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
believe false Fundamentals his words are not intelligible sense for the following words or else they have no degree of truth in them relate to the other acception of Fundamental already sopoken of so that according to Dr. H. it is not intelligible sense to undertake for him and his Friends that they should not speak contradictions Is this a sober discourse which falls reelingly to the Ground of it self when none pushes it or was it a friendly part to involve his Friends in his own wise predicament And now can any man imagine that when I said Dr. H. and his Friends acknowledge ours a true Church there should be any difficulty in the sense of those words or that I should impose upon them that they held our Church not to have erred yet this Doctor who alwayes stumbles most in the plainest way will needs quibble in the word true and S. W. must bear the blame for grossely equivocating whereas the sense was obvious enough to every child as the words before cited will inform the Reader that I meant them of the true nature of a Church which since they acknowledged ours to have I argued hence that they must not say we held false Fundamentals that is such as they account Fundamentals for since a Church cannot be a Church but by Fundamental points of Faith and Faith must not be false it follows that a falshood in Fundamental destroyes the very Being of a Church This being so I shall beg Dr. H's pardon if I catechize him a litle in point of reason in which his Cause makes him a meer Cathecumenus and ask him how he can hold ours to have even the true nature of a Church since he hold that which she esteems as her Fundamental of Fundamentals and that upon which as her sole certain Ground she builds all her Faith to wit her infallible Authority to be false erroneous If the sole Authority upon which immeditately she builds all Faith be a ruinous falshood she can have no true Faith of any Article consequently can have no Faith at all nor be a true Church since a Church cannot survive the destruction of Faith But their ambition to honour their Nag's-head Bishops with the shadow of a Mission from our Church makes them kindly speak non sense to do her a seeming courtesy for their own interest I know he tells us here in general termes Answ p. 15. that she is not unchurch't because she holds the true Foundation layd by Christ but offends by enlarging and superadding but he must show why the Catholicks who hold no point of Faith but solely upon their Churche's infallibility if thar Ground be false that is be none as he sayes can hold any thing at all as of Faith that is have any Faith at all at least how they can have Certainty of any point of Faith or the written word of God if the sole-certain Rule of Faith by which onely they are assured of all those were taken sometimes in a lie to wit while it recommended to them those superadditions they account false received in the same tenour as the rest from the hands of our immediate Forefathers But let us follow Dr. H. who goes jogging forward but still rides as his ill fortune is beside the saddle To points which they accounted fundamental I counterpos'd tolerable ones that is such as they esteemed not-fundamental which I therefore call'd tolerable because they account these neither to touch the Foundation of Faith as building or destroying such as he acknowledged in the fore-going Paragraph our pretended super additions to be saying that the dross doth not annibilate the Gold It being therefore plain that falshoods which are not in fundamentals so unconsistent with the essence of a Church must be in things not-fundamental and therefore consistent with the nature of a Church that is tolerable if taken in themselves he neglects to take notice of them as they are in themselves that is such as their admission ruines not Faith nor the essence of a Church and sayes the pressing them upon them is intolerable and not admittable without hypocrisy or sin against conscience and why because they believe them not I ask had they a demonstration they were false if so then let them produce it and if it bear test I shall grant them innocent if not then since nothing else can oblige the Vndâ—rstanding but the foresaid Evidence their pretended obligation in Conscience to disaccept them is convinc't to spring from weakness of passion not from force of reason I added that those points more deserved the Church should command their obseruance than Copes or Surplices c. And though Mr. H. knowes very well that one of those points was the fundamental Ground of all Faith in the Church they left and Copes c. but things indifferent yet by a cheap supposal that all is false which we hold he can deny that they are more deserving our Church should command their observance and so carries the cause clear He addes Answ p. 16. that they weightier the importance of the things commanded is the more intolerahle is the pressure of imposing them and makes disobedience greater in things indifferent Whereas surely the Governours are more highly obliged to command the observance of that on which they hold Faith to be built than all the rest put together Is it a greater obstinacy to deny a Governour taxes than to rebell absolutely against him the Doctor 's Logick sayes it is since obstinacy according to him is greater in resisting commands in things indâ—fferent Especially if the Rebel please to pretend that the urging his submission to that Authority is an intolerable pressure Mr. H. here acquits him without more adoe But to return since it was our Churche's greater obligation to command their observance of those points and the holding of such points was not deemed then by them destructive to Faith but on the other side known by reason of their pretended importance to be in an high degree damnable to themselves and others if they hap't to be mistaken no less than most palpable and noon-day evidence can excuse them in common prudence from a most desperate madness and headlong disobedience but the least shadow of a testimony-proof is a meridian Sun to Dr. H. and gives as clear an evidence as his understanding darkened by passion is willing to admit Thus much to show the particular miscarriarges of Dr. H. in every Paragraph of his answer to my Introduction there remaines still the Fundamental one that he hath said nothing at all to the point of reason in it but onely mistaken each particular line of it I alledged as my reason why they dealt not seriously against their own Desertours because no colourable pretence could possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the very same would hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them This proved ad hominem thus because the Protestants acknowledge the points
of fellowshâ—p the agreement that was made betwixt them c. is sure the interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if it be so to wit that their entrusting exprest antecedently have the same sence as their subsequent agreement then I wonder what is become of his farther designation since one is but the interpretation of the other that is hath the same sence with the other Sect. 7 The Examination of five Testimonies brought in recruit for his exclusive Provinces of which the first is expressely against himself the next three even in his own grounds impertinent to our Question and the first borrowed from the Arch heretick Pelagius and falsify'd to boot AT present we have no more to do but to Answer his lately gleand testimonies huddled together confusedly in his Answ p. 39. 40. And though when reason is to manage the busines we are to expect nothing but contradictions from this Dr. as himself has amply inform'd us yet being now got into his own element of comon-place-book testimony-parcels we must imagin his art is at it's vertical heighth The first is from S. Ambrose on Gal. 2. 8. which I shall transcribe as I finde it cited by him Pétrum solum nominat ac sibi comparat quia Primatum ipse acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam se quoque pari modo electum ut Primatum habeat in fundandis Gentium Ecclesiis He names Peter alone compares him to himself because he had received the Primacie to found the Church and he likewise is chosen to have the Primacie of founding the Churches of the Gentiles where first if Primatus signifies Primacy of Iurisdiction and unles it signifies so 't is nothing to our question which is about Iurisdiction onely then it is not possible to imagin a testimony more expresly for our tenet of S. Peter's universal Iurisdiction and greater then S. Paul's than this which he alledges against it saying that S. Peter had the Primacy to found the Church without any limitation at all mentioned confining him to this or that Church So that if there be any exclusivenes or shadow of exclusivenes found in that place as I see none then it ought in all reason be the exclusivenes of S. Paul from the Iews since he is particulariz'd by it to the Gentiles and not of S. Peter from any who is not particulariz'd here at all to any part or portion of the Church but extended to all unles D. H. will say that the word Ecclesia Church signifies a peece of the Church onely This testimony therefore might serue to some purpose were it brought to prove that S. Peter's Iurisdiction was Vniversal S. Paul's limited but to prove S. Peter's limited from words that extend it to the Church without any note of limitation at all found there is still Dr. H's old bold trick of gulling the Reader to his face with out either shame or conscience Secondly the comparison between those two Apostles and the pari modo electus if we will stand to the words in the testimony make this sence as apply'd to particulars that as S. Paul was particularly chosen to found the Gentiles Church so S. Peter was in like manner particularly chosen to found the whole Church which signifies that S. Peter was universal Pastor and S. Paul vnder him which is kindly done of Mr. H. and deserves great thanks from us Though I wonder the sincere Reader can without just resentment suffer himself to be so tamely deluded as D. H. endeavors here by making him beleeve that testimony of S. Peter's Primacy to build the Church signifies that he was onely over the Iews and that not all these neither but onely over one portion of them in dispersion nor yet that these were his exclusive or peculiar Province unless S. Paul chanced to meet him in the same City Thus perfectly careless is he whether the place hee alledges be indifferent for him or against him as hath been shown all over in Schism Disarm'd so he can dazle a vulgar headed reader's eyes with the glorious pretence of a father's or councill's testimony and make way to introduce it by some voluntary and boldly-promising preamble of his own as he does at present assuring us here Answ p. 39. l. 35. that these words of S. Ambrose are plain but whether plain for him or plainly against him it matters not with him and that in them S. Ambr. asserts all that was either his purpose or interest to affirm as if it were either Dr. H's intent or his advantage to conclude S. Peter over the Church without any limitation put down that is over the whole Church and S. Paul over the Gentiles onely and so vnder him The second testimony is from S. Chrysostom saying that S. Paul demonstrates himself to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and compares himself with Peter the chief of them Thus hee In Answer First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies any kind of extrinsecall honor whether it springs from better parts greater efficacy more industry in preaching or from what so ever cause and not onely from dignity of Iurisdiction it follows likewise that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in it's self as indifferently appliable by circumstances to signify an equality in any of the former respects as it is to signify an equality in the latter of Iurisdiction and the like may be said of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since of it self it onely signifies that S. Paul compared himself to S. Peter but in which of the former regards this comparison was made the generall signification of the word leaves indifferent and to be deermined by circumstances Secondly the best circumstance to judge what this word should signify in that place is the subjecta materia or place it self of which this is the explication which being Gal. 2 8. where there is nothing at all relating to Iurisdiction but to efficatiousness in preaching to Iews and Gentiles of this therefore the comparison between these two Apostles must be understood in this respect onely must they necessarily be signified by these words to have been equally-dignified and not in Iurisdiction or governing power which is not there spoken of Thirdly that this is the meaning of it is clearly shown by the following Testimony which is his third out of Theophylact who for the most part transcribes out of and follows S. Chrysostom 'T is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shows himself equall 〈◊〉 Peter which words D. H. cites but leaves out the words imediately following lest they should quite spoil his pretence of proving out equality of power from the other The following words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that the testimony taken entirely is this he shows himself equally honored with Peter for he who had given to Peter efficacy of preaching to the Iews gave mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the
Dr. When he say's that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not set to denote all the severall sorts of caetus in Asia I ask doâ—s it exclude any or is it set in opposition to the Iews if not how can it possibly signifie the Gentile part onely for which hee produced it my blindnes then Reader consists in this that I would not renounce the most common light of nature think that an whole a part is the same nor consent to believe that the words an whole entire Nation signifie one sort of people living there or part of that Nation onely In order to these late testimonies it is to be observed first that our tenet makes the Pope over the whole Church in this sence not that he governs each particular Church immediately but that he is chief in Authority over those inferior Bishops Metropolitans c. who are the immediate Governours of those particular Churches and so he becomes mediately in this sence over all Churches or the whole Church Secondly our parallel tenet of S. Peter is not that when he was Apostle he could preach in more places then another but that he had an higher Authority then the other each of which could preach in any or all places of the world and that when he was fixt Bishop he had an influence of Authority over any other Apostles when they were fixt Bishops in other places not that he was immediate Bishop or Metropolitan of their particular Bishopricks Thirdly hence is evident that the proofs which can prejudice this point must signifie that those particular Apostles Metropolitans or Bishops had none superior to themselves and by consequence who were mediateâ—y over their Churches and that it avails nothing at all nor comes to the point to prove that such such were over such such particular Iurisdictions immediately no more than if some writer 500. years hence should argue that the Pope was not in the year 1650. Supreme Governour in our Church because he findes at that time such a one Primate in France another Arch-bishop of Toledo in Spain Fourthly it is no lesse evident that Dr. H's pretence that it is manifest that S. Peter had nothing to do either mediately or immediately in governing the Churches of Asia from the former testimonies which exprest onely that those Churches or that country were under those Apostles or Bishops without a Syllable signifying that those Apostles themselves were not vnder an higher Apostle and so their Churches mediately subject to him it is evident I say that he hath not produc't a word to prove his position except his own It is manifest and consequently it was no artificiall trick but plain downright naturall Truth to challenge him with that palpable weaknes Fiftly his whole processe is in another respect totally impertinent frivolous His fundamentall intent was to limit the Iurisdictions of the Apostles as such to make them mutually-exclusive under that notion by giving to each proper Apostolicall Provinces and here proceeding to make good that his intent he proves them limitted as they were Bishops which is a quite different thing For every Bishop as such is over his own peculiar flock and particulariz'd to it where as that of an Apostle being not a settled Authority as the other hath not in it's own nature any ground to be constant to such but may be promiscuous to all Though it was not forbidden to any Apostle to settle himself in some particular seat so become a Bishop of that place The result then of all the former testimonies is this that Dr. H. avoyd's the whole question of the mediate Government of S. Peter which is the point his Adversary holds and disproves the immediate onely which wee never held and when he hath done tells his Readers Answer p. 56. S. W. hath little care to consider that wherein the difficulty consists when as himself never toucht the difficultie at all But I had forgot the beginning of his 14. par that S. Iohn had the dignity of place before all other in Christ's life time even before S. Peter himself Now I went about to parallell it by the proportion an elder Brother hath to a younger which is a precedence without Iurisdiction so resembles Dr. H's dry Primacy But the Dr. Answ p. 55. catches my similitude by one of those feet by which it was not pretended to run add's to it excellencie of power of his own head which was never named nor insisted on by me and when he hath done say's that 't is an addition of my fertile fancy whereas I never pretended it as his words but my parallell nor yet put force in the superiority of Iurisdiction but in that of a dry precedency onely neither meaning nor expressing any more by highest in dignity than himself did by dignity of place before all others In his Answ p. 54 he tells us he mention'd two things of Iohn 1. of Christ's favour to him and this he say's is infallibly inferr'd from the title of beloved Disciple I stand not upon the thing both because 't is unconcerning our question true in it self onely I am glad to see that Dr. H. is more certain in his inferences than his Church is of her faith since he is confident of his infallibility in those whereas in this to wit in faith he onely affirm's that it is not strongly probable his Church will erre Repl. p. 16. At length Protestant Reader thou seest whether thou art to recurre for thy infallible Rule of faith to wit to Dr. Hâ—s inferences The second is S. Iohn's dignity of place before all others which he say's was irrefragably concluded from the leaning in his breast at Supper Here again Dr. H. is irrefragable infallible yet he no where reads that S. Iohn thus lean'd on Christ's breast more then once nor can we imagin that our Saviour taught his Disciples that complementalnes as to sit constantly in their ranks at meat seeing that in this very occasion to wit that very night he forbid such carriage by his own example and that euen at meat Luke 22. v. 26. 27. Lâ—â— him that is grâ—atest among you be as the younger he that is chief as he that doth serve For whether is greater he that sitteth at meat or he that serveth Is not he that sitteth at meat But I am among you as he that serveth So far was our Saviour from giving occasion for over weening by any constant partiality of placing them at table that his expresse doctrine and example was to bring them to an humle indifferency and that in serving one another much more in sitting before or after another But to return to Dr. H. as he is Master of ceremonies to the Apostles places them at table His doctrine is that S. Peter had a Primacy of order onely amongst the Apostles without Iurisdiction which consequently could be nothing but a dry complementary precedency to walk stand or speak first
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
common Rule of faith to his fellows and the rest nor yet a common Government which may show them visibly to us to be of the Church and on the other side stands indited by undeniable matter of fact to have rejected those points which were are visibly such to the Church they broke from 't is no lesse evident that hee hath not said a word to the purpose but stole it away as his custome is from the open field of the plain charge to invisible holes In a word those proposalls of S. Paul are motives why Christians should be united in Wills and also why those who are not Christians should be of the Church and Christian common wealth not the proper ties which make them of it for these must be visible remarkable known as are de facto our form of Government our Rule of faith The frame then of the Church as put by me was thus visible the joynts of it recounted by the Bp. out of S. Paul invisible yet the sincere man pretends here when hee brings these invisible points to take my frame in peeces to look upon it in parcells Which is to prevaricate from the whole Question and instead of answering to abuse wrong his Adversary Secondly hee sayes hee will not dispute whether Christ did give S. Peter a Principality among the Apostles so wee will be content with a Principality of order and hee wishes I had exprest my self more clearly whether I bee for a beginning of order Vnity or for a single Head of power Iurisdiction I answer I contende for no such singular Head ship of power that no Bishop in the Church hath power but hee for this is known to bee the Heresy which S. Gregory did so stoutly impugn when hee writ against Iohn of Constantinople A Principality or Primacy of order I like well provided this order signify not as the Bp. would have it a dry order which can do nothing but such an order as can act do something according to it's degree rank as the word order imports if taken in the Ecclesiasticall sence and as it is taken when it is applâ—'d to the Hierarchy as for example to Pâ—triarchâ— Primates Arch Bishops Bishops c. Which ought to bee the proper sence of it in our Controversy it being about an Ecclesiasticall preeminence As for what hee tells us that the Principality of power resiâ—es now in a generall Council besides other faults already noted it falters in this that generall Councils are extraordinary Iudicatures and never likely to happen in the sence you take a generall Council But our Question is whether the nature of Government require not some ordinary standing Supremacy of power ever ready to over look the publike concerns to promote the interests conserve the peace of the Christian Commonwealth by subordination to whom all the faithfull remain united in the notion of Governed If this bee necessary as plain reason avouches then wee ask where you have lest this standing ordinary Principality of power since you have renounc't the Pope's Supremacy Thirdly I added and consequently to his Successors This consequence exprest in generall terms hee tells us hee likes well enough and that such an head-shippe ought to continue in the Church but hee cannot digest it that such an Head ship should bee devolued to the Bp. of Rome yet what other Successor S. Peter had that could bee properly call'd such that is such a one who succeeded him dying except the Bp. of Rome himself will never attempt to show us This consequence then of ours applying in the Principality of S. Peter's to the Bishop of Rome which hee calls a rope of sand hangs together thus that whensoever Christ conferrs any power to any single person to be continued for the future good of the Church and has taken no further order for it's continuance hee is deem'd likewise to have conferd it upon those to whom according to the order of nature it is to come Now the naturall order requires that offices dignities should be devolu'd to those who succeed those persons dying who were vested with them in case there bee no other ordinary convenient meanâ— instituted to elect or transfer it to another That Christ lest any such institute that his Church should continue this dignity by election or traverse the common method of succession wee never read but on the contrary wee fide de facto that the Bishops of Rome in the Primitive Church enjoy'd a Principality by succession not by nomination of the Catholike Church nor is it convenient but extremely preter naturall that this Principality being of perpetuall necessity as hee grants the Church should remain without it at the death of every Pope till all the Churches in Iapan China India or where ever remotely disperst in all parts of the habitable world should bee ask't give their consent whether the Bishop of Rome should still continue with this Principality or no. No other means then being layd or lest to cross this way of succession as appears by common sence and the practice of the Church it follows that this naturall order must take place and so the particular dignity of S. Peter remain to those who succeeded him dying in his see of Rome His Argument then which hee pretends parallell to mine that such a Bishop of such a see died Lord Câ—ancellor of England therefore all succeeding Bishops of the same see must succeed him likewise in the Chancellor ship of England comes nothing home to my case for here is a supreme standing Magistrate to elect another traverse succession the transfering that charge is easily conveniently performable here are positive laws institutes made known accepted that a King should do this But put case that there were none of all these means of electing a new person on foot in the world and that the Chancellor ship were to be perpetuated there would bee no doubt in that case but the naturall order would take place there also and the Successors of that Bishop would succeed also into the Chancellor ship Christ left hee tells us the cheif managing of his family to his spouse that is the Church Pretty sence signifying thus much that the Church or universality of â—hristians must govern themselves have no cheif Governour at all Is it not rare that the Bishop should think Christ's family and his Spouse or Church are two distinct things What hee adds that hee lest it not to any single servant further then as subservient to his spouse is very true and all Governours in the world are or ought to bee subservient to the common good of the governed as even the Angells are Spiritus administratorij yet no more can the subjects command their Governours than wee can command Angells And so the chief Church her Bishop the chief Governour of Christ's family are for the good of the Church thouh over the Church however my
terms Fortifying With what incomparable art hee clears himself of another And how hee totally neglects the whole Question the Duty of a Controvertist in impugning opinions acknowledg'dly held onely by some in stead of points of faith held by the whole Church HHis Eighth chapter pretends to prove the Pope the Court of Rome most guilty of the Schism Which hee makes account hee hath done so strongly that hee needs not fortify any thing yet hee will needs do a needless bufines and goes about to fortify as hee calls it in his way not with standing To the first argument saith hee hee denieth that the Church of Rome is but a sister or a Mother and not Mistress to other Churches Which is first flatly to falsify my words to be seen Schism Disarm p. 327. which never deny her to bee a Mother but a Sister onely and this is his first endeavour of needles fortifying Next whereas the words Mistress may signify two things to wit a person that imperiously and proudly commands in which acception 't is the same with Domina and correlative to Serva a slave or hire ling slave Or else a Teacheress as I may say or one which instructs and so is coincident with Magistra and correlative to Discipula a Disciple or schollar Again it being evident both out of the Council of Florence where it is defined Romanam Ecclesiam esse Matrem Magistramque omnium Ecclesiarum and also out of common sence that wee take it in this latter signification the quibbling Bp. takes it in the former that is not as understood by us but by himself and then impugns his own mistake citing S. Bernard who exhorting Pope Eugenius to humility bids him consider that the Roman Church Ecclesiarum Matrem esse non Dominam is the Mother not Lady of all Churches And this is another attempt of his needles fortifying My L d of Derry may please then to understand that when wee say that the Roman Church is Mother Mistress of other Churches wee take the word Mother as relating to her Government or power of governing whose correlative is a sweet subjection not a hard or rigorous slavery and the word Mistress as expressing her power of teaching Or if the Bp. bee loath to grant the word Mistress taken in our sence which yet hee never goes about to impugn or disprove let him but allow stand to what the testimony himself brings here avouches to wit that shee is Mother of other Churches and that shee hath right to rule and teach her children as a Mother should do 't is as much as wee desire Now let us apply this see how rarely the Bishop hath cleared himself of Schism layd it at our doâ—e Hee hath brought a testimony which asserts the Church of Rome to bee the Mother of other Churches and so of the Church of England too if shee be Church nor does himself in this place deny her that title but seems to grant it But it is manifest de facto and by their solemn ordinances publike writings that her good Daughter the Church of England tells her flatly shee will not ought not obey her and thus by the Bp ' s Logick shee becomes acquitted of Schism Which I must confess is not onely a needles but a sleeveles manner of fortifying Again Schism involves in it's notion disobedience and the Bishop in this chapter pretends to show her Schismaticall that is disobedient to do which hee brings us a testimony which asserts our Church to bee Mother of other Churches and then concludes the Mother Schismaticall because shee is disobedient to her Daughter Pithy non-sence or if made sence flatly accusing their Church of Schism for disobeying her Mother and this deducible cleerly from that very testimony hee brought to prove the contrary which kind of arguing is in the Bp s phrase call'd needles fortifying His pretence of a new creed which was his second argument to prove us Schismaticall made by Pope Pius the fourth is already shown Sect. 1. to bee a calumny To which I add that our creed is the points of our beleef or faith since then 't is known that each point in that Profession of faith put out by him was held as of faith by the former Church ere hee thus collected them 't is a contradiction to pretend that hee made a new creed till it be shown that any of those points there contained was not formerly of faith and prove satisfactorily that the Apostles containes all necessary points of faith which will bee manifested at the Greek calends His third argument was because wee maintain the Pope in a rebellion against a generall Council To this hee sayes I answer not a word Let us see whether it deserves a word of Answer The difference between a Controvertist and a Schoolman is the same as is between a Church a School Controvertists therefore of severall Churches defend those points impugn the contrary ones which are held by those Churches as Churches that is as Congregations relying upon their Rule of faith Either then let him show that our Church holds as of faith or as received upon her Rule of faith the Pope's Supremacy to a generall Council else in impugning that point hee totally prevaricates from the office of a Controvertist hath done nothing which was his duty and so merits no answer save onely this that if hee will dispute against private opinions hee must cite his Authors argue against them not the Church whose beleef is contained in the decrees of Councils and universall consent of fathers Doctors Which answer I then gave him expresly Schism Disarm p. 327 Now to show the vanity of this third argument let him either manifest that our Church prest upon them this point of holding the Pope above Councils so as to excommunicate them upon their contrary tenet else all pretence of our causing the Schism is avoided for in case it were not thus prest his argument stands thus very many Schoolmen a great party among them held that opinion where upon wee left their Church ergo they are most guilty of the Schism Which is as senceles a paralogism as a sleepy brain could have stumbled on For why should any break Church-Communion as long as hee can keep it with conscience or how is my conscience concern'd in other men's opinions as long as they permit mee to hold the contrary Now that our Church permits the contrary tenet and denies none Communion for it himself testifies vindication p. 200. where hee puts down as one of the tenets of the now-french Church that generall Councils are above the Pope and may depose him c. The Bishop was conscious that hee had neglected the office of a Controvertist by impugning Schoolmen Lawyers Courtiers instead of our Church and an opinion held by many instead of a point of faith held by all To delude the Reader in reality to oppose the former which belonged not
pittifully this discourse hangs together that those Bishops shall be under the Patriarch of Alexandria seeing the Pope hath under him I cannot tell what or whom whereas however our Adversaries may pretend the material sense of one of the parts false yet themselves must confess that there is no difficulty in the formal coherence of the whole if it be supposed to signify thus That he shall have those for his Subjects because the Pope is accustomed to hold them for such or to judge it so This is yet more confirm'd because in both Languages it is evident that the Latine Hoc and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot possibly refer any thing but the thing decreed to wit that the Bishops named should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria This explication holding and hold it must till Mr. H. can show me a better that is another which shall agree better with the words and make better sense which will be never two things follow for us First that it was the Pope's custome to handle and judge matters belonging to the Patriarchy of Alexandria Next that the Council govern'd it self in this important matter by the custome of the Bishop of Rome Both which infer in all probability his higher Authority and make for us though intended otherwise Some Interpreters indeed are of opinion that this Canon was intended to order the Iurisdiction of the Patriarchs but this is a perfect Chimerical imagination originiz'd from the inveÌ„tion of those whose hatred against the Church of Rome occasion'd by their own guilt made them willing to say any thing in prejudice of Her though without all Ground either in the letter of the Canon as hath been shown or in the history of the Councils for nothing is more evident in this latter than that there was treated in the cause of Meletius Bishop of Licopolis â—n Egypt who refused to be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria and therefore that Canon chiefly touches thâ—t Patriarchy of which also the particulars are there specify'd nothing being order'd there concerning either Antioâ—h or the West but that their priviledges that is what by custome they had gotten should he conserved and continued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things standing thus no man unless driven by the desperate condition of his cause to catch at any thing can gather any such sense out of the words of the Canon Notwithstanding 't is granted that Schismaticks commonly make this Interpretation of it whose opinions were they any thing prejudicial to our Cause as they are not but most weak being of Adversaries yet they are made incomparably weaker by having Ruffinus for their Patron and first Founder of this Interpretation Who also to come nearer our question proceeding upon this former conceit added the word Suburbicarias without all Ground or show of Ground whether out of silliness and ignorance of propriety of Speech meaning to signify by that word all the Western Churches under the Empire of the City of Rome whose subjection to the Pope his eyes testify'd and other Schismaticks confess or out of knavery and malice it is uncertain This by the way is certain that an irregular proceeding and miscarriage sprung from both may justly be expected from Ruffinus But because this language of mine against this Paraphrast may be imagin'd to have sprung from passion by Dr. H. and some of his particular Friends who proceeding upon their Ground of uncertainty and indifferency of Religion have got a conceit that the preserving of courtesy is more worth than the preserving of souls from eternal damnation and that though one who does such a mischief be a knave and a fool both yet he cannot without incivility and scurrility be shown plainly to be either again because Mr. H. is such a veneratour of Antiquity that he deemes any testimony nay any one obscure word of any either old-knave or old-fool provided he lived but in the ancient times very competent to found his Religion on and worthy his vindication so it seem for his purpose we will see whether the character given Ruffinus by other Authours beyond all exception be more moderate than S. W's what unanswerable prejudices are producible against this Paraphrast his testification which Dr. H. here undertakes to vindicate First S. Hierom tells us contra Ruff. Apol. 2. that Ruffinus was excommunicated and cauteriz'd for heresy to wit Origenism and Pelagianism and that by Pope Anastasius as appeares both by the letter of the said Pope to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem as also by the same S. Hierom ibid upbraiding him that he so fled the judgement of the City of Rome that he rather â—hose to abide the siege of the Barbarians to wit in Aquilâ—ia besieged by Alaricus whither Ruffinus had retired himself than the sentence of a peaceable Town And again in the same book speaking of Ruffinus his Confession of his Faith which he feigned to have been approved by the Bishop of Italy he asks him how Italy should approve that which Rome had rejected and how the Bishops should receive that which the Apostolick See had condemned Adde to these which makes his prejudice most notorious and so his testimony most invalid that he writ his History after the entrance of Alaricus into Italy that is under the Popedome of Innocentius Successour of Anastasius and so had as much reason to write in prejudice of that See as an incorrigible and obstinate Heretick could have having been excommunicated by the same See before he writ Hence it is that he never meets with any occasion to speak of the Pope and Church of Rome but he spits his venome as may appear Euseb hist Eccles l. 5. cap 24. where speaking of Pope Victor he adds of his own in one place one whole line in another two in his prejudice Is not this then a fit Authouâ— to be first alledged afterwards vindicated by his fellow-brother and Friend Dr. H. who for no less guilt stands excommunicated by the same Church Thus much for his passion and prejudice which make his knavery very credible now Secondly as for his doltish ignorance he was the Monster of that and all future ages for eminency in that talent Some instances of it may be that he in hist Eccles Euseb l. 1. c. 1. makes of Iames Bishop of Hierusalem Iames Bishop of the Apostles of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Happy a Saint by name Macarius of Eusebius of Pamphilus Heretick and Arian Pamphilus Catholick and Martyr of Xystus Pythagorian and Pagan Philosopher Xystus Pope and Martyr of Chorepiscopus spoken of by the eighth Canon of the Council of Nice the vacant place of a Bishop and such innumerable others that St. Hierom ibid. affirmed him to be so unskilfull in either language that he was taken for a Greek by the Latines and for a Latin by the Grecians Must not he be a very wise man who sticks not first to build upon next to vindicate so wise an
now it signifies a vice Thirdly this seems to have been the case of our word Vniversalis Papa at least in S. Gregory's time when that expression if taken in a due sense sem'd tolerable both by the example given in the Council of Chalcedon in order to Pope Leo and also by Eulogius Patriarch of Alexundria's letter giving it to Pope Gregory but 't was refused by that prudent and humble Pope because the proud Patriarch of Constantinople usurp't it in an illegitimate and intolerable sense Fourthly the sense of that title in the testimonies objected being evidently this that none could be Patriarchs but himself as appears by Pope Pelagius his Epistle cited here by Gratian quia si unus Patriarcharum Vniversalis dicatur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur and the like in S. Gregory's expression to Eulogius when he refused it this I say being evident and it being on the other side no less evident that our tenet concerning the Pope's Authority is not that it is of such a nature as debars others subordinate degrees and in particular Patriarchs and Bishops to be truly what they are called it is likewise evident that our meaning when we apply it to the Pope is different quite from the signification the objectors take it in Now that the Pope's Authority as held by Catholicks hinders not others to remain still Patriarchs is most plain For we grant him onely such an higher degree of power over Patriarchs as an Arch-Bishop hath over a Bishop from which superiory over them it follows that he is Supreme in God's Church As then the placing an Arch-Bishop over Bishops doth not un-bishop them so neither doth the exalting the Pope's Anthority above Paâ—â—iarchal destroy the notion of a Patriarch but each of them retains their compleat limits of Power in the Church notwithstanding their subordination to their Superiour and consequently the testimonies are not a jot to the Doctor 's purpose since they declare themselves to mean one thing and he brings them to denote a quite different matter Fifthly had not the Testimonies declared themselves to mean otherwise than we do yet to show more the miserable weakness of this testimony-gleaner it were no such great wonder that S. Gregory such was his humility should deny to accept what was due to him A plain instance of this may be found 4. Epist 31. where he denyes himself even to be a Priest Sixthly whoever reads his Epistles sent throughout the whole Church it is impossible but he should see that however he deny'd the word of Vniversal Bishop which sounded then proudly yet he both practised and challenged the thing it self that is the Papal Iurisdiction which we now mean by that word notwithstanding his profound humility which made him never desire to stand upon his power but when it was necessary A perfect instance of this is found 7 Epist 65. Ind. 2. where he sayes Si qua culpa c. If there be any fault or crime found in Bishops that every Bishop is subject to the Apostolical See but when their fault doth not exact it that is make it necessary for him to use his Authority that then upon the account of humility all were his Equals See also l. 7. Epist 64. where he puts it as undoubted that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolical See and this to be acknowledg'd by the Emperour and by the Bishop of Constantinople himself See another most express Testimony to the same purpose lib. 5. Epist 24. to Marinianus Bishop of Ravenna Seventhly those words Neâ— etiâ—m Romanus Pontifex Vniversalis est appellandus are not found either in the Council of Caâ—â—hage it self or in the ancient Copies but are Gratian's addition onely wherefore they are to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took thâ—m whose Epistle he cites to make good those words Eighthly equivalent terms to what we mean by those words were far more anciently given to the Bishop of Rome Zephyrinus by Teâ—tullian lib. 1. de pudicitia where de calls him Pontifex maximus Episcopus Episcoporum Ninthly and lastly to put this whole business out of doubt Dr. H's own dear Friend Balsamon a Greek Schismatick confesses and surely he knew as well as Dr. H. that that Title was forbidden to take away the Arrogancy of Names and that for that reason many Patriarchs did style themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vile and base See Bals in Conc. Carth. 3. Cant. 42. Where though he mingles something of his own Schism yet thus far is clear for me that the name or title was onely treated there nor the thing or Iurisdiction about which our controversy being Dr. H. ought to have brought testimonies impugning it not a bare name onely Calculate these manifold weaknesses kind Reader with thy understanding and then tell me if it must not be a most desperately weak cause which can drive it's Patrons to cast their strongest hopes upon such testimonies which to omit other frailties declare themselves and are confest by our bitterest Adversaries not to mean the thing or Iurisdiction the onely matter in debate but the Phrase of titular appellation onely which shows plainly that the Objecter's intent was to bring the question of the solid power and Authority into the Logomachy and word-skirmish of an aiery title So that Dr. H. payes his Reader with the same coyn as that hungry fellow did who having satisfy'd himself with the smell of the Cook 's meat pay'd his exacting host with the sound of the money in stead of the substanâ—e But now it being firmly settled by the former frothy Argument that the Pope had anciently no Vniversal Authority he proceeds to show when this strange Vsurpation impower'd it self over the whole Church And this he does from Paulus Diaconus de gestis Romanorum l. 18. who as he pretends tells us that Boniface the third with much adoe obtained an Edict of Phocas the Emperour to that purpose Where if he meanes that the name and title before forbidden were then first allowed by him what follows against us who maintain a real Power not a verbal title But if he means that the Supreme Iurisdiction over the whole Church was then given by Phocas then besides that this Iurisdiction we dispute of is over Kings and Emperours as well as others in Ecclesiastical matters and so not likely to be given by Phocas the Emperour we must be put to imagin which will cost us no less then perfect madness â—re we shall be able to doe it upon the blind and bare affirmation of an obscure Sentence that an Vniversal Government in Ecclesiastical matters over the whole Christian world could be introduc't nay held oâ— Faith and to have come from Christ without any visible effects of siding opposing deprecating submitting complaints applauses on the one side and the other together with change of Ecclesiastical Laws and the temporal also as concern'd in the Ecclesiastical and millions of other particular changes included in
Spirit satt without distinction that is equally upon each because the Scripture sayes in common that it sate upon them that all had the holy ghost equally by the plowmans argument for the equality of his eggs because all were full of it For these and other faults of the same strain Dr. H. was reprehended by his Disarmer yet still noe amends not hopes of amends appears in these answering books after he had been so oft told of it nor by consequence are we to expect any other from him in his following treatises Sect. 10. Dr. H's Pretences of Testimonies as hee calls them and his manifold falsification of S. Chrysostome to prove Iames at Hierusalem clearly superiour to S. Peter AS for the point it self concerning S. Iames I am reprehended for misunderstanding Dr. H. and that he endeauored not to prove S. Iames his priority of dignity and Authority but onely to prove that in his see James was considered as a Bishop Answ p. 43. l. 20. 21. and 27. whereas neither any man denied him to have been Bishop there nor could it any way advantage Dr. H's cause if this were ptoved for what follows against S. Peter's being chief of the Apostles that S. Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem and the Iurisdiction of that Metropolis Hath not each Catholike Bishop the same now a dayes over his private Diocese and yet remains subject to the head of God's Church notwithstanding Again if he intended not that S. Iames had greater Authority there what meant his fiction of his having the principall place and giving the sentence that the Rescript is grounded upon his sentence c. Surely when one gives the sentence and the others onely propose the former must be held to have greater power in that place and those circumstances then the latter But principall with him sounds noe priority at all nor can he be held to any thing who hath got once the priviledge to say and unsay again as hee pleases He was accused of making S. Iames at Hierusalem superior to S. Peter which he denies p. 43. blaming me for misunderstanding him yet in the p. 44. ere the Eccho of the former words were well out of the Reader 's ears he goes about to prove and infer in expresse words from testimonies that Iames in this council was clearly superior to S. Peter which is clearly contradictory to his former words But we are not to wonder at what is grown customary and familiar Next he goes about to shew Answ p. 44. that he hath at least pretences of testimonies that S. Iames had the principall place the first of which pretences is that he is named before Peter and unlesse this conclude our argument from S. Peter's being named first must be prejudiced I Answer our argument drawn thence for his principall place among the Apostles insists upon his constantly being named first and not once onely which might happen without any great mistery in it Again what mean these words the Romanists argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluding his primacy from being first named These are two quite different things The argument from his being first named consists in this that in the orderly naming of the Apostles his name is found first placed whereas the argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lies in this not that he is first named but that he is in these words nam'd or exprest to be the first of the Apostles His second pretence of a Testimony as he calls it is from S. Iames his giving the sentence and though their own translation rendred the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore my sentence is by this means making it onely his iudgment in the matters yet Dr. H. tells us he still beleeves it signifies the sentence The first ground of this his beleef is because 't is S. Chrysostomes observation that his speaking last was founded in his being Bishop of Hierusalem what then could not he be Bishop there and speak last both without giving the sentence were there noe worthier persons present or did the thing to be concluded onely concern his see or indeed did it concern it at all the Rescript the effect of this consult being directed onely to Gentiles which were noe wayes subject to the Bishoprick of Hierusalem But let us see S. Chrysostomes testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was Bishop of the Church in Hierusalem therefore he speaks last unfortunate man with whom nothing succeeds nor any testimony thrives but either they are against him or nothing at all to his purpose as hath been shown all over or when they hap to be full and expresse as this is then they come of worst of all Let him look into their own edition of S. Chrysostome and Dannaeus his Notes upon them printed at Eton and he shall see what is become of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore he speaks last upon which onely hee builds verba haec saith hee interpres non agnoscit nec certè videntur aptè locari nam quòd Episcopus esset ideò prior loqui debuit non posterior The Interprâ—ter doth not acknowledge these words neither truly doe they seem to be fitly placed for in regard he was a Bishop he ought in that respect to speak first not last But 't is noe matter Dr. H. can cast a figure of hysteron proteron make first be last and any corrupt piece of an Author become pure Chrysostome and rare sence so it do but be befriend him at a dead lift His second worthy proof is that S. Chrysostome sayes that Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordains or decrees those things As if the decree were not manifestly made by all present but by Iames onely and called there by S. Chrysostome himself p. 795. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common decree yet because he finds an expression of decreeing common as he wel knows to all that were present but his present occasion not inviting him not taken notice of by S. Chrysostome in that place imediately S. Iames is thence concluded the best man in the companie the giver of the sentence or whatever else Dr. H. pleases Any thing may be aswel inferd as that which he pretends Again I would ask Dr. H. why he leaves out the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the law which were imediately joind in context with the former thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he ordains those things out of the law by this simple putting down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gaining something a better semblance for the absolutenesse of S. Iames his decree But I shall have occasion to explicate hereafter this whole place out of which Dr. H. as his sleight manner is picks out a couple of words His third proof is from S. Chrysostome's setting down the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good order observed in their speaking first I will transcribe the place as I find it in that father and afterwards let the Reader see how craftily Dr. H. abuses it for his
they were become Christians and their fellow-Brothers in him in whom they were taught there was no distinction of Iew nor Gentile Which sounds a far greater absurdity in a Christian eare than to say that they likewise abhorr'd still the conversation of the Proselytes to the law of Moses after their conversion that those one hundred fifty three thousand workmen who lived dispersed among the Iews in Salomon's time neither converst with their neighbour Iews nor took directions how to order their labour towards the building of Salomon's Temple but did their work by instinct and the guidance of the private Spirit as Dr. H. interprets Scripture Sectio 16. How Dr. H. omitts to clear himself of falsifying the Apostolicall Constitutions and to take notice of all the Exceptions brought against that Testimony in Schism Disarm'd His acute manner of arguing As also how hee brings a Testimony against him in every particular to make good all his former proofs and by what art hee makes it speak for him THe next Testimony of Mr. H's which comes under examination is taken from the writer of the Apostolicall Constitutions who tells us according to Dr. H. of Schism p. 75. that Evodâ—us Ignatius at the same time sate Bishops at Antioch one succeeding S. Peter the other S. Paul one in the Iewâ—sh the other in the Gentile Congregation Now if that writer tells us no such thing no not a word of this long rabble is it possible Dr. H. can deny himself to be a manifest wilfull falsifier Schism Disarm'd challeng'd him upon this occasion of a manifest falsification and that that writer neither tells us as Dr. H. pretended that they sate at the same time Bishops in whichwords consists the greatest force of the Testimony nor that they succeeded the Apostles with that distinction nor that the Iewish Gentile Congregations were distinct much lesse that those Apostles Iurisdictions at Antioch were mutually limitted which indeed onely concern'd his purpose but onely that they were ordained by the Apostles The text being onely this Antiochiae Euodius ordinatus est a me Petro Ignatius a Paulo At Antioch Euodius was ordained by me Peter Ignatius by Paul without the least word before or after concerning that matter Of all these falsifications voluntary additions Schism Disarm'd p. 65. 66. challenged Mr. H. yet in return he offers not one word to clear himself Reply c. 4. Sect 7. the place whither Answ p. 48. l. 31. 32. hee râ—ferd mee for answer to this point nor to shew us that that writer tells us what he so largely promist us of Schism p. 75. onely in his Answer p. 48. he assures us that in his Reply the whole matter of Euodius Ignatius is further cleared as if he had cleared it already and S. W' s elaborate misunderstandings forestall'd he should have said misreadings for it was mine eyes not mine understanding which fail'd me if he had not added to this testimony all which made for his purpose Foure observations I shall recomend the Reader to let him see that this insincerity in Dr. H. was affected voluntary First the words in the testmony importing their Ordination neither make against us nor touch our controversy Next all the words added of his own head are made use of by him solely-important in this occasion Thirdly that he never particulariz'd the place in the Author where this testimony was to be found which he ordinarily vses but leaves us to look for it in a whole book hoping we might either be weary in looking it or misse soâ— himself in the mean time escape scot-free Lastly he so iumbles together the two different letters as his comon trick is that no man living can make any ghesse which words are the testimonies which his own and should we pitch upon any to be the testimonies relying upon the translation letter in that part they sate at the same time Bishops we finde the most considerable word same put in a lesse letter as if it were part of the citation whereas no such word nor any thing to that sence was found in the Author And thus Dr. H. as he professes Answ p. 18. speaks the full truth of God But instead of clearing himself from being an arrant falsifier Dr. H. as his custome is attempts to shâ—w himself an acute Doctour and when it was his turn to shâ—w us the pretended words in his testimony he recurs to the defence of the position it self And first he cries quits which the Catholike Gentleman who as he tells us in a drie phrase Repl. Sect. 7. num 1. casts one stone at all his buildings together And what stone is this He challenged him not to have brought one word out of Antiquity to prove the with drawing from all Communion already spoken of to have been the cause of the division of the Bishopriks in Antioch Rome This is the Catholike Gentleman's stone as he calls it which levell'd by him at such an impenetrable Rock of solid reason as Mr. H. rebounds upon the thrower's head with this violence First that he manifested from Antiquity in his book of Schism that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter S. Paul Repl. p 63 I answer 't is graunted but what is this to the point since this might easily be performed by their promiscuous preaching without exclusion of Iurisdiction or breaking of all Communion between Churches Secondly that he manifested there that there were two Churches at Antioch the one of the Iews the other of the Gentile Christians I answ he hath not one testimony in the whole book of Schism which expresses this position nor in these later books save onely that from the Arch-heretick Pelagius already reply'd to Sect 7 Thirly that in those Churches at the same time sate two distinct Bishops Euodius Ignatius I answer this is onely prou'd from his owne falsification of the testimony from the Apostolicall Constitutions not a word of the fitting together of two in those two distinct Churches found either in that or any other place as yet cited by him Thus the Catholike Gentleman's stone sticks yet insost reason'd Dr. H. for want of solidnes in the place it light to reverberate its motion Now let us see what Dr. H. who braggs so much of a Hending his Adversaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath left unreply'd upon in this his Answer to Schism Disarm'd in which Treatise p. 66. I objected all these weaknesses in this one point First that were it granted that two sate together it would not serve his turn a iott the more For what would he infer hence that S. Peter S. Paul were distinct Bishops there also Grant this too what follows hence against the Pope's Authory I know his intent is to conclude hereupon that therefore S. Peter S. Paul had exclusive Iurisdictions at Antioch therefore S. Peter's Iurisdiction was limited therefore the Pope had not an illimitted one but how doth the one's
possible way corresponding to the one we shall take it as it must in all honestly-meant probability sound and ask him whether there was ever such a strange position heard of in the Schools that there should be no possible way to testify a Negative but by solving the Affirmative places Are there no Negative Testimonies in the words or cannot a Negative testimony testify a Negative point without necessarily recurring to solve Affirmatives Wee were taught in Logick to prove Negatives by concluding in Celarent or Ferio without being forc't necessarily to stand answering the arguments in Barbara and Darij for the Affirmative whereas according to Dr. H's new Logick the onely way to prove a Negative point must be to solve the Affirmative proofs To omit that it shall bee shown presently how the solving Affirmatives was no one way to testify a Negative Again he was shown by Schism Disarm'd that this way of arguing was rather indeed to bring obscurity than Evidence for all that it can pretend is this that the conclusion follows not out of those testimonies or premises therein is terminated it's force nor doth it proceed so far as to prove or infer that the thing in it self is vntrue Indeed if it be known first that the Opponent holds his tenet upon no other Grounds save onely that testimony and that be shown plainly to be vnable to conclude he will be obliged to relinquish his tenet so far as not to hold it any more till he sees better ground yet still he is not obliged to embrace or assent to the contrary position if he sees no Evidence for it but to suspend all assent one way or other and to think rather that perhaps his may yet have other Grounds to prove it true for any thing he knows Much lesse is it proved at all that the contrary is true though all his arguments be solved till evidence be brought for it Wherefore as long as this is not manifested to wit that he hath no other tenour upon which he holds his position the thing is much further from being concluded no not even ad hominem to be false for though that medium do not establish it another may But now if it be manifest that the Adversary builds least of all upon those places the other solves nay nothing at all in the manner that the other thinks they are to be managed and undertakes to solve them then the solving such Testimonies sinks into the miserablest lowest degree of force nay even as low as nothing This being our present case observe I beseech thee prudent Reader the infinite weaknes of this Drs discoursive facultie He first goes about to prove our tenet false from solving 2. or 3 places of Scripture whereas that very way of arguing can infer no more but that those places conclude not for it nor are places of Scripture arguments that we build upon at all for our faith as explicable by wit in which sence he impugns them but onely as they are explicable by universall Tradition our Rule of faith Since then Dr. H. not so much as pretends to solve them according to the sence which Tradition gives them for he no where pretends to shew that the attestation practice of immediate forefathers did not ever give them this sence 't is evident he hath not in this processe impugned our faith at all seeing he impugns no tenour nor argument at all upon which we build or hold our faith Indeed our Drs undertake sometimes to argue ad hominem against them and abstracting from our Rule of faith universall Tradition fall to interpret Scripture with them proceeding upon other Grounds to wit upon private skill learning to shew our advantage over them in their own and to them the onely way If then Mr. H. pretended onely to try his wit with our Doctors in this place then were his way of procedure by solving Testimonies allowable in reason I should approve of his intention so he exprest it But if he say he mean't to impugn our faith or build his own he can never pretend it unles he solve or impugn those Grounds upon which wee build our faith Make account then Reader that that which Dr. H. and I are now about is nothing at all to faith but onely an exercise of wit and private skill and consists in this whether of us can make words lest without life stark dead to our hands by Grammaticall Criticall quibbling move more dexterously smartly towards the end we drive at and is all one as if Lawyers should consent to abstract from custome knowledge of Ancestors and the books of the known laws as I do now from Practise Tradition the sole true Foundation of faith and dispute out of some pliable or obscure passages in odde histories and some letters written onely upon occasion as Gildas some such few remnants of that time in the Reign of the Brittains by what laws the kingdom was then governed Again since we build not all upon places of Scripture as explicable by private learning it belongs not to us to shew them evidently concluding for us as thus explicated no more then it doth to divines to demonstrate mysteries of faith by reason which depend upon another ground to wit Authority Wee acquit our selves well if wee shew that what is there is consistent with our faith as divines do if they can show mysteries consistent with and not contradictory to reason and wee do more then the necessity of our cause or reason obligeth us to if wee shew them rather sounding to our advantage as thus explicable For how can any man be bound in reason to show that thing sounding in his behalf upon which neither he nor his cause relies whereas it belongeth to the Protestants who rely upon Scripture explicable by private wit for their faith to prove evidently that it is for them and bears no probability against them In the same manner as when Catholikes go about to prove their faith from Scripture as explicable by Tradition it belongs to them to shew that explication infallibly certain because they rely upon it as the Rule of their faith Secondly Dr. H. was charged with a palpable iniuriousnes in making the answering our places of Scripture the summe of his first proofs and yet omitting our cheefest place of all Io. 21. 15. 16 17. Dr. H. replies Answ p. 59. this is iust as Doctor Stapleton deales with M. Calvin I answer it is very likely for I do not doubt but Dr. H. inherits his father Calvin's faults so deserves the same reprehension But how dealt Dr. Stapleton with that good man M. Calvâ—n why he call'd a Text of Scripture the most important place because it was not mention'd So sayes Mr. Calvin's friend Dr. H if wee will beleeve him but till he proves it better then by onely saying it wee shall take libertie to think that friendship blindes Next he tells us he hath given
sure they shall never come to open light lest by speaking out hee should bring himself into inconveniences Observe his words Those doctrines that discipline which wee inherited from our forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them is to bee changed which is substantiall or essentiall But what and how many those doctrines are what in particular that discipline is what hee means by In heriting what by forefathers what by substantiall none must expect in reason to know for himself who is the relater does not Are those doctrines their 39 Articles Alas noe those are not obligatory their best Champions reiect them at pleasure Are they contain'd in the Creed onely Hee will seem to say so sometimes upon some urgent occasion but then ask him are the processions of the divine Persons the Sacraments Bapâ—ism of children Government of the Church the acknowledging there is such a thing as God's written word or Scripture c. obligatory the good man is gravelld In fine when you urge him home his last refuge will bee that all which is in God's word is obligatory and then hee thinks himself secure knowing that men may wrangle with wit coniectures an hundred yeares there ere any Evidence that is conviction bee brought Thus the Bishop is got into a wood and leaves you in another and farther from knowing in particular what doctrines those are than you were at first Again ask him what in particular that discipline is own'd by Protestants to have come from Christ and his Apostles as their Legacy for hee gives us no other description of it than those generall terms onely and hee is in as sad a case as hee was before Will hee say 't is that of the secular power being Head of the Church or that of Bishops Neither of these can bee for they acknowledge the french Church for their sister Protestant and yet shee owns no such forms of Government to have come from Christ but that of Presbyters onely which they of England as much disown to have been Christ's Legacy It remains then that the Protestants have introduc't into the Church at or since the Reformation in stead of that they renounced no particular form of Government that is no one that is they have left none but onely pay their adherents with terms in generall putting them of with words for realities and names for things Again ask him what hee means by inheriting and hee will tell us if hee bee urged and prest hard for till then no Protestant speaks out that hee means not the succession of it from immediate forefathers and teachers which is our Rule of faith and that which inheriting properly signifies this would cut the throat of Reformation at one blow since Reformation of any point and a former immediate delivery of it are as inconsistent as that the same thing can both bee and not bee at once But that which hee means by inheriting is that your title to such a tenet is to bee look't for in Antiquity that is in a vast Library of books filld with dead words to bee tost and explicated by witts criticks where hee hopes his Protestant followers may not without some difficulty find convincing Evidence that his doctrine is false and that rather than take so much pains they will bee content to beleeve him and his fellows Thou seest then Reader what thou art brought to namely to relinquish a Rule that I may omit demonstrable open known and as easy to teach thee faith as children learne their A. B. C. for such is immediate delivery of visible and practicall points by forefathers to embrace another method soe full of perplexity quibbling-ambiguity and difficulty that without running over examining thousands of volumes that is scarce in thy whole life time shalt thou ever bee able to find perfect satisfaction in it or to chuse thy faith that is if thou followst their method of searching for faith and pursvest it rationally thou may'st spend thy whole life in searching and in all likelihood dy ere thou chusest or pitchest upon any faith at all The like quibble is in the word forefathers hee means not by it immediate forefathers as wee do that would quite spoil their pretence of Reformation but ancient writers and so hee hath pointed us out no determinate Rule at all till it bee agreed on whom those forefathers must bee and how their expressions are to bee understood both which are controverted and need a Rule themselves But the chiefest peece of tergiversation lies in those last words that nothing is to bee changed in those Legacies which is substantiall or essentiall That is when soever hee and his follows have a mind to change any point though never so sacred nay though the Rules of faith and discipline themselves 't is but mincing the matter and saying they are not substantiall or essentiall and then they are licenc't to reiect them Wee urge the two said Principles of Vnity in faith and discipline are substantiall points essentiall to a Church if Vnity it self bee essentiall to it These your first Reformers inherited from their immediate forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and de facto held them for such these youreiected and renounc't this fact therefore of thus renouncing them concludes you absolute Schismaticks and Hereticks till you bring demonstrative Evidence that the former Government was an usurpation the former Rule fallible onely which Evidence can iustify a fact of this nature It is worth the Readers pains to reflect once more on my L d of Derry's former proposition and to observe that though white and black are not more different than hee and wee are in the sence of it yet hee would persuade his Readers hee holds the same with us saying that hee readily admits both my first and second Rule reduced into one in this subsequent form c. and then puts us down generall terms which signify nothing making account that any sleight connexion made of aire or words is sufficient to ty Churches together and make them one Iust as Manasseh Ben Israel the Rabbi of the late Iews in the close of his petition would make those who profess Christ and the Iews bee of one faith by an aiery generall expression parallell to the Bishops here that both of them expect the glory of Israël to bee revealed Thus dear Protestant Reader thou seest what thy best Drs would bring thee to to neglect sence and the substantiall solid import of words and in stead thereof to bee content to embrace an empty cloud of generall terms hovering uncertainly in the air of their owne fancies In a word either the sence of your coÌ„tracted Rule is the same with that of our dilated one or not If not then you have broke the Rule of faith held by the former Church unles you will contend this Rule had no sence in it but non-significant words onely and by consequence are
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
For nothing is easier than to show that a wrongly pretended demonstration does not conclude evidently or convince that the thing is nothing easier than to show out of the very terms that a probability cannot rationally convince the understanding But the danger of this disadvantage and the fear of this quick decision is the reason his Ld. will tell us neither Thus Protestant Reader thou seest how dextrously thy Bp. hath behaved himself in answering both parts of our charge against him and which alone fundamentally concern our question to wit how hee hath by shuffling about avoided to say a positive word to one and totally omitted so much as to mention the other And this in the Bishops right sence is call'd vindicating the Church of England and replying to S. W. Sect. 2. How my Ld of Derry goes about to acquit the Protestants both a tanto and a toto as hee styles it grounding his violent prâ—sumptions of their innocency on contradictions both to common reason and his good Friend Dr. H. on his own bare word that his party are Saints and his non-sencicall plea that those who began first to separate from our Church were ere that united to it HItherto I have been somewhat larger in replying than I intended because the former points were fundamentally concerning and totally decisive of the question His Exceptions since hee dares not own them for demonstrations are consequently in our case trifles toyes and nothing to the purpose and therefore as they cannot challenge any at all so I ought not to wrong my self in giving them too large an Answer unles in those places where they touch upon a point that is more important In the first place hee maintains that it many wayes acquits the Protestants continuing the breach because not they but the Roman-Catholikes themselves did make the first separation Wee will omit the perfect non-sence of this plea which equally acquits any Villain in the world who insists in the steps of his forefather Villains For may not hee argue against honest men by the same Logick and say that they are acquitted because not Villains but they who were honest men formerly begun first the Villany It being equally infallible and necessary that hee who first turn'd naught was ere hee turn'd so good before as it is that hee who first separated was ere hee separated united to that Church that is a Roman Catholike But I have say'd enough of this Part 1. p. 92. 93. therefore let us now examin his reasons why this many wayes as hee sayes acquits them First hee sayes it is a violent presumption of our guilt that our own best friends did this The word best might have been left out they were ever accounted better friends who remain'd in their former faith and the other Bps look't upon as Schismaticks by the obedient party But yet it might seem some kinde of argument against us did those who were friends in all other respects voluntarily oppose us in this and out of a free and unbiassed choice as the Bp. must pretend else hee does nothing Let us examin this then Your own good friend Dr. H. shall give you satisfaction in that point of Schism p. 136 where speaking of this Act of the Clergy in renouncing the Authority of the Roman see the palpable truth obliging him hee hath these words It is easy to beleeve that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung overthem by a premunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it Thus hee The violent presumption then of our guilt which you imagin concluded hence is turn'd into a iust presumption or rather a confest Evidence of the King 's violent cruelty and their fearfull weaknes Rare Grounds doubtles to acquit you for being led by their Authority or following their example Secondly hee tells us that though it do not alwaies excuse a toto from all guilt yet it excuses a tanto and lessens the guilt to bee misled by the examples and Authority of others c. Let us examin this as apply'd to the Protestants How could they think their example to bee follow'd or their Authority to bee rely'd on whom they confess to have done what they did out of fear that is out of passion and not out of the pure verdict of reason conscience Again if their example were to bee follow'd why do not they follow it rather in repenting of their Schism and renouncing it as those Bps did after the King's death since the imminent fear which aw'd them at the time of their fall and during the King's life ioyn'd with their retraction after his death of what they had done render it a thousand times more manifest that their conscience took part with the obedient side had they had courage enough to stand to it Moreover sometimes the first beginners of a fault may bee less culpable then their followers according to the degrees of the provocations which press upon their weaknesses Theirs wee have seen to bee no less than the expectation of death and destruction such was the violence of the King 's in humane cruelty and their present disadvantageous case which expos'd them to it Your conâ—inuance in Schism compar'd to the motivâ—s of their fault is in a manner gratis All your reason heretofore of thus continuing being for your Livings and interest and at present onely a vain-glorious itch to approve your selves to your party for braue fellows in railing against the Pope and defending a Chimera bomâ—inans in vacuo the Church of England found no where save in the imaginary space of your own fancies Thirdly hee assures us that in this case it doth acquit them not onely a tanto but a toto from the least degree of guilt as long as they carefully seek after truth and do not violate the dictates of their own conscience and then bids mee if I will not beleeve him beleeve S. Austin who sayes that they who defend not their false opinions with pertinacity but are ready to embrace truth and correct their errours when they finde them are not Hereticks I Answer S. Austin sayes well onely obstinacy makes an heretick and so far wee beleive him But does S. Austin say that Bp. Bramhall ad his fellows are not obstinate or that they neglect not to seek not refuse not to embrace truth found and by consequence are not Hereticks and Schismaticks The generall words of the father signify nothing to your purpose unles they bee apply'd to your party and who makes the application The Bp. himself and upon what Grounds upon his own bare word and then cries They are totally acquited from Schism That is hee makes an acquittance himself for himself writes it with his own hand set his own seal to it and subscribes it with his own name and then brings it into the Court to clear himself of the whole debt and that by his own Authority Reader trust neither side as they barely testify of themselves but trust what
were not I show First those inconveniences hee reckons up as extortions vsurpations of more than belong'd to them causing animosities between the crown and the miter c. though they had been true are evidently abuses of the Officer and argue no fault in the Office it self of Head of the Church nor that the Right use of it ought therefore to bee taken away Secondly some of those pretended Abuses are his own deductions onely as that it is against the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which hee endeavours not to show evidently out of the science of Politicks which is proper to those matters nor any thing else of this nature but out of two or perhaps three matters of fact which onely inferr'd that it happen'd so sometimes and then by the same reason Episcopacy and all the Offices in the world must bee abolish't and abrogated Thirdly that some of those pretended Abuses are indeed such and not rather just Rights hee no way proves for hee onely puts down that such and such things were done but whether rightfully or no I presume hee will not think himself such a rare Iuris vtriusque Doctor as to make a fit umpire to decide law quarrells of this highe'st nature And on the other side none is ignorant that either party had learned lawiers for them to avouch their pretences I omit that the Kings were worsted so metimes and renounc't their pretence as in that of investitures Fourthly the temporall laws hee cites conclude not evidently a Right for it is as easy for a Canon-lawier to object that the temporall laws wrong the Ecclesiasticall as it is for civill lawiers to say that the Ecclesiasticall wrong theirs but with this disadvantage to the latter that reason gives more particular respect and charines ought to bee used in disannulling or retrenching Ecclesiasticall laws than temporall by how much they are neerer ally'd to the Church and by consequence to the order of mankinde to Beatitude Fifthly hee abuses those pretended Abuses most unconscionably saying that the Pope usurp't most unjustly all Right civill Ecclesiasticall sacred prophane of all orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. Which is such a loud-mouth'd calumnie such a far-stretching fiction that it is as big as all Christendome For by this no man in the Church was master or owner of his own Kingdome Estate house nay not of the very bread hee eat but by the Pope's good leave Thus the Bishop in a fury of Schism runs himself out of breath nor will any thing pacify him or bring him into temper to speak a word of truth or sence but my granting him his two conditions that is my denying my own tenet which I am defending Sixthly grant all those Abuses had been true was there no other remedy but division Had not the secular Governours the sword in their hand did it not ly in their power to chuse whether they would admit or no things destructive to their Rights yes for the Bp. tells us p. 36. that All other Catholike countries which hee knows held the Pope's supremacy as well as England do maintain their own Priviledges inviolated And as for England hee tells us in a slovenly phrase that our Ancestours were not so stupid as to sitt still and blow their noses meaning that they did the same which other Catholike countries did so that according to himself there was a remedy still and a means to keep their priviledges inviolated Seventhly put case these temporall inconveniences had not been otherwise remediable I conceive there is not a good Christian in the world that understands what a Church is will say that Ecclesiasticall Communion is to bee broken for all the temporall concernments imaginable For first that the well being and peace of a Church cannot consist without Vnity is so evident that the very terms would convince him of a contradiction who should deny it since distraction and dissention the parents of dissolution and ruine must needs bee where there is no Vnity Secondly not onely the well being of a Church but the very Being of it consists in it's Vnity for what scholler knows not that things of this nature have no other Vnity nor consequently Entity or Being but that of order that is of Superiority and subordination Whence follows that if this Order bee broken which is done by disacknowledging the former Ecclesiasticall chief Magistrate the Vnity of the Church is dissolu'd that is her Entity is annihilated that is there is no one Church that is there is no Church This act then of yours since it dissolu'd that which was the chief bond of Vnity in the former Church was in it's own nature destructive of a Church A mischief which out-weighs the necessity of remedying the highest temporall inconveniences imaginable Thirdly since Christ came from heaven to plant a Church and the Being of a Church consist in Order it follows that Christ instituted the Order of the Church otherwise hee had not constituted a Church that is hee had not done what hee came to do Wherefore that fact which breaks the Order of the Church and that in the highest manner by disacknowledging the highest Magistrate in the Church is by good consequence in the highest manner against Christ's Institution and command that is in the highest manner sinfull and criminall and so no temporall inconveniences can bee a competent plea for such a fact since no temporall inconvenience can bee a sufficient reason for a man to sin Fourthly if the Communion of a Church may bee broken for temporall miscarriages it follows that all the generall Councils were to no purpose since whensoever the observation of these generall Councils hapens to bee inconvenient to the temporall state that is sute not with the humours of the Governed but are likely to breed combustion the remedying the temporall ills according to the Bp. ought to oversway The consequence is evident for general Councils cannot bee more sacred than the Communion of the Church since they are the effects of it or rather indeed they have their form and Essence from this Communion Since then this fact of theirs as appears by the charge broke Church Communion and by the Bishop's plea because of temporall inconveniences they may for the same and with better reason break Councils too and there 's an end of all Fifthly faith that is the supernaturall knowledge of God is so essentially necessary for the salvation of mankinde that no worldly consideration ought to ballance it Now then since faith if not one is none nor can it bee preseru'd one but by some certain Rule to keep it one it follows that no temporall mischief can deserve a remedy accompany'd with the renouncing this certain Rule of faith Wherefore temporall inconveniences cannot with any face bee alledg'd by a Christian who held formerly no certain Rule of faith but the living voice of the present Church that is immediate Tradition as did the first Reformers for a plea for them to renounce
L d who looks into the sounds of words not the meaning of them enflames the expressions improves them to flanting proud sence Hee tells us that Rome may bee destroyed with an Earthquake I answer it must be an unheard of Earthquake which can swallow up the whole Diocese for if the City onely run that hazard the Clergy of the Roman Diocese yet remain who can elect to themselves a new Bishop And no harm will succed to our cause Next hee sayes it may become hereticall or Mahumetan True so may the whole Church if it had pleased God so to order causes But that it pleases him not wee have this strong presumption that the good of his Church so much concern'd in the perpetuity of this succession as hath been shown will crave his perpetuall assistance to that see Wee have also for pledge of this perpetuity the experience of his gratious conservation of it for sixteen hundred years the establishment of it at present not giving us the least Ground to think it's ruine likely If his Lp do and that this trouble him at least let him yeeld his obedience till that happens and then preach liberty from Rome's Iurisdiction to those that shall live in that age What hee addes concerning the Churches disposing of her offices is meer folly Himself granted in the foregoing page that Christ himself not the Church instituted this Principality let him them show first that the Church hath Authority to change Christ's Institutes ere he thus frankly presume it left to the Churches disposall Next hee tells us that betweene Tyranny Anarchy there is Aristocracy which was the ancient regiment of the Christian Church Wee blame them not for renouncing any one sort of Government but all Government in the Church and alledge that there is no Kinde of Government which actually vnite God's Church in one but this of the Pope's Headship An Aristocracy signifies a Government by some cheif persons who sitt either constantly or else often easily meet that the difficulties occurring in the ordinary Government of the CoÌ„monwealth may bee settled by them Was this the ordinary Government of the Primitive Church Had they any generall Council which the Bishop means by Aristocracy as appears by his p. 56. l. vlt. till Constantine's time Nay have wee had any this six handred years or indeed eight hundred last past which they will acknowledge to bee such or shall wee have any for the future they tell us not till towards the end of the world and that even then 't is but probable neither See D r H. Reply p. 30. His position then comes to this that Aristocracy in a generall Councill being the Ecclesiasticall Hâ—ad p. 56. l. vlt. or the Government which vnites God's Church the said Church had no Head nor Government at all till Constantine's time none betweene Council Council afterwards none at all again this six or seven hundred years past and lastly perhaps shall have none at all for the future Farewell Church Government and many thanks to my good L d of Derry D r. H d. But I most wonder that a man of his Principles could finde no middle sort of Government between Tyranny Anarchy but Aristocracy Is Monarchy with him none at all or none of the best which even now hee told us was of divine Institution You good people who depend so zealously of this new Prelacy observe how your Dooctrs have either a very short memory to inform you right or a very strong will to cheat you into the wrong Heed adds that a Primacy of order is more sufficient in this case to prevent dangers and procure advantages to the Church than a Supremacy of power Which signifies thus much directly in other terms that hee who hath no power to act at all in order to the universall Church or as a first hath power to procure her more good prevent more harms towards her that is hath power to act better for that Church than hee who has power to act hath And thus my friend here feasts his Readers with contradictions his whole discourse being such in it's self wants onely to bee put into something more immediate terms of the same signification After I had put down the necessity yet moderatenes of the Pope's Authority as held of faith by us I added that this was the bridle our Saviour put in the mouth of his Church to wield it sweetly which way hee pleased My Bp. replies that I make the Church to bee the Beast and the Pope's office to ride upon the Church No my Lord I styl'd the Pope's office the Bridle do bridles use to ride upon horses or did your Lp ever meet a bridle on horsback I see the Bishop is a better Bowler then hee is an Hors-man Next hee tells us that our Saviour put his bridle not into the mouth but hand of his Church Good my L d inform us for you chop your Logick so snall are grown so mysteriously acute that without a revelation none can understand you when the Church holds the bridle in her hand as you say whom does she govern by that bridle Do the whole multitude of beleevers hold the bridle govern themselves Then there are no Governors at all oâ—at least none distinct from the governed which is all one Or do some Governors onely hold the bridle weild by it the multitude of beleevers then returns his Lp's cavill buffets himself that then the Church is the Beast as hee irreverently wantons it and those Governors ride upon the Beast and the bridle gets into the Mouth of the Church again for as Governors are said to hold the reins or bridle so if wee will prosecute the metaphor into an Allegory the Governed must be said to have it in their Mouths that is to be ruled guided by it So unfortunate is his Lp that hee can neither approve himself a good Controvertist nor a tolerable guibbler but while hee pretends to be solid in the former he still runs into contradictions when witty in the latter hee rambles into absurdities and in either performance his own both Arguments Quips light upon his own head I represented the advantages coÌ„veniences this Headship brought to the world when duly observed by good Pope's Hee replies that I write dreaming as Plato did and look upon men not as they are but as they ought to bee This mistake is of the same strain onely something more voluntary I look not my Lord upon men at all in this place but speak of the Office it self how admirabily convenient it is if rightly performed What men do or how they execute it whether well or ill concerns not a Controvertist noâ— mee the point or tenet concerns mee The personall managing this office is not of faith and belongs not to mee but to Historians Lawyers to talk of the Office it self is of faith fals under the sphere of Controversy