obliging precedent to us To show more the impertinency of this allegation I deny'd that the Church of England hath any title from the Britannick Churches otherwise than by the Saxon Christians who onely were our Ancestours and by whose conquests and laws all that is in the Britannick world belongs and is derived to us The Bp. replies yes well enough and why first saith hee Wales and Cornwall have not onely a locall but a personall succession and therefore noe man can doubt of their right to the priviledges of the Britannick Churches Grant it what is this to our purpose how does this vindicate the Church of England or take of my exception For let their succession bee what it will it follows not that the body of England of which our Controversy is hath any such priviledges by descending from Cornwall or Wales Again 't is evident that for these many hundred years they acknowledg'd the Pop'es Authority as much as England And lastly 't is a clear case they were under those which were under the Pope But the wily Bp. being ask't an hard question to wit whether the Church of England had any title from or dependence on the Britannick Churches answers quite another matter and then tels us hee hath done well enough Secondly hee sayes that there is the same reason for the Scots and Picts who were no more subjected to forrain Iurisdiction than the Britans themselves I answer none of the Picts are now extant but totally exterminated so no succession from them And as for the Scots what doe they concern the Church of England's vindication our purpose or my question unles hee can show which hee never pretends that his Church of England receives title to any thing by way of the scottish Churches Again since they have been submitted to the Pope what avails it if they had any exemption anciently for they could never derive it to us for want of continuation of succession yet as long as hee tells us hee does well enough all is well Thirdly hee should have said first for the two former answer are nothing to the purpose hee tells us that among the saxons themselves the great Kingdomes of Mercia and Northumberland were converted by the ancient Scots and had their Religion and Ordination first from them afterwards among themselves without any forrain dependance and so were as free as the Britons where all the force lies in those words without any forrain dependance which hee obtrudes upon us on his own credit onely without a word of proof or if there bee any shadow of reason for it there it must bee this that â—hey were converted by the ancient Scots which himself tells us two pages after is nothing at all to Iurisdiction But that which is of main importance is that hee brings here no proof that the Britons and Scots and Picts had no forrain dependance save his own word onely And the trifles hee brings afterwards are of less credit than even his own words as will bee seen when they come to scanning Fourthly hee assures us â—â—at after the Conquest throughout the rest of England a woâ—â—d of British Christians did still live mixt with the saxons And how proves hee this because otherwise the saxons had not been able to people the sixth part of the Land I ask did hee measure the Land and number the saxons If not how does hee know or how can hee affirm this Or how does hee prove the Land must necessarily bee peopled as fully as before immediately after a Conquest so universall and cruell Our historians tell us that to avoid their barbarous cruelty which spared none the ancient Britains retired into Wales yet hee would persuade us both without and against all history that a world stayd behind and this not because the saxons stood in need of them as hee pretends who as 't is known brought their whole families with them but indeed because the Bp. stood in need of them to make good his cause But granting the likelihood that some few of them remain'd still in their former homes how can the Bp. make any advantage of it Thus Who can deny saith hee those poore conquer'd Christians and their Christian posterity though mixed with saxons the iust priviledges of their Ancestours A compassionate man who speaks a great deal of tender-hearted non-sence rather than hee will seem unmercifull not to the ancient Britons as hee pretends but to his own cause which hee shows to bee good-naturd at least though it bee destitute of reason for unles hee can show which yet never was pretended by any Protestant or man of common sence that those who remain'd had yet British Bishops amongst them or unles hee can pretend that they remain'd not subject to the Bishops of the saxons it is a madnes to imagin those few lay people should inherit those former supposed priviledges For since all the world grants that they if there were any such became subject to the Bishops of the saxons which were subject to the Pope all pretence of their exemption from that power to which their Governours were subject is taken away And the Bp s mercifull reason is all one as if some few Englishmen by some accident remaining and settling in France should pretend an exemption from the french laws both Ecclesiasticall and temporall and to enioy the priviledges they had while they were in England that is while they were under another Government But His last reason is to the purpose and a rare one 't is this that the saxon Conquest gave them as good title to the priviledges as to the Lands of the Britons As if hee made account that Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction is a thing of that nature as to bee won by the sword or that the Saxons could plunder the Britons of their spirituall priviledges as well as of a bag of money But the iest is hee would have those priviledges at once goe into Wales with the British Bishops and stay at home in England not considering that Ecclesiasticall priviledges are things inherent in men that is in the Ecclesiasticall Governours as enioyers or else as conservers and dispensers of them to the people and in the Governed as subiect to those Governours and laws not in stones woods and mountains as hee fancies Again whereas those priviledges originally belong to Ecclesiasticall Governours and are annex't unto them as such as they are supposed to doe in the Bp s case they cannot bee transmitted to posterity but by a succession into the Authority of the former Governours wherefore let him either show that the after Bps of the Church of England ever had succession of Authority from or were impower'd by the British Bishops or else let him confess that they could inherit no priviledges from them and by consequence that his pretence of it is groundles and impertinent What is said hitherto was to show the inconsequence of deriving those priviledges from the British to â—he English Church in case the British
common Rule of faith to his fellows and the rest nor yet a common Government which may show them visibly to us to be of the Church and on the other side stands indited by undeniable matter of fact to have rejected those points which were are visibly such to the Church they broke from 't is no lesse evident that hee hath not said a word to the purpose but stole it away as his custome is from the open field of the plain charge to invisible holes In a word those proposalls of S. Paul are motives why Christians should be united in Wills and also why those who are not Christians should be of the Church and Christian common wealth not the proper ties which make them of it for these must be visible remarkable known as are de facto our form of Government our Rule of faith The frame then of the Church as put by me was thus visible the joynts of it recounted by the Bp. out of S. Paul invisible yet the sincere man pretends here when hee brings these invisible points to take my frame in peeces to look upon it in parcells Which is to prevaricate from the whole Question and instead of answering to abuse wrong his Adversary Secondly hee sayes hee will not dispute whether Christ did give S. Peter a Principality among the Apostles so wee will be content with a Principality of order and hee wishes I had exprest my self more clearly whether I bee for a beginning of order Vnity or for a single Head of power Iurisdiction I answer I contende for no such singular Head ship of power that no Bishop in the Church hath power but hee for this is known to bee the Heresy which S. Gregory did so stoutly impugn when hee writ against Iohn of Constantinople A Principality or Primacy of order I like well provided this order signify not as the Bp. would have it a dry order which can do nothing but such an order as can act do something according to it's degree rank as the word order imports if taken in the Ecclesiasticall sence and as it is taken when it is applâ—'d to the Hierarchy as for example to Pâ—triarchâ— Primates Arch Bishops Bishops c. Which ought to bee the proper sence of it in our Controversy it being about an Ecclesiasticall preeminence As for what hee tells us that the Principality of power resiâ—es now in a generall Council besides other faults already noted it falters in this that generall Councils are extraordinary Iudicatures and never likely to happen in the sence you take a generall Council But our Question is whether the nature of Government require not some ordinary standing Supremacy of power ever ready to over look the publike concerns to promote the interests conserve the peace of the Christian Commonwealth by subordination to whom all the faithfull remain united in the notion of Governed If this bee necessary as plain reason avouches then wee ask where you have lest this standing ordinary Principality of power since you have renounc't the Pope's Supremacy Thirdly I added and consequently to his Successors This consequence exprest in generall terms hee tells us hee likes well enough and that such an head-shippe ought to continue in the Church but hee cannot digest it that such an Head ship should bee devolued to the Bp. of Rome yet what other Successor S. Peter had that could bee properly call'd such that is such a one who succeeded him dying except the Bp. of Rome himself will never attempt to show us This consequence then of ours applying in the Principality of S. Peter's to the Bishop of Rome which hee calls a rope of sand hangs together thus that whensoever Christ conferrs any power to any single person to be continued for the future good of the Church and has taken no further order for it's continuance hee is deem'd likewise to have conferd it upon those to whom according to the order of nature it is to come Now the naturall order requires that offices dignities should be devolu'd to those who succeed those persons dying who were vested with them in case there bee no other ordinary convenient meanâ— instituted to elect or transfer it to another That Christ lest any such institute that his Church should continue this dignity by election or traverse the common method of succession wee never read but on the contrary wee fide de facto that the Bishops of Rome in the Primitive Church enjoy'd a Principality by succession not by nomination of the Catholike Church nor is it convenient but extremely preter naturall that this Principality being of perpetuall necessity as hee grants the Church should remain without it at the death of every Pope till all the Churches in Iapan China India or where ever remotely disperst in all parts of the habitable world should bee ask't give their consent whether the Bishop of Rome should still continue with this Principality or no. No other means then being layd or lest to cross this way of succession as appears by common sence and the practice of the Church it follows that this naturall order must take place and so the particular dignity of S. Peter remain to those who succeeded him dying in his see of Rome His Argument then which hee pretends parallell to mine that such a Bishop of such a see died Lord Câ—ancellor of England therefore all succeeding Bishops of the same see must succeed him likewise in the Chancellor ship of England comes nothing home to my case for here is a supreme standing Magistrate to elect another traverse succession the transfering that charge is easily conveniently performable here are positive laws institutes made known accepted that a King should do this But put case that there were none of all these means of electing a new person on foot in the world and that the Chancellor ship were to be perpetuated there would bee no doubt in that case but the naturall order would take place there also and the Successors of that Bishop would succeed also into the Chancellor ship Christ left hee tells us the cheif managing of his family to his spouse that is the Church Pretty sence signifying thus much that the Church or universality of â—hristians must govern themselves have no cheif Governour at all Is it not rare that the Bishop should think Christ's family and his Spouse or Church are two distinct things What hee adds that hee lest it not to any single servant further then as subservient to his spouse is very true and all Governours in the world are or ought to bee subservient to the common good of the governed as even the Angells are Spiritus administratorij yet no more can the subjects command their Governours than wee can command Angells And so the chief Church her Bishop the chief Governour of Christ's family are for the good of the Church thouh over the Church however my
acknowledge a vice of the first magnitude if taken in it's primary signification to which our circumstances determine it includes for it's genus or material part a division or act of dividing the specifical difference gives it a reference to the Ecclesiastical Government instituted by Christ Now our great Masters of Moral Divinity assure us that no action is in it self good or bad but as it conduces to or averts from the attaining one's last end since all things else have the nature of meanes onely in order to the attainment of that and consequently the esteem of their goodness or badness is built upon their alliance to that order Whence follows that there is no action in the world not killing one 's own Son nor dividing from any Government whatsoever in it self so bad but might be done could there be assigned motives and reasons truly representing it better to attempt it Now our all-wise God hath ordered things so providently for the peace and good of his Church that it is impossible any cause or motive can be truly imagin'd sufficient to justify the rejecting it's Government since neither any private injury is comparable to such an universal good nor can it happen that any miscarriage can be so publick as to force it's renouncing for seeing our B. Saviour made but one Church and that to continue for ever if any cause were sufficient to break from that one Church there would be a just and sufficient cause to be of no Church which is against the Protestants own tenet and makes them so desirous to pretend a descent from ours Wherefore it remains impossible that those who acknowledg the Churche's Government to have bin instituted by Christ should pretend to any just cause to separate from it but they ought to behave themselves passively in case of an injury received not actively renouncing that Government or erecting another against it Notwithstanding all this yet it may happen sometimes that as no Authority is or can be so sacred inviolable but passion can make men dislike it some company of men may disacknowledge the Authority instituted by Christ to have come from him alledging for the reason and motive of their renouncing it that it is an usurpation which they also pretend to prove by arguments drawn either from Reason or Testimonies Now these men's plea might take place if it were possible they should produce absolute evidence and such as in it's own force obliges the understanding to assent notwithstanding the contrary motives which retard it and without pretending such a rigorous Evidence it were madness to hazard an error in abusiness of such main concernment both to the Church mankind and their own Souls as it would necessarily be if that fact of theirs happen'd to be Schismatical Now then let us see whether my Adversaries inference be good that because Schism can have no just causes for it's parents therefore Dr. H. in treating a Controversie of Schism ought not to heed or produce the causes or motives of it Indeed if he would grant himself and his Friends to be Schismaticks then it were to no purpose for him to alledge causes and motives since all men know that no just cause can be possibly alledged for Schism but if he does an external act which hath the resemblance or show of Schism and nevertheless will defend himself to be no Schismatick he must give account why he does that action and shew that that action is not truly Schism which cannot be done without discussing reasons and motives if common practise teach us any thing Will any man endeavour to turn one out of possession lawfully without a plea or produce a plea without either any motive or reason in it Iustly therefore did the Catholick Gentleman affirme it to be a pure contradiction for that a confest breach under debate should be concluded to have no just causes that is to be indeed Schismatical or to have just causes that is to be a self enfranchisment without producing examining any causes is a perfect implicancy Nor will his instance Reply p. 5. 6. of a seditious person or Rebell secure him at all for as it is true that if it be known that he confesses himself a Rebel there is no pleading of causes as Dr. H. well sayes to justify his Rebellion yet as long as he pretends to be no Rebel so long he is obliged to bring motives and reasons why his action of rising against the Government is not Rebellion though it be accused and seem to be such Now if Dr. H. hath not forgot the title of his book t is a Defence of the Church of England against the Exceptions of the Romanists to wit those by which they charge her of Schism that is their accusing her that this action of Separation from the Church of Rome is Schismatical so that the whole scope and work of his book must be to plead those motives and reasons which may seem to traverse that accusation and shew that this action of the Church of England makes not her Schismatical nor her Sons Schismaticks And how this can stand without producing motives or is not as plain a contradiction as ens and non ens I confess is beyond my understanding In his eighteenth p. he cunningly forges a false state of the question in these words that it is a matter in question between the Romanists and us whether the Bishop of Rome had before and at the time of the Reformation any supreme legal power here I willingly acknowlege By which he would perswade the Reader that he had condescended to a state of the question pretended by us which is absolutely false for we state the question thus That there being at that time an external confessed Government derived and in actual possession time out of minde abstracting from whether it be internally legal or no whether the pretended Reformers either did then or can now show sufficient reasons of the substracting themselves from obedience to it This is our state of the question which hath it's whole force as the Reader may see in the acknowledged external possession Now Dr. H. would make his Reader believe that the state of the question doth wholly abstract from the external possession and purely debate the internal right as if it hung hovering indifferently in the aire to be now first determin'd without taking notice of the stability and force our tenet had from the long possession And this handsome trick he gentilely put 's upon his Readers by those three sly words I willingly acknowledge Having thus mistaken voluntarily the state of the question consequently he imposes upon me that I said none doubts of the Bishop of Rome's supreme legal power over the Church of England at the time of the Reformation and then confutes me most palpably with telling me that they doubt it or make a question of it Can any man in reason imagin I was ignorant that such was their tenet since I impugn it in
he was not likely without this exciration to perform well this particular charge or rather did not his whole carriage demonstrate the quite contrary that he was ever most zealous vehement and hot to prosecute any thing he went about What reason then there could be of a particular incitement to S. Peter to perform and look well to his charge more than to the rest without some particularity in his charge more than in the rest passes reason to imagin The force therefore in this thrice repetition of lovest thou me in all probability and according to the words rationally explicated wee make to bee this that since it is ever the method of God's sweet providence to dispose and fit the person for the charge ere he imposes the charge it self and the best disposition to perform any charge with exact diligence is a greater affection towards the person who imposes it our Saviour by asking S. Peâ—ter thrice in that tender manner lovest thou me more then these lovest thou me excited and stirred up in him a greater affection both to dispose him at present for the particularly-exprest charge of feeding his Sheep and also to minde him for the future upon what terms and conditions and with what dear and tender expressions he had pledged vnto him the care of his flock This explication I say of that thrice asking wee think most connaturall and consonant to the Text as rationally scann'd according to what is most befitting the divine wisedom by which rule or any other principle had Dr. H. guided himself in stead of recurring to and relying upon meerly his owne fancy for his voluntary explications I hope he would have been of the same minde too Solution 11. Wee need seek no other performance of this promise than that which was at once afforded all the Apostles together As suppose a Generall should promise a Commission this day to one and to morowe should make the like promise to Eleven more that one being in their company and then upon a set day some weeks after should seâ—â— twelve Commissions to those twelve one for each of them I wonder who would doubt of the exact performance of this promise to that first or seek for any more speciall performance of it Reply p. 67. Reply Dr. H. pretends a parallell and yet leaves all that in which the force of the parallell was to be put taking the common and indifferent circumstance onely First he puts the supposition that a Generall should promise a Commission this day to one but he omits all that in which wee place the strength of our argument to wit that the Generall should promise the said Commission to that one in a manner of expression not competent or competible to the rest as he did here sounding an advantage over the rest in his desert his confessing of Christ's Godhead by the revelation of his heavenly father with such allusionâ— to his name and other particularisations as in all prudence are apt to breed an expectation of something particular in the thing promised He should have made his Generall have promist a Commission to one in this manner and then the answer had been that that one man so manifoldly particulariz'd and as it were call'd and singled out from the rest in their owne presence had no reason to think himself ingenuously deal't with if his acknowled'g desert being particular and the promise there upon so particularly directed to him and him alone at that time he had received an equall Commission onely that is such a one as was common to all the by standers and not particular at all to himself Next Dr. H's following words suppose this Generall should to morrow make the like promise to eleven more that one being in their company hath two equivocations in it the one in the words the like promise by which if he means the promise of the same common thing to wit the power of the Keyes t' is granted but if he mean's as he ought this being the thing in controversy and the sence best suting with that word that the like promise denotes a promise made after thâ— same manner and apt to breed no more nor higher expectation of the thing to be given then if it had been exprest 〈◊〉 common onely then 't is palpably false and flatly deny'd The next equivocation lies in these words suppose he should make a promise to eleven more that one being in their company by which one would think that S. Peter who had it promised particularly before had it not promised again in common now but onely stood by at this time while it was promis'd to the other eleven By which device he hath avoided another point in which wee put force and left it out in his parallell and 't is this that S. Peter went a breast with the rest in having the common promise made to him as well as they had and exceeded or was preferr'd before them in this priviledge that over and above his common promise hee had a promise made to him at other times particularly and in a particularizing manner so that the Drs similitude hath not so much as one foot left to hop on that is it resembles no part of the point as it is in question betveen us nor touches at all the controverted difficulty and is all one as if going about to paint Cesar he should draw onely the rude lineaments common to all mankind and omit all the particular proportions and colours which were proper to delineate that person But the Dr. makes up his similitude by supposing twelve Commissions sent to the twelve Captains in which he would subtly have his Reader suppose the Commissions were equally for if they were unequall it would prove iust contrary to his pretence But what he mean's by his seal'd Commissions or how he thinks this is verified in the Apostles wee shall ere long discusse when he declares his meaning in it Dr. H's parallell having thus lamely play'd it's part let me see if I can make another more pat and expresse then his was Suppose then the late King of England as head of the Church there could have made and had been to create Bishops all over England and had already cast his eye particularly upon some one particular person so far as to give him in particular the sir name of Bishop as he did S. Peter the name Cephas a Rock this done upon occasion of a particular service of his first acnowledging or confessing him King which wee may suppose not to have been then acknowledged he breaks out into those parallell expressions Happy art thou N. N. who when others weakly doubt of my Royalty dost out of a particular affection to me acknowledg me King and I say vnto thee Thou art Bishop and upon this Bishop I wil build the Church of England and thus built it shall stand strong against all opposition and J will give vnto thee the power of binding loosing and whatsoever fault against our
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
sure they shall never come to open light lest by speaking out hee should bring himself into inconveniences Observe his words Those doctrines that discipline which wee inherited from our forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them is to bee changed which is substantiall or essentiall But what and how many those doctrines are what in particular that discipline is what hee means by In heriting what by forefathers what by substantiall none must expect in reason to know for himself who is the relater does not Are those doctrines their 39 Articles Alas noe those are not obligatory their best Champions reiect them at pleasure Are they contain'd in the Creed onely Hee will seem to say so sometimes upon some urgent occasion but then ask him are the processions of the divine Persons the Sacraments Bapâ—ism of children Government of the Church the acknowledging there is such a thing as God's written word or Scripture c. obligatory the good man is gravelld In fine when you urge him home his last refuge will bee that all which is in God's word is obligatory and then hee thinks himself secure knowing that men may wrangle with wit coniectures an hundred yeares there ere any Evidence that is conviction bee brought Thus the Bishop is got into a wood and leaves you in another and farther from knowing in particular what doctrines those are than you were at first Again ask him what in particular that discipline is own'd by Protestants to have come from Christ and his Apostles as their Legacy for hee gives us no other description of it than those generall terms onely and hee is in as sad a case as hee was before Will hee say 't is that of the secular power being Head of the Church or that of Bishops Neither of these can bee for they acknowledge the french Church for their sister Protestant and yet shee owns no such forms of Government to have come from Christ but that of Presbyters onely which they of England as much disown to have been Christ's Legacy It remains then that the Protestants have introduc't into the Church at or since the Reformation in stead of that they renounced no particular form of Government that is no one that is they have left none but onely pay their adherents with terms in generall putting them of with words for realities and names for things Again ask him what hee means by inheriting and hee will tell us if hee bee urged and prest hard for till then no Protestant speaks out that hee means not the succession of it from immediate forefathers and teachers which is our Rule of faith and that which inheriting properly signifies this would cut the throat of Reformation at one blow since Reformation of any point and a former immediate delivery of it are as inconsistent as that the same thing can both bee and not bee at once But that which hee means by inheriting is that your title to such a tenet is to bee look't for in Antiquity that is in a vast Library of books filld with dead words to bee tost and explicated by witts criticks where hee hopes his Protestant followers may not without some difficulty find convincing Evidence that his doctrine is false and that rather than take so much pains they will bee content to beleeve him and his fellows Thou seest then Reader what thou art brought to namely to relinquish a Rule that I may omit demonstrable open known and as easy to teach thee faith as children learne their A. B. C. for such is immediate delivery of visible and practicall points by forefathers to embrace another method soe full of perplexity quibbling-ambiguity and difficulty that without running over examining thousands of volumes that is scarce in thy whole life time shalt thou ever bee able to find perfect satisfaction in it or to chuse thy faith that is if thou followst their method of searching for faith and pursvest it rationally thou may'st spend thy whole life in searching and in all likelihood dy ere thou chusest or pitchest upon any faith at all The like quibble is in the word forefathers hee means not by it immediate forefathers as wee do that would quite spoil their pretence of Reformation but ancient writers and so hee hath pointed us out no determinate Rule at all till it bee agreed on whom those forefathers must bee and how their expressions are to bee understood both which are controverted and need a Rule themselves But the chiefest peece of tergiversation lies in those last words that nothing is to bee changed in those Legacies which is substantiall or essentiall That is when soever hee and his follows have a mind to change any point though never so sacred nay though the Rules of faith and discipline themselves 't is but mincing the matter and saying they are not substantiall or essentiall and then they are licenc't to reiect them Wee urge the two said Principles of Vnity in faith and discipline are substantiall points essentiall to a Church if Vnity it self bee essentiall to it These your first Reformers inherited from their immediate forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and de facto held them for such these youreiected and renounc't this fact therefore of thus renouncing them concludes you absolute Schismaticks and Hereticks till you bring demonstrative Evidence that the former Government was an usurpation the former Rule fallible onely which Evidence can iustify a fact of this nature It is worth the Readers pains to reflect once more on my L d of Derry's former proposition and to observe that though white and black are not more different than hee and wee are in the sence of it yet hee would persuade his Readers hee holds the same with us saying that hee readily admits both my first and second Rule reduced into one in this subsequent form c. and then puts us down generall terms which signify nothing making account that any sleight connexion made of aire or words is sufficient to ty Churches together and make them one Iust as Manasseh Ben Israel the Rabbi of the late Iews in the close of his petition would make those who profess Christ and the Iews bee of one faith by an aiery generall expression parallell to the Bishops here that both of them expect the glory of Israël to bee revealed Thus dear Protestant Reader thou seest what thy best Drs would bring thee to to neglect sence and the substantiall solid import of words and in stead thereof to bee content to embrace an empty cloud of generall terms hovering uncertainly in the air of their owne fancies In a word either the sence of your coÌ„tracted Rule is the same with that of our dilated one or not If not then you have broke the Rule of faith held by the former Church unles you will contend this Rule had no sence in it but non-significant words onely and by consequence are
fact and acknowledged by Protestants viz that the Church of Englands Principle was actually such and such at that time into the point and tenet it self which is question'd and controverted bâ—tween us His words are these p. 6. Thirdly hâ—e addeth that the Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Iâ—e er inherited his priviledges whereas hee ought to have repâ—esented my words thus that the Principle agreed on by the Church of England and the Church of Rome before the breach was such and thâ—n have told us what hee thought of it by â—â—her expressing a deniall or â— grant But positivenes even in things manifest and acknowledg'd is a thing thâ— Bishop hates wiâ—h all his heart for were I or noe said to any point the discourse might proceed rigoâ—ously upon it which would marr all the Bp voluntary talk It follows in my words put down by him p. 6. that the Bishops of Rome actually exercised this power viz of first mover in the Church S. Peter's priviledge in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began Mee thanks it is not possible to avoid being absolute here But nothing is impossible to the Bp. hee either will not speak out at all or if hee does it must bee of no lower a strain than flat contradiction Hee tells us first that it cometh much short of the truth in one respect and why for the Pope's saith hee exercised much more power in those countries which gave them leave than ever S. Peter pretended to So that according to the Bp. hee did not exercise S. Peter's lesser power because hee exercised a power far greater that is hee did not exercise S. Peter's power because hee exercised S. Peter's power and much more which is as much as to say Totum est minus parte and more does not contain lesse A hopefull disputant who chuses rather to run upon such rocks then to grant that the Pope actually govern'd as supreme in those countries which were actually under him A point which it is shamefull to deny dangerous positively to confess and therefore necessary to bee thus blunder'd Secondly hee tells us that it is much more short of that universall Monarchy which the Pope did then and doth still claim And why for saith hee as I have already said observe the strength of his discourse his saying is proving two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion meaning the Greeks Armenians c. Are moderate expressions of shamelesnes sufficient to character this man who in every line manifests himself in the highest degree deserving them Our position as put down even by himself was this that the Pope's did actually then exercise this power in those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome and the Bps answer comes to this that hee did not exercise it in those countries which kept not Communion with the Church of Rome But to give the Reader a satisfactory answer even to the Bps impertinences I shall let him see that the Pope exercis'd his power at that time even over those countries as much as it can bee expected any Governour can or should do over revolters whom hee cannot otherwise reduce As then a Governour exercises his power over obedient subjets by cherising them and ordering them and their affairs soe as may best conduce to their common good but cannot exercise it over contumacious and too potent Rebells any other way than by proclaiming them Outlaws and incapable of priviledges or protection from the laws of the Commonwealth so neither could it bee imagiâ—'d or expected by any rationall man that the Pope in those circumstances though hee were supposed and granted by both sides lawâ—ull Governour could exercise power over them in any other way hâ—n onely in iâ—flicting on them Ecclesiasticall punishments or censures and excommunicating or outlawing them from that Commonwealth which remain'd obed enâ— to him as he Bp. complainingly grant hee did Having thus shustled in every tittle of the staâ—e of the question hee accuses his Refuter that hee comes not neer the true question at all Can there bee a more candid stating a question and free from all equivocation than to begâ—n with a known matter of fact and acknowleâ—geâ— by boâ—h sides and thence to conclude those acters 〈◊〉 is breakers Schismaticks unles they can bring â—â—fficâ—ent reasons to warrant such a breach But let uâ— examiâ— a litâ—lâ— the ground of his Exception The true question saith hee is not whether the Bishop of Râ—me had any Authority in the Catholiâ—e Church Good Reader ask the Bp. whether his Refuter or any Catholike or even moderate Protestant ever mouâ—d such a question and whâ—ther it bee not frivolousnes and insincerity in the abstract to impose on us such as stating of the question whenas every child sees it is not barely his havâ—ng any Authority but his having a supreme Authority which is question'd and debaâ—ed between us and the Protestant It follows in him immediately The Pope had Authority in his Diocese as a Bishop in his Province as a Metropolitane in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs and all over as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church or S. Peter Where all the former words are totally besides the purpose nor ever made the question by us as the Bp. calumniates But the last words which grant the Pope had Authority all over as successour of S. Peter deserve consideration and thanks too if meant really for these words grant him an Authority more than Patriarchall nor a â—â—y primacy onely but an Authoriâ—y all over that is a power to act as the highest in Gods Church and in any part of the Church that is an universall Iurisdiction all over or over all the Church at least in some cases Now in this consists the sustance of the Papall Authority and had they of England retain'd still practically a subjection to this Authority as thus character'd they had not been excommunicated upon this score onely But the misery is that this our back-friend after hee hath given us alâ— this fair promising language that the Pope's Authority is higher than Patriarchall as the Climax in his discourse signifies that it is all over or universall and lastly that hee hath this universall Authority as hee is successour of S. Peter after all this I say if hee been prest home to declare himself as before hee granted S. Peter the first mover in Church and then told us that in a right sence it meant but a Primacy of order so hee will tell us the same of these flattering expressions and thâ—t the words Authority doth not in a right sence signify a power to act as a Governour though all the world else understand it so but onely a right to sit talk or walk first Et sic vera rerum nomina amisimus Thus my Refuter hath shown that I stated the question wrong now let us
For nothing is easier than to show that a wrongly pretended demonstration does not conclude evidently or convince that the thing is nothing easier than to show out of the very terms that a probability cannot rationally convince the understanding But the danger of this disadvantage and the fear of this quick decision is the reason his Ld. will tell us neither Thus Protestant Reader thou seest how dextrously thy Bp. hath behaved himself in answering both parts of our charge against him and which alone fundamentally concern our question to wit how hee hath by shuffling about avoided to say a positive word to one and totally omitted so much as to mention the other And this in the Bishops right sence is call'd vindicating the Church of England and replying to S. W. Sect. 2. How my Ld of Derry goes about to acquit the Protestants both a tanto and a toto as hee styles it grounding his violent prâ—sumptions of their innocency on contradictions both to common reason and his good Friend Dr. H. on his own bare word that his party are Saints and his non-sencicall plea that those who began first to separate from our Church were ere that united to it HItherto I have been somewhat larger in replying than I intended because the former points were fundamentally concerning and totally decisive of the question His Exceptions since hee dares not own them for demonstrations are consequently in our case trifles toyes and nothing to the purpose and therefore as they cannot challenge any at all so I ought not to wrong my self in giving them too large an Answer unles in those places where they touch upon a point that is more important In the first place hee maintains that it many wayes acquits the Protestants continuing the breach because not they but the Roman-Catholikes themselves did make the first separation Wee will omit the perfect non-sence of this plea which equally acquits any Villain in the world who insists in the steps of his forefather Villains For may not hee argue against honest men by the same Logick and say that they are acquitted because not Villains but they who were honest men formerly begun first the Villany It being equally infallible and necessary that hee who first turn'd naught was ere hee turn'd so good before as it is that hee who first separated was ere hee separated united to that Church that is a Roman Catholike But I have say'd enough of this Part 1. p. 92. 93. therefore let us now examin his reasons why this many wayes as hee sayes acquits them First hee sayes it is a violent presumption of our guilt that our own best friends did this The word best might have been left out they were ever accounted better friends who remain'd in their former faith and the other Bps look't upon as Schismaticks by the obedient party But yet it might seem some kinde of argument against us did those who were friends in all other respects voluntarily oppose us in this and out of a free and unbiassed choice as the Bp. must pretend else hee does nothing Let us examin this then Your own good friend Dr. H. shall give you satisfaction in that point of Schism p. 136 where speaking of this Act of the Clergy in renouncing the Authority of the Roman see the palpable truth obliging him hee hath these words It is easy to beleeve that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung overthem by a premunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it Thus hee The violent presumption then of our guilt which you imagin concluded hence is turn'd into a iust presumption or rather a confest Evidence of the King 's violent cruelty and their fearfull weaknes Rare Grounds doubtles to acquit you for being led by their Authority or following their example Secondly hee tells us that though it do not alwaies excuse a toto from all guilt yet it excuses a tanto and lessens the guilt to bee misled by the examples and Authority of others c. Let us examin this as apply'd to the Protestants How could they think their example to bee follow'd or their Authority to bee rely'd on whom they confess to have done what they did out of fear that is out of passion and not out of the pure verdict of reason conscience Again if their example were to bee follow'd why do not they follow it rather in repenting of their Schism and renouncing it as those Bps did after the King's death since the imminent fear which aw'd them at the time of their fall and during the King's life ioyn'd with their retraction after his death of what they had done render it a thousand times more manifest that their conscience took part with the obedient side had they had courage enough to stand to it Moreover sometimes the first beginners of a fault may bee less culpable then their followers according to the degrees of the provocations which press upon their weaknesses Theirs wee have seen to bee no less than the expectation of death and destruction such was the violence of the King 's in humane cruelty and their present disadvantageous case which expos'd them to it Your conâ—inuance in Schism compar'd to the motivâ—s of their fault is in a manner gratis All your reason heretofore of thus continuing being for your Livings and interest and at present onely a vain-glorious itch to approve your selves to your party for braue fellows in railing against the Pope and defending a Chimera bomâ—inans in vacuo the Church of England found no where save in the imaginary space of your own fancies Thirdly hee assures us that in this case it doth acquit them not onely a tanto but a toto from the least degree of guilt as long as they carefully seek after truth and do not violate the dictates of their own conscience and then bids mee if I will not beleeve him beleeve S. Austin who sayes that they who defend not their false opinions with pertinacity but are ready to embrace truth and correct their errours when they finde them are not Hereticks I Answer S. Austin sayes well onely obstinacy makes an heretick and so far wee beleive him But does S. Austin say that Bp. Bramhall ad his fellows are not obstinate or that they neglect not to seek not refuse not to embrace truth found and by consequence are not Hereticks and Schismaticks The generall words of the father signify nothing to your purpose unles they bee apply'd to your party and who makes the application The Bp. himself and upon what Grounds upon his own bare word and then cries They are totally acquited from Schism That is hee makes an acquittance himself for himself writes it with his own hand set his own seal to it and subscribes it with his own name and then brings it into the Court to clear himself of the whole debt and that by his own Authority Reader trust neither side as they barely testify of themselves but trust what
the said Rule of faith which brings faith to an uncertainty that is to a nullity or no obligation of holding any thing to bee of faith Yet this former Rule of faith the first Reformers renounc't when they renounced the Pope's Headship recommended by that Rule Sixthly the matter of fact not onely charges you to have rejected the Rules of Vnity in faith and Government in the Church you left and by consequence since both then and now you acknowledge her a true Church broke Church Communion but it is also equally evident that your Grounds since have left the Church no Rule of either but have substituted opinion in stead of faith or obscurity of Grammaticall quibbling in stead of Evidence of Authority and Anarchy in stead of Government For the Rule of faith if the former Church was so easy and certain a method of coming to Christ's law that none that had reason could bee either ignorant or doubtfull of it what easier than Children to beleeve as they were taught and practice as they were shownd What more impossible than for fathers to conspire to either errour or malice in teaching their Children what was most evident to them by daily practice of their whole lives to have been their immediately foregoing fathers doctrine and was most important to their and their Children's endles bliss or misery And what more evident than that they who proceed upon this principle as Catholikes do will alwaies continue and ever did to deliver embrace what was held formerly that is to conserve true faith Now in stead of this though the Protestants will tell us sometimes upon occasion that they hold to Tradition and at present beleeve their immediate forefathers yet if wee goe backward to King H. the 8th's time their chain of immediate delivery is interrupted and at an end the Reformation which they own broke that and shows their recourse to iâ— a false hearted pretence ours goes on still Whether run they then finding themselves at a loss here for an easy open and certain method of faith Why they turn your wits a woolgathering into a wildernes of words in the Scriptures ask them for a certain method to know the true sence of it they 'l tell you 't is plain or that you need no more but a Grammar and a dictionary to find out a faith nay less and that common people who neither understand what Grammar nor dictionary means may find it there though our eyes testify that all the world is together by the ears about understanding the sence of it Ask them for a certain interpreter perhaps sometimes they will answer you faintly that the generall Councils and fathers are one that is you must run over Libraries ere you can rationally embrace any faith at all and if you bee so sincere to your nature reason as to look for certainty which books are legitimate fathers which not which Councils generall authentick and to bee beleeved which not you are engag'd again to study all the School-disputes Controversies which concern those questions And if you repine at the endles laboriousnes of the task the insecurity of the method and the uncertainty of the issue and urge them for some other certainer shorter and plainer way of finding faith they will reply at length and confess as their best Champions Chillingworth and Faulkland do very candidly that there is no certainty of faith but probability onely which signifies that no man can rationally bee a Christian or have any obligation to beleeve any thing since it is both most irrationall and impossible there should bee any obligâ—tion to assent upon a probability And thus Reader thou se est what pass they bring faith and it's Vnity to to wit to a perfect nullity and totall ruin Next as for Government let us see whether they have left any Vnity of that in God's Church That which was held for God's Church by them while they continued with us were those Churches onely in Communion with the see of Rome the Vnity of Government in this Church was evident and known to all in what it consisted to wit in the common acknowledment of the Bishop of Rome as it's Head Since they left that mother they have got new Brothers and sisters whom before they accounted Bastards and Aliens so that God's Church now according to them is made up of Greeks Lutherans Huguenots perhaps Socinians Presbyterians Adamites Quakers c. For they give no Ground nor have any certain Rule of faith to discern which are of it which not But wee will pitch upon their acknowledg'd favourites First the Church of England holds the King the Head of their Church Next the Huguenots whom they own for dear Brothers and part of God's Church hold neither King nor yet Bishop but the Presbyteâ—y onely strange Vnity which stands in terms of contradiction Thirdly the Papists are accounted by them lest they should spoil their own Mission part of God's Church too and these acknowledge noe Head but the Pope Fourthly the Lutherans are a part of their kind hearted Church and amongst them for the most part each parish-Minister is Head of his Church or Parish without any subordination to any higher Ecclesiasticall Governour Lastly the Greek Church is held by them another part and it acknowledges no Head but the Patriarch I omit those sects who own no Government at all Is not this now a brave Vnity where there are five disparate forms of Government which stand aloof and at arms end with one another without any commonty to unite or connect them Let them not toy it now as they use and tell us of an union of charity our discourse is about an Vnity of Government either then let him show that God's Church as cast in this mold has an Vnity within the limits and notion of Government thaâ— is any commonty to subscribe to some one sort of Government either acknowledg'd to have been instituted by Christ or agreed on by common coÌ„sent of those in this new-fashion'd Church or else let him confess that this Church thus patch't up has no Vnity in Government at all Wee will do the Bishop a greater favour and give him leave to set aside the french Church and the rest and onely reflect upon the form of Government they substituted to that which they rejected to wit that the King or temporall power should bee supreme in Ecclesiasticall Affairs Bee it so then and that each particular pretended Church in the world were thus govern'd wee see that they of England under their King would make one Church they of Holland under their Hogen Moghen Magistrates another France under it's King a third and so all the rest of the countries in the world Many Churches wee see here indeed in those Grounds and many distinct independent Governours but where is there any Vnity of Government for the whole where is there any supreme Governour or Governours to whom all are bound to submit and conform themselves in the
is my task to defendit What say you to the Office it self as put down here by mee Return my L d whence you stray'd and tell us is not the Office it self thus moderately yet substantially exprest naturally conducing to the peace Vnity Faith Discipline other universall conveniencies of Christendome or is it though thus advantageous to the whole Church to be rejected because of the abuses of particular persons These are the points between us what say you to these why in the next parag hee would have us look upon the case without an if or as a Pope should bee no my Lord I ought not in reason to quit that method you I are not disputing about mens lives but the Catholike tenet and whether the very tenet bee advantageous to the Church or not If wee leave this wee leave the whole Question Yet wee must leave the Question else my Lord will not proceed nor dispute telling us that if wee look upon the case without an if or as the Pope should bee that is indeed if wee look not upon the case then wee shall finde the Papacy as it is settled or would have been sayes hee the cause of Schisms Ecclesiasticall dissentions war amongst Princes c. Where first if nothing follows out of my words but this disiunctive as it is settled or would have been then it remains for any thing hee expresses that as it is settled it is not apt to cause any of these inconveniences but onely would have been in case some vicious attemptors had had the power to corrupt that which was actually well in the Church Next if hee speak of the Papacy as it is settled hee must look upon it as held by the Rule of faith and acknowledg'd by all Romane Catholikes otherwise if hee considers it according to what is disputable wrangled about between Catholike Catholike hee considers it not as settled for this is to bee not setled nor indeed is this to speak of the Papacy it self about which Catholikes have no debates but of the extent of it Now let him either evince that Papacy as settled or held universally by all Catholikes is in it's own nature the cause of Schisms dissentions Warrs c. Or grant that 't is not such but the contrary as hee does here tacitly by yeelding that if it were as it should bee it would bee faultles and presently doubting whether it bee right settled that is as it should bee or no. The substance of the Pope's Authority being stated I show'd all the Bishop's arrows falling on his own head because not with standing such disputes it is evident that the nature and notion of one Church is intirely conserved the Papacy standing firm in those very Catholike countries which resisted the Pope and those countries governing themselves in an Vnity of faith Sacraments correspondence like one Body as is visible whereas their Reform or renouncing the Pope has cut of England from all this Communication or correspondence and made it no part of one Church greater then it self but an headles Synagogue without Brother hood or order Hee replies Neither so nor so How then my Lord why hee tells us first that the Eastern Southern Northern Churches admit none higher then the cheifest Patriarch Well my L d are you and they both joyntly under the Government of those Patriarchs or any other common Government If not how are you then of one community or Brotherhood as Governed Next hee alledges that agreat part of the Westerne Churches have shaken of the Roman Yoke Grant it were so and that those Congregations were in reality Churches which wee deny yet are you united with those Churches under some common Christian Government joyning you them into one Christian Commonwealth If not as your eyes witnes 't is not then how are you their Brothers or of their community Show us this visible ty of order uniting you together To say you are one or united to them without showing us this extern ty is very easy but convinces nothing Thirdly hee tells us that the rest of the Western world which acknowledge the Papacy do it with very many reservations cautions and restrictions Very good my Lord if they onely restrain'd they restrain'd something which they admitted as thus restrain'd to wit the substance of the Pope's Authority Are you at least united with them Alas no you are disunited from them by totally renouncing and not restraining onely that Authority which visibly united them Where then is your Brother hood where is your order Fourthly hee answers that for order they are for it as much as wee That you are for it desire it if your Grounds would let you wee doubt not But have you any such order uniting you visibly to the rest of the Christian world To say you are for it when the Question is whether you have it no without ever attempting to show us this visible order signifies you neither have any nor can show any or that you have indeed a feeble wish for it but not efficacious enough to make you use means to obtain it Fifthly hee tells us that for Christian Brother hood they maintain it three times larger then wee But he never goes about to show us any visible ty of Government uniting them into one CoÌ„monwealth or Brother hood 'T is a sufficient proof with him to say they maintain it that is they call more Brothers then wee do but whether they are so indeed or no 't is so evident with him though hee knows his own fellows say the contrary as may bee seen in Rosse's view of Religioâ—s that it needs no proof though it bee all the Question Sixthly as for their being an headles Synagogue hee replies that they want no head who have Christ a spirituall Head Wee are demanding a visible common Head or cheif GovernmeÌ„t of the whole Church common to England with the rest and hee relates us to Christ in Heaven Such an Head is God Amighty to all mankind must they therefore because of this invisible relation become one CoÌ„monvealth Again this latter towit whether Christ bee their spirituall Head or no is invisible unknown and is to bee judged by the other thus that if Christ have lest any Vnity of Goverment in his Church and commanded it to bee kept and they have taken a course to leave no such Vnity 't is evident that they have rebell'd against Christ as well as his Church and so falsly pretend to have him for their spirituall Head Next hee tells us that they have a generall Council for an Ecclesiasticall Head Which is to confess that there is no ordinary Vnity of Government in God's Church but extraordinary onely when a Council sits that is there is none de facto at present nay morally impossible there should bee any as Dr. H. sayes Reply p. 39. and 't is a great chance when there is any perhaps towards the end of the world as the same Dr.
terms Fortifying With what incomparable art hee clears himself of another And how hee totally neglects the whole Question the Duty of a Controvertist in impugning opinions acknowledg'dly held onely by some in stead of points of faith held by the whole Church HHis Eighth chapter pretends to prove the Pope the Court of Rome most guilty of the Schism Which hee makes account hee hath done so strongly that hee needs not fortify any thing yet hee will needs do a needless bufines and goes about to fortify as hee calls it in his way not with standing To the first argument saith hee hee denieth that the Church of Rome is but a sister or a Mother and not Mistress to other Churches Which is first flatly to falsify my words to be seen Schism Disarm p. 327. which never deny her to bee a Mother but a Sister onely and this is his first endeavour of needles fortifying Next whereas the words Mistress may signify two things to wit a person that imperiously and proudly commands in which acception 't is the same with Domina and correlative to Serva a slave or hire ling slave Or else a Teacheress as I may say or one which instructs and so is coincident with Magistra and correlative to Discipula a Disciple or schollar Again it being evident both out of the Council of Florence where it is defined Romanam Ecclesiam esse Matrem Magistramque omnium Ecclesiarum and also out of common sence that wee take it in this latter signification the quibbling Bp. takes it in the former that is not as understood by us but by himself and then impugns his own mistake citing S. Bernard who exhorting Pope Eugenius to humility bids him consider that the Roman Church Ecclesiarum Matrem esse non Dominam is the Mother not Lady of all Churches And this is another attempt of his needles fortifying My L d of Derry may please then to understand that when wee say that the Roman Church is Mother Mistress of other Churches wee take the word Mother as relating to her Government or power of governing whose correlative is a sweet subjection not a hard or rigorous slavery and the word Mistress as expressing her power of teaching Or if the Bp. bee loath to grant the word Mistress taken in our sence which yet hee never goes about to impugn or disprove let him but allow stand to what the testimony himself brings here avouches to wit that shee is Mother of other Churches and that shee hath right to rule and teach her children as a Mother should do 't is as much as wee desire Now let us apply this see how rarely the Bishop hath cleared himself of Schism layd it at our doâ—e Hee hath brought a testimony which asserts the Church of Rome to bee the Mother of other Churches and so of the Church of England too if shee be Church nor does himself in this place deny her that title but seems to grant it But it is manifest de facto and by their solemn ordinances publike writings that her good Daughter the Church of England tells her flatly shee will not ought not obey her and thus by the Bp ' s Logick shee becomes acquitted of Schism Which I must confess is not onely a needles but a sleeveles manner of fortifying Again Schism involves in it's notion disobedience and the Bishop in this chapter pretends to show her Schismaticall that is disobedient to do which hee brings us a testimony which asserts our Church to bee Mother of other Churches and then concludes the Mother Schismaticall because shee is disobedient to her Daughter Pithy non-sence or if made sence flatly accusing their Church of Schism for disobeying her Mother and this deducible cleerly from that very testimony hee brought to prove the contrary which kind of arguing is in the Bp s phrase call'd needles fortifying His pretence of a new creed which was his second argument to prove us Schismaticall made by Pope Pius the fourth is already shown Sect. 1. to bee a calumny To which I add that our creed is the points of our beleef or faith since then 't is known that each point in that Profession of faith put out by him was held as of faith by the former Church ere hee thus collected them 't is a contradiction to pretend that hee made a new creed till it be shown that any of those points there contained was not formerly of faith and prove satisfactorily that the Apostles containes all necessary points of faith which will bee manifested at the Greek calends His third argument was because wee maintain the Pope in a rebellion against a generall Council To this hee sayes I answer not a word Let us see whether it deserves a word of Answer The difference between a Controvertist and a Schoolman is the same as is between a Church a School Controvertists therefore of severall Churches defend those points impugn the contrary ones which are held by those Churches as Churches that is as Congregations relying upon their Rule of faith Either then let him show that our Church holds as of faith or as received upon her Rule of faith the Pope's Supremacy to a generall Council else in impugning that point hee totally prevaricates from the office of a Controvertist hath done nothing which was his duty and so merits no answer save onely this that if hee will dispute against private opinions hee must cite his Authors argue against them not the Church whose beleef is contained in the decrees of Councils and universall consent of fathers Doctors Which answer I then gave him expresly Schism Disarm p. 327 Now to show the vanity of this third argument let him either manifest that our Church prest upon them this point of holding the Pope above Councils so as to excommunicate them upon their contrary tenet else all pretence of our causing the Schism is avoided for in case it were not thus prest his argument stands thus very many Schoolmen a great party among them held that opinion where upon wee left their Church ergo they are most guilty of the Schism Which is as senceles a paralogism as a sleepy brain could have stumbled on For why should any break Church-Communion as long as hee can keep it with conscience or how is my conscience concern'd in other men's opinions as long as they permit mee to hold the contrary Now that our Church permits the contrary tenet and denies none Communion for it himself testifies vindication p. 200. where hee puts down as one of the tenets of the now-french Church that generall Councils are above the Pope and may depose him c. The Bishop was conscious that hee had neglected the office of a Controvertist by impugning Schoolmen Lawyers Courtiers instead of our Church and an opinion held by many instead of a point of faith held by all To delude the Reader in reality to oppose the former which belonged not
alledging Testimonies may be reckon'd as another head or common-place of Dr. H's wily shifts and consists in this that though the whole scope and import of the Testimony be against him he touches sleightly and in passing as it were at two or three words of it which taken alone and introduced with a handsome boldnes seem to sound for his purpose whereas the whole import of the place is either point-blank opposite or quite disparate at the best half a dozen indifferently-appliable words found in it sometimes scarce a monosyllable as hath been shown all over in Schism Disarm'd see in particular his ample and pregnant testimony from the bare and vulgar monosyllable come Schism Dis p. 81. Sect. 11. Other self contradictory proofs wilfull mistakes and wily sleights of Dr. H's to maintain the same point AFter this hysteron-proteron testimony concerning Iames his first-last place we have another from S. Chrysostome thus put down by Mr. H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for thus speaking of S. Iames it behoves him that is in great power or Authority to leave the sharper things to others and himself to draw his arguments from the gentler and milder Topicks and hence Mr. H. infers James in this councill clearly superior to S. Peter This seems terrible but to render good for evill and not to wrong Dr. H. who thus baffles us with testimonies we will make himself the rule of interpreting this place He tells us p. 43. that he pretends not that any of the other Apostles had any greater Authority then Peter much lesse Iames the Bishop of Hierusalem who as he supposes was none of the twelve but onely that as Bishop he had the principall place even in S. Peter's presence How this equall power of all the Apostles consists with S. Peter having no power save over one portion of the dispersed Iews onely as Dr. H. affirmed of Schism p. 71. I will not now examin with concerns us to observe in it is onely this that he produces not these testimonies to prove the greater power of any in this councill but onely the principall places of Iames. This being clearly his meaning as it is also more particularly exprest throughout this whole tenth paragraph in the end of which this Testimony is found what mean the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great power in which the whole force of his testimony lies does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vse to signify place or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principall or both of them together principal place as that is contradistinguisht from greater power How come then the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify principall place That he had in that place great power which the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly and properly signify we willingly grant since we deny not his being Bishop there but that he had greater or as Dr. H. expresses it was clearly superiour to S. Peter is both expressely contradictory to himself and to his whole scope and intention which was to prove as he tells us not his greater power but principall place onely But let us grant that Dr. H. hath forgot what he was about and that in stead of proving the principall place onely he having light on an odd testimony which spoke expresly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power infers there-upon that Iames was clearly superior there to S. Peter meaning in power let all this I say be granted and pardoned if S. Iames were superior there in power to S. Peter I suppose he was likewise superior to the rest for I fear not that Dr. H. should deny his inference of all the Apostles equality from their being called foundation-stones pillars and Apostles in the plurall then I ask whither Dr. H. thinks in his conscience that these Apostles who had Authority to constitute Iames Bishop there had not Authority likewise to remove him if they saw it convenient if they had then they had an Authority superior to S. Iames even in his own see and I would ask Dr. H. even in his own grounds why S. Peter should not be his superior still aswel as S. Paul was yet superior to Timothy and Titus after they were fixt Bishops S. Iames being constituted Bishop in Iudea shown to have been S. Peter's Province I mean such Province as he is pretended to have had as well as the Gentiles over whom Timothy and Titus were constituted Bishops were pretended to bee S. Paul's Province Again wee will pardon Dr. H. his affirmation that the Apostles distributed their universal great Province into severall lesser ones Those famous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet giving S. Iames here an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province also whom he holds here to be no Apostle Or if Dr. H. refuse to accept the pardon and fall to qualify thefact then I vse my advantage and vrge him was S. Iames independent or was he still subject as Timothy and Titus are held by himself to have been even after they were Bishops If he were independent then he went a breast with the Apostles in self Authority and had his catachrestically-nam'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aswell as they But if he remain'd still subject then his territory being amongst the Iews and S Peter being by Dr. H's exclusive place of Scripture nam'd Apostle of the Iews in the same tenour as S. Paul was over the Gentiles Gal. 2. it is given us by Dr. H's grounds that in all probability he could be subject to none but to the Apostle of the Iews S. Peter and that in his own see which was in S. Peter's Province at lest that kind of Province which he can be pretended from Scripture to have had But what should those words of Dr. H's signify Answ p. 43. that in his see Iames was considered as a Bishop and so had the principall place even in Peter's presence Cannot one be a Bishop but he must sit in a council before his betters Suppose the Apostles had constituted a Bishop of Rochester in England and assembled themselves there in conuncil must therefore the honest Bishop of Rochester sit before S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles Nay more let us imagin a nationall council to bee met there ought not the Bishop of Rochester give place to his Metropolitan the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and let him pronounce the sentence yet D. H. here out of his ill will to the Pope's predecessour S. Peter will let S. Iames do neither though he hold's him to have been no Apostle But 'ts sufficient with him that he is a Bishop in that place to infer him to bee clearly superiour to all there to have the principall place give the sentence and what not Nor matters it that even according to Dr. H. the others are Apostles and he none nor how high they how low he bee in Authority if S. Peter bee in company the private Bishop shall be clearly superiour to them all whereas had he been absent S. Iames
hear him state it right The true question saith hee is what are the right bounds and limits of this Authority and then reckons up a company of particularities some true most of them coâ—â—erning the extent of the Pope's Authority iâ—self and debated amoÌ„gst our owne Canon-Lawyers some flat lies and calumnies as whether the Pope have power to sell palls pardons and Indulgences to impose pensions at his pleasure to infringe the liberties and customes of whole nations to deprive Princes of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their Allegiance c. Was ever such stuff brought by a Controvertist or was ever man soe frontles as to make these the true state of the question between us that is to preteÌ„d that our Church holds these things as of faith To manifest more the shallownes of my Adversary the Reader may please to take notice of the difference between the substance of the Pope's Authority as held by us and the extent of it The substance of it consists in this that hee is Head of the Church that is first mover in it and that hee hath Authority to act in it after the nature of a first Governour This is held with us to bee of faith and acknowledg'd unanimously by all the faithfull as come from Christ and his Apostles so that none can bee of our Communion who deny it nor is this debated at all between Catholike Catholike but between Catholike and Heretike onely Hence this is held by our Church as a Church that is as a multitude receiving it upon their Rule of faith universall Attestation of immediate Ancestours as from theirs and so upwards as from Christ and not upon criticall debates or disputes of learnedmen The extent of this Authority consists in determining whether this power of thus acting reaches to these and these particularities or no the resolution of which is founded in the deductions of divines Canon-Lawyers and such like learnedmen and though sometimes some of those points bee held as a common opinion of the schoolmen and as such embraced by many Catholikes yet not by them as faithfull that is as relying â—pon their Ancestours as from theirs as from Christ but as relying upon the learnedmen in Canon-law and implicitely upon the reasons which they had to judge so and the generality's accepting their reasons for valid which is as much as to say such points are not held by a Church as a Church no more than it is that there is an Element of fire in Concavo Lunae or that Columbus found out the Indies The points therefore are such that hee who holds or deems otherwise may still bee held one of the Church or of the Commonwealth of the faithfull nor bee blameable for holding otherwise if hee have better reasons for his tenet than those other learned men had for theirs as long as hee behaves himself quietly in the said Commonwealth Perhaps a parallel will clear the matter better The acknowledgment of the former Kings of England to bee supreme Governours in their Dominions was heretofore as wee may say a point of civill faith nor could any bee reputed a good subject who deny'd this in the undifputable acknowledgment of which coÌ„sisted the substance of their Authority But whether they had power to raise ship money impose subsidies c. alone and without a Parliament belong'd to the extent of their Authority was subject to dispute and the proper task of Lawyers nor consequently did it make a man an Outlaw or as wee may say a civill Schismatick to disacknowledge such extents of his Authority so hee admitted the Authority it self I concieve the parallell is soe plain that it will make it 's owne application This being settled as I hope it is so let it stand a while till wee make another consideration A Controversy in the sence which our circumstances determine it is a dispute about faith and so a Controvertist as such ought to impugn a point of fâ—ith that 〈◊〉 hee ought to iâ— pugn that which is held by a Church as a Church or that which is held by a Church upon her Rule of faith Hence if the Government of that Church bee held of faith according to it's substance and not held of faith according to it's extent hee ought to impugn it according to the substance of the said Government and not it's extent otherwise hee totally prevaricates from the proper office of a Controvertist not impugning faith but opinions noâ— that Church as a Church and his Adversary but falsly supposing himself as it were one of that company and to hold all the substance of it's Authority hee sides with one part of the true subjects and disputes against the other in a point indifferent to faith unconcerning his duty These things Reader observe with attention and then bee thine own judge whether hee play not the Mountebank with thee instead of the Controvertist who in his former book pretended to vindicate the Church of England which renounced the substance of this Authority by impugning the extent of it onely and here undertaking to correct his Refuter and state the question rightly first grants in very plain but wrong mean't terms the whole question to wit that the Pope hath Authority over the whole Church as successour of S. Peter and then tells thee that the true question is about the extent of it and what are the right limits and bounds of this Authority which kind of questions yet hee knows well enough are debated by the obedient and true members of that Commonwealth whence hee is Outlaw'd and which hee pretends to impugn His 8th page presents the Reader with a great mistake of mine and 't is this that I affirmed it was and is the constant beleef of the Casholike world by which I mean all in Communion with the Church of Rome whom onely I may call Catholikes that these two Principles were Christ's owne ordination recorded in Scrpture Whereas hee cannot but know that all our Doctourâ—s de facto did and still do produce places of Scripture to prove that former Principle to wit that Tradition is the Rule of faith as also to prove S. Peter's higher power over the Apostles nor is it new that the succession of Pastours till wee all meet in the Vnity of Glory should bee Christ's own Ordination and recorded there likewise Nor can I devise upon what Grounds hee and his fellow-fellow-Bishops of England who hold Scripture onely the Rule of faith can maintain their Authority to bee iure divino unles they hold likewise that it bee there recorded and bee Christ's Ordination that following Pastours succed into the Authority of their predecessours But the pretended mistake lies here that whereas I said the Bishops of Rome inherited this priviledge from S. Peter mâ—aning that those who are Bpâ— of Rome being S. Peter's successours inherited this power hee will needs take mee in a reduplicative sence as if I spoke of the Bishop of Rome as of Rome and
in that Council and yet bee a lawfull one too Rub up your memory my L d. you pretend to bee a piece of a Lawyer and I beleeve you will finde an English law that Sixty members is a sufficient number to make a lawfull Parliament and before that law was made common consent custome which is either equivalent or perhaps above law gave the same for granted Fourthly he excepts against the super proportion'd multitude of members out of one Province which hee sayes never lawfull Parliament had I ask if other Provinces would neither send a fit number nor they had a minde to come by what law by what reason should it render illegitimate either Parliament or Council Now 't is certain and not deny'd by any but that Bishop's had as free liberty to come out of other Provinces as out of Italy had they pleased Again the principall busines being to testify the Tradition of former ages a small number of Bishops serving for that and the collaterall or secundary busines being to examin the difficulties those Hereticks which were the occasion of the Council produced that they might be confuted fully out of their own mouthes which is a thing to bee performed by committees in which learned men that were not Bishops might sit it little inferred the want of Bishops Wherefore if there were any error in the supernumerarines of Bishops out of some one Province it was for some other end than for the condemnation of Heresies so is nothing to our purpose unles perhaps my L d will pretend that had those Catholike B p' s out of other Provinces been there they would have voted against their fellow Catholikes in behalf of Luther or Calvin which were a wise Answer indeed Fifthly hee excepts that the Council of Trent is not received in France in point of Discipline What then why by his parallell to a Parliament hee concludes hence t was no lawfull Council Which is to abuse the eyes of the whole world who all see that France who denies the admission of those points of Discipline acknowledges it not withstanding a generall lawfull Council and receives it in all determinations belonging to faith which are so essential to it as it were disacknowledg'd were they deny'd though not in matters of fact which are accidentall to it's Authority nay allow'd by the Church it self however made exprest generally to binde particular countries onely in due circumstances according to their conveniencies Lastly hee alledges that they were not allow'd to speak freely in the Council of Trent Which is a flat calumny and though most important to his cause could hee prove it yet after his bold custome 't is onely asserted by his own bare saying by Sleidan a notoriously lying Author of their own side and by a passage or two in the History of the Council of Trent whereof the first is onely a ieering expression any thing will serve the B p. the other concerning the Pope's creating new Bp's nothing at all to his purpose since both these new the other old B p' s were all of one Religion Catholikes so not likely to dissent in voâ—ing Doctrines which kind of votes are essentiall to a Council pertinent to our discourse which is about Doctrines not about Discipline After this hee puts down three solutions as hee calls them to our plea of the Patriarchall Authority First that Britain was no part of the Roman Patriarchate And this hee calls his first solution Secondly that though it had been yet the Popes have both quitted forfeited their Patriarchall power and though they had not yet it is lawfully transferred And this is his second solution The third is that the difference between them and us is not concerning any Patriarchall Authority And this is his third solution which is a very really good one shows that the other need no reply our charge against them being for renouncing the supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority of divine Institution not a Patriarchate onely of humane Institution If further answer bee demanded first the Greek Schismaticks our enemies confess that England was a part of the Pope's Patriarchate if it bee truly called a Western Church see Barlaam Monachus de Papae Principatu c. 11 and Part. 1. Sect. 15. of the adjoyning Treatise Next it is falsely pretended that the Pope's have either quitted or forfeited their Patriarchall Authority and may with equall reason bee concluded that a Bishop quits Episcopall Authority if hee is also a Patriarch or that a person must leave of to be Master of his own family because hee is made King and his Authority universally extended to all England Which last instance may also serve against the pretended inconsistency of the Papall and Patriarchall power if it need any more answer than what hath formerly been given Sect. 4. I omit his calumnies against the Papall Authority charactering it falsly as a meere unbridled tyranny And his thrice repeated non-sence when hee joyns in one notion Patriarchall Authority a Patriarchy being a Government by one an Aristocracy by many Nor is his other calumniating expression much better when hee calls the Papall Authority a Soveraign Monarchicall Royalty since it was never pretended by Catholikes that the Pope is the King of the Church The notion of Priest and Sacrifice being relative the failing of the one destroyes the other since then the Protestants have no Sacrifice they are convinced to have no Priests This point in particular hee never touch't but talk't a little in obscure terms of matter form of ordination as if it were not an easy thing to say what words they pleased and do what actions they pleased To this the Bishop onely replies that hee over did and set down the point of Sacrifice over distinctly Next hee tells us their Registers are publike offices whether any man may repair at pleasure whereas our question is not of the Registers in generall but of that one particular pretended Register of the right ordination of Protestant Bishops kept conceal'd from the free perusall of Catholikes though the circumstances to wit their alledging the unlawfulnes of the Protestant Bishops ordination requir'd it should bee shown His next paragraph concerning their uncharitablenes needs not bee repeated unles it could be mended My expedient to procure peace Vnity which was to receive the root of Christianity a practicall infallibility in the Church hee seems willing to admit of Onely hee adds that the greater difficulty will bee what this Catholike Church is and indeed to his party 't is an insuperableone though to us most facil as I have shown formerly Sect. 7. Hee call'd the Bishops of Italy the Pope's parasiticall pentioners I reply'd it seem'd his Lordship Kept a good table and had great revenews independent on any Hee answers hee was not in passion and that hee Spoke onely against meer Episcopelles which is to show that his passion is nothing abated yet by adding such unsavory
this present controversy as Schismatical yet Dr. H's great reach of wit can by the way and within a Parenthesis make such a dolt of S. W. His proof from my words is better then the supposiâ—ion it self I said our Church could cast them out and deny them communion if they be found to deserve it being then her Subjects and Children Actually they were under her at that time if then they could alledge just that is evident reasons why they thought her Government an usurpation then they did not deserve it and so she could not excommunicate them if they did not and yet would subtract themselves from her obedience then they deserv'd it and were justly excommunicated Can any man doubt of this or impose such a piece of known non-sense as his former deduction out of it is upon another unless possess 't with Dr. H's want of ingenuity yet this he repeats again p. 21. and calls his own straining at a gnat my swallowing down the question at one haust Now let us examin my words which breed his scruple they are these as cited in the Marge by himself That our Church could cast you out if you be found to deserve it being then her Subjects and Children none doubts Here I ask first whether he can shew that I speak of any interiour or legal Authority which if he cannot 't is a plain imposture to father upon me the word legal as he does in this place Secondly I demand whether any Protestant or Dr. H. himself doubts whether there was an extern apparent and acknowledged Authority the which for being such was to be obeyed until it was disproved in the Church of Rome over the pretended Reformers This being acknowledged I ask what it is he excepts against That such an Authority could not proceed against her esteemed Subiects if they deserv'd it for this is all my words signify'd and is so plain of it self that no man that hath any common sense can make difficulty of it He tells us p. 19. that the questions is equally and indifferently whether they or the Romanists be guilty of Schism including also the remorseless Governours in the Romish See Where he quite mistakes the business his meaning as I perceive by his whole procedure and particularly p. 22. where he sayes that the Pope ought to clear his title to his pretended power is that we should be mutually counter-opponent and counter-defendants and each produce proofs ere we can claim any thing But he is in a gâ—eat errour we need no new proofs to convince the lawfulness of our Authority our plea is provided to our hand before they opposed us and started the question Possession is all the proofs we need bring and such a possession as had to strengthen it an universal belief that it came from Christ's time grounded upon the certainty of Oral Tradition so that we made no question of it it was a point of our Faith and therefore need produce no proofs for our affirmative whereas they who first question'd this before-unquestionable and reâ—ected this before-received Authority must bring reasons why they did so and proofs why they deemed it usurp't The question therefore in this preâ—ent debate devolves to this whether the proofs Dr. H. produces be convincingly evident against a possession so qualify'd as is before declared if they fall short of that force eo ipso he and his Friends are concluded Schismaticks for relinquishing without just motives an Authority whose possession is justly presumable to have come from Christ if they be perfect Evidences then they are excusable and in their excusableness is terminated the controversy in hand if we may trust the title of his book which is A Defence against the exceptâ—on of the Romanists or his own stating the questâ—on of Schism p. 11. from which he here prevaricates p. 19. What follows further out of their excusableness against us that is whether we were unjust usupers tyrannical c. is another question for which sequel I would not contend with them if the premisses could be possibly evinced However if we usurp't it was not lately but a thousand years agoe But that our Church shall in that case be schismatical as he here sayes that expression comes out from the mouths and pens of his Friends so weakly and faintly the light of nature and common language of mankind checking them that the whole is not said to be broken from a part but a part from the whole that he must have recourse to the universal obligation of Charity to pretend us such for we can never be â—hown even in his supposed case Schismatical against Government or Vnity in the Church if no such Vnity can be found as it cannot in that mould he hath cast Christianity in by making each Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Independent or self-govern'd since there can be no division made where the things are already many After his pretended indifferency of the question he tells us that it must not be begg'd on either side and hereafter he complains of me grievously for the same fault I am sorry to see M. H. so ignorant in Logick that he mistakes the most ordinary things in disputing Let him know then that a Defendant as a Defendant cannot be sayd to beg the question since it is his office to hold his tenet which is the thing in controversy and stick close by it whatever prejudices or impossibilities are objected to deny them coÌ„sequent from it granting those things which he takes to be consistent with it denying those which he deems inconsistent unless it be an open evidence if an ambiguity occur to distinguish the double sense and show again which part of the distinction is consistent with it which otherwise in all which it is manifest he supposes the truth of the question and holds fast to it nor ought he let go that hold til he be non-plust and the dispute at an end My part then being the Defendant's as hath been proved out of the tenth Ground the Reader may see with how much Logick D. H. complains of me all over for only holding my tenet which he calls begging the question For however he may pretend to the name of a Defender yet since his party begun first to oppose that is to object and argue against ours who at that time quietly held their tenet 't is clear he is in no other sense a Defendant than as one who maintains his first objected Syllogism with a second may be said to defend it which is very improper and abusive of the right notion Whereas we who started not the dispute nor begun the opposition but sate still have yet a just title to continue in that our posture of defence till the Evidence of their Arguments drive us out of it His next complaint is against the Governours in the Romish See who if you will trust him without all cause deny Communion without remorse or relenting not onely to them but to many other Churches
falsification and an open abuse of the Council For as may bee seen immediately before the 7th Canon Theodorus Mopsuestensis Carisius had made a wicked creed which was brought and read before the Council After this begins the 7th Canon thus His igitur lectis decreuit sancta c. These things being read the holy synod decreed that it should bee lawfull for no man to compose write or produce alteram fidem another faith praeter eam quae definita fuit a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem in Spiritu sancto congregatis besides that which was defined by the holy fathers gather'd in the Holy Ghost at the City of Nice Where wee see the intention of the Council was no other than this that they should avoid hereticall creeds and hold to the Orthodoxe one not to hinder an enlargment to their Baptismall Profession as the Bishop would persuade us Hence His first falsification is that hee would have the words alteram fidem which taken by themselves and most evidently as spoken in this occasion signify a different or contrary faith to mean a prohibition to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession So by the words any more which hee falsly imposes to serve his purpose making the Council strike directly at the enlargment of such Profession Very good His 2 d is that to play Pope Pius a trick hee assures us the Council forbids to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession whereas there is no news there of exacting but of producing writing or composing false creeds lesse of Baptismall profession And though the Council forbide this to bee done his qui volunt ad cogâ—itionem veritatis conuerti to those who are willing to â—ee converted to the knowledge of the truth yet the punishments following extended also to Laymen in those words si vero Laici fuerint anathematiz entur if they the proposers of another faith bee Laymâ—n let them bee excommunicated makes it impossible to relate to Baptism unles the Bishop will say that in those dayes Laymen were Ministers of Baptism or exacted as hee phrases it Baptismall Professions His third falsification is that hee pretends the Council forbad to exact more than the Apostles creed whereas the Council onely forbids creeds different from that which was defin'd by the Council of Nice So that according to the Bishop the creed defined by the fathers in the Council of Nice and the Apostles creed are one and the sasame creed His fourth is that hee pretends from the bare word fidem a Baptismal profession for no other word is found in the Council to that purpose Now the truth is that upon occasion of those creeds containing false doctrine the Council onely prohibits the producing or teaching any thing contrary to the doctrine anciently establish't as appears more plainly from that which follows concerning Carisius Pari modo c. In like manner if any either Bishops Priests or Laymen bee taken sentientes aut docentes holding or teaching Carisius his doctrine c. let them bee thus or thus punisht Where you see nothing in order to exacting Baptismall professions or their enlargments as the Bp. fancies but of abstaining to teach false doctrines which those Hereticks had proposed Ere wee leave this point to do my L d D. right let us construe the words of the Council according to the sence hee hath given it and it stands thus that the holy synod decreed it unlawfull for any proferre scribere aut componere to exact alteram any more or a larger fidem Baptismall profession praeter eam quae a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem definita fuit than the Apostles creed Well go thy wayes brave Bp. if the next synod of Protestants doe not Canonize thee for an Interpreter of Councils they are false to their best interests The cause cannot but stand if manag'd by such sincerity wit and learning as long as women prejudic'd men and fools who examin nothing are the greater part of Readers Having gain'd such credit for his sincerity hee presumes now hee may bee trusted upon his bare word and then without any either reason or Authority alledged or so much as pretended but on his bare word onely hee assures the Reader if hee will beleeve him that they still professe the discipline of the ancient Church and that wee have changed it into a soveraignty of power above Generall Councells c. Yet the candid man in his vindication durst not affirm that this pretended power was of faith with us or held by all but onely p. 232. alledges first that it is maintaind by many that is that it is an opinion onely and then 't is not his proper task to dispute against it our own Schools and Doctours can do that fast enough and afterwards p. 243. hee tells us that these who give such exorbitant priviledges to Pope's do it with so many cautions and reservations that thâ—y signify nothing So that the Bishop grants that some onely and not all add this to the Pope's Authority and that this which is added signifies nothing and yet rails at it here in high terms as if it were a great matter deserving Church-unity should bee broken for it and claps it upon the whole Church After this hee grants S. Peter to have been Prince of the Apostles or first mover in the Church in a right sence as hee styles it yet tells us for prevention sake that all this extends but to a Primacy of order Whereas all the world till my Ld D. came with his right sence to correct it imagin'd that to move did in a sence right enough signify to act and so the first mover meant the first Acter Wee thought likewise that when God was call'd primum mouens the first mover those words did in a very right sence import actiuity and influence not a primacy of order onely as the acute Bp. assures us But his meaning is this that though all the world hold that to move first is to act first yet that sence of theirs shall bee absolutely wrong and this onely right which he and his fellows are pleased to fancie who are so wonderfully acute that according to them hee that hath onely Authority to sit first in Council or some things which is all they will allow S. Peter and the Pope shall in a right sence bee said to move first or to bee first mover I alledged as a thing unquestionable even by understanding ProtestaÌ„ts that the Church of England actually agreed with the Church of Rome at the time of the separation in this Principle of Government that the Bishops of Rome as successâ—urs of S. Peter inherited his priviledgâ—s c. as is to bee seen p. 307. by any man who can read English Now the Bishop who hath sworn to his cause that hee will bee a constant and faithfull prevaricatour omits the former paâ—t of my proposition and changes the busines from an evident matter of