deny'd by both to be tolerable that is such as could consist with Faith and a Church but with this disadvantage on the Protestants side that the points they deny'd being of more importance more deserved our Church should command their observance Now every one sees that the proper Answer to his Discourse is to specialize some plea for themselves which will not as well excuse their Desertours The Doctor alledges none nor goes about to alledge any but as if he were dividing his Text playes upon my words in particular neglecting the import of them altogether He sayes indeed it is against their conscience to admit those other super additionary points the same say the Puritans of Copes Surplices and Organs The Doctor will object that they are indifferent and stight matters and therefore it is a greater disobedience not to admit them they will answer that Surplices are ragges of Rome that Organs are Babylonish Bagpipes and all the rest scandalous and superstitious inventions Still they are equall in their pleas Nay if a Socinian deny Christ to be God and pretend as doubtless he will with as much seriouness as Mr. H. that he cannot but sin against Conscience if he think otherwise and therefore 't is tyranny to press it upon him the Church may not oblige him to believe that Christ is God Dr. H. hath pleaded his cause joyntly with his own that is hath said no more in his own excuse than the Socinian may for his Again if Dr. H or his Church press upon the Socinian the belief of Christ's Divinity upon this ground that it is a point of most weighty importance he presently answers the Doctor with his own words that the weightier the importance of the things commanded are the more intolerable is the pressure of imposing them And so in stead of impugning Dr. H. hath made good S. W's words that they can alledge no colourable pretence which may not be alledged by the other Sects What if we should adde that the Church they left had been in long possession of the belief of Infallibility and so proceeded upon these Grounds that her Faith was certain when she prest those points upon them but they confess their unceâ—tâ—in and could proceed upon no better then probable Grounds when they prest any thing upon their Desertours is there not a palbable difference put between the pretended Authorities of imposing points to be held in us and them and a greater danger of disaccepting ours in them than theirs in the Puritans If they erred onely a confest probability stood against them which gave them just licence to dissent if they had a probable reason that the admission of those points was bad since nothing but absolute Evidence pretended could even pretend to oblige their Vnderstandings to assent to them if you erred a pre acknowledg'd Infallibility strengthen'd by a long Possession asserted by the attestation of Tradition and many other motives stood against you so that nothing but most palpable undeniable and rigorous Evidence could possibly disoblige your first Reformers from their ancient belief or oblige them to this new one If the Puritans erred since they were onely ornaments and Rituals they refused to admit the utmost harm which could accrue by their non-admission of them was terminated in the want of exren decency onely and held by the very Authority which imposed them to be but indifferent and far from being essentially-destructive to a Church But if you or your first Reformes chanc't to erre which the bare probability of your Faith confess 't by your selves in this case makes more than likely then your contrary position ruin'd all Faith and Government since the Church you disobey'd held no other Ground of Faith or Church Government save onely those you reâ—ected and disacknowledg'd to wit her own Infallibility and the Popes Authority Again if you happen'd to be in the wrong and that indeed there was no other either Church Government or Ground of Faith than these then how wickeldy desperate to your own soules and universally destructive to all man-kind and their means of attaining eternal bliss must your disclaiming and publikely renouncing both these be none of which can be objected to the Puritanes by you So evidently true were my words that no colourable pretence can possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm nay much firmer for other Sects why they left them Yet I doubt not but the Doctor will after all this as he does here Answ p. 16. applaud his own victory with a triumphant Epiphonema and say that S. W. his probations are beyond all measure improbable when himself had not said a word to the intent of the discourse but onely play'd mistakingly and non-sensically upon some particular words Yet when he hath done like a tender hearted man he pittyes himself again that he should so unnecessarily insist upon it Truly so do I pitty him or any man else who takes much pains to no purpose though I pitty more the Reader who can imagine any credence is to be given to so weak a Writer He ends his Answer to my Introduction with telling the Reader that I have with no shew of Iustice suggested his tediousness in things acknowledged Whereas almost all his first Chapter and third together with those where he proves the Pope not Head of the Church from the title of converting England or Concession of our Kings as also almost all his narrative Confession of his Schism with many other scatter'd discourses are things acknowledg'd by both parties and were very tedious and dull to me What he addes that he will not disturb me when I speak truth unless he shall discern some part of his arguing concern'd is a very pretty jest intimating that he stands in preparation of mind to oppose even Truth it self if it stand in his way or his arguing be concern'd in it and not vindicated in his former Reply A sincere person Hovver let him onely grant that what he vindicates not but leaves untouch't is Truth and we shall without difficulty strike up a bargain Sect. 8. How Dr. H. prevaricates from the Question by stating it wrong His powerfull way of arguing by Ifs and how he defends himself for mincing the Fathers words THe Fathers alledged by Mr. H. attested that no just cause could be given of Schism whence he inferres of Schism p. 10. that the causes and motives of Schism are not worth producing or heeding in this controversy The Catholick Gentleman and S. W. both exprest their dislike of this inference the Doctor pretends to vindicate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it as he pedantically calls it and referres me to his Reply for his reasons to which I shall both give a solution and at once lay open the nature of Sâ—hism and the manner in which they ought to controvert it I mean as far as it can have any show of bearing controversy Schism then which we joyntly
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
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
this present controversy as Schismatical yet Dr. H's great reach of wit can by the way and within a Parenthesis make such a dolt of S. W. His proof from my words is better then the supposiâ—ion it self I said our Church could cast them out and deny them communion if they be found to deserve it being then her Subjects and Children Actually they were under her at that time if then they could alledge just that is evident reasons why they thought her Government an usurpation then they did not deserve it and so she could not excommunicate them if they did not and yet would subtract themselves from her obedience then they deserv'd it and were justly excommunicated Can any man doubt of this or impose such a piece of known non-sense as his former deduction out of it is upon another unless possess 't with Dr. H's want of ingenuity yet this he repeats again p. 21. and calls his own straining at a gnat my swallowing down the question at one haust Now let us examin my words which breed his scruple they are these as cited in the Marge by himself That our Church could cast you out if you be found to deserve it being then her Subjects and Children none doubts Here I ask first whether he can shew that I speak of any interiour or legal Authority which if he cannot 't is a plain imposture to father upon me the word legal as he does in this place Secondly I demand whether any Protestant or Dr. H. himself doubts whether there was an extern apparent and acknowledged Authority the which for being such was to be obeyed until it was disproved in the Church of Rome over the pretended Reformers This being acknowledged I ask what it is he excepts against That such an Authority could not proceed against her esteemed Subiects if they deserv'd it for this is all my words signify'd and is so plain of it self that no man that hath any common sense can make difficulty of it He tells us p. 19. that the questions is equally and indifferently whether they or the Romanists be guilty of Schism including also the remorseless Governours in the Romish See Where he quite mistakes the business his meaning as I perceive by his whole procedure and particularly p. 22. where he sayes that the Pope ought to clear his title to his pretended power is that we should be mutually counter-opponent and counter-defendants and each produce proofs ere we can claim any thing But he is in a gâ—eat errour we need no new proofs to convince the lawfulness of our Authority our plea is provided to our hand before they opposed us and started the question Possession is all the proofs we need bring and such a possession as had to strengthen it an universal belief that it came from Christ's time grounded upon the certainty of Oral Tradition so that we made no question of it it was a point of our Faith and therefore need produce no proofs for our affirmative whereas they who first question'd this before-unquestionable and reâ—ected this before-received Authority must bring reasons why they did so and proofs why they deemed it usurp't The question therefore in this preâ—ent debate devolves to this whether the proofs Dr. H. produces be convincingly evident against a possession so qualify'd as is before declared if they fall short of that force eo ipso he and his Friends are concluded Schismaticks for relinquishing without just motives an Authority whose possession is justly presumable to have come from Christ if they be perfect Evidences then they are excusable and in their excusableness is terminated the controversy in hand if we may trust the title of his book which is A Defence against the exceptâ—on of the Romanists or his own stating the questâ—on of Schism p. 11. from which he here prevaricates p. 19. What follows further out of their excusableness against us that is whether we were unjust usupers tyrannical c. is another question for which sequel I would not contend with them if the premisses could be possibly evinced However if we usurp't it was not lately but a thousand years agoe But that our Church shall in that case be schismatical as he here sayes that expression comes out from the mouths and pens of his Friends so weakly and faintly the light of nature and common language of mankind checking them that the whole is not said to be broken from a part but a part from the whole that he must have recourse to the universal obligation of Charity to pretend us such for we can never be â—hown even in his supposed case Schismatical against Government or Vnity in the Church if no such Vnity can be found as it cannot in that mould he hath cast Christianity in by making each Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Independent or self-govern'd since there can be no division made where the things are already many After his pretended indifferency of the question he tells us that it must not be begg'd on either side and hereafter he complains of me grievously for the same fault I am sorry to see M. H. so ignorant in Logick that he mistakes the most ordinary things in disputing Let him know then that a Defendant as a Defendant cannot be sayd to beg the question since it is his office to hold his tenet which is the thing in controversy and stick close by it whatever prejudices or impossibilities are objected to deny them coÌ„sequent from it granting those things which he takes to be consistent with it denying those which he deems inconsistent unless it be an open evidence if an ambiguity occur to distinguish the double sense and show again which part of the distinction is consistent with it which otherwise in all which it is manifest he supposes the truth of the question and holds fast to it nor ought he let go that hold til he be non-plust and the dispute at an end My part then being the Defendant's as hath been proved out of the tenth Ground the Reader may see with how much Logick D. H. complains of me all over for only holding my tenet which he calls begging the question For however he may pretend to the name of a Defender yet since his party begun first to oppose that is to object and argue against ours who at that time quietly held their tenet 't is clear he is in no other sense a Defendant than as one who maintains his first objected Syllogism with a second may be said to defend it which is very improper and abusive of the right notion Whereas we who started not the dispute nor begun the opposition but sate still have yet a just title to continue in that our posture of defence till the Evidence of their Arguments drive us out of it His next complaint is against the Governours in the Romish See who if you will trust him without all cause deny Communion without remorse or relenting not onely to them but to many other Churches
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 that Order This is your crime in this lies your sinfull guilt of Schism and heresy that your fact and tenet is intrinsecally destructive to the very being of God's Church and that it tears and rents it peece-meal all asunder A mischief equally pernicious to man-kind's attaining Beatitude as the renouÌ„cing the supreme Government in a Kingdome or commonwealth would bee in order to their safe enjoyment of their temporall livelihoods and therefore no waies to bee ballanced or excused by alledging temporall inconveniences since it as far ouerpoises it's excuse as Eternity of bliss does a peece of earth that is infinitely His third sort of Grounds is the weaknes of the Pope's pretences and the exemption of the Britannick Churches from forrain Iurisdiction by the Council of Ephesus For the fitst the Bp. never so much as directly mentions that in which wee place the strength of the Pope's pretence of his supreme Authority much lesse impugnes it save onely a little on the by as it were in his sleight way 't is this that it was held and deliver'd by a world of immediate fathers to sons as from their fathers so upwards as from Christ that this Authority was sacred of Christ's Institution of faith and recommended to us by the same Rule that assured us Christ was God Vpon this tenure as strongly supported as nature could bear held demonstrably evident and so shown by us not yet answer'd or pretended to bee answer'd by the Protestant party wee Ground this Doctrine of the Pope's Headship or the substance of his Authority But I fear the Bp. either understands not our tenure for otherwise sure hee would have nam'd it or else hee is impugning some Canon Lawier and the extent of the Pope's Authority in stead of impugning the Church and the substance of the said Authority As for his second trifle I have already shown Sect. 4. that the Britannick Churches have no influence upon our Churches descended from saxons nor shall hee ever show a syllable in the Council of Ephesus exempting them from the Pope's Iurisdiction as Head of the Church however Cyprus and some others are there exempted from a neighbouring superiour falsly pretending a Iurisdiction over them But of this more shall bee said hereafter in this present Section The Vnity of the Church being of such importance and the fact breaking it by consequence so hainous the alledging the greatest abuses imaginable are absolutely concluded insufficient excuses for such a fact much more unles it bee shown there were no other possible means to remedy them Hereupon I alledged that it was of little concernment to examine whether his complaints were true or false since hee does not show there was no other remedy but division First the Bishop replies sharply What is it of little concernment to examin whether the Grounds bee sufficient or no well leap't my Lord I speak of the inconsiderablenes of their truth or falshood your Lâ— talks of inconsiderablenes of their sâ—fficiency pretends against both plain words and conscience that I wave that There may bee obâ—ections against the Abuses perhaps of all Governours in the world and these also true but their truth does not infer their sufficiency for rejecting that very Government as long as they are less considerable than good of the Government it self and that there is another cure This it that in which I show'd your manner of arguing defective in the main because you never prou'd nor ever shall that there was no other remedy except division for unles you put in this and more too your argument stands in this posture True complaints against Governours whether otherwise remediable or no are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government At which position if spoke out candidly I hope you will blush though it bee perfectly your own cloak't a little in other but equivalent terms Next hee tells us it is a negative and so it belongs not to him to prove it Yes my Ld it belongs to your party or any one who rises against an actuall Authority either to show that that Authority was none or else that though it was a lawfull one yet there was no other remedy for it's Abuses but a totall Abolishment of it Otherwise the very maiesty which Government carries in it's notion the Vnity peace and a thousand blessings and conveniences which spring from that Vnity found in the common acknowledment of that Authority oversway the private credit or any other less publike concerns which the disobedient party can pretend to and render's their fact of rising irrationall and destructive to the common engaging them needlesly in a thousand distractions and by consequence hazards of ruin which attend such divisions Thirdly hee would persuade the Reader that a negative is not capable of proof or at least not so easily capable of it for answer I refer him to any boy who hath been two years at the Vniversities who will inform him that negatives may witht equall evidence bee concluded in Celarent Ferio as affirmatives may in Barbara and Darij Lastly the proof which hee proposes for his negative to show no other remedy but dares not much stick to them are both equally competent to France Spain c who yet as hee tells us in the next page in contradiction to himself here found other remedies to preserve their priviledges inviolated and his pretended proofs are such pittifull ones though on them is built the sufficiency of their motives that they evencry for mercy as soon as they show their faces They are these that the King of England could not call the Pope and his ourt to a personall account and that the Pope would not ease them upon many Adresses made what then Had not the King the sword in his own hands did it not ly in his power to right himself as hee â—isted and to admit those pretended eneroachments onely so far as hee thought iust and fitting Nay do not your self lay open and repeat in many places that not onely Kings of England but also those of all other countries both could and did do it often and by doing so preserve their priviledges inviolated How does this prove then that there was sufficient Grounds of dividing from the former Church since your self confess so often it could have been remedied otherwise Or how is it a sufficient motive to abolish an Authority for the Abuses which very pretended Abuses they had power to curb and keep within compass without dividing and so that they should not violate their priviledges Not a word then hath the Bp. brought to prove they had sufficient Grounds of division that is that there was no other remedy but in stead thereof expresly told us the contrary and manifoldly contradicted himself I added And much more if the Authority bee of Christ's Institution no iust cause can possibly â—ee given for it's abolishment The merry Bp. laughs at this as hee calls it Kind of arguing which neither looks like an Argument
nor was pretended by mee as such but as a consideration which much aggravates the charge and obliges in all reason the renouncers of this Authority to look very charily to the sufficiency of the causes of thâ—t their division For since it follows out of the terms that ere they renounced it and by thus renouncing it left to bee Catholikes they immediately before held it as Catholikes do that is held it as a point of faith and of Christ's Institution and since it is evident that none ought to change his faith which hee and his Ancestours immemorially embrac'd but upon evident Grounds again since it is evident likewise and confest that temporall motives ought not to make us break Christ's commands which is done by rejecting a Government which hee instituted Two things are consequent hence to their disadvantage one that their motives ought to bee rigoro sly evident and demonstrative for their renouncing it since dâ—nger of damnation ensves upon their miscarriage and this even in their own thoughts as they were lay'd in their minds when they first began to meditate a breach The other that the pretended causes especially temporall inconveniences for the abolishing this Authority can no waies iustify the first breakers who held it formerly a point of faith since no iust causes can bee given to renounce an Authority held to bee instituted by Christ As then it had been rationall to Reply to King H. the 8th remaining yet a Catholike and beginning to have thoughts to abolish this Authority upon such and such temporall inconveniences that his maiesty and his Ancestours had held it of divine Institution and that therefore there could bee no iust cause to abolish it so it is equally seasonable to Reply to my Lord of Derry who undertakes here to vindicate him by alledging the same thing that these causes nor any else were sufficient to make them begin to break because ere they begun the breach they held this Authority to bee of Christ's Institution and therefore it is a folly for him to think to iustify them by huddling together causes and motives and crying them up for sufficient till hee can show they had Evidence of the Truth of the opposite point greater than the pretended Evidence of Authority universall Tradition which they actually had for their former tenet If a cause bee sufficient to produce an effect and equally apply'd 'tis manifest the same effect will follow Hence as an argument of the insufficiency of their motives of Division I alledged that all other Catholike countries had the same exceptions yet neither broke formerly nor follow your Example Hee answers first Few or none have sustain'd so great oppression which signifies I know not well whether any have or no or for any thing I know some have Nor does hee prove the contrary otherwise than by a pleasant saying of a certain Pope Any thing will serve him Next hee tells us all other countries have not right to the Cyprian priviledges as Brittain hath And how proves hee that this country had any by that Council Is England named in the Council of Ephesus which exempted Cyprus from the Patriarch of Antioch No. Is Brittain at least No. How come wee then to bee particularly priviledg'd by that Council Why the Bp. of Derry thinks so His Grounds Because that Council ordains that no Bp. should occupy a Province which was not from the beginning under his Predecessours And how proves hee the application that England was never anciently under the Pope as Head of the Church from Sr Henry Spelman's old-new manuscript and two or three raggs of History or misunderstood Testimonies Are they demonstrative or rigorous Evidences Here my Ld is wisely silent Will less serve than such proofs to iustify such a separation Hee is silent again Were they a thousand times as many are they of a weight comparable to a world of witnesses proceeding upon the Grounds of immediate dâ—livery from hand to hand which recommended and ascertain'd the contrary Alas hee never thinks of nor considers that at all but very wisely puts his light grains in one end of the scales negl â—cting to put our pounds in the other and then brags that his thin grains are overweight The third particularizing motive is his own unprou'd saying and is concluded with a boast that hee is not the onely schismatick in the world but hath Brothers Is this the way to argue against us To call all those Christians which profess the name of Christ and communicate with himself in the same guilt and then say hee hath fellows in his schism Hee knows wee grant them not to bee truly-call'd Christians but in the name onely and equivocally as a painted man is styld ' a man If hee will show that any Congregation of truly-call'd Christians partakes with him in the separation from Rome let him show that these pretended Christians for those points in which they differ from us did not renounce the onely certain Rule of faith Tradition or delivery of immediate forefathers or that there is any certain and infallible Rule but that Otherwise they are cut of from the Rule and Root of faith and by consequence not in a true appellation to bee call'd faithfull or Christians otherwise they heard not the immediately foregoing Church for those points which they innovated and so are to us no properly call'd Christians but according to our saviours counsell as Heathens and publicans I mean those who knowingly wilfully separated Talking voluntarily my Ld according to the dictates of your own fancy will not serve in a rigorous Controversy First show that those you call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of faith and so any faith and that they have not onely a probable and fallible GrouÌ„d that is opinion onely for their faith and then you shall contradict your own best and more candid writers who confess it in terms and do such a miracle as your Ancestours never attain'd to nor any of wit and ingenuity attempted seeing it impossible to bee done rationally I alledged in the next place to show more their inexcusablenes and the infussiciency of their pretended motives for breaking the example of our own country and forefathers who had the same cause to cast the Pope's Supremacy of the Land yet rather proferr'd to continue in the peace of the Church than to attâ—mpt so destructive an innovation The Bp. replies first that wee should not mistake them aâ—d that they still desire to live in the Communion of the Catholike Church c. No my Ld I doe not mistake you but know very well you would bee willing and glad too the former Church should own you for hers I doubt not but you are apprehensive enough of what honour would accrue to you if wee would account you true Catholikes and what disgrace you get by being accounted Hereticks and Schismaticks by us But yet your desire of staying in the Church is conditionall that you may bee permitted to remain
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
the opposite is false nor hold his own certain without censuring another man's Good Reader reflect a little upon this proposition he cavills at and then take if thou canst the just dimensions of the unmeasurable weaknes of error and it's Abettors Do not truth and certainty involve essentially in their notions an oppositenes and contrarietie to falshood error Does not true signifie not-false How is it possible then a man indued with the common light of reason can hold a thing true and yet not hold it 's opposite false yet this plain self evident proposition in other terms the self-same with this that a thing cannot both be not be at once is denied by the Bp. nay accounted disgracefull to hold it Whereas indeed it is not mine nor the Donatists onely but the common Principle of nature which the silliest old wife and least boy come to the use of reason cannot but know Error prest home cannot burst out at length into less absurdities than denying the first Principles The Bishop of Derry having shown us how well skill'd he is in Principles by renouncing that first Nature-taught one proceeds immediately to establish some Principles of his own which he calls evident undeniable so to confute the former The first is that particular Churches may fall into error where if by Errors he means opinions onely 't is true if points of faith 't is not so undeniable as he thinks in case that particular Church adhere firmly to her Rule of faith immediate Tradition for that point already there setled that is if shee proceed as a Church If he wonder at this I shall increase his admiration by letting him know my minde that I see it not possible how even the pretended Protestants Church of England could it without self condemnation have owned the immediate delivery of fore fathers and onely proceeded stuck close to that Rule should ever come to vary from the former Protestant Beleef for as long as the now fathers taught their Children what was held now and the Children without looking farther beleeved their fathers and taught their Children as they beleeved and so successively it followes in terms that the posterity remote a thousand generations would still beleeve as their fathers do now But as their religion built on Reformation that is not immediate Tradition will not let them own immediate Tradition for their Rule of faith so neither did they own it could their certainty arrive to that of our Churches strengthen'd by so many super-added assistances His second Principle is that all errors are not Essentiall or fundamentall I answer that if by Errors he means onely opinions as he seems to say in the next paragraph then none at all are Essentiall but what is this to my proposition which spoke of Religion not of opinions unles perhaps which is most likely consonant to the Protestant Grounds the Bishop makes account that Religion and opinion are all one But if he means Error in a matter of faith then every such error is fundamentall and to answer this third Principle with the same labour destroies the being of a Church For since a Church must necessarily have a Rule of faith otherwise she were no Church and that 't is impossible to conceive how man's nature should let her proceed so quite contrary to her Principles as to hold a thing as a matter of faith not proceeding upon her onely Rule of faith this being a flat contradiction Again since the Rule of faith must be both certain and plain without which properties 'tis no Rule it follows that an error in a matter of faith argues an erroneousnes in the Rule of faith which essentially and fundamentally concerns the being of a Church His fourth Principle is that every one is bound according to the just extent of his power to free himself from those not essentiall errors Why so my L d if those errors be not essentiall they leave according to your own Grounds sufficient means of Salvation and the true being of a Church How prove you then that you ought to break Church Communion which is essentially destructive to the being of a Church to remedy this or hazard your Salvation as you know well Schism does when you might have rested secure Is it an evident and undeniable Principle that you ought to break that in which consists the being of a Church to remedy that which you confess can consist with the being of a Church or is it an undeniable Principle that you ought to endanger your soul where you grant there is no necessity Say not I suppose things gratis your friend Dr. H. tells you out of the fathers how horrid a crime Schism is how vtterly unexcusable the undeniable evidence of fact manifests you to have broke Church Communion that is to have Schismatized from the former Church which you must be forced to grant unles you can show us that you still maintain the former Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government These are the points which you violently broke and rejected show either that these were not fundamentally concerning the Vnity and cōsequently the Entity of the former Church or else confess that you had no just cause of renouncing them and so that you are plainly both Schismatick Heretick But 't is sufficient for your Lp's pretence of Moderation without so much as mentioning them in particular to say here in generall terms that the points you renounc'd were not essentiall were accidentall were errors vlcers opinions hay stubble the plague weeds c. And thus ends the first part of your wisely maintained Moderation as full of contradictions absurdities as of words The second proof of their Moderation is their inward charity I love to see charity appearing out-wardly me thinks hanging and persecution disguize her very much and your still clamorous noises against us envying us even that poore happines that we are able with very much a doe to keep our heads above water and not sink utterly He proves this in ward charity by their externall works as he calls them their prayers for us He should have said words the former were their works and prou'd nothing but their malice But let us examin their prayers they pray for us he sayes daily and we do the same for them nay more many of ours hazard their lives daily to do good to the souls even of themselves our enemies and to free them as much as in us lies from a beleeved danger Which shows now the greater charity But their speciall externall work as he calls it is their solemn anniversary prayer for our conversion every good friday And this he thinks is a speciall peece of charity in their Church being ignorant good man that this very thing is the solemn custome of our Church every good friday as is to be seen in our Missall and borrowed thence by their book of common prayer among many other things But let us see whether the Protestants