impossible they to produce sufficient arguments that it was unjust that is they must oppose or object we defend they ought to argue we to answer Hence appeares how meanly skill'd Dr. H. is in the art of disputing complaining many times in his last Book that I bring no Testimonies out of Antiquity and that I do not prove things in my Schism Disarm'd whereas that Treatise being design'd for an Answer to his Book of Schism had no obligation to prove my tenet but onely to show that his arguments were unconclusive Hence also is discover'd how manifestly weak and ridiculous Mr. H. was in the second part of the most substantial Chapter of his book of Schism where hemakes account he hath evidence S. Peter had not the Keyes given him particularly by solving our places of Scripture for that tenet where besides other faults in that process which Schism Disarm'd told him of he commits three absurditiâ—â— First in putting himself upon the side of the Defendant wheras he ought and pretended to evidence that is to prove Secondly by imagining that the solving an Argument is an Evidence for the contrary whereas the force of such a solution is terminated onely in showing that illation weak but leaves it indâ—fferent whether the thing in it self be so or no or evidently deducible from some other Argument Thirdly he falsly supposes that we build our Faith upon those places of the written words as explicable by wit not by Tradition and the practise of our Church whereas we onely own the delivery from father to son as the Ground of all our belif and make this the onely Rule by which to explicate Scripture However some Doctors of ours undetrake sometimes ex superabundanti to argue ad hominem and show our advantage over them even in that which they most pretend to I know Mr. H. will object that all this time I have pleaded for him whiles I went about to strengthen the title of Possession since they are at present in actual Possession of their Independency from the Pope and therefore that in all the consequences following thence I have but plow'd his ground with mine own heifer But the Reader may please to consider that though I spoke before of Possession in general and abstractedly yet in descending to particular sorts of Possessions we must take along with us those particular circumstances which necessarily accompany them and design them to be such Since then it were unworthy the wisdom of the Eternal Father that our Blessed Saviour Iesus Christ coming to plant à Church should not provide for it's Being and Peace which confist in Order and Government it follows that Christ instituted the Government of the Church In our case then the Possession of Government must be such a Possession as may be presumable to have come from Christ's time not of such an one as every one knows when it began Since then it is agreed upon by all sides that this present possession the Protestants now have of their Independency was begun lately it is impossible to presume it to be that which was instituted by Christ unless they evidence the long settled possession of that Authority they renounced to have been an usurpation and on the contrary unless they evidence this that Possession is justly presumable to have come from Christ's time the maintainers and claimers of it making this their main tenour that truly it came from Christ Now then seeing we hear no news from any good hand nor manifest tokens of the beginning of this universal and proud Vsurpation which could not in reason but draw after it a train of more visible consequences and be accompany'd with a multitude of more palpable circumstances than the renouncing it in England which yet is most notorious to the whole world again since the disagreement of their own Authours about the time of it evidently shows that the pretended invasion of this Authority is not evident hence both for these and other reasons also such a Possession as this is of it's self and in it's own nature capable of pleading to have been derived from Christ that is to be that Possession which we speak of whereas the other is discountenanc'd by it's confest and known original which makes it not capable of it self to pretend that Christ instituted it unless it be help't out with the additional proof that it had been expulsed from an ancienter Possession by this usurpation of the Pope So that to say the truth this present Possession of theirs makes nothing at all for their purpose since it is no ways valid but in vertute of their evidences that the same Possession had been ancieÌ„tly setled in a long peace before our pretended invasion and if they can evidence this and that we usurp't then it is needless and vain to plead present Possession at all since that Possession which is evidenced to have been before ours is questionless that which was settled by Christ In a word though in humane affaires where Prescription has force we use to callâ—t Possession when one hath enjoyed any thing for some certain time yet in things of divine Institution against which no prescription pleads he onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that he had it nearer Christ's time and by consequence he who shall be found to have begun it later unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter Possession is not for the present having such a thing or Power to be styled a Possessour but an Vsurper an intruder an invader disobedient rebellious and in our case Schismatical I am not ignorant that Dr. H. rawly affirmes that the Pope's Authority began in Phocas his time but I hope no Reader that cares much for his salvation wil take his word for honest till he show undeniable and evident matters of fact concerning the beginning progress Authours abetters opposers of that newly introduc't Government of Head of the Church the writers that time for it or against it the changes it made in the face of the Ecclesiastical State and the temporal also with whose interest the other must needs be enlinsk't and what consequences follow'd upon those changes together with all the circumstances which affect visible and extern actioÌ„s Otherwise against the sense of so many Nations in the Church they left the force of Tradition and so many unlikelihoods prejudicing it to tell us onely a crude Story that is was so or putting us off with three or four quotations in Greek to no purpose or imagining some chimerical possibilities how it might have been done hardly consisting with the nature of mankind is an Answer unworthy a man much more a Doctor and to say that it crep't in invisibily and unobserved as dreams do into men's heads when they are asleep is the part of some dreaming dull head who never lookt into the actions and nature of man or compared them with the motives which should work upon them The eleventh Ground
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
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
deny'd by both to be tolerable that is such as could consist with Faith and a Church but with this disadvantage on the Protestants side that the points they deny'd being of more importance more deserved our Church should command their observance Now every one sees that the proper Answer to his Discourse is to specialize some plea for themselves which will not as well excuse their Desertours The Doctor alledges none nor goes about to alledge any but as if he were dividing his Text playes upon my words in particular neglecting the import of them altogether He sayes indeed it is against their conscience to admit those other super additionary points the same say the Puritans of Copes Surplices and Organs The Doctor will object that they are indifferent and stight matters and therefore it is a greater disobedience not to admit them they will answer that Surplices are ragges of Rome that Organs are Babylonish Bagpipes and all the rest scandalous and superstitious inventions Still they are equall in their pleas Nay if a Socinian deny Christ to be God and pretend as doubtless he will with as much seriouness as Mr. H. that he cannot but sin against Conscience if he think otherwise and therefore 't is tyranny to press it upon him the Church may not oblige him to believe that Christ is God Dr. H. hath pleaded his cause joyntly with his own that is hath said no more in his own excuse than the Socinian may for his Again if Dr. H or his Church press upon the Socinian the belief of Christ's Divinity upon this ground that it is a point of most weighty importance he presently answers the Doctor with his own words that the weightier the importance of the things commanded are the more intolerable is the pressure of imposing them And so in stead of impugning Dr. H. hath made good S. W's words that they can alledge no colourable pretence which may not be alledged by the other Sects What if we should adde that the Church they left had been in long possession of the belief of Infallibility and so proceeded upon these Grounds that her Faith was certain when she prest those points upon them but they confess their unceâ—tâ—in and could proceed upon no better then probable Grounds when they prest any thing upon their Desertours is there not a palbable difference put between the pretended Authorities of imposing points to be held in us and them and a greater danger of disaccepting ours in them than theirs in the Puritans If they erred onely a confest probability stood against them which gave them just licence to dissent if they had a probable reason that the admission of those points was bad since nothing but absolute Evidence pretended could even pretend to oblige their Vnderstandings to assent to them if you erred a pre acknowledg'd Infallibility strengthen'd by a long Possession asserted by the attestation of Tradition and many other motives stood against you so that nothing but most palpable undeniable and rigorous Evidence could possibly disoblige your first Reformers from their ancient belief or oblige them to this new one If the Puritans erred since they were onely ornaments and Rituals they refused to admit the utmost harm which could accrue by their non-admission of them was terminated in the want of exren decency onely and held by the very Authority which imposed them to be but indifferent and far from being essentially-destructive to a Church But if you or your first Reformes chanc't to erre which the bare probability of your Faith confess 't by your selves in this case makes more than likely then your contrary position ruin'd all Faith and Government since the Church you disobey'd held no other Ground of Faith or Church Government save onely those you reâ—ected and disacknowledg'd to wit her own Infallibility and the Popes Authority Again if you happen'd to be in the wrong and that indeed there was no other either Church Government or Ground of Faith than these then how wickeldy desperate to your own soules and universally destructive to all man-kind and their means of attaining eternal bliss must your disclaiming and publikely renouncing both these be none of which can be objected to the Puritanes by you So evidently true were my words that no colourable pretence can possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm nay much firmer for other Sects why they left them Yet I doubt not but the Doctor will after all this as he does here Answ p. 16. applaud his own victory with a triumphant Epiphonema and say that S. W. his probations are beyond all measure improbable when himself had not said a word to the intent of the discourse but onely play'd mistakingly and non-sensically upon some particular words Yet when he hath done like a tender hearted man he pittyes himself again that he should so unnecessarily insist upon it Truly so do I pitty him or any man else who takes much pains to no purpose though I pitty more the Reader who can imagine any credence is to be given to so weak a Writer He ends his Answer to my Introduction with telling the Reader that I have with no shew of Iustice suggested his tediousness in things acknowledged Whereas almost all his first Chapter and third together with those where he proves the Pope not Head of the Church from the title of converting England or Concession of our Kings as also almost all his narrative Confession of his Schism with many other scatter'd discourses are things acknowledg'd by both parties and were very tedious and dull to me What he addes that he will not disturb me when I speak truth unless he shall discern some part of his arguing concern'd is a very pretty jest intimating that he stands in preparation of mind to oppose even Truth it self if it stand in his way or his arguing be concern'd in it and not vindicated in his former Reply A sincere person Hovver let him onely grant that what he vindicates not but leaves untouch't is Truth and we shall without difficulty strike up a bargain Sect. 8. How Dr. H. prevaricates from the Question by stating it wrong His powerfull way of arguing by Ifs and how he defends himself for mincing the Fathers words THe Fathers alledged by Mr. H. attested that no just cause could be given of Schism whence he inferres of Schism p. 10. that the causes and motives of Schism are not worth producing or heeding in this controversy The Catholick Gentleman and S. W. both exprest their dislike of this inference the Doctor pretends to vindicate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it as he pedantically calls it and referres me to his Reply for his reasons to which I shall both give a solution and at once lay open the nature of Sâ—hism and the manner in which they ought to controvert it I mean as far as it can have any show of bearing controversy Schism then which we joyntly
learned Preface to Rusworth's Dialogues where this point is largely handled and fully cleared These trifles having thus play'd their parts and whiffled a while out step the main bangers and lay about them at Faith it 's certainty Church and all whatsoever can make us rationally Christians First the former Thesis that a Church which is fallible and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition cannot have power to bind any to believe what it saith which stood firm enough in it's own plain terms is by Mr H's art made straddle foure several ways so to dispose it to a downfal and drawn and quarter'd with unheard of tortures because it will not confess a falshood of which it was not conscious The foure distracted limbs of it which are to be anatomiz'd particularly are here put down by Mr. H. p. 15. 1. What is meant by can ly 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no. 3 By Power to bind 4. By Belief An ordinary Reader that mean't honestly would think these words very easy but that is their fault to be too easy they must be blunder'd and made harder otherwise the Reader would find no difficulty to assent to them But is not this merciless rigour The first and second ought not to have been torn from one another being the same for if the Church can lie hic nunc in such a proposition attested by her and hath no infallible certainty she doth not then it follows that she doth lie for any thing she knows The same cruelty is shown in dismembring and taking asunder that one notion of power of binding to belief which was the whole import of the controversy and in treating the notion of power to bind apart from that other of Belief By this shamefull and unconscionable craft avoiding the whole question and applying the words power to bind which now had got loose of belief to obligation to render exteriour obedience p. 16. In his paraphrase upon the words can lie he hath one passage worth all his Friends especial attention which is that after he had enumerated all the means he could imagine to secure a Church from errour he confesses Rep. p. 15. 16. that that Church is yet fallible may affirm and teach false Id est saith he it is naturally possible it may but it is not strongly probable it will Then it seems after all this adoe for any thing he hath said it is still indifferently and equally probable that it does erre though not strongly probable it will that is the Faith of that Church and all that adhere to it hang in equal scales whether it be true or no and this solid piece of sense is produced by Dr. H. in a discourse about a Churche's power to bind to belief Take notice Reader how shufflingly the Doctor behaves himself in saying it is naturally possible that Church may erre providing himself an evasion beforehand in the word naturally against any encounter This man hath forsworn ever being positive with his Reader Ask him whether supernaturally or by means of supernatural assistance it be or be not impossible she should erre if not what mean't the word naturally since he knows we hold the Church is supernaturally infallible if it be to what end after reckoning up also there supernatural means of confirming her against erring did he tell us in the close with an Id est that she is naturally fallible As for the Churche's knowledge whether it erre or no he sayes Rep. p. 16. it may signify no more than a full persuasion and belief cui non subest dubium where in they neither doubt nor apprehend reason of doubting that what they define is truth though for knowledge properly so called or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum it may not have attained or pretend to have attained to it Where first to omit his declining a positive answer whether the Church be Infallible or no with may not have attained c. 't is the most perfect piece of perniciousness that ever was crouded into so narrow a room destroying at once all Faith and Ground of Faith and making the Church no certainer of her Faith than Iews Turks and Heathens of theirs For if the Churche's knowledge whether she erreor no means that she hath onely a full persuasion cui non subest dubium Turks Heathens and Iews have that are fully persuaded and have no doubt but their Faith is true and so Mr. H. hath brought Christianity to a fair pass by his Rule of Faith Again passion and vice can breed in men a full persuasion that an errour is true such a persuasion as shall take away actual doubt nay the more passion a man is in the less still he doubts Is this a congruous explication of a Church's knowledge which leaves it indifferent whether she be rationally and virtuously or passionately and viciously thus fully persuaded Lastly if the Churche's knowledge whether she erre or no be onely an assurance cui potest subesse falsum why may not there subesse dubium that is if it may be false why may not she doubt of it or indeed why should not she be bound to doubt of it Falshood in things concerning Eternity is a dangerous rock and ought to breed caution which goes ever accompany'd with doubt where the security is not perfect now how can the knowledge that it may be otherwise found a secutity that the thing is so that is is not otherwise or what hinders her from doubting if she sees she may be wrong If Mr. H. reply that the Church was surprised or had not so much wit as to raise the difficulty then indeed she may thank her circumstances or her doltishness not her Grounds for that her groundless assurance For otherwise should she call her thoughs to account and ask herself this question Why do I assent with a full persuasion to such a thing which I see may be otherwise she must if she understand the nature of a soul morality acknowledge it was passion vice not evidence of reason which made her assent and consequently hold her self obliged to retract that assent and leave off to hold any point of Christian doctrine nay even that Christ is God without a perpetual doubt and fear that the contrary may be true So perfectly weak and fundamentally pestilent is this explication of a Churches knowledge by a persuasion cui non subest dubium yet cui potest subesse falsâ—m that is of which the person doubts not although the thing in it self may be false But this keeps perfect decorum with his former assertion that it is not strongly that is it may be equally probable that a Church will erre though she have used all means imaginable to secure her self from errour After his false explication of Power to bind already spoken of which he turns to an obligation to act and obey exteriourly he addes as if the obligation to Belief were collateral
assent rationally nor any thing to move it at all but passion disorder'd affections fear or Interest Many paradoxes seem very plausible and prety while they are drest up in involving terms which hide their deformity yet brought to Grounds and to Practice show manifestly their shame The former to wit Grounds confute them by showing them contradictory the latter that is Practice confounds them by showing them absurd How implicatory Mr. H's doctrine of no power to bind to beleef is and how inconsistent with Christian Faith hath already been manifested by bringing it to Grounds how absurd it is will quickly be discerned by reducing it into practice Let us imagin then that the Bells chime merrily to morning prayer and that the whole town rings with the fame and noise that Dr. H. reputed the most learned of all the Protestant party who quite confuted the Pope and cut off the neck of Rome at one blow in a book of Schism and has lately with a great deal of Greek lopt off and seared the Hydra-head from ever growing more in his Answer to Schism Disarm'd would give them a gallant Sermon Whereupon a great confluence of people coming together to receive edification after a dirge sung in Hopkins rime very pittifully in memory of the deceased Book of Common-prayer up steps Dr. H. repeats his Text and fals to his Harangue In which let us imagin that he exhorts them to renounce all the affections they have to all that is dear to them in this world and place them upon a future state of eternal bliss promised by Christ to all that serve him in particular let us imagin he earnestly exhorts them with the Apostle to stand fast in the Faith and to hold even an Angel from Heaven accursed if he taught the contrary nay telling them they ought to lose theirs and their Childrens whole estates and lay down a thousand lives rather than for-goe their Faith This done let us suppose him to draw towards a period and conclude according to his doctrine when he disputes against us in this manner To all this dearly beloved I exhort you earnestly in the Lord yet notwithstanding that I may speak candidly and ingenuously and tell you the plain literall truth of our tenet neither I nor the Church of England whose judgment I follow are infallibly certain of this doctrine which I bid you thus beleeve and adhere to Our p. 15. l. 37. 38. Church I confess is fallible it may affirm and teach false both in Christ's doctrine and also in p. 23. l. 38 c. c. p. 24. l. 3. saying which is true Scripture and which the true sense of it and consequently I may perhaps have told you a fine tale all this while with never a word of truth in it but comfort your selves beloved for though it may be equally and indifferently probable it erres yet it is not strongly probable that it will p. 16. l. 1. Wherefore dearly beloved Brethren have a full persuasion I beseâ—ch you as p 16 l. 6. 7. our Church hath that what she defines is the truth when she defines against the Socinians that Christ is God although p. 16. l. 8. properly speaking she hath no certainty that he is so The Governours of our Church may indeed lead you into damnable errours being not infallible in Faith yet you must obey them p. 16. l. 16. by force of the Apostl's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here the good-women are all-to-bewonder'd and bless themselves monstrously at the learned sound of the two Greek words at least p. 17. l. 3. beleeve them so far as not to disbelieve them For mistake me not beloved I mean no more than thus when I bid you stand fast in the Faith hang in suspence dear brethren hang in a pious suspence and beleeve it no improbable opinion that Christ is God and that there is such a felicity as heaven at least whatsoever you think in your heart yet p. 17. l. 25. quietly acquiesce to the determinations of our Mother the Church of England so far as not disquiet the peace of our Sion although you should perhaps see that this Church did Idolatrously erre in making a man a God and so give God's honour to a Creature yet I beseech you good brethren acquiesce very quietly peaceably and although you could evidence that she was in damnable errours and that she carried Souls quietly and peaceably to Hell for want of some to resist and oppose her yet let them goe to Hell by millions for want of true Faith still enjoy you quietly your opinion without opposing the Church though thâ—s pernicious Were not this a wise and edifying Sermon and enough to make his Auditours pluck him out of the Pulpit if they beleeved him not or if they beleeved him to return home Scepticks or Atheists Yet how perfectly chiefly in express termes partly in necessary Consequences it is his his own words have already manifestâ—d for the famous Explications lately spoken of he applies here to his Church parag 23. and his Rule of Faith must be either certain and so make all points of Faith certain and infallible truths or if it be uncertain nothing that is built upon it can be certainer than it self and by consequence Christ's God-head must be uncertain also and so there can be no power or motiue to oblige men to beleeve it more than the rest Sect. 13. The four main Advantages of the Catholick Church wilfully misrepresented The Disproportion of Dr. H's parallelling the Certainty of the Protestant's Faith to that of K H. the eighth's being King of England THe Cath. Gentl. mentioned on the by four advantages our Church had over any other viz. Antiquity Possession Persuasion of Infallibility and Pledges which Christ left to his Church for motives of Vnion Speaking of the last of these Dr. H. tells us here Repl. p. 19. it is in vain to speak of motives to return to our Communion to them who have not voluntarily separated and cannot be admitted to union but upon conditions which without dissembling and lying they cannot undergoe As for the latter part of this excuse truly if motives of union be vain things to be proposed to them to bring them to Vnion I must confess I know not what will be likely to doe it They pretend to think our doctrine erroneous our Church fallible to which therefore they deem it dissimulation and lying to subscribe what remains then to inform them right but to propose reasons and motives that that doctrine was true that Church infallible that therefore they might lawfully subscribe with a secure conscience But Dr. H. will not heare of motives or reasons for Vnion but sayes 't is in vain to speak of them that is he professes to renounce his Reason rather than forgoethe obstinacy of his Schismatical humour yet he sayes here that this evasion is necessarily the concluding this Controversy But why a probability to the contrary should be sufficient to oblige