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
the following ought to be the sixth But nothing could secure S. W. from the melancholy cavilling humour of his Adversary who is so terrible that the Printer's least oversight and his own mistake must occasion a dry adnimadversion against S. W. and yet the jest is he pretends nothing but courtesy and civility and persuades many of his passionate adherents that he practices both in his writings For answer then to my first seventh Section according to Dr. H. but in reality the sixth he refers me to his Reply c. 4. sect 1 where he answers all but the ridiculous colours as he says Answ p. 38. which indeed I must say were very ridiculous as who ever reads Schism Disarm'd p. 41. or his own book p. 68. may easily see where after he had spoken of and acknowledg'd King Henry the eighth's casting out the Pope's Authority it follows in his own words thus of Schism p. 68. First they the Romanists must manifest the matter of fact that thus it was in England 2. the consequence of that fact that it were Schism supposing those Successours of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ that is we must be put first to prove a thing which himself and all the world acknowledges to wit that King H. the eighth deny'd the Pope's Supremacy next that what God bid us doe is to be done and that the Authority instituted by Christ is to be obe'yd Dr H. is therefore can-did when he acknowledges here that these passages are ridiculous very unconsonant to himself when he denyes there is the least cause or ground for it in his Tract whereas his own express words now cited manifestâ—â—â— and lastly extraordinarily reserv'd in giving no other answer than this bare denial of his own express words But being taken tardy in his Divisionary art in which it is his coÌ„mon custome to talke quodlibetically he thought it the wiser way to put up what 's past with patience than by defending it give occasion for more mirth But to come to the point That which was objected to him by me and the Cath. Gent. was this That he expected Catholicks should produce Evidences and proofs for the Pope's Authority in England which task we disclaimed to belong to us who stood upon possession and such a possession as no King can show for his Crown any more than it does to an Emperour or any long and-quietly-possest Governour to evidence to a known Rebel and actual Renouncer of his Authority that his title to the Kingdome is just ere he can either account him or punish him as rebellious In answer Dr. H. Repl. p. 44. first denies that he required in the Place there agitated that is in the beginning of his fourth Chapter of Schism any such thing of the Catholicks as to prove their pretensions â—ut his own express words of Schism p. 66. 67. check his bad memory which are these Our method now leads us to enquire impartially what evidences are producible against the Church of England whereby it may be thought liable to this guilt of Schism Whence he proceeds to examine our Evidences and to solve them which is manifestly to put himself upon the part of the Respondent the Catholick on the part of the Opponent that is to make us bring proofs and seem to renounce the claim of our so-qualify'd a possession by condescending to dispute it Whereas we are in all reason to stick to it till it be sufficiently disprov'd which cannot be done otherwise than by rigorous Evidence as hath been shown not to dispute it as a thing dubious since 't is evident we had the possession and such a possession as could give us a title This therefore we ought to plead not to relinquish this firm ground and to fall to quibble with him in wordish testimonies To omit that the evidences he produces in our name are none of ours For the onely evidence we produce when we please to oppose is the evidence of the Infallibility of Vniversal Tradition or Attestation of Fore-fathers which we build upon both for that and other points of Faith nor do we build upon Scripture at all but as interpreted by the practice of the Church and the Tradition now spoken of Wherefore since Dr. H. neither mentions produces nor solves those that is neither the certainty of Vniversal Attestation nor the testimonies of Scripture as explicable by the received doctrine of Ancestours which latter must be done by showing that the doctrine of the Church thus attested and received gives them not this explication 't is evident that he hath not so much as mention'd much less produced or solved our Evidences Our Doctors indeed as private Writers undertake sometimes ex superabundanti to discourse from Scripture upon other Grounds as Grammar History propriety of language c. to show ad hominem our advantage over the Protestants even in their own and to them the onely way but Interpretations of Scripture thus grounded are not those upon which we rely for this or any other point of our Faith So that Dr. H. by putting upon us wrong-pretended Evidences brings all the question as is custome is to a word-skirmish where he is sure men may fight like Andabatae in the dark and so he may hap to escape knocks whereas in the other way of Evident reason he is sure to meet with enough At least in that case the controversy being onely manag'd by wit and carried on his side who can be readiest in explicating and referring one place to another with other like inventions it may be his good fortune to light on such a doltish Adversary that the Doctor may make his ayre-connected discourse more plausible than the others which is all he cares for This being a defence and ground enough for his fallible that is probable Faith Dr. H. defends himself by saying p. 44. he mean't onely that Catholicks bring Christ's donation to S. Peter for an Argument of the Pope's Supremacy instancing against the Cath. Gent. in his own confession that Catholicks rely on that donation as the Foundation or cornerstone of the whole buildâ—ng By which one may see that the Doctor knows not or will not know the difference between a Title and an Argument Christ's donation to S. Peter is our title our manner of trnour by which we hold the Pope his Successour Head pastour not our argument to infer that he is so 'T is part of our Tenet and the thing which we hold upon possession to be disprov'd by them or if we see it fitting to bee prov'd by us not our argument or proof against them to maintain it or conclude it so As a title then we rely and build upon it not produce it as a proof to conclude any thing from it And indeed I wonder any man of reason should imagin we did so since if he be a Scholar he cannot but know that we see how to the Protestants the supposed proof would be as deniable and in
onely to mean at present a deemed or beleeved certainty of Faith in him who is to maintain it Now whoever holds his Faith and its ground certain as Catholiks do is obliged eo ipso to hold for certain likewise that the Government recommended to him by the same Rule of Faith is to be submitted to and by consequence that the rejecting it is Schism whence follows that he must hold also for certain that the Propagatour of that Tenet is a Ringleader of Schismaticks publickly pernicious and one who by his poisonous Writings infects the souls of men with as hainous a vice as ever entituled any to damnation Neither can he hold him otherwise unlesse he will hold the ground of his own Faith uncertain and call into question the substance of all his hope that he may instead thereof entertain charitable thoughts of the impugner of it Now then let us consider what carriage is due towards a private person held for certain to be one who endeavours to draw souls to hell by his Writings and Authority from him who holds him so nor can hold him otherwise unlesse he will hold the grounds of his own Faith doubtful ought not this Catholike Writer if he has any zeal for his Faith or care of his Conscience which obliges him in charity to prevent so great mischief to use the means and waies which wit and art can invent to confute and discredit that mans harmful sophistry and disparage his authority as fat as truth can justifie his words ought hee not to trample down all tendernesse which his good nature would suggest neglect all considerations of respect all condescensions of civility to lay him open plainly and palpably to be what hee is that is ridiculous nonsensical weak blasphemous or whatever other Epithet the defence of so bad a cause makes so bad a writer deserve why should he make scruple going upon those grounds that his Faith is most certain and the former sequel no lesse to give him the same language if he be found to deserve it as St. Iude gave the Adversaries of Faith in his daies as the Fathers gave Porphyrius afterwards nay more if he sees he can make him justly ridiculous why should he not expresse himself ironically too in order to his nonsence as well as Elias might scoffe at the Priests of Baal In a word whatever can conduce to the justly disgracing him as the Defender of a certainly deemed-pernicious cause might lawfully nay in Charity ought have been used to undeceive his adherentes and preserve others from a certainly-beleeved danger and that the greatest of dangers eternal damnation Hence sollows that though S W. may perhaps be blamed for holding his Faith certain yet he is inculpable for proceeding consequently to the former Tenet that is in treating Dr. H. as a pernicious destroyer of soules since as hath been proved he cannot think him otherwise unlesse hee either doubt of his own Faith or renounce the light of his Reason which taught him to deduce thence by evident consequence that such he was and as such to be treated He who holds ill principles is blameable indeed in that regard but yet he is worthy of praise and commendations for proceding consequently upon them since to deduce consequences aright is very laudable As for the culpablenesse which may accrue by holding his Faith certain to clear himseif to rational persons for wordish and merely testimony-men are not capable of reason he feares not to professe that he makes account he hath as perfect evidence or more than he hath for any thing in nature that Truths of no lesse concernment then Eternity written in the hearts of so many as may in a just estimate make up the account of mankind in such a powerful manner and with such incompatable motives as the Apostles writ them being so conformable to nature not meerly speculative but each of them visibile and daily practical could never dye or decay out of the hearts of Christians in any age Nor hath he lesse evidence that consequently Scripture its interpretation being subject to misprision as far as they depend not upon this and are regulaâ—ed by it Vniversal Tradition is the onely certain and absolute rule of Faith whence follows that both they who build upon any other ground have onely opinion to found their faith for those points which they receive nor from tradition as also that that Church who relies upon universal Tradition for each point of Faith erres in none not can erre so long as the sticks close to so safe a Principle Now then finding no Church doe this but the Roman-Catholike for neither Greeks nor Protestants nor any else pretended to have received ever from their immediate Fore fathers those points of Faith in which they differ from her doubt not to account Her that onely Church which hath the true motive ground and rule of Faith since probability cannot be that Rule and consequently which hath true Faith and is a true Church Hence I am obliged to esteem all other Congregations which have broken from that onely-certain Rule or her Government recommended by the same Rule Schismatical and Heretical hence I conclude her Infallible because I make account I can demonstrate that the principle upon which onely she relies is impossible to fail Hence Iastly that I may come home to my intent I account my faith certain and the propagator of the contrary certainly pernicious to mens souls and therfore that it was both his desert and my obligation not to let slip any possible advantage which might with Truth damnify his cause and him as-the maintainer of it Now that we may turn over the leaf as certainty that faith is true is a sufficient ground to beget a just zeal in its propugners against its adversaries so a profest fallibitily and uncertainty is uterly insufficient for that end and unable to interest conscience in its defence For how should conscience be inreressed to defend positions held upon no better ground with any eagernesse unlesse reason be interessed first and how can reason be obliged to the serious and vigorous patronage of what it felf knows certainly that it knows not whether it be true or no See but how the working of Nature in all men gives testimony to this Truth If we hear one obstinately affirm and stand to a thing which we know certainly is otherwise though the matter it self be but of triviall concernment even Nature seems to stirre us up in behalf of Truth to a just resentment and hardly can we refrain from giving a sharp reprehension if the person be underus or some expression of-dislike if this peremptory wronger of truth exceed our jurisdiction So on the other side if we be uncertain whether the thing be so or no we find it quite abates that keennesse of opposition neither will any one unlesse very peevish and weak engage passion to quarrel about a conjecture or if it so happen sometimes as when probablists
whereof England was one It claimed Vniuersal Tradition for it's tenour an Authority held of great efficacy by our very Adversaries the rejecting it if groundless was known to be an hainous Schism and to unknit the whole frame of the Churche's present Government which by consequence must render it in an high degree damnable to those who should go about to violate it Now then let us consider whether a Reason in it's own nature probable for except rigorous Evidence no reason can be more and no way in it's self obliging the Vnderstanding to assent be a sufficient and secure motive to reject an Authority of so long continuance held sacred and of Christ's Institution of such importance to the peace of the Church in rejecting which if one happen to mistake he is liable to the horrid vice of Schism and it 's condign punishment eternal damnation It must then be most peâ—fect demonstrative Evidence such as forces the understanding to assent which can in common prudence engage a man to hazard his salvation by renouncing that Authority Let Dr. H. then remember that they must be such kind of Evidences which can serve his turn not any ordinary common sleight testimony-proofs which for the most part arrive not to the pitch of a poor probability in them selves but compar'd to the tenour of our Government Vniversal Tradition vanish into aire or which is less into nothing To make this yet clearer let us suppose as it happens in our case that they who began to reform in this point first and to deny the lawfulness of this Authority were bred up formerly in a contrary belief ortherwise they must have received it from their Fathers which would quite spoil the supposition of being the first Reformers Neither is it likely that multitudes began to think or speak against it all in one instant but either one or some few chief who propagated it by suggesting it to the rest Now then let us consider what motives are sufficient to oblige these men to this new-begun disbelief and disobedience so as to absolve them even in common prudence from a most self-conceited pride and desperate precipitancy In prejudice of them is objected that heretofore they held that forme of Government as of Faith and acknowledged to receive it upon the same sole certain Rule of Faith which assured them that Christ was God the whole Church they left had confessedly for some ages held the same so that it was now found in quiet Possession If they were learned they could not but in some measure penetrare the force of Vniversal Tradition which stood against them in this point since orall Tradition of which we speak was pleaded by Catholicks for this point but never so much as pretented by the separaters against it because Reformation in a point of Faith and Tradition of it destroy one the other In a word should all these most ponderous Considerations be waved and onely the Authority of the Church they left consider'd t' is impossible they should reform unless they should conclude millions of Doctours which had been in the Church many of them reverenced even yet by the Protestants for their admirable learning to be ignorant in comparison of themselves or else all insincere and to have wronged their Conscience in holding and teaching against their knowledge Now let any ingenuous person consider whether such a strange self-extolling judgment and condemning others ought in reason be made by a few men against the aforesaid most important motives without a most undeniable and open Evidence able to demonstrate palpably and convincingly that this pretended Government was unjust and usurp't And if the first Reformers could have no just and lawfull that is evident Ground to begin their disobedience to that Government neither can their Proselytes and Successours the Protestanrs have any pretence for continuing it since in matters belonging to Eternity whose nature is unchangeable by the occurrence of humane circumstances none can lawfully adhere to that which could never lawfully be begun Neither are there any proofs against that Authority producible now which were not producible then The seventh ground is that No Evidence can possibly be given by the Protestants obliging the understanding to beleeve that this Authority was usurp't This is proved by the case of the first Reformers now explicated whose words could not in any reason be imagin'd evident against such an universall Verdict of the whole Church they left and particularly of all the learned men in it incomparably and confessedly more numerous and as knowing as any have been since Yet we shall further evince it thus They pretend not to any evidence from natural Principles concluding demonstratively that the former Government was usurp't nor yet from oral Tradition since their immediate Forefathers deliver'd them other doctrine else the Reformation could never have begun against our common Supposition Their Grounds then must be testimonial proofs from Scriptures Fathers or Councils But since these are most manifestly liable to be interpreted divers ways as appears de facto no sufficient assurance can be pretended hence without evidencing either more skill to fetch out their certain sense or more sincerity to acknowledge what they knew than was found in the Church they left a task I am perswaded few will undertake I am confident none can perform since all the world knows that the vast number of eminent and learned Doctors we have had in the process of so many ages and extent of so many Countries were persons not meanly vers't in Scriptures Fathers Councills yet held all these most consonantâ—to the Catholick doctrine though the polemical vein of the Schools which left nothing not throughly ventilated gave them ample occasion to look into them Adde to this that our late Doctors and Controvertists have not feared nor neglected to answer all those testimonies and produce a far greater number out of all the said Authorities nor have they behaved themselves so in those conflicts that the indifferent part of the world have held them non-sensical which surely they would had they deemed the other a perfect and rigorous Evidence From hence followes that though they may blunder and make a show with testimonies yet in reality they can never produce sufficient that is evident reasons thence for rejecting a Government qualify'd with so many circumstances to confirm and establish it Though I must confess if they could demonstrate by evident and unavoidable connexion of termes from some undeniable authority that this Government was unjust their Vnderstandings would in that case be obliged to assent to that inference But this is not to be hoped as long as divers words have divers significations as divers Sentences by reference to divers others put on different faces or by relation to several circumstances in history give us occasion to raise several conjectures Again if Evidence were easily producible from such kind of wordish testimonies yet they would still be as far to seek for an Authority
thus granted all that was pretended to wit their Infallibleness in those two sorts of actions because he would be sure to say something to every thing though to never so litle purpose as his custome is he addes first that they were not infallible in all sorts of things What man in his wits ever pretended it or imagin'd but that the Apostles might count mony wrong or be mistaken in knowing what a clock it was Was ever such frivolous stuff heard of Next he tells us that as they were men on earth they were fallible What a mysterious piece of sence is here He hath already confuted himself by granting that when they were men on earth they were Infallible which was solely pretended now that he may seem to impugn us he tacitely counterfeits us to hold that their Infallibility proceeds as from it's formal reason not from the assistance of the holy Ghost but from their being men on earth and by consequence that each man on earth is infallible since à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia Thirdly whereas my words which Answ p. 34. hee makes head against are onely of those two said acts in which hee at length grants they were infallibly assisted by the confirmation of the holy Ghost he rakes up all the Apostles faults and failings before the holy Ghosts descent and thinks to elude my words and delude his Reader by these more than childish evasions His tenth weakness is that he extends p. 34. by a voluntary mistake because he would still have something to say Mr. Knot 's words that the Church was infallible and not subject to errour to signify that it shall undoubtedly be preserved from falling into errour and that not onely from this or that sort of errour but indefinitely from all As if the controversy between Mr. Knot and him were not onely about Infallibility in delivering matters of Faith Is not this a sincere man who would make persons wiser than himself seem so imprudent as to think the Church Infallible in judging whether the Circle can be squared whether Sprights walk in S. Faiths under Paul's or whether a goose-py or a shoulder of mutton be the better dish By Dr. H's Logick it must be out tenet that the Holy Ghost whispers the Church in the ear to speak truth in all these and millions of other such unnecessary fooleries and all this absurdity must light upon us onely from this because Mr. Knot and S. W. said the Church is infallible and not subject to errour when the discourse was about matters of Faith necessary for the salvation of mankind The like non sense shuts up his eleventh Paragraph as the result of the discourse before it so again in the twelfth and fourteenth the same mistaking weakness is that which gives all the strength to the discourse and it is worth the Readers notice that he never impugnes our tenet of Infallibility but by such kind of forgery His eleventh weakness is his shuffling in his eleventh Paragraph where after he had told us very truly that the Apostles had agreed on all things needful for the Church deposited them in each Church as their Rule of Faiâ—h when he drew near the point in question to wit wheâ—her the depositary or Church was infallible and could not erre in delivering the right depositum or whether she might perhaps deliver a wrong one he flies off and tells us Ans p. 35. if they would adhere to that there needed no sitperadded Infallibility to things unnecessary Did ever Mr. Knot or I talk of Infallibility in things unnecessary or is this the point disputed between Catholicks and Protestants Good Mr. H. speak out and tell us whether the depositary can mistake or no in delivering needfull points if she can where is the certainty of our Faith if she cannot then some company of men on earth are infallible in delivering things necessary for Salvation which is the point in Controversy His twelfth weakness is that in going about to show how he can be infallibly certain of the books of Scripture he unawares recurres to our Rule of Faith though he never intends to stand to it affirming here Answ p. 36. that the testimony of others founded in their several sensations being faithfully conveyed to us by undeniable Tradition are as unquestionably certain as if we had seen them ourselves that is as he intimates before l. 3. infallible instancing that of this sort is the tradition of the universal primitive Church c. Where first if this be true I have gained my intent which was to show against him that some company of men might be infallible in attesting things of Faith though not in all things as he calumniates us to hold Next if the Tradition of the Primitive Church be infallible for the reason given I ask why the succeeding Church should not enjoy the same priviledge since the doctrine of Fore fathers being visible practical and so founded in the several sensations of the children they can by witnessing transmit it to their posterity asun questionably truly as if the Grand-children had seen what was held and practised in the Grand-fathers time Nay unless he grant this he hath done nothing that is he hath not shown that he hath any certainty of the books of Scripture for if the Tradition in the primitive Church onely be infallible I may be mistaken in believing the succeeding Tradition in this point since that may deceive me for any thing I know if the after Tradition also was Infallible then we conquer without dispute in this and all other Controversies about Faith since we were found adhering to this universal testification of all our Forefathers whereas they renounc't it when they renounced the Authority it recommended and ran to other Grounds private interpretations of Scripture and odde scraps of misunderstood testimonies and still are glad to sow together these thin figge-leaves to cover the nakedness of their deformed Schism His thirteenth weakness is that in testifying as above-said he sayes the Church is not considered as a society of believers indowed with any inerrable priviledge but as a number of witnesses c. As if they did not first believe it themselves ere they could conspire to deliver it to their Children for true or as if the same persons may both be Beleevers in respect of their Progenitours and Witnesses in respect of their posterity No wiser is his assertion that nothing is here contested from the Authority of their judgments For if he means the points which they contest are not founded on their judgments 't is most certainly true since speaking of points of Faith they are truths revealed by God not productions of mens heads But if he means their judgments went not along with their contestations but while they testified to have received them from their Ancestours they spake contrary to their judgment then they all conspired to tell a ly to their posterity in things of Faith which is impossible
assent sprung from Evidence From this short discourse follows first that our Churches Binding her children to beleef is evidently natural just charitable rational and necessary since she obliges them upon no other Ground than that which in it's own force had pre-obliged their nature to assent to wit Evidence Secondly that no man can revolt from the Faith of such an Authority to any other but through the highest degree of vice and passion since they would be found in this case to assent to another not onely without Evidence but against it Thirdly that therefore the Governours of the Church who proceed according to this power may justly punish and excommunicate those who recede from her Beleef founded in her Authority thus evidenced since this recession must spring from vice or a disorder'd affection in the will and vice all the world allows may be punished Fourthly that no tyranny can possibly be imputed to our Church as long as she proceeds upon such Grounds since she onely governs men according to their nature or Reason Fifthly that they who adhere to any other fallible Congregation upon onely probable that is inevident Grounds against her Authority thus evidenced being therefore as hath been shown in the highest degree vicious and passionate if they prove obstinate in it ought upon necessity to be Excommunicated cast out of the Church and separated from the Congregation of the Faithfull Reason showing plainly if no good can be done for their obstinate Souls order is to be taken that they do no hurt to the Souls of others Sixthly that all who forsake this infallible attestation of the Church they were in called Oral Tradition as did the Protestants in all points wherein they differ from us deserve this Excommunication since they left a pre-acknowledged Evidence and began to dogmatize upon acknowledg'd probabilities onely that is left proceeding to assent in that manner which was acknowledgedly rational connatural and virtuous and beginning to proceed in such a manner as is necessarily irrational unnatural and vicious Seventhly it follows that a Congregation which is fallible cannot without the greatest impudence in the world pretend to oblige rational Souls to assent upon her Authority since if she sees she may be in the wrong hic nunc in such a point she can have no Evidence that she is not actually deceived in it and so wanting Evidence to make good her Authority she wants whatsoever can oblige a rational Soul to assent upon her Authority Eighthly it follows hence that not onely the Independents Presbyterians c. may justly refuse to hear the Protestant Church which acknowledges her self fallible but that they sin if they should hear her since in that case they would be found to assent to an Authority without evidence of the veracity of that Authority Ninthly it follows that the Protestant Church acknowledging her self fallible and the like may be said of all fallible Congregations cannot even oblige the Independents Presbyterians c to behave themselves quietly within their Church and submit to their Government For in case that fallible Congregation oblige her Children to a subscription or declaration of their assent to her doctrine it were a vice either to assent without Evidence of authority which is wanting to a fallible Church or subscribe without a real inward assent as the Doctor himself confesses they may then resist such a command of that Church and express themselves contrary and disobedient Nay more if that Congregation be fallible it may possibly be in a damnable errour and some one or more may happen to see evidently that it is in such an errour and many of ordinary capacity rationally doubt what the others see now in that case why may not the former make account it is their obligatiō to oppose that Church and let men see their soul-endangering errour may maintain a party against her and defy her as one who would bring Souls to Hell by her doctrine As also why may not the latter rather than hazard the accepting a damnable errour adhere to this company of Revolters at least stand neutral between the Church and them Again since it hath been shown they may renounce the Faith of a fallible Church why may they not renounce her Government since her Faith must needs be as sacred as her Government which depends on Faith and is subordinate to it Government being chiefly to maintain Faith and such actions as proceed from Faith Neither is it lawfull yet to revolt against temporal Magistrates upon the score of their fallibility in case they oblige their Subjects onely to act or obey according to the civil State because that is a Government grounded onely upon natural reason instituted for natural ends and plainly evident it must be obey'd unavoydable inconveniences following upon disobedience which force us to confess there 's no safety for our lives or estates without this Obedience Tenthly it follows that Dr. H's denying any company of men on earth to be Infallible and by consequence to have power to bind to beleef is most exquisitely pernicious destroying at once all beleef and leaving no obligation in the world nay making it a sin to beleeve any Article of the Christian Faith For since neither Scripture nor the doctrine of the Primitive Church acknowledged by Dr. H. to have been built upon an Infallible Tradition can be evidenced to us but by some Authority faithfully conveying it down ever since that time if this Authority cannot be evidenced to be infallible no man is bound in reason to assent or believe either Scripture to be God's word or the Doctrine to be Christ's upon her Authority since there wants Evidence of that Authority's veracity which can onely oblige to assent nay more he must needs sin in precipitating his assent without Evidence to ground it on Eleventhly Dr. H. Answ p. 36. in another place grants that this universal attestation in which we found the Churche's Infallibility and all these deductions makes one as certain of a thing as if he had seen it with his own eyes and again confesses himself Infallibly certain of what he hath seen with his own eyes which is as much as we either say or desire Wherefore the good Doctor doth a◠once both confirm us and contradict himself Lastly it follows that it is the height of frivolousness for D. H. even to pretend excuse from obligation to beleeve our Church and assent to the doctrine of his own without most undeniable and rigorous Evidence both for the errableness of ours and the inerrableness of the Protestants Church By these brief deductions from that one evident Ground of the infallibility of Vniversal Attestation the prudent Reader will plainly see how consequently the Catholick Church proceeds to the grounds of Nature and Reason how inconsequently to both the Protestant Churches must necessarily goe when they would oblige either to Government or Faith Since Certainty and Evidence once renounced there remains nothing to move the Vnderstanding to
down at a cheap rate Repl. p. 29. l. 27. with If Councils have any Authority for he is sure no man can possibly oppose him as long as he sayes nothing positively but keeps himself within the powerfull spell of an If. But let us see what follows if Mr. H. pleases to grant Councils any Authority then he tells us that this Authority will certainly be reducible to paternal power meaning of a Priest Bishop Metropolitan c. and this both in Provincial National and General Councils The reason he assignes for his evasion comes to this that the of fence against the whole was consequently an offence against any one there residing True but must the offence against some one Governour of which onely he treated be necessarily an offence against them all or against the whole Council otherwise what will it avail him who is not charged with omitting Schism against any particular Governour after having put that which is against the whole Church or the collection of many but quite contrary which putting down onely the Schisms against particular Governours and omitting that which was against them as collected in a Council Did ever man's Reason run counter in this manner or his insincerity so resolutely persist never to acknowledge any lapse that whereas it is as evident as noon-day that one may dissent from any one Bishop in his grounds and yet consent to the rest still he will needs prove the contrary and that the disobedience to some one sort of paternal Governour is the disobedience to all Again though a Bishop have a kind of paternal Authority over a Priest a Metropolitan over a Bishop c. and so the disobedience of these Inferiours would be against Paternal power as Dr. H. calls his first Head yet what Paternal power hath a Company of Bishops over a single Bishop or a Council consisting of three Patriarchs and five hundred Bishops over one single Patriarch It is evident then that should this Patriarch rebel against the common decrees of all the rest he could not be called a Schismatick against Paternal power and so according to Dr. H's division would be no Schismatick at all since there is no Authority there which could be said to be Paternal in respect of him himself being coequally high that is placed in the top of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy with the rest of the other Patriarchs and a Father in an Ecclesiastical sense over all the rest Their power therefore over him consists in the collective force of so many united which makes them considerable in respect of him as a whole compared to a part Now then since Dr. H cannot even pretend to have treated of a Schism against any collective power but against an Authority consisting in higher rank or degree onely 't is most evident to the most ordinary Vnderstanding that he omitted Schism against Authority of Councils After all this adoe he confesses here Rep. p. 30. that he treated not specially of Schism against General Councils that is he confesses his Division of Schism insufficient which was onely objected No I had forgot he onely goes about to give reasons why he did not treat it more specially by which pretty expression the good Reader is to be made beleeve that he had treated of it specially and onely omitted to handle it more specially whereas he purposely and professedly waved the handling it at all in this Controversy as is to be seen Of Schism p. 60. Ad now so exquisite is his shuffling art after he had labour'd to produce proofs that he did treat of Schism against Councils he brings his excuses why he did not doe it ibid. First because Councils were remedies of Schism But since they remedied them authoritatively and with such an Authority as in comparison of any one degree of power by him treated was as it were of an Vniversal in respect of a particular the Schism against them was by consequence proportionably or rather improportionably greater and so deserved in all right an eminent place of it 's own in his division Next because they are extraordinary and not standing Iudicatures I answer they are likewise of an extraordinary Authority as hath been shown and therefore could not merit to be slighted by him His third is because this was not a constant sort of Schism but upon accidental emergencies That is his treatise of Schism doth not absolutely forbid a man to be a Schismatick in an higher sort of Schism so it happen upon occasion but takes care first and more specially that he be not a Schismatick in one of those constant sorts of Schism though it be of far less guilt His fourth excuse as I reckon them is because they are now morally impossible to be had Very good his Church is accused by us of Shism against General Councils already past and Dr. H. in this book entitled their Defence therefore treats not particularly of Schism against them because they are morally impossible to be had at present and for the future though towards the end of the world he thinks it probable there may be one Of which divination of his I can give no better reason than this that Antichrist who is to be then the Vniversal secular Governour and by consequence according to Mr. H's grounds the Head of God's Church or Supreme in Ecclesiastical affaires will doe Christianity that favour as to gather a General Council This I say if any must be his meaning for the reason given by him here why they are now morally impossible to be had is because the Christian world is under so many Empires and when they are likely to be united into one towards the end of the world unless it be under Antichrist I confess my self unable to prognosticate His last excuse is Repl. p. 31. l. 2. because the Principal sort of Schism charged by the Romanists is the casting out the Bishop of Rome I answer that we charge not the Protestant with a simple Schism but a decompound one involving also heresy in each of it's parts First with a Schism from the whole Church in renouncing the Rule and Root of all our Faith Vniversal Oral Tradition of immediate Fore-fathers and by consequence separating themselves from the whole Body of the Faithful as Faithful next with renouncing the Authority of Councils proceeding upon this Ground in declaring things of Faith and lastly with not onely disobeying but disacknowleding the Authority of the Pope recommended to us by both the former And it seems strange that Mr. H. should goe about to clear the sufficiency of his division by recurring to our charging or not charging of Schism whereas he has not taken notice of any of these three Schisms charged against him but onely of petty ones against the Paternal power of a Bishop Patriarch c. which may be consistent with a guiltlesness from the other three principal ones He promised us in his Answer p. 8. 9. that he had rescued the Catholick Gentleman 's letter
This manner of treating Scripture then we Catholicks account in an high degree blasphemous nay to open the way to all blasphemousness and this because we do not dogmatize upon it or affix to it any interpretation that we build faith upon which is not warranted by the Vniversal practice of the Church and our Rule of Faith Vniversal Tradition though we know 't is the Protestant's gallantry to make it dance afther the jigging humour of their own fancies calling all God's word though never so absurd which their own private heads without ground or shadow of ground imagine deducible thence nay more to call it an Evidence that is a ground sufficient to found and establish Faith upon And thus much for Dr. H's blasphemous and irreverent treating both Faith and Scripture Sect. 4. How Dr. H. prevaricates from his own most express words the whole tenour of his Discourse the main scope of his most substantial Chapter and lastly from the whole Question by denying that he meant or held Exclusive Provinces And how to contrive this evasion he contradicts himself nine times in that one point AT length we are come home close to the question it self Whether the Pope be Head of the Church pretended to be evidently disproved by Dr. H. in the fourth Chapter of Schism by this argument S. Peter had no Supremacy therefore his Successour the Pope can have none The consequence we grant to be valid founding the Authority of the latter upon his succeding the former But we absolutely deny the Antecedent to wit that S Peter had no Supremacy that is supreme power and Iurisdiction in God's Church Dr. H. pretends an endeavour to prove it in this his fourth Chapter offering his Evidences for this negative p. 70. l. 4. First from S. Peter's having no Vniversal Iurisdiction from parag 5. to parag 20. Secondly from thence to the end of the Chapter from his not having the Power of the Keyes as his peculiarâ—â—ty and inclosure that is from his not having them so as we never held him to have had them His first Argument from S. Peter's not having an Vniversal Iurisdiction proceeds on this manner that each Apostle had peculiar and exclusive Provinces pretended to be evidenced in his fifth parag from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lot of Apostleship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudas his place in Hell of Schism p. 71. that the Iews onely were S. Peter's Province nay that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction that the Gentiles were S. Paul's c. and all this undertaken there to be evidenced by testimonies from Scripture Fathers and other Authours What hath been the success of his Evidences from his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath already been manifested by showing that he had neither any ground in the place it self to favour his explication of a lesser province nor among all the many-minded Commenters on Scripture so much as one Authority to second it As for his limiting S. Peter's Iurisdiction to the Iews onely and S. Paul's to the Gentiles by his pretended proofs his Disarmer offer'd him p. 52. that if among those many testimonies he produces to prove it there be but found any one sentence line word syllable or letter which excludes S. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles more than what himself puts in of his own head he would be content to yeeld him the whole Controversy which he vindicated to the very eyes of the Reader from every testimony one by one alledged by Dr. H. In this manner stood the case then between S. W. and his Adversary it remains now to be seen what reply he tenders to so grievous heavy and unheard-of a charge and how he can colour a fault so gross palpable and visible to the eye of every Reader Observe good Reader I beseech thee whether thou be Catholick ProtestaÌ„t or of whatever other profession that now the very point of the Controversy is in agitation For we pretend no tenour for the Pop'es Supremacy save onely that he succeeds S. Peter whom we hold to have had it if then it be evidenced as is pretended that S. Peter had none the Doctor hath inevitably concluded against us Reflect also I intreat thee on the grievousness of the charge layd by S. W. against Dr. H. and make full account as reason obliges thee and I for my part give thee my good leave that there must be most open knavery and perfect voluntary insincerity on one side or other and when thou hast examin'd it well I am a party and so must not be a Iudge lay thou the blame where thou shalt find the fault Neither despair that thou hast ability enough to be a coÌ„petent Iudge in this present contest here is no nice subtlety to be speculated but plain words to be read for what plainer than to see whether in the testimonies there be any words limiting the Iurisdiction of S. Peter or whether they were onely the additions of Dr. H. antecedently or subsequently to the testimonies But what needs any Iudge to determine or decide that which Dr. H. himself hath confest here in his Reply and Answer where seeing it impossible to show any one word in all that army of Testimonies which he muster'd up there limiting S. Peters Iurisdiction to the Iews or excluding it from the Gentiles which yet was there pretended he hath recourse for his justification to the most unpardonable shift that ever was suggested by a desperate cause viz. to deny that he mean't exclusiveness of â—urisdiction that is to deny his own express words the whole tenour of his discourse there the main scope and intention of that Chapter ' and lastly to change and alter the state and face of the whole Question This is my present charge against him consisting of these foure branches which if they be proved from his own words he is judged by his own mouth and can hope for no pardon but the heaviest coÌ„demnation imaginable from all sincere Readers since it is impossible to imagin a fifth point from which he could prevaricate omitted by him and consequently his present prevarication is in the highest degree culpable and unpardonable First then his own express words manifest he mean't Exclusiveness of Iurisdiction For of Schism p. 70. he uses the very word exclusively saying that S. Peter was Apostle of the Iews exclusively to the Gentiles and that this exclusiveness was meant to be of Iurisdiction is no less expressely manifested from the following page where it is said that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction which is seconded by his express words here also Reply p. 56 the portion of one Apostle is so his that he hath no right to any other part Excludes him from any farther right c. and sure if he have no right to preach to any other Provinces he hath no Iurisdiction at all
Bishop and his consistory afterwards which was I deated in this first consistory of the Apostles wherefore since Dr. H. grants no higher degree of Authority in S. Peter than in the rest of the Apostles he can conclude no more but this that the Presbyters are all equall in Authority as the Apostles were that is there ought to bee no more-highly-authoriz'd Bishop over them but onely that one of those equally-dignify'd Presbyters ought to sit talk or walk before the rest according to Dr. H's explication of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Primacy of order Thus whiles the Dr. disputes from this place against the Presbytery he falls into Popery As for what he tells me here that it is the interest of S. W. as well as of the Protestants to mantain this point against the Presbyterians who a lone can gain by the questioning it I answer that I love the Presbyterians so well as not to wish them renounce their reason that is man's nature which they must doe if they assent to what the Protestants say upon a probability onely nay a totally improbable and rather opposit Text. Nor should I wish them so much hurt as to beleeve Episcopacy unles I made account the Catholick Church was able to give them rigorously convincing evidence for her Authority asserting it which is impossible the Protestants should do unles they plow with our heifer and recur to our Rules of faith universall Tradition so oft renounc'd by them for other points Observe Reader that I had shown his explication of this place of Scripture against the Presbyterians to make unavoidably against thim self Schism Disarm'd p. 95. In reply to which dangerous point Answ p. 66 par 16. he onely calls my reasons expressions of dislike to his argument against Presbytery that it is not pertinent to the question that it hath not as he supposes any show of the least diâ—ficulty in it and so ends As if my showing that our tenet follows more naturally out of the words even as explicated thus by him self were onely an expression of dislike impertinent to our question or had not if proved any show of the least difficulty in it yet he braggs at the end of this Section that he hath attended me precisely and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 step by step though he makes when he spies danger such large skips over me Solution 8. The words feed my Sheep are nothing but an â—xhortation to discharge that duty to which he was beforâ— commissionated Rep. p. 68. par 10. p. 63. Reply had he ever a particular Commission given him correspondent to the particularizing promise but here or was not the word pasce spoken imperatively by a Master to his servant as apt to signify a Commission as the words Goe teach all Nations were how then appears it from the words that this was onely an exortation and if it does not what is it more then Dr. H's own saying Solution 9 The circumstances in the Text can never work a change in the matter an inculcated expresse particulariz'd explication introduc'd with a question to quicken and impresse it can never be converted by these accumulationâ— into a Commission for supremacy Answ p. 63. Reply first you must show that the words persuade it was onely an Exhortation else all this and your following discourse falls to the ground Next such particularizing circumstances to S. Peter in the presence of the rest are apt in their owne nature to make him or any man living ready to apprehend that the thing promised belonged to him in a particular manner els to what end serv'd they would noâ— a common promise have sufficed if this had not been intended Thirdly there needed no converting the signification of the pasce from an Exhortation into a Commission of Supremacy The word was apt before of it self to signify a Commission the accumulation of particularizing circumstances gave it to signify a particular Commission Let the reader examin Dr. H. by what force of the words he proves t' is an exhortation onely since the words themselves are words of Commission there being nothing proper to a meer exhortation in them And as for the Drs parallell here that Christ's praying the same prayer thrice did not make it cease to be a prayer and commence a precept t 's soe silly as a sillier cannot be imagin'd since neither the words of Christ's prayer are apt to be converted from a praying to a commanding signification nor was it likely or possible that Christ should impose precepts upon his heavenly father to whom he pray'd as he could upon S. Peter not lastly is it onely the thrice saying that wee build upon as abstracted from all the other particularising circumstances but the thrice saying a precept and a precept thus exprest Solution 10. The asking him thriâ—e lovest thou me made S. Peter no doubt deem it a reproach of his thrice denying his Master Answ p. 63. The Text saith Peter was greeved because he said vnto him the third time Lovest thou me which Sure he would not have been if he had looked on it as an introduction to so great a preferment Reply Dr. H. hath here at unawares bewray'd what kinde of Spirit he is of who makes account that the getting some great preferment is a ground of more gladnes then our Saviours seeming to doubt of his love to him would be occasion of sorrow But he shall give me and all good Christians â—eave to think that good S. Peter was of another temper and that he valued the good opinion of his Master questioning so much his love to him above the attainment of any dignity imaginable Though I must confesse Dr. H's Noe doubt and Sure upon which all depends are two sure cards were they authoris'd by any thing besides his own words and 't is a very competent answer with him to say he is sure and there is no doubt but that S. Peter gap't so much after a preferment that he car'd not in comparison of it what opinion his B. Master had of him in order to his loving him Again how do the words soe put it beyond all doubt that the asking him thrice lovest thou mee was deemed by S. Peter a reproach of his thrice deniall whereas the Text tells us that S. Peter was fully persuaded of his Masters knowledge of his love and confidently appeal'd to that knowledge Lord thou knowest all things thou knowest that I love thee Nor have wee any ground to think that S. Peter apprehended his sweet Master so cruell as to upbraid a forgiven sin especially seeing the return of so much love in the breast of his dear Disciple If Dr. H. pretend that it was to excite in him a greater care of Christ's flok the words indeed give countenance to it But then it should be ask'd what necessity was there of exciting a greater care in S. Peter in particular had he shown him self of soe negligent a nature as to give occasion of doubt that
his most partiall Admiter if he have not absolutely renounc't his reason resolved the slender fading thing into the Drs Authority must see confess he was wilfully fraudulent intended to breed in the Readers minde by the words thus maimedly falsly put another apprehension than the testimony it self rightly dealt with could have caused Yet as long as this Enemy to Truth true dealing makes zealous professions of his entire desire to speak the full Truth of God and that he did in the sincerity of his heart verily beleeve and such like womanish demurenesses he hopes there will be found a company so weakly simple as to give him credence and that his moderate bashfull language will to these good weak sighted Souls be a cloack thick enough to hide or excuse his immoderately shamefull deeds Of such kinde of falsifications Reader I could afford thee variety were it necessary but I have already done enough to secure thee from this Drs Arts and the consequence of them Schism as maintain'd asserted by him Peruse my book attentively thou shalt observe I never call his materiall error in transcribing a falsification I doubt not but I could show thee one hundred such of his for my single one were it worth the pains but onely when I manifest the advantage he got by such a carriage which he never goes about to show in those he objects to mee Again thou â—eest how easily those falsifications he pretends as mine are clear'd nay shown to thine eye to be unconcerning toies or groundles willfull calumnies His which I objected in Schism Disarm'd are left by him unclear'd as this Treatise hath from place to place shown thee And so Reader I leave thee to thy candid thoughts which I desire thee to employ in ruminating upon the Dr. as put in this pickle requesting of thee in mine Adversary's behalf not to be too rigorous in thy censures of him abate as much as the consideration of humane errablenes frailty can suggest to a rationally-compassionate minde onely be not partiall in what is evidently fraudulent and then thou shalt right Truth thy self mee too by one impartially ingenuous rationall act I have onely one word to speak to the Dr. and then I take my leave You see Dr. H. it will not do no tricks can prevail against Truth she will conquer and knows how to defend herself by the weakest Weapon Were it not better now to give God and his Church the honour due to them and show at length your willingnes to acknowledge faults so plainly undeniably open than to continue your fruitles pains to show your self unretractably obstinate Nor do I impute them however I may seem rigorous too plain originally to you I know the necessity of your cause obliges you forcibly to rely on such uniustifiable waies I know and your self cannot but know the same how miserably you are glad to pervert the words voluntarily mistake and thus mistakingly propose to your Readers the true import and sence of your Testimonies and to content your self with any sleight gloss which not your impartiall judgment gives absolutely to be the meaning but what your partiall fancy can imagin may be defended on some sleight fashion to be the meaning See in the Index what undeniable self contradictions weaknesses absurdities voluntary mistakes falsifications your task of defending Schism hath put you upon Be true to your own best interest a sincere conscience be true at least to your own honour and neglect for the future the defence of that cause which must inevitably throw you upon such Rocks The further you reply the worse it will still fare with you For to clear your self of these falsifications other manifold faults satisfactorily is impossible eye-sight attesting them not to clear your self of them is doubly disgracefull fluttering up down as your way of writing is entangles you more Sit still and you will be safer You cannot but see acknowledge that your position of a probable faith leads directly to Atheism if follow'd and that since none has reason to assent further then he has reason that is further then the reasons given convince and since no probability can possibly convince the thing is true or that the Authority speaks true it is impossible any man living can have any obligation in your Grounds to assent that any point of faith is true or any Authority to be beleeved nay if he will not renounce his nature he ought to suspend in both these that is embrace no faith at all The necessity of holding which tenet so fundamentally pernicious to all Christianity so odious to all good Christians unavoidably follows out of your principles of Schism built upon the rejecting the onely certain Rule of faith immediate TraditioÌ„ and the consciousnes to your self that your weak testimony-way reaches no further than probability enforces you to own it and aym at no higher a pitch of satisfaction that is none at all for how can probability satisfy Look behinde you then see what a great deal of industry time you have fruitlesly lost in turning over promiscuously multitudes of Authors without first studying Grounds that is without first laying your thoughts in order with evident deduction from and connexion with first Principles This task onely is called knowledge the former without this is more apt to lead to ignorance mistake leaving onely a confusion of motley incohereÌ„t thoughts in a mans head impossible to be orderly rank't in the posture of knowledge unles regulated by fore layd Grounds Look before you and you shall see many late wits whose gallant self-understanding Souls own their nature rationally scorn to submit to any assent but upon rigorous demonstrative Evidence either of the thing it self in Science or of the Authority in faith Suffer your self to be won to the imitation of these pursvers of knowledge leave talking words begin to speak Sence leave of to diffuse scatter abroad your fleeting thoughts in a Sermonary Preaching way and begin to connect them into rigorous discourse that is instead of aiery talk begin to iudge know instead of empty florish learn to be solid Ina word aym seriously to know that is to assent upon Evidence and then I am confident our understandings will meet in a ioynt-assent and I hope our wills in a consent submission to the Authority of that Church whose Rule of faith immediate Tradition is evidently demonstrable This Sâ— is the hearty wish of him who however you may apprehend him protests he preserves a more prompt zeal naturall alacrity to honour serve you in what you can iustly be concieved deserving than he hath to discover the faults your tenets made you commit which yet was at present his unavoidable duty the truth of your miscariages being ioyn'd to the certainty concernment of his cause you iniur'd by them YOVR SERVANT S. W. FINIS THE APPENDIX VINDICATED AGAINST
then hee runs on wildly and boldly challenging mee that I cannot show out of Scripture that S. Peter was at Rome that our own Authours say S. Peter might have dy'd at Antioch and the succession into his power have remain'd thâ—re c. Answers soe frivolous soe totally impertinet to the point in hand that I wonder how any man can have the patience to read such a trifler or the folly as to think him worth heeding To omitt that hee pick't these words which hee impugns here out of a paragraph following a leaf after which totally concern'd a dangerous and fundamentall point as shall presently bee seen and so it importing him to neglect it hee cull'd out and mistakingly glanc't at these few loose words which hee thought by a device of his own he could best deal with for a colour of his necessary negligence What hee adds of the Council of Chalcedon hath been answer'd an hundred times over and by mee Schism Disarm p. 109. 110. c. nor deserves any reiteration till hee urge it farther especially being soe rawly put down Onely because hee builds upon their giving equall priviledges to Constantinople without manifesting what those priviledges were wee shall take leave to think that as Rome still remain'd first in order as his late words granted and Protestants confess notwithstanding those equall priviledges so for any thing hee knows it might still remain Superiour in Iurisdiction and till hee evince that priviledges in that place mean't Iurisdiction to which the word will bee very loath hee is far from bringing it to our question or to any purpose His next task is a very substantiall and important one striking at the Rule and Root of all our faith yet by voluntary mistaking no less than every syllable of it hee quickly makes clear work with it Hee was told that wee hold our first Principle by this manifest Evidence that still the latter age could not bee ignorant of what the former believed and as long as it adhered to that method nothing could bee alter'd in it Which the wily Bp. answers by telling us that the Tradition of some particular persons or some particular Churches in particular points or opinions of an inferiour nature which are neither soe necessary to hee known nor firmly believed nor so publikely and uniuersally professed nor derived downwards from the Apostolicall age by such uninâ—or upted succession doth produce no such cerâ—aâ—nty either of Evidence or adherence Where First hee knows wee mean Tradition of all the Churches in Communion with the see of Rome that is of all who have not renounced this Rule of immediate Tradition for all who differ from her never pretended this immediâ—te delivery for those points in which they differ from her but receded from that Rule as the Apology for Tradition hath manifested indeed plain reason may inform us It being impossible and self condemning where there was an Vnity before for the beginners of a Novelty to pretend their immediate fathers had taught them that which the whole world sees they did not Now the Bp. talkes of Traditions of some particular persons or some particular Churches desirous to make his Readers believe wee rely on such a Tradition and so defective as hee expresses that is hee makes account our pretended Tradition must not bee styl'd universall unles it take in those persons and those Churche also who have formerly renounced and receded from this Rule of Tradition Which is as much as if hee had said a thing cannot bee absolutely white unles it bee black too Secondly wee speake of believing that is of points of faith but the Bp. talkes of opinions and those not concerning ones neither but as hee styles them opinions of an inferiour nature And then having by this sleight changed faith into opinion hee runs giddily forwards telling us fine things concerning questionable and controverted points of Opinions in the Schools and how hard a thing it is to know which opinion is most current c. Is not this sincerely done and strongly to the purpose Thirdly hee cants in these words So necessary to bee known I ask are they necessary or no If they bee not necessary why does hee seem to grant they are by saying onely that they are not so necessary But if they bee necessary then why does hee call them opinions onely and that too of an inferiour nature Can that bee necessary to bee held or known which hath no necessary Grounds to make it either held or known Opinions have neither Fourthly hee speaks of points not so publikeâ—y professed whereas every point of faith is publike and notorious being writ in the hearts of the faithfull by the teaching of their Parents and Pastouts sign'd by all their expressions and seal'd by their actions Nor is there any point of faith for example in which the Protestant differs from us which is not thus visible and manifesting our Church now and was then when they first broke from that doctrine of their immediate â—ncestours Fifthly hee speaks of points not universally professed that is if any heretick receding from immediate Tradition of his fathers shall start a novelty propagate it to posterity the Tradition and profession of this point in the Church must not bee said to bee universall because that heretick professes and delivers otherwise and so Socinians by the Bps argument may assist their cause and say it was not universally professed that Christ was God because the Arians anciently profest otherwise The like service it would do an Arian or any other Heretick to alledge as the Bp. does that the Christian world must bee vnited otherwise the Tradition is not certain for as long as that Heretick has a mind to call himself and his friends Christians which hee will ever do so long hee may cheaply cavill against the Authority of the whole Church But empty words shall not serve the Bps turn Let him either show us some more certain Rules to know who are Christians who not that is some certainer Rule of faith than is the immediate practicall delivery of a world of fathers to a world of sons oâ— else let him know that all those who have receded from this immediate delivery as did acknowledgd'ly the Protestants at the time of their Reformation as also the Greeks Arians c. in those points of faith in which they differ from us are not truly but improperly call'd Christians neither can they claim any share in Tradition or expect to bee accounted fellow-deliverers of faith who have both formerly renounced that Rule and broach't now doctrines against it which like giddy whirlpools run crossely to that constantly-and directly flowing stream Lastly hee requires to the Evidence and certainty of Tradition that it bee derived downwards from the Apostles by such an uninterrupted succession Wee are speaking of the Rule of faith itself that is of Tradition or the deriving points of faith from the Apostles immediately from age to age or if hee pleases from
ten years to ten years and wee tell him that this Rule is a manifest Evidence because 't is impossible the latter age should bee ignorant of what the foregoing age beleeved Hee runs away from Tradition or the delivering to points delivered and tells us they must come downwards from the Apostles uninterruptedly ere they can bee certain Whereas this point is confest by all and avouched most by us who place the whole certainty of faith in this uninterrupted succession The point in question is whether there be any certain way to bring a point downwards uninterruptedly from the Apostles but this of Tradition or attestation of immediate fathers to sons or rather wee may say 't is evident from the very terms that it could not come down uninterruptedly bur by this way since if it came not down or were not ever delivered immediately the descent of it was mediate or interrupted and so it came not down uninterruptedly The like voluntary mistake hee runs into when hee calls the Apostles creed a Tradition since hee knows wee speak of the method or way of conveying points of faith downwards not of the points convey'd But I am glad to see him acknowledge that the delivery of the Apostles creed by a visible practice is an undeniâ—ble Evidence that it came from the Apostles If hee reflect hee shall find that there is scarce one point of faiâ—h now controverted between us and Protestants but was recommended to his first Reformers by immediate forefathers as derived from the Apostles in a practice as daily visible as is the Apostles creed and that the lawfulnes of Invoking saincts for their intercession the lawfulnes of Images Praying for the Dead Adoration of the B. Sacrament c. and in particular the subjection to the Pope as supream Head were as palpable in most manifest and frequent circumstances as was that creed by being recited in Churches and professed in Baptism After I had set down the first part of the matter of fact to wit that at the time of the Reformation the Church of England did actually agree with the Church of Rome in those two Principles I added the second part of it in these words It is noe lesse evident that in the dayes of Edward the sixth Q Elizabeth and her successours neither the former Rule of Vnity in faith nor this second of Vnity in Government have had any power in that Congretion which the Protestants call the English Church The Bp. who must not seem to understand the plainest words lest hee should bee obliged to answer them calls this down right narration of a matter of fact my Inference and for answer tells us hee holds both those Rules Well shuffled my Ld pray let mee cut Either you mean you hold now the sence of those Rules that is the thing wee intend by them and then you must say you hold the Pope's supremacy and the Tradition of immediate forefathers both which the world knows and the very terms evince you left of to hold at your Reformation or else you must mean that you hold onely the same words taken in another sence that is quite another thing and then you have brought the point as your custome is to a meere logomachy and shown yourself a downright and obstinate prevaricatour in answering you hold those words in stead of telling us whether you hold the thing or noe Possum-ne ego ex te exculpere hoc verum The Principle of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome immediately before your Reform was de facto the acknowledgment of the Pope's Authority as Head of the Church the Principle of Vnity in faith was then de facto the ineheriring from or the immediate Tradition of Ancestours De facâ—o you agreed with those of the Church of Rome in those two Principles de facto you have now renounced both those principles and hold neither of them therefore you have de facto broke both those bonds of Vnity therefore de facto you are flat Schismaticks As for what follows that there is a fallacy in Logick â—all'd of more interrogations than one I answer that there is in deed such a fallacy in Logick but not in my discourse who put no interrogatory at all to him As for the two positions which so puzzle him the former of S. Peter's being supreme more than meerly in order hee knows well is a point of my faith which I am at present defeâ—ding against him and have sufficiently exprest my self p. 307. l. 1â— c. by the words first Mover â—o mean a Primacy to act first in the Church and not to sit first in order onely The latter point is handled in this Treatise in its proper place No sincerer is his 12. page than the former I onely put down p. 308 what our tenet was and hee calls my bare narration my second inference and when hee hath done answers it onely with voluntary railing too silly to merit transcribing or answering The matter of fact being declared that actually now they of the Church of England had renounced both the said Principles it was urged next that his onely way to clear his Church from Schism is either by disproving the former to bee the necessary Rule of Vnity in faith or the latter the necessary bond of Government for if they bee such Principles of Vnity it follows inevitably that they having broke them both as the matter of fact evinces are perfect Schismaticks since a Schismatick signifies one who breaks the Vnity of a Church What sayes my Ld D. to this this seems to press very close to the Soul of the question and so deserves clearing Hee clears it by telling us wee are doubly mistaken and that hee is resolu'd to disprove neither though unles hee does this the very position of the matter of fact doth alone call him â—chismatick But why is hee in these his endeavours to vindicate his Church from Schism so backwards to clear this concerning point Why first because they are the persons accused By which method no Rebell ought to give any reason why hee did so because hee is accused of Rebellion by his lawfull Governour Very learnedly Now the truth is wheresoever there is a contest each side accuses the other and each side again defends it self against the the others accusations but that party is properly call'd the defendant against which accusations or objections were first put and that the OpponeÌ„t or Aunswerer which first mou'd the accusations It being then most manifest that you could not with any face have pretended your Reform but you must first accuse your former actuall Governour of vsurpation your former Rule of faith of Erroneousnes it follows evidently that wee were the parties first accused that is the defendants you the accusers or opponents for whoever substracts himself from a former actuall Governour and accuses not that Governour of something which hee alledges for his motive of rising that person eo ipso
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—
Authority deserved to bee abolish't for it's own sake as accompany'd with the sayd grievances Secondly the Bp. tells us that they seek not extirpation of the Papacy but the reducing it to the primitive constitution which is as good sence as to give a manabox on the ear and then tell him you intend not to strike him They have already totally extirpated it in England in such sort as all the world sees and acknowledges the Pope hath not the least influence upon the English Congregation over which before hee had the greatest yet they hope to bee taken for moderate men as long as they speak courteous non-sence and tell us they seek not to extirpate it Thus the Bp. wanders from the purpose but still all is my fault who would not grant him his two conditions Thirdly hee tells us that Monarchy and Episcopacy are of divine Institution so is not saith hee a Papall soueraignty of Iurisdiction That Monarchy should bee of divine Institution I much wonder surely the Venetians and Hollanders are in a sad case then who thus continue without relenting to break one of God's Commandments especially their Brethren the Hollanders who renounced the Monarchicall Government of the King of Spain But the learned Bp. hath some text or other in Scripture which hee interprets onely according to Grammar and Dictionary-learning without ever looking into Politicks the science which concerns such points passages which would have taught him that Government was instituted for the good of the Governed and that since human affairs are subject to perpetuall mutability and change it happens that in some countries and some circumstances one form of Government is convenient in others another according as it happens to bee best for the Governed which comes to this that no particular form of Government is of divine Institution and constituted to endure ever seing the end to which all Government is directed the good of the Governed is mutable and changeable As for the next part of his third excuse that the Pope's Authority or Headship in Iurisdiction is not of divine Institution as Episcopacy is you see 't is his old trick onely his own bare saying and which is worse saying over again the very point in dispute between us Whereas the point which wee urge here is a plain matter of fact that those who first renounc't the Papall Authority held immediately before they renounc't it as firmly that it was divine Institution as the Protestants do of Episcopacy now and therefore ought to have renounc't it upon the pretended pressure of inconveniencies no more than Episcopacy ought to bee abolish't upon the like inconveniences Nay more the first Reformers ere they grew newfangled and chang'd their mind held it much more firmly for they held it a point of faith and abhorr'd all them who renounc't it as Schismaticks and Hereticks both whereas the Protestants acknowledge the Huguenots of France for Brothers who yet deny Episcopacy which the Bp. tells us upon another occasion is of divine Institution But 't is all one with the Protestants whether they renounce all Christ's Institutions or no if they do but hate Rome they are saints and Brothers The common faction against the Pope is more powerfull to unite them than the professed and obstinate rejecting Christ's ordinances is to disunite them As for his Bravado how rarely hee could iustify his Parliamentary Prelacy what weak performances it would afford were it put to triall may bee judged from his numerous and enormous contradictions in this present treatise bragg'd on by the Protestants to bee his Master peece Sect. 6. How my Lâ— of Derry states the whole question false by pretending against the plain matter of fact that they separated onely from the Court and not from the Church of Rome His Grounds of separation shown insufficient in many regards nay confest such by himself granting there was another remedy besides division That the Reformers have neither left any open and certain method of coming to Christ's faith nor any form of Government in God's Church nor by consequence any Church His weak plea for England's independency from the Council of Ephesus Five palpable contradictions cluster'd together which the Bp. calls the Protestants more Experience than their Ancestors HIs sixth section pretends to vindicate his Grounds of separation to take notice of which the Bp. is violently importunate with the Reader bidding him observe and wonder Nor can I doe any less seeing such monstrous stuff throughout this whole Section It begins we are now come to the Grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome And this is the first Monster which the Bp's pen more fruitfull of such creatures than Africk it self proposes to our observation Which if it bee not as foul and uncouth an one as errour could hatch and obstinate Schism maintain you shall pay but pence a peece to see it and say I have abus'd you too The charge against the Protestants was this manifested by undeniable matter of fact that they had rejected the acknowledgment of S. Peters and his successours the Pope's Headhip over God's Church and that they had receded from this Rule of faith that nothing is to bee adhered to as of faith but what was inherited that is immediately delivered by their forefathers as the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles That they renounced the former is manifest by the whole worlds and their own Confession That they renounced the latter is no less manifest by the same undeniable attestation and indeed out of the very word Reformation which signifies a not immediate delivery It is no less evident that the acknowledgment of the former both was at the time of the Reformation and now is the Principle of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome that is to all the Churches they themselves communicated with or were united to before they broke for 't is as visible as the sun at nonday that France Spain Portugal Italy c. consent and center in a ioynt acknowledgment of the Pope's Headship and are therefore held by Protestants Puritans and all contrary sects for Papist Countreys It is evident likewise that the acknowledgment of the latter was and is to the sayd Churches the Principle of Vnity in faith for they ever held the living voice of the Church that is the immediate Tradition or delivery of Pastours and forefathers an infallible Rule of faith wherefore ' it is unavoidably consequent that the Protestants dissenting from and disagreeing in both the sayd Principles in which these then-fellow Churches consented and agreed were and are separated from all those Churches and all that belong to those Churches And this according to the two sayd Principles Again since nothing can bee more essentiall to a Church than that which is the Rule and Root of Vnity both in faith and Government it follows that the Protestants dissenting in both and acting accordingly that is having separated according to both separated and
were not I show First those inconveniences hee reckons up as extortions vsurpations of more than belong'd to them causing animosities between the crown and the miter c. though they had been true are evidently abuses of the Officer and argue no fault in the Office it self of Head of the Church nor that the Right use of it ought therefore to bee taken away Secondly some of those pretended Abuses are his own deductions onely as that it is against the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which hee endeavours not to show evidently out of the science of Politicks which is proper to those matters nor any thing else of this nature but out of two or perhaps three matters of fact which onely inferr'd that it happen'd so sometimes and then by the same reason Episcopacy and all the Offices in the world must bee abolish't and abrogated Thirdly that some of those pretended Abuses are indeed such and not rather just Rights hee no way proves for hee onely puts down that such and such things were done but whether rightfully or no I presume hee will not think himself such a rare Iuris vtriusque Doctor as to make a fit umpire to decide law quarrells of this highe'st nature And on the other side none is ignorant that either party had learned lawiers for them to avouch their pretences I omit that the Kings were worsted so metimes and renounc't their pretence as in that of investitures Fourthly the temporall laws hee cites conclude not evidently a Right for it is as easy for a Canon-lawier to object that the temporall laws wrong the Ecclesiasticall as it is for civill lawiers to say that the Ecclesiasticall wrong theirs but with this disadvantage to the latter that reason gives more particular respect and charines ought to bee used in disannulling or retrenching Ecclesiasticall laws than temporall by how much they are neerer ally'd to the Church and by consequence to the order of mankinde to Beatitude Fifthly hee abuses those pretended Abuses most unconscionably saying that the Pope usurp't most unjustly all Right civill Ecclesiasticall sacred prophane of all orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. Which is such a loud-mouth'd calumnie such a far-stretching fiction that it is as big as all Christendome For by this no man in the Church was master or owner of his own Kingdome Estate house nay not of the very bread hee eat but by the Pope's good leave Thus the Bishop in a fury of Schism runs himself out of breath nor will any thing pacify him or bring him into temper to speak a word of truth or sence but my granting him his two conditions that is my denying my own tenet which I am defending Sixthly grant all those Abuses had been true was there no other remedy but division Had not the secular Governours the sword in their hand did it not ly in their power to chuse whether they would admit or no things destructive to their Rights yes for the Bp. tells us p. 36. that All other Catholike countries which hee knows held the Pope's supremacy as well as England do maintain their own Priviledges inviolated And as for England hee tells us in a slovenly phrase that our Ancestours were not so stupid as to sitt still and blow their noses meaning that they did the same which other Catholike countries did so that according to himself there was a remedy still and a means to keep their priviledges inviolated Seventhly put case these temporall inconveniences had not been otherwise remediable I conceive there is not a good Christian in the world that understands what a Church is will say that Ecclesiasticall Communion is to bee broken for all the temporall concernments imaginable For first that the well being and peace of a Church cannot consist without Vnity is so evident that the very terms would convince him of a contradiction who should deny it since distraction and dissention the parents of dissolution and ruine must needs bee where there is no Vnity Secondly not onely the well being of a Church but the very Being of it consists in it's Vnity for what scholler knows not that things of this nature have no other Vnity nor consequently Entity or Being but that of order that is of Superiority and subordination Whence follows that if this Order bee broken which is done by disacknowledging the former Ecclesiasticall chief Magistrate the Vnity of the Church is dissolu'd that is her Entity is annihilated that is there is no one Church that is there is no Church This act then of yours since it dissolu'd that which was the chief bond of Vnity in the former Church was in it's own nature destructive of a Church A mischief which out-weighs the necessity of remedying the highest temporall inconveniences imaginable Thirdly since Christ came from heaven to plant a Church and the Being of a Church consist in Order it follows that Christ instituted the Order of the Church otherwise hee had not constituted a Church that is hee had not done what hee came to do Wherefore that fact which breaks the Order of the Church and that in the highest manner by disacknowledging the highest Magistrate in the Church is by good consequence in the highest manner against Christ's Institution and command that is in the highest manner sinfull and criminall and so no temporall inconveniences can bee a competent plea for such a fact since no temporall inconvenience can bee a sufficient reason for a man to sin Fourthly if the Communion of a Church may bee broken for temporall miscarriages it follows that all the generall Councils were to no purpose since whensoever the observation of these generall Councils hapens to bee inconvenient to the temporall state that is sute not with the humours of the Governed but are likely to breed combustion the remedying the temporall ills according to the Bp. ought to oversway The consequence is evident for general Councils cannot bee more sacred than the Communion of the Church since they are the effects of it or rather indeed they have their form and Essence from this Communion Since then this fact of theirs as appears by the charge broke Church Communion and by the Bishop's plea because of temporall inconveniences they may for the same and with better reason break Councils too and there 's an end of all Fifthly faith that is the supernaturall knowledge of God is so essentially necessary for the salvation of mankinde that no worldly consideration ought to ballance it Now then since faith if not one is none nor can it bee preseru'd one but by some certain Rule to keep it one it follows that no temporall mischief can deserve a remedy accompany'd with the renouncing this certain Rule of faith Wherefore temporall inconveniences cannot with any face bee alledg'd by a Christian who held formerly no certain Rule of faith but the living voice of the present Church that is immediate Tradition as did the first Reformers for a plea for them to renounce
the opposite is false nor hold his own certain without censuring another man's Good Reader reflect a little upon this proposition he cavills at and then take if thou canst the just dimensions of the unmeasurable weaknes of error and it's Abettors Do not truth and certainty involve essentially in their notions an oppositenes and contrarietie to falshood error Does not true signifie not-false How is it possible then a man indued with the common light of reason can hold a thing true and yet not hold it 's opposite false yet this plain self evident proposition in other terms the self-same with this that a thing cannot both be not be at once is denied by the Bp. nay accounted disgracefull to hold it Whereas indeed it is not mine nor the Donatists onely but the common Principle of nature which the silliest old wife and least boy come to the use of reason cannot but know Error prest home cannot burst out at length into less absurdities than denying the first Principles The Bishop of Derry having shown us how well skill'd he is in Principles by renouncing that first Nature-taught one proceeds immediately to establish some Principles of his own which he calls evident undeniable so to confute the former The first is that particular Churches may fall into error where if by Errors he means opinions onely 't is true if points of faith 't is not so undeniable as he thinks in case that particular Church adhere firmly to her Rule of faith immediate Tradition for that point already there setled that is if shee proceed as a Church If he wonder at this I shall increase his admiration by letting him know my minde that I see it not possible how even the pretended Protestants Church of England could it without self condemnation have owned the immediate delivery of fore fathers and onely proceeded stuck close to that Rule should ever come to vary from the former Protestant Beleef for as long as the now fathers taught their Children what was held now and the Children without looking farther beleeved their fathers and taught their Children as they beleeved and so successively it followes in terms that the posterity remote a thousand generations would still beleeve as their fathers do now But as their religion built on Reformation that is not immediate Tradition will not let them own immediate Tradition for their Rule of faith so neither did they own it could their certainty arrive to that of our Churches strengthen'd by so many super-added assistances His second Principle is that all errors are not Essentiall or fundamentall I answer that if by Errors he means onely opinions as he seems to say in the next paragraph then none at all are Essentiall but what is this to my proposition which spoke of Religion not of opinions unles perhaps which is most likely consonant to the Protestant Grounds the Bishop makes account that Religion and opinion are all one But if he means Error in a matter of faith then every such error is fundamentall and to answer this third Principle with the same labour destroies the being of a Church For since a Church must necessarily have a Rule of faith otherwise she were no Church and that 't is impossible to conceive how man's nature should let her proceed so quite contrary to her Principles as to hold a thing as a matter of faith not proceeding upon her onely Rule of faith this being a flat contradiction Again since the Rule of faith must be both certain and plain without which properties 'tis no Rule it follows that an error in a matter of faith argues an erroneousnes in the Rule of faith which essentially and fundamentally concerns the being of a Church His fourth Principle is that every one is bound according to the just extent of his power to free himself from those not essentiall errors Why so my L d if those errors be not essentiall they leave according to your own Grounds sufficient means of Salvation and the true being of a Church How prove you then that you ought to break Church Communion which is essentially destructive to the being of a Church to remedy this or hazard your Salvation as you know well Schism does when you might have rested secure Is it an evident and undeniable Principle that you ought to break that in which consists the being of a Church to remedy that which you confess can consist with the being of a Church or is it an undeniable Principle that you ought to endanger your soul where you grant there is no necessity Say not I suppose things gratis your friend Dr. H. tells you out of the fathers how horrid a crime Schism is how vtterly unexcusable the undeniable evidence of fact manifests you to have broke Church Communion that is to have Schismatized from the former Church which you must be forced to grant unles you can show us that you still maintain the former Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government These are the points which you violently broke and rejected show either that these were not fundamentally concerning the Vnity and cōsequently the Entity of the former Church or else confess that you had no just cause of renouncing them and so that you are plainly both Schismatick Heretick But 't is sufficient for your Lp's pretence of Moderation without so much as mentioning them in particular to say here in generall terms that the points you renounc'd were not essentiall were accidentall were errors vlcers opinions hay stubble the plague weeds c. And thus ends the first part of your wisely maintained Moderation as full of contradictions absurdities as of words The second proof of their Moderation is their inward charity I love to see charity appearing out-wardly me thinks hanging and persecution disguize her very much and your still clamorous noises against us envying us even that poore happines that we are able with very much a doe to keep our heads above water and not sink utterly He proves this in ward charity by their externall works as he calls them their prayers for us He should have said words the former were their works and prou'd nothing but their malice But let us examin their prayers they pray for us he sayes daily and we do the same for them nay more many of ours hazard their lives daily to do good to the souls even of themselves our enemies and to free them as much as in us lies from a beleeved danger Which shows now the greater charity But their speciall externall work as he calls it is their solemn anniversary prayer for our conversion every good friday And this he thinks is a speciall peece of charity in their Church being ignorant good man that this very thing is the solemn custome of our Church every good friday as is to be seen in our Missall and borrowed thence by their book of common prayer among many other things But let us see whether the Protestants
and Church of England did no more than all other Princes Republikes of the Roman Communion have done in effect This word in effect deserves a Comment and then if it bee candidly explicated we shall finde it â—ignifies the whole busines though it seeme to speak coyly mincingly Did they ever make laws to renounce and abrogate the Popes Authority and define absolutely against essentiall right Did they ever erect an Ecclesiasticall Superior as you did the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and pretend that he was in no manner of way subordinate to the Pope but vtterly independent on him Did any of them ever separate from the Church by disacknowledging his Head ship and by consequence the Rule of faith immediate Tradition which asserted it Not one Did not your self in your vindication p. 184. after your had put down the parallell acts of Henry the 8th to other Princes when you came to the point confess that Henry the 8th abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions but the Emperors with whom you run along with your parallel in other points did not so Did not your self here p. 37. where you put downe a gradation of the oppositions of the former Kings to the Pope tell us onely as the highest step of it that they threaned him further to make a Wall of separation between him them If then they but threaned to do what K. H. as appears by this law which vtterly renounces the Pope did it follows plainly that they did nothing and King Henry did all as farr as concerns our Controversy which is not about extent of his Authority or in what cases he may be check't from exercising particular Acts of that Authority but about the denying the very Right it self and which is consequent by denying joyintly the Rule of faith and by those denialls separating from the Body of the former Church which held both The signification then of this iuggling phrase in effect as apply'd to our purpose by his own interpretation is this that other Catholike countries did just nothing and King Henry the 8th did all To no imaginable purpose then save onely to show his diligence in nothing the politicall wranglings between Kings and Popes are all the instances produced by the Bishop that Catholike Kings in such such particular cases permitted not the Pope to execute what he intended unles he can deny his own words and prove that they did as much as K. Henry and not threaned onely But my Ld of Derry having taken a great deal of pains to gather together these notes which the way being new he made account would come of bravely grows much perplex't to see them all defeated at once by showing plainly that they are nothing to the purpose and therefore both heretofore and especially at present complains much that we answer them not in particular assuring the Reader that would our cause have born it we had done so Was ever man so ignorant of the common laws of disputing Needs any mory answer be given to particulars which one yeelds to than to say he grants them We grant therefore all his particular instances of these contess between Kings Popes and yeeld willingly that such such materiall facts happen'd many more not entring into that dispute how far they were done iustly how far un iustly which is little to our purpose since the Authority it self was still acknowledg'd on both sides What need we answer each in particular by saying first I grant this next I grant the other Now the use or application he makes of them that is to pretend thence that they did as much as King Henry the 8th so to iustify him is a particular point and one and to this I have answer'd particularly both here and also in my third Section where I have demonstrated it to be the most shameles manifoldly contradictory absurdity that ever bid defiance to the universall acknowledgment and ey-verdict of the whole word Vpon occasion of his alledging that all Catholike countries do the same in effect against the Pope as the Protestants I raised an exception of his incoherent manner of writing To which he thus replies p. 45. But what is the Ground of his exception nothing but a contradiction As if he made account that a contradiction is a matter of nothing nor worth excepting against His contradiction is this that our doctrine concerning the Pope is injurious to Princes prejudices their crowns and yet that we hold do the same against the Pope in effect as Protestants do He would salve the contradiction first by alledging that Papists may be injurious to Princes in one respect one time and do them right in another respect and another time Well my Lord but since the doctrine of the Papists concerning the substance of the Pope's Authority is ever constantly the same for none can be Papists longer then they hold it it knows no varitie of respectt not times and so if it be prejudiciall in it self once 't is prejudiciall alwayes The extent of it varies upon occasions this consists in an indivisible cannot alter This substance of his Authority is the point which belongs to you to impugn if you go to work consequently since you are onely accused of Schism for rejecting this not for hindring him from acting in particular cases Either grant then that this tenet is not preâ—udiciall to Princes being like yours and then you contradict your former pretence that it was or say that yours is prejudiciall to Princes also being the same in effect with it and then you have evaded indeed a contradiction but by as great an absurdity Secondly to show his former answer was nothing worth he alledges that I have changed the subject of the Proposition and that he spoke not of Papists but of the Pope Court of Rome No Ld but I would not let you change the subject of the whole question 'T is a separation from all the Churches in Communion with Rome that you stand accused of the undeniable fact evidences that you have broke from all those Churches by renouncing those two said Principles of Vnity in which they agree This is our accusation against you and so your excuses must be apply'd to this or else they are no excuses at all Now one of your excuses is that the Pope's Authority is prejudiciall to Princes and it must be mean't of the Pope's Authority as held universally by all those Churches else why did you separate from all those Churches upon that pretence But those Churches universally as you say hold the same in effect with the Protestants for you say you separated from the Court onely what needed them excuses from you to them unles there had been a contradiction in the busines Had you opposed onely some attempts of the Court of Rome by your tenet you might have remain'd still united with France Spain c who did as you confess the same in effect but
and the exercisers of them punish't as Traitors meerly upon this Score because they performed such acts That this was the case is evidenced most manifestly out of the laws themselves every where extant which make it treason and death to hear a Confession or to offer up the unbloody Sacrifice of our Saviours Body c. and out of their own remitting this strange treason at the very last gasp nay rewarding the persons osten if they would renounce their tenets accompany them to their Churches These are our manifest and undeniable proofs what arguments does hee hring to blinde the Evidences nothing but obscure conceits to be look't for in mens breasts pretended fears ielousies that all who exercised such acts of Religion were Traitors meant to kill and slay the Governors or at most some particular attemps of private persons either true or counterfeited if some were true it was no wonder that such hert burnings passions should happen where people were violently forced to renounce the faith they had so zealously embraced were bred brought up in and per adventure no Protestant party living under Catholikes but have had the same or greater examples of the like attempts Yet I excuse not those who attempted any thing against Government nor accuse the Governors for treating them as they deserved onely that the faults of some should be so unreasonably reflected upon all nay upon Religion it self as to make the formality of guilt consist in the performing such acts of Religion was most senceles malicious nay self condemning since their own Profession admits the hearning a Confession to be a lawfull act of Religion and you would yet willingly hear them if the people were not wiser then to go to such sleightly authoriz'd Ghostly fathers Nor do I apprehend that you would think your selves very well dealt with if the present Government because of some â—isings of some of your party against them which they know to have been back't promoted fomented by some of your Lay Clergy should there upon presently make laws to hang as Traitors every one of the said Clergy whom they found either hearning a Confession or speaking of the Church Government by Bishops a point as much condemn'd by the present Government as any of our tenets was by Queen Elizabeth If then you would think this very hard dealing acknowledge others comparatively moderate and your selves to have been most unreasonably cruell In his p. 48. if hee mean as hee sayes hee clears our Religion from destroying subjection to Princes I subsume But the Supremacy of the Pope is to us a point of faith that is a point of Religion therefore the holding the said Supremacy is according to him if hee means honestly that is as hee speaks no wayes injurious to Princes If any extent of this power pretended to bee beyond it's just limits hath been introduced by Canon-Lawyers or others let him wrangle with them about it our Religion and Rule of faith owns no such things as is evident by the universality of Catholike Doctors declaring in particular cases against the Pope when it is necessary as the Lawyers in England did against the King without prejudice to their Allegiance which I hope characters those Doctors in his eye to bee good sujects to their Governors Yet he is sorry to have done us this favour or to stand to his own words even when they signify onely Courtesy Hee alledges therefore that these instances cited by him of Catholikes disobeying the Pope in behalf of Kings were before these poysonous opinions were hatched and so they do not prove that all Roman Catholikes at this time are loyall subjets Yet himself in his vindication p. 194. so naturall is self contradiction to him told us of as violent acts done against the Pope in Cardinall Richlieu's dayes in Portugall very lately and in a maner the other day in which also the Portugeses were abetted by a Synod of French Bishops in the year one thousand six hundred fiâ—ty one who were positive very round with the Pope in their behalf These were some of his instances in this very seventh Chapter which now a badd memory and self contradiction is ever a certain curse to falshood hee tells us were before our seditions opinions were hatched Now what seditious opinions have been hatched or can bee pretended to have been hatched within this five years I dare say hee is ignorant And lest you should think I wrong him you shall hear him contradict himself yet once-more so fully does hee satisfy his Reader on all sides affirm here p. 49. that hee hopes that those seditioâ—s doctrines at this day are almost buried So that spell the Bishop's words together and they sound thus much that those pretended seditious doctrines had their birth buriall both at once and were entomb'd in their shell that is were never hatch't at all So cruelly if you but confront the two faces of the same Ianus does hee fall together by the ears with himself baffle break his self divided head with one splay leg trip up the other After this hee presents the Reader with a plat from of the Church fancied by mee as hee sayes for which greevous fault he reprehends mee ironically telling mee that 't is pitty I had not been one of Christ's Councellors when hee form'd his Church that I am sawcy with Christ what not Now I never apprehended Christ had any Councellors at all when he first form'd his Church till the Bishop told mee hee had wish't I had been one of them or fancied any thing at all unles hee will say that what Catholikes received from their forefathers and what with their eyes wee see left in the Church still is onely the work of my fancy which is non-sence for I onely took what was delivered as of faith by immediate Tradition to wit that S. Peter was constituted by Christ Prince of his Apostles and that the Pope was his Successor into that Office and then show'd the admirable conveniencies the moderation the necessity of that form of Government how innocent if taken in it's due limits as held out to us by the Rule of faith to temporall Government nay how beneficiall to the same how absolutely necessary for and perfectly concerning the Vnity in the Church how impossible the said Vnity is without it c. which if it bee Saucines hee may with the same reason accuse all divinity of Saucines which takes what faith hath delivered for example that Christ was Incarnate thence proceeds to show the conveniency necessity c. of the Incarnation But the poor Bp. who has busied all his life in not in quaint concieted stories odd ends of Testimonies never had leisure to reflect that this is the method which Science takes when it proceeds a posteriori first building upon what it finds to have been done by experience or other Grounds and thence proceeding to finde out the causes why or by
our charge of their Schismaticall breach is will winnow them the Rule of faith the voice of the Church or immediate Tradition will winnow or rather Christ hath winnow'd them by it having already told them that if they hear not the Church they are to be esteemed no better than Heathens Publicans Since then 't is evident out of the terms that you heard not the Church for your nâ—w fangled Reformations nor Ground those tenets upon the voice of the Church nay according to your Grounds have left no Church nor common suprem Government in the Church to hear it follows that you have indeed winnow'd your selves from amongst the wheat of Christians and are as perfect chaff I mean those who have voluntarily broken Church Communion as Publicans Heathens Now to show how empty a brag it is that they hold Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee to omit their no Communion in Government already spoken of Sect. 6. let us see what Communion they have with the Greek Church in tenets by the numerosity of which they hope for great advantages and whether the Protestants or wee approach nearer them in more points held equally by both I will collect therefore out of one of their own side Alexander Ross the tenets of the present Greek Church in which they agree with us though in his manner of expressing our tenet hee sometimes wrongs us both The Greeks place saith hee much of their deuotion in the worship of the Virgin Mary and of painted Images in the intercession prayers help and merits of the saints which they invocate in their Temples They place Iustification not in faith but in works The sacrifice of the Mass is used for the quick and the dead They beleeve there is a third place between that of the blessed and the damned where they remain who deferr'd repentance till the end of their life If this place bee not Purgatory adds Ross I know not what it is nor what the souls do there View of all Religions p. 489. And afterwards p. 490. They beleeve that the souls of the dead are better'd by the prayers of the living They are no less for the Churches Authority and Traditions than Roman Catholikes bee when the Sacrament is carried through the Temple the People by bowing themselves adore it and falling on their knees kiss the earth In all these main points if candidly represented they agree with us and differ from Protestants Other things hee mentions indeed in which they differ from us both as in denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost not using Confirmation observing the Iewish Sabbath with the L d' s day c. As also some practises not touching faith in which they hold with the Protestants not with us as in administring the Sacrament in both kinds using leauened bread in the Sacrament Priests marriage there is no one point produced by him which our Church looks upon as a point of faith in which they dissent from us and consent with the Protestants except that one of denying the Pope's Supremacy for their onely not using Extreme-Vnction which hee intimates signifies not that they hold it unlawfull or deny it Iudge then candid Protestant Reader of they Bp ' s sincerity who brags of his holding Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do whereas if wee come to examin particulars they neither communicate in one common Government one common Rule of faith if wee may trust this Authour of their own side since if the Greeks hold the Authority of the Church and Traditions as much as Catholikes do as hee sayes they must hold it as their Rule of faith for so Catholikes hold it nor yet in any one materiall point in opposition to us save onely in denying the Pope's Supremacy And how more moderate they are even in this than the greatest part of if not all Protestants may bee learned from the Bp ' s mistaken testimony at the end of this Section as also from Nilus an avowed writer of theirs for the Greek Church against the Latine and one of the gravest Bp ' s and Authours of that party who shuts up his book concerning the Pope's Primacy in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The summe is this As long as the Pope preserves order and stands with truth hee is not removed from the first and his proper Principality and hee is the Head of the Church and chief Bishop and the successour of Peter and of the rest of the Apostles and it behooves all men to obey him and there is nothing which can detract from the honour due to him but if when hee hath once strayed from the Truth hee will not return to it hee will bee liable to the punishment of the damned Where the Reader will easily judge whether the former words sound more incliningly to the Catholike or the Protestant tenet and as for the latter words But if c. There is no Catholike but will say the same Thus much then for my L d of Derry's Communion with the Eastern Church And as for his Communion with the Southern Northern Western Churches which hee thunders out so boldly as if all the world were on his side and of his Religion if examin'd 't is no better than the former sence his side denies immediate Tradition of forefathers or the living voice of the present Church to bee the Rule of faith which is to the Roman Church the fundamentall of fundamentalls Nor has hee any other Rule of faith that is a plain and certain method of interpreting Scripture common to him and his weakly relâ—ted Brethren so that if they hit sometimes in some points 't is but as the Planets whichare ever wandring hap now and then to have conjunctions which hold not long but pursving their unconstant course decline and vary from one another by degrees and are at length crost by diacentricall oppositions The rest of this paragraph insists again upon his often answer'd saying that the creed contains all necessary points which is grounded onely upon his falsifying the Council of Ephesus as hath been shown heretofore To my many former replies vnto this pretence I add onely this that either it is a necessary point to believe there is such a thing as God's written word or the Scripture or not If not then why do the Protestants challenge it for their Rule of faith Is not the Ground of all faith a necessary point But if it bee a necessary point then all necessary points are not in the Apostles creed for there is no news there of the Scripture nor is it known how much thereof was written when the Apostles made their creed what hee adds of our having chaÌ„ged from our Ancestors in opinions either hee means by opinions points of faith held so by us and then 't is calumny and is to be solidly proued not barely said But if hee mean School opinions what hurt is done that those things should be changed which are in their
Rome would make which more more evidences that the acknowledgment of the Popes iust power was retained by the Greeks and encroachments upon their Liberties onely deny'd which the French Church intended to imitate Now 〈◊〉 cannot bee pretended with any shame that Gerson and the french Church mean't to disacknowledge the Pope's iust power as Head of the Church nor will Gersons words even now cited let it bee pretended for then without any perhaps not onely some as hee doubts but all in the Court of Rome would most certainly have contradicted it Their consideration then being parallell to that of the Greeks as the Bp. grants it follow'd that they acknowledg'd the Pope's Authority though they passively remain'd separate rather than humour a demand which they deem'd irrationall Thus the Bishop first cited a testimony against himself as was shown in Schism Disarm'd and would excuse it by bringing three or four proofs each of which is against himself also so that as hee begun like a Bowler hee ends like one of those Artificers who going to mend one hole use to make other three THE CONCLVSION The Controuersy between us is rationally and plainly summ'd up in these few Aphorisms 1. THat whatsoever the Extent of the Pope's Authority bee or bee not yet 't is cl ar that all Roman-Catholikes that is all Communicants with the Church of Rome or Papists as they call them hold the substance of the Pope's Authority that is hold the Pope to bee Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour in God's Church This is euident out of the very terms since to acknowledge the Papall Authority is to bee a Papist or a Communicant with the Church of Rome 2. The holding or acknowledging this Authority is to all that hold it that is to the whole Church of Rome or to all those particular Churches united with Rome a Principle of Vnity of Government This is plain likewise out of the terms since an acknowledgment of one Supreme Governour either in Secular or Spirituall affairs is the Ground which establishes those acknowledgers in submission to that one Government that is 't is to them a Principle of Vnity in Government 3. 'T is euident and acknowledg'd that whateuer some Catholikes hold besides or not hold yet all those Churches in Communion with the Churches of Rome hold firmly that whatsoever the living voice of the present Church that is of Pastours and Fathers of Famâ—lies shall unanimously conspire to teach and deliuer Learners and Children to have been recieued from their immediate fathers as taught by Christ and his Apostles is to bee undoubtedly held as indeed taught by them that is is to bee held as a point of faith and that the voice of the present Church thus deliuering is infallible that is that this deliuery from immediate forefathers as from theirs as from Christ is an infallible and certain Rule of faith that is is a Principle of Vnity in faith This to bee the tenet of all these Churches in Communion with Rome both sides acknowledge and is Evident hence that the Body made up of these Churches ever cast out from themselves all that did innouate against this tenure 4. 'T is manifest that all the Churches in Communion with Rome equally held at the time of the Protestant Reformation in K. Henry's dayes these two Principles as they do now that is the substance of the Pope's Authority or that hee is Supreme in God's Church and that the living voice of the present Church delivering as aboue said is the infallible Rule of faith This is manifested by our Aduersaries impugning the former Churches as holding Tradition and the Pope's Headship nor was it ever pretended by Friend or Foe that either those Churches held not those tenets then or that they have renounc't them since 5. The Church of England immediately before the Reformation was one of those Churches which held Communion with Rome as all the world grants and consequently held with the rest these two former tenets prou'd to have been the Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government 6. That Body of Christians or that Christian Common-wealth consisting of the then-then-Church of England and other Churches in Communion with Rome holding Christ's law upon the sayd tenure of immediate Tradition and submitting to the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of the Pope was a true and reall Church This is manifest by our very Adversaries acknowledgment who grant the now Church of Rome even without their Church to bee a true and reall one though holding the same Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government 7. That Body consisting of the then Church of England and her other fellow communicants with Rome was united or made one by means of these two Principles of Vnity For the undoubted acknowledgment of one common Rule of faith to bee certain is in it's own nature apt to unite those acknowledger's in faith that is to unite them as faithfull and consequently in all other actions springing from faith And the undoubted acknowledgment of one Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour gave these acknowledgers an Ecclesiasticall Vnity or Church-communion under the notion of Governed or subjects of an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth Now nothing can more neerly touch a Church than the Rules of faith and Government especially if the Government bee of faith and recieved upon it's Rule Seeing then these principles gave them some Vnity and Communion as Faithfull and as belonging to an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth it must necessarily bee Church Vnity and Comunion which it gave them 8. The Protestant Reformers renoun'ct both these Principles This is undeniably evident since they left of to hold the Popes Supreme power to act in Ecclesiasticall affairs and also to hold diverse points which the former Church immediately before the breach had recieved from immediate Pastours fathers as from Christ 9. Hence follows unavoidably that those Reformers in renouncing those two Principles did the fact of breaking Church Communion or Schismatizing This is demonstrably consequent from the two last Paragraphs where 't is proved that those two Principles made Church Communion that is caused Vnity in that Body which themselves acknowledge a true Church as also that they renounced or broke those Principles therefore they broke that which united the Church therefore they broke the Vnity of the Church or Schismatiz'd 10. This renouncing those two Principles of Ecclesiasticall Communion prou'd to have been an actuall breach of Church Vnity was antecedent to the Pope's excommunicating the Protestants and his commanding Catholikes to abstain from their Communion This is known and acknowledg'd by all the world nor till they were Protestants by renouncing those Principles could they bee excommunicated as Protestants 11. This actuall breach of Church Vnity in K. Henry's E d the 6th's and the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign could not bee imputable to the subsequent Excommunication as to it's cause 'T is plain since the effect cannot bee before the cause 12. Those subsequent Excommunications caused not the actuall breach or
England flies off presently and denies it saying he had no title to such an Authority there whereas when we maintain his possession we pretend not yet a Right which is our inference thence but that actually England was under such an Authority and acknowledg'd it whether it were rightly pretended or injustly remains to be inferred which the Dr. mistaking and not distinguishing between possession and right sayes we beg the question when we onely take what is evident that he was in possession and thence infer a right until the contrary be proved The second Ground is that This Authority actually over England and acknowledged there was acknowledged likewise to be that of the Head of the Vniversal Church and not of a Patriarchate onely This Ground is no less evident than the former by our adversaries confession since this is the Authority they impugn as unlawfull and from which they reformed which last word implies the actual acknowledgment that Authority had before Hence Mr. H's digression to show that Kings could erect and translate Patriarchates was perfectly frivolous as far as concerns this purpose for whether they can change Patriarchates or no is impertinent when we are questioning an Authority above Patriarchs and pretended to be constituted by Christ himself The third Ground is that This Papal Authority actually over the Ecclesiastical affaires in England was held then as of Christ's Institution and to have been derived to the Pope as he was Successour to S. Peter The truth of this appears by the known confession of the then Roman Church and the self-same Controversy perpetually continued till this day The fourth Ground is that This actual power the Pope then had in England had been of long continuance and settled in an ancient Possession This is evinced both from our Adversaries grant the evidence of the fact it self and even by the carriage of S. Aust in the Monk and the Abbot of Bangor exprest in that counterfeited testimony alledged by Dr. H. whence we see it was the doctrine S. Austin taught the Saxons The fifth Ground shall be that No Possession ought to be disturbed without sufficient motives and reasons and consequently it self is a title till those reasons invalidate it and show it null This is evident first by Nature's Principles which tell us there is no new cause requisite for things to remain as they are wheras on the other side nothing can be changed without some cause actually working and of force proportionable to the weight and settledness of the thing to be moved Secondly by Morals which teach us that mans understanding cannot be changed from any opinion or beleef without motives ought not without sufficient ones and consequently needs no new motive to continue it in any former assent besides the foregoing Causes which put it there Thirdly we find that Politicks give testimony to or rather stand upon this Ground assuring us when any Government is quietly settled it ought so to stand till sufficient motives and reasons in Policy that is a greater common good urge a change And if Possession were held no title then the Welshmen might still pretend to command England and each line or race which preceded and was outed quarrel with any subsequent one though never so long settled and so no certain right at all would be found of any possession in the World till we come to Adam's time Fourthly as for the particular Laws of our Countrey they clearly agree in the same favour for Possession I shall onely instance in one common case If I convey Blackâ—cre to I. S. for the life of I. N. and after wards I. S. dy in this case because I cannot enter against mine own Grant and all the world else have equal title whoever first enters into the land is adjudged the true and rightfull Owner of it during the life of I. N. and that by the sole title of Occupancy as they call it which they wholly ground upon this known reason that in equality of pretensions Possession still casts the ballance Nay such regards is given by our Law to Possession that were the right of a former Title never so evident yet a certain time of peaceable Possession undisturb'd by the contrary claim would absolutely bar it And here I should take my self obliged to ask my Adversary's pardon for using such words as a Dr. of Divinity is not presumed to be acquainted with did not his own Example at least excuse if not provoke my imitation Thus much of the force of Possession in general without descending to the nature of ours in particular that is of such a Possession as is justly presumable to have come from Christ Hence followes that since Possession of Authority must stand till sufficient Reasons be alledged that it was unjust those Motives and Reasons ought to be weighed whether they be sufficient or no ere the Authority can be rejected wherefore since the relinquishing any Authority actually in power before makes a material breach from that Government the deciding the question onely stands in examining those Reasons which oppose its lawfulness since the sufficiency of them cleares the breakers the insufficiency condemns them and in our case makes the material Schism formal Let the Reader then judge how little advised Dr. H. was in stating the question rightly and clearly of Schism pag 10. where he tells us that the motives are not worth he eding in this controversy but onely the truth of the matter of fact For the matter of fact to wit that there was then an actual Government and that they broke from it being evident to all the world and confest by themselves if there be no reasons to be examined he is convinced by his own words to be a Schismatick so flatly and palpably that it is left impossible for him even to pretend a defence The sixth Ground shall be that Such a Possession as that of the Pope's Authority in England was held ought not to be changed or rejected upon any lesser motives or reasons than rigorous and most manifest Evidence that it was usurp't The reasons for this are fetch 't by parity from that which went before onely the proportions added For in moving a Body in nature the force of the cause must be proportion'd to the gravity settledness and other extrinsecal impediments of the Body to be moved otherwise nothing is done In morals the motives of dissent ought to be more powerfull than those for the former continuance in assent otherwise a soul as a soul thas is as rational is not or ought not to be moved and so in the rest Now that nothing less than Evidence rigorously and perfectly such can justify a rejecting of that Authority is thus show'd That Authority was held as of Faith and to have been constituted by Christ's own mouth it had been acknowledgedly accounted for such by multitudes of pious learned men for many ages before in all Christian Countries of the Communion of the Roman Church
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
the Apocalypse that being come thither he brings another negative proof argues from plurality to equality again gives for his solution Grounds for all the Apostles to be call'd Peter falls to measure a wall in the Apocalypse to prove equality of power without proving first or knowing nay doubting himself whether it relate to power or no that hee omits to reply to those passages which show'd him baffled in his own argument and lastly when he hath done to let the Reader see he hath used his utmost here he praises this point as most important and brags that he hath attended us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and precisely whereas he left the main passage and all the circumstances that force was put in un attended and untouch't and most miserably shuffled about blunder'd quibbled in all the rest THE CONCLVDING SECTION Reason why the Disarmer proceded no further in laying open Dr. H's fault Objected Falsifications clear'd and some of them retorted upon the Objector An unparallell'd and evidently willfull one of the Drs presented to himself and his Friends in requitall Friendly counsel to the Dr at parting AND now understanding Reader what dos't thou expect further that I should lose my own ill employ'd time vex thy patience already cloy'd with laying open this Drs weaknesses false dealings through the rest of his book or rather dos't thou not complain how unnecessary so long a refute is to such a Trifler and candidly correct mee as some iudicious friends have already done that it had bin abundantly sufficient and as much as he deserved to gather together a Catalogue of his manifest absurdities and then leave him to the censure of iudicious ingenious lovers of truth reason I confesse in the tedious processe of this Reply seeing nothing worthy a man that is nothing which pretended a rigorous or rationall discourse I became wholly of their minde too yet I had such regard to the weaknes of the multitude of Readers that I still proceeded in laying open minutely the unparalleld sillines insincerity of their adored preaching Doctor and the tyranny of that consideration had transported me into farther inconveniencies so as to shew him constantly like himself to the very end of his long book had not I been partly urged partly necessitated to desist and my desistance warranted by these following reasons First that Wits Schollars who are the flower of Readers are deterr'd disenvited from reading books especially Controversies if they grow to any excessive bulk And to those that should read such it would be in a manner ungratefull when nothing is to be seen but the faults of a writer laid open which was the reason that to give some tincture of solidnes to my Reply so to take of the tediousnes from knowing Readers I have taken occasion to discusse some points as those concerning Possession the Churches power to binde to beleef the certainty of Tradition c. more largely than I was obliged out of any respect due to my Antagonist himself or his sleight way of writing Secondly I have given unexpected satisfaction before hand to more knowing persons by laying Grounds before my Reply which come home to the life of the question at least endeavor to clear it rationally which therefore I conceive would be more gratefull profitable to them and on the other side being supererogatory to the task of a Respondent might deserve to excuse some part of that which was ungratefull to them unprofitable nay all of it confes 't by Dr. H. himself as shall be seen to be unnecessary Thirdly I had acknowledg'd some beholdingnes to the Catholike Gentleman's letter so had drawn upon my self an engagement to vindicate it also against Dr. H's Reply By which mean's I had two books of his to refute as far as I proceeded to both which had I reply'd quite through it would have made too-large a volume Fourthly the B. of Derry had e're I had answer'd Dr. H's first part put out a refute to my Appendix to Schism Disarm'd which oblig'd me to leave some room in my already big book for him and to bestow on him some part of that my defensive task otherwise due intended to Dr. H. and so I had not room enough to prosecute all the less necessary trifles of that my long winded Adversary Fifthly the task it self of answering such kinde of sleight soul'd Writers was most tedious irksom to any one who pretends to ayms at Science nay most irrationall and senceles consisting in this that rigorous discourse the immediate evident connexion of terms that onely proper satisfaction to a reasonable Soul being neglected upon which our Tenor Rule of faith immediate Tradition is at least pretended to be built to leave this I say and to stand replying to every odd end of a worm-eaten Record or testimony which without the help of this Tradition can claim no originall Authority at all much less against it and for the most part is falsify'd unauthentick ambiguous in terms or non-cluding if it hap to be true truly-proposed besides many other weaknesses invalidating it which is to neglect sence for words and instead of reasoning from Grounds fall to quibbling in Sounds Sixthly even in pursving this testimony way I have shown to the eye of the Reader this Drs manner of writing so infinitely faulty weak so full fraught with falsifications paralogisms perverting both words sence of Authors omitting words most important for us adding others most important for himself suborning Arch-hereticks for true fathers building upon Testimonies fetch 't from those of his own side alledging places as for him concealing the words found to be directly against him shuffling a way the true point with a gentile slines begging or els mistaking the question all over as oft calumniating our tenets positions runing division upon a dow-bak'd If a long way without ever considering the if not Talking voluntarily to fro upon his own head in a preaching vein blundering things in themselves most clear with needles distinctiōs explications which he uses against their nature to involue confound recurring to dilating himself much in the generall terms so to avoid coming to the particular point contradicting himself frequently and in one point Nine or ten times flourishing all over with certainly surely irrrefragably infallibly unquestionably accordingly plainly manifestly demonstrably undoubtedly clearly expresly we know it is manifest id est perfectly unavoidably evidently innumerable such other expressions all sprung from his own fancy to give countenance to the Testimonies not from the Testimonies or any force of reason to make good those expressions to which add his sober sermon-phrases so oft repeated of no degree of truth no appearance of force I did in the simplicity of my heart verily beleeve I shall not deem it necessary to descend to any further proof His playing the Pedant all over in Greek to amuse the
hear him state it right The true question saith hee is what are the right bounds and limits of this Authority and then reckons up a company of particularities some true most of them coâ—â—erning the extent of the Pope's Authority iâ—self and debated amoÌ„gst our owne Canon-Lawyers some flat lies and calumnies as whether the Pope have power to sell palls pardons and Indulgences to impose pensions at his pleasure to infringe the liberties and customes of whole nations to deprive Princes of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their Allegiance c. Was ever such stuff brought by a Controvertist or was ever man soe frontles as to make these the true state of the question between us that is to preteÌ„d that our Church holds these things as of faith To manifest more the shallownes of my Adversary the Reader may please to take notice of the difference between the substance of the Pope's Authority as held by us and the extent of it The substance of it consists in this that hee is Head of the Church that is first mover in it and that hee hath Authority to act in it after the nature of a first Governour This is held with us to bee of faith and acknowledg'd unanimously by all the faithfull as come from Christ and his Apostles so that none can bee of our Communion who deny it nor is this debated at all between Catholike Catholike but between Catholike and Heretike onely Hence this is held by our Church as a Church that is as a multitude receiving it upon their Rule of faith universall Attestation of immediate Ancestours as from theirs and so upwards as from Christ and not upon criticall debates or disputes of learnedmen The extent of this Authority consists in determining whether this power of thus acting reaches to these and these particularities or no the resolution of which is founded in the deductions of divines Canon-Lawyers and such like learnedmen and though sometimes some of those points bee held as a common opinion of the schoolmen and as such embraced by many Catholikes yet not by them as faithfull that is as relying â—pon their Ancestours as from theirs as from Christ but as relying upon the learnedmen in Canon-law and implicitely upon the reasons which they had to judge so and the generality's accepting their reasons for valid which is as much as to say such points are not held by a Church as a Church no more than it is that there is an Element of fire in Concavo Lunae or that Columbus found out the Indies The points therefore are such that hee who holds or deems otherwise may still bee held one of the Church or of the Commonwealth of the faithfull nor bee blameable for holding otherwise if hee have better reasons for his tenet than those other learned men had for theirs as long as hee behaves himself quietly in the said Commonwealth Perhaps a parallel will clear the matter better The acknowledgment of the former Kings of England to bee supreme Governours in their Dominions was heretofore as wee may say a point of civill faith nor could any bee reputed a good subject who deny'd this in the undifputable acknowledgment of which coÌ„sisted the substance of their Authority But whether they had power to raise ship money impose subsidies c. alone and without a Parliament belong'd to the extent of their Authority was subject to dispute and the proper task of Lawyers nor consequently did it make a man an Outlaw or as wee may say a civill Schismatick to disacknowledge such extents of his Authority so hee admitted the Authority it self I concieve the parallell is soe plain that it will make it 's owne application This being settled as I hope it is so let it stand a while till wee make another consideration A Controversy in the sence which our circumstances determine it is a dispute about faith and so a Controvertist as such ought to impugn a point of fâ—ith that 〈◊〉 hee ought to iâ— pugn that which is held by a Church as a Church or that which is held by a Church upon her Rule of faith Hence if the Government of that Church bee held of faith according to it's substance and not held of faith according to it's extent hee ought to impugn it according to the substance of the said Government and not it's extent otherwise hee totally prevaricates from the proper office of a Controvertist not impugning faith but opinions noâ— that Church as a Church and his Adversary but falsly supposing himself as it were one of that company and to hold all the substance of it's Authority hee sides with one part of the true subjects and disputes against the other in a point indifferent to faith unconcerning his duty These things Reader observe with attention and then bee thine own judge whether hee play not the Mountebank with thee instead of the Controvertist who in his former book pretended to vindicate the Church of England which renounced the substance of this Authority by impugning the extent of it onely and here undertaking to correct his Refuter and state the question rightly first grants in very plain but wrong mean't terms the whole question to wit that the Pope hath Authority over the whole Church as successour of S. Peter and then tells thee that the true question is about the extent of it and what are the right limits and bounds of this Authority which kind of questions yet hee knows well enough are debated by the obedient and true members of that Commonwealth whence hee is Outlaw'd and which hee pretends to impugn His 8th page presents the Reader with a great mistake of mine and 't is this that I affirmed it was and is the constant beleef of the Casholike world by which I mean all in Communion with the Church of Rome whom onely I may call Catholikes that these two Principles were Christ's owne ordination recorded in Scrpture Whereas hee cannot but know that all our Doctourâ—s de facto did and still do produce places of Scripture to prove that former Principle to wit that Tradition is the Rule of faith as also to prove S. Peter's higher power over the Apostles nor is it new that the succession of Pastours till wee all meet in the Vnity of Glory should bee Christ's own Ordination and recorded there likewise Nor can I devise upon what Grounds hee and his fellow-Bishops of England who hold Scripture onely the Rule of faith can maintain their Authority to bee iure divino unles they hold likewise that it bee there recorded and bee Christ's Ordination that following Pastours succed into the Authority of their predecessours But the pretended mistake lies here that whereas I said the Bishops of Rome inherited this priviledge from S. Peter mâ—aning that those who are Bpâ— of Rome being S. Peter's successours inherited this power hee will needs take mee in a reduplicative sence as if I spoke of the Bishop of Rome as of Rome and
that Ballad shall bee confidently asserted to have been sung by the old British Bards and to have signify'd the sence of the British Churches in those days And thus Protestant Reader thou seest what demonstrations thy BP's and Dr's bring thee to secure thy Soul from the horrid sin of Schism which yet Dr. H. of Schism c. 1. they tell thee is greater than Idolatry Lastly put case all had been true yet what had they concluded unles they had proved likewise that this Abbot in saying so had spoken the mind of the then Catholike world for no man that hath any sence in his head will undertake to defend that in the space of fifteen or sixteen hundred years there cannot bee found some few who either out of disgust ambition interest or ignorance might speak or act against the Pope's Authority or against the most inuiolable right that can be imagined but 't is clearly sufficient to maintain that in so saying they pronounced not the sence of the then Catholike world Have there been heresies against almost all other points of faith arisen in severall ages and shall wee imagin noe possibility of opposition against that point which concerns Government Or will it bee deem'd by any indifferent man a competent proof against true faith to say that such and such hereticks deny'd it No more ought it to bee held sufficient that such or such persons now and then deny'd that point which concerns Government unles such a deniall can Ground an inference that God's Church in that age held otherwise If then the Bp. will first clear his welsh copy book of all the exceptions brought against it next assert and establish it's Authority and lastly evince that this Abbot in thus saying spoke the thoughts of the world at that time hee will conclude strongly against us and till hee does this hee does nothing For onely the beleef of a Church relying on immediate Tradition pretended and evinced can bee possibly held able to counterpoise the tenet of a Church which confessedly relies on immediate Tradition possest As for what the Bp. addes concerning his corroboratory proof from the British Synods I must confess indeed that corroboratory is a very thumping and robust word but what does it corroborate Does it prove that the Authour of this welsh manuscript was worth a straw Not a iot The chief strentgh of this corrobototy proof lies in this that all the British Clergy did in those Synods renounce all obedience to the see of Rome as hee tells us here p. 29. and urges mee to answer it I shall and reply that 't is an arrant falsification at once of all Historians for if hee means that they onely disobey'd the Pope in not conforming themselves to his commands I grant 't is clear in all history they did so and so have many who remain Catholikes done who yet own the Pope's Authority it self but if it signifies as his circumstances and words make it that they renounced the Pope's Authority and deny'd his power to command or Supremacy 't is absolutely false no such thing being debated or denyâ—d in those Synods Yet to corroborate this this Bp. tells us in his iust vindication p. 104. That Austin S. Gregory's Legate proposed three things to them first that they should submit to the Roman Bishop 2ly that they should conform to the Roman customes about the obseruation of Easter and administration of Baptism and Lastly that they should ioyn with him in preaching to the saxons All which are preteÌ„ded to bee deny'd in those Synods Whereas again the first pretended proposall of S. Austin's is a very flat falsification of the Bp's no such thing being there proposed The three proposalls were concerning Easter Baptism and preaching to the English as your friend Dr. H. who happen'd here to bee more ingenuous tells you expresly out of Bede Appendix p. 181. l. 8. 9. Yet the Bp. cites there for this proposall and deniall Beda omnes alij in the margent that is at once belies Bede and all our Historians and to compleat the iest in his vindication p. 104. l. 1. 2. hee brags that this would strike the question dead And truly soe it hath for whereas the question before depended most upon the Bp's own words and partly on his sincâ—rity nothing is more questionles now than this that hee is a most unquestionable falsifier Now to falsify wee are told signifies to corroborate that Protestant cause and so is no shame but a beautifull stain and an honorable scar Again hee assures us here from his corroboratory proof that all the British Clerâ—y did râ—nounce all obedience to the Bp of Rome of which all our Historiographers do bear witnes You see by his many All 's what care hee hath of sincerity Whereas the Right of their subjection never came into play much less did they profess a renouncing all obedience but onely in not conforming to the customes of another Church Nor shall hee find one Historiographer who affirms that they deny'd all subjection due or disacknowledg'd the Pope's Headship though in some things they disobey'd him except his welsh paper and those of his own side who presume it upon their own conjecture And to confute his All Pitseus tells us onely that neque in maiori tonsurâ neque in ritu baptismatis neque in celebratione Paschatis se Romanae Ecclesiae ullâ ratione conformare voluerunt Which shows that there was no talk there of the Pope's Authority but of conforming to rites and customes Yet this the corroborating Bp. there calls an evident demonstration that I but trifle vainly against the testimony of Dionothus But in case this British Clergy which made these laws had renounced the Pope's Authority Let us see what cause hee had to brag of them S. Bede l. 2. c. 2. calls them unfaithfull naughty and detestable people Their own Country man Gildas sayes they were wolues enemies of truth and friends to lies enemies of God and not Priests marchants of mischief and not Bp's impugners of Christ and not his Ministers more worthy to bee drawn to Prison than to Preisthood And the Bp's dear friend Iohn Fox tell us out of an old Chronicle Acts l. 2. p. 114. that all things whether they pleased or displeased Cod they regarded alike not onely secular men did this but their Bishops and Teachers without distinction Thus my Ld D. hath again corroborated the Protestant cause by crying Hail Brethren well met to those folks who have been proved to bee detestable fellows and enemies of God that is as good as Atheists of which gang if this Dinoth were one wee shall neither wish the Pope such friends nor enuy them to the Protestants And this may serue for another of the Bp's demonstrations against the Pope to vindicate his Church from Schism and secure his Readers from damnation which hee acknowledges due to that vice by their relying on such proofs and adhering to such good company I am not ignorant
these expressions if taken as falling from their mouths pens I conceive sound not over much of Moderation All the Moderation consists here that my Ld of Derry had a mind to break a good iest and assure us very Sadly p. 39. l. 7. that notwithstanding all this they forbear to censure us which signifies first that they do not censure at all whom they have already censured in the height as is manifest by their former expressions next that though they beleeve those former expressions to be true and that wee are indeed such that is though they hold us for such yet they do not censure us for such Awitty contradiction And lastly that though our Church erre in credendis contradict Scripture blasphemously perniciously in her doctrine nay though her all grounding Principles be flatt Errors and that she pertinaciously unrelentingly persist in those doctrines as she does nor is ever likely to change or retract them yet for all this she is not to be held as hereticall though this be the very definition of Heresie but as a true Church still nor is to be censured to be otherwise Good charitable non-sence Hee tells me first that hee speakes of forbearing to censure other Churches but I answer of communicating with them and that therefore I err from the purpose Yet himself six lines before so forgetfull he is quotes S. Cyprian for removing no man from our Communion c. And how they should refuse to communicate with any unles they first iudge him censure him to deserve to be avoided that is naught I must confess I know not Next hee tells us one may in some cases very lawfully communicate with materiall Idolaters Hereticks c. In pious offices though not in their Idolatry Heresie c. Thus we have lost the question Who for bids them to go to visit the sick with them or such like religious duties The question is whether they may communicate with them in any publike solemne act performable by Catholikes as they are subjects of such a common wealth from which the other is out law'd or performable by those others as belonging to a distinct sect Again this position of Moderation destroies all order Government both of Church state for by this out law'd persons may be traffick'r treated with so we joyn not with them in their rebellion and all the whole world heathens too may be of one Communion especially all Hereticks who all agree in some common Principle of Christianity with the rest The Bishop's Proviso makes all the world Brothers friends though one part should remain most obstinate enemies both to God his Church for still as long as this Principle holds of communicating with them in all things but their Errors God's Church shall become a courteous gallimafry of all the filth Hell Error could compound to deform her and wear in her externall face a motley mask of as many colours as there are sects in the world Perhaps Heathens too must make up a part of this Communion provided we abstain onely to communicate with them in their Idolatry Thus they who want Grounds to give nerves to their Government are forced to embrace a counterfeit Kind-heartednes and under that plausible vizard vent much refined perniciousnes as is able at once to ruin all sence reason order discipline Government common wealth Church Thirdly he tells us that the Orthodox Christians did sometimes communicate with the hereticall Arians By which you see he is a kind disposition to admit even those to his Communion who deny Christ's divinitie The Arians were known to cloak themselves so craftily in words that they could not for a long time be certainly discover'd nor is it any wonder that for a while Hereticks be tolerated untill they be both heard and a time of repentance be prescribed them Fourthly he tells us he hath shown how the Primitive Catholikes communicated with the Schismaticall Novatians in the same publike divine offices But he is so reserved as not to direct us where he hath shown this nor could an ordinary inquiry finde it out and in his p. 282. which place seems most proper for that discourse he onely names the word Novatians without proving any thing concerning them Now the Novatians were simply Schismaticks and transported onely by a too rigorous zeal to a disobedience to the Church in a formerly received practice with such as these it is lawfull to communicate till upon their contumacy the Church shall excommunicate them Again as long as Schismaticks those who are erroneous in faith are onely in via as we may say and not in termino and hardned into an obstinacy there is a prudentiall latitude allow'd by the Church delaying her censures as long as shee can possibly without wronging her Government as was de facto practised in England till the 10th of Q. Elizabeth But this is not enough to prove they were admitted into Communion because they were tolerated for a certain time while there was hope they would not be obstinate but would return the Apostle himself prescribing a time of triall before they are to be avoided upon necessitie But can my L d of Derry show a parallell to our case that any renounc't the former Rule of faith immediate Tradition of Ancestors the former Government and many other points recommendedy that Rule and obstinately persisted to disavow both reviling writing against excommunicating nay persecuting with loss of Estates and often times of life the professors of the thus renounced faith Government can he show I say that such were ever admitted by the Church into Communion unles he can show this he beats the Air for this onely comes to our point S. Cyprian's case reaches not hither he had no reason to remove any from his Communion since he was in the wrong nor could hee possibly see with evidence that the immediate Tradition of all those Churches with whom hee communicated did avouch his tenet for hee was the man that brought in the noveltie your renouncing the former Rule of faith immediate delivery of fore fathers and the former Government with many other points recommended by that Rule is most evident nay confest avouched still maintain'd by your own obstinate selves Fifthly hee told us that the Catholikes call'd the Donatists their brethren I answer so are Catholikes bound to call the Protestants now nay Turks Heathens and in generall all men who are yet in a capacite to attain beatitude that is all but the damned in hell who are eternally hardned in enmitie against God S. Peter Art 3. v. 17. call'd the Iews who crucyfy'd Christ his Brethren yet never meant by that appellation that they were good Christians Sixthly he objects that the Donatists proceeding upon my Principle would not acknowledge the Catholikes their Brethren And what is this Principle of mine 'T is this as put down here by himself that a man cannot say his own religion is true but he must say
Schism between us For the antecedent renouncing those two points shown to have been the Principles of Ecclesiasticall Vnity had already caused the breach disvnion or diuision between us But those between whom an actuall diuision is made are not still diuisible that is they who are already diuided are not now to bee diuided Whefore however it may bee pretended that those Excommunications made those Congregations who were antecedently thus diuided stand at farther distance from one another yet 't is most senceles and unworthy a man of reason to affirm that they diuided those who were already diuided ere those Excommunications came Especially since the Rule of faith and the substance of the Pope's Authority consist in an indiuisible and are points of that nature that the renouncing these is a Principle of renouncing all faith and Government For who so renounces a y Rule may nay ought if hee go to work consequently renounce all hee holds upon that Rule whether points of faith or of Government nay even the letter of God's written word it self that is all that Christ left us or that can concern a Church 13. The renouncing those two Principles of the former Church Vnity as it evidently disvâ—ited mens minds in order to faith and Government so if reduced into practice it must necessarily disvnite or diuide them likewise in externall Church carriage This is clear since our tenets are the Principles of our actions and so contrary tenets of contrary carriage 14. Those tenets contrary to the two Principles of Church Vnity were de facto put in practice by the Reforming party and consequently they diuided the Church both internally and externally This is most undeniably evident since they preach't writ and acted against the Tradition or delivery of the immediately foregoing Church as erroneous in many points which shee deliver'd to them as from immediate fathers and so upwards as from Christ and proceeded now to interpret Scripture by another Rule than by the tenets and practice of the immediately foregoing faithfull And as for the former Government they absolutely renounc't it's influence in England preach't and writ against it Nay kept Congregations apart before they had the power in their hands and after they had the power in their hands punish't and put to death and that vpon the score of Religion many of the maintainers of those two Principles of Church Vnity 15. Hence follows that the Protestants breach was a perfect and compleat fact of Schism For it diuided the former Ecclesiasticall Body both internally and externally and that as it was an Ecclesiasticall Body since those two said Principles concern'd Ecclesiasticall Vnity 16. The subsequent Excommunication of our Church was therefore due fitting and necessary Due for it is as due a carriage towards those who have actually renounced the Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government and so broken Church Vnity to bee excommunicated by that Body from which those Renouncers thus broke as it is towards rebells who have renounc't both Supreme Government and fundamentall laws of a Common-wealth and so diuided the Temporall Body to bee denounced and proclaimed Rebells by the same Common-wealth Fitting since the effect of it they most resent which was to keep the true faithfull apart in Ecclesiasticall actions from them signify'd no more than this that they who had broken both internally and externally from the former Body should not bee treated with in Ecclesiasticall carriages as still of it nor bee owned for parts of that Commonwealth of which already they had made themselves no parts Lastly necessary all Government and good order going to wrack if opposite parties bee allow'd to treat together commonly in such actions in which their opposition must necessarily and frequently burst out and discover it self which will ineuitably disgust the more prudent sort hazzard to peruert the weaker and breed disquiet on both sides Thus far to evidence demonstrably that the Extern Fact of Schism was truly theirs Which done though it bee needless to adde any more to prove them formall Schismaticks themselves confessing that such a fact cannot bee iustifiable by any reasons or motives whatsoever of Schism c. 1. Yet I shall not build upon their standing to their own words knowing how easy a thing it is for men who talk loosely and not with strict rigour of Discourse to shuffle of their own sayings I shall therefore prosecute mine own intended method and alledge that 17. The very doing an Extern fact of so hainous a Nature as is breaking Church Vnity concludes a guilt in the Acters unles they render reasons truly sufficient to excuse their fact This is evident a fortiori by parallelling this to facts of far more inferiour malice For who so rises against a long settled and acknowledg'd Temporall power is concluded by that very fact of rising to bee a Rebell unles hee render sufficient reasons why hee rose Otherwise till those reasons appear the Good of Peace settlement order and Vnity which hee evidently violates by his rising conclude him most irrationall that is sinfull who shall go about to destroy them The like wee experience to bee granted by all Mankind in case a son disobey or disacknowledge one for his father who was held so formerly nay if a schoolboy disobey a petty schoolmaster for unles they give sufficient reasons of this disobedience the order of the world which consists in such submission of inferiours to formerly-acknowledg'd Superiours gives them for faulty for having broken and inverted that order How much more then the fact of breaking Church Vnity since this entrenches upon an order infinitely higher to wit Mankind's order to Beatitude and in it's own nature dissolves that is destroyes Christ's Church by destroying it's Vnity and by consequence his law too since there remaining no means to make particular Churches interpret Scripture the same way each of them would follow the fancy of some man it esteems learned and so there would bee as many faiths as particular Congregations as wee see practic 't in Luther's pretended Reformation and this last amongst us 18. No reasons can bee sufficient to excuse such a fact but such as are able to conuince that 't was better to do that fact than not to do it This is most Evident since as when reason convinces mee 't is worse to do such a thing I am beyond all excuse irrationall that is faulty in doing it so if I bee conuinc't that 't is onely-equally good I can have no reason to go about it for in regard I cannot act in this case without making choice of the one particular before the other and in this supposed case there is no reason of making such a choice since I am convinc't of the equality of their Goodnesses 't is clear my action in this case cannot spring from reason 'T is left then that none can act rationally nor by consequence excusably unles convinc't that the fact is better to bee done than not to bee done 19. In