SCHISM DISPACH'T OR A REIOYNDER TO THE REPLIES OF D r HAMMOND AND THE L d OF DERRY IN MALA CAVSA NON possunt aliter at malam causam quis coëgit eos habere Aug. M.DC.LVII TO THE INDIFFERENT READER I Present thee here with a full view of Errour 's vtmost and of the Method it must necessarily take in it's Progress First weaknesses of reasoning insincerity must endeavour to establish the groundles Fabrick which once discoverd there is no way left but to fall into worse Paralogisms Contradictions and more open inexcusable Falsifications This is my charge in generall against my two Adversaries The Roll of their many faults in particular may bee collected out of the Index If I have wrong fully imposed any thing on them let mee sink in thy esteem if iustly let them I court no favour from thee but this that thou wouldest not give credit to this Reioynder of mine read alone but in company still of their Replies sometimes also upon occasion reflecting back on D r Hammonds Book of Schism my L d of Derry's iust Vindication of the Church of England and Schism Diâ—arm'd Consider I put thee upon neither an uniust unprofitable unecessary not too troublesome a Method Not uniust since this gives thee a fair opportunity to ballance equally in thy thoughts what both alledge Not unprofitable since these two first Books of theirs being cry'd up for the best peeces which have come forth in these late dayes upon so concerning a subject nothing can more largely contribute to thy Soul's repose than to bee satisfactorily conuinc't whether they stand or fall Not unnecessary because without Method no secure satisfaction can bee had there being so many by-wayes incident to obstinate and disingenuous maintainers of their tenet as of omitting to Answer things important wauing the true point controverted enlarging upon unconcerning passages misrepresenting the true state of the Question Testimonies and one anothers words c. That without a ioynt-perusall of both party's writings 't is impossible to receive any rationall satisfaction nor indeed any at all without a confident reliance upon the private Writer's word or Authority than which kind of partiality nothing hath more endamag'd rationall Soul's Nor yet is this Method too troublesome since by seeing so numerous and such gross faults truly made good to bee in these their writings thou mayst iustly hold thy self excused from reading the rest of their past or future works till they clear these their best to bee both convincing true dealing Which unles they perform effectively I must challenge thy judgment and thy sincerity neither to give them asseÌ„t nor credit I confess indeed that while I intreat thee to make use of this Method I have a private end of mine own knowing nothing could do mee more particular Right than this Many sober candid persons reading Schism Disarm'd not considering that what is spoken in opposition to truth must necessarily bee nonsence and easy to bee shown such if the Discoverer of it vnderstands his own Grounds bee true to his cause and will speak out apprehended it impossible a Bishop and a Doctour persons of so high repute for learning should bee obnoxious all over to such innumerable faults and such incredible weaknesses and rather look't upon it as a peece of Wit framing an Idea as it were of what humane frailty could possibly bee subject to than that it was so indeed Till coming to compare it with it's Adversary-Books and scanning one in order to the other they remain'd as on the one side perfectly satisfy'd so on the other extremely astonish't at the weaknes of Errour I know good Natures are loath to think men to bee Monsters that is sencelesly irrationall or voluntarily insincere But I hope I shall gain so far upon their reasons without wronging their good Natures for I concieve reason to bee their best and onely Nature as to consider that in what wee oppose one another wee contradict one another and the one part onely of the Contradiction can bee Truth wherefore the other part must necessarily bee Falshood that is non-sence Hee then whose task it is to oppose the true side must unavoidably talk non-sence if hee oppose it directly or else hee must prevaricate from his Duty in opposing something else in stead of it and so bee very impertinent or bring against it mediums or Arguments which concern it not but look another way and so become extremely weak Or lastly if hee brings any necessary and enforcing Argument which admitted would destroy the true position it must infallibly since one Truth cannot quarrell with another bee a meer pretence or a Falsification and so render the alledger insincere Wherefore since they and I in what wee oppose one another maintain contradictory position whereof one side and one onely must necessarily bee Right 't is impossible but that one of us must either mistake in opposing the true point and so manage our Discourse wâ—akly or wilfully neglect it and so play the Fool maliciously or go about to oppose it with a reall Truth and so talk non-sence or lastly bring against it a fictitiously pretended Truth and so prove a Falsifier and this in every step of our Process To these faults then I say one of us must necessarily remain obnoxious and that continually which of us 't is is left Reader to thy judgment onely bee so sincere as to give it due information in examining both together To this end I have for the most part quoted the page and very line of D r Hammond the other is so diuided into short Sections to which mine are correspondent that there needed no such exactnes One request more I have to offer thee that thou wouldst observe by the way as thou readest the different Genius of my two Adversaries The former would make a show of saying something by labouring with a multitude of little petty divisions frequent intermixtures of Greek phrases and citations smooth and plausible language the like quaint and pretty flourishes whereas indeed hee never sayes any thing severely to the purpose nor ever speaks home but his Discourse is made up of such indifferent terms so far from immediate his Testimonies for the most part so totally unconcerning the Question or at least so easily appliable to another sence which yet hee presses not close to the point but leaves them still in their pure neutrality that even the quickest eye stands in need of a Tube Optick to see from the Premisses to the conclusion or from the Argument to the Question Or rather indeed it would puzzle a good Logician who understands how necessary connexion there ought to bee between the conclusion and Premisses to pick an Argument out of the whole Book his notions are so dishevell'd and loosely scatter'd about after a meer orationall and declamatory fashion The latter is more candid and speaks plain and so falls into more direct Contradictions which hee bolts out confidently The one
England flies off presently and denies it saying he had no title to such an Authority there whereas when we maintain his possession we pretend not yet a Right which is our inference thence but that actually England was under such an Authority and acknowledg'd it whether it were rightly pretended or injustly remains to be inferred which the Dr. mistaking and not distinguishing between possession and right sayes we beg the question when we onely take what is evident that he was in possession and thence infer a right until the contrary be proved The second Ground is that This Authority actually over England and acknowledged there was acknowledged likewise to be that of the Head of the Vniversal Church and not of a Patriarchate onely This Ground is no less evident than the former by our adversaries confession since this is the Authority they impugn as unlawfull and from which they reformed which last word implies the actual acknowledgment that Authority had before Hence Mr. H's digression to show that Kings could erect and translate Patriarchates was perfectly frivolous as far as concerns this purpose for whether they can change Patriarchates or no is impertinent when we are questioning an Authority above Patriarchs and pretended to be constituted by Christ himself The third Ground is that This Papal Authority actually over the Ecclesiastical affaires in England was held then as of Christ's Institution and to have been derived to the Pope as he was Successour to S. Peter The truth of this appears by the known confession of the then Roman Church and the self-same Controversy perpetually continued till this day The fourth Ground is that This actual power the Pope then had in England had been of long continuance and settled in an ancient Possession This is evinced both from our Adversaries grant the evidence of the fact it self and even by the carriage of S. Aust in the Monk and the Abbot of Bangor exprest in that counterfeited testimony alledged by Dr. H. whence we see it was the doctrine S. Austin taught the Saxons The fifth Ground shall be that No Possession ought to be disturbed without sufficient motives and reasons and consequently it self is a title till those reasons invalidate it and show it null This is evident first by Nature's Principles which tell us there is no new cause requisite for things to remain as they are wheras on the other side nothing can be changed without some cause actually working and of force proportionable to the weight and settledness of the thing to be moved Secondly by Morals which teach us that mans understanding cannot be changed from any opinion or beleef without motives ought not without sufficient ones and consequently needs no new motive to continue it in any former assent besides the foregoing Causes which put it there Thirdly we find that Politicks give testimony to or rather stand upon this Ground assuring us when any Government is quietly settled it ought so to stand till sufficient motives and reasons in Policy that is a greater common good urge a change And if Possession were held no title then the Welshmen might still pretend to command England and each line or race which preceded and was outed quarrel with any subsequent one though never so long settled and so no certain right at all would be found of any possession in the World till we come to Adam's time Fourthly as for the particular Laws of our Countrey they clearly agree in the same favour for Possession I shall onely instance in one common case If I convey Blackâ—cre to I. S. for the life of I. N. and after wards I. S. dy in this case because I cannot enter against mine own Grant and all the world else have equal title whoever first enters into the land is adjudged the true and rightfull Owner of it during the life of I. N. and that by the sole title of Occupancy as they call it which they wholly ground upon this known reason that in equality of pretensions Possession still casts the ballance Nay such regards is given by our Law to Possession that were the right of a former Title never so evident yet a certain time of peaceable Possession undisturb'd by the contrary claim would absolutely bar it And here I should take my self obliged to ask my Adversary's pardon for using such words as a Dr. of Divinity is not presumed to be acquainted with did not his own Example at least excuse if not provoke my imitation Thus much of the force of Possession in general without descending to the nature of ours in particular that is of such a Possession as is justly presumable to have come from Christ Hence followes that since Possession of Authority must stand till sufficient Reasons be alledged that it was unjust those Motives and Reasons ought to be weighed whether they be sufficient or no ere the Authority can be rejected wherefore since the relinquishing any Authority actually in power before makes a material breach from that Government the deciding the question onely stands in examining those Reasons which oppose its lawfulness since the sufficiency of them cleares the breakers the insufficiency condemns them and in our case makes the material Schism formal Let the Reader then judge how little advised Dr. H. was in stating the question rightly and clearly of Schism pag 10. where he tells us that the motives are not worth he eding in this controversy but onely the truth of the matter of fact For the matter of fact to wit that there was then an actual Government and that they broke from it being evident to all the world and confest by themselves if there be no reasons to be examined he is convinced by his own words to be a Schismatick so flatly and palpably that it is left impossible for him even to pretend a defence The sixth Ground shall be that Such a Possession as that of the Pope's Authority in England was held ought not to be changed or rejected upon any lesser motives or reasons than rigorous and most manifest Evidence that it was usurp't The reasons for this are fetch 't by parity from that which went before onely the proportions added For in moving a Body in nature the force of the cause must be proportion'd to the gravity settledness and other extrinsecal impediments of the Body to be moved otherwise nothing is done In morals the motives of dissent ought to be more powerfull than those for the former continuance in assent otherwise a soul as a soul thas is as rational is not or ought not to be moved and so in the rest Now that nothing less than Evidence rigorously and perfectly such can justify a rejecting of that Authority is thus show'd That Authority was held as of Faith and to have been constituted by Christ's own mouth it had been acknowledgedly accounted for such by multitudes of pious learned men for many ages before in all Christian Countries of the Communion of the Roman Church
deny'd by both to be tolerable that is such as could consist with Faith and a Church but with this disadvantage on the Protestants side that the points they deny'd being of more importance more deserved our Church should command their observance Now every one sees that the proper Answer to his Discourse is to specialize some plea for themselves which will not as well excuse their Desertours The Doctor alledges none nor goes about to alledge any but as if he were dividing his Text playes upon my words in particular neglecting the import of them altogether He sayes indeed it is against their conscience to admit those other super additionary points the same say the Puritans of Copes Surplices and Organs The Doctor will object that they are indifferent and stight matters and therefore it is a greater disobedience not to admit them they will answer that Surplices are ragges of Rome that Organs are Babylonish Bagpipes and all the rest scandalous and superstitious inventions Still they are equall in their pleas Nay if a Socinian deny Christ to be God and pretend as doubtless he will with as much seriouness as Mr. H. that he cannot but sin against Conscience if he think otherwise and therefore 't is tyranny to press it upon him the Church may not oblige him to believe that Christ is God Dr. H. hath pleaded his cause joyntly with his own that is hath said no more in his own excuse than the Socinian may for his Again if Dr. H or his Church press upon the Socinian the belief of Christ's Divinity upon this ground that it is a point of most weighty importance he presently answers the Doctor with his own words that the weightier the importance of the things commanded are the more intolerable is the pressure of imposing them And so in stead of impugning Dr. H. hath made good S. W's words that they can alledge no colourable pretence which may not be alledged by the other Sects What if we should adde that the Church they left had been in long possession of the belief of Infallibility and so proceeded upon these Grounds that her Faith was certain when she prest those points upon them but they confess their unceâ—tâ—in and could proceed upon no better then probable Grounds when they prest any thing upon their Desertours is there not a palbable difference put between the pretended Authorities of imposing points to be held in us and them and a greater danger of disaccepting ours in them than theirs in the Puritans If they erred onely a confest probability stood against them which gave them just licence to dissent if they had a probable reason that the admission of those points was bad since nothing but absolute Evidence pretended could even pretend to oblige their Vnderstandings to assent to them if you erred a pre acknowledg'd Infallibility strengthen'd by a long Possession asserted by the attestation of Tradition and many other motives stood against you so that nothing but most palpable undeniable and rigorous Evidence could possibly disoblige your first Reformers from their ancient belief or oblige them to this new one If the Puritans erred since they were onely ornaments and Rituals they refused to admit the utmost harm which could accrue by their non-admission of them was terminated in the want of exren decency onely and held by the very Authority which imposed them to be but indifferent and far from being essentially-destructive to a Church But if you or your first Reformes chanc't to erre which the bare probability of your Faith confess 't by your selves in this case makes more than likely then your contrary position ruin'd all Faith and Government since the Church you disobey'd held no other Ground of Faith or Church Government save onely those you reâ—ected and disacknowledg'd to wit her own Infallibility and the Popes Authority Again if you happen'd to be in the wrong and that indeed there was no other either Church Government or Ground of Faith than these then how wickeldy desperate to your own soules and universally destructive to all man-kind and their means of attaining eternal bliss must your disclaiming and publikely renouncing both these be none of which can be objected to the Puritanes by you So evidently true were my words that no colourable pretence can possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm nay much firmer for other Sects why they left them Yet I doubt not but the Doctor will after all this as he does here Answ p. 16. applaud his own victory with a triumphant Epiphonema and say that S. W. his probations are beyond all measure improbable when himself had not said a word to the intent of the discourse but onely play'd mistakingly and non-sensically upon some particular words Yet when he hath done like a tender hearted man he pittyes himself again that he should so unnecessarily insist upon it Truly so do I pitty him or any man else who takes much pains to no purpose though I pitty more the Reader who can imagine any credence is to be given to so weak a Writer He ends his Answer to my Introduction with telling the Reader that I have with no shew of Iustice suggested his tediousness in things acknowledged Whereas almost all his first Chapter and third together with those where he proves the Pope not Head of the Church from the title of converting England or Concession of our Kings as also almost all his narrative Confession of his Schism with many other scatter'd discourses are things acknowledg'd by both parties and were very tedious and dull to me What he addes that he will not disturb me when I speak truth unless he shall discern some part of his arguing concern'd is a very pretty jest intimating that he stands in preparation of mind to oppose even Truth it self if it stand in his way or his arguing be concern'd in it and not vindicated in his former Reply A sincere person Hovver let him onely grant that what he vindicates not but leaves untouch't is Truth and we shall without difficulty strike up a bargain Sect. 8. How Dr. H. prevaricates from the Question by stating it wrong His powerfull way of arguing by Ifs and how he defends himself for mincing the Fathers words THe Fathers alledged by Mr. H. attested that no just cause could be given of Schism whence he inferres of Schism p. 10. that the causes and motives of Schism are not worth producing or heeding in this controversy The Catholick Gentleman and S. W. both exprest their dislike of this inference the Doctor pretends to vindicate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it as he pedantically calls it and referres me to his Reply for his reasons to which I shall both give a solution and at once lay open the nature of Sâ—hism and the manner in which they ought to controvert it I mean as far as it can have any show of bearing controversy Schism then which we joyntly
acknowledge a vice of the first magnitude if taken in it's primary signification to which our circumstances determine it includes for it's genus or material part a division or act of dividing the specifical difference gives it a reference to the Ecclesiastical Government instituted by Christ Now our great Masters of Moral Divinity assure us that no action is in it self good or bad but as it conduces to or averts from the attaining one's last end since all things else have the nature of meanes onely in order to the attainment of that and consequently the esteem of their goodness or badness is built upon their alliance to that order Whence follows that there is no action in the world not killing one 's own Son nor dividing from any Government whatsoever in it self so bad but might be done could there be assigned motives and reasons truly representing it better to attempt it Now our all-wise God hath ordered things so providently for the peace and good of his Church that it is impossible any cause or motive can be truly imagin'd sufficient to justify the rejecting it's Government since neither any private injury is comparable to such an universal good nor can it happen that any miscarriage can be so publick as to force it's renouncing for seeing our B. Saviour made but one Church and that to continue for ever if any cause were sufficient to break from that one Church there would be a just and sufficient cause to be of no Church which is against the Protestants own tenet and makes them so desirous to pretend a descent from ours Wherefore it remains impossible that those who acknowledg the Churche's Government to have bin instituted by Christ should pretend to any just cause to separate from it but they ought to behave themselves passively in case of an injury received not actively renouncing that Government or erecting another against it Notwithstanding all this yet it may happen sometimes that as no Authority is or can be so sacred inviolable but passion can make men dislike it some company of men may disacknowledge the Authority instituted by Christ to have come from him alledging for the reason and motive of their renouncing it that it is an usurpation which they also pretend to prove by arguments drawn either from Reason or Testimonies Now these men's plea might take place if it were possible they should produce absolute evidence and such as in it's own force obliges the understanding to assent notwithstanding the contrary motives which retard it and without pretending such a rigorous Evidence it were madness to hazard an error in abusiness of such main concernment both to the Church mankind and their own Souls as it would necessarily be if that fact of theirs happen'd to be Schismatical Now then let us see whether my Adversaries inference be good that because Schism can have no just causes for it's parents therefore Dr. H. in treating a Controversie of Schism ought not to heed or produce the causes or motives of it Indeed if he would grant himself and his Friends to be Schismaticks then it were to no purpose for him to alledge causes and motives since all men know that no just cause can be possibly alledged for Schism but if he does an external act which hath the resemblance or show of Schism and nevertheless will defend himself to be no Schismatick he must give account why he does that action and shew that that action is not truly Schism which cannot be done without discussing reasons and motives if common practise teach us any thing Will any man endeavour to turn one out of possession lawfully without a plea or produce a plea without either any motive or reason in it Iustly therefore did the Catholick Gentleman affirme it to be a pure contradiction for that a confest breach under debate should be concluded to have no just causes that is to be indeed Schismatical or to have just causes that is to be a self enfranchisment without producing examining any causes is a perfect implicancy Nor will his instance Reply p. 5. 6. of a seditious person or Rebell secure him at all for as it is true that if it be known that he confesses himself a Rebel there is no pleading of causes as Dr. H. well sayes to justify his Rebellion yet as long as he pretends to be no Rebel so long he is obliged to bring motives and reasons why his action of rising against the Government is not Rebellion though it be accused and seem to be such Now if Dr. H. hath not forgot the title of his book t is a Defence of the Church of England against the Exceptions of the Romanists to wit those by which they charge her of Schism that is their accusing her that this action of Separation from the Church of Rome is Schismatical so that the whole scope and work of his book must be to plead those motives and reasons which may seem to traverse that accusation and shew that this action of the Church of England makes not her Schismatical nor her Sons Schismaticks And how this can stand without producing motives or is not as plain a contradiction as ens and non ens I confess is beyond my understanding In his eighteenth p. he cunningly forges a false state of the question in these words that it is a matter in question between the Romanists and us whether the Bishop of Rome had before and at the time of the Reformation any supreme legal power here I willingly acknowlege By which he would perswade the Reader that he had condescended to a state of the question pretended by us which is absolutely false for we state the question thus That there being at that time an external confessed Government derived and in actual possession time out of minde abstracting from whether it be internally legal or no whether the pretended Reformers either did then or can now show sufficient reasons of the substracting themselves from obedience to it This is our state of the question which hath it's whole force as the Reader may see in the acknowledged external possession Now Dr. H. would make his Reader believe that the state of the question doth wholly abstract from the external possession and purely debate the internal right as if it hung hovering indifferently in the aire to be now first determin'd without taking notice of the stability and force our tenet had from the long possession And this handsome trick he gentilely put 's upon his Readers by those three sly words I willingly acknowledge Having thus mistaken voluntarily the state of the question consequently he imposes upon me that I said none doubts of the Bishop of Rome's supreme legal power over the Church of England at the time of the Reformation and then confutes me most palpably with telling me that they doubt it or make a question of it Can any man in reason imagin I was ignorant that such was their tenet since I impugn it in
the following ought to be the sixth But nothing could secure S. W. from the melancholy cavilling humour of his Adversary who is so terrible that the Printer's least oversight and his own mistake must occasion a dry adnimadversion against S. W. and yet the jest is he pretends nothing but courtesy and civility and persuades many of his passionate adherents that he practices both in his writings For answer then to my first seventh Section according to Dr. H. but in reality the sixth he refers me to his Reply c. 4. sect 1 where he answers all but the ridiculous colours as he says Answ p. 38. which indeed I must say were very ridiculous as who ever reads Schism Disarm'd p. 41. or his own book p. 68. may easily see where after he had spoken of and acknowledg'd King Henry the eighth's casting out the Pope's Authority it follows in his own words thus of Schism p. 68. First they the Romanists must manifest the matter of fact that thus it was in England 2. the consequence of that fact that it were Schism supposing those Successours of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ that is we must be put first to prove a thing which himself and all the world acknowledges to wit that King H. the eighth deny'd the Pope's Supremacy next that what God bid us doe is to be done and that the Authority instituted by Christ is to be obe'yd Dr H. is therefore can-did when he acknowledges here that these passages are ridiculous very unconsonant to himself when he denyes there is the least cause or ground for it in his Tract whereas his own express words now cited manifestâ—â—â— and lastly extraordinarily reserv'd in giving no other answer than this bare denial of his own express words But being taken tardy in his Divisionary art in which it is his coÌ„mon custome to talke quodlibetically he thought it the wiser way to put up what 's past with patience than by defending it give occasion for more mirth But to come to the point That which was objected to him by me and the Cath. Gent. was this That he expected Catholicks should produce Evidences and proofs for the Pope's Authority in England which task we disclaimed to belong to us who stood upon possession and such a possession as no King can show for his Crown any more than it does to an Emperour or any long and-quietly-possest Governour to evidence to a known Rebel and actual Renouncer of his Authority that his title to the Kingdome is just ere he can either account him or punish him as rebellious In answer Dr. H. Repl. p. 44. first denies that he required in the Place there agitated that is in the beginning of his fourth Chapter of Schism any such thing of the Catholicks as to prove their pretensions â—ut his own express words of Schism p. 66. 67. check his bad memory which are these Our method now leads us to enquire impartially what evidences are producible against the Church of England whereby it may be thought liable to this guilt of Schism Whence he proceeds to examine our Evidences and to solve them which is manifestly to put himself upon the part of the Respondent the Catholick on the part of the Opponent that is to make us bring proofs and seem to renounce the claim of our so-qualify'd a possession by condescending to dispute it Whereas we are in all reason to stick to it till it be sufficiently disprov'd which cannot be done otherwise than by rigorous Evidence as hath been shown not to dispute it as a thing dubious since 't is evident we had the possession and such a possession as could give us a title This therefore we ought to plead not to relinquish this firm ground and to fall to quibble with him in wordish testimonies To omit that the evidences he produces in our name are none of ours For the onely evidence we produce when we please to oppose is the evidence of the Infallibility of Vniversal Tradition or Attestation of Fore-fathers which we build upon both for that and other points of Faith nor do we build upon Scripture at all but as interpreted by the practice of the Church and the Tradition now spoken of Wherefore since Dr. H. neither mentions produces nor solves those that is neither the certainty of Vniversal Attestation nor the testimonies of Scripture as explicable by the received doctrine of Ancestours which latter must be done by showing that the doctrine of the Church thus attested and received gives them not this explication 't is evident that he hath not so much as mention'd much less produced or solved our Evidences Our Doctors indeed as private Writers undertake sometimes ex superabundanti to discourse from Scripture upon other Grounds as Grammar History propriety of language c. to show ad hominem our advantage over the Protestants even in their own and to them the onely way but Interpretations of Scripture thus grounded are not those upon which we rely for this or any other point of our Faith So that Dr. H. by putting upon us wrong-pretended Evidences brings all the question as is custome is to a word-skirmish where he is sure men may fight like Andabatae in the dark and so he may hap to escape knocks whereas in the other way of Evident reason he is sure to meet with enough At least in that case the controversy being onely manag'd by wit and carried on his side who can be readiest in explicating and referring one place to another with other like inventions it may be his good fortune to light on such a doltish Adversary that the Doctor may make his ayre-connected discourse more plausible than the others which is all he cares for This being a defence and ground enough for his fallible that is probable Faith Dr. H. defends himself by saying p. 44. he mean't onely that Catholicks bring Christ's donation to S. Peter for an Argument of the Pope's Supremacy instancing against the Cath. Gent. in his own confession that Catholicks rely on that donation as the Foundation or cornerstone of the whole buildâ—ng By which one may see that the Doctor knows not or will not know the difference between a Title and an Argument Christ's donation to S. Peter is our title our manner of trnour by which we hold the Pope his Successour Head pastour not our argument to infer that he is so 'T is part of our Tenet and the thing which we hold upon possession to be disprov'd by them or if we see it fitting to bee prov'd by us not our argument or proof against them to maintain it or conclude it so As a title then we rely and build upon it not produce it as a proof to conclude any thing from it And indeed I wonder any man of reason should imagin we did so since if he be a Scholar he cannot but know that we see how to the Protestants the supposed proof would be as deniable and in
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
ten years to ten years and wee tell him that this Rule is a manifest Evidence because 't is impossible the latter age should bee ignorant of what the foregoing age beleeved Hee runs away from Tradition or the delivering to points delivered and tells us they must come downwards from the Apostles uninterruptedly ere they can bee certain Whereas this point is confest by all and avouched most by us who place the whole certainty of faith in this uninterrupted succession The point in question is whether there be any certain way to bring a point downwards uninterruptedly from the Apostles but this of Tradition or attestation of immediate fathers to sons or rather wee may say 't is evident from the very terms that it could not come down uninterruptedly bur by this way since if it came not down or were not ever delivered immediately the descent of it was mediate or interrupted and so it came not down uninterruptedly The like voluntary mistake hee runs into when hee calls the Apostles creed a Tradition since hee knows wee speak of the method or way of conveying points of faith downwards not of the points convey'd But I am glad to see him acknowledge that the delivery of the Apostles creed by a visible practice is an undeniâ—ble Evidence that it came from the Apostles If hee reflect hee shall find that there is scarce one point of faiâ—h now controverted between us and Protestants but was recommended to his first Reformers by immediate forefathers as derived from the Apostles in a practice as daily visible as is the Apostles creed and that the lawfulnes of Invoking saincts for their intercession the lawfulnes of Images Praying for the Dead Adoration of the B. Sacrament c. and in particular the subjection to the Pope as supream Head were as palpable in most manifest and frequent circumstances as was that creed by being recited in Churches and professed in Baptism After I had set down the first part of the matter of fact to wit that at the time of the Reformation the Church of England did actually agree with the Church of Rome in those two Principles I added the second part of it in these words It is noe lesse evident that in the dayes of Edward the sixth Q Elizabeth and her successours neither the former Rule of Vnity in faith nor this second of Vnity in Government have had any power in that Congretion which the Protestants call the English Church The Bp. who must not seem to understand the plainest words lest hee should bee obliged to answer them calls this down right narration of a matter of fact my Inference and for answer tells us hee holds both those Rules Well shuffled my Ld pray let mee cut Either you mean you hold now the sence of those Rules that is the thing wee intend by them and then you must say you hold the Pope's supremacy and the Tradition of immediate forefathers both which the world knows and the very terms evince you left of to hold at your Reformation or else you must mean that you hold onely the same words taken in another sence that is quite another thing and then you have brought the point as your custome is to a meere logomachy and shown yourself a downright and obstinate prevaricatour in answering you hold those words in stead of telling us whether you hold the thing or noe Possum-ne ego ex te exculpere hoc verum The Principle of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome immediately before your Reform was de facto the acknowledgment of the Pope's Authority as Head of the Church the Principle of Vnity in faith was then de facto the ineheriring from or the immediate Tradition of Ancestours De facâ—o you agreed with those of the Church of Rome in those two Principles de facto you have now renounced both those principles and hold neither of them therefore you have de facto broke both those bonds of Vnity therefore de facto you are flat Schismaticks As for what follows that there is a fallacy in Logick â—all'd of more interrogations than one I answer that there is in deed such a fallacy in Logick but not in my discourse who put no interrogatory at all to him As for the two positions which so puzzle him the former of S. Peter's being supreme more than meerly in order hee knows well is a point of my faith which I am at present defeâ—ding against him and have sufficiently exprest my self p. 307. l. 1â— c. by the words first Mover â—o mean a Primacy to act first in the Church and not to sit first in order onely The latter point is handled in this Treatise in its proper place No sincerer is his 12. page than the former I onely put down p. 308 what our tenet was and hee calls my bare narration my second inference and when hee hath done answers it onely with voluntary railing too silly to merit transcribing or answering The matter of fact being declared that actually now they of the Church of England had renounced both the said Principles it was urged next that his onely way to clear his Church from Schism is either by disproving the former to bee the necessary Rule of Vnity in faith or the latter the necessary bond of Government for if they bee such Principles of Vnity it follows inevitably that they having broke them both as the matter of fact evinces are perfect Schismaticks since a Schismatick signifies one who breaks the Vnity of a Church What sayes my Ld D. to this this seems to press very close to the Soul of the question and so deserves clearing Hee clears it by telling us wee are doubly mistaken and that hee is resolu'd to disprove neither though unles hee does this the very position of the matter of fact doth alone call him â—chismatick But why is hee in these his endeavours to vindicate his Church from Schism so backwards to clear this concerning point Why first because they are the persons accused By which method no Rebell ought to give any reason why hee did so because hee is accused of Rebellion by his lawfull Governour Very learnedly Now the truth is wheresoever there is a contest each side accuses the other and each side again defends it self against the the others accusations but that party is properly call'd the defendant against which accusations or objections were first put and that the OpponeÌ„t or Aunswerer which first mou'd the accusations It being then most manifest that you could not with any face have pretended your Reform but you must first accuse your former actuall Governour of vsurpation your former Rule of faith of Erroneousnes it follows evidently that wee were the parties first accused that is the defendants you the accusers or opponents for whoever substracts himself from a former actuall Governour and accuses not that Governour of something which hee alledges for his motive of rising that person eo ipso
to this that there neither is nor ever was a Papist country in the world For since 't is evident in terms that the King and his complices who made that Pope disclaiming Act were not Papists or acknowledgers of the Pope's Authority after they had thus renounc't the Pope's Authority Again since according to the Bp. the same laws were formerly made receiu'd and executed in England it follows that our Ancestours equally renounced the Pope's Authority also and so could bee no Papists neither and lastly since hee grants equivalent laws infrance Spain Italy Sicily Germany Poland c. it follows by the same reason that those countries are not Papists neither no not the very Papacy it self And so this miraculous blunderer hath totally destroy'd and annihilated all the Papists in the world with one self contradictory blast of his mouth And now Christian Reader can I do any less if I intend to breed a due apprehension in thee of the weaknes of his cause and falshood of this man than appeal to thy judgment whether any mad man or born fool could have stumbled upon such a piece of non sence Dos't not think my former words very moderate and very proper to character this man's way when I said How ridiculous how impudent a manner of speaking is this to force his Readers to renounce their eyes ears and all Evidence Could any man without a visard of brass on pretend to secure men's Souls from Schism a sin which of Schism c. 1. themselves acknowledge as great as Idolatry by alledging such sublimated non-sence for a sufficient excuse or ground when the acknowledg'd fact of schismatizing and renting God's Church cries loudly against them nay more since less motives and reasons cannot iustify such a fact nor a continuance of it to bring such an heap of contradictions for perfect Evidences and demonstrations Pardon mee you whose weaker or seldomer reflections on the certainty of faith and by consequence of the certainty of an eternall concernment in these kind of Controversies make you think courtesy violated by such home-expressions which may breed a smart reflexion and stir up a more perfect consideration in the Readers mind's Examin my harshest words in the utmost rigour as apply'd to his Demerits and if they exceed hold mee for blamed if not then think as reason grants that it is equally moderate but far more necessary to call great and wilfull faults by their right names of Cosenage impudence c. if they deserve them as 't is to call smaller lapses by theirs of a mistake or an oversight How can it ever bee hoped that Truth should bee righted as long as her Adversaries may take the liberty to act impudently against her and her Defenders must bee afraid to tell the world their faults and to say what they do Again were this shameles position of this Bp s some odd saying on the by or some petty branch of his discourse it deserv'd less animadversion but 't is the substantiallest part of his vindication where hee huddles together many laws which de facto consisted with the acknowledgment of the Pope's Authority both in England and other Catholike countries to parallell K. H's which were absolutely inconsistent with it and to show that K. H. did no more than his Ancestours and other Catholikes did So that hee alledges this as a chief ground of their vindication and wee shall see again afterwards an whole Section built on this one particular ground Now had hee grounded himself on a foundation of some sandy probability it had been though still insufficient yet more pardonable and in comparison of the other honourable or on an aiery fancy of some odd Crotchet of his own head as was Dr. H's conciet of the Apostles Exclusive Provinces it had been to bee pittied if sprung from weaknes or laught at if from wilfulnes but to ground his vindication that is to build his and his adherents security from Schism and eternall damnation on the meer vacuum of non sence and perfect coÌ„tradiction confutable by the contrary tenet acknowledgment and sight of the whole worlds eyes is such a piece of shamelesnes that it can admit no sufficient character as a non ens is incapable of a definition As for his particularities entrenching or pretended to entrench on the Pope's Authority whether they were lawfully done or no how far they extended in what circumstances and cases they held in what not how the letter of those laws are to bee understood c. all which the Bp. omits though hee press the bare words it belongs to Canon and secular Lawyers to scuffle about them not to mee I hold my self to the lists of the question and the limits of a Controvertist And Whenas hee asks mee what lawfull Iurisdiction could remain to the Pope in England where such and such laws had force I answer the same that remains still to him in france where you confess equivalent laws have force the same that remains to him still in Spain Italy Sicily c. So that either you must speak out according to the Grounds and say there it not a Papist country in the world that is not a country that acknowledges the Pope Head of the Church which is to put out the eyes of the whole world for wee see de facto that hee is acnowledg'd and exercises Iurisdiction in Catholike counttries or else confess that they retain still something notwithstanding those equivalent laws which you renounc't This something which they still retain more than you doe is that which makes you Schismaticks for rejecting it and is so far from grounding your excuse for which you produce it that it enhances your guilt and Grounds a most iust accusation against you that Whereas such and so many strong curbs were set by the former laws of England as are also in Catholike countries to secure you from the least fear of any extravagant encroachmeÌ„ts nay by which you confess here p. 36. they kept their priviledges inviolated yet your desperately-seditions humour could neither bee contented with that freedome from too much subjection which your own forefathers and all other countries then in CoÌ„munion with you enioy'd but you must quite extirpate the inward Right it self totally abolish and renounce the very substance of thâ— former Ecclesiasticall Government and cast it out of the Kingdome Sect. 4. My L d of Derry's senceles plea from the Church of England's succeeding the British Church in her pretended exemptions from forrain Iurisdiction and the uniustifiablenes of those pretensions The perfect weaknes of his Corroboratory proof and utter authenticknes of the Welsh Pueriles THe scope of his fifth Chapter as himself here acknowledges was to show that the Britannik Churches were ever exempted from forrain Iurisdiction for the first 600. yeâ—rs Now his book being entitled a vindication of the â—hurch of England to show this whole process frivolous I ask't what this belong'd to us unles it bee proved that their practicks were an
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
Rome would make which more more evidences that the acknowledgment of the Popes iust power was retained by the Greeks and encroachments upon their Liberties onely deny'd which the French Church intended to imitate Now 〈◊〉 cannot bee pretended with any shame that Gerson and the french Church mean't to disacknowledge the Pope's iust power as Head of the Church nor will Gersons words even now cited let it bee pretended for then without any perhaps not onely some as hee doubts but all in the Court of Rome would most certainly have contradicted it Their consideration then being parallell to that of the Greeks as the Bp. grants it follow'd that they acknowledg'd the Pope's Authority though they passively remain'd separate rather than humour a demand which they deem'd irrationall Thus the Bishop first cited a testimony against himself as was shown in Schism Disarm'd and would excuse it by bringing three or four proofs each of which is against himself also so that as hee begun like a Bowler hee ends like one of those Artificers who going to mend one hole use to make other three THE CONCLVSION The Controuersy between us is rationally and plainly summ'd up in these few Aphorisms 1. THat whatsoever the Extent of the Pope's Authority bee or bee not yet 't is cl ar that all Roman-Catholikes that is all Communicants with the Church of Rome or Papists as they call them hold the substance of the Pope's Authority that is hold the Pope to bee Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour in God's Church This is euident out of the very terms since to acknowledge the Papall Authority is to bee a Papist or a Communicant with the Church of Rome 2. The holding or acknowledging this Authority is to all that hold it that is to the whole Church of Rome or to all those particular Churches united with Rome a Principle of Vnity of Government This is plain likewise out of the terms since an acknowledgment of one Supreme Governour either in Secular or Spirituall affairs is the Ground which establishes those acknowledgers in submission to that one Government that is 't is to them a Principle of Vnity in Government 3. 'T is euident and acknowledg'd that whateuer some Catholikes hold besides or not hold yet all those Churches in Communion with the Churches of Rome hold firmly that whatsoever the living voice of the present Church that is of Pastours and Fathers of Famâ—lies shall unanimously conspire to teach and deliuer Learners and Children to have been recieued from their immediate fathers as taught by Christ and his Apostles is to bee undoubtedly held as indeed taught by them that is is to bee held as a point of faith and that the voice of the present Church thus deliuering is infallible that is that this deliuery from immediate forefathers as from theirs as from Christ is an infallible and certain Rule of faith that is is a Principle of Vnity in faith This to bee the tenet of all these Churches in Communion with Rome both sides acknowledge and is Evident hence that the Body made up of these Churches ever cast out from themselves all that did innouate against this tenure 4. 'T is manifest that all the Churches in Communion with Rome equally held at the time of the Protestant Reformation in K. Henry's dayes these two Principles as they do now that is the substance of the Pope's Authority or that hee is Supreme in God's Church and that the living voice of the present Church delivering as aboue said is the infallible Rule of faith This is manifested by our Aduersaries impugning the former Churches as holding Tradition and the Pope's Headship nor was it ever pretended by Friend or Foe that either those Churches held not those tenets then or that they have renounc't them since 5. The Church of England immediately before the Reformation was one of those Churches which held Communion with Rome as all the world grants and consequently held with the rest these two former tenets prou'd to have been the Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government 6. That Body of Christians or that Christian Common-wealth consisting of the then-then-Church of England and other Churches in Communion with Rome holding Christ's law upon the sayd tenure of immediate Tradition and submitting to the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of the Pope was a true and reall Church This is manifest by our very Adversaries acknowledgment who grant the now Church of Rome even without their Church to bee a true and reall one though holding the same Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government 7. That Body consisting of the then Church of England and her other fellow communicants with Rome was united or made one by means of these two Principles of Vnity For the undoubted acknowledgment of one common Rule of faith to bee certain is in it's own nature apt to unite those acknowledger's in faith that is to unite them as faithfull and consequently in all other actions springing from faith And the undoubted acknowledgment of one Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour gave these acknowledgers an Ecclesiasticall Vnity or Church-communion under the notion of Governed or subjects of an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth Now nothing can more neerly touch a Church than the Rules of faith and Government especially if the Government bee of faith and recieved upon it's Rule Seeing then these principles gave them some Vnity and Communion as Faithfull and as belonging to an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth it must necessarily bee Church Vnity and Comunion which it gave them 8. The Protestant Reformers renoun'ct both these Principles This is undeniably evident since they left of to hold the Popes Supreme power to act in Ecclesiasticall affairs and also to hold diverse points which the former Church immediately before the breach had recieved from immediate Pastours fathers as from Christ 9. Hence follows unavoidably that those Reformers in renouncing those two Principles did the fact of breaking Church Communion or Schismatizing This is demonstrably consequent from the two last Paragraphs where 't is proved that those two Principles made Church Communion that is caused Vnity in that Body which themselves acknowledge a true Church as also that they renounced or broke those Principles therefore they broke that which united the Church therefore they broke the Vnity of the Church or Schismatiz'd 10. This renouncing those two Principles of Ecclesiasticall Communion prou'd to have been an actuall breach of Church Vnity was antecedent to the Pope's excommunicating the Protestants and his commanding Catholikes to abstain from their Communion This is known and acknowledg'd by all the world nor till they were Protestants by renouncing those Principles could they bee excommunicated as Protestants 11. This actuall breach of Church Vnity in K. Henry's E d the 6th's and the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign could not bee imputable to the subsequent Excommunication as to it's cause 'T is plain since the effect cannot bee before the cause 12. Those subsequent Excommunications caused not the actuall breach or
whereof England was one It claimed Vniuersal Tradition for it's tenour an Authority held of great efficacy by our very Adversaries the rejecting it if groundless was known to be an hainous Schism and to unknit the whole frame of the Churche's present Government which by consequence must render it in an high degree damnable to those who should go about to violate it Now then let us consider whether a Reason in it's own nature probable for except rigorous Evidence no reason can be more and no way in it's self obliging the Vnderstanding to assent be a sufficient and secure motive to reject an Authority of so long continuance held sacred and of Christ's Institution of such importance to the peace of the Church in rejecting which if one happen to mistake he is liable to the horrid vice of Schism and it 's condign punishment eternal damnation It must then be most peâ—fect demonstrative Evidence such as forces the understanding to assent which can in common prudence engage a man to hazard his salvation by renouncing that Authority Let Dr. H. then remember that they must be such kind of Evidences which can serve his turn not any ordinary common sleight testimony-proofs which for the most part arrive not to the pitch of a poor probability in them selves but compar'd to the tenour of our Government Vniversal Tradition vanish into aire or which is less into nothing To make this yet clearer let us suppose as it happens in our case that they who began to reform in this point first and to deny the lawfulness of this Authority were bred up formerly in a contrary belief ortherwise they must have received it from their Fathers which would quite spoil the supposition of being the first Reformers Neither is it likely that multitudes began to think or speak against it all in one instant but either one or some few chief who propagated it by suggesting it to the rest Now then let us consider what motives are sufficient to oblige these men to this new-begun disbelief and disobedience so as to absolve them even in common prudence from a most self-conceited pride and desperate precipitancy In prejudice of them is objected that heretofore they held that forme of Government as of Faith and acknowledged to receive it upon the same sole certain Rule of Faith which assured them that Christ was God the whole Church they left had confessedly for some ages held the same so that it was now found in quiet Possession If they were learned they could not but in some measure penetrare the force of Vniversal Tradition which stood against them in this point since orall Tradition of which we speak was pleaded by Catholicks for this point but never so much as pretented by the separaters against it because Reformation in a point of Faith and Tradition of it destroy one the other In a word should all these most ponderous Considerations be waved and onely the Authority of the Church they left consider'd t' is impossible they should reform unless they should conclude millions of Doctours which had been in the Church many of them reverenced even yet by the Protestants for their admirable learning to be ignorant in comparison of themselves or else all insincere and to have wronged their Conscience in holding and teaching against their knowledge Now let any ingenuous person consider whether such a strange self-extolling judgment and condemning others ought in reason be made by a few men against the aforesaid most important motives without a most undeniable and open Evidence able to demonstrate palpably and convincingly that this pretended Government was unjust and usurp't And if the first Reformers could have no just and lawfull that is evident Ground to begin their disobedience to that Government neither can their Proselytes and Successours the Protestanrs have any pretence for continuing it since in matters belonging to Eternity whose nature is unchangeable by the occurrence of humane circumstances none can lawfully adhere to that which could never lawfully be begun Neither are there any proofs against that Authority producible now which were not producible then The seventh ground is that No Evidence can possibly be given by the Protestants obliging the understanding to beleeve that this Authority was usurp't This is proved by the case of the first Reformers now explicated whose words could not in any reason be imagin'd evident against such an universall Verdict of the whole Church they left and particularly of all the learned men in it incomparably and confessedly more numerous and as knowing as any have been since Yet we shall further evince it thus They pretend not to any evidence from natural Principles concluding demonstratively that the former Government was usurp't nor yet from oral Tradition since their immediate Forefathers deliver'd them other doctrine else the Reformation could never have begun against our common Supposition Their Grounds then must be testimonial proofs from Scriptures Fathers or Councils But since these are most manifestly liable to be interpreted divers ways as appears de facto no sufficient assurance can be pretended hence without evidencing either more skill to fetch out their certain sense or more sincerity to acknowledge what they knew than was found in the Church they left a task I am perswaded few will undertake I am confident none can perform since all the world knows that the vast number of eminent and learned Doctors we have had in the process of so many ages and extent of so many Countries were persons not meanly vers't in Scriptures Fathers Councills yet held all these most consonantâ—to the Catholick doctrine though the polemical vein of the Schools which left nothing not throughly ventilated gave them ample occasion to look into them Adde to this that our late Doctors and Controvertists have not feared nor neglected to answer all those testimonies and produce a far greater number out of all the said Authorities nor have they behaved themselves so in those conflicts that the indifferent part of the world have held them non-sensical which surely they would had they deemed the other a perfect and rigorous Evidence From hence followes that though they may blunder and make a show with testimonies yet in reality they can never produce sufficient that is evident reasons thence for rejecting a Government qualify'd with so many circumstances to confirm and establish it Though I must confess if they could demonstrate by evident and unavoidable connexion of termes from some undeniable authority that this Government was unjust their Vnderstandings would in that case be obliged to assent to that inference But this is not to be hoped as long as divers words have divers significations as divers Sentences by reference to divers others put on different faces or by relation to several circumstances in history give us occasion to raise several conjectures Again if Evidence were easily producible from such kind of wordish testimonies yet they would still be as far to seek for an Authority
east and west north and south in all parts of the habitable word And was not this ever the constant practice of God's Church to Excommunicate all those who renounced either the Government or any other point of Faith received from their Forefathers that is all Schismaticks and Hereticks and never to readmit them till they repented their lapse and did fruits worthy of penance I grant therefore that the Romish Governours inherit the remorslesness of the foregoing Church so that if any be found misdeserving in the same manner in what part soever of the habitable world they live whether East West North or South all is one to her or how many soever they be Arians Socinians Eutychians Nestorians Carpocratians Lutherans Calvinists Protestants c. she values not their number nor yet their situation if they grow scabb'd with self opinionated novelties or disobedience they must be separated from the sounder flock nor ever be re-admitted till their repentance hath wrought their cure His fifth sixth seventh eighth Paragraphs which follow lay down for their foundation a very excellent principle introduc'â— with an If as If the Church of England p. 19. l. 22. be really 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Bishop of Rome p. 20. l. 1. had really no more power and Authority over this Church than the Bishop of Antioch over Cyprus that is none at all In case the Bishop of Rome p. 21. l. 16. have no legal Authority over us c. and upon this he runs on very confidently a whole leaf and an half concluding most evidently whatever he pleases in prejudice of the Pope none daring to stop his career or deny his consequences so great vertue there is in the particle If onely we may take leave to propose a parallel to it that as he who intends to dine on larks prepares all things necessary whithout any greater security than If the sâ—y should fall may in all likelyhood miss his meal so in greater probability must Dr. H. fail of his conclusion which relies upon a conditional If grounded onely in his own fancy He expresses p. 22. much Charity towards the humble members of the Papacy who pray for the peace of the Caetholick Church But if he would consider how litle they think of his Church under that notion he would con them litle thanks for their prayers They never intended to pray for the peacefull a biding of the Protestants where they are but rather for that salutiferous trouble of compunction and sorrow of heart for their disobedience and pervicacious obstinacy Yet he will needs be beholding to them for praying for the Protestant Churches peace with the rest and in courteous requital retains the favorable opinion of Salvation attainable amognst them But cannot absolve from the guilt of the most culpable Schism the setters up and maintainers of the partition-wall betwixt us The Pope Cardinals and all the Clergy must beaâ— S. W. company to Hell that 's decreed S. Paul hath doubt less long a goe pronounced sentence against them also He would clear himself in the next place for mincing the Father's words S. Austin affirmed non esse quicquam gravius Schismate he render'd it scarce any so great Now S. W. knowing how willing he was to seek evasions to palliate Schism by pretence of some greater sin as he does most amply of Schism cap. 2. part 8. and therefore not willing to grant him any the least startinhole exprest by the way his dislike of his mincing the absolute not with scarce But as Mr. H's good fortune would have it his Genius led him into this profitable mistake as to translate gravius so great and by the jumbling of these two together he hath compounded an excuse alledging that scarce any is so great is fully as much or more comprehensive than none greater Whereas first it is manifest that non esse quicquam gravius is most obviously and easily render'd there is nothing greater and if a qualifying expression be made use of in stead of an absolute one S W. had good reason to be jealous of it specially coming from Dr. H. Next the reasons he alledges to make good the equivalence of the sense that there may possibly be many crimes as great though no one were supposed greater is false Moral Science assuring us that no two kinds of vices are equall Thirdly if Dr. H. please to rub up afresh his forgotten Logick he will find that with S. Austin's proposition that none is greater it cannot stand that one is greater since they are contradictories but with his proposition that scarce any is so great it vell stands that one or some few may be greater Therefore it is manifest that he minced S. Austin Lastly whereas he sayes he assumed not to affirm more than his Authorities did induce that there was none greater is the strangest lapse of all before he onely minc'd the words non est quicquam gravius now they have totally lost their signification since he tells us his Authorities did not induce that there was none greater which is directly contrary to the words cited This is the result of Dr. H's deliberate thoughts apply'd to remedy his Disarmer's too great hast Me thinks another man in another cause might have done better ex tempore I took notice by the way with a glance of a parenthesis that he mitigated S. Irenaeus his words Nulla ab eis tanta fieri potest correptio quanta est schismatis pernicies by rendring the absolute tenour of them Nulla potest c. by the softer language of It is very hard if not impossible to receive such an injury from the Governours c. To clear himself he asks me first why I took no notice of his ill rendring Schismatis pernicies I answer that it is not necessary to score up all his faults it suffices to note what I conceived most needfull Next he excuses himself by telling us that he set down the Latin punctually and so left it not possible to impose on any that understood that I answer that my intent in noting it was that he should not even impose on those who understand English onely and make up the greater part of Readers Thirdly he sayes he was carefull not to goe beyond the limits of the testimonies I grant it and onely find fault that he was over-carefull so as to fall short of their just sense Fourthly he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Scripture and other Authours is render'd hard or difficult Which evasion is nothing unless he had this testimony out of Irenaeus in Greek as his words seem willing underhand to make the Reader believe which if he have I am sure he hath seen more than other men though very curious could ever hear of These are his evasions let us see what plain reason will say against them It is very hard if not impossible to receive such an iniury sufficient to excuse Schism evidently is consistent with this sense that
assent rationally nor any thing to move it at all but passion disorder'd affections fear or Interest Many paradoxes seem very plausible and prety while they are drest up in involving terms which hide their deformity yet brought to Grounds and to Practice show manifestly their shame The former to wit Grounds confute them by showing them contradictory the latter that is Practice confounds them by showing them absurd How implicatory Mr. H's doctrine of no power to bind to beleef is and how inconsistent with Christian Faith hath already been manifested by bringing it to Grounds how absurd it is will quickly be discerned by reducing it into practice Let us imagin then that the Bells chime merrily to morning prayer and that the whole town rings with the fame and noise that Dr. H. reputed the most learned of all the Protestant party who quite confuted the Pope and cut off the neck of Rome at one blow in a book of Schism and has lately with a great deal of Greek lopt off and seared the Hydra-head from ever growing more in his Answer to Schism Disarm'd would give them a gallant Sermon Whereupon a great confluence of people coming together to receive edification after a dirge sung in Hopkins rime very pittifully in memory of the deceased Book of Common-prayer up steps Dr. H. repeats his Text and fals to his Harangue In which let us imagin that he exhorts them to renounce all the affections they have to all that is dear to them in this world and place them upon a future state of eternal bliss promised by Christ to all that serve him in particular let us imagin he earnestly exhorts them with the Apostle to stand fast in the Faith and to hold even an Angel from Heaven accursed if he taught the contrary nay telling them they ought to lose theirs and their Childrens whole estates and lay down a thousand lives rather than for-goe their Faith This done let us suppose him to draw towards a period and conclude according to his doctrine when he disputes against us in this manner To all this dearly beloved I exhort you earnestly in the Lord yet notwithstanding that I may speak candidly and ingenuously and tell you the plain literall truth of our tenet neither I nor the Church of England whose judgment I follow are infallibly certain of this doctrine which I bid you thus beleeve and adhere to Our p. 15. l. 37. 38. Church I confess is fallible it may affirm and teach false both in Christ's doctrine and also in p. 23. l. 38 c. c. p. 24. l. 3. saying which is true Scripture and which the true sense of it and consequently I may perhaps have told you a fine tale all this while with never a word of truth in it but comfort your selves beloved for though it may be equally and indifferently probable it erres yet it is not strongly probable that it will p. 16. l. 1. Wherefore dearly beloved Brethren have a full persuasion I beseâ—ch you as p 16 l. 6. 7. our Church hath that what she defines is the truth when she defines against the Socinians that Christ is God although p. 16. l. 8. properly speaking she hath no certainty that he is so The Governours of our Church may indeed lead you into damnable errours being not infallible in Faith yet you must obey them p. 16. l. 16. by force of the Apostl's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here the good-women are all-to-bewonder'd and bless themselves monstrously at the learned sound of the two Greek words at least p. 17. l. 3. beleeve them so far as not to disbelieve them For mistake me not beloved I mean no more than thus when I bid you stand fast in the Faith hang in suspence dear brethren hang in a pious suspence and beleeve it no improbable opinion that Christ is God and that there is such a felicity as heaven at least whatsoever you think in your heart yet p. 17. l. 25. quietly acquiesce to the determinations of our Mother the Church of England so far as not disquiet the peace of our Sion although you should perhaps see that this Church did Idolatrously erre in making a man a God and so give God's honour to a Creature yet I beseech you good brethren acquiesce very quietly peaceably and although you could evidence that she was in damnable errours and that she carried Souls quietly and peaceably to Hell for want of some to resist and oppose her yet let them goe to Hell by millions for want of true Faith still enjoy you quietly your opinion without opposing the Church though thâ—s pernicious Were not this a wise and edifying Sermon and enough to make his Auditours pluck him out of the Pulpit if they beleeved him not or if they beleeved him to return home Scepticks or Atheists Yet how perfectly chiefly in express termes partly in necessary Consequences it is his his own words have already manifestâ—d for the famous Explications lately spoken of he applies here to his Church parag 23. and his Rule of Faith must be either certain and so make all points of Faith certain and infallible truths or if it be uncertain nothing that is built upon it can be certainer than it self and by consequence Christ's God-head must be uncertain also and so there can be no power or motiue to oblige men to beleeve it more than the rest Sect. 13. The four main Advantages of the Catholick Church wilfully misrepresented The Disproportion of Dr. H's parallelling the Certainty of the Protestant's Faith to that of K H. the eighth's being King of England THe Cath. Gentl. mentioned on the by four advantages our Church had over any other viz. Antiquity Possession Persuasion of Infallibility and Pledges which Christ left to his Church for motives of Vnion Speaking of the last of these Dr. H. tells us here Repl. p. 19. it is in vain to speak of motives to return to our Communion to them who have not voluntarily separated and cannot be admitted to union but upon conditions which without dissembling and lying they cannot undergoe As for the latter part of this excuse truly if motives of union be vain things to be proposed to them to bring them to Vnion I must confess I know not what will be likely to doe it They pretend to think our doctrine erroneous our Church fallible to which therefore they deem it dissimulation and lying to subscribe what remains then to inform them right but to propose reasons and motives that that doctrine was true that Church infallible that therefore they might lawfully subscribe with a secure conscience But Dr. H. will not heare of motives or reasons for Vnion but sayes 't is in vain to speak of them that is he professes to renounce his Reason rather than forgoethe obstinacy of his Schismatical humour yet he sayes here that this evasion is necessarily the concluding this Controversy But why a probability to the contrary should be sufficient to oblige
Authority Yet knavery and folly are less intolerable if practised modestly and warily but temerity and audacity are the gallantry of Ruffinus his former faults he practises them when and where he pleases and so his testimony becomes more perfectly fit for Dr. H's cause S. Hierom ibid. challenges him that he knew in his conscience how he added detracted and changed things as he listed Erasmus in his Preface upon S. Hilary sayes that Ruffinus took to himself not the liberty of an Interpreter but the licence of a Contaminatour of other men's writings And Annot. in Chron. Euseb anno MMLXV Scaliger notes it to be his custom to omit pervert and change the texts as he pleased Lastly if Dr. H. yet makes account he can vindicate the sufficiency of Ruffinus his Authority against so many opposers I will adde for an upshot the words of their most famed Daillé against whom I am sure he will not take up cudgels being a person so highly commended by the Lords Falkland and Dighy who l. 2. c. 4. characters Ruffinus to be an arrant woodden statue a pittiful thing one that had scarâ—e any reason in what he said and yet much less dexterity in defending himself Let the Reader judge then how desperate that cause must be which drives it's Patrons to rely upon such a barbarous heretical malicious and silly fellow's Authority who wanted both ordinary learning and common honesty the onely things which can give him any Authority at all and this in the judgment of persons beyond all exception either of ignorance or prejudice This miserable and ruinous testimony upon which yet our Adversaries build so much being resolv'd into the rubbish of Ruffinus his defects it would not be much amiss to try whether our testimonies for the Pope's Patriarchy over all the West be establish't upon better Authority than this which gave the ground of retrenching it to Ruffinus his followers St. Basil speaking Basil Epist 10. of him as Patriarch calls him The Coryphaeus or Head of the Western Churches S. Hierom makes account that Hier. ad Marc. Presb. Celed Epist 77. to be condemned with Pope Damasus with the West is the self-same thing But because the testimony of Adversaries is freest from favour and partiality the satisfaction given by such is much more ample and valid To these therefore let us have recourse I mean the Greek Schismaticks who though the competition between the Eastern and Western Church provoked them to retrench the Pope's Patriarchat as much as they could possibly justify yet they freely and ingenuously grant that it contained anciently all the Provinces of Italy Spain France Germany England Illyricum Occidentale under which were understood Dalmatia Hungary and other neighbouring Provinces Our first Testimony shall be that of Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica de prim Pap. in that very book in which he disputes against the Latins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canon of the Council of Nice thinks fit that the rules of the Fathers be confirmed who have distributed to every Church their Priviledges to wit that some Nations be under the Bishop of Alexandria others under the Bishop of Antioch c. and to the Bishop of Rome the same is given to wit that he govern the Occidental Nations The second shal be of Zonaras a Greek Schismatick and Commentatour living long before Nilus who in his exposition of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice the same to which Ruffinus added his conceit of Suburbicarian and thence gave occasion to his imagin'd limitation of the Pope's Patriarchy before spoken of hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Council ordaines that the Bishop of Alexandria have the superintendency of Egypt Libya and Pentapolis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the ancient custome had given to the Bishop of Rome to grovern the Provinces of the West The third testimony shall be of the same Zonaras in Concil Sard. Can. 5â— which proceeds farther and grants him over and above all the Provinces of the Western Empire almost all those Provinces of the Eastern also which lay westwardly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Roman Church saith he writing his Comment upon the fifth Canon of the Council of Sardica were then subject all the Western Churches to wit those of Macedonia Thessalia Illyricum Epirus which were afterwards subjected to the Church of Constantinople Here thou seest Reader three testimonies in themselves most ample and express of Authours beyond all pretence of partiality towards us whose interest and passion ought rather have obliged them to detract than superadde to the Pope's Iurisdiction Not were they less secure from opinion of ignorance the quality of Archbishop in one of them and of profest Writers for the Greeks in both rendering them not liable either to exception of supineness or want of knowledge Iudge then again how bad that cause must be which can oblige men rational enough in other businesses to refuse assent to a Verdict thus qualify'd and adhere to a bare word capable of a different and so unprejudicial signification as coming from an Authour so intolerably barbarous as this Ruffinus hath been shown or if meant in that stricter signification can yet claim no credit as being onely his word who hath been manifested by witnesses beyond exception to have lost his indifferency sincerity nay all shame and honesty together with his Faith I hope the Candid Reader will gather what stuff is to be expected from that Treatise de Suburbicariis regionibus which Dr. H. Repl. p. 35. is pleased to call a Tract and afford it the Epithet of learned and how wise or sincere a person Lescaserius is though styled here by Dr. H. most Excellent who undertakes to vindicate this Ruffinus but with such weak arguments as were it not out of my way to confute that Treatise I would undertake to manifest they neither argue too much learning nor any excellency at all in the study of Antiquity in that point unless that excellency were corrupted by a passionate insincerity though I know any thing is excellent which makes excellently well for Dr. H's purpose or does any excellent prejudice to Rome Sect. 16. Dr. H's fruitless endeavours to prove the Pope as he calls it no Summum Genus from the pretended denial of Appeales and the denial of Names or Titles as also how weakly he argues against that demonstrably-evident Authority THe Pope's Patriarchy being thus limited to litle more than nothing his chief Pastourship must in the next place be totally annihilated against which Mr. H. as the nature of Schism requires hath so much the greater spite by how much it is higher in Authority than the Patriarchy This he doth de professo afterwards here on the by onely of Schism p. 59 telling us that there was none over the Patriarchs but the Emperour onely which he proved because they use to gather Councils His Disarmer broke the reeds of the testimonies he produced by shewing them unable to conclude unless they
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
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
flat Schismaticks But if you say 't is the same you are reuinc't by the plain matter of fact nay by the most undeniable force of self-evident terms since no first Principle can bee more clear than the leaving to hold what your immediate forefathers held was not to continue to hold what was held by the same forefathers and that to disclame their doctrine and discipline was not to inherit it After hee had told us that the Church of England and the Church of Rome both maintaine this Rule of faith that is indeed a different thing but the same words hee immediately disgraces the said Rule by adding that the question onely is who have changed that doctrine or this discipline wee or they the one by substraction the other by addition Which is as much as to say the pretended Rule is noe Rule at all or else that wee do not agree in it which yet hee immediately before pretended for sure that Rule can bee no Rule to him that follows it and yet is misled as one of us must necessarily bee who according to him hold the same Rule and yet different doctrines Either then there is no Rule of faith at all or if there bee one of us must necessarily have receded from that Rule and proceeded upon another ere hee could embrace'an errour or differ from the other It being known then and acknowledg'd that wee hold now the same Rule as wee did immediately before their Reformation that is the Tradition of immediately forefathers it is evident out of the very word Reformation that they both renounced the said Rule and wee continue in it Next hee assures his Reader that the case is clear to wit that wee have changed that doctrine discipline by addition This hee proves by the wildest Topick that ever came from a rationall head Because the Apostles contracted this doctrine into a summary that is the creed and the ancient Church forbad to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession whereas wee now exact more What a piece of wit is here did ever Protestant hold that there is nothing of faith but the 12. Articles in that creed doe not they hold that the Procession of the Holy Ghost the Baptism of Infants the Sacraments c. are the Legacies of the Apostles and so of faith yet not found in that creed Is it not of faith with them that there is such a thing as God's words though it bee not in that creed How then follows it that they have changed Christ's doctrine by addition who hold more points than are in that creed of the Apostles may not wee by the same Logick accuse the Church at the time of the Nicene Council who prest the word Consubstantiall to distinguish Catholicks from Arians nay may not wee by the self-same argument charge his own Church for making pressing the profession of their 39. Articles in which are many things as hee wel knows not found nor pretended to bee found in the Apostles creed What an incomparable strain of weaknes is it then to conclude us to have changed Christ's doctrine by addition from our obliging to more points than are found in that creed whereas 't is evident and acknowledg'd that very many points were held anciently and ever which are not put there And what a self contradicting absurdity is it to alledge for a reason against us that which makes much more against their own every way overthrown Congregation It being then manifest that the Apostles creed contains not all that is of faith it follows that it was not instituted as such by them or receiv'd as such by the ancient Church Let us see then to what end it served and how it was used by them the ignorance whereof puts the Bp. upon all this absurdity which hee might partly have corrected had hee reflected on his owne words Baptismall profession It is prudence in a Church and in any Government whatever not to admit any to their Communion or suffer them to live amongst them till they have sufficient cognizāce that they are affected to them and not to their Enemies party Hence at their Baptism the solemnity which admits persons into the Church they proposed to them some such form of tenets which they therefore call'd a symboll or badge as might distinguish them from all the other sects rife at that time for some time the Apostles creed was sufficient for that and to difference a Christian from all others because at the time it was made the rest of the world was in a manner either Pagans or Iews Afterwards when other Adversaries of the Church that is Hereticks arose against points not found in that creed it was necessary upon occasion to enlarge that Profession of faith or symboll soe as to signify a detestation of or an aversion from that heresy Either then the Bp. must say that no new heresy shall or can arise against any point not found in the creed and then the Anabaptist is iustify'd and made a member of the Chimericall Geryon-Shap't Church of England or else hee must grant that the Church when such arise must make new Professions or symbolls to distinguish friends from those foes unles shee will admit promiscuously into her Bowells Adversaries for friends a thing able to destroy any Commonwealth either Ecclesiasticall or temporall This is evident out of naturall prudence yet this is that which my L d D. carps at that when new up start heresies had risen the Church should ordain such a Profession of faith and cōsisting of such points as may stop the entrance of such into the Church As then if the reformed Congregation were to baptize one now at age and so make him one of their company none can doubt but it were prudence in her had shee any Grounds to own herself to bee a Church to ask him such questions first as should manifest hee were not a Socinian Anabaptist or Papist but Protestant-like affected that is propose to him a Profession of faith larger than is that of the creed for each of those sects admits this and yet differs from the Protestant so it could not bee imprudent in our Church when new heresies arose who yet admitted the creed to propose some larger form of Profession which might discover the affection of the party lest perhaps shee might make a free denizon of her community an arrant Adversary who came in cloakt and unexamind to work her all the mischief hee could Yet this due examination before-hand the Bp. calls changing of faith by addition thus perpetually goes common sence to wrack when Protestant Drs goe about to iustify their Schism and to make the non-sence more pithy hee calls this a clear case that wee have thus offended by addition Again hee tells us to confirm this that the Generall Council of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession than the Apostles creed Which is first a very round
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
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
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-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
accuses himself since then wee never accused you of breaking from our Goverment till you had broke from it and you could not have broke from it without first accusing the say'd Government and objecting some reason against it as the motive of your breaking You must therefore oppose and alledge those reasons and show them sufficient ones else your very fact of renouncing that former Government doth unavoidable convince you of Schism Next hee tells us that if the proof did rest on their sides yet hee does not approve of my advice And I dare swear in the Bps behalf that hee never spoke truer word in his life and will bee bound for him that hee shall never follow any advice that bids him speak home to the point or meddle with such a method as is likely to bring a speedy end to the Controversy Make an Heretike speak out saith S. Augustin and you have hâ—lf-confuted him But what reason gives hee why hee disapproves of my advise Will hee shew us a more easy efficacious or likely way to bring the dispute to a finall Conclusion His reason is because saith hee it is not wee who have alter'd the doctrine or discipline which Christ lefâ— in the Church but they c. and so runs rambling forwards with his own sayings to the end of the Section All the world sees and Dr. H. acknowledges you have alter'd the discipline left in the Church of England in K. H's dayes and now you are to give a reason to iustify this alteration you tel us you have made none I am not ignorant of the dexterity with which you have shuffled a reserve into those words which Christ left in the Church to persuade the Reader the discipline of the Church of England in H the â—th's dâ—yes was not the same which Christ left to his Church But I prest no more than that it was used then as a thing held to have been inherited from Christ and that it was then and still is a bond of Vnity to all â—hose that communicated in it and therefore that you now reiecting it must either shew it to bee no necessary bond of Vnity or necessarily remain convinced of destroying Vnity that of Schism Mee thinks a man who pretends to answer should either say I or No they are usvally the returns wee make to questions But S Austin's saying is Oracle no speaking out hee thanks you Hee knew well enough that either part of the Contradiction own'd would have some means to go about to disprove which by destroying all doubt in the case would have destroy'd his own and the Authority of all those who speak against Evidence Altum silentium is all you can get from him onely in the hard streight hee is driven to of either saying nothing or nothing to the purpose hee tels you hee is not obliged to answer because hee has not alter'd the discipline left by Christ to his Church of England in K. H. the 8th's dayes of which my objection runs 't is false even to ridiculousnes for I cannot imagin hee fancies his Authority can so much over sway the simplicity of any Reader his book will meet with as to hope to make him beleeve the Church of England in his Lops time had the same discipline she had in K. H's dayes If hee mean of the discipline left by Christ to the Primtive times 't is no less false and more impertineÌ„t first in answering of the Primitive times to an objection concerning the time of H. the 8. Secondly whenas I begun with an evident matter of fact beyond alldispute and thence grounded a progress to a decisive discourse in skipping aside to a point mainly disputable between us in stead of answering to that Evidence and which is still weaker by thinking to carry that whole matter by barely saying it And if the Reader please now to review the Bishops first Section with a narrower eye I am confident hee will percieve that besides that hee hath not said a word in answer to us above three quarters of the said Section is made up of this stuff to wit of reuolving and repeating over his own tenets and the very question and talking any thing upon his own Authority without a syllable of proof and twice or thrice where hee pretends any they are mere falsifications abuses as hath been shown I must request the Reader whom the love of truth may invite to seek satisfaction in perusing a book of this nature to right himself the Bp. and mee by giving a glance back upon my words p. 306. 307. where I affirmed that it would appear that Schism was iustly charged upon his Church with undeniable Evidence of faith by two things viz out of the very position of the case and out of the nature of his Exceptions How hee hath reply'd to the first which is the position of the case hath already been shown to wit that hee would not speak one positive word I or no to a plain matter of faith nor bee willing to step forwards one step by answering directly to any thing which neerly concern'd the question but stood continually capering and flickhering up and down in the air at the pleasure of his own fancy As for the second thing to wit that it would appear out of the nature of 〈◊〉 Exceptions I show'd that hee in reciting my charge had purposely omitted that as loath his Exceptions should bee brought to the test of Reason or have their sufficiency examin'd And to let thee see that hee did this purposely looke Schism Disarm'd p. 309. and thou shalt see the whole paragraph which concern'd that second point omitted without any Reply pretended I shall therefore repeat it again here and leave it to the Bishop's second thoughts They must remember how their forefathers who began that which they call Reformation were themselves of this profession before their pretended Reform They ought to weigh what reasons their Ancestours should have had to introduce such an alteration They must confess themselves guilty in continuing the breach unles they can alledge causes sufficient to have begun it had the same ancient Religion descended to these dayes For the constant beleef of the Catholike world was at the time of our division and still is that these Principles are Christ's own ordination recorded in Scripture derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our nature is capable of to attain assurance what was done in Antiquity Evidences inviolable by any humane either poweror proof except perfect and rigorous demonstration to which our Adversaries doe not so much as pretend and therefore without farther dispute remain unanswerably convicted of Schism I suppose I need not inform the Reader what service it would have done to the Controversy and how necessary it was for my Ld D. to tell us whether his reasons were rigourously evidencing or demonstrative or else that less than demonstrative reasons that is probable ones would serve This would quickly have decided the busines
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
who of Schism p. 145. l. 5. seems even to strain sence it felf to express this calling this disclaiming the Pope's power tbe Bottome upon which the foundation of Reformation was laid that is the foundation of their foundation their fundamentall of fundamentalls Now then how those Bishops should not bee then Protestants who held the fundamentall of fundamentalls of Protestantism passes my skill to explicate and as I am persuaded my L ds too Sect. 3. How my L d of Derry endeavours to clear his Church from Schism by bringing Protestants to speak in their own cause nay the very Act or statute for which wee accuse them as an undeniable Testimony for them Likewise how hee produces for his chief Plea a Position opposit both to his own and our party's acknowledgment nay to the very eysight of the whole world twisting in it self a multitude of most direct contradictions and lastly quite annihilating at once all the Papists in the world HIs third Section pretends to make good his second grownd for dividing from the Church which was this because in the separation of England from Rome there was no now law made but onely their ancient liberties vindicated This I calld as I could do no less notoriously false and impudence it self alledging that a law was made in H. the 8th's time and an oath invented by which it was given the King to bee Head of the Church and to have all the power which the Pope did at that time possess in England Hee asks if this bee the language of the Roman Schools No my L d it is and ought to bee the language of every sincere man who bears any respect to truth shame or honesty against those who are profest and sworn Enemies of all three in case his circumstances have put him upon the task to lay such persons open and confute them Hee appeals to any indifferent Christian judge I decline not the Tribunal nay more I shall bee willing to stand to the award of the most partiall Protestant living who hath but so much sincerity as to acknowledge the Sun's shining at noonday or that the same thing cannot both bee not bee at once But. First hee goes about to acquit himself by confessing that hee sayd no new law was made then but denying that hee said no new statute was made Wee will not wrangle with him about the words onely I say if there were something new it was new and a statute made and approved by the King and his Parliament as this was wee Englishmen use to term a law if then there were a new statute made as hee confesses I concieve I have not wrong'd in the least the common language of England to call it a new law But his meaning is that King H. the 8th did noe new thing when hee renounced the Pope's Authority but what had been done formerly and therefore Secondly hee quotes Fitz-herbert and my Lord Cook who say that this statute was not operative to create a new law but declarative to restore an ancient law That is hee quotes two of his own party to prove hee sayd right and two Protestants to speak in behalf of Protestants Convincing proofs doubtles against us Thirdly hee promises to make it appear undeniably Whence or from what Authority from the very statute it self which sayes That England is an Empire and that the King as Head of the body politick consisting of the Spirituality and temporality hath plenary power to render finall iustice for all matters That is hee quotes the schismaticall King himself and his schismaticall Parliament who made this statute to speak in their own behalfs Does such a trifler deserve a Reply who in a dispute against us cites the authorities of those very persons against whom wee dispute nay that very Act of theirs which wee are challenging to have been schismaticall and relies upon them for undeniable Testimonies Fourthly hee alledges another statute made in the 24. of King H. the 8th the best hee could pick out you may bee sure yet there is not a syllable in it concerning spirituall Iurisdiction directly that is not a syllable to his purpose 'T is this The Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subjected to God in all things touching it's Regality and to no other and ought not to bee submitted to the Pope Wee are disputing about spirituall Iurisdiction and whether it were due to the Pope and the Bp. brings a statute which fpeaks of the Crown of England it self as not to bee submitted to the Pope as touching it's Regality that is a statute which expresly speaks of temporall Iurisdiction Hee tells us that Ecclesiasticall greivances are mention'd in that statute but sleightly omits so much as to name them much less to urge them which were they worth it wee may bee sure hee would have done with a triumph And besides hee knows wee hold every good King is to take order to see Ecclesiasticall grievances remedy'd and the Canons of the Church observ'd Nay hee knows if hee knows any thing our own Lawyers grant that Ecclesiasticall affairs sometimes fall under temporall power indirectly as on the other side temporall affairs fall indirectly under the Ecclesiasticall Yet that there is any more than this nay even so much in this statute my L d D. hath not shown us and if wee will bee judged by the words of the statute which hee cites they look quite another way But what matters it what this statute sayes being made two years after his unlawfull marriage with Anna Bullon which was the source of all his rebellion intended in all Likelihood when that match was made up As for his pretence that I conceal'd some of his particulars hee knows I undertook no more than to answer the substance and to show that such kindes of particularities were not worth alledging as I did in this very place and shall do again presently more amply Fifthly hee quarrells with mee for calling his Authorities meer Allegations which hee tells us are authentick Records c. whereas my words were onely these p. 311. l. 30. that hee brought diverse allegations in which the Pope's pretences were not admitted c. Now I concieve a Record or any other Authority alledged is an Allegation which was the word I vsed the word meer was meerly his own fiction to gain an occasion to cavill as the place now cited where my words are found will inform the Readers eyes These straws being stept over with which the learned Bp. thought to block up our passage Wee come to the point it self Whether King H. the 8th did any more than his Ancestours My L d of D. in his vindication to show hee did no more or made no new law gathers up Instances from our former laws and reiterates them here though sometimes hee uses a phrase louder than hâ—s proofs how the Pope's were curb'd or limited in their pretences Wee answer'd that
to limit an Authority implies an admittance of it in cases to which the restraints extend not Hee replies that this meaning those laws was not meerly to limit an Authority but to deny it p. 20. l. 20. yet in the next page hee denies not equivalent laws in france spain Germany Italy and in his vindication p. 73. l. 7. 8. c. hee affirms that the like laws may bee found in Germany Poland france spain Italy sicily and if wee will trust Padre Paolo in the Papacy it self These things being put granted and confest from his own words I shall now appeal even to the Bp s best and bosom-friend whether impudence was not a moderate character for that man's genius or humour who should go about to pretend that King H. the 8th did no more in this particular that is renounced the Pope's Authority no more than his Ancestour Kings had done before him For. First this is opposite to the common notion and generall opinion of the whole world both Catholicks Protestants Puritans and of what ever sect or sort who ever deem'd Henry the 8th to bee the first King of England who renounced the Pope's Supremacy and challenged it to himself Nor had they ever that conciet of France Spain Italy c. in which notwithstanding the Bp. grants equivalent laws to the former laws of England to which according to him K. H. superadded nothing This particularity I say in K. H. the 8th all the world as far as I ere heard always held in their free and naturall thoughts though when they are put to it to defend a desperate cause artifice wrongs nature and puts some of their non-plust Controvertists to assert and maintain the most open absurdities Secondly it is in particular against the confession and profession of his own party the Protestants who sing Halleluiahs incessantly to this happy time in which England was freed from the yoke of Rome which is an evident argument of their pretence that till now they groan'd under this yoke that is that till now the Pope's Headship was acknowledg'd here and by consequence that K. H. the 8th did more than his Ancestours did formerly when hee shook it of Thirdly this position contradicts in terms their Reformation in this point of the Pope's Supremacy which yet rings in every man's ears and is confest by themselves for it is impossible and contradictory there should bee a Reformation in any thing which was not otherwise before It was therfore otherwise in England before K. H. the 8th's time notwithstanding all these former power-limiting laws alledged by the Bp. and consequently 't is evident from the very terms that K. H. superadded to these laws in renouncing the Pope's Authority and that the contrary position is most absurd impossible and contradictory Fourthly it being confest by themselves and particularly by Dr. H. of Schism p. 132. in these very words 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 and by statutes or Acts of Parliament cast out of this Kingdome This I say being confest and it being also evident in terms that nothing can bee said to bee cast out of a place unles before it were in it 't is likewise evident in terms that this power was in England before notwithstanding the former laws cited by my L d D. then in power in this country and that those statutes and Acts of Parliament made by K. H. which cast it out did some new thing against that Authority that is did create new laws and not onely declare the old Fifthly since according to him these laws made by H. the 8th did no more than the former laws those former laws also must bee pretended to have cast out the Pope's Supremacy and to have begun a Reformation which yet wee never heard pretended and hee must show us when and how this Authority of the Pope in England twinklingly went out and in again otherwise it could never bee said to bee cast out a fresh in K. H's reign Sixthly this position of his is particularly opposite also to the common consent of all Catholike countries in which notwithstanding the Bp. affirms there are found equivalent laws who all look't on K. H. the 8th after those Pope renouncing Acts as a Schismatick and on England both then and ever since as schismaticall Now that they should esteem and abhor England as schismaticall for doing the same things themselves also did is against common sence and impossible Seventhly since iust vindication p. 73. l. 8. hee quotes Padre Paulo that the like laws were to bee found in the Papacy it self and 't is perfect non-sence to affirm that in the Papacy of which the Pope is both spirituall and temporall Governour hee should not bee held for Head of the Church 't is most manifest that the like laws in other places and in particular amongst our Ancestours in England did not take away from him that Headship in Ecclesiasticall matters and by consequence that K. H. the 8th who deny'd him that Headship did something new which his Ancestours had not done and when hee enacted this created new law 'T is most manifest likewise that those like laws in the Papacy are onely to distinguish the Pope's spirituall power there from his temporall that is to limit it's bounds not to deny it and consequently those mutually-like laws in other countries and in England formerly did onely limit it likewise Whence follows inevitably that K. H's law which totally abolish't renounc't and deny'd it was of another far different strain and new law Eightly this position is demonstratively convinc't of falshood by the evidēt and acknowledg'd effect for who sees not that upon this new law made by K. H. England stood at another distance from Rome than formerly for formerly notwithstanding all their laws they held still the Pope was Head of the universall Church reverenced him as such held this as of faith and this till the very time of the breach Whereas after K. H's law hee was held by the party which adhered to that law no Head of the universall Church nor reverenc't as such if any thing rather the contrary that England was absolutely independent on him was held as of faith Is not this as evident as that the sun shines and may it not with equall modesty bee den'yd that there ever was such a man as K. H. the 8th Ninthly this very position takes away the whole question between us and makes both us and all the Controvertists in England on both sides talk in the aire wrangling pro and con why K. H. cast out the Pope's Authority here whenas according to this illuminated Adversary of mine hee had actually noe Authority there at that time to cast out Lastly this position is so thriving an absurdity that from non-sence and contradiction it prosperously proceeds to perfect madnes and fanaticknes and comes
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
had any such priviledge of independency as the Bishop contends But My second objection was that this pretended exemption of the British Church was false My reason was because the British Bishops admitted appellation to Rome at the Council of Sardica In answer First hee tells mee that ere I can alledge the Authority of the Council of Sardica I must renounce the divine Institution of the Papacy and why for said hee that Canon submitted it to the good pleasure of the fathers and groundeth it upon the memory of S. Peter not the Institution of Christ Which is first flat falsification of the Council there being not a word in it either concerning the Papall power it self or it's Institution but concerning Appeals onely Next since wee call that of divine Institution which Christ with his own mouth ordain'd and never any man made account or imagin'd that Christ came from heaven to speak to the after Pope's and so give them a Primacy but that hee gave it by his own mouth to S. Peter whiles hee lived here on earth This I say being evidently our tenet and the Council never touching this point at all what a weaknes is it to argue thence against the diuine Institution of the Papacy and to abuse the Council saying that it submitted this to the good pleasures of the fathers Secondly hee asks how does it appear that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon which a little after hee calls my presumption And truly I shall ever think it a most iust presumption that they who confessedly sate in the Council assented to what was ordain'd by the Council in which they sate as was their duty unles some objection bee alledged to the contrary as the Bp brings none Thirdly hee sayes the Council of sardica was no generall Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed as they were before the making of that Canon What means hee by the Eastern Bishops the Catholicks or the Arians The Arian Bishops indeed fled away fearing the judgment of the Church as Apol. 2. ep ad solitarios S. Athanasius witnesses but how shows hee that any of the 76. Eastern Bishops were gone ere this Canon which is the third in that Council was made So that my L d of Derry is willing to maintain his cause by clinging to the Arians against S. Athanasius and the then Catholike Church as hee does also in his foregoing Treatise p. 190. 191 denying with them this to have been a generall Council because his good Brother Arians had run away from it fearing their own just coÌ„deÌ„mnation Fourthly hee says the Canons of this Council were never received in England or incorporated into the English laws I ask has hee read the British laws in those times if not for any thing hee knows they were incorporated into them and so according to his former Grounds must descend down to the English But wee are mistaken in him his meaning is onely that the aduantages and priuiledges should bee inherited from the Britons not their disadvantages or subjection So sincere a man hee is to his cause though partiall to common sence Lastly saith hee this Canon is contradicted by the great generall Council of Chalcedon which our Church receiveth Yet it seems hee neitheir thought the words worth citing nor the Canon where the abrogation of the Sardica Canon is found worth mentioning which argues it is neither worth answering nor looking for I am confident hee will not find any repealing of the Sardica Canon exprest there It must therefore bee his own deduction on which hee relies which till hee puts it down cannot bee answerd As for their Church receiving the Council of Chalcedon the Council may thanke their ill will to the Pope not their good will to receive Councils For any Council in which they can find any line to blunder in mistakingly against him they receive with open arms But those Councils which are clear and express for him though much ancienter as this of Sardica was shall bee sure to bee rejected and held of no Authority and when a better excuse wants the very running away of the guilty Arians shall disannul the Council and depriue it of all it's Authority Hee subjoyns there appears not the least footstep of any Papall Iurisdiction exercised in England by Elentherius I answer nor any certain footstep of any thing else in those obscure times but the contrary for hee referd the legislative part to King Lucius and the British Bishops Here you see my Ld D. positive and absolute But look into his Vindication p. 105. and you shall see what Authority hee relies on for this positive confidence viz. the Epistle of Eleutherius which himself conscious it was nothing worth and candid to acknowledge it there graces with a parenthesis in these words If that Epistle bee not counterfeit But now wee have lost the candid conditionall If and are grown absolute Whence wee see that the Bp. according as hee is put to it more and more to maintain his cause is forced still to abâ—te some degree of his former little sincerity And thus this if-not counter feited testimony is become one of his demonstrations to clear himself and his Church from Schism Now though our faith relies on immediate TraditioÌ„ for it's onely and certain Rule and not upon fragments of old Authours yet to give some instances of the Pope's Iurisdiction anciently in England I alledged S. Prosper that Pope Celestin Vice sua in his own stead sent S German to free the Britons from Pelagianism and converted the scots by Palladius My L d answers that converting and ordaining c. are not acts of Iurisdiction yet himself sayes here p. 193. that all other right of Iurisdiction doth follow the right of ordination Now what these words all other mean is evident by the words immediately foregoing to wit all other besides Ordination and Election by which 't is plain hee makes these two to bee rights of Iurisdiction So necessary an attendant to errour is self contradiction and non-sence But the point is hee leaues out those words I relied on Vice sua in his own stead which show'd that it belong'd to his office to do it These words omitted hee tells us that hee hath little reason to beleeve either the one or the other that is hee refuses to beleeve S. Prosper a famous and learned father who lived neer about the same time and was conversant with the affairs of the Pelagians and chuses to relie rather on an old obscure Authour whence no prudent man can Ground a certainty of any thing and which if hee would speak out himself would say hee thought to bee counterfeit What follows in his 25. page is onely his own sayings His folly in grounding the Pope's Supremacy on Phocas his liberality hath been particularly answer'd by mee heretofore Parâ— 1. Sect. 6. whether I refer him I found fault with him for leaving the Papall power and spending his time in impugning the Patriarchalâ—
that there is a thing call'd an Answer or account to H. T 's Appendix which confuted this forged manuscript writ by Dr. H though I briefly hinted here some exceptions found in it without taking notice of their pretended answer partly because I know by long experience that nothing but shuffling impertinences paralogisms and falsifications are to bee expected from that Authour and principally because I understood that the sayd Appendix is patroniz'd by the same learned pen that writ it and those Exceptions shown untouch't by the mock shirmish of his Adversary Thither I refer the Reader for compleat satisfaction where hee will see my BP more fully confuted and my present charge against the sleight Accountant most amply made good Sect. 5. How my Ld of Derry digresses from a Papall Authority to a Patriarchall that is from t who le question His prafest resolution not to return to it but upon conditions and such as hee is sure no Catholike can yeeld to His waving the whole scope of his Adversary's Discourse together with diverse impertinent non sencicall and unskilfull Replies MY Lord of Derry undertook to prove three things in his 6th Chapter first that the King Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdraw their obedience from the Roman Patriarch 2 ly that they had iust Grounds to do it and 3 ly that they did it with due moderation I objected that this was to shuffle away the whole question For whereas the question is of the Priviledge given by Christ to S. Peter and from him descended to the Pope's his successours that is whereas our Controversy is about a Papall Authority or that of the Head of God's Church held by us and by themselves formerly to bee of faith and of divine Institution hee leaves this to talk of a Patriarchall Authority not held as from Christ but of humane Institution By which sleight hee tacitly intimates that the Authority actually in force in England at the time of the Reformation and then renounced was onely Patriarchall not Papall which waves the main if not the whole charge and is plainly contradictory to the whole world's eyes at that time Now what excuse brings the Bishop for this fundamentall shuffling importing no less than the avoiding the whole question Hee tells us here p. 30. that when hee first undertook this subject hee coÌ„ceived the great strength of the Roman sampson did lie in his Patriarchate By which words if the Bp. pretends that hee intended to express himself finely I shall grant it but if hee sayes that hee intended to speak truly I have so good an opinion of those of his own party that I am confident the most partiall and simplest of them will bee too candid and too wise to beleeve him For how can it bee imagin'd that a Bp. and so well read a man as hee is accounted to bee should bee ignorant that the Reformers renounc't a Papall Authority and higher than Patriarchall and that a Papall Authority that is a Supremacy over the whole Church in Ecclesiasticall matters was held immediately before the Reformation or rejection of it Who knows not likewise that they stand accused by us of the fact of renouncing an Authority far higher than Patriarchall yet this Bp. undertaking that subject that is to vindicate his Church from Schism in renouncing that higher Authority pretends hee conceived that the great strength of the Roman sampson lay in his Patriarchate though hee knows the Patriarchate was held but of human that Papacy of divine Institution the Patriarchate limited to some particular part within God's Church the Papacy which they actually renounced held to bee universally extended and to have no other bounds or limits but God's Church the Papacy superior nay supreme the Patriarchate inferior and subordinate to the former This is the notion which both the former and present world nay themselves too had of the Papacy at least ere they rejected it which a man would think supperadds a great and manifold increase of strength above the other But the sincere Bp. thinks otherwise now though in his former book hee confesses the Pope had quitted the Patriarchall power that is pretended none for these last 600. years and here enlargeth it to a 1000. Which shows that Dr. H. and hee are the Simeon and Levy of the Protestant fraternity and have the same fundamentall faults common to both But now being taken tardy and caught running away from the question hee is well contented hee sayes to give over that subject to wit his disgression to the Patriarchate but yet not but upon two conditions wise ones you may bee sure Observe by the way Reader that though other disputants make account it is their duty and absolute obligation to speak to the point in hand in the Bp. 't is a courtesy and to bee condescended to conditionally 't is against his nature and inclination to hold to the question and therefore wee must bribe him to it 〈◊〉 sâ—bscribing to the bargain hee proposes The first condition hee requires ere hee will leave of rambling to a Patriarchate and come home to the question is that wee must not presume the Pope is a spirituall Monarch without proving it What hee means by spirituall Monarch I know not 'T is a word without sence till it bee explicated For either hee means by Monarch a Commander in whose breast all concernments of the subjects are put so that his will is a law to dispose of them as hee lists and then wee held not the Pope to bee such a Monarch for this however it bee call'd Monarch is indeed flat Tyranny or else hee means a Monarch is the ordinary chief Governour and such wee hold the Pope to bee in the Church and shall ever presume hee is so till his subjects who actually rebell'd against his Authority disprove it Wee hold on the Governours side your first Reformers were before their separation actually his subjects actually they deny'd their subjection and rose against his Government ' This actuall rising against him this very fact I say proves you Rebells his former long-enjoy'd possession stands a proof of his Right unles you evidence and demonstrate him an vsurper or though none yet that the Government ought to bee abolish't But the Bp. will not hold to the question unles wee will grant that when a subject rises against a former long possest Governour hee shall at pleasure call the Governour to account and oblige him to prove his title ere hee will acknowledge him and on the other side that the subject must bee freed from all obligation to give account of his rising against his Governour or from being bound to prove that the Authority hee rebell'd against was an usurpation and unjust Good sence but hard law His second condition ere hee will come to the question is that wee must not attempt to make Patriarchall priviledges to bee Royall Prerogatives what hee means by Royal Prerogatives I know not there being no determinate
Authority deserved to bee abolish't for it's own sake as accompany'd with the sayd grievances Secondly the Bp. tells us that they seek not extirpation of the Papacy but the reducing it to the primitive constitution which is as good sence as to give a manabox on the ear and then tell him you intend not to strike him They have already totally extirpated it in England in such sort as all the world sees and acknowledges the Pope hath not the least influence upon the English Congregation over which before hee had the greatest yet they hope to bee taken for moderate men as long as they speak courteous non-sence and tell us they seek not to extirpate it Thus the Bp. wanders from the purpose but still all is my fault who would not grant him his two conditions Thirdly hee tells us that Monarchy and Episcopacy are of divine Institution so is not saith hee a Papall soueraignty of Iurisdiction That Monarchy should bee of divine Institution I much wonder surely the Venetians and Hollanders are in a sad case then who thus continue without relenting to break one of God's Commandments especially their Brethren the Hollanders who renounced the Monarchicall Government of the King of Spain But the learned Bp. hath some text or other in Scripture which hee interprets onely according to Grammar and Dictionary-learning without ever looking into Politicks the science which concerns such points passages which would have taught him that Government was instituted for the good of the Governed and that since human affairs are subject to perpetuall mutability and change it happens that in some countries and some circumstances one form of Government is convenient in others another according as it happens to bee best for the Governed which comes to this that no particular form of Government is of divine Institution and constituted to endure ever seing the end to which all Government is directed the good of the Governed is mutable and changeable As for the next part of his third excuse that the Pope's Authority or Headship in Iurisdiction is not of divine Institution as Episcopacy is you see 't is his old trick onely his own bare saying and which is worse saying over again the very point in dispute between us Whereas the point which wee urge here is a plain matter of fact that those who first renounc't the Papall Authority held immediately before they renounc't it as firmly that it was divine Institution as the Protestants do of Episcopacy now and therefore ought to have renounc't it upon the pretended pressure of inconveniencies no more than Episcopacy ought to bee abolish't upon the like inconveniences Nay more the first Reformers ere they grew newfangled and chang'd their mind held it much more firmly for they held it a point of faith and abhorr'd all them who renounc't it as Schismaticks and Hereticks both whereas the Protestants acknowledge the Huguenots of France for Brothers who yet deny Episcopacy which the Bp. tells us upon another occasion is of divine Institution But 't is all one with the Protestants whether they renounce all Christ's Institutions or no if they do but hate Rome they are saints and Brothers The common faction against the Pope is more powerfull to unite them than the professed and obstinate rejecting Christ's ordinances is to disunite them As for his Bravado how rarely hee could iustify his Parliamentary Prelacy what weak performances it would afford were it put to triall may bee judged from his numerous and enormous contradictions in this present treatise bragg'd on by the Protestants to bee his Master peece Sect. 6. How my Lâ— of Derry states the whole question false by pretending against the plain matter of fact that they separated onely from the Court and not from the Church of Rome His Grounds of separation shown insufficient in many regards nay confest such by himself granting there was another remedy besides division That the Reformers have neither left any open and certain method of coming to Christ's faith nor any form of Government in God's Church nor by consequence any Church His weak plea for England's independency from the Council of Ephesus Five palpable contradictions cluster'd together which the Bp. calls the Protestants more Experience than their Ancestors HIs sixth section pretends to vindicate his Grounds of separation to take notice of which the Bp. is violently importunate with the Reader bidding him observe and wonder Nor can I doe any less seeing such monstrous stuff throughout this whole Section It begins we are now come to the Grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome And this is the first Monster which the Bp's pen more fruitfull of such creatures than Africk it self proposes to our observation Which if it bee not as foul and uncouth an one as errour could hatch and obstinate Schism maintain you shall pay but pence a peece to see it and say I have abus'd you too The charge against the Protestants was this manifested by undeniable matter of fact that they had rejected the acknowledgment of S. Peters and his successours the Pope's Headhip over God's Church and that they had receded from this Rule of faith that nothing is to bee adhered to as of faith but what was inherited that is immediately delivered by their forefathers as the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles That they renounced the former is manifest by the whole worlds and their own Confession That they renounced the latter is no less manifest by the same undeniable attestation and indeed out of the very word Reformation which signifies a not immediate delivery It is no less evident that the acknowledgment of the former both was at the time of the Reformation and now is the Principle of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome that is to all the Churches they themselves communicated with or were united to before they broke for 't is as visible as the sun at nonday that France Spain Portugal Italy c. consent and center in a ioynt acknowledgment of the Pope's Headship and are therefore held by Protestants Puritans and all contrary sects for Papist Countreys It is evident likewise that the acknowledgment of the latter was and is to the sayd Churches the Principle of Vnity in faith for they ever held the living voice of the Church that is the immediate Tradition or delivery of Pastours and forefathers an infallible Rule of faith wherefore ' it is unavoidably consequent that the Protestants dissenting from and disagreeing in both the sayd Principles in which these then-fellow Churches consented and agreed were and are separated from all those Churches and all that belong to those Churches And this according to the two sayd Principles Again since nothing can bee more essentiall to a Church than that which is the Rule and Root of Vnity both in faith and Government it follows that the Protestants dissenting in both and acting accordingly that is having separated according to both separated and
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
hee sayes p. 21. are equivalent to those of England which hee pretends here not to bee sufficient it follows that the laws of other countries were equivalent to those of England but those of England not equivalent to them or that though equivalent to one another that is of equall force yet the one was sufficient the others not that is of less force And thirdly that all Catholike countries did maintain their priviledges inviolate by means which did not maintain them or by laws which were not sufficient to do it Lastly hee tells us p. 20. that the former laws deny'd the Pope any Authority in England and p. 21. l. 9. that those laws were in force before the breach that is did actually leave him no Authority in England and here that those nationall laws were not sufficient remedies Whence 't is manifestly consequent according to him that those laws which deny'd the Pope all Authority and were actually in force that is actually left him none were not sufficient remedies against the Abuses of that Authority which they had quite taken a way And this plenty of contradictions the Bp's book is admirably stor'd with which are his demonstrations to vindicate his Church from Schism onely hee christens the monstrous things with a finer name and calls them their greater experience Whereas indeed as for more experience hee brags of God know poor men 't is onely that which Eve got by eating the Apple the expeperience of evill added to that which they had formerly of good Their Ancestors experienc't an happy Vnity Vnanimity Vniformity and constancy in the same faith while they remain'd united to the former Church and they since their breach have experienc't nothing but the contrary to wit distractions dissentions Vnconformity with a perpetually-fleeting Changeablenes of their tenet and at last an utter dissolution and disapparition of their Mock Church built onely in the Air of phantastick probabilities In the last place I alledged that the pretences upon which the Schism was originally made were far different from those hee now takes up to defend it For it is well known that had the Pope consented that K. H. might put away his wife and marry another there had been no thoughts of renouncing his Auâ—hority Which shows that at most the scales were but equally ballanc't before and the motives not sufficient to make them break till this consideration cast them A great prejudice to the sufficiency of the other reasons you alledge which you grant in the next page were most certainly then obseru'd or the greatest part of them For since they were observed then that is since the same causes were apply'd then apt to work upon men's minds those same causes had been also formerly efficacious that is had formerly produc't the effect of separating as well as now had there not been now some particular disposition in the patient and what particular disposition can bee shown at the instant of breaking save the King's lust which was most manifest and evident I confess I cannot imagin nor as I am persuaded the Bp. himself at least hee tells us none but onely in generall terms sayes they had more experience than their Ancestours Sect. 7. The first part of the Protestant's Moderation exprest by my L d of Derry in six peeces of non-sence and contradiction with an utter ruin of all Order and Government His pretended undeniable Principles very easily and rationally deny'd His Churche's inward charity and the speciall externall work thereof as hee calls it her Good-friday-Prayer found to bee self contradictory Pretences His Moderation in calling those tenets Weeds which hee cannot digest and indifferent Opinions which hee will not bee obliged to hold That according to Protestant Grounds 't is impossible to know any Catholike Church or which sects are of it HIs next Head is the due Moderation of the Church of England in their reformation This I called a pleasant Topick Hee answers so were the saddest subjects to Democritus I Reply the subject is indeed very sad for never was a sadder peece of Logick produced by a non-plust Sophister yet withall so mirthfull as it would move laughter even in Heraclitus The first point of their Moderation is this that they deny not the true being to other Churches nor separate from the Churches but from their accidentall errors Now the matter of fact hath evidenced undeniably that they separated from those points which were the Principles of vnitie both in faith GovernmeÌ„t to the former Church with which they communicated and consequently from all the persons which held those Principles and had their separation been exprest in these plain terms and true language nothing had sounded more intolerable and immoderate wherefore my L d took order to use his own bare Authority to moderate and reform the truth of these points into pretended erroneousnes and the concerningnes or fundamentalnes of them into an onely accidentalnes and then all is well and hee is presently if wee will beleeve his word against our owne eyes a moderate man and so are the Protestans too who participate his Moderation But if wee demand what could be Essentiall to the former Church if these too Principles renounced by them which grounded all that was good in her were accidentall onely or how he can iustly hold her a true Church whose fundâ—mentall of fundamentalls the Root Rule of all her faith was as he saies here an error his candid answer would shew us what common sence already informs us that nothing could be either Essentiall or fundamentall to that Church And so this pretended Moderation would vanish on one side into plain non-sence in thinking any thing could be more Essentiall to a Church then Vniâ—y of faith and Government on the other side into meer folly and indeed coÌ„tradiction in holding her a true Church whose Grounds of both that is of all which should make her a true Church are Errors Lies His Church of England defines Art 19. that our Church erres in matters of faith Art 22. that four points of our faith are vain fictions contradictory to God's word The like character is given of another point Art 28. Our highest act of deuotion Art 31. is styled a blasphemous fiction pernicious imposture and Art 33. that those who are cut of from the Church publikely I conceive they mean Catholikes or at least include them whom they used to excommunicate publikely in their Assemblies should be held as Heathens and Publicans Again nothing was more uncontrollably nay more laudably common in the mouths of their Preachers then to call the Pope Antichrist the Church of Rome the whore of Babylon Idolatrous Superstitious Blasphemous c. And to make up the measure of his fore fathers sins the Bp. calls here those two Principles of Vnity both in faith Government without which she neither hath nor can have any thing of Church in her as hath been shown in the foregoing Section both Errors and falshoods Now
these expressions if taken as falling from their mouths pens I conceive sound not over much of Moderation All the Moderation consists here that my Ld of Derry had a mind to break a good iest and assure us very Sadly p. 39. l. 7. that notwithstanding all this they forbear to censure us which signifies first that they do not censure at all whom they have already censured in the height as is manifest by their former expressions next that though they beleeve those former expressions to be true and that wee are indeed such that is though they hold us for such yet they do not censure us for such Awitty contradiction And lastly that though our Church erre in credendis contradict Scripture blasphemously perniciously in her doctrine nay though her all grounding Principles be flatt Errors and that she pertinaciously unrelentingly persist in those doctrines as she does nor is ever likely to change or retract them yet for all this she is not to be held as hereticall though this be the very definition of Heresie but as a true Church still nor is to be censured to be otherwise Good charitable non-sence Hee tells me first that hee speakes of forbearing to censure other Churches but I answer of communicating with them and that therefore I err from the purpose Yet himself six lines before so forgetfull he is quotes S. Cyprian for removing no man from our Communion c. And how they should refuse to communicate with any unles they first iudge him censure him to deserve to be avoided that is naught I must confess I know not Next hee tells us one may in some cases very lawfully communicate with materiall Idolaters Hereticks c. In pious offices though not in their Idolatry Heresie c. Thus we have lost the question Who for bids them to go to visit the sick with them or such like religious duties The question is whether they may communicate with them in any publike solemne act performable by Catholikes as they are subjects of such a common wealth from which the other is out law'd or performable by those others as belonging to a distinct sect Again this position of Moderation destroies all order Government both of Church state for by this out law'd persons may be traffick'r treated with so we joyn not with them in their rebellion and all the whole world heathens too may be of one Communion especially all Hereticks who all agree in some common Principle of Christianity with the rest The Bishop's Proviso makes all the world Brothers friends though one part should remain most obstinate enemies both to God his Church for still as long as this Principle holds of communicating with them in all things but their Errors God's Church shall become a courteous gallimafry of all the filth Hell Error could compound to deform her and wear in her externall face a motley mask of as many colours as there are sects in the world Perhaps Heathens too must make up a part of this Communion provided we abstain onely to communicate with them in their Idolatry Thus they who want Grounds to give nerves to their Government are forced to embrace a counterfeit Kind-heartednes and under that plausible vizard vent much refined perniciousnes as is able at once to ruin all sence reason order discipline Government common wealth Church Thirdly he tells us that the Orthodox Christians did sometimes communicate with the hereticall Arians By which you see he is a kind disposition to admit even those to his Communion who deny Christ's divinitie The Arians were known to cloak themselves so craftily in words that they could not for a long time be certainly discover'd nor is it any wonder that for a while Hereticks be tolerated untill they be both heard and a time of repentance be prescribed them Fourthly he tells us he hath shown how the Primitive Catholikes communicated with the Schismaticall Novatians in the same publike divine offices But he is so reserved as not to direct us where he hath shown this nor could an ordinary inquiry finde it out and in his p. 282. which place seems most proper for that discourse he onely names the word Novatians without proving any thing concerning them Now the Novatians were simply Schismaticks and transported onely by a too rigorous zeal to a disobedience to the Church in a formerly received practice with such as these it is lawfull to communicate till upon their contumacy the Church shall excommunicate them Again as long as Schismaticks those who are erroneous in faith are onely in via as we may say and not in termino and hardned into an obstinacy there is a prudentiall latitude allow'd by the Church delaying her censures as long as shee can possibly without wronging her Government as was de facto practised in England till the 10th of Q. Elizabeth But this is not enough to prove they were admitted into Communion because they were tolerated for a certain time while there was hope they would not be obstinate but would return the Apostle himself prescribing a time of triall before they are to be avoided upon necessitie But can my L d of Derry show a parallell to our case that any renounc't the former Rule of faith immediate Tradition of Ancestors the former Government and many other points recommendedy that Rule and obstinately persisted to disavow both reviling writing against excommunicating nay persecuting with loss of Estates and often times of life the professors of the thus renounced faith Government can he show I say that such were ever admitted by the Church into Communion unles he can show this he beats the Air for this onely comes to our point S. Cyprian's case reaches not hither he had no reason to remove any from his Communion since he was in the wrong nor could hee possibly see with evidence that the immediate Tradition of all those Churches with whom hee communicated did avouch his tenet for hee was the man that brought in the noveltie your renouncing the former Rule of faith immediate delivery of fore fathers and the former Government with many other points recommended by that Rule is most evident nay confest avouched still maintain'd by your own obstinate selves Fifthly hee told us that the Catholikes call'd the Donatists their brethren I answer so are Catholikes bound to call the Protestants now nay Turks Heathens and in generall all men who are yet in a capacite to attain beatitude that is all but the damned in hell who are eternally hardned in enmitie against God S. Peter Art 3. v. 17. call'd the Iews who crucyfy'd Christ his Brethren yet never meant by that appellation that they were good Christians Sixthly he objects that the Donatists proceeding upon my Principle would not acknowledge the Catholikes their Brethren And what is this Principle of mine 'T is this as put down here by himself that a man cannot say his own religion is true but he must say
the opposite is false nor hold his own certain without censuring another man's Good Reader reflect a little upon this proposition he cavills at and then take if thou canst the just dimensions of the unmeasurable weaknes of error and it's Abettors Do not truth and certainty involve essentially in their notions an oppositenes and contrarietie to falshood error Does not true signifie not-false How is it possible then a man indued with the common light of reason can hold a thing true and yet not hold it 's opposite false yet this plain self evident proposition in other terms the self-same with this that a thing cannot both be not be at once is denied by the Bp. nay accounted disgracefull to hold it Whereas indeed it is not mine nor the Donatists onely but the common Principle of nature which the silliest old wife and least boy come to the use of reason cannot but know Error prest home cannot burst out at length into less absurdities than denying the first Principles The Bishop of Derry having shown us how well skill'd he is in Principles by renouncing that first Nature-taught one proceeds immediately to establish some Principles of his own which he calls evident undeniable so to confute the former The first is that particular Churches may fall into error where if by Errors he means opinions onely 't is true if points of faith 't is not so undeniable as he thinks in case that particular Church adhere firmly to her Rule of faith immediate Tradition for that point already there setled that is if shee proceed as a Church If he wonder at this I shall increase his admiration by letting him know my minde that I see it not possible how even the pretended Protestants Church of England could it without self condemnation have owned the immediate delivery of fore fathers and onely proceeded stuck close to that Rule should ever come to vary from the former Protestant Beleef for as long as the now fathers taught their Children what was held now and the Children without looking farther beleeved their fathers and taught their Children as they beleeved and so successively it followes in terms that the posterity remote a thousand generations would still beleeve as their fathers do now But as their religion built on Reformation that is not immediate Tradition will not let them own immediate Tradition for their Rule of faith so neither did they own it could their certainty arrive to that of our Churches strengthen'd by so many super-added assistances His second Principle is that all errors are not Essentiall or fundamentall I answer that if by Errors he means onely opinions as he seems to say in the next paragraph then none at all are Essentiall but what is this to my proposition which spoke of Religion not of opinions unles perhaps which is most likely consonant to the Protestant Grounds the Bishop makes account that Religion and opinion are all one But if he means Error in a matter of faith then every such error is fundamentall and to answer this third Principle with the same labour destroies the being of a Church For since a Church must necessarily have a Rule of faith otherwise she were no Church and that 't is impossible to conceive how man's nature should let her proceed so quite contrary to her Principles as to hold a thing as a matter of faith not proceeding upon her onely Rule of faith this being a flat contradiction Again since the Rule of faith must be both certain and plain without which properties 'tis no Rule it follows that an error in a matter of faith argues an erroneousnes in the Rule of faith which essentially and fundamentally concerns the being of a Church His fourth Principle is that every one is bound according to the just extent of his power to free himself from those not essentiall errors Why so my L d if those errors be not essentiall they leave according to your own Grounds sufficient means of Salvation and the true being of a Church How prove you then that you ought to break Church Communion which is essentially destructive to the being of a Church to remedy this or hazard your Salvation as you know well Schism does when you might have rested secure Is it an evident and undeniable Principle that you ought to break that in which consists the being of a Church to remedy that which you confess can consist with the being of a Church or is it an undeniable Principle that you ought to endanger your soul where you grant there is no necessity Say not I suppose things gratis your friend Dr. H. tells you out of the fathers how horrid a crime Schism is how vtterly unexcusable the undeniable evidence of fact manifests you to have broke Church Communion that is to have Schismatized from the former Church which you must be forced to grant unles you can show us that you still maintain the former Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government These are the points which you violently broke and rejected show either that these were not fundamentally concerning the Vnity and cōsequently the Entity of the former Church or else confess that you had no just cause of renouncing them and so that you are plainly both Schismatick Heretick But 't is sufficient for your Lp's pretence of Moderation without so much as mentioning them in particular to say here in generall terms that the points you renounc'd were not essentiall were accidentall were errors vlcers opinions hay stubble the plague weeds c. And thus ends the first part of your wisely maintained Moderation as full of contradictions absurdities as of words The second proof of their Moderation is their inward charity I love to see charity appearing out-wardly me thinks hanging and persecution disguize her very much and your still clamorous noises against us envying us even that poore happines that we are able with very much a doe to keep our heads above water and not sink utterly He proves this in ward charity by their externall works as he calls them their prayers for us He should have said words the former were their works and prou'd nothing but their malice But let us examin their prayers they pray for us he sayes daily and we do the same for them nay more many of ours hazard their lives daily to do good to the souls even of themselves our enemies and to free them as much as in us lies from a beleeved danger Which shows now the greater charity But their speciall externall work as he calls it is their solemn anniversary prayer for our conversion every good friday And this he thinks is a speciall peece of charity in their Church being ignorant good man that this very thing is the solemn custome of our Church every good friday as is to be seen in our Missall and borrowed thence by their book of common prayer among many other things But let us see whether the Protestants
according to their Grounds can be sayd to pray for us at all in particular on Good friday or for our conversion as he forget-full of his own tenet affirms Their prayer is this Mercifull god who hast made all men and hatest nothing that thou hast made nor wouldest the death of a Sinner but rather that he should be converted and live have mercy upon all Iews Turks Infidells and Hereticks c. Fetch them home to thy flock that they may be saved c. I ask now under which of these heads does he place Papists when he pretends their cōversion is here pray'd for in particular Vnder that of Hereticks How can this stand with his Principles who acknowledges ours a true Church that is not hereticall and lately told us as a point of his Churches Moderation that she forbears to censure others Again they grant us to be of Christ's flock already in a capacy to be saved whereas those they pray for here are supposed reducible to Christ's flock that is not yet of it and by being thus reduced capable of Salvation that is incapable of it before they be thus reduced none of these therefore are competent to us nor are we prayed for there as Hereticks if his own Grounds his own pretended Moderation are to be held to by himself Much less will he say we are pray'd for there under the notion of Iews Turcks or Infidels for this were to censure us worse nor was ever pretended by Protestants It follows then that our conversion in particular is not there pray'd for at all but that there is such a pittifull dissonancy between the pretended Church of England's doctrine her practice that her greatest Bp's Doctors cannot make sence of one related to the other Nay more since hee culls out this Good friday prayer for the speciall externall work of their charity towards us and that this cannot concern us at all without a self contradiction it follows that their other externall works argue no charity at all towards us And this is the great inward charity the Bp. brags of as a proof of their due Moderation He adds that we excommunicate them once a year that is the day before Good-friday I reply that to expect a Church should not excommunicate those whom she holds to be Schismaticks and Hereticks is at once to be ignorant of the Churches constant practice and the common Principles of Government It being equally evident that the Church in all ages tooke this course with obstinate Adversaries of faith as it is that Society in the world can subsist without putting a distinction and separating avowed enemies and Rebels from true subjets friends If then they hold us Hereticks and unles they hold us such they do not pray for us in particular as is pretended they ought in all reason to excommunicate as indeed sometimes they did some particular Catholikes in their Churches though not all our Church in generall their new started congregation was conscious to herself that she had no such Authority which made her also instead of those words in our Good-friday prayer ad sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam revocare digneris recall them to our holy Mother the Catholike Apostolike Church vary the grave and too authoritative phrase too loud alas for her as taken in contra distinction to us into that dwindling puling puritanicall expressions of one flock the rem nant of the true Israelites one fold under one Shepheard c. equally pretendable if taken alone by Quakers as by them since they include no visible Marks in their notion which can satisfy us of any distinction between the one the other The third proof of their Moderation is that they added nothing but took away onely from the former doctrines of the Church which he expresses by saying they pluck up the weeds but retain all the plants of saving truths I answer'd that to take away goodnes is the greatest evill c. He replies that he spake of taking away errors No my L d this was not the intent of your discourse there both because you pretended there to prove something whereas I conceive to rely on onely the cheap saying that all is erroneous you tooke away proves nothing but is a meere self supposition as also because it is not a proof of Moderation to take away errors but a rigorously requisite act of Iustice Your intent then was to show the Moderation in your method of proceeding which you pretended all the way long to have been that you added no new thing but onely took away something of the old This I glanc't at as a fond and idle pretence since till you prove evidently and demonstrably from your new Rule of faith that the former of immediate Tradition which asserted those points denied by you did there in erre the presumption stands against you that it was Christ's doctrine which you maimed by thus detracting from it or if you suppose gratis that 't was not Christ's doctrine but errors falshoods then it is not proper to call it Moderation but rather an act of necessary charity to root it out I know it is an easy matter to call all weeds which your nice stomachs cannot digest but if that point of immediate Tradition renounced by you which onely could ascertain us that there was any such thing as Christ or God's word be a weed I wonder what can deserve to be called a flower What he vapours of holding what the primitive fathers iudged necessary and now Catholike Church does is an emptie brag vanishes into smoak by it self since as shall shortly bee shown their Grounds can never determin what is the Catholike or universall Church In order to the same proof of his Moderation I likewise answered that he who positively denies ever adds the contrary to what he takes away and that he who makes it an Article that there is no Purgatory no mass no prayer to Saints has as many Articles as he who holds the contrary He replies that he knows the contrary instancing that they neither hold it an Article of faith that there is a Purgatory nor that there is none I ask what kinde of things are their thirty nine Articles Are they of faith or opinions onely I conceive his Lp. will not say they are meere opinions but contra-distinctive of the Protestant faith from ours at least the good simple Ministers were made beleeve so when they swore to maintain them and unles they had certainty as strongly grounded as divine beleef for those points or Articles how could they in reason reject the cōtrary tenets which they held by divine beleef Now the 22. Article defines the negative to Purgatory three other points of our doctrine yet this ill-tutour'd Child tells his old crasy mother the Church of England that she lies that he knows the contrary Now his reason is better then his position 't is this because a negative cannot be
Church yet we see Protestants communicate with them aswell nay more than with Anabaptists nor are they look't upon with a different eye from the other sects or as more separated from the Church than the rest Again as Puritans are excluded by this Principle so all that reject any thing but these twelve Articles are admitted by it as part of God's Church Hence it follows that though any sect deny the Government of the Church by King by Bishops by Pope by Patriarch by Lay-elders by private Ministers nay all Government the Procession of the holy Ghost all the Sacraments nay all the whole Scripture except what interferes with those twelve points are members of God's Church Reader canst thou imagin a greater blasphemy Again when he says the Apostle's creed is onely necessary and fundamentall he either mean's the words of the Apostles creed onely or the sence meaning of it If the former the Socinians and Arians hold it whom yet I conceive he thinks no part of God's Church If the latter either the Protestants or we must be excluded contrary to his tenet from the universall Church for since points of faith are sence and we take two Articles to wit that of Christ's descending into Hell that of the Catholike Church in a different sence it follows that we have different points of our creed or different creeds and therefore either we or they must fundamentally err and be none of the universall Church Where then is this determinate universall Church or how shall we finde it by the Protestants Principles no certain mean's being left to determin which Congregations are worthy to be call'd particular Churches and so fit to compound that universall which not to be excluded from her For the second point in case there were many particular Churches yet an universall signifies one universall every universality involving an Vnity and so they must have some ty to vnite them according to the natures of those particulars Now those particulars consist of men governable according to Christ's law and so the whole must be a body united by order and Government for things of the same species or kinde cannot be otherwise exteriorly united But I have already shown in the foregoing Section that the Protestants Grounds have left no such order subordination of universall Government in God's Church therefore no universall Christian Common-wealth that is no universall Church To show then this determinate universall Church being the proper answer for the Bishop let me see how he be haves himself in this point First he toyes it childishly telling us that the Protestants acknowledge not indeed a virtuall Church that is one man who is as infallible as the universall Church I answer nor wee neither Ere he calumniates the Church with any such pretended tenets let him show out of her decrees they were hers otherwise if he will dispute against private men let him quote his Authors fall to work Secondly he tells us they acknowledge a Representative Church that is a generall Councill with signifies nothing unles they first determing certainly who are good Christians and fitt to vote there who Hereticks so vnfit that is till they show what Congregations are truly to be called Churches and what Church made up of such and such is to be esteemed universall otherwise how can a Representative of the universall Church which is a relative word be understood to be such unles it be first known which is the universall Church it ought to represent Thirdly he tells us they acknowledge an Essentiall Church I marry now we come to the point Expect now Reader a determinate universall Church so particularly character'd that thou canst not fail to acknowledge it The Essentiall Church that is saith he the multitude or multitudes of beleevers His that is seem'd to promise us some determinate mark of this Church and he onely varies the phrase into beleevers a word equally obscure as the former equally questionable nay the self same question For 't is all one to ask which is a Congregation of right beleevers as to ask which is a true Church But this is his vsuall and even thrid bare trick with which Mountebanklike he deludes his Readers and is too much inveterate in his manner of writing ever to hope to wean him of it They can do no more than shuffle about in Generall terms hold still to indeterminate confused universall expressions who have no Grounds to carry home to particular things He concludes with telling his Reader that we are in five or six severall opinions what Catholike Church is into which we make the last resolution of our faith Whither away my Lord The question at present is not about the resolution of faith nor about the formall definition of a Church but about what visible materiall persons countries make up the Church That you cannot pitch upon these in particular I have already shown that we can is as visible as the sun at noon day to wit those countries in Communion with the See of Rome These and no other are to us parts of the uniuersall Church Every ordinary fellow of your or our side can tell you what these are 't is as easie to do it as to know which is a Papist-Country as you call it which not And even in those places where they live mixt with others as in England they are distingvishable from others by most visible Marks Our Rule to distinguish our flock from Stragglers is the acknowledgment of immediate Tradition for the Rule Root of faith and of the present Government of our Church under S. Peter's successor who so ever renounced this Government or differ'd from us in any other point recommended by that Rule at the same time and in the same act renounced the said ever constantly certain Rule and by renouncing it their being of the Church as did your selves confessedly in the reign of King Henry the 8th and the Greeks with all out casts for those points in which they differ from us To this all Catholikes agree what ever school men dispute about the Resolution of faith Show us a Church thus pointed out visibly and such evident manifest Grounds why just so many and more can be of it or els confess you have lost the notion of an universall Church nor hold or know any Sect. 8. Nine or ten self contradictions in one Section How hee clears our Religion and condemns his own The Incoherence of the former Protestans blody laws with their own Principles How hee steals by false pretence from showing a visiblety of Vnity in the Church to invisible holes The reason why the succession into S. Peter's dignity should continue to the Bp. of Rome Plentifull variety of follies non-sence and quibbling mistakes The sleight account hee gives of the order Brother hood and fundamentalls of his Church HIs 8th Section presents us with his fifth Ground to iustify their separation and 't is this that the King
and Church of England did no more than all other Princes Republikes of the Roman Communion have done in effect This word in effect deserves a Comment and then if it bee candidly explicated we shall finde it â—ignifies the whole busines though it seeme to speak coyly mincingly Did they ever make laws to renounce and abrogate the Popes Authority and define absolutely against essentiall right Did they ever erect an Ecclesiasticall Superior as you did the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and pretend that he was in no manner of way subordinate to the Pope but vtterly independent on him Did any of them ever separate from the Church by disacknowledging his Head ship and by consequence the Rule of faith immediate Tradition which asserted it Not one Did not your self in your vindication p. 184. after your had put down the parallell acts of Henry the 8th to other Princes when you came to the point confess that Henry the 8th abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions but the Emperors with whom you run along with your parallel in other points did not so Did not your self here p. 37. where you put downe a gradation of the oppositions of the former Kings to the Pope tell us onely as the highest step of it that they threaned him further to make a Wall of separation between him them If then they but threaned to do what K. H. as appears by this law which vtterly renounces the Pope did it follows plainly that they did nothing and King Henry did all as farr as concerns our Controversy which is not about extent of his Authority or in what cases he may be check't from exercising particular Acts of that Authority but about the denying the very Right it self and which is consequent by denying joyintly the Rule of faith and by those denialls separating from the Body of the former Church which held both The signification then of this iuggling phrase in effect as apply'd to our purpose by his own interpretation is this that other Catholike countries did just nothing and King Henry the 8th did all To no imaginable purpose then save onely to show his diligence in nothing the politicall wranglings between Kings and Popes are all the instances produced by the Bishop that Catholike Kings in such such particular cases permitted not the Pope to execute what he intended unles he can deny his own words and prove that they did as much as K. Henry and not threaned onely But my Ld of Derry having taken a great deal of pains to gather together these notes which the way being new he made account would come of bravely grows much perplex't to see them all defeated at once by showing plainly that they are nothing to the purpose and therefore both heretofore and especially at present complains much that we answer them not in particular assuring the Reader that would our cause have born it we had done so Was ever man so ignorant of the common laws of disputing Needs any mory answer be given to particulars which one yeelds to than to say he grants them We grant therefore all his particular instances of these contess between Kings Popes and yeeld willingly that such such materiall facts happen'd many more not entring into that dispute how far they were done iustly how far un iustly which is little to our purpose since the Authority it self was still acknowledg'd on both sides What need we answer each in particular by saying first I grant this next I grant the other Now the use or application he makes of them that is to pretend thence that they did as much as King Henry the 8th so to iustify him is a particular point and one and to this I have answer'd particularly both here and also in my third Section where I have demonstrated it to be the most shameles manifoldly contradictory absurdity that ever bid defiance to the universall acknowledgment and ey-verdict of the whole word Vpon occasion of his alledging that all Catholike countries do the same in effect against the Pope as the Protestants I raised an exception of his incoherent manner of writing To which he thus replies p. 45. But what is the Ground of his exception nothing but a contradiction As if he made account that a contradiction is a matter of nothing nor worth excepting against His contradiction is this that our doctrine concerning the Pope is injurious to Princes prejudices their crowns and yet that we hold do the same against the Pope in effect as Protestants do He would salve the contradiction first by alledging that Papists may be injurious to Princes in one respect one time and do them right in another respect and another time Well my Lord but since the doctrine of the Papists concerning the substance of the Pope's Authority is ever constantly the same for none can be Papists longer then they hold it it knows no varitie of respectt not times and so if it be prejudiciall in it self once 't is prejudiciall alwayes The extent of it varies upon occasions this consists in an indivisible cannot alter This substance of his Authority is the point which belongs to you to impugn if you go to work consequently since you are onely accused of Schism for rejecting this not for hindring him from acting in particular cases Either grant then that this tenet is not preâ—udiciall to Princes being like yours and then you contradict your former pretence that it was or say that yours is prejudiciall to Princes also being the same in effect with it and then you have evaded indeed a contradiction but by as great an absurdity Secondly to show his former answer was nothing worth he alledges that I have changed the subject of the Proposition and that he spoke not of Papists but of the Pope Court of Rome No Ld but I would not let you change the subject of the whole question 'T is a separation from all the Churches in Communion with Rome that you stand accused of the undeniable fact evidences that you have broke from all those Churches by renouncing those two said Principles of Vnity in which they agree This is our accusation against you and so your excuses must be apply'd to this or else they are no excuses at all Now one of your excuses is that the Pope's Authority is prejudiciall to Princes and it must be mean't of the Pope's Authority as held universally by all those Churches else why did you separate from all those Churches upon that pretence But those Churches universally as you say hold the same in effect with the Protestants for you say you separated from the Court onely what needed them excuses from you to them unles there had been a contradiction in the busines Had you opposed onely some attempts of the Court of Rome by your tenet you might have remain'd still united with France Spain c who did as you confess the same in effect but
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
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.
imaginarily ghesses which you must conceive will bee in Antichrist's time who according to their principles will bee the Head of the Church And lastly that they have a gracious Prince for a politicall Head Whos 's inward right if it bee lost by long prescription as the whole world grants it many it follows that they can in that case pretend to no Head at all in case the successour hap to bee no Protestant But I wonder the Bishop is so discourteous to his own tenet that whereas they ever held the King to bee Head of the Church or cheif in Ecclesiasticall matters hee should now deny it and put him to bee onely a politicall Head as contradistinguish't from Ecclesiasticall that is give him no more then France Spain c. Vse to do to their Kings where the Pope's Headship is acknowledg'd Again wee ask not how they are one amongsts themselves in England under one pretended visible Head or Government but how they are one with the rest of the Christian world though having that pretended Head Is there any orderly common ty of Government obliging this Head to correspend with the other Head If not where is the Vnity or common Headship of the whole Church or how is England visibly united to it vnder this notion If there bee why should the Bp envy us the happy sight of this rarity which onely which would satisfy the point clear his credit vindicate his Church His cavill that sometimes wee have two or three Heads sometimes never an Head is false groundles since there can bee but one true or rightly-chosen Pope however there may bee more pretended ones and till hee who is chosen bee known euidenced to bee such the Headship or cheif Government is in the cheif Clergy of the chief see whom wee call Cardinalls unles a generall Council actually sit As secure a method for the peace Vnity of a Commonwealth govern'd by an elective power as mans wit can invent though as in all humane affairs the contingency of the subject admits sometimes of miscarriages sidings animosities Hee promises us to shew the Vnity of Protestant Churches amongst themselves that the Harmony of Confessions will demonstrata to the world that their Controversies are not so many nor of so great moment as imagining I answer that truly I am so far from imagining any thing concerning their differences that I know not even what the word Contreversy means till they give us some certain Rule to settle Controversies to tell us which Controversies are of faith which of opinion onely But does the Harmony of Confessions show us not in the common expressions of the word but in the particularity of the thing that they have one common certain Rule of faith infallibly securing then that such points no other were taught by Christ and his Apostles or any particular sort of Government obliging them to an Vnity under the notion of Governed as a common ty Nothingless that is it does less than nothing and leaves my other objection good that otherwise they have no more Vnity then a body composed of Turks Iews Hereticks and Christians Nor does the Bp. disprove it otherwise than by reckoning up again the former motives to Vnity in affections out of S. Paul Six of which are invisible and some of them equally pretendable nay actually pretended by Turks Hereticks c. As deniable to them by him nor can they be in reason refused them till hee gives us some certain Rule of faith obligingly satisfactorily convincing that such sects in particular are to be admitted such to bee absolutely rejected which hee will never do without entangling himself worse than formerly And as for Baptism the seveâ—th motive 't is out of doubt amongst all the world that Hereticks may have true Baptism though the Bp. here forgets himself says the contrary At least the Turks Ianisaries who are children of Christians so Baptised cannot bee refused according to his Grounds to bee his Brother-Protestants this being the onely visible ty the Protestants have with the three parts of the world the Bp. so brags of Lastly I alledged that their pretended faith consisted in vnknown fundamentalls which is a meere Shist untill they exhibit a list of such points prove them satisfactorily that they onely they are essentiall to Christian Communion Hee replies they need not do it Why mee thinks the point seems very needfull yes but the Apostles have done it hee sayes to their hands in the creed And how proves hee that the Apostles intended this creed as a list of all fundamentalls onely for hee put neither before nor yet here any other proof in that the Primitive Church saith hee hath ordained that no more should bee exacted of any of Turks or Iews in point of faith when they were converted from Paganism or Iewism to Christianity And how proves hee the Primitive Church exacted no more out of his own manifold falsification of the Council of Ephesus already manifested Sect. 1. And this is the whole Ground of his certainty that those points are onely fundamentall or that they have any list of fundamentalls and consequently that there is any Grounds of Vnity in materiall points amongst the Protestant Churches or that they are of the Church since the Church hath in her self Grounds of Vnity I omit that the learned Bp. makes account Turks are Pagans or to bee converted from Paganism whereas 't is known they acknowledge a God and affirms that the Primitive Church in the Council of Ephesus for to this hee relates as appears p. 5. held in the year 430. order'd any thing concerning Turks which sect sprang not till the year 630. that is 200. years after Both good sport did not the Bp. cloy us with such scenes of mirth Again when hee saies the Apostles creed is a list of all fundamentalls either hee means the letter of the creed and then hee grants Socinians Arians to bee Christians both which admit the letter of the creed interpreted their own way and excludes the Puritans from all hopes of Salvation for denying a fundamentall towit Christs descent into Hell Or else hee means the sence of the creed and then hee excludes the Roman Catholikes whom yet in other circumstances hee acknowledges to bee of the Church for they hold some Articles found there in another sence than do the Protestants Let him then prove evidently that no points of faith were held formerly as necessary save those Articles in the Apostles creed next tell us whether hee means the letter onely or the sence of the creed then show us satisfactorily which is the onely true sence of it and lastly apply that piece of doctrine to particulars and so show us which sects are of the Church which excluded wee shall remain very much edifyd Sect. 9. How the Bp. of Derry falsifies his Adversary's words brings a Testimony against himself attended by a direct contradiction which hee
preteÌ„d to treat a point of Canon-Law I might The point of faith I undertook to defend as a Controvertist whensoever I see any opposition to that I acknowledge it my Province to secure it by my resistance Sect. 10. My L d of Derry's vain pretence of his Churches large Communion His frivolous and groundles exceptions against the Council of Trent How weakly hee clears himself of calumny And how going about to excuse his citing a Testimony against himself hee brings three or four proofs to make good the accusation HEe pretended that the Protestants held Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do I reply'd that if by Christians hea means those who lay claim to the name of Christ I neither deny'd his Answer nor envy'd him his multitude for Manichees Gnosticks Carpocratians Arians Nestorians Eutychians and others without number do all usurp the honour of this title I added that I did not think hee had any solid reason to refuse Communion to the worst of them Now the Bp ' s task is evidently this to give us this solid reason show it conclusive why hee admits some of these rejects others But 't is against his humour to go about to prove any thing Talking is his an angry woman's best weapon and of voluntary talk he is not niggardly but deals us largess of it First hee falls into rhetoricall exclamations against our prejudice partiality want of truth charity candour ingenuity Words are but vapour let him put certainly-establish't Grounds to conclude himself or any of his sects true Christians which may not as well infer that all those other sects are such also otherwise his exclâ—mations which sound so high in Rhetorick are very-flat noted and signify just nothing in Controversy where the concernment of the subject renders all proofs inferior to rigorous convincing discourse dull toyish Secondly hee asks wherein can I or all the world charge the Church of England of Greece or any of the Eastern Southern or Northern Christians with any of these Heresies and then reckons up afterwards the materiall points held by the Manichees Gnosticks c. Suppose I could not are there no other heresies in the world but these old ones or is it impossible that a new heresy should arise It was not for holding those very materiall points that I accused the Church of England or the Bp. as hee purposely misrepresents mee but this that having no determinate certain Rule of faith they had no Grounds to reject any from their Communion who held some common points of Christianity with them though differing in others Again since the Rule of faith Protestants pretend to is the Scripture and all those Hereticks recurr'd still rely'd upon the same nay even the Manichees upon the new Testament it follows that these are all of the Protestants Communion because they have the same Grounds Rule of their faith if the Bp. reply that the letter of the Scripture is not the Rule of faith but the sence hee must either show us some determinate certain way to arrive to the true sence of it or else confess that this Rule is indeterminate uncertain that is as far as it concerns us none at all Now though indeed the Protestants hapt not to light into all the same materiall errors as did the Manichees Arians c. Yet they agree with them in the source of all error that is in having deny'd and renounc't the onely Ground of faiths certainty Tradition of immediate forefathers which alone could bring down to us security that Christ was God or that there was such a thing as God's word and so the deniall of this is in it's consequences equally nay more pestilentiall then is the denying the materiall point it self of Christ's divinity or the asserting any other held by the worst of those Hereticks They agree with them all therefore in the root of all errors though the branches chance and they but chance to be diverse as may bee seen if you do but consider what varieties of sects are sprung in England since your strong hand which truly did forbid the liberty of interpreting Scripture is taken from you whereof some be as learned as yourselves witnes the books of the Socinians for 't is an easy matter out of affection to turn Scripture to variety of errors as was cleerly seen in Luther who because Carolostadius had publish't the absence of Christ's Body from the Blessed Sacrament before himself found the middle tenet of compresence of both Body Bread and so by that base affection saved a great part of the world through God's Providence from a wickeder error Thirdly hee tells us that some few Eastern Christians are called Nestorians others suspected of Eutychianism but most wrongfully Though indeed nothing is more right full then to call them so as even Protestants confess But you see nature works in despite of Design and that hee hath a mind to cling in very brotherly and lovingly with the Nestorians Eutychians though hee saies hee will not and those tenets of theirs which in the close of his paragraph hee pretends to detest as accursed errors here hee strokes with a geâ—tle hand assuring us they are nothing but some unvsâ—all expressions as if all heresies when exprest were not expressions and also very unvsuall new to faith the faithfull Now their unvsuall expressions were onely these that Christ had two distinct persons and no distinct natures which are nothing in the Bp ' s mind had they deny'd Christ to be God too it had been also an unvsuall expression but I must confess a very scurry and pestiferous one as were the former But our favourable Bishop thimking it necessary to bolster up his Church with a multitude boldly pronounces what hee knows not in excuse of those Hereticks though it be contrary to the publike and best intelligence wee have from those remote countries Fourthly hee is very piously rhetoricall tells us that the best is they are either wheat or chaff of the Lord's floar bâ—t that our tongues must not winnow them Which is as absurd as the former That it is best for them to be wheat I understand very well but that it should be best as hee says that they are either wheat or chaff I confess I am at a loss to conceive Chaffe Ps 1. v. 5. signifies the vngodly and Mat. 3. v. 12. the very place which his Allegoâ—y relates to it is said that Christ will burn the chaff of his floar in vnquenchable fire which mee thinks is far from best So miserably the Bp. comes of still wâ—ether hee intends to speak finely or solidly Our tongues indeed shall not winnow them as hee says nor do we pretend to do so by our tongues or voluntary talking that were to vsurp the method of discourse proper to himself onely but our reason will winnow them unles wee turn Beasts use it not our proofs if they be evident as
own nature changeable Hee imagins that Dr. Field hath prou'd some thing against us in this point and in answer shall imagin that those of ours who have reply'd to his toyes have disproved what hee is pretended to have proved nor am I further concern'd unles the Bp. had produced some weighty particular out of him which yet wanted answering as hee brings none at all After this hee will needs prove the Council of Trent not to have been a Generall one His exceptions that the summons were not generall that the foure Protopatriarchs were not present by themselves nor their deputies that there were not some present from the greater parts of all Christian Provinces are already shown to bee frivolous impertinent till hee gives us some certain determinate notion of Church and some certain Rule to know what sects in particular are of it what excluded as I have already manifested his Ground could give none For otherwise those who are excluded from or are not of the Church have no right to be Summon'd thither unles to bee call'd to the Barr as Delinquents nor to sit there nor are to be accounted Christians and so the summons may bee Generall all may bee there that should be there and some may bee present from the greater part of all Christian Provinces notwithstanding the neglect or absence of these aliens Hee ought then first put Grounds who are good Christians ought to bee call'd who not ere hee can alledge their not being call'd as a prejudice to the Council Our Grounds why it was generall are these The onely certain Rule of faith and by consequence root of Christianity which can secure us of God's word or any thing else is the immediate delivery or Tradition of forefathers Those therefore onely those who adhere to this root are to bee held truly Christians of the Church those who broke from it any time as did the Protestants professedly the Greeks the rest as evidently when they began to differ from us in any point are not properly Christians nor of the Church therefore a representative of the Church or Council is intire universall Generall though those latter who are not of the Church bee neither call'd Summon'd nor present provided those others who adhere to this root of faith and so are indeed Christians or adherers to Christ's law be Summon'd admitted But such was our Council of Trent therefore it was Generall Now to disprove this Council to bee Generall if hee would go to work solidly the Bp. should first alledge that it was not a sufficient representative of the whole Church which must bee done by manifesting definitely and satisfactorily who in particular are of the Church who not nor can this bee performed otherwise than by showing some Rule root of faith Christianity better qualify'd to bee such that is more certain more plain than this which may distinguish those who are of the Church from those who are not of it or else to convince that the Greeks Protestants Lutherans c. When they began to differ from the Roman innovated not but were found adhering to that immediate delivery otherwise they must confess that all were Summon'd that ought to have been Summon'd all were there or might have been there who ought to have been there and so the Council was Generall Till this bee done all his big worded pretences of the absence of the whole Provinces of the greater part of Christendome want of due summons fewnes of the members present that the Greeks are not known Rebells c. are convinc't to bee but voluntary talk as is indeed almost all this Treatise this being his peculiar manner of discoursing more fit for old wives Gossips at their frivolous meetings then for a Bp. and Controvertist handling matters of faith Hee sayes that the Greeks though Hereticks should have been lawfully heard condemned in a generall Council What needed hearing when themselves in the face of the whole world publikely confessed maintained avowed their imputed fault Condemned they were by generall Councils heretofore though the Bp's particular faculty of saying what hee lists without a word of proof will not allow them to bee such nor yet give us some certain way to know which Councils are such Or had it been an acknowledg'd generall Council and they heard condemned there still the B p. had an evasion in lavender hee laid up in store this reserve of words following that they were never heard or tried or condemned of heresy by any Council or person that had Iurisdiction over them and then hee is secure by talking boldy proving nothing His saying that though they were Hereticks yet they of all others ought especially to have been Summon'd signifies thus much that it is more necessary to a generall Council that Hereticks bee call'd thither than that Orthodox fathers bee so A substantiall peece of sence worthy consideration I brought a similitude of a Parliament that known and condemned Rebells need not bee call'd hee will needs have it run on four feet prosecutes it terribly some of his best trifles I shall reckon up First hee saies the Pope hath not that Authority over a generall Council as a King hath over a Parliament I answer I am so plain a man that I understand not what the Authority of King or Parliament either taken singly or one in order to the other signifies some Kings have more some less Authority so have Parliaments witness those of England France To expect then I should know â—ow great the Authority of King or Parliament is by naming onely the common words is to expect that one should know how long a country is by naming it a country or how big a mountain is by barely calling it a mountain That these have some great bignes and those some great Authority I know by their common names but how great I know not Words my Ld may serve you to give whose cause will not bear sence but they must not serve mee to take Secondly that the Greek Patriarchs are not known condemned Rebells Answer this is onely said again not prou'd and so 't is sufficient to reply that they who call'd the Council all in the Council held them so Again the errors which they publikely maintain'd have been condemned by Councils for the most part some of their own party being present Now why those who publikly profess those Errours should need a further calling to triall or why they are not known Rebells is the B p' s task to inform us Thirdly he sayes that the least Parliament in England had more members then the Council of Trent They were therefore graver and more choice persons The Church summons not parish-priests out of every great town as the common wealth doth two Burgesses out of every corporation Again what was it matters not but might not there bee a Parliament of England without having the fifth part of the members found
the Question p. 39 69 70 71 74. and indeed almost over all the Book False pretence of a silly Argument as put by his Adversary whereas he feigned it himself p. 438 439. Falsification objected by Dr. H. cleared most evidently from p. 459 to p. 468. Falsifying his Adversaries manner of Expression wilfully to accuse him of a Falsification p. 464. 465. G. GEneral Councels now morally impossible and when probable to be had according to Dr. H. p. 141. Their Authority doubted of by him p. 138. Grounds concluding the whole Controversie p. 36 to 55. I. IGnorance in Logick p. 76 135 137 138 139 157. 158. 281. twice 376 384. twice 424. Ignorance in his Accidence shewn by ten several Instances p. 84. to p 90. Ignorance of the signification of the common School-terms in telling us the Pope is not a Summum Genus p. 159. Affected Ignorance of common sense in impugning a Name or Title instead of a Thing p. 164 165 166. in arguing from Fulness to Equality p. 261. 262. in concluding from either side of the Contradiction p. 304. 305. in deducing many consequences from perfectly unconcerning Premises p. 305. 306. 307. in building upon the reconcilement of contradictory Testimonies ere he knows or goes about to prove them true p. 325. 326. in expecting the like from his Adversary p. 364. 365. in arguing from Plurality to Equality p. 429. Ignorance how the Holy Ghost is in the Faithful p. 429 430 Miserable Ignorance in Dogmatizing upon the Mystical sense of Testimonies p. 417. 418 419 443. 444. Ignorance of the way of interpreting Scripture p. 187. 188. 189 190. 278. 279. Ignorance of the distinction between a Title and an Argument p. 176. between an Interpreter and a Grammarian p. 187. between a Parenthesis and a Comma p. 194. between a Parenthesis and a Comma p. 194. between Samaritans and Gentiles p 308. affected Ignorance of our Tenet p. 340. 341. 354. 369. 370. 385. 386. our Proofs p. 264. of his being the Opponent I the Defendant p. 249. Pitiful ignorance in not knowing the nature of a Proof p. 338. Most nonsensical Ignorance p. 401 402. Incertainty of Faith unable to ground a rational zeal p 14 15. Dr. H's Churches absolute incertainty of her faith avowed by himself p. 110. 111. Incertainty of faith how absurd and disedifying if brought into practice or put in a Sermon p. 125 126. Infallibility of our Church how held by us p. 97 98 No Church without Infallibity p. 98 99. No Power to binde to Belief without Infallibility ib. Also p. 108 109. Denial of infallibility pernicious to all Faith p. 123. K. MR. Knots Position vindicated p. 96. 97. 98 99. also p. 103. 104. M. MIstaking willfully every line of my Introduction p. 55 56 57 58. c. to 69 his other Mistakes sprung from wilfullness or weakness are too many to be reckoned up This one instance will abundantly suffice to inform the Reader what he may expect in his answering the rest and more difficult part of the Book Motives of Union in our Church p. 128. O. Omitting to answer to most concerning points p. 95 145 312 313. four times 329 330. other four times 381 382 383. Omitting to reply to my Answers or Exceptions and to strengthen his own weak Arguments p. 157 173 174 117 158 329 330. six times 425 426 thrice 429 445 446 447. twice 447 448. twice Omitting to mention those words in my Epistle to the Reader which solely imported p. 31 32. To answer the true import of my introduction p. 65 66. To answer whether his Reasons be onely probable or no p. 90 91. To oppose our true Evidence though he pretends it p. 175. To answer his Adversaries challenge that he had not one word in his many Testimonies to prove his main point but what himself put in of his own head p. 203. 204. Omitting to shew one testimony which confirmed his own We know but instead of doing so cavilling and railing at his Adversary p. 302 303. Omitting his Adversaries chief words and thence taking occasion to cavill against the rest p. 278. Omitting to clear himself of his falsifying Scripture p. 307 308. and of falsifying the Apostolical Constitutions p. 319 320 c. Omitting to reply to the Text of S. Mat. urged against him p. 394 also to two important Paragraphs of Schism Dis p 406 Omitting to cite the place or even the Book of three authors whereof those which could be found are expresly against him p. 414 to 421. Omitting our argument from Tu es Petrus though pretending he puts it p. 435 436 Reasons why the Disarmer omitted that part of Dr. H's Book which himself acknowledges unnecessary p. 452 453 c. Opponents part belongs to the Protestants Defendants to us p. 47 48 76 77 274. P. PAtriarchy of the Bishop of Rome mistaken for Metropolitical power p. 145. It s extent weakly impugned by four Testimonies which not so much as mention it p. 146. 147 by Rufinus 151 152 153. Rather justifiedly the Nicene Canon pretended to oppose it p. 149 150. Acknowledged by the Greeks our Adversaries to extend to all the West p. 155 156. Power of binding to Belief what it consists in p. 118 119 That our Church rationally claims this Power but that none else can p. 120 121 122. Possession not to be disturbed without sufficient motives p. 38 This of the Popes in England not to be rejected upon less reasons than rigorously evident that it was usurpt p 40 41 42. Possession of Catholicks justly pretendable to have some from Christ and so may be it self a Title but that of Protestants cann ot p. 49 So the advantages of ours the disadvantages of their Possession p. 129 130. Again most amply p 178. 179. Theirs not truly named a Possession p 180 181. Prevarication from his own most expres words the whole tenour of his Discourse the main scope of his most substantiall Chapter and lastly from the whole Question p 202 to 207. From performing a most advantageous challenge accepted by himself p 345 346. Other Prevarications p. 108 109 110 112 185 377 383 384 391 436 and in many other places too numerus to be noted Proofs brought by Protestants against our ground of Faith arrive not to a Probability p. 44 45 46 Dr. H's Proofs which he formerly call'd Evidences metamorphos'd now into Branches of Accordance Agreeances and Fancies and all deny'd by himself to be Proofs except one p. 360 361 362. That one found to be empty and ill-treated p. 362 363 364. R. REspect for mine Adversaries avowed Ep. to the Reader Also p. 18 19 472. 473. S. Schisms Nature and Definition p. 70. Schisms Divisions as put by Dr. H. in his Defence wanting all the principall sorts of Schism objected p 136. to p. 144. T. TEstimonies bâ—ought by Dr. H. against himself p 149 162 171 232 234 235. 238 239 300 171 324 thrice 368 433. Testimonies impertinent to the purpose four from Appeals
denyed p 159 160 161. 162 163 From Names and Titles denyed p 164 165 166 167 from S. Ambâ—ose 23â— 232. and 234. from S. Chrysost and Theophylact. p 233 from Clemens p. 258. 259. from S Chrysost again p. 274 275 also p 286 287 Three impertinent Testimonies for S. Johns being over the Jews onely p. 366 367 His Testimony from Scripture for his Exclusive Provinces truely explicated and that Explication made good p. 224 225 c. His most serviceable Testimony from the Arch-heretick Pelagius p. 239. This Testimony mainly rely'd on p. 242. 306. 346. 348. Testimony from S. Hierom clearing the point of Exclusive Jurisdiction p. 251. to 255. S. Chrysostomes express Testimony against himself whom he cites most for him in this point p 279. 280. Three most manifest Testimonies from S. Chrysost for S. Peters Supremacy p. 288. to 292. Testimony from S. Cyprian and S. Austinc for S. Peters Authority p. 292. to 297. Testimony from our own Canon Law senselesly brought against us p. 297. to 301. A Testimony expresly against himself 〈◊〉 every Tittle brought to make good all his former Testimonies p. â—26 327. Six Testimonies of 〈◊〉 shown invalid by Schism disarm'd left unmaintained by their Alledger p. 329. 330. Testimonies from Scripture for the promise and performance of a particular degree of Authority in S. Peâ—â—â— urged p. 393. to 400 His own Testimony from S. Hillary expresly against him p. 416 A Testimony produc'd as for him which contradicts him in five particulars p. 418 419. His Testimony from Scripture for twelve Episcopall Chairs p. 421. 423. The Testimony Tu es Petrus c. urged by us p. 434. 435. Testimony from Justinians Novels â—oubly and notoriously falsified p. 468. 469. W. WEaknesse in producing blindly places of Scripture unapplyed to any Circumstance p. 4 5. In imputing Contumeliousness to his Adversary p 6 7 9. Yet using worse himself p. 6. 8 9 10. In expecting that Adversaries in a scrious quarrell should spare one another p. 7. In his manner of writing Epist to the Reader p. 6 17 19 In quoting Saint Hierom against the Disarmer to his own utter overthrow p. 21 22 23 c. In totally mistaking the common sense of a plain Epistle to the Reader p. 29 30. c. In arguing by Ifs p. 77 78. thrice Also p. 138 182 183 356 357 Thirteen weaknesses about one point p. 96 to 106. There are innumerable others but I am weary A List of their common Heads may be seen p. 454 455. The total sum of Dr. Hammond's faults committed in the first Part of his reply that is within the compass of thirty seven leaves favourably reckon'd is this Absurdities threescore and two Abuses twenty nine Blasphemies seven Groundless Cavils fifteen Calumnies twelve Contradictions seventy six False-dealings forty four besides his changing the words and sense of others Ignorances great part of which are affected fifty Omissions of his necessary duty forty Bringing Testimonies for him which are against him one and twenty Mistakes Prevarications Shufflings Weaknesses for the most part voluntary sans nombre INDEX To the Treatise against my Lord of DERRY ABsurdities p. 484 485 491 493 496 498 506 516 521 527 528 529 530 536 537 541 542 574 594 595 603 621 622 629 twice 635 640 641 647 524 570 571. Absurdity in bragging of his Churches large Communion p 641 642 643 Breaking Church-Unity inexcusable p. 569. 570. 571. 662. 663. 664. Cavills groundlesly rais'd p. 483 484 485 499 501 502 524 541 565 572 599 632 935 952 653. Cavills against the Council of Trent answered p. 645 646 647 648 649. Contradictions to himself p. 491 496 twice 500 527 540 twice 554 565 571 576 577. also p. 578 579 four times 590 591 594 601 602 603 604 607 twice 610 twice 611 621 twice 631 632 633 644 653 654 655 656 Other Contradictions p. 497 498 522 527 528 582 583 thrice 587 634 651. Contradicting the whole world's ages p. 530 559 560. Controversy what p. 502. Creed of the Apostles why instituted p. 492. why other Creeds or Professions p. 492 463. Defendent who properly p 511. Falsification of the Council of Ephesus in four respects p. 493 494 495. of his Adversaries words p. 525 526 630 631 of the Council of Sardica p. 537 538 of Bede p 550 of all our Historians at once p. 549. False pretence of our stating the Question p. 499. False stating the question p 500 501. Moderation of Protestants misrepresented from p. 581 to 601. Mistaking wilfully our charge p. 479 480. Omitting to tell us whether his Exceptions were Demonstrative or only probable p 475. Omitting one halfe of our charge p. 477 478. Omitting to speak one positive word to the matter of Fact p. 481 482. Omitting words most reli'd on by his Adversary p 540. Opponent who properly p 511. Prevarication from answering and substituting common words for particular things p. 486 487 488 489 490 599. Other Prevarications p. 497 498 534 twice 569 570 575 632 633 638 twice A most absurd and manifold Prevarication p. 505 506 507 508. Again 509 510. Also 511 512 513 Prevarications from the question p. 553 557 562 563 564 592 600 607 608 612 613 614 615 616 621 622 623 624 625 526 627 635 650 651. Succession into St. Peters Headship due to the Bishop of Rome p. 617 618. Testimony from the Council of Ephesus produced by Lord D. p. 493 569 573 from English Statutes p. 524 from the Epistle of Pope Eleutherius p. 539 540. Testimony from S. Prosper rejected by him p. 540 541. His Testimony from the Welsh Manuscript mâ—nifoldly weak from p. 542 to p. 549. Unity of Faith broak by the Reformers p. 570 571 572 657 658 659. Unity of Government broke by them p. 573 574 575 576 658. 659. Universal Church impossible to be known by Protestant Grounds from p. 595 to p. 599. The total sum of faults committed by my Lord of Derry in his short Appendix cast up amount to Absurdities twenty nine Cavils sixteen Contradictions forty four False dealings twelve Omissions of most important matters which concerned the whole question four Prevarications forty two Corrections of the ERRATA IN the Title l. 2. dispach't Epist to the Reader p. 2. l. 11. this method ib. p. 6. t. 8. oratoriall p. 12. l. ult them being p. 13. l. 17. I doubt not p. 14. l. 32. be otherwise p. 21. l. 15. his award p. 32. l. 1. ruin more p. 53. l. 11. if Christians p. 54. l. 2. of schism p. 54. l. 29. these positions p 59. l. 17 extern p. 95. l. 1. chap. 2. p. 105. l. 20 may not both p. 108. l. 15. lawfull p. 113. l. 22 most probable p. 129. l. 20. have had p. 142. l. 28. this consent p. 146. l. 26 Bishops p. 147. l. 26 quos p. 149. l. 3 reply p. 34. p. 150. l. 26 in it p. 152. l. 17 Bishops p. 154. l. 20 epist 10 p. 172. l. 7 Province ib. l. 25 fifth p. 173. l. 1 fifth p. 177. l. 11 his side p. 187. 18. the word is p. 195. l. 30 prepositive p. 216. l. 29 offer here p. 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. l. 17. p. 222. l. 22 a pact ib. l. 28 a pact p. 241. l. 7 our Doctors p. 252. l. 18 gentilem p. 236â— l. 7 il phras'd p. 257. l. 13 hath no. p. 261. lâ— 20 same tune p. 266. l. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 301. l. 7 prejudiciall p. 306. l. 34 possibly p. 308. 13 from all otheâ— ib. 33. hence all p. 310. l. 34 commanded togather together p. 318. l. 20 take to be p. 322. l. 13 in soft-reason'd ib. l. 17 attending p. 346. l. 19 which he affirms p. 347. l. 12 vers 1. we ib. l. 15 Greeks p. 350. l. 16 argumentative ib. l. 31 fourth p. 353. l. 8 â—ad won p. 359. l. 28 here Answer p. 53. â— 361. l. 2 to him Answ p. 49. l. 32. 33. p. 365. l. 1 repugnancies p. 378. â—28 of asks p. 381. l. 23 24 assents not sprung p. 382. l. 31 it would p. 391. l. 13 inclosure p. 393. l. 9. found p. 87. â— 406 l. 17 rule p. 407 l. 1. par 10. Answ p. 63. ib. l. 11 exhortation p. 408. l. 12. preferment Rep. p. 68. Reply p. 412. l. 13. as our Saviour did ib. l. 31. expression p. 420. l. 15. hands reaping â— 424. l. 20. 〈◊〉 your p. 443. l. 33. destroy ours from his own p. 448. l. 27. proportion p. 450. l. 10. explicated ib. l. 28. us three p. 459. l. 2. ingenuous p. 462. l. 2. grant p. 469. l. 8. his former fault p. 480. 4. 5. the Bishops fâ—llow-sencer Dr. H. of Schism cap. 7. par 2. confess c. p. 484. l. 8. Sons by attestation p. 486. l. 5. none can be p. 490. l. 11. than that the ibid. l. 33. immediate p. 496. l. 33. some such things p. 498. l. 23. all the Grounds p. 500. l. 3. Church or Successour of S. Peter p 502. l. 8. These points p. 506. l. 1. and indeed p. 507. l. 3. manifest in p. 511. l. 6. doth aloud p. 511. l. 17. Opponent or Accaser p. 512. l. ult have afforded some p. 513. l. 7. his Church since if he means the discipline of the Church of England c. p. 514. l. 11â— flickering p. 519. l. 24. by my first p. 520. l. 27. of non-ens p. 533. l. 26. utter unauthentickness p. 542. l. 34. the concomitant 549. l. 2. are put down p. 550. l. 32. corroborate the. p. 554. l. 21. Levi. p. 557. l. 25. now hold p. 568. l. 11 by any tie p. 577. l. 11. confâ—sses p. 21. l. 7. 8. Pag. 578 l. 33. nationall Laws p. 591. l. 28. that no Society p. 595. l. 3. have it hâ—ld p. 600. l. 30. and no more p. 603. l. 1. any 〈◊〉 ib. l. 4. â—ontests p. 604. l. 17. no my Lord. p. 605. l. 12. renouncing p. 609. l. 2. These Evidencies p. 612. l. 7. in noting p. 613. l. 22. evince p. 617. l. 26. 27. applying the. p. 620. l. 16. unites God's p. 634. l. 10. as suchâ— p. 638. l. 20. discourse dull p. 642. l. 21. but there is p. 644. l. 8. dâ—ametricall p. 645. l. 27. or of the p. 651. l. 4. A Patriarchall Aâ—istocraticall Authority p. 666. l. 19. neither their FINIS