anabaptist or Papist but Protestant-like affected that is propose to him a Profession of faith larger than is that of the creed for each of those sects admits this and yet differs from the Protestant so it could not bee imprudent in our Church when new heresies arose who yet admitted the creed to propose some larger form of Profession which might discover the affection of the party lest perhaps shee might make a free denizon of her community an arrant Adversary who came in cloakt and unexamind to work her all the mischief hee could Yet this due examination before-hand the Bp. calls changing of faith by addition thus perpetually goes common sence to wrack when Protestant Drs goe about to iustify their Schism and to make the non-sence more pithy hee calls this a clear case that wee have thus offended by addition Again hee tells us to confirm this that the Generall Council of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession than the Apostles creed Which is first a very round
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
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—
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
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
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
these expressions if taken as falling from their mouths pens I conceive sound not over much of Moderation All the Moderation consists here that my Ld of Derry had a mind to break a good iest and assure us very Sadly p. 39. l. 7. that notwithstanding all this they forbear to censure us which signifies first that they do not censure at all whom they have already censured in the height as is manifest by their former expressions next that though they beleeve those former expressions to be true and that wee are indeed such that is though they hold us for such yet they do not censure us for such Awitty contradiction And lastly that though our Church erre in credendis contradict Scripture blasphemously perniciously in her doctrine nay though her all grounding Principles be flatt Errors and that she pertinaciously unrelentingly persist in those doctrines as she does nor is ever likely to change or retract them yet for all this she is not to be held as hereticall though this be the very definition of Heresie but as a true Church still nor is to be censured to be otherwise Good charitable non-sence Hee tells me first that hee speakes of forbearing to censure other Churches but I answer of communicating with them and that therefore I err from the purpose Yet himself six lines before so forgetfull he is quotes S. Cyprian for removing no man from our Communion c. And how they should refuse to communicate with any unles they first iudge him censure him to deserve to be avoided that is naught I must confess I know not Next hee tells us one may in some cases very lawfully communicate with materiall Idolaters Hereticks c. In pious offices though not in their Idolatry Heresie c. Thus we have lost the question Who for bids them to go to visit the sick with them or such like religious duties The question is whether they may communicate with them in any publike solemne act performable by Catholikes as they are subjects of such a common wealth from which the other is out law'd or performable by those others as belonging to a distinct sect Again this position of Moderation destroies all order Government both of Church state for by this out law'd persons may be traffick'r treated with so we joyn not with them in their rebellion and all the whole world heathens too may be of one Communion especially all Hereticks who all agree in some common Principle of Christianity with the rest The Bishop's Proviso makes all the world Brothers friends though one part should remain most obstinate enemies both to God his Church for still as long as this Principle holds of communicating with them in all things but their Errors God's Church shall become a courteous gallimafry of all the filth Hell Error could compound to deform her and wear in her externall face a motley mask of as many colours as there are sects in the world Perhaps Heathens too must make up a part of this Communion provided we abstain onely to communicate with them in their Idolatry Thus they who want Grounds to give nerves to their Government are forced to embrace a counterfeit Kind-heartednes and under that plausible vizard vent much refined perniciousnes as is able at once to ruin all sence reason order discipline Government common wealth Church Thirdly he tells us that the Orthodox Christians did sometimes communicate with the hereticall Arians By which you see he is a kind disposition to admit even those to his Communion who deny Christ's divinitie The Arians were known to cloak themselves so craftily in words that they could not for a long time be certainly discover'd nor is it any wonder that for a while Hereticks be tolerated untill they be both heard and a time of repentance be prescribed them Fourthly he tells us he hath shown how the Primitive Catholikes communicated with the Schismaticall Novatians in the same publike divine offices But he is so reserved as not to direct us where he hath shown this nor could an ordinary inquiry finde it out and in his p. 282. which place seems most proper for that discourse he onely names the word Novatians without proving any thing concerning them Now the Novatians were simply Schismaticks and transported onely by a too rigorous zeal to a disobedience to the Church in a formerly received practice with such as these it is lawfull to communicate till upon their contumacy the Church shall excommunicate them Again as long as Schismaticks those who are erroneous in faith are onely in via as we may say and not in termino and hardned into an obstinacy there is a prudentiall latitude allow'd by the Church delaying her censures as long as shee can possibly without wronging her Government as was de facto practised in England till the 10th of Q. Elizabeth But this is not enough to prove they were admitted into Communion because they were tolerated for a certain time while there was hope they would not be obstinate but would return the Apostle himself prescribing a time of triall before they are to be avoided upon necessitie But can my L d of Derry show a parallell to our case that any renounc't the former Rule of faith immediate Tradition of Ancestors the former Government and many other points recommendedy that Rule and obstinately persisted to disavow both reviling writing against excommunicating nay persecuting with loss of Estates and often times of life the professors of the thus renounced faith Government can he show I say that such were ever admitted by the Church into Communion unles he can show this he beats the Air for this onely comes to our point S. Cyprian's case reaches not hither he had no reason to remove any from his Communion since he was in the wrong nor could hee possibly see with evidence that the immediate Tradition of all those Churches with whom hee communicated did avouch his tenet for hee was the man that brought in the noveltie your renouncing the former Rule of faith immediate delivery of fore fathers and the former Government with many other points recommended by that Rule is most evident nay confest avouched still maintain'd by your own obstinate selves Fifthly hee told us that the Catholikes call'd the Donatists their brethren I answer so are Catholikes bound to call the Protestants now nay Turks Heathens and in generall all men who are yet in a capacite to attain beatitude that is all but the damned in hell who are eternally hardned in enmitie against God S. Peter Art 3. v. 17. call'd the Iews who crucyfy'd Christ his Brethren yet never meant by that appellation that they were good Christians Sixthly he objects that the Donatists proceeding upon my Principle would not acknowledge the Catholikes their Brethren And what is this Principle of mine 'T is this as put down here by himself that a man cannot say his own religion is true but he must say
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
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
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
our charge of their Schismaticall breach is will winnow them the Rule of faith the voice of the Church or immediate Tradition will winnow or rather Christ hath winnow'd them by it having already told them that if they hear not the Church they are to be esteemed no better than Heathens Publicans Since then 't is evident out of the terms that you heard not the Church for your nâ—w fangled Reformations nor Ground those tenets upon the voice of the Church nay according to your Grounds have left no Church nor common suprem Government in the Church to hear it follows that you have indeed winnow'd your selves from amongst the wheat of Christians and are as perfect chaff I mean those who have voluntarily broken Church Communion as Publicans Heathens Now to show how empty a brag it is that they hold Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee to omit their no Communion in Government already spoken of Sect. 6. let us see what Communion they have with the Greek Church in tenets by the numerosity of which they hope for great advantages and whether the Protestants or wee approach nearer them in more points held equally by both I will collect therefore out of one of their own side Alexander Ross the tenets of the present Greek Church in which they agree with us though in his manner of expressing our tenet hee sometimes wrongs us both The Greeks place saith hee much of their deuotion in the worship of the Virgin Mary and of painted Images in the intercession prayers help and merits of the saints which they invocate in their Temples They place Iustification not in faith but in works The sacrifice of the Mass is used for the quick and the dead They beleeve there is a third place between that of the blessed and the damned where they remain who deferr'd repentance till the end of their life If this place bee not Purgatory adds Ross I know not what it is nor what the souls do there View of all Religions p. 489. And afterwards p. 490. They beleeve that the souls of the dead are better'd by the prayers of the living They are no less for the Churches Authority and Traditions than Roman Catholikes bee when the Sacrament is carried through the Temple the People by bowing themselves adore it and falling on their knees kiss the earth In all these main points if candidly represented they agree with us and differ from Protestants Other things hee mentions indeed in which they differ from us both as in denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost not using Confirmation observing the Iewish Sabbath with the L d' s day c. As also some practises not touching faith in which they hold with the Protestants not with us as in administring the Sacrament in both kinds using leauened bread in the Sacrament Priests marriage there is no one point produced by him which our Church looks upon as a point of faith in which they dissent from us and consent with the Protestants except that one of denying the Pope's Supremacy for their onely not using Extreme-Vnction which hee intimates signifies not that they hold it unlawfull or deny it Iudge then candid Protestant Reader of they Bp ' s sincerity who brags of his holding Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do whereas if wee come to examin particulars they neither communicate in one common Government one common Rule of faith if wee may trust this Authour of their own side since if the Greeks hold the Authority of the Church and Traditions as much as Catholikes do as hee sayes they must hold it as their Rule of faith for so Catholikes hold it nor yet in any one materiall point in opposition to us save onely in denying the Pope's Supremacy And how more moderate they are even in this than the greatest part of if not all Protestants may bee learned from the Bp ' s mistaken testimony at the end of this Section as also from Nilus an avowed writer of theirs for the Greek Church against the Latine and one of the gravest Bp ' s and Authours of that party who shuts up his book concerning the Pope's Primacy in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The summe is this As long as the Pope preserves order and stands with truth hee is not removed from the first and his proper Principality and hee is the Head of the Church and chief Bishop and the successour of Peter and of the rest of the Apostles and it behooves all men to obey him and there is nothing which can detract from the honour due to him but if when hee hath once strayed from the Truth hee will not return to it hee will bee liable to the punishment of the damned Where the Reader will easily judge whether the former words sound more incliningly to the Catholike or the Protestant tenet and as for the latter words But if c. There is no Catholike but will say the same Thus much then for my L d of Derry's Communion with the Eastern Church And as for his Communion with the Southern Northern Western Churches which hee thunders out so boldly as if all the world were on his side and of his Religion if examin'd 't is no better than the former sence his side denies immediate Tradition of forefathers or the living voice of the present Church to bee the Rule of faith which is to the Roman Church the fundamentall of fundamentalls Nor has hee any other Rule of faith that is a plain and certain method of interpreting Scripture common to him and his weakly relâ—ted Brethren so that if they hit sometimes in some points 't is but as the Planets whichare ever wandring hap now and then to have conjunctions which hold not long but pursving their unconstant course decline and vary from one another by degrees and are at length crost by diacentricall oppositions The rest of this paragraph insists again upon his often answer'd saying that the creed contains all necessary points which is grounded onely upon his falsifying the Council of Ephesus as hath been shown heretofore To my many former replies vnto this pretence I add onely this that either it is a necessary point to believe there is such a thing as God's written word or the Scripture or not If not then why do the Protestants challenge it for their Rule of faith Is not the Ground of all faith a necessary point But if it bee a necessary point then all necessary points are not in the Apostles creed for there is no news there of the Scripture nor is it known how much thereof was written when the Apostles made their creed what hee adds of our having chaÌ„ged from our Ancestors in opinions either hee means by opinions points of faith held so by us and then 't is calumny and is to be solidly proued not barely said But if hee mean School opinions what hurt is done that those things should be changed which are in their
in that Council and yet bee a lawfull one too Rub up your memory my L d. you pretend to bee a piece of a Lawyer and I beleeve you will finde an English law that Sixty members is a sufficient number to make a lawfull Parliament and before that law was made common consent custome which is either equivalent or perhaps above law gave the same for granted Fourthly he excepts against the super proportion'd multitude of members out of one Province which hee sayes never lawfull Parliament had I ask if other Provinces would neither send a fit number nor they had a minde to come by what law by what reason should it render illegitimate either Parliament or Council Now 't is certain and not deny'd by any but that Bishop's had as free liberty to come out of other Provinces as out of Italy had they pleased Again the principall busines being to testify the Tradition of former ages a small number of Bishops serving for that and the collaterall or secundary busines being to examin the difficulties those Hereticks which were the occasion of the Council produced that they might be confuted fully out of their own mouthes which is a thing to bee performed by committees in which learned men that were not Bishops might sit it little inferred the want of Bishops Wherefore if there were any error in the supernumerarines of Bishops out of some one Province it was for some other end than for the condemnation of Heresies so is nothing to our purpose unles perhaps my L d will pretend that had those Catholike B p' s out of other Provinces been there they would have voted against their fellow Catholikes in behalf of Luther or Calvin which were a wise Answer indeed Fifthly hee excepts that the Council of Trent is not received in France in point of Discipline What then why by his parallell to a Parliament hee concludes hence t was no lawfull Council Which is to abuse the eyes of the whole world who all see that France who denies the admission of those points of Discipline acknowledges it not withstanding a generall lawfull Council and receives it in all determinations belonging to faith which are so essential to it as it were disacknowledg'd were they deny'd though not in matters of fact which are accidentall to it's Authority nay allow'd by the Church it self however made exprest generally to binde particular countries onely in due circumstances according to their conveniencies Lastly hee alledges that they were not allow'd to speak freely in the Council of Trent Which is a flat calumny and though most important to his cause could hee prove it yet after his bold custome 't is onely asserted by his own bare saying by Sleidan a notoriously lying Author of their own side and by a passage or two in the History of the Council of Trent whereof the first is onely a ieering expression any thing will serve the B p. the other concerning the Pope's creating new Bp's nothing at all to his purpose since both these new the other old B p' s were all of one Religion Catholikes so not likely to dissent in voâ—ing Doctrines which kind of votes are essentiall to a Council pertinent to our discourse which is about Doctrines not about Discipline After this hee puts down three solutions as hee calls them to our plea of the Patriarchall Authority First that Britain was no part of the Roman Patriarchate And this hee calls his first solution Secondly that though it had been yet the Popes have both quitted forfeited their Patriarchall power and though they had not yet it is lawfully transferred And this is his second solution The third is that the difference between them and us is not concerning any Patriarchall Authority And this is his third solution which is a very really good one shows that the other need no reply our charge against them being for renouncing the supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority of divine Institution not a Patriarchate onely of humane Institution If further answer bee demanded first the Greek Schismaticks our enemies confess that England was a part of the Pope's Patriarchate if it bee truly called a Western Church see Barlaam Monachus de Papae Principatu c. 11 and Part. 1. Sect. 15. of the adjoyning Treatise Next it is falsely pretended that the Pope's have either quitted or forfeited their Patriarchall Authority and may with equall reason bee concluded that a Bishop quits Episcopall Authority if hee is also a Patriarch or that a person must leave of to be Master of his own family because hee is made King and his Authority universally extended to all England Which last instance may also serve against the pretended inconsistency of the Papall and Patriarchall power if it need any more answer than what hath formerly been given Sect. 4. I omit his calumnies against the Papall Authority charactering it falsly as a meere unbridled tyranny And his thrice repeated non-sence when hee joyns in one notion Patriarchall Authority a Patriarchy being a Government by one an Aristocracy by many Nor is his other calumniating expression much better when hee calls the Papall Authority a Soveraign Monarchicall Royalty since it was never pretended by Catholikes that the Pope is the King of the Church The notion of Priest and Sacrifice being relative the failing of the one destroyes the other since then the Protestants have no Sacrifice they are convinced to have no Priests This point in particular hee never touch't but talk't a little in obscure terms of matter form of ordination as if it were not an easy thing to say what words they pleased and do what actions they pleased To this the Bishop onely replies that hee over did and set down the point of Sacrifice over distinctly Next hee tells us their Registers are publike offices whether any man may repair at pleasure whereas our question is not of the Registers in generall but of that one particular pretended Register of the right ordination of Protestant Bishops kept conceal'd from the free perusall of Catholikes though the circumstances to wit their alledging the unlawfulnes of the Protestant Bishops ordination requir'd it should bee shown His next paragraph concerning their uncharitablenes needs not bee repeated unles it could be mended My expedient to procure peace Vnity which was to receive the root of Christianity a practicall infallibility in the Church hee seems willing to admit of Onely hee adds that the greater difficulty will bee what this Catholike Church is and indeed to his party 't is an insuperableone though to us most facil as I have shown formerly Sect. 7. Hee call'd the Bishops of Italy the Pope's parasiticall pentioners I reply'd it seem'd his Lordship Kept a good table and had great revenews independent on any Hee answers hee was not in passion and that hee Spoke onely against meer Episcopelles which is to show that his passion is nothing abated yet by adding such unsavory
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
Rome would make which more more evidences that the acknowledgment of the Popes iust power was retained by the Greeks and encroachments upon their Liberties onely deny'd which the French Church intended to imitate Now 〈◊〉 cannot bee pretended with any shame that Gerson and the french Church mean't to disacknowledge the Pope's iust power as Head of the Church nor will Gersons words even now cited let it bee pretended for then without any perhaps not onely some as hee doubts but all in the Court of Rome would most certainly have contradicted it Their consideration then being parallell to that of the Greeks as the Bp. grants it follow'd that they acknowledg'd the Pope's Authority though they passively remain'd separate rather than humour a demand which they deem'd irrationall Thus the Bishop first cited a testimony against himself as was shown in Schism Disarm'd and would excuse it by bringing three or four proofs each of which is against himself also so that as hee begun like a Bowler hee ends like one of those Artificers who going to mend one hole use to make other three THE CONCLVSION The Controuersy between us is rationally and plainly summ'd up in these few Aphorisms 1. THat whatsoever the Extent of the Pope's Authority bee or bee not yet 't is cl ar that all Roman-Catholikes that is all Communicants with the Church of Rome or Papists as they call them hold the substance of the Pope's Authority that is hold the Pope to bee Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour in God's Church This is euident out of the very terms since to acknowledge the Papall Authority is to bee a Papist or a Communicant with the Church of Rome 2. The holding or acknowledging this Authority is to all that hold it that is to the whole Church of Rome or to all those particular Churches united with Rome a Principle of Vnity of Government This is plain likewise out of the terms since an acknowledgment of one Supreme Governour either in Secular or Spirituall affairs is the Ground which establishes those acknowledgers in submission to that one Government that is 't is to them a Principle of Vnity in Government 3. 'T is euident and acknowledg'd that whateuer some Catholikes hold besides or not hold yet all those Churches in Communion with the Churches of Rome hold firmly that whatsoever the living voice of the present Church that is of Pastours and Fathers of Famâ—lies shall unanimously conspire to teach and deliuer Learners and Children to have been recieued from their immediate fathers as taught by Christ and his Apostles is to bee undoubtedly held as indeed taught by them that is is to bee held as a point of faith and that the voice of the present Church thus deliuering is infallible that is that this deliuery from immediate forefathers as from theirs as from Christ is an infallible and certain Rule of faith that is is a Principle of Vnity in faith This to bee the tenet of all these Churches in Communion with Rome both sides acknowledge and is Evident hence that the Body made up of these Churches ever cast out from themselves all that did innouate against this tenure 4. 'T is manifest that all the Churches in Communion with Rome equally held at the time of the Protestant Reformation in K. Henry's dayes these two Principles as they do now that is the substance of the Pope's Authority or that hee is Supreme in God's Church and that the living voice of the present Church delivering as aboue said is the infallible Rule of faith This is manifested by our Aduersaries impugning the former Churches as holding Tradition and the Pope's Headship nor was it ever pretended by Friend or Foe that either those Churches held not those tenets then or that they have renounc't them since 5. The Church of England immediately before the Reformation was one of those Churches which held Communion with Rome as all the world grants and consequently held with the rest these two former tenets prou'd to have been the Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government 6. That Body of Christians or that Christian Common-wealth consisting of the then-Church of England and other Churches in Communion with Rome holding Christ's law upon the sayd tenure of immediate Tradition and submitting to the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of the Pope was a true and reall Church This is manifest by our very Adversaries acknowledgment who grant the now Church of Rome even without their Church to bee a true and reall one though holding the same Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government 7. That Body consisting of the then Church of England and her other fellow communicants with Rome was united or made one by means of these two Principles of Vnity For the undoubted acknowledgment of one common Rule of faith to bee certain is in it's own nature apt to unite those acknowledger's in faith that is to unite them as faithfull and consequently in all other actions springing from faith And the undoubted acknowledgment of one Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour gave these acknowledgers an Ecclesiasticall Vnity or Church-communion under the notion of Governed or subjects of an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth Now nothing can more neerly touch a Church than the Rules of faith and Government especially if the Government bee of faith and recieved upon it's Rule Seeing then these principles gave them some Vnity and Communion as Faithfull and as belonging to an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth it must necessarily bee Church Vnity and Comunion which it gave them 8. The Protestant Reformers renoun'ct both these Principles This is undeniably evident since they left of to hold the Popes Supreme power to act in Ecclesiasticall affairs and also to hold diverse points which the former Church immediately before the breach had recieved from immediate Pastours fathers as from Christ 9. Hence follows unavoidably that those Reformers in renouncing those two Principles did the fact of breaking Church Communion or Schismatizing This is demonstrably consequent from the two last Paragraphs where 't is proved that those two Principles made Church Communion that is caused Vnity in that Body which themselves acknowledge a true Church as also that they renounced or broke those Principles therefore they broke that which united the Church therefore they broke the Vnity of the Church or Schismatiz'd 10. This renouncing those two Principles of Ecclesiasticall Communion prou'd to have been an actuall breach of Church Vnity was antecedent to the Pope's excommunicating the Protestants and his commanding Catholikes to abstain from their Communion This is known and acknowledg'd by all the world nor till they were Protestants by renouncing those Principles could they bee excommunicated as Protestants 11. This actuall breach of Church Vnity in K. Henry's E d the 6th's and the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign could not bee imputable to the subsequent Excommunication as to it's cause 'T is plain since the effect cannot bee before the cause 12. Those subsequent Excommunications caused not the actuall breach or