dispute vehemently yet their heat springs not from the naturall love of truth inbred in their souls but because their honour interest or other conveniency is concerned in the goodsuccesse of the disputation Hence it follows that as Catholikes go not consequently to their grounds unlesse they defend with an eagernesse and zeal proportionable to the concernment of the thing their Faith which they hold most certain and infallible so Protestants who confesse their Faith fallible that is such as may possibly by otherwise for any thing they know are obliged by their very grounds not to take it much ill at any that impugne it nor expresse any great zeal in behalf of it or if they do then their grounds not requiring it all their heat and earnestnesse must manifestly arise from some passion or interest They ought therefore to defend their problematicall Faith as men defend paradoxes calmly civilly and moderately and make conscience of being discourteous to their opposer since for any thing they knoâ— he may possibly be in the right In a word their whole way of controversy ought in reason to be managed as an exercise of wit since it consists only in this who can most dexterously and artificially criticize upon words and be most quick and ready to produce out of his storehouse either topicall reasons or testimonies gleaned from all places and Authours as shall seem most pat for the present occasion And this is the reason why they desire no more but that Catholike writers should treat them with a luke-warm courtesy and by a respectfull behaviour towards them as leanerd men see mingly leave them some apparence that their Faith is probable and then they think themselves safe and are very well appayed whereas it belongs to a Catholike Authour who holds his Faith certain to manifest the contrary to be perfectly absurd and nonsence and since the knowledge of this must in his grounds be held so necessary for the salvation of mankind he ought in plain terms let men know it is such and give it home the Character it deserves otherwise by his timorousnesse he prevaricates from his grounds by his fearfull mincing his expressions when Truth will-bear him out in them and the weight of the cause exacts them he breeds a just apprehension in his readers that the contrary else why should he proceed so reservedly may have some degree of probability which perhaps is enough for his Adversary but assuredly betrayes his own cause I know my adversary will think he hath gained much by my forwardnesse in this last paragraph and others also may perhaps judge that I have put my self upon the geatest disadvantage imaginable by professing voluntarily that it is my obligation to show his writings nonsence or impossible to be true whereas a good prohabity that they are true wil serve his turn but both the necessity of my Cause obliges me to it which must leave them voyd of all probability whom a probability will content and also the evident Truth of it emboldens mâ—e to affirm this and not to think that in so affirming I have said too much or been too liberall to my Adversary Wherefore as if I were to dispute upon the ground of my Faith which yet is not the proper task for our party who stand upon possession I doubt not with Gods help to leave no room for a probability to the contrary in the judgement of a prudent and disinteressed person so I shall not fear to affirm that all the testimonies in Dr. Hammonds book though they were twenty times more and twenty times seemingly more expresse bear not the weight of a probability if coÌ„pared to that world of witnesses in te Catholike Church they left all attesting that the very points which the reformers relinquisht had been delivered by their Forefathers as delivered to them by theirs c. And this so expressly amply and clearly as leaves no place for criticisms severall explications with all the train of other circumstances which mere words seldome or never want rendering them obnoxious to a thousand ambiguities joyn then I say that vast and clear testimony to this argument drawn from reason that as it is impossibile they who lived ten years before H. the eight should so conspire to deceive those who lived in his dayes in things visibile and practicall such are the points of our Faith as to say they received them from their Forefathers as received from theirs and yet no most palpable evidence remain of this most palpable and evidently prevayling even to gull the whole world to their faces in a businesse importing their eternall blisse so likewise that the same impossibility holds in each ten years ascending upwards till the Apostles time and by consequence that the Faith delivered of late was the Faith delivered then Ioyn I say these two together and I doubt not to affirm that it is most perfect non-sence to think all the testimonies in Dr. Hs. book subject to a thousand Grammatical Philological Sophisticall Historical and Logical difficulties can bear so much as a show of probability if compared to that clear evidence of reason and that ample one of universall testification which shines in the other However it may happen that some one or more testimonies of his may make the contrary seem probable to such as either never heard of or nor well penetrated or do not consider the grounds of Vniversall Tradition as a straw may incline a ballance if nothing be put in the counterpoise Neither let my Adversary object I intend to evade answering his Testimonies by this discourse they shall have from me the return due from an Answerer that is to show them unable to conclude against this vast Authority of Vniversall Tradition for he may know we hold our Faith and Government upon no other tenour So as still the mea sure of their force must be according to the degree in which they invalidate this tenour of ours built upon both a long possession and such an universall and clear testification Onely I desire the Reader to take notice hence what a pittifull task it is to stand answering a wordish book which can bear no weight with any prudent man who considers the incomparable force of Vniversall Tradition our onely tenour but I am necessitated to it by the weaknesse of many whose wit never carryed them farther than to hear a sermon or to read a testimony and therefore they never reflected what small merit of assent can be pretended to by words of men dead long ago left to be tost by our various expositions and criticisms and liable to a thousand evasions against the clear sense written in the hearts of mankind with most powerfull motives and to be propagated truly to their posterity under penalty of eternall damnation to them and theirs Few there are I say who have refined their understanding to this degree of discerningness though I perceive to my great comfort that the best sort of witts begin to
make use of the same method and every time I name them Schismaticks or their sect Schism feign that I say they call themselves so he might by this art make S. W. a monstrous lyer if the Reader were so monstrously silly as to believe him In the next place I must needs Answ p. 13. misunderstand the nature and ayme of the Churche's censures because I tell them They should rather threaten their Desertours with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication than cry so loud Not guilty when the lash hath been so long upon their own shoulders since he sayes a Schism arm'd with migâ—t is not either in prudence or charity to be contended with Whereas I pretend not that they ought to execute the punishments subsequent to Excommunication but to separate themselves had they any Grounds to make it good that they were God's Church from Schismaticks and avoid their Communion in Etern actions belonging to God's worship as God's Church ever accustomed not â—caring to denounce and preach to them in plain terms that they are Schismaticks and cut off from the Church Neither is this against Charity since Schism being such an hainous and damnable sin Charity avouches nay makes it an obligation to manifest Schismaticks to be such that they who have faln may apprehend the sâ—d state they are in and thence take occasion to arise and they who stand may beware of falling into that dangerous gulf which once open'd the earth to swallow Core Dathan and Abiron Nor is it against prudence since every one knows the permitting the weaker sort to communâ—cate with enemies in those very circumstances which may endanger them is the onely way to ruine any Government either Spiritual or Temporal At least why should they not dare had they Grounds to bear them out to do the same as the Catholicks did during the time of their greatest persecution under the Protestant Government that is let them be known to be Schismaticks and make the people abstain in divine matters from their contagious Communion But the confest uncertainty of their Faith makes them squeamish to assume to themselves any such Authority and therefore they are forced by their very Grounds when their Secular Power is gone to turn discipline into courtesy in matters of Government as they do in controversy turn zeal into civility and complement When he talks here piously of the Romanists sanguin try method sure he hath forgotten that ever Priests were hang'd drawn and quarter'd for their Faith at Tiburn and all over England in the time of their cruel Reign or if he remembers it he thinks to make us amends by preaching like a Saint of their meekness of edification and the more tragically-pittifull expressions of lamenting the ruptures of the Christian world which themselves have made with rivers of teares of bloud Answ p. 13. The next Section begins with the rehearsal of my reason why no colourable pretence can be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them which I exprest thus For that we prest them to believe false fundamentals Dr. H. and his Friends will not say since they acknowledge ours a true Church which is inconsistent with such a lapse They were therefore in their opinion things tolerable which were urged upon them and if not in the same rank yet more deserving the Church should command their observance than Copes or Surplices or the book of Common Prayer the allowance whereof they prest upon their Quondam brethen Which words though as moderately and modestly expressing the matter as could be invented yet the Reader shall see what a character the Doctors peevish zeal hath set upon them to wit that Answ p. 14. there are in them too many variations from the Rules of sober discourse so many indications of S. W. his temper that it will not be easy to enumerate them It shall be seen presently whether the Doctors Discourse or mine went a rambling when we writ The tenour of my Argument ad hominem was this The falsities which you pretend we prest upon you were either acknowledged by you to have been fundamental or not-fundamental that is tolerable that you acknowledg'd them fundamental you will not say since falsity in a fundamental ruines the essence of a Church which yet you grant ours to have therefore they were according to you not-fundamental or tolerable yet such kind of not-fundamental points as were more importing to be prest upon you by us than Copes or Surplices which you prest upon them therefore you can alledge no reason why you left us but they may alledge the same or a greater why they left you This evidently is the sense of my words to any man who can understand common reason and the answer to them ought to be a manifesting-some solid motive why they left us which the other Sects cannot with better right defend themselves with why they left the Protestants Let us hear now whether the Doctors discoursive power were sober when he reel'd into such an answer First he willfully puts a wrong meaning upon those words false Fundamentals as if by them I meant things which we onely not they hold for Fundamentals and then overthrows me most powerfully by showing as he easily might that he and his Friends say not but that we prest them to believe false Fundamentals in this sense that is such things as we held Fundamentals whereas 't is plain by my arguing ad hominem all the way as also by those words they will not say they acknowledge ours a true Church in their opinion c. that I meant such points as they accounted Fundamentals And when he hath thus voluntarily mistaken me he tailes against me that I affirm things without the least shadow and ground of truth and that I play foul play The Reader will quickly discern how meanly Dr. H. is skill'd in the game of reason though in that of citations where he can both shuffle and cut that is both alledge and explicate them with Id ests as he pleases he can pack the cards handsomly and show more crafty tricks than ever did Hocus Pocus And if any after all this can think I have wrong'd Mr. H. in affirming he is a weak reasoner himself shall ber ample testimony to this truth in the following Paragraph He slily touches at my true meaning of Fundamentals there and tells us that false Fundamentals is a contradiction in adjecto Grant it who ever affirmed that Fundamentals could be false my words were onely that Dr. H. and his Friends would not say that our Church prest them to believe false Fundamentals Is it any wrong to them or foule play in S. W. to affirm that Dr. H. and his Friends will not speak a contradiction Himself such is his humility sayes it is affirming here that when S. W. undertakes for him and his Friends that they will not say that the Romanists have prest them to
believe false Fundamentals his words are not intelligible sense for the following words or else they have no degree of truth in them relate to the other acception of Fundamental already sopoken of so that according to Dr. H. it is not intelligible sense to undertake for him and his Friends that they should not speak contradictions Is this a sober discourse which falls reelingly to the Ground of it self when none pushes it or was it a friendly part to involve his Friends in his own wise predicament And now can any man imagine that when I said Dr. H. and his Friends acknowledge ours a true Church there should be any difficulty in the sense of those words or that I should impose upon them that they held our Church not to have erred yet this Doctor who alwayes stumbles most in the plainest way will needs quibble in the word true and S. W. must bear the blame for grossely equivocating whereas the sense was obvious enough to every child as the words before cited will inform the Reader that I meant them of the true nature of a Church which since they acknowledged ours to have I argued hence that they must not say we held false Fundamentals that is such as they account Fundamentals for since a Church cannot be a Church but by Fundamental points of Faith and Faith must not be false it follows that a falshood in Fundamental destroyes the very Being of a Church This being so I shall beg Dr. H's pardon if I catechize him a litle in point of reason in which his Cause makes him a meer Cathecumenus and ask him how he can hold ours to have even the true nature of a Church since he hold that which she esteems as her Fundamental of Fundamentals and that upon which as her sole certain Ground she builds all her Faith to wit her infallible Authority to be false erroneous If the sole Authority upon which immeditately she builds all Faith be a ruinous falshood she can have no true Faith of any Article consequently can have no Faith at all nor be a true Church since a Church cannot survive the destruction of Faith But their ambition to honour their Nag's-head Bishops with the shadow of a Mission from our Church makes them kindly speak non sense to do her a seeming courtesy for their own interest I know he tells us here in general termes Answ p. 15. that she is not unchurch't because she holds the true Foundation layd by Christ but offends by enlarging and superadding but he must show why the Catholicks who hold no point of Faith but solely upon their Churche's infallibility if thar Ground be false that is be none as he sayes can hold any thing at all as of Faith that is have any Faith at all at least how they can have Certainty of any point of Faith or the written word of God if the sole-certain Rule of Faith by which onely they are assured of all those were taken sometimes in a lie to wit while it recommended to them those superadditions they account false received in the same tenour as the rest from the hands of our immediate Forefathers But let us follow Dr. H. who goes jogging forward but still rides as his ill fortune is beside the saddle To points which they accounted fundamental I counterpos'd tolerable ones that is such as they esteemed not-fundamental which I therefore call'd tolerable because they account these neither to touch the Foundation of Faith as building or destroying such as he acknowledged in the fore-going Paragraph our pretended super additions to be saying that the dross doth not annibilate the Gold It being therefore plain that falshoods which are not in fundamentals so unconsistent with the essence of a Church must be in things not-fundamental and therefore consistent with the nature of a Church that is tolerable if taken in themselves he neglects to take notice of them as they are in themselves that is such as their admission ruines not Faith nor the essence of a Church and sayes the pressing them upon them is intolerable and not admittable without hypocrisy or sin against conscience and why because they believe them not I ask had they a demonstration they were false if so then let them produce it and if it bear test I shall grant them innocent if not then since nothing else can oblige the Vndâ—rstanding but the foresaid Evidence their pretended obligation in Conscience to disaccept them is convinc't to spring from weakness of passion not from force of reason I added that those points more deserved the Church should command their obseruance than Copes or Surplices c. And though Mr. H. knowes very well that one of those points was the fundamental Ground of all Faith in the Church they left and Copes c. but things indifferent yet by a cheap supposal that all is false which we hold he can deny that they are more deserving our Church should command their observance and so carries the cause clear He addes Answ p. 16. that they weightier the importance of the things commanded is the more intolerahle is the pressure of imposing them and makes disobedience greater in things indifferent Whereas surely the Governours are more highly obliged to command the observance of that on which they hold Faith to be built than all the rest put together Is it a greater obstinacy to deny a Governour taxes than to rebell absolutely against him the Doctor 's Logick sayes it is since obstinacy according to him is greater in resisting commands in things indâ—fferent Especially if the Rebel please to pretend that the urging his submission to that Authority is an intolerable pressure Mr. H. here acquits him without more adoe But to return since it was our Churche's greater obligation to command their observance of those points and the holding of such points was not deemed then by them destructive to Faith but on the other side known by reason of their pretended importance to be in an high degree damnable to themselves and others if they hap't to be mistaken no less than most palpable and noon-day evidence can excuse them in common prudence from a most desperate madness and headlong disobedience but the least shadow of a testimony-proof is a meridian Sun to Dr. H. and gives as clear an evidence as his understanding darkened by passion is willing to admit Thus much to show the particular miscarriarges of Dr. H. in every Paragraph of his answer to my Introduction there remaines still the Fundamental one that he hath said nothing at all to the point of reason in it but onely mistaken each particular line of it I alledged as my reason why they dealt not seriously against their own Desertours because no colourable pretence could possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the very same would hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them This proved ad hominem thus because the Protestants acknowledge the points
whence to alledge those testimonies comparable to that of the Church they left since they can never even pretend to show any company of men so incomparably numerous so unquestionably learned holding certainly as of Faith and as received from the Apostles that Government which they impugned and this so constantly for so many hundred years so unanimously and universally in so many Countries where knowledge most flourish't testifying the same also in their General Councels all which by their own aknowlegedment was found in the Church they left The eihtgh Ground is that The proofs alledged by Protestants against us bear not even the weight of a probability to any prudent man who penetrates and considers the contrary motives For the proofs they alledge are testimonies that is words capable of divers senses as they shall be diversely play'd upon by wits Scholars and Criticks and it is by experience found that generally speaking their party and ours give severall meanings to all the Testimonies controverted between us Now it is manifest that computing the vastnefs of the times and places in which our Profession hath born sway we have had near a thousand Doctors for one of the Protestants who though they ever highly venerated and were well versed in all the Ancient Fathers and Councells yet exprest no difficulty in those proofs but on the contrary made certain account that all Antiquity was for them Thus much for their knowledge Neither ought their sincerity run in a less proportion than their number unless the contrary could be evidently manifested which I hear not to be pretended since they are held by our very Adversaries and their acts declare them to have been pious in other respects and on the other side considering the corruptness of our nature the prejudice ought rather to stand on the part of the disobeyers than of the obeyers of any Government Since then no great difficulty can be made but that we have had a thousand knowing men for one and no certainty manifested nor possible to be manifested that they were unconscientious we have had in all morall estimation a thousand to one in the meanes of understanding aright these testimonial proofs and then I take not that to have any morall probability which hath a thousand to one against it But I stand not much upon this having a far better game to play I mean the force of Tradition which is fortify'd which such and so many invincible reasons that to lay them out at large and as they deserve were to transcribe the Dialogues of Rusworth the rich Storehouse of them to them I refer the Reader for as ample as satisfaction as even Scepticism can desire and onely make use at present of this Consideration that if it be impossible that all the now-Fathers of Families in the Catholick Church disperst in so many nations should conspire to tell this palpablely to their Children that twenty yeares agoe such a thing visible and practical as all points of Faith are was held in that Church if no such thing had been and that consequently the same impossibility holds in each twenty yeares upwards till the Apostles by the same reason by which it holds in the last twenty then it followes evidently that what was told us to have been held twenty yeares agoe was held ever in case the Church held nothing but upon this Ground that so she received or had been taught by the immediately-foregoing Faithfull for as long as she pretends onely to this Ground the difficulty is equal in each twenty yeares that is there is an equal impossibility they should conspire to this palpable lie Now that they ever held to this Ground that is to the having received it from their Ancestours is manifested by as great an Evidence For since they now hold this Ground if at any time they had taken it up they must either have counterfeited that they had received it from their Ancestours or no. The former relapses into the abovesaid impossibility or rather greater that they should conspire to tell a lie in the onely Ground of their Faith and yet hold as they did their Faith built upon that Ground to be truth the latter position must discredit it self in the very termes which imply a perfect contradiction for it is as much as to say nothing is to be held as certainty of Faith but what hath descended to us from our Forefathers and yet the onely Rule which tells us certainly there is any thing of Faith is newly invented Wherefore unless this chain of Tradition be shown to have been weak in some link or other the case between us is this whether twenty testimonies liable to many exceptions and testify'd by experience to be disputable between us can bear the force even of a probability against the universal acknowledgment and testification of millions and millions in any one age in a thing visible and practical To omit that we are far from being destitute of testimonies to counterpoise nay incomparably over poise theirs By this Ground and the reason for it the Reader may judge what weak and trivial proofs the best of Protestant Authours are able to produce against the clear Verdict of Tradition asserted to be infallible by the strongest supports of Authority and reason To stop the way against the voluntary mistakes of mine Adversary I declare my self to speak here not of written Tradition to be sought for in the Scriptures and Fathers which lies open to so many Cavils and exceptions but of oral Tradition which supposing the motives with which it was founded and the charge with which it was recommended by the Apostles carries in it's own force as apply'd to the nature of mankind an infallible certainty of it's lineal and never-to-be-interrupted perpetuity as Rushworth's Dialogues clearly demonstrate Sect. 6. The Continuation of the same Grounds THe ninth Ground is that The Catholick Church and her Champions ought in reason to stand upon Possession This is already manifested from the fifth Ground since Possession is of it's self a title till sufficient motives be produced to evidence it an usurpation as hath there been shown By this appears the injustice of the Protestants who would have it thought reasonable that we should seem to quit our best tenour Possession attested by Tradition and fall upon the troublesome and laborious method of citing Authours in which they will accept of none but whom they list and after all our pains and quotations directly refuse to stand to their judgment as may be seen in the Protestant's Apology in which by the Protestant's own confessions the Fathers held those opinions which they object to us for errours The tenth Ground is that In our Controversies about Religion reason requires that we should sustain the part of the Defendant they of the Opponent This is already sufficiently proved since we ought to stand upon the title of Possession as a Ground beyond all arguments untill it be convinced to be malae fidei which is
she failes for I hope Dr. H. will not say it must be Scripture without an Interpreter of Scripture and if so who a more certain Interpreter than her self If he say she must compare her self with other Churche's he not onely grants each may erre but even Repl. p. 15. l. 32. after recourse had to the said means he onely puts here pag. 16. l. 1. that it is not strongly probable that such a Church will erre so that if she can erre she does erre for any thing any body knows What follows is onely a trifling defence of himself for his bad disputing He was accused by us of a Schism twisted with Heresy he defended himself by alledging that he held not our Church Infallible which he knows we charge upon the deniers as the heresy of heresies Now his excuse for this Logick is that he put Repl. p. 24. onely a fiction of case but 't is plain he relies upon that fiction as on a real Ground saying there expressely of Schism p 28. 29. that he needs give no more distinct answer than this first that they not holding the Church of Rome infallible may be allow'd to make some suppositions c. Again he sayes he makes but one but yet he there puts down four so that the difficulty is onely this to determine in whether place he deserves most to be trusted or which of them is the child of his second thoughts Lastly he imposes falsly upon the Cath. Gentl. Repl. p. 26. that he requires him at the begenning of the dispute to grant the Chvrch of Rome infallible Whereas we onely mind him that since he is accused of a Schism link't with Heresy he ought to show that his motives bear the weight of a perfect Evidence notwithstanding the counterpoise of our Rule of Faith the Churche's Infallibility and not suppose this first and then run a Voluntary upon what he had granted himself gratis Thus I have given an answer to Dr. H's third Section of his second Chapter to which he referred me In which I confess to have been larger than the rigour of answering required but the point of Power to oblige Beleef was as I conceived very important and well worth clearing neither do I remember to have read it in any other place fetcht from it's first Grounds that so I might refer the Reader thither I have also vindicated the Cath Gentl. something more particularly than I proposed to my self at first or than was my obligation which was onely this to clear those passages in him which vere coincident with mine Hereafter I fear the apprehension of my future prolixity will not let me exceed my first-intended limits SECT 14. How Dr. H. defends the sufficiency of his Division charged to want the three most principal sorts of Schism and solely important to the Controversy THe third Chapter in his Reply begins with curing his Division of Schism which was shown by the Cath. Gentl. to want two of it's best limbs and those too most useful in this present controversy that to wit of Schism from the whole Church and from Authority of Councils also by S. W. to be pittifully maimed of the third which was against subjection to some one Superiour His skill employ'd in plastering it comes to this that all Schism is either in inferiours against Superiours or in equals against equals Rep. p. 28. He should have said against some one Superiour in the singular for his Discourse in his book of Schism never look't further which occasion'd the Cath. Gentleman's calling it Monarchical His first excuse for his first fault is that it is strange to think that that man who breaks from the whole Church was not comprised in either member of his division when certainly he is guilty of both This it is to forget one's Logick for let the man be where he will our question is of the sin Schism against the whole Church which is therefore not comprised in any one head because it is in an higher nature sinfull and so exceeds it Sacriledge and Patricide according to the common notions are found indeed in every simple theft and murther but according to their specifical differences by which they are distinguish't from them they exceed them and so are not compris'd in them This Particularity then and Specialty of schismatical guilt in breaking from the whole Church makes a man in a higher and more special manner faulty And this is the reason why we require that the Specialty of this Schism should as it ought be taken notice of by ranking it in a Special head which was omitted by Mr. H. who talk't onely of the petty Schisms against some one particular Superiour not against all in collection nor against the whole Church And here when he is challenged of it in stead of showing us that this greater sin is compris'd in one of those lesser heads he privaricates from the question which is about the sin and talks of the man who is compris'd in his Division for having done another sin less than this and not for having done this His second excuse or rather his continuation of the former is the saddest piece of Logick that ever was read and begins at the wrong end He is accused of omitting Schism against the whole Church and pretends he treated it as involved in another to wit in Schism against some particular Governour and Schism against Charity to our Equals which he proves in these words Repl. p. 28. For how can one separate from the whole Church unless he separate both from his Superiours and equals too which indeed had been to some purpose in case he had treated of Schism against the whole Church and omitted Schism against some particular Superiour or against Equals Otherwise for this purpose in hand he must argue in a quite contrary manner and put it thus How can one separate from a particular Superiour or from his Equals but he must in so doing separate from the whole Catholick Church and then the wise argument had evidently bewray'd it's weakness In a word either he means by Superiours some of them onely and then he runs over boots into a Contradiction to get out of a less fault in which he stood wet-shod for some of them cannot be aâ—â— or the whole Church or if by Superiours he means all then let him show me that in his Book of Schism he hath treated of that which is against all the Superiours of the Church in any collective sense if not then let him confess without more shuffling that he treated not of Schism against the whole Church As for his omitting Schism against the Authority of Councils he endeavours to clear it first by seeming to doubt whether Councils have any Authority Durum telum necessitas in another occasion I doubt not but he would extoll to the skies those Councils which deposed a Pope though now because he had granted them no Authority in omitting Schism against them he can shuffle up and
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