Church yet we see Protestants communicate with them aswell nay more than with Anabaptists nor are they look't upon with a different eye from the other sects or as more separated from the Church than the rest Again as Puritans are excluded by this Principle so all that reject any thing but these twelve Articles are admitted by it as part of God's Church Hence it follows that though any sect deny the Government of the Church by King by Bishops by Pope by Patriarch by Lay-elders by private Ministers nay all Government the Procession of the holy Ghost all the Sacraments nay all the whole Scripture except what interferes with those twelve points are members of God's Church Reader canst thou imagin a greater blasphemy Again when he says the Apostle's creed is onely necessary and fundamentall he either mean's the words of the Apostles creed onely or the sence meaning of it If the former the Socinians and Arians hold it whom yet I conceive he thinks no part of God's Church If the latter either the Protestants or we must be excluded contrary to his tenet from the universall Church for since points of faith are sence and we take two Articles to wit that of Christ's descending into Hell that of the Catholike Church in a different sence it follows that we have different points of our creed or different creeds and therefore either we or they must fundamentally err and be none of the universall Church Where then is this determinate universall Church or how shall we finde it by the Protestants Principles no certain mean's being left to determin which Congregations are worthy to be call'd particular Churches and so fit to compound that universall which not to be excluded from her For the second point in case there were many particular Churches yet an universall signifies one universall every universality involving an Vnity and so they must have some ty to vnite them according to the natures of those particulars Now those particulars consist of men governable according to Christ's law and so the whole must be a body united by order and Government for things of the same species or kinde cannot be otherwise exteriorly united But I have already shown in the foregoing Section that the Protestants Grounds have left no such order subordination of universall Government in God's Church therefore no universall Christian Common-wealth that is no universall Church To show then this determinate universall Church being the proper answer for the Bishop let me see how he be haves himself in this point First he toyes it childishly telling us that the Protestants acknowledge not indeed a virtuall Church that is one man who is as infallible as the universall Church I answer nor wee neither Ere he calumniates the Church with any such pretended tenets let him show out of her decrees they were hers otherwise if he will dispute against private men let him quote his Authors fall to work Secondly he tells us they acknowledge a Representative Church that is a generall Councill with signifies nothing unles they first determing certainly who are good Christians and fitt to vote there who Hereticks so vnfit that is till they show what Congregations are truly to be called Churches and what Church made up of such and such is to be esteemed universall otherwise how can a Representative of the universall Church which is a relative word be understood to be such unles it be first known which is the universall Church it ought to represent Thirdly he tells us they acknowledge an Essentiall Church I marry now we come to the point Expect now Reader a determinate universall Church so particularly character'd that thou canst not fail to acknowledge it The Essentiall Church that is saith he the multitude or multitudes of beleevers His that is seem'd to promise us some determinate mark of this Church and he onely varies the phrase into beleevers a word equally obscure as the former equally questionable nay the self same question For 't is all one to ask which is a Congregation of right beleevers as to ask which is a true Church But this is his vsuall and even thrid bare trick with which Mountebanklike he deludes his Readers and is too much inveterate in his manner of writing ever to hope to wean him of it They can do no more than shuffle about in Generall terms hold still to indeterminate confused universall expressions who have no Grounds to carry home to particular things He concludes with telling his Reader that we are in five or six severall opinions what Catholike Church is into which we make the last resolution of our faith Whither away my Lord The question at present is not about the resolution of faith nor about the formall definition of a Church but about what visible materiall persons countries make up the Church That you cannot pitch upon these in particular I have already shown that we can is as visible as the sun at noon day to wit those countries in Communion with the See of Rome These and no other are to us parts of the uniuersall Church Every ordinary fellow of your or our side can tell you what these are 't is as easie to do it as to know which is a Papist-Country as you call it which not And even in those places where they live mixt with others as in England they are distingvishable from others by most visible Marks Our Rule to distinguish our flock from Stragglers is the acknowledgment of immediate Tradition for the Rule Root of faith and of the present Government of our Church under S. Peter's successor who so ever renounced this Government or differ'd from us in any other point recommended by that Rule at the same time and in the same act renounced the said ever constantly certain Rule and by renouncing it their being of the Church as did your selves confessedly in the reign of King Henry the 8th and the Greeks with all out casts for those points in which they differ from us To this all Catholikes agree what ever school men dispute about the Resolution of faith Show us a Church thus pointed out visibly and such evident manifest Grounds why just so many and more can be of it or els confess you have lost the notion of an universall Church nor hold or know any Sect. 8. Nine or ten self contradictions in one Section How hee clears our Religion and condemns his own The Incoherence of the former Protestans blody laws with their own Principles How hee steals by false pretence from showing a visiblety of Vnity in the Church to invisible holes The reason why the succession into S. Peter's dignity should continue to the Bp. of Rome Plentifull variety of follies non-sence and quibbling mistakes The sleight account hee gives of the order Brother hood and fundamentalls of his Church HIs 8th Section presents us with his fifth Ground to iustify their separation and 't is this that the King
our charge of their Schismaticall breach is will winnow them the Rule of faith the voice of the Church or immediate Tradition will winnow or rather Christ hath winnow'd them by it having already told them that if they hear not the Church they are to be esteemed no better than Heathens Publicans Since then 't is evident out of the terms that you heard not the Church for your nâ—w fangled Reformations nor Ground those tenets upon the voice of the Church nay according to your Grounds have left no Church nor common suprem Government in the Church to hear it follows that you have indeed winnow'd your selves from amongst the wheat of Christians and are as perfect chaff I mean those who have voluntarily broken Church Communion as Publicans Heathens Now to show how empty a brag it is that they hold Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee to omit their no Communion in Government already spoken of Sect. 6. let us see what Communion they have with the Greek Church in tenets by the numerosity of which they hope for great advantages and whether the Protestants or wee approach nearer them in more points held equally by both I will collect therefore out of one of their own side Alexander Ross the tenets of the present Greek Church in which they agree with us though in his manner of expressing our tenet hee sometimes wrongs us both The Greeks place saith hee much of their deuotion in the worship of the Virgin Mary and of painted Images in the intercession prayers help and merits of the saints which they invocate in their Temples They place Iustification not in faith but in works The sacrifice of the Mass is used for the quick and the dead They beleeve there is a third place between that of the blessed and the damned where they remain who deferr'd repentance till the end of their life If this place bee not Purgatory adds Ross I know not what it is nor what the souls do there View of all Religions p. 489. And afterwards p. 490. They beleeve that the souls of the dead are better'd by the prayers of the living They are no less for the Churches Authority and Traditions than Roman Catholikes bee when the Sacrament is carried through the Temple the People by bowing themselves adore it and falling on their knees kiss the earth In all these main points if candidly represented they agree with us and differ from Protestants Other things hee mentions indeed in which they differ from us both as in denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost not using Confirmation observing the Iewish Sabbath with the L d' s day c. As also some practises not touching faith in which they hold with the Protestants not with us as in administring the Sacrament in both kinds using leauened bread in the Sacrament Priests marriage there is no one point produced by him which our Church looks upon as a point of faith in which they dissent from us and consent with the Protestants except that one of denying the Pope's Supremacy for their onely not using Extreme-Vnction which hee intimates signifies not that they hold it unlawfull or deny it Iudge then candid Protestant Reader of they Bp ' s sincerity who brags of his holding Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do whereas if wee come to examin particulars they neither communicate in one common Government one common Rule of faith if wee may trust this Authour of their own side since if the Greeks hold the Authority of the Church and Traditions as much as Catholikes do as hee sayes they must hold it as their Rule of faith for so Catholikes hold it nor yet in any one materiall point in opposition to us save onely in denying the Pope's Supremacy And how more moderate they are even in this than the greatest part of if not all Protestants may bee learned from the Bp ' s mistaken testimony at the end of this Section as also from Nilus an avowed writer of theirs for the Greek Church against the Latine and one of the gravest Bp ' s and Authours of that party who shuts up his book concerning the Pope's Primacy in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The summe is this As long as the Pope preserves order and stands with truth hee is not removed from the first and his proper Principality and hee is the Head of the Church and chief Bishop and the successour of Peter and of the rest of the Apostles and it behooves all men to obey him and there is nothing which can detract from the honour due to him but if when hee hath once strayed from the Truth hee will not return to it hee will bee liable to the punishment of the damned Where the Reader will easily judge whether the former words sound more incliningly to the Catholike or the Protestant tenet and as for the latter words But if c. There is no Catholike but will say the same Thus much then for my L d of Derry's Communion with the Eastern Church And as for his Communion with the Southern Northern Western Churches which hee thunders out so boldly as if all the world were on his side and of his Religion if examin'd 't is no better than the former sence his side denies immediate Tradition of forefathers or the living voice of the present Church to bee the Rule of faith which is to the Roman Church the fundamentall of fundamentalls Nor has hee any other Rule of faith that is a plain and certain method of interpreting Scripture common to him and his weakly relâ—ted Brethren so that if they hit sometimes in some points 't is but as the Planets whichare ever wandring hap now and then to have conjunctions which hold not long but pursving their unconstant course decline and vary from one another by degrees and are at length crost by diacentricall oppositions The rest of this paragraph insists again upon his often answer'd saying that the creed contains all necessary points which is grounded onely upon his falsifying the Council of Ephesus as hath been shown heretofore To my many former replies vnto this pretence I add onely this that either it is a necessary point to believe there is such a thing as God's written word or the Scripture or not If not then why do the Protestants challenge it for their Rule of faith Is not the Ground of all faith a necessary point But if it bee a necessary point then all necessary points are not in the Apostles creed for there is no news there of the Scripture nor is it known how much thereof was written when the Apostles made their creed what hee adds of our having chaÌ„ged from our Ancestors in opinions either hee means by opinions points of faith held so by us and then 't is calumny and is to be solidly proued not barely said But if hee mean School opinions what hurt is done that those things should be changed which are in their
onely to mean at present a deemed or beleeved certainty of Faith in him who is to maintain it Now whoever holds his Faith and its ground certain as Catholiks do is obliged eo ipso to hold for certain likewise that the Government recommended to him by the same Rule of Faith is to be submitted to and by consequence that the rejecting it is Schism whence follows that he must hold also for certain that the Propagatour of that Tenet is a Ringleader of Schismaticks publickly pernicious and one who by his poisonous Writings infects the souls of men with as hainous a vice as ever entituled any to damnation Neither can he hold him otherwise unlesse he will hold the ground of his own Faith uncertain and call into question the substance of all his hope that he may instead thereof entertain charitable thoughts of the impugner of it Now then let us consider what carriage is due towards a private person held for certain to be one who endeavours to draw souls to hell by his Writings and Authority from him who holds him so nor can hold him otherwise unlesse he will hold the grounds of his own Faith doubtful ought not this Catholike Writer if he has any zeal for his Faith or care of his Conscience which obliges him in charity to prevent so great mischief to use the means and waies which wit and art can invent to confute and discredit that mans harmful sophistry and disparage his authority as fat as truth can justifie his words ought hee not to trample down all tendernesse which his good nature would suggest neglect all considerations of respect all condescensions of civility to lay him open plainly and palpably to be what hee is that is ridiculous nonsensical weak blasphemous or whatever other Epithet the defence of so bad a cause makes so bad a writer deserve why should he make scruple going upon those grounds that his Faith is most certain and the former sequel no lesse to give him the same language if he be found to deserve it as St. Iude gave the Adversaries of Faith in his daies as the Fathers gave Porphyrius afterwards nay more if he sees he can make him justly ridiculous why should he not expresse himself ironically too in order to his nonsence as well as Elias might scoffe at the Priests of Baal In a word whatever can conduce to the justly disgracing him as the Defender of a certainly deemed-pernicious cause might lawfully nay in Charity ought have been used to undeceive his adherentes and preserve others from a certainly-beleeved danger and that the greatest of dangers eternal damnation Hence sollows that though S W. may perhaps be blamed for holding his Faith certain yet he is inculpable for proceeding consequently to the former Tenet that is in treating Dr. H. as a pernicious destroyer of soules since as hath been proved he cannot think him otherwise unlesse hee either doubt of his own Faith or renounce the light of his Reason which taught him to deduce thence by evident consequence that such he was and as such to be treated He who holds ill principles is blameable indeed in that regard but yet he is worthy of praise and commendations for proceding consequently upon them since to deduce consequences aright is very laudable As for the culpablenesse which may accrue by holding his Faith certain to clear himseif to rational persons for wordish and merely testimony-men are not capable of reason he feares not to professe that he makes account he hath as perfect evidence or more than he hath for any thing in nature that Truths of no lesse concernment then Eternity written in the hearts of so many as may in a just estimate make up the account of mankind in such a powerful manner and with such incompatable motives as the Apostles writ them being so conformable to nature not meerly speculative but each of them visibile and daily practical could never dye or decay out of the hearts of Christians in any age Nor hath he lesse evidence that consequently Scripture its interpretation being subject to misprision as far as they depend not upon this and are regulaâ—ed by it Vniversal Tradition is the onely certain and absolute rule of Faith whence follows that both they who build upon any other ground have onely opinion to found their faith for those points which they receive nor from tradition as also that that Church who relies upon universal Tradition for each point of Faith erres in none not can erre so long as the sticks close to so safe a Principle Now then finding no Church doe this but the Roman-Catholike for neither Greeks nor Protestants nor any else pretended to have received ever from their immediate Fore fathers those points of Faith in which they differ from her doubt not to account Her that onely Church which hath the true motive ground and rule of Faith since probability cannot be that Rule and consequently which hath true Faith and is a true Church Hence I am obliged to esteem all other Congregations which have broken from that onely-certain Rule or her Government recommended by the same Rule Schismatical and Heretical hence I conclude her Infallible because I make account I can demonstrate that the principle upon which onely she relies is impossible to fail Hence Iastly that I may come home to my intent I account my faith certain and the propagator of the contrary certainly pernicious to mens souls and therfore that it was both his desert and my obligation not to let slip any possible advantage which might with Truth damnify his cause and him as-the maintainer of it Now that we may turn over the leaf as certainty that faith is true is a sufficient ground to beget a just zeal in its propugners against its adversaries so a profest fallibitily and uncertainty is uterly insufficient for that end and unable to interest conscience in its defence For how should conscience be inreressed to defend positions held upon no better ground with any eagernesse unlesse reason be interessed first and how can reason be obliged to the serious and vigorous patronage of what it felf knows certainly that it knows not whether it be true or no See but how the working of Nature in all men gives testimony to this Truth If we hear one obstinately affirm and stand to a thing which we know certainly is otherwise though the matter it self be but of triviall concernment even Nature seems to stirre us up in behalf of Truth to a just resentment and hardly can we refrain from giving a sharp reprehension if the person be underus or some expression of-dislike if this peremptory wronger of truth exceed our jurisdiction So on the other side if we be uncertain whether the thing be so or no we find it quite abates that keennesse of opposition neither will any one unlesse very peevish and weak engage passion to quarrel about a conjecture or if it so happen sometimes as when probablists
it's self as obscure as the thing he imagins we would prove by it or infer from it which he knows every child can tell is against the nature of a medium or argument Yet poor Catholick Writers from whom Dr. H. has got all the learning must be imagin'd unacquainted with that trivial toy belonging to the A B C of Logick Next he goes about to prove our tenour of possession null which he does most exquisitely by telling us Reply p. 45. that now they are in possession and consequently by the force of the Catholicks argument all arguments deducible from thence are lost to him the prescription being now on the Protestant's side as before on the Catholicks Where first he manifestly calumniates the Catholick tenet calling it prescription whereas prescription is a title to get a right in that which was known to be none of his before which is contrary to the profession of Catholicks who maintain their possession to have been ever from the beginning and never to have belong'd to any before so that this is a trick of a cunning shuffling gamester by changing the name to alter the state of the whole question But to proceed with his argument against our possession which he pursues in these words And there is nothing left the Romanists to plead but the original right on this side against the violence of the succeding possession Well done Doctor still 't is the luck of your Arguments against us that they are most proper and exquisite pleas for all malefactours Pray lend me your reasons a while and you shall see what work they will make in the world in a short time Put case then that a company of Theeves enter into another man's house and turning him his Wife and Family out of doors resolve to settle and nest themselves there and knowing the Law will call them to account for turning an inhabitant out of his possession they hire Dr. H. of Divine turn'd Lawyer to plead for them The honest Inhabitant pleads possession Dr. H. replyes that at this time he hath no possession but hath lost it and all arguments deducible from thence and that he hath nothing now left him to plead but the original right against the violence of a succeeding possession especially if the intruding crew have been in it any long time though the manner of their violent usurpation were never so visible and notorious then Dr. H. pleads prescription in his Clients behalf and exacts of the honest man to show his original right which he his Ancestours having enjoy'd it time out of mind not being able to manifest the poore fellow loses his house and the picaros carry the cause by the vertue of Dr. H's argument against the possession of Catholiks The same reason would doe the same service to any Quean that cuts a purse or any Knave that takes a cloak they are at present as Dr. H. tells us in possession and the right owner must lose Cloak and Purse both according to these new Laws unless they can prove their original right and show how they came by them That is they who are innocent must be treated as if they were guilty and forced to give account how they came by what they formerly-quietly enjoy'd and the guilty must be treated like innocent persons and stand secure upon their possession To this miserable pass would the world be brought if men should treat one another as the Protestants treat us in this point and if they were no more sincere and carefull to look well to their estates than they are to look to the Grounds of their Faith their eternal Salvation The eager adhesion to the former makes them account this treaty foul play if their temporal livelihoods be concern'd which their negligence of eternal happiness more obscurely far-off proposed makes them willing to think very fair in their debates about Eternity with us To make this clearer and withall to show how parallel Dr. H's Possession is to the former unjust ones and how unapt to parallel much less to out-vy and disannul ours as he would have it we will put them in the ballance of reason and let sincerity hold the scales premising first that we both hold at least Dr. H. grants Repl. p. 46. l. 13. in one place and that the more express of the two contradictory ones that prescription in divine and Ecclesiastical things is of no force which makes his pretended hundred years in it self useless for any thing in this controversy it being a Government instituted as inviolable by our Saviour not alterable or alienable by humane circumstances which appears to be granted by us both because they pretend to prove the King's supremacy and the equality of the Apostles from Scripture we when we see it fitting the contrary This presupposed let us compare our Possession to their present pretended one Ours is acknowledgedly ancient theirs late and upstart Ours is such as no visible Effects proportionable to it's weight can be shown that is such immediate changes in the world as may justly make it supposed an Vsurpation theirs manifest in such visible and violent immediate effects and such consequences of millions of changes as render it a palpable Vsurpation Hence ours is obscure in it's original and at most but controvertible that it ever begun theirs beyond all controversy new and of a late original Practical effects clad in all their circumstances yet remain in the world to attest their thrusting us out of possession no such effects alledged of our thrusting them or any else out except two or three impertinent conjectures the like whereof may be drawn for any absurdity and consequently it is much more impossible we should ever have usurp't than that William the Conquerour should have impower'd himself over England without other manifest immediate effects or signs of his newly-introduc't supreme Government there than that there are two or three dark sentences in the Apocalyps which abstracting from antecedents and consequents may be apply'd to it The whole world agrees of the time and circumstāces of their possession's beginning of ours our very Adversaries doubt and are in several minds Hence ours can justly claim to have come from Christ that is to be indeed a Possession and the sole possession in the matter we speak of their present pretended possession is impossible to be presum'd for such since every one knows when it began Wherefore our Possession is so qualify'd that of it self it can ground a claim that it came from the Fountain head of all Ecclesiastical power Christ Iesus not needing the assistance of another former possession to patch it up since no interruption of it being known it is justly presumed to have descended from Christ without interruption the same it is now Their present Possession cannot of it self even pretend to have come from Christ at all since it begun lately and if taken alone reaches not nor can pretend to reach to the time in which Christ liv'd but
in my evidencing book of Schism therefore he hath no such Authority here The antecedent is supposed as a first Principle known by the light of nature Next he argues thus I may surely say he hath no Supremacy therefore he hath none Lastly I must have leave to suppose we had convincing reasons for casting him out and my Companions think the same Ergo I have removed all appearance of râ—ason from the Romanist's whole exceptions With such slight talking as this kind Readers Dr. H. would gull Souls into Hell and which is the misery of miseries send them thither with non-sense in their Heads Sect. 2. How Dr. H. prevaricates from his formerly-pretende Evidences His ignorance of the way of interpreting Scripture manifested in his groundless explication of The Lot of Apostleship Act. 1. for a lesser Province Dr. H. in his fourth Chapter of Schism to undo the Pope's Vniversal Pastourshiâ— undertakes to undo St. Peter's first by showing that his Commission was limited to the Iews onely To do which handsomly he would limite the Iurisdiction of each Apostle likewise to certain Provinces lest his particular pique against the Pope's Predecessour S. Peter should be too notorious and manifest that his passion had engag'd him in a partiality against that Blessed Prince of the Apostles But because this doctrine of the Apostles exclusive Provinces as he calls them Of Schism p. 70. limiting their universal Iurisdiction was so rare a novelty that blind Antiquity never so much as dream't on 't nor any Authour that I can â—ear of ever so much as nam'd or mention'd it before he fetches the first root of their pedigree their An est from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lot of Apostleship and Iudas his proper place in Hell which he will have signify exclusive Provinces restraining the Iurisdiction or Power of each single Apostle His Disarmer first show'd then challeng'd him of Schism p. 47. that his interpretation of the first place for Exclusive Provinces which was his first Evidence or rather the Ground of his future Evidences was so strong and unmoveable that it alone resisted the whole world being evidently opposite to common sence repugnant expressely to Scripture injuriously contrary to all Antiquity prevaricating from the translation of their own Church and lastly contradictory to himself The Cath. Gent. calls the interpretations wretched and blasphemous This was our charge let us see now his defence First asham'd to father his own Grounds or his own words Answ p. 38. he denies that he mean't these for Evidences or ever thought on them as such But God be praised his own book of Schism is extant which pag. 70. ends the fourth parag by professing to offer his Evidences after which begins the fifth parag thus And first it is evident by Scripture that S. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision or Iews exclusively to the Vncircumcision c. and no Evidences from Scripture pretented in the same parag but these two miserable mistakes of it already noted from which Repl. p. 50. l. 11. he pretends to deduce that distinction of Provinces Next he tells us in the same place that it needed no Evidencing the thing being evident by it's own light that the Apostles went not all to one but disposed themselves over all the world to several Provinces If this were his sole intent there then why did himself professedly go about to evidence p. 70. l. 4. what he tells us here needs no evidencing Or what was his meaning to labour so hard with testimonies and Id ests from the fifth parag to the twentieth now by pretending irrefragable now unquestionable Evidences to prove that which he tells us here is evident by it's own light and needs no other But indeed that was not his intent then but to show their Iurisdictions exclusively limited as shall be seen though in this Book of his second thoughts preceiving it was impossible to make good his proofs or excuse his Id ests manifested by his Disarmer to be so impertinent he prevaricates from the whole question and relinquishesâ— position which could he have proved it might have doâ—e him some service for another which though granted does him none at all For what hurt is it to S. Peter's Headship among the Apostles if some went one way some another to preach Thirdly he is terribly rigorous against S. W. in telling him in the same place that his seventh Section is borrowâ—d from the Cath Gent. For besides that the Cath. Gent. puts onely one exception against Mr. H's wrong interpretâ—tion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas S. W. put seven no honest man living who is true to his cause and hath more regard to it's good than to an aiery flash of his own honour will refuse to write to the same sence another hath writ before him onely because himself was not the first Authour or Inventer of that sence if he sees that neither himself nor any man else could write better upon that point which were in effect to renounce reason because it is not originiz'd from his own invention but proposed first by another In this manner all Catholick writers borrow all they write from the Church striving to come as near her sence and Grounds as they can possibly and not vainly hugging self-fancied Grounds of their own as is the Protestant's mode But this shows what kind of Spirit Dr. H. is of who thinks it a disgrace to write what one deems truth if it hap to be the doctrine or sence of another and account it his onely vain-glorious honour to be the first broacher of new explications of Scripture and other rare inventions never before heard of Of which humour of his this present point is a pittiful instance his book of Schism a perfect model his Folio-Annotations on the Bible ae large Map as some more prudent Friends of his own complain Fourthly whereas he says here that my seventh Section is answered Repl. c. 4. Sect. 2. 't is a great mistake the greater part of my exceptions being not so much as touched there And surely it had been a great providence if going about there onely to answer the Cath. Gentleman's one exception he should have answered before-hand by a kind of prophetical foresight all my seven Fifthly to come to his Reply the pretended place for answer he is accused for being a bad Interpreter and he spends the greatest part of his pains in showing himself a good Grammarian and manifesting the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is a quite different thing The same word may have twenty several notions in it self but hath ordinarily but one of those as it is found in the Context and Syntax with other words The significations of words are to be found in Dictionaries the Interpretation of them as they stand in propositions depends upon the antecedents consequents with all the other train of concomitant Circumstances especially upon the import of the
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
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
would it serve your intent that there was exclusivenes in the actuall endeavours of the Apostles but you must evince an Exclusivenes in Right ere you can pretend to limit a Right nor have you brought as yet one expresse word of any testimony to make good the least of these Again if by universall Pastour you mean one who hath Iurisdiction to preach in all places of the world and to all sorts of people as your wise Argument seems to intend you need not trouble your self we grant each Apostle to have been an universall Pastour in this sence but if you mean that S. Peter was not higher in Authoritie amongst the Apostles how does this follow though he were supposed to be limited as a particular Bishop to his private Province or as a Bishop had a flock distinc't from S. Paul's is not even now a dayes the Pope's Bishoprick limitted to the Roman Diocese his Patriarchate to the West and so his Authority under both these notions limited exclusively and contradistinguisht from other Bishops and Patriarchs and yet wee see de facto that he is held chief Bishop in the Church higher in Authoritie then the rest notwithstanding Doe not our eyes and the experience of the whole world testifie this to be so yet were all the former absurd inventions of Apostolicall Provinces their exclusivenes S. Peter over the Iews onely c. granted still his utmost inference would be no stronger then this now related which the eyes of all the world gainsay to wit that because others had their particular assignations Provinces or Bishopriks distinct from S. Peter's therefore S. Peter could not be higher in Authoritie then those others by which one may see that my learned Adversary understands not what is mean't by the Authority he impugns but makes account the Pope cannot be Head of the Church unles he be the particular immediate Bishop of every Diocese in it Whereas we hold him contradistinct from his fellow Bishops for what concerns his proper peculiar assignation and onely say that he is higher then the rest in Iurisdiction power of command in things belonging to the universall good of the Church This point then should have been struck at disputed against not that other never held by us that none in the Church hath his particular Bishoprick or assignation save the Pope onely against which onely Dr. H. makes head while he makes it the utmost aym of his weak endeavours to prove S. Peter a distinct Bishop from S. Paul to have had a distinct flock Sect. 19. Dr. Hammond's method in answering his Disarmer's challenge that hee could not show one expresse word limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions in any of those many Testimonies produced by him for that End and how he puts three Testimonies together to spell that one word His palpahle falsification and other pittifull weaknesses AFter Dr. H's Irrefragable Evidence follow'd immediately of Schism p. 74. And all this very agreable to the story of Scripture which according to the brevitie of the relations there made onely sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the Circumcision and of his being so at Rome we make no question Vpon these words his Disarmer Schism Disarm p 73. enumerated as many significations imported by that word onely as were obvious confuted them severally because he found the words ambiguous telling him that neither doth Scripture onely set down S. Peter as Apostle of the Circumcision but Iames Iohn also Gal. 2. 9. nor is S. Peter any where exprest as Apostle of onely the Circumcision but expresly particularized the contrary Act. 15. 7. His Answer p. 50. affords us a third signification so impossible for S. W. to imagin as it was to foresee all the weakneses Dr. H's cause could put him upon 'T is this that the words onely is set clearly in opposition to the Scripture's making more particular relations of S. Peter's preaching to the Iewish caetus at Rome c. Now had the Scripture produced by him made any particular relation at all of any such matter then indeed his onely might have been thought to mean the want of more particular relation c. but if in no place alledged by him there had been found the least particular relation at all either of a Iewish caetus at Rome or S. Peter's preaching to it particularly or indeed so much as intimating his preaching in that City then what ground had Dr. H. given me to imagine that the restrictive particle onely was put in opposition to a more particular relation from Scripture of that of which the Scripture had given me no relation at all Is there a greater misery then to stand trifling with such a brabbler To omit that take away the former parenthesis from having any influence upon the words without it as it ought then one of the significations given by me is absolutely unavoidable But against the first signification impugned by me he challenges my knowledge that he could not mean so without contradicting himself and my knowledg challenges his conscience that he cannot be ignorant how he contradicts himself frequently purposely upon any occasion when he cannot well evade As for the second sence I conceived that ambiguous word might bear I repeated my challenge to him Schism Disarm p. 73. that If he could shew me the least syllable either in Scripture or other testimonies expresly and without the help of his Id ests and scruing deductions restraining S. Peter's Jurisdiction to the Iews onely excluding it from the Gentiles I would yeild him the Laurell and quit the Controversie This challenge though offered him before p. 52. 53. p. 68. yet he here first accepts not for the Laurell's sake he remitts that to S. W. but upon so tempting an hope as to be at an end of Controversie which I dare say he repents he ever medled with yet was hee very hasty to begin with Controversies voluntarily unprovoked and now when he sees himself answer'd unable to reply the moderate man growes weary wishes himself at an end of them as if he thought himself when hee begun first so great a Goliah that there could not be found in the whole Army of the Church a sling and a stone to hit him in the fore head Ere I come to lay open how he acquits himself of this accepted challenge I desire the Reader to consider first the import of it which is to exact onely of him to show one exclusive word exprest in order to S. Peter's Iurisdiction in any one of those many testimonies he produced for that end Secondly let him candidly observe what infinite disadvantage I offer my self what an incomparable advantage I offer my adversary in such an unparalleld proffer and condescension one restrictive word for the restrictive point now in question between us makes him and undoes mee Thirdly let him remember how Dr. H. call'd those proofs Evidences for that restrictive point
Moses his law to avoid the conversation of a Gentile so it manifests likewise that they were in a disposition rather to admit converted Gentiles than unconverted which yet we see here they did since the unconverted deny'd nay laught at Moses his law and Christ to boot which the converted did not which shows that though he may have some lame pretence that the Iews at Antioch were too nice yet he hath none at all no not so much as a word that this fastidious zeal was epidemicall or that it was so at Rome Nor does this testimony from Pelagius expresse this at all either in circumstances of time or place and this expresse place of Scripture with it's fellows are main prejudices against it Yet Dr. H. vaunts his undaunted valour that from these three testimonies he shall adventure to infer the conclusion that S. Peter's Iurisdiction was restrained to the Iews onely exclusively to the Gentiles And I question not but Dr. H. is a very bold adventurer is not a fraid to infer the most absurd remote positions that ever were dream't of out of the most unconcerning dumb testimonies all over his hook But it seems that even this Conclusion of his which he deduces out of testimonies instead of shewing me one expresse word in them is not of it self evidently consequent neither but needs still further proofs reasons to support it which he puts thus Answ p. 51. For how could there be two Bishops in one City a thing quite contrary to all Rule practice as soon as the division betwixt Iews Gentiles was taken away unles there were two such distinct caetus I answer he neither hath nor can show that the Sitting of two in one City then sprung from such a division of the Iewish Gentile caetus And if by practice he means common practice 't is granted but if he means it was never practised upon occasion as his words contrary to all practice intimate then I suppose one instance will suffice to destroy his universall position to wit that three paires of Bishops Meletius and Paulinus Paulinus and Flauianus Flauianus and Euagrius sate successively two together Bishops of Antioch Now what occasion there was for this in the Apostles dayes shall quickly be shown It follows in proof of the one expresse-worded-Conclusion If there were two such caetus then they that were of one caetus under one Bishops were not of the other caetus under the other Bishop I answer 't is evident by the light of nature that one is not another and needed no proofs yet to show his Skill he gives it a double one First because the caetus were kept a part impermixt So indeed said the Arch-heretick Pelagius cited by Dr. H. so oft and relied on so firmly for the onely prop of his cause as to this point for hee can never make his unconnected ends of testimonies meet but by the mediation of this Secondly because no Bishop was to medle in another man's Province Which till the Testimony from Pelagius bee made authentick touches not us for till then it is not prou'd these two Apostles had such distinct Provinces Hee proceeds And if it be pretended that it is true in coordinate Episcopaties but holds not betwixt a Bishop his Primate this is the first time he hath yet seem'd even to come near the question then the former arguments return again that shew'd from Scriptures Antiquitie that S. Paul was independent from S. Peter and that S. Paul had the Primatū Prmacy among the Gentiles as Peter among the Iews I reply that my answer are full as nimble as his arguments return as fast as they telling the first of them that he haht not produc'd a word either from Scripture or Antiquitie showing that the power given to S. Paul was not dependent on S. Peter which was the thing in question though indeed in what concerns not the question towit that the actuall giving the power depended not on S. Peter but was done immediately by Christ the Scripture is expresse plain As for his second argument 't is a flat falsification the words are S. Ambrose's which he here omits to tell us which as cited by himself Answer p. 39. in the margent Say that Peter Primatum acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam had received the Primacy to found the Church which word Church he makes here to be the Iews onely as contradinguish't from Gentiles though by the force of the very phrase it signify the whole Church of Christ made up of both Iews Gentiles so is expresly contrary to him definitive for our tenet as is shown heretofore Sect. 7. His last Stop-dāger is that though it may be that S. Peter did conuert some other such as Cornelius that is other Iews yet this is not argumentative for S. W. being nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction and withall but a whimpering may be in his language Where first he is resolved to pursve his so oft affected mistakes that I am to argue prove who he knows well undertook to Answer him show that his arguments testimonies prove nothing Nor did I tell him that a Maybe may not serve or is not proper for an Answer my words are plain Schism Disarm p. 20. that he ought not bring May bees for proofs For how can a proof conclude evidently unles the inference be necessary or how can the inference be necessary unles the Conclusion must be so and who sees not that a May-be otherwise doth out of the force of the terms destroy a must be so Wherefore as if I were to argue for the ground of my faith I should hold my self obliged to leave no room for a possibility to the contrary so I am sure I cannot wrong mine Adversary in expecting the same measure from him If then Dr. H. whose turn it is to dispute here since he produces testimonies proofs which he calls Evidences will conclude any thing necessarily his testimonies ought to infer that the matter pretended to be proved thence must be that is the contrary may not be and then though it be not augmētative for S. W. whose task it is not to argue yet it is sufficiently responsive for him to show that the contrary may be And this is all can be exacted of me or any other defendant in rigour of Logicall disputation If I have done more in most places than I was obliged and shown that the contrary not onely may be but is very many times that it must be and so have wrong'd perhaps my self in taking more pains with such a trifler then needs I hope I have not been iniurious to my cause by showing my self a too zealous though perhaps in some circumstances an unseasonable Patron of it in over acting the part of a Respondent or Answerer Now that conversion as Dr. H. sayes is nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction though it concerns not me at present to
define one way or other yet as coming from Dr. H. it is the most unbeseeming self-contradicting position coÌ„futing at once almost all his third Chapter the most substantiall part of his book which Chapter though concerning Iurisdiction as indeed the whole question is yet run's almost upon nothing else but preaching conversion which he tells us here is nothing to that matter See of Schism p. 71. the foundation of all his tenet imaginary Provinces defin'd to be such an Apostles proper place or assignation for the wittnessing the Resurrection and proclaiming the faith or doctrine of Christ to the world that is preaching or converting Sect p 74. Thus we know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted Iews S. Paul Gentiles You have been the Disciples of Peter Paul See p. 76. they founded the Church at Rome which was done by preaching at least it expresses not Iurisdiction See p. 78. S. Peter was Apostle of the circumcision S. Paul preach't at Rome in his owne hired house p. 84. that S. Peters baptizing many into the faith of Christ c. in Britany must be extended no farther then his line as he is Apostles of the Iews So that there he argued from preaching or Convâ—rsion to Iurisdiction which he saies here is nothing to it And the words he there intermingled expressing more particularly Iurisdiction as ruling c are his own not his Author's except when he speaks of a particular Bishop in his proper See as of S. Iohn at Ephesus which hinders not but the particular Bishop of another see may be higher then he as wee see now a dayes that more particular Bishops are subject to their Metropolitain and so such a Iurisdiction is nothing to our question unles he first evidence it's equality with the pretended highest Sect. 20. How the Apostles in likelihood of â—â—ason behaved themselves when two of them met in the same city Dr. H's agreable Testimony as hee calls it shown neither to agree with Scripture the Authour hee cites to prove it nor yet with his own grounds THus much in answer to my wordish Adversary now for the point it self of those Apostles being both Bishops in one City to clear that more throughly let us consider what was likely to happen out of of the nature of the thing it self joyn'd with the prudence of the Apostles The Spirit confirmed twelve were sent to preach to all Nations when where was left to God's prouident disposing of circumstances apply'd to their prudence For the task being difficult they not knowing by propheticall fore-sight what place time would for the future be alwayes most convenient as appears by S. Paul needing a vision of a man of Macedonia to direct him thiter and other times of a speciall direction of the Holy Ghost they were to govern themselves by that high prudence which amongst other gifts rain'd down upon them in Pentecost Most linger'd in Iudea till occasionall circumstances together with the inspiration of the holy Ghost disperst them some went one way some another Amongst the rest to particularize in two come nearer our point S. Peter S. Paul the two most efficacious Apostles were after some years by an especiall provideÌ„ce directed to Rome that Christian faith might gain a more advantageous propagation by the influence that Head City had over the subject world Coming thither each being sufficiently able to preach a part from the other it was very unfitting they should preach both together but that they should accommodate themselves in such a convenient distance that the whole City might be best summoned to Christ's Faith by the noise of these two Apostolicall Trumpets This done they fall to preach the hevenly newnes of their doctrine the prodigiousnes of their miracles make multitudes flock to them from all parts In the City were Gentiles Iews both Nor have we any ground to imagin that God's providence was so miraculously particular as to direct onely Iews to S. Peter onely Gentiles to S. Paul Equally promiscuously then they both came to each according as chance rumour acquaintance or other circumstances guided them The Apostles did not enviously deny the knowledge of Câ—râ—sts law to any that came but preach't it impartially to all equally promiscuously then they preach't each of them both to Iews GeÌ„tiles For it had been the hihgest imprudence to hazard the losse of yet weake slenderly-mou'd Souls by seeming to neglect them and sending them away to another to order their actions ere they had ownd their wills The converts baptized by each could not but take a very particular ply addictioÌ„ to their proper Apostle father Let us put case then that there should happen a scandall of the Iewish converts vnder each against the Gentiles which yet Dr. H. no where show'd to have been at this place Rome nor at this time in any oâ—her place about eating of Gentile diet for that there ever was any farther quarrell between them or that they abstain'd from all Communion is an absolute impossibility asserted onely by a plain falsification as hath been shown Let us consider what effects such a scandall was likely to produce Is it imaginable that all the multitude of the Gentiles under S. Peter should shift sides run to S. Paul and all the Iewiâ—h from S. Paul to S. Peter or rather that the Apostles prudence order'd things so that when in any assembly where some practice emergent out of the favorable conciet the Iews had of Moses his law was likely to come in play or any thing to the contrary they would order them to keep a sunder to avoid the scandall We finde plainly by the place lately cited that in other circumstances the Iews met with perfect Gentiles in the same place both at Antioch in Pisidia Iconium or had there been such hatred between them as not to endure one another's sight or company as Dr. H. wildly imagins each might preach and celebrate to one after the other was departed or else in severall places any thing is more easy to be imagin'd than that all of each side should forsake their proper Apostle more than father to whom under God they ow'd all their hopes of Heaven or that the Apostles at their first coming should post them from one to another and not give them audience if they would ask or leave to hear Christ's law if they would learn But to proceed supposing on that each was converted by either hence follow'd a particular addiction of their converts to their respective Pastors and from this addiction a greater aptitude to be directed according to Christ's law to be instructed corrected governed by one rather than by the other and by consequence a greater good to the Governed whence it was necessary that those two Apostles living in so great a City that it was fully capable of both their endeavours should continue their distinctive way untill their deaths Nor doth this
call'd Evidences deny'd now by himself to bee proofs for the point but metamorphos'd into Branches of Accordances seasonable Advertissements and Fancies The rare game in hunting aâ—â—er his proofs with the issue of that sport SChism Disarm'd p. 76. accused Dr. H of subjoyning out of his own head words most important expresly testifying the point in hand to a dry testimony of S. Ignatius He qualifies the fault too great to be acknowledg'd with what truth shall be examin'd The place it self onely related that Linus was Deacon to S. Paul Clemens to S. Peter Dr. H. of Schism p. 78. puts it thus Accordingly in Ignatius Ep. ad Trall we read of Linus Clemens that one was S. Paul's the other S. Peter's Deacon both which afterwards succeeded them in the Episcopall Chair Linus being constituted Bishop of the Gentile Clemens of the Iewish Christians there Where note First that there is nothing but a simple comma at the word Deacon where the testimony ends nor any a thing like a full point of a testimony till the words the Iewish Christians there Secondly there is no other distinctive note imaginable to let us know which are testimonies which his own words Thirdly all the art insincerity could imagin was used here to make no distinction appear as to tell us we read what follow'd there never telling us how far we read it to iumble the two different letters confusedly together and to put the words Episcopall Chair Bishop Gentile Iewish Christians which were not found in the testimony in the small translating letter and the same with the word Deacon which was found therein Fourthly the word Deacons found in the testimony is nothing at all to our controversy for what is it to us that S. Peter had such a Deacon and S Paul such another whereas the other words subjoined by himself are mainly important to his point Lastly this confident affirmation of his that Linus was constituted Bishop of the Gentile Clemens of the Iewish Christians there is no where els either found or so much as pretended to be shown and so it could not be imagined but that those words were part of this testimony For who could ever think that any man should be so shamelesly insincere as to put down such concerning expressions under the shadow of a testimony and yet those expressions authorised by nothing but his owne word nor found any where but in his self-inuented additions All these sleights discover plainly that there was artifice and design in the busines and that he slily abused his Reader by putting a testimony which signify'd nothing for a cloake and then adding what he pleas'd hoping it might be countenanced by the grave Authority of Ignatius and by such a dexterous management bee taken for his at least he hop't it might passe unsuspected by his confident asserting it or how ever he hop't at least that for his last refuge he could evade by saying he mean't it not for a proof but in agreement onely or as hee prettily calls it here a branch of accordance and that 's a defence good enough for him being as good as the nothing-proving proof was The shadow of a buckler is the fittest to defend the shadow of a body He is troubled that I expected this testimony should say any thing to S Peter's being onely over the Iews What could I expect other our question is about the limitation of Iurisdiction what serve his testimonies for or what do they there unles they can prove that But he say's that that conclusion was proved out of Scripture which is a flat falsification since he could neither show me one restrictive word in Scripture to that purpose whereas his position even now put down pretended to be proved thence is restrictive nor durst he rely upon Scripture alone when he was to find us that so much desired one word but was forced to peece it out with other two places from Epiphanius Pelagius the Archeretick To omit that the testimony it self Gal. 2. expresses nothing of any agreement for such an end as Sect. 6. hath been amply shown He adds that this from Ignatius is onely a branch of accordance with that In the name of wonder where shall we look for Dr. H's proofs There is not one testimony he hath produced out of Antiquitie as yet for this point but he falls from it when he should maintain it say's 't is no proof but onely spoken in agreement or as here iâ— a quainter gentiler phrase a branch of accordance and a seasonable advertissement Come along Reader let thee and I go hunt after Dr. H's proofs for this point from the first starting it To trace it step by step we begin with of Schism c. 4 par 4. where he say's that question of S. Peter's supremacy must be managed by Evidences so concluded either on the one side or the other professing there that he began to offer his Evidence for the Negative Let us not despair then of these Evidences proofs so solemnly promis't us but addresse our selves for their quest The fifth par begins thus And first it is evident by Scripture S. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision or Iews exclusively to the Vncircumcision or Gentiles Here we se the point to be evidenced and from Scripture Now in this par which hath such a fair promising beginning there are two places of Scripture the famous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which he denies to be Evidences Answ p. 38. But to proceed The 6. par begins with an If proceeds with a parenthesis agreable onely as hee there expresses it and so according to him no proof The rest are his own words onely till we come at S. Iames and the proofs following till we come to the end of the par are not in order to the main point but onely to prove that Iames at Hierusalem was consider'd as a Bishop which was out of question between us as himself declares his owne meaning Answ p. 43. l. 27. The rest of that as also the next parag proceeds with Accordingly p. 74. l. 4. and again Accordingly ibid. lin 20. According p 75. lin 22. which show that all these were not proofs but things spoken in agreement or branches of accordance onely Five testimonies follow par 9. in order to those two Apostles planting the Church at Rome which he expresly denies to be proofs of this our point Answ p. 49. l. 32. 33. and sayes they are spoken in agreement onely as also the next three which are found in the beginning of the tenth though one of them be here call'd an Irrefragable Evidence But let us pursve our game These testimonies over past the next from Scripture are introduc't with Agreable and so are meant to be in agreement onely and no proofs The 11th par begins with Accordingly again which leads in the late-ill-treated testimony from Ignatius deny'd here Answ p. 53. to
c. for no greater Primacy can be imagin'd nor in higher matters if we abstract as he does from Iurisdiction Again his doctrine is likewise that S. Iohn at table had the dignity of place before all others even before S. Peter himself so that to make his doctrine consonant we must conceive that S. John had a Primacy of order before S. Peter and the rest in sitting S. Peter had a Primacy of order before the rest S. Iohn too in standing or walking A rare doctor 'T is a wonder that he gave not Iudas also a kinde of Primacy before all the Apostles in a third respect to wit in dipping with out Saviour at the same time in the dish since the leaning on Christ's breast was done no after then the dipping in the dish was for any thing we read both were equally accidentall for any thing we know for we finde it no where exprest that our Saviour plac't him or he himself there by design And in this the dipping argues more dignity then the sitting in that the sitting was onely next our Saviour but the dipping was at the same time which would haue grounded an infal ible and irrefragable inference for Dr. H. that Iudas had an absolute Primacy and have served him rarely to over throw S. Peter's had it not hapt that Iudas was in other respects malignant and so it was not the Drs interest to own the argument But Dr. H. proceeds And accordingly it unavoydably follous that Lazarus being represented parabolically in Abrahams bosome is there described to be in the next place to the father of the faithfull and it being certain that some one or more saints are next Abraham I presume we may believe Christ that Lazarus is capable of that place all S. W. scruples have not the least validity in them Observe the solid Logick of this man My scruples or objections were Schism Disarm p. 79. that if being in Abrahams bosome were being in dignity of place next to the father of the faith full it follow'd that Lazarus was a bove all the Patriarchs and Prophets except Abraham As also that none was in Abrahams bosome except Lazarus onely since there could be no more Nexts but one Instead of answering he repeats what he had said before onely he add's fine words to amuze his Readers whom he supposes must be fools as Accordingly unavoydably Parabolitically it being certain I presume we may believe Christ c. gentilely calls my objections scruples then assures the Reader they have not the least validity in them But if we ask where did Christ ever say that Lazarus was above all the Patriarchs Prophets except Abraham truth would answer us that Christ never said any such thing but one Dr. H. who like a more modest kinde of David George calls his own words Christ's his own sayings God's word when he lists And as for degrees of glory which he talks of here I wonder what would become of them if his doctrine should take place for since he knows well the Ancient fathers constantly affirm that all the former faithfull were in the bosome of Abraham and this according to him as being next Abraham signifies dignity of place before all others it follows that all the multitude of faith full Souls had each of them the dignity of place before all others that is each of them was next Abraham highest hemming him in as you must conjecture on every side without any more priority of order between them than the Philosophers make between the right hand the left in a round pillar And thus much at present which is as much or more than such trifling non-sence deserves for Infallible irrefragable according unavoydable Parabolicall Christ-pretending all-scruples invalidating Dr. H. Sect. 23. Dr. H's Falsification of Falsifications and with what multitudes of weaknesses hee attempts to take vp the busines IN his book of Schism c. 4. par 16. Dr. H. demanded very confidently of the Romanists what could be said in any degree probably for S. Peter's universall Pastorship over this Asia whose seven Metropoles are so early famous being honoured with Christ's Epistle to the Revelations Now S. W. as any ordinary Reader would imagin'd that Dr. H. put some force in these latter words to prove the former that S. Peter had nothing to do with them both because these are the onely positive words in the whole paragraph all the rest being interrogatories onely as also because I could not ghesse what they did there else unles it were to divert the Readers eye from the question by such impertinent expressions nor had I observed yet that Dr. H. was such a strong reasoner as to think a proof even contrary to his tenet much lesse impertinent unworthy his method of arguing He pretends to have mean't nothing by those words save onely that those seven were considerable parts of the universall Church as if Christ wrote Epistles to Churches not because they stood need but because they were bigg ones But let them be considerable what then he say's Answ p. 57. there is no pretence that S. Peter should be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed or to govern or so much as to have medled with the administration of these Churches of Asia I answer there is the same pretence that he was mediate Governor of these as of any other that is was over those persons who were over those Churches and though we hold not that he fed govern'd or administred those as their particular immediate Overseer yet we make account that our Saviour said thrice to S. Peter Feed my Sheep Iohn 21. as also that the word Sheep excluded none but included those of Asia also For Mr. H. I suppose doubts not but the Christians there were Christs sheep aswell as the rest How this commission to S. Peter to feed Christs Sheep was particular to him shall be seen afterwards Part. 3. Sect. 2. But now room for Dr. H's Falsification of Falsifications which thunders with so many volleys of power limitting expressions as were it charg'd with Truth would quite have batter'd down the walls of Rome It needs no more but repeating to show it notorius 'T is this of Schism p. 83. doth not S. Paul give Timothy full instructions and such as no other Apostle could countermand or interpose in them leaving no other Apostle or place of application for farther directions save onely to himself when he shall come to him 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Here Reader thou seest terms most restrictive of Iurisdiction so most nay solely-important to the question no other Apostle could countermand c. no other Appeall no farther directions onely to himself c. Thou seest I say these and thou seest likewise the place of Scripture quoted immediately for all these Now Schism Disarm'd p. 81. show'd from their own translation that there was not one word of this long rabble in the place alledged but the bare barren useles monosyllable Come
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
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
hear him state it right The true question saith hee is what are the right bounds and limits of this Authority and then reckons up a company of particularities some true most of them coâ—â—erning the extent of the Pope's Authority iâ—self and debated amoÌ„gst our owne Canon-Lawyers some flat lies and calumnies as whether the Pope have power to sell palls pardons and Indulgences to impose pensions at his pleasure to infringe the liberties and customes of whole nations to deprive Princes of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their Allegiance c. Was ever such stuff brought by a Controvertist or was ever man soe frontles as to make these the true state of the question between us that is to preteÌ„d that our Church holds these things as of faith To manifest more the shallownes of my Adversary the Reader may please to take notice of the difference between the substance of the Pope's Authority as held by us and the extent of it The substance of it consists in this that hee is Head of the Church that is first mover in it and that hee hath Authority to act in it after the nature of a first Governour This is held with us to bee of faith and acknowledg'd unanimously by all the faithfull as come from Christ and his Apostles so that none can bee of our Communion who deny it nor is this debated at all between Catholike Catholike but between Catholike and Heretike onely Hence this is held by our Church as a Church that is as a multitude receiving it upon their Rule of faith universall Attestation of immediate Ancestours as from theirs and so upwards as from Christ and not upon criticall debates or disputes of learnedmen The extent of this Authority consists in determining whether this power of thus acting reaches to these and these particularities or no the resolution of which is founded in the deductions of divines Canon-Lawyers and such like learnedmen and though sometimes some of those points bee held as a common opinion of the schoolmen and as such embraced by many Catholikes yet not by them as faithfull that is as relying â—pon their Ancestours as from theirs as from Christ but as relying upon the learnedmen in Canon-law and implicitely upon the reasons which they had to judge so and the generality's accepting their reasons for valid which is as much as to say such points are not held by a Church as a Church no more than it is that there is an Element of fire in Concavo Lunae or that Columbus found out the Indies The points therefore are such that hee who holds or deems otherwise may still bee held one of the Church or of the Commonwealth of the faithfull nor bee blameable for holding otherwise if hee have better reasons for his tenet than those other learned men had for theirs as long as hee behaves himself quietly in the said Commonwealth Perhaps a parallel will clear the matter better The acknowledgment of the former Kings of England to bee supreme Governours in their Dominions was heretofore as wee may say a point of civill faith nor could any bee reputed a good subject who deny'd this in the undifputable acknowledgment of which coÌ„sisted the substance of their Authority But whether they had power to raise ship money impose subsidies c. alone and without a Parliament belong'd to the extent of their Authority was subject to dispute and the proper task of Lawyers nor consequently did it make a man an Outlaw or as wee may say a civill Schismatick to disacknowledge such extents of his Authority so hee admitted the Authority it self I concieve the parallell is soe plain that it will make it 's owne application This being settled as I hope it is so let it stand a while till wee make another consideration A Controversy in the sence which our circumstances determine it is a dispute about faith and so a Controvertist as such ought to impugn a point of fâ—ith that 〈◊〉 hee ought to iâ— pugn that which is held by a Church as a Church or that which is held by a Church upon her Rule of faith Hence if the Government of that Church bee held of faith according to it's substance and not held of faith according to it's extent hee ought to impugn it according to the substance of the said Government and not it's extent otherwise hee totally prevaricates from the proper office of a Controvertist not impugning faith but opinions noâ— that Church as a Church and his Adversary but falsly supposing himself as it were one of that company and to hold all the substance of it's Authority hee sides with one part of the true subjects and disputes against the other in a point indifferent to faith unconcerning his duty These things Reader observe with attention and then bee thine own judge whether hee play not the Mountebank with thee instead of the Controvertist who in his former book pretended to vindicate the Church of England which renounced the substance of this Authority by impugning the extent of it onely and here undertaking to correct his Refuter and state the question rightly first grants in very plain but wrong mean't terms the whole question to wit that the Pope hath Authority over the whole Church as successour of S. Peter and then tells thee that the true question is about the extent of it and what are the right limits and bounds of this Authority which kind of questions yet hee knows well enough are debated by the obedient and true members of that Commonwealth whence hee is Outlaw'd and which hee pretends to impugn His 8th page presents the Reader with a great mistake of mine and 't is this that I affirmed it was and is the constant beleef of the Casholike world by which I mean all in Communion with the Church of Rome whom onely I may call Catholikes that these two Principles were Christ's owne ordination recorded in Scrpture Whereas hee cannot but know that all our Doctourâ—s de facto did and still do produce places of Scripture to prove that former Principle to wit that Tradition is the Rule of faith as also to prove S. Peter's higher power over the Apostles nor is it new that the succession of Pastours till wee all meet in the Vnity of Glory should bee Christ's own Ordination and recorded there likewise Nor can I devise upon what Grounds hee and his fellow-Bishops of England who hold Scripture onely the Rule of faith can maintain their Authority to bee iure divino unles they hold likewise that it bee there recorded and bee Christ's Ordination that following Pastours succed into the Authority of their predecessours But the pretended mistake lies here that whereas I said the Bishops of Rome inherited this priviledge from S. Peter mâ—aning that those who are Bpâ— of Rome being S. Peter's successours inherited this power hee will needs take mee in a reduplicative sence as if I spoke of the Bishop of Rome as of Rome and
an Article of faith So that he would not have held it of faith against the Manichees that there are not two God's because the proposition is negative nor that the Divells shall not be saved nor the Saints in Heaven damn'd nor that there is no Salvation but through Iesus-Christ all these by the Bishop's Logick must cease to be Articles of faith and become indifferent and unconcerning opinions because they are all negatives After this he talks ramblingly again as his custome is of Theologicall opinions indifferent opinions c. and then on his own kinde word assures us that these points are such and so wipes his hands of them His last proof of their Moderation is their preparation of minde to beleeve practice what ever the Catholike Church even of this present age doth universally beleeve practice Proofs should be visible known and he brings us here for a proof a thing hid in the dark hole of their own breasts nor ever likely to come to light but by their own sayings onely all other Symptoms standing in opposition to it But the greatest foolery is that as I told him they first say there is no universall Church or if any indeterminate so that no body can tell which it is and then make a hollow-hearted profession of a readines to beleeve it and conclude themselves moderate Reformers My Ld replies that then they have renounced their creed the badge of their Christianitie I answer we doubt not but they have and that as they hold onely the word Church and not the thing so they hold onely the word the creed and not the sence of it both in that and what other Articles their fancie pleases Is it not then wisely argued to think to confute us by bringing us to this absurditie as he imagins that then they have renounced their creed whereas 't is our known tenet which we hold as undoubtedly as we do that they are out of the Church The next absurditie he brings me to upon this account is that then they have renounc't their reason also As little can we doubt of this as of the former having seen lately how you deny'd the first Principles and common sense almost in every particular of this discourse and even this present maner of arguing testifies how little reason your bad cause will allow you the use of But how proves he that then they must have lost their reason Thus for if there be many particular Churches wherefore not one universall Church whereof Christ is the Head and King Very good my Ld but if you give us no certain Rule to know what congregations are to be truly accounted Churches and which not such but hereticall and show us no some common ty of ordinary Government in the Church how will you make up of them one universall Church which may bee known for such This is the thing we object as you well know that you give us no such Rule to know a true Church by This is the reason why we affirm you deny an universall Church because you deny all Grounds which can establish such a Church As for what I alledged that if they say there is a Catholike Church 't is indetermin'd that is none knows which it is He answers first that then 't is all one as if it were not Very true for if there be no determinate one there is none at least to us Next that this is a calumny to say they know not determinately which this Church is Let us examine whether it be or no. Two things are requisite to the notion of an universall or Catholike Church One that the particular companies which compound it be indeed true Churches that is consisting of true beleevers and not hereticall Congregations without certain knowledge of which none can possibly know which is the universall Church made up of them The other that these particular Congregations of true beleevers cling together by mean's of order into one entire company to be called when thus united one universall Church For the first I appeal to any candid learned Protestant whether he ever in his life knew any of their Authors who gives us a positive Catalogue of which particular Congregations are to he held for true Churches and a part of the universall which no but to be excluded from it as hereticall or whether himself can stand to it positively upon Grounds given agreed upon by them that such such a Congregation is without the verge of the universall Church such with in it My self have lived in circumstances to be aswell acquainted with their doctrine as most men are and I profess sincerely were my life at stake onely redeemable by the resolving this question I could not determin absolutely upon any Grounds constantly acknowledg'd by them whether Presbyterians Anabaptists or Quakers are to be excluded from the universall Church or no. And if we cannot determin of sects so neer at hand though prest to it by our conversation carriage to declare express our selves distinctively much lesse can we expect it in order to the Armenians Ethiopians Iacobites with whose customes and tenets we are so litle acquainted But alas how vain is it to expect from Protestants such a distinctivenes of true beleevers from false who have no Grounds to make such a distinction For what Principles have they to character a true beleever Is it to acknowledge the letter of the Scripture sufficient All Hereticks in the world almost own this Arians Socinians who deny Christ's divinity most of all Is it the true sence of it how shall they agree in this without some certain mean's or Rule to interpret it make them agree Must the common doctrine of the universall Church interpret it This is the very thing we are in quest of and till wee know what particular Congregations are to bee held true Churches know not yet which it is Must consent of fathers They have no Authority but from the Church in which they lived and as declarers of her doctrine unles therefore we have some Rule to conclude antecedently that the Church whose doctrine they taught was the true Church we are still ignorant whether they be true fathers and to be beleeved or no. Is it the private Spirit The most frantick Enthusiasts then have an equall pretence Is it private reason In steps the Socinian and indeed all heresies in the world for every one hath a private reason of his own and can use it to his power in interpreting Scripture But my L d of Derry seems to drive another way affirming here p. 43. that he knows no other necessary Articles of faith but the Apostles creed though other Protestant Authors affirm more This then according to him must be the fundamentall Rule of faith and the Touch stone to try who are true beleevers who not The Puritans therefore who deny'd one of those Articles to wit Ghrists descent into Hell must be excluded quite from the universall