assent rationally nor any thing to move it at all but passion disorder'd affections fear or Interest Many paradoxes seem very plausible and prety while they are drest up in involving terms which hide their deformity yet brought to Grounds and to Practice show manifestly their shame The former to wit Grounds confute them by showing them contradictory the latter that is Practice confounds them by showing them absurd How implicatory Mr. H's doctrine of no power to bind to beleef is and how inconsistent with Christian Faith hath already been manifested by bringing it to Grounds how absurd it is will quickly be discerned by reducing it into practice Let us imagin then that the Bells chime merrily to morning prayer and that the whole town rings with the fame and noise that Dr. H. reputed the most learned of all the Protestant party who quite confuted the Pope and cut off the neck of Rome at one blow in a book of Schism and has lately with a great deal of Greek lopt off and seared the Hydra-head from ever growing more in his Answer to Schism Disarm'd would give them a gallant Sermon Whereupon a great confluence of people coming together to receive edification after a dirge sung in Hopkins rime very pittifully in memory of the deceased Book of Common-prayer up steps Dr. H. repeats his Text and fals to his Harangue In which let us imagin that he exhorts them to renounce all the affections they have to all that is dear to them in this world and place them upon a future state of eternal bliss promised by Christ to all that serve him in particular let us imagin he earnestly exhorts them with the Apostle to stand fast in the Faith and to hold even an Angel from Heaven accursed if he taught the contrary nay telling them they ought to lose theirs and their Childrens whole estates and lay down a thousand lives rather than for-goe their Faith This done let us suppose him to draw towards a period and conclude according to his doctrine when he disputes against us in this manner To all this dearly beloved I exhort you earnestly in the Lord yet notwithstanding that I may speak candidly and ingenuously and tell you the plain literall truth of our tenet neither I nor the Church of England whose judgment I follow are infallibly certain of this doctrine which I bid you thus beleeve and adhere to Our p. 15. l. 37. 38. Church I confess is fallible it may affirm and teach false both in Christ's doctrine and also in p. 23. l. 38 c. c. p. 24. l. 3. saying which is true Scripture and which the true sense of it and consequently I may perhaps have told you a fine tale all this while with never a word of truth in it but comfort your selves beloved for though it may be equally and indifferently probable it erres yet it is not strongly probable that it will p. 16. l. 1. Wherefore dearly beloved Brethren have a full persuasion I beseâ—ch you as p 16 l. 6. 7. our Church hath that what she defines is the truth when she defines against the Socinians that Christ is God although p. 16. l. 8. properly speaking she hath no certainty that he is so The Governours of our Church may indeed lead you into damnable errours being not infallible in Faith yet you must obey them p. 16. l. 16. by force of the Apostl's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here the good-women are all-to-bewonder'd and bless themselves monstrously at the learned sound of the two Greek words at least p. 17. l. 3. beleeve them so far as not to disbelieve them For mistake me not beloved I mean no more than thus when I bid you stand fast in the Faith hang in suspence dear brethren hang in a pious suspence and beleeve it no improbable opinion that Christ is God and that there is such a felicity as heaven at least whatsoever you think in your heart yet p. 17. l. 25. quietly acquiesce to the determinations of our Mother the Church of England so far as not disquiet the peace of our Sion although you should perhaps see that this Church did Idolatrously erre in making a man a God and so give God's honour to a Creature yet I beseech you good brethren acquiesce very quietly peaceably and although you could evidence that she was in damnable errours and that she carried Souls quietly and peaceably to Hell for want of some to resist and oppose her yet let them goe to Hell by millions for want of true Faith still enjoy you quietly your opinion without opposing the Church though thâ—s pernicious Were not this a wise and edifying Sermon and enough to make his Auditours pluck him out of the Pulpit if they beleeved him not or if they beleeved him to return home Scepticks or Atheists Yet how perfectly chiefly in express termes partly in necessary Consequences it is his his own words have already manifestâ—d for the famous Explications lately spoken of he applies here to his Church parag 23. and his Rule of Faith must be either certain and so make all points of Faith certain and infallible truths or if it be uncertain nothing that is built upon it can be certainer than it self and by consequence Christ's God-head must be uncertain also and so there can be no power or motiue to oblige men to beleeve it more than the rest Sect. 13. The four main Advantages of the Catholick Church wilfully misrepresented The Disproportion of Dr. H's parallelling the Certainty of the Protestant's Faith to that of K H. the eighth's being King of England THe Cath. Gentl. mentioned on the by four advantages our Church had over any other viz. Antiquity Possession Persuasion of Infallibility and Pledges which Christ left to his Church for motives of Vnion Speaking of the last of these Dr. H. tells us here Repl. p. 19. it is in vain to speak of motives to return to our Communion to them who have not voluntarily separated and cannot be admitted to union but upon conditions which without dissembling and lying they cannot undergoe As for the latter part of this excuse truly if motives of union be vain things to be proposed to them to bring them to Vnion I must confess I know not what will be likely to doe it They pretend to think our doctrine erroneous our Church fallible to which therefore they deem it dissimulation and lying to subscribe what remains then to inform them right but to propose reasons and motives that that doctrine was true that Church infallible that therefore they might lawfully subscribe with a secure conscience But Dr. H. will not heare of motives or reasons for Vnion but sayes 't is in vain to speak of them that is he professes to renounce his Reason rather than forgoethe obstinacy of his Schismatical humour yet he sayes here that this evasion is necessarily the concluding this Controversy But why a probability to the contrary should be sufficient to oblige
Church How necessary an endowment is a good memory to defend a bad cause Thirdly he onely denyes as he sayes that this Primacy gave him any power over S. Paul and that I will remember he had reason to deny it from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall honour given S. Paul by Chrysostome and Theophylact. I remember indeed the words but have quite forgot that he had any reason to deduce from those words equality of honor sprung from Government or power of command having shown from those fathers explicating themselves that it is impossible the words can beare that interpretation Fourthly in relation to those words he did not vindicate any thing to himself insolently or assume it arrogantly as to say he had the Primacy and rather ought to bee obeyed c. Dr. H. discant's with this glosse leaving us saith he p. 47. to resolve that if he had claimed any obedience at all from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him Thus he soe that the difference between Dr. H. and mee in explicating this place stands thus that he makes those words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assump sit to signify that S. Peter's praise worthines exprest consisted in his not chalenging what did not truly belong to him whereas I make it consist in his not chalenging it in those circumstances though it truly belonged to him he would have the words insolenter and arroganter so taken as if the pride they denoted did involve falsehood injustice or overweening whereas I contend that they signify onely in an insolent and proud manner well exprest in our English phrase by standing upon his point which well consists with the truth of what he challenges and the right of what he assumes Ere I descend to manifest that this is the sence of that place I desire the Reader to review the entire testimony in which he will do right both to my discourse and his own memory and when he hath done this I offer him for his satisfaction these following notes First that it had been no such great commendation of humility to say that S. Peter did not usurpingly challenge what was not his right but rather an impudence and an absurd haughtines to have done it since then the fathers intend here a particular commendation of S. Peter's modesty it must consist in this that though he might with rigour of right have stood upon his tip-toes as wee may say yet his goodnes so moderated his height that he was content with mildenes to bear an inferiour's reprehensions in which great vertue is shown and which being put those fathers suppose that truly he was Superiour Secondly unles this bee the meaning of that place wee have quite lost the adversative sence which yet is unavoidable for what sence is this Though our Lord chose him to be the first yet he did not challenge to himself more then belongs to him or what speciall commendation do these words import Though King Iames was King of England yet he did not challenge or assume to himself to bee Emperour of Germany sure it must bee an enuy of S. Peter's sanctity as well as of his dignity to diminish his praise-worthines intended here by so frivolous and incoherent an explication Thirdly the words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter he challenged not any thing insolently to himself make good my explication for it had been a very hard case if he could have challenged nothing at all to himself with truth according to these fathers no not even that which themselves had granted the line before to wit that our Lord had chosen him to bee the first and had built his Church upon him with truth therefore he might have challenged that which out of modesty he stood not insolenty and arrogantly upon Fourthly Dr. H. grants that a Primacy at least in some sence is granted S. Peter from this place wherefore the redditive part of the testimony yet he challenged not any thing c. so as to say he had the Primacy must be granted to bee true also or rather it is the self same Neither is it possible that any man not totally possest by prejudice can imagine any other but that in these words Though our Lord chose him to bee the first yet he said not or alledged not that he had the Primacy or was the first the latter part should be false unles the former were so too Firfthly this being so the following words in the reddiâ—ive part of the testimony and ought rather to be obey'd by laâ—er Apostles c. must necessarily bee true too since they follow in the same tenour of redditive sence to the adversative and are joyned immediately by a copulative particle to the former of having the Primacy True therefore it is that he might in right expect obedience in other circumstances from S. Paul and by consequence this Primacy here spoken of was not a dry and barren one as the Dr. would fancy it Sixthly the subsequent words of his not objecting to S. Paul that he had been a persecutour of the Church make it yet more evident since he might with truth have said so but of his goodnes would not since then the foregoing word 's of his having the Primacy are true and the following ones also of S. Paul's having been a persecutour are true also upon what grounds can this Adversary of S Peter's imagine that the midle words importing his rather right to S. Paul's obedience which run on in the same even tenour with both the other should be false or how could he â—hink to evade by deducing from those words that the fathers left us to resolve hence that if hee had claimed any obedience from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him nay making this the summe of his answer to that place Lastly the concluding words but admitted the counsell of truth expressing the result of the whole busines show that iâ— plainly imports an Encomium of S. Peter's candour that wheÌ„ the thing objected against him was true he maintained not his own saying by Authority but made his heâ—gâ—h of dignity exprest there to bee most eminent stoop to the sincere acceptation of truth which in a Superiour and Governour is a most laudable carriage and an unparalell'd commendation And thus Dr. H. comes of in answering S. W. first testimony which being prest speaks more against him then was at first intended being onely brought to show that these fathers thought that manner of carriage between S. Peter and S. Paul exprest Gal. 11. rather argued S. Peter's greater humility then his lesser or equall Authority After Mr. H. had endeavoured by wresting the former testimony to win S. Cyprian and S. Austin to side with him against S. Peter's Authority he proceeds to destroy the Popes
Phrases to his former calumny Next hee says that as for his self hee never raised himself by any insinuations I know my L d you are a Saint but the point is can you clear your self from calumny and prove that those Bishops whom otherwise you calumniate ever used such insinuations Hee was never hee saies parasiticall pentioner to any man nor much frequented any man's table You are still more Saint then formerly my L d But can you prove that those Bishops whom otherwise you calumniate are parasites or was it ever heard of or pretended that they sit at the Pope's table Hee adds that if his own table bee not so good as it hath been yet contentment a good conscience is a continuall feast Much good may it do you my L d fall to and eat heartily cannot you fare well hold your tongue but you must amongst your dainties slander your Neighbours men better then your self by calling them parasites Episcopelles the Pope's creatures hungry c. Or if you do can you expect less but that it shall be laid in your dish to sauce your dainties But the point is how hee proves these worthy persons to bee hungry parasiticall pentioners which unles hee does hee yeelds himself to bee a malitious calumniator Now his proof of it is contained in those words whether those Bishops were not his hungry parasiticall pentioners they knew best who know most Well argued my L d there 's none can overthrow such a proof because it is impossible to know where to take hold of it Or if any can bee taken 't is this that the Bp. of Derry knows better then all the world besides As for his pretence of his good conscience and to free himself from being a Parasite I would entreat his Lordship to examin his conscience truly whether hee does not get his living by preaching that doctrine which hee puts in his books the which how many notorious falsities contradictions tergiversations they have in them may bee judged by this present work Now if hee does let him consider whether any like parasitism can bee found as to hazard to carry men to damnation by taking away the highest principle that can correct them and bring all faith and Ground of faith to uncertainty dispute meerly to get his own bread for your other actions my L d I neither know what you do nor think it handsom to enquire In the close hee pretends to satisfy an exception of mine found in Schism Disarm'd 'T was this that hee quoted a testimony from Gerson against himself which showed that the Greeks acknowledg'd the Pope's Authority by their departing from the then Pope as Gerson sayes with these words wee acknowledge thy power wee cannot satisfy your covetousnes live by your selves Hee replies endeavours to show that by Power in that place is mean't not Authority nor iust power but might Whereas First the very opposition of Power acknowledged to covetousnes which they could not satisfy argues that their sullen departure proceeded from their sticking at the latter not the former which was there acknowledg'd Now if might were signify'd by the word Power in that place the sence of the whole would stand thus wee separate not for want of acknowledging thy might but for want of power to satisfy thy covetousnes which is as good as non-sence For if hee had might to force them what sence is there to say wee depart because wee cannot satisfy your avarice when departing could not save them whereas in the other sence it runs very currently wee separate not for de fault of acknowledging thy Authority or iust power but because however this be iust yet it is impossible wee should satisfy your covetousnes Secondly what might or power except that of Spirituall Iurisdiction the Pope can bee pretended to have then had over the Greeks appears not It was mean't therefore of no such might but of a rightfulnes of power Thirdly whereas hee sayes that Gerson apprehended the words in his sence cites the context for it the very proof hee brings for him is against him Gersons position according to the Bp. is this that men ought not generally to be bound to the positive determinations of Pope's to hold beleeve one the same form of Government in things that do not immediately concern the truth of our faith and the Gospell After which testimony the Bp. addes these words From thence hee proceedeth to set down some different customes of the Greek Latin Churches both which hee doth iustify citing S. Austin to prove that in all such things the custome of the country is to bee observed And amongst the rest of the differences this was one that the Creek Church paid not such subsidies duties as the Gallican Church did Thus far the Bishop Where it is manifest that the lawfulnes of resisting the Pope's determinations being in order to the not paying undue subsidies Taxes the discourse there relates to the no obligation of satisfying covetousnes and touches not at all the point of power or might as hee will have it Let us take then Gersons sence in the former and mine of iust power in the latter and the discourse stands thus that though men acknowledge the rightfull power of Pope's yet they ought not generally be bound to their positive determinations in things not of faith but belonging onely to the severall forms of Government customes in severall countries as paying subsidies duties c. And pertinently to the same sence the Greeks might bee imagined as indeed they did to answer Wee acknowledge thy power or cannot deny your rightfull Authority but esteem not our selves bound to obey your determinations importing such covetous demands contrary to the custome and Priviledges of our Church wherefore wee think our selves excused not to meddle with you at all Fourthly the Bp. sayes that it seems the Pope would have exacted those subsidies duties of the Grecians and that there upon they separated from him Which countenances all I said formerly implies more strongly my sence towit that it was there upon as the Bp. confesses that is upon their denying subsidies not upon their denying the rightfulnes of his power as coming under another a cheaper notion that they separated Fifthly the very demanding subsidies had there not been some preacknowledg'd power to Ground countenance such a demand seems incredibile had required a more positive Answer then wee cannot satisfy your covetousnes and rather this you have nothing at all to do with us nor the least Superiority to Ground the pretence of paying you any thing at all Whereas this answer rather sayes wee ow you indeed subjection but not such a subjection as engages us to satisfy your encroaching demands Lastly hee sayes Gerson hence concludes that upon this consideration they might proceed to the reformation of the french Churches and the Liberties thereof notwithstanding the contradiction which perhaps some of the Court of
passages any other Answer Or if there bee any so wedded to a severer humour that they will not allow circumstances their due but think that such kind of carriage is not to bee used at all in Controversies about Faith I shall send them to Tertullian the rigidest and severest in points of this Nature among all the Ancients for better information If you find saith hee writing against the Adversaries of faith in my Book some passages which move one to Laughter 't is because the matter it self occasions it There are many things which deserve to bee thus mock't at lest by combating them seriously you should signify they are of weight Nothing is more due to Vanity than Laughter and this carriage is proper to Truth to whom it belongs to laugh because shee is naturally pleasant and to exult over her Enemies because shee is secure of the victory Care indeed is to bee taken lest the mirth bee base and unworthy of Truth but otherwise when one can fittingly make advantage by it 't is a Duty to use it Thus hee To which I shall onely adde these few words of S. Austin whose Spirit though all composed of charity and sweetnes breaks out into this smart demand Vvho is so bold as to say that Truth should come forth unarm'd when it combats falshood and that it is lawfull for the Enemies of Religion to fright the faithfull with great words and inveigle their Fancies with witty conciets but that Catholikes ought to write in a dull and drowsy stile fit for nothing but to make the Readers fall asleep This is all I have to apologize for except onely for the long delay of this Rejoynder the reason whereof is too well known to have been it's miscarriage a twelve-moneth ago the difficulties since in bringing it to light in a forrain country Vvhich also pleads for an excuse of it's many lapses in spelling and other frequent little mistakes occasion'd by the Composer's being a perfect stranger to our language The grosser faults shall bee noted in the Errata at the end which I desire the Reader to correct ere hee address himself to peruse the Book in regard one of mine Adversaries did mee so little Iustice as to cavill heretofore at a mistake of the Printer's in Schism Disarm'd though it were rectify'd very carefully in the Errata This done I leave the indifferent Reader to the fruit of his own Industry and to that success which the force of Truth is wont to effect in an impartiall and sincere Mind SCHISM DISPATCHT FIRST PART Containing some Preparatory grounds decisive of the whole Controversy and a refute of Dr. Hammonds Defence of his first three Chapters Sect. I. The occasion of the Disarmers writing and his writing in such a manner Dr. Hammonds weaknes in imputing contumeliousnes WHat Mr. Hammond professed of himself that his chief design is to enjoy calm and peacefull thoughts and to retire from polemicall engagements is no lesse the wish of his friendly Disarmor who had permitted him to enjoy his Halcyon sollitarinesse and to â—leep securely in a whole skin had not himself ounded the Allarm and made the Onset of which though the latter were very feeble yet the former being full of noise in the mouths of all the Docteurs friends it awaken'd him from his quiet silence into a necessary resistance He saw the most in violable the most longâ—settled the most sacred and most universallyâ—acknowledged Government the sun ever beheld despited and wronged he saw by consequence the eternall and infaillible rule of faith in which was fundamentally interessed the salvation of mankind broken and disannull'd by the rejecting that Government which it recommended to us as the Safeguard of our Faith he saw his dearest Mother the holy Catholick Church Christs sacred Spouse by relation to wihch onely he could hope for any title to salvation abused and vilify'd he saw his dear Countrymen run distractedly into an hundred sorts of Sects all springing originally from that grand one of the schismaticall Protestant Congregation he observed how the Protestant party though of late not reprehended much by Catholick writers hoping their own vexatious divisions would at length give them understanding were yet so unseasonably clamorous as then most to plead their innocence when their fault of Schim was most palpable and God's severe correction of it most visible upon them Lastly he took particular notice how one Dr. Hammond a private man had bent his weak utmost to continue and propagate that Schism so uniuersally destructive to Government Faith God's Church his Countrey and perceiving by the cry of â—is followers that his Book was likely to contribute much to this great harm he thought these motives sufficient prouocations to make the confutation of that Treatise the prentisage of his endeavours in Controversie Rationall therefore and convenient was the Disarmers determination to write and to write against Dr. Hammond The manner then of his writing comes next to be examined which will not down with the Doctours stomach and indeed it is no wonder if those who are resolved not to mend do not love to be reprehended whereupon he has by self imagin'd applications of some Texts voted here poor S. W. whom he sayes pag. 2. he has taken in the flagrant fact of abusing him to be in reality no Christian a detestable person under the censures of the Church nay ipso jure saith he excommunicate in a speciall sort one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unritghteous and without repentance uncapable of going to heaven and lastly to be none of those Saints who clave non errante saith the Dr. shall judge the world A sad case that no punishment lesse then Hell must be poor S. W's doom because he laid open the weaknesse of Dr. Hommonds defense of a pernicious cause after the manner that such a a defence deserved And I wonder he had no more Charity then not tho be afraid lest he should drive S. W. into despair of his salvation by denouncing and preaching to him such horrid judgements for writing against the Saints and using as pag. 3. Mr. Hammond sayes that very dialect which the obstinate Iews used towards the true Prophets of God But first he does me right in acknowledging that it was not I who gave him his Bill of Fare to which I may with truth adde that I not so much as knew of it Yet he thinks he has got a notable advantage against me from my own confession that my blows were rude and mine Adversary civil where as I used both those phrases as an objection of the Readers as is most palpable and had I used them the rudenesse of blows argues not that they were not just since none doubts but Malefactours are very rudely yet most justly whipt and the courteous epithet of civil deny'd not but the oyl in his tongue was accompany'd with venome in his heart and so made it more necessary to discover that whose onely advantage it was
to lurk undiscoverable under the smooth outsde of a fair-languag'd courtesie The twitchings by the beard which he reiterates to make his Reader smile is indeed something too rude a carriage if understood in the downright sence as he seems to take it but since I spoke-it onely in an Allegery and in order to his wearing a vizard which I pluck'd off let him but acknowledge that I found him attired in such a mask to which the other words related and I am contented to be thouâ—t so unreasonably uncivil as to pluck it off so rudely Next with what Logick does he huddle together those testimonies out of Scripture for S. W's pasport to Hell unlesse he could evidence that they were particularly appliable to him Are words which in their own nature found even contumeliously so perfectly damnable that no circumstance can render them inculpable or at least venial if not necessary or convenient for the Dr. maintains the generall Thesis in such à manner as if one taken in such a flagrant fact is long ago condemned to hell and disinherited from his right to heaven p. 2. and 3. What becomes then of good S. Iohn Baptist who called the ill-prepared Iews a generation of vipers what of S. Paul who Acts 13. 8. called Elymas son of the devil full of all treaechery and deceit enemy of all justice c. What of our Saviour who called Herod Fox the prophaners of the Temple Theeves the Scribes and Pharisees Hypocrites And to come nearer our present circumstances what will become of Blessed S. Polycarp disciple to S. Iohn the Evangelist the tenderest recommender of Charity to his disciples of all the Apostles who yet meeting with an heretick who began complementally to insinuate into acquaintance with nonn agnoscis nos Do not you know us rejected his courtesy with this rude language Agnosco primogenitum Di boli yes I know thee to be the first begotten of the devil What of S. Iude who calls hereticks clouds without water autumnal trees twice dead rooted out waves of the raging sea foaming out their own confusion Lastly to come yet nearer home what shall we think of Gods Church whose custome it ever was to anathematis and curse all hereticks and of S. Paul who bids anathema even to an Angel from heaven if he should preach false doctrine I ask now are not all these expressions revileing contumelious rude and which the Doctour most resents beard-twitching language if taken in themselves Must then all this good company be deem'd detestable unrighteous excommunicate and blindly pack'd all away to hell together for revilers contumelious c. because they gave such hard language The texts alledged by Mr. H. are very generall laying about them blindly and indifferently at Friends and Foes and he allowes them here no exception at all Or if he does as I hope he wil rather then involve such persons in his uniuersall censure then the reason why he exempts these must be because the words though taken in their own indifferency without any application are most highly contumelious yet spoken to such persons as hereticks men publickly noxious the common good concernd ' made the private person's repute not considerable and so the misdesert of the persons justifying the truth of the words they sounded now a laudable and necessary zeal which in other circumstances had been contumely and inteâ—perate passion Whence followes first that I am not excommunicate or in the state of damnation for having used contumelious words since the use of them if taken simply in it self is not impious as has beenshown but for having used them against Dr. H. Vnhappy I who was not aware how sacred a person my adversary was ere I undertook to deal with him Next it follows that if Dr. H. evidence not his cause to be no heresy and himself no maintainer of it all those former harsh expressious used against hereticks are his due and without scruple of sin might be given him by S. W. who had undertaken as a Catholick writer to lay open his faultinesse Let any man but read the Doctours first chapter of Schism and take notice what harsh-sounding characters the Fathers give to that vice and then let him tell me what a publick propagatour of Schim may deserue Wherefore unlesse he makes his evidence good S. W. may also justly retort upon him the charge of contumeliousnesse since he has no where in his whole Book used towards him such rude expressions as the Dr. hath in his first chapter by his censorious self-explication of Scripture loaded upon him of detestable impious c onely Mr. Hammond calumniates in a preaching manner and out of Scripture which makes the well-couch'd contumely lesse discernable Thirdly it were very easie for S. W. using the Doctours method to gather out of Scripture all the vigorous words and severe execrations against the wicked and then by his own voluntary explication and application clap them all upon the Dr. as for example that of Curse ye Meroz c. and then say that by Meroz is meant such as Mr. H. who writes against God's Church This I say were as easie for the Disarmer But he cannot but hate that in himself which he nauseates at in another He knows very wel and hopes the world now grown wiser plainly discerns it almost as impossible certainly to demonstrate truth by clashing together meer wordish testimonies as to strike fire by the weak collision of two pieces of Wax which easily yield at every stroke and therefore makes account it is his greatest misfortune to tamper with an Adversary who trades in wares of no higher value then onely Reusner like in fragments pick'd out of severall Authours and then stitch'd together by voluntary transitions into a book What is hitherto said is onely to show that every using of language even in its own nature contumelious is fat from being a sin and therefore that S. W. may yet by God's grace hope to escape hell fire unlesse the Dr. can evidence that his cause is neither Heresie nor Schisme since if it be it remain'd very lawful for him to treat the publike propagatour of it according to his desert as has been shown But S. W. disclaims in behalf of his book any such language towards Dr. H. A contumely I conceive notes some personall and morall fault in another did I note any in him Indeed as a writer he was mine and the Churches Adversary and as such it is most irrationall I should spare him when I saw my advantage Do Duellers if their quarrell be serious use to spare their enemy and not hurt him in that place where they see him unguarded It were madnesse then to expect that where my adversary writ insincerely I should not shew him insincere where blasphemously blasphemous where weakly weak where ridiculously ridiculous Vpon such advantage offer'd I ought to have had no courtesie for him unlesse I would prevaricate from my task and betray the cause I had undertaken
onely to mean at present a deemed or beleeved certainty of Faith in him who is to maintain it Now whoever holds his Faith and its ground certain as Catholiks do is obliged eo ipso to hold for certain likewise that the Government recommended to him by the same Rule of Faith is to be submitted to and by consequence that the rejecting it is Schism whence follows that he must hold also for certain that the Propagatour of that Tenet is a Ringleader of Schismaticks publickly pernicious and one who by his poisonous Writings infects the souls of men with as hainous a vice as ever entituled any to damnation Neither can he hold him otherwise unlesse he will hold the ground of his own Faith uncertain and call into question the substance of all his hope that he may instead thereof entertain charitable thoughts of the impugner of it Now then let us consider what carriage is due towards a private person held for certain to be one who endeavours to draw souls to hell by his Writings and Authority from him who holds him so nor can hold him otherwise unlesse he will hold the grounds of his own Faith doubtful ought not this Catholike Writer if he has any zeal for his Faith or care of his Conscience which obliges him in charity to prevent so great mischief to use the means and waies which wit and art can invent to confute and discredit that mans harmful sophistry and disparage his authority as fat as truth can justifie his words ought hee not to trample down all tendernesse which his good nature would suggest neglect all considerations of respect all condescensions of civility to lay him open plainly and palpably to be what hee is that is ridiculous nonsensical weak blasphemous or whatever other Epithet the defence of so bad a cause makes so bad a writer deserve why should he make scruple going upon those grounds that his Faith is most certain and the former sequel no lesse to give him the same language if he be found to deserve it as St. Iude gave the Adversaries of Faith in his daies as the Fathers gave Porphyrius afterwards nay more if he sees he can make him justly ridiculous why should he not expresse himself ironically too in order to his nonsence as well as Elias might scoffe at the Priests of Baal In a word whatever can conduce to the justly disgracing him as the Defender of a certainly deemed-pernicious cause might lawfully nay in Charity ought have been used to undeceive his adherentes and preserve others from a certainly-beleeved danger and that the greatest of dangers eternal damnation Hence sollows that though S W. may perhaps be blamed for holding his Faith certain yet he is inculpable for proceeding consequently to the former Tenet that is in treating Dr. H. as a pernicious destroyer of soules since as hath been proved he cannot think him otherwise unlesse hee either doubt of his own Faith or renounce the light of his Reason which taught him to deduce thence by evident consequence that such he was and as such to be treated He who holds ill principles is blameable indeed in that regard but yet he is worthy of praise and commendations for proceding consequently upon them since to deduce consequences aright is very laudable As for the culpablenesse which may accrue by holding his Faith certain to clear himseif to rational persons for wordish and merely testimony-men are not capable of reason he feares not to professe that he makes account he hath as perfect evidence or more than he hath for any thing in nature that Truths of no lesse concernment then Eternity written in the hearts of so many as may in a just estimate make up the account of mankind in such a powerful manner and with such incompatable motives as the Apostles writ them being so conformable to nature not meerly speculative but each of them visibile and daily practical could never dye or decay out of the hearts of Christians in any age Nor hath he lesse evidence that consequently Scripture its interpretation being subject to misprision as far as they depend not upon this and are regulaâ—ed by it Vniversal Tradition is the onely certain and absolute rule of Faith whence follows that both they who build upon any other ground have onely opinion to found their faith for those points which they receive nor from tradition as also that that Church who relies upon universal Tradition for each point of Faith erres in none not can erre so long as the sticks close to so safe a Principle Now then finding no Church doe this but the Roman-Catholike for neither Greeks nor Protestants nor any else pretended to have received ever from their immediate Fore fathers those points of Faith in which they differ from her doubt not to account Her that onely Church which hath the true motive ground and rule of Faith since probability cannot be that Rule and consequently which hath true Faith and is a true Church Hence I am obliged to esteem all other Congregations which have broken from that onely-certain Rule or her Government recommended by the same Rule Schismatical and Heretical hence I conclude her Infallible because I make account I can demonstrate that the principle upon which onely she relies is impossible to fail Hence Iastly that I may come home to my intent I account my faith certain and the propagator of the contrary certainly pernicious to mens souls and therfore that it was both his desert and my obligation not to let slip any possible advantage which might with Truth damnify his cause and him as-the maintainer of it Now that we may turn over the leaf as certainty that faith is true is a sufficient ground to beget a just zeal in its propugners against its adversaries so a profest fallibitily and uncertainty is uterly insufficient for that end and unable to interest conscience in its defence For how should conscience be inreressed to defend positions held upon no better ground with any eagernesse unlesse reason be interessed first and how can reason be obliged to the serious and vigorous patronage of what it felf knows certainly that it knows not whether it be true or no See but how the working of Nature in all men gives testimony to this Truth If we hear one obstinately affirm and stand to a thing which we know certainly is otherwise though the matter it self be but of triviall concernment even Nature seems to stirre us up in behalf of Truth to a just resentment and hardly can we refrain from giving a sharp reprehension if the person be underus or some expression of-dislike if this peremptory wronger of truth exceed our jurisdiction So on the other side if we be uncertain whether the thing be so or no we find it quite abates that keennesse of opposition neither will any one unlesse very peevish and weak engage passion to quarrel about a conjecture or if it so happen sometimes as when probablists
inherit the Kingdome of Heaven that this was the very Dialect which the Iewes used toward the true Prophets of God that it is against the practice of S. Michael and against the spirit of weeknesse peace and long-suffering c. As if every heretick nay every malefactour in the world could not say the same to their just reprehenders and punishers or as if peace and long-suffering were to be used at all times even when we see we suffer divine Truth to be injurd and souls run headlong and blind to Hell after such blind guides Every one Mr. H. can preach patience peace and long suffering quote scripture intermix Greek words pedantically but none can speak sense but they who have truth on their side It must be judged then by the strength of the reasons you bring to clear your selves from schism whether you deserved those reprehensions from your Adversary or no and not from what your quodlibeticall vein can preach to us And till you bring evident ones I shall ever think that S. Hierome your own Authours here preacht as good doctrine as you in a place lately cited when he told us with many instances that non est crudelitas pro Deo pietas Sixthly what is it to me that S. Hierome noted it as an errour in Helvidius that he took railing for eloquence unlesse he can prove that I took it so too He knowes I pretend that justice truth and the necessity of my cause warranted nay obliged me to be so plain with him I pretend no Eloquence in an ordinary controversy neither did I think that confuting Dr. H. would be such a rare businesse that it would be worth the pains of a rhetoricall filing Lastly to shew more and more the weaknesse of this Dr. S. Hieromes words of Helvidius are these loquacitatem facundiam existimat he thinks babling to be eloquence But the good Dr. whom any semblance of a testimony contents construes loquacitas wordishness to be railing as if empty pulpit-beatres who talk two hours without a word of solidnesse were therefore all railers I doubt that ere we come to an end of this Treatise Loquacity that is voluntary talking wordishly without a syllable of sense will be so perfectly shown to be D. H's proper and peculiar fault that his own words will evince it without the help of Saint Hierome And thus hath Dr. H. sped in quoting this holy learned and truly zealous Father for the Patron of his affected courteâ—y and civility and a pattren for S. W. to follow in writing Controversies about Faith I once hoped Mr. H. and I should have parted very good Friends from this first Section notwithstanding the contumelies which contrary to his own grounds he hath heaped upon me in it But he hath so purposely counterfeited a mistake that he might by that means fix a â—ly câ—â—umny upon a worthy person that Charity and pitty must both be summon'd up to pardon him in it I had upon occasion of the Evidence of our Churches Infallibility in my Schim Disaerm'd pag. 20. told him he might to his amazement see it in that incomparable Treatise of Rushworth's Dialogues vindicated from all possible confute by that excellent Apology for it writ by the learned pen of Mr Thomas White What does Mr. H he tells us that S. W. sayes his arrowes are beyond all possible confute meaning that S. W. the Authour of Schism Disarm'd was the same with the Authour of the Apology for Tradition though I am certainly inform'd that he knows S. W. to be another person and reports again afterwards the same phrase to the same purpose Now by this one project he gaines two advantages First he honours himself with making the world believe he had so worthy an Adversary as the Authour of that Apology next when he has done this he dishonours his pretended Adversary as the vainest person in the world by intimating that himself in Schism Disaâ—m'd gave himself such an high character Whereas first I assure Dr. H. it is in vain to hope for such an honour as is an Answer from that miracle of with and learning it is worthy him to write grounds not to stand replying upon meer words to answer such weak skirmishers is a task more proper for one of the meanest and youngest of his scholars a very slender participation of his solid knowledge renders one able to encounter with the Apuleian bladders of aiery testimonies the victory over which can onely entitle one to Domitian's triumph and need more the Flyflap of a Dictionary or turning over leaves to combat them then the acuter and stronger sword of reason As for the second which is the sly calumny of that worthy person's feigned self-praise built onely on Mr. H's wilfull mistake I fear the intimater of it will lose much credit by so ignoble a detraction of such a person since his profoundest humility of equall depth with his knowledge secures him as much from desiring praise as his known worth from needing it every one freely yielding him those excellent commendations which his Detractours will needs have him for want of good neighbours give himself He tells us in the close that Divines are allowed to have skill in Symptomes What Symptomes are these and of what that the profusest laâ—ghter is the worst indication of the affections of the spleen quoting Irenaeus Galen I ask suppose Irenaeus had also said that a gravely-affected melancholy extraordinarily representing sanctity and piety and a professing an earnest desire to speak the full truth of God Answer p. 18. and yet in the mean time falsifying most palpably purposely and inexcusably is the worst indication of a pharisaicall hypocrisie were not this more competible to Mr. H. then the other is to me I hope then he is answered at least in as good a manner as such toyes deserve And ere I come to finish this Treatise I flatter my self that even Dr. H's own Friendâ— will acknowledge that such is his carriage and manner of writing unlesse a strong prepossession of partiality have blinded them and shut the eyes both of their mind and body since to make good this my charge against him little more then the common use of the latter is exacted of the Reader Sect. 4. Dr. H's methodicall Charity represented in his totally mistaking the common sense of a plain Epistle to the Reader with a second sly Calumny of the same strain and other weaknesses HIs railing against me in the first section which he calls his Answ p. 5. obligation of Charity brings him methodically for all is Charity and method in him to andeavour my conviction by examining the account I gave of the rudenesse of my blowes which though sufficiently cleared already yet I think my self obliged to my cause to take notice of this methodicall charity convincing reason that the Reader may see what weak Patrons Schism hath and that if Mr. H. be most grievously mistaken in a plain Epistle to the Reader there is
little hopes of his hitting right in higher matters afterwards and so S. W must utterly despair of ever being convinced by his methodicall Charity In my Epistle to the Reader to render him account why the civility of mine adversary should not hinder me from giving him his own if the care of an eternall good injured by him interessed my zeal to lay him open I proposed these two parallell questions How would you take it if one should spit in your face and justify the affront because his breath is sweet or what would you say to him that ruines your estate by Periury and defends himself that he held up his hands and eyes to heaven and swore demurely Whatever answer you give I am confident it will perfectly clear my behaviour towards the Dr. with whom I should have very little contention were the difference between us in any thing of lesse concernment than Eternity Where any man that is not more then half-asseep may see the meaning is plainly this that as the alledging that the breath is sweet justifies not the affront of spitting in ones face nor the pretence of swearing demurely the wrong of ruining ones estate by perjury so neither does Dr. H's civility in his former Treatise of Schism justify or excuse him for abusively treating matters of such concernments as Eternity nor consequently could his courteous stile oblige S. W. to treat him tenderly and favourably whom the weightiest and worthiest Cause had more prowerfully pre-obliged to lay him open plainly This being then most evidently the sense of that place let us see whether Dr. H's witts were well awake or his charity very methodicall when he answered them He neither goes about to grant or deny the invalidity of those pretended excuses which onely was to be done but instead thereof makes a piece of a sermon to you very Christianly telling you how you ought to behave your self in case you receive a private affront and then being got into the Common-place of suffering injuries patiently he runs division upon that ground with Greek and testimonies telling us that we must turn the other cheek to him that strikes us on the right that we must pray forthem that despitefully use us fraternally admonish c. and then layes it to S. W's conscience In return I appeal to his Conscience and reason both whether all this be any thing to this question whether the sweetnesse of the breath justify the affront of spitting in ones face or civil language sufficiently excuse pernicious doctrine His answer to the second is yet more pleasant For instead of telling us whether swearing demurely be any excuse for perjury so as to secure it from the punishment or treaty which otherwise might iustly be given it he tells us in good sober sadnesse that a man may use all lawfull means to defend his estate and discover perjury and blames me for accusing him of perjurious tampering and that I might as truly have said that he offered sacrifice to Idols consulted with Necromencers c. which superadds to the former errour that he mistakes the comparison or similitude for the thing it is brought to parallel or resemble and by his own litterall acception of it will needs accuse him self of perjury whether S. W. will or no. And are not these pretty mistakes Yet these are not all there is yet another behind greater than all the rest if that may be call'd a mistake which sprung from the Will and can hardly be father'd upon the weakest Vnderstanding I made it my onely plea to the Reader for some blowes of mine which he might apprehend too rude that our controversy was about things concerning mens eternall salvation and therefore the Reader knowing that I as all Catholicks do hold my Faith certain he had no reason to expect I should favour an Opponent in an act of such a nature as is publickly harmfull to men's soules hence I ended my first paragraph that I would have very litle contention with him were the difference between us in any thing of lesse concernment than Eternity and the whole second paragraph proceeds upon the same ground Now the Dr. in his Answer where he pretends my conviction takes no notice of my plea but leaves out the end of the first paragraph now cited to which the two parallel questions related and to which they ought to be applyed transferring the matter from the publick injury to men's soules to the case of a private injury of one single Christian to another whereas our question is not whether if one strike one on the right cheek according to Christ's law he must turn the other but whether if a man be certainly held to have ruin'd some soules eternally Christ bids us let him mine more or whether if the wolf worry some sheep the shepheard ought to give him more if not then whether courtesy ought to have place towards such a destroyer of soules in those very writings with which he endeavours it or rather whether it be not an obligation to shew it home what he is as far as his faultinesse makes good the truth of the words This answer of his therefore is either totally impertinent to my question or else the application of it must force this inference Christ bid us turn the left cheek to him that strikes us on the right therefore if a perverter of soules carry one to hell resist him not but let him carry more or if a robber climbe in to the fold and kill one sheep a good Christian ought in conscience rather than be discourteous yield him another Is not this strange Logick but that which followes will in part justify it Is it possible one should trip so often in running over a litle leaf of paper almost as intelligible as legible Yet we have not done so followes in the Dr's Aswer p. 7. If he mark his stile which was robust in the mention of perjury is grown much fainter when he comes to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretends to no more than perverse meaning and abusiue treating matters of Religion c. Where you see Mr. H. makes account that the abusive treating matters of Religion which is able to plunge millions of soules into eternal damnation is of lesse moment then perjury against one's temporall estate though one who had never read Dr. H. would surely think that the charge of abusive treating matters of religion being a businesse entrenching upon eternity is much more robust as he calls it than that of ruining a temporall estate by perjury since I think there is no good Christian but holds the eternall losse of one soul redeemed with Christ's most precious bloud is of more worth than all the temporall riches this world can boast of Is this man fit to have the charge of souls who professes to set more by his temporal than their eternal felicity yet this is the method of Charity he promised us in the beginning of this Section It seems that in this
England flies off presently and denies it saying he had no title to such an Authority there whereas when we maintain his possession we pretend not yet a Right which is our inference thence but that actually England was under such an Authority and acknowledg'd it whether it were rightly pretended or injustly remains to be inferred which the Dr. mistaking and not distinguishing between possession and right sayes we beg the question when we onely take what is evident that he was in possession and thence infer a right until the contrary be proved The second Ground is that This Authority actually over England and acknowledged there was acknowledged likewise to be that of the Head of the Vniversal Church and not of a Patriarchate onely This Ground is no less evident than the former by our adversaries confession since this is the Authority they impugn as unlawfull and from which they reformed which last word implies the actual acknowledgment that Authority had before Hence Mr. H's digression to show that Kings could erect and translate Patriarchates was perfectly frivolous as far as concerns this purpose for whether they can change Patriarchates or no is impertinent when we are questioning an Authority above Patriarchs and pretended to be constituted by Christ himself The third Ground is that This Papal Authority actually over the Ecclesiastical affaires in England was held then as of Christ's Institution and to have been derived to the Pope as he was Successour to S. Peter The truth of this appears by the known confession of the then Roman Church and the self-same Controversy perpetually continued till this day The fourth Ground is that This actual power the Pope then had in England had been of long continuance and settled in an ancient Possession This is evinced both from our Adversaries grant the evidence of the fact it self and even by the carriage of S. Aust in the Monk and the Abbot of Bangor exprest in that counterfeited testimony alledged by Dr. H. whence we see it was the doctrine S. Austin taught the Saxons The fifth Ground shall be that No Possession ought to be disturbed without sufficient motives and reasons and consequently it self is a title till those reasons invalidate it and show it null This is evident first by Nature's Principles which tell us there is no new cause requisite for things to remain as they are wheras on the other side nothing can be changed without some cause actually working and of force proportionable to the weight and settledness of the thing to be moved Secondly by Morals which teach us that mans understanding cannot be changed from any opinion or beleef without motives ought not without sufficient ones and consequently needs no new motive to continue it in any former assent besides the foregoing Causes which put it there Thirdly we find that Politicks give testimony to or rather stand upon this Ground assuring us when any Government is quietly settled it ought so to stand till sufficient motives and reasons in Policy that is a greater common good urge a change And if Possession were held no title then the Welshmen might still pretend to command England and each line or race which preceded and was outed quarrel with any subsequent one though never so long settled and so no certain right at all would be found of any possession in the World till we come to Adam's time Fourthly as for the particular Laws of our Countrey they clearly agree in the same favour for Possession I shall onely instance in one common case If I convey Blackâ—cre to I. S. for the life of I. N. and after wards I. S. dy in this case because I cannot enter against mine own Grant and all the world else have equal title whoever first enters into the land is adjudged the true and rightfull Owner of it during the life of I. N. and that by the sole title of Occupancy as they call it which they wholly ground upon this known reason that in equality of pretensions Possession still casts the ballance Nay such regards is given by our Law to Possession that were the right of a former Title never so evident yet a certain time of peaceable Possession undisturb'd by the contrary claim would absolutely bar it And here I should take my self obliged to ask my Adversary's pardon for using such words as a Dr. of Divinity is not presumed to be acquainted with did not his own Example at least excuse if not provoke my imitation Thus much of the force of Possession in general without descending to the nature of ours in particular that is of such a Possession as is justly presumable to have come from Christ Hence followes that since Possession of Authority must stand till sufficient Reasons be alledged that it was unjust those Motives and Reasons ought to be weighed whether they be sufficient or no ere the Authority can be rejected wherefore since the relinquishing any Authority actually in power before makes a material breach from that Government the deciding the question onely stands in examining those Reasons which oppose its lawfulness since the sufficiency of them cleares the breakers the insufficiency condemns them and in our case makes the material Schism formal Let the Reader then judge how little advised Dr. H. was in stating the question rightly and clearly of Schism pag 10. where he tells us that the motives are not worth he eding in this controversy but onely the truth of the matter of fact For the matter of fact to wit that there was then an actual Government and that they broke from it being evident to all the world and confest by themselves if there be no reasons to be examined he is convinced by his own words to be a Schismatick so flatly and palpably that it is left impossible for him even to pretend a defence The sixth Ground shall be that Such a Possession as that of the Pope's Authority in England was held ought not to be changed or rejected upon any lesser motives or reasons than rigorous and most manifest Evidence that it was usurp't The reasons for this are fetch 't by parity from that which went before onely the proportions added For in moving a Body in nature the force of the cause must be proportion'd to the gravity settledness and other extrinsecal impediments of the Body to be moved otherwise nothing is done In morals the motives of dissent ought to be more powerfull than those for the former continuance in assent otherwise a soul as a soul thas is as rational is not or ought not to be moved and so in the rest Now that nothing less than Evidence rigorously and perfectly such can justify a rejecting of that Authority is thus show'd That Authority was held as of Faith and to have been constituted by Christ's own mouth it had been acknowledgedly accounted for such by multitudes of pious learned men for many ages before in all Christian Countries of the Communion of the Roman Church
make use of the same method and every time I name them Schismaticks or their sect Schism feign that I say they call themselves so he might by this art make S. W. a monstrous lyer if the Reader were so monstrously silly as to believe him In the next place I must needs Answ p. 13. misunderstand the nature and ayme of the Churche's censures because I tell them They should rather threaten their Desertours with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication than cry so loud Not guilty when the lash hath been so long upon their own shoulders since he sayes a Schism arm'd with migâ—t is not either in prudence or charity to be contended with Whereas I pretend not that they ought to execute the punishments subsequent to Excommunication but to separate themselves had they any Grounds to make it good that they were God's Church from Schismaticks and avoid their Communion in Etern actions belonging to God's worship as God's Church ever accustomed not â—caring to denounce and preach to them in plain terms that they are Schismaticks and cut off from the Church Neither is this against Charity since Schism being such an hainous and damnable sin Charity avouches nay makes it an obligation to manifest Schismaticks to be such that they who have faln may apprehend the sâ—d state they are in and thence take occasion to arise and they who stand may beware of falling into that dangerous gulf which once open'd the earth to swallow Core Dathan and Abiron Nor is it against prudence since every one knows the permitting the weaker sort to communâ—cate with enemies in those very circumstances which may endanger them is the onely way to ruine any Government either Spiritual or Temporal At least why should they not dare had they Grounds to bear them out to do the same as the Catholicks did during the time of their greatest persecution under the Protestant Government that is let them be known to be Schismaticks and make the people abstain in divine matters from their contagious Communion But the confest uncertainty of their Faith makes them squeamish to assume to themselves any such Authority and therefore they are forced by their very Grounds when their Secular Power is gone to turn discipline into courtesy in matters of Government as they do in controversy turn zeal into civility and complement When he talks here piously of the Romanists sanguin try method sure he hath forgotten that ever Priests were hang'd drawn and quarter'd for their Faith at Tiburn and all over England in the time of their cruel Reign or if he remembers it he thinks to make us amends by preaching like a Saint of their meekness of edification and the more tragically-pittifull expressions of lamenting the ruptures of the Christian world which themselves have made with rivers of teares of bloud Answ p. 13. The next Section begins with the rehearsal of my reason why no colourable pretence can be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them which I exprest thus For that we prest them to believe false fundamentals Dr. H. and his Friends will not say since they acknowledge ours a true Church which is inconsistent with such a lapse They were therefore in their opinion things tolerable which were urged upon them and if not in the same rank yet more deserving the Church should command their observance than Copes or Surplices or the book of Common Prayer the allowance whereof they prest upon their Quondam brethen Which words though as moderately and modestly expressing the matter as could be invented yet the Reader shall see what a character the Doctors peevish zeal hath set upon them to wit that Answ p. 14. there are in them too many variations from the Rules of sober discourse so many indications of S. W. his temper that it will not be easy to enumerate them It shall be seen presently whether the Doctors Discourse or mine went a rambling when we writ The tenour of my Argument ad hominem was this The falsities which you pretend we prest upon you were either acknowledged by you to have been fundamental or not-fundamental that is tolerable that you acknowledg'd them fundamental you will not say since falsity in a fundamental ruines the essence of a Church which yet you grant ours to have therefore they were according to you not-fundamental or tolerable yet such kind of not-fundamental points as were more importing to be prest upon you by us than Copes or Surplices which you prest upon them therefore you can alledge no reason why you left us but they may alledge the same or a greater why they left you This evidently is the sense of my words to any man who can understand common reason and the answer to them ought to be a manifesting-some solid motive why they left us which the other Sects cannot with better right defend themselves with why they left the Protestants Let us hear now whether the Doctors discoursive power were sober when he reel'd into such an answer First he willfully puts a wrong meaning upon those words false Fundamentals as if by them I meant things which we onely not they hold for Fundamentals and then overthrows me most powerfully by showing as he easily might that he and his Friends say not but that we prest them to believe false Fundamentals in this sense that is such things as we held Fundamentals whereas 't is plain by my arguing ad hominem all the way as also by those words they will not say they acknowledge ours a true Church in their opinion c. that I meant such points as they accounted Fundamentals And when he hath thus voluntarily mistaken me he tailes against me that I affirm things without the least shadow and ground of truth and that I play foul play The Reader will quickly discern how meanly Dr. H. is skill'd in the game of reason though in that of citations where he can both shuffle and cut that is both alledge and explicate them with Id ests as he pleases he can pack the cards handsomly and show more crafty tricks than ever did Hocus Pocus And if any after all this can think I have wrong'd Mr. H. in affirming he is a weak reasoner himself shall ber ample testimony to this truth in the following Paragraph He slily touches at my true meaning of Fundamentals there and tells us that false Fundamentals is a contradiction in adjecto Grant it who ever affirmed that Fundamentals could be false my words were onely that Dr. H. and his Friends would not say that our Church prest them to believe false Fundamentals Is it any wrong to them or foule play in S. W. to affirm that Dr. H. and his Friends will not speak a contradiction Himself such is his humility sayes it is affirming here that when S. W. undertakes for him and his Friends that they will not say that the Romanists have prest them to
deny'd by both to be tolerable that is such as could consist with Faith and a Church but with this disadvantage on the Protestants side that the points they deny'd being of more importance more deserved our Church should command their observance Now every one sees that the proper Answer to his Discourse is to specialize some plea for themselves which will not as well excuse their Desertours The Doctor alledges none nor goes about to alledge any but as if he were dividing his Text playes upon my words in particular neglecting the import of them altogether He sayes indeed it is against their conscience to admit those other super additionary points the same say the Puritans of Copes Surplices and Organs The Doctor will object that they are indifferent and stight matters and therefore it is a greater disobedience not to admit them they will answer that Surplices are ragges of Rome that Organs are Babylonish Bagpipes and all the rest scandalous and superstitious inventions Still they are equall in their pleas Nay if a Socinian deny Christ to be God and pretend as doubtless he will with as much seriouness as Mr. H. that he cannot but sin against Conscience if he think otherwise and therefore 't is tyranny to press it upon him the Church may not oblige him to believe that Christ is God Dr. H. hath pleaded his cause joyntly with his own that is hath said no more in his own excuse than the Socinian may for his Again if Dr. H or his Church press upon the Socinian the belief of Christ's Divinity upon this ground that it is a point of most weighty importance he presently answers the Doctor with his own words that the weightier the importance of the things commanded are the more intolerable is the pressure of imposing them And so in stead of impugning Dr. H. hath made good S. W's words that they can alledge no colourable pretence which may not be alledged by the other Sects What if we should adde that the Church they left had been in long possession of the belief of Infallibility and so proceeded upon these Grounds that her Faith was certain when she prest those points upon them but they confess their unceâ—tâ—in and could proceed upon no better then probable Grounds when they prest any thing upon their Desertours is there not a palbable difference put between the pretended Authorities of imposing points to be held in us and them and a greater danger of disaccepting ours in them than theirs in the Puritans If they erred onely a confest probability stood against them which gave them just licence to dissent if they had a probable reason that the admission of those points was bad since nothing but absolute Evidence pretended could even pretend to oblige their Vnderstandings to assent to them if you erred a pre acknowledg'd Infallibility strengthen'd by a long Possession asserted by the attestation of Tradition and many other motives stood against you so that nothing but most palpable undeniable and rigorous Evidence could possibly disoblige your first Reformers from their ancient belief or oblige them to this new one If the Puritans erred since they were onely ornaments and Rituals they refused to admit the utmost harm which could accrue by their non-admission of them was terminated in the want of exren decency onely and held by the very Authority which imposed them to be but indifferent and far from being essentially-destructive to a Church But if you or your first Reformes chanc't to erre which the bare probability of your Faith confess 't by your selves in this case makes more than likely then your contrary position ruin'd all Faith and Government since the Church you disobey'd held no other Ground of Faith or Church Government save onely those you reâ—ected and disacknowledg'd to wit her own Infallibility and the Popes Authority Again if you happen'd to be in the wrong and that indeed there was no other either Church Government or Ground of Faith than these then how wickeldy desperate to your own soules and universally destructive to all man-kind and their means of attaining eternal bliss must your disclaiming and publikely renouncing both these be none of which can be objected to the Puritanes by you So evidently true were my words that no colourable pretence can possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm nay much firmer for other Sects why they left them Yet I doubt not but the Doctor will after all this as he does here Answ p. 16. applaud his own victory with a triumphant Epiphonema and say that S. W. his probations are beyond all measure improbable when himself had not said a word to the intent of the discourse but onely play'd mistakingly and non-sensically upon some particular words Yet when he hath done like a tender hearted man he pittyes himself again that he should so unnecessarily insist upon it Truly so do I pitty him or any man else who takes much pains to no purpose though I pitty more the Reader who can imagine any credence is to be given to so weak a Writer He ends his Answer to my Introduction with telling the Reader that I have with no shew of Iustice suggested his tediousness in things acknowledged Whereas almost all his first Chapter and third together with those where he proves the Pope not Head of the Church from the title of converting England or Concession of our Kings as also almost all his narrative Confession of his Schism with many other scatter'd discourses are things acknowledg'd by both parties and were very tedious and dull to me What he addes that he will not disturb me when I speak truth unless he shall discern some part of his arguing concern'd is a very pretty jest intimating that he stands in preparation of mind to oppose even Truth it self if it stand in his way or his arguing be concern'd in it and not vindicated in his former Reply A sincere person Hovver let him onely grant that what he vindicates not but leaves untouch't is Truth and we shall without difficulty strike up a bargain Sect. 8. How Dr. H. prevaricates from the Question by stating it wrong His powerfull way of arguing by Ifs and how he defends himself for mincing the Fathers words THe Fathers alledged by Mr. H. attested that no just cause could be given of Schism whence he inferres of Schism p. 10. that the causes and motives of Schism are not worth producing or heeding in this controversy The Catholick Gentleman and S. W. both exprest their dislike of this inference the Doctor pretends to vindicate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it as he pedantically calls it and referres me to his Reply for his reasons to which I shall both give a solution and at once lay open the nature of Sâ—hism and the manner in which they ought to controvert it I mean as far as it can have any show of bearing controversy Schism then which we joyntly
one of Schism p. 55. l. 22. 23. and 26. and so infer the no-farther extent of the former out of the no-farther extent of the latter after he had acknowledg'd the former of much farther extent than the latter was Is not this a most shameful and unconscionable sleight to mingle and jumble two Authorities together for his own ends in that very Chapter where he pretended to treat of them distinctly His next manifold blundering is to bring testimonies which he tells the Reader here Rep. p. 32. 33. manifestly distinguish't the Province of the Bishop of Rome from the Province of Italy which he assures us could not have had truth in them if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy and yet not one word is found in any of the testimonies making mention of the Patriarchy nor yet of the Province of the Bishop of Rome at all nay the three first onely mention the City of Rome The first is this as cited by himself Rep p. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the house be delivered to those to whom the Bishop through Italy and the City of Rome should decree it The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The holy Synod assembled from Rome and Spain France and Italy The third foure hundred Bishops both from great Rome and from all Italy and Calabria Now suppose insisting on the Grounds of mine own cause I should onely reply that they mention'd Rome in particular for eminency of Authority not contradistinction of it were it not a thousand times more likely on my side there being no City particulariz'd but this in the testimonies for all the rest are Regions or Provinces Again were the testimonies most express for the Roman Province yet if Mr. H. mean't honestly that is to speak of the Metropolitical Iurisdiction onely as he pretended and as the place properly required then what had he concluded since the proving the Metropolical Iurisdiction less than all Italy proves not that the Patriarchal reach't not much farther But to come home to the testimonies that the Reader may see what a strong disputant Dr. H. is in his own way I would gladly ask who told him that the City of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The City Great Rome as it is in the testimonies must needs signify so manifestly the whole Province of Rome So that if he infer a Contradistinction and so a limitation of Iurisdiction from these words he must conclude that neither the Metropolitical nor Patriarchal Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome reach't beyond it's own walls which being acknowledg'dly impossible it is impossible these testimonies should mean a distinction of the Bishop of Rome's Authority from Italy but an Eminency of his Dignity which occasion'd his particular mentioning Thus the very testimonies which he produced against us will needs speak for us notwithstanding his prompting them to the contrary The fourth Testimony ex provinciâ Italiae Civitate Mediolanensi ex Vrbe Roma quod Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provinciâ Romanâ Civitate Portuensi c. is indeed a fit testimony for Dr. H. to blunder in being not intelligible in the Latin and as he cannot but know very corrupt especially being held for such in naming the Bishops which met there And were it beyond exception yet is it very explicable to mean the Pop'es Metropolitical Iurisdiction never so much as naming his Patriarchal His third blundering is his self-contradiction a necessary evil accompanying always the defence of a bad cause All his endeavours hitherto had been bent to limit the Pope's Patriarchy to a particular Province of Italy building still all the way upon the necessity that the Ecclesiastical Order should follow the Political yet treating of Primates and Patriarchs of Schism p. 54. he gives such doctrine as upon the same grounds must needs conclude that the said Patriarchy did extend to all Italy He tells us there that Constantine the great instituted four Praefecti Praetorio two in the East as many in the West of the Western one at Rome another at Triers Now then let the Ecclesiastical Order as Mr. H. will have it follow the Political and we must have some Ecclesiastical Governour at Rome of equally-extended and correspondent Authority to the Praefectus Praetorio at Rome that is to all Italy at least This could not be as he confesses Metropolitical Authority in the Bishop of Rome therefore a Patriarchal one The Pope's Patriarchy then even according to his own Grounds included all Italy nay all the West except that part which the pretended Patriarch of France must be imagin'd upon the same Grounds to have had And since the Praefect at Triers was called of Schism p. 54. Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum as Dr. H. confesses consequently to his Grounds it must follow that the Ecclesiastical power corresponding to this Political must have onely France under him the other at Rome all the West besides So that at unawares though he will not grant his Patriarchy to extend to the whole West which is his due yet Mr. H's own grounds grant the Pope all but France which is ten times more than the Suburbicarian Province his former too niggardly allowance If he reply that the Patriarchal power corresponds to the Vicarij onely and not to that of the Praefecti Praetorio then besides that all his Grounds of the necessary proportion of the Ecclesiastical to the Secular power totter which hold not in the main subordinate Magistrate to wit the Praefectus Praetorio to whom he will have no Ecclesiastical dignity correspond besides this I say his foresaid testimony of Origen cited for him Reply 14. is absolutely against him So sad a piece of Scholarship it is to cite Testimonies without first laying Grounds which onely can make testimonies hang together Out of which it is evident that all the strength of his pretended limitation of the Pope's Patriarchy is finally reduced to that Authority from Ruffinus Now then as for Ruffinus his testimony saying that the Bishop of Rome was by the Nicene Canon authoriz'd Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerere this being the main business which occasion'd this debate and gave birth to this imagin'd limitation of the Pope's Patriarchate we shall take a litle pains to fetch it from it's first Grounds by showing the sense of that Canon by which will be seen how great a knave this Paraphrast was whom Dr. H. pretends to vindicate The words of the Council upon which this Interpreter works are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which I cannot imagin a sense more proper than this that the Bishops of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria because the Pope had used to hold them for so The reason of my conjecture is because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quandoquidem manifests that the words following are the reason of the Decree precedent This being so who sees not how
interven'd and then let us see how Dr. H. puts his doctrine in practice To receive saith he the lot of his ministery and Apostleship from which Iudas by transgression fell to go or that he may go to his proper place Thus he Where to omit that he takes now the liberty of a formally exprest parenthesis though while he was begging it of us he seem'd willing to be contented with a comma onely to omit this I say I would ask this candid man who Answ p. 18. so like a Saint professes his entire desire to speak the full truth of God why he changes the words this ministery c. into his ministery and Apostleship and if he be loath to answer I shall do it for him and tell the Reader he had good reasons to falsiâ—y it First because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This denotes some present thing and no lesser Province being according to his Grounds at that time determin'd or present but the office of an Apostle onely which he is resolved it shal not signify it was therefore good reason he should change This into His. Next the word This relates to all the words within the parenthesis depends upon them for it's signification as is evident and so destroys all his pretence to have a parenthesis there such a kind of reference being against it's nature Thirdly the following words do not hang handsomly together with the precedent unless This be chang'd into His therefore 't was fitting to do it Add that to gain some sorry advantage he changes the words of their own translation that he might go into that he may go because the thing according to Dr. H's interpretation being to be perform'd for the future may go can signify futurely which might go does not as his Antagonist Will. Lilly hath told him in his Potential mood Such another trifling advantage he gaines by saying that a comma after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is already in the printed Copies had he said in some printed Copies he had been more candid for the words the printed Copies import it is so in all that are printed which is false it being neither so to omit others in the printed Copies of Stephanus nor Arias Montanus held by themselves to be the best His fourth argument is that Hell being the common place of all wicked men it cannot fitly be exprest with such a double emphasis as is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I answer first that there is no double emphasis there the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being nothing but a plain propositive article Next to come to the point as Son of Perdition is a name for all wicked men yet apply'd particularly to Iudas by our Saviour he being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in a peculiar and transcendent degree such so though Hell be the common place of all wicked men yet it is tmore properly and peculiarly his his particular wickedness giving him a special title to it And lastly who doubts but that Iudas in Hell hath a proper place of his own which no other damned soul hath So that as Dr. H. says here that those words may very fitly be affirm'd of Mathias his province so his as it is not any mans else so I say with the same reason that those words may very fitly be affirm'd of Iudas his place in Hell it being so his as it is not any mans else Is not this an undaunted Adversary who dares aduenture to come into the lists of disputation armed onely with such Bull-rushes as these His last argument which you must imagin his strongest for art and prudence both require this order is this Repl. 53 that It is not neer so proper to say he sin'd to go to Hell as that the other was chosen and surrogated into Iudas his place to go to preach to such a quarter of the world True indeed for if it be taken thus maimed and corruptedly as he hath rendered it it is so far from proper that it is absurd and non-sense But I would know of Mr. H. where he ever found it render'd he sinned to go to Hell except onely in this present partial translation of his own Observe good Reader the sincerity of this man the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can signify if taken in due circumstances to sin but as taken here joyned in construction with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which it is impossible to signify so as every man sees for who ever heard such a phrase as to sin from a thing Now what does Mr. H he leaves out the words from which which were necessarily conjoyn'd with the rest in construction and then to make the phrase sound absurdly and disgracefully first gives the word such and English as was impossible it should bear in that place For what sense make these words from which Iudas sinned next begins the phrase at sinned which word he joyns with going to Hell though in the parag before he would have had them separated and says it is not proper to say he sinned to goe to Hell whereas 't was onely his own sly craft which had made it improper So sincere was his profession of his earnest desire to speak the full truth of God that he here purposely annihilates God's word which is his Truth and will not let it speak out fully but first gagges it with a parenthesis next cuts out it 's tongrue by maiming the Context whereas he might have seen it render'd in their own translation from which Iudas by transgression fell nay he render'd it so himself before which will not let ignorance excuse him and he knew well enough that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies plainly departed aside prevaricated went aside c. and then the sense is no harsher than this that he went astray from one state to go to another from the Apostolical office to go to Hell or from being an Apostle as our Saviour reprehended him to become a Devil After this rare defence of his blasphemous crooked distorted interpretation of those words Repl p. 54. he ends his Section praising the said interpretation for innocent obvious and far from wrested and hopes that all this amassed together will vindicate it That is he dares not even hope that he hath produced any one thing to stand to and build upon yet as the wordish side of the Schools hold that Quantity or Divisibility may be made up of Indivisibles so he thinks an accumulation of weaknesses will make his defence strong and a great deal of non-sense if it be amassed together will compound good sense Thus far his Reply proceeds to make good his interpretation by reason Next in his Answer he endeavours to authorize it by Testimonies which he braggs of there p 39. to be just the same with the Doctor 's meaning himself Not to wrong Dr. H. otherwise than by showing plainly how he wrongs himself his own credit and his Readers eye-sight we
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
over them Secondly the whole tenour of the discourse there manifests that he meant exclusiveness of Iurisdiction Exclusiveness of Jurisdiction is mentioned by him as the Ground of all his ensuing dispute as was shown in the foregoing parag to which we will add his other parallel expressions The Iurisdiction of that Metropolis belonged to Iames the Iust and not to Peter of Sschism p. 73. S. Paul's independence on S. Peter pag. 74. to wit in Iurisdiction or power No power can descend from S. Peter to any other for another great part of the Christian world p. 80. Had he meaning S. Peter any Iurisdiction over the Churches of Asia p. 83. No other Apostle could countermand S. Paul's instructions no appeal left c. p. 83. S. Peter's baptizing in Brittany must in all reason be extended no farther than this his line Id est to the Iews which might at that time be disperst there c. p. 84. All which render it most manifest that he meant Exclusiueness of Iurisdiction and power to preach to another line or Province if there were any tenour or connexion at all in his discourse and that it rambled not forwards blindly himself knew not how nor whither Thirdly and lastly not onely the whole Controversy of Schism is about the limitation or illimitation exclusiveness or not exclusiveness of the Pope's Iurisdiction and the Doctor 's tenet that this Iurisdiction is limited to such an extent excluded from the rest of the Christian world so as he hath no power or command at all over them but also his present Chapter 4. of Schism pretends to evidence this limitation of his from the limitation of S. Peter's as is most visible parag 6. of the said Chapter and indeed in each parag there to the twentieth So that the import of his argument stands thus S. Peter had no Vniversal Iurisdiction thefore his Successour the Pope can have none This being so who sees not that since the thing to be infer'd is the Pope's limitation of Iurisdiction as held by the Protestants that is such a limitation as debats and excludes him from any lawfull power or right at all to intermeddle with more than is his imagin'd Province and that this inference is built upon his succeeding a limited Predecessour S. Peter who sees not I say that the Antecedent must mean S. Peter's Iurisdiction was so limited to his supposed Province that he had no Iurisdiction or power at all to meddle with a Gentile but that it was against right and vnlawful for him to do so This therefore is an evidence beyond all shuffling to avoid it that Dr. H. in his fourth Chap. of Schism intended to prove the Iurisdictions of the Apostles were exclusively-limited to their own Provinces so that they lost all power to preach to another Province from which Dr. H. prevaricating here and not defending his testimonies produc't there to prove it it follows that he acknowledges S. W. charge to be true Schism Disarm'd p. 52. that among those many testimonies he produces to prove it there is not found any one sentence line syllable or letter excluding S. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles save onely what the Doctor puts in of his own head as he shews there in each particular allegation This being then Dr. H's meaning till S. W. charge of the perfect dumbness of his testimonies put second thougâ—hs into his Head let us see how he waves his own express words and manifest intentions there which being so perfectly visible as hath been shown we may be sure the prevaricating from them can cost him no less than plain self contradictions His first self-contradiction is found Answ p. 38. parag 2. where he makes the point he was to prove to be no more but this that the Apostles went not all to one but disposed themselves over all the world to several Provinces By which meaning as he must for otherwise it cannot be said to be evident by it's own light that one went to one place ordinary Province or region of the world to preach another to another without any relation at all to exclusiveness of Iurisdiction we have quite lost the question which was not Whether the Apostles one went one way another another way to preach but whether S. Peter and consequently the Pope his Successour had an Vniversal or limited Iurisdiction extending his power to all or excluding it from all but his pittifull Province as was manifested before by Mr. H's express words to have been his meaning His second self-contradiction is found in the same place where he sayes that what was signify'd by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exclusive Provinces belonging to each Apostle which was shown plainly before to be his express meaning is evident by it's own light and needs no evidencing And yet in his book of Schism c. 4. parag 4. he set himself very formally to offer his Evidences for that point and prosecuted his intent from parag 5. to the 20. to evidence it by such clouds of testimonies which he calls Evidences and some of them irrefragable and unquestionable ones as may very neer if not perfectly equal all the rest that are found in his whole book So that either he must coÌ„fess he spent the most substantial part of his book to evidence that which needed no Evidencing but was Evident by it's own light or else which is the truth of the business that he hath chang'd the whole question here from what it was there For there it was of Exclusiue Iurisdiction and therefore very obscure needing the pretence of many testimonies though dumbe and his own Id ests and voluntarily addâ—d words to make it seem evident here it is onely of one Apostle going one way another going another to preach which indeed needs no evidencing nor was ever in question between us His third self-contradiction is that notwithstanding his own express words the scope of his whole Chapter the tenour of his whole discourse and the state of the whole question manifesting he both did and could not but mean it of exclusive Iurisdiction as hath been most expressely and amply shown yet he calls my acception of his words in that sense my mistake Answ p. 39. l. 34. and again p. 41. l. 7. 8. c. he complains that S. W. would conclude from his words that he would have all the Apostles to have several Provinces limiting their Iurisdictions exclusive of one another's right which he calls there also a mistake and detortion Where the Reader may see how perfectly he denies his own words of exclusive Iurisdiction and how openly he prevaricates from all the foure formerly-mention'd pretences shown already to have been his own which were the strongest ries imaginable to bind any man to hold to what he hath said who had not forsworn all respect to truth or honesty His fourth self-contradiction is that though in the place now alledged he complains of me that I would conclude from his words that the
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
tells me Answ p. 48. l. 35. that that wherein Rome was concern'd is reviewed Repl c. 9. where nothing is found to that purpose nor any where else save onely in the Sect. 7. par 6. Where when I came to look in expectation of some return to my exceptions I found that he onely enumerated briefly the same testimonies of his former book his irrefâ—agable one as he calls it from the Popes â—eales his falsification as shall be seen ere long concerning Linus Clemens which he tells us again are evidences that they clear that part which concerned Rome and then having made this learned mock-Reply that is said over again out of his former book what had been excepted against by mee related us back in the margent to that very place in it which I had impugned as thus manifoldly weak he ends with these words that Sure there can be no need of farther proofs or testimonies from Antiquity in this matter That bold fac'd word Sure is a Sure card and Mr. H's Ace of th' trumps there is no resisting it when the game seems quite gone it retrives the losse carries all before it My answer was that all which those testimonies intimated might have been performed by promiscuous preaching of each both to th' Iews Gentiles the summe of his Reply is onely this that Sure it cannot I objected that those testimonies were weak concluded nothing at all of such a distinction he answers that they are clear are evidences that Sure there can need no farther proof So that we have now got a fourth express proofe added to his Wee know I say I suppose to wit his owne Sure the Sure naile fasten'd by the master of the Protestant Assembly Dr. H. As for the testimony of S. Prosper in which he was accused to render Ecclesiam Gentium the Church of the Nations lest S. Peter S. Paul should both have meddled with Gentiles in Rome which words should they be render'd the Church of the Gentiles must necessarily follow he referts me to his Repl. p. 65. parag 10. for satisfaction where he acquaints me with his desire that the truth of his interpretation may be consider'd by the words cited from him The words are these in ipsâ Hierusalem lacobus c. Iames at Hierusalem Iohn at Ephesus Andrew the rest through out all Asia Gentium Ecclesiam sacrârunt consecrated the Church of the Nations sayes Dr. H. Gentiles says S. W. Vpon this testimony Dr. H. argues thus What Nations were these Sure of Iews aswell as Gentiles then follow the Grounds of this his assurance else Hierusalem could be no part of them no nor Iohn's converts at Ephesus for they were Iews and then he concludes his mild-reasoning discourse with as mild a reprehension that therefore the Catholike Gentleman did not doe well Now as for his Sure 't is indeed a pregnant expression but I deny the sufficiency of the Authoritie which so Magisterially pronounces it And for what concerns the Grounds of his assurance they are both of them found onely in his own sayings no where in any testimony my tenet he knows is that all those Apostles preach't promiscuously to Gentiles also where soever they came But lest he should think me hard hearted for not beleeving his Sure I shall at least show my self far from cruelty in making him this friendly proffer that if he can show mee any one word in any testimony yet produc't which expresses that S. Iames preach't to Iews onely in Hierusalem or S. Iohn to Iews onely in Ephesus upon which alone he builds here that Gentium cannot signifie Gentiles I will pardon him the answering this whole book which to doe on any fashion will I know be very laborious shamefull to him but to doe it satisfactorily impossible unles he could put out his Reader 's Eyes so hinder them from reading his corrupted falsified citations aright Is there anything easier then to show us an exclusive particle or expression if any such thing were to be found there But if there be none what an emptines vanity open cozenage of his Reader is it to cry Sure Surely Certainly Vnquestionably and the like when there is no other warrant to ground this assurance save his owne weake fancy inconsequent deductions hâ—s interlac'd parenthesisses his facing the testimonies with antecedent peecing them with subsequent words whiles in the meane time the testimony it self must stand by look on onely like a conditio sine quâ non as if it were an honourable spectator to grace his personating and not have any efficacious influence or act any part in the Argument which bears it's title But to come to the testimony it self first I would know of Mr. H. how oft he hath read Gentes taken alone without any additionall determining expression to signifie both Iews Gentiles unles it be in this sence as it probably might be in S Prosper's time that Gentium Ecclesia signified the Christian Church in which the Iews were included yet being no considerable part of it they needed not be exprest Next as for the word Nations which he recurs to I would ask whether though those in Iudea were styled the Nation of the Iews yet whether those in dispersion at Rome were called a Nation or no or rather a Sect Thirdly let Gentium signifie of the Nations as he would have it let us see how Dr. H. hath advantaged his cause For if it be so then the words Gentium Ecclesiam sacrarunt they consecrated the Church of the Nations are to be applyed to all the Apostles there mention'd Now then since Nations as Dr. H. tells us here is Sure of Iews aswel as Gentiles the testimony must run thus Iames at Hierusalem consecrated the Church of Iews aswell as Gentiles Iohn at Ephesus consecrated the Church of Iews aswell as Gentiles Andrew the rest throughout all Asia consecrated the Church of the Iews aswell as Gentiles and the like of Peter Paul at Rome Thus Dr. H. thinking to stop one hole hath made other three quite destroyes the substance of his exclusive tenet while he went about to mend a circumstance Fourthly if he will not allow this signification of the word given allowed by himself as'applyed to S Peter S. Paul when it was his interest to be appliable to all the rest of those Apostles likewise let us see what an unreasonable beleef he exacts of his Readers to imagine that the word Gentium should dance from one signification to another as his fancy shall please to strike up a diverse tune Hence apply'd to S. Iames S Iohn it must be imagin'd to signify Iews onely because 't is against the interest of his tenet that they should open their mouths to convert a Gentile at Hierusalem and Ephesus But then S. Andrew the rest are not Apostles of the Circumcision so according to him must not preach to a Iew in Asia presently
certainly tru I will undertake to reconcile them better then Dr. H. hath done in making one over Iews the other over Genâ—iles onely Although if one side or both be false I must confesse it beyond my skill to reconcile truths with falshoods or falshoods with one another Moreover Schism Disarm p. 77. directed him expresly to some other wayes how the fathers went about to reconcile that repugnance which he instead of confuting or so much as acknowledging I did objects here that I should direct him to some other solid way and truly I shall ever account the ancient fathers more solidly able to reconcile repugnances in Story near their dayes were they reconcileable then such a weak iudgment as Mr. H's so long after Sect. 22. Dr. H. affected ignorance of the Popes Authority which hee impugns framing his Objections against an immediate Governour not a mediate or Svperiour His pretended infallibility in proving S. Iohn higher in dignity of place than S. Peter His speciall gift also in explicating Parables and placing the saâ—nts in Abraham's bosome Dr. H. of Schism c. 4. par 13. affirmed that for another great part of the Christian world It is manifest that S. Peter had never to do either mediately or immediately in the planting or governing of it and instanced in Asia pretended to be onely under S. Iohn I answer'd Schism Disarm p. 78. that he brought nothing to prove his own It is manifest He replies here Answ p. 54. that this is manifestly evinced by the testimonies annexed p. 14. and upon this calls me an Artificer that he is now grown into some acquaintance with me and yet virtue is grown necessity with him he must not take it amisse nor shall he truly if I can give him any iust satisfaction I desire to gain keep every man's good will though I will not court it by the least compliance nor kindnes to the detriment of Truth Bear in memory Reader this positiuely absolute tâ—â—sts of his that S. Peter had nothing to do either mediately or immediately c. And if thou findest any word in any testimony produced by him expressing this ample position or that S. Peter had nothing to do in governing them mediately which is the question save onely that he govern'd them not immediately which is nothing to our question then I give thee leave to account me an Artificer or what thou wilt but if thou findest not a word to that purpose do thy self the right as to think Dr. H. is a most notorious deluder beware of him as such I shall put down all his testimonies as largely as himself did in the 14. par to which he refers me The first is from Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where appointing Bishops The second and third are from Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where obtaining some one part or lott 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he administred the Churches there Now in these three testimonies we finde onely that S. Iohn appointed Bishops in Asia which we grant that each Apostle might do where ever he came over all the world that he obtained one certain lott or Bishoprick to wit that of Ephesus which signifies no more but that he was a particular Governour there that he administred the Churches there all which is competent to every Metropolitan in God's Church whom yet wee see daily with our eyes to be under an higher Ecclesiasticall Governour and coÌ„sequently his Churches under him are under the same Governour mediately although immediately under the inferior onely His fourth testimony is a flat wilfull falsification 'T is taken from S. Prosper put down by him thus Ioannes apud Ephesum Ecclesiam sacrauit Iohn at Ephesus consecrated a Church Whereas the place it self is Gentium Ecclesiam sacrauit consecrated the Church of the Gentiles Now because all over this par 't is Dr. H's pretence that S. Iohn was at Ephesus over Iews onely and the word Gentium would by no means be won to signify that nor yet would the word Nations as he render'd it before any way serve to signify onely Iews he prudently maim'd the testimony left out the malignant word Gentium because it could by no art be brought to favour but vtterly defy'd contradicted his party A politick Divine yet as long as this rare crafts man in the art of falsifying can but call S. W. an Artificer all is well the good women will believe him The testimonies for Timothy under S. Paul being over the Gentiles in Asia are of the same strain or worse the first of which expresses no more but that he undertook the care of the Metropolis of Ephesus that is was particular Metropolitan of that place The second affirms at large that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. An whole entire Nation that of Asia was entrusted to him Now S. W. imagining that an whole entire Nation could not signify Gentiles onely or a part of that Nation call'd it an unpardonable blindnes to alledge this testimony for a tenet quite contrary to what it exprest But I am suddenly struck blind my self and caught that disease onely by seeing Dr. H's blindnes And first I am blind for not seeing that the testimony related to Timothy not to S. Paul whereas himself promising us in the end of his 13. par to insist on S. Iohn S. Paul and after he had treated of S. Iohn in the 14th using these very words in the 15. throughout all the Lydian Asia the faith was planted by S. Paul among the Gentile part and by him Timothy constituted Bishop there and then immediately introducing his testimony with so saith Chrysostome he must be blind who could think this testimony was not mean't of S. Paul Add that the testimony it self speaks not of constituting a Bishop so gave me no occasion to imagin it related to Timothy's being thus constituted and besides the words throughout all Asia which he joyns there with S. Paul were fittest to be related to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the testimony Nor can it be pretended to have been an affected oversight since I gain not the least advantage by it it being equally strong for Dr. H's weak argument whether Timothy or S. Paul were onely over Gentiles there for which it was produced My second blindnes is that I could not see the obvious Answer which is that S. Chrysostome puts it onely in opposition to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 precedent the testimony being as he afterwards puts it that Timothy was entrusted with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather an entire Nation Now in the book of Schism he omitted himself the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the former part of the testimony then tells me 't is obvious it was put in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so I am become blind for not seeing that which was not at all there but left out by himself Gramercy good
c. for no greater Primacy can be imagin'd nor in higher matters if we abstract as he does from Iurisdiction Again his doctrine is likewise that S. Iohn at table had the dignity of place before all others even before S. Peter himself so that to make his doctrine consonant we must conceive that S. John had a Primacy of order before S. Peter and the rest in sitting S. Peter had a Primacy of order before the rest S. Iohn too in standing or walking A rare doctor 'T is a wonder that he gave not Iudas also a kinde of Primacy before all the Apostles in a third respect to wit in dipping with out Saviour at the same time in the dish since the leaning on Christ's breast was done no after then the dipping in the dish was for any thing we read both were equally accidentall for any thing we know for we finde it no where exprest that our Saviour plac't him or he himself there by design And in this the dipping argues more dignity then the sitting in that the sitting was onely next our Saviour but the dipping was at the same time which would haue grounded an infal ible and irrefragable inference for Dr. H. that Iudas had an absolute Primacy and have served him rarely to over throw S. Peter's had it not hapt that Iudas was in other respects malignant and so it was not the Drs interest to own the argument But Dr. H. proceeds And accordingly it unavoydably follous that Lazarus being represented parabolically in Abrahams bosome is there described to be in the next place to the father of the faithfull and it being certain that some one or more saints are next Abraham I presume we may believe Christ that Lazarus is capable of that place all S. W. scruples have not the least validity in them Observe the solid Logick of this man My scruples or objections were Schism Disarm p. 79. that if being in Abrahams bosome were being in dignity of place next to the father of the faith full it follow'd that Lazarus was a bove all the Patriarchs and Prophets except Abraham As also that none was in Abrahams bosome except Lazarus onely since there could be no more Nexts but one Instead of answering he repeats what he had said before onely he add's fine words to amuze his Readers whom he supposes must be fools as Accordingly unavoydably Parabolitically it being certain I presume we may believe Christ c. gentilely calls my objections scruples then assures the Reader they have not the least validity in them But if we ask where did Christ ever say that Lazarus was above all the Patriarchs Prophets except Abraham truth would answer us that Christ never said any such thing but one Dr. H. who like a more modest kinde of David George calls his own words Christ's his own sayings God's word when he lists And as for degrees of glory which he talks of here I wonder what would become of them if his doctrine should take place for since he knows well the Ancient fathers constantly affirm that all the former faithfull were in the bosome of Abraham and this according to him as being next Abraham signifies dignity of place before all others it follows that all the multitude of faith full Souls had each of them the dignity of place before all others that is each of them was next Abraham highest hemming him in as you must conjecture on every side without any more priority of order between them than the Philosophers make between the right hand the left in a round pillar And thus much at present which is as much or more than such trifling non-sence deserves for Infallible irrefragable according unavoydable Parabolicall Christ-pretending all-scruples invalidating Dr. H. Sect. 23. Dr. H's Falsification of Falsifications and with what multitudes of weaknesses hee attempts to take vp the busines IN his book of Schism c. 4. par 16. Dr. H. demanded very confidently of the Romanists what could be said in any degree probably for S. Peter's universall Pastorship over this Asia whose seven Metropoles are so early famous being honoured with Christ's Epistle to the Revelations Now S. W. as any ordinary Reader would imagin'd that Dr. H. put some force in these latter words to prove the former that S. Peter had nothing to do with them both because these are the onely positive words in the whole paragraph all the rest being interrogatories onely as also because I could not ghesse what they did there else unles it were to divert the Readers eye from the question by such impertinent expressions nor had I observed yet that Dr. H. was such a strong reasoner as to think a proof even contrary to his tenet much lesse impertinent unworthy his method of arguing He pretends to have mean't nothing by those words save onely that those seven were considerable parts of the universall Church as if Christ wrote Epistles to Churches not because they stood need but because they were bigg ones But let them be considerable what then he say's Answ p. 57. there is no pretence that S. Peter should be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed or to govern or so much as to have medled with the administration of these Churches of Asia I answer there is the same pretence that he was mediate Governor of these as of any other that is was over those persons who were over those Churches and though we hold not that he fed govern'd or administred those as their particular immediate Overseer yet we make account that our Saviour said thrice to S. Peter Feed my Sheep Iohn 21. as also that the word Sheep excluded none but included those of Asia also For Mr. H. I suppose doubts not but the Christians there were Christs sheep aswell as the rest How this commission to S. Peter to feed Christs Sheep was particular to him shall be seen afterwards Part. 3. Sect. 2. But now room for Dr. H's Falsification of Falsifications which thunders with so many volleys of power limitting expressions as were it charg'd with Truth would quite have batter'd down the walls of Rome It needs no more but repeating to show it notorius 'T is this of Schism p. 83. doth not S. Paul give Timothy full instructions and such as no other Apostle could countermand or interpose in them leaving no other Apostle or place of application for farther directions save onely to himself when he shall come to him 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Here Reader thou seest terms most restrictive of Iurisdiction so most nay solely-important to the question no other Apostle could countermand c. no other Appeall no farther directions onely to himself c. Thou seest I say these and thou seest likewise the place of Scripture quoted immediately for all these Now Schism Disarm'd p. 81. show'd from their own translation that there was not one word of this long rabble in the place alledged but the bare barren useles monosyllable Come
then that the same Notion of a thing may plurally agree to many and yet in unequall degrees notwithstanding there being almost as many Instances of it as there are things in the world Evident therefore it is that he impugned S. Peter's having the power of the Keyes alone and so calumniated us in counterfeiting that to be our tenet impugning it as such unles perhaps he will say hee inteÌ„ded to impugn nothing at all Thirdly what means the word inclusive Is it not if applied to S. Peter's having the power of the Keyes as it is by him as plain an expression as could be invented to signify none had that power but S. Peter Manifest therefore it is that he intended to make his Reader beleeve that wee held such an absurd Position and thence erected a rare Trophee of his own Victory by shewing as he easily might that all the other Apostles had that power as well as he or in common But observe how neatly Dr. H. deludes his readers in going about to clear himself of this Calumny for instead of shewing from his own words that he signified that which wee held for S. Peter's peculiarity inclosure was onely a higher degree of that power which had been the proper way to shew him not faulty in the said words he prevaricates quite from that onely necessary method and runs to shew from my words the Catholick tenet that wee grant S. Peter a more particular power of the Keyes entangling poore S. W. on all sides p 61. and obliging him by most powerfull arguments to grant that which he beleeves already as a point of his faith and when he hath done he insults that that particular power was S. Peter's peculiarity inclosure but never goes about to shew which onely was his duty that he applied those words peculiarity inclosure to that particular power of the Keyes in his book of Schism where he was charged to have calumniated us but to the common power onely Though the question be not whether Catholicks hold that S. Peter had an higher degree of this power which was his inclosure but whether Dr. H. expressed such to be our tenet in his book of Schism or rather pretended that the having the very power of the Keyes it self was held by us to be his inclosure peculiarity and so calumniated us in the highest degree Thus Dr. H. pleads his own cause and then concludes himself secure from being like S. W. in calumniating him with whom he came to dispute After this Answ p. 62. the Dr. is mistakingly apprehensive of Sprights and is troubled at the two appearanrances of the same Romanist For imposing on him two propositions which he never said and disgraces the said appearances by asking the reader what trust is to be given to such disputers But what said the two appearances of the same Romanist one appearance sayes that Dr. H. affirms no power of the Keyes was given especially to S. Peter The other appearance sayes that hee confesses the Keyes were especially promised to S. Peter He answers the truth is he neither said one nor the other One of the appearances replies The truth is he said both The first of Schâ—sm p. 87. l. 2. 3. where he sayes expresly that these to wit the Keyes or the words importing them are delivered in common and equally to all every of the eleven Apostles Now I imagin'd that those words equally to all every one is the very same as particularly to no one But Dr. H. thinkes otherwise Answ p. 62. l. 18 denying that he affirmed no power of the Keyes was given especially to S. Peter And yet presently l. 21. 22. Saying that he afâ—â—rmed that the power was given in common and equally to all the Apostles which is so perfectly the self-same with the former as the very common light of nature teaches us that they are both one and that not especially commonly are perfectly equivalent To omit that this very position That no power of the Keyes was given especially to S. Peter is his own main nay sole tenet he is defending in this place which yet he sayes here he affirms not and complains of my foul play in disputing for saying he holds his own tenet The second position is found p. 57. l. 11. where he grants that this promise was made to S. Peter peculiarly and l. 21. where he sayes that the words importing a promise of the Keyes are applied particularly to S. Peter Now the applying those words is the speaking them for they were not first spoken then afterward apply'd To S. Peter then this promise was spoken that is was made particularly or especially As for his Evasion that the former of these two last places is onely mention'd by him as a color the Romanist makes some use of it hath no color at all from the place where it is found or at least such a dim color as none but himself can discern Sect. 2. A Promise of an higher degree of power and it's performance shown the Texts Mat. 16. and Iohn 21. connaturally and rationally explicated THese preparative rubs being past over and Dr. H's three great faults of prevaricating Iniuriousnes and Calumny with which he was charged and went about to clear still challenging him for their Author next comes the point it self since Dr. H. will needs put us upon the part of the Opponent Mr. H. undertooke to solve some places of Scripture which were used by our Doctors for S. Peter's Supremacy where upon I was obliged to undertake two things first that our Saviour promised the Keyes to S. Peter in particular and after a particular manner that is the manner of promising them was particular in order to S. Peter Secondly that it being worthy our Saviour to perform his promise after the manner tenour in which he promised consequently he performed that promise to S. Peter after a particular manner that is gave him the Keyes particularly Schism Disarm'd p. 90. 91. urged the first place Matth. 16. v. 19. c. which concerned the promise And though Dr. H pretends in the end of this Chapter that he attends me in this Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foot by foot yet he gave it no such atâ—endance in order to answering it but onely p. 60. 61. 62. he would needs engage me thence to confesse a point of my faith that is that S. Peter had something or some degree of power which the rest had not that so he might clear himself from having calumniated our tenet Since then I must be forc't to repeat again what I said there I shall do it by arguing after this sort These words I will give vnto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven c. importing a promise were spoken to S. Peter after a particular manner therefore the promise was made to S Peter after a particular manner The consequence is evident for the promise was made by speaking it If then it were spoken to
the Dr. it is evident they are equally such The like argument he hath made heretofore for the equality of Apostles pillars foundation-stones c. because all of each sort were named by one plurall name Pardon me then Reader if I have given such a harsh character to this monstrous peece of Logick I professe I know not what better name to call it by truly and besides other considerations I cannot but resent it in the behalf of man's nature Which is Reason and am angry with Dr. H. in his owne behalf that he hath by his passion and interest so totally defaced it in him self as to produce that for an evidence which is so far from the least degree of probability that it is the greatest impossibility imaginable But especially when I see that the same person who acknowledges Schism greater then sacriledge or idolatâ—y would persuade rationall Souls into it by such putid non-sence I confesse I cannot contain my expressions from taking such liberties as truth and Iustice make lawfull but the concernement of my cause necessary Solution 3. Each single Apostle had this power as distinctly promised to him as S. Peter is pretended to have and the words of Scripture Math. 18. v. 18. are most clear for that purpose Of Schism p. 88. Reply there is not a word there expressing any distinction in order to any other Apostle much lesse singularizing each of them distinctly as you here pretend but a common and plurall donation onely whatsoever you shall binde c. and as for your Syllogism by which you would evade the shamelesnes of this assertion Answ p. 66. by saying that you mean't onely the Apostles were each of them singly to have and exercise the power of the Keyes and not all together in common or joyn'd together in Communion first neither agrees with your other words for it is one thing to say each could distinctly use that power another thing to say as you of Schism p. 8â— l. 13. 14. this power was distinctly promised to each of them and then quoting Math. 18. v. 18. as most clear for that purpose where nothing is found but a coÌ„mon expression whatsoever yee shall binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. without any distinction at all exprest Nor can such a pretended meaning stand with common sense unles the Dr. will confesse him self to have calumniated our tenet which imputation he hath before taken such pains to avoid for either it is put in opposition to us or not if not what does it there or to what end are all those testimonies brought of Schism p. 89 to second it If it be put in opposition to us and yet mean onely as Dr. H. says here that it was promised to all the Apostles as to twelve single persons each singly to have and exercise it and not all together in common then our tenet must necessarily be supposed and pretended by him to be that no single Apostle could bind or loose but all of them together in common onely which is so manifest a calumny that himself dares not openly own it though he slily impose it as he did the other about the Keyes being S. Peter's inclosure Yet it is as necessarily his as the excuse given is his which if he disclame he acknowledges the objected fault Solution 4. The addressing the speech to S. Peter in the singular is a token onely that Peter as a single person should have power but not either that no others should have it too observe Reader how the calumny he formerly would have acquitted himself of still sticks to him or that the manner in which S. Peter should have it should be singular to him and so as it was not to each of them Answ p. 64. 65 Reply this is onely your own saying show us out of the words themselves that this is more probable as I show'd the contrary and then I shall acknowledge that you have animated the dead letter more artificially then I otherwise you have done nothing for the question is not whether you can say so or no but whether the words oblige you to say so Solution 5. The particularity gives him particularly the power but excludes not others from the same power and the same degree of power Answ p. 65. Reply This is onely said again not shown that the words gave occasion to say it which was onely to be done He quotes indeed drily the places of Scripture yet puts down no words as his custome is but talks before and after the barren and unapply'd citations what he pleases Wee take the words of the Text debate them minutely and particularly and bring them home to the point to show that our tenet of a more particular powre is more probable out of their native force Let him do the like and show by the same method his explication more connaturall then mine and I shall grant he won the field in this probability-skirmish Himself will not deny that S. Peter had as much promis'd him as the rest when it was promis'd in common Math. 18. v. 18. The having then over and above this common promise at another distinct time and with most particularizing and distinguishing circumstances a promise of he same Keyes most manifestly is a priviledge peculiar to S. Peter and that on which wee ground the probability of having them promis'd in a particular manner and consequently performed in the same sort which wee make accouÌ„t wee find with the like particularities Io. 21. Let the Reader then observe what countenance the words Grammatically prudentially scann'd give to our explications and deductions and expect what other explication so well circumstanc'd Dr. H. can deduce of the same words taken in their own native force and energy not what he will say upon his owne head Solution 7. The speciall energy of the applying the words particularly to S. Peter concludes that the Ecclesiasticall power of aeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house belongs to single persons such as S. Peter was and not onely to Consistories or Assemblies Of Schism p. 87. Reply This is still your own saying without ever endeavoring to show from the words and their circuÌ„stances they persuade that this is the sense of them But let it be so that you have evinc't against the Presbyterians from this place that a community must not govern but a Bishop that is one who is Superiour to that community who sees not how much better and more probably it follows hence that S. Peter was Superior to the consistory of the Apostles they being present when those particularizing words were spoken whence Dr. H. proves the Episcopall Authority over the consistory then it will follow that in succeeding times and distinct circumstances some one should be chief and over the Assembly Again the words not being expresse for his position he can onely make a parallell deduction thence after this sort if he will argue from the words that the same should be observed in a
his most partiall Admiter if he have not absolutely renounc't his reason resolved the slender fading thing into the Drs Authority must see confess he was wilfully fraudulent intended to breed in the Readers minde by the words thus maimedly falsly put another apprehension than the testimony it self rightly dealt with could have caused Yet as long as this Enemy to Truth true dealing makes zealous professions of his entire desire to speak the full Truth of God and that he did in the sincerity of his heart verily beleeve and such like womanish demurenesses he hopes there will be found a company so weakly simple as to give him credence and that his moderate bashfull language will to these good weak sighted Souls be a cloack thick enough to hide or excuse his immoderately shamefull deeds Of such kinde of falsifications Reader I could afford thee variety were it necessary but I have already done enough to secure thee from this Drs Arts and the consequence of them Schism as maintain'd asserted by him Peruse my book attentively thou shalt observe I never call his materiall error in transcribing a falsification I doubt not but I could show thee one hundred such of his for my single one were it worth the pains but onely when I manifest the advantage he got by such a carriage which he never goes about to show in those he objects to mee Again thou â—eest how easily those falsifications he pretends as mine are clear'd nay shown to thine eye to be unconcerning toies or groundles willfull calumnies His which I objected in Schism Disarm'd are left by him unclear'd as this Treatise hath from place to place shown thee And so Reader I leave thee to thy candid thoughts which I desire thee to employ in ruminating upon the Dr. as put in this pickle requesting of thee in mine Adversary's behalf not to be too rigorous in thy censures of him abate as much as the consideration of humane errablenes frailty can suggest to a rationally-compassionate minde onely be not partiall in what is evidently fraudulent and then thou shalt right Truth thy self mee too by one impartially ingenuous rationall act I have onely one word to speak to the Dr. and then I take my leave You see Dr. H. it will not do no tricks can prevail against Truth she will conquer and knows how to defend herself by the weakest Weapon Were it not better now to give God and his Church the honour due to them and show at length your willingnes to acknowledge faults so plainly undeniably open than to continue your fruitles pains to show your self unretractably obstinate Nor do I impute them however I may seem rigorous too plain originally to you I know the necessity of your cause obliges you forcibly to rely on such uniustifiable waies I know and your self cannot but know the same how miserably you are glad to pervert the words voluntarily mistake and thus mistakingly propose to your Readers the true import and sence of your Testimonies and to content your self with any sleight gloss which not your impartiall judgment gives absolutely to be the meaning but what your partiall fancy can imagin may be defended on some sleight fashion to be the meaning See in the Index what undeniable self contradictions weaknesses absurdities voluntary mistakes falsifications your task of defending Schism hath put you upon Be true to your own best interest a sincere conscience be true at least to your own honour and neglect for the future the defence of that cause which must inevitably throw you upon such Rocks The further you reply the worse it will still fare with you For to clear your self of these falsifications other manifold faults satisfactorily is impossible eye-sight attesting them not to clear your self of them is doubly disgracefull fluttering up down as your way of writing is entangles you more Sit still and you will be safer You cannot but see acknowledge that your position of a probable faith leads directly to Atheism if follow'd and that since none has reason to assent further then he has reason that is further then the reasons given convince and since no probability can possibly convince the thing is true or that the Authority speaks true it is impossible any man living can have any obligation in your Grounds to assent that any point of faith is true or any Authority to be beleeved nay if he will not renounce his nature he ought to suspend in both these that is embrace no faith at all The necessity of holding which tenet so fundamentally pernicious to all Christianity so odious to all good Christians unavoidably follows out of your principles of Schism built upon the rejecting the onely certain Rule of faith immediate TraditioÌ„ and the consciousnes to your self that your weak testimony-way reaches no further than probability enforces you to own it and aym at no higher a pitch of satisfaction that is none at all for how can probability satisfy Look behinde you then see what a great deal of industry time you have fruitlesly lost in turning over promiscuously multitudes of Authors without first studying Grounds that is without first laying your thoughts in order with evident deduction from and connexion with first Principles This task onely is called knowledge the former without this is more apt to lead to ignorance mistake leaving onely a confusion of motley incohereÌ„t thoughts in a mans head impossible to be orderly rank't in the posture of knowledge unles regulated by fore layd Grounds Look before you and you shall see many late wits whose gallant self-understanding Souls own their nature rationally scorn to submit to any assent but upon rigorous demonstrative Evidence either of the thing it self in Science or of the Authority in faith Suffer your self to be won to the imitation of these pursvers of knowledge leave talking words begin to speak Sence leave of to diffuse scatter abroad your fleeting thoughts in a Sermonary Preaching way and begin to connect them into rigorous discourse that is instead of aiery talk begin to iudge know instead of empty florish learn to be solid Ina word aym seriously to know that is to assent upon Evidence and then I am confident our understandings will meet in a ioynt-assent and I hope our wills in a consent submission to the Authority of that Church whose Rule of faith immediate Tradition is evidently demonstrable This Sâ— is the hearty wish of him who however you may apprehend him protests he preserves a more prompt zeal naturall alacrity to honour serve you in what you can iustly be concieved deserving than he hath to discover the faults your tenets made you commit which yet was at present his unavoidable duty the truth of your miscariages being ioyn'd to the certainty concernment of his cause you iniur'd by them YOVR SERVANT S. W. FINIS THE APPENDIX VINDICATED AGAINST
falsification and an open abuse of the Council For as may bee seen immediately before the 7th Canon Theodorus Mopsuestensis Carisius had made a wicked creed which was brought and read before the Council After this begins the 7th Canon thus His igitur lectis decreuit sancta c. These things being read the holy synod decreed that it should bee lawfull for no man to compose write or produce alteram fidem another faith praeter eam quae definita fuit a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem in Spiritu sancto congregatis besides that which was defined by the holy fathers gather'd in the Holy Ghost at the City of Nice Where wee see the intention of the Council was no other than this that they should avoid hereticall creeds and hold to the Orthodoxe one not to hinder an enlargment to their Baptismall Profession as the Bishop would persuade us Hence His first falsification is that hee would have the words alteram fidem which taken by themselves and most evidently as spoken in this occasion signify a different or contrary faith to mean a prohibition to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession So by the words any more which hee falsly imposes to serve his purpose making the Council strike directly at the enlargment of such Profession Very good His 2 d is that to play Pope Pius a trick hee assures us the Council forbids to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession whereas there is no news there of exacting but of producing writing or composing false creeds lesse of Baptismall profession And though the Council forbide this to bee done his qui volunt ad cogâ—itionem veritatis conuerti to those who are willing to â—ee converted to the knowledge of the truth yet the punishments following extended also to Laymen in those words si vero Laici fuerint anathematiz entur if they the proposers of another faith bee Laymâ—n let them bee excommunicated makes it impossible to relate to Baptism unles the Bishop will say that in those dayes Laymen were Ministers of Baptism or exacted as hee phrases it Baptismall Professions His third falsification is that hee pretends the Council forbad to exact more than the Apostles creed whereas the Council onely forbids creeds different from that which was defin'd by the Council of Nice So that according to the Bishop the creed defined by the fathers in the Council of Nice and the Apostles creed are one and the sasame creed His fourth is that hee pretends from the bare word fidem a Baptismal profession for no other word is found in the Council to that purpose Now the truth is that upon occasion of those creeds containing false doctrine the Council onely prohibits the producing or teaching any thing contrary to the doctrine anciently establish't as appears more plainly from that which follows concerning Carisius Pari modo c. In like manner if any either Bishops Priests or Laymen bee taken sentientes aut docentes holding or teaching Carisius his doctrine c. let them bee thus or thus punisht Where you see nothing in order to exacting Baptismall professions or their enlargments as the Bp. fancies but of abstaining to teach false doctrines which those Hereticks had proposed Ere wee leave this point to do my L d D. right let us construe the words of the Council according to the sence hee hath given it and it stands thus that the holy synod decreed it unlawfull for any proferre scribere aut componere to exact alteram any more or a larger fidem Baptismall profession praeter eam quae a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem definita fuit than the Apostles creed Well go thy wayes brave Bp. if the next synod of Protestants doe not Canonize thee for an Interpreter of Councils they are false to their best interests The cause cannot but stand if manag'd by such sincerity wit and learning as long as women prejudic'd men and fools who examin nothing are the greater part of Readers Having gain'd such credit for his sincerity hee presumes now hee may bee trusted upon his bare word and then without any either reason or Authority alledged or so much as pretended but on his bare word onely hee assures the Reader if hee will beleeve him that they still professe the discipline of the ancient Church and that wee have changed it into a soveraignty of power above Generall Councells c. Yet the candid man in his vindication durst not affirm that this pretended power was of faith with us or held by all but onely p. 232. alledges first that it is maintaind by many that is that it is an opinion onely and then 't is not his proper task to dispute against it our own Schools and Doctours can do that fast enough and afterwards p. 243. hee tells us that these who give such exorbitant priviledges to Pope's do it with so many cautions and reservations that thâ—y signify nothing So that the Bishop grants that some onely and not all add this to the Pope's Authority and that this which is added signifies nothing and yet rails at it here in high terms as if it were a great matter deserving Church-unity should bee broken for it and claps it upon the whole Church After this hee grants S. Peter to have been Prince of the Apostles or first mover in the Church in a right sence as hee styles it yet tells us for prevention sake that all this extends but to a Primacy of order Whereas all the world till my Ld D. came with his right sence to correct it imagin'd that to move did in a sence right enough signify to act and so the first mover meant the first Acter Wee thought likewise that when God was call'd primum mouens the first mover those words did in a very right sence import actiuity and influence not a primacy of order onely as the acute Bp. assures us But his meaning is this that though all the world hold that to move first is to act first yet that sence of theirs shall bee absolutely wrong and this onely right which he and his fellows are pleased to fancie who are so wonderfully acute that according to them hee that hath onely Authority to sit first in Council or some things which is all they will allow S. Peter and the Pope shall in a right sence bee said to move first or to bee first mover I alledged as a thing unquestionable even by understanding ProtestaÌ„ts that the Church of England actually agreed with the Church of Rome at the time of the separation in this Principle of Government that the Bishops of Rome as successâ—urs of S. Peter inherited his priviledgâ—s c. as is to bee seen p. 307. by any man who can read English Now the Bishop who hath sworn to his cause that hee will bee a constant and faithfull prevaricatour omits the former paâ—t of my proposition and changes the busines from an evident matter of
accuses himself since then wee never accused you of breaking from our Goverment till you had broke from it and you could not have broke from it without first accusing the say'd Government and objecting some reason against it as the motive of your breaking You must therefore oppose and alledge those reasons and show them sufficient ones else your very fact of renouncing that former Government doth unavoidable convince you of Schism Next hee tells us that if the proof did rest on their sides yet hee does not approve of my advice And I dare swear in the Bps behalf that hee never spoke truer word in his life and will bee bound for him that hee shall never follow any advice that bids him speak home to the point or meddle with such a method as is likely to bring a speedy end to the Controversy Make an Heretike speak out saith S. Augustin and you have hâ—lf-confuted him But what reason gives hee why hee disapproves of my advise Will hee shew us a more easy efficacious or likely way to bring the dispute to a finall Conclusion His reason is because saith hee it is not wee who have alter'd the doctrine or discipline which Christ lefâ— in the Church but they c. and so runs rambling forwards with his own sayings to the end of the Section All the world sees and Dr. H. acknowledges you have alter'd the discipline left in the Church of England in K. H's dayes and now you are to give a reason to iustify this alteration you tel us you have made none I am not ignorant of the dexterity with which you have shuffled a reserve into those words which Christ left in the Church to persuade the Reader the discipline of the Church of England in H the â—th's dâ—yes was not the same which Christ left to his Church But I prest no more than that it was used then as a thing held to have been inherited from Christ and that it was then and still is a bond of Vnity to all â—hose that communicated in it and therefore that you now reiecting it must either shew it to bee no necessary bond of Vnity or necessarily remain convinced of destroying Vnity that of Schism Mee thinks a man who pretends to answer should either say I or No they are usvally the returns wee make to questions But S Austin's saying is Oracle no speaking out hee thanks you Hee knew well enough that either part of the Contradiction own'd would have some means to go about to disprove which by destroying all doubt in the case would have destroy'd his own and the Authority of all those who speak against Evidence Altum silentium is all you can get from him onely in the hard streight hee is driven to of either saying nothing or nothing to the purpose hee tels you hee is not obliged to answer because hee has not alter'd the discipline left by Christ to his Church of England in K. H. the 8th's dayes of which my objection runs 't is false even to ridiculousnes for I cannot imagin hee fancies his Authority can so much over sway the simplicity of any Reader his book will meet with as to hope to make him beleeve the Church of England in his Lops time had the same discipline she had in K. H's dayes If hee mean of the discipline left by Christ to the Primtive times 't is no less false and more impertineÌ„t first in answering of the Primitive times to an objection concerning the time of H. the 8. Secondly whenas I begun with an evident matter of fact beyond alldispute and thence grounded a progress to a decisive discourse in skipping aside to a point mainly disputable between us in stead of answering to that Evidence and which is still weaker by thinking to carry that whole matter by barely saying it And if the Reader please now to review the Bishops first Section with a narrower eye I am confident hee will percieve that besides that hee hath not said a word in answer to us above three quarters of the said Section is made up of this stuff to wit of reuolving and repeating over his own tenets and the very question and talking any thing upon his own Authority without a syllable of proof and twice or thrice where hee pretends any they are mere falsifications abuses as hath been shown I must request the Reader whom the love of truth may invite to seek satisfaction in perusing a book of this nature to right himself the Bp. and mee by giving a glance back upon my words p. 306. 307. where I affirmed that it would appear that Schism was iustly charged upon his Church with undeniable Evidence of faith by two things viz out of the very position of the case and out of the nature of his Exceptions How hee hath reply'd to the first which is the position of the case hath already been shown to wit that hee would not speak one positive word I or no to a plain matter of faith nor bee willing to step forwards one step by answering directly to any thing which neerly concern'd the question but stood continually capering and flickhering up and down in the air at the pleasure of his own fancy As for the second thing to wit that it would appear out of the nature of 〈◊〉 Exceptions I show'd that hee in reciting my charge had purposely omitted that as loath his Exceptions should bee brought to the test of Reason or have their sufficiency examin'd And to let thee see that hee did this purposely looke Schism Disarm'd p. 309. and thou shalt see the whole paragraph which concern'd that second point omitted without any Reply pretended I shall therefore repeat it again here and leave it to the Bishop's second thoughts They must remember how their forefathers who began that which they call Reformation were themselves of this profession before their pretended Reform They ought to weigh what reasons their Ancestours should have had to introduce such an alteration They must confess themselves guilty in continuing the breach unles they can alledge causes sufficient to have begun it had the same ancient Religion descended to these dayes For the constant beleef of the Catholike world was at the time of our division and still is that these Principles are Christ's own ordination recorded in Scripture derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our nature is capable of to attain assurance what was done in Antiquity Evidences inviolable by any humane either poweror proof except perfect and rigorous demonstration to which our Adversaries doe not so much as pretend and therefore without farther dispute remain unanswerably convicted of Schism I suppose I need not inform the Reader what service it would have done to the Controversy and how necessary it was for my Ld D. to tell us whether his reasons were rigourously evidencing or demonstrative or else that less than demonstrative reasons that is probable ones would serve This would quickly have decided the busines
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
in that Order This is your crime in this lies your sinfull guilt of Schism and heresy that your fact and tenet is intrinsecally destructive to the very being of God's Church and that it tears and rents it peece-meal all asunder A mischief equally pernicious to man-kind's attaining Beatitude as the renouÌ„cing the supreme Government in a Kingdome or commonwealth would bee in order to their safe enjoyment of their temporall livelihoods and therefore no waies to bee ballanced or excused by alledging temporall inconveniences since it as far ouerpoises it's excuse as Eternity of bliss does a peece of earth that is infinitely His third sort of Grounds is the weaknes of the Pope's pretences and the exemption of the Britannick Churches from forrain Iurisdiction by the Council of Ephesus For the fitst the Bp. never so much as directly mentions that in which wee place the strength of the Pope's pretence of his supreme Authority much lesse impugnes it save onely a little on the by as it were in his sleight way 't is this that it was held and deliver'd by a world of immediate fathers to sons as from their fathers so upwards as from Christ that this Authority was sacred of Christ's Institution of faith and recommended to us by the same Rule that assured us Christ was God Vpon this tenure as strongly supported as nature could bear held demonstrably evident and so shown by us not yet answer'd or pretended to bee answer'd by the Protestant party wee Ground this Doctrine of the Pope's Headship or the substance of his Authority But I fear the Bp. either understands not our tenure for otherwise sure hee would have nam'd it or else hee is impugning some Canon Lawier and the extent of the Pope's Authority in stead of impugning the Church and the substance of the said Authority As for his second trifle I have already shown Sect. 4. that the Britannick Churches have no influence upon our Churches descended from saxons nor shall hee ever show a syllable in the Council of Ephesus exempting them from the Pope's Iurisdiction as Head of the Church however Cyprus and some others are there exempted from a neighbouring superiour falsly pretending a Iurisdiction over them But of this more shall bee said hereafter in this present Section The Vnity of the Church being of such importance and the fact breaking it by consequence so hainous the alledging the greatest abuses imaginable are absolutely concluded insufficient excuses for such a fact much more unles it bee shown there were no other possible means to remedy them Hereupon I alledged that it was of little concernment to examine whether his complaints were true or false since hee does not show there was no other remedy but division First the Bishop replies sharply What is it of little concernment to examin whether the Grounds bee sufficient or no well leap't my Lord I speak of the inconsiderablenes of their truth or falshood your Lâ— talks of inconsiderablenes of their sâ—fficiency pretends against both plain words and conscience that I wave that There may bee obâ—ections against the Abuses perhaps of all Governours in the world and these also true but their truth does not infer their sufficiency for rejecting that very Government as long as they are less considerable than good of the Government it self and that there is another cure This it that in which I show'd your manner of arguing defective in the main because you never prou'd nor ever shall that there was no other remedy except division for unles you put in this and more too your argument stands in this posture True complaints against Governours whether otherwise remediable or no are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government At which position if spoke out candidly I hope you will blush though it bee perfectly your own cloak't a little in other but equivalent terms Next hee tells us it is a negative and so it belongs not to him to prove it Yes my Ld it belongs to your party or any one who rises against an actuall Authority either to show that that Authority was none or else that though it was a lawfull one yet there was no other remedy for it's Abuses but a totall Abolishment of it Otherwise the very maiesty which Government carries in it's notion the Vnity peace and a thousand blessings and conveniences which spring from that Vnity found in the common acknowledment of that Authority oversway the private credit or any other less publike concerns which the disobedient party can pretend to and render's their fact of rising irrationall and destructive to the common engaging them needlesly in a thousand distractions and by consequence hazards of ruin which attend such divisions Thirdly hee would persuade the Reader that a negative is not capable of proof or at least not so easily capable of it for answer I refer him to any boy who hath been two years at the Vniversities who will inform him that negatives may witht equall evidence bee concluded in Celarent Ferio as affirmatives may in Barbara and Darij Lastly the proof which hee proposes for his negative to show no other remedy but dares not much stick to them are both equally competent to France Spain c who yet as hee tells us in the next page in contradiction to himself here found other remedies to preserve their priviledges inviolated and his pretended proofs are such pittifull ones though on them is built the sufficiency of their motives that they evencry for mercy as soon as they show their faces They are these that the King of England could not call the Pope and his ourt to a personall account and that the Pope would not ease them upon many Adresses made what then Had not the King the sword in his own hands did it not ly in his power to right himself as hee â—isted and to admit those pretended eneroachments onely so far as hee thought iust and fitting Nay do not your self lay open and repeat in many places that not onely Kings of England but also those of all other countries both could and did do it often and by doing so preserve their priviledges inviolated How does this prove then that there was sufficient Grounds of dividing from the former Church since your self confess so often it could have been remedied otherwise Or how is it a sufficient motive to abolish an Authority for the Abuses which very pretended Abuses they had power to curb and keep within compass without dividing and so that they should not violate their priviledges Not a word then hath the Bp. brought to prove they had sufficient Grounds of division that is that there was no other remedy but in stead thereof expresly told us the contrary and manifoldly contradicted himself I added And much more if the Authority bee of Christ's Institution no iust cause can possibly â—ee given for it's abolishment The merry Bp. laughs at this as hee calls it Kind of arguing which neither looks like an Argument
hee sayes p. 21. are equivalent to those of England which hee pretends here not to bee sufficient it follows that the laws of other countries were equivalent to those of England but those of England not equivalent to them or that though equivalent to one another that is of equall force yet the one was sufficient the others not that is of less force And thirdly that all Catholike countries did maintain their priviledges inviolate by means which did not maintain them or by laws which were not sufficient to do it Lastly hee tells us p. 20. that the former laws deny'd the Pope any Authority in England and p. 21. l. 9. that those laws were in force before the breach that is did actually leave him no Authority in England and here that those nationall laws were not sufficient remedies Whence 't is manifestly consequent according to him that those laws which deny'd the Pope all Authority and were actually in force that is actually left him none were not sufficient remedies against the Abuses of that Authority which they had quite taken a way And this plenty of contradictions the Bp's book is admirably stor'd with which are his demonstrations to vindicate his Church from Schism onely hee christens the monstrous things with a finer name and calls them their greater experience Whereas indeed as for more experience hee brags of God know poor men 't is onely that which Eve got by eating the Apple the expeperience of evill added to that which they had formerly of good Their Ancestors experienc't an happy Vnity Vnanimity Vniformity and constancy in the same faith while they remain'd united to the former Church and they since their breach have experienc't nothing but the contrary to wit distractions dissentions Vnconformity with a perpetually-fleeting Changeablenes of their tenet and at last an utter dissolution and disapparition of their Mock Church built onely in the Air of phantastick probabilities In the last place I alledged that the pretences upon which the Schism was originally made were far different from those hee now takes up to defend it For it is well known that had the Pope consented that K. H. might put away his wife and marry another there had been no thoughts of renouncing his Auâ—hority Which shows that at most the scales were but equally ballanc't before and the motives not sufficient to make them break till this consideration cast them A great prejudice to the sufficiency of the other reasons you alledge which you grant in the next page were most certainly then obseru'd or the greatest part of them For since they were observed then that is since the same causes were apply'd then apt to work upon men's minds those same causes had been also formerly efficacious that is had formerly produc't the effect of separating as well as now had there not been now some particular disposition in the patient and what particular disposition can bee shown at the instant of breaking save the King's lust which was most manifest and evident I confess I cannot imagin nor as I am persuaded the Bp. himself at least hee tells us none but onely in generall terms sayes they had more experience than their Ancestours Sect. 7. The first part of the Protestant's Moderation exprest by my L d of Derry in six peeces of non-sence and contradiction with an utter ruin of all Order and Government His pretended undeniable Principles very easily and rationally deny'd His Churche's inward charity and the speciall externall work thereof as hee calls it her Good-friday-Prayer found to bee self contradictory Pretences His Moderation in calling those tenets Weeds which hee cannot digest and indifferent Opinions which hee will not bee obliged to hold That according to Protestant Grounds 't is impossible to know any Catholike Church or which sects are of it HIs next Head is the due Moderation of the Church of England in their reformation This I called a pleasant Topick Hee answers so were the saddest subjects to Democritus I Reply the subject is indeed very sad for never was a sadder peece of Logick produced by a non-plust Sophister yet withall so mirthfull as it would move laughter even in Heraclitus The first point of their Moderation is this that they deny not the true being to other Churches nor separate from the Churches but from their accidentall errors Now the matter of fact hath evidenced undeniably that they separated from those points which were the Principles of vnitie both in faith GovernmeÌ„t to the former Church with which they communicated and consequently from all the persons which held those Principles and had their separation been exprest in these plain terms and true language nothing had sounded more intolerable and immoderate wherefore my L d took order to use his own bare Authority to moderate and reform the truth of these points into pretended erroneousnes and the concerningnes or fundamentalnes of them into an onely accidentalnes and then all is well and hee is presently if wee will beleeve his word against our owne eyes a moderate man and so are the Protestans too who participate his Moderation But if wee demand what could be Essentiall to the former Church if these too Principles renounced by them which grounded all that was good in her were accidentall onely or how he can iustly hold her a true Church whose fundâ—mentall of fundamentalls the Root Rule of all her faith was as he saies here an error his candid answer would shew us what common sence already informs us that nothing could be either Essentiall or fundamentall to that Church And so this pretended Moderation would vanish on one side into plain non-sence in thinking any thing could be more Essentiall to a Church then Vniâ—y of faith and Government on the other side into meer folly and indeed coÌ„tradiction in holding her a true Church whose Grounds of both that is of all which should make her a true Church are Errors Lies His Church of England defines Art 19. that our Church erres in matters of faith Art 22. that four points of our faith are vain fictions contradictory to God's word The like character is given of another point Art 28. Our highest act of deuotion Art 31. is styled a blasphemous fiction pernicious imposture and Art 33. that those who are cut of from the Church publikely I conceive they mean Catholikes or at least include them whom they used to excommunicate publikely in their Assemblies should be held as Heathens and Publicans Again nothing was more uncontrollably nay more laudably common in the mouths of their Preachers then to call the Pope Antichrist the Church of Rome the whore of Babylon Idolatrous Superstitious Blasphemous c. And to make up the measure of his fore fathers sins the Bp. calls here those two Principles of Vnity both in faith Government without which she neither hath nor can have any thing of Church in her as hath been shown in the foregoing Section both Errors and falshoods Now
preteÌ„d to treat a point of Canon-Law I might The point of faith I undertook to defend as a Controvertist whensoever I see any opposition to that I acknowledge it my Province to secure it by my resistance Sect. 10. My L d of Derry's vain pretence of his Churches large Communion His frivolous and groundles exceptions against the Council of Trent How weakly hee clears himself of calumny And how going about to excuse his citing a Testimony against himself hee brings three or four proofs to make good the accusation HEe pretended that the Protestants held Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do I reply'd that if by Christians hea means those who lay claim to the name of Christ I neither deny'd his Answer nor envy'd him his multitude for Manichees Gnosticks Carpocratians Arians Nestorians Eutychians and others without number do all usurp the honour of this title I added that I did not think hee had any solid reason to refuse Communion to the worst of them Now the Bp ' s task is evidently this to give us this solid reason show it conclusive why hee admits some of these rejects others But 't is against his humour to go about to prove any thing Talking is his an angry woman's best weapon and of voluntary talk he is not niggardly but deals us largess of it First hee falls into rhetoricall exclamations against our prejudice partiality want of truth charity candour ingenuity Words are but vapour let him put certainly-establish't Grounds to conclude himself or any of his sects true Christians which may not as well infer that all those other sects are such also otherwise his exclâ—mations which sound so high in Rhetorick are very-flat noted and signify just nothing in Controversy where the concernment of the subject renders all proofs inferior to rigorous convincing discourse dull toyish Secondly hee asks wherein can I or all the world charge the Church of England of Greece or any of the Eastern Southern or Northern Christians with any of these Heresies and then reckons up afterwards the materiall points held by the Manichees Gnosticks c. Suppose I could not are there no other heresies in the world but these old ones or is it impossible that a new heresy should arise It was not for holding those very materiall points that I accused the Church of England or the Bp. as hee purposely misrepresents mee but this that having no determinate certain Rule of faith they had no Grounds to reject any from their Communion who held some common points of Christianity with them though differing in others Again since the Rule of faith Protestants pretend to is the Scripture and all those Hereticks recurr'd still rely'd upon the same nay even the Manichees upon the new Testament it follows that these are all of the Protestants Communion because they have the same Grounds Rule of their faith if the Bp. reply that the letter of the Scripture is not the Rule of faith but the sence hee must either show us some determinate certain way to arrive to the true sence of it or else confess that this Rule is indeterminate uncertain that is as far as it concerns us none at all Now though indeed the Protestants hapt not to light into all the same materiall errors as did the Manichees Arians c. Yet they agree with them in the source of all error that is in having deny'd and renounc't the onely Ground of faiths certainty Tradition of immediate forefathers which alone could bring down to us security that Christ was God or that there was such a thing as God's word and so the deniall of this is in it's consequences equally nay more pestilentiall then is the denying the materiall point it self of Christ's divinity or the asserting any other held by the worst of those Hereticks They agree with them all therefore in the root of all errors though the branches chance and they but chance to be diverse as may bee seen if you do but consider what varieties of sects are sprung in England since your strong hand which truly did forbid the liberty of interpreting Scripture is taken from you whereof some be as learned as yourselves witnes the books of the Socinians for 't is an easy matter out of affection to turn Scripture to variety of errors as was cleerly seen in Luther who because Carolostadius had publish't the absence of Christ's Body from the Blessed Sacrament before himself found the middle tenet of compresence of both Body Bread and so by that base affection saved a great part of the world through God's Providence from a wickeder error Thirdly hee tells us that some few Eastern Christians are called Nestorians others suspected of Eutychianism but most wrongfully Though indeed nothing is more right full then to call them so as even Protestants confess But you see nature works in despite of Design and that hee hath a mind to cling in very brotherly and lovingly with the Nestorians Eutychians though hee saies hee will not and those tenets of theirs which in the close of his paragraph hee pretends to detest as accursed errors here hee strokes with a geâ—tle hand assuring us they are nothing but some unvsâ—all expressions as if all heresies when exprest were not expressions and also very unvsuall new to faith the faithfull Now their unvsuall expressions were onely these that Christ had two distinct persons and no distinct natures which are nothing in the Bp ' s mind had they deny'd Christ to be God too it had been also an unvsuall expression but I must confess a very scurry and pestiferous one as were the former But our favourable Bishop thimking it necessary to bolster up his Church with a multitude boldly pronounces what hee knows not in excuse of those Hereticks though it be contrary to the publike and best intelligence wee have from those remote countries Fourthly hee is very piously rhetoricall tells us that the best is they are either wheat or chaff of the Lord's floar bâ—t that our tongues must not winnow them Which is as absurd as the former That it is best for them to be wheat I understand very well but that it should be best as hee says that they are either wheat or chaff I confess I am at a loss to conceive Chaffe Ps 1. v. 5. signifies the vngodly and Mat. 3. v. 12. the very place which his Allegoâ—y relates to it is said that Christ will burn the chaff of his floar in vnquenchable fire which mee thinks is far from best So miserably the Bp. comes of still wâ—ether hee intends to speak finely or solidly Our tongues indeed shall not winnow them as hee says nor do we pretend to do so by our tongues or voluntary talking that were to vsurp the method of discourse proper to himself onely but our reason will winnow them unles wee turn Beasts use it not our proofs if they be evident as
our charge of their Schismaticall breach is will winnow them the Rule of faith the voice of the Church or immediate Tradition will winnow or rather Christ hath winnow'd them by it having already told them that if they hear not the Church they are to be esteemed no better than Heathens Publicans Since then 't is evident out of the terms that you heard not the Church for your nâ—w fangled Reformations nor Ground those tenets upon the voice of the Church nay according to your Grounds have left no Church nor common suprem Government in the Church to hear it follows that you have indeed winnow'd your selves from amongst the wheat of Christians and are as perfect chaff I mean those who have voluntarily broken Church Communion as Publicans Heathens Now to show how empty a brag it is that they hold Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee to omit their no Communion in Government already spoken of Sect. 6. let us see what Communion they have with the Greek Church in tenets by the numerosity of which they hope for great advantages and whether the Protestants or wee approach nearer them in more points held equally by both I will collect therefore out of one of their own side Alexander Ross the tenets of the present Greek Church in which they agree with us though in his manner of expressing our tenet hee sometimes wrongs us both The Greeks place saith hee much of their deuotion in the worship of the Virgin Mary and of painted Images in the intercession prayers help and merits of the saints which they invocate in their Temples They place Iustification not in faith but in works The sacrifice of the Mass is used for the quick and the dead They beleeve there is a third place between that of the blessed and the damned where they remain who deferr'd repentance till the end of their life If this place bee not Purgatory adds Ross I know not what it is nor what the souls do there View of all Religions p. 489. And afterwards p. 490. They beleeve that the souls of the dead are better'd by the prayers of the living They are no less for the Churches Authority and Traditions than Roman Catholikes bee when the Sacrament is carried through the Temple the People by bowing themselves adore it and falling on their knees kiss the earth In all these main points if candidly represented they agree with us and differ from Protestants Other things hee mentions indeed in which they differ from us both as in denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost not using Confirmation observing the Iewish Sabbath with the L d' s day c. As also some practises not touching faith in which they hold with the Protestants not with us as in administring the Sacrament in both kinds using leauened bread in the Sacrament Priests marriage there is no one point produced by him which our Church looks upon as a point of faith in which they dissent from us and consent with the Protestants except that one of denying the Pope's Supremacy for their onely not using Extreme-Vnction which hee intimates signifies not that they hold it unlawfull or deny it Iudge then candid Protestant Reader of they Bp ' s sincerity who brags of his holding Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do whereas if wee come to examin particulars they neither communicate in one common Government one common Rule of faith if wee may trust this Authour of their own side since if the Greeks hold the Authority of the Church and Traditions as much as Catholikes do as hee sayes they must hold it as their Rule of faith for so Catholikes hold it nor yet in any one materiall point in opposition to us save onely in denying the Pope's Supremacy And how more moderate they are even in this than the greatest part of if not all Protestants may bee learned from the Bp ' s mistaken testimony at the end of this Section as also from Nilus an avowed writer of theirs for the Greek Church against the Latine and one of the gravest Bp ' s and Authours of that party who shuts up his book concerning the Pope's Primacy in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The summe is this As long as the Pope preserves order and stands with truth hee is not removed from the first and his proper Principality and hee is the Head of the Church and chief Bishop and the successour of Peter and of the rest of the Apostles and it behooves all men to obey him and there is nothing which can detract from the honour due to him but if when hee hath once strayed from the Truth hee will not return to it hee will bee liable to the punishment of the damned Where the Reader will easily judge whether the former words sound more incliningly to the Catholike or the Protestant tenet and as for the latter words But if c. There is no Catholike but will say the same Thus much then for my L d of Derry's Communion with the Eastern Church And as for his Communion with the Southern Northern Western Churches which hee thunders out so boldly as if all the world were on his side and of his Religion if examin'd 't is no better than the former sence his side denies immediate Tradition of forefathers or the living voice of the present Church to bee the Rule of faith which is to the Roman Church the fundamentall of fundamentalls Nor has hee any other Rule of faith that is a plain and certain method of interpreting Scripture common to him and his weakly relâ—ted Brethren so that if they hit sometimes in some points 't is but as the Planets whichare ever wandring hap now and then to have conjunctions which hold not long but pursving their unconstant course decline and vary from one another by degrees and are at length crost by diacentricall oppositions The rest of this paragraph insists again upon his often answer'd saying that the creed contains all necessary points which is grounded onely upon his falsifying the Council of Ephesus as hath been shown heretofore To my many former replies vnto this pretence I add onely this that either it is a necessary point to believe there is such a thing as God's written word or the Scripture or not If not then why do the Protestants challenge it for their Rule of faith Is not the Ground of all faith a necessary point But if it bee a necessary point then all necessary points are not in the Apostles creed for there is no news there of the Scripture nor is it known how much thereof was written when the Apostles made their creed what hee adds of our having chaÌ„ged from our Ancestors in opinions either hee means by opinions points of faith held so by us and then 't is calumny and is to be solidly proued not barely said But if hee mean School opinions what hurt is done that those things should be changed which are in their