certainty what Royalty is the notion varying according to diuerse countries But hee understands perhaps that a Patriarch shall not bee independēt of the King in Ecclesiasticall affairs within his own Patriarchate and that this is the King's priviledge to which condition hee knows no Catholike will ever yeeld any more than to the former otherwise wee must grant that S. Peter could not preach at Rome if Nero were a King not S. Iames at Hiernsalem without unkinging Herod Yet the Bp. will bee even with mee for as I will not condescend to his conditions so on the other side hee neither hath heretofore nor ever will hereafter bee brought to hold to the question or speak directly to the point as hath been seen hitherto all along and shall more particularly bee seen hereafter Nor will hee long defer his revenge but puts it in execution the very next thing hee does being assured to have demanded such conditions as should never bee granted for Whereas hee had remou'd the question from a Papall Authority held of divine to a Patriarchall acknowledg'd but of human Institution not to desert our question totally and to give him fair law I put the case that the Papall Government had been onely of human Institution it ought not to have been rejected unles the abuses had been irremediable I urged that considering this Head was chosen in that case to preserve Vnity in Religion and that eternall dissentions would inevitably follow upon it's rejection and a separation of the rejecters from the rest of that common-wealth which acknowledg'd that Head therefore far weightier causes must bee expected or greater abuses committed ere not onely the person but this very Government should bee abolish't Now the matter of fact being evident and confest that the first Reformers consented with all the Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome in their submitting to that Authority till they began to reject it that they acknowledg'd it lawfull ere they began to disclame it as unlawfull that they held none at that time true Christians but those who agreed consented and submitted to that Authority that the acknowledging this Head then was as it still is to us the Principle of Vnity in Government for all Christianity as such then held by them Likewise it being equally evident confest that they have now actually renounced that Authority thus held acknowledg'd and submitted to by all whom they then deemed Christians as the Rule and Ground of all Vnity in that commonwealth These things I say being so I had good reason to put that supposition not as our bare tenet as the Bp. seems to imagin but as the evident matter of fact as the case stood then One would think it were the Bp's task now to show that notwithstanding all this the first Abolishers of this Authority had sufficient reasons to disannull it and that the abuses of the sayd Authority did outweigh the right use of it so that it might and ought have been rejected by one part of that Christianity though once establisht or which is all one long accepted by their common consent as this was de facto What does the Bp. Hee tells us what hee and the Protestants now held concerning that point putting as it were his counter tenet to ours sayes the Pope is onely as a Proclocutor in a Generall Assembly was their steward that is not their Governour all contrary to the matter of fact which my case is built on that they nourish a more Catholik-Communion than wee and such other stuff all out of his own head without a word of proof then thinks the deed is done Was ever such an Answer contriu'd the poak-full of plums was pertinent if compar'd to ' this But still the Bishop is innocent t was my fault who would not accept of the two conditions hee proposed which should have been the guerdon of his returning to the question that is without the performance of which hee thinks himself not bound to speak a word to the purpose And so the Reader must look upon him hereafter as on a man who hath got or took licence to run astray Observe Reader in what a different manner the Bp. I treat thee I still bring thee to evident and acknowledg'd matter of fact or such suppositions which need onely application and another name to bee so according as the case stood at the time of the first breach Whereas the Bp. brings thee his own sayings their party's tenet for Grounds and proofs things not acknowledg'd but disputable nay disputed in this present debate that is obscure as far as concerns this question And this is his solemn manner all over this treatise which shows that hee hates the light his unfriendly betrayer but truth's Glory and that the obscurity of ambiguities is most proper and least offensive to his errour-darkned eyes I demanded of him whether hee would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes or abuses of Prelates Hee answers that never such abuses as these were objected either to Princes or Prelates in England Not objected that 's strange Read the Court of K. Iames and the charge against King Charles in Westminster Hall Did not the Scots and Puritans object Popery intolerable pride and overburthening weak consciences to your Brother Bp's Can there bee greater abuses objected than these in your Grounds or is not the design to bring in Popery which makes such a noise in your book as a Pandera's box of all mischiefs and inconveniences as horrid an accusation against you as the same inconveniences were against Popery when it stood on foot in K. H's daies I was told by a worthy grave person and whose candour I have no reason to suspect that in a priuate discourse hee had with the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in his own garden concerning the point of Schism the Arch-Bishop confest upon his urging the evident matter of fact that hee was in a Schism upon which free confession of his being prest again by that Gentleman how hee could in conscience remain in a Schism and separated from God's Church hee reply'd that it might lawfully bee done if warranted by an intention to reunite by such compliance a schismatizing Congregation to the Body it broke from citing to make good his plea a place from S. Austin in reference to some Catholike Bishops complying with the Donatists for the same end Now I ask whether in case the Arch-Bishop had endeavoured to bring in Popery Episcopacy held to bee of divine right ought therefore to bee abolisht If bee answer No as I suppose his interest will prevail above his Grounds to make him then I ask again why an inferiour actuall power to wit Episcopacy should not bee held to merit abolishing for Popery's sake and introducing it so fraught with inconveniences which Popery so full alas of grievances though held immediately before equally of divine Institution and of far higher
that Authority not the want of Authority it self The second Testimony that they which are excommunicated by some shall not be received by others is the onely place in this Section most likely to infer the Doctor 's Conclusion that the Popes is not Supreme which indeed it does most amply if taken in it's whole latitude and extent but withall the Doctor must confess that if it be taken so it utterly destroys all Government and his former testimony from the Milevitan Council to boot For if those words be universally true then it is unlawful for a Priest to appeal from his Bishop to an Arch-Bishop Primate or Provincial Council granted in the said testimony which takes away all Authority in a Superiour over the Acts and Decrees of an Inferiour and by consequence all Government Now then since the said testimony which indeed was mean't of the Appeals of Priests and so is already answerd'd cannot serve him unless taken in it's full extent nor can it be taken so whitout subverting all Ground of Government it follows that it cannot serve him at all nor prejudice us Again since it cannot be taken as denying Appeals from Subordinate to Superiour Governours universally Mr. H's grounds must make it conclude against us by making it signify a denial of Appeals to Coequals in Authority onely Wherefore all it's force is built on this supposition that the Pope is not Superiour but coequal onely to a Patriarch so that his Argument is epitomiz'd into this pithy piece of sense as true as the first Principles which he must suppose to make this proof valid that the Pope not being Head of the Church is not Head of the Church and then all is clearly evidenced The third testimony We entreat you that you would not easily admit those to your Communion who are excommunicated by us is so far from gain-saying the Pope's power that the very expressions of which it is fram'd are rather so many acknowlegdments of it being onely a request not that he would not receive their Appeals or admit them at all much less that he could not but onely that he would not admit them easily that is without due and mature examination of the cause Now who sees not that an humble desire that he would not doe it easily intimates or supposes he had a power to doe it absolutely This is confirm'd by their subjoyning as the reason of their request not because the Pope had no power to admit others but because the Council of Nice had so decreed knowing that it was a strong motive for them and an obligation in the Supreme Governour to conserve the Laws of the Church inviolate unless Evidence that in these Circumstances it crost the common good licenc't him to use his extraordinary Authority in that Extremity and to proceed now not upon Laws but upon the dictates of Nature the Ground and Rule of all Laws So perfectly innocent to our cause are all the testimonies of weight alledged by Mr. H. against it if they be left to themselves and not inspired with malice by the bad meaning he will needs instill into them against their own good nature The fourth testimony is stil like Dr. H. as he maintains a bad cause that is incomparably weak and short of concluding any thing 'T is this that the Bishops of every Nation must account the Primate their Head What then is not a Parish-Priest Head of a Parish a Bishop Head of his Diocese an Arch-Bishop Head of his Arch-Bishoprick as well as a Primate Head of his Primacy Does it then follow from a Bishops being Head of the Priests in his Diocese that there is no degree of Authority Superiour to his yet this apply'd to a Primate is all Dr. H's argument to prove none higher than he But it is pretty to observe in what strange words he couches his inference from hence which saith he Repl. p. 40. sure infers that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely Head of all Bishops Observe that canting phrase one onely Head c His intent here manifestly was to show no degree of Authority Superiour to Patriarchs to prove this he alledges this testimony now agitated and then because he saw it would not carry home to the mark be aymed it at he infers warily that the Pope is not the one onely Head of all Bishops By which expression he prepares an evasion beforehand when the inconsequence of his discourse from the said testimony shall be obâ—ected or else would persuade the unwary Reader that we hold the Pope so Head of the the Church as that we admit not Primates to be Head of the Bishops under them Whereas our tenet is that as Primates are immediate Heads of the Metropolitans so the Pope is Head or Superiour over Primates and by consequence Supreme over the whole Church yet so Supreme as he leaves to Subordinate Governours their Headship inviolate over their proper Inferiours Thus much to his Testimonies concerning Appeals His other manner of arguing against the Pop'es Supremacy or his being a summum genus is from names and titles deny'd him The first testimony is from Decret part 1. dist 99. cap. 3. that Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum vel summus Sacerdos that the Bishop of the first Seat ought not to be called Prince of the Priests or Supreme Priest which the African Council confirms with aut aliquid eiusmodi sed tantum primae sedes Episcopus The second is from the same place cap. 4. Nec â—â—iam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus The third from the Epistle of Pope Pelagius Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur c. No Patriarch must use the title of Vniversal for if one Patriarch be called Vniversal the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest The fourth is their thred-bare and often answered testimony of Saint Gregory refusing the title of Vniversal Bishop But first these testimonies come short of what they are intended for in this that none speaks of the right of Iurisdiction but onely of names and titles as appears by the words appelletur appellandus Vniversalitatis vocabulo superbae appellationis verbum in the testimonies which denote no exception against any Authority but against the titular expression of it onely which sounded proudly and seem'd inconvenient and new at that time Secondly it is a great weakness in understanding the nature of words not to advert that the vogue of the world altering from plainess to complementalness as it does stil daily the same word may be used without fear of pride at one time which could not at another nay the same thing may be fitly signify'd by some word at some time which cannot be signify'd by the same at another as for example Tyrannus once was proper for a King ruling according to law and right which now is not competent but to him who rules arbitrarily against both or rather indeed once it signify'd a power
that Ballad shall bee confidently asserted to have been sung by the old British Bards and to have signify'd the sence of the British Churches in those days And thus Protestant Reader thou seest what demonstrations thy BP's and Dr's bring thee to secure thy Soul from the horrid sin of Schism which yet Dr. H. of Schism c. 1. they tell thee is greater than Idolatry Lastly put case all had been true yet what had they concluded unles they had proved likewise that this Abbot in saying so had spoken the mind of the then Catholike world for no man that hath any sence in his head will undertake to defend that in the space of fifteen or sixteen hundred years there cannot bee found some few who either out of disgust ambition interest or ignorance might speak or act against the Pope's Authority or against the most inuiolable right that can be imagined but 't is clearly sufficient to maintain that in so saying they pronounced not the sence of the then Catholike world Have there been heresies against almost all other points of faith arisen in severall ages and shall wee imagin noe possibility of opposition against that point which concerns Government Or will it bee deem'd by any indifferent man a competent proof against true faith to say that such and such hereticks deny'd it No more ought it to bee held sufficient that such or such persons now and then deny'd that point which concerns Government unles such a deniall can Ground an inference that God's Church in that age held otherwise If then the Bp. will first clear his welsh copy book of all the exceptions brought against it next assert and establish it's Authority and lastly evince that this Abbot in thus saying spoke the thoughts of the world at that time hee will conclude strongly against us and till hee does this hee does nothing For onely the beleef of a Church relying on immediate Tradition pretended and evinced can bee possibly held able to counterpoise the tenet of a Church which confessedly relies on immediate Tradition possest As for what the Bp. addes concerning his corroboratory proof from the British Synods I must confess indeed that corroboratory is a very thumping and robust word but what does it corroborate Does it prove that the Authour of this welsh manuscript was worth a straw Not a iot The chief strentgh of this corrobototy proof lies in this that all the British Clergy did in those Synods renounce all obedience to the see of Rome as hee tells us here p. 29. and urges mee to answer it I shall and reply that 't is an arrant falsification at once of all Historians for if hee means that they onely disobey'd the Pope in not conforming themselves to his commands I grant 't is clear in all history they did so and so have many who remain Catholikes done who yet own the Pope's Authority it self but if it signifies as his circumstances and words make it that they renounced the Pope's Authority and deny'd his power to command or Supremacy 't is absolutely false no such thing being debated or denyâ—d in those Synods Yet to corroborate this this Bp. tells us in his iust vindication p. 104. That Austin S. Gregory's Legate proposed three things to them first that they should submit to the Roman Bishop 2ly that they should conform to the Roman customes about the obseruation of Easter and administration of Baptism and Lastly that they should ioyn with him in preaching to the saxons All which are preteÌ„ded to bee deny'd in those Synods Whereas again the first pretended proposall of S. Austin's is a very flat falsification of the Bp's no such thing being there proposed The three proposalls were concerning Easter Baptism and preaching to the English as your friend Dr. H. who happen'd here to bee more ingenuous tells you expresly out of Bede Appendix p. 181. l. 8. 9. Yet the Bp. cites there for this proposall and deniall Beda omnes alij in the margent that is at once belies Bede and all our Historians and to compleat the iest in his vindication p. 104. l. 1. 2. hee brags that this would strike the question dead And truly soe it hath for whereas the question before depended most upon the Bp's own words and partly on his sincâ—rity nothing is more questionles now than this that hee is a most unquestionable falsifier Now to falsify wee are told signifies to corroborate that Protestant cause and so is no shame but a beautifull stain and an honorable scar Again hee assures us here from his corroboratory proof that all the British Clerâ—y did râ—nounce all obedience to the Bp of Rome of which all our Historiographers do bear witnes You see by his many All 's what care hee hath of sincerity Whereas the Right of their subjection never came into play much less did they profess a renouncing all obedience but onely in not conforming to the customes of another Church Nor shall hee find one Historiographer who affirms that they deny'd all subjection due or disacknowledg'd the Pope's Headship though in some things they disobey'd him except his welsh paper and those of his own side who presume it upon their own conjecture And to confute his All Pitseus tells us onely that neque in maiori tonsurâ neque in ritu baptismatis neque in celebratione Paschatis se Romanae Ecclesiae ullâ ratione conformare voluerunt Which shows that there was no talk there of the Pope's Authority but of conforming to rites and customes Yet this the corroborating Bp. there calls an evident demonstration that I but trifle vainly against the testimony of Dionothus But in case this British Clergy which made these laws had renounced the Pope's Authority Let us see what cause hee had to brag of them S. Bede l. 2. c. 2. calls them unfaithfull naughty and detestable people Their own Country man Gildas sayes they were wolues enemies of truth and friends to lies enemies of God and not Priests marchants of mischief and not Bp's impugners of Christ and not his Ministers more worthy to bee drawn to Prison than to Preisthood And the Bp's dear friend Iohn Fox tell us out of an old Chronicle Acts l. 2. p. 114. that all things whether they pleased or displeased Cod they regarded alike not onely secular men did this but their Bishops and Teachers without distinction Thus my Ld D. hath again corroborated the Protestant cause by crying Hail Brethren well met to those folks who have been proved to bee detestable fellows and enemies of God that is as good as Atheists of which gang if this Dinoth were one wee shall neither wish the Pope such friends nor enuy them to the Protestants And this may serue for another of the Bp's demonstrations against the Pope to vindicate his Church from Schism and secure his Readers from damnation which hee acknowledges due to that vice by their relying on such proofs and adhering to such good company I am not ignorant
in that Council and yet bee a lawfull one too Rub up your memory my L d. you pretend to bee a piece of a Lawyer and I beleeve you will finde an English law that Sixty members is a sufficient number to make a lawfull Parliament and before that law was made common consent custome which is either equivalent or perhaps above law gave the same for granted Fourthly he excepts against the super proportion'd multitude of members out of one Province which hee sayes never lawfull Parliament had I ask if other Provinces would neither send a fit number nor they had a minde to come by what law by what reason should it render illegitimate either Parliament or Council Now 't is certain and not deny'd by any but that Bishop's had as free liberty to come out of other Provinces as out of Italy had they pleased Again the principall busines being to testify the Tradition of former ages a small number of Bishops serving for that and the collaterall or secundary busines being to examin the difficulties those Hereticks which were the occasion of the Council produced that they might be confuted fully out of their own mouthes which is a thing to bee performed by committees in which learned men that were not Bishops might sit it little inferred the want of Bishops Wherefore if there were any error in the supernumerarines of Bishops out of some one Province it was for some other end than for the condemnation of Heresies so is nothing to our purpose unles perhaps my L d will pretend that had those Catholike B p' s out of other Provinces been there they would have voted against their fellow Catholikes in behalf of Luther or Calvin which were a wise Answer indeed Fifthly hee excepts that the Council of Trent is not received in France in point of Discipline What then why by his parallell to a Parliament hee concludes hence t was no lawfull Council Which is to abuse the eyes of the whole world who all see that France who denies the admission of those points of Discipline acknowledges it not withstanding a generall lawfull Council and receives it in all determinations belonging to faith which are so essential to it as it were disacknowledg'd were they deny'd though not in matters of fact which are accidentall to it's Authority nay allow'd by the Church it self however made exprest generally to binde particular countries onely in due circumstances according to their conveniencies Lastly hee alledges that they were not allow'd to speak freely in the Council of Trent Which is a flat calumny and though most important to his cause could hee prove it yet after his bold custome 't is onely asserted by his own bare saying by Sleidan a notoriously lying Author of their own side and by a passage or two in the History of the Council of Trent whereof the first is onely a ieering expression any thing will serve the B p. the other concerning the Pope's creating new Bp's nothing at all to his purpose since both these new the other old B p' s were all of one Religion Catholikes so not likely to dissent in voâ—ing Doctrines which kind of votes are essentiall to a Council pertinent to our discourse which is about Doctrines not about Discipline After this hee puts down three solutions as hee calls them to our plea of the Patriarchall Authority First that Britain was no part of the Roman Patriarchate And this hee calls his first solution Secondly that though it had been yet the Popes have both quitted forfeited their Patriarchall power and though they had not yet it is lawfully transferred And this is his second solution The third is that the difference between them and us is not concerning any Patriarchall Authority And this is his third solution which is a very really good one shows that the other need no reply our charge against them being for renouncing the supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority of divine Institution not a Patriarchate onely of humane Institution If further answer bee demanded first the Greek Schismaticks our enemies confess that England was a part of the Pope's Patriarchate if it bee truly called a Western Church see Barlaam Monachus de Papae Principatu c. 11 and Part. 1. Sect. 15. of the adjoyning Treatise Next it is falsely pretended that the Pope's have either quitted or forfeited their Patriarchall Authority and may with equall reason bee concluded that a Bishop quits Episcopall Authority if hee is also a Patriarch or that a person must leave of to be Master of his own family because hee is made King and his Authority universally extended to all England Which last instance may also serve against the pretended inconsistency of the Papall and Patriarchall power if it need any more answer than what hath formerly been given Sect. 4. I omit his calumnies against the Papall Authority charactering it falsly as a meere unbridled tyranny And his thrice repeated non-sence when hee joyns in one notion Patriarchall Authority a Patriarchy being a Government by one an Aristocracy by many Nor is his other calumniating expression much better when hee calls the Papall Authority a Soveraign Monarchicall Royalty since it was never pretended by Catholikes that the Pope is the King of the Church The notion of Priest and Sacrifice being relative the failing of the one destroyes the other since then the Protestants have no Sacrifice they are convinced to have no Priests This point in particular hee never touch't but talk't a little in obscure terms of matter form of ordination as if it were not an easy thing to say what words they pleased and do what actions they pleased To this the Bishop onely replies that hee over did and set down the point of Sacrifice over distinctly Next hee tells us their Registers are publike offices whether any man may repair at pleasure whereas our question is not of the Registers in generall but of that one particular pretended Register of the right ordination of Protestant Bishops kept conceal'd from the free perusall of Catholikes though the circumstances to wit their alledging the unlawfulnes of the Protestant Bishops ordination requir'd it should bee shown His next paragraph concerning their uncharitablenes needs not bee repeated unles it could be mended My expedient to procure peace Vnity which was to receive the root of Christianity a practicall infallibility in the Church hee seems willing to admit of Onely hee adds that the greater difficulty will bee what this Catholike Church is and indeed to his party 't is an insuperableone though to us most facil as I have shown formerly Sect. 7. Hee call'd the Bishops of Italy the Pope's parasiticall pentioners I reply'd it seem'd his Lordship Kept a good table and had great revenews independent on any Hee answers hee was not in passion and that hee Spoke onely against meer Episcopelles which is to show that his passion is nothing abated yet by adding such unsavory
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
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
one of Schism p. 55. l. 22. 23. and 26. and so infer the no-farther extent of the former out of the no-farther extent of the latter after he had acknowledg'd the former of much farther extent than the latter was Is not this a most shameful and unconscionable sleight to mingle and jumble two Authorities together for his own ends in that very Chapter where he pretended to treat of them distinctly His next manifold blundering is to bring testimonies which he tells the Reader here Rep. p. 32. 33. manifestly distinguish't the Province of the Bishop of Rome from the Province of Italy which he assures us could not have had truth in them if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy and yet not one word is found in any of the testimonies making mention of the Patriarchy nor yet of the Province of the Bishop of Rome at all nay the three first onely mention the City of Rome The first is this as cited by himself Rep p. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the house be delivered to those to whom the Bishop through Italy and the City of Rome should decree it The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The holy Synod assembled from Rome and Spain France and Italy The third foure hundred Bishops both from great Rome and from all Italy and Calabria Now suppose insisting on the Grounds of mine own cause I should onely reply that they mention'd Rome in particular for eminency of Authority not contradistinction of it were it not a thousand times more likely on my side there being no City particulariz'd but this in the testimonies for all the rest are Regions or Provinces Again were the testimonies most express for the Roman Province yet if Mr. H. mean't honestly that is to speak of the Metropolitical Iurisdiction onely as he pretended and as the place properly required then what had he concluded since the proving the Metropolical Iurisdiction less than all Italy proves not that the Patriarchal reach't not much farther But to come home to the testimonies that the Reader may see what a strong disputant Dr. H. is in his own way I would gladly ask who told him that the City of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The City Great Rome as it is in the testimonies must needs signify so manifestly the whole Province of Rome So that if he infer a Contradistinction and so a limitation of Iurisdiction from these words he must conclude that neither the Metropolitical nor Patriarchal Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome reach't beyond it's own walls which being acknowledg'dly impossible it is impossible these testimonies should mean a distinction of the Bishop of Rome's Authority from Italy but an Eminency of his Dignity which occasion'd his particular mentioning Thus the very testimonies which he produced against us will needs speak for us notwithstanding his prompting them to the contrary The fourth Testimony ex provinciâ Italiae Civitate Mediolanensi ex Vrbe Roma quod Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provinciâ Romanâ Civitate Portuensi c. is indeed a fit testimony for Dr. H. to blunder in being not intelligible in the Latin and as he cannot but know very corrupt especially being held for such in naming the Bishops which met there And were it beyond exception yet is it very explicable to mean the Pop'es Metropolitical Iurisdiction never so much as naming his Patriarchal His third blundering is his self-contradiction a necessary evil accompanying always the defence of a bad cause All his endeavours hitherto had been bent to limit the Pope's Patriarchy to a particular Province of Italy building still all the way upon the necessity that the Ecclesiastical Order should follow the Political yet treating of Primates and Patriarchs of Schism p. 54. he gives such doctrine as upon the same grounds must needs conclude that the said Patriarchy did extend to all Italy He tells us there that Constantine the great instituted four Praefecti Praetorio two in the East as many in the West of the Western one at Rome another at Triers Now then let the Ecclesiastical Order as Mr. H. will have it follow the Political and we must have some Ecclesiastical Governour at Rome of equally-extended and correspondent Authority to the Praefectus Praetorio at Rome that is to all Italy at least This could not be as he confesses Metropolitical Authority in the Bishop of Rome therefore a Patriarchal one The Pope's Patriarchy then even according to his own Grounds included all Italy nay all the West except that part which the pretended Patriarch of France must be imagin'd upon the same Grounds to have had And since the Praefect at Triers was called of Schism p. 54. Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum as Dr. H. confesses consequently to his Grounds it must follow that the Ecclesiastical power corresponding to this Political must have onely France under him the other at Rome all the West besides So that at unawares though he will not grant his Patriarchy to extend to the whole West which is his due yet Mr. H's own grounds grant the Pope all but France which is ten times more than the Suburbicarian Province his former too niggardly allowance If he reply that the Patriarchal power corresponds to the Vicarij onely and not to that of the Praefecti Praetorio then besides that all his Grounds of the necessary proportion of the Ecclesiastical to the Secular power totter which hold not in the main subordinate Magistrate to wit the Praefectus Praetorio to whom he will have no Ecclesiastical dignity correspond besides this I say his foresaid testimony of Origen cited for him Reply 14. is absolutely against him So sad a piece of Scholarship it is to cite Testimonies without first laying Grounds which onely can make testimonies hang together Out of which it is evident that all the strength of his pretended limitation of the Pope's Patriarchy is finally reduced to that Authority from Ruffinus Now then as for Ruffinus his testimony saying that the Bishop of Rome was by the Nicene Canon authoriz'd Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerere this being the main business which occasion'd this debate and gave birth to this imagin'd limitation of the Pope's Patriarchate we shall take a litle pains to fetch it from it's first Grounds by showing the sense of that Canon by which will be seen how great a knave this Paraphrast was whom Dr. H. pretends to vindicate The words of the Council upon which this Interpreter works are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which I cannot imagin a sense more proper than this that the Bishops of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria because the Pope had used to hold them for so The reason of my conjecture is because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quandoquidem manifests that the words following are the reason of the Decree precedent This being so who sees not how
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
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
Spirit satt without distinction that is equally upon each because the Scripture sayes in common that it sate upon them that all had the holy ghost equally by the plowmans argument for the equality of his eggs because all were full of it For these and other faults of the same strain Dr. H. was reprehended by his Disarmer yet still noe amends not hopes of amends appears in these answering books after he had been so oft told of it nor by consequence are we to expect any other from him in his following treatises Sect. 10. Dr. H's Pretences of Testimonies as hee calls them and his manifold falsification of S. Chrysostome to prove Iames at Hierusalem clearly superiour to S. Peter AS for the point it self concerning S. Iames I am reprehended for misunderstanding Dr. H. and that he endeauored not to prove S. Iames his priority of dignity and Authority but onely to prove that in his see James was considered as a Bishop Answ p. 43. l. 20. 21. and 27. whereas neither any man denied him to have been Bishop there nor could it any way advantage Dr. H's cause if this were ptoved for what follows against S. Peter's being chief of the Apostles that S. Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem and the Iurisdiction of that Metropolis Hath not each Catholike Bishop the same now a dayes over his private Diocese and yet remains subject to the head of God's Church notwithstanding Again if he intended not that S. Iames had greater Authority there what meant his fiction of his having the principall place and giving the sentence that the Rescript is grounded upon his sentence c. Surely when one gives the sentence and the others onely propose the former must be held to have greater power in that place and those circumstances then the latter But principall with him sounds noe priority at all nor can he be held to any thing who hath got once the priviledge to say and unsay again as hee pleases He was accused of making S. Iames at Hierusalem superior to S. Peter which he denies p. 43. blaming me for misunderstanding him yet in the p. 44. ere the Eccho of the former words were well out of the Reader 's ears he goes about to prove and infer in expresse words from testimonies that Iames in this council was clearly superior to S. Peter which is clearly contradictory to his former words But we are not to wonder at what is grown customary and familiar Next he goes about to shew Answ p. 44. that he hath at least pretences of testimonies that S. Iames had the principall place the first of which pretences is that he is named before Peter and unlesse this conclude our argument from S. Peter's being named first must be prejudiced I Answer our argument drawn thence for his principall place among the Apostles insists upon his constantly being named first and not once onely which might happen without any great mistery in it Again what mean these words the Romanists argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluding his primacy from being first named These are two quite different things The argument from his being first named consists in this that in the orderly naming of the Apostles his name is found first placed whereas the argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lies in this not that he is first named but that he is in these words nam'd or exprest to be the first of the Apostles His second pretence of a Testimony as he calls it is from S. Iames his giving the sentence and though their own translation rendred the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore my sentence is by this means making it onely his iudgment in the matters yet Dr. H. tells us he still beleeves it signifies the sentence The first ground of this his beleef is because 't is S. Chrysostomes observation that his speaking last was founded in his being Bishop of Hierusalem what then could not he be Bishop there and speak last both without giving the sentence were there noe worthier persons present or did the thing to be concluded onely concern his see or indeed did it concern it at all the Rescript the effect of this consult being directed onely to Gentiles which were noe wayes subject to the Bishoprick of Hierusalem But let us see S. Chrysostomes testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was Bishop of the Church in Hierusalem therefore he speaks last unfortunate man with whom nothing succeeds nor any testimony thrives but either they are against him or nothing at all to his purpose as hath been shown all over or when they hap to be full and expresse as this is then they come of worst of all Let him look into their own edition of S. Chrysostome and Dannaeus his Notes upon them printed at Eton and he shall see what is become of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore he speaks last upon which onely hee builds verba haec saith hee interpres non agnoscit nec certè videntur aptè locari nam quòd Episcopus esset ideò prior loqui debuit non posterior The Interprâ—ter doth not acknowledge these words neither truly doe they seem to be fitly placed for in regard he was a Bishop he ought in that respect to speak first not last But 't is noe matter Dr. H. can cast a figure of hysteron proteron make first be last and any corrupt piece of an Author become pure Chrysostome and rare sence so it do but be befriend him at a dead lift His second worthy proof is that S. Chrysostome sayes that Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordains or decrees those things As if the decree were not manifestly made by all present but by Iames onely and called there by S. Chrysostome himself p. 795. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common decree yet because he finds an expression of decreeing common as he wel knows to all that were present but his present occasion not inviting him not taken notice of by S. Chrysostome in that place imediately S. Iames is thence concluded the best man in the companie the giver of the sentence or whatever else Dr. H. pleases Any thing may be aswel inferd as that which he pretends Again I would ask Dr. H. why he leaves out the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the law which were imediately joind in context with the former thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he ordains those things out of the law by this simple putting down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gaining something a better semblance for the absolutenesse of S. Iames his decree But I shall have occasion to explicate hereafter this whole place out of which Dr. H. as his sleight manner is picks out a couple of words His third proof is from S. Chrysostome's setting down the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good order observed in their speaking first I will transcribe the place as I find it in that father and afterwards let the Reader see how craftily Dr. H. abuses it for his
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
they were become Christians and their fellow-Brothers in him in whom they were taught there was no distinction of Iew nor Gentile Which sounds a far greater absurdity in a Christian eare than to say that they likewise abhorr'd still the conversation of the Proselytes to the law of Moses after their conversion that those one hundred fifty three thousand workmen who lived dispersed among the Iews in Salomon's time neither converst with their neighbour Iews nor took directions how to order their labour towards the building of Salomon's Temple but did their work by instinct and the guidance of the private Spirit as Dr. H. interprets Scripture Sectio 16. How Dr. H. omitts to clear himself of falsifying the Apostolicall Constitutions and to take notice of all the Exceptions brought against that Testimony in Schism Disarm'd His acute manner of arguing As also how hee brings a Testimony against him in every particular to make good all his former proofs and by what art hee makes it speak for him THe next Testimony of Mr. H's which comes under examination is taken from the writer of the Apostolicall Constitutions who tells us according to Dr. H. of Schism p. 75. that Evodâ—us Ignatius at the same time sate Bishops at Antioch one succeeding S. Peter the other S. Paul one in the Iewâ—sh the other in the Gentile Congregation Now if that writer tells us no such thing no not a word of this long rabble is it possible Dr. H. can deny himself to be a manifest wilfull falsifier Schism Disarm'd challeng'd him upon this occasion of a manifest falsification and that that writer neither tells us as Dr. H. pretended that they sate at the same time Bishops in whichwords consists the greatest force of the Testimony nor that they succeeded the Apostles with that distinction nor that the Iewish Gentile Congregations were distinct much lesse that those Apostles Iurisdictions at Antioch were mutually limitted which indeed onely concern'd his purpose but onely that they were ordained by the Apostles The text being onely this Antiochiae Euodius ordinatus est a me Petro Ignatius a Paulo At Antioch Euodius was ordained by me Peter Ignatius by Paul without the least word before or after concerning that matter Of all these falsifications voluntary additions Schism Disarm'd p. 65. 66. challenged Mr. H. yet in return he offers not one word to clear himself Reply c. 4. Sect 7. the place whither Answ p. 48. l. 31. 32. hee râ—ferd mee for answer to this point nor to shew us that that writer tells us what he so largely promist us of Schism p. 75. onely in his Answer p. 48. he assures us that in his Reply the whole matter of Euodius Ignatius is further cleared as if he had cleared it already and S. W' s elaborate misunderstandings forestall'd he should have said misreadings for it was mine eyes not mine understanding which fail'd me if he had not added to this testimony all which made for his purpose Foure observations I shall recomend the Reader to let him see that this insincerity in Dr. H. was affected voluntary First the words in the testmony importing their Ordination neither make against us nor touch our controversy Next all the words added of his own head are made use of by him solely-important in this occasion Thirdly that he never particulariz'd the place in the Author where this testimony was to be found which he ordinarily vses but leaves us to look for it in a whole book hoping we might either be weary in looking it or misse soâ— himself in the mean time escape scot-free Lastly he so iumbles together the two different letters as his comon trick is that no man living can make any ghesse which words are the testimonies which his own and should we pitch upon any to be the testimonies relying upon the translation letter in that part they sate at the same time Bishops we finde the most considerable word same put in a lesse letter as if it were part of the citation whereas no such word nor any thing to that sence was found in the Author And thus Dr. H. as he professes Answ p. 18. speaks the full truth of God But instead of clearing himself from being an arrant falsifier Dr. H. as his custome is attempts to shâ—w himself an acute Doctour and when it was his turn to shâ—w us the pretended words in his testimony he recurs to the defence of the position it self And first he cries quits which the Catholike Gentleman who as he tells us in a drie phrase Repl. Sect. 7. num 1. casts one stone at all his buildings together And what stone is this He challenged him not to have brought one word out of Antiquity to prove the with drawing from all Communion already spoken of to have been the cause of the division of the Bishopriks in Antioch Rome This is the Catholike Gentleman's stone as he calls it which levell'd by him at such an impenetrable Rock of solid reason as Mr. H. rebounds upon the thrower's head with this violence First that he manifested from Antiquity in his book of Schism that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter S. Paul Repl. p 63 I answer 't is graunted but what is this to the point since this might easily be performed by their promiscuous preaching without exclusion of Iurisdiction or breaking of all Communion between Churches Secondly that he manifested there that there were two Churches at Antioch the one of the Iews the other of the Gentile Christians I answ he hath not one testimony in the whole book of Schism which expresses this position nor in these later books save onely that from the Arch-heretick Pelagius already reply'd to Sect 7 Thirly that in those Churches at the same time sate two distinct Bishops Euodius Ignatius I answer this is onely prou'd from his owne falsification of the testimony from the Apostolicall Constitutions not a word of the fitting together of two in those two distinct Churches found either in that or any other place as yet cited by him Thus the Catholike Gentleman's stone sticks yet insost reason'd Dr. H. for want of solidnes in the place it light to reverberate its motion Now let us see what Dr. H. who braggs so much of a Hending his Adversaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath left unreply'd upon in this his Answer to Schism Disarm'd in which Treatise p. 66. I objected all these weaknesses in this one point First that were it granted that two sate together it would not serve his turn a iott the more For what would he infer hence that S. Peter S. Paul were distinct Bishops there also Grant this too what follows hence against the Pope's Authory I know his intent is to conclude hereupon that therefore S. Peter S. Paul had exclusive Iurisdictions at Antioch therefore S. Peter's Iurisdiction was limited therefore the Pope had not an illimitted one but how doth the one's
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
possible way corresponding to the one we shall take it as it must in all honestly-meant probability sound and ask him whether there was ever such a strange position heard of in the Schools that there should be no possible way to testify a Negative but by solving the Affirmative places Are there no Negative Testimonies in the words or cannot a Negative testimony testify a Negative point without necessarily recurring to solve Affirmatives Wee were taught in Logick to prove Negatives by concluding in Celarent or Ferio without being forc't necessarily to stand answering the arguments in Barbara and Darij for the Affirmative whereas according to Dr. H's new Logick the onely way to prove a Negative point must be to solve the Affirmative proofs To omit that it shall bee shown presently how the solving Affirmatives was no one way to testify a Negative Again he was shown by Schism Disarm'd that this way of arguing was rather indeed to bring obscurity than Evidence for all that it can pretend is this that the conclusion follows not out of those testimonies or premises therein is terminated it's force nor doth it proceed so far as to prove or infer that the thing in it self is vntrue Indeed if it be known first that the Opponent holds his tenet upon no other Grounds save onely that testimony and that be shown plainly to be vnable to conclude he will be obliged to relinquish his tenet so far as not to hold it any more till he sees better ground yet still he is not obliged to embrace or assent to the contrary position if he sees no Evidence for it but to suspend all assent one way or other and to think rather that perhaps his may yet have other Grounds to prove it true for any thing he knows Much lesse is it proved at all that the contrary is true though all his arguments be solved till evidence be brought for it Wherefore as long as this is not manifested to wit that he hath no other tenour upon which he holds his position the thing is much further from being concluded no not even ad hominem to be false for though that medium do not establish it another may But now if it be manifest that the Adversary builds least of all upon those places the other solves nay nothing at all in the manner that the other thinks they are to be managed and undertakes to solve them then the solving such Testimonies sinks into the miserablest lowest degree of force nay even as low as nothing This being our present case observe I beseech thee prudent Reader the infinite weaknes of this Drs discoursive facultie He first goes about to prove our tenet false from solving 2. or 3 places of Scripture whereas that very way of arguing can infer no more but that those places conclude not for it nor are places of Scripture arguments that we build upon at all for our faith as explicable by wit in which sence he impugns them but onely as they are explicable by universall Tradition our Rule of faith Since then Dr. H. not so much as pretends to solve them according to the sence which Tradition gives them for he no where pretends to shew that the attestation practice of immediate forefathers did not ever give them this sence 't is evident he hath not in this processe impugned our faith at all seeing he impugns no tenour nor argument at all upon which we build or hold our faith Indeed our Drs undertake sometimes to argue ad hominem against them and abstracting from our Rule of faith universall Tradition fall to interpret Scripture with them proceeding upon other Grounds to wit upon private skill learning to shew our advantage over them in their own and to them the onely way If then Mr. H. pretended onely to try his wit with our Doctors in this place then were his way of procedure by solving Testimonies allowable in reason I should approve of his intention so he exprest it But if he say he mean't to impugn our faith or build his own he can never pretend it unles he solve or impugn those Grounds upon which wee build our faith Make account then Reader that that which Dr. H. and I are now about is nothing at all to faith but onely an exercise of wit and private skill and consists in this whether of us can make words lest without life stark dead to our hands by Grammaticall Criticall quibbling move more dexterously smartly towards the end we drive at and is all one as if Lawyers should consent to abstract from custome knowledge of Ancestors and the books of the known laws as I do now from Practise Tradition the sole true Foundation of faith and dispute out of some pliable or obscure passages in odde histories and some letters written onely upon occasion as Gildas some such few remnants of that time in the Reign of the Brittains by what laws the kingdom was then governed Again since we build not all upon places of Scripture as explicable by private learning it belongs not to us to shew them evidently concluding for us as thus explicated no more then it doth to divines to demonstrate mysteries of faith by reason which depend upon another ground to wit Authority Wee acquit our selves well if wee shew that what is there is consistent with our faith as divines do if they can show mysteries consistent with and not contradictory to reason and wee do more then the necessity of our cause or reason obligeth us to if wee shew them rather sounding to our advantage as thus explicable For how can any man be bound in reason to show that thing sounding in his behalf upon which neither he nor his cause relies whereas it belongeth to the Protestants who rely upon Scripture explicable by private wit for their faith to prove evidently that it is for them and bears no probability against them In the same manner as when Catholikes go about to prove their faith from Scripture as explicable by Tradition it belongs to them to shew that explication infallibly certain because they rely upon it as the Rule of their faith Secondly Dr. H. was charged with a palpable iniuriousnes in making the answering our places of Scripture the summe of his first proofs and yet omitting our cheefest place of all Io. 21. 15. 16 17. Dr. H. replies Answ p. 59. this is iust as Doctor Stapleton deales with M. Calvin I answer it is very likely for I do not doubt but Dr. H. inherits his father Calvin's faults so deserves the same reprehension But how dealt Dr. Stapleton with that good man M. Calvâ—n why he call'd a Text of Scripture the most important place because it was not mention'd So sayes Mr. Calvin's friend Dr. H if wee will beleeve him but till he proves it better then by onely saying it wee shall take libertie to think that friendship blindes Next he tells us he hath given
to limit an Authority implies an admittance of it in cases to which the restraints extend not Hee replies that this meaning those laws was not meerly to limit an Authority but to deny it p. 20. l. 20. yet in the next page hee denies not equivalent laws in france spain Germany Italy and in his vindication p. 73. l. 7. 8. c. hee affirms that the like laws may bee found in Germany Poland france spain Italy sicily and if wee will trust Padre Paolo in the Papacy it self These things being put granted and confest from his own words I shall now appeal even to the Bp s best and bosom-friend whether impudence was not a moderate character for that man's genius or humour who should go about to pretend that King H. the 8th did no more in this particular that is renounced the Pope's Authority no more than his Ancestour Kings had done before him For. First this is opposite to the common notion and generall opinion of the whole world both Catholicks Protestants Puritans and of what ever sect or sort who ever deem'd Henry the 8th to bee the first King of England who renounced the Pope's Supremacy and challenged it to himself Nor had they ever that conciet of France Spain Italy c. in which notwithstanding the Bp. grants equivalent laws to the former laws of England to which according to him K. H. superadded nothing This particularity I say in K. H. the 8th all the world as far as I ere heard always held in their free and naturall thoughts though when they are put to it to defend a desperate cause artifice wrongs nature and puts some of their non-plust Controvertists to assert and maintain the most open absurdities Secondly it is in particular against the confession and profession of his own party the Protestants who sing Halleluiahs incessantly to this happy time in which England was freed from the yoke of Rome which is an evident argument of their pretence that till now they groan'd under this yoke that is that till now the Pope's Headship was acknowledg'd here and by consequence that K. H. the 8th did more than his Ancestours did formerly when hee shook it of Thirdly this position contradicts in terms their Reformation in this point of the Pope's Supremacy which yet rings in every man's ears and is confest by themselves for it is impossible and contradictory there should bee a Reformation in any thing which was not otherwise before It was therfore otherwise in England before K. H. the 8th's time notwithstanding all these former power-limiting laws alledged by the Bp. and consequently 't is evident from the very terms that K. H. superadded to these laws in renouncing the Pope's Authority and that the contrary position is most absurd impossible and contradictory Fourthly it being confest by themselves and particularly by Dr. H. of Schism p. 132. in these very words For the matter of fact it is acknowledg'd that in the reign of K. H. the 8th the Papall power in Ecclesiasticall affairs was both by Acts of convocation of the Clergy and by statutes or Acts of Parliament cast out of this Kingdome This I say being confest and it being also evident in terms that nothing can bee said to bee cast out of a place unles before it were in it 't is likewise evident in terms that this power was in England before notwithstanding the former laws cited by my L d D. then in power in this country and that those statutes and Acts of Parliament made by K. H. which cast it out did some new thing against that Authority that is did create new laws and not onely declare the old Fifthly since according to him these laws made by H. the 8th did no more than the former laws those former laws also must bee pretended to have cast out the Pope's Supremacy and to have begun a Reformation which yet wee never heard pretended and hee must show us when and how this Authority of the Pope in England twinklingly went out and in again otherwise it could never bee said to bee cast out a fresh in K. H's reign Sixthly this position of his is particularly opposite also to the common consent of all Catholike countries in which notwithstanding the Bp. affirms there are found equivalent laws who all look't on K. H. the 8th after those Pope renouncing Acts as a Schismatick and on England both then and ever since as schismaticall Now that they should esteem and abhor England as schismaticall for doing the same things themselves also did is against common sence and impossible Seventhly since iust vindication p. 73. l. 8. hee quotes Padre Paulo that the like laws were to bee found in the Papacy it self and 't is perfect non-sence to affirm that in the Papacy of which the Pope is both spirituall and temporall Governour hee should not bee held for Head of the Church 't is most manifest that the like laws in other places and in particular amongst our Ancestours in England did not take away from him that Headship in Ecclesiasticall matters and by consequence that K. H. the 8th who deny'd him that Headship did something new which his Ancestours had not done and when hee enacted this created new law 'T is most manifest likewise that those like laws in the Papacy are onely to distinguish the Pope's spirituall power there from his temporall that is to limit it's bounds not to deny it and consequently those mutually-like laws in other countries and in England formerly did onely limit it likewise Whence follows inevitably that K. H's law which totally abolish't renounc't and deny'd it was of another far different strain and new law Eightly this position is demonstratively convinc't of falshood by the evidēt and acknowledg'd effect for who sees not that upon this new law made by K. H. England stood at another distance from Rome than formerly for formerly notwithstanding all their laws they held still the Pope was Head of the universall Church reverenced him as such held this as of faith and this till the very time of the breach Whereas after K. H's law hee was held by the party which adhered to that law no Head of the universall Church nor reverenc't as such if any thing rather the contrary that England was absolutely independent on him was held as of faith Is not this as evident as that the sun shines and may it not with equall modesty bee den'yd that there ever was such a man as K. H. the 8th Ninthly this very position takes away the whole question between us and makes both us and all the Controvertists in England on both sides talk in the aire wrangling pro and con why K. H. cast out the Pope's Authority here whenas according to this illuminated Adversary of mine hee had actually noe Authority there at that time to cast out Lastly this position is so thriving an absurdity that from non-sence and contradiction it prosperously proceeds to perfect madnes and fanaticknes and comes
in that Order This is your crime in this lies your sinfull guilt of Schism and heresy that your fact and tenet is intrinsecally destructive to the very being of God's Church and that it tears and rents it peece-meal all asunder A mischief equally pernicious to man-kind's attaining Beatitude as the renouÌ„cing the supreme Government in a Kingdome or commonwealth would bee in order to their safe enjoyment of their temporall livelihoods and therefore no waies to bee ballanced or excused by alledging temporall inconveniences since it as far ouerpoises it's excuse as Eternity of bliss does a peece of earth that is infinitely His third sort of Grounds is the weaknes of the Pope's pretences and the exemption of the Britannick Churches from forrain Iurisdiction by the Council of Ephesus For the fitst the Bp. never so much as directly mentions that in which wee place the strength of the Pope's pretence of his supreme Authority much lesse impugnes it save onely a little on the by as it were in his sleight way 't is this that it was held and deliver'd by a world of immediate fathers to sons as from their fathers so upwards as from Christ that this Authority was sacred of Christ's Institution of faith and recommended to us by the same Rule that assured us Christ was God Vpon this tenure as strongly supported as nature could bear held demonstrably evident and so shown by us not yet answer'd or pretended to bee answer'd by the Protestant party wee Ground this Doctrine of the Pope's Headship or the substance of his Authority But I fear the Bp. either understands not our tenure for otherwise sure hee would have nam'd it or else hee is impugning some Canon Lawier and the extent of the Pope's Authority in stead of impugning the Church and the substance of the said Authority As for his second trifle I have already shown Sect. 4. that the Britannick Churches have no influence upon our Churches descended from saxons nor shall hee ever show a syllable in the Council of Ephesus exempting them from the Pope's Iurisdiction as Head of the Church however Cyprus and some others are there exempted from a neighbouring superiour falsly pretending a Iurisdiction over them But of this more shall bee said hereafter in this present Section The Vnity of the Church being of such importance and the fact breaking it by consequence so hainous the alledging the greatest abuses imaginable are absolutely concluded insufficient excuses for such a fact much more unles it bee shown there were no other possible means to remedy them Hereupon I alledged that it was of little concernment to examine whether his complaints were true or false since hee does not show there was no other remedy but division First the Bishop replies sharply What is it of little concernment to examin whether the Grounds bee sufficient or no well leap't my Lord I speak of the inconsiderablenes of their truth or falshood your Lâ— talks of inconsiderablenes of their sâ—fficiency pretends against both plain words and conscience that I wave that There may bee obâ—ections against the Abuses perhaps of all Governours in the world and these also true but their truth does not infer their sufficiency for rejecting that very Government as long as they are less considerable than good of the Government it self and that there is another cure This it that in which I show'd your manner of arguing defective in the main because you never prou'd nor ever shall that there was no other remedy except division for unles you put in this and more too your argument stands in this posture True complaints against Governours whether otherwise remediable or no are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government At which position if spoke out candidly I hope you will blush though it bee perfectly your own cloak't a little in other but equivalent terms Next hee tells us it is a negative and so it belongs not to him to prove it Yes my Ld it belongs to your party or any one who rises against an actuall Authority either to show that that Authority was none or else that though it was a lawfull one yet there was no other remedy for it's Abuses but a totall Abolishment of it Otherwise the very maiesty which Government carries in it's notion the Vnity peace and a thousand blessings and conveniences which spring from that Vnity found in the common acknowledment of that Authority oversway the private credit or any other less publike concerns which the disobedient party can pretend to and render's their fact of rising irrationall and destructive to the common engaging them needlesly in a thousand distractions and by consequence hazards of ruin which attend such divisions Thirdly hee would persuade the Reader that a negative is not capable of proof or at least not so easily capable of it for answer I refer him to any boy who hath been two years at the Vniversities who will inform him that negatives may witht equall evidence bee concluded in Celarent Ferio as affirmatives may in Barbara and Darij Lastly the proof which hee proposes for his negative to show no other remedy but dares not much stick to them are both equally competent to France Spain c who yet as hee tells us in the next page in contradiction to himself here found other remedies to preserve their priviledges inviolated and his pretended proofs are such pittifull ones though on them is built the sufficiency of their motives that they evencry for mercy as soon as they show their faces They are these that the King of England could not call the Pope and his ourt to a personall account and that the Pope would not ease them upon many Adresses made what then Had not the King the sword in his own hands did it not ly in his power to right himself as hee â—isted and to admit those pretended eneroachments onely so far as hee thought iust and fitting Nay do not your self lay open and repeat in many places that not onely Kings of England but also those of all other countries both could and did do it often and by doing so preserve their priviledges inviolated How does this prove then that there was sufficient Grounds of dividing from the former Church since your self confess so often it could have been remedied otherwise Or how is it a sufficient motive to abolish an Authority for the Abuses which very pretended Abuses they had power to curb and keep within compass without dividing and so that they should not violate their priviledges Not a word then hath the Bp. brought to prove they had sufficient Grounds of division that is that there was no other remedy but in stead thereof expresly told us the contrary and manifoldly contradicted himself I added And much more if the Authority bee of Christ's Institution no iust cause can possibly â—ee given for it's abolishment The merry Bp. laughs at this as hee calls it Kind of arguing which neither looks like an Argument
nor was pretended by mee as such but as a consideration which much aggravates the charge and obliges in all reason the renouncers of this Authority to look very charily to the sufficiency of the causes of thâ—t their division For since it follows out of the terms that ere they renounced it and by thus renouncing it left to bee Catholikes they immediately before held it as Catholikes do that is held it as a point of faith and of Christ's Institution and since it is evident that none ought to change his faith which hee and his Ancestours immemorially embrac'd but upon evident Grounds again since it is evident likewise and confest that temporall motives ought not to make us break Christ's commands which is done by rejecting a Government which hee instituted Two things are consequent hence to their disadvantage one that their motives ought to bee rigoro sly evident and demonstrative for their renouncing it since dâ—nger of damnation ensves upon their miscarriage and this even in their own thoughts as they were lay'd in their minds when they first began to meditate a breach The other that the pretended causes especially temporall inconveniences for the abolishing this Authority can no waies iustify the first breakers who held it formerly a point of faith since no iust causes can bee given to renounce an Authority held to bee instituted by Christ As then it had been rationall to Reply to King H. the 8th remaining yet a Catholike and beginning to have thoughts to abolish this Authority upon such and such temporall inconveniences that his maiesty and his Ancestours had held it of divine Institution and that therefore there could bee no iust cause to abolish it so it is equally seasonable to Reply to my Lord of Derry who undertakes here to vindicate him by alledging the same thing that these causes nor any else were sufficient to make them begin to break because ere they begun the breach they held this Authority to bee of Christ's Institution and therefore it is a folly for him to think to iustify them by huddling together causes and motives and crying them up for sufficient till hee can show they had Evidence of the Truth of the opposite point greater than the pretended Evidence of Authority universall Tradition which they actually had for their former tenet If a cause bee sufficient to produce an effect and equally apply'd 'tis manifest the same effect will follow Hence as an argument of the insufficiency of their motives of Division I alledged that all other Catholike countries had the same exceptions yet neither broke formerly nor follow your Example Hee answers first Few or none have sustain'd so great oppression which signifies I know not well whether any have or no or for any thing I know some have Nor does hee prove the contrary otherwise than by a pleasant saying of a certain Pope Any thing will serve him Next hee tells us all other countries have not right to the Cyprian priviledges as Brittain hath And how proves hee that this country had any by that Council Is England named in the Council of Ephesus which exempted Cyprus from the Patriarch of Antioch No. Is Brittain at least No. How come wee then to bee particularly priviledg'd by that Council Why the Bp. of Derry thinks so His Grounds Because that Council ordains that no Bp. should occupy a Province which was not from the beginning under his Predecessours And how proves hee the application that England was never anciently under the Pope as Head of the Church from Sr Henry Spelman's old-new manuscript and two or three raggs of History or misunderstood Testimonies Are they demonstrative or rigorous Evidences Here my Ld is wisely silent Will less serve than such proofs to iustify such a separation Hee is silent again Were they a thousand times as many are they of a weight comparable to a world of witnesses proceeding upon the Grounds of immediate dâ—livery from hand to hand which recommended and ascertain'd the contrary Alas hee never thinks of nor considers that at all but very wisely puts his light grains in one end of the scales negl â—cting to put our pounds in the other and then brags that his thin grains are overweight The third particularizing motive is his own unprou'd saying and is concluded with a boast that hee is not the onely schismatick in the world but hath Brothers Is this the way to argue against us To call all those Christians which profess the name of Christ and communicate with himself in the same guilt and then say hee hath fellows in his schism Hee knows wee grant them not to bee truly-call'd Christians but in the name onely and equivocally as a painted man is styld ' a man If hee will show that any Congregation of truly-call'd Christians partakes with him in the separation from Rome let him show that these pretended Christians for those points in which they differ from us did not renounce the onely certain Rule of faith Tradition or delivery of immediate forefathers or that there is any certain and infallible Rule but that Otherwise they are cut of from the Rule and Root of faith and by consequence not in a true appellation to bee call'd faithfull or Christians otherwise they heard not the immediately foregoing Church for those points which they innovated and so are to us no properly call'd Christians but according to our saviours counsell as Heathens and publicans I mean those who knowingly wilfully separated Talking voluntarily my Ld according to the dictates of your own fancy will not serve in a rigorous Controversy First show that those you call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of faith and so any faith and that they have not onely a probable and fallible GrouÌ„d that is opinion onely for their faith and then you shall contradict your own best and more candid writers who confess it in terms and do such a miracle as your Ancestours never attain'd to nor any of wit and ingenuity attempted seeing it impossible to bee done rationally I alledged in the next place to show more their inexcusablenes and the infussiciency of their pretended motives for breaking the example of our own country and forefathers who had the same cause to cast the Pope's Supremacy of the Land yet rather proferr'd to continue in the peace of the Church than to attâ—mpt so destructive an innovation The Bp. replies first that wee should not mistake them aâ—d that they still desire to live in the Communion of the Catholike Church c. No my Ld I doe not mistake you but know very well you would bee willing and glad too the former Church should own you for hers I doubt not but you are apprehensive enough of what honour would accrue to you if wee would account you true Catholikes and what disgrace you get by being accounted Hereticks and Schismaticks by us But yet your desire of staying in the Church is conditionall that you may bee permitted to remain
own nature changeable Hee imagins that Dr. Field hath prou'd some thing against us in this point and in answer shall imagin that those of ours who have reply'd to his toyes have disproved what hee is pretended to have proved nor am I further concern'd unles the Bp. had produced some weighty particular out of him which yet wanted answering as hee brings none at all After this hee will needs prove the Council of Trent not to have been a Generall one His exceptions that the summons were not generall that the foure Protopatriarchs were not present by themselves nor their deputies that there were not some present from the greater parts of all Christian Provinces are already shown to bee frivolous impertinent till hee gives us some certain determinate notion of Church and some certain Rule to know what sects in particular are of it what excluded as I have already manifested his Ground could give none For otherwise those who are excluded from or are not of the Church have no right to be Summon'd thither unles to bee call'd to the Barr as Delinquents nor to sit there nor are to be accounted Christians and so the summons may bee Generall all may bee there that should be there and some may bee present from the greater part of all Christian Provinces notwithstanding the neglect or absence of these aliens Hee ought then first put Grounds who are good Christians ought to bee call'd who not ere hee can alledge their not being call'd as a prejudice to the Council Our Grounds why it was generall are these The onely certain Rule of faith and by consequence root of Christianity which can secure us of God's word or any thing else is the immediate delivery or Tradition of forefathers Those therefore onely those who adhere to this root are to bee held truly Christians of the Church those who broke from it any time as did the Protestants professedly the Greeks the rest as evidently when they began to differ from us in any point are not properly Christians nor of the Church therefore a representative of the Church or Council is intire universall Generall though those latter who are not of the Church bee neither call'd Summon'd nor present provided those others who adhere to this root of faith and so are indeed Christians or adherers to Christ's law be Summon'd admitted But such was our Council of Trent therefore it was Generall Now to disprove this Council to bee Generall if hee would go to work solidly the Bp. should first alledge that it was not a sufficient representative of the whole Church which must bee done by manifesting definitely and satisfactorily who in particular are of the Church who not nor can this bee performed otherwise than by showing some Rule root of faith Christianity better qualify'd to bee such that is more certain more plain than this which may distinguish those who are of the Church from those who are not of it or else to convince that the Greeks Protestants Lutherans c. When they began to differ from the Roman innovated not but were found adhering to that immediate delivery otherwise they must confess that all were Summon'd that ought to have been Summon'd all were there or might have been there who ought to have been there and so the Council was Generall Till this bee done all his big worded pretences of the absence of the whole Provinces of the greater part of Christendome want of due summons fewnes of the members present that the Greeks are not known Rebells c. are convinc't to bee but voluntary talk as is indeed almost all this Treatise this being his peculiar manner of discoursing more fit for old wives Gossips at their frivolous meetings then for a Bp. and Controvertist handling matters of faith Hee sayes that the Greeks though Hereticks should have been lawfully heard condemned in a generall Council What needed hearing when themselves in the face of the whole world publikely confessed maintained avowed their imputed fault Condemned they were by generall Councils heretofore though the Bp's particular faculty of saying what hee lists without a word of proof will not allow them to bee such nor yet give us some certain way to know which Councils are such Or had it been an acknowledg'd generall Council and they heard condemned there still the B p. had an evasion in lavender hee laid up in store this reserve of words following that they were never heard or tried or condemned of heresy by any Council or person that had Iurisdiction over them and then hee is secure by talking boldy proving nothing His saying that though they were Hereticks yet they of all others ought especially to have been Summon'd signifies thus much that it is more necessary to a generall Council that Hereticks bee call'd thither than that Orthodox fathers bee so A substantiall peece of sence worthy consideration I brought a similitude of a Parliament that known and condemned Rebells need not bee call'd hee will needs have it run on four feet prosecutes it terribly some of his best trifles I shall reckon up First hee saies the Pope hath not that Authority over a generall Council as a King hath over a Parliament I answer I am so plain a man that I understand not what the Authority of King or Parliament either taken singly or one in order to the other signifies some Kings have more some less Authority so have Parliaments witness those of England France To expect then I should know â—ow great the Authority of King or Parliament is by naming onely the common words is to expect that one should know how long a country is by naming it a country or how big a mountain is by barely calling it a mountain That these have some great bignes and those some great Authority I know by their common names but how great I know not Words my Ld may serve you to give whose cause will not bear sence but they must not serve mee to take Secondly that the Greek Patriarchs are not known condemned Rebells Answer this is onely said again not prou'd and so 't is sufficient to reply that they who call'd the Council all in the Council held them so Again the errors which they publikely maintain'd have been condemned by Councils for the most part some of their own party being present Now why those who publikly profess those Errours should need a further calling to triall or why they are not known Rebells is the B p' s task to inform us Thirdly he sayes that the least Parliament in England had more members then the Council of Trent They were therefore graver and more choice persons The Church summons not parish-priests out of every great town as the common wealth doth two Burgesses out of every corporation Again what was it matters not but might not there bee a Parliament of England without having the fifth part of the members found