S. Peter after a particularizing way the promise was made to S. Peter after a particular manner The antecedent I prove thus those words were spoken to S. Peter after a manner not competible nor common to the rest of the Apostles therefore they were spoken to S. Peter after a particularizing way The consequence is most evident since particular is expresly the same with not common or not competible to the rest The Antecedent is proved no lesse evidently from the whole Series of the Text where we have first a particular Blessing of S. Peter sprung from a particular act of his to wit his Confession of Christ's Divinity Blessed art thou his particular name and to avoyd all equivocation which might communicate that name designing whose sonne he was Simon Bar-Iona my heavenly father hath revealed it vnto thâ—e in particular Next follows Christ's applying his words in particular here upon And I say vnto thee then alluding to his particular name given him by Christ himself with an emphasis and energy Thou arâ— Peter or a Rock and upon this Rock will I build my Church c. And after all these particular designations follows the promise in the same tenour copulatively And I will give vnto thee still with the same speciality the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven Now hence Iargue The Confession of Christ to be the Son of God the Blessing there-upon The name Simon Bar-Iona The designed allusion to that name are not competible nor common to the rest of the Apostles therefore the promise-expressing words concomitant were spoken to S. Peter in a way not common or competible to the rest of the Apostles But to returne whence wee came these words are a promise of the Keyes and their power therefore a promise of the Keyes and their power was made to S. Peter after a manner not common that is particular and that upon occasions originally springing from and constantly relating and alluding to S. Peter's particular person and particular name And thus much for the promise Next as for the performance of this particular promise wee argue thus It is worthy our Saviour not onely to perform his promise but also to perform it after the manner and tenour he promised But he promised the power of the Keyes to S. Peter after a particular manner as hath been shown â—â—erefore he perfoâ—med his promise and gave it to S. Peter after a particular manner and consequently which is the position wee vltimately aym at S. Peter had the power of the Keyes after a more particular manner then the other Apostles The Major is evident because no man living would think himself reasonably dealt with if a promise were not performed to him after the manner it was made nay reason would think himself deluded to have his expectation raised as in prudence it would by such a particular manner of promising to something extraordinary and more then common and when it comes to the point to have his hopes defeated by a common and meerly equall performance The Minor is already proved in the foregoing paragraph The conclusion is the position in controversy Reason therefore informs us supposing once that the promise was made to S. Peter after a particular manner that it should be performed to him after the same manner nor need 's it any other proof from Testimonies if we once grant as none will deny that our B. Saviour did what was most reasonable and fitting Yet some of our Drs arguing ad hominem against the ProtestaÌ„t make choice particularly of that place of Iohn 21. v. 15. 16. 17. to infer such a performance I proceed therefore in the way I begun and endeavour to show two things first that reason gives it secondly that the Scripture favours it that this place signifies a particularity of performance to S. Peter or a performance to him after a particular manner The first I prove ad hominem thus the promise being made to S. Peter after a particular manner and register'd in Scripture as hath been shown it is fitting that the correspoÌ„dent performance so worthy our Saviour should be exprest there likewise especially in the Protestant Grounds who grant a kind of self-perfectnes and sole-sufficiency to Scripture But there is no other place in Scripture so apt to signify a particular performance as this for the other places cited by Dr. H. Receive yee the Holy Ghost â—s my father sent me so send I you expresse onely a common performance therefore in all reason wee should think that the particular performance is exprest there The second I show thus the particular promise had preceeded apt in it's own Nature to breed some greater expectation in S. Peter These words were apt to satisfy that expectation they signify'd therefore a particular performance Again the thrice particularizing him by his name and relation Simon sonne of Ionas denotes the speaking of the following words to him particularly But the following words pasce oves ineas were apt and sufficient to instate him in the Office and give him the Authority of a Pastor It was therefore given him in a particular manner to be a Pastour in these words The Major is eâ—ident the Minor is proved For should any Master of a family bid one of his servants in the same words feed his sheep that servant would think him self sufficiently Authorized to perform that duty Thirdly the word amas me plus his Dost thow love me more than these manifestly put both a particularity and a superiority in S. Peter above the other Apostles in the interrogatory Therefore the inference there-upon feed my Sheep in ordinary reason should signify after the same manner and sounds as if it were put thus Dost thow love me more then these to which S. Peter assenting our Saviour may be imagin'd by the naturall sence of the words to reply If it be so that thou lovest me more then these then feed my Sheep more then these or have thou a Commission to feed my Sheep more then these sence he is more likely to perform his duty better and so more capable and worthy of a higher charge who bears a greater affection to his Master This paraphrase the words them selves seem to ground For otherwise to what purpose was it to make an interrogation concerning a greater degree of love or to what end was that particularizing and perferring words more then these put there if they had no correspondent influence nor connexion with the inference which ensves upon it Fourthly the verb pasce being exprest imperatively and spoken by a lord to his servant ought in all reason to signiâ—y a Command unles the concomitant words in the Text force another sence upon it which cannot be alledged here Since then every command of a lawfull Superiour gives a Commission to do that which he commands and that the words
assent sprung from Evidence From this short discourse follows first that our Churches Binding her children to beleef is evidently natural just charitable rational and necessary since she obliges them upon no other Ground than that which in it's own force had pre-obliged their nature to assent to wit Evidence Secondly that no man can revolt from the Faith of such an Authority to any other but through the highest degree of vice and passion since they would be found in this case to assent to another not onely without Evidence but against it Thirdly that therefore the Governours of the Church who proceed according to this power may justly punish and excommunicate those who recede from her Beleef founded in her Authority thus evidenced since this recession must spring from vice or a disorder'd affection in the will and vice all the world allows may be punished Fourthly that no tyranny can possibly be imputed to our Church as long as she proceeds upon such Grounds since she onely governs men according to their nature or Reason Fifthly that they who adhere to any other fallible Congregation upon onely probable that is inevident Grounds against her Authority thus evidenced being therefore as hath been shown in the highest degree vicious and passionate if they prove obstinate in it ought upon necessity to be Excommunicated cast out of the Church and separated from the Congregation of the Faithfull Reason showing plainly if no good can be done for their obstinate Souls order is to be taken that they do no hurt to the Souls of others Sixthly that all who forsake this infallible attestation of the Church they were in called Oral Tradition as did the Protestants in all points wherein they differ from us deserve this Excommunication since they left a pre-acknowledged Evidence and began to dogmatize upon acknowledg'd probabilities onely that is left proceeding to assent in that manner which was acknowledgedly rational connatural and virtuous and beginning to proceed in such a manner as is necessarily irrational unnatural and vicious Seventhly it follows that a Congregation which is fallible cannot without the greatest impudence in the world pretend to oblige rational Souls to assent upon her Authority since if she sees she may be in the wrong hic nunc in such a point she can have no Evidence that she is not actually deceived in it and so wanting Evidence to make good her Authority she wants whatsoever can oblige a rational Soul to assent upon her Authority Eighthly it follows hence that not onely the Independents Presbyterians c. may justly refuse to hear the Protestant Church which acknowledges her self fallible but that they sin if they should hear her since in that case they would be found to assent to an Authority without evidence of the veracity of that Authority Ninthly it follows that the Protestant Church acknowledging her self fallible and the like may be said of all fallible Congregations cannot even oblige the Independents Presbyterians c to behave themselves quietly within their Church and submit to their Government For in case that fallible Congregation oblige her Children to a subscription or declaration of their assent to her doctrine it were a vice either to assent without Evidence of authority which is wanting to a fallible Church or subscribe without a real inward assent as the Doctor himself confesses they may then resist such a command of that Church and express themselves contrary and disobedient Nay more if that Congregation be fallible it may possibly be in a damnable errour and some one or more may happen to see evidently that it is in such an errour and many of ordinary capacity rationally doubt what the others see now in that case why may not the former make account it is their obligatiō to oppose that Church and let men see their soul-endangering errour may maintain a party against her and defy her as one who would bring Souls to Hell by her doctrine As also why may not the latter rather than hazard the accepting a damnable errour adhere to this company of Revolters at least stand neutral between the Church and them Again since it hath been shown they may renounce the Faith of a fallible Church why may they not renounce her Government since her Faith must needs be as sacred as her Government which depends on Faith and is subordinate to it Government being chiefly to maintain Faith and such actions as proceed from Faith Neither is it lawfull yet to revolt against temporal Magistrates upon the score of their fallibility in case they oblige their Subjects onely to act or obey according to the civil State because that is a Government grounded onely upon natural reason instituted for natural ends and plainly evident it must be obey'd unavoydable inconveniences following upon disobedience which force us to confess there 's no safety for our lives or estates without this Obedience Tenthly it follows that Dr. H's denying any company of men on earth to be Infallible and by consequence to have power to bind to beleef is most exquisitely pernicious destroying at once all beleef and leaving no obligation in the world nay making it a sin to beleeve any Article of the Christian Faith For since neither Scripture nor the doctrine of the Primitive Church acknowledged by Dr. H. to have been built upon an Infallible Tradition can be evidenced to us but by some Authority faithfully conveying it down ever since that time if this Authority cannot be evidenced to be infallible no man is bound in reason to assent or believe either Scripture to be God's word or the Doctrine to be Christ's upon her Authority since there wants Evidence of that Authority's veracity which can onely oblige to assent nay more he must needs sin in precipitating his assent without Evidence to ground it on Eleventhly Dr. H. Answ p. 36. in another place grants that this universal attestation in which we found the Churche's Infallibility and all these deductions makes one as certain of a thing as if he had seen it with his own eyes and again confesses himself Infallibly certain of what he hath seen with his own eyes which is as much as we either say or desire Wherefore the good Doctor doth a◠once both confirm us and contradict himself Lastly it follows that it is the height of frivolousness for D. H. even to pretend excuse from obligation to beleeve our Church and assent to the doctrine of his own without most undeniable and rigorous Evidence both for the errableness of ours and the inerrableness of the Protestants Church By these brief deductions from that one evident Ground of the infallibility of Vniversal Attestation the prudent Reader will plainly see how consequently the Catholick Church proceeds to the grounds of Nature and Reason how inconsequently to both the Protestant Churches must necessarily goe when they would oblige either to Government or Faith Since Certainty and Evidence once renounced there remains nothing to move the Vnderstanding to
The fourteenth Paragraph runs partly upon the same affected mistake of Infallibility I asked him to put in him some apprehension that a company of men on earth might be Infallible which he deny'd if all the Protestants could be fallible in witnessing whether twenty years agoe there were Protestant Bishops or no. First he will neither say I nor no to the point onely he sayes Answ p. 37. he beleeves not they can probably mistake in that thing Next he tells us this is no proof that they are any way infallible in all matters of fact without all possible mixture of errour Is it possible Mr. H. should think his Reader so silly as to take such ridiculous tergiversations for a sufficient Answer My question was whether they could erre and conspire to tell an open ly in a thing visible as the Sun at noon-day and Dr. H. first shuffles at that and then counterfeits that I pretend them Infallible in all matters of Fact whatsoever as in ghessing what past in the late Kings priuy Councel while he was living or whether Bevis of Hampton fought with a Dragon or no. Dear Reader I must address a line or two to thee and desire thee if thou beest Dr. H's Friend to ask him whether it be the Catholicks tenet that the Church is infallible in matters of Faith onely or in all things indefinitely as in knowing the height number of the Starres what weather it shall be every day next yeare c. if he cannot show the latter to be the tenet of our Church then aâ—k him from S. W. whether he hath either shame or conscience in him to evade answering the point by imposing upon our Church a counterfeit tenet and which himself knows to be such and then making it the but of his ayre-beating impugnation repeating it so often though once were enough to move a blush had not custome taken away sense that I am confident any candid Reader will nauseate and be offended at so odious a piece of fundamental insincerity His other weaknesses mingled with this especially his skipping aside from the question to the fallibility of private men shuffling about for excuses in stead of answering I or no with other sleights already lay'd open make up a mess of most excellent non-sense call'd in another phrase Dr. H's third Section Sect. 11. What miserable work Dr. H. makes with that plain proposition A Church that is fallible and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition cannot have Power to bind any to believe her MY fourth Section touched at three points Schism Disarm'd p. 21. the ground of Vnity in a Church the groundlesness of Schism and of Mr. H's manner of arguing to clear himself of the latter inserting also some part of the Catholick Gentleman 's letter which tended to those purposes The first I show'd to consist in the Infallibility of that Authority which justly pretends to oblige the assent of others to her proposals Hence follows the second that no Schismatical Congregation that acknowledges it self fallible can with any face pretend to impose an obligation of belief nor yet excuse it self for breaking from acknowledg'd Antiquity or possession upon fallible that is probable Grounds The third was that since the Schism we object to the Protestants is charged by us to be such as involves heresy and by consequence the renouncing our Rule of Faith it was the weakest piece of reason that ever was reason'd by a Doctor of Divinity to make the summe and ground of all his Answer the denying the said Rule of Faith our Churche's Infallibility which was in effect to confess the Fact and to prove he is no Schismatick because he is an Heretick and Schismatick both For answer to these three points he referres me to his Reply cap. 2 Sect. 3. In return to which as far as hath not already been answered I shall give these satisfactory reflexions upon the main points not attending him in each Paragraph in many of which the insipid Crambe of his own self sayings is boyl'd over and over But first he sends three or four whifflers upon the stage to trifle it ere the tragedy of Faith and it's certainty begins His first trifle is that the Catholick Gentleman calls that Mr. Knot 's concession which is his Conclusion from that Concession A sore quarrel as if he who granted the premisses and made the inference himself must not also grant the Conclusion if so then his Conclusion is his Concession as well as the premisses His second trifle is that Reply p. 14. he pretends all that was by him taken notice of was the consequence between the Premisses and that Conclusion which naturally inferred a third thing that it was unlawful to forsake the Communion of any fallible Church and the Catholick Gentleman 's impugning his admiration at it and confirming this main point of the Controversy he calls a digression whereas it is a pure shuffling in him to avoyd this Question which is fundamental and solely important to this present Controversy concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of separating from the true Church upon pretence of being bound by her to equivocate or ly His third trifle is that he tells us Repl. p. 14. he may certainly affirme how this Thesis of ours A Church that is fallible and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition cannot have power to bind any to beleeve what she saith is no infallible truth nor deduced from any infallible principle whereas it is as evident a principle as any in nature that no man can in reason oblige another to hold what himself knows not as also that he cannot be said truly to know that in which he knows and confesses he may be mistaken To this the Shuffler sayes nothing His fourth trifle is when we speak of obligation of beleef to slip the point and talke of obligation to act or obey telling us wisely here that A Prince can command obedience though he be not infallible Is it possible Mr. H. must be continually obliged by his cause to such affected insincerity as still to counterfeit the mistake of the question The same he repeats again p. 16. and sayes the Governours thus oblige inferiours to obedience by force of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas the question is whether the Apostles who held that without Faith that is without truth it is impossible to please God ever commanded us to believe that Congregation which being fallible might for any thing it or we know lead us into damnable errours I know that a probability of the thing in it self can oblige a man to act as a sudden Alarum of the enemies probable approach ought in prudence to rouse a General to provide for resistance but nothing except evidence can move to assent nor can any pretend lawfully and rationally to oblige to it but they who have Evidence that they cannot be mistaken in what they would bind others to believe See the judicious and
learned Preface to Rusworth's Dialogues where this point is largely handled and fully cleared These trifles having thus play'd their parts and whiffled a while out step the main bangers and lay about them at Faith it 's certainty Church and all whatsoever can make us rationally Christians First the former Thesis that a Church which is fallible and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition cannot have power to bind any to believe what it saith which stood firm enough in it's own plain terms is by Mr H's art made straddle foure several ways so to dispose it to a downfal and drawn and quarter'd with unheard of tortures because it will not confess a falshood of which it was not conscious The foure distracted limbs of it which are to be anatomiz'd particularly are here put down by Mr. H. p. 15. 1. What is meant by can ly 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no. 3 By Power to bind 4. By Belief An ordinary Reader that mean't honestly would think these words very easy but that is their fault to be too easy they must be blunder'd and made harder otherwise the Reader would find no difficulty to assent to them But is not this merciless rigour The first and second ought not to have been torn from one another being the same for if the Church can lie hic nunc in such a proposition attested by her and hath no infallible certainty she doth not then it follows that she doth lie for any thing she knows The same cruelty is shown in dismembring and taking asunder that one notion of power of binding to belief which was the whole import of the controversy and in treating the notion of power to bind apart from that other of Belief By this shamefull and unconscionable craft avoiding the whole question and applying the words power to bind which now had got loose of belief to obligation to render exteriour obedience p. 16. In his paraphrase upon the words can lie he hath one passage worth all his Friends especial attention which is that after he had enumerated all the means he could imagine to secure a Church from errour he confesses Rep. p. 15. 16. that that Church is yet fallible may affirm and teach false Id est saith he it is naturally possible it may but it is not strongly probable it will Then it seems after all this adoe for any thing he hath said it is still indifferently and equally probable that it does erre though not strongly probable it will that is the Faith of that Church and all that adhere to it hang in equal scales whether it be true or no and this solid piece of sense is produced by Dr. H. in a discourse about a Churche's power to bind to belief Take notice Reader how shufflingly the Doctor behaves himself in saying it is naturally possible that Church may erre providing himself an evasion beforehand in the word naturally against any encounter This man hath forsworn ever being positive with his Reader Ask him whether supernaturally or by means of supernatural assistance it be or be not impossible she should erre if not what mean't the word naturally since he knows we hold the Church is supernaturally infallible if it be to what end after reckoning up also there supernatural means of confirming her against erring did he tell us in the close with an Id est that she is naturally fallible As for the Churche's knowledge whether it erre or no he sayes Rep. p. 16. it may signify no more than a full persuasion and belief cui non subest dubium where in they neither doubt nor apprehend reason of doubting that what they define is truth though for knowledge properly so called or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum it may not have attained or pretend to have attained to it Where first to omit his declining a positive answer whether the Church be Infallible or no with may not have attained c. 't is the most perfect piece of perniciousness that ever was crouded into so narrow a room destroying at once all Faith and Ground of Faith and making the Church no certainer of her Faith than Iews Turks and Heathens of theirs For if the Churche's knowledge whether she erreor no means that she hath onely a full persuasion cui non subest dubium Turks Heathens and Iews have that are fully persuaded and have no doubt but their Faith is true and so Mr. H. hath brought Christianity to a fair pass by his Rule of Faith Again passion and vice can breed in men a full persuasion that an errour is true such a persuasion as shall take away actual doubt nay the more passion a man is in the less still he doubts Is this a congruous explication of a Church's knowledge which leaves it indifferent whether she be rationally and virtuously or passionately and viciously thus fully persuaded Lastly if the Churche's knowledge whether she erre or no be onely an assurance cui potest subesse falsum why may not there subesse dubium that is if it may be false why may not she doubt of it or indeed why should not she be bound to doubt of it Falshood in things concerning Eternity is a dangerous rock and ought to breed caution which goes ever accompany'd with doubt where the security is not perfect now how can the knowledge that it may be otherwise found a secutity that the thing is so that is is not otherwise or what hinders her from doubting if she sees she may be wrong If Mr. H. reply that the Church was surprised or had not so much wit as to raise the difficulty then indeed she may thank her circumstances or her doltishness not her Grounds for that her groundless assurance For otherwise should she call her thoughs to account and ask herself this question Why do I assent with a full persuasion to such a thing which I see may be otherwise she must if she understand the nature of a soul morality acknowledge it was passion vice not evidence of reason which made her assent and consequently hold her self obliged to retract that assent and leave off to hold any point of Christian doctrine nay even that Christ is God without a perpetual doubt and fear that the contrary may be true So perfectly weak and fundamentally pestilent is this explication of a Churches knowledge by a persuasion cui non subest dubium yet cui potest subesse falsâ—m that is of which the person doubts not although the thing in it self may be false But this keeps perfect decorum with his former assertion that it is not strongly that is it may be equally probable that a Church will erre though she have used all means imaginable to secure her self from errour After his false explication of Power to bind already spoken of which he turns to an obligation to act and obey exteriourly he addes as if the obligation to Belief were collateral
onely to our purpose that there may farther be meant by those words he ought to have said there must be onely meant by them à general obligation to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed But how a Church uncertain of what herself holds can duly propose Grounds able to convince rationally or that a confest and known fallibility in the proposer is sufficient in it self to make such a ground he shall never show unless he can show reason to be non-sense and non-sense Reason though he can talk finely and shuffle about in general terms I am confident the Reader will think that the former words in that proposition are very ill handled by Dr. H. but the last word Believing comes not off so well Death is too good for it nothing but annihilation and total destroying it's essence must be it's merciless doom His explication of it comes to this Reply p. 16. that they who are so wise as to search must consent according to the Grounds proposed as most palpable that is they must believe themselves I ask are they bound or no to believe the Church when they have but probability to the contrary if not where is their submission of their judgements where is their believing the Church unless they be willing to submit their private opinions to her Authority how can they be said to believe her at all Is there any easier deference than to for goe a probability upon her contrary affirmation Or if he say they may have rigorous and convincing Evidence against her that is if he grant Infallible Certainty in Faith can be had then why should Dr. H. take this from the Church and give it to a private fellow As yet therefore we have found Belief by his explication to signify in reality no belief of the Church at all let us proceed He tells us next that when the person is not competent to search Grounds then Repl. p. 17. Belief may signify a believing so far as not to disbelieve Was ever such an explication heard of Good Reader if thou beest Dr. H's Friend trust nothing but thine own eyes in such an incredible piece of fledge heresy and Atheism in the shell let nothing but thine own eyes satisfy there that it is possible for one who hath the title of Doctor of Divinity to print and set forth a position so full fraught with absurdities of the seventeens Let us count them by the poll First if the measure of that belief to which the Church can oblige the ruder sort be onely to believe so far as not to disbelieve then in reality she can oblige them to believe nothing at all but onely to remain in an indifferency of Scepticism for he who doubts of all things or halts between two opinions believes so far as not to disbelieve since not holding the contrary to any thing he positively disbelieves nothing Secondly an Heathen who never heard of Christ believes so far as not to disbelieve for how can he be said to disbelieve a thing of which he never heard So that Dr. H's Church can onely oblige her Subjects to be as good believers or Christians as Heathens are but to proceed Thirdly to believe so far as not to disbelive signifies in plain terms to belive nothing at all for he puts it not to signify a believing so far as to believe but a believing so far as not disbelieve that is he exacts no belief for the point provided there be no disbelief against it So that as before p. 16. he made the knowledge of a Church that she defin'd truly to be no more than a not doubting of it which can proceed from ignorance as well as knowledge so here Belief must pretended capable to bear the sense of not-believing provided that the not-believing be not a positive disbelief of this or belief of the contrary Fourthly I would gladly know of Mr. H. why the same Authority which has power to bind one not to disbelieve may not also oblige to believe if she can propose evident and convincing reasons to her Children that she cannot erre then she may without dispute oblige me to the latter for such motives are in their own nature able to convince the understanding and unless she can propose such by what ground can she withhold me from disbelieving or holding the contrary Vnless perhaps the Doctor pretend to show that the probable reasons for her fallibility and Infallibility be so justly and equally poiz'd in the Sceptick ballance that none can say whether the pound of rushes in the one end or the pound of strawes in the other be the weightier ware or better worth three-halfepence These explications with their wise appurtenances thus premised Dr. H. knits them up in these two propositions p. 17. 1. A Congregation that is fallible and hath no knowledge or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum that it is not deceived in any particular proposition may yet have authority to make decisions and require inferiours so far to acquiesce to their determinations as not to disquiet the peace of the Church with their contrary opinions that is no to believe at all but onely to behave themselves quietly 2. But for any absolute Infallible belief or consent That no Church which is not it self absolutely infallible and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible hath power to require of any Where the first proposition is certainly false if the subject be certain that that is false which his fallible Church proposes to him and that it is a point which concerns salvation not to erre in and senseless if as Dr. H. seems to suppose it may be the inferiours assent is no way required for how can a speculative point be decided authoritatively if the inferiour be no way bound to assent but to acquiesce onely The second proposition is the granting that very point against which he pretended to make head to the resolution also of which his former discourse hath not in the least sort contributed So perfectly needless and to no imaginable purpose but onely to shuffle words together on any fashion is his elaborate non-sense Note Reader that in his first proposition he puts not Belief at all which yet is the onely matter in question but in the latter onely nor dares he trust it abroad there but well guarded with absolute and Infallible But I fear not his big words Let him know our tenet is that our Church hath power to oblige not to an hovering conditional belief but to an absolute and infallible one nor do we fear to affirm that the Faithful in the Catholick Church have infallible certainty of their Faith though they cannot explicate it or give a Logical account of their own thoughts It were not amiss here to let the Reader see upon this occasion what Dr. H's manner of answering is of which his whole book is ful but one example once put will make the Reader easily find it's fellows The question
is whether obligation to belief can be without Infallibility He quibbles upon each word as if he would do strange things against it and makes up by his explications this worthy proposition that a Church which it is p. 16. l. 1. not strongly probable that it will erre and p. 16. l. 8 properly speaking knows not whether it erre or no may p. 16. l. 16. yet oblige men to obedience and them that cannot search to believe not positively and indeed as the Reader must conceive but onely so far as not to disbelieve that is that her self knowing nothing properly or positively can by consequence oblige none to believe any thing properly and positively but to obey onely Is not this a fine upshot of such an elaborate answer And when he hath done this then he addes another proposition Parag 22. which confesses all that he stumbled at before and which onely was in question Let us put a parallel to his manner of discourse Suppose one should affirm that a whole Apple is bigger than a half and maintain it because Totum est majus parte A whole is greater then a part Dr. H's manner of answering would work upon it in this sort First the word whole may signify a whole Mole hill or a whole Mountain a whole web of cloath or a whole thred Next the word majus or greater may signify greater in longitude in latitudine or in profundity Lastly the word pars may signify part of a Mole hill part of a Mountain part of a web c. This done he would joyn these together which are not the things in question as he did in the former of his two proposition and tell us that speaking of a Mole-hill and a Mountain 't is certain that part of a Mountain may not be greater than a whole Mole-hill and so likewise part of the web of cloth to wit a whole thred may not be greater in longitude than the whole web Then coming to the question adde a parallel to his second proposition and conclude in these words But as for an Apple and it's part speaking of the quantity belonging to a body that is profundity or bulk 't is granted that the whole Apple is greater than the half one which might as well have been granted at first and have excused all this trifling Sect. 12. What the Power of binding to Beleef consists in and how rationally our Church how irrationally the Protestants pretend to such a Power together with a Godly and edifying Sermon of Mr. H's according to his Doctrine when he disputes against us IT were not amiss here to clear this important point the better to lay open in brief what is this Power in the Church to bind her Sons to beleef and in what it consists For I doubt not but Mr. H. wonders and many judicious Protestant Readers may perhaps remain sollicitous to imagine how and in what manner there can be any power to force cōmand the Soul to an interiour beleef or assent But I hope this short hint will make them see that this power is founded upon free rationall Grounds not a tyrannical bare command of any authority whatsoever It is confest then that as a body cannot be moved locally but after a corporeal quantitative manner as is it's nature so neither can a soul which is of it's nature rational be moved to assent but by resons and motives whether true or false and were it moved otherwise it were not moved as a thing of such a nature that is it would not be a rational soul Now since pure Reason consists in inferring a connexion of two things or notions because of their joynt connexion with a third in the premisses and this also an immediate one for a connexion which is not immediate is in reality none at all at least to the Vnderstanding since in that case it sees it not it follows that the Soul is never moved out of pure Reason to any assent but by such an immediate connexion seen that is by Evidence and consequently all assents which have not this originall spring from impurity of passion that is from vice Wherefore since it is impossible God who is Essential Sanctity should command a vice it follows that as on the one side either he has left no power to oblige to assent or if he have it must be founded in Evidence so on the other if there be any authority on earth which can evidence her Certainty of what she sayes that Authority hath power to oblige others in vertue of the said Evidence to assent to what she shall affirm that is to oblige them to beleef for this is no harder a treaty than to bind them to that to which their own nature had bound them before-hand that is to assent upon Evidence To apply this then to the point in hand The Church obliges her Children to rest and continue in her beleef by the same motive by which she could oblige them when they were out of her to assent to her doctrine so far as concerns it's having been taught by Christ and his Apostles This motive is the proposal of her own Authority or of millions and millions of Fathers in the Catholick Church all conspiring to witness that those points of doctrine things visible and most concerning were received from their Ancestours as from their and so ascending upwards as from Christ The vertue by which this Authority or incomparable multitude of witnesses claims to be a motive and to have power to convince the Vnderstanding and so oblige to assent to their word that is to beleeve is the Evidence of the treble-twisted Impossibility that this Authority either would conspire in any age to attest so notorious an untruth and so pernicious to their own and their Children's eternal bliss or that they could either erre or mistake in things so visible or even contrive a conspiracy to embrace any one errour considering the several Countreys in which they liv'd dispers't and consequently their several natures obligations inclinations interest and other manifoldly-varying circumstances or lastly if they would and could that is did attest and so introduce an errour that it should not be most visible and palpable in most undeniable and manifest circumstances to the whole world being a change of things openly-evident in manifest and universal practice before and in a matter of highest concernment These impossibilities of erring in delivering any point of Faith render that Congregation evidently infallible which sticks close to this Rule of delivering onely what she received as thus attested The Evidence of her Infallibility obliges a rational nature to assent upon such an Authority that is to beleeve and consequently her Power to oblige Beleef is as firm as this Truth that Evidence obliges the Vnderstanding to assent which is reduced into this first principle that Idem est idem sibi ipsi or that Reason is Reason since the act of Reason adhering to truth is nothing else but an
those Apostles exclusive Iurisdictions and so had then no better shift save onely to make another dumbe show of the self-same testimonies then crie them up for clear Evidences sole-sufficient proofs from Antiquitie Here the weaknes of his pretended best I mean his Irrefragable Evidence was shown to be most silly weak where upon himself modestly decries both that it's fellow Evidences of an inferior rank sayes that they are no proofs at all but things spoken in agreement Nor let him say that in his Reply where he called them such clear evidences proofs he mean't they were onely sufficient proofs that those Apostles both founded the Church at Rome This was never in question between us but granted by both sides Neither did Schism Disarm'd ever challenge him to prove this but that they founded that Church with exclusive Iurisdiction over Iews Gentiles Now then since in his Answer to that except on p. 48. l. 34. 35. he refers to the said place in his Reply he must mean there that they are sole-sufficient proofs clear Evidences to prove exclusive Iurisdiction of the one over Iews at Rome the other over Gentiles unles he will confesse himself an open manifest prevaricatour from the whole Question Thirdly since he puts down his own thesis in these words that each of them at Rome erected and managed a Church S. Peter of Iews S. Paul of Gentiles and then immediately subjoyned his proofs in this form So saith Irenaeus c. it is impossible to imagin other but that these testimonies were produced to prove the immediate foregoing thesis Fourthly by denying these to be proofs that S. Peter was at Rome over Iews S. Paul over Gentiles he denies by consequence that he hath produced any proof at all for that fancie of his except his owne blush-proof confident expression The same as evident at Rome since in the 9th parag the proper place to prove that point there is nothing at all sound but those testimonies denied by him here to be proofs and his own now recited words Though I must confesse towards the latter end of the 10th parag he hath a very expresse proof in these words of S. Peter's being over the Iews at Rome we make no Question he must mean over Iews onely for otherwise it opposes not us who hold him our selves to have been over both Iews Gentiles there So that he carries the whole question between us by saying 't is evident and himself makes no question of it relying finally upon nothing but these confident raw affirmations of his own since he denies all the testimonies he produces to be proofs of the point Lastly seeing he sayes that these testimonies are spoken onely in agreement with some other thing and they had no imaginable relation to a farre-of-afore-going place of Scripture as appears by my first note are most necessarily manifestly related to prove the exclusive thesis it self as is evident by my second let us examin a litle nearer Dr. H's reach of reason and strength of Logick What mean these words that they are not produced for proofs but in agreement I ask have they any influence or efficacitie at all upon the conclusion or thing they are brought for or no if they have they are proofs if not they are indifferent If any thing follow out of them they infer or prove it if nothing what do they there Either they are for the point then they ground a deduction to establish it and are argumēts proofs in it's behalf or else they are against it are still proofs though for the contrary or lastly they are in themselves indifferent that is neither for it nor against it and then the first chapter of Genesis would have served his turn aswell as these neutrall testimonies yet Dr. H. takes it ill here that I should offer to make any incoherence appear in his discours who never in his life knew what it was to make any notions cohere at all save onely in a loose Sermonary way which the least puffe of declamatory aire would counterbuffe and dissipate to nothing But the Hydra head of this Irrefragable Evidence starts up with a numerous recruit in the form of questions Answer p. 49. l. vlt. Is not the Pope's Seal saith Dr. H. an Evidence that Paul aswell as Peter had the planting the Church of Rome I answer grant it what follows hence this could have been done by their promiscuous endeavours And is not that agreable to Peter's preaching the Iews and Paul's to the Gentiles when they met in a City where were multitudes of both I answer you must mean to Iews onely for 't is our tenet that each preach't to both and then you have been often challēged that you have not brought one syllable of proof for it but your owne word onely Nor is their founding the Church agreable even to your owne words in any other sence then as agreable signifies indifferent or not contrary to it since the founding a Church signifies onely the thing done in common not the particular manner of doing it either promiscuously or exclusively which is all our question but is equally appliable to both or rather indeed sounding onely a common endeavour in doing it 't is rather inclinable to a promiscuous sence nay the force of the word the Church which is to be understood of God's Church at Rome evdently gives us to understand that there was but one Church not two for otherwise he was bound to say the Churches not the Church It follows immediately after his former question And was not that the importance of the agreement Gal. 2. 9. I answer there was no agreement there to any such purpose The giving the right hand of fellowship was to acknowledge S. Paul a fellow-Apostle and his doctrine sincere the applying themselves some to Iews others to Gentiles was a pure sequell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Circumcision to which S. Peter lent at that time his speciall endeavours signified the countrey of Iudea not the Iews in dispersion all which hath been manifested most particularly heretofore Sect. 6. much lesse is it imported there as Dr. H. after his openly-falsifying manner pretends here that when they met in a City where were multitudes of both they should carry themselves thus thus there being no talk there of either Cities or multitudes which he tells us here the agreement there imported and then cites immediately for it Gal. 2. 9. without the words But he proceeds And is not that an Argument that Peter was not the universall Pastor but that the Gentiles were S. Paul's Province as the Iews S. Peter's Not a jott good Dr. your premisses are no stronger then your bare saying which makes your inference thence weaker then water Your conciet of Provinces the ground-work of all your pitifull dicourse was shown to be a groūdles fiction Nor were there such would it make for your purpose unles they were exclusive nor
expressely put down in my words now repeated by him self to wit that S. Peter had in a peculiar manner the Holy Ghost and the necessary connexion of this with his higher Authority expressly disclaim'd in the place even now cited Thirdly after he had repeated my whole discourse he subjoyn's immediately here was one honest word the perhaps As if our Saviour's words out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and those others of the Scripture that S. Peter converted three thousand by his first Sermon were all dishonest words But since I intended onely to give the Dr. some satisfaction of which knowing his humor I was not certain why was it not honester to expresse my self ambiguously then to cry a loud Certainy surely no doubt unquestionably irrefragably as Dr. H. does all over before his Testimonies whereas all is obscure uncertain falsified not a word in them sounding to the purpose as hath been shown all over this book It may be the Reader may accound Dr. H. the greater wit for using such confident and loud-crying expressions when there is so litle wooll but I hope he will thinke S. W. the honester man for speaking withim compasse Fourthly he sayes that the Dr. meaning himself may not be satisfy'd thence that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner to which he addes of his own falsifying invention or was designed head of the Apostles as if I had pretended this either as equivalent or necessarily consequent out of the former whereas he knows I absoluty disclaimed against him any such pretence This done without having afforded owne word of answer or sence he bids us farewell in these words I shall answer it no further then by repeating Good night good Dr. But to let the Reader see how much stronger my perhaps is than the Drs surely I will briefly put doun the import of this late proof ad hominem and 't is this that since out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks 't is probable that S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in his heart more abundantly or in a higher degree since he first exprest it 's interiour motions by speaking and speaking soe vigorously and powerfully Now then since in Mr. H's Grounds the receiving the holy Ghost seald the Commissions of the Apostles and finally performed the promise of their ruling and presiding in the Church whence he contended also that all had this promise equally performed that is according to him had equally the Holy Ghost lest one should exceed anoâ—her in Iurisdiction it follows unavoidably ad hominem it against him that if be probable S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in an higher degree it is probable likewise that he had a higher rule and presidencie in the Church performed to him The argument bearing this sence who sees not 't is Dr. H's task to let us knowe why this so early and vigorous pouring forth argued not a fuller measure of the Holy Ghost within what does he He calumniates me to bring this as a clâ—ar evidence putting the words clear evidence in other letters as if thay had bene mine falsifies my known pretence twice calls the word perhaps the one honest words says the Dr. may not be satisfie'd by the reason alledged that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner and then in stead of telling us why he may not be satisfie'd immediately concluding that he shall not answer it further than by repeating it Thus Dr. H's reason like some sorry creature taken tardy in a tale first mutters and stammers as if it would say something or were hand-bound with some bad excuse but seing it could make no coherence at length very honestly hands down it's head and sayes iust nothing The fourth proposition is And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost which he tells us here was sure no distinct argument of his But why it should not be as good and sole suffiâ—ient a proof as this that the fire was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he pedantizes it sate on every one of them which he called Answ p. 68. l. 3. an argument of somevalidity I had no ground in the world to imagin both of them equally impugning our tenet that is not at all For wee equally grant that each single Apostle had power giuen him to bind and loose or Authority in the Church which he without any ground will have signified by the division of this fire as wee do that they were all filled with the Holy Ghost The fifth and last proposition immediately follows the former and is this and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all that is all had equally the Holy Ghost and this is pretended as deduced out of the fourth saying that they were all full of it Schism Disarm p. 98. showd the weaknes of this arguing from fulnes to equality by the instances of our Saviour Barnabas who are both said in Scripture to be full of the Holy Ghost as also of the saints in heaven being full of glory though there were an inequality between them in those respects and by the parallell ridiculousnes of the plow man's silly argument who concluded alleggs equall and that none had more meat in it than another because all were full To take of these exceptions and strengthen his feeble argument the Dr. offers nothing though he braggs at the end of the Section that he hath attended me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely he tells us here p. 69 gentily that he is not concern'd to doubt but that they which are full of the Holy Ghost may have it unequally if by unequally be meant the inequality of divine endowments How he is concern'd to doubt it shall be seen presently in the meane time let us reflect on his other words and ask him what is meant by the Holy Ghosts abiding in the Souls of the faithfull or by what other way he imagins him to be there than by divine endowmeÌ„ts onely I hope he thinks not that the Holy Ghost is hypostatically united to them or incarnate in them An inequality then of divine endowments is all the inequa'ity which can be imagin'd in this matter and thefore if any inequality prejudice Dr. H's tenet he is concern'd to avoid this Now how much it concerns Dr. H's circumstances to avoid an inequality of the Holy Ghosts being in the Apostles is as plain as it is that it concerns him to say any thing to the question and not talk onely in the aire He is about to impugn S. Peter's higher Authority by the performance of the promise of Authority and Commission made finally as he thinks by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them wherefore unles he prove that the Holy Ghost descended equally upon each he can never argue hence against the inequality of S. Peter's Authority pretended by us and so it avalis him nothing He saw this in his book of Schism where he
used these words They were all fill'd with the Holy Ghost and so this promise equally performed to all But being shown the infinite weaknes of his arguing from fulnes to equality he shuffles about neither positively standing to his pretended proofby going about to make it good nor yet granting or denying any thing positively or giving any ground to fix upon any word he says but telling us first in a pretty phrase that he is not concerned to doubt of the consistance of fulnes and inequality of the Holy Ghost if it bee mean't of the inequality of divine endowments and then when he should telle us the other part of his distinction and of what other inequality besides that of endowments and graces the Holy Ghost can be said to be in the Apostles founding Commission and so concerning him to impugn and deny he shufflingly ends thus Our question being onely of power or Commission to Authority and dignity in the Church and every one having that sealed to him by the Holy Ghost descent upon every one there is no remaining difficulty in the matter Where first he sayes the question is of power and dignity whereas indeed it is of the equality or inequality of this dignity not of the dignity it self since none denyes but that each Apostle had power in the Church but that the rest had equall power to S. Peter Secondly he never tells us in what manner of the Holy Ghosts inexistence besides that of divine indowments this Authority was founded Thirdly he instances onely against us that every Apostle had power so tacitely calumniating our tenet again and leaves out the word eqâ—ally which could onely contradict and impugn it Fourthly that this coming of the Holy Ghost gave CoÌ„mission and Authority is onely his owne worâ—s and proved from his own fancy And lastly when he hath used all these most miserable evasions he concludes that there is no remaining difficulty in this mattâ—â— when as he hath not touch't the difficulty at all but avoided it with as many pitifull shift's as a crafty insincerity could suggest to an errour harden'd Soul Sect. 6. Our Argument from the Text Tues Petrus urged his arts to avoid the least mentioning it much lesse impugning it's force which hee calls evacuating it With what sleights hee prevaricates from it to the Apocalyps His skill in Architecture and miserably-weak arguing to cure his bad quiboling Dr. H. of Schism p. 89. 90. alledged some Testimonies out of the fathers affirming that the power of binding was conferred on all the Apostles that the Church is built upon Bishops that all in S. Peter received the Keyes of the Kingdomio of Heaven that Episcopacy is the presidency of the Apostles Now since Dr. H. pretends to impugn our tenet by these and these infert onely that more Bishops have the power of the Keyes besides S. Peter it follows necessarily that he counterfeihed our tenet to be that none had this power but S. Peter onely Hence Schism Disarm'd charged this either insincere or silly manner of discoursing upon him as a pittifull ingnorance or els as malicious to pretend by objecting these that wee build not the Church upon Bishops in the plurall nor allow any Authority to them but to the Pope onely Hee replies Answ p 69. that 't is apparent those words inject not the least suspition of that I answer 't is true indeed for it was not a suspition they injected as he phrases it but plain and open evidence see of Schism p 89. l. 28. 9. where after the testimony had told us that the Church is built upon Bishops the Dr. addes within a parenthesis in the plurall so placing the particular energie and force of that place in the plurality of Bishops founding the Church See again p. 90. l. 11. 12. c. S. Basil calls Episcopacy the presidency of the Apostles the very same addes the Dr. that Christ bestowd upon all and not onely on one of them Yet as long as Dr. H. can deny it and say with a gentile confidence that 't is apparent his words did not inject the least suspition of that words shall lose their signification and his Readers if he can compasse it shall be fool'd to deny their eye sight As for the Testimonies themselves there is not a word in them expressing that this power was in like manner entrusted to every single Apostle as well as to S. Peter which yet he sayes p. 90. l. 16. 17. c. if by as well he mean's equally as he must if he intend to impugn our tenet And the other sence which Answ p. 70. l. 2. 3. he relies on that from the Donation to S Peter all Episcopal power which in the Church flows and in which he puts force against our tenet it as much favours and proves it as the being the fountain and source of all honour and Magistracy in a Commonwealth argues that that person from whom these flow is highest in dignity and supreme in command in the same common wealth After this he catches at an expression of mine saying that the former Testimonies rather made for us which moderate words though I hope the later end of my former paragraph hath sufficiently iustify'd them yet wee must answer the impertinent carpings of our Adversary else the weak man will be apt to think that the shadow he catch't at is most substantiall and solid My word 's in relation to the said Testimonies were these Nay rather they make for us for the Church being founded on Apostles and Bishops prejudices not S. Peter to be the cheefest and if so then the Church is built most chiefly on S. Peter which is all wâ—e Catholicks say Now my discourse stands thus If so that is if S. Peter be the cheefest then the Church is built more chiefly upon him and I made account as I lately shew'd that those Testimonies rather made S. Peter the chiefest but this peece of willfull insincerity first makes my if so relate to if it prejudices not c. and disfigures my discourse by making me say if it prejudices not S. Peter to be the chiefest then the Church is built chiefly upon him and that I inferr from Testimonies not preiudicing that the thing is true Next he calumniates me most grossely and manifestly Answ p. 70. l. 35. 36. by making me bring this for a clear Evidence on my side whereas my words Schism Dism p. 99. are onely Nay rather thâ—y make for us which are so far from pretending a clear evidence from them that they neither expresse the least reliance on them not say positively that they make for us at all He shall not catch mee calling toyes Evidences as is his constant guize yet to render his calumny more visible he prints the words clear evidence in a different letter so that the honest Reader would easily take them to be my words Then when he hath done hee grows suddainly witty anâ— insults over me without mercy calling mee an
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
Phrases to his former calumny Next hee says that as for his self hee never raised himself by any insinuations I know my L d you are a Saint but the point is can you clear your self from calumny and prove that those Bishops whom otherwise you calumniate ever used such insinuations Hee was never hee saies parasiticall pentioner to any man nor much frequented any man's table You are still more Saint then formerly my L d But can you prove that those Bishops whom otherwise you calumniate are parasites or was it ever heard of or pretended that they sit at the Pope's table Hee adds that if his own table bee not so good as it hath been yet contentment a good conscience is a continuall feast Much good may it do you my L d fall to and eat heartily cannot you fare well hold your tongue but you must amongst your dainties slander your Neighbours men better then your self by calling them parasites Episcopelles the Pope's creatures hungry c. Or if you do can you expect less but that it shall be laid in your dish to sauce your dainties But the point is how hee proves these worthy persons to bee hungry parasiticall pentioners which unles hee does hee yeelds himself to bee a malitious calumniator Now his proof of it is contained in those words whether those Bishops were not his hungry parasiticall pentioners they knew best who know most Well argued my L d there 's none can overthrow such a proof because it is impossible to know where to take hold of it Or if any can bee taken 't is this that the Bp. of Derry knows better then all the world besides As for his pretence of his good conscience and to free himself from being a Parasite I would entreat his Lordship to examin his conscience truly whether hee does not get his living by preaching that doctrine which hee puts in his books the which how many notorious falsities contradictions tergiversations they have in them may bee judged by this present work Now if hee does let him consider whether any like parasitism can bee found as to hazard to carry men to damnation by taking away the highest principle that can correct them and bring all faith and Ground of faith to uncertainty dispute meerly to get his own bread for your other actions my L d I neither know what you do nor think it handsom to enquire In the close hee pretends to satisfy an exception of mine found in Schism Disarm'd 'T was this that hee quoted a testimony from Gerson against himself which showed that the Greeks acknowledg'd the Pope's Authority by their departing from the then Pope as Gerson sayes with these words wee acknowledge thy power wee cannot satisfy your covetousnes live by your selves Hee replies endeavours to show that by Power in that place is mean't not Authority nor iust power but might Whereas First the very opposition of Power acknowledged to covetousnes which they could not satisfy argues that their sullen departure proceeded from their sticking at the latter not the former which was there acknowledg'd Now if might were signify'd by the word Power in that place the sence of the whole would stand thus wee separate not for want of acknowledging thy might but for want of power to satisfy thy covetousnes which is as good as non-sence For if hee had might to force them what sence is there to say wee depart because wee cannot satisfy your avarice when departing could not save them whereas in the other sence it runs very currently wee separate not for de fault of acknowledging thy Authority or iust power but because however this be iust yet it is impossible wee should satisfy your covetousnes Secondly what might or power except that of Spirituall Iurisdiction the Pope can bee pretended to have then had over the Greeks appears not It was mean't therefore of no such might but of a rightfulnes of power Thirdly whereas hee sayes that Gerson apprehended the words in his sence cites the context for it the very proof hee brings for him is against him Gersons position according to the Bp. is this that men ought not generally to be bound to the positive determinations of Pope's to hold beleeve one the same form of Government in things that do not immediately concern the truth of our faith and the Gospell After which testimony the Bp. addes these words From thence hee proceedeth to set down some different customes of the Greek Latin Churches both which hee doth iustify citing S. Austin to prove that in all such things the custome of the country is to bee observed And amongst the rest of the differences this was one that the Creek Church paid not such subsidies duties as the Gallican Church did Thus far the Bishop Where it is manifest that the lawfulnes of resisting the Pope's determinations being in order to the not paying undue subsidies Taxes the discourse there relates to the no obligation of satisfying covetousnes and touches not at all the point of power or might as hee will have it Let us take then Gersons sence in the former and mine of iust power in the latter and the discourse stands thus that though men acknowledge the rightfull power of Pope's yet they ought not generally be bound to their positive determinations in things not of faith but belonging onely to the severall forms of Government customes in severall countries as paying subsidies duties c. And pertinently to the same sence the Greeks might bee imagined as indeed they did to answer Wee acknowledge thy power or cannot deny your rightfull Authority but esteem not our selves bound to obey your determinations importing such covetous demands contrary to the custome and Priviledges of our Church wherefore wee think our selves excused not to meddle with you at all Fourthly the Bp. sayes that it seems the Pope would have exacted those subsidies duties of the Grecians and that there upon they separated from him Which countenances all I said formerly implies more strongly my sence towit that it was there upon as the Bp. confesses that is upon their denying subsidies not upon their denying the rightfulnes of his power as coming under another a cheaper notion that they separated Fifthly the very demanding subsidies had there not been some preacknowledg'd power to Ground countenance such a demand seems incredibile had required a more positive Answer then wee cannot satisfy your covetousnes and rather this you have nothing at all to do with us nor the least Superiority to Ground the pretence of paying you any thing at all Whereas this answer rather sayes wee ow you indeed subjection but not such a subjection as engages us to satisfy your encroaching demands Lastly hee sayes Gerson hence concludes that upon this consideration they might proceed to the reformation of the french Churches and the Liberties thereof notwithstanding the contradiction which perhaps some of the Court of
the Question p. 39 69 70 71 74. and indeed almost over all the Book False pretence of a silly Argument as put by his Adversary whereas he feigned it himself p. 438 439. Falsification objected by Dr. H. cleared most evidently from p. 459 to p. 468. Falsifying his Adversaries manner of Expression wilfully to accuse him of a Falsification p. 464. 465. G. GEneral Councels now morally impossible and when probable to be had according to Dr. H. p. 141. Their Authority doubted of by him p. 138. Grounds concluding the whole Controversie p. 36 to 55. I. IGnorance in Logick p. 76 135 137 138 139 157. 158. 281. twice 376 384. twice 424. Ignorance in his Accidence shewn by ten several Instances p. 84. to p 90. Ignorance of the signification of the common School-terms in telling us the Pope is not a Summum Genus p. 159. Affected Ignorance of common sense in impugning a Name or Title instead of a Thing p. 164 165 166. in arguing from Fulness to Equality p. 261. 262. in concluding from either side of the Contradiction p. 304. 305. in deducing many consequences from perfectly unconcerning Premises p. 305. 306. 307. in building upon the reconcilement of contradictory Testimonies ere he knows or goes about to prove them true p. 325. 326. in expecting the like from his Adversary p. 364. 365. in arguing from Plurality to Equality p. 429. Ignorance how the Holy Ghost is in the Faithful p. 429 430 Miserable Ignorance in Dogmatizing upon the Mystical sense of Testimonies p. 417. 418 419 443. 444. Ignorance of the way of interpreting Scripture p. 187. 188. 189 190. 278. 279. Ignorance of the distinction between a Title and an Argument p. 176. between an Interpreter and a Grammarian p. 187. between a Parenthesis and a Comma p. 194. between a Parenthesis and a Comma p. 194. between Samaritans and Gentiles p 308. affected Ignorance of our Tenet p. 340. 341. 354. 369. 370. 385. 386. our Proofs p. 264. of his being the Opponent I the Defendant p. 249. Pitiful ignorance in not knowing the nature of a Proof p. 338. Most nonsensical Ignorance p. 401 402. Incertainty of Faith unable to ground a rational zeal p 14 15. Dr. H's Churches absolute incertainty of her faith avowed by himself p. 110. 111. Incertainty of faith how absurd and disedifying if brought into practice or put in a Sermon p. 125 126. Infallibility of our Church how held by us p. 97 98 No Church without Infallibity p. 98 99. No Power to binde to Belief without Infallibility ib. Also p. 108 109. Denial of infallibility pernicious to all Faith p. 123. K. MR. Knots Position vindicated p. 96. 97. 98 99. also p. 103. 104. M. MIstaking willfully every line of my Introduction p. 55 56 57 58. c. to 69 his other Mistakes sprung from wilfullness or weakness are too many to be reckoned up This one instance will abundantly suffice to inform the Reader what he may expect in his answering the rest and more difficult part of the Book Motives of Union in our Church p. 128. O. Omitting to answer to most concerning points p. 95 145 312 313. four times 329 330. other four times 381 382 383. Omitting to reply to my Answers or Exceptions and to strengthen his own weak Arguments p. 157 173 174 117 158 329 330. six times 425 426 thrice 429 445 446 447. twice 447 448. twice Omitting to mention those words in my Epistle to the Reader which solely imported p. 31 32. To answer the true import of my introduction p. 65 66. To answer whether his Reasons be onely probable or no p. 90 91. To oppose our true Evidence though he pretends it p. 175. To answer his Adversaries challenge that he had not one word in his many Testimonies to prove his main point but what himself put in of his own head p. 203. 204. Omitting to shew one testimony which confirmed his own We know but instead of doing so cavilling and railing at his Adversary p. 302 303. Omitting his Adversaries chief words and thence taking occasion to cavill against the rest p. 278. Omitting to clear himself of his falsifying Scripture p. 307 308. and of falsifying the Apostolical Constitutions p. 319 320 c. Omitting to reply to the Text of S. Mat. urged against him p. 394 also to two important Paragraphs of Schism Dis p 406 Omitting to cite the place or even the Book of three authors whereof those which could be found are expresly against him p. 414 to 421. Omitting our argument from Tu es Petrus though pretending he puts it p. 435 436 Reasons why the Disarmer omitted that part of Dr. H's Book which himself acknowledges unnecessary p. 452 453 c. Opponents part belongs to the Protestants Defendants to us p. 47 48 76 77 274. P. PAtriarchy of the Bishop of Rome mistaken for Metropolitical power p. 145. It s extent weakly impugned by four Testimonies which not so much as mention it p. 146. 147 by Rufinus 151 152 153. Rather justifiedly the Nicene Canon pretended to oppose it p. 149 150. Acknowledged by the Greeks our Adversaries to extend to all the West p. 155 156. Power of binding to Belief what it consists in p. 118 119 That our Church rationally claims this Power but that none else can p. 120 121 122. Possession not to be disturbed without sufficient motives p. 38 This of the Popes in England not to be rejected upon less reasons than rigorously evident that it was usurpt p 40 41 42. Possession of Catholicks justly pretendable to have some from Christ and so may be it self a Title but that of Protestants cann ot p. 49 So the advantages of ours the disadvantages of their Possession p. 129 130. Again most amply p 178. 179. Theirs not truly named a Possession p 180 181. Prevarication from his own most expres words the whole tenour of his Discourse the main scope of his most substantiall Chapter and lastly from the whole Question p 202 to 207. From performing a most advantageous challenge accepted by himself p 345 346. Other Prevarications p. 108 109 110 112 185 377 383 384 391 436 and in many other places too numerus to be noted Proofs brought by Protestants against our ground of Faith arrive not to a Probability p. 44 45 46 Dr. H's Proofs which he formerly call'd Evidences metamorphos'd now into Branches of Accordance Agreeances and Fancies and all deny'd by himself to be Proofs except one p. 360 361 362. That one found to be empty and ill-treated p. 362 363 364. R. REspect for mine Adversaries avowed Ep. to the Reader Also p. 18 19 472. 473. S. Schisms Nature and Definition p. 70. Schisms Divisions as put by Dr. H. in his Defence wanting all the principall sorts of Schism objected p 136. to p. 144. T. TEstimonies bâ—ought by Dr. H. against himself p 149 162 171 232 234 235. 238 239 300 171 324 thrice 368 433. Testimonies impertinent to the purpose four from Appeals
the said Rule of faith which brings faith to an uncertainty that is to a nullity or no obligation of holding any thing to bee of faith Yet this former Rule of faith the first Reformers renounc't when they renounced the Pope's Headship recommended by that Rule Sixthly the matter of fact not onely charges you to have rejected the Rules of Vnity in faith and Government in the Church you left and by consequence since both then and now you acknowledge her a true Church broke Church Communion but it is also equally evident that your Grounds since have left the Church no Rule of either but have substituted opinion in stead of faith or obscurity of Grammaticall quibbling in stead of Evidence of Authority and Anarchy in stead of Government For the Rule of faith if the former Church was so easy and certain a method of coming to Christ's law that none that had reason could bee either ignorant or doubtfull of it what easier than Children to beleeve as they were taught and practice as they were shownd What more impossible than for fathers to conspire to either errour or malice in teaching their Children what was most evident to them by daily practice of their whole lives to have been their immediately foregoing fathers doctrine and was most important to their and their Children's endles bliss or misery And what more evident than that they who proceed upon this principle as Catholikes do will alwaies continue and ever did to deliver embrace what was held formerly that is to conserve true faith Now in stead of this though the Protestants will tell us sometimes upon occasion that they hold to Tradition and at present beleeve their immediate forefathers yet if wee goe backward to King H. the 8th's time their chain of immediate delivery is interrupted and at an end the Reformation which they own broke that and shows their recourse to iâ— a false hearted pretence ours goes on still Whether run they then finding themselves at a loss here for an easy open and certain method of faith Why they turn your wits a woolgathering into a wildernes of words in the Scriptures ask them for a certain method to know the true sence of it they 'l tell you 't is plain or that you need no more but a Grammar and a dictionary to find out a faith nay less and that common people who neither understand what Grammar nor dictionary means may find it there though our eyes testify that all the world is together by the ears about understanding the sence of it Ask them for a certain interpreter perhaps sometimes they will answer you faintly that the generall Councils and fathers are one that is you must run over Libraries ere you can rationally embrace any faith at all and if you bee so sincere to your nature reason as to look for certainty which books are legitimate fathers which not which Councils generall authentick and to bee beleeved which not you are engag'd again to study all the School-disputes Controversies which concern those questions And if you repine at the endles laboriousnes of the task the insecurity of the method and the uncertainty of the issue and urge them for some other certainer shorter and plainer way of finding faith they will reply at length and confess as their best Champions Chillingworth and Faulkland do very candidly that there is no certainty of faith but probability onely which signifies that no man can rationally bee a Christian or have any obligation to beleeve any thing since it is both most irrationall and impossible there should bee any obligâ—tion to assent upon a probability And thus Reader thou se est what pass they bring faith and it's Vnity to to wit to a perfect nullity and totall ruin Next as for Government let us see whether they have left any Vnity of that in God's Church That which was held for God's Church by them while they continued with us were those Churches onely in Communion with the see of Rome the Vnity of Government in this Church was evident and known to all in what it consisted to wit in the common acknowledment of the Bishop of Rome as it's Head Since they left that mother they have got new Brothers and sisters whom before they accounted Bastards and Aliens so that God's Church now according to them is made up of Greeks Lutherans Huguenots perhaps Socinians Presbyterians Adamites Quakers c. For they give no Ground nor have any certain Rule of faith to discern which are of it which not But wee will pitch upon their acknowledg'd favourites First the Church of England holds the King the Head of their Church Next the Huguenots whom they own for dear Brothers and part of God's Church hold neither King nor yet Bishop but the Presbyteâ—y onely strange Vnity which stands in terms of contradiction Thirdly the Papists are accounted by them lest they should spoil their own Mission part of God's Church too and these acknowledge noe Head but the Pope Fourthly the Lutherans are a part of their kind hearted Church and amongst them for the most part each parish-Minister is Head of his Church or Parish without any subordination to any higher Ecclesiasticall Governour Lastly the Greek Church is held by them another part and it acknowledges no Head but the Patriarch I omit those sects who own no Government at all Is not this now a brave Vnity where there are five disparate forms of Government which stand aloof and at arms end with one another without any commonty to unite or connect them Let them not toy it now as they use and tell us of an union of charity our discourse is about an Vnity of Government either then let him show that God's Church as cast in this mold has an Vnity within the limits and notion of Government thaâ— is any commonty to subscribe to some one sort of Government either acknowledg'd to have been instituted by Christ or agreed on by common coÌ„sent of those in this new-fashion'd Church or else let him confess that this Church thus patch't up has no Vnity in Government at all Wee will do the Bishop a greater favour and give him leave to set aside the french Church and the rest and onely reflect upon the form of Government they substituted to that which they rejected to wit that the King or temporall power should bee supreme in Ecclesiasticall Affairs Bee it so then and that each particular pretended Church in the world were thus govern'd wee see that they of England under their King would make one Church they of Holland under their Hogen Moghen Magistrates another France under it's King a third and so all the rest of the countries in the world Many Churches wee see here indeed in those Grounds and many distinct independent Governours but where is there any Vnity of Government for the whole where is there any supreme Governour or Governours to whom all are bound to submit and conform themselves in the
common concerns of the Church Or without this how is it possible there should bee any Vnity of Government or a Church that is a thing connected united or made one by Order or by Vnity of Government The Church is God's Family can that bee calld a Family where mutually independent persons live in severall rooms of the house that is are many families without any Master or Mistress of the house or some person or persons higher than the rest by subordination to whom they become united or made one The Church is a City whose Vnity is in it self can that bee calld a City where each Master of a family is supreme that is where there are an hundred distinct supremes which stand aloof from one another without any Colligation of themselves under the notion of Governed by which means those many otherwise wholes become now parts and make up one whole which is done by submitting to some superiour Magistrate or Magistrates The Church is a Christian Common-wealth can there bee a Common-wealth which can bèe calld one if every City and town have a particular supreme Governour of it's own without owing deference to any superiour or superiours Does not common sence inform us that in this cause each City is a particular that is one compleat self bounded Common-wealth that is that those many Cities are more ones that is many CoÌ„mon-wealths Wherefore either show us some one standing ordinary form of Magistracy or Government to which all Christendome ought to submit and some Magistrate or Magistrates Governour or Governours to whom they owe a constant obedience which is impossible in your Grounds or else acknowledge plainly that you have left no Vnity of Government in God's Church at all but have unravell'd all the frame and disannull'd all the Being of a Church which consisted essentially in Order and made that parts of it have no more connexion or Vnity than a rope of sand Yet as long as these pittifull shufflers can but tell the abused Reader in generall terms that they acknowledge the discipline left by Christ and his Apostles they make account their adherents will renounce both their eyes and common sence and bee content to follow hood-wintk't after the empty tinkling sound of these hollow and nothing signifying phrases Perhaps the Bp. will reply that a generall Council is acknowledg'd by them as of obligatory Authority and that therefore there is yet a means left for Vnity of Government in the whole Church Vpon which answer the good Protestant Reader thinks them humble and reasonable men But this is indeed the greatest mockery that can bee invented For first they give us no certain Rule to know which is a generall Council which not that is who are to bee call'd to that Council who not for once taking away a certain Rule of faith there is no certainty who are Hereticks that is men not to bee call'd to a Council as to sit in it and vote who good Catholiks that is to bee call'd thither to sit and vote there Next generall Councils being onely call'd upon extremities if the Churche's Vnity in Government consist onely in them it follows that the Church hath actually no Vnity of Government but just at that pinch when a generall Council is to bee call'd that is it is never a Church but at that happy time onely when it is most unhappy But the greatest piece of foolery is that they having renounc't an actuall standing Authority pretend to show their goodnes a readines to submit to the Authority of a generall Council which themselves will acknowledge with the next breath impossible to bee had that is they profess themselves very humbly and heartily ready though they have renounc't one Government yet to submit to another which can never bee and so is never likely to trouble or controll them Is not this a piece of hollow hearted humility Yet that such Councils as they will daign to call generall are held by them impossible Dr. H. tells us Reply p. 30. in those words generall Councils are now morally impossible to bee had the Christian world being under so many Empires and divided into so many CoÌ„munions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should bee regularly assembled Here Reader thou seest all nâ—y discourse asserted to wit that God's Church as they have form'd it is so divided into disparate parts that as there is no Vnity of Government in it now for if there were there would bee also a means to assemble a generall Council so it is impossible there should bee any for the future according to their Grounds till some one temporall Governour come to Lord it ovâ—r the whole or greatest part of the Christian world which in all likelihood will bee never Consider again their candour they have renounc't the former notion of God's Church and his Authority whose proper office it was to call a generall Council of that whole Church as hee did often and then profess a willingnes to submit to such a Council or a Representative of their new notion'd Church but with the next breath lament alas that such a generall Council or Representative cannot possibly bee had after themselves had taken order to hinder all means of having it and so they are free and need obey no body How much better and stronger were it argued thus that since it is most irrationall and unbeseeming God's Providence that his Church should bee destitute of a means to remedy her extremities that is of means to gather a generall Council and that there was a means to doe this before you rejected the Pope's Authority and by your own Confession no possibility of it since that therefore you have renounced the right notion of a Church and the right Government of that Church This then is our totall charge against you that you have broke the Vnity of the former Church and not of the Court onely as you trifle it which you were in by renouncing those Principles in which consisted her Vnity both in Faith and Government and to which Principles the whole Church you broke from consented Thus far the matter of fact evidences Nor is it less evident that you have substituted no certain Rule of faith nor any certain or particular form of Government which can ground an Vnity to your new fashion'd Church in either respect but that you have turn'd Evidence of Authority the onely certain Rule and Root of faith into a drowsy probability and by consequence faith thus grounded into Opinion as likewise that you have turn'd the former Government of the Church into a perfect Anarchy there being no colligation or Vnity of the whole together ty any by of Government and that had not God's mercy been above your malice you had made the Church our Hierusalem which is built as a City at Vnity with it self that is which hath an Vnity of Government an heap of stones without connexion without order and consequently without being which consisted