Spirit satt without distinction that is equally upon each because the Scripture sayes in common that it sate upon them that all had the holy ghost equally by the plowmans argument for the equality of his eggs because all were full of it For these and other faults of the same strain Dr. H. was reprehended by his Disarmer yet still noe amends not hopes of amends appears in these answering books after he had been so oft told of it nor by consequence are we to expect any other from him in his following treatises Sect. 10. Dr. H's Pretences of Testimonies as hee calls them and his manifold falsification of S. Chrysostome to prove Iames at Hierusalem clearly superiour to S. Peter AS for the point it self concerning S. Iames I am reprehended for misunderstanding Dr. H. and that he endeauored not to prove S. Iames his priority of dignity and Authority but onely to prove that in his see James was considered as a Bishop Answ p. 43. l. 20. 21. and 27. whereas neither any man denied him to have been Bishop there nor could it any way advantage Dr. H's cause if this were ptoved for what follows against S. Peter's being chief of the Apostles that S. Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem and the Iurisdiction of that Metropolis Hath not each Catholike Bishop the same now a dayes over his private Diocese and yet remains subject to the head of God's Church notwithstanding Again if he intended not that S. Iames had greater Authority there what meant his fiction of his having the principall place and giving the sentence that the Rescript is grounded upon his sentence c. Surely when one gives the sentence and the others onely propose the former must be held to have greater power in that place and those circumstances then the latter But principall with him sounds noe priority at all nor can he be held to any thing who hath got once the priviledge to say and unsay again as hee pleases He was accused of making S. Iames at Hierusalem superior to S. Peter which he denies p. 43. blaming me for misunderstanding him yet in the p. 44. ere the Eccho of the former words were well out of the Reader 's ears he goes about to prove and infer in expresse words from testimonies that Iames in this council was clearly superior to S. Peter which is clearly contradictory to his former words But we are not to wonder at what is grown customary and familiar Next he goes about to shew Answ p. 44. that he hath at least pretences of testimonies that S. Iames had the principall place the first of which pretences is that he is named before Peter and unlesse this conclude our argument from S. Peter's being named first must be prejudiced I Answer our argument drawn thence for his principall place among the Apostles insists upon his constantly being named first and not once onely which might happen without any great mistery in it Again what mean these words the Romanists argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluding his primacy from being first named These are two quite different things The argument from his being first named consists in this that in the orderly naming of the Apostles his name is found first placed whereas the argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lies in this not that he is first named but that he is in these words nam'd or exprest to be the first of the Apostles His second pretence of a Testimony as he calls it is from S. Iames his giving the sentence and though their own translation rendred the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore my sentence is by this means making it onely his iudgment in the matters yet Dr. H. tells us he still beleeves it signifies the sentence The first ground of this his beleef is because 't is S. Chrysostomes observation that his speaking last was founded in his being Bishop of Hierusalem what then could not he be Bishop there and speak last both without giving the sentence were there noe worthier persons present or did the thing to be concluded onely concern his see or indeed did it concern it at all the Rescript the effect of this consult being directed onely to Gentiles which were noe wayes subject to the Bishoprick of Hierusalem But let us see S. Chrysostomes testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was Bishop of the Church in Hierusalem therefore he speaks last unfortunate man with whom nothing succeeds nor any testimony thrives but either they are against him or nothing at all to his purpose as hath been shown all over or when they hap to be full and expresse as this is then they come of worst of all Let him look into their own edition of S. Chrysostome and Dannaeus his Notes upon them printed at Eton and he shall see what is become of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore he speaks last upon which onely hee builds verba haec saith hee interpres non agnoscit nec certè videntur aptè locari nam quòd Episcopus esset ideò prior loqui debuit non posterior The Interprâ—ter doth not acknowledge these words neither truly doe they seem to be fitly placed for in regard he was a Bishop he ought in that respect to speak first not last But 't is noe matter Dr. H. can cast a figure of hysteron proteron make first be last and any corrupt piece of an Author become pure Chrysostome and rare sence so it do but be befriend him at a dead lift His second worthy proof is that S. Chrysostome sayes that Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordains or decrees those things As if the decree were not manifestly made by all present but by Iames onely and called there by S. Chrysostome himself p. 795. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common decree yet because he finds an expression of decreeing common as he wel knows to all that were present but his present occasion not inviting him not taken notice of by S. Chrysostome in that place imediately S. Iames is thence concluded the best man in the companie the giver of the sentence or whatever else Dr. H. pleases Any thing may be aswel inferd as that which he pretends Again I would ask Dr. H. why he leaves out the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the law which were imediately joind in context with the former thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he ordains those things out of the law by this simple putting down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gaining something a better semblance for the absolutenesse of S. Iames his decree But I shall have occasion to explicate hereafter this whole place out of which Dr. H. as his sleight manner is picks out a couple of words His third proof is from S. Chrysostome's setting down the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good order observed in their speaking first I will transcribe the place as I find it in that father and afterwards let the Reader see how craftily Dr. H. abuses it for his
believe false Fundamentals his words are not intelligible sense for the following words or else they have no degree of truth in them relate to the other acception of Fundamental already sopoken of so that according to Dr. H. it is not intelligible sense to undertake for him and his Friends that they should not speak contradictions Is this a sober discourse which falls reelingly to the Ground of it self when none pushes it or was it a friendly part to involve his Friends in his own wise predicament And now can any man imagine that when I said Dr. H. and his Friends acknowledge ours a true Church there should be any difficulty in the sense of those words or that I should impose upon them that they held our Church not to have erred yet this Doctor who alwayes stumbles most in the plainest way will needs quibble in the word true and S. W. must bear the blame for grossely equivocating whereas the sense was obvious enough to every child as the words before cited will inform the Reader that I meant them of the true nature of a Church which since they acknowledged ours to have I argued hence that they must not say we held false Fundamentals that is such as they account Fundamentals for since a Church cannot be a Church but by Fundamental points of Faith and Faith must not be false it follows that a falshood in Fundamental destroyes the very Being of a Church This being so I shall beg Dr. H's pardon if I catechize him a litle in point of reason in which his Cause makes him a meer Cathecumenus and ask him how he can hold ours to have even the true nature of a Church since he hold that which she esteems as her Fundamental of Fundamentals and that upon which as her sole certain Ground she builds all her Faith to wit her infallible Authority to be false erroneous If the sole Authority upon which immeditately she builds all Faith be a ruinous falshood she can have no true Faith of any Article consequently can have no Faith at all nor be a true Church since a Church cannot survive the destruction of Faith But their ambition to honour their Nag's-head Bishops with the shadow of a Mission from our Church makes them kindly speak non sense to do her a seeming courtesy for their own interest I know he tells us here in general termes Answ p. 15. that she is not unchurch't because she holds the true Foundation layd by Christ but offends by enlarging and superadding but he must show why the Catholicks who hold no point of Faith but solely upon their Churche's infallibility if thar Ground be false that is be none as he sayes can hold any thing at all as of Faith that is have any Faith at all at least how they can have Certainty of any point of Faith or the written word of God if the sole-certain Rule of Faith by which onely they are assured of all those were taken sometimes in a lie to wit while it recommended to them those superadditions they account false received in the same tenour as the rest from the hands of our immediate Forefathers But let us follow Dr. H. who goes jogging forward but still rides as his ill fortune is beside the saddle To points which they accounted fundamental I counterpos'd tolerable ones that is such as they esteemed not-fundamental which I therefore call'd tolerable because they account these neither to touch the Foundation of Faith as building or destroying such as he acknowledged in the fore-going Paragraph our pretended super additions to be saying that the dross doth not annibilate the Gold It being therefore plain that falshoods which are not in fundamentals so unconsistent with the essence of a Church must be in things not-fundamental and therefore consistent with the nature of a Church that is tolerable if taken in themselves he neglects to take notice of them as they are in themselves that is such as their admission ruines not Faith nor the essence of a Church and sayes the pressing them upon them is intolerable and not admittable without hypocrisy or sin against conscience and why because they believe them not I ask had they a demonstration they were false if so then let them produce it and if it bear test I shall grant them innocent if not then since nothing else can oblige the Vndâ—rstanding but the foresaid Evidence their pretended obligation in Conscience to disaccept them is convinc't to spring from weakness of passion not from force of reason I added that those points more deserved the Church should command their obseruance than Copes or Surplices c. And though Mr. H. knowes very well that one of those points was the fundamental Ground of all Faith in the Church they left and Copes c. but things indifferent yet by a cheap supposal that all is false which we hold he can deny that they are more deserving our Church should command their observance and so carries the cause clear He addes Answ p. 16. that they weightier the importance of the things commanded is the more intolerahle is the pressure of imposing them and makes disobedience greater in things indifferent Whereas surely the Governours are more highly obliged to command the observance of that on which they hold Faith to be built than all the rest put together Is it a greater obstinacy to deny a Governour taxes than to rebell absolutely against him the Doctor 's Logick sayes it is since obstinacy according to him is greater in resisting commands in things indâ—fferent Especially if the Rebel please to pretend that the urging his submission to that Authority is an intolerable pressure Mr. H. here acquits him without more adoe But to return since it was our Churche's greater obligation to command their observance of those points and the holding of such points was not deemed then by them destructive to Faith but on the other side known by reason of their pretended importance to be in an high degree damnable to themselves and others if they hap't to be mistaken no less than most palpable and noon-day evidence can excuse them in common prudence from a most desperate madness and headlong disobedience but the least shadow of a testimony-proof is a meridian Sun to Dr. H. and gives as clear an evidence as his understanding darkened by passion is willing to admit Thus much to show the particular miscarriarges of Dr. H. in every Paragraph of his answer to my Introduction there remaines still the Fundamental one that he hath said nothing at all to the point of reason in it but onely mistaken each particular line of it I alledged as my reason why they dealt not seriously against their own Desertours because no colourable pretence could possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the very same would hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them This proved ad hominem thus because the Protestants acknowledge the points
deny'd by both to be tolerable that is such as could consist with Faith and a Church but with this disadvantage on the Protestants side that the points they deny'd being of more importance more deserved our Church should command their observance Now every one sees that the proper Answer to his Discourse is to specialize some plea for themselves which will not as well excuse their Desertours The Doctor alledges none nor goes about to alledge any but as if he were dividing his Text playes upon my words in particular neglecting the import of them altogether He sayes indeed it is against their conscience to admit those other super additionary points the same say the Puritans of Copes Surplices and Organs The Doctor will object that they are indifferent and stight matters and therefore it is a greater disobedience not to admit them they will answer that Surplices are ragges of Rome that Organs are Babylonish Bagpipes and all the rest scandalous and superstitious inventions Still they are equall in their pleas Nay if a Socinian deny Christ to be God and pretend as doubtless he will with as much seriouness as Mr. H. that he cannot but sin against Conscience if he think otherwise and therefore 't is tyranny to press it upon him the Church may not oblige him to believe that Christ is God Dr. H. hath pleaded his cause joyntly with his own that is hath said no more in his own excuse than the Socinian may for his Again if Dr. H or his Church press upon the Socinian the belief of Christ's Divinity upon this ground that it is a point of most weighty importance he presently answers the Doctor with his own words that the weightier the importance of the things commanded are the more intolerable is the pressure of imposing them And so in stead of impugning Dr. H. hath made good S. W's words that they can alledge no colourable pretence which may not be alledged by the other Sects What if we should adde that the Church they left had been in long possession of the belief of Infallibility and so proceeded upon these Grounds that her Faith was certain when she prest those points upon them but they confess their unceâ—tâ—in and could proceed upon no better then probable Grounds when they prest any thing upon their Desertours is there not a palbable difference put between the pretended Authorities of imposing points to be held in us and them and a greater danger of disaccepting ours in them than theirs in the Puritans If they erred onely a confest probability stood against them which gave them just licence to dissent if they had a probable reason that the admission of those points was bad since nothing but absolute Evidence pretended could even pretend to oblige their Vnderstandings to assent to them if you erred a pre acknowledg'd Infallibility strengthen'd by a long Possession asserted by the attestation of Tradition and many other motives stood against you so that nothing but most palpable undeniable and rigorous Evidence could possibly disoblige your first Reformers from their ancient belief or oblige them to this new one If the Puritans erred since they were onely ornaments and Rituals they refused to admit the utmost harm which could accrue by their non-admission of them was terminated in the want of exren decency onely and held by the very Authority which imposed them to be but indifferent and far from being essentially-destructive to a Church But if you or your first Reformes chanc't to erre which the bare probability of your Faith confess 't by your selves in this case makes more than likely then your contrary position ruin'd all Faith and Government since the Church you disobey'd held no other Ground of Faith or Church Government save onely those you reâ—ected and disacknowledg'd to wit her own Infallibility and the Popes Authority Again if you happen'd to be in the wrong and that indeed there was no other either Church Government or Ground of Faith than these then how wickeldy desperate to your own soules and universally destructive to all man-kind and their means of attaining eternal bliss must your disclaiming and publikely renouncing both these be none of which can be objected to the Puritanes by you So evidently true were my words that no colourable pretence can possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm nay much firmer for other Sects why they left them Yet I doubt not but the Doctor will after all this as he does here Answ p. 16. applaud his own victory with a triumphant Epiphonema and say that S. W. his probations are beyond all measure improbable when himself had not said a word to the intent of the discourse but onely play'd mistakingly and non-sensically upon some particular words Yet when he hath done like a tender hearted man he pittyes himself again that he should so unnecessarily insist upon it Truly so do I pitty him or any man else who takes much pains to no purpose though I pitty more the Reader who can imagine any credence is to be given to so weak a Writer He ends his Answer to my Introduction with telling the Reader that I have with no shew of Iustice suggested his tediousness in things acknowledged Whereas almost all his first Chapter and third together with those where he proves the Pope not Head of the Church from the title of converting England or Concession of our Kings as also almost all his narrative Confession of his Schism with many other scatter'd discourses are things acknowledg'd by both parties and were very tedious and dull to me What he addes that he will not disturb me when I speak truth unless he shall discern some part of his arguing concern'd is a very pretty jest intimating that he stands in preparation of mind to oppose even Truth it self if it stand in his way or his arguing be concern'd in it and not vindicated in his former Reply A sincere person Hovver let him onely grant that what he vindicates not but leaves untouch't is Truth and we shall without difficulty strike up a bargain Sect. 8. How Dr. H. prevaricates from the Question by stating it wrong His powerfull way of arguing by Ifs and how he defends himself for mincing the Fathers words THe Fathers alledged by Mr. H. attested that no just cause could be given of Schism whence he inferres of Schism p. 10. that the causes and motives of Schism are not worth producing or heeding in this controversy The Catholick Gentleman and S. W. both exprest their dislike of this inference the Doctor pretends to vindicate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it as he pedantically calls it and referres me to his Reply for his reasons to which I shall both give a solution and at once lay open the nature of Sâ—hism and the manner in which they ought to controvert it I mean as far as it can have any show of bearing controversy Schism then which we joyntly
acknowledge a vice of the first magnitude if taken in it's primary signification to which our circumstances determine it includes for it's genus or material part a division or act of dividing the specifical difference gives it a reference to the Ecclesiastical Government instituted by Christ Now our great Masters of Moral Divinity assure us that no action is in it self good or bad but as it conduces to or averts from the attaining one's last end since all things else have the nature of meanes onely in order to the attainment of that and consequently the esteem of their goodness or badness is built upon their alliance to that order Whence follows that there is no action in the world not killing one 's own Son nor dividing from any Government whatsoever in it self so bad but might be done could there be assigned motives and reasons truly representing it better to attempt it Now our all-wise God hath ordered things so providently for the peace and good of his Church that it is impossible any cause or motive can be truly imagin'd sufficient to justify the rejecting it's Government since neither any private injury is comparable to such an universal good nor can it happen that any miscarriage can be so publick as to force it's renouncing for seeing our B. Saviour made but one Church and that to continue for ever if any cause were sufficient to break from that one Church there would be a just and sufficient cause to be of no Church which is against the Protestants own tenet and makes them so desirous to pretend a descent from ours Wherefore it remains impossible that those who acknowledg the Churche's Government to have bin instituted by Christ should pretend to any just cause to separate from it but they ought to behave themselves passively in case of an injury received not actively renouncing that Government or erecting another against it Notwithstanding all this yet it may happen sometimes that as no Authority is or can be so sacred inviolable but passion can make men dislike it some company of men may disacknowledge the Authority instituted by Christ to have come from him alledging for the reason and motive of their renouncing it that it is an usurpation which they also pretend to prove by arguments drawn either from Reason or Testimonies Now these men's plea might take place if it were possible they should produce absolute evidence and such as in it's own force obliges the understanding to assent notwithstanding the contrary motives which retard it and without pretending such a rigorous Evidence it were madness to hazard an error in abusiness of such main concernment both to the Church mankind and their own Souls as it would necessarily be if that fact of theirs happen'd to be Schismatical Now then let us see whether my Adversaries inference be good that because Schism can have no just causes for it's parents therefore Dr. H. in treating a Controversie of Schism ought not to heed or produce the causes or motives of it Indeed if he would grant himself and his Friends to be Schismaticks then it were to no purpose for him to alledge causes and motives since all men know that no just cause can be possibly alledged for Schism but if he does an external act which hath the resemblance or show of Schism and nevertheless will defend himself to be no Schismatick he must give account why he does that action and shew that that action is not truly Schism which cannot be done without discussing reasons and motives if common practise teach us any thing Will any man endeavour to turn one out of possession lawfully without a plea or produce a plea without either any motive or reason in it Iustly therefore did the Catholick Gentleman affirme it to be a pure contradiction for that a confest breach under debate should be concluded to have no just causes that is to be indeed Schismatical or to have just causes that is to be a self enfranchisment without producing examining any causes is a perfect implicancy Nor will his instance Reply p. 5. 6. of a seditious person or Rebell secure him at all for as it is true that if it be known that he confesses himself a Rebel there is no pleading of causes as Dr. H. well sayes to justify his Rebellion yet as long as he pretends to be no Rebel so long he is obliged to bring motives and reasons why his action of rising against the Government is not Rebellion though it be accused and seem to be such Now if Dr. H. hath not forgot the title of his book t is a Defence of the Church of England against the Exceptions of the Romanists to wit those by which they charge her of Schism that is their accusing her that this action of Separation from the Church of Rome is Schismatical so that the whole scope and work of his book must be to plead those motives and reasons which may seem to traverse that accusation and shew that this action of the Church of England makes not her Schismatical nor her Sons Schismaticks And how this can stand without producing motives or is not as plain a contradiction as ens and non ens I confess is beyond my understanding In his eighteenth p. he cunningly forges a false state of the question in these words that it is a matter in question between the Romanists and us whether the Bishop of Rome had before and at the time of the Reformation any supreme legal power here I willingly acknowlege By which he would perswade the Reader that he had condescended to a state of the question pretended by us which is absolutely false for we state the question thus That there being at that time an external confessed Government derived and in actual possession time out of minde abstracting from whether it be internally legal or no whether the pretended Reformers either did then or can now show sufficient reasons of the substracting themselves from obedience to it This is our state of the question which hath it's whole force as the Reader may see in the acknowledged external possession Now Dr. H. would make his Reader believe that the state of the question doth wholly abstract from the external possession and purely debate the internal right as if it hung hovering indifferently in the aire to be now first determin'd without taking notice of the stability and force our tenet had from the long possession And this handsome trick he gentilely put 's upon his Readers by those three sly words I willingly acknowledge Having thus mistaken voluntarily the state of the question consequently he imposes upon me that I said none doubts of the Bishop of Rome's supreme legal power over the Church of England at the time of the Reformation and then confutes me most palpably with telling me that they doubt it or make a question of it Can any man in reason imagin I was ignorant that such was their tenet since I impugn it in
this present controversy as Schismatical yet Dr. H's great reach of wit can by the way and within a Parenthesis make such a dolt of S. W. His proof from my words is better then the supposiâ—ion it self I said our Church could cast them out and deny them communion if they be found to deserve it being then her Subjects and Children Actually they were under her at that time if then they could alledge just that is evident reasons why they thought her Government an usurpation then they did not deserve it and so she could not excommunicate them if they did not and yet would subtract themselves from her obedience then they deserv'd it and were justly excommunicated Can any man doubt of this or impose such a piece of known non-sense as his former deduction out of it is upon another unless possess 't with Dr. H's want of ingenuity yet this he repeats again p. 21. and calls his own straining at a gnat my swallowing down the question at one haust Now let us examin my words which breed his scruple they are these as cited in the Marge by himself That our Church could cast you out if you be found to deserve it being then her Subjects and Children none doubts Here I ask first whether he can shew that I speak of any interiour or legal Authority which if he cannot 't is a plain imposture to father upon me the word legal as he does in this place Secondly I demand whether any Protestant or Dr. H. himself doubts whether there was an extern apparent and acknowledged Authority the which for being such was to be obeyed until it was disproved in the Church of Rome over the pretended Reformers This being acknowledged I ask what it is he excepts against That such an Authority could not proceed against her esteemed Subiects if they deserv'd it for this is all my words signify'd and is so plain of it self that no man that hath any common sense can make difficulty of it He tells us p. 19. that the questions is equally and indifferently whether they or the Romanists be guilty of Schism including also the remorseless Governours in the Romish See Where he quite mistakes the business his meaning as I perceive by his whole procedure and particularly p. 22. where he sayes that the Pope ought to clear his title to his pretended power is that we should be mutually counter-opponent and counter-defendants and each produce proofs ere we can claim any thing But he is in a gâ—eat errour we need no new proofs to convince the lawfulness of our Authority our plea is provided to our hand before they opposed us and started the question Possession is all the proofs we need bring and such a possession as had to strengthen it an universal belief that it came from Christ's time grounded upon the certainty of Oral Tradition so that we made no question of it it was a point of our Faith and therefore need produce no proofs for our affirmative whereas they who first question'd this before-unquestionable and reâ—ected this before-received Authority must bring reasons why they did so and proofs why they deemed it usurp't The question therefore in this preâ—ent debate devolves to this whether the proofs Dr. H. produces be convincingly evident against a possession so qualify'd as is before declared if they fall short of that force eo ipso he and his Friends are concluded Schismaticks for relinquishing without just motives an Authority whose possession is justly presumable to have come from Christ if they be perfect Evidences then they are excusable and in their excusableness is terminated the controversy in hand if we may trust the title of his book which is A Defence against the exceptâ—on of the Romanists or his own stating the questâ—on of Schism p. 11. from which he here prevaricates p. 19. What follows further out of their excusableness against us that is whether we were unjust usupers tyrannical c. is another question for which sequel I would not contend with them if the premisses could be possibly evinced However if we usurp't it was not lately but a thousand years agoe But that our Church shall in that case be schismatical as he here sayes that expression comes out from the mouths and pens of his Friends so weakly and faintly the light of nature and common language of mankind checking them that the whole is not said to be broken from a part but a part from the whole that he must have recourse to the universal obligation of Charity to pretend us such for we can never be â—hown even in his supposed case Schismatical against Government or Vnity in the Church if no such Vnity can be found as it cannot in that mould he hath cast Christianity in by making each Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Independent or self-govern'd since there can be no division made where the things are already many After his pretended indifferency of the question he tells us that it must not be begg'd on either side and hereafter he complains of me grievously for the same fault I am sorry to see M. H. so ignorant in Logick that he mistakes the most ordinary things in disputing Let him know then that a Defendant as a Defendant cannot be sayd to beg the question since it is his office to hold his tenet which is the thing in controversy and stick close by it whatever prejudices or impossibilities are objected to deny them coÌ„sequent from it granting those things which he takes to be consistent with it denying those which he deems inconsistent unless it be an open evidence if an ambiguity occur to distinguish the double sense and show again which part of the distinction is consistent with it which otherwise in all which it is manifest he supposes the truth of the question and holds fast to it nor ought he let go that hold til he be non-plust and the dispute at an end My part then being the Defendant's as hath been proved out of the tenth Ground the Reader may see with how much Logick D. H. complains of me all over for only holding my tenet which he calls begging the question For however he may pretend to the name of a Defender yet since his party begun first to oppose that is to object and argue against ours who at that time quietly held their tenet 't is clear he is in no other sense a Defendant than as one who maintains his first objected Syllogism with a second may be said to defend it which is very improper and abusive of the right notion Whereas we who started not the dispute nor begun the opposition but sate still have yet a just title to continue in that our posture of defence till the Evidence of their Arguments drive us out of it His next complaint is against the Governours in the Romish See who if you will trust him without all cause deny Communion without remorse or relenting not onely to them but to many other Churches
it is doubtfull whether some few injuries may not be sufficient for that end and then if the some of these last words doe not mitigate the absolute nulla potest there can be none I confess I have lost my reason To omit that the sense of his translation or paraphrase few or none c. leaves room for the reasonableness of Schism since it admits a possibility for Schism in case of some injury received to be excusable In a word I onely affirmed Schism Disarm'd p. 3. that he seem'd something chary in those expressions which I am sure the Reader will think I have made good himself acknowledging here p. 24. l. 11. that his expression was cautious and the fact of mincing the words being evident As for his intention if the Reader wil believe him he assures him Answ p. 18. it was out of tenderness to us so that we must bear the blame of his feeble paraphrase and be beholding to him to boot Timeo Danaos dona ferentes Howsoever since it was our fortune to have the intention of a courtesy thrust upon us we thank him for it but request him to do us no more such favours for the future as to mince the Fathers words for our sakes they will earn a return of greater gratitude from his own cause which stands in need of such kindnesses My third whisper as he calls it which he will needs have speak aloud to his discredit is that he render'd S. Austin's words à communione orbis terrarum from the Vniversal or truly Catholick Church of Christ as if he were afraid lest God's Church might perhaps be thought untruly Catholick Of which he sayes the reasons is visible because the Church of Rome is by her Advocates styled the Catholick Church But do not others call her so besides her own Advocates do not even our very enemyes forced thereunto by custome which makes words proper give us that appellation unless design cross their free and natural expression Ask in London where a Catholick lives and see whether they will show you the house of a Roman Catholick or no. Should a Pursuivant meet Dr. H. and ask him if he were a Catholick I doubt not but his answer would be negative unless design against us made him deliver himself otherwise Since then we onely have nomen Catholicum obtentum possessum which S. Austin contra Epist. Fund cap. 4. holds to be a note of the Church it is a wrong to that holy Doctor to put upon him in your translation the unnecessary addition of truly to Catholick seing that according to him no Church can be universally called such which is not truly such The summe then of Dr. H's supererogating truly is that though all the world in their free expressions call us onely Catholicks that is sons of the Catholick Church yet all speak untruly but himself and a few of his brethren who also speak truly onely then when it is their turn to dispute against us Yet he tells us if we will believe him that certainly our Church is not such in the notion S. Austin speaks though if we should ask him what ground he hath for his certainty he must answer that he hath none that is certain but onely a probability for I conceive he hath no better ground for that than he hath for his Faith Thus Dr. H. ends his defence from my three Whispers as he calls them though I hope by this time they speak loud and plain enough to every Reader that he was too chary in his expressions which was all I objected In the close he pleases to honour me by making me Confessour of his secretest and deepest reservation but truly though I pretend not to so high an office unless he comes with hearty sorrow for these faults without cloaking them and gives me good hopes of his future amendment he is never likely to obtain absolution The Catholick Gentleman noted by the way that Dr. H. slightly past over the distinction between Heresy and Schism which was necessary to be exprest in that place where the matter of the futurework was to be determined that is what Schism he was chiefly to treat of Now in this Book entitled their defence he ought to state the matter so as to treat of that chiefly which is chiefly objected wherefore since he cannot but know that a Schism coming from an Heresy is that which is more charged upon them both as greater crime and as the cause and origin of the other Schism of onely disobedience he ought to have premised this and let his Reader have known that all Heresy is Schism at least in a place where he purposely treats of the notion of Schism it was fitting to treat it abstractedly from the heretical one and that of bare disobedience both which are objected though the former much more and not speak of it as distinguish 't from heresy as professedly here he does of Schism chap. 2. par 1. so laying wrong grounds to his future discourse by omitting and excluding from it the principal Schism objected and so treating Schism maimedly or rather onely one branch of it Now his first excuse why he past it over so slâ—ghtly onely naming the word distinguish't yet treating no distinction there is that he meddled not with it at all Reply p. 8. l. â—0 as if this made not the fault greater not to meddle with that which was in a manner soley important in that place and most pertinent to his ensuing Tâ—eatise His next is that his method led him to it to treat of it Chap. 8. whereat 'ts evidently most impertinent and unmethodical to treat of Schism against Faith under the head of Schism against mutual Charity and besides method gives that we must put the definitions before we treat of the particularities I am sorry to see that his confusion for method's sake the non-sense of his first book is entail'd upon these also and that that Dish in the Stationers bill of fare must be cook't up again here by Mr. H. to give the Reader a second surfeit Sect. 9. How Dr. H. defends his famous Criticism about the Hith pael-like verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with ten several mistakes of his Accidence HIs second Section presents us with the first Dish in the Stationer's bill of fare served up to the table cover'd but with so many pittiful evasions and mistakes as may serve perhaps to give the Reader a banquet of mirth But I shall treat it seriously His first mistake is general and slips over the whole question Our controversy is whether either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have a reciprocal signification upon a Grammatical account from the notation of the form and termination of the word as he declares himsel of Shism p. 13. to mean of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least now he to evade quite forsakes his formely-declared intent and recurres for his refuge to the sense of the word taken from
Book of Schism p. 84. where Speaking of S. Peters Baptizing constituting Bishops in Britany he tels us it must in all reason be extended no farther then S. Peters line as he was Apostle of the Circumcision Id est saith hee to the Iews that might at that time be dispersed there In which place he manifestly makes S. Peter's Province exclusive in Britany where he never pretends that S. Paul met him though before he told us that the agreement between S. Peter S. Paul was onely exclusive when they met at the same City c. How powerfull terrible is truth which can drive her opposers to defend themselves by such miserable and weak implications His ninth self-contradiction quarrels with both parts of his sixth at once according to the former part of which S. Paul had not his Province from Christ's assignation according to the later part of it he had it imediately from Christ's assignation yet maugre both these Repl. 58. par 5. he makes S. Pauls peculiar Province Spring onely from the Iews refusing rejecting his doctrine onely I say for he affirms there expresly that till the Iews refused rejected it he does not betake himself so peculiarly to the Gentiles whence follows in all likelihood that if the Iews had not rejected Christ's doctrine tenderd by S. Paul that Apostle had never gone peculiarly to the Gentils nor by consequence should have had any peculiar or exclusive Province at all Is not this a solid man To omit that this experiencing of more fruit among the Gentiles then among the Iews is that which S. w. puts for the reason of his peculiar Apostleship the Appellation of Apostle of the Gentils ensuing thereupon These some others are the self-contradictions with which this Adversary of mine seing it impossible to shew one word in any testimony excluding limiting the Iurisdiction of the Apostles shuffles to fro on all sides that so what ever position he should be challenged with he may slip avoyd it by shewing as he easily may that he said in another place the expresse contrary and then when he hath done he preaches repentance or else Hell damnation to his wicked Adversary for calumniating him who thus earnestly desires for Sooth to speak the full truth of God Answ p. 18. and that so carefully that to make sure work for fear one part of the contradiction should not be the truth of God he affirms both But I hope the Reader will be aware of his shifting weakneses waving all his self said affirmations his Gentile non-sence his pious formalities will presse him home with this Dilemma Either S. Peter's Authority was so limited by his pretended designation to one Province as he had no power to preach to another or it was not but remaind stil illimited Vniversal not witstanding this imagind designation if it remaind stil unlimited and Vniversal how can the Pope's Authority be concluded limited from his succeeding S. Peter if S. Peter's remaind ever unlimited But if his Authority Iurisdiction was limited and that this was the thing to be proved by Dr. H. in his book of Schism then why does he not vindicate his testimonies from that shamefull charge layd against them particularly by S. W. that there is not one wordin them limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions but what himself adds of his own Head And why does he instead of thus vindicating them here sometimes flatly deny the question sometimes shuffle about to blunder a point so clear at any rate though it cost him no lesse then such numerous most palpable self-contradictions sure the knot must be great which could stand need of having wedges thus driven in point-blank oppositely on both sides to break it asunder Sect. 5. What multitudes of absurdities and accesse of fresh self-contradictions follow out of his newly-invented tenet of Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction then onely when the Apostles met in the same City AFter his self-contradictions march his lesser absurdities not so bulkie substantiall ones as the former yet still his too big to bee wielded by any man but Dr. H. nor by him neither unles the necessity of a bad cause incumbent on him to defend had added to him such an increase of strength as vses to proceed from desperation But not to take notice of them all I will onely take that part of his Reply which I find most pertinent to the point in hand then see what abondance of that kind of fruit it bears In his Reply therefore p. 57. I find these words I have sufficiently exprest tract of Schism c. 4. p. 7. how far this agreement extended how far exclusive it was not that it should be unlawful for Peter to preach to a Gentil or for Paul to a Iew but hâ—at when they mâ—t at the same City as at Antioch certainly they did and at Rome also I make no question then the one should constantly apply himself to the Iews receive Disciples form them into a Church leave them to be governed by a Bishop of his assignation and the other should doe in like manner to the Gentiles Thus he very pithily let us unfold lay open what he has as his custome is involued here see what a heap of weaknesses lies sweating there crowded up in so narrow a room First he brings these words here as an explanation of his meaning that is of the state of the question between us concerning how far these Provinces were exclusive whereas in the place cited of Schism c. 4. par 7. it is onely put as an instance of their imagin'd exclusive Iurisdictions introduc't with an Accordingly not purposely Stating or determining the measure or extent of their agreement nor is there any expression found there which sounds to this purpose Secondly this Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction which before made such a loud sound is now onely come to be such when they met at the same City by consequence abstracting from that circumstance S. Peter had Vniversal Authority which is a great largness of his towards S. Peter and I wonder whence this kindnes springs towards the Pope's Predecessor Thirdly since these two Apostles as far as we hear never met in any City after this pretended distribution of Provinces save onely at Rome at Antioch it follows that as far as Dr. H. knows S. Peter's Iurisdiction was universal over both Iews and Gentiles in all the world besides at all other times except onely those short seasons in which they met together Fourthly it follows that the Pope's Authority is not limited save onely where he meets S. Paul or his Successors or perhaps as he needs will have it S. Iohn and then I conceive it will be very ample Fifthly since he grants that both the Congregations of Iews Gentils were joyned in one under Pope â—lement of Schism p. 79. that Pope by consequence succeeded them both so the exclusivenes of S. Peter's Iurisdiction when
that S. W. had not the forecast to say 't is certain too for then he had sav'd his sobriety and all had been well Thirdly conscious to him self that all hitherto was evasion he would seem at length for fashions sake as it were to touch the point but seems onely after his accustomed sleight manner in these words Thirdly the place Gal. 1. 17. belongs expressely to the power after it was givâ—n and yet then he depended not on him Attend Reader here is a dreadfull sentence pronounced against S. Peter's Supremacy for if after it was given it was no ways dependent on S. Peter all is lost to S. Peter's Superiority First I know thou wonderst why the point being so mainly important and Dr. H. having found a place of Scripture to prove it from expressely too as he tells thee he should not be larger in it citing those expresse words and then making invincible arguments from them To lose his advantage in such circumstances onely relating hastily the place then touching it sleightly and not prosecuting it home nor indeed at all but saying onely something there upon sounds a betraying of his cause and some preposterous fauour to his therein-befriended Adversary S. W. Secondly thou mayst observe that there are here two propositions one that the place Gal. 1. 17. belongs expressely to the power after it was given the other that yet then he depended not on him The first is pretended from the Text and expressely too The second is left indifferent as his blinding manner is whether it be proved from the Text or by his own affirmation If the latter I must put it upon this score of his 'tis certain and so it needs no further answer But if it be pretended as from Scripture it shall have audience and thou shalt hear it examin'd Thirdly please to take notice that the Verse Gal. 1. 17. which he brings to testify his tenet expressely but by omitting it slubberingly bids it say nothing is this as I find it in their own translation Neither went I up to Hierusalem to them which were Apostles before me but I went into Arabia and returned again unto Damascus And this is all where wee hear no news of any power at all much less expressely belonging to power nay more expressely to the power after it was given as Mr. H. promised us Fourthly grant yet all this that it belong'd expressely to the power after it was given yet how does this place prove that the power given was not dependent on S. Peter's as an inferiour degree to a superiour which is the whole question between us Nothing is said here but onely that S. Paul preach't in Arabia c. ere he went to the Apostles before him The place there named by him taken in it self without relation to the other Verses expresses nothing of power at all but onely that S. Paul went to other places ere he went up to Hierusalem and taken with other adjoyning Verses onely intimates this that S. Paul having commission immediatly from Christ had Authority to preach to other places without demanding first the other Apostles order and approbation which is both granted by us and innocent to our cause but whether the power given were lesse equall or greater then S. Peter's nothing is found there at all much lesse doth the 17. Verse it self speak of power still lesse doth it expressely belong to it least of all to power after it was given as imdependent on S. Peter as Mr. H. braggs To make this yet plainer the Reader may please to advert that there is no Catholick in the world but holds that if our Saviour immediatly command a thing he may be obayed without asking counsell or leave of any Superiour nay even against their contrary command or prohibition Next that our Saviour not onely could but did give immediate commands and Commissions to persons of different ranks as to the Apostles and Disciples to preach to the whole world and to Philip the Deacon to goeto convert the Eunuch Acts. 8. v. 26 29. These things being so all shadow of reason in Dr. H's discoursevanishes which would conclude S. Paul independent and of equall and not subordinate power with S. Peter because he had an immediate Commission from Christ and proceeded to act according to that Commission without going to ask S. Peter's leave first The Disciples having immediate order from Christ preach't the Gospell without asking leave or receiving approbation from the Apostles Were it not now a worthy inference to parallell Dr. H's and conclude that therefore the Disciples were of equall Authority with the Apostles But Dr. H. is so wary that he speaks his non-sence sleightly sprinklingly and in brief that that lineaments of it not being discovered the deformity of it may not appear And this is the most frequent with him of all the rest of his sly ricks and in a manner naturall to his whole strain of writing From Dr. H's reason and Scripture testimonies wee come to fathers to prove that the power given was not inferiour to or dependent on S. Peter's He appeals to S. Chrysostome for this point affirming as he layes it out of S. Paul distinctly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not needing Peter nor his voyce The explication of this place is already given here in the paragraph foregoing to which adde in particular that if by voyce he means Commission and order to preach t' is clear he needed it not having received it immediatly from Christ if instruction of doctrine he needed not that neither having learned it fully and perfectly from Divine revelation what follows hence necessarily for equality of power wee see not and Dr. H. pretends here to prove it by no other argument then onely by telling us within a parenthesis that he supposes it Both the former interpretations then wee grant each of them fits the words very well whereas his of equality of power is impossible to bee evinced from this testimony and inconsistent even with Dr. H's grounds as shall be shown It follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but being equally honourd with him to which the father addes in a parenthesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I will say no more Vpon which words Dr. H. exults which saith he what it is an intimation of I leave S. W. to conjecture Nor is S. W. nice to tell him his thoughts what S. Chrysostome intimated by those words to wit that he could have said more with truth but represt him self as not willing out of reverence to those Apostles to make comparisons of inequality between them which manifests plainly that S. Chrysostome in that place speakes not of power at all or equality in that respect since neither was it ever heard of that S. Chrysostome or any els no nor the most perverse Protestants held S. Paul above S. Peter in power nor can it consist with Dr. H's own grounds who Answ p. 43. l. 25. disclaims professedly any such pretence that any of the other Apostles
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
follows by most absolute necessary consequence that they must be all Schismaticks and Blessed S. Peter their Ringleader But 't is no matter with him rather shall S. Peter instead of being Head of the Church be an Head of Schismaticks than Dr. H. be acknowledged a Schismatick a falsifier and not onely the Authority but also the Sanctity of that holy Apostle be sacrific'd to the Protestant interest rather than so great a Patron of theirs and so saintly a falsifier shall want an evasion to soder his crack't credit Neither let Dr. H. think to escape making S. Peter his Iewish converts Schismaticks by saying that this was a prudent managery onely Rep. p. 62. so iustifiable by the present circumstances since it is most undeniable that the breaking of all Communion with another Church is the extern Act of Schism then let him remember his own grounds layd against himself in his first Chapter of Schism p. 10. that the matter of fact onely is to be considered not the causes or motives Since eo ipso that fact is Schism nor can be iustifi'd from being such by any causes motives or circumstances what-soever Now then since the fact of breaking from all-Communion which the Gentile Church that is of Schism from it is in expresse terms imputed to S. Peter his Iewish Proselytes by Dr. H. I expect then what possible motive this Author can pretend to alledge sufficient to excuse them from Schism whose doctrine it is in the place cited that no motive or reason was sufficient to render matter of fact of this nature excusable or iustify it from being Schism nay damnable worse then sacriledge Idolatry c. as the fathers there cited by D H. avouch The summe then of this part of Dr. H's defence is that he takes no notice at all of his falsifying by adding the onely important large-senc't word All to the Scripture nor attempts to clear himself of it but instead of doing this he goes about to maintain his position counterfeited to be found there to wit that Iewish Christians withdrew from all-Communion with the Gentile ones by this argument that it was equally forbidden by Moses his law to converse with or preach to a Gentile as to eate their diet A paradox so incomparably notoriously absurd that it is at once both perfectly opposite to the law it self repugnant to innumerable examples from Scripture to the contrary the universall practice of the Synagogue injurious to the Iewish Church in it's purest times making them frequently publikely uncontrolledly break the law in a point as he saies equally forbidden as eating the Gentile diet implicatory in terms supposing once the lawfulnes of making a Proselyte impertinent to his present purpose circumstances were it granted expressely contradictory to his own words about which the present contest was raised derogating from those ancient Primitive Christians all charity nay even in the least and sleightest degree and lastly beyond all evasion making them perfectly Schismaticks S. Peter their Ring-leader and that proceeding on Dr. H's own grounds Nor hath he any thing to counterpoâ—ze this heap of absurdities of the Seuenteens but onely a misunderstood place of Scripture of which himself must be the Interpreter which is the right Protestant Method who build their faith upon any Text which seems at first sight to make for them or is hard to explicate although universall Tradition of the foregoing Church importing involving bringing downe to us all imaginable motives of the contrary truth evidence that Interpretation to be impossible But 't is no matter what Dr. H. does or sayes if he can but talk any thing gentilely sleightly the grave negligence must supply the want of sence Truth especially if hee but shut upwith a victorious Epiphonema pronounced with a serious-sobersadnes Repl p. 61. l. vlt. Thus unhappy is this gentleman continually in his objections all is well and his sleight-sould Sermon-admiâ—ers take that to be the rarest Nectar of reason which if examin'd is the most sublimated quintessence of contradiction-absurdity as hath amply been shown Now as for S. Peter's words that it was unlawfull for a man that was a Iew to keep company or come to one that is of ther Nation upon which onely he build his position otherwise altogether destitute of any shadow of proof I answer that the Scribes such like pretenders to a preciser Kinde of holines had lately introduced many customes of their owne forging under the notion of Traditions of some of which they are accused by our saviour and obtruded them upon the consciences of the Iews to be religiously observed especially at Hierusalem the Rendevous of Iewish Doctors and the place where their doctrine had more immediate influence upon the mindes of of thei Auditors Of those precise customes this was one of not going to a Gentiles house or conversing with them To this amongst others S. Peter was inured by long education in so much that though he heard our B. Saviour with his own mouth give them commission to go to preach all over the world in vniuersum mundum and omni creaturae to every creature yet finding employment enough amongst those of the Circumcision he never attempted it till by a vision he was immediately set upon it by Almighty God especially the obligation to his country laying a stronger ty upon him and having received order to preach first to the Iews untill they shew'd themselves unworthy he needed a vision to tell him when that time came circumstances were ripe for it In like manner we read that S. Paul though chosen particularly to preach to the Gentiles Act. 9. 15. yet he affirmed Act. 13 46. that it was necessary that the words of God should first have been spoken to the Iews did not turn to the Gentiles but upon their rejecting him By unlawfull then in this place I take not to bee mean't not against the law of Moses but what their Teachers and Doctors who govern'd their Consciences bore them in hand was unlawfull in the same manner as wee now call many things unlawfull which are not found forbidden by Christ's law but which our Doctours and Casuists iudge to bee unlawfull Again wee read that though the Apostles and Brethren that were in Iudea had heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God Act. 11. v. 1. yet the second verse let ts us know of none that found fault with him save those at Hierusalem onely and that not meerly upon the account of going to the houses of Gentiles but of eating with them also as the third verse expresses But let their zeal have been never so hot to maintain this new-fangled apprehension and let it bee never so universall to abhorre the conversation of Gentiles whiles they remain'd Gentiles yet it is the strangest fancy that ever entred into a rational head to imagin that they should still retain the same uncharitable feud towards them after
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
would it serve your intent that there was exclusivenes in the actuall endeavours of the Apostles but you must evince an Exclusivenes in Right ere you can pretend to limit a Right nor have you brought as yet one expresse word of any testimony to make good the least of these Again if by universall Pastour you mean one who hath Iurisdiction to preach in all places of the world and to all sorts of people as your wise Argument seems to intend you need not trouble your self we grant each Apostle to have been an universall Pastour in this sence but if you mean that S. Peter was not higher in Authoritie amongst the Apostles how does this follow though he were supposed to be limited as a particular Bishop to his private Province or as a Bishop had a flock distinc't from S. Paul's is not even now a dayes the Pope's Bishoprick limitted to the Roman Diocese his Patriarchate to the West and so his Authority under both these notions limited exclusively and contradistinguisht from other Bishops and Patriarchs and yet wee see de facto that he is held chief Bishop in the Church higher in Authoritie then the rest notwithstanding Doe not our eyes and the experience of the whole world testifie this to be so yet were all the former absurd inventions of Apostolicall Provinces their exclusivenes S. Peter over the Iews onely c. granted still his utmost inference would be no stronger then this now related which the eyes of all the world gainsay to wit that because others had their particular assignations Provinces or Bishopriks distinct from S. Peter's therefore S. Peter could not be higher in Authoritie then those others by which one may see that my learned Adversary understands not what is mean't by the Authority he impugns but makes account the Pope cannot be Head of the Church unles he be the particular immediate Bishop of every Diocese in it Whereas we hold him contradistinct from his fellow Bishops for what concerns his proper peculiar assignation and onely say that he is higher then the rest in Iurisdiction power of command in things belonging to the universall good of the Church This point then should have been struck at disputed against not that other never held by us that none in the Church hath his particular Bishoprick or assignation save the Pope onely against which onely Dr. H. makes head while he makes it the utmost aym of his weak endeavours to prove S. Peter a distinct Bishop from S. Paul to have had a distinct flock Sect. 19. Dr. Hammond's method in answering his Disarmer's challenge that hee could not show one expresse word limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions in any of those many Testimonies produced by him for that End and how he puts three Testimonies together to spell that one word His palpahle falsification and other pittifull weaknesses AFter Dr. H's Irrefragable Evidence follow'd immediately of Schism p. 74. And all this very agreable to the story of Scripture which according to the brevitie of the relations there made onely sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the Circumcision and of his being so at Rome we make no question Vpon these words his Disarmer Schism Disarm p 73. enumerated as many significations imported by that word onely as were obvious confuted them severally because he found the words ambiguous telling him that neither doth Scripture onely set down S. Peter as Apostle of the Circumcision but Iames Iohn also Gal. 2. 9. nor is S. Peter any where exprest as Apostle of onely the Circumcision but expresly particularized the contrary Act. 15. 7. His Answer p. 50. affords us a third signification so impossible for S. W. to imagin as it was to foresee all the weakneses Dr. H's cause could put him upon 'T is this that the words onely is set clearly in opposition to the Scripture's making more particular relations of S. Peter's preaching to the Iewish caetus at Rome c. Now had the Scripture produced by him made any particular relation at all of any such matter then indeed his onely might have been thought to mean the want of more particular relation c. but if in no place alledged by him there had been found the least particular relation at all either of a Iewish caetus at Rome or S. Peter's preaching to it particularly or indeed so much as intimating his preaching in that City then what ground had Dr. H. given me to imagine that the restrictive particle onely was put in opposition to a more particular relation from Scripture of that of which the Scripture had given me no relation at all Is there a greater misery then to stand trifling with such a brabbler To omit that take away the former parenthesis from having any influence upon the words without it as it ought then one of the significations given by me is absolutely unavoidable But against the first signification impugned by me he challenges my knowledge that he could not mean so without contradicting himself and my knowledg challenges his conscience that he cannot be ignorant how he contradicts himself frequently purposely upon any occasion when he cannot well evade As for the second sence I conceived that ambiguous word might bear I repeated my challenge to him Schism Disarm p. 73. that If he could shew me the least syllable either in Scripture or other testimonies expresly and without the help of his Id ests and scruing deductions restraining S. Peter's Jurisdiction to the Iews onely excluding it from the Gentiles I would yeild him the Laurell and quit the Controversie This challenge though offered him before p. 52. 53. p. 68. yet he here first accepts not for the Laurell's sake he remitts that to S. W. but upon so tempting an hope as to be at an end of Controversie which I dare say he repents he ever medled with yet was hee very hasty to begin with Controversies voluntarily unprovoked and now when he sees himself answer'd unable to reply the moderate man growes weary wishes himself at an end of them as if he thought himself when hee begun first so great a Goliah that there could not be found in the whole Army of the Church a sling and a stone to hit him in the fore head Ere I come to lay open how he acquits himself of this accepted challenge I desire the Reader to consider first the import of it which is to exact onely of him to show one exclusive word exprest in order to S. Peter's Iurisdiction in any one of those many testimonies he produced for that end Secondly let him candidly observe what infinite disadvantage I offer my self what an incomparable advantage I offer my adversary in such an unparalleld proffer and condescension one restrictive word for the restrictive point now in question between us makes him and undoes mee Thirdly let him remember how Dr. H. call'd those proofs Evidences for that restrictive point
falsification and an open abuse of the Council For as may bee seen immediately before the 7th Canon Theodorus Mopsuestensis Carisius had made a wicked creed which was brought and read before the Council After this begins the 7th Canon thus His igitur lectis decreuit sancta c. These things being read the holy synod decreed that it should bee lawfull for no man to compose write or produce alteram fidem another faith praeter eam quae definita fuit a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem in Spiritu sancto congregatis besides that which was defined by the holy fathers gather'd in the Holy Ghost at the City of Nice Where wee see the intention of the Council was no other than this that they should avoid hereticall creeds and hold to the Orthodoxe one not to hinder an enlargment to their Baptismall Profession as the Bishop would persuade us Hence His first falsification is that hee would have the words alteram fidem which taken by themselves and most evidently as spoken in this occasion signify a different or contrary faith to mean a prohibition to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession So by the words any more which hee falsly imposes to serve his purpose making the Council strike directly at the enlargment of such Profession Very good His 2 d is that to play Pope Pius a trick hee assures us the Council forbids to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession whereas there is no news there of exacting but of producing writing or composing false creeds lesse of Baptismall profession And though the Council forbide this to bee done his qui volunt ad cogâ—itionem veritatis conuerti to those who are willing to â—ee converted to the knowledge of the truth yet the punishments following extended also to Laymen in those words si vero Laici fuerint anathematiz entur if they the proposers of another faith bee Laymâ—n let them bee excommunicated makes it impossible to relate to Baptism unles the Bishop will say that in those dayes Laymen were Ministers of Baptism or exacted as hee phrases it Baptismall Professions His third falsification is that hee pretends the Council forbad to exact more than the Apostles creed whereas the Council onely forbids creeds different from that which was defin'd by the Council of Nice So that according to the Bishop the creed defined by the fathers in the Council of Nice and the Apostles creed are one and the sasame creed His fourth is that hee pretends from the bare word fidem a Baptismal profession for no other word is found in the Council to that purpose Now the truth is that upon occasion of those creeds containing false doctrine the Council onely prohibits the producing or teaching any thing contrary to the doctrine anciently establish't as appears more plainly from that which follows concerning Carisius Pari modo c. In like manner if any either Bishops Priests or Laymen bee taken sentientes aut docentes holding or teaching Carisius his doctrine c. let them bee thus or thus punisht Where you see nothing in order to exacting Baptismall professions or their enlargments as the Bp. fancies but of abstaining to teach false doctrines which those Hereticks had proposed Ere wee leave this point to do my L d D. right let us construe the words of the Council according to the sence hee hath given it and it stands thus that the holy synod decreed it unlawfull for any proferre scribere aut componere to exact alteram any more or a larger fidem Baptismall profession praeter eam quae a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem definita fuit than the Apostles creed Well go thy wayes brave Bp. if the next synod of Protestants doe not Canonize thee for an Interpreter of Councils they are false to their best interests The cause cannot but stand if manag'd by such sincerity wit and learning as long as women prejudic'd men and fools who examin nothing are the greater part of Readers Having gain'd such credit for his sincerity hee presumes now hee may bee trusted upon his bare word and then without any either reason or Authority alledged or so much as pretended but on his bare word onely hee assures the Reader if hee will beleeve him that they still professe the discipline of the ancient Church and that wee have changed it into a soveraignty of power above Generall Councells c. Yet the candid man in his vindication durst not affirm that this pretended power was of faith with us or held by all but onely p. 232. alledges first that it is maintaind by many that is that it is an opinion onely and then 't is not his proper task to dispute against it our own Schools and Doctours can do that fast enough and afterwards p. 243. hee tells us that these who give such exorbitant priviledges to Pope's do it with so many cautions and reservations that thâ—y signify nothing So that the Bishop grants that some onely and not all add this to the Pope's Authority and that this which is added signifies nothing and yet rails at it here in high terms as if it were a great matter deserving Church-unity should bee broken for it and claps it upon the whole Church After this hee grants S. Peter to have been Prince of the Apostles or first mover in the Church in a right sence as hee styles it yet tells us for prevention sake that all this extends but to a Primacy of order Whereas all the world till my Ld D. came with his right sence to correct it imagin'd that to move did in a sence right enough signify to act and so the first mover meant the first Acter Wee thought likewise that when God was call'd primum mouens the first mover those words did in a very right sence import actiuity and influence not a primacy of order onely as the acute Bp. assures us But his meaning is this that though all the world hold that to move first is to act first yet that sence of theirs shall bee absolutely wrong and this onely right which he and his fellows are pleased to fancie who are so wonderfully acute that according to them hee that hath onely Authority to sit first in Council or some things which is all they will allow S. Peter and the Pope shall in a right sence bee said to move first or to bee first mover I alledged as a thing unquestionable even by understanding ProtestaÌ„ts that the Church of England actually agreed with the Church of Rome at the time of the separation in this Principle of Government that the Bishops of Rome as successâ—urs of S. Peter inherited his priviledgâ—s c. as is to bee seen p. 307. by any man who can read English Now the Bishop who hath sworn to his cause that hee will bee a constant and faithfull prevaricatour omits the former paâ—t of my proposition and changes the busines from an evident matter of
had any such priviledge of independency as the Bishop contends But My second objection was that this pretended exemption of the British Church was false My reason was because the British Bishops admitted appellation to Rome at the Council of Sardica In answer First hee tells mee that ere I can alledge the Authority of the Council of Sardica I must renounce the divine Institution of the Papacy and why for said hee that Canon submitted it to the good pleasure of the fathers and groundeth it upon the memory of S. Peter not the Institution of Christ Which is first flat falsification of the Council there being not a word in it either concerning the Papall power it self or it's Institution but concerning Appeals onely Next since wee call that of divine Institution which Christ with his own mouth ordain'd and never any man made account or imagin'd that Christ came from heaven to speak to the after Pope's and so give them a Primacy but that hee gave it by his own mouth to S. Peter whiles hee lived here on earth This I say being evidently our tenet and the Council never touching this point at all what a weaknes is it to argue thence against the diuine Institution of the Papacy and to abuse the Council saying that it submitted this to the good pleasures of the fathers Secondly hee asks how does it appear that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon which a little after hee calls my presumption And truly I shall ever think it a most iust presumption that they who confessedly sate in the Council assented to what was ordain'd by the Council in which they sate as was their duty unles some objection bee alledged to the contrary as the Bp brings none Thirdly hee sayes the Council of sardica was no generall Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed as they were before the making of that Canon What means hee by the Eastern Bishops the Catholicks or the Arians The Arian Bishops indeed fled away fearing the judgment of the Church as Apol. 2. ep ad solitarios S. Athanasius witnesses but how shows hee that any of the 76. Eastern Bishops were gone ere this Canon which is the third in that Council was made So that my L d of Derry is willing to maintain his cause by clinging to the Arians against S. Athanasius and the then Catholike Church as hee does also in his foregoing Treatise p. 190. 191 denying with them this to have been a generall Council because his good Brother Arians had run away from it fearing their own just coÌ„deÌ„mnation Fourthly hee says the Canons of this Council were never received in England or incorporated into the English laws I ask has hee read the British laws in those times if not for any thing hee knows they were incorporated into them and so according to his former Grounds must descend down to the English But wee are mistaken in him his meaning is onely that the aduantages and priuiledges should bee inherited from the Britons not their disadvantages or subjection So sincere a man hee is to his cause though partiall to common sence Lastly saith hee this Canon is contradicted by the great generall Council of Chalcedon which our Church receiveth Yet it seems hee neitheir thought the words worth citing nor the Canon where the abrogation of the Sardica Canon is found worth mentioning which argues it is neither worth answering nor looking for I am confident hee will not find any repealing of the Sardica Canon exprest there It must therefore bee his own deduction on which hee relies which till hee puts it down cannot bee answerd As for their Church receiving the Council of Chalcedon the Council may thanke their ill will to the Pope not their good will to receive Councils For any Council in which they can find any line to blunder in mistakingly against him they receive with open arms But those Councils which are clear and express for him though much ancienter as this of Sardica was shall bee sure to bee rejected and held of no Authority and when a better excuse wants the very running away of the guilty Arians shall disannul the Council and depriue it of all it's Authority Hee subjoyns there appears not the least footstep of any Papall Iurisdiction exercised in England by Elentherius I answer nor any certain footstep of any thing else in those obscure times but the contrary for hee referd the legislative part to King Lucius and the British Bishops Here you see my Ld D. positive and absolute But look into his Vindication p. 105. and you shall see what Authority hee relies on for this positive confidence viz. the Epistle of Eleutherius which himself conscious it was nothing worth and candid to acknowledge it there graces with a parenthesis in these words If that Epistle bee not counterfeit But now wee have lost the candid conditionall If and are grown absolute Whence wee see that the Bp. according as hee is put to it more and more to maintain his cause is forced still to abâ—te some degree of his former little sincerity And thus this if-not counter feited testimony is become one of his demonstrations to clear himself and his Church from Schism Now though our faith relies on immediate TraditioÌ„ for it's onely and certain Rule and not upon fragments of old Authours yet to give some instances of the Pope's Iurisdiction anciently in England I alledged S. Prosper that Pope Celestin Vice sua in his own stead sent S German to free the Britons from Pelagianism and converted the scots by Palladius My L d answers that converting and ordaining c. are not acts of Iurisdiction yet himself sayes here p. 193. that all other right of Iurisdiction doth follow the right of ordination Now what these words all other mean is evident by the words immediately foregoing to wit all other besides Ordination and Election by which 't is plain hee makes these two to bee rights of Iurisdiction So necessary an attendant to errour is self contradiction and non-sence But the point is hee leaues out those words I relied on Vice sua in his own stead which show'd that it belong'd to his office to do it These words omitted hee tells us that hee hath little reason to beleeve either the one or the other that is hee refuses to beleeve S. Prosper a famous and learned father who lived neer about the same time and was conversant with the affairs of the Pelagians and chuses to relie rather on an old obscure Authour whence no prudent man can Ground a certainty of any thing and which if hee would speak out himself would say hee thought to bee counterfeit What follows in his 25. page is onely his own sayings His folly in grounding the Pope's Supremacy on Phocas his liberality hath been particularly answer'd by mee heretofore Parâ— 1. Sect. 6. whether I refer him I found fault with him for leaving the Papall power and spending his time in impugning the Patriarchalâ—
certainty what Royalty is the notion varying according to diuerse countries But hee understands perhaps that a Patriarch shall not bee independēt of the King in Ecclesiasticall affairs within his own Patriarchate and that this is the King's priviledge to which condition hee knows no Catholike will ever yeeld any more than to the former otherwise wee must grant that S. Peter could not preach at Rome if Nero were a King not S. Iames at Hiernsalem without unkinging Herod Yet the Bp. will bee even with mee for as I will not condescend to his conditions so on the other side hee neither hath heretofore nor ever will hereafter bee brought to hold to the question or speak directly to the point as hath been seen hitherto all along and shall more particularly bee seen hereafter Nor will hee long defer his revenge but puts it in execution the very next thing hee does being assured to have demanded such conditions as should never bee granted for Whereas hee had remou'd the question from a Papall Authority held of divine to a Patriarchall acknowledg'd but of human Institution not to desert our question totally and to give him fair law I put the case that the Papall Government had been onely of human Institution it ought not to have been rejected unles the abuses had been irremediable I urged that considering this Head was chosen in that case to preserve Vnity in Religion and that eternall dissentions would inevitably follow upon it's rejection and a separation of the rejecters from the rest of that common-wealth which acknowledg'd that Head therefore far weightier causes must bee expected or greater abuses committed ere not onely the person but this very Government should bee abolish't Now the matter of fact being evident and confest that the first Reformers consented with all the Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome in their submitting to that Authority till they began to reject it that they acknowledg'd it lawfull ere they began to disclame it as unlawfull that they held none at that time true Christians but those who agreed consented and submitted to that Authority that the acknowledging this Head then was as it still is to us the Principle of Vnity in Government for all Christianity as such then held by them Likewise it being equally evident confest that they have now actually renounced that Authority thus held acknowledg'd and submitted to by all whom they then deemed Christians as the Rule and Ground of all Vnity in that commonwealth These things I say being so I had good reason to put that supposition not as our bare tenet as the Bp. seems to imagin but as the evident matter of fact as the case stood then One would think it were the Bp's task now to show that notwithstanding all this the first Abolishers of this Authority had sufficient reasons to disannull it and that the abuses of the sayd Authority did outweigh the right use of it so that it might and ought have been rejected by one part of that Christianity though once establisht or which is all one long accepted by their common consent as this was de facto What does the Bp. Hee tells us what hee and the Protestants now held concerning that point putting as it were his counter tenet to ours sayes the Pope is onely as a Proclocutor in a Generall Assembly was their steward that is not their Governour all contrary to the matter of fact which my case is built on that they nourish a more Catholik-Communion than wee and such other stuff all out of his own head without a word of proof then thinks the deed is done Was ever such an Answer contriu'd the poak-full of plums was pertinent if compar'd to ' this But still the Bishop is innocent t was my fault who would not accept of the two conditions hee proposed which should have been the guerdon of his returning to the question that is without the performance of which hee thinks himself not bound to speak a word to the purpose And so the Reader must look upon him hereafter as on a man who hath got or took licence to run astray Observe Reader in what a different manner the Bp. I treat thee I still bring thee to evident and acknowledg'd matter of fact or such suppositions which need onely application and another name to bee so according as the case stood at the time of the first breach Whereas the Bp. brings thee his own sayings their party's tenet for Grounds and proofs things not acknowledg'd but disputable nay disputed in this present debate that is obscure as far as concerns this question And this is his solemn manner all over this treatise which shows that hee hates the light his unfriendly betrayer but truth's Glory and that the obscurity of ambiguities is most proper and least offensive to his errour-darkned eyes I demanded of him whether hee would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes or abuses of Prelates Hee answers that never such abuses as these were objected either to Princes or Prelates in England Not objected that 's strange Read the Court of K. Iames and the charge against King Charles in Westminster Hall Did not the Scots and Puritans object Popery intolerable pride and overburthening weak consciences to your Brother Bp's Can there bee greater abuses objected than these in your Grounds or is not the design to bring in Popery which makes such a noise in your book as a Pandera's box of all mischiefs and inconveniences as horrid an accusation against you as the same inconveniences were against Popery when it stood on foot in K. H's daies I was told by a worthy grave person and whose candour I have no reason to suspect that in a priuate discourse hee had with the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in his own garden concerning the point of Schism the Arch-Bishop confest upon his urging the evident matter of fact that hee was in a Schism upon which free confession of his being prest again by that Gentleman how hee could in conscience remain in a Schism and separated from God's Church hee reply'd that it might lawfully bee done if warranted by an intention to reunite by such compliance a schismatizing Congregation to the Body it broke from citing to make good his plea a place from S. Austin in reference to some Catholike Bishops complying with the Donatists for the same end Now I ask whether in case the Arch-Bishop had endeavoured to bring in Popery Episcopacy held to bee of divine right ought therefore to bee abolisht If bee answer No as I suppose his interest will prevail above his Grounds to make him then I ask again why an inferiour actuall power to wit Episcopacy should not bee held to merit abolishing for Popery's sake and introducing it so fraught with inconveniences which Popery so full alas of grievances though held immediately before equally of divine Institution and of far higher
broke from the former Church consisting of those Churches thus united according to the Essentialls and fundamentalls of a Church Now then after all this as evident as that two ad three make five to wave answering this true charge that they broke by this double dissent from all those Churches and to make as though they separated from the Court of Rome onely and to defend themselves as breaking onely from that Court is to say that none hold those two Principles but onely the Court of Rome which to speak moderately is perfect Impudence the most proper and characteristicall expression of this Bp's manner of writing but the blame is mine for had I perform'd those two powerfull conditions the Bishop had not thus â—huffled of the true charge nor avoided thus the whole question I shall desire the Reader to consider once again the true charge for otherwise it is impossible hee should iudge of the sufficiency or insufficiency of their Grounds for separation as likewise to reflect that though hee pretend here they had sufficient Grounds yet hee thinks it not safe to speak out to the point as I urged him heretofore nor tell us whether those Grounds of his exceptions bee demonstrative that is apt to infer with absolute necessity therefore the Authority was an vsurpation and not come from Christ or though come from Christ yet for those reasons to bee rejected nor dares hee confess that they are onely probable yet sufficient For if probable reasons were sufficient to abolish an Authority as an vsurpation held till those reasons appear'd to have been of Christ's Institution what Government in the world could stand Nor lastly that there is a middle sort of proof between demonstration and Probability that is above a may bee yet below a must bee which can convince sufficiently the understanding and oblige it to an assent contrary to it's former faith These points are of too hard digestion for verb â—ll souls and come so neer the first Principles that they would quickly end this and all Controversies should they come to bee perfectly scann'd Wherefore as before hee totally omitted to answer those words of mine which prest him to declare himself in that point so here constant to his Principles hee absolutely declines to inform us what kinde of proofs they must bee onely hee calls them Grounds sayes they are just and sufficient His pretended Grounds I reduce to three generall Heads some of them entrench upon Eternity conscience some urge onely temporall inconveniences Lastly some are of a middle nature and pretend to more knowledge of Right Those of the first sort are all meer falshoods and calumnies and equally competent for any Heretick in the world to object against the Church in a like occasion that is are no wayes proper or serviceable to his cause For may not any Heretick voluntarily object that the Church impos'd new Articles of faith upon him when hee had a mind to beleeve or hold nothing of faith but what agreed with his own fancy Might not hee complain of new creeds impos'd when the Church upon occasion of new emergent heresies added to her publick Professions some points of faith held so formerly which might distinguish her old friends from up start foes Might not hee complain of Perill of Idolatry as your Brother Puritans did for surplisses and your reform'd Communion-table when hee had a mind to deny that Christ was more than a man as did the Arians or to renounce any decent or rationall practice in God's Church might not hee pretend that all Hereticks and Schismaticks in the world were good Christians and that the Church was tyrannicall in holding them for excommunicate Might not hee shuffle together faith with opinions and alledge falsly as you doe here you were forced to approve the Pope's rebellion against generall Councils and taking Oaths to maintain vsurpation of the Pope whenas you know and confess your self one may bee of our Church and yet neither hold the Pope above the Council nor accept of such Oaths Iust vindic p. 200. Again all these Exceptions you produce are the very points you pretend to dispute against us wherefore it depends upon the goodnes of your reasons whether those Articles pretended to bee new were indeed such and endangering Idolatry or no in iudging which concerning points Fancy must bee allow'd to pass no verdict onely rigour of reason that is demonstration can bee presumed sufficient to render points held formely by themselves and their immediate forefathers as of faith sacred and Christ's doctrine to bee obnoxious to Exceptions of new false and Idolatrous Yet nothing is more evident than that you have no such reasons for our Drs have vindicated these very points against your Reformers in such a manner that to speak much within compass the unpassionate part of the world never imagin'd you have carried the cause clearly and conclucluded decisively against us which is an Evidence that you have not evidenced against us nor demonstrated the counter Authority upon which you build your contrary tenet To omit that the Evidence of our Churches Authority hath been pretended by our late Controvertists and as yet unreply'd upon by your party nay that your own best writers confess you have nothing but proâ—ability wheron to Ground your faith All which shows the vanity of your pretended fear of Idolatry and new points of faith and coÌ„cludes your breach temerarious and irrationall And as for your fear of separating from the Communion of three parts of that which you call Christendome it shall bee shown hereafter Sect. 10 from your own side that you had ten times more Communion even with that in materiall points when you were in our Church than you can pretend to have had since His second sort of Grounds are those which relate to temporall inconveniences and injuries to the civill state by reason of the Pope's pretended encroachments against all which hee hath told us before p. 21. that diverse Catholike countries have laws in force that is that men may remain Catholiks without holding nay resisting those pretended encroachments and tells us here p. 36. that al other Catholike countries maintain their priviledges inviolated Yet these pretended inconveniences hee huddles together in big terms and puts them for a ground of their separation from our Church in which Church yet hee confesses they might have continued still in union and have stood out against them Now whether many of these were Abuses or just Rights hee knows is disputable between canoÌ„ and civil Lawyers of which kinde of CoÌ„troversy I neither think my self nor the Bp. a competent iudge since this kind of learning is not our proper profession Yet hee will needs have mee engage into such questions nothing concerning our present quarell which is about a point of faith not a point of law Our question is whether these Exceptions of his were sufficient Grounds of renouncing the Authority it self and separating from the former Church That they
nor was pretended by mee as such but as a consideration which much aggravates the charge and obliges in all reason the renouncers of this Authority to look very charily to the sufficiency of the causes of thâ—t their division For since it follows out of the terms that ere they renounced it and by thus renouncing it left to bee Catholikes they immediately before held it as Catholikes do that is held it as a point of faith and of Christ's Institution and since it is evident that none ought to change his faith which hee and his Ancestours immemorially embrac'd but upon evident Grounds again since it is evident likewise and confest that temporall motives ought not to make us break Christ's commands which is done by rejecting a Government which hee instituted Two things are consequent hence to their disadvantage one that their motives ought to bee rigoro sly evident and demonstrative for their renouncing it since dâ—nger of damnation ensves upon their miscarriage and this even in their own thoughts as they were lay'd in their minds when they first began to meditate a breach The other that the pretended causes especially temporall inconveniences for the abolishing this Authority can no waies iustify the first breakers who held it formerly a point of faith since no iust causes can bee given to renounce an Authority held to bee instituted by Christ As then it had been rationall to Reply to King H. the 8th remaining yet a Catholike and beginning to have thoughts to abolish this Authority upon such and such temporall inconveniences that his maiesty and his Ancestours had held it of divine Institution and that therefore there could bee no iust cause to abolish it so it is equally seasonable to Reply to my Lord of Derry who undertakes here to vindicate him by alledging the same thing that these causes nor any else were sufficient to make them begin to break because ere they begun the breach they held this Authority to bee of Christ's Institution and therefore it is a folly for him to think to iustify them by huddling together causes and motives and crying them up for sufficient till hee can show they had Evidence of the Truth of the opposite point greater than the pretended Evidence of Authority universall Tradition which they actually had for their former tenet If a cause bee sufficient to produce an effect and equally apply'd 'tis manifest the same effect will follow Hence as an argument of the insufficiency of their motives of Division I alledged that all other Catholike countries had the same exceptions yet neither broke formerly nor follow your Example Hee answers first Few or none have sustain'd so great oppression which signifies I know not well whether any have or no or for any thing I know some have Nor does hee prove the contrary otherwise than by a pleasant saying of a certain Pope Any thing will serve him Next hee tells us all other countries have not right to the Cyprian priviledges as Brittain hath And how proves hee that this country had any by that Council Is England named in the Council of Ephesus which exempted Cyprus from the Patriarch of Antioch No. Is Brittain at least No. How come wee then to bee particularly priviledg'd by that Council Why the Bp. of Derry thinks so His Grounds Because that Council ordains that no Bp. should occupy a Province which was not from the beginning under his Predecessours And how proves hee the application that England was never anciently under the Pope as Head of the Church from Sr Henry Spelman's old-new manuscript and two or three raggs of History or misunderstood Testimonies Are they demonstrative or rigorous Evidences Here my Ld is wisely silent Will less serve than such proofs to iustify such a separation Hee is silent again Were they a thousand times as many are they of a weight comparable to a world of witnesses proceeding upon the Grounds of immediate dâ—livery from hand to hand which recommended and ascertain'd the contrary Alas hee never thinks of nor considers that at all but very wisely puts his light grains in one end of the scales negl â—cting to put our pounds in the other and then brags that his thin grains are overweight The third particularizing motive is his own unprou'd saying and is concluded with a boast that hee is not the onely schismatick in the world but hath Brothers Is this the way to argue against us To call all those Christians which profess the name of Christ and communicate with himself in the same guilt and then say hee hath fellows in his schism Hee knows wee grant them not to bee truly-call'd Christians but in the name onely and equivocally as a painted man is styld ' a man If hee will show that any Congregation of truly-call'd Christians partakes with him in the separation from Rome let him show that these pretended Christians for those points in which they differ from us did not renounce the onely certain Rule of faith Tradition or delivery of immediate forefathers or that there is any certain and infallible Rule but that Otherwise they are cut of from the Rule and Root of faith and by consequence not in a true appellation to bee call'd faithfull or Christians otherwise they heard not the immediately foregoing Church for those points which they innovated and so are to us no properly call'd Christians but according to our saviours counsell as Heathens and publicans I mean those who knowingly wilfully separated Talking voluntarily my Ld according to the dictates of your own fancy will not serve in a rigorous Controversy First show that those you call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of faith and so any faith and that they have not onely a probable and fallible GrouÌ„d that is opinion onely for their faith and then you shall contradict your own best and more candid writers who confess it in terms and do such a miracle as your Ancestours never attain'd to nor any of wit and ingenuity attempted seeing it impossible to bee done rationally I alledged in the next place to show more their inexcusablenes and the infussiciency of their pretended motives for breaking the example of our own country and forefathers who had the same cause to cast the Pope's Supremacy of the Land yet rather proferr'd to continue in the peace of the Church than to attâ—mpt so destructive an innovation The Bp. replies first that wee should not mistake them aâ—d that they still desire to live in the Communion of the Catholike Church c. No my Ld I doe not mistake you but know very well you would bee willing and glad too the former Church should own you for hers I doubt not but you are apprehensive enough of what honour would accrue to you if wee would account you true Catholikes and what disgrace you get by being accounted Hereticks and Schismaticks by us But yet your desire of staying in the Church is conditionall that you may bee permitted to remain
in her Communion and yet have liberty still to do and hold what you list Do you not think every Rebell that renounces both the former Government and laws loves not still to bee held a good Commonwealths man and not to bee outlaw'd or punish't but permitted to enjoy the priviledge of the Commonwealth whose Vnity hee hath broken so hee may have his own intentions Had Iack Straw or Wat Tiler after they had rebell'd a mind to bee thought Rebells or to bee hang'd or upon the Governours declaring them Outlaws and punishable was it a competent plea for them to say they desir'd to remain in the peaceable Communion of the Commonwealth as far as the Court would give them leave Your fact my Ld of breaking the Vnity of the former Church is much more evident than theirs being visible to the eyes of the whole world and infinitely more hainous since it concerns the order to Eternity After this fact so visible so enormous 't is no charity nor courtesy in you but a request of an unreasonable favour from us to admit you into Communion and would bee most absurd in Government most contradictory in terms signifying thus much that they should bee still held by us for good subjects who profess and defend still their Rebellion against the former Church Government and for the right faithfull who have no Rule of faith at all nay pretend themselves to no more than an opinion-grounding or probability Secondly hee tells us our Ancestours did not stupidly sit still and blow their noses when they saw themselves thus abused I answer whether they blew their noses or no it matters not but did they renounce the Pope's Authority as Head of the Church This is the thing I deny'd of them and charge upon the Bp. what saies hee to this Hee denies it too after hee had shuffled about a while for hee must have the liberty to take his swing that is hee saies the same I do and grants what hee pretend's to confute For after hee had reckon'd up what things our Ancestours had done against the Pope hee adds as the top of the Climax that they threatned him further to make a wall of separation between him and them Which shows that this is the most they did For if they but threatned they did it not But 't is evident that you have done what they onely threatned to do and in excuse of your doing it you adde immediately that you have more Experience than your Ancestours had Thus the Bp. something candidly at present Yet wee have seen him heretofore in contradiction to himself here both affirm and maintain that K. H. the 8th when hee renounc't the Pope made no new law but onely declar'd the ancient law of England which signifies that the wall of separation was not onely threaten'd but made formerly for the former laws were actually in force before K. H's time nay in the very beginning of his Raign as himself confesses p. 2s l. 7. 8. And wee shall see him hereafter bring an whole Chapter to make good the same impudent assertion which would put out the eyes and blot out the acknowledg'd notions of the whole world An excellently bad cause needs an excellently good memory Now then since you have at unawares acknowledg'd so much truth as that they who had the same causes of separation which you have yet did not separate as you do let us reflect a little upon the reason you give of this difference 'T is this that you have more experience than your Ancestours but whence this greater experience springs or out of what Experiments which they had not you gather'd this experience you have not one word Are you wiser than they were in the Art of Governing as to this point Sure your self do not beleeve it nor can say it with modesty since by professing you made no new law in this matter that is retain'd the old which you receiu'd from them you confess you know not how to make better Were they cowards and durst not make those prouisions they saw necessary for the common good Neither They actually did say you exclude the Pope's Supremacy out of England as far as they judged it necessary for the tranquillity of the Kingdome Well then if they did as much as they judged necessary and knew as well what was necessary as you why did you do more Because forsooth you had more experience But does this experience furnish you with a reason sufficient to iustify your separation If it do produce it if not why do you alledge this more experience And indeed how come you to pretend to it For since experience of necessity supposes an Experiment whence 't is deriu'd either some new thing happen'd by which this great necessity of separation which your Ancestors were ignorant of came to bee discover'd to you or else you had no more experience than they Therefore good my Ld tell us what this new ExperimeÌ„t was But it seems you thought it either not handsom to bee owned or not worth the owning that assigne us none at all telling us onely in generall terms you have more experience than your Ancestors had c. that is in stead of producing some cause of separating which might vindicate your Church from Schism to assigne an effect without a cause and defend it with the same plea as a man would do his Rebellion who rising against his actuall Governours and upon that score standing accused of Treason should go about to maintain it was therefore lawfull for him to Rebell because hee was wiser than the former subâ—ects and then tell that troublesome Adversary who should press him to prove this greater Wisedome that hee has more experience and that hee is so However since you are resolu'd to make a secret of this rare Experiment and that by consequence wee are not to expect from you any Grounds of your greater experience let us see at least what it is you pretend to have more enperience of 'T is this that their Ancestors remedies were not soueraign or sufficient enough c. Now these remedies of theirs being their rationall laws as hee intimates presently after do but observe how like a reeling Dutchman making indentures with his legs the Bp's discourse staggers now to the one now to the other far distant side of the contradiction Hee tells us here that the remedies that is laws of our Ancestours were not sufficient enough yet maintains stoutly before that in the separation no new law was made that is that the same laws or remedies were formerly as then but were not formerly sufficient that is that the same thing is not as sufficient as it is And this signifies for the Bp. to have more experience than his Ancestors Again it being alledged here that the former laws were insufficient and acknowledg'd the page before that all other Catholike countries do maintain their priviledges inviolate by means of their laws as I conceive and hee intimates which laws
an Article of faith So that he would not have held it of faith against the Manichees that there are not two God's because the proposition is negative nor that the Divells shall not be saved nor the Saints in Heaven damn'd nor that there is no Salvation but through Iesus-Christ all these by the Bishop's Logick must cease to be Articles of faith and become indifferent and unconcerning opinions because they are all negatives After this he talks ramblingly again as his custome is of Theologicall opinions indifferent opinions c. and then on his own kinde word assures us that these points are such and so wipes his hands of them His last proof of their Moderation is their preparation of minde to beleeve practice what ever the Catholike Church even of this present age doth universally beleeve practice Proofs should be visible known and he brings us here for a proof a thing hid in the dark hole of their own breasts nor ever likely to come to light but by their own sayings onely all other Symptoms standing in opposition to it But the greatest foolery is that as I told him they first say there is no universall Church or if any indeterminate so that no body can tell which it is and then make a hollow-hearted profession of a readines to beleeve it and conclude themselves moderate Reformers My Ld replies that then they have renounced their creed the badge of their Christianitie I answer we doubt not but they have and that as they hold onely the word Church and not the thing so they hold onely the word the creed and not the sence of it both in that and what other Articles their fancie pleases Is it not then wisely argued to think to confute us by bringing us to this absurditie as he imagins that then they have renounced their creed whereas 't is our known tenet which we hold as undoubtedly as we do that they are out of the Church The next absurditie he brings me to upon this account is that then they have renounc't their reason also As little can we doubt of this as of the former having seen lately how you deny'd the first Principles and common sense almost in every particular of this discourse and even this present maner of arguing testifies how little reason your bad cause will allow you the use of But how proves he that then they must have lost their reason Thus for if there be many particular Churches wherefore not one universall Church whereof Christ is the Head and King Very good my Ld but if you give us no certain Rule to know what congregations are to be truly accounted Churches and which not such but hereticall and show us no some common ty of ordinary Government in the Church how will you make up of them one universall Church which may bee known for such This is the thing we object as you well know that you give us no such Rule to know a true Church by This is the reason why we affirm you deny an universall Church because you deny all Grounds which can establish such a Church As for what I alledged that if they say there is a Catholike Church 't is indetermin'd that is none knows which it is He answers first that then 't is all one as if it were not Very true for if there be no determinate one there is none at least to us Next that this is a calumny to say they know not determinately which this Church is Let us examine whether it be or no. Two things are requisite to the notion of an universall or Catholike Church One that the particular companies which compound it be indeed true Churches that is consisting of true beleevers and not hereticall Congregations without certain knowledge of which none can possibly know which is the universall Church made up of them The other that these particular Congregations of true beleevers cling together by mean's of order into one entire company to be called when thus united one universall Church For the first I appeal to any candid learned Protestant whether he ever in his life knew any of their Authors who gives us a positive Catalogue of which particular Congregations are to he held for true Churches and a part of the universall which no but to be excluded from it as hereticall or whether himself can stand to it positively upon Grounds given agreed upon by them that such such a Congregation is without the verge of the universall Church such with in it My self have lived in circumstances to be aswell acquainted with their doctrine as most men are and I profess sincerely were my life at stake onely redeemable by the resolving this question I could not determin absolutely upon any Grounds constantly acknowledg'd by them whether Presbyterians Anabaptists or Quakers are to be excluded from the universall Church or no. And if we cannot determin of sects so neer at hand though prest to it by our conversation carriage to declare express our selves distinctively much lesse can we expect it in order to the Armenians Ethiopians Iacobites with whose customes and tenets we are so litle acquainted But alas how vain is it to expect from Protestants such a distinctivenes of true beleevers from false who have no Grounds to make such a distinction For what Principles have they to character a true beleever Is it to acknowledge the letter of the Scripture sufficient All Hereticks in the world almost own this Arians Socinians who deny Christ's divinity most of all Is it the true sence of it how shall they agree in this without some certain mean's or Rule to interpret it make them agree Must the common doctrine of the universall Church interpret it This is the very thing we are in quest of and till wee know what particular Congregations are to bee held true Churches know not yet which it is Must consent of fathers They have no Authority but from the Church in which they lived and as declarers of her doctrine unles therefore we have some Rule to conclude antecedently that the Church whose doctrine they taught was the true Church we are still ignorant whether they be true fathers and to be beleeved or no. Is it the private Spirit The most frantick Enthusiasts then have an equall pretence Is it private reason In steps the Socinian and indeed all heresies in the world for every one hath a private reason of his own and can use it to his power in interpreting Scripture But my L d of Derry seems to drive another way affirming here p. 43. that he knows no other necessary Articles of faith but the Apostles creed though other Protestant Authors affirm more This then according to him must be the fundamentall Rule of faith and the Touch stone to try who are true beleevers who not The Puritans therefore who deny'd one of those Articles to wit Ghrists descent into Hell must be excluded quite from the universall
which such things were done In Answer the Bishop pretends first that hee will take my frame in peeces whereas hee not so much as handles it or looks upon it formine concern'd a Visible ty of Church Vnity his discourse reckons up out of S. Paul seven particulars all which except onely the common Sacrament of Baptism are invisible latent some of them no wayes proper to a Church The first is one Body Well leap't again my L d you are to prove first we are one Body if the Vnity of Government conseru'd by all those who acknowledge the Popes Head ship be taken away by you but you suppose this and then ask what can be more prodigious then for the members of the same Body to war with one another wee were inded once one Body and as long as the meÌ„bers remain'd worthy of that Body there was no warr between them But as when some member becomes corrupted the rest of the members if they do wisely take order to cut it of lest it infect the rest so 't was no prodigy but reason that the members of the former Church should excommunicate or cut you of when you would needs be infected and obstinacy had made you incurable nay when you would needs be no longer of that Body The former Body was One by having a visible Head common nerves Ligatures of Government Discipline united in that Head the lifeâ—giving Blood of faith essentiall to the faithfull as faithâ—full derived to those members by the common Channells or veins of immediate Tradition You separated from that Head you broke aâ—sunder those nerves of Government you stop'tâ—up and interrupted those Channells or veins the onely passage for divine beleef that is certainty grounded faith your task then is to show us by visible tokens that is by common exterior ties that you are one Body with us still not to suppose it and talk a line or two sleightly upon that groundles supposition Secondly one Spirit that is the Holy Ghost which hee rightly styles the common soul of the Church But his Lp must prove first that they are of the Body of the Church ere they can claim to be informed by the Soul of it It is not enough to talk of the Spirit which is latent invisible Quaker or Adamite can pretend that at pleasure but you must show us visible Marks that you are of that Body and so capable to have the same Spirit or Soul otherwise how will you convince to the world that you have right to that Spirit Thirdly one hope of our calling This token is both invisible again and besides makes all to be of one Church Iews all if they but say tthey hope to go to Heaven who will stick to say that Fourthly one Lord in order to which hee tells us wee must be friends because wee serve the same Lord Dark again How shall wee know they serve the same Lord Because they cry Lord Lord or because they call him Lord Their visible acts must decide that If then wee see with our eyes that they have broke in peeces his Church renounced the only-certain Grounds of his law they must eithers how us better Symptoms of their service and restore both to their former integrity by reacknowledging them else wee can not account them fellow servants to this Lord but Rebells enemies against this Lord his Church Fifthly one faith But how they should have one faith with us who differ from us in the onely certain that is in the onely Rule of faith as also in the sence that is in the thing or tenet of some Articles in the creed or indeed how they can have faith at all but opinion onely whose best Authors writers confess they have no more than probability to Ground their faith hee knows not so sayes nothing and therefore is not to be beleeu'd for barely saying wee have one faith Sixthly one Baptism As if Hereticks who are out of the Church could not all be baptised But hee tells us that by Baptism wee fight vnder the same Standard That wee should do so because of Baptism I grant indeed But as hee who wears the colours of his Generall yet deserts his Army fights against it will find his colours or Badgeso far from excusing him that they render him more liable to the rigour of Martiall law treatable as a greater enemy so the badge of Christianity received in Baptism is so far from being a plea for them who are out of the Church or for making them esteemed one of Christ's and hers if they run away from her take party against her that it much more hainously enhances their accusation and condemns you whom the undeniable matter of fact joyn'd with your acknowledgment of ours for a true Church manifests most evidently to have done both Lastly one God who is father of all c. By which if it be mean't that God is a father by Creation or ordinary Providence them Iews Pagans Atheists are of God's Church too if in the sence as God is fathers of Christians you must first prove that you have his Church on earth for your Mother ere you can claim God in Heaven for your father But to shew how weak a writer this Bp. is let the Reader peruse here my p. 324. 326. and hee shall see our charges is that without this Government they have no common ty under that notion to vnite them into one Christian common wealth and therefore that having rejected that Government unles they can show us what other visible ty they have substituted to that they cannot be shown to be Christians or of Christ's flock but separates Aliens from it Wee deny them to be truly-nam'd Christians for want of such a visible ty now the Bishop instead of showing us this supposes all hee was to prove towit that they are of Christ's Church and reckons up some invisible motives proposed by S. Paul to Christians already acknowledg'd for such to vnite them not into one Church for that was presupposed but into one harmony of affections There is no doubt then but all the seven points alledged are strong motives to vnite Christians in Wills but it is as undoubted on the other side that none of them onely pretended and being invisible they can be but pretended is a sufficient Mark to know who is a true Christian who not nor was this S. Paul's intent as appears by the quality of the persons hee writes to who were all Christians Now Christians being such because of their faith it followes that the Vnity in faith is the property to Christians as such and consequently in Government which by reason of it's concernment ought in all reason to bee a point of faith not in charity onely for this extends it self to Infidells all the world Since then the Bp. goes not about to show visibly their Ground for vnity of faith that is a
L d who looks into the sounds of words not the meaning of them enflames the expressions improves them to flanting proud sence Hee tells us that Rome may bee destroyed with an Earthquake I answer it must be an unheard of Earthquake which can swallow up the whole Diocese for if the City onely run that hazard the Clergy of the Roman Diocese yet remain who can elect to themselves a new Bishop And no harm will succed to our cause Next hee sayes it may become hereticall or Mahumetan True so may the whole Church if it had pleased God so to order causes But that it pleases him not wee have this strong presumption that the good of his Church so much concern'd in the perpetuity of this succession as hath been shown will crave his perpetuall assistance to that see Wee have also for pledge of this perpetuity the experience of his gratious conservation of it for sixteen hundred years the establishment of it at present not giving us the least Ground to think it's ruine likely If his Lp do and that this trouble him at least let him yeeld his obedience till that happens and then preach liberty from Rome's Iurisdiction to those that shall live in that age What hee addes concerning the Churches disposing of her offices is meer folly Himself granted in the foregoing page that Christ himself not the Church instituted this Principality let him them show first that the Church hath Authority to change Christ's Institutes ere he thus frankly presume it left to the Churches disposall Next hee tells us that betweene Tyranny Anarchy there is Aristocracy which was the ancient regiment of the Christian Church Wee blame them not for renouncing any one sort of Government but all Government in the Church and alledge that there is no Kinde of Government which actually vnite God's Church in one but this of the Pope's Headship An Aristocracy signifies a Government by some cheif persons who sitt either constantly or else often easily meet that the difficulties occurring in the ordinary Government of the CoÌ„monwealth may bee settled by them Was this the ordinary Government of the Primitive Church Had they any generall Council which the Bishop means by Aristocracy as appears by his p. 56. l. vlt. till Constantine's time Nay have wee had any this six handred years or indeed eight hundred last past which they will acknowledge to bee such or shall wee have any for the future they tell us not till towards the end of the world and that even then 't is but probable neither See D r H. Reply p. 30. His position then comes to this that Aristocracy in a generall Councill being the Ecclesiasticall Hâ—ad p. 56. l. vlt. or the Government which vnites God's Church the said Church had no Head nor Government at all till Constantine's time none betweene Council Council afterwards none at all again this six or seven hundred years past and lastly perhaps shall have none at all for the future Farewell Church Government and many thanks to my good L d of Derry D r. H d. But I most wonder that a man of his Principles could finde no middle sort of Government between Tyranny Anarchy but Aristocracy Is Monarchy with him none at all or none of the best which even now hee told us was of divine Institution You good people who depend so zealously of this new Prelacy observe how your Dooctrs have either a very short memory to inform you right or a very strong will to cheat you into the wrong Heed adds that a Primacy of order is more sufficient in this case to prevent dangers and procure advantages to the Church than a Supremacy of power Which signifies thus much directly in other terms that hee who hath no power to act at all in order to the universall Church or as a first hath power to procure her more good prevent more harms towards her that is hath power to act better for that Church than hee who has power to act hath And thus my friend here feasts his Readers with contradictions his whole discourse being such in it's self wants onely to bee put into something more immediate terms of the same signification After I had put down the necessity yet moderatenes of the Pope's Authority as held of faith by us I added that this was the bridle our Saviour put in the mouth of his Church to wield it sweetly which way hee pleased My Bp. replies that I make the Church to bee the Beast and the Pope's office to ride upon the Church No my Lord I styl'd the Pope's office the Bridle do bridles use to ride upon horses or did your Lp ever meet a bridle on horsback I see the Bishop is a better Bowler then hee is an Hors-man Next hee tells us that our Saviour put his bridle not into the mouth but hand of his Church Good my L d inform us for you chop your Logick so snall are grown so mysteriously acute that without a revelation none can understand you when the Church holds the bridle in her hand as you say whom does she govern by that bridle Do the whole multitude of beleevers hold the bridle govern themselves Then there are no Governors at all oâ—at least none distinct from the governed which is all one Or do some Governors onely hold the bridle weild by it the multitude of beleevers then returns his Lp's cavill buffets himself that then the Church is the Beast as hee irreverently wantons it and those Governors ride upon the Beast and the bridle gets into the Mouth of the Church again for as Governors are said to hold the reins or bridle so if wee will prosecute the metaphor into an Allegory the Governed must be said to have it in their Mouths that is to be ruled guided by it So unfortunate is his Lp that hee can neither approve himself a good Controvertist nor a tolerable guibbler but while hee pretends to be solid in the former he still runs into contradictions when witty in the latter hee rambles into absurdities and in either performance his own both Arguments Quips light upon his own head I represented the advantages coÌ„veniences this Headship brought to the world when duly observed by good Pope's Hee replies that I write dreaming as Plato did and look upon men not as they are but as they ought to bee This mistake is of the same strain onely something more voluntary I look not my Lord upon men at all in this place but speak of the Office it self how admirabily convenient it is if rightly performed What men do or how they execute it whether well or ill concerns not a Controvertist noâ— mee the point or tenet concerns mee The personall managing this office is not of faith and belongs not to mee but to Historians Lawyers to talk of the Office it self is of faith fals under the sphere of Controversy
to him yet seem to strike at the latter as hee ought hee joyns both however in consistent into one and being to wrangle against the Pope's Headship proposes it first under this Chimericall notion The Papacy Quà talis or as such as it is maintained by many And this hee calls laying the Axe to the root of Shism though it bee as directly leuell'd a stroak at his own legs and inflicting as deep a wound on the supports of his cause as a contradiction can give to pretended sence For since all Papists as such hold a Papacy or the Pope's Headship of Iurisdiction over the whole Church and differ in this point from Protestants it is evident that the Papacy of such is that which is held by all for none can be Papists longer then they hold it Now then to say the Papacy as such as it is now held by many is the same as to say the Papacy as held by all as held by many onely which is in other language to legitimate an Hircoceruus and to clap together non ens and ens into the same notion But how does hee clear himself of this shuffling nonsence why first hee asks do not some Roman Catholikes subject the Pope to a generall Council and others nay the greater part of them c subject a generall Council to the Pope What is this to the Question whether these words the Papacy as such as it is now maintain'd by many cohere in sence or no Secondly hee asks whether hee might not then well say the Papacy quà talis c. No my L d for it being evident that all Roman Catholikes hold the Papacy in some sence if you call it the Papacy as such as it is held by many pray how will you stile it as held by all as not such or the Papacy with super additions or can all hold what some do not hold Thirdly hee saies his conclusion was not against the Church of Rome in generall but against the Pope Court of Rome that they were guilty of the Schism For what for maintaining the substance of the Pope's Authority held by all then you accuse the Church of Rome in generall of Schism for the Church in generall holds what all in her hold Or was it for this opinion of the Pope above the Council and others of this strain How were they guilty of Schism for this unles they had deny'd you Communion for holding the contrary or prest upon you an unconscientious approbation of it which you know they did not Fool not your Readers my L d 't was not for this tenet which you impute to the Court of Rome but for that of the Pope's Headship or Spirituall Iurisdiction over all God's Church held by all Catholikes and by that whole Church equally then as it is now for which you are excommunicated and so ought either to submit to that whole Church again in that point as formerly or else if you would deal candidly impugn that whole Church and not the Court onely thus opposite to you in that mainly-concerning point Fourthly as hee saies although aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus that is sometimes honest Homer takes a nodd and though hee had stol'n a napp it had been neither felony nor treason yet to let us see hee did not sleep he will put his argument into form without a quâ talis which is to affect a sleepines still or as our English Proverb saies to sleep fox sleep Hee is accus'd of a contradiction non-sence and to clear himself hee tells us hee will now lay aside one part of the contradiction and endeavour to make good sence of the other Now his first argument is that the Court of Rome is guilty of Schism for preferring the Pope before a generall Council to which I have already answer'd His second is that ours are thus guilty for making all Apostolicall succession Episcopall Iurisdiction come from Rome onely By which if hee means our Church as a Church holds it as hee ought if hee speak like a Controvertist 't is a most gross false imputation as I told him If of the Court of Rome onely then since they neither prest it as of faith nor deny'd you Communion for these points but for another held by all as I lately show'd they cannot hence be concluded guilty nor you guiltles of Schism This argument past over hee confesses this tenet is not generall amongst us I add but points of faith are generally held therefore this tenet is but an opinion and being not generall as hee grants it follows that it is onely a particular or private opinion as I call'd it his own words evince it Yet hee is loath these should be call'd private opinions because they are most common most current Whereas unles they come down recommended by our Rule of faith immediate Tradition or the voice of the Church so become perfectly common generall universall undoubtedly current our Church looks upon them onely as deductions of private men's reasons nor shall I own them for other That the former is a common tenet hee brings Cardinal Bellarmine to say that it is almost de fide or a point of faith which the good Bp. sees not that it signifies it was almost reveald or that the revelation fell an inch or two short of reaching our knowledge or that God has not indeed reveald it but yet that t was twenty to one but hee had done it Next that the Council of Florence seem'd to have defin'd it now the word seems signifies I know not that ever it defin'd it at all or if it defin'd it so 't is more than I know Thirdly that the Council of Lateran I suppose hee means not the generall Council there held defin'd it most expresly Yet the Bp here descanting upon the words of that Council sayes onely that they seem to import no less that is it may bee they mean no such thing or it may bee they mean much less For the latter opinion as hee candidly here calls it hee tells us Bellarmine declares it to bee most true that hee cites great Authors for it saith that it seemeth again to have been the opinion of the old Schoolmen speaking highly at least seemingly of the Pope's Authority So that all is seeming all opinion and uncertainty Now the use the Bp. makes of this gear is this The Court of Rome many with it held an over weening opinion of their own Authority though they permitted us whole Churches to hold the contrary therefore wee very innocently broke God's Church or therefore wee quite renounc't the Principles of Vnity in both faith Government as the fact witnesses you did because they held an erroneous op nion too much extending the latter In a word let Bellarmine the Bp. wrangle about the opinionative point I shall not think my self concern'd as a Controvertist to interrupt their dispute or â—oyn mine interest with either party however did I
fact and acknowledged by Protestants viz that the Church of Englands Principle was actually such and such at that time into the point and tenet it self which is question'd and controverted bâ—tween us His words are these p. 6. Thirdly hâ—e addeth that the Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Iâ—e er inherited his priviledges whereas hee ought to have repâ—esented my words thus that the Principle agreed on by the Church of England and the Church of Rome before the breach was such and thâ—n have told us what hee thought of it by â—â—her expressing a deniall or â— grant But positivenes even in things manifest and acknowledg'd is a thing thâ— Bishop hates wiâ—h all his heart for were I or noe said to any point the discourse might proceed rigoâ—ously upon it which would marr all the Bp voluntary talk It follows in my words put down by him p. 6. that the Bishops of Rome actually exercised this power viz of first mover in the Church S. Peter's priviledge in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began Mee thanks it is not possible to avoid being absolute here But nothing is impossible to the Bp. hee either will not speak out at all or if hee does it must bee of no lower a strain than flat contradiction Hee tells us first that it cometh much short of the truth in one respect and why for the Pope's saith hee exercised much more power in those countries which gave them leave than ever S. Peter pretended to So that according to the Bp. hee did not exercise S. Peter's lesser power because hee exercised a power far greater that is hee did not exercise S. Peter's power because hee exercised S. Peter's power and much more which is as much as to say Totum est minus parte and more does not contain lesse A hopefull disputant who chuses rather to run upon such rocks then to grant that the Pope actually govern'd as supreme in those countries which were actually under him A point which it is shamefull to deny dangerous positively to confess and therefore necessary to bee thus blunder'd Secondly hee tells us that it is much more short of that universall Monarchy which the Pope did then and doth still claim And why for saith hee as I have already said observe the strength of his discourse his saying is proving two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion meaning the Greeks Armenians c. Are moderate expressions of shamelesnes sufficient to character this man who in every line manifests himself in the highest degree deserving them Our position as put down even by himself was this that the Pope's did actually then exercise this power in those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome and the Bps answer comes to this that hee did not exercise it in those countries which kept not Communion with the Church of Rome But to give the Reader a satisfactory answer even to the Bps impertinences I shall let him see that the Pope exercis'd his power at that time even over those countries as much as it can bee expected any Governour can or should do over revolters whom hee cannot otherwise reduce As then a Governour exercises his power over obedient subjets by cherising them and ordering them and their affairs soe as may best conduce to their common good but cannot exercise it over contumacious and too potent Rebells any other way than by proclaiming them Outlaws and incapable of priviledges or protection from the laws of the Commonwealth so neither could it bee imagiâ—'d or expected by any rationall man that the Pope in those circumstances though hee were supposed and granted by both sides lawâ—ull Governour could exercise power over them in any other way hâ—n onely in iâ—flicting on them Ecclesiasticall punishments or censures and excommunicating or outlawing them from that Commonwealth which remain'd obed enâ— to him as he Bp. complainingly grant hee did Having thus shustled in every tittle of the staâ—e of the question hee accuses his Refuter that hee comes not neer the true question at all Can there bee a more candid stating a question and free from all equivocation than to begâ—n with a known matter of fact and acknowleâ—geâ— by boâ—h sides and thence to conclude those acters 〈◊〉 is breakers Schismaticks unles they can bring â—â—fficâ—ent reasons to warrant such a breach But let uâ— examiâ— a litâ—lâ— the ground of his Exception The true question saith hee is not whether the Bishop of Râ—me had any Authority in the Catholiâ—e Church Good Reader ask the Bp. whether his Refuter or any Catholike or even moderate Protestant ever mouâ—d such a question and whâ—ther it bee not frivolousnes and insincerity in the abstract to impose on us such as stating of the question whenas every child sees it is not barely his havâ—ng any Authority but his having a supreme Authority which is question'd and debaâ—ed between us and the Protestant It follows in him immediately The Pope had Authority in his Diocese as a Bishop in his Province as a Metropolitane in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs and all over as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church or S. Peter Where all the former words are totally besides the purpose nor ever made the question by us as the Bp. calumniates But the last words which grant the Pope had Authority all over as successour of S. Peter deserve consideration and thanks too if meant really for these words grant him an Authority more than Patriarchall nor a â—â—y primacy onely but an Authoriâ—y all over that is a power to act as the highest in Gods Church and in any part of the Church that is an universall Iurisdiction all over or over all the Church at least in some cases Now in this consists the sustance of the Papall Authority and had they of England retain'd still practically a subjection to this Authority as thus character'd they had not been excommunicated upon this score onely But the misery is that this our back-friend after hee hath given us alâ— this fair promising language that the Pope's Authority is higher than Patriarchall as the Climax in his discourse signifies that it is all over or universall and lastly that hee hath this universall Authority as hee is successour of S. Peter after all this I say if hee been prest home to declare himself as before hee granted S. Peter the first mover in Church and then told us that in a right sence it meant but a Primacy of order so hee will tell us the same of these flattering expressions and thâ—t the words Authority doth not in a right sence signify a power to act as a Governour though all the world else understand it so but onely a right to sit talk or walk first Et sic vera rerum nomina amisimus Thus my Refuter hath shown that I stated the question wrong now let us
and the exercisers of them punish't as Traitors meerly upon this Score because they performed such acts That this was the case is evidenced most manifestly out of the laws themselves every where extant which make it treason and death to hear a Confession or to offer up the unbloody Sacrifice of our Saviours Body c. and out of their own remitting this strange treason at the very last gasp nay rewarding the persons osten if they would renounce their tenets accompany them to their Churches These are our manifest and undeniable proofs what arguments does hee hring to blinde the Evidences nothing but obscure conceits to be look't for in mens breasts pretended fears ielousies that all who exercised such acts of Religion were Traitors meant to kill and slay the Governors or at most some particular attemps of private persons either true or counterfeited if some were true it was no wonder that such hert burnings passions should happen where people were violently forced to renounce the faith they had so zealously embraced were bred brought up in and per adventure no Protestant party living under Catholikes but have had the same or greater examples of the like attempts Yet I excuse not those who attempted any thing against Government nor accuse the Governors for treating them as they deserved onely that the faults of some should be so unreasonably reflected upon all nay upon Religion it self as to make the formality of guilt consist in the performing such acts of Religion was most senceles malicious nay self condemning since their own Profession admits the hearning a Confession to be a lawfull act of Religion and you would yet willingly hear them if the people were not wiser then to go to such sleightly authoriz'd Ghostly fathers Nor do I apprehend that you would think your selves very well dealt with if the present Government because of some â—isings of some of your party against them which they know to have been back't promoted fomented by some of your Lay Clergy should there upon presently make laws to hang as Traitors every one of the said Clergy whom they found either hearning a Confession or speaking of the Church Government by Bishops a point as much condemn'd by the present Government as any of our tenets was by Queen Elizabeth If then you would think this very hard dealing acknowledge others comparatively moderate and your selves to have been most unreasonably cruell In his p. 48. if hee mean as hee sayes hee clears our Religion from destroying subjection to Princes I subsume But the Supremacy of the Pope is to us a point of faith that is a point of Religion therefore the holding the said Supremacy is according to him if hee means honestly that is as hee speaks no wayes injurious to Princes If any extent of this power pretended to bee beyond it's just limits hath been introduced by Canon-Lawyers or others let him wrangle with them about it our Religion and Rule of faith owns no such things as is evident by the universality of Catholike Doctors declaring in particular cases against the Pope when it is necessary as the Lawyers in England did against the King without prejudice to their Allegiance which I hope characters those Doctors in his eye to bee good sujects to their Governors Yet he is sorry to have done us this favour or to stand to his own words even when they signify onely Courtesy Hee alledges therefore that these instances cited by him of Catholikes disobeying the Pope in behalf of Kings were before these poysonous opinions were hatched and so they do not prove that all Roman Catholikes at this time are loyall subjets Yet himself in his vindication p. 194. so naturall is self contradiction to him told us of as violent acts done against the Pope in Cardinall Richlieu's dayes in Portugall very lately and in a maner the other day in which also the Portugeses were abetted by a Synod of French Bishops in the year one thousand six hundred fiâ—ty one who were positive very round with the Pope in their behalf These were some of his instances in this very seventh Chapter which now a badd memory and self contradiction is ever a certain curse to falshood hee tells us were before our seditions opinions were hatched Now what seditious opinions have been hatched or can bee pretended to have been hatched within this five years I dare say hee is ignorant And lest you should think I wrong him you shall hear him contradict himself yet once-more so fully does hee satisfy his Reader on all sides affirm here p. 49. that hee hopes that those seditioâ—s doctrines at this day are almost buried So that spell the Bishop's words together and they sound thus much that those pretended seditious doctrines had their birth buriall both at once and were entomb'd in their shell that is were never hatch't at all So cruelly if you but confront the two faces of the same Ianus does hee fall together by the ears with himself baffle break his self divided head with one splay leg trip up the other After this hee presents the Reader with a plat from of the Church fancied by mee as hee sayes for which greevous fault he reprehends mee ironically telling mee that 't is pitty I had not been one of Christ's Councellors when hee form'd his Church that I am sawcy with Christ what not Now I never apprehended Christ had any Councellors at all when he first form'd his Church till the Bishop told mee hee had wish't I had been one of them or fancied any thing at all unles hee will say that what Catholikes received from their forefathers and what with their eyes wee see left in the Church still is onely the work of my fancy which is non-sence for I onely took what was delivered as of faith by immediate Tradition to wit that S. Peter was constituted by Christ Prince of his Apostles and that the Pope was his Successor into that Office and then show'd the admirable conveniencies the moderation the necessity of that form of Government how innocent if taken in it's due limits as held out to us by the Rule of faith to temporall Government nay how beneficiall to the same how absolutely necessary for and perfectly concerning the Vnity in the Church how impossible the said Vnity is without it c. which if it bee Saucines hee may with the same reason accuse all divinity of Saucines which takes what faith hath delivered for example that Christ was Incarnate thence proceeds to show the conveniency necessity c. of the Incarnation But the poor Bp. who has busied all his life in not in quaint concieted stories odd ends of Testimonies never had leisure to reflect that this is the method which Science takes when it proceeds a posteriori first building upon what it finds to have been done by experience or other Grounds and thence proceeding to finde out the causes why or by