in my evidencing book of Schism therefore he hath no such Authority here The antecedent is supposed as a first Principle known by the light of nature Next he argues thus I may surely say he hath no Supremacy therefore he hath none Lastly I must have leave to suppose we had convincing reasons for casting him out and my Companions think the same Ergo I have removed all appearance of râ—ason from the Romanist's whole exceptions With such slight talking as this kind Readers Dr. H. would gull Souls into Hell and which is the misery of miseries send them thither with non-sense in their Heads Sect. 2. How Dr. H. prevaricates from his formerly-pretende Evidences His ignorance of the way of interpreting Scripture manifested in his groundless explication of The Lot of Apostleship Act. 1. for a lesser Province Dr. H. in his fourth Chapter of Schism to undo the Pope's Vniversal Pastourshiâ— undertakes to undo St. Peter's first by showing that his Commission was limited to the Iews onely To do which handsomly he would limite the Iurisdiction of each Apostle likewise to certain Provinces lest his particular pique against the Pope's Predecessour S. Peter should be too notorious and manifest that his passion had engag'd him in a partiality against that Blessed Prince of the Apostles But because this doctrine of the Apostles exclusive Provinces as he calls them Of Schism p. 70. limiting their universal Iurisdiction was so rare a novelty that blind Antiquity never so much as dream't on 't nor any Authour that I can â—ear of ever so much as nam'd or mention'd it before he fetches the first root of their pedigree their An est from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lot of Apostleship and Iudas his proper place in Hell which he will have signify exclusive Provinces restraining the Iurisdiction or Power of each single Apostle His Disarmer first show'd then challeng'd him of Schism p. 47. that his interpretation of the first place for Exclusive Provinces which was his first Evidence or rather the Ground of his future Evidences was so strong and unmoveable that it alone resisted the whole world being evidently opposite to common sence repugnant expressely to Scripture injuriously contrary to all Antiquity prevaricating from the translation of their own Church and lastly contradictory to himself The Cath. Gent. calls the interpretations wretched and blasphemous This was our charge let us see now his defence First asham'd to father his own Grounds or his own words Answ p. 38. he denies that he mean't these for Evidences or ever thought on them as such But God be praised his own book of Schism is extant which pag. 70. ends the fourth parag by professing to offer his Evidences after which begins the fifth parag thus And first it is evident by Scripture that S. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision or Iews exclusively to the Vncircumcision c. and no Evidences from Scripture pretented in the same parag but these two miserable mistakes of it already noted from which Repl. p. 50. l. 11. he pretends to deduce that distinction of Provinces Next he tells us in the same place that it needed no Evidencing the thing being evident by it's own light that the Apostles went not all to one but disposed themselves over all the world to several Provinces If this were his sole intent there then why did himself professedly go about to evidence p. 70. l. 4. what he tells us here needs no evidencing Or what was his meaning to labour so hard with testimonies and Id ests from the fifth parag to the twentieth now by pretending irrefragable now unquestionable Evidences to prove that which he tells us here is evident by it's own light and needs no other But indeed that was not his intent then but to show their Iurisdictions exclusively limited as shall be seen though in this Book of his second thoughts preceiving it was impossible to make good his proofs or excuse his Id ests manifested by his Disarmer to be so impertinent he prevaricates from the whole question and relinquishesâ— position which could he have proved it might have doâ—e him some service for another which though granted does him none at all For what hurt is it to S. Peter's Headship among the Apostles if some went one way some another to preach Thirdly he is terribly rigorous against S. W. in telling him in the same place that his seventh Section is borrowâ—d from the Cath Gent. For besides that the Cath. Gent. puts onely one exception against Mr. H's wrong interpretâ—tion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas S. W. put seven no honest man living who is true to his cause and hath more regard to it's good than to an aiery flash of his own honour will refuse to write to the same sence another hath writ before him onely because himself was not the first Authour or Inventer of that sence if he sees that neither himself nor any man else could write better upon that point which were in effect to renounce reason because it is not originiz'd from his own invention but proposed first by another In this manner all Catholick writers borrow all they write from the Church striving to come as near her sence and Grounds as they can possibly and not vainly hugging self-fancied Grounds of their own as is the Protestant's mode But this shows what kind of Spirit Dr. H. is of who thinks it a disgrace to write what one deems truth if it hap to be the doctrine or sence of another and account it his onely vain-glorious honour to be the first broacher of new explications of Scripture and other rare inventions never before heard of Of which humour of his this present point is a pittiful instance his book of Schism a perfect model his Folio-Annotations on the Bible ae large Map as some more prudent Friends of his own complain Fourthly whereas he says here that my seventh Section is answered Repl. c. 4. Sect. 2. 't is a great mistake the greater part of my exceptions being not so much as touched there And surely it had been a great providence if going about there onely to answer the Cath. Gentleman's one exception he should have answered before-hand by a kind of prophetical foresight all my seven Fifthly to come to his Reply the pretended place for answer he is accused for being a bad Interpreter and he spends the greatest part of his pains in showing himself a good Grammarian and manifesting the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is a quite different thing The same word may have twenty several notions in it self but hath ordinarily but one of those as it is found in the Context and Syntax with other words The significations of words are to be found in Dictionaries the Interpretation of them as they stand in propositions depends upon the antecedents consequents with all the other train of concomitant Circumstances especially upon the import of the
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
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
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
imaginarily ghesses which you must conceive will bee in Antichrist's time who according to their principles will bee the Head of the Church And lastly that they have a gracious Prince for a politicall Head Whos 's inward right if it bee lost by long prescription as the whole world grants it many it follows that they can in that case pretend to no Head at all in case the successour hap to bee no Protestant But I wonder the Bishop is so discourteous to his own tenet that whereas they ever held the King to bee Head of the Church or cheif in Ecclesiasticall matters hee should now deny it and put him to bee onely a politicall Head as contradistinguish't from Ecclesiasticall that is give him no more then France Spain c. Vse to do to their Kings where the Pope's Headship is acknowledg'd Again wee ask not how they are one amongsts themselves in England under one pretended visible Head or Government but how they are one with the rest of the Christian world though having that pretended Head Is there any orderly common ty of Government obliging this Head to correspend with the other Head If not where is the Vnity or common Headship of the whole Church or how is England visibly united to it vnder this notion If there bee why should the Bp envy us the happy sight of this rarity which onely which would satisfy the point clear his credit vindicate his Church His cavill that sometimes wee have two or three Heads sometimes never an Head is false groundles since there can bee but one true or rightly-chosen Pope however there may bee more pretended ones and till hee who is chosen bee known euidenced to bee such the Headship or cheif Government is in the cheif Clergy of the chief see whom wee call Cardinalls unles a generall Council actually sit As secure a method for the peace Vnity of a Commonwealth govern'd by an elective power as mans wit can invent though as in all humane affairs the contingency of the subject admits sometimes of miscarriages sidings animosities Hee promises us to shew the Vnity of Protestant Churches amongst themselves that the Harmony of Confessions will demonstrata to the world that their Controversies are not so many nor of so great moment as imagining I answer that truly I am so far from imagining any thing concerning their differences that I know not even what the word Contreversy means till they give us some certain Rule to settle Controversies to tell us which Controversies are of faith which of opinion onely But does the Harmony of Confessions show us not in the common expressions of the word but in the particularity of the thing that they have one common certain Rule of faith infallibly securing then that such points no other were taught by Christ and his Apostles or any particular sort of Government obliging them to an Vnity under the notion of Governed as a common ty Nothingless that is it does less than nothing and leaves my other objection good that otherwise they have no more Vnity then a body composed of Turks Iews Hereticks and Christians Nor does the Bp. disprove it otherwise than by reckoning up again the former motives to Vnity in affections out of S. Paul Six of which are invisible and some of them equally pretendable nay actually pretended by Turks Hereticks c. As deniable to them by him nor can they be in reason refused them till hee gives us some certain Rule of faith obligingly satisfactorily convincing that such sects in particular are to be admitted such to bee absolutely rejected which hee will never do without entangling himself worse than formerly And as for Baptism the seveâ—th motive 't is out of doubt amongst all the world that Hereticks may have true Baptism though the Bp. here forgets himself says the contrary At least the Turks Ianisaries who are children of Christians so Baptised cannot bee refused according to his Grounds to bee his Brother-Protestants this being the onely visible ty the Protestants have with the three parts of the world the Bp. so brags of Lastly I alledged that their pretended faith consisted in vnknown fundamentalls which is a meere Shist untill they exhibit a list of such points prove them satisfactorily that they onely they are essentiall to Christian Communion Hee replies they need not do it Why mee thinks the point seems very needfull yes but the Apostles have done it hee sayes to their hands in the creed And how proves hee that the Apostles intended this creed as a list of all fundamentalls onely for hee put neither before nor yet here any other proof in that the Primitive Church saith hee hath ordained that no more should bee exacted of any of Turks or Iews in point of faith when they were converted from Paganism or Iewism to Christianity And how proves hee the Primitive Church exacted no more out of his own manifold falsification of the Council of Ephesus already manifested Sect. 1. And this is the whole Ground of his certainty that those points are onely fundamentall or that they have any list of fundamentalls and consequently that there is any Grounds of Vnity in materiall points amongst the Protestant Churches or that they are of the Church since the Church hath in her self Grounds of Vnity I omit that the learned Bp. makes account Turks are Pagans or to bee converted from Paganism whereas 't is known they acknowledge a God and affirms that the Primitive Church in the Council of Ephesus for to this hee relates as appears p. 5. held in the year 430. order'd any thing concerning Turks which sect sprang not till the year 630. that is 200. years after Both good sport did not the Bp. cloy us with such scenes of mirth Again when hee saies the Apostles creed is a list of all fundamentalls either hee means the letter of the creed and then hee grants Socinians Arians to bee Christians both which admit the letter of the creed interpreted their own way and excludes the Puritans from all hopes of Salvation for denying a fundamentall towit Christs descent into Hell Or else hee means the sence of the creed and then hee excludes the Roman Catholikes whom yet in other circumstances hee acknowledges to bee of the Church for they hold some Articles found there in another sence than do the Protestants Let him then prove evidently that no points of faith were held formerly as necessary save those Articles in the Apostles creed next tell us whether hee means the letter onely or the sence of the creed then show us satisfactorily which is the onely true sence of it and lastly apply that piece of doctrine to particulars and so show us which sects are of the Church which excluded wee shall remain very much edifyd Sect. 9. How the Bp. of Derry falsifies his Adversary's words brings a Testimony against himself attended by a direct contradiction which hee
what kind of thing this was which was thus obtained The words joyned with it are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this ministery and Apostleship and by these the general signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be determined that is whether it signify a province or an office I would ask him then first how often he hath read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a place of ministery or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a place where an Apostle was to preach Next I would ask him what means the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this which should rather in all right have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that ministery c. had it related to that province which Iudas had or should have had but being as it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this ministery what could it mean but the present office of Apostleship which the Apostles all at that time enjoy'd from which Iudas fell and into which S. Mathias succeeded Lastly I would gladly know of him whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. part of this ministery or Apostleship v. 25. do not manifestly signify the same as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does here v. 20 at least I am sure S. Peter tells us there it does and whether their own translation do not render this to be an office Psal 109. v. 8. Let another take his office Iudge then indifferent Reader what Evidences are to be expected from Dr. H. whos 's first and ground-Evidence here is thus manifoldly weak Magnis tamen excidit ausis and he hath still this honour which he esteems most important that this explication is perfectly his own and not borrow'd from any other which poor S. W. as he disgracefully objected to him is glad to doe wanting alas Dr. H's miraculous talent of interpreting Scripture so as no man living ever did before him I may adde nor any wise man will ever do after him Sect. 3. With what weak sleights Dr. H. would underprop his ruinous explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudas his place in Hell for a lesser Province and how he produces Testimonies importing an evidently-disparate Interpretation for just-the-same with his THus much for the first Ground of Dr. H's evidences from those words Act. 1. v. 25. That he may take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. part or the lot of this ministery and Apostleship Now follows the second and the more famous one of the two in the same v. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which Iudas as their own translation renders it by transgression fell that he might goe to his own place Which last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or his own place to show there were such things as exclusive provinces Dr. H. of Schism p. 71. paraphrases to signify his own or proper place or assignation for the witnessing the Resurrection and proclaiming the Faith or doctrine of Christ to the world Others and among them the Cath. Gent. and S. W. nay even all the Protestants as far as I can hear except Dr. H. make account it signifies Iudas his own place in Hell and that 't is absolutely impossible it should signify in that place a leasser province as Dr. H. would have it His first Argument that it cannot signify a place in Hell is drawn from the charitable opinion we ought to have of Iudas accusing the Cath. Gent. of uncharitableness for interpreting it so in these words Repl. p. 53. It was sufficient to say of Iudas that which had been said v. 16. 17. 18. 19. to set out the horrour of his Fact and his bloody death and that he needed not proceed to the revealing of secrets c. But I wonder what secret it is to say that Iudas is in Hell after it had been revealed and pronounced by our Saviour himself Io. c. 17. v. 12. that he was the Son of Perdition and he had died in despair by his own hands But let us observe the order of Dr. H's charity Answ p. 22 l. 16. 17. 18. 19. c. he could not retain a favorable opinion of salvation attainable by the maintainers of the breach between us meaning the Pope and Cardinalls who had pronounced the Sentence of Excommunication against his Schismatical party nor by the Catholick Converts in England nay he had decreed and denounced Hell and damnation to S. W. and the Romish Factor for showing he had forgotten his Accidence and his other toyish weaknesses yet he would not have us censure Iudas too rashly or judge him in Hell for betraying our Saviour The likelihood of the others damnation is of no difficulty with him this he calls a secret and blames the Cath. Gent. for revealing it His second argument is drawn from S. Chrysostom's words upon that place saying that S. Peter insults not over Iudas calling him villain or detestable villain but sets down the fact simply and his present vengeance To which last words Dr. H. annexes his Corollary and to make sure work as before he hath oft confuted us with his own surely so now he ascertains it with his own sure His present vengeance that sure is it saith he which befel him in this world A weighty argument as if any space of time interven'd between wicked men's death and their being in Hell and as if their vengeance of damnation were not ful as present as their temporal vengeance of an ill death here I am sure the Psalmist Psal 55. v. 16. in that very place which uses to be apply'd to mean mystically our Saviours words of Iudas wishes They may go quick into Hell which expresses a vengeance present enough and earlier than their vengeance in this world to wish them in Hell before they are dead In stead of a third Argument he would persuade us in courtesy to admit a parenthesis here his plea for this parenthesis is this because the use of parentheses in Scripture is very obvious If then the words from which Iudas by transgression fell be pounded up in a parenthesis so as they may not at all help the signification of their neighbours which is something too hard dealing then he tells us his interpretation is clear and unavoydable But what means he when he tells us that the parenthesis needs no more formall expression than onely by putting a comma after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would he have it a parenthesis or no A parenthesis relates not to the sense of the fore-going nor following words but leaves the sense entire though it be omitted what is within commas onely cannot always thus be omitted without oftentimes maiming the sense Again how must a comma put after Iudas needs make his interpretation so clear and unavoydable since he knows well that many both Protestant and Catholick Commenters put the comma there and yet avoyd so easily his interpretation that they never so much as dream'd of it Lastly let us remember that a parenthesis leaves the words on either side as perfectly coherent in sense as if it had never
will first put down his interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the very place which occasion'd this debate that afterwards we may show what a â—yrgopolynices humour it is in him to brag that his and those are just the same The place is of Schism p. 70. 71. where he makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by him distributions lots or lesser Provinces and afterwards Englishes the words themselves thus his own or proper place or assignation for the witnessing the resurrection and proclaiming the Faith and doctrine of Christ to the world A lesser Province then or proper place to preach in is manifestly his sense wherefore we must expect the self-same in the testimonies to wit a Province or place otherwise we can do no less than think that Dr. H. would gull us to our faces The first testimony which he sayes with what truth shall be seen is perfectly to his sense is from Theophylact on Acts 1. which I shall repeat putting Dr. H's own words fully as I find them in his Answer p. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He calls that his own place which Mathias so as it was just and fit should obtain For as Iudas was a stranger to it ever since he began to be sick of covetousness and treason so it properly belonged to Mathias ever since he shew'd himself worthy of so great an Office Where we heare no news of a lesser Province at all as Dr. H. would persuade us to beleeve against our eye-verdict but of an Office which Judas had demerited by his former villanies even while he was in it and Mathias had merited by his worth and desert even before he had obtained it Now if a lesser Province be just-the-same with the Office of Apostle then Dr. H. hath dealt honestly with his Readers when he pretended 't was so The â—econd testimony is introduc't with The like again as indeed it is and borrow'd from Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. His own place he calls his suffocation c. or else Iudas being gone he Id est Mathias may have the place to himself receving his Episcopacy So that Episcopacy which their own translation as hath been shown explicated to be an office is now become just the same with a lesser Province or some determinate part of the world to preach in The third is put thus So Didymus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 place signifies many things amongst the rest an Order aâ— when we say the place of a Bishop or of an Elder Where to omit the weakness of inferring it signifies so here from the possibility of it's signifying so in it's self nay from it's having many significations Mr. H. makes the order of dignitie to have just the same notion with a local distribution of place or a lesser Province which are so not ajot-the-same that it is as easy to maintain there can be an Hirco-cervus as that these two notions of different species can be one The fourth troops after it's fellows in this form So the ordinary gloss ut abiret in locum suum Id est sortem Apostolicam That he might go to his own place Id est the Apostolical lot But whether this Apostolical lot were the office of Apostles as we hold and have proved at large or a lesser Province as he holds and pretends to find it here identically exprest nothing at all is found in this place which the Doctor notwithstanding assures us is just-the-same with the latter This done he triumphs over S. W. most unmercifully animated by these his just-the-same interpretations In a word if he will contend that these Authours give a third explication of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which neither of us had I grant it but to say it is just the same with his as Dr. H. does here is so perfect a piece of abusiveness to his Readers as will be able ever hereafter to dishearten even his best Friends from crediting his bare saying though never so confident and triumphant who would not have them credit their own eyes Were all that hath been said concerning these two mis-explications of Dr. H's duly consider'd litle would remain to let any man who hath any tender respect to Truth and God's word plainly see they are justly to be styled blasphemous But because he will acknowledge no blasphemy at all in them wee 'l show him two The first is a blasphemy against the honour due to God's word for sure it can be no less thus to make a nose of wax of those sacred Oracles and that he may maintain perversly a self-imagin'd conceit of his own to detort it thus shamefully and pervert it both without and against all circumstances found in the Context and all ground any where else save onely in the brain which bred the Chimera A Reverence I say and a tender respect is to be had to God's word not wresting it to bear testimony to every falshood imaginable as it easily may if treated on this manner nor handle it in such a sort as the maintainers of paradoxes do the testimonies they cite from Authours which they on set purpose sinisterly but far more ingeniously and handsomly mistake by a pretty fetch to make show of a proof of their merry Theses The second is a blasphemy against the honour due to Faith which being in it's self certain suffers in it's fundamentals if occasion be given to think it such a weak thing as either to be built upon or overthrown by such more than frivolous less than probable grounds as are those distorsions of Scripture now spoken of Will not Atheists and Heathens laugh to see those that profess Christianity object against a point held so universally of Faith as this of the Pope's Headship was such quodâ—ibetical trash And is not Faith it self by such a non-sensical debating it should no Profession of Christianity bring better arguments than this Doctor liable to be imagin'd by prudent men not yet acquainted with it an idler and more groundless Story than the very tales of King Oberon and Robin Good-fellow Two blasphemies then Mr. H. attend your mis-interpretations I mean such as Catholicks hold for blasphemies who defend Faith to be a thing certain and to have certain grounds as also that God's word is never to be interpreted but with gravity and seriouness and as neer as is in a man's power to the sense the Context most strongly carries at least not abus'd and vilify'd by fathering upon it such groundless interpretations nay treating it in such an irreverent fashion that there is no position in the world so unwarrantable absurd false and impious but may by the same method of groundless criticizing be deduced thence which devolves into this that God himself the Authour of Truth and the expresser of it in the holy Scripture shall by this means become the Father of all falshoods and the Authour of every groundless and non-sensical absurdity
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
to him yet seem to strike at the latter as hee ought hee joyns both however in consistent into one and being to wrangle against the Pope's Headship proposes it first under this Chimericall notion The Papacy Quà talis or as such as it is maintained by many And this hee calls laying the Axe to the root of Shism though it bee as directly leuell'd a stroak at his own legs and inflicting as deep a wound on the supports of his cause as a contradiction can give to pretended sence For since all Papists as such hold a Papacy or the Pope's Headship of Iurisdiction over the whole Church and differ in this point from Protestants it is evident that the Papacy of such is that which is held by all for none can be Papists longer then they hold it Now then to say the Papacy as such as it is now held by many is the same as to say the Papacy as held by all as held by many onely which is in other language to legitimate an Hircoceruus and to clap together non ens and ens into the same notion But how does hee clear himself of this shuffling nonsence why first hee asks do not some Roman Catholikes subject the Pope to a generall Council and others nay the greater part of them c subject a generall Council to the Pope What is this to the Question whether these words the Papacy as such as it is now maintain'd by many cohere in sence or no Secondly hee asks whether hee might not then well say the Papacy quà talis c. No my L d for it being evident that all Roman Catholikes hold the Papacy in some sence if you call it the Papacy as such as it is held by many pray how will you stile it as held by all as not such or the Papacy with super additions or can all hold what some do not hold Thirdly hee saies his conclusion was not against the Church of Rome in generall but against the Pope Court of Rome that they were guilty of the Schism For what for maintaining the substance of the Pope's Authority held by all then you accuse the Church of Rome in generall of Schism for the Church in generall holds what all in her hold Or was it for this opinion of the Pope above the Council and others of this strain How were they guilty of Schism for this unles they had deny'd you Communion for holding the contrary or prest upon you an unconscientious approbation of it which you know they did not Fool not your Readers my L d 't was not for this tenet which you impute to the Court of Rome but for that of the Pope's Headship or Spirituall Iurisdiction over all God's Church held by all Catholikes and by that whole Church equally then as it is now for which you are excommunicated and so ought either to submit to that whole Church again in that point as formerly or else if you would deal candidly impugn that whole Church and not the Court onely thus opposite to you in that mainly-concerning point Fourthly as hee saies although aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus that is sometimes honest Homer takes a nodd and though hee had stol'n a napp it had been neither felony nor treason yet to let us see hee did not sleep he will put his argument into form without a quâ talis which is to affect a sleepines still or as our English Proverb saies to sleep fox sleep Hee is accus'd of a contradiction non-sence and to clear himself hee tells us hee will now lay aside one part of the contradiction and endeavour to make good sence of the other Now his first argument is that the Court of Rome is guilty of Schism for preferring the Pope before a generall Council to which I have already answer'd His second is that ours are thus guilty for making all Apostolicall succession Episcopall Iurisdiction come from Rome onely By which if hee means our Church as a Church holds it as hee ought if hee speak like a Controvertist 't is a most gross false imputation as I told him If of the Court of Rome onely then since they neither prest it as of faith nor deny'd you Communion for these points but for another held by all as I lately show'd they cannot hence be concluded guilty nor you guiltles of Schism This argument past over hee confesses this tenet is not generall amongst us I add but points of faith are generally held therefore this tenet is but an opinion and being not generall as hee grants it follows that it is onely a particular or private opinion as I call'd it his own words evince it Yet hee is loath these should be call'd private opinions because they are most common most current Whereas unles they come down recommended by our Rule of faith immediate Tradition or the voice of the Church so become perfectly common generall universall undoubtedly current our Church looks upon them onely as deductions of private men's reasons nor shall I own them for other That the former is a common tenet hee brings Cardinal Bellarmine to say that it is almost de fide or a point of faith which the good Bp. sees not that it signifies it was almost reveald or that the revelation fell an inch or two short of reaching our knowledge or that God has not indeed reveald it but yet that t was twenty to one but hee had done it Next that the Council of Florence seem'd to have defin'd it now the word seems signifies I know not that ever it defin'd it at all or if it defin'd it so 't is more than I know Thirdly that the Council of Lateran I suppose hee means not the generall Council there held defin'd it most expresly Yet the Bp here descanting upon the words of that Council sayes onely that they seem to import no less that is it may bee they mean no such thing or it may bee they mean much less For the latter opinion as hee candidly here calls it hee tells us Bellarmine declares it to bee most true that hee cites great Authors for it saith that it seemeth again to have been the opinion of the old Schoolmen speaking highly at least seemingly of the Pope's Authority So that all is seeming all opinion and uncertainty Now the use the Bp. makes of this gear is this The Court of Rome many with it held an over weening opinion of their own Authority though they permitted us whole Churches to hold the contrary therefore wee very innocently broke God's Church or therefore wee quite renounc't the Principles of Vnity in both faith Government as the fact witnesses you did because they held an erroneous op nion too much extending the latter In a word let Bellarmine the Bp. wrangle about the opinionative point I shall not think my self concern'd as a Controvertist to interrupt their dispute or â—oyn mine interest with either party however did I