rovers or onely touching the question obscurely as was his custome in other places But alas how is the good testimony spoile'd and the alledger of it exposed to shame not a word of all this long rabble soe neerly importing the Question is found in the Author but onely voluntarily added by the good Dr. and fatherd upon S. Chrysostom no news God knows is there in the place it self either of setting things unquestionably for the future nor of making an agreement nor of meeting in the same City nor of Iews and Gentiles mixt nor of betaking themselves to the Iewish or Gentile part of it nor of any thing to that purpose but onely of the sufficiency of S. Paul's doctrine their approving it praising it and the like So that Dr. H. for want of a better Author quotes himself for his own tenet coins a pregnant and convincing testimony out of the mint of his own brain and then to make it currant stamps upon it the Image and superscription of S. Chrysostom And all this out of his entire desire to speak the full truth of God This falsification being so notorious it were not amisse to make some brief animadversions upon it that Dr. H's art in this and many other places may be better discoverd and the reader more perfectly undeceiu'd in the opinion of his sincerity Note first then ere he introduces the testimony he speaks of the direct point in controversie to wit of entrusting of Provinces by Apostolicall agreement Note secondly that this done he brings in a quite disparate thing to wit the approving and commending S. Paul's doctrine Note thirdly the fine words with which he introduces it and this is the speciall importance saith S Chrysostome of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though absolutely false as hath been shown yet those pretty confident words of speciall importance and the fathering it upon S. Chrysostome make it seem authentickly true and passe down glibly with a cursory Reader Note fourthly how he layes out at large in the former half of the long testimony S. Chrysostom's words concerning the sufficiency and laudablenesse of S. Paul's doctrine as if it were importantly concerning the having a Province entrusted him whereas it is quite concerning another matter which is his old trick of a busing the reader to his face so often discover'd Note fifthly how having alledged a testimony about S. Paul's praise-worthines which nothing at all concerns our question and by this means got a cloak for any thing he should think good to add of his own head he proceeds with a career in S. Chrysostom's name to their agreement of distinct Provinces when they met at the same City to countenance which not a syllable is there found yet he goes smothly from one matter to the other without the least rub so much as of an hypocolon to stop him by this means comprising all under the common head of saith hee Note sixthly that as he usher'd in his former falsification with the confident phrase of speciall importance so here that the Reader may not distrust nor doubt but that all is reall he ushers in his latter with un questionably to set all saith hee unquestionably for the future What Reader now could be soe discourteous as to suspect Dr. H's integrity where as he assures him with such doubt-setling expressions as these are and makes his bold-fac'd testimonies wear nothing but speciall and unquestionable in their serious countenances Lastly it is to be noted that in his book of Schism he used to add these self-invented testimony-parcells with an Id est but since Id est which stickled soe much before was shamed out of countenance by Schism Disarm'd now he adds what words he pleases in a smooth even tenour with the true part of the testimony without any Id est at all both because the words of the father and the addition of the Dr. were soe disparate that noe Id est would possibly conioyn their sense as also because such distinctive notes are discernible and so might prove tell-tales and discover his craft which he hoped by running from the father's words to his own with a sly smothnes might remain lesse discoverable And soe much for these seven testimonies the flower of Mr. H's second thoughts in his Reply and Answer to support his tenet of exclusive Provinces which Schism Disarm'd had ruin'd All which have been shown so impertinent to the point they are brought to prove that he might with better reason have alledged the first verse of Genesis In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth as a testimony for his exclusive Provinces for though that place were impertinent to his purpose yet it is not opposite nor contradictory to it whereas these said testimonies produced by him are at best impertinent to what they are intended for and most of them directly contrary to his on-all-sides-destitute tenet I had forgot one small testimony of Dr. H's for these exclusive Provinces which hides it self soe nicely in a Parenthesis that it scap't my observation But having found it we shall not neglect to pull it out of it's hole because it will give us some further instructions what a Master of his â— ade Dr. His in venting his testimony-ware with the best advantage 'T is found Answ p. 41. in these words when I say Peter was the Apostole of the Circumcision exclusively to the uncircumcision as when Eusebius hist l. 1. c. 1. saith that he preacht in diverse nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Iews that were of the dispersion the meaning is evident c. Thus hee whereas first there is not a word to that purpose found in the place alledged Secondly how can onely his preaching to the Iews of the dispersion countenance that they were his Province since 't is known and granted that he preached also to the Iews in Iudea so that if from such a manner of expression it may be infer'd that the one is his Province by the same reason it may conclude for the other also Thirdly observe how neatly he brings Eusebius to speak on his side I say Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision exclusively to the uncircumcision as Eusebius sayes he preached to the Iews of the dispersion which signifies thus much Iust as I say S. Peter was Apostle of the Iews of the dispersion exclusively in which word lies the whole question soe Eusebius sayes that he preacht to them not naming any exclusion at all and by consequence not saying a word to our purpose or the question in hand it being granted that each Apostle preached to any Sect or nation as their occasions invited them Is not this a worthy similitude yet this exprest drily as is Dr. H's wily way and the testimony touched at sleightly gulls an ordinary Reader to his face and perswades him that Eusebius does perfectly second Dr. H's tenet of exclusive Provinces It was obâ—ected to Mr. H. by the Cath. Gent. that S. Peter preached
and not what the many-senc'd or rather indeed the noe senc'd Dictionary interpretation of two single words give them a possibility to signify Neither let Mr. H. think to excuse him self that he argues ad hominem in alledging these words and soe it imports not his cause at all what the Epistle it self sayes since he builds not upon it himself nor allows it's Authority for still as long as 't is shown that he imposes upon that Epistle and it's Author a sence which he knew they never intended he can never avoyd the note of insincerity and by how much the thing it self is more unlikely that the Authoritie wee alledge for us should be clearly against us as he sayes or the fell same Epistle contradict it self by soe much 't is a far more shamefull rashnes and an affected precipitation in him to pretend it and object it unles upon most evident and unavoidable grounds Sect. 14. Dr. H's trick to evade bringing some Testimony to confirm his own Wee know His two-edg'd argument to concluâ—e against S. Peter's supermacy both from Exclusivenes and not Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction IN the beginning of his fifth Section Dr. H. who was soe rarely skillfull in the art of memory as to contradict himself neere a dozen times in one point as hath been shown Part. 2. Sect. 4. is now on a suddain become Master of it and undertakes to teach'it S. W. whose memory alas as hee sayes is frail But ere my Master gives me my lesson he reprehends me first very sharply for my ill memory calling it my predominant fault and that railing is but my blind to keep it from being descry'd nay moreover this modest man who falsifies or corrupts every thing he medles with is angry with me that I doe not blush Expect Reader some great advantage gain'd against mee which can move this Preacher of patience to this passion who in the beginning of his book soe like a saint profess'd his readines to turn the other cheak to him who should strike him on the right To avoid mistakes on my part and cauills on mine Adversaries I shall put down both our words and appeal to the Readers eyes His were these of Schism p. 74 Thus wee know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted the Iews and S. Paul the Gentiles And what it was which Dr. H. in the plurall number Wee as became his Authority knew to be thus he exprest in the immediatly foregoing words to wit that whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same Citie the one constantly apply'd himself to the Iews received Disciples of such formed them into a Church left them when he departed that region to bee govern'd by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles This is that Reader which Dr. H. knew to have bâ—en thus at Antioch This is also the place Reply p. 57. when all els fail'd him he stood to as a sufficient expression of his exclusive tenet of those Apostles Iurisdictions Now my words Schism Disarm p. 62. upon his Thus wee knew it was at Antioch c were these That his first testimony was his own knowledge Thus wee know c. but that he put down no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one of his wee know which yet had been requisite that wee might have known it too And this was all What railing words the Dr. find's here which should make him complain so hainously I know not unles it were that I calld the testimony of his own knowledg weak and indeed if this be railing despaire of learning more courtesie till Dr. H. by growing wiser teach me it But my predominant fault of an ill and frail memory for which shame must make change colour is this that I said he put no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one of his Wee know yet afterwards set down two testimonies of that of which I lately denyed any If hee means such things as he produced for testimonies I set down indeed the very next Section not onely two but ten of them But if he means such testimonies as I exprest my self to deny there that is such as did confirm his own Thus wee know I am soe far from blushing at it that I still make him this bold profer that if amongst all the following testimonies there be found any one word confirming his own Thus wee know and what it relates to that is making S. Peter's Authority exclusive to the Iews and S. Paul's to the Gentiles when they met at the same City but what himself adds of his own head I will yeld him the whole controversy Nor let him tell me what he fancies to bee deduced thence but what the testimonies themselv's expresse the deductions are his the words onely are the testimonies let him show me any one exclusive word in any one testimony and I professe before all the world that I will not onely pardon him the impertinency of the rest but alsoe grant him all Iudge now Protestant Reader who hath most cause to blush examine well if ever thou heardst such a challenge made to any writer yet extant and not accepted of and then see to what a trifler thou trustest for thy salvation who in steed of replying to the purpose and showing thee those exclusive words tells his Adversary that it is a predominant fault in him to chalenge him that he had never a testimony to confirm his own Wee know and then seing himself unable to show any thinks to evade by telling his challenger he ought to blush for his frail memory whereas he should rather have blam'd him for his bad understanding and bad eyes neither apprehending nor seeing a word in any testimony to that purpose In answer to his pretended testimonies I noted Schism Disarm p. 63. that they affirmed no more but the founding the Church of Antioch by Peter and Paul which might be done by their promiscuous endeavours without distinction much lesse exclusion of Authority and Iurisdiction Dr. H. answers here 't is true this was possible and if it had been true had manifestly prejudged S. Peter's singular Iurisdiction and clearly joynd Paul socially with him It is impossible to gett a positive word of sence from this man first he will never willingly use the common words which expresse the question between us as chief in Authority amongst the Apostles their Head Prince c. but as before he used the ambiguous phrase of S. Peter's having noe singular supremacy at Hierusalem soe now he recurr's to singular Iurisdiction at Antioch which being doublesenc'd if wee take it in one he will be sure to evade hereafter by taking it in another Secondly let us suppose him to mean honestly that is to intend by it that S. Peter was not higher in Authority of Government than S. Paul as the question determines it let us observe how this quodlibeticall reasoner argues his whole intent was to conclude against S. Peter's
they were become Christians and their fellow-Brothers in him in whom they were taught there was no distinction of Iew nor Gentile Which sounds a far greater absurdity in a Christian eare than to say that they likewise abhorr'd still the conversation of the Proselytes to the law of Moses after their conversion that those one hundred fifty three thousand workmen who lived dispersed among the Iews in Salomon's time neither converst with their neighbour Iews nor took directions how to order their labour towards the building of Salomon's Temple but did their work by instinct and the guidance of the private Spirit as Dr. H. interprets Scripture Sectio 16. How Dr. H. omitts to clear himself of falsifying the Apostolicall Constitutions and to take notice of all the Exceptions brought against that Testimony in Schism Disarm'd His acute manner of arguing As also how hee brings a Testimony against him in every particular to make good all his former proofs and by what art hee makes it speak for him THe next Testimony of Mr. H's which comes under examination is taken from the writer of the Apostolicall Constitutions who tells us according to Dr. H. of Schism p. 75. that Evodâ—us Ignatius at the same time sate Bishops at Antioch one succeeding S. Peter the other S. Paul one in the Iewâ—sh the other in the Gentile Congregation Now if that writer tells us no such thing no not a word of this long rabble is it possible Dr. H. can deny himself to be a manifest wilfull falsifier Schism Disarm'd challeng'd him upon this occasion of a manifest falsification and that that writer neither tells us as Dr. H. pretended that they sate at the same time Bishops in whichwords consists the greatest force of the Testimony nor that they succeeded the Apostles with that distinction nor that the Iewish Gentile Congregations were distinct much lesse that those Apostles Iurisdictions at Antioch were mutually limitted which indeed onely concern'd his purpose but onely that they were ordained by the Apostles The text being onely this Antiochiae Euodius ordinatus est a me Petro Ignatius a Paulo At Antioch Euodius was ordained by me Peter Ignatius by Paul without the least word before or after concerning that matter Of all these falsifications voluntary additions Schism Disarm'd p. 65. 66. challenged Mr. H. yet in return he offers not one word to clear himself Reply c. 4. Sect 7. the place whither Answ p. 48. l. 31. 32. hee râ—ferd mee for answer to this point nor to shew us that that writer tells us what he so largely promist us of Schism p. 75. onely in his Answer p. 48. he assures us that in his Reply the whole matter of Euodius Ignatius is further cleared as if he had cleared it already and S. W' s elaborate misunderstandings forestall'd he should have said misreadings for it was mine eyes not mine understanding which fail'd me if he had not added to this testimony all which made for his purpose Foure observations I shall recomend the Reader to let him see that this insincerity in Dr. H. was affected voluntary First the words in the testmony importing their Ordination neither make against us nor touch our controversy Next all the words added of his own head are made use of by him solely-important in this occasion Thirdly that he never particulariz'd the place in the Author where this testimony was to be found which he ordinarily vses but leaves us to look for it in a whole book hoping we might either be weary in looking it or misse soâ— himself in the mean time escape scot-free Lastly he so iumbles together the two different letters as his comon trick is that no man living can make any ghesse which words are the testimonies which his own and should we pitch upon any to be the testimonies relying upon the translation letter in that part they sate at the same time Bishops we finde the most considerable word same put in a lesse letter as if it were part of the citation whereas no such word nor any thing to that sence was found in the Author And thus Dr. H. as he professes Answ p. 18. speaks the full truth of God But instead of clearing himself from being an arrant falsifier Dr. H. as his custome is attempts to shâ—w himself an acute Doctour and when it was his turn to shâ—w us the pretended words in his testimony he recurs to the defence of the position it self And first he cries quits which the Catholike Gentleman who as he tells us in a drie phrase Repl. Sect. 7. num 1. casts one stone at all his buildings together And what stone is this He challenged him not to have brought one word out of Antiquity to prove the with drawing from all Communion already spoken of to have been the cause of the division of the Bishopriks in Antioch Rome This is the Catholike Gentleman's stone as he calls it which levell'd by him at such an impenetrable Rock of solid reason as Mr. H. rebounds upon the thrower's head with this violence First that he manifested from Antiquity in his book of Schism that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter S. Paul Repl. p 63 I answer 't is graunted but what is this to the point since this might easily be performed by their promiscuous preaching without exclusion of Iurisdiction or breaking of all Communion between Churches Secondly that he manifested there that there were two Churches at Antioch the one of the Iews the other of the Gentile Christians I answ he hath not one testimony in the whole book of Schism which expresses this position nor in these later books save onely that from the Arch-heretick Pelagius already reply'd to Sect 7 Thirly that in those Churches at the same time sate two distinct Bishops Euodius Ignatius I answer this is onely prou'd from his owne falsification of the testimony from the Apostolicall Constitutions not a word of the fitting together of two in those two distinct Churches found either in that or any other place as yet cited by him Thus the Catholike Gentleman's stone sticks yet insost reason'd Dr. H. for want of solidnes in the place it light to reverberate its motion Now let us see what Dr. H. who braggs so much of a Hending his Adversaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath left unreply'd upon in this his Answer to Schism Disarm'd in which Treatise p. 66. I objected all these weaknesses in this one point First that were it granted that two sate together it would not serve his turn a iott the more For what would he infer hence that S. Peter S. Paul were distinct Bishops there also Grant this too what follows hence against the Pope's Authory I know his intent is to conclude hereupon that therefore S. Peter S. Paul had exclusive Iurisdictions at Antioch therefore S. Peter's Iurisdiction was limited therefore the Pope had not an illimitted one but how doth the one's
certainly tru I will undertake to reconcile them better then Dr. H. hath done in making one over Iews the other over Genâ—iles onely Although if one side or both be false I must confesse it beyond my skill to reconcile truths with falshoods or falshoods with one another Moreover Schism Disarm p. 77. directed him expresly to some other wayes how the fathers went about to reconcile that repugnance which he instead of confuting or so much as acknowledging I did objects here that I should direct him to some other solid way and truly I shall ever account the ancient fathers more solidly able to reconcile repugnances in Story near their dayes were they reconcileable then such a weak iudgment as Mr. H's so long after Sect. 22. Dr. H. affected ignorance of the Popes Authority which hee impugns framing his Objections against an immediate Governour not a mediate or Svperiour His pretended infallibility in proving S. Iohn higher in dignity of place than S. Peter His speciall gift also in explicating Parables and placing the saâ—nts in Abraham's bosome Dr. H. of Schism c. 4. par 13. affirmed that for another great part of the Christian world It is manifest that S. Peter had never to do either mediately or immediately in the planting or governing of it and instanced in Asia pretended to be onely under S. Iohn I answer'd Schism Disarm p. 78. that he brought nothing to prove his own It is manifest He replies here Answ p. 54. that this is manifestly evinced by the testimonies annexed p. 14. and upon this calls me an Artificer that he is now grown into some acquaintance with me and yet virtue is grown necessity with him he must not take it amisse nor shall he truly if I can give him any iust satisfaction I desire to gain keep every man's good will though I will not court it by the least compliance nor kindnes to the detriment of Truth Bear in memory Reader this positiuely absolute tâ—â—sts of his that S. Peter had nothing to do either mediately or immediately c. And if thou findest any word in any testimony produced by him expressing this ample position or that S. Peter had nothing to do in governing them mediately which is the question save onely that he govern'd them not immediately which is nothing to our question then I give thee leave to account me an Artificer or what thou wilt but if thou findest not a word to that purpose do thy self the right as to think Dr. H. is a most notorious deluder beware of him as such I shall put down all his testimonies as largely as himself did in the 14. par to which he refers me The first is from Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where appointing Bishops The second and third are from Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where obtaining some one part or lott 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he administred the Churches there Now in these three testimonies we finde onely that S. Iohn appointed Bishops in Asia which we grant that each Apostle might do where ever he came over all the world that he obtained one certain lott or Bishoprick to wit that of Ephesus which signifies no more but that he was a particular Governour there that he administred the Churches there all which is competent to every Metropolitan in God's Church whom yet wee see daily with our eyes to be under an higher Ecclesiasticall Governour and coÌ„sequently his Churches under him are under the same Governour mediately although immediately under the inferior onely His fourth testimony is a flat wilfull falsification 'T is taken from S. Prosper put down by him thus Ioannes apud Ephesum Ecclesiam sacrauit Iohn at Ephesus consecrated a Church Whereas the place it self is Gentium Ecclesiam sacrauit consecrated the Church of the Gentiles Now because all over this par 't is Dr. H's pretence that S. Iohn was at Ephesus over Iews onely and the word Gentium would by no means be won to signify that nor yet would the word Nations as he render'd it before any way serve to signify onely Iews he prudently maim'd the testimony left out the malignant word Gentium because it could by no art be brought to favour but vtterly defy'd contradicted his party A politick Divine yet as long as this rare crafts man in the art of falsifying can but call S. W. an Artificer all is well the good women will believe him The testimonies for Timothy under S. Paul being over the Gentiles in Asia are of the same strain or worse the first of which expresses no more but that he undertook the care of the Metropolis of Ephesus that is was particular Metropolitan of that place The second affirms at large that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. An whole entire Nation that of Asia was entrusted to him Now S. W. imagining that an whole entire Nation could not signify Gentiles onely or a part of that Nation call'd it an unpardonable blindnes to alledge this testimony for a tenet quite contrary to what it exprest But I am suddenly struck blind my self and caught that disease onely by seeing Dr. H's blindnes And first I am blind for not seeing that the testimony related to Timothy not to S. Paul whereas himself promising us in the end of his 13. par to insist on S. Iohn S. Paul and after he had treated of S. Iohn in the 14th using these very words in the 15. throughout all the Lydian Asia the faith was planted by S. Paul among the Gentile part and by him Timothy constituted Bishop there and then immediately introducing his testimony with so saith Chrysostome he must be blind who could think this testimony was not mean't of S. Paul Add that the testimony it self speaks not of constituting a Bishop so gave me no occasion to imagin it related to Timothy's being thus constituted and besides the words throughout all Asia which he joyns there with S. Paul were fittest to be related to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the testimony Nor can it be pretended to have been an affected oversight since I gain not the least advantage by it it being equally strong for Dr. H's weak argument whether Timothy or S. Paul were onely over Gentiles there for which it was produced My second blindnes is that I could not see the obvious Answer which is that S. Chrysostome puts it onely in opposition to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 precedent the testimony being as he afterwards puts it that Timothy was entrusted with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather an entire Nation Now in the book of Schism he omitted himself the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the former part of the testimony then tells me 't is obvious it was put in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so I am become blind for not seeing that which was not at all there but left out by himself Gramercy good
to defend by a complemental connivence If then I might upon his desert give him those characters I hope it is necessarily consequent that words must be allowed me to expresse them nor ought the lawfull help of Rhetorick be interdicted me to expresse them home Now if all art of Rhetorick gives it that ridiculous things ought to be exprest ironically let Dr. H. blame the art so unfriendly to him and his own weaknesse which intituled him to such expressions not S. W. who did but as art nature and reason required If any yet object that I was still excessive in the manner of those expressions I answer that I shall bewilling to confesse the fault unlesse I manifested him equally excessive in the manner of deserving them otherwise as long as the proportion holds I shall in reason account my self blamelesse As a writer then against God's Church D. H. ought in reason to expect no mercy at S. W's hands but rigorous justice onely nor is this by consequence contumeliousnesse but the proper treaty which reason grants religion avoucheth and the circumstances make necessary Now that all the pretended revilings of S. W. are no other the Dr. shall inform the Reader complaining here pag. 2. that the Publisher of the book hath solemny annext a list of the contumelies three and thirty picz'd out by specialty c. since then these as he sayes are the speci all or chief contumelies not to trouble the Reader with the whole Roll we will onely take notice of the first of them which is this How the Dr. of Divinity has forgot his accidence This is the first of those special contumelies which Dr. H. here compares to Goliah's cursing of David to Rabshakeh's reproches to the king of Moab's language against Israel This is that in the flagiant fact of which as he expresses it being taken the Apostle hath therefore long ago pronounced sentence against me that no Christian must eat with me hence it is that I have onely the name not the reality of a Christian am a detestable person ipso jure excommunicated in a special manner one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he pedantizes it so as unreformed that is without repentance I shall not inherit the kingdome of heaven and do but flatter and deceive my self if I hope I may and lastly am none of those Saints who clave non errante shall judge the word Thus are poor Catholicks poasted to hell by couples for I suppose the Romish Factour must bear me company without bale or mainprise for manifesting that Dr. H. had forgot his Accidence You wits of the Vniuersities beware and take example by the fatall Catastrophe of S. W. when you write or dispute do not accuse your Adversary of inconsequence in his argument mistakes in criticizing solâ—ecismes or the like you see upon how ticklish a point your salvation stands if you do the Apostle hath pronounced long ago that no man may eat with you hence you are specially contumelious excommunicated no Christians detestable in speciall sort unrighteous and do but flatter your selves if you hope to go to heaven without true and hearty repentance as Dr. H. hath evidently provâ—d out of Scripture The rest of those special contumelies as he calls them are deductions from his own erroneous reasoning or interpreting Scripture from his self contradictions his mistakes c. and therefore being onely aimed at his Book orat Himself as the Writer of it were necessary to be taken notice of by his Disarmer and consequently not falling under the notion of contumelies nor deserving so many censures in Greek If Mr. H. yet kindly complain that my words were too harsh my answer is the very names we give to great faults are harsh words nor can they possibly be other wise so as he must either suppose me so supine as not to take notice of his faultinesse or else I must suppose him more innocent that is deny mine own eyes and then winking at his grosse and pernicious errours substitute courtesy to zeal and instead of confuting fall to complement Now how can any man in reason imagine I should not mention his greatest faults that is not use harsh words For either Dr. H. knew of them or not if not it was his interest and my charity to let him know them which I think cannot be done without naming them If he knew of them and yet writ them it was a more necessary charity and more concerning the publick and dearest interest of mens salvations waving all private respect to the person to let all men know his false dealing that they might beware of him as of a wolf in sheeps clothing Let himself chuse which side he pleases I shall hold my self sufficiently cleared by either Nay rather I have reason to make a counter-complaint of the Dr. for I no where in my whole Book branded him with the appelation of a detestable person which this pattern of piety gives me though my pretence might avouch-it being to defend the rights of the Church I live in whereas his intemperance proceeds from a vindication of his private selfe from the contumelies forsooth he hath received and to aggravate his fault the more he cannot be content to use his own words to expresse his gravity affecting passion but to make his railing more authoritative as one said of a precise puritanical Dame that shee never cudgeld her Mayd but in Scripture-phrase so St. Paul must needs prophecie long ago of my Excommunication be revived to pronounce it in Dr. H's name and for solemnity sake in Greek too Yet after the Dr. hath been so hihg in the Pulpit against contumelies he is become himself so mean an Auditor as to accuse me flatly of falsifications with what reason shall be seen hereafter calumnies certainly if not avouch'd yet all sounds zeal in him which in another would be plain contumelie Should we desire St. Paul now to Excommunicate Dr. H. hee would presently silence-us by assuring'us that St. Paul never meant harm to him but to S. W. onely so secure a thing it is to be a dexterous Scripturist Sect. 2. That the certainty of Faith and that onely justly grounds zeal and obliges the Propugner of that Faith to an impartial plainnesse with its Adversary as taken-under that notion THese ordinary Considerations and obvious to common sence I have offer'd to the Reader to let him see this manner of Writing in confuting such Authors is very rational if the cause deserves any zeal and the truth of the thing makes good what is said One reason more I shall adde which I recommend to the attentive consideration of the Reader it being indeed the fundamental ground why such a treaty should be necessary in controversies about Faith against the deemed adversaries thereof And this is no other than the certainty of Faith it self But lest the Dr. should mistake me as his custome is to beg the question by supposing our Faith certain I professe my selfe
is that Historical proofs which manifest onely Fact do not necessarily conclude a Rigâ—t This is evident First because testimonies conclude no more than then express but they express onely the Fact therefore they conclude onely that the Fact was such a person 's not that the Right was his Secondly because no matter of Fact which concerns the execution of any business is such but it may be performed by another who hath no proper Rigth but borrows it from the delegation of some other to whom it properly belongs as we see in Vice-Roys Thirdly because in a process of fifteen or sixteen hundred years it cannot be imagin'd but there should happen some matters of Fact either out of ambition inter est ignorance or tyranny against the most inviolable Right in the world nay even sometimes out of too much zeal and piety great men if they have not discretion proportionable will be medling with things which do not concern them as we see by daily experience Now a testimony of a matter of Fact can never conclude any thing unless it be first manifested that that Act our when he proceeded to action was bassed with none of these but governed himself by pure Reason that is unless it be manifested that he had Right and if testimonies can be produced expressing that he had Right it was needless to stand alledging those which express't onely Fact Frivolous therefore it is to bring historical proofs of Fact upon the stage in a dispute about Right since taken alone they make onely a dumb show and can act no part in that Controversy for the very alledging that some of these faults might intervene disables such premises from inferring a Right Neither ought Mr. H. which I suppose for want of Logick or forgetfulness how men use to dispute he is ever apt to do exact of the Defendant a reason of his denial in particular but it is his part to prove that none of these defects could happen otherwise his Premisses of Fact hang together with his Conclusion of Right by no necessity of consequence Let the Reader then take notice by this plain information of reason how senselesly Dr. H. behaved himself in the business of erecting and translating Patriarchates and in many other places where from some particular matters of Fact he would needs conclude a Right The twelfth Ground is that The acceptation of the secular powers and their command to the people are necessary to the due and fitting execution of the Churches Lawes whence follows not that the Princes made those Lawes by their own Authority but that they obey'd and executed what the Church had order'd For unless the Churche's Ordinances should be put into temporal laws which oblige to their observance by aw and fear of punishment they could hardly ever find an universal reception since otherwise refractory and turbulent Spirits who cared not much for their obligation in confcience might at pleasure reject disobey and reclame against them which would both injure the Authority of the Church and scandalize the community of the Faithfull This therefore being of such an absolute conveniency for the Church we need not wonder that the temporal power of Christians should put the Churche's orders into temporal Laws and execute their performance nor consequently can testimonies of such execution and laws prejudice the Pope ' s Right since Catholick Governours do the self same at present as far as concerns this point which was done then The thirteenth Ground is that It is granted by Catholicks that Kings may exercise some Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction by the concession of the Church and yet not prejudice thereby the Pope's Vniversal Pastourship This is most visible from the unanimous acknowledgment of all Catholick Authours and verifyed by divers practical instances Hence it is evident that Dr. H. must either manifest likewise that the lawfulness of those matters of Fact related of Kings was not originiz'd from the Churche's precedent orders or else he concludes nothing at all against us Here I desire the Reader Mr. H. may joyntly take notice that the testimonies himself alledges from the Church in her Councils granting this to the Secular power is a strong prejudice against their self-and-proper Right as also that he hath not so much as attempted to produce one Testimony of any Authority expressing it to be the Right of the secular Magistrate independent of the Church The fourteenth and last Ground is that In case Scbism should invade a whole Country it could not be expected to have happen'd otherwise than D H. of Schism c. hath described For it is to be expected that the secular power should be for it and so use meanes to make the Clergy Vniversities assent to his novelty otherwise had either the Temporal Government awed them the Pastours of souls consented to inform the people right or the Vniversities the Seminaries of learning conspired to write against that innovation in all likehood it would have given a stop to it's proceding at least have hindred it's universal invasion Hence follows that Dr. H's narrative discourse of his Schism hath nothing in it to bewonder us but rather that it is as plain and particular a confession of the Fact as any penitent malefactour could make when he is about to suffer For that a Nation may fall into Schism none doubts as little that it should fall into it by those very means and the same degrees which he there layes down Nay more himself disgraces his own Narration by confessing p. 136. that the Clergy were inclined to subscribe by the feare of a premunire and the question about the Pope's Right in England being debated in the Vniversities he sayes onely p. 135. that it was generally defined in the negative that is when the King's party prevailed yet he omits that the Kings lust first moved him to think of Schismatizing and his final repentance of that Act which show that the first spring which mov'd the whole Engine was not purity of conscience but the impurest and basest of passions The positions which I have layed dow for Grounds to our future discourse will of themselves lay open the whole case clearly to the ordinary Readers and inform the more prudent ones that nothing is or can be sayd by Dr H. of a force and clearness comparable to that of our Possession and that of oral Tradition which we ever â—laim'd for our Tenour from which also they disclaimed when they reform'd in this point of the Pope's Supremacy So that litle more remains to be perform'd but to manifest his shallow weaknesses and trivial impertinences which I should willingly omit if the greatest part of Readers would be as willing to think a book fully answer'd when substantial points are shown to be nothing as they are to catch at the shadow of words as matters of importance and so imagine nothing done till they also be reply'd upon Nor do I fear this task though ingratefull in it's self and less
necessary will be voyd of fruit specially to Mr. H's Friends who may see by this Answer of mine how bad that cause must be which can cast so understanding a man as some of them imagine him upon such non sense weaknesses of reasoning voluntary mistakes falsifications denying his own words and many other ridiculous shifts as shall be seen most amply in the process of this Treatise Sect. 7. Dr. H's accurate mistake of every line of the Introduction to Schism Disarm'd and his wilful avoyding to answer the true import of it Mr. H's reason which was gravelled in understanding the plain words in my Epistle to the Reader as hath been shown has no better fortune in confuting my Introduction I exprest in the beginning of it that It bred in me at first some admiration why the Protestants should now print books by pairs to defend themselves from Schism who heretofore more willingly skirmish't in particular Controversies than bid battel to the main Body of the Church c. Vpon which Dr. H. not aware that upon every new occurrence or effect the admirative faculty first playes it's parts and stirres up the reason to disquisitiveness for the cause of it such reflections ly much out of the way of one who gleans testimonies will not give me leave something to admire at first till I had found the reason at an occurrence evidently new that is their writing at this time books by pairs to clear them selves from Schism but is pleased to turn my ordinary easy moderate words of some admiration at first into those loud phrase p. 12. l. 19. of great vnheard of news and prodigy putting news and prodigy in different letters that himself might be thought an Oedipus who had unriddled my imagin'd aenigma But since any thing which is uncouth and disorderly justly stirres up admiration what necessity is there that Dr. H. and his Friends should hap to do all things so orderly wisely and reasonably that poore S. W. whom he confesses here p. 10. l. 36 not to have been of his Councel in his designment might not be allow'd to have some admiration at first at their mysterious imprudence But he will needs undertake to allay my admiration though I was much better satisfy'd with my own reason there given by telling me it was seasonable charity to undeceive weak seducible Christians because the Romish Missaries by pretence of their Schism endeavour'd to defame them out of a persecuted profession Where first I assure him that many of those who have of late become Catholicks are as great Scholars and wits as have been left behind and so more likely to have been reduced by reason than seduced by the industry of others working upon their weakness the weak seducihle Souls of the former Protestants are either turn'd Quakers or such like kind of things those who have run back to the lap of their Mother the Holy Catholick Church are such as are neither easily deceivable by our Missaries nor possibly undeceivable by Dr. H. multitudes of them being such as might wiâ—h far better reason be wish't to have the Answering of Dr. H. in my stead than be feared to be mo'vd by his reasons to renounce their own Nor needed they be tempted by others their own reason if disinteressed could not but inform them that that Religion was not true that Church but counterfeit whose grounds were rotten and whose Fates depended upon the Temporal Power Nor hath the other part of that poor sentence scap't better from his artificial mistakes I onely affirmed that they heretofore seem'd more willing to skirmish in particular controversies than bid battel to tâ—e main body of the Church which he misunderstands as if I had said that no Protestants ever writ against the Authority of our Church and then impugnes his own mistake father'd upon S. W. very strongly by nominating some few books upon that subject Ans p. 11. l. 2. pittying himself that he should 〈◊〉 set to prove what none said but himself and truly I pitty him too But are not there near an hundred times that number who have skirmish't against us in particular Controversies I hope then this will serve to justify those moderate words of mine that they seem'd more willing to that task Yet he triumphs over me saying that it is much juster matter of wonder to him that S. W. should set out so unauspiciously as to begin with an observation founded in a visible contrariety to a plain matter of Fact that every man that thinks of must discern to be so Thus doth he trample down and then strut over S. W. at the first onset so potent still and victorious is he when he fights against his own Chimaera's I am persuaded a little sooth-saying will serve the Reader to determine who began the more inauspiciously and at whose door the sinister bird croak't Yet though saith he those words had been true that formerly the Protestants were more willing to skirmish in paâ—â—icular Controversies yet Dr. H. tells us it were obvious to every man what might now suggest the change of that course and what obvious reason might this be but that after particular Controversies were competently debated to set the Axe to the root of the tree and stock up Rome's universal Pastourship and infallibility Where he sees not that the question remains still to be ask't why the competent debating of particular Controversies should just then end and the propter time then begin for the Protestants to stock up Rome when themselves had never a legg left them to stand on and why they should hope then rather to get the upper hand when they ly flat along themselves as if Antaeus-like they were stronger by falling Again had many been induced by reason to return to the Catholick Church yet I cannot understang why the Protestants zeal should think it more seasonable to write Books by pairs against us than against their other Desertours since they who have gone from them into other Sects are above an hundred for one in comparison of the Catholik Converts so that had not S. W. found out a reason to rid himself of his some admiration he might still have remain'd in it for any thing M. H. hath produc't Vpon occasion of my saying that it was more seasonable to denounce to those Sects the unreasonableness of their Schism than plead the reasonableness of their own he voluntarily mistakes my words as if I meant that he had confess 't it Schism and then gone about to plead the reasonableness of it whereas I onely intended as is evident that he went about to plead the reasonableness of that which I who am the Defendant doe and must hold for Schism and consequently may nominate it so that is of his breaking from our Churche's Government Yet for this I have lost my credit this being another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he tells the Reader if he can understand Greek what trust is due to S. W. in his affirmations Should he
make use of the same method and every time I name them Schismaticks or their sect Schism feign that I say they call themselves so he might by this art make S. W. a monstrous lyer if the Reader were so monstrously silly as to believe him In the next place I must needs Answ p. 13. misunderstand the nature and ayme of the Churche's censures because I tell them They should rather threaten their Desertours with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication than cry so loud Not guilty when the lash hath been so long upon their own shoulders since he sayes a Schism arm'd with migâ—t is not either in prudence or charity to be contended with Whereas I pretend not that they ought to execute the punishments subsequent to Excommunication but to separate themselves had they any Grounds to make it good that they were God's Church from Schismaticks and avoid their Communion in Etern actions belonging to God's worship as God's Church ever accustomed not â—caring to denounce and preach to them in plain terms that they are Schismaticks and cut off from the Church Neither is this against Charity since Schism being such an hainous and damnable sin Charity avouches nay makes it an obligation to manifest Schismaticks to be such that they who have faln may apprehend the sâ—d state they are in and thence take occasion to arise and they who stand may beware of falling into that dangerous gulf which once open'd the earth to swallow Core Dathan and Abiron Nor is it against prudence since every one knows the permitting the weaker sort to communâ—cate with enemies in those very circumstances which may endanger them is the onely way to ruine any Government either Spiritual or Temporal At least why should they not dare had they Grounds to bear them out to do the same as the Catholicks did during the time of their greatest persecution under the Protestant Government that is let them be known to be Schismaticks and make the people abstain in divine matters from their contagious Communion But the confest uncertainty of their Faith makes them squeamish to assume to themselves any such Authority and therefore they are forced by their very Grounds when their Secular Power is gone to turn discipline into courtesy in matters of Government as they do in controversy turn zeal into civility and complement When he talks here piously of the Romanists sanguin try method sure he hath forgotten that ever Priests were hang'd drawn and quarter'd for their Faith at Tiburn and all over England in the time of their cruel Reign or if he remembers it he thinks to make us amends by preaching like a Saint of their meekness of edification and the more tragically-pittifull expressions of lamenting the ruptures of the Christian world which themselves have made with rivers of teares of bloud Answ p. 13. The next Section begins with the rehearsal of my reason why no colourable pretence can be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them which I exprest thus For that we prest them to believe false fundamentals Dr. H. and his Friends will not say since they acknowledge ours a true Church which is inconsistent with such a lapse They were therefore in their opinion things tolerable which were urged upon them and if not in the same rank yet more deserving the Church should command their observance than Copes or Surplices or the book of Common Prayer the allowance whereof they prest upon their Quondam brethen Which words though as moderately and modestly expressing the matter as could be invented yet the Reader shall see what a character the Doctors peevish zeal hath set upon them to wit that Answ p. 14. there are in them too many variations from the Rules of sober discourse so many indications of S. W. his temper that it will not be easy to enumerate them It shall be seen presently whether the Doctors Discourse or mine went a rambling when we writ The tenour of my Argument ad hominem was this The falsities which you pretend we prest upon you were either acknowledged by you to have been fundamental or not-fundamental that is tolerable that you acknowledg'd them fundamental you will not say since falsity in a fundamental ruines the essence of a Church which yet you grant ours to have therefore they were according to you not-fundamental or tolerable yet such kind of not-fundamental points as were more importing to be prest upon you by us than Copes or Surplices which you prest upon them therefore you can alledge no reason why you left us but they may alledge the same or a greater why they left you This evidently is the sense of my words to any man who can understand common reason and the answer to them ought to be a manifesting-some solid motive why they left us which the other Sects cannot with better right defend themselves with why they left the Protestants Let us hear now whether the Doctors discoursive power were sober when he reel'd into such an answer First he willfully puts a wrong meaning upon those words false Fundamentals as if by them I meant things which we onely not they hold for Fundamentals and then overthrows me most powerfully by showing as he easily might that he and his Friends say not but that we prest them to believe false Fundamentals in this sense that is such things as we held Fundamentals whereas 't is plain by my arguing ad hominem all the way as also by those words they will not say they acknowledge ours a true Church in their opinion c. that I meant such points as they accounted Fundamentals And when he hath thus voluntarily mistaken me he tailes against me that I affirm things without the least shadow and ground of truth and that I play foul play The Reader will quickly discern how meanly Dr. H. is skill'd in the game of reason though in that of citations where he can both shuffle and cut that is both alledge and explicate them with Id ests as he pleases he can pack the cards handsomly and show more crafty tricks than ever did Hocus Pocus And if any after all this can think I have wrong'd Mr. H. in affirming he is a weak reasoner himself shall ber ample testimony to this truth in the following Paragraph He slily touches at my true meaning of Fundamentals there and tells us that false Fundamentals is a contradiction in adjecto Grant it who ever affirmed that Fundamentals could be false my words were onely that Dr. H. and his Friends would not say that our Church prest them to believe false Fundamentals Is it any wrong to them or foule play in S. W. to affirm that Dr. H. and his Friends will not speak a contradiction Himself such is his humility sayes it is affirming here that when S. W. undertakes for him and his Friends that they will not say that the Romanists have prest them to
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
whole and transaction of the business or thing there spoken of Hence the signification of the words interpreted to be sometimes down-right and proper sometimes bow'd to a Metaphor sometimes strain'd to a Catachresis nay even sometimes taken absurdly and barbarously so that though the phrase or word seems oftentimes very odd in it self if taken alone yet the circumstances and total import of the sense make that acception though never so improper altogether necessary It being possible even for the best Authour to mistake or be careless in the right use of a word but absolutely impossible and a Contradiction he should not vnderstand his own meaning and intention when he goes about to speak or write Hence is evident how litle is likely to be ever convinc't by Grammatical and Critical quibbling upon the dictionary signification of a word and how litle it conduces to the interpretation of any place more than barely to show the possibility that the word may have in some cases such a signification both the possibility probability and certainty that it must have it there being lest to the present circumstances and the import of the whole Series of the sense It being therefore out of question between us and granted nay asserted and held by us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if taken in it self can signify either a lot or whatever is obtain'd by lot whether it be Office Province an horse a bag of money or whatever else or whether it be by way of division or without it is plain that Dr. H. in showing the grammatical signification of the word in it self hath beat the aire frivolously to no purpose Nor is his showing it to signify such a kind of lot in other places of Scripture to any better end Both because if the books be writ by several Authours it may probably have one acception in one another in another and perhaps a diverse one in the same as also because however the word can possibly signify a Province obtained by lot if put in due circumstances yet that it can possibly have that signification here or in this place must depend upon the present circumstances and import of that Chapter or all that belongs to that business which circumstances not being found in any other place of Scripture the showing the signification of it in other places is litle or nothing to the signification it ought to have in this It were good sport for t one who is at leasure and hath nothing else to doe to observe what havock this plain Rule of interpreting Scripture rightly would make with Dr. H's critical Folio-Annotations on the Biâ—le We shall onely apply it to this present place and desire the Protestant Reader to peruse this Chapter from vers 15. to the end where all that belongs to this business is contained and see whether he can find any ground or appearance of Ground either precedent in the Apostles intentions concomitant in the transaction of the business it self or lastly subsequent in the effect of casting lots why the thing receiv'd by that means should be a lesser province or that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify so Of their antecedent intent we have no other notice than this even according to the Protestants own transtation that they mean't to make up the number of the Apostles by substituting another in the place of Iudas not to go to a lesser Province but Act. 1. v. 22. to witness with them the resurrection which though all grant it was perform'd by going several ways yet there is no such thing there exprest to ground or infer Dr. H's following interpretation which is all concerns us at present Again Act. 1. v. 17. the words For he was numbred with us signifie that they had reflections on the imperfectness of their number and the following words and had obtained part of this ministery make it impossible that a lesser province should be there signify'd for Iudas had not obtain'd a lesser province in his life-time as Dr. H. grants in many places which is confirm'd by vers 25. where it is said that Iudas by trangression fell from his part of this ministery and Apostleship Now speaking properly 't is equally impossible one should fall from a condition or state he had not before as fall locally from a place in which he actually was not before He had therefore if we speak properly and according to the express words of the 25. verse that thing before from which he fell that is he had actually in his life time that part of ministery and Apostleship into which S. Mathias succeeded but Dr. H. grants he had not actually before his death a lesser province but the Office of Apostle onely therefore those words can with no propriety signifie a lesser Province but the Apostolical dignity onely and so it was the Apostles intention to surrogate S. Mathias onely into this dignity Next as for the transaction of the business it self it was onely performed by casting lots and prayer no circumstances imaginable nor the least word being there favourable to this explication or that can be pretended to favour it if we omit as we ought in all reason the phrases in controversy for we must not prove the same thing by it's self To come then to the effect subsequent to the casting of lots nothing can be invented either plainer in it's self or more explicative of the former intention The words are these the lot fell upon Mathias and the effect was that he was numbred with the eleven Apostles Relate these words to the 17. verse For he Iudas was numbred with us and to the following verses importing thus much that Iudas fell and by his fall there wanted one of the former Apostolical number upon this they cast lots and the result of that action is exprest to be this that he was numbred with the eleven Apostles Ioyn the well ordered series of these circumstances together which the very place it self affords and offers and tell me good Reader if it be likely any thing can be mean't by that into which they chose Mathias but the dignity or office of an Apostle tell me whether it be not a wretched interpretation as the Cath. Gent. call'd dit onely upon a possibility that the word taken in it's self and grammatically or as found in other circumstances may have such a signification to infer against the whole stream of all the present circumstances and without the least Ground or shadow of Ground from the place in which 't is found that it signifies a lesser Province Thus much for that place as explicable by the right Rules of interpreting Scripture Now then should we condescend to criticize upon each particular word taken in it sel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if taken alone signifies either the lot or the thing obtained by lot and in that place it is evident and granted to be the latter but still 't is left to be determined by other adjoyning words
he met S. Paul cannot possibly infer such an exclusivenes or limitation of Iurisdiction in the now Popes or the Popes which have been since the imagind conjunction of those Congregations however hâ— may pretend it makes against the universal Iurisdictions of those Popes who preceded Clemens Thus at unawares Dr. H. grants the Pope as much as we desire yet very innocently thinks he impugns him or as himself expresses it Answ p. 11. laies the Axe to the root and stocks up Rome's universal Pastourship Sixthly the question being turned into exclusivenes of Iurisdiction when they met in the same City onely it followes there is not the least pretence of a testimony from Scripture for this position thus stated for 't is no where found nor pretended to be found in Scripture that their Iurisdictions were onely to be limited in case of meeting in the same City So that now the pretence of evidencing from Scripture which in the book of Schism made a great noise is by this new stating the question or rather evading it struck quite dumb Seventhly it is to be observed he has not a word in any testimony to prove their exclusive Iurisdictions in Rome Antioch but onely those which affirmed that they preach't were Bishop in Rome founded the Church in both places All which might easily be done by a promiscuous Authority nor does he offer one word of proof to underprop his weak testimonies why it could not be thus performed Eigthly his place in his book of Schism which he produces for their exclusive Iurisdictions falls short of what he alledges it for affirming onely that when they met at the same City one should constantly apply himself to the Gentiles the other to the Iews Now the prudent consideration of circumstances may determine one man to doe constantly this thing another to doe constantly another thing without inferring that either of them lost their right to doe the other by this constancy of action exercised upon this one By which faltring mistake of his own words we may see that when he alledges them now as a sufficient expression of his tenet of exclusivenes he onely sought to escape from change his former question and to evade by vertue of the more moderate word constantly which standing in the confines between exclusivenes not exclusivenes might at a dead litf by the Midwifry of an Id est or a criticism bring forth either signification Ninthly the Iews according to Dr. H. being S. Peter's Province exclusively to the Gentiles not exclusively till they met in one City it follows that unles they had met he had no exclusive Province at all Hence Tenthly since they agreed upon exclusive Provinces it follows they agreed to meet at such such cities else the bargain of exclusive Provinces had been spoil'd yet t' is no where read that ever they made any such agreement after this pretended distribution of Provinces Eleventhly put case S. Peter had come to some City two or three moneths before S. Paul and we cannot imagin their correspondence so precise nor their imployments other where so indifferent but this might very easily very often happen then it must follow that that Apostle had universal Authority to preach to both till S. Paul come nor can we imagin him idle or negligent to doe what good he could to all Put case then that that Prince of the Apostles who by one Sermon converted three thousand should by three months labour there convert twice that number of Gentiles to Christ's faith to govern whom the whole Authority over both being yet in his own hands it is fitting he should use the said Authority in ordaining constituting Deacons Priests for the orderly governing his numerous Converts and those too distinct in all points from the Priests of the Gentiles for Dr. H. grounds interdict them all Communion See Sch Dis p. 64. Things thus orderd and the Gentiles setled thus under S. Peter S. Paul arrives at the City Then begins the hurliburly S. Peter's Authority which before extended to both Nations begins suddenly to feel the cramp conuulsion-fits shrinks up to the Iews onely in all probability a very few perchance twenty or thirty more or lesse may be imagined to live in that City S. Peter's Iurisdiction being thus grown exclusive in respect of the Gentiles by S. Paul's coming consequently all the Gentiles formerly converted by him however addicted to their Apostle Pastour more then father S. Peter must presently change their Master doe Homage to S. Paul acknowledging him their proper now-sole-Governour The Gentil Priests ordained before his coming either may be degraded lawfully by S. Paul or else submit themselves to him receive the approbation of their Iurisdiction from him as the order of Government requires Moreover if S. Paul had hap to be alone in the same City before and to have converted Iews as his custome was then the poore Iews must avoyd S. Paul's Congregation run to S. Peter's Church assoon as hee arrives But to proceed with our case S. Paul's occasions call him away from that City and ere he removes Dr. H. assures that he must leave behind him a Bishop of his assignation that is over the Gentiles then presently we must imagin that S. Peter's Iurisdiction which had felt a kind of Winter-Season during S. Paul's residence there hee departing begins to feel a happy Spring budding now Sprouting out a fresh towards the Gentiles So that now the Scene of Iurisdiction Government is quite changed again according to Dr. H's grounds and were not S. Peter a good man he might undo all that S. Paul had done be revenged on him for coming to the same City where he was to limit his Authority The Gentiles therefore which were converted before by S. Peter assoon as S. Paul is out of sight begin to face about again S. Peter recovers his own To work therefore heegoes and fals to preach Christ's faith to the Gentiles the second time which before he durst not Converts many having by this time got power enough to do it being about to depart leaves a Bishop of his own constituting to govern them So that we have now got two Gentil Bishops in the same City and if Dr. H. say there was not he must say we are beholding to the Apostles prudence goodnes for it not to his grounds of illimited Iurisdiction when they met not limited when they met in the same City which infers they had Authority to do this many other absurdities and by consequence his position in it self destroyes all order both of Authority Government Again when they met at the same City in case a Gentile had come to S. Peter desired to hear Christ's doctrine S. Peter must refuse to teach him it send him to S. Paul telling him it was beyond his power because S. Paul he had exclusive Iurisdictions when they met
any shew of inference that they agreed to limit the power it self about which our controversie is because they agreed to limit the exercise of that power The fourth position which concerns the exclusivenes of their Iurisdiction from all save their own Provinces is the onely thing which can seem to advantage Mr. H. or concern our question which is about the limitation of Iurisdiction is absolutely false vterly groundles not warranted by any one testimony first invented by Mr. H's fancie pretended to be evidenced by testimonies in his book of Schism challenged by S. W. not to have a word concerning it in any one testimony there alledged to prove it not ownd constantly by Dr. H. in his Answers but absolutely prevaricated from deny'd though at the cost of so many so grosse self-contradictions attended on by a troop of absurdities as hath been shown And lastly not coming home the question neither as shall be seen hereafter for what inference is this Each Apostle was imediate overseer of his own particular Province therefore one of them was not over all the rest The place from Scripture insisted on to evidence this for Dr. H in his Answ p. 38. is of late grown jealous that his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fall short of evidences is Gal. c. 2. v. 7. 8. 9. 10. which I will first put down as I finde it in their own translation then explicate it whether with more consonancy to all circumstances then Dr. H's Exclusive Iurisdiction when they met does let the Reader judge The words in the place cited are S. Paul ' s these When they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me as the Gospel of the Circumcision was to Peter for he that wrought effectually with Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision was mighty in me towards the Gentiles And when Iames Cephas Iohn who seemed to be pillars perceived the grace which was given unto mee they gave me Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the Circumcision onely they would that we should remember the poor c. This is the place upon which Mr. H. builds his tenet of exclusive Provinces with what right let this plain connaturall explication inform the Reader Our Blessed Lord Saviour determined the conversion of his elect both of Iews Gentiles had already sent down his holy Spirit upon his Apostles in Hierusalem wher upon their zeal inciting them the place they were in giving them occasion they added by their preaching multitudes of the Iews to the new-growing Church Stil the Gentiles out of Iudea heard no more news of him than the star led Sages and some straggling preachers had told and were ignorant of his heavenly doctrine except what rumour might have variously and obscurely spread He chose therefore S. Paul both for zeal though hitherto misled naturall acquired abilities as also his being bred among the Heathens being born at Tarsus in Cilicia fit proportioned for that end To him he appeared near Damascus enlighten'd the eyes of his minde by striking blinde those of his body made him powerfully his told him his errand that he should carry his name before the Gentiles not that his comission should extend to them onely since the Commission given by Christ to each Apostle is acknowledgedly universall but that he was by God's all-ordering providence fitted chrosen designed more particularly for that end The former circumstances gave him his addiction his addiction so qualified produced great fruit all these together got him the appellation of Apostle of the Gentiles particularly such indeed but not exclusively it being otherwise evident all over the Acts that he preach't commonly earnestly to the Iews Where he was converted there he imediately began to preach so proceeded in that work till some began to suspect him his doctrine as not coming from Christ because he had not lived conver'st with Christ as the other Apostles had Vpon this he is forc't to come to Iudea to confer his doctrine with the other Apostles and receive their approbations which they found exact entire exprest by those words nihil comulerunt they in conference added nothing to me S. Paul having thus given account of his doctrine the efficacie of his preaching to the Gentiles and the Apostles finding that S. Peter was in like manner eminently particularly efficacious in converting the Iews in Iudea exprest here in the 8. v. two things ensved here upon to wit that by giving S. Paul the right hand of fellowship they acknowledged him a true Apostle or a fellow Apostle at once determined that since he thriu'd best among the Gentiles S. Peter best among the Iews the greatest harvest of which was found in Iudea S. Paul should goe â—ut of Iudea to the Gentiles take Barnabas with him S. Peter with therest remain in Judea still to preach to the Iews and this is all the busines which Mr. H. would make to be an agreement to distribute exclusive Provinces The meaning then of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Circumcision in the ninth verse to which S. Peter was to apply himself I take to be Iudea or the Iews there not those in dispersion and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles to be those out of Iudea Now if this be so then to omit all which hath been said formerly Dr. H's assigning S. Peter of Schism p. 71. onely the Apostleship of some of the Iews in dispertion by founding the exclusivenes of his Authoritie upon this place vanishes into it 's original nothing for in case any distribution of Provinces be signified here S. Peters's must be the Iews at home in Iudea not those abroad or in dispertion if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denote here onely Iudea or the Iewes in it Now the reasons for this explication of mine are first because the efficacie of S. Peter's preaching to the circumcision had been experienced with in Iudea S. Paul's over the Gentiles without Iudea consequently their severing themselves being upon this account should mean that one should stay where he had experienced such fruit that is in Iudea the other goe where he had found the like that is out of Iudea Secondly the words very well bear it since the Iews doe not live vnited in any considerable confluence save in Iudea nor the Gentiles but out of it which is the thing that gives a common denomination to a people Thirdly S. Paul's words onely they would that we should remember the poore imediately following shew plainly the meaning is that he was designed by these words to go out of Iudea therefore desired to remember the poor which were in Iudea as he accordingly did Rom. 15. v. 25. 26. But now I goe to Hierusalem to minister to the Saints for it hath pleased them of Macedonia Achaia to make a certain
22. that the Iewish and Gentile Churches were severd addes saith hee on this verse of c. 2. that they agreed that S. Paul should preach to the Gentiles c. and thence having found the word severing in the first place he infers a severing of Provinces and introduces it with a sure What means having affirmed in his comment on the first Ch. he addes in his comment on the second as if the second place following soe far of and spoken in a nother occasion had been an addition to the first all his following book is added to any line of it if this be adding But this is another Gentile gullery of the Reader to his face to make him conceit by having affirmed he addes that the severing of Churches exprest in the first place relates to their agreement found in the latter which would have made some shew of a proof But alas how far are these two from being added together or conjoyned This pretended agreement among the Apostles to which the second part of the Testimony relates hapning fourteen yeares after what was recounted in the first Chapter v. 22 on which the first part of the testimony comments as is clearly seen in the first verse of the 2. Chapter After fourteen years c. Soe that the meaning of Dr. H's having affirmed he addes comes to this that having affirmed one thing in one place he addes another thing in another which happend fourteen years after and indeed much longer the scandall between the Iews and the Gentiles having been much ancienter and ever since the beginning of the preaching of the saith to both Thus Dr. H. civily abuses his Reader and as long as he does it civily S. W. must not be angry with him or if he does he must not hope to goe to heaven as Dr. H. hath told him from Scripture p. 3. What is said hitherto is pretty but yet Dr. H. vses to be kinder when he alledges testimonies and either brings such as are expressely against him as he did lately from S. Ambrose and in many other places or else contradicts himself let us examin this a while and we shall see hee continues his former favours to us I slall suppose with Dr. H. that he produced the former testimony of severing the said Churches to prove those severall Provinces both because I find the word sever which he vses in his inference no where but in that place onely as also because if it were not produced for that end I know not what it serves for at all Again I shall suppose with him that these imagin'd lesser Provinces of Iews and Gentiles were assign'd by Apostolicall agreement not by Christ as he amply declares himself of Schism p. 70. And that this agreement was that which is exprest Gal. 2. v. 8. 9. c. as he expresses himself in many other places of the two Provinces of Iews and Gentiles Now then this place of S. Hierom's being as he sayes upon Gal. 1. 22. which concerns matters done fourteen years before this agreement as the beginning of the second Chap. manifests the result is that these severall lesser Provinces as deducible from this testimony were fourteen years before they were But this is a contemptible contradiction in Mr. H. who aimes at higher matters So much for the upshot of Dr. H. having affirmed he addes which signifies thus much that S. Hierom. having affirmed one thing in one place and on an occasion happening at such a season he addes a quite disparate thing in another place a mile of and an occasion relating to another time fourteen years after which Dr. H. preposterously adds or ioyns together and then layes the blame on S. Hierom. Thus much to shew how impertinent this testimony had been in case it were S. Hierom's but now if it be none of that fathers but another author's and he two an heretick nay in all probability the Arch heretick Pelagâ—us and this confest by all sides both Catholicks and Protestants and moreover most unlikely to be unknown to Dr. H. what characters shall wee think such a writer deserves who characters himself so earnestly to desire to speak the full truth of God Answ p. 18. and yet quotes the most pestilent hereticks for the most Orthodox fathers and would have his Readers rely for their salvation upon their rotten Authority which is in a manner to stand to the devill 's courtesy whether he will have their Souls or no. It is an ordinary thing to print in the volumes of the fathers all Treatises which have hapt to be entitled theirs let them be genuine or spurious To discern them or take cognizance which are sophisticated which not belongs particularly to learned men who read the fathers for their own or others profit lest they rely on themselves or vent to others the poison of heresy and error-tainted opinions in stead of Orthodox faith nay indeed this for the reason given ought to be their first task but most necessarily and specially theirs who undertake to write and print controversies of religion the main universall importance of the employmeÌ„t engaging them to look with the perfectest care how they play their game when Souls ly at stake If the thing then be obvious the diligence of such an author is hugely concerned to look upon what grounds he proceeds but if he bee also much read in books of this nature his candor and conscience are bound by the highest engagements God himself could impose to acknowledge either absolutely or at least dubiously that such a book is a known hereticks not a Catholicks That Dr. H. had so litle insight into fathers as not to know this I cannot in his behalf suspect I doubt not buâ— he is industrious and laborious enough and takes as much pains in reading to as litle purpose as most men living and I wish his indirect dealings in other places would let my charity consist with truth to think him innocent of the latter and greater fault However I will not judge him my self but I suppose his friends who have a great opinion of his generall reading will think it not candidly done after they consider this which follows Two commentaries on the Galatians are intitled S. Hierom's the one larger and acknowledged by both sides the other briefer and acknowledged by neither nor is it possible that any man who had run over the titles of the Treatises which goe under S. Hierom's name should be ignorant that two such commentaries there were and so had he meant honestly in citing a place out of one of them he would have told us in which it was found whether in the larger or in the briefer To put down then a Testimony and cite onely Hier. in Gal. 1. 21. without telling us in which commentaries on the Gal. it was found when as Dr. H's much reading will not permit us to think he was ignorant there was two joind with this observation that the testimony was not found in the larger one but
to Hierusalem when the Provinces are imagin'd to be given was fourteen years after his being in Iudea mention'd in the Testimony besides the time S. Paul was in Syria and Cilicia This distance of time is unquestionnably the outward show of the letter but howsoever it may be interpreted this is most certain and without all controversy that it was afterwards These things being so what a shame then is it to bring a testimony relating to things done long before to prove his conceit of lesser Provinces held by himself to have been assigned long after But is this all the shame let us see The testimony is put down by him in indifferent termes being come to Iudea he departed thence c. without any distinction when this coming was whether before at or after the pretended agreement whereas had it been known that it was at his coming onely to see Peter which hapened before that agreement whence he deduces these lesser Provinces of S. Peter and S. Paul it had been manifestly discouer'd to be perfectly useles to prove that there were such lesser Provinces at all These words therefore hewarily leaves out least they should quite disgrace the rest The testimony entirely recited is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. coming to Iudea onely to see Peter which former words being so few so link't in context with the other words and soe totally disadvantaging his pretence of lesser Provinces deducible hence they being future even in his own grounds in respect of this time he came to see Peter I shall take leave to think there was design and Artifice in omitting them and producing the testimonie soe advantageously imperfect though I hazard another excommunication in Greek from the crafty alledger and abuser of it From his Answer let us go to his Reply p. 55. where we shall find him from falsifying in iest fall to do it in earnest and that soe openly and manifestly as is impossible either to be cloak't with evading glosses or excused by ignorance or mistake I commend therefore the examination of it to Dr. H's friends more particularly even submitting my self to their censure if he be found excusable To put all clearer I will fully transcribe from the place alledged His seventh testimony where after he had told us that Paul and Barnabas had a Province entrusted to them by giving the right hands of fellowship which he calls their agreement to do so he undertakes to prove it beginning his fourth parag thus And this is the speciall importance saith S. Chrysostome of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but contrariwise the beginning of v. 7. as that is apposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their adding to him v. the 6. Iames saith he and Peter and Iohn were so far from opposing any thing that he had done from advising any thing more from telling him any circumstance more then before he knew that they not onely approved but commended what he had done and to set things the more unquestionably for the future made this agreement with him and Barnabas that whensover they should come to the same City mixt of Iews and Gentiles Peter and Iohn should betake themselves to the Iewish and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile part of it And here I find the first full stop all the rest being commas which followd the saith hee to wit S. Chrysostom's by which 't is evident that no well-meaning Reader who took not upon him to sift this wily Author could suspect but that all the words following that saith hee went upon S. Chrysostom's account and were alledged as his This once premised we will set down S. Chrysostom's testimony in his own words and that every reader may understand it introduce it with a short glance at the occasion of them out of Scripture S. Paul compelled by some calumnies against his doctrine went up to Hierusalem to communicate the gospell he preached to them who were of reputation Peter Iames and Iohn who as hee affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in conference added nothing to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but contrariwise finding his doctrine entire and perfect and moved by seeing the grace that was given him gave to him the right hands of fellowship acknowledging by this acceptation of him for their fellow Apostle that his doctrine was sound Now S. Chrysostom's comment upon that place which is the testimony related to by Dr. H. is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what means but contrariwise some affirm S. Paul sayes that they not onely not taught him but were taughtly him but I should not say so save onely that they blamed him not but were so far from blaming him that they also praised him for praising is contrary to blaming and so proceeds in expressing their commendation and approbation of his doctrine throughout this whole place alledged Here reader thou seest what S. Chrysostom makes the spec all importance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but contrariwise to bee to wit that they praised him praising being contrary to blaming Hence appears the first wilfull falsification of Dr. H. who having spoken of S Paul's having a Province entrusted to him by Apostolicall agreement imediately subjoyns And this is the speciall importance saith S. Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but contrariwise as if the commending S. Paul's doctrine in which onely S. Chrysostome puts the antithesis and opposition to the blaming it did not onely import but specially import the intrusting him with a lesser Province whereas all the speciall importance of it is onely this that Dr. H. hath a speciall faculty of his own in falsifiing and making speciall fools his credulous Readers to think all his forgeries gospell because he gives them speciall fine words and assures them he hath a speciall desire to speake the full truth of God Yet a simple falsification is too weak to defend Dr. H's cause wherefore to make sure work he twists them into a compound forgery In his book of Schism he endeavor's to prove that these Apostles had severall Provinces at Rome and Antioch his Disarmer show'd to the eye of the Reader that he had not one word expressing that position in any testimony alledged but what he added with an Id est of his own head It is expected therefore that he should at least produce new ones which were expresse in his Reply and Answ and that we may see how strongly warranted his Tenet is he brings here one so home and expresse that I confesse some difficulty to Answer it I mean the latter part of the long testimony lately recited as from S. Chrysostome and to set the things the more unquestionably for the future they made this agreemâ—nt with Paul and Barnabas that when soever they should come to the same City mixt of Iews and Gentiles Peter and Iohn should betake them selfs to the Iewish and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile part of it This is expressely now and full for Dr. H's tenet not a testimony-bolt shot at
Authority in that Apostles even from domestick testimonies also His own canon law approved publickly by himself as legitimate shall secretly by Dr. H's inspiration play the Traitour and under mine now in these latter dayes the said Authority which till now every one took it to confirme A strange attempt if Mr. H's strength were equall to his courage The place is cited in the Decret out of the 2. Epist of Pope Anacletus which makes it yet more home and terrible against the now adays-Popes it begins thus Post Christum a Petro sacerdotalis coepit ordo After Christ the sacerdotall order began from Peter and soe goes on in other expressions of that strain soe far from prejudiciall that they are very favorable and as for these first words if wee look into the Epistle it self it makes S. Peter the same in order to Christian Hierarchy as Aaron was to the Leuiticall which wee account no small honour He addes saith Dr. H. that the Apostles ipsum Principem eorum esse voluerunt would have him to bee their Prince that is consented he should bee such To which words Dr. H. subjoyns in a parenthesis where he read this I know not Thus Dr H. takes liberty to talk ridiculously yet should I smile at him a little he would excommunicate me again in Greek and his friends would be displeased Anacletus lived in the Apostles dayes and as he tell 's us in the said Epistle was ordained by S. Peter himself yet Dr. H. finds fault with this his assertion because he knows not where he read it Christ and his Apostles came not with books in their hands but with words in their mouths to teach the world their doctrine Therefore Dr. H. should rather have scrupled where he had heard it then where he had read it and put the force of his exception there and then wee could have told him there was none in those dayes for him to hear but onely either Christ or his Apostles and Disciples neither can wee doubt of his immediate conversation with them who was as the same Epistle expresses ordained by S. Peter himself These preambulatory expressions favouring soe much our cause would make one think that the same Author could not bee so forgetfull as to undo vtterly the same Authority in the self same Epistle nay in the next line after he had calld S. Peter Prince of the Apostles nor that Anacletus was such a Courtier as to speak those former kinde words onely for complement sake and afterwards when it came to the point immediately deny all yet Dr. H. expresses him here as speaking first on the one side then on the other and that when on the one side he had given us the former favorable word 's the false tokens it seems of otherwise-meant friendship presently like Margery's good cow which gave a good meal and when she had done kick't it down with her foot on the other side as Mr. H. tells us with equal clearnes he prevaricates from what he had pretended and over-throws S. Peter's supremacy quite The clear words as he calls them are these caeteri verò Apostoli cum eodem pari consortio honorem potestatem acceperunt But the other Apostles in like consortship received honour and power with him Which he never explicates nor applies as his sleighting custome is but puts them onely down and then triumphs upon them as if they could not possibly bear any other interpretation Whereas I make account every good Catholick may grant these words without any difficulty and that they make nothing at all against us For to say that the other Apostles received pari consortio honorem c. in like consortship honour and power does not infer that they received parem honorem potestatem equall honour and power but that as he had received it from Christ so they pari consortio likewise or in like manner as being his fellows received it to Again our tenet granting to each universall Iurisdiction all over the world grants likewise that each precisely under the notion of Apostle that is of one sent to preach Christs faith had a like consortship of honour and power each of them being dignify'd with an unlimited Apostleship and Iurisdiction or power to preach but speaking of the Apostolicall Colledge as a community and soe requiring order of Government wee affirm with S. Hierome that S. Peter was supreme in that respect nor is there any thing to the contrary found in this place Again the words cum eodem appear by their placing to be better joynd with acceperunt then with pari for then they should rather have been put after it paricum eodem c. and soe the whole place imports thus much that though our saviour chose S. Peter to be first yet the rest of the Apostles acceperunt cum eodem received with him that is at the same time he received it in like consortship that is of Apostleship honour and power which was verified when he in a common indifferent expression after his Resurrection gave them their last and unlimited Apostolicall mission euntes in vniuersum mundum praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae Going into the whole world preach the Gospell to every creature By this it appears that the place may have another meaning than that which Mr. H. fancies now that it must have another none but Anacletus him self in the same Epistle shall certifie us who manifests himself as plain a Papist in this point of the Pope's supremacy as either the Cath. Gent. or S. W. Putting down there the orderly ascent of Ecclesiasticall judicatures after that of Bishops being to be judged by their Metropolitans he rises higher to that of Primates and still higher to that of the Apostolicall seat or the Pope's in these words Primates tamen vt praefixum est tunc nunc habere iussae sunt ad quos post sedem Apostol cam summa negotia conueniant yet the Cities are order'd to have their Primates to whom the chief busienesses after the Apostolicall seat may come And a little after Episcoporumque causae summorum negociorum iudiciae Saluà Apostolicae sedis authoritate iustissimè terminentur And let the causes of Bishops and the judgments of the highest matters bee most justly decided by them the Authority of the Apostolicall seat remaining unprejudic'd By these two places wee may take an estimate of Dr. H. solidnes and sincerity who catches at the shadow of a word or two pari consortio in like consortship so waxen natur'd that they are easily capable of a diverse shap't signification and thence argues ad hominem against us that our own Authors and our canon law are clearly opposite to our doctrine whereas he could not but know and see in the very same place that there was noe testimony imaginable more expressely for us or more prejudiciable to him then the said Epistle if wee look after the meaning of the Author in the entire import of it
tells me Answ p. 48. l. 35. that that wherein Rome was concern'd is reviewed Repl c. 9. where nothing is found to that purpose nor any where else save onely in the Sect. 7. par 6. Where when I came to look in expectation of some return to my exceptions I found that he onely enumerated briefly the same testimonies of his former book his irrefâ—agable one as he calls it from the Popes â—eales his falsification as shall be seen ere long concerning Linus Clemens which he tells us again are evidences that they clear that part which concerned Rome and then having made this learned mock-Reply that is said over again out of his former book what had been excepted against by mee related us back in the margent to that very place in it which I had impugned as thus manifoldly weak he ends with these words that Sure there can be no need of farther proofs or testimonies from Antiquity in this matter That bold fac'd word Sure is a Sure card and Mr. H's Ace of th' trumps there is no resisting it when the game seems quite gone it retrives the losse carries all before it My answer was that all which those testimonies intimated might have been performed by promiscuous preaching of each both to th' Iews Gentiles the summe of his Reply is onely this that Sure it cannot I objected that those testimonies were weak concluded nothing at all of such a distinction he answers that they are clear are evidences that Sure there can need no farther proof So that we have now got a fourth express proofe added to his Wee know I say I suppose to wit his owne Sure the Sure naile fasten'd by the master of the Protestant Assembly Dr. H. As for the testimony of S. Prosper in which he was accused to render Ecclesiam Gentium the Church of the Nations lest S. Peter S. Paul should both have meddled with Gentiles in Rome which words should they be render'd the Church of the Gentiles must necessarily follow he referts me to his Repl. p. 65. parag 10. for satisfaction where he acquaints me with his desire that the truth of his interpretation may be consider'd by the words cited from him The words are these in ipsâ Hierusalem lacobus c. Iames at Hierusalem Iohn at Ephesus Andrew the rest through out all Asia Gentium Ecclesiam sacrârunt consecrated the Church of the Nations sayes Dr. H. Gentiles says S. W. Vpon this testimony Dr. H. argues thus What Nations were these Sure of Iews aswell as Gentiles then follow the Grounds of this his assurance else Hierusalem could be no part of them no nor Iohn's converts at Ephesus for they were Iews and then he concludes his mild-reasoning discourse with as mild a reprehension that therefore the Catholike Gentleman did not doe well Now as for his Sure 't is indeed a pregnant expression but I deny the sufficiency of the Authoritie which so Magisterially pronounces it And for what concerns the Grounds of his assurance they are both of them found onely in his own sayings no where in any testimony my tenet he knows is that all those Apostles preach't promiscuously to Gentiles also where soever they came But lest he should think me hard hearted for not beleeving his Sure I shall at least show my self far from cruelty in making him this friendly proffer that if he can show mee any one word in any testimony yet produc't which expresses that S. Iames preach't to Iews onely in Hierusalem or S. Iohn to Iews onely in Ephesus upon which alone he builds here that Gentium cannot signifie Gentiles I will pardon him the answering this whole book which to doe on any fashion will I know be very laborious shamefull to him but to doe it satisfactorily impossible unles he could put out his Reader 's Eyes so hinder them from reading his corrupted falsified citations aright Is there anything easier then to show us an exclusive particle or expression if any such thing were to be found there But if there be none what an emptines vanity open cozenage of his Reader is it to cry Sure Surely Certainly Vnquestionably and the like when there is no other warrant to ground this assurance save his owne weake fancy inconsequent deductions hâ—s interlac'd parenthesisses his facing the testimonies with antecedent peecing them with subsequent words whiles in the meane time the testimony it self must stand by look on onely like a conditio sine quâ non as if it were an honourable spectator to grace his personating and not have any efficacious influence or act any part in the Argument which bears it's title But to come to the testimony it self first I would know of Mr. H. how oft he hath read Gentes taken alone without any additionall determining expression to signifie both Iews Gentiles unles it be in this sence as it probably might be in S Prosper's time that Gentium Ecclesia signified the Christian Church in which the Iews were included yet being no considerable part of it they needed not be exprest Next as for the word Nations which he recurs to I would ask whether though those in Iudea were styled the Nation of the Iews yet whether those in dispersion at Rome were called a Nation or no or rather a Sect Thirdly let Gentium signifie of the Nations as he would have it let us see how Dr. H. hath advantaged his cause For if it be so then the words Gentium Ecclesiam sacrarunt they consecrated the Church of the Nations are to be applyed to all the Apostles there mention'd Now then since Nations as Dr. H. tells us here is Sure of Iews aswel as Gentiles the testimony must run thus Iames at Hierusalem consecrated the Church of Iews aswell as Gentiles Iohn at Ephesus consecrated the Church of Iews aswell as Gentiles Andrew the rest throughout all Asia consecrated the Church of the Iews aswell as Gentiles and the like of Peter Paul at Rome Thus Dr. H. thinking to stop one hole hath made other three quite destroyes the substance of his exclusive tenet while he went about to mend a circumstance Fourthly if he will not allow this signification of the word given allowed by himself as'applyed to S Peter S. Paul when it was his interest to be appliable to all the rest of those Apostles likewise let us see what an unreasonable beleef he exacts of his Readers to imagine that the word Gentium should dance from one signification to another as his fancy shall please to strike up a diverse tune Hence apply'd to S. Iames S Iohn it must be imagin'd to signify Iews onely because 't is against the interest of his tenet that they should open their mouths to convert a Gentile at Hierusalem and Ephesus But then S. Andrew the rest are not Apostles of the Circumcision so according to him must not preach to a Iew in Asia presently
the whole Controversie being about the limitation or illimitation of Iurisdiction and the totall scope of that first half of c. 4. to limit S. Peter's to the Iews onely Fourthly hence follows that it is mainly important most absolutely necessary that Dr. H. should now lay hold of this fair occasion to lay the Axe to the root of Rome as he exprest his intent Answ p. 11. Fifthly the conditions of the victory are the most facil that can be imagin'd for what easier than to shew one exclusive particle as onely solely alone or some such like exprest in any testimony if any such thing were there Sixthly it is to be observed that he hath accepted of the challenge so stands engaged to shew some such word exprest in some testimony Seventhly he is allured to do it by the tempting hope to be at an end of Controversie as himself confesses And lastly unles he come of well from so condescending so easy a challenge already accepted of that is unles he show some such exclusive particle exprest in some testimony he cannot avoid manifesting himself the most shamefull writer that ever handled pen the most pernicious ruiner of Souls that ever treated controversy the most insincereconscienc'd man that ever pretended to the name of a Christian if in treating a question about Schism in which is interessed mens eternall salvation damnation as himself proves amply of Schism c. 1. and the most fundamentall point thereof as himself likewise confesses this to be which concerns S. Peter's universall Iurisdiction Answ p. 74 hee cannot produce nor pick out one expresse word to that purpose from that whole army of his testimonies which he call'd Evidences but from his own words onely So that all the motives imaginable conspire to maâ—e Dr. H. as good as his word the hazard of his Reader 's eternall damnation the care of his owne conscience of his owne credit the hope to be at an end of Controversie none of the least to him as he is caught in these present circumstances promise of victory the extreme moderation facility of the understanding and lastly his owne acceptation here of the challenge By this time I know the Reader expects that Dr. should come thundering out with a whole volly of testimonies shewing in each of them plain words expressing his tenet at least that he should produce some one expresse particle limitting S. Peter's Authoritie without the help of his scruing deductions as he promist his challenger But he never so much as attempts what he late pretended thâ—t is he attempts not to show any expresse word in any testimony but instead there of prevaricates to his old shuffling tricks huddles together three testimonies and fancies a shadow like allusion from one to the other and thence adventures to infer a conclusion What is this to our question or my challenge it debarr'd his scruing deductions and required some one expresse restrictive word he linkes three citations together to make a sleight glosse which no one alone could do and then deduces concludes which was interdicted by his self-accepted challeÌ„ge What need three testimonies strung together to shew one restrictive word or what relation hath the pointing out to us such a word to the inferring a conclusion from three testimonies I desired he promist me some one word which was express that is which needed no conclusion at all he puts me of with a conclusion onely which intimates there was never an express word His deductions are his the words are the testimonies I never challeng'd him that he could not deduce the most ivicy conclusion from the most flinty testimony as he did the best in all his book of Schism from the bare monosyllable come My challenge was that his deductions were loud his testimonies quite dumbe without one expresse word in them to his purpose This word which would have sav'd gain'd Dr. H. so much credit Ease I desired should be shown me But since he is silent in pronouncing it he gives it for granted that he could produce none and so the Reader I know what to think of him whose self-conciet dares hazard his Reader 's Salvation upon his owne bare unauthorized sayings and altogether unwarrantable imaginations Now as for his three testimonies themselves they are the former old ones already answered over over towit that from Gal. 2. of the imagin'd agreement for exclusive Provinces that of Epiphanius saying that the two Apostles were Bishops in Rome and that of the Arch heretick Pelagius concerning the holding a part the Iewish Gentile Churches The first he can make nothing of without an Ellipsis which he makes up himself Our bargain was that he should show me some exclusive word exprest in any one of his citations for his exclusive tenet and the first of the three loÌ„g letterd testimonies which by being put together were to spell this one exclusive word is imperfect without something understood that is notexprest Good The whole force of the second from Epiphanius lies in this word Bishops which yet affirms S. Peter S. Paul to have been at Rome which word is so far from being of an exclusive signification that it is common inclusive of both Yet he tells us here that it is expresse makes it more ample by reciting it thus that in Rome Peter Paul were the same persons both Apostles Bishops What force he puts in the same persons none but himself can imagin since none ever dream't that Epiphanius spoke of two different Peters Pauls whom he call'd Bishops from those he call'd in the same line with in the same comma Apostles And as for his last testimony 't is borrowed froÌ„ the Arch-heretick Pelagius as hath been shown heretofore Sect. 7. Moreover grant that the Congregations of Iews Gentiles were for a while during the heat of the Scandall held a part at Antioch and some other places yet this Arch-heretick's testimony expresses not it was so at Rome when the Apostles met there which was some years after that fit of Iewish zeal at Antioch and the vehemency of the Scandall by the Apostles prudence went on mitigating every day So as this unauthentick testimony borrow'd from the wicked Pelagius hath not one expresse word of exclusion even of the Iewish caetus at Rome much lesse of the Apostles were exclusively over those two caetusses as he terms them nor hath Dr. H. any reason to think that all the Iews of the dispersion were thus zealous since we may gather easily Act. 13. 42. that both Iews Gentiles were together when S. Paul preached at the Synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia and most expressely Act. 14. v. 1. 19. we read that in Iconium Paul Barnabas went both together into the Synagogue of the Iews so spake that a great multitude both of the Iews also of the Gentiles beleeved Which besides that it shows plainly the Iews there thought it not against
that the greater part of them will be arrant fools First putting down a company of expressions totally disanulling S. Peter's Authority and immediately quoting for them 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Next when he is challenged of falsifying instead of showing any word there more then the poor monosyllable Come saying he onely mean't it was conclusible or deducible thence And lastly instead of concluding proving or deducing that Iurisdiction limiting sence from those words which at least was necessary onely saying the same words over again asking some questions to which he knew the answer long ago bidding his Answerer supply his turn prove telling us we dare not do not affirm what his own knowledge what his own eyes assure him we both dare do in this very present Controversy and then concluding all with an If built upon the former no doubt bred in his own head grounded upon his own fancy Is such an Adversary worth the losse of an hour's time to confute were it not that the Authority he hath got by a sleightly-connected Sermon enabling him to do some mischief amongst the more vulgar made it necessary to lay him open plainly to show how unsafe it is for them to let their Salvations rely in the least upon so incomparably weak a Controvertist THIRD PART Containing a Refute of Dr. H's second fundamentall Exception against the Pope's Authority from the pretended equall donation of the Keys to S. Peter Sect. 1. How Dr. H's Shuflingly avoids either to acknowledge or dâ—sacknowledge the notion of an Evidence given What he means by his Evidences and what is to be expected from Catholikes in managâ—ng a Wit-controversy concerning Scripture His weak attempt to clear himself of Prevarication Injuriousnes and Calumny objected MY 13. Section in Schism Disarm'd begun with putting down the true notion of an Evidence having already shown p. 17. that nothing but a perfect certainty sprung from such rigorous convincing proofs could rationally oblige the understanding to assent and that all assents sprung from that were originiz'd from passion Whence follows that the first Protestants could no way rationally relinquish the Authority Government of the former Church they were bred in conclude in their thoughts that her Doctrine was false her Government an usurpation unles moved by the said light of evident demonstrative Reasons that is unles they had grounds sufficient in their own nature to convince them that it was so and could not but be so For surely even in common prudence it had been the most rash action imaginable to hazard the most greeveus sin of Schism consequently an eternity of misery to their Souls upon probability onely How great a favour Dr. H. had done himself who though he begun first to write yet now Answ p. 50. l. 32. expresseth a great desire to be at an end of Controversie and how great a kindnes he had confer'd on S. W to have answer'd positively to these two points I or no to wit whether lesse then such a rigorous Evidence could iustify the renouncing an Authority possession so qualified and whether his pretended Evidences I or no were such I need not much declare The whole controversy depends upon these two hinges will quickly finde a decisive conclusion if these points were positively answer'd to vigorously pursued Now my notion of a Testimony Evidence Schism Disarm p. 88. was this that the testimony it self must be authentick beyond dispute and the words alledged so directly expressing the thing to be proved that they need no additions or explications to bring them home to the matter but are of themselves full ample clear such as the Alledger himself were he to expresse his thoughts in the present Controversy would make choice of to use Whether he likes this definition of a Testimony Evidence or no he is resolu'd wee shall not know He dares not be negative or say he dislikes it because what ever testimony falls short of this falls short likewise of proving that the thing must be and so concludes onely that it may be which being too weak a ground in the iudgment of every prudent Conscientious man to hazard his Soul upon as he must if he begin to Schismatize upon no better Grounds he saw it could turn to his disgrace if he deny'd the notion given or pretended that lesse Evidence would serve in a Controversy about Schism nor durst he bee affirmative or approve of it because he saw he had not produced one testimony in his whole book worth a straw if it were brought to that Test nor worthy to bestyled an Evidence Wherefore being in this perplexity and as the proverb is holding a Wolf by the ears he recurs to his old Prevarications and instead of approving or disapproving of my Description of an Evidence tells me Answ p. 58. what he meant by his own Evidences to wit that he takes Evidence in the familiar vulgar notion for a testimony to prove any Question of Fact either in the Affirmation or the nagative But what kinde of Testimonies these must be which can serve in such a concerning discourse whether such as I described heretofore manifesting that the thing must be or not be or probable ones inferring onely that his Affirmative or Negative may be or whether these Testimonies need be proofs at all but branches of accordance onely or spoken in agreement as almost all the Testimonies he hath hitherto produced were he defines nothing By his carriage in his book of Schism he seems to mean these latter onely nor do his words here exact more then onely a testimony not expressing any thing at all concerning the quality of this testimony whether the Authority of it must be valid or invalid clear or obscure expresse or dumbe entire or maim'd with an Ellipsis originally proving oâ— agreable onely set down right or corrupted falsified an Orthodox Fathers or an Arch-Heretick's all is one with Dr. H. still that testimony is one of his Vulgarly-Styl'd Evidences and so vulgar half-witted Souls will rely upon them in a Controversy importing no lesse then their eternall Salvation In the same place of Schism Disarm'd Dr. H. was charg'd with prevaricating from his pretended promise instead of bringing Evidence of his own solving our pretended ones and that this was to sustain a different part in the dispute he first undertook to wit the part of the Defendant for so we used ever to style him who solved objections He answers that the one possible way to testify any negative is to take a view of the places the Affirmers pretend and to shew that those places have no such force in them Obserue these canting words the one possible way so handsomly preparing for an evasion which though more likely to signify the onely possible way as Vnus is often taken for Solus in Latin yet he hath a glosse in readines to say he meant ' otherwise But because he puts not down the other
ingenious Adversary conclude thence that it was the power of Truth not any sleight of tricks which thus baffled the Dr. If then my greatest faults be proved innocent my lesser ones will I conceive be held so likewise since it is presumable that no man will accuse another of a greater faul but upon a better ground Now the greatest vices of a Writer are falsifications for what credit can ever be rationally given to any Writer who is once convinc't to have bely'd the Author he cites to have falsify'd wilfully Faults of this sort he objects to me onely in two places as far as I observe In examining which I crave the Readers exactest diligence decline not his most rigorous censure nay if he can in reason iudge that I wilfully chang'd any thing that is gain'd or endeavored to gain the least possible advantage by my mistake which is the onely touchstone as it is the sole reason of falsifying then I give him free leave to brand me in his thoughts for infamous and shall in requitall pardon Dr. H. the long rowle of his wilfull or manifestly advantageous ones 〈◊〉 first of these pretended falfisications is found related in his Answ p. 201. and also put in the title to his 11th Section p. 195. To clear the Reader 's understanding the better and mine own credit totally I will put down first the substance of the point there handled the substance of my Answer given next the circumstances amongst which my wrong transcription is found by which means one may easily solidly iudge whether my oversight had any influence at all upon the point in hand and conclude that if evidently it had none then it was onely a materiall lapse in transcribing Dr. H's words equally incident to any man living not a formall fault In his book of Schism p. 124 parag 19. he attempts to prove that Kings have supreme power in Ecclesiasticall causes Amongst his other marginall notes ayming to conclude this in the following page we read these words So in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole third book is made up of iustinians 1. e. the Emperor's constitutions de Episcopis Clericis Sacris concerning Bishops Clergy men Sacred Offices This is the substance nay the totall of his objection The substance of my Answer â—ound Schism Disarm'd p. 167. is this that all the laws found there must not necessarily be Iustinians since the Keepers of laws use not onely to put in their law books those Constitutions themselves made but also those they are to see observed amongst which are the Canons laws of the Church made before by Ecclesiasticall power This is the main substance of my Answer to that objection in generall How weakly he reply's to this telling us onely Answ p. 202. that this cannot possibly be accommondated to the matter in hand because 't is certain cries the strong reasoning Dr. he made many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning Ecclesiasticall matters which the Authors name put to them and the persons to whom they were written I cannot totally omit to let the Reader see by the way how pittifull this Reply of his is how nothing to the point this being to say over again what we grant and leaving untouch't what we object since all this might have been done whether those Constitutions had been originally his own or no and will serve for an instance how weak this Dr. is in the following part of his book were he duly call'd to account But this concerns not my task at present which is onely this to put down substantially the question his proof my Reply that it may be thence iudged whether I could possibly be said to gain any advantage by the circumstances I faultred in The first of those circumstances is that whereas his words were Iustinians Constitutions de Episcopis Clericis Sacris I transcribed de Episcopis Clericis Laicis Now if he contend I transcribed one word wrong in answering his whole book I grant it and I conceive Dr. H will not presume himself exempt from the like faillings But if he pretend that I falsify'd or did it voluntarily plain sence will overthrow him quit me No man does a thing voluntarily but for some end and the end an insincere Writer can be imagin'd to have in falsifying is to gain some advantage to his cause If then it be most manifest that I neither did attempt nor could possibly gain thence the least advantage nor that he himself attempts to shew I gain'd any no man of reason but will acquit my sincerity accuse mine Adversary for a calumniator First then that I did not attempt any advantage thence is clear both in my words which never put either the least force in the word Laicis nor so much as mention'd it or any thing to that sence nor yet in the omission of Sacris Secondly it is yet more manifest in that mine Adversary never goes about to show that I made the least use of this mistake which yet solely imported in such an objection but rather on the contrary calls it a meannes saying that I am come to that meannes of changing his words and indeed it is a strange meannes to change them to no purpose and alledges onely as the cause of that meannes forsooth that I did it not to gain any help to defend my tenet by it but to get some advantage of carping at them But that even this is as falsly pretended as the other the Readers eye will inform him if he please to peruse my Answer Schism Disarm p. 167. where he will see that there is not a sillable which sounds like carping at his words but a serious Answer to the point Thirdly that I could reap no profit by such a mistake appears by the very point it self apply'd to my words for since he denies not but I transcrib'd right and grants that he made laws de Episcopis Clericis of Bishops and Clergy men to what end should I omit Sacris sacred Officies since he that could make laws concerning those who were over Sacred Officies could a fortiori make laws for the Sacred Offiâ—ies themselves as himself yeelds of Schism p. 125. l. 18. 19. And lastly this objection is convinced to be most senceles by this that my Answer given was equally pertinent strong apply'd to Sacris had it been there as it was to Episcopis Clericis when this was left out since it contended that law Keepers use to put in their law books the Constitutions Canons of the Church to make them more powerfully observed received which equally fit 's the pretence that they made Constitutioâ—s de Sacris as that they made them de Episcopis Clericis In a word I confess the infinit tediousnes of my dreaming Adversary made me write the whole book in some hast caused by my impatience to stand triffling after that manner and my particular hast here appears also by leaving
out the particle before Sacris of which I wonder the Dr. made not another falsification as well as in mis-writing that word And it seems the Antithesis or opposition between Clericis Laicis very obvious to one's mind not particularly attentive which seem'd warranted by my fore knowledge that Iustinian a secular Prince made laws concerning laymen also made me not aware of my mistake and on the other side there was nothing in so unconcerning a change which could awaken in me an apprehension that I had erred which had there been any force put particularly in that word I should have reflected on But I have said too much in excusing a materiall error to which the best wisest man living is obnoxious materiall I say since both the substance import of the point there in hand the perfect silence of mine Adversary in applying my mistake to the said point and his onely but false pretence that I gain'd hence advantage to cavill at them examin'd by any Readers eye all conspire to excuse it from being formall affected Yet this is my great falsification the rest are such pittifull toies that they blush for shame in their objector's behalf assoon as they show their faces instead of blaming me accuse him of the contumeliousnes he layd to my charge in the beginning of his book The second falsification found here likewise is this that whereas he said that in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole third book is made up of Iustinian's Constitutions de Episcopis c. I call it Iustinian's third book Where 's the difference onely here that Iustinian as is agreed granted by both writ those laws but another collected them so that according to him 't is a falsification to call those laws Iustinian's book which himself both here in the following page confesses Iustinian constituted or writ because another collected them into a Syâ—nopsis Alas poor man yet this falsification is plurally exprest with the former put in the title of his Section as a busines of great concern Now he never pretends that this empty chimera of a falsification has any influence at all upon my cause or Answer onely he tells me I have ill luck and indeed so I have but 't is onely in this that I have lost my time in confuting so weak an Adversary My third falsification alas is found objected in his Answ p. 167. Attend Protestant Readers all you that run to this Drs Sermons with such a gaping admiration See in these two present calumnies of his how sillines in sincerity are at fisticufs about their iust claim to him leaving it a drawn Match to which of them he more properly belongs Either qualification being in the height they admit no comparison so no Vmpirage I shall put down the very words the very page the very line where my words his are found and then leave them that love Truth better then his person to abhor such an open Affector of Fals-dealing and those that hug an airbred opinion of him above the respect due to Truth honesty to the iust regret which such inexcusable follies disingenuities of their preaching Dr. will cause in their partiall Souls In his book of Schism p. 118. l. 11. 12. 13. 14. to prove that Kings had a proper power to erect Metropolitan's he cited the 12. Canon of the council of Chalcedon where he said mention was made of cities honored with letters Patents from the Kings with the name dignity of Metropoles Now the Greek as put down by himself being onely that they were honored 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies precisely with the name of a Metropolis no more and it being contended proved by me out of Dr. H's own friend Balsamon that they had no dignity of Iurisdiction I excepted with good reason against his rendring the single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies onely with the name by that double advantageous expression of name dignity My exception Schism Disarm p. 145. l. 3. 4. c. was delivered in these words that the council sayes onely those cities were honored with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the name alone which the Dr. fluent in his expressions englishes name dignity Now this particle alone after name he calls a falsification insincerity alledges it is put in by me whereas 't is most palpably manifest I used the word alone as my own word not the councill's and put it in opposition to his double phrase of name dignity And how it is possible to correct one who insincerely translates a single word by two different ones without vsing the limitative particle onely or alone to restrain his extravagant interpretation no man living can imagin To evidence yet more clearly that I used the word alone as mine own not the councils I was so exact as to put it down in a different letter from that in which I put the name pretended to be the councils words to wit in the comon letter in which I used to put mine own words throughout the whole book as contradistinguish't fom the words of others as is to be seen Schism Disarm p. 145. l. 4. 5. yet all this minute waâ—ines which left no possible room for any cavill was not sufficient to secure my sincerity nor stave of Dr. H. from his needfull now grown naturall insincerity look Answ p. 167. l 2 and you shall see he changes the word alone in which he contends my falsification consists from the roman letter in which I writ it and by thus writing it ownd it for mine into the Italic or translation letter which signifies that I pretended it the council's word and translated it thence And when he hath thus changed my word thus distinctively put consequently my intention and the import or application of that particle he calls his manifest falsification of my words my falsification of the Councils and Grounds his cavill calumny meerly upon his own insincere carriage in which I must tell him plainly he has committed a peece of most open knavery Let the Dr. his friends patdon me these plain expressions till they show me why he that accuses another of falsifying which is Knavery in the height and builds his uniust accusation onely upon the same fault committed by himself at the same time may not with justice modesty both be branded with that qualification which he would thus vniustly affix upon another My fourth falsification Si Dijs placet is found in the same places as the former Schism Disarm p. 1 5. I cited the council that those Metropolitanes erected by Kings should enjoy onely the honour and then alledged Balsamon's words that this honour mean't no more but that that Bishoprick should be called a Metropolis Now Dr. H. in his Answ p. 167. l. 19. assures his Reader that this is another falsification such another as the former you may be sure But why good
sure they shall never come to open light lest by speaking out hee should bring himself into inconveniences Observe his words Those doctrines that discipline which wee inherited from our forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them is to bee changed which is substantiall or essentiall But what and how many those doctrines are what in particular that discipline is what hee means by In heriting what by forefathers what by substantiall none must expect in reason to know for himself who is the relater does not Are those doctrines their 39 Articles Alas noe those are not obligatory their best Champions reiect them at pleasure Are they contain'd in the Creed onely Hee will seem to say so sometimes upon some urgent occasion but then ask him are the processions of the divine Persons the Sacraments Bapâ—ism of children Government of the Church the acknowledging there is such a thing as God's written word or Scripture c. obligatory the good man is gravelld In fine when you urge him home his last refuge will bee that all which is in God's word is obligatory and then hee thinks himself secure knowing that men may wrangle with wit coniectures an hundred yeares there ere any Evidence that is conviction bee brought Thus the Bishop is got into a wood and leaves you in another and farther from knowing in particular what doctrines those are than you were at first Again ask him what in particular that discipline is own'd by Protestants to have come from Christ and his Apostles as their Legacy for hee gives us no other description of it than those generall terms onely and hee is in as sad a case as hee was before Will hee say 't is that of the secular power being Head of the Church or that of Bishops Neither of these can bee for they acknowledge the french Church for their sister Protestant and yet shee owns no such forms of Government to have come from Christ but that of Presbyters onely which they of England as much disown to have been Christ's Legacy It remains then that the Protestants have introduc't into the Church at or since the Reformation in stead of that they renounced no particular form of Government that is no one that is they have left none but onely pay their adherents with terms in generall putting them of with words for realities and names for things Again ask him what hee means by inheriting and hee will tell us if hee bee urged and prest hard for till then no Protestant speaks out that hee means not the succession of it from immediate forefathers and teachers which is our Rule of faith and that which inheriting properly signifies this would cut the throat of Reformation at one blow since Reformation of any point and a former immediate delivery of it are as inconsistent as that the same thing can both bee and not bee at once But that which hee means by inheriting is that your title to such a tenet is to bee look't for in Antiquity that is in a vast Library of books filld with dead words to bee tost and explicated by witts criticks where hee hopes his Protestant followers may not without some difficulty find convincing Evidence that his doctrine is false and that rather than take so much pains they will bee content to beleeve him and his fellows Thou seest then Reader what thou art brought to namely to relinquish a Rule that I may omit demonstrable open known and as easy to teach thee faith as children learne their A. B. C. for such is immediate delivery of visible and practicall points by forefathers to embrace another method soe full of perplexity quibbling-ambiguity and difficulty that without running over examining thousands of volumes that is scarce in thy whole life time shalt thou ever bee able to find perfect satisfaction in it or to chuse thy faith that is if thou followst their method of searching for faith and pursvest it rationally thou may'st spend thy whole life in searching and in all likelihood dy ere thou chusest or pitchest upon any faith at all The like quibble is in the word forefathers hee means not by it immediate forefathers as wee do that would quite spoil their pretence of Reformation but ancient writers and so hee hath pointed us out no determinate Rule at all till it bee agreed on whom those forefathers must bee and how their expressions are to bee understood both which are controverted and need a Rule themselves But the chiefest peece of tergiversation lies in those last words that nothing is to bee changed in those Legacies which is substantiall or essentiall That is when soever hee and his follows have a mind to change any point though never so sacred nay though the Rules of faith and discipline themselves 't is but mincing the matter and saying they are not substantiall or essentiall and then they are licenc't to reiect them Wee urge the two said Principles of Vnity in faith and discipline are substantiall points essentiall to a Church if Vnity it self bee essentiall to it These your first Reformers inherited from their immediate forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and de facto held them for such these youreiected and renounc't this fact therefore of thus renouncing them concludes you absolute Schismaticks and Hereticks till you bring demonstrative Evidence that the former Government was an usurpation the former Rule fallible onely which Evidence can iustify a fact of this nature It is worth the Readers pains to reflect once more on my L d of Derry's former proposition and to observe that though white and black are not more different than hee and wee are in the sence of it yet hee would persuade his Readers hee holds the same with us saying that hee readily admits both my first and second Rule reduced into one in this subsequent form c. and then puts us down generall terms which signify nothing making account that any sleight connexion made of aire or words is sufficient to ty Churches together and make them one Iust as Manasseh Ben Israel the Rabbi of the late Iews in the close of his petition would make those who profess Christ and the Iews bee of one faith by an aiery generall expression parallell to the Bishops here that both of them expect the glory of Israël to bee revealed Thus dear Protestant Reader thou seest what thy best Drs would bring thee to to neglect sence and the substantiall solid import of words and in stead thereof to bee content to embrace an empty cloud of generall terms hovering uncertainly in the air of their owne fancies In a word either the sence of your coÌ„tracted Rule is the same with that of our dilated one or not If not then you have broke the Rule of faith held by the former Church unles you will contend this Rule had no sence in it but non-significant words onely and by consequence are
accuses himself since then wee never accused you of breaking from our Goverment till you had broke from it and you could not have broke from it without first accusing the say'd Government and objecting some reason against it as the motive of your breaking You must therefore oppose and alledge those reasons and show them sufficient ones else your very fact of renouncing that former Government doth unavoidable convince you of Schism Next hee tells us that if the proof did rest on their sides yet hee does not approve of my advice And I dare swear in the Bps behalf that hee never spoke truer word in his life and will bee bound for him that hee shall never follow any advice that bids him speak home to the point or meddle with such a method as is likely to bring a speedy end to the Controversy Make an Heretike speak out saith S. Augustin and you have hâ—lf-confuted him But what reason gives hee why hee disapproves of my advise Will hee shew us a more easy efficacious or likely way to bring the dispute to a finall Conclusion His reason is because saith hee it is not wee who have alter'd the doctrine or discipline which Christ lefâ— in the Church but they c. and so runs rambling forwards with his own sayings to the end of the Section All the world sees and Dr. H. acknowledges you have alter'd the discipline left in the Church of England in K. H's dayes and now you are to give a reason to iustify this alteration you tel us you have made none I am not ignorant of the dexterity with which you have shuffled a reserve into those words which Christ left in the Church to persuade the Reader the discipline of the Church of England in H the â—th's dâ—yes was not the same which Christ left to his Church But I prest no more than that it was used then as a thing held to have been inherited from Christ and that it was then and still is a bond of Vnity to all â—hose that communicated in it and therefore that you now reiecting it must either shew it to bee no necessary bond of Vnity or necessarily remain convinced of destroying Vnity that of Schism Mee thinks a man who pretends to answer should either say I or No they are usvally the returns wee make to questions But S Austin's saying is Oracle no speaking out hee thanks you Hee knew well enough that either part of the Contradiction own'd would have some means to go about to disprove which by destroying all doubt in the case would have destroy'd his own and the Authority of all those who speak against Evidence Altum silentium is all you can get from him onely in the hard streight hee is driven to of either saying nothing or nothing to the purpose hee tels you hee is not obliged to answer because hee has not alter'd the discipline left by Christ to his Church of England in K. H. the 8th's dayes of which my objection runs 't is false even to ridiculousnes for I cannot imagin hee fancies his Authority can so much over sway the simplicity of any Reader his book will meet with as to hope to make him beleeve the Church of England in his Lops time had the same discipline she had in K. H's dayes If hee mean of the discipline left by Christ to the Primtive times 't is no less false and more impertineÌ„t first in answering of the Primitive times to an objection concerning the time of H. the 8. Secondly whenas I begun with an evident matter of fact beyond alldispute and thence grounded a progress to a decisive discourse in skipping aside to a point mainly disputable between us in stead of answering to that Evidence and which is still weaker by thinking to carry that whole matter by barely saying it And if the Reader please now to review the Bishops first Section with a narrower eye I am confident hee will percieve that besides that hee hath not said a word in answer to us above three quarters of the said Section is made up of this stuff to wit of reuolving and repeating over his own tenets and the very question and talking any thing upon his own Authority without a syllable of proof and twice or thrice where hee pretends any they are mere falsifications abuses as hath been shown I must request the Reader whom the love of truth may invite to seek satisfaction in perusing a book of this nature to right himself the Bp. and mee by giving a glance back upon my words p. 306. 307. where I affirmed that it would appear that Schism was iustly charged upon his Church with undeniable Evidence of faith by two things viz out of the very position of the case and out of the nature of his Exceptions How hee hath reply'd to the first which is the position of the case hath already been shown to wit that hee would not speak one positive word I or no to a plain matter of faith nor bee willing to step forwards one step by answering directly to any thing which neerly concern'd the question but stood continually capering and flickhering up and down in the air at the pleasure of his own fancy As for the second thing to wit that it would appear out of the nature of 〈◊〉 Exceptions I show'd that hee in reciting my charge had purposely omitted that as loath his Exceptions should bee brought to the test of Reason or have their sufficiency examin'd And to let thee see that hee did this purposely looke Schism Disarm'd p. 309. and thou shalt see the whole paragraph which concern'd that second point omitted without any Reply pretended I shall therefore repeat it again here and leave it to the Bishop's second thoughts They must remember how their forefathers who began that which they call Reformation were themselves of this profession before their pretended Reform They ought to weigh what reasons their Ancestours should have had to introduce such an alteration They must confess themselves guilty in continuing the breach unles they can alledge causes sufficient to have begun it had the same ancient Religion descended to these dayes For the constant beleef of the Catholike world was at the time of our division and still is that these Principles are Christ's own ordination recorded in Scripture derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our nature is capable of to attain assurance what was done in Antiquity Evidences inviolable by any humane either poweror proof except perfect and rigorous demonstration to which our Adversaries doe not so much as pretend and therefore without farther dispute remain unanswerably convicted of Schism I suppose I need not inform the Reader what service it would have done to the Controversy and how necessary it was for my Ld D. to tell us whether his reasons were rigourously evidencing or demonstrative or else that less than demonstrative reasons that is probable ones would serve This would quickly have decided the busines
our charge of their Schismaticall breach is will winnow them the Rule of faith the voice of the Church or immediate Tradition will winnow or rather Christ hath winnow'd them by it having already told them that if they hear not the Church they are to be esteemed no better than Heathens Publicans Since then 't is evident out of the terms that you heard not the Church for your nâ—w fangled Reformations nor Ground those tenets upon the voice of the Church nay according to your Grounds have left no Church nor common suprem Government in the Church to hear it follows that you have indeed winnow'd your selves from amongst the wheat of Christians and are as perfect chaff I mean those who have voluntarily broken Church Communion as Publicans Heathens Now to show how empty a brag it is that they hold Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee to omit their no Communion in Government already spoken of Sect. 6. let us see what Communion they have with the Greek Church in tenets by the numerosity of which they hope for great advantages and whether the Protestants or wee approach nearer them in more points held equally by both I will collect therefore out of one of their own side Alexander Ross the tenets of the present Greek Church in which they agree with us though in his manner of expressing our tenet hee sometimes wrongs us both The Greeks place saith hee much of their deuotion in the worship of the Virgin Mary and of painted Images in the intercession prayers help and merits of the saints which they invocate in their Temples They place Iustification not in faith but in works The sacrifice of the Mass is used for the quick and the dead They beleeve there is a third place between that of the blessed and the damned where they remain who deferr'd repentance till the end of their life If this place bee not Purgatory adds Ross I know not what it is nor what the souls do there View of all Religions p. 489. And afterwards p. 490. They beleeve that the souls of the dead are better'd by the prayers of the living They are no less for the Churches Authority and Traditions than Roman Catholikes bee when the Sacrament is carried through the Temple the People by bowing themselves adore it and falling on their knees kiss the earth In all these main points if candidly represented they agree with us and differ from Protestants Other things hee mentions indeed in which they differ from us both as in denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost not using Confirmation observing the Iewish Sabbath with the L d' s day c. As also some practises not touching faith in which they hold with the Protestants not with us as in administring the Sacrament in both kinds using leauened bread in the Sacrament Priests marriage there is no one point produced by him which our Church looks upon as a point of faith in which they dissent from us and consent with the Protestants except that one of denying the Pope's Supremacy for their onely not using Extreme-Vnction which hee intimates signifies not that they hold it unlawfull or deny it Iudge then candid Protestant Reader of they Bp ' s sincerity who brags of his holding Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do whereas if wee come to examin particulars they neither communicate in one common Government one common Rule of faith if wee may trust this Authour of their own side since if the Greeks hold the Authority of the Church and Traditions as much as Catholikes do as hee sayes they must hold it as their Rule of faith for so Catholikes hold it nor yet in any one materiall point in opposition to us save onely in denying the Pope's Supremacy And how more moderate they are even in this than the greatest part of if not all Protestants may bee learned from the Bp ' s mistaken testimony at the end of this Section as also from Nilus an avowed writer of theirs for the Greek Church against the Latine and one of the gravest Bp ' s and Authours of that party who shuts up his book concerning the Pope's Primacy in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The summe is this As long as the Pope preserves order and stands with truth hee is not removed from the first and his proper Principality and hee is the Head of the Church and chief Bishop and the successour of Peter and of the rest of the Apostles and it behooves all men to obey him and there is nothing which can detract from the honour due to him but if when hee hath once strayed from the Truth hee will not return to it hee will bee liable to the punishment of the damned Where the Reader will easily judge whether the former words sound more incliningly to the Catholike or the Protestant tenet and as for the latter words But if c. There is no Catholike but will say the same Thus much then for my L d of Derry's Communion with the Eastern Church And as for his Communion with the Southern Northern Western Churches which hee thunders out so boldly as if all the world were on his side and of his Religion if examin'd 't is no better than the former sence his side denies immediate Tradition of forefathers or the living voice of the present Church to bee the Rule of faith which is to the Roman Church the fundamentall of fundamentalls Nor has hee any other Rule of faith that is a plain and certain method of interpreting Scripture common to him and his weakly relâ—ted Brethren so that if they hit sometimes in some points 't is but as the Planets whichare ever wandring hap now and then to have conjunctions which hold not long but pursving their unconstant course decline and vary from one another by degrees and are at length crost by diacentricall oppositions The rest of this paragraph insists again upon his often answer'd saying that the creed contains all necessary points which is grounded onely upon his falsifying the Council of Ephesus as hath been shown heretofore To my many former replies vnto this pretence I add onely this that either it is a necessary point to believe there is such a thing as God's written word or the Scripture or not If not then why do the Protestants challenge it for their Rule of faith Is not the Ground of all faith a necessary point But if it bee a necessary point then all necessary points are not in the Apostles creed for there is no news there of the Scripture nor is it known how much thereof was written when the Apostles made their creed what hee adds of our having chaÌ„ged from our Ancestors in opinions either hee means by opinions points of faith held so by us and then 't is calumny and is to be solidly proued not barely said But if hee mean School opinions what hurt is done that those things should be changed which are in their
onely to our purpose that there may farther be meant by those words he ought to have said there must be onely meant by them à general obligation to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed But how a Church uncertain of what herself holds can duly propose Grounds able to convince rationally or that a confest and known fallibility in the proposer is sufficient in it self to make such a ground he shall never show unless he can show reason to be non-sense and non-sense Reason though he can talk finely and shuffle about in general terms I am confident the Reader will think that the former words in that proposition are very ill handled by Dr. H. but the last word Believing comes not off so well Death is too good for it nothing but annihilation and total destroying it's essence must be it's merciless doom His explication of it comes to this Reply p. 16. that they who are so wise as to search must consent according to the Grounds proposed as most palpable that is they must believe themselves I ask are they bound or no to believe the Church when they have but probability to the contrary if not where is their submission of their judgements where is their believing the Church unless they be willing to submit their private opinions to her Authority how can they be said to believe her at all Is there any easier deference than to for goe a probability upon her contrary affirmation Or if he say they may have rigorous and convincing Evidence against her that is if he grant Infallible Certainty in Faith can be had then why should Dr. H. take this from the Church and give it to a private fellow As yet therefore we have found Belief by his explication to signify in reality no belief of the Church at all let us proceed He tells us next that when the person is not competent to search Grounds then Repl. p. 17. Belief may signify a believing so far as not to disbelieve Was ever such an explication heard of Good Reader if thou beest Dr. H's Friend trust nothing but thine own eyes in such an incredible piece of fledge heresy and Atheism in the shell let nothing but thine own eyes satisfy there that it is possible for one who hath the title of Doctor of Divinity to print and set forth a position so full fraught with absurdities of the seventeens Let us count them by the poll First if the measure of that belief to which the Church can oblige the ruder sort be onely to believe so far as not to disbelieve then in reality she can oblige them to believe nothing at all but onely to remain in an indifferency of Scepticism for he who doubts of all things or halts between two opinions believes so far as not to disbelieve since not holding the contrary to any thing he positively disbelieves nothing Secondly an Heathen who never heard of Christ believes so far as not to disbelieve for how can he be said to disbelieve a thing of which he never heard So that Dr. H's Church can onely oblige her Subjects to be as good believers or Christians as Heathens are but to proceed Thirdly to believe so far as not to disbelive signifies in plain terms to belive nothing at all for he puts it not to signify a believing so far as to believe but a believing so far as not disbelieve that is he exacts no belief for the point provided there be no disbelief against it So that as before p. 16. he made the knowledge of a Church that she defin'd truly to be no more than a not doubting of it which can proceed from ignorance as well as knowledge so here Belief must pretended capable to bear the sense of not-believing provided that the not-believing be not a positive disbelief of this or belief of the contrary Fourthly I would gladly know of Mr. H. why the same Authority which has power to bind one not to disbelieve may not also oblige to believe if she can propose evident and convincing reasons to her Children that she cannot erre then she may without dispute oblige me to the latter for such motives are in their own nature able to convince the understanding and unless she can propose such by what ground can she withhold me from disbelieving or holding the contrary Vnless perhaps the Doctor pretend to show that the probable reasons for her fallibility and Infallibility be so justly and equally poiz'd in the Sceptick ballance that none can say whether the pound of rushes in the one end or the pound of strawes in the other be the weightier ware or better worth three-halfepence These explications with their wise appurtenances thus premised Dr. H. knits them up in these two propositions p. 17. 1. A Congregation that is fallible and hath no knowledge or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum that it is not deceived in any particular proposition may yet have authority to make decisions and require inferiours so far to acquiesce to their determinations as not to disquiet the peace of the Church with their contrary opinions that is no to believe at all but onely to behave themselves quietly 2. But for any absolute Infallible belief or consent That no Church which is not it self absolutely infallible and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible hath power to require of any Where the first proposition is certainly false if the subject be certain that that is false which his fallible Church proposes to him and that it is a point which concerns salvation not to erre in and senseless if as Dr. H. seems to suppose it may be the inferiours assent is no way required for how can a speculative point be decided authoritatively if the inferiour be no way bound to assent but to acquiesce onely The second proposition is the granting that very point against which he pretended to make head to the resolution also of which his former discourse hath not in the least sort contributed So perfectly needless and to no imaginable purpose but onely to shuffle words together on any fashion is his elaborate non-sense Note Reader that in his first proposition he puts not Belief at all which yet is the onely matter in question but in the latter onely nor dares he trust it abroad there but well guarded with absolute and Infallible But I fear not his big words Let him know our tenet is that our Church hath power to oblige not to an hovering conditional belief but to an absolute and infallible one nor do we fear to affirm that the Faithful in the Catholick Church have infallible certainty of their Faith though they cannot explicate it or give a Logical account of their own thoughts It were not amiss here to let the Reader see upon this occasion what Dr. H's manner of answering is of which his whole book is ful but one example once put will make the Reader easily find it's fellows The question
is whether obligation to belief can be without Infallibility He quibbles upon each word as if he would do strange things against it and makes up by his explications this worthy proposition that a Church which it is p. 16. l. 1. not strongly probable that it will erre and p. 16. l. 8 properly speaking knows not whether it erre or no may p. 16. l. 16. yet oblige men to obedience and them that cannot search to believe not positively and indeed as the Reader must conceive but onely so far as not to disbelieve that is that her self knowing nothing properly or positively can by consequence oblige none to believe any thing properly and positively but to obey onely Is not this a fine upshot of such an elaborate answer And when he hath done this then he addes another proposition Parag 22. which confesses all that he stumbled at before and which onely was in question Let us put a parallel to his manner of discourse Suppose one should affirm that a whole Apple is bigger than a half and maintain it because Totum est majus parte A whole is greater then a part Dr. H's manner of answering would work upon it in this sort First the word whole may signify a whole Mole hill or a whole Mountain a whole web of cloath or a whole thred Next the word majus or greater may signify greater in longitude in latitudine or in profundity Lastly the word pars may signify part of a Mole hill part of a Mountain part of a web c. This done he would joyn these together which are not the things in question as he did in the former of his two proposition and tell us that speaking of a Mole-hill and a Mountain 't is certain that part of a Mountain may not be greater than a whole Mole-hill and so likewise part of the web of cloth to wit a whole thred may not be greater in longitude than the whole web Then coming to the question adde a parallel to his second proposition and conclude in these words But as for an Apple and it's part speaking of the quantity belonging to a body that is profundity or bulk 't is granted that the whole Apple is greater than the half one which might as well have been granted at first and have excused all this trifling Sect. 12. What the Power of binding to Beleef consists in and how rationally our Church how irrationally the Protestants pretend to such a Power together with a Godly and edifying Sermon of Mr. H's according to his Doctrine when he disputes against us IT were not amiss here to clear this important point the better to lay open in brief what is this Power in the Church to bind her Sons to beleef and in what it consists For I doubt not but Mr. H. wonders and many judicious Protestant Readers may perhaps remain sollicitous to imagine how and in what manner there can be any power to force cōmand the Soul to an interiour beleef or assent But I hope this short hint will make them see that this power is founded upon free rationall Grounds not a tyrannical bare command of any authority whatsoever It is confest then that as a body cannot be moved locally but after a corporeal quantitative manner as is it's nature so neither can a soul which is of it's nature rational be moved to assent but by resons and motives whether true or false and were it moved otherwise it were not moved as a thing of such a nature that is it would not be a rational soul Now since pure Reason consists in inferring a connexion of two things or notions because of their joynt connexion with a third in the premisses and this also an immediate one for a connexion which is not immediate is in reality none at all at least to the Vnderstanding since in that case it sees it not it follows that the Soul is never moved out of pure Reason to any assent but by such an immediate connexion seen that is by Evidence and consequently all assents which have not this originall spring from impurity of passion that is from vice Wherefore since it is impossible God who is Essential Sanctity should command a vice it follows that as on the one side either he has left no power to oblige to assent or if he have it must be founded in Evidence so on the other if there be any authority on earth which can evidence her Certainty of what she sayes that Authority hath power to oblige others in vertue of the said Evidence to assent to what she shall affirm that is to oblige them to beleef for this is no harder a treaty than to bind them to that to which their own nature had bound them before-hand that is to assent upon Evidence To apply this then to the point in hand The Church obliges her Children to rest and continue in her beleef by the same motive by which she could oblige them when they were out of her to assent to her doctrine so far as concerns it's having been taught by Christ and his Apostles This motive is the proposal of her own Authority or of millions and millions of Fathers in the Catholick Church all conspiring to witness that those points of doctrine things visible and most concerning were received from their Ancestours as from their and so ascending upwards as from Christ The vertue by which this Authority or incomparable multitude of witnesses claims to be a motive and to have power to convince the Vnderstanding and so oblige to assent to their word that is to beleeve is the Evidence of the treble-twisted Impossibility that this Authority either would conspire in any age to attest so notorious an untruth and so pernicious to their own and their Children's eternal bliss or that they could either erre or mistake in things so visible or even contrive a conspiracy to embrace any one errour considering the several Countreys in which they liv'd dispers't and consequently their several natures obligations inclinations interest and other manifoldly-varying circumstances or lastly if they would and could that is did attest and so introduce an errour that it should not be most visible and palpable in most undeniable and manifest circumstances to the whole world being a change of things openly-evident in manifest and universal practice before and in a matter of highest concernment These impossibilities of erring in delivering any point of Faith render that Congregation evidently infallible which sticks close to this Rule of delivering onely what she received as thus attested The Evidence of her Infallibility obliges a rational nature to assent upon such an Authority that is to beleeve and consequently her Power to oblige Beleef is as firm as this Truth that Evidence obliges the Vnderstanding to assent which is reduced into this first principle that Idem est idem sibi ipsi or that Reason is Reason since the act of Reason adhering to truth is nothing else but an
expressely put down in my words now repeated by him self to wit that S. Peter had in a peculiar manner the Holy Ghost and the necessary connexion of this with his higher Authority expressly disclaim'd in the place even now cited Thirdly after he had repeated my whole discourse he subjoyn's immediately here was one honest word the perhaps As if our Saviour's words out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and those others of the Scripture that S. Peter converted three thousand by his first Sermon were all dishonest words But since I intended onely to give the Dr. some satisfaction of which knowing his humor I was not certain why was it not honester to expresse my self ambiguously then to cry a loud Certainy surely no doubt unquestionably irrefragably as Dr. H. does all over before his Testimonies whereas all is obscure uncertain falsified not a word in them sounding to the purpose as hath been shown all over this book It may be the Reader may accound Dr. H. the greater wit for using such confident and loud-crying expressions when there is so litle wooll but I hope he will thinke S. W. the honester man for speaking withim compasse Fourthly he sayes that the Dr. meaning himself may not be satisfy'd thence that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner to which he addes of his own falsifying invention or was designed head of the Apostles as if I had pretended this either as equivalent or necessarily consequent out of the former whereas he knows I absoluty disclaimed against him any such pretence This done without having afforded owne word of answer or sence he bids us farewell in these words I shall answer it no further then by repeating Good night good Dr. But to let the Reader see how much stronger my perhaps is than the Drs surely I will briefly put doun the import of this late proof ad hominem and 't is this that since out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks 't is probable that S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in his heart more abundantly or in a higher degree since he first exprest it 's interiour motions by speaking and speaking soe vigorously and powerfully Now then since in Mr. H's Grounds the receiving the holy Ghost seald the Commissions of the Apostles and finally performed the promise of their ruling and presiding in the Church whence he contended also that all had this promise equally performed that is according to him had equally the Holy Ghost lest one should exceed anoâ—her in Iurisdiction it follows unavoidably ad hominem it against him that if be probable S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in an higher degree it is probable likewise that he had a higher rule and presidencie in the Church performed to him The argument bearing this sence who sees not 't is Dr. H's task to let us knowe why this so early and vigorous pouring forth argued not a fuller measure of the Holy Ghost within what does he He calumniates me to bring this as a clâ—ar evidence putting the words clear evidence in other letters as if thay had bene mine falsifies my known pretence twice calls the word perhaps the one honest words says the Dr. may not be satisfie'd by the reason alledged that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner and then in stead of telling us why he may not be satisfie'd immediately concluding that he shall not answer it further than by repeating it Thus Dr. H's reason like some sorry creature taken tardy in a tale first mutters and stammers as if it would say something or were hand-bound with some bad excuse but seing it could make no coherence at length very honestly hands down it's head and sayes iust nothing The fourth proposition is And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost which he tells us here was sure no distinct argument of his But why it should not be as good and sole suffiâ—ient a proof as this that the fire was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he pedantizes it sate on every one of them which he called Answ p. 68. l. 3. an argument of somevalidity I had no ground in the world to imagin both of them equally impugning our tenet that is not at all For wee equally grant that each single Apostle had power giuen him to bind and loose or Authority in the Church which he without any ground will have signified by the division of this fire as wee do that they were all filled with the Holy Ghost The fifth and last proposition immediately follows the former and is this and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all that is all had equally the Holy Ghost and this is pretended as deduced out of the fourth saying that they were all full of it Schism Disarm p. 98. showd the weaknes of this arguing from fulnes to equality by the instances of our Saviour Barnabas who are both said in Scripture to be full of the Holy Ghost as also of the saints in heaven being full of glory though there were an inequality between them in those respects and by the parallell ridiculousnes of the plow man's silly argument who concluded alleggs equall and that none had more meat in it than another because all were full To take of these exceptions and strengthen his feeble argument the Dr. offers nothing though he braggs at the end of the Section that he hath attended me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely he tells us here p. 69 gentily that he is not concern'd to doubt but that they which are full of the Holy Ghost may have it unequally if by unequally be meant the inequality of divine endowments How he is concern'd to doubt it shall be seen presently in the meane time let us reflect on his other words and ask him what is meant by the Holy Ghosts abiding in the Souls of the faithfull or by what other way he imagins him to be there than by divine endowmeÌ„ts onely I hope he thinks not that the Holy Ghost is hypostatically united to them or incarnate in them An inequality then of divine endowments is all the inequa'ity which can be imagin'd in this matter and thefore if any inequality prejudice Dr. H's tenet he is concern'd to avoid this Now how much it concerns Dr. H's circumstances to avoid an inequality of the Holy Ghosts being in the Apostles is as plain as it is that it concerns him to say any thing to the question and not talk onely in the aire He is about to impugn S. Peter's higher Authority by the performance of the promise of Authority and Commission made finally as he thinks by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them wherefore unles he prove that the Holy Ghost descended equally upon each he can never argue hence against the inequality of S. Peter's Authority pretended by us and so it avalis him nothing He saw this in his book of Schism where he
used these words They were all fill'd with the Holy Ghost and so this promise equally performed to all But being shown the infinite weaknes of his arguing from fulnes to equality he shuffles about neither positively standing to his pretended proofby going about to make it good nor yet granting or denying any thing positively or giving any ground to fix upon any word he says but telling us first in a pretty phrase that he is not concerned to doubt of the consistance of fulnes and inequality of the Holy Ghost if it bee mean't of the inequality of divine endowments and then when he should telle us the other part of his distinction and of what other inequality besides that of endowments and graces the Holy Ghost can be said to be in the Apostles founding Commission and so concerning him to impugn and deny he shufflingly ends thus Our question being onely of power or Commission to Authority and dignity in the Church and every one having that sealed to him by the Holy Ghost descent upon every one there is no remaining difficulty in the matter Where first he sayes the question is of power and dignity whereas indeed it is of the equality or inequality of this dignity not of the dignity it self since none denyes but that each Apostle had power in the Church but that the rest had equall power to S. Peter Secondly he never tells us in what manner of the Holy Ghosts inexistence besides that of divine indowments this Authority was founded Thirdly he instances onely against us that every Apostle had power so tacitely calumniating our tenet again and leaves out the word eqâ—ally which could onely contradict and impugn it Fourthly that this coming of the Holy Ghost gave CoÌ„mission and Authority is onely his owne worâ—s and proved from his own fancy And lastly when he hath used all these most miserable evasions he concludes that there is no remaining difficulty in this mattâ—â— when as he hath not touch't the difficulty at all but avoided it with as many pitifull shift's as a crafty insincerity could suggest to an errour harden'd Soul Sect. 6. Our Argument from the Text Tues Petrus urged his arts to avoid the least mentioning it much lesse impugning it's force which hee calls evacuating it With what sleights hee prevaricates from it to the Apocalyps His skill in Architecture and miserably-weak arguing to cure his bad quiboling Dr. H. of Schism p. 89. 90. alledged some Testimonies out of the fathers affirming that the power of binding was conferred on all the Apostles that the Church is built upon Bishops that all in S. Peter received the Keyes of the Kingdomio of Heaven that Episcopacy is the presidency of the Apostles Now since Dr. H. pretends to impugn our tenet by these and these infert onely that more Bishops have the power of the Keyes besides S. Peter it follows necessarily that he counterfeihed our tenet to be that none had this power but S. Peter onely Hence Schism Disarm'd charged this either insincere or silly manner of discoursing upon him as a pittifull ingnorance or els as malicious to pretend by objecting these that wee build not the Church upon Bishops in the plurall nor allow any Authority to them but to the Pope onely Hee replies Answ p 69. that 't is apparent those words inject not the least suspition of that I answer 't is true indeed for it was not a suspition they injected as he phrases it but plain and open evidence see of Schism p 89. l. 28. 9. where after the testimony had told us that the Church is built upon Bishops the Dr. addes within a parenthesis in the plurall so placing the particular energie and force of that place in the plurality of Bishops founding the Church See again p. 90. l. 11. 12. c. S. Basil calls Episcopacy the presidency of the Apostles the very same addes the Dr. that Christ bestowd upon all and not onely on one of them Yet as long as Dr. H. can deny it and say with a gentile confidence that 't is apparent his words did not inject the least suspition of that words shall lose their signification and his Readers if he can compasse it shall be fool'd to deny their eye sight As for the Testimonies themselves there is not a word in them expressing that this power was in like manner entrusted to every single Apostle as well as to S. Peter which yet he sayes p. 90. l. 16. 17. c. if by as well he mean's equally as he must if he intend to impugn our tenet And the other sence which Answ p. 70. l. 2. 3. he relies on that from the Donation to S Peter all Episcopal power which in the Church flows and in which he puts force against our tenet it as much favours and proves it as the being the fountain and source of all honour and Magistracy in a Commonwealth argues that that person from whom these flow is highest in dignity and supreme in command in the same common wealth After this he catches at an expression of mine saying that the former Testimonies rather made for us which moderate words though I hope the later end of my former paragraph hath sufficiently iustify'd them yet wee must answer the impertinent carpings of our Adversary else the weak man will be apt to think that the shadow he catch't at is most substantiall and solid My word 's in relation to the said Testimonies were these Nay rather they make for us for the Church being founded on Apostles and Bishops prejudices not S. Peter to be the cheefest and if so then the Church is built most chiefly on S. Peter which is all wâ—e Catholicks say Now my discourse stands thus If so that is if S. Peter be the cheefest then the Church is built more chiefly upon him and I made account as I lately shew'd that those Testimonies rather made S. Peter the chiefest but this peece of willfull insincerity first makes my if so relate to if it prejudices not c. and disfigures my discourse by making me say if it prejudices not S. Peter to be the chiefest then the Church is built chiefly upon him and that I inferr from Testimonies not preiudicing that the thing is true Next he calumniates me most grossely and manifestly Answ p. 70. l. 35. 36. by making me bring this for a clear Evidence on my side whereas my words Schism Dism p. 99. are onely Nay rather thâ—y make for us which are so far from pretending a clear evidence from them that they neither expresse the least reliance on them not say positively that they make for us at all He shall not catch mee calling toyes Evidences as is his constant guize yet to render his calumny more visible he prints the words clear evidence in a different letter so that the honest Reader would easily take them to be my words Then when he hath done hee grows suddainly witty anâ— insults over me without mercy calling mee an