pittifully this discourse hangs together that those Bishops shall be under the Patriarch of Alexandria seeing the Pope hath under him I cannot tell what or whom whereas however our Adversaries may pretend the material sense of one of the parts false yet themselves must confess that there is no difficulty in the formal coherence of the whole if it be supposed to signify thus That he shall have those for his Subjects because the Pope is accustomed to hold them for such or to judge it so This is yet more confirm'd because in both Languages it is evident that the Latine Hoc and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot possibly refer any thing but the thing decreed to wit that the Bishops named should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria This explication holding and hold it must till Mr. H. can show me a better that is another which shall agree better with the words and make better sense which will be never two things follow for us First that it was the Pope's custome to handle and judge matters belonging to the Patriarchy of Alexandria Next that the Council govern'd it self in this important matter by the custome of the Bishop of Rome Both which infer in all probability his higher Authority and make for us though intended otherwise Some Interpreters indeed are of opinion that this Canon was intended to order the Iurisdiction of the Patriarchs but this is a perfect Chimerical imagination originiz'd from the inveÌ„tion of those whose hatred against the Church of Rome occasion'd by their own guilt made them willing to say any thing in prejudice of Her though without all Ground either in the letter of the Canon as hath been shown or in the history of the Councils for nothing is more evident in this latter than that there was treated in the cause of Meletius Bishop of Licopolis â—n Egypt who refused to be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria and therefore that Canon chiefly touches thâ—t Patriarchy of which also the particulars are there specify'd nothing being order'd there concerning either Antioâ—h or the West but that their priviledges that is what by custome they had gotten should he conserved and continued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things standing thus no man unless driven by the desperate condition of his cause to catch at any thing can gather any such sense out of the words of the Canon Notwithstanding 't is granted that Schismaticks commonly make this Interpretation of it whose opinions were they any thing prejudicial to our Cause as they are not but most weak being of Adversaries yet they are made incomparably weaker by having Ruffinus for their Patron and first Founder of this Interpretation Who also to come nearer our question proceeding upon this former conceit added the word Suburbicarias without all Ground or show of Ground whether out of silliness and ignorance of propriety of Speech meaning to signify by that word all the Western Churches under the Empire of the City of Rome whose subjection to the Pope his eyes testify'd and other Schismaticks confess or out of knavery and malice it is uncertain This by the way is certain that an irregular proceeding and miscarriage sprung from both may justly be expected from Ruffinus But because this language of mine against this Paraphrast may be imagin'd to have sprung from passion by Dr. H. and some of his particular Friends who proceeding upon their Ground of uncertainty and indifferency of Religion have got a conceit that the preserving of courtesy is more worth than the preserving of souls from eternal damnation and that though one who does such a mischief be a knave and a fool both yet he cannot without incivility and scurrility be shown plainly to be either again because Mr. H. is such a veneratour of Antiquity that he deemes any testimony nay any one obscure word of any either old-knave or old-fool provided he lived but in the ancient times very competent to found his Religion on and worthy his vindication so it seem for his purpose we will see whether the character given Ruffinus by other Authours beyond all exception be more moderate than S. W's what unanswerable prejudices are producible against this Paraphrast his testification which Dr. H. here undertakes to vindicate First S. Hierom tells us contra Ruff. Apol. 2. that Ruffinus was excommunicated and cauteriz'd for heresy to wit Origenism and Pelagianism and that by Pope Anastasius as appeares both by the letter of the said Pope to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem as also by the same S. Hierom ibid upbraiding him that he so fled the judgement of the City of Rome that he rather â—hose to abide the siege of the Barbarians to wit in Aquilâ—ia besieged by Alaricus whither Ruffinus had retired himself than the sentence of a peaceable Town And again in the same book speaking of Ruffinus his Confession of his Faith which he feigned to have been approved by the Bishop of Italy he asks him how Italy should approve that which Rome had rejected and how the Bishops should receive that which the Apostolick See had condemned Adde to these which makes his prejudice most notorious and so his testimony most invalid that he writ his History after the entrance of Alaricus into Italy that is under the Popedome of Innocentius Successour of Anastasius and so had as much reason to write in prejudice of that See as an incorrigible and obstinate Heretick could have having been excommunicated by the same See before he writ Hence it is that he never meets with any occasion to speak of the Pope and Church of Rome but he spits his venome as may appear Euseb hist Eccles l. 5. cap 24. where speaking of Pope Victor he adds of his own in one place one whole line in another two in his prejudice Is not this then a fit Authouâ— to be first alledged afterwards vindicated by his fellow-brother and Friend Dr. H. who for no less guilt stands excommunicated by the same Church Thus much for his passion and prejudice which make his knavery very credible now Secondly as for his doltish ignorance he was the Monster of that and all future ages for eminency in that talent Some instances of it may be that he in hist Eccles Euseb l. 1. c. 1. makes of Iames Bishop of Hierusalem Iames Bishop of the Apostles of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Happy a Saint by name Macarius of Eusebius of Pamphilus Heretick and Arian Pamphilus Catholick and Martyr of Xystus Pythagorian and Pagan Philosopher Xystus Pope and Martyr of Chorepiscopus spoken of by the eighth Canon of the Council of Nice the vacant place of a Bishop and such innumerable others that St. Hierom ibid. affirmed him to be so unskilfull in either language that he was taken for a Greek by the Latines and for a Latin by the Grecians Must not he be a very wise man who sticks not first to build upon next to vindicate so wise an
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
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
cares he what this reconcilement of contradictions costs though it make all Antiquitie blind â—ll his new fangled coÌ„cied or Scholion which he putts down of Schism p. 79. l. 12. gave light to the world yet as long as he can by screwing wresting make them favour his cause he is a man of peace contradictions shall shake hands and bee friends But who is the Vmpire to decide this contradiction-quarrell one God knows whom called Ioannes Malela Antiochenus and the testimony from him is found in a manuscript in Oxford Library that is we may goe look it God knows where Yet we will trust Dr. H. for once in a testimony not extant who hath deceived us so often in those which were publike easie to be examined and take the place as we find it by himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. when Peter went to Rome passing by Antioch the Great Euodius Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch happend ' to dy Ignatius received the Bishoprick S. Peter ordaining enthroning him Was there ever testimony imaginable more expresse against this very point in controversie and that in every particular than this he alledges as the knot of all his proof See his booke of Schism p. 75. l 26. 27. where he contends from the Apostolicall Constitutions that Euodius Ignatius sate at the same time Bishops of Antioch See Ioannes Malela's testimony which was to button together all the rest and conclude the controversy Euodius happen'd to dy Ignatius succeeded him in the Bishoprick See in the true testimony from the Apostolicall Constitutions put downe Schism Disarm'd p. 65. because Dr. H. had falsify'd it Ignatius ordinatus est a Paulo Ignatius was ordain'd by Paul See Malela Ignatius received the Bishoprick S. Peter ordaining him Lastly see in Malela's testimony Bishoprick in the singular Bishop and Patriarch in the singular whereas Dr. H. all over makes it his whole design to prove Bishops two Bishopricks at once in the same City Observe the word Patriarch ask Dr. H. whether he thinks in his conscience there were two Patriarchs at Antioch one over Iews another over Gentiles or where caÌ„ he even preten'd to have read or heard of such an absurd tenet In a word there is scarce any proposition affirm'd by Dr. H. in order to this present point but finds here it's expresse contrary and yet he brings this as the upshot of all his proofs and as that where in he mean't to make all ends meet introducing it here in these confident terms Repl. p. 64. l. 2. 3. that the seeming difference of his former testimonies is removed by Io. Malela Antiochenus who thus sets down the whole matter whereas indeed the matter he sets down is wholy contrary to Mr. H. Does this man care a pin with what false pretences he mocks his Reader abuses his very eyes But was there no design in alledging this testimony or can he make it though quite contrary to his tenet serve his turn for nothing yes for there is nothing so contradictory to Dr. H's doctrine in it's self but by cooking it up hand somely he can make his advantage of it He wedges in two parenthesisses of his own in the middle of the testimony and then all is evident The testimony then as by him put down stands gaping thus when Peter went to Rome passing by Antioch the Great Euodius Bishop Patriarch of Antioch happen'd to dy and Ignatius who was as was said first constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there received the Bishoprick that I suppose must now be of the Iewish Province also over which Euodius had been in his life time S. Peter ordaining enthroning him Now as for the testimony it self taken alone it is expresly against him as hath been shown the onely vertue force of it lies in the parenthesisses and if we examin these the totall strength of the first lies in the words as was said that is by himself for he hath produced as yet never a testimony which says Evodius was constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles the sole force of the latter parenthesis lies in the all-conquering I suppose which is perfectly gratis and without all show of any Ground either in Antiquitie or comon sence as hath been largely manifested And so by this mean's we have gotten two other very strong testimonies to confirm his own we know to wit as was said and I suppose nor have we one expresse word from any testimony save from his own knowledge his own saying and his owne suppositions The result is that this testimony the upshot knot of all the rest is it self absolutely against him and onely brought to countenance his parenthesisses not with it's influence but with it's presence So that his testimonies are as it were the Stock upon which he ingrafts his owne sayings either in the middle by way of a parenthesis or by means of an Id est in antecedent or subsequent words sometimes with distinction sometimes with none and so it matters not with him what nature the Stock it self is of since the fruit of testifying in favour of his tenet is to be expected from the accessory scyons or spriggs his voluntary additions and so need not resemble the Stock which may be of an indifferent perhaps contrary nature Sect 17. How Dr. H. sleightly waves to strengthen his six Testimonies shown invalid by Schism Disarm'd and in particular what work hee makes with a Testimony from S. Prosper HIs six following testimonies to prove that S. Peter was over Iews onely at Rome and S Paul over Gentiles are shown Schism Disarm'd p. 67. 68. 69. first not to have a word in them to that purpose nor intimating any thing which may not aswell much better infer a promiscuous Authoritie than an exclusive one since they onely signify that they founded the Church there and were Apostles Bishops there Secondly he was accused there for calling those obscure testimonies Evidences for the exclusive Iurisdiction of these Apostles one over Iews the other over Gentiles whereas there was not one exclusive particle in any one of them nor so much as Iew or Gentile named by them Thirdly in order to this the notion of an Evidence was set down manifested how far his twilight-testimony-proof were from the pretence of being such Fourthly his sly gullery of the Reader to his face by endeavouring to make him beleeve that the testimonies were parallell to his owne confident affirmation that it was evident was there layd open shown to be a deceit His words of Schism p. 76 being the same is as evident at Rome where these two Apostles met again and each of them erected managed a Church S. Peter of Iews S. Paul of Gentiles whereas the testimonies which he usher'd in with so many Soe 's had not a word to that purpose as was there shown Of all these weaknesses Dr. H. was accused by his Disarmer in answer to which he
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
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
had any such priviledge of independency as the Bishop contends But My second objection was that this pretended exemption of the British Church was false My reason was because the British Bishops admitted appellation to Rome at the Council of Sardica In answer First hee tells mee that ere I can alledge the Authority of the Council of Sardica I must renounce the divine Institution of the Papacy and why for said hee that Canon submitted it to the good pleasure of the fathers and groundeth it upon the memory of S. Peter not the Institution of Christ Which is first flat falsification of the Council there being not a word in it either concerning the Papall power it self or it's Institution but concerning Appeals onely Next since wee call that of divine Institution which Christ with his own mouth ordain'd and never any man made account or imagin'd that Christ came from heaven to speak to the after Pope's and so give them a Primacy but that hee gave it by his own mouth to S. Peter whiles hee lived here on earth This I say being evidently our tenet and the Council never touching this point at all what a weaknes is it to argue thence against the diuine Institution of the Papacy and to abuse the Council saying that it submitted this to the good pleasures of the fathers Secondly hee asks how does it appear that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon which a little after hee calls my presumption And truly I shall ever think it a most iust presumption that they who confessedly sate in the Council assented to what was ordain'd by the Council in which they sate as was their duty unles some objection bee alledged to the contrary as the Bp brings none Thirdly hee sayes the Council of sardica was no generall Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed as they were before the making of that Canon What means hee by the Eastern Bishops the Catholicks or the Arians The Arian Bishops indeed fled away fearing the judgment of the Church as Apol. 2. ep ad solitarios S. Athanasius witnesses but how shows hee that any of the 76. Eastern Bishops were gone ere this Canon which is the third in that Council was made So that my L d of Derry is willing to maintain his cause by clinging to the Arians against S. Athanasius and the then Catholike Church as hee does also in his foregoing Treatise p. 190. 191 denying with them this to have been a generall Council because his good Brother Arians had run away from it fearing their own just coÌ„deÌ„mnation Fourthly hee says the Canons of this Council were never received in England or incorporated into the English laws I ask has hee read the British laws in those times if not for any thing hee knows they were incorporated into them and so according to his former Grounds must descend down to the English But wee are mistaken in him his meaning is onely that the aduantages and priuiledges should bee inherited from the Britons not their disadvantages or subjection So sincere a man hee is to his cause though partiall to common sence Lastly saith hee this Canon is contradicted by the great generall Council of Chalcedon which our Church receiveth Yet it seems hee neitheir thought the words worth citing nor the Canon where the abrogation of the Sardica Canon is found worth mentioning which argues it is neither worth answering nor looking for I am confident hee will not find any repealing of the Sardica Canon exprest there It must therefore bee his own deduction on which hee relies which till hee puts it down cannot bee answerd As for their Church receiving the Council of Chalcedon the Council may thanke their ill will to the Pope not their good will to receive Councils For any Council in which they can find any line to blunder in mistakingly against him they receive with open arms But those Councils which are clear and express for him though much ancienter as this of Sardica was shall bee sure to bee rejected and held of no Authority and when a better excuse wants the very running away of the guilty Arians shall disannul the Council and depriue it of all it's Authority Hee subjoyns there appears not the least footstep of any Papall Iurisdiction exercised in England by Elentherius I answer nor any certain footstep of any thing else in those obscure times but the contrary for hee referd the legislative part to King Lucius and the British Bishops Here you see my Ld D. positive and absolute But look into his Vindication p. 105. and you shall see what Authority hee relies on for this positive confidence viz. the Epistle of Eleutherius which himself conscious it was nothing worth and candid to acknowledge it there graces with a parenthesis in these words If that Epistle bee not counterfeit But now wee have lost the candid conditionall If and are grown absolute Whence wee see that the Bp. according as hee is put to it more and more to maintain his cause is forced still to abâ—te some degree of his former little sincerity And thus this if-not counter feited testimony is become one of his demonstrations to clear himself and his Church from Schism Now though our faith relies on immediate TraditioÌ„ for it's onely and certain Rule and not upon fragments of old Authours yet to give some instances of the Pope's Iurisdiction anciently in England I alledged S. Prosper that Pope Celestin Vice sua in his own stead sent S German to free the Britons from Pelagianism and converted the scots by Palladius My L d answers that converting and ordaining c. are not acts of Iurisdiction yet himself sayes here p. 193. that all other right of Iurisdiction doth follow the right of ordination Now what these words all other mean is evident by the words immediately foregoing to wit all other besides Ordination and Election by which 't is plain hee makes these two to bee rights of Iurisdiction So necessary an attendant to errour is self contradiction and non-sence But the point is hee leaues out those words I relied on Vice sua in his own stead which show'd that it belong'd to his office to do it These words omitted hee tells us that hee hath little reason to beleeve either the one or the other that is hee refuses to beleeve S. Prosper a famous and learned father who lived neer about the same time and was conversant with the affairs of the Pelagians and chuses to relie rather on an old obscure Authour whence no prudent man can Ground a certainty of any thing and which if hee would speak out himself would say hee thought to bee counterfeit What follows in his 25. page is onely his own sayings His folly in grounding the Pope's Supremacy on Phocas his liberality hath been particularly answer'd by mee heretofore Parâ— 1. Sect. 6. whether I refer him I found fault with him for leaving the Papall power and spending his time in impugning the Patriarchalâ—
east and west north and south in all parts of the habitable word And was not this ever the constant practice of God's Church to Excommunicate all those who renounced either the Government or any other point of Faith received from their Forefathers that is all Schismaticks and Hereticks and never to readmit them till they repented their lapse and did fruits worthy of penance I grant therefore that the Romish Governours inherit the remorslesness of the foregoing Church so that if any be found misdeserving in the same manner in what part soever of the habitable world they live whether East West North or South all is one to her or how many soever they be Arians Socinians Eutychians Nestorians Carpocratians Lutherans Calvinists Protestants c. she values not their number nor yet their situation if they grow scabb'd with self opinionated novelties or disobedience they must be separated from the sounder flock nor ever be re-admitted till their repentance hath wrought their cure His fifth sixth seventh eighth Paragraphs which follow lay down for their foundation a very excellent principle introduc'â— with an If as If the Church of England p. 19. l. 22. be really 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Bishop of Rome p. 20. l. 1. had really no more power and Authority over this Church than the Bishop of Antioch over Cyprus that is none at all In case the Bishop of Rome p. 21. l. 16. have no legal Authority over us c. and upon this he runs on very confidently a whole leaf and an half concluding most evidently whatever he pleases in prejudice of the Pope none daring to stop his career or deny his consequences so great vertue there is in the particle If onely we may take leave to propose a parallel to it that as he who intends to dine on larks prepares all things necessary whithout any greater security than If the sâ—y should fall may in all likelyhood miss his meal so in greater probability must Dr. H. fail of his conclusion which relies upon a conditional If grounded onely in his own fancy He expresses p. 22. much Charity towards the humble members of the Papacy who pray for the peace of the Caetholick Church But if he would consider how litle they think of his Church under that notion he would con them litle thanks for their prayers They never intended to pray for the peacefull a biding of the Protestants where they are but rather for that salutiferous trouble of compunction and sorrow of heart for their disobedience and pervicacious obstinacy Yet he will needs be beholding to them for praying for the Protestant Churches peace with the rest and in courteous requital retains the favorable opinion of Salvation attainable amognst them But cannot absolve from the guilt of the most culpable Schism the setters up and maintainers of the partition-wall betwixt us The Pope Cardinals and all the Clergy must beaâ— S. W. company to Hell that 's decreed S. Paul hath doubt less long a goe pronounced sentence against them also He would clear himself in the next place for mincing the Father's words S. Austin affirmed non esse quicquam gravius Schismate he render'd it scarce any so great Now S. W. knowing how willing he was to seek evasions to palliate Schism by pretence of some greater sin as he does most amply of Schism cap. 2. part 8. and therefore not willing to grant him any the least startinhole exprest by the way his dislike of his mincing the absolute not with scarce But as Mr. H's good fortune would have it his Genius led him into this profitable mistake as to translate gravius so great and by the jumbling of these two together he hath compounded an excuse alledging that scarce any is so great is fully as much or more comprehensive than none greater Whereas first it is manifest that non esse quicquam gravius is most obviously and easily render'd there is nothing greater and if a qualifying expression be made use of in stead of an absolute one S W. had good reason to be jealous of it specially coming from Dr. H. Next the reasons he alledges to make good the equivalence of the sense that there may possibly be many crimes as great though no one were supposed greater is false Moral Science assuring us that no two kinds of vices are equall Thirdly if Dr. H. please to rub up afresh his forgotten Logick he will find that with S. Austin's proposition that none is greater it cannot stand that one is greater since they are contradictories but with his proposition that scarce any is so great it vell stands that one or some few may be greater Therefore it is manifest that he minced S. Austin Lastly whereas he sayes he assumed not to affirm more than his Authorities did induce that there was none greater is the strangest lapse of all before he onely minc'd the words non est quicquam gravius now they have totally lost their signification since he tells us his Authorities did not induce that there was none greater which is directly contrary to the words cited This is the result of Dr. H's deliberate thoughts apply'd to remedy his Disarmer's too great hast Me thinks another man in another cause might have done better ex tempore I took notice by the way with a glance of a parenthesis that he mitigated S. Irenaeus his words Nulla ab eis tanta fieri potest correptio quanta est schismatis pernicies by rendring the absolute tenour of them Nulla potest c. by the softer language of It is very hard if not impossible to receive such an injury from the Governours c. To clear himself he asks me first why I took no notice of his ill rendring Schismatis pernicies I answer that it is not necessary to score up all his faults it suffices to note what I conceived most needfull Next he excuses himself by telling us that he set down the Latin punctually and so left it not possible to impose on any that understood that I answer that my intent in noting it was that he should not even impose on those who understand English onely and make up the greater part of Readers Thirdly he sayes he was carefull not to goe beyond the limits of the testimonies I grant it and onely find fault that he was over-carefull so as to fall short of their just sense Fourthly he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Scripture and other Authours is render'd hard or difficult Which evasion is nothing unless he had this testimony out of Irenaeus in Greek as his words seem willing underhand to make the Reader believe which if he have I am sure he hath seen more than other men though very curious could ever hear of These are his evasions let us see what plain reason will say against them It is very hard if not impossible to receive such an iniury sufficient to excuse Schism evidently is consistent with this sense that
prove that the Emperour did it without the Pope's signifying such their desires to them next that if they did it without this they did it lawfully and lastly that were both proved it was not necessarily consequent that the Pope had therefore no Authority over the Church since there might be other Acts of Vniversal Authority besides gathering of Councils For answer Dr. H. refers me to his Reply p. 38. where nothing at all is found to strengthen the two former weaknesses of his consequences nor yet indeed the latter since he does not undertake to show that there can be no other Acts of supreme Authority besides gathering of Councils which if there can then those Acts can denominate the Pope Head of the Church notwithstanding the defect in the nor performance of the other and by consequence his argument of not being Head of the Church from not gathering Councils is at an end Yet something he pretends here to make good this latter defect to wit that this Authority of Convoking Councils is inseparable from the supreme power is most characteristical of it c. Whereas indeed this Convoking of Councils is no ordinary Act of any standing Iurisdiction or Government but an extraordinary affair springing from some necessity or extremity and so the necessity pressing may be performed by him or them who can best provide for that extremity Which if other circumstances agree is most fitting to be ordered by the Pope whose universal superintendency qualifies him for both care and knowledge of the Churche's wants But if Mr. H. means it is inseparable so that it cannot be done without the Pope's express and actual orders or undertaken by any but the Pope himself he is in a great mistake For it is very well known that in divers cases it is otherwise As suppose the See be vacant or the Pope himself be unsound in Faith be distracted or kept in close prison or in case there be an Anti-pope which makes the title dubious c. In which cases the Cardinals have power to call a Council or the Bishops to assemble themselves And in general whensoever there is an extremity damageable to the publick nor possible to be remedied by him to whom that duty most fittingly and so rightfully belongs any one that hath sufficient power and skill let him be Patriarch Bishop Prince or private man not onely may but ought apply both as much as in him lies to prevent the harme of the publick 'T is evident then that the notion of the actual power to gather General Councils is not the very notion of the Pope's Authority nor as Mr. H. expresses it Characteristical of it or inseparable from it since it has been shown that the one can be without the other To this proof from gathering Councils he proceeds to alledge some Testimonies Reply p. 39 that there was not anciently besides the Prince or Emperour any Supreme or as the Doctor strangely expresses it any summum genus and that the Bishop of Rome was not this summum genus It is a pleasant thing when those men will be nibbling at wit who never knew how to manage the knack Would not Supreme Bishop or Governour have served without being thus unfortunately witty in calling it a Summum genus and then to tell us that a particular man is not a Summum genus When we learn'd Logick we were told that a Summum genus was perfectly and actually included in every Individual conteined under it I hope the Pope's power is not found on this fashion in every Priest But let us take a view of his testimonies which are reduced to two heads to wit those which would prove the Pope no Summum genus from the denial of Appeals to him and those which would conclude him no Summum genus from titles and names deny'd him Those concerning Appeales which must manifest the individual person of the Pope to be no Summum genus are First from the Milevitan Council Repl. p. 39. 40. forbidding that Priests should appeale to any forrein power but onely to the African Councils or their own Primates Secondly from the Nicen Can. 5. ordaining that they who were excommunicated by some should not be received by others The third from the Synodical Epistle of the African Council to Pope Caelestine in these words We intreat you that for the future you will not easily admit those who are Excommunicated by us c. To these he addes a fourth from the 34. Apostolick Canon that the Bishops of every Nation must know him that is first among them and account him their Head I answer that as for the three first in general they only forbid the Appeals of Priests from their Bishops c. but leave it indifferent whether the Bishops arch-Arch-Bishops nay Primates themselves may appeale to the Pope which we make account is a far greater honour to the Pope than the deciding the inferiour Controversies concerning Priests So that these testimonies argues no more against the Pope's Authority than it would against the Supreme power of any Prince or secular Magistrate if the Laws of the Land should forbid Theeves Robbers and such inferiours Delinquents after their condemnation by the Iudges and other inferiour Officers to appeal to him Who sees not that there could never be any Government or Iustice done if every Priest though found never so guilty at home by his own immediate Governours should have liberty granted him to appeal to the Supreme living perhaps in another Country far distant not skilled in the immediate circumstances which give the best light to judge of a cause but receiving his information from letters perhaps partial or from heare-say ever uncertain Again who sees not that such an easy admittance of every ordinary Delinquent's Appeal is both most cumbersom nay impossible to be perform'd by the Supreme and very derogatory to the esteem and Authority of Inferiour Officers without the Conservation of which all Government and Common-good goes to wrack Iustly then did the Church in the Nicen Council and elsewhere for these and many other reasons ordain that Priests should make no farther Appeal than to domestick Iudges the Pope himself being present and consenting to it yet without detriment to his Authority since this eases him of cumber not discredits his power for it denies not the Appeals even of arch-Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs to him unless Mr. H. will say that every consenting upon rational Grounds not to execute Authory is to disannul and abolish quite that whole Authority for he ayms at no less in this worthy Discourse of his upon the said Citations And this may suffize in answer to his three first Testimonies as also to the first of these three in particular to wit that they forbid him not to execute an higher strain of power in receiving Appeals of Bishops and as for the making it unlawful for inferiour Delinquents to appeal to him it can onely infer necessarily the unfitness that the Pope should execute
now it signifies a vice Thirdly this seems to have been the case of our word Vniversalis Papa at least in S. Gregory's time when that expression if taken in a due sense sem'd tolerable both by the example given in the Council of Chalcedon in order to Pope Leo and also by Eulogius Patriarch of Alexundria's letter giving it to Pope Gregory but 't was refused by that prudent and humble Pope because the proud Patriarch of Constantinople usurp't it in an illegitimate and intolerable sense Fourthly the sense of that title in the testimonies objected being evidently this that none could be Patriarchs but himself as appears by Pope Pelagius his Epistle cited here by Gratian quia si unus Patriarcharum Vniversalis dicatur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur and the like in S. Gregory's expression to Eulogius when he refused it this I say being evident and it being on the other side no less evident that our tenet concerning the Pope's Authority is not that it is of such a nature as debars others subordinate degrees and in particular Patriarchs and Bishops to be truly what they are called it is likewise evident that our meaning when we apply it to the Pope is different quite from the signification the objectors take it in Now that the Pope's Authority as held by Catholicks hinders not others to remain still Patriarchs is most plain For we grant him onely such an higher degree of power over Patriarchs as an Arch-Bishop hath over a Bishop from which superiory over them it follows that he is Supreme in God's Church As then the placing an Arch-Bishop over Bishops doth not un-un-bishop them so neither doth the exalting the Pope's Anthority above Paâ—â—iarchal destroy the notion of a Patriarch but each of them retains their compleat limits of Power in the Church notwithstanding their subordination to their Superiour and consequently the testimonies are not a jot to the Doctor 's purpose since they declare themselves to mean one thing and he brings them to denote a quite different matter Fifthly had not the Testimonies declared themselves to mean otherwise than we do yet to show more the miserable weakness of this testimony-gleaner it were no such great wonder that S. Gregory such was his humility should deny to accept what was due to him A plain instance of this may be found 4. Epist 31. where he denyes himself even to be a Priest Sixthly whoever reads his Epistles sent throughout the whole Church it is impossible but he should see that however he deny'd the word of Vniversal Bishop which sounded then proudly yet he both practised and challenged the thing it self that is the Papal Iurisdiction which we now mean by that word notwithstanding his profound humility which made him never desire to stand upon his power but when it was necessary A perfect instance of this is found 7 Epist 65. Ind. 2. where he sayes Si qua culpa c. If there be any fault or crime found in Bishops that every Bishop is subject to the Apostolical See but when their fault doth not exact it that is make it necessary for him to use his Authority that then upon the account of humility all were his Equals See also l. 7. Epist 64. where he puts it as undoubted that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolical See and this to be acknowledg'd by the Emperour and by the Bishop of Constantinople himself See another most express Testimony to the same purpose lib. 5. Epist 24. to Marinianus Bishop of Ravenna Seventhly those words Neâ— etiâ—m Romanus Pontifex Vniversalis est appellandus are not found either in the Council of Caâ—â—hage it self or in the ancient Copies but are Gratian's addition onely wherefore they are to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took thâ—m whose Epistle he cites to make good those words Eighthly equivalent terms to what we mean by those words were far more anciently given to the Bishop of Rome Zephyrinus by Teâ—tullian lib. 1. de pudicitia where de calls him Pontifex maximus Episcopus Episcoporum Ninthly and lastly to put this whole business out of doubt Dr. H's own dear Friend Balsamon a Greek Schismatick confesses and surely he knew as well as Dr. H. that that Title was forbidden to take away the Arrogancy of Names and that for that reason many Patriarchs did style themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vile and base See Bals in Conc. Carth. 3. Cant. 42. Where though he mingles something of his own Schism yet thus far is clear for me that the name or title was onely treated there nor the thing or Iurisdiction about which our controversy being Dr. H. ought to have brought testimonies impugning it not a bare name onely Calculate these manifold weaknesses kind Reader with thy understanding and then tell me if it must not be a most desperately weak cause which can drive it's Patrons to cast their strongest hopes upon such testimonies which to omit other frailties declare themselves and are confest by our bitterest Adversaries not to mean the thing or Iurisdiction the onely matter in debate but the Phrase of titular appellation onely which shows plainly that the Objecter's intent was to bring the question of the solid power and Authority into the Logomachy and word-skirmish of an aiery title So that Dr. H. payes his Reader with the same coyn as that hungry fellow did who having satisfy'd himself with the smell of the Cook 's meat pay'd his exacting host with the sound of the money in stead of the substanâ—e But now it being firmly settled by the former frothy Argument that the Pope had anciently no Vniversal Authority he proceeds to show when this strange Vsurpation impower'd it self over the whole Church And this he does from Paulus Diaconus de gestis Romanorum l. 18. who as he pretends tells us that Boniface the third with much adoe obtained an Edict of Phocas the Emperour to that purpose Where if he meanes that the name and title before forbidden were then first allowed by him what follows against us who maintain a real Power not a verbal title But if he means that the Supreme Iurisdiction over the whole Church was then given by Phocas then besides that this Iurisdiction we dispute of is over Kings and Emperours as well as others in Ecclesiastical matters and so not likely to be given by Phocas the Emperour we must be put to imagin which will cost us no less then perfect madness â—re we shall be able to doe it upon the blind and bare affirmation of an obscure Sentence that an Vniversal Government in Ecclesiastical matters over the whole Christian world could be introduc't nay held oâ— Faith and to have come from Christ without any visible effects of siding opposing deprecating submitting complaints applauses on the one side and the other together with change of Ecclesiastical Laws and the temporal also as concern'd in the Ecclesiastical and millions of other particular changes included in
This manner of treating Scripture then we Catholicks account in an high degree blasphemous nay to open the way to all blasphemousness and this because we do not dogmatize upon it or affix to it any interpretation that we build faith upon which is not warranted by the Vniversal practice of the Church and our Rule of Faith Vniversal Tradition though we know 't is the Protestant's gallantry to make it dance afther the jigging humour of their own fancies calling all God's word though never so absurd which their own private heads without ground or shadow of ground imagine deducible thence nay more to call it an Evidence that is a ground sufficient to found and establish Faith upon And thus much for Dr. H's blasphemous and irreverent treating both Faith and Scripture Sect. 4. How Dr. H. prevaricates from his own most express words the whole tenour of his Discourse the main scope of his most substantial Chapter and lastly from the whole Question by denying that he meant or held Exclusive Provinces And how to contrive this evasion he contradicts himself nine times in that one point AT length we are come home close to the question it self Whether the Pope be Head of the Church pretended to be evidently disproved by Dr. H. in the fourth Chapter of Schism by this argument S. Peter had no Supremacy therefore his Successour the Pope can have none The consequence we grant to be valid founding the Authority of the latter upon his succeding the former But we absolutely deny the Antecedent to wit that S Peter had no Supremacy that is supreme power and Iurisdiction in God's Church Dr. H. pretends an endeavour to prove it in this his fourth Chapter offering his Evidences for this negative p. 70. l. 4. First from S. Peter's having no Vniversal Iurisdiction from parag 5. to parag 20. Secondly from thence to the end of the Chapter from his not having the Power of the Keyes as his peculiarâ—â—ty and inclosure that is from his not having them so as we never held him to have had them His first Argument from S. Peter's not having an Vniversal Iurisdiction proceeds on this manner that each Apostle had peculiar and exclusive Provinces pretended to be evidenced in his fifth parag from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lot of Apostleship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudas his place in Hell of Schism p. 71. that the Iews onely were S. Peter's Province nay that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction that the Gentiles were S. Paul's c. and all this undertaken there to be evidenced by testimonies from Scripture Fathers and other Authours What hath been the success of his Evidences from his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath already been manifested by showing that he had neither any ground in the place it self to favour his explication of a lesser province nor among all the many-minded Commenters on Scripture so much as one Authority to second it As for his limiting S. Peter's Iurisdiction to the Iews onely and S. Paul's to the Gentiles by his pretended proofs his Disarmer offer'd him p. 52. that if among those many testimonies he produces to prove it there be but found any one sentence line word syllable or letter which excludes S. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles more than what himself puts in of his own head he would be content to yeeld him the whole Controversy which he vindicated to the very eyes of the Reader from every testimony one by one alledged by Dr. H. In this manner stood the case then between S. W. and his Adversary it remains now to be seen what reply he tenders to so grievous heavy and unheard-of a charge and how he can colour a fault so gross palpable and visible to the eye of every Reader Observe good Reader I beseech thee whether thou be Catholick ProtestaÌ„t or of whatever other profession that now the very point of the Controversy is in agitation For we pretend no tenour for the Pop'es Supremacy save onely that he succeeds S. Peter whom we hold to have had it if then it be evidenced as is pretended that S. Peter had none the Doctor hath inevitably concluded against us Reflect also I intreat thee on the grievousness of the charge layd by S. W. against Dr. H. and make full account as reason obliges thee and I for my part give thee my good leave that there must be most open knavery and perfect voluntary insincerity on one side or other and when thou hast examin'd it well I am a party and so must not be a Iudge lay thou the blame where thou shalt find the fault Neither despair that thou hast ability enough to be a coÌ„petent Iudge in this present contest here is no nice subtlety to be speculated but plain words to be read for what plainer than to see whether in the testimonies there be any words limiting the Iurisdiction of S. Peter or whether they were onely the additions of Dr. H. antecedently or subsequently to the testimonies But what needs any Iudge to determine or decide that which Dr. H. himself hath confest here in his Reply and Answer where seeing it impossible to show any one word in all that army of Testimonies which he muster'd up there limiting S. Peters Iurisdiction to the Iews or excluding it from the Gentiles which yet was there pretended he hath recourse for his justification to the most unpardonable shift that ever was suggested by a desperate cause viz. to deny that he mean't exclusiveness of â—urisdiction that is to deny his own express words the whole tenour of his discourse there the main scope and intention of that Chapter ' and lastly to change and alter the state and face of the whole Question This is my present charge against him consisting of these foure branches which if they be proved from his own words he is judged by his own mouth and can hope for no pardon but the heaviest coÌ„demnation imaginable from all sincere Readers since it is impossible to imagin a fifth point from which he could prevaricate omitted by him and consequently his present prevarication is in the highest degree culpable and unpardonable First then his own express words manifest he mean't Exclusiveness of Iurisdiction For of Schism p. 70. he uses the very word exclusively saying that S. Peter was Apostle of the Iews exclusively to the Gentiles and that this exclusiveness was meant to be of Iurisdiction is no less expressely manifested from the following page where it is said that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction which is seconded by his express words here also Reply p. 56 the portion of one Apostle is so his that he hath no right to any other part Excludes him from any farther right c. and sure if he have no right to preach to any other Provinces he hath no Iurisdiction at all
to Cornelius a Gentile and therefore that he was not over the Iews onely or exclusively he Answers that this preaching to Cornelius was before the designation of Provinces Repl. p. 57. and therefore the argument is of no force I reply 't is S. Hierom's argument upon Gal. c. 2. v. 7. where he moves the present question in these words Occulta hic oritur quaestio Quid igitur Petrus si invenisset ex Gentibus non eos adducebat ad fidem c. here ariseth saith hee an obscure question what if Peter found any Gentiles did not he bring them to Christ's faith or if Paul found any Iews did not he move them to the baptis of Christ Then he proceeds to solve it by saying that one had principale mandatum a principall charge over Iews and the other over Gentiles that either side haberent quem sequerentur might have one whom they might follow All which the prudence of Magistrates requires to be practised without limiting Authority as hath been shown This done he signifies their promiscuous intention to preach to both and consequently their Iurisdiction for certainly they did not intend to doe what they had noe right to doe in these words In commune verò hoc eos habuisse propositi vt Christo ex cunctis gentibus Ecclesiam congregarent legimus enim à S. Petro Gentibus baptizatum fuisse Cornelium à Paulo in Synagogâ Iudaeorum Christum saepissimè praedicatum But in common this was both their intentions to gather a Church to Christ out of all nations for we read that both Cornelius a Gentile was baptized by Peter and also that Christ was very often preached by Paul in the Synagogue of the Iews Where Observe first that the very question between Dr. H. and mee is here moved by S. Hierom to wit concerning the exclusivenes or not exclusivenes of these Apostles Iurisdictions or at least for I imagin it impossible S. Hierom should even dream of such an absurd position of their acting exclusively Observe secondly that since their exclusivenes consisted onely in their meeting in the same place as Dr. H. holds There and there onely it is saith hee Rep. p. 59. l. 10. had S. Hierom been acquainted with any such matter it had been impossible not to expresse it here since the discourse it self necessarily directed him to it For how could he Answer a question about their exclusivenes without saying they had such an exclusivenes when they met if it were true that they had none at all but onely in the occasion But alas S. Hierom and all antiquity were ignorant that there would arise in future ages such a quicksighted wit as Dr. H. who could see things better a mile of then they could doe at a yard distance Oserve thirdly that it was strange he should not Answer that this particular addiction of theirs was by Apostolical agreement or Dr. H's farther designation but to put it originized from another occasion Observe fourthly that his Answer insists onely upon the principale mandatum the principall charge to apply themselves thus severally and expresses it not as an act of distinct Iurisdiction but of a prudent aeconomy that either side haberent quem sequerentur might have whom to follow to wit in their neglecting or retaining the Mosaicall institutions as is shown there since in all likely hood one side or other would totally have declined from Christ's faith had not this prudent distribution of them selves interven'd Observe fifthly that this principale mandatum in which S. Hierom places this particular application of themselves was from God both because none on earth had power to lay commands upon those tow Apostles as also because it is sufficiently intimated in the foregoing words me Paulum misit ad Gentes illum posuit in Iudaea he to wit God sent me to the Gentiles and placed him in Iudaea which being so it is expresse against Dr. H. who holds that the Commission of Authority as given by God to each Apostle is unlimited of Schism p. 70. Observe sixthly that this speciale mandatum prejudiced nor hindred not their intentions to preach to all Nations exprest by in commune verò c. and the following legimus enim c. Observe seaventhly thâ—â— S. Hierom does the same as the Cath. Gent. to wit makes account that S Peter's preaching to Cornelius a Gentile prejudices their exclusivenes soe that if Dr. H. have any thing to say against the Cath. Gent. in this point let him go and wrangle first with S. Hierom. Oserve lastly that S. Hierom bringing this passage granted by Dr. H. to have happend before his imagind agreement as an instance against their exclusivenes and that upon the 2. to the Gal. the agreement is supposed to be made shows plainly that S. Hierom made account that there was noe agreement at all made in this point or that if there were things stood in the same manner after the fancied agreement as before it otherwise this instance of his had been to noe purpose being of a passage happening long before it This Testimony of S. Hierom I at first intended onely to let Mr. H. see that this learned father made the same argument as the Cath. Gent. did but finding it the most expresse for our controversy that Antiquity affords as far as I have read since it proposes and solves the very question between us I thought good to let the reader see how far Antiquity was from Dr. H's chimericall tenet of exclusive Provinces and how perfectly for ours of the Apostles still-Vniversall Iurisdictions each expression here found being either emphaticall for us or else sounding clearly to our manifest advantage by seconding ad confirming our explication of this place and passage Sect. 9. Dr. H's manner of arguing to prove that S. Peter had no singular supremacy as hee styles it at Hierusalem NOthing is so weak but falshood which is weaknes it self can think it worth producing to strengthen it self by and as this breeds acceptance so passion and desperation forces the unfortunate Patrons of a self-ruinous cause cling to the feeblest shadows as to most substantiall proofs to underprop their weak Ivy. This is seen by pitifull experience in Dr. H. who is enamored on every toy though the passage or expression be perfectly indifferent absolutely disparate nay some times quite opposit to him so his strong antipathy against the Pope join'd with his smooth-sly art can make a quodlibeticall dish of it to please the palates of his partiall friends or unattentive Readers Each leaf of his hitherto hath given us severall instances of this true charge yet none more evidently then this present passage now to be replied upon He told us confidently of Schism p. 73. that he quite took of all pretensions of S. Peter to the singular supremacy there that is at Hierusalem where S. Iames was Bishop his Disarmer askt him and now asks him again what he meaÌ„s by singular supremacy there was ever the Pope's
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
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
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
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
in that Order This is your crime in this lies your sinfull guilt of Schism and heresy that your fact and tenet is intrinsecally destructive to the very being of God's Church and that it tears and rents it peece-meal all asunder A mischief equally pernicious to man-kind's attaining Beatitude as the renouÌ„cing the supreme Government in a Kingdome or commonwealth would bee in order to their safe enjoyment of their temporall livelihoods and therefore no waies to bee ballanced or excused by alledging temporall inconveniences since it as far ouerpoises it's excuse as Eternity of bliss does a peece of earth that is infinitely His third sort of Grounds is the weaknes of the Pope's pretences and the exemption of the Britannick Churches from forrain Iurisdiction by the Council of Ephesus For the fitst the Bp. never so much as directly mentions that in which wee place the strength of the Pope's pretence of his supreme Authority much lesse impugnes it save onely a little on the by as it were in his sleight way 't is this that it was held and deliver'd by a world of immediate fathers to sons as from their fathers so upwards as from Christ that this Authority was sacred of Christ's Institution of faith and recommended to us by the same Rule that assured us Christ was God Vpon this tenure as strongly supported as nature could bear held demonstrably evident and so shown by us not yet answer'd or pretended to bee answer'd by the Protestant party wee Ground this Doctrine of the Pope's Headship or the substance of his Authority But I fear the Bp. either understands not our tenure for otherwise sure hee would have nam'd it or else hee is impugning some Canon Lawier and the extent of the Pope's Authority in stead of impugning the Church and the substance of the said Authority As for his second trifle I have already shown Sect. 4. that the Britannick Churches have no influence upon our Churches descended from saxons nor shall hee ever show a syllable in the Council of Ephesus exempting them from the Pope's Iurisdiction as Head of the Church however Cyprus and some others are there exempted from a neighbouring superiour falsly pretending a Iurisdiction over them But of this more shall bee said hereafter in this present Section The Vnity of the Church being of such importance and the fact breaking it by consequence so hainous the alledging the greatest abuses imaginable are absolutely concluded insufficient excuses for such a fact much more unles it bee shown there were no other possible means to remedy them Hereupon I alledged that it was of little concernment to examine whether his complaints were true or false since hee does not show there was no other remedy but division First the Bishop replies sharply What is it of little concernment to examin whether the Grounds bee sufficient or no well leap't my Lord I speak of the inconsiderablenes of their truth or falshood your Lâ— talks of inconsiderablenes of their sâ—fficiency pretends against both plain words and conscience that I wave that There may bee obâ—ections against the Abuses perhaps of all Governours in the world and these also true but their truth does not infer their sufficiency for rejecting that very Government as long as they are less considerable than good of the Government it self and that there is another cure This it that in which I show'd your manner of arguing defective in the main because you never prou'd nor ever shall that there was no other remedy except division for unles you put in this and more too your argument stands in this posture True complaints against Governours whether otherwise remediable or no are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government At which position if spoke out candidly I hope you will blush though it bee perfectly your own cloak't a little in other but equivalent terms Next hee tells us it is a negative and so it belongs not to him to prove it Yes my Ld it belongs to your party or any one who rises against an actuall Authority either to show that that Authority was none or else that though it was a lawfull one yet there was no other remedy for it's Abuses but a totall Abolishment of it Otherwise the very maiesty which Government carries in it's notion the Vnity peace and a thousand blessings and conveniences which spring from that Vnity found in the common acknowledment of that Authority oversway the private credit or any other less publike concerns which the disobedient party can pretend to and render's their fact of rising irrationall and destructive to the common engaging them needlesly in a thousand distractions and by consequence hazards of ruin which attend such divisions Thirdly hee would persuade the Reader that a negative is not capable of proof or at least not so easily capable of it for answer I refer him to any boy who hath been two years at the Vniversities who will inform him that negatives may witht equall evidence bee concluded in Celarent Ferio as affirmatives may in Barbara and Darij Lastly the proof which hee proposes for his negative to show no other remedy but dares not much stick to them are both equally competent to France Spain c who yet as hee tells us in the next page in contradiction to himself here found other remedies to preserve their priviledges inviolated and his pretended proofs are such pittifull ones though on them is built the sufficiency of their motives that they evencry for mercy as soon as they show their faces They are these that the King of England could not call the Pope and his ourt to a personall account and that the Pope would not ease them upon many Adresses made what then Had not the King the sword in his own hands did it not ly in his power to right himself as hee â—isted and to admit those pretended eneroachments onely so far as hee thought iust and fitting Nay do not your self lay open and repeat in many places that not onely Kings of England but also those of all other countries both could and did do it often and by doing so preserve their priviledges inviolated How does this prove then that there was sufficient Grounds of dividing from the former Church since your self confess so often it could have been remedied otherwise Or how is it a sufficient motive to abolish an Authority for the Abuses which very pretended Abuses they had power to curb and keep within compass without dividing and so that they should not violate their priviledges Not a word then hath the Bp. brought to prove they had sufficient Grounds of division that is that there was no other remedy but in stead thereof expresly told us the contrary and manifoldly contradicted himself I added And much more if the Authority bee of Christ's Institution no iust cause can possibly â—ee given for it's abolishment The merry Bp. laughs at this as hee calls it Kind of arguing which neither looks like an Argument
truly that he was not actually and de facto under him when he had renounced his Authority and raised an Army against him He tells us moreover upon his honest word if we will believe him that the King and Bishops here had the supreme power under Christ to reiect the Pope's Authority that the Pope's power was usurp't c. and then hiding his head under these thin leaves he concludes himself perfectly safe till we make it appear that we were Governours and they faulty So that by the Doctor 's Logick a boy though undoubtedly held the son of such a Father may not be whip't by him for disobedience as long as the boy can call his mother whore and deny himself to be his Son unless the Father make it first appear that he is his Child Till you first renounced the Authority of our Supreme Governour let it be when it will you were under him and held his Children and Subjects your disobedience is most notorious and confest and that not a meer disacceptance of his commands but disallowance of his Authority yet as long as you can deny it and say the Roman-Church your then-Mother was a strumpet and had erred in Faith she may not punish nor excommunicate you without first making it appear you are her Children A solid piece of reason Observe Reader that Dr. H. in all these raw affirmations of his that not begg'd the question a jot although he be the opponent 't is his privilege to say what he will every one knows 't is his humour In a word let him either show that his reasons for renouncing that Authority are above all degrees of probability which was the proper answer or else let him confess as he must that he is evidently a Schismatick in rejecting an Authority for so many Ages acknowledg'd certain upon slight and phantastical Grounds One piece of wit I must not omit because I have heard more than one of Dr. H's Friends misled by it The Doctor affirms here Answ p. 30. l. 14. that the Pope's Authority was first cast off by Papists 'T is strange that the same men who nominate us Papists for onely acknowledging the Pop's Authority should call them also Papists who disacknowledge it But perhaps he means they were Roman-Catholicks if so then let me ask does he mean that they were of our Profession ere they renounc't it so was every one that turned Knave or Rebel an honest man and true Subject formely else he had never turn'd so but ever been so must then Knaves and Rebels impute knavery and rebellion to honest men and true Subjects and say it was they who first began those Vices or does he mean perhaps that they remain'd Catholicks after the renouncing it If his mistake be there he may right it by taking notice that such a renouncing is an Act of Schism involving heresy by corenouncing the Rule of Faith After this renouncing therefore they were Schismaticks and Hereticks not Catholicks and whatever tenets they may be pretended ro retain still were not now Faith but Opinion onely the sole certain Ground of Faith Oral Tradition being abandon'd and rejected unless the Doctor will say that they had yet Catholick Faith in them who denyed all the ground of Catholick Faith and then indeed I shall not refuse to give them leave to hold them without Ground and rank them in Dr. H's Predicament of Probablists Sect. 10. Dr. H's plea of a weak conscience common to the Prostants and any malefactour Thirteen shamefull and wilful weaknesses in answering Mr. Knot 's position that we may lawful'y forsake the Churche's Communion if she be not infallible Mr. H. begins his third Section very angrily calling mine p. 31. a perfect Romane-combate with a Wind-mil of my own erecting toward which he never contributed the least stone or timber But what if I show the Doctor that he hath contributed great mill-stones and huge logges towards the making this Wind-mill of his My affirmation was that Schism Disarm'd p. 14. he had got a new cloak for his Schism the pretence of a weak conscience citing for it his excusing words that they could not subseribe to things which their conscience tells them is false and that it is hard to say a man can lawfully subscribe in that case though the truth be on the Churche's side Hence I deduced some consequence how his doctrine excused those malefactours and their three pretended Schismaticks In answer he calls this a manifest perversion of his most innocent expressions because afterwards he sayes that such a weak-conscienc't erroneous man is in several respects crimtnous c. I reply I do not forbid him to speak contradictions for I perceive by his litle amendement he is not likely to take my friendly counsell but let us see what those places which I related to there in the Doctor gave me occasion to say and what they contributed towards this Wind-mill His first contribution is that there is nothing alledged by him where he pretends conscience in not obeying us but the very same will much better serve any malefactour so that his words may become their plea and consequently unless he gave us some distinctive sign of the goodness of his conscience above theirs his words are justly appliable to plead their cause His second is that whereas onely rigorous and convincing Evidence can excuse such a disobedience and he pretends none I ought to think his conscience erroneous and that for pleading for it he pleads for erroneous Consciences and may by the same resons plead for the other malefactours His third contribution is that since on the one side he tells us it is hard to affirm that a man in an errour may lawfully subscribe and on the other leaves no Grounds to convince him rationally for how can any man pretend to convince him or he rationally assent to be convinced by an Authority which tells him it may be mistaken this weak-conscienc'd man may consequently have a rational Ground to remain in his false opinion at least cannot be obliged to contrary belief but thanks Dr. H. heartily for pleading for his lawfull continuance in his beloved errour Or if he be scrupulous of his errour and Dr. H. afford him no perfectly-certain grounds to right it but that as he sayes here and his Grounds make good he is sure to sin which way soever he turns 't is likely Mr. H's good doctrine may make the poor fellow come straight home from the Probability-lecture take a rope hang himself This indeed were no great favour to a weak conscience His fourth contribution cap. 7. par 9. is his position of the errour in some case on the Churche's side in some places in this Chapter which very thing favours the self-conceit of every proud fellow and gives him a fine pretence to think his erroneousness lawfull in disobeying that Authority which could not oblige him in reason to believe what herself knew not but might be mistaken and erre in Nay more
down at a cheap rate Repl. p. 29. l. 27. with If Councils have any Authority for he is sure no man can possibly oppose him as long as he sayes nothing positively but keeps himself within the powerfull spell of an If. But let us see what follows if Mr. H. pleases to grant Councils any Authority then he tells us that this Authority will certainly be reducible to paternal power meaning of a Priest Bishop Metropolitan c. and this both in Provincial National and General Councils The reason he assignes for his evasion comes to this that the of fence against the whole was consequently an offence against any one there residing True but must the offence against some one Governour of which onely he treated be necessarily an offence against them all or against the whole Council otherwise what will it avail him who is not charged with omitting Schism against any particular Governour after having put that which is against the whole Church or the collection of many but quite contrary which putting down onely the Schisms against particular Governours and omitting that which was against them as collected in a Council Did ever man's Reason run counter in this manner or his insincerity so resolutely persist never to acknowledge any lapse that whereas it is as evident as noon-day that one may dissent from any one Bishop in his grounds and yet consent to the rest still he will needs prove the contrary and that the disobedience to some one sort of paternal Governour is the disobedience to all Again though a Bishop have a kind of paternal Authority over a Priest a Metropolitan over a Bishop c. and so the disobedience of these Inferiours would be against Paternal power as Dr. H. calls his first Head yet what Paternal power hath a Company of Bishops over a single Bishop or a Council consisting of three Patriarchs and five hundred Bishops over one single Patriarch It is evident then that should this Patriarch rebel against the common decrees of all the rest he could not be called a Schismatick against Paternal power and so according to Dr. H's division would be no Schismatick at all since there is no Authority there which could be said to be Paternal in respect of him himself being coequally high that is placed in the top of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy with the rest of the other Patriarchs and a Father in an Ecclesiastical sense over all the rest Their power therefore over him consists in the collective force of so many united which makes them considerable in respect of him as a whole compared to a part Now then since Dr. H cannot even pretend to have treated of a Schism against any collective power but against an Authority consisting in higher rank or degree onely 't is most evident to the most ordinary Vnderstanding that he omitted Schism against Authority of Councils After all this adoe he confesses here Rep. p. 30. that he treated not specially of Schism against General Councils that is he confesses his Division of Schism insufficient which was onely objected No I had forgot he onely goes about to give reasons why he did not treat it more specially by which pretty expression the good Reader is to be made beleeve that he had treated of it specially and onely omitted to handle it more specially whereas he purposely and professedly waved the handling it at all in this Controversy as is to be seen Of Schism p. 60. Ad now so exquisite is his shuffling art after he had labour'd to produce proofs that he did treat of Schism against Councils he brings his excuses why he did not doe it ibid. First because Councils were remedies of Schism But since they remedied them authoritatively and with such an Authority as in comparison of any one degree of power by him treated was as it were of an Vniversal in respect of a particular the Schism against them was by consequence proportionably or rather improportionably greater and so deserved in all right an eminent place of it 's own in his division Next because they are extraordinary and not standing Iudicatures I answer they are likewise of an extraordinary Authority as hath been shown and therefore could not merit to be slighted by him His third is because this was not a constant sort of Schism but upon accidental emergencies That is his treatise of Schism doth not absolutely forbid a man to be a Schismatick in an higher sort of Schism so it happen upon occasion but takes care first and more specially that he be not a Schismatick in one of those constant sorts of Schism though it be of far less guilt His fourth excuse as I reckon them is because they are now morally impossible to be had Very good his Church is accused by us of Shism against General Councils already past and Dr. H. in this book entitled their Defence therefore treats not particularly of Schism against them because they are morally impossible to be had at present and for the future though towards the end of the world he thinks it probable there may be one Of which divination of his I can give no better reason than this that Antichrist who is to be then the Vniversal secular Governour and by consequence according to Mr. H's grounds the Head of God's Church or Supreme in Ecclesiastical affaires will doe Christianity that favour as to gather a General Council This I say if any must be his meaning for the reason given by him here why they are now morally impossible to be had is because the Christian world is under so many Empires and when they are likely to be united into one towards the end of the world unless it be under Antichrist I confess my self unable to prognosticate His last excuse is Repl. p. 31. l. 2. because the Principal sort of Schism charged by the Romanists is the casting out the Bishop of Rome I answer that we charge not the Protestant with a simple Schism but a decompound one involving also heresy in each of it's parts First with a Schism from the whole Church in renouncing the Rule and Root of all our Faith Vniversal Oral Tradition of immediate Fore-fathers and by consequence separating themselves from the whole Body of the Faithful as Faithful next with renouncing the Authority of Councils proceeding upon this Ground in declaring things of Faith and lastly with not onely disobeying but disacknowleding the Authority of the Pope recommended to us by both the former And it seems strange that Mr. H. should goe about to clear the sufficiency of his division by recurring to our charging or not charging of Schism whereas he has not taken notice of any of these three Schisms charged against him but onely of petty ones against the Paternal power of a Bishop Patriarch c. which may be consistent with a guiltlesness from the other three principal ones He promised us in his Answer p. 8. 9. that he had rescued the Catholick Gentleman 's letter
from the strangling in the birth by the Printer's miscarriages yet gives it here a privy courteous-discourteous pinch by putting the Printer's mistake of conciliatory for conciliary to be the Cath. Gentl. pleasure to call it so pag 31. l. 10. 11. This done he objects that this conciliary Authority cannot with any propriety be said to be in the dispersion of the Churches Nor did the Cath. Gentl. say it was properly so called it sufficeth us if it be equivalent as doubtless it is For a private Bishop or Patriarch is no otherwise a Schismatick against them gathered together than in dissenting from the joynt-expression of their votes if then their votes be sufficiently exprest and testify'd either by communicatory letters or some other equally-certain way while they live dispersed why should not the opposing his consent of theirs be equally a Schism as when they are united But Schism against this Authority of theirs Mr. H. sayes parag ult is most properly comprised under the Head of Communion Fraternal treated by him Chap. 8. 9. 10. and there called Schism against mutual Charity Not considering that in the Church there must be unity in the Vnderstandings of the Faithful in a general rule of Faith as well as of their Wills in mutual Charity the former also of which belongs to them more particularly as they are Sons of the Church that is Faithfull and consequently there may be several breaches of those two Vnities so that certainly he must be a very proper man in the art of method who can think that a Schism or breach of the former is most properly comprised as he sayes here under that latter yet this method Dr. H. will vindicate as indeed he may doe any thing after his manner See his confusion for method sake Schism Disarm'd p. 230. To these former objections now rehearsed he at least pretends an Answer such as it is but to other exceptions sufficiently layd home to him Schism Disarm'd p. 32. 33. he thought it safest to give none at all He was asked there and I ask him here again why he omitted Schism against the Head of God's Church He cannot avoid by saying that this is not charg'd upon them it being as he here confesses the principal Schism objected p. 31. l. 2. 3. Will he say it is an usurpation Let him hold a while till he hath proved it and in the mean time let him tell us how hainous a Schism it is to renounce it without legitimate proof Secondly he was ask't why to state things indifferently he treated not of Schism against the Head of the Church as abstracted from an Ecclesiastical Governour the Pope and a Secular Magistrate the King Emperour c. for sure the disobeying or renouncing this Head must needs be a greater Schism than that which is against those reckon'd up by him who are all under this Head Lastly he was ask't why he treated not at least of Schism against the Secular-Ecclesiastical Head King Emperour c. and let us know what kind of Schismaticks we are for renouncing his Authority in Ecclesiastical matters His jurisdiction according to Mr. H. is supreme in such affaires since then the disobeying or rejecting any Authority takes it's measure of faultiness from the excellency of the Authority it opposes he ought to have let us know that we were supremely in the highest manner Schismaticks for denying the King 's Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction But alas this aiery Supremacy of Kings in sacred matters is such an addle piece of Ecclesiasticall Authority that though they pretend it to avoid the Pope's Iurisdiction yet as it appeares they decline to own it themselves as much as they can upon occasions lest coming to a controversial discussion it bewray it's weakness by the absurdity of some necessary consequence or other issuing from it Iustly therefore did Schâ—sm Disarm'd casting up the account of Mr. H's Division of Schism p. 34. charge him to have omitted the three principal Schisms against Government and those not onely principal in themselves but also solely importing the present controversy and onely mentioning those which were not objected and so nothing at all concerning the question Sect. 15. With what success Dr. H. goes about to retrench the Roman Patriarchy and to vindicate Ruffinus THe next question which comes to be discussed is of the extent of the Roman Patriarchy which the Cath. Gentl. show'd Dr. H. willing to limit from a word in Ruffinus so that it should not be extended to all Italy That this is the question is evident both by bringing Ruffinus his testimony upon the stage who acknowledg'dly spoke of Patriarchal Iurisdiction as also by Dr. H's words in his Reply p. 33. l. 2. and again p. 34. l 4. 5. To avoid the Doctors blundring art in which he is very exquisite alwayes but in handling this question hath excell'd himself we will clear the way towards the deciding it by premising these few notes First it is agreed upon between us that the Metropolitical power is distinct from the Patriarchal and of Schism p. 54. l. 19. 20. and p. 56. l. 5. 6. 7. of a less Authority and extent Next it is affirmed by Dr. H. of Schism p. 55. that the Authority of the Bishop was correspondent to the Defensor Civitatis that of the Arch-Bishop or Metropolitan to the President of every Province that of a Patriarch to the Liâ—utenant or Vicarius and in general that the Ecclesiastical Order follow'd the Political This I onely take notice of as an affirmation of his not granting it to be universally true nor doth he prove it was so otherwise than by Origen's saying It is fit it should be so For the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon where this was determin'd were held long after this Order in the Ecclesiastical Iurisdictions in Constantine's time of which he speaks here and so their testimonies rather prejudice it than prove it for had it been so universally practiced before what need was there of ordering it by following Councils These things being so as is most evident and undeniable let us see how incomparably Dr. H. blunders in this question His first and fundamental blundering is that he would conclude against the extent of the Patriarchal power by impugning the farther extent of he Metropolitical whose Authority notwithstanding he acknowledged higher his Iurisdiction larger as the second note shows Now that he indeed impugned a Metropolitical power onely in stead of a Patriarchal is manifested both because he impugnes this latter in the 17. parag ordained to treat of Metropolitical power onely his treating of Primates and Patriarchs not beginning till parag 21. as is most visible to the Reader 's eyes which Dr. H. would yet delude as also because himself confesses it of Schism p. 50. l. 18 19. So that he would conclude against the Patriarchal power which himself granted to extend to many Provinces of Schism p. 56. l. 6. by arguing against Metropolitical which himself granted to extend but to
one of Schism p. 55. l. 22. 23. and 26. and so infer the no-farther extent of the former out of the no-farther extent of the latter after he had acknowledg'd the former of much farther extent than the latter was Is not this a most shameful and unconscionable sleight to mingle and jumble two Authorities together for his own ends in that very Chapter where he pretended to treat of them distinctly His next manifold blundering is to bring testimonies which he tells the Reader here Rep. p. 32. 33. manifestly distinguish't the Province of the Bishop of Rome from the Province of Italy which he assures us could not have had truth in them if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy and yet not one word is found in any of the testimonies making mention of the Patriarchy nor yet of the Province of the Bishop of Rome at all nay the three first onely mention the City of Rome The first is this as cited by himself Rep p. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the house be delivered to those to whom the Bishop through Italy and the City of Rome should decree it The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The holy Synod assembled from Rome and Spain France and Italy The third foure hundred Bishops both from great Rome and from all Italy and Calabria Now suppose insisting on the Grounds of mine own cause I should onely reply that they mention'd Rome in particular for eminency of Authority not contradistinction of it were it not a thousand times more likely on my side there being no City particulariz'd but this in the testimonies for all the rest are Regions or Provinces Again were the testimonies most express for the Roman Province yet if Mr. H. mean't honestly that is to speak of the Metropolitical Iurisdiction onely as he pretended and as the place properly required then what had he concluded since the proving the Metropolical Iurisdiction less than all Italy proves not that the Patriarchal reach't not much farther But to come home to the testimonies that the Reader may see what a strong disputant Dr. H. is in his own way I would gladly ask who told him that the City of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The City Great Rome as it is in the testimonies must needs signify so manifestly the whole Province of Rome So that if he infer a Contradistinction and so a limitation of Iurisdiction from these words he must conclude that neither the Metropolitical nor Patriarchal Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome reach't beyond it's own walls which being acknowledg'dly impossible it is impossible these testimonies should mean a distinction of the Bishop of Rome's Authority from Italy but an Eminency of his Dignity which occasion'd his particular mentioning Thus the very testimonies which he produced against us will needs speak for us notwithstanding his prompting them to the contrary The fourth Testimony ex provinciâ Italiae Civitate Mediolanensi ex Vrbe Roma quod Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provinciâ Romanâ Civitate Portuensi c. is indeed a fit testimony for Dr. H. to blunder in being not intelligible in the Latin and as he cannot but know very corrupt especially being held for such in naming the Bishops which met there And were it beyond exception yet is it very explicable to mean the Pop'es Metropolitical Iurisdiction never so much as naming his Patriarchal His third blundering is his self-contradiction a necessary evil accompanying always the defence of a bad cause All his endeavours hitherto had been bent to limit the Pope's Patriarchy to a particular Province of Italy building still all the way upon the necessity that the Ecclesiastical Order should follow the Political yet treating of Primates and Patriarchs of Schism p. 54. he gives such doctrine as upon the same grounds must needs conclude that the said Patriarchy did extend to all Italy He tells us there that Constantine the great instituted four Praefecti Praetorio two in the East as many in the West of the Western one at Rome another at Triers Now then let the Ecclesiastical Order as Mr. H. will have it follow the Political and we must have some Ecclesiastical Governour at Rome of equally-extended and correspondent Authority to the Praefectus Praetorio at Rome that is to all Italy at least This could not be as he confesses Metropolitical Authority in the Bishop of Rome therefore a Patriarchal one The Pope's Patriarchy then even according to his own Grounds included all Italy nay all the West except that part which the pretended Patriarch of France must be imagin'd upon the same Grounds to have had And since the Praefect at Triers was called of Schism p. 54. Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum as Dr. H. confesses consequently to his Grounds it must follow that the Ecclesiastical power corresponding to this Political must have onely France under him the other at Rome all the West besides So that at unawares though he will not grant his Patriarchy to extend to the whole West which is his due yet Mr. H's own grounds grant the Pope all but France which is ten times more than the Suburbicarian Province his former too niggardly allowance If he reply that the Patriarchal power corresponds to the Vicarij onely and not to that of the Praefecti Praetorio then besides that all his Grounds of the necessary proportion of the Ecclesiastical to the Secular power totter which hold not in the main subordinate Magistrate to wit the Praefectus Praetorio to whom he will have no Ecclesiastical dignity correspond besides this I say his foresaid testimony of Origen cited for him Reply 14. is absolutely against him So sad a piece of Scholarship it is to cite Testimonies without first laying Grounds which onely can make testimonies hang together Out of which it is evident that all the strength of his pretended limitation of the Pope's Patriarchy is finally reduced to that Authority from Ruffinus Now then as for Ruffinus his testimony saying that the Bishop of Rome was by the Nicene Canon authoriz'd Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerere this being the main business which occasion'd this debate and gave birth to this imagin'd limitation of the Pope's Patriarchate we shall take a litle pains to fetch it from it's first Grounds by showing the sense of that Canon by which will be seen how great a knave this Paraphrast was whom Dr. H. pretends to vindicate The words of the Council upon which this Interpreter works are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which I cannot imagin a sense more proper than this that the Bishops of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria because the Pope had used to hold them for so The reason of my conjecture is because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quandoquidem manifests that the words following are the reason of the Decree precedent This being so who sees not how
that Authority not the want of Authority it self The second Testimony that they which are excommunicated by some shall not be received by others is the onely place in this Section most likely to infer the Doctor 's Conclusion that the Popes is not Supreme which indeed it does most amply if taken in it's whole latitude and extent but withall the Doctor must confess that if it be taken so it utterly destroys all Government and his former testimony from the Milevitan Council to boot For if those words be universally true then it is unlawful for a Priest to appeal from his Bishop to an Arch-Bishop Primate or Provincial Council granted in the said testimony which takes away all Authority in a Superiour over the Acts and Decrees of an Inferiour and by consequence all Government Now then since the said testimony which indeed was mean't of the Appeals of Priests and so is already answerd'd cannot serve him unless taken in it's full extent nor can it be taken so whitout subverting all Ground of Government it follows that it cannot serve him at all nor prejudice us Again since it cannot be taken as denying Appeals from Subordinate to Superiour Governours universally Mr. H's grounds must make it conclude against us by making it signify a denial of Appeals to Coequals in Authority onely Wherefore all it's force is built on this supposition that the Pope is not Superiour but coequal onely to a Patriarch so that his Argument is epitomiz'd into this pithy piece of sense as true as the first Principles which he must suppose to make this proof valid that the Pope not being Head of the Church is not Head of the Church and then all is clearly evidenced The third testimony We entreat you that you would not easily admit those to your Communion who are excommunicated by us is so far from gain-saying the Pope's power that the very expressions of which it is fram'd are rather so many acknowlegdments of it being onely a request not that he would not receive their Appeals or admit them at all much less that he could not but onely that he would not admit them easily that is without due and mature examination of the cause Now who sees not that an humble desire that he would not doe it easily intimates or supposes he had a power to doe it absolutely This is confirm'd by their subjoyning as the reason of their request not because the Pope had no power to admit others but because the Council of Nice had so decreed knowing that it was a strong motive for them and an obligation in the Supreme Governour to conserve the Laws of the Church inviolate unless Evidence that in these Circumstances it crost the common good licenc't him to use his extraordinary Authority in that Extremity and to proceed now not upon Laws but upon the dictates of Nature the Ground and Rule of all Laws So perfectly innocent to our cause are all the testimonies of weight alledged by Mr. H. against it if they be left to themselves and not inspired with malice by the bad meaning he will needs instill into them against their own good nature The fourth testimony is stil like Dr. H. as he maintains a bad cause that is incomparably weak and short of concluding any thing 'T is this that the Bishops of every Nation must account the Primate their Head What then is not a Parish-Priest Head of a Parish a Bishop Head of his Diocese an Arch-Bishop Head of his Arch-Bishoprick as well as a Primate Head of his Primacy Does it then follow from a Bishops being Head of the Priests in his Diocese that there is no degree of Authority Superiour to his yet this apply'd to a Primate is all Dr. H's argument to prove none higher than he But it is pretty to observe in what strange words he couches his inference from hence which saith he Repl. p. 40. sure infers that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely Head of all Bishops Observe that canting phrase one onely Head c His intent here manifestly was to show no degree of Authority Superiour to Patriarchs to prove this he alledges this testimony now agitated and then because he saw it would not carry home to the mark be aymed it at he infers warily that the Pope is not the one onely Head of all Bishops By which expression he prepares an evasion beforehand when the inconsequence of his discourse from the said testimony shall be obâ—ected or else would persuade the unwary Reader that we hold the Pope so Head of the the Church as that we admit not Primates to be Head of the Bishops under them Whereas our tenet is that as Primates are immediate Heads of the Metropolitans so the Pope is Head or Superiour over Primates and by consequence Supreme over the whole Church yet so Supreme as he leaves to Subordinate Governours their Headship inviolate over their proper Inferiours Thus much to his Testimonies concerning Appeals His other manner of arguing against the Pop'es Supremacy or his being a summum genus is from names and titles deny'd him The first testimony is from Decret part 1. dist 99. cap. 3. that Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum vel summus Sacerdos that the Bishop of the first Seat ought not to be called Prince of the Priests or Supreme Priest which the African Council confirms with aut aliquid eiusmodi sed tantum primae sedes Episcopus The second is from the same place cap. 4. Nec â—â—iam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus The third from the Epistle of Pope Pelagius Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur c. No Patriarch must use the title of Vniversal for if one Patriarch be called Vniversal the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest The fourth is their thred-bare and often answered testimony of Saint Gregory refusing the title of Vniversal Bishop But first these testimonies come short of what they are intended for in this that none speaks of the right of Iurisdiction but onely of names and titles as appears by the words appelletur appellandus Vniversalitatis vocabulo superbae appellationis verbum in the testimonies which denote no exception against any Authority but against the titular expression of it onely which sounded proudly and seem'd inconvenient and new at that time Secondly it is a great weakness in understanding the nature of words not to advert that the vogue of the world altering from plainess to complementalness as it does stil daily the same word may be used without fear of pride at one time which could not at another nay the same thing may be fitly signify'd by some word at some time which cannot be signify'd by the same at another as for example Tyrannus once was proper for a King ruling according to law and right which now is not competent but to him who rules arbitrarily against both or rather indeed once it signify'd a power
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
same towards the Gentiles Where nothing is or can be more evident then this that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there spoken of was the self same as was exprest by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the self-same efficacy of preaching which nothing concerns equality or superiority of power or command in order to Government as plain sence tells every man and Dr. H. himself grants Answ p. 51. l. 26. The fourth testimony or rather the second part of the first is still from S. Amb. which as the Caspian sea runnes under ground a long way and then rises up again in the Euxine sculks under a parenthesis in which the two late Testimonies are found and shows it's Head again at the end of it in this form Ita tamen vt Petrus praedicaret Gentibus si causa fuisset Paulus Iudaeis nam vterque invenitur vtrumque fecisse sed tamen plena authoritas Petro in Iudaismi praedicatione data agnoscitur Pauli perfecta authoritas in praedicatione gentium invenitur yet so that Peter might preach to the Gentiles also if there were cause and Paul to the Iews for both of them is found to have done both but yet the full Authority is acknowledged given to Peter in the preaching to the Iews and Paul's perfect Authority is found in preaching to the Gentiles Where the first part of the testimony is expressely contrary to Dr. H. this granting that each might preach to either he denying they had right to doe so Repl. p. 56. and that S. Peter had no Iurisdiction save over one portion onely of the dispersed Iews of Schism p. 71. The second part of it which concerns plena authoritas full Authority or power is onely meant of greater powerfulness and authoritative efficacity in preaching not of fuller power of Iurisdiction Noâ— can it be otherwise either proceeding upon grounds common to us both these words being the explication or comment upon the greater efficacity of preaching spoken of in the 8. v. and so are to be understood to mean that said efficacy which none imagins to signify Iurisdiction and particularly upon Dr. H's grounds which makes no designation of Provinces till the agreement exprest as he will needs have it in the 9. v. by their giving the right hands of fellowship to which this speciall efficacity of preaching mention'd in the 8. v. and it 's exposition are antecedent Again suppose it signified full power of Iurisdiction yet there wants when they met in the same City onely to make it expresse for Mr. H's tenet So that neither can it concern our question of Iurisdiction nor did it could it reach home to Dr. H's purpose Lastly to render this place impossible to serve Dr. H's turn let us look Answ p. 51. l. 26. and we shall find him expressely contend that preaching or converting is nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction and therefore not argumentatiue for us to infer S. Peter's larger Iurisdiction from his preaching to more Now then since the Authority here spoken of is onely in praedicatione in preaching as the testimony it self inform us consequently it can neither concern our question which is about Iurisdiction nor make for his purpose and all this follows out of his own words and his own grounds The fifth Testimony is from S. Hierom as hee tells us that the Churches of the Iews seorsim habebantur nec his quae erant ex gentibus miscebantur were held a part nor mingled with these of the Gentiles and that the agreement was made that S. Paul should preach to the Gentiles Peter Iames and Iohn to the Iews The latter part of this testimony is already answered and shown that this was a prudent consent to act in such sort as God's speciall concurrence had manifested to be best in those circumstances To act I say not to make a formall and perpetuall pact the one Province should be as Dr. H. expresses it Repl. p. 56. l. 2. 5. so one Apostles that he hath no right to another part but is excluded from any farther right which includes two things besides some to go one way and some another to wit perpetuâ—ty of such a right and exclusivenes neither of which are any where exprest in this testimony As for the first part of this place concerning the severing of the Iewish and Gentile Churches First I Answer that I doubt not but the Apostles did prudently let them vse their devotions a part as long as the Iewish customes were in fresh observation and therefore the conjuction of them in common Acts of devotion would have been subject to breed offence and scandalls but I deny absolutely that which can serve Dr. H's turn to wit that they â—sed their endeavours to keep them still a part for the future which they had done had they constituted distinct Bishops over them to govern them as contradistinct Provinces for this would have made the breach which was onely occasionall at first and so easily by degrees alterable passe into ecclesiasticall Constitution not easily violable by this means keeping on foot the division and also this carriage of the Apostles would have countenanced the breach and the groundless scandall which occasion'd the breach All therefore the Apostles did was no more then as if Magistrates who govern in common a City if the Citizens chance to fall at variance some prudently comply with one side others with the other to reduce both to unity ad amity which is far from making two litle commoÌ„wealths of them or assigning them distinct Magistrates to govern them which had they done who sees not but by taking a way the Vnity of Government they had establisht the division Such was evidently the Apostles demeanour here such their intentions to wit as much as they could without scandalizing either party to bring them to Vnity and Vniformity into one Church and to Vnite them in him whom they taught to be the head corner-stone Christ Iesus in whom was no distinction of Iew and Gentile And surely had the distraction in the Primitive Church been thus coÌ„tinued by Apostolicall agreemeÌ„t to sever them as distinct Provinces and constitute over them opposite-litled Bishops we should both have heard news of â—ome of those Bishops exprest by some testimony from antiquity to have been over Iews onely or Gentiles onely and also have heard of their reuniting after wards under one common Bishop and how the former Bishops either one or both were dispossest or lost their place Yet not a syllable could Dr. Hammond find to expresse the former save his own Id est nor to countenance the latter but his own new invented Scholion or as he calls it of Schism p 79. his clew to extricate the Reader out of the mazes into which antient writers may lead him as hath been shown particularly in Schism Disarm'd Part. 1. Sect. 10. 11. 12. Secondly to return to our Testimony Dr. H. prettily ioyns these two places together thus S. Hierom having affirmed on Gal. 1.
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
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
and not what the many-senc'd or rather indeed the noe senc'd Dictionary interpretation of two single words give them a possibility to signify Neither let Mr. H. think to excuse him self that he argues ad hominem in alledging these words and soe it imports not his cause at all what the Epistle it self sayes since he builds not upon it himself nor allows it's Authority for still as long as 't is shown that he imposes upon that Epistle and it's Author a sence which he knew they never intended he can never avoyd the note of insincerity and by how much the thing it self is more unlikely that the Authoritie wee alledge for us should be clearly against us as he sayes or the fell same Epistle contradict it self by soe much 't is a far more shamefull rashnes and an affected precipitation in him to pretend it and object it unles upon most evident and unavoidable grounds Sect. 14. Dr. H's trick to evade bringing some Testimony to confirm his own Wee know His two-edg'd argument to concluâ—e against S. Peter's supermacy both from Exclusivenes and not Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction IN the beginning of his fifth Section Dr. H. who was soe rarely skillfull in the art of memory as to contradict himself neere a dozen times in one point as hath been shown Part. 2. Sect. 4. is now on a suddain become Master of it and undertakes to teach'it S. W. whose memory alas as hee sayes is frail But ere my Master gives me my lesson he reprehends me first very sharply for my ill memory calling it my predominant fault and that railing is but my blind to keep it from being descry'd nay moreover this modest man who falsifies or corrupts every thing he medles with is angry with me that I doe not blush Expect Reader some great advantage gain'd against mee which can move this Preacher of patience to this passion who in the beginning of his book soe like a saint profess'd his readines to turn the other cheak to him who should strike him on the right To avoid mistakes on my part and cauills on mine Adversaries I shall put down both our words and appeal to the Readers eyes His were these of Schism p. 74 Thus wee know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted the Iews and S. Paul the Gentiles And what it was which Dr. H. in the plurall number Wee as became his Authority knew to be thus he exprest in the immediatly foregoing words to wit that whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same Citie the one constantly apply'd himself to the Iews received Disciples of such formed them into a Church left them when he departed that region to bee govern'd by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles This is that Reader which Dr. H. knew to have bâ—en thus at Antioch This is also the place Reply p. 57. when all els fail'd him he stood to as a sufficient expression of his exclusive tenet of those Apostles Iurisdictions Now my words Schism Disarm p. 62. upon his Thus wee knew it was at Antioch c were these That his first testimony was his own knowledge Thus wee know c. but that he put down no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one of his wee know which yet had been requisite that wee might have known it too And this was all What railing words the Dr. find's here which should make him complain so hainously I know not unles it were that I calld the testimony of his own knowledg weak and indeed if this be railing despaire of learning more courtesie till Dr. H. by growing wiser teach me it But my predominant fault of an ill and frail memory for which shame must make change colour is this that I said he put no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one of his Wee know yet afterwards set down two testimonies of that of which I lately denyed any If hee means such things as he produced for testimonies I set down indeed the very next Section not onely two but ten of them But if he means such testimonies as I exprest my self to deny there that is such as did confirm his own Thus wee know I am soe far from blushing at it that I still make him this bold profer that if amongst all the following testimonies there be found any one word confirming his own Thus wee know and what it relates to that is making S. Peter's Authority exclusive to the Iews and S. Paul's to the Gentiles when they met at the same City but what himself adds of his own head I will yeld him the whole controversy Nor let him tell me what he fancies to bee deduced thence but what the testimonies themselv's expresse the deductions are his the words onely are the testimonies let him show me any one exclusive word in any one testimony and I professe before all the world that I will not onely pardon him the impertinency of the rest but alsoe grant him all Iudge now Protestant Reader who hath most cause to blush examine well if ever thou heardst such a challenge made to any writer yet extant and not accepted of and then see to what a trifler thou trustest for thy salvation who in steed of replying to the purpose and showing thee those exclusive words tells his Adversary that it is a predominant fault in him to chalenge him that he had never a testimony to confirm his own Wee know and then seing himself unable to show any thinks to evade by telling his challenger he ought to blush for his frail memory whereas he should rather have blam'd him for his bad understanding and bad eyes neither apprehending nor seeing a word in any testimony to that purpose In answer to his pretended testimonies I noted Schism Disarm p. 63. that they affirmed no more but the founding the Church of Antioch by Peter and Paul which might be done by their promiscuous endeavours without distinction much lesse exclusion of Authority and Iurisdiction Dr. H. answers here 't is true this was possible and if it had been true had manifestly prejudged S. Peter's singular Iurisdiction and clearly joynd Paul socially with him It is impossible to gett a positive word of sence from this man first he will never willingly use the common words which expresse the question between us as chief in Authority amongst the Apostles their Head Prince c. but as before he used the ambiguous phrase of S. Peter's having noe singular supremacy at Hierusalem soe now he recurr's to singular Iurisdiction at Antioch which being doublesenc'd if wee take it in one he will be sure to evade hereafter by taking it in another Secondly let us suppose him to mean honestly that is to intend by it that S. Peter was not higher in Authority of Government than S. Paul as the question determines it let us observe how this quodlibeticall reasoner argues his whole intent was to conclude against S. Peter's
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-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
oppose us at all since not onely reason grants it but our own eyes evident experience attest it that either of them may be immediate Bishops over severall particular flocks and yet with this it may be easily consistent that one of those may be superior in Authority to the other as we see in a Bishop an Arch-Bishop an Arch-Bishop a Primate Hence appears that the being Bishops at Rome both at once which proof the Dr. most relies upon as that whose force it is not possible to divert neither concludes the one was over Iews onely the other over Gentiles for which hee produced it nor yet that one of them was not Superiour to the other But to return to my Aduersary's Answer Another agreable testimony of Dr. H's which as he told us candidly before were not proofs that is proved nothing is that the Scripture affirms of S. Paul that he preached at Rome in his owne hired house receiving them that came vnto him Act. 28. 30. which will most fitly be apply'd to the Gentiles of that City the Iews having solemnly departed from him v. 29. Thus he of Schism p. 78. I reply'd though such a saples trifle required none that there was no such word as solemnly in the testimony upon which onely he grounds He answers here p. 52. that he cited not the word solemnly from that verse as any part of the sacred Text. I ask why then did he put the word solemnly which is not found there in the same letter with departed which is found there and immediately cite v. 29. It was his insincere common trick I glanced at and 't is this that he omits the words of Scripture themselves either confounds the two letters promiscuously or else puts his own the Scriptures words equally in the common letter and then immediately cytes the place for it without intimating at all that 't is his owne deduction onely from that place but by the whole carriage of it gulling the unwary Reader that all is pure Scripture to which he subjoyns his insincere citation relating us to a place where the most important words are wanting Next he goes about to prove the solemnity of their departure from other verses in the same Chapter I ask what is this to the pretence that their solemne departure was found v. 29. which hee cited for it I deny'd not the solemnity of reprehension expâ—est to the unbeleeving Iews in other verses but onely that there was any solemnity of departure exprest in that verse for read the whole place we finde not a word of any resolution in them to come no more much lesse of any resolution in S. Paul not to preach to them wheresoever he found them in other places which nevertheles was that which Dr. H. should have show'd and indeed nothing but an ordination of God that his law should be preach't to Gentiles First then the words of solemn reprehension The heart of this people is waxen grosse and their ears dull of hearing are impossible to be apply'd to the Iews which believed as is exprest v. 24. we have therefore no ground hence of any solemnity of departure in order to them Secondly S. Chrysostome whom he cites here for this point onely says as he puts him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they agreed not they departed that is they not believing forsook him where 't is plain he speaks expresly of the unbeleeving not of the beleeving and yet plainer fâ—om what Dr. H. puts after wards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those words of Scripture he apply'd to them upon their unbelief Now since S. Chrysostome speaks of those to whom S. Paul apply'd the words of Scripture these are impossible to be apply'd to the Iews which v. 24. beleeved it is equally impossible his words should be appliable to the beleeving Iews Thirdly grant he had solemnly reprehended the innocent beleeving Iews also was it not possible for them to return after such a dismission nor for S. Paul to apply himself again to them nay was it not possible this might have been don even to the unbeleevers themselves I am sure the Texts says nothing to the contrary for to this purpose I instanced Schism Disarm p. 74. that Act. 13. 46. both Paul Barnabas told the Iews boldly that they would turn to the Gentiles departed more solemnly shaking of the dust of their feet v. 51. and yet they afterwards preach't many times to the Iews as is to be seen in the Acts. By which I onely could mean that this greater vehemency solemnity of their departure hinder'd them not yet from applying themselves to the Iews for the future But my acute Adversary takes it as if I expected the self-same shaking of the dust of their shoes at Rome also and having given his reasons concludes that therefore this ceremony was not now seasonable A very seasonable and pertinent Answer Now as for the beleeving Iews remaining with S. Paul he answers this with If 's and expects I should produce Evidence against them Is not this a gallant disputant when his argument is shown to be weak he under props it with a lame If and then tels his Aduersary he must supply his turn and argue because he alas is weary hath already done his best can stretch no further Yet he grants that those Iews which beleeved if they continued became a part of S. Paul's caetus and allows it possible that some Gentiles might be in S. Peter's instancing himself in Clemens Now then I would ask if this be so how many Iews S. Paul might convert govern and how many S. Peter some he says here is no prejudice to his tenet I would know then what be the stints limits of this number of heterogeneus converts beyond which their Iurisdiction might not passe or why they should be so partiall as to admit some send away others who came to them with the same desire to hear Christ's doctrine Again I would ask what the Iewish converts vnder S. Paul should do in case they hap to take a toy against the Gentiles for eating a peece of Pork Dr. H's grounds in this case interdicts them all Communion conversation According to his doctrine S. Peter must have two altogether-uncoÌ„nected Churches under him a greater one of Iews a lesser of Gentiles and S. Paul on the other side a vast Church of Gentiles a smaller kind of a Chappell of Iews And thus Dr. H's former agreable discourse neither agrees with any thing els nor it self neither since the same difficultie occurs here as if each Apostle had preach't promiscuously indifferently both to Iews Gentiles since each must be over two Congregations if the Iews hapt to be too zealous for Moses his law aswell as in the other case of preaching to both which he so much strove to evade â—ould by no means admit Sect. 21. How Dr. H. vindicates his Falsification of S. Ignatius by committing another His formerly
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
should be really and properly to judge and preside over them so it is equally a madnes to pretend that the Apostles life time and not the day of â—udgment is signified here really and properly since the word it self not necessarily denoting it this interpretation is onely built upon the applicablenes of the circumstant expressions which being all mysticall and improper cannot make it proper and literall but mysticall and improper onely Thou seest then Protestant Reader to wâ—â—t rare Drs thou entrustest thy hopes of salvation who either bring Testimonies for their tenet which is most expressively against them when the Author speaks literally or els dogmatize upon a mysticall sence and pretend 't is mean't really Which method were it follow'd there is no such contradictions in the world but might be made rare truths The testament given in Mount sina would be really a woman and â—gar Abraham's handmaid Gal. 4. v. 25. Christ's doctrine would be reall corne preaching would be reall sowing men would bee in reality meere vegetables the good wheat by bad tares Heaven nothing in reality but a barn the Angels would be really reapers and sweaty tann'd country-drudges with sickles rakes and forks in their hands preaching loding into carts driving home and unloading into this barn mens Souls by Dr. H's learned Metamorphosis far out-vying Opid's turn'd really into meere Vegetables and so many grains of wheat These and millions of others perhaps greater absurdities might an Atheist object to Christianity and make it the most ridiculous absurdity nay the perfectest madnes that ever abus'd the world by interpreting mysticall things really that is by following Dr. H's method here who out of a place evidently mysticall and so exprest by the Author deduces dogmatically as a reall truth that the promise was made for twelve reall and properly called thrones for each Apostle to siâ— on one to rule and preside in the Church in the Apostles time And were it worth the pains to looke for the omitted place in S. Austin I doubt not but wee should finde it of the same mysticall strain in some Homily or other for he writ no comments upon S. Mathew that I know of from whence wee may certainly expect such a literall explication Sect. 5. How Dr. H. goes about to prove the donation of equall power from the Descent of the Holy Ghost and from fathers by an heap of weaknesses contradâ—ction of his own calumnies of our tenet forgâ—ries of his Advers ary's sence and words denying his own avoydings to answer and other shuffling impertinencies IT follows in Dr. H. of Schism p. 88. in the half-side of a leaf parenthesis and when that promise to wit of twelve Episcopall thrones was finaâ—ly performed in the descent of the Spirit Act. 2. the fire that represented that Spirit was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sate upon every one of them without any peculiar mark allow'd S. Peter and they were all filld ' with the Holy Ghost and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all Observe Reader these words particularly and then I an confident if thou knowst what Controversy is thou with pity me for being task to answer such a dreamer Here is not a word here which even seems to make against us but these without any particular mark allow'd to S. Peter and the having the Holy Ghost equally neither of which are or can be prov'd by any man living for who can see man's heart or know in what degree he hath the Holy Ghost but God onely or who can tell us now that S. Peter had no peculiar mark or greater tongue of fire than the rest as the wise Dr. pretends and builds upon nothing being recorded either pro or con concerning that impertinent curiosity Nor can these ridiculous arguments seem in the least sort to make against S. Peter's higher Authority and our tenet but by supposing Dr. H's false and weak principle to bee true that none can be higher in Authority but he must necessarily have more of the Holy Ghost in him As for all the other words they nothing at all concern our purpose or impugn our present tenet since wee hold that each Apostle had the promise made had a performance of that promise that the fiery tongues sate on every of them c. And as for his saying that this promise of twelve thrones was finally performed in the descent of the Holy Ghost though it be most miserably weak as shall be shown yet it nothing at all impugns us inducing onely that each Apostle had power in the Church which wee voluntarily grant To answer these phantastick toyes the better I will take the whole peece a sunder into propositions and impugn them singly The first proposition is that the promise of the twelve thrones of Episcopall presidency was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit Observe Reader that our question is about Authority and Iurisdiction as Dr. H's chairs to rule and preside in tells thee and then ask Dr. H. whether it was ever heard of before in this world that the coming of the Holy Ghost gave Iurisdiction or Authority to the Apostles but zeal charity knowledge courage vigor strength and such other gifts onely See the Scripture Luke 24. 49. Tarry yee in Hierusalem untill yee be endued virtute ex alto that is with power or powerfulnes efficaciously to prosecute what they were a ready design'd and commissioated for not till you have finally Authority and Iurisdiction given you Again the Holy Ghost fell upon all the 120. as appears by Act. 1. and upon multitudes both of men and women in many places and occasions afterwards and yet no man ever dream'd that they got by this means any Authority or Iurisdiction But to show the absurdity of this conceit there needs no more but to reflect upon the Drs words He sayes that the promise of twelve thrones of presidency or â—â—welve Episcopall chairs as he expresses him self Aâ—sw p. 67. was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit if so then the Holy Ghost consecrated the twelve Apostles actually Bishops for the finall performanâ—e is the actuall giving a thing and the thing to be given then is by him exprest to be twelve Episcopall chairs wherefore actually then and not before the Apostles were made Bishops and had so many Episcopall chairs given them so pretty a foolery that laughter is it's properest confutation But to mend the iest himself in other places strenously defends that the distinction of the Apostles presidencies of Provinces by Apostolicall agreement long after the coming of the Holy Ghost as appears by the place Gal. 2. on which hee relies And if we should ask him how there could be twelve Episcopall chairs to rule and preside in without twelve sorts of subjects to be presided over and ruled that is twelve Bishopricks and then ask him again where those twelve distinct Bishopricks were at the coming of the Holy Ghost I know the good man in
THE PRETENDED REPLY OF Dr. Bramhall L d of Derry THE INTRODVCTION LITTLE remains to bee reply'd to my second Adversary in substantiall and fundamentall points either in behalf of R. C. or S. W. if those passages in which I bring Dr. H. to Grounds bee duly reflected on since neither can my Lord of Derry deny but that there is now a breach made between us in the points now controverted nor does hee pretend demonstrative and rigorous Evidence that the Pop'es Authority was an vsurpation and so their renouncing it no criminall breach but a lawfull self-enfranchisement Nor lastly does hee endeavour to shew that less than such rigorous Evidence that is that probable reasons are sufficient ground to renounce such an Authority and soe strongly supported by a long possession an vniversall delivery of immediate forefathers as come from Christ c. or that it was prudence to hazard a Schism consequently their salavations upon the uncertain lottery of a probability This was all which fundamentally concern'd this Controversy and this is wholly omitted by his fellow Mr. H. aswell as himself and consequently till they speak out directly to this point to do which they are ever very warily loath they can onely hope it from courtesy not claim it from iustice that they are vouchsafed any answer at all since they who will not bee drawn to speak to the purpose deserve to been neglected and suffer'd to talk to no purpose Now for satisfaction how little can bee said to those most concerning points to omit other places I refer my Reader to Sect. 9. 10th of the 2 d part of Schism Disarm'd left in a manner wholly unanswer'd as yet by Mr. H. and to my Grounds before the foregoing Treatise In answer to the Title Down-Derry hee shows himself mystically proverbiall and tells the amused Readers that it were strange if hee should throw a good cast who seals his Bowl upon an undersong I must confess the Bp. is far the better Bowler that S. W. is so unexpert as not to understand what should bee mean't by sealing a Bowl vpon an undersong Onely lest hee should conceit some petty victorie in having thus pos'd his Adversary hee may please to take notice that it nothing concerns him for the Bp is beholding for the title Down-Derry and consequently the world for this rare bowling phrase sprung from that happy occasion to the merry stationer who without my knowledge or approbation would needs make it the post-past to his Bill of fare The iest was very proper fatall but whether courteous or no I leave the Bp. and him to scuffle for it and address my self to a serious examin of the Bishop's Reply Wee have seen already that hee is a good Bowler let us see now whether hee bee an honestman Sect. 1. How my L d of Derry omits totally to mention the second part of our charge and preuaricates from answering any title of the first by cavilling groundlesly at unconcerning toyes giving us generall terms in stead of the particular thing falsifying openly the Council of Ephesus contradicting common sence of controvertist turning Lawyer and impugning the Extent of the Pope's Authority instead of the substance of it wilfully misrepresenting every word of our Rule of faith as put down by his Adversary and lastly by plainly confessing hee will not answer our charge or Objection IT was objected that the crime of Schism would appear to bee iustly charged upon his Church not onely with colour but with undeniable Evidence of fact by the very position of the case and the nature of his exceptions Meaning that there was a manifest fact of renouncing and breaking from an Authority long acknowledg'd as of Christ's Institution upon Exceptions short of Demonstration that is short of power to convince a rationall understanding that is Passion not those reasons must move first the will and by it the understanding to a conuiction that is the breach or Schism was criminall Now the good Bishop First leaves out the second part of these words the nature of his Exceptions which concern'd himself and puts down onely the first part to wit the position of the case Whereas wee charge them not with Schism upon this single account that they broke from a formerly-acknowledg'd Authority which is the position of the case but that they broke from it without hauing Evident demonstratiue reasons and Exceptions against it but at best pretended probable ones onely that is such as are no waies either able to oblige the understanding to assent upon them nor sufficient Grounds to renounce any Authority at all much less an Authority held sacred before thus qualify'd For what a slack thing would the world bee if probable Exceptions of the subjects I mean such as are held noe more than probable by the subjects themselves should bee held sufficient ground to disacknowledge their Governour 's right and alter the present Government Would any Government in the world remain on foot three years to an end if this method were allow'd and practised unles perhaps force preuaild over reason The Bishop had good reason then to omit that which concern'd the nature of his own Exceptions For though himself and his friends love extremely to talk prettily yet they cannot endure the reasons which make up their Discourse should bee brought to the test or their validity to convince the understanding scann'd that is they love not to speak out whether they bee demonstrative or probable onely They dare not assert the former conscious that their best way of discoursing is onely thetoricall topicall and for the most part quibbling and blūdering in a wordish testimony whence no demonstration or it's proper effect conviction is likely to bee expected Nor yet dare they for shame confess the latter knowing that a probability though never so strong still leaves room for a may bee-otherwise and so can never conclude that the thing must-bee that is can never without iniury to a rationall nature claim it's assent that the thing 〈◊〉 for how can any man in reason assent that the thing is so upon that motive which very motive permits that it may not bee so It was not therefore dishonesty in the Bishop going about to impugn his Adversary to omit one halfe of that which hee grounded himself on but a great deal of prudenc◠and warines or indeed a kind of necessity Secondly proceeding upon this mistake of his own hee wrangles with us for calling this our chief objection against them as king us if stating the question and objecting bee all one No sure if wee speak rigorously but a Charge against one is often call'd an Objection Now ours against you which you here purposely mutilate is this that you left a preacknowledg'd Ecclesiasticall Authority upon fantastick Exceptions that is unpon uncertain Grounds Which objection if verify'd so euidently concludes you wilfull Schismaticks that it is impossible to bee cloak't or evaded Now the first part which cōcerns
separation made in the a foresaid Principles but it is so shameles and open an vntruth that hee dares not own it in express terms nor yet such is his shuffling will hee confess the contrary I know his party sometimes endeavours to evade by saying that our Church caused the breach by excommunicating them but ask whether they broke from and renounced that Government and so deserved excommunication ere they were thus excommunicated by it and their own conscience with the whole world will answer they did It is that former breach of theirs then and reiection of that Government which denominates them Schismaticks till they can render sufficient that is evident Grounds why they reiected it for otherwise nothing is more weak than to imagine that Governours should not declare themselves publikely and solemnly against the renouncers of their Authority or that a King should not procâ—ame for Rebells and incapable of any priuiledges from the commonwealth those persons who already had disacknowledg'd his Right and obstinately broken it's laws Either show us then that our Excommunication separated you from your former tenets to wit from holding those a foresaid Principles of Vnity in faith and Government or else graÌ„t that your selves actually separated from them both that is from our Church This my Lord is the separation which uniustify'd makes a criminall Schism Excommunication is onely the punishment due to the antecedent crime Order which consists in Government being essentiall to a Church if intended to continue it follows that since Christ intended his Church should continue hee constituted the order of the Church otherwise hee had not constituted a Church since a Church cannot bee without that which is essentiall to a Church Wherefore seing that which Christ instituted is of faith it follows that order of Government is of faith and so must bee recommended to us by the same Rule that other points of faith are Hence speaking of the two Principles one of Vnity in faith the other of Vnity in Government I affirmed that the truth of the latter is included in the former and hath it's Evidence from it Must not hee now bee very quarelsome who can wrangle with such an innocent and plain truth The iealous Bishop first alledges 't is done to gain the more opportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Pope's into the ancient discipline of the Church Not a iot my Lord the standing to this Rule to wit the immediate delivery of fathers to sons attestation renders it impossible for an usurpation to enter Nor can you or any else instance that any usurpation either in secular or Ecclesiastical Government ever came in prerending that tenour or show that it ever could as long as men adhered to that method It must bee either upon wit explications of word in the laws or of ambiguous peeces of Antiquity not upon this immediate delivery from hand to hand in which wee place our Rule of faith that encroachments are built Had wee then a mind to obtrude usurpations upon you wee had recurr'd to testimony-proofs the Protestants onely method where with hath a large field to maintain a probability-skirmish of the absurdest positions imaginable not to this Rule of soe vast a multitude of eye-witnesses of visible things from age to age Which Rule is as impossible to bee crooked as it is for a world of fathers to conspire to tell a world of Children this ly that ten years ago they held and practised what themselves and all the world besides knew they did not His second exception is far more groundlesly quarrelsom 'T is against my making two Principles one in doctrine the other in discipline whereas euery Child sees that doctrine discipline or faith and Government make manifestly two distinet ranks or Orders the one relating immediately to information of the understanding or speculative holding the other to action But his reasons why they should bee but one are pretty because frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora It is in vain to make two rules where one will serve By which maxim rigorously misunderstood as 't is by him one may dispute against the making severall laws and severall Commandments with the like Logick and say all the treating them with distinction is vain because this one Commandment to do well or to do no ill includes all the rest Again hee imagins because the truth of one depends on the other therefore they ought not to bee treated distinctly as if it were vain or needles to deduce consequences or as if Mathematicians ought not to conclude any thing but hover still in the generall Principles of Euclid without making any progresse farther because the truth of the consequences depends on those Principles Are these men fit to write Controversies who cannot or will not write common sence After hee had been thus frivolously backward hee adds that hee readily admits both my first second Rule reduced into one in this subsequent form those doctrines and that discipline which wee inherited from our forefathers as the Legacy of Christ his Apostles ought solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them to bee changed that is substantial or essentiall See here Reader the right Protestant method which is to bring the Controversy from a determinate state to indetermination and confusion and from the particular thing to common words Wee point them out a determinate form of Government to wit that of one supreme Bishop in God's Church 't is known what it means 't is known that the acknowledgment of that Government is now and was at the time of the breach the bond of Vnity between those Churches which held that Government of which the Church of England was one 't is known they renounced this form of Government that is that which was and still is to the Church they formerly communicated with a bond of Vnity in discipline Again 't is known that wee hold the voice of the Church that is the consent of Catholick fathers immediately attesting that they received this doctrine from their forefathers infallible and that none cannot bee ignorant of what their fathers teach them bring them up in Which immediate receiving it from fathers wee call here inheritance These I say are determinate points manifesting themselves in their known particularities Now the Bishop instead of letting us know I or noe whether they broke that Principle of Vnity in discipline which 't is evident they did by renouncing the Pope's Authority or that Principle of Vnity in doctrine to wit Tradition delivery or handing down by immediate forefathers which 't is evident they did out of the very word Reformation which they own extoll Or instead of telling us what particular Rule of faith what particular form of Government they have introduc't into God's Church in room of the former He refers us to Platonick Ideas of both to bee found in Concavo Lunae wrapping them up in such generall terms as hee may bee
falsification and an open abuse of the Council For as may bee seen immediately before the 7th Canon Theodorus Mopsuestensis Carisius had made a wicked creed which was brought and read before the Council After this begins the 7th Canon thus His igitur lectis decreuit sancta c. These things being read the holy synod decreed that it should bee lawfull for no man to compose write or produce alteram fidem another faith praeter eam quae definita fuit a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem in Spiritu sancto congregatis besides that which was defined by the holy fathers gather'd in the Holy Ghost at the City of Nice Where wee see the intention of the Council was no other than this that they should avoid hereticall creeds and hold to the Orthodoxe one not to hinder an enlargment to their Baptismall Profession as the Bishop would persuade us Hence His first falsification is that hee would have the words alteram fidem which taken by themselves and most evidently as spoken in this occasion signify a different or contrary faith to mean a prohibition to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession So by the words any more which hee falsly imposes to serve his purpose making the Council strike directly at the enlargment of such Profession Very good His 2 d is that to play Pope Pius a trick hee assures us the Council forbids to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession whereas there is no news there of exacting but of producing writing or composing false creeds lesse of Baptismall profession And though the Council forbide this to bee done his qui volunt ad cogâ—itionem veritatis conuerti to those who are willing to â—ee converted to the knowledge of the truth yet the punishments following extended also to Laymen in those words si vero Laici fuerint anathematiz entur if they the proposers of another faith bee Laymâ—n let them bee excommunicated makes it impossible to relate to Baptism unles the Bishop will say that in those dayes Laymen were Ministers of Baptism or exacted as hee phrases it Baptismall Professions His third falsification is that hee pretends the Council forbad to exact more than the Apostles creed whereas the Council onely forbids creeds different from that which was defin'd by the Council of Nice So that according to the Bishop the creed defined by the fathers in the Council of Nice and the Apostles creed are one and the sasame creed His fourth is that hee pretends from the bare word fidem a Baptismal profession for no other word is found in the Council to that purpose Now the truth is that upon occasion of those creeds containing false doctrine the Council onely prohibits the producing or teaching any thing contrary to the doctrine anciently establish't as appears more plainly from that which follows concerning Carisius Pari modo c. In like manner if any either Bishops Priests or Laymen bee taken sentientes aut docentes holding or teaching Carisius his doctrine c. let them bee thus or thus punisht Where you see nothing in order to exacting Baptismall professions or their enlargments as the Bp. fancies but of abstaining to teach false doctrines which those Hereticks had proposed Ere wee leave this point to do my L d D. right let us construe the words of the Council according to the sence hee hath given it and it stands thus that the holy synod decreed it unlawfull for any proferre scribere aut componere to exact alteram any more or a larger fidem Baptismall profession praeter eam quae a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem definita fuit than the Apostles creed Well go thy wayes brave Bp. if the next synod of Protestants doe not Canonize thee for an Interpreter of Councils they are false to their best interests The cause cannot but stand if manag'd by such sincerity wit and learning as long as women prejudic'd men and fools who examin nothing are the greater part of Readers Having gain'd such credit for his sincerity hee presumes now hee may bee trusted upon his bare word and then without any either reason or Authority alledged or so much as pretended but on his bare word onely hee assures the Reader if hee will beleeve him that they still professe the discipline of the ancient Church and that wee have changed it into a soveraignty of power above Generall Councells c. Yet the candid man in his vindication durst not affirm that this pretended power was of faith with us or held by all but onely p. 232. alledges first that it is maintaind by many that is that it is an opinion onely and then 't is not his proper task to dispute against it our own Schools and Doctours can do that fast enough and afterwards p. 243. hee tells us that these who give such exorbitant priviledges to Pope's do it with so many cautions and reservations that thâ—y signify nothing So that the Bishop grants that some onely and not all add this to the Pope's Authority and that this which is added signifies nothing and yet rails at it here in high terms as if it were a great matter deserving Church-unity should bee broken for it and claps it upon the whole Church After this hee grants S. Peter to have been Prince of the Apostles or first mover in the Church in a right sence as hee styles it yet tells us for prevention sake that all this extends but to a Primacy of order Whereas all the world till my Ld D. came with his right sence to correct it imagin'd that to move did in a sence right enough signify to act and so the first mover meant the first Acter Wee thought likewise that when God was call'd primum mouens the first mover those words did in a very right sence import actiuity and influence not a primacy of order onely as the acute Bp. assures us But his meaning is this that though all the world hold that to move first is to act first yet that sence of theirs shall bee absolutely wrong and this onely right which he and his fellows are pleased to fancie who are so wonderfully acute that according to them hee that hath onely Authority to sit first in Council or some things which is all they will allow S. Peter and the Pope shall in a right sence bee said to move first or to bee first mover I alledged as a thing unquestionable even by understanding ProtestaÌ„ts that the Church of England actually agreed with the Church of Rome at the time of the separation in this Principle of Government that the Bishops of Rome as successâ—urs of S. Peter inherited his priviledgâ—s c. as is to bee seen p. 307. by any man who can read English Now the Bishop who hath sworn to his cause that hee will bee a constant and faithfull prevaricatour omits the former paâ—t of my proposition and changes the busines from an evident matter of
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-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
Evident reason and thine own eyes tell thee Reason tells thee 't is evident they renounc't those tenets which were the Principles of Vnity to the former Church both in faith and Government Reason tells thee that such a fact is in it's own nature schismaticall unles they can produce sufficient motives to iustify it Reason tells thee that noe motives less than certain that is demonstrative ones can suffice to alledge for such a revolt which yet they never pretend to Therefore reason tells thee and any one who understands morality and nature as evidently as that two and three are five that their revolt did not spring from the pure light of reason but from an irrationall Principle that is from passion and vice And so wee cannot but judge them obstinate and consequently Schismaticks unles they can show us these sufficient that is demonstrative reasons to excuse their otherwise manifestly schismaticall fact or if wee do wee must renounce the light of our own reason to do them an undeserved favour Thus much in generall Now as for this Bp. in particular Thou hast seen him shuffle up and down when hee should have answer'd to the charge objected Thou hast seen him wilfully mistake all over to evade answering Thou hast seen him totally omit so much as to mention one half of the charge and totally to avoid the whole import nay every tittle of the other There needs nothing but thine own eyes directed by any first Section to make all this evident to thee 'T is by these evident testimonies of thine eyes these undeniable verdicts of thy reason Reader by which thou must judge of these men whether they bee carefully inquisitive after readily embrace the truth or rather bee obstinate Schismaticks and not by the dark holes of their consciences which they assert to bee sincere by their bare sayings ouely obtrude them thus weakly authoriz'd upon they easy credulity and then tell thee thou must beleeve S. Austin that they are guiltles and acquitted from Schism In the second place I glanced at the inconsequence of his proof that those Bishops were not Protestants because they persecuted Protestants instancing in some sects of Protestants which persecuted others Hee replies what then were Watham and Heath c. all Protestants Then My Ld which is onely the question between us your argument was naught for let them bee accidentally what they will you cannot conclude them no Protestants from the persecuting Protestants as long as 't is shown and known that those who were Protestants did the same Secondly if they were Protestants hee demands of which sect they were I answer that as between every species of colour which wee have names for there are hundreds of middle degrees which have no names or as in a perpetuall motion there are millions of unnam'd proportions sow'd all along in it's progress to whose quantities wee can give no particular names so within the latitude of the name Protestant or Reformer and every sect of it there are thousands of others soe petite and minute that they have not deserved a name from the world I see the Bp. mistakes us and his own sect for hee makes account the Protestant Profession and it's subordinate sects are fixt things which may bee defined whereas Experience teaches us that the fellow in the fable might as easily have taken measure of the Moon to fit her right with a coat as one can imagin one notion to fit the word Protestant 'T is ever in motion like the rowling sea and therefore hath such an alloy of no ens in it that it admits noe positive definition but must bee described like a privation in order to the former habit No-Papist and a Reformer is the best character I can make of it Since then those Bishops were Reformers and no-Papists for they renounced the Pope's Authority which gives this denomination reformed in that point it follows that they were Protestants though the new-born thing was not as yet christend with any other name than that common one of Reformation But my Ld. D. makes account that none can bee a Protestant unles hee hold all which the now-Protestants doe Whereas 't is against nature and reason to expect that the Protestants could at first fall into all their present negative tenets nemo repentè fit turpissimus The former faults must by degrees get countenance by growing vulgar quotidian an by little little digest their shamefulnes ere the world could bee prepared to receive or men's minds apt and audacious enough to broach new ones First they renounc't one point then another and so forwards till at lenghth they have arrived to Quakerism which therefore is the full-grown fruit of the Reformation Thirdly whereas I told him those Bishops by renouncing the Pope held the most essentiall point of their Reformation and so had in them the quintessence of a Protestant The Bp. first calls this our Reformation as if wee had not ever held them Schismaticks that is separated from our Church for doing so Since then they went out from us by that fact they left to bee of us and if they were not of us how was it our Reformation in any other sence than as the Rebellion of those who were true subjects before is to bee imputed to those who remain true subjects still was ever common sence so abus'd Next hee braggs that then to wit if renouncing the Pope bee essentiall to a Protestant the Primitive Church were all Protestants which is onely sayd and flatly false that then all the Greciâ—n Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day which is onely said again and partly true partly false and that which is true onely steads him soe far as to evince that the Protestants are not the onely men but have fellow-Schismaticks And lastly that then they want not store of Protestants even in the bosome of the Roman Church it self which to speak moderately is an impudent falshood and a plain impossibility For who ere renounces the substance of the Pope's Authority and his being Head of the Church doth ipso facto renounce the Rule of Vnity of Government in our Church and by consequence the Rule of Vnity of faith which Grounds and asserts the former that is such a man renounces and breaks from all the Vnity of our Church and so becomes totally disunited from our Church Now how one who is totally disunited and separated from the whole body of our Church can bee intimately united to her still no understanding but the BP s can reach which as Mithridates could use poison for his daily food can without difficulty digest contradictions and findes them more connatural and nutritive to his cause than the solidest demonstrations Now if my L d D. bee not yet satisfy'd with my reasons p. 311. that the renouncing the Pope is essentiall to Protestantism to which yet hee is pleased to give no answer I send him to learn it of his friend Dr. H.
Authority deserved to bee abolish't for it's own sake as accompany'd with the sayd grievances Secondly the Bp. tells us that they seek not extirpation of the Papacy but the reducing it to the primitive constitution which is as good sence as to give a manabox on the ear and then tell him you intend not to strike him They have already totally extirpated it in England in such sort as all the world sees and acknowledges the Pope hath not the least influence upon the English Congregation over which before hee had the greatest yet they hope to bee taken for moderate men as long as they speak courteous non-sence and tell us they seek not to extirpate it Thus the Bp. wanders from the purpose but still all is my fault who would not grant him his two conditions Thirdly hee tells us that Monarchy and Episcopacy are of divine Institution so is not saith hee a Papall soueraignty of Iurisdiction That Monarchy should bee of divine Institution I much wonder surely the Venetians and Hollanders are in a sad case then who thus continue without relenting to break one of God's Commandments especially their Brethren the Hollanders who renounced the Monarchicall Government of the King of Spain But the learned Bp. hath some text or other in Scripture which hee interprets onely according to Grammar and Dictionary-learning without ever looking into Politicks the science which concerns such points passages which would have taught him that Government was instituted for the good of the Governed and that since human affairs are subject to perpetuall mutability and change it happens that in some countries and some circumstances one form of Government is convenient in others another according as it happens to bee best for the Governed which comes to this that no particular form of Government is of divine Institution and constituted to endure ever seing the end to which all Government is directed the good of the Governed is mutable and changeable As for the next part of his third excuse that the Pope's Authority or Headship in Iurisdiction is not of divine Institution as Episcopacy is you see 't is his old trick onely his own bare saying and which is worse saying over again the very point in dispute between us Whereas the point which wee urge here is a plain matter of fact that those who first renounc't the Papall Authority held immediately before they renounc't it as firmly that it was divine Institution as the Protestants do of Episcopacy now and therefore ought to have renounc't it upon the pretended pressure of inconveniencies no more than Episcopacy ought to bee abolish't upon the like inconveniences Nay more the first Reformers ere they grew newfangled and chang'd their mind held it much more firmly for they held it a point of faith and abhorr'd all them who renounc't it as Schismaticks and Hereticks both whereas the Protestants acknowledge the Huguenots of France for Brothers who yet deny Episcopacy which the Bp. tells us upon another occasion is of divine Institution But 't is all one with the Protestants whether they renounce all Christ's Institutions or no if they do but hate Rome they are saints and Brothers The common faction against the Pope is more powerfull to unite them than the professed and obstinate rejecting Christ's ordinances is to disunite them As for his Bravado how rarely hee could iustify his Parliamentary Prelacy what weak performances it would afford were it put to triall may bee judged from his numerous and enormous contradictions in this present treatise bragg'd on by the Protestants to bee his Master peece Sect. 6. How my Lâ— of Derry states the whole question false by pretending against the plain matter of fact that they separated onely from the Court and not from the Church of Rome His Grounds of separation shown insufficient in many regards nay confest such by himself granting there was another remedy besides division That the Reformers have neither left any open and certain method of coming to Christ's faith nor any form of Government in God's Church nor by consequence any Church His weak plea for England's independency from the Council of Ephesus Five palpable contradictions cluster'd together which the Bp. calls the Protestants more Experience than their Ancestors HIs sixth section pretends to vindicate his Grounds of separation to take notice of which the Bp. is violently importunate with the Reader bidding him observe and wonder Nor can I doe any less seeing such monstrous stuff throughout this whole Section It begins we are now come to the Grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome And this is the first Monster which the Bp's pen more fruitfull of such creatures than Africk it self proposes to our observation Which if it bee not as foul and uncouth an one as errour could hatch and obstinate Schism maintain you shall pay but pence a peece to see it and say I have abus'd you too The charge against the Protestants was this manifested by undeniable matter of fact that they had rejected the acknowledgment of S. Peters and his successours the Pope's Headhip over God's Church and that they had receded from this Rule of faith that nothing is to bee adhered to as of faith but what was inherited that is immediately delivered by their forefathers as the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles That they renounced the former is manifest by the whole worlds and their own Confession That they renounced the latter is no less manifest by the same undeniable attestation and indeed out of the very word Reformation which signifies a not immediate delivery It is no less evident that the acknowledgment of the former both was at the time of the Reformation and now is the Principle of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome that is to all the Churches they themselves communicated with or were united to before they broke for 't is as visible as the sun at nonday that France Spain Portugal Italy c. consent and center in a ioynt acknowledgment of the Pope's Headship and are therefore held by Protestants Puritans and all contrary sects for Papist Countreys It is evident likewise that the acknowledgment of the latter was and is to the sayd Churches the Principle of Vnity in faith for they ever held the living voice of the Church that is the immediate Tradition or delivery of Pastours and forefathers an infallible Rule of faith wherefore ' it is unavoidably consequent that the Protestants dissenting from and disagreeing in both the sayd Principles in which these then-fellow Churches consented and agreed were and are separated from all those Churches and all that belong to those Churches And this according to the two sayd Principles Again since nothing can bee more essentiall to a Church than that which is the Rule and Root of Vnity both in faith and Government it follows that the Protestants dissenting in both and acting accordingly that is having separated according to both separated and
in that Council and yet bee a lawfull one too Rub up your memory my L d. you pretend to bee a piece of a Lawyer and I beleeve you will finde an English law that Sixty members is a sufficient number to make a lawfull Parliament and before that law was made common consent custome which is either equivalent or perhaps above law gave the same for granted Fourthly he excepts against the super proportion'd multitude of members out of one Province which hee sayes never lawfull Parliament had I ask if other Provinces would neither send a fit number nor they had a minde to come by what law by what reason should it render illegitimate either Parliament or Council Now 't is certain and not deny'd by any but that Bishop's had as free liberty to come out of other Provinces as out of Italy had they pleased Again the principall busines being to testify the Tradition of former ages a small number of Bishops serving for that and the collaterall or secundary busines being to examin the difficulties those Hereticks which were the occasion of the Council produced that they might be confuted fully out of their own mouthes which is a thing to bee performed by committees in which learned men that were not Bishops might sit it little inferred the want of Bishops Wherefore if there were any error in the supernumerarines of Bishops out of some one Province it was for some other end than for the condemnation of Heresies so is nothing to our purpose unles perhaps my L d will pretend that had those Catholike B p' s out of other Provinces been there they would have voted against their fellow Catholikes in behalf of Luther or Calvin which were a wise Answer indeed Fifthly hee excepts that the Council of Trent is not received in France in point of Discipline What then why by his parallell to a Parliament hee concludes hence t was no lawfull Council Which is to abuse the eyes of the whole world who all see that France who denies the admission of those points of Discipline acknowledges it not withstanding a generall lawfull Council and receives it in all determinations belonging to faith which are so essential to it as it were disacknowledg'd were they deny'd though not in matters of fact which are accidentall to it's Authority nay allow'd by the Church it self however made exprest generally to binde particular countries onely in due circumstances according to their conveniencies Lastly hee alledges that they were not allow'd to speak freely in the Council of Trent Which is a flat calumny and though most important to his cause could hee prove it yet after his bold custome 't is onely asserted by his own bare saying by Sleidan a notoriously lying Author of their own side and by a passage or two in the History of the Council of Trent whereof the first is onely a ieering expression any thing will serve the B p. the other concerning the Pope's creating new Bp's nothing at all to his purpose since both these new the other old B p' s were all of one Religion Catholikes so not likely to dissent in voâ—ing Doctrines which kind of votes are essentiall to a Council pertinent to our discourse which is about Doctrines not about Discipline After this hee puts down three solutions as hee calls them to our plea of the Patriarchall Authority First that Britain was no part of the Roman Patriarchate And this hee calls his first solution Secondly that though it had been yet the Popes have both quitted forfeited their Patriarchall power and though they had not yet it is lawfully transferred And this is his second solution The third is that the difference between them and us is not concerning any Patriarchall Authority And this is his third solution which is a very really good one shows that the other need no reply our charge against them being for renouncing the supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority of divine Institution not a Patriarchate onely of humane Institution If further answer bee demanded first the Greek Schismaticks our enemies confess that England was a part of the Pope's Patriarchate if it bee truly called a Western Church see Barlaam Monachus de Papae Principatu c. 11 and Part. 1. Sect. 15. of the adjoyning Treatise Next it is falsely pretended that the Pope's have either quitted or forfeited their Patriarchall Authority and may with equall reason bee concluded that a Bishop quits Episcopall Authority if hee is also a Patriarch or that a person must leave of to be Master of his own family because hee is made King and his Authority universally extended to all England Which last instance may also serve against the pretended inconsistency of the Papall and Patriarchall power if it need any more answer than what hath formerly been given Sect. 4. I omit his calumnies against the Papall Authority charactering it falsly as a meere unbridled tyranny And his thrice repeated non-sence when hee joyns in one notion Patriarchall Authority a Patriarchy being a Government by one an Aristocracy by many Nor is his other calumniating expression much better when hee calls the Papall Authority a Soveraign Monarchicall Royalty since it was never pretended by Catholikes that the Pope is the King of the Church The notion of Priest and Sacrifice being relative the failing of the one destroyes the other since then the Protestants have no Sacrifice they are convinced to have no Priests This point in particular hee never touch't but talk't a little in obscure terms of matter form of ordination as if it were not an easy thing to say what words they pleased and do what actions they pleased To this the Bishop onely replies that hee over did and set down the point of Sacrifice over distinctly Next hee tells us their Registers are publike offices whether any man may repair at pleasure whereas our question is not of the Registers in generall but of that one particular pretended Register of the right ordination of Protestant Bishops kept conceal'd from the free perusall of Catholikes though the circumstances to wit their alledging the unlawfulnes of the Protestant Bishops ordination requir'd it should bee shown His next paragraph concerning their uncharitablenes needs not bee repeated unles it could be mended My expedient to procure peace Vnity which was to receive the root of Christianity a practicall infallibility in the Church hee seems willing to admit of Onely hee adds that the greater difficulty will bee what this Catholike Church is and indeed to his party 't is an insuperableone though to us most facil as I have shown formerly Sect. 7. Hee call'd the Bishops of Italy the Pope's parasiticall pentioners I reply'd it seem'd his Lordship Kept a good table and had great revenews independent on any Hee answers hee was not in passion and that hee Spoke onely against meer Episcopelles which is to show that his passion is nothing abated yet by adding such unsavory
Phrases to his former calumny Next hee says that as for his self hee never raised himself by any insinuations I know my L d you are a Saint but the point is can you clear your self from calumny and prove that those Bishops whom otherwise you calumniate ever used such insinuations Hee was never hee saies parasiticall pentioner to any man nor much frequented any man's table You are still more Saint then formerly my L d But can you prove that those Bishops whom otherwise you calumniate are parasites or was it ever heard of or pretended that they sit at the Pope's table Hee adds that if his own table bee not so good as it hath been yet contentment a good conscience is a continuall feast Much good may it do you my L d fall to and eat heartily cannot you fare well hold your tongue but you must amongst your dainties slander your Neighbours men better then your self by calling them parasites Episcopelles the Pope's creatures hungry c. Or if you do can you expect less but that it shall be laid in your dish to sauce your dainties But the point is how hee proves these worthy persons to bee hungry parasiticall pentioners which unles hee does hee yeelds himself to bee a malitious calumniator Now his proof of it is contained in those words whether those Bishops were not his hungry parasiticall pentioners they knew best who know most Well argued my L d there 's none can overthrow such a proof because it is impossible to know where to take hold of it Or if any can bee taken 't is this that the Bp. of Derry knows better then all the world besides As for his pretence of his good conscience and to free himself from being a Parasite I would entreat his Lordship to examin his conscience truly whether hee does not get his living by preaching that doctrine which hee puts in his books the which how many notorious falsities contradictions tergiversations they have in them may bee judged by this present work Now if hee does let him consider whether any like parasitism can bee found as to hazard to carry men to damnation by taking away the highest principle that can correct them and bring all faith and Ground of faith to uncertainty dispute meerly to get his own bread for your other actions my L d I neither know what you do nor think it handsom to enquire In the close hee pretends to satisfy an exception of mine found in Schism Disarm'd 'T was this that hee quoted a testimony from Gerson against himself which showed that the Greeks acknowledg'd the Pope's Authority by their departing from the then Pope as Gerson sayes with these words wee acknowledge thy power wee cannot satisfy your covetousnes live by your selves Hee replies endeavours to show that by Power in that place is mean't not Authority nor iust power but might Whereas First the very opposition of Power acknowledged to covetousnes which they could not satisfy argues that their sullen departure proceeded from their sticking at the latter not the former which was there acknowledg'd Now if might were signify'd by the word Power in that place the sence of the whole would stand thus wee separate not for want of acknowledging thy might but for want of power to satisfy thy covetousnes which is as good as non-sence For if hee had might to force them what sence is there to say wee depart because wee cannot satisfy your avarice when departing could not save them whereas in the other sence it runs very currently wee separate not for de fault of acknowledging thy Authority or iust power but because however this be iust yet it is impossible wee should satisfy your covetousnes Secondly what might or power except that of Spirituall Iurisdiction the Pope can bee pretended to have then had over the Greeks appears not It was mean't therefore of no such might but of a rightfulnes of power Thirdly whereas hee sayes that Gerson apprehended the words in his sence cites the context for it the very proof hee brings for him is against him Gersons position according to the Bp. is this that men ought not generally to be bound to the positive determinations of Pope's to hold beleeve one the same form of Government in things that do not immediately concern the truth of our faith and the Gospell After which testimony the Bp. addes these words From thence hee proceedeth to set down some different customes of the Greek Latin Churches both which hee doth iustify citing S. Austin to prove that in all such things the custome of the country is to bee observed And amongst the rest of the differences this was one that the Creek Church paid not such subsidies duties as the Gallican Church did Thus far the Bishop Where it is manifest that the lawfulnes of resisting the Pope's determinations being in order to the not paying undue subsidies Taxes the discourse there relates to the no obligation of satisfying covetousnes and touches not at all the point of power or might as hee will have it Let us take then Gersons sence in the former and mine of iust power in the latter and the discourse stands thus that though men acknowledge the rightfull power of Pope's yet they ought not generally be bound to their positive determinations in things not of faith but belonging onely to the severall forms of Government customes in severall countries as paying subsidies duties c. And pertinently to the same sence the Greeks might bee imagined as indeed they did to answer Wee acknowledge thy power or cannot deny your rightfull Authority but esteem not our selves bound to obey your determinations importing such covetous demands contrary to the custome and Priviledges of our Church wherefore wee think our selves excused not to meddle with you at all Fourthly the Bp. sayes that it seems the Pope would have exacted those subsidies duties of the Grecians and that there upon they separated from him Which countenances all I said formerly implies more strongly my sence towit that it was there upon as the Bp. confesses that is upon their denying subsidies not upon their denying the rightfulnes of his power as coming under another a cheaper notion that they separated Fifthly the very demanding subsidies had there not been some preacknowledg'd power to Ground countenance such a demand seems incredibile had required a more positive Answer then wee cannot satisfy your covetousnes and rather this you have nothing at all to do with us nor the least Superiority to Ground the pretence of paying you any thing at all Whereas this answer rather sayes wee ow you indeed subjection but not such a subjection as engages us to satisfy your encroaching demands Lastly hee sayes Gerson hence concludes that upon this consideration they might proceed to the reformation of the french Churches and the Liberties thereof notwithstanding the contradiction which perhaps some of the Court of