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
east and west north and south in all parts of the habitable word And was not this ever the constant practice of God's Church to Excommunicate all those who renounced either the Government or any other point of Faith received from their Forefathers that is all Schismaticks and Hereticks and never to readmit them till they repented their lapse and did fruits worthy of penance I grant therefore that the Romish Governours inherit the remorslesness of the foregoing Church so that if any be found misdeserving in the same manner in what part soever of the habitable world they live whether East West North or South all is one to her or how many soever they be Arians Socinians Eutychians Nestorians Carpocratians Lutherans Calvinists Protestants c. she values not their number nor yet their situation if they grow scabb'd with self opinionated novelties or disobedience they must be separated from the sounder flock nor ever be re-admitted till their repentance hath wrought their cure His fifth sixth seventh eighth Paragraphs which follow lay down for their foundation a very excellent principle introduc'â— with an If as If the Church of England p. 19. l. 22. be really 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Bishop of Rome p. 20. l. 1. had really no more power and Authority over this Church than the Bishop of Antioch over Cyprus that is none at all In case the Bishop of Rome p. 21. l. 16. have no legal Authority over us c. and upon this he runs on very confidently a whole leaf and an half concluding most evidently whatever he pleases in prejudice of the Pope none daring to stop his career or deny his consequences so great vertue there is in the particle If onely we may take leave to propose a parallel to it that as he who intends to dine on larks prepares all things necessary whithout any greater security than If the sâ—y should fall may in all likelyhood miss his meal so in greater probability must Dr. H. fail of his conclusion which relies upon a conditional If grounded onely in his own fancy He expresses p. 22. much Charity towards the humble members of the Papacy who pray for the peace of the Caetholick Church But if he would consider how litle they think of his Church under that notion he would con them litle thanks for their prayers They never intended to pray for the peacefull a biding of the Protestants where they are but rather for that salutiferous trouble of compunction and sorrow of heart for their disobedience and pervicacious obstinacy Yet he will needs be beholding to them for praying for the Protestant Churches peace with the rest and in courteous requital retains the favorable opinion of Salvation attainable amognst them But cannot absolve from the guilt of the most culpable Schism the setters up and maintainers of the partition-wall betwixt us The Pope Cardinals and all the Clergy must beaâ— S. W. company to Hell that 's decreed S. Paul hath doubt less long a goe pronounced sentence against them also He would clear himself in the next place for mincing the Father's words S. Austin affirmed non esse quicquam gravius Schismate he render'd it scarce any so great Now S. W. knowing how willing he was to seek evasions to palliate Schism by pretence of some greater sin as he does most amply of Schism cap. 2. part 8. and therefore not willing to grant him any the least startinhole exprest by the way his dislike of his mincing the absolute not with scarce But as Mr. H's good fortune would have it his Genius led him into this profitable mistake as to translate gravius so great and by the jumbling of these two together he hath compounded an excuse alledging that scarce any is so great is fully as much or more comprehensive than none greater Whereas first it is manifest that non esse quicquam gravius is most obviously and easily render'd there is nothing greater and if a qualifying expression be made use of in stead of an absolute one S W. had good reason to be jealous of it specially coming from Dr. H. Next the reasons he alledges to make good the equivalence of the sense that there may possibly be many crimes as great though no one were supposed greater is false Moral Science assuring us that no two kinds of vices are equall Thirdly if Dr. H. please to rub up afresh his forgotten Logick he will find that with S. Austin's proposition that none is greater it cannot stand that one is greater since they are contradictories but with his proposition that scarce any is so great it vell stands that one or some few may be greater Therefore it is manifest that he minced S. Austin Lastly whereas he sayes he assumed not to affirm more than his Authorities did induce that there was none greater is the strangest lapse of all before he onely minc'd the words non est quicquam gravius now they have totally lost their signification since he tells us his Authorities did not induce that there was none greater which is directly contrary to the words cited This is the result of Dr. H's deliberate thoughts apply'd to remedy his Disarmer's too great hast Me thinks another man in another cause might have done better ex tempore I took notice by the way with a glance of a parenthesis that he mitigated S. Irenaeus his words Nulla ab eis tanta fieri potest correptio quanta est schismatis pernicies by rendring the absolute tenour of them Nulla potest c. by the softer language of It is very hard if not impossible to receive such an injury from the Governours c. To clear himself he asks me first why I took no notice of his ill rendring Schismatis pernicies I answer that it is not necessary to score up all his faults it suffices to note what I conceived most needfull Next he excuses himself by telling us that he set down the Latin punctually and so left it not possible to impose on any that understood that I answer that my intent in noting it was that he should not even impose on those who understand English onely and make up the greater part of Readers Thirdly he sayes he was carefull not to goe beyond the limits of the testimonies I grant it and onely find fault that he was over-carefull so as to fall short of their just sense Fourthly he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Scripture and other Authours is render'd hard or difficult Which evasion is nothing unless he had this testimony out of Irenaeus in Greek as his words seem willing underhand to make the Reader believe which if he have I am sure he hath seen more than other men though very curious could ever hear of These are his evasions let us see what plain reason will say against them It is very hard if not impossible to receive such an iniury sufficient to excuse Schism evidently is consistent with this sense that
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
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
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—
own their reason and bring it home to it self rather than suffer it to wander in a pathlesse wildernesse of words and think it an endeavour more worthy a rationall soul to weave well compacted Treatises by evident connexion of terms than fruitlesly to stand picking thrums-ends out of overworn garments when they have done scarce know what colour they are of or how to knit them handsomely together without the motley of non-sence Thus much to give account of my obligation not to favour Mr. H. while he impugnes that Faith which I esteem most certain and most concerning Now for his person as it comes to me under any other notion than of a writer against God's Church I profess with all sincerity to honour and love it in the measure which reason requires As a member of the civil commonwealth I live in I bear him a civil respect I hear he is much a Gentleman and very courteous in return to which if it be my good fortune to meet him I shall be as ready to serve him in what may not concern my cause and do him as much civility as I would to most Gentlemen in England According to the degree of scholarship I find in him I shall candidly allow him a proportionable honour and shall not envy it him though mine Adversary even in his absence amongst mine own Friends I value-him for his skill in Greek a language I much love my self and think it a great ornament to a scholar if he know how to use it seasonably and not wantonly shew it upon all or rather no occasion in which Mr. H. hath very mvch diminish't himself giving his Readers a fair title to suspect him either of too much vanity in that or emptiness in other knowledges I applaud his unwearied industry half of which employed in a rationall way by some strong brain might be the happy Mother of many rare productions His looking into such variety of Authours deserves also it's commendation since testimonies have their degree of probation allowed them by their Governesse Reason that is according to the degree of knowledge or Authority subsequent to it found in the Testifier and the clearnesse from ambiguity found in the words alledged nay rather I should esteem him more for this than all the rest were this way of testimonies in it self much estimable since his chief and almost onely talent lies in this which furnishes him with sufficient store of such declamatory proofs and enables him to bring some kind of testimony against any thing that can be opposed as the nature of such sleight quotation-argumenrs uses to be for indeed what so absurd but a testimony may be produc't even from the best Authours seeminly favouring it as we experience daily in Scripture Lastly and more especially I acknowledge I am much his for the sakes of some Friends common to him and me which as no man with more veneration honours that sâ—cred relation of minds than my self doth in a manner mediately ally me to him and makes me desirous to flatter my self that the agreeing in a third should make us not disagree amongst our selves All these motives give him no mean place in my thoughts and esteem yet all these temporall considerations vanish and he straight becomes again indifferent to me when a quarrell about Eternity of mankind's blisse or misery is to be controverted betwen us and my deemed certainty of my Cause which concludes him by consequence certainly pernicious obliges me in Conscience to confute nay even disgrace him as far as he shall be found the promoter of a pestilent and soul-ruining Tenet Although I must confesse withall I am sorty that by is own fault he occasion'd this conscientious engagement in me for had there been no infection spread there had needed no Antidote What I have said here was to satisfy some whom I found much mistaken in the manner how Controversies ought to be treated by a Catholick not considering that Courtesy is a vertue onely in fit circumstances otherwise but an impertinent flattery or affectation and in a serious controversy about faith whose both Concernment and Certainty justify zeal and make it necessary as improper as for souldiers who are to try the field about their Kings and Countreys interests to hold their sword in one-hand and hat in the other complement and kisse their hands to one another instead of striking or by any unnaturall mixture of both make a gallant show of a mock fight preferring the care of court esy before the losse of their Cause For the satisfaction of these I have Apologiz'd thus far not in relation to Mr. H. The proper way to answer his weak proofs out of Scripture here were to gather by the help of an honest Concordance all the harsh words in the Scriptures spoken by our Saviour or his Saints and apply them voluntarily against him as he has done against me at which if he repine then to ask why my interpretation should not be as valid as his And with good-reason too should I daing him onely a reply in this method for why should not an answer of any thing serve to a quodlibeticall objection Sect. 3. How unfortunate and weak Dr. H. is in quoting S. Hierome against the Disarmer for writing plainly His crafty and discourteous Calumny AFter the testimonies from Scripture blindly levell'd at S. W. followes in the sixt Paragraph that it was a deviation from art to treat him thus unkindly to which I have answered above and that S. Hierome notes it as a great errour in Helvidius that he took railing for eloquence Wherefore since Mr. H. chuses S. Hierome for his Patron against S. W. in this point of the manner of writing controversy let us stand to his ward and example and see how he treated Vigilantius Dr. Hs. and the Protestants Forefather in the point of denying veneration to Holy Reliques and wether he stood upon courtesy when he made account he had a just occasion to shew his zeal In his Epistle to Riparius the first he writ against Vigilantius he hath these words O praecidendam lingâ—am c. O tongue worthy to be cut out by Physicians or rather oh frantick head to be cured by them c. Ego vidi hoc aliquando portentum I once saw this prodigious monster Tacita me forsan cogitatione repre hendas c. Perhaps thou mayest reprehend me in thy silent thought why I inveigh against one absent I confesto thee my passion I cannot hear so great sacriledge with patience For I have read of the lance of Phinees the austere rigour of Elias the zeal of Simon of Cananee the severity of Peter killing Ananias and Sapphira the constancy of Paul who condemned to eternall blindnesse Elymas the Sorcerer resisting the wayes of our Lord. Piety in Gods behalf is not cruelty Nor by consequence is zeale in behalf of Faith railing if that Faith be held to have certain grounds which onely can justify zeal and make it discreet But
to proceed His second Epistle against Vigilantius begins thus Multa in orbe monstra c Many monsters have been begotten in the world we read in Esaias of Centaurs and Sirens Screech-owls and Onocrotals Iob describes Leviathan and Behemoth in mysticall language the fables of the Poets tell of Cerberus and the Stymphals and the Erymanthian Boar of the Nemean Lion of Chimera ad many-headed Hydra Virgil describes Cacus Spain hath brought to light three-shap't Geryon France onely had no Monsters Suddenly there arose Vigilantius or more truly Dormitantius who with an unclean spirit fights against the spirit of Christ and denies that the sepulchres of the martyrs are to be venerated Insanum caput mad or frantick fellow Sanctas reliquias Andreae Lucae Timothei apud quas Daemones rugiunt inhabitatores Vigilantij illorum se sentire praesentiam confitentur The holy reliques of Andrew Luke and Timothy at which the Devils roare and the possessours of Vigilantius confesse that they feel their presence Tu vigilans dormis dormiens scribis Thou sleepest waking and writest sleeping De barathro pectoris tui coenosam spurcitiam evomens vomiting dirty filth from the hell of thy breast Lingua viperea Viperine tongue Spiritus isle immundus qui haec te cogit scrâ—bere saepe hoc vilissimo tortus est pulvere immo hodieque torquetur qui iu te plagas dissimulaâ— in aliis confitetur That unclean spirit which compells thee to write these things has oftentimes been tortured with this contemptible dust meaning the Holy Reliques which Vigilantius styled thus yea and is now adayes still tortur'd and he who in thee dissembles his wounds confesses them in others But let us come to the Treatise our Adversary cites and see how roughly S. Hierome handles Helvidius whom Dr. H. would have him accuse in the same treatise of the self-same fault Sedâ—ne te quasi lubricus anguis evolvas testimoniorum stringendus es vinculis ne querâ—lus sibiles but lest like a stippery snake thou disentangle thy self thou must be bound with the cords of testimonies that thou mayest not querulously hiss Imperitissime hominum siliest of men Nobilis es factus in scelere Thou art ennobled made famous by thy wickednesse Quamvis sis hebes dicere non aâ—debis although thou beest dull or blockish yet thou darest not affirm it Risimus in te proverbinm Camelum vidimus saltantem We have laught at the old proverb in thee We have seen a dancing Camel c. Where we see First that if S. Hierome's verdict exprest in his own manifold example be allowable whom Dr. H hath chosen for Vmpire in his matter t is very lawfull and fitting to give the Adversaries of Faith their full desert in controversies concerning Faith and not to spare them as long as the truth of their faultinesse can justify the rigorous expressions Neither let Dr. H. objet that I beg the question in supposing him an Adversary of the true faith for to put the matter indifferently and so as may please even the Protestants them selves either Dr. H's cause is false and then 't is laudable to use zeal against him who perniciously endeavours to mantain a falsehood or else it is true then he deserves as great a reprehension who abuses his cause by going about to defend it by such wilfull falsifications and so many frauds and weaknesses as he hath been discovered Whence it appears that the indifferent Reader is not to consider at all whether the expressions sound harshly or no but whether they be true or no for if they be then that person will be found in reason to deserve reprehension be the cause he defends true or false if he defend it either senselesly or insincerely Secondly these harsh expressions of S. Hieromes being due to Dr. H's forefather Vigilantius for denying veneration to holy Reliques are due likewise upon that onely score to Dr. H. and the Protestant writers who deny the same Point what then may we imagine the Protestants deserve for filling up the measure of their forefathers sinnes by denying the onely certain Rule of Faith Vniversall Tradition the former governmeÌ„t of God's Church almost all the Sacraments and many other most important points besides and of much greater concernment than is this of venerating holy Reliques Thirdly the Reader shall find no where in Schism Disarm'd such harsh language given to Dr. H. or which if taken in it's own nature sounds so contumeliously as this of S. Hieromes against Vigilantius is frantick fellow monster prodigious monster possest with the Devill possest with an unclean Spirit snake famous for wickednesse blockhead c. My harshest words in comparison of these are moderate and ciuil mine are smiling Ironies his are stern and bitter Sarcasmes and if I whipt Dr. H. gently with rods S. Hierome wihpt his forefather Vigilantius with Scorpions Whence followes that I am to be thank't by Dr. H. for my moderation not excommunicated for my excesse in reprehending him since all those more severe expressions far out-vying mine were his due as he is in the same fault with Vigilantius besides what accrues to him out of later titles and this by the judgement of S. Hierome the very Authour he quotes for himself in this point Fourthly what a miserable weaknesse is it to quote this Father against me for using harsh language who himself uses far harsher which evidences that if this Fathers authority and example be of weight in this point as Dr. H. grants by bringing him against me for that purpose then the roughnesse of the language is not railing or reprehensible if taken alone or abstracted from the cause since Dr. H. will not say that this holy Father thought that manner of language railing or reprehensible in himself which showes that Dr. H's first Chapter fighting against the words as abstracted from the cause as much accuses S. Hierome as me nay much more as his words exprest more fully his justly-caused zeal than my more moderate pen did Fifthly abstracting from the cause and impugning the manner of expression onely as Dr. H. does who sees not that the Heretick Vigilantius might with the same reason as he have entitled the first Chapter of his Reply to S. Hierome in the like manner as he did to wit thus Of Hieroms style and contumelies The Scriptures sentence on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Character belonging thereto Then in the Chapter it self have call'd S Hierome's plain discovery of his faults scoffes and contumelies have told him that he had just title to the scorners chair that his writing against him was like Goliahs cursing of David Rabshakels reproaches against Israel that the Apostle had long ago pronounced sentence against him that none should eat with him that he was in reality no Christian a detestable person faln under the censures of the Church ipso jure excommunicate in a speciall sort one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unrighteous that he shall not
necessary will be voyd of fruit specially to Mr. H's Friends who may see by this Answer of mine how bad that cause must be which can cast so understanding a man as some of them imagine him upon such non sense weaknesses of reasoning voluntary mistakes falsifications denying his own words and many other ridiculous shifts as shall be seen most amply in the process of this Treatise Sect. 7. Dr. H's accurate mistake of every line of the Introduction to Schism Disarm'd and his wilful avoyding to answer the true import of it Mr. H's reason which was gravelled in understanding the plain words in my Epistle to the Reader as hath been shown has no better fortune in confuting my Introduction I exprest in the beginning of it that It bred in me at first some admiration why the Protestants should now print books by pairs to defend themselves from Schism who heretofore more willingly skirmish't in particular Controversies than bid battel to the main Body of the Church c. Vpon which Dr. H. not aware that upon every new occurrence or effect the admirative faculty first playes it's parts and stirres up the reason to disquisitiveness for the cause of it such reflections ly much out of the way of one who gleans testimonies will not give me leave something to admire at first till I had found the reason at an occurrence evidently new that is their writing at this time books by pairs to clear them selves from Schism but is pleased to turn my ordinary easy moderate words of some admiration at first into those loud phrase p. 12. l. 19. of great vnheard of news and prodigy putting news and prodigy in different letters that himself might be thought an Oedipus who had unriddled my imagin'd aenigma But since any thing which is uncouth and disorderly justly stirres up admiration what necessity is there that Dr. H. and his Friends should hap to do all things so orderly wisely and reasonably that poore S. W. whom he confesses here p. 10. l. 36 not to have been of his Councel in his designment might not be allow'd to have some admiration at first at their mysterious imprudence But he will needs undertake to allay my admiration though I was much better satisfy'd with my own reason there given by telling me it was seasonable charity to undeceive weak seducible Christians because the Romish Missaries by pretence of their Schism endeavour'd to defame them out of a persecuted profession Where first I assure him that many of those who have of late become Catholicks are as great Scholars and wits as have been left behind and so more likely to have been reduced by reason than seduced by the industry of others working upon their weakness the weak seducihle Souls of the former Protestants are either turn'd Quakers or such like kind of things those who have run back to the lap of their Mother the Holy Catholick Church are such as are neither easily deceivable by our Missaries nor possibly undeceivable by Dr. H. multitudes of them being such as might wiâ—h far better reason be wish't to have the Answering of Dr. H. in my stead than be feared to be mo'vd by his reasons to renounce their own Nor needed they be tempted by others their own reason if disinteressed could not but inform them that that Religion was not true that Church but counterfeit whose grounds were rotten and whose Fates depended upon the Temporal Power Nor hath the other part of that poor sentence scap't better from his artificial mistakes I onely affirmed that they heretofore seem'd more willing to skirmish in particular controversies than bid battel to tâ—e main body of the Church which he misunderstands as if I had said that no Protestants ever writ against the Authority of our Church and then impugnes his own mistake father'd upon S. W. very strongly by nominating some few books upon that subject Ans p. 11. l. 2. pittying himself that he should 〈◊〉 set to prove what none said but himself and truly I pitty him too But are not there near an hundred times that number who have skirmish't against us in particular Controversies I hope then this will serve to justify those moderate words of mine that they seem'd more willing to that task Yet he triumphs over me saying that it is much juster matter of wonder to him that S. W. should set out so unauspiciously as to begin with an observation founded in a visible contrariety to a plain matter of Fact that every man that thinks of must discern to be so Thus doth he trample down and then strut over S. W. at the first onset so potent still and victorious is he when he fights against his own Chimaera's I am persuaded a little sooth-saying will serve the Reader to determine who began the more inauspiciously and at whose door the sinister bird croak't Yet though saith he those words had been true that formerly the Protestants were more willing to skirmish in paâ—â—icular Controversies yet Dr. H. tells us it were obvious to every man what might now suggest the change of that course and what obvious reason might this be but that after particular Controversies were competently debated to set the Axe to the root of the tree and stock up Rome's universal Pastourship and infallibility Where he sees not that the question remains still to be ask't why the competent debating of particular Controversies should just then end and the propter time then begin for the Protestants to stock up Rome when themselves had never a legg left them to stand on and why they should hope then rather to get the upper hand when they ly flat along themselves as if Antaeus-like they were stronger by falling Again had many been induced by reason to return to the Catholick Church yet I cannot understang why the Protestants zeal should think it more seasonable to write Books by pairs against us than against their other Desertours since they who have gone from them into other Sects are above an hundred for one in comparison of the Catholik Converts so that had not S. W. found out a reason to rid himself of his some admiration he might still have remain'd in it for any thing M. H. hath produc't Vpon occasion of my saying that it was more seasonable to denounce to those Sects the unreasonableness of their Schism than plead the reasonableness of their own he voluntarily mistakes my words as if I meant that he had confess 't it Schism and then gone about to plead the reasonableness of it whereas I onely intended as is evident that he went about to plead the reasonableness of that which I who am the Defendant doe and must hold for Schism and consequently may nominate it so that is of his breaking from our Churche's Government Yet for this I have lost my credit this being another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he tells the Reader if he can understand Greek what trust is due to S. W. in his affirmations Should he
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
forsake the Churchâ—'s Communion in case she were fallible Whereas nothing can be more rational and solid than that position For why may not we forsake the Churche's Communion if she hath no power to bind to unity in Faith which makes us one of hers and how can she have any power to bind us to unity in Faith unless she be altogether certain first her self of that to which she would oblige others that is unless she be infallible in teaching attested truths To answer as hee does Reply p. 13. she may oblige others to believe though fallible as long as she is not actually in errour is the greatest piece of folly imaginable for still the question recurres Is she infallibly certain that she is not actually in errour if she be she is again Infallible if not she cannot impose any obligation of belief Hence Dr. H. may see that unless there he some company of men on earth infallible it is impossible there should be an obligation to Vnity in Faith nay there can be no positive obligation to hold any point of Faith at all unless they conspire to do so and hang together by hap-hazzard that is be no Body of men but a company of good fellows met together by chance and consequently there can be no Church or Common-wealth of Believers much less a lasting one without this Infallibility Note that the obligation here spoken of is not an obligation to act or comport ones self exteriourly as in temporal Common-wealths but to hold and believe and consequently man's nature being Reason nothing but an Authority built on evidence of inerrability can rationally oblige men to assent upon that Authority So that Mr. Knot and I shall very readily grant all Mr. H's consequence Answ p. 32. that if there be no infallible Church there would be no possibility for any on earth to be guilty of the sin of Schism His second weakness is that in excusing himself for adding impeccable he thinks to evade by telling us p. 32 that he conceived humane nature to be in it self equally liable to sin and errour and so no more infallible than impeccable Suppose it were which yet is not granted what follows for his advantage thence unless he could manifest that all men might fall at once into any one self-same kind of sin Are there causes layd in the world or can there be considering the nature of a world able to make all men conspire to cut their own throats to morrow if not then in case this should happen there would be an effect without a cause that is there would follow a Contradiction which being impossible it must follow likewise that it is impossible they should be all peccable in that kind and consequently the Doctor may learn that a multitude of men may be also impeccable in some kind of sin Now to parallel this with Infallibility as held by us we doubt not but of this multitude called the Church some may be fallible in one thing some in another but that all should conspire either to mistake or delude so as to tell so damnable and palpable a ly as that they had been thus tauhgt by their Ancestour if they had not is the Impossible of Impossibles nay equally impossible as for Nature to fail in the propagation of any entire species as for all the houses in the world to be set on fire to morrow or for all men to die in their sleep this night none of which can be done without destroying nature whose causes are placed necessarily in several circumstances and so work with variety Yet Dr. H. tells us Answ p. 33. that his words are as evident a truth as could have been mentioned by him and truly I think the Reader will believe him ere we come to the end of this book But I hast His third weakness is that whereas we place this Infallibility in a Church that is in a multitude of Believers he tells us p. 33. and 35 the Pope the Bishop of Ephesus Loadicea c. and many other Governours have fallen into errour but can he show me that all the Governours of the Church or half of them have erred or indeed can possibly erre in attesting as aforesaid If not let him acknowledge how weak a Scripturist he is in giving it such an Interpretation as impossible to be true whiles Answ p. 35. he makes the Text I am with you always even to the end of the world because secondarily spoken to the succeding Governours to stand with their errableness Hi fourth weakness is that like those who are making a pittifull excuse for a bad cause his unfledg'd discourse sticks between the teeth of a parenthesis and dates not come out plain His words are after he had told us p. 33 the Pope and any other single man in the world might erre as well as sin that in proportion any multitude or assembly might the major and so prevalent part of them consent in an errour as well as in a vice I ask can that whole multitude consent in a palpable errour in things visible or no If they can what means that grumbling parenthesis of the maior part and to what end or purpose was it brought since all might erre If they cannot all erre in such a case but the major part onely then there can be some company on earth Infallible to wit that whole multitude which is the thing in question How much more credit were it to lose a bad cause by speaking out candidly than to strive to maintain it by such pittiful shifts His fifth weakness is that whereas he affirmed onely Saints and Angels in heaven and God to be infallible and I instanced Schism Disarm'd p. 19. in some on earth to wit the Apostles whom I alledged to have been infallible in penning the sacred writ and preaching the Gospel He answers Answ p. 33. that sure they are comprehended in the number of Saints in beaven for there undoubtedly they are Tell me seriously good Reader and without smiling is not Dr. H. worthy to be reckon'd the eighth wise-man who when I ask him concerning men doing offices in their life-time here on earth tells me that they are now or were aftervards Saints in heaven His sixth weakness is his second answer to the same instance of mine to wit that it is most true that they were assisted by Christ so as they did not nor could erre in penning the sacred writ and preaching the Gospel That is he grants my instance brought against him to be true and himself to be in an errour when he said that none but those in heaven were infallible For sure if those could not erre as he grants in doing these offices performed by them while they were on earth then some men on earth may be Infallible in some thing to wit in things necessary for the Salvation of mankind which is all we demand and as much as we profess His seventh eighth and ninth weaknesses are that after he had
pittifully this discourse hangs together that those Bishops shall be under the Patriarch of Alexandria seeing the Pope hath under him I cannot tell what or whom whereas however our Adversaries may pretend the material sense of one of the parts false yet themselves must confess that there is no difficulty in the formal coherence of the whole if it be supposed to signify thus That he shall have those for his Subjects because the Pope is accustomed to hold them for such or to judge it so This is yet more confirm'd because in both Languages it is evident that the Latine Hoc and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot possibly refer any thing but the thing decreed to wit that the Bishops named should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria This explication holding and hold it must till Mr. H. can show me a better that is another which shall agree better with the words and make better sense which will be never two things follow for us First that it was the Pope's custome to handle and judge matters belonging to the Patriarchy of Alexandria Next that the Council govern'd it self in this important matter by the custome of the Bishop of Rome Both which infer in all probability his higher Authority and make for us though intended otherwise Some Interpreters indeed are of opinion that this Canon was intended to order the Iurisdiction of the Patriarchs but this is a perfect Chimerical imagination originiz'd from the inveÌ„tion of those whose hatred against the Church of Rome occasion'd by their own guilt made them willing to say any thing in prejudice of Her though without all Ground either in the letter of the Canon as hath been shown or in the history of the Councils for nothing is more evident in this latter than that there was treated in the cause of Meletius Bishop of Licopolis â—n Egypt who refused to be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria and therefore that Canon chiefly touches thâ—t Patriarchy of which also the particulars are there specify'd nothing being order'd there concerning either Antioâ—h or the West but that their priviledges that is what by custome they had gotten should he conserved and continued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things standing thus no man unless driven by the desperate condition of his cause to catch at any thing can gather any such sense out of the words of the Canon Notwithstanding 't is granted that Schismaticks commonly make this Interpretation of it whose opinions were they any thing prejudicial to our Cause as they are not but most weak being of Adversaries yet they are made incomparably weaker by having Ruffinus for their Patron and first Founder of this Interpretation Who also to come nearer our question proceeding upon this former conceit added the word Suburbicarias without all Ground or show of Ground whether out of silliness and ignorance of propriety of Speech meaning to signify by that word all the Western Churches under the Empire of the City of Rome whose subjection to the Pope his eyes testify'd and other Schismaticks confess or out of knavery and malice it is uncertain This by the way is certain that an irregular proceeding and miscarriage sprung from both may justly be expected from Ruffinus But because this language of mine against this Paraphrast may be imagin'd to have sprung from passion by Dr. H. and some of his particular Friends who proceeding upon their Ground of uncertainty and indifferency of Religion have got a conceit that the preserving of courtesy is more worth than the preserving of souls from eternal damnation and that though one who does such a mischief be a knave and a fool both yet he cannot without incivility and scurrility be shown plainly to be either again because Mr. H. is such a veneratour of Antiquity that he deemes any testimony nay any one obscure word of any either old-knave or old-fool provided he lived but in the ancient times very competent to found his Religion on and worthy his vindication so it seem for his purpose we will see whether the character given Ruffinus by other Authours beyond all exception be more moderate than S. W's what unanswerable prejudices are producible against this Paraphrast his testification which Dr. H. here undertakes to vindicate First S. Hierom tells us contra Ruff. Apol. 2. that Ruffinus was excommunicated and cauteriz'd for heresy to wit Origenism and Pelagianism and that by Pope Anastasius as appeares both by the letter of the said Pope to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem as also by the same S. Hierom ibid upbraiding him that he so fled the judgement of the City of Rome that he rather â—hose to abide the siege of the Barbarians to wit in Aquilâ—ia besieged by Alaricus whither Ruffinus had retired himself than the sentence of a peaceable Town And again in the same book speaking of Ruffinus his Confession of his Faith which he feigned to have been approved by the Bishop of Italy he asks him how Italy should approve that which Rome had rejected and how the Bishops should receive that which the Apostolick See had condemned Adde to these which makes his prejudice most notorious and so his testimony most invalid that he writ his History after the entrance of Alaricus into Italy that is under the Popedome of Innocentius Successour of Anastasius and so had as much reason to write in prejudice of that See as an incorrigible and obstinate Heretick could have having been excommunicated by the same See before he writ Hence it is that he never meets with any occasion to speak of the Pope and Church of Rome but he spits his venome as may appear Euseb hist Eccles l. 5. cap 24. where speaking of Pope Victor he adds of his own in one place one whole line in another two in his prejudice Is not this then a fit Authouâ— to be first alledged afterwards vindicated by his fellow-brother and Friend Dr. H. who for no less guilt stands excommunicated by the same Church Thus much for his passion and prejudice which make his knavery very credible now Secondly as for his doltish ignorance he was the Monster of that and all future ages for eminency in that talent Some instances of it may be that he in hist Eccles Euseb l. 1. c. 1. makes of Iames Bishop of Hierusalem Iames Bishop of the Apostles of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Happy a Saint by name Macarius of Eusebius of Pamphilus Heretick and Arian Pamphilus Catholick and Martyr of Xystus Pythagorian and Pagan Philosopher Xystus Pope and Martyr of Chorepiscopus spoken of by the eighth Canon of the Council of Nice the vacant place of a Bishop and such innumerable others that St. Hierom ibid. affirmed him to be so unskilfull in either language that he was taken for a Greek by the Latines and for a Latin by the Grecians Must not he be a very wise man who sticks not first to build upon next to vindicate so wise an
Authority Yet knavery and folly are less intolerable if practised modestly and warily but temerity and audacity are the gallantry of Ruffinus his former faults he practises them when and where he pleases and so his testimony becomes more perfectly fit for Dr. H's cause S. Hierom ibid. challenges him that he knew in his conscience how he added detracted and changed things as he listed Erasmus in his Preface upon S. Hilary sayes that Ruffinus took to himself not the liberty of an Interpreter but the licence of a Contaminatour of other men's writings And Annot. in Chron. Euseb anno MMLXV Scaliger notes it to be his custom to omit pervert and change the texts as he pleased Lastly if Dr. H. yet makes account he can vindicate the sufficiency of Ruffinus his Authority against so many opposers I will adde for an upshot the words of their most famed Daillé against whom I am sure he will not take up cudgels being a person so highly commended by the Lords Falkland and Dighy who l. 2. c. 4. characters Ruffinus to be an arrant woodden statue a pittiful thing one that had scarâ—e any reason in what he said and yet much less dexterity in defending himself Let the Reader judge then how desperate that cause must be which drives it's Patrons to rely upon such a barbarous heretical malicious and silly fellow's Authority who wanted both ordinary learning and common honesty the onely things which can give him any Authority at all and this in the judgment of persons beyond all exception either of ignorance or prejudice This miserable and ruinous testimony upon which yet our Adversaries build so much being resolv'd into the rubbish of Ruffinus his defects it would not be much amiss to try whether our testimonies for the Pope's Patriarchy over all the West be establish't upon better Authority than this which gave the ground of retrenching it to Ruffinus his followers St. Basil speaking Basil Epist 10. of him as Patriarch calls him The Coryphaeus or Head of the Western Churches S. Hierom makes account that Hier. ad Marc. Presb. Celed Epist 77. to be condemned with Pope Damasus with the West is the self-same thing But because the testimony of Adversaries is freest from favour and partiality the satisfaction given by such is much more ample and valid To these therefore let us have recourse I mean the Greek Schismaticks who though the competition between the Eastern and Western Church provoked them to retrench the Pope's Patriarchat as much as they could possibly justify yet they freely and ingenuously grant that it contained anciently all the Provinces of Italy Spain France Germany England Illyricum Occidentale under which were understood Dalmatia Hungary and other neighbouring Provinces Our first Testimony shall be that of Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica de prim Pap. in that very book in which he disputes against the Latins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canon of the Council of Nice thinks fit that the rules of the Fathers be confirmed who have distributed to every Church their Priviledges to wit that some Nations be under the Bishop of Alexandria others under the Bishop of Antioch c. and to the Bishop of Rome the same is given to wit that he govern the Occidental Nations The second shal be of Zonaras a Greek Schismatick and Commentatour living long before Nilus who in his exposition of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice the same to which Ruffinus added his conceit of Suburbicarian and thence gave occasion to his imagin'd limitation of the Pope's Patriarchy before spoken of hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Council ordaines that the Bishop of Alexandria have the superintendency of Egypt Libya and Pentapolis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the ancient custome had given to the Bishop of Rome to grovern the Provinces of the West The third testimony shall be of the same Zonaras in Concil Sard. Can. 5â— which proceeds farther and grants him over and above all the Provinces of the Western Empire almost all those Provinces of the Eastern also which lay westwardly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Roman Church saith he writing his Comment upon the fifth Canon of the Council of Sardica were then subject all the Western Churches to wit those of Macedonia Thessalia Illyricum Epirus which were afterwards subjected to the Church of Constantinople Here thou seest Reader three testimonies in themselves most ample and express of Authours beyond all pretence of partiality towards us whose interest and passion ought rather have obliged them to detract than superadde to the Pope's Iurisdiction Not were they less secure from opinion of ignorance the quality of Archbishop in one of them and of profest Writers for the Greeks in both rendering them not liable either to exception of supineness or want of knowledge Iudge then again how bad that cause must be which can oblige men rational enough in other businesses to refuse assent to a Verdict thus qualify'd and adhere to a bare word capable of a different and so unprejudicial signification as coming from an Authour so intolerably barbarous as this Ruffinus hath been shown or if meant in that stricter signification can yet claim no credit as being onely his word who hath been manifested by witnesses beyond exception to have lost his indifferency sincerity nay all shame and honesty together with his Faith I hope the Candid Reader will gather what stuff is to be expected from that Treatise de Suburbicariis regionibus which Dr. H. Repl. p. 35. is pleased to call a Tract and afford it the Epithet of learned and how wise or sincere a person Lescaserius is though styled here by Dr. H. most Excellent who undertakes to vindicate this Ruffinus but with such weak arguments as were it not out of my way to confute that Treatise I would undertake to manifest they neither argue too much learning nor any excellency at all in the study of Antiquity in that point unless that excellency were corrupted by a passionate insincerity though I know any thing is excellent which makes excellently well for Dr. H's purpose or does any excellent prejudice to Rome Sect. 16. Dr. H's fruitless endeavours to prove the Pope as he calls it no Summum Genus from the pretended denial of Appeales and the denial of Names or Titles as also how weakly he argues against that demonstrably-evident Authority THe Pope's Patriarchy being thus limited to litle more than nothing his chief Pastourship must in the next place be totally annihilated against which Mr. H. as the nature of Schism requires hath so much the greater spite by how much it is higher in Authority than the Patriarchy This he doth de professo afterwards here on the by onely of Schism p. 59 telling us that there was none over the Patriarchs but the Emperour onely which he proved because they use to gather Councils His Disarmer broke the reeds of the testimonies he produced by shewing them unable to conclude unless they
the following ought to be the sixth But nothing could secure S. W. from the melancholy cavilling humour of his Adversary who is so terrible that the Printer's least oversight and his own mistake must occasion a dry adnimadversion against S. W. and yet the jest is he pretends nothing but courtesy and civility and persuades many of his passionate adherents that he practices both in his writings For answer then to my first seventh Section according to Dr. H. but in reality the sixth he refers me to his Reply c. 4. sect 1 where he answers all but the ridiculous colours as he says Answ p. 38. which indeed I must say were very ridiculous as who ever reads Schism Disarm'd p. 41. or his own book p. 68. may easily see where after he had spoken of and acknowledg'd King Henry the eighth's casting out the Pope's Authority it follows in his own words thus of Schism p. 68. First they the Romanists must manifest the matter of fact that thus it was in England 2. the consequence of that fact that it were Schism supposing those Successours of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ that is we must be put first to prove a thing which himself and all the world acknowledges to wit that King H. the eighth deny'd the Pope's Supremacy next that what God bid us doe is to be done and that the Authority instituted by Christ is to be obe'yd Dr H. is therefore can-did when he acknowledges here that these passages are ridiculous very unconsonant to himself when he denyes there is the least cause or ground for it in his Tract whereas his own express words now cited manifestâ—â—â— and lastly extraordinarily reserv'd in giving no other answer than this bare denial of his own express words But being taken tardy in his Divisionary art in which it is his coÌ„mon custome to talke quodlibetically he thought it the wiser way to put up what 's past with patience than by defending it give occasion for more mirth But to come to the point That which was objected to him by me and the Cath. Gent. was this That he expected Catholicks should produce Evidences and proofs for the Pope's Authority in England which task we disclaimed to belong to us who stood upon possession and such a possession as no King can show for his Crown any more than it does to an Emperour or any long and-quietly-possest Governour to evidence to a known Rebel and actual Renouncer of his Authority that his title to the Kingdome is just ere he can either account him or punish him as rebellious In answer Dr. H. Repl. p. 44. first denies that he required in the Place there agitated that is in the beginning of his fourth Chapter of Schism any such thing of the Catholicks as to prove their pretensions â—ut his own express words of Schism p. 66. 67. check his bad memory which are these Our method now leads us to enquire impartially what evidences are producible against the Church of England whereby it may be thought liable to this guilt of Schism Whence he proceeds to examine our Evidences and to solve them which is manifestly to put himself upon the part of the Respondent the Catholick on the part of the Opponent that is to make us bring proofs and seem to renounce the claim of our so-qualify'd a possession by condescending to dispute it Whereas we are in all reason to stick to it till it be sufficiently disprov'd which cannot be done otherwise than by rigorous Evidence as hath been shown not to dispute it as a thing dubious since 't is evident we had the possession and such a possession as could give us a title This therefore we ought to plead not to relinquish this firm ground and to fall to quibble with him in wordish testimonies To omit that the evidences he produces in our name are none of ours For the onely evidence we produce when we please to oppose is the evidence of the Infallibility of Vniversal Tradition or Attestation of Fore-fathers which we build upon both for that and other points of Faith nor do we build upon Scripture at all but as interpreted by the practice of the Church and the Tradition now spoken of Wherefore since Dr. H. neither mentions produces nor solves those that is neither the certainty of Vniversal Attestation nor the testimonies of Scripture as explicable by the received doctrine of Ancestours which latter must be done by showing that the doctrine of the Church thus attested and received gives them not this explication 't is evident that he hath not so much as mention'd much less produced or solved our Evidences Our Doctors indeed as private Writers undertake sometimes ex superabundanti to discourse from Scripture upon other Grounds as Grammar History propriety of language c. to show ad hominem our advantage over the Protestants even in their own and to them the onely way but Interpretations of Scripture thus grounded are not those upon which we rely for this or any other point of our Faith So that Dr. H. by putting upon us wrong-pretended Evidences brings all the question as is custome is to a word-skirmish where he is sure men may fight like Andabatae in the dark and so he may hap to escape knocks whereas in the other way of Evident reason he is sure to meet with enough At least in that case the controversy being onely manag'd by wit and carried on his side who can be readiest in explicating and referring one place to another with other like inventions it may be his good fortune to light on such a doltish Adversary that the Doctor may make his ayre-connected discourse more plausible than the others which is all he cares for This being a defence and ground enough for his fallible that is probable Faith Dr. H. defends himself by saying p. 44. he mean't onely that Catholicks bring Christ's donation to S. Peter for an Argument of the Pope's Supremacy instancing against the Cath. Gent. in his own confession that Catholicks rely on that donation as the Foundation or cornerstone of the whole buildâ—ng By which one may see that the Doctor knows not or will not know the difference between a Title and an Argument Christ's donation to S. Peter is our title our manner of trnour by which we hold the Pope his Successour Head pastour not our argument to infer that he is so 'T is part of our Tenet and the thing which we hold upon possession to be disprov'd by them or if we see it fitting to bee prov'd by us not our argument or proof against them to maintain it or conclude it so As a title then we rely and build upon it not produce it as a proof to conclude any thing from it And indeed I wonder any man of reason should imagin we did so since if he be a Scholar he cannot but know that we see how to the Protestants the supposed proof would be as deniable and in
This manner of treating Scripture then we Catholicks account in an high degree blasphemous nay to open the way to all blasphemousness and this because we do not dogmatize upon it or affix to it any interpretation that we build faith upon which is not warranted by the Vniversal practice of the Church and our Rule of Faith Vniversal Tradition though we know 't is the Protestant's gallantry to make it dance afther the jigging humour of their own fancies calling all God's word though never so absurd which their own private heads without ground or shadow of ground imagine deducible thence nay more to call it an Evidence that is a ground sufficient to found and establish Faith upon And thus much for Dr. H's blasphemous and irreverent treating both Faith and Scripture Sect. 4. How Dr. H. prevaricates from his own most express words the whole tenour of his Discourse the main scope of his most substantial Chapter and lastly from the whole Question by denying that he meant or held Exclusive Provinces And how to contrive this evasion he contradicts himself nine times in that one point AT length we are come home close to the question it self Whether the Pope be Head of the Church pretended to be evidently disproved by Dr. H. in the fourth Chapter of Schism by this argument S. Peter had no Supremacy therefore his Successour the Pope can have none The consequence we grant to be valid founding the Authority of the latter upon his succeding the former But we absolutely deny the Antecedent to wit that S Peter had no Supremacy that is supreme power and Iurisdiction in God's Church Dr. H. pretends an endeavour to prove it in this his fourth Chapter offering his Evidences for this negative p. 70. l. 4. First from S. Peter's having no Vniversal Iurisdiction from parag 5. to parag 20. Secondly from thence to the end of the Chapter from his not having the Power of the Keyes as his peculiarâ—â—ty and inclosure that is from his not having them so as we never held him to have had them His first Argument from S. Peter's not having an Vniversal Iurisdiction proceeds on this manner that each Apostle had peculiar and exclusive Provinces pretended to be evidenced in his fifth parag from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lot of Apostleship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudas his place in Hell of Schism p. 71. that the Iews onely were S. Peter's Province nay that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction that the Gentiles were S. Paul's c. and all this undertaken there to be evidenced by testimonies from Scripture Fathers and other Authours What hath been the success of his Evidences from his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath already been manifested by showing that he had neither any ground in the place it self to favour his explication of a lesser province nor among all the many-minded Commenters on Scripture so much as one Authority to second it As for his limiting S. Peter's Iurisdiction to the Iews onely and S. Paul's to the Gentiles by his pretended proofs his Disarmer offer'd him p. 52. that if among those many testimonies he produces to prove it there be but found any one sentence line word syllable or letter which excludes S. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles more than what himself puts in of his own head he would be content to yeeld him the whole Controversy which he vindicated to the very eyes of the Reader from every testimony one by one alledged by Dr. H. In this manner stood the case then between S. W. and his Adversary it remains now to be seen what reply he tenders to so grievous heavy and unheard-of a charge and how he can colour a fault so gross palpable and visible to the eye of every Reader Observe good Reader I beseech thee whether thou be Catholick ProtestaÌ„t or of whatever other profession that now the very point of the Controversy is in agitation For we pretend no tenour for the Pop'es Supremacy save onely that he succeeds S. Peter whom we hold to have had it if then it be evidenced as is pretended that S. Peter had none the Doctor hath inevitably concluded against us Reflect also I intreat thee on the grievousness of the charge layd by S. W. against Dr. H. and make full account as reason obliges thee and I for my part give thee my good leave that there must be most open knavery and perfect voluntary insincerity on one side or other and when thou hast examin'd it well I am a party and so must not be a Iudge lay thou the blame where thou shalt find the fault Neither despair that thou hast ability enough to be a coÌ„petent Iudge in this present contest here is no nice subtlety to be speculated but plain words to be read for what plainer than to see whether in the testimonies there be any words limiting the Iurisdiction of S. Peter or whether they were onely the additions of Dr. H. antecedently or subsequently to the testimonies But what needs any Iudge to determine or decide that which Dr. H. himself hath confest here in his Reply and Answer where seeing it impossible to show any one word in all that army of Testimonies which he muster'd up there limiting S. Peters Iurisdiction to the Iews or excluding it from the Gentiles which yet was there pretended he hath recourse for his justification to the most unpardonable shift that ever was suggested by a desperate cause viz. to deny that he mean't exclusiveness of â—urisdiction that is to deny his own express words the whole tenour of his discourse there the main scope and intention of that Chapter ' and lastly to change and alter the state and face of the whole Question This is my present charge against him consisting of these foure branches which if they be proved from his own words he is judged by his own mouth and can hope for no pardon but the heaviest coÌ„demnation imaginable from all sincere Readers since it is impossible to imagin a fifth point from which he could prevaricate omitted by him and consequently his present prevarication is in the highest degree culpable and unpardonable First then his own express words manifest he mean't Exclusiveness of Iurisdiction For of Schism p. 70. he uses the very word exclusively saying that S. Peter was Apostle of the Iews exclusively to the Gentiles and that this exclusiveness was meant to be of Iurisdiction is no less expressely manifested from the following page where it is said that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction which is seconded by his express words here also Reply p. 56 the portion of one Apostle is so his that he hath no right to any other part Excludes him from any farther right c. and sure if he have no right to preach to any other Provinces he hath no Iurisdiction at all
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
at the same City or else desiring him to stay till S. Paul was gone away or else to watch some handsome opportunity when S Paul should go to the next Town then he would doe him the favour And the like must wee imagin in case a Iew went to S. Paul Lastly when those two Apostles preach't Christ's faith publikely as their custome was then in case S. Peter had spy'd some Gentiles or S. Paul some Iews coming to their Sermon presently as if some excommunicated person had come in presence all must be supposed to be hush't the Sermon quasht else we must imagin that that Apostle civilly makes a parenthesis in his discourse desiring them to withdraw retire to the others Congregation confessing candidly that now that his counter-Apostle meets him in the same city his Iurisdiction is exclusive that he has no power at all to give them any notice of Christ his Law but must be forced to exclude them from his Congregation Canst thou refrain smiling Reader at such a heap of comical absurdities But to return to the place in his Reply the source of all these gallant consequences to bundle up together the other absurdities in it which to treat diffusedly were a wearisome ingrateful task what meanes his saying here it is not unlawful to preach to anothers Province yet saying Repl. p. 56. l. 2. he had no right to doe it what means his putting here the meeting in one City to give an exclusive and peculiar Province to S. Paul whereas he had before according as it serv'd his turn best made it come from three other severall causes and some of them contradictories to wit imediately from Christ's assignation not from Christ but from agreement among themselves and lastly onely from the Iews rejecting refusing him as hath been shown from his own words before in his sixth ninth self contradictions what means his putting here S. Peter's exclusivenes of Iurisdiction to arise from the same circumstance of meeting S. Paul in the same City yet of Schism p. 84. excluding S. Peter from medling with Gentiles in Britany into which countrye he pretends not to shew S. Paul came much lesse met him there in the same City what means his stating here S. Peter's Iurisdiction not exclusive that is illimited till he meets S. Paul and yet of Schism p. 71. l. 21. 24. stating the same Iurisdiction exclusive to all but one portion onely of the dispersed Iews without reference at all to S. Paul's meeting or not meeting him but to the division of places Provinces onely Lastly what mean't he to talk of evidencing his then tenet from Scripture yet the exclusivenes of Iurisdiction onely when they met in the same City not so much as pretended to be shown from Scripture These man fest manifold self-contradictions heaps of absurdities shown from Mr. H's own words will let every rationall man see make every sincere man acknowledge that he cares not a pin what he saies nor what non-sence he deludes his Reader with provided he delude him civilly courteously gentilely nor what contradictions he maintains so he can but imbosk himself handsomely in them hide his head from being discovered Yet he tells us Rep. p. 56. he doubts not to reconcile all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here at least that one who hath a greater 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may do it and so fully satisfies his Reader if he will be content with pedantry in Greek instead of plain sence truth in honest English Sect. 6. The Question concerning his imagin'd Exclusive Provinces stated and cleared A plain Explication of the place Gal. 2. upon which hee grounds them HAving thus layd open how Dr. H. shuffles about to avoyd the effects of his own position we will proceed to examin the point it self and lastly Answer his testimonies alledged to conclude these exclusive Provinces Concerning the point it self four positions are to be considerd which may be imagind to concern it first that the Apostles went not all one way to preach but one or more one way others another The second that all the Apostles made a positive agreement to goe one or more to such or a Province The third is that they so agreed to goe to such such Provinces at their present parting as they agreed never to go to any other for the future The fourth is that their Iurisdiction was included within such a Province and excluded from all other imagind Provinces The first is evident confest but nothing at all to our question which is concerning limitation or illimitation of Iurisdiction And who sees not how shallow this inference is the Apostles went some one way some another to preach therefore S. Peter is not Prince of the Apostles or Head of God's Church Or thus the Apostles who confessedly had their Iurisdictions Vniversall from Christ thought it more discreet fitting to goe some one way some another therefore their Iurisdictions become limited which is as much as to say that when Christ gave to each Vniversall Iurisdiction sent them to teach all Nations he mean't they should all goe one way for otherwise according to this manner of arguing had he meant they should goe severall wayes it could not consist with that present intention of his to give them at that very time universal Iurisdiction The second to wit that they all made a part or positive agreement to goe determinate severall wayes or to such particular places is very obscure rather related as a thing imagind or opinionated to have been then asserted and manifested by any authentick proof Nor does it at all touch our question which is about Iurisdiction vnles it can be proved that they made a part of exclusive o◠limited Iurisdiction Of which nature not the least word o◠proof has hitherto been produced not will ever be producible for the future The third to wit that they made a positive pact for each one or more to go to such determinate places no other is yet obscurer lesse authentick then the former no exact Itinerary of their travells being extant much lesse of their non-plus vltra's by pact agreement but all the whole busines is left to blind and inconsequent conjectures according as they were found or obseru'd to haue preach't in one Country and not obseru'd to have done so in another but whether persecution a mutuall war or conveniency of circumstances dispersed them thus nothing is or can be concluded hence Nor were it all granted can any inference be grounded upon this prejudicing our tenet or even touching our question which is concerning Iurisdiction since prudent consideration of circumstances might be of force to determin the Apostles to agree that such such should stay constantly in this Province and nor preach actually in another without any necessity of their agreeing to limit their universal Iurisdiction given by Christ and so it cannot bear
of fellowshâ—p the agreement that was made betwixt them c. is sure the interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if it be so to wit that their entrusting exprest antecedently have the same sence as their subsequent agreement then I wonder what is become of his farther designation since one is but the interpretation of the other that is hath the same sence with the other Sect. 7 The Examination of five Testimonies brought in recruit for his exclusive Provinces of which the first is expressely against himself the next three even in his own grounds impertinent to our Question and the first borrowed from the Arch heretick Pelagius and falsify'd to boot AT present we have no more to do but to Answer his lately gleand testimonies huddled together confusedly in his Answ p. 39. 40. And though when reason is to manage the busines we are to expect nothing but contradictions from this Dr. as himself has amply inform'd us yet being now got into his own element of comon-place-book testimony-parcels we must imagin his art is at it's vertical heighth The first is from S. Ambrose on Gal. 2. 8. which I shall transcribe as I finde it cited by him Pétrum solum nominat ac sibi comparat quia Primatum ipse acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam se quoque pari modo electum ut Primatum habeat in fundandis Gentium Ecclesiis He names Peter alone compares him to himself because he had received the Primacie to found the Church and he likewise is chosen to have the Primacie of founding the Churches of the Gentiles where first if Primatus signifies Primacy of Iurisdiction and unles it signifies so 't is nothing to our question which is about Iurisdiction onely then it is not possible to imagin a testimony more expresly for our tenet of S. Peter's universal Iurisdiction and greater then S. Paul's than this which he alledges against it saying that S. Peter had the Primacy to found the Church without any limitation at all mentioned confining him to this or that Church So that if there be any exclusivenes or shadow of exclusivenes found in that place as I see none then it ought in all reason be the exclusivenes of S. Paul from the Iews since he is particulariz'd by it to the Gentiles and not of S. Peter from any who is not particulariz'd here at all to any part or portion of the Church but extended to all unles D. H. will say that the word Ecclesia Church signifies a peece of the Church onely This testimony therefore might serue to some purpose were it brought to prove that S. Peter's Iurisdiction was Vniversal S. Paul's limited but to prove S. Peter's limited from words that extend it to the Church without any note of limitation at all found there is still Dr. H's old bold trick of gulling the Reader to his face with out either shame or conscience Secondly the comparison between those two Apostles and the pari modo electus if we will stand to the words in the testimony make this sence as apply'd to particulars that as S. Paul was particularly chosen to found the Gentiles Church so S. Peter was in like manner particularly chosen to found the whole Church which signifies that S. Peter was universal Pastor and S. Paul vnder him which is kindly done of Mr. H. and deserves great thanks from us Though I wonder the sincere Reader can without just resentment suffer himself to be so tamely deluded as D. H. endeavors here by making him beleeve that testimony of S. Peter's Primacy to build the Church signifies that he was onely over the Iews and that not all these neither but onely over one portion of them in dispersion nor yet that these were his exclusive or peculiar Province unless S. Paul chanced to meet him in the same City Thus perfectly careless is he whether the place hee alledges be indifferent for him or against him as hath been shown all over in Schism Disarm'd so he can dazle a vulgar headed reader's eyes with the glorious pretence of a father's or councill's testimony and make way to introduce it by some voluntary and boldly-promising preamble of his own as he does at present assuring us here Answ p. 39. l. 35. that these words of S. Ambrose are plain but whether plain for him or plainly against him it matters not with him and that in them S. Ambr. asserts all that was either his purpose or interest to affirm as if it were either Dr. H's intent or his advantage to conclude S. Peter over the Church without any limitation put down that is over the whole Church and S. Paul over the Gentiles onely and so vnder him The second testimony is from S. Chrysostom saying that S. Paul demonstrates himself to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and compares himself with Peter the chief of them Thus hee In Answer First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies any kind of extrinsecall honor whether it springs from better parts greater efficacy more industry in preaching or from what so ever cause and not onely from dignity of Iurisdiction it follows likewise that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in it's self as indifferently appliable by circumstances to signify an equality in any of the former respects as it is to signify an equality in the latter of Iurisdiction and the like may be said of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since of it self it onely signifies that S. Paul compared himself to S. Peter but in which of the former regards this comparison was made the generall signification of the word leaves indifferent and to be deermined by circumstances Secondly the best circumstance to judge what this word should signify in that place is the subjecta materia or place it self of which this is the explication which being Gal. 2 8. where there is nothing at all relating to Iurisdiction but to efficatiousness in preaching to Iews and Gentiles of this therefore the comparison between these two Apostles must be understood in this respect onely must they necessarily be signified by these words to have been equally-dignified and not in Iurisdiction or governing power which is not there spoken of Thirdly that this is the meaning of it is clearly shown by the following Testimony which is his third out of Theophylact who for the most part transcribes out of and follows S. Chrysostom 'T is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shows himself equall 〈◊〉 Peter which words D. H. cites but leaves out the words imediately following lest they should quite spoil his pretence of proving out equality of power from the other The following words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that the testimony taken entirely is this he shows himself equally honored with Peter for he who had given to Peter efficacy of preaching to the Iews gave mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the
to Hierusalem when the Provinces are imagin'd to be given was fourteen years after his being in Iudea mention'd in the Testimony besides the time S. Paul was in Syria and Cilicia This distance of time is unquestionnably the outward show of the letter but howsoever it may be interpreted this is most certain and without all controversy that it was afterwards These things being so what a shame then is it to bring a testimony relating to things done long before to prove his conceit of lesser Provinces held by himself to have been assigned long after But is this all the shame let us see The testimony is put down by him in indifferent termes being come to Iudea he departed thence c. without any distinction when this coming was whether before at or after the pretended agreement whereas had it been known that it was at his coming onely to see Peter which hapened before that agreement whence he deduces these lesser Provinces of S. Peter and S. Paul it had been manifestly discouer'd to be perfectly useles to prove that there were such lesser Provinces at all These words therefore hewarily leaves out least they should quite disgrace the rest The testimony entirely recited is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. coming to Iudea onely to see Peter which former words being so few so link't in context with the other words and soe totally disadvantaging his pretence of lesser Provinces deducible hence they being future even in his own grounds in respect of this time he came to see Peter I shall take leave to think there was design and Artifice in omitting them and producing the testimonie soe advantageously imperfect though I hazard another excommunication in Greek from the crafty alledger and abuser of it From his Answer let us go to his Reply p. 55. where we shall find him from falsifying in iest fall to do it in earnest and that soe openly and manifestly as is impossible either to be cloak't with evading glosses or excused by ignorance or mistake I commend therefore the examination of it to Dr. H's friends more particularly even submitting my self to their censure if he be found excusable To put all clearer I will fully transcribe from the place alledged His seventh testimony where after he had told us that Paul and Barnabas had a Province entrusted to them by giving the right hands of fellowship which he calls their agreement to do so he undertakes to prove it beginning his fourth parag thus And this is the speciall importance saith S. Chrysostome of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but contrariwise the beginning of v. 7. as that is apposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their adding to him v. the 6. Iames saith he and Peter and Iohn were so far from opposing any thing that he had done from advising any thing more from telling him any circumstance more then before he knew that they not onely approved but commended what he had done and to set things the more unquestionably for the future made this agreement with him and Barnabas that whensover they should come to the same City mixt of Iews and Gentiles Peter and Iohn should betake themselves to the Iewish and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile part of it And here I find the first full stop all the rest being commas which followd the saith hee to wit S. Chrysostom's by which 't is evident that no well-meaning Reader who took not upon him to sift this wily Author could suspect but that all the words following that saith hee went upon S. Chrysostom's account and were alledged as his This once premised we will set down S. Chrysostom's testimony in his own words and that every reader may understand it introduce it with a short glance at the occasion of them out of Scripture S. Paul compelled by some calumnies against his doctrine went up to Hierusalem to communicate the gospell he preached to them who were of reputation Peter Iames and Iohn who as hee affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in conference added nothing to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but contrariwise finding his doctrine entire and perfect and moved by seeing the grace that was given him gave to him the right hands of fellowship acknowledging by this acceptation of him for their fellow Apostle that his doctrine was sound Now S. Chrysostom's comment upon that place which is the testimony related to by Dr. H. is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what means but contrariwise some affirm S. Paul sayes that they not onely not taught him but were taughtly him but I should not say so save onely that they blamed him not but were so far from blaming him that they also praised him for praising is contrary to blaming and so proceeds in expressing their commendation and approbation of his doctrine throughout this whole place alledged Here reader thou seest what S. Chrysostom makes the spec all importance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but contrariwise to bee to wit that they praised him praising being contrary to blaming Hence appears the first wilfull falsification of Dr. H. who having spoken of S Paul's having a Province entrusted to him by Apostolicall agreement imediately subjoyns And this is the speciall importance saith S. Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but contrariwise as if the commending S. Paul's doctrine in which onely S. Chrysostome puts the antithesis and opposition to the blaming it did not onely import but specially import the intrusting him with a lesser Province whereas all the speciall importance of it is onely this that Dr. H. hath a speciall faculty of his own in falsifiing and making speciall fools his credulous Readers to think all his forgeries gospell because he gives them speciall fine words and assures them he hath a speciall desire to speake the full truth of God Yet a simple falsification is too weak to defend Dr. H's cause wherefore to make sure work he twists them into a compound forgery In his book of Schism he endeavor's to prove that these Apostles had severall Provinces at Rome and Antioch his Disarmer show'd to the eye of the Reader that he had not one word expressing that position in any testimony alledged but what he added with an Id est of his own head It is expected therefore that he should at least produce new ones which were expresse in his Reply and Answ and that we may see how strongly warranted his Tenet is he brings here one so home and expresse that I confesse some difficulty to Answer it I mean the latter part of the long testimony lately recited as from S. Chrysostome and to set the things the more unquestionably for the future they made this agreemâ—nt with Paul and Barnabas that when soever they should come to the same City mixt of Iews and Gentiles Peter and Iohn should betake them selfs to the Iewish and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile part of it This is expressely now and full for Dr. H's tenet not a testimony-bolt shot at
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
and not what the many-senc'd or rather indeed the noe senc'd Dictionary interpretation of two single words give them a possibility to signify Neither let Mr. H. think to excuse him self that he argues ad hominem in alledging these words and soe it imports not his cause at all what the Epistle it self sayes since he builds not upon it himself nor allows it's Authority for still as long as 't is shown that he imposes upon that Epistle and it's Author a sence which he knew they never intended he can never avoyd the note of insincerity and by how much the thing it self is more unlikely that the Authoritie wee alledge for us should be clearly against us as he sayes or the fell same Epistle contradict it self by soe much 't is a far more shamefull rashnes and an affected precipitation in him to pretend it and object it unles upon most evident and unavoidable grounds Sect. 14. Dr. H's trick to evade bringing some Testimony to confirm his own Wee know His two-edg'd argument to concluâ—e against S. Peter's supermacy both from Exclusivenes and not Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction IN the beginning of his fifth Section Dr. H. who was soe rarely skillfull in the art of memory as to contradict himself neere a dozen times in one point as hath been shown Part. 2. Sect. 4. is now on a suddain become Master of it and undertakes to teach'it S. W. whose memory alas as hee sayes is frail But ere my Master gives me my lesson he reprehends me first very sharply for my ill memory calling it my predominant fault and that railing is but my blind to keep it from being descry'd nay moreover this modest man who falsifies or corrupts every thing he medles with is angry with me that I doe not blush Expect Reader some great advantage gain'd against mee which can move this Preacher of patience to this passion who in the beginning of his book soe like a saint profess'd his readines to turn the other cheak to him who should strike him on the right To avoid mistakes on my part and cauills on mine Adversaries I shall put down both our words and appeal to the Readers eyes His were these of Schism p. 74 Thus wee know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted the Iews and S. Paul the Gentiles And what it was which Dr. H. in the plurall number Wee as became his Authority knew to be thus he exprest in the immediatly foregoing words to wit that whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same Citie the one constantly apply'd himself to the Iews received Disciples of such formed them into a Church left them when he departed that region to bee govern'd by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles This is that Reader which Dr. H. knew to have bâ—en thus at Antioch This is also the place Reply p. 57. when all els fail'd him he stood to as a sufficient expression of his exclusive tenet of those Apostles Iurisdictions Now my words Schism Disarm p. 62. upon his Thus wee knew it was at Antioch c were these That his first testimony was his own knowledge Thus wee know c. but that he put down no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one of his wee know which yet had been requisite that wee might have known it too And this was all What railing words the Dr. find's here which should make him complain so hainously I know not unles it were that I calld the testimony of his own knowledg weak and indeed if this be railing despaire of learning more courtesie till Dr. H. by growing wiser teach me it But my predominant fault of an ill and frail memory for which shame must make change colour is this that I said he put no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one of his Wee know yet afterwards set down two testimonies of that of which I lately denyed any If hee means such things as he produced for testimonies I set down indeed the very next Section not onely two but ten of them But if he means such testimonies as I exprest my self to deny there that is such as did confirm his own Thus wee know I am soe far from blushing at it that I still make him this bold profer that if amongst all the following testimonies there be found any one word confirming his own Thus wee know and what it relates to that is making S. Peter's Authority exclusive to the Iews and S. Paul's to the Gentiles when they met at the same City but what himself adds of his own head I will yeld him the whole controversy Nor let him tell me what he fancies to bee deduced thence but what the testimonies themselv's expresse the deductions are his the words onely are the testimonies let him show me any one exclusive word in any one testimony and I professe before all the world that I will not onely pardon him the impertinency of the rest but alsoe grant him all Iudge now Protestant Reader who hath most cause to blush examine well if ever thou heardst such a challenge made to any writer yet extant and not accepted of and then see to what a trifler thou trustest for thy salvation who in steed of replying to the purpose and showing thee those exclusive words tells his Adversary that it is a predominant fault in him to chalenge him that he had never a testimony to confirm his own Wee know and then seing himself unable to show any thinks to evade by telling his challenger he ought to blush for his frail memory whereas he should rather have blam'd him for his bad understanding and bad eyes neither apprehending nor seeing a word in any testimony to that purpose In answer to his pretended testimonies I noted Schism Disarm p. 63. that they affirmed no more but the founding the Church of Antioch by Peter and Paul which might be done by their promiscuous endeavours without distinction much lesse exclusion of Authority and Iurisdiction Dr. H. answers here 't is true this was possible and if it had been true had manifestly prejudged S. Peter's singular Iurisdiction and clearly joynd Paul socially with him It is impossible to gett a positive word of sence from this man first he will never willingly use the common words which expresse the question between us as chief in Authority amongst the Apostles their Head Prince c. but as before he used the ambiguous phrase of S. Peter's having noe singular supremacy at Hierusalem soe now he recurr's to singular Iurisdiction at Antioch which being doublesenc'd if wee take it in one he will be sure to evade hereafter by taking it in another Secondly let us suppose him to mean honestly that is to intend by it that S. Peter was not higher in Authority of Government than S. Paul as the question determines it let us observe how this quodlibeticall reasoner argues his whole intent was to conclude against S. Peter's
expressing this command are most evidently by the circumstances in the Text in a particular manner spoken to S. Peter it follows that S. Peter had by them a particular Commission given him to feed Christ's flock which is the thing to be proved Fifthly the property of the word pasce as it is distinguished from praedicate shows that there was a kind of ordinary care commanded to S. Peter whereas by the pure Apostleship he and his fellows had but an extraordinary and as it were a voyager Authority for an Apostle might preach in many Cities but to be Pastor he must fix himself in one Citie because he could be but a particular Pastor But S. Peter having for his charge oves Agnos that is all the faithfull â—ould â—ever be out of his own Iurisdiction so that being still in his seat he needed not fix any where and that he did so was 〈◊〉 abundanti Wherefore Praedicate being spoken in generall to all he Apostles pasce to S. Peter onely pasce having an especiall force above Praedicate it follows that something was here given to S. Peter by that word especially and particularly This is Reader what I conceive follows genâ—inly out of the Texts themselves as explicable grammatically Two things I desire both mine Adversary and thee to take notice of The one that we are not now disputing how the many-winded Commenters interpret this or that word but what follows out of the acknowledg'd words of the Texts as managed by Grammaticall skill Nor do I pretend to Evidence out of my own interpretation that is Animating of dead words neither my cause needs it nor can my own reason suffer me to engage soe far assuring me how seldome demonstrations are to bee expected from the tossing of meer words My onely intent then as I tould thee at first was to show what I conceived most connaturally and probably follow'd out of these Texts and their circumstances Nor is it sufficient for mine Adversary to imagin that another explication may be invented But since our contention now is about what the words can-best bear he is to show that another can so connaturally agree to the same particularizing circumstances in the said Texts And if any man living can draw an argument out of the same words more coherent with all the circumstances there found and more connected in it self then mine is nay from any other Text in Scripture to show that S. Peter had no promise of the power of the Keyes made to him in a particular manner and no performance of that promise in the same manner in which is founded his superiority to the other Apostles I will candidly confesse my self to have the worst in this wit-combat and shall lay down the cudgells for the next comer Sect. 3. Dr. H's solutions or contrary explications of those two places of Scripture sustain'd by most senceles paralogisms and built onely upon his own sayings nor shown nor attempted to bee shown more naturally consequent from the Texts themselves and their circumstances AGainst this inference of mine from the words of these Texts Dr. H. never goes about to show from the force of the same words a more connaturall explication which is the onely method to show his advantage over us in Scripture but in stead thereof endeavours onely to enervate our deductions thence by some solutions gather'd here and there Now this method of proceeding had been allowable in case we had built our faith upon such wit originiz'd explications or if in trying our acutenes with them in their own wordish way we had pretended to evidence or conclude demonstratively that this must be the sence of those places for then indeed any may be otherwise which they could imagin would have destroy'd our must be so and wee were bound in that case to maintain our explication against any other not onely which the words might be pretended to favour but what the most voluntary dreamer could fancy But since wee pretend not to evidence or conclude demonstratively thence and onely intend to show out of the force of the words that our exposition is more probable and connaturall he hath noe way to overcome in these circumstances but by showing us another out of the force of the same words more probable and connaturall which since he never attempts to do as far as I can see 't is plain he is so far from having acquitted him self in that point that he hath not so much as gone about it and all the voluntary solutions and possibilities of another explication he hath produced out of his owne fâ—cy without endeavoring to shew them more naturall out of the force of the Texts are so little to the purpose that they are not worth answering Yet wee shall glean them up from the places in which he hath scattered them and give them which is more then their due a cursory reflection Solution 1. The words of the Commission were delivered in common to all the Apostles Of Schism p 87. l. 2. Reply The delivering them in common evinces no more but that each Apostle had the power of the Keyes but leaves it indifferent whether each had it equally or in equally since it expresses neither nor is there any so silly as not to see that moâ—e persons may have the same thing yet one of those may have it in a more particular manner than the rest Now then since wee have a place of Scripture expressing a promise of the Keyes in a particularising manner to S. Peter how can the other places of a common delivery prejudice the having them more especially since it abstracts from having them equally or inequally and so is indifferent to and consistent with either Solution 2. They are delivered equally to all and every of the Apostles as is evident by the plurall style throughout that Commission Of Schism p 87. l. 2. 3. 4 5. Reply To think that a bare plurality can prove much less evidence an equality is such a peece of bedlam like non-sence that I wonder the silliest old wife should be gulld with such an affected peece of foolery Paul's and Pancras by this Logick must be equall because they are both in the plurall call'd Churches nay every peece of the world's frame is a maniâ—est instance aâ—aâ—nst this paralogism since in every species in Nature the particulars or individualls are plurally styled by the same word and agree in the same generall notion though there be hundreds sometimes thousand degrees of inequality between them Yet this infinitely weake reasoner hath as I dare undertake to show above fourty times made this argument against us and to surpasse his otherwise unparaleld'self he calls it an evidence Were it not pretty to put some parallels to this peece of Logick and make Dr. H. argue thus Constables and Kings are in the plurall styled Magistrates ergo cryes the Dr. it is evident they are both equall A Captaine and a Generall are both plurally styld Commanders ergo concludes
the Dr. it is evident they are equally such The like argument he hath made heretofore for the equality of Apostles pillars foundation-stones c. because all of each sort were named by one plurall name Pardon me then Reader if I have given such a harsh character to this monstrous peece of Logick I professe I know not what better name to call it by truly and besides other considerations I cannot but resent it in the behalf of man's nature Which is Reason and am angry with Dr. H. in his owne behalf that he hath by his passion and interest so totally defaced it in him self as to produce that for an evidence which is so far from the least degree of probability that it is the greatest impossibility imaginable But especially when I see that the same person who acknowledges Schism greater then sacriledge or idolatâ—y would persuade rationall Souls into it by such putid non-sence I confesse I cannot contain my expressions from taking such liberties as truth and Iustice make lawfull but the concernement of my cause necessary Solution 3. Each single Apostle had this power as distinctly promised to him as S. Peter is pretended to have and the words of Scripture Math. 18. v. 18. are most clear for that purpose Of Schism p. 88. Reply there is not a word there expressing any distinction in order to any other Apostle much lesse singularizing each of them distinctly as you here pretend but a common and plurall donation onely whatsoever you shall binde c. and as for your Syllogism by which you would evade the shamelesnes of this assertion Answ p. 66. by saying that you mean't onely the Apostles were each of them singly to have and exercise the power of the Keyes and not all together in common or joyn'd together in Communion first neither agrees with your other words for it is one thing to say each could distinctly use that power another thing to say as you of Schism p. 8â— l. 13. 14. this power was distinctly promised to each of them and then quoting Math. 18. v. 18. as most clear for that purpose where nothing is found but a coÌ„mon expression whatsoever yee shall binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. without any distinction at all exprest Nor can such a pretended meaning stand with common sense unles the Dr. will confesse him self to have calumniated our tenet which imputation he hath before taken such pains to avoid for either it is put in opposition to us or not if not what does it there or to what end are all those testimonies brought of Schism p. 89 to second it If it be put in opposition to us and yet mean onely as Dr. H. says here that it was promised to all the Apostles as to twelve single persons each singly to have and exercise it and not all together in common then our tenet must necessarily be supposed and pretended by him to be that no single Apostle could bind or loose but all of them together in common onely which is so manifest a calumny that himself dares not openly own it though he slily impose it as he did the other about the Keyes being S. Peter's inclosure Yet it is as necessarily his as the excuse given is his which if he disclame he acknowledges the objected fault Solution 4. The addressing the speech to S. Peter in the singular is a token onely that Peter as a single person should have power but not either that no others should have it too observe Reader how the calumny he formerly would have acquitted himself of still sticks to him or that the manner in which S. Peter should have it should be singular to him and so as it was not to each of them Answ p. 64. 65 Reply this is onely your own saying show us out of the words themselves that this is more probable as I show'd the contrary and then I shall acknowledge that you have animated the dead letter more artificially then I otherwise you have done nothing for the question is not whether you can say so or no but whether the words oblige you to say so Solution 5. The particularity gives him particularly the power but excludes not others from the same power and the same degree of power Answ p. 65. Reply This is onely said again not shown that the words gave occasion to say it which was onely to be done He quotes indeed drily the places of Scripture yet puts down no words as his custome is but talks before and after the barren and unapply'd citations what he pleases Wee take the words of the Text debate them minutely and particularly and bring them home to the point to show that our tenet of a more particular powre is more probable out of their native force Let him do the like and show by the same method his explication more connaturall then mine and I shall grant he won the field in this probability-skirmish Himself will not deny that S. Peter had as much promis'd him as the rest when it was promis'd in common Math. 18. v. 18. The having then over and above this common promise at another distinct time and with most particularizing and distinguishing circumstances a promise of he same Keyes most manifestly is a priviledge peculiar to S. Peter and that on which wee ground the probability of having them promis'd in a particular manner and consequently performed in the same sort which wee make accouÌ„t wee find with the like particularities Io. 21. Let the Reader then observe what countenance the words Grammatically prudentially scann'd give to our explications and deductions and expect what other explication so well circumstanc'd Dr. H. can deduce of the same words taken in their own native force and energy not what he will say upon his owne head Solution 7. The speciall energy of the applying the words particularly to S. Peter concludes that the Ecclesiasticall power of aeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house belongs to single persons such as S. Peter was and not onely to Consistories or Assemblies Of Schism p. 87. Reply This is still your own saying without ever endeavoring to show from the words and their circuÌ„stances they persuade that this is the sense of them But let it be so that you have evinc't against the Presbyterians from this place that a community must not govern but a Bishop that is one who is Superiour to that community who sees not how much better and more probably it follows hence that S. Peter was Superior to the consistory of the Apostles they being present when those particularizing words were spoken whence Dr. H. proves the Episcopall Authority over the consistory then it will follow that in succeeding times and distinct circumstances some one should be chief and over the Assembly Again the words not being expresse for his position he can onely make a parallell deduction thence after this sort if he will argue from the words that the same should be observed in a
ingenious Adversary conclude thence that it was the power of Truth not any sleight of tricks which thus baffled the Dr. If then my greatest faults be proved innocent my lesser ones will I conceive be held so likewise since it is presumable that no man will accuse another of a greater faul but upon a better ground Now the greatest vices of a Writer are falsifications for what credit can ever be rationally given to any Writer who is once convinc't to have bely'd the Author he cites to have falsify'd wilfully Faults of this sort he objects to me onely in two places as far as I observe In examining which I crave the Readers exactest diligence decline not his most rigorous censure nay if he can in reason iudge that I wilfully chang'd any thing that is gain'd or endeavored to gain the least possible advantage by my mistake which is the onely touchstone as it is the sole reason of falsifying then I give him free leave to brand me in his thoughts for infamous and shall in requitall pardon Dr. H. the long rowle of his wilfull or manifestly advantageous ones 〈◊〉 first of these pretended falfisications is found related in his Answ p. 201. and also put in the title to his 11th Section p. 195. To clear the Reader 's understanding the better and mine own credit totally I will put down first the substance of the point there handled the substance of my Answer given next the circumstances amongst which my wrong transcription is found by which means one may easily solidly iudge whether my oversight had any influence at all upon the point in hand and conclude that if evidently it had none then it was onely a materiall lapse in transcribing Dr. H's words equally incident to any man living not a formall fault In his book of Schism p. 124 parag 19. he attempts to prove that Kings have supreme power in Ecclesiasticall causes Amongst his other marginall notes ayming to conclude this in the following page we read these words So in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole third book is made up of iustinians 1. e. the Emperor's constitutions de Episcopis Clericis Sacris concerning Bishops Clergy men Sacred Offices This is the substance nay the totall of his objection The substance of my Answer â—ound Schism Disarm'd p. 167. is this that all the laws found there must not necessarily be Iustinians since the Keepers of laws use not onely to put in their law books those Constitutions themselves made but also those they are to see observed amongst which are the Canons laws of the Church made before by Ecclesiasticall power This is the main substance of my Answer to that objection in generall How weakly he reply's to this telling us onely Answ p. 202. that this cannot possibly be accommondated to the matter in hand because 't is certain cries the strong reasoning Dr. he made many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning Ecclesiasticall matters which the Authors name put to them and the persons to whom they were written I cannot totally omit to let the Reader see by the way how pittifull this Reply of his is how nothing to the point this being to say over again what we grant and leaving untouch't what we object since all this might have been done whether those Constitutions had been originally his own or no and will serve for an instance how weak this Dr. is in the following part of his book were he duly call'd to account But this concerns not my task at present which is onely this to put down substantially the question his proof my Reply that it may be thence iudged whether I could possibly be said to gain any advantage by the circumstances I faultred in The first of those circumstances is that whereas his words were Iustinians Constitutions de Episcopis Clericis Sacris I transcribed de Episcopis Clericis Laicis Now if he contend I transcribed one word wrong in answering his whole book I grant it and I conceive Dr. H will not presume himself exempt from the like faillings But if he pretend that I falsify'd or did it voluntarily plain sence will overthrow him quit me No man does a thing voluntarily but for some end and the end an insincere Writer can be imagin'd to have in falsifying is to gain some advantage to his cause If then it be most manifest that I neither did attempt nor could possibly gain thence the least advantage nor that he himself attempts to shew I gain'd any no man of reason but will acquit my sincerity accuse mine Adversary for a calumniator First then that I did not attempt any advantage thence is clear both in my words which never put either the least force in the word Laicis nor so much as mention'd it or any thing to that sence nor yet in the omission of Sacris Secondly it is yet more manifest in that mine Adversary never goes about to show that I made the least use of this mistake which yet solely imported in such an objection but rather on the contrary calls it a meannes saying that I am come to that meannes of changing his words and indeed it is a strange meannes to change them to no purpose and alledges onely as the cause of that meannes forsooth that I did it not to gain any help to defend my tenet by it but to get some advantage of carping at them But that even this is as falsly pretended as the other the Readers eye will inform him if he please to peruse my Answer Schism Disarm p. 167. where he will see that there is not a sillable which sounds like carping at his words but a serious Answer to the point Thirdly that I could reap no profit by such a mistake appears by the very point it self apply'd to my words for since he denies not but I transcrib'd right and grants that he made laws de Episcopis Clericis of Bishops and Clergy men to what end should I omit Sacris sacred Officies since he that could make laws concerning those who were over Sacred Officies could a fortiori make laws for the Sacred Offiâ—ies themselves as himself yeelds of Schism p. 125. l. 18. 19. And lastly this objection is convinced to be most senceles by this that my Answer given was equally pertinent strong apply'd to Sacris had it been there as it was to Episcopis Clericis when this was left out since it contended that law Keepers use to put in their law books the Constitutions Canons of the Church to make them more powerfully observed received which equally fit 's the pretence that they made Constitutioâ—s de Sacris as that they made them de Episcopis Clericis In a word I confess the infinit tediousnes of my dreaming Adversary made me write the whole book in some hast caused by my impatience to stand triffling after that manner and my particular hast here appears also by leaving
his most partiall Admiter if he have not absolutely renounc't his reason resolved the slender fading thing into the Drs Authority must see confess he was wilfully fraudulent intended to breed in the Readers minde by the words thus maimedly falsly put another apprehension than the testimony it self rightly dealt with could have caused Yet as long as this Enemy to Truth true dealing makes zealous professions of his entire desire to speak the full Truth of God and that he did in the sincerity of his heart verily beleeve and such like womanish demurenesses he hopes there will be found a company so weakly simple as to give him credence and that his moderate bashfull language will to these good weak sighted Souls be a cloack thick enough to hide or excuse his immoderately shamefull deeds Of such kinde of falsifications Reader I could afford thee variety were it necessary but I have already done enough to secure thee from this Drs Arts and the consequence of them Schism as maintain'd asserted by him Peruse my book attentively thou shalt observe I never call his materiall error in transcribing a falsification I doubt not but I could show thee one hundred such of his for my single one were it worth the pains but onely when I manifest the advantage he got by such a carriage which he never goes about to show in those he objects to mee Again thou â—eest how easily those falsifications he pretends as mine are clear'd nay shown to thine eye to be unconcerning toies or groundles willfull calumnies His which I objected in Schism Disarm'd are left by him unclear'd as this Treatise hath from place to place shown thee And so Reader I leave thee to thy candid thoughts which I desire thee to employ in ruminating upon the Dr. as put in this pickle requesting of thee in mine Adversary's behalf not to be too rigorous in thy censures of him abate as much as the consideration of humane errablenes frailty can suggest to a rationally-compassionate minde onely be not partiall in what is evidently fraudulent and then thou shalt right Truth thy self mee too by one impartially ingenuous rationall act I have onely one word to speak to the Dr. and then I take my leave You see Dr. H. it will not do no tricks can prevail against Truth she will conquer and knows how to defend herself by the weakest Weapon Were it not better now to give God and his Church the honour due to them and show at length your willingnes to acknowledge faults so plainly undeniably open than to continue your fruitles pains to show your self unretractably obstinate Nor do I impute them however I may seem rigorous too plain originally to you I know the necessity of your cause obliges you forcibly to rely on such uniustifiable waies I know and your self cannot but know the same how miserably you are glad to pervert the words voluntarily mistake and thus mistakingly propose to your Readers the true import and sence of your Testimonies and to content your self with any sleight gloss which not your impartiall judgment gives absolutely to be the meaning but what your partiall fancy can imagin may be defended on some sleight fashion to be the meaning See in the Index what undeniable self contradictions weaknesses absurdities voluntary mistakes falsifications your task of defending Schism hath put you upon Be true to your own best interest a sincere conscience be true at least to your own honour and neglect for the future the defence of that cause which must inevitably throw you upon such Rocks The further you reply the worse it will still fare with you For to clear your self of these falsifications other manifold faults satisfactorily is impossible eye-sight attesting them not to clear your self of them is doubly disgracefull fluttering up down as your way of writing is entangles you more Sit still and you will be safer You cannot but see acknowledge that your position of a probable faith leads directly to Atheism if follow'd and that since none has reason to assent further then he has reason that is further then the reasons given convince and since no probability can possibly convince the thing is true or that the Authority speaks true it is impossible any man living can have any obligation in your Grounds to assent that any point of faith is true or any Authority to be beleeved nay if he will not renounce his nature he ought to suspend in both these that is embrace no faith at all The necessity of holding which tenet so fundamentally pernicious to all Christianity so odious to all good Christians unavoidably follows out of your principles of Schism built upon the rejecting the onely certain Rule of faith immediate TraditioÌ„ and the consciousnes to your self that your weak testimony-way reaches no further than probability enforces you to own it and aym at no higher a pitch of satisfaction that is none at all for how can probability satisfy Look behinde you then see what a great deal of industry time you have fruitlesly lost in turning over promiscuously multitudes of Authors without first studying Grounds that is without first laying your thoughts in order with evident deduction from and connexion with first Principles This task onely is called knowledge the former without this is more apt to lead to ignorance mistake leaving onely a confusion of motley incohereÌ„t thoughts in a mans head impossible to be orderly rank't in the posture of knowledge unles regulated by fore layd Grounds Look before you and you shall see many late wits whose gallant self-understanding Souls own their nature rationally scorn to submit to any assent but upon rigorous demonstrative Evidence either of the thing it self in Science or of the Authority in faith Suffer your self to be won to the imitation of these pursvers of knowledge leave talking words begin to speak Sence leave of to diffuse scatter abroad your fleeting thoughts in a Sermonary Preaching way and begin to connect them into rigorous discourse that is instead of aiery talk begin to iudge know instead of empty florish learn to be solid Ina word aym seriously to know that is to assent upon Evidence and then I am confident our understandings will meet in a ioynt-assent and I hope our wills in a consent submission to the Authority of that Church whose Rule of faith immediate Tradition is evidently demonstrable This Sâ— is the hearty wish of him who however you may apprehend him protests he preserves a more prompt zeal naturall alacrity to honour serve you in what you can iustly be concieved deserving than he hath to discover the faults your tenets made you commit which yet was at present his unavoidable duty the truth of your miscariages being ioyn'd to the certainty concernment of his cause you iniur'd by them YOVR SERVANT S. W. FINIS THE APPENDIX VINDICATED AGAINST
to this that there neither is nor ever was a Papist country in the world For since 't is evident in terms that the King and his complices who made that Pope disclaiming Act were not Papists or acknowledgers of the Pope's Authority after they had thus renounc't the Pope's Authority Again since according to the Bp. the same laws were formerly made receiu'd and executed in England it follows that our Ancestours equally renounced the Pope's Authority also and so could bee no Papists neither and lastly since hee grants equivalent laws infrance Spain Italy Sicily Germany Poland c. it follows by the same reason that those countries are not Papists neither no not the very Papacy it self And so this miraculous blunderer hath totally destroy'd and annihilated all the Papists in the world with one self contradictory blast of his mouth And now Christian Reader can I do any less if I intend to breed a due apprehension in thee of the weaknes of his cause and falshood of this man than appeal to thy judgment whether any mad man or born fool could have stumbled upon such a piece of non sence Dos't not think my former words very moderate and very proper to character this man's way when I said How ridiculous how impudent a manner of speaking is this to force his Readers to renounce their eyes ears and all Evidence Could any man without a visard of brass on pretend to secure men's Souls from Schism a sin which of Schism c. 1. themselves acknowledge as great as Idolatry by alledging such sublimated non-sence for a sufficient excuse or ground when the acknowledg'd fact of schismatizing and renting God's Church cries loudly against them nay more since less motives and reasons cannot iustify such a fact nor a continuance of it to bring such an heap of contradictions for perfect Evidences and demonstrations Pardon mee you whose weaker or seldomer reflections on the certainty of faith and by consequence of the certainty of an eternall concernment in these kind of Controversies make you think courtesy violated by such home-expressions which may breed a smart reflexion and stir up a more perfect consideration in the Readers mind's Examin my harshest words in the utmost rigour as apply'd to his Demerits and if they exceed hold mee for blamed if not then think as reason grants that it is equally moderate but far more necessary to call great and wilfull faults by their right names of Cosenage impudence c. if they deserve them as 't is to call smaller lapses by theirs of a mistake or an oversight How can it ever bee hoped that Truth should bee righted as long as her Adversaries may take the liberty to act impudently against her and her Defenders must bee afraid to tell the world their faults and to say what they do Again were this shameles position of this Bp s some odd saying on the by or some petty branch of his discourse it deserv'd less animadversion but 't is the substantiallest part of his vindication where hee huddles together many laws which de facto consisted with the acknowledgment of the Pope's Authority both in England and other Catholike countries to parallell K. H's which were absolutely inconsistent with it and to show that K. H. did no more than his Ancestours and other Catholikes did So that hee alledges this as a chief ground of their vindication and wee shall see again afterwards an whole Section built on this one particular ground Now had hee grounded himself on a foundation of some sandy probability it had been though still insufficient yet more pardonable and in comparison of the other honourable or on an aiery fancy of some odd Crotchet of his own head as was Dr. H's conciet of the Apostles Exclusive Provinces it had been to bee pittied if sprung from weaknes or laught at if from wilfulnes but to ground his vindication that is to build his and his adherents security from Schism and eternall damnation on the meer vacuum of non sence and perfect coÌ„tradiction confutable by the contrary tenet acknowledgment and sight of the whole worlds eyes is such a piece of shamelesnes that it can admit no sufficient character as a non ens is incapable of a definition As for his particularities entrenching or pretended to entrench on the Pope's Authority whether they were lawfully done or no how far they extended in what circumstances and cases they held in what not how the letter of those laws are to bee understood c. all which the Bp. omits though hee press the bare words it belongs to Canon and secular Lawyers to scuffle about them not to mee I hold my self to the lists of the question and the limits of a Controvertist And Whenas hee asks mee what lawfull Iurisdiction could remain to the Pope in England where such and such laws had force I answer the same that remains still to him in france where you confess equivalent laws have force the same that remains to him still in Spain Italy Sicily c. So that either you must speak out according to the Grounds and say there it not a Papist country in the world that is not a country that acknowledges the Pope Head of the Church which is to put out the eyes of the whole world for wee see de facto that hee is acnowledg'd and exercises Iurisdiction in Catholike counttries or else confess that they retain still something notwithstanding those equivalent laws which you renounc't This something which they still retain more than you doe is that which makes you Schismaticks for rejecting it and is so far from grounding your excuse for which you produce it that it enhances your guilt and Grounds a most iust accusation against you that Whereas such and so many strong curbs were set by the former laws of England as are also in Catholike countries to secure you from the least fear of any extravagant encroachmeÌ„ts nay by which you confess here p. 36. they kept their priviledges inviolated yet your desperately-seditions humour could neither bee contented with that freedome from too much subjection which your own forefathers and all other countries then in CoÌ„munion with you enioy'd but you must quite extirpate the inward Right it self totally abolish and renounce the very substance of thâ— former Ecclesiasticall Government and cast it out of the Kingdome Sect. 4. My L d of Derry's senceles plea from the Church of England's succeeding the British Church in her pretended exemptions from forrain Iurisdiction and the uniustifiablenes of those pretensions The perfect weaknes of his Corroboratory proof and utter authenticknes of the Welsh Pueriles THe scope of his fifth Chapter as himself here acknowledges was to show that the Britannik Churches were ever exempted from forrain Iurisdiction for the first 600. yeâ—rs Now his book being entitled a vindication of the â—hurch of England to show this whole process frivolous I ask't what this belong'd to us unles it bee proved that their practicks were an
is my task to defendit What say you to the Office it self as put down here by mee Return my L d whence you stray'd and tell us is not the Office it self thus moderately yet substantially exprest naturally conducing to the peace Vnity Faith Discipline other universall conveniencies of Christendome or is it though thus advantageous to the whole Church to be rejected because of the abuses of particular persons These are the points between us what say you to these why in the next parag hee would have us look upon the case without an if or as a Pope should bee no my Lord I ought not in reason to quit that method you I are not disputing about mens lives but the Catholike tenet and whether the very tenet bee advantageous to the Church or not If wee leave this wee leave the whole Question Yet wee must leave the Question else my Lord will not proceed nor dispute telling us that if wee look upon the case without an if or as the Pope should bee that is indeed if wee look not upon the case then wee shall finde the Papacy as it is settled or would have been sayes hee the cause of Schisms Ecclesiasticall dissentions war amongst Princes c. Where first if nothing follows out of my words but this disiunctive as it is settled or would have been then it remains for any thing hee expresses that as it is settled it is not apt to cause any of these inconveniences but onely would have been in case some vicious attemptors had had the power to corrupt that which was actually well in the Church Next if hee speak of the Papacy as it is settled hee must look upon it as held by the Rule of faith and acknowledg'd by all Romane Catholikes otherwise if hee considers it according to what is disputable wrangled about between Catholike Catholike hee considers it not as settled for this is to bee not setled nor indeed is this to speak of the Papacy it self about which Catholikes have no debates but of the extent of it Now let him either evince that Papacy as settled or held universally by all Catholikes is in it's own nature the cause of Schisms dissentions Warrs c. Or grant that 't is not such but the contrary as hee does here tacitly by yeelding that if it were as it should bee it would bee faultles and presently doubting whether it bee right settled that is as it should bee or no. The substance of the Pope's Authority being stated I show'd all the Bishop's arrows falling on his own head because not with standing such disputes it is evident that the nature and notion of one Church is intirely conserved the Papacy standing firm in those very Catholike countries which resisted the Pope and those countries governing themselves in an Vnity of faith Sacraments correspondence like one Body as is visible whereas their Reform or renouncing the Pope has cut of England from all this Communication or correspondence and made it no part of one Church greater then it self but an headles Synagogue without Brother hood or order Hee replies Neither so nor so How then my Lord why hee tells us first that the Eastern Southern Northern Churches admit none higher then the cheifest Patriarch Well my L d are you and they both joyntly under the Government of those Patriarchs or any other common Government If not how are you then of one community or Brotherhood as Governed Next hee alledges that agreat part of the Westerne Churches have shaken of the Roman Yoke Grant it were so and that those Congregations were in reality Churches which wee deny yet are you united with those Churches under some common Christian Government joyning you them into one Christian Commonwealth If not as your eyes witnes 't is not then how are you their Brothers or of their community Show us this visible ty of order uniting you together To say you are one or united to them without showing us this extern ty is very easy but convinces nothing Thirdly hee tells us that the rest of the Western world which acknowledge the Papacy do it with very many reservations cautions and restrictions Very good my Lord if they onely restrain'd they restrain'd something which they admitted as thus restrain'd to wit the substance of the Pope's Authority Are you at least united with them Alas no you are disunited from them by totally renouncing and not restraining onely that Authority which visibly united them Where then is your Brother hood where is your order Fourthly hee answers that for order they are for it as much as wee That you are for it desire it if your Grounds would let you wee doubt not But have you any such order uniting you visibly to the rest of the Christian world To say you are for it when the Question is whether you have it no without ever attempting to show us this visible order signifies you neither have any nor can show any or that you have indeed a feeble wish for it but not efficacious enough to make you use means to obtain it Fifthly hee tells us that for Christian Brother hood they maintain it three times larger then wee But he never goes about to show us any visible ty of Government uniting them into one CoÌ„monwealth or Brother hood 'T is a sufficient proof with him to say they maintain it that is they call more Brothers then wee do but whether they are so indeed or no 't is so evident with him though hee knows his own fellows say the contrary as may bee seen in Rosse's view of Religioâ—s that it needs no proof though it bee all the Question Sixthly as for their being an headles Synagogue hee replies that they want no head who have Christ a spirituall Head Wee are demanding a visible common Head or cheif GovernmeÌ„t of the whole Church common to England with the rest and hee relates us to Christ in Heaven Such an Head is God Amighty to all mankind must they therefore because of this invisible relation become one CoÌ„monvealth Again this latter towit whether Christ bee their spirituall Head or no is invisible unknown and is to bee judged by the other thus that if Christ have lest any Vnity of Goverment in his Church and commanded it to bee kept and they have taken a course to leave no such Vnity 't is evident that they have rebell'd against Christ as well as his Church and so falsly pretend to have him for their spirituall Head Next hee tells us that they have a generall Council for an Ecclesiasticall Head Which is to confess that there is no ordinary Vnity of Government in God's Church but extraordinary onely when a Council sits that is there is none de facto at present nay morally impossible there should bee any as Dr. H. sayes Reply p. 39. and 't is a great chance when there is any perhaps towards the end of the world as the same Dr.
to lurk undiscoverable under the smooth outsde of a fair-languag'd courtesie The twitchings by the beard which he reiterates to make his Reader smile is indeed something too rude a carriage if understood in the downright sence as he seems to take it but since I spoke-it onely in an Allegery and in order to his wearing a vizard which I pluck'd off let him but acknowledge that I found him attired in such a mask to which the other words related and I am contented to be thouâ—t so unreasonably uncivil as to pluck it off so rudely Next with what Logick does he huddle together those testimonies out of Scripture for S. W's pasport to Hell unlesse he could evidence that they were particularly appliable to him Are words which in their own nature found even contumeliously so perfectly damnable that no circumstance can render them inculpable or at least venial if not necessary or convenient for the Dr. maintains the generall Thesis in such à manner as if one taken in such a flagrant fact is long ago condemned to hell and disinherited from his right to heaven p. 2. and 3. What becomes then of good S. Iohn Baptist who called the ill-prepared Iews a generation of vipers what of S. Paul who Acts 13. 8. called Elymas son of the devil full of all treaechery and deceit enemy of all justice c. What of our Saviour who called Herod Fox the prophaners of the Temple Theeves the Scribes and Pharisees Hypocrites And to come nearer our present circumstances what will become of Blessed S. Polycarp disciple to S. Iohn the Evangelist the tenderest recommender of Charity to his disciples of all the Apostles who yet meeting with an heretick who began complementally to insinuate into acquaintance with nonn agnoscis nos Do not you know us rejected his courtesy with this rude language Agnosco primogenitum Di boli yes I know thee to be the first begotten of the devil What of S. Iude who calls hereticks clouds without water autumnal trees twice dead rooted out waves of the raging sea foaming out their own confusion Lastly to come yet nearer home what shall we think of Gods Church whose custome it ever was to anathematis and curse all hereticks and of S. Paul who bids anathema even to an Angel from heaven if he should preach false doctrine I ask now are not all these expressions revileing contumelious rude and which the Doctour most resents beard-twitching language if taken in themselves Must then all this good company be deem'd detestable unrighteous excommunicate and blindly pack'd all away to hell together for revilers contumelious c. because they gave such hard language The texts alledged by Mr. H. are very generall laying about them blindly and indifferently at Friends and Foes and he allowes them here no exception at all Or if he does as I hope he wil rather then involve such persons in his uniuersall censure then the reason why he exempts these must be because the words though taken in their own indifferency without any application are most highly contumelious yet spoken to such persons as hereticks men publickly noxious the common good concernd ' made the private person's repute not considerable and so the misdesert of the persons justifying the truth of the words they sounded now a laudable and necessary zeal which in other circumstances had been contumely and inteâ—perate passion Whence followes first that I am not excommunicate or in the state of damnation for having used contumelious words since the use of them if taken simply in it self is not impious as has beenshown but for having used them against Dr. H. Vnhappy I who was not aware how sacred a person my adversary was ere I undertook to deal with him Next it follows that if Dr. H. evidence not his cause to be no heresy and himself no maintainer of it all those former harsh expressious used against hereticks are his due and without scruple of sin might be given him by S. W. who had undertaken as a Catholick writer to lay open his faultinesse Let any man but read the Doctours first chapter of Schism and take notice what harsh-sounding characters the Fathers give to that vice and then let him tell me what a publick propagatour of Schim may deserue Wherefore unlesse he makes his evidence good S. W. may also justly retort upon him the charge of contumeliousnesse since he has no where in his whole Book used towards him such rude expressions as the Dr. hath in his first chapter by his censorious self-explication of Scripture loaded upon him of detestable impious c onely Mr. Hammond calumniates in a preaching manner and out of Scripture which makes the well-couch'd contumely lesse discernable Thirdly it were very easie for S. W. using the Doctours method to gather out of Scripture all the vigorous words and severe execrations against the wicked and then by his own voluntary explication and application clap them all upon the Dr. as for example that of Curse ye Meroz c. and then say that by Meroz is meant such as Mr. H. who writes against God's Church This I say were as easie for the Disarmer But he cannot but hate that in himself which he nauseates at in another He knows very wel and hopes the world now grown wiser plainly discerns it almost as impossible certainly to demonstrate truth by clashing together meer wordish testimonies as to strike fire by the weak collision of two pieces of Wax which easily yield at every stroke and therefore makes account it is his greatest misfortune to tamper with an Adversary who trades in wares of no higher value then onely Reusner like in fragments pick'd out of severall Authours and then stitch'd together by voluntary transitions into a book What is hitherto said is onely to show that every using of language even in its own nature contumelious is fat from being a sin and therefore that S. W. may yet by God's grace hope to escape hell fire unlesse the Dr. can evidence that his cause is neither Heresie nor Schisme since if it be it remain'd very lawful for him to treat the publike propagatour of it according to his desert as has been shown But S. W. disclaims in behalf of his book any such language towards Dr. H. A contumely I conceive notes some personall and morall fault in another did I note any in him Indeed as a writer he was mine and the Churches Adversary and as such it is most irrationall I should spare him when I saw my advantage Do Duellers if their quarrell be serious use to spare their enemy and not hurt him in that place where they see him unguarded It were madnesse then to expect that where my adversary writ insincerely I should not shew him insincere where blasphemously blasphemous where weakly weak where ridiculously ridiculous Vpon such advantage offer'd I ought to have had no courtesie for him unlesse I would prevaricate from my task and betray the cause I had undertaken
to defend by a complemental connivence If then I might upon his desert give him those characters I hope it is necessarily consequent that words must be allowed me to expresse them nor ought the lawfull help of Rhetorick be interdicted me to expresse them home Now if all art of Rhetorick gives it that ridiculous things ought to be exprest ironically let Dr. H. blame the art so unfriendly to him and his own weaknesse which intituled him to such expressions not S. W. who did but as art nature and reason required If any yet object that I was still excessive in the manner of those expressions I answer that I shall bewilling to confesse the fault unlesse I manifested him equally excessive in the manner of deserving them otherwise as long as the proportion holds I shall in reason account my self blamelesse As a writer then against God's Church D. H. ought in reason to expect no mercy at S. W's hands but rigorous justice onely nor is this by consequence contumeliousnesse but the proper treaty which reason grants religion avoucheth and the circumstances make necessary Now that all the pretended revilings of S. W. are no other the Dr. shall inform the Reader complaining here pag. 2. that the Publisher of the book hath solemny annext a list of the contumelies three and thirty picz'd out by specialty c. since then these as he sayes are the speci all or chief contumelies not to trouble the Reader with the whole Roll we will onely take notice of the first of them which is this How the Dr. of Divinity has forgot his accidence This is the first of those special contumelies which Dr. H. here compares to Goliah's cursing of David to Rabshakeh's reproches to the king of Moab's language against Israel This is that in the flagiant fact of which as he expresses it being taken the Apostle hath therefore long ago pronounced sentence against me that no Christian must eat with me hence it is that I have onely the name not the reality of a Christian am a detestable person ipso jure excommunicated in a special manner one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he pedantizes it so as unreformed that is without repentance I shall not inherit the kingdome of heaven and do but flatter and deceive my self if I hope I may and lastly am none of those Saints who clave non errante shall judge the word Thus are poor Catholicks poasted to hell by couples for I suppose the Romish Factour must bear me company without bale or mainprise for manifesting that Dr. H. had forgot his Accidence You wits of the Vniuersities beware and take example by the fatall Catastrophe of S. W. when you write or dispute do not accuse your Adversary of inconsequence in his argument mistakes in criticizing solâ—ecismes or the like you see upon how ticklish a point your salvation stands if you do the Apostle hath pronounced long ago that no man may eat with you hence you are specially contumelious excommunicated no Christians detestable in speciall sort unrighteous and do but flatter your selves if you hope to go to heaven without true and hearty repentance as Dr. H. hath evidently provâ—d out of Scripture The rest of those special contumelies as he calls them are deductions from his own erroneous reasoning or interpreting Scripture from his self contradictions his mistakes c. and therefore being onely aimed at his Book orat Himself as the Writer of it were necessary to be taken notice of by his Disarmer and consequently not falling under the notion of contumelies nor deserving so many censures in Greek If Mr. H. yet kindly complain that my words were too harsh my answer is the very names we give to great faults are harsh words nor can they possibly be other wise so as he must either suppose me so supine as not to take notice of his faultinesse or else I must suppose him more innocent that is deny mine own eyes and then winking at his grosse and pernicious errours substitute courtesy to zeal and instead of confuting fall to complement Now how can any man in reason imagine I should not mention his greatest faults that is not use harsh words For either Dr. H. knew of them or not if not it was his interest and my charity to let him know them which I think cannot be done without naming them If he knew of them and yet writ them it was a more necessary charity and more concerning the publick and dearest interest of mens salvations waving all private respect to the person to let all men know his false dealing that they might beware of him as of a wolf in sheeps clothing Let himself chuse which side he pleases I shall hold my self sufficiently cleared by either Nay rather I have reason to make a counter-complaint of the Dr. for I no where in my whole Book branded him with the appelation of a detestable person which this pattern of piety gives me though my pretence might avouch-it being to defend the rights of the Church I live in whereas his intemperance proceeds from a vindication of his private selfe from the contumelies forsooth he hath received and to aggravate his fault the more he cannot be content to use his own words to expresse his gravity affecting passion but to make his railing more authoritative as one said of a precise puritanical Dame that shee never cudgeld her Mayd but in Scripture-phrase so St. Paul must needs prophecie long ago of my Excommunication be revived to pronounce it in Dr. H's name and for solemnity sake in Greek too Yet after the Dr. hath been so hihg in the Pulpit against contumelies he is become himself so mean an Auditor as to accuse me flatly of falsifications with what reason shall be seen hereafter calumnies certainly if not avouch'd yet all sounds zeal in him which in another would be plain contumelie Should we desire St. Paul now to Excommunicate Dr. H. hee would presently silence-us by assuring'us that St. Paul never meant harm to him but to S. W. onely so secure a thing it is to be a dexterous Scripturist Sect. 2. That the certainty of Faith and that onely justly grounds zeal and obliges the Propugner of that Faith to an impartial plainnesse with its Adversary as taken-under that notion THese ordinary Considerations and obvious to common sence I have offer'd to the Reader to let him see this manner of Writing in confuting such Authors is very rational if the cause deserves any zeal and the truth of the thing makes good what is said One reason more I shall adde which I recommend to the attentive consideration of the Reader it being indeed the fundamental ground why such a treaty should be necessary in controversies about Faith against the deemed adversaries thereof And this is no other than the certainty of Faith it self But lest the Dr. should mistake me as his custome is to beg the question by supposing our Faith certain I professe my selfe