hear him state it right The true question saith hee is what are the right bounds and limits of this Authority and then reckons up a company of particularities some true most of them coâ—â—erning the extent of the Pope's Authority iâ—self and debated amoÌ„gst our owne Canon-Lawyers some flat lies and calumnies as whether the Pope have power to sell palls pardons and Indulgences to impose pensions at his pleasure to infringe the liberties and customes of whole nations to deprive Princes of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their Allegiance c. Was ever such stuff brought by a Controvertist or was ever man soe frontles as to make these the true state of the question between us that is to preteÌ„d that our Church holds these things as of faith To manifest more the shallownes of my Adversary the Reader may please to take notice of the difference between the substance of the Pope's Authority as held by us and the extent of it The substance of it consists in this that hee is Head of the Church that is first mover in it and that hee hath Authority to act in it after the nature of a first Governour This is held with us to bee of faith and acknowledg'd unanimously by all the faithfull as come from Christ and his Apostles so that none can bee of our Communion who deny it nor is this debated at all between Catholike Catholike but between Catholike and Heretike onely Hence this is held by our Church as a Church that is as a multitude receiving it upon their Rule of faith universall Attestation of immediate Ancestours as from theirs and so upwards as from Christ and not upon criticall debates or disputes of learnedmen The extent of this Authority consists in determining whether this power of thus acting reaches to these and these particularities or no the resolution of which is founded in the deductions of divines Canon-Lawyers and such like learnedmen and though sometimes some of those points bee held as a common opinion of the schoolmen and as such embraced by many Catholikes yet not by them as faithfull that is as relying â—pon their Ancestours as from theirs as from Christ but as relying upon the learnedmen in Canon-law and implicitely upon the reasons which they had to judge so and the generality's accepting their reasons for valid which is as much as to say such points are not held by a Church as a Church no more than it is that there is an Element of fire in Concavo Lunae or that Columbus found out the Indies The points therefore are such that hee who holds or deems otherwise may still bee held one of the Church or of the Commonwealth of the faithfull nor bee blameable for holding otherwise if hee have better reasons for his tenet than those other learned men had for theirs as long as hee behaves himself quietly in the said Commonwealth Perhaps a parallel will clear the matter better The acknowledgment of the former Kings of England to bee supreme Governours in their Dominions was heretofore as wee may say a point of civill faith nor could any bee reputed a good subject who deny'd this in the undifputable acknowledgment of which coÌ„sisted the substance of their Authority But whether they had power to raise ship money impose subsidies c. alone and without a Parliament belong'd to the extent of their Authority was subject to dispute and the proper task of Lawyers nor consequently did it make a man an Outlaw or as wee may say a civill Schismatick to disacknowledge such extents of his Authority so hee admitted the Authority it self I concieve the parallell is soe plain that it will make it 's owne application This being settled as I hope it is so let it stand a while till wee make another consideration A Controversy in the sence which our circumstances determine it is a dispute about faith and so a Controvertist as such ought to impugn a point of fâ—ith that 〈◊〉 hee ought to iâ— pugn that which is held by a Church as a Church or that which is held by a Church upon her Rule of faith Hence if the Government of that Church bee held of faith according to it's substance and not held of faith according to it's extent hee ought to impugn it according to the substance of the said Government and not it's extent otherwise hee totally prevaricates from the proper office of a Controvertist not impugning faith but opinions noâ— that Church as a Church and his Adversary but falsly supposing himself as it were one of that company and to hold all the substance of it's Authority hee sides with one part of the true subjects and disputes against the other in a point indifferent to faith unconcerning his duty These things Reader observe with attention and then bee thine own judge whether hee play not the Mountebank with thee instead of the Controvertist who in his former book pretended to vindicate the Church of England which renounced the substance of this Authority by impugning the extent of it onely and here undertaking to correct his Refuter and state the question rightly first grants in very plain but wrong mean't terms the whole question to wit that the Pope hath Authority over the whole Church as successour of S. Peter and then tells thee that the true question is about the extent of it and what are the right limits and bounds of this Authority which kind of questions yet hee knows well enough are debated by the obedient and true members of that Commonwealth whence hee is Outlaw'd and which hee pretends to impugn His 8th page presents the Reader with a great mistake of mine and 't is this that I affirmed it was and is the constant beleef of the Casholike world by which I mean all in Communion with the Church of Rome whom onely I may call Catholikes that these two Principles were Christ's owne ordination recorded in Scrpture Whereas hee cannot but know that all our Doctourâ—s de facto did and still do produce places of Scripture to prove that former Principle to wit that Tradition is the Rule of faith as also to prove S. Peter's higher power over the Apostles nor is it new that the succession of Pastours till wee all meet in the Vnity of Glory should bee Christ's own Ordination and recorded there likewise Nor can I devise upon what Grounds hee and his fellow-Bishops of England who hold Scripture onely the Rule of faith can maintain their Authority to bee iure divino unles they hold likewise that it bee there recorded and bee Christ's Ordination that following Pastours succed into the Authority of their predecessours But the pretended mistake lies here that whereas I said the Bishops of Rome inherited this priviledge from S. Peter mâ—aning that those who are Bpâ— of Rome being S. Peter's successours inherited this power hee will needs take mee in a reduplicative sence as if I spoke of the Bishop of Rome as of Rome and
England flies off presently and denies it saying he had no title to such an Authority there whereas when we maintain his possession we pretend not yet a Right which is our inference thence but that actually England was under such an Authority and acknowledg'd it whether it were rightly pretended or injustly remains to be inferred which the Dr. mistaking and not distinguishing between possession and right sayes we beg the question when we onely take what is evident that he was in possession and thence infer a right until the contrary be proved The second Ground is that This Authority actually over England and acknowledged there was acknowledged likewise to be that of the Head of the Vniversal Church and not of a Patriarchate onely This Ground is no less evident than the former by our adversaries confession since this is the Authority they impugn as unlawfull and from which they reformed which last word implies the actual acknowledgment that Authority had before Hence Mr. H's digression to show that Kings could erect and translate Patriarchates was perfectly frivolous as far as concerns this purpose for whether they can change Patriarchates or no is impertinent when we are questioning an Authority above Patriarchs and pretended to be constituted by Christ himself The third Ground is that This Papal Authority actually over the Ecclesiastical affaires in England was held then as of Christ's Institution and to have been derived to the Pope as he was Successour to S. Peter The truth of this appears by the known confession of the then Roman Church and the self-same Controversy perpetually continued till this day The fourth Ground is that This actual power the Pope then had in England had been of long continuance and settled in an ancient Possession This is evinced both from our Adversaries grant the evidence of the fact it self and even by the carriage of S. Aust in the Monk and the Abbot of Bangor exprest in that counterfeited testimony alledged by Dr. H. whence we see it was the doctrine S. Austin taught the Saxons The fifth Ground shall be that No Possession ought to be disturbed without sufficient motives and reasons and consequently it self is a title till those reasons invalidate it and show it null This is evident first by Nature's Principles which tell us there is no new cause requisite for things to remain as they are wheras on the other side nothing can be changed without some cause actually working and of force proportionable to the weight and settledness of the thing to be moved Secondly by Morals which teach us that mans understanding cannot be changed from any opinion or beleef without motives ought not without sufficient ones and consequently needs no new motive to continue it in any former assent besides the foregoing Causes which put it there Thirdly we find that Politicks give testimony to or rather stand upon this Ground assuring us when any Government is quietly settled it ought so to stand till sufficient motives and reasons in Policy that is a greater common good urge a change And if Possession were held no title then the Welshmen might still pretend to command England and each line or race which preceded and was outed quarrel with any subsequent one though never so long settled and so no certain right at all would be found of any possession in the World till we come to Adam's time Fourthly as for the particular Laws of our Countrey they clearly agree in the same favour for Possession I shall onely instance in one common case If I convey Blackâ—cre to I. S. for the life of I. N. and after wards I. S. dy in this case because I cannot enter against mine own Grant and all the world else have equal title whoever first enters into the land is adjudged the true and rightfull Owner of it during the life of I. N. and that by the sole title of Occupancy as they call it which they wholly ground upon this known reason that in equality of pretensions Possession still casts the ballance Nay such regards is given by our Law to Possession that were the right of a former Title never so evident yet a certain time of peaceable Possession undisturb'd by the contrary claim would absolutely bar it And here I should take my self obliged to ask my Adversary's pardon for using such words as a Dr. of Divinity is not presumed to be acquainted with did not his own Example at least excuse if not provoke my imitation Thus much of the force of Possession in general without descending to the nature of ours in particular that is of such a Possession as is justly presumable to have come from Christ Hence followes that since Possession of Authority must stand till sufficient Reasons be alledged that it was unjust those Motives and Reasons ought to be weighed whether they be sufficient or no ere the Authority can be rejected wherefore since the relinquishing any Authority actually in power before makes a material breach from that Government the deciding the question onely stands in examining those Reasons which oppose its lawfulness since the sufficiency of them cleares the breakers the insufficiency condemns them and in our case makes the material Schism formal Let the Reader then judge how little advised Dr. H. was in stating the question rightly and clearly of Schism pag 10. where he tells us that the motives are not worth he eding in this controversy but onely the truth of the matter of fact For the matter of fact to wit that there was then an actual Government and that they broke from it being evident to all the world and confest by themselves if there be no reasons to be examined he is convinced by his own words to be a Schismatick so flatly and palpably that it is left impossible for him even to pretend a defence The sixth Ground shall be that Such a Possession as that of the Pope's Authority in England was held ought not to be changed or rejected upon any lesser motives or reasons than rigorous and most manifest Evidence that it was usurp't The reasons for this are fetch 't by parity from that which went before onely the proportions added For in moving a Body in nature the force of the cause must be proportion'd to the gravity settledness and other extrinsecal impediments of the Body to be moved otherwise nothing is done In morals the motives of dissent ought to be more powerfull than those for the former continuance in assent otherwise a soul as a soul thas is as rational is not or ought not to be moved and so in the rest Now that nothing less than Evidence rigorously and perfectly such can justify a rejecting of that Authority is thus show'd That Authority was held as of Faith and to have been constituted by Christ's own mouth it had been acknowledgedly accounted for such by multitudes of pious learned men for many ages before in all Christian Countries of the Communion of the Roman Church
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
the following ought to be the sixth But nothing could secure S. W. from the melancholy cavilling humour of his Adversary who is so terrible that the Printer's least oversight and his own mistake must occasion a dry adnimadversion against S. W. and yet the jest is he pretends nothing but courtesy and civility and persuades many of his passionate adherents that he practices both in his writings For answer then to my first seventh Section according to Dr. H. but in reality the sixth he refers me to his Reply c. 4. sect 1 where he answers all but the ridiculous colours as he says Answ p. 38. which indeed I must say were very ridiculous as who ever reads Schism Disarm'd p. 41. or his own book p. 68. may easily see where after he had spoken of and acknowledg'd King Henry the eighth's casting out the Pope's Authority it follows in his own words thus of Schism p. 68. First they the Romanists must manifest the matter of fact that thus it was in England 2. the consequence of that fact that it were Schism supposing those Successours of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ that is we must be put first to prove a thing which himself and all the world acknowledges to wit that King H. the eighth deny'd the Pope's Supremacy next that what God bid us doe is to be done and that the Authority instituted by Christ is to be obe'yd Dr H. is therefore can-did when he acknowledges here that these passages are ridiculous very unconsonant to himself when he denyes there is the least cause or ground for it in his Tract whereas his own express words now cited manifestâ—â—â— and lastly extraordinarily reserv'd in giving no other answer than this bare denial of his own express words But being taken tardy in his Divisionary art in which it is his coÌ„mon custome to talke quodlibetically he thought it the wiser way to put up what 's past with patience than by defending it give occasion for more mirth But to come to the point That which was objected to him by me and the Cath. Gent. was this That he expected Catholicks should produce Evidences and proofs for the Pope's Authority in England which task we disclaimed to belong to us who stood upon possession and such a possession as no King can show for his Crown any more than it does to an Emperour or any long and-quietly-possest Governour to evidence to a known Rebel and actual Renouncer of his Authority that his title to the Kingdome is just ere he can either account him or punish him as rebellious In answer Dr. H. Repl. p. 44. first denies that he required in the Place there agitated that is in the beginning of his fourth Chapter of Schism any such thing of the Catholicks as to prove their pretensions â—ut his own express words of Schism p. 66. 67. check his bad memory which are these Our method now leads us to enquire impartially what evidences are producible against the Church of England whereby it may be thought liable to this guilt of Schism Whence he proceeds to examine our Evidences and to solve them which is manifestly to put himself upon the part of the Respondent the Catholick on the part of the Opponent that is to make us bring proofs and seem to renounce the claim of our so-qualify'd a possession by condescending to dispute it Whereas we are in all reason to stick to it till it be sufficiently disprov'd which cannot be done otherwise than by rigorous Evidence as hath been shown not to dispute it as a thing dubious since 't is evident we had the possession and such a possession as could give us a title This therefore we ought to plead not to relinquish this firm ground and to fall to quibble with him in wordish testimonies To omit that the evidences he produces in our name are none of ours For the onely evidence we produce when we please to oppose is the evidence of the Infallibility of Vniversal Tradition or Attestation of Fore-fathers which we build upon both for that and other points of Faith nor do we build upon Scripture at all but as interpreted by the practice of the Church and the Tradition now spoken of Wherefore since Dr. H. neither mentions produces nor solves those that is neither the certainty of Vniversal Attestation nor the testimonies of Scripture as explicable by the received doctrine of Ancestours which latter must be done by showing that the doctrine of the Church thus attested and received gives them not this explication 't is evident that he hath not so much as mention'd much less produced or solved our Evidences Our Doctors indeed as private Writers undertake sometimes ex superabundanti to discourse from Scripture upon other Grounds as Grammar History propriety of language c. to show ad hominem our advantage over the Protestants even in their own and to them the onely way but Interpretations of Scripture thus grounded are not those upon which we rely for this or any other point of our Faith So that Dr. H. by putting upon us wrong-pretended Evidences brings all the question as is custome is to a word-skirmish where he is sure men may fight like Andabatae in the dark and so he may hap to escape knocks whereas in the other way of Evident reason he is sure to meet with enough At least in that case the controversy being onely manag'd by wit and carried on his side who can be readiest in explicating and referring one place to another with other like inventions it may be his good fortune to light on such a doltish Adversary that the Doctor may make his ayre-connected discourse more plausible than the others which is all he cares for This being a defence and ground enough for his fallible that is probable Faith Dr. H. defends himself by saying p. 44. he mean't onely that Catholicks bring Christ's donation to S. Peter for an Argument of the Pope's Supremacy instancing against the Cath. Gent. in his own confession that Catholicks rely on that donation as the Foundation or cornerstone of the whole buildâ—ng By which one may see that the Doctor knows not or will not know the difference between a Title and an Argument Christ's donation to S. Peter is our title our manner of trnour by which we hold the Pope his Successour Head pastour not our argument to infer that he is so 'T is part of our Tenet and the thing which we hold upon possession to be disprov'd by them or if we see it fitting to bee prov'd by us not our argument or proof against them to maintain it or conclude it so As a title then we rely and build upon it not produce it as a proof to conclude any thing from it And indeed I wonder any man of reason should imagin we did so since if he be a Scholar he cannot but know that we see how to the Protestants the supposed proof would be as deniable and in
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
who of Schism p. 145. l. 5. seems even to strain sence it felf to express this calling this disclaiming the Pope's power tbe Bottome upon which the foundation of Reformation was laid that is the foundation of their foundation their fundamentall of fundamentalls Now then how those Bishops should not bee then Protestants who held the fundamentall of fundamentalls of Protestantism passes my skill to explicate and as I am persuaded my L ds too Sect. 3. How my L d of Derry endeavours to clear his Church from Schism by bringing Protestants to speak in their own cause nay the very Act or statute for which wee accuse them as an undeniable Testimony for them Likewise how hee produces for his chief Plea a Position opposit both to his own and our party's acknowledgment nay to the very eysight of the whole world twisting in it self a multitude of most direct contradictions and lastly quite annihilating at once all the Papists in the world HIs third Section pretends to make good his second grownd for dividing from the Church which was this because in the separation of England from Rome there was no now law made but onely their ancient liberties vindicated This I calld as I could do no less notoriously false and impudence it self alledging that a law was made in H. the 8th's time and an oath invented by which it was given the King to bee Head of the Church and to have all the power which the Pope did at that time possess in England Hee asks if this bee the language of the Roman Schools No my L d it is and ought to bee the language of every sincere man who bears any respect to truth shame or honesty against those who are profest and sworn Enemies of all three in case his circumstances have put him upon the task to lay such persons open and confute them Hee appeals to any indifferent Christian judge I decline not the Tribunal nay more I shall bee willing to stand to the award of the most partiall Protestant living who hath but so much sincerity as to acknowledge the Sun's shining at noonday or that the same thing cannot both bee not bee at once But. First hee goes about to acquit himself by confessing that hee sayd no new law was made then but denying that hee said no new statute was made Wee will not wrangle with him about the words onely I say if there were something new it was new and a statute made and approved by the King and his Parliament as this was wee Englishmen use to term a law if then there were a new statute made as hee confesses I concieve I have not wrong'd in the least the common language of England to call it a new law But his meaning is that King H. the 8th did noe new thing when hee renounced the Pope's Authority but what had been done formerly and therefore Secondly hee quotes Fitz-herbert and my Lord Cook who say that this statute was not operative to create a new law but declarative to restore an ancient law That is hee quotes two of his own party to prove hee sayd right and two Protestants to speak in behalf of Protestants Convincing proofs doubtles against us Thirdly hee promises to make it appear undeniably Whence or from what Authority from the very statute it self which sayes That England is an Empire and that the King as Head of the body politick consisting of the Spirituality and temporality hath plenary power to render finall iustice for all matters That is hee quotes the schismaticall King himself and his schismaticall Parliament who made this statute to speak in their own behalfs Does such a trifler deserve a Reply who in a dispute against us cites the authorities of those very persons against whom wee dispute nay that very Act of theirs which wee are challenging to have been schismaticall and relies upon them for undeniable Testimonies Fourthly hee alledges another statute made in the 24. of King H. the 8th the best hee could pick out you may bee sure yet there is not a syllable in it concerning spirituall Iurisdiction directly that is not a syllable to his purpose 'T is this The Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subjected to God in all things touching it's Regality and to no other and ought not to bee submitted to the Pope Wee are disputing about spirituall Iurisdiction and whether it were due to the Pope and the Bp. brings a statute which fpeaks of the Crown of England it self as not to bee submitted to the Pope as touching it's Regality that is a statute which expresly speaks of temporall Iurisdiction Hee tells us that Ecclesiasticall greivances are mention'd in that statute but sleightly omits so much as to name them much less to urge them which were they worth it wee may bee sure hee would have done with a triumph And besides hee knows wee hold every good King is to take order to see Ecclesiasticall grievances remedy'd and the Canons of the Church observ'd Nay hee knows if hee knows any thing our own Lawyers grant that Ecclesiasticall affairs sometimes fall under temporall power indirectly as on the other side temporall affairs fall indirectly under the Ecclesiasticall Yet that there is any more than this nay even so much in this statute my L d D. hath not shown us and if wee will bee judged by the words of the statute which hee cites they look quite another way But what matters it what this statute sayes being made two years after his unlawfull marriage with Anna Bullon which was the source of all his rebellion intended in all Likelihood when that match was made up As for his pretence that I conceal'd some of his particulars hee knows I undertook no more than to answer the substance and to show that such kindes of particularities were not worth alledging as I did in this very place and shall do again presently more amply Fifthly hee quarrells with mee for calling his Authorities meer Allegations which hee tells us are authentick Records c. whereas my words were onely these p. 311. l. 30. that hee brought diverse allegations in which the Pope's pretences were not admitted c. Now I concieve a Record or any other Authority alledged is an Allegation which was the word I vsed the word meer was meerly his own fiction to gain an occasion to cavill as the place now cited where my words are found will inform the Readers eyes These straws being stept over with which the learned Bp. thought to block up our passage Wee come to the point it self Whether King H. the 8th did any more than his Ancestours My L d of D. in his vindication to show hee did no more or made no new law gathers up Instances from our former laws and reiterates them here though sometimes hee uses a phrase louder than hâ—s proofs how the Pope's were curb'd or limited in their pretences Wee answer'd that
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
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
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
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
For nothing is easier than to show that a wrongly pretended demonstration does not conclude evidently or convince that the thing is nothing easier than to show out of the very terms that a probability cannot rationally convince the understanding But the danger of this disadvantage and the fear of this quick decision is the reason his Ld. will tell us neither Thus Protestant Reader thou seest how dextrously thy Bp. hath behaved himself in answering both parts of our charge against him and which alone fundamentally concern our question to wit how hee hath by shuffling about avoided to say a positive word to one and totally omitted so much as to mention the other And this in the Bishops right sence is call'd vindicating the Church of England and replying to S. W. Sect. 2. How my Ld of Derry goes about to acquit the Protestants both a tanto and a toto as hee styles it grounding his violent prâ—sumptions of their innocency on contradictions both to common reason and his good Friend Dr. H. on his own bare word that his party are Saints and his non-sencicall plea that those who began first to separate from our Church were ere that united to it HItherto I have been somewhat larger in replying than I intended because the former points were fundamentally concerning and totally decisive of the question His Exceptions since hee dares not own them for demonstrations are consequently in our case trifles toyes and nothing to the purpose and therefore as they cannot challenge any at all so I ought not to wrong my self in giving them too large an Answer unles in those places where they touch upon a point that is more important In the first place hee maintains that it many wayes acquits the Protestants continuing the breach because not they but the Roman-Catholikes themselves did make the first separation Wee will omit the perfect non-sence of this plea which equally acquits any Villain in the world who insists in the steps of his forefather Villains For may not hee argue against honest men by the same Logick and say that they are acquitted because not Villains but they who were honest men formerly begun first the Villany It being equally infallible and necessary that hee who first turn'd naught was ere hee turn'd so good before as it is that hee who first separated was ere hee separated united to that Church that is a Roman Catholike But I have say'd enough of this Part 1. p. 92. 93. therefore let us now examin his reasons why this many wayes as hee sayes acquits them First hee sayes it is a violent presumption of our guilt that our own best friends did this The word best might have been left out they were ever accounted better friends who remain'd in their former faith and the other Bps look't upon as Schismaticks by the obedient party But yet it might seem some kinde of argument against us did those who were friends in all other respects voluntarily oppose us in this and out of a free and unbiassed choice as the Bp. must pretend else hee does nothing Let us examin this then Your own good friend Dr. H. shall give you satisfaction in that point of Schism p. 136 where speaking of this Act of the Clergy in renouncing the Authority of the Roman see the palpable truth obliging him hee hath these words It is easy to beleeve that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung overthem by a premunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it Thus hee The violent presumption then of our guilt which you imagin concluded hence is turn'd into a iust presumption or rather a confest Evidence of the King 's violent cruelty and their fearfull weaknes Rare Grounds doubtles to acquit you for being led by their Authority or following their example Secondly hee tells us that though it do not alwaies excuse a toto from all guilt yet it excuses a tanto and lessens the guilt to bee misled by the examples and Authority of others c. Let us examin this as apply'd to the Protestants How could they think their example to bee follow'd or their Authority to bee rely'd on whom they confess to have done what they did out of fear that is out of passion and not out of the pure verdict of reason conscience Again if their example were to bee follow'd why do not they follow it rather in repenting of their Schism and renouncing it as those Bps did after the King's death since the imminent fear which aw'd them at the time of their fall and during the King's life ioyn'd with their retraction after his death of what they had done render it a thousand times more manifest that their conscience took part with the obedient side had they had courage enough to stand to it Moreover sometimes the first beginners of a fault may bee less culpable then their followers according to the degrees of the provocations which press upon their weaknesses Theirs wee have seen to bee no less than the expectation of death and destruction such was the violence of the King 's in humane cruelty and their present disadvantageous case which expos'd them to it Your conâ—inuance in Schism compar'd to the motivâ—s of their fault is in a manner gratis All your reason heretofore of thus continuing being for your Livings and interest and at present onely a vain-glorious itch to approve your selves to your party for braue fellows in railing against the Pope and defending a Chimera bomâ—inans in vacuo the Church of England found no where save in the imaginary space of your own fancies Thirdly hee assures us that in this case it doth acquit them not onely a tanto but a toto from the least degree of guilt as long as they carefully seek after truth and do not violate the dictates of their own conscience and then bids mee if I will not beleeve him beleeve S. Austin who sayes that they who defend not their false opinions with pertinacity but are ready to embrace truth and correct their errours when they finde them are not Hereticks I Answer S. Austin sayes well onely obstinacy makes an heretick and so far wee beleive him But does S. Austin say that Bp. Bramhall ad his fellows are not obstinate or that they neglect not to seek not refuse not to embrace truth found and by consequence are not Hereticks and Schismaticks The generall words of the father signify nothing to your purpose unles they bee apply'd to your party and who makes the application The Bp. himself and upon what Grounds upon his own bare word and then cries They are totally acquited from Schism That is hee makes an acquittance himself for himself writes it with his own hand set his own seal to it and subscribes it with his own name and then brings it into the Court to clear himself of the whole debt and that by his own Authority Reader trust neither side as they barely testify of themselves but trust what
to limit an Authority implies an admittance of it in cases to which the restraints extend not Hee replies that this meaning those laws was not meerly to limit an Authority but to deny it p. 20. l. 20. yet in the next page hee denies not equivalent laws in france spain Germany Italy and in his vindication p. 73. l. 7. 8. c. hee affirms that the like laws may bee found in Germany Poland france spain Italy sicily and if wee will trust Padre Paolo in the Papacy it self These things being put granted and confest from his own words I shall now appeal even to the Bp s best and bosom-friend whether impudence was not a moderate character for that man's genius or humour who should go about to pretend that King H. the 8th did no more in this particular that is renounced the Pope's Authority no more than his Ancestour Kings had done before him For. First this is opposite to the common notion and generall opinion of the whole world both Catholicks Protestants Puritans and of what ever sect or sort who ever deem'd Henry the 8th to bee the first King of England who renounced the Pope's Supremacy and challenged it to himself Nor had they ever that conciet of France Spain Italy c. in which notwithstanding the Bp. grants equivalent laws to the former laws of England to which according to him K. H. superadded nothing This particularity I say in K. H. the 8th all the world as far as I ere heard always held in their free and naturall thoughts though when they are put to it to defend a desperate cause artifice wrongs nature and puts some of their non-plust Controvertists to assert and maintain the most open absurdities Secondly it is in particular against the confession and profession of his own party the Protestants who sing Halleluiahs incessantly to this happy time in which England was freed from the yoke of Rome which is an evident argument of their pretence that till now they groan'd under this yoke that is that till now the Pope's Headship was acknowledg'd here and by consequence that K. H. the 8th did more than his Ancestours did formerly when hee shook it of Thirdly this position contradicts in terms their Reformation in this point of the Pope's Supremacy which yet rings in every man's ears and is confest by themselves for it is impossible and contradictory there should bee a Reformation in any thing which was not otherwise before It was therfore otherwise in England before K. H. the 8th's time notwithstanding all these former power-limiting laws alledged by the Bp. and consequently 't is evident from the very terms that K. H. superadded to these laws in renouncing the Pope's Authority and that the contrary position is most absurd impossible and contradictory Fourthly it being confest by themselves and particularly by Dr. H. of Schism p. 132. in these very words For the matter of fact it is acknowledg'd that in the reign of K. H. the 8th the Papall power in Ecclesiasticall affairs was both by Acts of convocation of the Clergy and by statutes or Acts of Parliament cast out of this Kingdome This I say being confest and it being also evident in terms that nothing can bee said to bee cast out of a place unles before it were in it 't is likewise evident in terms that this power was in England before notwithstanding the former laws cited by my L d D. then in power in this country and that those statutes and Acts of Parliament made by K. H. which cast it out did some new thing against that Authority that is did create new laws and not onely declare the old Fifthly since according to him these laws made by H. the 8th did no more than the former laws those former laws also must bee pretended to have cast out the Pope's Supremacy and to have begun a Reformation which yet wee never heard pretended and hee must show us when and how this Authority of the Pope in England twinklingly went out and in again otherwise it could never bee said to bee cast out a fresh in K. H's reign Sixthly this position of his is particularly opposite also to the common consent of all Catholike countries in which notwithstanding the Bp. affirms there are found equivalent laws who all look't on K. H. the 8th after those Pope renouncing Acts as a Schismatick and on England both then and ever since as schismaticall Now that they should esteem and abhor England as schismaticall for doing the same things themselves also did is against common sence and impossible Seventhly since iust vindication p. 73. l. 8. hee quotes Padre Paulo that the like laws were to bee found in the Papacy it self and 't is perfect non-sence to affirm that in the Papacy of which the Pope is both spirituall and temporall Governour hee should not bee held for Head of the Church 't is most manifest that the like laws in other places and in particular amongst our Ancestours in England did not take away from him that Headship in Ecclesiasticall matters and by consequence that K. H. the 8th who deny'd him that Headship did something new which his Ancestours had not done and when hee enacted this created new law 'T is most manifest likewise that those like laws in the Papacy are onely to distinguish the Pope's spirituall power there from his temporall that is to limit it's bounds not to deny it and consequently those mutually-like laws in other countries and in England formerly did onely limit it likewise Whence follows inevitably that K. H's law which totally abolish't renounc't and deny'd it was of another far different strain and new law Eightly this position is demonstratively convinc't of falshood by the evidēt and acknowledg'd effect for who sees not that upon this new law made by K. H. England stood at another distance from Rome than formerly for formerly notwithstanding all their laws they held still the Pope was Head of the universall Church reverenced him as such held this as of faith and this till the very time of the breach Whereas after K. H's law hee was held by the party which adhered to that law no Head of the universall Church nor reverenc't as such if any thing rather the contrary that England was absolutely independent on him was held as of faith Is not this as evident as that the sun shines and may it not with equall modesty bee den'yd that there ever was such a man as K. H. the 8th Ninthly this very position takes away the whole question between us and makes both us and all the Controvertists in England on both sides talk in the aire wrangling pro and con why K. H. cast out the Pope's Authority here whenas according to this illuminated Adversary of mine hee had actually noe Authority there at that time to cast out Lastly this position is so thriving an absurdity that from non-sence and contradiction it prosperously proceeds to perfect madnes and fanaticknes and comes
to this that there neither is nor ever was a Papist country in the world For since 't is evident in terms that the King and his complices who made that Pope disclaiming Act were not Papists or acknowledgers of the Pope's Authority after they had thus renounc't the Pope's Authority Again since according to the Bp. the same laws were formerly made receiu'd and executed in England it follows that our Ancestours equally renounced the Pope's Authority also and so could bee no Papists neither and lastly since hee grants equivalent laws infrance Spain Italy Sicily Germany Poland c. it follows by the same reason that those countries are not Papists neither no not the very Papacy it self And so this miraculous blunderer hath totally destroy'd and annihilated all the Papists in the world with one self contradictory blast of his mouth And now Christian Reader can I do any less if I intend to breed a due apprehension in thee of the weaknes of his cause and falshood of this man than appeal to thy judgment whether any mad man or born fool could have stumbled upon such a piece of non sence Dos't not think my former words very moderate and very proper to character this man's way when I said How ridiculous how impudent a manner of speaking is this to force his Readers to renounce their eyes ears and all Evidence Could any man without a visard of brass on pretend to secure men's Souls from Schism a sin which of Schism c. 1. themselves acknowledge as great as Idolatry by alledging such sublimated non-sence for a sufficient excuse or ground when the acknowledg'd fact of schismatizing and renting God's Church cries loudly against them nay more since less motives and reasons cannot iustify such a fact nor a continuance of it to bring such an heap of contradictions for perfect Evidences and demonstrations Pardon mee you whose weaker or seldomer reflections on the certainty of faith and by consequence of the certainty of an eternall concernment in these kind of Controversies make you think courtesy violated by such home-expressions which may breed a smart reflexion and stir up a more perfect consideration in the Readers mind's Examin my harshest words in the utmost rigour as apply'd to his Demerits and if they exceed hold mee for blamed if not then think as reason grants that it is equally moderate but far more necessary to call great and wilfull faults by their right names of Cosenage impudence c. if they deserve them as 't is to call smaller lapses by theirs of a mistake or an oversight How can it ever bee hoped that Truth should bee righted as long as her Adversaries may take the liberty to act impudently against her and her Defenders must bee afraid to tell the world their faults and to say what they do Again were this shameles position of this Bp s some odd saying on the by or some petty branch of his discourse it deserv'd less animadversion but 't is the substantiallest part of his vindication where hee huddles together many laws which de facto consisted with the acknowledgment of the Pope's Authority both in England and other Catholike countries to parallell K. H's which were absolutely inconsistent with it and to show that K. H. did no more than his Ancestours and other Catholikes did So that hee alledges this as a chief ground of their vindication and wee shall see again afterwards an whole Section built on this one particular ground Now had hee grounded himself on a foundation of some sandy probability it had been though still insufficient yet more pardonable and in comparison of the other honourable or on an aiery fancy of some odd Crotchet of his own head as was Dr. H's conciet of the Apostles Exclusive Provinces it had been to bee pittied if sprung from weaknes or laught at if from wilfulnes but to ground his vindication that is to build his and his adherents security from Schism and eternall damnation on the meer vacuum of non sence and perfect coÌ„tradiction confutable by the contrary tenet acknowledgment and sight of the whole worlds eyes is such a piece of shamelesnes that it can admit no sufficient character as a non ens is incapable of a definition As for his particularities entrenching or pretended to entrench on the Pope's Authority whether they were lawfully done or no how far they extended in what circumstances and cases they held in what not how the letter of those laws are to bee understood c. all which the Bp. omits though hee press the bare words it belongs to Canon and secular Lawyers to scuffle about them not to mee I hold my self to the lists of the question and the limits of a Controvertist And Whenas hee asks mee what lawfull Iurisdiction could remain to the Pope in England where such and such laws had force I answer the same that remains still to him in france where you confess equivalent laws have force the same that remains to him still in Spain Italy Sicily c. So that either you must speak out according to the Grounds and say there it not a Papist country in the world that is not a country that acknowledges the Pope Head of the Church which is to put out the eyes of the whole world for wee see de facto that hee is acnowledg'd and exercises Iurisdiction in Catholike counttries or else confess that they retain still something notwithstanding those equivalent laws which you renounc't This something which they still retain more than you doe is that which makes you Schismaticks for rejecting it and is so far from grounding your excuse for which you produce it that it enhances your guilt and Grounds a most iust accusation against you that Whereas such and so many strong curbs were set by the former laws of England as are also in Catholike countries to secure you from the least fear of any extravagant encroachmeÌ„ts nay by which you confess here p. 36. they kept their priviledges inviolated yet your desperately-seditions humour could neither bee contented with that freedome from too much subjection which your own forefathers and all other countries then in CoÌ„munion with you enioy'd but you must quite extirpate the inward Right it self totally abolish and renounce the very substance of thâ— former Ecclesiasticall Government and cast it out of the Kingdome Sect. 4. My L d of Derry's senceles plea from the Church of England's succeeding the British Church in her pretended exemptions from forrain Iurisdiction and the uniustifiablenes of those pretensions The perfect weaknes of his Corroboratory proof and utter authenticknes of the Welsh Pueriles THe scope of his fifth Chapter as himself here acknowledges was to show that the Britannik Churches were ever exempted from forrain Iurisdiction for the first 600. yeâ—rs Now his book being entitled a vindication of the â—hurch of England to show this whole process frivolous I ask't what this belong'd to us unles it bee proved that their practicks were an
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—
that there is a thing call'd an Answer or account to H. T 's Appendix which confuted this forged manuscript writ by Dr. H though I briefly hinted here some exceptions found in it without taking notice of their pretended answer partly because I know by long experience that nothing but shuffling impertinences paralogisms and falsifications are to bee expected from that Authour and principally because I understood that the sayd Appendix is patroniz'd by the same learned pen that writ it and those Exceptions shown untouch't by the mock shirmish of his Adversary Thither I refer the Reader for compleat satisfaction where hee will see my BP more fully confuted and my present charge against the sleight Accountant most amply made good Sect. 5. How my Ld of Derry digresses from a Papall Authority to a Patriarchall that is from t who le question His prafest resolution not to return to it but upon conditions and such as hee is sure no Catholike can yeeld to His waving the whole scope of his Adversary's Discourse together with diverse impertinent non sencicall and unskilfull Replies MY Lord of Derry undertook to prove three things in his 6th Chapter first that the King Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdraw their obedience from the Roman Patriarch 2 ly that they had iust Grounds to do it and 3 ly that they did it with due moderation I objected that this was to shuffle away the whole question For whereas the question is of the Priviledge given by Christ to S. Peter and from him descended to the Pope's his successours that is whereas our Controversy is about a Papall Authority or that of the Head of God's Church held by us and by themselves formerly to bee of faith and of divine Institution hee leaves this to talk of a Patriarchall Authority not held as from Christ but of humane Institution By which sleight hee tacitly intimates that the Authority actually in force in England at the time of the Reformation and then renounced was onely Patriarchall not Papall which waves the main if not the whole charge and is plainly contradictory to the whole world's eyes at that time Now what excuse brings the Bishop for this fundamentall shuffling importing no less than the avoiding the whole question Hee tells us here p. 30. that when hee first undertook this subject hee coÌ„ceived the great strength of the Roman sampson did lie in his Patriarchate By which words if the Bp. pretends that hee intended to express himself finely I shall grant it but if hee sayes that hee intended to speak truly I have so good an opinion of those of his own party that I am confident the most partiall and simplest of them will bee too candid and too wise to beleeve him For how can it bee imagin'd that a Bp. and so well read a man as hee is accounted to bee should bee ignorant that the Reformers renounc't a Papall Authority and higher than Patriarchall and that a Papall Authority that is a Supremacy over the whole Church in Ecclesiasticall matters was held immediately before the Reformation or rejection of it Who knows not likewise that they stand accused by us of the fact of renouncing an Authority far higher than Patriarchall yet this Bp. undertaking that subject that is to vindicate his Church from Schism in renouncing that higher Authority pretends hee conceived that the great strength of the Roman sampson lay in his Patriarchate though hee knows the Patriarchate was held but of human that Papacy of divine Institution the Patriarchate limited to some particular part within God's Church the Papacy which they actually renounced held to bee universally extended and to have no other bounds or limits but God's Church the Papacy superior nay supreme the Patriarchate inferior and subordinate to the former This is the notion which both the former and present world nay themselves too had of the Papacy at least ere they rejected it which a man would think supperadds a great and manifold increase of strength above the other But the sincere Bp. thinks otherwise now though in his former book hee confesses the Pope had quitted the Patriarchall power that is pretended none for these last 600. years and here enlargeth it to a 1000. Which shows that Dr. H. and hee are the Simeon and Levy of the Protestant fraternity and have the same fundamentall faults common to both But now being taken tardy and caught running away from the question hee is well contented hee sayes to give over that subject to wit his disgression to the Patriarchate but yet not but upon two conditions wise ones you may bee sure Observe by the way Reader that though other disputants make account it is their duty and absolute obligation to speak to the point in hand in the Bp. 't is a courtesy and to bee condescended to conditionally 't is against his nature and inclination to hold to the question and therefore wee must bribe him to it 〈◊〉 sâ—bscribing to the bargain hee proposes The first condition hee requires ere hee will leave of rambling to a Patriarchate and come home to the question is that wee must not presume the Pope is a spirituall Monarch without proving it What hee means by spirituall Monarch I know not 'T is a word without sence till it bee explicated For either hee means by Monarch a Commander in whose breast all concernments of the subjects are put so that his will is a law to dispose of them as hee lists and then wee held not the Pope to bee such a Monarch for this however it bee call'd Monarch is indeed flat Tyranny or else hee means a Monarch is the ordinary chief Governour and such wee hold the Pope to bee in the Church and shall ever presume hee is so till his subjects who actually rebell'd against his Authority disprove it Wee hold on the Governours side your first Reformers were before their separation actually his subjects actually they deny'd their subjection and rose against his Government ' This actuall rising against him this very fact I say proves you Rebells his former long-enjoy'd possession stands a proof of his Right unles you evidence and demonstrate him an vsurper or though none yet that the Government ought to bee abolish't But the Bp. will not hold to the question unles wee will grant that when a subject rises against a former long possest Governour hee shall at pleasure call the Governour to account and oblige him to prove his title ere hee will acknowledge him and on the other side that the subject must bee freed from all obligation to give account of his rising against his Governour or from being bound to prove that the Authority hee rebell'd against was an usurpation and unjust Good sence but hard law His second condition ere hee will come to the question is that wee must not attempt to make Patriarchall priviledges to bee Royall Prerogatives what hee means by Royal Prerogatives I know not there being no determinate
nor was pretended by mee as such but as a consideration which much aggravates the charge and obliges in all reason the renouncers of this Authority to look very charily to the sufficiency of the causes of thâ—t their division For since it follows out of the terms that ere they renounced it and by thus renouncing it left to bee Catholikes they immediately before held it as Catholikes do that is held it as a point of faith and of Christ's Institution and since it is evident that none ought to change his faith which hee and his Ancestours immemorially embrac'd but upon evident Grounds again since it is evident likewise and confest that temporall motives ought not to make us break Christ's commands which is done by rejecting a Government which hee instituted Two things are consequent hence to their disadvantage one that their motives ought to bee rigoro sly evident and demonstrative for their renouncing it since dâ—nger of damnation ensves upon their miscarriage and this even in their own thoughts as they were lay'd in their minds when they first began to meditate a breach The other that the pretended causes especially temporall inconveniences for the abolishing this Authority can no waies iustify the first breakers who held it formerly a point of faith since no iust causes can bee given to renounce an Authority held to bee instituted by Christ As then it had been rationall to Reply to King H. the 8th remaining yet a Catholike and beginning to have thoughts to abolish this Authority upon such and such temporall inconveniences that his maiesty and his Ancestours had held it of divine Institution and that therefore there could bee no iust cause to abolish it so it is equally seasonable to Reply to my Lord of Derry who undertakes here to vindicate him by alledging the same thing that these causes nor any else were sufficient to make them begin to break because ere they begun the breach they held this Authority to bee of Christ's Institution and therefore it is a folly for him to think to iustify them by huddling together causes and motives and crying them up for sufficient till hee can show they had Evidence of the Truth of the opposite point greater than the pretended Evidence of Authority universall Tradition which they actually had for their former tenet If a cause bee sufficient to produce an effect and equally apply'd 'tis manifest the same effect will follow Hence as an argument of the insufficiency of their motives of Division I alledged that all other Catholike countries had the same exceptions yet neither broke formerly nor follow your Example Hee answers first Few or none have sustain'd so great oppression which signifies I know not well whether any have or no or for any thing I know some have Nor does hee prove the contrary otherwise than by a pleasant saying of a certain Pope Any thing will serve him Next hee tells us all other countries have not right to the Cyprian priviledges as Brittain hath And how proves hee that this country had any by that Council Is England named in the Council of Ephesus which exempted Cyprus from the Patriarch of Antioch No. Is Brittain at least No. How come wee then to bee particularly priviledg'd by that Council Why the Bp. of Derry thinks so His Grounds Because that Council ordains that no Bp. should occupy a Province which was not from the beginning under his Predecessours And how proves hee the application that England was never anciently under the Pope as Head of the Church from Sr Henry Spelman's old-new manuscript and two or three raggs of History or misunderstood Testimonies Are they demonstrative or rigorous Evidences Here my Ld is wisely silent Will less serve than such proofs to iustify such a separation Hee is silent again Were they a thousand times as many are they of a weight comparable to a world of witnesses proceeding upon the Grounds of immediate dâ—livery from hand to hand which recommended and ascertain'd the contrary Alas hee never thinks of nor considers that at all but very wisely puts his light grains in one end of the scales negl â—cting to put our pounds in the other and then brags that his thin grains are overweight The third particularizing motive is his own unprou'd saying and is concluded with a boast that hee is not the onely schismatick in the world but hath Brothers Is this the way to argue against us To call all those Christians which profess the name of Christ and communicate with himself in the same guilt and then say hee hath fellows in his schism Hee knows wee grant them not to bee truly-call'd Christians but in the name onely and equivocally as a painted man is styld ' a man If hee will show that any Congregation of truly-call'd Christians partakes with him in the separation from Rome let him show that these pretended Christians for those points in which they differ from us did not renounce the onely certain Rule of faith Tradition or delivery of immediate forefathers or that there is any certain and infallible Rule but that Otherwise they are cut of from the Rule and Root of faith and by consequence not in a true appellation to bee call'd faithfull or Christians otherwise they heard not the immediately foregoing Church for those points which they innovated and so are to us no properly call'd Christians but according to our saviours counsell as Heathens and publicans I mean those who knowingly wilfully separated Talking voluntarily my Ld according to the dictates of your own fancy will not serve in a rigorous Controversy First show that those you call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of faith and so any faith and that they have not onely a probable and fallible GrouÌ„d that is opinion onely for their faith and then you shall contradict your own best and more candid writers who confess it in terms and do such a miracle as your Ancestours never attain'd to nor any of wit and ingenuity attempted seeing it impossible to bee done rationally I alledged in the next place to show more their inexcusablenes and the infussiciency of their pretended motives for breaking the example of our own country and forefathers who had the same cause to cast the Pope's Supremacy of the Land yet rather proferr'd to continue in the peace of the Church than to attâ—mpt so destructive an innovation The Bp. replies first that wee should not mistake them aâ—d that they still desire to live in the Communion of the Catholike Church c. No my Ld I doe not mistake you but know very well you would bee willing and glad too the former Church should own you for hers I doubt not but you are apprehensive enough of what honour would accrue to you if wee would account you true Catholikes and what disgrace you get by being accounted Hereticks and Schismaticks by us But yet your desire of staying in the Church is conditionall that you may bee permitted to remain
and Church of England did no more than all other Princes Republikes of the Roman Communion have done in effect This word in effect deserves a Comment and then if it bee candidly explicated we shall finde it â—ignifies the whole busines though it seeme to speak coyly mincingly Did they ever make laws to renounce and abrogate the Popes Authority and define absolutely against essentiall right Did they ever erect an Ecclesiasticall Superior as you did the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and pretend that he was in no manner of way subordinate to the Pope but vtterly independent on him Did any of them ever separate from the Church by disacknowledging his Head ship and by consequence the Rule of faith immediate Tradition which asserted it Not one Did not your self in your vindication p. 184. after your had put down the parallell acts of Henry the 8th to other Princes when you came to the point confess that Henry the 8th abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions but the Emperors with whom you run along with your parallel in other points did not so Did not your self here p. 37. where you put downe a gradation of the oppositions of the former Kings to the Pope tell us onely as the highest step of it that they threaned him further to make a Wall of separation between him them If then they but threaned to do what K. H. as appears by this law which vtterly renounces the Pope did it follows plainly that they did nothing and King Henry did all as farr as concerns our Controversy which is not about extent of his Authority or in what cases he may be check't from exercising particular Acts of that Authority but about the denying the very Right it self and which is consequent by denying joyintly the Rule of faith and by those denialls separating from the Body of the former Church which held both The signification then of this iuggling phrase in effect as apply'd to our purpose by his own interpretation is this that other Catholike countries did just nothing and King Henry the 8th did all To no imaginable purpose then save onely to show his diligence in nothing the politicall wranglings between Kings and Popes are all the instances produced by the Bishop that Catholike Kings in such such particular cases permitted not the Pope to execute what he intended unles he can deny his own words and prove that they did as much as K. Henry and not threaned onely But my Ld of Derry having taken a great deal of pains to gather together these notes which the way being new he made account would come of bravely grows much perplex't to see them all defeated at once by showing plainly that they are nothing to the purpose and therefore both heretofore and especially at present complains much that we answer them not in particular assuring the Reader that would our cause have born it we had done so Was ever man so ignorant of the common laws of disputing Needs any mory answer be given to particulars which one yeelds to than to say he grants them We grant therefore all his particular instances of these contess between Kings Popes and yeeld willingly that such such materiall facts happen'd many more not entring into that dispute how far they were done iustly how far un iustly which is little to our purpose since the Authority it self was still acknowledg'd on both sides What need we answer each in particular by saying first I grant this next I grant the other Now the use or application he makes of them that is to pretend thence that they did as much as King Henry the 8th so to iustify him is a particular point and one and to this I have answer'd particularly both here and also in my third Section where I have demonstrated it to be the most shameles manifoldly contradictory absurdity that ever bid defiance to the universall acknowledgment and ey-verdict of the whole word Vpon occasion of his alledging that all Catholike countries do the same in effect against the Pope as the Protestants I raised an exception of his incoherent manner of writing To which he thus replies p. 45. But what is the Ground of his exception nothing but a contradiction As if he made account that a contradiction is a matter of nothing nor worth excepting against His contradiction is this that our doctrine concerning the Pope is injurious to Princes prejudices their crowns and yet that we hold do the same against the Pope in effect as Protestants do He would salve the contradiction first by alledging that Papists may be injurious to Princes in one respect one time and do them right in another respect and another time Well my Lord but since the doctrine of the Papists concerning the substance of the Pope's Authority is ever constantly the same for none can be Papists longer then they hold it it knows no varitie of respectt not times and so if it be prejudiciall in it self once 't is prejudiciall alwayes The extent of it varies upon occasions this consists in an indivisible cannot alter This substance of his Authority is the point which belongs to you to impugn if you go to work consequently since you are onely accused of Schism for rejecting this not for hindring him from acting in particular cases Either grant then that this tenet is not preâ—udiciall to Princes being like yours and then you contradict your former pretence that it was or say that yours is prejudiciall to Princes also being the same in effect with it and then you have evaded indeed a contradiction but by as great an absurdity Secondly to show his former answer was nothing worth he alledges that I have changed the subject of the Proposition and that he spoke not of Papists but of the Pope Court of Rome No Ld but I would not let you change the subject of the whole question 'T is a separation from all the Churches in Communion with Rome that you stand accused of the undeniable fact evidences that you have broke from all those Churches by renouncing those two said Principles of Vnity in which they agree This is our accusation against you and so your excuses must be apply'd to this or else they are no excuses at all Now one of your excuses is that the Pope's Authority is prejudiciall to Princes and it must be mean't of the Pope's Authority as held universally by all those Churches else why did you separate from all those Churches upon that pretence But those Churches universally as you say hold the same in effect with the Protestants for you say you separated from the Court onely what needed them excuses from you to them unles there had been a contradiction in the busines Had you opposed onely some attempts of the Court of Rome by your tenet you might have remain'd still united with France Spain c who did as you confess the same in effect but
own nature changeable Hee imagins that Dr. Field hath prou'd some thing against us in this point and in answer shall imagin that those of ours who have reply'd to his toyes have disproved what hee is pretended to have proved nor am I further concern'd unles the Bp. had produced some weighty particular out of him which yet wanted answering as hee brings none at all After this hee will needs prove the Council of Trent not to have been a Generall one His exceptions that the summons were not generall that the foure Protopatriarchs were not present by themselves nor their deputies that there were not some present from the greater parts of all Christian Provinces are already shown to bee frivolous impertinent till hee gives us some certain determinate notion of Church and some certain Rule to know what sects in particular are of it what excluded as I have already manifested his Ground could give none For otherwise those who are excluded from or are not of the Church have no right to be Summon'd thither unles to bee call'd to the Barr as Delinquents nor to sit there nor are to be accounted Christians and so the summons may bee Generall all may bee there that should be there and some may bee present from the greater part of all Christian Provinces notwithstanding the neglect or absence of these aliens Hee ought then first put Grounds who are good Christians ought to bee call'd who not ere hee can alledge their not being call'd as a prejudice to the Council Our Grounds why it was generall are these The onely certain Rule of faith and by consequence root of Christianity which can secure us of God's word or any thing else is the immediate delivery or Tradition of forefathers Those therefore onely those who adhere to this root are to bee held truly Christians of the Church those who broke from it any time as did the Protestants professedly the Greeks the rest as evidently when they began to differ from us in any point are not properly Christians nor of the Church therefore a representative of the Church or Council is intire universall Generall though those latter who are not of the Church bee neither call'd Summon'd nor present provided those others who adhere to this root of faith and so are indeed Christians or adherers to Christ's law be Summon'd admitted But such was our Council of Trent therefore it was Generall Now to disprove this Council to bee Generall if hee would go to work solidly the Bp. should first alledge that it was not a sufficient representative of the whole Church which must bee done by manifesting definitely and satisfactorily who in particular are of the Church who not nor can this bee performed otherwise than by showing some Rule root of faith Christianity better qualify'd to bee such that is more certain more plain than this which may distinguish those who are of the Church from those who are not of it or else to convince that the Greeks Protestants Lutherans c. When they began to differ from the Roman innovated not but were found adhering to that immediate delivery otherwise they must confess that all were Summon'd that ought to have been Summon'd all were there or might have been there who ought to have been there and so the Council was Generall Till this bee done all his big worded pretences of the absence of the whole Provinces of the greater part of Christendome want of due summons fewnes of the members present that the Greeks are not known Rebells c. are convinc't to bee but voluntary talk as is indeed almost all this Treatise this being his peculiar manner of discoursing more fit for old wives Gossips at their frivolous meetings then for a Bp. and Controvertist handling matters of faith Hee sayes that the Greeks though Hereticks should have been lawfully heard condemned in a generall Council What needed hearing when themselves in the face of the whole world publikely confessed maintained avowed their imputed fault Condemned they were by generall Councils heretofore though the Bp's particular faculty of saying what hee lists without a word of proof will not allow them to bee such nor yet give us some certain way to know which Councils are such Or had it been an acknowledg'd generall Council and they heard condemned there still the B p. had an evasion in lavender hee laid up in store this reserve of words following that they were never heard or tried or condemned of heresy by any Council or person that had Iurisdiction over them and then hee is secure by talking boldy proving nothing His saying that though they were Hereticks yet they of all others ought especially to have been Summon'd signifies thus much that it is more necessary to a generall Council that Hereticks bee call'd thither than that Orthodox fathers bee so A substantiall peece of sence worthy consideration I brought a similitude of a Parliament that known and condemned Rebells need not bee call'd hee will needs have it run on four feet prosecutes it terribly some of his best trifles I shall reckon up First hee saies the Pope hath not that Authority over a generall Council as a King hath over a Parliament I answer I am so plain a man that I understand not what the Authority of King or Parliament either taken singly or one in order to the other signifies some Kings have more some less Authority so have Parliaments witness those of England France To expect then I should know â—ow great the Authority of King or Parliament is by naming onely the common words is to expect that one should know how long a country is by naming it a country or how big a mountain is by barely calling it a mountain That these have some great bignes and those some great Authority I know by their common names but how great I know not Words my Ld may serve you to give whose cause will not bear sence but they must not serve mee to take Secondly that the Greek Patriarchs are not known condemned Rebells Answer this is onely said again not prou'd and so 't is sufficient to reply that they who call'd the Council all in the Council held them so Again the errors which they publikely maintain'd have been condemned by Councils for the most part some of their own party being present Now why those who publikly profess those Errours should need a further calling to triall or why they are not known Rebells is the B p' s task to inform us Thirdly he sayes that the least Parliament in England had more members then the Council of Trent They were therefore graver and more choice persons The Church summons not parish-priests out of every great town as the common wealth doth two Burgesses out of every corporation Again what was it matters not but might not there bee a Parliament of England without having the fifth part of the members found
Adversaries but never shall he meet with so tender-hearted a man who is mightily afraid to hurt him when he never comes near touching him If he drew any bloud I am sure poor Priscian Lilly and Cambden felt the smart His ninth mistake which he calls his answer to my principal scruple but indeed is his own principal errour is his instancing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for parallels of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be of the nature of Hithpael I answer not onely these he alledges but also that the second persons of the imperative mood in all Verbs signifying an action indifferently performable by himself or another may by the circumstances come to signify an action upon himself yet this is not to be of the nature of Hith-pael which hath this always of its own Grammatical force without being beholding to circumstances Again the nature of Hith pael is to signify expressely as much as two words in Latin or Greek as I instanced in Schism Disarm'd and so is perfectly and essentially reciprocal these pretended parallels come from perfect actives which signify no more reciprocalness than amo and cognosco if taken in themselves and abstracted from circumstances But his main errour is that he runs to the quality of the thing signify'd from the quality of the word upon the account of the Grammatical notation which was the sole design of this Critical discourse and formerly his intent till he was frighted from it I grant therefore that the Ecclesiastical use and S. Iude rightly take a Schismatick for one who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divides himself from the Church but can he show me that the Church or S. Iude or any except himself tell us that this kind of reciprocal signification accrues to that word by any Grammatical observation from the passiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that taken in it's own nature it is not indifferent to signify I am cut by another as by my self till some circumstance determine it or can any show that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so of the rest is in it's own passive nature of any farther signification than barely I am saved leaving it to be determin'd by other words whether by my self or some other that is having of it self no reciprocal sense Vnless he can show this still the Doctor of Divinity hath forgot his Accidence and the first Dish in the bill of Fare should I suffer it would be put again upon record but I will chide the liquorish Stationer and bid him have som mercy on Dr. H. who hath so much Compassion upon S. W. His tenth mistake Answ p. 29. spent in sounding my Deep subtlety as he calls it is much-what of the same strain The word Schismatick in the Ecclesiastical use hath for it's total signification one who is divided voluntarily by himself from the Church and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if the circumstances apply it's native indifferency to that kind of sense must signify I am divided voluntarily or by my self from the Church Now to speak of the word it self it neither signifies I am divided voluntarily nor yet I am divided from another thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that much less I am divided by my self from the Church but the circumstances or use give all these and make the acception of the word such for a breach from the Church being inexcusable that is sinful must be voluntary and because in all divisions when one part bears a small proportion to the other that part is said to be divided from it therefore to schismatize is to divide himself voluntarily from the Church All this the use of the word yields and had Dr. H. onely stood to this he had found no opposition from S. W. but saved his credit at least for Grammatical skill but because he would deduce it by criticizing Grammatically I would let him see what consequence follow'd of it to wit that since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was as he said of the nature of Hith-pael and signify'd reciprocal action on himself himself the Schismatick is the thing divided now the said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a Verb simple and wanting an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make it signify a dividing from another in Dr. H's critical rigour it must make the poor Schismatick be cut in two and I much fear that all the Grammatical plaster Dr. H's art can make will not cover much less cure the wound himself would needs give himself by meddling too much with those edg'd tools of Criticisms Not to charge him with more mistakes ten are enough for him to fall into about one word I would know why he left my â—nth page unanswer'd which most concern'd the point To which had he apply'd his mistaking faculty I doubt not but we might have had a douzen if not thirteen for good measure Thus much of Dr. H's Hith-pael like Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his eagle-ey'd Criticism upon it which wil make his fame long-lived amongst all future Grammarians What follow in the next Paragraph granting his clients to be Schismaticks if I can prove their voluntary recession from us is already prov'd by his own clear confession Schism Disarm'd p. 279. where the Reader may see it manifested plainly my patience is not transcription-proof like Dr. H's to stand repeating it here But I know he will deny his words in one place or the other as he does more than once in this Treatise of his second thoughts He told us chap. 2. p. 3. that Governours being men may possibly erre and excommunicate the innocent I answered that unless he could evidence an immunity from errour in the Governed as well as pretend a liableness in the Governours the opinion of right ought to stand on the Governours side and that a probable motive could not sufficiently warrant the Subiects to revolt giving my reasons for it Now the proper reply to the import of my Answer had been to stand stoutly to it that their motiues for renouncing that Authority were in their own nature more than probable and concluded demonstratively that it was an usurpation But he is horribly afraid of answering positively to that point when any Reason appeares he either leaps out of the lists all afrighted or else hides himself in words His Answer is Answ p. 30. that this cannot be appliable to the business without begging the principal question So that I must be the opponent that 's concluded let reason and art say what they will I ask was not my answer pertinent to his words the Governours might erre which was my onely business at that time If so then it was most absurd in him to ramble from one end of the Controversy to the other with his voluntary and crude affirmations that the Pope in King Henry's time was not de jure in Q. Elizabeth's neither de iure nor de facto Governour May not any Rebel say the same pretend no Right in the Governour and say