thus granted all that was pretended to wit their Infallibleness in those two sorts of actions because he would be sure to say something to every thing though to never so litle purpose as his custome is he addes first that they were not infallible in all sorts of things What man in his wits ever pretended it or imagin'd but that the Apostles might count mony wrong or be mistaken in knowing what a clock it was Was ever such frivolous stuff heard of Next he tells us that as they were men on earth they were fallible What a mysterious piece of sence is here He hath already confuted himself by granting that when they were men on earth they were Infallible which was solely pretended now that he may seem to impugn us he tacitely counterfeits us to hold that their Infallibility proceeds as from it's formal reason not from the assistance of the holy Ghost but from their being men on earth and by consequence that each man on earth is infallible since à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia Thirdly whereas my words which Answ p. 34. hee makes head against are onely of those two said acts in which hee at length grants they were infallibly assisted by the confirmation of the holy Ghost he rakes up all the Apostles faults and failings before the holy Ghosts descent and thinks to elude my words and delude his Reader by these more than childish evasions His tenth weakness is that he extends p. 34. by a voluntary mistake because he would still have something to say Mr. Knot 's words that the Church was infallible and not subject to errour to signify that it shall undoubtedly be preserved from falling into errour and that not onely from this or that sort of errour but indefinitely from all As if the controversy between Mr. Knot and him were not onely about Infallibility in delivering matters of Faith Is not this a sincere man who would make persons wiser than himself seem so imprudent as to think the Church Infallible in judging whether the Circle can be squared whether Sprights walk in S. Faiths under Paul's or whether a goose-py or a shoulder of mutton be the better dish By Dr. H's Logick it must be out tenet that the Holy Ghost whispers the Church in the ear to speak truth in all these and millions of other such unnecessary fooleries and all this absurdity must light upon us onely from this because Mr. Knot and S. W. said the Church is infallible and not subject to errour when the discourse was about matters of Faith necessary for the salvation of mankind The like non sense shuts up his eleventh Paragraph as the result of the discourse before it so again in the twelfth and fourteenth the same mistaking weakness is that which gives all the strength to the discourse and it is worth the Readers notice that he never impugnes our tenet of Infallibility but by such kind of forgery His eleventh weakness is his shuffling in his eleventh Paragraph where after he had told us very truly that the Apostles had agreed on all things needful for the Church deposited them in each Church as their Rule of Faiâ—h when he drew near the point in question to wit wheâ—her the depositary or Church was infallible and could not erre in delivering the right depositum or whether she might perhaps deliver a wrong one he flies off and tells us Ans p. 35. if they would adhere to that there needed no sitperadded Infallibility to things unnecessary Did ever Mr. Knot or I talk of Infallibility in things unnecessary or is this the point disputed between Catholicks and Protestants Good Mr. H. speak out and tell us whether the depositary can mistake or no in delivering needfull points if she can where is the certainty of our Faith if she cannot then some company of men on earth are infallible in delivering things necessary for Salvation which is the point in Controversy His twelfth weakness is that in going about to show how he can be infallibly certain of the books of Scripture he unawares recurres to our Rule of Faith though he never intends to stand to it affirming here Answ p. 36. that the testimony of others founded in their several sensations being faithfully conveyed to us by undeniable Tradition are as unquestionably certain as if we had seen them ourselves that is as he intimates before l. 3. infallible instancing that of this sort is the tradition of the universal primitive Church c. Where first if this be true I have gained my intent which was to show against him that some company of men might be infallible in attesting things of Faith though not in all things as he calumniates us to hold Next if the Tradition of the Primitive Church be infallible for the reason given I ask why the succeeding Church should not enjoy the same priviledge since the doctrine of Fore fathers being visible practical and so founded in the several sensations of the children they can by witnessing transmit it to their posterity asun questionably truly as if the Grand-children had seen what was held and practised in the Grand-fathers time Nay unless he grant this he hath done nothing that is he hath not shown that he hath any certainty of the books of Scripture for if the Tradition in the primitive Church onely be infallible I may be mistaken in believing the succeeding Tradition in this point since that may deceive me for any thing I know if the after Tradition also was Infallible then we conquer without dispute in this and all other Controversies about Faith since we were found adhering to this universal testification of all our Forefathers whereas they renounc't it when they renounced the Authority it recommended and ran to other Grounds private interpretations of Scripture and odde scraps of misunderstood testimonies and still are glad to sow together these thin figge-leaves to cover the nakedness of their deformed Schism His thirteenth weakness is that in testifying as above-said he sayes the Church is not considered as a society of believers indowed with any inerrable priviledge but as a number of witnesses c. As if they did not first believe it themselves ere they could conspire to deliver it to their Children for true or as if the same persons may both be Beleevers in respect of their Progenitours and Witnesses in respect of their posterity No wiser is his assertion that nothing is here contested from the Authority of their judgments For if he means the points which they contest are not founded on their judgments 't is most certainly true since speaking of points of Faith they are truths revealed by God not productions of mens heads But if he means their judgments went not along with their contestations but while they testified to have received them from their Ancestours they spake contrary to their judgment then they all conspired to tell a ly to their posterity in things of Faith which is impossible
assent sprung from Evidence From this short discourse follows first that our Churches Binding her children to beleef is evidently natural just charitable rational and necessary since she obliges them upon no other Ground than that which in it's own force had pre-obliged their nature to assent to wit Evidence Secondly that no man can revolt from the Faith of such an Authority to any other but through the highest degree of vice and passion since they would be found in this case to assent to another not onely without Evidence but against it Thirdly that therefore the Governours of the Church who proceed according to this power may justly punish and excommunicate those who recede from her Beleef founded in her Authority thus evidenced since this recession must spring from vice or a disorder'd affection in the will and vice all the world allows may be punished Fourthly that no tyranny can possibly be imputed to our Church as long as she proceeds upon such Grounds since she onely governs men according to their nature or Reason Fifthly that they who adhere to any other fallible Congregation upon onely probable that is inevident Grounds against her Authority thus evidenced being therefore as hath been shown in the highest degree vicious and passionate if they prove obstinate in it ought upon necessity to be Excommunicated cast out of the Church and separated from the Congregation of the Faithfull Reason showing plainly if no good can be done for their obstinate Souls order is to be taken that they do no hurt to the Souls of others Sixthly that all who forsake this infallible attestation of the Church they were in called Oral Tradition as did the Protestants in all points wherein they differ from us deserve this Excommunication since they left a pre-acknowledged Evidence and began to dogmatize upon acknowledg'd probabilities onely that is left proceeding to assent in that manner which was acknowledgedly rational connatural and virtuous and beginning to proceed in such a manner as is necessarily irrational unnatural and vicious Seventhly it follows that a Congregation which is fallible cannot without the greatest impudence in the world pretend to oblige rational Souls to assent upon her Authority since if she sees she may be in the wrong hic nunc in such a point she can have no Evidence that she is not actually deceived in it and so wanting Evidence to make good her Authority she wants whatsoever can oblige a rational Soul to assent upon her Authority Eighthly it follows hence that not onely the Independents Presbyterians c. may justly refuse to hear the Protestant Church which acknowledges her self fallible but that they sin if they should hear her since in that case they would be found to assent to an Authority without evidence of the veracity of that Authority Ninthly it follows that the Protestant Church acknowledging her self fallible and the like may be said of all fallible Congregations cannot even oblige the Independents Presbyterians c to behave themselves quietly within their Church and submit to their Government For in case that fallible Congregation oblige her Children to a subscription or declaration of their assent to her doctrine it were a vice either to assent without Evidence of authority which is wanting to a fallible Church or subscribe without a real inward assent as the Doctor himself confesses they may then resist such a command of that Church and express themselves contrary and disobedient Nay more if that Congregation be fallible it may possibly be in a damnable errour and some one or more may happen to see evidently that it is in such an errour and many of ordinary capacity rationally doubt what the others see now in that case why may not the former make account it is their obligatiō to oppose that Church and let men see their soul-endangering errour may maintain a party against her and defy her as one who would bring Souls to Hell by her doctrine As also why may not the latter rather than hazard the accepting a damnable errour adhere to this company of Revolters at least stand neutral between the Church and them Again since it hath been shown they may renounce the Faith of a fallible Church why may they not renounce her Government since her Faith must needs be as sacred as her Government which depends on Faith and is subordinate to it Government being chiefly to maintain Faith and such actions as proceed from Faith Neither is it lawfull yet to revolt against temporal Magistrates upon the score of their fallibility in case they oblige their Subjects onely to act or obey according to the civil State because that is a Government grounded onely upon natural reason instituted for natural ends and plainly evident it must be obey'd unavoydable inconveniences following upon disobedience which force us to confess there 's no safety for our lives or estates without this Obedience Tenthly it follows that Dr. H's denying any company of men on earth to be Infallible and by consequence to have power to bind to beleef is most exquisitely pernicious destroying at once all beleef and leaving no obligation in the world nay making it a sin to beleeve any Article of the Christian Faith For since neither Scripture nor the doctrine of the Primitive Church acknowledged by Dr. H. to have been built upon an Infallible Tradition can be evidenced to us but by some Authority faithfully conveying it down ever since that time if this Authority cannot be evidenced to be infallible no man is bound in reason to assent or believe either Scripture to be God's word or the Doctrine to be Christ's upon her Authority since there wants Evidence of that Authority's veracity which can onely oblige to assent nay more he must needs sin in precipitating his assent without Evidence to ground it on Eleventhly Dr. H. Answ p. 36. in another place grants that this universal attestation in which we found the Churche's Infallibility and all these deductions makes one as certain of a thing as if he had seen it with his own eyes and again confesses himself Infallibly certain of what he hath seen with his own eyes which is as much as we either say or desire Wherefore the good Doctor doth a◠once both confirm us and contradict himself Lastly it follows that it is the height of frivolousness for D. H. even to pretend excuse from obligation to beleeve our Church and assent to the doctrine of his own without most undeniable and rigorous Evidence both for the errableness of ours and the inerrableness of the Protestants Church By these brief deductions from that one evident Ground of the infallibility of Vniversal Attestation the prudent Reader will plainly see how consequently the Catholick Church proceeds to the grounds of Nature and Reason how inconsequently to both the Protestant Churches must necessarily goe when they would oblige either to Government or Faith Since Certainty and Evidence once renounced there remains nothing to move the Vnderstanding to
whence to alledge those testimonies comparable to that of the Church they left since they can never even pretend to show any company of men so incomparably numerous so unquestionably learned holding certainly as of Faith and as received from the Apostles that Government which they impugned and this so constantly for so many hundred years so unanimously and universally in so many Countries where knowledge most flourish't testifying the same also in their General Councels all which by their own aknowlegedment was found in the Church they left The eihtgh Ground is that The proofs alledged by Protestants against us bear not even the weight of a probability to any prudent man who penetrates and considers the contrary motives For the proofs they alledge are testimonies that is words capable of divers senses as they shall be diversely play'd upon by wits Scholars and Criticks and it is by experience found that generally speaking their party and ours give severall meanings to all the Testimonies controverted between us Now it is manifest that computing the vastnefs of the times and places in which our Profession hath born sway we have had near a thousand Doctors for one of the Protestants who though they ever highly venerated and were well versed in all the Ancient Fathers and Councells yet exprest no difficulty in those proofs but on the contrary made certain account that all Antiquity was for them Thus much for their knowledge Neither ought their sincerity run in a less proportion than their number unless the contrary could be evidently manifested which I hear not to be pretended since they are held by our very Adversaries and their acts declare them to have been pious in other respects and on the other side considering the corruptness of our nature the prejudice ought rather to stand on the part of the disobeyers than of the obeyers of any Government Since then no great difficulty can be made but that we have had a thousand knowing men for one and no certainty manifested nor possible to be manifested that they were unconscientious we have had in all morall estimation a thousand to one in the meanes of understanding aright these testimonial proofs and then I take not that to have any morall probability which hath a thousand to one against it But I stand not much upon this having a far better game to play I mean the force of Tradition which is fortify'd which such and so many invincible reasons that to lay them out at large and as they deserve were to transcribe the Dialogues of Rusworth the rich Storehouse of them to them I refer the Reader for as ample as satisfaction as even Scepticism can desire and onely make use at present of this Consideration that if it be impossible that all the now-Fathers of Families in the Catholick Church disperst in so many nations should conspire to tell this palpablely to their Children that twenty yeares agoe such a thing visible and practical as all points of Faith are was held in that Church if no such thing had been and that consequently the same impossibility holds in each twenty yeares upwards till the Apostles by the same reason by which it holds in the last twenty then it followes evidently that what was told us to have been held twenty yeares agoe was held ever in case the Church held nothing but upon this Ground that so she received or had been taught by the immediately-foregoing Faithfull for as long as she pretends onely to this Ground the difficulty is equal in each twenty yeares that is there is an equal impossibility they should conspire to this palpable lie Now that they ever held to this Ground that is to the having received it from their Ancestours is manifested by as great an Evidence For since they now hold this Ground if at any time they had taken it up they must either have counterfeited that they had received it from their Ancestours or no. The former relapses into the abovesaid impossibility or rather greater that they should conspire to tell a lie in the onely Ground of their Faith and yet hold as they did their Faith built upon that Ground to be truth the latter position must discredit it self in the very termes which imply a perfect contradiction for it is as much as to say nothing is to be held as certainty of Faith but what hath descended to us from our Forefathers and yet the onely Rule which tells us certainly there is any thing of Faith is newly invented Wherefore unless this chain of Tradition be shown to have been weak in some link or other the case between us is this whether twenty testimonies liable to many exceptions and testify'd by experience to be disputable between us can bear the force even of a probability against the universal acknowledgment and testification of millions and millions in any one age in a thing visible and practical To omit that we are far from being destitute of testimonies to counterpoise nay incomparably over poise theirs By this Ground and the reason for it the Reader may judge what weak and trivial proofs the best of Protestant Authours are able to produce against the clear Verdict of Tradition asserted to be infallible by the strongest supports of Authority and reason To stop the way against the voluntary mistakes of mine Adversary I declare my self to speak here not of written Tradition to be sought for in the Scriptures and Fathers which lies open to so many Cavils and exceptions but of oral Tradition which supposing the motives with which it was founded and the charge with which it was recommended by the Apostles carries in it's own force as apply'd to the nature of mankind an infallible certainty of it's lineal and never-to-be-interrupted perpetuity as Rushworth's Dialogues clearly demonstrate Sect. 6. The Continuation of the same Grounds THe ninth Ground is that The Catholick Church and her Champions ought in reason to stand upon Possession This is already manifested from the fifth Ground since Possession is of it's self a title till sufficient motives be produced to evidence it an usurpation as hath there been shown By this appears the injustice of the Protestants who would have it thought reasonable that we should seem to quit our best tenour Possession attested by Tradition and fall upon the troublesome and laborious method of citing Authours in which they will accept of none but whom they list and after all our pains and quotations directly refuse to stand to their judgment as may be seen in the Protestant's Apology in which by the Protestant's own confessions the Fathers held those opinions which they object to us for errours The tenth Ground is that In our Controversies about Religion reason requires that we should sustain the part of the Defendant they of the Opponent This is already sufficiently proved since we ought to stand upon the title of Possession as a Ground beyond all arguments untill it be convinced to be malae fidei which is
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
Is it possible now that any man should go about to cloak such a falsification which evidence as clear as eyesight had manifested in it's most shame full nakednes nothing is impossible to be done in Dr. H's way He excuses himself first Answ p. 57. l. 9. because he thought it was conclusible from those words 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. But who bad him think so when there was never a word in the testimony or in the whole Epistle but might have been said by a Metropolitan to a Bishop or a Bishop to any Priest to wit that he would order things when he came bidding him be have himself well c. Again if he intended to conclude why did he not put some expression of that his intent that the Reader might not be deluded by his quoting the place immediately after those words This pretence therefore is most frivolous vain First because his words are positive absolute as it were commanding our assent from the Authority of Scripture not exprest like an inference or conclusion doth not S. Paul c. as also because they are relations of matters of fact and lastly because they who conclude from Scripture put the place first then deduce from it whereas he quotes the place after his own words as we use to do for words found really in Scripture wherefore either he intended not to conclude but to gull the honest Reader that his sole important forgeries were sure Scripture or else if he meant to conclude he very wisely put his conclusion before the premises and such a conclusion as had but one unconcerning useles word common to it the premises Secondly he tells us that to say that he inferr'd the whole conclusion from the word come is one of S. W's arts whereas I charged him not for inferring thence but for putting down those words for pure Scripture Again himself so good is his memory confesses this same thing seven or eight lines before which he here renounces where having mention'd the former long rabble he told us in expresse terms that he thought it was conclusible from S. Paul's words 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Now then there being not one word of this pretended conclusion found in that place save the monosyllable Come nor one exclusive particle nor even the least ground of any he must either infer his pretended conclusion from that or from nothing Thirdly he alledges that he thought his grounds had been visible enough being thus laid and then proceeds to lay them But the iest is he never layd down any such pretended grounds at all in the book of Schism where he cited that place and so it was impossible they should be visible being then perhaps not so much as in their causes And as for these pretended grounds they are nothing but a kinde of explication of that place that S. Paul sent an whole Epistle of Instructions hoped to give him farther instructions that he should behave himself well in his office c. which are all competent to any Bishop in order to a Priest or to any subaltern Governor in respect of an inferior and so hinders not but S. Paul might be under another though thus over Timothy Fourthly as for those exclusive words no other Apostle could countermand or interpose in them leaving no Appeal no place for farther directions onely to himself which were objected so it belonged to him if he could not show them exprest there so clear his falsified citation at least to show them concluded deduced thence as 6. or 7. lines before he had promist us But he quite prevaricates even from deducing them thence when it comes to the point and instead of doing so proving them from the pretended place he repeats again the same demands bids us prove the contrary I now demand saith he whether S. Paul left any other Appeal or place for farther directions save onely to himself I answer does the place alledged say any thing to the contrary or is any such thing conclusible thence as you pretended If it be why do not you make good your own proof from the place show this restrictive sence either there in expresse terms or else by framing your conclusion from it why do you instead of thus doing your duty stand asking me the same question over again He proceeds Whether could any other Apostle by any power given him by Christ countermand or interpose in them what need you ask that question you knew long ago that our Answer would be affirmative that S. Peter could in case he saw it convenient for the good of God's Church or what is the asking this question over again to the showing that the contrary was either expresly or conclusively there as you pretended If any could let him be named his power specified saith the Dr. Is not this a rare man to counterfeit himself ignorant whom we hold for Head of the Apostles when as himself hath from the beginning of this Chapter impugned S. Peter as held such by us And to carry the matter as if he delay'd his proofs till he knew our Answer aswell known to him before hand as his own name It follows let the power be proved by virtue whereof he should thus act I marry now the Dr. is secure when all else fails he hath constantly recourse hither to hide his head When his Argument or proof is shown to bee falsify'd in the expresse terms hee pretends to conclude thence and when 't is shown unable to conclude any thing instead of proceeding to make it good or show that cōclusible from thence which he promised he leaves it of as some impertinent questions and bids his Answerer take his turn prove because he alas is graveld and cannot go a step further This done he triumphs But S. W. dares not I am sure doth not affirm this What dare not I and do not I affirm that S. Peter had power over the rest of the Apoles in things cōcerning the good of the universall Church 'T is my expresse tenet which he is at present impugning and which I both do affirm dare maintaine so prevalent is Truth against Dr H. though back't by forty more learned then himself But this politick Adversary of mine seeing he could not argue me out of my faith would needs fright me or persuade me from it threat'ning me first that I dare not next assuring mee that I do not affirm i◠This solid discourse premised hee shuts up with an acclamation of victory thus And if it cannot be said as no doubt it cannot then where was S. Peter's supreme Pastorship Where all the force of this upshot of his lies in the If and no doubt both of them equally addle frivolous since himself all the world knows very well that we both can do affirm hold that S. Peter was Superior in Authoritie to all the rest of the Apostles Thus Dr. Hr. toyes it with his Readers hoping
Bishop and his consistory afterwards which was I deated in this first consistory of the Apostles wherefore since Dr. H. grants no higher degree of Authority in S. Peter than in the rest of the Apostles he can conclude no more but this that the Presbyters are all equall in Authority as the Apostles were that is there ought to bee no more-highly-authoriz'd Bishop over them but onely that one of those equally-dignify'd Presbyters ought to sit talk or walk before the rest according to Dr. H's explication of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Primacy of order Thus whiles the Dr. disputes from this place against the Presbytery he falls into Popery As for what he tells me here that it is the interest of S. W. as well as of the Protestants to mantain this point against the Presbyterians who a lone can gain by the questioning it I answer that I love the Presbyterians so well as not to wish them renounce their reason that is man's nature which they must doe if they assent to what the Protestants say upon a probability onely nay a totally improbable and rather opposit Text. Nor should I wish them so much hurt as to beleeve Episcopacy unles I made account the Catholick Church was able to give them rigorously convincing evidence for her Authority asserting it which is impossible the Protestants should do unles they plow with our heifer and recur to our Rules of faith universall Tradition so oft renounc'd by them for other points Observe Reader that I had shown his explication of this place of Scripture against the Presbyterians to make unavoidably against thim self Schism Disarm'd p. 95. In reply to which dangerous point Answ p. 66 par 16. he onely calls my reasons expressions of dislike to his argument against Presbytery that it is not pertinent to the question that it hath not as he supposes any show of the least diâ—ficulty in it and so ends As if my showing that our tenet follows more naturally out of the words even as explicated thus by him self were onely an expression of dislike impertinent to our question or had not if proved any show of the least difficulty in it yet he braggs at the end of this Section that he hath attended me precisely and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 step by step though he makes when he spies danger such large skips over me Solution 8. The words feed my Sheep are nothing but an â—xhortation to discharge that duty to which he was beforâ— commissionated Rep. p. 68. par 10. p. 63. Reply had he ever a particular Commission given him correspondent to the particularizing promise but here or was not the word pasce spoken imperatively by a Master to his servant as apt to signify a Commission as the words Goe teach all Nations were how then appears it from the words that this was onely an exortation and if it does not what is it more then Dr. H's own saying Solution 9 The circumstances in the Text can never work a change in the matter an inculcated expresse particulariz'd explication introduc'd with a question to quicken and impresse it can never be converted by these accumulationâ— into a Commission for supremacy Answ p. 63. Reply first you must show that the words persuade it was onely an Exhortation else all this and your following discourse falls to the ground Next such particularizing circumstances to S. Peter in the presence of the rest are apt in their owne nature to make him or any man living ready to apprehend that the thing promised belonged to him in a particular manner els to what end serv'd they would noâ— a common promise have sufficed if this had not been intended Thirdly there needed no converting the signification of the pasce from an Exhortation into a Commission of Supremacy The word was apt before of it self to signify a Commission the accumulation of particularizing circumstances gave it to signify a particular Commission Let the reader examin Dr. H. by what force of the words he proves t' is an exhortation onely since the words themselves are words of Commission there being nothing proper to a meer exhortation in them And as for the Drs parallell here that Christ's praying the same prayer thrice did not make it cease to be a prayer and commence a precept t 's soe silly as a sillier cannot be imagin'd since neither the words of Christ's prayer are apt to be converted from a praying to a commanding signification nor was it likely or possible that Christ should impose precepts upon his heavenly father to whom he pray'd as he could upon S. Peter not lastly is it onely the thrice saying that wee build upon as abstracted from all the other particularising circumstances but the thrice saying a precept and a precept thus exprest Solution 10. The asking him thriâ—e lovest thou me made S. Peter no doubt deem it a reproach of his thrice denying his Master Answ p. 63. The Text saith Peter was greeved because he said vnto him the third time Lovest thou me which Sure he would not have been if he had looked on it as an introduction to so great a preferment Reply Dr. H. hath here at unawares bewray'd what kinde of Spirit he is of who makes account that the getting some great preferment is a ground of more gladnes then our Saviours seeming to doubt of his love to him would be occasion of sorrow But he shall give me and all good Christians â—eave to think that good S. Peter was of another temper and that he valued the good opinion of his Master questioning so much his love to him above the attainment of any dignity imaginable Though I must confesse Dr. H's Noe doubt and Sure upon which all depends are two sure cards were they authoris'd by any thing besides his own words and 't is a very competent answer with him to say he is sure and there is no doubt but that S. Peter gap't so much after a preferment that he car'd not in comparison of it what opinion his B. Master had of him in order to his loving him Again how do the words soe put it beyond all doubt that the asking him thrice lovest thou mee was deemed by S. Peter a reproach of his thrice deniall whereas the Text tells us that S. Peter was fully persuaded of his Masters knowledge of his love and confidently appeal'd to that knowledge Lord thou knowest all things thou knowest that I love thee Nor have wee any ground to think that S. Peter apprehended his sweet Master so cruell as to upbraid a forgiven sin especially seeing the return of so much love in the breast of his dear Disciple If Dr. H. pretend that it was to excite in him a greater care of Christ's flok the words indeed give countenance to it But then it should be ask'd what necessity was there of exciting a greater care in S. Peter in particular had he shown him self of soe negligent a nature as to give occasion of doubt that
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
expressely put down in my words now repeated by him self to wit that S. Peter had in a peculiar manner the Holy Ghost and the necessary connexion of this with his higher Authority expressly disclaim'd in the place even now cited Thirdly after he had repeated my whole discourse he subjoyn's immediately here was one honest word the perhaps As if our Saviour's words out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and those others of the Scripture that S. Peter converted three thousand by his first Sermon were all dishonest words But since I intended onely to give the Dr. some satisfaction of which knowing his humor I was not certain why was it not honester to expresse my self ambiguously then to cry a loud Certainy surely no doubt unquestionably irrefragably as Dr. H. does all over before his Testimonies whereas all is obscure uncertain falsified not a word in them sounding to the purpose as hath been shown all over this book It may be the Reader may accound Dr. H. the greater wit for using such confident and loud-crying expressions when there is so litle wooll but I hope he will thinke S. W. the honester man for speaking withim compasse Fourthly he sayes that the Dr. meaning himself may not be satisfy'd thence that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner to which he addes of his own falsifying invention or was designed head of the Apostles as if I had pretended this either as equivalent or necessarily consequent out of the former whereas he knows I absoluty disclaimed against him any such pretence This done without having afforded owne word of answer or sence he bids us farewell in these words I shall answer it no further then by repeating Good night good Dr. But to let the Reader see how much stronger my perhaps is than the Drs surely I will briefly put doun the import of this late proof ad hominem and 't is this that since out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks 't is probable that S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in his heart more abundantly or in a higher degree since he first exprest it 's interiour motions by speaking and speaking soe vigorously and powerfully Now then since in Mr. H's Grounds the receiving the holy Ghost seald the Commissions of the Apostles and finally performed the promise of their ruling and presiding in the Church whence he contended also that all had this promise equally performed that is according to him had equally the Holy Ghost lest one should exceed anoâ—her in Iurisdiction it follows unavoidably ad hominem it against him that if be probable S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in an higher degree it is probable likewise that he had a higher rule and presidencie in the Church performed to him The argument bearing this sence who sees not 't is Dr. H's task to let us knowe why this so early and vigorous pouring forth argued not a fuller measure of the Holy Ghost within what does he He calumniates me to bring this as a clâ—ar evidence putting the words clear evidence in other letters as if thay had bene mine falsifies my known pretence twice calls the word perhaps the one honest words says the Dr. may not be satisfie'd by the reason alledged that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner and then in stead of telling us why he may not be satisfie'd immediately concluding that he shall not answer it further than by repeating it Thus Dr. H's reason like some sorry creature taken tardy in a tale first mutters and stammers as if it would say something or were hand-bound with some bad excuse but seing it could make no coherence at length very honestly hands down it's head and sayes iust nothing The fourth proposition is And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost which he tells us here was sure no distinct argument of his But why it should not be as good and sole suffiâ—ient a proof as this that the fire was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he pedantizes it sate on every one of them which he called Answ p. 68. l. 3. an argument of somevalidity I had no ground in the world to imagin both of them equally impugning our tenet that is not at all For wee equally grant that each single Apostle had power giuen him to bind and loose or Authority in the Church which he without any ground will have signified by the division of this fire as wee do that they were all filled with the Holy Ghost The fifth and last proposition immediately follows the former and is this and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all that is all had equally the Holy Ghost and this is pretended as deduced out of the fourth saying that they were all full of it Schism Disarm p. 98. showd the weaknes of this arguing from fulnes to equality by the instances of our Saviour Barnabas who are both said in Scripture to be full of the Holy Ghost as also of the saints in heaven being full of glory though there were an inequality between them in those respects and by the parallell ridiculousnes of the plow man's silly argument who concluded alleggs equall and that none had more meat in it than another because all were full To take of these exceptions and strengthen his feeble argument the Dr. offers nothing though he braggs at the end of the Section that he hath attended me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely he tells us here p. 69 gentily that he is not concern'd to doubt but that they which are full of the Holy Ghost may have it unequally if by unequally be meant the inequality of divine endowments How he is concern'd to doubt it shall be seen presently in the meane time let us reflect on his other words and ask him what is meant by the Holy Ghosts abiding in the Souls of the faithfull or by what other way he imagins him to be there than by divine endowmeÌ„ts onely I hope he thinks not that the Holy Ghost is hypostatically united to them or incarnate in them An inequality then of divine endowments is all the inequa'ity which can be imagin'd in this matter and thefore if any inequality prejudice Dr. H's tenet he is concern'd to avoid this Now how much it concerns Dr. H's circumstances to avoid an inequality of the Holy Ghosts being in the Apostles is as plain as it is that it concerns him to say any thing to the question and not talk onely in the aire He is about to impugn S. Peter's higher Authority by the performance of the promise of Authority and Commission made finally as he thinks by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them wherefore unles he prove that the Holy Ghost descended equally upon each he can never argue hence against the inequality of S. Peter's Authority pretended by us and so it avalis him nothing He saw this in his book of Schism where he
denyed p 159 160 161. 162 163 From Names and Titles denyed p 164 165 166 167 from S. Ambâ—ose 23â— 232. and 234. from S. Chrysost and Theophylact. p 233 from Clemens p. 258. 259. from S Chrysost again p. 274 275 also p 286 287 Three impertinent Testimonies for S. Johns being over the Jews onely p. 366 367 His Testimony from Scripture for his Exclusive Provinces truely explicated and that Explication made good p. 224 225 c. His most serviceable Testimony from the Arch-heretick Pelagius p. 239. This Testimony mainly rely'd on p. 242. 306. 346. 348. Testimony from S. Hierom clearing the point of Exclusive Jurisdiction p. 251. to 255. S. Chrysostomes express Testimony against himself whom he cites most for him in this point p 279. 280. Three most manifest Testimonies from S. Chrysost for S. Peters Supremacy p. 288. to 292. Testimony from S. Cyprian and S. Austinc for S. Peters Authority p. 292. to 297. Testimony from our own Canon Law senselesly brought against us p. 297. to 301. A Testimony expresly against himself 〈◊〉 every Tittle brought to make good all his former Testimonies p. â—26 327. Six Testimonies of 〈◊〉 shown invalid by Schism disarm'd left unmaintained by their Alledger p. 329. 330. Testimonies from Scripture for the promise and performance of a particular degree of Authority in S. Peâ—â—â— urged p. 393. to 400 His own Testimony from S. Hillary expresly against him p. 416 A Testimony produc'd as for him which contradicts him in five particulars p. 418 419. His Testimony from Scripture for twelve Episcopall Chairs p. 421. 423. The Testimony Tu es Petrus c. urged by us p. 434. 435. Testimony from Justinians Novels â—oubly and notoriously falsified p. 468. 469. W. WEaknesse in producing blindly places of Scripture unapplyed to any Circumstance p. 4 5. In imputing Contumeliousness to his Adversary p 6 7 9. Yet using worse himself p. 6. 8 9 10. In expecting that Adversaries in a scrious quarrell should spare one another p. 7. In his manner of writing Epist to the Reader p. 6 17 19 In quoting Saint Hierom against the Disarmer to his own utter overthrow p. 21 22 23 c. In totally mistaking the common sense of a plain Epistle to the Reader p. 29 30. c. In arguing by Ifs p. 77 78. thrice Also p. 138 182 183 356 357 Thirteen weaknesses about one point p. 96 to 106. There are innumerable others but I am weary A List of their common Heads may be seen p. 454 455. The total sum of Dr. Hammond's faults committed in the first Part of his reply that is within the compass of thirty seven leaves favourably reckon'd is this Absurdities threescore and two Abuses twenty nine Blasphemies seven Groundless Cavils fifteen Calumnies twelve Contradictions seventy six False-dealings forty four besides his changing the words and sense of others Ignorances great part of which are affected fifty Omissions of his necessary duty forty Bringing Testimonies for him which are against him one and twenty Mistakes Prevarications Shufflings Weaknesses for the most part voluntary sans nombre INDEX To the Treatise against my Lord of DERRY ABsurdities p. 484 485 491 493 496 498 506 516 521 527 528 529 530 536 537 541 542 574 594 595 603 621 622 629 twice 635 640 641 647 524 570 571. Absurdity in bragging of his Churches large Communion p 641 642 643 Breaking Church-Unity inexcusable p. 569. 570. 571. 662. 663. 664. Cavills groundlesly rais'd p. 483 484 485 499 501 502 524 541 565 572 599 632 935 952 653. Cavills against the Council of Trent answered p. 645 646 647 648 649. Contradictions to himself p. 491 496 twice 500 527 540 twice 554 565 571 576 577. also p. 578 579 four times 590 591 594 601 602 603 604 607 twice 610 twice 611 621 twice 631 632 633 644 653 654 655 656 Other Contradictions p. 497 498 522 527 528 582 583 thrice 587 634 651. Contradicting the whole world's ages p. 530 559 560. Controversy what p. 502. Creed of the Apostles why instituted p. 492. why other Creeds or Professions p. 492 463. Defendent who properly p 511. Falsification of the Council of Ephesus in four respects p. 493 494 495. of his Adversaries words p. 525 526 630 631 of the Council of Sardica p. 537 538 of Bede p 550 of all our Historians at once p. 549. False pretence of our stating the Question p. 499. False stating the question p 500 501. Moderation of Protestants misrepresented from p. 581 to 601. Mistaking wilfully our charge p. 479 480. Omitting to tell us whether his Exceptions were Demonstrative or only probable p 475. Omitting one halfe of our charge p. 477 478. Omitting to speak one positive word to the matter of Fact p. 481 482. Omitting words most reli'd on by his Adversary p 540. Opponent who properly p 511. Prevarication from answering and substituting common words for particular things p. 486 487 488 489 490 599. Other Prevarications p. 497 498 534 twice 569 570 575 632 633 638 twice A most absurd and manifold Prevarication p. 505 506 507 508. Again 509 510. Also 511 512 513 Prevarications from the question p. 553 557 562 563 564 592 600 607 608 612 613 614 615 616 621 622 623 624 625 526 627 635 650 651. Succession into St. Peters Headship due to the Bishop of Rome p. 617 618. Testimony from the Council of Ephesus produced by Lord D. p. 493 569 573 from English Statutes p. 524 from the Epistle of Pope Eleutherius p. 539 540. Testimony from S. Prosper rejected by him p. 540 541. His Testimony from the Welsh Manuscript mâ—nifoldly weak from p. 542 to p. 549. Unity of Faith broak by the Reformers p. 570 571 572 657 658 659. Unity of Government broke by them p. 573 574 575 576 658. 659. Universal Church impossible to be known by Protestant Grounds from p. 595 to p. 599. The total sum of faults committed by my Lord of Derry in his short Appendix cast up amount to Absurdities twenty nine Cavils sixteen Contradictions forty four False dealings twelve Omissions of most important matters which concerned the whole question four Prevarications forty two Corrections of the ERRATA IN the Title l. 2. dispach't Epist to the Reader p. 2. l. 11. this method ib. p. 6. t. 8. oratoriall p. 12. l. ult them being p. 13. l. 17. I doubt not p. 14. l. 32. be otherwise p. 21. l. 15. his award p. 32. l. 1. ruin more p. 53. l. 11. if Christians p. 54. l. 2. of schism p. 54. l. 29. these positions p 59. l. 17 extern p. 95. l. 1. chap. 2. p. 105. l. 20 may not both p. 108. l. 15. lawfull p. 113. l. 22 most probable p. 129. l. 20. have had p. 142. l. 28. this consent p. 146. l. 26 Bishops p. 147. l. 26 quos p. 149. l. 3 reply p. 34. p. 150. l. 26 in it p. 152. l. 17 Bishops p. 154. l. 20 epist 10 p. 172. l. 7 Province ib. l. 25 fifth p. 173. l. 1 fifth p. 177. l. 11 his side p. 187. 18. the word is p. 195. l. 30 prepositive p. 216. l. 29 offer here p. 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. l. 17. p. 222. l. 22 a pact ib. l. 28 a pact p. 241. l. 7 our Doctors p. 252. l. 18 gentilem p. 236â— l. 7 il phras'd p. 257. l. 13 hath no. p. 261. lâ— 20 same tune p. 266. l. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 301. l. 7 prejudiciall p. 306. l. 34 possibly p. 308. 13 from all otheâ— ib. 33. hence all p. 310. l. 34 commanded togather together p. 318. l. 20 take to be p. 322. l. 13 in soft-reason'd ib. l. 17 attending p. 346. l. 19 which he affirms p. 347. l. 12 vers 1. we ib. l. 15 Greeks p. 350. l. 16 argumentative ib. l. 31 fourth p. 353. l. 8 â—ad won p. 359. l. 28 here Answer p. 53. â— 361. l. 2 to him Answ p. 49. l. 32. 33. p. 365. l. 1 repugnancies p. 378. â—28 of asks p. 381. l. 23 24 assents not sprung p. 382. l. 31 it would p. 391. l. 13 inclosure p. 393. l. 9. found p. 87. â— 406 l. 17 rule p. 407 l. 1. par 10. Answ p. 63. ib. l. 11 exhortation p. 408. l. 12. preferment Rep. p. 68. Reply p. 412. l. 13. as our Saviour did ib. l. 31. expression p. 420. l. 15. hands reaping â— 424. l. 20. 〈◊〉 your p. 443. l. 33. destroy ours from his own p. 448. l. 27. proportion p. 450. l. 10. explicated ib. l. 28. us three p. 459. l. 2. ingenuous p. 462. l. 2. grant p. 469. l. 8. his former fault p. 480. 4. 5. the Bishops fâ—llow-sencer Dr. H. of Schism cap. 7. par 2. confess c. p. 484. l. 8. Sons by attestation p. 486. l. 5. none can be p. 490. l. 11. than that the ibid. l. 33. immediate p. 496. l. 33. some such things p. 498. l. 23. all the Grounds p. 500. l. 3. Church or Successour of S. Peter p 502. l. 8. These points p. 506. l. 1. and indeed p. 507. l. 3. manifest in p. 511. l. 6. doth aloud p. 511. l. 17. Opponent or Accaser p. 512. l. ult have afforded some p. 513. l. 7. his Church since if he means the discipline of the Church of England c. p. 514. l. 11â— flickering p. 519. l. 24. by my first p. 520. l. 27. of non-ens p. 533. l. 26. utter unauthentickness p. 542. l. 34. the concomitant 549. l. 2. are put down p. 550. l. 32. corroborate the. p. 554. l. 21. Levi. p. 557. l. 25. now hold p. 568. l. 11 by any tie p. 577. l. 11. confâ—sses p. 21. l. 7. 8. Pag. 578 l. 33. nationall Laws p. 591. l. 28. that no Society p. 595. l. 3. have it hâ—ld p. 600. l. 30. and no more p. 603. l. 1. any 〈◊〉 ib. l. 4. â—ontests p. 604. l. 17. no my Lord. p. 605. l. 12. renouncing p. 609. l. 2. These Evidencies p. 612. l. 7. in noting p. 613. l. 22. evince p. 617. l. 26. 27. applying the. p. 620. l. 16. unites God's p. 634. l. 10. as suchâ— p. 638. l. 20. discourse dull p. 642. l. 21. but there is p. 644. l. 8. dâ—ametricall p. 645. l. 27. or of the p. 651. l. 4. A Patriarchall Aâ—istocraticall Authority p. 666. l. 19. neither their FINIS
that he is sure the Protestants are not so persuaded nor ever had cōvincing Grounds represented to persuade them of it referring me to a book of his own called The View of Infallibility In answer I refer him to Rushworth's Dialogues and assure him that if he be not blinded with prejudice or interest he may see it there shown as perfectly as that two and three are five And as for his Book I find no such worthy stuffe in these as can invite me to think an hour well spent in perusing that Brother of theirs After this going about to vindicate the uncertainty on the Protestant's side he runs p. 21. 22. again to their full or verily-persuasion but never tells us whether this full persuasion of theirs sprung from the light of pure Reason that is Evidence or from passion interest and ignorance adding a parallel of beleeving that King Henry the eighth was King of this Nation the reasons whereof notwithstanding he accounts fallible because the testimonies of meer men Whereas I account it most evident and demonstrable and promise him to have acquitted himself better than ever Protestant did yet if he can show me the thousandth part of this Certainty which he puts here for a parallel of the Protestant's Vncertainty for any point in which they differ from us that is for any point which they have not received as handed down by Tradition or Attestation of Fore fathers For never let him expect to make a rational man beleeve that scruing or misunderstanding an odde line or two glean'd for the nonce out of Scripture or and old Authour can by any multiplication arrive to the clearness of the former ample undeniable uncontroulable Verdict of witnesses that King H. the eighth vas King of this Nation much lesse to that of our Rule of Faith being an attestion of things infinitely more importing which a multitude incomparably more numerous had seen visible in practice besides other assistant motives implanted by the Apostles the Holy Ghost especially cooperating in the hearts of the first faithful and still continued to this day which strengthen man's nature to the impossibility of erring in such an Attestation This vast advantage hath our Rule of Faith over this instance of K. H's reign here yet I doubt not to affirm that the testification of the latter renders it demonstrable which I thus show This undoubted and never yet-denyed persuasion that K. H. the eighth reigned here imprinted in the hearts of all in England not onely attested by all Fathers in that Nation but even by innumerable multitudes in other Countries his foul acts making him famous this persuasion I say is an Effect and consequently sprung from some Cause but no Cause can be imaginable in reason able either to breed this strong persuasion in such a world of knowing persons nor bribe so many attesters to a conspiracy of witnessing such a visible thing except the Being of King H. and of his Reign therefore he was or did reign here otherwise this persuasion and attestation had been effects without causes or which is all one without proportionable causes which being evidently impossible it is also evident and demonstrable that he did rule in England Now whoever should goe about to answer the major by putting some Cause as possible to be in it self proportionable and so able to produce this strange Effect besides the Existence of K. H. the eighth the very position would disgrace it self and the Authour when the proportions of it's efficacity came to be scann'd and apply'd to the Vniversal and strange Effect spoken of Again should a man consider this ample and uncontrolled attestation of it and all the other motives which infer it as King H's Wives Alliances abroad Warres Acts of Parliaments Embassadours in all parts Descent Apostatizing together with the infinite multitude of Conveyances Bonds Iudgments Foundations and innumerable such other things relating to such and such a year of his Reign and after all these fully considered should notwithstanding seriously express his doubt that he could not beleeve there was ever any such man would not all that heard him justly think him a mad man If so then surely he must have renounc't no less than rigorous Evidence and Demonstration the onely perfect light of Reason who can deserve justly such a censure It was therefore rigorously evident and demonstrable that King H. the eighth was Thirdly if it be not evident and demonstrable the contrary may possibly be such for one side must needs be true so all truths being connected in it'ts own nature demonstrable but it is evidently impossible the contrary should be demonstrable or the motives for it show'd not-concluding therefore they concluded demonstrably The minor is prov'd clearly for first it is not against any natural Science and consequently not possibly disprovable by natural reason nor yet by any Authority for in our case there is an Attestation for it uncontrolled by any either orally or by writing Wherefore there is left no means possible to goe about to confute it or evidence the contrary it self therefore is most perfectly and most strongly evident and demonstrable nay impossible to be deemed or pretended to be shown otherwise Bring not then Mr. H. this infallibly-and demonstrably-grounded instance for a parallel of your vertible and Wind-mill uncertainty till you can show you can produce the million'th part of that Evidence and certainty but rather be asham'd to pretend to make head against our Rule of Faith which is of an attesting Authority incomparably more numerous more clear and more strongly supported by all kind of imaginable assisting circumstances than was that now explicated with obscure or misinterpreted scraps of dead Authours cast into what mold you please by Id est's self-explications and voluntary deductions according to the easily-bending nature of words That is blush to have renounc't your Reason in renouncing Evidence of Authority to follow unreasonableness in assenting upon ambiguous probabilities After this to clear himself from denying Infallibility which denial was charged and hath been shown to take away all beleef and ground of Beleef he tells us pag. 23. It is evident that beleef is no more than consent to the truth of any thing and the grounds of beleef such arguments as are sufficient to exclude doubting to induce conviction and persuasion But sure Mr. H. forgets what he is about for to divine beleef which is commanded by God himself and so cannot be sinfull not every consent ought to serve but a rational one nor any conviction but such an one as is rational that is grounded upon Evidence of that Authorities veracity in that which she proposes to be beleeved which how it can stand with her fallibility in the same point is past Dr. H's skil to make good since if it be once known that she can erre in it it can never be shown thats he does not there being no certainer Authority than her self to testify certainly when she hits and when
she failes for I hope Dr. H. will not say it must be Scripture without an Interpreter of Scripture and if so who a more certain Interpreter than her self If he say she must compare her self with other Churche's he not onely grants each may erre but even Repl. p. 15. l. 32. after recourse had to the said means he onely puts here pag. 16. l. 1. that it is not strongly probable that such a Church will erre so that if she can erre she does erre for any thing any body knows What follows is onely a trifling defence of himself for his bad disputing He was accused by us of a Schism twisted with Heresy he defended himself by alledging that he held not our Church Infallible which he knows we charge upon the deniers as the heresy of heresies Now his excuse for this Logick is that he put Repl. p. 24. onely a fiction of case but 't is plain he relies upon that fiction as on a real Ground saying there expressely of Schism p 28. 29. that he needs give no more distinct answer than this first that they not holding the Church of Rome infallible may be allow'd to make some suppositions c. Again he sayes he makes but one but yet he there puts down four so that the difficulty is onely this to determine in whether place he deserves most to be trusted or which of them is the child of his second thoughts Lastly he imposes falsly upon the Cath. Gentl. Repl. p. 26. that he requires him at the begenning of the dispute to grant the Chvrch of Rome infallible Whereas we onely mind him that since he is accused of a Schism link't with Heresy he ought to show that his motives bear the weight of a perfect Evidence notwithstanding the counterpoise of our Rule of Faith the Churche's Infallibility and not suppose this first and then run a Voluntary upon what he had granted himself gratis Thus I have given an answer to Dr. H's third Section of his second Chapter to which he referred me In which I confess to have been larger than the rigour of answering required but the point of Power to oblige Beleef was as I conceived very important and well worth clearing neither do I remember to have read it in any other place fetcht from it's first Grounds that so I might refer the Reader thither I have also vindicated the Cath Gentl. something more particularly than I proposed to my self at first or than was my obligation which was onely this to clear those passages in him which vere coincident with mine Hereafter I fear the apprehension of my future prolixity will not let me exceed my first-intended limits SECT 14. How Dr. H. defends the sufficiency of his Division charged to want the three most principal sorts of Schism and solely important to the Controversy THe third Chapter in his Reply begins with curing his Division of Schism which was shown by the Cath. Gentl. to want two of it's best limbs and those too most useful in this present controversy that to wit of Schism from the whole Church and from Authority of Councils also by S. W. to be pittifully maimed of the third which was against subjection to some one Superiour His skill employ'd in plastering it comes to this that all Schism is either in inferiours against Superiours or in equals against equals Rep. p. 28. He should have said against some one Superiour in the singular for his Discourse in his book of Schism never look't further which occasion'd the Cath. Gentleman's calling it Monarchical His first excuse for his first fault is that it is strange to think that that man who breaks from the whole Church was not comprised in either member of his division when certainly he is guilty of both This it is to forget one's Logick for let the man be where he will our question is of the sin Schism against the whole Church which is therefore not comprised in any one head because it is in an higher nature sinfull and so exceeds it Sacriledge and Patricide according to the common notions are found indeed in every simple theft and murther but according to their specifical differences by which they are distinguish't from them they exceed them and so are not compris'd in them This Particularity then and Specialty of schismatical guilt in breaking from the whole Church makes a man in a higher and more special manner faulty And this is the reason why we require that the Specialty of this Schism should as it ought be taken notice of by ranking it in a Special head which was omitted by Mr. H. who talk't onely of the petty Schisms against some one particular Superiour not against all in collection nor against the whole Church And here when he is challenged of it in stead of showing us that this greater sin is compris'd in one of those lesser heads he privaricates from the question which is about the sin and talks of the man who is compris'd in his Division for having done another sin less than this and not for having done this His second excuse or rather his continuation of the former is the saddest piece of Logick that ever was read and begins at the wrong end He is accused of omitting Schism against the whole Church and pretends he treated it as involved in another to wit in Schism against some particular Governour and Schism against Charity to our Equals which he proves in these words Repl. p. 28. For how can one separate from the whole Church unless he separate both from his Superiours and equals too which indeed had been to some purpose in case he had treated of Schism against the whole Church and omitted Schism against some particular Superiour or against Equals Otherwise for this purpose in hand he must argue in a quite contrary manner and put it thus How can one separate from a particular Superiour or from his Equals but he must in so doing separate from the whole Catholick Church and then the wise argument had evidently bewray'd it's weakness In a word either he means by Superiours some of them onely and then he runs over boots into a Contradiction to get out of a less fault in which he stood wet-shod for some of them cannot be aâ—â— or the whole Church or if by Superiours he means all then let him show me that in his Book of Schism he hath treated of that which is against all the Superiours of the Church in any collective sense if not then let him confess without more shuffling that he treated not of Schism against the whole Church As for his omitting Schism against the Authority of Councils he endeavours to clear it first by seeming to doubt whether Councils have any Authority Durum telum necessitas in another occasion I doubt not but he would extoll to the skies those Councils which deposed a Pope though now because he had granted them no Authority in omitting Schism against them he can shuffle up and