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
broke from the former Church consisting of those Churches thus united according to the Essentialls and fundamentalls of a Church Now then after all this as evident as that two ad three make five to wave answering this true charge that they broke by this double dissent from all those Churches and to make as though they separated from the Court of Rome onely and to defend themselves as breaking onely from that Court is to say that none hold those two Principles but onely the Court of Rome which to speak moderately is perfect Impudence the most proper and characteristicall expression of this Bp's manner of writing but the blame is mine for had I perform'd those two powerfull conditions the Bishop had not thus â—huffled of the true charge nor avoided thus the whole question I shall desire the Reader to consider once again the true charge for otherwise it is impossible hee should iudge of the sufficiency or insufficiency of their Grounds for separation as likewise to reflect that though hee pretend here they had sufficient Grounds yet hee thinks it not safe to speak out to the point as I urged him heretofore nor tell us whether those Grounds of his exceptions bee demonstrative that is apt to infer with absolute necessity therefore the Authority was an vsurpation and not come from Christ or though come from Christ yet for those reasons to bee rejected nor dares hee confess that they are onely probable yet sufficient For if probable reasons were sufficient to abolish an Authority as an vsurpation held till those reasons appear'd to have been of Christ's Institution what Government in the world could stand Nor lastly that there is a middle sort of proof between demonstration and Probability that is above a may bee yet below a must bee which can convince sufficiently the understanding and oblige it to an assent contrary to it's former faith These points are of too hard digestion for verb â—ll souls and come so neer the first Principles that they would quickly end this and all Controversies should they come to bee perfectly scann'd Wherefore as before hee totally omitted to answer those words of mine which prest him to declare himself in that point so here constant to his Principles hee absolutely declines to inform us what kinde of proofs they must bee onely hee calls them Grounds sayes they are just and sufficient His pretended Grounds I reduce to three generall Heads some of them entrench upon Eternity conscience some urge onely temporall inconveniences Lastly some are of a middle nature and pretend to more knowledge of Right Those of the first sort are all meer falshoods and calumnies and equally competent for any Heretick in the world to object against the Church in a like occasion that is are no wayes proper or serviceable to his cause For may not any Heretick voluntarily object that the Church impos'd new Articles of faith upon him when hee had a mind to beleeve or hold nothing of faith but what agreed with his own fancy Might not hee complain of new creeds impos'd when the Church upon occasion of new emergent heresies added to her publick Professions some points of faith held so formerly which might distinguish her old friends from up start foes Might not hee complain of Perill of Idolatry as your Brother Puritans did for surplisses and your reform'd Communion-table when hee had a mind to deny that Christ was more than a man as did the Arians or to renounce any decent or rationall practice in God's Church might not hee pretend that all Hereticks and Schismaticks in the world were good Christians and that the Church was tyrannicall in holding them for excommunicate Might not hee shuffle together faith with opinions and alledge falsly as you doe here you were forced to approve the Pope's rebellion against generall Councils and taking Oaths to maintain vsurpation of the Pope whenas you know and confess your self one may bee of our Church and yet neither hold the Pope above the Council nor accept of such Oaths Iust vindic p. 200. Again all these Exceptions you produce are the very points you pretend to dispute against us wherefore it depends upon the goodnes of your reasons whether those Articles pretended to bee new were indeed such and endangering Idolatry or no in iudging which concerning points Fancy must bee allow'd to pass no verdict onely rigour of reason that is demonstration can bee presumed sufficient to render points held formely by themselves and their immediate forefathers as of faith sacred and Christ's doctrine to bee obnoxious to Exceptions of new false and Idolatrous Yet nothing is more evident than that you have no such reasons for our Drs have vindicated these very points against your Reformers in such a manner that to speak much within compass the unpassionate part of the world never imagin'd you have carried the cause clearly and conclucluded decisively against us which is an Evidence that you have not evidenced against us nor demonstrated the counter Authority upon which you build your contrary tenet To omit that the Evidence of our Churches Authority hath been pretended by our late Controvertists and as yet unreply'd upon by your party nay that your own best writers confess you have nothing but proâ—ability wheron to Ground your faith All which shows the vanity of your pretended fear of Idolatry and new points of faith and coÌ„cludes your breach temerarious and irrationall And as for your fear of separating from the Communion of three parts of that which you call Christendome it shall bee shown hereafter Sect. 10 from your own side that you had ten times more Communion even with that in materiall points when you were in our Church than you can pretend to have had since His second sort of Grounds are those which relate to temporall inconveniences and injuries to the civill state by reason of the Pope's pretended encroachments against all which hee hath told us before p. 21. that diverse Catholike countries have laws in force that is that men may remain Catholiks without holding nay resisting those pretended encroachments and tells us here p. 36. that al other Catholike countries maintain their priviledges inviolated Yet these pretended inconveniences hee huddles together in big terms and puts them for a ground of their separation from our Church in which Church yet hee confesses they might have continued still in union and have stood out against them Now whether many of these were Abuses or just Rights hee knows is disputable between canoÌ„ and civil Lawyers of which kinde of CoÌ„troversy I neither think my self nor the Bp. a competent iudge since this kind of learning is not our proper profession Yet hee will needs have mee engage into such questions nothing concerning our present quarell which is about a point of faith not a point of law Our question is whether these Exceptions of his were sufficient Grounds of renouncing the Authority it self and separating from the former Church That they
according to their Grounds can be sayd to pray for us at all in particular on Good friday or for our conversion as he forget-full of his own tenet affirms Their prayer is this Mercifull god who hast made all men and hatest nothing that thou hast made nor wouldest the death of a Sinner but rather that he should be converted and live have mercy upon all Iews Turks Infidells and Hereticks c. Fetch them home to thy flock that they may be saved c. I ask now under which of these heads does he place Papists when he pretends their cōversion is here pray'd for in particular Vnder that of Hereticks How can this stand with his Principles who acknowledges ours a true Church that is not hereticall and lately told us as a point of his Churches Moderation that she forbears to censure others Again they grant us to be of Christ's flock already in a capacy to be saved whereas those they pray for here are supposed reducible to Christ's flock that is not yet of it and by being thus reduced capable of Salvation that is incapable of it before they be thus reduced none of these therefore are competent to us nor are we prayed for there as Hereticks if his own Grounds his own pretended Moderation are to be held to by himself Much less will he say we are pray'd for there under the notion of Iews Turcks or Infidels for this were to censure us worse nor was ever pretended by Protestants It follows then that our conversion in particular is not there pray'd for at all but that there is such a pittifull dissonancy between the pretended Church of England's doctrine her practice that her greatest Bp's Doctors cannot make sence of one related to the other Nay more since hee culls out this Good friday prayer for the speciall externall work of their charity towards us and that this cannot concern us at all without a self contradiction it follows that their other externall works argue no charity at all towards us And this is the great inward charity the Bp. brags of as a proof of their due Moderation He adds that we excommunicate them once a year that is the day before Good-friday I reply that to expect a Church should not excommunicate those whom she holds to be Schismaticks and Hereticks is at once to be ignorant of the Churches constant practice and the common Principles of Government It being equally evident that the Church in all ages tooke this course with obstinate Adversaries of faith as it is that Society in the world can subsist without putting a distinction and separating avowed enemies and Rebels from true subjets friends If then they hold us Hereticks and unles they hold us such they do not pray for us in particular as is pretended they ought in all reason to excommunicate as indeed sometimes they did some particular Catholikes in their Churches though not all our Church in generall their new started congregation was conscious to herself that she had no such Authority which made her also instead of those words in our Good-friday prayer ad sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam revocare digneris recall them to our holy Mother the Catholike Apostolike Church vary the grave and too authoritative phrase too loud alas for her as taken in contra distinction to us into that dwindling puling puritanicall expressions of one flock the rem nant of the true Israelites one fold under one Shepheard c. equally pretendable if taken alone by Quakers as by them since they include no visible Marks in their notion which can satisfy us of any distinction between the one the other The third proof of their Moderation is that they added nothing but took away onely from the former doctrines of the Church which he expresses by saying they pluck up the weeds but retain all the plants of saving truths I answer'd that to take away goodnes is the greatest evill c. He replies that he spake of taking away errors No my L d this was not the intent of your discourse there both because you pretended there to prove something whereas I conceive to rely on onely the cheap saying that all is erroneous you tooke away proves nothing but is a meere self supposition as also because it is not a proof of Moderation to take away errors but a rigorously requisite act of Iustice Your intent then was to show the Moderation in your method of proceeding which you pretended all the way long to have been that you added no new thing but onely took away something of the old This I glanc't at as a fond and idle pretence since till you prove evidently and demonstrably from your new Rule of faith that the former of immediate Tradition which asserted those points denied by you did there in erre the presumption stands against you that it was Christ's doctrine which you maimed by thus detracting from it or if you suppose gratis that 't was not Christ's doctrine but errors falshoods then it is not proper to call it Moderation but rather an act of necessary charity to root it out I know it is an easy matter to call all weeds which your nice stomachs cannot digest but if that point of immediate Tradition renounced by you which onely could ascertain us that there was any such thing as Christ or God's word be a weed I wonder what can deserve to be called a flower What he vapours of holding what the primitive fathers iudged necessary and now Catholike Church does is an emptie brag vanishes into smoak by it self since as shall shortly bee shown their Grounds can never determin what is the Catholike or universall Church In order to the same proof of his Moderation I likewise answered that he who positively denies ever adds the contrary to what he takes away and that he who makes it an Article that there is no Purgatory no mass no prayer to Saints has as many Articles as he who holds the contrary He replies that he knows the contrary instancing that they neither hold it an Article of faith that there is a Purgatory nor that there is none I ask what kinde of things are their thirty nine Articles Are they of faith or opinions onely I conceive his Lp. will not say they are meere opinions but contra-distinctive of the Protestant faith from ours at least the good simple Ministers were made beleeve so when they swore to maintain them and unles they had certainty as strongly grounded as divine beleef for those points or Articles how could they in reason reject the cōtrary tenets which they held by divine beleef Now the 22. Article defines the negative to Purgatory three other points of our doctrine yet this ill-tutour'd Child tells his old crasy mother the Church of England that she lies that he knows the contrary Now his reason is better then his position 't is this because a negative cannot be
make use of the same method and every time I name them Schismaticks or their sect Schism feign that I say they call themselves so he might by this art make S. W. a monstrous lyer if the Reader were so monstrously silly as to believe him In the next place I must needs Answ p. 13. misunderstand the nature and ayme of the Churche's censures because I tell them They should rather threaten their Desertours with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication than cry so loud Not guilty when the lash hath been so long upon their own shoulders since he sayes a Schism arm'd with migâ—t is not either in prudence or charity to be contended with Whereas I pretend not that they ought to execute the punishments subsequent to Excommunication but to separate themselves had they any Grounds to make it good that they were God's Church from Schismaticks and avoid their Communion in Etern actions belonging to God's worship as God's Church ever accustomed not â—caring to denounce and preach to them in plain terms that they are Schismaticks and cut off from the Church Neither is this against Charity since Schism being such an hainous and damnable sin Charity avouches nay makes it an obligation to manifest Schismaticks to be such that they who have faln may apprehend the sâ—d state they are in and thence take occasion to arise and they who stand may beware of falling into that dangerous gulf which once open'd the earth to swallow Core Dathan and Abiron Nor is it against prudence since every one knows the permitting the weaker sort to communâ—cate with enemies in those very circumstances which may endanger them is the onely way to ruine any Government either Spiritual or Temporal At least why should they not dare had they Grounds to bear them out to do the same as the Catholicks did during the time of their greatest persecution under the Protestant Government that is let them be known to be Schismaticks and make the people abstain in divine matters from their contagious Communion But the confest uncertainty of their Faith makes them squeamish to assume to themselves any such Authority and therefore they are forced by their very Grounds when their Secular Power is gone to turn discipline into courtesy in matters of Government as they do in controversy turn zeal into civility and complement When he talks here piously of the Romanists sanguin try method sure he hath forgotten that ever Priests were hang'd drawn and quarter'd for their Faith at Tiburn and all over England in the time of their cruel Reign or if he remembers it he thinks to make us amends by preaching like a Saint of their meekness of edification and the more tragically-pittifull expressions of lamenting the ruptures of the Christian world which themselves have made with rivers of teares of bloud Answ p. 13. The next Section begins with the rehearsal of my reason why no colourable pretence can be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them which I exprest thus For that we prest them to believe false fundamentals Dr. H. and his Friends will not say since they acknowledge ours a true Church which is inconsistent with such a lapse They were therefore in their opinion things tolerable which were urged upon them and if not in the same rank yet more deserving the Church should command their observance than Copes or Surplices or the book of Common Prayer the allowance whereof they prest upon their Quondam brethen Which words though as moderately and modestly expressing the matter as could be invented yet the Reader shall see what a character the Doctors peevish zeal hath set upon them to wit that Answ p. 14. there are in them too many variations from the Rules of sober discourse so many indications of S. W. his temper that it will not be easy to enumerate them It shall be seen presently whether the Doctors Discourse or mine went a rambling when we writ The tenour of my Argument ad hominem was this The falsities which you pretend we prest upon you were either acknowledged by you to have been fundamental or not-fundamental that is tolerable that you acknowledg'd them fundamental you will not say since falsity in a fundamental ruines the essence of a Church which yet you grant ours to have therefore they were according to you not-fundamental or tolerable yet such kind of not-fundamental points as were more importing to be prest upon you by us than Copes or Surplices which you prest upon them therefore you can alledge no reason why you left us but they may alledge the same or a greater why they left you This evidently is the sense of my words to any man who can understand common reason and the answer to them ought to be a manifesting-some solid motive why they left us which the other Sects cannot with better right defend themselves with why they left the Protestants Let us hear now whether the Doctors discoursive power were sober when he reel'd into such an answer First he willfully puts a wrong meaning upon those words false Fundamentals as if by them I meant things which we onely not they hold for Fundamentals and then overthrows me most powerfully by showing as he easily might that he and his Friends say not but that we prest them to believe false Fundamentals in this sense that is such things as we held Fundamentals whereas 't is plain by my arguing ad hominem all the way as also by those words they will not say they acknowledge ours a true Church in their opinion c. that I meant such points as they accounted Fundamentals And when he hath thus voluntarily mistaken me he tailes against me that I affirm things without the least shadow and ground of truth and that I play foul play The Reader will quickly discern how meanly Dr. H. is skill'd in the game of reason though in that of citations where he can both shuffle and cut that is both alledge and explicate them with Id ests as he pleases he can pack the cards handsomly and show more crafty tricks than ever did Hocus Pocus And if any after all this can think I have wrong'd Mr. H. in affirming he is a weak reasoner himself shall ber ample testimony to this truth in the following Paragraph He slily touches at my true meaning of Fundamentals there and tells us that false Fundamentals is a contradiction in adjecto Grant it who ever affirmed that Fundamentals could be false my words were onely that Dr. H. and his Friends would not say that our Church prest them to believe false Fundamentals Is it any wrong to them or foule play in S. W. to affirm that Dr. H. and his Friends will not speak a contradiction Himself such is his humility sayes it is affirming here that when S. W. undertakes for him and his Friends that they will not say that the Romanists have prest them to
this present controversy as Schismatical yet Dr. H's great reach of wit can by the way and within a Parenthesis make such a dolt of S. W. His proof from my words is better then the supposiâ—ion it self I said our Church could cast them out and deny them communion if they be found to deserve it being then her Subjects and Children Actually they were under her at that time if then they could alledge just that is evident reasons why they thought her Government an usurpation then they did not deserve it and so she could not excommunicate them if they did not and yet would subtract themselves from her obedience then they deserv'd it and were justly excommunicated Can any man doubt of this or impose such a piece of known non-sense as his former deduction out of it is upon another unless possess 't with Dr. H's want of ingenuity yet this he repeats again p. 21. and calls his own straining at a gnat my swallowing down the question at one haust Now let us examin my words which breed his scruple they are these as cited in the Marge by himself That our Church could cast you out if you be found to deserve it being then her Subjects and Children none doubts Here I ask first whether he can shew that I speak of any interiour or legal Authority which if he cannot 't is a plain imposture to father upon me the word legal as he does in this place Secondly I demand whether any Protestant or Dr. H. himself doubts whether there was an extern apparent and acknowledged Authority the which for being such was to be obeyed until it was disproved in the Church of Rome over the pretended Reformers This being acknowledged I ask what it is he excepts against That such an Authority could not proceed against her esteemed Subiects if they deserv'd it for this is all my words signify'd and is so plain of it self that no man that hath any common sense can make difficulty of it He tells us p. 19. that the questions is equally and indifferently whether they or the Romanists be guilty of Schism including also the remorseless Governours in the Romish See Where he quite mistakes the business his meaning as I perceive by his whole procedure and particularly p. 22. where he sayes that the Pope ought to clear his title to his pretended power is that we should be mutually counter-opponent and counter-defendants and each produce proofs ere we can claim any thing But he is in a gâ—eat errour we need no new proofs to convince the lawfulness of our Authority our plea is provided to our hand before they opposed us and started the question Possession is all the proofs we need bring and such a possession as had to strengthen it an universal belief that it came from Christ's time grounded upon the certainty of Oral Tradition so that we made no question of it it was a point of our Faith and therefore need produce no proofs for our affirmative whereas they who first question'd this before-unquestionable and reâ—ected this before-received Authority must bring reasons why they did so and proofs why they deemed it usurp't The question therefore in this preâ—ent debate devolves to this whether the proofs Dr. H. produces be convincingly evident against a possession so qualify'd as is before declared if they fall short of that force eo ipso he and his Friends are concluded Schismaticks for relinquishing without just motives an Authority whose possession is justly presumable to have come from Christ if they be perfect Evidences then they are excusable and in their excusableness is terminated the controversy in hand if we may trust the title of his book which is A Defence against the exceptâ—on of the Romanists or his own stating the questâ—on of Schism p. 11. from which he here prevaricates p. 19. What follows further out of their excusableness against us that is whether we were unjust usupers tyrannical c. is another question for which sequel I would not contend with them if the premisses could be possibly evinced However if we usurp't it was not lately but a thousand years agoe But that our Church shall in that case be schismatical as he here sayes that expression comes out from the mouths and pens of his Friends so weakly and faintly the light of nature and common language of mankind checking them that the whole is not said to be broken from a part but a part from the whole that he must have recourse to the universal obligation of Charity to pretend us such for we can never be â—hown even in his supposed case Schismatical against Government or Vnity in the Church if no such Vnity can be found as it cannot in that mould he hath cast Christianity in by making each Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Independent or self-govern'd since there can be no division made where the things are already many After his pretended indifferency of the question he tells us that it must not be begg'd on either side and hereafter he complains of me grievously for the same fault I am sorry to see M. H. so ignorant in Logick that he mistakes the most ordinary things in disputing Let him know then that a Defendant as a Defendant cannot be sayd to beg the question since it is his office to hold his tenet which is the thing in controversy and stick close by it whatever prejudices or impossibilities are objected to deny them coÌ„sequent from it granting those things which he takes to be consistent with it denying those which he deems inconsistent unless it be an open evidence if an ambiguity occur to distinguish the double sense and show again which part of the distinction is consistent with it which otherwise in all which it is manifest he supposes the truth of the question and holds fast to it nor ought he let go that hold til he be non-plust and the dispute at an end My part then being the Defendant's as hath been proved out of the tenth Ground the Reader may see with how much Logick D. H. complains of me all over for only holding my tenet which he calls begging the question For however he may pretend to the name of a Defender yet since his party begun first to oppose that is to object and argue against ours who at that time quietly held their tenet 't is clear he is in no other sense a Defendant than as one who maintains his first objected Syllogism with a second may be said to defend it which is very improper and abusive of the right notion Whereas we who started not the dispute nor begun the opposition but sate still have yet a just title to continue in that our posture of defence till the Evidence of their Arguments drive us out of it His next complaint is against the Governours in the Romish See who if you will trust him without all cause deny Communion without remorse or relenting not onely to them but to many other Churches
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
the opposite is false nor hold his own certain without censuring another man's Good Reader reflect a little upon this proposition he cavills at and then take if thou canst the just dimensions of the unmeasurable weaknes of error and it's Abettors Do not truth and certainty involve essentially in their notions an oppositenes and contrarietie to falshood error Does not true signifie not-false How is it possible then a man indued with the common light of reason can hold a thing true and yet not hold it 's opposite false yet this plain self evident proposition in other terms the self-same with this that a thing cannot both be not be at once is denied by the Bp. nay accounted disgracefull to hold it Whereas indeed it is not mine nor the Donatists onely but the common Principle of nature which the silliest old wife and least boy come to the use of reason cannot but know Error prest home cannot burst out at length into less absurdities than denying the first Principles The Bishop of Derry having shown us how well skill'd he is in Principles by renouncing that first Nature-taught one proceeds immediately to establish some Principles of his own which he calls evident undeniable so to confute the former The first is that particular Churches may fall into error where if by Errors he means opinions onely 't is true if points of faith 't is not so undeniable as he thinks in case that particular Church adhere firmly to her Rule of faith immediate Tradition for that point already there setled that is if shee proceed as a Church If he wonder at this I shall increase his admiration by letting him know my minde that I see it not possible how even the pretended Protestants Church of England could it without self condemnation have owned the immediate delivery of fore fathers and onely proceeded stuck close to that Rule should ever come to vary from the former Protestant Beleef for as long as the now fathers taught their Children what was held now and the Children without looking farther beleeved their fathers and taught their Children as they beleeved and so successively it followes in terms that the posterity remote a thousand generations would still beleeve as their fathers do now But as their religion built on Reformation that is not immediate Tradition will not let them own immediate Tradition for their Rule of faith so neither did they own it could their certainty arrive to that of our Churches strengthen'd by so many super-added assistances His second Principle is that all errors are not Essentiall or fundamentall I answer that if by Errors he means onely opinions as he seems to say in the next paragraph then none at all are Essentiall but what is this to my proposition which spoke of Religion not of opinions unles perhaps which is most likely consonant to the Protestant Grounds the Bishop makes account that Religion and opinion are all one But if he means Error in a matter of faith then every such error is fundamentall and to answer this third Principle with the same labour destroies the being of a Church For since a Church must necessarily have a Rule of faith otherwise she were no Church and that 't is impossible to conceive how man's nature should let her proceed so quite contrary to her Principles as to hold a thing as a matter of faith not proceeding upon her onely Rule of faith this being a flat contradiction Again since the Rule of faith must be both certain and plain without which properties 'tis no Rule it follows that an error in a matter of faith argues an erroneousnes in the Rule of faith which essentially and fundamentally concerns the being of a Church His fourth Principle is that every one is bound according to the just extent of his power to free himself from those not essentiall errors Why so my L d if those errors be not essentiall they leave according to your own Grounds sufficient means of Salvation and the true being of a Church How prove you then that you ought to break Church Communion which is essentially destructive to the being of a Church to remedy this or hazard your Salvation as you know well Schism does when you might have rested secure Is it an evident and undeniable Principle that you ought to break that in which consists the being of a Church to remedy that which you confess can consist with the being of a Church or is it an undeniable Principle that you ought to endanger your soul where you grant there is no necessity Say not I suppose things gratis your friend Dr. H. tells you out of the fathers how horrid a crime Schism is how vtterly unexcusable the undeniable evidence of fact manifests you to have broke Church Communion that is to have Schismatized from the former Church which you must be forced to grant unles you can show us that you still maintain the former Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government These are the points which you violently broke and rejected show either that these were not fundamentally concerning the Vnity and cōsequently the Entity of the former Church or else confess that you had no just cause of renouncing them and so that you are plainly both Schismatick Heretick But 't is sufficient for your Lp's pretence of Moderation without so much as mentioning them in particular to say here in generall terms that the points you renounc'd were not essentiall were accidentall were errors vlcers opinions hay stubble the plague weeds c. And thus ends the first part of your wisely maintained Moderation as full of contradictions absurdities as of words The second proof of their Moderation is their inward charity I love to see charity appearing out-wardly me thinks hanging and persecution disguize her very much and your still clamorous noises against us envying us even that poore happines that we are able with very much a doe to keep our heads above water and not sink utterly He proves this in ward charity by their externall works as he calls them their prayers for us He should have said words the former were their works and prou'd nothing but their malice But let us examin their prayers they pray for us he sayes daily and we do the same for them nay more many of ours hazard their lives daily to do good to the souls even of themselves our enemies and to free them as much as in us lies from a beleeved danger Which shows now the greater charity But their speciall externall work as he calls it is their solemn anniversary prayer for our conversion every good friday And this he thinks is a speciall peece of charity in their Church being ignorant good man that this very thing is the solemn custome of our Church every good friday as is to be seen in our Missall and borrowed thence by their book of common prayer among many other things But let us see whether the Protestants
which such things were done In Answer the Bishop pretends first that hee will take my frame in peeces whereas hee not so much as handles it or looks upon it formine concern'd a Visible ty of Church Vnity his discourse reckons up out of S. Paul seven particulars all which except onely the common Sacrament of Baptism are invisible latent some of them no wayes proper to a Church The first is one Body Well leap't again my L d you are to prove first we are one Body if the Vnity of Government conseru'd by all those who acknowledge the Popes Head ship be taken away by you but you suppose this and then ask what can be more prodigious then for the members of the same Body to war with one another wee were inded once one Body and as long as the meÌ„bers remain'd worthy of that Body there was no warr between them But as when some member becomes corrupted the rest of the members if they do wisely take order to cut it of lest it infect the rest so 't was no prodigy but reason that the members of the former Church should excommunicate or cut you of when you would needs be infected and obstinacy had made you incurable nay when you would needs be no longer of that Body The former Body was One by having a visible Head common nerves Ligatures of Government Discipline united in that Head the lifeâ—giving Blood of faith essentiall to the faithfull as faithâ—full derived to those members by the common Channells or veins of immediate Tradition You separated from that Head you broke aâ—sunder those nerves of Government you stop'tâ—up and interrupted those Channells or veins the onely passage for divine beleef that is certainty grounded faith your task then is to show us by visible tokens that is by common exterior ties that you are one Body with us still not to suppose it and talk a line or two sleightly upon that groundles supposition Secondly one Spirit that is the Holy Ghost which hee rightly styles the common soul of the Church But his Lp must prove first that they are of the Body of the Church ere they can claim to be informed by the Soul of it It is not enough to talk of the Spirit which is latent invisible Quaker or Adamite can pretend that at pleasure but you must show us visible Marks that you are of that Body and so capable to have the same Spirit or Soul otherwise how will you convince to the world that you have right to that Spirit Thirdly one hope of our calling This token is both invisible again and besides makes all to be of one Church Iews all if they but say tthey hope to go to Heaven who will stick to say that Fourthly one Lord in order to which hee tells us wee must be friends because wee serve the same Lord Dark again How shall wee know they serve the same Lord Because they cry Lord Lord or because they call him Lord Their visible acts must decide that If then wee see with our eyes that they have broke in peeces his Church renounced the only-certain Grounds of his law they must eithers how us better Symptoms of their service and restore both to their former integrity by reacknowledging them else wee can not account them fellow servants to this Lord but Rebells enemies against this Lord his Church Fifthly one faith But how they should have one faith with us who differ from us in the onely certain that is in the onely Rule of faith as also in the sence that is in the thing or tenet of some Articles in the creed or indeed how they can have faith at all but opinion onely whose best Authors writers confess they have no more than probability to Ground their faith hee knows not so sayes nothing and therefore is not to be beleeu'd for barely saying wee have one faith Sixthly one Baptism As if Hereticks who are out of the Church could not all be baptised But hee tells us that by Baptism wee fight vnder the same Standard That wee should do so because of Baptism I grant indeed But as hee who wears the colours of his Generall yet deserts his Army fights against it will find his colours or Badgeso far from excusing him that they render him more liable to the rigour of Martiall law treatable as a greater enemy so the badge of Christianity received in Baptism is so far from being a plea for them who are out of the Church or for making them esteemed one of Christ's and hers if they run away from her take party against her that it much more hainously enhances their accusation and condemns you whom the undeniable matter of fact joyn'd with your acknowledgment of ours for a true Church manifests most evidently to have done both Lastly one God who is father of all c. By which if it be mean't that God is a father by Creation or ordinary Providence them Iews Pagans Atheists are of God's Church too if in the sence as God is fathers of Christians you must first prove that you have his Church on earth for your Mother ere you can claim God in Heaven for your father But to shew how weak a writer this Bp. is let the Reader peruse here my p. 324. 326. and hee shall see our charges is that without this Government they have no common ty under that notion to vnite them into one Christian common wealth and therefore that having rejected that Government unles they can show us what other visible ty they have substituted to that they cannot be shown to be Christians or of Christ's flock but separates Aliens from it Wee deny them to be truly-nam'd Christians for want of such a visible ty now the Bishop instead of showing us this supposes all hee was to prove towit that they are of Christ's Church and reckons up some invisible motives proposed by S. Paul to Christians already acknowledg'd for such to vnite them not into one Church for that was presupposed but into one harmony of affections There is no doubt then but all the seven points alledged are strong motives to vnite Christians in Wills but it is as undoubted on the other side that none of them onely pretended and being invisible they can be but pretended is a sufficient Mark to know who is a true Christian who not nor was this S. Paul's intent as appears by the quality of the persons hee writes to who were all Christians Now Christians being such because of their faith it followes that the Vnity in faith is the property to Christians as such and consequently in Government which by reason of it's concernment ought in all reason to bee a point of faith not in charity onely for this extends it self to Infidells all the world Since then the Bp. goes not about to show visibly their Ground for vnity of faith that is a
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