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
he very putting the Errour on the Churche's side takes away all obligation to believe her and by consequence justifyes all erroneous consciences Thus is the Wind-mill finish't at Dr. H's proper cost and charges although he sayes he contributed not the least stone or timber so truly liberal noble he is that after such profuseness he will not own nor acknowledge his bounty to his very Adversaries Next to these faults which Dr. H. hath committed in pleading for a weak conscience follows his sin of omission I mean his neglect to answer my seventeenth eighteenth pages which obliged him to speak out and say either I or no to two points which are horrible Bull-beggers to him wheresoever he meets them The first is whether all assent of the Vnderstanding which comes not from perfect and demonstrative Evidence springs not from passion and vice The second whether he and his Friends have such Evidence that our Church erred in delivering as of Faith that the Pope as Successour of S. Peter was Head of the Church These two points I made account were the two main hinges on which that door turns which must shut them out of or keep them in the Church and therefore expected not that he should produce his Evidence here but that he should have given some answer either affirmative or negative to them But Grounds are very perillous edged tooles to meddle with and cut the throat of errour at one slash which costs much hacking and hewing when a Controversy is managed by debating particularities Again the nature of Grounds is to entrench so near upon the first principles and their termes are for the most part so unquestionably evident that they leave no elbow-room for a shuffler to bestir his mock-reason in which in particulars not so capable of scientifical proofs especially in testimony-skirmishe seldom or never want And therefore Dr. H. who is of that Generation of Controvertists and very prudent in it dit wisely omit to meddle with these points though in that place he had ample occasion to treat of them But to proceed Mr. Knot had affirm'd that we may forsake the Churche's Communion in case she be fallible and subject to errour Dr. H. inferred hence of Schism p. 20. that it was lawfull if this were true to forsake Communion of all but Angels and Saints and God in heaven his reason was because onely they were infallible and impeccable To maintain the infallible certainty of Faith against this man who would bring all to probability I gave some instances to let him understand that Infallibility in men on earth was not so impossible a matter as he fancies Glancing also at his addition of Impeccable since the controversy there being about our tenet which is Infallibility the mingling it with Impeccability was a tacite calumny intimating to the weaker Readers that this was also out tenet or part of it To these Dr H. pretends an answer but so full of contradictions both to himself and common sense that it would be tedious to enumerate them It were not amiss first to put down our plain tenet which as far as it concerns this present controversy is this That since it is unworthy the Wisdom and Goodness of Almighty God who sent his Son to save mankind not to first lay and then leave efficacious means for that end which means considering the nature of mankind to which they were to be apply'd are no other than efficacious motives efficacioully proposed to make him forsake temporary and fleeting Goods and embrace Intellectual Eternal ones his onely Felicity with which the affections to the former are inconsistent again since these motives cannot be efficaciously proposed to the Vniversality of mankind unless Faith the doctrine of them be certain hence to ascertain Faith Christ gave testimony to his doctrine by doing such prodigious miracles as no man did before and when he left us unless he had left also some means to propose certainly those motives to future mankind his coming had been in a manner voyd for asmuch as concern'd posterity and the rational and convincing certainty of his doctrine and by consequence the efficacy of it had been terminated in those few which himself by his preaching and miracles converted Hence it was necessary the Apostles should also ascertain his and their doctrine by the extraordinary testification of miracles The multitudes of believers encreasing the ordinary and common working of miracles began to cease and controversies beginning to rise between those who pretended to the Law of Christ the consent of Christians in all Nations was now sufficient to convince that that was Christ's doctrine and true which the Apostles Successours told them they had received from the Apostles themselves For it was not possible so many dispers't in several Nations should conspire to a palpablely in a visible practicall and known thing cōcerning their eternal Interest They had nothing else now to doe but to attest what they had received Christ being unanimously acknowledg'd a perfect Law giver there needed no new revelations to patch and mend his noway-defective doctrine The Company of Believers multiplying daily and spreading this attestation encreased still and grew incomparable stronger and the impossibility of either voluntarily lying or involuntarily mistaking became every day greater and greater In this universal delivery from hand to hand called Tradition or to avoid equivocation Oral Tradition we place the impossibility of the Churche's conspiring to erre in attesting things most palpable and most important which we call her Infallibility Vpon this we receive God's written word hence we hold our Faith infallibly-certain that is so true as it cannot but be true as far as concerns that Christ his Apostles taught such doctrine hence lastly to come nearer home we hold for certain and of Faith that S. Peter is Chief of the Apostles and the Pope his Successour and that the renouncers of his Authority are Hereticks and Schismaticks since this sole-certain Rule of all Faith Oral Tradition now shown to be infallible recommended it to us as delivered from immediate Fore-fathers as from theirs and so upwards time out of mind which Rule the first Reformers in this point most manifestly renounced when they renounced that Authority For they could not have been the first Reformers had they found it delivered by Oral Tradition By this is shown first in what we place the Infallibility of the Church not in the bare words of a few particular men but in the manifest and ample attestation of such a multitude as cannot possibly conspire to tell a lie to wit in attesting onely that Christ's doctrine which is of a most concerning nature and of a most visible quality was taught to a world of Children by a world of Fore-fathers This clear and short explication of our tenet premised let us see how weakly Dr. H. hath proceeded in this dangerous point His first weakness is that he thinks Mr. Knot 's saying very strange that we might
thus granted all that was pretended to wit their Infallibleness in those two sorts of actions because he would be sure to say something to every thing though to never so litle purpose as his custome is he addes first that they were not infallible in all sorts of things What man in his wits ever pretended it or imagin'd but that the Apostles might count mony wrong or be mistaken in knowing what a clock it was Was ever such frivolous stuff heard of Next he tells us that as they were men on earth they were fallible What a mysterious piece of sence is here He hath already confuted himself by granting that when they were men on earth they were Infallible which was solely pretended now that he may seem to impugn us he tacitely counterfeits us to hold that their Infallibility proceeds as from it's formal reason not from the assistance of the holy Ghost but from their being men on earth and by consequence that each man on earth is infallible since à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia Thirdly whereas my words which Answ p. 34. hee makes head against are onely of those two said acts in which hee at length grants they were infallibly assisted by the confirmation of the holy Ghost he rakes up all the Apostles faults and failings before the holy Ghosts descent and thinks to elude my words and delude his Reader by these more than childish evasions His tenth weakness is that he extends p. 34. by a voluntary mistake because he would still have something to say Mr. Knot 's words that the Church was infallible and not subject to errour to signify that it shall undoubtedly be preserved from falling into errour and that not onely from this or that sort of errour but indefinitely from all As if the controversy between Mr. Knot and him were not onely about Infallibility in delivering matters of Faith Is not this a sincere man who would make persons wiser than himself seem so imprudent as to think the Church Infallible in judging whether the Circle can be squared whether Sprights walk in S. Faiths under Paul's or whether a goose-py or a shoulder of mutton be the better dish By Dr. H's Logick it must be out tenet that the Holy Ghost whispers the Church in the ear to speak truth in all these and millions of other such unnecessary fooleries and all this absurdity must light upon us onely from this because Mr. Knot and S. W. said the Church is infallible and not subject to errour when the discourse was about matters of Faith necessary for the salvation of mankind The like non sense shuts up his eleventh Paragraph as the result of the discourse before it so again in the twelfth and fourteenth the same mistaking weakness is that which gives all the strength to the discourse and it is worth the Readers notice that he never impugnes our tenet of Infallibility but by such kind of forgery His eleventh weakness is his shuffling in his eleventh Paragraph where after he had told us very truly that the Apostles had agreed on all things needful for the Church deposited them in each Church as their Rule of Faiâ—h when he drew near the point in question to wit wheâ—her the depositary or Church was infallible and could not erre in delivering the right depositum or whether she might perhaps deliver a wrong one he flies off and tells us Ans p. 35. if they would adhere to that there needed no sitperadded Infallibility to things unnecessary Did ever Mr. Knot or I talk of Infallibility in things unnecessary or is this the point disputed between Catholicks and Protestants Good Mr. H. speak out and tell us whether the depositary can mistake or no in delivering needfull points if she can where is the certainty of our Faith if she cannot then some company of men on earth are infallible in delivering things necessary for Salvation which is the point in Controversy His twelfth weakness is that in going about to show how he can be infallibly certain of the books of Scripture he unawares recurres to our Rule of Faith though he never intends to stand to it affirming here Answ p. 36. that the testimony of others founded in their several sensations being faithfully conveyed to us by undeniable Tradition are as unquestionably certain as if we had seen them ourselves that is as he intimates before l. 3. infallible instancing that of this sort is the tradition of the universal primitive Church c. Where first if this be true I have gained my intent which was to show against him that some company of men might be infallible in attesting things of Faith though not in all things as he calumniates us to hold Next if the Tradition of the Primitive Church be infallible for the reason given I ask why the succeeding Church should not enjoy the same priviledge since the doctrine of Fore fathers being visible practical and so founded in the several sensations of the children they can by witnessing transmit it to their posterity asun questionably truly as if the Grand-children had seen what was held and practised in the Grand-fathers time Nay unless he grant this he hath done nothing that is he hath not shown that he hath any certainty of the books of Scripture for if the Tradition in the primitive Church onely be infallible I may be mistaken in believing the succeeding Tradition in this point since that may deceive me for any thing I know if the after Tradition also was Infallible then we conquer without dispute in this and all other Controversies about Faith since we were found adhering to this universal testification of all our Forefathers whereas they renounc't it when they renounced the Authority it recommended and ran to other Grounds private interpretations of Scripture and odde scraps of misunderstood testimonies and still are glad to sow together these thin figge-leaves to cover the nakedness of their deformed Schism His thirteenth weakness is that in testifying as above-said he sayes the Church is not considered as a society of believers indowed with any inerrable priviledge but as a number of witnesses c. As if they did not first believe it themselves ere they could conspire to deliver it to their Children for true or as if the same persons may both be Beleevers in respect of their Progenitours and Witnesses in respect of their posterity No wiser is his assertion that nothing is here contested from the Authority of their judgments For if he means the points which they contest are not founded on their judgments 't is most certainly true since speaking of points of Faith they are truths revealed by God not productions of mens heads But if he means their judgments went not along with their contestations but while they testified to have received them from their Ancestours they spake contrary to their judgment then they all conspired to tell a ly to their posterity in things of Faith which is impossible
your actuall reiecting that actuall Authority is notorious to the whole world and confest by your selves The second that you did it upon uncertain Grounds your self when you are prest to it will confess also for I presume you dare not pretend to rigorous demonstration Both because your self would bee the first Protestant that ever pretended it as also because your best Champions grant your faith it's Grounds but probable And should you pitch upon some one best reason or testimony pretended to demonstrate your point wee should quickly make an end of the Controversy by showing it short of concluding evidently as you well know which makes you alwaies either disclaime or decline that pretence never pitching upon any one pretended conuincing or demonstrative reason which you dare stand to but hudling together many in a diffused Discourse hoping that an accumulation of may-bee will persuade vulgar and half witted understandings that your tenet is certain must bee Thirdly the Bp. asks us who must put the case or state the question telling us that if a Protestant do it it will not bee so undeniably evident I answer let the least child put it let the whole world put it let themselves put it Do not all these grant hold that K. H. deny'd the Pope's Supremacy Does not all the world see that the pretended Church of England stands now otherwise in order to the Church of Rome than it did in H. the 7ths dayes Does not the Bps. of Schism c. 7. par 2. fellow-fencer Dr. H. confess in expresse terms And first for the matter of fact it is acknowledg'd that in the Reign of K. H. the 8th the Papall power in Ecclesiasticall affairs was both by Acts of Convocation of the Clergy by statutes or Acts of Parliament cast out of this Kingdome Was this power it self thus cast out before that is was it not in actuall force till and at this time and is not this time extoll'd as that in which the Reformation in this point began Wee beg then nothing gratis but begin our process upon truth acknowledg'd by the whole world Our case puts nothing but this undeniable and evident matter of fact whence wee conclude them criminally-Schismaticall unles their Exceptions against this Authority's right bee such as in their owne nature oblige the understanding to assent that this Authority was vsurpt onely which can iustify such a breach So that the Bishop first omits to mention the one half of that on which wee build our charge to wit the nature of their Exceptions and when hee hath done wilfully mistakes and mispresents the other persuading the unwary Reader that the case wee put is involu'd in ambiguities and may bee stated variously whereas 't is placed in as open a manifestation as the sun at noonday and acknowledg'd universally In neither of which the Bishop hath approved himself too honest a man Now let us see what hee answers to the case it self It was put down Schism Disarm p. 307. thus that in the beginning of H. the 8ths reign the Church of England agreed with that of Rome and all the rest of her Communion in two points which were then and are now the bonds of vnity betwixt all her Members One concerning faith the other Government For faith her Rule was that the Doctrines which had been inherited from their forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles were solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them to bee changed For Government her Principle was that Christ had made S. Peter first or chief or Prince of his Apostles who was to bee the first Mover under him in the Church after his departure out of this world c. and that the Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Peter inherited from him this priuiledge in respect of the successours of the rest of the Apostles and actually exercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began It is noe lesse evident that in the reigne of Ed the 6th Q. Elizabeth and her successours neither the former Rule of Vnity of faith nor this second of Vnity of Government which is held by the first have had any power in that Congregation which the Protestants call the English Church This is our objection against you c. This is our case ioyntly put by us and by the whole world which the Bp. calls an Engine and pretends to take a view of it But never did good man look soe asquint upon a thing which hee was concern'd to view as my L d of Deity does at the position of this plain case First hee answers that wee would obtrude upon them the Church of Rome and it's dependents for the Catholike Church Whereas wee neither urge any such thing in that place nor so much as mention there the word Catholik as is to bee seen in my words put down here by himself p. 3. but onely charge them that the Church of England formerly agreed with the Church of Rome in these two a foresaid Principles which afterwards they renounced In stead of answering positiuely to which or replying I or noe the fearfull Bishop starts a side to this needles disgression Next hee tells us what degree of respect they owe now to the Church of Rome Whereas the question is not what they owe now but what they did or acted then that is whether or no they reiected those two Principles of faith and Government in which formerly they consented with her To this the wary Bp. saies nothing After these weak evasions hee tells us that the Court of Rome had excluded two third parts of the Catholick Church from their Communion that the world is greater than the City and so runs on with his own wise sayings of the same strain to the end of the parag Whereas the present circumstances inuite him onely to confess or deny what they did and whether they renounced those two Principles of Vnity or no not to stand railing thus unseasonably upon his own head what our Church did shee shall clear herself when due circumstances require such a discourse Again whenas wee object that they thus broke from all those which held Communion with the Church of Rome hee falls to talk against the Court of Rome as if all those particular Churches which held Communion with the see of Rome had well approved of nor ever abhominated their breach from those two a foresaid Principles but the Court of Rome onely Did ever man look thus awry upon a point which hee aimed to reply to or did ever Hocus-pocus strive with more nimble sleights to divert his spectatour's eyes from what hee was about than the Bp. does to draw of his Readers from the point in hand In a word all that can bee gather'd from him in order to this matter consists in these words this pretended separation by which hee seems to intimate his deniall of any
separation made in the a foresaid Principles but it is so shameles and open an vntruth that hee dares not own it in express terms nor yet such is his shuffling will hee confess the contrary I know his party sometimes endeavours to evade by saying that our Church caused the breach by excommunicating them but ask whether they broke from and renounced that Government and so deserved excommunication ere they were thus excommunicated by it and their own conscience with the whole world will answer they did It is that former breach of theirs then and reiection of that Government which denominates them Schismaticks till they can render sufficient that is evident Grounds why they reiected it for otherwise nothing is more weak than to imagine that Governours should not declare themselves publikely and solemnly against the renouncers of their Authority or that a King should not procâ—ame for Rebells and incapable of any priuiledges from the commonwealth those persons who already had disacknowledg'd his Right and obstinately broken it's laws Either show us then that our Excommunication separated you from your former tenets to wit from holding those a foresaid Principles of Vnity in faith and Government or else graÌ„t that your selves actually separated from them both that is from our Church This my Lord is the separation which uniustify'd makes a criminall Schism Excommunication is onely the punishment due to the antecedent crime Order which consists in Government being essentiall to a Church if intended to continue it follows that since Christ intended his Church should continue hee constituted the order of the Church otherwise hee had not constituted a Church since a Church cannot bee without that which is essentiall to a Church Wherefore seing that which Christ instituted is of faith it follows that order of Government is of faith and so must bee recommended to us by the same Rule that other points of faith are Hence speaking of the two Principles one of Vnity in faith the other of Vnity in Government I affirmed that the truth of the latter is included in the former and hath it's Evidence from it Must not hee now bee very quarelsome who can wrangle with such an innocent and plain truth The iealous Bishop first alledges 't is done to gain the more opportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Pope's into the ancient discipline of the Church Not a iot my Lord the standing to this Rule to wit the immediate delivery of fathers to sons attestation renders it impossible for an usurpation to enter Nor can you or any else instance that any usurpation either in secular or Ecclesiastical Government ever came in prerending that tenour or show that it ever could as long as men adhered to that method It must bee either upon wit explications of word in the laws or of ambiguous peeces of Antiquity not upon this immediate delivery from hand to hand in which wee place our Rule of faith that encroachments are built Had wee then a mind to obtrude usurpations upon you wee had recurr'd to testimony-proofs the Protestants onely method where with hath a large field to maintain a probability-skirmish of the absurdest positions imaginable not to this Rule of soe vast a multitude of eye-witnesses of visible things from age to age Which Rule is as impossible to bee crooked as it is for a world of fathers to conspire to tell a world of Children this ly that ten years ago they held and practised what themselves and all the world besides knew they did not His second exception is far more groundlesly quarrelsom 'T is against my making two Principles one in doctrine the other in discipline whereas euery Child sees that doctrine discipline or faith and Government make manifestly two distinet ranks or Orders the one relating immediately to information of the understanding or speculative holding the other to action But his reasons why they should bee but one are pretty because frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora It is in vain to make two rules where one will serve By which maxim rigorously misunderstood as 't is by him one may dispute against the making severall laws and severall Commandments with the like Logick and say all the treating them with distinction is vain because this one Commandment to do well or to do no ill includes all the rest Again hee imagins because the truth of one depends on the other therefore they ought not to bee treated distinctly as if it were vain or needles to deduce consequences or as if Mathematicians ought not to conclude any thing but hover still in the generall Principles of Euclid without making any progresse farther because the truth of the consequences depends on those Principles Are these men fit to write Controversies who cannot or will not write common sence After hee had been thus frivolously backward hee adds that hee readily admits both my first second Rule reduced into one in this subsequent form those doctrines and that discipline which wee inherited from our forefathers as the Legacy of Christ his Apostles ought solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them to bee changed that is substantial or essentiall See here Reader the right Protestant method which is to bring the Controversy from a determinate state to indetermination and confusion and from the particular thing to common words Wee point them out a determinate form of Government to wit that of one supreme Bishop in God's Church 't is known what it means 't is known that the acknowledgment of that Government is now and was at the time of the breach the bond of Vnity between those Churches which held that Government of which the Church of England was one 't is known they renounced this form of Government that is that which was and still is to the Church they formerly communicated with a bond of Vnity in discipline Again 't is known that wee hold the voice of the Church that is the consent of Catholick fathers immediately attesting that they received this doctrine from their forefathers infallible and that none cannot bee ignorant of what their fathers teach them bring them up in Which immediate receiving it from fathers wee call here inheritance These I say are determinate points manifesting themselves in their known particularities Now the Bishop instead of letting us know I or noe whether they broke that Principle of Vnity in discipline which 't is evident they did by renouncing the Pope's Authority or that Principle of Vnity in doctrine to wit Tradition delivery or handing down by immediate forefathers which 't is evident they did out of the very word Reformation which they own extoll Or instead of telling us what particular Rule of faith what particular form of Government they have introduc't into God's Church in room of the former He refers us to Platonick Ideas of both to bee found in Concavo Lunae wrapping them up in such generall terms as hee may bee
flat Schismaticks But if you say 't is the same you are reuinc't by the plain matter of fact nay by the most undeniable force of self-evident terms since no first Principle can bee more clear than the leaving to hold what your immediate forefathers held was not to continue to hold what was held by the same forefathers and that to disclame their doctrine and discipline was not to inherit it After hee had told us that the Church of England and the Church of Rome both maintaine this Rule of faith that is indeed a different thing but the same words hee immediately disgraces the said Rule by adding that the question onely is who have changed that doctrine or this discipline wee or they the one by substraction the other by addition Which is as much as to say the pretended Rule is noe Rule at all or else that wee do not agree in it which yet hee immediately before pretended for sure that Rule can bee no Rule to him that follows it and yet is misled as one of us must necessarily bee who according to him hold the same Rule and yet different doctrines Either then there is no Rule of faith at all or if there bee one of us must necessarily have receded from that Rule and proceeded upon another ere hee could embrace'an errour or differ from the other It being known then and acknowledg'd that wee hold now the same Rule as wee did immediately before their Reformation that is the Tradition of immediately forefathers it is evident out of the very word Reformation that they both renounced the said Rule and wee continue in it Next hee assures his Reader that the case is clear to wit that wee have changed that doctrine discipline by addition This hee proves by the wildest Topick that ever came from a rationall head Because the Apostles contracted this doctrine into a summary that is the creed and the ancient Church forbad to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession whereas wee now exact more What a piece of wit is here did ever Protestant hold that there is nothing of faith but the 12. Articles in that creed doe not they hold that the Procession of the Holy Ghost the Baptism of Infants the Sacraments c. are the Legacies of the Apostles and so of faith yet not found in that creed Is it not of faith with them that there is such a thing as God's words though it bee not in that creed How then follows it that they have changed Christ's doctrine by addition who hold more points than are in that creed of the Apostles may not wee by the same Logick accuse the Church at the time of the Nicene Council who prest the word Consubstantiall to distinguish Catholicks from Arians nay may not wee by the self-same argument charge his own Church for making pressing the profession of their 39. Articles in which are many things as hee wel knows not found nor pretended to bee found in the Apostles creed What an incomparable strain of weaknes is it then to conclude us to have changed Christ's doctrine by addition from our obliging to more points than are found in that creed whereas 't is evident and acknowledg'd that very many points were held anciently and ever which are not put there And what a self contradicting absurdity is it to alledge for a reason against us that which makes much more against their own every way overthrown Congregation It being then manifest that the Apostles creed contains not all that is of faith it follows that it was not instituted as such by them or receiv'd as such by the ancient Church Let us see then to what end it served and how it was used by them the ignorance whereof puts the Bp. upon all this absurdity which hee might partly have corrected had hee reflected on his owne words Baptismall profession It is prudence in a Church and in any Government whatever not to admit any to their Communion or suffer them to live amongst them till they have sufficient cognizāce that they are affected to them and not to their Enemies party Hence at their Baptism the solemnity which admits persons into the Church they proposed to them some such form of tenets which they therefore call'd a symboll or badge as might distinguish them from all the other sects rife at that time for some time the Apostles creed was sufficient for that and to difference a Christian from all others because at the time it was made the rest of the world was in a manner either Pagans or Iews Afterwards when other Adversaries of the Church that is Hereticks arose against points not found in that creed it was necessary upon occasion to enlarge that Profession of faith or symboll soe as to signify a detestation of or an aversion from that heresy Either then the Bp. must say that no new heresy shall or can arise against any point not found in the creed and then the Anabaptist is iustify'd and made a member of the Chimericall Geryon-Shap't Church of England or else hee must grant that the Church when such arise must make new Professions or symbolls to distinguish friends from those foes unles shee will admit promiscuously into her Bowells Adversaries for friends a thing able to destroy any Commonwealth either Ecclesiasticall or temporall This is evident out of naturall prudence yet this is that which my L d D. carps at that when new up start heresies had risen the Church should ordain such a Profession of faith and cōsisting of such points as may stop the entrance of such into the Church As then if the reformed Congregation were to baptize one now at age and so make him one of their company none can doubt but it were prudence in her had shee any Grounds to own herself to bee a Church to ask him such questions first as should manifest hee were not a Socinian Anabaptist or Papist but Protestant-like affected that is propose to him a Profession of faith larger than is that of the creed for each of those sects admits this and yet differs from the Protestant so it could not bee imprudent in our Church when new heresies arose who yet admitted the creed to propose some larger form of Profession which might discover the affection of the party lest perhaps shee might make a free denizon of her community an arrant Adversary who came in cloakt and unexamind to work her all the mischief hee could Yet this due examination before-hand the Bp. calls changing of faith by addition thus perpetually goes common sence to wrack when Protestant Drs goe about to iustify their Schism and to make the non-sence more pithy hee calls this a clear case that wee have thus offended by addition Again hee tells us to confirm this that the Generall Council of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession than the Apostles creed Which is first a very round
then hee runs on wildly and boldly challenging mee that I cannot show out of Scripture that S. Peter was at Rome that our own Authours say S. Peter might have dy'd at Antioch and the succession into his power have remain'd thâ—re c. Answers soe frivolous soe totally impertinet to the point in hand that I wonder how any man can have the patience to read such a trifler or the folly as to think him worth heeding To omitt that hee pick't these words which hee impugns here out of a paragraph following a leaf after which totally concern'd a dangerous and fundamentall point as shall presently bee seen and so it importing him to neglect it hee cull'd out and mistakingly glanc't at these few loose words which hee thought by a device of his own he could best deal with for a colour of his necessary negligence What hee adds of the Council of Chalcedon hath been answer'd an hundred times over and by mee Schism Disarm p. 109. 110. c. nor deserves any reiteration till hee urge it farther especially being soe rawly put down Onely because hee builds upon their giving equall priviledges to Constantinople without manifesting what those priviledges were wee shall take leave to think that as Rome still remain'd first in order as his late words granted and Protestants confess notwithstanding those equall priviledges so for any thing hee knows it might still remain Superiour in Iurisdiction and till hee evince that priviledges in that place mean't Iurisdiction to which the word will bee very loath hee is far from bringing it to our question or to any purpose His next task is a very substantiall and important one striking at the Rule and Root of all our faith yet by voluntary mistaking no less than every syllable of it hee quickly makes clear work with it Hee was told that wee hold our first Principle by this manifest Evidence that still the latter age could not bee ignorant of what the former believed and as long as it adhered to that method nothing could bee alter'd in it Which the wily Bp. answers by telling us that the Tradition of some particular persons or some particular Churches in particular points or opinions of an inferiour nature which are neither soe necessary to hee known nor firmly believed nor so publikely and uniuersally professed nor derived downwards from the Apostolicall age by such uninâ—or upted succession doth produce no such cerâ—aâ—nty either of Evidence or adherence Where First hee knows wee mean Tradition of all the Churches in Communion with the see of Rome that is of all who have not renounced this Rule of immediate Tradition for all who differ from her never pretended this immediâ—te delivery for those points in which they differ from her but receded from that Rule as the Apology for Tradition hath manifested indeed plain reason may inform us It being impossible and self condemning where there was an Vnity before for the beginners of a Novelty to pretend their immediate fathers had taught them that which the whole world sees they did not Now the Bp. talkes of Traditions of some particular persons or some particular Churches desirous to make his Readers believe wee rely on such a Tradition and so defective as hee expresses that is hee makes account our pretended Tradition must not bee styl'd universall unles it take in those persons and those Churche also who have formerly renounced and receded from this Rule of Tradition Which is as much as if hee had said a thing cannot bee absolutely white unles it bee black too Secondly wee speake of believing that is of points of faith but the Bp. talkes of opinions and those not concerning ones neither but as hee styles them opinions of an inferiour nature And then having by this sleight changed faith into opinion hee runs giddily forwards telling us fine things concerning questionable and controverted points of Opinions in the Schools and how hard a thing it is to know which opinion is most current c. Is not this sincerely done and strongly to the purpose Thirdly hee cants in these words So necessary to bee known I ask are they necessary or no If they bee not necessary why does hee seem to grant they are by saying onely that they are not so necessary But if they bee necessary then why does hee call them opinions onely and that too of an inferiour nature Can that bee necessary to bee held or known which hath no necessary Grounds to make it either held or known Opinions have neither Fourthly hee speaks of points not so publikeâ—y professed whereas every point of faith is publike and notorious being writ in the hearts of the faithfull by the teaching of their Parents and Pastouts sign'd by all their expressions and seal'd by their actions Nor is there any point of faith for example in which the Protestant differs from us which is not thus visible and manifesting our Church now and was then when they first broke from that doctrine of their immediate â—ncestours Fifthly hee speaks of points not universally professed that is if any heretick receding from immediate Tradition of his fathers shall start a novelty propagate it to posterity the Tradition and profession of this point in the Church must not bee said to bee universall because that heretick professes and delivers otherwise and so Socinians by the Bps argument may assist their cause and say it was not universally professed that Christ was God because the Arians anciently profest otherwise The like service it would do an Arian or any other Heretick to alledge as the Bp. does that the Christian world must bee vnited otherwise the Tradition is not certain for as long as that Heretick has a mind to call himself and his friends Christians which hee will ever do so long hee may cheaply cavill against the Authority of the whole Church But empty words shall not serve the Bps turn Let him either show us some more certain Rules to know who are Christians who not that is some certainer Rule of faith than is the immediate practicall delivery of a world of fathers to a world of sons oâ— else let him know that all those who have receded from this immediate delivery as did acknowledgd'ly the Protestants at the time of their Reformation as also the Greeks Arians c. in those points of faith in which they differ from us are not truly but improperly call'd Christians neither can they claim any share in Tradition or expect to bee accounted fellow-deliverers of faith who have both formerly renounced that Rule and broach't now doctrines against it which like giddy whirlpools run crossely to that constantly-and directly flowing stream Lastly hee requires to the Evidence and certainty of Tradition that it bee derived downwards from the Apostles by such an uninterrupted succession Wee are speaking of the Rule of faith itself that is of Tradition or the deriving points of faith from the Apostles immediately from age to age or if hee pleases from
Authority deserved to bee abolish't for it's own sake as accompany'd with the sayd grievances Secondly the Bp. tells us that they seek not extirpation of the Papacy but the reducing it to the primitive constitution which is as good sence as to give a manabox on the ear and then tell him you intend not to strike him They have already totally extirpated it in England in such sort as all the world sees and acknowledges the Pope hath not the least influence upon the English Congregation over which before hee had the greatest yet they hope to bee taken for moderate men as long as they speak courteous non-sence and tell us they seek not to extirpate it Thus the Bp. wanders from the purpose but still all is my fault who would not grant him his two conditions Thirdly hee tells us that Monarchy and Episcopacy are of divine Institution so is not saith hee a Papall soueraignty of Iurisdiction That Monarchy should bee of divine Institution I much wonder surely the Venetians and Hollanders are in a sad case then who thus continue without relenting to break one of God's Commandments especially their Brethren the Hollanders who renounced the Monarchicall Government of the King of Spain But the learned Bp. hath some text or other in Scripture which hee interprets onely according to Grammar and Dictionary-learning without ever looking into Politicks the science which concerns such points passages which would have taught him that Government was instituted for the good of the Governed and that since human affairs are subject to perpetuall mutability and change it happens that in some countries and some circumstances one form of Government is convenient in others another according as it happens to bee best for the Governed which comes to this that no particular form of Government is of divine Institution and constituted to endure ever seing the end to which all Government is directed the good of the Governed is mutable and changeable As for the next part of his third excuse that the Pope's Authority or Headship in Iurisdiction is not of divine Institution as Episcopacy is you see 't is his old trick onely his own bare saying and which is worse saying over again the very point in dispute between us Whereas the point which wee urge here is a plain matter of fact that those who first renounc't the Papall Authority held immediately before they renounc't it as firmly that it was divine Institution as the Protestants do of Episcopacy now and therefore ought to have renounc't it upon the pretended pressure of inconveniencies no more than Episcopacy ought to bee abolish't upon the like inconveniences Nay more the first Reformers ere they grew newfangled and chang'd their mind held it much more firmly for they held it a point of faith and abhorr'd all them who renounc't it as Schismaticks and Hereticks both whereas the Protestants acknowledge the Huguenots of France for Brothers who yet deny Episcopacy which the Bp. tells us upon another occasion is of divine Institution But 't is all one with the Protestants whether they renounce all Christ's Institutions or no if they do but hate Rome they are saints and Brothers The common faction against the Pope is more powerfull to unite them than the professed and obstinate rejecting Christ's ordinances is to disunite them As for his Bravado how rarely hee could iustify his Parliamentary Prelacy what weak performances it would afford were it put to triall may bee judged from his numerous and enormous contradictions in this present treatise bragg'd on by the Protestants to bee his Master peece Sect. 6. How my Lâ— of Derry states the whole question false by pretending against the plain matter of fact that they separated onely from the Court and not from the Church of Rome His Grounds of separation shown insufficient in many regards nay confest such by himself granting there was another remedy besides division That the Reformers have neither left any open and certain method of coming to Christ's faith nor any form of Government in God's Church nor by consequence any Church His weak plea for England's independency from the Council of Ephesus Five palpable contradictions cluster'd together which the Bp. calls the Protestants more Experience than their Ancestors HIs sixth section pretends to vindicate his Grounds of separation to take notice of which the Bp. is violently importunate with the Reader bidding him observe and wonder Nor can I doe any less seeing such monstrous stuff throughout this whole Section It begins we are now come to the Grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome And this is the first Monster which the Bp's pen more fruitfull of such creatures than Africk it self proposes to our observation Which if it bee not as foul and uncouth an one as errour could hatch and obstinate Schism maintain you shall pay but pence a peece to see it and say I have abus'd you too The charge against the Protestants was this manifested by undeniable matter of fact that they had rejected the acknowledgment of S. Peters and his successours the Pope's Headhip over God's Church and that they had receded from this Rule of faith that nothing is to bee adhered to as of faith but what was inherited that is immediately delivered by their forefathers as the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles That they renounced the former is manifest by the whole worlds and their own Confession That they renounced the latter is no less manifest by the same undeniable attestation and indeed out of the very word Reformation which signifies a not immediate delivery It is no less evident that the acknowledgment of the former both was at the time of the Reformation and now is the Principle of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome that is to all the Churches they themselves communicated with or were united to before they broke for 't is as visible as the sun at nonday that France Spain Portugal Italy c. consent and center in a ioynt acknowledgment of the Pope's Headship and are therefore held by Protestants Puritans and all contrary sects for Papist Countreys It is evident likewise that the acknowledgment of the latter was and is to the sayd Churches the Principle of Vnity in faith for they ever held the living voice of the Church that is the immediate Tradition or delivery of Pastours and forefathers an infallible Rule of faith wherefore ' it is unavoidably consequent that the Protestants dissenting from and disagreeing in both the sayd Principles in which these then-fellow Churches consented and agreed were and are separated from all those Churches and all that belong to those Churches And this according to the two sayd Principles Again since nothing can bee more essentiall to a Church than that which is the Rule and Root of Vnity both in faith and Government it follows that the Protestants dissenting in both and acting accordingly that is having separated according to both separated and
to lurk undiscoverable under the smooth outsde of a fair-languag'd courtesie The twitchings by the beard which he reiterates to make his Reader smile is indeed something too rude a carriage if understood in the downright sence as he seems to take it but since I spoke-it onely in an Allegery and in order to his wearing a vizard which I pluck'd off let him but acknowledge that I found him attired in such a mask to which the other words related and I am contented to be thouâ—t so unreasonably uncivil as to pluck it off so rudely Next with what Logick does he huddle together those testimonies out of Scripture for S. W's pasport to Hell unlesse he could evidence that they were particularly appliable to him Are words which in their own nature found even contumeliously so perfectly damnable that no circumstance can render them inculpable or at least venial if not necessary or convenient for the Dr. maintains the generall Thesis in such à manner as if one taken in such a flagrant fact is long ago condemned to hell and disinherited from his right to heaven p. 2. and 3. What becomes then of good S. Iohn Baptist who called the ill-prepared Iews a generation of vipers what of S. Paul who Acts 13. 8. called Elymas son of the devil full of all treaechery and deceit enemy of all justice c. What of our Saviour who called Herod Fox the prophaners of the Temple Theeves the Scribes and Pharisees Hypocrites And to come nearer our present circumstances what will become of Blessed S. Polycarp disciple to S. Iohn the Evangelist the tenderest recommender of Charity to his disciples of all the Apostles who yet meeting with an heretick who began complementally to insinuate into acquaintance with nonn agnoscis nos Do not you know us rejected his courtesy with this rude language Agnosco primogenitum Di boli yes I know thee to be the first begotten of the devil What of S. Iude who calls hereticks clouds without water autumnal trees twice dead rooted out waves of the raging sea foaming out their own confusion Lastly to come yet nearer home what shall we think of Gods Church whose custome it ever was to anathematis and curse all hereticks and of S. Paul who bids anathema even to an Angel from heaven if he should preach false doctrine I ask now are not all these expressions revileing contumelious rude and which the Doctour most resents beard-twitching language if taken in themselves Must then all this good company be deem'd detestable unrighteous excommunicate and blindly pack'd all away to hell together for revilers contumelious c. because they gave such hard language The texts alledged by Mr. H. are very generall laying about them blindly and indifferently at Friends and Foes and he allowes them here no exception at all Or if he does as I hope he wil rather then involve such persons in his uniuersall censure then the reason why he exempts these must be because the words though taken in their own indifferency without any application are most highly contumelious yet spoken to such persons as hereticks men publickly noxious the common good concernd ' made the private person's repute not considerable and so the misdesert of the persons justifying the truth of the words they sounded now a laudable and necessary zeal which in other circumstances had been contumely and inteâ—perate passion Whence followes first that I am not excommunicate or in the state of damnation for having used contumelious words since the use of them if taken simply in it self is not impious as has beenshown but for having used them against Dr. H. Vnhappy I who was not aware how sacred a person my adversary was ere I undertook to deal with him Next it follows that if Dr. H. evidence not his cause to be no heresy and himself no maintainer of it all those former harsh expressious used against hereticks are his due and without scruple of sin might be given him by S. W. who had undertaken as a Catholick writer to lay open his faultinesse Let any man but read the Doctours first chapter of Schism and take notice what harsh-sounding characters the Fathers give to that vice and then let him tell me what a publick propagatour of Schim may deserue Wherefore unlesse he makes his evidence good S. W. may also justly retort upon him the charge of contumeliousnesse since he has no where in his whole Book used towards him such rude expressions as the Dr. hath in his first chapter by his censorious self-explication of Scripture loaded upon him of detestable impious c onely Mr. Hammond calumniates in a preaching manner and out of Scripture which makes the well-couch'd contumely lesse discernable Thirdly it were very easie for S. W. using the Doctours method to gather out of Scripture all the vigorous words and severe execrations against the wicked and then by his own voluntary explication and application clap them all upon the Dr. as for example that of Curse ye Meroz c. and then say that by Meroz is meant such as Mr. H. who writes against God's Church This I say were as easie for the Disarmer But he cannot but hate that in himself which he nauseates at in another He knows very wel and hopes the world now grown wiser plainly discerns it almost as impossible certainly to demonstrate truth by clashing together meer wordish testimonies as to strike fire by the weak collision of two pieces of Wax which easily yield at every stroke and therefore makes account it is his greatest misfortune to tamper with an Adversary who trades in wares of no higher value then onely Reusner like in fragments pick'd out of severall Authours and then stitch'd together by voluntary transitions into a book What is hitherto said is onely to show that every using of language even in its own nature contumelious is fat from being a sin and therefore that S. W. may yet by God's grace hope to escape hell fire unlesse the Dr. can evidence that his cause is neither Heresie nor Schisme since if it be it remain'd very lawful for him to treat the publike propagatour of it according to his desert as has been shown But S. W. disclaims in behalf of his book any such language towards Dr. H. A contumely I conceive notes some personall and morall fault in another did I note any in him Indeed as a writer he was mine and the Churches Adversary and as such it is most irrationall I should spare him when I saw my advantage Do Duellers if their quarrell be serious use to spare their enemy and not hurt him in that place where they see him unguarded It were madnesse then to expect that where my adversary writ insincerely I should not shew him insincere where blasphemously blasphemous where weakly weak where ridiculously ridiculous Vpon such advantage offer'd I ought to have had no courtesie for him unlesse I would prevaricate from my task and betray the cause I had undertaken
truly that he was not actually and de facto under him when he had renounced his Authority and raised an Army against him He tells us moreover upon his honest word if we will believe him that the King and Bishops here had the supreme power under Christ to reiect the Pope's Authority that the Pope's power was usurp't c. and then hiding his head under these thin leaves he concludes himself perfectly safe till we make it appear that we were Governours and they faulty So that by the Doctor 's Logick a boy though undoubtedly held the son of such a Father may not be whip't by him for disobedience as long as the boy can call his mother whore and deny himself to be his Son unless the Father make it first appear that he is his Child Till you first renounced the Authority of our Supreme Governour let it be when it will you were under him and held his Children and Subjects your disobedience is most notorious and confest and that not a meer disacceptance of his commands but disallowance of his Authority yet as long as you can deny it and say the Roman-Church your then-Mother was a strumpet and had erred in Faith she may not punish nor excommunicate you without first making it appear you are her Children A solid piece of reason Observe Reader that Dr. H. in all these raw affirmations of his that not begg'd the question a jot although he be the opponent 't is his privilege to say what he will every one knows 't is his humour In a word let him either show that his reasons for renouncing that Authority are above all degrees of probability which was the proper answer or else let him confess as he must that he is evidently a Schismatick in rejecting an Authority for so many Ages acknowledg'd certain upon slight and phantastical Grounds One piece of wit I must not omit because I have heard more than one of Dr. H's Friends misled by it The Doctor affirms here Answ p. 30. l. 14. that the Pope's Authority was first cast off by Papists 'T is strange that the same men who nominate us Papists for onely acknowledging the Pop's Authority should call them also Papists who disacknowledge it But perhaps he means they were Roman-Catholicks if so then let me ask does he mean that they were of our Profession ere they renounc't it so was every one that turned Knave or Rebel an honest man and true Subject formely else he had never turn'd so but ever been so must then Knaves and Rebels impute knavery and rebellion to honest men and true Subjects and say it was they who first began those Vices or does he mean perhaps that they remain'd Catholicks after the renouncing it If his mistake be there he may right it by taking notice that such a renouncing is an Act of Schism involving heresy by corenouncing the Rule of Faith After this renouncing therefore they were Schismaticks and Hereticks not Catholicks and whatever tenets they may be pretended ro retain still were not now Faith but Opinion onely the sole certain Ground of Faith Oral Tradition being abandon'd and rejected unless the Doctor will say that they had yet Catholick Faith in them who denyed all the ground of Catholick Faith and then indeed I shall not refuse to give them leave to hold them without Ground and rank them in Dr. H's Predicament of Probablists Sect. 10. Dr. H's plea of a weak conscience common to the Prostants and any malefactour Thirteen shamefull and wilful weaknesses in answering Mr. Knot 's position that we may lawful'y forsake the Churche's Communion if she be not infallible Mr. H. begins his third Section very angrily calling mine p. 31. a perfect Romane-combate with a Wind-mil of my own erecting toward which he never contributed the least stone or timber But what if I show the Doctor that he hath contributed great mill-stones and huge logges towards the making this Wind-mill of his My affirmation was that Schism Disarm'd p. 14. he had got a new cloak for his Schism the pretence of a weak conscience citing for it his excusing words that they could not subseribe to things which their conscience tells them is false and that it is hard to say a man can lawfully subscribe in that case though the truth be on the Churche's side Hence I deduced some consequence how his doctrine excused those malefactours and their three pretended Schismaticks In answer he calls this a manifest perversion of his most innocent expressions because afterwards he sayes that such a weak-conscienc't erroneous man is in several respects crimtnous c. I reply I do not forbid him to speak contradictions for I perceive by his litle amendement he is not likely to take my friendly counsell but let us see what those places which I related to there in the Doctor gave me occasion to say and what they contributed towards this Wind-mill His first contribution is that there is nothing alledged by him where he pretends conscience in not obeying us but the very same will much better serve any malefactour so that his words may become their plea and consequently unless he gave us some distinctive sign of the goodness of his conscience above theirs his words are justly appliable to plead their cause His second is that whereas onely rigorous and convincing Evidence can excuse such a disobedience and he pretends none I ought to think his conscience erroneous and that for pleading for it he pleads for erroneous Consciences and may by the same resons plead for the other malefactours His third contribution is that since on the one side he tells us it is hard to affirm that a man in an errour may lawfully subscribe and on the other leaves no Grounds to convince him rationally for how can any man pretend to convince him or he rationally assent to be convinced by an Authority which tells him it may be mistaken this weak-conscienc'd man may consequently have a rational Ground to remain in his false opinion at least cannot be obliged to contrary belief but thanks Dr. H. heartily for pleading for his lawfull continuance in his beloved errour Or if he be scrupulous of his errour and Dr. H. afford him no perfectly-certain grounds to right it but that as he sayes here and his Grounds make good he is sure to sin which way soever he turns 't is likely Mr. H's good doctrine may make the poor fellow come straight home from the Probability-lecture take a rope hang himself This indeed were no great favour to a weak conscience His fourth contribution cap. 7. par 9. is his position of the errour in some case on the Churche's side in some places in this Chapter which very thing favours the self-conceit of every proud fellow and gives him a fine pretence to think his erroneousness lawfull in disobeying that Authority which could not oblige him in reason to believe what herself knew not but might be mistaken and erre in Nay more
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
assent rationally nor any thing to move it at all but passion disorder'd affections fear or Interest Many paradoxes seem very plausible and prety while they are drest up in involving terms which hide their deformity yet brought to Grounds and to Practice show manifestly their shame The former to wit Grounds confute them by showing them contradictory the latter that is Practice confounds them by showing them absurd How implicatory Mr. H's doctrine of no power to bind to beleef is and how inconsistent with Christian Faith hath already been manifested by bringing it to Grounds how absurd it is will quickly be discerned by reducing it into practice Let us imagin then that the Bells chime merrily to morning prayer and that the whole town rings with the fame and noise that Dr. H. reputed the most learned of all the Protestant party who quite confuted the Pope and cut off the neck of Rome at one blow in a book of Schism and has lately with a great deal of Greek lopt off and seared the Hydra-head from ever growing more in his Answer to Schism Disarm'd would give them a gallant Sermon Whereupon a great confluence of people coming together to receive edification after a dirge sung in Hopkins rime very pittifully in memory of the deceased Book of Common-prayer up steps Dr. H. repeats his Text and fals to his Harangue In which let us imagin that he exhorts them to renounce all the affections they have to all that is dear to them in this world and place them upon a future state of eternal bliss promised by Christ to all that serve him in particular let us imagin he earnestly exhorts them with the Apostle to stand fast in the Faith and to hold even an Angel from Heaven accursed if he taught the contrary nay telling them they ought to lose theirs and their Childrens whole estates and lay down a thousand lives rather than for-goe their Faith This done let us suppose him to draw towards a period and conclude according to his doctrine when he disputes against us in this manner To all this dearly beloved I exhort you earnestly in the Lord yet notwithstanding that I may speak candidly and ingenuously and tell you the plain literall truth of our tenet neither I nor the Church of England whose judgment I follow are infallibly certain of this doctrine which I bid you thus beleeve and adhere to Our p. 15. l. 37. 38. Church I confess is fallible it may affirm and teach false both in Christ's doctrine and also in p. 23. l. 38 c. c. p. 24. l. 3. saying which is true Scripture and which the true sense of it and consequently I may perhaps have told you a fine tale all this while with never a word of truth in it but comfort your selves beloved for though it may be equally and indifferently probable it erres yet it is not strongly probable that it will p. 16. l. 1. Wherefore dearly beloved Brethren have a full persuasion I beseâ—ch you as p 16 l. 6. 7. our Church hath that what she defines is the truth when she defines against the Socinians that Christ is God although p. 16. l. 8. properly speaking she hath no certainty that he is so The Governours of our Church may indeed lead you into damnable errours being not infallible in Faith yet you must obey them p. 16. l. 16. by force of the Apostl's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here the good-women are all-to-bewonder'd and bless themselves monstrously at the learned sound of the two Greek words at least p. 17. l. 3. beleeve them so far as not to disbelieve them For mistake me not beloved I mean no more than thus when I bid you stand fast in the Faith hang in suspence dear brethren hang in a pious suspence and beleeve it no improbable opinion that Christ is God and that there is such a felicity as heaven at least whatsoever you think in your heart yet p. 17. l. 25. quietly acquiesce to the determinations of our Mother the Church of England so far as not disquiet the peace of our Sion although you should perhaps see that this Church did Idolatrously erre in making a man a God and so give God's honour to a Creature yet I beseech you good brethren acquiesce very quietly peaceably and although you could evidence that she was in damnable errours and that she carried Souls quietly and peaceably to Hell for want of some to resist and oppose her yet let them goe to Hell by millions for want of true Faith still enjoy you quietly your opinion without opposing the Church though thâ—s pernicious Were not this a wise and edifying Sermon and enough to make his Auditours pluck him out of the Pulpit if they beleeved him not or if they beleeved him to return home Scepticks or Atheists Yet how perfectly chiefly in express termes partly in necessary Consequences it is his his own words have already manifestâ—d for the famous Explications lately spoken of he applies here to his Church parag 23. and his Rule of Faith must be either certain and so make all points of Faith certain and infallible truths or if it be uncertain nothing that is built upon it can be certainer than it self and by consequence Christ's God-head must be uncertain also and so there can be no power or motiue to oblige men to beleeve it more than the rest Sect. 13. The four main Advantages of the Catholick Church wilfully misrepresented The Disproportion of Dr. H's parallelling the Certainty of the Protestant's Faith to that of K H. the eighth's being King of England THe Cath. Gentl. mentioned on the by four advantages our Church had over any other viz. Antiquity Possession Persuasion of Infallibility and Pledges which Christ left to his Church for motives of Vnion Speaking of the last of these Dr. H. tells us here Repl. p. 19. it is in vain to speak of motives to return to our Communion to them who have not voluntarily separated and cannot be admitted to union but upon conditions which without dissembling and lying they cannot undergoe As for the latter part of this excuse truly if motives of union be vain things to be proposed to them to bring them to Vnion I must confess I know not what will be likely to doe it They pretend to think our doctrine erroneous our Church fallible to which therefore they deem it dissimulation and lying to subscribe what remains then to inform them right but to propose reasons and motives that that doctrine was true that Church infallible that therefore they might lawfully subscribe with a secure conscience But Dr. H. will not heare of motives or reasons for Vnion but sayes 't is in vain to speak of them that is he professes to renounce his Reason rather than forgoethe obstinacy of his Schismatical humour yet he sayes here that this evasion is necessarily the concluding this Controversy But why a probability to the contrary should be sufficient to oblige
and dependent on these general ones no effect of it at all being notorius but onely a testimony or perhaps two in a rumour-grounded History-book If the Doctor would persuade us that the Supreme Iurisdiction of Rome was then introduc't let him show effects proportionable to such a novelty of usurpation in things of highest concernment that is such effects as in all reason were likely to issue out of that cause put or otherwise rational Readers must in all reason have leave to think that he speaks against all reason And let him never hope to persuade any man that hath an ounce of brains in his head though he bring twenty testimonies more valid than this that an Vniversal Iurisdiction in highest matters could creep into the world with pantofles of matt on without discovering it self in multitudes of circumstances proportionable to its visibleness and weightiness that is let him not hope to gul men of reason with words to deny the light of their reason demonstrative Evidence Demonstrative I say for I account it as great and firm a Demonstration as any in nature that it is impossible it should come in unattended by universal and visible changes over the face of the whole Christian world which I thus show in brief The cause was put to wit a novelty in the highest degree of Government and in highest matters The matter to work on was put to wit rational Soules or men's minds because of their diverse dispositions apt to be wrought upon diversly that is to be stir'd up to diverse Thoughts to diverse Passions the result of those thoughts and diverse outward Expressions the effects of those passions and all this according to the weight and moment of the cause which was of the highest nature imaginable Lastly the cause was apply'd to the matter for it is equally impossible that an universal Government should be brough in and all not know of it as that is should at once be and not-be since it cannot be introduc't universally without signifying at least to the Subjects either by writing or other carriage that their obedience is expected This being so it is as evident and demonstrable that universal most visible and mighty commotions and changes must accompagny such a novelty of Rome's usurpation as that the effect must necessarily be when the cause is actually causing which none ever deny'd or can without denying the first principles Now add to this that the Protestant Authours themselves are in twenty minds about the times that this change came in and that their best Authours beyond exception of which I remember Doctor Whittaker is one confess in express terms that the time of the Romane Churche's change cannot easily be told and that they cannot tell by whom nor at what time the Enemy did sow the Papist's doctrine as may be seen in the Catalogue of Protestancy where they are cited adde this I say and it follows that no such visible effects of it's introducing can be shown at all and consequently that it was never introduc't Which as it immoveably strengthâ—ns our title of possession rendring it such as is not onely justly presumable but necessarily demonstrable to have come from Christ so it will also let the rational Protestant Readers see plainly what it is to which their wisest Doctors would persuade them to wit to renounce the clear solid and certain light of reason demonstrative Evidence to follow the obscure uncertain and wordish dictionary stuffe of every trifling controvertible or at best waxen-natur'd Testimony Yet the Doctor 's own words are but these that Boniface the third with much adoe obtained of Phocas the Emperour an Edict for the Primacy and Vniversal Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome See Paulus Diac. de gestis Rom. l. 18 which still is an argument that till then it had no foundation Where first is to be noted that of his own good will the Doctor puts in those words with much adoe whereas the Authour onely sayes rogante Papâ the Pope intreating it Secondly that whereas the Authour sayes Caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum in his book de gestis Longobardorum l. 4. c. 37. which Book without controversy is his and plainly sayes that the Emperour defined that the Roman Church was the Head of all Churches our Doctor dissembles this and follows a text out of de gestis Roman which book is doubted of by learned men to be none of his and by the very phrase seems to be a corruption of the other and that ut esset is put for esse it being an odd piece of Latin to say Statuit sedem Romanam ut esset caput whereas a Latinist would have said statuit sedes ut esset Wherefore 't is evident that the Doctor 's great bragging that the Story is known to all is resolv'd into the corruption of an unauthentick text Which is most evident by the words following in both places of the said Authour Quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat which bears no sense if the Decree gave the Iurisdiction but an excellent one if the decree onely defined it against the wrongful challenge of the Constantinopolitan Church Wherefore you see that the Doctors Inference which yet is an argument that til then it had no foundation is so wretched that the contrary ought to be deduced tha it is an argument the Authority which Phocas defined to be his had been his before And thus much in refutation of Dr. H's Defence of his three first Chapters SECOND PART Containing a Refute of Dr. H's first fundamental Exception against the Pope's Authority from the pretended limitation of S. Peter's Provinces Sect. 1. Dr. H's prelusory toyes answered No obligation for Catholiks to produce Evidence The infinite Advantages our true Possession hath and the perfect nullity of their vainly-pretended one together with a most rare sample of his manner of arguing Dr H. in his answer p. 38. puts a distinction of his own endeavours affirming that he had fûlly answered my fourth Section onely saying that he had answered the following ones Among these which are answered onely my sixth Section is one which he pretends to have given Satisfaction to Reply c. 3. sect 2. and 4. where not a word is found in reference to that but to my first onely of which he was pleased to make two This done he proceeds upon this mistake of his own and the Printer's mis-ciphering it to call my sixth the seventh and to be witty against me in his dry way telling the Reader as if he would let him see that S. W. could not reckon as far as eight that I have another seventh Section though both the Errata at the end corrected that small lapse of the Printer the titles of the Sections in the beginning of the book might have clear'd Mr. H's head in that point and the first Section immediately going before would have told him had not he been pleased to mistake it and divide it into two that
the following ought to be the sixth But nothing could secure S. W. from the melancholy cavilling humour of his Adversary who is so terrible that the Printer's least oversight and his own mistake must occasion a dry adnimadversion against S. W. and yet the jest is he pretends nothing but courtesy and civility and persuades many of his passionate adherents that he practices both in his writings For answer then to my first seventh Section according to Dr. H. but in reality the sixth he refers me to his Reply c. 4. sect 1 where he answers all but the ridiculous colours as he says Answ p. 38. which indeed I must say were very ridiculous as who ever reads Schism Disarm'd p. 41. or his own book p. 68. may easily see where after he had spoken of and acknowledg'd King Henry the eighth's casting out the Pope's Authority it follows in his own words thus of Schism p. 68. First they the Romanists must manifest the matter of fact that thus it was in England 2. the consequence of that fact that it were Schism supposing those Successours of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ that is we must be put first to prove a thing which himself and all the world acknowledges to wit that King H. the eighth deny'd the Pope's Supremacy next that what God bid us doe is to be done and that the Authority instituted by Christ is to be obe'yd Dr H. is therefore can-did when he acknowledges here that these passages are ridiculous very unconsonant to himself when he denyes there is the least cause or ground for it in his Tract whereas his own express words now cited manifestâ—â—â— and lastly extraordinarily reserv'd in giving no other answer than this bare denial of his own express words But being taken tardy in his Divisionary art in which it is his coÌ„mon custome to talke quodlibetically he thought it the wiser way to put up what 's past with patience than by defending it give occasion for more mirth But to come to the point That which was objected to him by me and the Cath. Gent. was this That he expected Catholicks should produce Evidences and proofs for the Pope's Authority in England which task we disclaimed to belong to us who stood upon possession and such a possession as no King can show for his Crown any more than it does to an Emperour or any long and-quietly-possest Governour to evidence to a known Rebel and actual Renouncer of his Authority that his title to the Kingdome is just ere he can either account him or punish him as rebellious In answer Dr. H. Repl. p. 44. first denies that he required in the Place there agitated that is in the beginning of his fourth Chapter of Schism any such thing of the Catholicks as to prove their pretensions â—ut his own express words of Schism p. 66. 67. check his bad memory which are these Our method now leads us to enquire impartially what evidences are producible against the Church of England whereby it may be thought liable to this guilt of Schism Whence he proceeds to examine our Evidences and to solve them which is manifestly to put himself upon the part of the Respondent the Catholick on the part of the Opponent that is to make us bring proofs and seem to renounce the claim of our so-qualify'd a possession by condescending to dispute it Whereas we are in all reason to stick to it till it be sufficiently disprov'd which cannot be done otherwise than by rigorous Evidence as hath been shown not to dispute it as a thing dubious since 't is evident we had the possession and such a possession as could give us a title This therefore we ought to plead not to relinquish this firm ground and to fall to quibble with him in wordish testimonies To omit that the evidences he produces in our name are none of ours For the onely evidence we produce when we please to oppose is the evidence of the Infallibility of Vniversal Tradition or Attestation of Fore-fathers which we build upon both for that and other points of Faith nor do we build upon Scripture at all but as interpreted by the practice of the Church and the Tradition now spoken of Wherefore since Dr. H. neither mentions produces nor solves those that is neither the certainty of Vniversal Attestation nor the testimonies of Scripture as explicable by the received doctrine of Ancestours which latter must be done by showing that the doctrine of the Church thus attested and received gives them not this explication 't is evident that he hath not so much as mention'd much less produced or solved our Evidences Our Doctors indeed as private Writers undertake sometimes ex superabundanti to discourse from Scripture upon other Grounds as Grammar History propriety of language c. to show ad hominem our advantage over the Protestants even in their own and to them the onely way but Interpretations of Scripture thus grounded are not those upon which we rely for this or any other point of our Faith So that Dr. H. by putting upon us wrong-pretended Evidences brings all the question as is custome is to a word-skirmish where he is sure men may fight like Andabatae in the dark and so he may hap to escape knocks whereas in the other way of Evident reason he is sure to meet with enough At least in that case the controversy being onely manag'd by wit and carried on his side who can be readiest in explicating and referring one place to another with other like inventions it may be his good fortune to light on such a doltish Adversary that the Doctor may make his ayre-connected discourse more plausible than the others which is all he cares for This being a defence and ground enough for his fallible that is probable Faith Dr. H. defends himself by saying p. 44. he mean't onely that Catholicks bring Christ's donation to S. Peter for an Argument of the Pope's Supremacy instancing against the Cath. Gent. in his own confession that Catholicks rely on that donation as the Foundation or cornerstone of the whole buildâ—ng By which one may see that the Doctor knows not or will not know the difference between a Title and an Argument Christ's donation to S. Peter is our title our manner of trnour by which we hold the Pope his Successour Head pastour not our argument to infer that he is so 'T is part of our Tenet and the thing which we hold upon possession to be disprov'd by them or if we see it fitting to bee prov'd by us not our argument or proof against them to maintain it or conclude it so As a title then we rely and build upon it not produce it as a proof to conclude any thing from it And indeed I wonder any man of reason should imagin we did so since if he be a Scholar he cannot but know that we see how to the Protestants the supposed proof would be as deniable and in
any shew of inference that they agreed to limit the power it self about which our controversie is because they agreed to limit the exercise of that power The fourth position which concerns the exclusivenes of their Iurisdiction from all save their own Provinces is the onely thing which can seem to advantage Mr. H. or concern our question which is about the limitation of Iurisdiction is absolutely false vterly groundles not warranted by any one testimony first invented by Mr. H's fancie pretended to be evidenced by testimonies in his book of Schism challenged by S. W. not to have a word concerning it in any one testimony there alledged to prove it not ownd constantly by Dr. H. in his Answers but absolutely prevaricated from deny'd though at the cost of so many so grosse self-contradictions attended on by a troop of absurdities as hath been shown And lastly not coming home the question neither as shall be seen hereafter for what inference is this Each Apostle was imediate overseer of his own particular Province therefore one of them was not over all the rest The place from Scripture insisted on to evidence this for Dr. H in his Answ p. 38. is of late grown jealous that his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fall short of evidences is Gal. c. 2. v. 7. 8. 9. 10. which I will first put down as I finde it in their own translation then explicate it whether with more consonancy to all circumstances then Dr. H's Exclusive Iurisdiction when they met does let the Reader judge The words in the place cited are S. Paul ' s these When they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me as the Gospel of the Circumcision was to Peter for he that wrought effectually with Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision was mighty in me towards the Gentiles And when Iames Cephas Iohn who seemed to be pillars perceived the grace which was given unto mee they gave me Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the Circumcision onely they would that we should remember the poor c. This is the place upon which Mr. H. builds his tenet of exclusive Provinces with what right let this plain connaturall explication inform the Reader Our Blessed Lord Saviour determined the conversion of his elect both of Iews Gentiles had already sent down his holy Spirit upon his Apostles in Hierusalem wher upon their zeal inciting them the place they were in giving them occasion they added by their preaching multitudes of the Iews to the new-growing Church Stil the Gentiles out of Iudea heard no more news of him than the star led Sages and some straggling preachers had told and were ignorant of his heavenly doctrine except what rumour might have variously and obscurely spread He chose therefore S. Paul both for zeal though hitherto misled naturall acquired abilities as also his being bred among the Heathens being born at Tarsus in Cilicia fit proportioned for that end To him he appeared near Damascus enlighten'd the eyes of his minde by striking blinde those of his body made him powerfully his told him his errand that he should carry his name before the Gentiles not that his comission should extend to them onely since the Commission given by Christ to each Apostle is acknowledgedly universall but that he was by God's all-ordering providence fitted chrosen designed more particularly for that end The former circumstances gave him his addiction his addiction so qualified produced great fruit all these together got him the appellation of Apostle of the Gentiles particularly such indeed but not exclusively it being otherwise evident all over the Acts that he preach't commonly earnestly to the Iews Where he was converted there he imediately began to preach so proceeded in that work till some began to suspect him his doctrine as not coming from Christ because he had not lived conver'st with Christ as the other Apostles had Vpon this he is forc't to come to Iudea to confer his doctrine with the other Apostles and receive their approbations which they found exact entire exprest by those words nihil comulerunt they in conference added nothing to me S. Paul having thus given account of his doctrine the efficacie of his preaching to the Gentiles and the Apostles finding that S. Peter was in like manner eminently particularly efficacious in converting the Iews in Iudea exprest here in the 8. v. two things ensved here upon to wit that by giving S. Paul the right hand of fellowship they acknowledged him a true Apostle or a fellow Apostle at once determined that since he thriu'd best among the Gentiles S. Peter best among the Iews the greatest harvest of which was found in Iudea S. Paul should goe â—ut of Iudea to the Gentiles take Barnabas with him S. Peter with therest remain in Judea still to preach to the Iews and this is all the busines which Mr. H. would make to be an agreement to distribute exclusive Provinces The meaning then of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Circumcision in the ninth verse to which S. Peter was to apply himself I take to be Iudea or the Iews there not those in dispersion and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles to be those out of Iudea Now if this be so then to omit all which hath been said formerly Dr. H's assigning S. Peter of Schism p. 71. onely the Apostleship of some of the Iews in dispertion by founding the exclusivenes of his Authoritie upon this place vanishes into it 's original nothing for in case any distribution of Provinces be signified here S. Peters's must be the Iews at home in Iudea not those abroad or in dispertion if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denote here onely Iudea or the Iewes in it Now the reasons for this explication of mine are first because the efficacie of S. Peter's preaching to the circumcision had been experienced with in Iudea S. Paul's over the Gentiles without Iudea consequently their severing themselves being upon this account should mean that one should stay where he had experienced such fruit that is in Iudea the other goe where he had found the like that is out of Iudea Secondly the words very well bear it since the Iews doe not live vnited in any considerable confluence save in Iudea nor the Gentiles but out of it which is the thing that gives a common denomination to a people Thirdly S. Paul's words onely they would that we should remember the poore imediately following shew plainly the meaning is that he was designed by these words to go out of Iudea therefore desired to remember the poor which were in Iudea as he accordingly did Rom. 15. v. 25. 26. But now I goe to Hierusalem to minister to the Saints for it hath pleased them of Macedonia Achaia to make a certain
follows by most absolute necessary consequence that they must be all Schismaticks and Blessed S. Peter their Ringleader But 't is no matter with him rather shall S. Peter instead of being Head of the Church be an Head of Schismaticks than Dr. H. be acknowledged a Schismatick a falsifier and not onely the Authority but also the Sanctity of that holy Apostle be sacrific'd to the Protestant interest rather than so great a Patron of theirs and so saintly a falsifier shall want an evasion to soder his crack't credit Neither let Dr. H. think to escape making S. Peter his Iewish converts Schismaticks by saying that this was a prudent managery onely Rep. p. 62. so iustifiable by the present circumstances since it is most undeniable that the breaking of all Communion with another Church is the extern Act of Schism then let him remember his own grounds layd against himself in his first Chapter of Schism p. 10. that the matter of fact onely is to be considered not the causes or motives Since eo ipso that fact is Schism nor can be iustifi'd from being such by any causes motives or circumstances what-soever Now then since the fact of breaking from all-Communion which the Gentile Church that is of Schism from it is in expresse terms imputed to S. Peter his Iewish Proselytes by Dr. H. I expect then what possible motive this Author can pretend to alledge sufficient to excuse them from Schism whose doctrine it is in the place cited that no motive or reason was sufficient to render matter of fact of this nature excusable or iustify it from being Schism nay damnable worse then sacriledge Idolatry c. as the fathers there cited by D H. avouch The summe then of this part of Dr. H's defence is that he takes no notice at all of his falsifying by adding the onely important large-senc't word All to the Scripture nor attempts to clear himself of it but instead of doing this he goes about to maintain his position counterfeited to be found there to wit that Iewish Christians withdrew from all-Communion with the Gentile ones by this argument that it was equally forbidden by Moses his law to converse with or preach to a Gentile as to eate their diet A paradox so incomparably notoriously absurd that it is at once both perfectly opposite to the law it self repugnant to innumerable examples from Scripture to the contrary the universall practice of the Synagogue injurious to the Iewish Church in it's purest times making them frequently publikely uncontrolledly break the law in a point as he saies equally forbidden as eating the Gentile diet implicatory in terms supposing once the lawfulnes of making a Proselyte impertinent to his present purpose circumstances were it granted expressely contradictory to his own words about which the present contest was raised derogating from those ancient Primitive Christians all charity nay even in the least and sleightest degree and lastly beyond all evasion making them perfectly Schismaticks S. Peter their Ring-leader and that proceeding on Dr. H's own grounds Nor hath he any thing to counterpoâ—ze this heap of absurdities of the Seuenteens but onely a misunderstood place of Scripture of which himself must be the Interpreter which is the right Protestant Method who build their faith upon any Text which seems at first sight to make for them or is hard to explicate although universall Tradition of the foregoing Church importing involving bringing downe to us all imaginable motives of the contrary truth evidence that Interpretation to be impossible But 't is no matter what Dr. H. does or sayes if he can but talk any thing gentilely sleightly the grave negligence must supply the want of sence Truth especially if hee but shut upwith a victorious Epiphonema pronounced with a serious-sobersadnes Repl p. 61. l. vlt. Thus unhappy is this gentleman continually in his objections all is well and his sleight-sould Sermon-admiâ—ers take that to be the rarest Nectar of reason which if examin'd is the most sublimated quintessence of contradiction-absurdity as hath amply been shown Now as for S. Peter's words that it was unlawfull for a man that was a Iew to keep company or come to one that is of ther Nation upon which onely he build his position otherwise altogether destitute of any shadow of proof I answer that the Scribes such like pretenders to a preciser Kinde of holines had lately introduced many customes of their owne forging under the notion of Traditions of some of which they are accused by our saviour and obtruded them upon the consciences of the Iews to be religiously observed especially at Hierusalem the Rendevous of Iewish Doctors and the place where their doctrine had more immediate influence upon the mindes of of thei Auditors Of those precise customes this was one of not going to a Gentiles house or conversing with them To this amongst others S. Peter was inured by long education in so much that though he heard our B. Saviour with his own mouth give them commission to go to preach all over the world in vniuersum mundum and omni creaturae to every creature yet finding employment enough amongst those of the Circumcision he never attempted it till by a vision he was immediately set upon it by Almighty God especially the obligation to his country laying a stronger ty upon him and having received order to preach first to the Iews untill they shew'd themselves unworthy he needed a vision to tell him when that time came circumstances were ripe for it In like manner we read that S. Paul though chosen particularly to preach to the Gentiles Act. 9. 15. yet he affirmed Act. 13 46. that it was necessary that the words of God should first have been spoken to the Iews did not turn to the Gentiles but upon their rejecting him By unlawfull then in this place I take not to bee mean't not against the law of Moses but what their Teachers and Doctors who govern'd their Consciences bore them in hand was unlawfull in the same manner as wee now call many things unlawfull which are not found forbidden by Christ's law but which our Doctours and Casuists iudge to bee unlawfull Again wee read that though the Apostles and Brethren that were in Iudea had heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God Act. 11. v. 1. yet the second verse let ts us know of none that found fault with him save those at Hierusalem onely and that not meerly upon the account of going to the houses of Gentiles but of eating with them also as the third verse expresses But let their zeal have been never so hot to maintain this new-fangled apprehension and let it bee never so universall to abhorre the conversation of Gentiles whiles they remain'd Gentiles yet it is the strangest fancy that ever entred into a rational head to imagin that they should still retain the same uncharitable feud towards them after
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
that the greater part of them will be arrant fools First putting down a company of expressions totally disanulling S. Peter's Authority and immediately quoting for them 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Next when he is challenged of falsifying instead of showing any word there more then the poor monosyllable Come saying he onely mean't it was conclusible or deducible thence And lastly instead of concluding proving or deducing that Iurisdiction limiting sence from those words which at least was necessary onely saying the same words over again asking some questions to which he knew the answer long ago bidding his Answerer supply his turn prove telling us we dare not do not affirm what his own knowledge what his own eyes assure him we both dare do in this very present Controversy and then concluding all with an If built upon the former no doubt bred in his own head grounded upon his own fancy Is such an Adversary worth the losse of an hour's time to confute were it not that the Authority he hath got by a sleightly-connected Sermon enabling him to do some mischief amongst the more vulgar made it necessary to lay him open plainly to show how unsafe it is for them to let their Salvations rely in the least upon so incomparably weak a Controvertist THIRD PART Containing a Refute of Dr. H's second fundamentall Exception against the Pope's Authority from the pretended equall donation of the Keys to S. Peter Sect. 1. How Dr. H's Shuflingly avoids either to acknowledge or dâ—sacknowledge the notion of an Evidence given What he means by his Evidences and what is to be expected from Catholikes in managâ—ng a Wit-controversy concerning Scripture His weak attempt to clear himself of Prevarication Injuriousnes and Calumny objected MY 13. Section in Schism Disarm'd begun with putting down the true notion of an Evidence having already shown p. 17. that nothing but a perfect certainty sprung from such rigorous convincing proofs could rationally oblige the understanding to assent and that all assents sprung from that were originiz'd from passion Whence follows that the first Protestants could no way rationally relinquish the Authority Government of the former Church they were bred in conclude in their thoughts that her Doctrine was false her Government an usurpation unles moved by the said light of evident demonstrative Reasons that is unles they had grounds sufficient in their own nature to convince them that it was so and could not but be so For surely even in common prudence it had been the most rash action imaginable to hazard the most greeveus sin of Schism consequently an eternity of misery to their Souls upon probability onely How great a favour Dr. H. had done himself who though he begun first to write yet now Answ p. 50. l. 32. expresseth a great desire to be at an end of Controversie and how great a kindnes he had confer'd on S. W to have answer'd positively to these two points I or no to wit whether lesse then such a rigorous Evidence could iustify the renouncing an Authority possession so qualified and whether his pretended Evidences I or no were such I need not much declare The whole controversy depends upon these two hinges will quickly finde a decisive conclusion if these points were positively answer'd to vigorously pursued Now my notion of a Testimony Evidence Schism Disarm p. 88. was this that the testimony it self must be authentick beyond dispute and the words alledged so directly expressing the thing to be proved that they need no additions or explications to bring them home to the matter but are of themselves full ample clear such as the Alledger himself were he to expresse his thoughts in the present Controversy would make choice of to use Whether he likes this definition of a Testimony Evidence or no he is resolu'd wee shall not know He dares not be negative or say he dislikes it because what ever testimony falls short of this falls short likewise of proving that the thing must be and so concludes onely that it may be which being too weak a ground in the iudgment of every prudent Conscientious man to hazard his Soul upon as he must if he begin to Schismatize upon no better Grounds he saw it could turn to his disgrace if he deny'd the notion given or pretended that lesse Evidence would serve in a Controversy about Schism nor durst he bee affirmative or approve of it because he saw he had not produced one testimony in his whole book worth a straw if it were brought to that Test nor worthy to bestyled an Evidence Wherefore being in this perplexity and as the proverb is holding a Wolf by the ears he recurs to his old Prevarications and instead of approving or disapproving of my Description of an Evidence tells me Answ p. 58. what he meant by his own Evidences to wit that he takes Evidence in the familiar vulgar notion for a testimony to prove any Question of Fact either in the Affirmation or the nagative But what kinde of Testimonies these must be which can serve in such a concerning discourse whether such as I described heretofore manifesting that the thing must be or not be or probable ones inferring onely that his Affirmative or Negative may be or whether these Testimonies need be proofs at all but branches of accordance onely or spoken in agreement as almost all the Testimonies he hath hitherto produced were he defines nothing By his carriage in his book of Schism he seems to mean these latter onely nor do his words here exact more then onely a testimony not expressing any thing at all concerning the quality of this testimony whether the Authority of it must be valid or invalid clear or obscure expresse or dumbe entire or maim'd with an Ellipsis originally proving oâ— agreable onely set down right or corrupted falsified an Orthodox Fathers or an Arch-Heretick's all is one with Dr. H. still that testimony is one of his Vulgarly-Styl'd Evidences and so vulgar half-witted Souls will rely upon them in a Controversy importing no lesse then their eternall Salvation In the same place of Schism Disarm'd Dr. H. was charg'd with prevaricating from his pretended promise instead of bringing Evidence of his own solving our pretended ones and that this was to sustain a different part in the dispute he first undertook to wit the part of the Defendant for so we used ever to style him who solved objections He answers that the one possible way to testify any negative is to take a view of the places the Affirmers pretend and to shew that those places have no such force in them Obserue these canting words the one possible way so handsomly preparing for an evasion which though more likely to signify the onely possible way as Vnus is often taken for Solus in Latin yet he hath a glosse in readines to say he meant ' otherwise But because he puts not down the other
these expressions if taken as falling from their mouths pens I conceive sound not over much of Moderation All the Moderation consists here that my Ld of Derry had a mind to break a good iest and assure us very Sadly p. 39. l. 7. that notwithstanding all this they forbear to censure us which signifies first that they do not censure at all whom they have already censured in the height as is manifest by their former expressions next that though they beleeve those former expressions to be true and that wee are indeed such that is though they hold us for such yet they do not censure us for such Awitty contradiction And lastly that though our Church erre in credendis contradict Scripture blasphemously perniciously in her doctrine nay though her all grounding Principles be flatt Errors and that she pertinaciously unrelentingly persist in those doctrines as she does nor is ever likely to change or retract them yet for all this she is not to be held as hereticall though this be the very definition of Heresie but as a true Church still nor is to be censured to be otherwise Good charitable non-sence Hee tells me first that hee speakes of forbearing to censure other Churches but I answer of communicating with them and that therefore I err from the purpose Yet himself six lines before so forgetfull he is quotes S. Cyprian for removing no man from our Communion c. And how they should refuse to communicate with any unles they first iudge him censure him to deserve to be avoided that is naught I must confess I know not Next hee tells us one may in some cases very lawfully communicate with materiall Idolaters Hereticks c. In pious offices though not in their Idolatry Heresie c. Thus we have lost the question Who for bids them to go to visit the sick with them or such like religious duties The question is whether they may communicate with them in any publike solemne act performable by Catholikes as they are subjects of such a common wealth from which the other is out law'd or performable by those others as belonging to a distinct sect Again this position of Moderation destroies all order Government both of Church state for by this out law'd persons may be traffick'r treated with so we joyn not with them in their rebellion and all the whole world heathens too may be of one Communion especially all Hereticks who all agree in some common Principle of Christianity with the rest The Bishop's Proviso makes all the world Brothers friends though one part should remain most obstinate enemies both to God his Church for still as long as this Principle holds of communicating with them in all things but their Errors God's Church shall become a courteous gallimafry of all the filth Hell Error could compound to deform her and wear in her externall face a motley mask of as many colours as there are sects in the world Perhaps Heathens too must make up a part of this Communion provided we abstain onely to communicate with them in their Idolatry Thus they who want Grounds to give nerves to their Government are forced to embrace a counterfeit Kind-heartednes and under that plausible vizard vent much refined perniciousnes as is able at once to ruin all sence reason order discipline Government common wealth Church Thirdly he tells us that the Orthodox Christians did sometimes communicate with the hereticall Arians By which you see he is a kind disposition to admit even those to his Communion who deny Christ's divinitie The Arians were known to cloak themselves so craftily in words that they could not for a long time be certainly discover'd nor is it any wonder that for a while Hereticks be tolerated untill they be both heard and a time of repentance be prescribed them Fourthly he tells us he hath shown how the Primitive Catholikes communicated with the Schismaticall Novatians in the same publike divine offices But he is so reserved as not to direct us where he hath shown this nor could an ordinary inquiry finde it out and in his p. 282. which place seems most proper for that discourse he onely names the word Novatians without proving any thing concerning them Now the Novatians were simply Schismaticks and transported onely by a too rigorous zeal to a disobedience to the Church in a formerly received practice with such as these it is lawfull to communicate till upon their contumacy the Church shall excommunicate them Again as long as Schismaticks those who are erroneous in faith are onely in via as we may say and not in termino and hardned into an obstinacy there is a prudentiall latitude allow'd by the Church delaying her censures as long as shee can possibly without wronging her Government as was de facto practised in England till the 10th of Q. Elizabeth But this is not enough to prove they were admitted into Communion because they were tolerated for a certain time while there was hope they would not be obstinate but would return the Apostle himself prescribing a time of triall before they are to be avoided upon necessitie But can my L d of Derry show a parallell to our case that any renounc't the former Rule of faith immediate Tradition of Ancestors the former Government and many other points recommendedy that Rule and obstinately persisted to disavow both reviling writing against excommunicating nay persecuting with loss of Estates and often times of life the professors of the thus renounced faith Government can he show I say that such were ever admitted by the Church into Communion unles he can show this he beats the Air for this onely comes to our point S. Cyprian's case reaches not hither he had no reason to remove any from his Communion since he was in the wrong nor could hee possibly see with evidence that the immediate Tradition of all those Churches with whom hee communicated did avouch his tenet for hee was the man that brought in the noveltie your renouncing the former Rule of faith immediate delivery of fore fathers and the former Government with many other points recommended by that Rule is most evident nay confest avouched still maintain'd by your own obstinate selves Fifthly hee told us that the Catholikes call'd the Donatists their brethren I answer so are Catholikes bound to call the Protestants now nay Turks Heathens and in generall all men who are yet in a capacite to attain beatitude that is all but the damned in hell who are eternally hardned in enmitie against God S. Peter Art 3. v. 17. call'd the Iews who crucyfy'd Christ his Brethren yet never meant by that appellation that they were good Christians Sixthly he objects that the Donatists proceeding upon my Principle would not acknowledge the Catholikes their Brethren And what is this Principle of mine 'T is this as put down here by himself that a man cannot say his own religion is true but he must say
according to their Grounds can be sayd to pray for us at all in particular on Good friday or for our conversion as he forget-full of his own tenet affirms Their prayer is this Mercifull god who hast made all men and hatest nothing that thou hast made nor wouldest the death of a Sinner but rather that he should be converted and live have mercy upon all Iews Turks Infidells and Hereticks c. Fetch them home to thy flock that they may be saved c. I ask now under which of these heads does he place Papists when he pretends their cōversion is here pray'd for in particular Vnder that of Hereticks How can this stand with his Principles who acknowledges ours a true Church that is not hereticall and lately told us as a point of his Churches Moderation that she forbears to censure others Again they grant us to be of Christ's flock already in a capacy to be saved whereas those they pray for here are supposed reducible to Christ's flock that is not yet of it and by being thus reduced capable of Salvation that is incapable of it before they be thus reduced none of these therefore are competent to us nor are we prayed for there as Hereticks if his own Grounds his own pretended Moderation are to be held to by himself Much less will he say we are pray'd for there under the notion of Iews Turcks or Infidels for this were to censure us worse nor was ever pretended by Protestants It follows then that our conversion in particular is not there pray'd for at all but that there is such a pittifull dissonancy between the pretended Church of England's doctrine her practice that her greatest Bp's Doctors cannot make sence of one related to the other Nay more since hee culls out this Good friday prayer for the speciall externall work of their charity towards us and that this cannot concern us at all without a self contradiction it follows that their other externall works argue no charity at all towards us And this is the great inward charity the Bp. brags of as a proof of their due Moderation He adds that we excommunicate them once a year that is the day before Good-friday I reply that to expect a Church should not excommunicate those whom she holds to be Schismaticks and Hereticks is at once to be ignorant of the Churches constant practice and the common Principles of Government It being equally evident that the Church in all ages tooke this course with obstinate Adversaries of faith as it is that Society in the world can subsist without putting a distinction and separating avowed enemies and Rebels from true subjets friends If then they hold us Hereticks and unles they hold us such they do not pray for us in particular as is pretended they ought in all reason to excommunicate as indeed sometimes they did some particular Catholikes in their Churches though not all our Church in generall their new started congregation was conscious to herself that she had no such Authority which made her also instead of those words in our Good-friday prayer ad sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam revocare digneris recall them to our holy Mother the Catholike Apostolike Church vary the grave and too authoritative phrase too loud alas for her as taken in contra distinction to us into that dwindling puling puritanicall expressions of one flock the rem nant of the true Israelites one fold under one Shepheard c. equally pretendable if taken alone by Quakers as by them since they include no visible Marks in their notion which can satisfy us of any distinction between the one the other The third proof of their Moderation is that they added nothing but took away onely from the former doctrines of the Church which he expresses by saying they pluck up the weeds but retain all the plants of saving truths I answer'd that to take away goodnes is the greatest evill c. He replies that he spake of taking away errors No my L d this was not the intent of your discourse there both because you pretended there to prove something whereas I conceive to rely on onely the cheap saying that all is erroneous you tooke away proves nothing but is a meere self supposition as also because it is not a proof of Moderation to take away errors but a rigorously requisite act of Iustice Your intent then was to show the Moderation in your method of proceeding which you pretended all the way long to have been that you added no new thing but onely took away something of the old This I glanc't at as a fond and idle pretence since till you prove evidently and demonstrably from your new Rule of faith that the former of immediate Tradition which asserted those points denied by you did there in erre the presumption stands against you that it was Christ's doctrine which you maimed by thus detracting from it or if you suppose gratis that 't was not Christ's doctrine but errors falshoods then it is not proper to call it Moderation but rather an act of necessary charity to root it out I know it is an easy matter to call all weeds which your nice stomachs cannot digest but if that point of immediate Tradition renounced by you which onely could ascertain us that there was any such thing as Christ or God's word be a weed I wonder what can deserve to be called a flower What he vapours of holding what the primitive fathers iudged necessary and now Catholike Church does is an emptie brag vanishes into smoak by it self since as shall shortly bee shown their Grounds can never determin what is the Catholike or universall Church In order to the same proof of his Moderation I likewise answered that he who positively denies ever adds the contrary to what he takes away and that he who makes it an Article that there is no Purgatory no mass no prayer to Saints has as many Articles as he who holds the contrary He replies that he knows the contrary instancing that they neither hold it an Article of faith that there is a Purgatory nor that there is none I ask what kinde of things are their thirty nine Articles Are they of faith or opinions onely I conceive his Lp. will not say they are meere opinions but contra-distinctive of the Protestant faith from ours at least the good simple Ministers were made beleeve so when they swore to maintain them and unles they had certainty as strongly grounded as divine beleef for those points or Articles how could they in reason reject the cōtrary tenets which they held by divine beleef Now the 22. Article defines the negative to Purgatory three other points of our doctrine yet this ill-tutour'd Child tells his old crasy mother the Church of England that she lies that he knows the contrary Now his reason is better then his position 't is this because a negative cannot be
an Article of faith So that he would not have held it of faith against the Manichees that there are not two God's because the proposition is negative nor that the Divells shall not be saved nor the Saints in Heaven damn'd nor that there is no Salvation but through Iesus-Christ all these by the Bishop's Logick must cease to be Articles of faith and become indifferent and unconcerning opinions because they are all negatives After this he talks ramblingly again as his custome is of Theologicall opinions indifferent opinions c. and then on his own kinde word assures us that these points are such and so wipes his hands of them His last proof of their Moderation is their preparation of minde to beleeve practice what ever the Catholike Church even of this present age doth universally beleeve practice Proofs should be visible known and he brings us here for a proof a thing hid in the dark hole of their own breasts nor ever likely to come to light but by their own sayings onely all other Symptoms standing in opposition to it But the greatest foolery is that as I told him they first say there is no universall Church or if any indeterminate so that no body can tell which it is and then make a hollow-hearted profession of a readines to beleeve it and conclude themselves moderate Reformers My Ld replies that then they have renounced their creed the badge of their Christianitie I answer we doubt not but they have and that as they hold onely the word Church and not the thing so they hold onely the word the creed and not the sence of it both in that and what other Articles their fancie pleases Is it not then wisely argued to think to confute us by bringing us to this absurditie as he imagins that then they have renounced their creed whereas 't is our known tenet which we hold as undoubtedly as we do that they are out of the Church The next absurditie he brings me to upon this account is that then they have renounc't their reason also As little can we doubt of this as of the former having seen lately how you deny'd the first Principles and common sense almost in every particular of this discourse and even this present maner of arguing testifies how little reason your bad cause will allow you the use of But how proves he that then they must have lost their reason Thus for if there be many particular Churches wherefore not one universall Church whereof Christ is the Head and King Very good my Ld but if you give us no certain Rule to know what congregations are to be truly accounted Churches and which not such but hereticall and show us no some common ty of ordinary Government in the Church how will you make up of them one universall Church which may bee known for such This is the thing we object as you well know that you give us no such Rule to know a true Church by This is the reason why we affirm you deny an universall Church because you deny all Grounds which can establish such a Church As for what I alledged that if they say there is a Catholike Church 't is indetermin'd that is none knows which it is He answers first that then 't is all one as if it were not Very true for if there be no determinate one there is none at least to us Next that this is a calumny to say they know not determinately which this Church is Let us examine whether it be or no. Two things are requisite to the notion of an universall or Catholike Church One that the particular companies which compound it be indeed true Churches that is consisting of true beleevers and not hereticall Congregations without certain knowledge of which none can possibly know which is the universall Church made up of them The other that these particular Congregations of true beleevers cling together by mean's of order into one entire company to be called when thus united one universall Church For the first I appeal to any candid learned Protestant whether he ever in his life knew any of their Authors who gives us a positive Catalogue of which particular Congregations are to he held for true Churches and a part of the universall which no but to be excluded from it as hereticall or whether himself can stand to it positively upon Grounds given agreed upon by them that such such a Congregation is without the verge of the universall Church such with in it My self have lived in circumstances to be aswell acquainted with their doctrine as most men are and I profess sincerely were my life at stake onely redeemable by the resolving this question I could not determin absolutely upon any Grounds constantly acknowledg'd by them whether Presbyterians Anabaptists or Quakers are to be excluded from the universall Church or no. And if we cannot determin of sects so neer at hand though prest to it by our conversation carriage to declare express our selves distinctively much lesse can we expect it in order to the Armenians Ethiopians Iacobites with whose customes and tenets we are so litle acquainted But alas how vain is it to expect from Protestants such a distinctivenes of true beleevers from false who have no Grounds to make such a distinction For what Principles have they to character a true beleever Is it to acknowledge the letter of the Scripture sufficient All Hereticks in the world almost own this Arians Socinians who deny Christ's divinity most of all Is it the true sence of it how shall they agree in this without some certain mean's or Rule to interpret it make them agree Must the common doctrine of the universall Church interpret it This is the very thing we are in quest of and till wee know what particular Congregations are to bee held true Churches know not yet which it is Must consent of fathers They have no Authority but from the Church in which they lived and as declarers of her doctrine unles therefore we have some Rule to conclude antecedently that the Church whose doctrine they taught was the true Church we are still ignorant whether they be true fathers and to be beleeved or no. Is it the private Spirit The most frantick Enthusiasts then have an equall pretence Is it private reason In steps the Socinian and indeed all heresies in the world for every one hath a private reason of his own and can use it to his power in interpreting Scripture But my L d of Derry seems to drive another way affirming here p. 43. that he knows no other necessary Articles of faith but the Apostles creed though other Protestant Authors affirm more This then according to him must be the fundamentall Rule of faith and the Touch stone to try who are true beleevers who not The Puritans therefore who deny'd one of those Articles to wit Ghrists descent into Hell must be excluded quite from the universall
now you remain disunited from Catholike countries and their Churches in the very tenet of the Pope's Authority held by them as our eyes testify therefore 't is evident 't was the doctrine of all those Churches you lest and would vindicate your self for leaving by pretending that doctrine injurious to Princes and by consequence you contradict your self In order to the same point and to let him see that those restrictions of the Pope's Authority avouched by the laws practice of Catholike countries concern'd not faith as the Protestants renouncind the Authority it self did I told him Schism Disarm p. 321. that the Pope's did not cast out of Communion those Catholike divines which opposed them and that this argues that it is not the Roman Religion nor any publike tenet in their Church which binds any to these rigorous assertions which the Protestants condemn He replies first thus I know it is not the Roman Religion their Religion ours is the same So you say my L d to honour your selves which such good company but answer seriously are not the Roman Religion yours different in this very point of the Pope's Supremacy which is the thing in hands and do not the Romanists excommunicate you and think you of another Religion because you hold it True it is you may account them of your Religion because you have no bounds but voluntary and so can take in put out whom you please but they who are bound to a certaine Rule of Religion cannot do so because your new fashion'd tenets stand not with their Rule To what end then is this show of condiscension to shuffle away the point Again if these rigorous assertions which you impugn be not their Religion some other more moderate tenet concerning the Pope's Authoritz is their Religion for 't is evident that all Catholike Doctors defet something to the Pope as a point of their Religion or as received upon their Rule of faith why did you then reject the more moderate tenet which belongd to their Religion because some men attribute more to him by their more rigorous tenets which you acknowledge belong not to their Religion or how do you hope to excuse your self for rejecting the more moderate tenet of the substance of the Pope's Authority by alledging that others held the extent of it too rigorously Is this a sufficient Plea for your breaking God's Church Secondly he confesses that those rigorous assertions extending thus the Pope's Authority are not the generall tenet of our Church Whom do you impugn then or to what end do you huddle together those pretended extravagancies for your vindication must you necessarily renounce the substance of the Popes Authority which was generally held by all and so break the vnitie of the Church because there was a tenet attributing too much to him which you confess to have been not generally held nay generally resisted what Logick can conclude such an Act pardonable by such a Plea Thirdly hee affirms that the Pope's many times excommunicated Princes Doctors and whole Nations for resisting such rigorous pretences True he excommunicated them as pretending them disobedient or infringing some Ecclesiasticall right as he might have done for violently and unjustly putting to death some Ecclesiasticall person and in an hundred like cases and no wonder because as a Prelate he has no other Weapons to obtain his right when it is deny'd him But did he ever excommunicate them as directly infringing the Rule of faith or did the Catholike world ever looke upon them as on Hereticks when thus excommunicated as they look't upon you renouncing in terms the very Authority it self Nay did not the Pope's when their Passion heated by the present contest was over admit them into Communion again though still persisting in their unretracted opposition what weaker then than to think they were separated from the Church for oppositing those more rigorous pretences or that those came down recommended by that Rule of faith as did the Authority it self which you rejected and for rejecting it be came held by all the Churches of that Communion for Schismaticks Hereticks Fourthly to let us see that hee will not stand to his former Answer hee tells us that the Pope his Court had something else to do than to enquire after the tenets of private Doctors That is after himself had taken a great deal of pains to prove that all Catholike Kings abetted by their Doctors and Casuists had thus resisted the Pope in these particular cases that is that it was Publikely done all over the whole Church hee alledges in the next place that onely private Doctors held it So fruitfull is error of contradictions Fifthly hee alledges that perhaps those Doctors lived about the time of the Councells of constance Basile and then the Popes durst not meddle with them Yet many if not most of the instances produced by him are modern some of them as that of Portugall in our dayes and not past seaven years ago another of the Venetians in this very last age which no perhaps can make happen in the time of those Councells Score up another self contradiction What hee means by their living perhaps out of the Pope's reach none can tell The Pope's Spirituall Iurisdiction by which hee acts such things excommunicates reachers as far as those Churches in Communion with Rome as all men know and if our Bishop speak of those who lived in other places hee changes the subject of the question for wee speake of Doctors abetting Roman Catholike Kings Kingdomes in such opposition Sixthly hee asks what did the Sorbon Doctors of old value the Court of Rome S. Trifle not my Ld they ever valued the tenet of the Popes Supremacy as a point of faith what they thought of the Court concerns not you nor our Question nor are you accused or out of the Church for not over valving or not justly valuing the Court but for under-valuing the very substance of the Pope's Authority and calling that an Error which the Rule of faith delivered us as a point of faith In a word all your process here is convinced to be perfectly frivolous to no purpose since none of these things you alledge as done by Catholike countries are those for which you are excommunicate cast out of the Church accused for Schismaticks Hereticks by us but another far greater not at all touched by you towit the renouncing disacknowledging the very inward Right of the Pope Which shows that all your allegations are nothing but laborious cobwebs signs of a fruitles industries but vtterly unable to support Truth I upbraided them upon occasion for their bloody laws and bloodier execution Hee referrs me for Answer to his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon Where hee makes a long-law preamble no wayes appliable to the present case which even by his own Confession is this whether though treasonable acts be punishable acts of Religion ought for any reason be made treason