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
that Authority not the want of Authority it self The second Testimony that they which are excommunicated by some shall not be received by others is the onely place in this Section most likely to infer the Doctor 's Conclusion that the Popes is not Supreme which indeed it does most amply if taken in it's whole latitude and extent but withall the Doctor must confess that if it be taken so it utterly destroys all Government and his former testimony from the Milevitan Council to boot For if those words be universally true then it is unlawful for a Priest to appeal from his Bishop to an Arch-Bishop Primate or Provincial Council granted in the said testimony which takes away all Authority in a Superiour over the Acts and Decrees of an Inferiour and by consequence all Government Now then since the said testimony which indeed was mean't of the Appeals of Priests and so is already answerd'd cannot serve him unless taken in it's full extent nor can it be taken so whitout subverting all Ground of Government it follows that it cannot serve him at all nor prejudice us Again since it cannot be taken as denying Appeals from Subordinate to Superiour Governours universally Mr. H's grounds must make it conclude against us by making it signify a denial of Appeals to Coequals in Authority onely Wherefore all it's force is built on this supposition that the Pope is not Superiour but coequal onely to a Patriarch so that his Argument is epitomiz'd into this pithy piece of sense as true as the first Principles which he must suppose to make this proof valid that the Pope not being Head of the Church is not Head of the Church and then all is clearly evidenced The third testimony We entreat you that you would not easily admit those to your Communion who are excommunicated by us is so far from gain-saying the Pope's power that the very expressions of which it is fram'd are rather so many acknowlegdments of it being onely a request not that he would not receive their Appeals or admit them at all much less that he could not but onely that he would not admit them easily that is without due and mature examination of the cause Now who sees not that an humble desire that he would not doe it easily intimates or supposes he had a power to doe it absolutely This is confirm'd by their subjoyning as the reason of their request not because the Pope had no power to admit others but because the Council of Nice had so decreed knowing that it was a strong motive for them and an obligation in the Supreme Governour to conserve the Laws of the Church inviolate unless Evidence that in these Circumstances it crost the common good licenc't him to use his extraordinary Authority in that Extremity and to proceed now not upon Laws but upon the dictates of Nature the Ground and Rule of all Laws So perfectly innocent to our cause are all the testimonies of weight alledged by Mr. H. against it if they be left to themselves and not inspired with malice by the bad meaning he will needs instill into them against their own good nature The fourth testimony is stil like Dr. H. as he maintains a bad cause that is incomparably weak and short of concluding any thing 'T is this that the Bishops of every Nation must account the Primate their Head What then is not a Parish-Priest Head of a Parish a Bishop Head of his Diocese an Arch-Bishop Head of his Arch-Bishoprick as well as a Primate Head of his Primacy Does it then follow from a Bishops being Head of the Priests in his Diocese that there is no degree of Authority Superiour to his yet this apply'd to a Primate is all Dr. H's argument to prove none higher than he But it is pretty to observe in what strange words he couches his inference from hence which saith he Repl. p. 40. sure infers that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely Head of all Bishops Observe that canting phrase one onely Head c His intent here manifestly was to show no degree of Authority Superiour to Patriarchs to prove this he alledges this testimony now agitated and then because he saw it would not carry home to the mark be aymed it at he infers warily that the Pope is not the one onely Head of all Bishops By which expression he prepares an evasion beforehand when the inconsequence of his discourse from the said testimony shall be obâ—ected or else would persuade the unwary Reader that we hold the Pope so Head of the the Church as that we admit not Primates to be Head of the Bishops under them Whereas our tenet is that as Primates are immediate Heads of the Metropolitans so the Pope is Head or Superiour over Primates and by consequence Supreme over the whole Church yet so Supreme as he leaves to Subordinate Governours their Headship inviolate over their proper Inferiours Thus much to his Testimonies concerning Appeals His other manner of arguing against the Pop'es Supremacy or his being a summum genus is from names and titles deny'd him The first testimony is from Decret part 1. dist 99. cap. 3. that Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum vel summus Sacerdos that the Bishop of the first Seat ought not to be called Prince of the Priests or Supreme Priest which the African Council confirms with aut aliquid eiusmodi sed tantum primae sedes Episcopus The second is from the same place cap. 4. Nec â—â—iam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus The third from the Epistle of Pope Pelagius Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur c. No Patriarch must use the title of Vniversal for if one Patriarch be called Vniversal the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest The fourth is their thred-bare and often answered testimony of Saint Gregory refusing the title of Vniversal Bishop But first these testimonies come short of what they are intended for in this that none speaks of the right of Iurisdiction but onely of names and titles as appears by the words appelletur appellandus Vniversalitatis vocabulo superbae appellationis verbum in the testimonies which denote no exception against any Authority but against the titular expression of it onely which sounded proudly and seem'd inconvenient and new at that time Secondly it is a great weakness in understanding the nature of words not to advert that the vogue of the world altering from plainess to complementalness as it does stil daily the same word may be used without fear of pride at one time which could not at another nay the same thing may be fitly signify'd by some word at some time which cannot be signify'd by the same at another as for example Tyrannus once was proper for a King ruling according to law and right which now is not competent but to him who rules arbitrarily against both or rather indeed once it signify'd a power
that S. W. had not the forecast to say 't is certain too for then he had sav'd his sobriety and all had been well Thirdly conscious to him self that all hitherto was evasion he would seem at length for fashions sake as it were to touch the point but seems onely after his accustomed sleight manner in these words Thirdly the place Gal. 1. 17. belongs expressely to the power after it was givâ—n and yet then he depended not on him Attend Reader here is a dreadfull sentence pronounced against S. Peter's Supremacy for if after it was given it was no ways dependent on S. Peter all is lost to S. Peter's Superiority First I know thou wonderst why the point being so mainly important and Dr. H. having found a place of Scripture to prove it from expressely too as he tells thee he should not be larger in it citing those expresse words and then making invincible arguments from them To lose his advantage in such circumstances onely relating hastily the place then touching it sleightly and not prosecuting it home nor indeed at all but saying onely something there upon sounds a betraying of his cause and some preposterous fauour to his therein-befriended Adversary S. W. Secondly thou mayst observe that there are here two propositions one that the place Gal. 1. 17. belongs expressely to the power after it was given the other that yet then he depended not on him The first is pretended from the Text and expressely too The second is left indifferent as his blinding manner is whether it be proved from the Text or by his own affirmation If the latter I must put it upon this score of his 'tis certain and so it needs no further answer But if it be pretended as from Scripture it shall have audience and thou shalt hear it examin'd Thirdly please to take notice that the Verse Gal. 1. 17. which he brings to testify his tenet expressely but by omitting it slubberingly bids it say nothing is this as I find it in their own translation Neither went I up to Hierusalem to them which were Apostles before me but I went into Arabia and returned again unto Damascus And this is all where wee hear no news of any power at all much less expressely belonging to power nay more expressely to the power after it was given as Mr. H. promised us Fourthly grant yet all this that it belong'd expressely to the power after it was given yet how does this place prove that the power given was not dependent on S. Peter's as an inferiour degree to a superiour which is the whole question between us Nothing is said here but onely that S. Paul preach't in Arabia c. ere he went to the Apostles before him The place there named by him taken in it self without relation to the other Verses expresses nothing of power at all but onely that S. Paul went to other places ere he went up to Hierusalem and taken with other adjoyning Verses onely intimates this that S. Paul having commission immediatly from Christ had Authority to preach to other places without demanding first the other Apostles order and approbation which is both granted by us and innocent to our cause but whether the power given were lesse equall or greater then S. Peter's nothing is found there at all much lesse doth the 17. Verse it self speak of power still lesse doth it expressely belong to it least of all to power after it was given as imdependent on S. Peter as Mr. H. braggs To make this yet plainer the Reader may please to advert that there is no Catholick in the world but holds that if our Saviour immediatly command a thing he may be obayed without asking counsell or leave of any Superiour nay even against their contrary command or prohibition Next that our Saviour not onely could but did give immediate commands and Commissions to persons of different ranks as to the Apostles and Disciples to preach to the whole world and to Philip the Deacon to goeto convert the Eunuch Acts. 8. v. 26 29. These things being so all shadow of reason in Dr. H's discoursevanishes which would conclude S. Paul independent and of equall and not subordinate power with S. Peter because he had an immediate Commission from Christ and proceeded to act according to that Commission without going to ask S. Peter's leave first The Disciples having immediate order from Christ preach't the Gospell without asking leave or receiving approbation from the Apostles Were it not now a worthy inference to parallell Dr. H's and conclude that therefore the Disciples were of equall Authority with the Apostles But Dr. H. is so wary that he speaks his non-sence sleightly sprinklingly and in brief that that lineaments of it not being discovered the deformity of it may not appear And this is the most frequent with him of all the rest of his sly ricks and in a manner naturall to his whole strain of writing From Dr. H's reason and Scripture testimonies wee come to fathers to prove that the power given was not inferiour to or dependent on S. Peter's He appeals to S. Chrysostome for this point affirming as he layes it out of S. Paul distinctly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not needing Peter nor his voyce The explication of this place is already given here in the paragraph foregoing to which adde in particular that if by voyce he means Commission and order to preach t' is clear he needed it not having received it immediatly from Christ if instruction of doctrine he needed not that neither having learned it fully and perfectly from Divine revelation what follows hence necessarily for equality of power wee see not and Dr. H. pretends here to prove it by no other argument then onely by telling us within a parenthesis that he supposes it Both the former interpretations then wee grant each of them fits the words very well whereas his of equality of power is impossible to bee evinced from this testimony and inconsistent even with Dr. H's grounds as shall be shown It follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but being equally honourd with him to which the father addes in a parenthesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I will say no more Vpon which words Dr. H. exults which saith he what it is an intimation of I leave S. W. to conjecture Nor is S. W. nice to tell him his thoughts what S. Chrysostome intimated by those words to wit that he could have said more with truth but represt him self as not willing out of reverence to those Apostles to make comparisons of inequality between them which manifests plainly that S. Chrysostome in that place speakes not of power at all or equality in that respect since neither was it ever heard of that S. Chrysostome or any els no nor the most perverse Protestants held S. Paul above S. Peter in power nor can it consist with Dr. H's own grounds who Answ p. 43. l. 25. disclaims professedly any such pretence that any of the other Apostles
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
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
believe false Fundamentals his words are not intelligible sense for the following words or else they have no degree of truth in them relate to the other acception of Fundamental already sopoken of so that according to Dr. H. it is not intelligible sense to undertake for him and his Friends that they should not speak contradictions Is this a sober discourse which falls reelingly to the Ground of it self when none pushes it or was it a friendly part to involve his Friends in his own wise predicament And now can any man imagine that when I said Dr. H. and his Friends acknowledge ours a true Church there should be any difficulty in the sense of those words or that I should impose upon them that they held our Church not to have erred yet this Doctor who alwayes stumbles most in the plainest way will needs quibble in the word true and S. W. must bear the blame for grossely equivocating whereas the sense was obvious enough to every child as the words before cited will inform the Reader that I meant them of the true nature of a Church which since they acknowledged ours to have I argued hence that they must not say we held false Fundamentals that is such as they account Fundamentals for since a Church cannot be a Church but by Fundamental points of Faith and Faith must not be false it follows that a falshood in Fundamental destroyes the very Being of a Church This being so I shall beg Dr. H's pardon if I catechize him a litle in point of reason in which his Cause makes him a meer Cathecumenus and ask him how he can hold ours to have even the true nature of a Church since he hold that which she esteems as her Fundamental of Fundamentals and that upon which as her sole certain Ground she builds all her Faith to wit her infallible Authority to be false erroneous If the sole Authority upon which immeditately she builds all Faith be a ruinous falshood she can have no true Faith of any Article consequently can have no Faith at all nor be a true Church since a Church cannot survive the destruction of Faith But their ambition to honour their Nag's-head Bishops with the shadow of a Mission from our Church makes them kindly speak non sense to do her a seeming courtesy for their own interest I know he tells us here in general termes Answ p. 15. that she is not unchurch't because she holds the true Foundation layd by Christ but offends by enlarging and superadding but he must show why the Catholicks who hold no point of Faith but solely upon their Churche's infallibility if thar Ground be false that is be none as he sayes can hold any thing at all as of Faith that is have any Faith at all at least how they can have Certainty of any point of Faith or the written word of God if the sole-certain Rule of Faith by which onely they are assured of all those were taken sometimes in a lie to wit while it recommended to them those superadditions they account false received in the same tenour as the rest from the hands of our immediate Forefathers But let us follow Dr. H. who goes jogging forward but still rides as his ill fortune is beside the saddle To points which they accounted fundamental I counterpos'd tolerable ones that is such as they esteemed not-fundamental which I therefore call'd tolerable because they account these neither to touch the Foundation of Faith as building or destroying such as he acknowledged in the fore-going Paragraph our pretended super additions to be saying that the dross doth not annibilate the Gold It being therefore plain that falshoods which are not in fundamentals so unconsistent with the essence of a Church must be in things not-fundamental and therefore consistent with the nature of a Church that is tolerable if taken in themselves he neglects to take notice of them as they are in themselves that is such as their admission ruines not Faith nor the essence of a Church and sayes the pressing them upon them is intolerable and not admittable without hypocrisy or sin against conscience and why because they believe them not I ask had they a demonstration they were false if so then let them produce it and if it bear test I shall grant them innocent if not then since nothing else can oblige the Vndâ—rstanding but the foresaid Evidence their pretended obligation in Conscience to disaccept them is convinc't to spring from weakness of passion not from force of reason I added that those points more deserved the Church should command their obseruance than Copes or Surplices c. And though Mr. H. knowes very well that one of those points was the fundamental Ground of all Faith in the Church they left and Copes c. but things indifferent yet by a cheap supposal that all is false which we hold he can deny that they are more deserving our Church should command their observance and so carries the cause clear He addes Answ p. 16. that they weightier the importance of the things commanded is the more intolerahle is the pressure of imposing them and makes disobedience greater in things indifferent Whereas surely the Governours are more highly obliged to command the observance of that on which they hold Faith to be built than all the rest put together Is it a greater obstinacy to deny a Governour taxes than to rebell absolutely against him the Doctor 's Logick sayes it is since obstinacy according to him is greater in resisting commands in things indâ—fferent Especially if the Rebel please to pretend that the urging his submission to that Authority is an intolerable pressure Mr. H. here acquits him without more adoe But to return since it was our Churche's greater obligation to command their observance of those points and the holding of such points was not deemed then by them destructive to Faith but on the other side known by reason of their pretended importance to be in an high degree damnable to themselves and others if they hap't to be mistaken no less than most palpable and noon-day evidence can excuse them in common prudence from a most desperate madness and headlong disobedience but the least shadow of a testimony-proof is a meridian Sun to Dr. H. and gives as clear an evidence as his understanding darkened by passion is willing to admit Thus much to show the particular miscarriarges of Dr. H. in every Paragraph of his answer to my Introduction there remaines still the Fundamental one that he hath said nothing at all to the point of reason in it but onely mistaken each particular line of it I alledged as my reason why they dealt not seriously against their own Desertours because no colourable pretence could possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the very same would hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them This proved ad hominem thus because the Protestants acknowledge the points
prove that the Emperour did it without the Pope's signifying such their desires to them next that if they did it without this they did it lawfully and lastly that were both proved it was not necessarily consequent that the Pope had therefore no Authority over the Church since there might be other Acts of Vniversal Authority besides gathering of Councils For answer Dr. H. refers me to his Reply p. 38. where nothing at all is found to strengthen the two former weaknesses of his consequences nor yet indeed the latter since he does not undertake to show that there can be no other Acts of supreme Authority besides gathering of Councils which if there can then those Acts can denominate the Pope Head of the Church notwithstanding the defect in the nor performance of the other and by consequence his argument of not being Head of the Church from not gathering Councils is at an end Yet something he pretends here to make good this latter defect to wit that this Authority of Convoking Councils is inseparable from the supreme power is most characteristical of it c. Whereas indeed this Convoking of Councils is no ordinary Act of any standing Iurisdiction or Government but an extraordinary affair springing from some necessity or extremity and so the necessity pressing may be performed by him or them who can best provide for that extremity Which if other circumstances agree is most fitting to be ordered by the Pope whose universal superintendency qualifies him for both care and knowledge of the Churche's wants But if Mr. H. means it is inseparable so that it cannot be done without the Pope's express and actual orders or undertaken by any but the Pope himself he is in a great mistake For it is very well known that in divers cases it is otherwise As suppose the See be vacant or the Pope himself be unsound in Faith be distracted or kept in close prison or in case there be an Anti-pope which makes the title dubious c. In which cases the Cardinals have power to call a Council or the Bishops to assemble themselves And in general whensoever there is an extremity damageable to the publick nor possible to be remedied by him to whom that duty most fittingly and so rightfully belongs any one that hath sufficient power and skill let him be Patriarch Bishop Prince or private man not onely may but ought apply both as much as in him lies to prevent the harme of the publick 'T is evident then that the notion of the actual power to gather General Councils is not the very notion of the Pope's Authority nor as Mr. H. expresses it Characteristical of it or inseparable from it since it has been shown that the one can be without the other To this proof from gathering Councils he proceeds to alledge some Testimonies Reply p. 39 that there was not anciently besides the Prince or Emperour any Supreme or as the Doctor strangely expresses it any summum genus and that the Bishop of Rome was not this summum genus It is a pleasant thing when those men will be nibbling at wit who never knew how to manage the knack Would not Supreme Bishop or Governour have served without being thus unfortunately witty in calling it a Summum genus and then to tell us that a particular man is not a Summum genus When we learn'd Logick we were told that a Summum genus was perfectly and actually included in every Individual conteined under it I hope the Pope's power is not found on this fashion in every Priest But let us take a view of his testimonies which are reduced to two heads to wit those which would prove the Pope no Summum genus from the denial of Appeals to him and those which would conclude him no Summum genus from titles and names deny'd him Those concerning Appeales which must manifest the individual person of the Pope to be no Summum genus are First from the Milevitan Council Repl. p. 39. 40. forbidding that Priests should appeale to any forrein power but onely to the African Councils or their own Primates Secondly from the Nicen Can. 5. ordaining that they who were excommunicated by some should not be received by others The third from the Synodical Epistle of the African Council to Pope Caelestine in these words We intreat you that for the future you will not easily admit those who are Excommunicated by us c. To these he addes a fourth from the 34. Apostolick Canon that the Bishops of every Nation must know him that is first among them and account him their Head I answer that as for the three first in general they only forbid the Appeals of Priests from their Bishops c. but leave it indifferent whether the Bishops Arch-Bishops nay Primates themselves may appeale to the Pope which we make account is a far greater honour to the Pope than the deciding the inferiour Controversies concerning Priests So that these testimonies argues no more against the Pope's Authority than it would against the Supreme power of any Prince or secular Magistrate if the Laws of the Land should forbid Theeves Robbers and such inferiours Delinquents after their condemnation by the Iudges and other inferiour Officers to appeal to him Who sees not that there could never be any Government or Iustice done if every Priest though found never so guilty at home by his own immediate Governours should have liberty granted him to appeal to the Supreme living perhaps in another Country far distant not skilled in the immediate circumstances which give the best light to judge of a cause but receiving his information from letters perhaps partial or from heare-say ever uncertain Again who sees not that such an easy admittance of every ordinary Delinquent's Appeal is both most cumbersom nay impossible to be perform'd by the Supreme and very derogatory to the esteem and Authority of Inferiour Officers without the Conservation of which all Government and Common-good goes to wrack Iustly then did the Church in the Nicen Council and elsewhere for these and many other reasons ordain that Priests should make no farther Appeal than to domestick Iudges the Pope himself being present and consenting to it yet without detriment to his Authority since this eases him of cumber not discredits his power for it denies not the Appeals even of Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs to him unless Mr. H. will say that every consenting upon rational Grounds not to execute Authory is to disannul and abolish quite that whole Authority for he ayms at no less in this worthy Discourse of his upon the said Citations And this may suffize in answer to his three first Testimonies as also to the first of these three in particular to wit that they forbid him not to execute an higher strain of power in receiving Appeals of Bishops and as for the making it unlawful for inferiour Delinquents to appeal to him it can onely infer necessarily the unfitness that the Pope should execute
falsification and an open abuse of the Council For as may bee seen immediately before the 7th Canon Theodorus Mopsuestensis Carisius had made a wicked creed which was brought and read before the Council After this begins the 7th Canon thus His igitur lectis decreuit sancta c. These things being read the holy synod decreed that it should bee lawfull for no man to compose write or produce alteram fidem another faith praeter eam quae definita fuit a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem in Spiritu sancto congregatis besides that which was defined by the holy fathers gather'd in the Holy Ghost at the City of Nice Where wee see the intention of the Council was no other than this that they should avoid hereticall creeds and hold to the Orthodoxe one not to hinder an enlargment to their Baptismall Profession as the Bishop would persuade us Hence His first falsification is that hee would have the words alteram fidem which taken by themselves and most evidently as spoken in this occasion signify a different or contrary faith to mean a prohibition to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession So by the words any more which hee falsly imposes to serve his purpose making the Council strike directly at the enlargment of such Profession Very good His 2 d is that to play Pope Pius a trick hee assures us the Council forbids to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession whereas there is no news there of exacting but of producing writing or composing false creeds lesse of Baptismall profession And though the Council forbide this to bee done his qui volunt ad cogâ—itionem veritatis conuerti to those who are willing to â—ee converted to the knowledge of the truth yet the punishments following extended also to Laymen in those words si vero Laici fuerint anathematiz entur if they the proposers of another faith bee Laymâ—n let them bee excommunicated makes it impossible to relate to Baptism unles the Bishop will say that in those dayes Laymen were Ministers of Baptism or exacted as hee phrases it Baptismall Professions His third falsification is that hee pretends the Council forbad to exact more than the Apostles creed whereas the Council onely forbids creeds different from that which was defin'd by the Council of Nice So that according to the Bishop the creed defined by the fathers in the Council of Nice and the Apostles creed are one and the sasame creed His fourth is that hee pretends from the bare word fidem a Baptismal profession for no other word is found in the Council to that purpose Now the truth is that upon occasion of those creeds containing false doctrine the Council onely prohibits the producing or teaching any thing contrary to the doctrine anciently establish't as appears more plainly from that which follows concerning Carisius Pari modo c. In like manner if any either Bishops Priests or Laymen bee taken sentientes aut docentes holding or teaching Carisius his doctrine c. let them bee thus or thus punisht Where you see nothing in order to exacting Baptismall professions or their enlargments as the Bp. fancies but of abstaining to teach false doctrines which those Hereticks had proposed Ere wee leave this point to do my L d D. right let us construe the words of the Council according to the sence hee hath given it and it stands thus that the holy synod decreed it unlawfull for any proferre scribere aut componere to exact alteram any more or a larger fidem Baptismall profession praeter eam quae a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem definita fuit than the Apostles creed Well go thy wayes brave Bp. if the next synod of Protestants doe not Canonize thee for an Interpreter of Councils they are false to their best interests The cause cannot but stand if manag'd by such sincerity wit and learning as long as women prejudic'd men and fools who examin nothing are the greater part of Readers Having gain'd such credit for his sincerity hee presumes now hee may bee trusted upon his bare word and then without any either reason or Authority alledged or so much as pretended but on his bare word onely hee assures the Reader if hee will beleeve him that they still professe the discipline of the ancient Church and that wee have changed it into a soveraignty of power above Generall Councells c. Yet the candid man in his vindication durst not affirm that this pretended power was of faith with us or held by all but onely p. 232. alledges first that it is maintaind by many that is that it is an opinion onely and then 't is not his proper task to dispute against it our own Schools and Doctours can do that fast enough and afterwards p. 243. hee tells us that these who give such exorbitant priviledges to Pope's do it with so many cautions and reservations that thâ—y signify nothing So that the Bishop grants that some onely and not all add this to the Pope's Authority and that this which is added signifies nothing and yet rails at it here in high terms as if it were a great matter deserving Church-unity should bee broken for it and claps it upon the whole Church After this hee grants S. Peter to have been Prince of the Apostles or first mover in the Church in a right sence as hee styles it yet tells us for prevention sake that all this extends but to a Primacy of order Whereas all the world till my Ld D. came with his right sence to correct it imagin'd that to move did in a sence right enough signify to act and so the first mover meant the first Acter Wee thought likewise that when God was call'd primum mouens the first mover those words did in a very right sence import actiuity and influence not a primacy of order onely as the acute Bp. assures us But his meaning is this that though all the world hold that to move first is to act first yet that sence of theirs shall bee absolutely wrong and this onely right which he and his fellows are pleased to fancie who are so wonderfully acute that according to them hee that hath onely Authority to sit first in Council or some things which is all they will allow S. Peter and the Pope shall in a right sence bee said to move first or to bee first mover I alledged as a thing unquestionable even by understanding ProtestaÌ„ts that the Church of England actually agreed with the Church of Rome at the time of the separation in this Principle of Government that the Bishops of Rome as successâ—urs of S. Peter inherited his priviledgâ—s c. as is to bee seen p. 307. by any man who can read English Now the Bishop who hath sworn to his cause that hee will bee a constant and faithfull prevaricatour omits the former paâ—t of my proposition and changes the busines from an evident matter of
had any such priviledge of independency as the Bishop contends But My second objection was that this pretended exemption of the British Church was false My reason was because the British Bishops admitted appellation to Rome at the Council of Sardica In answer First hee tells mee that ere I can alledge the Authority of the Council of Sardica I must renounce the divine Institution of the Papacy and why for said hee that Canon submitted it to the good pleasure of the fathers and groundeth it upon the memory of S. Peter not the Institution of Christ Which is first flat falsification of the Council there being not a word in it either concerning the Papall power it self or it's Institution but concerning Appeals onely Next since wee call that of divine Institution which Christ with his own mouth ordain'd and never any man made account or imagin'd that Christ came from heaven to speak to the after Pope's and so give them a Primacy but that hee gave it by his own mouth to S. Peter whiles hee lived here on earth This I say being evidently our tenet and the Council never touching this point at all what a weaknes is it to argue thence against the diuine Institution of the Papacy and to abuse the Council saying that it submitted this to the good pleasures of the fathers Secondly hee asks how does it appear that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon which a little after hee calls my presumption And truly I shall ever think it a most iust presumption that they who confessedly sate in the Council assented to what was ordain'd by the Council in which they sate as was their duty unles some objection bee alledged to the contrary as the Bp brings none Thirdly hee sayes the Council of sardica was no generall Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed as they were before the making of that Canon What means hee by the Eastern Bishops the Catholicks or the Arians The Arian Bishops indeed fled away fearing the judgment of the Church as Apol. 2. ep ad solitarios S. Athanasius witnesses but how shows hee that any of the 76. Eastern Bishops were gone ere this Canon which is the third in that Council was made So that my L d of Derry is willing to maintain his cause by clinging to the Arians against S. Athanasius and the then Catholike Church as hee does also in his foregoing Treatise p. 190. 191 denying with them this to have been a generall Council because his good Brother Arians had run away from it fearing their own just coÌ„deÌ„mnation Fourthly hee says the Canons of this Council were never received in England or incorporated into the English laws I ask has hee read the British laws in those times if not for any thing hee knows they were incorporated into them and so according to his former Grounds must descend down to the English But wee are mistaken in him his meaning is onely that the aduantages and priuiledges should bee inherited from the Britons not their disadvantages or subjection So sincere a man hee is to his cause though partiall to common sence Lastly saith hee this Canon is contradicted by the great generall Council of Chalcedon which our Church receiveth Yet it seems hee neitheir thought the words worth citing nor the Canon where the abrogation of the Sardica Canon is found worth mentioning which argues it is neither worth answering nor looking for I am confident hee will not find any repealing of the Sardica Canon exprest there It must therefore bee his own deduction on which hee relies which till hee puts it down cannot bee answerd As for their Church receiving the Council of Chalcedon the Council may thanke their ill will to the Pope not their good will to receive Councils For any Council in which they can find any line to blunder in mistakingly against him they receive with open arms But those Councils which are clear and express for him though much ancienter as this of Sardica was shall bee sure to bee rejected and held of no Authority and when a better excuse wants the very running away of the guilty Arians shall disannul the Council and depriue it of all it's Authority Hee subjoyns there appears not the least footstep of any Papall Iurisdiction exercised in England by Elentherius I answer nor any certain footstep of any thing else in those obscure times but the contrary for hee referd the legislative part to King Lucius and the British Bishops Here you see my Ld D. positive and absolute But look into his Vindication p. 105. and you shall see what Authority hee relies on for this positive confidence viz. the Epistle of Eleutherius which himself conscious it was nothing worth and candid to acknowledge it there graces with a parenthesis in these words If that Epistle bee not counterfeit But now wee have lost the candid conditionall If and are grown absolute Whence wee see that the Bp. according as hee is put to it more and more to maintain his cause is forced still to abâ—te some degree of his former little sincerity And thus this if-not counter feited testimony is become one of his demonstrations to clear himself and his Church from Schism Now though our faith relies on immediate TraditioÌ„ for it's onely and certain Rule and not upon fragments of old Authours yet to give some instances of the Pope's Iurisdiction anciently in England I alledged S. Prosper that Pope Celestin Vice sua in his own stead sent S German to free the Britons from Pelagianism and converted the scots by Palladius My L d answers that converting and ordaining c. are not acts of Iurisdiction yet himself sayes here p. 193. that all other right of Iurisdiction doth follow the right of ordination Now what these words all other mean is evident by the words immediately foregoing to wit all other besides Ordination and Election by which 't is plain hee makes these two to bee rights of Iurisdiction So necessary an attendant to errour is self contradiction and non-sence But the point is hee leaues out those words I relied on Vice sua in his own stead which show'd that it belong'd to his office to do it These words omitted hee tells us that hee hath little reason to beleeve either the one or the other that is hee refuses to beleeve S. Prosper a famous and learned father who lived neer about the same time and was conversant with the affairs of the Pelagians and chuses to relie rather on an old obscure Authour whence no prudent man can Ground a certainty of any thing and which if hee would speak out himself would say hee thought to bee counterfeit What follows in his 25. page is onely his own sayings His folly in grounding the Pope's Supremacy on Phocas his liberality hath been particularly answer'd by mee heretofore Parâ— 1. Sect. 6. whether I refer him I found fault with him for leaving the Papall power and spending his time in impugning the Patriarchalâ—
certainty what Royalty is the notion varying according to diuerse countries But hee understands perhaps that a Patriarch shall not bee independēt of the King in Ecclesiasticall affairs within his own Patriarchate and that this is the King's priviledge to which condition hee knows no Catholike will ever yeeld any more than to the former otherwise wee must grant that S. Peter could not preach at Rome if Nero were a King not S. Iames at Hiernsalem without unkinging Herod Yet the Bp. will bee even with mee for as I will not condescend to his conditions so on the other side hee neither hath heretofore nor ever will hereafter bee brought to hold to the question or speak directly to the point as hath been seen hitherto all along and shall more particularly bee seen hereafter Nor will hee long defer his revenge but puts it in execution the very next thing hee does being assured to have demanded such conditions as should never bee granted for Whereas hee had remou'd the question from a Papall Authority held of divine to a Patriarchall acknowledg'd but of human Institution not to desert our question totally and to give him fair law I put the case that the Papall Government had been onely of human Institution it ought not to have been rejected unles the abuses had been irremediable I urged that considering this Head was chosen in that case to preserve Vnity in Religion and that eternall dissentions would inevitably follow upon it's rejection and a separation of the rejecters from the rest of that common-wealth which acknowledg'd that Head therefore far weightier causes must bee expected or greater abuses committed ere not onely the person but this very Government should bee abolish't Now the matter of fact being evident and confest that the first Reformers consented with all the Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome in their submitting to that Authority till they began to reject it that they acknowledg'd it lawfull ere they began to disclame it as unlawfull that they held none at that time true Christians but those who agreed consented and submitted to that Authority that the acknowledging this Head then was as it still is to us the Principle of Vnity in Government for all Christianity as such then held by them Likewise it being equally evident confest that they have now actually renounced that Authority thus held acknowledg'd and submitted to by all whom they then deemed Christians as the Rule and Ground of all Vnity in that commonwealth These things I say being so I had good reason to put that supposition not as our bare tenet as the Bp. seems to imagin but as the evident matter of fact as the case stood then One would think it were the Bp's task now to show that notwithstanding all this the first Abolishers of this Authority had sufficient reasons to disannull it and that the abuses of the sayd Authority did outweigh the right use of it so that it might and ought have been rejected by one part of that Christianity though once establisht or which is all one long accepted by their common consent as this was de facto What does the Bp. Hee tells us what hee and the Protestants now held concerning that point putting as it were his counter tenet to ours sayes the Pope is onely as a Proclocutor in a Generall Assembly was their steward that is not their Governour all contrary to the matter of fact which my case is built on that they nourish a more Catholik-Communion than wee and such other stuff all out of his own head without a word of proof then thinks the deed is done Was ever such an Answer contriu'd the poak-full of plums was pertinent if compar'd to ' this But still the Bishop is innocent t was my fault who would not accept of the two conditions hee proposed which should have been the guerdon of his returning to the question that is without the performance of which hee thinks himself not bound to speak a word to the purpose And so the Reader must look upon him hereafter as on a man who hath got or took licence to run astray Observe Reader in what a different manner the Bp. I treat thee I still bring thee to evident and acknowledg'd matter of fact or such suppositions which need onely application and another name to bee so according as the case stood at the time of the first breach Whereas the Bp. brings thee his own sayings their party's tenet for Grounds and proofs things not acknowledg'd but disputable nay disputed in this present debate that is obscure as far as concerns this question And this is his solemn manner all over this treatise which shows that hee hates the light his unfriendly betrayer but truth's Glory and that the obscurity of ambiguities is most proper and least offensive to his errour-darkned eyes I demanded of him whether hee would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes or abuses of Prelates Hee answers that never such abuses as these were objected either to Princes or Prelates in England Not objected that 's strange Read the Court of K. Iames and the charge against King Charles in Westminster Hall Did not the Scots and Puritans object Popery intolerable pride and overburthening weak consciences to your Brother Bp's Can there bee greater abuses objected than these in your Grounds or is not the design to bring in Popery which makes such a noise in your book as a Pandera's box of all mischiefs and inconveniences as horrid an accusation against you as the same inconveniences were against Popery when it stood on foot in K. H's daies I was told by a worthy grave person and whose candour I have no reason to suspect that in a priuate discourse hee had with the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in his own garden concerning the point of Schism the Arch-Bishop confest upon his urging the evident matter of fact that hee was in a Schism upon which free confession of his being prest again by that Gentleman how hee could in conscience remain in a Schism and separated from God's Church hee reply'd that it might lawfully bee done if warranted by an intention to reunite by such compliance a schismatizing Congregation to the Body it broke from citing to make good his plea a place from S. Austin in reference to some Catholike Bishops complying with the Donatists for the same end Now I ask whether in case the Arch-Bishop had endeavoured to bring in Popery Episcopacy held to bee of divine right ought therefore to bee abolisht If bee answer No as I suppose his interest will prevail above his Grounds to make him then I ask again why an inferiour actuall power to wit Episcopacy should not bee held to merit abolishing for Popery's sake and introducing it so fraught with inconveniences which Popery so full alas of grievances though held immediately before equally of divine Institution and of far higher
nor was pretended by mee as such but as a consideration which much aggravates the charge and obliges in all reason the renouncers of this Authority to look very charily to the sufficiency of the causes of thâ—t their division For since it follows out of the terms that ere they renounced it and by thus renouncing it left to bee Catholikes they immediately before held it as Catholikes do that is held it as a point of faith and of Christ's Institution and since it is evident that none ought to change his faith which hee and his Ancestours immemorially embrac'd but upon evident Grounds again since it is evident likewise and confest that temporall motives ought not to make us break Christ's commands which is done by rejecting a Government which hee instituted Two things are consequent hence to their disadvantage one that their motives ought to bee rigoro sly evident and demonstrative for their renouncing it since dâ—nger of damnation ensves upon their miscarriage and this even in their own thoughts as they were lay'd in their minds when they first began to meditate a breach The other that the pretended causes especially temporall inconveniences for the abolishing this Authority can no waies iustify the first breakers who held it formerly a point of faith since no iust causes can bee given to renounce an Authority held to bee instituted by Christ As then it had been rationall to Reply to King H. the 8th remaining yet a Catholike and beginning to have thoughts to abolish this Authority upon such and such temporall inconveniences that his maiesty and his Ancestours had held it of divine Institution and that therefore there could bee no iust cause to abolish it so it is equally seasonable to Reply to my Lord of Derry who undertakes here to vindicate him by alledging the same thing that these causes nor any else were sufficient to make them begin to break because ere they begun the breach they held this Authority to bee of Christ's Institution and therefore it is a folly for him to think to iustify them by huddling together causes and motives and crying them up for sufficient till hee can show they had Evidence of the Truth of the opposite point greater than the pretended Evidence of Authority universall Tradition which they actually had for their former tenet If a cause bee sufficient to produce an effect and equally apply'd 'tis manifest the same effect will follow Hence as an argument of the insufficiency of their motives of Division I alledged that all other Catholike countries had the same exceptions yet neither broke formerly nor follow your Example Hee answers first Few or none have sustain'd so great oppression which signifies I know not well whether any have or no or for any thing I know some have Nor does hee prove the contrary otherwise than by a pleasant saying of a certain Pope Any thing will serve him Next hee tells us all other countries have not right to the Cyprian priviledges as Brittain hath And how proves hee that this country had any by that Council Is England named in the Council of Ephesus which exempted Cyprus from the Patriarch of Antioch No. Is Brittain at least No. How come wee then to bee particularly priviledg'd by that Council Why the Bp. of Derry thinks so His Grounds Because that Council ordains that no Bp. should occupy a Province which was not from the beginning under his Predecessours And how proves hee the application that England was never anciently under the Pope as Head of the Church from Sr Henry Spelman's old-new manuscript and two or three raggs of History or misunderstood Testimonies Are they demonstrative or rigorous Evidences Here my Ld is wisely silent Will less serve than such proofs to iustify such a separation Hee is silent again Were they a thousand times as many are they of a weight comparable to a world of witnesses proceeding upon the Grounds of immediate dâ—livery from hand to hand which recommended and ascertain'd the contrary Alas hee never thinks of nor considers that at all but very wisely puts his light grains in one end of the scales negl â—cting to put our pounds in the other and then brags that his thin grains are overweight The third particularizing motive is his own unprou'd saying and is concluded with a boast that hee is not the onely schismatick in the world but hath Brothers Is this the way to argue against us To call all those Christians which profess the name of Christ and communicate with himself in the same guilt and then say hee hath fellows in his schism Hee knows wee grant them not to bee truly-call'd Christians but in the name onely and equivocally as a painted man is styld ' a man If hee will show that any Congregation of truly-call'd Christians partakes with him in the separation from Rome let him show that these pretended Christians for those points in which they differ from us did not renounce the onely certain Rule of faith Tradition or delivery of immediate forefathers or that there is any certain and infallible Rule but that Otherwise they are cut of from the Rule and Root of faith and by consequence not in a true appellation to bee call'd faithfull or Christians otherwise they heard not the immediately foregoing Church for those points which they innovated and so are to us no properly call'd Christians but according to our saviours counsell as Heathens and publicans I mean those who knowingly wilfully separated Talking voluntarily my Ld according to the dictates of your own fancy will not serve in a rigorous Controversy First show that those you call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of faith and so any faith and that they have not onely a probable and fallible GrouÌ„d that is opinion onely for their faith and then you shall contradict your own best and more candid writers who confess it in terms and do such a miracle as your Ancestours never attain'd to nor any of wit and ingenuity attempted seeing it impossible to bee done rationally I alledged in the next place to show more their inexcusablenes and the infussiciency of their pretended motives for breaking the example of our own country and forefathers who had the same cause to cast the Pope's Supremacy of the Land yet rather proferr'd to continue in the peace of the Church than to attâ—mpt so destructive an innovation The Bp. replies first that wee should not mistake them aâ—d that they still desire to live in the Communion of the Catholike Church c. No my Ld I doe not mistake you but know very well you would bee willing and glad too the former Church should own you for hers I doubt not but you are apprehensive enough of what honour would accrue to you if wee would account you true Catholikes and what disgrace you get by being accounted Hereticks and Schismaticks by us But yet your desire of staying in the Church is conditionall that you may bee permitted to remain
in her Communion and yet have liberty still to do and hold what you list Do you not think every Rebell that renounces both the former Government and laws loves not still to bee held a good Commonwealths man and not to bee outlaw'd or punish't but permitted to enjoy the priviledge of the Commonwealth whose Vnity hee hath broken so hee may have his own intentions Had Iack Straw or Wat Tiler after they had rebell'd a mind to bee thought Rebells or to bee hang'd or upon the Governours declaring them Outlaws and punishable was it a competent plea for them to say they desir'd to remain in the peaceable Communion of the Commonwealth as far as the Court would give them leave Your fact my Ld of breaking the Vnity of the former Church is much more evident than theirs being visible to the eyes of the whole world and infinitely more hainous since it concerns the order to Eternity After this fact so visible so enormous 't is no charity nor courtesy in you but a request of an unreasonable favour from us to admit you into Communion and would bee most absurd in Government most contradictory in terms signifying thus much that they should bee still held by us for good subjects who profess and defend still their Rebellion against the former Church Government and for the right faithfull who have no Rule of faith at all nay pretend themselves to no more than an opinion-grounding or probability Secondly hee tells us our Ancestours did not stupidly sit still and blow their noses when they saw themselves thus abused I answer whether they blew their noses or no it matters not but did they renounce the Pope's Authority as Head of the Church This is the thing I deny'd of them and charge upon the Bp. what saies hee to this Hee denies it too after hee had shuffled about a while for hee must have the liberty to take his swing that is hee saies the same I do and grants what hee pretend's to confute For after hee had reckon'd up what things our Ancestours had done against the Pope hee adds as the top of the Climax that they threatned him further to make a wall of separation between him and them Which shows that this is the most they did For if they but threatned they did it not But 't is evident that you have done what they onely threatned to do and in excuse of your doing it you adde immediately that you have more Experience than your Ancestours had Thus the Bp. something candidly at present Yet wee have seen him heretofore in contradiction to himself here both affirm and maintain that K. H. the 8th when hee renounc't the Pope made no new law but onely declar'd the ancient law of England which signifies that the wall of separation was not onely threaten'd but made formerly for the former laws were actually in force before K. H's time nay in the very beginning of his Raign as himself confesses p. 2s l. 7. 8. And wee shall see him hereafter bring an whole Chapter to make good the same impudent assertion which would put out the eyes and blot out the acknowledg'd notions of the whole world An excellently bad cause needs an excellently good memory Now then since you have at unawares acknowledg'd so much truth as that they who had the same causes of separation which you have yet did not separate as you do let us reflect a little upon the reason you give of this difference 'T is this that you have more experience than your Ancestours but whence this greater experience springs or out of what Experiments which they had not you gather'd this experience you have not one word Are you wiser than they were in the Art of Governing as to this point Sure your self do not beleeve it nor can say it with modesty since by professing you made no new law in this matter that is retain'd the old which you receiu'd from them you confess you know not how to make better Were they cowards and durst not make those prouisions they saw necessary for the common good Neither They actually did say you exclude the Pope's Supremacy out of England as far as they judged it necessary for the tranquillity of the Kingdome Well then if they did as much as they judged necessary and knew as well what was necessary as you why did you do more Because forsooth you had more experience But does this experience furnish you with a reason sufficient to iustify your separation If it do produce it if not why do you alledge this more experience And indeed how come you to pretend to it For since experience of necessity supposes an Experiment whence 't is deriu'd either some new thing happen'd by which this great necessity of separation which your Ancestors were ignorant of came to bee discover'd to you or else you had no more experience than they Therefore good my Ld tell us what this new ExperimeÌ„t was But it seems you thought it either not handsom to bee owned or not worth the owning that assigne us none at all telling us onely in generall terms you have more experience than your Ancestors had c. that is in stead of producing some cause of separating which might vindicate your Church from Schism to assigne an effect without a cause and defend it with the same plea as a man would do his Rebellion who rising against his actuall Governours and upon that score standing accused of Treason should go about to maintain it was therefore lawfull for him to Rebell because hee was wiser than the former subâ—ects and then tell that troublesome Adversary who should press him to prove this greater Wisedome that hee has more experience and that hee is so However since you are resolu'd to make a secret of this rare Experiment and that by consequence wee are not to expect from you any Grounds of your greater experience let us see at least what it is you pretend to have more enperience of 'T is this that their Ancestors remedies were not soueraign or sufficient enough c. Now these remedies of theirs being their rationall laws as hee intimates presently after do but observe how like a reeling Dutchman making indentures with his legs the Bp's discourse staggers now to the one now to the other far distant side of the contradiction Hee tells us here that the remedies that is laws of our Ancestours were not sufficient enough yet maintains stoutly before that in the separation no new law was made that is that the same laws or remedies were formerly as then but were not formerly sufficient that is that the same thing is not as sufficient as it is And this signifies for the Bp. to have more experience than his Ancestors Again it being alledged here that the former laws were insufficient and acknowledg'd the page before that all other Catholike countries do maintain their priviledges inviolate by means of their laws as I conceive and hee intimates which laws
in that Council and yet bee a lawfull one too Rub up your memory my L d. you pretend to bee a piece of a Lawyer and I beleeve you will finde an English law that Sixty members is a sufficient number to make a lawfull Parliament and before that law was made common consent custome which is either equivalent or perhaps above law gave the same for granted Fourthly he excepts against the super proportion'd multitude of members out of one Province which hee sayes never lawfull Parliament had I ask if other Provinces would neither send a fit number nor they had a minde to come by what law by what reason should it render illegitimate either Parliament or Council Now 't is certain and not deny'd by any but that Bishop's had as free liberty to come out of other Provinces as out of Italy had they pleased Again the principall busines being to testify the Tradition of former ages a small number of Bishops serving for that and the collaterall or secundary busines being to examin the difficulties those Hereticks which were the occasion of the Council produced that they might be confuted fully out of their own mouthes which is a thing to bee performed by committees in which learned men that were not Bishops might sit it little inferred the want of Bishops Wherefore if there were any error in the supernumerarines of Bishops out of some one Province it was for some other end than for the condemnation of Heresies so is nothing to our purpose unles perhaps my L d will pretend that had those Catholike B p' s out of other Provinces been there they would have voted against their fellow Catholikes in behalf of Luther or Calvin which were a wise Answer indeed Fifthly hee excepts that the Council of Trent is not received in France in point of Discipline What then why by his parallell to a Parliament hee concludes hence t was no lawfull Council Which is to abuse the eyes of the whole world who all see that France who denies the admission of those points of Discipline acknowledges it not withstanding a generall lawfull Council and receives it in all determinations belonging to faith which are so essential to it as it were disacknowledg'd were they deny'd though not in matters of fact which are accidentall to it's Authority nay allow'd by the Church it self however made exprest generally to binde particular countries onely in due circumstances according to their conveniencies Lastly hee alledges that they were not allow'd to speak freely in the Council of Trent Which is a flat calumny and though most important to his cause could hee prove it yet after his bold custome 't is onely asserted by his own bare saying by Sleidan a notoriously lying Author of their own side and by a passage or two in the History of the Council of Trent whereof the first is onely a ieering expression any thing will serve the B p. the other concerning the Pope's creating new Bp's nothing at all to his purpose since both these new the other old B p' s were all of one Religion Catholikes so not likely to dissent in voâ—ing Doctrines which kind of votes are essentiall to a Council pertinent to our discourse which is about Doctrines not about Discipline After this hee puts down three solutions as hee calls them to our plea of the Patriarchall Authority First that Britain was no part of the Roman Patriarchate And this hee calls his first solution Secondly that though it had been yet the Popes have both quitted forfeited their Patriarchall power and though they had not yet it is lawfully transferred And this is his second solution The third is that the difference between them and us is not concerning any Patriarchall Authority And this is his third solution which is a very really good one shows that the other need no reply our charge against them being for renouncing the supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority of divine Institution not a Patriarchate onely of humane Institution If further answer bee demanded first the Greek Schismaticks our enemies confess that England was a part of the Pope's Patriarchate if it bee truly called a Western Church see Barlaam Monachus de Papae Principatu c. 11 and Part. 1. Sect. 15. of the adjoyning Treatise Next it is falsely pretended that the Pope's have either quitted or forfeited their Patriarchall Authority and may with equall reason bee concluded that a Bishop quits Episcopall Authority if hee is also a Patriarch or that a person must leave of to be Master of his own family because hee is made King and his Authority universally extended to all England Which last instance may also serve against the pretended inconsistency of the Papall and Patriarchall power if it need any more answer than what hath formerly been given Sect. 4. I omit his calumnies against the Papall Authority charactering it falsly as a meere unbridled tyranny And his thrice repeated non-sence when hee joyns in one notion Patriarchall Authority a Patriarchy being a Government by one an Aristocracy by many Nor is his other calumniating expression much better when hee calls the Papall Authority a Soveraign Monarchicall Royalty since it was never pretended by Catholikes that the Pope is the King of the Church The notion of Priest and Sacrifice being relative the failing of the one destroyes the other since then the Protestants have no Sacrifice they are convinced to have no Priests This point in particular hee never touch't but talk't a little in obscure terms of matter form of ordination as if it were not an easy thing to say what words they pleased and do what actions they pleased To this the Bishop onely replies that hee over did and set down the point of Sacrifice over distinctly Next hee tells us their Registers are publike offices whether any man may repair at pleasure whereas our question is not of the Registers in generall but of that one particular pretended Register of the right ordination of Protestant Bishops kept conceal'd from the free perusall of Catholikes though the circumstances to wit their alledging the unlawfulnes of the Protestant Bishops ordination requir'd it should bee shown His next paragraph concerning their uncharitablenes needs not bee repeated unles it could be mended My expedient to procure peace Vnity which was to receive the root of Christianity a practicall infallibility in the Church hee seems willing to admit of Onely hee adds that the greater difficulty will bee what this Catholike Church is and indeed to his party 't is an insuperableone though to us most facil as I have shown formerly Sect. 7. Hee call'd the Bishops of Italy the Pope's parasiticall pentioners I reply'd it seem'd his Lordship Kept a good table and had great revenews independent on any Hee answers hee was not in passion and that hee Spoke onely against meer Episcopelles which is to show that his passion is nothing abated yet by adding such unsavory