S. Peter after a particularizing way the promise was made to S. Peter after a particular manner The antecedent I prove thus those words were spoken to S. Peter after a manner not competible nor common to the rest of the Apostles therefore they were spoken to S. Peter after a particularizing way The consequence is most evident since particular is expresly the same with not common or not competible to the rest The Antecedent is proved no lesse evidently from the whole Series of the Text where we have first a particular Blessing of S. Peter sprung from a particular act of his to wit his Confession of Christ's Divinity Blessed art thou his particular name and to avoyd all equivocation which might communicate that name designing whose sonne he was Simon Bar-Iona my heavenly father hath revealed it vnto thâ—e in particular Next follows Christ's applying his words in particular here upon And I say vnto thee then alluding to his particular name given him by Christ himself with an emphasis and energy Thou arâ— Peter or a Rock and upon this Rock will I build my Church c. And after all these particular designations follows the promise in the same tenour copulatively And I will give vnto thee still with the same speciality the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven Now hence Iargue The Confession of Christ to be the Son of God the Blessing there-upon The name Simon Bar-Iona The designed allusion to that name are not competible nor common to the rest of the Apostles therefore the promise-expressing words concomitant were spoken to S. Peter in a way not common or competible to the rest of the Apostles But to returne whence wee came these words are a promise of the Keyes and their power therefore a promise of the Keyes and their power was made to S. Peter after a manner not common that is particular and that upon occasions originally springing from and constantly relating and alluding to S. Peter's particular person and particular name And thus much for the promise Next as for the performance of this particular promise wee argue thus It is worthy our Saviour not onely to perform his promise but also to perform it after the manner and tenour he promised But he promised the power of the Keyes to S. Peter after a particular manner as hath been shown â—â—erefore he perfoâ—med his promise and gave it to S. Peter after a particular manner and consequently which is the position wee vltimately aym at S. Peter had the power of the Keyes after a more particular manner then the other Apostles The Major is evident because no man living would think himself reasonably dealt with if a promise were not performed to him after the manner it was made nay reason would think himself deluded to have his expectation raised as in prudence it would by such a particular manner of promising to something extraordinary and more then common and when it comes to the point to have his hopes defeated by a common and meerly equall performance The Minor is already proved in the foregoing paragraph The conclusion is the position in controversy Reason therefore informs us supposing once that the promise was made to S. Peter after a particular manner that it should be performed to him after the same manner nor need 's it any other proof from Testimonies if we once grant as none will deny that our B. Saviour did what was most reasonable and fitting Yet some of our Drs arguing ad hominem against the ProtestaÌ„t make choice particularly of that place of Iohn 21. v. 15. 16. 17. to infer such a performance I proceed therefore in the way I begun and endeavour to show two things first that reason gives it secondly that the Scripture favours it that this place signifies a particularity of performance to S. Peter or a performance to him after a particular manner The first I prove ad hominem thus the promise being made to S. Peter after a particular manner and register'd in Scripture as hath been shown it is fitting that the correspoÌ„dent performance so worthy our Saviour should be exprest there likewise especially in the Protestant Grounds who grant a kind of self-perfectnes and sole-sufficiency to Scripture But there is no other place in Scripture so apt to signify a particular performance as this for the other places cited by Dr. H. Receive yee the Holy Ghost â—s my father sent me so send I you expresse onely a common performance therefore in all reason wee should think that the particular performance is exprest there The second I show thus the particular promise had preceeded apt in it's own Nature to breed some greater expectation in S. Peter These words were apt to satisfy that expectation they signify'd therefore a particular performance Again the thrice particularizing him by his name and relation Simon sonne of Ionas denotes the speaking of the following words to him particularly But the following words pasce oves ineas were apt and sufficient to instate him in the Office and give him the Authority of a Pastor It was therefore given him in a particular manner to be a Pastour in these words The Major is eâ—ident the Minor is proved For should any Master of a family bid one of his servants in the same words feed his sheep that servant would think him self sufficiently Authorized to perform that duty Thirdly the word amas me plus his Dost thow love me more than these manifestly put both a particularity and a superiority in S. Peter above the other Apostles in the interrogatory Therefore the inference there-upon feed my Sheep in ordinary reason should signify after the same manner and sounds as if it were put thus Dost thow love me more then these to which S. Peter assenting our Saviour may be imagin'd by the naturall sence of the words to reply If it be so that thou lovest me more then these then feed my Sheep more then these or have thou a Commission to feed my Sheep more then these sence he is more likely to perform his duty better and so more capable and worthy of a higher charge who bears a greater affection to his Master This paraphrase the words them selves seem to ground For otherwise to what purpose was it to make an interrogation concerning a greater degree of love or to what end was that particularizing and perferring words more then these put there if they had no correspondent influence nor connexion with the inference which ensves upon it Fourthly the verb pasce being exprest imperatively and spoken by a lord to his servant ought in all reason to signiâ—y a Command unles the concomitant words in the Text force another sence upon it which cannot be alledged here Since then every command of a lawfull Superiour gives a Commission to do that which he commands and that the words
used these words They were all fill'd with the Holy Ghost and so this promise equally performed to all But being shown the infinite weaknes of his arguing from fulnes to equality he shuffles about neither positively standing to his pretended proofby going about to make it good nor yet granting or denying any thing positively or giving any ground to fix upon any word he says but telling us first in a pretty phrase that he is not concerned to doubt of the consistance of fulnes and inequality of the Holy Ghost if it bee mean't of the inequality of divine endowments and then when he should telle us the other part of his distinction and of what other inequality besides that of endowments and graces the Holy Ghost can be said to be in the Apostles founding Commission and so concerning him to impugn and deny he shufflingly ends thus Our question being onely of power or Commission to Authority and dignity in the Church and every one having that sealed to him by the Holy Ghost descent upon every one there is no remaining difficulty in the matter Where first he sayes the question is of power and dignity whereas indeed it is of the equality or inequality of this dignity not of the dignity it self since none denyes but that each Apostle had power in the Church but that the rest had equall power to S. Peter Secondly he never tells us in what manner of the Holy Ghosts inexistence besides that of divine indowments this Authority was founded Thirdly he instances onely against us that every Apostle had power so tacitely calumniating our tenet again and leaves out the word eqâ—ally which could onely contradict and impugn it Fourthly that this coming of the Holy Ghost gave CoÌ„mission and Authority is onely his owne worâ—s and proved from his own fancy And lastly when he hath used all these most miserable evasions he concludes that there is no remaining difficulty in this mattâ—â— when as he hath not touch't the difficulty at all but avoided it with as many pitifull shift's as a crafty insincerity could suggest to an errour harden'd Soul Sect. 6. Our Argument from the Text Tues Petrus urged his arts to avoid the least mentioning it much lesse impugning it's force which hee calls evacuating it With what sleights hee prevaricates from it to the Apocalyps His skill in Architecture and miserably-weak arguing to cure his bad quiboling Dr. H. of Schism p. 89. 90. alledged some Testimonies out of the fathers affirming that the power of binding was conferred on all the Apostles that the Church is built upon Bishops that all in S. Peter received the Keyes of the Kingdomio of Heaven that Episcopacy is the presidency of the Apostles Now since Dr. H. pretends to impugn our tenet by these and these infert onely that more Bishops have the power of the Keyes besides S. Peter it follows necessarily that he counterfeihed our tenet to be that none had this power but S. Peter onely Hence Schism Disarm'd charged this either insincere or silly manner of discoursing upon him as a pittifull ingnorance or els as malicious to pretend by objecting these that wee build not the Church upon Bishops in the plurall nor allow any Authority to them but to the Pope onely Hee replies Answ p 69. that 't is apparent those words inject not the least suspition of that I answer 't is true indeed for it was not a suspition they injected as he phrases it but plain and open evidence see of Schism p 89. l. 28. 9. where after the testimony had told us that the Church is built upon Bishops the Dr. addes within a parenthesis in the plurall so placing the particular energie and force of that place in the plurality of Bishops founding the Church See again p. 90. l. 11. 12. c. S. Basil calls Episcopacy the presidency of the Apostles the very same addes the Dr. that Christ bestowd upon all and not onely on one of them Yet as long as Dr. H. can deny it and say with a gentile confidence that 't is apparent his words did not inject the least suspition of that words shall lose their signification and his Readers if he can compasse it shall be fool'd to deny their eye sight As for the Testimonies themselves there is not a word in them expressing that this power was in like manner entrusted to every single Apostle as well as to S. Peter which yet he sayes p. 90. l. 16. 17. c. if by as well he mean's equally as he must if he intend to impugn our tenet And the other sence which Answ p. 70. l. 2. 3. he relies on that from the Donation to S Peter all Episcopal power which in the Church flows and in which he puts force against our tenet it as much favours and proves it as the being the fountain and source of all honour and Magistracy in a Commonwealth argues that that person from whom these flow is highest in dignity and supreme in command in the same common wealth After this he catches at an expression of mine saying that the former Testimonies rather made for us which moderate words though I hope the later end of my former paragraph hath sufficiently iustify'd them yet wee must answer the impertinent carpings of our Adversary else the weak man will be apt to think that the shadow he catch't at is most substantiall and solid My word 's in relation to the said Testimonies were these Nay rather they make for us for the Church being founded on Apostles and Bishops prejudices not S. Peter to be the cheefest and if so then the Church is built most chiefly on S. Peter which is all wâ—e Catholicks say Now my discourse stands thus If so that is if S. Peter be the cheefest then the Church is built more chiefly upon him and I made account as I lately shew'd that those Testimonies rather made S. Peter the chiefest but this peece of willfull insincerity first makes my if so relate to if it prejudices not c. and disfigures my discourse by making me say if it prejudices not S. Peter to be the chiefest then the Church is built chiefly upon him and that I inferr from Testimonies not preiudicing that the thing is true Next he calumniates me most grossely and manifestly Answ p. 70. l. 35. 36. by making me bring this for a clear Evidence on my side whereas my words Schism Dism p. 99. are onely Nay rather thâ—y make for us which are so far from pretending a clear evidence from them that they neither expresse the least reliance on them not say positively that they make for us at all He shall not catch mee calling toyes Evidences as is his constant guize yet to render his calumny more visible he prints the words clear evidence in a different letter so that the honest Reader would easily take them to be my words Then when he hath done hee grows suddainly witty anâ— insults over me without mercy calling mee an
passages any other Answer Or if there bee any so wedded to a severer humour that they will not allow circumstances their due but think that such kind of carriage is not to bee used at all in Controversies about Faith I shall send them to Tertullian the rigidest and severest in points of this Nature among all the Ancients for better information If you find saith hee writing against the Adversaries of faith in my Book some passages which move one to Laughter 't is because the matter it self occasions it There are many things which deserve to bee thus mock't at lest by combating them seriously you should signify they are of weight Nothing is more due to Vanity than Laughter and this carriage is proper to Truth to whom it belongs to laugh because shee is naturally pleasant and to exult over her Enemies because shee is secure of the victory Care indeed is to bee taken lest the mirth bee base and unworthy of Truth but otherwise when one can fittingly make advantage by it 't is a Duty to use it Thus hee To which I shall onely adde these few words of S. Austin whose Spirit though all composed of charity and sweetnes breaks out into this smart demand Vvho is so bold as to say that Truth should come forth unarm'd when it combats falshood and that it is lawfull for the Enemies of Religion to fright the faithfull with great words and inveigle their Fancies with witty conciets but that Catholikes ought to write in a dull and drowsy stile fit for nothing but to make the Readers fall asleep This is all I have to apologize for except onely for the long delay of this Rejoynder the reason whereof is too well known to have been it's miscarriage a twelve-moneth ago the difficulties since in bringing it to light in a forrain country Vvhich also pleads for an excuse of it's many lapses in spelling and other frequent little mistakes occasion'd by the Composer's being a perfect stranger to our language The grosser faults shall bee noted in the Errata at the end which I desire the Reader to correct ere hee address himself to peruse the Book in regard one of mine Adversaries did mee so little Iustice as to cavill heretofore at a mistake of the Printer's in Schism Disarm'd though it were rectify'd very carefully in the Errata This done I leave the indifferent Reader to the fruit of his own Industry and to that success which the force of Truth is wont to effect in an impartiall and sincere Mind SCHISM DISPATCHT FIRST PART Containing some Preparatory grounds decisive of the whole Controversy and a refute of Dr. Hammonds Defence of his first three Chapters Sect. I. The occasion of the Disarmers writing and his writing in such a manner Dr. Hammonds weaknes in imputing contumeliousnes WHat Mr. Hammond professed of himself that his chief design is to enjoy calm and peacefull thoughts and to retire from polemicall engagements is no lesse the wish of his friendly Disarmor who had permitted him to enjoy his Halcyon sollitarinesse and to â—leep securely in a whole skin had not himself ounded the Allarm and made the Onset of which though the latter were very feeble yet the former being full of noise in the mouths of all the Docteurs friends it awaken'd him from his quiet silence into a necessary resistance He saw the most in violable the most longâ—settled the most sacred and most universallyâ—acknowledged Government the sun ever beheld despited and wronged he saw by consequence the eternall and infaillible rule of faith in which was fundamentally interessed the salvation of mankind broken and disannull'd by the rejecting that Government which it recommended to us as the Safeguard of our Faith he saw his dearest Mother the holy Catholick Church Christs sacred Spouse by relation to wihch onely he could hope for any title to salvation abused and vilify'd he saw his dear Countrymen run distractedly into an hundred sorts of Sects all springing originally from that grand one of the schismaticall Protestant Congregation he observed how the Protestant party though of late not reprehended much by Catholick writers hoping their own vexatious divisions would at length give them understanding were yet so unseasonably clamorous as then most to plead their innocence when their fault of Schim was most palpable and God's severe correction of it most visible upon them Lastly he took particular notice how one Dr. Hammond a private man had bent his weak utmost to continue and propagate that Schism so uniuersally destructive to Government Faith God's Church his Countrey and perceiving by the cry of â—is followers that his Book was likely to contribute much to this great harm he thought these motives sufficient prouocations to make the confutation of that Treatise the prentisage of his endeavours in Controversie Rationall therefore and convenient was the Disarmers determination to write and to write against Dr. Hammond The manner then of his writing comes next to be examined which will not down with the Doctours stomach and indeed it is no wonder if those who are resolved not to mend do not love to be reprehended whereupon he has by self imagin'd applications of some Texts voted here poor S. W. whom he sayes pag. 2. he has taken in the flagrant fact of abusing him to be in reality no Christian a detestable person under the censures of the Church nay ipso jure saith he excommunicate in a speciall sort one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unritghteous and without repentance uncapable of going to heaven and lastly to be none of those Saints who clave non errante saith the Dr. shall judge the world A sad case that no punishment lesse then Hell must be poor S. W's doom because he laid open the weaknesse of Dr. Hommonds defense of a pernicious cause after the manner that such a a defence deserved And I wonder he had no more Charity then not tho be afraid lest he should drive S. W. into despair of his salvation by denouncing and preaching to him such horrid judgements for writing against the Saints and using as pag. 3. Mr. Hammond sayes that very dialect which the obstinate Iews used towards the true Prophets of God But first he does me right in acknowledging that it was not I who gave him his Bill of Fare to which I may with truth adde that I not so much as knew of it Yet he thinks he has got a notable advantage against me from my own confession that my blows were rude and mine Adversary civil where as I used both those phrases as an objection of the Readers as is most palpable and had I used them the rudenesse of blows argues not that they were not just since none doubts but Malefactours are very rudely yet most justly whipt and the courteous epithet of civil deny'd not but the oyl in his tongue was accompany'd with venome in his heart and so made it more necessary to discover that whose onely advantage it was
to lurk undiscoverable under the smooth outsde of a fair-languag'd courtesie The twitchings by the beard which he reiterates to make his Reader smile is indeed something too rude a carriage if understood in the downright sence as he seems to take it but since I spoke-it onely in an Allegery and in order to his wearing a vizard which I pluck'd off let him but acknowledge that I found him attired in such a mask to which the other words related and I am contented to be thouâ—t so unreasonably uncivil as to pluck it off so rudely Next with what Logick does he huddle together those testimonies out of Scripture for S. W's pasport to Hell unlesse he could evidence that they were particularly appliable to him Are words which in their own nature found even contumeliously so perfectly damnable that no circumstance can render them inculpable or at least venial if not necessary or convenient for the Dr. maintains the generall Thesis in such à manner as if one taken in such a flagrant fact is long ago condemned to hell and disinherited from his right to heaven p. 2. and 3. What becomes then of good S. Iohn Baptist who called the ill-prepared Iews a generation of vipers what of S. Paul who Acts 13. 8. called Elymas son of the devil full of all treaechery and deceit enemy of all justice c. What of our Saviour who called Herod Fox the prophaners of the Temple Theeves the Scribes and Pharisees Hypocrites And to come nearer our present circumstances what will become of Blessed S. Polycarp disciple to S. Iohn the Evangelist the tenderest recommender of Charity to his disciples of all the Apostles who yet meeting with an heretick who began complementally to insinuate into acquaintance with nonn agnoscis nos Do not you know us rejected his courtesy with this rude language Agnosco primogenitum Di boli yes I know thee to be the first begotten of the devil What of S. Iude who calls hereticks clouds without water autumnal trees twice dead rooted out waves of the raging sea foaming out their own confusion Lastly to come yet nearer home what shall we think of Gods Church whose custome it ever was to anathematis and curse all hereticks and of S. Paul who bids anathema even to an Angel from heaven if he should preach false doctrine I ask now are not all these expressions revileing contumelious rude and which the Doctour most resents beard-twitching language if taken in themselves Must then all this good company be deem'd detestable unrighteous excommunicate and blindly pack'd all away to hell together for revilers contumelious c. because they gave such hard language The texts alledged by Mr. H. are very generall laying about them blindly and indifferently at Friends and Foes and he allowes them here no exception at all Or if he does as I hope he wil rather then involve such persons in his uniuersall censure then the reason why he exempts these must be because the words though taken in their own indifferency without any application are most highly contumelious yet spoken to such persons as hereticks men publickly noxious the common good concernd ' made the private person's repute not considerable and so the misdesert of the persons justifying the truth of the words they sounded now a laudable and necessary zeal which in other circumstances had been contumely and inteâ—perate passion Whence followes first that I am not excommunicate or in the state of damnation for having used contumelious words since the use of them if taken simply in it self is not impious as has beenshown but for having used them against Dr. H. Vnhappy I who was not aware how sacred a person my adversary was ere I undertook to deal with him Next it follows that if Dr. H. evidence not his cause to be no heresy and himself no maintainer of it all those former harsh expressious used against hereticks are his due and without scruple of sin might be given him by S. W. who had undertaken as a Catholick writer to lay open his faultinesse Let any man but read the Doctours first chapter of Schism and take notice what harsh-sounding characters the Fathers give to that vice and then let him tell me what a publick propagatour of Schim may deserue Wherefore unlesse he makes his evidence good S. W. may also justly retort upon him the charge of contumeliousnesse since he has no where in his whole Book used towards him such rude expressions as the Dr. hath in his first chapter by his censorious self-explication of Scripture loaded upon him of detestable impious c onely Mr. Hammond calumniates in a preaching manner and out of Scripture which makes the well-couch'd contumely lesse discernable Thirdly it were very easie for S. W. using the Doctours method to gather out of Scripture all the vigorous words and severe execrations against the wicked and then by his own voluntary explication and application clap them all upon the Dr. as for example that of Curse ye Meroz c. and then say that by Meroz is meant such as Mr. H. who writes against God's Church This I say were as easie for the Disarmer But he cannot but hate that in himself which he nauseates at in another He knows very wel and hopes the world now grown wiser plainly discerns it almost as impossible certainly to demonstrate truth by clashing together meer wordish testimonies as to strike fire by the weak collision of two pieces of Wax which easily yield at every stroke and therefore makes account it is his greatest misfortune to tamper with an Adversary who trades in wares of no higher value then onely Reusner like in fragments pick'd out of severall Authours and then stitch'd together by voluntary transitions into a book What is hitherto said is onely to show that every using of language even in its own nature contumelious is fat from being a sin and therefore that S. W. may yet by God's grace hope to escape hell fire unlesse the Dr. can evidence that his cause is neither Heresie nor Schisme since if it be it remain'd very lawful for him to treat the publike propagatour of it according to his desert as has been shown But S. W. disclaims in behalf of his book any such language towards Dr. H. A contumely I conceive notes some personall and morall fault in another did I note any in him Indeed as a writer he was mine and the Churches Adversary and as such it is most irrationall I should spare him when I saw my advantage Do Duellers if their quarrell be serious use to spare their enemy and not hurt him in that place where they see him unguarded It were madnesse then to expect that where my adversary writ insincerely I should not shew him insincere where blasphemously blasphemous where weakly weak where ridiculously ridiculous Vpon such advantage offer'd I ought to have had no courtesie for him unlesse I would prevaricate from my task and betray the cause I had undertaken
he very putting the Errour on the Churche's side takes away all obligation to believe her and by consequence justifyes all erroneous consciences Thus is the Wind-mill finish't at Dr. H's proper cost and charges although he sayes he contributed not the least stone or timber so truly liberal noble he is that after such profuseness he will not own nor acknowledge his bounty to his very Adversaries Next to these faults which Dr. H. hath committed in pleading for a weak conscience follows his sin of omission I mean his neglect to answer my seventeenth eighteenth pages which obliged him to speak out and say either I or no to two points which are horrible Bull-beggers to him wheresoever he meets them The first is whether all assent of the Vnderstanding which comes not from perfect and demonstrative Evidence springs not from passion and vice The second whether he and his Friends have such Evidence that our Church erred in delivering as of Faith that the Pope as Successour of S. Peter was Head of the Church These two points I made account were the two main hinges on which that door turns which must shut them out of or keep them in the Church and therefore expected not that he should produce his Evidence here but that he should have given some answer either affirmative or negative to them But Grounds are very perillous edged tooles to meddle with and cut the throat of errour at one slash which costs much hacking and hewing when a Controversy is managed by debating particularities Again the nature of Grounds is to entrench so near upon the first principles and their termes are for the most part so unquestionably evident that they leave no elbow-room for a shuffler to bestir his mock-reason in which in particulars not so capable of scientifical proofs especially in testimony-skirmishe seldom or never want And therefore Dr. H. who is of that Generation of Controvertists and very prudent in it dit wisely omit to meddle with these points though in that place he had ample occasion to treat of them But to proceed Mr. Knot had affirm'd that we may forsake the Churche's Communion in case she be fallible and subject to errour Dr. H. inferred hence of Schism p. 20. that it was lawfull if this were true to forsake Communion of all but Angels and Saints and God in heaven his reason was because onely they were infallible and impeccable To maintain the infallible certainty of Faith against this man who would bring all to probability I gave some instances to let him understand that Infallibility in men on earth was not so impossible a matter as he fancies Glancing also at his addition of Impeccable since the controversy there being about our tenet which is Infallibility the mingling it with Impeccability was a tacite calumny intimating to the weaker Readers that this was also out tenet or part of it To these Dr H. pretends an answer but so full of contradictions both to himself and common sense that it would be tedious to enumerate them It were not amiss first to put down our plain tenet which as far as it concerns this present controversy is this That since it is unworthy the Wisdom and Goodness of Almighty God who sent his Son to save mankind not to first lay and then leave efficacious means for that end which means considering the nature of mankind to which they were to be apply'd are no other than efficacious motives efficacioully proposed to make him forsake temporary and fleeting Goods and embrace Intellectual Eternal ones his onely Felicity with which the affections to the former are inconsistent again since these motives cannot be efficaciously proposed to the Vniversality of mankind unless Faith the doctrine of them be certain hence to ascertain Faith Christ gave testimony to his doctrine by doing such prodigious miracles as no man did before and when he left us unless he had left also some means to propose certainly those motives to future mankind his coming had been in a manner voyd for asmuch as concern'd posterity and the rational and convincing certainty of his doctrine and by consequence the efficacy of it had been terminated in those few which himself by his preaching and miracles converted Hence it was necessary the Apostles should also ascertain his and their doctrine by the extraordinary testification of miracles The multitudes of believers encreasing the ordinary and common working of miracles began to cease and controversies beginning to rise between those who pretended to the Law of Christ the consent of Christians in all Nations was now sufficient to convince that that was Christ's doctrine and true which the Apostles Successours told them they had received from the Apostles themselves For it was not possible so many dispers't in several Nations should conspire to a palpablely in a visible practicall and known thing cōcerning their eternal Interest They had nothing else now to doe but to attest what they had received Christ being unanimously acknowledg'd a perfect Law giver there needed no new revelations to patch and mend his noway-defective doctrine The Company of Believers multiplying daily and spreading this attestation encreased still and grew incomparable stronger and the impossibility of either voluntarily lying or involuntarily mistaking became every day greater and greater In this universal delivery from hand to hand called Tradition or to avoid equivocation Oral Tradition we place the impossibility of the Churche's conspiring to erre in attesting things most palpable and most important which we call her Infallibility Vpon this we receive God's written word hence we hold our Faith infallibly-certain that is so true as it cannot but be true as far as concerns that Christ his Apostles taught such doctrine hence lastly to come nearer home we hold for certain and of Faith that S. Peter is Chief of the Apostles and the Pope his Successour and that the renouncers of his Authority are Hereticks and Schismaticks since this sole-certain Rule of all Faith Oral Tradition now shown to be infallible recommended it to us as delivered from immediate Fore-fathers as from theirs and so upwards time out of mind which Rule the first Reformers in this point most manifestly renounced when they renounced that Authority For they could not have been the first Reformers had they found it delivered by Oral Tradition By this is shown first in what we place the Infallibility of the Church not in the bare words of a few particular men but in the manifest and ample attestation of such a multitude as cannot possibly conspire to tell a lie to wit in attesting onely that Christ's doctrine which is of a most concerning nature and of a most visible quality was taught to a world of Children by a world of Fore-fathers This clear and short explication of our tenet premised let us see how weakly Dr. H. hath proceeded in this dangerous point His first weakness is that he thinks Mr. Knot 's saying very strange that we might
then that the same Notion of a thing may plurally agree to many and yet in unequall degrees notwithstanding there being almost as many Instances of it as there are things in the world Evident therefore it is that he impugned S. Peter's having the power of the Keyes alone and so calumniated us in counterfeiting that to be our tenet impugning it as such unles perhaps he will say hee inteÌ„ded to impugn nothing at all Thirdly what means the word inclusive Is it not if applied to S. Peter's having the power of the Keyes as it is by him as plain an expression as could be invented to signify none had that power but S. Peter Manifest therefore it is that he intended to make his Reader beleeve that wee held such an absurd Position and thence erected a rare Trophee of his own Victory by shewing as he easily might that all the other Apostles had that power as well as he or in common But observe how neatly Dr. H. deludes his readers in going about to clear himself of this Calumny for instead of shewing from his own words that he signified that which wee held for S. Peter's peculiarity inclosure was onely a higher degree of that power which had been the proper way to shew him not faulty in the said words he prevaricates quite from that onely necessary method and runs to shew from my words the Catholick tenet that wee grant S. Peter a more particular power of the Keyes entangling poore S. W. on all sides p 61. and obliging him by most powerfull arguments to grant that which he beleeves already as a point of his faith and when he hath done he insults that that particular power was S. Peter's peculiarity inclosure but never goes about to shew which onely was his duty that he applied those words peculiarity inclosure to that particular power of the Keyes in his book of Schism where he was charged to have calumniated us but to the common power onely Though the question be not whether Catholicks hold that S. Peter had an higher degree of this power which was his inclosure but whether Dr. H. expressed such to be our tenet in his book of Schism or rather pretended that the having the very power of the Keyes it self was held by us to be his inclosure peculiarity and so calumniated us in the highest degree Thus Dr. H. pleads his own cause and then concludes himself secure from being like S. W. in calumniating him with whom he came to dispute After this Answ p. 62. the Dr. is mistakingly apprehensive of Sprights and is troubled at the two appearanrances of the same Romanist For imposing on him two propositions which he never said and disgraces the said appearances by asking the reader what trust is to be given to such disputers But what said the two appearances of the same Romanist one appearance sayes that Dr. H. affirms no power of the Keyes was given especially to S. Peter The other appearance sayes that hee confesses the Keyes were especially promised to S. Peter He answers the truth is he neither said one nor the other One of the appearances replies The truth is he said both The first of Schâ—sm p. 87. l. 2. 3. where he sayes expresly that these to wit the Keyes or the words importing them are delivered in common and equally to all every of the eleven Apostles Now I imagin'd that those words equally to all every one is the very same as particularly to no one But Dr. H. thinkes otherwise Answ p. 62. l. 18 denying that he affirmed no power of the Keyes was given especially to S. Peter And yet presently l. 21. 22. Saying that he afâ—â—rmed that the power was given in common and equally to all the Apostles which is so perfectly the self-same with the former as the very common light of nature teaches us that they are both one and that not especially commonly are perfectly equivalent To omit that this very position That no power of the Keyes was given especially to S. Peter is his own main nay sole tenet he is defending in this place which yet he sayes here he affirms not and complains of my foul play in disputing for saying he holds his own tenet The second position is found p. 57. l. 11. where he grants that this promise was made to S. Peter peculiarly and l. 21. where he sayes that the words importing a promise of the Keyes are applied particularly to S. Peter Now the applying those words is the speaking them for they were not first spoken then afterward apply'd To S. Peter then this promise was spoken that is was made particularly or especially As for his Evasion that the former of these two last places is onely mention'd by him as a color the Romanist makes some use of it hath no color at all from the place where it is found or at least such a dim color as none but himself can discern Sect. 2. A Promise of an higher degree of power and it's performance shown the Texts Mat. 16. and Iohn 21. connaturally and rationally explicated THese preparative rubs being past over and Dr. H's three great faults of prevaricating Iniuriousnes and Calumny with which he was charged and went about to clear still challenging him for their Author next comes the point it self since Dr. H. will needs put us upon the part of the Opponent Mr. H. undertooke to solve some places of Scripture which were used by our Doctors for S. Peter's Supremacy where upon I was obliged to undertake two things first that our Saviour promised the Keyes to S. Peter in particular and after a particular manner that is the manner of promising them was particular in order to S. Peter Secondly that it being worthy our Saviour to perform his promise after the manner tenour in which he promised consequently he performed that promise to S. Peter after a particular manner that is gave him the Keyes particularly Schism Disarm'd p. 90. 91. urged the first place Matth. 16. v. 19. c. which concerned the promise And though Dr. H pretends in the end of this Chapter that he attends me in this Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foot by foot yet he gave it no such atâ—endance in order to answering it but onely p. 60. 61. 62. he would needs engage me thence to confesse a point of my faith that is that S. Peter had something or some degree of power which the rest had not that so he might clear himself from having calumniated our tenet Since then I must be forc't to repeat again what I said there I shall do it by arguing after this sort These words I will give vnto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven c. importing a promise were spoken to S. Peter after a particular manner therefore the promise was made to S Peter after a particular manner The consequence is evident for the promise was made by speaking it If then it were spoken to
had any such priviledge of independency as the Bishop contends But My second objection was that this pretended exemption of the British Church was false My reason was because the British Bishops admitted appellation to Rome at the Council of Sardica In answer First hee tells mee that ere I can alledge the Authority of the Council of Sardica I must renounce the divine Institution of the Papacy and why for said hee that Canon submitted it to the good pleasure of the fathers and groundeth it upon the memory of S. Peter not the Institution of Christ Which is first flat falsification of the Council there being not a word in it either concerning the Papall power it self or it's Institution but concerning Appeals onely Next since wee call that of divine Institution which Christ with his own mouth ordain'd and never any man made account or imagin'd that Christ came from heaven to speak to the after Pope's and so give them a Primacy but that hee gave it by his own mouth to S. Peter whiles hee lived here on earth This I say being evidently our tenet and the Council never touching this point at all what a weaknes is it to argue thence against the diuine Institution of the Papacy and to abuse the Council saying that it submitted this to the good pleasures of the fathers Secondly hee asks how does it appear that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon which a little after hee calls my presumption And truly I shall ever think it a most iust presumption that they who confessedly sate in the Council assented to what was ordain'd by the Council in which they sate as was their duty unles some objection bee alledged to the contrary as the Bp brings none Thirdly hee sayes the Council of sardica was no generall Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed as they were before the making of that Canon What means hee by the Eastern Bishops the Catholicks or the Arians The Arian Bishops indeed fled away fearing the judgment of the Church as Apol. 2. ep ad solitarios S. Athanasius witnesses but how shows hee that any of the 76. Eastern Bishops were gone ere this Canon which is the third in that Council was made So that my L d of Derry is willing to maintain his cause by clinging to the Arians against S. Athanasius and the then Catholike Church as hee does also in his foregoing Treatise p. 190. 191 denying with them this to have been a generall Council because his good Brother Arians had run away from it fearing their own just coÌ„deÌ„mnation Fourthly hee says the Canons of this Council were never received in England or incorporated into the English laws I ask has hee read the British laws in those times if not for any thing hee knows they were incorporated into them and so according to his former Grounds must descend down to the English But wee are mistaken in him his meaning is onely that the aduantages and priuiledges should bee inherited from the Britons not their disadvantages or subjection So sincere a man hee is to his cause though partiall to common sence Lastly saith hee this Canon is contradicted by the great generall Council of Chalcedon which our Church receiveth Yet it seems hee neitheir thought the words worth citing nor the Canon where the abrogation of the Sardica Canon is found worth mentioning which argues it is neither worth answering nor looking for I am confident hee will not find any repealing of the Sardica Canon exprest there It must therefore bee his own deduction on which hee relies which till hee puts it down cannot bee answerd As for their Church receiving the Council of Chalcedon the Council may thanke their ill will to the Pope not their good will to receive Councils For any Council in which they can find any line to blunder in mistakingly against him they receive with open arms But those Councils which are clear and express for him though much ancienter as this of Sardica was shall bee sure to bee rejected and held of no Authority and when a better excuse wants the very running away of the guilty Arians shall disannul the Council and depriue it of all it's Authority Hee subjoyns there appears not the least footstep of any Papall Iurisdiction exercised in England by Elentherius I answer nor any certain footstep of any thing else in those obscure times but the contrary for hee referd the legislative part to King Lucius and the British Bishops Here you see my Ld D. positive and absolute But look into his Vindication p. 105. and you shall see what Authority hee relies on for this positive confidence viz. the Epistle of Eleutherius which himself conscious it was nothing worth and candid to acknowledge it there graces with a parenthesis in these words If that Epistle bee not counterfeit But now wee have lost the candid conditionall If and are grown absolute Whence wee see that the Bp. according as hee is put to it more and more to maintain his cause is forced still to abâ—te some degree of his former little sincerity And thus this if-not counter feited testimony is become one of his demonstrations to clear himself and his Church from Schism Now though our faith relies on immediate TraditioÌ„ for it's onely and certain Rule and not upon fragments of old Authours yet to give some instances of the Pope's Iurisdiction anciently in England I alledged S. Prosper that Pope Celestin Vice sua in his own stead sent S German to free the Britons from Pelagianism and converted the scots by Palladius My L d answers that converting and ordaining c. are not acts of Iurisdiction yet himself sayes here p. 193. that all other right of Iurisdiction doth follow the right of ordination Now what these words all other mean is evident by the words immediately foregoing to wit all other besides Ordination and Election by which 't is plain hee makes these two to bee rights of Iurisdiction So necessary an attendant to errour is self contradiction and non-sence But the point is hee leaues out those words I relied on Vice sua in his own stead which show'd that it belong'd to his office to do it These words omitted hee tells us that hee hath little reason to beleeve either the one or the other that is hee refuses to beleeve S. Prosper a famous and learned father who lived neer about the same time and was conversant with the affairs of the Pelagians and chuses to relie rather on an old obscure Authour whence no prudent man can Ground a certainty of any thing and which if hee would speak out himself would say hee thought to bee counterfeit What follows in his 25. page is onely his own sayings His folly in grounding the Pope's Supremacy on Phocas his liberality hath been particularly answer'd by mee heretofore Parâ— 1. Sect. 6. whether I refer him I found fault with him for leaving the Papall power and spending his time in impugning the Patriarchalâ—
were not I show First those inconveniences hee reckons up as extortions vsurpations of more than belong'd to them causing animosities between the crown and the miter c. though they had been true are evidently abuses of the Officer and argue no fault in the Office it self of Head of the Church nor that the Right use of it ought therefore to bee taken away Secondly some of those pretended Abuses are his own deductions onely as that it is against the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which hee endeavours not to show evidently out of the science of Politicks which is proper to those matters nor any thing else of this nature but out of two or perhaps three matters of fact which onely inferr'd that it happen'd so sometimes and then by the same reason Episcopacy and all the Offices in the world must bee abolish't and abrogated Thirdly that some of those pretended Abuses are indeed such and not rather just Rights hee no way proves for hee onely puts down that such and such things were done but whether rightfully or no I presume hee will not think himself such a rare Iuris vtriusque Doctor as to make a fit umpire to decide law quarrells of this highe'st nature And on the other side none is ignorant that either party had learned lawiers for them to avouch their pretences I omit that the Kings were worsted so metimes and renounc't their pretence as in that of investitures Fourthly the temporall laws hee cites conclude not evidently a Right for it is as easy for a Canon-lawier to object that the temporall laws wrong the Ecclesiasticall as it is for civill lawiers to say that the Ecclesiasticall wrong theirs but with this disadvantage to the latter that reason gives more particular respect and charines ought to bee used in disannulling or retrenching Ecclesiasticall laws than temporall by how much they are neerer ally'd to the Church and by consequence to the order of mankinde to Beatitude Fifthly hee abuses those pretended Abuses most unconscionably saying that the Pope usurp't most unjustly all Right civill Ecclesiasticall sacred prophane of all orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. Which is such a loud-mouth'd calumnie such a far-stretching fiction that it is as big as all Christendome For by this no man in the Church was master or owner of his own Kingdome Estate house nay not of the very bread hee eat but by the Pope's good leave Thus the Bishop in a fury of Schism runs himself out of breath nor will any thing pacify him or bring him into temper to speak a word of truth or sence but my granting him his two conditions that is my denying my own tenet which I am defending Sixthly grant all those Abuses had been true was there no other remedy but division Had not the secular Governours the sword in their hand did it not ly in their power to chuse whether they would admit or no things destructive to their Rights yes for the Bp. tells us p. 36. that All other Catholike countries which hee knows held the Pope's supremacy as well as England do maintain their own Priviledges inviolated And as for England hee tells us in a slovenly phrase that our Ancestours were not so stupid as to sitt still and blow their noses meaning that they did the same which other Catholike countries did so that according to himself there was a remedy still and a means to keep their priviledges inviolated Seventhly put case these temporall inconveniences had not been otherwise remediable I conceive there is not a good Christian in the world that understands what a Church is will say that Ecclesiasticall Communion is to bee broken for all the temporall concernments imaginable For first that the well being and peace of a Church cannot consist without Vnity is so evident that the very terms would convince him of a contradiction who should deny it since distraction and dissention the parents of dissolution and ruine must needs bee where there is no Vnity Secondly not onely the well being of a Church but the very Being of it consists in it's Vnity for what scholler knows not that things of this nature have no other Vnity nor consequently Entity or Being but that of order that is of Superiority and subordination Whence follows that if this Order bee broken which is done by disacknowledging the former Ecclesiasticall chief Magistrate the Vnity of the Church is dissolu'd that is her Entity is annihilated that is there is no one Church that is there is no Church This act then of yours since it dissolu'd that which was the chief bond of Vnity in the former Church was in it's own nature destructive of a Church A mischief which out-weighs the necessity of remedying the highest temporall inconveniences imaginable Thirdly since Christ came from heaven to plant a Church and the Being of a Church consist in Order it follows that Christ instituted the Order of the Church otherwise hee had not constituted a Church that is hee had not done what hee came to do Wherefore that fact which breaks the Order of the Church and that in the highest manner by disacknowledging the highest Magistrate in the Church is by good consequence in the highest manner against Christ's Institution and command that is in the highest manner sinfull and criminall and so no temporall inconveniences can bee a competent plea for such a fact since no temporall inconvenience can bee a sufficient reason for a man to sin Fourthly if the Communion of a Church may bee broken for temporall miscarriages it follows that all the generall Councils were to no purpose since whensoever the observation of these generall Councils hapens to bee inconvenient to the temporall state that is sute not with the humours of the Governed but are likely to breed combustion the remedying the temporall ills according to the Bp. ought to oversway The consequence is evident for general Councils cannot bee more sacred than the Communion of the Church since they are the effects of it or rather indeed they have their form and Essence from this Communion Since then this fact of theirs as appears by the charge broke Church Communion and by the Bishop's plea because of temporall inconveniences they may for the same and with better reason break Councils too and there 's an end of all Fifthly faith that is the supernaturall knowledge of God is so essentially necessary for the salvation of mankinde that no worldly consideration ought to ballance it Now then since faith if not one is none nor can it bee preseru'd one but by some certain Rule to keep it one it follows that no temporall mischief can deserve a remedy accompany'd with the renouncing this certain Rule of faith Wherefore temporall inconveniences cannot with any face bee alledg'd by a Christian who held formerly no certain Rule of faith but the living voice of the present Church that is immediate Tradition as did the first Reformers for a plea for them to renounce
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
is my task to defendit What say you to the Office it self as put down here by mee Return my L d whence you stray'd and tell us is not the Office it self thus moderately yet substantially exprest naturally conducing to the peace Vnity Faith Discipline other universall conveniencies of Christendome or is it though thus advantageous to the whole Church to be rejected because of the abuses of particular persons These are the points between us what say you to these why in the next parag hee would have us look upon the case without an if or as a Pope should bee no my Lord I ought not in reason to quit that method you I are not disputing about mens lives but the Catholike tenet and whether the very tenet bee advantageous to the Church or not If wee leave this wee leave the whole Question Yet wee must leave the Question else my Lord will not proceed nor dispute telling us that if wee look upon the case without an if or as the Pope should bee that is indeed if wee look not upon the case then wee shall finde the Papacy as it is settled or would have been sayes hee the cause of Schisms Ecclesiasticall dissentions war amongst Princes c. Where first if nothing follows out of my words but this disiunctive as it is settled or would have been then it remains for any thing hee expresses that as it is settled it is not apt to cause any of these inconveniences but onely would have been in case some vicious attemptors had had the power to corrupt that which was actually well in the Church Next if hee speak of the Papacy as it is settled hee must look upon it as held by the Rule of faith and acknowledg'd by all Romane Catholikes otherwise if hee considers it according to what is disputable wrangled about between Catholike Catholike hee considers it not as settled for this is to bee not setled nor indeed is this to speak of the Papacy it self about which Catholikes have no debates but of the extent of it Now let him either evince that Papacy as settled or held universally by all Catholikes is in it's own nature the cause of Schisms dissentions Warrs c. Or grant that 't is not such but the contrary as hee does here tacitly by yeelding that if it were as it should bee it would bee faultles and presently doubting whether it bee right settled that is as it should bee or no. The substance of the Pope's Authority being stated I show'd all the Bishop's arrows falling on his own head because not with standing such disputes it is evident that the nature and notion of one Church is intirely conserved the Papacy standing firm in those very Catholike countries which resisted the Pope and those countries governing themselves in an Vnity of faith Sacraments correspondence like one Body as is visible whereas their Reform or renouncing the Pope has cut of England from all this Communication or correspondence and made it no part of one Church greater then it self but an headles Synagogue without Brother hood or order Hee replies Neither so nor so How then my Lord why hee tells us first that the Eastern Southern Northern Churches admit none higher then the cheifest Patriarch Well my L d are you and they both joyntly under the Government of those Patriarchs or any other common Government If not how are you then of one community or Brotherhood as Governed Next hee alledges that agreat part of the Westerne Churches have shaken of the Roman Yoke Grant it were so and that those Congregations were in reality Churches which wee deny yet are you united with those Churches under some common Christian Government joyning you them into one Christian Commonwealth If not as your eyes witnes 't is not then how are you their Brothers or of their community Show us this visible ty of order uniting you together To say you are one or united to them without showing us this extern ty is very easy but convinces nothing Thirdly hee tells us that the rest of the Western world which acknowledge the Papacy do it with very many reservations cautions and restrictions Very good my Lord if they onely restrain'd they restrain'd something which they admitted as thus restrain'd to wit the substance of the Pope's Authority Are you at least united with them Alas no you are disunited from them by totally renouncing and not restraining onely that Authority which visibly united them Where then is your Brother hood where is your order Fourthly hee answers that for order they are for it as much as wee That you are for it desire it if your Grounds would let you wee doubt not But have you any such order uniting you visibly to the rest of the Christian world To say you are for it when the Question is whether you have it no without ever attempting to show us this visible order signifies you neither have any nor can show any or that you have indeed a feeble wish for it but not efficacious enough to make you use means to obtain it Fifthly hee tells us that for Christian Brother hood they maintain it three times larger then wee But he never goes about to show us any visible ty of Government uniting them into one CoÌ„monwealth or Brother hood 'T is a sufficient proof with him to say they maintain it that is they call more Brothers then wee do but whether they are so indeed or no 't is so evident with him though hee knows his own fellows say the contrary as may bee seen in Rosse's view of Religioâ—s that it needs no proof though it bee all the Question Sixthly as for their being an headles Synagogue hee replies that they want no head who have Christ a spirituall Head Wee are demanding a visible common Head or cheif GovernmeÌ„t of the whole Church common to England with the rest and hee relates us to Christ in Heaven Such an Head is God Amighty to all mankind must they therefore because of this invisible relation become one CoÌ„monvealth Again this latter towit whether Christ bee their spirituall Head or no is invisible unknown and is to bee judged by the other thus that if Christ have lest any Vnity of Goverment in his Church and commanded it to bee kept and they have taken a course to leave no such Vnity 't is evident that they have rebell'd against Christ as well as his Church and so falsly pretend to have him for their spirituall Head Next hee tells us that they have a generall Council for an Ecclesiasticall Head Which is to confess that there is no ordinary Vnity of Government in God's Church but extraordinary onely when a Council sits that is there is none de facto at present nay morally impossible there should bee any as Dr. H. sayes Reply p. 39. and 't is a great chance when there is any perhaps towards the end of the world as the same Dr.
to proceed His second Epistle against Vigilantius begins thus Multa in orbe monstra c Many monsters have been begotten in the world we read in Esaias of Centaurs and Sirens Screech-owls and Onocrotals Iob describes Leviathan and Behemoth in mysticall language the fables of the Poets tell of Cerberus and the Stymphals and the Erymanthian Boar of the Nemean Lion of Chimera ad many-headed Hydra Virgil describes Cacus Spain hath brought to light three-shap't Geryon France onely had no Monsters Suddenly there arose Vigilantius or more truly Dormitantius who with an unclean spirit fights against the spirit of Christ and denies that the sepulchres of the martyrs are to be venerated Insanum caput mad or frantick fellow Sanctas reliquias Andreae Lucae Timothei apud quas Daemones rugiunt inhabitatores Vigilantij illorum se sentire praesentiam confitentur The holy reliques of Andrew Luke and Timothy at which the Devils roare and the possessours of Vigilantius confesse that they feel their presence Tu vigilans dormis dormiens scribis Thou sleepest waking and writest sleeping De barathro pectoris tui coenosam spurcitiam evomens vomiting dirty filth from the hell of thy breast Lingua viperea Viperine tongue Spiritus isle immundus qui haec te cogit scrâ—bere saepe hoc vilissimo tortus est pulvere immo hodieque torquetur qui iu te plagas dissimulaâ— in aliis confitetur That unclean spirit which compells thee to write these things has oftentimes been tortured with this contemptible dust meaning the Holy Reliques which Vigilantius styled thus yea and is now adayes still tortur'd and he who in thee dissembles his wounds confesses them in others But let us come to the Treatise our Adversary cites and see how roughly S. Hierome handles Helvidius whom Dr. H. would have him accuse in the same treatise of the self-same fault Sedâ—ne te quasi lubricus anguis evolvas testimoniorum stringendus es vinculis ne querâ—lus sibiles but lest like a stippery snake thou disentangle thy self thou must be bound with the cords of testimonies that thou mayest not querulously hiss Imperitissime hominum siliest of men Nobilis es factus in scelere Thou art ennobled made famous by thy wickednesse Quamvis sis hebes dicere non aâ—debis although thou beest dull or blockish yet thou darest not affirm it Risimus in te proverbinm Camelum vidimus saltantem We have laught at the old proverb in thee We have seen a dancing Camel c. Where we see First that if S. Hierome's verdict exprest in his own manifold example be allowable whom Dr. H hath chosen for Vmpire in his matter t is very lawfull and fitting to give the Adversaries of Faith their full desert in controversies concerning Faith and not to spare them as long as the truth of their faultinesse can justify the rigorous expressions Neither let Dr. H. objet that I beg the question in supposing him an Adversary of the true faith for to put the matter indifferently and so as may please even the Protestants them selves either Dr. H's cause is false and then 't is laudable to use zeal against him who perniciously endeavours to mantain a falsehood or else it is true then he deserves as great a reprehension who abuses his cause by going about to defend it by such wilfull falsifications and so many frauds and weaknesses as he hath been discovered Whence it appears that the indifferent Reader is not to consider at all whether the expressions sound harshly or no but whether they be true or no for if they be then that person will be found in reason to deserve reprehension be the cause he defends true or false if he defend it either senselesly or insincerely Secondly these harsh expressions of S. Hieromes being due to Dr. H's forefather Vigilantius for denying veneration to holy Reliques are due likewise upon that onely score to Dr. H. and the Protestant writers who deny the same Point what then may we imagine the Protestants deserve for filling up the measure of their forefathers sinnes by denying the onely certain Rule of Faith Vniversall Tradition the former governmeÌ„t of God's Church almost all the Sacraments and many other most important points besides and of much greater concernment than is this of venerating holy Reliques Thirdly the Reader shall find no where in Schism Disarm'd such harsh language given to Dr. H. or which if taken in it's own nature sounds so contumeliously as this of S. Hieromes against Vigilantius is frantick fellow monster prodigious monster possest with the Devill possest with an unclean Spirit snake famous for wickednesse blockhead c. My harshest words in comparison of these are moderate and ciuil mine are smiling Ironies his are stern and bitter Sarcasmes and if I whipt Dr. H. gently with rods S. Hierome wihpt his forefather Vigilantius with Scorpions Whence followes that I am to be thank't by Dr. H. for my moderation not excommunicated for my excesse in reprehending him since all those more severe expressions far out-vying mine were his due as he is in the same fault with Vigilantius besides what accrues to him out of later titles and this by the judgement of S. Hierome the very Authour he quotes for himself in this point Fourthly what a miserable weaknesse is it to quote this Father against me for using harsh language who himself uses far harsher which evidences that if this Fathers authority and example be of weight in this point as Dr. H. grants by bringing him against me for that purpose then the roughnesse of the language is not railing or reprehensible if taken alone or abstracted from the cause since Dr. H. will not say that this holy Father thought that manner of language railing or reprehensible in himself which showes that Dr. H's first Chapter fighting against the words as abstracted from the cause as much accuses S. Hierome as me nay much more as his words exprest more fully his justly-caused zeal than my more moderate pen did Fifthly abstracting from the cause and impugning the manner of expression onely as Dr. H. does who sees not that the Heretick Vigilantius might with the same reason as he have entitled the first Chapter of his Reply to S. Hierome in the like manner as he did to wit thus Of Hieroms style and contumelies The Scriptures sentence on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Character belonging thereto Then in the Chapter it self have call'd S Hierome's plain discovery of his faults scoffes and contumelies have told him that he had just title to the scorners chair that his writing against him was like Goliahs cursing of David Rabshakels reproaches against Israel that the Apostle had long ago pronounced sentence against him that none should eat with him that he was in reality no Christian a detestable person faln under the censures of the Church ipso jure excommunicate in a speciall sort one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unrighteous that he shall not
inherit the Kingdome of Heaven that this was the very Dialect which the Iewes used toward the true Prophets of God that it is against the practice of S. Michael and against the spirit of weeknesse peace and long-suffering c. As if every heretick nay every malefactour in the world could not say the same to their just reprehenders and punishers or as if peace and long-suffering were to be used at all times even when we see we suffer divine Truth to be injurd and souls run headlong and blind to Hell after such blind guides Every one Mr. H. can preach patience peace and long suffering quote scripture intermix Greek words pedantically but none can speak sense but they who have truth on their side It must be judged then by the strength of the reasons you bring to clear your selves from schism whether you deserved those reprehensions from your Adversary or no and not from what your quodlibeticall vein can preach to us And till you bring evident ones I shall ever think that S. Hierome your own Authours here preacht as good doctrine as you in a place lately cited when he told us with many instances that non est crudelitas pro Deo pietas Sixthly what is it to me that S. Hierome noted it as an errour in Helvidius that he took railing for eloquence unlesse he can prove that I took it so too He knowes I pretend that justice truth and the necessity of my cause warranted nay obliged me to be so plain with him I pretend no Eloquence in an ordinary controversy neither did I think that confuting Dr. H. would be such a rare businesse that it would be worth the pains of a rhetoricall filing Lastly to shew more and more the weaknesse of this Dr. S. Hieromes words of Helvidius are these loquacitatem facundiam existimat he thinks babling to be eloquence But the good Dr. whom any semblance of a testimony contents construes loquacitas wordishness to be railing as if empty pulpit-beatres who talk two hours without a word of solidnesse were therefore all railers I doubt that ere we come to an end of this Treatise Loquacity that is voluntary talking wordishly without a syllable of sense will be so perfectly shown to be D. H's proper and peculiar fault that his own words will evince it without the help of Saint Hierome And thus hath Dr. H. sped in quoting this holy learned and truly zealous Father for the Patron of his affected courteâ—y and civility and a pattren for S. W. to follow in writing Controversies about Faith I once hoped Mr. H. and I should have parted very good Friends from this first Section notwithstanding the contumelies which contrary to his own grounds he hath heaped upon me in it But he hath so purposely counterfeited a mistake that he might by that means fix a â—ly câ—â—umny upon a worthy person that Charity and pitty must both be summon'd up to pardon him in it I had upon occasion of the Evidence of our Churches Infallibility in my Schim Disaerm'd pag. 20. told him he might to his amazement see it in that incomparable Treatise of Rushworth's Dialogues vindicated from all possible confute by that excellent Apology for it writ by the learned pen of Mr Thomas White What does Mr. H he tells us that S. W. sayes his arrowes are beyond all possible confute meaning that S. W. the Authour of Schism Disarm'd was the same with the Authour of the Apology for Tradition though I am certainly inform'd that he knows S. W. to be another person and reports again afterwards the same phrase to the same purpose Now by this one project he gaines two advantages First he honours himself with making the world believe he had so worthy an Adversary as the Authour of that Apology next when he has done this he dishonours his pretended Adversary as the vainest person in the world by intimating that himself in Schism Disaâ—m'd gave himself such an high character Whereas first I assure Dr. H. it is in vain to hope for such an honour as is an Answer from that miracle of with and learning it is worthy him to write grounds not to stand replying upon meer words to answer such weak skirmishers is a task more proper for one of the meanest and youngest of his scholars a very slender participation of his solid knowledge renders one able to encounter with the Apuleian bladders of aiery testimonies the victory over which can onely entitle one to Domitian's triumph and need more the Flyflap of a Dictionary or turning over leaves to combat them then the acuter and stronger sword of reason As for the second which is the sly calumny of that worthy person's feigned self-praise built onely on Mr. H's wilfull mistake I fear the intimater of it will lose much credit by so ignoble a detraction of such a person since his profoundest humility of equall depth with his knowledge secures him as much from desiring praise as his known worth from needing it every one freely yielding him those excellent commendations which his Detractours will needs have him for want of good neighbours give himself He tells us in the close that Divines are allowed to have skill in Symptomes What Symptomes are these and of what that the profusest laâ—ghter is the worst indication of the affections of the spleen quoting Irenaeus Galen I ask suppose Irenaeus had also said that a gravely-affected melancholy extraordinarily representing sanctity and piety and a professing an earnest desire to speak the full truth of God Answer p. 18. and yet in the mean time falsifying most palpably purposely and inexcusably is the worst indication of a pharisaicall hypocrisie were not this more competible to Mr. H. then the other is to me I hope then he is answered at least in as good a manner as such toyes deserve And ere I come to finish this Treatise I flatter my self that even Dr. H's own Friendâ— will acknowledge that such is his carriage and manner of writing unlesse a strong prepossession of partiality have blinded them and shut the eyes both of their mind and body since to make good this my charge against him little more then the common use of the latter is exacted of the Reader Sect. 4. Dr. H's methodicall Charity represented in his totally mistaking the common sense of a plain Epistle to the Reader with a second sly Calumny of the same strain and other weaknesses HIs railing against me in the first section which he calls his Answ p. 5. obligation of Charity brings him methodically for all is Charity and method in him to andeavour my conviction by examining the account I gave of the rudenesse of my blowes which though sufficiently cleared already yet I think my self obliged to my cause to take notice of this methodicall charity convincing reason that the Reader may see what weak Patrons Schism hath and that if Mr. H. be most grievously mistaken in a plain Epistle to the Reader there is