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
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
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
that he is sure the Protestants are not so persuaded nor ever had cōvincing Grounds represented to persuade them of it referring me to a book of his own called The View of Infallibility In answer I refer him to Rushworth's Dialogues and assure him that if he be not blinded with prejudice or interest he may see it there shown as perfectly as that two and three are five And as for his Book I find no such worthy stuffe in these as can invite me to think an hour well spent in perusing that Brother of theirs After this going about to vindicate the uncertainty on the Protestant's side he runs p. 21. 22. again to their full or verily-persuasion but never tells us whether this full persuasion of theirs sprung from the light of pure Reason that is Evidence or from passion interest and ignorance adding a parallel of beleeving that King Henry the eighth was King of this Nation the reasons whereof notwithstanding he accounts fallible because the testimonies of meer men Whereas I account it most evident and demonstrable and promise him to have acquitted himself better than ever Protestant did yet if he can show me the thousandth part of this Certainty which he puts here for a parallel of the Protestant's Vncertainty for any point in which they differ from us that is for any point which they have not received as handed down by Tradition or Attestation of Fore fathers For never let him expect to make a rational man beleeve that scruing or misunderstanding an odde line or two glean'd for the nonce out of Scripture or and old Authour can by any multiplication arrive to the clearness of the former ample undeniable uncontroulable Verdict of witnesses that King H. the eighth vas King of this Nation much lesse to that of our Rule of Faith being an attestion of things infinitely more importing which a multitude incomparably more numerous had seen visible in practice besides other assistant motives implanted by the Apostles the Holy Ghost especially cooperating in the hearts of the first faithful and still continued to this day which strengthen man's nature to the impossibility of erring in such an Attestation This vast advantage hath our Rule of Faith over this instance of K. H's reign here yet I doubt not to affirm that the testification of the latter renders it demonstrable which I thus show This undoubted and never yet-denyed persuasion that K. H. the eighth reigned here imprinted in the hearts of all in England not onely attested by all Fathers in that Nation but even by innumerable multitudes in other Countries his foul acts making him famous this persuasion I say is an Effect and consequently sprung from some Cause but no Cause can be imaginable in reason able either to breed this strong persuasion in such a world of knowing persons nor bribe so many attesters to a conspiracy of witnessing such a visible thing except the Being of King H. and of his Reign therefore he was or did reign here otherwise this persuasion and attestation had been effects without causes or which is all one without proportionable causes which being evidently impossible it is also evident and demonstrable that he did rule in England Now whoever should goe about to answer the major by putting some Cause as possible to be in it self proportionable and so able to produce this strange Effect besides the Existence of K. H. the eighth the very position would disgrace it self and the Authour when the proportions of it's efficacity came to be scann'd and apply'd to the Vniversal and strange Effect spoken of Again should a man consider this ample and uncontrolled attestation of it and all the other motives which infer it as King H's Wives Alliances abroad Warres Acts of Parliaments Embassadours in all parts Descent Apostatizing together with the infinite multitude of Conveyances Bonds Iudgments Foundations and innumerable such other things relating to such and such a year of his Reign and after all these fully considered should notwithstanding seriously express his doubt that he could not beleeve there was ever any such man would not all that heard him justly think him a mad man If so then surely he must have renounc't no less than rigorous Evidence and Demonstration the onely perfect light of Reason who can deserve justly such a censure It was therefore rigorously evident and demonstrable that King H. the eighth was Thirdly if it be not evident and demonstrable the contrary may possibly be such for one side must needs be true so all truths being connected in it'ts own nature demonstrable but it is evidently impossible the contrary should be demonstrable or the motives for it show'd not-concluding therefore they concluded demonstrably The minor is prov'd clearly for first it is not against any natural Science and consequently not possibly disprovable by natural reason nor yet by any Authority for in our case there is an Attestation for it uncontrolled by any either orally or by writing Wherefore there is left no means possible to goe about to confute it or evidence the contrary it self therefore is most perfectly and most strongly evident and demonstrable nay impossible to be deemed or pretended to be shown otherwise Bring not then Mr. H. this infallibly-and demonstrably-grounded instance for a parallel of your vertible and Wind-mill uncertainty till you can show you can produce the million'th part of that Evidence and certainty but rather be asham'd to pretend to make head against our Rule of Faith which is of an attesting Authority incomparably more numerous more clear and more strongly supported by all kind of imaginable assisting circumstances than was that now explicated with obscure or misinterpreted scraps of dead Authours cast into what mold you please by Id est's self-explications and voluntary deductions according to the easily-bending nature of words That is blush to have renounc't your Reason in renouncing Evidence of Authority to follow unreasonableness in assenting upon ambiguous probabilities After this to clear himself from denying Infallibility which denial was charged and hath been shown to take away all beleef and ground of Beleef he tells us pag. 23. It is evident that beleef is no more than consent to the truth of any thing and the grounds of beleef such arguments as are sufficient to exclude doubting to induce conviction and persuasion But sure Mr. H. forgets what he is about for to divine beleef which is commanded by God himself and so cannot be sinfull not every consent ought to serve but a rational one nor any conviction but such an one as is rational that is grounded upon Evidence of that Authorities veracity in that which she proposes to be beleeved which how it can stand with her fallibility in the same point is past Dr. H's skil to make good since if it be once known that she can erre in it it can never be shown thats he does not there being no certainer Authority than her self to testify certainly when she hits and when
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
Church How necessary an endowment is a good memory to defend a bad cause Thirdly he onely denyes as he sayes that this Primacy gave him any power over S. Paul and that I will remember he had reason to deny it from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall honour given S. Paul by Chrysostome and Theophylact. I remember indeed the words but have quite forgot that he had any reason to deduce from those words equality of honor sprung from Government or power of command having shown from those fathers explicating themselves that it is impossible the words can beare that interpretation Fourthly in relation to those words he did not vindicate any thing to himself insolently or assume it arrogantly as to say he had the Primacy and rather ought to bee obeyed c. Dr. H. discant's with this glosse leaving us saith he p. 47. to resolve that if he had claimed any obedience at all from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him Thus he soe that the difference between Dr. H. and mee in explicating this place stands thus that he makes those words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assump sit to signify that S. Peter's praise worthines exprest consisted in his not chalenging what did not truly belong to him whereas I make it consist in his not chalenging it in those circumstances though it truly belonged to him he would have the words insolenter and arroganter so taken as if the pride they denoted did involve falsehood injustice or overweening whereas I contend that they signify onely in an insolent and proud manner well exprest in our English phrase by standing upon his point which well consists with the truth of what he challenges and the right of what he assumes Ere I descend to manifest that this is the sence of that place I desire the Reader to review the entire testimony in which he will do right both to my discourse and his own memory and when he hath done this I offer him for his satisfaction these following notes First that it had been no such great commendation of humility to say that S. Peter did not usurpingly challenge what was not his right but rather an impudence and an absurd haughtines to have done it since then the fathers intend here a particular commendation of S. Peter's modesty it must consist in this that though he might with rigour of right have stood upon his tip-toes as wee may say yet his goodnes so moderated his height that he was content with mildenes to bear an inferiour's reprehensions in which great vertue is shown and which being put those fathers suppose that truly he was Superiour Secondly unles this bee the meaning of that place wee have quite lost the adversative sence which yet is unavoidable for what sence is this Though our Lord chose him to be the first yet he did not challenge to himself more then belongs to him or what speciall commendation do these words import Though King Iames was King of England yet he did not challenge or assume to himself to bee Emperour of Germany sure it must bee an enuy of S. Peter's sanctity as well as of his dignity to diminish his praise-worthines intended here by so frivolous and incoherent an explication Thirdly the words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter he challenged not any thing insolently to himself make good my explication for it had been a very hard case if he could have challenged nothing at all to himself with truth according to these fathers no not even that which themselves had granted the line before to wit that our Lord had chosen him to bee the first and had built his Church upon him with truth therefore he might have challenged that which out of modesty he stood not insolenty and arrogantly upon Fourthly Dr. H. grants that a Primacy at least in some sence is granted S. Peter from this place wherefore the redditive part of the testimony yet he challenged not any thing c. so as to say he had the Primacy must be granted to bee true also or rather it is the self same Neither is it possible that any man not totally possest by prejudice can imagine any other but that in these words Though our Lord chose him to bee the first yet he said not or alledged not that he had the Primacy or was the first the latter part should be false unles the former were so too Firfthly this being so the following words in the reddiâ—ive part of the testimony and ought rather to be obey'd by laâ—er Apostles c. must necessarily bee true too since they follow in the same tenour of redditive sence to the adversative and are joyned immediately by a copulative particle to the former of having the Primacy True therefore it is that he might in right expect obedience in other circumstances from S. Paul and by consequence this Primacy here spoken of was not a dry and barren one as the Dr. would fancy it Sixthly the subsequent words of his not objecting to S. Paul that he had been a persecutour of the Church make it yet more evident since he might with truth have said so but of his goodnes would not since then the foregoing word 's of his having the Primacy are true and the following ones also of S. Paul's having been a persecutour are true also upon what grounds can this Adversary of S Peter's imagine that the midle words importing his rather right to S. Paul's obedience which run on in the same even tenour with both the other should be false or how could he â—hink to evade by deducing from those words that the fathers left us to resolve hence that if hee had claimed any obedience from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him nay making this the summe of his answer to that place Lastly the concluding words but admitted the counsell of truth expressing the result of the whole busines show that iâ— plainly imports an Encomium of S. Peter's candour that wheÌ„ the thing objected against him was true he maintained not his own saying by Authority but made his heâ—gâ—h of dignity exprest there to bee most eminent stoop to the sincere acceptation of truth which in a Superiour and Governour is a most laudable carriage and an unparalell'd commendation And thus Dr. H. comes of in answering S. W. first testimony which being prest speaks more against him then was at first intended being onely brought to show that these fathers thought that manner of carriage between S. Peter and S. Paul exprest Gal. 11. rather argued S. Peter's greater humility then his lesser or equall Authority After Mr. H. had endeavoured by wresting the former testimony to win S. Cyprian and S. Austin to side with him against S. Peter's Authority he proceeds to destroy the Popes
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
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
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
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
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
certainty what Royalty is the notion varying according to diuerse countries But hee understands perhaps that a Patriarch shall not bee independēt of the King in Ecclesiasticall affairs within his own Patriarchate and that this is the King's priviledge to which condition hee knows no Catholike will ever yeeld any more than to the former otherwise wee must grant that S. Peter could not preach at Rome if Nero were a King not S. Iames at Hiernsalem without unkinging Herod Yet the Bp. will bee even with mee for as I will not condescend to his conditions so on the other side hee neither hath heretofore nor ever will hereafter bee brought to hold to the question or speak directly to the point as hath been seen hitherto all along and shall more particularly bee seen hereafter Nor will hee long defer his revenge but puts it in execution the very next thing hee does being assured to have demanded such conditions as should never bee granted for Whereas hee had remou'd the question from a Papall Authority held of divine to a Patriarchall acknowledg'd but of human Institution not to desert our question totally and to give him fair law I put the case that the Papall Government had been onely of human Institution it ought not to have been rejected unles the abuses had been irremediable I urged that considering this Head was chosen in that case to preserve Vnity in Religion and that eternall dissentions would inevitably follow upon it's rejection and a separation of the rejecters from the rest of that common-wealth which acknowledg'd that Head therefore far weightier causes must bee expected or greater abuses committed ere not onely the person but this very Government should bee abolish't Now the matter of fact being evident and confest that the first Reformers consented with all the Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome in their submitting to that Authority till they began to reject it that they acknowledg'd it lawfull ere they began to disclame it as unlawfull that they held none at that time true Christians but those who agreed consented and submitted to that Authority that the acknowledging this Head then was as it still is to us the Principle of Vnity in Government for all Christianity as such then held by them Likewise it being equally evident confest that they have now actually renounced that Authority thus held acknowledg'd and submitted to by all whom they then deemed Christians as the Rule and Ground of all Vnity in that commonwealth These things I say being so I had good reason to put that supposition not as our bare tenet as the Bp. seems to imagin but as the evident matter of fact as the case stood then One would think it were the Bp's task now to show that notwithstanding all this the first Abolishers of this Authority had sufficient reasons to disannull it and that the abuses of the sayd Authority did outweigh the right use of it so that it might and ought have been rejected by one part of that Christianity though once establisht or which is all one long accepted by their common consent as this was de facto What does the Bp. Hee tells us what hee and the Protestants now held concerning that point putting as it were his counter tenet to ours sayes the Pope is onely as a Proclocutor in a Generall Assembly was their steward that is not their Governour all contrary to the matter of fact which my case is built on that they nourish a more Catholik-Communion than wee and such other stuff all out of his own head without a word of proof then thinks the deed is done Was ever such an Answer contriu'd the poak-full of plums was pertinent if compar'd to ' this But still the Bishop is innocent t was my fault who would not accept of the two conditions hee proposed which should have been the guerdon of his returning to the question that is without the performance of which hee thinks himself not bound to speak a word to the purpose And so the Reader must look upon him hereafter as on a man who hath got or took licence to run astray Observe Reader in what a different manner the Bp. I treat thee I still bring thee to evident and acknowledg'd matter of fact or such suppositions which need onely application and another name to bee so according as the case stood at the time of the first breach Whereas the Bp. brings thee his own sayings their party's tenet for Grounds and proofs things not acknowledg'd but disputable nay disputed in this present debate that is obscure as far as concerns this question And this is his solemn manner all over this treatise which shows that hee hates the light his unfriendly betrayer but truth's Glory and that the obscurity of ambiguities is most proper and least offensive to his errour-darkned eyes I demanded of him whether hee would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes or abuses of Prelates Hee answers that never such abuses as these were objected either to Princes or Prelates in England Not objected that 's strange Read the Court of K. Iames and the charge against King Charles in Westminster Hall Did not the Scots and Puritans object Popery intolerable pride and overburthening weak consciences to your Brother Bp's Can there bee greater abuses objected than these in your Grounds or is not the design to bring in Popery which makes such a noise in your book as a Pandera's box of all mischiefs and inconveniences as horrid an accusation against you as the same inconveniences were against Popery when it stood on foot in K. H's daies I was told by a worthy grave person and whose candour I have no reason to suspect that in a priuate discourse hee had with the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in his own garden concerning the point of Schism the Arch-Bishop confest upon his urging the evident matter of fact that hee was in a Schism upon which free confession of his being prest again by that Gentleman how hee could in conscience remain in a Schism and separated from God's Church hee reply'd that it might lawfully bee done if warranted by an intention to reunite by such compliance a schismatizing Congregation to the Body it broke from citing to make good his plea a place from S. Austin in reference to some Catholike Bishops complying with the Donatists for the same end Now I ask whether in case the Arch-Bishop had endeavoured to bring in Popery Episcopacy held to bee of divine right ought therefore to bee abolisht If bee answer No as I suppose his interest will prevail above his Grounds to make him then I ask again why an inferiour actuall power to wit Episcopacy should not bee held to merit abolishing for Popery's sake and introducing it so fraught with inconveniences which Popery so full alas of grievances though held immediately before equally of divine Institution and of far higher
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
in that Order This is your crime in this lies your sinfull guilt of Schism and heresy that your fact and tenet is intrinsecally destructive to the very being of God's Church and that it tears and rents it peece-meal all asunder A mischief equally pernicious to man-kind's attaining Beatitude as the renouÌ„cing the supreme Government in a Kingdome or commonwealth would bee in order to their safe enjoyment of their temporall livelihoods and therefore no waies to bee ballanced or excused by alledging temporall inconveniences since it as far ouerpoises it's excuse as Eternity of bliss does a peece of earth that is infinitely His third sort of Grounds is the weaknes of the Pope's pretences and the exemption of the Britannick Churches from forrain Iurisdiction by the Council of Ephesus For the fitst the Bp. never so much as directly mentions that in which wee place the strength of the Pope's pretence of his supreme Authority much lesse impugnes it save onely a little on the by as it were in his sleight way 't is this that it was held and deliver'd by a world of immediate fathers to sons as from their fathers so upwards as from Christ that this Authority was sacred of Christ's Institution of faith and recommended to us by the same Rule that assured us Christ was God Vpon this tenure as strongly supported as nature could bear held demonstrably evident and so shown by us not yet answer'd or pretended to bee answer'd by the Protestant party wee Ground this Doctrine of the Pope's Headship or the substance of his Authority But I fear the Bp. either understands not our tenure for otherwise sure hee would have nam'd it or else hee is impugning some Canon Lawier and the extent of the Pope's Authority in stead of impugning the Church and the substance of the said Authority As for his second trifle I have already shown Sect. 4. that the Britannick Churches have no influence upon our Churches descended from saxons nor shall hee ever show a syllable in the Council of Ephesus exempting them from the Pope's Iurisdiction as Head of the Church however Cyprus and some others are there exempted from a neighbouring superiour falsly pretending a Iurisdiction over them But of this more shall bee said hereafter in this present Section The Vnity of the Church being of such importance and the fact breaking it by consequence so hainous the alledging the greatest abuses imaginable are absolutely concluded insufficient excuses for such a fact much more unles it bee shown there were no other possible means to remedy them Hereupon I alledged that it was of little concernment to examine whether his complaints were true or false since hee does not show there was no other remedy but division First the Bishop replies sharply What is it of little concernment to examin whether the Grounds bee sufficient or no well leap't my Lord I speak of the inconsiderablenes of their truth or falshood your Lâ— talks of inconsiderablenes of their sâ—fficiency pretends against both plain words and conscience that I wave that There may bee obâ—ections against the Abuses perhaps of all Governours in the world and these also true but their truth does not infer their sufficiency for rejecting that very Government as long as they are less considerable than good of the Government it self and that there is another cure This it that in which I show'd your manner of arguing defective in the main because you never prou'd nor ever shall that there was no other remedy except division for unles you put in this and more too your argument stands in this posture True complaints against Governours whether otherwise remediable or no are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government At which position if spoke out candidly I hope you will blush though it bee perfectly your own cloak't a little in other but equivalent terms Next hee tells us it is a negative and so it belongs not to him to prove it Yes my Ld it belongs to your party or any one who rises against an actuall Authority either to show that that Authority was none or else that though it was a lawfull one yet there was no other remedy for it's Abuses but a totall Abolishment of it Otherwise the very maiesty which Government carries in it's notion the Vnity peace and a thousand blessings and conveniences which spring from that Vnity found in the common acknowledment of that Authority oversway the private credit or any other less publike concerns which the disobedient party can pretend to and render's their fact of rising irrationall and destructive to the common engaging them needlesly in a thousand distractions and by consequence hazards of ruin which attend such divisions Thirdly hee would persuade the Reader that a negative is not capable of proof or at least not so easily capable of it for answer I refer him to any boy who hath been two years at the Vniversities who will inform him that negatives may witht equall evidence bee concluded in Celarent Ferio as affirmatives may in Barbara and Darij Lastly the proof which hee proposes for his negative to show no other remedy but dares not much stick to them are both equally competent to France Spain c who yet as hee tells us in the next page in contradiction to himself here found other remedies to preserve their priviledges inviolated and his pretended proofs are such pittifull ones though on them is built the sufficiency of their motives that they evencry for mercy as soon as they show their faces They are these that the King of England could not call the Pope and his ourt to a personall account and that the Pope would not ease them upon many Adresses made what then Had not the King the sword in his own hands did it not ly in his power to right himself as hee â—isted and to admit those pretended eneroachments onely so far as hee thought iust and fitting Nay do not your self lay open and repeat in many places that not onely Kings of England but also those of all other countries both could and did do it often and by doing so preserve their priviledges inviolated How does this prove then that there was sufficient Grounds of dividing from the former Church since your self confess so often it could have been remedied otherwise Or how is it a sufficient motive to abolish an Authority for the Abuses which very pretended Abuses they had power to curb and keep within compass without dividing and so that they should not violate their priviledges Not a word then hath the Bp. brought to prove they had sufficient Grounds of division that is that there was no other remedy but in stead thereof expresly told us the contrary and manifoldly contradicted himself I added And much more if the Authority bee of Christ's Institution no iust cause can possibly â—ee given for it's abolishment The merry Bp. laughs at this as hee calls it Kind of arguing which neither looks like an Argument
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
in that Council and yet bee a lawfull one too Rub up your memory my L d. you pretend to bee a piece of a Lawyer and I beleeve you will finde an English law that Sixty members is a sufficient number to make a lawfull Parliament and before that law was made common consent custome which is either equivalent or perhaps above law gave the same for granted Fourthly he excepts against the super proportion'd multitude of members out of one Province which hee sayes never lawfull Parliament had I ask if other Provinces would neither send a fit number nor they had a minde to come by what law by what reason should it render illegitimate either Parliament or Council Now 't is certain and not deny'd by any but that Bishop's had as free liberty to come out of other Provinces as out of Italy had they pleased Again the principall busines being to testify the Tradition of former ages a small number of Bishops serving for that and the collaterall or secundary busines being to examin the difficulties those Hereticks which were the occasion of the Council produced that they might be confuted fully out of their own mouthes which is a thing to bee performed by committees in which learned men that were not Bishops might sit it little inferred the want of Bishops Wherefore if there were any error in the supernumerarines of Bishops out of some one Province it was for some other end than for the condemnation of Heresies so is nothing to our purpose unles perhaps my L d will pretend that had those Catholike B p' s out of other Provinces been there they would have voted against their fellow Catholikes in behalf of Luther or Calvin which were a wise Answer indeed Fifthly hee excepts that the Council of Trent is not received in France in point of Discipline What then why by his parallell to a Parliament hee concludes hence t was no lawfull Council Which is to abuse the eyes of the whole world who all see that France who denies the admission of those points of Discipline acknowledges it not withstanding a generall lawfull Council and receives it in all determinations belonging to faith which are so essential to it as it were disacknowledg'd were they deny'd though not in matters of fact which are accidentall to it's Authority nay allow'd by the Church it self however made exprest generally to binde particular countries onely in due circumstances according to their conveniencies Lastly hee alledges that they were not allow'd to speak freely in the Council of Trent Which is a flat calumny and though most important to his cause could hee prove it yet after his bold custome 't is onely asserted by his own bare saying by Sleidan a notoriously lying Author of their own side and by a passage or two in the History of the Council of Trent whereof the first is onely a ieering expression any thing will serve the B p. the other concerning the Pope's creating new Bp's nothing at all to his purpose since both these new the other old B p' s were all of one Religion Catholikes so not likely to dissent in voâ—ing Doctrines which kind of votes are essentiall to a Council pertinent to our discourse which is about Doctrines not about Discipline After this hee puts down three solutions as hee calls them to our plea of the Patriarchall Authority First that Britain was no part of the Roman Patriarchate And this hee calls his first solution Secondly that though it had been yet the Popes have both quitted forfeited their Patriarchall power and though they had not yet it is lawfully transferred And this is his second solution The third is that the difference between them and us is not concerning any Patriarchall Authority And this is his third solution which is a very really good one shows that the other need no reply our charge against them being for renouncing the supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority of divine Institution not a Patriarchate onely of humane Institution If further answer bee demanded first the Greek Schismaticks our enemies confess that England was a part of the Pope's Patriarchate if it bee truly called a Western Church see Barlaam Monachus de Papae Principatu c. 11 and Part. 1. Sect. 15. of the adjoyning Treatise Next it is falsely pretended that the Pope's have either quitted or forfeited their Patriarchall Authority and may with equall reason bee concluded that a Bishop quits Episcopall Authority if hee is also a Patriarch or that a person must leave of to be Master of his own family because hee is made King and his Authority universally extended to all England Which last instance may also serve against the pretended inconsistency of the Papall and Patriarchall power if it need any more answer than what hath formerly been given Sect. 4. I omit his calumnies against the Papall Authority charactering it falsly as a meere unbridled tyranny And his thrice repeated non-sence when hee joyns in one notion Patriarchall Authority a Patriarchy being a Government by one an Aristocracy by many Nor is his other calumniating expression much better when hee calls the Papall Authority a Soveraign Monarchicall Royalty since it was never pretended by Catholikes that the Pope is the King of the Church The notion of Priest and Sacrifice being relative the failing of the one destroyes the other since then the Protestants have no Sacrifice they are convinced to have no Priests This point in particular hee never touch't but talk't a little in obscure terms of matter form of ordination as if it were not an easy thing to say what words they pleased and do what actions they pleased To this the Bishop onely replies that hee over did and set down the point of Sacrifice over distinctly Next hee tells us their Registers are publike offices whether any man may repair at pleasure whereas our question is not of the Registers in generall but of that one particular pretended Register of the right ordination of Protestant Bishops kept conceal'd from the free perusall of Catholikes though the circumstances to wit their alledging the unlawfulnes of the Protestant Bishops ordination requir'd it should bee shown His next paragraph concerning their uncharitablenes needs not bee repeated unles it could be mended My expedient to procure peace Vnity which was to receive the root of Christianity a practicall infallibility in the Church hee seems willing to admit of Onely hee adds that the greater difficulty will bee what this Catholike Church is and indeed to his party 't is an insuperableone though to us most facil as I have shown formerly Sect. 7. Hee call'd the Bishops of Italy the Pope's parasiticall pentioners I reply'd it seem'd his Lordship Kept a good table and had great revenews independent on any Hee answers hee was not in passion and that hee Spoke onely against meer Episcopelles which is to show that his passion is nothing abated yet by adding such unsavory
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