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
Book of Schism p. 84. where Speaking of S. Peters Baptizing constituting Bishops in Britany he tels us it must in all reason be extended no farther then S. Peters line as he was Apostle of the Circumcision Id est saith hee to the Iews that might at that time be dispersed there In which place he manifestly makes S. Peter's Province exclusive in Britany where he never pretends that S. Paul met him though before he told us that the agreement between S. Peter S. Paul was onely exclusive when they met at the same City c. How powerfull terrible is truth which can drive her opposers to defend themselves by such miserable and weak implications His ninth self-contradiction quarrels with both parts of his sixth at once according to the former part of which S. Paul had not his Province from Christ's assignation according to the later part of it he had it imediately from Christ's assignation yet maugre both these Repl. 58. par 5. he makes S. Pauls peculiar Province Spring onely from the Iews refusing rejecting his doctrine onely I say for he affirms there expresly that till the Iews refused rejected it he does not betake himself so peculiarly to the Gentiles whence follows in all likelihood that if the Iews had not rejected Christ's doctrine tenderd by S. Paul that Apostle had never gone peculiarly to the Gentils nor by consequence should have had any peculiar or exclusive Province at all Is not this a solid man To omit that this experiencing of more fruit among the Gentiles then among the Iews is that which S. w. puts for the reason of his peculiar Apostleship the Appellation of Apostle of the Gentils ensuing thereupon These some others are the self-contradictions with which this Adversary of mine seing it impossible to shew one word in any testimony excluding limiting the Iurisdiction of the Apostles shuffles to fro on all sides that so what ever position he should be challenged with he may slip avoyd it by shewing as he easily may that he said in another place the expresse contrary and then when he hath done he preaches repentance or else Hell damnation to his wicked Adversary for calumniating him who thus earnestly desires for Sooth to speak the full truth of God Answ p. 18. and that so carefully that to make sure work for fear one part of the contradiction should not be the truth of God he affirms both But I hope the Reader will be aware of his shifting weakneses waving all his self said affirmations his Gentile non-sence his pious formalities will presse him home with this Dilemma Either S. Peter's Authority was so limited by his pretended designation to one Province as he had no power to preach to another or it was not but remaind stil illimited Vniversal not witstanding this imagind designation if it remaind stil unlimited and Vniversal how can the Pope's Authority be concluded limited from his succeeding S. Peter if S. Peter's remaind ever unlimited But if his Authority Iurisdiction was limited and that this was the thing to be proved by Dr. H. in his book of Schism then why does he not vindicate his testimonies from that shamefull charge layd against them particularly by S. W. that there is not one wordin them limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions but what himself adds of his own Head And why does he instead of thus vindicating them here sometimes flatly deny the question sometimes shuffle about to blunder a point so clear at any rate though it cost him no lesse then such numerous most palpable self-contradictions sure the knot must be great which could stand need of having wedges thus driven in point-blank oppositely on both sides to break it asunder Sect. 5. What multitudes of absurdities and accesse of fresh self-contradictions follow out of his newly-invented tenet of Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction then onely when the Apostles met in the same City AFter his self-contradictions march his lesser absurdities not so bulkie substantiall ones as the former yet still his too big to bee wielded by any man but Dr. H. nor by him neither unles the necessity of a bad cause incumbent on him to defend had added to him such an increase of strength as vses to proceed from desperation But not to take notice of them all I will onely take that part of his Reply which I find most pertinent to the point in hand then see what abondance of that kind of fruit it bears In his Reply therefore p. 57. I find these words I have sufficiently exprest tract of Schism c. 4. p. 7. how far this agreement extended how far exclusive it was not that it should be unlawful for Peter to preach to a Gentil or for Paul to a Iew but hâ—at when they mâ—t at the same City as at Antioch certainly they did and at Rome also I make no question then the one should constantly apply himself to the Iews receive Disciples form them into a Church leave them to be governed by a Bishop of his assignation and the other should doe in like manner to the Gentiles Thus he very pithily let us unfold lay open what he has as his custome is involued here see what a heap of weaknesses lies sweating there crowded up in so narrow a room First he brings these words here as an explanation of his meaning that is of the state of the question between us concerning how far these Provinces were exclusive whereas in the place cited of Schism c. 4. par 7. it is onely put as an instance of their imagin'd exclusive Iurisdictions introduc't with an Accordingly not purposely Stating or determining the measure or extent of their agreement nor is there any expression found there which sounds to this purpose Secondly this Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction which before made such a loud sound is now onely come to be such when they met at the same City by consequence abstracting from that circumstance S. Peter had Vniversal Authority which is a great largness of his towards S. Peter and I wonder whence this kindnes springs towards the Pope's Predecessor Thirdly since these two Apostles as far as we hear never met in any City after this pretended distribution of Provinces save onely at Rome at Antioch it follows that as far as Dr. H. knows S. Peter's Iurisdiction was universal over both Iews and Gentiles in all the world besides at all other times except onely those short seasons in which they met together Fourthly it follows that the Pope's Authority is not limited save onely where he meets S. Paul or his Successors or perhaps as he needs will have it S. Iohn and then I conceive it will be very ample Fifthly since he grants that both the Congregations of Iews Gentils were joyned in one under Pope â—lement of Schism p. 79. that Pope by consequence succeeded them both so the exclusivenes of S. Peter's Iurisdiction when
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
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
he met S. Paul cannot possibly infer such an exclusivenes or limitation of Iurisdiction in the now Popes or the Popes which have been since the imagind conjunction of those Congregations however hâ— may pretend it makes against the universal Iurisdictions of those Popes who preceded Clemens Thus at unawares Dr. H. grants the Pope as much as we desire yet very innocently thinks he impugns him or as himself expresses it Answ p. 11. laies the Axe to the root and stocks up Rome's universal Pastourship Sixthly the question being turned into exclusivenes of Iurisdiction when they met in the same City onely it followes there is not the least pretence of a testimony from Scripture for this position thus stated for 't is no where found nor pretended to be found in Scripture that their Iurisdictions were onely to be limited in case of meeting in the same City So that now the pretence of evidencing from Scripture which in the book of Schism made a great noise is by this new stating the question or rather evading it struck quite dumb Seventhly it is to be observed he has not a word in any testimony to prove their exclusive Iurisdictions in Rome Antioch but onely those which affirmed that they preach't were Bishop in Rome founded the Church in both places All which might easily be done by a promiscuous Authority nor does he offer one word of proof to underprop his weak testimonies why it could not be thus performed Eigthly his place in his book of Schism which he produces for their exclusive Iurisdictions falls short of what he alledges it for affirming onely that when they met at the same City one should constantly apply himself to the Gentiles the other to the Iews Now the prudent consideration of circumstances may determine one man to doe constantly this thing another to doe constantly another thing without inferring that either of them lost their right to doe the other by this constancy of action exercised upon this one By which faltring mistake of his own words we may see that when he alledges them now as a sufficient expression of his tenet of exclusivenes he onely sought to escape from change his former question and to evade by vertue of the more moderate word constantly which standing in the confines between exclusivenes not exclusivenes might at a dead litf by the Midwifry of an Id est or a criticism bring forth either signification Ninthly the Iews according to Dr. H. being S. Peter's Province exclusively to the Gentiles not exclusively till they met in one City it follows that unles they had met he had no exclusive Province at all Hence Tenthly since they agreed upon exclusive Provinces it follows they agreed to meet at such such cities else the bargain of exclusive Provinces had been spoil'd yet t' is no where read that ever they made any such agreement after this pretended distribution of Provinces Eleventhly put case S. Peter had come to some City two or three moneths before S. Paul and we cannot imagin their correspondence so precise nor their imployments other where so indifferent but this might very easily very often happen then it must follow that that Apostle had universal Authority to preach to both till S. Paul come nor can we imagin him idle or negligent to doe what good he could to all Put case then that that Prince of the Apostles who by one Sermon converted three thousand should by three months labour there convert twice that number of Gentiles to Christ's faith to govern whom the whole Authority over both being yet in his own hands it is fitting he should use the said Authority in ordaining constituting Deacons Priests for the orderly governing his numerous Converts and those too distinct in all points from the Priests of the Gentiles for Dr. H. grounds interdict them all Communion See Sch Dis p. 64. Things thus orderd and the Gentiles setled thus under S. Peter S. Paul arrives at the City Then begins the hurliburly S. Peter's Authority which before extended to both Nations begins suddenly to feel the cramp conuulsion-fits shrinks up to the Iews onely in all probability a very few perchance twenty or thirty more or lesse may be imagined to live in that City S. Peter's Iurisdiction being thus grown exclusive in respect of the Gentiles by S. Paul's coming consequently all the Gentiles formerly converted by him however addicted to their Apostle Pastour more then father S. Peter must presently change their Master doe Homage to S. Paul acknowledging him their proper now-sole-Governour The Gentil Priests ordained before his coming either may be degraded lawfully by S. Paul or else submit themselves to him receive the approbation of their Iurisdiction from him as the order of Government requires Moreover if S. Paul had hap to be alone in the same City before and to have converted Iews as his custome was then the poore Iews must avoyd S. Paul's Congregation run to S. Peter's Church assoon as hee arrives But to proceed with our case S. Paul's occasions call him away from that City and ere he removes Dr. H. assures that he must leave behind him a Bishop of his assignation that is over the Gentiles then presently we must imagin that S. Peter's Iurisdiction which had felt a kind of Winter-Season during S. Paul's residence there hee departing begins to feel a happy Spring budding now Sprouting out a fresh towards the Gentiles So that now the Scene of Iurisdiction Government is quite changed again according to Dr. H's grounds and were not S. Peter a good man he might undo all that S. Paul had done be revenged on him for coming to the same City where he was to limit his Authority The Gentiles therefore which were converted before by S. Peter assoon as S. Paul is out of sight begin to face about again S. Peter recovers his own To work therefore heegoes and fals to preach Christ's faith to the Gentiles the second time which before he durst not Converts many having by this time got power enough to do it being about to depart leaves a Bishop of his own constituting to govern them So that we have now got two Gentil Bishops in the same City and if Dr. H. say there was not he must say we are beholding to the Apostles prudence goodnes for it not to his grounds of illimited Iurisdiction when they met not limited when they met in the same City which infers they had Authority to do this many other absurdities and by consequence his position in it self destroyes all order both of Authority Government Again when they met at the same City in case a Gentile had come to S. Peter desired to hear Christ's doctrine S. Peter must refuse to teach him it send him to S. Paul telling him it was beyond his power because S. Paul he had exclusive Iurisdictions when they met
Authority drest up in such an expression as this of singular supremacy would not supremacy have served the turn if he had a mind to be rightly understood without such an odd Epithet or if he would needs give it an Epithet why should it not rather universall then singular Again what means his adding the words there The supremacy in debate betwixt us is neither subject to Here 's nor There 's but universall and spreading it self to all places in the whole Christian world All the singularity and particularity shown there at Hierusalem was of S. Iames being particular Bishop of that place and then indeed by proving S. Iames such he quite takes of S. Peter's pretension to such a singular supremacy but what is this to his being chief of the Apostles cannot one be so without being particular Bishop of each see in the world I excepted therefore against that illphrad title of honor singular supremacy as an ambiguous word and apt to make the vulgar Reader imagin that S. Peter's universal authority is lost if any one be found singularly supreme in his own see and I had good reason to be iealous of it knowing it to be one of Dr H's best arts to couch himself in odd indifferent expressions which help't by some circumstances litle more then indifferent also may make the Reader apt to take them in a sinister sence and yet leave an evading hole for the Dr. to say afterwards when his Adversary should challenge him that he meant otherwise Thus much for his uncouth expression of singular supremacy as it was found alone in his book of Schism without a Comment here in his Answ p. 42. he explicates himself to mean such a supremacy as was not common to the other tow eminent Apostles which is as wise as the text it self and intimates thus much that they had each supremacy there but that S Peter's supremacy was not singular or above theirs which would ground this pretty contradiction to the former that none at all were supreme but all equall Or if he meant not that each was supreme there in respect of the other then what needed he add singular at all let him but grant us onely a supremacy in S. Peter in respect of the other Apostles and we shall not desire him to add the frivolous word singular nor needed he impugn soe powerfully that expression which we never challenged nor stood upon nay not soe much as heard of till he coin'd it But I accept of his comment let it mean such a supremacy Authority he would have said as was not common to the two other eminent Apostles who does he impugn it or as he pretends quite take of S. Peter's pretensions to it Because saith hee of Schism p. 73. S. Iames his Iurisdiction was not by Peter alone entrusted unto him but by Iames and Iohn together with Peter so that the argument stands thus S. Peter cannot be higher in Authority unles he does all things alone by himself Is not this excellent But what follows is superexcellent and transcendently rationall his Disarmer shew'd his consequence naught because an Arch-bishop going to consecrate a Bishop uses to take two other Bishops with him which yet argues not that the Arch-bishop hath any greater Authority than a Bishop soe that as it is inconsequent to say an Arch bishop does not alone entrust a Bishop with a Bishoprick but takes two Bishops a long with him to do it therefore he hath noe higher Authority then the Bishops he takes with him so it is equally inconsequent to say S. Peter did not alone entrust Iames with the Bishoprick of Hierusalem but took Peter and Iohn with him therefore he had no higher Authority then Peter and Iohn This consequence absolutely denied by me and an instance given to shew by parity the weaknes of it it was his task to strengthen it here yet he hath the confidence to repeat it and in stead of sodering the incoherence of it catches at my instance and tells me it neither does nor ever will be made appear by S. W. that S. Peter was an Arch bishop in respect of those two other suffragan Bishops Iames and Iohn Did I say S. Peter was an Arch-bishop and the other two his suffragans what means then this laying out my words in such a forme that he had higher Authority was mine and the Catholike Tenet which higher Authority I showd not invalidated by his taking other two with him by the parity of an Arch-bishops carriage in the like case and hence denied the consequence yet in despight of Logick and the commonest rules of disputing he is resolved his consequence shall hold till I who am the defendent and am answering his argumēt prove mine own tenet and turn to be Opponent making it appear as he candidly expresses it that S. Peter was an Arch-bishop and the other two his suffragans The summe then is this Dr. H. argues thus S. Peter took other two with him to consecrate Iames therefore he hath noe higher Authority then those he took with him I Answer denying the consequence and affirming that he might be higher in Authority notwithstanding showing it by a parity what does our disputant in stead of strengthening his weak consequence he onely replies I marry but you shall never prove nor make it appear that S. Peter was higher in Authority then the other two whereas any one who is meanly acquainted with the most ordinary laws of disputing knows it is his part who is here the Opponent to make his consequence appear valid and concluding mine who am the defendant or Answerer to deny grant or distinguish onely not to prove my Tenet or make it appear Perhaps Mr. H. having got some credit for ordinary sleight pulpit sence may still in the judgment of some preiudiced or weak understandings conserve his credit by such Evasions but I am confident that any knowing sincere man will acknowledge that any freshman in the Vniversity would be hist out of the schools if he defended his argument noe better then the Dr. hath proved his consequence He adds a Testimony out of Clemens which he sayes deserves to be consider'd Answ p. 42. 43. and it shall have it's full desert 'T is this that Peter Iames and Iohn being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 honored before the rest by our Lord did not contend for dignity but those Iames the first Bishop of Hierusalem which Testimony is very expresse that they all chose him and did not wrangle in chosing him but as for Dr. H's purpose what it makes for that none but himself can tell us where saith he the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or precedence that Peter had from Christ is common to Iames and Iohn also and so no singular supremacy The force then lies in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or honoured before the rest and in it's being spoken in the plurall number in common I ask then and put it to Dr. H's choice does this word sound priority or
that S. W. had not the forecast to say 't is certain too for then he had sav'd his sobriety and all had been well Thirdly conscious to him self that all hitherto was evasion he would seem at length for fashions sake as it were to touch the point but seems onely after his accustomed sleight manner in these words Thirdly the place Gal. 1. 17. belongs expressely to the power after it was givâ—n and yet then he depended not on him Attend Reader here is a dreadfull sentence pronounced against S. Peter's Supremacy for if after it was given it was no ways dependent on S. Peter all is lost to S. Peter's Superiority First I know thou wonderst why the point being so mainly important and Dr. H. having found a place of Scripture to prove it from expressely too as he tells thee he should not be larger in it citing those expresse words and then making invincible arguments from them To lose his advantage in such circumstances onely relating hastily the place then touching it sleightly and not prosecuting it home nor indeed at all but saying onely something there upon sounds a betraying of his cause and some preposterous fauour to his therein-befriended Adversary S. W. Secondly thou mayst observe that there are here two propositions one that the place Gal. 1. 17. belongs expressely to the power after it was given the other that yet then he depended not on him The first is pretended from the Text and expressely too The second is left indifferent as his blinding manner is whether it be proved from the Text or by his own affirmation If the latter I must put it upon this score of his 'tis certain and so it needs no further answer But if it be pretended as from Scripture it shall have audience and thou shalt hear it examin'd Thirdly please to take notice that the Verse Gal. 1. 17. which he brings to testify his tenet expressely but by omitting it slubberingly bids it say nothing is this as I find it in their own translation Neither went I up to Hierusalem to them which were Apostles before me but I went into Arabia and returned again unto Damascus And this is all where wee hear no news of any power at all much less expressely belonging to power nay more expressely to the power after it was given as Mr. H. promised us Fourthly grant yet all this that it belong'd expressely to the power after it was given yet how does this place prove that the power given was not dependent on S. Peter's as an inferiour degree to a superiour which is the whole question between us Nothing is said here but onely that S. Paul preach't in Arabia c. ere he went to the Apostles before him The place there named by him taken in it self without relation to the other Verses expresses nothing of power at all but onely that S. Paul went to other places ere he went up to Hierusalem and taken with other adjoyning Verses onely intimates this that S. Paul having commission immediatly from Christ had Authority to preach to other places without demanding first the other Apostles order and approbation which is both granted by us and innocent to our cause but whether the power given were lesse equall or greater then S. Peter's nothing is found there at all much lesse doth the 17. Verse it self speak of power still lesse doth it expressely belong to it least of all to power after it was given as imdependent on S. Peter as Mr. H. braggs To make this yet plainer the Reader may please to advert that there is no Catholick in the world but holds that if our Saviour immediatly command a thing he may be obayed without asking counsell or leave of any Superiour nay even against their contrary command or prohibition Next that our Saviour not onely could but did give immediate commands and Commissions to persons of different ranks as to the Apostles and Disciples to preach to the whole world and to Philip the Deacon to goeto convert the Eunuch Acts. 8. v. 26 29. These things being so all shadow of reason in Dr. H's discoursevanishes which would conclude S. Paul independent and of equall and not subordinate power with S. Peter because he had an immediate Commission from Christ and proceeded to act according to that Commission without going to ask S. Peter's leave first The Disciples having immediate order from Christ preach't the Gospell without asking leave or receiving approbation from the Apostles Were it not now a worthy inference to parallell Dr. H's and conclude that therefore the Disciples were of equall Authority with the Apostles But Dr. H. is so wary that he speaks his non-sence sleightly sprinklingly and in brief that that lineaments of it not being discovered the deformity of it may not appear And this is the most frequent with him of all the rest of his sly ricks and in a manner naturall to his whole strain of writing From Dr. H's reason and Scripture testimonies wee come to fathers to prove that the power given was not inferiour to or dependent on S. Peter's He appeals to S. Chrysostome for this point affirming as he layes it out of S. Paul distinctly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not needing Peter nor his voyce The explication of this place is already given here in the paragraph foregoing to which adde in particular that if by voyce he means Commission and order to preach t' is clear he needed it not having received it immediatly from Christ if instruction of doctrine he needed not that neither having learned it fully and perfectly from Divine revelation what follows hence necessarily for equality of power wee see not and Dr. H. pretends here to prove it by no other argument then onely by telling us within a parenthesis that he supposes it Both the former interpretations then wee grant each of them fits the words very well whereas his of equality of power is impossible to bee evinced from this testimony and inconsistent even with Dr. H's grounds as shall be shown It follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but being equally honourd with him to which the father addes in a parenthesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I will say no more Vpon which words Dr. H. exults which saith he what it is an intimation of I leave S. W. to conjecture Nor is S. W. nice to tell him his thoughts what S. Chrysostome intimated by those words to wit that he could have said more with truth but represt him self as not willing out of reverence to those Apostles to make comparisons of inequality between them which manifests plainly that S. Chrysostome in that place speakes not of power at all or equality in that respect since neither was it ever heard of that S. Chrysostome or any els no nor the most perverse Protestants held S. Paul above S. Peter in power nor can it consist with Dr. H's own grounds who Answ p. 43. l. 25. disclaims professedly any such pretence that any of the other Apostles
had greater Authority then S. Peter Thus Dr. H. thinking he had served S. Peter and the Pope a trick by making S. Chrisostome intimate that S. Paul had greater Authority then he hath at once contradicted his own grounds and quite disanull'd his own best testimonie rendring it impossible to relate to power or Authority for which he produced it unlesse the opinion of the whole world or which is firmer and more inviolable Dr. H's own word 's bee a mistake asserting that no Apostle had greater power then S. Peter As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equall honour of those two Apostles it hath already been shown formerly from the father's words to signify equall honour for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same efficacity of preaching and in this place both it and the not needing S. Peter's voyce relate onely to the sufficiency of S. Paul's knowledge making S. Peter's instructions needles as appears by the words a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. not as if S. Paul were to learn any thing of S. Peter c. And thus indeed the possibility of S. Chrysostomes saying more of S. Paul or that he was more honour'd and higher then S. Peter may have good sense many holding that S. Paul was higher in learning and the greater Divine They must bee therefore testimonies expressing equality in power of Government which can conclude any thing against our tenet concerning his power for in other things 't is no question but that S. Paul â—ad many advantages above S. Peter as in preaching to more Nations in writing more Epistles in greater sufferings and many other regards where of some be exprest 2. Cor. c. 11. Again this very Verse which Dr. H. would have relate to power after it was given and it's independence on S. Peter S. Ambrose whose judgment I shallever preferr before Mr. H's interprets in the same sence as wee take it to wit of independence in learning onely explicating S. Paul's words thus non fuisse dicit necessitatem electum se a Deo pergendi ad praedecessores suos Apostolos vt aliquid fortè disceret ab illis quia Deus ei reuelauit perfilium suum quomodo doceret S. Paul says it was not necessary that he being chosen by God should go to the former Apostles that he might learn any thing of them because God had revealed to him by his son how he should teach But because S. Chrysostome hath been pretended as his constant Patron in this particular controversy therefore though it cannot be exacted of me who am the Defendant to produce testimonies and object to let the Reader see how unhappy Dr. H. is in the choice of his freinds I shall take liberty to manifest and I hope with evidence from two or three places of that father what S. Chrysostome's opinion was in this point of S. Peter's higher Authority amongst the Apostles I will not presse here the high titular expressions he gives S. Peter Panâ—g in Pet. Paul how iustly soever I might of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the leader or Captain of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning of the right faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great pronouncer of sacred things in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Corypheus or Head of the Apostles c. Nor will I insist much upon my formerly-alledged testimony that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entrusted with the Sheep-fold though I might with good reason the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a collective and denoting an Vniversality But My first place which I rather make choice of because it relates to S. Iames whom Dr. H. would make clearly Sue periour to S. Peter in his own see is taken out of Hom. 87. upon S. John where speaking of our Saviours extraordinary affection and familiarity towards S. Peter he immediately subjoyns this interrogatory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this be so how then came Iames to have the Episcopall seat of Hierusalem he solves it him self thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he ordaind him S. Peter not Master of that seat but of the whole world Here wee see the vast difference between S. Iames and S. Peter's Iurisdictions one being Master of that private seat at Hierusalem the other Master of the whole world whence follows evidently that neither S. Peter's Iurisdiction is limited by any other bounds then the world it self is and that he had Iurisdiction also at Hierusalem it self not after the nature of the particular Bishop there but of an universall Governour or Master of the world unles perhaps Mr. H will alledge that Hierusalem is no part of the world for then indeed I shall not know how to reply Neither let him as his custome is run to the Dictionaries and Lexicons to tell me that the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such a Master as teaches or instructs and so sounds no Government nor Iurisdiction for he must know that that is the proper signification of the word as it is found here which the circumstances accompanying it determin it to have To them then let us look the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Master is appropriated here to S. Peter in order to the whole world as it is to S. Iames in order to Hierusalem it being exprest but once and in construction refer'd to both Since then as applyd to S. Iames it signifies his being Bishop of Hierusalem and so expresses directly Iurisdiction and power of Government it is against all reason to say it can possibly signify another thing as apply'd to S. Peter According to this testimony then S. Peter was universall Bishop of the Church and of an illimited Iurisdiction But perhaps Dr. H. will not allow the parenthesis in the testimony I answer I put down the testimony here as I found it in the Greek Context set out by themselves and printed at Eton and though it were left out the sence it self putt's the opposition between S. Peter's being such over the world as S. Iames was over Hierusalem which concerns commanding power and Iurisdiction My second place is fech't from his comment on Act. 1. where speaking of S. Peter's behaviour about the election of a new Apostle he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with good reason doth the first S. Peter undertake the busines with Authority as having them all delivered into his hand What can this signify but that he as first and as a supreme Governour had power over all the rest that were present and who were those who were present all the rest of the Apostles and the chief of the Disciples In what other manner he as first can be said to have had all the rest within his hand and therefore with good reason to have taken the management of that busienes authoritatively to himself I professe I cannot in Dr. H's behalf imagine and am perswaded himself will confess it after perusall of the following testimony that
this was S. Chrysostome's meaning The Third testimony which shall be also my last for I deem it impossible to finde another more expresse for this or any other point is taken from the same place and spoken upon the same occasion the election of some one to bee Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then was it not in Peter's power to elect him yes it was altogether in his power but he does it not lest he might seem to do it out of fauour What can be more expresse and full The thing to be performed was an Act of the highest Iurisdiction imaginable amongst the Apostles to wit the making a new Apostle The other Apostles and chief Disciples were present to the number of one hundred and twenty yet S. Peter had power to do this of himself in their presence Nor is this exprest dubiously by the father but as a thing certain and beyond all question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yes altogether absolutely or without doubt Nor have wee here any divers Lections to diminish the Authority of the words which the Dr. makes a pittifull and little prevailing use of in his lisping testimonies nor is it a word or two pickt out blindly and wrested to a quite different interpretation as is his of discovered Method but a pithy expression of the full scope and import of the place Nor is this perfect expression put alone but seconded with a note that he did it not of his own single power lest he should bee mistaken by others to make such a one an Apostle out of favour which is the frequent and ordinary carriage of every wise and prudent Governour Nor do wee pretend to any higher strain of Iurisdiction in S. Peter then that he could elect a new Apostle by his own power which this father not onely grants but strenuously assertes nor in our paralell tenet of the Pope's Authority can we attribute to him any particâ—lar act more supreme or more savouring of highest Authority than to constitute Bishops and Patriarchs in the Church by himself and of his own particular power Nor lastly was this testimony peep 't out for in strange places but offred me by the same Author whom Dr. H. most relies on and in the same Treatise which he most frequently cites Iudge then Reader whether it bee likely or no that Dr. H. considering his industrious reading this father and this Treatise as he manifests here could possibly remain ignorant what was S. Chrysostome's tenet in this point and then tell me what he deserves who against his own knowledge and conscience alledges imperfectly mangles corrupts and falsifies this fathers words to gain some show of his consent to his paradoxicall point of faith nay makes him by such leger de main sleights his chiefest Patron to defend it as hath been layd open and discover'd particularly heretofore though he could not but know that no writer extant could be more expressely against it then is this holy and learned father S. Chrysostome Sect. 13. Dr. H's successe in answering his Adversaries first Testimony His insincerity in pretending our own law against the Pope's Authority IN his book of Schism p. 74. Dr. H. told us with Authority and very confidently that certainly S. Paul was noe way subordinate or dependent on S. Peter at Antioch as appears by his behaviour towards him avowed Gal. 2. 11. that is his withstanding him to the face Discourteous S. W. who gives not a jott more credit to Mr. H. wher he cries certainly surely irrefragably unquestionably expressely distinctly accordingly c. which are the nerves of his discourse than if he had said nothing at all would not budge into assent notwithstanding his soe confident assurance to warrant him and as for Gal. 2 11. by which he pretended to make it appear he reply'd Schism Disarm p. 62. that S. Cyprian and S. Austin thought otherwise who interpreted S. Peter's bearing it patiently not as an argumeÌ„t of his lesse or equall Authority but of his greatest humility that being higher in dignity he should suffer so mildly the reprehensions of an inferiour The place alledged from those fathers was this Quem quamuis primum Dominus elegerit super eum aedificaverit Ecclesiam suam tamen cum secum Paulus disceptauit non vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit vt diceret se Primatum tenere obtemperari à nouellu posteris sibi potius opportere nec despexit Paulum quòd Ecclesiâ—e priùs persecutor fuisset sed consilium veritatis admisit Whom though our Lord chose to be the first of the Apostles and upon him built his Church yet when Paul contended with him he did not challenge and assume to him self any thing in any insolent and proud manner as to say he had the Primacy and so should rather be obeyed by new and late Apostles nor did he despise Paul because he had formerly been a Persecutor of the Church but admitted the counsell of truth Dr. H. preparing to answer this place Answ p. 46. notes first that this is the first testimony I have brought from Antiquity as if it necessarily belong'd to me who was answering his book and showing his allegations unable to conclude to object testimonies also my self and so bee Opponent and defendent both but as it was not my task so neither do I esteem it so rare a busines to transcribe out of books as needlesly to put my self upon that dull employment though I know well that annotation-men and commonâ— place book souls think it the rarest thing imaginable Next he tells us that he never doubted S. Peter's Primacy in the sence this holy fathers speaks any more than of Christs building his Church on him and that he gave me a testimony even now from S. Ambrose which expressely avouched it I remember indeed such a Testimony Answ 39 in the Margent but I remember withall that he brought it not nay would not let it signify S. Peter's Primacy in any sence over the whole Church but over the Iews onely as appears by the fourlast lines of the same page 39. how ever wee thank him for granting here that he gaves us a testimony from S. Ambrose which expressely avoued S. Peter's Primacy in any sence over the Church so he will promise us not to repent him self and recall his grant which he pretends to have so expressely avouched there But alas what faith is to bee given to the most formall bargain made with such Copes-masters of testimonies he had scarce writt eight lines after this profest expresse avouching it but he quite forgets his so solemn promise and makes the said place in S. Ambrose signify a limited and contradistinct Primacy saying that by the words of S. Ambrose S. Paul had a Primacy amongst the Gentiles as Peter amongst the Iews though the place it self in reference to S. Peter sayes onely that Petrus Primatum acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam Peter had received the Primacy to found the
Church How necessary an endowment is a good memory to defend a bad cause Thirdly he onely denyes as he sayes that this Primacy gave him any power over S. Paul and that I will remember he had reason to deny it from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall honour given S. Paul by Chrysostome and Theophylact. I remember indeed the words but have quite forgot that he had any reason to deduce from those words equality of honor sprung from Government or power of command having shown from those fathers explicating themselves that it is impossible the words can beare that interpretation Fourthly in relation to those words he did not vindicate any thing to himself insolently or assume it arrogantly as to say he had the Primacy and rather ought to bee obeyed c. Dr. H. discant's with this glosse leaving us saith he p. 47. to resolve that if he had claimed any obedience at all from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him Thus he soe that the difference between Dr. H. and mee in explicating this place stands thus that he makes those words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assump sit to signify that S. Peter's praise worthines exprest consisted in his not chalenging what did not truly belong to him whereas I make it consist in his not chalenging it in those circumstances though it truly belonged to him he would have the words insolenter and arroganter so taken as if the pride they denoted did involve falsehood injustice or overweening whereas I contend that they signify onely in an insolent and proud manner well exprest in our English phrase by standing upon his point which well consists with the truth of what he challenges and the right of what he assumes Ere I descend to manifest that this is the sence of that place I desire the Reader to review the entire testimony in which he will do right both to my discourse and his own memory and when he hath done this I offer him for his satisfaction these following notes First that it had been no such great commendation of humility to say that S. Peter did not usurpingly challenge what was not his right but rather an impudence and an absurd haughtines to have done it since then the fathers intend here a particular commendation of S. Peter's modesty it must consist in this that though he might with rigour of right have stood upon his tip-toes as wee may say yet his goodnes so moderated his height that he was content with mildenes to bear an inferiour's reprehensions in which great vertue is shown and which being put those fathers suppose that truly he was Superiour Secondly unles this bee the meaning of that place wee have quite lost the adversative sence which yet is unavoidable for what sence is this Though our Lord chose him to be the first yet he did not challenge to himself more then belongs to him or what speciall commendation do these words import Though King Iames was King of England yet he did not challenge or assume to himself to bee Emperour of Germany sure it must bee an enuy of S. Peter's sanctity as well as of his dignity to diminish his praise-worthines intended here by so frivolous and incoherent an explication Thirdly the words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter he challenged not any thing insolently to himself make good my explication for it had been a very hard case if he could have challenged nothing at all to himself with truth according to these fathers no not even that which themselves had granted the line before to wit that our Lord had chosen him to bee the first and had built his Church upon him with truth therefore he might have challenged that which out of modesty he stood not insolenty and arrogantly upon Fourthly Dr. H. grants that a Primacy at least in some sence is granted S. Peter from this place wherefore the redditive part of the testimony yet he challenged not any thing c. so as to say he had the Primacy must be granted to bee true also or rather it is the self same Neither is it possible that any man not totally possest by prejudice can imagine any other but that in these words Though our Lord chose him to bee the first yet he said not or alledged not that he had the Primacy or was the first the latter part should be false unles the former were so too Firfthly this being so the following words in the reddiâ—ive part of the testimony and ought rather to be obey'd by laâ—er Apostles c. must necessarily bee true too since they follow in the same tenour of redditive sence to the adversative and are joyned immediately by a copulative particle to the former of having the Primacy True therefore it is that he might in right expect obedience in other circumstances from S. Paul and by consequence this Primacy here spoken of was not a dry and barren one as the Dr. would fancy it Sixthly the subsequent words of his not objecting to S. Paul that he had been a persecutour of the Church make it yet more evident since he might with truth have said so but of his goodnes would not since then the foregoing word 's of his having the Primacy are true and the following ones also of S. Paul's having been a persecutour are true also upon what grounds can this Adversary of S Peter's imagine that the midle words importing his rather right to S. Paul's obedience which run on in the same even tenour with both the other should be false or how could he â—hink to evade by deducing from those words that the fathers left us to resolve hence that if hee had claimed any obedience from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him nay making this the summe of his answer to that place Lastly the concluding words but admitted the counsell of truth expressing the result of the whole busines show that iâ— plainly imports an Encomium of S. Peter's candour that wheÌ„ the thing objected against him was true he maintained not his own saying by Authority but made his heâ—gâ—h of dignity exprest there to bee most eminent stoop to the sincere acceptation of truth which in a Superiour and Governour is a most laudable carriage and an unparalell'd commendation And thus Dr. H. comes of in answering S. W. first testimony which being prest speaks more against him then was at first intended being onely brought to show that these fathers thought that manner of carriage between S. Peter and S. Paul exprest Gal. 11. rather argued S. Peter's greater humility then his lesser or equall Authority After Mr. H. had endeavoured by wresting the former testimony to win S. Cyprian and S. Austin to side with him against S. Peter's Authority he proceeds to destroy the Popes Authority in that Apostles even from domestick testimonies also His own canon law approved publickly by himself as legitimate shall secretly by Dr. H's inspiration play the Traitour and under mine now in these latter dayes the said Authority which
till now every one took it to confirme A strange attempt if Mr. H's strength were equall to his courage The place is cited in the Decret out of the 2. Epist of Pope Anacletus which makes it yet more home and terrible against the now adays-Popes it begins thus Post Christum a Petro sacerdotalis coepit ordo After Christ the sacerdotall order began from Peter and soe goes on in other expressions of that strain soe far from prejudiciall that they are very favorable and as for these first words if wee look into the Epistle it self it makes S. Peter the same in order to Christian Hierarchy as Aaron was to the Leuiticall which wee account no small honour He addes saith Dr. H. that the Apostles ipsum Principem eorum esse voluerunt would have him to bee their Prince that is consented he should bee such To which words Dr. H. subjoyns in a parenthesis where he read this I know not Thus Dr H. takes liberty to talk ridiculously yet should I smile at him a little he would excommunicate me again in Greek and his friends would be displeased Anacletus lived in the Apostles dayes and as he tell 's us in the said Epistle was ordained by S. Peter himself yet Dr. H. finds fault with this his assertion because he knows not where he read it Christ and his Apostles came not with books in their hands but with words in their mouths to teach the world their doctrine Therefore Dr. H. should rather have scrupled where he had heard it then where he had read it and put the force of his exception there and then wee could have told him there was none in those dayes for him to hear but onely either Christ or his Apostles and Disciples neither can wee doubt of his immediate conversation with them who was as the same Epistle expresses ordained by S. Peter himself These preambulatory expressions favouring soe much our cause would make one think that the same Author could not bee so forgetfull as to undo vtterly the same Authority in the self same Epistle nay in the next line after he had calld S. Peter Prince of the Apostles nor that Anacletus was such a Courtier as to speak those former kinde words onely for complement sake and afterwards when it came to the point immediately deny all yet Dr. H. expresses him here as speaking first on the one side then on the other and that when on the one side he had given us the former favorable word 's the false tokens it seems of otherwise-meant friendship presently like Margery's good cow which gave a good meal and when she had done kick't it down with her foot on the other side as Mr. H. tells us with equal clearnes he prevaricates from what he had pretended and over-throws S. Peter's supremacy quite The clear words as he calls them are these caeteri verò Apostoli cum eodem pari consortio honorem potestatem acceperunt But the other Apostles in like consortship received honour and power with him Which he never explicates nor applies as his sleighting custome is but puts them onely down and then triumphs upon them as if they could not possibly bear any other interpretation Whereas I make account every good Catholick may grant these words without any difficulty and that they make nothing at all against us For to say that the other Apostles received pari consortio honorem c. in like consortship honour and power does not infer that they received parem honorem potestatem equall honour and power but that as he had received it from Christ so they pari consortio likewise or in like manner as being his fellows received it to Again our tenet granting to each universall Iurisdiction all over the world grants likewise that each precisely under the notion of Apostle that is of one sent to preach Christs faith had a like consortship of honour and power each of them being dignify'd with an unlimited Apostleship and Iurisdiction or power to preach but speaking of the Apostolicall Colledge as a community and soe requiring order of Government wee affirm with S. Hierome that S. Peter was supreme in that respect nor is there any thing to the contrary found in this place Again the words cum eodem appear by their placing to be better joynd with acceperunt then with pari for then they should rather have been put after it paricum eodem c. and soe the whole place imports thus much that though our saviour chose S. Peter to be first yet the rest of the Apostles acceperunt cum eodem received with him that is at the same time he received it in like consortship that is of Apostleship honour and power which was verified when he in a common indifferent expression after his Resurrection gave them their last and unlimited Apostolicall mission euntes in vniuersum mundum praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae Going into the whole world preach the Gospell to every creature By this it appears that the place may have another meaning than that which Mr. H. fancies now that it must have another none but Anacletus him self in the same Epistle shall certifie us who manifests himself as plain a Papist in this point of the Pope's supremacy as either the Cath. Gent. or S. W. Putting down there the orderly ascent of Ecclesiasticall judicatures after that of Bishops being to be judged by their Metropolitans he rises higher to that of Primates and still higher to that of the Apostolicall seat or the Pope's in these words Primates tamen vt praefixum est tunc nunc habere iussae sunt ad quos post sedem Apostol cam summa negotia conueniant yet the Cities are order'd to have their Primates to whom the chief busienesses after the Apostolicall seat may come And a little after Episcoporumque causae summorum negociorum iudiciae Saluà Apostolicae sedis authoritate iustissimè terminentur And let the causes of Bishops and the judgments of the highest matters bee most justly decided by them the Authority of the Apostolicall seat remaining unprejudic'd By these two places wee may take an estimate of Dr. H. solidnes and sincerity who catches at the shadow of a word or two pari consortio in like consortship so waxen natur'd that they are easily capable of a diverse shap't signification and thence argues ad hominem against us that our own Authors and our canon law are clearly opposite to our doctrine whereas he could not but know and see in the very same place that there was noe testimony imaginable more expressely for us or more prejudiciable to him then the said Epistle if wee look after the meaning of the Author in the entire import of it
Authority in question from his being exclusively limited to the Iews when he met with S. Paul in the same Citie and now here though he should grant their preaching in the same city to have been promiscuous and indifferent both to Iews and Gentiles yet hee sayes it manifestly prejudges S. Peter's higher Authority still nothing can come wrong to him let it be exclusive or not exclusive still either part of the contradiction equally fitts his concluding faculty Dull Aristotle Dull Schools and Vniversities who could never light on this secure method of disputing Thirdly let us put this manifest proof into form and it stands staggering thus S. Peter and S. Paul preach't promiscuously to the Antiochians therefore S. Peter had manifestly noe higher Authority then S. Paul Good did not Paul and Titus do the same in other places were they therefore equall in Authority Fourthly observe these words that their promiscuous preaching clearly joyn'd Paul socially with him Here again wee must give Dr. H. leave to talk impertinently and be content not to understand him for if he means that he was socially joyn'd with S. Peter as his fellow-fellow-Apostle or fellow-labourer who either doubts it or imagins that it prejudices us but if he means that he was equall in Authority what force of reason can make these two so remote ends meet in a Conclusion he was his fellow-preacher or preach't with him tâ—eâ—efore he was equall in Authority with him as if the community of things under one notion could not stand with their inequality under another or as if wee were not all fellow Christians yet one notwithstanding of greater dignity and Authority then another In answer to his dumbe testimonies which affirmed onely that S. Peter and S. Paul taught the Antiochians and founded the Church there I replyd Shism Disar p. 63. that this might have been done by the promiscuous endeavors of those Apostles Dr. H. undertakes here p. 48. to remove this might be that is to shew it impossible that they promiscuously taught the Iews and Gentiles at Antioch His first argument is drawn from the Inscription of the Rescript which was directed to the Gentiles separately from the Iews that they should abstain from things strangled c. Let us not wrong the argument but put it into form as it deserves The Rescript was directed to the Gentiles and not to the Iews ergo S. Peter and S. Paul did not preach promiscuously both to Iews and Gentiles in Antioch what unseen mysterious wires there are which make this Antecedent and Consequent hang together is beyond my ghesse and proper to Revelation for the words in which he puts most force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the brethren which are of the Gentiles expresse onely that there were some Brethren at Anâ—ioch Gentiles besides some others of another Sect but they expresse nothing at all of preaching nor of promiscuous or exclusive Authority over either or if either be intimated here it must be the former of promiscuous Iurisdiction over the Gentiles since the Rescript was sent to them as well in the name of S. Peter whom he will have onely over the Iews there as of S. Paul whom he places over the Gentiles yet this he calls an Evidence introducing his second testimony thus And besides more Evidence which therefollows Act 15. to the same matter which as superabundant wee must imagine he omitts and chuses this impertinent proof even now related for a more irrefragable Evidence than all the rest After this follows his second proof against their promiscuous preaching out of S. Hierome as hee sayes Seorsim c. the Churches which were of the Iews were held a part nor were mixed with those which were of the Gentiles Which testimony in the space of four pages he makes use of thrice and it deserves to bee made much of by Dr. H. for it is borrowed from the Arch-heretick Pelagius and falsly impos'd upon S. Hierome as hath been shown largely heretofore Sect. 7. As for the argument he makes from it wee shall do it the right to put it into form also which done it stand's thus The Churches of Iews and Gentiles were held a part therefore S. Peter and S. Paul could not impossibly preach both to Iews and Gentiles Thus Dr. H. undertakes to remove my might bee and shew the endeavours of the Apostles at Antioch impossible to have been promiscuous by such a Medium as none can possibly imagine the necessary connexion it hath with other termes What forther reply may by needfull to these words of the Arch heretick Pelagius upon another score is already given when wee treated of it formerly Sect. 15. How Dr. H. omitts to clear himself of his falsification of Scripture His unparellâ—d absurdity that it was forbidden by Moses his law to converse with or preach to a Gentile Dr. H. unwilling that the Iews and Gentiles should communicate in any thing no not even so much as in a common teacher had these very words in his book of Schism p. 75. wee read of S. Peter and the Iewish Proselytes Gal. 2. 11. that they withdrew from all Communion and society with the Gentile Christians upon which S. Paul reprooved him publickly c His Disarmer challenged him to have abus'd S. Peter and his Iewish Proselytes and the sacred Scripture too alledging that in the Text cited by him as the place where wee read it there is noe such word to be read as the large-senc'd All in which the Dr. places the whole force of his argument One would think now that a man who had not over come those triviall considerations of shame and dishonour should either have shown that the solely important word All was in the place which he cited expressely for it and assirmed it was read there or els confesse candidly and ingenuously that hee wrong'd or at least was mistaken in the place he alledged But Mr. H. is of another Spirit when he is challenged of falsifying any place by his self additions seeing it a desperate or impossible task to clear himself he either passes it by with a gravely-Gentile carelesnes or else grows angry would persuade his Adversary to blush when-'tis his owne turn He never goes about to shew us 't is read there where he promis't us it was which was objected and so was his task to clear but instead thereof Reply p. 61. where he undertakes to answer it recurs to an euasion as weak unwarrantable as the clearing his falsification had been impossible His euasion comes to this that since S. Peter abstained from the Gentile diet least he should seeme to offend against the Iewâ—sh law therefore since it was equally against the Iewish law to converse with a Gentile as to eat the Gentile diet he must certainly be supposed to abstain from other communion with them That it was forbidden by the Iewish law to converse with a Gentile he proves first from the Text the Iews have no dealing with the
would it serve your intent that there was exclusivenes in the actuall endeavours of the Apostles but you must evince an Exclusivenes in Right ere you can pretend to limit a Right nor have you brought as yet one expresse word of any testimony to make good the least of these Again if by universall Pastour you mean one who hath Iurisdiction to preach in all places of the world and to all sorts of people as your wise Argument seems to intend you need not trouble your self we grant each Apostle to have been an universall Pastour in this sence but if you mean that S. Peter was not higher in Authoritie amongst the Apostles how does this follow though he were supposed to be limited as a particular Bishop to his private Province or as a Bishop had a flock distinc't from S. Paul's is not even now a dayes the Pope's Bishoprick limitted to the Roman Diocese his Patriarchate to the West and so his Authority under both these notions limited exclusively and contradistinguisht from other Bishops and Patriarchs and yet wee see de facto that he is held chief Bishop in the Church higher in Authoritie then the rest notwithstanding Doe not our eyes and the experience of the whole world testifie this to be so yet were all the former absurd inventions of Apostolicall Provinces their exclusivenes S. Peter over the Iews onely c. granted still his utmost inference would be no stronger then this now related which the eyes of all the world gainsay to wit that because others had their particular assignations Provinces or Bishopriks distinct from S. Peter's therefore S. Peter could not be higher in Authoritie then those others by which one may see that my learned Adversary understands not what is mean't by the Authority he impugns but makes account the Pope cannot be Head of the Church unles he be the particular immediate Bishop of every Diocese in it Whereas we hold him contradistinct from his fellow Bishops for what concerns his proper peculiar assignation and onely say that he is higher then the rest in Iurisdiction power of command in things belonging to the universall good of the Church This point then should have been struck at disputed against not that other never held by us that none in the Church hath his particular Bishoprick or assignation save the Pope onely against which onely Dr. H. makes head while he makes it the utmost aym of his weak endeavours to prove S. Peter a distinct Bishop from S. Paul to have had a distinct flock Sect. 19. Dr. Hammond's method in answering his Disarmer's challenge that hee could not show one expresse word limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions in any of those many Testimonies produced by him for that End and how he puts three Testimonies together to spell that one word His palpahle falsification and other pittifull weaknesses AFter Dr. H's Irrefragable Evidence follow'd immediately of Schism p. 74. And all this very agreable to the story of Scripture which according to the brevitie of the relations there made onely sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the Circumcision and of his being so at Rome we make no question Vpon these words his Disarmer Schism Disarm p 73. enumerated as many significations imported by that word onely as were obvious confuted them severally because he found the words ambiguous telling him that neither doth Scripture onely set down S. Peter as Apostle of the Circumcision but Iames Iohn also Gal. 2. 9. nor is S. Peter any where exprest as Apostle of onely the Circumcision but expresly particularized the contrary Act. 15. 7. His Answer p. 50. affords us a third signification so impossible for S. W. to imagin as it was to foresee all the weakneses Dr. H's cause could put him upon 'T is this that the words onely is set clearly in opposition to the Scripture's making more particular relations of S. Peter's preaching to the Iewish caetus at Rome c. Now had the Scripture produced by him made any particular relation at all of any such matter then indeed his onely might have been thought to mean the want of more particular relation c. but if in no place alledged by him there had been found the least particular relation at all either of a Iewish caetus at Rome or S. Peter's preaching to it particularly or indeed so much as intimating his preaching in that City then what ground had Dr. H. given me to imagine that the restrictive particle onely was put in opposition to a more particular relation from Scripture of that of which the Scripture had given me no relation at all Is there a greater misery then to stand trifling with such a brabbler To omit that take away the former parenthesis from having any influence upon the words without it as it ought then one of the significations given by me is absolutely unavoidable But against the first signification impugned by me he challenges my knowledge that he could not mean so without contradicting himself and my knowledg challenges his conscience that he cannot be ignorant how he contradicts himself frequently purposely upon any occasion when he cannot well evade As for the second sence I conceived that ambiguous word might bear I repeated my challenge to him Schism Disarm p. 73. that If he could shew me the least syllable either in Scripture or other testimonies expresly and without the help of his Id ests and scruing deductions restraining S. Peter's Jurisdiction to the Iews onely excluding it from the Gentiles I would yeild him the Laurell and quit the Controversie This challenge though offered him before p. 52. 53. p. 68. yet he here first accepts not for the Laurell's sake he remitts that to S. W. but upon so tempting an hope as to be at an end of Controversie which I dare say he repents he ever medled with yet was hee very hasty to begin with Controversies voluntarily unprovoked and now when he sees himself answer'd unable to reply the moderate man growes weary wishes himself at an end of them as if he thought himself when hee begun first so great a Goliah that there could not be found in the whole Army of the Church a sling and a stone to hit him in the fore head Ere I come to lay open how he acquits himself of this accepted challenge I desire the Reader to consider first the import of it which is to exact onely of him to show one exclusive word exprest in order to S. Peter's Iurisdiction in any one of those many testimonies he produced for that end Secondly let him candidly observe what infinite disadvantage I offer my self what an incomparable advantage I offer my adversary in such an unparalleld proffer and condescension one restrictive word for the restrictive point now in question between us makes him and undoes mee Thirdly let him remember how Dr. H. call'd those proofs Evidences for that restrictive point
Dr. When he say's that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not set to denote all the severall sorts of caetus in Asia I ask doâ—s it exclude any or is it set in opposition to the Iews if not how can it possibly signifie the Gentile part onely for which hee produced it my blindnes then Reader consists in this that I would not renounce the most common light of nature think that an whole a part is the same nor consent to believe that the words an whole entire Nation signifie one sort of people living there or part of that Nation onely In order to these late testimonies it is to be observed first that our tenet makes the Pope over the whole Church in this sence not that he governs each particular Church immediately but that he is chief in Authority over those inferior Bishops Metropolitans c. who are the immediate Governours of those particular Churches and so he becomes mediately in this sence over all Churches or the whole Church Secondly our parallel tenet of S. Peter is not that when he was Apostle he could preach in more places then another but that he had an higher Authority then the other each of which could preach in any or all places of the world and that when he was fixt Bishop he had an influence of Authority over any other Apostles when they were fixt Bishops in other places not that he was immediate Bishop or Metropolitan of their particular Bishopricks Thirdly hence is evident that the proofs which can prejudice this point must signifie that those particular Apostles Metropolitans or Bishops had none superior to themselves and by consequence who were mediateâ—y over their Churches and that it avails nothing at all nor comes to the point to prove that such such were over such such particular Iurisdictions immediately no more than if some writer 500. years hence should argue that the Pope was not in the year 1650. Supreme Governour in our Church because he findes at that time such a one Primate in France another Arch-bishop of Toledo in Spain Fourthly it is no lesse evident that Dr. H's pretence that it is manifest that S. Peter had nothing to do either mediately or immediately in governing the Churches of Asia from the former testimonies which exprest onely that those Churches or that country were under those Apostles or Bishops without a Syllable signifying that those Apostles themselves were not vnder an higher Apostle and so their Churches mediately subject to him it is evident I say that he hath not produc't a word to prove his position except his own It is manifest and consequently it was no artificiall trick but plain downright naturall Truth to challenge him with that palpable weaknes Fiftly his whole processe is in another respect totally impertinent frivolous His fundamentall intent was to limit the Iurisdictions of the Apostles as such to make them mutually-exclusive under that notion by giving to each proper Apostolicall Provinces and here proceeding to make good that his intent he proves them limitted as they were Bishops which is a quite different thing For every Bishop as such is over his own peculiar flock and particulariz'd to it where as that of an Apostle being not a settled Authority as the other hath not in it's own nature any ground to be constant to such but may be promiscuous to all Though it was not forbidden to any Apostle to settle himself in some particular seat so become a Bishop of that place The result then of all the former testimonies is this that Dr. H. avoyd's the whole question of the mediate Government of S. Peter which is the point his Adversary holds and disproves the immediate onely which wee never held and when he hath done tells his Readers Answer p. 56. S. W. hath little care to consider that wherein the difficulty consists when as himself never toucht the difficultie at all But I had forgot the beginning of his 14. par that S. Iohn had the dignity of place before all other in Christ's life time even before S. Peter himself Now I went about to parallell it by the proportion an elder Brother hath to a younger which is a precedence without Iurisdiction so resembles Dr. H's dry Primacy But the Dr. Answ p. 55. catches my similitude by one of those feet by which it was not pretended to run add's to it excellencie of power of his own head which was never named nor insisted on by me and when he hath done say's that 't is an addition of my fertile fancy whereas I never pretended it as his words but my parallell nor yet put force in the superiority of Iurisdiction but in that of a dry precedency onely neither meaning nor expressing any more by highest in dignity than himself did by dignity of place before all others In his Answ p. 54 he tells us he mention'd two things of Iohn 1. of Christ's favour to him and this he say's is infallibly inferr'd from the title of beloved Disciple I stand not upon the thing both because 't is unconcerning our question true in it self onely I am glad to see that Dr. H. is more certain in his inferences than his Church is of her faith since he is confident of his infallibility in those whereas in this to wit in faith he onely affirm's that it is not strongly probable his Church will erre Repl. p. 16. At length Protestant Reader thou seest whether thou art to recurre for thy infallible Rule of faith to wit to Dr. Hâ—s inferences The second is S. Iohn's dignity of place before all others which he say's was irrefragably concluded from the leaning in his breast at Supper Here again Dr. H. is irrefragable infallible yet he no where reads that S. Iohn thus lean'd on Christ's breast more then once nor can we imagin that our Saviour taught his Disciples that complementalnes as to sit constantly in their ranks at meat seeing that in this very occasion to wit that very night he forbid such carriage by his own example and that euen at meat Luke 22. v. 26. 27. Lâ—â— him that is grâ—atest among you be as the younger he that is chief as he that doth serve For whether is greater he that sitteth at meat or he that serveth Is not he that sitteth at meat But I am among you as he that serveth So far was our Saviour from giving occasion for over weening by any constant partiality of placing them at table that his expresse doctrine and example was to bring them to an humle indifferency and that in serving one another much more in sitting before or after another But to return to Dr. H. as he is Master of ceremonies to the Apostles places them at table His doctrine is that S. Peter had a Primacy of order onely amongst the Apostles without Iurisdiction which consequently could be nothing but a dry complementary precedency to walk stand or speak first
Is it possible now that any man should go about to cloak such a falsification which evidence as clear as eyesight had manifested in it's most shame full nakednes nothing is impossible to be done in Dr. H's way He excuses himself first Answ p. 57. l. 9. because he thought it was conclusible from those words 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. But who bad him think so when there was never a word in the testimony or in the whole Epistle but might have been said by a Metropolitan to a Bishop or a Bishop to any Priest to wit that he would order things when he came bidding him be have himself well c. Again if he intended to conclude why did he not put some expression of that his intent that the Reader might not be deluded by his quoting the place immediately after those words This pretence therefore is most frivolous vain First because his words are positive absolute as it were commanding our assent from the Authority of Scripture not exprest like an inference or conclusion doth not S. Paul c. as also because they are relations of matters of fact and lastly because they who conclude from Scripture put the place first then deduce from it whereas he quotes the place after his own words as we use to do for words found really in Scripture wherefore either he intended not to conclude but to gull the honest Reader that his sole important forgeries were sure Scripture or else if he meant to conclude he very wisely put his conclusion before the premises and such a conclusion as had but one unconcerning useles word common to it the premises Secondly he tells us that to say that he inferr'd the whole conclusion from the word come is one of S. W's arts whereas I charged him not for inferring thence but for putting down those words for pure Scripture Again himself so good is his memory confesses this same thing seven or eight lines before which he here renounces where having mention'd the former long rabble he told us in expresse terms that he thought it was conclusible from S. Paul's words 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Now then there being not one word of this pretended conclusion found in that place save the monosyllable Come nor one exclusive particle nor even the least ground of any he must either infer his pretended conclusion from that or from nothing Thirdly he alledges that he thought his grounds had been visible enough being thus laid and then proceeds to lay them But the iest is he never layd down any such pretended grounds at all in the book of Schism where he cited that place and so it was impossible they should be visible being then perhaps not so much as in their causes And as for these pretended grounds they are nothing but a kinde of explication of that place that S. Paul sent an whole Epistle of Instructions hoped to give him farther instructions that he should behave himself well in his office c. which are all competent to any Bishop in order to a Priest or to any subaltern Governor in respect of an inferior and so hinders not but S. Paul might be under another though thus over Timothy Fourthly as for those exclusive words no other Apostle could countermand or interpose in them leaving no Appeal no place for farther directions onely to himself which were objected so it belonged to him if he could not show them exprest there so clear his falsified citation at least to show them concluded deduced thence as 6. or 7. lines before he had promist us But he quite prevaricates even from deducing them thence when it comes to the point and instead of doing so proving them from the pretended place he repeats again the same demands bids us prove the contrary I now demand saith he whether S. Paul left any other Appeal or place for farther directions save onely to himself I answer does the place alledged say any thing to the contrary or is any such thing conclusible thence as you pretended If it be why do not you make good your own proof from the place show this restrictive sence either there in expresse terms or else by framing your conclusion from it why do you instead of thus doing your duty stand asking me the same question over again He proceeds Whether could any other Apostle by any power given him by Christ countermand or interpose in them what need you ask that question you knew long ago that our Answer would be affirmative that S. Peter could in case he saw it convenient for the good of God's Church or what is the asking this question over again to the showing that the contrary was either expresly or conclusively there as you pretended If any could let him be named his power specified saith the Dr. Is not this a rare man to counterfeit himself ignorant whom we hold for Head of the Apostles when as himself hath from the beginning of this Chapter impugned S. Peter as held such by us And to carry the matter as if he delay'd his proofs till he knew our Answer aswell known to him before hand as his own name It follows let the power be proved by virtue whereof he should thus act I marry now the Dr. is secure when all else fails he hath constantly recourse hither to hide his head When his Argument or proof is shown to bee falsify'd in the expresse terms hee pretends to conclude thence and when 't is shown unable to conclude any thing instead of proceeding to make it good or show that cōclusible from thence which he promised he leaves it of as some impertinent questions and bids his Answerer take his turn prove because he alas is graveld and cannot go a step further This done he triumphs But S. W. dares not I am sure doth not affirm this What dare not I and do not I affirm that S. Peter had power over the rest of the Apoles in things cōcerning the good of the universall Church 'T is my expresse tenet which he is at present impugning and which I both do affirm dare maintaine so prevalent is Truth against Dr H. though back't by forty more learned then himself But this politick Adversary of mine seeing he could not argue me out of my faith would needs fright me or persuade me from it threat'ning me first that I dare not next assuring mee that I do not affirm i◠This solid discourse premised hee shuts up with an acclamation of victory thus And if it cannot be said as no doubt it cannot then where was S. Peter's supreme Pastorship Where all the force of this upshot of his lies in the If and no doubt both of them equally addle frivolous since himself all the world knows very well that we both can do affirm hold that S. Peter was Superior in Authoritie to all the rest of the Apostles Thus Dr. Hr. toyes it with his Readers hoping
the Dr. it is evident they are equally such The like argument he hath made heretofore for the equality of Apostles pillars foundation-stones c. because all of each sort were named by one plurall name Pardon me then Reader if I have given such a harsh character to this monstrous peece of Logick I professe I know not what better name to call it by truly and besides other considerations I cannot but resent it in the behalf of man's nature Which is Reason and am angry with Dr. H. in his owne behalf that he hath by his passion and interest so totally defaced it in him self as to produce that for an evidence which is so far from the least degree of probability that it is the greatest impossibility imaginable But especially when I see that the same person who acknowledges Schism greater then sacriledge or idolatâ—y would persuade rationall Souls into it by such putid non-sence I confesse I cannot contain my expressions from taking such liberties as truth and Iustice make lawfull but the concernement of my cause necessary Solution 3. Each single Apostle had this power as distinctly promised to him as S. Peter is pretended to have and the words of Scripture Math. 18. v. 18. are most clear for that purpose Of Schism p. 88. Reply there is not a word there expressing any distinction in order to any other Apostle much lesse singularizing each of them distinctly as you here pretend but a common and plurall donation onely whatsoever you shall binde c. and as for your Syllogism by which you would evade the shamelesnes of this assertion Answ p. 66. by saying that you mean't onely the Apostles were each of them singly to have and exercise the power of the Keyes and not all together in common or joyn'd together in Communion first neither agrees with your other words for it is one thing to say each could distinctly use that power another thing to say as you of Schism p. 8â— l. 13. 14. this power was distinctly promised to each of them and then quoting Math. 18. v. 18. as most clear for that purpose where nothing is found but a coÌ„mon expression whatsoever yee shall binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. without any distinction at all exprest Nor can such a pretended meaning stand with common sense unles the Dr. will confesse him self to have calumniated our tenet which imputation he hath before taken such pains to avoid for either it is put in opposition to us or not if not what does it there or to what end are all those testimonies brought of Schism p. 89 to second it If it be put in opposition to us and yet mean onely as Dr. H. says here that it was promised to all the Apostles as to twelve single persons each singly to have and exercise it and not all together in common then our tenet must necessarily be supposed and pretended by him to be that no single Apostle could bind or loose but all of them together in common onely which is so manifest a calumny that himself dares not openly own it though he slily impose it as he did the other about the Keyes being S. Peter's inclosure Yet it is as necessarily his as the excuse given is his which if he disclame he acknowledges the objected fault Solution 4. The addressing the speech to S. Peter in the singular is a token onely that Peter as a single person should have power but not either that no others should have it too observe Reader how the calumny he formerly would have acquitted himself of still sticks to him or that the manner in which S. Peter should have it should be singular to him and so as it was not to each of them Answ p. 64. 65 Reply this is onely your own saying show us out of the words themselves that this is more probable as I show'd the contrary and then I shall acknowledge that you have animated the dead letter more artificially then I otherwise you have done nothing for the question is not whether you can say so or no but whether the words oblige you to say so Solution 5. The particularity gives him particularly the power but excludes not others from the same power and the same degree of power Answ p. 65. Reply This is onely said again not shown that the words gave occasion to say it which was onely to be done He quotes indeed drily the places of Scripture yet puts down no words as his custome is but talks before and after the barren and unapply'd citations what he pleases Wee take the words of the Text debate them minutely and particularly and bring them home to the point to show that our tenet of a more particular powre is more probable out of their native force Let him do the like and show by the same method his explication more connaturall then mine and I shall grant he won the field in this probability-skirmish Himself will not deny that S. Peter had as much promis'd him as the rest when it was promis'd in common Math. 18. v. 18. The having then over and above this common promise at another distinct time and with most particularizing and distinguishing circumstances a promise of he same Keyes most manifestly is a priviledge peculiar to S. Peter and that on which wee ground the probability of having them promis'd in a particular manner and consequently performed in the same sort which wee make accouÌ„t wee find with the like particularities Io. 21. Let the Reader then observe what countenance the words Grammatically prudentially scann'd give to our explications and deductions and expect what other explication so well circumstanc'd Dr. H. can deduce of the same words taken in their own native force and energy not what he will say upon his owne head Solution 7. The speciall energy of the applying the words particularly to S. Peter concludes that the Ecclesiasticall power of aeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house belongs to single persons such as S. Peter was and not onely to Consistories or Assemblies Of Schism p. 87. Reply This is still your own saying without ever endeavoring to show from the words and their circuÌ„stances they persuade that this is the sense of them But let it be so that you have evinc't against the Presbyterians from this place that a community must not govern but a Bishop that is one who is Superiour to that community who sees not how much better and more probably it follows hence that S. Peter was Superior to the consistory of the Apostles they being present when those particularizing words were spoken whence Dr. H. proves the Episcopall Authority over the consistory then it will follow that in succeeding times and distinct circumstances some one should be chief and over the Assembly Again the words not being expresse for his position he can onely make a parallell deduction thence after this sort if he will argue from the words that the same should be observed in a
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
expressely put down in my words now repeated by him self to wit that S. Peter had in a peculiar manner the Holy Ghost and the necessary connexion of this with his higher Authority expressly disclaim'd in the place even now cited Thirdly after he had repeated my whole discourse he subjoyn's immediately here was one honest word the perhaps As if our Saviour's words out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and those others of the Scripture that S. Peter converted three thousand by his first Sermon were all dishonest words But since I intended onely to give the Dr. some satisfaction of which knowing his humor I was not certain why was it not honester to expresse my self ambiguously then to cry a loud Certainy surely no doubt unquestionably irrefragably as Dr. H. does all over before his Testimonies whereas all is obscure uncertain falsified not a word in them sounding to the purpose as hath been shown all over this book It may be the Reader may accound Dr. H. the greater wit for using such confident and loud-crying expressions when there is so litle wooll but I hope he will thinke S. W. the honester man for speaking withim compasse Fourthly he sayes that the Dr. meaning himself may not be satisfy'd thence that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner to which he addes of his own falsifying invention or was designed head of the Apostles as if I had pretended this either as equivalent or necessarily consequent out of the former whereas he knows I absoluty disclaimed against him any such pretence This done without having afforded owne word of answer or sence he bids us farewell in these words I shall answer it no further then by repeating Good night good Dr. But to let the Reader see how much stronger my perhaps is than the Drs surely I will briefly put doun the import of this late proof ad hominem and 't is this that since out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks 't is probable that S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in his heart more abundantly or in a higher degree since he first exprest it 's interiour motions by speaking and speaking soe vigorously and powerfully Now then since in Mr. H's Grounds the receiving the holy Ghost seald the Commissions of the Apostles and finally performed the promise of their ruling and presiding in the Church whence he contended also that all had this promise equally performed that is according to him had equally the Holy Ghost lest one should exceed anoâ—her in Iurisdiction it follows unavoidably ad hominem it against him that if be probable S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in an higher degree it is probable likewise that he had a higher rule and presidencie in the Church performed to him The argument bearing this sence who sees not 't is Dr. H's task to let us knowe why this so early and vigorous pouring forth argued not a fuller measure of the Holy Ghost within what does he He calumniates me to bring this as a clâ—ar evidence putting the words clear evidence in other letters as if thay had bene mine falsifies my known pretence twice calls the word perhaps the one honest words says the Dr. may not be satisfie'd by the reason alledged that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner and then in stead of telling us why he may not be satisfie'd immediately concluding that he shall not answer it further than by repeating it Thus Dr. H's reason like some sorry creature taken tardy in a tale first mutters and stammers as if it would say something or were hand-bound with some bad excuse but seing it could make no coherence at length very honestly hands down it's head and sayes iust nothing The fourth proposition is And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost which he tells us here was sure no distinct argument of his But why it should not be as good and sole suffiâ—ient a proof as this that the fire was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he pedantizes it sate on every one of them which he called Answ p. 68. l. 3. an argument of somevalidity I had no ground in the world to imagin both of them equally impugning our tenet that is not at all For wee equally grant that each single Apostle had power giuen him to bind and loose or Authority in the Church which he without any ground will have signified by the division of this fire as wee do that they were all filled with the Holy Ghost The fifth and last proposition immediately follows the former and is this and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all that is all had equally the Holy Ghost and this is pretended as deduced out of the fourth saying that they were all full of it Schism Disarm p. 98. showd the weaknes of this arguing from fulnes to equality by the instances of our Saviour Barnabas who are both said in Scripture to be full of the Holy Ghost as also of the saints in heaven being full of glory though there were an inequality between them in those respects and by the parallell ridiculousnes of the plow man's silly argument who concluded alleggs equall and that none had more meat in it than another because all were full To take of these exceptions and strengthen his feeble argument the Dr. offers nothing though he braggs at the end of the Section that he hath attended me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely he tells us here p. 69 gentily that he is not concern'd to doubt but that they which are full of the Holy Ghost may have it unequally if by unequally be meant the inequality of divine endowments How he is concern'd to doubt it shall be seen presently in the meane time let us reflect on his other words and ask him what is meant by the Holy Ghosts abiding in the Souls of the faithfull or by what other way he imagins him to be there than by divine endowmeÌ„ts onely I hope he thinks not that the Holy Ghost is hypostatically united to them or incarnate in them An inequality then of divine endowments is all the inequa'ity which can be imagin'd in this matter and thefore if any inequality prejudice Dr. H's tenet he is concern'd to avoid this Now how much it concerns Dr. H's circumstances to avoid an inequality of the Holy Ghosts being in the Apostles is as plain as it is that it concerns him to say any thing to the question and not talk onely in the aire He is about to impugn S. Peter's higher Authority by the performance of the promise of Authority and Commission made finally as he thinks by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them wherefore unles he prove that the Holy Ghost descended equally upon each he can never argue hence against the inequality of S. Peter's Authority pretended by us and so it avalis him nothing He saw this in his book of Schism where he
used these words They were all fill'd with the Holy Ghost and so this promise equally performed to all But being shown the infinite weaknes of his arguing from fulnes to equality he shuffles about neither positively standing to his pretended proofby going about to make it good nor yet granting or denying any thing positively or giving any ground to fix upon any word he says but telling us first in a pretty phrase that he is not concerned to doubt of the consistance of fulnes and inequality of the Holy Ghost if it bee mean't of the inequality of divine endowments and then when he should telle us the other part of his distinction and of what other inequality besides that of endowments and graces the Holy Ghost can be said to be in the Apostles founding Commission and so concerning him to impugn and deny he shufflingly ends thus Our question being onely of power or Commission to Authority and dignity in the Church and every one having that sealed to him by the Holy Ghost descent upon every one there is no remaining difficulty in the matter Where first he sayes the question is of power and dignity whereas indeed it is of the equality or inequality of this dignity not of the dignity it self since none denyes but that each Apostle had power in the Church but that the rest had equall power to S. Peter Secondly he never tells us in what manner of the Holy Ghosts inexistence besides that of divine indowments this Authority was founded Thirdly he instances onely against us that every Apostle had power so tacitely calumniating our tenet again and leaves out the word eqâ—ally which could onely contradict and impugn it Fourthly that this coming of the Holy Ghost gave CoÌ„mission and Authority is onely his owne worâ—s and proved from his own fancy And lastly when he hath used all these most miserable evasions he concludes that there is no remaining difficulty in this mattâ—â— when as he hath not touch't the difficulty at all but avoided it with as many pitifull shift's as a crafty insincerity could suggest to an errour harden'd Soul Sect. 6. Our Argument from the Text Tues Petrus urged his arts to avoid the least mentioning it much lesse impugning it's force which hee calls evacuating it With what sleights hee prevaricates from it to the Apocalyps His skill in Architecture and miserably-weak arguing to cure his bad quiboling Dr. H. of Schism p. 89. 90. alledged some Testimonies out of the fathers affirming that the power of binding was conferred on all the Apostles that the Church is built upon Bishops that all in S. Peter received the Keyes of the Kingdomio of Heaven that Episcopacy is the presidency of the Apostles Now since Dr. H. pretends to impugn our tenet by these and these infert onely that more Bishops have the power of the Keyes besides S. Peter it follows necessarily that he counterfeihed our tenet to be that none had this power but S. Peter onely Hence Schism Disarm'd charged this either insincere or silly manner of discoursing upon him as a pittifull ingnorance or els as malicious to pretend by objecting these that wee build not the Church upon Bishops in the plurall nor allow any Authority to them but to the Pope onely Hee replies Answ p 69. that 't is apparent those words inject not the least suspition of that I answer 't is true indeed for it was not a suspition they injected as he phrases it but plain and open evidence see of Schism p 89. l. 28. 9. where after the testimony had told us that the Church is built upon Bishops the Dr. addes within a parenthesis in the plurall so placing the particular energie and force of that place in the plurality of Bishops founding the Church See again p. 90. l. 11. 12. c. S. Basil calls Episcopacy the presidency of the Apostles the very same addes the Dr. that Christ bestowd upon all and not onely on one of them Yet as long as Dr. H. can deny it and say with a gentile confidence that 't is apparent his words did not inject the least suspition of that words shall lose their signification and his Readers if he can compasse it shall be fool'd to deny their eye sight As for the Testimonies themselves there is not a word in them expressing that this power was in like manner entrusted to every single Apostle as well as to S. Peter which yet he sayes p. 90. l. 16. 17. c. if by as well he mean's equally as he must if he intend to impugn our tenet And the other sence which Answ p. 70. l. 2. 3. he relies on that from the Donation to S Peter all Episcopal power which in the Church flows and in which he puts force against our tenet it as much favours and proves it as the being the fountain and source of all honour and Magistracy in a Commonwealth argues that that person from whom these flow is highest in dignity and supreme in command in the same common wealth After this he catches at an expression of mine saying that the former Testimonies rather made for us which moderate words though I hope the later end of my former paragraph hath sufficiently iustify'd them yet wee must answer the impertinent carpings of our Adversary else the weak man will be apt to think that the shadow he catch't at is most substantiall and solid My word 's in relation to the said Testimonies were these Nay rather they make for us for the Church being founded on Apostles and Bishops prejudices not S. Peter to be the cheefest and if so then the Church is built most chiefly on S. Peter which is all wâ—e Catholicks say Now my discourse stands thus If so that is if S. Peter be the cheefest then the Church is built more chiefly upon him and I made account as I lately shew'd that those Testimonies rather made S. Peter the chiefest but this peece of willfull insincerity first makes my if so relate to if it prejudices not c. and disfigures my discourse by making me say if it prejudices not S. Peter to be the chiefest then the Church is built chiefly upon him and that I inferr from Testimonies not preiudicing that the thing is true Next he calumniates me most grossely and manifestly Answ p. 70. l. 35. 36. by making me bring this for a clear Evidence on my side whereas my words Schism Dism p. 99. are onely Nay rather thâ—y make for us which are so far from pretending a clear evidence from them that they neither expresse the least reliance on them not say positively that they make for us at all He shall not catch mee calling toyes Evidences as is his constant guize yet to render his calumny more visible he prints the words clear evidence in a different letter so that the honest Reader would easily take them to be my words Then when he hath done hee grows suddainly witty anâ— insults over me without mercy calling mee an
his purpose And yet after all this calling this piece of midnight obscurity and his cimmerian proof thence an Evidence Of Schism p. 91. l. 22. His argument is this It bâ—ing there in vision apparent that the wall of the City id est of the Church being measured exactly and found to be 144 id est repeats the Dr. twelve times twelve cubits 't is evident that this mensuration assignes an equall proportion whether of power or Province to all and every of the Apostles the sence of which he repeats again here Answ p. 73. To show the ridiculousnes of this proof Schism Disarm p. 102. ask't him whether none of those precious stones which equally made up this wall be richer then the rest and why if it were so the inequality in richnes should not more argue an inequality in dignity and Authority amonst those who were represented by them than the equall bulk can argue an equality since the worth dignity value of precious stones is taken from their richnes and not from their bulk Next arguing against him in his owne way I inferr'd that since the first stone in this wall represented S. Peter as appeared by Dr. H's Grounds allowing that Apostle a Primacy of order and was there exprest to be a Iasper the same stone whose lustre shined in our Saviour Apoc. 4. 3. and also in his Church Apoc. 21. 11. it would have bene priz'd for a rare argument by Dr. H. were he in my case though sleighted by me that S. Peter onely having the same lustre with our Saviour was like him in representation and so he onely resembles him as his Vicegerent and Vicar As also that being the same stone the Church is made of and the first of all the rest that he is consequently the first part of the Church that is her head In answer to those first exceptions the Dr. sayes nothing at all and so is nothing punctuall in his promised attendance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he vindicates not his argument to be worth a rush for if the lustre richnes be more valuable and worthy in it's self and so more apt to expresse dignity than the bignes or bulk then the inequality of richnes is more significative of inequality of dignity than the equality of bulk is of an equality under the same notion of dignity nay more as he was told there being an equality in the bulk found amongst them all if there be found besides an inequality in richnes as there is amongst those stones every Lapidary and even common sence will inform us that an inequality in dignity is unavoidable But the good Dr. who at first thought his nice argument a rare busines seing it marr'd and all unravell'd as easily happens to such cobweb stuffe sees and acknowledges now that it was neither worth nor capable of repairing and so grew wise and let it alone hoping that his Readers would easily be perswaded that he had answered me perfectly and made good his argument if he did but tell him in the end of the Section that he had attended me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is a rare method of answering to make two litle pedaÌ„tick Greek words which a man would think had nothing in them stop such great holes In answer to that which concern's the Iasper stone he tells us first if we will beleeve him that iâ— is most proper to signify the lustre of zeal and other gifts But why it should be most properly significative of those he affords not the least attempt of any reason to oppose my contrary exceptions Next he tells me that he can allow me in this sence to make my aduantage of it And seing wee must have no other signification of that particular lustre nor yet know any reason why I shall take his allowance and make my advantage of it thus against him His Grounds made the coming of the Holy Ghost finally perform that is actually give Authority to the Apostles since then the Holy Ghost neither was nor can bee any otherwise in the hearts of the Apostles than by his gifts the allowing an advantage to S. Peter above the rest in those gifts is the allowing him an advantage over them in Authority according to the same Grounds Nor can he deny but that I have gained S. Peter this advantage if I make good my coÌ„ditions propos'd here by himself in which I shall finde no difficulty they being both tacitly granted already The first condition is that I must finde mean's to assure my self that S. Peter was signify'd by that Iasper-stone Is not this a sincere man and a pretty discourser who would have me finde a thing ere it bee lost I aâ—ready found that mean's he well knows in Schism Disarm p. 103. which he braggs here he attends on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that from his own words for the twelve foundation-stones he grants to be the twelve Apostles of Schism p. 91 Now then since himself in many places and particularly in that quoted by mee Schism Disarm p. 103 grants S. Peter a Primacy of order and Apoc. 21. 19. in the orderly recounting the stones the Iasper is mentioned to be the first in that order I see no possibility for Dr. H. to evade but S. Peter was mean't by the Iasper Himself saw the same also which made him soe shufflingly wary that in stead of replying to it which was likely to cost him no lesse than either the denying his own most expresse words or the most expresse words of Scripture he onely tells me gentily I must finde mean's to assure my self that S. Peter was signify'd by that Iasper-stone which he knew well I had already found nor were they ever lost to me by any Reply of his But in stead of invalidating that my assurance ad hominem he tells me I must finde them again the second time and this is the signification of that mungrell phrase to attend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is never to take notice of his Adversaries argument but bidding him find it or repeat it over again himself The second coÌ„dition is that I must finde mean's to assure myself that the lustre of the Iasper exceeded the lustre of every of the other stones This is another attendance of the same negligent strain as the former Schism Disarm p. 103. told him that the lustre of this stone shined in our Saviour Apoc. 4. 3. and also in his Church Apoc. 21. 11 In stead of answering which or giving any reason why our Saviour and his Church should bee represented by a lesse lustrous stone than the rest the sincere man onely bids me finde it again whereas it remains still visibly extant in it's originall integrity and untouch't yet by Dr. H. and so he knew well enough where to finde it himself without my showing him it did ever answerer so lazily attend his Adversary as Dr. H. does me yet if he still desire a reason of me I shall give him this
fact and acknowledged by Protestants viz that the Church of Englands Principle was actually such and such at that time into the point and tenet it self which is question'd and controverted bâ—tween us His words are these p. 6. Thirdly hâ—e addeth that the Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Iâ—e er inherited his priviledges whereas hee ought to have repâ—esented my words thus that the Principle agreed on by the Church of England and the Church of Rome before the breach was such and thâ—n have told us what hee thought of it by â—â—her expressing a deniall or â— grant But positivenes even in things manifest and acknowledg'd is a thing thâ— Bishop hates wiâ—h all his heart for were I or noe said to any point the discourse might proceed rigoâ—ously upon it which would marr all the Bp voluntary talk It follows in my words put down by him p. 6. that the Bishops of Rome actually exercised this power viz of first mover in the Church S. Peter's priviledge in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began Mee thanks it is not possible to avoid being absolute here But nothing is impossible to the Bp. hee either will not speak out at all or if hee does it must bee of no lower a strain than flat contradiction Hee tells us first that it cometh much short of the truth in one respect and why for the Pope's saith hee exercised much more power in those countries which gave them leave than ever S. Peter pretended to So that according to the Bp. hee did not exercise S. Peter's lesser power because hee exercised a power far greater that is hee did not exercise S. Peter's power because hee exercised S. Peter's power and much more which is as much as to say Totum est minus parte and more does not contain lesse A hopefull disputant who chuses rather to run upon such rocks then to grant that the Pope actually govern'd as supreme in those countries which were actually under him A point which it is shamefull to deny dangerous positively to confess and therefore necessary to bee thus blunder'd Secondly hee tells us that it is much more short of that universall Monarchy which the Pope did then and doth still claim And why for saith hee as I have already said observe the strength of his discourse his saying is proving two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion meaning the Greeks Armenians c. Are moderate expressions of shamelesnes sufficient to character this man who in every line manifests himself in the highest degree deserving them Our position as put down even by himself was this that the Pope's did actually then exercise this power in those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome and the Bps answer comes to this that hee did not exercise it in those countries which kept not Communion with the Church of Rome But to give the Reader a satisfactory answer even to the Bps impertinences I shall let him see that the Pope exercis'd his power at that time even over those countries as much as it can bee expected any Governour can or should do over revolters whom hee cannot otherwise reduce As then a Governour exercises his power over obedient subjets by cherising them and ordering them and their affairs soe as may best conduce to their common good but cannot exercise it over contumacious and too potent Rebells any other way than by proclaiming them Outlaws and incapable of priviledges or protection from the laws of the Commonwealth so neither could it bee imagiâ—'d or expected by any rationall man that the Pope in those circumstances though hee were supposed and granted by both sides lawâ—ull Governour could exercise power over them in any other way hâ—n onely in iâ—flicting on them Ecclesiasticall punishments or censures and excommunicating or outlawing them from that Commonwealth which remain'd obed enâ— to him as he Bp. complainingly grant hee did Having thus shustled in every tittle of the staâ—e of the question hee accuses his Refuter that hee comes not neer the true question at all Can there bee a more candid stating a question and free from all equivocation than to begâ—n with a known matter of fact and acknowleâ—geâ— by boâ—h sides and thence to conclude those acters 〈◊〉 is breakers Schismaticks unles they can bring â—â—fficâ—ent reasons to warrant such a breach But let uâ— examiâ— a litâ—lâ— the ground of his Exception The true question saith hee is not whether the Bishop of Râ—me had any Authority in the Catholiâ—e Church Good Reader ask the Bp. whether his Refuter or any Catholike or even moderate Protestant ever mouâ—d such a question and whâ—ther it bee not frivolousnes and insincerity in the abstract to impose on us such as stating of the question whenas every child sees it is not barely his havâ—ng any Authority but his having a supreme Authority which is question'd and debaâ—ed between us and the Protestant It follows in him immediately The Pope had Authority in his Diocese as a Bishop in his Province as a Metropolitane in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs and all over as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church or S. Peter Where all the former words are totally besides the purpose nor ever made the question by us as the Bp. calumniates But the last words which grant the Pope had Authority all over as successour of S. Peter deserve consideration and thanks too if meant really for these words grant him an Authority more than Patriarchall nor a â—â—y primacy onely but an Authoriâ—y all over that is a power to act as the highest in Gods Church and in any part of the Church that is an universall Iurisdiction all over or over all the Church at least in some cases Now in this consists the sustance of the Papall Authority and had they of England retain'd still practically a subjection to this Authority as thus character'd they had not been excommunicated upon this score onely But the misery is that this our back-friend after hee hath given us alâ— this fair promising language that the Pope's Authority is higher than Patriarchall as the Climax in his discourse signifies that it is all over or universall and lastly that hee hath this universall Authority as hee is successour of S. Peter after all this I say if hee been prest home to declare himself as before hee granted S. Peter the first mover in Church and then told us that in a right sence it meant but a Primacy of order so hee will tell us the same of these flattering expressions and thâ—t the words Authority doth not in a right sence signify a power to act as a Governour though all the world else understand it so but onely a right to sit talk or walk first Et sic vera rerum nomina amisimus Thus my Refuter hath shown that I stated the question wrong now let us
hear him state it right The true question saith hee is what are the right bounds and limits of this Authority and then reckons up a company of particularities some true most of them coâ—â—erning the extent of the Pope's Authority iâ—self and debated amoÌ„gst our owne Canon-Lawyers some flat lies and calumnies as whether the Pope have power to sell palls pardons and Indulgences to impose pensions at his pleasure to infringe the liberties and customes of whole nations to deprive Princes of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their Allegiance c. Was ever such stuff brought by a Controvertist or was ever man soe frontles as to make these the true state of the question between us that is to preteÌ„d that our Church holds these things as of faith To manifest more the shallownes of my Adversary the Reader may please to take notice of the difference between the substance of the Pope's Authority as held by us and the extent of it The substance of it consists in this that hee is Head of the Church that is first mover in it and that hee hath Authority to act in it after the nature of a first Governour This is held with us to bee of faith and acknowledg'd unanimously by all the faithfull as come from Christ and his Apostles so that none can bee of our Communion who deny it nor is this debated at all between Catholike Catholike but between Catholike and Heretike onely Hence this is held by our Church as a Church that is as a multitude receiving it upon their Rule of faith universall Attestation of immediate Ancestours as from theirs and so upwards as from Christ and not upon criticall debates or disputes of learnedmen The extent of this Authority consists in determining whether this power of thus acting reaches to these and these particularities or no the resolution of which is founded in the deductions of divines Canon-Lawyers and such like learnedmen and though sometimes some of those points bee held as a common opinion of the schoolmen and as such embraced by many Catholikes yet not by them as faithfull that is as relying â—pon their Ancestours as from theirs as from Christ but as relying upon the learnedmen in Canon-law and implicitely upon the reasons which they had to judge so and the generality's accepting their reasons for valid which is as much as to say such points are not held by a Church as a Church no more than it is that there is an Element of fire in Concavo Lunae or that Columbus found out the Indies The points therefore are such that hee who holds or deems otherwise may still bee held one of the Church or of the Commonwealth of the faithfull nor bee blameable for holding otherwise if hee have better reasons for his tenet than those other learned men had for theirs as long as hee behaves himself quietly in the said Commonwealth Perhaps a parallel will clear the matter better The acknowledgment of the former Kings of England to bee supreme Governours in their Dominions was heretofore as wee may say a point of civill faith nor could any bee reputed a good subject who deny'd this in the undifputable acknowledgment of which coÌ„sisted the substance of their Authority But whether they had power to raise ship money impose subsidies c. alone and without a Parliament belong'd to the extent of their Authority was subject to dispute and the proper task of Lawyers nor consequently did it make a man an Outlaw or as wee may say a civill Schismatick to disacknowledge such extents of his Authority so hee admitted the Authority it self I concieve the parallell is soe plain that it will make it 's owne application This being settled as I hope it is so let it stand a while till wee make another consideration A Controversy in the sence which our circumstances determine it is a dispute about faith and so a Controvertist as such ought to impugn a point of fâ—ith that 〈◊〉 hee ought to iâ— pugn that which is held by a Church as a Church or that which is held by a Church upon her Rule of faith Hence if the Government of that Church bee held of faith according to it's substance and not held of faith according to it's extent hee ought to impugn it according to the substance of the said Government and not it's extent otherwise hee totally prevaricates from the proper office of a Controvertist not impugning faith but opinions noâ— that Church as a Church and his Adversary but falsly supposing himself as it were one of that company and to hold all the substance of it's Authority hee sides with one part of the true subjects and disputes against the other in a point indifferent to faith unconcerning his duty These things Reader observe with attention and then bee thine own judge whether hee play not the Mountebank with thee instead of the Controvertist who in his former book pretended to vindicate the Church of England which renounced the substance of this Authority by impugning the extent of it onely and here undertaking to correct his Refuter and state the question rightly first grants in very plain but wrong mean't terms the whole question to wit that the Pope hath Authority over the whole Church as successour of S. Peter and then tells thee that the true question is about the extent of it and what are the right limits and bounds of this Authority which kind of questions yet hee knows well enough are debated by the obedient and true members of that Commonwealth whence hee is Outlaw'd and which hee pretends to impugn His 8th page presents the Reader with a great mistake of mine and 't is this that I affirmed it was and is the constant beleef of the Casholike world by which I mean all in Communion with the Church of Rome whom onely I may call Catholikes that these two Principles were Christ's owne ordination recorded in Scrpture Whereas hee cannot but know that all our Doctourâ—s de facto did and still do produce places of Scripture to prove that former Principle to wit that Tradition is the Rule of faith as also to prove S. Peter's higher power over the Apostles nor is it new that the succession of Pastours till wee all meet in the Vnity of Glory should bee Christ's own Ordination and recorded there likewise Nor can I devise upon what Grounds hee and his fellow-Bishops of England who hold Scripture onely the Rule of faith can maintain their Authority to bee iure divino unles they hold likewise that it bee there recorded and bee Christ's Ordination that following Pastours succed into the Authority of their predecessours But the pretended mistake lies here that whereas I said the Bishops of Rome inherited this priviledge from S. Peter mâ—aning that those who are Bpâ— of Rome being S. Peter's successours inherited this power hee will needs take mee in a reduplicative sence as if I spoke of the Bishop of Rome as of Rome and
is whether obligation to belief can be without Infallibility He quibbles upon each word as if he would do strange things against it and makes up by his explications this worthy proposition that a Church which it is p. 16. l. 1. not strongly probable that it will erre and p. 16. l. 8 properly speaking knows not whether it erre or no may p. 16. l. 16. yet oblige men to obedience and them that cannot search to believe not positively and indeed as the Reader must conceive but onely so far as not to disbelieve that is that her self knowing nothing properly or positively can by consequence oblige none to believe any thing properly and positively but to obey onely Is not this a fine upshot of such an elaborate answer And when he hath done this then he addes another proposition Parag 22. which confesses all that he stumbled at before and which onely was in question Let us put a parallel to his manner of discourse Suppose one should affirm that a whole Apple is bigger than a half and maintain it because Totum est majus parte A whole is greater then a part Dr. H's manner of answering would work upon it in this sort First the word whole may signify a whole Mole hill or a whole Mountain a whole web of cloath or a whole thred Next the word majus or greater may signify greater in longitude in latitudine or in profundity Lastly the word pars may signify part of a Mole hill part of a Mountain part of a web c. This done he would joyn these together which are not the things in question as he did in the former of his two proposition and tell us that speaking of a Mole-hill and a Mountain 't is certain that part of a Mountain may not be greater than a whole Mole-hill and so likewise part of the web of cloth to wit a whole thred may not be greater in longitude than the whole web Then coming to the question adde a parallel to his second proposition and conclude in these words But as for an Apple and it's part speaking of the quantity belonging to a body that is profundity or bulk 't is granted that the whole Apple is greater than the half one which might as well have been granted at first and have excused all this trifling Sect. 12. What the Power of binding to Beleef consists in and how rationally our Church how irrationally the Protestants pretend to such a Power together with a Godly and edifying Sermon of Mr. H's according to his Doctrine when he disputes against us IT were not amiss here to clear this important point the better to lay open in brief what is this Power in the Church to bind her Sons to beleef and in what it consists For I doubt not but Mr. H. wonders and many judicious Protestant Readers may perhaps remain sollicitous to imagine how and in what manner there can be any power to force cōmand the Soul to an interiour beleef or assent But I hope this short hint will make them see that this power is founded upon free rationall Grounds not a tyrannical bare command of any authority whatsoever It is confest then that as a body cannot be moved locally but after a corporeal quantitative manner as is it's nature so neither can a soul which is of it's nature rational be moved to assent but by resons and motives whether true or false and were it moved otherwise it were not moved as a thing of such a nature that is it would not be a rational soul Now since pure Reason consists in inferring a connexion of two things or notions because of their joynt connexion with a third in the premisses and this also an immediate one for a connexion which is not immediate is in reality none at all at least to the Vnderstanding since in that case it sees it not it follows that the Soul is never moved out of pure Reason to any assent but by such an immediate connexion seen that is by Evidence and consequently all assents which have not this originall spring from impurity of passion that is from vice Wherefore since it is impossible God who is Essential Sanctity should command a vice it follows that as on the one side either he has left no power to oblige to assent or if he have it must be founded in Evidence so on the other if there be any authority on earth which can evidence her Certainty of what she sayes that Authority hath power to oblige others in vertue of the said Evidence to assent to what she shall affirm that is to oblige them to beleef for this is no harder a treaty than to bind them to that to which their own nature had bound them before-hand that is to assent upon Evidence To apply this then to the point in hand The Church obliges her Children to rest and continue in her beleef by the same motive by which she could oblige them when they were out of her to assent to her doctrine so far as concerns it's having been taught by Christ and his Apostles This motive is the proposal of her own Authority or of millions and millions of Fathers in the Catholick Church all conspiring to witness that those points of doctrine things visible and most concerning were received from their Ancestours as from their and so ascending upwards as from Christ The vertue by which this Authority or incomparable multitude of witnesses claims to be a motive and to have power to convince the Vnderstanding and so oblige to assent to their word that is to beleeve is the Evidence of the treble-twisted Impossibility that this Authority either would conspire in any age to attest so notorious an untruth and so pernicious to their own and their Children's eternal bliss or that they could either erre or mistake in things so visible or even contrive a conspiracy to embrace any one errour considering the several Countreys in which they liv'd dispers't and consequently their several natures obligations inclinations interest and other manifoldly-varying circumstances or lastly if they would and could that is did attest and so introduce an errour that it should not be most visible and palpable in most undeniable and manifest circumstances to the whole world being a change of things openly-evident in manifest and universal practice before and in a matter of highest concernment These impossibilities of erring in delivering any point of Faith render that Congregation evidently infallible which sticks close to this Rule of delivering onely what she received as thus attested The Evidence of her Infallibility obliges a rational nature to assent upon such an Authority that is to beleeve and consequently her Power to oblige Beleef is as firm as this Truth that Evidence obliges the Vnderstanding to assent which is reduced into this first principle that Idem est idem sibi ipsi or that Reason is Reason since the act of Reason adhering to truth is nothing else but an
preeminence in Authority and Iurisdiction or does it not but some other priority as of favour gifts c. If it does then it makes these three Apostles superior in Iurisdiction to the rest and puts the rest subject to them which Dr. H. will Iam sure by noe means admit nay expresly denies in this very page If it does not then what does it concern our question which is about Iurisdictionâ— for let the rest be never soe much before S. Peter in all other regards yet as long as they are not equall'd to S. Peter in Iurisdiction and Authority still our Tenet is in tire to us and untuch't Testimonies therefore which can make against us must concern Iurisdiction and shew an equality among the Apostles in that of which since this place cannot be understood as hath been shown it cannot consequently pretend to tuch us at all Again admit the honoring above the rest spoke in common of these three Apostles signified any Iurisdiction or higher degree of Authority yet how does it appear hence that one of these three was not honoured above the other two since the words themselves expresse nothing to the contrary but easily permit it to be so without any violence offer'd to their sence Cities are honored more then Villages yet it follows not from these words that all Cities are of equall honor with one another Soe miserably weak is Dr. H's reason which is onely declamation pitch that it cannot be imagin'd unlesse a man had his strong fancy how his best testimonies which deserve as he tells us such consideration can in any manner concern the question for which they are alledged nor carry home to the meanest semblance or shadow of a conclusion But to proceed having proved gallantly from three being honored before the rest an equality of that honor in all those three and supposed against his own Tenet that this preference of honor means Iurisdiction and Authority and so that these three Apostles were equall in that respect he adds and as such they chose and ordain'd the brother of the Lord which sure is not after the manner of an Arch-bishop and his suffragan Bishops where you see the upshot of all exprest in his sure-footed conclusion which sure c. depends upon the as such and the as equall in Authority and that as such depends upon Dr. H's invention no such reduplicative expression being found in the testimony so that as long experience hath tought us Dr. H's arguments and testimonies put to the Analytick test are resolved into his own sayngs and self confident sures as into their first principles and the ground work of his testimonies which are allowed onely to descant and reflect glancingly upon his own more substantiall solid and pregnant affirmations Thus much to show how impossible it is this testimony should prejudice us now though we have better grounds then to stand need to build upon it in all probability it makes rather for us for what strange matter was it or worth taking notice of that they should not contend for dignity about chusing him if they were all equall in digniâ—y what soe high commendation is it in those Apostles that none of them strove for preeminence of Authority if there had been unquestionably none at all belonging to any one of them Or what novelty is it that persons of equall Authority should doe things by common consent Whereas had some one had power to do it alone and yet condescended to it with the joint-consent and joint-execution of others the carriage was worth observation for the particularity of their peaceablenes humility mutuall confidence and brotherly charity After this worthy testimony comes hobbling in a Scripture-proof to make good all that went before in this form And so also in the place to the Gal. e. 2. v. 9. Iames and Cephas and Iohn are equally dignified by S. Paul and have all there the style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeming to be pillars This testimony hath two parts as it is put by Mr. H. the first that they were equally dignified by S. Paul in the 9. v. the second that they are all three called pillars But as for the first look in the place and you shall find noe other note of their being equally dignified save onely that these three are named together Hath not this Dr. of Divinity a strange reach of reason who can conclude men equall in Authority because he finds their names in the same place so that should he hap to find the King Tom fool and Iohn a Nokes named all together presently his levelling logick concludes them all equally dignified The like acutenes is shown in the second part which sounds to the same time both being non-sence in Ela. They are all called pillars ergo they are all equall cries the Dr. as if one pillar could not be higher then another But he makes noe distinction between a community and an equality nor will vouchsafe to understand that degrees are notions superadded to the common species of things whatever things he finds named by the same name in the plurall number presently he makes them go a breast in the same degree of height or worth He would make a rare man to write a book of logick for the levellers If he â—bserves that peasants as well as Princes agree in the common name of men and are call'd so in the plurall presently he concludes that peasants and Princes are equally dignified the Lord Ma or of London and the Geffer Major of Grimsâ—y are equall in Authority and dignity by the same reason because they are both in the plurall called Majors Nor onely this but Cities Commonwealths rivers horses books noses mountains starrs and universally all things in the world must be levell'd into an equality because the common name in the plurall agrees to all of each kind by Dr H's paralell logick which concludes the Apostles equall because they are called pillars nay even from their being named together Is the answering such a pitifull Adversary worth the losse of an hovers time were it not that the sleight-reasond preaching-vogue which now takes vulgar heads had got him an opinion amongst many and so by means of that not by any force of his reasons enabled him to do mischief unlesse his wilfull and affected weaknesses be laid open I might hope also for some ameandment from another but I finde him so long beaten to his slender-woven cobwebb declamation-stuffe I despaire that all these friendly reprehensions will make him reflect upon his weak reasonings and make them stronger for the future He was told in Schism Disarm'd of the same faults to wit of proving the Apostles equally foundation-stones because they were all called so in the plurall that the Apostles were all equall because that common Appellation in the plurall was given to all that none had more power then another that is all had equal power because each sitt vpon a throne to judge that is had power onely that the
Spirit satt without distinction that is equally upon each because the Scripture sayes in common that it sate upon them that all had the holy ghost equally by the plowmans argument for the equality of his eggs because all were full of it For these and other faults of the same strain Dr. H. was reprehended by his Disarmer yet still noe amends not hopes of amends appears in these answering books after he had been so oft told of it nor by consequence are we to expect any other from him in his following treatises Sect. 10. Dr. H's Pretences of Testimonies as hee calls them and his manifold falsification of S. Chrysostome to prove Iames at Hierusalem clearly superiour to S. Peter AS for the point it self concerning S. Iames I am reprehended for misunderstanding Dr. H. and that he endeauored not to prove S. Iames his priority of dignity and Authority but onely to prove that in his see James was considered as a Bishop Answ p. 43. l. 20. 21. and 27. whereas neither any man denied him to have been Bishop there nor could it any way advantage Dr. H's cause if this were ptoved for what follows against S. Peter's being chief of the Apostles that S. Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem and the Iurisdiction of that Metropolis Hath not each Catholike Bishop the same now a dayes over his private Diocese and yet remains subject to the head of God's Church notwithstanding Again if he intended not that S. Iames had greater Authority there what meant his fiction of his having the principall place and giving the sentence that the Rescript is grounded upon his sentence c. Surely when one gives the sentence and the others onely propose the former must be held to have greater power in that place and those circumstances then the latter But principall with him sounds noe priority at all nor can he be held to any thing who hath got once the priviledge to say and unsay again as hee pleases He was accused of making S. Iames at Hierusalem superior to S. Peter which he denies p. 43. blaming me for misunderstanding him yet in the p. 44. ere the Eccho of the former words were well out of the Reader 's ears he goes about to prove and infer in expresse words from testimonies that Iames in this council was clearly superior to S. Peter which is clearly contradictory to his former words But we are not to wonder at what is grown customary and familiar Next he goes about to shew Answ p. 44. that he hath at least pretences of testimonies that S. Iames had the principall place the first of which pretences is that he is named before Peter and unlesse this conclude our argument from S. Peter's being named first must be prejudiced I Answer our argument drawn thence for his principall place among the Apostles insists upon his constantly being named first and not once onely which might happen without any great mistery in it Again what mean these words the Romanists argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluding his primacy from being first named These are two quite different things The argument from his being first named consists in this that in the orderly naming of the Apostles his name is found first placed whereas the argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lies in this not that he is first named but that he is in these words nam'd or exprest to be the first of the Apostles His second pretence of a Testimony as he calls it is from S. Iames his giving the sentence and though their own translation rendred the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore my sentence is by this means making it onely his iudgment in the matters yet Dr. H. tells us he still beleeves it signifies the sentence The first ground of this his beleef is because 't is S. Chrysostomes observation that his speaking last was founded in his being Bishop of Hierusalem what then could not he be Bishop there and speak last both without giving the sentence were there noe worthier persons present or did the thing to be concluded onely concern his see or indeed did it concern it at all the Rescript the effect of this consult being directed onely to Gentiles which were noe wayes subject to the Bishoprick of Hierusalem But let us see S. Chrysostomes testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was Bishop of the Church in Hierusalem therefore he speaks last unfortunate man with whom nothing succeeds nor any testimony thrives but either they are against him or nothing at all to his purpose as hath been shown all over or when they hap to be full and expresse as this is then they come of worst of all Let him look into their own edition of S. Chrysostome and Dannaeus his Notes upon them printed at Eton and he shall see what is become of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore he speaks last upon which onely hee builds verba haec saith hee interpres non agnoscit nec certè videntur aptè locari nam quòd Episcopus esset ideò prior loqui debuit non posterior The Interprâ—ter doth not acknowledge these words neither truly doe they seem to be fitly placed for in regard he was a Bishop he ought in that respect to speak first not last But 't is noe matter Dr. H. can cast a figure of hysteron proteron make first be last and any corrupt piece of an Author become pure Chrysostome and rare sence so it do but be befriend him at a dead lift His second worthy proof is that S. Chrysostome sayes that Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordains or decrees those things As if the decree were not manifestly made by all present but by Iames onely and called there by S. Chrysostome himself p. 795. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common decree yet because he finds an expression of decreeing common as he wel knows to all that were present but his present occasion not inviting him not taken notice of by S. Chrysostome in that place imediately S. Iames is thence concluded the best man in the companie the giver of the sentence or whatever else Dr. H. pleases Any thing may be aswel inferd as that which he pretends Again I would ask Dr. H. why he leaves out the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the law which were imediately joind in context with the former thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he ordains those things out of the law by this simple putting down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gaining something a better semblance for the absolutenesse of S. Iames his decree But I shall have occasion to explicate hereafter this whole place out of which Dr. H. as his sleight manner is picks out a couple of words His third proof is from S. Chrysostome's setting down the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good order observed in their speaking first I will transcribe the place as I find it in that father and afterwards let the Reader see how craftily Dr. H. abuses it for his
alledging Testimonies may be reckon'd as another head or common-place of Dr. H's wily shifts and consists in this that though the whole scope and import of the Testimony be against him he touches sleightly and in passing as it were at two or three words of it which taken alone and introduced with a handsome boldnes seem to sound for his purpose whereas the whole import of the place is either point-blank opposite or quite disparate at the best half a dozen indifferently-appliable words found in it sometimes scarce a monosyllable as hath been shown all over in Schism Disarm'd see in particular his ample and pregnant testimony from the bare and vulgar monosyllable come Schism Dis p. 81. Sect. 11. Other self contradictory proofs wilfull mistakes and wily sleights of Dr. H's to maintain the same point AFter this hysteron-proteron testimony concerning Iames his first-last place we have another from S. Chrysostome thus put down by Mr. H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for thus speaking of S. Iames it behoves him that is in great power or Authority to leave the sharper things to others and himself to draw his arguments from the gentler and milder Topicks and hence Mr. H. infers James in this councill clearly superior to S. Peter This seems terrible but to render good for evill and not to wrong Dr. H. who thus baffles us with testimonies we will make himself the rule of interpreting this place He tells us p. 43. that he pretends not that any of the other Apostles had any greater Authority then Peter much lesse Iames the Bishop of Hierusalem who as he supposes was none of the twelve but onely that as Bishop he had the principall place even in S. Peter's presence How this equall power of all the Apostles consists with S. Peter having no power save over one portion of the dispersed Iews onely as Dr. H. affirmed of Schism p. 71. I will not now examin with concerns us to observe in it is onely this that he produces not these testimonies to prove the greater power of any in this councill but onely the principall places of Iames. This being clearly his meaning as it is also more particularly exprest throughout this whole tenth paragraph in the end of which this Testimony is found what mean the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great power in which the whole force of his testimony lies does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vse to signify place or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principall or both of them together principal place as that is contradistinguisht from greater power How come then the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify principall place That he had in that place great power which the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly and properly signify we willingly grant since we deny not his being Bishop there but that he had greater or as Dr. H. expresses it was clearly superiour to S. Peter is both expressely contradictory to himself and to his whole scope and intention which was to prove as he tells us not his greater power but principall place onely But let us grant that Dr. H. hath forgot what he was about and that in stead of proving the principall place onely he having light on an odd testimony which spoke expresly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power infers there-upon that Iames was clearly superior there to S. Peter meaning in power let all this I say be granted and pardoned if S. Iames were superior there in power to S. Peter I suppose he was likewise superior to the rest for I fear not that Dr. H. should deny his inference of all the Apostles equality from their being called foundation-stones pillars and Apostles in the plurall then I ask whither Dr. H. thinks in his conscience that these Apostles who had Authority to constitute Iames Bishop there had not Authority likewise to remove him if they saw it convenient if they had then they had an Authority superior to S. Iames even in his own see and I would ask Dr. H. even in his own grounds why S. Peter should not be his superior still aswel as S. Paul was yet superior to Timothy and Titus after they were fixt Bishops S. Iames being constituted Bishop in Iudea shown to have been S. Peter's Province I mean such Province as he is pretended to have had as well as the Gentiles over whom Timothy and Titus were constituted Bishops were pretended to bee S. Paul's Province Again wee will pardon Dr. H. his affirmation that the Apostles distributed their universal great Province into severall lesser ones Those famous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet giving S. Iames here an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province also whom he holds here to be no Apostle Or if Dr. H. refuse to accept the pardon and fall to qualify thefact then I vse my advantage and vrge him was S. Iames independent or was he still subject as Timothy and Titus are held by himself to have been even after they were Bishops If he were independent then he went a breast with the Apostles in self Authority and had his catachrestically-nam'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aswell as they But if he remain'd still subject then his territory being amongst the Iews and S Peter being by Dr. H's exclusive place of Scripture nam'd Apostle of the Iews in the same tenour as S. Paul was over the Gentiles Gal. 2. it is given us by Dr. H's grounds that in all probability he could be subject to none but to the Apostle of the Iews S. Peter and that in his own see which was in S. Peter's Province at lest that kind of Province which he can be pretended from Scripture to have had But what should those words of Dr. H's signify Answ p. 43. that in his see Iames was considered as a Bishop and so had the principall place even in Peter's presence Cannot one be a Bishop but he must sit in a council before his betters Suppose the Apostles had constituted a Bishop of Rochester in England and assembled themselves there in conuncil must therefore the honest Bishop of Rochester sit before S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles Nay more let us imagin a nationall council to bee met there ought not the Bishop of Rochester give place to his Metropolitan the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and let him pronounce the sentence yet D. H. here out of his ill will to the Pope's predecessour S. Peter will let S. Iames do neither though he hold's him to have been no Apostle But 'ts sufficient with him that he is a Bishop in that place to infer him to bee clearly superiour to all there to have the principall place give the sentence and what not Nor matters it that even according to Dr. H. the others are Apostles and he none nor how high they how low he bee in Authority if S. Peter bee in company the private Bishop shall be clearly superiour to them all whereas had he been absent S. Iames
had neither been thus exalted nor the other Apostles thus depres't 't was S. Peter's being there which put all out of order Lastly what means his inference of his being clearly superiour in that council This is the most unlikely point of all the rest this council as hath been shown concern'd not S. Iames his particular Iurisdiction but the common good of the Church of which the Apostles were overseer's nor did this in particular concern S. Iames who as Dr. H. here grants was none of the Apostles In a word if he contend that they let him have the principall place out of a respectfull and courteous deference upon another score as he was our Lord's brother and very ancient let him bring authentick testimonies that they did so and wee shall easily grant it But what does courtesy concern power or the right to a thing or place Thus wee read that Pope Anicetus gave S. Polycarp the preeminence even in his own Church yet wee think not that his civill condescension wrong'd his Iurisdiction though I know if Dr. H. could prove so much of S. Iames here all were lost to S. Peter without hopes of recovery But if he proves his principal place by right upon the account onely of being Bishop there 't is infinitly weak and inconsequent reason absolutely disclaiming any such inference and as for authority the very testimonies he brings to prove it are either expressely against him and contrary to his own grounds or els unauthentick or lastly nothing at all to his purpose as hath been shown His next testimony that S. Iames saith with power I iudge makes neither for him nor against us since wee grant that each here had power and vsed that power invoting or decreeing soe hath and doth each member in Parlament which yet consists wel enough with their different degrees of power in thus voting and decreeing so that though wee read that one member did it upon an occasion relating to him in particular without excluding the rest wee cannot upon that negative argument either infer that he alone did so or pronounced the Decree unles his expression had something particular not competent to the rest As for example had it been phras'd thus Let it be enacted Bee it decreed c. there had been some ground that he pronounced the sentence but his words being onely I iudge or as their own translation renders it my sentence is which sounds no higher strain of authority nor any thing not equally-competent to any or each of the rest since each might without any great ambition say my sentence is thus and thus 't is impossible any reason unprejudiced can think any more deducible thence then that his particular sentence was exprest by those words Thus much for the words following Dr. H's explication of them But to give S. Chrysostome leave to explicate himself let us hear what hee sayes In the same Homily and upon the same passage wee find these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he with good reason ordains those things to witt to abstain from things strangled c. out of the law lest he should seem to abrogate the law then follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And observe how he lets not them hear those things from the law but from himself saying I iudge that is from my self not having heard it from the law Where we have two things remarkable in this prudent cariage of S. Iames whose circumstances being Bishop and Resident in Hierusalem required on the one side that he should not disgust the Iews his Diocesans by seeming to sleight the law on the other side he was not to wrong Christianity by making those things necessary to be observed precisely upon this account because the law of Moses prescribed them To compose himself equally in this case without giving offence to one side or other S. Chrysostome observes first that he ordains these things out of the law that is such things as were materially found in the law and commanded there and so auoids the Iews displeasure but does not ordain them formally because they were commanded by the law soe avoiding the wronging of Christianity but of himself who as an Apostle had power to do such things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I iudge that is of my self or own Authority not as having heard it from the law that is not as from the Authority of the law of Moses This being so the words cited by Dr. H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I iudge that is I say with power is given by all reason to signify the same as the former explication now layd out at large and of which this seems to bee onely a brief repetition For first why should wee imagine that S. Chrysostome should give two disparate interpretations of the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in the self same circumstances Next were it not onely a repetition of the former why is he so short in this latter explicatiō as to passe it over sleightly in these words nothing neither before nor after relating to that interpretation Thirdly because the words I say with power are perfectly consonant to the other I say it of my self not as from the law that is from mine own power not from the power of the law to which mine succeeds And lastly because if wee look more narrowly into the place wee shall find that neither Testimony is an explication of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies iudging or as Dr. H. will needs have it giving the sentence but of the emphatical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I which in the first place denoting a self authoritative expression of his power in opposition to the law and it's power consequently in the latter place where the emphasis of the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is explicated by with power there is no ground imaginable why it should signify otherwise than the forme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my self or why it should have any emphaticall relation or opposition to any other Authority save that of the law onely So that there is not the slenderest appearance of S. Iames his having the principall place or giving the sentence from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with power more than from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my self This self power there spoken of relating to the law 's no power nor influence of power in thus decreeing not to the other Apostles lesser power then his as Bishop But as his ordinary custome is Dr. H. picks out any two words neglecting to consider the true import of the father's meaning by them and having thus singled them out he onely touches them sleightly with a grave carelesnes and thinks the deed is done What follows in his 12. paragraph craves onely that the Readers would vse their eyes to avoyd his crafts who would blind them All I need do in answer is to quote particularly the places in which I am sure there can bee no deceit Dr. H. told us in the last
that the greater part of them will be arrant fools First putting down a company of expressions totally disanulling S. Peter's Authority and immediately quoting for them 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Next when he is challenged of falsifying instead of showing any word there more then the poor monosyllable Come saying he onely mean't it was conclusible or deducible thence And lastly instead of concluding proving or deducing that Iurisdiction limiting sence from those words which at least was necessary onely saying the same words over again asking some questions to which he knew the answer long ago bidding his Answerer supply his turn prove telling us we dare not do not affirm what his own knowledge what his own eyes assure him we both dare do in this very present Controversy and then concluding all with an If built upon the former no doubt bred in his own head grounded upon his own fancy Is such an Adversary worth the losse of an hour's time to confute were it not that the Authority he hath got by a sleightly-connected Sermon enabling him to do some mischief amongst the more vulgar made it necessary to lay him open plainly to show how unsafe it is for them to let their Salvations rely in the least upon so incomparably weak a Controvertist THIRD PART Containing a Refute of Dr. H's second fundamentall Exception against the Pope's Authority from the pretended equall donation of the Keys to S. Peter Sect. 1. How Dr. H's Shuflingly avoids either to acknowledge or dâ—sacknowledge the notion of an Evidence given What he means by his Evidences and what is to be expected from Catholikes in managâ—ng a Wit-controversy concerning Scripture His weak attempt to clear himself of Prevarication Injuriousnes and Calumny objected MY 13. Section in Schism Disarm'd begun with putting down the true notion of an Evidence having already shown p. 17. that nothing but a perfect certainty sprung from such rigorous convincing proofs could rationally oblige the understanding to assent and that all assents sprung from that were originiz'd from passion Whence follows that the first Protestants could no way rationally relinquish the Authority Government of the former Church they were bred in conclude in their thoughts that her Doctrine was false her Government an usurpation unles moved by the said light of evident demonstrative Reasons that is unles they had grounds sufficient in their own nature to convince them that it was so and could not but be so For surely even in common prudence it had been the most rash action imaginable to hazard the most greeveus sin of Schism consequently an eternity of misery to their Souls upon probability onely How great a favour Dr. H. had done himself who though he begun first to write yet now Answ p. 50. l. 32. expresseth a great desire to be at an end of Controversie and how great a kindnes he had confer'd on S. W to have answer'd positively to these two points I or no to wit whether lesse then such a rigorous Evidence could iustify the renouncing an Authority possession so qualified and whether his pretended Evidences I or no were such I need not much declare The whole controversy depends upon these two hinges will quickly finde a decisive conclusion if these points were positively answer'd to vigorously pursued Now my notion of a Testimony Evidence Schism Disarm p. 88. was this that the testimony it self must be authentick beyond dispute and the words alledged so directly expressing the thing to be proved that they need no additions or explications to bring them home to the matter but are of themselves full ample clear such as the Alledger himself were he to expresse his thoughts in the present Controversy would make choice of to use Whether he likes this definition of a Testimony Evidence or no he is resolu'd wee shall not know He dares not be negative or say he dislikes it because what ever testimony falls short of this falls short likewise of proving that the thing must be and so concludes onely that it may be which being too weak a ground in the iudgment of every prudent Conscientious man to hazard his Soul upon as he must if he begin to Schismatize upon no better Grounds he saw it could turn to his disgrace if he deny'd the notion given or pretended that lesse Evidence would serve in a Controversy about Schism nor durst he bee affirmative or approve of it because he saw he had not produced one testimony in his whole book worth a straw if it were brought to that Test nor worthy to bestyled an Evidence Wherefore being in this perplexity and as the proverb is holding a Wolf by the ears he recurs to his old Prevarications and instead of approving or disapproving of my Description of an Evidence tells me Answ p. 58. what he meant by his own Evidences to wit that he takes Evidence in the familiar vulgar notion for a testimony to prove any Question of Fact either in the Affirmation or the nagative But what kinde of Testimonies these must be which can serve in such a concerning discourse whether such as I described heretofore manifesting that the thing must be or not be or probable ones inferring onely that his Affirmative or Negative may be or whether these Testimonies need be proofs at all but branches of accordance onely or spoken in agreement as almost all the Testimonies he hath hitherto produced were he defines nothing By his carriage in his book of Schism he seems to mean these latter onely nor do his words here exact more then onely a testimony not expressing any thing at all concerning the quality of this testimony whether the Authority of it must be valid or invalid clear or obscure expresse or dumbe entire or maim'd with an Ellipsis originally proving oâ— agreable onely set down right or corrupted falsified an Orthodox Fathers or an Arch-Heretick's all is one with Dr. H. still that testimony is one of his Vulgarly-Styl'd Evidences and so vulgar half-witted Souls will rely upon them in a Controversy importing no lesse then their eternall Salvation In the same place of Schism Disarm'd Dr. H. was charg'd with prevaricating from his pretended promise instead of bringing Evidence of his own solving our pretended ones and that this was to sustain a different part in the dispute he first undertook to wit the part of the Defendant for so we used ever to style him who solved objections He answers that the one possible way to testify any negative is to take a view of the places the Affirmers pretend and to shew that those places have no such force in them Obserue these canting words the one possible way so handsomly preparing for an evasion which though more likely to signify the onely possible way as Vnus is often taken for Solus in Latin yet he hath a glosse in readines to say he meant ' otherwise But because he puts not down the other
common concerns of the Church Or without this how is it possible there should bee any Vnity of Government or a Church that is a thing connected united or made one by Order or by Vnity of Government The Church is God's Family can that bee calld a Family where mutually independent persons live in severall rooms of the house that is are many families without any Master or Mistress of the house or some person or persons higher than the rest by subordination to whom they become united or made one The Church is a City whose Vnity is in it self can that bee calld a City where each Master of a family is supreme that is where there are an hundred distinct supremes which stand aloof from one another without any Colligation of themselves under the notion of Governed by which means those many otherwise wholes become now parts and make up one whole which is done by submitting to some superiour Magistrate or Magistrates The Church is a Christian Common-wealth can there bee a Common-wealth which can bèe calld one if every City and town have a particular supreme Governour of it's own without owing deference to any superiour or superiours Does not common sence inform us that in this cause each City is a particular that is one compleat self bounded Common-wealth that is that those many Cities are more ones that is many CoÌ„mon-wealths Wherefore either show us some one standing ordinary form of Magistracy or Government to which all Christendome ought to submit and some Magistrate or Magistrates Governour or Governours to whom they owe a constant obedience which is impossible in your Grounds or else acknowledge plainly that you have left no Vnity of Government in God's Church at all but have unravell'd all the frame and disannull'd all the Being of a Church which consisted essentially in Order and made that parts of it have no more connexion or Vnity than a rope of sand Yet as long as these pittifull shufflers can but tell the abused Reader in generall terms that they acknowledge the discipline left by Christ and his Apostles they make account their adherents will renounce both their eyes and common sence and bee content to follow hood-wintk't after the empty tinkling sound of these hollow and nothing signifying phrases Perhaps the Bp. will reply that a generall Council is acknowledg'd by them as of obligatory Authority and that therefore there is yet a means left for Vnity of Government in the whole Church Vpon which answer the good Protestant Reader thinks them humble and reasonable men But this is indeed the greatest mockery that can bee invented For first they give us no certain Rule to know which is a generall Council which not that is who are to bee call'd to that Council who not for once taking away a certain Rule of faith there is no certainty who are Hereticks that is men not to bee call'd to a Council as to sit in it and vote who good Catholiks that is to bee call'd thither to sit and vote there Next generall Councils being onely call'd upon extremities if the Churche's Vnity in Government consist onely in them it follows that the Church hath actually no Vnity of Government but just at that pinch when a generall Council is to bee call'd that is it is never a Church but at that happy time onely when it is most unhappy But the greatest piece of foolery is that they having renounc't an actuall standing Authority pretend to show their goodnes a readines to submit to the Authority of a generall Council which themselves will acknowledge with the next breath impossible to bee had that is they profess themselves very humbly and heartily ready though they have renounc't one Government yet to submit to another which can never bee and so is never likely to trouble or controll them Is not this a piece of hollow hearted humility Yet that such Councils as they will daign to call generall are held by them impossible Dr. H. tells us Reply p. 30. in those words generall Councils are now morally impossible to bee had the Christian world being under so many Empires and divided into so many CoÌ„munions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should bee regularly assembled Here Reader thou seest all nâ—y discourse asserted to wit that God's Church as they have form'd it is so divided into disparate parts that as there is no Vnity of Government in it now for if there were there would bee also a means to assemble a generall Council so it is impossible there should bee any for the future according to their Grounds till some one temporall Governour come to Lord it ovâ—r the whole or greatest part of the Christian world which in all likelihood will bee never Consider again their candour they have renounc't the former notion of God's Church and his Authority whose proper office it was to call a generall Council of that whole Church as hee did often and then profess a willingnes to submit to such a Council or a Representative of their new notion'd Church but with the next breath lament alas that such a generall Council or Representative cannot possibly bee had after themselves had taken order to hinder all means of having it and so they are free and need obey no body How much better and stronger were it argued thus that since it is most irrationall and unbeseeming God's Providence that his Church should bee destitute of a means to remedy her extremities that is of means to gather a generall Council and that there was a means to doe this before you rejected the Pope's Authority and by your own Confession no possibility of it since that therefore you have renounced the right notion of a Church and the right Government of that Church This then is our totall charge against you that you have broke the Vnity of the former Church and not of the Court onely as you trifle it which you were in by renouncing those Principles in which consisted her Vnity both in Faith and Government and to which Principles the whole Church you broke from consented Thus far the matter of fact evidences Nor is it less evident that you have substituted no certain Rule of faith nor any certain or particular form of Government which can ground an Vnity to your new fashion'd Church in either respect but that you have turn'd Evidence of Authority the onely certain Rule and Root of faith into a drowsy probability and by consequence faith thus grounded into Opinion as likewise that you have turn'd the former Government of the Church into a perfect Anarchy there being no colligation or Vnity of the whole together ty any by of Government and that had not God's mercy been above your malice you had made the Church our Hierusalem which is built as a City at Vnity with it self that is which hath an Vnity of Government an heap of stones without connexion without order and consequently without being which consisted