his reason to that his persuasion or assurance so as there may not subesse dubium against our rule of Faith acknowledg'd infallible Answ p. 36. at unawares by himself that he will never be either able or willing to show And so for the former pretence to wit that they separated not voluntarily it hath already been shown Schism Disarm'd p. 279. to be a most shameless untruth that by their own occasion they had voluntarily renounced our Government Rule of Faith and doctrines and that there wanted onely the punishment for their former voluntary faults to wit the Churche's Excommunication warning the faithful to avoid their company So that Dr. H's plea is no other than as if a Rebel should renounce both the Government and Laws of the Land and being out-law'd and cut off from the Communion of the good Subjects for these faults should lay all the blame on the Governours and Iudges saying no sedition nor division was made in the Common-wealth till they out-law'd him and his adherents and warned the good Subjects to live apart from them As for those pledges left by Christ to his Church for motives of union which the Cath. Gent. made one of our advantages they are these The submitting to the Government of one Head and Pastour the agreeing in one Rule of Faith to which all our private opinions and debates give place as to an infallible Law to decide al quarrels about Faith the multitudes of visible exteriour practices both in several Sacraments and also divine Service performed with such magnificence of Ceremonies lastly and most especially the coadunation of all the members of the Church in eating that heavenly food beleeved by us to be the true and real Body of our Blessed Lord and Saviour All these and some others are so many ties and tokens which make the Sons of the Catholick Church take one another for Fellows and Brothers that is they are unto them so many motives of Vnion In all which he is blind who sees not that our Church hath a most visible advantage over all other Yet Dr. H. assures us that 't is in vain to speak of those to him and why because his passion and disorder'd affections or Interest have so throughly persuaded him both without and against Evidence and two or three odde testimonies with an Id est in the end of them without ever considering the impossibility that Vniversal Attestation should erre have bred a kind of assurance in him cui non subest dubium which is all hee requires for his own or his Churche's certainty of Faith Rep. p. 16. that he professes himself incapable to heare motives and reasons and that 't is in vain to speak of them to him What was meant by the two Advantages of Antiquity and Possession was sufficiently explicated by the Cath. Gentl. in these words such Antiquity or Possession without dispute or contraction from the Adversary as no King can shew for his Crown and much less any person or persons for any other thing Now what more manifest than that we enjoy this acknowledgment of our Adversaries to have that this Antiquitie and Possession for many ages and that this acknowledgment is a particular advantage to us since the Protestants have none such from our party but were ever charged by us of novelty a late upstart original and that in this very point in debate between us This being plainly there exprest by the Catholick Gentleman to be his meaning Dr. H. first p. 20. shuffles off to Fraternal Communion next of a Divine turn'd Lawyer he cites as an affirmation of the Doctors presumi malam fidem ex antiquiori Adversarij possessione which apply'd means thus much that they being more anciently in possession 't is to be presumed that we usurp't So that till he evidence that they were more anciently in possession his law availes him nothing In the mean time let him consider our two advantage to wit that we had a Possession acknowledg'd before this present possession of theirs whereas their pretended possession before ours is in question and controvertible for Mr. H. will not say that he knows the contrary better than his Church does her Faith which at best he confess'd before had but probability of her not erring now then that which is a probability onely is in it's own nature liable to dispute and controvertible since it may perhaps be shown false to morrow Their possession then pretended to have been before ours is not onely disacknowledg'd by us but also in it's own nature subject to dispute ours before theirs acknowledg'd and not capable of dispute The other advantage we have is that the pretended usurpation of the Pope being of a Supremacy over the whole Church and all the Bishops in it must needs in all reason be most visible to the eyes of the whole world now since it is certain they could never evidence it thus visible as appears by their diversities of opinions about it's introduction to be seen in the Catalogue of Protestancy that is they know not when it came in consequently this consideration affords a certain prejudice against their former possession and the pretence of the Pope's Vsurpation For certainly that Authority which could not be usurp't but most visibly and yet the usurpation is not most visible was not usurp't at all but was ever Wherefore our possession and Authority is iustly presumable to have been coÌ„tinued ever since Christ's time since the beginning of our Faith could never be clearly manifested as many Protestant Authours beyond exception confess and onely some of them driven to that desperate task by our arguments blindly pretend the contrary whereas their bearing sway in this corner of the world is of confest and known original which differences us from them by a most manifest advantage The persuasion of Infallibility our fourth advantage p. 21. there mention'd must necessarily be mistaken and wrong apprehended as well as it's fellows that is now grown ordinary with Mr. H. and so we must not wonder at it I have already shown that this persuasion is the onely means to oblige the Subjects of any Church to Vnity of Belief nay that there can be no rationalâ—ty to any belief at all where this persuasion of the Churche's Infallibility is not found which being found in no Congregation but that of the Catholick Church she hath consequently an infinite advantage above all others in the notion ad nature of a Church which is to be a conserver of Faith or rather indeed it follows hence most evidently that none other can have the true nature of a Church but her self Now Dr. H. in stead of telling us I or no whether this Persuasion be of such a force as is pretended in order to the Vnity of the Faithfull flies off and sayes this can have no influence upon them though it be the onely thing which gives fundamentally Being to a Church as hath been shown telling us moreover for our further certainty
line of p. 72. and the first of p. 73. in his book of Schism that the Rescript was grounded upon S. Iames his sentence which a little before he made the sentence quoting for it Acts 15. v. 22. My answer Schism Disar p. 59. l. 1. 2. c. Was that in that place there was nothing particularizing S. Iames but onely that then to wit after S. Peter S. Paul and Barnabas and S. Iames had spoken It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church c. Now if there be nothing in that Verse alledged signifying that the Rescript was grounded upon S. Iames his sentence for which it was brought then 't is plain I neither misvnderstand nor mistake To avoyd all caville I took the Verse as I found it in their own translation in which nothing was found sounding to that purpose yet all this exactest diligence avails nothing at all with an Adversary who takes liberty to say any thing I must needs commit two faults in transcribing one Verse and yet transcribe it right too so that S. W. faultines is now become the Text and this Text beloved is divided into two parts the first part is a misunderstanding the second is a Mistake The first that S. W. would make him imagin the sentence was so his as not to bee the Councills whereas indeed S. W. made him imagin noe such thing but onely as himself told me there that S. Iames his particular sentence exprest by my sentence was the sentence But this was antecedent to the point there treated and here vindicated the question there was whether the 22. v. there cited signified that the Rescript was grounded upon S. Iames his sentence which was the thing he produced it for but to this point he sayes nothing neither vindicating that signification of the Verse nor so much as putting it down Thus much for S. W. first fault of misunderstanding The second fault is as hee courteously counterfeits is a farther mistake and that the words then seemd it good c. mean a subsequent determination to the Dogma or Decree If so I wonder who was in the fault or mistook I pretend to prove nothing from it and so was not in possible circumstances to mistake it he pretended to prove from it that the Rescript is founded on S. James his sentence which he says here it signifies not but a subsequent determination of sending men to Antioch and then when he hath done he kindly and courteously layes the blame from himself and on S. W. telling him he hath mistaken which when hee hath done hee concludes with a Gloria Patri how well hee hath qualify'd S. W. to consider whether Dr. H. or hee bee wiser or honester But in case I had mistook in calling those words then seemed it good c. the Dogma or Decree I at lest mistake with good Company for good S. Chrysostome was expressely of my mind who after he had commented upon the former Verses he makes his transition to this in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after wards the common decree follows and immediately produces this very Verse which the Dr. denyes here to signify the Dogma or Decree but onely a subsequent determination Next he tells the Reader par 13. that I would conclude in fauour of S. Peters Authority from his speaking first c. It had been more ingenuous to represent me in mine own language I use not to build conclusions absolutely upon conjecturall premisses without expressing how far I build on them as I did there Schism Disar p. 60. by saying that in reason one should rather think c. nor did I rely even for thus much upon onely his speaking first but that after such debate as had been concerning this matter v. 7. in reason one should rather think it argued some greater Authority in him who should first break the ice and interpose his iudgement in such a solemnly pronounc'd oration as did S. Peter But Dr. H. omits that which I grounded on to wit after such debate c. which add's a circumstance much encreasing the rather-probability of his greater Authority and truly to a man not prepossest with prejudice the Text it self is sufficiently fauourable as far as I pretended And the Apostles Elders came together for to consider of this matter and when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said vnto them c. Now Dr. H. will have his first speaking arise hence that he had been accused of preaching to Cornelius a Gentile and so gives an account of his actions But the Text it self gives no countenance at all but looks much awry upon such an evasion S. Peter's words are men and brethren you know that a good while ago God made choice among us that the Gentils by my mouth should hear the words of the Gospell where wee see that his preaching to the Gentiles was a thing already known to the Congregation known long agoe and known to have been God's will and choice the former knowledge of which was enough to satisfy such persons and to make S. Peter's giving a new account of that action needles and to no purpose Neither indeed does it sound like an Apology nor is there any circumstance fauouring that interpretation The occasion was about the necessity or no necessity of circumcision v. 5. and more immediatly their long disputing upon that matter Next the action of preaching to the Gentiles is express't clearly here as needing no account but as known by them long ago to have been God's will And lastly pursving the same matter and saying that God had put no difference between Iews and Gentiles he comes to the point Now therefore why tempt yee God c. where the word therefore making his former discourse have an influence upon this latter of not obliging to Circumcision show's it to bee meerly a pertinent and orderly exordium to confirm and give light to what follow'd which this voluntary Interpreter of Scripture in despite of all the circumstances as his custome is will need 's have to denote S. Peter's Apology or iustification of him self for preaching to the Gentiles Again were S. Peter necessitated to iustify himself how does it follow that he must therefore need 's speak first Do even those who hold up their hand 's at the bar vse to begin with their defence and Apologize for their innocence in the first place No strength of reason but Mr. H's could have defended it self soe confidently with such a paper-buckler or have thought cob-webs impenetrable Iames must be first because he spoke last and S. Peter must speak first because he was to Apologize and give account of his actions Whereas S. Chrysostome in Act. 1. v. 15. whom Dr. H. most relies upon in this place makes his speaking first both here and in all other places an argument of his Primacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Peter saith he as entrusted by Christ with the sheepfold and as the
own nature changeable Hee imagins that Dr. Field hath prou'd some thing against us in this point and in answer shall imagin that those of ours who have reply'd to his toyes have disproved what hee is pretended to have proved nor am I further concern'd unles the Bp. had produced some weighty particular out of him which yet wanted answering as hee brings none at all After this hee will needs prove the Council of Trent not to have been a Generall one His exceptions that the summons were not generall that the foure Protopatriarchs were not present by themselves nor their deputies that there were not some present from the greater parts of all Christian Provinces are already shown to bee frivolous impertinent till hee gives us some certain determinate notion of Church and some certain Rule to know what sects in particular are of it what excluded as I have already manifested his Ground could give none For otherwise those who are excluded from or are not of the Church have no right to be Summon'd thither unles to bee call'd to the Barr as Delinquents nor to sit there nor are to be accounted Christians and so the summons may bee Generall all may bee there that should be there and some may bee present from the greater part of all Christian Provinces notwithstanding the neglect or absence of these aliens Hee ought then first put Grounds who are good Christians ought to bee call'd who not ere hee can alledge their not being call'd as a prejudice to the Council Our Grounds why it was generall are these The onely certain Rule of faith and by consequence root of Christianity which can secure us of God's word or any thing else is the immediate delivery or Tradition of forefathers Those therefore onely those who adhere to this root are to bee held truly Christians of the Church those who broke from it any time as did the Protestants professedly the Greeks the rest as evidently when they began to differ from us in any point are not properly Christians nor of the Church therefore a representative of the Church or Council is intire universall Generall though those latter who are not of the Church bee neither call'd Summon'd nor present provided those others who adhere to this root of faith and so are indeed Christians or adherers to Christ's law be Summon'd admitted But such was our Council of Trent therefore it was Generall Now to disprove this Council to bee Generall if hee would go to work solidly the Bp. should first alledge that it was not a sufficient representative of the whole Church which must bee done by manifesting definitely and satisfactorily who in particular are of the Church who not nor can this bee performed otherwise than by showing some Rule root of faith Christianity better qualify'd to bee such that is more certain more plain than this which may distinguish those who are of the Church from those who are not of it or else to convince that the Greeks Protestants Lutherans c. When they began to differ from the Roman innovated not but were found adhering to that immediate delivery otherwise they must confess that all were Summon'd that ought to have been Summon'd all were there or might have been there who ought to have been there and so the Council was Generall Till this bee done all his big worded pretences of the absence of the whole Provinces of the greater part of Christendome want of due summons fewnes of the members present that the Greeks are not known Rebells c. are convinc't to bee but voluntary talk as is indeed almost all this Treatise this being his peculiar manner of discoursing more fit for old wives Gossips at their frivolous meetings then for a Bp. and Controvertist handling matters of faith Hee sayes that the Greeks though Hereticks should have been lawfully heard condemned in a generall Council What needed hearing when themselves in the face of the whole world publikely confessed maintained avowed their imputed fault Condemned they were by generall Councils heretofore though the Bp's particular faculty of saying what hee lists without a word of proof will not allow them to bee such nor yet give us some certain way to know which Councils are such Or had it been an acknowledg'd generall Council and they heard condemned there still the B p. had an evasion in lavender hee laid up in store this reserve of words following that they were never heard or tried or condemned of heresy by any Council or person that had Iurisdiction over them and then hee is secure by talking boldy proving nothing His saying that though they were Hereticks yet they of all others ought especially to have been Summon'd signifies thus much that it is more necessary to a generall Council that Hereticks bee call'd thither than that Orthodox fathers bee so A substantiall peece of sence worthy consideration I brought a similitude of a Parliament that known and condemned Rebells need not bee call'd hee will needs have it run on four feet prosecutes it terribly some of his best trifles I shall reckon up First hee saies the Pope hath not that Authority over a generall Council as a King hath over a Parliament I answer I am so plain a man that I understand not what the Authority of King or Parliament either taken singly or one in order to the other signifies some Kings have more some less Authority so have Parliaments witness those of England France To expect then I should know â—ow great the Authority of King or Parliament is by naming onely the common words is to expect that one should know how long a country is by naming it a country or how big a mountain is by barely calling it a mountain That these have some great bignes and those some great Authority I know by their common names but how great I know not Words my Ld may serve you to give whose cause will not bear sence but they must not serve mee to take Secondly that the Greek Patriarchs are not known condemned Rebells Answer this is onely said again not prou'd and so 't is sufficient to reply that they who call'd the Council all in the Council held them so Again the errors which they publikely maintain'd have been condemned by Councils for the most part some of their own party being present Now why those who publikly profess those Errours should need a further calling to triall or why they are not known Rebells is the B p' s task to inform us Thirdly he sayes that the least Parliament in England had more members then the Council of Trent They were therefore graver and more choice persons The Church summons not parish-priests out of every great town as the common wealth doth two Burgesses out of every corporation Again what was it matters not but might not there bee a Parliament of England without having the fifth part of the members found
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
dispute vehemently yet their heat springs not from the naturall love of truth inbred in their souls but because their honour interest or other conveniency is concerned in the goodsuccesse of the disputation Hence it follows that as Catholikes go not consequently to their grounds unlesse they defend with an eagernesse and zeal proportionable to the concernment of the thing their Faith which they hold most certain and infallible so Protestants who confesse their Faith fallible that is such as may possibly by otherwise for any thing they know are obliged by their very grounds not to take it much ill at any that impugne it nor expresse any great zeal in behalf of it or if they do then their grounds not requiring it all their heat and earnestnesse must manifestly arise from some passion or interest They ought therefore to defend their problematicall Faith as men defend paradoxes calmly civilly and moderately and make conscience of being discourteous to their opposer since for any thing they knoâ— he may possibly be in the right In a word their whole way of controversy ought in reason to be managed as an exercise of wit since it consists only in this who can most dexterously and artificially criticize upon words and be most quick and ready to produce out of his storehouse either topicall reasons or testimonies gleaned from all places and Authours as shall seem most pat for the present occasion And this is the reason why they desire no more but that Catholike writers should treat them with a luke-warm courtesy and by a respectfull behaviour towards them as leanerd men see mingly leave them some apparence that their Faith is probable and then they think themselves safe and are very well appayed whereas it belongs to a Catholike Authour who holds his Faith certain to manifest the contrary to be perfectly absurd and nonsence and since the knowledge of this must in his grounds be held so necessary for the salvation of mankind he ought in plain terms let men know it is such and give it home the Character it deserves otherwise by his timorousnesse he prevaricates from his grounds by his fearfull mincing his expressions when Truth will-bear him out in them and the weight of the cause exacts them he breeds a just apprehension in his readers that the contrary else why should he proceed so reservedly may have some degree of probability which perhaps is enough for his Adversary but assuredly betrayes his own cause I know my adversary will think he hath gained much by my forwardnesse in this last paragraph and others also may perhaps judge that I have put my self upon the geatest disadvantage imaginable by professing voluntarily that it is my obligation to show his writings nonsence or impossible to be true whereas a good prohabity that they are true wil serve his turn but both the necessity of my Cause obliges me to it which must leave them voyd of all probability whom a probability will content and also the evident Truth of it emboldens mâ—e to affirm this and not to think that in so affirming I have said too much or been too liberall to my Adversary Wherefore as if I were to dispute upon the ground of my Faith which yet is not the proper task for our party who stand upon possession I doubt not with Gods help to leave no room for a probability to the contrary in the judgement of a prudent and disinteressed person so I shall not fear to affirm that all the testimonies in Dr. Hammonds book though they were twenty times more and twenty times seemingly more expresse bear not the weight of a probability if coÌ„pared to that world of witnesses in te Catholike Church they left all attesting that the very points which the reformers relinquisht had been delivered by their Forefathers as delivered to them by theirs c. And this so expressly amply and clearly as leaves no place for criticisms severall explications with all the train of other circumstances which mere words seldome or never want rendering them obnoxious to a thousand ambiguities joyn then I say that vast and clear testimony to this argument drawn from reason that as it is impossibile they who lived ten years before H. the eight should so conspire to deceive those who lived in his dayes in things visibile and practicall such are the points of our Faith as to say they received them from their Forefathers as received from theirs and yet no most palpable evidence remain of this most palpable and evidently prevayling even to gull the whole world to their faces in a businesse importing their eternall blisse so likewise that the same impossibility holds in each ten years ascending upwards till the Apostles time and by consequence that the Faith delivered of late was the Faith delivered then Ioyn I say these two together and I doubt not to affirm that it is most perfect non-sence to think all the testimonies in Dr. Hs. book subject to a thousand Grammatical Philological Sophisticall Historical and Logical difficulties can bear so much as a show of probability if compared to that clear evidence of reason and that ample one of universall testification which shines in the other However it may happen that some one or more testimonies of his may make the contrary seem probable to such as either never heard of or nor well penetrated or do not consider the grounds of Vniversall Tradition as a straw may incline a ballance if nothing be put in the counterpoise Neither let my Adversary object I intend to evade answering his Testimonies by this discourse they shall have from me the return due from an Answerer that is to show them unable to conclude against this vast Authority of Vniversall Tradition for he may know we hold our Faith and Government upon no other tenour So as still the mea sure of their force must be according to the degree in which they invalidate this tenour of ours built upon both a long possession and such an universall and clear testification Onely I desire the Reader to take notice hence what a pittifull task it is to stand answering a wordish book which can bear no weight with any prudent man who considers the incomparable force of Vniversall Tradition our onely tenour but I am necessitated to it by the weaknesse of many whose wit never carryed them farther than to hear a sermon or to read a testimony and therefore they never reflected what small merit of assent can be pretended to by words of men dead long ago left to be tost by our various expositions and criticisms and liable to a thousand evasions against the clear sense written in the hearts of mankind with most powerfull motives and to be propagated truly to their posterity under penalty of eternall damnation to them and theirs Few there are I say who have refined their understanding to this degree of discerningness though I perceive to my great comfort that the best sort of witts begin to
whereof England was one It claimed Vniuersal Tradition for it's tenour an Authority held of great efficacy by our very Adversaries the rejecting it if groundless was known to be an hainous Schism and to unknit the whole frame of the Churche's present Government which by consequence must render it in an high degree damnable to those who should go about to violate it Now then let us consider whether a Reason in it's own nature probable for except rigorous Evidence no reason can be more and no way in it's self obliging the Vnderstanding to assent be a sufficient and secure motive to reject an Authority of so long continuance held sacred and of Christ's Institution of such importance to the peace of the Church in rejecting which if one happen to mistake he is liable to the horrid vice of Schism and it 's condign punishment eternal damnation It must then be most peâ—fect demonstrative Evidence such as forces the understanding to assent which can in common prudence engage a man to hazard his salvation by renouncing that Authority Let Dr. H. then remember that they must be such kind of Evidences which can serve his turn not any ordinary common sleight testimony-proofs which for the most part arrive not to the pitch of a poor probability in them selves but compar'd to the tenour of our Government Vniversal Tradition vanish into aire or which is less into nothing To make this yet clearer let us suppose as it happens in our case that they who began to reform in this point first and to deny the lawfulness of this Authority were bred up formerly in a contrary belief ortherwise they must have received it from their Fathers which would quite spoil the supposition of being the first Reformers Neither is it likely that multitudes began to think or speak against it all in one instant but either one or some few chief who propagated it by suggesting it to the rest Now then let us consider what motives are sufficient to oblige these men to this new-begun disbelief and disobedience so as to absolve them even in common prudence from a most self-conceited pride and desperate precipitancy In prejudice of them is objected that heretofore they held that forme of Government as of Faith and acknowledged to receive it upon the same sole certain Rule of Faith which assured them that Christ was God the whole Church they left had confessedly for some ages held the same so that it was now found in quiet Possession If they were learned they could not but in some measure penetrare the force of Vniversal Tradition which stood against them in this point since orall Tradition of which we speak was pleaded by Catholicks for this point but never so much as pretented by the separaters against it because Reformation in a point of Faith and Tradition of it destroy one the other In a word should all these most ponderous Considerations be waved and onely the Authority of the Church they left consider'd t' is impossible they should reform unless they should conclude millions of Doctours which had been in the Church many of them reverenced even yet by the Protestants for their admirable learning to be ignorant in comparison of themselves or else all insincere and to have wronged their Conscience in holding and teaching against their knowledge Now let any ingenuous person consider whether such a strange self-extolling judgment and condemning others ought in reason be made by a few men against the aforesaid most important motives without a most undeniable and open Evidence able to demonstrate palpably and convincingly that this pretended Government was unjust and usurp't And if the first Reformers could have no just and lawfull that is evident Ground to begin their disobedience to that Government neither can their Proselytes and Successours the Protestanrs have any pretence for continuing it since in matters belonging to Eternity whose nature is unchangeable by the occurrence of humane circumstances none can lawfully adhere to that which could never lawfully be begun Neither are there any proofs against that Authority producible now which were not producible then The seventh ground is that No Evidence can possibly be given by the Protestants obliging the understanding to beleeve that this Authority was usurp't This is proved by the case of the first Reformers now explicated whose words could not in any reason be imagin'd evident against such an universall Verdict of the whole Church they left and particularly of all the learned men in it incomparably and confessedly more numerous and as knowing as any have been since Yet we shall further evince it thus They pretend not to any evidence from natural Principles concluding demonstratively that the former Government was usurp't nor yet from oral Tradition since their immediate Forefathers deliver'd them other doctrine else the Reformation could never have begun against our common Supposition Their Grounds then must be testimonial proofs from Scriptures Fathers or Councils But since these are most manifestly liable to be interpreted divers ways as appears de facto no sufficient assurance can be pretended hence without evidencing either more skill to fetch out their certain sense or more sincerity to acknowledge what they knew than was found in the Church they left a task I am perswaded few will undertake I am confident none can perform since all the world knows that the vast number of eminent and learned Doctors we have had in the process of so many ages and extent of so many Countries were persons not meanly vers't in Scriptures Fathers Councills yet held all these most consonantâ—to the Catholick doctrine though the polemical vein of the Schools which left nothing not throughly ventilated gave them ample occasion to look into them Adde to this that our late Doctors and Controvertists have not feared nor neglected to answer all those testimonies and produce a far greater number out of all the said Authorities nor have they behaved themselves so in those conflicts that the indifferent part of the world have held them non-sensical which surely they would had they deemed the other a perfect and rigorous Evidence From hence followes that though they may blunder and make a show with testimonies yet in reality they can never produce sufficient that is evident reasons thence for rejecting a Government qualify'd with so many circumstances to confirm and establish it Though I must confess if they could demonstrate by evident and unavoidable connexion of termes from some undeniable authority that this Government was unjust their Vnderstandings would in that case be obliged to assent to that inference But this is not to be hoped as long as divers words have divers significations as divers Sentences by reference to divers others put on different faces or by relation to several circumstances in history give us occasion to raise several conjectures Again if Evidence were easily producible from such kind of wordish testimonies yet they would still be as far to seek for an Authority
impossible they to produce sufficient arguments that it was unjust that is they must oppose or object we defend they ought to argue we to answer Hence appeares how meanly skill'd Dr. H. is in the art of disputing complaining many times in his last Book that I bring no Testimonies out of Antiquity and that I do not prove things in my Schism Disarm'd whereas that Treatise being design'd for an Answer to his Book of Schism had no obligation to prove my tenet but onely to show that his arguments were unconclusive Hence also is discover'd how manifestly weak and ridiculous Mr. H. was in the second part of the most substantial Chapter of his book of Schism where hemakes account he hath evidence S. Peter had not the Keyes given him particularly by solving our places of Scripture for that tenet where besides other faults in that process which Schism Disarm'd told him of he commits three absurditiâ—â— First in putting himself upon the side of the Defendant wheras he ought and pretended to evidence that is to prove Secondly by imagining that the solving an Argument is an Evidence for the contrary whereas the force of such a solution is terminated onely in showing that illation weak but leaves it indâ—fferent whether the thing in it self be so or no or evidently deducible from some other Argument Thirdly he falsly supposes that we build our Faith upon those places of the written words as explicable by wit not by Tradition and the practise of our Church whereas we onely own the delivery from father to son as the Ground of all our belif and make this the onely Rule by which to explicate Scripture However some Doctors of ours undetrake sometimes ex superabundanti to argue ad hominem and show our advantage over them even in that which they most pretend to I know Mr. H. will object that all this time I have pleaded for him whiles I went about to strengthen the title of Possession since they are at present in actual Possession of their Independency from the Pope and therefore that in all the consequences following thence I have but plow'd his ground with mine own heifer But the Reader may please to consider that though I spoke before of Possession in general and abstractedly yet in descending to particular sorts of Possessions we must take along with us those particular circumstances which necessarily accompany them and design them to be such Since then it were unworthy the wisdom of the Eternal Father that our Blessed Saviour Iesus Christ coming to plant à Church should not provide for it's Being and Peace which confist in Order and Government it follows that Christ instituted the Government of the Church In our case then the Possession of Government must be such a Possession as may be presumable to have come from Christ's time not of such an one as every one knows when it began Since then it is agreed upon by all sides that this present possession the Protestants now have of their Independency was begun lately it is impossible to presume it to be that which was instituted by Christ unless they evidence the long settled possession of that Authority they renounced to have been an usurpation and on the contrary unless they evidence this that Possession is justly presumable to have come from Christ's time the maintainers and claimers of it making this their main tenour that truly it came from Christ Now then seeing we hear no news from any good hand nor manifest tokens of the beginning of this universal and proud Vsurpation which could not in reason but draw after it a train of more visible consequences and be accompany'd with a multitude of more palpable circumstances than the renouncing it in England which yet is most notorious to the whole world again since the disagreement of their own Authours about the time of it evidently shows that the pretended invasion of this Authority is not evident hence both for these and other reasons also such a Possession as this is of it's self and in it's own nature capable of pleading to have been derived from Christ that is to be that Possession which we speak of whereas the other is discountenanc'd by it's confest and known original which makes it not capable of it self to pretend that Christ instituted it unless it be help't out with the additional proof that it had been expulsed from an ancienter Possession by this usurpation of the Pope So that to say the truth this present Possession of theirs makes nothing at all for their purpose since it is no ways valid but in vertute of their evidences that the same Possession had been ancieÌ„tly setled in a long peace before our pretended invasion and if they can evidence this and that we usurp't then it is needless and vain to plead present Possession at all since that Possession which is evidenced to have been before ours is questionless that which was settled by Christ In a word though in humane affaires where Prescription has force we use to callâ—t Possession when one hath enjoyed any thing for some certain time yet in things of divine Institution against which no prescription pleads he onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that he had it nearer Christ's time and by consequence he who shall be found to have begun it later unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter Possession is not for the present having such a thing or Power to be styled a Possessour but an Vsurper an intruder an invader disobedient rebellious and in our case Schismatical I am not ignorant that Dr. H. rawly affirmes that the Pope's Authority began in Phocas his time but I hope no Reader that cares much for his salvation wil take his word for honest till he show undeniable and evident matters of fact concerning the beginning progress Authours abetters opposers of that newly introduc't Government of Head of the Church the writers that time for it or against it the changes it made in the face of the Ecclesiastical State and the temporal also with whose interest the other must needs be enlinsk't and what consequences follow'd upon those changes together with all the circumstances which affect visible and extern actioÌ„s Otherwise against the sense of so many Nations in the Church they left the force of Tradition and so many unlikelihoods prejudicing it to tell us onely a crude Story that is was so or putting us off with three or four quotations in Greek to no purpose or imagining some chimerical possibilities how it might have been done hardly consisting with the nature of mankind is an Answer unworthy a man much more a Doctor and to say that it crep't in invisibily and unobserved as dreams do into men's heads when they are asleep is the part of some dreaming dull head who never lookt into the actions and nature of man or compared them with the motives which should work upon them The eleventh Ground
believe false Fundamentals his words are not intelligible sense for the following words or else they have no degree of truth in them relate to the other acception of Fundamental already sopoken of so that according to Dr. H. it is not intelligible sense to undertake for him and his Friends that they should not speak contradictions Is this a sober discourse which falls reelingly to the Ground of it self when none pushes it or was it a friendly part to involve his Friends in his own wise predicament And now can any man imagine that when I said Dr. H. and his Friends acknowledge ours a true Church there should be any difficulty in the sense of those words or that I should impose upon them that they held our Church not to have erred yet this Doctor who alwayes stumbles most in the plainest way will needs quibble in the word true and S. W. must bear the blame for grossely equivocating whereas the sense was obvious enough to every child as the words before cited will inform the Reader that I meant them of the true nature of a Church which since they acknowledged ours to have I argued hence that they must not say we held false Fundamentals that is such as they account Fundamentals for since a Church cannot be a Church but by Fundamental points of Faith and Faith must not be false it follows that a falshood in Fundamental destroyes the very Being of a Church This being so I shall beg Dr. H's pardon if I catechize him a litle in point of reason in which his Cause makes him a meer Cathecumenus and ask him how he can hold ours to have even the true nature of a Church since he hold that which she esteems as her Fundamental of Fundamentals and that upon which as her sole certain Ground she builds all her Faith to wit her infallible Authority to be false erroneous If the sole Authority upon which immeditately she builds all Faith be a ruinous falshood she can have no true Faith of any Article consequently can have no Faith at all nor be a true Church since a Church cannot survive the destruction of Faith But their ambition to honour their Nag's-head Bishops with the shadow of a Mission from our Church makes them kindly speak non sense to do her a seeming courtesy for their own interest I know he tells us here in general termes Answ p. 15. that she is not unchurch't because she holds the true Foundation layd by Christ but offends by enlarging and superadding but he must show why the Catholicks who hold no point of Faith but solely upon their Churche's infallibility if thar Ground be false that is be none as he sayes can hold any thing at all as of Faith that is have any Faith at all at least how they can have Certainty of any point of Faith or the written word of God if the sole-certain Rule of Faith by which onely they are assured of all those were taken sometimes in a lie to wit while it recommended to them those superadditions they account false received in the same tenour as the rest from the hands of our immediate Forefathers But let us follow Dr. H. who goes jogging forward but still rides as his ill fortune is beside the saddle To points which they accounted fundamental I counterpos'd tolerable ones that is such as they esteemed not-fundamental which I therefore call'd tolerable because they account these neither to touch the Foundation of Faith as building or destroying such as he acknowledged in the fore-going Paragraph our pretended super additions to be saying that the dross doth not annibilate the Gold It being therefore plain that falshoods which are not in fundamentals so unconsistent with the essence of a Church must be in things not-fundamental and therefore consistent with the nature of a Church that is tolerable if taken in themselves he neglects to take notice of them as they are in themselves that is such as their admission ruines not Faith nor the essence of a Church and sayes the pressing them upon them is intolerable and not admittable without hypocrisy or sin against conscience and why because they believe them not I ask had they a demonstration they were false if so then let them produce it and if it bear test I shall grant them innocent if not then since nothing else can oblige the Vndâ—rstanding but the foresaid Evidence their pretended obligation in Conscience to disaccept them is convinc't to spring from weakness of passion not from force of reason I added that those points more deserved the Church should command their obseruance than Copes or Surplices c. And though Mr. H. knowes very well that one of those points was the fundamental Ground of all Faith in the Church they left and Copes c. but things indifferent yet by a cheap supposal that all is false which we hold he can deny that they are more deserving our Church should command their observance and so carries the cause clear He addes Answ p. 16. that they weightier the importance of the things commanded is the more intolerahle is the pressure of imposing them and makes disobedience greater in things indifferent Whereas surely the Governours are more highly obliged to command the observance of that on which they hold Faith to be built than all the rest put together Is it a greater obstinacy to deny a Governour taxes than to rebell absolutely against him the Doctor 's Logick sayes it is since obstinacy according to him is greater in resisting commands in things indâ—fferent Especially if the Rebel please to pretend that the urging his submission to that Authority is an intolerable pressure Mr. H. here acquits him without more adoe But to return since it was our Churche's greater obligation to command their observance of those points and the holding of such points was not deemed then by them destructive to Faith but on the other side known by reason of their pretended importance to be in an high degree damnable to themselves and others if they hap't to be mistaken no less than most palpable and noon-day evidence can excuse them in common prudence from a most desperate madness and headlong disobedience but the least shadow of a testimony-proof is a meridian Sun to Dr. H. and gives as clear an evidence as his understanding darkened by passion is willing to admit Thus much to show the particular miscarriarges of Dr. H. in every Paragraph of his answer to my Introduction there remaines still the Fundamental one that he hath said nothing at all to the point of reason in it but onely mistaken each particular line of it I alledged as my reason why they dealt not seriously against their own Desertours because no colourable pretence could possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the very same would hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them This proved ad hominem thus because the Protestants acknowledge the points
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
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
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
This manner of treating Scripture then we Catholicks account in an high degree blasphemous nay to open the way to all blasphemousness and this because we do not dogmatize upon it or affix to it any interpretation that we build faith upon which is not warranted by the Vniversal practice of the Church and our Rule of Faith Vniversal Tradition though we know 't is the Protestant's gallantry to make it dance afther the jigging humour of their own fancies calling all God's word though never so absurd which their own private heads without ground or shadow of ground imagine deducible thence nay more to call it an Evidence that is a ground sufficient to found and establish Faith upon And thus much for Dr. H's blasphemous and irreverent treating both Faith and Scripture Sect. 4. How Dr. H. prevaricates from his own most express words the whole tenour of his Discourse the main scope of his most substantial Chapter and lastly from the whole Question by denying that he meant or held Exclusive Provinces And how to contrive this evasion he contradicts himself nine times in that one point AT length we are come home close to the question it self Whether the Pope be Head of the Church pretended to be evidently disproved by Dr. H. in the fourth Chapter of Schism by this argument S. Peter had no Supremacy therefore his Successour the Pope can have none The consequence we grant to be valid founding the Authority of the latter upon his succeding the former But we absolutely deny the Antecedent to wit that S Peter had no Supremacy that is supreme power and Iurisdiction in God's Church Dr. H. pretends an endeavour to prove it in this his fourth Chapter offering his Evidences for this negative p. 70. l. 4. First from S. Peter's having no Vniversal Iurisdiction from parag 5. to parag 20. Secondly from thence to the end of the Chapter from his not having the Power of the Keyes as his peculiarâ—â—ty and inclosure that is from his not having them so as we never held him to have had them His first Argument from S. Peter's not having an Vniversal Iurisdiction proceeds on this manner that each Apostle had peculiar and exclusive Provinces pretended to be evidenced in his fifth parag from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lot of Apostleship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudas his place in Hell of Schism p. 71. that the Iews onely were S. Peter's Province nay that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction that the Gentiles were S. Paul's c. and all this undertaken there to be evidenced by testimonies from Scripture Fathers and other Authours What hath been the success of his Evidences from his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath already been manifested by showing that he had neither any ground in the place it self to favour his explication of a lesser province nor among all the many-minded Commenters on Scripture so much as one Authority to second it As for his limiting S. Peter's Iurisdiction to the Iews onely and S. Paul's to the Gentiles by his pretended proofs his Disarmer offer'd him p. 52. that if among those many testimonies he produces to prove it there be but found any one sentence line word syllable or letter which excludes S. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles more than what himself puts in of his own head he would be content to yeeld him the whole Controversy which he vindicated to the very eyes of the Reader from every testimony one by one alledged by Dr. H. In this manner stood the case then between S. W. and his Adversary it remains now to be seen what reply he tenders to so grievous heavy and unheard-of a charge and how he can colour a fault so gross palpable and visible to the eye of every Reader Observe good Reader I beseech thee whether thou be Catholick ProtestaÌ„t or of whatever other profession that now the very point of the Controversy is in agitation For we pretend no tenour for the Pop'es Supremacy save onely that he succeeds S. Peter whom we hold to have had it if then it be evidenced as is pretended that S. Peter had none the Doctor hath inevitably concluded against us Reflect also I intreat thee on the grievousness of the charge layd by S. W. against Dr. H. and make full account as reason obliges thee and I for my part give thee my good leave that there must be most open knavery and perfect voluntary insincerity on one side or other and when thou hast examin'd it well I am a party and so must not be a Iudge lay thou the blame where thou shalt find the fault Neither despair that thou hast ability enough to be a coÌ„petent Iudge in this present contest here is no nice subtlety to be speculated but plain words to be read for what plainer than to see whether in the testimonies there be any words limiting the Iurisdiction of S. Peter or whether they were onely the additions of Dr. H. antecedently or subsequently to the testimonies But what needs any Iudge to determine or decide that which Dr. H. himself hath confest here in his Reply and Answer where seeing it impossible to show any one word in all that army of Testimonies which he muster'd up there limiting S. Peters Iurisdiction to the Iews or excluding it from the Gentiles which yet was there pretended he hath recourse for his justification to the most unpardonable shift that ever was suggested by a desperate cause viz. to deny that he mean't exclusiveness of â—urisdiction that is to deny his own express words the whole tenour of his discourse there the main scope and intention of that Chapter ' and lastly to change and alter the state and face of the whole Question This is my present charge against him consisting of these foure branches which if they be proved from his own words he is judged by his own mouth and can hope for no pardon but the heaviest coÌ„demnation imaginable from all sincere Readers since it is impossible to imagin a fifth point from which he could prevaricate omitted by him and consequently his present prevarication is in the highest degree culpable and unpardonable First then his own express words manifest he mean't Exclusiveness of Iurisdiction For of Schism p. 70. he uses the very word exclusively saying that S. Peter was Apostle of the Iews exclusively to the Gentiles and that this exclusiveness was meant to be of Iurisdiction is no less expressely manifested from the following page where it is said that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction which is seconded by his express words here also Reply p. 56 the portion of one Apostle is so his that he hath no right to any other part Excludes him from any farther right c. and sure if he have no right to preach to any other Provinces he hath no Iurisdiction at all
any shew of inference that they agreed to limit the power it self about which our controversie is because they agreed to limit the exercise of that power The fourth position which concerns the exclusivenes of their Iurisdiction from all save their own Provinces is the onely thing which can seem to advantage Mr. H. or concern our question which is about the limitation of Iurisdiction is absolutely false vterly groundles not warranted by any one testimony first invented by Mr. H's fancie pretended to be evidenced by testimonies in his book of Schism challenged by S. W. not to have a word concerning it in any one testimony there alledged to prove it not ownd constantly by Dr. H. in his Answers but absolutely prevaricated from deny'd though at the cost of so many so grosse self-contradictions attended on by a troop of absurdities as hath been shown And lastly not coming home the question neither as shall be seen hereafter for what inference is this Each Apostle was imediate overseer of his own particular Province therefore one of them was not over all the rest The place from Scripture insisted on to evidence this for Dr. H in his Answ p. 38. is of late grown jealous that his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fall short of evidences is Gal. c. 2. v. 7. 8. 9. 10. which I will first put down as I finde it in their own translation then explicate it whether with more consonancy to all circumstances then Dr. H's Exclusive Iurisdiction when they met does let the Reader judge The words in the place cited are S. Paul ' s these When they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me as the Gospel of the Circumcision was to Peter for he that wrought effectually with Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision was mighty in me towards the Gentiles And when Iames Cephas Iohn who seemed to be pillars perceived the grace which was given unto mee they gave me Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the Circumcision onely they would that we should remember the poor c. This is the place upon which Mr. H. builds his tenet of exclusive Provinces with what right let this plain connaturall explication inform the Reader Our Blessed Lord Saviour determined the conversion of his elect both of Iews Gentiles had already sent down his holy Spirit upon his Apostles in Hierusalem wher upon their zeal inciting them the place they were in giving them occasion they added by their preaching multitudes of the Iews to the new-growing Church Stil the Gentiles out of Iudea heard no more news of him than the star led Sages and some straggling preachers had told and were ignorant of his heavenly doctrine except what rumour might have variously and obscurely spread He chose therefore S. Paul both for zeal though hitherto misled naturall acquired abilities as also his being bred among the Heathens being born at Tarsus in Cilicia fit proportioned for that end To him he appeared near Damascus enlighten'd the eyes of his minde by striking blinde those of his body made him powerfully his told him his errand that he should carry his name before the Gentiles not that his comission should extend to them onely since the Commission given by Christ to each Apostle is acknowledgedly universall but that he was by God's all-ordering providence fitted chrosen designed more particularly for that end The former circumstances gave him his addiction his addiction so qualified produced great fruit all these together got him the appellation of Apostle of the Gentiles particularly such indeed but not exclusively it being otherwise evident all over the Acts that he preach't commonly earnestly to the Iews Where he was converted there he imediately began to preach so proceeded in that work till some began to suspect him his doctrine as not coming from Christ because he had not lived conver'st with Christ as the other Apostles had Vpon this he is forc't to come to Iudea to confer his doctrine with the other Apostles and receive their approbations which they found exact entire exprest by those words nihil comulerunt they in conference added nothing to me S. Paul having thus given account of his doctrine the efficacie of his preaching to the Gentiles and the Apostles finding that S. Peter was in like manner eminently particularly efficacious in converting the Iews in Iudea exprest here in the 8. v. two things ensved here upon to wit that by giving S. Paul the right hand of fellowship they acknowledged him a true Apostle or a fellow Apostle at once determined that since he thriu'd best among the Gentiles S. Peter best among the Iews the greatest harvest of which was found in Iudea S. Paul should goe â—ut of Iudea to the Gentiles take Barnabas with him S. Peter with therest remain in Judea still to preach to the Iews and this is all the busines which Mr. H. would make to be an agreement to distribute exclusive Provinces The meaning then of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Circumcision in the ninth verse to which S. Peter was to apply himself I take to be Iudea or the Iews there not those in dispersion and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles to be those out of Iudea Now if this be so then to omit all which hath been said formerly Dr. H's assigning S. Peter of Schism p. 71. onely the Apostleship of some of the Iews in dispertion by founding the exclusivenes of his Authoritie upon this place vanishes into it 's original nothing for in case any distribution of Provinces be signified here S. Peters's must be the Iews at home in Iudea not those abroad or in dispertion if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denote here onely Iudea or the Iewes in it Now the reasons for this explication of mine are first because the efficacie of S. Peter's preaching to the circumcision had been experienced with in Iudea S. Paul's over the Gentiles without Iudea consequently their severing themselves being upon this account should mean that one should stay where he had experienced such fruit that is in Iudea the other goe where he had found the like that is out of Iudea Secondly the words very well bear it since the Iews doe not live vnited in any considerable confluence save in Iudea nor the Gentiles but out of it which is the thing that gives a common denomination to a people Thirdly S. Paul's words onely they would that we should remember the poore imediately following shew plainly the meaning is that he was designed by these words to go out of Iudea therefore desired to remember the poor which were in Iudea as he accordingly did Rom. 15. v. 25. 26. But now I goe to Hierusalem to minister to the Saints for it hath pleased them of Macedonia Achaia to make a certain
contribution for the poor Saints which are in Hierusalem Fourthly the Phaenomena of all the circumstances favour it Fifthly the place of Theophylact cited by Dr. H. Answ p. 40. is expresse for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. S. Paul beâ—ng come to Iudea he departed thence both because he was sent a Preacher to the Gentiles and because he would not build on anothers foundation Sixthly S. Hierome upon that place is most clearly for it where he makes the summe of S. Paul's words to be these me misit ad Gentes illum posuit in Iudea he sent me to the Gentiles put or placed him in Iudea Yet Dr. H. from this place gives S. Peter an Exclusive Province to wit the Gentiles nor any Gentiles but those of the dispersion out of Iudea onely This remaining of S. Peter in Iudea S. Paul's remouall out of it seemed then best for the present circumstances but was far from signifying exclusivenes from another's Province for the future it being well known that S. Peter preacht out of Judea afterwards to wit at Antioch Rome other places The summe then of their determination was this that they resolved to do what was most prudent in those circumstances to wit that some should stay among the Iews others goe abroad among the Gentiles which by consequence was onely to consent to do prudently not to make a formal bargain or pact much lesse perpetuity of such a pact least of all does it even intimate the limitation of power Iurisdiction as the question it is produced for requires it should Again this agreement of theirs being nothing but a consenting to that which they judged by circumstances was fore-determined by Gods will consequently there was no more Exclusivenes after then before their agreement nor their subsequent agreement any farther designation as D. H. calls it in respect of S. Peter S. Paul then the antecedent designation by God Almighty The plain text manifests this most clearly when they saw that the Gospel of the circumcision was committet to me as the Gospel of the Vncircumcision to Peter where we see their judging it was already so committed is the reason why they decreed it should so remain and that they should preach still where God had shew'd it his will by giving such a blessing which superadds nothing to the former Next follows the motive why they judged that there was such a particular Commission in these words for he that wrought effectually with Peter to the Apostlâ—ship of the Iews was mighty in met towards the Gentiles So that the efficacity of preaching experience of more ample fruit was their sole motive of the one 's thus remaining the others sending abroad not an intention to limit one another's Iurisdiction or assign exclusive Provinces After this follows the result of their former consideration in these words Then they gave to us the right hand of fellowship that we should go to the Vncircumcision c. Which expresses no more than this that one should go one way another betake himself another as Dr. H. grants else where Answ p. 38. which how far it is from even touching any Iurisdiction much lesse from limiting it every Child may discern Again to speak properly according to the force of the Greek their going into diverse countries was no part of the agreement but a pure sequel arising out of convenience For dederunt dextras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is they gave us the right hands of communion or communication signifies no more then that by embracing or shaking hands they acknowledged us to be of the true faith of their communion in respect of which every one sees that the going into diverse places was a meer accident unles we will say that S. Peter would not have acknowledged his doctrine good nor receive him into communion but upon promise that he should goe out of Iudea To omit that both the scope of S. Paul's journey the Scripture's expressing that this was the result of it joyntly with the consent of interpreters doe force us to this exposition of that place Again it is impossible these words speaking literally properly should signifie an agreeing to go to seuerall Provinces both because the phrase they gave the right hands of communication signifies an accepting acknowledging Paul Barnabas in something common to them the rest as was the doctrine of Christ's â—aith and could not relate to going to divers Provinces which were pretended to be particular as also because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no where found to signifie in the Greek simply they agreed and lastly because an half point in the Greek copies at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communion or fellowship disjoyns that precedent phrase from the following of going to such such places The words then that we should go to the Heathen they to the Circumcision are a meer sequel if we follow the rigour of the letter so the whole place signifies thus much that whereas S. Paul was disturbed in his preaching was glad to clear his doctrine by coming to Hierusalem they gave him the right hand of fellowship acknowledging him their fellow Apostle his doctrine entirely sincere that so each might fall to their work again in the same places in the same manner as formerly Now Mr. H's Disarmer proceeding upon the grounds of this plain explication held there was no other that is no new farther designation as Mr. H. calls it Answ p. 41 save onely this of Gods special cooperation with them in those several places though he was far from denying that one Apostle went one way others another to preach as the Dr. knows well enough and that their determination was onely a prudential subscribing to what Gods particular Providence had hinted to them and consequently no novelty at all of designation appears here in respect of S. Peter S. Paul which was our question and yet Dr. H. not vnderstanding that the subscribing to a former designation or proceeding to act according to it is in it self no new or farther-designation as he calls it nicknames this explication of mine one litle deceit of S. W. which the Catholike Gent. had not attaind to And truly t is so litle that without the magnifying glasse of passion prejudice which enhances nothing to great somthings makes vast beames of matters slenderer then moats it cannot at all be discernible It shall bee D. H's honour to be the Author of great deciets self-contradictions which neither unskilful S. W. nor the Catholike Gent. dare aspire to Again were it a deciet to say that there were no other assignation there exprest yet D. H. is the most unfit man in the world to undecieve others in that point who in another place holds the same point himself to wit that the Apostles agreement and the precedent designation signifies the same thing His words are these Repl. p. 55. l. 12. The right hands
rovers or onely touching the question obscurely as was his custome in other places But alas how is the good testimony spoile'd and the alledger of it exposed to shame not a word of all this long rabble soe neerly importing the Question is found in the Author but onely voluntarily added by the good Dr. and fatherd upon S. Chrysostom no news God knows is there in the place it self either of setting things unquestionably for the future nor of making an agreement nor of meeting in the same City nor of Iews and Gentiles mixt nor of betaking themselves to the Iewish or Gentile part of it nor of any thing to that purpose but onely of the sufficiency of S. Paul's doctrine their approving it praising it and the like So that Dr. H. for want of a better Author quotes himself for his own tenet coins a pregnant and convincing testimony out of the mint of his own brain and then to make it currant stamps upon it the Image and superscription of S. Chrysostom And all this out of his entire desire to speak the full truth of God This falsification being so notorious it were not amisse to make some brief animadversions upon it that Dr. H's art in this and many other places may be better discoverd and the reader more perfectly undeceiu'd in the opinion of his sincerity Note first then ere he introduces the testimony he speaks of the direct point in controversie to wit of entrusting of Provinces by Apostolicall agreement Note secondly that this done he brings in a quite disparate thing to wit the approving and commending S. Paul's doctrine Note thirdly the fine words with which he introduces it and this is the speciall importance saith S Chrysostome of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though absolutely false as hath been shown yet those pretty confident words of speciall importance and the fathering it upon S. Chrysostome make it seem authentickly true and passe down glibly with a cursory Reader Note fourthly how he layes out at large in the former half of the long testimony S. Chrysostom's words concerning the sufficiency and laudablenesse of S. Paul's doctrine as if it were importantly concerning the having a Province entrusted him whereas it is quite concerning another matter which is his old trick of a busing the reader to his face so often discover'd Note fifthly how having alledged a testimony about S. Paul's praise-worthines which nothing at all concerns our question and by this means got a cloak for any thing he should think good to add of his own head he proceeds with a career in S. Chrysostom's name to their agreement of distinct Provinces when they met at the same City to countenance which not a syllable is there found yet he goes smothly from one matter to the other without the least rub so much as of an hypocolon to stop him by this means comprising all under the common head of saith hee Note sixthly that as he usher'd in his former falsification with the confident phrase of speciall importance so here that the Reader may not distrust nor doubt but that all is reall he ushers in his latter with un questionably to set all saith hee unquestionably for the future What Reader now could be soe discourteous as to suspect Dr. H's integrity where as he assures him with such doubt-setling expressions as these are and makes his bold-fac'd testimonies wear nothing but speciall and unquestionable in their serious countenances Lastly it is to be noted that in his book of Schism he used to add these self-invented testimony-parcells with an Id est but since Id est which stickled soe much before was shamed out of countenance by Schism Disarm'd now he adds what words he pleases in a smooth even tenour with the true part of the testimony without any Id est at all both because the words of the father and the addition of the Dr. were soe disparate that noe Id est would possibly conioyn their sense as also because such distinctive notes are discernible and so might prove tell-tales and discover his craft which he hoped by running from the father's words to his own with a sly smothnes might remain lesse discoverable And soe much for these seven testimonies the flower of Mr. H's second thoughts in his Reply and Answer to support his tenet of exclusive Provinces which Schism Disarm'd had ruin'd All which have been shown so impertinent to the point they are brought to prove that he might with better reason have alledged the first verse of Genesis In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth as a testimony for his exclusive Provinces for though that place were impertinent to his purpose yet it is not opposite nor contradictory to it whereas these said testimonies produced by him are at best impertinent to what they are intended for and most of them directly contrary to his on-all-sides-destitute tenet I had forgot one small testimony of Dr. H's for these exclusive Provinces which hides it self soe nicely in a Parenthesis that it scap't my observation But having found it we shall not neglect to pull it out of it's hole because it will give us some further instructions what a Master of his â— ade Dr. His in venting his testimony-ware with the best advantage 'T is found Answ p. 41. in these words when I say Peter was the Apostole of the Circumcision exclusively to the uncircumcision as when Eusebius hist l. 1. c. 1. saith that he preacht in diverse nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Iews that were of the dispersion the meaning is evident c. Thus hee whereas first there is not a word to that purpose found in the place alledged Secondly how can onely his preaching to the Iews of the dispersion countenance that they were his Province since 't is known and granted that he preached also to the Iews in Iudea so that if from such a manner of expression it may be infer'd that the one is his Province by the same reason it may conclude for the other also Thirdly observe how neatly he brings Eusebius to speak on his side I say Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision exclusively to the uncircumcision as Eusebius sayes he preached to the Iews of the dispersion which signifies thus much Iust as I say S. Peter was Apostle of the Iews of the dispersion exclusively in which word lies the whole question soe Eusebius sayes that he preacht to them not naming any exclusion at all and by consequence not saying a word to our purpose or the question in hand it being granted that each Apostle preached to any Sect or nation as their occasions invited them Is not this a worthy similitude yet this exprest drily as is Dr. H's wily way and the testimony touched at sleightly gulls an ordinary Reader to his face and perswades him that Eusebius does perfectly second Dr. H's tenet of exclusive Provinces It was obâ—ected to Mr. H. by the Cath. Gent. that S. Peter preached
Authority in question from his being exclusively limited to the Iews when he met with S. Paul in the same Citie and now here though he should grant their preaching in the same city to have been promiscuous and indifferent both to Iews and Gentiles yet hee sayes it manifestly prejudges S. Peter's higher Authority still nothing can come wrong to him let it be exclusive or not exclusive still either part of the contradiction equally fitts his concluding faculty Dull Aristotle Dull Schools and Vniversities who could never light on this secure method of disputing Thirdly let us put this manifest proof into form and it stands staggering thus S. Peter and S. Paul preach't promiscuously to the Antiochians therefore S. Peter had manifestly noe higher Authority then S. Paul Good did not Paul and Titus do the same in other places were they therefore equall in Authority Fourthly observe these words that their promiscuous preaching clearly joyn'd Paul socially with him Here again wee must give Dr. H. leave to talk impertinently and be content not to understand him for if he means that he was socially joyn'd with S. Peter as his fellow-Apostle or fellow-labourer who either doubts it or imagins that it prejudices us but if he means that he was equall in Authority what force of reason can make these two so remote ends meet in a Conclusion he was his fellow-preacher or preach't with him tâ—eâ—efore he was equall in Authority with him as if the community of things under one notion could not stand with their inequality under another or as if wee were not all fellow Christians yet one notwithstanding of greater dignity and Authority then another In answer to his dumbe testimonies which affirmed onely that S. Peter and S. Paul taught the Antiochians and founded the Church there I replyd Shism Disar p. 63. that this might have been done by the promiscuous endeavors of those Apostles Dr. H. undertakes here p. 48. to remove this might be that is to shew it impossible that they promiscuously taught the Iews and Gentiles at Antioch His first argument is drawn from the Inscription of the Rescript which was directed to the Gentiles separately from the Iews that they should abstain from things strangled c. Let us not wrong the argument but put it into form as it deserves The Rescript was directed to the Gentiles and not to the Iews ergo S. Peter and S. Paul did not preach promiscuously both to Iews and Gentiles in Antioch what unseen mysterious wires there are which make this Antecedent and Consequent hang together is beyond my ghesse and proper to Revelation for the words in which he puts most force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the brethren which are of the Gentiles expresse onely that there were some Brethren at Anâ—ioch Gentiles besides some others of another Sect but they expresse nothing at all of preaching nor of promiscuous or exclusive Authority over either or if either be intimated here it must be the former of promiscuous Iurisdiction over the Gentiles since the Rescript was sent to them as well in the name of S. Peter whom he will have onely over the Iews there as of S. Paul whom he places over the Gentiles yet this he calls an Evidence introducing his second testimony thus And besides more Evidence which therefollows Act 15. to the same matter which as superabundant wee must imagine he omitts and chuses this impertinent proof even now related for a more irrefragable Evidence than all the rest After this follows his second proof against their promiscuous preaching out of S. Hierome as hee sayes Seorsim c. the Churches which were of the Iews were held a part nor were mixed with those which were of the Gentiles Which testimony in the space of four pages he makes use of thrice and it deserves to bee made much of by Dr. H. for it is borrowed from the Arch-heretick Pelagius and falsly impos'd upon S. Hierome as hath been shown largely heretofore Sect. 7. As for the argument he makes from it wee shall do it the right to put it into form also which done it stand's thus The Churches of Iews and Gentiles were held a part therefore S. Peter and S. Paul could not impossibly preach both to Iews and Gentiles Thus Dr. H. undertakes to remove my might bee and shew the endeavours of the Apostles at Antioch impossible to have been promiscuous by such a Medium as none can possibly imagine the necessary connexion it hath with other termes What forther reply may by needfull to these words of the Arch heretick Pelagius upon another score is already given when wee treated of it formerly Sect. 15. How Dr. H. omitts to clear himself of his falsification of Scripture His unparellâ—d absurdity that it was forbidden by Moses his law to converse with or preach to a Gentile Dr. H. unwilling that the Iews and Gentiles should communicate in any thing no not even so much as in a common teacher had these very words in his book of Schism p. 75. wee read of S. Peter and the Iewish Proselytes Gal. 2. 11. that they withdrew from all Communion and society with the Gentile Christians upon which S. Paul reprooved him publickly c His Disarmer challenged him to have abus'd S. Peter and his Iewish Proselytes and the sacred Scripture too alledging that in the Text cited by him as the place where wee read it there is noe such word to be read as the large-senc'd All in which the Dr. places the whole force of his argument One would think now that a man who had not over come those triviall considerations of shame and dishonour should either have shown that the solely important word All was in the place which he cited expressely for it and assirmed it was read there or els confesse candidly and ingenuously that hee wrong'd or at least was mistaken in the place he alledged But Mr. H. is of another Spirit when he is challenged of falsifying any place by his self additions seeing it a desperate or impossible task to clear himself he either passes it by with a gravely-Gentile carelesnes or else grows angry would persuade his Adversary to blush when-'tis his owne turn He never goes about to shew us 't is read there where he promis't us it was which was objected and so was his task to clear but instead thereof Reply p. 61. where he undertakes to answer it recurs to an euasion as weak unwarrantable as the clearing his falsification had been impossible His euasion comes to this that since S. Peter abstained from the Gentile diet least he should seeme to offend against the Iewâ—sh law therefore since it was equally against the Iewish law to converse with a Gentile as to eat the Gentile diet he must certainly be supposed to abstain from other communion with them That it was forbidden by the Iewish law to converse with a Gentile he proves first from the Text the Iews have no dealing with the
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
upon this the Ianus fac'd word Gentium turns the other side of it's visage towards us represents to us Gentiles onely yet all this could not content Dr. H. he had a minde to limit S. Peter's Authority when he met S. Paul in the same City which he could finde no handsomerway to doe then by making one over the Iews onely the other over onely the Gentiles No sooner had Dr. H fancied this but immediately the obedient word Gentium turn'd round shew'd us both it's faces and did not now signify Iews onely nor yet Gentiles onely as fomerly but Iews Gentiles both And yet when this is done it expresses nothing to the contrary but that each preach't to both Is not this a rare disputant Lastly I would gladly know where he ever heard or how he came to imagin that the word Gentes could signifie Iews onely as it must according to his Grounds as apply'd to S. Iames at Hierusalem and S. Iohn at Ephesus Reader perhaps it may cause mirth in thee to read such Gottam-absurdities in a Dr. of Divinitie but I assure thee it is most wearisome to me to stand laying open such weake impertinencies nor doe I hope for any honourable triumph from the confuting such trash Sect. 18. Dr. H's Irrefragable Evidence from the Pope's Seals disclamed by himself and expressely deny'd to bee a proof His manner of arguing by asking questions But as the lesser lights vanish at the rising of the Sun so we cannot but imagin that all the former dim testimonies of Dr. H's which gave such a twinkling uncertain light disappear at the sight of his Evidence of Evidences or his Irrefregable Evidence as he calls it from the Seals of the Pope's and what say the Seals of the Pope or Mathew Paris in their behalf that S. Paul stands on the right hand the Crosse S. Peter on the left and this is produced by Dr. H. as an irrefragable Evidence that S. Peter was over the Iews at Rome S. Paul over the Gentiles of Schism p. 77. l. 25. 26. But first Dr. H. disclames Answ p. 49 any such pretence from those pregnantly testifying Seals but onely that they were brought for a testimony of the Church of Rome's being founded by S. Paul aswell as S. Peter If so I have wrong'd Mr. H. and shall ask him pardon If not I shall ask no further satisfaction of him save onely to leave him to the Reader 's iudgments when I shall have once conuinc't him by their eyes In his booke of Schism p. 76. the 9th paragraph begins thus The same is as evident at Rome where these two great Apostles met again and each of them erected managed a Church one of Iews another of Gentiles After which position immediately follow the testimonies which should have proved it begining thus So saith S. Irenaeus more expresly Epiphanius So the Inscription on their Tombes So Gaius So Dionysius So Prosper Then after the said testimonies immediately likewise follow these very words And the very Seals of Popes are an Irrefragable Evidence of the same Now what this same was is manifest by the beginning of the 9th parag to wit that S. Peter was over the Iews S. Paul over the Gentiles at Rome But 't is an ordinary evasion with him to deny his owne words Nor is this all which these Seals of the Popes were to Evidence Irrefragably Let us trace the originall position for which it was produced we shall finde it of Schism p. 74. to be this long rable that whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same City the one constantly apply'd himself to the Jews received Disciples of such formed them into a Church left them when he departed that region to be governed by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles This is his chimericall position which he pretended to manifest to have been at Antioch in his 8th parag immediately following these words and beginning with Thus we know it was at Antioch and to have been at Rome in his 9th beginning thus The same is as evident at Rome to wit that whensoever those two great Apostles came to that City to wit Rome c. after this follows his proofs for the same tenet So saith Epiphanius Gaius Dionysius c. and lastly immediately after these follows this Evidence of Evidences in these words And the very Seals of the Popes are an irrefragable Evidence of the same Now what this relative Same looks back upon is most irrefragably evident to any one that can read English understand common sence to wit that whensoever those two great Apostles came to one City c. and the rest of that large position before cited it being most palpable that he went forwards to prove that nor ever mentioned any other new thesis till long after his irrefragable evidencâ— was over past so that the bare pictures of S. Peter S. Paul upon the Seals of the Popes are still an Irrefragable Evidence that whensoever those great Apostles came to the same City the one constantly apply'd himself to the Iews received Disciples of such formed them into a Church left them when he departed that region to be governed by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles So rare a thing it is to have a strong faith against the Pope Nor hath he onely prevaricated from his Irrefragable Evidence by denying the manifest scope of it exprest in his own words and by mincing it to be an Instance not a proof though before he called it an Irrefragable Evidence but to cover the shame of it he quite annihâ—lates the force of it 's other fellow-testimony Evidences Answ p. 49 l. 31. 32. by denying them to be proofs also but to be spoken in agreement onely with his proof out of Scripture Gal. 2. that Peter was by agreement to betake himself to the Iews Whereas first that place of Scripture had been produced pag. 73. but this pregnant Seal-testimony most of it's felâ— ows p. 77 nor is there the least shadow of relation of these places to that as who so reads the 9th 10th parag where they are found will manifestly see Secondly Repl. p. 64. par 6. he told us that Epiphanius his words cleered the busines-concerning Rome that the other testimonies were Evidences to that purparse and concluded that Sure there can need no farther proofs nor testimonies from Antiquitie in this matter Nay he stuck so strongly to the testimony of Epiphanius Answ p. 48. that he maintain'd it impossible for S. W. to divert the force of it So that the same six testimonies Popes Seals were there called Evidences clear sole-sufficient proofs which are here deny'd to be proofs at all but onely things spoken in agreement But the reason of this double dealing is evident for there he was challenged not to have one testimony from Antiquity of
define one way or other yet as coming from Dr. H. it is the most unbeseeming self-contradicting position coÌ„futing at once almost all his third Chapter the most substantiall part of his book which Chapter though concerning Iurisdiction as indeed the whole question is yet run's almost upon nothing else but preaching conversion which he tells us here is nothing to that matter See of Schism p. 71. the foundation of all his tenet imaginary Provinces defin'd to be such an Apostles proper place or assignation for the wittnessing the Resurrection and proclaiming the faith or doctrine of Christ to the world that is preaching or converting Sect p 74. Thus we know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted Iews S. Paul Gentiles You have been the Disciples of Peter Paul See p. 76. they founded the Church at Rome which was done by preaching at least it expresses not Iurisdiction See p. 78. S. Peter was Apostle of the circumcision S. Paul preach't at Rome in his owne hired house p. 84. that S. Peters baptizing many into the faith of Christ c. in Britany must be extended no farther then his line as he is Apostles of the Iews So that there he argued from preaching or Convâ—rsion to Iurisdiction which he saies here is nothing to it And the words he there intermingled expressing more particularly Iurisdiction as ruling c are his own not his Author's except when he speaks of a particular Bishop in his proper See as of S. Iohn at Ephesus which hinders not but the particular Bishop of another see may be higher then he as wee see now a dayes that more particular Bishops are subject to their Metropolitain and so such a Iurisdiction is nothing to our question unles he first evidence it's equality with the pretended highest Sect. 20. How the Apostles in likelihood of â—â—ason behaved themselves when two of them met in the same city Dr. H's agreable Testimony as hee calls it shown neither to agree with Scripture the Authour hee cites to prove it nor yet with his own grounds THus much in answer to my wordish Adversary now for the point it self of those Apostles being both Bishops in one City to clear that more throughly let us consider what was likely to happen out of of the nature of the thing it self joyn'd with the prudence of the Apostles The Spirit confirmed twelve were sent to preach to all Nations when where was left to God's prouident disposing of circumstances apply'd to their prudence For the task being difficult they not knowing by propheticall fore-sight what place time would for the future be alwayes most convenient as appears by S. Paul needing a vision of a man of Macedonia to direct him thiter and other times of a speciall direction of the Holy Ghost they were to govern themselves by that high prudence which amongst other gifts rain'd down upon them in Pentecost Most linger'd in Iudea till occasionall circumstances together with the inspiration of the holy Ghost disperst them some went one way some another Amongst the rest to particularize in two come nearer our point S. Peter S. Paul the two most efficacious Apostles were after some years by an especiall provideÌ„ce directed to Rome that Christian faith might gain a more advantageous propagation by the influence that Head City had over the subject world Coming thither each being sufficiently able to preach a part from the other it was very unfitting they should preach both together but that they should accommodate themselves in such a convenient distance that the whole City might be best summoned to Christ's Faith by the noise of these two Apostolicall Trumpets This done they fall to preach the hevenly newnes of their doctrine the prodigiousnes of their miracles make multitudes flock to them from all parts In the City were Gentiles Iews both Nor have we any ground to imagin that God's providence was so miraculously particular as to direct onely Iews to S. Peter onely Gentiles to S. Paul Equally promiscuously then they both came to each according as chance rumour acquaintance or other circumstances guided them The Apostles did not enviously deny the knowledge of Câ—râ—sts law to any that came but preach't it impartially to all equally promiscuously then they preach't each of them both to Iews GeÌ„tiles For it had been the hihgest imprudence to hazard the losse of yet weake slenderly-mou'd Souls by seeming to neglect them and sending them away to another to order their actions ere they had ownd their wills The converts baptized by each could not but take a very particular ply addictioÌ„ to their proper Apostle father Let us put case then that there should happen a scandall of the Iewish converts vnder each against the Gentiles which yet Dr. H. no where show'd to have been at this place Rome nor at this time in any oâ—her place about eating of Gentile diet for that there ever was any farther quarrell between them or that they abstain'd from all Communion is an absolute impossibility asserted onely by a plain falsification as hath been shown Let us consider what effects such a scandall was likely to produce Is it imaginable that all the multitude of the Gentiles under S. Peter should shift sides run to S. Paul and all the Iewiâ—h from S. Paul to S. Peter or rather that the Apostles prudence order'd things so that when in any assembly where some practice emergent out of the favorable conciet the Iews had of Moses his law was likely to come in play or any thing to the contrary they would order them to keep a sunder to avoid the scandall We finde plainly by the place lately cited that in other circumstances the Iews met with perfect Gentiles in the same place both at Antioch in Pisidia Iconium or had there been such hatred between them as not to endure one another's sight or company as Dr. H. wildly imagins each might preach and celebrate to one after the other was departed or else in severall places any thing is more easy to be imagin'd than that all of each side should forsake their proper Apostle more than father to whom under God they ow'd all their hopes of Heaven or that the Apostles at their first coming should post them from one to another and not give them audience if they would ask or leave to hear Christ's law if they would learn But to proceed supposing on that each was converted by either hence follow'd a particular addiction of their converts to their respective Pastors and from this addiction a greater aptitude to be directed according to Christ's law to be instructed corrected governed by one rather than by the other and by consequence a greater good to the Governed whence it was necessary that those two Apostles living in so great a City that it was fully capable of both their endeavours should continue their distinctive way untill their deaths Nor doth this
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
possible way corresponding to the one we shall take it as it must in all honestly-meant probability sound and ask him whether there was ever such a strange position heard of in the Schools that there should be no possible way to testify a Negative but by solving the Affirmative places Are there no Negative Testimonies in the words or cannot a Negative testimony testify a Negative point without necessarily recurring to solve Affirmatives Wee were taught in Logick to prove Negatives by concluding in Celarent or Ferio without being forc't necessarily to stand answering the arguments in Barbara and Darij for the Affirmative whereas according to Dr. H's new Logick the onely way to prove a Negative point must be to solve the Affirmative proofs To omit that it shall bee shown presently how the solving Affirmatives was no one way to testify a Negative Again he was shown by Schism Disarm'd that this way of arguing was rather indeed to bring obscurity than Evidence for all that it can pretend is this that the conclusion follows not out of those testimonies or premises therein is terminated it's force nor doth it proceed so far as to prove or infer that the thing in it self is vntrue Indeed if it be known first that the Opponent holds his tenet upon no other Grounds save onely that testimony and that be shown plainly to be vnable to conclude he will be obliged to relinquish his tenet so far as not to hold it any more till he sees better ground yet still he is not obliged to embrace or assent to the contrary position if he sees no Evidence for it but to suspend all assent one way or other and to think rather that perhaps his may yet have other Grounds to prove it true for any thing he knows Much lesse is it proved at all that the contrary is true though all his arguments be solved till evidence be brought for it Wherefore as long as this is not manifested to wit that he hath no other tenour upon which he holds his position the thing is much further from being concluded no not even ad hominem to be false for though that medium do not establish it another may But now if it be manifest that the Adversary builds least of all upon those places the other solves nay nothing at all in the manner that the other thinks they are to be managed and undertakes to solve them then the solving such Testimonies sinks into the miserablest lowest degree of force nay even as low as nothing This being our present case observe I beseech thee prudent Reader the infinite weaknes of this Drs discoursive facultie He first goes about to prove our tenet false from solving 2. or 3 places of Scripture whereas that very way of arguing can infer no more but that those places conclude not for it nor are places of Scripture arguments that we build upon at all for our faith as explicable by wit in which sence he impugns them but onely as they are explicable by universall Tradition our Rule of faith Since then Dr. H. not so much as pretends to solve them according to the sence which Tradition gives them for he no where pretends to shew that the attestation practice of immediate forefathers did not ever give them this sence 't is evident he hath not in this processe impugned our faith at all seeing he impugns no tenour nor argument at all upon which we build or hold our faith Indeed our Drs undertake sometimes to argue ad hominem against them and abstracting from our Rule of faith universall Tradition fall to interpret Scripture with them proceeding upon other Grounds to wit upon private skill learning to shew our advantage over them in their own and to them the onely way If then Mr. H. pretended onely to try his wit with our Doctors in this place then were his way of procedure by solving Testimonies allowable in reason I should approve of his intention so he exprest it But if he say he mean't to impugn our faith or build his own he can never pretend it unles he solve or impugn those Grounds upon which wee build our faith Make account then Reader that that which Dr. H. and I are now about is nothing at all to faith but onely an exercise of wit and private skill and consists in this whether of us can make words lest without life stark dead to our hands by Grammaticall Criticall quibbling move more dexterously smartly towards the end we drive at and is all one as if Lawyers should consent to abstract from custome knowledge of Ancestors and the books of the known laws as I do now from Practise Tradition the sole true Foundation of faith and dispute out of some pliable or obscure passages in odde histories and some letters written onely upon occasion as Gildas some such few remnants of that time in the Reign of the Brittains by what laws the kingdom was then governed Again since we build not all upon places of Scripture as explicable by private learning it belongs not to us to shew them evidently concluding for us as thus explicated no more then it doth to divines to demonstrate mysteries of faith by reason which depend upon another ground to wit Authority Wee acquit our selves well if wee shew that what is there is consistent with our faith as divines do if they can show mysteries consistent with and not contradictory to reason and wee do more then the necessity of our cause or reason obligeth us to if wee shew them rather sounding to our advantage as thus explicable For how can any man be bound in reason to show that thing sounding in his behalf upon which neither he nor his cause relies whereas it belongeth to the Protestants who rely upon Scripture explicable by private wit for their faith to prove evidently that it is for them and bears no probability against them In the same manner as when Catholikes go about to prove their faith from Scripture as explicable by Tradition it belongs to them to shew that explication infallibly certain because they rely upon it as the Rule of their faith Secondly Dr. H. was charged with a palpable iniuriousnes in making the answering our places of Scripture the summe of his first proofs and yet omitting our cheefest place of all Io. 21. 15. 16 17. Dr. H. replies Answ p. 59. this is iust as Doctor Stapleton deales with M. Calvin I answer it is very likely for I do not doubt but Dr. H. inherits his father Calvin's faults so deserves the same reprehension But how dealt Dr. Stapleton with that good man M. Calvâ—n why he call'd a Text of Scripture the most important place because it was not mention'd So sayes Mr. Calvin's friend Dr. H if wee will beleeve him but till he proves it better then by onely saying it wee shall take libertie to think that friendship blindes Next he tells us he hath given
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
Ecclesiasticall laws thou shalt absolve from I will hold that person thus absolved guiltles and whatsoever thou shalt refuse to pardon I will hold it unpardon'd likewise Now I appeal to Dr. H's coÌ„science whether this person he would not in prudence judge by this carriage that he should have some thing particualr given him and whether though the King afterwards in a common exposition had promis't to make him aud the rest Bishops yet there would not remain still imprinted in his minde an expectation that he should be a Bishop in a higher degree then the rest to wit an Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or Yorke since I think it as plain in prudence that such a carriage and such expressions should breed such an expectation as most prudentiall actions use ordinarily to bee Therefore it was worthy our Saviour not to delude the expectation of S. Peter iustly rationally and prudently raised by his particularizing carriage and expressions to higher hopes Therefore he satisfy'd it with a proportionable performance therefore S. Peter had in higher manner and degree the power of the Keyes than the rest of the Apostles which is the thing to bee evinced And thus ends this wit-combat between me and Dr. H. in which I hope I have performed fully my taks which was to shew out of the very words in the Text that they sound in all probability and likelihood more favorably to my advantage And if Dr. H. goes about to answer me let him show out of those very words pâ—udentially scann'd that they persuade another interpretation and not tell us of his own fancy what he is able to imagin as he does here all over Nor let him thinke t' is sufficient to solve my deductions by showing them not to spring from those words by rigorous evidence For first this is to oppose that which was never pretended for I pretend not to evidence by my private wit working upon pliable natur'd words a greater probability is pretended from the letter of the Text as it lies how he will impugn this but by showing his more probable from the letter of the same Text I confesse I know not Next to fancy an explication which the words themselves persuade not and so to solve my probable deduction because another is possible in it self is very disallowable and unreasonable because a meer possibility of another destroy's not the probability of this onely a greater or equall probability pretended can frustrate a greater probability presumed where the Grounds of controverting exceed not probability And-lastly to think to prejudice our tenet or faith even by solving those places thus interpreted by privates skill is the weakest errour of all since neither our faith nor my self as one of the faithfull rely at all upon any place of Scripture as thus interpreted This conceit therefore is noe wiser than if a man should thinke to throw mee down or disable me from walking by taking away my stilts and yet leaving me my leggs whereas I stand a thousand times more firm upon these than I did upon the former And I so totally build my faith upon the sence of the Church so litle upon places of Scripture play'd upon by wit that what Dr. H. ob ects and thinks me in chanted for holding it Answ p. 64. I freely and ingenuously confesse to wit that the infallibility of our Church consisting in this that she acknowledges no rule of faith save immediate attestation of forefathers would equally have done it and equally have ascertain'd me that S. Peter was cheef of the Apostles as if our Saviour had never asked S. Peter three times lovest thou me Although in other respects I doubt not but that these sacred Oracles of the written word are both a great confort and ornament to the Church and very usefull to our Doctors yet not to hammer or coine a faith out of them by the dints and impressions of wit as the Protestants imagin Sect. 4. D H's most wilfull and grand Falsification in pretending an Authour for him and concealing his words found to bee expresly point blank against him His unparallell'd weaknes in dogmatizing upon the mysticall sence of another which almost in every point contradicts his Doctrine AFter Dr. H. had pretended of Schism p. 88. that the power of the Keyes was as distinctly promis't to each single Apostle as to S. Peter and after his falsifying manner quoted Matth. 18. v. 18 as most clear for that purpose where no such distinction or singularizing expression was found his discourse sprouts out into another branch of accordance in these words And accordingly Math. 19. the promise is again made of twelve thrones for each Apostle to sit on one to judge id est saith the Dr. to rule or preside in the Church The Cath. Gent. and S. W. made account this interpretation was an odde one Dr. H. Answ p. 67. referr's us to his Reply c. 4. Sect. 10. and there he sayes the sence which S. W. never heard of was vouched from S. Augustine But upon view of the place I neither finde a word of S. Augustine put down to vouch it nor so much as a citation of any place in that father where wee may look it onely he barely tells us that S. Augustine long ago so understood it leaving us without any direction to look for this sentence in whole volumes where he is sure wee are not likely to finde it and this he calls vouching his interpretation Is not this neat But I commend his wit he loves not be confuted if he can help it which had he told us where to finde this vouching it from S. Augustine he providently foresaw was likely to follow By the same prudentiall method he govern's himself in the two other Testimonies he addes to that of S. Augustine in these words to whom I may also adde Hilarius Pictaviensis and the Author imperfecti operis and this in all without either relating us to the places or quoting the words But since he is so reserved I will take the pains to do it for him knowing well that the Reader by this time grown acquainted with the Drs tricks will expect some mystery of iniquity in such aldesign'd omission Not will Dr. H. suffer him to be deluded in that his expectation being very apt to give his Readers satisfaction alwaies in that point Note Reader what is in question at this time Wee interpret this place to relate to the day of iudgment and to mean the Apostles sitting upon twelve thrones to judge the Dr. interprets it of the regeneration of the world by faith in Christ or the first beginning or settling of Christ's Church immediately or not long after his Ascension and the Holy Ghost's coming and of the Apostles sitting then upon twelve Episcopall chaires to judge id est saith he to preside in the Church Now to our Testimonies Hilarius Pictaviensis his interpretation of this place is found in his explication of some passages upon S. Mathew the title
stead of making good his owne argument would be forc't to turn taile as he does often and bid us prove the contrary The second proposition is this The fire which represented that Spirit was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Dr. sate upon each of them Who ever deny'd but that each of them had a tongue of fire and that this tongue of fire sate upon them what then what follows hence against us He tells us Answ p. 68. in these words This I suppose an argument of some validitie that the promise being seald distinctly to every one of them was mean't in the making of it distinctly to every one of them Grant the inference shown lately to be nothing worth whas tenet of ours does his conclusion contradict onely this that the promise of the Keyes was mean't to one Apostle onely or els to them altogether or in common so that each single Apostle could not use it neither of which being out tenet as he willfully counterfeits his argument of some valedity onely impugns a calumny forg'd by himself and onely proves that he hath bid his last adieu to all sincerity who newly hath pretended an endeavour to clear himself of calumny in making our tenet to be that the power of the Keyes was S. Peter's peculiarity and inclosure and yet ever since reiterates it upon all occasions with the same vigour Once more Mr. H. I desire you to take notice that wee hold and are readie to grant nay mantain and â—ssert that each particular Apostle had the power of the Keyes given him and that he could use them singly the inequality and subordination of this power in the other Apostles to a higher degree of it in S. Peter is that wee assert If yoouintend really to impugn it bring proofs for an equality and no subordination and do not thus willfully wrong your own conscience hazard the losse of your own and other men's Souls and lastly thas openly abuse your Readers by calumniating our tenet and calling your wise proofs arguments of validity whereas they neither invalidate nor touch any thing which our adversary holds The 3d proposition is this There was no peculiar mark of fire allow'd to S. Peter In answ Schism Disarm p. 97. call'd this proof a dumb negative and askd him how he knew there was no particular mark allow'd S. Peter since he was not there to see and there is noe history either sacred or profane that expresâ—es the contrary Now the Dr. in stead of shewing us upon what Grounds he affirmed this which properly belong'd to him makes this impertinent and prevaricating objection Answ p. 68. It seem's a negative in S. W. mouth is perfectly vocall though it be but dumb in another man's so that the good Dr. supposes that I go about to prove S. Peter to have had a peculiar maâ—k of fire because 't is no where heard of so much is the most common sence above his short reach Whereas I onely ask't him why he did affirm it without knowing it or how he could know it having noe ground to know it perhaps it would clear his understanding a litle better to put his sence and mine into syllogisme mine stand's thus No man not having ground from sense nor Authority can know and so affirm a matter of fact but Dr. H. hath neither ground from sense nor Authority that S. Peter had no peculiar mark therefore he hath no ground to know it nor affirm it His can onely make this Enthymene wee read of no peculiar mark or fire allow'd S. Peter therefore he had none Or if it be made a compleat syllogism it must be this the Apostles had nothing which is not read of in Scripture but S. Peter's peculiar mark of fire is not read of in Scripture therefore he had noe such mark And then the sillines of the Major had shown the wisedom of it's Author who may conclude by the same Logick as well that the Apostles had no noses on their faces since this is equally not mentioned in Scripture as S. Peter's peculiar mark is Next it was ask't him why S. Peter could not be head of the Church but God must needs watch all occasions to manifest it by a particular miracles or why he could not be chief of the Apostles without having a greater tongue of fire so that could the equality of fiery tongues bee manifested yet the silliest old wife that ever liv'd could not possibly stumble upon a more ridiculous proof but the position it self which he affirmed being impossible to be manifested it surpasses all degrees of ridiculousnes and oughâ— to move rather a iust indignation in any Christian who understands what belongs to Grounds of faith to see it so brought to the lowest degree of contempt and disgrace as to be debated by such childish non-sence and by one who professes him self a Christian and a Dr. Now Dr. H. against these exceptions made in Schism Disarm'd sayes not a word that is he neither goes about to show that there was no particular mark nor that it was to any purpose had there been one onely he tells us Answ p. 68. that thought it be a negative argument that is though it prove nothing yet he hopes by being annex't to the affirmative probation precedent it will not be a gagge to make that dumbe and negative also So that he confesses it does no good at all onely he hopes it will do no hurt to his affirmative probation that is to his aâ—gument of some validity already spoken of and truly no more it does for it remains still as arrant an affected willfull calumny of our tenet as ever it was I added that if wee may judge by exteriour actions and may beleeve that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks then perhaps the Dr. may receive some satisfaction in this point also that S. Peter had in more peculiar manner the Holy Ghost For it was he that first burst out into that heavenly Sermon whâ—ch converted three thous and. First the Dr. calls this Answ p. 68. l. 12. 13. in a prettie odd phrase a doubty proof to evidence on S. Peter's behalf Whereas I onely brought it for the Drs sake who good man uses to fancy any Scripture-proof better then a demonstration not for mine owne or my tenet's inteâ—est having diclaimed the necessity of consequence from his being fuller of the Holy Ghost to his being higher in dignity Schism Disarm p. 97. l. vlt. p. 98 l. 1. 2. Nor did I pretend it as an evidence as the Dr. calumniates expressing both my intent and degree of reliance on it sufficiently in these moderate words perhaps the Dr. may receive some satisfaction c. Secondly he sayes I bring it to evidence he know's not what for 't is not exprest but left doubtfully betwixt his being Head of the Apostles and his having some peculiar mark yet one he supposes designed to infâ—r and conclude the other whereas the intended point is
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
sure they shall never come to open light lest by speaking out hee should bring himself into inconveniences Observe his words Those doctrines that discipline which wee inherited from our forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them is to bee changed which is substantiall or essentiall But what and how many those doctrines are what in particular that discipline is what hee means by In heriting what by forefathers what by substantiall none must expect in reason to know for himself who is the relater does not Are those doctrines their 39 Articles Alas noe those are not obligatory their best Champions reiect them at pleasure Are they contain'd in the Creed onely Hee will seem to say so sometimes upon some urgent occasion but then ask him are the processions of the divine Persons the Sacraments Bapâ—ism of children Government of the Church the acknowledging there is such a thing as God's written word or Scripture c. obligatory the good man is gravelld In fine when you urge him home his last refuge will bee that all which is in God's word is obligatory and then hee thinks himself secure knowing that men may wrangle with wit coniectures an hundred yeares there ere any Evidence that is conviction bee brought Thus the Bishop is got into a wood and leaves you in another and farther from knowing in particular what doctrines those are than you were at first Again ask him what in particular that discipline is own'd by Protestants to have come from Christ and his Apostles as their Legacy for hee gives us no other description of it than those generall terms onely and hee is in as sad a case as hee was before Will hee say 't is that of the secular power being Head of the Church or that of Bishops Neither of these can bee for they acknowledge the french Church for their sister Protestant and yet shee owns no such forms of Government to have come from Christ but that of Presbyters onely which they of England as much disown to have been Christ's Legacy It remains then that the Protestants have introduc't into the Church at or since the Reformation in stead of that they renounced no particular form of Government that is no one that is they have left none but onely pay their adherents with terms in generall putting them of with words for realities and names for things Again ask him what hee means by inheriting and hee will tell us if hee bee urged and prest hard for till then no Protestant speaks out that hee means not the succession of it from immediate forefathers and teachers which is our Rule of faith and that which inheriting properly signifies this would cut the throat of Reformation at one blow since Reformation of any point and a former immediate delivery of it are as inconsistent as that the same thing can both bee and not bee at once But that which hee means by inheriting is that your title to such a tenet is to bee look't for in Antiquity that is in a vast Library of books filld with dead words to bee tost and explicated by witts criticks where hee hopes his Protestant followers may not without some difficulty find convincing Evidence that his doctrine is false and that rather than take so much pains they will bee content to beleeve him and his fellows Thou seest then Reader what thou art brought to namely to relinquish a Rule that I may omit demonstrable open known and as easy to teach thee faith as children learne their A. B. C. for such is immediate delivery of visible and practicall points by forefathers to embrace another method soe full of perplexity quibbling-ambiguity and difficulty that without running over examining thousands of volumes that is scarce in thy whole life time shalt thou ever bee able to find perfect satisfaction in it or to chuse thy faith that is if thou followst their method of searching for faith and pursvest it rationally thou may'st spend thy whole life in searching and in all likelihood dy ere thou chusest or pitchest upon any faith at all The like quibble is in the word forefathers hee means not by it immediate forefathers as wee do that would quite spoil their pretence of Reformation but ancient writers and so hee hath pointed us out no determinate Rule at all till it bee agreed on whom those forefathers must bee and how their expressions are to bee understood both which are controverted and need a Rule themselves But the chiefest peece of tergiversation lies in those last words that nothing is to bee changed in those Legacies which is substantiall or essentiall That is when soever hee and his follows have a mind to change any point though never so sacred nay though the Rules of faith and discipline themselves 't is but mincing the matter and saying they are not substantiall or essentiall and then they are licenc't to reiect them Wee urge the two said Principles of Vnity in faith and discipline are substantiall points essentiall to a Church if Vnity it self bee essentiall to it These your first Reformers inherited from their immediate forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and de facto held them for such these youreiected and renounc't this fact therefore of thus renouncing them concludes you absolute Schismaticks and Hereticks till you bring demonstrative Evidence that the former Government was an usurpation the former Rule fallible onely which Evidence can iustify a fact of this nature It is worth the Readers pains to reflect once more on my L d of Derry's former proposition and to observe that though white and black are not more different than hee and wee are in the sence of it yet hee would persuade his Readers hee holds the same with us saying that hee readily admits both my first and second Rule reduced into one in this subsequent form c. and then puts us down generall terms which signify nothing making account that any sleight connexion made of aire or words is sufficient to ty Churches together and make them one Iust as Manasseh Ben Israel the Rabbi of the late Iews in the close of his petition would make those who profess Christ and the Iews bee of one faith by an aiery generall expression parallell to the Bishops here that both of them expect the glory of Israël to bee revealed Thus dear Protestant Reader thou seest what thy best Drs would bring thee to to neglect sence and the substantiall solid import of words and in stead thereof to bee content to embrace an empty cloud of generall terms hovering uncertainly in the air of their owne fancies In a word either the sence of your coÌ„tracted Rule is the same with that of our dilated one or not If not then you have broke the Rule of faith held by the former Church unles you will contend this Rule had no sence in it but non-significant words onely and by consequence are
flat Schismaticks But if you say 't is the same you are reuinc't by the plain matter of fact nay by the most undeniable force of self-evident terms since no first Principle can bee more clear than the leaving to hold what your immediate forefathers held was not to continue to hold what was held by the same forefathers and that to disclame their doctrine and discipline was not to inherit it After hee had told us that the Church of England and the Church of Rome both maintaine this Rule of faith that is indeed a different thing but the same words hee immediately disgraces the said Rule by adding that the question onely is who have changed that doctrine or this discipline wee or they the one by substraction the other by addition Which is as much as to say the pretended Rule is noe Rule at all or else that wee do not agree in it which yet hee immediately before pretended for sure that Rule can bee no Rule to him that follows it and yet is misled as one of us must necessarily bee who according to him hold the same Rule and yet different doctrines Either then there is no Rule of faith at all or if there bee one of us must necessarily have receded from that Rule and proceeded upon another ere hee could embrace'an errour or differ from the other It being known then and acknowledg'd that wee hold now the same Rule as wee did immediately before their Reformation that is the Tradition of immediately forefathers it is evident out of the very word Reformation that they both renounced the said Rule and wee continue in it Next hee assures his Reader that the case is clear to wit that wee have changed that doctrine discipline by addition This hee proves by the wildest Topick that ever came from a rationall head Because the Apostles contracted this doctrine into a summary that is the creed and the ancient Church forbad to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession whereas wee now exact more What a piece of wit is here did ever Protestant hold that there is nothing of faith but the 12. Articles in that creed doe not they hold that the Procession of the Holy Ghost the Baptism of Infants the Sacraments c. are the Legacies of the Apostles and so of faith yet not found in that creed Is it not of faith with them that there is such a thing as God's words though it bee not in that creed How then follows it that they have changed Christ's doctrine by addition who hold more points than are in that creed of the Apostles may not wee by the same Logick accuse the Church at the time of the Nicene Council who prest the word Consubstantiall to distinguish Catholicks from Arians nay may not wee by the self-same argument charge his own Church for making pressing the profession of their 39. Articles in which are many things as hee wel knows not found nor pretended to bee found in the Apostles creed What an incomparable strain of weaknes is it then to conclude us to have changed Christ's doctrine by addition from our obliging to more points than are found in that creed whereas 't is evident and acknowledg'd that very many points were held anciently and ever which are not put there And what a self contradicting absurdity is it to alledge for a reason against us that which makes much more against their own every way overthrown Congregation It being then manifest that the Apostles creed contains not all that is of faith it follows that it was not instituted as such by them or receiv'd as such by the ancient Church Let us see then to what end it served and how it was used by them the ignorance whereof puts the Bp. upon all this absurdity which hee might partly have corrected had hee reflected on his owne words Baptismall profession It is prudence in a Church and in any Government whatever not to admit any to their Communion or suffer them to live amongst them till they have sufficient cognizāce that they are affected to them and not to their Enemies party Hence at their Baptism the solemnity which admits persons into the Church they proposed to them some such form of tenets which they therefore call'd a symboll or badge as might distinguish them from all the other sects rife at that time for some time the Apostles creed was sufficient for that and to difference a Christian from all others because at the time it was made the rest of the world was in a manner either Pagans or Iews Afterwards when other Adversaries of the Church that is Hereticks arose against points not found in that creed it was necessary upon occasion to enlarge that Profession of faith or symboll soe as to signify a detestation of or an aversion from that heresy Either then the Bp. must say that no new heresy shall or can arise against any point not found in the creed and then the Anabaptist is iustify'd and made a member of the Chimericall Geryon-Shap't Church of England or else hee must grant that the Church when such arise must make new Professions or symbolls to distinguish friends from those foes unles shee will admit promiscuously into her Bowells Adversaries for friends a thing able to destroy any Commonwealth either Ecclesiasticall or temporall This is evident out of naturall prudence yet this is that which my L d D. carps at that when new up start heresies had risen the Church should ordain such a Profession of faith and cōsisting of such points as may stop the entrance of such into the Church As then if the reformed Congregation were to baptize one now at age and so make him one of their company none can doubt but it were prudence in her had shee any Grounds to own herself to bee a Church to ask him such questions first as should manifest hee were not a Socinian Anabaptist or Papist but Protestant-like affected that is propose to him a Profession of faith larger than is that of the creed for each of those sects admits this and yet differs from the Protestant so it could not bee imprudent in our Church when new heresies arose who yet admitted the creed to propose some larger form of Profession which might discover the affection of the party lest perhaps shee might make a free denizon of her community an arrant Adversary who came in cloakt and unexamind to work her all the mischief hee could Yet this due examination before-hand the Bp. calls changing of faith by addition thus perpetually goes common sence to wrack when Protestant Drs goe about to iustify their Schism and to make the non-sence more pithy hee calls this a clear case that wee have thus offended by addition Again hee tells us to confirm this that the Generall Council of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession than the Apostles creed Which is first a very round
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
ten years to ten years and wee tell him that this Rule is a manifest Evidence because 't is impossible the latter age should bee ignorant of what the foregoing age beleeved Hee runs away from Tradition or the delivering to points delivered and tells us they must come downwards from the Apostles uninterruptedly ere they can bee certain Whereas this point is confest by all and avouched most by us who place the whole certainty of faith in this uninterrupted succession The point in question is whether there be any certain way to bring a point downwards uninterruptedly from the Apostles but this of Tradition or attestation of immediate fathers to sons or rather wee may say 't is evident from the very terms that it could not come down uninterruptedly bur by this way since if it came not down or were not ever delivered immediately the descent of it was mediate or interrupted and so it came not down uninterruptedly The like voluntary mistake hee runs into when hee calls the Apostles creed a Tradition since hee knows wee speak of the method or way of conveying points of faith downwards not of the points convey'd But I am glad to see him acknowledge that the delivery of the Apostles creed by a visible practice is an undeniâ—ble Evidence that it came from the Apostles If hee reflect hee shall find that there is scarce one point of faiâ—h now controverted between us and Protestants but was recommended to his first Reformers by immediate forefathers as derived from the Apostles in a practice as daily visible as is the Apostles creed and that the lawfulnes of Invoking saincts for their intercession the lawfulnes of Images Praying for the Dead Adoration of the B. Sacrament c. and in particular the subjection to the Pope as supream Head were as palpable in most manifest and frequent circumstances as was that creed by being recited in Churches and professed in Baptism After I had set down the first part of the matter of fact to wit that at the time of the Reformation the Church of England did actually agree with the Church of Rome in those two Principles I added the second part of it in these words It is noe lesse evident that in the dayes of Edward the sixth Q Elizabeth and her successours neither the former Rule of Vnity in faith nor this second of Vnity in Government have had any power in that Congretion which the Protestants call the English Church The Bp. who must not seem to understand the plainest words lest hee should bee obliged to answer them calls this down right narration of a matter of fact my Inference and for answer tells us hee holds both those Rules Well shuffled my Ld pray let mee cut Either you mean you hold now the sence of those Rules that is the thing wee intend by them and then you must say you hold the Pope's supremacy and the Tradition of immediate forefathers both which the world knows and the very terms evince you left of to hold at your Reformation or else you must mean that you hold onely the same words taken in another sence that is quite another thing and then you have brought the point as your custome is to a meere logomachy and shown yourself a downright and obstinate prevaricatour in answering you hold those words in stead of telling us whether you hold the thing or noe Possum-ne ego ex te exculpere hoc verum The Principle of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome immediately before your Reform was de facto the acknowledgment of the Pope's Authority as Head of the Church the Principle of Vnity in faith was then de facto the ineheriring from or the immediate Tradition of Ancestours De facâ—o you agreed with those of the Church of Rome in those two Principles de facto you have now renounced both those principles and hold neither of them therefore you have de facto broke both those bonds of Vnity therefore de facto you are flat Schismaticks As for what follows that there is a fallacy in Logick â—all'd of more interrogations than one I answer that there is in deed such a fallacy in Logick but not in my discourse who put no interrogatory at all to him As for the two positions which so puzzle him the former of S. Peter's being supreme more than meerly in order hee knows well is a point of my faith which I am at present defeâ—ding against him and have sufficiently exprest my self p. 307. l. 1â— c. by the words first Mover â—o mean a Primacy to act first in the Church and not to sit first in order onely The latter point is handled in this Treatise in its proper place No sincerer is his 12. page than the former I onely put down p. 308 what our tenet was and hee calls my bare narration my second inference and when hee hath done answers it onely with voluntary railing too silly to merit transcribing or answering The matter of fact being declared that actually now they of the Church of England had renounced both the said Principles it was urged next that his onely way to clear his Church from Schism is either by disproving the former to bee the necessary Rule of Vnity in faith or the latter the necessary bond of Government for if they bee such Principles of Vnity it follows inevitably that they having broke them both as the matter of fact evinces are perfect Schismaticks since a Schismatick signifies one who breaks the Vnity of a Church What sayes my Ld D. to this this seems to press very close to the Soul of the question and so deserves clearing Hee clears it by telling us wee are doubly mistaken and that hee is resolu'd to disprove neither though unles hee does this the very position of the matter of fact doth alone call him â—chismatick But why is hee in these his endeavours to vindicate his Church from Schism so backwards to clear this concerning point Why first because they are the persons accused By which method no Rebell ought to give any reason why hee did so because hee is accused of Rebellion by his lawfull Governour Very learnedly Now the truth is wheresoever there is a contest each side accuses the other and each side again defends it self against the the others accusations but that party is properly call'd the defendant against which accusations or objections were first put and that the OpponeÌ„t or Aunswerer which first mou'd the accusations It being then most manifest that you could not with any face have pretended your Reform but you must first accuse your former actuall Governour of vsurpation your former Rule of faith of Erroneousnes it follows evidently that wee were the parties first accused that is the defendants you the accusers or opponents for whoever substracts himself from a former actuall Governour and accuses not that Governour of something which hee alledges for his motive of rising that person eo ipso
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
to this that there neither is nor ever was a Papist country in the world For since 't is evident in terms that the King and his complices who made that Pope disclaiming Act were not Papists or acknowledgers of the Pope's Authority after they had thus renounc't the Pope's Authority Again since according to the Bp. the same laws were formerly made receiu'd and executed in England it follows that our Ancestours equally renounced the Pope's Authority also and so could bee no Papists neither and lastly since hee grants equivalent laws infrance Spain Italy Sicily Germany Poland c. it follows by the same reason that those countries are not Papists neither no not the very Papacy it self And so this miraculous blunderer hath totally destroy'd and annihilated all the Papists in the world with one self contradictory blast of his mouth And now Christian Reader can I do any less if I intend to breed a due apprehension in thee of the weaknes of his cause and falshood of this man than appeal to thy judgment whether any mad man or born fool could have stumbled upon such a piece of non sence Dos't not think my former words very moderate and very proper to character this man's way when I said How ridiculous how impudent a manner of speaking is this to force his Readers to renounce their eyes ears and all Evidence Could any man without a visard of brass on pretend to secure men's Souls from Schism a sin which of Schism c. 1. themselves acknowledge as great as Idolatry by alledging such sublimated non-sence for a sufficient excuse or ground when the acknowledg'd fact of schismatizing and renting God's Church cries loudly against them nay more since less motives and reasons cannot iustify such a fact nor a continuance of it to bring such an heap of contradictions for perfect Evidences and demonstrations Pardon mee you whose weaker or seldomer reflections on the certainty of faith and by consequence of the certainty of an eternall concernment in these kind of Controversies make you think courtesy violated by such home-expressions which may breed a smart reflexion and stir up a more perfect consideration in the Readers mind's Examin my harshest words in the utmost rigour as apply'd to his Demerits and if they exceed hold mee for blamed if not then think as reason grants that it is equally moderate but far more necessary to call great and wilfull faults by their right names of Cosenage impudence c. if they deserve them as 't is to call smaller lapses by theirs of a mistake or an oversight How can it ever bee hoped that Truth should bee righted as long as her Adversaries may take the liberty to act impudently against her and her Defenders must bee afraid to tell the world their faults and to say what they do Again were this shameles position of this Bp s some odd saying on the by or some petty branch of his discourse it deserv'd less animadversion but 't is the substantiallest part of his vindication where hee huddles together many laws which de facto consisted with the acknowledgment of the Pope's Authority both in England and other Catholike countries to parallell K. H's which were absolutely inconsistent with it and to show that K. H. did no more than his Ancestours and other Catholikes did So that hee alledges this as a chief ground of their vindication and wee shall see again afterwards an whole Section built on this one particular ground Now had hee grounded himself on a foundation of some sandy probability it had been though still insufficient yet more pardonable and in comparison of the other honourable or on an aiery fancy of some odd Crotchet of his own head as was Dr. H's conciet of the Apostles Exclusive Provinces it had been to bee pittied if sprung from weaknes or laught at if from wilfulnes but to ground his vindication that is to build his and his adherents security from Schism and eternall damnation on the meer vacuum of non sence and perfect coÌ„tradiction confutable by the contrary tenet acknowledgment and sight of the whole worlds eyes is such a piece of shamelesnes that it can admit no sufficient character as a non ens is incapable of a definition As for his particularities entrenching or pretended to entrench on the Pope's Authority whether they were lawfully done or no how far they extended in what circumstances and cases they held in what not how the letter of those laws are to bee understood c. all which the Bp. omits though hee press the bare words it belongs to Canon and secular Lawyers to scuffle about them not to mee I hold my self to the lists of the question and the limits of a Controvertist And Whenas hee asks mee what lawfull Iurisdiction could remain to the Pope in England where such and such laws had force I answer the same that remains still to him in france where you confess equivalent laws have force the same that remains to him still in Spain Italy Sicily c. So that either you must speak out according to the Grounds and say there it not a Papist country in the world that is not a country that acknowledges the Pope Head of the Church which is to put out the eyes of the whole world for wee see de facto that hee is acnowledg'd and exercises Iurisdiction in Catholike counttries or else confess that they retain still something notwithstanding those equivalent laws which you renounc't This something which they still retain more than you doe is that which makes you Schismaticks for rejecting it and is so far from grounding your excuse for which you produce it that it enhances your guilt and Grounds a most iust accusation against you that Whereas such and so many strong curbs were set by the former laws of England as are also in Catholike countries to secure you from the least fear of any extravagant encroachmeÌ„ts nay by which you confess here p. 36. they kept their priviledges inviolated yet your desperately-seditions humour could neither bee contented with that freedome from too much subjection which your own forefathers and all other countries then in CoÌ„munion with you enioy'd but you must quite extirpate the inward Right it self totally abolish and renounce the very substance of thâ— former Ecclesiasticall Government and cast it out of the Kingdome Sect. 4. My L d of Derry's senceles plea from the Church of England's succeeding the British Church in her pretended exemptions from forrain Iurisdiction and the uniustifiablenes of those pretensions The perfect weaknes of his Corroboratory proof and utter authenticknes of the Welsh Pueriles THe scope of his fifth Chapter as himself here acknowledges was to show that the Britannik Churches were ever exempted from forrain Iurisdiction for the first 600. yeâ—rs Now his book being entitled a vindication of the â—hurch of England to show this whole process frivolous I ask't what this belong'd to us unles it bee proved that their practicks were an
broke from the former Church consisting of those Churches thus united according to the Essentialls and fundamentalls of a Church Now then after all this as evident as that two ad three make five to wave answering this true charge that they broke by this double dissent from all those Churches and to make as though they separated from the Court of Rome onely and to defend themselves as breaking onely from that Court is to say that none hold those two Principles but onely the Court of Rome which to speak moderately is perfect Impudence the most proper and characteristicall expression of this Bp's manner of writing but the blame is mine for had I perform'd those two powerfull conditions the Bishop had not thus â—huffled of the true charge nor avoided thus the whole question I shall desire the Reader to consider once again the true charge for otherwise it is impossible hee should iudge of the sufficiency or insufficiency of their Grounds for separation as likewise to reflect that though hee pretend here they had sufficient Grounds yet hee thinks it not safe to speak out to the point as I urged him heretofore nor tell us whether those Grounds of his exceptions bee demonstrative that is apt to infer with absolute necessity therefore the Authority was an vsurpation and not come from Christ or though come from Christ yet for those reasons to bee rejected nor dares hee confess that they are onely probable yet sufficient For if probable reasons were sufficient to abolish an Authority as an vsurpation held till those reasons appear'd to have been of Christ's Institution what Government in the world could stand Nor lastly that there is a middle sort of proof between demonstration and Probability that is above a may bee yet below a must bee which can convince sufficiently the understanding and oblige it to an assent contrary to it's former faith These points are of too hard digestion for verb â—ll souls and come so neer the first Principles that they would quickly end this and all Controversies should they come to bee perfectly scann'd Wherefore as before hee totally omitted to answer those words of mine which prest him to declare himself in that point so here constant to his Principles hee absolutely declines to inform us what kinde of proofs they must bee onely hee calls them Grounds sayes they are just and sufficient His pretended Grounds I reduce to three generall Heads some of them entrench upon Eternity conscience some urge onely temporall inconveniences Lastly some are of a middle nature and pretend to more knowledge of Right Those of the first sort are all meer falshoods and calumnies and equally competent for any Heretick in the world to object against the Church in a like occasion that is are no wayes proper or serviceable to his cause For may not any Heretick voluntarily object that the Church impos'd new Articles of faith upon him when hee had a mind to beleeve or hold nothing of faith but what agreed with his own fancy Might not hee complain of new creeds impos'd when the Church upon occasion of new emergent heresies added to her publick Professions some points of faith held so formerly which might distinguish her old friends from up start foes Might not hee complain of Perill of Idolatry as your Brother Puritans did for surplisses and your reform'd Communion-table when hee had a mind to deny that Christ was more than a man as did the Arians or to renounce any decent or rationall practice in God's Church might not hee pretend that all Hereticks and Schismaticks in the world were good Christians and that the Church was tyrannicall in holding them for excommunicate Might not hee shuffle together faith with opinions and alledge falsly as you doe here you were forced to approve the Pope's rebellion against generall Councils and taking Oaths to maintain vsurpation of the Pope whenas you know and confess your self one may bee of our Church and yet neither hold the Pope above the Council nor accept of such Oaths Iust vindic p. 200. Again all these Exceptions you produce are the very points you pretend to dispute against us wherefore it depends upon the goodnes of your reasons whether those Articles pretended to bee new were indeed such and endangering Idolatry or no in iudging which concerning points Fancy must bee allow'd to pass no verdict onely rigour of reason that is demonstration can bee presumed sufficient to render points held formely by themselves and their immediate forefathers as of faith sacred and Christ's doctrine to bee obnoxious to Exceptions of new false and Idolatrous Yet nothing is more evident than that you have no such reasons for our Drs have vindicated these very points against your Reformers in such a manner that to speak much within compass the unpassionate part of the world never imagin'd you have carried the cause clearly and conclucluded decisively against us which is an Evidence that you have not evidenced against us nor demonstrated the counter Authority upon which you build your contrary tenet To omit that the Evidence of our Churches Authority hath been pretended by our late Controvertists and as yet unreply'd upon by your party nay that your own best writers confess you have nothing but proâ—ability wheron to Ground your faith All which shows the vanity of your pretended fear of Idolatry and new points of faith and coÌ„cludes your breach temerarious and irrationall And as for your fear of separating from the Communion of three parts of that which you call Christendome it shall bee shown hereafter Sect. 10 from your own side that you had ten times more Communion even with that in materiall points when you were in our Church than you can pretend to have had since His second sort of Grounds are those which relate to temporall inconveniences and injuries to the civill state by reason of the Pope's pretended encroachments against all which hee hath told us before p. 21. that diverse Catholike countries have laws in force that is that men may remain Catholiks without holding nay resisting those pretended encroachments and tells us here p. 36. that al other Catholike countries maintain their priviledges inviolated Yet these pretended inconveniences hee huddles together in big terms and puts them for a ground of their separation from our Church in which Church yet hee confesses they might have continued still in union and have stood out against them Now whether many of these were Abuses or just Rights hee knows is disputable between canoÌ„ and civil Lawyers of which kinde of CoÌ„troversy I neither think my self nor the Bp. a competent iudge since this kind of learning is not our proper profession Yet hee will needs have mee engage into such questions nothing concerning our present quarell which is about a point of faith not a point of law Our question is whether these Exceptions of his were sufficient Grounds of renouncing the Authority it self and separating from the former Church That they
the said Rule of faith which brings faith to an uncertainty that is to a nullity or no obligation of holding any thing to bee of faith Yet this former Rule of faith the first Reformers renounc't when they renounced the Pope's Headship recommended by that Rule Sixthly the matter of fact not onely charges you to have rejected the Rules of Vnity in faith and Government in the Church you left and by consequence since both then and now you acknowledge her a true Church broke Church Communion but it is also equally evident that your Grounds since have left the Church no Rule of either but have substituted opinion in stead of faith or obscurity of Grammaticall quibbling in stead of Evidence of Authority and Anarchy in stead of Government For the Rule of faith if the former Church was so easy and certain a method of coming to Christ's law that none that had reason could bee either ignorant or doubtfull of it what easier than Children to beleeve as they were taught and practice as they were shownd What more impossible than for fathers to conspire to either errour or malice in teaching their Children what was most evident to them by daily practice of their whole lives to have been their immediately foregoing fathers doctrine and was most important to their and their Children's endles bliss or misery And what more evident than that they who proceed upon this principle as Catholikes do will alwaies continue and ever did to deliver embrace what was held formerly that is to conserve true faith Now in stead of this though the Protestants will tell us sometimes upon occasion that they hold to Tradition and at present beleeve their immediate forefathers yet if wee goe backward to King H. the 8th's time their chain of immediate delivery is interrupted and at an end the Reformation which they own broke that and shows their recourse to iâ— a false hearted pretence ours goes on still Whether run they then finding themselves at a loss here for an easy open and certain method of faith Why they turn your wits a woolgathering into a wildernes of words in the Scriptures ask them for a certain method to know the true sence of it they 'l tell you 't is plain or that you need no more but a Grammar and a dictionary to find out a faith nay less and that common people who neither understand what Grammar nor dictionary means may find it there though our eyes testify that all the world is together by the ears about understanding the sence of it Ask them for a certain interpreter perhaps sometimes they will answer you faintly that the generall Councils and fathers are one that is you must run over Libraries ere you can rationally embrace any faith at all and if you bee so sincere to your nature reason as to look for certainty which books are legitimate fathers which not which Councils generall authentick and to bee beleeved which not you are engag'd again to study all the School-disputes Controversies which concern those questions And if you repine at the endles laboriousnes of the task the insecurity of the method and the uncertainty of the issue and urge them for some other certainer shorter and plainer way of finding faith they will reply at length and confess as their best Champions Chillingworth and Faulkland do very candidly that there is no certainty of faith but probability onely which signifies that no man can rationally bee a Christian or have any obligation to beleeve any thing since it is both most irrationall and impossible there should bee any obligâ—tion to assent upon a probability And thus Reader thou se est what pass they bring faith and it's Vnity to to wit to a perfect nullity and totall ruin Next as for Government let us see whether they have left any Vnity of that in God's Church That which was held for God's Church by them while they continued with us were those Churches onely in Communion with the see of Rome the Vnity of Government in this Church was evident and known to all in what it consisted to wit in the common acknowledment of the Bishop of Rome as it's Head Since they left that mother they have got new Brothers and sisters whom before they accounted Bastards and Aliens so that God's Church now according to them is made up of Greeks Lutherans Huguenots perhaps Socinians Presbyterians Adamites Quakers c. For they give no Ground nor have any certain Rule of faith to discern which are of it which not But wee will pitch upon their acknowledg'd favourites First the Church of England holds the King the Head of their Church Next the Huguenots whom they own for dear Brothers and part of God's Church hold neither King nor yet Bishop but the Presbyteâ—y onely strange Vnity which stands in terms of contradiction Thirdly the Papists are accounted by them lest they should spoil their own Mission part of God's Church too and these acknowledge noe Head but the Pope Fourthly the Lutherans are a part of their kind hearted Church and amongst them for the most part each parish-Minister is Head of his Church or Parish without any subordination to any higher Ecclesiasticall Governour Lastly the Greek Church is held by them another part and it acknowledges no Head but the Patriarch I omit those sects who own no Government at all Is not this now a brave Vnity where there are five disparate forms of Government which stand aloof and at arms end with one another without any commonty to unite or connect them Let them not toy it now as they use and tell us of an union of charity our discourse is about an Vnity of Government either then let him show that God's Church as cast in this mold has an Vnity within the limits and notion of Government thaâ— is any commonty to subscribe to some one sort of Government either acknowledg'd to have been instituted by Christ or agreed on by common coÌ„sent of those in this new-fashion'd Church or else let him confess that this Church thus patch't up has no Vnity in Government at all Wee will do the Bishop a greater favour and give him leave to set aside the french Church and the rest and onely reflect upon the form of Government they substituted to that which they rejected to wit that the King or temporall power should bee supreme in Ecclesiasticall Affairs Bee it so then and that each particular pretended Church in the world were thus govern'd wee see that they of England under their King would make one Church they of Holland under their Hogen Moghen Magistrates another France under it's King a third and so all the rest of the countries in the world Many Churches wee see here indeed in those Grounds and many distinct independent Governours but where is there any Vnity of Government for the whole where is there any supreme Governour or Governours to whom all are bound to submit and conform themselves in the
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
an Article of faith So that he would not have held it of faith against the Manichees that there are not two God's because the proposition is negative nor that the Divells shall not be saved nor the Saints in Heaven damn'd nor that there is no Salvation but through Iesus-Christ all these by the Bishop's Logick must cease to be Articles of faith and become indifferent and unconcerning opinions because they are all negatives After this he talks ramblingly again as his custome is of Theologicall opinions indifferent opinions c. and then on his own kinde word assures us that these points are such and so wipes his hands of them His last proof of their Moderation is their preparation of minde to beleeve practice what ever the Catholike Church even of this present age doth universally beleeve practice Proofs should be visible known and he brings us here for a proof a thing hid in the dark hole of their own breasts nor ever likely to come to light but by their own sayings onely all other Symptoms standing in opposition to it But the greatest foolery is that as I told him they first say there is no universall Church or if any indeterminate so that no body can tell which it is and then make a hollow-hearted profession of a readines to beleeve it and conclude themselves moderate Reformers My Ld replies that then they have renounced their creed the badge of their Christianitie I answer we doubt not but they have and that as they hold onely the word Church and not the thing so they hold onely the word the creed and not the sence of it both in that and what other Articles their fancie pleases Is it not then wisely argued to think to confute us by bringing us to this absurditie as he imagins that then they have renounced their creed whereas 't is our known tenet which we hold as undoubtedly as we do that they are out of the Church The next absurditie he brings me to upon this account is that then they have renounc't their reason also As little can we doubt of this as of the former having seen lately how you deny'd the first Principles and common sense almost in every particular of this discourse and even this present maner of arguing testifies how little reason your bad cause will allow you the use of But how proves he that then they must have lost their reason Thus for if there be many particular Churches wherefore not one universall Church whereof Christ is the Head and King Very good my Ld but if you give us no certain Rule to know what congregations are to be truly accounted Churches and which not such but hereticall and show us no some common ty of ordinary Government in the Church how will you make up of them one universall Church which may bee known for such This is the thing we object as you well know that you give us no such Rule to know a true Church by This is the reason why we affirm you deny an universall Church because you deny all Grounds which can establish such a Church As for what I alledged that if they say there is a Catholike Church 't is indetermin'd that is none knows which it is He answers first that then 't is all one as if it were not Very true for if there be no determinate one there is none at least to us Next that this is a calumny to say they know not determinately which this Church is Let us examine whether it be or no. Two things are requisite to the notion of an universall or Catholike Church One that the particular companies which compound it be indeed true Churches that is consisting of true beleevers and not hereticall Congregations without certain knowledge of which none can possibly know which is the universall Church made up of them The other that these particular Congregations of true beleevers cling together by mean's of order into one entire company to be called when thus united one universall Church For the first I appeal to any candid learned Protestant whether he ever in his life knew any of their Authors who gives us a positive Catalogue of which particular Congregations are to he held for true Churches and a part of the universall which no but to be excluded from it as hereticall or whether himself can stand to it positively upon Grounds given agreed upon by them that such such a Congregation is without the verge of the universall Church such with in it My self have lived in circumstances to be aswell acquainted with their doctrine as most men are and I profess sincerely were my life at stake onely redeemable by the resolving this question I could not determin absolutely upon any Grounds constantly acknowledg'd by them whether Presbyterians Anabaptists or Quakers are to be excluded from the universall Church or no. And if we cannot determin of sects so neer at hand though prest to it by our conversation carriage to declare express our selves distinctively much lesse can we expect it in order to the Armenians Ethiopians Iacobites with whose customes and tenets we are so litle acquainted But alas how vain is it to expect from Protestants such a distinctivenes of true beleevers from false who have no Grounds to make such a distinction For what Principles have they to character a true beleever Is it to acknowledge the letter of the Scripture sufficient All Hereticks in the world almost own this Arians Socinians who deny Christ's divinity most of all Is it the true sence of it how shall they agree in this without some certain mean's or Rule to interpret it make them agree Must the common doctrine of the universall Church interpret it This is the very thing we are in quest of and till wee know what particular Congregations are to bee held true Churches know not yet which it is Must consent of fathers They have no Authority but from the Church in which they lived and as declarers of her doctrine unles therefore we have some Rule to conclude antecedently that the Church whose doctrine they taught was the true Church we are still ignorant whether they be true fathers and to be beleeved or no. Is it the private Spirit The most frantick Enthusiasts then have an equall pretence Is it private reason In steps the Socinian and indeed all heresies in the world for every one hath a private reason of his own and can use it to his power in interpreting Scripture But my L d of Derry seems to drive another way affirming here p. 43. that he knows no other necessary Articles of faith but the Apostles creed though other Protestant Authors affirm more This then according to him must be the fundamentall Rule of faith and the Touch stone to try who are true beleevers who not The Puritans therefore who deny'd one of those Articles to wit Ghrists descent into Hell must be excluded quite from the universall
now you remain disunited from Catholike countries and their Churches in the very tenet of the Pope's Authority held by them as our eyes testify therefore 't is evident 't was the doctrine of all those Churches you lest and would vindicate your self for leaving by pretending that doctrine injurious to Princes and by consequence you contradict your self In order to the same point and to let him see that those restrictions of the Pope's Authority avouched by the laws practice of Catholike countries concern'd not faith as the Protestants renouncind the Authority it self did I told him Schism Disarm p. 321. that the Pope's did not cast out of Communion those Catholike divines which opposed them and that this argues that it is not the Roman Religion nor any publike tenet in their Church which binds any to these rigorous assertions which the Protestants condemn He replies first thus I know it is not the Roman Religion their Religion ours is the same So you say my L d to honour your selves which such good company but answer seriously are not the Roman Religion yours different in this very point of the Pope's Supremacy which is the thing in hands and do not the Romanists excommunicate you and think you of another Religion because you hold it True it is you may account them of your Religion because you have no bounds but voluntary and so can take in put out whom you please but they who are bound to a certaine Rule of Religion cannot do so because your new fashion'd tenets stand not with their Rule To what end then is this show of condiscension to shuffle away the point Again if these rigorous assertions which you impugn be not their Religion some other more moderate tenet concerning the Pope's Authoritz is their Religion for 't is evident that all Catholike Doctors defet something to the Pope as a point of their Religion or as received upon their Rule of faith why did you then reject the more moderate tenet which belongd to their Religion because some men attribute more to him by their more rigorous tenets which you acknowledge belong not to their Religion or how do you hope to excuse your self for rejecting the more moderate tenet of the substance of the Pope's Authority by alledging that others held the extent of it too rigorously Is this a sufficient Plea for your breaking God's Church Secondly he confesses that those rigorous assertions extending thus the Pope's Authority are not the generall tenet of our Church Whom do you impugn then or to what end do you huddle together those pretended extravagancies for your vindication must you necessarily renounce the substance of the Popes Authority which was generally held by all and so break the vnitie of the Church because there was a tenet attributing too much to him which you confess to have been not generally held nay generally resisted what Logick can conclude such an Act pardonable by such a Plea Thirdly hee affirms that the Pope's many times excommunicated Princes Doctors and whole Nations for resisting such rigorous pretences True he excommunicated them as pretending them disobedient or infringing some Ecclesiasticall right as he might have done for violently and unjustly putting to death some Ecclesiasticall person and in an hundred like cases and no wonder because as a Prelate he has no other Weapons to obtain his right when it is deny'd him But did he ever excommunicate them as directly infringing the Rule of faith or did the Catholike world ever looke upon them as on Hereticks when thus excommunicated as they look't upon you renouncing in terms the very Authority it self Nay did not the Pope's when their Passion heated by the present contest was over admit them into Communion again though still persisting in their unretracted opposition what weaker then than to think they were separated from the Church for oppositing those more rigorous pretences or that those came down recommended by that Rule of faith as did the Authority it self which you rejected and for rejecting it be came held by all the Churches of that Communion for Schismaticks Hereticks Fourthly to let us see that hee will not stand to his former Answer hee tells us that the Pope his Court had something else to do than to enquire after the tenets of private Doctors That is after himself had taken a great deal of pains to prove that all Catholike Kings abetted by their Doctors and Casuists had thus resisted the Pope in these particular cases that is that it was Publikely done all over the whole Church hee alledges in the next place that onely private Doctors held it So fruitfull is error of contradictions Fifthly hee alledges that perhaps those Doctors lived about the time of the Councells of constance Basile and then the Popes durst not meddle with them Yet many if not most of the instances produced by him are modern some of them as that of Portugall in our dayes and not past seaven years ago another of the Venetians in this very last age which no perhaps can make happen in the time of those Councells Score up another self contradiction What hee means by their living perhaps out of the Pope's reach none can tell The Pope's Spirituall Iurisdiction by which hee acts such things excommunicates reachers as far as those Churches in Communion with Rome as all men know and if our Bishop speak of those who lived in other places hee changes the subject of the question for wee speake of Doctors abetting Roman Catholike Kings Kingdomes in such opposition Sixthly hee asks what did the Sorbon Doctors of old value the Court of Rome S. Trifle not my Ld they ever valued the tenet of the Popes Supremacy as a point of faith what they thought of the Court concerns not you nor our Question nor are you accused or out of the Church for not over valving or not justly valuing the Court but for under-valuing the very substance of the Pope's Authority and calling that an Error which the Rule of faith delivered us as a point of faith In a word all your process here is convinced to be perfectly frivolous to no purpose since none of these things you alledge as done by Catholike countries are those for which you are excommunicate cast out of the Church accused for Schismaticks Hereticks by us but another far greater not at all touched by you towit the renouncing disacknowledging the very inward Right of the Pope Which shows that all your allegations are nothing but laborious cobwebs signs of a fruitles industries but vtterly unable to support Truth I upbraided them upon occasion for their bloody laws and bloodier execution Hee referrs me for Answer to his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon Where hee makes a long-law preamble no wayes appliable to the present case which even by his own Confession is this whether though treasonable acts be punishable acts of Religion ought for any reason be made treason
imaginarily ghesses which you must conceive will bee in Antichrist's time who according to their principles will bee the Head of the Church And lastly that they have a gracious Prince for a politicall Head Whos 's inward right if it bee lost by long prescription as the whole world grants it many it follows that they can in that case pretend to no Head at all in case the successour hap to bee no Protestant But I wonder the Bishop is so discourteous to his own tenet that whereas they ever held the King to bee Head of the Church or cheif in Ecclesiasticall matters hee should now deny it and put him to bee onely a politicall Head as contradistinguish't from Ecclesiasticall that is give him no more then France Spain c. Vse to do to their Kings where the Pope's Headship is acknowledg'd Again wee ask not how they are one amongsts themselves in England under one pretended visible Head or Government but how they are one with the rest of the Christian world though having that pretended Head Is there any orderly common ty of Government obliging this Head to correspend with the other Head If not where is the Vnity or common Headship of the whole Church or how is England visibly united to it vnder this notion If there bee why should the Bp envy us the happy sight of this rarity which onely which would satisfy the point clear his credit vindicate his Church His cavill that sometimes wee have two or three Heads sometimes never an Head is false groundles since there can bee but one true or rightly-chosen Pope however there may bee more pretended ones and till hee who is chosen bee known euidenced to bee such the Headship or cheif Government is in the cheif Clergy of the chief see whom wee call Cardinalls unles a generall Council actually sit As secure a method for the peace Vnity of a Commonwealth govern'd by an elective power as mans wit can invent though as in all humane affairs the contingency of the subject admits sometimes of miscarriages sidings animosities Hee promises us to shew the Vnity of Protestant Churches amongst themselves that the Harmony of Confessions will demonstrata to the world that their Controversies are not so many nor of so great moment as imagining I answer that truly I am so far from imagining any thing concerning their differences that I know not even what the word Contreversy means till they give us some certain Rule to settle Controversies to tell us which Controversies are of faith which of opinion onely But does the Harmony of Confessions show us not in the common expressions of the word but in the particularity of the thing that they have one common certain Rule of faith infallibly securing then that such points no other were taught by Christ and his Apostles or any particular sort of Government obliging them to an Vnity under the notion of Governed as a common ty Nothingless that is it does less than nothing and leaves my other objection good that otherwise they have no more Vnity then a body composed of Turks Iews Hereticks and Christians Nor does the Bp. disprove it otherwise than by reckoning up again the former motives to Vnity in affections out of S. Paul Six of which are invisible and some of them equally pretendable nay actually pretended by Turks Hereticks c. As deniable to them by him nor can they be in reason refused them till hee gives us some certain Rule of faith obligingly satisfactorily convincing that such sects in particular are to be admitted such to bee absolutely rejected which hee will never do without entangling himself worse than formerly And as for Baptism the seveâ—th motive 't is out of doubt amongst all the world that Hereticks may have true Baptism though the Bp. here forgets himself says the contrary At least the Turks Ianisaries who are children of Christians so Baptised cannot bee refused according to his Grounds to bee his Brother-Protestants this being the onely visible ty the Protestants have with the three parts of the world the Bp. so brags of Lastly I alledged that their pretended faith consisted in vnknown fundamentalls which is a meere Shist untill they exhibit a list of such points prove them satisfactorily that they onely they are essentiall to Christian Communion Hee replies they need not do it Why mee thinks the point seems very needfull yes but the Apostles have done it hee sayes to their hands in the creed And how proves hee that the Apostles intended this creed as a list of all fundamentalls onely for hee put neither before nor yet here any other proof in that the Primitive Church saith hee hath ordained that no more should bee exacted of any of Turks or Iews in point of faith when they were converted from Paganism or Iewism to Christianity And how proves hee the Primitive Church exacted no more out of his own manifold falsification of the Council of Ephesus already manifested Sect. 1. And this is the whole Ground of his certainty that those points are onely fundamentall or that they have any list of fundamentalls and consequently that there is any Grounds of Vnity in materiall points amongst the Protestant Churches or that they are of the Church since the Church hath in her self Grounds of Vnity I omit that the learned Bp. makes account Turks are Pagans or to bee converted from Paganism whereas 't is known they acknowledge a God and affirms that the Primitive Church in the Council of Ephesus for to this hee relates as appears p. 5. held in the year 430. order'd any thing concerning Turks which sect sprang not till the year 630. that is 200. years after Both good sport did not the Bp. cloy us with such scenes of mirth Again when hee saies the Apostles creed is a list of all fundamentalls either hee means the letter of the creed and then hee grants Socinians Arians to bee Christians both which admit the letter of the creed interpreted their own way and excludes the Puritans from all hopes of Salvation for denying a fundamentall towit Christs descent into Hell Or else hee means the sence of the creed and then hee excludes the Roman Catholikes whom yet in other circumstances hee acknowledges to bee of the Church for they hold some Articles found there in another sence than do the Protestants Let him then prove evidently that no points of faith were held formerly as necessary save those Articles in the Apostles creed next tell us whether hee means the letter onely or the sence of the creed then show us satisfactorily which is the onely true sence of it and lastly apply that piece of doctrine to particulars and so show us which sects are of the Church which excluded wee shall remain very much edifyd Sect. 9. How the Bp. of Derry falsifies his Adversary's words brings a Testimony against himself attended by a direct contradiction which hee
terms Fortifying With what incomparable art hee clears himself of another And how hee totally neglects the whole Question the Duty of a Controvertist in impugning opinions acknowledg'dly held onely by some in stead of points of faith held by the whole Church HHis Eighth chapter pretends to prove the Pope the Court of Rome most guilty of the Schism Which hee makes account hee hath done so strongly that hee needs not fortify any thing yet hee will needs do a needless bufines and goes about to fortify as hee calls it in his way not with standing To the first argument saith hee hee denieth that the Church of Rome is but a sister or a Mother and not Mistress to other Churches Which is first flatly to falsify my words to be seen Schism Disarm p. 327. which never deny her to bee a Mother but a Sister onely and this is his first endeavour of needles fortifying Next whereas the words Mistress may signify two things to wit a person that imperiously and proudly commands in which acception 't is the same with Domina and correlative to Serva a slave or hire ling slave Or else a Teacheress as I may say or one which instructs and so is coincident with Magistra and correlative to Discipula a Disciple or schollar Again it being evident both out of the Council of Florence where it is defined Romanam Ecclesiam esse Matrem Magistramque omnium Ecclesiarum and also out of common sence that wee take it in this latter signification the quibbling Bp. takes it in the former that is not as understood by us but by himself and then impugns his own mistake citing S. Bernard who exhorting Pope Eugenius to humility bids him consider that the Roman Church Ecclesiarum Matrem esse non Dominam is the Mother not Lady of all Churches And this is another attempt of his needles fortifying My L d of Derry may please then to understand that when wee say that the Roman Church is Mother Mistress of other Churches wee take the word Mother as relating to her Government or power of governing whose correlative is a sweet subjection not a hard or rigorous slavery and the word Mistress as expressing her power of teaching Or if the Bp. bee loath to grant the word Mistress taken in our sence which yet hee never goes about to impugn or disprove let him but allow stand to what the testimony himself brings here avouches to wit that shee is Mother of other Churches and that shee hath right to rule and teach her children as a Mother should do 't is as much as wee desire Now let us apply this see how rarely the Bishop hath cleared himself of Schism layd it at our doâ—e Hee hath brought a testimony which asserts the Church of Rome to bee the Mother of other Churches and so of the Church of England too if shee be Church nor does himself in this place deny her that title but seems to grant it But it is manifest de facto and by their solemn ordinances publike writings that her good Daughter the Church of England tells her flatly shee will not ought not obey her and thus by the Bp ' s Logick shee becomes acquitted of Schism Which I must confess is not onely a needles but a sleeveles manner of fortifying Again Schism involves in it's notion disobedience and the Bishop in this chapter pretends to show her Schismaticall that is disobedient to do which hee brings us a testimony which asserts our Church to bee Mother of other Churches and then concludes the Mother Schismaticall because shee is disobedient to her Daughter Pithy non-sence or if made sence flatly accusing their Church of Schism for disobeying her Mother and this deducible cleerly from that very testimony hee brought to prove the contrary which kind of arguing is in the Bp s phrase call'd needles fortifying His pretence of a new creed which was his second argument to prove us Schismaticall made by Pope Pius the fourth is already shown Sect. 1. to bee a calumny To which I add that our creed is the points of our beleef or faith since then 't is known that each point in that Profession of faith put out by him was held as of faith by the former Church ere hee thus collected them 't is a contradiction to pretend that hee made a new creed till it be shown that any of those points there contained was not formerly of faith and prove satisfactorily that the Apostles containes all necessary points of faith which will bee manifested at the Greek calends His third argument was because wee maintain the Pope in a rebellion against a generall Council To this hee sayes I answer not a word Let us see whether it deserves a word of Answer The difference between a Controvertist and a Schoolman is the same as is between a Church a School Controvertists therefore of severall Churches defend those points impugn the contrary ones which are held by those Churches as Churches that is as Congregations relying upon their Rule of faith Either then let him show that our Church holds as of faith or as received upon her Rule of faith the Pope's Supremacy to a generall Council else in impugning that point hee totally prevaricates from the office of a Controvertist hath done nothing which was his duty and so merits no answer save onely this that if hee will dispute against private opinions hee must cite his Authors argue against them not the Church whose beleef is contained in the decrees of Councils and universall consent of fathers Doctors Which answer I then gave him expresly Schism Disarm p. 327 Now to show the vanity of this third argument let him either manifest that our Church prest upon them this point of holding the Pope above Councils so as to excommunicate them upon their contrary tenet else all pretence of our causing the Schism is avoided for in case it were not thus prest his argument stands thus very many Schoolmen a great party among them held that opinion where upon wee left their Church ergo they are most guilty of the Schism Which is as senceles a paralogism as a sleepy brain could have stumbled on For why should any break Church-Communion as long as hee can keep it with conscience or how is my conscience concern'd in other men's opinions as long as they permit mee to hold the contrary Now that our Church permits the contrary tenet and denies none Communion for it himself testifies vindication p. 200. where hee puts down as one of the tenets of the now-french Church that generall Councils are above the Pope and may depose him c. The Bishop was conscious that hee had neglected the office of a Controvertist by impugning Schoolmen Lawyers Courtiers instead of our Church and an opinion held by many instead of a point of faith held by all To delude the Reader in reality to oppose the former which belonged not
to him yet seem to strike at the latter as hee ought hee joyns both however in consistent into one and being to wrangle against the Pope's Headship proposes it first under this Chimericall notion The Papacy Quà talis or as such as it is maintained by many And this hee calls laying the Axe to the root of Shism though it bee as directly leuell'd a stroak at his own legs and inflicting as deep a wound on the supports of his cause as a contradiction can give to pretended sence For since all Papists as such hold a Papacy or the Pope's Headship of Iurisdiction over the whole Church and differ in this point from Protestants it is evident that the Papacy of such is that which is held by all for none can be Papists longer then they hold it Now then to say the Papacy as such as it is now held by many is the same as to say the Papacy as held by all as held by many onely which is in other language to legitimate an Hircoceruus and to clap together non ens and ens into the same notion But how does hee clear himself of this shuffling nonsence why first hee asks do not some Roman Catholikes subject the Pope to a generall Council and others nay the greater part of them c subject a generall Council to the Pope What is this to the Question whether these words the Papacy as such as it is now maintain'd by many cohere in sence or no Secondly hee asks whether hee might not then well say the Papacy quà talis c. No my L d for it being evident that all Roman Catholikes hold the Papacy in some sence if you call it the Papacy as such as it is held by many pray how will you stile it as held by all as not such or the Papacy with super additions or can all hold what some do not hold Thirdly hee saies his conclusion was not against the Church of Rome in generall but against the Pope Court of Rome that they were guilty of the Schism For what for maintaining the substance of the Pope's Authority held by all then you accuse the Church of Rome in generall of Schism for the Church in generall holds what all in her hold Or was it for this opinion of the Pope above the Council and others of this strain How were they guilty of Schism for this unles they had deny'd you Communion for holding the contrary or prest upon you an unconscientious approbation of it which you know they did not Fool not your Readers my L d 't was not for this tenet which you impute to the Court of Rome but for that of the Pope's Headship or Spirituall Iurisdiction over all God's Church held by all Catholikes and by that whole Church equally then as it is now for which you are excommunicated and so ought either to submit to that whole Church again in that point as formerly or else if you would deal candidly impugn that whole Church and not the Court onely thus opposite to you in that mainly-concerning point Fourthly as hee saies although aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus that is sometimes honest Homer takes a nodd and though hee had stol'n a napp it had been neither felony nor treason yet to let us see hee did not sleep he will put his argument into form without a quâ talis which is to affect a sleepines still or as our English Proverb saies to sleep fox sleep Hee is accus'd of a contradiction non-sence and to clear himself hee tells us hee will now lay aside one part of the contradiction and endeavour to make good sence of the other Now his first argument is that the Court of Rome is guilty of Schism for preferring the Pope before a generall Council to which I have already answer'd His second is that ours are thus guilty for making all Apostolicall succession Episcopall Iurisdiction come from Rome onely By which if hee means our Church as a Church holds it as hee ought if hee speak like a Controvertist 't is a most gross false imputation as I told him If of the Court of Rome onely then since they neither prest it as of faith nor deny'd you Communion for these points but for another held by all as I lately show'd they cannot hence be concluded guilty nor you guiltles of Schism This argument past over hee confesses this tenet is not generall amongst us I add but points of faith are generally held therefore this tenet is but an opinion and being not generall as hee grants it follows that it is onely a particular or private opinion as I call'd it his own words evince it Yet hee is loath these should be call'd private opinions because they are most common most current Whereas unles they come down recommended by our Rule of faith immediate Tradition or the voice of the Church so become perfectly common generall universall undoubtedly current our Church looks upon them onely as deductions of private men's reasons nor shall I own them for other That the former is a common tenet hee brings Cardinal Bellarmine to say that it is almost de fide or a point of faith which the good Bp. sees not that it signifies it was almost reveald or that the revelation fell an inch or two short of reaching our knowledge or that God has not indeed reveald it but yet that t was twenty to one but hee had done it Next that the Council of Florence seem'd to have defin'd it now the word seems signifies I know not that ever it defin'd it at all or if it defin'd it so 't is more than I know Thirdly that the Council of Lateran I suppose hee means not the generall Council there held defin'd it most expresly Yet the Bp here descanting upon the words of that Council sayes onely that they seem to import no less that is it may bee they mean no such thing or it may bee they mean much less For the latter opinion as hee candidly here calls it hee tells us Bellarmine declares it to bee most true that hee cites great Authors for it saith that it seemeth again to have been the opinion of the old Schoolmen speaking highly at least seemingly of the Pope's Authority So that all is seeming all opinion and uncertainty Now the use the Bp. makes of this gear is this The Court of Rome many with it held an over weening opinion of their own Authority though they permitted us whole Churches to hold the contrary therefore wee very innocently broke God's Church or therefore wee quite renounc't the Principles of Vnity in both faith Government as the fact witnesses you did because they held an erroneous op nion too much extending the latter In a word let Bellarmine the Bp. wrangle about the opinionative point I shall not think my self concern'd as a Controvertist to interrupt their dispute or â—oyn mine interest with either party however did I
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
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
Schism between us For the antecedent renouncing those two points shown to have been the Principles of Ecclesiasticall Vnity had already caused the breach disvnion or diuision between us But those between whom an actuall diuision is made are not still diuisible that is they who are already diuided are not now to bee diuided Whefore however it may bee pretended that those Excommunications made those Congregations who were antecedently thus diuided stand at farther distance from one another yet 't is most senceles and unworthy a man of reason to affirm that they diuided those who were already diuided ere those Excommunications came Especially since the Rule of faith and the substance of the Pope's Authority consist in an indiuisible and are points of that nature that the renouncing these is a Principle of renouncing all faith and Government For who so renounces a y Rule may nay ought if hee go to work consequently renounce all hee holds upon that Rule whether points of faith or of Government nay even the letter of God's written word it self that is all that Christ left us or that can concern a Church 13. The renouncing those two Principles of the former Church Vnity as it evidently disvâ—ited mens minds in order to faith and Government so if reduced into practice it must necessarily disvnite or diuide them likewise in externall Church carriage This is clear since our tenets are the Principles of our actions and so contrary tenets of contrary carriage 14. Those tenets contrary to the two Principles of Church Vnity were de facto put in practice by the Reforming party and consequently they diuided the Church both internally and externally This is most undeniably evident since they preach't writ and acted against the Tradition or delivery of the immediately foregoing Church as erroneous in many points which shee deliver'd to them as from immediate fathers and so upwards as from Christ and proceeded now to interpret Scripture by another Rule than by the tenets and practice of the immediately foregoing faithfull And as for the former Government they absolutely renounc't it's influence in England preach't and writ against it Nay kept Congregations apart before they had the power in their hands and after they had the power in their hands punish't and put to death and that vpon the score of Religion many of the maintainers of those two Principles of Church Vnity 15. Hence follows that the Protestants breach was a perfect and compleat fact of Schism For it diuided the former Ecclesiasticall Body both internally and externally and that as it was an Ecclesiasticall Body since those two said Principles concern'd Ecclesiasticall Vnity 16. The subsequent Excommunication of our Church was therefore due fitting and necessary Due for it is as due a carriage towards those who have actually renounced the Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government and so broken Church Vnity to bee excommunicated by that Body from which those Renouncers thus broke as it is towards rebells who have renounc't both Supreme Government and fundamentall laws of a Common-wealth and so diuided the Temporall Body to bee denounced and proclaimed Rebells by the same Common-wealth Fitting since the effect of it they most resent which was to keep the true faithfull apart in Ecclesiasticall actions from them signify'd no more than this that they who had broken both internally and externally from the former Body should not bee treated with in Ecclesiasticall carriages as still of it nor bee owned for parts of that Commonwealth of which already they had made themselves no parts Lastly necessary all Government and good order going to wrack if opposite parties bee allow'd to treat together commonly in such actions in which their opposition must necessarily and frequently burst out and discover it self which will ineuitably disgust the more prudent sort hazzard to peruert the weaker and breed disquiet on both sides Thus far to evidence demonstrably that the Extern Fact of Schism was truly theirs Which done though it bee needless to adde any more to prove them formall Schismaticks themselves confessing that such a fact cannot bee iustifiable by any reasons or motives whatsoever of Schism c. 1. Yet I shall not build upon their standing to their own words knowing how easy a thing it is for men who talk loosely and not with strict rigour of Discourse to shuffle of their own sayings I shall therefore prosecute mine own intended method and alledge that 17. The very doing an Extern fact of so hainous a Nature as is breaking Church Vnity concludes a guilt in the Acters unles they render reasons truly sufficient to excuse their fact This is evident a fortiori by parallelling this to facts of far more inferiour malice For who so rises against a long settled and acknowledg'd Temporall power is concluded by that very fact of rising to bee a Rebell unles hee render sufficient reasons why hee rose Otherwise till those reasons appear the Good of Peace settlement order and Vnity which hee evidently violates by his rising conclude him most irrationall that is sinfull who shall go about to destroy them The like wee experience to bee granted by all Mankind in case a son disobey or disacknowledge one for his father who was held so formerly nay if a schoolboy disobey a petty schoolmaster for unles they give sufficient reasons of this disobedience the order of the world which consists in such submission of inferiours to formerly-acknowledg'd Superiours gives them for faulty for having broken and inverted that order How much more then the fact of breaking Church Vnity since this entrenches upon an order infinitely higher to wit Mankind's order to Beatitude and in it's own nature dissolves that is destroyes Christ's Church by destroying it's Vnity and by consequence his law too since there remaining no means to make particular Churches interpret Scripture the same way each of them would follow the fancy of some man it esteems learned and so there would bee as many faiths as particular Congregations as wee see practic 't in Luther's pretended Reformation and this last amongst us 18. No reasons can bee sufficient to excuse such a fact but such as are able to conuince that 't was better to do that fact than not to do it This is most Evident since as when reason convinces mee 't is worse to do such a thing I am beyond all excuse irrationall that is faulty in doing it so if I bee conuinc't that 't is onely-equally good I can have no reason to go about it for in regard I cannot act in this case without making choice of the one particular before the other and in this supposed case there is no reason of making such a choice since I am convinc't of the equality of their Goodnesses 't is clear my action in this case cannot spring from reason 'T is left then that none can act rationally nor by consequence excusably unles convinc't that the fact is better to bee done than not to bee done 19. In
him speak for him by adding two Parenthesis of his own in the middle p. 326 327 328. Another heap of Absurditis p. 232 233. Absurdity in deducing a Conclusion out of three Testimonies in stead of shewing one expresse word in any one p. 345 346. c. with others of an inferiour strain Absurdities about Saint John's Priority in place p. 371 372 373. Another p. 374. Many and most grosse Absurdities to avoid the clearing his inexcusable Falsification of Scripture p. 376 377 c. Absurd pretences and his building on a â—silly unauthentik and most unlikely Narration p. 388 389. Absurd nonsence in obliging us to confesse what we hold as of Faith instead of shewing us he had exprest we held so and not calumniated our tenet p. 390 391 392. More new Absurdites p. 307 308. Absurdity in answering by a Paralel which in nothing resembled our objection p. 410 411. Absurd Nonsence p. 418 419 420. A Cluster of Absurdities about his twelve Thrones p. 421 422. c. all over Another Cluster of toyish Absurdities p. 435 436. An whole Army of Absurditias mustered up which he nicknames a perfect Reply and attendance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to my most important Section p. 450 451. Abusing the Reader 's eyes four severall times p. 198 199. Also p. 231 232 237 249 251 326 327. with what art he does so p. 327 328. Also p. 329 330. and in divers other places Abusing a Testimony from Theophylact. p. 243 244. Abusing a Testimony from Scripture p. 283 284 285. Abusing a Testimony from Anacletus p. 297 298. c. Abusing the Jewish Church and her Practice in their purest times p. 311. Abusing the Primitive Christians as most uncharitable and the Apostles as abetters of their fault p. 318 319. Abusing Saint Peter and his Jewish Prosclytes by making them all Schismaticks p. 315 316. His other manifold abuses come under the Heads of Calumny cavill false-dealing and others Actuall Power of the Pope in England at the time of the breach p. 36. 37. The Antientnesse of that Actuall Power p. 37 38. B BElief what according to Dr. H. p. 113 114. 134. What truly ibid. Blasphemy against Faith and Ground of Faith p. 111. Another p. 112. Three more p 114. Other two p. 200 201. Doctor Hammonds manner of dogmatizing the seed of all Blasphemies p. 420. C. CAlumny against a pretended Adversary who medled not with him p. 27 28. Also p. 33 34. Calumniating our tenets p. 96 103 twice 104 403 404 twice 423 424 431 432 440. Calumniating his Adversary p. 366 Calumny formerly imputed manifested from his own words to be such p. 390. 391. Cavill groundlessly made against a petty lapse though rectify'd in the Errata p. 172 173. Other groundlesse and senselesse Cavills p. 186 230 276 277 278 302 366 367 368 426 thrice 427. False Cavill that S. W. never consider'd his Allegations when as he had answerd them particularly one by one p. 211. A Cavill grounded upon a false pretence of his own p. 342. Another built upon his own Falsification of his Adversaries words p. 37â— Certainty of Faith a just ground for zeal p. 10 11 12 20. Certainty and strength of Tradition p. 12 13 16 45 46 97 119 120 132 134. Challenge made formerly to â—r H that he could not shew one expresse word for Exclusive Jurisdictions in any of those Testimonies he produc'd to prove it p. 343. This Challenge how rationall and moderate in the Offerer how necessary and advantagious for the Accepter p. 343 344. Challenge acceped ibid. but totally prevaricated from after acceptation p. 345 346. Changing St. Hierom's words p. 26. Changiing my words and intention p. 31 56 Changing the force and sence of the Father's words thrice by his Paraphrase or Translation p. 8 79 80. 81. Changing the Question almost all over Changing the words of their own Translation p. 195. Changing St Chrysostom's intention and sense by omitting some of his words p. 265 266. Multitudes of others of this sort especially changing the Fathers and his Adversary's words `and the letter in which-they were printed to his own advantage I omit to recount most of them fall more properly under other Heads Contradictions to himself p. 102 104 115 116 123 135 140 142 145 146 148 173 174 185 twice 196 l. ult 197 l. 11. 216 238 239 244 twice 263 264 270 271 twice 272 287 293 294 369 392 393 405 423 432 446. Contradicting four places of his own p. 204 205. Contradicting six other places of his own ib. Nine Self contradictions shewn from p. 207. to p. 214. Contradicting himself and common sense both at once 314 315. Contradicting himself in denying his Irrefragable Evidence to be intended for what his own words evince he brought it p. 334 335. In denying it to be a Proof for the point p. 336. In denying seven Testimonies which before he call'd Clear Evidences to be Proofs p. 336 337. Contradicting himself with one Testimony five times p. 417 418. Contradicting the scope of the present Controversie and of his whole fourth Chapter p. 205 206. contradicting the whole stream of Scripture p. 309. 310 312 313 314. contradicting his own Tenet of Exclusive Provinces p. 357. contradicting common sense p. 310. 311 368 369. 393. contradicting himself and common sense at once p. 314 315. contradicting at once all the most Substantial part of his Book p. 350 351. E. Evidences able to excuse the Protestants from Schism how they ought to be qualified p. 40 41. That they have no such Evidences p. 42 43 44. A Testimony Evidence how it ought to be qualified p. 382. Dr. H's Evidences how qualified p. 383. Evident demonstrably that H. the eighth was p. 132 133 134. Evident demonstrably that the Papacy was never introduc'd p 168 169 170. F. Fact evinc'd out of Histories concludes not Right p. 51 52. Falsifications of Scripture p. 194 195 196 197 307 339 343 403. False and common trick in citing Scripture p. 354 355. False pretences from Scripture 195 360 363. Egregious and most wilful falssificâ—tions of Fathers other Authors discoverd p. 245 246 247 248 249 250 266 267 268 269. 270 358 359 367 415 416. Falsifications of S. Ambrose reiterated and shamelesly applyed to his own advantage whereas it is expresly for us p. 349. Falsification of Falsifications p. 375. Falsely substituting the Arch-heretick Pelagius his Testimony for S. Hieroms p. 239 240 241. Falsifying the words of the Testimony as well as the Authority p. 242 243. Falsifying his Adversaries words and plain intention p. 73 74 370 371 376 428 433 465. An egregious and most notorious Falsification as it was put in his Book of Schism 468 469. A voluntary and shameful Falsification left undefended p. 319 320 321 c. False Pretences that he answered some passages p. 186 187 322. l. 3. and again l. 8 9. Also p. 387 394 413. Falsifying our pretence of Evidences p. 175. False stating