sure they shall never come to open light lest by speaking out hee should bring himself into inconveniences Observe his words Those doctrines that discipline which wee inherited from our forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them is to bee changed which is substantiall or essentiall But what and how many those doctrines are what in particular that discipline is what hee means by In heriting what by forefathers what by substantiall none must expect in reason to know for himself who is the relater does not Are those doctrines their 39 Articles Alas noe those are not obligatory their best Champions reiect them at pleasure Are they contain'd in the Creed onely Hee will seem to say so sometimes upon some urgent occasion but then ask him are the processions of the divine Persons the Sacraments Bapâ—ism of children Government of the Church the acknowledging there is such a thing as God's written word or Scripture c. obligatory the good man is gravelld In fine when you urge him home his last refuge will bee that all which is in God's word is obligatory and then hee thinks himself secure knowing that men may wrangle with wit coniectures an hundred yeares there ere any Evidence that is conviction bee brought Thus the Bishop is got into a wood and leaves you in another and farther from knowing in particular what doctrines those are than you were at first Again ask him what in particular that discipline is own'd by Protestants to have come from Christ and his Apostles as their Legacy for hee gives us no other description of it than those generall terms onely and hee is in as sad a case as hee was before Will hee say 't is that of the secular power being Head of the Church or that of Bishops Neither of these can bee for they acknowledge the french Church for their sister Protestant and yet shee owns no such forms of Government to have come from Christ but that of Presbyters onely which they of England as much disown to have been Christ's Legacy It remains then that the Protestants have introduc't into the Church at or since the Reformation in stead of that they renounced no particular form of Government that is no one that is they have left none but onely pay their adherents with terms in generall putting them of with words for realities and names for things Again ask him what hee means by inheriting and hee will tell us if hee bee urged and prest hard for till then no Protestant speaks out that hee means not the succession of it from immediate forefathers and teachers which is our Rule of faith and that which inheriting properly signifies this would cut the throat of Reformation at one blow since Reformation of any point and a former immediate delivery of it are as inconsistent as that the same thing can both bee and not bee at once But that which hee means by inheriting is that your title to such a tenet is to bee look't for in Antiquity that is in a vast Library of books filld with dead words to bee tost and explicated by witts criticks where hee hopes his Protestant followers may not without some difficulty find convincing Evidence that his doctrine is false and that rather than take so much pains they will bee content to beleeve him and his fellows Thou seest then Reader what thou art brought to namely to relinquish a Rule that I may omit demonstrable open known and as easy to teach thee faith as children learne their A. B. C. for such is immediate delivery of visible and practicall points by forefathers to embrace another method soe full of perplexity quibbling-ambiguity and difficulty that without running over examining thousands of volumes that is scarce in thy whole life time shalt thou ever bee able to find perfect satisfaction in it or to chuse thy faith that is if thou followst their method of searching for faith and pursvest it rationally thou may'st spend thy whole life in searching and in all likelihood dy ere thou chusest or pitchest upon any faith at all The like quibble is in the word forefathers hee means not by it immediate forefathers as wee do that would quite spoil their pretence of Reformation but ancient writers and so hee hath pointed us out no determinate Rule at all till it bee agreed on whom those forefathers must bee and how their expressions are to bee understood both which are controverted and need a Rule themselves But the chiefest peece of tergiversation lies in those last words that nothing is to bee changed in those Legacies which is substantiall or essentiall That is when soever hee and his follows have a mind to change any point though never so sacred nay though the Rules of faith and discipline themselves 't is but mincing the matter and saying they are not substantiall or essentiall and then they are licenc't to reiect them Wee urge the two said Principles of Vnity in faith and discipline are substantiall points essentiall to a Church if Vnity it self bee essentiall to it These your first Reformers inherited from their immediate forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and de facto held them for such these youreiected and renounc't this fact therefore of thus renouncing them concludes you absolute Schismaticks and Hereticks till you bring demonstrative Evidence that the former Government was an usurpation the former Rule fallible onely which Evidence can iustify a fact of this nature It is worth the Readers pains to reflect once more on my L d of Derry's former proposition and to observe that though white and black are not more different than hee and wee are in the sence of it yet hee would persuade his Readers hee holds the same with us saying that hee readily admits both my first and second Rule reduced into one in this subsequent form c. and then puts us down generall terms which signify nothing making account that any sleight connexion made of aire or words is sufficient to ty Churches together and make them one Iust as Manasseh Ben Israel the Rabbi of the late Iews in the close of his petition would make those who profess Christ and the Iews bee of one faith by an aiery generall expression parallell to the Bishops here that both of them expect the glory of Israël to bee revealed Thus dear Protestant Reader thou seest what thy best Drs would bring thee to to neglect sence and the substantiall solid import of words and in stead thereof to bee content to embrace an empty cloud of generall terms hovering uncertainly in the air of their owne fancies In a word either the sence of your coÌ„tracted Rule is the same with that of our dilated one or not If not then you have broke the Rule of faith held by the former Church unles you will contend this Rule had no sence in it but non-significant words onely and by consequence are
alledging Testimonies may be reckon'd as another head or common-place of Dr. H's wily shifts and consists in this that though the whole scope and import of the Testimony be against him he touches sleightly and in passing as it were at two or three words of it which taken alone and introduced with a handsome boldnes seem to sound for his purpose whereas the whole import of the place is either point-blank opposite or quite disparate at the best half a dozen indifferently-appliable words found in it sometimes scarce a monosyllable as hath been shown all over in Schism Disarm'd see in particular his ample and pregnant testimony from the bare and vulgar monosyllable come Schism Dis p. 81. Sect. 11. Other self contradictory proofs wilfull mistakes and wily sleights of Dr. H's to maintain the same point AFter this hysteron-proteron testimony concerning Iames his first-last place we have another from S. Chrysostome thus put down by Mr. H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for thus speaking of S. Iames it behoves him that is in great power or Authority to leave the sharper things to others and himself to draw his arguments from the gentler and milder Topicks and hence Mr. H. infers James in this councill clearly superior to S. Peter This seems terrible but to render good for evill and not to wrong Dr. H. who thus baffles us with testimonies we will make himself the rule of interpreting this place He tells us p. 43. that he pretends not that any of the other Apostles had any greater Authority then Peter much lesse Iames the Bishop of Hierusalem who as he supposes was none of the twelve but onely that as Bishop he had the principall place even in S. Peter's presence How this equall power of all the Apostles consists with S. Peter having no power save over one portion of the dispersed Iews onely as Dr. H. affirmed of Schism p. 71. I will not now examin with concerns us to observe in it is onely this that he produces not these testimonies to prove the greater power of any in this councill but onely the principall places of Iames. This being clearly his meaning as it is also more particularly exprest throughout this whole tenth paragraph in the end of which this Testimony is found what mean the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great power in which the whole force of his testimony lies does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vse to signify place or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principall or both of them together principal place as that is contradistinguisht from greater power How come then the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify principall place That he had in that place great power which the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly and properly signify we willingly grant since we deny not his being Bishop there but that he had greater or as Dr. H. expresses it was clearly superiour to S. Peter is both expressely contradictory to himself and to his whole scope and intention which was to prove as he tells us not his greater power but principall place onely But let us grant that Dr. H. hath forgot what he was about and that in stead of proving the principall place onely he having light on an odd testimony which spoke expresly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power infers there-upon that Iames was clearly superior there to S. Peter meaning in power let all this I say be granted and pardoned if S. Iames were superior there in power to S. Peter I suppose he was likewise superior to the rest for I fear not that Dr. H. should deny his inference of all the Apostles equality from their being called foundation-stones pillars and Apostles in the plurall then I ask whither Dr. H. thinks in his conscience that these Apostles who had Authority to constitute Iames Bishop there had not Authority likewise to remove him if they saw it convenient if they had then they had an Authority superior to S. Iames even in his own see and I would ask Dr. H. even in his own grounds why S. Peter should not be his superior still aswel as S. Paul was yet superior to Timothy and Titus after they were fixt Bishops S. Iames being constituted Bishop in Iudea shown to have been S. Peter's Province I mean such Province as he is pretended to have had as well as the Gentiles over whom Timothy and Titus were constituted Bishops were pretended to bee S. Paul's Province Again wee will pardon Dr. H. his affirmation that the Apostles distributed their universal great Province into severall lesser ones Those famous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet giving S. Iames here an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province also whom he holds here to be no Apostle Or if Dr. H. refuse to accept the pardon and fall to qualify thefact then I vse my advantage and vrge him was S. Iames independent or was he still subject as Timothy and Titus are held by himself to have been even after they were Bishops If he were independent then he went a breast with the Apostles in self Authority and had his catachrestically-nam'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aswell as they But if he remain'd still subject then his territory being amongst the Iews and S Peter being by Dr. H's exclusive place of Scripture nam'd Apostle of the Iews in the same tenour as S. Paul was over the Gentiles Gal. 2. it is given us by Dr. H's grounds that in all probability he could be subject to none but to the Apostle of the Iews S. Peter and that in his own see which was in S. Peter's Province at lest that kind of Province which he can be pretended from Scripture to have had But what should those words of Dr. H's signify Answ p. 43. that in his see Iames was considered as a Bishop and so had the principall place even in Peter's presence Cannot one be a Bishop but he must sit in a council before his betters Suppose the Apostles had constituted a Bishop of Rochester in England and assembled themselves there in conuncil must therefore the honest Bishop of Rochester sit before S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles Nay more let us imagin a nationall council to bee met there ought not the Bishop of Rochester give place to his Metropolitan the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and let him pronounce the sentence yet D. H. here out of his ill will to the Pope's predecessour S. Peter will let S. Iames do neither though he hold's him to have been no Apostle But 'ts sufficient with him that he is a Bishop in that place to infer him to bee clearly superiour to all there to have the principall place give the sentence and what not Nor matters it that even according to Dr. H. the others are Apostles and he none nor how high they how low he bee in Authority if S. Peter bee in company the private Bishop shall be clearly superiour to them all whereas had he been absent S. Iames
used these words They were all fill'd with the Holy Ghost and so this promise equally performed to all But being shown the infinite weaknes of his arguing from fulnes to equality he shuffles about neither positively standing to his pretended proofby going about to make it good nor yet granting or denying any thing positively or giving any ground to fix upon any word he says but telling us first in a pretty phrase that he is not concerned to doubt of the consistance of fulnes and inequality of the Holy Ghost if it bee mean't of the inequality of divine endowments and then when he should telle us the other part of his distinction and of what other inequality besides that of endowments and graces the Holy Ghost can be said to be in the Apostles founding Commission and so concerning him to impugn and deny he shufflingly ends thus Our question being onely of power or Commission to Authority and dignity in the Church and every one having that sealed to him by the Holy Ghost descent upon every one there is no remaining difficulty in the matter Where first he sayes the question is of power and dignity whereas indeed it is of the equality or inequality of this dignity not of the dignity it self since none denyes but that each Apostle had power in the Church but that the rest had equall power to S. Peter Secondly he never tells us in what manner of the Holy Ghosts inexistence besides that of divine indowments this Authority was founded Thirdly he instances onely against us that every Apostle had power so tacitely calumniating our tenet again and leaves out the word eqâ—ally which could onely contradict and impugn it Fourthly that this coming of the Holy Ghost gave CoÌ„mission and Authority is onely his owne worâ—s and proved from his own fancy And lastly when he hath used all these most miserable evasions he concludes that there is no remaining difficulty in this mattâ—â— when as he hath not touch't the difficulty at all but avoided it with as many pitifull shift's as a crafty insincerity could suggest to an errour harden'd Soul Sect. 6. Our Argument from the Text Tues Petrus urged his arts to avoid the least mentioning it much lesse impugning it's force which hee calls evacuating it With what sleights hee prevaricates from it to the Apocalyps His skill in Architecture and miserably-weak arguing to cure his bad quiboling Dr. H. of Schism p. 89. 90. alledged some Testimonies out of the fathers affirming that the power of binding was conferred on all the Apostles that the Church is built upon Bishops that all in S. Peter received the Keyes of the Kingdomio of Heaven that Episcopacy is the presidency of the Apostles Now since Dr. H. pretends to impugn our tenet by these and these infert onely that more Bishops have the power of the Keyes besides S. Peter it follows necessarily that he counterfeihed our tenet to be that none had this power but S. Peter onely Hence Schism Disarm'd charged this either insincere or silly manner of discoursing upon him as a pittifull ingnorance or els as malicious to pretend by objecting these that wee build not the Church upon Bishops in the plurall nor allow any Authority to them but to the Pope onely Hee replies Answ p 69. that 't is apparent those words inject not the least suspition of that I answer 't is true indeed for it was not a suspition they injected as he phrases it but plain and open evidence see of Schism p 89. l. 28. 9. where after the testimony had told us that the Church is built upon Bishops the Dr. addes within a parenthesis in the plurall so placing the particular energie and force of that place in the plurality of Bishops founding the Church See again p. 90. l. 11. 12. c. S. Basil calls Episcopacy the presidency of the Apostles the very same addes the Dr. that Christ bestowd upon all and not onely on one of them Yet as long as Dr. H. can deny it and say with a gentile confidence that 't is apparent his words did not inject the least suspition of that words shall lose their signification and his Readers if he can compasse it shall be fool'd to deny their eye sight As for the Testimonies themselves there is not a word in them expressing that this power was in like manner entrusted to every single Apostle as well as to S. Peter which yet he sayes p. 90. l. 16. 17. c. if by as well he mean's equally as he must if he intend to impugn our tenet And the other sence which Answ p. 70. l. 2. 3. he relies on that from the Donation to S Peter all Episcopal power which in the Church flows and in which he puts force against our tenet it as much favours and proves it as the being the fountain and source of all honour and Magistracy in a Commonwealth argues that that person from whom these flow is highest in dignity and supreme in command in the same common wealth After this he catches at an expression of mine saying that the former Testimonies rather made for us which moderate words though I hope the later end of my former paragraph hath sufficiently iustify'd them yet wee must answer the impertinent carpings of our Adversary else the weak man will be apt to think that the shadow he catch't at is most substantiall and solid My word 's in relation to the said Testimonies were these Nay rather they make for us for the Church being founded on Apostles and Bishops prejudices not S. Peter to be the cheefest and if so then the Church is built most chiefly on S. Peter which is all wâ—e Catholicks say Now my discourse stands thus If so that is if S. Peter be the cheefest then the Church is built more chiefly upon him and I made account as I lately shew'd that those Testimonies rather made S. Peter the chiefest but this peece of willfull insincerity first makes my if so relate to if it prejudices not c. and disfigures my discourse by making me say if it prejudices not S. Peter to be the chiefest then the Church is built chiefly upon him and that I inferr from Testimonies not preiudicing that the thing is true Next he calumniates me most grossely and manifestly Answ p. 70. l. 35. 36. by making me bring this for a clear Evidence on my side whereas my words Schism Dism p. 99. are onely Nay rather thâ—y make for us which are so far from pretending a clear evidence from them that they neither expresse the least reliance on them not say positively that they make for us at all He shall not catch mee calling toyes Evidences as is his constant guize yet to render his calumny more visible he prints the words clear evidence in a different letter so that the honest Reader would easily take them to be my words Then when he hath done hee grows suddainly witty anâ— insults over me without mercy calling mee an
your actuall reiecting that actuall Authority is notorious to the whole world and confest by your selves The second that you did it upon uncertain Grounds your self when you are prest to it will confess also for I presume you dare not pretend to rigorous demonstration Both because your self would bee the first Protestant that ever pretended it as also because your best Champions grant your faith it's Grounds but probable And should you pitch upon some one best reason or testimony pretended to demonstrate your point wee should quickly make an end of the Controversy by showing it short of concluding evidently as you well know which makes you alwaies either disclaime or decline that pretence never pitching upon any one pretended conuincing or demonstrative reason which you dare stand to but hudling together many in a diffused Discourse hoping that an accumulation of may-bee will persuade vulgar and half witted understandings that your tenet is certain must bee Thirdly the Bp. asks us who must put the case or state the question telling us that if a Protestant do it it will not bee so undeniably evident I answer let the least child put it let the whole world put it let themselves put it Do not all these grant hold that K. H. deny'd the Pope's Supremacy Does not all the world see that the pretended Church of England stands now otherwise in order to the Church of Rome than it did in H. the 7ths dayes Does not the Bps. of Schism c. 7. par 2. fellow-fencer Dr. H. confess in expresse terms And first for the matter of fact it is acknowledg'd that in the Reign of K. H. the 8th the Papall power in Ecclesiasticall affairs was both by Acts of Convocation of the Clergy by statutes or Acts of Parliament cast out of this Kingdome Was this power it self thus cast out before that is was it not in actuall force till and at this time and is not this time extoll'd as that in which the Reformation in this point began Wee beg then nothing gratis but begin our process upon truth acknowledg'd by the whole world Our case puts nothing but this undeniable and evident matter of fact whence wee conclude them criminally-Schismaticall unles their Exceptions against this Authority's right bee such as in their owne nature oblige the understanding to assent that this Authority was vsurpt onely which can iustify such a breach So that the Bishop first omits to mention the one half of that on which wee build our charge to wit the nature of their Exceptions and when hee hath done wilfully mistakes and mispresents the other persuading the unwary Reader that the case wee put is involu'd in ambiguities and may bee stated variously whereas 't is placed in as open a manifestation as the sun at noonday and acknowledg'd universally In neither of which the Bishop hath approved himself too honest a man Now let us see what hee answers to the case it self It was put down Schism Disarm p. 307. thus that in the beginning of H. the 8ths reign the Church of England agreed with that of Rome and all the rest of her Communion in two points which were then and are now the bonds of vnity betwixt all her Members One concerning faith the other Government For faith her Rule was that the Doctrines which had been inherited from their forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles were solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them to bee changed For Government her Principle was that Christ had made S. Peter first or chief or Prince of his Apostles who was to bee the first Mover under him in the Church after his departure out of this world c. and that the Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Peter inherited from him this priuiledge in respect of the successours of the rest of the Apostles and actually exercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began It is noe lesse evident that in the reigne of Ed the 6th Q. Elizabeth and her successours neither the former Rule of Vnity of faith nor this second of Vnity of Government which is held by the first have had any power in that Congregation which the Protestants call the English Church This is our objection against you c. This is our case ioyntly put by us and by the whole world which the Bp. calls an Engine and pretends to take a view of it But never did good man look soe asquint upon a thing which hee was concern'd to view as my L d of Deity does at the position of this plain case First hee answers that wee would obtrude upon them the Church of Rome and it's dependents for the Catholike Church Whereas wee neither urge any such thing in that place nor so much as mention there the word Catholik as is to bee seen in my words put down here by himself p. 3. but onely charge them that the Church of England formerly agreed with the Church of Rome in these two a foresaid Principles which afterwards they renounced In stead of answering positiuely to which or replying I or noe the fearfull Bishop starts a side to this needles disgression Next hee tells us what degree of respect they owe now to the Church of Rome Whereas the question is not what they owe now but what they did or acted then that is whether or no they reiected those two Principles of faith and Government in which formerly they consented with her To this the wary Bp. saies nothing After these weak evasions hee tells us that the Court of Rome had excluded two third parts of the Catholick Church from their Communion that the world is greater than the City and so runs on with his own wise sayings of the same strain to the end of the parag Whereas the present circumstances inuite him onely to confess or deny what they did and whether they renounced those two Principles of Vnity or no not to stand railing thus unseasonably upon his own head what our Church did shee shall clear herself when due circumstances require such a discourse Again whenas wee object that they thus broke from all those which held Communion with the Church of Rome hee falls to talk against the Court of Rome as if all those particular Churches which held Communion with the see of Rome had well approved of nor ever abhominated their breach from those two a foresaid Principles but the Court of Rome onely Did ever man look thus awry upon a point which hee aimed to reply to or did ever Hocus-pocus strive with more nimble sleights to divert his spectatour's eyes from what hee was about than the Bp. does to draw of his Readers from the point in hand In a word all that can bee gather'd from him in order to this matter consists in these words this pretended separation by which hee seems to intimate his deniall of any
over them Secondly the whole tenour of the discourse there manifests that he meant exclusiveness of Iurisdiction Exclusiveness of Jurisdiction is mentioned by him as the Ground of all his ensuing dispute as was shown in the foregoing parag to which we will add his other parallel expressions The Iurisdiction of that Metropolis belonged to Iames the Iust and not to Peter of Sschism p. 73. S. Paul's independence on S. Peter pag. 74. to wit in Iurisdiction or power No power can descend from S. Peter to any other for another great part of the Christian world p. 80. Had he meaning S. Peter any Iurisdiction over the Churches of Asia p. 83. No other Apostle could countermand S. Paul's instructions no appeal left c. p. 83. S. Peter's baptizing in Brittany must in all reason be extended no farther than this his line Id est to the Iews which might at that time be disperst there c. p. 84. All which render it most manifest that he meant Exclusiueness of Iurisdiction and power to preach to another line or Province if there were any tenour or connexion at all in his discourse and that it rambled not forwards blindly himself knew not how nor whither Thirdly and lastly not onely the whole Controversy of Schism is about the limitation or illimitation exclusiveness or not exclusiveness of the Pope's Iurisdiction and the Doctor 's tenet that this Iurisdiction is limited to such an extent excluded from the rest of the Christian world so as he hath no power or command at all over them but also his present Chapter 4. of Schism pretends to evidence this limitation of his from the limitation of S. Peter's as is most visible parag 6. of the said Chapter and indeed in each parag there to the twentieth So that the import of his argument stands thus S. Peter had no Vniversal Iurisdiction thefore his Successour the Pope can have none This being so who sees not that since the thing to be infer'd is the Pope's limitation of Iurisdiction as held by the Protestants that is such a limitation as debats and excludes him from any lawfull power or right at all to intermeddle with more than is his imagin'd Province and that this inference is built upon his succeeding a limited Predecessour S. Peter who sees not I say that the Antecedent must mean S. Peter's Iurisdiction was so limited to his supposed Province that he had no Iurisdiction or power at all to meddle with a Gentile but that it was against right and vnlawful for him to do so This therefore is an evidence beyond all shuffling to avoid it that Dr. H. in his fourth Chap. of Schism intended to prove the Iurisdictions of the Apostles were exclusively-limited to their own Provinces so that they lost all power to preach to another Province from which Dr. H. prevaricating here and not defending his testimonies produc't there to prove it it follows that he acknowledges S. W. charge to be true Schism Disarm'd p. 52. that among those many testimonies he produces to prove it there is not found any one sentence line syllable or letter excluding S. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles save onely what the Doctor puts in of his own head as he shews there in each particular allegation This being then Dr. H's meaning till S. W. charge of the perfect dumbness of his testimonies put second thougâ—hs into his Head let us see how he waves his own express words and manifest intentions there which being so perfectly visible as hath been shown we may be sure the prevaricating from them can cost him no less than plain self contradictions His first self-contradiction is found Answ p. 38. parag 2. where he makes the point he was to prove to be no more but this that the Apostles went not all to one but disposed themselves over all the world to several Provinces By which meaning as he must for otherwise it cannot be said to be evident by it's own light that one went to one place ordinary Province or region of the world to preach another to another without any relation at all to exclusiveness of Iurisdiction we have quite lost the question which was not Whether the Apostles one went one way another another way to preach but whether S. Peter and consequently the Pope his Successour had an Vniversal or limited Iurisdiction extending his power to all or excluding it from all but his pittifull Province as was manifested before by Mr. H's express words to have been his meaning His second self-contradiction is found in the same place where he sayes that what was signify'd by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exclusive Provinces belonging to each Apostle which was shown plainly before to be his express meaning is evident by it's own light and needs no evidencing And yet in his book of Schism c. 4. parag 4. he set himself very formally to offer his Evidences for that point and prosecuted his intent from parag 5. to the 20. to evidence it by such clouds of testimonies which he calls Evidences and some of them irrefragable and unquestionable ones as may very neer if not perfectly equal all the rest that are found in his whole book So that either he must coÌ„fess he spent the most substantial part of his book to evidence that which needed no Evidencing but was Evident by it's own light or else which is the truth of the business that he hath chang'd the whole question here from what it was there For there it was of Exclusiue Iurisdiction and therefore very obscure needing the pretence of many testimonies though dumbe and his own Id ests and voluntarily addâ—d words to make it seem evident here it is onely of one Apostle going one way another going another to preach which indeed needs no evidencing nor was ever in question between us His third self-contradiction is that notwithstanding his own express words the scope of his whole Chapter the tenour of his whole discourse and the state of the whole question manifesting he both did and could not but mean it of exclusive Iurisdiction as hath been most expressely and amply shown yet he calls my acception of his words in that sense my mistake Answ p. 39. l. 34. and again p. 41. l. 7. 8. c. he complains that S. W. would conclude from his words that he would have all the Apostles to have several Provinces limiting their Iurisdictions exclusive of one another's right which he calls there also a mistake and detortion Where the Reader may see how perfectly he denies his own words of exclusive Iurisdiction and how openly he prevaricates from all the foure formerly-mention'd pretences shown already to have been his own which were the strongest ries imaginable to bind any man to hold to what he hath said who had not forsworn all respect to truth or honesty His fourth self-contradiction is that though in the place now alledged he complains of me that I would conclude from his words that the
at the same City or else desiring him to stay till S. Paul was gone away or else to watch some handsome opportunity when S Paul should go to the next Town then he would doe him the favour And the like must wee imagin in case a Iew went to S. Paul Lastly when those two Apostles preach't Christ's faith publikely as their custome was then in case S. Peter had spy'd some Gentiles or S. Paul some Iews coming to their Sermon presently as if some excommunicated person had come in presence all must be supposed to be hush't the Sermon quasht else we must imagin that that Apostle civilly makes a parenthesis in his discourse desiring them to withdraw retire to the others Congregation confessing candidly that now that his counter-counter-Apostle meets him in the same city his Iurisdiction is exclusive that he has no power at all to give them any notice of Christ his Law but must be forced to exclude them from his Congregation Canst thou refrain smiling Reader at such a heap of comical absurdities But to return to the place in his Reply the source of all these gallant consequences to bundle up together the other absurdities in it which to treat diffusedly were a wearisome ingrateful task what meanes his saying here it is not unlawful to preach to anothers Province yet saying Repl. p. 56. l. 2. he had no right to doe it what means his putting here the meeting in one City to give an exclusive and peculiar Province to S. Paul whereas he had before according as it serv'd his turn best made it come from three other severall causes and some of them contradictories to wit imediately from Christ's assignation not from Christ but from agreement among themselves and lastly onely from the Iews rejecting refusing him as hath been shown from his own words before in his sixth ninth self contradictions what means his putting here S. Peter's exclusivenes of Iurisdiction to arise from the same circumstance of meeting S. Paul in the same City yet of Schism p. 84. excluding S. Peter from medling with Gentiles in Britany into which countrye he pretends not to shew S. Paul came much lesse met him there in the same City what means his stating here S. Peter's Iurisdiction not exclusive that is illimited till he meets S. Paul and yet of Schism p. 71. l. 21. 24. stating the same Iurisdiction exclusive to all but one portion onely of the dispersed Iews without reference at all to S. Paul's meeting or not meeting him but to the division of places Provinces onely Lastly what mean't he to talk of evidencing his then tenet from Scripture yet the exclusivenes of Iurisdiction onely when they met in the same City not so much as pretended to be shown from Scripture These man fest manifold self-contradictions heaps of absurdities shown from Mr. H's own words will let every rationall man see make every sincere man acknowledge that he cares not a pin what he saies nor what non-sence he deludes his Reader with provided he delude him civilly courteously gentilely nor what contradictions he maintains so he can but imbosk himself handsomely in them hide his head from being discovered Yet he tells us Rep. p. 56. he doubts not to reconcile all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here at least that one who hath a greater 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may do it and so fully satisfies his Reader if he will be content with pedantry in Greek instead of plain sence truth in honest English Sect. 6. The Question concerning his imagin'd Exclusive Provinces stated and cleared A plain Explication of the place Gal. 2. upon which hee grounds them HAving thus layd open how Dr. H. shuffles about to avoyd the effects of his own position we will proceed to examin the point it self and lastly Answer his testimonies alledged to conclude these exclusive Provinces Concerning the point it self four positions are to be considerd which may be imagind to concern it first that the Apostles went not all one way to preach but one or more one way others another The second that all the Apostles made a positive agreement to goe one or more to such or a Province The third is that they so agreed to goe to such such Provinces at their present parting as they agreed never to go to any other for the future The fourth is that their Iurisdiction was included within such a Province and excluded from all other imagind Provinces The first is evident confest but nothing at all to our question which is concerning limitation or illimitation of Iurisdiction And who sees not how shallow this inference is the Apostles went some one way some another to preach therefore S. Peter is not Prince of the Apostles or Head of God's Church Or thus the Apostles who confessedly had their Iurisdictions Vniversall from Christ thought it more discreet fitting to goe some one way some another therefore their Iurisdictions become limited which is as much as to say that when Christ gave to each Vniversall Iurisdiction sent them to teach all Nations he mean't they should all goe one way for otherwise according to this manner of arguing had he meant they should goe severall wayes it could not consist with that present intention of his to give them at that very time universal Iurisdiction The second to wit that they all made a part or positive agreement to goe determinate severall wayes or to such particular places is very obscure rather related as a thing imagind or opinionated to have been then asserted and manifested by any authentick proof Nor does it at all touch our question which is about Iurisdiction vnles it can be proved that they made a part of exclusive o◠limited Iurisdiction Of which nature not the least word o◠proof has hitherto been produced not will ever be producible for the future The third to wit that they made a positive pact for each one or more to go to such determinate places no other is yet obscurer lesse authentick then the former no exact Itinerary of their travells being extant much lesse of their non-plus vltra's by pact agreement but all the whole busines is left to blind and inconsequent conjectures according as they were found or obseru'd to haue preach't in one Country and not obseru'd to have done so in another but whether persecution a mutuall war or conveniency of circumstances dispersed them thus nothing is or can be concluded hence Nor were it all granted can any inference be grounded upon this prejudicing our tenet or even touching our question which is concerning Iurisdiction since prudent consideration of circumstances might be of force to determin the Apostles to agree that such such should stay constantly in this Province and nor preach actually in another without any necessity of their agreeing to limit their universal Iurisdiction given by Christ and so it cannot bear
of fellowshâ—p the agreement that was made betwixt them c. is sure the interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if it be so to wit that their entrusting exprest antecedently have the same sence as their subsequent agreement then I wonder what is become of his farther designation since one is but the interpretation of the other that is hath the same sence with the other Sect. 7 The Examination of five Testimonies brought in recruit for his exclusive Provinces of which the first is expressely against himself the next three even in his own grounds impertinent to our Question and the first borrowed from the Arch heretick Pelagius and falsify'd to boot AT present we have no more to do but to Answer his lately gleand testimonies huddled together confusedly in his Answ p. 39. 40. And though when reason is to manage the busines we are to expect nothing but contradictions from this Dr. as himself has amply inform'd us yet being now got into his own element of comon-place-book testimony-parcels we must imagin his art is at it's vertical heighth The first is from S. Ambrose on Gal. 2. 8. which I shall transcribe as I finde it cited by him Pétrum solum nominat ac sibi comparat quia Primatum ipse acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam se quoque pari modo electum ut Primatum habeat in fundandis Gentium Ecclesiis He names Peter alone compares him to himself because he had received the Primacie to found the Church and he likewise is chosen to have the Primacie of founding the Churches of the Gentiles where first if Primatus signifies Primacy of Iurisdiction and unles it signifies so 't is nothing to our question which is about Iurisdiction onely then it is not possible to imagin a testimony more expresly for our tenet of S. Peter's universal Iurisdiction and greater then S. Paul's than this which he alledges against it saying that S. Peter had the Primacy to found the Church without any limitation at all mentioned confining him to this or that Church So that if there be any exclusivenes or shadow of exclusivenes found in that place as I see none then it ought in all reason be the exclusivenes of S. Paul from the Iews since he is particulariz'd by it to the Gentiles and not of S. Peter from any who is not particulariz'd here at all to any part or portion of the Church but extended to all unles D. H. will say that the word Ecclesia Church signifies a peece of the Church onely This testimony therefore might serue to some purpose were it brought to prove that S. Peter's Iurisdiction was Vniversal S. Paul's limited but to prove S. Peter's limited from words that extend it to the Church without any note of limitation at all found there is still Dr. H's old bold trick of gulling the Reader to his face with out either shame or conscience Secondly the comparison between those two Apostles and the pari modo electus if we will stand to the words in the testimony make this sence as apply'd to particulars that as S. Paul was particularly chosen to found the Gentiles Church so S. Peter was in like manner particularly chosen to found the whole Church which signifies that S. Peter was universal Pastor and S. Paul vnder him which is kindly done of Mr. H. and deserves great thanks from us Though I wonder the sincere Reader can without just resentment suffer himself to be so tamely deluded as D. H. endeavors here by making him beleeve that testimony of S. Peter's Primacy to build the Church signifies that he was onely over the Iews and that not all these neither but onely over one portion of them in dispersion nor yet that these were his exclusive or peculiar Province unless S. Paul chanced to meet him in the same City Thus perfectly careless is he whether the place hee alledges be indifferent for him or against him as hath been shown all over in Schism Disarm'd so he can dazle a vulgar headed reader's eyes with the glorious pretence of a father's or councill's testimony and make way to introduce it by some voluntary and boldly-promising preamble of his own as he does at present assuring us here Answ p. 39. l. 35. that these words of S. Ambrose are plain but whether plain for him or plainly against him it matters not with him and that in them S. Ambr. asserts all that was either his purpose or interest to affirm as if it were either Dr. H's intent or his advantage to conclude S. Peter over the Church without any limitation put down that is over the whole Church and S. Paul over the Gentiles onely and so vnder him The second testimony is from S. Chrysostom saying that S. Paul demonstrates himself to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and compares himself with Peter the chief of them Thus hee In Answer First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies any kind of extrinsecall honor whether it springs from better parts greater efficacy more industry in preaching or from what so ever cause and not onely from dignity of Iurisdiction it follows likewise that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in it's self as indifferently appliable by circumstances to signify an equality in any of the former respects as it is to signify an equality in the latter of Iurisdiction and the like may be said of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since of it self it onely signifies that S. Paul compared himself to S. Peter but in which of the former regards this comparison was made the generall signification of the word leaves indifferent and to be deermined by circumstances Secondly the best circumstance to judge what this word should signify in that place is the subjecta materia or place it self of which this is the explication which being Gal. 2 8. where there is nothing at all relating to Iurisdiction but to efficatiousness in preaching to Iews and Gentiles of this therefore the comparison between these two Apostles must be understood in this respect onely must they necessarily be signified by these words to have been equally-dignified and not in Iurisdiction or governing power which is not there spoken of Thirdly that this is the meaning of it is clearly shown by the following Testimony which is his third out of Theophylact who for the most part transcribes out of and follows S. Chrysostom 'T is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shows himself equall 〈◊〉 Peter which words D. H. cites but leaves out the words imediately following lest they should quite spoil his pretence of proving out equality of power from the other The following words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that the testimony taken entirely is this he shows himself equally honored with Peter for he who had given to Peter efficacy of preaching to the Iews gave mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the
preeminence in Authority and Iurisdiction or does it not but some other priority as of favour gifts c. If it does then it makes these three Apostles superior in Iurisdiction to the rest and puts the rest subject to them which Dr. H. will Iam sure by noe means admit nay expresly denies in this very page If it does not then what does it concern our question which is about Iurisdictionâ— for let the rest be never soe much before S. Peter in all other regards yet as long as they are not equall'd to S. Peter in Iurisdiction and Authority still our Tenet is in tire to us and untuch't Testimonies therefore which can make against us must concern Iurisdiction and shew an equality among the Apostles in that of which since this place cannot be understood as hath been shown it cannot consequently pretend to tuch us at all Again admit the honoring above the rest spoke in common of these three Apostles signified any Iurisdiction or higher degree of Authority yet how does it appear hence that one of these three was not honoured above the other two since the words themselves expresse nothing to the contrary but easily permit it to be so without any violence offer'd to their sence Cities are honored more then Villages yet it follows not from these words that all Cities are of equall honor with one another Soe miserably weak is Dr. H's reason which is onely declamation pitch that it cannot be imagin'd unlesse a man had his strong fancy how his best testimonies which deserve as he tells us such consideration can in any manner concern the question for which they are alledged nor carry home to the meanest semblance or shadow of a conclusion But to proceed having proved gallantly from three being honored before the rest an equality of that honor in all those three and supposed against his own Tenet that this preference of honor means Iurisdiction and Authority and so that these three Apostles were equall in that respect he adds and as such they chose and ordain'd the brother of the Lord which sure is not after the manner of an Arch-bishop and his suffragan Bishops where you see the upshot of all exprest in his sure-footed conclusion which sure c. depends upon the as such and the as equall in Authority and that as such depends upon Dr. H's invention no such reduplicative expression being found in the testimony so that as long experience hath tought us Dr. H's arguments and testimonies put to the Analytick test are resolved into his own sayngs and self confident sures as into their first principles and the ground work of his testimonies which are allowed onely to descant and reflect glancingly upon his own more substantiall solid and pregnant affirmations Thus much to show how impossible it is this testimony should prejudice us now though we have better grounds then to stand need to build upon it in all probability it makes rather for us for what strange matter was it or worth taking notice of that they should not contend for dignity about chusing him if they were all equall in digniâ—y what soe high commendation is it in those Apostles that none of them strove for preeminence of Authority if there had been unquestionably none at all belonging to any one of them Or what novelty is it that persons of equall Authority should doe things by common consent Whereas had some one had power to do it alone and yet condescended to it with the joint-consent and joint-execution of others the carriage was worth observation for the particularity of their peaceablenes humility mutuall confidence and brotherly charity After this worthy testimony comes hobbling in a Scripture-proof to make good all that went before in this form And so also in the place to the Gal. e. 2. v. 9. Iames and Cephas and Iohn are equally dignified by S. Paul and have all there the style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeming to be pillars This testimony hath two parts as it is put by Mr. H. the first that they were equally dignified by S. Paul in the 9. v. the second that they are all three called pillars But as for the first look in the place and you shall find noe other note of their being equally dignified save onely that these three are named together Hath not this Dr. of Divinity a strange reach of reason who can conclude men equall in Authority because he finds their names in the same place so that should he hap to find the King Tom fool and Iohn a Nokes named all together presently his levelling logick concludes them all equally dignified The like acutenes is shown in the second part which sounds to the same time both being non-sence in Ela. They are all called pillars ergo they are all equall cries the Dr. as if one pillar could not be higher then another But he makes noe distinction between a community and an equality nor will vouchsafe to understand that degrees are notions superadded to the common species of things whatever things he finds named by the same name in the plurall number presently he makes them go a breast in the same degree of height or worth He would make a rare man to write a book of logick for the levellers If he â—bserves that peasants as well as Princes agree in the common name of men and are call'd so in the plurall presently he concludes that peasants and Princes are equally dignified the Lord Ma or of London and the Geffer Major of Grimsâ—y are equall in Authority and dignity by the same reason because they are both in the plurall called Majors Nor onely this but Cities Commonwealths rivers horses books noses mountains starrs and universally all things in the world must be levell'd into an equality because the common name in the plurall agrees to all of each kind by Dr H's paralell logick which concludes the Apostles equall because they are called pillars nay even from their being named together Is the answering such a pitifull Adversary worth the losse of an hovers time were it not that the sleight-reasond preaching-vogue which now takes vulgar heads had got him an opinion amongst many and so by means of that not by any force of his reasons enabled him to do mischief unlesse his wilfull and affected weaknesses be laid open I might hope also for some ameandment from another but I finde him so long beaten to his slender-woven cobwebb declamation-stuffe I despaire that all these friendly reprehensions will make him reflect upon his weak reasonings and make them stronger for the future He was told in Schism Disarm'd of the same faults to wit of proving the Apostles equally foundation-stones because they were all called so in the plurall that the Apostles were all equall because that common Appellation in the plurall was given to all that none had more power then another that is all had equal power because each sitt vpon a throne to judge that is had power onely that the
had neither been thus exalted nor the other Apostles thus depres't 't was S. Peter's being there which put all out of order Lastly what means his inference of his being clearly superiour in that council This is the most unlikely point of all the rest this council as hath been shown concern'd not S. Iames his particular Iurisdiction but the common good of the Church of which the Apostles were overseer's nor did this in particular concern S. Iames who as Dr. H. here grants was none of the Apostles In a word if he contend that they let him have the principall place out of a respectfull and courteous deference upon another score as he was our Lord's brother and very ancient let him bring authentick testimonies that they did so and wee shall easily grant it But what does courtesy concern power or the right to a thing or place Thus wee read that Pope Anicetus gave S. Polycarp the preeminence even in his own Church yet wee think not that his civill condescension wrong'd his Iurisdiction though I know if Dr. H. could prove so much of S. Iames here all were lost to S. Peter without hopes of recovery But if he proves his principal place by right upon the account onely of being Bishop there 't is infinitly weak and inconsequent reason absolutely disclaiming any such inference and as for authority the very testimonies he brings to prove it are either expressely against him and contrary to his own grounds or els unauthentick or lastly nothing at all to his purpose as hath been shown His next testimony that S. Iames saith with power I iudge makes neither for him nor against us since wee grant that each here had power and vsed that power invoting or decreeing soe hath and doth each member in Parlament which yet consists wel enough with their different degrees of power in thus voting and decreeing so that though wee read that one member did it upon an occasion relating to him in particular without excluding the rest wee cannot upon that negative argument either infer that he alone did so or pronounced the Decree unles his expression had something particular not competent to the rest As for example had it been phras'd thus Let it be enacted Bee it decreed c. there had been some ground that he pronounced the sentence but his words being onely I iudge or as their own translation renders it my sentence is which sounds no higher strain of authority nor any thing not equally-competent to any or each of the rest since each might without any great ambition say my sentence is thus and thus 't is impossible any reason unprejudiced can think any more deducible thence then that his particular sentence was exprest by those words Thus much for the words following Dr. H's explication of them But to give S. Chrysostome leave to explicate himself let us hear what hee sayes In the same Homily and upon the same passage wee find these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he with good reason ordains those things to witt to abstain from things strangled c. out of the law lest he should seem to abrogate the law then follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And observe how he lets not them hear those things from the law but from himself saying I iudge that is from my self not having heard it from the law Where we have two things remarkable in this prudent cariage of S. Iames whose circumstances being Bishop and Resident in Hierusalem required on the one side that he should not disgust the Iews his Diocesans by seeming to sleight the law on the other side he was not to wrong Christianity by making those things necessary to be observed precisely upon this account because the law of Moses prescribed them To compose himself equally in this case without giving offence to one side or other S. Chrysostome observes first that he ordains these things out of the law that is such things as were materially found in the law and commanded there and so auoids the Iews displeasure but does not ordain them formally because they were commanded by the law soe avoiding the wronging of Christianity but of himself who as an Apostle had power to do such things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I iudge that is of my self or own Authority not as having heard it from the law that is not as from the Authority of the law of Moses This being so the words cited by Dr. H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I iudge that is I say with power is given by all reason to signify the same as the former explication now layd out at large and of which this seems to bee onely a brief repetition For first why should wee imagine that S. Chrysostome should give two disparate interpretations of the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in the self same circumstances Next were it not onely a repetition of the former why is he so short in this latter explicatiō as to passe it over sleightly in these words nothing neither before nor after relating to that interpretation Thirdly because the words I say with power are perfectly consonant to the other I say it of my self not as from the law that is from mine own power not from the power of the law to which mine succeeds And lastly because if wee look more narrowly into the place wee shall find that neither Testimony is an explication of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies iudging or as Dr. H. will needs have it giving the sentence but of the emphatical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I which in the first place denoting a self authoritative expression of his power in opposition to the law and it's power consequently in the latter place where the emphasis of the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is explicated by with power there is no ground imaginable why it should signify otherwise than the forme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my self or why it should have any emphaticall relation or opposition to any other Authority save that of the law onely So that there is not the slenderest appearance of S. Iames his having the principall place or giving the sentence from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with power more than from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my self This self power there spoken of relating to the law 's no power nor influence of power in thus decreeing not to the other Apostles lesser power then his as Bishop But as his ordinary custome is Dr. H. picks out any two words neglecting to consider the true import of the father's meaning by them and having thus singled them out he onely touches them sleightly with a grave carelesnes and thinks the deed is done What follows in his 12. paragraph craves onely that the Readers would vse their eyes to avoyd his crafts who would blind them All I need do in answer is to quote particularly the places in which I am sure there can bee no deceit Dr. H. told us in the last
that S. W. had not the forecast to say 't is certain too for then he had sav'd his sobriety and all had been well Thirdly conscious to him self that all hitherto was evasion he would seem at length for fashions sake as it were to touch the point but seems onely after his accustomed sleight manner in these words Thirdly the place Gal. 1. 17. belongs expressely to the power after it was givâ—n and yet then he depended not on him Attend Reader here is a dreadfull sentence pronounced against S. Peter's Supremacy for if after it was given it was no ways dependent on S. Peter all is lost to S. Peter's Superiority First I know thou wonderst why the point being so mainly important and Dr. H. having found a place of Scripture to prove it from expressely too as he tells thee he should not be larger in it citing those expresse words and then making invincible arguments from them To lose his advantage in such circumstances onely relating hastily the place then touching it sleightly and not prosecuting it home nor indeed at all but saying onely something there upon sounds a betraying of his cause and some preposterous fauour to his therein-befriended Adversary S. W. Secondly thou mayst observe that there are here two propositions one that the place Gal. 1. 17. belongs expressely to the power after it was given the other that yet then he depended not on him The first is pretended from the Text and expressely too The second is left indifferent as his blinding manner is whether it be proved from the Text or by his own affirmation If the latter I must put it upon this score of his 'tis certain and so it needs no further answer But if it be pretended as from Scripture it shall have audience and thou shalt hear it examin'd Thirdly please to take notice that the Verse Gal. 1. 17. which he brings to testify his tenet expressely but by omitting it slubberingly bids it say nothing is this as I find it in their own translation Neither went I up to Hierusalem to them which were Apostles before me but I went into Arabia and returned again unto Damascus And this is all where wee hear no news of any power at all much less expressely belonging to power nay more expressely to the power after it was given as Mr. H. promised us Fourthly grant yet all this that it belong'd expressely to the power after it was given yet how does this place prove that the power given was not dependent on S. Peter's as an inferiour degree to a superiour which is the whole question between us Nothing is said here but onely that S. Paul preach't in Arabia c. ere he went to the Apostles before him The place there named by him taken in it self without relation to the other Verses expresses nothing of power at all but onely that S. Paul went to other places ere he went up to Hierusalem and taken with other adjoyning Verses onely intimates this that S. Paul having commission immediatly from Christ had Authority to preach to other places without demanding first the other Apostles order and approbation which is both granted by us and innocent to our cause but whether the power given were lesse equall or greater then S. Peter's nothing is found there at all much lesse doth the 17. Verse it self speak of power still lesse doth it expressely belong to it least of all to power after it was given as imdependent on S. Peter as Mr. H. braggs To make this yet plainer the Reader may please to advert that there is no Catholick in the world but holds that if our Saviour immediatly command a thing he may be obayed without asking counsell or leave of any Superiour nay even against their contrary command or prohibition Next that our Saviour not onely could but did give immediate commands and Commissions to persons of different ranks as to the Apostles and Disciples to preach to the whole world and to Philip the Deacon to goeto convert the Eunuch Acts. 8. v. 26 29. These things being so all shadow of reason in Dr. H's discoursevanishes which would conclude S. Paul independent and of equall and not subordinate power with S. Peter because he had an immediate Commission from Christ and proceeded to act according to that Commission without going to ask S. Peter's leave first The Disciples having immediate order from Christ preach't the Gospell without asking leave or receiving approbation from the Apostles Were it not now a worthy inference to parallell Dr. H's and conclude that therefore the Disciples were of equall Authority with the Apostles But Dr. H. is so wary that he speaks his non-sence sleightly sprinklingly and in brief that that lineaments of it not being discovered the deformity of it may not appear And this is the most frequent with him of all the rest of his sly ricks and in a manner naturall to his whole strain of writing From Dr. H's reason and Scripture testimonies wee come to fathers to prove that the power given was not inferiour to or dependent on S. Peter's He appeals to S. Chrysostome for this point affirming as he layes it out of S. Paul distinctly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not needing Peter nor his voyce The explication of this place is already given here in the paragraph foregoing to which adde in particular that if by voyce he means Commission and order to preach t' is clear he needed it not having received it immediatly from Christ if instruction of doctrine he needed not that neither having learned it fully and perfectly from Divine revelation what follows hence necessarily for equality of power wee see not and Dr. H. pretends here to prove it by no other argument then onely by telling us within a parenthesis that he supposes it Both the former interpretations then wee grant each of them fits the words very well whereas his of equality of power is impossible to bee evinced from this testimony and inconsistent even with Dr. H's grounds as shall be shown It follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but being equally honourd with him to which the father addes in a parenthesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I will say no more Vpon which words Dr. H. exults which saith he what it is an intimation of I leave S. W. to conjecture Nor is S. W. nice to tell him his thoughts what S. Chrysostome intimated by those words to wit that he could have said more with truth but represt him self as not willing out of reverence to those Apostles to make comparisons of inequality between them which manifests plainly that S. Chrysostome in that place speakes not of power at all or equality in that respect since neither was it ever heard of that S. Chrysostome or any els no nor the most perverse Protestants held S. Paul above S. Peter in power nor can it consist with Dr. H's own grounds who Answ p. 43. l. 25. disclaims professedly any such pretence that any of the other Apostles
had greater Authority then S. Peter Thus Dr. H. thinking he had served S. Peter and the Pope a trick by making S. Chrisostome intimate that S. Paul had greater Authority then he hath at once contradicted his own grounds and quite disanull'd his own best testimonie rendring it impossible to relate to power or Authority for which he produced it unlesse the opinion of the whole world or which is firmer and more inviolable Dr. H's own word 's bee a mistake asserting that no Apostle had greater power then S. Peter As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equall honour of those two Apostles it hath already been shown formerly from the father's words to signify equall honour for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same efficacity of preaching and in this place both it and the not needing S. Peter's voyce relate onely to the sufficiency of S. Paul's knowledge making S. Peter's instructions needles as appears by the words a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. not as if S. Paul were to learn any thing of S. Peter c. And thus indeed the possibility of S. Chrysostomes saying more of S. Paul or that he was more honour'd and higher then S. Peter may have good sense many holding that S. Paul was higher in learning and the greater Divine They must bee therefore testimonies expressing equality in power of Government which can conclude any thing against our tenet concerning his power for in other things 't is no question but that S. Paul â—ad many advantages above S. Peter as in preaching to more Nations in writing more Epistles in greater sufferings and many other regards where of some be exprest 2. Cor. c. 11. Again this very Verse which Dr. H. would have relate to power after it was given and it's independence on S. Peter S. Ambrose whose judgment I shallever preferr before Mr. H's interprets in the same sence as wee take it to wit of independence in learning onely explicating S. Paul's words thus non fuisse dicit necessitatem electum se a Deo pergendi ad praedecessores suos Apostolos vt aliquid fortè disceret ab illis quia Deus ei reuelauit perfilium suum quomodo doceret S. Paul says it was not necessary that he being chosen by God should go to the former Apostles that he might learn any thing of them because God had revealed to him by his son how he should teach But because S. Chrysostome hath been pretended as his constant Patron in this particular controversy therefore though it cannot be exacted of me who am the Defendant to produce testimonies and object to let the Reader see how unhappy Dr. H. is in the choice of his freinds I shall take liberty to manifest and I hope with evidence from two or three places of that father what S. Chrysostome's opinion was in this point of S. Peter's higher Authority amongst the Apostles I will not presse here the high titular expressions he gives S. Peter Panâ—g in Pet. Paul how iustly soever I might of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the leader or Captain of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning of the right faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great pronouncer of sacred things in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Corypheus or Head of the Apostles c. Nor will I insist much upon my formerly-alledged testimony that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entrusted with the Sheep-fold though I might with good reason the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a collective and denoting an Vniversality But My first place which I rather make choice of because it relates to S. Iames whom Dr. H. would make clearly Sue periour to S. Peter in his own see is taken out of Hom. 87. upon S. John where speaking of our Saviours extraordinary affection and familiarity towards S. Peter he immediately subjoyns this interrogatory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this be so how then came Iames to have the Episcopall seat of Hierusalem he solves it him self thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he ordaind him S. Peter not Master of that seat but of the whole world Here wee see the vast difference between S. Iames and S. Peter's Iurisdictions one being Master of that private seat at Hierusalem the other Master of the whole world whence follows evidently that neither S. Peter's Iurisdiction is limited by any other bounds then the world it self is and that he had Iurisdiction also at Hierusalem it self not after the nature of the particular Bishop there but of an universall Governour or Master of the world unles perhaps Mr. H will alledge that Hierusalem is no part of the world for then indeed I shall not know how to reply Neither let him as his custome is run to the Dictionaries and Lexicons to tell me that the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such a Master as teaches or instructs and so sounds no Government nor Iurisdiction for he must know that that is the proper signification of the word as it is found here which the circumstances accompanying it determin it to have To them then let us look the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Master is appropriated here to S. Peter in order to the whole world as it is to S. Iames in order to Hierusalem it being exprest but once and in construction refer'd to both Since then as applyd to S. Iames it signifies his being Bishop of Hierusalem and so expresses directly Iurisdiction and power of Government it is against all reason to say it can possibly signify another thing as apply'd to S. Peter According to this testimony then S. Peter was universall Bishop of the Church and of an illimited Iurisdiction But perhaps Dr. H. will not allow the parenthesis in the testimony I answer I put down the testimony here as I found it in the Greek Context set out by themselves and printed at Eton and though it were left out the sence it self putt's the opposition between S. Peter's being such over the world as S. Iames was over Hierusalem which concerns commanding power and Iurisdiction My second place is fech't from his comment on Act. 1. where speaking of S. Peter's behaviour about the election of a new Apostle he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with good reason doth the first S. Peter undertake the busines with Authority as having them all delivered into his hand What can this signify but that he as first and as a supreme Governour had power over all the rest that were present and who were those who were present all the rest of the Apostles and the chief of the Disciples In what other manner he as first can be said to have had all the rest within his hand and therefore with good reason to have taken the management of that busienes authoritatively to himself I professe I cannot in Dr. H's behalf imagine and am perswaded himself will confess it after perusall of the following testimony that
this was S. Chrysostome's meaning The Third testimony which shall be also my last for I deem it impossible to finde another more expresse for this or any other point is taken from the same place and spoken upon the same occasion the election of some one to bee Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then was it not in Peter's power to elect him yes it was altogether in his power but he does it not lest he might seem to do it out of fauour What can be more expresse and full The thing to be performed was an Act of the highest Iurisdiction imaginable amongst the Apostles to wit the making a new Apostle The other Apostles and chief Disciples were present to the number of one hundred and twenty yet S. Peter had power to do this of himself in their presence Nor is this exprest dubiously by the father but as a thing certain and beyond all question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yes altogether absolutely or without doubt Nor have wee here any divers Lections to diminish the Authority of the words which the Dr. makes a pittifull and little prevailing use of in his lisping testimonies nor is it a word or two pickt out blindly and wrested to a quite different interpretation as is his of discovered Method but a pithy expression of the full scope and import of the place Nor is this perfect expression put alone but seconded with a note that he did it not of his own single power lest he should bee mistaken by others to make such a one an Apostle out of favour which is the frequent and ordinary carriage of every wise and prudent Governour Nor do wee pretend to any higher strain of Iurisdiction in S. Peter then that he could elect a new Apostle by his own power which this father not onely grants but strenuously assertes nor in our paralell tenet of the Pope's Authority can we attribute to him any particâ—lar act more supreme or more savouring of highest Authority than to constitute Bishops and Patriarchs in the Church by himself and of his own particular power Nor lastly was this testimony peep 't out for in strange places but offred me by the same Author whom Dr. H. most relies on and in the same Treatise which he most frequently cites Iudge then Reader whether it bee likely or no that Dr. H. considering his industrious reading this father and this Treatise as he manifests here could possibly remain ignorant what was S. Chrysostome's tenet in this point and then tell me what he deserves who against his own knowledge and conscience alledges imperfectly mangles corrupts and falsifies this fathers words to gain some show of his consent to his paradoxicall point of faith nay makes him by such leger de main sleights his chiefest Patron to defend it as hath been layd open and discover'd particularly heretofore though he could not but know that no writer extant could be more expressely against it then is this holy and learned father S. Chrysostome Sect. 13. Dr. H's successe in answering his Adversaries first Testimony His insincerity in pretending our own law against the Pope's Authority IN his book of Schism p. 74. Dr. H. told us with Authority and very confidently that certainly S. Paul was noe way subordinate or dependent on S. Peter at Antioch as appears by his behaviour towards him avowed Gal. 2. 11. that is his withstanding him to the face Discourteous S. W. who gives not a jott more credit to Mr. H. wher he cries certainly surely irrefragably unquestionably expressely distinctly accordingly c. which are the nerves of his discourse than if he had said nothing at all would not budge into assent notwithstanding his soe confident assurance to warrant him and as for Gal. 2 11. by which he pretended to make it appear he reply'd Schism Disarm p. 62. that S. Cyprian and S. Austin thought otherwise who interpreted S. Peter's bearing it patiently not as an argumeÌ„t of his lesse or equall Authority but of his greatest humility that being higher in dignity he should suffer so mildly the reprehensions of an inferiour The place alledged from those fathers was this Quem quamuis primum Dominus elegerit super eum aedificaverit Ecclesiam suam tamen cum secum Paulus disceptauit non vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit vt diceret se Primatum tenere obtemperari à nouellu posteris sibi potius opportere nec despexit Paulum quòd Ecclesiâ—e priùs persecutor fuisset sed consilium veritatis admisit Whom though our Lord chose to be the first of the Apostles and upon him built his Church yet when Paul contended with him he did not challenge and assume to him self any thing in any insolent and proud manner as to say he had the Primacy and so should rather be obeyed by new and late Apostles nor did he despise Paul because he had formerly been a Persecutor of the Church but admitted the counsell of truth Dr. H. preparing to answer this place Answ p. 46. notes first that this is the first testimony I have brought from Antiquity as if it necessarily belong'd to me who was answering his book and showing his allegations unable to conclude to object testimonies also my self and so bee Opponent and defendent both but as it was not my task so neither do I esteem it so rare a busines to transcribe out of books as needlesly to put my self upon that dull employment though I know well that annotation-men and commonâ— place book souls think it the rarest thing imaginable Next he tells us that he never doubted S. Peter's Primacy in the sence this holy fathers speaks any more than of Christs building his Church on him and that he gave me a testimony even now from S. Ambrose which expressely avouched it I remember indeed such a Testimony Answ 39 in the Margent but I remember withall that he brought it not nay would not let it signify S. Peter's Primacy in any sence over the whole Church but over the Iews onely as appears by the fourlast lines of the same page 39. how ever wee thank him for granting here that he gaves us a testimony from S. Ambrose which expressely avoued S. Peter's Primacy in any sence over the Church so he will promise us not to repent him self and recall his grant which he pretends to have so expressely avouched there But alas what faith is to bee given to the most formall bargain made with such Copes-masters of testimonies he had scarce writt eight lines after this profest expresse avouching it but he quite forgets his so solemn promise and makes the said place in S. Ambrose signify a limited and contradistinct Primacy saying that by the words of S. Ambrose S. Paul had a Primacy amongst the Gentiles as Peter amongst the Iews though the place it self in reference to S. Peter sayes onely that Petrus Primatum acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam Peter had received the Primacy to found the
Authority in that Apostles even from domestick testimonies also His own canon law approved publickly by himself as legitimate shall secretly by Dr. H's inspiration play the Traitour and under mine now in these latter dayes the said Authority which till now every one took it to confirme A strange attempt if Mr. H's strength were equall to his courage The place is cited in the Decret out of the 2. Epist of Pope Anacletus which makes it yet more home and terrible against the now adays-Popes it begins thus Post Christum a Petro sacerdotalis coepit ordo After Christ the sacerdotall order began from Peter and soe goes on in other expressions of that strain soe far from prejudiciall that they are very favorable and as for these first words if wee look into the Epistle it self it makes S. Peter the same in order to Christian Hierarchy as Aaron was to the Leuiticall which wee account no small honour He addes saith Dr. H. that the Apostles ipsum Principem eorum esse voluerunt would have him to bee their Prince that is consented he should bee such To which words Dr. H. subjoyns in a parenthesis where he read this I know not Thus Dr H. takes liberty to talk ridiculously yet should I smile at him a little he would excommunicate me again in Greek and his friends would be displeased Anacletus lived in the Apostles dayes and as he tell 's us in the said Epistle was ordained by S. Peter himself yet Dr. H. finds fault with this his assertion because he knows not where he read it Christ and his Apostles came not with books in their hands but with words in their mouths to teach the world their doctrine Therefore Dr. H. should rather have scrupled where he had heard it then where he had read it and put the force of his exception there and then wee could have told him there was none in those dayes for him to hear but onely either Christ or his Apostles and Disciples neither can wee doubt of his immediate conversation with them who was as the same Epistle expresses ordained by S. Peter himself These preambulatory expressions favouring soe much our cause would make one think that the same Author could not bee so forgetfull as to undo vtterly the same Authority in the self same Epistle nay in the next line after he had calld S. Peter Prince of the Apostles nor that Anacletus was such a Courtier as to speak those former kinde words onely for complement sake and afterwards when it came to the point immediately deny all yet Dr. H. expresses him here as speaking first on the one side then on the other and that when on the one side he had given us the former favorable word 's the false tokens it seems of otherwise-meant friendship presently like Margery's good cow which gave a good meal and when she had done kick't it down with her foot on the other side as Mr. H. tells us with equal clearnes he prevaricates from what he had pretended and over-throws S. Peter's supremacy quite The clear words as he calls them are these caeteri verò Apostoli cum eodem pari consortio honorem potestatem acceperunt But the other Apostles in like consortship received honour and power with him Which he never explicates nor applies as his sleighting custome is but puts them onely down and then triumphs upon them as if they could not possibly bear any other interpretation Whereas I make account every good Catholick may grant these words without any difficulty and that they make nothing at all against us For to say that the other Apostles received pari consortio honorem c. in like consortship honour and power does not infer that they received parem honorem potestatem equall honour and power but that as he had received it from Christ so they pari consortio likewise or in like manner as being his fellows received it to Again our tenet granting to each universall Iurisdiction all over the world grants likewise that each precisely under the notion of Apostle that is of one sent to preach Christs faith had a like consortship of honour and power each of them being dignify'd with an unlimited Apostleship and Iurisdiction or power to preach but speaking of the Apostolicall Colledge as a community and soe requiring order of Government wee affirm with S. Hierome that S. Peter was supreme in that respect nor is there any thing to the contrary found in this place Again the words cum eodem appear by their placing to be better joynd with acceperunt then with pari for then they should rather have been put after it paricum eodem c. and soe the whole place imports thus much that though our saviour chose S. Peter to be first yet the rest of the Apostles acceperunt cum eodem received with him that is at the same time he received it in like consortship that is of Apostleship honour and power which was verified when he in a common indifferent expression after his Resurrection gave them their last and unlimited Apostolicall mission euntes in vniuersum mundum praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae Going into the whole world preach the Gospell to every creature By this it appears that the place may have another meaning than that which Mr. H. fancies now that it must have another none but Anacletus him self in the same Epistle shall certifie us who manifests himself as plain a Papist in this point of the Pope's supremacy as either the Cath. Gent. or S. W. Putting down there the orderly ascent of Ecclesiasticall judicatures after that of Bishops being to be judged by their Metropolitans he rises higher to that of Primates and still higher to that of the Apostolicall seat or the Pope's in these words Primates tamen vt praefixum est tunc nunc habere iussae sunt ad quos post sedem Apostol cam summa negotia conueniant yet the Cities are order'd to have their Primates to whom the chief busienesses after the Apostolicall seat may come And a little after Episcoporumque causae summorum negociorum iudiciae Saluà Apostolicae sedis authoritate iustissimè terminentur And let the causes of Bishops and the judgments of the highest matters bee most justly decided by them the Authority of the Apostolicall seat remaining unprejudic'd By these two places wee may take an estimate of Dr. H. solidnes and sincerity who catches at the shadow of a word or two pari consortio in like consortship so waxen natur'd that they are easily capable of a diverse shap't signification and thence argues ad hominem against us that our own Authors and our canon law are clearly opposite to our doctrine whereas he could not but know and see in the very same place that there was noe testimony imaginable more expressely for us or more prejudiciable to him then the said Epistle if wee look after the meaning of the Author in the entire import of it
Is it possible now that any man should go about to cloak such a falsification which evidence as clear as eyesight had manifested in it's most shame full nakednes nothing is impossible to be done in Dr. H's way He excuses himself first Answ p. 57. l. 9. because he thought it was conclusible from those words 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. But who bad him think so when there was never a word in the testimony or in the whole Epistle but might have been said by a Metropolitan to a Bishop or a Bishop to any Priest to wit that he would order things when he came bidding him be have himself well c. Again if he intended to conclude why did he not put some expression of that his intent that the Reader might not be deluded by his quoting the place immediately after those words This pretence therefore is most frivolous vain First because his words are positive absolute as it were commanding our assent from the Authority of Scripture not exprest like an inference or conclusion doth not S. Paul c. as also because they are relations of matters of fact and lastly because they who conclude from Scripture put the place first then deduce from it whereas he quotes the place after his own words as we use to do for words found really in Scripture wherefore either he intended not to conclude but to gull the honest Reader that his sole important forgeries were sure Scripture or else if he meant to conclude he very wisely put his conclusion before the premises and such a conclusion as had but one unconcerning useles word common to it the premises Secondly he tells us that to say that he inferr'd the whole conclusion from the word come is one of S. W's arts whereas I charged him not for inferring thence but for putting down those words for pure Scripture Again himself so good is his memory confesses this same thing seven or eight lines before which he here renounces where having mention'd the former long rabble he told us in expresse terms that he thought it was conclusible from S. Paul's words 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Now then there being not one word of this pretended conclusion found in that place save the monosyllable Come nor one exclusive particle nor even the least ground of any he must either infer his pretended conclusion from that or from nothing Thirdly he alledges that he thought his grounds had been visible enough being thus laid and then proceeds to lay them But the iest is he never layd down any such pretended grounds at all in the book of Schism where he cited that place and so it was impossible they should be visible being then perhaps not so much as in their causes And as for these pretended grounds they are nothing but a kinde of explication of that place that S. Paul sent an whole Epistle of Instructions hoped to give him farther instructions that he should behave himself well in his office c. which are all competent to any Bishop in order to a Priest or to any subaltern Governor in respect of an inferior and so hinders not but S. Paul might be under another though thus over Timothy Fourthly as for those exclusive words no other Apostle could countermand or interpose in them leaving no Appeal no place for farther directions onely to himself which were objected so it belonged to him if he could not show them exprest there so clear his falsified citation at least to show them concluded deduced thence as 6. or 7. lines before he had promist us But he quite prevaricates even from deducing them thence when it comes to the point and instead of doing so proving them from the pretended place he repeats again the same demands bids us prove the contrary I now demand saith he whether S. Paul left any other Appeal or place for farther directions save onely to himself I answer does the place alledged say any thing to the contrary or is any such thing conclusible thence as you pretended If it be why do not you make good your own proof from the place show this restrictive sence either there in expresse terms or else by framing your conclusion from it why do you instead of thus doing your duty stand asking me the same question over again He proceeds Whether could any other Apostle by any power given him by Christ countermand or interpose in them what need you ask that question you knew long ago that our Answer would be affirmative that S. Peter could in case he saw it convenient for the good of God's Church or what is the asking this question over again to the showing that the contrary was either expresly or conclusively there as you pretended If any could let him be named his power specified saith the Dr. Is not this a rare man to counterfeit himself ignorant whom we hold for Head of the Apostles when as himself hath from the beginning of this Chapter impugned S. Peter as held such by us And to carry the matter as if he delay'd his proofs till he knew our Answer aswell known to him before hand as his own name It follows let the power be proved by virtue whereof he should thus act I marry now the Dr. is secure when all else fails he hath constantly recourse hither to hide his head When his Argument or proof is shown to bee falsify'd in the expresse terms hee pretends to conclude thence and when 't is shown unable to conclude any thing instead of proceeding to make it good or show that cōclusible from thence which he promised he leaves it of as some impertinent questions and bids his Answerer take his turn prove because he alas is graveld and cannot go a step further This done he triumphs But S. W. dares not I am sure doth not affirm this What dare not I and do not I affirm that S. Peter had power over the rest of the Apoles in things cōcerning the good of the universall Church 'T is my expresse tenet which he is at present impugning and which I both do affirm dare maintaine so prevalent is Truth against Dr H. though back't by forty more learned then himself But this politick Adversary of mine seeing he could not argue me out of my faith would needs fright me or persuade me from it threat'ning me first that I dare not next assuring mee that I do not affirm i◠This solid discourse premised hee shuts up with an acclamation of victory thus And if it cannot be said as no doubt it cannot then where was S. Peter's supreme Pastorship Where all the force of this upshot of his lies in the If and no doubt both of them equally addle frivolous since himself all the world knows very well that we both can do affirm hold that S. Peter was Superior in Authoritie to all the rest of the Apostles Thus Dr. Hr. toyes it with his Readers hoping
some account Rep. Sect. 8. n. 10. why hee had done us no injury in omitting it and indeed 't is onely some account for he tells us there sleightly no more than this that first by the very position of it but secondly more by the occasion and yet more Thirdly by the matter of the words that place is prejudged from being any more than an Exhortation to S. Peter to discharge his duty But is there no particularity in order to S. Peter An hard case that after thrice saing Simon Son of Ionas louest thou me more than these and there upon feed thou my sheep nothing should be yet spoken in order to S. Peter in particular The some account then which Dr. H hath rendred us in the place related is that he hath said there three things upon his own head proved none of them which as I take it is to give no account at all His answers to it in other places shall be replied to other where Thirdly he assures us that his reason of omitting it was by him with perfect truth rendred p. 93. from his full persuasion that it had so very litle appearance of Strength in it and had been so often answer'd that it would not be deemed vsefull to any that hee should descend to it Let us examin a litle Dr. H's perfect truth I ask had he reckon'd all the numerous places in Controvertists where this other texts had been answet'd found that this had been far ofter replied to if he did not how can he affirm it or alledge this for his excuse if he did which I confesse is a task very proper for his Genius why does not he show us tables of accounts how many times the one how many times the other hath been vrged till which time he gives us leave to beleeve that it is as incredible he hath done it as it were ridiculous to have done it Again me thinks reaâ—on should tell him that if it were oftner answered it was oftner vrged and that it had not been oftner vrged without having some more appearance of truth in it then the rest which yet the other part of his excuse denies If he say that it was vrged more prevalently still it will ly at his dore that it was more worthy his taking notice of otherwise to excuse himself he indites his fellow-Protestan'â—s of plain folly in answering that place oftner which on the one side had very litle apperance of truth in it and on the other side had been neither very often nor very prevalently vrged Fourthly he asks if there be any farther invisible reserve in that place not taken notice of by M r Hart in the conference with Dr. Reynolds I answer truly I was not by nor shall I credit a relation which their own partiall Scribes writ their own partiall selves brag they have under the disputants hands it is as easy to counterfeit a hand as to counterfeit a testimony If there be no such reserve then Dr H. tells us he must remember the issue of that conference And what was that That Mr Hart flew of from this text to that of Luke 22. v 31. from which being saith he soon beaten by evidence This Evidence I conceive was some nothing-proving branch of accordance like those Evidences of Dr. H's The poor Papist if wee will beleeve his enemies was put to conclude in these words Yet I know not how me thinks I cannot be persuaded but that it maketh somewhat for Peter's Supremacy Words so sillily unlikely that the very rehearsall of them is enough to disgrace the whole relation and the alledgers themselves Nor is it lesse unlikely that M Hart should flie from this place of S. Iohn to that of Luke 22. v. 31. to prove S. Peter's Supremacy where nothing is found but onely this Simon Simon be hold Satan hath desired to have you to sift you as wheat I wonder now in which of these words Dr. Reynolds his friends will pretend Mr Hart placed the most force for S. Peter's Supremacy whether in the ordinary common name Simon in Satan in Sifting or in wheat Is not this Dr. a great wit to bring such unauthoriz'd unlikely trifles for his excuse yet necessity alas hath no law He tells us here he must remember this wise Story as if it were such a necessary busines to give his reader a memorandum of a thing which he can never make good and is in it self the most unlikely truth and the likeliest fiction that can be imagined Thirdly Dr. H. was charged of manifestly calumniating the Catholikes in calling their tenet coÌ„cerning the power of the Keys a peculiarity inclosure of S. Peter He goes about to discharge his credit and Conscience by shewing both from my words and the Catholike tenet that S. Peter had some particular power of Keyes sayes he mean't onely that this particular power was a peculiarity inclosure of S. Peter That the Catholike tenet consequently mine is that he had such a particular degree of power of the Keyes promised and given him I willingly graâ—â— and had Dr. H. exprest so much there he had not been charged with Calumny but if he exprest no such thing there nay carried it so as if wee had held that no Apostles had the Keyes but S. Peter then all the emptie wordishnes in his Reply Answer will avail nothing to clear him from so grosse a fault Now my reasons why I charged him with the said Calumny are these because of Schism p. 86. Speaking of the Donation of the power of the Keyes in an unlimitted universall expression he says of himself that this power Math. 16. 19. is promised to S. Peter by which words consequently he must mean the power of the Keyes in common for it is opposite to his tenet to say that any particular degree of that power was promised that Apostle This done he puts down the text of Scripture I will give unto thee the Keyes c. and then subjoyns these words But to him that from hence pretends this Donative consequent power as a peculiarity inclosure of S. Peter's these considerations will be of force to supersede his conclusion Now what this Donative and power was meant of is sufficiently exprest before to wit the power of the Keyes in generall without any restriction or particularization Wherefore it is most manifest from his own words that he would have made the honest Reader beleeve our tenet was that the power of the Keyes in generall common was S. Peter's peculiarity inclosure Secondly one of his considerations to supersede our conclusion as he calls it were two places of Scripture expressing onely that the Keyes were given to all the Apostles in common but nothing at all that they were given equally to all wherefore they can no wayes impugn the inequality of S. Peter's having such a power but onely S. Peter's having it alone since nothing can be imagin'd plainer
then that the same Notion of a thing may plurally agree to many and yet in unequall degrees notwithstanding there being almost as many Instances of it as there are things in the world Evident therefore it is that he impugned S. Peter's having the power of the Keyes alone and so calumniated us in counterfeiting that to be our tenet impugning it as such unles perhaps he will say hee inteÌ„ded to impugn nothing at all Thirdly what means the word inclusive Is it not if applied to S. Peter's having the power of the Keyes as it is by him as plain an expression as could be invented to signify none had that power but S. Peter Manifest therefore it is that he intended to make his Reader beleeve that wee held such an absurd Position and thence erected a rare Trophee of his own Victory by shewing as he easily might that all the other Apostles had that power as well as he or in common But observe how neatly Dr. H. deludes his readers in going about to clear himself of this Calumny for instead of shewing from his own words that he signified that which wee held for S. Peter's peculiarity inclosure was onely a higher degree of that power which had been the proper way to shew him not faulty in the said words he prevaricates quite from that onely necessary method and runs to shew from my words the Catholick tenet that wee grant S. Peter a more particular power of the Keyes entangling poore S. W. on all sides p 61. and obliging him by most powerfull arguments to grant that which he beleeves already as a point of his faith and when he hath done he insults that that particular power was S. Peter's peculiarity inclosure but never goes about to shew which onely was his duty that he applied those words peculiarity inclosure to that particular power of the Keyes in his book of Schism where he was charged to have calumniated us but to the common power onely Though the question be not whether Catholicks hold that S. Peter had an higher degree of this power which was his inclosure but whether Dr. H. expressed such to be our tenet in his book of Schism or rather pretended that the having the very power of the Keyes it self was held by us to be his inclosure peculiarity and so calumniated us in the highest degree Thus Dr. H. pleads his own cause and then concludes himself secure from being like S. W. in calumniating him with whom he came to dispute After this Answ p. 62. the Dr. is mistakingly apprehensive of Sprights and is troubled at the two appearanrances of the same Romanist For imposing on him two propositions which he never said and disgraces the said appearances by asking the reader what trust is to be given to such disputers But what said the two appearances of the same Romanist one appearance sayes that Dr. H. affirms no power of the Keyes was given especially to S. Peter The other appearance sayes that hee confesses the Keyes were especially promised to S. Peter He answers the truth is he neither said one nor the other One of the appearances replies The truth is he said both The first of Schâ—sm p. 87. l. 2. 3. where he sayes expresly that these to wit the Keyes or the words importing them are delivered in common and equally to all every of the eleven Apostles Now I imagin'd that those words equally to all every one is the very same as particularly to no one But Dr. H. thinkes otherwise Answ p. 62. l. 18 denying that he affirmed no power of the Keyes was given especially to S. Peter And yet presently l. 21. 22. Saying that he afâ—â—rmed that the power was given in common and equally to all the Apostles which is so perfectly the self-same with the former as the very common light of nature teaches us that they are both one and that not especially commonly are perfectly equivalent To omit that this very position That no power of the Keyes was given especially to S. Peter is his own main nay sole tenet he is defending in this place which yet he sayes here he affirms not and complains of my foul play in disputing for saying he holds his own tenet The second position is found p. 57. l. 11. where he grants that this promise was made to S. Peter peculiarly and l. 21. where he sayes that the words importing a promise of the Keyes are applied particularly to S. Peter Now the applying those words is the speaking them for they were not first spoken then afterward apply'd To S. Peter then this promise was spoken that is was made particularly or especially As for his Evasion that the former of these two last places is onely mention'd by him as a color the Romanist makes some use of it hath no color at all from the place where it is found or at least such a dim color as none but himself can discern Sect. 2. A Promise of an higher degree of power and it's performance shown the Texts Mat. 16. and Iohn 21. connaturally and rationally explicated THese preparative rubs being past over and Dr. H's three great faults of prevaricating Iniuriousnes and Calumny with which he was charged and went about to clear still challenging him for their Author next comes the point it self since Dr. H. will needs put us upon the part of the Opponent Mr. H. undertooke to solve some places of Scripture which were used by our Doctors for S. Peter's Supremacy where upon I was obliged to undertake two things first that our Saviour promised the Keyes to S. Peter in particular and after a particular manner that is the manner of promising them was particular in order to S. Peter Secondly that it being worthy our Saviour to perform his promise after the manner tenour in which he promised consequently he performed that promise to S. Peter after a particular manner that is gave him the Keyes particularly Schism Disarm'd p. 90. 91. urged the first place Matth. 16. v. 19. c. which concerned the promise And though Dr. H pretends in the end of this Chapter that he attends me in this Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foot by foot yet he gave it no such atâ—endance in order to answering it but onely p. 60. 61. 62. he would needs engage me thence to confesse a point of my faith that is that S. Peter had something or some degree of power which the rest had not that so he might clear himself from having calumniated our tenet Since then I must be forc't to repeat again what I said there I shall do it by arguing after this sort These words I will give vnto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven c. importing a promise were spoken to S. Peter after a particular manner therefore the promise was made to S Peter after a particular manner The consequence is evident for the promise was made by speaking it If then it were spoken to
S. Peter after a particularizing way the promise was made to S. Peter after a particular manner The antecedent I prove thus those words were spoken to S. Peter after a manner not competible nor common to the rest of the Apostles therefore they were spoken to S. Peter after a particularizing way The consequence is most evident since particular is expresly the same with not common or not competible to the rest The Antecedent is proved no lesse evidently from the whole Series of the Text where we have first a particular Blessing of S. Peter sprung from a particular act of his to wit his Confession of Christ's Divinity Blessed art thou his particular name and to avoyd all equivocation which might communicate that name designing whose sonne he was Simon Bar-Iona my heavenly father hath revealed it vnto thâ—e in particular Next follows Christ's applying his words in particular here upon And I say vnto thee then alluding to his particular name given him by Christ himself with an emphasis and energy Thou arâ— Peter or a Rock and upon this Rock will I build my Church c. And after all these particular designations follows the promise in the same tenour copulatively And I will give vnto thee still with the same speciality the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven Now hence Iargue The Confession of Christ to be the Son of God the Blessing there-upon The name Simon Bar-Iona The designed allusion to that name are not competible nor common to the rest of the Apostles therefore the promise-expressing words concomitant were spoken to S. Peter in a way not common or competible to the rest of the Apostles But to returne whence wee came these words are a promise of the Keyes and their power therefore a promise of the Keyes and their power was made to S. Peter after a manner not common that is particular and that upon occasions originally springing from and constantly relating and alluding to S. Peter's particular person and particular name And thus much for the promise Next as for the performance of this particular promise wee argue thus It is worthy our Saviour not onely to perform his promise but also to perform it after the manner and tenour he promised But he promised the power of the Keyes to S. Peter after a particular manner as hath been shown â—â—erefore he perfoâ—med his promise and gave it to S. Peter after a particular manner and consequently which is the position wee vltimately aym at S. Peter had the power of the Keyes after a more particular manner then the other Apostles The Major is evident because no man living would think himself reasonably dealt with if a promise were not performed to him after the manner it was made nay reason would think himself deluded to have his expectation raised as in prudence it would by such a particular manner of promising to something extraordinary and more then common and when it comes to the point to have his hopes defeated by a common and meerly equall performance The Minor is already proved in the foregoing paragraph The conclusion is the position in controversy Reason therefore informs us supposing once that the promise was made to S. Peter after a particular manner that it should be performed to him after the same manner nor need 's it any other proof from Testimonies if we once grant as none will deny that our B. Saviour did what was most reasonable and fitting Yet some of our Drs arguing ad hominem against the ProtestaÌ„t make choice particularly of that place of Iohn 21. v. 15. 16. 17. to infer such a performance I proceed therefore in the way I begun and endeavour to show two things first that reason gives it secondly that the Scripture favours it that this place signifies a particularity of performance to S. Peter or a performance to him after a particular manner The first I prove ad hominem thus the promise being made to S. Peter after a particular manner and register'd in Scripture as hath been shown it is fitting that the correspoÌ„dent performance so worthy our Saviour should be exprest there likewise especially in the Protestant Grounds who grant a kind of self-perfectnes and sole-sufficiency to Scripture But there is no other place in Scripture so apt to signify a particular performance as this for the other places cited by Dr. H. Receive yee the Holy Ghost â—s my father sent me so send I you expresse onely a common performance therefore in all reason wee should think that the particular performance is exprest there The second I show thus the particular promise had preceeded apt in it's own Nature to breed some greater expectation in S. Peter These words were apt to satisfy that expectation they signify'd therefore a particular performance Again the thrice particularizing him by his name and relation Simon sonne of Ionas denotes the speaking of the following words to him particularly But the following words pasce oves ineas were apt and sufficient to instate him in the Office and give him the Authority of a Pastor It was therefore given him in a particular manner to be a Pastour in these words The Major is eâ—ident the Minor is proved For should any Master of a family bid one of his servants in the same words feed his sheep that servant would think him self sufficiently Authorized to perform that duty Thirdly the word amas me plus his Dost thow love me more than these manifestly put both a particularity and a superiority in S. Peter above the other Apostles in the interrogatory Therefore the inference there-upon feed my Sheep in ordinary reason should signify after the same manner and sounds as if it were put thus Dost thow love me more then these to which S. Peter assenting our Saviour may be imagin'd by the naturall sence of the words to reply If it be so that thou lovest me more then these then feed my Sheep more then these or have thou a Commission to feed my Sheep more then these sence he is more likely to perform his duty better and so more capable and worthy of a higher charge who bears a greater affection to his Master This paraphrase the words them selves seem to ground For otherwise to what purpose was it to make an interrogation concerning a greater degree of love or to what end was that particularizing and perferring words more then these put there if they had no correspondent influence nor connexion with the inference which ensves upon it Fourthly the verb pasce being exprest imperatively and spoken by a lord to his servant ought in all reason to signiâ—y a Command unles the concomitant words in the Text force another sence upon it which cannot be alledged here Since then every command of a lawfull Superiour gives a Commission to do that which he commands and that the words
expressing this command are most evidently by the circumstances in the Text in a particular manner spoken to S. Peter it follows that S. Peter had by them a particular Commission given him to feed Christ's flock which is the thing to be proved Fifthly the property of the word pasce as it is distinguished from praedicate shows that there was a kind of ordinary care commanded to S. Peter whereas by the pure Apostleship he and his fellows had but an extraordinary and as it were a voyager Authority for an Apostle might preach in many Cities but to be Pastor he must fix himself in one Citie because he could be but a particular Pastor But S. Peter having for his charge oves Agnos that is all the faithfull â—ould â—ever be out of his own Iurisdiction so that being still in his seat he needed not fix any where and that he did so was 〈◊〉 abundanti Wherefore Praedicate being spoken in generall to all he Apostles pasce to S. Peter onely pasce having an especiall force above Praedicate it follows that something was here given to S. Peter by that word especially and particularly This is Reader what I conceive follows genâ—inly out of the Texts themselves as explicable grammatically Two things I desire both mine Adversary and thee to take notice of The one that we are not now disputing how the many-winded Commenters interpret this or that word but what follows out of the acknowledg'd words of the Texts as managed by Grammaticall skill Nor do I pretend to Evidence out of my own interpretation that is Animating of dead words neither my cause needs it nor can my own reason suffer me to engage soe far assuring me how seldome demonstrations are to bee expected from the tossing of meer words My onely intent then as I tould thee at first was to show what I conceived most connaturally and probably follow'd out of these Texts and their circumstances Nor is it sufficient for mine Adversary to imagin that another explication may be invented But since our contention now is about what the words can-best bear he is to show that another can so connaturally agree to the same particularizing circumstances in the said Texts And if any man living can draw an argument out of the same words more coherent with all the circumstances there found and more connected in it self then mine is nay from any other Text in Scripture to show that S. Peter had no promise of the power of the Keyes made to him in a particular manner and no performance of that promise in the same manner in which is founded his superiority to the other Apostles I will candidly confesse my self to have the worst in this wit-combat and shall lay down the cudgells for the next comer Sect. 3. Dr. H's solutions or contrary explications of those two places of Scripture sustain'd by most senceles paralogisms and built onely upon his own sayings nor shown nor attempted to bee shown more naturally consequent from the Texts themselves and their circumstances AGainst this inference of mine from the words of these Texts Dr. H. never goes about to show from the force of the same words a more connaturall explication which is the onely method to show his advantage over us in Scripture but in stead thereof endeavours onely to enervate our deductions thence by some solutions gather'd here and there Now this method of proceeding had been allowable in case we had built our faith upon such wit originiz'd explications or if in trying our acutenes with them in their own wordish way we had pretended to evidence or conclude demonstratively that this must be the sence of those places for then indeed any may be otherwise which they could imagin would have destroy'd our must be so and wee were bound in that case to maintain our explication against any other not onely which the words might be pretended to favour but what the most voluntary dreamer could fancy But since wee pretend not to evidence or conclude demonstratively thence and onely intend to show out of the force of the words that our exposition is more probable and connaturall he hath noe way to overcome in these circumstances but by showing us another out of the force of the same words more probable and connaturall which since he never attempts to do as far as I can see 't is plain he is so far from having acquitted him self in that point that he hath not so much as gone about it and all the voluntary solutions and possibilities of another explication he hath produced out of his owne fâ—cy without endeavoring to shew them more naturall out of the force of the Texts are so little to the purpose that they are not worth answering Yet wee shall glean them up from the places in which he hath scattered them and give them which is more then their due a cursory reflection Solution 1. The words of the Commission were delivered in common to all the Apostles Of Schism p 87. l. 2. Reply The delivering them in common evinces no more but that each Apostle had the power of the Keyes but leaves it indifferent whether each had it equally or in equally since it expresses neither nor is there any so silly as not to see that moâ—e persons may have the same thing yet one of those may have it in a more particular manner than the rest Now then since wee have a place of Scripture expressing a promise of the Keyes in a particularising manner to S. Peter how can the other places of a common delivery prejudice the having them more especially since it abstracts from having them equally or inequally and so is indifferent to and consistent with either Solution 2. They are delivered equally to all and every of the Apostles as is evident by the plurall style throughout that Commission Of Schism p 87. l. 2. 3. 4 5. Reply To think that a bare plurality can prove much less evidence an equality is such a peece of bedlam like non-sence that I wonder the silliest old wife should be gulld with such an affected peece of foolery Paul's and Pancras by this Logick must be equall because they are both in the plurall call'd Churches nay every peece of the world's frame is a maniâ—est instance aâ—aâ—nst this paralogism since in every species in Nature the particulars or individualls are plurally styled by the same word and agree in the same generall notion though there be hundreds sometimes thousand degrees of inequality between them Yet this infinitely weake reasoner hath as I dare undertake to show above fourty times made this argument against us and to surpasse his otherwise unparaleld'self he calls it an evidence Were it not pretty to put some parallels to this peece of Logick and make Dr. H. argue thus Constables and Kings are in the plurall styled Magistrates ergo cryes the Dr. it is evident they are both equall A Captaine and a Generall are both plurally styld Commanders ergo concludes
the Dr. it is evident they are equally such The like argument he hath made heretofore for the equality of Apostles pillars foundation-stones c. because all of each sort were named by one plurall name Pardon me then Reader if I have given such a harsh character to this monstrous peece of Logick I professe I know not what better name to call it by truly and besides other considerations I cannot but resent it in the behalf of man's nature Which is Reason and am angry with Dr. H. in his owne behalf that he hath by his passion and interest so totally defaced it in him self as to produce that for an evidence which is so far from the least degree of probability that it is the greatest impossibility imaginable But especially when I see that the same person who acknowledges Schism greater then sacriledge or idolatâ—y would persuade rationall Souls into it by such putid non-sence I confesse I cannot contain my expressions from taking such liberties as truth and Iustice make lawfull but the concernement of my cause necessary Solution 3. Each single Apostle had this power as distinctly promised to him as S. Peter is pretended to have and the words of Scripture Math. 18. v. 18. are most clear for that purpose Of Schism p. 88. Reply there is not a word there expressing any distinction in order to any other Apostle much lesse singularizing each of them distinctly as you here pretend but a common and plurall donation onely whatsoever you shall binde c. and as for your Syllogism by which you would evade the shamelesnes of this assertion Answ p. 66. by saying that you mean't onely the Apostles were each of them singly to have and exercise the power of the Keyes and not all together in common or joyn'd together in Communion first neither agrees with your other words for it is one thing to say each could distinctly use that power another thing to say as you of Schism p. 8â— l. 13. 14. this power was distinctly promised to each of them and then quoting Math. 18. v. 18. as most clear for that purpose where nothing is found but a coÌ„mon expression whatsoever yee shall binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. without any distinction at all exprest Nor can such a pretended meaning stand with common sense unles the Dr. will confesse him self to have calumniated our tenet which imputation he hath before taken such pains to avoid for either it is put in opposition to us or not if not what does it there or to what end are all those testimonies brought of Schism p. 89 to second it If it be put in opposition to us and yet mean onely as Dr. H. says here that it was promised to all the Apostles as to twelve single persons each singly to have and exercise it and not all together in common then our tenet must necessarily be supposed and pretended by him to be that no single Apostle could bind or loose but all of them together in common onely which is so manifest a calumny that himself dares not openly own it though he slily impose it as he did the other about the Keyes being S. Peter's inclosure Yet it is as necessarily his as the excuse given is his which if he disclame he acknowledges the objected fault Solution 4. The addressing the speech to S. Peter in the singular is a token onely that Peter as a single person should have power but not either that no others should have it too observe Reader how the calumny he formerly would have acquitted himself of still sticks to him or that the manner in which S. Peter should have it should be singular to him and so as it was not to each of them Answ p. 64. 65 Reply this is onely your own saying show us out of the words themselves that this is more probable as I show'd the contrary and then I shall acknowledge that you have animated the dead letter more artificially then I otherwise you have done nothing for the question is not whether you can say so or no but whether the words oblige you to say so Solution 5. The particularity gives him particularly the power but excludes not others from the same power and the same degree of power Answ p. 65. Reply This is onely said again not shown that the words gave occasion to say it which was onely to be done He quotes indeed drily the places of Scripture yet puts down no words as his custome is but talks before and after the barren and unapply'd citations what he pleases Wee take the words of the Text debate them minutely and particularly and bring them home to the point to show that our tenet of a more particular powre is more probable out of their native force Let him do the like and show by the same method his explication more connaturall then mine and I shall grant he won the field in this probability-skirmish Himself will not deny that S. Peter had as much promis'd him as the rest when it was promis'd in common Math. 18. v. 18. The having then over and above this common promise at another distinct time and with most particularizing and distinguishing circumstances a promise of he same Keyes most manifestly is a priviledge peculiar to S. Peter and that on which wee ground the probability of having them promis'd in a particular manner and consequently performed in the same sort which wee make accouÌ„t wee find with the like particularities Io. 21. Let the Reader then observe what countenance the words Grammatically prudentially scann'd give to our explications and deductions and expect what other explication so well circumstanc'd Dr. H. can deduce of the same words taken in their own native force and energy not what he will say upon his owne head Solution 7. The speciall energy of the applying the words particularly to S. Peter concludes that the Ecclesiasticall power of aeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house belongs to single persons such as S. Peter was and not onely to Consistories or Assemblies Of Schism p. 87. Reply This is still your own saying without ever endeavoring to show from the words and their circuÌ„stances they persuade that this is the sense of them But let it be so that you have evinc't against the Presbyterians from this place that a community must not govern but a Bishop that is one who is Superiour to that community who sees not how much better and more probably it follows hence that S. Peter was Superior to the consistory of the Apostles they being present when those particularizing words were spoken whence Dr. H. proves the Episcopall Authority over the consistory then it will follow that in succeeding times and distinct circumstances some one should be chief and over the Assembly Again the words not being expresse for his position he can onely make a parallell deduction thence after this sort if he will argue from the words that the same should be observed in a
should be really and properly to judge and preside over them so it is equally a madnes to pretend that the Apostles life time and not the day of â—udgment is signified here really and properly since the word it self not necessarily denoting it this interpretation is onely built upon the applicablenes of the circumstant expressions which being all mysticall and improper cannot make it proper and literall but mysticall and improper onely Thou seest then Protestant Reader to wâ—â—t rare Drs thou entrustest thy hopes of salvation who either bring Testimonies for their tenet which is most expressively against them when the Author speaks literally or els dogmatize upon a mysticall sence and pretend 't is mean't really Which method were it follow'd there is no such contradictions in the world but might be made rare truths The testament given in Mount sina would be really a woman and â—gar Abraham's handmaid Gal. 4. v. 25. Christ's doctrine would be reall corne preaching would be reall sowing men would bee in reality meere vegetables the good wheat by bad tares Heaven nothing in reality but a barn the Angels would be really reapers and sweaty tann'd country-drudges with sickles rakes and forks in their hands preaching loding into carts driving home and unloading into this barn mens Souls by Dr. H's learned Metamorphosis far out-vying Opid's turn'd really into meere Vegetables and so many grains of wheat These and millions of others perhaps greater absurdities might an Atheist object to Christianity and make it the most ridiculous absurdity nay the perfectest madnes that ever abus'd the world by interpreting mysticall things really that is by following Dr. H's method here who out of a place evidently mysticall and so exprest by the Author deduces dogmatically as a reall truth that the promise was made for twelve reall and properly called thrones for each Apostle to siâ— on one to rule and preside in the Church in the Apostles time And were it worth the pains to looke for the omitted place in S. Austin I doubt not but wee should finde it of the same mysticall strain in some Homily or other for he writ no comments upon S. Mathew that I know of from whence wee may certainly expect such a literall explication Sect. 5. How Dr. H. goes about to prove the donation of equall power from the Descent of the Holy Ghost and from fathers by an heap of weaknesses contradâ—ction of his own calumnies of our tenet forgâ—ries of his Advers ary's sence and words denying his own avoydings to answer and other shuffling impertinencies IT follows in Dr. H. of Schism p. 88. in the half-side of a leaf parenthesis and when that promise to wit of twelve Episcopall thrones was finaâ—ly performed in the descent of the Spirit Act. 2. the fire that represented that Spirit was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sate upon every one of them without any peculiar mark allow'd S. Peter and they were all filld ' with the Holy Ghost and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all Observe Reader these words particularly and then I an confident if thou knowst what Controversy is thou with pity me for being task to answer such a dreamer Here is not a word here which even seems to make against us but these without any particular mark allow'd to S. Peter and the having the Holy Ghost equally neither of which are or can be prov'd by any man living for who can see man's heart or know in what degree he hath the Holy Ghost but God onely or who can tell us now that S. Peter had no peculiar mark or greater tongue of fire than the rest as the wise Dr. pretends and builds upon nothing being recorded either pro or con concerning that impertinent curiosity Nor can these ridiculous arguments seem in the least sort to make against S. Peter's higher Authority and our tenet but by supposing Dr. H's false and weak principle to bee true that none can be higher in Authority but he must necessarily have more of the Holy Ghost in him As for all the other words they nothing at all concern our purpose or impugn our present tenet since wee hold that each Apostle had the promise made had a performance of that promise that the fiery tongues sate on every of them c. And as for his saying that this promise of twelve thrones was finally performed in the descent of the Holy Ghost though it be most miserably weak as shall be shown yet it nothing at all impugns us inducing onely that each Apostle had power in the Church which wee voluntarily grant To answer these phantastick toyes the better I will take the whole peece a sunder into propositions and impugn them singly The first proposition is that the promise of the twelve thrones of Episcopall presidency was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit Observe Reader that our question is about Authority and Iurisdiction as Dr. H's chairs to rule and preside in tells thee and then ask Dr. H. whether it was ever heard of before in this world that the coming of the Holy Ghost gave Iurisdiction or Authority to the Apostles but zeal charity knowledge courage vigor strength and such other gifts onely See the Scripture Luke 24. 49. Tarry yee in Hierusalem untill yee be endued virtute ex alto that is with power or powerfulnes efficaciously to prosecute what they were a ready design'd and commissioated for not till you have finally Authority and Iurisdiction given you Again the Holy Ghost fell upon all the 120. as appears by Act. 1. and upon multitudes both of men and women in many places and occasions afterwards and yet no man ever dream'd that they got by this means any Authority or Iurisdiction But to show the absurdity of this conceit there needs no more but to reflect upon the Drs words He sayes that the promise of twelve thrones of presidency or â—â—welve Episcopall chairs as he expresses him self Aâ—sw p. 67. was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit if so then the Holy Ghost consecrated the twelve Apostles actually Bishops for the finall performanâ—e is the actuall giving a thing and the thing to be given then is by him exprest to be twelve Episcopall chairs wherefore actually then and not before the Apostles were made Bishops and had so many Episcopall chairs given them so pretty a foolery that laughter is it's properest confutation But to mend the iest himself in other places strenously defends that the distinction of the Apostles presidencies of Provinces by Apostolicall agreement long after the coming of the Holy Ghost as appears by the place Gal. 2. on which hee relies And if we should ask him how there could be twelve Episcopall chairs to rule and preside in without twelve sorts of subjects to be presided over and ruled that is twelve Bishopricks and then ask him again where those twelve distinct Bishopricks were at the coming of the Holy Ghost I know the good man in
stead of making good his owne argument would be forc't to turn taile as he does often and bid us prove the contrary The second proposition is this The fire which represented that Spirit was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Dr. sate upon each of them Who ever deny'd but that each of them had a tongue of fire and that this tongue of fire sate upon them what then what follows hence against us He tells us Answ p. 68. in these words This I suppose an argument of some validitie that the promise being seald distinctly to every one of them was mean't in the making of it distinctly to every one of them Grant the inference shown lately to be nothing worth whas tenet of ours does his conclusion contradict onely this that the promise of the Keyes was mean't to one Apostle onely or els to them altogether or in common so that each single Apostle could not use it neither of which being out tenet as he willfully counterfeits his argument of some valedity onely impugns a calumny forg'd by himself and onely proves that he hath bid his last adieu to all sincerity who newly hath pretended an endeavour to clear himself of calumny in making our tenet to be that the power of the Keyes was S. Peter's peculiarity and inclosure and yet ever since reiterates it upon all occasions with the same vigour Once more Mr. H. I desire you to take notice that wee hold and are readie to grant nay mantain and â—ssert that each particular Apostle had the power of the Keyes given him and that he could use them singly the inequality and subordination of this power in the other Apostles to a higher degree of it in S. Peter is that wee assert If yoouintend really to impugn it bring proofs for an equality and no subordination and do not thus willfully wrong your own conscience hazard the losse of your own and other men's Souls and lastly thas openly abuse your Readers by calumniating our tenet and calling your wise proofs arguments of validity whereas they neither invalidate nor touch any thing which our adversary holds The 3d proposition is this There was no peculiar mark of fire allow'd to S. Peter In answ Schism Disarm p. 97. call'd this proof a dumb negative and askd him how he knew there was no particular mark allow'd S. Peter since he was not there to see and there is noe history either sacred or profane that expresâ—es the contrary Now the Dr. in stead of shewing us upon what Grounds he affirmed this which properly belong'd to him makes this impertinent and prevaricating objection Answ p. 68. It seem's a negative in S. W. mouth is perfectly vocall though it be but dumb in another man's so that the good Dr. supposes that I go about to prove S. Peter to have had a peculiar maâ—k of fire because 't is no where heard of so much is the most common sence above his short reach Whereas I onely ask't him why he did affirm it without knowing it or how he could know it having noe ground to know it perhaps it would clear his understanding a litle better to put his sence and mine into syllogisme mine stand's thus No man not having ground from sense nor Authority can know and so affirm a matter of fact but Dr. H. hath neither ground from sense nor Authority that S. Peter had no peculiar mark therefore he hath no ground to know it nor affirm it His can onely make this Enthymene wee read of no peculiar mark or fire allow'd S. Peter therefore he had none Or if it be made a compleat syllogism it must be this the Apostles had nothing which is not read of in Scripture but S. Peter's peculiar mark of fire is not read of in Scripture therefore he had noe such mark And then the sillines of the Major had shown the wisedom of it's Author who may conclude by the same Logick as well that the Apostles had no noses on their faces since this is equally not mentioned in Scripture as S. Peter's peculiar mark is Next it was ask't him why S. Peter could not be head of the Church but God must needs watch all occasions to manifest it by a particular miracles or why he could not be chief of the Apostles without having a greater tongue of fire so that could the equality of fiery tongues bee manifested yet the silliest old wife that ever liv'd could not possibly stumble upon a more ridiculous proof but the position it self which he affirmed being impossible to be manifested it surpasses all degrees of ridiculousnes and oughâ— to move rather a iust indignation in any Christian who understands what belongs to Grounds of faith to see it so brought to the lowest degree of contempt and disgrace as to be debated by such childish non-sence and by one who professes him self a Christian and a Dr. Now Dr. H. against these exceptions made in Schism Disarm'd sayes not a word that is he neither goes about to show that there was no particular mark nor that it was to any purpose had there been one onely he tells us Answ p. 68. that thought it be a negative argument that is though it prove nothing yet he hopes by being annex't to the affirmative probation precedent it will not be a gagge to make that dumbe and negative also So that he confesses it does no good at all onely he hopes it will do no hurt to his affirmative probation that is to his aâ—gument of some validity already spoken of and truly no more it does for it remains still as arrant an affected willfull calumny of our tenet as ever it was I added that if wee may judge by exteriour actions and may beleeve that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks then perhaps the Dr. may receive some satisfaction in this point also that S. Peter had in more peculiar manner the Holy Ghost For it was he that first burst out into that heavenly Sermon whâ—ch converted three thous and. First the Dr. calls this Answ p. 68. l. 12. 13. in a prettie odd phrase a doubty proof to evidence on S. Peter's behalf Whereas I onely brought it for the Drs sake who good man uses to fancy any Scripture-proof better then a demonstration not for mine owne or my tenet's inteâ—est having diclaimed the necessity of consequence from his being fuller of the Holy Ghost to his being higher in dignity Schism Disarm p. 97. l. vlt. p. 98 l. 1. 2. Nor did I pretend it as an evidence as the Dr. calumniates expressing both my intent and degree of reliance on it sufficiently in these moderate words perhaps the Dr. may receive some satisfaction c. Secondly he sayes I bring it to evidence he know's not what for 't is not exprest but left doubtfully betwixt his being Head of the Apostles and his having some peculiar mark yet one he supposes designed to infâ—r and conclude the other whereas the intended point is
expressely put down in my words now repeated by him self to wit that S. Peter had in a peculiar manner the Holy Ghost and the necessary connexion of this with his higher Authority expressly disclaim'd in the place even now cited Thirdly after he had repeated my whole discourse he subjoyn's immediately here was one honest word the perhaps As if our Saviour's words out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and those others of the Scripture that S. Peter converted three thousand by his first Sermon were all dishonest words But since I intended onely to give the Dr. some satisfaction of which knowing his humor I was not certain why was it not honester to expresse my self ambiguously then to cry a loud Certainy surely no doubt unquestionably irrefragably as Dr. H. does all over before his Testimonies whereas all is obscure uncertain falsified not a word in them sounding to the purpose as hath been shown all over this book It may be the Reader may accound Dr. H. the greater wit for using such confident and loud-crying expressions when there is so litle wooll but I hope he will thinke S. W. the honester man for speaking withim compasse Fourthly he sayes that the Dr. meaning himself may not be satisfy'd thence that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner to which he addes of his own falsifying invention or was designed head of the Apostles as if I had pretended this either as equivalent or necessarily consequent out of the former whereas he knows I absoluty disclaimed against him any such pretence This done without having afforded owne word of answer or sence he bids us farewell in these words I shall answer it no further then by repeating Good night good Dr. But to let the Reader see how much stronger my perhaps is than the Drs surely I will briefly put doun the import of this late proof ad hominem and 't is this that since out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks 't is probable that S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in his heart more abundantly or in a higher degree since he first exprest it 's interiour motions by speaking and speaking soe vigorously and powerfully Now then since in Mr. H's Grounds the receiving the holy Ghost seald the Commissions of the Apostles and finally performed the promise of their ruling and presiding in the Church whence he contended also that all had this promise equally performed that is according to him had equally the Holy Ghost lest one should exceed anoâ—her in Iurisdiction it follows unavoidably ad hominem it against him that if be probable S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in an higher degree it is probable likewise that he had a higher rule and presidencie in the Church performed to him The argument bearing this sence who sees not 't is Dr. H's task to let us knowe why this so early and vigorous pouring forth argued not a fuller measure of the Holy Ghost within what does he He calumniates me to bring this as a clâ—ar evidence putting the words clear evidence in other letters as if thay had bene mine falsifies my known pretence twice calls the word perhaps the one honest words says the Dr. may not be satisfie'd by the reason alledged that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner and then in stead of telling us why he may not be satisfie'd immediately concluding that he shall not answer it further than by repeating it Thus Dr. H's reason like some sorry creature taken tardy in a tale first mutters and stammers as if it would say something or were hand-bound with some bad excuse but seing it could make no coherence at length very honestly hands down it's head and sayes iust nothing The fourth proposition is And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost which he tells us here was sure no distinct argument of his But why it should not be as good and sole suffiâ—ient a proof as this that the fire was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he pedantizes it sate on every one of them which he called Answ p. 68. l. 3. an argument of somevalidity I had no ground in the world to imagin both of them equally impugning our tenet that is not at all For wee equally grant that each single Apostle had power giuen him to bind and loose or Authority in the Church which he without any ground will have signified by the division of this fire as wee do that they were all filled with the Holy Ghost The fifth and last proposition immediately follows the former and is this and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all that is all had equally the Holy Ghost and this is pretended as deduced out of the fourth saying that they were all full of it Schism Disarm p. 98. showd the weaknes of this arguing from fulnes to equality by the instances of our Saviour Barnabas who are both said in Scripture to be full of the Holy Ghost as also of the saints in heaven being full of glory though there were an inequality between them in those respects and by the parallell ridiculousnes of the plow man's silly argument who concluded alleggs equall and that none had more meat in it than another because all were full To take of these exceptions and strengthen his feeble argument the Dr. offers nothing though he braggs at the end of the Section that he hath attended me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely he tells us here p. 69 gentily that he is not concern'd to doubt but that they which are full of the Holy Ghost may have it unequally if by unequally be meant the inequality of divine endowments How he is concern'd to doubt it shall be seen presently in the meane time let us reflect on his other words and ask him what is meant by the Holy Ghosts abiding in the Souls of the faithfull or by what other way he imagins him to be there than by divine endowmeÌ„ts onely I hope he thinks not that the Holy Ghost is hypostatically united to them or incarnate in them An inequality then of divine endowments is all the inequa'ity which can be imagin'd in this matter and thefore if any inequality prejudice Dr. H's tenet he is concern'd to avoid this Now how much it concerns Dr. H's circumstances to avoid an inequality of the Holy Ghosts being in the Apostles is as plain as it is that it concerns him to say any thing to the question and not talk onely in the aire He is about to impugn S. Peter's higher Authority by the performance of the promise of Authority and Commission made finally as he thinks by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them wherefore unles he prove that the Holy Ghost descended equally upon each he can never argue hence against the inequality of S. Peter's Authority pretended by us and so it avalis him nothing He saw this in his book of Schism where he
that in all reason wee should think unles hee knows something to the contrary that our Saviour and his Church deserved to be represented by the most lustrous and richest stone in the Company Wherefore the lustre of the Iasper being apply'd to them we have noe reason to imagin the contrary but rhat it had a more perfect and glorious lustre than the rest But this is not all I aim'd to induce hence ad hominem against Dr. H. my pretence was sufficiently intimated in the same place that the lustre of the Iasper was used in the Apocalypse to represent persons of higher dignity and Authority to wit our Saviour and his Church and soe the same stone representing S. Peter onely exprest his higher dignity in a double relation to our Saviour as being like in representation and soe onely he resembling him as his Vicar or Vicegerent to the Church as being the first part of her that is her head since his was the same stone she was of and the first of all the rest These objections I offer'd to show the Dr. overthrows in his own wordish way and in his own weak argument to which notwiâ—hstanding he gives no attendance at all nor any other solution save onely sayes on his own head that the lustre of the Iasper most properly signifies the lustre of zeal and other gifts but what Grounds he hath to thinke that it signified noe higher worth or dignity as apply'd to our Saviour and his Church but onely zeal and gifts or why as apply'd to S. Peter to whom onely a mongst the Apostles it is attributed it should not signify the same as it did in other places he offers nothing Onely he calls his sitting still when t' is his duty thus to be be stirre himself a precise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attendance Lastly for an upeshot himself knows not whether this stil born argument from the equall mensuration of the wall makes for him or against him for he infers onely that it assignes an equall proposition whether of power or Province to all and every of the Apostles So that it seems himself is in doubt whether it relates to an equality in power or Province Now then this being so and equality in power being the onely question between us unles he first can show that it hath regard to power whihc yet he no where so much as attempts more than by saying it does so he is utterly incapable to pretend hence that the power in all the Apostles was equall Again to omit that his conceit of Apostolicall Provinces hath been shown to be perfectly chimericall and Groundles what doth the equality of their particular Province prejudice us since with this it may well consist that one of those Governors though equall in his private charge may be either constituted by the Supreme or agreed upon by the rest of those twelve to be their chief and him to whom in extraordinary occasions and more universall affairs recourse is to be had as to a Superiour Wherefore till Dr. H. afford me Evidence that this Mysticall place hath reference to power or indifferently either to power or Province for though he bee in doubt what it signifies yet he tells us of Schism p. 91. t' is evident I shall take the liberty my nature allows me to assent vnto neither but rather to think that it relates to the different disposition of Souls onely known to God as his Mysticall Author before explicated himself in another occasion and that the heavenly Hierusalem shall be made up of such some of them resenting and resembling the Spirit that is the particular maÌ„ner of the knowledg and affection of S. Peter others those of S. Iohn of S. Paul c. which the Allwise orderer and coorderer of nature and Grace saw most fitly to be signified by such and such prescious stones for some qualites and properties which he best saw by analogy commonly agreeing to both Mysteries to be venerated by an humble admiration not to be proudly presum'd as with a literall and grosse familiarity known or seen by our muddy and flesh-veiled eyes which they doe who pretend to dogmatize bring rigorous evidence the onely rationall ground of faith from such depths of obscurity the most pernicious and boldest irreverence that can bee offer'd to be onely certain ground of faith evidence of Authority or to the profound unscrutablenesse of those Mysteries themselves Having behaved himself thus gallantly in this point of the donation of the Keyes he takes his leave of us in this triumphant manner And so much for this large 13. Section which I have attended on precisely and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being most important to our busines in hand the case of our Schism fundamentally depending on the Supremacy of S. Peter and consequently of his first part Where first he makes the solving our places from Scripture to be most important which wee never built on at all for this or any other point of our faith as applicated by the private skill of Drs or wits Secondly his attendance on me which he praises for so diligent and precise if examin'd is onely this that he hath prevaricated from his pretence promise injured us in omitting our best place of Scripture and calumniated our tenet all over that he hath not shown us from the words that his interpretation is more connaturall nor one equalizing word of this power to counterpoise the many particularizing terms objected by us nor given us any other explication of those particularizing Texts save onely his conceit against the Presbyterians which he pretends not to show deducible from the letter but sayes it upon his owne fancy onely that hee omits to answer or take notice of the most forcible and energeticall parts of those Texts and the most difficult arguments wee produce ad hominem against him that he hath not brought one Authority to second his interpretation of twelve thrones for twelve Episcopall chairs though he promis'd us there but falsify'd and abus'd one Author preteÌ„ding him to vouch his interpretation though most expressly and point blank against him injured another by taking literally and in a dogmaticall rigour what he exprest himself to mean mystically and yet even that Mysticall explication contradicting and disgracing many parts of his doctrine in this point and dissemblingly concealing the words and place where 't is found in the third Author That hee hath shuffled about most pittifully to make good his negative arguments and his proof of equality from a bare plurality and fulnes that pretending to answer the place Tu es Petrus he leav's the particular and proper signification of the word which Scripture and their one translation gives it and all the particular circumstances in the Text which accompany this word that is he leaves and omits so much as to mention all in which we put force from that Text and by the assistance of Homer skips aside from answering that Text to argue from another in
the Apocalypse that being come thither he brings another negative proof argues from plurality to equality again gives for his solution Grounds for all the Apostles to be call'd Peter falls to measure a wall in the Apocalypse to prove equality of power without proving first or knowing nay doubting himself whether it relate to power or no that hee omits to reply to those passages which show'd him baffled in his own argument and lastly when he hath done to let the Reader see he hath used his utmost here he praises this point as most important and brags that he hath attended us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and precisely whereas he left the main passage and all the circumstances that force was put in un attended and untouch't and most miserably shuffled about blunder'd quibbled in all the rest THE CONCLVDING SECTION Reason why the Disarmer proceded no further in laying open Dr. H's fault Objected Falsifications clear'd and some of them retorted upon the Objector An unparallell'd and evidently willfull one of the Drs presented to himself and his Friends in requitall Friendly counsel to the Dr at parting AND now understanding Reader what dos't thou expect further that I should lose my own ill employ'd time vex thy patience already cloy'd with laying open this Drs weaknesses false dealings through the rest of his book or rather dos't thou not complain how unnecessary so long a refute is to such a Trifler and candidly correct mee as some iudicious friends have already done that it had bin abundantly sufficient and as much as he deserved to gather together a Catalogue of his manifest absurdities and then leave him to the censure of iudicious ingenious lovers of truth reason I confesse in the tedious processe of this Reply seeing nothing worthy a man that is nothing which pretended a rigorous or rationall discourse I became wholly of their minde too yet I had such regard to the weaknes of the multitude of Readers that I still proceeded in laying open minutely the unparalleld sillines insincerity of their adored preaching Doctor and the tyranny of that consideration had transported me into farther inconveniencies so as to shew him constantly like himself to the very end of his long book had not I been partly urged partly necessitated to desist and my desistance warranted by these following reasons First that Wits Schollars who are the flower of Readers are deterr'd disenvited from reading books especially Controversies if they grow to any excessive bulk And to those that should read such it would be in a manner ungratefull when nothing is to be seen but the faults of a writer laid open which was the reason that to give some tincture of solidnes to my Reply so to take of the tediousnes from knowing Readers I have taken occasion to discusse some points as those concerning Possession the Churches power to binde to beleef the certainty of Tradition c. more largely than I was obliged out of any respect due to my Antagonist himself or his sleight way of writing Secondly I have given unexpected satisfaction before hand to more knowing persons by laying Grounds before my Reply which come home to the life of the question at least endeavor to clear it rationally which therefore I conceive would be more gratefull profitable to them and on the other side being supererogatory to the task of a Respondent might deserve to excuse some part of that which was ungratefull to them unprofitable nay all of it confes 't by Dr. H. himself as shall be seen to be unnecessary Thirdly I had acknowledg'd some beholdingnes to the Catholike Gentleman's letter so had drawn upon my self an engagement to vindicate it also against Dr. H's Reply By which mean's I had two books of his to refute as far as I proceeded to both which had I reply'd quite through it would have made too-large a volume Fourthly the B. of Derry had e're I had answer'd Dr. H's first part put out a refute to my Appendix to Schism Disarm'd which oblig'd me to leave some room in my already big book for him and to bestow on him some part of that my defensive task otherwise due intended to Dr. H. and so I had not room enough to prosecute all the less necessary trifles of that my long winded Adversary Fifthly the task it self of answering such kinde of sleight soul'd Writers was most tedious irksom to any one who pretends to ayms at Science nay most irrationall and senceles consisting in this that rigorous discourse the immediate evident connexion of terms that onely proper satisfaction to a reasonable Soul being neglected upon which our Tenor Rule of faith immediate Tradition is at least pretended to be built to leave this I say and to stand replying to every odd end of a worm-eaten Record or testimony which without the help of this Tradition can claim no originall Authority at all much less against it and for the most part is falsify'd unauthentick ambiguous in terms or non-cluding if it hap to be true truly-proposed besides many other weaknesses invalidating it which is to neglect sence for words and instead of reasoning from Grounds fall to quibbling in Sounds Sixthly even in pursving this testimony way I have shown to the eye of the Reader this Drs manner of writing so infinitely faulty weak so full fraught with falsifications paralogisms perverting both words sence of Authors omitting words most important for us adding others most important for himself suborning Arch-hereticks for true fathers building upon Testimonies fetch 't from those of his own side alledging places as for him concealing the words found to be directly against him shuffling a way the true point with a gentile slines begging or els mistaking the question all over as oft calumniating our tenets positions runing division upon a dow-bak'd If a long way without ever considering the if not Talking voluntarily to fro upon his own head in a preaching vein blundering things in themselves most clear with needles distinctiōs explications which he uses against their nature to involue confound recurring to dilating himself much in the generall terms so to avoid coming to the particular point contradicting himself frequently and in one point Nine or ten times flourishing all over with certainly surely irrrefragably infallibly unquestionably accordingly plainly manifestly demonstrably undoubtedly clearly expresly we know it is manifest id est perfectly unavoidably evidently innumerable such other expressions all sprung from his own fancy to give countenance to the Testimonies not from the Testimonies or any force of reason to make good those expressions to which add his sober sermon-phrases so oft repeated of no degree of truth no appearance of force I did in the simplicity of my heart verily beleeve I shall not deem it necessary to descend to any further proof His playing the Pedant all over in Greek to amuse the
good women silly children those I say many other faults follies weaknesses I have shown to any intelligent Readers eye so manifest so frequent in him that I could not conceive any imaginable necessity of laying him open further and that if he have been convinc't to behave himself so weakly insincerely in that part of his book which himself accounts onely to have been fundamentall the like might iustly be expected without showing it by detail in the rest of his book which he acknowledges to be lesse necessary in case we may have so good an opinion of him as to think he would treat more solidly sincerely that which more imports is substantiall to the question of Schism and by consequence most highly concerns mens salvations which depend there upon Seaventhly I was disenvited by this that it is particularly against my inclination temper whatsoever Mr. H's his friends may conceive of mee to stand manifesting the faultines of others further then I can be satisfy'd it is precisely necessary judging it the most illiberall task that a Soul which longs after Science could be put upon to be employ'd in discovering the disingenuity weaknesses of the wrongers of Truth and professing with all sincerity that I had rather candidly confess acknowledge the virtues advance the fame of good Writers according to the degree I finde them to deserve than to reveal the vices shame of bad ones as my favourable expressions on the by concerning the acutenes of the Lords Faukland Digby the wittines of that Giant for fancy Dr. Donne in my Schism Disarm'd clearly testify Eightly I was much deterr'd even from endeavouring any particular exactnes in this much more from attempting the rest by reason of the dangers in a manner imposibility to get my books printed here in England and the great charge hazard also I saw I was like to be at in sending them to France It is very cheap easie for them to brag of a quicker Reply to whom the presse is free the book sellers shop licenced both to print vent them openly with security advantage whil'st those Authors whose books are prohibited printing in England vnder great penalties forfeitures after they have past the chargeable tedious press beyond sea may not be sold here but at the loss of forty shillings a book if the buyer pleases to prove Knave are not yet by their sillily-insulting Adversaries allow'd what in reason is due for such disencouragements hazards delayings Ninthly 't is a farr more secure satisfaction to candid Readers to see a main part of a book answer'd cōpleatly fully than the whole slubberingly and imperfectly as I have and shall show further that Dr. H. hath answer'd mine for this latter method leaves a way open to omit many things amongst which it may happen that some are very important whereas the former manner of proceeding debarrs that licentiousnes and all pretence of that excuse and so makes either the cause or the Writer unavoidably fall under a just suspect if it chāce to fall short of being satisfactory But especially if that part of the book which is thus fully reply'd to bee acknowledg'd by both sides to bee solely important a conciser and solider way of satisfaction cannot bee imagin'd Lastly if all those former reasons alledg'd will exuse me from performing a needles duty Dr. H. himself shall compleat my iust excuse confess this was needles who in his book of Schism p. 92. after he had finish't his sleight discourse against S. Peters Supremacy the part which I have largly reply'd to he adds that 't is very unnecessary to proceed to the other part of it c. that this is in effect the onely ground of the Romanists pretensions c. that he thinks fit again to remind the Romanist and peremptorily to insist on this exception against S. Peter's Pastorship over all the rest of the Apostles and p. 94. that what he should add concerning the power of S. Peter's Successor as such would be perfectly ex abundanti more then needs and so he desires it may be look't on by the Reader The like he repeats in his Answer to Schism Disarm p. 74. Saying that my 13th Section which vindicated S. Peter's Supremacy was most important to our busines in hand that the case of our Schism fundamentally depends on that Supremacy c. Thus he Now then I have fully reply'd to vindicated our tenet in all that he calls fundamentall onely necessary our onely Ground and which he professes he peremptorily insists on it follows that had I done more I had done a busines not important nor fundamentall nor on which they peremptorily insist and so it being also unnecessarily for mee to vindicate a point which he thinks very unnecessary to prosecute my further endeavors had been confessedly to no end or frivolous if taken alone but joyn'd to my former reasons absolutely vnwise temerarious I omit that Dr. H. neglecting to answer almost all my 9th Section of the 2d part of Schism Disarm'd which prov'd the Protestants guilty of the materiall fact of Schism and all my 10th Section which prov'd them guilty of the formall part of it that is neglecting to answer all that part of my book in which I brought him to terms of reason and which did intrinsecally fundamentally substantially concern our question and passing them over sleightly p. 224. after he pretended falsly that I beg the question with telling the Reader that he will leave me to Skirmish with my own shadow wheras it was the hottest Schirmish in the book as any ordinary eye may discern I conceive it gives mee iust occasion to neglect answering that in him which himself confesses neither substantiall nor fundamentall I omit also that I was often blam'd by respected and knowing friends for losing so much pretious time in such a worthles foolery which I might have employ'd much better to mine own others advantage they assuring me likewise that his Reply was not valued by any indifferent and iudicious persons nor by all on his own side but onely by a few who were so irrationall therefore inconsiderable that they never examin'd any thing but immediately took that to be in reality an Answer which was call'd so would iudge him alwaies to have the best who should speak the last word whether it were sence or no. Thus much to show that I had no precise necessity nor iust reason to vouchsafe Dr. H. a larger Reply Yet though in doing this I spare the Drs credit I must not neglect to clear mine own and add something more in vindication of my self from his senceles aspersions But indeed in nothing can I more discredit disgrace him than in rehearsing clearing what he objects in this Kinde For by this the candid Reader seeing how inconsiderable the worst is he can say against mee will discern that he had an
common Rule of faith to his fellows and the rest nor yet a common Government which may show them visibly to us to be of the Church and on the other side stands indited by undeniable matter of fact to have rejected those points which were are visibly such to the Church they broke from 't is no lesse evident that hee hath not said a word to the purpose but stole it away as his custome is from the open field of the plain charge to invisible holes In a word those proposalls of S. Paul are motives why Christians should be united in Wills and also why those who are not Christians should be of the Church and Christian common wealth not the proper ties which make them of it for these must be visible remarkable known as are de facto our form of Government our Rule of faith The frame then of the Church as put by me was thus visible the joynts of it recounted by the Bp. out of S. Paul invisible yet the sincere man pretends here when hee brings these invisible points to take my frame in peeces to look upon it in parcells Which is to prevaricate from the whole Question and instead of answering to abuse wrong his Adversary Secondly hee sayes hee will not dispute whether Christ did give S. Peter a Principality among the Apostles so wee will be content with a Principality of order and hee wishes I had exprest my self more clearly whether I bee for a beginning of order Vnity or for a single Head of power Iurisdiction I answer I contende for no such singular Head ship of power that no Bishop in the Church hath power but hee for this is known to bee the Heresy which S. Gregory did so stoutly impugn when hee writ against Iohn of Constantinople A Principality or Primacy of order I like well provided this order signify not as the Bp. would have it a dry order which can do nothing but such an order as can act do something according to it's degree rank as the word order imports if taken in the Ecclesiasticall sence and as it is taken when it is applâ—'d to the Hierarchy as for example to Pâ—triarchâ— Primates Arch Bishops Bishops c. Which ought to bee the proper sence of it in our Controversy it being about an Ecclesiasticall preeminence As for what hee tells us that the Principality of power resiâ—es now in a generall Council besides other faults already noted it falters in this that generall Councils are extraordinary Iudicatures and never likely to happen in the sence you take a generall Council But our Question is whether the nature of Government require not some ordinary standing Supremacy of power ever ready to over look the publike concerns to promote the interests conserve the peace of the Christian Commonwealth by subordination to whom all the faithfull remain united in the notion of Governed If this bee necessary as plain reason avouches then wee ask where you have lest this standing ordinary Principality of power since you have renounc't the Pope's Supremacy Thirdly I added and consequently to his Successors This consequence exprest in generall terms hee tells us hee likes well enough and that such an head-shippe ought to continue in the Church but hee cannot digest it that such an Head ship should bee devolued to the Bp. of Rome yet what other Successor S. Peter had that could bee properly call'd such that is such a one who succeeded him dying except the Bp. of Rome himself will never attempt to show us This consequence then of ours applying in the Principality of S. Peter's to the Bishop of Rome which hee calls a rope of sand hangs together thus that whensoever Christ conferrs any power to any single person to be continued for the future good of the Church and has taken no further order for it's continuance hee is deem'd likewise to have conferd it upon those to whom according to the order of nature it is to come Now the naturall order requires that offices dignities should be devolu'd to those who succeed those persons dying who were vested with them in case there bee no other ordinary convenient meanâ— instituted to elect or transfer it to another That Christ lest any such institute that his Church should continue this dignity by election or traverse the common method of succession wee never read but on the contrary wee fide de facto that the Bishops of Rome in the Primitive Church enjoy'd a Principality by succession not by nomination of the Catholike Church nor is it convenient but extremely preter naturall that this Principality being of perpetuall necessity as hee grants the Church should remain without it at the death of every Pope till all the Churches in Iapan China India or where ever remotely disperst in all parts of the habitable world should bee ask't give their consent whether the Bishop of Rome should still continue with this Principality or no. No other means then being layd or lest to cross this way of succession as appears by common sence and the practice of the Church it follows that this naturall order must take place and so the particular dignity of S. Peter remain to those who succeeded him dying in his see of Rome His Argument then which hee pretends parallell to mine that such a Bishop of such a see died Lord Câ—ancellor of England therefore all succeeding Bishops of the same see must succeed him likewise in the Chancellor ship of England comes nothing home to my case for here is a supreme standing Magistrate to elect another traverse succession the transfering that charge is easily conveniently performable here are positive laws institutes made known accepted that a King should do this But put case that there were none of all these means of electing a new person on foot in the world and that the Chancellor ship were to be perpetuated there would bee no doubt in that case but the naturall order would take place there also and the Successors of that Bishop would succeed also into the Chancellor ship Christ left hee tells us the cheif managing of his family to his spouse that is the Church Pretty sence signifying thus much that the Church or universality of â—hristians must govern themselves have no cheif Governour at all Is it not rare that the Bishop should think Christ's family and his Spouse or Church are two distinct things What hee adds that hee lest it not to any single servant further then as subservient to his spouse is very true and all Governours in the world are or ought to bee subservient to the common good of the governed as even the Angells are Spiritus administratorij yet no more can the subjects command their Governours than wee can command Angells And so the chief Church her Bishop the chief Governour of Christ's family are for the good of the Church thouh over the Church however my
him speak for him by adding two Parenthesis of his own in the middle p. 326 327 328. Another heap of Absurditis p. 232 233. Absurdity in deducing a Conclusion out of three Testimonies in stead of shewing one expresse word in any one p. 345 346. c. with others of an inferiour strain Absurdities about Saint John's Priority in place p. 371 372 373. Another p. 374. Many and most grosse Absurdities to avoid the clearing his inexcusable Falsification of Scripture p. 376 377 c. Absurd pretences and his building on a â—silly unauthentik and most unlikely Narration p. 388 389. Absurd nonsence in obliging us to confesse what we hold as of Faith instead of shewing us he had exprest we held so and not calumniated our tenet p. 390 391 392. More new Absurdites p. 307 308. Absurdity in answering by a Paralel which in nothing resembled our objection p. 410 411. Absurd Nonsence p. 418 419 420. A Cluster of Absurdities about his twelve Thrones p. 421 422. c. all over Another Cluster of toyish Absurdities p. 435 436. An whole Army of Absurditias mustered up which he nicknames a perfect Reply and attendance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to my most important Section p. 450 451. Abusing the Reader 's eyes four severall times p. 198 199. Also p. 231 232 237 249 251 326 327. with what art he does so p. 327 328. Also p. 329 330. and in divers other places Abusing a Testimony from Theophylact. p. 243 244. Abusing a Testimony from Scripture p. 283 284 285. Abusing a Testimony from Anacletus p. 297 298. c. Abusing the Jewish Church and her Practice in their purest times p. 311. Abusing the Primitive Christians as most uncharitable and the Apostles as abetters of their fault p. 318 319. Abusing Saint Peter and his Jewish Prosclytes by making them all Schismaticks p. 315 316. His other manifold abuses come under the Heads of Calumny cavill false-dealing and others Actuall Power of the Pope in England at the time of the breach p. 36. 37. The Antientnesse of that Actuall Power p. 37 38. B BElief what according to Dr. H. p. 113 114. 134. What truly ibid. Blasphemy against Faith and Ground of Faith p. 111. Another p. 112. Three more p 114. Other two p. 200 201. Doctor Hammonds manner of dogmatizing the seed of all Blasphemies p. 420. C. CAlumny against a pretended Adversary who medled not with him p. 27 28. Also p. 33 34. Calumniating our tenets p. 96 103 twice 104 403 404 twice 423 424 431 432 440. Calumniating his Adversary p. 366 Calumny formerly imputed manifested from his own words to be such p. 390. 391. Cavill groundlessly made against a petty lapse though rectify'd in the Errata p. 172 173. Other groundlesse and senselesse Cavills p. 186 230 276 277 278 302 366 367 368 426 thrice 427. False Cavill that S. W. never consider'd his Allegations when as he had answerd them particularly one by one p. 211. A Cavill grounded upon a false pretence of his own p. 342. Another built upon his own Falsification of his Adversaries words p. 37â— Certainty of Faith a just ground for zeal p. 10 11 12 20. Certainty and strength of Tradition p. 12 13 16 45 46 97 119 120 132 134. Challenge made formerly to â—r H that he could not shew one expresse word for Exclusive Jurisdictions in any of those Testimonies he produc'd to prove it p. 343. This Challenge how rationall and moderate in the Offerer how necessary and advantagious for the Accepter p. 343 344. Challenge acceped ibid. but totally prevaricated from after acceptation p. 345 346. Changing St. Hierom's words p. 26. Changiing my words and intention p. 31 56 Changing the force and sence of the Father's words thrice by his Paraphrase or Translation p. 8 79 80. 81. Changing the Question almost all over Changing the words of their own Translation p. 195. Changing St Chrysostom's intention and sense by omitting some of his words p. 265 266. Multitudes of others of this sort especially changing the Fathers and his Adversary's words `and the letter in which-they were printed to his own advantage I omit to recount most of them fall more properly under other Heads Contradictions to himself p. 102 104 115 116 123 135 140 142 145 146 148 173 174 185 twice 196 l. ult 197 l. 11. 216 238 239 244 twice 263 264 270 271 twice 272 287 293 294 369 392 393 405 423 432 446. Contradicting four places of his own p. 204 205. Contradicting six other places of his own ib. Nine Self contradictions shewn from p. 207. to p. 214. Contradicting himself and common sense both at once 314 315. Contradicting himself in denying his Irrefragable Evidence to be intended for what his own words evince he brought it p. 334 335. In denying it to be a Proof for the point p. 336. In denying seven Testimonies which before he call'd Clear Evidences to be Proofs p. 336 337. Contradicting himself with one Testimony five times p. 417 418. Contradicting the scope of the present Controversie and of his whole fourth Chapter p. 205 206. contradicting the whole stream of Scripture p. 309. 310 312 313 314. contradicting his own Tenet of Exclusive Provinces p. 357. contradicting common sense p. 310. 311 368 369. 393. contradicting himself and common sense at once p. 314 315. contradicting at once all the most Substantial part of his Book p. 350 351. E. Evidences able to excuse the Protestants from Schism how they ought to be qualified p. 40 41. That they have no such Evidences p. 42 43 44. A Testimony Evidence how it ought to be qualified p. 382. Dr. H's Evidences how qualified p. 383. Evident demonstrably that H. the eighth was p. 132 133 134. Evident demonstrably that the Papacy was never introduc'd p 168 169 170. F. Fact evinc'd out of Histories concludes not Right p. 51 52. Falsifications of Scripture p. 194 195 196 197 307 339 343 403. False and common trick in citing Scripture p. 354 355. False pretences from Scripture 195 360 363. Egregious and most wilful falssificâ—tions of Fathers other Authors discoverd p. 245 246 247 248 249 250 266 267 268 269. 270 358 359 367 415 416. Falsifications of S. Ambrose reiterated and shamelesly applyed to his own advantage whereas it is expresly for us p. 349. Falsification of Falsifications p. 375. Falsely substituting the Arch-heretick Pelagius his Testimony for S. Hieroms p. 239 240 241. Falsifying the words of the Testimony as well as the Authority p. 242 243. Falsifying his Adversaries words and plain intention p. 73 74 370 371 376 428 433 465. An egregious and most notorious Falsification as it was put in his Book of Schism 468 469. A voluntary and shameful Falsification left undefended p. 319 320 321 c. False Pretences that he answered some passages p. 186 187 322. l. 3. and again l. 8 9. Also p. 387 394 413. Falsifying our pretence of Evidences p. 175. False stating
any shew of inference that they agreed to limit the power it self about which our controversie is because they agreed to limit the exercise of that power The fourth position which concerns the exclusivenes of their Iurisdiction from all save their own Provinces is the onely thing which can seem to advantage Mr. H. or concern our question which is about the limitation of Iurisdiction is absolutely false vterly groundles not warranted by any one testimony first invented by Mr. H's fancie pretended to be evidenced by testimonies in his book of Schism challenged by S. W. not to have a word concerning it in any one testimony there alledged to prove it not ownd constantly by Dr. H. in his Answers but absolutely prevaricated from deny'd though at the cost of so many so grosse self-contradictions attended on by a troop of absurdities as hath been shown And lastly not coming home the question neither as shall be seen hereafter for what inference is this Each Apostle was imediate overseer of his own particular Province therefore one of them was not over all the rest The place from Scripture insisted on to evidence this for Dr. H in his Answ p. 38. is of late grown jealous that his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fall short of evidences is Gal. c. 2. v. 7. 8. 9. 10. which I will first put down as I finde it in their own translation then explicate it whether with more consonancy to all circumstances then Dr. H's Exclusive Iurisdiction when they met does let the Reader judge The words in the place cited are S. Paul ' s these When they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me as the Gospel of the Circumcision was to Peter for he that wrought effectually with Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision was mighty in me towards the Gentiles And when Iames Cephas Iohn who seemed to be pillars perceived the grace which was given unto mee they gave me Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the Circumcision onely they would that we should remember the poor c. This is the place upon which Mr. H. builds his tenet of exclusive Provinces with what right let this plain connaturall explication inform the Reader Our Blessed Lord Saviour determined the conversion of his elect both of Iews Gentiles had already sent down his holy Spirit upon his Apostles in Hierusalem wher upon their zeal inciting them the place they were in giving them occasion they added by their preaching multitudes of the Iews to the new-growing Church Stil the Gentiles out of Iudea heard no more news of him than the star led Sages and some straggling preachers had told and were ignorant of his heavenly doctrine except what rumour might have variously and obscurely spread He chose therefore S. Paul both for zeal though hitherto misled naturall acquired abilities as also his being bred among the Heathens being born at Tarsus in Cilicia fit proportioned for that end To him he appeared near Damascus enlighten'd the eyes of his minde by striking blinde those of his body made him powerfully his told him his errand that he should carry his name before the Gentiles not that his comission should extend to them onely since the Commission given by Christ to each Apostle is acknowledgedly universall but that he was by God's all-ordering providence fitted chrosen designed more particularly for that end The former circumstances gave him his addiction his addiction so qualified produced great fruit all these together got him the appellation of Apostle of the Gentiles particularly such indeed but not exclusively it being otherwise evident all over the Acts that he preach't commonly earnestly to the Iews Where he was converted there he imediately began to preach so proceeded in that work till some began to suspect him his doctrine as not coming from Christ because he had not lived conver'st with Christ as the other Apostles had Vpon this he is forc't to come to Iudea to confer his doctrine with the other Apostles and receive their approbations which they found exact entire exprest by those words nihil comulerunt they in conference added nothing to me S. Paul having thus given account of his doctrine the efficacie of his preaching to the Gentiles and the Apostles finding that S. Peter was in like manner eminently particularly efficacious in converting the Iews in Iudea exprest here in the 8. v. two things ensved here upon to wit that by giving S. Paul the right hand of fellowship they acknowledged him a true Apostle or a fellow Apostle at once determined that since he thriu'd best among the Gentiles S. Peter best among the Iews the greatest harvest of which was found in Iudea S. Paul should goe â—ut of Iudea to the Gentiles take Barnabas with him S. Peter with therest remain in Judea still to preach to the Iews and this is all the busines which Mr. H. would make to be an agreement to distribute exclusive Provinces The meaning then of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Circumcision in the ninth verse to which S. Peter was to apply himself I take to be Iudea or the Iews there not those in dispersion and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles to be those out of Iudea Now if this be so then to omit all which hath been said formerly Dr. H's assigning S. Peter of Schism p. 71. onely the Apostleship of some of the Iews in dispertion by founding the exclusivenes of his Authoritie upon this place vanishes into it 's original nothing for in case any distribution of Provinces be signified here S. Peters's must be the Iews at home in Iudea not those abroad or in dispertion if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denote here onely Iudea or the Iewes in it Now the reasons for this explication of mine are first because the efficacie of S. Peter's preaching to the circumcision had been experienced with in Iudea S. Paul's over the Gentiles without Iudea consequently their severing themselves being upon this account should mean that one should stay where he had experienced such fruit that is in Iudea the other goe where he had found the like that is out of Iudea Secondly the words very well bear it since the Iews doe not live vnited in any considerable confluence save in Iudea nor the Gentiles but out of it which is the thing that gives a common denomination to a people Thirdly S. Paul's words onely they would that we should remember the poore imediately following shew plainly the meaning is that he was designed by these words to go out of Iudea therefore desired to remember the poor which were in Iudea as he accordingly did Rom. 15. v. 25. 26. But now I goe to Hierusalem to minister to the Saints for it hath pleased them of Macedonia Achaia to make a certain