acknowledge a vice of the first magnitude if taken in it's primary signification to which our circumstances determine it includes for it's genus or material part a division or act of dividing the specifical difference gives it a reference to the Ecclesiastical Government instituted by Christ Now our great Masters of Moral Divinity assure us that no action is in it self good or bad but as it conduces to or averts from the attaining one's last end since all things else have the nature of meanes onely in order to the attainment of that and consequently the esteem of their goodness or badness is built upon their alliance to that order Whence follows that there is no action in the world not killing one 's own Son nor dividing from any Government whatsoever in it self so bad but might be done could there be assigned motives and reasons truly representing it better to attempt it Now our all-wise God hath ordered things so providently for the peace and good of his Church that it is impossible any cause or motive can be truly imagin'd sufficient to justify the rejecting it's Government since neither any private injury is comparable to such an universal good nor can it happen that any miscarriage can be so publick as to force it's renouncing for seeing our B. Saviour made but one Church and that to continue for ever if any cause were sufficient to break from that one Church there would be a just and sufficient cause to be of no Church which is against the Protestants own tenet and makes them so desirous to pretend a descent from ours Wherefore it remains impossible that those who acknowledg the Churche's Government to have bin instituted by Christ should pretend to any just cause to separate from it but they ought to behave themselves passively in case of an injury received not actively renouncing that Government or erecting another against it Notwithstanding all this yet it may happen sometimes that as no Authority is or can be so sacred inviolable but passion can make men dislike it some company of men may disacknowledge the Authority instituted by Christ to have come from him alledging for the reason and motive of their renouncing it that it is an usurpation which they also pretend to prove by arguments drawn either from Reason or Testimonies Now these men's plea might take place if it were possible they should produce absolute evidence and such as in it's own force obliges the understanding to assent notwithstanding the contrary motives which retard it and without pretending such a rigorous Evidence it were madness to hazard an error in abusiness of such main concernment both to the Church mankind and their own Souls as it would necessarily be if that fact of theirs happen'd to be Schismatical Now then let us see whether my Adversaries inference be good that because Schism can have no just causes for it's parents therefore Dr. H. in treating a Controversie of Schism ought not to heed or produce the causes or motives of it Indeed if he would grant himself and his Friends to be Schismaticks then it were to no purpose for him to alledge causes and motives since all men know that no just cause can be possibly alledged for Schism but if he does an external act which hath the resemblance or show of Schism and nevertheless will defend himself to be no Schismatick he must give account why he does that action and shew that that action is not truly Schism which cannot be done without discussing reasons and motives if common practise teach us any thing Will any man endeavour to turn one out of possession lawfully without a plea or produce a plea without either any motive or reason in it Iustly therefore did the Catholick Gentleman affirme it to be a pure contradiction for that a confest breach under debate should be concluded to have no just causes that is to be indeed Schismatical or to have just causes that is to be a self enfranchisment without producing examining any causes is a perfect implicancy Nor will his instance Reply p. 5. 6. of a seditious person or Rebell secure him at all for as it is true that if it be known that he confesses himself a Rebel there is no pleading of causes as Dr. H. well sayes to justify his Rebellion yet as long as he pretends to be no Rebel so long he is obliged to bring motives and reasons why his action of rising against the Government is not Rebellion though it be accused and seem to be such Now if Dr. H. hath not forgot the title of his book t is a Defence of the Church of England against the Exceptions of the Romanists to wit those by which they charge her of Schism that is their accusing her that this action of Separation from the Church of Rome is Schismatical so that the whole scope and work of his book must be to plead those motives and reasons which may seem to traverse that accusation and shew that this action of the Church of England makes not her Schismatical nor her Sons Schismaticks And how this can stand without producing motives or is not as plain a contradiction as ens and non ens I confess is beyond my understanding In his eighteenth p. he cunningly forges a false state of the question in these words that it is a matter in question between the Romanists and us whether the Bishop of Rome had before and at the time of the Reformation any supreme legal power here I willingly acknowlege By which he would perswade the Reader that he had condescended to a state of the question pretended by us which is absolutely false for we state the question thus That there being at that time an external confessed Government derived and in actual possession time out of minde abstracting from whether it be internally legal or no whether the pretended Reformers either did then or can now show sufficient reasons of the substracting themselves from obedience to it This is our state of the question which hath it's whole force as the Reader may see in the acknowledged external possession Now Dr. H. would make his Reader believe that the state of the question doth wholly abstract from the external possession and purely debate the internal right as if it hung hovering indifferently in the aire to be now first determin'd without taking notice of the stability and force our tenet had from the long possession And this handsome trick he gentilely put 's upon his Readers by those three sly words I willingly acknowledge Having thus mistaken voluntarily the state of the question consequently he imposes upon me that I said none doubts of the Bishop of Rome's supreme legal power over the Church of England at the time of the Reformation and then confutes me most palpably with telling me that they doubt it or make a question of it Can any man in reason imagin I was ignorant that such was their tenet since I impugn it in
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
Church How necessary an endowment is a good memory to defend a bad cause Thirdly he onely denyes as he sayes that this Primacy gave him any power over S. Paul and that I will remember he had reason to deny it from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall honour given S. Paul by Chrysostome and Theophylact. I remember indeed the words but have quite forgot that he had any reason to deduce from those words equality of honor sprung from Government or power of command having shown from those fathers explicating themselves that it is impossible the words can beare that interpretation Fourthly in relation to those words he did not vindicate any thing to himself insolently or assume it arrogantly as to say he had the Primacy and rather ought to bee obeyed c. Dr. H. discant's with this glosse leaving us saith he p. 47. to resolve that if he had claimed any obedience at all from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him Thus he soe that the difference between Dr. H. and mee in explicating this place stands thus that he makes those words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assump sit to signify that S. Peter's praise worthines exprest consisted in his not chalenging what did not truly belong to him whereas I make it consist in his not chalenging it in those circumstances though it truly belonged to him he would have the words insolenter and arroganter so taken as if the pride they denoted did involve falsehood injustice or overweening whereas I contend that they signify onely in an insolent and proud manner well exprest in our English phrase by standing upon his point which well consists with the truth of what he challenges and the right of what he assumes Ere I descend to manifest that this is the sence of that place I desire the Reader to review the entire testimony in which he will do right both to my discourse and his own memory and when he hath done this I offer him for his satisfaction these following notes First that it had been no such great commendation of humility to say that S. Peter did not usurpingly challenge what was not his right but rather an impudence and an absurd haughtines to have done it since then the fathers intend here a particular commendation of S. Peter's modesty it must consist in this that though he might with rigour of right have stood upon his tip-toes as wee may say yet his goodnes so moderated his height that he was content with mildenes to bear an inferiour's reprehensions in which great vertue is shown and which being put those fathers suppose that truly he was Superiour Secondly unles this bee the meaning of that place wee have quite lost the adversative sence which yet is unavoidable for what sence is this Though our Lord chose him to be the first yet he did not challenge to himself more then belongs to him or what speciall commendation do these words import Though King Iames was King of England yet he did not challenge or assume to himself to bee Emperour of Germany sure it must bee an enuy of S. Peter's sanctity as well as of his dignity to diminish his praise-worthines intended here by so frivolous and incoherent an explication Thirdly the words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter he challenged not any thing insolently to himself make good my explication for it had been a very hard case if he could have challenged nothing at all to himself with truth according to these fathers no not even that which themselves had granted the line before to wit that our Lord had chosen him to bee the first and had built his Church upon him with truth therefore he might have challenged that which out of modesty he stood not insolenty and arrogantly upon Fourthly Dr. H. grants that a Primacy at least in some sence is granted S. Peter from this place wherefore the redditive part of the testimony yet he challenged not any thing c. so as to say he had the Primacy must be granted to bee true also or rather it is the self same Neither is it possible that any man not totally possest by prejudice can imagine any other but that in these words Though our Lord chose him to bee the first yet he said not or alledged not that he had the Primacy or was the first the latter part should be false unles the former were so too Firfthly this being so the following words in the reddiâ—ive part of the testimony and ought rather to be obey'd by laâ—er Apostles c. must necessarily bee true too since they follow in the same tenour of redditive sence to the adversative and are joyned immediately by a copulative particle to the former of having the Primacy True therefore it is that he might in right expect obedience in other circumstances from S. Paul and by consequence this Primacy here spoken of was not a dry and barren one as the Dr. would fancy it Sixthly the subsequent words of his not objecting to S. Paul that he had been a persecutour of the Church make it yet more evident since he might with truth have said so but of his goodnes would not since then the foregoing word 's of his having the Primacy are true and the following ones also of S. Paul's having been a persecutour are true also upon what grounds can this Adversary of S Peter's imagine that the midle words importing his rather right to S. Paul's obedience which run on in the same even tenour with both the other should be false or how could he â—hink to evade by deducing from those words that the fathers left us to resolve hence that if hee had claimed any obedience from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him nay making this the summe of his answer to that place Lastly the concluding words but admitted the counsell of truth expressing the result of the whole busines show that iâ— plainly imports an Encomium of S. Peter's candour that wheÌ„ the thing objected against him was true he maintained not his own saying by Authority but made his heâ—gâ—h of dignity exprest there to bee most eminent stoop to the sincere acceptation of truth which in a Superiour and Governour is a most laudable carriage and an unparalell'd commendation And thus Dr. H. comes of in answering S. W. first testimony which being prest speaks more against him then was at first intended being onely brought to show that these fathers thought that manner of carriage between S. Peter and S. Paul exprest Gal. 11. rather argued S. Peter's greater humility then his lesser or equall Authority After Mr. H. had endeavoured by wresting the former testimony to win S. Cyprian and S. Austin to side with him against S. Peter's Authority he proceeds to destroy the Popes
in her Communion and yet have liberty still to do and hold what you list Do you not think every Rebell that renounces both the former Government and laws loves not still to bee held a good Commonwealths man and not to bee outlaw'd or punish't but permitted to enjoy the priviledge of the Commonwealth whose Vnity hee hath broken so hee may have his own intentions Had Iack Straw or Wat Tiler after they had rebell'd a mind to bee thought Rebells or to bee hang'd or upon the Governours declaring them Outlaws and punishable was it a competent plea for them to say they desir'd to remain in the peaceable Communion of the Commonwealth as far as the Court would give them leave Your fact my Ld of breaking the Vnity of the former Church is much more evident than theirs being visible to the eyes of the whole world and infinitely more hainous since it concerns the order to Eternity After this fact so visible so enormous 't is no charity nor courtesy in you but a request of an unreasonable favour from us to admit you into Communion and would bee most absurd in Government most contradictory in terms signifying thus much that they should bee still held by us for good subjects who profess and defend still their Rebellion against the former Church Government and for the right faithfull who have no Rule of faith at all nay pretend themselves to no more than an opinion-grounding or probability Secondly hee tells us our Ancestours did not stupidly sit still and blow their noses when they saw themselves thus abused I answer whether they blew their noses or no it matters not but did they renounce the Pope's Authority as Head of the Church This is the thing I deny'd of them and charge upon the Bp. what saies hee to this Hee denies it too after hee had shuffled about a while for hee must have the liberty to take his swing that is hee saies the same I do and grants what hee pretend's to confute For after hee had reckon'd up what things our Ancestours had done against the Pope hee adds as the top of the Climax that they threatned him further to make a wall of separation between him and them Which shows that this is the most they did For if they but threatned they did it not But 't is evident that you have done what they onely threatned to do and in excuse of your doing it you adde immediately that you have more Experience than your Ancestours had Thus the Bp. something candidly at present Yet wee have seen him heretofore in contradiction to himself here both affirm and maintain that K. H. the 8th when hee renounc't the Pope made no new law but onely declar'd the ancient law of England which signifies that the wall of separation was not onely threaten'd but made formerly for the former laws were actually in force before K. H's time nay in the very beginning of his Raign as himself confesses p. 2s l. 7. 8. And wee shall see him hereafter bring an whole Chapter to make good the same impudent assertion which would put out the eyes and blot out the acknowledg'd notions of the whole world An excellently bad cause needs an excellently good memory Now then since you have at unawares acknowledg'd so much truth as that they who had the same causes of separation which you have yet did not separate as you do let us reflect a little upon the reason you give of this difference 'T is this that you have more experience than your Ancestours but whence this greater experience springs or out of what Experiments which they had not you gather'd this experience you have not one word Are you wiser than they were in the Art of Governing as to this point Sure your self do not beleeve it nor can say it with modesty since by professing you made no new law in this matter that is retain'd the old which you receiu'd from them you confess you know not how to make better Were they cowards and durst not make those prouisions they saw necessary for the common good Neither They actually did say you exclude the Pope's Supremacy out of England as far as they judged it necessary for the tranquillity of the Kingdome Well then if they did as much as they judged necessary and knew as well what was necessary as you why did you do more Because forsooth you had more experience But does this experience furnish you with a reason sufficient to iustify your separation If it do produce it if not why do you alledge this more experience And indeed how come you to pretend to it For since experience of necessity supposes an Experiment whence 't is deriu'd either some new thing happen'd by which this great necessity of separation which your Ancestors were ignorant of came to bee discover'd to you or else you had no more experience than they Therefore good my Ld tell us what this new ExperimeÌ„t was But it seems you thought it either not handsom to bee owned or not worth the owning that assigne us none at all telling us onely in generall terms you have more experience than your Ancestors had c. that is in stead of producing some cause of separating which might vindicate your Church from Schism to assigne an effect without a cause and defend it with the same plea as a man would do his Rebellion who rising against his actuall Governours and upon that score standing accused of Treason should go about to maintain it was therefore lawfull for him to Rebell because hee was wiser than the former subâ—ects and then tell that troublesome Adversary who should press him to prove this greater Wisedome that hee has more experience and that hee is so However since you are resolu'd to make a secret of this rare Experiment and that by consequence wee are not to expect from you any Grounds of your greater experience let us see at least what it is you pretend to have more enperience of 'T is this that their Ancestors remedies were not soueraign or sufficient enough c. Now these remedies of theirs being their rationall laws as hee intimates presently after do but observe how like a reeling Dutchman making indentures with his legs the Bp's discourse staggers now to the one now to the other far distant side of the contradiction Hee tells us here that the remedies that is laws of our Ancestours were not sufficient enough yet maintains stoutly before that in the separation no new law was made that is that the same laws or remedies were formerly as then but were not formerly sufficient that is that the same thing is not as sufficient as it is And this signifies for the Bp. to have more experience than his Ancestors Again it being alledged here that the former laws were insufficient and acknowledg'd the page before that all other Catholike countries do maintain their priviledges inviolate by means of their laws as I conceive and hee intimates which laws
an Article of faith So that he would not have held it of faith against the Manichees that there are not two God's because the proposition is negative nor that the Divells shall not be saved nor the Saints in Heaven damn'd nor that there is no Salvation but through Iesus-Christ all these by the Bishop's Logick must cease to be Articles of faith and become indifferent and unconcerning opinions because they are all negatives After this he talks ramblingly again as his custome is of Theologicall opinions indifferent opinions c. and then on his own kinde word assures us that these points are such and so wipes his hands of them His last proof of their Moderation is their preparation of minde to beleeve practice what ever the Catholike Church even of this present age doth universally beleeve practice Proofs should be visible known and he brings us here for a proof a thing hid in the dark hole of their own breasts nor ever likely to come to light but by their own sayings onely all other Symptoms standing in opposition to it But the greatest foolery is that as I told him they first say there is no universall Church or if any indeterminate so that no body can tell which it is and then make a hollow-hearted profession of a readines to beleeve it and conclude themselves moderate Reformers My Ld replies that then they have renounced their creed the badge of their Christianitie I answer we doubt not but they have and that as they hold onely the word Church and not the thing so they hold onely the word the creed and not the sence of it both in that and what other Articles their fancie pleases Is it not then wisely argued to think to confute us by bringing us to this absurditie as he imagins that then they have renounced their creed whereas 't is our known tenet which we hold as undoubtedly as we do that they are out of the Church The next absurditie he brings me to upon this account is that then they have renounc't their reason also As little can we doubt of this as of the former having seen lately how you deny'd the first Principles and common sense almost in every particular of this discourse and even this present maner of arguing testifies how little reason your bad cause will allow you the use of But how proves he that then they must have lost their reason Thus for if there be many particular Churches wherefore not one universall Church whereof Christ is the Head and King Very good my Ld but if you give us no certain Rule to know what congregations are to be truly accounted Churches and which not such but hereticall and show us no some common ty of ordinary Government in the Church how will you make up of them one universall Church which may bee known for such This is the thing we object as you well know that you give us no such Rule to know a true Church by This is the reason why we affirm you deny an universall Church because you deny all Grounds which can establish such a Church As for what I alledged that if they say there is a Catholike Church 't is indetermin'd that is none knows which it is He answers first that then 't is all one as if it were not Very true for if there be no determinate one there is none at least to us Next that this is a calumny to say they know not determinately which this Church is Let us examine whether it be or no. Two things are requisite to the notion of an universall or Catholike Church One that the particular companies which compound it be indeed true Churches that is consisting of true beleevers and not hereticall Congregations without certain knowledge of which none can possibly know which is the universall Church made up of them The other that these particular Congregations of true beleevers cling together by mean's of order into one entire company to be called when thus united one universall Church For the first I appeal to any candid learned Protestant whether he ever in his life knew any of their Authors who gives us a positive Catalogue of which particular Congregations are to he held for true Churches and a part of the universall which no but to be excluded from it as hereticall or whether himself can stand to it positively upon Grounds given agreed upon by them that such such a Congregation is without the verge of the universall Church such with in it My self have lived in circumstances to be aswell acquainted with their doctrine as most men are and I profess sincerely were my life at stake onely redeemable by the resolving this question I could not determin absolutely upon any Grounds constantly acknowledg'd by them whether Presbyterians Anabaptists or Quakers are to be excluded from the universall Church or no. And if we cannot determin of sects so neer at hand though prest to it by our conversation carriage to declare express our selves distinctively much lesse can we expect it in order to the Armenians Ethiopians Iacobites with whose customes and tenets we are so litle acquainted But alas how vain is it to expect from Protestants such a distinctivenes of true beleevers from false who have no Grounds to make such a distinction For what Principles have they to character a true beleever Is it to acknowledge the letter of the Scripture sufficient All Hereticks in the world almost own this Arians Socinians who deny Christ's divinity most of all Is it the true sence of it how shall they agree in this without some certain mean's or Rule to interpret it make them agree Must the common doctrine of the universall Church interpret it This is the very thing we are in quest of and till wee know what particular Congregations are to bee held true Churches know not yet which it is Must consent of fathers They have no Authority but from the Church in which they lived and as declarers of her doctrine unles therefore we have some Rule to conclude antecedently that the Church whose doctrine they taught was the true Church we are still ignorant whether they be true fathers and to be beleeved or no. Is it the private Spirit The most frantick Enthusiasts then have an equall pretence Is it private reason In steps the Socinian and indeed all heresies in the world for every one hath a private reason of his own and can use it to his power in interpreting Scripture But my L d of Derry seems to drive another way affirming here p. 43. that he knows no other necessary Articles of faith but the Apostles creed though other Protestant Authors affirm more This then according to him must be the fundamentall Rule of faith and the Touch stone to try who are true beleevers who not The Puritans therefore who deny'd one of those Articles to wit Ghrists descent into Hell must be excluded quite from the universall
to defend by a complemental connivence If then I might upon his desert give him those characters I hope it is necessarily consequent that words must be allowed me to expresse them nor ought the lawfull help of Rhetorick be interdicted me to expresse them home Now if all art of Rhetorick gives it that ridiculous things ought to be exprest ironically let Dr. H. blame the art so unfriendly to him and his own weaknesse which intituled him to such expressions not S. W. who did but as art nature and reason required If any yet object that I was still excessive in the manner of those expressions I answer that I shall bewilling to confesse the fault unlesse I manifested him equally excessive in the manner of deserving them otherwise as long as the proportion holds I shall in reason account my self blamelesse As a writer then against God's Church D. H. ought in reason to expect no mercy at S. W's hands but rigorous justice onely nor is this by consequence contumeliousnesse but the proper treaty which reason grants religion avoucheth and the circumstances make necessary Now that all the pretended revilings of S. W. are no other the Dr. shall inform the Reader complaining here pag. 2. that the Publisher of the book hath solemny annext a list of the contumelies three and thirty picz'd out by specialty c. since then these as he sayes are the speci all or chief contumelies not to trouble the Reader with the whole Roll we will onely take notice of the first of them which is this How the Dr. of Divinity has forgot his accidence This is the first of those special contumelies which Dr. H. here compares to Goliah's cursing of David to Rabshakeh's reproches to the king of Moab's language against Israel This is that in the flagiant fact of which as he expresses it being taken the Apostle hath therefore long ago pronounced sentence against me that no Christian must eat with me hence it is that I have onely the name not the reality of a Christian am a detestable person ipso jure excommunicated in a special manner one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he pedantizes it so as unreformed that is without repentance I shall not inherit the kingdome of heaven and do but flatter and deceive my self if I hope I may and lastly am none of those Saints who clave non errante shall judge the word Thus are poor Catholicks poasted to hell by couples for I suppose the Romish Factour must bear me company without bale or mainprise for manifesting that Dr. H. had forgot his Accidence You wits of the Vniuersities beware and take example by the fatall Catastrophe of S. W. when you write or dispute do not accuse your Adversary of inconsequence in his argument mistakes in criticizing solâ—ecismes or the like you see upon how ticklish a point your salvation stands if you do the Apostle hath pronounced long ago that no man may eat with you hence you are specially contumelious excommunicated no Christians detestable in speciall sort unrighteous and do but flatter your selves if you hope to go to heaven without true and hearty repentance as Dr. H. hath evidently provâ—d out of Scripture The rest of those special contumelies as he calls them are deductions from his own erroneous reasoning or interpreting Scripture from his self contradictions his mistakes c. and therefore being onely aimed at his Book orat Himself as the Writer of it were necessary to be taken notice of by his Disarmer and consequently not falling under the notion of contumelies nor deserving so many censures in Greek If Mr. H. yet kindly complain that my words were too harsh my answer is the very names we give to great faults are harsh words nor can they possibly be other wise so as he must either suppose me so supine as not to take notice of his faultinesse or else I must suppose him more innocent that is deny mine own eyes and then winking at his grosse and pernicious errours substitute courtesy to zeal and instead of confuting fall to complement Now how can any man in reason imagine I should not mention his greatest faults that is not use harsh words For either Dr. H. knew of them or not if not it was his interest and my charity to let him know them which I think cannot be done without naming them If he knew of them and yet writ them it was a more necessary charity and more concerning the publick and dearest interest of mens salvations waving all private respect to the person to let all men know his false dealing that they might beware of him as of a wolf in sheeps clothing Let himself chuse which side he pleases I shall hold my self sufficiently cleared by either Nay rather I have reason to make a counter-complaint of the Dr. for I no where in my whole Book branded him with the appelation of a detestable person which this pattern of piety gives me though my pretence might avouch-it being to defend the rights of the Church I live in whereas his intemperance proceeds from a vindication of his private selfe from the contumelies forsooth he hath received and to aggravate his fault the more he cannot be content to use his own words to expresse his gravity affecting passion but to make his railing more authoritative as one said of a precise puritanical Dame that shee never cudgeld her Mayd but in Scripture-phrase so St. Paul must needs prophecie long ago of my Excommunication be revived to pronounce it in Dr. H's name and for solemnity sake in Greek too Yet after the Dr. hath been so hihg in the Pulpit against contumelies he is become himself so mean an Auditor as to accuse me flatly of falsifications with what reason shall be seen hereafter calumnies certainly if not avouch'd yet all sounds zeal in him which in another would be plain contumelie Should we desire St. Paul now to Excommunicate Dr. H. hee would presently silence-us by assuring'us that St. Paul never meant harm to him but to S. W. onely so secure a thing it is to be a dexterous Scripturist Sect. 2. That the certainty of Faith and that onely justly grounds zeal and obliges the Propugner of that Faith to an impartial plainnesse with its Adversary as taken-under that notion THese ordinary Considerations and obvious to common sence I have offer'd to the Reader to let him see this manner of Writing in confuting such Authors is very rational if the cause deserves any zeal and the truth of the thing makes good what is said One reason more I shall adde which I recommend to the attentive consideration of the Reader it being indeed the fundamental ground why such a treaty should be necessary in controversies about Faith against the deemed adversaries thereof And this is no other than the certainty of Faith it self But lest the Dr. should mistake me as his custome is to beg the question by supposing our Faith certain I professe my selfe
onely to mean at present a deemed or beleeved certainty of Faith in him who is to maintain it Now whoever holds his Faith and its ground certain as Catholiks do is obliged eo ipso to hold for certain likewise that the Government recommended to him by the same Rule of Faith is to be submitted to and by consequence that the rejecting it is Schism whence follows that he must hold also for certain that the Propagatour of that Tenet is a Ringleader of Schismaticks publickly pernicious and one who by his poisonous Writings infects the souls of men with as hainous a vice as ever entituled any to damnation Neither can he hold him otherwise unlesse he will hold the ground of his own Faith uncertain and call into question the substance of all his hope that he may instead thereof entertain charitable thoughts of the impugner of it Now then let us consider what carriage is due towards a private person held for certain to be one who endeavours to draw souls to hell by his Writings and Authority from him who holds him so nor can hold him otherwise unlesse he will hold the grounds of his own Faith doubtful ought not this Catholike Writer if he has any zeal for his Faith or care of his Conscience which obliges him in charity to prevent so great mischief to use the means and waies which wit and art can invent to confute and discredit that mans harmful sophistry and disparage his authority as fat as truth can justifie his words ought hee not to trample down all tendernesse which his good nature would suggest neglect all considerations of respect all condescensions of civility to lay him open plainly and palpably to be what hee is that is ridiculous nonsensical weak blasphemous or whatever other Epithet the defence of so bad a cause makes so bad a writer deserve why should he make scruple going upon those grounds that his Faith is most certain and the former sequel no lesse to give him the same language if he be found to deserve it as St. Iude gave the Adversaries of Faith in his daies as the Fathers gave Porphyrius afterwards nay more if he sees he can make him justly ridiculous why should he not expresse himself ironically too in order to his nonsence as well as Elias might scoffe at the Priests of Baal In a word whatever can conduce to the justly disgracing him as the Defender of a certainly deemed-pernicious cause might lawfully nay in Charity ought have been used to undeceive his adherentes and preserve others from a certainly-beleeved danger and that the greatest of dangers eternal damnation Hence sollows that though S W. may perhaps be blamed for holding his Faith certain yet he is inculpable for proceeding consequently to the former Tenet that is in treating Dr. H. as a pernicious destroyer of soules since as hath been proved he cannot think him otherwise unlesse hee either doubt of his own Faith or renounce the light of his Reason which taught him to deduce thence by evident consequence that such he was and as such to be treated He who holds ill principles is blameable indeed in that regard but yet he is worthy of praise and commendations for proceding consequently upon them since to deduce consequences aright is very laudable As for the culpablenesse which may accrue by holding his Faith certain to clear himseif to rational persons for wordish and merely testimony-men are not capable of reason he feares not to professe that he makes account he hath as perfect evidence or more than he hath for any thing in nature that Truths of no lesse concernment then Eternity written in the hearts of so many as may in a just estimate make up the account of mankind in such a powerful manner and with such incompatable motives as the Apostles writ them being so conformable to nature not meerly speculative but each of them visibile and daily practical could never dye or decay out of the hearts of Christians in any age Nor hath he lesse evidence that consequently Scripture its interpretation being subject to misprision as far as they depend not upon this and are regulaâ—ed by it Vniversal Tradition is the onely certain and absolute rule of Faith whence follows that both they who build upon any other ground have onely opinion to found their faith for those points which they receive nor from tradition as also that that Church who relies upon universal Tradition for each point of Faith erres in none not can erre so long as the sticks close to so safe a Principle Now then finding no Church doe this but the Roman-Catholike for neither Greeks nor Protestants nor any else pretended to have received ever from their immediate Fore fathers those points of Faith in which they differ from her doubt not to account Her that onely Church which hath the true motive ground and rule of Faith since probability cannot be that Rule and consequently which hath true Faith and is a true Church Hence I am obliged to esteem all other Congregations which have broken from that onely-certain Rule or her Government recommended by the same Rule Schismatical and Heretical hence I conclude her Infallible because I make account I can demonstrate that the principle upon which onely she relies is impossible to fail Hence Iastly that I may come home to my intent I account my faith certain and the propagator of the contrary certainly pernicious to mens souls and therfore that it was both his desert and my obligation not to let slip any possible advantage which might with Truth damnify his cause and him as-the maintainer of it Now that we may turn over the leaf as certainty that faith is true is a sufficient ground to beget a just zeal in its propugners against its adversaries so a profest fallibitily and uncertainty is uterly insufficient for that end and unable to interest conscience in its defence For how should conscience be inreressed to defend positions held upon no better ground with any eagernesse unlesse reason be interessed first and how can reason be obliged to the serious and vigorous patronage of what it felf knows certainly that it knows not whether it be true or no See but how the working of Nature in all men gives testimony to this Truth If we hear one obstinately affirm and stand to a thing which we know certainly is otherwise though the matter it self be but of triviall concernment even Nature seems to stirre us up in behalf of Truth to a just resentment and hardly can we refrain from giving a sharp reprehension if the person be underus or some expression of-dislike if this peremptory wronger of truth exceed our jurisdiction So on the other side if we be uncertain whether the thing be so or no we find it quite abates that keennesse of opposition neither will any one unlesse very peevish and weak engage passion to quarrel about a conjecture or if it so happen sometimes as when probablists
England flies off presently and denies it saying he had no title to such an Authority there whereas when we maintain his possession we pretend not yet a Right which is our inference thence but that actually England was under such an Authority and acknowledg'd it whether it were rightly pretended or injustly remains to be inferred which the Dr. mistaking and not distinguishing between possession and right sayes we beg the question when we onely take what is evident that he was in possession and thence infer a right until the contrary be proved The second Ground is that This Authority actually over England and acknowledged there was acknowledged likewise to be that of the Head of the Vniversal Church and not of a Patriarchate onely This Ground is no less evident than the former by our adversaries confession since this is the Authority they impugn as unlawfull and from which they reformed which last word implies the actual acknowledgment that Authority had before Hence Mr. H's digression to show that Kings could erect and translate Patriarchates was perfectly frivolous as far as concerns this purpose for whether they can change Patriarchates or no is impertinent when we are questioning an Authority above Patriarchs and pretended to be constituted by Christ himself The third Ground is that This Papal Authority actually over the Ecclesiastical affaires in England was held then as of Christ's Institution and to have been derived to the Pope as he was Successour to S. Peter The truth of this appears by the known confession of the then Roman Church and the self-same Controversy perpetually continued till this day The fourth Ground is that This actual power the Pope then had in England had been of long continuance and settled in an ancient Possession This is evinced both from our Adversaries grant the evidence of the fact it self and even by the carriage of S. Aust in the Monk and the Abbot of Bangor exprest in that counterfeited testimony alledged by Dr. H. whence we see it was the doctrine S. Austin taught the Saxons The fifth Ground shall be that No Possession ought to be disturbed without sufficient motives and reasons and consequently it self is a title till those reasons invalidate it and show it null This is evident first by Nature's Principles which tell us there is no new cause requisite for things to remain as they are wheras on the other side nothing can be changed without some cause actually working and of force proportionable to the weight and settledness of the thing to be moved Secondly by Morals which teach us that mans understanding cannot be changed from any opinion or beleef without motives ought not without sufficient ones and consequently needs no new motive to continue it in any former assent besides the foregoing Causes which put it there Thirdly we find that Politicks give testimony to or rather stand upon this Ground assuring us when any Government is quietly settled it ought so to stand till sufficient motives and reasons in Policy that is a greater common good urge a change And if Possession were held no title then the Welshmen might still pretend to command England and each line or race which preceded and was outed quarrel with any subsequent one though never so long settled and so no certain right at all would be found of any possession in the World till we come to Adam's time Fourthly as for the particular Laws of our Countrey they clearly agree in the same favour for Possession I shall onely instance in one common case If I convey Blackâ—cre to I. S. for the life of I. N. and after wards I. S. dy in this case because I cannot enter against mine own Grant and all the world else have equal title whoever first enters into the land is adjudged the true and rightfull Owner of it during the life of I. N. and that by the sole title of Occupancy as they call it which they wholly ground upon this known reason that in equality of pretensions Possession still casts the ballance Nay such regards is given by our Law to Possession that were the right of a former Title never so evident yet a certain time of peaceable Possession undisturb'd by the contrary claim would absolutely bar it And here I should take my self obliged to ask my Adversary's pardon for using such words as a Dr. of Divinity is not presumed to be acquainted with did not his own Example at least excuse if not provoke my imitation Thus much of the force of Possession in general without descending to the nature of ours in particular that is of such a Possession as is justly presumable to have come from Christ Hence followes that since Possession of Authority must stand till sufficient Reasons be alledged that it was unjust those Motives and Reasons ought to be weighed whether they be sufficient or no ere the Authority can be rejected wherefore since the relinquishing any Authority actually in power before makes a material breach from that Government the deciding the question onely stands in examining those Reasons which oppose its lawfulness since the sufficiency of them cleares the breakers the insufficiency condemns them and in our case makes the material Schism formal Let the Reader then judge how little advised Dr. H. was in stating the question rightly and clearly of Schism pag 10. where he tells us that the motives are not worth he eding in this controversy but onely the truth of the matter of fact For the matter of fact to wit that there was then an actual Government and that they broke from it being evident to all the world and confest by themselves if there be no reasons to be examined he is convinced by his own words to be a Schismatick so flatly and palpably that it is left impossible for him even to pretend a defence The sixth Ground shall be that Such a Possession as that of the Pope's Authority in England was held ought not to be changed or rejected upon any lesser motives or reasons than rigorous and most manifest Evidence that it was usurp't The reasons for this are fetch 't by parity from that which went before onely the proportions added For in moving a Body in nature the force of the cause must be proportion'd to the gravity settledness and other extrinsecal impediments of the Body to be moved otherwise nothing is done In morals the motives of dissent ought to be more powerfull than those for the former continuance in assent otherwise a soul as a soul thas is as rational is not or ought not to be moved and so in the rest Now that nothing less than Evidence rigorously and perfectly such can justify a rejecting of that Authority is thus show'd That Authority was held as of Faith and to have been constituted by Christ's own mouth it had been acknowledgedly accounted for such by multitudes of pious learned men for many ages before in all Christian Countries of the Communion of the Roman Church
necessary will be voyd of fruit specially to Mr. H's Friends who may see by this Answer of mine how bad that cause must be which can cast so understanding a man as some of them imagine him upon such non sense weaknesses of reasoning voluntary mistakes falsifications denying his own words and many other ridiculous shifts as shall be seen most amply in the process of this Treatise Sect. 7. Dr. H's accurate mistake of every line of the Introduction to Schism Disarm'd and his wilful avoyding to answer the true import of it Mr. H's reason which was gravelled in understanding the plain words in my Epistle to the Reader as hath been shown has no better fortune in confuting my Introduction I exprest in the beginning of it that It bred in me at first some admiration why the Protestants should now print books by pairs to defend themselves from Schism who heretofore more willingly skirmish't in particular Controversies than bid battel to the main Body of the Church c. Vpon which Dr. H. not aware that upon every new occurrence or effect the admirative faculty first playes it's parts and stirres up the reason to disquisitiveness for the cause of it such reflections ly much out of the way of one who gleans testimonies will not give me leave something to admire at first till I had found the reason at an occurrence evidently new that is their writing at this time books by pairs to clear them selves from Schism but is pleased to turn my ordinary easy moderate words of some admiration at first into those loud phrase p. 12. l. 19. of great vnheard of news and prodigy putting news and prodigy in different letters that himself might be thought an Oedipus who had unriddled my imagin'd aenigma But since any thing which is uncouth and disorderly justly stirres up admiration what necessity is there that Dr. H. and his Friends should hap to do all things so orderly wisely and reasonably that poore S. W. whom he confesses here p. 10. l. 36 not to have been of his Councel in his designment might not be allow'd to have some admiration at first at their mysterious imprudence But he will needs undertake to allay my admiration though I was much better satisfy'd with my own reason there given by telling me it was seasonable charity to undeceive weak seducible Christians because the Romish Missaries by pretence of their Schism endeavour'd to defame them out of a persecuted profession Where first I assure him that many of those who have of late become Catholicks are as great Scholars and wits as have been left behind and so more likely to have been reduced by reason than seduced by the industry of others working upon their weakness the weak seducihle Souls of the former Protestants are either turn'd Quakers or such like kind of things those who have run back to the lap of their Mother the Holy Catholick Church are such as are neither easily deceivable by our Missaries nor possibly undeceivable by Dr. H. multitudes of them being such as might wiâ—h far better reason be wish't to have the Answering of Dr. H. in my stead than be feared to be mo'vd by his reasons to renounce their own Nor needed they be tempted by others their own reason if disinteressed could not but inform them that that Religion was not true that Church but counterfeit whose grounds were rotten and whose Fates depended upon the Temporal Power Nor hath the other part of that poor sentence scap't better from his artificial mistakes I onely affirmed that they heretofore seem'd more willing to skirmish in particular controversies than bid battel to tâ—e main body of the Church which he misunderstands as if I had said that no Protestants ever writ against the Authority of our Church and then impugnes his own mistake father'd upon S. W. very strongly by nominating some few books upon that subject Ans p. 11. l. 2. pittying himself that he should 〈◊〉 set to prove what none said but himself and truly I pitty him too But are not there near an hundred times that number who have skirmish't against us in particular Controversies I hope then this will serve to justify those moderate words of mine that they seem'd more willing to that task Yet he triumphs over me saying that it is much juster matter of wonder to him that S. W. should set out so unauspiciously as to begin with an observation founded in a visible contrariety to a plain matter of Fact that every man that thinks of must discern to be so Thus doth he trample down and then strut over S. W. at the first onset so potent still and victorious is he when he fights against his own Chimaera's I am persuaded a little sooth-saying will serve the Reader to determine who began the more inauspiciously and at whose door the sinister bird croak't Yet though saith he those words had been true that formerly the Protestants were more willing to skirmish in paâ—â—icular Controversies yet Dr. H. tells us it were obvious to every man what might now suggest the change of that course and what obvious reason might this be but that after particular Controversies were competently debated to set the Axe to the root of the tree and stock up Rome's universal Pastourship and infallibility Where he sees not that the question remains still to be ask't why the competent debating of particular Controversies should just then end and the propter time then begin for the Protestants to stock up Rome when themselves had never a legg left them to stand on and why they should hope then rather to get the upper hand when they ly flat along themselves as if Antaeus-like they were stronger by falling Again had many been induced by reason to return to the Catholick Church yet I cannot understang why the Protestants zeal should think it more seasonable to write Books by pairs against us than against their other Desertours since they who have gone from them into other Sects are above an hundred for one in comparison of the Catholik Converts so that had not S. W. found out a reason to rid himself of his some admiration he might still have remain'd in it for any thing M. H. hath produc't Vpon occasion of my saying that it was more seasonable to denounce to those Sects the unreasonableness of their Schism than plead the reasonableness of their own he voluntarily mistakes my words as if I meant that he had confess 't it Schism and then gone about to plead the reasonableness of it whereas I onely intended as is evident that he went about to plead the reasonableness of that which I who am the Defendant doe and must hold for Schism and consequently may nominate it so that is of his breaking from our Churche's Government Yet for this I have lost my credit this being another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he tells the Reader if he can understand Greek what trust is due to S. W. in his affirmations Should he
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
inherit the Kingdome of Heaven that this was the very Dialect which the Iewes used toward the true Prophets of God that it is against the practice of S. Michael and against the spirit of weeknesse peace and long-suffering c. As if every heretick nay every malefactour in the world could not say the same to their just reprehenders and punishers or as if peace and long-suffering were to be used at all times even when we see we suffer divine Truth to be injurd and souls run headlong and blind to Hell after such blind guides Every one Mr. H. can preach patience peace and long suffering quote scripture intermix Greek words pedantically but none can speak sense but they who have truth on their side It must be judged then by the strength of the reasons you bring to clear your selves from schism whether you deserved those reprehensions from your Adversary or no and not from what your quodlibeticall vein can preach to us And till you bring evident ones I shall ever think that S. Hierome your own Authours here preacht as good doctrine as you in a place lately cited when he told us with many instances that non est crudelitas pro Deo pietas Sixthly what is it to me that S. Hierome noted it as an errour in Helvidius that he took railing for eloquence unlesse he can prove that I took it so too He knowes I pretend that justice truth and the necessity of my cause warranted nay obliged me to be so plain with him I pretend no Eloquence in an ordinary controversy neither did I think that confuting Dr. H. would be such a rare businesse that it would be worth the pains of a rhetoricall filing Lastly to shew more and more the weaknesse of this Dr. S. Hieromes words of Helvidius are these loquacitatem facundiam existimat he thinks babling to be eloquence But the good Dr. whom any semblance of a testimony contents construes loquacitas wordishness to be railing as if empty pulpit-beatres who talk two hours without a word of solidnesse were therefore all railers I doubt that ere we come to an end of this Treatise Loquacity that is voluntary talking wordishly without a syllable of sense will be so perfectly shown to be D. H's proper and peculiar fault that his own words will evince it without the help of Saint Hierome And thus hath Dr. H. sped in quoting this holy learned and truly zealous Father for the Patron of his affected courteâ—y and civility and a pattren for S. W. to follow in writing Controversies about Faith I once hoped Mr. H. and I should have parted very good Friends from this first Section notwithstanding the contumelies which contrary to his own grounds he hath heaped upon me in it But he hath so purposely counterfeited a mistake that he might by that means fix a â—ly câ—â—umny upon a worthy person that Charity and pitty must both be summon'd up to pardon him in it I had upon occasion of the Evidence of our Churches Infallibility in my Schim Disaerm'd pag. 20. told him he might to his amazement see it in that incomparable Treatise of Rushworth's Dialogues vindicated from all possible confute by that excellent Apology for it writ by the learned pen of Mr Thomas White What does Mr. H he tells us that S. W. sayes his arrowes are beyond all possible confute meaning that S. W. the Authour of Schism Disarm'd was the same with the Authour of the Apology for Tradition though I am certainly inform'd that he knows S. W. to be another person and reports again afterwards the same phrase to the same purpose Now by this one project he gaines two advantages First he honours himself with making the world believe he had so worthy an Adversary as the Authour of that Apology next when he has done this he dishonours his pretended Adversary as the vainest person in the world by intimating that himself in Schism Disaâ—m'd gave himself such an high character Whereas first I assure Dr. H. it is in vain to hope for such an honour as is an Answer from that miracle of with and learning it is worthy him to write grounds not to stand replying upon meer words to answer such weak skirmishers is a task more proper for one of the meanest and youngest of his scholars a very slender participation of his solid knowledge renders one able to encounter with the Apuleian bladders of aiery testimonies the victory over which can onely entitle one to Domitian's triumph and need more the Flyflap of a Dictionary or turning over leaves to combat them then the acuter and stronger sword of reason As for the second which is the sly calumny of that worthy person's feigned self-praise built onely on Mr. H's wilfull mistake I fear the intimater of it will lose much credit by so ignoble a detraction of such a person since his profoundest humility of equall depth with his knowledge secures him as much from desiring praise as his known worth from needing it every one freely yielding him those excellent commendations which his Detractours will needs have him for want of good neighbours give himself He tells us in the close that Divines are allowed to have skill in Symptomes What Symptomes are these and of what that the profusest laâ—ghter is the worst indication of the affections of the spleen quoting Irenaeus Galen I ask suppose Irenaeus had also said that a gravely-affected melancholy extraordinarily representing sanctity and piety and a professing an earnest desire to speak the full truth of God Answer p. 18. and yet in the mean time falsifying most palpably purposely and inexcusably is the worst indication of a pharisaicall hypocrisie were not this more competible to Mr. H. then the other is to me I hope then he is answered at least in as good a manner as such toyes deserve And ere I come to finish this Treatise I flatter my self that even Dr. H's own Friendâ— will acknowledge that such is his carriage and manner of writing unlesse a strong prepossession of partiality have blinded them and shut the eyes both of their mind and body since to make good this my charge against him little more then the common use of the latter is exacted of the Reader Sect. 4. Dr. H's methodicall Charity represented in his totally mistaking the common sense of a plain Epistle to the Reader with a second sly Calumny of the same strain and other weaknesses HIs railing against me in the first section which he calls his Answ p. 5. obligation of Charity brings him methodically for all is Charity and method in him to andeavour my conviction by examining the account I gave of the rudenesse of my blowes which though sufficiently cleared already yet I think my self obliged to my cause to take notice of this methodicall charity convincing reason that the Reader may see what weak Patrons Schism hath and that if Mr. H. be most grievously mistaken in a plain Epistle to the Reader there is
truly that he was not actually and de facto under him when he had renounced his Authority and raised an Army against him He tells us moreover upon his honest word if we will believe him that the King and Bishops here had the supreme power under Christ to reiect the Pope's Authority that the Pope's power was usurp't c. and then hiding his head under these thin leaves he concludes himself perfectly safe till we make it appear that we were Governours and they faulty So that by the Doctor 's Logick a boy though undoubtedly held the son of such a Father may not be whip't by him for disobedience as long as the boy can call his mother whore and deny himself to be his Son unless the Father make it first appear that he is his Child Till you first renounced the Authority of our Supreme Governour let it be when it will you were under him and held his Children and Subjects your disobedience is most notorious and confest and that not a meer disacceptance of his commands but disallowance of his Authority yet as long as you can deny it and say the Roman-Church your then-Mother was a strumpet and had erred in Faith she may not punish nor excommunicate you without first making it appear you are her Children A solid piece of reason Observe Reader that Dr. H. in all these raw affirmations of his that not begg'd the question a jot although he be the opponent 't is his privilege to say what he will every one knows 't is his humour In a word let him either show that his reasons for renouncing that Authority are above all degrees of probability which was the proper answer or else let him confess as he must that he is evidently a Schismatick in rejecting an Authority for so many Ages acknowledg'd certain upon slight and phantastical Grounds One piece of wit I must not omit because I have heard more than one of Dr. H's Friends misled by it The Doctor affirms here Answ p. 30. l. 14. that the Pope's Authority was first cast off by Papists 'T is strange that the same men who nominate us Papists for onely acknowledging the Pop's Authority should call them also Papists who disacknowledge it But perhaps he means they were Roman-Catholicks if so then let me ask does he mean that they were of our Profession ere they renounc't it so was every one that turned Knave or Rebel an honest man and true Subject formely else he had never turn'd so but ever been so must then Knaves and Rebels impute knavery and rebellion to honest men and true Subjects and say it was they who first began those Vices or does he mean perhaps that they remain'd Catholicks after the renouncing it If his mistake be there he may right it by taking notice that such a renouncing is an Act of Schism involving heresy by corenouncing the Rule of Faith After this renouncing therefore they were Schismaticks and Hereticks not Catholicks and whatever tenets they may be pretended ro retain still were not now Faith but Opinion onely the sole certain Ground of Faith Oral Tradition being abandon'd and rejected unless the Doctor will say that they had yet Catholick Faith in them who denyed all the ground of Catholick Faith and then indeed I shall not refuse to give them leave to hold them without Ground and rank them in Dr. H's Predicament of Probablists Sect. 10. Dr. H's plea of a weak conscience common to the Prostants and any malefactour Thirteen shamefull and wilful weaknesses in answering Mr. Knot 's position that we may lawful'y forsake the Churche's Communion if she be not infallible Mr. H. begins his third Section very angrily calling mine p. 31. a perfect Romane-combate with a Wind-mil of my own erecting toward which he never contributed the least stone or timber But what if I show the Doctor that he hath contributed great mill-stones and huge logges towards the making this Wind-mill of his My affirmation was that Schism Disarm'd p. 14. he had got a new cloak for his Schism the pretence of a weak conscience citing for it his excusing words that they could not subseribe to things which their conscience tells them is false and that it is hard to say a man can lawfully subscribe in that case though the truth be on the Churche's side Hence I deduced some consequence how his doctrine excused those malefactours and their three pretended Schismaticks In answer he calls this a manifest perversion of his most innocent expressions because afterwards he sayes that such a weak-conscienc't erroneous man is in several respects crimtnous c. I reply I do not forbid him to speak contradictions for I perceive by his litle amendement he is not likely to take my friendly counsell but let us see what those places which I related to there in the Doctor gave me occasion to say and what they contributed towards this Wind-mill His first contribution is that there is nothing alledged by him where he pretends conscience in not obeying us but the very same will much better serve any malefactour so that his words may become their plea and consequently unless he gave us some distinctive sign of the goodness of his conscience above theirs his words are justly appliable to plead their cause His second is that whereas onely rigorous and convincing Evidence can excuse such a disobedience and he pretends none I ought to think his conscience erroneous and that for pleading for it he pleads for erroneous Consciences and may by the same resons plead for the other malefactours His third contribution is that since on the one side he tells us it is hard to affirm that a man in an errour may lawfully subscribe and on the other leaves no Grounds to convince him rationally for how can any man pretend to convince him or he rationally assent to be convinced by an Authority which tells him it may be mistaken this weak-conscienc'd man may consequently have a rational Ground to remain in his false opinion at least cannot be obliged to contrary belief but thanks Dr. H. heartily for pleading for his lawfull continuance in his beloved errour Or if he be scrupulous of his errour and Dr. H. afford him no perfectly-certain grounds to right it but that as he sayes here and his Grounds make good he is sure to sin which way soever he turns 't is likely Mr. H's good doctrine may make the poor fellow come straight home from the Probability-lecture take a rope hang himself This indeed were no great favour to a weak conscience His fourth contribution cap. 7. par 9. is his position of the errour in some case on the Churche's side in some places in this Chapter which very thing favours the self-conceit of every proud fellow and gives him a fine pretence to think his erroneousness lawfull in disobeying that Authority which could not oblige him in reason to believe what herself knew not but might be mistaken and erre in Nay more
forsake the Churchâ—'s Communion in case she were fallible Whereas nothing can be more rational and solid than that position For why may not we forsake the Churche's Communion if she hath no power to bind to unity in Faith which makes us one of hers and how can she have any power to bind us to unity in Faith unless she be altogether certain first her self of that to which she would oblige others that is unless she be infallible in teaching attested truths To answer as hee does Reply p. 13. she may oblige others to believe though fallible as long as she is not actually in errour is the greatest piece of folly imaginable for still the question recurres Is she infallibly certain that she is not actually in errour if she be she is again Infallible if not she cannot impose any obligation of belief Hence Dr. H. may see that unless there he some company of men on earth infallible it is impossible there should be an obligation to Vnity in Faith nay there can be no positive obligation to hold any point of Faith at all unless they conspire to do so and hang together by hap-hazzard that is be no Body of men but a company of good fellows met together by chance and consequently there can be no Church or Common-wealth of Believers much less a lasting one without this Infallibility Note that the obligation here spoken of is not an obligation to act or comport ones self exteriourly as in temporal Common-wealths but to hold and believe and consequently man's nature being Reason nothing but an Authority built on evidence of inerrability can rationally oblige men to assent upon that Authority So that Mr. Knot and I shall very readily grant all Mr. H's consequence Answ p. 32. that if there be no infallible Church there would be no possibility for any on earth to be guilty of the sin of Schism His second weakness is that in excusing himself for adding impeccable he thinks to evade by telling us p. 32 that he conceived humane nature to be in it self equally liable to sin and errour and so no more infallible than impeccable Suppose it were which yet is not granted what follows for his advantage thence unless he could manifest that all men might fall at once into any one self-same kind of sin Are there causes layd in the world or can there be considering the nature of a world able to make all men conspire to cut their own throats to morrow if not then in case this should happen there would be an effect without a cause that is there would follow a Contradiction which being impossible it must follow likewise that it is impossible they should be all peccable in that kind and consequently the Doctor may learn that a multitude of men may be also impeccable in some kind of sin Now to parallel this with Infallibility as held by us we doubt not but of this multitude called the Church some may be fallible in one thing some in another but that all should conspire either to mistake or delude so as to tell so damnable and palpable a ly as that they had been thus tauhgt by their Ancestour if they had not is the Impossible of Impossibles nay equally impossible as for Nature to fail in the propagation of any entire species as for all the houses in the world to be set on fire to morrow or for all men to die in their sleep this night none of which can be done without destroying nature whose causes are placed necessarily in several circumstances and so work with variety Yet Dr. H. tells us Answ p. 33. that his words are as evident a truth as could have been mentioned by him and truly I think the Reader will believe him ere we come to the end of this book But I hast His third weakness is that whereas we place this Infallibility in a Church that is in a multitude of Believers he tells us p. 33. and 35 the Pope the Bishop of Ephesus Loadicea c. and many other Governours have fallen into errour but can he show me that all the Governours of the Church or half of them have erred or indeed can possibly erre in attesting as aforesaid If not let him acknowledge how weak a Scripturist he is in giving it such an Interpretation as impossible to be true whiles Answ p. 35. he makes the Text I am with you always even to the end of the world because secondarily spoken to the succeding Governours to stand with their errableness Hi fourth weakness is that like those who are making a pittifull excuse for a bad cause his unfledg'd discourse sticks between the teeth of a parenthesis and dates not come out plain His words are after he had told us p. 33 the Pope and any other single man in the world might erre as well as sin that in proportion any multitude or assembly might the major and so prevalent part of them consent in an errour as well as in a vice I ask can that whole multitude consent in a palpable errour in things visible or no If they can what means that grumbling parenthesis of the maior part and to what end or purpose was it brought since all might erre If they cannot all erre in such a case but the major part onely then there can be some company on earth Infallible to wit that whole multitude which is the thing in question How much more credit were it to lose a bad cause by speaking out candidly than to strive to maintain it by such pittiful shifts His fifth weakness is that whereas he affirmed onely Saints and Angels in heaven and God to be infallible and I instanced Schism Disarm'd p. 19. in some on earth to wit the Apostles whom I alledged to have been infallible in penning the sacred writ and preaching the Gospel He answers Answ p. 33. that sure they are comprehended in the number of Saints in beaven for there undoubtedly they are Tell me seriously good Reader and without smiling is not Dr. H. worthy to be reckon'd the eighth wise-man who when I ask him concerning men doing offices in their life-time here on earth tells me that they are now or were aftervards Saints in heaven His sixth weakness is his second answer to the same instance of mine to wit that it is most true that they were assisted by Christ so as they did not nor could erre in penning the sacred writ and preaching the Gospel That is he grants my instance brought against him to be true and himself to be in an errour when he said that none but those in heaven were infallible For sure if those could not erre as he grants in doing these offices performed by them while they were on earth then some men on earth may be Infallible in some thing to wit in things necessary for the Salvation of mankind which is all we demand and as much as we profess His seventh eighth and ninth weaknesses are that after he had
that he is sure the Protestants are not so persuaded nor ever had cōvincing Grounds represented to persuade them of it referring me to a book of his own called The View of Infallibility In answer I refer him to Rushworth's Dialogues and assure him that if he be not blinded with prejudice or interest he may see it there shown as perfectly as that two and three are five And as for his Book I find no such worthy stuffe in these as can invite me to think an hour well spent in perusing that Brother of theirs After this going about to vindicate the uncertainty on the Protestant's side he runs p. 21. 22. again to their full or verily-persuasion but never tells us whether this full persuasion of theirs sprung from the light of pure Reason that is Evidence or from passion interest and ignorance adding a parallel of beleeving that King Henry the eighth was King of this Nation the reasons whereof notwithstanding he accounts fallible because the testimonies of meer men Whereas I account it most evident and demonstrable and promise him to have acquitted himself better than ever Protestant did yet if he can show me the thousandth part of this Certainty which he puts here for a parallel of the Protestant's Vncertainty for any point in which they differ from us that is for any point which they have not received as handed down by Tradition or Attestation of Fore fathers For never let him expect to make a rational man beleeve that scruing or misunderstanding an odde line or two glean'd for the nonce out of Scripture or and old Authour can by any multiplication arrive to the clearness of the former ample undeniable uncontroulable Verdict of witnesses that King H. the eighth vas King of this Nation much lesse to that of our Rule of Faith being an attestion of things infinitely more importing which a multitude incomparably more numerous had seen visible in practice besides other assistant motives implanted by the Apostles the Holy Ghost especially cooperating in the hearts of the first faithful and still continued to this day which strengthen man's nature to the impossibility of erring in such an Attestation This vast advantage hath our Rule of Faith over this instance of K. H's reign here yet I doubt not to affirm that the testification of the latter renders it demonstrable which I thus show This undoubted and never yet-denyed persuasion that K. H. the eighth reigned here imprinted in the hearts of all in England not onely attested by all Fathers in that Nation but even by innumerable multitudes in other Countries his foul acts making him famous this persuasion I say is an Effect and consequently sprung from some Cause but no Cause can be imaginable in reason able either to breed this strong persuasion in such a world of knowing persons nor bribe so many attesters to a conspiracy of witnessing such a visible thing except the Being of King H. and of his Reign therefore he was or did reign here otherwise this persuasion and attestation had been effects without causes or which is all one without proportionable causes which being evidently impossible it is also evident and demonstrable that he did rule in England Now whoever should goe about to answer the major by putting some Cause as possible to be in it self proportionable and so able to produce this strange Effect besides the Existence of K. H. the eighth the very position would disgrace it self and the Authour when the proportions of it's efficacity came to be scann'd and apply'd to the Vniversal and strange Effect spoken of Again should a man consider this ample and uncontrolled attestation of it and all the other motives which infer it as King H's Wives Alliances abroad Warres Acts of Parliaments Embassadours in all parts Descent Apostatizing together with the infinite multitude of Conveyances Bonds Iudgments Foundations and innumerable such other things relating to such and such a year of his Reign and after all these fully considered should notwithstanding seriously express his doubt that he could not beleeve there was ever any such man would not all that heard him justly think him a mad man If so then surely he must have renounc't no less than rigorous Evidence and Demonstration the onely perfect light of Reason who can deserve justly such a censure It was therefore rigorously evident and demonstrable that King H. the eighth was Thirdly if it be not evident and demonstrable the contrary may possibly be such for one side must needs be true so all truths being connected in it'ts own nature demonstrable but it is evidently impossible the contrary should be demonstrable or the motives for it show'd not-concluding therefore they concluded demonstrably The minor is prov'd clearly for first it is not against any natural Science and consequently not possibly disprovable by natural reason nor yet by any Authority for in our case there is an Attestation for it uncontrolled by any either orally or by writing Wherefore there is left no means possible to goe about to confute it or evidence the contrary it self therefore is most perfectly and most strongly evident and demonstrable nay impossible to be deemed or pretended to be shown otherwise Bring not then Mr. H. this infallibly-and demonstrably-grounded instance for a parallel of your vertible and Wind-mill uncertainty till you can show you can produce the million'th part of that Evidence and certainty but rather be asham'd to pretend to make head against our Rule of Faith which is of an attesting Authority incomparably more numerous more clear and more strongly supported by all kind of imaginable assisting circumstances than was that now explicated with obscure or misinterpreted scraps of dead Authours cast into what mold you please by Id est's self-explications and voluntary deductions according to the easily-bending nature of words That is blush to have renounc't your Reason in renouncing Evidence of Authority to follow unreasonableness in assenting upon ambiguous probabilities After this to clear himself from denying Infallibility which denial was charged and hath been shown to take away all beleef and ground of Beleef he tells us pag. 23. It is evident that beleef is no more than consent to the truth of any thing and the grounds of beleef such arguments as are sufficient to exclude doubting to induce conviction and persuasion But sure Mr. H. forgets what he is about for to divine beleef which is commanded by God himself and so cannot be sinfull not every consent ought to serve but a rational one nor any conviction but such an one as is rational that is grounded upon Evidence of that Authorities veracity in that which she proposes to be beleeved which how it can stand with her fallibility in the same point is past Dr. H's skil to make good since if it be once known that she can erre in it it can never be shown thats he does not there being no certainer Authority than her self to testify certainly when she hits and when
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
and dependent on these general ones no effect of it at all being notorius but onely a testimony or perhaps two in a rumour-grounded History-book If the Doctor would persuade us that the Supreme Iurisdiction of Rome was then introduc't let him show effects proportionable to such a novelty of usurpation in things of highest concernment that is such effects as in all reason were likely to issue out of that cause put or otherwise rational Readers must in all reason have leave to think that he speaks against all reason And let him never hope to persuade any man that hath an ounce of brains in his head though he bring twenty testimonies more valid than this that an Vniversal Iurisdiction in highest matters could creep into the world with pantofles of matt on without discovering it self in multitudes of circumstances proportionable to its visibleness and weightiness that is let him not hope to gul men of reason with words to deny the light of their reason demonstrative Evidence Demonstrative I say for I account it as great and firm a Demonstration as any in nature that it is impossible it should come in unattended by universal and visible changes over the face of the whole Christian world which I thus show in brief The cause was put to wit a novelty in the highest degree of Government and in highest matters The matter to work on was put to wit rational Soules or men's minds because of their diverse dispositions apt to be wrought upon diversly that is to be stir'd up to diverse Thoughts to diverse Passions the result of those thoughts and diverse outward Expressions the effects of those passions and all this according to the weight and moment of the cause which was of the highest nature imaginable Lastly the cause was apply'd to the matter for it is equally impossible that an universal Government should be brough in and all not know of it as that is should at once be and not-be since it cannot be introduc't universally without signifying at least to the Subjects either by writing or other carriage that their obedience is expected This being so it is as evident and demonstrable that universal most visible and mighty commotions and changes must accompagny such a novelty of Rome's usurpation as that the effect must necessarily be when the cause is actually causing which none ever deny'd or can without denying the first principles Now add to this that the Protestant Authours themselves are in twenty minds about the times that this change came in and that their best Authours beyond exception of which I remember Doctor Whittaker is one confess in express terms that the time of the Romane Churche's change cannot easily be told and that they cannot tell by whom nor at what time the Enemy did sow the Papist's doctrine as may be seen in the Catalogue of Protestancy where they are cited adde this I say and it follows that no such visible effects of it's introducing can be shown at all and consequently that it was never introduc't Which as it immoveably strengthâ—ns our title of possession rendring it such as is not onely justly presumable but necessarily demonstrable to have come from Christ so it will also let the rational Protestant Readers see plainly what it is to which their wisest Doctors would persuade them to wit to renounce the clear solid and certain light of reason demonstrative Evidence to follow the obscure uncertain and wordish dictionary stuffe of every trifling controvertible or at best waxen-natur'd Testimony Yet the Doctor 's own words are but these that Boniface the third with much adoe obtained of Phocas the Emperour an Edict for the Primacy and Vniversal Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome See Paulus Diac. de gestis Rom. l. 18 which still is an argument that till then it had no foundation Where first is to be noted that of his own good will the Doctor puts in those words with much adoe whereas the Authour onely sayes rogante Papâ the Pope intreating it Secondly that whereas the Authour sayes Caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum in his book de gestis Longobardorum l. 4. c. 37. which Book without controversy is his and plainly sayes that the Emperour defined that the Roman Church was the Head of all Churches our Doctor dissembles this and follows a text out of de gestis Roman which book is doubted of by learned men to be none of his and by the very phrase seems to be a corruption of the other and that ut esset is put for esse it being an odd piece of Latin to say Statuit sedem Romanam ut esset caput whereas a Latinist would have said statuit sedes ut esset Wherefore 't is evident that the Doctor 's great bragging that the Story is known to all is resolv'd into the corruption of an unauthentick text Which is most evident by the words following in both places of the said Authour Quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat which bears no sense if the Decree gave the Iurisdiction but an excellent one if the decree onely defined it against the wrongful challenge of the Constantinopolitan Church Wherefore you see that the Doctors Inference which yet is an argument that til then it had no foundation is so wretched that the contrary ought to be deduced tha it is an argument the Authority which Phocas defined to be his had been his before And thus much in refutation of Dr. H's Defence of his three first Chapters SECOND PART Containing a Refute of Dr. H's first fundamental Exception against the Pope's Authority from the pretended limitation of S. Peter's Provinces Sect. 1. Dr. H's prelusory toyes answered No obligation for Catholiks to produce Evidence The infinite Advantages our true Possession hath and the perfect nullity of their vainly-pretended one together with a most rare sample of his manner of arguing Dr H. in his answer p. 38. puts a distinction of his own endeavours affirming that he had fûlly answered my fourth Section onely saying that he had answered the following ones Among these which are answered onely my sixth Section is one which he pretends to have given Satisfaction to Reply c. 3. sect 2. and 4. where not a word is found in reference to that but to my first onely of which he was pleased to make two This done he proceeds upon this mistake of his own and the Printer's mis-ciphering it to call my sixth the seventh and to be witty against me in his dry way telling the Reader as if he would let him see that S. W. could not reckon as far as eight that I have another seventh Section though both the Errata at the end corrected that small lapse of the Printer the titles of the Sections in the beginning of the book might have clear'd Mr. H's head in that point and the first Section immediately going before would have told him had not he been pleased to mistake it and divide it into two that
it's self as obscure as the thing he imagins we would prove by it or infer from it which he knows every child can tell is against the nature of a medium or argument Yet poor Catholick Writers from whom Dr. H. has got all the learning must be imagin'd unacquainted with that trivial toy belonging to the A B C of Logick Next he goes about to prove our tenour of possession null which he does most exquisitely by telling us Reply p. 45. that now they are in possession and consequently by the force of the Catholicks argument all arguments deducible from thence are lost to him the prescription being now on the Protestant's side as before on the Catholicks Where first he manifestly calumniates the Catholick tenet calling it prescription whereas prescription is a title to get a right in that which was known to be none of his before which is contrary to the profession of Catholicks who maintain their possession to have been ever from the beginning and never to have belong'd to any before so that this is a trick of a cunning shuffling gamester by changing the name to alter the state of the whole question But to proceed with his argument against our possession which he pursues in these words And there is nothing left the Romanists to plead but the original right on this side against the violence of the succeding possession Well done Doctor still 't is the luck of your Arguments against us that they are most proper and exquisite pleas for all malefactours Pray lend me your reasons a while and you shall see what work they will make in the world in a short time Put case then that a company of Theeves enter into another man's house and turning him his Wife and Family out of doors resolve to settle and nest themselves there and knowing the Law will call them to account for turning an inhabitant out of his possession they hire Dr. H. of Divine turn'd Lawyer to plead for them The honest Inhabitant pleads possession Dr. H. replyes that at this time he hath no possession but hath lost it and all arguments deducible from thence and that he hath nothing now left him to plead but the original right against the violence of a succeeding possession especially if the intruding crew have been in it any long time though the manner of their violent usurpation were never so visible and notorious then Dr. H. pleads prescription in his Clients behalf and exacts of the honest man to show his original right which he his Ancestours having enjoy'd it time out of mind not being able to manifest the poore fellow loses his house and the picaros carry the cause by the vertue of Dr. H's argument against the possession of Catholiks The same reason would doe the same service to any Quean that cuts a purse or any Knave that takes a cloak they are at present as Dr. H. tells us in possession and the right owner must lose Cloak and Purse both according to these new Laws unless they can prove their original right and show how they came by them That is they who are innocent must be treated as if they were guilty and forced to give account how they came by what they formerly-quietly enjoy'd and the guilty must be treated like innocent persons and stand secure upon their possession To this miserable pass would the world be brought if men should treat one another as the Protestants treat us in this point and if they were no more sincere and carefull to look well to their estates than they are to look to the Grounds of their Faith their eternal Salvation The eager adhesion to the former makes them account this treaty foul play if their temporal livelihoods be concern'd which their negligence of eternal happiness more obscurely far-off proposed makes them willing to think very fair in their debates about Eternity with us To make this clearer and withall to show how parallel Dr. H's Possession is to the former unjust ones and how unapt to parallel much less to out-vy and disannul ours as he would have it we will put them in the ballance of reason and let sincerity hold the scales premising first that we both hold at least Dr. H. grants Repl. p. 46. l. 13. in one place and that the more express of the two contradictory ones that prescription in divine and Ecclesiastical things is of no force which makes his pretended hundred years in it self useless for any thing in this controversy it being a Government instituted as inviolable by our Saviour not alterable or alienable by humane circumstances which appears to be granted by us both because they pretend to prove the King's supremacy and the equality of the Apostles from Scripture we when we see it fitting the contrary This presupposed let us compare our Possession to their present pretended one Ours is acknowledgedly ancient theirs late and upstart Ours is such as no visible Effects proportionable to it's weight can be shown that is such immediate changes in the world as may justly make it supposed an Vsurpation theirs manifest in such visible and violent immediate effects and such consequences of millions of changes as render it a palpable Vsurpation Hence ours is obscure in it's original and at most but controvertible that it ever begun theirs beyond all controversy new and of a late original Practical effects clad in all their circumstances yet remain in the world to attest their thrusting us out of possession no such effects alledged of our thrusting them or any else out except two or three impertinent conjectures the like whereof may be drawn for any absurdity and consequently it is much more impossible we should ever have usurp't than that William the Conquerour should have impower'd himself over England without other manifest immediate effects or signs of his newly-introduc't supreme Government there than that there are two or three dark sentences in the Apocalyps which abstracting from antecedents and consequents may be apply'd to it The whole world agrees of the time and circumstāces of their possession's beginning of ours our very Adversaries doubt and are in several minds Hence ours can justly claim to have come from Christ that is to be indeed a Possession and the sole possession in the matter we speak of their present pretended possession is impossible to be presum'd for such since every one knows when it began Wherefore our Possession is so qualify'd that of it self it can ground a claim that it came from the Fountain head of all Ecclesiastical power Christ Iesus not needing the assistance of another former possession to patch it up since no interruption of it being known it is justly presumed to have descended from Christ without interruption the same it is now Their present Possession cannot of it self even pretend to have come from Christ at all since it begun lately and if taken alone reaches not nor can pretend to reach to the time in which Christ liv'd but
Book of Schism p. 84. where Speaking of S. Peters Baptizing constituting Bishops in Britany he tels us it must in all reason be extended no farther then S. Peters line as he was Apostle of the Circumcision Id est saith hee to the Iews that might at that time be dispersed there In which place he manifestly makes S. Peter's Province exclusive in Britany where he never pretends that S. Paul met him though before he told us that the agreement between S. Peter S. Paul was onely exclusive when they met at the same City c. How powerfull terrible is truth which can drive her opposers to defend themselves by such miserable and weak implications His ninth self-contradiction quarrels with both parts of his sixth at once according to the former part of which S. Paul had not his Province from Christ's assignation according to the later part of it he had it imediately from Christ's assignation yet maugre both these Repl. 58. par 5. he makes S. Pauls peculiar Province Spring onely from the Iews refusing rejecting his doctrine onely I say for he affirms there expresly that till the Iews refused rejected it he does not betake himself so peculiarly to the Gentiles whence follows in all likelihood that if the Iews had not rejected Christ's doctrine tenderd by S. Paul that Apostle had never gone peculiarly to the Gentils nor by consequence should have had any peculiar or exclusive Province at all Is not this a solid man To omit that this experiencing of more fruit among the Gentiles then among the Iews is that which S. w. puts for the reason of his peculiar Apostleship the Appellation of Apostle of the Gentils ensuing thereupon These some others are the self-contradictions with which this Adversary of mine seing it impossible to shew one word in any testimony excluding limiting the Iurisdiction of the Apostles shuffles to fro on all sides that so what ever position he should be challenged with he may slip avoyd it by shewing as he easily may that he said in another place the expresse contrary and then when he hath done he preaches repentance or else Hell damnation to his wicked Adversary for calumniating him who thus earnestly desires for Sooth to speak the full truth of God Answ p. 18. and that so carefully that to make sure work for fear one part of the contradiction should not be the truth of God he affirms both But I hope the Reader will be aware of his shifting weakneses waving all his self said affirmations his Gentile non-sence his pious formalities will presse him home with this Dilemma Either S. Peter's Authority was so limited by his pretended designation to one Province as he had no power to preach to another or it was not but remaind stil illimited Vniversal not witstanding this imagind designation if it remaind stil unlimited and Vniversal how can the Pope's Authority be concluded limited from his succeeding S. Peter if S. Peter's remaind ever unlimited But if his Authority Iurisdiction was limited and that this was the thing to be proved by Dr. H. in his book of Schism then why does he not vindicate his testimonies from that shamefull charge layd against them particularly by S. W. that there is not one wordin them limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions but what himself adds of his own Head And why does he instead of thus vindicating them here sometimes flatly deny the question sometimes shuffle about to blunder a point so clear at any rate though it cost him no lesse then such numerous most palpable self-contradictions sure the knot must be great which could stand need of having wedges thus driven in point-blank oppositely on both sides to break it asunder Sect. 5. What multitudes of absurdities and accesse of fresh self-contradictions follow out of his newly-invented tenet of Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction then onely when the Apostles met in the same City AFter his self-contradictions march his lesser absurdities not so bulkie substantiall ones as the former yet still his too big to bee wielded by any man but Dr. H. nor by him neither unles the necessity of a bad cause incumbent on him to defend had added to him such an increase of strength as vses to proceed from desperation But not to take notice of them all I will onely take that part of his Reply which I find most pertinent to the point in hand then see what abondance of that kind of fruit it bears In his Reply therefore p. 57. I find these words I have sufficiently exprest tract of Schism c. 4. p. 7. how far this agreement extended how far exclusive it was not that it should be unlawful for Peter to preach to a Gentil or for Paul to a Iew but hâ—at when they mâ—t at the same City as at Antioch certainly they did and at Rome also I make no question then the one should constantly apply himself to the Iews receive Disciples form them into a Church leave them to be governed by a Bishop of his assignation and the other should doe in like manner to the Gentiles Thus he very pithily let us unfold lay open what he has as his custome is involued here see what a heap of weaknesses lies sweating there crowded up in so narrow a room First he brings these words here as an explanation of his meaning that is of the state of the question between us concerning how far these Provinces were exclusive whereas in the place cited of Schism c. 4. par 7. it is onely put as an instance of their imagin'd exclusive Iurisdictions introduc't with an Accordingly not purposely Stating or determining the measure or extent of their agreement nor is there any expression found there which sounds to this purpose Secondly this Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction which before made such a loud sound is now onely come to be such when they met at the same City by consequence abstracting from that circumstance S. Peter had Vniversal Authority which is a great largness of his towards S. Peter and I wonder whence this kindnes springs towards the Pope's Predecessor Thirdly since these two Apostles as far as we hear never met in any City after this pretended distribution of Provinces save onely at Rome at Antioch it follows that as far as Dr. H. knows S. Peter's Iurisdiction was universal over both Iews and Gentiles in all the world besides at all other times except onely those short seasons in which they met together Fourthly it follows that the Pope's Authority is not limited save onely where he meets S. Paul or his Successors or perhaps as he needs will have it S. Iohn and then I conceive it will be very ample Fifthly since he grants that both the Congregations of Iews Gentils were joyned in one under Pope â—lement of Schism p. 79. that Pope by consequence succeeded them both so the exclusivenes of S. Peter's Iurisdiction when
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
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
expressing this command are most evidently by the circumstances in the Text in a particular manner spoken to S. Peter it follows that S. Peter had by them a particular Commission given him to feed Christ's flock which is the thing to be proved Fifthly the property of the word pasce as it is distinguished from praedicate shows that there was a kind of ordinary care commanded to S. Peter whereas by the pure Apostleship he and his fellows had but an extraordinary and as it were a voyager Authority for an Apostle might preach in many Cities but to be Pastor he must fix himself in one Citie because he could be but a particular Pastor But S. Peter having for his charge oves Agnos that is all the faithfull â—ould â—ever be out of his own Iurisdiction so that being still in his seat he needed not fix any where and that he did so was 〈◊〉 abundanti Wherefore Praedicate being spoken in generall to all he Apostles pasce to S. Peter onely pasce having an especiall force above Praedicate it follows that something was here given to S. Peter by that word especially and particularly This is Reader what I conceive follows genâ—inly out of the Texts themselves as explicable grammatically Two things I desire both mine Adversary and thee to take notice of The one that we are not now disputing how the many-winded Commenters interpret this or that word but what follows out of the acknowledg'd words of the Texts as managed by Grammaticall skill Nor do I pretend to Evidence out of my own interpretation that is Animating of dead words neither my cause needs it nor can my own reason suffer me to engage soe far assuring me how seldome demonstrations are to bee expected from the tossing of meer words My onely intent then as I tould thee at first was to show what I conceived most connaturally and probably follow'd out of these Texts and their circumstances Nor is it sufficient for mine Adversary to imagin that another explication may be invented But since our contention now is about what the words can-best bear he is to show that another can so connaturally agree to the same particularizing circumstances in the said Texts And if any man living can draw an argument out of the same words more coherent with all the circumstances there found and more connected in it self then mine is nay from any other Text in Scripture to show that S. Peter had no promise of the power of the Keyes made to him in a particular manner and no performance of that promise in the same manner in which is founded his superiority to the other Apostles I will candidly confesse my self to have the worst in this wit-combat and shall lay down the cudgells for the next comer Sect. 3. Dr. H's solutions or contrary explications of those two places of Scripture sustain'd by most senceles paralogisms and built onely upon his own sayings nor shown nor attempted to bee shown more naturally consequent from the Texts themselves and their circumstances AGainst this inference of mine from the words of these Texts Dr. H. never goes about to show from the force of the same words a more connaturall explication which is the onely method to show his advantage over us in Scripture but in stead thereof endeavours onely to enervate our deductions thence by some solutions gather'd here and there Now this method of proceeding had been allowable in case we had built our faith upon such wit originiz'd explications or if in trying our acutenes with them in their own wordish way we had pretended to evidence or conclude demonstratively that this must be the sence of those places for then indeed any may be otherwise which they could imagin would have destroy'd our must be so and wee were bound in that case to maintain our explication against any other not onely which the words might be pretended to favour but what the most voluntary dreamer could fancy But since wee pretend not to evidence or conclude demonstratively thence and onely intend to show out of the force of the words that our exposition is more probable and connaturall he hath noe way to overcome in these circumstances but by showing us another out of the force of the same words more probable and connaturall which since he never attempts to do as far as I can see 't is plain he is so far from having acquitted him self in that point that he hath not so much as gone about it and all the voluntary solutions and possibilities of another explication he hath produced out of his owne fâ—cy without endeavoring to shew them more naturall out of the force of the Texts are so little to the purpose that they are not worth answering Yet wee shall glean them up from the places in which he hath scattered them and give them which is more then their due a cursory reflection Solution 1. The words of the Commission were delivered in common to all the Apostles Of Schism p 87. l. 2. Reply The delivering them in common evinces no more but that each Apostle had the power of the Keyes but leaves it indifferent whether each had it equally or in equally since it expresses neither nor is there any so silly as not to see that moâ—e persons may have the same thing yet one of those may have it in a more particular manner than the rest Now then since wee have a place of Scripture expressing a promise of the Keyes in a particularising manner to S. Peter how can the other places of a common delivery prejudice the having them more especially since it abstracts from having them equally or inequally and so is indifferent to and consistent with either Solution 2. They are delivered equally to all and every of the Apostles as is evident by the plurall style throughout that Commission Of Schism p 87. l. 2. 3. 4 5. Reply To think that a bare plurality can prove much less evidence an equality is such a peece of bedlam like non-sence that I wonder the silliest old wife should be gulld with such an affected peece of foolery Paul's and Pancras by this Logick must be equall because they are both in the plurall call'd Churches nay every peece of the world's frame is a maniâ—est instance aâ—aâ—nst this paralogism since in every species in Nature the particulars or individualls are plurally styled by the same word and agree in the same generall notion though there be hundreds sometimes thousand degrees of inequality between them Yet this infinitely weake reasoner hath as I dare undertake to show above fourty times made this argument against us and to surpasse his otherwise unparaleld'self he calls it an evidence Were it not pretty to put some parallels to this peece of Logick and make Dr. H. argue thus Constables and Kings are in the plurall styled Magistrates ergo cryes the Dr. it is evident they are both equall A Captaine and a Generall are both plurally styld Commanders ergo concludes
that a foundation stone and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the same and onely S. Peter having the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it follow'd on the Drs Grounds that he onely and in good reason more particularly should be a foundation-stone Dr. H. replies first that this is a stâ—ange argument were it put into form Next observe his kindeness he will not trouble him self with that but in stead of doing this that is in stead of showing my argument nothing worth he recurr's to his owne confident sayings that t' is certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same which I have shown to be certainly otherwise and that there may be foundation and yet not a Rock neither Then building upon his owne certain he introduces his so oft repeated conclusion with a Sure and then all is evident After this he puts a pretended parallell to my argument thus T is as if I should say Man and Enosh being the same and onely the Sonne of Seth having the name of Enosh it follows on these Grounds that he onely and in good reason that he more particularly should be a man And when he hath done he findes out a way for S. W. to defend himself from not being a man not considering that if Enosh be the onely man it unmans Dr. H. as much as S. W. But I thanke him I will none of his assistance and as for his pretended parallell I answer that when the ordinary appellative properly signifying the speciall notion is appropriated prudently to some one thing or person that thing or person ought to bee esteemed as participating in a higher and more eminent manner of that notion or nature Now that Enosh properly signifies the species of man I deny the Hebrew Criticks assuring us that it signifies man not in his own nature but as subject to miseries and afflictions in such a manner as mortalis does in Latine Whereas the word Adam signifying man according to his nature denotes also that he in a particular manner was a man who had that name appropriated to him by God the whole species being ingrost in him So likewise the common name of Filius hominis Sonne of man being appropriated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to our Saviour and of Orator to Cicero it argues that they had a particular right to these titles that is were in a higher and more eminent degree the thing which was signify'd by those words Again the name Enosh might bee in a manner accidentally imposed by his parents and was his first name which therefore cannot be imagin'd to have any mystery in it more then the bare conceit of his Parents unles wee suppose his parents to have bene propheticall and then it had an especiall reason whereas this name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a Rock was imposed by our Saviour who in each action guided himself by the highest prudence and imposed on S. Peter in particular nay on him having another proper appellation sufficient to call him by before all which argued a particular mystery and designes in order to that name and denote him by the Antonomasticall appropriation of that common word to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and eminently what it signify'd by it to wit a Rock Hence appear's with what reason I made my fourth objection to Dr. H. that he would have all the Apostles call'd Peter For since it is not imaginable why our Saviour should appropriate and particularize to S. Peter the common appellative Rock without some propriety in S. Peter fitting for that particular name and that according to Dr. H. each Apostle was equally that is without any propriety or peculiarity such for hee makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the self-same it follows that our Saviour had equall reason to give to each of the rest also the same name of Peter for there ought to be noe particularizing in any action where there is a pure indifferency in the reason of the action Now then since our Saviour govern'd him self ever by perfect reason he ought to have given to all the rest the name Peter by the same reason by which he gave it to one the reason according to Dr. H. being equall But this man who pretends to evacuate as he call's it our argument from Tu es Petrus never tells us why S. Peter had the name of a Rock in particular and no one of the rest but recurs still Answ p. 73. l. 14. to his old mistake that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one and therefore that all are equaâ—ly foundation-stones whereas indeed which much strengthens our argument from the word Petrus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dotâ— not signify a foundation-stone but a foundation onely and so is rendred by their own translation Apoc. 21. v. 14. which abstracts Grammatically speaking from Sand straw wool packs wood rock or whatsoever els can be competent to a foundation good or bad Now then since S. Peter is call'd a foundation according to him equally with the rest and also a Rock which is given to none of the rest let him either deny that to be a Rock and a foundation both is not to be in a more excellent manner a foundation or let him grant that S. Peter was such Sect. 7. Dr. H's master peece of affected weaknes Attendance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or step by step interpreted by his carriage to signify the neglecting to answer all that was of importance or difficulty A Review of his totall performance in answering this last Section acknowledged by himself to bee most important and fundamentall AFter this Professour of Mysticall Architecture had done dogmatizing from his foundation stones in the next place he falls to descant upon the measuring a wall in the same Apocalypse gravely objecting that I make much game at his arguing thence And truly I still account it the most ridiculous method that ever a weak reason stumbled on to undertake to dogmatize that is to build his faith and destroy his own interpretation of a Mysticall part of Scripture so beyond all controversy obscure in the highest degree that it seems to need another revelation to know the meaning of it as great as that which first inspired it And that 't is the most openly-pernicious folly that can be imagin'd first to tell his Readers that Schism is as great a sin as Sacriledge Idolatry Antichristianisme c. as he does of Schism c. 1. and then in stead of bringing evident convincing and demonstrative reasons which onely can secure the Soul of any consciencious man especially confessing that salvation may be had if he had still remain'd with the obedient party to bring obscure mysteries which have puzzled all the world hitherto of which also his own head must be the interpreter and without manifesting first nay doubting himself as shall shortly be seen whether the place was mean't of our question or made for
ingenious Adversary conclude thence that it was the power of Truth not any sleight of tricks which thus baffled the Dr. If then my greatest faults be proved innocent my lesser ones will I conceive be held so likewise since it is presumable that no man will accuse another of a greater faul but upon a better ground Now the greatest vices of a Writer are falsifications for what credit can ever be rationally given to any Writer who is once convinc't to have bely'd the Author he cites to have falsify'd wilfully Faults of this sort he objects to me onely in two places as far as I observe In examining which I crave the Readers exactest diligence decline not his most rigorous censure nay if he can in reason iudge that I wilfully chang'd any thing that is gain'd or endeavored to gain the least possible advantage by my mistake which is the onely touchstone as it is the sole reason of falsifying then I give him free leave to brand me in his thoughts for infamous and shall in requitall pardon Dr. H. the long rowle of his wilfull or manifestly advantageous ones 〈◊〉 first of these pretended falfisications is found related in his Answ p. 201. and also put in the title to his 11th Section p. 195. To clear the Reader 's understanding the better and mine own credit totally I will put down first the substance of the point there handled the substance of my Answer given next the circumstances amongst which my wrong transcription is found by which means one may easily solidly iudge whether my oversight had any influence at all upon the point in hand and conclude that if evidently it had none then it was onely a materiall lapse in transcribing Dr. H's words equally incident to any man living not a formall fault In his book of Schism p. 124 parag 19. he attempts to prove that Kings have supreme power in Ecclesiasticall causes Amongst his other marginall notes ayming to conclude this in the following page we read these words So in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole third book is made up of iustinians 1. e. the Emperor's constitutions de Episcopis Clericis Sacris concerning Bishops Clergy men Sacred Offices This is the substance nay the totall of his objection The substance of my Answer â—ound Schism Disarm'd p. 167. is this that all the laws found there must not necessarily be Iustinians since the Keepers of laws use not onely to put in their law books those Constitutions themselves made but also those they are to see observed amongst which are the Canons laws of the Church made before by Ecclesiasticall power This is the main substance of my Answer to that objection in generall How weakly he reply's to this telling us onely Answ p. 202. that this cannot possibly be accommondated to the matter in hand because 't is certain cries the strong reasoning Dr. he made many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning Ecclesiasticall matters which the Authors name put to them and the persons to whom they were written I cannot totally omit to let the Reader see by the way how pittifull this Reply of his is how nothing to the point this being to say over again what we grant and leaving untouch't what we object since all this might have been done whether those Constitutions had been originally his own or no and will serve for an instance how weak this Dr. is in the following part of his book were he duly call'd to account But this concerns not my task at present which is onely this to put down substantially the question his proof my Reply that it may be thence iudged whether I could possibly be said to gain any advantage by the circumstances I faultred in The first of those circumstances is that whereas his words were Iustinians Constitutions de Episcopis Clericis Sacris I transcribed de Episcopis Clericis Laicis Now if he contend I transcribed one word wrong in answering his whole book I grant it and I conceive Dr. H will not presume himself exempt from the like faillings But if he pretend that I falsify'd or did it voluntarily plain sence will overthrow him quit me No man does a thing voluntarily but for some end and the end an insincere Writer can be imagin'd to have in falsifying is to gain some advantage to his cause If then it be most manifest that I neither did attempt nor could possibly gain thence the least advantage nor that he himself attempts to shew I gain'd any no man of reason but will acquit my sincerity accuse mine Adversary for a calumniator First then that I did not attempt any advantage thence is clear both in my words which never put either the least force in the word Laicis nor so much as mention'd it or any thing to that sence nor yet in the omission of Sacris Secondly it is yet more manifest in that mine Adversary never goes about to show that I made the least use of this mistake which yet solely imported in such an objection but rather on the contrary calls it a meannes saying that I am come to that meannes of changing his words and indeed it is a strange meannes to change them to no purpose and alledges onely as the cause of that meannes forsooth that I did it not to gain any help to defend my tenet by it but to get some advantage of carping at them But that even this is as falsly pretended as the other the Readers eye will inform him if he please to peruse my Answer Schism Disarm p. 167. where he will see that there is not a sillable which sounds like carping at his words but a serious Answer to the point Thirdly that I could reap no profit by such a mistake appears by the very point it self apply'd to my words for since he denies not but I transcrib'd right and grants that he made laws de Episcopis Clericis of Bishops and Clergy men to what end should I omit Sacris sacred Officies since he that could make laws concerning those who were over Sacred Officies could a fortiori make laws for the Sacred Offiâ—ies themselves as himself yeelds of Schism p. 125. l. 18. 19. And lastly this objection is convinced to be most senceles by this that my Answer given was equally pertinent strong apply'd to Sacris had it been there as it was to Episcopis Clericis when this was left out since it contended that law Keepers use to put in their law books the Constitutions Canons of the Church to make them more powerfully observed received which equally fit 's the pretence that they made Constitutioâ—s de Sacris as that they made them de Episcopis Clericis In a word I confess the infinit tediousnes of my dreaming Adversary made me write the whole book in some hast caused by my impatience to stand triffling after that manner and my particular hast here appears also by leaving
Dr. Do you go about to show that I put not down the Authors words aright but mangledly corruptly to my onely best advantage as your custome is Nothing less he pretends to show no such thing though this be the very thing we use to call a falsification Strange How comes this then to be a falsification when not one word is shown to be falsify'd why thus Balsamon alledges the Dr. Say's no more then this that some asked or heard or were told c. Good use thine eyes again Reader see whether Schism Disarm p. 145. l. 13. 14. c. in the very place to which he relates I did not put down minutely particularly both in Greek and English those very words as told us by Balsamon with which the Dr. here correc'ts me and slily intimates to the abused Reader that I either disguised or omitted it The testimony was this as set down by me verbatim out of Balsamon Some desired to know what that honour mean't 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and received Anwer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that except onely that this Bishoprick was called a Metropolis in all other things it was subject to the former Metropolis Now I never pretended that Balsamon told us this as his own opinion but as the judgment of others I quoted him as an Historian not as judge nor can the very words put down by me Some desired c. possibly permit such a conceit Nor had it been my advantage could common sence have born it to have pretended this as the sentence of Balsamon for I ever conceived it came from persons of greater Authority and supposed more knowing in those affairs that is from the council or some of the council at least from persons who perfectly understood it's meaning For of whom should we imagin in reason such a question was ask't but of such persons or why should we think that Balsamon writing upon that council with pretence to explicate it should intend to put down a frivolous question an impertinent Answer and not rather a solemn question proposed by some concerned persons about the sence of that council and satisfy'd by some iudicious persons intimately acquainted with or of that council it self if not of the whole council which is most sit as it is most able to interpret it 's own meaning It had been then both impossible the words put down by my self should bear it and also very disadvantageous to my cause to pretend Balsamon spoke this of his own judgment and consequently the irrationall perfectly groundles aspersion of this Dr. ly all at his own door challenge him aloud of the insincerity he objects to others The reason he gives why this was a falsification forsooth is introduced with another besides and is still asmuch besides the purpose as the former Besides this I say marke the strength of the Drs words It is clear that this of being onely called Mâ—tropolitans was the punishment inflicted on them by the council which as I said c. well Dr. let the council mean what it please or let my consequence hold well or ill that is another question but did I omit any word of Balsamon in this present testimony which you pretend I falsify which seem'd to oppose my tenet did I add or change any title in favour of it nay did I add detract or change the least particle how unconcerning soever or do you goe about to show any such thing how then and with what face can you pretend I falsify'd it If all ill consequences or deductions be falsifications then it is impossible where men maintain different opinions but one side or other must necessarily be falsifiers Since then I neither pretended not could pretend any more but that Balsamon told us what honour meant by relating the Answer given to those demanders and this is verbatim avouched in those words as put down by me nor is my putting them down reprehensible by my very Adversary it follows what ever my consequence or arguing thence be that I am acquitted of insincerity and that the groundles pretence that I falsify'd is proved to be an undeniable evidence that Dr. H. most willfully and weakly calumniated And as for his endeavour to invalidate my consequence layd out here in those pretty terms of I say it is clear as I said c. were time place proper to Answer it I dare undertake to show that these bold words are the best proof he brings for it what ever Glosses he makes from the abused council And now kinde Reader I have acquitted my self shown to thine eye that the greatest faults the most calumniating Adversary could pick out of my writings are perfectly innocent but what worthy requitall for so much iniustice can I offer to Dr. H. I could present thee Reader with a long black Scrowl of egregious wilfull falsifications from the rest of his long book which I have so mercifully spared nay I could show thee a new brood of most enormous ones in his very book of Schism which escap't my observation when I first answered it so pregnant fruitfull are his writings of such helps I could let thee see there p. 103. how citing the Novels that Iustinian ordained the Arch-bishop of Iustiniana should have in that diocese locum Apostolicae Sedis as he puts it and then Englishes it the place or dignity of an Apostolicall Seat which thus put equalls him in a manner to the dignity of any other Apostolicall Seat by this independency the false dealing man leaves out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Rome though found closely woven in the context thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostolicall Seat of Rome which marrs all his Market and signifies he was there in the Pope's place or stead that is was his Vicegerent and so subordinate dependent on him I could show thee how not content to falsify thus grosely wilfully onely in the same testimony he doubles or rather trebles my former fault shame and that whereas the question was whether the Emperor could do it dependently on the Church and executing her orders which we grant or independently without her orders which we deny he pretends the Dr. puts down onely that the Emperor constituted this Arch-bishop should have locum Apostolicae Sedis the place of an as he falsifies it Apostolicall Seat but leaves out what follows immediately in the same sentence to his preiudice vtter overthrow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to those things which were decreed by the holy Pope Vigilius which signifies that the Pope made that Arch-bishop his Vicegerent in those Countries by his decree and that this order of the Emperor was subsequent conformable to onely executed the former intentions orders of the Pope all expresly against him for us and therefore both those the former words being thus important and thus industriously singled culled out by the Dr. it is impossible but
falsification and an open abuse of the Council For as may bee seen immediately before the 7th Canon Theodorus Mopsuestensis Carisius had made a wicked creed which was brought and read before the Council After this begins the 7th Canon thus His igitur lectis decreuit sancta c. These things being read the holy synod decreed that it should bee lawfull for no man to compose write or produce alteram fidem another faith praeter eam quae definita fuit a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem in Spiritu sancto congregatis besides that which was defined by the holy fathers gather'd in the Holy Ghost at the City of Nice Where wee see the intention of the Council was no other than this that they should avoid hereticall creeds and hold to the Orthodoxe one not to hinder an enlargment to their Baptismall Profession as the Bishop would persuade us Hence His first falsification is that hee would have the words alteram fidem which taken by themselves and most evidently as spoken in this occasion signify a different or contrary faith to mean a prohibition to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession So by the words any more which hee falsly imposes to serve his purpose making the Council strike directly at the enlargment of such Profession Very good His 2 d is that to play Pope Pius a trick hee assures us the Council forbids to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession whereas there is no news there of exacting but of producing writing or composing false creeds lesse of Baptismall profession And though the Council forbide this to bee done his qui volunt ad cogâ—itionem veritatis conuerti to those who are willing to â—ee converted to the knowledge of the truth yet the punishments following extended also to Laymen in those words si vero Laici fuerint anathematiz entur if they the proposers of another faith bee Laymâ—n let them bee excommunicated makes it impossible to relate to Baptism unles the Bishop will say that in those dayes Laymen were Ministers of Baptism or exacted as hee phrases it Baptismall Professions His third falsification is that hee pretends the Council forbad to exact more than the Apostles creed whereas the Council onely forbids creeds different from that which was defin'd by the Council of Nice So that according to the Bishop the creed defined by the fathers in the Council of Nice and the Apostles creed are one and the sasame creed His fourth is that hee pretends from the bare word fidem a Baptismal profession for no other word is found in the Council to that purpose Now the truth is that upon occasion of those creeds containing false doctrine the Council onely prohibits the producing or teaching any thing contrary to the doctrine anciently establish't as appears more plainly from that which follows concerning Carisius Pari modo c. In like manner if any either Bishops Priests or Laymen bee taken sentientes aut docentes holding or teaching Carisius his doctrine c. let them bee thus or thus punisht Where you see nothing in order to exacting Baptismall professions or their enlargments as the Bp. fancies but of abstaining to teach false doctrines which those Hereticks had proposed Ere wee leave this point to do my L d D. right let us construe the words of the Council according to the sence hee hath given it and it stands thus that the holy synod decreed it unlawfull for any proferre scribere aut componere to exact alteram any more or a larger fidem Baptismall profession praeter eam quae a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem definita fuit than the Apostles creed Well go thy wayes brave Bp. if the next synod of Protestants doe not Canonize thee for an Interpreter of Councils they are false to their best interests The cause cannot but stand if manag'd by such sincerity wit and learning as long as women prejudic'd men and fools who examin nothing are the greater part of Readers Having gain'd such credit for his sincerity hee presumes now hee may bee trusted upon his bare word and then without any either reason or Authority alledged or so much as pretended but on his bare word onely hee assures the Reader if hee will beleeve him that they still professe the discipline of the ancient Church and that wee have changed it into a soveraignty of power above Generall Councells c. Yet the candid man in his vindication durst not affirm that this pretended power was of faith with us or held by all but onely p. 232. alledges first that it is maintaind by many that is that it is an opinion onely and then 't is not his proper task to dispute against it our own Schools and Doctours can do that fast enough and afterwards p. 243. hee tells us that these who give such exorbitant priviledges to Pope's do it with so many cautions and reservations that thâ—y signify nothing So that the Bishop grants that some onely and not all add this to the Pope's Authority and that this which is added signifies nothing and yet rails at it here in high terms as if it were a great matter deserving Church-unity should bee broken for it and claps it upon the whole Church After this hee grants S. Peter to have been Prince of the Apostles or first mover in the Church in a right sence as hee styles it yet tells us for prevention sake that all this extends but to a Primacy of order Whereas all the world till my Ld D. came with his right sence to correct it imagin'd that to move did in a sence right enough signify to act and so the first mover meant the first Acter Wee thought likewise that when God was call'd primum mouens the first mover those words did in a very right sence import actiuity and influence not a primacy of order onely as the acute Bp. assures us But his meaning is this that though all the world hold that to move first is to act first yet that sence of theirs shall bee absolutely wrong and this onely right which he and his fellows are pleased to fancie who are so wonderfully acute that according to them hee that hath onely Authority to sit first in Council or some things which is all they will allow S. Peter and the Pope shall in a right sence bee said to move first or to bee first mover I alledged as a thing unquestionable even by understanding ProtestaÌ„ts that the Church of England actually agreed with the Church of Rome at the time of the separation in this Principle of Government that the Bishops of Rome as successâ—urs of S. Peter inherited his priviledgâ—s c. as is to bee seen p. 307. by any man who can read English Now the Bishop who hath sworn to his cause that hee will bee a constant and faithfull prevaricatour omits the former paâ—t of my proposition and changes the busines from an evident matter of
Evident reason and thine own eyes tell thee Reason tells thee 't is evident they renounc't those tenets which were the Principles of Vnity to the former Church both in faith and Government Reason tells thee that such a fact is in it's own nature schismaticall unles they can produce sufficient motives to iustify it Reason tells thee that noe motives less than certain that is demonstrative ones can suffice to alledge for such a revolt which yet they never pretend to Therefore reason tells thee and any one who understands morality and nature as evidently as that two and three are five that their revolt did not spring from the pure light of reason but from an irrationall Principle that is from passion and vice And so wee cannot but judge them obstinate and consequently Schismaticks unles they can show us these sufficient that is demonstrative reasons to excuse their otherwise manifestly schismaticall fact or if wee do wee must renounce the light of our own reason to do them an undeserved favour Thus much in generall Now as for this Bp. in particular Thou hast seen him shuffle up and down when hee should have answer'd to the charge objected Thou hast seen him wilfully mistake all over to evade answering Thou hast seen him totally omit so much as to mention one half of the charge and totally to avoid the whole import nay every tittle of the other There needs nothing but thine own eyes directed by any first Section to make all this evident to thee 'T is by these evident testimonies of thine eyes these undeniable verdicts of thy reason Reader by which thou must judge of these men whether they bee carefully inquisitive after readily embrace the truth or rather bee obstinate Schismaticks and not by the dark holes of their consciences which they assert to bee sincere by their bare sayings ouely obtrude them thus weakly authoriz'd upon they easy credulity and then tell thee thou must beleeve S. Austin that they are guiltles and acquitted from Schism In the second place I glanced at the inconsequence of his proof that those Bishops were not Protestants because they persecuted Protestants instancing in some sects of Protestants which persecuted others Hee replies what then were Watham and Heath c. all Protestants Then My Ld which is onely the question between us your argument was naught for let them bee accidentally what they will you cannot conclude them no Protestants from the persecuting Protestants as long as 't is shown and known that those who were Protestants did the same Secondly if they were Protestants hee demands of which sect they were I answer that as between every species of colour which wee have names for there are hundreds of middle degrees which have no names or as in a perpetuall motion there are millions of unnam'd proportions sow'd all along in it's progress to whose quantities wee can give no particular names so within the latitude of the name Protestant or Reformer and every sect of it there are thousands of others soe petite and minute that they have not deserved a name from the world I see the Bp. mistakes us and his own sect for hee makes account the Protestant Profession and it's subordinate sects are fixt things which may bee defined whereas Experience teaches us that the fellow in the fable might as easily have taken measure of the Moon to fit her right with a coat as one can imagin one notion to fit the word Protestant 'T is ever in motion like the rowling sea and therefore hath such an alloy of no ens in it that it admits noe positive definition but must bee described like a privation in order to the former habit No-Papist and a Reformer is the best character I can make of it Since then those Bishops were Reformers and no-Papists for they renounced the Pope's Authority which gives this denomination reformed in that point it follows that they were Protestants though the new-born thing was not as yet christend with any other name than that common one of Reformation But my Ld. D. makes account that none can bee a Protestant unles hee hold all which the now-Protestants doe Whereas 't is against nature and reason to expect that the Protestants could at first fall into all their present negative tenets nemo repentè fit turpissimus The former faults must by degrees get countenance by growing vulgar quotidian an by little little digest their shamefulnes ere the world could bee prepared to receive or men's minds apt and audacious enough to broach new ones First they renounc't one point then another and so forwards till at lenghth they have arrived to Quakerism which therefore is the full-grown fruit of the Reformation Thirdly whereas I told him those Bishops by renouncing the Pope held the most essentiall point of their Reformation and so had in them the quintessence of a Protestant The Bp. first calls this our Reformation as if wee had not ever held them Schismaticks that is separated from our Church for doing so Since then they went out from us by that fact they left to bee of us and if they were not of us how was it our Reformation in any other sence than as the Rebellion of those who were true subjects before is to bee imputed to those who remain true subjects still was ever common sence so abus'd Next hee braggs that then to wit if renouncing the Pope bee essentiall to a Protestant the Primitive Church were all Protestants which is onely sayd and flatly false that then all the Greciâ—n Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day which is onely said again and partly true partly false and that which is true onely steads him soe far as to evince that the Protestants are not the onely men but have fellow-Schismaticks And lastly that then they want not store of Protestants even in the bosome of the Roman Church it self which to speak moderately is an impudent falshood and a plain impossibility For who ere renounces the substance of the Pope's Authority and his being Head of the Church doth ipso facto renounce the Rule of Vnity of Government in our Church and by consequence the Rule of Vnity of faith which Grounds and asserts the former that is such a man renounces and breaks from all the Vnity of our Church and so becomes totally disunited from our Church Now how one who is totally disunited and separated from the whole body of our Church can bee intimately united to her still no understanding but the BP s can reach which as Mithridates could use poison for his daily food can without difficulty digest contradictions and findes them more connatural and nutritive to his cause than the solidest demonstrations Now if my L d D. bee not yet satisfy'd with my reasons p. 311. that the renouncing the Pope is essentiall to Protestantism to which yet hee is pleased to give no answer I send him to learn it of his friend Dr. H.
obliging precedent to us To show more the impertinency of this allegation I deny'd that the Church of England hath any title from the Britannick Churches otherwise than by the Saxon Christians who onely were our Ancestours and by whose conquests and laws all that is in the Britannick world belongs and is derived to us The Bp. replies yes well enough and why first saith hee Wales and Cornwall have not onely a locall but a personall succession and therefore noe man can doubt of their right to the priviledges of the Britannick Churches Grant it what is this to our purpose how does this vindicate the Church of England or take of my exception For let their succession bee what it will it follows not that the body of England of which our Controversy is hath any such priviledges by descending from Cornwall or Wales Again 't is evident that for these many hundred years they acknowledg'd the Pop'es Authority as much as England And lastly 't is a clear case they were under those which were under the Pope But the wily Bp. being ask't an hard question to wit whether the Church of England had any title from or dependence on the Britannick Churches answers quite another matter and then tels us hee hath done well enough Secondly hee sayes that there is the same reason for the Scots and Picts who were no more subjected to forrain Iurisdiction than the Britans themselves I answer none of the Picts are now extant but totally exterminated so no succession from them And as for the Scots what doe they concern the Church of England's vindication our purpose or my question unles hee can show which hee never pretends that his Church of England receives title to any thing by way of the scottish Churches Again since they have been submitted to the Pope what avails it if they had any exemption anciently for they could never derive it to us for want of continuation of succession yet as long as hee tells us hee does well enough all is well Thirdly hee should have said first for the two former answer are nothing to the purpose hee tells us that among the saxons themselves the great Kingdomes of Mercia and Northumberland were converted by the ancient Scots and had their Religion and Ordination first from them afterwards among themselves without any forrain dependance and so were as free as the Britons where all the force lies in those words without any forrain dependance which hee obtrudes upon us on his own credit onely without a word of proof or if there bee any shadow of reason for it there it must bee this that â—hey were converted by the ancient Scots which himself tells us two pages after is nothing at all to Iurisdiction But that which is of main importance is that hee brings here no proof that the Britons and Scots and Picts had no forrain dependance save his own word onely And the trifles hee brings afterwards are of less credit than even his own words as will bee seen when they come to scanning Fourthly hee assures us â—â—at after the Conquest throughout the rest of England a woâ—â—d of British Christians did still live mixt with the saxons And how proves hee this because otherwise the saxons had not been able to people the sixth part of the Land I ask did hee measure the Land and number the saxons If not how does hee know or how can hee affirm this Or how does hee prove the Land must necessarily bee peopled as fully as before immediately after a Conquest so universall and cruell Our historians tell us that to avoid their barbarous cruelty which spared none the ancient Britains retired into Wales yet hee would persuade us both without and against all history that a world stayd behind and this not because the saxons stood in need of them as hee pretends who as 't is known brought their whole families with them but indeed because the Bp. stood in need of them to make good his cause But granting the likelihood that some few of them remain'd still in their former homes how can the Bp. make any advantage of it Thus Who can deny saith hee those poore conquer'd Christians and their Christian posterity though mixed with saxons the iust priviledges of their Ancestours A compassionate man who speaks a great deal of tender-hearted non-sence rather than hee will seem unmercifull not to the ancient Britons as hee pretends but to his own cause which hee shows to bee good-naturd at least though it bee destitute of reason for unles hee can show which yet never was pretended by any Protestant or man of common sence that those who remain'd had yet British Bishops amongst them or unles hee can pretend that they remain'd not subject to the Bishops of the saxons it is a madnes to imagin those few lay people should inherit those former supposed priviledges For since all the world grants that they if there were any such became subject to the Bishops of the saxons which were subject to the Pope all pretence of their exemption from that power to which their Governours were subject is taken away And the Bp s mercifull reason is all one as if some few Englishmen by some accident remaining and settling in France should pretend an exemption from the french laws both Ecclesiasticall and temporall and to enioy the priviledges they had while they were in England that is while they were under another Government But His last reason is to the purpose and a rare one 't is this that the saxon Conquest gave them as good title to the priviledges as to the Lands of the Britons As if hee made account that Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction is a thing of that nature as to bee won by the sword or that the Saxons could plunder the Britons of their spirituall priviledges as well as of a bag of money But the iest is hee would have those priviledges at once goe into Wales with the British Bishops and stay at home in England not considering that Ecclesiasticall priviledges are things inherent in men that is in the Ecclesiasticall Governours as enioyers or else as conservers and dispensers of them to the people and in the Governed as subiect to those Governours and laws not in stones woods and mountains as hee fancies Again whereas those priviledges originally belong to Ecclesiasticall Governours and are annex't unto them as such as they are supposed to doe in the Bp s case they cannot bee transmitted to posterity but by a succession into the Authority of the former Governours wherefore let him either show that the after Bps of the Church of England ever had succession of Authority from or were impower'd by the British Bishops or else let him confess that they could inherit no priviledges from them and by consequence that his pretence of it is groundles and impertinent What is said hitherto was to show the inconsequence of deriving those priviledges from the British to â—he English Church in case the British
Architect In answer first I ask him how he knows that this place in the Apocalypse was designed to signify the order of dignity amongst the things there specified which is in question or onely this that all the Apostles were foundations upon which the Church is built which is graunted till he manifest the former he can not pretend to deduce any thing from it against us Secondly 't is impossible to pâ—etend that it was design'd to prove any such order of dignity for it neither shows us which was the chief corner stone or that the chief corner-stone was higher bigger or more precious then the rest So that if the bringing no positive signe of an higher position prejudices S. Peter's Superiority it prejudices Christ also as much expressing noe peculiar eminency to the head corner-stone at all more than to the rest Thirdly the corner-stone signifying some eminency of power as appears by our Saviour's being call'd the head corner-stone and this wall being-four-square Apoc. 21. v. 16. it follows that there are other corners besid's that which is allow'd to our Saviour and consequently three chiefs in power over the rest of the Apostles which being against both our principles it is manifest that the order of dignity was not intended to be here signifyed and consequently the whole place is quite besides the Drs purpose and our question Fourthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being directly the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Dr. H. graÌ„ts and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in near three score places of Scripture taken for a Rock and so traÌ„slated by themselves and in particular in this very place in Controversie Mat. 16. v. 18. super hanc Petram upon this Rock c. although the other Apostles be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foundations yet since none of them is exprest to be a Rock but S. Peter onely nor that the Church is built on any of them els as on a Rock still he hath good title in all reason to bee in a more eminent notion a foundation-stone For the notion of a foundation-stone not coÌ„sisting in this that it rise higher that it be longer vpwards or shorter but that it bee unmoveable and the strongest bearer of the superstructure and a Rock in the Scripture being exprest to be the best for that purpose as appears Mat. 7. v. 24. 25. it follows that S. Peter was in a more eminent manner a foundation-stone and that the Church had a particular firmnes and immoveablenes in being built upon him yet the Dr. can imagin noe distinction amongst foundation-stones under that notion as long as they lye one by not on the top another So wise an Architect is the good man that he forgets that to bee in a higher degree a foundation-stone is to bee in a higher degree of firmnes but in a lower degree of position Thus Reader tho seest what advantage Dr. H. would gain should I delight to quible with him in his own and onely way But I am already weary of this wordish stuffe Next he undertakes to solve an argument which none objects but himself and 't is this that if S. â—eter be the first stone and soe Superiour then the next stone that is the second must needs be Superiour to all the rest c. Soe kinde an Adversary have I that he leav's untouch't the argumente from Tu es Petrus which he pretends in this very place to answer and in stead of doing so help 's me with an argument of his own coyning from the Apocalyâ—se not worth a straw ad then demolishes at pleasure and very easily what his own ayrie fancy had built But as I never made any such argumeÌ„t as this which he thrusts upon me so in that which I made Schism Disarm p. 103. from the Iasper stone I both exprest my self to do it for the Doctor 's sake and renounced all reliance upon it in these words that Catholicks who understand the Grounds of their faith sleight such poor supports as a self-fancied explication of the obscurest part of Scripture Schism Disarm p. 103. I objected that his argument was negative thus no distinction was put among the foundation-stones therefore there was none He answers that his conclusion onely not his proof was negative Therefore the words tu es Petrus neither give nor affirm more of him than is given and affirmed of every of the other Apostles Whereas first he neither made any such conclusion no not any conclusion at all against the Text Tu es Petrus as wee object it nor takâ—s notice of any particularizing circumstaÌ„ce in the whole place so full fraught with them much lesse concludes against them And secondly his wise proof which inferrs this worthy conclusion is no other than this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rock and foundation are the same As if there could not be foundation-stones less firm then a Rock and so lesse worthy the notion and name of a foundation or a thing fit to build on which if there be as common sense tells us then the notion of a Rock superadded to the bare notion of foundation and that within the limits of that common notion that is it signifies a thing in an higher degree apt to sustain the building or which is all one in a higher degree a foundation Next I objected that it was a most pittifull piece of ignorance to persuade the Reader from a plurality and naming twelve Apostles that all were equall He Answers p. 72. that that was not his reasoning but the rest of the Apostles were foundation stones as well as Simon and therefore that that title of tu es Petrus was not proof of inequality Thus the Dr. rowls the same stone still for to omit that he impugns not the Text Tu es Petrus as found in it's own place attended by a throng of manifestly particularizing circumstances but the bare word Petrus onely nor that neither according to it 's particular efficacitie as it signifies a Rok either the words as well as Simon mean that the other Apostles were foundations also and then he calumniates our tenet not impugns it since wee never deny'd but that each of them was such or els aswell signifies equally and then I would know whether he suppose it that is the whole question gratis or infer it or from what he can bee imagined to infer it there but from a plurality onely of the common appellation Neâ—ther could I wrong Dr. H's reasoning faculty in thinking so whose common custome it is all over to argue for an equality from a plurality and most expressely of Schism p. 87. l 2. 3. 4. 5. wheâ—e also he calls it an evidence and why he should not think the self same proof an evidence here as well as there or why he should omit it if he thought it such I confesse I was so dull as not to apprehende Thirdly I objected that he had quite overthrown his own cause since granting
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