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
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
dispute vehemently yet their heat springs not from the naturall love of truth inbred in their souls but because their honour interest or other conveniency is concerned in the goodsuccesse of the disputation Hence it follows that as Catholikes go not consequently to their grounds unlesse they defend with an eagernesse and zeal proportionable to the concernment of the thing their Faith which they hold most certain and infallible so Protestants who confesse their Faith fallible that is such as may possibly by otherwise for any thing they know are obliged by their very grounds not to take it much ill at any that impugne it nor expresse any great zeal in behalf of it or if they do then their grounds not requiring it all their heat and earnestnesse must manifestly arise from some passion or interest They ought therefore to defend their problematicall Faith as men defend paradoxes calmly civilly and moderately and make conscience of being discourteous to their opposer since for any thing they knoâ— he may possibly be in the right In a word their whole way of controversy ought in reason to be managed as an exercise of wit since it consists only in this who can most dexterously and artificially criticize upon words and be most quick and ready to produce out of his storehouse either topicall reasons or testimonies gleaned from all places and Authours as shall seem most pat for the present occasion And this is the reason why they desire no more but that Catholike writers should treat them with a luke-warm courtesy and by a respectfull behaviour towards them as leanerd men see mingly leave them some apparence that their Faith is probable and then they think themselves safe and are very well appayed whereas it belongs to a Catholike Authour who holds his Faith certain to manifest the contrary to be perfectly absurd and nonsence and since the knowledge of this must in his grounds be held so necessary for the salvation of mankind he ought in plain terms let men know it is such and give it home the Character it deserves otherwise by his timorousnesse he prevaricates from his grounds by his fearfull mincing his expressions when Truth will-bear him out in them and the weight of the cause exacts them he breeds a just apprehension in his readers that the contrary else why should he proceed so reservedly may have some degree of probability which perhaps is enough for his Adversary but assuredly betrayes his own cause I know my adversary will think he hath gained much by my forwardnesse in this last paragraph and others also may perhaps judge that I have put my self upon the geatest disadvantage imaginable by professing voluntarily that it is my obligation to show his writings nonsence or impossible to be true whereas a good prohabity that they are true wil serve his turn but both the necessity of my Cause obliges me to it which must leave them voyd of all probability whom a probability will content and also the evident Truth of it emboldens mâ—e to affirm this and not to think that in so affirming I have said too much or been too liberall to my Adversary Wherefore as if I were to dispute upon the ground of my Faith which yet is not the proper task for our party who stand upon possession I doubt not with Gods help to leave no room for a probability to the contrary in the judgement of a prudent and disinteressed person so I shall not fear to affirm that all the testimonies in Dr. Hammonds book though they were twenty times more and twenty times seemingly more expresse bear not the weight of a probability if coÌ„pared to that world of witnesses in te Catholike Church they left all attesting that the very points which the reformers relinquisht had been delivered by their Forefathers as delivered to them by theirs c. And this so expressly amply and clearly as leaves no place for criticisms severall explications with all the train of other circumstances which mere words seldome or never want rendering them obnoxious to a thousand ambiguities joyn then I say that vast and clear testimony to this argument drawn from reason that as it is impossibile they who lived ten years before H. the eight should so conspire to deceive those who lived in his dayes in things visibile and practicall such are the points of our Faith as to say they received them from their Forefathers as received from theirs and yet no most palpable evidence remain of this most palpable and evidently prevayling even to gull the whole world to their faces in a businesse importing their eternall blisse so likewise that the same impossibility holds in each ten years ascending upwards till the Apostles time and by consequence that the Faith delivered of late was the Faith delivered then Ioyn I say these two together and I doubt not to affirm that it is most perfect non-sence to think all the testimonies in Dr. Hs. book subject to a thousand Grammatical Philological Sophisticall Historical and Logical difficulties can bear so much as a show of probability if compared to that clear evidence of reason and that ample one of universall testification which shines in the other However it may happen that some one or more testimonies of his may make the contrary seem probable to such as either never heard of or nor well penetrated or do not consider the grounds of Vniversall Tradition as a straw may incline a ballance if nothing be put in the counterpoise Neither let my Adversary object I intend to evade answering his Testimonies by this discourse they shall have from me the return due from an Answerer that is to show them unable to conclude against this vast Authority of Vniversall Tradition for he may know we hold our Faith and Government upon no other tenour So as still the mea sure of their force must be according to the degree in which they invalidate this tenour of ours built upon both a long possession and such an universall and clear testification Onely I desire the Reader to take notice hence what a pittifull task it is to stand answering a wordish book which can bear no weight with any prudent man who considers the incomparable force of Vniversall Tradition our onely tenour but I am necessitated to it by the weaknesse of many whose wit never carryed them farther than to hear a sermon or to read a testimony and therefore they never reflected what small merit of assent can be pretended to by words of men dead long ago left to be tost by our various expositions and criticisms and liable to a thousand evasions against the clear sense written in the hearts of mankind with most powerfull motives and to be propagated truly to their posterity under penalty of eternall damnation to them and theirs Few there are I say who have refined their understanding to this degree of discerningness though I perceive to my great comfort that the best sort of witts begin to
own their reason and bring it home to it self rather than suffer it to wander in a pathlesse wildernesse of words and think it an endeavour more worthy a rationall soul to weave well compacted Treatises by evident connexion of terms than fruitlesly to stand picking thrums-ends out of overworn garments when they have done scarce know what colour they are of or how to knit them handsomely together without the motley of non-sence Thus much to give account of my obligation not to favour Mr. H. while he impugnes that Faith which I esteem most certain and most concerning Now for his person as it comes to me under any other notion than of a writer against God's Church I profess with all sincerity to honour and love it in the measure which reason requires As a member of the civil commonwealth I live in I bear him a civil respect I hear he is much a Gentleman and very courteous in return to which if it be my good fortune to meet him I shall be as ready to serve him in what may not concern my cause and do him as much civility as I would to most Gentlemen in England According to the degree of scholarship I find in him I shall candidly allow him a proportionable honour and shall not envy it him though mine Adversary even in his absence amongst mine own Friends I value-him for his skill in Greek a language I much love my self and think it a great ornament to a scholar if he know how to use it seasonably and not wantonly shew it upon all or rather no occasion in which Mr. H. hath very mvch diminish't himself giving his Readers a fair title to suspect him either of too much vanity in that or emptiness in other knowledges I applaud his unwearied industry half of which employed in a rationall way by some strong brain might be the happy Mother of many rare productions His looking into such variety of Authours deserves also it's commendation since testimonies have their degree of probation allowed them by their Governesse Reason that is according to the degree of knowledge or Authority subsequent to it found in the Testifier and the clearnesse from ambiguity found in the words alledged nay rather I should esteem him more for this than all the rest were this way of testimonies in it self much estimable since his chief and almost onely talent lies in this which furnishes him with sufficient store of such declamatory proofs and enables him to bring some kind of testimony against any thing that can be opposed as the nature of such sleight quotation-argumenrs uses to be for indeed what so absurd but a testimony may be produc't even from the best Authours seeminly favouring it as we experience daily in Scripture Lastly and more especially I acknowledge I am much his for the sakes of some Friends common to him and me which as no man with more veneration honours that sâ—cred relation of minds than my self doth in a manner mediately ally me to him and makes me desirous to flatter my self that the agreeing in a third should make us not disagree amongst our selves All these motives give him no mean place in my thoughts and esteem yet all these temporall considerations vanish and he straight becomes again indifferent to me when a quarrell about Eternity of mankind's blisse or misery is to be controverted betwen us and my deemed certainty of my Cause which concludes him by consequence certainly pernicious obliges me in Conscience to confute nay even disgrace him as far as he shall be found the promoter of a pestilent and soul-ruining Tenet Although I must confesse withall I am sorty that by is own fault he occasion'd this conscientious engagement in me for had there been no infection spread there had needed no Antidote What I have said here was to satisfy some whom I found much mistaken in the manner how Controversies ought to be treated by a Catholick not considering that Courtesy is a vertue onely in fit circumstances otherwise but an impertinent flattery or affectation and in a serious controversy about faith whose both Concernment and Certainty justify zeal and make it necessary as improper as for souldiers who are to try the field about their Kings and Countreys interests to hold their sword in one-hand and hat in the other complement and kisse their hands to one another instead of striking or by any unnaturall mixture of both make a gallant show of a mock fight preferring the care of court esy before the losse of their Cause For the satisfaction of these I have Apologiz'd thus far not in relation to Mr. H. The proper way to answer his weak proofs out of Scripture here were to gather by the help of an honest Concordance all the harsh words in the Scriptures spoken by our Saviour or his Saints and apply them voluntarily against him as he has done against me at which if he repine then to ask why my interpretation should not be as valid as his And with good-reason too should I daing him onely a reply in this method for why should not an answer of any thing serve to a quodlibeticall objection Sect. 3. How unfortunate and weak Dr. H. is in quoting S. Hierome against the Disarmer for writing plainly His crafty and discourteous Calumny AFter the testimonies from Scripture blindly levell'd at S. W. followes in the sixt Paragraph that it was a deviation from art to treat him thus unkindly to which I have answered above and that S. Hierome notes it as a great errour in Helvidius that he took railing for eloquence Wherefore since Mr. H. chuses S. Hierome for his Patron against S. W. in this point of the manner of writing controversy let us stand to his ward and example and see how he treated Vigilantius Dr. Hs. and the Protestants Forefather in the point of denying veneration to Holy Reliques and wether he stood upon courtesy when he made account he had a just occasion to shew his zeal In his Epistle to Riparius the first he writ against Vigilantius he hath these words O praecidendam lingâ—am c. O tongue worthy to be cut out by Physicians or rather oh frantick head to be cured by them c. Ego vidi hoc aliquando portentum I once saw this prodigious monster Tacita me forsan cogitatione repre hendas c. Perhaps thou mayest reprehend me in thy silent thought why I inveigh against one absent I confesto thee my passion I cannot hear so great sacriledge with patience For I have read of the lance of Phinees the austere rigour of Elias the zeal of Simon of Cananee the severity of Peter killing Ananias and Sapphira the constancy of Paul who condemned to eternall blindnesse Elymas the Sorcerer resisting the wayes of our Lord. Piety in Gods behalf is not cruelty Nor by consequence is zeale in behalf of Faith railing if that Faith be held to have certain grounds which onely can justify zeal and make it discreet But
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
purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was no haughtines in that congregation but good order or as the Interpreter renders it benè composita omnia all things well composed After Peter Paul speaks and no man interrupts him Iames represses himself and do's not dissent He was entrusted with the principality Bishoprick Iohn sayes nothing here the other Apostles say nothing but keep silence and take it not ill soe pure from vain glory was their Soul Where we see the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good order spoken of consisted in this that they did not interrupt one another in speaking as is the custome of haughty and vainglorious persons but any one spoke without disturbance what he had to say not in this that such an one spoke first this man the second another last This is euident by the place as taken in it self let us see now how Mr. H. works upon it He had already proved from his late-mentioned unauthentick testimony that S. Iames had the principall place because he spoke last then he names the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee englishes good order in speaking set down as he sayes by S. Chrysostome Next he leaves out all those words which might manifest what was meant in that place by good order to wit that there was noe haughtinesse in that Congregation that their Souls were free from vainglory which should have shewn plainly that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good order consisted onely in behaving themselves modestly and peaceably and not in the best man's speaking last Thirdly he tells us that after Peter Paul speaks but leaves out the following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and noe man stops his mouth or hinders him lest we should apprehend that the good order consisted onely in this that they did not interrupt one another in speaking which apprehēsion would have spoile'd the Drs good order of the principall man speaking last fourthly to hinder the Reader from the same right apprehension he omitts all the words following that which related to Iames to wit Iohn sayes nothing here the other Apostles say nothing but keep silence and take it not ill because it was impossible that Keeping silence and saying nothing should signify good order inspeaking which hee pretends is meant there Fifthly by picking out of the testimony these words after Peter Paul speaks and Iames forbears and interposes not for he was entrusted with the Bishoprick or principality and there ending he gains a rare semblance for his purpose that S. Chrysostome made S. Iames for good order's sake reserve himself till the last because hee was the best man whereas take the whole entire testimony concerning that matter more then three quarters of which he omitts and it is most evident to every ordinary Reader 's eye that it is impossible it should signify any such matter as hath been shown Sixthly to come to that imperfect piece of a testimony and mangled by him to corrupt the sence which is the soule of it the Interpreter acknowledgeth not the causall particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for upon which he builds S. Iames his warines not to speak till his turn the last place Seventhly had Mr. H. been soe candid as to put the words as he found them in the context related to so particularly by himself tom 4. p. 796. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iames flies not back or resists not without recurring to the marginall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interposes not all colour had been wastht of from his sophisticated testimony even as drest up by himself For what coherence make these words in Dr. H's grounds he resists not for he was entrusted with the Bishoprick if the being a Bishop they gave him the principall place and soe made him more able to resist or dissent Add that the Interpreter to whom his own side defer much render's it non resilit he flies not back which makes the marginall word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which Dr. H. recurrs without giving us notice of it lesse authentick In a word the whole testimony manifests onely that they demeaned themselves peaceably and quietly without contentions and proud interrupting one another and the particular line pickt out by his sence-corrupting art notes on the by amongst other things which show'd their humble and peaceable charity that one of these namely S. Iames had a particular charge over the Iewish Sect whose cause it seemd to be to observe the Mosaicall law and soe it was by consequence his Interest to oppose S. Peter and S. Paul's contrary Verdict yet not withstanding such was his peaceable carriage that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he resists not or as the Interpreter render's it Iacobus fert non resilit illi erat principatus concreditus with comes to this sence that he suffers it quietly and flies not back from their fore determination although the charge he had seemd to engage him rather to favour the Iewish party But Dr. H. by omitting all the words which could shew the true import of the place by taking a line onely which could by additional arts give a glosse to another quite-disparate sence by mangling that otherwise-something unfitt line by adding it after his former testimony of being Bishop because he spoke last by introducing it with these confident words and yet more expressely setting down the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good order observed in their speaking then by putting the maimed and corrupted testimony down thus After Peter Paul speaks and Iames forbears and interposes not for he was entrusted with the Principality and lastly by shutting up close his testimony there lest the vigor of it should take aire by admitting in the following words by all these numerous evasions I say he makes the honest and unwary Reader beleeve that S. Chrysostome sets down their good order in speaking as hee renders it to consist in this that Iames having the principall place forbears till the rest have done and speaks in the last place as his higher dignity and as the Dr. expresses it a little after his being clearly superior to S. Peter required where as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good order spoken of there rather signifies noe order at all as Mr. H. takes order but that he who had any thing to say might freely and quietly speak without feare of being proudly check't or contentiously interrupted by another Lastly I would know with what face Mr. H. renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies onely good order good order in speaking since 't is plain from the testimony that S. Iohn and the rest of the Apostles spake nothing at all and yet they are put there as bearing part in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or orderly and quiet demeanour here spoken of So that the words of speaking are added by Dr. H's own imagination to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good order and for no other end but to prove that the first should speake last This manner of
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
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
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
and Church of England did no more than all other Princes Republikes of the Roman Communion have done in effect This word in effect deserves a Comment and then if it bee candidly explicated we shall finde it â—ignifies the whole busines though it seeme to speak coyly mincingly Did they ever make laws to renounce and abrogate the Popes Authority and define absolutely against essentiall right Did they ever erect an Ecclesiasticall Superior as you did the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and pretend that he was in no manner of way subordinate to the Pope but vtterly independent on him Did any of them ever separate from the Church by disacknowledging his Head ship and by consequence the Rule of faith immediate Tradition which asserted it Not one Did not your self in your vindication p. 184. after your had put down the parallell acts of Henry the 8th to other Princes when you came to the point confess that Henry the 8th abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions but the Emperors with whom you run along with your parallel in other points did not so Did not your self here p. 37. where you put downe a gradation of the oppositions of the former Kings to the Pope tell us onely as the highest step of it that they threaned him further to make a Wall of separation between him them If then they but threaned to do what K. H. as appears by this law which vtterly renounces the Pope did it follows plainly that they did nothing and King Henry did all as farr as concerns our Controversy which is not about extent of his Authority or in what cases he may be check't from exercising particular Acts of that Authority but about the denying the very Right it self and which is consequent by denying joyintly the Rule of faith and by those denialls separating from the Body of the former Church which held both The signification then of this iuggling phrase in effect as apply'd to our purpose by his own interpretation is this that other Catholike countries did just nothing and King Henry the 8th did all To no imaginable purpose then save onely to show his diligence in nothing the politicall wranglings between Kings and Popes are all the instances produced by the Bishop that Catholike Kings in such such particular cases permitted not the Pope to execute what he intended unles he can deny his own words and prove that they did as much as K. Henry and not threaned onely But my Ld of Derry having taken a great deal of pains to gather together these notes which the way being new he made account would come of bravely grows much perplex't to see them all defeated at once by showing plainly that they are nothing to the purpose and therefore both heretofore and especially at present complains much that we answer them not in particular assuring the Reader that would our cause have born it we had done so Was ever man so ignorant of the common laws of disputing Needs any mory answer be given to particulars which one yeelds to than to say he grants them We grant therefore all his particular instances of these contess between Kings Popes and yeeld willingly that such such materiall facts happen'd many more not entring into that dispute how far they were done iustly how far un iustly which is little to our purpose since the Authority it self was still acknowledg'd on both sides What need we answer each in particular by saying first I grant this next I grant the other Now the use or application he makes of them that is to pretend thence that they did as much as King Henry the 8th so to iustify him is a particular point and one and to this I have answer'd particularly both here and also in my third Section where I have demonstrated it to be the most shameles manifoldly contradictory absurdity that ever bid defiance to the universall acknowledgment and ey-verdict of the whole word Vpon occasion of his alledging that all Catholike countries do the same in effect against the Pope as the Protestants I raised an exception of his incoherent manner of writing To which he thus replies p. 45. But what is the Ground of his exception nothing but a contradiction As if he made account that a contradiction is a matter of nothing nor worth excepting against His contradiction is this that our doctrine concerning the Pope is injurious to Princes prejudices their crowns and yet that we hold do the same against the Pope in effect as Protestants do He would salve the contradiction first by alledging that Papists may be injurious to Princes in one respect one time and do them right in another respect and another time Well my Lord but since the doctrine of the Papists concerning the substance of the Pope's Authority is ever constantly the same for none can be Papists longer then they hold it it knows no varitie of respectt not times and so if it be prejudiciall in it self once 't is prejudiciall alwayes The extent of it varies upon occasions this consists in an indivisible cannot alter This substance of his Authority is the point which belongs to you to impugn if you go to work consequently since you are onely accused of Schism for rejecting this not for hindring him from acting in particular cases Either grant then that this tenet is not preâ—udiciall to Princes being like yours and then you contradict your former pretence that it was or say that yours is prejudiciall to Princes also being the same in effect with it and then you have evaded indeed a contradiction but by as great an absurdity Secondly to show his former answer was nothing worth he alledges that I have changed the subject of the Proposition and that he spoke not of Papists but of the Pope Court of Rome No Ld but I would not let you change the subject of the whole question 'T is a separation from all the Churches in Communion with Rome that you stand accused of the undeniable fact evidences that you have broke from all those Churches by renouncing those two said Principles of Vnity in which they agree This is our accusation against you and so your excuses must be apply'd to this or else they are no excuses at all Now one of your excuses is that the Pope's Authority is prejudiciall to Princes and it must be mean't of the Pope's Authority as held universally by all those Churches else why did you separate from all those Churches upon that pretence But those Churches universally as you say hold the same in effect with the Protestants for you say you separated from the Court onely what needed them excuses from you to them unles there had been a contradiction in the busines Had you opposed onely some attempts of the Court of Rome by your tenet you might have remain'd still united with France Spain c who did as you confess the same in effect but